Loading...
Parks and Recreation - 03/06/2006 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Barrett, Chair; Jeffrey Gerst, Vice Chair; John Brill, Ian Mackay, Michael Moriarity, Geri Napuck, Randy Jacobus COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Bierman COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Parks & Recreation Director Stuart Fox, Parks and Natural Resources Manager STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Danny Crichton, Graham Kist, Ali Neugebauer RECORDING SECRETARY: Allison Burr I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chair Barrett at 7:00 p.m. Tom Bierman had an excused absence. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Mackay, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 6, 2006 MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Mackay, to approve the minutes as published. Motion carried 5-0-2, with Jacobus and Moriarity abstaining because of absences from that meeting. IV. REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION of February 7 and 21, 2006 Lambert reported at the February 7"'Council meeting, the only action taken pertaining to the Commission was the approval of the contract for the architectural services for the community center expansion. Lambert reported at the February 21st Council meeting, the Council awarded the bid for lighting the softball field#4 at Round Lake Park, approved the Fit City resolution, and PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 2 reviewed the updated five year capital improvement plan—park dedication fees and donations to evaluate the impact on that fund if$1 million was committed to the ice arena. The Council also reviewed the Third Rink Feasibility Study and agreed to match up to $1 million of funds raised by the Hockey Association and forwarded all other Hockey Association requests to this Commission tonight. The Council requests that the Commission forward its recommendations back to them on Wednesday. The reason for the Council's decision on the fundraising match is that the hockey season is soon coming to an end, and it will soon be more difficult to keep in touch with the parents and players during the off-season. Lambert also noted the Council approved the recommendation to initiate conversion of LAWCON property from the Cummins-Grill site to the Picha property. V. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. LETTER FROM DENNIS MARBLE REGARDING RED ROCK HILLS PARK AND RED ROCK LAKE TRAIL SYSTEM Red Rock Hills Mini Park Lambert noted last November he received a letter from Dennis Marble who was surprised to find out the neighborhood mini-park that he had been maintaining for a number of years was actually City property. He had a number of questions associated with it, including why is the City not maintaining it, and why he has been maintaining it if it is the City's property. Lambert stated those are good issues to raise and suggested that neighbors in the area be invited to a meeting to discuss these issues. Lambert stated the issues to discuss tonight are the mini-park, the status of the trail along the lake, and what will be done about it. He asked Stuart Fox to display a map to show the different parcels and provide a history of the parcels including who owns them now. Fox displayed an overhead map of the parcels in the Red Rock Lake neighborhood. He provided a history of the parcels. He pointed out what was referred to as park 1, park 2, and park 3 in the developer's agreement for Red Rock Hills. Fox noted there are corridors to get into what was called a "common area." In the early 1970's it was common to have neighborhood mini-parks. He explained on park 2 there was a trail required to be put in as well as from a cul-de- sac down into park 3. That trail was built in 1976 or 1977. Lambert asked Fox to explain what the City now owns. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 3 Fox displayed another map, an aerial shot of the area. He noted in 1984 there were some diseased elm trees in the common area. A notice was sent to John Houston, the developer and the owner of record at the time, to remove those trees. With no response back, the City removed the trees and incurred the costs of taking those trees down. At that point it was the City's obligation to recover those costs, and a special assessment was placed on the land. Fox continued that after a period of three years (the period was six years in the 1980's) if an assessment is not paid, especially if it is common ground, then it goes to tax forfeit. In that process, the City is notified and it is deemed the owner by the State of Minnesota. Public meetings are held and the City has to determine the disposition of that property. The first option is to defer any action for one year. The second option is to pick that property up as City-owned land and claim it for parks, open space, wetland, et cetera. Another option is the land can be put up for sale to an adjacent property owner or it can be put for sale on the open market. Fox indicated when the City went through this process in 1990, the decision was to defer action for one year and in 1991 claimed it as City park property. Therefore, the City has owned it since 1991. He noted there is a storm water pond there as well. Lambert stated the major reason to acquire the land was to maintain ownership of the storm water pond. When he received notice it was a neighborhood mini-park, he met Dennis Marble on site and saw how the property is currently used. He stated the discussion tonight will concern a number of choices. Option#1 is that the City maintains the area as a mini-park, and the City will take care of the mowing and will keep it like it has been for 30 years. Public access will have to be maintained and so a clearly definable trail will have to be built. There are three access points, one from the north, one from the east, and one from the south. Lambert noted the access point from the east is not accessible to the public due to the pond. From the south, the property owners on either side of that access point have planted trees within that easement, and there are substantial trees in the middle of what would be the trail. If the City clears that out, it would have a negative impact on the adjacent lots. Lambert continued the residents on the northern access point have respected that area. They have mowed but have not planted vegetation. It would be easy to put an 8-foot wide trail from the cul-de-sac at the back of peoples' lots. That is also what would be used by the mowers to drive into the property to access it for mowing. Lambert stated two improvements will have to occur on the property, including the removal of the fire ring, because no fires are allowed on public land, and the PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 4 improvement of the gazebo. Perhaps with some new screens and a new door, it will have 10 more years of life. Barrett asked about the volleyball court. Lambert stated that will stay in place. Lambert stated his recommendation is to keep the area as a mini-park. However, the reason the residents are here tonight is because the City wants to hear the neighbors' comments. There are two other options available. Because of the pond, the City has to maintain ownership,but the open space could be allowed to grow out naturally. Another option is to subdivide portions of it, keep access to the pond, and give back the open space area to adjacent neighbors. Lambert stated the last option would involve the land going back to the State and then the State turning it over to the City to disperse it. At that point any neighbor who has frontage on it can buy it and maintain it and have an expanded lot. The area can be divided six ways. That can be done; however, all six residents have to agree to paying for the subdivision work and combining the lots. It would be several thousand dollars a piece. Additionally, the other neighbors would no longer have access to the area. Perhaps they will not care,but that is the point of tonight's meeting. Lambert stated his inclination is that the City has responsibilities to maintain it and should keep it as much as it has been in the past. Jacobus asked what would have happened if the trees never got sick and the City never took ownership. Lambert stated there is still a small piece of property owned by all residents of the Red Rock Hills subdivision. This parcel under consideration would be in the same status. A portion of that is owned by every person in the Red Rock Hills subdivision. Everyone owns 1/83 of it. Had the City not taken ownership, the situation would have continued on until Mr. Marble and his neighbors grew too old to mow the grass. Lambert stated the problem with residents owning 1/83 of the parcel is they also have 1/83 of the liability should anything occur on the property. Lambert stated there was a similar situation in Hidden Ponds in western Eden Prairie. A developer came in and there were lots of little outlots. A number of trails started to crumble, and someone had a bike wreck and wanted to find out who he could sue. He would have had to sue all the neighbors, and the situation raised the issue of what happens if somebody does get seriously hurt. Lambert continued, those residents decided to give the parcel to the City,but the City had to assess them to bring it up to standards. That was done last year,but it was a 10- or 11-year process because a majority of residents had to sign the petition. It can get very complex in those situations. Lambert stated in the Red Rock Hills situation, the neighbors are lucky they do not own it. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 5 Fox displayed photographs of the access off Village Woods Drive, the south access point. He pointed out where the City access goes through. Fox pointed out the view of the east access point as well as the north access point. Mackay asked Lambert why the trail must be 8 feet. Lambert responded 8 feet is the City's standard trail to accommodate a pickup truck and 6-foot mowers without overlapping onto sod. Brill asked what the current width of the space is. Lambert responded it is 12 feet. Barrett invited public comment. John Kutts, 15382 Sand Hill Circle, stated the proposed trail will cut through his property. He relayed a conversation he had with John Houston about who owned the various parcels. He stated he and his neighbors paid higher prices to live in this neighborhood because they thought they owned the common area. He stated there was a big dirt pile left there when the building was done and John Houston left, and he and a number of neighbors graded the area. Barrett asked the location of the dirt pile. Kutts pointed out on the overhead screen where the black dirt was in 1978. He stated he never heard anything back from the City at the time. He asked Lambert where the diseased elms were removed from. Lambert stated he would have to check the records,but they were someplace on the parcel. Kutts responded he does not believe anyone from the City did anything, nor did anyone address the neighbors. Lambert responded he can find the records and noted the City cannot place an assessment on a parcel for no reason. Kutts stated he graded it and dredged the pond and has taken care of the parcel. He never received notice the City took ownership of it. Lambert stated Houston was the owner of record at the time. Kutts responded he was told by the City that Houston no longer owned it because he got his bond back. Barrett stated he understands the frustration residents may feel if they were told incorrect information. However, the question is what is the legal reality today. He continued unfortunately this has been operating under the radar for a number of years, and now it has to be dealt with. Everyone needs to deal with who legally owns the property, which is the City. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 6 Kutts stated the City is changing things around from what the residents were told. He stated he was told by the City that the residents owned it. Barrett stated either the land is owned by the City or by the homeowners association. Lambert responded the City has owned the property since 1991 by tax forfeiture. Kutts restated a neighbor who worked for the City Planning Commission told him the City did not own the property. Lambert indicated there may have been a clerk at some point who said somebody owned the parcel,but the only way to find out who owned it is by looking at the County and City records. If a homeowners association was never formed, John Houston had no one to give the deed to. The assessment went to whoever was on the deed, and it was Houston. Napuck stated she understands the frustration of the residents. Houston signed an agreement with the City stating a homeowners association would be formed for the purpose of maintaining that property. If he then told residents a homeowners association was not needed, that is contrary to what was agreed to with the City. However, the City does own the land. Napuck continued the goal is to maintain the essence of what the neighbors have done to the parcel in a way to keep it up to City standard,because the City has liability with owning the property. The Commission is trying to figure out a way to maintain it but also protect the City from liability and provide access to maintain it. Jacobus stated he was under the impression the residents had no desire to maintain it any longer. Lambert responded the residents are questioning why they are maintaining the property if it is actually owned by the City. Dennis Marble, 15421 Village Woods Drive, stated this property was not owned by the residents from 1990 onwards, which is a 15-year period. He commented he found out about the ownership when he picked up a copy of a City of Eden Prairie Parks and Trails map which showed the common parcel of land is City property. Marble continued once he found that out,he continued mowing the land through November. He wanted to follow a City ordinance that requires residents to maintain a parcel so noxious weeds are not allowed to grow. He inquired why he and two other people have maintained the property if the City took it over in 1990. He and other residents had the pond excavated and also put in the volleyball court. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 7 Marble noted in 1987 there was a tremendous rainstorm in July that almost flooded some homes. He reiterated for 15 years after the City took ownership, the residents still maintained the property because no one bothered to notify the residents of the change of ownership. He asked how the City could do that, because a resident certainly could not do something like that. Marble estimated if he were to calculate a cost of$10 for gas and his time mowing the parcel, at 26 times a year, it would be almost$4,000. Those trees removed in 1989 or 1990 did not cost$4,000. Marble continued the residents put in far more money than the City has. He noted he has also done maintenance to the park near the lake. He asked the City why it has not maintained that and when it will begin to maintain it. Marble continued two years ago the City did cut a tree down, and they drove the trucks across the 12-foot access point. They managed to get vehicles across there. To get a lawnmower through there, an 8-foot path is not needed. Marble stated if the City wants to maintain it, there is access already. He added that last July,he dug out the volleyball court,put new plastic down and filled it in with sand again. He and another neighbor spent over $400 of personal money, and he does not anticipate he will receive that money back. Barrett asked who put the gazebo up originally. Marble stated the neighbors did. A resident came into some money and he bought it and several other neighbors took the time to put it up. Barrett asked Marble how he would like to resolve the issue. Marble stated he wants the City to maintain it and mow it. The City does not need to put in a hard surface trail when the City has not maintained the trail near the lake anyway. He noted 90 percent of that trail is under water. After the trail was put in, the City decided to raise the lake level. Barrett noted any time there is a public park, there has to be public access. He asked Lambert what other options are available. Lambert indicated another option is to put a sign stating there is a pathway. The problem is not everyone will know exactly where the boundary is for the property lines. The strip is 12 feet wide. The mowers may wander off the area and certainly kids will. The trail is for the benefit of keeping people off private property; it also provides ADA access. Lambert added the City could try to sign it first and see how that works and only pave it if complaints are received. Barrett asked if the big argument is against the paved path. Marble asked why a paved trail is needed now if the City could get in there two years ago and knew how to get in there. He added he has lived there for 27 years and only neighbors use the area. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 8 Lambert suggested brown plastic markers that say private property/public property can be put in on either side of the path. The City can try that approach and see if complaints are received. It would be at the north access only; there is no way to get through that southern property. Barrett asked if the other homeowner on the other side of the path is present. Elizabeth Broich, 15431 Village Woods Drive, stated the pine trees are hers. She stated she realizes she has no right to keep the path if that is what the neighborhood chooses. However, the trees were put in for privacy, and her family is not the only people benefiting from the trees being there. The cottonwood must have been there prior to her buying the home. Broich continued she believes the less paved trails there are, the better. She has no opposition of creative use of the common area. The property owners who moved in there a long time ago have maintained it. She added that she works for Three Rivers Park District and she understands the City's position. She is in favor of a naturalized environment that is not ugly. She likes her trees but she does understand people across from the common area may not feel the same way. Lambert stated if the area were to become completely natural, it would be reseeded into a native prairie with native plants that would take over rather than just let it happen on its own. Barrett added this is a gathering area, and the best thing to do may be to keep that resource available. Broich asked if the neighbors have lost the option of not developing the area since the City owns it. Barrett responded there are three options. One option is a conservation area,but then the common area is lost. Another option is making it a park area with signs without a paved trail and revisiting that in a year or so. The third option is a paved trail. Elizabeth Fabel, 15451 Village Woods Drive, stated she is concerned about the idea of a conservation area. Her family has little kids and they love to play in the common area. She asked if a branch breaks or maintenance needs to be done, will residents have to call the City. Furthermore, she asked when the work will get done by the City. Barrett responded those questions are under consideration right now. Fable stated there are so many issues about people doing things to public land that she wonders what residents will be able to do and what the City will do. Lambert stated residents should maintain their property and call the City to have maintenance done on City property. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 9 Cynthia Cook, 15441 Village Woods Drive, stated she is on the same access path and she and her husband have been maintaining that since 1992. She stated the question is where her property ends and where the City's begins, which will have to be worked out. She stated the residents would love the area to stay the way it is. Barrett asked how many residents would like to have it a conservation area with limited use. Residents asked for clarification about the definition of a conservation area. Lambert stated the conservation area would include native grasses, etcetera. He added the fire ring would be removed in any case. Barrett asked for a show of hands among the audience to keep the current use of the parcel with the City mowing it. A large number of residents raised hands. Karen Rylander, 15446 Village Woods Drive, stated she has lived in her home for 10 years and never knew the park was there until recently, so clearly the area is used very locally. She asked who paid the taxes before the tax forfeiture. Lambert responded there are no taxes on that common property, and he added this is not an uncommon situation. The same situation happened at Edenvale. The City has acquired a number of these outlots, and in most cases they hold storm water ponds. The City thought this was a ponding area that was a low spot. He stated the City was not paying attention. Jackie Kirk, 15365 Village Woods Drive, stated her concern is the pond and how it will be maintained. Ten years ago a number of residents chipped in to have it dredged because when it floods, it floods hard. She asked for better communication on who will maintain this and what the plans are. She noted her cul-de-sac filled knee-deep with the rain. Attention will have to be paid to the pond because it floods the streets and properties. Lambert stated the City adopted a storm water management plan two years ago and identified all the storm water ponds and additionally has prioritized which need to be cleaned out first. Then they will be put on a regular dredging schedule. The City will notify Public Works with these concerns to let them know there have been concerns in the past. Kirk stated one of the reasons for all the emotion being expressed is because people have paid their own money to maintain this area. Janelle Junker, 15373 Sand Hill Circle, stated she is an adjacent property owner of the property highlighted in pink on the map. She would like to know who owns the path between her house and the neighbor's house. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 10 Fox stated there are two parcels with John Houston's name on it, and the City cannot go in there and lay claim to it. There is a process whereby all 83 neighbors have to say what the disposition of those parcels should be. There would be some cost to hire legal counsel. City staff does not have any involvement with that. An attorney can explain further. Only in the case of a special assessment could the City become involved. Junker stated it is curious that John Houston continues to own that. Lambert responded it is a separate parcel. Junker asked what the dollar amount was of the assessment for the removal of the trees. Lambert stated he would have to check the records to find out that figure. Ann Kutts, 15382 Sand Hill Circle, stated she is the wife of John Kutts who spoke previously. Regarding the mini-park, she would like to see it used the same way it is now with the City maintaining it. She stated she would like all access points used because if it is closer for one person to cut through from the Village Woods side, they should be allowed to get through that way. She added she and her husband paid the initial fee for homeowners association dues when they purchased the property, although she is not sure what happened to the association. Gerst inquired if Kutts would prefer to have a non-paved, marked path. Kutts responded yes, although she would not even like to see the marking. In over 30 years, there has never been a problem with people on their property. Jeffery Strate, 15021 Summerhill Drive, stated he is a member of the Edenvale Conservation Group and also Friends of Birch Island Woods. He would like the Commission to consider everything that has been said here,but questioned whether a conservation area and a mini-park have to be exclusive of each other. He suggested the use be kept as-is but plantings be permitted around the drainage of the settling pond. Strate suggested putting in native plantings that would not prevent kids from playing volleyball or playing Frisbee. He stated there are a couple of common areas in his neighborhood similar to this. His neighbors are taking out buckthorn and putting in wild plants, so perhaps that can be done in this parcel. Barrett asked Lambert if the easiest solution would be for someone to purchase it and be done with it. Lambert responded no, that would not be the easiest solution. Napuck asked if the City would have some special liability since a park has been created around a retention pond where children play. Lambert responded no, as there are ponds and lakeshore all over Eden Prairie. The City does not have any more liability here than it does in all the other areas. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 11 Fabel stated she knows the neighborhood is turning over and if the signage is not put up, new residents may not be able to control the kids who may wander on private property. Signage is needed so new residents know where to go and where the kids can go. If everyone is able to enjoy it, people moving in should know it is there. Sandy Schroeck, 15357 Village Woods Drive, stated she has lived in the area for two years and her family was made aware that the park is across the way. Her concern with the conservation area is that certain types of material, like pollen, will fly in the yard and create weeds. People need to be aware that that type of planting brings in seeds flying through the air into other areas. Marble made a comment regarding the pond. He noted one resident indicated there was an excavation in the mid-90s. He was not aware of that,but there was a major excavation in 1986. He stated attention has to be paid to that culvert to be sure there is no blockage. In 1987 during the heavy rain, the entire island in the middle of the cul-de-sac was surrounded by water. The maintenance of the drain going out of that pond is going to be critical. It would be a major issue in the event of a heavy rain. Marble stated he assumes the path and the common area are all City property. He inquired how a small parcel of property could not be absorbed when the City took over the property. Lambert noted a couple of the parcels were given to the City by Houston. He pointed out on the map which parcels were to be part of the homeowners association. The assessments went to all properties attached to that parcel. The parcels still owned by Houston are separate parcels not affected by the assessment. Cook stated she has no objection to people using the pathway near their home. Lambert noted Cook's previous comment regarding mowing of the pathway near her home. He clarified the City policy on outlots leading into park areas. The City would prefer that residents continue to mow that; otherwise, the City will be up in their yard. Additionally, the City may not mow the area as frequently as the residents would like. The City will mow the park in the back. Barrett asked for clarification on the location of the markers. Fox pointed out on the map where the markers will be. Lambert added it works a lot better when the adjacent property owners mow their own little areas because the City does not mow them twice a week like it may with a ball field. Lambert stated there will be a marker at each corner. Marble asked about the mowing around the marker. Lambert cautioned to mow carefully just as someone would mow around a tree. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 12 John Kutts stated that his lawn mower will mow off three inch pipes. Lambert stated that the City could install four inch pipes if that would be helpful. Lambert added the management plan for the park can be developed over time. MOTION: Jacobus moved, seconded by Gerst, to recommend the City Council designate, with markers, a public access to Red Rock Hills Mini Park on the City outlot between homes on all three sides of the park, and begin maintaining this property in a fashion similar to the City standards on other mini parks. Motion carried 7-0. Fox stated the little path shown on the overhead map is on the list for next year for improvement. Currently it is a 6-foot trail with no maintenance, and the City wants to make it a 5-foot asphalt surface. It would make it easier to maintain, and would make a 5-foot sidewalk in the middle of a 12-foot path. A 6-foot bituminous trail would be impossible to maintain. Barrett asked for a timeline on that project. Fox responded it should be completed in 2007. Rylander stated they walked through the trail tonight and there are some areas that are really deep and need to be leveled out. Barrett asked the location of the four car outlot. Fox pointed it out on the map. Red Rock Lakeshore Land Trail Fox brought up the shoreland trail and indicated it was originally intended to be a trail going both east and west. However, a couple things happened. The continuation of a trail was sidetracked by failure of support by the City Council. Secondly, when the chain of lakes project came through, around the time of the 1987 super storm, a decision was made to link a number of lakes so the lake levels would not"bounce"but the water would be discharged through a series of pipes. Lambert added the Council followed the desire of the neighbors around the lake, (rather than the City staff), who wanted a deeper lake. It is now a deeper lake and the lakeshore is different. Currently, staff recommends improving the trail from the cul-de-sac down to the point and perhaps providing a dock or a fishing area off that peninsula and forgetting about the trails going east and west. Any type of grading to improve those will cause detriment to the shoreline. Barrett asked how far to the east and west the path would go. Fox pointed out on the map where the trail currently runs. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 13 Barrett asked about the rest of the land. Lambert stated the City maintains ownership of it, but he does not recommend trying to run a trail there. The trail is under water in half the areas. There is no reason to try to fill down there. Barrett asked why the City has not considered selling that portion to the landowners. Lambert stated he is not recommending selling any of that area. Protecting the lakeshore is the best way to protect water quality of the lake and City ownership is the best insurance for protection. He stated a high number of people do not understand easements. If it is City-owned property, most people do understand that it is City's land and it should not be encroached upon. It is much clearer to explain trespass on public land than to explain what they can't do on their own property due to an easement. Barrett asked what the benefit is. Lambert recommended most people who own shoreline like to mow right down to the shoreline and walk right into the water. People tend to fertilize their lawn and it runs into the water. They also like to remove most of the understory vegetation to improve their views. Fox added this property was deeded to the City by the developer as a condition of the subdivision. It would be problematic to go back on the agreement. Ken Henk, 15386 Village Woods Drive, stated he lives along the shore of the lake about six parcels east of this point. He stated he is in favor of the City maintaining the point. The trail has been maintained because the City has electrical service there. He noted he has a dock on that lake and there are a number of those 15 residents who have added those docks and done some limited improvements. Henk continued he would like nothing better than to buy that strip of land and have that be an easement area;he could get his canoe into the lake. He stated he is a volunteer for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. It is such a narrow strip and he does not believe structures should be built or trees cut down. Henk commented there are some minimal improvements that should be allowed in that area because it is inaccessible to anyone but those adjacent property owners. Rather than the City saying nothing can be done,he suggested some consideration be given to homeowners who abut that property. He stated his tax statement says lakeshore. Barrett stated in terms of taxes, if a homeowner has lakeshore property, taxes are double those homes across the street. Lambert added the 15 homeowners are not taxed as though they have access to the lake. The Assessor knows who has access and who does not. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 14 Allen Pollino, 15456 Village Woods Drive, stated he is in a special tax situation because the homes are valued more than people across the street, at a higher rate than people who back up to a park but not as much people on a lake. He stated there are dead logs and dead fish at the end his property, but he cannot clean it up because it is parkland. He asked if this was all left to the City as a park, can he require the City to remove the buckthorn that creeps on his property. He stated he has a much greater investment in the water quality than the City government does because he lives there and wants to keep it clean. Barrett asked if the path will be torn up if it is not repaired. Lambert responded some of it should be removed. Vegetation should be replanted in place of the asphalt. In an area that is a natural shoreline, there will be trees that fall and bogs will float up every once in a while. When the City made the decision to raise the water table by 2 feet, it ripped the roots of the bog from the bottom of the lake and it started drifting. Pollino stated he contacted a seed seller who sells natural plants and grass. He offered to put together a plan and present it. Lambert stated if Pollino is willing to sit down with Fox and himself about a plan to improve it, the City will work with him. He continued the City really has to have a good plan that can be reviewed and approved. Pollino stated while waiting for this to be settled,he was told not to cut any trees on his own property. Fox responded there are 10 of the 15 properties found in trespass. Notices have been sent to all the affected property owners and they have until June 1 to respond. He did not provide any information about cutting on the individual property, but people can take care of their property within the confines of the law. For example, the law does not permit someone to clear cut all of their trees. Barrett asked if the markers are in now. Fox stated no, they have to wait until the ground is thawed. Larry Wojtasiak, 15486 Village Woods Drive, stated he has a dock and pontoon boat. Regarding Lambert's comment about sod right up to the lakeshore, he stated it is virtually impossible to grow any sod at the edge of the lake; there is a steep slope. He added there is a double standard between his residents and homes on the other side of the lake. They have lawns right up to the lakeshore. Lambert responded there is not a double standard. Some of the lakeshore property owners on the east side of the lake own the property down to the lake. Most homeowners would like lawn right up to the lake because the City sees it all the time. In this case, this is City property. Other property owners own right up to the lake and have the right to have a dock. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 15 Wojtasiak stated he has had a dock for eight years and asked why this issue is coming up now. Lambert responded the City does not hire someone to walk the many miles of park boundaries every year looking for encroachment problems. These boundary encroachment issues are usually caught by adjacent residents or by a City forester looking for diseased trees. Lambert stated that just because he was trespassing for eight years without being caught did not make it legal to install a dock on City property. Wojtasiak stated there is no public access to the strip in the back of his house or his neighbors' homes. Lambert responded that does not make it his property. Wojtasiak asked if something can be done such as the City selling the property to the homeowners. Barrett commented in a way these residents are being penalized because other homeowners were able to buy their land down to the lake. Lambert responded there is a lot of lakeshore owned by the City that is not usable by the public. But there is still value to preserving the lakeshore and not allowing docks and retaining walls. There are examples on this shoreline where people clear-cut right down to the shoreline. The idea back in the 1970s was to maintain a natural shoreline around as many of the lakes in Eden Prairie as was feasible. That way people who did not own the property but were using the lakes could enjoy natural looking lakes. Lambert added the bay to the east is full of cat-tails. The Council decided it would have to take so much shoreline to get around the marsh that it gave up. But still the natural shoreline of the north shore of Red Rock Lake is preserved. Napuck indicated there has to be objective criteria when dealing with this issue. With the dock being put in there, there has to be a precedent when it is City- owned land. If it is not supposed to be there, it is not supposed to be there. When exceptions are made, others will want to be grandfathered in as well. The question of public access is not the criteria. Moriarity stated Minnesota DNR has regulations on shoreland. He inquired if the City's are more onerous than the State's. He added it does not appear the City has been very good at policing this. He asked who is policing the DNR regulations on the shoreline. Fox stated the City has a shoreland code that is mandated by the State and was approved by the DNR. It is enforced on a complaint basis. When a development comes in, they are required to have setbacks for structures. Once a homeowner moves in, and eventually there are second and third generation owners, who may not be aware of rules, etc. There is not enough City staff to check everyone's PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 16 backyards. Fox displayed some pictures of the properties on the lake where improvements and vegetation clearing have been done on City property. Marble stated he built his house in 1979 and he explained where the path was at that time, and nothing could be walked. He stated when the lake was raised, the path came to be 90 percent under water. There is no way someone could walk that path. As far as maintenance of the area, the City has not done anything. It is all overgrown. He stated nobody can use any of that property. He recalled at one time the City intended to continue the path all the way around. Lambert stated the plan never showed a path all the way around the lake. The plan always indicated a trail around the north shore and along the west shore and from there down to Staring Lake. It never depicted going on to the west shore where homes already were in place. A trail in that location would have to be along the street in front of their homes. Marble responded none of that ever took place. He stated for years he trimmed the trees because there was a beautiful path down there. Barrett asked what his recommendation is. Marble recommended keeping the access to the point and give the property to the homeowners. Lambert stated the City cannot give away all of the parkland or open space conservation area in the City that are not frequently used or simply because you "can't walk on it". Marble stated if these homeowners are harming the lake, then all the lakefront homes will be damaging the lake. Lambert stated just because some homes are not restricted dating back to the 1960s does not make it right for the City to give away parkland or conservation areas. MOTION: Moriarity moved, seconded by Barrett, to recommend the City Council direct appropriate staff to study whether to the sell those lots on the north shore that are not used to maintain the public access while maintaining conservation easements on those lots. Motion failed 3-4, with Gerst, Brill, Jacobus, and Napuck voting no. Jacobus stated he is concerned a precedent would be set in this situation by selling the land. Barrett responded this is a special situation where the original plan was to have the path going both directions and then the City changed its mind. Napuck stated this is a bad precedent to set, even though she knows that things happened that were not anticipated. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 17 Barrett noted earlier in this meeting the Commission considered selling the mini- park. Lambert stated it was not a recommendation by staff to do that,but it was an option of what could possibly be done. Rylander asked if there could be a path back there. People still do like to walk down there. Lambert responded it is more feasible going west than going east. It is a possibility but it would involve retaining walls and boardwalks. Ramin Hakimi, 15476 Village Woods Drive, stated he has one of the smallest lots of the 15 property owners on the north side of the lake. He bought the house in 2001. He very much liked the idea of how clean the lake was and would like it to stay that way. He has no desire to do anything to the shoreline and would like it to stay natural. There were steps going down to the lake because it is very steep, and for the safety of his family he would like those steps to stay on City property. Hakimi indicated he tried to put in a dock but it is so shallow that he is taking it back up. He does not know how easy it would be to remove the landscaping that has already been done there. He thinks something simpler that would be reasonable and not punish 15 property owners is a more sensible thing to do. He suggested more communication from the City to the property owners. Barrett asked what will happen to the landscaping if the path does not go in. Lambert responded it will have to be removed if it is on City property. Strate stated there is a common good to keep this area a City park rather than selling it off. He stated he does not live on the lake but he has friends who fish there. Having a natural shoreline protected by the City is very comfortable. Residents on the other side of the lake are offended by having to look at docks and retaining walls along the lake. He stated City stewardship is the safest way to go and will provide the community with the best assurances that the lake character will remain as natural as possible. Strate continued he sympathizes with residents who put a retaining wall up by mistake or have a dock there,but there are techniques that can be done to landscape one's private property rather than the City property. Moriarity stated if the City has limited budgets, then the City could use the proceeds of this sale to buy the Picha property or other things. Pollino stated some retaining walls have been put in by some of the property owners, as otherwise the land would fall into the lake. It is hyperbole to say that people will start putting docks on Staring Lake because they are allowed here. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 18 Henk wondered if another motion could come forward asking City staff to look at a restrictive covenant in this situation. It is a policing and maintenance-type effort. Jack McCann, Edina, stated he grew up in this area. It is important to consider this is not natural shoreline. When he lived there, it was a lot cleaner and well kept. This area is now destroyed because the bog did come up. He asked that the City allow residents to use retaining walls where appropriate. A resident asked when that path will be cleaned out. Lambert stated possibly a year or two. The current path is not causing a problem. Daryl Cook, 15506 Village Woods Drive, asked the Commission to walk the main part of this shoreline. There is not any resident within 100 feet of the shoreline with anything but shrubs or trees. The only trees taken out were the ones the City took about 10 or 15 years ago with Elm disease. He stated he has a dock that is a roll-in. The residents have not destroyed it or trampled on the area. MOTION: Brill moved, seconded by Mackay, to recommend the City Council authorize staff to replace the deteriorated trail located between Lot 10 and Lot 1 with a trail built to City standards that will provide the public with access to the shoreline, and to install a public dock on that shoreline to accommodate fishing. Motion carried 7-0. Barrett recessed the meeting at 9:41 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. B. THIRD RINK FEASIBILITY STUDY AND HOCKEY ASSOCIATION REQUESTS Lambert stated the Hockey Association came to the Council at its last meeting with four questions. The first question was answered by the Council because they had to have an answer to initiate the fund raiser with their members. The second, third, and fourth questions were referred to the Commission. Lambert explained the second question asks that space be given to acknowledge individuals and corporations who donate to the rink. Lambert expressed he believes it is a reasonable request. Lambert explained the third question asks that advertising rights be sold to help generate revenue. He added the third rink is going to be constructed with their significant donations; approximately two-thirds of the cost will be paid by them. Lambert explained the fourth question concerns naming rights. He stated the City can get similar requests throughout the park system; so it is important to consider whether a precedent will be set. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 19 Pat Armitage, 7383 Ontario Blvd, stated regarding question 2, the goal is to raise $1 million and it is a huge task. In achieving that goal, they would like to acknowledge the donors and illustrate to the youth the importance of participating. He would like to make a change to question 3. EPHA believes it can sell more of this type of advertising than the City can if it is allowed to keep more of the revenue. Armitage continued that currently EPHA receives $100 on a $3,400 sale, so there is not a lot of incentive to sell. He stated the City will benefit by the increase in the sales of advertising. All revenue generated by the sales of advertisements in the Community Center will go towards the purchase of ice by EPHA. Jacobus clarified the current proposal reads that EPHA will keep half of each sale: instead of$100 out of$3,400, it will receive $1,700 out of$3,400. Armitage responded that is correct. Armitage stated the EPHA can sell a lot more dasher boards than the City has, and the generation of the new sales would generate additional revenue for the City. Napuck asked Armitage to explain. Armitage responded the current agreement in getting the third rink is that EPHA purchase 1,000 hours of ice annually for the next 30 years. This would go towards helping pay that off. Barrett asked if any other sports sell advertising. Lambert responded no, they do not,but this is setting a precedent. This could easily create a situation wherein Baseball wants to sell billboards on the fences to help pay for dugouts, or we might hear from the Figure Skating Club or from the Foxjets that they want revenue from advertising. Armitage noted EPHA has to pay for its playing surface and is the only association in that situation. This will go back to pay for its playing surface, which Baseball and Football do not have to pay for. Moriarity asked if this advertising is for all three rinks or just the new rink. Armitage responded it will be only the main sheet. The third rink is set up as a practice sheet, so there will not be much of an audience there. Lambert clarified EPHA receives $100 per year for three years, to it is a total of $300. He continued there are 10 or 11 dasher boards already sold, which probably span halfway across the rink. He stated there is not that much more to sell because the rink 1 is where the crowds are. The Olympic rink and third rink tend to be practice rinks. Lambert continued there has been discussion of a flat screen monitor with `rolling advertisements" in the Community Center where a salesman puts the product on PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 20 the wall, gets advertising for it, and gives the City a percentage of it. Should the City get that revenue or the EPHA, when the salesman is doing the selling? Barrett asked if EPHA thinks they can get more than $3,400 for dasher boards. Armitage stated they are not limiting themselves strictly to dasher boards; wall signage is a possibility as well. Barrett cautioned the Council is concerned about having advertising all over the place. Armitage stated there was a rink just expanded in Buffalo where advertising was tastefully done. That is a good example to look for. Barrett stated he does not want to tell EPHA it can sell any kind of advertisement it wants. Armitage responded EPHA will do it within the conditions of the City. The goal is not to cut out the revenue for the City but rather is the opposite. It will grow it in the form of additional advertising, and that money will not be spent on anything other than ice in the City. Lambert stated rather than a broad-brush approval, the City has had tight controls over what is put on the walls in that building for 20 years. He would rather be more conservative about advertising. He has no problem with having the EPHA come in with a program that would have a series of options on how to advertise and what the revenue would be and how large it would be, et cetera. Lambert noted that ultimately it will be the City Council's decision. Tonight the Commission is looking for a recommendation to the Council as to whether more advertising will be allowed in the main rink and other rinks. If the Commission is supportive of that, then what needs to be decided is what percentage EPHA should keep, assuming they take the money and put it in the ice fund. Barrett asked if EPHA can specifically spell out the parameters of the advertising. Armitage stated there are different extremes at different rinks; some have no wall advertising and some have it all over the walls. The Community Center will fall in the middle. To make it worth while, $40,000 to $50,000 would have to be sold. EPHA has $1 million to raise. But these funds are not going towards the $1 million rink fund; it is going to the 1,000 hour annual commitment. Jacobus asked how much the City receives in advertising in the rinks currently. Lambert responded $10,000 to $11,000, not counting the revenue from the concession advertising, the ice resurfacers and the scoreboard. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 21 Jacobus suggested the City has had two years to sell advertising. Perhaps the Commission can recommend EPHA can keep any additional money they raise. He added Bob Lanzi has had two years to fill this place, so anything else they sell, EPHA should be able to keep. Lambert clarified the only thing the City authorized Lanzi to do was get advertising on the dasher boards. Moriarity stated this is a partnership with EPHA and Council and if anyone else hires a salesman to sell advertising, he would receive a commission. He added 50150 is a reasonable split. Napuck asked what the cost of ice time is for 1,000 hours a year. Armitage stated hundreds of thousands of dollars is spent each year on ice time. One thousand hours of ice costs about$160,000. That is in addition to what EPHA is already buying at the Community Center. It is likely over$300,000. Moriarity noted there is a difference between what Hockey does and other sports do. Barrett responded Baseball will come in and say the same thing. Gerst stated if Baseball comes to the Commission, it will be addressed at that time. Napuck stated perhaps some criteria can be established that looks at the amount of subsidy the City provides to organizations. She asked if there is some formula that accounts for the amount the City contributes to fund the various associations and determine a percentage. Lambert responded that would be comparing apples and oranges. Napuck asked what amount of money naming rights are based on. Lambert responded that is the question to be answered. Other cities are all over the map on this question. Armitage indicated there can be a stipulation that the City has to have final approval on advertising. Lambert added it should have to be approved by the City Council. He stated the clock is running so the Commission has to give an indication to the Council about the percentage split on advertising sales. Jacobus stated the City has had two years to sell this and anything EPHA does, the City will get 50 percent of it. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 22 Lambert noted there are advertisers every day clamoring to put up advertising on that rink. Armitage stated any revenue will go to the benefit of City residents. It is not for profit. In the end the City benefits 100 percent. Barrett responded the City will be getting the ice rental payment either way. Armitage stated EPHA can sell advertising better than the City has proven it can. Barrett decided whatever the decision, a time limit should be included. Brill stated he supports the 50150 split. He asked if dasher boards are sold for two or three years. Armitage responded it is a three-year contract. Brill stated he would be in favor of 50150 inside the rink over three years with the stipulation that the advertisements have to be approved by the City. Armitage stated he would not ask for exclusive advertising rights because Figure Skating is another consideration. A Figure Skating Club representative stated she believes it is an excellent recommendation to offer Figure Skating and EPHA the opportunity to sell advertising at a 50150 split, agreeing that it must be cleared through the City. The Figure Skating Club representative suggested the wording clarify the advertising that is sold by Figure Skating Club and EPHA would be turned back into a fund to buy ice hours, which Figure Skating can work out with EPHA. Napuck asked if there is a cost associated with the creation of the advertising, for example, with the scrolling LCD screen. Lambert stated that is one of the reasons why staff wants a concept design plan because some of it will require electrical connections. Lambert added there is a cost for all of these, even the mounting of the boards. That will come out of the revenue the City receives. Napuck clarified no decisions will be made as to the form of advertising. Lambert stated the Commission is considering EPHA going out and developing a media plan. He added there is probably not a lot of opportunity to generate money on scoreboards. MOTION: Brill moved, seconded by Gerst, to allow the EPHA to develop a media plan to sell advertising and receive 50 percent of the net revenue generated PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 23 to use for purchase of ice time; all advertising would be subject to approval of the PRNC and City Council. Motion carried 7-0. Armitage asked the City to consider selling naming rights to a large donor for the fundraising campaign for the third rink. These funds would be used specifically for the construction of the third rink. Armitage continued EPHA is proposing offering the naming rights to one rink for $125,000; two rinks for$225,000; and all three rinks for $275,000. He added the rink in Minnetonka sold its naming rights for$250,000. Armitage added if it is the main rink, the $125,000 cost may be increased. Barrett asked if EPHA wants to sell all three rinks individually. Armitage responded ideally yes, because that would increase revenue. The Fox Jets representative stated it will be the Eden Prairie Community Center and this will just be naming the rink itself. The building itself is referred to something different. Moriarity asked if there is a term. Armitage stated no, the naming rights are for a lifetime. Barrett stated Lambert previously mentioned setting a precedent and asked if this situation should be a one-time occurrence so as to avoid setting precedents. Lambert stated the Commission can include in the motion that this is a unique situation. But people will look at the value of the rink and what they had to pay to put their name on it. He stated he has a problem with getting down to providing an incentive for someone to be able to name all three rinks. Armitage stated because of the perceived discount on three rinks, the incentive is to get someone to buy all three. It will be difficult to sell all three separately. Brill suggested perhaps there should be a sliding scale: $125,000 for the main rink, $100,000 for the Olympic rink, and $75,000 for the third rink. Barrett stated the two-rink option seems strange if they name them both the same name. Jacobus asked if EPHA has tested the waters in selling naming rights. Armitage responded the one test so far has not gone well,but this is not something that has been advertised. Jacobus suggested perhaps the figures should be higher. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 24 Barrett stated it seems strange EPHA would get all the money for this. Armitage stated 100 percent would go to the construction costs. He added this is for the community, not for Hockey. Lambert stated naming rights is a way to get money very quickly,but he does not know how easy it is; so many of the big companies in Eden Prairie are just branches, so they may not want to pursue this. This a tough thing for EPHA. He suggested perhaps the fees should be higher. Armitage stated if the Commission can agree on the fact that the naming rights can be sold,he is more than willing to negotiate on what the cost will be. Barrett stated he does agree with a sliding scale: $200,000 for the main, $150,000 for the Olympic, and $100,000 for the third rink. Gerst stated it is in EPHA's best interest to sell it for the most they can. He suggested the dollar figure not be settled on tonight. Barrett stated he does not want EPHA to negotiate and come back with something too low. Gerst asked if there is a minimum. Napuck stated a minimum is important, in case Baseball is able to sell naming rights for$10,000. Barrett stated he would like to mention in the motion this is a non-precedential basis. Barrett suggested $150,000 for the main, $125,000 for the Olympic, and $100,000 for third rink should be used as minimums. He asked if Lambert thinks those are too low. Lambert stated those are reasonable numbers for minimums. Jacobus stated he believes it hurts EPHA to set a minimum. Barrett clarified the Commission would like EPHA to sell the naming rights for as much as possible. Jacobus commented EPHA is going to come back to the Commission anyway, so the minimum price might as well be high. Gerst asked about the naming rights being indefinite rather than being a specific time period. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 25 Moriarity suggested there should be a term involved with the naming rights. He also asked if cash up front will be required or if installments will be made. Armitage responded if the sponsors finance, they will have to go through a bank. As far as the City is concerned, it is cash up front. Lambert suggested it would be tough to sell with a sunset clause. Napuck stated the naming rights should be subject to City approval, should the donor be objectionable. MOTION: Barrett moved, seconded by Napuck, to allow EPHA and its cohorts to sell naming rights to the three rinks at the highest possible bid subject to approval by the PRNC and the City Council. Motion carried 7-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION—PROGRAM REVIEW Barrett asked for clarification on the third rink location. Lambert responded there were several options on the location of the third rink. The feasibility study in 1999/2000 showed a location somewhere different. He added location was moved due to soil conditions and the fact that the school district would not support that location. Lambert stated there have been several public meetings on the Community Center and only one PNRC member attended the one on February 15. From the input received, that schematic bubble drawing looks like the exhibit in the report. The baseball field to the north really restricted expansion and access. Lambert stated everyone, except skaters, will have to use the turnstile,because skaters most of the time just rent the ice. This plan moves the access north. Lambert explained the entrance layout. Lambert encouraged the PRNC members to read the memorandum, particularly about wet and dry locker rooms. There was discussion about keeping the existing locker rooms as the pool locker rooms and adding separate locker rooms for the fitness center and gymnasium. Lambert continued there will have to be discussion about that in the future once there are concept plans. He stated the child care topic is also brought up as well as multiuse rooms. He stated the PRNC needs to read this prior to the next meeting. Jacobus asked about the size of the walking track. Lambert responded he believes it is 11 laps per mile. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 26 Moriarity objected to the inclusion of a computer lab in the Community Center, as it is noted on page 5, number 10. Lambert responded not all the items on the "wish list" will be included. The document includes the input received so far. Barrett asked Lambert to clarify what the Commission's motion would approve. Lambert stated the motion will approve the square footages on page 5 that accommodate these types of programs. He added the process is a long way from approving specifics. The City has approved expanding the men's and women's locker rooms about four times the current size and adding a family locker room. Lambert continued the City is challenged with how to accommodate 50 or 60 swimmers without driving away adults. He added the Community Center will pay for itself by the users of the fitness facility; that drives the whole thing. The question will be how to accommodate these swimmers and adults coming in after work. MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Moriarity, to approve the preliminary program draft for the Community Center expansion. Motion carried 7-0. B. VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE Lambert stated there are 17 volunteers for the Veterans Memorial Task Force, and staff is recommending including all of them. At the first meeting they will understand fundraising is a major part of it, and the $10,000 will be included in that. Moriarity asked why the $10,000 has to be fundraised, which was not done for the pool concept plan. Lambert stated the pool was for all citizens, and this is a request by a special interest group. It is standard practice for veterans to raise the money for their memorials. Lambert stated the City will upfront the original design fees,but the task force will be fundraising for the entire cost, including that. He stated there will be significant problems if a planner is not working with them throughout the entire process. Brill recalled Lambert six months ago wanted a PNRC member to be chair of the entire thing and asked if that has changed. Lambert stated it would be a whole lot better to have a Commission member chair this Committee,but he forgot he had even mentioned it to the Commission previously. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 27 MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Moriarity, to appoint the following residents to the Veterans Memorial Committee: James Bevilacqua, Mary Ann Bryndal, William Cochrane, Arnold Eder, Cheryl Fey, Richard Fey, Thomas Johnson, John Mallo, Jerry Renner, Toby Sarahan, Ronald Schlangen, William(Bud) Schwartz, Carol Steehler, Steve Steele, Marie Wittenberg, Ernie Shuldhiess, and Duane Cox. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Moriarity, to approve the Charter Statement which outlines the responsibilities of the citizen committee and the City staff for this process. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Napuck, to authorize hiring a planning firm to assist the citizen's committee in selecting a site and developing a schematic plan for a Veterans Memorial at a cost not to exceed $10,000; and furthermore, that this committee will be responsible for fundraising all of the costs for any project that is recommended, including all design fees. Motion carried 7-0. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. APPROVE RENOVATION OF FIELD #11 AT MILLER PARK Jacobus asked if the Pioneer Trail expansion will take out any soccer field usage. Lambert responded no fields will be lost. Fields 12 and 13 will be taken out next year and then they will be lighted. At that point the City will ask the associations to help pay for some of that. Lambert stated it will take out football use of Flying Cloud in 2008. Barrett asked if the soil will be replaced. Fox stated it will be taken down to the depth of the existing turf, and then it is built up about a foot of what it currently is. It will be a sand-based field. Fox stated the City will allow the field to be played on through the Prairie Cup. After that is over, the field will be taken out of play and will not be playable until July or August of next year. It may be useable for the Prairie Cup of 2007 and then nothing until the football season of 2007. Fox continued this will be growing pains for everyone,but in the long-term it is better for everyone. It will give equal play throughout the fields. Barrett asked if it had been done correctly the first time, would the City be in the same situation. Lambert responded no, but there was no money available at that time. This is some of the worst soil to build fields on. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 28 Jacobus asked how many fields football will be out this year. Fox stated they will be out one field this fall; they do not play on 12 and 13 now. MOTION: Brill moved, seconded by Gerst, to authorize staff to prepare plans and specifications to reconstruct Miller Park field#11 at an estimated cost of$120,000. Motion carried 7-0. B. TRAIL CONNECTION TO RIVERVIEW ROAD Lambert stated City staff was flabbergasted upon receiving word that the original trail connection plan would now be disallowed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lambert stated he has met with Fish and Wildlife a number of times,but they do not negotiate. He indicated he is asking that the Council send a letter to Fish and Wildlife asking them to reconsider the $75,000 trail design option, copying the letter to Senator Norm Coleman and Representative James Ramstad. Lambert added this connection is of vital importance to the safety of Eden Prairie citizens. MOTION: Gerst moved, seconded by Mackay, to recommend the City Council approve a letter to Patricia Martinkovic, Manager of the Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge requesting that she and her staff support the concept C for the location of the trail providing safe pedestrian and bicycle access for all residents north of Highway 212 to Riverview Road. Motion carried 7-0. C. SPORTS FACILITIES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE: LACROSSE ASSOCIATION REPORT Lambert stated ordinarily the City does not allow for-profit groups to do fundraising on parkland. However, because Lacrosse is a new sport, this is the only way they can teach kids and get experts to come in. Staff is recommending on a year-to-year basis allowing them to use the fields as a camp. The Sports Facilities Committee recommended it on a year-to-year basis. Fox stated there will be a trained coach coming in from out east because there is not that level of teaching ability around here. Their goal is to ultimately turn it into a camp. Lambert stated the objection is this is a sport that is tough on the fields that will be used really hard for a lot of days, and the coaches of a "for profit company" are going to get paid a lot by using a tax payer subsidized field. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION March 6, 2006 Page 29 MOTION: Brill moved, seconded by Mackay, to approve the Sports Facilities Committee recommendation to approve the request of the Eden Prairie Lacrosse Association to use Flying Cloud Fields for a fundraising development camp from July 24—July 27 at the tournament rate,based on the fact that this is an emerging program and classified as a priority three organization, and that the request for these clinics must be submitted on a year-to-year basis. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. REPORTS OF STAFF A. DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1. LAWCON Conversion— Cummins-Grill Site/Picha Property Lambert noted he covered this issue at the beginning, stating the Council approved the recommendation to initiate conversion of LAWCON property from the Cummins-Grill site to the Picha property. 2. Updated Working Draft of 2006-2010 CIP Lambert noted the five-year CIP indicates that if all of the projects were approved, there would be a$950,000 deficit at the end of five years. Therefore, some of the projects will have to be either delayed or not approved if the revenue sources are projected correctly. 3. Letter to Mr. Glenn Orcutt, FAA District Office Lambert indicated the Commission requested a letter be sent to Mr. Orcutt, and he included a copy of this letter in the packet. IX. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 3, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Napuck moved, seconded by Barrett, to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.