Loading...
PRC 1988 07 26 '" ,..... ,...., CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, Ed Hasek rorl Curt Robinson. MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt and Mike Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated June 28, 1988 and July 12, 1988 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY. Sietsema: The history on this item is that the City recently, this last spring, was notified by the Watershed District that the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes was eligible for a clean-up project grant by the Pollution Control Agency. What that is is a million dollar project that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will fund 50%. DNR will do almost the other 50%. It ends up costing our City $8,300.00 and Eden prairie $8,300.00. One of the stipulations of getting that grant going and getting the project going is that there has to be public access on all of the lakes involved. The lakes involved are Lake Riley, Lake Susan, Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. We do not have access on Lake Lucy or Lake Susan. Lake Susan we don't anticipate there being a big problem because we have the land on the lake that is the right type of the park for that kind of a use. The topography works for that kind of a use. There's not a neighborhood in the area. It doesn't have a lot of conflict so we don't anticipate that there will be any problems although we will be holding public meetings for that boat access also. The one that we are anticipating some problems just finding a spot on the lake is Lake Lucy. I've met with the Pollution Control Agency, the Watershed District and DNR to find out what exactly are you saying is going to qualify for a boat access. Basically what they say is that it has to be equal to whatever is available to the people that live on the lake and it has to have one carl trailer parking space for every 20 acres of water surface. So that would mean we need 7 car/trail~r parking spaces. We need a piece of property that can accomodate the access going in, parking spaces for 7 car/trailers and the same type of use so currently there are no restrictions as far as motor size or speed, or very limited speed restrictions. I think it's 40 mph or something. There are currently no restrictions on Lake Lucy so that means that the people using the public access would have to be able to launch a speed boat. If we wanted to deviate from that, we would have to make it equally restricted to the riparian homeowners. That's the only way they will agree. It's not just the DNR that has these requirements for a public access, it is also the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and quite literally the whole million dollar project pivots on this point. They have to have access to do the project. The project involves fish kills, restocking, winter aeration systems, some things that have to do Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 2 ...."" with run-off and different things that are getting into the water. Stopping things, fertilizers and whatever from getting into the water before they get there. Whether that's educating the people that live around the lake or working with farmers or whatever the main culprit is, run-off or whatever. It involves a lot of different things. It's fish traps, fish barriers, a lot of different things all the way down to Lake Riley. They say this project will be very beneficial for Lake Lucy as well as all the lakes. Lake Ann probably needs the least amount of work but Lake Susan, Lake Riley and Lake Lucy do have some problems that would benefit from this project quite a bit. What we're here for tonight is to basically I think, brainstorm as far as where would be the best place to put an access. It doesn't have to be a paved access. The actual ramp going into the water has to be a concrete slab but it can be gravel with a gravel parking lot. It has to be dry basically and there's so much wetland around. Initially with staff just looking at it, we keep running up against there's so much wetland around the lake. I don't know maybe the people who live around there know the area a little bit better, have been on every piece of property, they know a little bit better than I do but that's basically why we're here tonight is to brainstorm as far as where would be adequate access and where would be suitable. Mady: The other thing is it has to be feasible. Sietsema: Right. Economically feasible. ...." Robinson: How many acres is Lake Lucy? S i e t s em a : 13 4 . Robinson: Which is 7 parking. Sietsema: 135.2 acres. Mady: Outside of a full access, one of the options would be to make it a quiet lake also which would eliminate all motors on the lake thereby allowing carry-ins and things like we have at Lake Ann. That's also an option available. Really what we're doing here is we'd like to invite public comment. If you'd like, get up and state your name and address and make your comment. I would remind everyone that we do have a sign-up sheet at the back of the Council Chambers here that if you put your name and address down there so we can notify you of any further public meetings being held on this particular item. Mark Sanda: My name is Mark Sanda and my wife Kathy and I live on Stellar Court which is that new development up at the top of the cul-de-sac. Merril Stellar's old property and I guess I came up here to ask if anyone who lives over on utica Lane, the people who currently have power boats on the lake, what their feelings are. Someone just came up with what sounds like an intriguing idea to perhaps suggest eliminating power boats or ver. small ones to meet the requirements of the State and yet improve the lake~ The boats that are out there now really aren't creating a problem as far as our family is concerned. We can hear them occasionally but we're such a great distance away from the water that it's not a problem. There only Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 3 ,.... seems to be one or two power boats that are ever operating out there and if those people are here, I'm curious what your thoughts are. You seem to be having a lot of fun when you're out there but if it was the type of a situation where you were thinking of selling your boat or something like that, I'm seeing shaking heads. Sorry I brought up the idea but it seemed like an intriguing possibility but I also have to state, if I was in their position and really enjoyed the recreation aspect of the lake, I would not want to go to no power boats but I just thought is circumstances were creating a situation where that might be possible, that might be a nice way to find a solution. Mady: Are you riparian? Mark Sanda: Yes. Does that mean I live there and I have access? Mady: On the lake. Watson: But you have a lot of distance between you and the lake. Mark Sanda: A tremendous amount, yes. Watson: Can you walk down? ." Mark Sanda: Only via a trail that was built several years ago. Phillips could give us the history on that. It is partially on property and Warren's and it's an access down to that island or penninsula, if you will. That's the only way to get down there. thought that was a neat idea so I thought I'd suggest that. Warren my I just Mady: We're really hear to ask opinions. ...no one has corne up with a solution to this thing. I know we have a lot of wetland around a major portion of the lake and the area that we're trying to find, whether it's developed or not, so we need some ideas and thoughts really. ...this project is going to benefit both our city and the city of Eden Prairie. " Jeff Farmakes: I live at 7100 Utica, we live on the lake. I guess I'm a little confused. I called the DNR when this issue carne up and I asked them what they consider access and this is a direct quote, trailerable access which I'm assuming means the concrete block that you're referring to. I'm sure a lot of people that go to Minnetonka or Waconia or Minnewashta, you're familiar with the concrete blocks that they put in at the driveable access. As far as I know a regular 12 foot fishing boat would take the same trailerable access as a, I would guess up to a 20 foot runabout. I guess that size that's trailerable is trailerable and I don't think that you can restrict what size boat goes on there other than by the four, I believe restrictions that they have that go from nothing to 10 to 15 to 25 or so on, whatever horsepower restriction. My question again is, we're talking about carry-in and the restrictions of the residents of the lake. The access issue is based on the assumption that either it's accessible or it's not. If we just have walk on and we all live with that, how does that constitute access? When they said trailerable access, it has to be trailerable access. I'm confused as to, is the walk on mean that there would still be a ramp there? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 4 .....", sietsema: You mean like a carry-in ramp? Jeff Farmakes: Carry-in or whatever. What does that constitute? Does that constitute a canoe? If so, are we talking about concrete ramp going down there? Sietsema: No. If it were a quiet lake then they would permit, to tell you the truth, I'm not really quite sure what the definition of a walk-in type access is either. Jeff Farmakes: I brought that up to the DNR and they said, first of all not speaking for the PCA, they said as far as they're concerned it would have to be trailerable access to qualify and if that's the case my question is, to qualify this carrier situation because if what we're really talking about here is some sort of restriction situation versus a carry-on because if they don't put a ramp in, it's going to be in there or there's going to be a limitation as to what type of boat based on the size of the ramp. Hasek: A question for you. Would you be in favor of a quiet lake? Jeff Farmakes: I guess I would rather get more information. I think there's an awful lot of information here that we have not been able to assess. I've been trying to call the DNR to find out what some of these ~ classifications are. I would like to one, find out myself what type of improvements further that they're looking at putting in to that particular lake versus the other lakes. Two, if we have restrictions, what restrictions are available. Different classifications, as I understand it are different amounts of motor restrictions and I'm not sure how that would solve the problem. I guess getting back to your original item, I'm not really sure that everybody is really certain, because I'm hearing two different things as to what constitutes an access to the lake as far as they're concerned, if they're going to be the judge of that. Sietsema: Let me answer. When I met with Martha Reger with the DNR, the PCA was there and the Watershed District, I asked them, now if we have a quiet lake, can we have a walk-in access only. Would that qualify because you carryon anything, if it was a quiet lake, pretty much anyway. She didn't say no, we wouldn't accept that. She sounded like they were very willing to work with us as much as possible because this is a difficult situation. We would have to come up with a plan and really sell it to them and tell them why anything else is not feasible. Jeff Farmakes: That's something up to negotiations as far as what they consider. Again, his direct response to me was we consider access to be trailerable access which I'm assuming... Sietsema: Right, and again there are very, very, very few times in fact, since the Christmas Lake thing, they will not negotiate much at all but 1 never say never. They may negotiate in a very difficult situation when ~ you have everything that isn't wetland already developed. They may negotiate. I just don't know but they won't unless we've investigated all Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 5 I"'" other alternatives. Jeff Farmakes: I certainly think that if we're to respond intelligently, we need to better understand from them as to what they would consider access. Sietsema: If you want the clear-cut answer as to what is typically approved and what they stand by in every situation that's possible, they want a trailerable access with the concrete slab. They don't necessarily have to have it paved down to the access but they have the concrete slab going into the water that you can put your duck boat or your fishing boat or your sailboat or whatever, whether it's a quiet lake or not. It doesn't matter. You can take your trailer down there and launch your boat. That's what they want. Jeff Farmakes: Okay, and that's launching 7 parking spots or whatever. Whether it's canoeable or whatever, powerboat or whatever? Sietsema: Right. That's their definition but what I'm saying... 1"""'. Jeff Farmakes: ...more information, just basic information as to what constitutes access. What the restrictions, the various restrictions that we would be considering and where we would be proposing to put this in. As you know, the lake as you said, the west side is very steep and there's a lot of wetlands there. The north side again is very steep and a lot of wetlands there. The little area that divides Lake Ann and Lake Lucy has no access or roads to it at the moment that I know of. Of course, the east side of the lake is the Greenwood Shores area. I guess I have no objections to that. I would certainly like to see the lake improved. I'd like to see more information presented as to what they're considering or what the studies or whatever you're doing for the park, so that we can determine at least what we consider to be a good option. Sietsema: I don't really have all of that information. Jeff Farmakes: ...that we can base any sort of thing on. Sietsema: I have some of the information of what they're actually going to do but they're working on their work plan which will identify what exactly is going to take place on each one of the lakes. What, when, how. How much and what it's going to take to do it and that's to be done, completed in November. I thought that we needed to get rolling on at least getting information from the people that live around the area and start looking at our different options as soon as possible if we're going to meet our commitment to the project. ,..., Mady: What we're really trying to do here is get some ideas from the residents since you do live in the area, know the lake a lot better than most of us up here. We need to get some information. We need to find out where it might work and where it might not work and why this and why that. I guess right now we're looking at, is it possible to put in a regular boat ramp. If we find that it's not feasible, then we're going to have to go back to the DNR and PCA and say, we can not do this based on these 8, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 6 ...." 10, 15 points, whatever and then negotiate down to making it a quiet lake or just a carry-in if that's the only thing available but putting access on Lake Lucy really is the pivoting point on getting all four lakes cleaned up. I know the City of Eden prairie is very, very intereste~ in getting something done on Lake Riley and they have for a number of years and we do need to get something done with Susan and Lucy. Lake Ann to a lesser extent but that's kind of where we're sitting. It's very important we do have some ideas and some thoughts on Lake Susan and have actually tried for grants in the past to put a boat access on Lake Susan so we don't feel that one's going to be quite as tough to do. Lake Lucy, we just don't have a lot of good ideas. Basically it's because of the amount of wetland around there. It's pretty difficult to put a boat access on there. Eric Rivkin: I'm a riparian homeowner on Lake Lucy on the west side. I'm going to try and answer your concerns about why what's going on with the DNR and why the Christmas Lake thing is different than this situation. What the DNR might think about bargining down to a walk-in access opposed to a trailer boat access. I talked to the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association President and I also talked to the person in charge, at the DNR, in charge of getting access to that project because I considered buying a lot on that lake at one time and I wanted to find out what was going on. I found out that because I was inquiring, I was investigating why the lot and all of a sudden I get a call from the Lake Owners Association President saying, pleading wi th me not to sell the land to tt,-, DNR because the DNR sent agents out to buy land secretly to try and get access to Christmas Lake. I found out through the underground that's their way of getting it. The reason for that is, I found out is because there was a lot of public pressure to get access on Christmas Lake and they tried for 30 years to get access on Christmas Lake. They paid dearly for that piece of land that's there. They had a quarter of a million dollar budget to buy whatever it took to get access. I don't think you're going to find a lot of public pressure, and I don't know what kind of public pressure you got to get access to Lake Lucy but this seems to be just to get the benefits to clean it up rather than a lot of neighbors calling and saying, when are we going to get access to Lake Lucy. Did you get any letters saying that? Mady: That's not the problem. Eric Rivkin: I know it's not the problem. I just want to establish fact here. It's not the public pressure that's driving this. Okay, it's from within so I think, and I've gone through a year and a half worth of trivialations and trials with the DNR trying to get a channel dug for my own riparian rights as a homeowner to get access so I know what it's like to deal with the DNR. They will bargin and if presented with the lawful solution that says, we have this piece of property, we have a willing seller, we are the buyer, we can give you the full extent of the law if we have to but we're not pressured by the public to have boat trailerable access. But because it's a quiet lake and because we have, and they told me this when I was in my channel, one of the reasons they said that they...." could give me access is because they had a walk-in access to the lake now from what I believe is the other side of the isthmus from Lake Ann. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 7 ,..... There's a little walking path there and I don't know whether it's trespassing or on private property or not but that path has been there for 100 years and people go from the Lake Ann Park, walk around in there and they go to Lake Lucy. All the time and they take their canoes whenever and they do that. There's a picnic table out there and I don't know who put it there, if it's a city picnic table or what but it's used. I don't hear anybody complaining about how come I can't get my boat in at Lake Lucy. They'll simply portage over. Or they'lltake a look at Lake Lucy and see how mucky it is and say heck, I'm not going to go out in that so I don't think you'll have a lot of public pressure but I think if you can find a piece of property, say maybe in the future if we get enough public pres sue we can convert it to total trailerable access but for now we think that we can sell the idea to the public that the best benefit to the lake and to the residents is to make it a walk-in access. I think they would be very amenable to that. If you talk to the right people, put together a nice package proposal from the seller, I think they will listen. I know they will and they're people, beaureacrats, they want to listen to all the ideas... Hasek: I have a question for Lori here. Have we ever dealt with them before? ,..... Sietsema: We sure have. On Lake Ann and Lotus Lake and Lake Minnewashta. Hasek: The question I would have is, you sound like you've talked to them too a bit, what we're being told is that if we do do that, if we have a walk in access, that whatever can be carried in would have to be the same for the residents on the lake. Eric Rivkin: That's the letter of the law but I think... Hasek: You think that they would deviate on that if we gave them reasons? Sietsema: The difference is, what you're talking about is that in your situation it wasn't asking them to do any work on the lake. They legally, by the legislature, can not work on any lake, they can not do fish kill, they can not do restocking, they can't do barriers. They legally can not do that if there is not free and public access on that lake. Mady: Equal riparian rights is what you're saying. Eric Rivkin: But if you gave them the mechanics of it, they have to get their boats in to help clean up the lake too so you want to at least give them a trailer and boat in so they can help clean the lake up yes but I think after they're gone, you're not going to find too many people that are going to drop a 35 horsepower boat in the lake. Sietsema: No, I don't think so but they have to be able to, the law says ~ that they have to be able to if they want to if the DNR is going to do any work on there. Eric Rivkin: I think you could sell it to the public because it's just the kind of thing that isn't going to get used. Do the minimum. Don't Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 8 ....,,; make it concrete with lots of lavish picnic grounds and all that kind of stuff. Just put it in, here it is. Gravel down and leave the landscape alone as much as possible. Minimum impact. Sietsema: Do you have an idea where we could do that? Eric Rivkin: I thought that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the City owned a strip all the way around Lake Ann to the creek that goes between the two lakes and to Lake Lucy. I thought that street from Greenwood Shores that goes down to there, there's a sign that says, To Lake Lucy. Isn't that public land? Sietsema: Yes, we do own that. Eric Rivkin: Then you own something that's right on Lake Lucy? Sietsema: Yes we do. Eric Rivkin: Well if you, why not put it there? Sietsema: Number one, staff's point of view is that that's a neighborhood park. It's not designed for community type use. Eric Rivkin: Community? Sietsema: Which a boat access is definitely a community type use. ....,,; Eric Rivkin: I mean but what community are we talking about here? I don't think you're going to find... Sietsema: You can't assume that nobody's going to use it. Watson: It might be true but you can't assume when you put it in. Eric Rivkin: There's a public road. You put signs up. There are hard to get to public accesses than where this is. Sietsema: I'm just saying that if there's a better alternative, that staff would rather do that than put it through a neighborhood like that. I don't think it's an appropriate use of a neighborhood park. That's my personal professional opinion. Eric Rivkin: We have to make sure that the residents are going to be comfortable with that but I think... Watson: It goes past my house, I'm uncomfortable already. Eric Rivkin: You live in Greenwood Shores? I don't have any other alternatives. All the other land is locked in I guess unless you can get Prince to donate something. The other ideas I had were Merril Stellar he an outlot on the west side of the lake. It was a narrow strip that was .., for sale and it just sold, see if you can buy it back. Offer him something better. He was selling it for $55,000.00. Maybe you could give Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 9 ,..... him a little bit better than what he was asking or something in order to get this. They haven't built anything yet. I don't think there's anything staked. Hasek: How wide of a piece is that? Sietsema: It's a 5.9 acre parcel of which 5.3 is wetland. Eric Rivkin: And it would have been a great public access I think... Hasek: There were some real major problems with design on that piece. Trying to get a road down there. We had to look at that to a certain degree and that would have been our last, last, last choice even if it was the only choice. Eric Rivkin: I think it's...if you can't get a road. Sietsema: You can get access from the street but you can't get access down to the lake. Watson: It's like all that side. Getting between the dry end and the lake through that. Well, you need a channel. I"""" Mady: That's going to be a maintenance problem, continuously. Every year that's going to be dredged out. Sietsema: In a brainstorming situation we're not throwing it out. It's definitely not not an option. Eric Rivkin: The only clean lakeshore that I can see that's available is at the other lake. All the rest is real weedy and mucky. You're going to need this big maintenance that you're talking about. That's the only clean place that I know of on the lake. At one time there was the island, somebody owned the island and considered giving it to the City at one time as a park but I can't see a road going down there and having cars go in there. I think it would just destroy the wildlife aspect of the lake if more cars go by. Hasek: That would be a tough design too because that island is pretty much under water. Eric Rivkin: I think if it was a park and walk in type of thing, if it would have been park at the street and walk down, it's kind of a nice little walk-in park but to meet the DNR's requirements, that's not exactly, you can't park a trailer. Mady: They have gone up in Detroit Lakes and they're using some type of boat moving device that actually lifts the boat up on a track and moves it I"""" down. Again, that's very expensive... Eric Rivkin: That's probably a well wanted lake by the public in order to justify something like that... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 10 ..."", sietsema: What will be done in each area and when. What the time line is and what exactly will be done. I know that they're talking about fish kills, fish restocking, aeration and fish barriers on Lake Lucy. Eric Rivkin: Did you talk to the Corps of Engineers? Lake Lucy is a designated head waters? The federal government requires you file applications and all kinds of stuff as far as doing any alteration. As far as doing anything to the wetland, my position is that dredging anything out. A wetland does act as a filter for pollutants and I tell you. . . Warren Phillips: There's no real authority on how much wetland there should be. That's what is kind of a point of debate. Eric Rivkin: I heard it was man made. Man induced it because...it was unnatural. Watson: Do you have any ideas where an access could go on Lake Lucy? I'm talking available property. Warren Phillip: If you bought the Dodd property, I'm sure you'd have access to the lake. There's a road that goes there, a right-of-way that goes there and my property borders that easement all the way for that strip of property and I wouldn't object to access there. If it were properly done and I felt that we had adequate compensation in terms of improvements to the lake but just for improving fishing, that doesn't ~ interest me because all that's going to do is serve the fishermen to come in. It's not really helping Chanhassen or the residents around the lake. Mady: One of the things with a fish kill is you get rid of the carp and the bullheads and they are bottom type fish that continues to turn up the bottom and by getting rid of those fish you... Warren Phillip: I don't like the whole process of changing. ...maybe you should be asking a little bit more than just improving the fishing. Robinson: Maybe what you could do is, we don't know what that means and if we could get some input from you in writing, this is the first shot at it. We don't know what those improvements should be but I think the idea is good so maybe if you could give Lori some ideas of what you'd like to see because I think it is a negotiable thing with them. Warren Phillip: I would certainly think it would be. I guess we all observed the Christmas Lake situation and they were pressed into a corner. Schroers: Christmas Lake is a negotiated situation also because it restricted horsepower only for a certain length of time and just to kind of establish the fact that all the big boats aren't going to be running over there right away and people are just going to get used to using it more as a limited quiet area and they're hoping to deter some of the big boat traffic. Then after 5:00 they open it up. -' Watson: There's enough big boats on the lake over there. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 11 ,..., Schroers: I personally have been involved with lake restoration. I did some of the physical work cleaning out the bottom of a lake in Bloomington. That has had many positive effects. It is a quiet lake. Electric motors only. The fishing has greatly improved. The water quality has improved. People are enjoying it again a lot more. It doesn't smell like it used to. There are a lot of benefits. Personally the size of Lake Lucy makes me feel, I wouldn't want to see more speed boats running around here. Even if the lake gets cleaned up and fixed up, letting a bunch of big boats...I think would have an adverse affect on quality of the lake and the water. It constantly stirs up the water, cuts the weeds. You've got weeds coming into shore all the time. I wonder if we couldn't try to negotiate with the DNR using the access on Lake Ann and just making a quiet access type area through the creek into Lake Lucy thereby saving most of the wildlife and the natural area that is around the lake and not having to cut a new trail, a new road and a new access in. Sietsema: I know that the only way the DNR would buy into that, and they probably would buy into a portage type access, they may, would be if it was a quiet lake for everybody. They won't go with the Christmas Lake type situation even for a certain amount of time because legally they can not. Christmas Lake was the last time. Legally the law states that they can not discriminate. ,..." Schroers: I understand that and I guess that that's my opinion is that because of the size of the lake and because of the way that it's being used right now, there are just a couple boats on it and I know that it would be too bad for those people to lose their privilege of being able to operate a boat on there but I think if you weigh and balance the situation, I personally would rather see a quiet lake than open it up and make it so anyone who wanted to could down there. You could have fast boats, 150 horsepower and boy, I'd hate to see that. We have too few precious natural areas left and if we open up a small lake like this one limiting horsepower, there are people that just...and are just going to be over using and abusing the lake. ,.... Jeff Farmakes: I talked with the DNR...as I understand it, there's a lake level difference between the two lakes. His response to that was that if Lake Lucy had a...and you might want to lower it a little, that lake or you would have to raise Lake Ann. He said he'd have to study whether or not by opening that up you'd change the water quality being that there's more quiet problem in Lake Lucy. They're also just raising the level of the lake impacts the water quality. It has to be studied. He was talking about spillover where the creek runs out of the southwest corner of Lake Ann. That if you raise that up, somebody mentioned the fact that there was a half a foot difference between the two levels of the lake so we would have to raise Lake Ann up 6 inches without lowering the level by opening up that area. Right now that creek on an average wet year, between the two lakes, goes dry about the 30th of July. Then once the rains pick up again, a couple months later, it usually is a depth of about 6 inches or less so it isn't a very accurate creek. He said that you would have to be able to get a boat through there. A fishing boat he Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 12 said so he said to prevent the fish kill, by having a creek through there-' to a depth of 8 feet, dredging that out, I suppose it would be similiar to what's at Minnetonka where he's getting back some of those small shallow bays that they have where they've lined the edge with stones and have a small accessway. He said 8 feet would help the fish kill issue. O~ Lake Lucy 2 years ago we had a fairly significant fish kill and there are the same game fish in Lake Lucy as there are in Minnetonka. The walleyes and you get bass in there. I know because they're dead up on my shore. I live on the corner, down where the wind blows, the southeast corner, and we were talking a little bit earlier about dredging out some of the wetlands. I've gotten rid of some of those wetlands permanently and I got rid of it by, there was a lot to get rid of, 50 by 90 feet. We brought in a boom to scoop that out. It cost me $1,500.00 so when you start talking about getting rid of some of these wetlands, you're talking about some mega dollars. Big dollars and a boom will only go out 100 feet so you've got a real significant dredging operation here considering going beyond that. It would seem to me that that can be investigated on how the water quality will be affected from Lake Lucy to Lake Ann and based on...in Lake Ann Park, if that would be perhaps beneficial if there wasn't a problem. Also, would it control the level of the lake. Spillover or maintenance situation in case we get another big storm or whatever and the lakes flood. Last year during July, that superstorm, there was quite a rapids going through the two lakes. Certainly we want somebody to be able to respond to that as far as being a homeowner on the lake. The east side is much gradually sloped to the lake and by raising or lowering the level of the lakes affects people's property situation. Also, the last issue that I'd like to cover for some of the people who don't live on the lake or do~ not have lake access there, many of these people have been paying a premium on their taxes for their homes for many years. They pay an additional amount based on square footage along the lake and of course, over a period of years people get used to using a facility and I don't personally have a power boat on the lake but I can understand someone who does who's been there for many years and I guess my feeling is I would support them in objecting to restricting them without their consent, even though there may be a few. I would rather see something like that where there would be a restriction basically on Lake Ann where you put your boat in and they would have to troll across to get to that canal, if there was one there, and I think that would be, probably keep out most of the people on a big runabout. Basically that means people who use the land, if you go primarily with a canoe or small fishing boat with an electric motor, who drug their boats across the area and I don't think that will really significantly change anything. I asked the person at the DNR, would that mean anything. Because of the canal and the access on Lake Ann, would that be a need to have to take some certain restrictions and his response was no, it would not because you would also have the same restrictions if you wanted to go on Lake Ann. So that would be a buffer in keeping out those, or at least keeping out those kinds of boats that I think we... That's something to consider. I think if you look into that, found somebody who was knowledgeable and launch a boat...that could be a significant solution to the problem. Hasek: That's something that originally when this first came up that we ~ talked about. I think the original opinion was we didn't want to see the ,..... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 13 lakes opened in that spot because of the quality in one would detrimentally impact the quality of the other. Perhaps they can be and you're right, there are questions that have to be asked and that's what we're doing. We're trying to gather questions to take and gather our wits about us and go down and talk to them as intelligently as we possibly can. It seems to me like rather than...Lake Ann which it sounds to me that what they're suggesting is why not raise Lake Ann 3 inches and lower Lake Lucy 3 inches and compromise. Well, two you've got the volume of water. The other option is to simply use Lake Ann as the level. Once you connect it to and lower the one to 6 inches. It doesn't mean that we have to keep the level of Lake Lucy up necessarily so there are other things to be considered in that one. Jeff Farmakes: I think it was down, who's responsibility...there was already quite a problem in the lake by lowering the level of the lake you will have caused a problem. Hasek: But the question is, how significant. Jeff Farmakes: Someone would have, who was knowledgeable in that sort of thing, would have to go and do some sort of study on that issue. I guess my problem was that if you have that buffer in Lake Ann, you would solve ,..... the problems of the useage issue because... Hasek: That would be very nice if it would work. I think that might be a very workable solution if it would work. Again, it's a question that has to be asked. Mady: I have a question, on Lake Lucy right now, I believe there's a private access right off of your dock. Jeff Farmakes: It's I believe a fire alley that was put in at the time of sewer and water. Hasek: Is that city land? Jeff Farmakes: No, I believe it's an easement. You have to remember that sewer and water didn't come in until about 10 years ago or something. Warren Phillip: You put $5,000.00 into that a few years ago when it was a fire lane? You put a lot of money into that acquisition. Jeff Farmakes: I think it was an easement. Sietsema: But I don't think the City maintains that little gravel... .1""" Mady: The question I was getting at, if we go as Jeff is suggesting, we have a problem having riparian owners being able to utilize that private property and I just...DNR is coming. Sietsema: They're very aware of that access there and her initial response to me was, whatever type of access the lakeshore homeowners have, we have to provide for the public. I don't know what implications that Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 14 has. I did check into, initially quite extensively into the channel idea~ In fact we were considering getting a LAWCON grant for it last year. hydrologists at DNR informed me that there's a foot difference between the two lakes and that if we opened it up and just dredged it through, we would literally probably drain Lake Lucy. Even if we could control it so we didn't, if we raise the level of Lake Ann, we have to get easements from the current owners. The City owns the majority of the lakeshore property around Lake Ann but Prince owns part of it and also Gorra, I think is his name so we would have to obtain easements from them. I'm just telling you what r found out. I don't know that that's impossible or anything but the hydrologists had some major problems with the canal idea. Schroers: You mentioned earlier something about a portage. That would be my first attempt. I would try to negotiate a deal with them because if you had that portage area as an area where you would walk, portage your canoe or drag your boat or whatever across land and then put it into Lake Lucy rather than, I would personally rather see that than dredging for an access or anything else because I think it would impact the least envirornmental impact on the area. Mady: How many boats are on the lake right now? Jeff Farmakes: There's 25 boats there. Mady: Well, boats that had to be trailered in. Couldn't be carried. -' Jeff Farmakes: I think there's 3 or 4 fishing boats. Mady: A 14 footer you can actually drag into if you want to. It would be a tough sell to tell someone who has riparian rights and has their boat on the lake that they can't do that anymore. Schroers: Yes, I understand that. Jeff Farmakes: Is there any precedent for a grandfather clause for something like this where the current owners... Mady: No, they won't let us do at Lotus. We talked about trying to do that at Lotus so we could try to restrict the lake a little bit. If you have anybody on the lake, they have to have the same rights, the other boaters have to have the same rights. Schroers: You could make...time limit that they've done on Christmas Lake. Mady: I've talked to a couple of people on that Christmas Lake issue. r don't think there's a legislature in the State who's going to go for that package. Jeff Farmakes: I understand how the level...to the other lake and it really dried up for about a month and a half, ...so I'm just questioning ~ the difference. ,..... Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 15 Sietsema: it mysel f. I don't know Jeff. I don't know how to go out there and check They carne out and looked at it. Jeff Farmakes: I understand...that Lake Lucy is the head waters that if your water does vary a lot, that based on what I've seen in the last 6 to 7 years, that water if it does move, moves awfully slow. Hasek: They generally talk about a normal ordinary water level which is based on, you're got normal ordinary, high, flood level, there's a ton of different numbers that they talk about. Lake level which is established must have been the normal ordinary water mark. Hoffman: 956.1. Warren Phillip: Why don't we give the City Engineer to go out with this transit and shoot the limits? Hasek: This would be a real tough year in which to judge because the normal ordinary level is... Warren Phillip: But they've both got to have the same aquafir and I'm ,..... sure the land through there is only about 50 foot wide. It probably is sinking pretty much... Jeff Farmakes: ...6 inches but what I'm saying is, if you have to raise the water, you're talking about an easement and you're talking about how much of our property would be flooded in the low lying areas and it seems to me the only low lying area is in the southwest corner where it is now wetlands where the creek comes out so ask if it will make any difference. I know certainly Prince is interested in getting rid of that land or developing it. What he has fenced off now goes much more towards the road up there. I assume he's not interetsed in developing at this point so I'm saying if he loses a foot of lakeshore by low lying flooding or whatever. As I recall, most of the land, except for that low corner has quite a drop too. 2 or 3 feet. Mady: We also have a problem, we have at Lake Ann probably one of the nicest beaches in the southwestern part of the metropolitan area. By raising the level of the lake considerably, that beach... Sietsema: I'll ask Barbara again and go out and meet with her. She's the hydrologists, the State's hydrologist for this area and she was the one that told me there was a foot difference and she could tell me what kind of impacts that would have so I can check that out in more detail with her. ,..., Mady: I think what we need to do right now is more information or ideas on how the process to, since you're in the public hearing for now, get some of the answers and some more information and corne back maybe a month from now and hopefully go talk to your neighbors and thinking about this item as to how can we do this. What makes the most sense. Dollars sense. Ecology wise. Everything. None of his here have a great answer right now Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 16 ...."" so we need to all think about it and hopefully in a month from now you'll have some more information, some answers to some of these questions and we'll call you forward again. A reminder, if you haven't signed the sheet in the back, please do so because that's the way you maintain and get more information about this. I'm not sure we'll be making another general mailing to everybody in the area. We do try to get our agenda published in the paper prior to each meeting but that doesn't always happen. Schroers: We haven't really heard from anyone who has a power boat on the lake. Is there someone who owns a boat on the lake and would like to keep a large power boat? Resident: We have one and we'd like to keep it. Schroers: How do you feel about letting 7 other large boats come onto the lake? Resident: I wouldn't mind. The lake is so small. Schroers: That's exactly what the problem is going to be. Dale Carlson: I've lived on Lake Lucy for 16 years and we've had a power boat there for a long time and really enjoyed the lake. Our kids have learned to water ski on that lake and they got busy and I would venture to say, first of all, I think most of the, at least the folks that I know that live on the east side of Lake Lucy are and will continue to be -' concerned about that lake. We have done lots of things with our pocket money to try to keep that lake nice. Years ago we had to get permits from the DNR for spraying. Our kids by the way won't swim in the lake anymore. They're about 16 or 17 years old, they go to Lake Ann. I also think you will find that even with public access to that lake, somebody will put a power boat on there once and then probably go someplace else because, I don't know where we come up with 135 acres on that lake but I've been around it and I walked around it in the muck up to my waist and you're probably talking about maybe 40 acres of accessible water compared to 135 acres of the lake. That may look like that on a piece of paper. That's probably the high, what they were referring to as the high water mark. I don't know what that means. If that's used for utilities or what. Schroers: That probably means at the highest point that the water has ever been on the shore of the lake. Dale Carlson: I think that most of the folks that live on that lake will agree with me is, what are we getting for a million dollars. I know that a million dollars isn't all going into Lake Lucy and I don't think a million dollars would be enough to do it to Lake Lucy, maybe necessarily what some of us would like to see done to it. We certainly want to see the lake stay there and like you say, a lot of people use it. But what are we going to get for this money? Those of us who have lived there and those of us who have boats on there, I don't know necessarily if the fact that we have a boat on that lake is of major importance here. I think ~ it's what's going to be done to the lake. What are we going to give up as property owners? As people who have lived on that lake now for many, many Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 17 .'" years, what are we going to give up and what are we going to get back and what our's community going to get back? If there's a million dollars to shell out here, wherever all this money is coming from, and there's four lakes involved. For example, if Lake Lucy is going to be quiet, does that mean all the lakes in Chanhassen are quiet? But then if not, why is Lucy or is it because it's small or what is it? What's the logic? Mady: It has to be, you can't discriminate between riparian owners and the general public. Dale Carlson: Then why include Lake Lucy in the project? Sietsema: It's part of the chain of lakes. Mady:' Lake Lucy, Lake Susan, Riley and Ann. Dale Carlson: But again, what are we going to get out of it? Of the million dollars is going to go to Lucy, to Ann, to Susan and I think you're asking us to make recommendations here. The City owns property. Put access on the city owned property and there's certainly nothing we can do about that and the City can decide to do that. At this point in time it's too hard for me to make a decision or vote on anything not knowing what we're going to get. I heard the statements read and that's a lot of greek, what we're going to get out of it. ,..... Mady: At this point, I'd like to, we do have a full agenda yet, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn the public hearing and call them back. Watson moved, Robinson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mady: I'm sure we'll have another public hearing and if you signed the sheet in the back you will be notified as to that prior to the meeting. I hope you would think some more about it. Look at the whole lake, if you live around it, and try to figure out a plan on how we can make this. We need some information. The Council has already dedicated the City to doing the project. RECOMMENDATION SUPPORTING PARK MAINTENANCE 1989 BUDGET ITEMS. (A tape break occurred in the meeting at this point.) Watson: ...one additional person in the downtown. I kind of chuckled with all these trees, I asked Dale, now where's the 3 inch mower you're going to use when you get down there on those little islands and I said, ,..... hey, how about... Unless it's maintenance free, that is really going to be a pa in. Hasek: I have two comments on that myself and they'll be really brief. Number one, I think that that whole idea is way over planted down there. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 18 """"" Number two, I think what they did, they never did consider how it was going to be maintained. It was done on a drawing board... Watson: It's there and I do like it. I like the way it looks but it's obviously a maintenance nightmare in that center island thing. Mady: I'll move that we go to support staff's recommendation for the items and personnel being added to next year's budget. Watson: I'll second it. Hasek: Two things. I think the two bottom things where we talked about the last time when Dale was in here, the pick-up trucks. I think you also mentioned one additional person. I don't recall hearing about the trailer to handle those two, so those are the only two items that I haven't seen before but I certainly feel that if Dale feels he needs them, if he doesn't use them it's going to be tougher for him next time to get what he wants. Schroers: For your information, you may want to know that a 72" Groundmaster can... we're talking 10 grand for that and a trailer to handle two more of that size is also going to be... Mady: 4 grand? Schroers: Or closer to 5 It's going to be a pretty ....." probably. It needs to be a substantial trailer. long trailer. Hasek: The small pick-up truck, we can pick that up for what, $6,000.00? Mady: A 3/4 ton, he's probably going to want a 4 wheel drive also. Sietsema: It's merely a recommendation to show support. Quite frankly, I don't think that we have anything to say about this. Mady moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission support the Park Maintenance 1989 Budget request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATION SECTION: Sietsema: The Adminstrative Section is just for your information unless you have some comments. Mady: On item (c), the Hockey Rink. Sietsema: That one is just right now, it's not in our hands. Association has to figure out how they're going to be able to much rent, that much use so we can pay that kind of rent. We that it's not typical to run programs at that much of a loss. The Hockey r a i se that....." told them Even as ,...., Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 19 much of a loss as we have in the past so where it stands right now is they're going to get back to us. We don't know anymore than that. Mady: The goose report, did he pick up every goose he could find? Sietsema: He gets everyone. He leaves very few. Watson: That's right. I haven't seen any geese. There were herds in my neighborhood for a long time now and I find that... Mady: You will be in about two weeks. Sietsema: That's the goal though Carol. We have to take all of them in order for... Watson: Believe me, there's nothing you can say Larry that's going to convince me. If I had a truck to drive to Oklahoma, which I've been accused of doing, and bring the damn geese back, I would be doing it. Schroers: I'd just like to uplift your spirits, about 2 1/2 hours before I carne to this meeting there were 20 geese on Lake Ann. ,...., Watson: Thank you. I will start feeding them instantly. I'm sorry. I attempted to sabotage this project years ago. It didn't work so now I'm doing it in my own way. Robinson: Why is (d) crossed off? Mady: Because we looked at that Thursday. Sietsema: Yes, I sent it out today. Robinson: So the rough draft was the final with the changes. Mady: Then the IPD Conference, that's the State conference. Sietsema: Right, you're supposed to tell me who wants to go. Mady: We are going to go as a commission to that commission night meeting. We kind of indicated previously that we wanted to do that. Sietsema: IPD, everyone is going to go... Mady: It was a commissioners night where there were a couple of things and we talked at a previous meeting that maybe instead of having our meeting up here, we'd go as a commission to' this thing up in Brooklyn Center. Just meet up here and get a city car and go. ~ Schroers: I'm in favor of that. Sietsema: Was anybody else interested in going to the conference, the rets of the conference? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 20 Schroers: Yes, I think I probably will. ...", Sietsema: Can you get off work to do that? Schroers: I can get off work. I would like to talk to them as far as whether I can work out what...but I am interested. Sietsema: So you want to go for sure? Should I send in the money for it or should I wait until I hear back from you? Schroers: Is it one day? Sietsema: It's two days. You can register for one day. Schroers: I think I can check into that. Sietsema: Okay, do you want to let me know before the end of the week so I can get that sent off? Anybody else want to go? Mady: Mike was interested but I know his time schedule just isn't going to permit it. Sietsema: Sue wants to go. Mady: Sue wants to go and Larry indicated. Have the Commission go as a group that Tuesday night. ~ Schroers: Does Sue want to go for both days or just one? Sietsema: I don't know. I'll have to call her. Schroers: I think if I remember right, she said one. SETTING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PARK ACQUISITION IN SOUTHERN CHANHASSEN. Hasek: Find a piece of parkland and develop it, how about that? Mady: Determine what we're going to have to do next. Sietsema: Decision statement first. Mady: Decision statement that we came up with, was where should the City of Chanhassen locate a park. Period. That's it. Then the objectives, it has to be south of Lyman Blvd.. We already said that. That's a must objective. We just list all the objectives and then determine if they're a must or want. Hasek: Okay, 50 acres, that's a must. Near Bluff Creek Trail, that's a want. want. Just a little bit of both maybe. Central location, that's a want. Natural areas, I think that's a ~ Mady: If it doesn't have it, then it's automatically out. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 21 ~ Hasek: Yes, I think that's a must. Located next to natural areas. Sietsema: So did you say at least 50 acres was a must? Hasek: Yes. Sietsema: And a central was a must? Hasek: No, that's a want. Near Bluff Creek is a want. Natural areas and near major roads, that's a want. Land cost under $200,000., that's a want. Mady: It has to be under $300,000.00. Hasek: Yes, this one says $200,000.00. Mady: It's been changed to $300,000.00 to make it a must. Hasek: You mean if it's $325,000.00, you're not going to do it? Mady: We don!t have the money to do it. We could throw in some budget money into that I guess. We'd might have to get a clarification from Roger on that. Sietsema: I'm sure we could. ,.... Mady: Because the referendum says we only spend $300,000.00... Hasek: Buffer for TH 212, that's a want. Available within 2 years, that's a want. Is that controlled by this referendum now? Mady: No. Hasek: Space for horse trails, that's a want. Flat land for active areas, we can recontour. Mady: Right, so that's a want. Hasek: South of Lyman Blvd.. Sietsema: There are some areas, it's got to be somewhat conducive to active play. Mady: Make it a very high want because you can alter the land. You can always alter the land. It's a want. Hasek: Does it have to be south of Lyman Blvd. or is that... Mady: Yes. The referendum was specific. ""'" Hasek: want. Okay, that's a must. Minimum of 4 baseball diamonds, that's a Soccer field, tennis courts, that's a want. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 22 ..."" Mady: Now, are there any other objectives? Hasek: Parking? There will be parking in this park. Mady: That's going to be a must. Sietsema: Is that an objective? Hasek: I'm being a little facetious. Sietsema: Is that an objective for acquisition though? an objective for development. I think that's Watson: Didn't we sit at that last meeting talking about what that park...make sure that we add the parking in. Sietsema: I know but we're talking about acquisition, not development. If you can put ballfields in, you're going to be able to get parking in. Schroers: What I'm thinking that you may want to classify something other also but the whole objective of having this park in south Chanhassen is F we can provide the activities that the youth of Chanhassen currently are -' not able to enjoy so I would think that that would have to be a major objective in that we would have to be able to provide the youths of the City the activities that they are now lacking. Seitsema: How about if we combine 12 and 13 and make it just what you said? Conducive for active... Mady: Youth activities. Watson: Because otherwise these two are as much development. Hasek: Okay, and make it a must or a want? Mady: It's got to be a want. Hasek: So this is now conducive to youth activities and that's 12, right? Schroers: I don't know about being a want...because that's what we want the whole thing. Watson: Why would you want it? Sietsema: I think that's a must. Hasek: If we're asking natural areas. ....." Mady: But you can't develop natural areas. Realistically you can't throw in wetlands. ,.., Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 23 Hasek: But if it's beaches that we're looking for in the park and the land for active areas is a highly want, almost a must then I think the youth activities should be a want also. Watson: But still, Jim when you put at least 50 acres, you want 4 ball diamonds. You want want soccer fields, tennis courts and parking, you've used up your 50 acres. It better not have anything natural and we screwed up the whole thing. Schroers: The problem with this is that as much as I like to see things done in tune with the environment as much as possible, this area in southern Chanhassen from the beginning has been for an active use area. I don't think... Hasek: That natural areas is a must? Schroers: Yes, I don't think we can put a natural area as a high priority. Watson: I don't either. If we're going to have to plead to get 50 acres... ,..... Schroers: That can be looking at having to acquire more. We would have to change the minimum to at least 100 acres. Mady: Initially we were looking for 100 but the minimum parkland we would take, because remember our must objective has to be measureab1e and achieveab1e. It has to be able to be done. You have to be able to measure and quanitify it. Otherwise, it's a want. Sietsema: So what did you decide? Is the facility conducive for... Hasek: 2 is a 7 is a a must Conducive for youth activities and that's a want. 1 was a must. want. 3 is a want. 4 now is a want. 5 is a want. 6 is a must. want. 8 is a want. 9 is a want. 10 is a want/must. 11 would be and 12 now, conducive to youth activities would be a want. Mady: It's a want because you can't measure it. Watson: Can't we speak conducive for active activities, not just youth? Mady: Yes. Hasek: Then we've already got it in. Flat land for active areas is already in 10. We can drop 12 all together. Does that make sense? Robinson: Yes. ,..... Hasek: Okay, let's drop 12 all together and we've got 11. 6 was changed to $300,000.00 instead of $200,000.00. Mady: We need to add though, in your objectives, you can make your want objectives, you can expand on those as much as you want. Active areas is Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 24 ~ a high want. Then lower down you can say you want 4 ballfields and -you want 8 tennis courts or 3 tennis courts. You can expand those. If you have three different pieces of park and one's going to allow you to do 4 ballfields and the other one's going to be 2 ballfields, you have to be able to measure those two in your wants. Watson: But that's development. Mady: But that still goes in your wants. That's a want objective. Sietsema: It's something you have to consider when you acquire. Hasek: Then we can make as many wants as we want. Mady: I think a want objective would be a 100 acres would be a want objective. A must is a minimum. We'd like to have 100 acres of land. Hasek: Then some of the things like the baseball fields. Those are wants but they go in there don't they? I'd like to see 4 ballfields in a complex. Schroers: One soccer field. .....", Robinson: Is one enough? Mady: That's what I think. Soccer is a very big sport for kids. Hasek: You have to be very, very careful because tennis courts once were very, very popular and now they're almost dead. Mady: The beautiful thing about soccer though is it's a flat piece of land and you don't really... Hasek: Tennis courts are almost dead. How about volleyball courts? The only thing they're playing in racquetball courts right now is volleyball. Robinson: I don't believe the tennis courts are dead though. Hasek: They are done. Sietsema: It's not as big as it used to be. Hasek: Cities used to require that they were put into projects. Now they're questioning whether they're a valid use of the land. Don't get me wrong, there are people who play and people like to play but they're not near what they were just 5 or 6 years ago. Watson: And soccer, a big flat piece of ground can become anything you want it to be. --' Hasek: That is true and maybe rather than saying soccer fields, we say flat open play areas or something flat. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting ~ July 26, 1988 - Page 25 Hoffman: Flag football. Youth football. Soccer. Mady: Our problem right now is we just don't have a legal soccer field in the city of Chanhassen. Hasek: We will as soon as Lake Ann is done. Mady: We still have a problem that in the spring soccer league, we've got softballs... Hasek: I'll tell you want's more popular than open soccer is the soccer that's happening in hockey rinks. It's a lot more controlled and I think that youth, once they break out of there. It's another one of those things, I can just see it, Minnesota for some strange reason we're building a huge complex for an International Soccer Tournament up in Blaine and I just don't know if it's going to payoff. It might be another... Sietsema: But we can put it in for now. Robinson: picnic shelters? ,..... Hasek: No. Do we have nature trails? Mady: A want would be accessible to our trail plan. If we chose a place that you couldn't a trail to... Hasek: Let me ask a real personal quick question. Are we going to end up with 25 wants? Sietsema: Are some of these givens? If there's room for 4 ballfields and 2 soccer fields and parking, won't there be room for 2 picnic shelters somewhere if it's going to be 100 acres? Isn't some of this stuff a given? The big stuff we have to look at that if we're going to look at the land and say we want to fit this stuff but even parking. If there's room for 4 ballfields, there's going to be room for an acre of parking. Watson: I think all we have to do with this thing is determine that we want it, what is the basic size and something... Sietsema: What we're going to have to accomodate. Mady: You've got to remember this a method of evaluating a decision. You assign values to each one of these objectives now. The next step is to assign a value to it so when you're developing the parcels, you... Hasek: Let me ask the question. How about this, the first 11 that we ~ have are fairly general. We're getting more and more specific to the point where we want hot and cold running water and we want at least four stalls in the womens can. Can we not stop at 11 and evaluate based on those? Sietsema: I think so. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 26 ...." Mady: I would like to add the 100 acres of land. Hasek: That one I think is good. Sietsema: I think if you wanted to put in there what some of this other stuff is, you can put parenthesis after flat land for active areas, (i.e. 4 ballfields, 2 soccer fields and parking). Mady: Because you want to do your evaluating, if one park can only fit in 3 and the other one can fit in 4, you can break them. Robinson: In fact they all relate to that decision statement except number 8. It says where should the City, and they all say near, I agree with Ed says. Leave it alone. Hasek: I would like to add number 12. That 100 acres. That will help us to make a decision between number 1 and number 12 so that one would be just general enough so that it makes some sense. Sietsema: The next step is I think you have to have alternatives to measure. Mady: We have to have some present alternatives so we need to direct ~ staff. Are we going to get Mark involved in this thing or do you want to do it or are we going to do it? Hasek: What's the status with Mark and his firm right now? Sietsema: He's still basically the firm I go to for park plans and stuff. We're using a different firm for Lake Ann. Hoffman: They were there doing surveying today. Mady: So we've got our objectives listed as to what they are. We then need to have Mark start working on the south area. Looking at the whole part of the City. Showing these are our objectives. These are the things that have to be. These are the things that we'd like to see but we want to see all objectives and we will do the scoring ourselves. Robinson: Is Mark the one to do that? Mady: Finding the areas? I think so. Sietsema: Between Mark and I. I think if you just direct staff to corne up with some alternatives that meet these objectives. Hasek: Can we ask that if you find some parcels of ground, that you get some section maps and aerials or something that we can look at and maybe ~. even if the to po is available so we have a feel for the land. Sietsema: I can get aerials. Topos are tough. I""" Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 27 Hasek: Topos you can get at the USGS and Mark can go over there and take down. . . Mady: We also talked about at some time to bring in guys like Tim Erhart, Al Klingelhutz since they have active knowledge of that area, to get some of their ideas of what's out there. Hasek: I don't even know that we have to bring them in here to a meeting. Sietsema: I think that's what staff should do. Talk to them to get the alternatives. Mady: But I don't want them to limit us either. Sietsema: No, we'll bring you all the alternatives that we come up with. Hasek: Is there anything else that needs to be done here? Sietsema: I need someone to make that motion and to second it and to vote on it. Move to direct staff to bring back alternatives. ~. Hasek moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to bring back southern parkland alterantives per the objectives outlined. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hasek: I have one item that I'd like to mention before I have to run out of here and that is, is there any chance that we can get OSM, are they just going to do the engineering or are they actually looking at some of the. . . ? Sietsema: They're revising the park plan? Hasek: I would like to see OSM evaluate the parks that we've got out there. We've got a very nice set of parks out there that were built too small in the first place. The problem that we're running into is one of the tournament that we played in this last time, we played the big boys games on the littlest field that's out there and I hate to see that happen. I would like to see, if there's any possibility, that the two smaller fields can be enlarged and what the potentials of that would be. If it's too expensive to do. Sietsema: Well, it would be taking out a lot of trees. I""'" Hasek: They don't have to be removed. They can be spaded and relocated. $150.00 a crack. I'd like it looked at. The other thing is the possibility of, I guess from the Park's standpoint, if we'd be putting a 10 or a 12 foot fence to make those parks more accessible so we can hold some really good tournaments out there. The whole deal is that they're too short. They're way too short to play recreational or State tournaments on and I think they have to be 275 feet or something like that. Whatever it is. I'd also like it looked at the possibility based on this year and what we've seen as a drought condition, of irrigating and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting July 26, 1988 - Page 28 ..."" I think I mentioned that to Todd once. Not only irrigating the new ones but also the possibility of irrigating the existing ones that we've got out there. Blaine just put in a new complex of parks and they irrigated and they have been green and soft this whole year. We've had a watering ban which might have affected something that we could have done but I would have liked to have seen the possibility... We've got a beautiful park out there and I just hate to see it under utilized just because we didn't think about some of things that we could have done to it. Mady: To add onto that, talking to my friends who play softball throughout the cities, what Lake Ann is going to have, like a number of people throughout the met area, has a very nice complex. The problem with it is we don't have enough fields yet and too short. So it does need to be, if we can expand them, we need to do that. It might be difficult for #3... Hoffman: We've gone ahead and made that decision to ban fall leagues. Hasek: That was since the memo? Hoffman: Yes. Hasek: Is that for sure? ..""", Hoffman: That is for sure. Watson: We've got to do something. Mady: They're in really rough shape now. Hoffman: Originally when I talked to Dale approximately 3 weeks ago, he didn't have any problem with it. I made him aware of it at that time that Eden prairie had cancelled and if he wanted to talk to them and have some more time, he didn't see any problem with it then so I went ahead and made preliminary plans to handle those. Then he had some rekindled problems with it and concerns about the fields out there. He met with Wes Dunsmore, the superintendent of maintenance in Eden Prairie. He went over there and looked at their fields. Our fields are worse than their fields. Field #1 especially has got a lot of bumps, holes, etc.. Dale feels he's in a position this fall to do a lot of hauling in some dirt, do some leveling and some packing, some new seeding and some older seeding on fields #2 and #3. Mady: Should we be looking at stopping softball now? Hoffman: No. We've got finish out the season. Mady: Eden prairie is talking about that. of August 1. I think they've banned it as --' Hoffman: No, just their fall leagues. Robinson: When does the existing league end? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting .~ July 26, 1988 - Page 29 Hoffman: In the next 2 weeks. The over 35 runs approximately a week and a half later. Mady moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Recreation Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ~ I""'"