Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 04/30/1979 I 1979 APRIL 25 16, 30 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE II AGENDA Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation and Natural 'Resources Commission Monday, April 2, 1979 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Carlson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell , George Tangen COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services Approx. Time to Begin Item 7:30 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1979 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7:35 A. Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners _ None B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals 7:45 a. Meadow Park Single Family Subdivision 8:15 b. H1g rail Estates 8:45 c. The Hartford Real Estate Co. Proposal 9:45 2. Summer Programs for Developmentally Disabled 10:00 3. Council Report of 3/20/79 VI. OLD BUSINESS 10:10 A. Guide Plan 10:30 B. CIP/Bond Referendum VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Removal of Nesbitt House on Preserve Park 11:00 B. Resolution on CDBG Funds 11:15 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 'APPROVED MINUTES C EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday,April 2, 1979 7:30 P.M. , City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Carlson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell , George Tangen COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services; Sandy Werts, Recreation Supervisor OTHERS PRESENT: Don Hess and Betty McNulty, Chamber of Commerce; Don Buteyn, Dave Vogel , Cliff Swenson, Herb Ketchum, Al Dybier, E. P. Sun; Dick Dahl , E. P. News I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by chairperson Richard Anderson. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V.A.1. Report by Kruell MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to approve the agenda as revised; seconded by Kruell ; motion passed unanimously. III. MINUTES OF MARCH 19,1979 MEETING Changes to be made: Page 3, paragraph 11: Lambert wanted to note. . Page 7, paragraph 3: . did not feel commission "should" infringe on the rights of the private owners "to develop private property into generally accepted uses" S Page B, Mill is mispelled under "Bond Referendum" MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the minutes as revised. Seconded by Tangen, the motion passed with Fifield abstaining. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AMD COMMUNICATIONS A. Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Lambert introduced Don Hess and Betty McNulty who were here to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, concerning the memorandum they sent to the commission. Hess expressed concern over the lack of funds to acquire and develop parks He pointed out that even a one-mill levy, combined with a Cash Park Fee would not be adequate to fund the Five-Year Plan, which appears conservative and reasonable. Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved Aprili 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -2- They felt that Draft #4 of the Park Dedication Ordinance is a much improved version, one that they could support. Hess did recommend that the word "may" could be inserted in Subdivision 6, in place of "will". He pointed out two other areas where the use of "may" helped to make the ordinance more equitable and good administration would prove to be the key. He also questioned whether the commercial/industrial developers created enough demand for parks to warrant the seemingly high Cash Park Fee. He suggested that the commission should be careful not to create from the Cash Park Fee a limiting tool in regard to development, since that fee will not generate enough income to build a park system by itself. He thanked the commission and the staff for r. their help and cooperation. i Dave Anderson pointed out that industry does create demand in a park system in the form of softball , volleyball , basketball teams, etc. ; and their entry a fees don't cover all the costs involved. He then asked about possible support y 1 from the Chamber for the bond referendum. McNulty indicated that she felt they could come back with strong support from the Chamber of Commerce. MOTION: Tangen moved to change the wording in Draft #4 of the Park Dedication r finance in Subdivision 6 to read "undevelopable land may not be included in the required percentage of dedicated parkland." Dave Anderson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Kruell stated that there seemed to be a gap between the ordinance as recommended by the commission and the memorandum submitted by the Chamber of Commerce. He asked if the differences should be resolved. McNulty stated that she sees the Park Dedication Ordinance (Draft #4) as one part of the total plan. It should be made clear to the council that the Chamber's report is a broader look at the whole problem; it will take all aspects of funding to provide the total park system. Carlson noted that his impression from the report was that the cash park fee was an impediment toward development as viewed by the Chamber. Hess disagreed, stating that cash park fees are necessary--but will not do the job alone. He offered to attend the council meeting to express the Chamber of Commerce' support of the Park Dedication Ordinance Draft #4. R. Anderson thanked Hess and McNulty for their hard work and fine ideas. V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners 1. Report by Kruell Kruell wished to report that he had received a strong complaint against the city's practice of leaving street sand on the boulevards and streets f and that this years' deposits would go into the storm sewer system which leads directly into Purgatory Creek. r Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -3- C- B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals a. Meadow Park Single Family Subdivision Lambert introduced Mr. Don Buteyn and Mr. Dave Vogel who presented the project to the commission. The plan had been altered slightly, adding more acreage to provide the road, (the new total is 27 acres) and increasing the number of lots to 47. Sidewalks are planned along Larkspur Lane and Homeward Hills Road; these would create a connection from the Preserve to Purgatory Creek. Kruell questioned the fact that the developers hold 45 acres, and are developing only 27 at this point. He asked if this doesn't negate the purpose of the EAW worksheet, which is required on developments of 40 acres or more. Can we and should we consider the entire area? Although Lambert agreed that Kruell had made a good point, there is no way the commission can require the developer to include all his land in a proposal . Kruell asked how close it would be to a neighborhood park. Lambert told him that it is about z mile to Lake Eden and two blocks from a proposed 5-6 acre park. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the council approval of tFe eadow Park project according to the staff recommendations in the memorandum of March 29, 1979. Tangen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. b. High Trails Estates Lambert introduced Cliff Swenson who handled the presentation to the commission. The proposal showed 79 lots in a 40 acre development with a mini-park plus cash park fees. He also mentioned that the potential drainage problem was going to be resolved. Kruell questioned whether the information on the drainage at Duck Lake was correct. R. Anderson asked which park would serve the area. When he was told Eden Farms West, he pointed out that it is not yet owned by the city. Lambert explained that within a few months a developer has suggested dedicating this park (8-9 acres) area as part of a development proposal he is working on. Dave Anderson pointed out that part of the proposed development is within one-half mile of Prairie View School/Park. Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -4- r R. Anderson noted that there would be an unfinished segment of side- walk when the development was done, along city property, leading to the school . He asked if the city could contract to have that section of the walk completed at the same time. Kruell suggested that the walk be wider than 5 feet, and more than 22 feet from the side of the road since it would carry an increased volume of traffic when the interchange at the Cross Town Highway is complete. Lambert agreed and suggested that it might be appropriate to request walks on both sides of the road, since Duck Lake Road will be heavily used as a connector to the school . Fifield asked for an explanation of the drainage problem at Valley Knolls Mini-Park. He was told that the water should drain through the park, not into it, and end up in Purgatory Creek. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the council approval of High Trail Estates, according to the staff recommendations in the memoran- dum of March 30, to also include the recommendation to require an 8 foot asphalt trail (instead of a 5 foot trail ) within the develop- ment boundaries because of the anticipated increase in traffic due to the proposed Cross Town Highway/ Duck Lake Road Interchange. The motion was seconded by Bob Johnson, and passed unanimously. MOTION: Fifield moved to recommend to the council that they authorize the extension of the trail/walk to be completed by the High Trail Estates contractor and be paid for by the city. Carlson seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. A short break was called by the chairperson. c. Hartford Real Estate Company Proposal Herb Ketchum was introduced by Lambert. He opened his presentation with slides of some other developments done by the Hartford Company, and then reported on neighborhood meetings held earlier in the year with residents near the proposed development. Some of the concerns brought out at those meetings were: traffic patterns, screening of the parking areas, building heights, overall appearance, and lighting. He felt they had resolved all of these questions with the area neighbors. They plan to use extensive landscaping (earth berms and planting) to screen the parking and buildings from the sight lines in the nearby residential areas. They are requesting a variance on parking--they would prefer lots to accomodate 4 cars per 1000 square feet of office space, rather than 5 cars per 1000 square feet, as is now required. They have room to �- develop more parking if it is needed. R Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -5- They also are planning a higher percentage of development on the Lake- shore 'land than specified by code--but want to compensate by building a controlled drainage pond which would filter oil and sludge from the water before allowing it back into the lake. This is planned for the first phase of development, and an environmental assessment worksheei has been filed. They plan no fence along the scenic easement, but rather, extensive plantings designed to prevent pedestrian traffic moving to the lake. The retaining pond is planned to look as natural as possible. Lambert asked if all the water draining into the lake from the existing area would remain the same, or if they would be gathering more. Also, could the salt in the drainage be monitored and controlled? He suggested the use of parking ramps rather than the extensive lots. Lambert was told that they could only control the application of salt on the parking lots and access roads--they are working on monitoring salt levels in lakes, but have little data to work with at Anderson Lakes. Tangen was concerned about a large stand of trees that appeared to be in the way of proposed utilities--he was assured that the utilities would go around the trees, not through them. Tangen also had questions concerning the set back from the high-water mark; and how does the height of the buildings relate to the Gelco development? Ketchum told Tangen that he would try to get the answers for him at the next meeting. Kruell asked what the residents of the Preserve were told when they purchased their homes; had they been told about the possibility of this type of development? Carlson questioned the problem of traffic flow. How many people were expected to be brought in with the first stage of development? He was told that an interchange with 494 and Schooner Boulevard was scheduled in 1981, by the highway department, and they expected 800 people with the first phase of development. R. Anderson was concerned about the nesting area to the north--and what would be done with the air conditioning water? Is it possible or •Feasible for the air-conditioning water to go into the lake? He was assured that the wildlife area was included in the "scenic easement"; and an internal air conditioning system is being considered. Kruell asked if more attention could be directed toward the problem of dissolved solids going into the lake--weren't there methods to precipitate them out? He was told that this was uneconomical from the standpoint of the initial investment, and also the annual treatment. r Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -7- t recommended by the commission to be made in the Comprehensive Park Plan. Kruell requested that the name of the Duck Lake site could be changed to Lochanburn. Tangen suggested that the commission follow a suggestion from the report by the Chamber of Commerce and encourage gifts; adding it to #11 on page 2. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend approval of the Guide Plan/ Comprehensive Park Plan including revisions by the commission in the staff memorandum of March 30, 1979; and to include changing Duck Lake park site to Lochanburn; and add "encourage gifts" to #11 on page 2. Seconded by Johnson, the motion passed unanimously. B. CIP/Bond Referendum With the approval of the Guide Plan, the commission recognized the need for a bond referendum to meet the deficit in their five-year park capital improvement program. The staff recommended the formation of a comittee to present the question and determine whether there is sufficient support to proceed with a bond referendum. Lambert suggested that each commissioner bring in names of possible committee members to the next meeting. R. Anderson suggested that a date for the "committee meeting" be set. The commission agreed on April 30, 1979. MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the council approval of the formation of a committee as outlined in the staff memorandum of March 30, 1979. Dave Anderson seconded and the motion passed unanimously. VII NEW BUSINESS A. Removal of the Nesbitt House on Preserve Park Lambert presented a memo from Stuart Fox concerning the condition of the old Nesbitt house in the Preserve Park. He recommends removal of the house since it poses a hazard to children in the area who may play near the building. f MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the council approval of the staff recommendation to immediatly secure and arrange for the removal of the old f . Nesbitt house in the Nesbitt Preserve Park. Kruell seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. B. CDBG Funds The staff presented a breakdown on the use of the CDBG Funds in 1977 and 1978. In order to balance the Preserve Community Development Block Grant Fund, a transfer must be made from the Edenvale Funds to the Preserve. Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -6- ,r- f 2. Summer Program for Developmentally Disabled Sandy Werts reviewedthe history of the program, and outlined several alternatives for this year. She favored a city program for the older children, but sending the younger ones to the cooperative program run by Bloomington and Richfield. Lambert explained a program he had utilized successfully, which was less expensive. He felt that the younger children could be integrated into the program in Eden Prairie. R. Anderson asked if Eden Prairie could provide the same quality in the program. Werts did not think so, stating that the Bloomington/Richfield program utilized specialists and facilities that Eden Prairie could not r duplicate. MOTION: Johnson moved to recommend approval of option number three from tipmemorandum of March 30, 1979--offering a 2-3 week program in August for about 4. hours a day. The motion was seconded by Kruell . DISCUSSION: Dave Anderson was concerned that the children the program inters to serve might be at summer camp or a similar program in August. He suggested that should be investigated, to try and anticipate the level of participation. VOTE: The motion passed; with R. Anderson and Dave Anderson voting against it. Fifield left the meeting early. 3. Council Report of March 20, 1979 Lambert reported to the commission that the council had approved their recommendation to begin the work on the Senior Citizen Center. r They also instructed him to talk to Gerald Miller about the acquisition of parkland for the Top View area. Mr. Miller has, however, submitted a plat to the planning commission, so will probably have a firm price in mind. Tangen asked what had been done concerning the request for a one-mill levy. Lambert replied that it went into their information packet, with a memo explaining the financial position. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Guide Plan I/ Lambert noted that the memorandum of March 30, 1979 contained the changes i Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 2, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -8- Tangen questioned the legality- of the move and was assured that there was no problem legally. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the council approval of the transfer of Community Development Block Grant Funds according to the staff recommendations in the memorandum of March 30, 1979. Seconded by Carlson, the motion passed unanimously. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Georgia Jessen Recording Secretary • AGENDA ( EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1979 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Carlson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell ;, George Tangen COMMISSION STAFF: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services Approx. Time to Begin Item 7:30 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1979 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners None B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals 7:35 a. Cooperative Power Association 8:00 b. The Hartford Real Estate Co. 8:45 c. Bluff's West 3rd and 4th 9:30 2. Summer Youth Proqrams 9:45 3. Teen Programs 10:00 4. Summer Skill Development and Summer Brochure 10:15 5. Council Action - Lambert VI. OLD BUSINESS 10:2G A. Topview Park Status 10:25 B. April 30th Meeting . _J:45 C. Park Dedication Ordinance VII. NEW BUSINESS 11:00 VIII. ADJOURNMENT APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 1979 7:30 P.M. ,City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Carlson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell , George Tangen COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services; Sandy Werts, Recreation Supervisor OTHERS PRESENT: Herb Ketchum, Dan Lutenager, Dick Dahl , E.P. News k ; I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Anderson at 7:30 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA H ' Additions: V.A.1. Tennis Courts at Round Lake--Fifield VII.A. Commendations—Kruell MOTION: Tangen moved to approve the agenda with the additions; seconded by Fi— fed, the motion passed unanimously. III. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1979 Changes to be made: Page 2, last paragraph: ". boulevards and streets and that this years deposits would go into the storm sewer system which leads directly into Purgatory Creek." Page 5, paragraph 9 : R. Anderson asked is it possible or feasible for the air conditioning water to go into the lake? Page 5, paragraph 1: ". Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been filed." MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to approve the minutes as revised. Seconded by Car son, the motion passed unanimously. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS None q V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS f A. Reports of Commissioners 1. Tennis Courts at Round Lake Fifield reported to the Commission that there had been some problems at the tennis courts when the high school tennis team arrived for their Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -2- meet, since there were people using the courts who were not aware of the agreement between the city and school district. He suggested that signs should be posted to inform the public. Also he asked when the two new courts would be lined. Lambert agreed that the sign should be posted as soon as possible. The courts will be lined as soon as the weather permits, probably in early May. B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals a. Cooperative Power Association Lambert highlighted the staff reports concerning the development proposal being made by Cooperative Power Association. Kruell expressed concern that the existing ponds on the site might -� be altered during the grading for construction. He pointed out that even if the slope of the banks changes, the nature of the pond is subject to change. He suggested that the commission require that the ponds be maintained as they are. R. Anderson noted that many developers have been grading up to the edge of the ponds, causing silt to wash down. He felt that the city's ponds should be protected as they are wildlife habitats and offer visual amenities. Johnson agreed that the pond should be protected, as well as any others that may be in danger of encroachment. Lambert explained that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would come out and establish the high water line of the pond for the city. However, he did not know how long it might take before they could do it. R. Anderson stated that the commission spent a great deal of time developing a Flood Plain Ordinance. He asked if the city should have a separate ordinance to protect ponds. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the council approval of tie Cooperative Power Association's development proposal as recommended by the staff in the memorandum of April 12, 1979, to include the addition of #12, which will read: Surface area of the existing ponds shall remain unchanged. Developer can not encroach upon the normal high water mark to be established by the DNR. Kruell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. R. Anderson requested that Lambert talk to appropriate staff people for their reactions to a possible ordinance to protect ponds and bring back a report and recommendation to the next regular meeting. Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources. Commission -4- Lutenager told Kruell that the only efficient method of removing dissolved solids, called reverse osmosis, requi7res a h_igh. capital cost system. An investment of several million dollars would be required. It seems to make more sense to limit the amount of salt and chemicals used near the lake. Kruell suggested that a system to coagulate and precipitate might be desirable and effective. Lutenager told him that the cost of such a system has not been investigated. Kruell then asked how the holding pond and filtering system would work in an extremely hard and fast rainfall . Lutenager described briefly how the system could be designed using a series of baffles in a non-erosive chute to control the volume and speed of the water. The pond is planned to hold five acre-feet of water with a reduction rate of two hours. ry Dave Anderson asked Ketchum if the recommendations of the planning staff were acceptable to the Hartford people. Ketchum replied that basically they were, with some language modifi- cations. Dave Anderson then asked Lambert why staff recommended canopy trees within the parking lot if trees are to be planted at the perimeter of the lots. Lambert replied that the lots are extremely large-and the reason is purely visual . He felt it desirable to have something that would break up the large expanse of asphalt. Dave Anderson also questioned 15, the requirement for the sidewalk. It appeared to have no connection. Lambert pointed out the planned connection to the overall trail system, planned and supported by the commission. Tangen had reservations about #12. He thought that it seemed like a blanket proposal . The initial development seemed fine, but he thought that future proposals should also be reviewed by the commission in view of the development's relationship to Anderson Lakes. He felt the areas near the lake are especially critical and require the commission's concern. Lambert suggested a revision of the wording to include staff and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewal of proposals. It would be changed to read: . . as additional uses are proposed on the remaining lots, periodic updating and review should be required by City Planning Staff, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and Staff, and Engineering Staff prior to application for a building permit." i r I Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -3- b. Hartford Real Estate Company Herb Ketchum and Dan Lutenager were present to answer questions concerning the Hartford Real Estate Company's development proposal near Anderson Lakes. Mr Ketchum started by answering those questions raised at the last meeting. 1) The distance between the proposed Hartford building and the high water mark at Anderson Lake is 190 feet. 2) This building will be 20 feet higher than the present Gelco building. 3) If it is economically feasible to use a water exchange system for air conditioning, the water could be discharged into the lake. A deep enough well with the required capacity could cost $60,000; and this would be a consideration. R. Anderson asked if there was the potential for this system, since it could be desirable from the standpoint of the water quality and quantity of the lake. Ketchum replied that it was under consideration, however, the economic factor would undoubtedly influence the decision. In response to the earlier question about salt and solubles running off from the parking lot to the lake, the Hartford people suggested eliminating the use of salt on parking areas, and using sand and grit instead. This would require a dry storage method for the sand so it would remain useable throughout the winter. R. Anderson asked who would assume the responsibility for monitoring ( the water quality of the lake. He was told that Hartford will periodically test the water in the j pond. Anderson then asked who's responsibility does it become if the lake is harmed in any manner? Lutenager told him that the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) has an established procedure which calls on the guilty party to help correct the problem. Dave Anderson asked about the heiqht relationship between Hartford's building and the existinq'Gelco building: Ketchum told him that it will be 20 feet higher than the existing building, and when Gelco expands up, the buildings will be close to the same height. Kruell had two questions. First, what could be done to remove the dissolved solids from the lake? Then, why does the general scope of the proposal show seven low buildings rather than three high buildings? Ketchum replied that the soil structure prevents carrying buildings over six stories. The cost of the special preparations is prohibitive. i Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, '1979 Natural Resources Commission -5- Kruell asked if the proponent shouldn't be required to bring back a firm proposal after the water treatment system is designed. Lambert suggested setting specific requirments. Kruell asked who would approve the final design. He was told that the engineering staff and the Watershed District will inspect and appeove the design. MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Hartford Real Estate Company proposal as recommended in the planniny staff repot of April 5, 1979, and the community services report of April 12, 1979. This includes the modification of #12 on page 14 of the planning staff report. The commission also recommends that the maximum discharge velocities from the run-off pond to Anderson Lakes be established and agreed upon by staff and developer. Carlson seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Fifield asked if there were any answers to the possible salt problem in the lake. R. Anderson pointed out that the Watershed District can monitor the water quality of the lake. VOTE: The motion carried, with Dave Anderson opposed. Dave Anderson stated that he was in general agreement with the project, but specifically disagreed with the revision of #12, and recommendations #3 and #5 of the community services report of April 12, 1979. R. Anderson turned the chair over to Tangen. MOTION: R. Anderson moved to recommend that the City Council request tie Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to begin a study of Anderson Lakes to determine what management and physical steps need to be taken in terms of both water quality and quantity to insure that Anderson Lakes may be maintained as a high quality Wildlife Preserve. Johnson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. R. Anderson reassumed the chair, and called a short break at 9:20 p.m. c. Bluff's West 3rd and 4th Tangen stated that since the project seemed unacceptable to staff, and he agreed after reading their reports; tie wished to make an immediate motion. , MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend to the council denial of the Bluffs West 3rd and 4th. Kruell seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. �- i Minutes--Parks, Recreation and approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -6, �- 2. Summer Youth Programs I Sandy Werts briefly outlined the planned programs for youth ages 4-12. Carlson asked if there were any programs for children under 4 years. He noted that in many areas of Eden Prairie there are many children in the younger age group who could benefit from recreation programs. Werts explained that it is very difficult to integrate 2 or 3 year olds into a program designed for 4 and 5 year olds. Also, she felt that a program for younger children would require a pre-school specialist. She pointed out that the swimming program offers lessons for the very young children, when accompanied by an adult. R. Anderson asked what ratio of instructors to students was required for pre-school swim instruction. Werts replied that with adults,they allowed about 6 students per instructor. Kruell stated that he felt summer programs should supplement the summer activities already available. The City should not be responsible for righting the wrong done by the developers. Dave Anderson asked Kruell why he felt developers were responsible for th problems. CKruell replied that densities, housing types, and recreational facilities are all a developer's responsibility. Carlson stated that if the children are there, programs should be offered for them. R. Anderson asked Lambert what other communities do in regard to programming for young children. Lambert replied that programs beginning at age 5 or 6 are most common. However, some communities are now offering limited programs to 3 and 4 year olds. Dave Anderson asked' why the evening program was being eliminated this year. Werts explained that even after its second year the program was drawing only 2 or 3 participants in an evening. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend approval of the Summer Youth Programs. Tangen seconded. j DISCUSSION: R. Anderson asked Werts if it would be possible to try a program for very young children at one location. % Werts agreed to investigate the possibility and report back to the Commission. i r Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -7- VOTE: The motion passed unanimously. 3. Summer Teen Programs I Werts briefly reviewed the plans for a Teen Work/Play Program and the Teen Drop-In Center. Fifield asked if four chaperones are adequate at the drop-in center. Werts reported that in the past it had been, and this year she has hired a new leader for the program who seems to have good ideas. Dave Anderson noted that there did not seem to be very many participants, and wondered if the program was well advertized. Werts explained that brochures are mailed directly to the teenagers. R. Anderson asked if the Public Safety Department could he asked to come around from time to time to check the outside areas. He noted that ideally, a program must be good enough to keep kids inside, since problems, if any, will occur outside. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend approval of the Summer Teen r�ograms as outlined. Kruell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. 4. Summer Program Brochure This was an informational item presented by Werts to inform the commissioners of the variety of programs to be included in the brochure to be mailed by May 15, 1979, to all residents. 5. Council Actions Lambert reported to the commission on the actions taken by the council on the following items: 1) Park Dedication Ordinance: This was re--drafted by the city attorney in appropriate legal terms. 2) Nesbitt House: The council accepted the commissions' recommendation, and it will be burned by the fire department. 3) Fees at Bryant and Riley beaches: will be dropped as per the recommendation of the commission. 4) Tennis Court Joint Use Agreement: was approved by the council . 5) Transfer of Community Development Block Grant Funds: was also approved by the council as recommended by the commission. Fifield left the meeting . l Minutes--Parks, Recreation & approved April 16, 1979 Natural Resources Commission -8- VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Top View Park Lambert reported that at this time, the property owned by Jerrold Miller, which is the first choice for a park, is priced at $108,000. He had hoped to aquire the five acre site for $60,000-$70,000. Lambert recommended looking at an alternative site at the gravel pit, and consider obtaining trail connection easements to the park site. If Mr. Miller's preliminary plat is not approved, the price of his property may come down. No action required. B. April 30, 1979, Meeting Lambert received a list of names from the commissioners, as possible committee members. These people will receive a letter informing them of the Meeting on April 30, 1979, when the Park Bond Referendum Committee will be formed. C. Park Dedication Ordinance Lambert reported that the council had turned the ordinance over to the city attorney to put it into legal terms and draw it up in such a manner that it would hold up in court should it ever be questioned. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Commendations Kruell suggested offering a placque or certificate of appreciation to William Garens, who had served three terms on the commission, and had recently stepped down. He was told that a letter of appreciation had been sent, and the mayor had suggested a dinner-meeting to thank the ex-commissioners. B. Miscellaneous Dave Anderson asked if the commission would have the opportunity to review the proposals submitted on the leasing of Eden Prairie Stables. Lambert told him that the information is being compiled and will be coming before the commission along with a staff report and recommendation. Lambert informed the commissioners that their recommemdation on the Park j at Bryant Lake would be on the council agenda on Tuesday, April 17, 1979. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Georgia Jessen Recording Secretary EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING FOR PARK BOND REFERENDUM COMMITTEE Monday, April 30, 1979 7:30 P.M. , City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Carlson, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Fifield, George Tangen COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services OTHERS PRESENT: See attached sheet The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by chairperson Richard Anderson. He welcomed the members of the committee, and proceeded to explain briefly how the commission had come to the conclusion that a park bond referendum is necessary for park aquisition and development. Bob Lambert distributed informational booklets and sample questionnaires to the committee members. Lambert briefly outlined the five year capital improvement plan adopted by the commission, discussing each park in order of priority. He then explained the need for and purpose of the Park Bond Referendum Committee, stressing the importance of a committee based survey of each neighborhood to determine the needs and desires of the community regarding its parks. Lambert also reviewed the revenue projections--stressing that the council has not approved a one mill levy for parks, nor is there any guarantee on the amount to go to parks from the Liquor Store profits. Comments, concerns, and suggestions offered by the committee members: -- A more deta fled questionnaire would be desirable. Also, plan one questionnaire per household, to be left and picked up by committee members. -- It should be pointed out to citizens that an expanded park system will increase the value of their homes. People who have facilities now may not be willing to support the bond issue. It will be important to stress,:the quality of the overall park system. -- Point out to citizens that all the figures are based on present population, and that as the population increases, individual costs will go down. -- We should have figures from the recreation programs and the EPAA to illustrate the need for new facilities, indicating, for instance, how many teams and individuals were turned down from leagues due to lack of facilities. i Minutes=Ay'9ani'z,attl2n,,A1 Meeting for April 30, 1979 Park Bond'Referendum Committee -2- i -- Could more detailed press coverage be obtained by the committee in an attempt to educate the community? The education process will be critical to the success of the bond issue. Items to include on the survey sheets: --More information on dollar amounts. Determine what amount citizens will support by the use of an open ended question on facilities. Also, expand the questionnaire , to include a cost breakdown by facilities--including a brief overview of what 1 can be obtained with what amount of tax dollars. Time schedule: -- Prepare new questionnaires -- Distribute them to all committee members "` -- Receive them back from committee members no later than May 30, 1979; review results at the meeting on June 4, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Georgia Jessen Recording Secretary i I . COMMITTEE FOR BOND REFERENDUM April 30, 1979 Jerry Kingrey 14311 Holly Road Susan Schultz 9395 Creekwood Drive Phil Renslow 9731 Archer Lane Jerry Wigen 7000 Kingston Drive Steve Sandness 7101 Center Drive Mary Upton 16163 Edenwood Drive Sharon Levitt 8406 Hiawatha Ave. Hugh Overstreet 10246 Laurel Drive . Edward King 7252 Gordon Drive Rodney Wilson 7190 Topview Road Marie Cornett 8745 Darnell Road Pat Kinney 8755 Darnell Road `- 8819 Darnell Road Gloria Pond Diana Pauling 10805 Northmark Drive Shirley Williamson 6740 Tartan Curve Sandy Collins 6641 Tartan Curve Sue Keller 6721 Lochanburn Road Brenda Welch 18810 Harrogate Road Karen Edstrom 10133 Eden Prairie Road Dick Bartley 9500 Clubhouse Road C