Loading...
PRC 1988 11 01 ~ PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ~ REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved, Robinson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 18, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, CARRICO ADDITION. Lori Sietesma stated that there were a number of options available for this site including; asking for nothing, asking for the 3.8 acres, or asking for the whole thing. Carrico brought in a new plan with 4.24 acres of parkland. They said they would be willing to listen to an offer but would prefer to develop. ,... Boyt: Did it say somewhere that you were planning on doing some wetland alteration? Tom Carrico: What we originally had planned for this, the road kind of went something, an S from this point to this point and we had approximately 20 lots planned throughout including over in here and four in front of the wetland and then creating a wetland, more of a wetlands behind these four lots here. We've since revised that and come up with a different plan that called for 2 homes over here and you cut out two of the homes here. We're going to do some work and try to create possibly a pond or something like that. Hasek: Does this generally follow within the zoning district for out there? Tom Carrico: We are working with the City to transfer the zoning so that we can do a single family development. Sietsema: This lies outside the MUSA line so...endorse an application to the Council move this into the sewer. Hasek: Does that look like it's pretty good shot? ~ Tom Carrico: Everything we've got is favorable on it. We're working, our surveyor, Frank Harwell happens to be friends with the person at RCM who's handling the survey for the City and we've been working with them getting topographies and so on on this property so that's been going and the application for the changes in the MUSA line. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 2 '\ -' Hasek: Have you had any preliminary feedback from city staff or Cou~cil? Tom Carrico: They've been conflicting to be honest. Met Council, we met with staff at Met Council and they, of course went on...in favor of changing of the MUSA line but when we talked to the city staff, and they are very much in favor of it. Hasek: The only reason I ask the question is because I know we had gone through a big hassel with moving that line and giving up the rights to a develop for a while... Tom Carrico: It's my understanding that there's 6 or 7 pieces that are going to be petitioned to Met Council for a MUSA line change. Carl Carrico: Just as a jury...when you stop and think about it. All of you are familiar with it and we're not, the water and sewer... I've been in Chanhassen probably longer than any of you. We did our original zoning in the center property so I kind of like this town. I had owned this property and grown up as farmers, I don't want to create anything here, actually we would like to develop this property. I think a park...but our plan is we'd like to develop it. If you people believe you need that whole piece, then I'll entertain a proposal on that but basically I'm a developer. I've owned this property... -" Robinson: How wet is that wetlands? Carl Carrico: Not very wet at all. I've owned this since 1972 and I've never seen any water. Robinson: No standing water? Carl Carrico: No. What has happened here is right through here, Klingelhutz is starting to drain now and that's what happened. Then the drain actually goes...across Lake Lucy Road. Hasek: So this isn't any kind of a designated wetland then is it? Sietsema: It is a Class B wetland. Hasek: Can we alter that? Sietsema: As I understand, yes. I'm not a wetland, you'd probably know more because you've had to deal with Jo Ann on it. Tom Carrico: What we've got, we've got a letter from the Corps of Engineers that came out and took a look around and I can get you a copy of that letter if you'd like. Hasek: What did they basically say? ...." Tom Carrico: That it was no problem because the amount that we were going to have to alter for our purposes was less than an acre. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 3 ,- Hasek: Okay. I'm wondering if we can alter part of it. Carl Carrico: What we had originally planned, we originally were going to just dig this out a little bit, put this in and have walkouts. That's what we originally were going to do. I'm not here to rape the land or anything else but I'd like a piece of land. In fact I'm thinking about taking one of the lots and building there myself. Schroers: What you're thinking about is probably the same thing that comes to my mind is that in that particular area we need some active use play area for the residents of the area. That's the type of parkland we need. We need a place for the kids in the neighborhood to go and play. If it's a wetland that we can't alter or if it's too wet... Carl Carrico: I've been watching it since 1972 and I've never seen it really wet. I've seen cattails in there. Tom Carrico: We didn't have any water out there this year but we did cut it this year. There was no evidence... Because we've been back and forth with the City on this also. Kept post of the wetlands classification. Schroers: Lori, have you been out to this site and taken a look at it? IfI""'" Sietsema: No, I haven't been out except to drive by it. I haven't walked it. Robinson: Are there trees on it, tall any place? Tom Carrico: You've got mature trees up in this area here. Schroers: What's the total acreage of your property? Carl Carrico: 12 acres I think. Tom Carrico: 11.67. Hasek: I think there's enough pieces of property out there. Five is a nice number but I don't know that we necessarily need 5. We've got virtually zero where we're working at right now. I don't like the idea of a totlot next to a pond. Boyt: That's what the neighbors asked us and I don't think...because of the small children. Hasek: There are a couple of things that could help this. If we could buy 6 and 7 or get 6 and 7 incorporated in as part of this deal, work back and forth. ,..... Carl Carrico: What I'm saying is, I really want to develop my land but I also look at it from the standpoint that maybe the thing to do is at this point consider buying the whole thing because there is trees and it's a nice picnic area. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 4 -'" Sietsema: Do you have any idea what you'd be asking for it? Do you have any idea of the starting point? You'd have to have it appraised? Carl Carrico: You know anything I've ever done, I've always gotten an appraisal. The City's gotten an appraisal and they choose another appraisal and we work it out. I have a potential profit on it. Sietsema: Have you priced any of the land, other land in this area? Carl Carrico: I know what Klingelhutz is asking for his lots. Boyt: His are MUSA lots though. Mady: Yes, his are MUSA lots. He wants like 35 grand. Sietsema: I was just wondering if you knew what other property in this area outside the MUSA similar to this would be. Carl Carrico: No, I basically, Charlie and I are developing property here in Minnesota and also in Texas so we're not into actively seeking other property here right now. This has been kind of like a hair wound to me. I bought it to... I think what we should do is probably, you guys figure out what you want to do and my interest right now and my son who's my partner is basically, we want to get the property developed. We like th~ property. We think it's a good area. We like it a lot better than what Klingelhutz has got. I wouldn't tell Tom that to his face, but we are, as I said, right now as is shown we're losing about 7 lots. If you want to take 6 and 7 than we're losing 9 lots. Then it's getting to a, it's really getting to a question of whether it's worth us developing or not. Boyt: I'd like to look at acquiring the full piece. We don't have many chances in this area to acquire property and being it's outside the MUSA line. Hasek: The nice thing about it, if it's 11 acres, it's actually almost bigger and it's considered a little more, it's going to develop more densely in this area in the future anyway. We might prevent a bunch of screaming and hollering if we pick up a big enough piece. Instead of making it whatever the radius for a 5 acre park, extend that a little bit and say this is the park for the area because it should cover all the way over... Schroers: Not only serving the needs now but in the future. Carl Carrico: I was going to talk. The only reason...to buy a house... I would certai.nly consider the whole piece. The thing that I like about, as we show right here is this outlot is a great area for parking. Tom Carrico: Yes, in fact that's why our surveyor designed this. ....." Carl Carrico: considerably. With that S curve we're going to slow the drivers down What we really wanted to do, this road has almost got to Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 5 ~ come in because the fire department is coming back up in here. Boyt: We talked about if anyone were to help us out...in some parkland, we would name the park after, Carrico Park. Carl Carrico: That's very nice but I don't think... We'd have 13 lots then. If we go any shorter, we really got some problems. Robinson: You say if you go any shorter than this. Is this acceptable to you? Carl Carrico: The 13 is acceptable right now...so you make this whole thing park here and that might work okay. The street is laid out in such a way that I don't know if I'd... Hasek: You could still have 10 lots if you get rid of this bottom piece and just have a cul-de-sac off the left lane. Tom Carrico: To be honest, we've looked at many possibilities. This is the fifth time we've... Carl Carrico: I think as far as... ~ Tom Carrico: Our future concerns are that if this area gets all built up, they'd have to go all the way around. That's why we created this because there is an outlot here. That's why we created that little street. Carl Carrico: If you guys bought the whole thing, you could put a road in anyway you wanted. I think maybe you can get away with it if it's your park. You're a lot better at developing what you want but I would think, I love the piece of land to tell you the truth and I am anxious to develop. We want to start getting somebody on it. Hasek: Okay, you're not looking for an answer from us tonight then necessarily? Carl Carrico: No, I just came out to tell you I have an interest and a possibility... Schroers: That you're willing to give us a shot at this. Hasek: How long have you been looking at developing this piece now? Carl Carrico: I've owned the property since 1972. Haesk: But when did you do the first... Tom Carrico: We really started to work really hard on getting this since ~ the 28th of June. That's when we had the first plat to cart around in. We've actually had plats done by several other architects. The first time we came into the City was in June to talk about doing this. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 6 ......" Mady: Actually you have to get approval from the Met Council before you can even go forward with this. Torn Carrico: That's our understanding. If we can get the zoning from the City contingent with what happens... Hasek: I think we ought to look at this. Boyt: He seems real fair. Prepared to sell. Sietsema: They can't actually start developing until they get that approval from Met Council and that could be... Hasek: But they could get all of our approvals contingent on. Sietsema: Right but Met Council may be over a year process to get that approved and I don't know if they want to wait that long. To sit on it that long. They may just as soon sell it for parkland. Hasek: I think they might be just a tad optimistic about getting the approval as easily as they are. They might be trying to right a way through applications. Sietsema: That's right. back it is because there up, they said let's look big application. That's the only way the City was really able tc......" was a number of other things and when this carne at all the other possibilities and do it as one Hasek: Of course my understanding is that that last time, that last deal that Met Council struck, they were pretty adamant about the fact that they didn't want you corning back for another year trying for more. Boyt: When was that? Hasek: A year ago. A year and a half ago. It wasn't that long ago. It's true that maybe this should have been included but I'm positive he was approached when this whole thing went through. I don't know if he was made aware of what was going on. It would be nice to have the whole piece. It is a pretty little piece of property. Sietsema: I think if we could get it even know what a reasonable price is. for $3,500.00 like the unsewered area could get it for a reasonable price. for a reasonable price and I don't I don't think we're going to get it in southern Chanhassen but if we Hasek: If we could get it for $5,000.00. That's 12 acres in one chunk. That's close enough. The thing that we should be thinking about is the possibility of other areas. Mady: Thoughts ahead on that though is, right now we do have a park ~ that's about three-quarters of a mile away roughly so we really can't get more than half a mile away from this parcel no matter what without people really being outside the MUSA area. Although it would serve Lake Lucy Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 7 ,..... Highlands real nicely. Sietsema: It will serve Lake Lucy Highlands and Pheasant Hills and it will serve that area between Curry Farms and Pheasant Hills as well. Hasek: I have a request for you as long as I'm looking at this map. Who does this... Sietsema: Our engineer tech. Hasek: Is it possible that they could get that map updated? Lake Lucy Road should be on there. sietsema: I sure will tell him. We've got more updated ones upstairs. Robinson: So we need some soil samples on that wetland? Sietsema: If you just want to take that portion, like the 3 or the 4 acres, then we do need to look at that more closely as far as, Carterelle, their engineer's opinion that the drainage is going to go through there and right after a big rain it's going to be wet for a couple hours but then it would rain off and then it would be dry. I would just have to have our engineers confirm that and I don't know if that's going to take ,..... soil tests or what. Schroers: I don't think that's a type of area that is seen for an active use. Even if it's going to hold water for a few hours. Hasek: I think that's an excellent use for a soil that's marginal land. If it's a piece of ground that ever had water on it and excluded it from development, there would be an awful lot of land in active park areas. If they're well constructed, you can even put, well look at the ballfields. Schroers: Are you talking about... Hasek: I don't know. He's got to get off of those but still there's water. I don't know that it's necessary the fact that it's a pond or a temporary pond. Schroers: Just the way it looks to me. If the whole area gets wet, it looks like most of our parkland would be wet and then unuseable for that period of time. Boyt: We've taken too many pieces of property and called them parkland. They're nice habitats for wildlife but they're not useable spaces for children or adults. """ Hasek: I think it's a matter of how it's altered but the one consideration or the one piece that I keep looking at is the ball fields just outside of St. Boni. If you've ever played there in a rain storm, you know that you can build a ballfield in a wetland because those things will get 6 inches of water on the ballfield and they'll continue to play ball. I think it's a matter of how you handle the ground and what you Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 8 --'" really need it for. If it's going to be flooded for a half a day after a heavy rainstorm, I don't think you really precluded it from being used as an active area simply because everyplace else is wet too and nobody's going to be out there. Boyt: Our wetlands ordinance is pretty conservative and I think we need more information on what exactly could be done with a Class B. Hasek: I guess all I'm saying is, the wetland, especially if it's a flow through, marginal quick wetland doesn't scare me in the least. I don't know that I would necessarily be in favor of accepting it as park dedication if it's really a wetland. Boyt: They won't be building on it anyway. Robinson: We need a professional opinion I think don't we as to exactly how wet this wetland is. Schroers: How much rain we would need in a given period of time to make the area unuseable and how long it would remain that way. Robinson: Something like that. Something that we can understand. How long would I inch of rain in an hour sit there? ....."" Hasek: Maybe the easiest thing to do is to ask the City Engineer to take a look at it to see what it's supposed to do. What the city's storm water plan has for it and what it really does. Sietsema: I guess what I would ask for direction is if you want me to pursue getting appraisals on the whole parcel? Is that your number one choice? Hasek: I'd like to see the whole parcel purchased as long as it isn't terribly outrageous. Robinson: Could we look at both alternatives though. Mady: If the City could keep 10 lots paying taxes and we can get a useable park of roughly 4 acres, that would work for us I think as long as the wetlands isn't too wet. ...the first one that we got here before he showed up, worked I think better for us because we could view everything. Gain access to the park off of Carrico Lane we have it situated. Maybe put a totlot in that northeastern corner and just have a ballfield in the western side provided the wetland isn't real, real wet. That would work for us. Robinson: I would agree with Jim. Mady: We don't have to have 12 acres. If we get 4 acres, I'm pleased ani I think the people in Pheasant Hills and Lake Lucy Highlands would be ....."" perfectly grateful for it. I guess if we get the whole thing and get it cheaply, that's fine but if we're going to be spending more thousand dollars for a minor, small park, that's a tough one. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 9 ~ Schroers: I also would like us to take into consideration what future development plans are in the area and if we can use this parcel to accommodate that. I think we want to look ahead a little bit on this. I think it may be an opportunity here with the entire parcel to cover this area well into the future. Prices continue to escalate, why looking at what we can do with the entire piece right now may be a good way to go. Mady: That might make some sense. It may become extremely difficult to get other developers to provide parkland that they really feasibly should be providing. Boyt: We've seen so many small developments. Sietsema: That's just it. What's left up there and you can look at the map that I put in there that shows the southern parcels. Boyt: It's so unusual to have a developer corne in and offer us a third of his plat in parkland. That's real unusual. Schroers: That and giving up the option to take the whole thing. I think he's being real reasonable. Boyt: I would like to look to the future more. Try for the 11.67 acres if it's reasonable. ~ Schroers: Or actually, look at all the options and let it play our hand and see what ultimately, what would be the best avenue to pursue. Mady: I guess the direction we need to give you Lori then is to get additional information about the wetland. How much can be altered and what type of wetland it is and all those types of information. Then find out what the property really should be approximately for. Sietsema: That would take an appraisal and I need a motion to have an appraisal done because it will cost money. Mady: This will sove a lot of problems. It's worth spending a few hundred dollars if we can solve the problems. Hasek moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to get an appraisal done on the Carrico property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW AERIALS FOR SOUTHERN PARK LAND. Sietsema: Let me just summarize real quick. I wanted to find out the areas that staff found could be potential parkland. I was going to bring you aerial photos down and I forgot. I can go up and get them. I found these five. I made just some notes on what immediately jumped out at me on the map that I outlined each piece. Some of them are not really up for ,-.... Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 10 sale and might not be willing sellers. I was not able to contact any of the current owners to find out who those are. This is just pointing out big pieces of land that have some characteristics that we were looking for. Would you like me to go up and get the aerials? Boyt: I don't like a park along the highway, TH 212. .....",; (The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aerial photographs of southern Chanhassen for possible parkland sites.) Sietsema: At least 80 acres in size was a must. Land costs up to $3,500.00 an acre was a must. South of Lyman was a must. Centrally located was a want. Near Bluff Creek Trail was a want. Includes nature area was a want. Near major roads was a want. Buffer to TH 212 was a want. Available within 2 years was a want. Accommodates horse trails was a want. Land topography conducive for active facilities was a must. 100 acres in size was a want. Offer unique opportunity was a want. Mady: Should we maybe be starting to rate some of those wants or were we going to do that on an individual basis? Some of those are wants but they're not very heavy priority wants. Boyt: At least 80 acres a must? Sietsema: At least 80 acres was a must. ...."" Mady: Council made that a must. But if we have a 75 acre parcel that's great. Boyt: Do we have the sizes of all these? Sietsema: Yes. It's on your ledger. Mady: I remember at the Council meeting Bill argued that point. That you had to understand what the decision analysis was before we started making musts and wants because an 80 acre must is actually an 80 acre want. It should be maybe a 50 acre must. Sietsema: At any rate, I wanted to bring those options to your attention. That does not mean that that's the only options. It's just the ones that are most obvious to staff right at this time. I will be working to get in touch with the current land owners to find out what their position is as far as if they're interested in selling or developing. I don't need any action on this. I just wanted to bring it up to your attention for discussion and show you where it is. If you haven't gone out there to look at those sites, you might want to go out there and see what we're actually dealing with. Mady: Is there a road going into number 3? Sietsema: Yes. You can drive all the way in there. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 11 "'" Robinson: Is that a field road or a regular road? Can we get back in there? Sietsema: It's like a field road that you can get in. We took the city car in there. Robinson: Off pioneer Trail? Sietsema: Yes. Schroers: We need permission to do that wouldn't we? We can't just go driving around? Mady: You're a city official. You can do whatever you want Larry. Sietsema: You can get permission if you want. We didn't. Schroers: I do that everyday with a truck that has a logo on the side and people, the first thing they do at the entrance, what are they doing here? Are they going to cut down the trees? Are they going to build a road to my house? You can draw a lot of attention to yourself in a truck like that. .,..., Sietsema: Do you have any more discussion on those or do you have any direction to give me or do you want me to just proceed with contacting landowners? Schroers: I'd like you to proceed. I think we need to know if there's any real possibility of the land being obtainable before we go off and start tramping around on it. Robinson: I think we should go out, each of us, and take a look at it and come back with some sort of opinion on it. More so than just looking at a map. Sietsema: Yes, I'd like you to go out there and see what it looks like. Robinson: So you just scoped these out. You have no idea if they're for sale or anything? Sietsema: No. I have no idea. Dawn was just saying that the people that abut her property, the people who own the property around here are likely to be interested in selling. The guy to the north quoted them a price of $5,000.00 an acre but she said he may just be feeling them out as far as what they were willing to pay. It's likely, the Erharts aren't interested in selling and I knew that when I put this in here. It was an open, big piece of land so I just included it. Hasek: Was the piece to the east of TH 101 for sale? ,...., Sietsema: I believe it is and I think they're asking $3,500.00 an acre. I have to verify that with the landowner. Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 12 -' Hasek: Okay, so that would be at least an indication of the potential cost of land in the neighborhood right? Mady: That was the southern portion of that. Sietsema: Right. Just that bottom 33 acres. Hasek: Is there any possibility with topography to get another 21? Connect a piece in case that's all that's available. Really that's what you're talking about. Sietsema: He's way up in the air. If you drive down that stretch of TH 101, you look up a bank to see his house. Mady: And it goes down to the Erhart property. Sietsema: Then across the road is their wetland. Hasek: Is TH 101 going to be improved? Sietsema: Someday. Hasek: Number 5 really excites me. I like that piece of property a lot. If you could do that, I think that would be a nice piece to chase. Beyono that, I think either 3 or 4 seems to be the most likely. I'd like to hav,~ some access at least off of an existing roadway so it doesn't have to go through a neighborhood. If we went with 2 or 1, we'd have to go through neighborhoods. We're not going to get access to 212 through there anyway. You'd have to come off on pioneer Trail all the way back over... Sietsema: So is there any action? Hasek: I don't think we need any. Robinson: I think the action's on our part to go out. Sietsema: Right. That's your assignment for the next time is to have gone out and looked at those pieces of property and get an idea of what they actually look like. My assignment will be then to contact the land owners. Mady: If we get arrested, can we call Jim Chaffee to come and get us out of jail? Sietsema: Sure. Mady: That's an active deer hunting area is it not? You can shoot a gun down there? Sietsema: So wear blaze orange. --' Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 13 ,..... UPDATE ON LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN UP PROJECT. Sietsema: The next item then ishthe uodate on. the LakehRi~ey chain of raKes Clean Up pro]ecE. Do you ave any questlons on tat. Mady: You sent that memo out to the Lake Lucy residents? Sietsema: Today. Mady: Today, okay. Because I know they were concerned about it. Sietsema: Since I've written this memo, Jo Ann told me that they have set a meeting date that I will be attending on what we have to do. They're saying that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to allocate the funds to other projects because this one is inactive. The inactivity. We haven't been doing anything, Watershed who is the local agent has not been doing anything because they haven't got that substate grant signed yet. They haven't executed the contract and we haven't gotten final grant approval so they're sitting there waiting. So there's a communication problem somewhere. Somebody is supposed to be doing something that isn't happening. I'll let you know as I know more on that project. Schroers: Is there anything that we can do about it? Sietsema: No. I'll go to that meeting and maybe there will be after that. But as of right now, there really isn't. .,....... Schroers: Do we have to meet the criteria like with public accesses or anything like that before the grant is actually approved? Sietsema: We had to commit to putting access on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy and we did send them the resolution from the City Council saying that they are committed to doing that. We put a time line down of how we could apply for grant money to do that. I have never heard back from them that that was not acceptable so I'm assuming that that time line and that resolution was what they needed to proceed. Maybe I'll find out that that's what the problem was and they never communicated that to us. I don't know but all the agencies that are involved with the project will be meeting at this meeting and I'll be there and I'll let you know what happens at that time. UPDATE ON LAWCON GRANT PROJECTS. Sietsema: We got 50% grant on a $222,000.00 project for the Lake Susan boat access and athletic field developments so that's $111,000.00 that LAWCON will be giving us. Schroers: Does that cover our archery range? ,....., Sietsema: That was not in the plan. They'll send us back the things that they didn't like about plan and what we have to change about it. Then we have to do a Historical Society comes out and makes sure there aren't any Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 14 artifacts that we'd be disturbing. We have to have the Army Corps of Engineers sign off on the project. We have to do an Environmental Intrusion Statement on the project site. There's a number of forms. A whole packet of things we have to submit as a final application. As long as we aren't deviating from what the scope of the initial plan was, I've never seen them not, I've done 7 of them now. .."", Robinson: And we have $111,000.00, that's part of the $300,000.00 that I heard mentioned? Sietsema: The total project cost was $222,000.00. They'll fund it 50%. The other 50% is our local share but part of that can be done with the Lake Drive East will be going in because Rosemount is going in so that's a good share of it right there. We may be able to get Rosemount to do some of our grading for us. That's part of our share. We can probably get a good part of the local share, at least the grading portion of it done by the other development that's going on so we have a real good opportunity here to get a huge project done for cheap. Robinson: And relatively soon too. Sietsema: Yes. We could get final approval on this like by March and start development right after that. Mady: There's no way to use the tax increment district? Sietsema: I don't think so. Mady: I had one other question. Can we get an update on the Lake Ann grading? Do we have any bids or anything on that? ......" Sietsema: I haven't got the grading plan back yet. To tell you the truth, I was kind of curious about that myself. I'll call. Hasek: Did we ever see a final plan? Sietsema: Yes. You saw a final site plan but you haven't seen a grading plan yet. Mady: The Council approved that. Sietsema: I'll call Laurie tomorrow and find out. Mady: And get us an update. Hasek: Can I ask you to send me a copy of that because I'd like to see a big plan of that. Mady: We should also have available next time at the Community Center Task Force meetings because that really does layout what's happening at Lake Ann. "'""'" Park and Rec Commission Meeting November 1, 1988 - Page 15 ,..... Boyt: The next time we have a light agenda, it would be a good idea to talk about what we'd like to see for Park and Rec Commissioner requirements. Sietsema: A while back Council directed staff to come up with a process by which commissioners should be selected and I think that Barb was going to work on that. I don't know whatever happened to that so I haven't even been able to get in to talk to Don. Mady: Are there any of us coming up for renomination this year? Sietsema: Yes, Curt. Mike's term was up in December so those were the two. Schroers: How many applications do we have? Sietsema: I think I have 5. Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator , ,..... Prepared by Nann Opheim ~