Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 02/13/1975 1975 FEBRUARY 3 , 13 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE t C I . AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Monday, February 3 , 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Marvin Erickson, Wolfgang Penzel, Francis Helmer, Richard Anderson, William Garens, Dorothy Bennett, Paul Choiniere, Mary Upton, Jerry Kingrey, Elizabeth Tracy, r Brian Mikkelson and Steve Fifield, Ex- Off icio COMMISSION STAFF: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services Chris Enger, Landscape Architect Sandy Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor Donna Stanley, Recording Secretary ROLL GALL I. MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1975 MEETING . i II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF PARK SYSTEM PLAN. III. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE COMMISSION. IV. ADJOURNMENT. i 1 f 1 I i 1 I Approved M I N U T E S EDEN PRAIRIE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Marvin Erickson, Wolfgang Penzel, Francis Helmer, Richard Anderson, William Garens, Paul Choiniere, and Jerry Kingrey a COMtrIISSION MMABERS ABSENT: Mary Upton, Dorothy Bennett, Elizabeth Tracy, Brian Mikkelson, . , and Steve Fifield, Ex-Officio STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services r` OTHERS PRESENT: Mrs. Marv. Erickson, Lynne Forster and Joanne Scobie, League of Women Voters, Betty Anderson, Eden Prairie School Board, E Michael Scherer, and Gene Moore, Community News h Meeting was called to order by Chairman Erickson at 7:40 PM. Erickson informed the Commission that he had to leave at 9:30, therefore would like to proceed to priority items on the Agenda. As February 17 is a holiday, Erickson postponed the next meeting to Saturday, February 22, at 9:00 AM. This meeting would include +< a review of the facilities at Red Rock Ranch. Erickson appointed Garens as Chairman to take over meeting when he had to leave, as Mrs. Upton, Vice-Chairperson, C - was not present. I. MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1975 ]=ING, Postponed. h t II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF PARK SYSTEM PLAN, Chairman Erickson explained that he and Garens had taken part in many lengthy discussions on community development facilities for the committee. At this time,our priorities were Forest Hills, Round Lake, and Prairie View. Erickson asked that the Commission agree upon a program, a bond issue, ana how much to spend if we are going to have a bond issue. He opened the meeting for discussion. Garens suggested using the Metro Classification Guide of various park areas r; and requested that copies be passed out. Jessen answered that copies of the guide had been handed out in July. It defined the various size parks and their objectives in 1968. Erickson wondered if we all agreed as to what the purpose of the neighborhood : facility was and what we are aiming for. Jessen said that one of the things that is pointed out in the 1968 Metro Classification system that Garens alluded to relates throughout the park system. What is a neighborhood park and what purpose does it serve? dF Page Two Minutes - Park & Rec. February 3, 1975 Commission Approved II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF PARK SYSTEM PLAN.(CONT'D) Originial discussion of July 30 defined parks as areas to be used for: 1. intensive active recreational uses 2. open space amenit -general neighborhood in which it is situated (landscaping etc. 3. means of protecting or preserving natural resources within the neighborhood. Jessen said Prairie View is self-explanatory for a 15 acre school site, rather than 7. The land is flat and usabl®, unlike Forest Hills. Iie added that the 1968 guide plan set out long range goals for the community and some have been achieved. At this point, he feels the Commission would want to plan for the next 5 years. Choiniere said as he hears input, he can't help but feel that the main thrust should be towards development of a good share of the land we already own and buy remaining land as it becomes feasible. He added, there is apparently a lot of concern because within a development there is no area for small children to play where mothers can keep sight of them. He feels that if we are to be responsive. to people's suggestions for more facilities in areas not currently served, we need to add mini-parks in developments, such as the Red Rock area and emphasis toward neighborhood park facilities. Mr. Michael Scherer offered suggestions for Commission's consideration. He stressed that he feels any action should be done in an organized way. Anderson called attention to the report of December 30, prepared by the Staff, and commented that the Commission has been discussing this all along. The report was in response to the three requested prototypes. Jessen commented that when the report was put together, they tried to I put into context land acquisition cost, cost of 5 high priority sites, and cost of intense development at Prairie View, Forest Hills, and Round Lake, because they are community parks. He suggested the Commission research the needs of the community. Jessen added that land acquisitions,:are critical to what will be done on the subject of neighborhood facilities. ' Choiniere suggested presenting plans to the people for a bond referendum, but wants all choices presented, with nothing deleted. Penzel commented that in providing choices, there is a danger that none of the choices will receive enough votes to succeed. The bond must pro- vide opportunity for one choice to succeed. Jessen asked Chairman Erickson whether all choices be on the ballot or whether a straw vote be taken on the 3 items so the bond issue could be one choice. Erickson asked about the joint school questionaire regarding 1980-1990 facilities. Jessen answered that the results showed that the number one ( need was for tennis courts, second was a swimming pool. 50% responded for indoor ice arena. VMMtes - Park & Rec. Page Thre® Commission February 3, 1975 Approved II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF PARK SYSTEM PLAN. (CONT'D) C Penzel added that in a survey you should include a price because you will get a different outlook than if you surveyed preferences only, without the cost. i Anderson and Garens agreed that land acquisition and development for facilities are important and the Commission would be negligent in its responsibility if they deviated from 1968 guide plan. They felt that we should have some funds set aside to look ahead and follow guide plan. Erickson called a point of information on whether the'.Dec. 30 report, if adopted, could be deleted and added to. Jessen answered that it could be, and the report was a guide. Anderson moved to accept recommendation for bond issue, using Staff report of Dec. 30 as a guide, exicluding ice arena, pool, field house, and picnic pavillion, and adding lst phase of trail planning system and long range plan r according to 1968 Comprehensive Guide plan. Penzel seconded the motion and it carried with a vote of 5-2, with Choiniere and Erickson casting dissenting votes. Jessen commented that the ice arena, pool, and field house could hot. be -funded by revenue bonds. Jessen asked what the sense of the Commission was regarding direction of the Staff at this point. Garens answered they would like cost of bond issue, what land we will purchase and price city must pay, and amount of money we will have to share in the funding of Riley Lake. Erickson asked what type of date will we look for the bond issue. Jessen said early summer date would be a good time for a park referendum. , Choiniere suggested focusing discussion on neighborhood facilities and feels we have gone astray. Anderson answered that even though we have not set down our goals and direction, we have emphasized neighborhood facilities, but would not forget about trail ways and long range acquisition. This, he felt, was giving ourselves a sense of direction. He asked how can you discuss neighborhood facilities without discussing trail ways etc.? He added that his position was that we should study what we feel is a 3 part bond issue for neighborhood facilities, and feels strongly that we are taking a strong positive direction. Helmer said his reason for leaning toward neighborhood parks is that we have leaned toward open space quite a bit already. He feels neighborhood parks are more important. Erickson turned over the meeting at 9:30 to Garens to continue discussion and review in detail land acquisition in priority areas on page 1 of Dec. 30 report. 1, Kingrey asked about the high school, middle school area. Jessen answered the school grounds do meet the minimum requirements we are setting up for Minutes - Park & Rea. Page Four Commission February 3, 1975 Approved C II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF-PARK SYSTEM PLAN CONTID other areas with a baseball field, football field, and hockey rink. Tennis courts could be added here, he added. k Garens asked whether there were any more high priority areas. Choiniere stated that he did not feel the Commission was following through on the neighborhood facilities. F. Anderson called a point of order, pointing out that Chairman Erickson had decided earlier in the meeting that we are going in the right direction and we are not limiting what would be discussed. Jessen said a neighborhood facility will have to be d for in the Hidden Ponds area. Anderson asked whether a school vseinvolved in that area. Jessen answered that as of now, the school is not involved. F: Jessen suggested adding Hidden Ponds, Edenvale, and Red Rock Center to list of priority-areas because of development presaure. Edenview was discussed. Jessen said he feels it will not be dedicated t, in the near future. He felt that 19 acres would be a good site plan, r_ rather than the 12 acres listed, and asked Commission whether it was their consensus to have more land in Edenview. Garens recommended, in f# view of discussion, an increase to 19 a.cres'in Edenview area. Lighting tennis courts, football and baseball fields, and hockey rinks was discussed. Helmer asked whether they could be taken off the report for recommendation. Jessen said it could be done. Penzel pointed out that if lights were eliminated now and it was decided later that they are needed, it will be difficult to finance them. !i Mrs. Betty Anderson, of the School Board, commented that the adding of {lights to hockey rink will extend use beyond school hours and will present a need for a warming house. r• U , Kingrey made the motion to leave Prairie View intense development as is with addition of warming house. Anderson seconded the motion and it carried with a vote of 4-2, with Choiniere and Helmer casting dissenting votes. They favored the Level 1, minimal development. ?e Helmer questioned the need for intense development at Prairie View. Jessen sited a letter from Dale Lommen stating that something had to be done at Prairie View because of facilities being inadequate and dangerous. Jessen said there was a need for hockey facilities,and tennis courts in neighborhood school park are appropriate in this xe elementary area. He doesn't feel they are being duplicated and there is a need for them. Anderson added that Round Lake gives lake type ~C. activities in addition to other. Approved Minutes - Park & Rec. Page Five February 3, 1975 II. DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD FACILITIES PORTION OF PARK SYSTEM PLAN (CONT'D) A break was taken at 10:00 PM. Meeting was called back to order at 10:10 PM. Garens informed the Commission that two members have to leave at 10330, so they will lose quorum. He invited remaining members to stay and informally discuss issues further. Minimal development on page two was taken%up. Jessen said he would have to study it further and wanted comments on whether they are appropriate sites and whether they .were minimal enough or not. Garens asked Choiniere and Helmer their feelings on what the Edenview area needed, since they lived there. Helmer thought they could use tennis courts. Choiniere feels he would be for land acquisition and look for tennis courts in Birch Island because we already own it. He didn't feel the grading would cause any problem. Penzel felt that the parking would be difficult in the winter. Choiniere also suggested a hockey rink for Birch Island. Jessen said he is looking into hockey facilities. Penzel suggested including the research that has been done with the Lindbergh bubble and the failure it has been. Choiniere E felt that Birch Island should be added to the list. Garens made a motion to include a tennis court as part of Edenview site at Birch Island. Penzel seconded the motion and it carried with a vote of 5 yay, and 1 nay by Choiniere. Anderson recalled vote and asked for abstention changing the vote to 4 yay, 1 nay, and 1 abstention. Choiniere commented that he was for land acquisition, while Anderson abstained because he felt that if the persons who lived in that area didn't want the courts, he wouldn't vote for it. III. ADJOURMMI Garens moved to adjourn at 1Ot40 PM. Motion was seconded by Anderson and carried unanimously. MJ:ds s MINUTES Joint Council/Planning Commission/Parr & Recreation meeting with The Preserve Approved February 13, 1975 7:00 PM City Hall Council MEMBERS PRESENT Joan Meyers, Wolfgang Penzel, .Sidney Pauly Planning Commission Dick Feerick, Dick Lynch Park & Recreation Commission Steve Fifield Staff Dick Putnam Preserve Commercial Center Presentation Preserve Staff: Larry Gardner, Bob Benson, Lee Johnson, George Carter, Ken Persons, Don Hess, Everett Strand, Mike Woods, John Hissink, Loren Galpin, Larry Giesler. Mr. Galpin presented the background data relating to the market area, the buying power of the trade area, the projected population, and commercial office absorbtion for the Major Center and Preserve properties in the future. This data will be compiled in a brochure and distributed to the Council and ( commissions as resource information. The Preserve Commercial Plan concept was discussed for each of the areas, (A-H), covering natural features, environmental constraints, access, potential buffering with related uses and market potential . Mr. Galpin then reviewed the Preserve Commercial Plan brochure submitted to the City. The Preserve believed these points related to commercial planning in Eden Prairie's approval porcess: 1. It supports Eden Prairie's position on the MCA as exemplified in MCA Task Force Report. 2. It supports the Ring Route Plan. 3. It supports the increased share for City cost of the Ring Route. 4. It supports the 169 upgrading. 5. It supports the 494/169 freeway ramps. 6. It supports the Eden Prairie assessment method for the Ring Route. 7. It supports the donation of Ring Route right-of-way and 169 right- of-way; and believes that in properties where right-of-way costs are incurred that cost should be spread over the assessment area. 8. It supports the separation of storm sewer cost by drainage areas. 9. It recognizes the need for adequate entrances and exits to the Ring Route to serve The Preserve Commercial Plan. 10. It hopes for early zoning and platting of all of the land in the Commercial Plan. f Approved Joint Council/Planning Commission/Park -2- February 13, 1975 & Recreation Meeting with The Preserve These basic questions were raised by the Council and Planning Commission regarding the presentation: I. How will the density credit and/or sales versus the assessment method work for the scenic easement plans or open space areas? 2. The marketability of housingirithe fbod plain areas versus commercial development. 3. Will platting, (preliminary plat and final plat), allow flexibility if property lines have to be changed in the future, or'will it be too. firm of a commitment? 4. Quest.ions about the dedication .of the lake edge versus the scenic easement on the Anderson Lakes with an elevation of 839.6' . 5. The 12 year development time frame projected with about 40-50% completion expected within a 5 year period - Is this realistic? 6. How should the City proceed with completing the MCA PUD Ordinance, and the general planned unit development ordinance. 7. Can the plan be intensified in future years, and if so, what are the ramifications? Actions: The Council members asked that the staff and City attorney investigate changing existing Ordinance 135 to allow for zoning of PUD districts, by changing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 135 and other related sections. The Council asked that this item of the PUD zoning be placed on the February 25th Council agenda. Motion: Penzel moved, Pauly seconded, to continue the public hearing for The Preserve Commercial Plan to the March 25th Council meeting and refer The Preserve Commercial Plan to the Planning and Park & Recreation Commissions. The motion passed 3:0 Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM Respectfully submitted, Richard Putnam, Planning Director l � MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services . SUBJECT: Meetings DATE: February 7, 1975 At the February 3 meeting, the Commission decided to not meet on Monday, February 17, because it is a holiday. Instead the Commission will meet on Saturday, February 22 , at 9:00 AM at Rock Isle Ranch at Bryant Lake. I have cleared this with Ward Holasek. After the tour of the Ranch facilities, the Chairman requests that you return to the City Hall for a short discussion on the program potential for this facility. The Preserve will be presenting its Commercial Area Plan at a meeting on Thursday, February 13,, at 7:30 PM at the City Hall. This is an C., informational meeting at which time questions and concerns about the proposal will be addressed. Further review will take place before the Commission following the February 13 Meeting so that recommendations may be forwarded to the Council. MJ:jp