Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 09/16/1974 i 1974 SEPTEMBER 9 , 16 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE l . . i ' AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, September 9, 1974 7:30PM CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Marvin Erickson, Wolfgang Penzel , Francis Helmer, William Bye, Richard Anderson, Janet Berkland, Paul Choiniere and Steve Fifield, Ex-officio. COMMISSION STAFF: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services, Sandra Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor ROLL CALL I. MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1974 MEETING. II. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS. A. Communication from Animal Fair, Inc. concerning use of Round Lake Park. B. Establishment of new meeting dates by Planning Commission. C. Correspondence from Inl6nd' Realty Inc, re: Mitchell Lake Estates III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS. A. 1974 Fall/Winter Recreation Program Report by Sandra Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor. B. Smetana Lake Sector Study -- Report from City Attorney as to requirements the City may place on gravel operations. C. Comprehensive Park Study -Neighborhood Facilities -Community Parks -Linear Parks -Special Use Facilities D. Floodplain Ordinance IV. Ad3ournment C MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1974 7:30 PM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marvin Erickson, Paul Choiniere, Mary Upton, Richard Anderson, William Bye, and Wolfgang Penzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Enblom, Francis Helmer, William Garens, and Steve Fifield, Ex-Officio STAFF PRESENT: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services Sandra Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM by Chairman Erickson. It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Choiniere, that the Agenda for the meeting be suspended so that the Commission could discuss the Council action on the Neighborhood Facilities Study. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson reviewed the August 19, 1974 Commission minutes which establish times and places for neighborhood meetings to discuss this study and questioned why the Council had taken action to cancel the meetings as established by the Commission. Penzel replied that a member of the Commission had talked to the Mayor and voiced displeasure with the study and the Commission action on the study and that this Prompted discussion at the Council meeting which led to the tabling of the study and the cancellation of the meetings. a Choiniere stated that the Commission had set the meeting dates and places pursuant t to the ordinance and that the Council had no right to veto the action but that it had been forwarded to the Council only as an information item. Penzel said that the Council has the right to veto any Commission action as the overall decision- maker for the City and it was within this context that the decision had been made. Erickson stated that the Council should have communicated this action to the i` Commission directly so that the Commission could be appraised of the Council's .: reasons for this action. Bye said that he read the minutes of August 19, 1974 to mean that the only l change was that the meeting was to be held in the neighborhoods with one item on the agenda, but that it was a regular meeting of the Commission. This action of the Commission had nothing to do with the Council studying the matter before the meeting. He stated that he felt the Councilmen who vbiced concern about 4' holding a public meeting before the Council study this further do not understand the intention of the Commission at this point, which is merely to continue ( the study and develop a specific proposal for the Council to act upon. Penzel stated that the sense of the Council on August 27 was to throw the whole study out and he felt that this was not desirable, therefore, he suggested that the matter be delayed for two weeks. He said that some of the members on the Council ' _ I Minutes - Park & Recreation - 2 - September 9, 1974 Commission Meeting felt the study was far too comprehensive and it was only to have dealt with the Edenview and Lochanburn areas of the community. Erickson said that the Council had directed the Commission in May to conduct a comprehensive study of neighborhood facility needs in the community and this had been done by the Commission and that the idea was to pass out this information to the citizens through the public meeting and that he couldn't understand how this could adversely affect the study. Choiniere asked Penzel how the staff was supposed to function when the Commission directed the Staff to publish notice of the meetings and prepare information for public discussion,and then the Council cancels the meeting without regard to the Commission's earlier action. Anderson said that he noticed the change of meeting place on the agenda notice and also noticed the fact that many items were on the agenda rather than just the one item that was suggested at the last meeting. He suggested that the Council by vetoing the Commission's decision had taken away the rights of the Commission and further that he understood that the Commission was to conduct its business in an attempt to advise the Council on matters pertaining to parks and recreation. Penzel responded by saying that the staff has been directed to serve the Council and then the Commissions and the citizens. Further the Mayor is the Council's liaison to the staff and, therefore, the staff does what the Council through the Mayor says . Bye said that he felt the Commission represents only the tip of the iceberg representative of a bigger problem within the community. He stated that Eden Prairie is not governed by the strong Mayor form of government and that this change in procedure was contrary to the publicly adopted policies of the City. He suggested further that matters like this should not be done in secret but ought to be done in the open so that everyone in the community understands how the City is being governed. He further stated that the Chairman suggestion and the action of the Commission at the last meeting was clearly within the Commission's prerogative and that the Council's decision to veto this action had rendered the Commission powerless. Choiniere questioned the Council' s taking action on this matter when the Commission hadn't even made a recommendation to them. It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Choiniere, that in an attempt to improve the communications between the Council and the various commissions that the Park and Recreation Commission again begin receiving all minutes of Council and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Motion carried unanimously. Erickson suggested that the Commission might communicate to the Council �. their feelings about this matter which he felt was an insult to the members of the Commission. He further stated that he felt the Commission was to represent the citizens of Eden Prairie in matters pertaining to parks and recreation , and that the Commission had the obligation to inform the people and hear from the people on these matters. He stated that"if the Council feels r _ Minutes - Park & Recreation - 3 - September 9, 1974 Commission Meeting the citizens of Eden Prairie should not be informed about this study and other matters of the City, then all of the citizens of the community have been had. It was moved by Choiniere that the next meeting of the Commission be an i open meeting at Prairie View School for the purpose of presenting the study to the community. Anderson suggested that the Commission should meet in joint session with the Council prior to holding any public discussion in an effort to resolve this difference of procedure and responsibility of the Commission. Choiniere withdrew his motion as being ill-timed in deference to Mr. Anderson's suggestion about a joint meeting . Bye said that he was concerned about citizens not being heard in the community. Such things as having to cancel the meeting last summer on the Riley Lake l plan because of the lack of a quorum. Further this cancellation of the meeting scheduled for Prairie View could cause additional ill will in the community. He suggested that the next issue of the City "Happenings" report on the reason for the cancellation of this meeting so that people have an explanation should anyone have gone to Prairie View to attend the meeting as scheduled. Anderson suggested that the joint meeting with the Council might be more appropriate then publishing this kind of explanation at this point. Choiniere also spoke in favor of the joint meeting saying that the Council vetoed something they didn't have a report or recommendation on. i It was moved by Upton, seconded by Anderson, that a joint meeting with the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission be held on September 16 at 7:30 PM at the City Hall. The discussion would center on the Neighborhood Facilities Study presented to the Council and the lack of understanding and communication between the Council and Commission which limits the Commission's ability to do the job to which they are appointed. Motion carried unanimously. 1 It was suggested that appropriate staff people particularly Heinrich and jessen also be in attendance at the meeting. Choiniere asked about the mailing of information on meetings prior to the Friday before the meeting in that it was sometimes difficult to study all of the information adequately prior to acting on it at the next meeting. Jessen explained the procedure of having someone hand deliver it on Friday so that the Agenda items could be as current as possible for the Commission to take action on the following Monday. Erickson said he felt the procedure now was very good and that all of the information was presented in advance of the meeting and gave the Commission some time to have the information for study and he suggested that major items such as the Flood Plain Ordinance might in the future be tabled for two weeks so that additional study time could be permitted. The sense of the Commission was to remain with the present policy of hand delivering the information on the Friday prior to the Monday meeting. _ _ Minutes - Park & Recreation 4 September 9, 1974 I - Commission Meeting The decision of the Commission was to then commence with the Agenda for the meeting as published. I. MINUTES OF AUGUST' 19 1974 MEETING: It was moved by Bye, seconded meeting etingerson, to as presentedrove the Motion minutes of the August 19, carried unanimously. II. PFTTTIONS REO,TT�m� & COA�i��U'NTC'ATTONS: A. Communication from Animal Faire .lnc. concernin use of Round Lake Park - lessen reported that he had received a letter from this group voicing serious displeasure at the use of Round Lake Park on the day for which they had reserved it, lessen explained that a large group had been in using the park on the Saturday rda before and that the volume of garbage, etc. , left from and groundsy was greater than anticipai:e d.were not in top condition. Additionally the water supply had gone dry a week prior to this use. lessen had had written ahat he had contacted these people by p an letter to go out to them apologizing for the conditions of the park, thanking them for their notifying us of their displeasure and offering to make restitution by permitting them to use the park at no charge next year should they wish to do so. It was moved by Choiniere, seconded by Penzel, that lessen further draft a letter for the Chairman's signature to Animal Fair, Inc, advising them of the discussion which the Commission had had on this matter and thanking them for their communication. The motion carried unanimously. B. Establishment of New Meeting Dates by Planning Commission_- lessen reported that the Planning Commission has decided to meet on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of the month because the Council is now meeting three days a month will affect the2Commission'seabili y This change of meeting dates to hold special meetings on Monday evenings at the City Hall. No action required. C. Communication from Inland Realty-, Inc, regarding Mitchell Lake Estates- lessen referred to the memo from the Planning Department on this matter and said that the proposal on Mitchell Lake Estates would used to measure staff impact of sta s fort which the now undertaking. Any changes which may effort be made in this proposal will obviously change the influence of the proposal on the park planning effort. No action required. Minutes - Park & Recreation - 5 - September 9, 1974 Commission Meeting III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS: A. 74 Fall-Winter Recreation Program Report by Sandra WertsL 19 Recreation Program Supervisor - Werts reported that the program is presently being developed and will include the maintenance of existing programs that were successful in the past and the addition of some new programs for fall of 1974. New programs include: A power volleyball clinic, expanded guitar lessons, oil painting, gardening indoors, morning yoga sessions, ballroom dance, modern and interpretive dance and holiday boutique. Programs are expected to begin the week of October 13. Werts also reported that when the Council approved the Recreation Program Supervisor position there was direction to establish an Ad Hoc committee to study the need for women's and girls'. recreational activities in the community. This committee will now be formed either by appointment by the Mayor and Council, by the Park and Recreation Commission, ( or by the staff. The staff has prepared a memo to the Mayor requesting his direction in this regard. No action required. " B. Smetana Lake Sector Study and Report - - Report from City Attorney as to requirements the City may place on gravel operations Jessen reported that the attorney, _upon further review of alternatives open to the City, has decided that the application of the, land dedication requirements to the subdivision ordinance are not permissible in this case. Land dedication is only permitted where land is subdivided, not as a condition of land use. The attorney sees basically two options open to the City in this regard. One , to raise the permit fee; two, to collect some additional money by mutual agreement between the city and the graveler. He suggested that in either case the procedure must be fair and equitable and applied to all people in the community. Bye asked the extent to which bonds are collected for restoration work and wanted to know who is responsible for this restoration and whether or not the bonds are adequate to produce the work which will be required. Jessen answered that he did not know the answers to these questions at this time but could get information by digging into the file on the gravel pit operations. C. Anderson suggested that we need to stop gravelling activity at some reasonable boundaries for the beauty of the community. Minutes - Park & Recreation - 6 - September 9, 1974 Commission Meeting Choiniere suggested that a study of this be made to find out if this is a major resource of the community and suggested that if the revenues are significant perhaps the money ought to be taken and put into other significant resources in the community rather than attempting to save significant open spaces in the Smetana Lake Sector. Anderson replied that he felt if we destroyed the entire Nine-mile Creek environment by taking down all the hills we may as well pipe the creek. It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Bye, that the staff inventory all of the existing gravel pits in the community, both active and passive, and further study the extent of proposed boundaries for each of these operations- the license fees charged and collected, the amount of bonds posted, etc. Motion carried unanimously. C. Comprehensive Park Study - It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Upton, to table this C item pending the joint meeting requested with the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Erickson suggested that J'essen request the Council withhold all discussion on this study until the joint meeting is held. D. Flood Plain Ordinance - Bye suggested that prior to the discussion of the Flood Plain Ordinance specifically, that he wished to question where the protection of the natural environment falls within the City government organization. Particularly whether it is a .function of the Park and Recreation Commission or Planning Commission or what. Anderson said that the Council had in the past charged the Park. and Recreation Commission with the responsibility for natural resources review and he stated that this was the best solution for the community to keep it in one area as parks and natural resources relate very closely, one to the other. Bye agreed that keeping the two areas under the jurisdiction of one Commission was the best solution and suggested that natural resources be incorporated into the title of the commission. Penzel suggested that if this was the consensus of the Commission they should request that the Council amend the ordinance to reflect ` this change. Minutes - Park & Recreation - 7 - September 9, 1974 Commission Meeting D. Flood Plain Ordinance (Continued) It was moved by Bye, seconded by Anderson, that the Park and Recreation Commission request that the City Council modify the ordinance, creating the Park and Recreation Commission to include the natural resources responsibility in both the title of the commission and the functions of the commission. Motion carried unanimously. lessen alluded briefly to the Flood Plain Ordinance distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting and specifically reviewed the memo dated August 28, 1974 to the Planning and Zoning Commission spelling out the four options for Section 5 b. 1 of the ordinance which gives the option to require dedication or easement to either the City, the land owner, or by mutual agreement, or require only an easement for hydraulic efficiency. Anderson suggested that to require dedication or easement as an option with the City to decide was the best solution in that it would permit options to the City and give them the right to decide just as they had the right to decide other land use decisions. Choiniere asked how the City would acquire land from single family lots where it was essentially their back yard. lessen said that the ordinance required dedication or an easement only when a permit was requested and that if the City wanted to acquire the land for recreational and transport ational uses we would have to acquire it through mechanisms which are available to the City. It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Bye, that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission adoption of the flood plain ordinance as presented including option 1 as specified in the memo dated August 28, 1974 which gives the City the right of determination as to an easement or land dedication. Motion carried unanimously, Upton abstained. E. Letter from Robert Fallon concerning the elimination of the Eden Prairie edition of the Sun Newspaper - lessen read the letter from Fallon on this regard. C Bye stated that Fallon has the sense of the community in this @ matter and suggested that a committee from Eden Prairie be formed to meet with Crawford of the Sun Newspaper to state this community's concern about this. He suggested that this committee consist of a representative from the school district, the City, industry, and one or two more community people. i Minutes - Park & Recreation - 8 - September 9, 1974 r ; Commission Meeting E. Letter from Robert Fallon concerning the elimination of the Eden Prairie edition of the Sun Newspaper (continued) It was moved by Bye, seconded by Anderson, that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the Council that a committee be formed to meet with representatives of the Sun Newspaper in an effort to receive continued and improved news coverage for Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. F. Eden Farms rezoning consideration - Choiniere asked what action had been taken with Shelter Corporation in regard to the Eden Farms rezoning. Specifically wondering if we had had any success in finalizing land acquisition for the desired playground location on the site. Jessen reported that he had met with representatives of Shelter Corporation and that they had decided that the land was worth approximately 116 thousand dollars rather than eighty thousand dollars and that based on that discussion suggested this particular consideration be dropped and that the land be rezoned. The consensus of the Commission was that this should be the course of action to take on this matter. No action required. IV. A_DTOURNMENT: It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Penzel, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, September 16, 1974 7:30 PM CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Marvin Erickson, Wolfgang Penzel, Francis Helmer,�c,l William Bye, Richard Anderson, Mary Upton,William Garens, Paul Choiniere and Steve Fifield, Ex-officio. COMMISSION STAFF: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services, Sandra Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 JOINT COUNCIL.- PARK & RECREATIONG COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor D. W. Osterholt, Joan Meyers, John McCulloch, Wolfgang Penzel, Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Robert P.Heinrich; City Attorney Harlan. Perbix; Clerk--Finance Director John Frane; Planner Dick Putnam; Director of Community Services Marty Jessen; Engineer Carl Jullie I. DISCUSSION OF PARK STUDY -- . . . .Neighborhood Facilities . . . .Community Parks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDEN PRAIRIE PARK .& RECREATION COMMISSION-MEETING I. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1974 MEETING II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. _Status of Eden Farms Rezoning (report attached). B. 1975 LAWCON Grant Application (report attached). III. ADJOURNMENT. i i i M I N U T E S EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1974 7:30 PM, CITY HALL I COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marvin Erickson, William Garens, Wolfgang Penzel, Richard Anderson, Francis Helmer, Paul Choiniere, Steve Fifield - Ex-Officio COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: William Bye, Paul Enblom and Mary Upton COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Joan Meyers, Sidney Pauly and Wolfgang Penzel COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor David Osterholt and John McCulloch STAFF PRESENT: Robert P.Heinrich, City Manager; Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services; and Chris Enger, Landscape Architect OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Scherer, Tim Pierce, Dennis Hayden, Bruce Brill, and John Weiss , Sun Newspapers The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM by Park and Recreation Commission Chairman Marvin Erickson. Erickson called on Meyers to explain the Council action of August 27, 1974. Meyers explained that the Council based on their discussion at September loth meeting and also Mr. McCulloch's letter of September 14, 1974,clearly had some misunderstanding as to the Commission's intention in holding public meetings to present the Neighborhood Facility Study and solicit citizen input. She said that the Council now endorses the Commission's action and wants the Commission to go ahead v, ivi public meetings as a method of gaining citizen input to the park planning process. It was moved by Meyers, seconded by Penzel, that the Council encourage the Park and Recreation Commission to proceed with the park study and to hold public meetings to continue the development of a specific proposal for recommendation to the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Pauly asked if the Council had received a preliminary staff report or if the Commission had input page-by-page to the work that had been done to August 25 , 1974. Erickson responded by saying that the Commission has spent lots of time going over this study and had changed several items and they now want to know what the citizens think. Choiniere said that there had been much Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Two joint Meeting with the City Council September 16 , 1974 l input from the staff and modification by the Commission and that there was much left to be done and specifically this input was needed now to develop ? a recommendation as the Council requested. Anderson said that there has been significant citizen input to-date including members of the Jaycees, residents of different neighborhoods, community groups such as E.P.A.A. , etc. � . He said that the staff has incorporated the Commission direction into the study based on extensive discussion at Commission meetings. Garens said that the Council directed the Commission to develop a plan for neighborhood facilities in May at the last joint Meeting and that he felt the minutes of the ;s Park and Recreation Commission had accurately represented the discussion and study to-date and that the Council should have been aware of what was going on and,had this been the case,there would not have been the communication problem which developed. Anderson suggested a careful exchange of minutes }: between the Council and the different commissions as a method to improve communications. Pauly stated that the Council generally liked the report as a long range view for the community and at the Council Meeting McCulloch had commented on the thoroughness of the study. ? Choiniere suggested that in light of the Council's review to-date, the w discussion on priorities within the plan ought to take place - particularly considering the recent sale of the Eden Farms site by Shelter Corporation, where we now have the need to do something fairly quickly. He further suggested that this land should have been rezoned in February. Penzel responded that the Commission has been considering acquisition of part of this property all summer, thus it would have been just as advantageous for us to rezone the property during this consideration. Choiniere asked if anything had ever be done in writing from Shelter Corporation as to specifics such as price. He stated that you should always get things in writing and that he felt this was the same thing as happened at Westminister Heights where nothing was tied down and thus the property was sold to another party. He suggested that the City delaying this action had given Shelter an unfair advantage and hinted that this smacked of "kick-backs". Heinrich explained that many things had to be taken into consideration in rezoning the Shelter property, including a legal opinion from the City Attorney, Planning and Zoning's public hearing, plus the Park and Recreation Commission's consideration of acquisition of a portion of their site. Penzel stated that this matter was on the Commission's agendas when the Commission was unable to get a quorum present to conduct business and this also contributed to the delay. Meyers stated that Shelter Corporation had also asked for commercial zoning for a portion of the site on Duck Lake Trail and County Road #4, but that the Planning and C Zoning Commission acted unfavorably to this request because they weren't certain other community needs related to commercial facilities. Choiniere said that this was his point and that we shouldn't be bargaining land use as a tool for land acquisition and that the property should have been rezoned. a Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Three Joint Meeting with the City Council September 16, 1974 Anderson said that he understood .the City's official pDsitian'to,be one of trade-offs. for assisting in land acquisition and that trading densities for residential development or other land uses as a method of acquiring open space has been encouraged by members of the City Council. He also stated that the Flood Plain Ordinance and the suggested Slope Ordinance will assist in developing trade-offs for open space protection and acquisition. He said he felt that in PUDs the City can deal with developers and that it is their prerogative and the responsibility of the City to do whatever they can to acquire sufficient open space for recreational purposes. Scherer asked if the City had always gotten good buildable :land which could be used for recreational open space or if we had gotten land which was undesirable for development. Garens said that if the City doesn't want the site offered they can always refuse to take it. Erickson said that protection of significant land for its natural features was also valuable and that all land donated to the City has value. Meyers said that the City has also desired land be dedicated for trail use and other public purposes as well as neighborhood playgrounds.. Anderson said that the Commission has a high priority at preserving natural resources and significant natural features in the community such as the creeks, hills, and woodlands. He said it is always possible for the City to get a recreational open space area,in that any cornfield could be developed into a playground but that we cannot go about building hills and creek valleys, etc. Penzel added that it has always been a concern of the City to preserve irreplaceable resources and that he agreed with Anderson's statement, Erickson summarized the joint Meeting by saying that the Park and Recreation Commission will request another joint meeting with the Council later in the planning process to discuss the Neighborhood Facility Study as the recommendation develops through the public meetings and citizen input It was moved by Garens, seconded by Anderson, that the Joint Meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. The Park and Recreation Commission regular meeting was called to order at 8:30 PM by Chairman Erickson. I. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1974 MEETING: Penzel suggested that a change be made on the bottom of the first page, third line up, would read: Penzel stated that his sense of the Council meeting on August 27 was to throw the whole study out and since he felt that this was not desirable. . . . . . . . Garens said that he felt the minutes were somewhat vague and that specific names were not put beside certain statements and he questioned as to who the member of the Park and Recreation Commission was that Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Four September 16, 1974 I. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9_, 1974 MEETING: (Continued) talked to the Mayor and said that he was not in favor of the study. Penzel replied that the Mayor had not mentioned any names. Garens said that he felt the Mayor should not listen to one person on the Commission over the unanimous recommendation of the Commission and he was going to look into this matter further in an attempt to find out who this Commissioner was. Choiniere said that he felt these kinds of statements such as the one alluded to in the Park and Recreation Commission should also show up in the City Council minutes so that citizens could have the sense of the discussion which took place at the Council meeting, Garens also asked what Councilman questioned the study in:the City Council minutes and Penzel replied that Mr. McCulloch had questioned the study in that he had not had adequate time to review it. Garens said that he was . particularly concerned about the Council statement that the study was too comprehensive and that the Council had directed the Commission in May to undertake a study and that the Council had at that time requested a comprehensive study. Scherer said that one of the comments that a Councilman made at the September 10 meeting was that the study was not what the Council wanted and that he felt the study ought to be what the community wants not what the Council wants. Helmer said that he felt the study had to represent something that could be accomplished not "asking for the moon" . Anderson said that this was both a long range and short range plan for the community and needed to take a comprehensive look at all of the options as the Commission had asked for earlier. • Choiniere questioned the wording on page 8 concerning the status of the Eden Farms rezoning. He suggested the deletion of the sentence at the bottom of the paragraph as follows: The consensus of the Commission was that this should be the course of action to take on this matter. It was moved by Choiniere, seconded by Penzel, to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1974 meeting with the two corrections on Page 1 and Page 8. Motion carried unanimously. Garens abstained. II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS: A. Status of Eden Farms Rezoning l Jessen reviewed the memo to the Commission dated 9/13/74 and said that the City Council in giving approval to the first reading of the rezoning at the 9/10/74 Council meeting directed the staff to contact Mr. Ablah to inform him as to the status a I Minutes - Park and Recreation Commissior) Page Five C; September 16, 1974 A. Status of Eden Farms Rezoning (continued) of the property and our interest in acquiring the desired neighborhood facility site. Choiniere said that he understood that the reason Shelter had sold the property was because the economics of the site development didn't work out and they bailed out for this reason. He said further that our delay in this effort has resulted in increased cost to Mr. Ablah and unearned profit to Shelter Corporation, Penzel explained that the only parcels rezoned on the Eden Farms site are two small areas for approximately 20 residential units, that the rest of site merely has PUD concept approval minus the small area on Duck Lake Trail and County Road 4 where they have proposed neighborhood commercial facilities. He said that the developers agreement with Shelter spells out the terms of rezoning not an, ordinance and . as had been explained earlier there were many procedures to go through prior to the rezoning. It was moved by Garens, seconded by Choiniere, that the Park and Recreation Commission support the Council action to-date, directing the staff to discuss this matter with Mr. Ablah; and in addition, solicit written communication from him as to his terms for the City's purchase of 18 acres identified for a neighborhood facility. Motion carried unanimously. B. 1975 LAWCON Grant Application: lessen reviewed the report dated 9/12/74 on this matter. Choiniere said that he had heard from residents in the community that the Riley Lake Park Plan had never been approved either by the Commission or by the Council. lessen reviewed the Park and Recreation Commission minutes of July 8, 1974 in this regard. Mr. Penzel also explained that the City Council on July 9, 1974 gave tentative approval to the Commission's recommendation and that on July 23 reaffirmed this approval directing the staff to file the grant application and proceed as to the other recommendations. Choiniere said that he had heard that Marty Grill would dedicate land to the City at Staring Lake and that there was no need to acquire this parcel, lessen said he knew nothing about this and Bruce Brill said that he had doubted very much if Mr. Grill would dedicate any land to the City. Choiniere questioned the basis of the LAWCON funding and whether or not Eden Prairie could get funding for neighborhood facilities as identified in the study. lessen said that the LAWCON monies come Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Six September 16, 1974 B. 1975 LAWCON Grant Application (continued) from non-general tax fund sources in the Federal government primarily from the sale of off-shore drilling rights, sale of excess federal land, sale of golden eagle passes, and motor boat fuel taxes. He said that this money is allocated to States on a formula developed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Department of Interior and that the States administer this funding based on a state outdoor recreation plan. In the State of Minnesota this plan emphasizes water based recreation facilities, particularly boating, swimming, picnicking, etc. Each year some communities file for application for neighborhood facilities under the LAWCON program and always end up at the bottom of the priority ranking and do not receive funding. Choiniere asked what other sources of funding might be available for neighborhood facilities. lessen explained that the former HUD open space program had provided some assistance for facilities of this type and , in fact, Eden Prairie had received some grant money to acquire land at the Kings Forest School park site. He further explained that this program had been dis- continued recently at the federal level and that the open space program was now part of the community development legislation recently signed into law by President Ford. The guidelines for disbursement of this money are now being developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and it is uncertain as to what amount of money will be available for communities like Eden Prairie,in that in order to qualify for the regular funding under this program you have to be either a city over 50,000 population or an urban county. Garens stated that at a Minnesota Recreation Park,Association conference which he had attended,the state's number one priority of water based recreation facilities close to the metropolitan area was discussed at some detail. He felt the LAWCON program was being geared toward meeting this need and that Eden.Prairie ought to continue to do what it can in acquiring these kinds of facilities. It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Garens, that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council the recommendations included in the Staff Report dated 9/12/74 as to a course of action in the 1975 LAWCON grant application. Helmer asked if this money could be put toward the acquisition of other parcels. lessen said that as the report indicated, the grant at this point does not identify what parcels at Staring and Riley 'Lake ought to be acquired, but merely dollar amounts of $100, 000.00 of federal LAWCON money, $50,000 state natural Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Seven September 16, 1974 B. 1975 LAWCON Grant Application (continued) resources money, and the other $50,000 coming from local sources. Choiniere said that he felt that we ought to spend the $50, 000 of local monies on neighborhood facilities rather than acquiring additional community park facilities. Penzel said that the park bond issue information in 1968 identified community park acquisitions and that we still had work to (io to complete the commitments spelled out in this brochure r and further that the City Attorney had given some legal advice indicating that the City was somewhat bound by the information in the brochure. Choiniere said that he felt the neighborhood facilities were higher priority than additional community lakeshore park acquisition at this point- and asked what other sources of funding might be available for this purpose. Penzel said that we need to explore all of these alternatives but that LAWCON money could not be spent for neighborhood facilities. The motion by Anderson, seconded by Garens, was then voted upon and carried by a vote of 4 to 2 . Helmer said he voted against the recommendation because he would like to see alternatives for expenditures in the Riley Lake area. III. DISCUSSIONS: A. MINUTES OF THE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING Choiniere suggested that the Commission ought to request a recorder for these meetings so that Jessen could participate more in the discussion as it is going on. It was moved by Choiniere , seconded by Penzel, that the Park and Recreation Commission request a clerk-stenographer to record the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings in order to allow smoother running of the meetings. Motion carried unanimously. Penzel suggested that Jessen develop an estimate of annual costs for this item for the Council's consideration on this recommendation. Minutes - Park and Recreation Commission Page Eight September 16, 1974 B. _Public meetings for the purpose of presenting the Neighborhood Facility Study: Erickson suggested that the next meetings of the Commission be on October 7 at Prairie View Elementary School and October 14 at Forest Hills Elementary School for the purpose of presenting the study and soliciting citizen input. Discussion followed concerning the method of publicizing these events. lessen said that he would prepare ari insort to go into the envelopes including the City HAPPENINGS news- letter, and also distribute flyers through the school and include articles in the Sun Newspaper. lessen will not be in-town.the week of October'21, and reminded the Chairman,„that .this:was the week scheduled for the 2nd regular-Commission mee.ting,-in,October., , Erickson suggested that in light of this the meeting scheduled for October 21st be cancelled - and that the meetings of October 7 and October 14 serve as the Commission meetings for the month of October. It was moved by Garens , seconded by Helmer, that-the Park and Recreation Commission meeting scheduled for the month of October, 1974 be as follows: October 7 at Prairie View Elementary School October 14 at Forest Hills Elementary School October 21 meeting cancelled Motion carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Garens, seconded by Choiniere, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously.