Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 06/16/1975 1975 JUNE 2 , 16 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE C_ AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION Monday, June 2, 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, Brian Mikkelson and Steve Fifield, Ex-Officio COMMISSION STAFF: Marty lessen, Director of Community Services ROLL CALL I. MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1975 MEETING . Ii. ORGANIZATION A. Appointment to Community Growth Council B. Consideration of Bylaws for Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS. A. Picnic Pavilion -- Status Report. B. Beach Fees Report 1. Council Action 2. Policies -- Relatives, Family Guests, Canoe Launch at Bryant Lake C. Mobile Playground Program Report D. Capital Improvement Pr rem. E. Development Proposals 1. Olympic Hills 2. Parkview Patio Apartments 3. Edengate IV. DISCUSSION A. Fees and Charges. V. ADTOURNMENT. r - 'iapproved MINUTES EDEN PRA= PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Monday, June 2, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COMMISSION MEIBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marvin Erickson, Mary Upton, Richard Anderson, William Garens, Paul Choiniere, Jerry Kingrey, Francis Helmer, and Brian Mfikkelson CONIESSION MERBERS ABSENT: Dorothy Bennett, Wolfgang Penzel, Elizabeth Tracy, and Steve Fifield, Ex- Officio !, STAFF MEMBE:gS PRESENT: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services OTHERS PRESENT: Gene Moore, E.P. News, Jack Ovick, of architectural offices, Mr. and Rrs. R. Kruell,&League of Women Voters representative Chairman Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM, and ruled to by-pass agenda items to presentation of Picnic Pavilion Status Report. PICNIC PAVILION , Status Report / Jessen referred to memorandum of May 30, 1975, concerning meeting of representa- tives from Commission and Lions Club, in which it was generally agreed that there was a need for a "small group picnic areoIl at Round Lake Park; the program it would serve; the present stage construction; and that future facilities will be programmed for construction at a later date. Ovick, architect, presented rough sketches of 4 types of structures which wo+ald fall into the proposed budget range, for the Commissions study and suggestions as to what they would be most comfortable with. Basically the styles were traditional, post and beam, steel type, and geodesic dome. Ovick explained that •these were designed with the standpoint of minimal vandalism potential, and minimum to no maintenance. Anderson asked whether the steel structure type could be done in wood. Ovick answered affimative. ! Ovick responded to questions regarding the concrete slab, other options for } flooring, and volunteer work by Lion members. Mikkelson questioned Ovick about the most costly of the structures. Ovick said the traditional and steel type would be the most expensive in the long run. Garens inquired whether any of the plans would support a fireplace. Ovick res- ponsed that in order to include a fireplace, you would have to hit the low bud- get price of any chosen structure. Ile estimated that a fireplace would cost about; C $400. ' 4 Minutes - Park & Rec. k 'approved Page Two Commission June 2, 1975 PICNIC PAVILION (CONTID) ry KiAgrey referred to recent meeting with Jessen and Lions Club members in which the, discussed a basic sun cover from the elements at the cost of $15,000. Erickson added that he had always felt that the structure could be added on to in the future, but that a basic, sturdy structure was what was wanted at this time. MOTION Choiniere moved to consider sketch no. 3, of those presented by Ovick, in a wood-type structure with a different type of roof and panels that could be i attached, including the price of such panels. Garens seconded. DISCUSSION Kingrey asked the estimated cost of wood vs. steel. Ovick answered that the wood cost ;p10,100 to 4'13,200 and steel was �;9,100 to $11,600. Upton called question on the motion. The question carried unanimously. VOTE Motion carried unanimously. C I. MINUTES OF FE I AY 9.•1975 1-2ETING Pg. 6, Para. 1, Delete "crafts", add "aircrafts". Upton moved to accept Minutes of May 19, 1975 meeting with the one change. Garens seconded and the motion carried unanimously. II. ORGANIZATION A. Appointment to Community Growtl^ Counc' Jessen presented the request by Chamber of Commerce for a Park & Rec. Com. member to represent the City, along withCity Manager Ulstad, and Planning Commission member. 1 Chairman Erickson asked for volunteers. Choiniere offered to be a representa- tive if the meetings were held any time but evenings. Upton volunteered as an alternate under the same conditions. ' i Erickson requested that Jessen contact the proper sources for further informa- tion as to time and length of the meetings, and let it be known that the Com. members were limited for time during the evenings, and that daytime or Sat. morning, would be more desirable. y �' . _._ r iapproved Minutes - Park & Rea.. Page Three Commission Tune'2, 1975 r II. ORGANIZATION (CONTTD) B. Consideration of By-laws- for Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Postponed. Chairman Erickson declared that the Commission would consider the Edengate question, since citizens were present with a pertinent interest. DEVELAPIMIT PROPOSALS Edengrate Jessen presented revised Staff Report of present status of Edengate town- houses. DiscusElion regarding motion. approved at April 7 meeting concerning Edengate took place. Choiniere said he did not feel the revised Staff Report and approved motion meant the same thing. �. Jessen suggested changing the wording of recent memo. In reference to original Staff Report of April 14, Jessen felt the only recommendation rejected was no. 2, dealing with the Golf Study. Kingrey stated his position that he felt the whole concept was bad. Jessen commented that the original proposal has been modified to cut down on unit , the buffer area has been changed, and tennis courts would be made public. Upton questioned the ;07500 figure, the "cash in lieu° of land price, and inquired how much land could be bought with this amount. Jessen responded that it would buy 2-3 acres, with estimated land value in that area about 5I. ?4,000 per acre. Mr. Robert Kruell, spokesman for residents in area concerned, commented that there would be no land available to buy. Fie knows of no one in this area who would want to parcel off that amount of acreage. Kingrey.asked how far buffer zone was from rear lot line of present homes. Kruell answered about 170 to 200 feet. The "cash in lieu" and 'lmnrket value" figures were discussed. Jessen commented that in addition -to 80 acres of land, if Commission members feel $7500 is too I low, they mny wish to apply formula discussed at previous meeting. ( Kingrey commented that the 600 population figure used by developer was too low to use as figure to base formula on. _ r (approved Minutes - Park & Rec. Page Four Commission June 2, 1975 Edentate (Cont'd) . Kruell asked if the developer had agreed to the $7500 figure. Jessen responded that it was not acceptable to Pautz. Kruell said the residents of the area concerned intend to ask Council to con- sider a joint effort with the Purgatory Water Shed District at the public hearing. Helmer inquired as to the mein objection of the residents to the proposal. Kruell answered that it was a gross misuse of the land. Jessen offered to bring back diagrams to aid recollection of various uses of the land. He said the discussion that had taken place at the meeting was on the 80 acres of dedication and estimated population of 200 units. 1 MTION , Choiniere moved *that we communicate to the Council that based upon the memo of April 16 regarding Edengate development pror-sal, since this memo has been re- viewed at this meeting by Park & Rec. Commission and note that there are correc- tions to be made in the recommendation of the Staff Report, as well as discussion regarding "cash in lieu" of land, we find this alternative to be unacceptable and request the Edengate developers to reappear before the Park'& Rec. Com. tiwith specific plans for recreational facilities. Kingrey seconded, and the motion carried, unanimously. DISCUSSION Jessen asked whether the intention was to correct Staff report.. He added that the Staff would review the study, and that the action of the Commission was to accept the 80 acres, and 'cash in lieu! of land. He does not feel that delaying the action will be advantageous. POTION Upton moved that the Park & Rec. Commission has reviewed motion of last meeting and find the whole Edengate proposal undesirable . We have looked into the Brauer Study in the Purgatory Watershed District and recommend rejection of the present proposal. Kingrey seconded. DISCUSSION Jessen referred to Purgatory Creek Study and asked whether Commission wished to discuSS this tonight or reject. Choiniere and Upton felt the Commission should stand pat on action taken. Anderson said that as a Commission, we have to make a decision what the land should be used for, and should tie in with recommendation of Brauer Study, which was done with help of Stone, a naturalist who made recommendations to Brauer that this area C_ . should be kept wild. ?kapproved Minutes - Park & Rea. Page Five Commission June 2, 1975 Edentate lCont'd) Jessen said no action has been taken on the report. Jessen added that a cooperative venture with the Watershed District will be requested by landowners. Anderson requested the question of the use of the land be put on agenda for next meeting, following the Purgatory Creek Study. Kingrey said he would not be able to attend next meeting and would like to state his position on the issue. He would like to have discussion of the cooperation of the watershed district involved toward purchase of that property, with a study . made of using the dry land of the SW 20 or more acres of that property. Choiniere called question on the motion. The question carried unanimously. VOTE The motion carried unanimously. CaRital Improvement Program Jessen explained to the Commission that at the Council meeting, there was much discussion which resulted in decreases in the program. Referring to memo of C 2-27-75, he touched on areas that were modified as a result. Neighborhood play- ground total was cut from ;j688,00 to 020,000; B/H was the same at *250,000; and community parks from ;r658,000 to ee530,000. Choiniere was concerned that the Council could eliminate the figure after a whole year study on the part of the Commission, and added that he couldn't see spending all this time on developing programs then seeing them chopped up this way. Erickson commented that he was unhappy with the results of their study, but would still support it. Anderson was concerned about the swimming pool being presented as an "outdoor" pool, when he felt it hadn't been discussed and agreed upon. He felt that the citizen input was definitely for an indoor pool build in cooperation with school district. Jessen responded that these figures are the best we can come up with at this time. If the referendum is successful, the actual allocations. will look different. Re- ducing the figures now reduces the bond's total cost, making it more feasible. Garens agreedUhat the Council did chop up the figures, but he referred to the by-laws stating that the Commission is an advisory body only. Kingrey expressed his dissatisfaction with how the program turned out, but said he would support it. He did not „;ant it to come out that the Commission will not support the pool referendum. 1 ' _,approved Minutes - Park & Rec. Page Six Commission June 2, 1975 Capital- Improvement Prop-ram (Conttd)_ Anderson said he found it hard to go along with the idea of having two lakes in the community, and then putting in a swimming pool next to the lakes. Jessen explained that the memo put together was a result of much discussion, with the City authorizing joint planning with the school district on the matter of swimming pool. If referendum is successful, a committee would be chartered for the purpose of working together with school district, *concerned citizens, and all involved. He added that what the Council was saying is that this is our investment in major recreation in this community, and there will be continued cooperation in recreation. 'The Council did not want to pre-empt school location by being mon specific. Jessen responded to questions regarding the Staging of Priorities. He described .; it as a 5 year program with a 3 year implementation schedule. MOTION Anderson moved that we recommend to the Council that they take out "outdoor Olympic pool" and refer to it only as a pool, because they feel it jeopardizes the bond issue by appearing in print as an "outdoor pool". Upton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. MOTION Choiniere moved that we bypass the memo of May 30 because we have not had a chance to study it. 1btion died for lack of a second. IDTI0N Garens moved to accept memo as presented, with the planning and designing of B/H trails to be moved to Priority 1. Anderson seconded. DISCUSSION . Jessen responded to questions from Kingrey regarding second youth complex. A definite site was not determined, but there were several possibilities, including Edengate. Kingrey inquired as to whether MC had responded to their recommendation. Jessen answered negative. Garens called the question. VOTE Motion carried with a vote of 6-1, with Chahiere casting dissenting vote. Olympic Bills Jessen reported that a mini-park or play area, a wildlife area, and construction of trails was agreed upon. The residents are anticipating the use of the Club for golf and tonnis. There will be a neighborhood play area across the road. He added they have agreed to all of our recomendations exactly. :1'iapproved I Minutes - Park & Rea. Page Seven Commission June 2, 1975 Olympic Hills (Cont'd) MTTON Kingrey moved to accept the recommendation based on Staff memo dated June 2, 1975. Anderson seconded and motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION Choiniere questioned the guarantee against bankruptcy the City will have. Jessen responded that performance bonds will be used. He added that the prea is 2-� times as large as Briar Hills area, with 90 units on 35 areas opposed to 137 units on 10-12 acres. Parkview Patio Apartments Jessen reported that Mr. Peterson is not agreeable to recommendations at this time and we are wprking with him. No Action. Mobile Plavaround Program Report Jessen reported that we are presently developing facility and working out sche- dule. No Action. Beach Fees Report 1. Council Action Jessen cited Council reading from Minutes of previous meeting. 2. Policies -_Relatives, Family Guests, Canoe Launch at Bryant Lake Jessen said they are not being allowed at the time, all guests and relatives are required to pay fee. He asked Commission for any suggested changes, or to leave as is. MOTION Upton moved that non-powered boats be given free access to Bryant Lake and power boats launched at the boat launching area should be charged according to horsepower of motors, with a fee of ;�1.00 for boats with up to 10 h.p., ; 2.00 up to 25 h.p., and $4.00 over 25 h.p.. Anderson seconded and motion carried unanimously. Choiniere left meeting at 11.:00 PM. ADJOURN!•' 21T Garens moved to adjourn at 11:15 PM. Kingrey seconded, and motion carried unanimously. ;ds r I AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION a Monday, June 16, 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, Brian Mikkelson and Steve Fifield, Ex-Officio COMMISSION STAFF: Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services j ROLL CALL 1 I. MINUTES OF THE NNE 2, 1975 MEETING . II. ORGANIZATION A. Appointment to Community Growth Council. B. Proposed Bylaws. (Previously distributed) 9 III. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Tour -- June 26 at 1:30 PM. (Notice previously distributed) i IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Picnic Pavilion Status Report -- Mr. Ovick (Report attached) B. Metropolitan Airports Commission study of Flying Cloud Field -- (Report and Graphics attached) C. 1976 Grant Application for Federal LAWCON and State ' Natural Resource Funds -- (Report attached) D. 1975 Summer Recreation Program Report -- (Report by Sandy r Werts attached) j E. Minnesota River Valley Open Space Plan -- (Report attached) Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Page Two Resources Commission Agenda one 16, 1975 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) F. Request to Secure Appraisal for Miller Brothers Property at Mitchell Lake -- (Report attached) G. Cafiital €Litrppbvdritent Program (C.I.P.) -- (Report attached) V. ADJOURNMENT. i r !' APPROVED MIN UTE,S PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, June 16, 1975 7:30 PM, CITY HALL i COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Marvin Erickson, Richard Anderson, Paul Choiniere, William Garens, Wolfgang Penzel, Mary Upton, and Steve Fifield, Ex-Officio COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Dorothy Bennett, Francis Helmer, Jerry Kingrey, Brian Mikkelson, and Elizabeth Tracy. OTHERS PRESENT: E. F. Allis, James Allis, F. M. Allis, J. Griepentrog, Linda Weckman, Mary Marshall, Mrs. John Raguet, Mrs. Rolland Daughty, W. H. Hustad, Ruth Hustad, Lorraine °- Christopher, James C. Brown, James Wilkie, Martin Grill, Mr. & Mrs. Darrell Dilling, / Mrs. Larry Wilson, Mrs. Harold Fowler, Mrs. Harry Brandt, Sue Brandt, Larry Wilson, Henry E. Brandt, MD. , Bob Brown, Jim Bublitz , J. Gordon Campbell, Ed Schlampp, , Mr. & Mrs. Ramsey Parker, W. A. Stanley, and Tim Tucker STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: - Marty Jessen, Director of Community Services Sandy Werts, Recreation Program Supervisor ; 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM by Chairman Erickson ` I IV. E. Minnesota River Valley Open Space Plan -- Jessen reviewed the status of the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service proposal for the creation of a national wildlife refuge along the Minnesota River in the Floodplain area. The proposal calls for about 2 ,500 acres of wildlife refuge'land in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, extending'to the #169 bridge near Shakopee. A detailed presentation + will be made to the City of Eden Prairie sometime in July after the Department of Interior has completed putting together the presentation. Erickson opened the floor to comments from the citizens in attendance at the meeting. 81 Mr. Gordon Campbell expressed his feeling that there is no citizen support in Eden � Prairie for such a proposal,and that the private citizens are managing this area for wildlife now and will continue to do so in the future. He questioned as to who is pushing for such an action. Anderson replied that in 1973 there was a study of the Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Mon.,June 16, 1975 Resourues Commission Minutes - 2 - l area which indicated a need for a better program of wildlife management. From this study it was clear that benefits could be realized through public acquisition through a program of management for wildlife purposes,and also for some limited usage by the public consistent with the goals and objectives of wildlife refuges. He further stated that there was no guarantee that the .private landowner would continue to maintain this area as open space fifteen or twenty years from now. He explained that Bloomington is actively acquiring open space along the river valley and bluff area as opposed to having industrial development take place. Jim Brown stated that the 1968 Guide Plan for Eden Prairie shows this as quasi- public open space or "non-buildable land", not necessarily public land. He recalled that -the Lower Minnesota River Citizens Cornmittee met in early 1974 and asked Eden Prairie landowners to gift their land to the government for an open space area, while Burnsville industrialized their bottom land to add to their tax base. He expressed a feeling that the land is being used to the highest and best purpose now through good private ownership and management. The greatest destruction in the River Valley area has been done by governmental activity, such as the power line and sewer board. He feels that private ownership has resulted in a much better landuse than when government has been involved. 40 Hank Brandt suggested that a responsible City Council and responsible Park and Recreation program for the City make "looking after" the river area unnecessary. He suggested that the tone of all the discussion has been that someone must i protect this area from private ownership and he feels this is not necessary because the private owner is doing a good job in managing it for wildlife purposes now. He further suggested that existing City ordinances, including the Floodplain 3 Ordinance, would maintain this as open space and not permit any development. Penzel stated that the Floodplain Ordinance does not prohibit development, but merely regulates it and that any landuse decisions based on the ordinance must be reasonable and fair. The courts can and have overturned City actions in regard to landuse when they have been found to be unreasonable. A landowner could fill or otherwise flood- proof the property and develop it. p Helen Fowler suggested that flooding is a reasonable cause for turning down any landuse proposal other than agricultural or open space. She said that the land- � . owners want to be left alone and not bothered with any government ownership or involvement in the river.valley area,and suggested that it is the responsibility of the City Council to protect other landowners from any other use than rural. Any government involvement in this area would devalue the land adjacent to the area because i undesirable people will come to utilize it, thus causing traffic problems and other public use problems. Garens stated that financial interest at some point in the future will dictate a request for rezoning of the land so that it can be put to some purpose other than rural or open space. He suggested that future generations may not hold the same values as Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Mon.,June 16, 1975 Resources Commission Meeting - 3 - i the present landowners , but that this land should be protected as open space. Choiniere said that he felt the people were misinterpreting the purpose in management principles of a wildlife refuge. People are concerned about park usage and public destruction of the area, whereas in a wildlife refuge there is very limited public use and the main goals and activities are towards better utilization of the area for wild- life habitat, etc. Ramsey Parker indicated that he had seen no changes in 50 or 60 years on the river bottom and saw no need for any public involvement. He expressed a feeling that it was going to cost too much money to raise taxes, whether it was purchased by the Federal or local government. Ann Wilson said that if this area is made into a park or public area, all of the adjacent landowners were going to move, thus leaving no one to help pay for acquisition and operation of the facility. One additional problem is the matter of police protection, whether it is in public or private ownership. Sever Peterson stated that he is dependent on this land for a living because he farms much of the river bottom area. He requested a early decision so that he could make alternate plans, if in fart it is to be acquired for public ownership. He also stated that there have some improvements made to the river area including the channelization ( project and that some assessments have been made to "benefitted properties". Ed Schlampp stated his right to own the land and to do as he pleases with it. Eminent domain proceedings could acquire the land for public ownership, but he and other landowners will fight any process to acquire their land. He questioned what government might do with the land area 25 years from now when they may decide to "tame the river" by flooding areas upstream, thus lowering the water levels in this area and ruining much of the wildlife habitat. Erickson asked if any significant changes had been observed by the residents in the past 30 years as to the character of this land area. Sever Peterson responded that floods are more frequent now because much of western Minnesota has been tiled and drained for agricultural use. He said he had seen no "mismanagement" of the river area within Eden Prairie . Anderson stated that proposals for kennel development along the river bluffs had prompted much of the consideration of an open space area, and that this proved the point that future land use changes will be proposed. Upton stated that her feeling is that this area should be kept as a wildlifa area, but that it is not necessary for the City park system to serve Eden Prairie residents. She suggested that no action be taken and that the Commission wait to see what the Federal presentation proposes in July. Choiniere agreed that to wait until the July presentation made sense. He asked if the landowners would feel the same if they had the right to continue the present uses of their land while relinquishing some rights to the Government. Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation , and Natural Mon. , June 16, 1975 Resources Commission Meeting - 4 - Gordon Campbell.responded that if landowners lose the flood plain area, they lose value to their property and that they would be damaged. The land would be' devalued . by public ownership and that any nonprivate ownership which would result in public use would create further problems. Choiniere responded by saying that , having worked in wildlife refuge areas, he felt that this would not be a problem because people do not use these areas extensively for recreation purposes, but that the land j and habitats are merely managed for improved wildlife benefit. Jim Brown said that he feels the people (landowners) care more than government would and Ann Wilson said that the commission has it made because people are willing to do what it wants plus pay taxes on the property. Anderson stated that he felt that thiswas one of the finest natural resources in the j community and that. the Commission had a responsibility to the citizens for the protection of the natural resource. He expressed the feeling that there are several i ways to accomplish this. One being private ownership. Another being public owner- ship. Ed Schlampp said that he felt private ownership was the best way to approach it and further city ordinances controlling or prohibiting any development in this area would do the best job. Anderson moved to table any action on this concept until the proposal is presented by the Fish and Wildlife Service in July. The motion died for lack of a second. Garens moved and Upton seconded to report to the Council that the view of the Parks,recreation, and Natural Resources Commission and the audience in attend- ance at the June 16, 1975 meeting was for the protection of the Minnesota River Valley Area. The Commission is unsure of the best method to accomplish this goal, be it through ordinance , private ownership or public ownership. Choiniere moved and Anderson seconded to amend the motion to read, "majority of audience." Helen Fowler suggested that a vote of the audience be taken as to who's in favor of the proposal. Anderson suggested that this would yield a biased approach in as much as only the landowners were invited to this meeting and people who might be in favor of the proposal were not informed as to the di scussion. Jim Brown sug- gested that he felt that it was not a good idea to take an audience vote because the people there represented only those people in the room., not all of the community as the Commission was appointed to serve. A vote on the amendment to the motion was taken. It carried by 6 to 1. A vote on the motion as amended was taken and it carried unanimously. Garens moved and Choiniere seconded to direct the staff to inform the landowners and public of the next meeting through notification one week in advance by mail and also by publicizing in local newspapers, etc. The motion carried unanimously. i . Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Mon., Tune 16, 1975 Resources Commission Meeting - 5 - I 1V. A. Picinic Pavilion Status Report -- Ovick reviewed the work done since the last meeting and the building concept, including the alternate for panels. to ex- pand the suncover space. The basic building is 1500 sq. ft. with an additional 500 sq. ft. on each side of the building if the flip-up panels are added. The first phase base bid would include the concrete slab, the suncover roof with cedar shingles and the fireplace. j Discussion took place about the need for lights, changes in roof style, etc. Choiniere moved and Upton seconded to recommend to the Council that they accept 4 the picnic pavilion conceptfor a post and beam structure with a pyramid-type roof, concrete slab, 360. degree open fireplace, and electric service as a basic j structure to be designed to hit the low end of the budget range and that as an . alternate to the bid document , panels for additional suncover be included. The motion carried unanimously. ' IV. D. Summer Recreation Programs -- Sandy Werts referred to the report distributed T . with the Commission packets. Choiniere asked what competition had resulted in the lower registration for Summer Fun. Werts answered that the summer school program, which Eden Prairie Schools are running for the first time in 3 years has resulted in the greatly reduced number i of participants. She explained that the Summer school adventure program i ivas four hours per morning of a variety of activities much like the Summer Fun Program and that the participants were transported to and from the school at a cost of $2.50 which was refunded if the child missed 2 or fewer sessions during the summer season. Choiniere said that he felt the school people had pushed for programs which were not of benefit to all Eden Prairie residents and which provided 4 hours of entertain- ment for the child plus transportation which would be a better buy than the City's Summer Fun recreation program. He further suggested that the money bugeted for Summer Fun could. be better spent on other recreation programs. Upton stated that Bible school enrollments are also down- and that they feel this is also a result of the summer school program. Discussion took place as to whether the program ought to be eliminated, cut back or carried on as publicized. It was agreed that commitments had been made to the community to provide this program and that the staff was to continue to implement it as planned. r I I E'en Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Mon. , June 16, 1975 Resources Commission. Meeting — 6 - ' I ' I IV. B. Metropolitan Airport Commission Study of Flying Cloud Field -- lessen referred to the graphic showing the areas of concern, which is included in the commission packet and indicated that he had talked to Mr. Glumack's office about the possibility of a long-term lease .versus a 90 day lease and that the i airport commission's people were considering this communication and would.be calling.lin back to set up a meeting time. No action required. l i I II. A. Appointment to Community Growth Council -- Chairman Erickson reviewed the time commitments necessary to participate on the council and asked if anyone felt they could fulfill the assignment. There being no one who expressed any in- i terest in serving on the Community Growth Council, there was no action taken. N. C. 1976 Grant A lication for Federal LAWCON and State Natural Resource Funds -- lessen reviewed the staff report dated June 13, 1975 and indicated that an option agreement for the Schaitberger property has recently been approved by the Council so that 76 LAWCON funds could be applied for and hopefully secured to assist in financing this acquisition. I Choiniere asked if this application for grant assistance would fit with the proposed 1975 park bond issue. lessen responded implementation and staging schedule for thorient d so that the dispersement of that the land acquisition would be contract monies generated by the bond issue if successful could be spread over a number of years to fit the bond issuance schedule. He also kely that the ddicated come frohm theat '1968 pwas iark bond issue local share of any 1976 grant received woul I balance. Anderson moved and Garens seconded,that the Parks, Recreation, and 1Jatural Res- j ources commission recommend to the City_ Council that a preliminary LAWCON and Natural Resources Application for 1976 funds be filed, which would include the 3 it parcels listed on the June 13 , 1975 staff report . The motion carried unanimously. �! IV. F. Request to Secure Appraisal For Miller Brothers Pro ert atMitche11 Lake -- I _ to lessen explained that the Council had referred this matter back it the Commission l for specific recommendation as to securing an appraisal. The Riley/Mitchell i( Park Study which the Commission recommended to the Council in April came about as a result of the communication from the Miller Brothers as their desire to enter into an agreement with the city to purchase their property . Thus the appraisal was suggested at this time. Discussion took place as to the cost of such an appraisal and whether or not it should be put off in light of the fact that the Mitchell Lake Estates Trailer Park Proposal was turned down by the City. Choiniere asked what kind of agreement would be entered into,a ssumi ng the City and the Miller Brothers could agree on a purchase price. lessen responded that the intent was to secure an option to tie up the property for City purchase while applications for ]Federal and State funding were pursued to assist in financing the aquisition. + 6 Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural Mon. , June 16 , 1975 Resources Commission Meeting - 7 - Choiniere asked how many appraisers were used to determine fair market value. , Jessen responded that the city procedure had been to use one appraiser. Choiniere suggested that perhaps two might be better so there would be less criticism as to i the price paid by the City when the land is acquired. Garens moved and Anderson seconded that the Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommend to the Citv Council that in as much as the Mitchell/Riley i Lake Park Study suggests the acquisition of land at Mitchell Lake for Community Park use; that an appraisal be secured for the property owned by the Miller Brothers so that. the City may enter into negotiations to secure an agreement to acquire this property. The motion carried unanimously. IV. G. Capit:al Improvement Program -- Dale Lommen, president of the Eden Prairie Athletic Association, addressed the Commission indicating that he had received a call from Mary Erickson thanking the Association for its input into the Capital Im- provement Plan Development and expressing the Association'.s appreciation for the Commission's reaction of favorable response to their input. He expressed concern because Eden Prairie Athletic As sociation.under the new city ordinance for the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission does not have a position on the Commission specifically spelled out in the ordinance. He understands that ex-officio status will be granted to all of the EPAA Board members if the by-laws of the Com- mission are adopted as presented. However, he feels that a voting membership is more appropriate. He explained that the Association represents the Community and that they know how to provide good input to the Commission's process for Park and Recreation planning and that the Association is doing a good job for the Community in providing youth sports programs. Upton suggested that. the EPAA board should be given the authority to appoint a member to the Commission for a 1 year term rather than for the City Council and Mayor to appoint a representative for a 3 year term because the board is elected annually by the Association. This suggested approach would provide for better representation of that year's board. Penzel suggested that the Commission had discussed in their deliberation of a new ordinance, giving legal status to one organization in the community and not all others. The new ordinance gives only the school board and the City Council legal representation to the Commission , whereas if the EPAA were given this legal status other community groups such as the Hockey Association, Softball Leagues, and others should also be given this status. Garens stated that the Jaycees used to have a representative to the Commission and that was how he was f irst appointed but they no longer have legal status on the Commission. Penzel suggested that the Commission might recommend that the procedure to the Council whereby certain groups might be represented out of the seven citizens appointed to the Commission. Wen Prairie Parks, Recreation, and Natural j Resources Commission Meeting - 8 .- Mon. ,June 16, 1975 � I It was moved by Upton, seconded by Choiniere, that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission recommend that the Council consider the appointment of a representative from the Eden Prairie Athletic Association to the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission as one of the seven regular members of the Commission. This representative to be suggested by the Eden Prairie Athletic Association's Board of Directors and President on an annual basis. Motion carried i unanimously. VI. It was moved Choiniere, seconded by Anderson, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. C. i } }