Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 05/02/2005 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 2, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Barrett, Chair; Tom Bierman, Randy Jacobus, Ian Mackay, Michael Moriarity and Geri Napuck COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeffrey Gerst, John Brill and Tom Crain COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation; Stu Fox, Parks and Natural Resources Manager and Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Cole Johnson, Apoorva Shah, Roby Shrestha I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chair Barrett at 7:05 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: Mackay moved, seconded by Napuck, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried, 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 4, 2005 Motion: Bierman moved, seconded by Mackay, to approve the minutes of the April 4 meeting as published. The motion carried, 3-0-3, with Barrett, Jacobus and Moriarity abstaining because of absence from that meeting. IV. REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION—April 12 and 26, 2005 Lambert reported that the City Council directed staff to initiate the process for providing additional information to them for a possible referendum. The only question the Council has agreed on is the request for$2 million for trails. The other proposed questions required additional information from property owners, neighbors, the School District, etc. V. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION A. ROGER PERSON—EDGEWOOD PARK PLAY STRUCTURE Fox presented a brief background on the play structure at Edgewood Park on Edenvale Boulevard. He explained that approximately three or four weeks ago a park inspection was done and at that time it was determined that the play structure at Edgewood Park was PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 2 unsafe. A letter was sent to the neighbors to let them know that the playground was unsafe and that they needed to remove the slide portion of that structure. A telephone call was received from Mr. Person expressing his concerns about the playground and wanted to know what the City was going to do. Fox stated that a letter had been received from the manufacturing representative of this equipment stating that the structure is 22 years old and recommended taking the structure down. Fox indicated that this information is being presented to the Commission this evening because Mr. Person wanted to discuss this playground with the Commission. Barrett asked if the park gets a lot of use and who uses the park. Fox responded that based on inspections, staff thought the park had very low usage. The play activity at this park is considerably less than in other parks. Roger Person, 6937 Edenvale Boulevard, said he believes the play structure should be repaired or replaced at the time it is taken down. He stated that the problem with the structure is stability. He questioned that if this play structure is unsafe, why the City has not stopped people from getting on the slide. There are no warnings posted in the park. Person said he thinks the structure could be repaired very easily. The structure wiggles and he does not feel this is an issue. A brace could be placed off to the side and the wiggle could be fixed with cross bars. Person pointed out that one major issue is the way the slide is designed. It is a poor design as far as safety is concerned. He said he feels that the structure can be repaired for under$1,000. Mackay asked how busy this park area is. Person responded that most of the activity occurs in the afternoons and evenings on a regular basis throughout the summer. Barrett asked staff if it would be possible to repair the play structure. Fox explained that the playground equipment is designed according to safety standards and as long as they do not modify the original design or components, the manufacturer picks up the liability. If the City modifies or corrects the structure, the City assumes 100 percent liability. Also, Fox indicated that should they use bracing, they have to deal with entrapment as well as with additional mounting hardware. When staff finds a major structure component such as rot, they have to decide what they are going to with it and staff is recommending that this play structure be taken down. The 2006 Budget does include $55,000 of funding for play structure replacement in Edenvale Park. There will be a meeting of the Edenvale neighborhood next month for review of the design of the park and at that time staff will discuss with the neighbors how these funds should be spent. They will discuss if all of the money should be put into a larger park or if part of the funds should be used for Edgewood Park. Edgewood Park is one-quarter mile away from Edenvale Park. Napuck pointed out that initially the City had notified the surrounding neighbors that only the slide was going to be removed. Staff is now talking about removing other components of the play structure. She asked if there is a process that the City follows when an entire structure is removed from a playground. Fox responded that they might be able to keep the lower components of the play structure in tact. However, there is some question on the play value of a play structure with only three components on it. Napuck asked how staff does the repairs so that the manufacturer still stands behind the structure. Fox explained that PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 3 they obtain the parts from the manufacturer. Because of the age of this structure, they are unable to obtain the necessary parts. Lambert explained that Staff would be sending out a letter to the Edenvale neighborhood explaining that there may be major changes in the plan for Edenvale Park. The neighbors will be told that after review of the playground structure at Edgewood Park, it is necessary to remove the entire play structure. Person asked that the letter include the reasons why the play structure has to be removed including the legal ramifications and the City's liability. Bierman pointed out that a memo dated May 2 states that there are major safety problems at this park and he recommended that immediate steps be taken to either remove the structure or block it off from use by Friday, May 6. Fox said staff is ready to take action on this play structure. They did not want to do anything until this Commission had an opportunity to address this issue. Bierman asked if it would be possible to replace this structure this year. Lambert responded that$55,000 is budgeted each year for replacement of playground equipment. That money is already spent for this year. Should it be decided that this equipment would be replaced at this park, it will occur next year. It will be up to the Edenvale neighborhood as to how the money will be spent and whether it will be spent on one large park or on two separate parks. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. WINTER RECREATION AREA CONCEPT PLAN DISCUSSION Lambert reported that earlier this year the City Council authorized spending money to obtain concept plans for an outdoor winter recreation area. The City did hire Ingraham and Associates to prepare plans for two sites; Round Lake Park and Staring Lake Park. Greg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates explained that they would like to present several concept plans for a winter recreation area to the Commission this evening. Ingraham introduced Tyler Pedersen who reviewed the various concept plans with the Commission. Pedersen presented four different concepts, two at Round Lake Park and two at Staring Lake Park. Lambert explained that staff supports Concept C because it provides a more inclusive "winter recreation area"by adding to the facilities at the Staring Lake sledding hill and the cross-country trails within the park. This site would create more activity in the winter that people would go to. Concept C would include a building, parking expansion, new drop-off loop,hockey rink, large free skating loop, seating area and connection to existing trails. The existing building at the top of the sledding hill would be demolished. Jacobus said he agrees that Staring Lake would be a good site for this proposal. He asked if the Hockey Association is comfortable with one ice rink, which is what Concept C provides for. Bierman said he feels that hockey belongs in the Round Lake area and recreation should be at Staring Lake. Lambert said they are talking about a winter recreation area and it makes sense to put it at Staring Lake and to put a roof on it. During the summer the covered rink PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 4 would be converted for use as a large park shelter that could be used for company picnics or other outdoor covered events. Barrett said he is nervous about discussing this proposal when they are also talking about a referendum. Residents may get the wrong message. Motion: Motion was made by Mackay, seconded by Jacobus, to recommend further consideration of Option C as the preferred concept and to obtain estimated operating costs and revenues from this proposal. A representative from the Hockey Association stated that when they came up with this plan, they had no idea that it would be this costly. The Hockey Association would not have a problem with only adding one rink. They would like to get as much additional ice time as possible. Bierman said he also has some concerns with this proposal and the residents may question where the funding for this is coming from since it is not part of the referendum. Bierman said he was not sure they should spend any additional money on this proposal until they know how it is going to be funded. Barrett asked if the additional work requested by Ingraham is included in the contract fee or if they would have to pay for any additional work. Lambert responded that Ingraham's bid was for a not to exceed amount and if they did not do any additional work, the City would not have to pay any additional fees. Lambert said it may be nice to have this project on the shelf and ready to go should the time be right. Napuck asked what additional information could Ingraham provide the City regarding these proposals. Lambert explained that they could provide projected revenues, net costs including operations costs and they could also show phasing of the project. Mackay said it appears that they have half the answer for this proposal and it does look like it's going to cost a lot of money. Phasing may be a possibility and perhaps this is something they should look at. Barrett pointed out that there are no funds available for this project and he does not see what difference additional information would make. Moriarity said he likes this concept,however,he feels a third sheet of ice at the Community Center would make more sense and he would rather go that route. At least now they have an estimated cost for the proposed winter recreation area and an alternative. Mackay withdrew his motion and Jacobus withdrew his second. Motion: Jacobus moved, seconded by Mackay, that while they prefer the design of Concept C of a Winter Recreation Area, the Commission feels that the costs are prohibitive and that they recommend to the City Council no further study of this project. The motion carried, 6-0. VII. NEW BUSINESS PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 5 A. PROPOSED UNDERPASS OF HIGHWAY 212 AT CHARLSON ROAD Lambert reviewed with the Commission the proposed underpass of Highway 212 at Charlson Road. The main trail connection to provide all residents of Eden Prairie with bicycle and pedestrian access to the Minnesota River Valley is the trail along Charlson Road, under Highway 212 and connecting to Riverview Road. The estimated cost for the underpass is projected to be about$200,000. Napuck asked what the timetable is for this project. Fox explained that bids are currently being taken and the City would like to make sure this goes forward along with the road construction project scheduled for this fall. Motion: Moriarity moved, seconded by Napuck, to recommend the Council approve the proposal for the underpass of Highway 212 at Charlson Road and trail connection to Riverview Road; and furthermore to request a trail easement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Upgrala Hunt Club for a trail easement necessary to reach Riverview Road and from the Hustad Development Company to provide a trail easement around the erosion problem on the east end of Riverview Road. Bierman offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the words "bicycle/pedestrian" be added before the words "underpass of Highway 212 ....." in the motion. Moriarity and Napuck accepted the friendly amendment. Vote was called on the motion as amended and all members present voted aye. The motion carried, 6-0. B. RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER RESTRICTIONS ON "WALKS & RACES" FOR TRAILS IN EDEN PRAIRIE Lambert reported that staff is trying to be proactive on what they anticipate is going to become more of an issue than it already has been. As the City's trail system continues to expand, the City receives dozens of requests each year from organizations that want to run fundraising events on City trail systems. They already have several requests for these events and they would like to put restrictions in place before residents complain that they are not able to use the City's trail system because of these events. Staff would like to see restrictions placed on these events so that they have controls established before it gets out of hand. Staff is recommending limiting the number of events the City will allow to be scheduled on these trail systems in order to keep trails open for residents the majority of the time. Moriarity suggested that some merchants at the Southwest Metro station might think these events are attractions if these events kick off there. They may want these events to happen. Lambert said it would be difficult to stage an event at this facility, especially if a large starting area is needed. Mackay said he agrees with staff's proposal and eventually a formal policy should be developed to be discussed at the Commission's next meeting. Napuck said she also agrees that this is good proactive planning but did have some concerns on how they determine PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 6 objective criteria. She questioned if it should be based on whether or not the event is serving the City, School District or non-profit organization. A particular organization may not be based in the City but may benefit Eden Prairie residents. She suggested they consider using a point system and that way everyone would know what is out there and what criteria would be used to make the decision. Bierman recommended that staff initiate a policy and that that policy be brought back to this Commission for consideration. Also,he recommended that when the policy is written it address the issue of communication. Events need to be advertised 48 hours prior to the event to let the residents know that a particular trail would not be available on a certain date and certain time. Lambert explained that they would not have a policy ready by the next Commission meeting but perhaps later this year. It is a good idea to develop a policy and they will also need to address the issue that once you have had a race it may not necessarily mean that it can be held in Eden Prairie again the next year. Lambert said staff would bring a draft policy to the Commission and once the Commission agrees on the policy, a draft will be sent to the people using City facilities for events for their review. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Mackay, to consider restriction of walks and races in City parks and to direct staff to develop a draft policy to be presented to the Commission. Moriarity made a friendly amendment that they have an interim policy limiting events to two a month. Barrett and Mackay accepted the friendly amendment and the motion carried, 6-0. VIII. REPORTS OF STAFF A. DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES 1. Park Referendum Process Barrett said he thinks the City should seriously consider running the referendum without a pool question. Lambert explained that staff recommended to the City Council that they authorize staff to develop information on Option B for pool improvements and the Council directed staff to obtain detailed operational costs for both Options B and C. Barrett suggested that they make it a separate question. Lambert responded that these are items that can be discussed at the June 27 Commission meeting where they will discuss final recommendations to the City Council on the referendum. Barrett said he feels if they present a $5 million question for a pool it will be turned down and residents will be in a negative voting mood. Lambert explained that on June 14 there would be a workshop with the Parks Commission and City Council to discuss a proposed referendum. Mackay asked if there is anyway to get public feedback on Barrett's concerns. Lambert said he feels the process they are setting out will give the necessary feedback. The town meeting should tell them what the residents want. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 2, 2005 Page 7 Bierman said he feels the motion made by the City Council regarding development of concepts for Community Center improvements is confusing. The Council is talking about an outdoor pool that sounds like a water park, which residents said they did not want. Bierman said they have to be cautious about the way things are worded. Mackay said that is a good point that should be brought up at their joint workshop with the City Council. 2. Update of Sports Facilities Committee Lambert presented a brief update on the Sports Facilities Committee explaining that they expect to finish the Priority Use Policy at their next meeting. It is anticipated that this policy will be presented to this Commission at their June meeting for review. There have been a couple of recommendations made by the Committee that staff does not support. The City Council will make the final decision but this Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Update on Trail Planning Committees Lambert reported that the Trail Planning Committee process is going very well. There are three different planning teams with 15 to 18 people on each team. A special Parks Commission meeting will be held to hear the Planning Committee's input after which the plan will go to the Watershed District. After each plan has been presented to the Watershed District, it will come back to this Commission for official action and then forwarded onto the City Council. 4. Annual Report Staff distributed to the Commission copies of the Parks and Recreation annual report. This item will be placed on the Commission's June agenda to allow the Commissioners to ask any questions they may have regarding the Annual Report. B. MANAGER OF RECREATION SERVICES C. MANAGER OF PARKS AND NATURAL RESORUCES IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mackay moved, Jacobus seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.