Loading...
PRC 1987 06 30 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUNE 30, 1987 Chairman Lynch called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Schroers, Mike Lynch, Jim Mady, Carol Watson, Ed Hasek and Curt Robinson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator Carol Watson will attend the July 6th City Council meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEW: EIGHT ACRE WOOD ADDITION, ROBERT SOMMER. Sietsema: You saw this proposal at the May 26th meeting and you tabled action on it because you were not sure what was happening with Melody Hill Road and what' the story was there and I apologize for you not having that complete information. Basically what's going on here is they are subdividing this parcel. What we're asking for is an off-street trail. What I'm recommending that we ask for is an off-street trail along Chaska Road, along the utility easement and then a connection along this lot that would eventually be a connection to the school because the school is just on the other side of this lot. On the other side of Melody Hill and that would connect this neighborhood as well as the neighborhood up here to the school. ,.:, 'e them a trail easement to the school. Lynch: Now what was not going to happen with Melody Hill? It was not going to go through to Murray? Sietsema: Melody Hill has a chunk that doesn't go through. Lynch: Doesn't go through to Murray? Schroers: No, it doesn't go through to Galpin. Sietsema: It doesn't go through because there are houses in there. Schroers: It stops at Murray. Sietsema: What your question was from what I got from the Minutes was that there is a Melody Hill Road that comes through this way and this way and it doesn't connect and you were wondering if that would eventually connect. Lynch: Alright, this piece right here? Sietsema: Exactly. To Murray Hill Road and that will not connect. Watson: It will never happen. ~-~ch: So we still need to get down here to the school? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 2 ,.... ~ tsema: Right. The school is to the south and then it's Melody Road then there's a lot here and then this neighborhood up here. What we're looking for is to connect, with our trail plan, we're looking to connect neighborhoods to schools and to adjoining neighborhoods and that kind of thing. Hasek: That's a 90 foot wide lot? This number 15. Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: And you're looking for what, a 10 foot easement on this one side? Sietsema: Right. Schroers: Would that trail along Lot 15 go down to the school? Sietsema: No, we would have to work' with the homeowner here to see if we could get an easement across their property to eventually connect. Schroers: Is it just one lot? Sietsema: Just one lot. Lynch: Is that built on now? ,.... I:> csema: Yes. Lynch: Have they been contacted? Sietsema: No. Lynch: What's to the right of that? Sietsema: There's a house there. Hasek: Is this one lot in here or is this subdivided? Sietsema: I think there's a couple of houses in there. Hasek: It shows it on here, several houses. How far does Melody Hill actually go? Down and across? Sietsema: It goes to in front of this house. Hasek: The street is already in? Sietsema: Yes. Hasek: And the school property abuts against Melody Hill? :r- :sema : Yes. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 3 l ek: Did they use that for access at all into the school property? .....", Sietsema: There is a gate there. There is a fence around the school property. That's where the soccer fields are back there and it abuts up to the soccer field and there is a gate there so I don't know if they get equipment in there to mow it. Lynch: Is there any useage now from the kids in that direction? Sietsema: I don't know. Watson: I know they go through by the water tower but that's in a different place. Hasek: Where is the water tower? Down at the end of that cul-de-sac? Robert Sommers: No, it's up Melody Hill. Hasek: So it's south of you then? Robert Sommers: Yes. Hasek: And tha t' s a big piece of property? there? That's that big chunk that's in ~ ~tsema: Yes, they've got about 3 acres. .-' Hasek: And do we have any trail easements along Murray Hill? We don't do we? Sietsema: No. Hasek: The only thing that bothers me about this is that 90 foot there. I think our sideyard setback is 10 feet. If this guy wanted to build a 70 foot wide house in here, he couldn't do it. Sietsema: Do you have a problem with a trail going on your property line there? Robert Sommers: I have some questions. I guess one of them is, what does the school think? Mr. Graupmann: Why do you need the trail? There's not that much going on at the school anymore. Sietsema: " Because it's opening this fall. Robert Sommers: Bill Swearengin made the suggestion that the principal would hate to see a trail. Do you know how the principal feels about that? ek: No, I guess we don't do we. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 4 If""" , .. ,tsema: No. Mrs. Graupmann, 6330 Murray Hill Road: The question came up at the meeting, especially by the people along Melody Hill, was when you put this development in, the kids are all going to go helter skelter through their yards to the school and this was what the problem was. So they suggested that maybe there should be a certain path or something to go to the schools instead of going on the roads. So that was the big problem and no one expected a great big, and then they also suggested, not a great big deal because otherwise you're going to have a lot of loitering and littering and everything. The kids are going to have fun along this path. All it is that they want proposed I think is just a way for the kids to get to the school grounds. Hasek: I guess our problem is that we don't want them walking in the streets if we can absolutely, positively get away from it. Mr. Graupmann: Right now you've got the school bus coming up Murray Hill Road and the kids walk from our spot. They all walk up to the corner, that's where they catch the bus. Mrs. Graupmann: And they have to walk in the road, so what's the difference? ~~k: I think the cul-de-sac is maybe just a little bit, and I know this 1 .d up here, I almost bought a house up here as a matter of fact. I've been back in there I guess a couple of times. Personally, the reason I asked about Murray Hill Road is because I thought if we had something along there, if tha t road would accommoda te it, I would ra ther see it go ou t on the street and then maybe cut across the water tower property but that doesn't look like it's possible. The thing that bothers me about Lot 15 is that it's only 913 feet wide and I know our neighborhood has 90 foot wide lots and if you take that 10 foot on either side or are you considering 12 with 6 on each side? Sietsema: It would be 12 foot. Hasek: 6 on each side? Sietsema: No, just 12 feet. Hasek: I don't think that you could even get them to do that. Robinson: Do you have to go on l5? Can you go between 12 and l3? Lynch: But those other lots are thinner. The next lot is 713 some feet? Mady: What's the problem with having the plat redone and having 13 moved over? ,..... Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 5 Jert Sommers: Do you mind if I ask a couple questions? This piece of ......" property here, she has a lovely fence going along the back. Now what happens to the fence when you do these things? This property owner has a nice fence going along in here. What you're precluding then is not being able to build any fences by doing that. If you visited this, you would know there is a fairly good drainage ditch here so then you're moving it back this way. I wouldn't be happy building a house and then having people wandering across my front lawn. I know I've had people stop in and digging up ferns when I'm not around sometimes. It's not like the city where you don't have people corning and digging up your front lawn and they feel that we're out in the country, you can do anything you want out here. Mrs. Graupmann: You see the way it has been all these years, where we've had very, very few kids on Murray Hill. There just haven't been many. There's so few it's never been a problem and usually the kids either went through Mrs. Howard's property which is right next to us or they went through ours and it wasn't a big bother because there were so few of them. We never objected because we knew the kids and they were nice kids and never a problem but when you get a bunch of kids, it's a different matter. Robert Sommers: There's a large family, the Snyder's who live over in here and they have a lot of children but they talked to me and said is it alright if we cut through to go to the Jr. High and you knew who they were and you said sure. \, _son : All those lots, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and act u a 11 y 2 and 1 , they a 11 are ~ accessing on Chaska Road? Robert Sommers: Yes. Watson: All individual driveways? Robert Sommers: Yes. Sietsema: We're not planning here Carol. Watson: I know we're not planning but I'm sorry, I have to go past that because that's an incredible number of driveways by anybody's standards. You take 90 foot lots and you set a driveway off of each one of those and you've got enough dr i veways so if there were any chance tha t there was go i ng to be any kind of coming together of the driveways or anything like that that would mean there would be anything running along there that would get us back off the street a ways. Sietsema: Has Planning said anything about that or have they talked to you? Robert Sommers: No. That's how you get out onto the street. You've got them allover the city. W~~son: I know but we're avoiding that situation now or attempting to l ause it really causes an access problem. ....." Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - page 6 "'" ~. . Graupmann: The end lots all have driveways out. Hasek: I think these were probably platted a while ago. Watson: I mean if there was any chance that there would be some kind of... Sietsema: I don't think that's the case. Watson: I'm sure the best they would do is bring them up and make them use two lots to a driveway. Sietsema: In my meetings with Jo Ann and Barb on this one, they haven't indicated at all that there would be a change in the street system within this development. Watson: There is no street system within this development. Sietsema: I mean that it wouldn't change from this. They did not indicate to me that they were recommending anything different than this. Schroers: Lori, would it be possible to just extend the trail down Chaska Road to Melody Hill and down Melody Hill and then down Melody Hill to the school? ~sema: That would be an option that we would have too. Hasek: But we would need easements from four existing homeowners by the looks of that. At least four existing homeowners. Schroers: Do you think that would be more logical and feasible than trying to cut through the development? Sietsema: That's a utility easement anyways so we have these kinds of trail easements through lots like this allover the city. Hasek: Really what you're doing is just taking another easement over an existing easement. Sietsema: Over an existing easement, exactly. Except for on 15 and that's why we made the one on 15 narrower because we didn't want to take 20 feet of that lot. Mrs. Graupmann: What do you mean by narrow? How wide is it? Sietsema: 12 feet is what we're asking for. Lynch: feet. green ,..... Normally it would be 20 feet. Now that doesn't mean we use 20 The trails themselves are normally 4 feet wide with a couple feet of on either side. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 7 t .tsema: Our new standards are at least 6 feet if they are bituminous. they are paved but whether this would be paved or not. If ....." Hasek: I thought they went to 8 feet so they could get... Sietsema: Yes, 8 feet on the major streets. Watson: I wonder what the chances of getting that other lot, getting that trail through at that point because it's not going to do us much good to have that piece if we can't negotiate with that homeowner that's south of there. Hasek: Actually, it could go through here. It could go through here. If there's a lot line that comes out here, it could go through there and I think it probably could come up here easier than there because this has got some room to set the house back on either of those two lots just a 1 i t tIe bit and you've got some room at least. I think the idea is correct. I think that we should try and connect across that proposed street, whatever it's going to be to Melody Hill somehow for a trail connection. Where that happens I don't know. Can we suggest that the Councilor the Planning Commission work with the developer to locate a site? Sietsema: The other thing, just to bring it to your attention, if we move it over, we've got to get an easement from two landowners instead of one. f-. ,ek: If you did it over here then we would only have to take 12 feet off --' of this one property? Sietsema: Right. Hasek: But we could do the same thing over here if we knew where the property line was and where this house was, we could locate this one so that it would on one side or dead center. Watson: Is that piece subdivided down there? There's a couple houses down here isn't there? Sietsema: Yes there are. I was just out there today and I know there's.at least three houses down there. Hasek: Is this a willing landowner? Sietsema: I don't know. I haven't approached them on it at alL I don't know. Lynch: It should be if I know what you're thinking. I would just as soon see what their stand is before I decide where I want it. Hasek: It might be possible that nobody down here is even willing and if we r'~lly want one we're going to have to buy the thing. ...."" Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 8 II"" ~. Graupmann: If you put the walk here, the school is over toward the road and so if the kids are going to come, they're going to have to walk way over there or they are going to have to walk way over there when the school is over in that corner. If it would be between that would make more sense because that's where the little gate is, is around in the middle but then it's going to be an awful lot of extra walking if they come from that way and then down that way and then over again. Schroers: How far would you say that is then? Mr. Graupmann: It would be closer from the other end, from the old Chaska Road because of the school than to come from this end. Mrs. Graupmann: This end is a great big field. Sietsema: But there is a gate down there. Mrs. Graupmann: The gate is half way up. Watson: Do we have a utility easement along the rest of Chaska Road or do we just going to have a utility easement along there? Mr. Graupmann: The utilities go to the school from old Chaska Road. T~on: I was wondering if we have utilities all along Chaska Road all the . to Melody Hill, if we could pick up our trail along there. Mrs. Graupmann: But the kids are just going to skip through there. They're not going to go all that way around when they can go just straight across. Hasek: What is the straight across that you're talking about? Watson: Where would that actually go? If you were going to go straight across from the new proposed street. Lynch: The gate is down in here? Robert Sommers: No, not quite. I would say it's more about here. I used to own this piece of property here. Watson: It's between 13 and 14 then. Hasek: Now what was the direct line that you were talking about? Mrs. Graupmann: Like if they would come through that way from Chaska Road and then go through the easement, then they would have to go backwards. Hasek: They won't do this, that's a 20% grade in there. They're never going to walk up that. That won't happen. ~. Graupmann: What is that red marking then? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 9 t ek: That is something that we are asking for simply because there's a utility easement going to be taken there anyway and it's our practice to put a trail easement on top of the utility easement should we at any point want to develop that thing. It's easy to take in the beginning. If you try to get it later, it's very difficult to do and developers will typically give that to us because it's nothing anyway. It's an easement really is all it is. The utilities are going to be in the ground. The people can't put a fence on the property line there without the understanding that it could be torn up anyway so it's just something that we would ask for. The chances of that, we would have to put stairs in there. Even if this cul-de-sac was dropped 10 feet to level out everything up in there, it would still be a 20% grade from right here to right there. ""'" Lynch: The thing that you're looking at Ed is that the kids from the north side of Chaska Road and from the lots 6 through 10 that abut Chaska Road, the gentleman is right, Mr. Sommers, they are going to go down Chaska Road and go to the school because the school is located there. But the kids from this area and this area are going to funnel like that rather than going all the out here and all the way down there. Watson: But 13 and 14 would be more direct. If the trail was between Lots 13 and 14, would that be more direct to that gate? Robert Sommers: Yes or between 12 and 13. Whatever. In that general ,. . .. i nit y . ...", Hasek: But see there's another piece of private property down in here and that property line runs about like this and if the gate is over here, they're going to have to go back to the gate and the school is going to have to rebuild a gate. Mrs. Graupmann: You would have to build a new gate in there because you have to squeeze through it. It's not a big gate that you open up. Hasek: It's what, a body gate? A bike gate? Lynch: That's what we want anyway. We don't want anything wider. They'll push something big through it. Hasek: I guess I'm trying to understand what it is, why you're here this evening and what it is that you would like us to think about doing. Maybe I should just ask you that. What would you like us to consider doing? Mrs. Graupmann: It's just that Mrs. Harris, or where the Woida's live now, they're only complaint was with the school, was that the beer cans and everything went over their fence. Hasek: When the school was open? ~-'C;. Graupmann: Yes. .....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 10 ".... jek: And they live by you? Robert Sommers: No. Melody Hill went all the way through and it doesn't. Their property separates the two Melody Hills. Mrs. Graupmann: They were saying that they used to have debris and beer cans and things on their side of the fence and she would show it to me. Hasek: So you would like us to try and keep the pedestrian traffic from going near your property? Mrs. Graupmann: Sure. But I still thing they wouldn't use this way over in here. They're going to take the direct route. As direct as they can get it. Lynch: If there's no obstacles. Hasek: And if there are no options, I think you're right. Mr. Graupmann: Especially Murray Hill Road. That isn't a very level road either. Schroers: But I think that would be hard for us to make a decision on because we don't know where the proper ty 1 i ne is down below so it's go i ng to l~ard for us to say what we want to do. Watson: Could we just make a recommendation, we want a trail through there but we don't know exactly where it should be because we're unsure of circumstances. Sietsema: You can direct Staff and Planning to work that out with the developer. Schroers: Do you have any suggestions on that Lori? Sietsema: No, that sounds fine. Watson: Just keeping in mind that we want something over here that makes the most direct route to the school. Watson moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and request, in lieu of trail fees, a 20 foot trail easement along Chaska Road, a 12 foot easement along the utility easement and a 12 foot easement somewhere between Lots 12 and 15 to provide an access to the school based on information located to the south. All voted in favor and motion carried. ,....., Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 11 .E RILEY WOODS SOUTH, GEORGE NELSON. ....".,' Mady: If we're going to be putting an on-street trail through the development, we should request the street be widened to handle that. Hasek: What kind of right-of-way is it? Watson: I believe it's 50 now. Hasek: It should say right at the property lines. Sietsema: It's a rural section roadway because these are big lots. The smallest one is 2 1/2 acres. Hasek: It's more than 50. Sietsema: My guess would be that it's a 60 foot. You could structure in your motion to say that the street right-of-way be wide enough to accommodate an on-street trail. Hasek: Is there a piece of property here that you're aware of that might abut another piece of property that might make a nice, halfway decent active park for something in the future? Is it all hilly beyond these property lines? .. .:tsema: The areas that we had looked at when we were looking for a 15 .""", acre piece was the parcel to the north. The Halla property on either side of TH 101 and the Tim Erhart property. Hasek: So we're still going to spot those? Sietsema: We're still looking in other areas. This one seems to be, it's way off to one side. It wasn't as centrally located and that was one of the reasons that some of the other things were not chosen at an earl ier time. This was even more off-center. Watson: It's too far east basically. This doesn't accommodate, not only Chanhassen but more for Eden Prairie. Sietsema: There are other parcels other than what I just named that would suit our purposes and we will continually look at those. Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to request a 20 foot trail easement along pioneer Trail in lieu of trail dedication fees with the street through the development shall be a sufficient width to accommodate an on-street trail in addition to it's automobile traffic in lieu of trail fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. ..."", Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 11 IfII""". l. ek: What are our requirements for trail fees exactly? Sietsema: $138.00 per unit. When we're looking at construction for the developer to construct them, we figure for an 8 foot bituminous trail is $5.00 per linear foot. We are giving in the rural area, we're not asking them to develop them because there aren't enough funds generated within the development to pay for those but because they are giving the long stretch it usually ends up to be a substantial amount so we give them credit for acreage then. KURVERS POINT, FRANKLIN AND MELVIN KURVERS. Sietsema: This proposal is located on the east side of Lotus Lake, west of TH 101 approximately one-half mile north of TH 5. Schroers: Are the Meadows Apartments right across the street from them? Sietsema: No, the Meadows are down and around the curve across the street from the boat access. This is further down the road. The closest park to this development is South Lotus Lake Boat Access Park which is about a half mile away from the development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as trail deficient and it also says it's not cost effective to develop neighborhood parks in the area due to the beach10ts that serve the .~eationa1 needs in the neighborhoods. In our trail plan that we put ~ Jether, we've got TH 101 identified as trail and also consistent with what we've done consistently is to ask for an off-street trail on one side of the main street within the development. So what we're asking for here is a trail along TH 101 and along the main development. Because they are providing a beach10t which is right here, we are recommending that we take park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. Lynch: Is that an outlot and then that dark line showing with the triple lines there? Sietsema: This is the access to the beach10t. This is the lake. Lynch: That whole triangular area back there is all beach10t? Sietsema: Yes, beachlot. Lynch: And what's the little circle? All the solid lines are trails right? Sietsema: The solid lines here are trails. These are docks. Sailboat moorings. Lynch: What's the semi-circle at the bottom there? Is that the beach itself? Sietsema: The swimming area. ,.... ;on: How big is the beachlot? Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 13 .....", Kurvers: About 470 feet on the lake shoreline. It's 56,000 square feet. Sietsema: Which is what, when you take, remember our calculations for pa~k needs is 1 acre per 75 people and I figured that out and this neighborhood will generate the need for 1 1/2 acres and that's what they are providing. Mady: That's private. It's not public. Sietsema: Right and that's what they do have allover Lotus Lake. Watson: And always will be attempting to accomplish along TH 101, an area like this we would provide an area like this we would provide a neighborhood park anyway and they are providing it anyway. Robinson: Is there going to be some park in that boat access? Sietsema: Yes. Originally in the boat access plan, the upper area between TH 101 and the parking lot we had planned a totlot and backstop for neighborhood park purposes. I don't know if you remember, we had the wellhouse site and that's an acre and something. Bloomberg was going to give us the little triangular piece that was next to that to make it big enough to put like maybe some totlot equipment or a tennis court or something like that so that area in there is served with park needs there. Along the lake, just off to the west from the boat access itself we do have s~~e land that goes into that woods that eventually will clear out and put e picnic area in there. .....; Schroers: Do we have plans to extend north on TH 101 at all on our trail system? Sietsema: Our trail system outlines all of TH 101 all the way up to our northern boundary. Robinson: How far south? Sietsema: All the way down to Shakopee. Schroers: Does the developer have anything else? Sietsema: Yes, if you have any more questions, the developer can make any additions if you would like him to. Mel Kurvers: I'm one of the owners and I do have some questions on it. First of all I'm not against trails but I feel they should go somewhere. When you mentioned the trail on TH 101 going south and north, I don't know how. Going south especially there's a meadows when you come around that turn and they can't even drive that. I don't know how you possible would have a trail. I don't know how they could extend that. Lynch: We have serious obstacles in several portions of the city as far as I es t r i an or b i cyc le tra i 1 s bu t we can see and the long term planner scan ..."", Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 14 II"'" ~ that they're going to have to be there eventually because there is pedestrian and bicycle traffic there and we're going to have to wrestle one. What we're trying to do at this stage, we're just on the verge of providing a long term trail plan to the city. That's being worked on. What we've been trying to do, parcel by parcel over the last couple of years now is to get as many easements in place as we can at this point. Whether we use them or not. We have cases like the previous subdivision where we already have an easement on the north side of Pioneer Trail and find out it's not feasible now, we're going to have to go on the south side. We're shooting in the dark but we have to do that to try and get things linked up. When and if TH 101 ever gets redone, which of course it will eventually, we have a piece of area. We're also trying to link up with the Eden prairie trails in some manner for the border residents and they don't quite match points of interest on our side so there are going to have to be some on TH 101, north south corridor to get from their east/west trails to our east/west trails. As far as somebody, there has been a lot of suggestions that the trails are going to be an organized grid. You'll be able to start in northeast corner of Chanhassen to go to the southwest or anywhere across. That's going to be a number of years before that happens. Mel Kurvers: Like I said, I'm not against trails. Sietsema: You're right though, it's a very tricky curve and we may not get ~ail in there for quite a while but we may get the rest of it on TH 101 :he north. Bits and pieces and eventually all those bits and pieces may ~ .mect to each other and we'll have something. This is qui te a substantial link. Mel Kurvers: Do you have a trail easement through Bloomberg's property on the south end of the lake to get to that? Sietsema: Yes. Mel Kurvers: The new addition? Sietsema: Yes. Lynch: We also have, before we have the easements in place, for the kids in this neighborhood, if we can get something along TH 101, can get to the North Lotus Lake Park which will be the closest ballfield for them. Mel Kurvers: The thing that I was trying to bring up is that we're going to have to put a berm along here and if you're not going to use these, that's 20 feet of frontage on the lots. Like I said, we're not against the trail on TH 101. Also going south, you're going to have to go across some private property. I supposed you could condemn them. Lynch: Eventually I'm sure, when the trail plan is put together, approved and the implementing of it goes into effect, there will be lots, little "'~es here and there that will have to be condemn and purchased. We just started on it late. It's something that should have been looked at 40 Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 15 ...."" \rs ago. Mel Kurvers: Also, on this trail that you're proposing through here, this is a low densi ty area and we wanted to keep it that way because of the Outlot here. If we put a trail in here, we're going to have people coming in there and there's going to be problems with the outlot. Sietsema: The rationale for putting trails within the subdivision is to get the people that are going to be living in that subdivision out to the trail safely. So they can get from their neighborhood to parks. To schools. To neighboring neighborhoods safely. The trail along TH 101 is a major connector to all these different things and this trail is to get them out to this trail that's going to connect them to everything else in the city. So, every subdivision we've looked at in the last year, we've asked for trails within the subdivision in the urban area. Mel Kurvers: But wouldn't these people be able to go out to get onto this trail down the street? Lynch: They could but they can't legally on a motor vehicle right-of-way street. What we're saying is that we want enough room to put an on-street striped like is on Kerber Blvd. where the pedestrian is legal there and the car is illegal. Sietsema: They did a lot of subdivisions in the earlier days without ewalks and now they were wishing they had them and it's a bear to get in ."WfIII tuere and put them in. Laredo Drive is a perfect example of that. That's where one is needed very badly but I personally couldn't back down on asking for a trail within the subdivision to get those people out to the major trail systems. Mady: It also provides some of the access into your beachlot from your residents who live further down. The kids will be able to ride their bikes or walk down to your beachlot without having to go on the street to make it a safer access for them. Schroers: I think that would be very desirable to have a trail in the neighborhood. I would think that would increase the property values having a nice trail arrangement. Mel Kurvers: We were planning on putting some trees along the roadway there. With that in there, that's kind of. I realize that this is just your suggestion. Hasek: I think you will have plenty of room for trees. My name is Ed Hasek and I do developments like this. This is my job. This is what I do for a living is developments like this and you'll have plenty of room to put your trees in without disturbing where the trail easement. Mady: Last night at the City Council they looked at Lake Susan West Hills e that developer is putting in sidewalks along all his major streets. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 16 II""" '.. .t's the direction we're heading. That's what we want to see. We're not taking 8 foot wide trails on the streets through the subdivisions themselves. If they want to put in actual concrete sidewalks, that's fine. That way it will handle the people in the development. It's not going to be a major trail where you're pulling in everybody else throughout the city. Mel Kurvers: I think the biggest concern there is that you're going to get some of your off-street people coming to the outlot and that's going to be a problem too. Really the outlot is supposed to be for the area. Robinson: But there is the boat access with the lakeshore and the picnic tables are going to be right down the road with the boat access. Hasek: I think that your concern will be handled a little differently. Are you concerned that people will walk in on the trail system? You're really considering that to be kids more than anything else. Mel Kurvers: Again, I don't have any objections to people walking through but I do have, how am I going to handle the people from Eden prairie when you say tie into Eden prairie and how am I going to prevent these people from coming in here? I realize the lake is free for everybody to use but not through here. H~k: You've got the same problem I've got. I'm president of Sunrise r.. .s and we've got a beachlot directly across the lake from you. We've got c.. ~lg sign right on the street. We still get a few people down there but our members are very good at recognizing who belongs and who doesn't. They ask that the person leave and they always have. I know up on Minnewahta, some of those beachlots they have nice big signs. They're well done in good taste but they make a point. They say members only. It's a private beachlot and they're not welcome there without members being present, depending on how you structure your beachlot rules but that's how you keep the people off. We haven't had a lot of problems with that recently now. Sunrise Hills is going very well for us this past year. We put a gate up and that prevents boats from going in on that access and with the new access, it's cleaned it up a lot. I'm a member of the Minnewashta Creek which is across Lake Minnewashta we've got a beachlot as well with 38 units in ours. We don't have a through street like you've got here but we're right on Minnewashta Parkway and occasionally somebody will stop and want to come down. I don't know that we've ever had any real problems with it and ours is actually like if you put it on TH 101. I gues I'm suggesting that it's right up front. It's even remote from our neighborhood where your's in right within your neighborhood so that kind of off-balances things but I think a sign and the few people that do show up in there, your homeowners are going to recognize them and you're not going to have a problem. Sietsema: You have a small access to your beachlot too so it's going to be easier. ~~ Kurvers: It was designed that way. We didn't want it as a path to get ;here. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 17 --' ~ .son: This is off-street too. It's simply a striped area that's part of the street. I don't think it's quite like in Eden prairie where the trails are a completely separate entity and they do seem to lead people. They are just following streets. It's not like it's a separate thing. Sietsema: The trail within the subdivision? Watson: Yes. Sietsema: No, that's off-street. Watson: But it will be along the street and I think in Eden prairie they kind of wander through and I think you have people getting off the street and wandering through more under those circumstances. Here they are more apt to just follow the street. Sietsema: These are more like sidewalks. From the way you said it, it sounded like it was like the Lake Lucy Road but this is definitely separated from the street. Watson: But it follows the street. Hasek: Has the City Engineer or Planning Commission or anybody seen this yet? ~ _ Kurvers: They wi1 see it on the 8th of July. .-.111' Hasek: Has the City Engineer seen it yet? Me1 Kurvers: I imagine they must have seen it. Sietsema: It was referred to the Engineer at the same time it was referred to me. Mel Kurvers: It's been in the city offices for quite a while because the lady.. . Hasek: I think you're going to have the opportunity to voice your concerns at the Planning Commission. If you want to you can talk to the Planning Department too about those things but I think that it's our charge to ask for the minimum of what you see right there. Me1 Kurvers: There's one other thing too. On here your recommendation was that we would provide this bituminous off-street trail in the street right- of-way in lieu of trail dedication fees. Sietsema: Right. Me1 Kurver s: Well, if we were to do tha t and I had some people give us p--~ce, it would be three times as much to put that path in there as if we ~ a to pay for the $138.00 per lot. -.III' Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~e 30, 1987 - Page 18 t tsema: It wouldn't be three times as much. Mel Kurvers: That was the figure they gave us. Sietsema: Do you know how many feet long that street is? Mel Kurvers: I'm not sure. I think it's about half a mile. Anyway it figures out to around $5,500.00 and anywhere from $13,000.00 to $15,000.00 to put that path in there so I guess if I was to say something I certainly would accept the trails fees versus putting the path because that's quite a bit difference. Mady: What are asking them to price out, an 8 foot wide bituminous path? Mel Kurvers: That's what they gave me because they're the same people who are pricing out the streets. Hasek: What I'm hearing is the developers are preferring to put in the cement sidewalks because they're not sure about those costs. Sietsema: And they're not 8 feet either. They're 5 or 6. According to my calculations, it was much closer than that. It wasn't three times as much. ~ Kurvers: All I'm going by are the figures they gave me. L ~tsema: Because we just had a job bid out and it came to $5.00 per running foot so I don't know what the figures you got. Plus it would be cheaper if you did it at the same time you did the street. Mel Kurvers: I'm sure they are on the running foot versus 8 feet wide versus the street. I don't why else they would figure that. Sietsema: I know but the real cost, and what I'm telling you is that we just had a bid go out and it came back at less than $5.00 a running foot. That figures out to be much closer to the amount than what you're estimate is. Mel Kurvers: I don't know. It's just when I saw the figures, I had to go on what they said. Sietsema: I think they're estimate is high is what I'm saying. Mel Kurvers: I have no idea and I haven't seen the estimate for the street verus anybody elses. Lynch: Lori, I just ran the numbers too. If Kurver Point Road is a half mile long, that's $13,200.00 at $5.00 per foot. R~inson: And at $138.00 for 42 units is $5,800.00 so it's twice. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 19 ....." l Kurvers: Those are my comments. What other developments are providing all of this? Sietsema: Centex Homes is providing off-street trails and 7 acres of parkland. Lake Susan West is talking about providing 33 acres of parkland and I can't even give you the miles of trails, 3 1/2 miles of trails. A lot of our subd i vis ions we do ask for park land too so to be honest with you, I think you're getting by cheap. Mel Kurvers: Well, this here would certainly be considered park. Sietsema: But it doesn't benefit the city. It's not a public park. Hasek: Let's round it up to $8,000.00 of what the estimate comes in at and what we would take for the $138.00 per lot. All along I said that's the cost of the lot, not the number of lots. I don't think $8,000.00 with 14 lakefront homes is going to make a lot of difference in this development... Sietsema: I've got to agree. Mel Kurvers: All I'm saying is, when you're saying you are going to take something in lieu of, it doesn't tie out. I 'ch: Should we work in there and should we be working in on these 8 foot 1:. ,umi nous or... ...."", Watson: Do we have a definition of a sidewalk in our Zoning Ordinance? Sietsema: I don't know what it is if we do. Hasek: Or reasonable substitute, is that what you're thinking? Lynch: Comparable to concrete sidewalks. Should this be as a rule from noe on. If I were a homeowner I would much rather have a concrete sidewalk than bituminous. Watson: We could take that definition out of the Ordinance and use it too in that as part of that description because there must be a description of what a sidewalk is. If you say you have a sidewalk, what do you actually have. Sietsema: Yes, we could define sidewalk to mean and then every time we say sidewalk they have the option of doing an 8 foot bituminous trail or 6 foot concrete sidewalk. Lynch: For simplicity maybe we should forget calling it an 8 foot bituminous. Maybe we should just call it an off-street trail specified to City Ordinance. .....", Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 20 ,..... t.. tsema: I don't think it's specified so I think we need to say a paved sidewalk and I think we've got it covered. Hasek: I think you ought to define it in the ordinance and just get it over with. Lynch: We don't want to lock us into something that they might want to provide something better than. Watson: If we're putting in sidewalks, like Lake Susan West Hills are putting in sidewalks, we must have some kind of standard sidewalk. Sietsema: I'll look and see what it says. Schroers moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of park land, to request a 20 feet trail easement along the west side of TH 101 and the construction of an 8 foot bituminous off-street sidewalk within the street right-of-way of Kurvers Point Road in lieu of trail dedication fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW: GRAMS SUBDIVISION, ROD GRAMS. ~sema: This proposal is located on the northwest corner of Audubon Road Q Lyman Blvd.. Bluff Creek runs through the development. This is just the south end of the development. It's got this piece up to here. This whole piece is the outlot and this piece is where they're putting in six lots. I've been working real closely with Tim Erhart who is on the Planning Commission, who lives down on the southern area of Chanhassen. Is very excited about these nature walks along Bluff Creek and he's been very helpful... Hasek: Is he the one who lives on the corner that's going to give us that piece across his property? Sietsema: Yes and he has talked to all his neighbors and he's getting easements allover and he's putting them in himself and it's really a nice deal. I called him up when this carne through because on the trail plan it just shows that the creek just ends right here and I know for a fact that it goes up past TH 5 so I sa id, if you're out and about take a look at tha t and tell me what's really out there. So he got back to me this morning and Bluff Creek runs all the way through here. There's a great big culvert that you can walk over and then you walk right underneath the power lines, it's high and dry, with wetlands on both sides, all the way up to TH 5 up to the creek. It's a really nice deal and he's going to keep an eye on it and we're going to keep an eye on it and what I want to do is, when we talk to Mark next time, is let's get the little dots all the way up Bluff Creek. p~ek: I think there are a lot of those that are off. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 21 ....."" ~ tsema: There are tons of them because there are so many wetlands in the south end of the city. In fact he indicated that there are a lot of off- shoots off of Bluff Creek itself. There's a railroad track there that's got a nice little bridge going right under the railroad track that the farmers use and that they used to maintain the NSP utility lines. So anyway there are a lot of trail potentials. There is a wildlife preserve area that's up there and there's a lot of potential for a natural trail system in this area. I think we should keep our eye on it and get it. It would be a nice asset to the community. So this definitely is not a parcel that we want for our 15 acre park. Number one it's not centrally located within the south end of the city. The other thing is this is very steep in here. This is, where the creek lies, this dotted line here is the wetland below elevation 870 so everything below this is wetland and I think this is like the high water mark. What I'm saying is we should get a trail easement along Bluff Creek all the way through. Hasek: On the outside of the property line, inside the outlot? Is that where you want the easement? Watson: Is the easement in the outlot or is it on... Sietsema: I don't know how it all meanders up here but it does go up into the outlot. That's why I have a little arrow. Following the creek, whatever this elevation, the 878. ~ ~son: But we're not dividing lots by running that through there? They're not going to be able to use anything south of that trail easement anyway. We're not essentially cutting off part of their lot? Sietsema: No. This is west and this dark line here is the actual creek. This is all wetlands so they can't use that. Watson: I just want to be sure that we're not cutting their lot in half. ..J Hasek: Larry, from the Hennepin County Park's standpoint, does the DNR give you any trouble about building trails across wetlands or in wetlands or adjacent to wetlands? Lynch: You can't fill. Hasek: You can't substantially alter is what you can't do. Schroers: We have obtained permits to build like floating nature trails through portions of our wetland areas but basically the standard procedure is that you do have to obtain a permit from the DNR for just about anything that you want to do. If you want to put in a boat launch. To disturb a natural wetland at all, you need a permit. Sietsema: And anything that the DNR says, the city's own Wetland Ordinance ir twice as strict as the DNR's. We have the most restrictive wetland ~ inance in the State of Minnesota. -' Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 22 ."'" ek: Okay, this is a personal thing that gets talked about but to me it doesn't make any sense at all to use good, useable land, something you could put a garden into or put into lawn space or anything, for a trail when 10 feet away you've got something that may in fact be under water part of the year which is absolutely, perfectly acceptable for a trail system and a lot of other park uses, open park space. Sietsema: Passive. Hasek: Passive type of things, you bet. Schroers: Do you see that here Ed? Hasek: Do I see what? Schroers: What you just said. Hasek: I don't know. I don't think it's going to make any difference one way or the other. The government has basically told us that there's a high water level for that creek. Whether it reaches that once every 3,000 years or not, I don't think really makes any difference. Sietsema: I don't think it matters anyway because of the bluff there. Because they're building way up here and that's so straight down. ,..... }-. ~ek: What I'm talking about Larry is pOlicy more than anything else. Sietsema: But the City doesn't want to get stuck with is like Lake Susan West. They would just love to call all that open space that's wet along there, that 56 acres and that's your park dedication. That's what they did to us with Chan Estates and that's why we've got Chan Estates Park that's all under water and that's why our policy is the way it is. But I understand trails and parks. Lynch: I'm sure we're going to find places which are not conducive to active development but it will take a trail. The only thing we have to be careful of is what are giving the money for. Mady: If we put a trail in in an area where it's going to get flooded fairly regularly that we're going to have washout. Hasek: year. What you're talking about here is a 100 year event. This is a 100 That's how they set that. That's the 100 year event. Watson: Except last year we had three of them in about a two week period. Hasek: No, we had two of them about five years ago in a two week period. The City of Minneapolis has had two 100 year events in the last 50 years and they were about 5 years ago. We had them one week apart. Two Saturdays or ~thing like that and that's it. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 23 ~ \ ..:son: As far as water goes, we had it last summer. In tha t two week period we washed out everything that the DNR and everybody else... Hasek: But Carol, there's a certain amount of water in a certain amount of time. You might have gotten 5 inches of rain in 3 minutes and that's not a 100 year event. It has to be duration. Watson: But this was designated engineering wise, as a 100 year event. Sietsema: It isn't relevant, let's move on. Hasek: The point that I'm saying is that still, even if we had one every year for the next 10 years, the chances are we aren't going to have another one for 1,000 years. That's why they make it a 100 year event. Speaking about policy only, I would certainly like to think about starting to use some of the lowland for trail systems. We don't have to put them all high and dry. They are certainly conducive when they're made out of aggregate to flooding and they're not going to wash away. They're not going to disappear. Mady: If that's our only choice maybe but not on a policy basis. Sietsema: I agree wi th what you're saying Ed and that's exactly what we're going to do with the Lake Susan West. In that 56 acres of wetlands. We ~ '1 be able to build a trail within that and that's a natural trail but I ~ 6~_.'t think that that should be in place of the trails that are identified on our... Hasek: No, no, no. I guess what I'm talking about is location. To me it's not necessary to put all the trails up on high and dry land. Just like it's not necessary to put all the roads up on high and dry land. To put the highways across the best agricultural land in the country, which is exactly what they do. That's why we're burning up the land that we've got because we're putting the dumbest uses on the best land. I certainly do not see any problem with using lowlands that are suspectib1e to flooding for recreational uses. If that's all that there really want it to be. Sietsema: I have a question then. Let's say that this was all flat from this setback line back and then it sloped down and this was the ordinary high water mark. Would you say then we should go with where the water normally is as being where the trail should or at that line or just below that line? Hasek: I would say it would go just inside the line. Sietsema: Okay, I agree with that. Hasek: We put it at the 98 year event. As close to the 100 year but we haven't used what the government has told us is good land for the trail. ']'" , best of the worse land for the trail. We haven't put it right down the c. ,ek where it's going to be wet all the time. """"" Park and Rec Commission Meeting ~ 30, 1987 - Page 24 t .tsema: So what you're saying is why use 20 feet of this guy's yard when we could put it on the other side right here? Hasek: Exactly. Sietsema: I agree. Lynch: It almost has to be on a case by case basis too. If the 100 year water mark is here and it drops off like this, we say we don't want that. I don't think that in any case we should use the 100 year high water mark for some kind of hard and fast, we always have to be above it. You're right there. We have good easements in right now that I hope they see it developed that are way below the 100 year. We're going to have to get permits. It was set up initially to put footings for post and bracket through because that would be neat. The Lotus Lake Estates, all the outlots all along Lotus Lake that go up to the park. There are nature trails that we've talked about down in Chan Estates. There are many other places where we're already planned in below the high water mark and sometimes by necessity and sometimes because we thought it would be neat to be there. Hasek: I guess nothing is going to get solved here this evening. It's just something that I think we ought to really seriously consider. It's not a.~ ways necessary to take high and dry ground and the best land or good, ~~ble land for recreational. ~ .:tsema: I agree with you though. If we stay at that high water mark and the 20 feet just below that. Mady: I disagree. As a policy basis, I think we should be asking for the best we can get for the citizens of Chanhassen and not necessarily worry about the guy on Lot 5. Hasek: He is Chanhassen. Mady: But only one person. Hasek: I don't believe you said that. I can not believe you said that. Watson: The guy who bought the lot, he will know what... Hasek: That doesn't matter. He's going to be a resident of this city and he's got the same rights that you do. Mady: What I'm looking out for is the best interests of the City and we should be getting the best item we can for the City. Hasek: I tell you what, if you're serious about that, let's go out and let's find the best land in the City and turn it into park land and trail rtems. ~ .y: I think that's what we're supposed to do. Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 25 ......,; .. ,ek: I f I were you I would take thi s Comprehens i ve Plan home and read it from cover to cover so you get a good understanding of how the community is supposed to be doing. That's not our charge at all. Not at all. Mady: I think it's your opinion versus my opinion. Lynch: What both of you are missing is the definition of best. Every time we look at a unit of property or park land or a trail, all of us are working for what's best but best is not always the best use of the land from the developer's standpoint. It mixes back and forth. We never have used the 100 year high water mark for a definite policy statement. I don't think we ever will. It's something we all have to be alert on for each individual development and look to see what's there. Even if we have to walk out and trudge to see if it's going to be a constant proble. If once every 98 years, I can get rip to it but it's just something we have to chase on each. Now, on this development can we get a motion? Watson: Where is that property line between Lot 6 and Lot 5? Are we approximating the property line with our trail? Sietsema: It's the creek. Watson: So as long as we hand by the creek we will be pretty much approximating the property line in that area. 5. _tsema: I think we should pick the contour line. --' Watson: pick a contour line and stay with the contour line? Sietsema: A 20 foot easement along the south side or north side, whatever of the 878 line. Hasek: Above or below is the way you should put it. Lynch: Now if we go below that, in this particular case, we're going to be into the creek in places. Otherwise, it's great. Watson: Shouldn't we just state that just above the 878 contour? Mady: You might have to go a little higher than that if you want to pull it back from the creek. I don't know how wide it is through there. Sietsema: How about if we go 20 feet on either side of the creek? Mady: Maybe it should be centered on the 880? Lynch: I think it's specific enough to say that it would follow approximately the 880 line. S: 'tsema: Okay, I'll put a 20 foot trail easement along the 880 contour 1 e . .....,I Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 26 ,..... \ .son: This is kind of where we've got it here. This is below the 880 on this anyway. Robinson: Do you want a motion to that effect? Lynch: Do we want to scotch that because we're on the other side of the road north of there? Watson: But wouldn't we still want one from Lyman Blvd. up Audubon to the trail. Lynch: I thought we were coming down Audubon on the other side. Watson: We're not going to get a trail in here. It's pretty steep. Sietsema: We're on the other side here on Lake Susan West. Robinson moved, Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of park land and to require 20 foot trail easements along Audubon Road south of Bluff Creek, on Lyman Blvd. and along Bluff Creek at approximately the 880 contour line in liue of trail dedication fees. All voted in favor and motion carried. .,..... OF JULY CELEBRATION Lynch: In the past Lori has asked me to bring Scouts down to do First Aid and drag the fields and so forth. I'm not the scout master any longer but now for instance on this one she says plan to help. Can you tonight outline some things that we can be of help? Sietsema: Yes. This is the flyer that's going out to everybody. These are the events that are going on. We are having family things going on most of the day on Friday with the softball tournament. We're having family things going on most of the day at Lake Ann on Saturday and then you are going to be getting an invitation in the mail from the HRA that you are invited to the ground breaking ceremony that is going to be held up here at the City Hall at the street dance location at 6:00 on Saturday night before the street dance. They are going to be giving away free hot dogs and beans and potato chips and that kind of thing. Then they are going to go over and I th i nk Tom is go i ng to shovel some d i r t on that road tha t goes bet ween the bank and the old bank and then they'll come back and they're going to give some speeches and that kind of thing. Then at 7:00 the band is going to start. What I need for help in this thing is I could use some people on Friday helping little guys with the fishing contest and I need people to man the street dance. It's going to be all fenced off in the back of the City Hall between the City Hall and the warming house in that ballfield there. There's going to be a beer garden in there and what I need is people, we're going to sell the T-shirts that we sold last year. I need someone to do ~t and I need people to stand at two entrances to make sure that nobody 1 .ves with beer. We're not going to be selling tickets. It's a free deal Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 27 1 everybody but we can't let anybody leave the fenced in area with beer or br ing thei r own beer in. The people who are do i ng the HRA sh i ndig with the free dogs and stuff, they could probably use some help handing out hotdogs and scoopings beans if you're around and want to help with that. What I need most help with is the fishing contest and the street dance. The fishing contest isn't even that big a deal. I just need some bodies up here for the street dance. --' Larry Carol Mike Ed Curt Fishing Contest Clean up 6:00 to Clean up Fishing Contest and 6:00 to Clean up 6:00 to Clean up Sietsema: I have two more announcements to make. Number one, if you remember on the Saddlebrook Addition there was a piece of the property that is adjacent to Chanhassen Pond Park that's in the elbow of Kerber Blvd., that piece in here that we always said we were goign to get someday, we bought that piece and it cost us $8,000.00 an acre and it was $72,000.00. Lynch: We're talking the east side so we've got all the way around the pond? &. ~ tsema: Yes, we have all the way around the pond. I have one more ......"I announcement. Remember we talked about adding to Lake Susan and the HRA was going to buy us some property and give it to us for parkland right next to Lake Susan Park, well the bank just came through with that and they're closing within the next couple of weeks on that so we now have that additional 8 acres. If we get the grant we applied for, we'll put a road in with that. Lynch: Has the North Lotus Lake contract been awarded? Sietsema: No, what happened is we sent the contract when Bill was still here and they did not get it back to us and they lost it so Mark in the meantime contacted them and said where's the contract. Why aren't you doing anything? They said we lost it. Mark got them a new one so they're in the process of signing that and getting it back to Mark. Lynch: What's the completion date going to be? Sietsema: I'll get to you on that. I don't know what that is. Lynch: Make sure that it's this year. I'm going to get real, real excited if it's not this year. That contract got let supposedly a year and a half ago. South Lotus Lake active development, you mentioned that briefly tonight about the picnic table area and so forth. I talked to you three JlI "ths ago about that or so and I don't remember, what were we waiting for t .~now where the picnic tables were going to go so we could clear that off J Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 28 I'*' ~. '-" Co. get that. We were waiting for something. I know we were at the time. Was it the final plat of where everything was going to go or what was it? I went down there and I can't see that there's any, there's that one spot. In fact the City crew I think went in and cut some trees. Sietsema: That was Herb's and we went out and stopped them. That was Herb's people. They were clearcutting everything that was under a certain amount and .we went out and stopped them because they weren't supposed to be doing it on their property much less ours. Lynch: Anyway, between now and next meeting, check to see. I don't think we have a formal drawing of that park do we? Sietsema: Yes, we have the boundaries and that. Lynch: But I mean where things are supposed to go in there? Sietsema: That area was just designated as picnic. It wasn't going to be a formal area. Lynch: I would like to get at least a picnic area furnished and cleaned up and I'll do that with volunteer labor. Sietsema: Is that an eagle scout project? ,... ~.dch: That would be a very nice eagle scout project. So find out about where I should put it. We'll get that one going and maybe the totlot next year. ~ Mady: Last night on the Consent Agenda did they approve the totlot? Sietsema: Yes and I ordered it today. Mady: Another thing I want to make sure, I mentioned it before the meeting, we haven't gotten our Minutes from the last two meetings. I'm not sure how we get this done but I think it's important that we get those Minutes done. It has to be started. We haven't seen the Minutes since May. Sietsema: Yes you have. You saw the Minutes of the May 26th meeting at the last meeting and now you haven't seen the June 16th meeting. You didn't see the last minutes but they're not done yet. If you know of anyone that wants to type Minutes. Mady: It's been two weeks. I think we're low man on the totem pole. I saw last night at the City Council, they don't take us very seriously and that's one of the reasons. We're unorganized and it just hurts. Lynch: Is this going to be a problem? ~'tsema: I don't know what to tell you. We have one person who does all ~ Minutes now. It used to be that we had people doing other jobs. The '--"" ....,I '-- """'" .......... "WIll Park and Rec Commission Meeting June 30, 1987 - Page 29 ,... ~. .utes, now tha t they want them verba t im, it ta kes a long ti me to do those Minutes. It takes four times as long to type those Minutes as it does to make them. Lynch: What I'm saying, we're having additional meetings based on additional activity out there. Everyone else says it's not going to get a whole lot better. Maybe mention it to Don and if you need for me to, I'll call Don and discuss it with him. Sietsema: To do what? . Lynch: To have some additional capacity. Sietsema: . Do you know how long it took us to get Nann? We advertised over and over and over. The only other thing is I don't do something else and I do them myself. Lynch: Ask for somebody, an additional person. Mady: The feeling I got at last night's meeting is, they looked at me and said, why aren't you guys making sure your minute are getting done? That's the feeling I got from the Council last night. Schroers: Is there anything else we can do to change our policy from doing ~ ~ything verbatim? Sietsema: That was a direct order from the City Council. They want it verbatim so there isn't anything we can do. Robinson: Lori, where do we stand on the Park and Rec commission appointment? Sietsema: It's going to Council on Monday. Robinson moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator Prepared by Nann Opheim ,.