Loading...
Parks and Recreation - 08/22/2000 (5) APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PROGRAM BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2000 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER City Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Chair Munna Yasiri,Harry Davis, Jr.,Dick Brown, Kim Teaver,Harry Moran, and Therese Benkowski BOARD STAFF: Chris Enger, City Manager;Natalie Swaggert,Management Liaison; Laurie Obiazor, Staff Liaison; and Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary SUPPORT STAFF: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks and Recreation Services I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Yasiri called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Board members present included Munna Yasiri, Therese Benkowski,Dick Brown,Harry Davis, Jr.,Harry Moran and Kim Teaver. l Swaggert reported that Mary Cofer has resigned from the Board because of personal family matters. She explained that a replacement has not yet been appointed to the Board. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Benkowski, to amend the agenda to include under Old Business Item B, discussion regarding the historic properties in Eden Prairie. Motion carried,5-0. III. APPROVAL OF JULY-11, 2000 MINUTES MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Teaver,to approve the July 11, 2000,minutes as presented. The motion carried, 5-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Status of Historic Properties Management and Use Plan City Manager Enger reported that the City Council voted to accept the Adaptive Use Report as recommended by the Program Board and as developed by staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. The City Council also directed preparation of a Request for Proposal(RFP) for professional real estate services for the lease or sale of the More House. Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 2 Lambert explained that the RFP for developing a marketing plan for the lease or sale of the More House for adaptive reuse was sent out and due back to the City on August 18. All of the recipients of the RFP indicated that they were not qualified to respond to the entire RFP. They felt they were qualified to do one or two of the items but not all of the things requested. At this time, according to the process the Council adopted, staff will report back to the Council on September 5. By September 5 staff should have some recommendation on what steps to take to proceed with making some decisions on the direction to go with the More House. At this time, staff is not prepared to discuss what that direction might be. B. Discussion Regarding Historic Properties in Eden Prairie Brown said he is concerned that this Board may be asked to make another recommendation on the historic properties previously discussed that many on this Board have not seen. He is concerned that in trying to establish the best action to recommend to the City Council it almost behooves them to look at the property to better understand the costs. He suggested that they also tour the reconditioned historic properties in the cities of Excelsior and White Bear. Brown said he wants to make sure they make a learned recommendation. Yasiri questioned if these historic sites would be coming back to this Board. Enger responded that at this time they do not see this item coming back before the Program Board. He explained that it is difficult to forecast what the Board will want to do if the City Council does something different. Enger indicated that it is important for this Board to keep in mind that staff and commissions do supply this Board with information and it is important to not do all of the work over again. He cautioned the Board on how they look at gathering the information. They don't have to be the experts in historic homes. This Board is more of the generalists that take a broad view and overview while the Historic Preservation Commission would be the group that are the experts. If additional information is needed,this Board may request that from staff or the advisory commission. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and recommend: Smetana Lake Improvement Project Lambert presented a brief overview of the Smetana Lake Trail and Picnic Area plan. He explained that this Board's responsibility is to review program needs and in doing so,they must look at the facilities to determine if they will meet those needs. This park will be serving older people and people who work in the Golden Triangle business area. Lambert indicated that the proposed plan is to complete the trail around Smetana Lake, construct a picnic pavilion and viewing deck and to construct horseshoe courts and landscaping throughout the park. He explained that the City would work with the watershed district to develop a complete trail system. The City's plan is to develop a passive park on the peninsula to meet the needs of the residents and workers in the area. They propose to develop a park shelter on the point which businesses or residents can reserve for picnics. Lambert further explained that a variance would be required for Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 3 setbacks from the lake. The proposed shelter would be set back 50 feet from the lake. Normal setback to meet City Code is 150 feet. Regardless of where they would place the shelter, variances would be required and they have determined the proposed location is in the best location. They are also proposing the addition of a fishing pier and boat access for watercraft. Lambert explained that the Program Board's responsibility is to look at the proposal and to consider who they are serving and decide if this park plan will meet the needs of this area. In response to a question from Davis,Lambert explained that three Watershed Districts serve the City of Eden Prairie. It is their responsibility to manage the water quality and flooding in a particular watershed. The largest watershed in Eden Prairie is the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District. In the late 1980's the City of Eden Prairie petitioned the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District for the Smetana Lake Improvement Project. The Watershed District generally funds 50% of the recreation improvements for items such as trails,park shelters, etc. The estimated cost for this project is $150,000. The funding sources for this project would be cash park fees and Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District. Benkowski asked what the breakdown is in terms of cost. She questioned what amount would come from cash park fees and which portion would be the City's match. Lambert explained that the cash park fees is the City's match. The Watershed District will look at this project to determine what they are responsible for and whatever they don't fund will be funded from cash park fees. Cash park fees are collected by the City for development of the City's park system. Benkowski questioned if with the addition there would be adequate parking. Lambert responded that the existing parking lot would not be adequate,however, additional parking does exist with the office building parking lots. There will be no street parking on Smetana Road and would be signed for no parking. Moran asked if surrounding residents have had an opportunity to review the proposed plan. Lambert responded that the Parks Commission did review and approve this concept. Once this Board has reviewed the plan it will be forwarded to the Planning Board and a public hearing will be held before that Board. Residents and office buildings within 500 feet of the site will be notified of the public hearing. Yasiri asked if people still play horseshoe and she questioned if the proposed horseshoe courts were the best use of this property and perhaps additional picnic tables should be added. Lambert explained this would probably be something addressed at the public hearing. He explained that leagues do use other courts. At this particular location,there does not appear to be room for any other type of activity. Benkowski suggested that bocce ball may be a nice alternative to horseshoe courts. Lambert agreed and indicated final decisions on recreation facilities will be made based on public hearing input. MOTION: Davis moved, seconded by Teaver,to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Smetana Lake Park and trail plan and to petition the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District to initiate the second phase of the Smetana Lake Improvement Project to include the following: Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 4 i ■ Completion of the trail around Smetana Lake ■ Construction of a picnic pavilion and viewing deck ■ Construction of horseshoe courts and landscaping throughout the park AMENDED MOTION: Moran moved, seconded by Benkowski, to amend the motion to have bullet three read"Construction of horseshoe courts and landscapin throughout the park or other appropriate recreational uses". Brown pointed out that seniors do play horseshoe. By accepting the amended motion they are not only eliminating horseshoe courts but also the landscaping throughout the park. He said he could not vote in favor of the amendment. Lambert said he didn't think the intent of the amended motion was to eliminate the landscaping but that staff considers horseshoe courts or other appropriate recreational facilities. The intent is not to eliminate landscaping. Moran said his intent was not to eliminate or consider elimination of the landscaping throughout the park. He indicated that he would like to clarify his amendment. CLARIFIED MOTION: Moran moved, seconded by Davis, to clarify the amended motion to have the third bullet read: "Construction of horseshoe courts or other appropriate recreational uses and landscapin throughout hroughout the park". Vote was called on the clarified motion with all members present voting aye except Brown who abstained. The motion carried, 4-0-1. Vote was called on the amended motion as clarified with all members voting aye except Brown who abstained. The motion carried, 4-0-1. B. Review and Recommend: Memorandum of Understanding between Minnetonka School District 276 and City of Eden Prairie for Community Education Annual Fee Lambert explained that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Minnetonka Public School District 276 and the City of Eden Prairie was originally approved in the early 1970's. Within that agreement, the City of Eden Prairie agreed to pay the School District on a per capita basis an amount to be determined annually for the number of Eden Prairie residents living within the School District for Community Education Programs that would serve Eden Prairie residents within the Minnetonka School District. Previously, the cost to the City was $100 per year. In 2000,the bill was sent to the City Manager's office for an amount of$1,427. Minnetonka's Community Education Director indicated the current amount the School District is charging the City of Eden Prairie is $.50 per capita, which is based on the estimate of the current population of Eden Prairie residents within the Minnetonka School District. Lambert further explained that since the 1970's the City of Eden Prairie has developed an extensive recreation program that offers full recreation services to all residents of the community, including those Eden Prairie residents residing in the Minnetonka School District. In the late 1970's the Eden Prairie School District decided to fund the Community Education Program entirely from School District Revenue. The Eden Prairie School District has developed an extensive Community Education Program Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 5 without any City funding assistance. Lambert said staff is recommending that this Board reconsider the Memorandum of Understanding between the Minnetonka Public School District 276 and the City of Eden Prairie and staff feels that this agreement is no longer necessary. Enger pointed out that there are 2,800 Eden Prairie residents in the Minnetonka School District that will continue to receive Minnetonka programs as well as Eden Prairie programs whether or not the City pays this fee. Even though the City does not renew this agreement, there will be no change in the programs for those people living in the Minnetonka School District. MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Benkowski,to recommend that the City Council abandon the practice of annually funding the Minnetonka Community Education Program. The motion carried, 5-0. C. Review and Recommend: Eden Prairie Conservation Areas Survey and Management Plan Lambert explained that the reason the Program Board is asked to review and recommend the Conservation Areas Survey and Management Plans is because this is a recommendation for providing trail access to these conservation areas which is part of program needs. The plan covers seven different conservation areas in the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Over one-half of the City's park system is made up of conservation areas and these areas must be managed. Lambert explained that this plan strongly suggests that trails into these areas be provided with interpretative signage so the public can enjoy it and understand the value of what is there. This is an aging community and the types of activities residents demand over the next 50 years will change. They will be requesting trails for pleasure walking and bird watching and unless access is provided to these areas there are not many locations for interesting walks. Yasiri asked if funding for the proposed plan is within existing budgets or will additional funding be requested. Lambert responded that staff is not requesting additional funding at this point. Additional funding will be required to manage and develop access to these parks. A lot of the park trails and access areas are included in the City's Capital Improvement Program. Lambert pointed out that completion of this plan may take 50 years,however, they need to begin work on the high priority areas. Benkowski said she is aware that the City has already started to prepare a wetland inventory and she asked if this document was cross-referenced with that inventory. Lambert said the survey and management plan was correlated to the wetland inventory. The wetland inventory is one document used in the water management plan for the City. Those are working documents to develop a water management plan. Staff will be going to the City Council with a recommendation that a citizen committee be formed to i work with consultants and other governmental agencies to develop a water management plan. Benkowski said if this document is intended for public review she would like to see a cross-reference to the wetland inventory. It is a wonderful list but Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 6 doesn't mean a whole lot when looking at the documents separately. Moran pointed out that this proposed report considers specific areas although there are other areas within the City that have invasive types of plants. Lambert explained that this plan addresses seven particular conservation areas. There are 14 conservation areas in the City and 28 parks. The next step will be to go to Nine-Mile Creek and do a conservation area management plan within that Watershed District as well as management plans for some of the larger community parks. Benkowski asked if the City would be providing educational programs for each site or one for all sites. Lambert responded that it is their intent to have an educational program plan or story for each site. They may repeat a lot of the same information. Once access to these areas is obtained,they will be conducting tours and the public will be educated through those tours. Benkowski said it is important that they bring in other species from other states and she asked if this Board would be reviewing those educational programs. Lambert said they could,however,the programs will be developed on an on-going basis. The signage program could be brought before this Board to show them what will be placed in these sites as they are developed. Teaver said she realizes the long-range plan goes out 20 to 25 years. She asked how far back they would have to go to measure the success of this plan. Lambert explained that the sites would be monitored on an annual basis. MOTION: Teaver moved, seconded by Brown,to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Eden Prairie Conservation Areas Survey and Management Plan dated June, 2000. Motion carried, 5-0. D. Review and Recommend: Skateboard Parks Lambert reported that over the past five or six years the City has consistently received written requests from kids requesting the City to consider installing a skateboard park. Lambert said over the years he has resisted recommending a skateboard park because of liability concerns and because he was not sure it was just a fad. After monitoring what has been going on in the area and in other communities and the number of requests they have been receiving for skate parks,he has come to the conclusion that it is a long-term need and it is appropriate for the City to consider including a skateboard park in the park system at this time. Lambert said staff is not recommending any specific site. There are three or four different parks where it would work,however, they should look at locating it in a centrally located park. Staff is recommending a low- level park with ramps and jumps of 36" or lower. Insurance representatives have said this is no different than adding a piece of playground equipment and it won't change the City's insurance rates. A higher level park would require fencing and supervision. It would also be necessary to charge a fee for a high level park because of the added costs. Lambert pointed out that the cost of a low-level park is approximately$25,000 for equipment alone. Also, a problem with these parks located in remote locations is graffiti. For that reason, staff would recommend that it be located in an open area where there is a lot of public viewing. Staff would also recommend limiting the size to Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 7 i start and if necessary add on to it. Lambert explained that once a park is developed,it is likely that there would be a demand for additional skate parks in the community. Davis said he has concerns with liability. Skateboarders are not required to wear protective equipment and injuries are catastrophic. Davis said he sees no problem with a skateboard park,however,he would like to see strict enforcement on usage of protective equipment and is concerned about liability. This is not like any other sport the City sponsors. Lambert pointed out that he is not aware of any city having been sued by a skateboarder. Davis asked that staff look more in depth into enforcing proper equipment be worn. Lambert explained that they could enforce special equipment, however, this would require fencing, supervision and a fee to skate. Low-level parks do not have fences or supervision. The Board could recommend that the City not build a low-level park but only build fenced parks where the City has supervision and fences and then enforce equipment use. Teaver expressed concern with the proposed location across the street from the fire station. She felt this was an extremely busy intersection. Lambert explained that that is one of the sites they are looking at. In response to a question from Teaver,Lambert explained that the site for the skateboard park would have to allow for expansion space. They are at the very initial stage of considering a skateboard park and prior to doing any further work, they must first determine if this is something they want to do in the City. Benkowski asked if the City's liability would be minimized if a sign were erected stating you skate at your own risk. Lambert responded that it would not. Minnesota law makes it pretty difficult to sue cities for any accident that occurs in a park. Participants in a park participate at their own risk. The only way the City could become liable is if an attractive nuisance is provided or equipment is not maintained. Benkowski asked if the equipment would be maintained or inspected on a regular basis. Lambert explained that the City has a playground inspector who tries to inspect park equipment at least once a month. Brown asked if there have been problems with mixing the ages of the kids who use the parks. Lambert said he is not aware of any. A visible location should help with that concern. Yasiri said she has discussed this proposal with teenagers and their opinion is that skateboard parks would be heavily used. They would like to see a park similar to the one constructed in Coon Rapids and Shoreview. They felt the park in Chanhassen was too small. Lambert indicated that staff is proposing that they start with a smaller size and see how that is used and be able to add on if necessary. Also,prior to purchasing any equipment, the Parks Commission would probably hold a meeting with kids to see what pieces of equipment they would like to see and would be most used. Davis said he feels that the older youths could be coaches or instructors to the younger youths. This is a new venture for the City and it is also an opportunity to enhance the sport. Yasiri said they could look at bringing in experts that youths will listen to with Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 8 I regard to safety issues. MOTION: Benkowski moved, seconded by Brown, for continuance until additional information becomes available regarding issues of safety, location and implications of putting a skateboard park in. Lambert said he was not sure what additional information the Board is looking for. Benkowski said it appears that the information presented is somewhat vague. The initial memo received indicated that a skateboard park would be built in Round Lake Park but now there has been discussion indicating that staff is still looking at alternate sites for the park. There has also been much discussion regarding safety and whether or not certain safety measures need to be put in place. Benkowski said it would be nice to see more of a proposal with more specifics of these issues. Lambert explained that once a site is selected it would be up to the Planning Board to review that site. What staff is recommending is a low-level facility that does not require any supervision. Lambert said he still was not sure what additional information staff could present at this time. Yasiri asked if what this Board is to consider this evening is whether or not to recommend to the City Council the inclusion of a skateboard park in the City system. Details on location and safety remain to be determined and are not part of tonight's recommendation. Lambert said the site plan review process is part of the Planning Board's review. This Program Board needs to determine if this is a new service program that is needed for the City. Enger indicated that staff could provide additional information regarding establishing an organization that would help coach skateboarders. Additional information could be looked at to provide a better program. Vote was called on the motion to continue this item. Motion failed, 0-5. MOTION: Davis moved, seconded by Moran,to continue this item and to request that staff provide additional information on safet and considerations and investigate the potential for establishing a skateboard association. Teaver pointed out that they have already been advised that there has been no legal action taken against any other city or community in Minnesota with regard to skateboard parks. In response to a question from Brown, Swaggert explained that should this motion carry,this item will be brought back to this Board in September and will go to the City Council once the Program Board has acted on it. Vote was called on the motion with all members voting aye except Teavers who voted nay. The motion carried,4-1. Community Program Board August 22, 2000 Page 9 i VI. REPORTS OF STAFF Swaggert explained that with this agenda, staff did include a Letter of Transmittal. The Letter will be expanded to provide options for future motions. Swaggert brought up the issue of voting by the Board. Enger explained that discussion had been held as to whether or not the Chairperson of the Community Program Board should vote. The City Attorney advises that voting is the prerogative of the Chairperson. The Chair can look at how the item is moving and has the right to vote aye or nay. If it is a roll call vote the Chair should be called last. The City Attorney advises that the Chair not make a motion or second a motion. VII. FUTURE MEETINGS/EVENTS A. Community Program Board Agenda Topics 2000 Swaggert reported that staff has developed a list of agenda topics for 2000. She presented potential topics for the next four meetings. Additional details on the topics need to be worked on. It is staff s intention to give this group the proper foundation and knowledge base in the area of demographics and a basic understanding of the park system in general. A SW Metro Bus Tour to various City facilities is an option for the October meeting. Enger pointed out that this Board would have on-going items to discuss for their October meeting so they may want to consider scheduling the tour for a Saturday. Swaggert stated that staff would contact the Board members to determine if a tour could be scheduled in October. Obiazor reviewed the list of topics for future discussion and the resources for those topics. The Board will be reviewing the Adaptive Programs and the issues and concerns the City has been facing with providing medication and personal care issues. Arts and community events will also be reviewed and the philosophical approach will be explained on how the City does these events. Yasiri expressed her appreciation to Bob Lambert for all of the excellent information he presented to the Board this evening. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Davis moved,Moran seconded,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.