The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParks and Recreation - 01/24/1980 1980 JANUARY 7 ., 9 .15 161121 , 24 MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AGENDA r EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1980 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell, George Tangen, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION STAFF: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services Approx. Time to Begin Item i 7:30 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 7:35 III. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1979 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECONZlENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners 7:40 1. 1980 Goals B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals 8:00 a. COR Investment 8:20 b. Feeders Inc. 8:40 c. Rembrandt Enterprises - Michelangelo Gardens 9:15 2. Community Center Committee Minutes (unapproved) 9:30 3. Council Report VI. OLD BUSINESS 9:40 A. Peterson Property VII. NEW BUSINESS A. 9:45 VIII. ADJOURNMENT r ,APPROVED MINUTES l EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1980 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kru ell , George Tangen, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Knutson, COR Investments; Greg Dumondeaux, Rembrandt Enterprises; Dick Dahl , Eden Prairie News ro I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Richard Anderson. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions: VI.B. Snowmobiles at Bryant Lake Park - Tangen VII.A. Drinking in Warming Houses - Dave Anderson MOTION: Dave Anderson moved, and Tangen seconded, to approve the agenda as published and ammended. Motion carried unanimously. III. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1979 Changes: Pg,3, para.3: "An economic study of this type is too large for us to resolve at this type of meeting." Pg.4: insert Kruell 's comments Pg.4: strike last paragraph Pg.5: Motion--strike "since . . . . financially." f Pg.5: insert Fifield's comments before Motion Pg.6: Freshwater Biological Institute Pg.6, para.3: "alternative method" instead of "ulterior" MOTION: Tangen moved to approve the minutes as ammended. Seconded by Fifield, the motion, passed with Dave Anderson and Larry VanMeter abstaining. IV. PETITIONS REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS s A. Reports of Commissioners 1. 1980 Goals Lambert had requested that each Commissioner bring their ideas and suggestions for goals. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -2- Robert Kruell : C1) Establish a timetable for the next referendum. Tangen suggested that this would not be proper at this time; but rather, an evaluation of the utilization of the proceeds from the referendum which was just passed would be more appropriate. A track record should be established, followed by an evaluation. R. Anderson agreed, adding that a timetable updating community needs (with a possible future referendum) would be an appropriate goal . 2) Project or Park Schedule - include each park, present and proposed, with the present and proposed facilities; could be converted to a graphic. 3) Update of Recreational Trails - incorporating sector planning. George Tangen• 1) Update Entire Trail System - transportation and recreational Dave Anderson: 1) After approval of bond issue, see that development is carried out according to the timetable in the Comprehensive Park Plan. 2) Staff should continue to investigate possible funds for park expansion. Larry VanMeter: 1) See projects completed on schedule. r Steve Fifield: 1) Comprehensive Trail Plan 2) Construction Timetables for completion of Round Lake Park. 3) Construction Timetables for completion of Bryant Lake Park. 4) Continued Improvements to the Senior Citizen Center at Staring Lake. Richard Anderson: 1) Getting Parks Done. 2) Trails - taking into consideration the trail systems being developed in neighboring communities. 3) Transportation Trails- making it possible to get from one cul-de-sac to another, etc. 4) Timetable for development of facilities Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -3- 5) Providing well rounded recreational programs for all ages and sexes. C 6) Bluff Ordinance - We have a Slope Ordinance, but should look at Bloomington's Bluff Ordinance as an example. 7) Better environmental awareness in planning. 8) Watch creek development closely 9) Park Use Ordinance Kruell stated that in setting the goals the Commission should do more than hand out assignments to the staff. Good goals are ones that require work and work plan and have some means to measure accomplishment. Lambert agreed, adding that the Commission should measure the accomplishment of the goals, or steps toward the final goal at various points in time. R. Anderson suggested, and the Commission agreed, that staff should take these suggestions and compile a set of goals for the next meeting. Dave Anderson expressed concern that with the stepped up park development resulting from the successful bond referendum, the park planner may not have adequate time to act on these goals. R. Anderson added that additional staff does seem neccessary at this point. Lambert replied that the goals should be acted on as soon as possible, even though some things may not be done until the latter part of the year. Additional staff has been authorized., An engineering technician is needed to study grading plans, do surveying, etc. , in order to free the park planner for his office work. An arena manager should be hired when the bids are let for the Community Center, or even a month before, since his help will be needed to coordinate projects with the architect and contractor. This may occur next fall . B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposals a. CDR Investment Lambert reported that the Cash Park Fee Policy on Subsidized Housing for the Elderly will be an agenda item at the next Council meeting on January 8, 1980. He recommended that the Commission review the proposal on the merits to be presented by the representative tonight. Bruce Knutson, representing the CDR Investment Company, described the proposed housing unit for the elderly and medical office {, building, to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 5 and County Road 4. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -4- Tangen asked if the housing was to be under a grant program, and was told that Section VIII Funding had been applied for. R. Anderson asked how the residents of the housing units were to cross Highway 5 to get to the shopping mall . Knutson indicated that the present plan requires crossing County Road 4 to the proposed bike trail , crossing Highway 5, then re-crossing County Road 4. i Lambert noted that the turning lanes present a dangerous situation. ' He asked if the developer would at least consider a hard surface trail from the housing units to the trail along County Road 4. Knutson indicated that the developer would do this. Dave Anderson indicated that he would like to see the intersection at Highway 5 and County Road 4 upgraded, to ease crossing of the intersection. Kruell stated that he liked the first proposal (Prairie Village Professional ) due to need, and their consideration of a trail system. He is opposed to developers changing plans in order to meet popular grant requirements. This project does not seem neccessary. Fifield asked how much green area would be left around the buildings. He was told that the plan allows 50 feet, Fifield then commented that safe and easy access is not apparent in the plan. The buildings, housing 64 units and offices, are locked in by parking lots. Lambert asked how much parking is allowed for the 64 unit housing development for the elderly. Knutson told him that there will be spaces for 32 cars. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council denial of the CDR Investment proposal. Seconded by Fifield; Johnson, Kruell and Fifield voted "aye" and Tangen, R. Anderson, D. Anderson and VanMeter voted "nay". Motion was defeated 4 to 3. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the Council that they approve the COR Investment proposal per staff recommendation, with the exception that the Cash Park Fee not be waived, that it be set at $100/unit and that it be allocated to the Senior Citizen Center at Staring Lake. Tangen seconded the motion. Johnson, Kruell and Fifield voted "nay"; Tangen, R. Anderson, Dave Anderson and VanMeter voted "aye"; motion passed 4 to 3. b. Feeders, Inc. MOTION: Tangen moved to recommend that the Council deny approval of the Feeders Inc. proposal , due to the lack of information; seconded by Johnson. I { DISCUSSION: Dave Anderson asked if the lowering of the floodplain level is being reviewed by the Watershed District. Minutes. - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -5- Lambert told him that the Council will determine approval or denial of the lowering of the flood plain level at Purgatory Creek. Kruell suggested that the Commission might send a representative to the next Watershed District Meeting, since this item will be on their agenda, He stated that the best use of an area should be determined prior to development. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. c. Rembrandt Enterprises - Michelangelo Gardens MOTION: Tangen moved to table this item until the January 21, 1980 meeting, due to the absence of a representative. Fifield seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. A five minute recess was called at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Greg Dumondeaux from Rembrandt Enterprises arrived during the recess. MOTION: Tangen moved, and Fifield seconded, to reconsider -the motion to table the Michelangelo Gardens proposal . Motion carried unanimously. Dumondeaux located and described the site for the Commissioners. They are proposing a mid-density residential development, consisting of two-level condominiums. The recreational facilities will include a small recreation building, a pool , and open space where a three-hole golf course is planned. Kruell asked about alternate energy source adaption. Has anyone calculated how much energy could be recovered from an alternate source? Dumondeaux reported that the concept has been considered, and an architect was working on the possibilities inherent to the site. Kruell asked how intense their plantings will be (to replace the trees that will be removed for construction). Dumondeaux replied that most of the trees will remain (90%) . They plan to landscape the berm areas and the perimeter of the development. He estimated that they would plant many more trees than they would have to remove. Lambert asked if the developers would be willing -to commit to a time- table or development phase at which the recreational facilities are to be developed. Dumondeaux told him it could tie in with the phasing of the building schedule. Tangen reported that he noticed trenching along Highway 169, on what appeared to be the site being discussed. Dumondeaux told him that they are taking out top soil and replacing it with gravel to develop road beds, and create berms. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -6- C Fifield asked if an EAW had been completed. Lambert told him it had been, but all the findings were negative, so it wasn't included in the report. Kruell felt that the Commissioners may have a different point of view than the staff person completing the report_. He felt that the proposals should be approved prior to any construction being started. Tangen asked what housing market these units were aimed at; and what did they anticipate would be the recreational needs of their residents? He noted there are no City Park facilities in this sector. Dumondeaux told him that they anticipate basically an adult community. The units have a maximum of two-bedrooms. The developers feel the recreational facilities planned as part of the project should meet the needs of their residents. A developers agreement will outline a timetable for development of these facilities. R. Anderson asked about the dedication of the floodplain area, and was told that it could be dedicated to the City. MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval C of the Michelangelo Gardens proposal based on the staff recommendations, with the exceptions stated in the memorandum of January 4, 1980. Kruell seconded. DISCUSSION: Tangen expressed concern with the option being offered to the developer, to dedicate the open space and have the remaining Cash Park Fee waived. He warned that they could avoid paying the Cash Park Fee by turning over unbuildable land. He felt they should still be required to pay the Cash Park Fee to cover the cost of developing the area. Dumondeaux replied that the developer fully intends to complete the work on the recreational facilities--feeling it will be a selling point for the development. Tangen requested that the option on #7 be deleted from the motion. The request was accepted by Dave Anderson and Kruell . REVISED MOTION: Dave Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of the Michelangelo Gardens proposal based on the staff recommendations, with the following exceptions: #2. The cash park fee applicable at time of building permit shall be paid, and the Nine Mile Creek Floodplain shall be dedicated to the City. #7. The western portion of the site should be developed prior to phase two. ( VOTE: All voted in favor, motion carried unanimously. r Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -7- 2. Community Center Committee Minutes Lambert reported that the committee agreed to send out unapproved minutes to the Commission, providing they are marked "Unapproved", and they had been included in the packets for the Commissioners. 3. Council Report Lambert reported the following actions taken by the Council on matters concerning the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission: 1) Rotary Club Donation for Senior Citizen Van - Council authorized the purchase of a van from Gelco for $7,500. The van has 10,000 miles and carries a new car warranty. r 2) Building Committe Report - was accepted 3) Bluff property preservation - no action was taken (Read below) 4) Brown property dedication - accepted VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Peterson Property Lambert reported that the Council does not wish to ask for federal dollars if the property will probably be dedicated anyway. Staff still feels that open space use is the best utilization of this bluff area. R. Anderson noted that a Bluff Ordinance would cover this property, while the present Slope Ordinance may not be applicable. Kruell asked if development of this property would even be possible. Lambert reported that it would be, and some proposals for the property had been done; but staff recommends that it be open space in order to preserve the beautiful views. R. Anderson stated that he would like to follow Bloomington's policy of no building to preserve the bluffs. Some areas in Eden Prairie do not have enough slope to fall under the Slope Ordinance. Tangen requested that staff obtain a copy of Bloomington's Bluff Ordinance for the Commission to study. B. Snowmobiles Tangen reported that a resident at Bryant Lake had pointed out that the snowmobilers have not all stayed on the designated paths. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 7, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -8- Lambert told the Commission that Mrs. Rodberg, of Bryant Lake, had phoned to compliment the Commission on their efforts to provide access to the lake for snowmobiles. She, too, had noticed a few machines off the designated trails, and was concerned since she hoped the trail use by snowmobiles would be successful and allowed to continue. VII . NEW BUSINESS A. Drinking in Warming Houses Dave Anderson reported that there is no policy to prevent the consumption of alcoholic beverages at the skating rinks and in the warming houses. R. Anderson felt that the warming houses would be considered "public buildings" ; state law presently prohibits the consumption of alcohol in public buildings. If this is not the case, Lambert was instructed to take the matter before the Council at the next meeting for immediate action. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Georgia Jessen Recording Secretary r MINUTES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT MEETING ON COMMUNITY CENTER NEEDS DATE: January 9, 1980 PERSONS PRESENT: Lyle Shaw, Arnie Johnson, Clark Wold, Bob Lambert Jack Greenawalt SCHOOL NEEDS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED w — 1. Students should be able to move back and forth from the High School to the pool without being exposed to the elements. a. Student access to the pool is more important than to the arena. b. The 100 foot maximum distance of the Center from the High School building should be a flexible requirement. 2. The area of future classroom expansion on the east side of the High School building should be protected. 3. The School District needs a master plan for the school site development. The School Board should be asked to connnission such a plan. a. Placement of the practice field and hard surface play area must be considered. b. Location of adequate parking must be considered. c. Watershed implications resulting from Center construction must be resolved at no cost to the School District. d. location of puo,sible Middle School should be considered. 4. Care should be taken that short run savings in construction, equipment and materials do not result in greater long run (� costs for maintenance and energy. 5. If energy is to be drawn from the High School building, provision for metering should be made. 6. Fire exits at the east end of the High School building must be retained or other acceptable accomodations made. i I 7. Program needs for the pool include: E a. Areas for dressing accomodating 50 people of each sex. b. Minimum indoor pool deck space of 15 feet at the end and 10 feet on the side. c. Minimum tank dimensions: 44 feet by 25 yards with a bulkhead allowing future use of 25 meter pool . d. Provision of a handicapped ramp. e. Maximum amount of water at 32 feet for instruc- tional purposes. f. A diving area that has two boards. E i I l ' AGENDA COMMUNITY CENTER COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M., CITY HALL WEDNESDA,Y, JANUARY 16, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 27, 1979 IV. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE A. Meeting with Lyle Shaw, Arnie Johnson, Clark Wold, Jack Greenawalt and Bob Lambert regarding school needs that should be addressed - Johnson B. Review of map of site and building - Johnson C. Review of Proposals and rating system - Lambert V. SET DATE FOR NEXT MEETING VI. ADJOURNMENT i APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CODWUNITY CENTER COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1980 7:00 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Osterholt, Chairperson; Arne Johnson, Bob Lambert, Jerry Wigen i COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Anderson, Richard Buretta, Lyle Shaw I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Osterholt called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DECEMBER 27, 1979 MEEETING This was tabled until the next meeting. III. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE A. Meeting with Lyle Shaw, Arnie Johnson, Clark Wold, Jack Greenawalt and Bob Lambert regarding school needs that should be addressed - Johnson. Johnson and Lambert reported on the meeting with Chuck Wold, School Architect; Lyle Shaw and Jack Greenawalt held Janaury 9, 1980. Wold suggested it might be better to build a separate building for the arena, and connect it to the school rather than having an attached building. If there were a separate building there wouldn't be the need to match the brick etc. to the school facility exterior, which would make the cost of construction less. Wold suggested the possibility of moving out and digging into the hill diagonally and to the front of the school. The committee reviewed the site map of the school facility and discussed the need for 200-250 additional parking spaces for the new arena facility. Looking at the site map Lambert also pointed out that there is a problem with the size of the drainage settling pond that will need to be solved. Wigen asked if Wold had any comments regarding energy savings. Wold had suggested berming, into the hill, if a separate facility is constructed. Location of the arena was discussed and {Vold had indicated that it will make a big difference if the building is attached or connected, as to what direction the facility would go. Johnson was concerned that the costs on maintenance kinds of things not be cut, which could be a detriment to maintenance costs of the facility at a later date. Johnson said that staff would recommend development of a Master Plan on the High School site to the the School Board. This should be completed as soon as possible. -2- I Johnson indicated that Wold felt there are better options for expansion of the buildings at a later date if the facilities are detached. Osterholt asked if the school felt the brick should be matched if the buildings are attached. Johnson reported that Wold felt architecturally -it should be. Osterholt asked if the building were built into the earth, if the roof could be used for parking - something to consider. C. Rating System Lambert indicated lie felt there were 5 different areas that the committee should consider in reviewing the proposals. 1. The qualifications of the person that will be responsible for this job (review degrees, awards, etc.) . 2. The experience this firm has in design of similar facilities and the quality of the facilities they have designed. 3. The record of the firm's performance in the area of meeting a given budget and a given time deadline. 4. The firm should be large enough to handle this job and complete // it in a timely manner. 5. Does the firm offer any innovative ideas for energy savings, unique design or any other cost saving ideas. Lambert said that he had reviewed about 6 proposals using this rating system and it seemed to work well. Osterholt suggested that the committee members review the proposal and come to the next meeting with their top 5 or 6 firms. Osterholt suggested a rating system of 1-10 rather than 1-5. Osterholt requested Lambert to prepare a rating sheet with all firms listed and mail them to the committee. Wigen asked if .it would be appropriate to ask Wally Johnson, Building Inspector, to review the proposals. Lambert said he felt this would take a lot of Johnson's time. Osterholt suggested getting Johnson's input after the final 5-6 firms are selected to be interviewed. Next meeting date: Thursday, January 24, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. City Hall. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Marlys Dahl Recording Secretary AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1980 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell, George Tangen, Larry VanMeter 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 JANUARY 7, 1980 IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners None B. Reports of Staff 7:40 1. Opus II - Rauenhorst Corporation Development Proposal 8:00 2. Commission Goals for 1980 8:15 3. Consumption of Alcohol in Park Buildings 8:20 4. Tax Forfeited Lands 8:30 5. Council Report 8:40 6. Community Center Committee Report (unapproved minutes) 8:45 7. Status of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area VI. OLD BUSINESS 8:55 A. Letter from Elliot Perovich Regarding Anderson Lakes Park 9:25 B. Flying Cloud Field Expansion Plan 9:45 C. MAC Lease 10:00 D. Acceptance of Deed from Metropolitan Park Foundation Eden Prairie Parks, Recreation $ -2- January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS 10:15 A. Request to Remove Park Buidling at Round Lake Park 10:25 B. Staring Lake Park Concept Plan 10:40 VIII. ADJOURNMENT C .APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1980 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Fifield, George Tangen COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lambert, Director of Community Services OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Weber, Eden Prairie News Robert Worthington, Director of Planning, Rauenhorst Corporation I. ROLL CALL I The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Richard Anderson. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Additions: VII C. Revision of Development Proposal Checklist — Kruell VII D. Review Cash Park I'ee — Kruell III. MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 1980 Changes: Pg.3,para.1: Rearrange to say "Good goal is one that requires work and work plan and has some means to measure �- accomplishment." Pg.6,para.3: Strike "roadwork" and insert "any construction". Pg.7,para.2: Strike whole sentence. Pg.4,para.6: Dave Anderson questions whether upgrading of highways 4 and 5 will be done to ease crossing of the intersection. MOTION: VanMeter moved to approve the minutes as ammended. Seconded by R. Johnson. The motion carried unanimously. i IV. PETITIONS REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Reports of Commissioners None B. Reports of Staff 1. Development Proposal — OPUS II, Rauenhorst Corporation Robert Worthington, representing the Rauenhorst Corporation, described the proposed 150,000 sq. ft., 10 story Opus Plaza office building. The site (NW quadrant of County Road 18 and the Crosstown) consists of 9.2 acres, including a pond, and is the last parcel to be developed of the Opus II office P.U.D. in Eden Prairie. Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -2- The site plan has the building notched into a grove of trees for maximum use of pond view. The pond, which also functions as a drainage pond for the Crosstown and County Road 18, is the focal point of the development. The objective is to leave the pond in 3' its natural state and also let it function as a drainage pond. Two levels of the 10 story office building will be below grade and be used as a parking ramp. One third of the total parking spots (696 total) will be in stalls for compact cars. The planning staff is looking into whether this is enough or not, and even the possibility of a 3 story parking ramp. This will be the first 10 story building within the QpusiII development, Worthington pointed out, and a 10 to 12 story Toro Headquarter building, and a condominium complex are programmed for the future. Fie said the exterior materials for the office building have not yet been determined, but the architectural staff is leaning toward granite and/or simulated marble for upper stories, and pre-cast concrete aggregate for the lower stories. Reflective glass is planned which should lend itself well toward passive Csolar heating. Worthington ended his presentation by stating that Rauenhorst plans to move its corporate headquarters to this building. Kruell asked if the developer has addressed himself to specific "methods of construction" and "outlining the technical measures they are taking in the building design and construction to significantly reduce energy consumption", per the Planning Staff Report of January 10, 1980 (Staff Report pg.2, parals. 3 and 7 respectively). Worthington said he would check further with his staff on these p points for more specific information regarding plans for solar energy useage, heat pump, reflective materials to maximize sun heat, etc. Kruell asked if thought had been given to using more natural grasses around the building instead of "manicured grass" typical in i r i Minutes, — Parks, Recreation & Lapproved January 21 , 1980 � Natural Resources Commission —3— �> other Opus II sates. This would be more energy efficient, nicer to look at, care for, etc. n Worthington said they will consider this, but have tried more natural grasses on other projects and received calls from some neighbors complaining they were not cutting the weeds. Much of the area surrounding this building will be left natural with exceptions being bermed areas and boulevards. VanMeter asked what percentage of the trees on the site would be salvaged. t Worthington responded that all the trees on the site have been identified and found to be mostly oak. The developer will set oonstruction limits so -that no more trees will be removed than necessary for the building and fixed perimeter of the building. Within; the perimeter area they will save what they can, but the building does not lend itself to saving all the trees. Between what they save and what they reintroduce, a nice balance should be reached. R. Anderson asked if the roadway through this site would be affected. Worthington replied that at present the roadway extends too far r into the site and will have to be adjusted. R. Anderson asked if there were any plans for the pond such as duck and goose habitat? Worthington stated that they hope to create an inviting area for duck,geese and other wildlife and they are seriously considering installation of bubblers in the pond for year round useage. R. Anderson asked what they planned to do with air conditioning waste water? Also, can you be sure the pond won't dry up in dry years? Worthington stated that they plan to use a heat pump system which involves less waste water than typical refrigeration systems, but he was not sure on the details. The pond has not been dry at least as long as the freeway has been there, which is as far back as they are aware, so they are assuming it won't dry up. R. Anderson expressed a concern for waste water because he felt there were better ways to dispose of it than in the sewer system. MOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of Rauenhorst Corporation's Opus II office building proposal per staff recommendation. Seconded by VanMeter. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Commission Goals for 1980 Lainbert referred to the staff memo of January 11, 1980, on this subject, and suggested that the Commission review the goals and Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 21 , 1980 Natural Resources Commission -4- objectives, and set a timetable as to expected fulfillment of these goals. After reviewing, the Commission should make any additions as they see fit. Lambert added Coal #6 as it was discussed at the City Council meeting, regarding the City naming parks instead of just using the names of roads or subdivisions. The staff has named parks up until now, Lambert said, just to identify them. The Commission should review this. Lambert also felt the Commission chairman should appoint people to take the responsibility of a certain goal and finish it by a certain date or else the job won't get done. Kruell felt the goals listed involved too much work for 1 year--and wondered if the Commission had given enough thought to the time involved to accomplish these goals? Maybe the Commission should limit themselves to doing 2 or 3 goals well, instead of 6 only partly. Or, perhaps the goals should be restructured to become more definitive. A goal should only be adopted if intended to be completed. Lambert added that the list of goals looks like a lot and the Commission shouldntt set out with too many goals and find they can't accomplish them. R. Anderson suggested call them "needs" instead of "goals". Some things need to be done NOW, like 4b (Staff Memo, January 11, 1980), Park Use Ordinance. MOTION: D: Anderson_.moved to eliminate.#6 faggm the list -af-goals, �. and to prioritize the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, goals and objectives for 1980 as follows:.. - .. I 1. Establish a timetable for completion of the commitments in the referendum and the other park projects already committed. 2. Review ordinances relating to parks, recreation and natural resources to determine what improvements are necessary. 3. Prepare a Comprehensive Trails Plan 4. Make a conscious effort to insure that we include review of environmental issues in the plan review process. 5. Review the City recreation program to insure that we are providing programs for all ages and both sexes. The motion was seconded by R. Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Kruell suggested putting the goals on a work/time schedule. Lambert agreed that someone should be appointed tonite or by the next meeting to be responsible for a speoific goal and how it should be achieved. The staff can be expected to a000mplish the specified portions of goals 1 and 3, but that is all. There simply is not enough staff or time to do more, therefore the remaining responsibility lies within the Commission. Minutes - Parks, Recreation_ & .approved January 21„ 1980 Natural Resources Commission -5- i �^ Regarding goal #3, reviewing the City recreation program, D. Anderson expressed concern that the Commission doesn't have a chance to give advanced input in recreation programs. ' Lambert suggested setting aside a committee to meet with Sandy Wertz about specific oonerns. R. Anderson felt it necessary that the Commission know toward which programs the recreation money goes and what percentage of the community is benefitting from the programs. Lambert assured him that all the dollar figures were easily accessible in the aruival report. The concensus was for each Commission member to choose one of the goals and be responsible for it. The breakdown was as follows: Goal #1 - Staff Goal #2 - D. Anderson Goal #3 - R. Kruell I . Goal #4 - R. Anderson Goal #5 - L. VanMeter A 5 minute �reoess was called at 9:10 P.M. 3. Consumption of Alcohol in Park Buildings Lambert referred to Staff Memo of January 16, 1980 wherein the i Commission requested staff to express their concern regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages in park buildings, particularly warming houses. Lambert will bring a Park Use Ordinance before the Commission at the next meeting and perhaps this issue can be incorporated into this ordinance. Lambert suggested allowing consumption of alcohol within park buildings by permit instead of banning it completely. When the building is leased out, an alcohol permit could be purchased thus keeping minors from abusing it. 4. Tax Forfeited Lands Lambert mentions this as an informational item and refers the Commission to Staff Memo of January 16, 1980. He pointed out that Lots 17-24 of the Westgate Addition were lost and there was no recourse the City could take because there was no written contract between the City and the Hennepin County Board. R. Anderson asked if the respective cities don't have first priority on tax forfeited lands. Lambert responded yes, and further explained that if city- does not take action within the first year after forfeiture, the previous owner can repurchase at 10. down and 4% interest over 10 years. Because the City's application for conveyance of tax forfeited lands had been misplaced, the previous owner stepped in and repurchased. 5. Council Report Lambert reported that the Council approved the purchase of a senior citizen van from Geloo at the January 8, 1980 meeting. Minutes — Parks, Recreation & approved January 21, 1980 t Natural Resources Commission —6- 6. Community Center Committee Report Lambert reported that there are 17 architectural firms submitting proposals for the park buildings at Round Lake Park. Each Eden Prairie Community Center Committee member will evaluate from this list and on Thursday, at 7:00 P.M. , each committee member will select the top 5 or 6 firms. From that, 4 to 6 firms will be selected to interview. Lambert said we plan to come before the Council and Parks Commission with a recommendation in late February or the first part of March. Perhaps a special Commission meeting should be called in February for this one item. 7. Status of Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Recreation Area t Lambert gave an overview of the Staff Memo of January 17, 1980. He asked the Commission to note that the majority of refuge property in Eden Prairie is proposed for refuge useage and not recreation. Lambert noted the major concern is where Eden Prairie trails hook up with Refuge trails so the City can make proper extnnsions to meet the Refuge trails. If the Commission feels it would be helpful, the Fish and Wildlife Service could come out and give a special presentation. R. Anderson asked if the exact location of the trail has been i mapped out. Lambert said yes--it is on -the north side of the river corridor. The Fish and Wildlife Service has extensive maps showing the trail system and if they come out for a presentation their maps would help clarify this. R. Anderson suggested the City should decide whether it wants motorized or nonmotorized trails. Lambert suggested this decision be made soon as the master plan for the Refuge is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1980. Kruell added that he would like to see a 50 Km cross country ski trail provision. R. Anderson remarkbd the ski trail there now is good and is separate from the snowmobile trail. R. Anderson suggested the Commission get more information on the Wildlife Refuge and Lambert said he would see what he could do. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Letter from Elliot Perovioh Regarding Anderson Lakes Park R. Anderson suggested adding "Bryant Lake" to the subject, so the heading would read "Letter from Elliot Perovioh Regarding Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park". It was noted that the letter from Elliot Perovioh was not attached to •the Staff Memo of January 16, 1980, so Lambert made copies for each Commission member. t, r Minutes — Parks, Recreation & .approved January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission —7— Kruell said Eden Prairie should eventually manage these parks itself. He objected to turning over the parks to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District because in doing this the City would loose the land and control of the parks. He further stated that right now at least Eden Prairie shill has the 2 parks and doesn't have to be in a hurry to develop them. R. Anderson felt the Hennepin County Park Reserve District had done some nice things with other parks in the metro area and the Anderson Lakes project has the makings of one of the nicest park projects in the area. He further stated that by turning over the ladd it would assure the City of a metro park within the community which would be a real asset. i Lambert pointed out that Eden Prairie has spent possibly thousands of dollars buying the park property, and for those who have been paying for it over the last 10 years, it would be nice to have something they could enjoy. Lambert pointed out that the City spent $65,000 in 1979 alone in the operation and maintenance of Bryant Lake Park and Anderson Lakes Park. R. Anderson asked if the City would have any input as to the operations of the parks once they are turned over. Lambert said only as much as any other city that has a metro park. The City only has final approval as to acquisition. The Development Master Plans are shown to the City by the Hennepin County Park Reserve District Board, serious consideration is given to City suggestions, but they still can decide how they want. The master plans are then taken before the Metropolitan Council for final approval. Lambert stated that the City has higher park priorities than these two parks. The City does not have enough money to support these parks now and will have less as the ice arena and other high priority projects are developed. VanMeter asked when work would start if the City turned the parks over now. Lambert replied probably 1981 at the earliest. MOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council approval of turning over Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District and be eliminated as implementing agency for the regional parks with the following conditions: Bryant Lake Park stay in continuous operation. �1) 2) the City of Eden Prairie be reimbursed for original local dollar input plus interest. (3) Consideration be made to construct a trail along Anderson Lakes Parkway by the implementing agency. R. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed with Kruell voting "nay". ( DISCUSSION: Lambert stated the City would be able -to use the house on the Anderson Lakes Park property for special programs. D. Anderson asked whether the grassy, open area east of Anderson Lakes Parkway Minutes - Parks, Recreation & approved January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -8- /- could be used. Lambert said no in terms of putting backstops.'in or l mowing the area. The City might request them to see the are into f grass and mow it every other week. Lambert also noted that under . Hennepin County Park Reserve District requirements, 8O'A of the land must be left in its natural state, and 20J function as service area (parking, nature center, trails, etc.). B. Flying Cloud Field Expansion Plan Lambert summarized the Staff Memo dated January 17, 1980, and asked the Commission to (1) Review the plan; and (2) Review the license agreement between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Eden Prairie. Lambert pointed out that it would cost the City $50,000 to expand the site as planned. He guessed there would only be a 5% chance over the next 5 years that the MAC would want to use this space and the City needs -the ballfield space. Therefore he recommends expanding the Flying Cloud Ballfield. MOTION: D. Anderson moved to recommend to the Council to adopt the lease as recommended by the staff. R. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Acceptance of Deed from Metropolitan Park Foundation Lambert noted to the Commission the provision of the Quit Claim Deed prohibiting the use of the area for trails for motorized vehicles. Also, the Brownts requested in the Deed that the City erect a plaque identifying them as donor's of the property. MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend that the Council provide Mr. Black with a formal written reoeipt for the Quit Claim Deed as required with the following exception: On page 2 of the Quit Claim Deed the City attempt to erect and maintain a permanent plaque but does not guarantee that it will permanently stand. VanMeter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Request to Remove Park Building at Round Lake Park Lambert reviewed the Staff Memo of January 17, 1980 recommending that the same architectural firm that will be selected for design of the new Community Center be used for designing the new Round Lake Park building also. Kruell asked if the old park building could remain standing until the new one was built. Lambert replied no for 2 reasons: ( 1) grading will begin in early spring, therefore the building should be removed as soon as possible; (2) the park crew will be tearing down the building and C early spring is slack period where they could work -this in. Lambert suggested that the pyramid be used for this summer if necessary. M Minutes — Parks, Recreation & approved January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission —9— MOTION: Kruell moved to recommend to the Council that they hire the same architectural firm that will be selected for design of the new Community Center to design the park building.at Round Lake Park. D. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: D. Anderson asked what did Lambert think the City would be getting for $100,000 regarding this park building? Lambert said about a 40' x 401 enclosed portion with maybe a 401 x 301 roof/shelter type area. This figure includes furnace, restrooms, running water, etc. B. Staring Lake Park Concept Plan Lambert presented the concept plan for development of Staring Lake Park. He proposed that the grading .of, the parking arsas'.and':seeding of -the badkstops_would.be done this year. They are also considering putting in the two bridges this year. Two buildings and the 8 foot wide asphalt year round bike trail are planned for 1981. ti Lambert also mentioned that some neighbors had requested snowmobile and horse trails around the lake, but he fears a problem with the f .. :. vo tech school accepting this idea. MOTION: D. Anderson moved to accept approval of the Staring Lake j Park Concept Plan. R. Anderson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. Revision of Development Proposal Checklist Kruell asked if an item called "Energy Comments1° be incorporated on the Development Proposal Checklist. He felt this would require any property to have an energy evaluation--statements on alternate energy plans and the designs for them. This is not meant as a full blown energy review, just being aware that we are not doing business as we used to on the subject of utilizing energy. Lambert wondered if this was really the responsibility of this Commission. He pointed out that energy codes in the State are getting stricter and most builders have energy feasibility studies done. R. Anderson felt perhaps this issue belongs in some other Commission. R. Anderson suggested revising the checklist to include something about final landscaping. Lambert pointed out the the Community Services department has to approve the landscaping. The Ordinance does not include this and this ought to go as a recommendation to the Planning Commission. D. Review of Cash Park Fee Kruell suggested that the cash park fee be higher for taller buildings. He questions whether it is fair to have the same rate ($140O/acre) for small structures as for large ones. i Minutes - Parks, Recreation & i.approved January 21, 1980 Natural Resources Commission -10- l VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Tietz Recording Secretary 1-� i 1 UNAPPROVED MINUTES C' EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1980 7:00 P.M. , CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: David Osterholt, Chairperson; Richard Buretta, Jerry Wigen, Robert Lambert, Richard Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyle Shaw, Arnie Johnson i The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by chairperson Osterholt. Minutes of December 27, 1979 Meeting MOTION: Lambert moved to approve the minutes as published, seconded Buretta. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of January 16,1980 Changes: Committee Members Present: change Dave to Richard Anderson II. Approval of Minutes of December 29: change to December 27 Pg. 2, para 2: Correct Weld felt architecturally it should be. "Johnson reported that Wold felt architecturally it should be". Wigen moved to approve the minutes as published and amended, seconded Lambert. Motion carried unanimously. The committee discussed the ratings of the 16 firms that submitted proposals for the facility. The following four firms were selected by the committee to be interviewed: FIRM POINTS FROM RATING SHEET Armstrong, Torseth, Skold 35 & Rydeen, Inc. Hammel Green and Abrahmson, Inc. 30 Smiley Glotter Associates 21 BWBR Architects 20 February 6, 1980 was scheduled for interviewing the four architectural firms. Each firm will be alloted 45 minutes of interview time. 15 minutes - presentation by firm 15 minutes - questions from committee members 15 minutes - general discussion between committee and architect Anderson arrived at 7:30 P.M. Osterholt asked if the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission wanted to interview the finalists. Anderson replied no. Anderson asked about a joint meeting with the Council and the Commission for the interviews. The committee decided to invite both the Council and the Commission to the meeting on February 6th. i ` -2- Lambert will make phone calls on the references of the four finalists. Anderson asked about Federal funding for an energy efficient building. Osterholt suggested asking the architect about funding and energy conservation from Federal and State grants. It was also suggested that State Representatives be contacted in regard to possible grants. Wigen asked if Lambert would write or call the .four finalists. Lambert said he would call and also follow with a letter. i Osterholt suggested that each member have 2 written questions for the final interviews on February 6th. The architects would be requested to prepare their presentation with regard to the following points: i Energy conservation Methods of connecting facility Design for expansion Flexibility of use Dual seating Fee program for project The committee wants to interview the architect only, not the team. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. I Respectfully Submitted, Marlys Dahl Recording Secretary AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1980 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COMMISSION MEMBERS: Richard Anderson, Chairperson; David Anderson, Steve Fifield, Robert Johnson, Robert Kruell, George Tangen, Larry VanMeter COMMISSION STAFF: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Community Services Approx. Time to Begin Item 7:30 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 7:35 III. MINUTES OF JANUARY 21 MEETING IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS i A. Reports of Commissioners None B. Reports of Staff 7:40 1. Status of Anderson Lakes Park and Bryant Lake Park 7:55 2. Community Center Interview Process 8:00 3. Committee Center Committee Report 8:05 4. Council Report VI. OLD BUSINESS 8:10 A. Park Use Ordinance VII. NEW BUSINESS 8:30 A. 1970 Tax Forfeited Lands 8:50 B. Eden Prairie In Action ? 9:00 C. Swedlund Property on Riley Lake 9:15 VIII. ADJOURNMENT