Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-14 Park Board Packeto e �mnrow�T// City of Edina EDINA PARK BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA * 1. Approval of Tuesday, April 9, 2002, Park Board Minutes. 40 *2. Fox Meadow Park Development. 3. Updates. A. Needs Assessment Survey. B. Edina Aquatic Center Renovation. C. Lewis Park Soccer Fields Renovation. D. Off -Leash Dog Park. E. Skate Park. 4. Other * 5. Adj ournment. *These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action. City Hall (952) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (952) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (952) 826-0379 Memo To: Edina Park Board. From: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: May 9, 2002 Re: MAY 14, 2002, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Tuesday, May 14, 2002, Park Board Agenda. 2. Tuesday, April 9, 2002, Park Board Minutes. 3. Needs Assessment Survey Recommendation to City Council. 4. Fox Meadow Park Master Plan. 5. Fox Meadow Park April 301h Meeting Attendance Sheet. 6. Minutes from April 301h Input Meeting. STAFF REPORT The following is the monthly staff report concerning each item on the agenda with the exception of Approval of the Minutes and Other. "Other" is listed on the agenda for other information items (not requiring formal action), last minute items that may come up between now and the Park Board meeting, plus, cover any other concerns of Park Board members and/or attendees. The original plan was tour the historic Grange Hall and Cahill School buildings in Tupa Park; however, the plan now is to visit those sites at the October Park Board meeting. Due to the crowd expected for the Fox Meadow Park issue on the Park Board agenda, we will hold the meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall. FOX MEADOW PARK DEVELOPMENT There were approximately 30 residents in attendance at the April 30 park input meeting. Not all those present signed the attendance sheet (copy enclosed). Landscape Architects, Candace Amberg and George Watson, from Brauer and Associates, were in attendance, as well as, our Park Board representative, Mike Dammon. Candace Amberg explained the plan to the audience and then began to field questions and comments. Brauer and Associate's summary of the input is enclosed. Park Board representative, Mike Dammon, did a wonderful job at the April 30th input meeting. When asked by the audience about the Park Board's position, he thanked those in attendance for being involved in the process and explained the Park Board's position on the matter. He also encouraged everyone to feel free to contact him with any further questions and/or share their views. Thanks Mike! In summary, there appeared to be a consensus from those in attendance that the current plan is a reasonable compromise for development. In fact, some are highly motivated to pursue fund-raising to develop the park and begin making improvements in the near future. If the neighborhood is serious about donating funds to speed up the process to get the property developed, I recommend that we ask the neighborhood for matching funds using our Developer's Fund. We currently have just over $170,000 in the Developer's Fund that is not committed to any project. The architect's estimate is between $180,000 and $200,000 depending upon the amount of property we leave in its natural state. The architect did a wonderful job of implementing into the plan the input from committee members. With some minor adjustments to the location of the proposed pathway, I believe that the majority of the residents are in support of the proposed plan. There are some who still would like to have a maintained access to the lake. There are also some who would •like to leave the property in its current state and never develop it. After working closely with the neighbors who live closest to the property, I believe we have a good plan in place. At the time of this staff report, I have not received any further petitions, letters or emails in opposition to the proposed plan. I believe that the architect achieved the objectives of the neighborhood committee: The committee has agreed by consensus to the following objectives in the design plan: • Create an atmosphere within the park that encourages interaction among the neighborhood residents. • Create a small gathering place for the neighborhood. • Save all natural desirable vegetation. • Provide a small playground structure for 2-5 year olds. • Provide a pathway within the park for walking and access to the small gathering area. • Provide a small open grassy area for passive recreational use (fly kites, throw Frisbees, play catch, etc.) • Provide trash receptacles. 2 • Install a park identification sign. • Landscape screening of existing utilities in the park. • Introduce buffering landscaping and plantings along Blake Road and Fox Meadow Lane sides of the park and throughout the park where needed to improve the aesthetics of the property. I recommend that the Park Board approve the park plan as proposed (copy enclosed) as the master plan for future development. I further recommend that, if the neighborhood is serious about raising funds, we accept their proposal and use the Developer's Fund to match fund raising dollars to develop the adopted master plan. Formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. UPDATES I will give the Park Board a verbal update on the following projects. A. Needs Assessment Survey. B. Edina Aquatic Center Renovation. C. Lewis Park Soccer Fields Renovation. D. Off -Leash Dog Park. E. Skate Park. No formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. OTHER This is an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns. EDINA PARK BOARD • 7:00 P.M. EDINA SENIOR CENTER APRIL 9, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Finsness, Mike Damman, Floyd Grabiel, Allyson Grande, Dave Fredlund, Karla Sitek MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom White, Ardis Wexler, George Klus, Jeff Johnson, Linda Presthus STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Susan Weigle I. EDINA SENIOR CENTER TOUR AND PRESENTATION — SUSAN WEIGLE The Edina Park Board went on a tour of the new Senior Center. Ms. Weigle indicated that the Edina Senior Center first opened in 1969 and was located in the TCF building. She stated that in 1972 the Senior Center moved to 7151 York Avenue and moved again in 1989 to the Edina Community Center. Ms. Weigle noted that she has been the Director of the Edina Senior for 25 wonderful years and still loves her job. Mr. Keprios stated that after leasing property for their Senior Center for all of those years, we now finally have a facility to call our own. Mr. Grabiel asked how often the Senior Center newsletter is mailed out to which it was noted once a month. Mr. Keprios indicated that membership fees are $15.00 a year whereby members receive a newsletter every month and are able to sign up for programs and trips before non-members. Ms. Weigle added that couples can purchase a membership for $25.00. It was noted that the majority of members are age 55 and older. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that what the City of Plymouth experienced when they built their own Senior Center is they tripled their membership within a couple of years. Mr. Grabiel asked what is senior dining. Ms. Weigle explained that senior congregate dining is sponsored by "Volunteers of America" and is located at 7151 York and its main purpose is socialization and an affordable meal. Everyone thanked Ms. Weigle. • II. APPROVAL OF THE TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 PARK BOARD MINUTES Floyd Grabiel MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 12, 2002 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. III. FOX MEADOW PARK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE — JOHN KEPRIOS Mr. Keprios stated that so far there have been two meetings with the Fox Meadow Park Committee (consisting of five residents) and the architect, Brauer and Associates. He noted that at their first meeting everyone gave their ideas on how they want the park to function and develop. Out of their feedback the architect was able to come up with a couple of different concept drawings for development. Mr. Keprios passed these drawings around and explained each one. Mr. Keprios noted that after the committee saw the concept drawings they had some excellent dialog, which lead to a combination of the two plans. They wanted a plan to show the greater neighborhood that does not include a path that leads down to the lake. They like the idea of a very small play structure along with a pathway that leads around the immediate area. Mr. Keprios noted that they were still undecided about including a picnic shelter. Mr. Fredlund asked about the pond to which Mr. Keprios noted that was debated but they thought they wanted to leave as much to nature as they could but yet beautify the park without disturbing a lot of what's in place. They would like to keep the desirable vegetation and eliminate the non -desirable. Mr. Damman asked what do the people say about that to which Mr. Keprios indicated they like it because they feel that's a benefit. They really liked the idea of buffering heavily along Blake Road. Mr. Keprios noted they had little discussion on the pond, however, they didn't like the idea of having too much water on site and thinks the consensus was to leave it and let nature take its course. Mr. Keprios explained that process wise they are sending out notices to the neighborhood to invite them to an input meeting and show them what the committee came up with and see what their thoughts are. He noted that after that he would like to take their collective wisdom to the Park Board meeting in May so the Park Board can zero in on whether or not to develop the park and if so what's it going to look like. Mr. Keprios commented that he would like to have a Park Board member attend the Fox Meadow neighborhood meeting with him on April 30th. Mr. Damman noted that Mr. White already spoke to him about attending and he indicated he would be willing to attend the meeting. Mr. Fredlund asked if the architect will also be at that meeting to which it was noted yes. Mr. Keprios indicated that the committee is aware that the Park Board has already made a decision to go ahead and develop the park some day. Therefore, staff was sent on a charge to come up with a plan that would be endorsed by the majority of the neighborhood. However, there will always be some people who will not be happy with what is developed. Mr. Keprios stated that he thinks that we are on the right track in that the park should either be developed and maintained or at least improve its aesthetics and 2 ultimately develop it. If nothing at all is done with the park it is the committee's • recommendation to sell the property to develop homes. The committee does not want to leave it in its current state. Mr. Keprios noted that he agrees it should be developed as a park. Mr. Fredlund asked were there any estimates of development costs to which Mr. Keprios replied they don't want to put an amount to it until they have a more final plan. Mr. Grabiel asked Mr. Keprios how the architects are selected and are they people who have previously worked on parks to which Mr. Keprios replied yes. He noted that Brauer and Associates have been around for many years and have designed a lot of the playground and park sites in Edina and throughout the state of Minnesota. They are very well known park planners and architects who are highly respected throughout the state. Mr. Finsness asked if there is anyone who is anti -park to which Mr. Keprios replied not in the small committee. He noted that they brought forward some challenging questions, however, everyone was on board with going forward with some type of development. Some definitely wanted more than others. He indicated that when they talked about playground equipment, they were talking about equipment for 3 to 5 year olds and nothing too big. Ms. Sitek asked what is the main issue that people have who are against this development. Mr. Keprios replied that it is basically that certain people do not want the public in their back yard. Mr. Fredlund asked how the City ended up with this piece of property. Mr. Keprios explained that it was purchased through a referendum back in 1975. He noted it was purchased to be developed as park land, however, the land acquisition bond passed by 45 votes but the park development bond failed by 105 votes. Mr. Keprios pointed out that currently our funding priority has been to fix what's broken first before adding more new additional park infrastructure. IV. EDINA AQUATIC CENTER RENOVATION — ED MACHOLDA Mr. MacHolda indicated that this past month the weather has not been favorable for construction at the Aquatic Center. He noted that the group that is working on the themed dry play structure and the ship's bow actually removed from the site and hope to return with favorable temperatures next week. Also, before the plunge pool can be poured there needs to be a few consistent 40 to 50 degree temperature days. Mr. MacHolda indicated that both the water slide tower and flumes are fairly complete but are currently waiting for nicer weather to go forward with other pieces of the project. He added that hopefully next week will be warmer so that they can really make some progress. Mr. Grabiel asked what is the dry play area going to be like. Mr. MacHolda indicated that inside the front cover of the 2002 Activities Directory is an artist's rendering of the structure. He explained that in the dry play area the focal point is a tree house that has a lookout platform. The tree house also has a bridge that goes to a second tree as well as it has two different slides. In addition a third tree will have monkey bars. There will also be a crawl through log with a small toddler slide and a large spider web that kids can climb on. Mr. Grabiel asked if the kids will be able to go between the pool areas and the dry play area to which Mr. MacHolda replied yes. The walkway will be heavily landscaped to help create the theme of an adventure. Mr. Grabiel asked if there is a concern regarding the tracking of wood chips or whatever from the dry play area to the pools. Mr. MacHolda replied that issue has been brought up and that is why the play area will have a wood chip type safety surface and the walkway will be cement. Mr. Fredlund asked how the engineering is going with that cable ride to which Mr. MacHolda responded they are currently working on resolving that issue. Mr. MacHolda indicated that both the kids and his staff are really excited about these new additions and improvements. V. SKATE PARK UPDATE — JOHN KEPRIOS Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the City of Richfield approved their first reading on April 23rd and shortly will have their second and final reading regarding their share of $80,000 for the skate park. He noted that they anticipate it will be successful. Mr. Keprios stated that they have already given the architect the green light to start the construction drawing stage. Also, he just signed off on soil borings so they have been out drilling holes for the new location. Mr. Keprios indicated he thinks that the skate park is going to happen and they are all moving fast and furious. He explained that their next step is to go before the City Council the first week of May to get their approval on the joint powers agreement. Mr. Fredlund asked about Bloomington to which Mr. Keprios replied that Bloomington has had their $80,000 in the bank for some time. However, they were supposed to raise another $40,000 like the rest of us through fundraising and so far have not been too successful. He commented that their Park Director seems to think they have enough money in other funds to draw from and are going to make good on their commitment. Ms. Grande asked if the people who do not live in Edina, Bloomington or Richfield will be charged a higher rate to use the skate park. Mr. Keprios replied that the people who live in Edina, Richfield, Bloomington, or are a member of the Southdale YMCA will receive a discount rate. Mr. Keprios explained that Greg Hanks from the Southdale YMCA and Jim Topitzhofer from Richfield have been sent on a charge to establish an operational budget that includes fees and charges. Mr. Grabiel asked if everything goes okay approximately when will the skate park open to which Mr. Keprios noted they are hoping to at least get a couple of weeks of use out of 2 it yet this year. It will take a few months to build it and the goal is to have it completed this year. VI. OTHER A. Lewis Park - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the renovation of the soccer fields at Lewis Park have been approved and construction will start May 15`h B. Walnut Ridge — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that bids for the renovation of the tennis courts at Walnut Ridge have been approved and completion is scheduled for the middle to the end of June. C. Fire Suppression System - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they just opened bids on the fire suppression system for the Braemar West Arena which came in at $77,000. This amount is a few thousand dollars under the consulting engineer's estimate. This item will go before the City Council for approval one week from tonight. D. Needs Assessment — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that one week from tonight Mr. White and he will be at the City Council meeting to talk about the needs assessment survey recommendation from the Park Board. They will inform the City Council what the Park Board is recommending as far as the needs assessment and how we came to that resolve and recommendation. The City Council will then give us a direction and we will report back to the Park Board at the May Park Board meeting. E. Braemar Golf Course — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the driving range and executive course will be open this coming Saturday and that the Fred Richards and main golf course at Braemar will open on Monday morning. The Golf Dome will stay operable until there is stable dry weather and then it will close for the season. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mike Damman MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:55 P.M. Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED. 5 o e • rN�bRroPATE9� lase REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor Maetzold and members of Agenda Item IV. D. the Edina City Council. ❑ From: John Keprios, Direct Consent Park & Recreation Depa ment Information Only ❑ Date: April 8, 2002 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Subject: NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY ❑ Motion EDINA PARK BOARD ❑ Resolution RECOMMENDATION ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion RECOMMENDATION: At their February 2002 meeting, the Park Board unanimously passed the following recommendation: "The Park Board recommends to not go forward with a park improvement referendum at this point in time. We should continue funding through the Capital Improvement Plan, Developers Fund and other available sources. Further, we should work toward a community wide needs -assessment survey to be implemented during the year 2004, at which time the park needs will be reevaluated and a determination be made as to if a future park improvement referendum is necessary to meet those identified and validated needs." INFO/BACKGROUND: Following the May 16, 2001, referendum, the Park Board formed a 4 -member sub- committee (Floyd Grabiel, Linda Presthus, Ardis Wexler and Tom White,) to discuss a strategy to meet the current and future park and recreational facility needs. The sub- committee recommended to the Park Board that the City should not offer another park improvement referendum until at least 2004 following the results of a community wide needs -assessment survey. A number of factors led the sub -committee and Park Board to that recommendation. 1. Decision Resource's recommendation to not offer another referendum for at least two years based on the percentage margin of the failed referendum of May 16, 2001. 2. The current Capital Improvement Plan is on track to fund a large percentage of needed repairs and improvements to existing City owned park facilities within the next five years. 3. There was significant opposition to having a City offered referendum make improvements to facilities on School District property mainly due to different geographical taxing boundaries. 4. The current state of the economy is not favorable to offering another referendum at this time. 5. More time is needed to explore and examine other options that may be available to provide safer and more playable athletic field space, additional gymnasiums, a community theater, and an indoor soccer facility. 6. Further study is needed to determine the community's level of support for recreational facility improvements. It is the Park Board's recommendation that we stay on track with the current Capital Improvement Plan, which is designed to repair or improve existing worn park infrastructure before adding new additional park facilities. If we remain on track with the current plan, by the end of 2006 we will have accomplished all but $3,217,757 worth of park improvements that were earmarked as referendum improvements on park property. The Park Board also recommends that in the year 2004 we should pursue a needs - assessment survey to determine the community's level of satisfaction with their recreational facilities and their level of support for additional facilities at that time. The last professionally administered community -wide needs assessment survey specifically just for recreational programs and facilities was in April of 1988. The survey, conducted by Frazee Research Associates, was a three-page questionnaire mailed to a random number of Edina residents. It is my recommendation that in 2004 we budget to hire a professional research firm to assist us with a needs assessment survey to better understand the community's needs, desires, and level of support for parks, recreation programs and facilities. I further recommend that the City Council empower the Park Board to serve as the review committee in establishing the survey questions, whether the survey become a written questionnaire or telephone survey. A comprehensive survey would cost between $15,000 and $30,000 depending upon the number of questions, amount of analysis, and number of households to be surveyed. 0 s m T ^` UVON aria A 'b - C m T ^` UVON aria A 0 0 O � W U � 0 � rel .�i Ip W �e Fox Meadow Park Master Plan City of Edina Fox Meadow Master Plan Project Summary of Fox Meadow Master Plan Public Process Public Meeting #1: March 6th, 2002 at 5:00 pm. Programming meeting held with the citizens group. We went over existing site conditions at Fox Meadow Park, reviewed prior planning efforts, and discussed potential programming ideas for the park site and what possible concerns existed. The following list was the expected project outcomes for the Master Planning project for Fox Meadow Park. Create a Master Plan that responds to the site topography and vegetation, surrounding land uses and the programming needs of the surrounding neighborhood citizens of all age groups. �9 Generate enthusiasm from the neighborhood citizens for development of the park. ag Obtain approval of the Fox Meadow Master Plan by the Park Board & City Council. Public Meeting #2: March 21St, 2002 at 7:00 pm. Planning meeting with the citizens group to review and discuss two concept plans prepared by Brauer to determine which items best fit the needs of the neighborhood and the programming ideas set at the first meeting. Some discussion items included the following: Liked the idea of having an open lawn area that can be used by the neighborhood for informal uses, such as flying kites, playing frisbee, etc. 119 The asphalt loop trail would be advantageous for small walks to avoid walking on the streets, as well as a place to walk with a stroller without difficulty and allow for a couple of benches along the trail for resting/observing. �.9 The small play area is more suitable for a park of such a small size and prefer having it more tucked into the natural areas of the lower section of the park. a Like the gazebo as it would improve the aesthetics of the park, as well as provide a shaded area to sit. l l Would like a more aesthetic landscape atmosphere within the park that plays upon the existing natural aspects of the site with some more manicured landscaping along the edges of the park (along Blake and Fox Meadow Lane). U The ornamental fencing along Blake would improve aesthetics, as well as safety. ® Screen the utility areas of the site (utility boxes, towers, etc.). It was felt that the wooded area of the site should be left undisturbed and needs restoration efforts (removal of undesirable species and incorporate additional seedlings for future growth). Site Meeting: April 29th, 1:00 pm. An informal site meeting was held at Fox Meadow Park where there were representatives from the City and Brauer & Associates who met with some surrounding residents who were not present at previous planning meetings. Some discussion items included the following: Some felt that the proposed trail as illustrated on the preliminary master plan graphic was too close to the adjacent residential properties and would prefer it moved closer to the interior of the park to maintain their sense of privacy and security. nJ Most felt that buffering of certain viewing areas between the residential properties and the park would be beneficial to improve the privacy. There was a general consensus that the landscaping in the park needed to be improved and they were favorable to having a natural feel to certain areas of the park. Everyone walked through the wooded areas to discuss the health of the trees and how to best improve upon the vegetation for future growth to replace the more mature existing trees. ® Comments were made regarding reducing the two trail accesses to the park down to one location right at the corner to improve the safety of children and those utilizing the park. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Fox Meadow Park Master Plan City of Edina Comments were made that a smaller loop trail that connects to the play area around the upper portion of the park would be beneficial for keeping the children in sight. Public Meeting #3: April 30th, 2002 at 7:00 pm. Public meeting held with the overall neighborhood citizens to review and comment on the preliminary master plan presented by Brauer. Some items for discussion included the following: .' There was a general consensus that improvements made to the park that would benefit the neighborhood was a better option than leaving the park as it currently is or allowing it to be sold for development. Keeping the trails and active areas towards the interior of the park and providing buffers from the adjacent residences was important for privacy and sense of security and was agreed upon. The asphalt loop trail with modifications to one access and a better connection to the play area was liked due to improved safety and the variety of age groups that it serves. Having an open lawn area for informal activities was liked. F: Having the ornamental fencing along Blake Road was thought to be aesthetically pleasing and would improve the safety of the park users. Improving the aesthetics of the park site was very important and landscape improvements would be one of the first things they would like to have started. L.I There were comments made regarding allowing a trail access to the waterfront through the utility easement. l Citizens with younger children were concerned about having a place for their smaller children to play and would like the small play area incorporated soon. P'I No built parking areas are wanted. There were many concerns about the timing of incorporating the park development. Many do not want to wait much longer to have the park improved. Overall, most of the citizens felt that the proposed plan met the varying needs of the neighborhood citizens while keeping the development to a minimum and will improve the environment of the park. Preliminary construction estimate for the Fox Meadow master plan: Description of Work Cost * General Sitework (includes removals, grading, erosion control & utilities) $30,000.00 Ornamental Landscaping (sod, trees, shrubs - budget amount) $25,000.00 Natural Landscaping (native seeding and plugs initial budget amount) $20,000.00 Ornamental Fencing Along Blake (approx. 330 If) $25,000.00 Asphalt Trails (approx. 1550 If) $12,500.00 Children's Play Area (play equipment, concrete curb and sand) $26,000.00 Gazebo Area (gazebo structure & concrete pad) $35,000.00 Miscellaneous Site Amenities (trash receptacles and benches with concrete $6,000.00 pads, etc. - budget amount) Development Subtotal: $179,500.00 10% Contingency (fees, surveying, etc.) $17,950.00 Development Total: $197,450.00 * Costs would be more refined in design development when a more detailed survey would be available to determine the extent of grading and utility costs. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Fox Meadow Park Master Plan City of Edina "' The estimate includes only initial restoration efforts in the natural areas in the western half of the park, and does not include costs associated with restoration improvements to the main wooded area leading to the lake. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. • FOX MEADOW PARK MEETING APRIL 30, 2002 NAME ADDRESS Roy and Kathy Jenson 5124 Blake Carol and Don Doughman 5228 W. Highwood Dr. dou hool umn.edu Cynthia McGarvey 5236 W. Highwood Dr. Amy Senser 5308 Evanswood Lane Kurt and Laura Nisi 5201 Blake Rd. Bill and Marva McArthur 6217 Fox Meadow Lane Bob and Karen Nelson 5117 Scriver Rd. Octavio Portu Sr. 5232 W. Highwood Dr. Angelina and Brian Lawton 5012 Oak Bend Jeff Werbalowsky 6000 Fox Meadow Lane Mike Waddick 5304 Blake Steve Gilmore 5025 Scriver Rd. Peggy Johnson 6229 Fox Meadow Lisa Beaupre Bernie Brown 6225 Fox Meadow N April 11, 2002 C >Ly of Winn Dear resident neighbor of Fox Meadow Park: On behalf of the Edina Park Board, I am pleased to invite you to a design input meeting for Fox Meadow Park. The meeting is scheduled for: TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDINA CITY HALL The purpose of this meeting is to get community feedback on preliminary design concepts for Fox Meadow Park. BACKGROUND INFORMATION At their December 2001 meeting, the Edina Park Board voted to proceed with the first step of improvement of the Fox Meadow Park property by engaging an architect to develop multiple development proposals based on community input. Although there are currently no funds available for the property, the Park Board would like to work towards a long-range plan that best serves the immediate neighborhood. Once a plan is established, the Park Board will know how much funding will be needed for future development. Your input into a long-range plan design is valuable in the planning process. To make efficient use of your time, some preliminary drawings have been established based on input from a group of neighboring residents who were willing to donate their time. Preliminary plans address a number of concerns and suggestions, such as: • Save all natural desirable vegetation. • Keep the park informal and casual while improving its aesthetics. • Create a small gathering place for the neighborhood. • Provide a small playground structure for 2-5 year olds. • Provide a pathway within the park for walking and access to the small gathering area. • Provide a small open grassy area for passive recreational use (fly kites, throw Frisbees, play catch, etc.) • Provide trash receptacles. • Install a park identification sign. • Provide landscape screening of existing utilities in the park. • Leave at least 50% of the park in its existing natural and forested condition. City Hall (952) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (952) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (952) 826-0379 There are nc Park Board If you have 7S' rely, hn Kepric Edina Park (952) 826-0, (952) 826-0. JKeprios@c John Keprios rom: Donald J Doughman [dough001 @umn.edu] Went: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:53 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Fox Meadow Park Proposal Dear Mr. Keprios, This letter addresses the development of Fox Meadow Park. We understand the Edina Park Board is meeting on May 14, 2002 to continue it's consideration of the proposal. We respectfully ask that this letter be available for the Board's review and be placed into the official record regarding the proposed development. We do have concerns, some of which were expressed by Park Board members in the minutes of the Board's December 11, 2001 meeting. Our major concerns are safety and privacy. The relocation of the path away from our property, as shown in the architects modified drawing, was step in the right direction. We would appreciate having further input into the actual path location and design if the development proceeds. At the December 11 2001 Board Meeting, Mr. White stated that "people might end up going through someone's yard to get to the park"(page 5). We share this concern and to address it, we ask that additional evergreens be planted on the southern border of the park abutting our property along side the evergreens presently there. We are requesting these additional evergreens for year round privacy. This request dovetails with the city's architect's plan to add these trees, as discussed at the April 30, 2002 meeting. nother concern expressed by Ms. Wexler at the December 11, 2001 board eeting is the "safety of the children" (page 4). We too are especially concerned that children may wander into our back yard and injure themselves. We are concerned for the child's safety, and are concerned that we could be held liable for such injuries. Therefore, we request that the fence being considered along the west side of Blake Road be extended east along the south side of the park to behind our property. Not only will this discourage trespassing and limit the potential for associated injuries, but it will also help insure our privacy. We hope we have outlined our concerns and our proposed solutions for those concerns. We feel these concerns are very reasonable and are consistent with the reservations expressed by members of the Park Board. To be clear, our ultimate support for the proposal is contingent upon these concerns being fully addressed. We feel that our safety and our privacy are as important as the neighborhood's desire for a park, and trust that our requests will be seriously considered. Thank you, Don and Carol Doughman 5228 West Highwood Drive Edina, MN 55436 • 1