PRC 1989 08 29
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
.~ AUGUST 29, 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dawne Erhart, Curt RObinson, Jim Mady, Jan Lash, and
Larry Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt and Ed Hasek
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Mark Koegler,
Planning Consultant
APPOINT ACTING CHAIR:
Schroers moved, Erhart seconded to appoint Cnrt Robinson as Acting Chair.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mady moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated August 15, 1989 as amended by Jim Mady
on page 22 to change the word "snccessfulll to Ilunsnccessfulll. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
"....,
REVIEW REVISED HERMAN FIELD PLAN.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bob Riesselman
Judy and Daniel Hinklin
Delores Ziegler
Ken and Betty Lang
R.J. Schiferli
6320 Forest Circle, Excelsior
6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive, Excelsior
6441 Oriole
2631 Forest Avenue
325 George Street, Excelsior
Sietsema: We gave the Minutes of the previous meetings to Mark and had
them revise what we had as an existing plan so I'll just turn it over
to mark right off the bat.
,....
Koegler: The last meeting this item was discussed, there were a
considerable amount of residents here and I think the primary topic of
review was the survey that you had received not too long before that.
Taking notes that we had taken at the meeting and compiling them with the
residents survey, we've corne back with a could of options for yon to review
for discussion purposes that I think will fulfill the items that
specifically were requested, and I'll touch on them briefly. The parking
lot has been relocated to the entrance off of Forest Road. If you recall
it was on this side originally. The trail network has remained largely the
same as it was on the original plan due to topography of the site and that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 2
--'
simply is where it fits the best. Surrounding the pond area on this side
and taking advantage of the higher ground over on this particular portion.
The previous plan did show the ball diamond on the site. That's been
relabeled as basically a flat open field play area which will be suitable
either for kid pick-up games or for just casual frisbee throwing or
whatever it may be. This particular option shows a tennis court that's
located here convenient to the parking lot. The tennis court on the
residents survey from the Minutes of the meeting was something that was
kind of a gray area as to how many residents wanted that versus didn't want
that. Since it's kind of in the middle, we've shown it one plan and we've
taken it off the other plan for your consideration. Another topic that was
kind of in the gray area once again was this connection potentially up to
this Piper Ridge subdivision. It's only been labeled right now as a
potential trail connection in the future I think that was what the Minutes
reflected. The attitude was let's leave that alone and see if it really
ever gets used. This particular scheme takes the position of locating a
play area down in conjunction with the picnic area that's on this side that
does pose a considerable distance in terms of walking to get from this site
to this site is about 300 feet across a portion of that particular
property. The second alternative, as I indicated is very similar except it
does not show the tennis court. What it does in lien of that, it moves the
play area closer to the parking area for a more convenient access for those
that want to drive into that facility. Presumably there could be some
picnic scattered around here as well and still maintain the picnic
structnre on this side that's a little more detached from the active part
of the park itself. So the two schemes seek to have the facilities that --'
have been requested by the residents while keeping essentially the same
consistent theme that the plan had had since about 1983. So with those
changes, it back to yon for review. One other item I should mention.
Another one of those areas that was some np the middle was discussion of
the fence. If you recall there was resident interest of some parties,
particularly abutting owners, about a fence along the north side of the
property. We haven't shown that now. If it's the discretion of the
Commission to do so, we very easily can add that to the plan. Looking at
either a split rail type of fence or a chain link fence, the price range on
that is probably going to be in the neighborhood of $12,000.00 to
$15,000.00 because you've got about 1,300 feet of frontage across just the
northern side of the park. So if after discussion you wish to add that,
obviously that can be added very easily to the plan.
Robinson: Was the fence brought up by someone that they preferred a fence
along there?
Sietsema: Yes. The people that live along there were concerned with
trespassers or people coming into their property and cutting down trees or
whatever.
Koegler: They were. concerned about some kind of identifiable boundaJ:y
along that north side of the park.
Robinson: I guess I'd like to open it up for any comments if there's an~~
residents here from that area.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 3
,...
Bob Reisselman: I'm Bob Reisselman at 6320 Forest Circle. I just had a
couple of questions. The trail is around the outside, are they paved or
gravel?
Koegler: That's a good point. The discussion that occurred here last time
called for those to be initially turf trails. They would simply be mowed
grass areas so that's the way we would make them on the map. They were
identified primarily for walking purposes only.
Bob Reisselman: Okay, and the second question is parking. It's 10 cars?
Koegler: Yes.
Robinson: Any other comments?
Mady: Do you have any specific feeling on the tennis court?
Bob Reisselman: The park from when it began to what it is now is fairly
modest. I mean I'd like to see a tennis court and ball diamonds and the
trails paved. I mean it's getting less and less all the time so the sooner
we get something going before it kind of evaporates.
Lash: Have you been at any of the other previous meetings?
~ Bob Reisselman: Yes.
Lash: I guess my impression from the majority of the residents was that
they sort of less was better for them.
Bob Reisselman: Well it's fair to say that the residents who live right
next to it are not in favor of it and fairly strongly for some of them but
I think a majority of people, like the survey, showed a fairly high use of
the park. There was 78% said they would use the park... Here again, we're
south of TH 7 and of course west of TH 41 and bordered by the lake and
really, you have to cross TH 41 or TH 7 to get any of the play areas and
it's kind of tough for a kid. So I think this will be used quite a bit.
I know I would use it and my family would use it. So the most you can get
back in there, the better.
Mady: Do you feel there's sufficient room to put an open play area and a
tennis court in the middle of the park?
Koegler: Yes. I think that can be done. We can change some of the
alignments. These are pretty arbitrary anyway. Some of these trails, we
can shift a few things and I think we easily can accommodate a play area
and tennis. Get kind of an active hub here in the middle with more of the
passive uses, flanking out on either side. .
"""'
Mady: That's the kind of what I was thinking when I looked at it was the
active should be all together. Leave the remainder of the park
substantially almost two-thirds of the park, passive in nature to satisfy
probably both concerns of the neighborhood.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 4
.....",
Robinson: This doesn't actually border Minnewashta Regional Park does it?
Sietsema: Yes.
Koegler: Yes it does.
Robinson: Oh it does.
Koegler: On the south side.
Lash: Is there a fence along there now?
Sietsema: Yes.
Resident: You're talking about a fence there, are you talking about the
entire length of the north side or just part...
Koegler: No, we're showing the whole thing. I had referenced 1,300 feet
is essentially the whole thing. The whole northern side.
Robinson: Do any of the commissioners have any comments? Larry?
Schroers: Yes. Judging from the information that we got from the people
that were here last meeting and when Lori, Todd and I went out and walked
the area, I think that a tennis court doesn't really fit in at this time.
would like to see right now the play field as it is and the trail as it i~
with some picnic facilities and possibly the addition of a tennis court in
a second phase of development but not right now. As far as fence is
concerned, I don't think you're going to stop anybody from trespassing with
a split rail fence. All that fence is going to do actually is designate a
boundary and you can accomplish the same thing with boundary signs which
are much cheaper than installing a whole fence. So I guess that's how I
feel about it right now.
Lash: I have a couple of questions. My first impression, I agree
with Larry on the tennis. My recollection was that this was more of a
passive in nature. Somehow I didn't have tennis pictured. I didn't think
it seemed like it was a real high priority to most of the residents who
were surveyed. At my first look, I kind of liked B better than A because
I like the...for the parking but I would also like to see some of the
picnic stuff, the picnic area a little closer to the parking too maybe so
if that could be combined somehow. I don't know how that could be
accommodated. A picnic shelter at this point in time I think would be real
expensive option for us. Maybe later on down the road for that. Did you
look at any kind of a gate system for this?
Koegler: No. Not specifically.
Lash: I think that was something, a big point to a lot of the residents
that there was some type of gate system at the entrance that could be
closed at night. .....",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 5
11""'"
Sietsema: That's really a nominal thing as far as money wise but it could
easily be installed.
Lash: How much of this do you think we could get done with the funding
that we have available? We have $35,000.00?
Koegler: We haven't really done a cost estimate because to date the
construction of this park has always been viewed as being a day labor type
of project. Presumably though, if the budget is in the neighborhood of
$35,000.00, that should accommodate. The grading is fairly well at grade
for the trail facilities and so forth. There's very little disturbance
there...so I would be optismistic that you could get the trails in, the
open field area graded and seeded and the play equipment in for that
budget. The whole issue of the parking lot and the access road is a little
cloudier right now just in terms of property ownerships and acquisitions
and so forth to accomplish that. If that was in place, you could probably
rock a par king lot. in sti 11 wi thi n tha t budget. I would not commi t though
simply because of the unknowns of what it's going to take to really get
that load in there. We certainly can take a very quiCk look at that. It
won't take long to get some cost estimates to that and get that back to you
in lette)~ form.
Lash: So you could do basically what you've shown? Pretty close?
~ Koegler: Yes. I think that's realistic. The assumption has never been,
for example that the tennis court would be built as a part of the phase 1
because as you all know that's probably $20,000.00 alone but the other
facilities are fairly minor in terms of construction. The assumption again
on things like this boardwalk area is that city crews can build some of
those items during the winter months and that certainly stretches that
dollar figure.
Lash: And this is the least disruption to the beauty part of it or
whatever you want to call it?
Koegler: Yes. It's least disruptive in terms of tree cover and probably
in this case, more importantly, just simply the ground plantings. We tried
to minimize the amount of dirt that would be needed to accommodate these
facilities so we're not disturbing the grass areas or anything else on the
site.
Mady: Mark, the boardwalk area. How wet is that? Are we going to have
to put pilings down? Are we talking a floating?
Koegler: Our assumption is it will be a floating structure. Depending on
the season, at times it will be dry but I've been out there a couple of
previous years where it's been very marshy down in that area.
"'"
Mady: My thinking here is, I guess the city crew could do it or possibly
an Eagle Scout project type of thing. I'm not sure how extensive it is.
Also, a picnic shelter, if those are. I don't know if those are getting
out of the capabilities of Eagle Scout projects or not.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 6
...."",
sietsema: I don't know about a picnic shelters but there's a lot of this
project that could be done by, you know you could have a bunch of different
Eagle Scout projects going on to get some of this done.
Mady: ...that's one way of getting things done. I like the way it's
drawn. The way Mark's got it with if we move the play area over to the
middle section. The tennis court, recognizing that will be probably a
phase 2. I want to make, hopefully we'll have room for it, because
I firmly believe that this, as this area further develops and more and more
people move in, that is going to become more of an active than a passive
area. It's just the nature of the way Chanhassen is moving. Maybe right
now it's not but in 5 or l~ years from now there may be a large demand so
we should have plans to allow for it in the future. Otherwise I think, if
we can get the open play area, a play structure in place, and the mowed
trails is a nominal cost. Those items done in the first phase, we would be
miles ahead of where we are right now in providing a facility for these
people who have actually had nothing forever.
Erhart: I'm also in favor of plan B here. As far as the fencing goes.
I thought that was kind of high on the priority list of some of the
residents but I realize it would cost a lot of money and I can see where
signage would maybe accomplish the same thing. For me, if that was where
the neighbors want their money spent, then I'd be open to that. Right now
I can see that we also do not have any money for the tennis area but I li~c
that and I'd like to see that in stage 2. That's it.
...."",
Robinson: Can I ask? Mark, do you know what Minnewashta Regional Park is
right close by. Do they have picnic shelters in that area or what kind of
facilities are available in Minnewashta Regional Park? Does anybody know?
Sietsema: It's trails and...
Schroers: They've got a beach and small picnic area.
Sietsema: I don't think there's picnic area up in that, on the north end
like that though.
Schroers: No. On the north end it's just, a natural environment.
Erhart: Like a passive park.
Robinson: I like Plan B, or I guess like Jim said, get the play area over
closer to the parking lot. And tennis, yes. Definitely not now. Probably
in Phase 2 or at some later period. I think I really question that picnic
shelter also out there at this time and just did the Phase 1. The fence,
yes. I did hear some people to the north say they would like a fence on
the boundary. I think that's kind of an expensive piece right now and I'd
like to see that at least postponed but not taken out altogether. That's
all I have.
Mady: I have one thing I guess I didn't comment on. As of right now ...."",
I believe, a fence is one of those things that we can add at any point in
time. Once the park gets started to get used, if we experience major
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 7
".....
problems, a fence can go up. If there's ever a major problem, we can find
the money somewhere in our budget to build it. I think as Larry stated,
there are ways of maintaining a boundary without putting in a physical
barrier. I would like to, given this is a passive park, to try to not
infringe upon the natural area by putting in a large structure. To prevent
trespassing, we would have to talk about an 8 foot chainlink fence and that
just to me doesn't fit into a passive park and natural area. But if that's
what it's going to take in the future, if there's a problem, we'll have to
address it but at this point in time, I don't see a real strong need for
it. Especially given the costs involved.
Robinson: A...motion?
Mady: A motion to accept Concept Plan B indicating with the change, adding
a tennis court in a future phase.
Schroers: Eliminate the shelters and move the play area?
Mady: We can leave the shelters in the second phase situation.
Lash: ...specify...the shelters?
Mady: I guess until we finally get cost estimates down, we won't...
."...... Lash: ...to the play area... I will second it.
Mady moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to accept Concept Plan B showing the tennis courts and park shelters in the
second phase. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW REVISED CARVER BEACH PLAN.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Peter and Hermine Lustig
Mike Wegler
Michael & Marie Schroeder
Roger Byrne
6699 Hohawk Drive
6630 Mohawk Drive
6600 Lotus Trail
6724 Lotus Trail
Sietsema: There were just a few revisions on the plan from the last time
that we wanted to go over. I had Mark make those changes on the plan and
I'll have him go over those as well.
,.....
Koegler: What in essence has happened is there's been a combination of
Mike's comments and the comments that we shared last time. There are now
two blown up areas which hopefully, at reasonably. All the improvements
that are being proposed are on the opposite end of the park that the
existing improvements now occur on. The trail that does connect it to, has
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 8
-'
been down scaled to a 6 foot and right now I believe it says there's a
non-paved. It's a wood chip type of trail and that was consistent with
what the commission asked for last time. The two blown up areas reflect
this little beach area in this portion which shows the street in this area
creating a little beach itself by adding a boulder wall that I think
probably is pretty much in place. Then allowing ample flat space for a
play area. A swing set probably in this case to occur on that side.
There's room for a canoe rack that's shown on the other side and then
swimming bouys have been added to delineate the beach area itself. Further
improvements as you proceed kind of northward along Lotus Trail are shown
on this particular drawing. Again, there is an area shown for canoe racks.
There is a fishing dock that's shown off of that area that's down in the
vicinity of the old access and then there's an area shown right here where
there's room for at least 2 off street parking stalls that conceiveably
could be continued a little further north if you wanted to expand that
capacity that we started with two for discussion purposes. That area is
tight. It's about 28 feet from the edge of the road to the edge of the
water. We can accommodate a couple of parallel parking stalls in there.
We cannot accommodate anything at a 90 degree configuration to the street.
So it is possible to get some neighborhood parking down in that area to
utilize in that technique. So aside from that, the plan really essentially
remains unchanged from what you saw last time around. I think it reflects
the comments that were aired at this group last time.
Robinson: Any comments from the residents?
-'
Mike Wegler: My name is Mike Wegler. I live at 6630 Mohawk Drive.
Everything there looks pretty good as far as what we talked about before.
One thing that was mentioned though was a Satellite. I don't know if we
can make a level pad someplace and put it up in the woods. Like there's
one on the other end, if that's possible. We would sure like that.
Appreciate it. Canoe racks. We'd like to see those for sure too.
I personally don't know about the rope bouy system. We've never had it.
It's not an issue that, I don't like it just from looking out at the lake
and having to see that. Ropes and stuff. That's a pretty secluded area
and there's lily pads on one side and lily pads on the other side. The
raft, it's defined very clearly where the swimming area is and stuff. It's
not too much...but if you feel we have to have it. It's awful pretty down
there. I hate to clutter it up...but that's about all I've got.
Robinson: How do you feel Mike about the parking for 2 cars that they
showed? Is that too much? Not enough? Any at all?
Mike Wegler: I think for now that would be fine. Check it out and see
what happens. It's pretty small down there. We don't want to get too
many. Fix it up. Lots of kids. There's getting more and more with that
Fox Chase area. They're corning down there all the time now so we if we get
it fixed up nice, it will be real nice.
Mady: Mark, I've got a question concerning his comments. The bouy syst~
Those aren't rope bouys are they? They're just swim bouys? -'
Koegler: Yes, they're swimming bouys.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 9
1""'.
Mady: But they're not roped?
Koegler: They could be. Either at this point. The specific comment that
I had in my notes from the Commission was that the swimming area should be
delineated with some type of bouy system. Whether that's just point market
bouys or whether it's an actual rope system, that really is done almost an
operational thing with the City.
Mady: My understanding is when you have a swimming raft on the lake,
I believe it's either Chanhassen or a County ordinance, you have to have a
bouy. With a private beach it had a bouy. It always has been. I believe
it's under a rule or restriction of some sort. If nothing else it's for
safety. Put 3 or 4 bouys out there and make a point delineating the
outside edge. Just enough to keep the boats out.
Mrs. Lustig: We would very much like to receive a number of garbage cans
along the trail because the people who fish there and they always leave
garbage. If there are trash cans that are occasionally emptied, they'd
leave their garbage there. Got to kind of get the hint. And another thing
is that, well personally I'm not very fond of the idea of parking there but
there are a lot of kids who come to swim there on their bikes and they
could have a bike rack that would sort of send a message. This is a small
beach. Come here on your bike. Here's a bike rack for you. If you want
I"'" to park, there is the larger beach that has parking.
Mady: This is a comment I've been making on that. I know every time I've
gone by there, and I've gone by there a number of times, there's been
somebody parked there and it's illegal to park there. Most of the times
they're fishing. They're the guys who are fishing now. We should
recognize that people are doing it. We should at least allow them the
ability to do it legally at least. You know we don't have to have 15
parking spaces. Two will take care of it.
Sietsema: Can we get your name and address please?
Mrs. Lustig: Lustig. 6699 Mohawk.
I""""'
Roger Byrnes: I've got a couple of things. I think you've got a pretty
good plan. It looks good. As far as the ropes around the beach, I don't
think it hurts. Some people like to pull their boats in there and they're
going to be swimming and stuff and that's okay too but I guess I could pull
over a little bit. I don't know what they plan on, where they're going to
put that swingset down there, or whatever you're going to have there. The
hill drops off pretty sharp. I don't know if any of you have looked at
that. I don't know if you can work something there. I don't know. Get
some grass growing on that hill instead of just a few weeds. Just a couple
small trees there. Other than that. The canoe racks, I think we should
have them up there. They're a good idea. Everybody seems to want their
canoe down there which is great. In fact, I was thinking, instead of they
showed 2 canoe racks there. One there and one down farther. I think it'd
be better if you put one somewhere in there and one over by the other beach
out on the point there. Kind of spread them out because there's people
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 10
..."",
down on that end of Carver Beach that it's a lot shorter for them to go to
the other beach there too. If you want to put a canoe rack down there
instead. I don't know what you're planning on doing with that whole trail
through there. Other than that it looks pretty good if you get going on
it. As far as the parking, I'm not against a couple spots down there for
people to park.
(There was a tape change at this point during commission discussion.)
Schroers: I'll move to accept the plan as presented here tonight and
also add the trash cans, bike rack and installation of one canoe rack at
the other main Carver Beach site and the Satellite. Ag lime instead of
wood chips as a second phase for the trail.
Mady: Second.
Schroers moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the park plan for Carver Beach as presented with the
addition of trash cans, bike rack, Satellite, installation of one canoe
rack at the main Carver Beach and using ag lime rock instead of wood chips
as the second phase for the trail. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REVIEW REVISED LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PARK PLANS.
.....",
Public Present:
Name
Address
Brian Keenan
Emily Maktan
8220 West Lake Street
8210 West Lake Court
Sietsema: Lake Susan Hills West is being considered. Both the two
northerly pieces of park property. One is the 9 acre piece and one is an
almost 4 acre piece. Mark will present these as well.
Koegler: The last time we discussed these parks, we were operating off of
some little thumb nail type sketches and the comments reviewed at that
meeting that have really shaped the plans and the parks that we're
protraying tonight. The first one is what's known as Outlot H, which is
the small little outlot that was immediately abutting Powers Blvd.. I
don't have another reference map. It's about midway down into that
development on the east side of CR 17. That particular site, after
discussion last time around, it was determined, due to topography, the best
use was a very low intensity useage to allow simply open space for
neighborhood kids. Taking advantage of creating a play area that would be
served by a walk-in off a proposed cul-de-sac the developer has in that
area. Next to that, adjacent to that would be an open field area which
again would accommodate just casual play activities. Then really the onl~
other remaining useage on the site will be taking advantage of some of the
natural slope and allowing that to be kind of a sledding hill that would be
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 11
,.....
occurring on that site. So that's the extent of the facilities that the
Commission had talked about on that particular site. There was discussion
at one time of a small ball diamond in there and it simply was ruled it
didn't fit given that particular site and given the terrain. I can either
stop at that point and entertain questions on that site or move onto the
next site. There are two as a part of this. Whatever your discretion is
Mr. Chairman.
Sietsema: Why don't you do one at a time.
Robinson: Yes. ...talk about this outlot. Are we talking kind of a
totlot when you call it a play area?
Sietsema: Yes.
Koegler: Yes. We don't label that as totlot or whatever because I think
what typically happens is you see what kind of neighbors start getting in
there and you see the ages of kids and they come in and they say, we need
play areas. And if they predominantly have younger children, that sets up
one level of play equipment that you put in there. If the kids are a
little older, you put something in that's a little bit larger scale
initially. So it's a play area but it's to serve the youth. Whether that
be the 3 to 5 year olds or the 5 to 9 year olds or whatever the bracket
might be. But it would be the modular play type structure that the City is
using in other parks.
,.....
Robinson: Any other comments or questions of Mark on this outlot?
Sietsema: There are people in the audience from that neighborhood here
today as well.
Emily Matkan: I'm Emily Matkan. I'll be moving in to 8210 West Lake
Court. I'm not familiar where this particular section of the park is if
someone could show on, I have this map here, of where this is.
Mady: It's right here.
Sietsema: It's not on your map yet. It's part of the 3rd Addition so it's
not on your map yet. That hasn't been platted yet. It would be sonth of
this.
Mady: We're not talking about that park yet...
Emilv Matkan: Okay. I guess we were told that that would be discussing it
tonight.
Mady: That park went to Council.
Sietsema: Which one?
I""
Mady:
Lake Susan community park.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 12
"""""
Sietsema: Oh, yes. That one's already been decided. I thought you were
talking about the neighborhood parks within the development.
Resident: There's been no changes in that? You haven't moved the road or
anything else?
Sietsema: No. What you're seeing out there right now is a temporary road,
if I can just get off the subject for a second here. Is a temporary road.
Lake Drive is going in and you've got the big Ernpak building going in here.
Well what is happening is there's a surcharge area in here where the road
has to settle so they needed a separate, temporary access or temporary road
to go through the park to by-pass that until that's ready to be paved. So
what you're seeing right now is that there's a big road that comes right
through this parking lot here and goes out. That will all be taken out and
this will be ponding eventually but that probably won't happen until
probably next summer?
Koegler: Next spring.
Sietsema: Next spring or next summer so that road won't stay in there
forever. It will be nice ponding and grassy area. Then up on the hill
will be your ballfield and your more active facilities.
Resident:
in?
But there's been no changes to this? This is the way it's goi'
...."
Sietsema: That's the way it's going in.
Robinson: Now any comments on Outlot H from anybody?
Mady: The only thing I have to comment on is the trail connection out of
the circle to the Powers Blvd. trail which is fine. It's there. I don't
know if the developer is putting those in or not. I don't remember.
Sietsema: The what? Now what was your concern?
Mady: The trail that was going from the circle to Powers Blvd..
Sietsema: That trail is going in and the developer will be putting it in.
It's going to be built to 10 feet wide because it's going to serve as a
temporary emergency access until that loop street goes through and they can
get in there a secondary way. The developer will put the trail in at 10
feet wide. It will connect to the 8 foot wide bituminous that they are
putting in along Powers.
Mady: I don't have anything else.
Robinson: Do you want a separate motion on the out lots also?
Sietsema: Yes.
..."."
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 13
,....
Mady moved, Robinson seconded that the Pa~k and Rec~eation Commission
accept the pa~k plan for Outlot H of Lake Susan Hills West as presented.
All voted in favo~ and the motion carried.
Sietsema: After this discussion of the next outlot, I would like to
discuss naming these pieces besides outlots so we have something better to
refer to. The reason that's important to do that now is that as 3rd
Addition comes through, this becomes Outlot B in 3~d Addition and the other
one that we're going to be talking about is Outlot A in the 2nd Addition,
or vice versa. So it's real confusing because the outlot letters have
changed as the plats have been revised and then when they come in as the
separate additions, they also change so we need to nail down some names so
that we all know what we're talking about.
Schroers: Can we number them? Lake Susan Hills West 1 and 2?
Sietsema: That's one way to do it, yes. We could do that.
Robinson: We've got 5 parks and 5 commissioners.
Sietsema: I like that. Robinson Park.
Robinson: So now let's go on to Outlot G I guess and there's two plans on
"'"' that.
,....
Koegler: We we~e too easy with you on H. Now we're going to make you pick
and choose. Again, the facilities that are shown on the plan are
consistent with the discussion that this group has had previously. We've
got a couple diffe~ent layouts in areas that we talk about in this
particular one. For reference, let's label up he~e as futnre Creek Drive.
That's a remnant name. That's eventually the extension of Lake Drive as it
proceeds on across. The site has single family housing located essentially
around the south and kind of to the west side. To the north side, I think
the developers still current plan, there are some medium or highe~ density
housing shown. So eventually it will abut some higher density attached
forms of housing. The park itself, being kind of split up. We've shown a
meandering trail system that will connect back to some of these entrance
and exit points from public street areas that eventually will connect back
through the park. The facilities, both plans as you note will show, a ball
diamond over in this location with a couple diffe~ent layout options.
There's a soccer overlay that's been part of that from a programming point
of view that the size of that would accommodate the youth level only.
We've shown a couple of tennis courts that sit in this area. Volleyball.
A parking lot that presently identified as having 24 spaces. They request
also to have a hockey rink as a part of this facility. It's been shown on
that particular location. The pick and choose aspect of the discussion
brings into play simply a different layout option. This one reorients the
ball diamonds. Gives the ball diamond a little bit more open space. It
puts the activity center closer to where the multi-family housing will be
in terms of where noise generation and so forth comes from the play area.
It takes a little different approach in keeping the parking tighter to the
street rather than penetrating the site. That allows room for second
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 14
..."
volleyball court if it was desired in that area. The tennis is located
pretty ideally and has remained in the same location. Same thing for the
hockey. We've got kind of remnent rectangular strip there that works very
well for placement of that that keeps the noise associated with hockey and
that presumably will be daytime only, adjacent to the road. So that's
really the nature of the changes between the two. There's picnic area
that's shown created down in this portion. There is a section of the
wetland under the City's ordinance that exists down in the extreme kind of
eastern corner of the park site. So there are two options that contain
largely the same facilities with a little different massaging of the way
they sit on the site. This one does have the addition of a second
volleyball court.
Mady: Mark, will you show where the industrial park is on there?
Koegler: Everything on the other side of Creek Drive. And there is an
industrial facility looking at that property at the present time.
Lash: And then to the right is multi-family?
Koegler: Yes. This is all multi-family all the way over to CR 17.
Sietsema: High density.
Koegler: And then the single family detached surrounds the remainder of
the parcel. We haven't shown all the streets. There's a cul-de-sac tha-'
comes in here. I think also...that just penetrates these lots. And there
are the entry points off of future streets along the south and the east
side.
Schroers: Lori, the baseball field that's going to be built at Lake Susan
community park, is that going to accommodate youth or is that mainly like
the city ballfield or like Legion baIlor Babe Ruth?
Sietsema: It will be Babe Ruth and Legion and adult baseball if there
became a city team or something. The older youth. It won't accommodate
Little League or the littler kids.
Schroers: Okav. And then why is it a baseball field on one plan and
softball field.on the other plan?
Koegler: That probably is...just an error in labeling them. The
programming aspect is not meant to be pre-determined by these plans. What
fits in here is relatively smaller scaled fields suitable for more youth
activities. It's about 230 feet I think is what's in there now. That can
be changed a little bit depending on your programming needs but it really
is identified more as a youth scale site.
Schroers: Okay, thank you.
Sietsema: Being that 'it's a neighborhood park, I'd suggest that it be a ....."
softball field for pick up games and that kind of thing.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 15
"'"
Mady: I have some concern on that with looking at Concept Plan B. I was
wondering if the orientation may be putting the batter's eye later in the
game more towards the sun.
Koegler: It does a little more so. Both of those orientations are
acceptable under the normal standards of...guidance.
Sietsema: And remember, this probably will not see league, organized play
being a neighborhood park, although it could happen.
Mady: It's right off an industrial area. The nights that you have
industrial leagues playing in the city, this is going to be one of those
places that the guys who work in that area know it's there and they're
going to go down there for their warm up, if it's not being used by
somebody else. Especially...a lot of neighborhood action. I think an
industrial area will pick up some of that.
Robinson: Jan, do you have any comments?
Lash: I don't like to show my ignorance about softball but isn't it better
to have the fielders not facing the sun?
Schroers: It depends on if it's your team.
~. Lash: ...you'd have to look up at the sun.
Mady: Usually you have your gloves up to shade the sun or you get yourself
out of the way but when you're at bat, you're in a stationary situation.
You know no choice. Whereas a fielder can get in a position usually to get
out of the sun.
Lash: Okay. I was going to favor Plan B so the fielders wouldn't have the
sun in their eyes but I guess that's not the way it works. Did we make a
decision at a meeting not to have any play equipment in this park for a
reason?
Koegler: No.
Schroers: I recall what we were talking about and one thing that we wanted
to do here was not make every park in the city exactly the same and offer
exactly the same facilities at all the parks. We opted for a few different
things. Here we had the space available for the hockey rink and that sort
of thing and thought that we would attract, put some variety into the
parkland.
Robinson: And we're going to put play area aown a short distance away.
'"
Lash: I guess what I was thinking is, if it's adults playing. If they go
to play tennis or if they were playing baseball or something and they take
their kids along, it's nice for them to have something to do while the
adults were playing. So I guess I would like Plan B if the space provided
to take one of the volleyballs out and put some kind of a play structure in
there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 16
-"
Koegler: There is ample room to do that over in this area too. We had
actually shown that on earlier plans and based on the comments that Larry
said, they haven't been shown here. I, quite honestly, think that as soon
as you get residents moving in there, they're going to be back here asking
for play area in that park because it's much more convenient than having to
go down and then cross the other side of the street.
Lash: Right. Cross CR 17. So maybe we should just kind of plan on that to
start with and then my only other comment was, and this is kind of the same
as over at Herman Field. How far is it from the parking area to where you
have to get to the picnic area?
Koegler: It's very similar distance. It's probably close to 300 feet.
Lash: I don't know. That seems like if you're carrying a cooler, it
sounds like it's kind of a long ways to go if you're going basically to
picnic but I don't see any other way of doing it unless you move the
volleyball and the tennis over so you can picnic inbetween.
Mady: The comments concerning play structure are excellent. Although we
like to vary our parks somewhat, we can do that with some of our active
play facilities. Since this is predominantly a neighborhood park, this is
a very, very large development. I believe at one point we talked about
3,000 people in this development with four playgrounds. That was to
provide play structures in each and everyone of them. I like the way it-'
designed so the active areas are pretty much abutting areas that aren't
going to be infringing on single family homes as much. They're more...to
the industrial areas where they're going to be fringing the most and that
makes for a good park. So I guess I like the way that is. I don't have a
problem really with the orientation of the batter's diamond. Whatever
works best I think in fitting it in and giving the most room into the park
makes sense to me.
Erhart:
I would
think a
density
much in
If there isn't a problem with the way the ballfield is orientated,
favor Plan B. I feel that it is a better use of space and I also
play area would be very nice down around the picnic area with high
going up next door. I think it would be used. It would be very
demand. That's it.
Robinson: I like Plan B except I like the way the ballfield is laid out in
Plan A with home plate or where all the activity takes place right close to
the parking lot. I guess that's a good point you made Mark that there will
be the noise around home plate and that's next to the high density housing
so that's an advantage of Plan B. I think they're both real, real well
laid out and I guess I would like to see a play area in there. If we call
that a second phase or at some point in time or wait until the residents
ask for it. Any other comments? Do you have anything else?
Brian Keenan: No. How would we go about getting copies of the parks and
copies of the notes from the meeting. Are you automatically going to se~-,
those to us?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 17
,.....
Sietsema: For what now?
Brian Keenan: Of the parks around Lake Susan? Obviously...our backyard
has always been discussed and it's gone in and it's done. If we could get
a copy of that.
Sietsema: You have that.
Brian Keenan: This is what the builder provided me with 3 months ago so
there was absolutely no changes on this?
Sietsema: No.
Brian Keenan: This is going in next week then right?
Sietsema: Not unless the ballfield orientation has changed.
Emily Mutkan: ...at night, will that have a baseball diamond there?
Sietsema: It's not planned to have lights right away. There may be at
some point in time but that's not planned right now. But otherwise, that's
going to stay. That's the way it is.
,.....
Emily Mutkan: I'm happy to see that there are parks in that area that I
wasn't aware of because it does seem like there will be a lot of
development going on so as someone who will be backing up to the community
park, I'm glad to see that there are other things going in in the
neighborhood for people to use.
Sietsema: Your neighborhood is going to have more parks in it than
probably any of the other areas in the city. That whole development is
going to be very, a lot of parks and a lot of trails. It will be real nice
for you.
Brian Keenan: I'm thrilled about this whole process. Knowing in fact each
and everyone of you put all the time and the effort and work that you're
putting in here. Obviously this is something that you're planned for this
community for a long time and it was a major reason why I wanted to move my
family here when we picked the lot. You go horne, we carne here and no one's
going to show up like last time. We get back and it's late. I really
appreciate it and I want to thank you.
Robinson: Thank you. Thanks for coming. Are we ready for a motion?
Schroers: I'll move to accept Plan B with the addition of a play area. I
don't think that was an option to change.
Sietsema: If you change it then you go pretty much kind of go back to the
Plan A.
,.....
Schroers: Unless I mislmderstood it but Mar k, can we take the position of
the field in Plan A and put it into Plan B? Would we want to do that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 18
....."
Koegler: That's just what I'm about to demonstrate. You can do that.
We'll have to cut the parking lot size down. You can tell by the overlay
of both of these, it's reasonably close. The ball diamond will intrude on
part of the parking lot and will severely restrict, will probably cut the
parking close to in half.
Sietsema: I would really hesitate to do that because with the hockey rink
that's going to see some use, especially now that we don't have that indoor
ice rink.
Schroers: And if we didn't put the field that way, then the noise would be
close~ to the residents right?
Mady: No. It's going to be next to the multi-family...
Lash: I guess I'd favor A. The only difference is the orientation of the
field and then we have one or two volleyball courts right?
Koegler: Right. Just a side bar out on the Concept B. The reason we had
shown that for discussion purposes was because given the fact that this is
a neighborhood park and it's going to be adjacent to .high density, we're
presuming that a fair amount of the users are going to corne from that high
density area. The primary activity that we're guessing will occur on the
ball diamond right now is probably mo~e casual games than actually
organized games so the advantage of this layout is that it keeps the kid~ .
furthe~ away from the street and the parking lot. ....."
Sietsema: And I think you're going to need two volleyball courts with the
amount of density in there.
Lash: Do we all feel pretty secure that this isn't going to end up, this
field isn't going to end up with the crunch that we've been having before
the park gets down on TH 101, that maybe this would end up getting used?
Sietsema: Well it might because it will have parking available. It's a
good chance that it will but it would be on a temporary basis and the high
density isn't even corne in for review yet so I don't know when that's going
to happen. I can't guarantee that we're not going to need this field with
the crunch that we're seeing, especially if we rearrange the City Center
Park and we have no longer use of those for a year and a half or two years.
We're going to have to go to our neighborhood parks for that time frame but
again, that's a temporary thing.
Erhart: What do you mean by temporary Lori? How many years?
Sietsema: Two.
Erha~t: Two?
Sietsema: Two or three.
....."
Lash: A lot of times those temporary things end up stretching out to be, I
mean look down at Chan Estates. Wasn't that supposed to be temporary?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 19
,....
Sietsema: What?
Lash: The useage of that field back there.
Sietsema: And that still is temporary. As soon as we get more fields
available up here.
Lash: But that's not for at least 5 years.
Sietsema: Off and on. They haven't used it every year. They use it for
practices but they don't use it as much for, I think they just started to
use it for games again.
Lash: Let me ask Mark a question on the parking lot on B. Is it kind of a
horse shoe thing? What's that rectangle in the middle?
Koegler: It's just shown right now to follow a contour of the street and
there will be a grass area in the middle of that.
Lash: Which I can see people parking on from watching Lake Ann.
,....
Koegler: There wasn't adequate room in there to have double loaded parking
with an aisle down the middle so that's the kind of scheme you end up with
to get away from the double loaded.
Lash: So the parking in A wouldn't, you wouldn't have that much of a
problem. I personally I don't think that the useage for volleyball, for
two courts...
Mady: volleyball is real popular right now.
Lash: I know but look at how many people you have on a team. You have
about, you're talking about 15 people on a team.
Koegler: You can play with 2 to 3 people to a side.
Mady: It depends on what you're playing.
Schroers: ...they each get one volleyball court.
Erhart: Jan, why did you favor A over B?
Lash: I started out liking B but I'm just thinking if this field ends up,
the baesball field ends up getting used, I just think it would be nicer for
the residents that are living to the right of it, or north of it, to not
have the noise factor right in their back yards. If you have home plate
close to there and I don't know. I just seems like the demand for the
baseball fields, the way they are now, I'd feel more comfortable if we did
,..... have to use it, if it was set up' that way...
Mady: You have to recognize though the people haven't bought yet. We
aren't infringing on somebody. They're coming in. If they're doing their
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 20
'""""
job on buying their property, they know what's going to happen right next
to them.
Lash: But people don't do that.
Mady: But I don't want to compromise on our park plan because somebody
down the road isn't going to do their job in doing what they should be
doing. We should be making the best parks we can because we're going to be
handling a lot of people.
Lash: Is there a way that Mark can put another volleyball court into A?
Koegler: I would guess there probably would be. Obviously, maybe if we
dispensed of some of the picnic area that's down in this portion down here.
Erhart: How big is that picnic area?
Koegler: Size wise, the dimension across this way is about 200 feet and
it's probably about 200 feet of useable feel going in this direction also
until you get down to the edge of the wetland area.
Erhart: How big is a volleyball court? If you want to stick that in
there.
Sietsema: 30 x 60.
...,.,
Koegler: Yes, roughly and then with... There's a comment that I can offer
that may alleviate a few of your concerns Jim. It may not altogether
either. This is scheduled right now in the development plan for high
density housing so there's going to be a concentration of buildings and a
lot of open space in the development itself. If that happens, I think the
concerns will be minimized on Plan B with the exposure of those homes going
into that property because the buildings will be set back quite a ways from
there. The other side of that though is it's not uncommon for those plans
to change as they proceed. It's been labeled right now for high density
housing but it could be converted later to single family. Who knows. In
which case then you might have a back yard situation you're concerned with.
Lash: On Plan B, could the volleyball court be turned so it was going the
other direction and then pushing it through side by side?
Koegler: I'm sorry. You lost me.
Lash: On Plan A?
Koegler: On Plan A? Okay. The orientation right now is held to be the
same as tennis which is a north/south configuration for typical sun angles.
So that's optimum. It's possible to drop probably one of them in here for
example and wrap this trail around it a little bit and get a couple, a pair
up in here slightly staggered. This can be shifted up this way and this
can be shifted down. I'm not going to tell you we can't get another one -'
there because I think we can if that's the preferred orientation.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 21
,...
Schroers: In terms of feet Mark, how far would the home plate be in Plan B
in relation to where the residents would be? Roughly are we talking 200
feet?
Koegler: My reaction to that, there's no plan bear in mind for what's
going to go in there. I would presume under normal development you'd have
at least a 200 foot separation. In all likelihood more. That's zoned R-12
in that area which is probably going to be more of an apartment type of
structure. You're not going to achieve that density with too many
townhouse type buildings so it's probably going to end up being in excess
of 200 feet. Maybe it could go considerably more than that.
Schroers: Okay. Just thinking about Lake Ann and other situations I
personally have been in. If you're 200 feet away and you're being bothered
and you shut your doors and windows, I just don't believe that they're
going to be making enough noise to seriously bother you from that distance.
Robinson: We're not talking lights or anything.
Schroers: And we're not talking scheduled every night of the week there's
going to be something going on there. There might be, there might not.
,....
Erhart: Plan B is safer because little kids can play on it too. They
don't have to travel way over by the parking lot. Kids like that... But
I understand Jan the noise level. That is a very valid point.
Schroers: I lived in an apartment and you got more worried about the
people down the stairs...than you do about on the ballfield.
Sietsema: Was there a second to your motion?
Schroers: I don't think it ever got that far.
Robinson: Is there a second to Larry's motion?
Sietsema: Larry's motion was to accept Plan B adding a play area.
Erhart: Second.
Schroers moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept Plan B with the addition of a play area for Lake Susan
Hills West Outlot G. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR SOUTHERN PARK.
Koegler: This really serves more kind of as an update. We're not in a
position to bring anything but tentative to you yet. The status of the
~ situation right now is that the boundary survey has been done. The
property has been acquired. Yes Lori?
Sietsema: No.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 22
Koegler: Closing hasn't yet occurred. It's been rescheduled twice.
--'
Sietsema: It was supposed to be today at 3:00 but now there's some
problems with the titles so it's been postponed again.
Koegler: So it's been scheduled 3 times.
Erhart: So we can't get too anxious for a couple more days.
Schroers: What did we find out about that pipeline?
Koegler: We do know a couple of things. We know the boundaries now for
certain and the boundaries that are on this map were based on the boundary
survey. We also know the exact location of the pipeline. That was
surveyed and we know the depth of the pipe which is very shallow in most
parts across there.
Robinson: Excuse me. What is very shallow?
Koegler: 3 feet or less. 18 inches in some cases. Very shallow.
a couple areas that it's right around 2 feet and it's not uncommon
only 3 feet down. They typically only like it 3 or 4 feet down so
get at it quickly.
There's
it's
they can
Mady: Is there any problem Mark when they're that shallow to be driving
over them? ~
Koegler: No.
Schroers: What about the grading that needs to be done there? Is there
enough to...
Koegler: That's part of what we still don't have the definitive answer on
because we don't have contour information yet. The City's in the process
of getting contours done for most of the community in 2 foot intervals.
Those for this area will hopefully be ready within roughly the next 2 week
period, which timing on that is very good then for coming back and looking
in detail. Based upon the USGS contours which are shown on here which are
only 10 foot interval, the site plan that we've shown on here for
discussion purposes works pretty well with the exception that there's a
fill area that's required that starts about here and runs down to about
here for a distance of about 300 feet. That area would require in some
portions close to 8 feet of fill. we have no idea how acceptable that's
going to be to william's Pipeline and we won't get an answer on that until
we can put together a final plan with contours and submit that to their
engineering division for review. We're hopeful that since it's a small
area and the rest of the site we basically can leave at grade or do a minor
amount of fill, if there's not enough cover, that we won't be disturbing
the balance of the alignment of the pipe. Hopefully that's a trade off to
saying yes, we can put some additional fill in one area but we don't know
that as of vet. There's another factor that I think vou should be aware
that has potential to impact this park long term. weire trying to cover -'
that just simply with site layout. TH 101 as it progresses down the south
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 23
,....
takes a rather nasty turn right here. Ultimately when TH 101 is improved,
that turn is going to be modified. The geometrics of that particular turn
are going to be changed. In all likelihood it's going to cut off part of
the park property in order to achieve a more acceptable curve and better
sight distances through there. We tried to hold development out of that
area to specifically open space in there and I think if and when that
occurs, it will be the subject of considerable discussion because that's a
wooded area of the site. That whole slope is fairly heavily wooded up in
this area and that would be impacted by a change in the road. So the
purpose tonight is to give you an update of the status and to allow you to
hopefully maybe give us some more feedback on the types of facilities. The
general philosophy that's been shown here, and this cOllld be either adult
or youth very easily. It was shown as adult but could be pared back to
youth. It's a smaller scaled facility than the pure adult diamonds that
are shown on this side of the site. We're keeping the smaller scaled
facilities on this site purposedly to allow more buffering to the single
family residences that are down in this area and would strongly suggest
that that occur. This particular plan has potential using, if any of the
buildings are salvageable, use that as a picnic area. I don't know if that
...of not. If it looks somewhat questionable when I actually saw it.
They're having some kind of a trail connection that could come through out
of the residential area maintaining all of the parking over on the TH 101
side. The heavily traveled side of the site. Utilizing the existing park
for, there's youth soccer in there right now. We would see that as maybe
,.... continuing maybe to encroach a little bit on some of this hill. The
grading in this area in order to accommodate some of these facilities.
There's a little remnant piece that exists up in here. It's another good
site for a smaller scaled soccer field and there's room for two full sized
adult fields in this area. Hypothetically I've shown a couple of tennis
courts at the present time and thrown in a concession stand just for fun in
the middle of the ball diamonds. That would be serviced via some kind of
bituminous path that would probably be in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 foot
width that was already mentioned once tonight to allow a service vehicle to
come in here and get to it. So the philosophy thus far is, it's kind of an
even split to create an adult side kind of over on the west and the youth
side over on the east to allow more buffering to the single family. We
think in general this concept is workable. However, the fine details will
not be known until we get the contour information and can actually locate
the pipeline on that and plot the depths along that drawing. Questions,
comments or guidance certainly are requested this evening.
Robinson: The existing youth soccer. People go down there now and they
park allover on both sides of the street of Kiowa Trail. I would imagine
they would still do that if they're going to know they're going to play on
that soccer field rather than walk across there probably.
Lash: The neighbors...were real concerned about that...
,....,
Erhart: Because of the emergency vehicles like Alan Bruke brought up. He's
an ambulance driver and he was just saying it's really a problem. That
road is so narrow and an emergency vehicle would have a hard time getting
through there. What could we do to discourage that?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 24
Sietsema: We had money in the budget to put in parking down there.
I believe it was in this budget. For some reason it seems to me that it
was taken out.
.J
Lash: I think because we were going to do...
Sietsema: I think that it was.
Erhart: Can people be tagged if they park down there? Or can you have
parking on just one side of the road?
Sietsema: Yes. There used to be no parking on that whole street because
Prince lived down there and that was just removed 2 years ago. That no
parking area so we could have no parking on one side of the street.
Erhart: The neighbors did ask about that.
Sietsema: Let me check.
Mady: ...Commission not do anything about parking at this time. We're
using that field for summer soccer for the youth but they're not using it
this fall.
Erhart: No. I'm talking...
Mady: You're talking...2 years from now. Parking is something that can ~
handled in a 2 month time period. I don't see that as a problem.
Lash: There is no problem now?
Erhart: There is not a problem now but they were very concerned and wanted
to address when we were laying out this plan.
Mady: I think my recollection was, that was when we were discussing also
the beach thing and they got real excited about that. About the beach
because they said it was just going to be a big problem.
Lash: No. I would think that once this goes in, I think Curt is exactly
right. I think people are playing on the lake side, east side, they will
park over on Kiowa Trail instead of walking in from the park. I can see
that happening easy.
Mady: ...no parking signs.
Lash: Well we can...
Schroers: Is this property being purchased as a result of the referendum?
Sietsema: Yes.
Schroers: Okay. In that, what we were asking for was mainly active yout-,
areas. On my plan here it's got 3 adult softball fields. I think we could
get in trouble with the residents if we start moving adult facilities down
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 25
,....
there when we had it earmarked. I think we're straying from our original
plan a little bit or from our original intentions a little bit and also if
they're thinking about changing the road, when the road comes in and as an
added buffer to the residential areas for youth fields could accommodate
those better.
Sietsema: Mark has shown basically just what will fit there. He wasn't
given any real clear direction as far as what types of fields. If they
should be baseball or softball or youth or adult. This just simply shows
one scenario of how. He knew that we wanted ball fields and soccer fields
and that's basically the only direction he was really given so that's the
purpose of this meeting is to tell Mark now what we really want. This just
shows that fields will fit on there.
Schroers: Okay. What we really want is an active area for youth. I see
not that many young people playing tennis either so that tennis court out
there to me, I don't see a real need for that. Maybe that could
accommodate a few more parking spots. If money was an issue I think and if
we had to scale it down from a financial point of view, I would leave the
tennis courts there. Other than that, it looks like it's laid out nice and
I think it could be a real nice facility. I'm encouraged to see that we
could put 4 ballfields in there along with the soccer courts and everything
else. I think we can have a real nice and much needed youth area and I
would like to keep it on track. Just keep the focal point on the youth.
,....
Robinson:
I missed your point.
Does the referendum say for youth?
Schroers: Well the referendum I believe said 100 acres of parkland in
south Chanhassen. I don't know whether or not on the referendum it was
specified youth but that's what the commission has been talking about ever
since the conception of getting park property in southern Chanhassen. It
was for much needed youth facilities and I would like to stay on track
because even now at Lake Susan, the ballfield down there is earmarked for
the older kids and not necessarily Little League and whatever so we
definitely need facilities that are youth facilities.
Sietsema: It was marketed during the referendum process, it was marketed
as a youth complex. If you recall when we went out to the public and were
telling them what we were trying to accomplish by purchasing property in
the southern part of Chanhassen. We did market this as a youth complex.
Lash: And if you limit the size of an adult, basically what Mark is
showing is that they could accommodate that and so for us to be versatile I
think in years to come, it'd be smart to keep it laid out so if someday
there are changes are needed, we could use it for adults. Why make them
small.
,.....
Sietsema: The thing is, we need to identify tonight if you want Babe Ruth,
Legion fields and Little League fields or T-ball fields. I mean they are
all different fields. The Babe Ruth and the Legion can play on the same
field but the Babe Ruth and Little League definitely can not and the Little
League and the T-ballers definitely can not so those facilities. Once you
start getting into baseball, they're for baseball for the age group that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
Augnst 29, 1989 - Page 26
you make those baseball fields for. They're not really going to be that -'
easy to switch over to other uses. You can practice softball on them if
you absolutely have to but they have a mound. In a Little League, .the
baselines are 45 and softball they're 60. In Babe Ruth they're 90. . In
softball, the fence lines are 275 to 300. In Babe Ruth they're 300 to 400
and Little League they're 250. There's not a whole lot of overlapping uses
once you get to that level of detail and we need to identify now what
facilities. I think we've talked about in the past that we were looking
for 2 Little League fields and 2 Babe Ruth fields in this complex and at
least 2 regulation sized, fnll sized soccer fields. The pee-wee and the
T-ballers are going to be pretty much accommodated by the City Center Park
and the softball players are going to be accommodated by Lake Ann Park. We
have the field at Lake Susan that's going to be a Babe Ruth field but that
was only in response to the immediate need that we have. Otherwise that
would have been a softball field.
Mady: My concern on this whole thing is,...what Larry has said. When we
presented the referendum information to the pUblic, we presented this and
I know the meetings I attended to and answered questions on, this park was
a youth park. My recollection is the same as Lori's. It was 2 Little
League fields and 2 Babe Ruth fields and 2 soccer fields. And I like the
orientation we've got here. I don't like to see it, and I hopefully won't
see it ever again, adult softball in conjunction with this park. I would
hope that we never see that again in this park. This park is a youth park.
That's the way it was designed. It was presented to those people prior t
the referendum and to the rest of the City. The people in south -'
Chanhassen, when we planned this out for the referendum. Those people were
invited. We talked about this being youth and that's what interested them
and then we sold it to the rest of the city. I would like the design, the
layout. The hub situation. It looks very much similar to what's at
Braemar in Edina. That's a real nice facility there. It works well. It
keeps all the activity in a real narrow spot. I like the layout a lot. I
just want to really stress that I want to see the words adult taken out of
this park from now on.
Schroers: I think if Sue were here tonight, she would be very adamant on
that also.
Koegler: I'd like to embellish a little bit on what Jan raised because
it's a very good one. If you look in your crystal ball and it says we've
got youth, youth, youth, youth coming for the next 20 years, we probably
could get 6 fields on this property. But, you will lose the ability to
easily expand those when your program needs change. It could be done but
it's going to be at a higher cost because you have to remove fencing and
change turf and change ag lime and so forth. This kind of configuration
does give you that flexibility. These can be scaled back very easily. We
can remove these offensive names and put other ones in there and it will
work real well.
Mady: I guess I don't want to see this being 6 fields. I liked the layouT.
I don't...but I also don't think this should be adult in any way, shape (-"
form.
.,-.,
,-.,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 27
Lash: That's kind of what I was trying to get at. What I was...if we cut
the fields down and people were trying to put long fields in, then we were
limiting ourselves. I have one comment...but is there a spot for a play
area? I think this is too far from the parking lot. If this is a youth,
if this is supposed to be a youth thing. I know when I take my kids up to
City Center. One's playing and the other one wants something to do. One's
playing a game and the other one wants something to do so maybe...
Koegler: There is a play area in back.
Lash: But it's not near the diamonds.
Mady: Well it's there.
Lash: One swing.
Mady: Oh no.
these years.
It's a play structure. It's as big as Lake Ann's had all
About the same size as that.
Lash: Is there a good feel to put something like that somewhere?
Koegler: Could we pick up on that and use that as a basis to discuss a
couple of things? The potential is there to serve smaller parking down in
this area. There's a street stub, right-of-way stub at least into there.
It's conceiveable that you could well get a picnic area, parking lot there.
How you control that becomes a harder element and I think it becomes a
legitimate concern with these residents that now we've got new activities
going in here. That does somewhat...discussion we had before about this
youth soccer field. This park sits up at a certain elevation. This area
will always sit down at a lower elevation. They're always going to kind of
be two areas regardless of the fact that you would corporate them with one
boundary line around them. There still is, this is a separate area from
this site. One consideration would be that on the final plan, you just
delineate this as open space rather than identify youth soccer. You might
want to use it for that from a programming standpoint but just for anybody
that sees the plan, I think if this was just identified as casual open
space, they're not going to be as interested in trying to see how they
get down there versus just accessing it for this parking lot. But those
are legitimate problems that are always going to be present with this site.
I think the Council will probably hear some of that in the future because I
think it gets some on street parking from a few people regardless and that
will be an issue. The best way to alleviate that is I think doing what
we're trying to do is concentrate parking over on this side of the site but
that does create some very long walk situations. No doubt about it and
that makes you think, well how about if we put a little parking down here
to satisfy the picnic. We can try to control it with signage or whatever
and that may work but I don't know how that. would be perceived.
Sietsema: Or cOllld you do a drop off area?
,... Koegler: Could do that as well.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 28
Mady: I guess what happens with TH 101, that corner is a real nice look -'
out area over the ponds across TH 101. .
Schroers: I like the way things are as convenient as possible but people
are corning there to partake in outdoor activities and get some exercise and
that sort of thing and it's kind of crazy that people think that they've
got to park right next to a facility where they're going to start to go and
pursue some kind of activity. As soon as they're doing whatever they're
doing, they're going to burn up all kinds of energy and get sweaty but they
can't walk 100 yards to get there.
Lash: That's the mentalitv where thev drive around for half an hour
looking for the closest sp~t to the..:
Sietsema: Something else I'd like to point out that I just kind of thought
of. The existing Bandimere Park was acquired as a neighborhood park. We
may want to consider taking out that existing youth soccer field once it's
replaced on the llpper area where that's going to accommodate the community
type use and turn that back into what it was intended to be, a neighborhood
park with your totlot equipment, your basketball court and just your open
space. That was never really developed that much. It just started to get
developed with the totlot equipment and things when we decided we needed a
soccer field in that area and we went down there and looked at what would
fit and threw it in. That neighborhood still does need, deserves a
neighborhood park that has the typical neighborhood park facilities.
Koegler: And Mark's exactly right. It sit down there by itself.
.....,p
Sietsema: It is pretty separated with that topo right in there.
Lash: Maybe that would be a nice spot to put a play area. Maybe a volley
ball court.
Sietsema: Expand the totlot equipment that we have down there. Yes. That
might work out really well.
Schroers: But there again, that play area would be on the opposite side of
the park from parking.
Lash: But it would be removed from the actual field so you wouldn't have
to worry about it.
Sietsema: You could maybe even put in another play area to serve in the
community park then.
Lash: With two play areas?
Koegler: Yes. I think you'd end up with play area of a smaller scale to
serve the neighborhoods and maybe something slightly more elaborate, well
within the confines of the community park portion for use by community
residents.
..."",
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - page 29
"'"
Mady: One other comment Larry mentioned was...community park and right now
in sOllthern Chanhassen there isn't any so this should serve as many uses as
possible. . .
Erhart: I also wanted to address that issue from somebody that does live
in the southern part of Chanhassen and I just talked to the neighbors
today. Tennis is very popular. I would definitely like to see that high
on the priority list. I mean I don't play softball and some of the other
people don't either but tennis is very popular and I think we should have
something to accommodate us.
Koegler: I think there's a number that can be done. Everything is just a
very quick concept for now but actual parking configuration may come in and
take up more of this space around the field area which may leave move space
up in here that would shift some soccer in and maybe add some hockey rinks.
Hockey rinks create two concerns in a community park setting. They're
probably going to eventually be lighted. When that happens, obviously you
get play at night because you know with hockey it can sometimes go
extremely late at night and then make a lot of noise banging on boards. So
that would disconrage what you put down here. You would probably have it
further up in the parking and that raised another dollar concern in that
regard. I think if you want to add hockey to the lanndry list, we
certainly can add that in.
"'" Lash: Is that something?
Erhart: They were concerned about lighting.
Lash: Is the one up here at City Center, is that lit?
Sietsema: Yes.
Robinson: It's used a lot.
Sietsema: It's going to be intensely used this year because number one,
the older kids, the coaches of the older kids indicated that they're going
to make the kids play outside more and we no longer have the little barn
and so all those young kids are going to be playing out there. It's going
to see a lot of use.
Robinson: But once we get the community center in.
Sietsema: It still hasn't been determined if we're going to put ice in it.
Robinson: I said that tongue in cheek.
Lash: What happened to this other one? Are we talking that that one would
have to lights now too? Down at Lake Susan?
,,-.
Mady:
Just the sheer nature of a hockey rink...
Sietsema: In a neighborhood park I wouldn't think it needs to because
you've got kids right after school and that's more again for your pick up
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 30
games in the neighborhood park. It's maybe we'll see some practices but -'
not organized things that are going to happen when the coaches get home at
6:00 I wouldn't think.
Mady: I guess I disagree just knowing youth hockey and my involvement in
hockey in the past.
Sietsema: All I'm saying is that it would not be appropriate I wouldn't
think it put lights in a neighborhood park for hockey.
Erhart: We're already looking at a smaller piece of property in the
southern part of Chanhassen that we had originally gone after so if we did,
in the future buy any more land out there, like to the north, put a hockey
rink in there?
Mady: Is that something also we have added to the Comp Plan? That...north
of this? We should recognize that on that or anything.
Sietsema: That was part of when we identified that other piece too. We
identified a number of sections.
Mady: The design concept plans for this park and the design plans to put
over there for future park issues.
Koegler: Approval of this item at the City Council, they did add that a~
part of their motion. The plan to show future expansion of this site. -'
Schroers: So in a sense this has a potential to be just a wonderful youth
facility. Do you have any information on the indoor rinks or indoor ice
that they just try to make out of a foam type thing? Is that we would want
to look into? I don't really know about it.
Sietsema: From everything that I've ever heard, it's a maintenance
nightmare.
Mady: We need some information Larry on bubbles. The Shakopee bubble,
which is a constant headache for those who take care of it. It's usually
foggy inside of it. They don't have great ice. It's a maintenance
nightmare. It's like the dome in downtown Minneapolis. They had to shovel
it off from time to time. It's just, it's not the best thing you can do.
It's cheap initially but after 4 or 5 years, it costs you a lot of money.
The community center task force when we reviewed this, they passed over
hockey in essence to tennis for some reason. It's just not the best
situation. They save money up front but it sure costs you money in the
back.
Schroers: The reason that it came to mind was because of the fact that we
lost the indoor facility that we had for the youth hockey and that there
seems to be a lot of demand for it and I thought maybe that was a possible
inexpensive and fast way of providing something.
Robinson: I'm not sure we answered your question though, did we? As to ~
whether or not we should try and fit hockey in there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 31
IfII"""
Lash: It was just an idea. I don't know how people feel.
Erhart: Can we fit it in Mark?
Koegler: I think you can. I don't know that we can get two rinks in but
I'm sure we can get one.
Erhart: Even if we cut the hill down inbetween TH 101 there?
Koegler: I think so. If the ball diamonds, particularly if we go with the
assumption that we'll always these two youth fields and maybe only two will
eventually be expanded to adult. That would allow some flexibility and
open space. I think that could be done. Presumably you would set up the
center and you would have those rinks available for league activities if
need be on this kind of a park. In a neighborhood park you wouldn't want
to do that.
Lash: If we had it way over by TH 101 by the tennis courts and everything,
that cOllld be just a real objectional thing to the residents?
Erhart: That's really away from the residents. I don't think they'd have
any problems there. We could always move a tennis court.
,....
Mady: One concern with hockey rinks.
with it.
You have to have open skating along
Sietsema: We do have open skating down at Bandimere Park.
Mady: But I mean just... They should have...be adjacent to each other.
Robinson: What is that?
Mady: Because you've got your hockey players that are going to take over
it anything. Ultimately that's what happens. When those kids come there,
they have to warm up someplace for skating.
Robinson: But if we designate it as a hockey rink.
Mady: Well you have games. When you schedule your games, you schedule them
boom, boom, boom, boom. Those kids have got to have someplace to skate and
they will...
Sietsema: The open skate doesn't creat a problem. We can throw open
skating on top of the soccer field.
Mady: Well we tried not to do that as much as possible because it just
ruins the grass.
Sietsema: But it can be done.
,...,
Mady: I don't want, it's a small site, I don't want to see us crowd too
much into there. We sold this as kind of a youth complex with the soccer
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 32
and baseball and never even talked about skating.
--'
Robinson: We were also working with a lot of acres. We have 34.
Sietsema: Mar~'s just writing down all the things you guys are talking
about and he'll come back and tell you what will fit and what won't.
Robinson: You don't need a motion from us or anything on this?
Sietsema: No.
Robinson: You just wanted the discussion?
Sietsema: Yes.
Koegler: Philosophically the soccer fi ts well on the west side because you
want it over there so you only have to plow a minimal amount of the parking
lot in the winter to provide enough parking for the use of the rink and
you'll let the rest of the parking lot just drift in. So it works well but
I think it's a question of really as to how well it fits. Ideally we're
going to trying to create some grade transition from facility to facility.
Whether that be baseball diamonds being a slightly higher elevation that
this one or whatever. It adds some visual interest to the site but also to
allow maybe some hillside seating so people can sit along in one area and
be able to watch another game. That may require a little bit of more ope
space than normal between the diamonds. There's just questions out there~
right now. With the list of facilities that you desire, once we get the
contours next week or so, we can take a hard look at answering those
questions.
Schroers: I would think we'd be looking to provide things in an age group
from like 6 to 15 years old or from 0 to 15. We'd like to try to provide
as much for them in this space as we could because they really don't have
very much...
Sietsema: How about 9 to 18?
Robinson: Something up to 18 I would say.
Sietsema: Because that takes in your Babe Ruth and Legion players.
Schroers: Okay but what I was thinking of though is that we have already
tried to accommodate them in other areas.
Sietsema: One field.
Schroers: And one field also out at Lake Ann.
Sietsema: No. Just Lake Susan. We couldn't get it out at Lake Ann.
Remember it wouldn't fit at Lake Ann because of the backstop area needed to
be 40 feet.
..J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 33
"....
Lash: They were using Field 1 until Lake Susan is ready and then they won't
use 1 anymore.
Sietsema: Right.
Schroers: What about Field 3? Is Field 3 then going to remain a softball
field?
Sietsema: Little League. That's your 10 year olds. Babe Ruth and Legion
are 15 to 18 year olds so you've got your 5 to 9 year olds up at City
Center Park and your 9 to 18 at Bandimere and then adults at Lake Ann when
everything's in place.
Schroers: So what we're doing is accommodating the needs of the 9 to 18
year olds in the city at Bandimere? I would almost think you would want to
include some hockey in there.
Lash: We have to figure that hockey use is going to be...
Schroers: Off season so that should be fairly easy to accommodate that I
would think.
Sietsema: Then your basketball again. If you wanted to take out that
existing youth soccer, that can go down in the lower area.
,....,
Erhart: In other words Mark, everything.
Robinson: Come back to us with everything we ever wanted. Anything else
realistic for Mark? Thanks a lot.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Robinson: Do we have any commission presentations tonight?
Mady: I know I'll disappoint you but I don't have anything tonight.
Robinson: Adminstrative presentations? Do we have any of those?
,.....
Sietsema: I have one. It's an update to the Lake Lucy access saga. The
saga continues. This item was on the City Council agenda last night for
site selection. The Mayor and Councilman Workman met with Joe Alexander
from DNR. I put a copy of the letter from Joe Alexander that went to the
two directors. One of Trails and Waterways and the Fish and wildlife
Director. It's admittedly a vague letter. Therefore, I made an
appointment to meet with them to discuss what middle ground meant. If
there's any concessions that could be made ~nd we'll be meeting with them
next Tuesday. In the meantime, so they tabled site selection because they
want to wait until we have that meeting to see if there's anything that
changes. Also, the second item that was on there was authorization to
apply for LAWCON grant and they chose not to apply for the LAWCON grant
based on that the LAWCON process this year changed and I was not aware of
it until the very last minute in that now you submit a preliminary
Pa~k and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 34
application that you meet with the staff of DTED. Of all of thei~ -'
developments. P~esent you~ p~oject and they dete~mine which g~ant, and
they have a host of g~ants in all of thei~ Depa~tment of T~ade and Economic
Development. They have all kinds of community g~ants one of which is the
outdoo~ ~ecreation g~ant o~ LAWCON g~ant. So you meet with them. You
p~esent your p~oject and they dete~mine if numbe~ one, it's eligible. And
number two, if it's a competitive p~oject and which funding it should get
or which grant you should apply for. I had that meeting with the Di~k's
p~ope~ty. I had to just choose a site because this deadline, I had to meet
with them. I found this out on a Thu~sday. I had to meet with them on
Monday. I had to put together a p~elimina~y application and meet with them
and I chose the Di~k's p~ope~ty because I felt that had the best
opportunity of being funded. And if it got funded, o~ if there was the
possibility of it being funded, we could apply fo~ a t~ansfer if we chose
an alternate site at a late~ date only I didn't want to let them know that
up front because then for sure they never would give us funding. So bottom
line is, I had this meeting with them and they said, it's an eligible
project but it's not competitive at all and it doesn't have a chance
basically. I mean she didn't tell me ~ight out it does not have a chance
but she said, you can apply. Make the application but she said I'd
discourage you from even wasting you~ time on doing it. So I ~elayed that
to the Council last night because the~e's a couple of reasons why she was
not encou~aged with that p~oject. Numbe~ one is that we just got a LAWCON
g~ant fo~ the Lake Susan p~oject this year and they'~e not likely to give
us anothe~ la~ge grant the very next yea~ because they like to sp~ead the
money a~ound. Number two is, it's not that competitive because it's onl1~
one facility. One type of use and they are on a, it's a point system the
way they ~ate the different p~ojects. They've got p~ojects that a~e coming
in that are full park projects that a~e like the youth athletic complex.
They have Babe Ruth. They have Little League. They have boat access. They
have fishing piers. They have trails. They have tennis. They have
natural areas. They have wetland areas that they'~e going to preserve and
all those different things earn diffe~ent amounts of points. Well the~e's
no way that a boat access alone is going to outweigh those types of
facilities and she just, knowing the amount of money that's available and
the amount of other p~ojects that we would be competing with in the Metro
area, she just doesn't think that we'd have a chance so they di~ected me
not to proceed with the application on that. So given that the whole
process had changed, I wasn't able to get any othe~ applications in this
year either and I don't feel real bad about that because we did just get
the one f~om Lake Susan. I can't ~emembe~ getting two g~ants in a ~ow
befo~e. I think we've got them eve~y othe~ year so far. With the
exception maybe of once when we we~e app~oved fo~ the Lake Ann expansion
p~oject and we tu~ned it down because it was only $12,000.00 and at that
point we didn't have the refe~endum in place. I don't think that was right
afte~ one eithe~ though. So at any rate, we have no LAWCON projects being
applied fo~ this year.
Mady: We didn't even apply fo~ the Lake Ann shelte~ then?
Sietsema: She told me last year to not waste mv time. She said that wi)
never, that's again not enough. If it was in with a boat access and a -,.
fishing pie~. You know we t~ied to throw othe~ things in there but they
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 35
"""'
could see through our tactics and it wasn't working. It wasn't flying so
she advised me last year not to bother, to waste our time in submitting
that one anymore. That was part of the reason why we boosted, in the
budget, boosted that up to $100,000.00 for that shelter so we could go
ahead next year and build that on our own. So that's the status of that.
I will have more information. This item is hopefully going to be on the
next City Council, the Lake Lucy access, will be on the next City Council
and they'll be able to make some decisions or we'll have some answers.
There's still a number of options and one is still trying to get the lake
excluded from the project so that we wouldn't have to get access at all.
Lash: What would we have to do to try and push that?
,....
Sietsema: Right now it's considered a Group 4 lake. In the groups of
priorities they have Group 1 through 4 and it's a Group 4 in that it's over
100 acres in size and more than 10 feet deep and that's basically. It has
more priority if it's a Group 1 so they do have it on the list of
priorities to get access to it. Given that there's only 67 acres of open
water on the lake, we were going to try to pursue getting that out of that
classification. My initial conversations with people from Trails and
Waterways is that that's not going to fly because that would take just
about all of the lakes that are in the Group 4 group out of there because
they're all a lot of wetlands around there that they consider part of the
lake. The other point of that is that legally they cannot, they can't work
on a mud puddle. DNR cannot work on a mud puddle if it doesn't have public
access. No matter what size the lake is, they could not work on the lake,
do any kind of restoration of the lake without public access no matter what
size it was so if we could get it out of the Group 4 and convince them that
we would do the restoration ourselves, we feel that it would probably be
less money than the cost of an access on there and that's what we're going
to be pursuing. Mostly at that meeting on Tuesday.
Lash: When you're talking about restoration, you're not talking about, are
you talking about what they were proposing to do?
Sietsema: Right. The fish kill and the restocking and aeration.
Lash: They would still do the rest of the lakes but we have to do Lucy?
Sietsema: Right.
Erhart: Would they consider that middle ground? That sounds pretty
reasonable to me.
Sietsema: I don't know. In previous conversations, I had that same
conversation with that request and discussed that very same thing a year
ago with PCA and DNR and they said no.
Erhart: Why? What difference does it make...on that particular lake on
.'" themselves?
Sietsema: Basically because it's a Group 4 lake.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 29, 1989 - Page 36
Mady: You have to remember, lakes are not...
....J'
Sietsema: But again, if it could be taken out of that Group 4
classification, then that might be able to.
Erhart: I just think of disturbing the wildlife and stuff and I think
that's such a contradiction to what the DNR is.
Mady: That wildlife is going to be disturbed in 20 years no matter what we
do anyway. Outside of preserving the wetlands, you've got to recognize
that this is a metropolitan area. There's...houses built around this
place. Those people ultimately will be selling their land for a lot of
money. You can imagine the houses built on that lake and so what the DNR
is saying is this is public water. It should be noted as public water and
I hope the City's pursuing restoring that lake themselves, they get some
real good...money because it is not a cheap operation. You don't just dump
some chemicals in and hope you kill the rough fish and things happen. It's
a process I don't believe anybody in the City has the ability to take on
themselves.
Sietsema: That's all I have.
Mady moved, Robinson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m..
...."
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
...",