Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 05/05/2003 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 5, 2003 7:00 P.M. City Center Council Chambers COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Barrett, Chair, Jeffrey Gerst, Vice Chair; John Brill, Tom Crain, Randy Jacobus, David Larson, Ian Mackay and Bruce Schaepe, COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Trisha Swanson STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Chris Shea and David Westphal COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation Services; Stu Fox, Manager of Natural Resources; and Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chair Barrett at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: Schaepe moved, Brill seconded, to approve the agenda as published. The motion carried, 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 7, 2003 Schaepe asked that on Page 11 of the minutes Crain's name be corrected from Cain to Crain. Motion: Mackay moved, Brill seconded, to approve the April 7, 2003, minutes as corrected. The motion carried, 7-0. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION A. Request from Ernie Shuldhiess Lambert reported that the City had received a letter from Ernie Shuldhiess asking if the City is interested in acquiring his property at tax value and giving him life estate. Mr. Shuldhiess owns one of two remaining parcels within the proposed boundaries of Riley Lake Park. The City's Park and Open Space Plan does indicate that these two parcels will eventually be acquired by the City for park purposes. Lambert explained that if the Commission thinks this is a good idea to recommend to the City Council that the Council authorize staff to obtain an appraisal of this property and to negotiate a life estate purchase based on that appraisal. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 2 Mackay asked that Lambert briefly explain a life estate. Lambert responded that how a life estate works depends on how the contract is drafted. The person is allowed to live on the property until that is no longer possible. When that occurs, the property becomes the property of the City. The terms of the life estate will vary taking into consideration payment of taxes, maintenance and care, etc. The purchase price may also be based on how long the person will reside in the home and on the appraisal. Mackay asked if they take into consideration the value of the land. Lambert said it is based mostly on the land only since both homes on the two lots would be removed. Motion: Schaepe moved, Gerst seconded, to recommend the City Council authorize staff to obtain an appraisal of the Schuldhiess property and negotiate a life estate purchase based on a City appraisal. The motion carried, 7-0. B. Franlo Park Neighborhood Petition Fox reported that the City received a petition from neighbors of Franlo Park requesting that the hours of use for the basketball court be extended from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fox explained the hours were established in 1997 when a similar petition was received from the adjacent property owner. The property owner was concerned about the noise from the basketball court. City staff did measure the court and found that it is only 22 feet from the property line. Staff is now recommending that they move the court back to 30 feet, which is the zoning requirement for an accessory structure. This would require taking 8 feet off of the court and making it a single-basket facility. Fox pointed out that the petition was included in the Commission's agenda material and was signed by 131 residents. Pat Peterson, 10308 Franlo Road, explained that the reason the residents want the hours extended is because they want their children to be able to play at this facility rather than go to a facility where they would be allowed to play later. The children in the neighborhood are older and do not go to bed at 8:00 p.m. Peterson stated that the summer in Minnesota is a short season and the restricted hours do not allow the kids to play in the park for any length of time. Peterson said shortening the court and eliminating a hoop is not a valid solution for them. The reason they want to use this court is because of the two hoops which allows the kids to play a game. A lot of the residents have single-hoops in their driveways. Peterson said it is also inefficient use of the Police Department's time to have them continually monitor the use of this park after hours. Randy Brewer, 10481 Misty Morning Lane, explained that playing basketball on a full court is fun. The kids in the neighborhood want to play until 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. They want to be able to use the park like they do for soccer and baseball. The summer is very short and he questioned the harm in allowing these kids to play basketball until 9:00 p.m. Pamela Bohlig, 10309 Franlo Road, explained that she lives in the other house that backs up to the basketball court and she has never found the activity on the court a problem. She explained that when a petition was submitted in 1997 there was an issue with one teen-age PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 3 kid that would come to the court and play his radio loudly. That individual is no longer a problem. Barrett said staff had received a letter from Allen McNee and he indicated that they do have a problem with the bad language used at that court. Bohlig responded that there was one incident last summer and she did confront the kids and told them their language was not acceptable. Jacobus said the McNee's appear to have a problem with the basketball court while the Bohlig's do not. He asked what Bohlig would suggest they do. Bohlig said the McNee's have planted trees along the property line and she would think that would help. She said she honestly did not know what should be done. She suggested the McNee's keep their windows closed on that side of the house. A basketball bouncing is not an offensive sound. Bohlig said when a person builds their house next to a basketball court they should expect noise. Schaepe asked if staff has looked at other locations for this court within the park. Lambert responded that in 1997 they did look at this very closely. Franlo Park is a 20-acre rectangle park and they had to cram facilities in there to get all of the things they wanted. The main issue and the reason staff is suggesting they cut off the court is because the people the court is offensive to have indicated that they will take legal action against the City. The park is zoned rural and the setback for a structure is 30 feet. This court is only 22 feet from the property line to the basketball court and the City could legally be forced to cut off the court. The Commission can recommend that the Council approve a variance for this court, however, staff would not recommend that. Brill asked if the courts could be multi-use. Lambert responded that they have put hoops in tennis courts. That would be a last resort. Lambert said before he would recommend that he would recommend that they remove a tennis court and put in a full basketball court. Brill asked how many full court basketball courts there are in the City and what is the nearest one to this park. Fox answered that there are six full courts in the City with the nearest one over a mile away from Franlo Park. Brill asked if any of the neighbors in attendance objected to removing a tennis court from this park. Larson asked if a tennis court were removed how soon could this occur and would funding be available. Lambert said if the City Council authorized this it could be done this summer. Sue Hooker, 10388 Meade Lane, said they use these tennis courts a lot during the summer and there are nights they have to wait for a court. At 8:05 p.m. the Police arrive and tell them to get off the courts. She explained that the basketball court was there when the McNee's purchased their house. They knew there would be kids playing there. Tracy Orr, 10301 Franlo Road, asked if the time restraint includes the tennis courts. The Police are kicking everyone off all of the facilities and not just the basketball courts. She suggested that rather than remove a tennis court they provide neighborhood counseling. Lambert said the only facility with restrictions is the basketball court and staff would inform the Police Department of this. Dave Puelston, 7183 Sunshine Drive, suggested that they relocate the entrance to this park. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 4 Barrett said he likes rules and he feels they help make decisions. One of the rules is that the basketball court be set back 30 feet from the property line. He asked if there is any way they can pick up 9 feet and keep the other basket. They need to be consistent and he agrees that they should move back 30 feet from the property line. Lambert said they could keep both baskets but this would result in a smaller court. Barrett said this would be better than having a single basket. Mackay said he feels they should look at the possibility of eliminating a tennis court. Motion: Barrett moved, Schaepe seconded, to go back to the original rules and keep the park open until 10:00 p.m. as well as honor the 30 foot setback and to recommend that staff consider keeping both baskets. Brill said he feels they are compromising to do something that is not in the best interest of anyone. They will have a basketball hoop but it is not an official basketball court and he does not feel this is in the best interest of the neighborhood and this facility will not be as popular as it has been. Schaepe pointed out that the compromise will result in a shorter basketball court but would provide them with a full court. Brill said he would like to see a proposal for a redesigned basketball court. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Brill who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Schaepe moved, seconded by Mackay, to direct staff to investigate turning one of the tennis courts into a basketball court. Mackay stated that should it be determined that a tennis court be removed they would not have to worry about eliminating a basket or having a shortened court. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye. The motion carried, 8-0. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Off-Leash Doe Exercise Area Plan Review (continued from April 7, 2003) 1. Cedar Hills Park Site 2. Flying Cloud Site 3. Hockey Rink Sites a. Crestwood Park b. Homeward Hills Park c. Nesbitt Preserve Park d. Edenvale Park PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 5 Libby Hargrove, Chairperson for the Off-Leash Park Committee, presented a brief overview of the Committee's report. Hargrove explained that the Committee is recommending that Cedar Hills Park, Flying Cloud and Hockey Rink sites be used for off-leash dog exercise areas. Dennis Anderson, 9864 Crestwood Terrace, spoke in opposition to the proposed off-leash area located in Cedar Hills Park. Anderson said he also opposes the hockey rink concept but most particularly opposes the concept of an off-leash area in close proximity to a neighborhood with numerous minor children. Anderson stated that his job has required him to deal with numerous dog bite cases. This proposal is attempting to bring victims in close proximity to assailants. Anderson said he is sympathetic to dog owners who do not have fenced yards; however, when an area is created that mixes different breeds of animals with different temperaments you have an attractive nuisance. Anderson asked that the Commission give the children of Eden Prairie first priority. Barrett asked if any of the dog bite cases he has dealt with occurred in an off-leash dog park. Anderson responded that they did not but did occur in private homes. Allowing this off-leash area in the park raises the potential for a volatile mix. Rob Phillips, 9377 Shetland Road, pointed out that Hargrove stated that the Cedar Hills Park proposal would require minimum construction cost. Phillips stated that this proposal would cost well over twice as much as any other site. Hargrove also mentioned that the proposed dog park would allow different uses by many different people. Phillips said he feels this off-leash park would preclude the use of the park by minor children and would eliminate the use of that area by small children. The residents of the Riley Creek Ridge neighborhood are opposed to this proposed dog park. Phillips said it is their feeling that this area should first and foremost be utilized as a neighborhood park. Phillips asked the Commission to review their guidelines as to what constitutes a neighborhood park. The dog owners in the neighborhood are opposed to the proposed dog park. Phillips pointed out that there are 16 off-leash parks in the metro area. Of those 16 parks, the only one adjacent to and abutting residential property is the one being proposed this evening. There is also an aesthetic issue. This park is a beautiful and unique area and would not be able to be used by residents if they do not have a dog. Katie Boehm, 9360 Shetland Road, said there are over 100 kids under 10 years old in this neighborhood and they are worried about a dog park that will back up to the neighborhood. For the safety of the kids, Boehm said they do not want a dog park to be built in the residential area. Will Phillips, 9377 Shetland Road, explained that he and his friends spend a lot of time in the area proposed to be a dog park. Phillips said they are concerned about the dogs scaring away wild animals. For the kids' safety and the safety of the animals in the park, they ask that the Commission not allow a dog park in this area. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 6 Phillips presented to the Commission a petition signed by the children of the Riley Creek Ridge area stating that they do not want a dog park in Cedar Hills Park. Rob Phillips said he believes the City and Parks Commission can do better with this land. Allowing a dog park will result in the park turning into a mud packed area. This is a very unique property. He asked that the Parks Commission consider other sites in the City. They need to put something in this area that people will benefit from 100 years from now. He asked that the Commission preserve the natural beauty of the park and to add to it. He suggested that they put in a neighborhood park that meets the needs of the neighborhood. Mackay asked how many homes abut this property. Phillips responded that there are approximately 15 homes that abut the park. Jan Ehresman, 9353 Shetland Road, said she was representing the families of Riley Creek and wishes to speak on the safety of the children in the neighborhood. In the short time they had between this meeting and when they were notified, they obtained signatures of 85 percent of the residents indicating that they are opposed to this proposed dog park. Ehresman said she has four small children and the neighborhood roster includes 113 children's names under the age of 18. This is not a place for a dog park. The proposed fence would be 10 feet from the property line of the abutting properties. This is a childrens neighborhood and they should not have to worry about dogs jumping the fence. Ehresman said they are not opposed to a dog park but are opposed to a dog park in a residential area. Joe Young, 16697 Stirrup Lane, said he has three major concerns. The first is safety. He asked which Commission member is willing to say go ahead and have this dog park so close to a residential area that there is a risk of a child being bitten by a dog. Another concern is increased traffic. With this proposal they can expect a substantial increase in traffic in their neighborhood. There is no question that people who can't find a parking spot in the limited parking available will park on Shetland Road and will cut through the residential properties to get to the park. This will result in an increase in the number of dogs passing through the neighborhood. This park not only brings dogs to the kids but kids to the dogs by adding a proposed basketball court. The third issue is environmental. If this park is developed, they can be assured that the wild animals that frequent this area won't do so in the future. Tim Rawerts, 6650 Duck Lake Road,pointed out that the previous item considered by the Commission was an issue of an easement not being 30 feet away from a park. He questioned how a dog park could only be 10 feet away from the residential property lines. Rawerts said he uses the City's park system extensively and complimented the City on their recent addition of a frisbee golf course. The City needs to remain progressive as it grows. Rawerts suggested that they look at developing the dog park 100 feet away from the properties. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 7 John Dykes, 9329 Shetland Road, explained that his back yard borders the park. When he lived in Colorado his apartment complex backed up to an off-leash dog area and that park smelled. Gary Demee, 9425 Shetland Road, said he personally does not see himself using this park; however, he does have a small fenced area. Demee said one of the problems he experiences is smell. Considering the size of the proposed park and the shape there is no possible way that the dog owners can see where their dogs will defecate. This site is very damp and it will be smelly. With a park as large as the proposed park it would require a full-time employee to pick up the animal waste. Demee said he would suggest that they start with a smaller area or keep it further away from the residential homes. They should consider in the 5 to 8 acre range. The location and size are questionable and Demee said he thinks the Best Buy site is the best place to start. An identified resident from the audience explained that she wants an area to exercise her animals. She indicated that she has been in Bloomington and did not see any dog fights. In response to her question as to how high the fence would be, she was told that it would be 5 feet in height. Another unidentified resident from the audience said she believes that people have educated their dogs to be more social. She stated that she has a large yard but has a need for her dogs to see other dogs and allowing the dog to be social makes for a safer dog in the neighborhood. Anthony Kasbohm, 9258 Shetland Road, expressed his appreciation to everyone for their presentation and expressed his desire to not exclude anyone from using the park but to include representation of Eden Prairie. This would include the elderly, physically challenged and children. If the park is opened up with trails everyone would be able to use it. Dogs on a leash would also be welcomed to use the park with the owners and under control. Mark Costello, 16870 Cedarcrest Road, said this area does not have a neighborhood park and he was very disappointed to hear that they are proposing a dog park for this site. Jim Fernholz, 9324 Shetland Road, said he had a brother who lived in Colorado and used an off-leash park. Another dog attacked his dog and when he tried to break the two dogs up he was attacked. His brother required 48 stitches in his arm. Dog bites do happen. Kim Pearson explained that she does not live near the park. All of the parks she has visited she saw one dog fight. It can happen and that is why security is of the utmost concern because families do bring children to these parks. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 8 John Winter, 11428 Kensington Drive, said he would like to see a dog park in Eden Prairie. He does not have children and he has voted to increase taxes for schools. Winter said he would like to see parks for both dogs and children and it is important that dogs socialize with other dogs. John Walker, 9402 Shetland Road, presented a video of the Bloomington dog park. He pointed out the poor condition of the turf and all of the litter. Hargrove said the Committee did gather a lot of statistics on safety and have found that dog parks are not proponents for accidents. There are a high number of accidents in baseball and softball fields. Sports and athletics can and do cause accidents. Accidents are not occurring in off-leash dog areas. Hargrove explained that they interviewed all of the dog parks in Three-River Parks and in 19 years they have not had a child bitten. Safety is a huge concern and fencing is important. Dog parks are hard on the land and overuse is a problem. That is why acreage and size is important. Barrett asked if there is an age limit for children to be at the park. Children under 6 are not allowed and an adult must supervise children under 12. Bob Skinner, 8655 Darnell, said he is sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns. Skinner suggested that screening of pine trees between the off-leash area and the residences be provided. Skinner pointed out that the area that was worn down in the Bloomington park was within one acre of the entrance. The entrance to this area would be approximately '/a mile away from the residents. Crain said they have been talking about 16 dog parks in the metro area and the photos presented this evening are of only three parks. He said this is a poor example representation of all of the dog parks. Phillips responded that they visited most of the dog parks in the area and did not consider any dog parks that were part of the large regional parks. Phillips explained that they did look at 10 different parks and the pictures are fairly representative of the different dog parks throughout the community. Gerst pointed out that the Cedar Hills Park site is very steep and it may be difficult to build a dog park in the steep creek valley and asked if there is any concern for erosion or run off. Lambert responded that one of the greatest concerns in any dog park is erosion. He has never seen a dog park in an area as steep as this. Lambert said he talked to Bloomington as to what kind of maintenance is required. The City did mow once two years ago when it first opened. They haven't had to mow since. Lambert said his concern with this site is its steep terrain and there will be some issues with the steep slopes. Schaepe asked what the proposed construction material would be for the trail. Lambert said they are proposing that they just mow. He explained that they are not proposing to do any grading or change the terrain. Barrett asked staff to comment on the wildlife area. Lambert stated that this is along the Riley Creek Valley. It is a beautiful piece of property that has a wide variety of PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 9 mammals and birds. The dogs will pretty much eliminate the wild life within the fenced area. Lambert explained that they are also proposing four hockey rinks to be used as off- leash parks. There were some concerns expressed by the Commission members last month that the fences at these sites are only 4 feet in height. Lambert said if these hockey rinks were approved for off-leash areas staff would recommend either restricting the height of the dogs allowed or increase the height of the fence. He suggested that they use one hockey rink on a trial basis and put in temporary fencing at approximately six feet to make sure larger dogs stay in there. Lambert said another concern expressed last month was the proximity of the off- leash area to the playground. He explained that the Homeward Hills Park does have an area between the playground structure and the hockey rink. At Nesbitt Preserve Park the playground is a couple hundred feet away from the hockey rink. When Crestwood Park is completed the playground area will be about 250 feet away from the hockey rink. David Puelston, 7183 Sunshine Drive,pointed out that there are soccer teams using the hockey rinks at Edenvale Park for soccer practice. Puelston said he is concerned about dog feces and health problems this may cause if the feces is not picked up by the dog owners. He stated that he would prefer to see this hockey rink set aside for inline skating. Once the rink is used as an off-leash park it will be difficult to get it back for inline skating. Puelston pointed out that by converting these areas to off- leash parks would be an invitation to residents of other communities resulting in more congestion. In response to a question from Barrett, Lambert explained that they have looked at the hockey rinks to see how difficult it would be to put up temporary fencing. They anticipate that it would not be too difficult or expensive to increase the height of the fence to six feet. It would be something that could be put up and taken down in a matter of a few hours at little cost once it is constructed. To put up temporary fencing would not be a big issue. Lambert stated that the dog owners would be required to keep their dog on a leash from the car until they get into the hockey rink. There are currently hundreds of people in the park system that are walking their dogs in the parks unleashed at this time. They are trying to find a place where people can have their dogs off-leash legally. Lambert pointed out that staff's biggest concern is erosion and care of the areas. Lambert said they would like to find areas that are relatively flat and not causing problems with neighbors, where no erosion or disturbance to wildlife would occur. Barrett reminded staff that the motion made last month asked staff to contact the Three-Rivers Park District to determine whether or not they would be constructing an off-leash area in Eden Prairie. Lambert said they did talk to them and they PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 10 indicated that they are looking at an off-leash area at Bryant Lake Park where the old horse stable used to be. This would be a large site that would be designated as an off-leash area if it is approved. Lambert indicated that they are also looking at three other sites throughout their park system. Lambert pointed out that the Three- Rivers Park District operates very much like the City Council and this Commission. When they receive input from people they do try to address those issues and concerns. Barrett asked if it would be appropriate to forward the petition they received for an off-leash park to the Three-Rivers Park District. Lambert said it would be more appropriate to forward a letter to them explaining the petition and issues and concerns from the people. This letter could also inform them the process that has been followed and what the recommendation is. Jacobus said he feels mixing off-leash areas and people parks might prohibit people from using the parks. Having an off-leash area in the hockey rinks may be easy and inexpensive but he has a problem with the perceived danger of attracting dogs to an area where kids play. Jacobus said that Cedar Hills Park has been designated as a neighborhood park and he has trouble with the mix of dogs and children. He thinks children should have a priority over dogs. Barrett pointed out that this Commission does represent all of the people in the City that are both dog owners and non-dog owners. The non-dog owners also paid for the hockey rinks. Jacobus suggested that they start with a small site that won't bother anyone and go from there. He stated that Cedar Hills Park is one of the most beautiful sites in Eden Prairie and he questioned whether or not they want to turn that property into a dog park. Mackay questioned how long it would take to put parking in the Flying Cloud site. Lambert said they would propose a gravel parking lot for approximately 10 or 15 cars and then they would fence the area. The total cost might be in the $40,000 range and is not in this year's budget but if the City Council directed staff to proceed with this off-leash dog park, staff would reassign money from other projects. Brill said he is a life long dog lover and has been to dog parks before and has seen some of the things that have been going on. Brill said he understands both sides. The Cedar Hills Park site is a nice piece of property,however,he doesn't think that should be the ultimate and end use of it. Brill said he does not feel that safety is the number one issue. The issues are noise, loss of wildlife, aesthetics, erosion and smell. The Flying Cloud site would be small but is something they could use and manage. Brill explained that using the hockey rink sites is a progressive idea and is a good option. Crain said he feels one of the parameters is the location of the dog park being away from residential properties. In looking at the other sites it appears that the proximity PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 11 to residential areas seems to be the real critical piece. Mackay said he agrees that the hockey rinks are a progressive idea if height is added to the fences or dog size is limited. Mackay said he is concerned with the Homeward Hills Park site. The dog owners have to walk through the playground to get to the hockey rink. Mackay suggested they consider putting an off-leash park in Cedar Hills Park away from the homes near the parking lots. This area will not be ready for a couple of years while the hockey rinks would be ready sooner. This would allow them the experience to build toward a plan that might include Cedar Hills. Gerst said he does not have a problem with the Flying Cloud site and would recommend going ahead with that site. Gerst explained that in general he is in favor of a dog park and he would suggest they use a hockey rink as an experiment. He does not feel that they necessarily need to do all four rinks this summer but should try one and at the end of the year review the use of that rink. With regard to Cedar Hills Park, Gerst said he agrees that it is one of the prettiest parks in the City and he does not feel that a dog park is the best fit for this area. Gerst said he would also recommend that the City push the Three Rivers Park District for an off-leash dog park at Bryant Lake and to also look at MAC for another site or even consider an area at BFI. Jacobus explained that he is not nervous about the dogs once they are in the hockey rink but is more concerned about drawing more dogs to neighborhood parks. He stated that he is against having dogs in parks that are designed for kids playing and participating in sporting events. Schaepe stated that he also agrees with the Flying Cloud site. It is an industrial area and is ideally suited for this. Approximately 2,500 letters were mailed to residents and they only received 4 or 5 calls. He said he agreed that they should try the hockey rinks on an experimental basis for this year. Schaepe said he too cannot see Cedar Hills Park as a dog park and that site is not appropriate for such a use. An unidentified person from the audience asked who would enforce the requirement that dogs be on a leash until they are in the hockey rink. People do go to that park to play and have nothing to do with dogs. Lambert responded that any dog owner can go to any park in Eden Prairie as long as their pet is restrained with a six-foot leash. There are people who currently break the law in parks throughout the City. Staff feels that if off-leash dog parks are provided to those residents, they will be less likely to have their dogs run unleashed in the parks. Motion: Larson moved, Jacobus seconded, to recommend approval of the Flying Cloud site as an off-leash dog exercise area. The motion carried, 8-0. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 12 Motion: Larson moved, Mackay seconded, to recommend that the Mayor write a letter to the Three-Rivers Park District to urge them to support an off-leash dog park at Bryant Lake Park. The motion carried, 8-0. Motion: Barrett moved, seconded by Schaepe, to approve the hockey rinks at Crestwood Park, Homeward Hills Park, Nesbitt Preserve Park and Edenvale Park as off-leash dog exercise areas as per the study report for the forthcoming season and to revisit this use in December. Jacobus asked if the surrounding neighbors had sufficient time to respond to the letter sent informing them of this use. Lambert responded that the notice was sent out Easter week and it was also in the local newspaper. Crain asked if they should look at each rink and its location to play structures. Lambert explained that residents can walk on those trails with their dogs on a leash right now and they will still be required to have their dog on a leash until they get into the hockey rink. Mackay said he has concerns about increased dog traffic. Lambert responded that if the City Council approves this proposal, there will be five off-leash sites in the City. Having five or six sites will make these parks more successful than having just one. All sized dogs will be allowed at these sites and the City will construct higher fences at the hockey rinks. Jacobus asked if they were asking for trouble by allowing all types of dogs. Barrett said if there is a problem at a particular site they can shut it down. Lambert explained that the owner is still responsible for any damage to any other dog. There are issues and they will be using these sites as an experiment. The investment being made to increase the height of the fence is minimal. Gerst asked if they need to address the number of dogs. Lambert explained that this would be difficult to control. This is something that will probably take care of itself. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Jacobus who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Barrett moved, seconded by Jacobus, to recommend denial of the request to utilize Cedar Hills Park site as an off-leash dog exercise area. Mackay said he thinks they should consider using a portion of this site for an off- leash park. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Mackay who voted nay. The motion carried, 7-1. Motion: Gerst moved, seconded by Barrett, to recommend that staff continue investigating other possible sites in the City for an off-leash park area and to investigate possible sites with MAC and BFL The motion carried, 8-0. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 13 B. Cedar Hills Park Plan Lambert explained that the Cedar Hills Park plan did include an area for an off-leash dog park. That dog park will now be eliminated from this plan if the Council supports the recommendation, but the trails will remain in place along with the parking lots. Staff will look at moving the trails away from the backs of the surrounding homes. Ken Kloss, 9245 Shetland, said that the first thought that comes to his mind regarding this park proposal is traffic coming through their neighborhood at a high rate of speed. There will be increased non-residential traffic and there are a significant number of children in this neighborhood. Kloss urged the Commission and staff to consider parking and traffic patterns when looking at where cars will park and where the access to the park is located. They need to consider the traffic flow. Barrett asked if Kloss is opposed to the parking plan as proposed. Kloss responded that he is not necessarily opposed to it but is concerned with the amount of traffic there will be to access the park. Lambert pointed out that access to this park will be off of Eden Prairie Road with a trail from Shetland Road to provide access for the kids in that area. Lambert said he does not see traffic changing on Shetland Road because of this park. Mike Neuharth, 9610 Eden Prairie Road, said a neighborhood park is fine but is concerned with the people using the park also using his property. Lambert said it is not their intention to install a fence along the property line. The City does not take the position that they are responsible for fencing the parks to keep kids from going on adjacent land. It is up to the homeowners to put a fence up on their property to keep kids out if there is a concern. Lambert said they do not anticipate trespassing on private property being a problem. Richard Volz, 9375 Shetland Road, explained that he is concerned about the traffic coming down Shetland Road because of the elevation. There is a drop off northeast of the site. There is a flatter terrain on the lower half. Lambert pointed out that the traffic in that area would probably be from the neighborhood. Volz suggested that they make this park something similar to the Arboretum. He believes they need to make this more of an educational site rather than a biking and walking site. Lambert pointed out that this is a concept plan. With regard to the trail plan, this is as close as they will get to the plan. When they are in the field, they will mark the trails and they can then notify the adjacent property owners to view the location of those trails. Fox explained that this is a concept plan and before the park can actually be built a more formalized plan will be submitted to the Planing Board. There will be a public hearing and the neighbors will have another opportunity to review this plan. Motion: Mackay moved, seconded by Brill, to table consideration of the Cedar Hills Park Plan to the June 2 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission with notification being sent to the neighbors. The motion carried, 8-0. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Page 14 C. Discussion of Policy Restricting "For Profit" Use of Public Facilities Lambert asked that this item be continued to a date uncertain to allow staff time to discuss this issue with some of the athletic associations. Motion: Mackay moved, seconded by Barrett, to continue discussion of the policy restricting "for profit" use of public facilities for at least 60 days. The motion carried, 8-0. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Plans for PCRA Trail Project Lambert reported that the Commission is asked to consider approval of a joint project with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District for trail construction in the Purgatory Creek Recreation area. The estimated cost for this project is $1,775,000 with the City's share being approximately $887,500. Funding for the City's share is available from park dedication fees. Motion: Brill moved, seconded by Larson, to recommend approval of the joint project with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District for trail construction in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area with funding for the City's share from park dedication fees. The motion carried, 8-0. B. Recommendation to Request Easement from Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company Lambert explained that the Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company owns approximately six acres of land on the northwest side of the Birch Island Woods Conservation Area as a part of the railroad right-of-way. It has been suggested that the land be leased to the City to allow the City to include that land in the park for park use. This would allow City staff to limit the use to pedestrian use only and to provide trails to the top of the hill that would not cause erosion but would allow the public the right to enjoy the use of the property. Motion: Gerst moved, Jacobus seconded, to recommend the City Council authorize a letter to the Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company to request a park easement over Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company property adjacent to the Birch Island Woods Conservation Area. The motion carried, 8-0. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Larson moved, Gerst seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.