Loading...
PRC 1988 06 28 ~ CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m., as the Commission visited the current site of the.carousel building in Victoria. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Ed Hasek and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson and Mike Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Meeting dated June 14, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and th emotion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SCHLOTTE ADDITION. ,......, Sietsema: This proposal is located down along Frontier Trail and West 78th Street. There is currently a house on the corner and then the grade gets steep and we're proposing two lots. Actually, this would be a lot and this would be an outlot. The area is on the edge of the City Center park service area and it will be served by South Lotus Lake Park. The Comp Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area. This Plan calls for off-street trails along Frontier Trail. As I noted in my memo, people have been corning in and getting wind that the trails are going to go back on the referendum and they're wondering in this trail plan and they're wondering what kind of street they're going to be on and what kind of trails are going to be used. I indicated that the Park Commission has talked about off-street trails along Frontier Trail and in going out and looking the full length of Frontier Trail, just from an eyeball look, it looks like it would be better on the west side of Frontier Trail. So in this recommendation I'm recommending that we accept park dedication fees as well as trail fees in lieu of parkland and trail development and I also make a note that we're hoping to see a trail along the west side. Hasek: I have a question. Now is that the proposed home location there? Sietsema: This is existing. This would be the second lot with the proposed house. This would be an outlot. Hasek: They're asking for a variance obviously because that only has a 20 foot setback. Boyt: The City Council would have to deal with that. ,..... Sietsema: That's a planning item that I don't do. Hasek: So really it would take a 10 foot trail easement? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 2 ....", Sietsema: 20 is what we usually have. The grade here, as you go to the site on the road and it's straight down. You're looking at the tops of trees at road level. Hasek: Yes, but Lot 2 would still be taking the same... Sietsema: That's why I'm recommending a trail on the west side rather than the east side. We're not taking any trail easement from there. Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail fees in lieu of parkland and trail development. Also, to pursue trail development on the west side of Frontier Trail for the Schlotte Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: HSZ AND GARY REED PROPOSAL. Sietsema: If you recall, a while back HSZ Development came in with a proposal talking about a street alignment for West 64th Street. What they finally decided on was to come into the Gary Reed property, vacate this portion of the street, this being TH 41, and have a cul-de-sac that woule go onto the Reed property. The subdivision of 7 acres into two single -' family lots, one outlot and the West 64th Street cul-de-sac. That area would be served by Herman Field which is located to the southwest of the development and Minnetonka Intermediate School is across TH 41. The Comp Plan does not identify this as a park deficient area. A trail easement, the Trail Plan calls for a trail along TH 41. If you recall at our last meeting I noted that we were accepting a petition from homeowners in the area to vacate the Oriole Lane right-of-way and at that time the Park and Recreation Commission made a motion to let the Planning Commission and City Council know that we would be interested in at least a 20 foot trail easement over the existing right-of-way to get a pedestrial walkway to Herman Field. Oriole Lane is along the west side of this property so right down here would be Herman Field. The petition has actually corne in and if the Commission would like to, we've gotten a lot of feedback from residents in the area. If the Commission would like to review it in more detail, I could schedule that for our next agenda. They're expecting that to go to City Council in August. Hasek: Do we have time to take a look at it? Sietsema: Their concerns are where the right-of-way and what kind of trail and who's going to be allowed to use it. How are we going to keep motorized vehicles out and what vegetation will corne down. If you'd like to see that further, I can schedule that at the next agenda. Mady: That would be fine. ...together for us Lori with location of tre~-, and stuff. Hasek: I think most of the trees are right on the edge of the right-of- way out there. ,,-.- Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 3 Sietsema: If they're within the...right-of-way because that was part of our problem coming down into that... On that alignment to Herman Field, we didn't want to take out the mature vegetation. Robinson: Is that why these people are here? Sietsema: Yes. Robinson: And we should get their concerns are and address them I think shouldn't we? Mady: You mean a public hearing? Sietsema: I don't know if they have any comments or not. Mady: It might help to hear them now so you can be looking at, you have some idea what they're looking for. When we get that proposal back, you could come back and this is what we have to say once we have the proposal in front of us. ~ Sietsema: Before they could do that, why don't I finish. The 64th Street right-of-way, HSZ is going to be putting a trail through the old alignment and along the north side of 64th Street in this location. The road right- of-way on TH 41 is wide enough to accomodate an off-street trail. We did ask for that out of the HSZ development to the north and they have preliminarily approved the construction of such a trail. Therefore it is staff's recommendation to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail fees in lieu of trail development. Mady: Is there any reason why we should go along on any of this pending...? Sietsema: No, because Oriole Lane is not part of thi.s development. It's just abutting it so I wanted to bring it to your attention because it was adjacent to the development, to this proposal. Mrs. Reed: Could you show us, she's talking about the right-of-way along TH 41, we can't see from the diagram. Is she talking on the HSZ property or the Reed property? Sietsema: We want a trail all the way along TH 41 all the way down to TH 5 so we would be building an off-street trail along TH 41 within the TH 41 right-of-way. We wouldn't be requiring an additional 20 feet of your property. ,..... Gary Reed: All the way to TH 5? Sietsema: Yes, from TH 7 to TH 5. That's our goal and according to the State, there is adequate width there so we don't need to acquire additional. We did address that same issue when we saw the HSZ development so I just wanted to bring it to their attention that we're Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 4 ....." going to be continuing that trail but we won't be requiring any additional right-of-way. Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail fees in lieu of trail development for the Gary Reed subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Sietsema: I will schedule that for either the 12th or 26th of July and I'll be sending out a notice to you on the Oriole Lane. Gary Reed: There will be a storm sewer extending down Oriole into the Herman Field area and it's possibly, you can follow that. Sietsema: Yes. That's very possible. I don't know if we'd go right over the top of it but it might be within the 20 feet. Gary Reed: There's a 20 foot easement for that I assume. Do you take it down the middle of the road or do you jog from side to side? Mady: We try to go around all the big trees. Within the 20 feet. Sietsema: The easement itself will be 20 feet wide but the actual trail will be 8 feet wide so we can meander within the 20 feet to miss anything. .....", Resident: You just stay within the right-of-way of the way the road goes you'll be fine. Sietsema: Right. We won't go outside of that at all. Gary Reed: We vacated the street and then they have to have 20 feet. Mrs. Reed: ...would they take more? Out to 50 feet? Sietsemsa: It just depends on the vegetation. We could recommend that we're going to take the whole 50 feet for a trail easement and then meander an 8 foot trail within that 50 feet but we won't take additional outside of the existing right-of-way. Resident: ! don't think it is 50 foot wide. Hasek: Oriole Lane? Resident: Yes. Hasek: ! think it's 50 foot. .....", Resident: ...! was looking at that map for a while and it said 30... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 5 ,...., sietsema: Well, whatever it said. 30 or 50, at this point it doesn't matter. We just have to look at it closer and when I bring that back to them in July, I'll have that information. Resident: I was just wondering, is it really necessary to have a trail down there from that end of the park? Sietsema: That's what they'll be discussing in July. They'll want to discuss that more in July. Resident: Because there's a dead end road down there now. Gary Reed: There's an entrance into the park 400 feet west. Resident: Can I ask one thing? Is the purpose for the junior high to use that park? Sietsema: No. Mady: You mean classes? No. They have their own play facility. Sietsema: No, it would be to provide the neighborhood within... Our park ,...., entrance will be off of Forest. Resident: So we're going to be looking at a trail going to the other park about 300 or 400 feet. Sietsema: It will just be a second access. A pedestrian access. Hasek: A house has two doors. A park can have two doors too. Sietsema: We also have an easement over to the Piper Ridge subdivision so those people can walk into the park and it's just so that not everybody has to drive to the park. The people within walking distance can safely get to the park without walking on the street or across private property. Mady: So when you bring that back to us Lori, they'll be notified? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: hand? Did you have any other concerns that we should know about before Okay. You'll be notified then. Gary Reed: I guess one other thing, I'd like to see if you could put up barricades so there's no motorized vehicles. Hasek: Yes, I think that's going to have to be looked at real closely because that would be an invitation right there. There's a dead end ,....,. street with a trail into a park. We've got the same problem around Lake Ann and we've had to fence it there so I'm sure we'll be taking a close look at that. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 6 ...., AMENDMENTS TO PARK ORDINANCE. Sietsema: Given a lot of discussions that we've had, I thought that it would be appropriate to come to the Park Commission with some amendment ideas. One with the Carver Beach problems that we've had there with people mooring and storing boats and rafts and what not. We need to clarify so there isn't a loophole. Allow it so they can have the rafts so we clearly have control of what goes on in the parks so one of the things on my list here was amending the Ordinance to prohibit boat mooring, private docks and rafts on park property and out from park property. Mady: Or within 150 feet of the high water mark. Robinson: Is that what you can do? Sietsema: It would have to involve water surface zoning too. Not only our park ordinance would have to be amended but so would our water surface zoning so that DNR would have to approve it. We don't allow private rafts out from park property. Our concern being liability. If there's a raft out there, it looks like it's part of the park and Joe Blow from across the lake comes over and swims on it and hurts himself. Boyt: You know, that raft that's out there has a piece of metal. --' Mady: It's a pontoon. I was in the water and it's just, that thing is an eyesore. Sietsema: Again, right now we don't have anything we can really do about it. Hasek: Historically, if you ask a question, would the DNR tend to go along with those types of things? Sietsema: If it's reasonable. If you have a good reason, good clear reasoning. If it's just to make restrictions for the sake of having restrictions they don't go along with it. They won't approve it but if there is good sound reason and it's applicable to everybody on the lake or the lake user who doesn't live on the lake, they're pretty reasonable. Hasek: Okay. We can just have the Attorney draw that up. Mady: The only thing is we might want to leave ourselves some space in the ordinance that at some point in time if the City decides to put... Hasek: It would be anything that's not owned by the City is what would be. . . Sietsema: Right, so that would allow us to have a raft out there if we wanted to have one. --' Mady: Of if we wanted to put sailboat moorings out there or something. ,..... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 7 Schroers: Is it possible that that could come back to haunt you in that if we say that we have control up to 150 feet beyond our park area or something, if there's an accident with boats or waterskiers in that area, are we then liable because we control that space? Sietsema: No. Mady: What is it, 150 feet, you can not propell your boat through an area within 150 feet of a marked swimming area? Sietsema: Within 100 feet of the shore on Lotus Lake is a slow no wake area except going straight out or coming straight in. If you're puttzing along horizontal or parallel with the shoreline, it's slow no wake within 100 feet of the shore. I think the Attorney will clear that up for us and make it so it's not going to put us in a hole. Robinson: Do we want to act on these one at a time or overall? Mady: I think we can discuss them one at a time. Point of information, Lotus Lake, the Sheriff's patrol was out in their boat Saturday afternoon because I witnessed them issuing a citation to one of my neighbors which I was glad to be seeing. ,....., Hasek moved, Robinson seconded a motion directing staff to contact the City Attorney and ask him to draw up an ordinance which would exclude the mooring or installation of docks or any surface water use other than for the City for areas abutting and adjacent to parkland for whatever distance he feels is appropriate. All voted in favor and the motion carried. GLASS CONTAINERS. Mady: I, for one would like to issue a complaint on glass containers in the park after I spent 20 mintues cleaning up glass in the City Center Park. It was just one bottle. Sietsema: We really have received a number of complaints about glass. People having to walk around glass. Broken glass and what not. The thing is, we've received a lot of complaints in the park areas all together. There is more use in the parks than we've ever had before. Lake Ann Park has probably taken in the same amount of gate fees as we did all of last year.so far this year. It's unbelievable the amount of use. Hasek: Than you get a letter like this lady that says she's never had to pay for a park. "'" Sietsema: We currently have an ordinance that says there's no glass allowed in the beach area. The problem that we have with a lot of these things is enforcement. There's no way that the lifeguards can guard behind their head. I've asked them to at least be aware that that's an ordinance so that in the sand area in front of them, if they see someone on the beach area with glass, that they tell them it's not allowed. They can't go over there and take it away from them because they're supposed to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 8 --' be concentrated on the water. But my argument was, they are there to prevent injury in the beach area. In the water. If someone gets cut, they're going to the lifeguard to get fixed. Hasek: Then they've taken their attention away from the water again anyways. Sietsema: Right. So I don't expect them to walk up and down the beach and tell people they can't have glass and see that they get out of there but see if they can say it to the people and just start making people aware that it's against the rules. What I'd like to see is that we prohibit glass all together in the parks because we have the same problem with barefoot kids running around by the ballfields and everything else. What we can do potentially is let people know at the gate that glass containers are not allowed. If you have them, go back and buy something in cans or put it in plastic containers or something. Hasek: Is there anything that that would preclude? Boyt: I know our rule is no glass containers. If I want to take wine, I buy it in the box or I'll put it in a container. You work around it. Sietsema: If you go to a pool area, there's not a pool, any pool I've ever, ever, ever been to that you can have glass in the pool area and you just take your stuff in plastic jugs or plastic coolers or buy it in cans~ or buy it in boxes or whatever. Almost anything can be purchased in non- glass containers nowadays and if you can't, you can transfer it. Robinson: You should have the signage up too, I think both down at the beach and at the front. Sietsema: That's another thing we're really going to have to look at is effective signage because everything that comes up it says we'll put a sign up and we're going to be really littered with signs. Hasek: The signs have to be very specific and located properly. Sietsema: When you have a list of 12 things on a sign, nobody reads the 12th thing or the 7th. Schroers: I will move that the City formulate an ordinance that prohibits glass containers or receptacles of any kind in all public use areas and that appropriate signage should accompany this ordinance. That would mean that that ordinance could probably also be enforced in downtown parking lots. Sietsema: But that's not really our jurisdiction. This has to do with parks. Schroers: If you want it just to do with parks, that's fine. Parks and trails. And if the City Council can expand on it to include all public ~ use areas, that would be better yet. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 9 ,...., Hasek: The only question I have is, I think Larry might have hit on something that we may cover some open spaces that aren't called parks. Sietsema: Such as? Hasek: Outlots. Are there any outlots? Mady: Do we own any outlots? Sietsema: Outlots owned by the City are generally parks. Hasek: Are they labeled parks eventually? Schroers: Easements? Sietsema: Utility easements but those are usually over private property. We could do it on the trail easements because that would be considered linear park space. Hasek: There's no reason why we couldn't do it on the trail. Mady: On the easement. ~ Hasek: The property adjacent to it, I think that might be a little difficult to put that restriction over the whole easement. Schroers: What I was trying to get at, not only parking lots there but also water areas like boat landings and that sort of thing. Sietsema: But those are all considered parkland here. Schroers: We really want to keep it out of the water. Out of the beach areas. Out of the parking lot. Sietsema: I will include it in public use areas and if the Councilor Roger feels uncomfortable with it, they can just go with the park. Hasek: Maybe it can be more specifically defined and maybe, you talked about boat launches and on the water surface. We can put our ordinance on areas where there are no ordinances right now. That would certainly... Schroers: If we're going to make an ordinance, we need to get into it so that it covers all the areas that we want it to cover specifically so there is no question. Sietsema: The thing is is that this will be amending our existing park ordinance. You wouldn't be creating a new one so it would be difficult to find, if you put it in the park ordinance and it includes the lift station ~ sites. We'd have to amend more than one ordinance, which we can do. I'll put it in there and they can work with it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 10 ...." Schroers moved, Mady seconded to amend the Park Ordinance glass containers or receptacles of any kind in all public that appropriate signage should accompany this ordinance. favor and the motion carried. to prohibit use areas and All voted -in PETS. Sietsema: We've talked about pets in the parks in the past. It's my personal opinion that pets shouldn't be in the parks, although I think they should be allowed on trails. That is a big issue though with some of these people that are anticipating that this trail plan goes through and they're going to have a trail going through their yard. Their big argument is, people are going to be walking their dogs in their yard and they're going to be a pet toilet, to coin one woman's phrase. I know that that could potentially be a problem but I think that we should keep the part in the park ordinance that prohibits the pets in the park but we should allow them on trails and enact a pooper scooper law. Mady: What is that? Sietsema: You'd have to be carrying something to pick up your dog's. Either a plastic bag or a little bucket or something. A little scooper or something. ...." Hasek: So that you really wouldn't preclude people from running with their dog. Sietsema: No, they just have to, and they do that in Minneapolis. You see people with a little plastic bag with them allover in Minneapolis. Schroers: Then you take a cab home and put it in a pile and when the pile gets 6 feet high, the City comes along and removes it. Boyt: I think wherever it says dogs it should say either pets or dogs and cats or just cats. Mady: I guess I don't have a problem if the ordinance did state that you had to have a pooper scooper on your person but to specify... Sietsema: That's not a way you can enforce it is that they have to show some way they're going to pick it up. Mady: I think as far as dogs or pets rather going through parks, I think the ordinance should be specific that as long as the park is within, what's our leash law, 6 feet? Whatever it is, within 6 feet of the trail, than they're okay. If they're off that, further than that than they're in violation. I think you have to be specific on that. Schroers: And in the areas where the trail runs through the park. .."", Mady: That's what it means. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 11 IfI"#'" Schroers: As long as you stay and you're on the trail portion, you're okay. Mady: Or within 6 feet. Hasek: He's saying the animal is within 6 feet of the trail. Robinson: Is this a common, like in Minneapolis and Eden Prairie, do you know what they, no dogs in parks but they allow them on trails? Sietsema: I believe they allow them in parks in Minneapolis. Boyt: They take them out on sidewalks. Robinson: Eden prairie allows them in parks? Sietsema: I don't know about Eden prairie but I think Minneapolis you can have your dog in the park. Hasek: Once on a leash, you can have your dog anywhere in Minneapolis but you also have to take a pooper scooper with you. ,..... Mady: I would just assume not even have them in the parks. Up at the ballfields, either it would be where I'm playing softball or my daughter is playing ball, it's not appreciated when that dog, especially the large ones. A particular pet owner may feel that their dog is nicer than anybody elses dog in the world but I'm one of those poor souls who doesn't trust dogs. I've experienced some problems in the past and I just don't even trust them. Sietsema: Not everybody is that comfortable having a dog come bounding up and lick you on the face. Mady: As long as they are on the trails, that's fine. Hasek: Did we get a motion on that? Mady: I'll move that we restrict pets in the parks to the linear trails only and if the trail is running through a park, then the pet must be within the distance of the leash law of the owner on the trail. Hasek: And you're also going to include the pooper scooper? Mady: Yes, and the owner must have on his person the proper receptacle to recover any of the waste from your pet. Robinson: This will solve the problem, dog foul. IfI"#'" Sietsema: You know where I heard that, that's the common terminology for it in England. Everywhere you have, no dog fouling allowed. 5~ pound fine. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 12 ....."" Mady moved, Hasek seconded to amend the Park Ordinance to restrict pets in the parks to the linear trails only and if the trail is running through a park, then the pet must be within the distance of the leash law of the owner on the trail. Also, to develop a pooper scooper ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: Does anyone else have any other items for the ordinances? Hoffman: Kegs in the park? Boyt: I think we're going to talk to Public Safety about that aren't we? Mady: Should we put that on public safety? Boyt: I think we should discuss it. Sietsema: I think we should probably have an idea of what this body wants to present. Schroers: I have ideas about that. I think kegs should be allowed with a permit. If our group wants to have a keg, then they can be issued a permit and the permit doesn't necessarily mean we need to be restricted. Such as the Men's Over 35 Softball league, if they want to have kegs and be responsible for the kegs, they can get a permit that will cover the -' season. If a family renunion wants to corne and they're just going to be there for a day, they can get a permit to cover them for a day. Hasek: Why couldn't you just make it a permit and you could have the dates. That way the softball league would have the dates and all they have to do is go bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. That way you're not singling anyone out for special favors. Robinson: But if I want to go out there and pack a six pack I've got to have a permit? Schroers: No, just for kegs. If you have canned beer like a 12 pack or a case or whatever, I think that should be allowed. I don't know how you can expect that people won't want to come and use the parks if they're not allowed to have beer. Robinson: What's the differnce? Hoffman: The difference is you're trying to keep a maintenance on large groups. If you're going to have a keg, you're obviously going to have a large group and sometimes large groups tend to be getting more out of control than a group, a small group bringing in a case of beer. Quite a few park systems have a keg law. Sietsema: It allows us to go back when there's damage done and say, you -' had the keg. You had the permit. You're responsible. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 13 JIll"'" Hoffman: A class renunion or something like this where they're obviously going to have a keg. Schroers: They think a keg is an incentive to drink more. Robinson: Yes, that's probably true. Schroers: lot of it. to issue a a keg. We got our keg, that means there's lots of beer, let's drink a I really believe the best way to get a handle on that is just permit for a keg and if you don't have a permit, you can't have Boyt: Otherwise, right now we allow non-intoxicating malt liquors? Sietsema: No. Non-intoxicating liquor except malt beverages. So beer is allowed but booze and hard liquor isn't. Schroers: And where does wine fit into that? Sietsema: I guess it fits into liquor. It's not a malt beverage so beer is really the only thing that's legal. Hoffman: Wine coolers. JIll"'" Hasek: But that's not uncommon though because wine coolers are glass. Sietsema: Not all of them. You can get those in plastic. But what I wanted to say before we go hog wild on these ordinances is that we don't have a police department. We get limited coverage from the Carver County Sheriff's department. Some people feel that that's adequate. This year I'm not so sure given the amount of people we have using the parks. We can't control glass on the beach. We don't have someone who is walking the beach and telling them to get out of the beach with glass containers or anywhere in the park. Hasek: It comes right back down to the issue that we've been running across over at Greenwood Shores. There are certain ordinances and laws in place. You can sit down there and close your eyes and have somebody throwing glass in the lake and expect that all of a sudden this cop is going to corne around the corner and do something about it. It is up to the people that live in the City to act as their own police to a certain degree. That's why you have the right to, what do they call it, a citizen arrest. That's why it's there. I think if the ordinances are in place and people are aware of them, that will help to cut down on the amount that's done because now you've got people that are complaining. Simply saying, hey, it's illegal for you to have those bottles in here and I'd appreciate it if you'd take them out of there and you get some flack, enough flack, then you're going to go to the telephone and make that phone JIll"'" call. Sietsema: I guess what I was referring to is eliminating intoxicating beverages all together. If we make all public area dry and you have no way of enforcing it, I don't see the purpose of putting an ordinance on Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 14 ..."",., the books that there's no way we can enforce. It may come down the road. When we do have a police department, then we can enforce stuff like that. Schroers: What is Public Safety? Public Safety in essence is our police department who is supposed to be patrolling the parks and enforcing the ordinances that are intact at the present time right? Sietsema: Our Public Safety Director coordinates with the Carver County Sheriff's Department to have deputies and he gives them where we're having the problems. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to choose to do that. We've asked them to open the boat access at 6:99 every morning. They may not get around to it until 19:99 in the morning and you've got a line up of fishermen outside. We asked them to patrol the boat access on a regular basis. The gate attendant calls them, they may wander by an hour and a half later. He asks them to do things but they don't necessarily always choose to do what he asks. Schroers: I understand what you're saying but ours, the City's Public Safety patrollers, now they have no authority to issue a ticket? Sietsema: The only public safety patrollers we have are the CSO Officer and she came on today. We have one. Boyt: But she can not issue citations. ....." Sietsema: She can issue tickets but she can't make arrests. Boyt: I was told she can't even issue citations. She can give warnings. She can call for help. Sietsema: I believe she can ticket if it's an ordinance violation unless she's directed that she can't. I think ther was a CSO that was directed that he was not to issue any tickets and he was to call for help. Schroers: If that's the case, I think that we need to look at an ordinance that would give our CSO's some authority to be able to do some good. Hoffman: Legally they can't. Sietsema: Legally they are not police officers. They can't take police action. Boyt: They are still in training. Sietsema: Well, I think Debbie's done. Mady: Some of those we had in the past were actually licensed pOlice officers but they were hired as CSO's because we didn't have the money. ....." Sietsema: Yes, Frank started as a CSO and he went on to get his certificate or license as a police officer and he was hired also as a pOlice officer. He was a Carver County deputy and he wason staff. He Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 15 ,.... was a police officer and he had some hours as CSO so he had overlapping responsibilities but he's not with us any longer. Robinson: We're getting off track. Sietsema: We are getting on track and I just wanted to close on that subject. I'm meeting with Scott Harr and Jim Chaffee, it's budget time and to talk about if we can get CSO's or some kind of park patrol on staff that would be dedicated. If we had two people, even if they can't even write citations, that would be walking the beaches. Jim said if he had his own police department, he would schedule a person to be on staff at South Lotus Lake all day long every weekend. He would have the power to do that. He would have that kind of control. But we don't have our own police department and I don't know if or when it's ever going to happen but we could hire park patrollers or park rangers or something that would maybe jointly employed by the park department and the public safety department. That's something that we're going to look into for next year since it's budget time now. Mady: One item that might be, there was something to bring up at the Public Safety Commission, is some communities have kind of, junior police officers. It's usually high school kids who have an interest in law enforcement. We've used them extensively with the Minnesota Gym Classic. ~ We use them as our security. These kids, although you know they're probably seniors in high school, they have full uniforms. Some of them actually have handcuffs and flashlights and billy clubs on them and they work hard. They do a good job and they're very serious. Sietsema: But they're really a civilian in a costume. They don't have any. . . Mady: Exactly. They have no jurisdiction but they can point out the attractions. That's basically what you need. Schroers: Jim Chaffee himself, is he a policeman? Can he make arrests? Sietsema: Yes. And so is Scott Harr. He's the Assistant. Code Enforcement Office. Schroers: And they're both full time with the City? But it's not part of their normal routine to go through the parks? Sietsema: No. They're not even, they don't patrol. They're in the office taking care of administrative things. Boyt: What about Steve? Sietsema: He's gone as of today. He was fired. He wasn't qualified to ~ do the job that he was doing and he wasn't able to get qualified so we couldn't keep him on. Mady: Okay, should we go on. We can discuss most of this then at the Public Safety meeting. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 16 ......, Sietsema: So do you want to do anything on liquor? Mady: I think we'd be better off to wait on that until we talk to Public Safety about some of the enforcements. Hasek: Can we do something on the beer? Schroers: If you want to let that go and coordinate that with the Public Safety or... Boyt: I'd like to talk to them and see if they have some ideas because I think they have some different ideas about what's going on. About what the rules are. When I talked to one of the Commissioners, she thought there was no alcohol allowed at all unless you had a permit and that's not the way it is. Schroers: I really don't think that's realistic. People want to drink beer. They don't want to go to the beach and be able to drink beer on a hot day. I don't think that that's too much to ask. I think they should be able to do that. Boyt: I think it's too bad when Lake Ann gets a reputation as a drinkin~ park though. That people won't take their families there because it has -' that reputation so we've got to look at the Public Safety on that. Sietsema: There again, if we had the park patrol, we could have nipped that in the bud. The last month of school that was the senior hangout because there wasn't a gate attendant on duty yet. Nobody was out there. They had free run of the park and they were having their senior parties out there. Schroers: There are kids that hangout in the parking lot drinking beer there every night. Hasek: Sue, let's look at that conversely. There would be people that would not go to the park if they couldn't drink. So far in our society it's socially acceptable and until the morae is changed a little bit, I think to consider. It'd be like saying you can't smoke in the park. Boyt: I'd like to look at some sort of balance so we don't have the drinking center for youth down there but we'd like a balance. Hasek: That I agree with. Boyt: I would like to talk to Public Safety and see if they... Mady: But if we banned all alcohol we'd still have a problem so it's not an ordinance, it's really an enforcement problem. -" Robinson: Are we going to get Public Safety into our meeting? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 17 ,..... Mady: That's part of the adminstrative packet. Item 9(g). Thursday, July 21st is tentatively scheduled for a joint meeting between the Public Safety Commission and ourselves and I think it's great that we can participate with them from time to time. All Commissions should get together from time to time as well as Councilmen. As long as I've been on the board, we've never discussed public safety and until I met Dick Wing up here a year ago, I really didn't even know what Public Safety did. I just really wondered what in the world we had a Public Safety Commission for. What could those people be finding to do every month but I guess they are pretty busy. Does anybody have a problem with that date right now? Sietsema: I'll be sending out a notice. I'll let you know. Mady: Is that one of their scheduled meetings? Sietsema: Yes. Mady: Okay, so we'd just be part of it. Early on and they kick us out and do whatever they do. Sietsema: Yes, he said they had a light agenda. I""'" SCHEDULE FOR LAKE LUCY AND LAKE SUSAN BOAT ACCESS PROCESS. ".... Sietsema: At the last, not the last but the meeting before, the City Council made a commitment to provide a boat access on Lake Lucy and Lake Susan for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project. They needed to do that in order for the Pollution Control Agency and the Watershed District to proceed with that project. They want to develop a work plan that would be in place by November so they can figure out the time line when they're going to do what on which lake and who's going to do the work and when the money's coming in and all the different work functions that need to be done with that whole project. If you recall, that's a million dollar project which the Pollution Control Agency is putting in a half a million and the DNR is doing the other half a million. A contingency on that was, we have to provide access on the lakes involved and Lake Susan and Lake Lucy don't have access right now. Lake Susan doesn't look like it's going to be a problem to get access on the lake. Council did approve LAWCON application for boat access at Lake Susan at Lake Susan Park. This would be the time line on that. I'm preparing the LAWCON grant now. We should find out in September if we are approved for the grant. We would hold public hearings in July to October timeframe once we find out if we are approved. Then we could begin construction next spring. The second one was Lake Lucy. This one's going to be a little big more difficult because there is the only publicly owned property on Lake Lucy is Greenwood Shores Park. I've let the Pollution Control Agency and the Watershed District and DNR know that we don't feel that that's an adequate spot for a boat access. They can't proceed with the DNR's portion of the work or even the PCA's portion of the funding without access on the lake. I don't know if they're going to approve this schedule or not because it is pretty long term but we have to do a study project before we can even Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 18 ~ proceed to know where we're going to get access. Hasek: I have a question. Is this a motorized boat access? Non- motorized boat access? Sietsema: It has to be equal to whatever the riparian rights are. If they can have a boat with a motor, than we have to provide an access. It could suffice if we non-motorize the lake and that would take the rights of those homeowners away. Hasek: How about, is there a way that that could be kind of finangled through and dealt through at the same, listen, this is the only property that we have on the lake, on this particular lake. However, we don't feel that it's right that this be a public launch. Would you allow us in this case to put a canoe launch into this lake if we did certain things to improve the park like include some parking spaces? Sietsema: If the homeowners have boat access on that lake, there's a little gravel access right down to the lake. Hasek: Is that a fire lane? Sietsema: No, it's privately owned and as long as they have that, we have to provide equal access. If we restrict the lake, water surface useage zoning, if we restrict it so that there are no motorized boats allowed, ~ only air or paddled powered, then a walk-in launch would probably do the trick but those people that live on the lake with their motorboats would not be able to use their motorboats either. Boyt: What about widening that channel and then putting some barrier so the levels don't change? Sietsema: The problem with a barrier is how you're going to get the boat over the barrier. Boyt: If the boats that are allowed on Lake Ann are non-motorized except for an electric motor and they keep it the same and lifted them. Sietsema: But then how are you going to get motorized access over... Boyt: We wouldn't have motorized access. Sietsema: Then you'd have to rezone the lake. The problem with that, our goal is to get LAWCON money to provide access. They don't cover dredging and it would require quite a bit of dredging and the other problem is, the water quality of Lake Lucy is less than... Boyt: That's where if you had a barrier up, Lake Lucy wouldn't be affected. Sietsema: I looked into it quite a bit and the further down the chain of-' approval that I got with the State and the Federal, the more obstacles there were and I pretty much put it on the back burner because it didn't Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 19 ""...., look very likely. I'm not saying though, we will definitely keep continuing to look at that option. Schroers: Is Rice Marsh included in this? Sietsema: Rice Marsh, they are going to be doing a fish kill but they're not going to be doing any other work on it so they don't need an access on that one. Mady: The private access on Lucy is at the top of utica isn't it? Boyt: Yes. Mady: It's not real wide. Sietsema: It's just a little gravel but it's a clear... Mady: ...not far from the lake, it's over 199 feet long I think. Schroers: If it ever would get to that point on Rice Marsh, I think that's another lake where we would want to have a non-motorized classification. ~. Sietsema: Rice Marsh Lake has a different classification of a lake. It's not necessarily a recreational lake I believe so they don't require accesses on that type of a lake or it's not a priority. It's not a requirement. I didn't want to question them too much on it because I didn't want them to require us to have access because the only property we have there, we'd have to dredge out swamp for 699 feet. Schroers: I know. I've used that in the winter and I know exactly what you're talking about. Sietsema: That'd be tough so they haven't required. They only said Lake Lucy and Lake Susan. The key thing on all of this is that the City Council, the reason I brought it to your attention is City Council has made the Park and Recreation Commission the lead agency on these two. To getting access on these two lakes so the public hearings and all of the work functions will have to be done by this body. That with the land acquisition in the southern part of the City and the trail thing that's coming up on referendum is going to be requiring this body to have probably more meetings than we already are or meetings are dedicated solely to one topic. A public hearing on a boat access could well go from 7:39 to 11:99 at night, very easily. Boyt: Are Carol and Mike interested in being on the Commission? ,...., Sietsema: Mike did contact me and said that until he can get control over his company, there were going to be meetings that he was going to miss. He'd like to stay but if you don't feel that he's here enough, he'll quit at your request. Boyt: No, I was just wondered if he was interested. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 20 --' Sietsema: No, the only reason he's not here is because his long term employee of 12 years up and quit and he's got more business than he knows what to do with. He's got his wife working full time for him now too. He's got three new employees that don't do the job of the one guy that left yet so until he gets his business back on it's feet, he's here when he can. He doesn't know until 7:30 whether he's going to be here or not. Thanks for bringing that up because I did want to bring that to your attention. It's not that he's not interested. Boyt: Mike has such a good background. Mady: Especially when it comes to the water surface and the boat access issue. The one thing I was wondering about Lake Lucy. The residents of Greenwood Shores are going to be impacted on Lake Lucy no matter what we do and they've taken a big interest in their area. Would it be beneficial for us to ask them to participate on maybe a small task force or something, to study the area and come to us with a recommendation... Sietsema: ...Lake Lucy Highlands that has not been sold yet, although the last I heard there was an interested buyer. It's 5.9 acres of which 5.3 is under water. It would require quite a bit of dredging. Like 400 feet of dredging out to open water that would have to be done on a maintenance level too and that's where they would propose that it go. Whoever look~ at this is going to have to look at every inch of shoreline around there.-' If 2 or 3 people join a subcommittee that would look at it and bring the facts back. Mady: If we just did it by ourselves, they're going to fight us the whole way versus okay, you go to Greenwood Shores Homeowners Association and say, look guys, there aren't any other homeowner associations around the lake and say, we've got to do this. Council's already approved the money. We're already committed to doing it. You tell us how we can do it feasibily and with the least expense and the least impact but it's got to be feasible. Schroers: Because they're going to come back at this point and say, we don't want it. Mady: That's not an option. Sietsema: That's not an option. I think that that could be very useful and we probably would get a lot of people and I think that would be good. I would recommend though that we have at least 3 people from the Park Commission that would be the lead people and then we could hold the information gathering. They could bring back the information and hold public hearings as far as what our options are at that point in time. Mady: I don't think they would hold the public hearing. I see us holdin~ the public hearing. -' Sietsema: Right, that's what I said. You guys have to hold the public hearing but the sucommittee could do the background work. It could be a little committee off the Commission. What I was getting at is that I Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 21 ".... think we may want to do the same thing with the southern parkland so that not everybody is involved in all this stuff. I know that my meeting schedule between trailway task force, community center task force, lake access task force, south parkland and Park and Rec Commission and City Council. You still have somebody going to City Council. We've gome some people on the trails. All these things. There's a lot of things going on that need to be decided between now and the first of the year. Between now and November and then some of these can go past that but I don't want to put it all off until the last minute either because there's a lot of information that needs to be gathered and this isn't something that can all be directed to staff to do. There are people that are going to be interested in doing this, are going to have to do some of the footwork too. Robinson: I think that's a good idea that Jim is saying, to get them involved up front. Mady: You guys come up with the ideas too. They're saying we're responsive to the public. We're saying, okay you're the public, you come to us. You give us something that's feasible. It's got to be feasible. Boyt: It sounds like we need to run an ad saying we need people for three ...committees. We have one, we have the trails but we need the southern acquisition.. . ,... Mady: I'm not sold on going with an...committee on the southern park acquisition right now. I'm just not. I think we have the tools in front of us right now to start with it and maybe at the public hearings after we find out. We know what we want. What we're looking for. There are a few people such as Klingelhutz who have, right off the top of his head knowledge of that specific area of town who could tell us, yes you can get about 40 acres of flat land. Sietsema: But a lot of that footwork, again I think that 3 people from the Commission as a subcommittee. I'm not necessarily saying we open that up to the public to come in and help us make that decision on the southern park but 3 people could do the footwork on that and bring the information back so that the 3 people that are on the lake access thing don't have to be at all those. There are going to be special meetings that we're going to have to do. I don't know, whatever. I'm going to be here anyways, so I was just trying to make your meeting schedule. We can't seem to get away from two meetings. I've been trying to push everything off to one agenda and things come up with the way the Planning schedule is and everything, we're pretty much stuck with 2 meetings a month. If we could assing our second meeting a month to one of these othere three topics, that would work but it doesn't look like that's really feasible because we need that time for just our... ,..... Hasek: I think I was going to suggest the possibility of making one a working meeting and one a business meeting but I think that because the Council and Planning Commission don't do that, than we're kind of forced to do what they do. If they only took business once a month, like some cities do, that would certainly free us up to do some discussion stuff at Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 22 ....."" other meetings and do what we wanted for some of these projects that we wanted to see. Boyt: We could use some working meetings too. Robinson: I think we spend far too long on some of these items and we get off track. There's no reason why we should spend an hour and 29 minutes on this thing so far. I really think we do get off track a lot. Hasek: I would tend to agree but I don't know that that's necessarily going to change the time, the length of it, because I think all it's going to do is facilitate discussion... Sietsema: Another thing that might help in discussion is you just call me with your questions before the meeting. You get your packets on Saturday. Hasek: Today. Sietsema: You got your packet today? Hasek: That's why I wasn't there at the thing tonight. I got mine today. Schroers: Sometimes I get mine on Monday. ....."" Sietsema: They go out in the mail on Friday. Hasek: More often than not I get mine on Monday. Once in a while I get it on Saturday so I can look at it and... Sietsema: I might look into having maybe yours delivered then because I'm hoping, I could make an effort only it's really difficult because I don't get Minutes until Friday so I have to hold off until Friday if you guys want to see your Minutes from the meeting before but otherwise, typically I have most of my items done by Thursday. I could try and get it in the mail on Thursday and then mail you the Minutes on Friday or something. That would give you an extra day but the point I was making is that if you have, some of the questions that you have, if you just want points cleared up, you could call me those during the day on Monday or Tuesday and that would maybe eliminate some of the discussion or some of the confusion at the meeting. I know that some of the Council people do that. Boyt: Normally Bill stop and pick up his packets on Friday. Sietsema: That's another option too. Hasek: On Friday, the only way I could get them on Friday is if Todd brought them to the ballgame because I sometimes don't get home until 7:39. Sietsema: You're out at the park on Friday nights? gate. If you call me and remind me. ..""", I can leave it at the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 23 ,..., Hasek: I think it would just be easier if you could arrange to have them mailed on Thursday. Sietsema: I'll try that. I can't make any promises because often I don't get my planning referrals until Wednesday and it's tough to go out to the site and everything and get the report and everything done by Thursday. Mady: What do we need to do here? anything we need to do is there? On Lake Susan I don't think there's Approve it maybe? Sietsema: No. I don't need approval on this. What I need is if you want to have a subcommittee formed to do both lake accesses or how you want to handle this. Do you just want me to try and schedule some time during the meetings as they come up that we can work on this or how? I need some direction. You guys have to be the lead agency and there's going to be a lot of work involved and I just need some direction on how you want to handle it. ,...., Hasek: I don't think there's any reason why we shouldn't try and formulate that this is really associations, some sort of committees with abutting properties on both of them, if that's possible. I don't know if there's any, maybe what we'll simply do is mail it out to those people that are adjoining the lake right there and ask them if they want to organize and recommend three people. Let them get organized out there and send us three people that we can react with and they can take the information back. I don't think you need 59 people in here saying... Sietsema: On Lake Susan I don't know that we need do that because we have the site selected. We need to just hold the public hearing. Hasek: So it's really the site selection process? Sietsema: It's the site selection process that's going to be the... Schroers: Are we going to receive any information or direction from the DNR and the Watershed District and the people from LAWCON, that give us the grant? Are we going to have guidelines to follow? Sietsema: The same as Lotus Lake. I have the guidelines. Boat accesses have to be open 14 hours a day between 4:99 in the morning and 12:99 midnight. They have to be open to everybody free and equally. There has to be handicap spaces. There has to be 1 parking space for every 29 acres of water surface. There has to be equal access, whatever the riparian users, whatever the rights have to be equal, the non-riparian users have to have the same rights on the lake. That's pretty much it. ,..... Schroers: From my point of view, I would really like to see those things listed and take a look at that before we decide how many residents and stuff to get involved and how big of a committee to try and put together. I think we need to know what it is that we have to accomplish before we start picking people to do it. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 24 ......"" Robinson: Maybe we should almost give notice that we're having a meeting here to talk about it, whether you call it a public hearing, and layout the ground rules so everybody understands and try to formulate a group at that point. You're right, it shouldn't be 50 people. Hasek: I would think each one of them has 2 people from it's group so you have at least a group...and 3 people from the neighborhood over there or around the lake. Maybe 2 from an association. Schroers: Maybe just 2 and have the entire subcomittee consist of four because anytime you add another person it's just going to be that much harder to get an agreement. Hasek: Five is kind of, they usually give us odd numbers. Sietsema: If we got someone from Lake Lucy Highlands and a couple people from Greenwood Shores and 2 people from the Park Commission, I think that would be a good size group. We could have a public meeting right off the bat to say this is why we're doing this and would you people go and pick the people you'd like to be on. Robinson: And just tell them all the ground rules. Sietsema: There isn't a lot to know about what is required for an access~ The two big things are that you have to have 1 parking space for 20 acres and it has to be equal access. The lake homeowners can't have anymore rights than the non-lake homeowners. Hasek: with the 20 parking stalls, how big is Lake Lucy? Sietsema: Lake Lucy is 134 acres so it would be require 7 parking spaces. Hasek: Can we get 7 into that lot on Lake Lucy? Sietsema: The person that I met with on the DNR said that given the circumstances, they may be able to fudge a little bit and allow 3 spaces on the street if we had 4 spaces off street. Mady: I guess I'd like to see us publish in the paper and maybe send a notice out to each homeowners association in the Lake Lucy area, that we'll be holding a meeting, say the second meeting in July. The first item on the agenda to formulate, get their ideas on how to form a group and study it. That a group be formulated and come back to us by say October 1st or something with a recommendation, or at least some ideas to discuss so we can get this thing moving. Hasek: Can we do this, let's send a letter to the president of the associations, if there is, and let him distribute them. That will start them working right off the bat. ~. Sietsema: Instead of notifying each one? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 25 ,..... Hasek: Instead of notifying each one and then we would go through and notify any individual homeowner that owns property abutting the lake. The two things we would list is we are looking for two people from Greenwood Shores to be on this committee and one person. Mady: I don't know if you want to specify that. We're going to get 3 people plus us. Three people out of the Lake Lucy area along with 2 park commissioners to formulate a subcommittee to study the lake access question concerning the pollution water clean-up project. Sietsema: We need to put it in the paper too then? Mady: Yes, put it in the paper too. We can cover all bases. Sietsema: Basically then, what we're going to tell them is that we're going to be holding a meeting in July discussing access on Lake Lucy. Mady: Formulation of a group to study the access as it relates to... Sietsema: And what the requirements are. Hasek: Can we add something else to that? Who's going to choose those people? If Greenwood Shores gives us 3 and Highlands gives us 1 and ,..... somebody else or whoever else gives us another one and says I'd like to volunteer to be on that committee to be chosen and they should be added to be chosen. Sietsema: I'll have to check with Roger and see if you can pick them or a committee like this has to be Council appointed. I'm not really sure. Mady: It's our subcommittee, we should be choosing. Sietsema: I took that as a motion. Mady moved, Hasek seconded to notify the pUblic that a public meeting will be held in July to formulate a committee to study the lake access issue on Lake Lucy. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: On Lake Susan, we should be able to hold a public hearing on that. Sietsema: Yes, I really don't think we need a special committee. I wouldn't think that we need to hold a public hearing on that until after we know if our grant was preliminarily approved. SETTING OBJECTIVES FOR PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN, JIM ,..... MA D Y . Mady: I took the form that Bill Boyt gave us on decision analysis and then put my ideas down. All this is, this thing is running basically as a starting place. It starts out with a decision statement. We list off Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - page 26 ....., what our objectives are. Some of those objectives are going to be must objectives and some of them if you want objectives and we've got to go from there. Really, at this point all I'm looking for I think is, I put up 13 things that I could think of for objectives. Maybe you don't agree with the decision statement either. All I think I'm looking for right now is to see us start on the first two items and maybe at the next meeting we'll list all our objectives and then we can start determining whether or not they are must or want objectives or if they belong there at all or whatever and then we can start the process. We can get our objectives set up so that by August 1 we can start looking for alternatives and determine how those alternatives will be looked at. Unless you think we need to formulate a committee? Sietsema:. I don't know. It's totally up to you. Mady: I guess I'd like to see us, since we're the ones who know what we want for a park... Sietsema: I think the first two have to be set up by this Commission and then if you want to break into a subcommittee to go from there. Mady: I can really see us getting in people like Al Klingelhutz, Tim Erhart and some of those people who live in that area and are familiar with that area, come in and talk to us and say this is what you should be-' doing. This piece of property is like this. I've driven around basically pioneer Trail to TH 101 to Lyman down down CR 117 and around there a couple of times to look at pieces but I don't think that's a good enough feel for it. That's a lot of land in there. There might be a piece that's optimal to build that isn't visible from the road. I'd like to see us go to number 2 and then maybe invite some people in and start listening to them or having a special meeting to discuss it because I think it's going to take a special meeting. Sietsema: What I would like to do is agree on number 1, on the decision statement, and then everybody think about the objectives with yours here. Schedule on the second meeting in July, I can schedule the first half to talk about Greenwood Shores, we have an hour and a half, hour and 15 minutes to talk about that and the second half would be dedicated to going through objectives for south park. That's all we would do at that meeting. That would give us to be in a really good frame of mind to concentrate on two heavy issues. Hopefully, I'll try and defer all the other things to next meeting and the meeting after the second one in July. Mady: Anybody have any thoughts on this decision statement? Boyt: Do we have $300,000.00? Mady: And a little bit for the developer. Boyt: I thought that was the purchase. Mady: It's the purchase but if we can save, if we buy $100,000.00 piece. If we have two parcels of land that we're interested in arid they're fairly -' Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 27 ,..... close and we can get one for $200,000.00 and one for $300,000.00, maybe we save $100,000.00 to develop instead of spending it all on one... Boyt: What does the referendum say? Sietsema: I don't know that we can use the money for development. Hoffman: Park acquisition. Schroers: The only problem that I have with the decision statement is if we should consider a park as small as 50 acres. Boyt: I think we need to do what the referendum statement. Mady: What we need to do then is find out from Roger if we're specifically limited to exactly what is said here. The question on the referendum, should the City of Chanhassen be authorized to sell bonds not to exceed $300,000.00 to purchase parklands in the southern portion of the community. Boyt: I think that's what we should be looking at. I think that's what our decision statement should be. Purchase lands in southern Chanhassen not to exceed $300,000.00 for the park. ,..... Schroers: What framework or keep it in mind that maybe 50 acres would be too small. Making it an objective then and look at it more towards the 100 acre parcel. Mady: I guess the $300,000.00 is really an objective too. Are we looking for a portion in the southern park. Sietsema: That limits us, we can't go over that. Mady: That's one objective. There's a limit set. That's really what it is. You're right, that's one of the objectives. Schroers: Unless we know, if someone knows, there is quite a bit of land out in that area along CR 117 that is posted as wildlife sanctuary. Is that private land that's posted as wildlife sanctuary? Is there anything in the City's ordinances pertaining to wildlife sanctuaries? Hoffman: I believe that's, isn't that in Chaska? Schroers: Is it in Chaska or is it not in Chaska? Where CR 117 makes that curve, everything on this side is Chaska? Mady: It's Chaska. ~ Schroers: Okay, what I was talking about was up in here where it says wildlife sanctuary and I was just wondering. Mady: It didn't say it in the referendum but in all the things we published, it was south of Lyman Blvd.. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 28 .....", Sietsema: So you want your decision statement to be... Mady: Where should the City of Chanhassen locate a park in the southern portion of the City? Everything else is an objective direction. Boyt: The statement could be to acquire parkland in southern Chanhassen? Sietsema: Okay. Then I'll schedule, if that's in agreement by everybody, I'll schedule just two items on the July 26th meeting. One being lake access and one being south parkland. Schroers: I would like to know about the wildlife sanctuary. Is that a private thing? Is it a State thing? What is it? If that's a wildlife sanctuary, if that would restrict us from being able to use that land for park area. Mady: If it's in Chaska. Let's on with 7, the park shelter. LAKE ANN PARK SHELTER BUILDING. Sietsema: What the Legion and I have come to understand is what I've -' written in the letter to them, is that they are willing to pay up to $25,000.00 on the park shelter which leaves $3,300.00 that neither we or the Legion is planning to pay. The quote came in at $9,009.00. Roughly $10,000.00. That put the ball back in our court. Are we going to pick up that? Are we going to go back and request that they pick it up? Are we going to scale down the finishing work? How do we want to do it? We do have the alternative to use Chaska Lion's Club money. We recently received two donations which add up to $11,000.00 which is roughly what we need to do the finishing work and get the electrical up to that shelter. That would approve an additional $10,000.00 that we're loaning to the Legion. Then we would pay the additional $3,300.00 and we could do the $8,000.00 for the electrical work. That would get the job done. Schroers: Would it be feasible to split that $3,300.00 with the Legion and make a compromise of 50-50 on that $3,300.00? Sietsema: We can ask them. The big question right now, and I haven't talked to the Legion directly about this, evidentally they lost their pulltab license and that's what they're making their money on and I don't know how they're going to pay the $15,000.00 back much less $25,000.00. I don't know if they sell that many steaks. They've opened for business now for lunches but the whole thing was set up that they were going to pay us back with pull tab money. Robinson: How did they lose their pulltabs? ....,,; Sietsema: Pull tabs, as I understand it, they originally set up the pulltabs so that, it's charitable gambling so all your proceeds had to go to charity. Then they said it costs us to have someone there selling them and sometimes we have to leave space and okay, so you can take some of Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 29 ,.... your operating costs out of that. The rest has to go to charity. People were abusing it by, these people that were coming in needed a place to park so they'd repave their parking lot. They need a place to sit so they'd add an addition and they need a bigger place to have it and they'd add another. I don't know if the Legion was doing that but now the State has cut back and said forget it, this is bogus. Everything has to go to charity. I don't know if that had to do. That's what is happening all around the state with the charitable gambling and I don't know what the story is with Chan Legion. I don't know if they fit into that category or not but I know they aren't selling pull tabs right now. Mady: I'll tell you how I'm leaning personally, the City Council has recently given us the Excelsior Amusement Park building to use at Lake Ann and that's going to require some extensive work. From my way of thinking, that thing is going to end up being our center of activity up there. We probably will be able to put in that a real nice area inside that. I'm thinking that maybe we should just put concrete underneath that new shelter out there and leave it as is until we have a real firm position with what's going to happen with the carousel building because I don't want to see us put all this money into this thing and two months from now find our we're going to put the carousel building 300 feet away from it and it's going to have all the same stuff in it. ,.... Hasek: When was the carousel building going to Lake Ann for positive? Mady: Basically they said it's up to us to determine how we're going to utilize it. Hasek: In Lake Ann? Mady: In Lake Ann. Hasek: So it's in good enough shape to go into Lake Ann? Sietsema: The City Council approved accepting the carousel building and they found someone who is willing to move it at no cost or minimum cost and they approved a budget for refurbishing and foundation of, I think it was $25,000.00. You remember $50,000.00 so... Mady: The paper was saying $50,000.00 but you never know. Sietsema: I'll have to look back in the Minutes and find out exactly what that was supposed to go for. If that was supposed to be moving costs or what exactly but that gives us $25,000.00 for foundation and refurbishing. I don't know how far that's going to go on a building that size. Schroers: That should actually be a totally separate project from this other shelter. . J!I""' Sietsema: It is. Schroers: And I don't see us doing ourselves or the Legion a favor by extending their debt to $25,000.00 at Lake Ann. To pay the $15,000.00... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 30 .....", Sietsema: I got a quote, and I should have brought that down with me, I extracted the quote of just the concrete and I think it's $3,000.00 just for the concrete. For the Legion park shelter. That would be stubbing in for electrical. Mady: The other option also is just to leave it as it's been graded. Hasek: Those footings stuff sitting out there is just... Schroers: Well, the footings aren't really sticking out. Since we looked at it last night, they went in there and graded it out so it's about up to the level of the footings. There's a picnic table sitting underneath there on fairly level... Hasek: I guess I'd still like to see something put underneath there. It's just another thing that's unfinished. Hoffman: Isn't that going to be used for ballfield concessions in the center where that carousel building you wouldn't want to be designing ballfield concessions underneath that thing. Schroers: I think we need to pursue our original, go with our original .....", plans on that building and try to get it completed as best we can but by putting the Legion further in debt on it and putting ourselves in a position where we're not going to be able to recollect the debt on it, doesn't sound like very good business practice to me. Robinson: I guess I just disagree, I don't agree that it has to be completed as soon as possible. I think we've got to start sticking to a budget. For the same reason I was opposed against that zamboni. We have about the same thing. Somebody comes to us and says we've got to do it tonight. We've got to make a $5,000.00 decision. The hell with it. That thing has been sitting there for 2 years and nothing happened. The Legion has given us promises. Let it sit there until next year and let's put it in the budget for next year. That's my feeling. I've got to say that I agree with Jim but for a different reason. By then we'll have an idea that the carousel will fit in there and we just need a foundation or we just need a place to put the keg out of the rain or something. Hasek: I guess my gut reaction, just knowing about how the park is going to layout, is that that structure, if you want to put it in the middle, has got to do almost exactly where that little building is. It's got to be on top of that hill someplace. Mady: There's a couple different places it would fit. Hasek: You can't put it on the highest hill because that sucker would blow over. You give it time and some wind storm will take that thing ~ right down. Mady: Right now, where it's located right now is basically on top of a hill and it's been sitting there for a lot of years. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 31 """ Hasek: I know what that structure, now that you mentioned where it came from, I know what the structure looks like because I spent a lot of time there growing up. Not as a little kid but as a teenager. Schroers: What I'm hearing you say here though, I think someone is giving the idea that the facility would be multipurpose and solve all the problems. It's going to take care of the ballfields and the rest of the areas too and I don't really see that. I think we need a separate concession for the ballfields. Boyt: The carousel is going to serve a different need. Schroers: Absolutely. That's going to be for the picnic groups and things like that. If you had us for both, there would be conflicting on a weekend when you had a ball tournament out there and a picnic group is going to use it. Boyt: I would like to see the Legion finish paying for this. If they want to make some fundraisers. They made a commitment to us and they're an upstanding organization. I can't imagine that they would back out on something that they're donating to us. ,.... Schroers: I agree with that. Boyt: They're an upstanding group. They're not going to say, we've changed our mind. I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and let them pay for it. Hasek: What I was going to suggest was thinking about what the possibility, I would hate looking at this thing finished exactly where it's sitting because I don't think, if the carousel is going in there, which I'm very disappointed to hear, the building is going to go. I think that this building is going to want to be moved. However, I think it needs to be finished to a point where it's useable and I don't think with gravel in there right now makes it entirely useable. What I would like to see us do is to put a floor in that thing with the idea that potentially that structure will be moved at some point in the future. Perhaps it's more centrally located within the ballparks to serve the ballparks at that time. Then, if we've got the floor underneath it, at least we've had it there to use for a couple of years if it takes that long, in some form that it is useable. It won't be that expensive to move that structure in the future and remove the concrete pad and it's not that great of a loss. We've still got what we've got there. I think at the same time we do have to keep the commitment that the Legion has ~ade to us and I don't know how we can facilitate that. Sietsema: Don't you think that that will be somewhat centrally located ~ when the other three fields are built and there's another field on the other side? Hasek: potentially but if you recall, we talked about the possibility of maybe putting another one down below anyway. This one was going to have Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 32 ....,." this stuff. Because it was going to be completed, this was going to have the concessions. The other potentially would be just a picnic structure. Now we've got a big building coming in that might be able to take up a lot of that picnic stuff and we'll just reverse the roles possibly. It needs to be looked at more than I think... Sietsema: I think we are going to be looking at the Lake Ann development with hopefully construction beginning next spring. That would be the time to move that structure. Hasek: At least to locate it I would say. Boyt: They need it out of the location it's in right now. Sietsema: I'm talking about the park shelter. The little park shelter. The time to move that thing would be when they're going to do the other three ballfields and put it in the spot that you want it so if that's going to happen within the next year. Hasek: Yes, but see that's not going to be used for those other ballfields for at least, what did we say, 3 years? 2 years at least. It's not going to be centrally located at least for the next 2 years because those other ballfields aren't going to be used. They're in construction stages for at least 2 years so even though that may be the -' appropriate time to move those structures, it's not going to be used and it doesn't make any sense to move it unless we're going to use it. I don't think there's any cost benefit in moving it unless we can grade the site for it or something. ... Sietsema: No, what I was saying is why pour the concrete if you're going to move it within the year? Hasek: But it wouldn't be, I'm thinking more 2, possibly 3 years before it gets done. We're hoping that construction begins next spring. Mady: What are we waiting for on Lake Ann? We've got a plan set up, why can't we turn it over to Mark and say, okay let's bid and let's go? Sietsema: Right now we're looking at architects. We're not necessarily going with Mark's firm. Mady: This isn't even the 1st of the July, they can grade through the middle of November. Sietsema: This potentially, they could start some work this fall. Boyt: The architect would be able to do the carousel and the small structure. The architect will look at those and decide the best place fo- them. ...",. Mady: After seeing the structure tonight and how they've graded and what they've done out there, we can easily get by with what we've got for the remainder of the year. If we want to put a pad underneath it, maybe what ,...... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 33 we want to do is put a floating wood deck underneath it instead of putting concrete down. It has to be even more solid than the gravel. The gravel's been done. Staff's done a nice job of getting that very level and very, very useful. The ball season is ending up out there. They probably wouldn't get much use out of it anyhow so I think we'd wasting, potentially wasting $3,000.00 at this time. We need to get a little bit better feeling from the Legion as to what their financial situation is and their plans for repayment and what they actually can do before we commit. I don't want to see us utilize the Lion's donation for this project. I'd rather see that go into a more recreational use. Sietsema: So do you want me to contact the Legion and say we're going to leave it sit the way it is and we hope to start receiving payment on the current loan that they have. We understand that their pulltab business in no longer... Mady: Just ask them for advice. Advise us as to what their plans are. Sietsema: What I was thinking is that if you can prove that you can pay this off without your pulltab business, next year we'll budget for the $10,000.00 to finish the thing but right now we're not willing to take that risk. ,.... Hasek: Exactly. Just tell them exactly that's the truth but we need to know from them what their action is going to be... Sietsema: They fully intend to pay the $15,000.00 so far. Hasek: But it's the addition to see it completed and that's kind of the whole ball of wax. If this is the bill, are you intending on paying this or are you kind of stopping where you're at now? What's going on? You've got to get them to make some sort of statement as to what they intend to do, I would guess. They said they're going to pay the $15,000.00. Are they going to pay the $25,000.00 if we loan them $10,000.00 more? That's the question. Sietsema: Yes, they plan to but again, without the pulltabs... Hasek: I know they plan to... Boyt: Let's not lend it to them. They can come up with it on their own. Hasek: We kind of committed to lending it to them didn't we? Sietsema: We committed to lending them $15,000.00. Hasek: But not ten more? ,.... Sietsema: Not ten more. Robinson: Tell them to take another $10,000.00 to complete it and we'll expect that in the spring of 1989. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 34 ......" Hasek: That's really based on the labor right? They're not providing the labor to build it? Sietsema: The $10,000.00 over? Yes, basically they went over budget because 3 years of increased prices while it sat out there for 2 years and then they didn't have the volunteer labor. They had to pay for it. If I could have a motion directing me what you really want me to do, that would be helpful. Hasek: I think I'd inform them that we're not going to complete the structure at this time. Whether we put a floor in it or not, I guess I'd like to see it but I'm certainly not going to hold things up because I want a floor. Sietsema: This is a recommendation that goes to Council. Hasek: If we recommend that we not complete the structure at this time. That if anything, we'll budget it for next year and we contact the Legion and let them know exactly what's going on. What our intentions are and ask them what their intentions are based on what we know needs to be done to that to complete it. How they would like to handle the payment for that. That's my recommendation. Sietsema: Would you like to also include in that, to contact the Legion,-' that we're expecting their monthly payment starting immediately? So they can prove that they do have the ability to pay? Boyt: No, just that we expect it. Not to prove to us. Hasek: We trust they're going to pay. Boyt: I don't think that's being too hard on them. Schroers: Are we open for discussion on this a little bit? that we want to say that we would recommend not to complete. think that we would like to... I don't know I would Hasek: Delay completion? Schroers: Not even delay completion. I would like it to say that we would intend to proceed as planned and we would just like them to start their payments as scheduled and to proceed with the shelter as best they can or ask how they intend to. I don't know that we want to say that we want to delay or stop the progress of completing the shelter. Sietsema: They can't proceed without us lending them $10,000.00. Boyt: They can raise the $10,000.00 on their own. Mady: What we're doing is we should be recommending that the City not spend any more funds to complete the Lake Ann shelter and ask the Legion how they expect to proceed with it. At this time we will not expend any further funds to finish it from the City budget and nail the Legion to ...."" ""'" Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 35 corne up with ideas to finish the structure. Robinson: We've got a financial problem so throw it in their court. Schroers: If we make that statement and we're saying that we are not planning to go ahead with construction or with finishing it, we're kind of telling them that the thing is on hold and they're going to say, okay, the thing's on hold so now we can sit on it for a while and that's exactly what's going to happen. Nothing. Boyt: We can just deal with the financial. Just say that we're waiting for payment and want to know what their plans are for the future completion. Sietsema: Except that the City contacted them and said if they didn't get on the ball we were going to take it over and we took over the project. Boyt: Well, they still owe us money. Sietsema: The City is now in the driver's sit of completing this project. I went out and got the quotes for $10,000.00. I was hopefully going to be able to get this thing done by the 4th of July. Again, another deadline ~ has gone by but I continually get pressure from the public and from the Council on what's happening with this thing so I called up Bernie and I said, can I just take it over and go ahead and bill you guys? Schroers: That's all the more reason that we don't want to say that we're putting it on hold right? Boyt: If we bill them, would they pay? Sietsema: $500.00. They made two payments last year. Boyt: Last year. Okay, then maybe we need to deal with the fact that we billed them and they didn't pay. Mady: What we definitely need to deal with, what Lori is asking us to do is asking to spend $10,000.00 and finish the project. Boyt: I don't think we want to. It doesn't sound like we want to. Mady: We need to vote on that and then we need to deal with the Legion also. ~ Sietsema: What I'd like to do then is to tell the Legion that no, we do not have it in our 1988 budget to spend $10,000.00, loan them $10,000.00 more. please make your payments and we will look to budgeting for this project in 1989, if that's what you're planning on doing. Hasek: That basically I guess is what I thought I had said. That we would tell them that we haven't got $10,000.00 to loan them. That we're not going to loan that to them at this time and try to get them to suggest ways that they can complete this project themselves. If they decided that Park and Recreation Commission Meeting June 28, 1988 - Page 36 ......" they're not going to be able to complete it, and they send us a letter saying that, then we've got the option. Then our options are open. Then we can say, okay are we going to spend the money to complete this thing next year? Are we going to move it? Maybe we'll have a plan by then? It pushes the decision off for us but it also allows them time. Sietsema: It can open the door back up to put it back in their ballpark and say, if you can get the labor together and finish it, that would be wonderful. Hasek: You might also suggest that you've gotten a lot of phone calls from people in this city. Sietsema: They know. They get grief when they're up there playing ball. All the Legion members and the Sons of American Legion. Mady: We've got a motion on the floor and I think Susan seconded it. We'd be glad to know what the motion is. Sietsema: Ed moved to recommend that we not expend the money now in 1988 to complete the project but budget it for 1989. Also, ask the Legion what their intention of payment is and that we expect their payment and to suggest to them that they proceed with getting volunteer labor to finish the proj ect. --'" Mady: One thing that we talked about in there was, you said that we would put in our budget. I'd say that we'll look to put in our budget. I don't want at this point, commit to putting $10,000.00 in our budget to finish that shelter. Schroers: Not to make it more complicated but on the volunteer labor or other resources. Hasek moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend not to expend any funds at this point but to look at budgeting the $10,000.00 in the 1989 budget. Also, to ask the Legion of their intention for payment of the $15,000.00 and that payment is expected. Also, suggest that the Legion consider volunteer labor or other resources for finishing of the park shelter. All voted in favor and the motion carried. FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Hoffman: This is written to the Commission to inform you on what is being planned for the weekend. To keep you updated. There's a schedule of events also that was left with you. .....,.;' The Commission discussed their schedule for helping during the Fourth of July celebration over the weekend. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ,..... June 28, 1988 - Page 37 Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ,..... ,.....