Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-13 Park Board PacketEDINA PARK BOARD PARK TOUR SCHEDULE 6:00 P.M. — Depart from City Hall Lewis Park Edina Aquatic Center Off -Leash Dog Site 54" & France Ave. Weber Park Wooddale Park Utley Park 7:20 p.m. Return to City Hall EDINA PARK BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA * 1. Approval of Tuesday, May 9, 2000, Park Board Minutes *2. Off -leash Dog Site. 3. Results of Lewis Park Bandy/Soccer Field Study. 4. Updates: A. City/School Referendum Update. B. Grandview Square - Sherwood Park. C. Skate Park. D. Fishing Pier Grand Opening. 5. Other *6. Adjournment. * These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action. City of Edina City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379 r Memo To: Edina Park Board. From: John Keprios, Directr Edina Park and Recreati n Department Date: June 7, 2000 Re: June 13, 2000, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Tuesday, June 13, 2000, Park Board Agenda. 2. Tuesday, May 9, 2000, Park Board Minutes. 3. Feasibility Study Lewis Park Bandy/Soccer Field. 4. Letter from Perry Smith. 5. Letter and Map to Weber Park Neighborhood and Dog Owners. 6. Response from C.E. Brown. 7. Letter from Cristy Holden. 8. E-mail from and my response to Mrs. Janovy. 9. Letter from Kurt and Sarah Erickson. 10. Response from Jay Sandgren. 11. Letter from Richard Eichorn. 12. Letter from Linda Helland. 13. Response from Mary Watson. 14. Response from unknown source May 261'' 15. Letter from Darcy Winter. 16. E-mail from and response to Kevin Wilson. 17. E-mail from Joe Lewis. 18. Letter from George Watson. 19. Letter from Maria Fesenmaier. 20. Letters from John Menke to the Park Board and City Council. 21. Letter from me to John Menke. EDINA PARK BOARD 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAY 9, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Mooty, Scott Housh, Andy Finsness, David Fredlund, Karla Sitek, Linda Presthus, Tom White MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Herring, Floyd Grabiel, George Klus, John Murrin STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Wayne Houle OTHERS PRESENT: Gregg Bjork, Pete Anderson, Tom Bates, Barbara Hultmann, Josephine Kleiber I. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 11, 2000 PARK BOARD MINUTES Chuck Mooty MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 11, 2000 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. YOUTH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS A. Edina Soccer Association - Pete Anderson, President of the Edina Soccer Association, gave a brief history of the Edina Soccer Association. He indicated that it started in 1973 and was initially for grades 3`d - 12`h. The program is now open to pre -kindergartners through 12' graders. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this year there are more than 2,500 participants to which half of them are playing at the two youngest levels, 5 to 8 year-olds. There are 178 teams who will be playing on the fields this summer. Mr. Anderson explained that one of the advantages of having a lot of participants is that it allows them to keep their registration fees relatively low. Mr. Anderson noted that they also have a fall program, which is a smaller scale program, and runs for 6 weeks on Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Anderson explained that they have put some of their extra money towards improvements to help both the Soccer Association and the city continue to move forward. He commented that a few weeks ago the Edina Soccer Association was fortunate enough to accept the honor for the Mayor's Community Endowment Commendation Award for their contribution of irrigation systems at Highlands Park and Strachauer Park. He pointed out that this was an $8,000 project that they were able to fund with some of their surplus from last year. Also, last year they bought the backings for some of the soccer nets around the city because they were concerned with kids getting caught up in them and twisting an ankle, etc. He noted'that the Edina Soccer Association will continue to look for other opportunities to help make improvements to their program. Mr. Anderson read the Edina Soccer Association's mission statement. He stated that a lot of people ask what is the difference between the Edina Soccer Association and the Edina Soccer Club (traveling program) and basically what it comes down to is time and money. Participants in the traveling program are asked to make a much greater commitment of time and money. Mr. Anderson explained that the Edina Soccer Association has an all -volunteer board as well as all -volunteer coaches. He noted that they really stress to their coaches to work on building individual skills, they don't necessarily ask them to talk about strategy or set plays, etc. They want the participants to feel at the end of the season that they've had fun and they've improved their soccer skills and had a chance to play with some of their friends. It's a pretty low key league. Mr. Anderson thanked Mr. Keprios, Mr. MacHolda and all of the park and recreation staff for all of their help. Everyone does a great job. Mr. Mooty asked Mr. Anderson what are the biggest issues that the Edina Soccer Association faces right now. Mr. Anderson replied that it is finding enough facilities for the younger age groups. He noted that they are also concerned with the drop-off in numbers at the older age group levels. Mr. Anderson noted that another struggle for them is finding enough coaches and explained that currently they are trying to provide a standardized training session for coaches to attend to get comfortable with how to run a practice, get some skills and drills that they can transfer to their team, especially at the younger age level. Mr. Keprios commented that soccer is by far the largest sport in Edina. He also noted that this is the second time that the Edina Soccer has received the Mayor's Community Endowment Commendation award. B. Edina Basketball Association - Gregg Bjork, Vice -President of the Edina Basketball Association, indicated that the Edina Basketball Association serves both the traveling and house programs for Edina. Therefore, they need to find the difference between balancing fun and competitive teams and winning, etc. Mr. Bjork then read the Edina Basketball Association's mission statement. He noted that they struggle to balance the goals of fun, development and winning and there is a wide diverse range of opinions in the community in terms of how youth sports should be run. Mr. Bjork explained that the basketball program is for grades 151 through 9`". He noted that 1st and 2nd graders are in what is called the pee wee program and is co-ed. The Yd through 9' graders are mostly boys with a few girls playing. Mr. Bjork indicated that the traveling program is for grades 5`h through 7d'. However, last year they did have a traveling for 8' graders as well. 2 Mr. Bjork pointed out that this year they had over 1,100 participants, 990 were in the house league and 120 were in the traveling league, there were three traveling teams at each grade level (5" through 8t' grade). There were 123 teams in the house league, averaging between 8 and 10 players on a team, which in basketball is a lot. Mr. Bjork explained that one of their goals was to increase the number of events, which they did. Last year there were 16 events and this year they had 22 events. He noted that the registration fee this year was $75.00, which was the first increase they have had in four years. Mr. Bjork thanked Mr. Keprios, Mr. MacHolda and the rest of the park and recreation staff for all of their hard work. Mr. Bjork indicated that the Edina Basketball Association really promotes parent information sessions, they put on a coaches clinic and they have a very good relationship with the varsity basketball program. He commented that this year they offered three skills and drills clinics as part of the $75.00 registration fee. He noted that they also sponsored a three on three tournament at the end of the year. Mr. Bjork pointed out that the Edina Basketball Association put in the new basketball courts at Utley Park and also put in the basketball courts several years ago at Weber Park. In addition they have donated the new basketball boards to all of the schools and have also donated the concession stand, weight room and a few other items. He stated that the Edina Basketball Association will continue to make improvements to the community, whether it's to the school or city. Mr. Bjork indicated that this is the first year that the 7' and 8"' graders played games on Saturdays, which worked out well. He explained that they cannot get into the schools until after 6:00 p.m. and noted that they try to have the younger kids play at the earlier times. He pointed out that there is a 2 to 3 hour window in each one of the school gymnasiums in which they have to process 990 kids through. Mr. Bjork indicated that one of the challenges they are facing is their number of participants is up as well as the increase in the usage of gyms by multiple sports, especially by EGGA basketball which is growing by leaps and bounds. Currently the girls in-house basketball plays in the fall as opposed to winter to avoid some of the gymnasium issues. However, as their sport continues to grow there are more and more demands. Mr. Bjork stated another challenge for EBA has been in communicating with the schools. He noted that they are very dependent on the schools because they own all of the facilities and each school operates its own entity a little differently. Therefore, Mr. MacHolda and himself met with all of the principals and janitorial staff to help make the communication process a little better this year. Therefore, the biggest challenge that they face right now is finding enough adequate facilities for the number of participants who enjoy the sport. Mr. White asked if having 8 to 10 kids on a team is an optimum number to which Mr. Bjork replied yes, they wouldn't want to have less than 8 kids on a team. • Mr. Keprios indicated that one of the good things they are looking at with the referendum is negotiating a joint powers agreement which would include a centralized scheduling system so there would no longer be a problem with last minute cancellations and rescheduling like there currently is. C. EDINA YOUTH SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION - Josephine Kleiber, President of Edina Youth Softball Association (EYSA), indicated that their mission statement is almost identical to the Edina Soccer Associations. She explained that EYSA is a slow pitch organization and up until this year has always been a girls program. This year they are starting a co-ed league at the upper levels. She noted that there are basically three parts to the program. They have the in-house program for grades 1 through 8. They have three tournament teams which is for girls who play with the in-house league as well as they play in 2 to 4 tournaments throughout the summer. Lastly, they have two traveling teams (U-14 and U-16) in which they only participate in an intra -community league. Last year they played approximately 60 games. Ms. Kleiber explained that the reason why these other teams were started was because the girls wanted different levels of competition. Therefore, the in-house leagues provides a safe environment for learning the skills and having a good time. The tournament teams take them one step up where they begin to see what softball is like in other communities and it demands a little bit more out of their skills. The traveling teams are still at a recreational level but they are not quite an elite team. Ms. Kleiber explained the reason they started a co-ed league in grades 8' through 12`" is because they have tried to maintain an in-house program at this level but the teams were constantly disintegrating over the course of the season because the girls at that age had so many other things going on. They always had a core group that really wanted to participate but not enough to keep an in-house league going and that is why they decided to start a co-ed league. She noted that as far as she is aware of they are the only slow pitch organization in the state right now at the pre -senior level. Ms. Kleiber indicated that there are 18 volunteer board members and each member serves a three-year term. This year they are down a little bit in their number of participants because of some registration problems and a few other things. She noted that they average between 500 and 600 participants each year. Ms. Kleiber indicated that the EYSA has recently made some improvements at five different softball fields. She stated that they have also been putting in safety fencing at a lot of the fields. Ms. Kleiber commented that during the last three years EYSA has had some enormous improvements. Last year they went to ASA rules and went to an outside source for umpires, which have made things a lot easier. This has also improved the quality of umpires. Also, last Saturday they had their third annual skills clinic and noted that in the future they are hoping to institute more skills training clinics during the course of the year to help both the participants and the coaches. She noted that they do have a shortage of coaches at the older levels. Ms. Kleiber explained that they have also used an evaluation 11 sheet for each player at the end of the season to help keep the teams balanced for the following year and it seems to have really helped. Ms. Kleiber pointed out that one of the things they would like to see down the road is a batting cage, that is one area that they really need to work on. Ms. Kleiber noted that their biggest challenge is helping with the umpire association to make sure they are developing umpires and will have umpires down the road. Their umpires are basically 13 and 14 year-old girls and currently they are down to about 90% of what they were last year. Ms. Presthus indicated that with the potential referendum they are talking about building a football field on artificial turf and asked if EYSA would be interested in using something like that during the winter or spring. Ms. Kleiber responded that possibly the traveling teams would be interested but she doesn't think that in-house teams would. Ms. Presthus asked how long is the EYSA season to which Ms. Kleiber replied the in- house season starts May 10' with play-offs being held the week of July 10`", it's a fairly short season. The traveling teams had try -outs in March and they play through the end of July. Mr. Fredlund asked if there is any cross over between Edina Girls Fast Pitch and EYSA to which Ms. Kleiber responded they do get some coming over from fast pitch and some the slow pitch girls do go over to fast pitch. Mostly the contact they have with each other is on scheduling. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that EYSA used to fall under the Edina Girls Athletic Association and they grew so quickly in numbers that they became their own group and continued to use EGAA as a parent group and shared insurance costs, etc. Mr. Keprios explained that it used to be a daytime program but with so many single parent families and both parents working it switched to be an evening program. That is another reason why there is a shortage of fields. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the youth athletic associations are an example of the City's and this Department's greatest assets in the community which are our volunteers. They are phenomenal. III. PAMELA PARK STORM WATER RETENTION POND PROPOSAL Wayne Houle, Assistant City Engineer, explained to the Park Board a few projects that will be taking place at Pamela Park and Strachauer Park. The first project is the sanitary sewer project that goes back to the back-ups they had in 1997 where basements were flooded. He noted that they have already done two major sewer diversion projects and this one at Pamela Park will be the last one. These areas gather sewage that flow into pipes and different lift stations and then go into other districts. Mr. Houle then showed a presentation on the background of the sanitary sewer. He explained that with Pamela 5 Park they are going to take a portion of it and reroute it out of the city. He pointed out that it will not affect the playground area at all. Mr. Houle explained that in 1997 the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approached all of the municipalities within the watershed district asking to identify pipes that could potentially be used for regional pond use. He noted that they felt the Pamela Park area could be a potential site for some regional ponds. He stated that they felt it would be a good water quality project to re -divert the flow into three systems of ponds and then back into the wetland that exists in the Pamela Park area. Again, he noted that the area they are looking at is an unscheduled play area and feels it would be a good area to place these ponds. Mr. Houle commented that a group of neighbors who live along Pamela Lake have actually petitioned the city to help them out in rehabilitating the lake. The lake has filled up with organics, etc., throughout the years and is very shallow. He noted that some people who have lived in that area all of their lives have indicated that they used to swim and fish in the lake. Therefore, part of the project has been working with the DNR, Corp of Engineers and MTCA to dredge the lake. He explained they wouldn't dredge the whole lake but rather a portion of it in the middle to create more depth storage for the water, water quality, fishery, etc. Mr. Houle indicated that the majority of the funding for this is coming from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He noted that the only part that the city will be picking up is the nature trail that will go through the area. Mr. Houle stated that right now there is a public hearing scheduled with the Watershed District on July 27`' for this project. After that meeting it will go back to the city where they will decide on the project and from there it will be bid and then awarded. Currently, they are looking at constructing the pond in the fall of 2000 along with the dredging of Pamela Lake. Mr. White asked if they are going to stock Pamela Lake with fish to which Mr. Houle replied there has been talk about stocking the lake as well as putting in fish streams to keep the carp and rough fish out. Ms. Presthus asked if she is correct in saying that they will not be losing any playable green space to which Mr. Keprios responded that is debatable because some of the green space is already not in very useable condition. He noted that the area just north of 58`'' Street used to be a pretty good practice area that was never scheduled, however, since they put in the underground storage tank with above ground mechanical equipment in the middle of the practice area, the site has become unplayable for field sport practices. Therefore, this seems to be a good area for this and makes sense. Mr. Houle pointed out that Pamela Park used to be 2/3 wetlands before they started filling it in. Mr. Mooty asked if this will impact the skating area during the winter to which Mr. Houle responded that it should remain the same. Mr. Fredlund asked if the ponds could Col be used for ice skating to which Mr. Houle responded they possibly could but he never recommends skating on storm water ponds. Mr. White asked with the exception of where the ponds would be installed will any other trees be taken down. Mr. Houle replied there is a potential tree that may need to come out but they are going to try to protect it. For every tree that is taken out 2 to 3 trees will be planted within the park to replace every one that is lost. Mr. Houle indicated that with Strachauer Park they are working with Mr. MacHolda on the scheduling of the park. They may need to slide the soccer goals over a little bit during construction but there will not be any safety issues. He noted that will probably be done in June or July. Barbara Hultmann, resident, stated that she has lived in the Pamela Park neighborhood for 46 years and noted that most of the houses were established in the area before the park was filled in. She noted that there were hundreds and hundreds of truckloads of fill brought in because Pamela Park was wetlands back then. She noted that at one of the meetings they went to there were some environmentalists who were concerned about the plan because it's an unnatural thing that we are doing to the park. However, actually it's going back to somewhat of its original natural state. Ms. Hultmann explained that her concern stems from the fact that so many of her neighbors have had their homes flooded. She noted that she knows they are going to get a lot of relief with the sanitary sewer storage tank that holds 300,000 gallons. Ms. Hultmann indicated that she senses this is maybe being done because we are getting money from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District because it suits them. She wants to be assured that when those rains happen again there is a place where it can go. Mr. Houle then explained exactly how the diversion will work. Linda Presthus MOVED TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. Dave Fredlund SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. DONATIONS/MEMORIALS POLICY Mr. Keprios gave a presentation showing the different plaques, that are currently at Wooddale Park. He indicated that because of the current policy there are park users who are complaining that their parks are starting to look like cemeteries. He noted that the question is how long do we keep these permanent plaques in the ground and whose expense is it when they are worn out, broken or vandalized. He then asked how do we determine how many plaques are appropriate for a park. What dollar amount donation is worthy of a permanent marker in a park. He noted that currently any dollar amount is okay as long as we receive a bench or something the park can use. Mr. Keprios pointed out that some of the drawbacks with the proposed policy is that there is clearly going to be a loss of potential future donations. People won't donate in some cases because it's more important to them to have recognition than it is to improve the park. He stated that some people may say the proposed policy caters to the wealthy. Mr. Keprios commented that it's also going to be difficult to remove whatever plaques we currently have in the ground. Mr. Keprios explained that some of the positive things with the proposed policy is that it's going to reduce the number of future plaques. It's also going to give some temporary and permanent recognition to those who donate as well as serve the needs and interests of the future park users. We need to look at what is in the best interest of the park user and the community at large. Mr. Keprios indicated that in the policy he is proposing there are different categories at which people would get recognized, all the way down to $300.00. However, if someone wants a permanent plaque it would cost a minimum of $5,000. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he recognizes that this is a very sensitive issue. Again, he noted that he feels the permanent plaque issue is getting out of control and he is open to any suggestions from the Park Board. Mr. Fredlund noted that he agrees, when he walks around some of the parks they do look a little bit like a memorial garden in some places. Mr. Housh asked if there have been a lot of donations of a significant dollar amount such as $5,000 to $20,000. Mr. Keprios responded that typically those types of donations are not as common. The park benches and drinking fountains are a lot more common. Mr. Fredlund asked how much does a park bench cost to which Mr. Keprios responded approximately $300.00 for everything. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the City of Minneapolis has had a policy in place for the past several years indicating that no plaques are allowed for donations under $5,000. Mr. White stated that some of the other problems are that the plaques are wearing down and the benches are falling apart, therefore, what do we do about that. Mr. Keprios replied that he is dealing with those on a case by case basis. Mr. Fredlund asked if it would better if it didn't say "In Memory Of' along with dates of birth and death, but to just put the name. Mr. Keprios said that is the Park Board's call. Mr. White noted that sometimes it's nice to hear a story behind a certain plaque. Mr. Keprios stated that he is a proponent of preserving and promoting history but to dwell on the grief process and put it in our parks is where he has a problem. Mr. Mooty pointed out that the way the proposed policy is written is the Park and Recreation Director has the discretion of reviewing what's being written on.the plaques and use their judgment as to what is appropriate and where to place it, etc. Mr. White noted that if someone is donating $10,000 and have indicated what they want, the Park Board should probably give the final approval. Mr. Keprios responded that he would be very happy with that process. Mr. Keprios noted that the majority of donations are $300.00 or smaller. Mr. Housh suggested the donation for a plaque start at $10,000 and that way it would come up once every so many years. Ms. Presthus stated that we may lose a lot of $300.00 park benches that way to which Mr. Keprios replied yes, but the truth is we don't really need that many more benches. Chuck Mooty MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S PROPOSAL. Linda Presthus SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. V. UPDATES A. Grandview Square - Sherwood Park - Mr. Keprios commented that at the last Park Board meeting the recommendation was made by Park Board to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a new plan that used very little or preferably no park land to develop this site. He indicated that they have come up with a plan that will be brought before the City Council at their next meeting. He then showed the Park Board what the new plan looks like and noted that he feels it is a much better design and the park is slightly larger. B. Skate Park - Mr. Keprios indicated that he has been meeting with Greg Hanks from the YMCA and with the Park and Recreation Directors from Bloomington and Richfield and noted that they have been looking at different skate park sites. He stated that Edina, Richfield and Bloomington would help pay for a joint effort to build a skate park at the YMCA in which the YMCA would run it, cover all liability expenses, staffing, etc. Mr. Keprios then gave a presentation on what the skate park looks like in Hudson, Wisconsin and explained their project. He noted that they have had very few problems with behavioral issues. Mr. Keprios stated that when all of the information is put together he will give a formal presentation to the Park Board. C. Off -Leash Dog Site - Mr. Keprios indicated that he attended the Minneapolis Park Board public hearing last week regarding all of their dog sites. He then showed a map of Weber Park and showed the area which is owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department. He stated that he recently met with some representatives from the Minneapolis Park Board, the Park Director from St. Louis Park and some Park Board members and they agreed if this is done it needs to be expanded to about a four -acre site. He noted that Minneapolis claims they don't have the dollars to accommodate this right now. He noted that he also informed them that they would have to develop some parking, he then showed on the map where the parking could be placed. Mr. Keprios explained that what took place at the Minneapolis Park Board meeting was they put all of their different proposals up and voted on each one individually. He commented that the only two people who spoke to this proposal were Minneapolis residents who spoke very highly in favor of it. He stated that the Park Commissioners who attended that meeting were very sensitive to the other pre jurisdictions they have to deal with regarding this property. He noted that they have approved it preliminarily on their success at working with the three other jurisdictions. Mr. Keprios indicated that they did not charge forward without recognizing that they had to deal with our ordinances and meeting some of the demands that have been put forth. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if they feel a mailing should be done to the neighborhood so that we can respond to their comments and questions. We would essentially make it a public hearing to get their views on the subject and then have the X Park Board make a recommendation either for or against it. Mr. Keprios noted that he thinks this is a great opportunity and pointed out that people already use it as an -off leash dog site. He commented that people bring their own bags and garbage cans and it's immaculate. Mr. Housh stated that he thought kids rode their bikes all through that area to which Mr. Keprios responded that they do. Mr. Housh asked why it can't just be left the way it is to which Mr. Keprios replied that it's in the city ordinance that you can't let your dog run off of a leash. If a dog is running wild they are subject to a fine. Mr. Mooty asked if a path could be created outside of the gated area. If they are losing a walking path or a bike path he would think that would be a big issue for the neighbors. Mr. White stated that he thinks the Park Board needs to find out what the neighbors think about this. Mr. Keprios noted that in defense for the dog park there currently are no off -leash sites in Edina whereas there are a lot of places for kids to ride their bikes. Mr. Mooty commented that he was just wondering if there is a way that we could have both. Mr. Keprios replied that would be tough because ultimately the area will surrounded by a four -foot high fence. Mr. Mooty asked what is the reasoning for having it larger to which Mr. Keprios responded the larger the better to give the dogs their exercise and their space as well as avoid dog to dog confrontations. Mr. Keprios indicated that one of the opponents to a different dog site in Minneapolis was that they felt it was selfish of the dog owner to think they could have one special area just for themselves when it's a public park. Mr. Fredlund asked if this would be the only off -leash dog park in the Minneapolis area to which Mr. Keprios replied no. Ms. Presthus asked how many dogs could use it at one time and how much use will it actually get. Mr. Keprios replied that he hopes it will get a lot of use and that it will be self -managed. In other words, if there are dogs present, people will probably leave and come back at a later time. Mr. Mooty commented that if a mailing is done to just the neighborhood residents he would guess that 90% of them will be opposed to this idea. Therefore, we wouldn't really be getting the proper perspective of the Edina residents by just limiting it to the neighbors. Mr. White asked if Edina has a dog licensing structure and if so we could also send a mailing to the dog owners so that their comments can be heard. Mr. White pointed out that twice in the last four years residents have come before the Park Board asking for a special dog park in Edina, once at Bredesen Park and once at Todd Park. There is a desire out there by some of the Edina residents. Mr. Keprios commented that the Chief of Police does not fully support his recommendation because it could potentially result in additional enforcement calls for their department. Mr. Keprios stated that he thinks there would be even more headaches, however, if we owned the land and ran it entirely ourselves. Ms. Presthus asked if someone got bit by a dog whose problem would it be. Mr. Keprios responded as he stated in his letter he would want it to become a Minneapolis Park Board matter to enforce. It was decided that Mr. Keprios will inform the neighborhood as well as the dog owners of the current situation and they will be asked to voice any of their comments or concerns 10 at the next Park Board meeting. Mr. Keprios indicated that at the next Park Board meeting he will make a recommendation to the Park Board which would then go on to the City Council. Mr. Mooty suggested that he feels it needs to be pointed out that from the staff's perspective this is the most appropriate spot for an off -leash dog site. He noted that what he feels this does is it creates greater credibility to the process because if you really think about it if there truly is a need for one it basically comes down what is the best location for it. Ms. Sitek asked how much choice do we have in the matter to which Mr. Keprios replied that he would say we have a lot. They have to abide by our ordinances as much as we have to abide by theirs if we were in their city. D. Lewis Park Bandy Rink/Soccer Field Study - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the architect didn't get the Lewis Park soil boring results in time so he doesn't have a report ready to present. Therefore, it will have to wait until the June or July Park Board meeting. E. City/School Referendum Update - Mr. Keprios indicated that the City Council has voted to have a public hearing on Tuesday, May 16`h at 5:00 p.m. At that public hearing he will be giving a brief presentation followed by the architect, Pete Sieger, who will also give a presentation. Mr. Keprios pointed out that in 1975 there was a referendum with three questions on the ballot, one failed by 105 votes, one passed by 268 votes and one passed by 45 votes. The referendum in 1996 passed by 2,364 votes. Mr. Keprios commented that he attributes that to getting out into the community and informing the residents of what the initiative is and what is included. He noted that he doesn't see this referendum being any different, because people want and deserve to be informed. Mr. Keprios then showed where all of the money went on the last referendum. Mr. Keprios explained that of the 32 million dollar referendum that's being considered only 4.5 million would be spent on City owned property and that does not include what he sees to be all of their needs. He noted that he is still banking on the fact that they are going to have a capital improvement plan in place this year. Mr. White asked if the dollar amount listed is the same that was voted on at the Park Board meeting in February. Mr. Keprios replied that the only thing that did not get into the referendum that the Park Board recommended was the tennis court lighting. Mr. Mooty commented that the dollar amount was also bumped up because of the pool situation. Mr. Fredlund asked Mr. Keprios if he is comfortable with these numbers to which Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks they are rather high. He then explained that the architect stated in a joint meeting recently that he feels very comfortable with these numbers. F. Revised Park Board Meeting Schedule Reminder (Wed., Sept. 13). - Mr. Keprios pointed out that the September Park Board meeting will be held on Wednesday, 11 September 13`h because of the Primary Election being held on September 12`h. He noted that he is still planning on having dinner and playing putt putt golf. VI. TWO YOUTH PARK BOARD POSITIONS PROPOSALS Mr. Keprios indicated that he is asking for the Park Board's approval to go forward with his recommendation to fill the next two Park Board member vacancies with two youths. This would be in keeping with the "Connecting Kids Vision". Mr. Fredlund asked whose call this would be to which Mr. Keprios replied that it would ultimately be the Mayor's call. However, he would like the Park Board to make that recommendation to the Mayor. Ms. Presthus commented that there are two youth who sit on the Community Education Services Board and they do a couple of things, however, there is usually only one who shows up. She indicated that she thinks choosing them is really the key. Two youth could be two nothing positions or they could be really valuable. Mr. Fredlund asked if they would serve a full three-year term or would it be done annually. Mr. Keprios replied that they would be a regular Park Board member and would serve a three year term, however, you might suggest that it be only a two year term or try it for a year and see what happens. Mr. Mooty noted that he thinks it's a good move, his only issue is that by eliminating two senior positions would we have a broad enough perspective by reducing versus just adding new Park Board members. Mr. Keprios noted that he thinks 13 members is too many and with 12 members you end up with split votes. Mr. White noted that he has a problem with setting aside someone from the senior end. Mr. Keprios explained that the initiative here is to send a message to the youth community, we value our youth and hold them in high regards. Mr. Housh commented that they are fairly active users of the parks and it only makes sense. Mr. Mooty indicated that he thinks youth are less intimated if they have someone else with them, they might feel more comfortable. Ms. Presthus commented that she doesn't think a senior should be chosen because there are a lot of ongoing issues that keep coming up and it's hard to get involved no matter who you are. Chuck Mooty MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO HAVE ONE YOUTH AT THIS JUNCTURE AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T ADD ONE MORE AT SOME POINT BUT MOVED THAT WE ADD ONE YOUTH FOR A TWO YEAR TERM. Scot Housh SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Presthus asked to amend the motion to WHEN A PARK BOARD POSITION BECOMES AVAILABLE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII. OTHER A. Community Education Services Report - Ms. Presthus reported that they are still working on putting together a joint calendar that would bring all of the information from 12 the community together. The school district and city would still do their own individual brochures but this would be one that would include everything with key dates. Ms. Presthus reported that they are also still working on their phone system which would maybe spill over to the associations where all registrations, etc., could be done by phone. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Andy Finsness MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:55 P.M. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED. 13 REMINDER: THE PARK TOUR BEGINS AT 6:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL THE PARK BOARD MEETING BEGINS AT 7:30 P.M. AT CITY HALL 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. OFF -LEASH DOG SITE Representatives from the Minneapolis Park Board and I will be giving a presentation regarding the proposed off -leash dog site for the area of 541h and France Ave. • As requested by the Park Board at the May meeting, we have sent notices to over 200 households in Edina nearest the proposed site. We also sent approximately 600 notices to all those who have current dog licenses in the City of Edina. A copy of the mailing is enclosed in this packet. It appears from the written feedback that the majority opinion seems to favor the proposal. Edina Animal Control Officer, John Carlson, several park staff and I have given considerable thought to identifying other additional or alternate sites within the City of Edina for an off -leash dog park. The only two viable alternatives in our opinion would be the open area behind the water tower at Creek Valley Park and the vast open area in the southwest corner of Braemar Park. In our opinion, Braemar would be the better of the two mainly due to its non-residential location. I am not recommending pursuing these sites at this time. I would prefer that we use the 54th and France Ave. site as a test site. Edina Animal Control Officer, John Carlson, will also be present to answer any questions. As I have mentioned in previous staff reports, I recommend that this site be approved as a viable off -leash dog site for a 2 -year trial period. If the Park Board and City Council approve of this proposal, this may require a change in the City Code. I also recommend that all of the demands outlined in my letter to Joan Niemiec must be agreed to by the Minneapolis Park Board. Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. RESULTS OF LEWIS PARK BANDY/SOCCER FIELD STUDY As requested by the Park Board, I sought a third party professional to study the feasibility of multiple -use possibilities for the Lewis Park bandy/soccer field. The results of the Anderson/Johnson Associates study are enclosed for your review. As you will note, the consultant states that it is financially not feasible or prudent to pursue a multiple use scenario. In short, his recommendation is to use the field for one sport or the other because it would be unrealistic to expect a quality field of play for both sports on the same surface year round. I am still unable to predict when any funding would be available to renovate the field into a quality soccer field should the Park Board choose that approach. Based on the consultant's findings, I would not recommend a long-term course of action to expect to use the field for both sports. When funding becomes available to renovate the field, I will be recommending to the Park Board that the field be converted into a quality soccer field. The Park Board can make a decision at that time. Park Board action is not requested on this agenda item at this time. UPDATES I will give the Park Board a verbal update on the following issues: A. City/School Referendum Update. B. Grandview Square - Sherwood Park. C. Skate Park. D. Fishing Pier Grand Opening. Park Board action is not requested on this agenda item. OTHER This is an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns. Perry M. Smith 4544 Rutledge Avenue S Edina, MN 55436 612-929-4149 June 5, 2000 John Keprios, Director Edina Park & Rec Dept 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424-1394 Re: Proposed Off -Leash Dog Site Dear Mr. Keprios: Thank you for the information concerning the proposed off -leash dog site. Although I am unable to attend the meeting on June 13th, I am 1000. in favor of this proposal. I feel this is a wonderful idea, whose time has finally come! Yours truly, PERRY M. SMITH City of Edina May 19, 2000 Dear Dog Owner: The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Park. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking (off of France Avenue next to the well house - map enclosed). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so in writing to me at the return address on this letterhead. Sin rely, John Keprio , Director Edina Park and Recreation Department City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379 City of Edina May 22, 2000 Dear Resident of Weber Park Neighborhood: The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Park. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking (off of France Avenue next to the well house - map enclosed). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so in writing to me at the return address on this letterhead. Si ely, J6hn Kepri ,Director Edina Park and Recreation Department City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379 0.09 0 0.09 Miles PROPOSED LEASH -FREE AREA City of Edina May 19, 2000 Dear Dog Owner: r 7'= ,.1_ B ? ,J T7.1' TP --1. -1 D - r4' - 7� ... -cmc 4 re -,c---1 T.S. . cul- 1� put l Ilv 1.(li 1011 41"K D��ui ..t c!%4 l.Ii 1. waC :1— i` Sl•«�::4 .. 11 :D, .++ •�-:.b � t+i _ � on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Park. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking (off of France Avenue next to the well house - map enclosed). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so in writing to me at the return address on this letterhead. Sinc rely, --�John KepriDirector Wil Edina Park and Recreation Department /( �, yl �( V v� r ✓ b -r i< �J� 6� C. E. Brown 5029 Bruce Place 1r.av'P� Edina, MN 55424 �� c /� t /S / ; City Hall r fy v r/�ra, (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET J > FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379 May 25`x, 2000 John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation 4801 West 50`h Street Edina, MN 55434-1394 Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed off -leash dog park. I certainly support the concept of an off -leash dog park. During my years as a resident of Minneapolis, I often attended Park Board meetings to advocate for this usage. Having lived in Edina these past 5 years I would love to see a similar concept introduced in Edina. However, I object to paying an addition dog license to the city of Minneapolis. Both my dogs are licensed in Edina, and the animal control department in Edina is excellent, as are the other services within Edina. Why can't we have our own dog park here in Edina? How difficult/expensive would this be? I would much rather pay an increased fee for Edina dog licenses and have 2 off -leash parks within our own city. There are extensive wild life and swamp areas which could be converted to this use. I will be out of town on June 13''. Please convey my thoughts to the City Council. Cristy Muller Holden 5524 Malibu Drive Edina, MN 55436-1036 Dear Mrs. Janovy: Thanks for your e-mail. It is my opinion that all of my suggested demands must be met in order for this off -leash site to be acceptable in the Edina City limits. From what I have been told and from what I have seen, there are numerous dogs left to run free in that location already. I have to believe that a licensed, patrolled and advertized site will help control the existing condition. I could be wrong. If so, we reserve the right to eliminate the initiative after the two-year trial period. If it creates more problems than it solves then we will exercise our right to eliminate the site. Thanks for your input. Sincerely, John Keprios From: jennifer janovy[SMTP:jjanovy@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:26 PM To: JKeprios@ci.edina.mn.us Subject: proposed dog park Dear Mr. Keprios, My husband and I hope to attend the June 13 meeting regarding the proposed off -leash dog park on land adjacent to Weber Field. We have some questions in case we can't attend. A couple of weeks ago you e-mailed me a list of conditions that you sent to Joan Neimac. These conditions were well thought through and would go far toward making the park safer and less of an impact on neighbors and the City of Edina. Will any of these conditions be waived if an agreement is entered in to? Has the City of Minneapolis set aside more money for the project (at the public meeting they said they had only $100,000 dollars for all six proposed dog parks. That probably wouldn't pay for fencing for all six sites, let alone the kind of development this site needs). Even if done right we have some reservations about the park in this location. As you know, there are two elementary schools—Calvin Christian and Golden Years—next to the park. Having unleashed dogs and so many children so close together will have its risks. Advocates for the park will say that off -leash behavior outside of the dog park will decrease, but it's unlikely in this case. People will continue to let their dogs run free in Minnekanda Vista and Weber Field—and even more people will be attracted to the park once it's publicized. Also, this park, probably unlike the other proposed off -leash parks, is wooded. When dogs are running free they will often be out of their owner's view. For safety, off -leash dogs should always be within view --an impossibility at this location. And finally, traffic through our neighborhood will increase with this park—even if off-street parking is added on France. The Weber Field and Calvin Christian lots are just so much easier to get in and out of than parking off of France would be. Also, many people have already developed the habit of parking in these lots to go into the woods and it's unlikely that habit would change. We would prefer that the land in question not be made into an off -leash dog park, but if it is, we hope the City of Edina will enter into an agreement only if all of the conditions put forth in your letter to Ms. Neimac are met and the two schools are comfortable with it. Thanks for your time. Please let me know how some of the concerns brought up here will be addressed. Sincerely, Jennifer Janovy Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at httr)://www.hotmail.com Kurt & Sarah Erickson 4500 Claremore Court Edina, Minnesota 55435 June 4, 2000 John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department 4801 West 50' Street Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394 Off Leash Dog Park Dear Mr. Keprios, As dog owners, we strongly support the off leash dog park. Thanks very much for asking. Very truly yours, Kurt Erickson Very truly yours, Sarah Erickson Mai 27 00 09:47a AST Preferred Customer 6129388577 P.1 rpt H'11 May 19, 2000 Dear Dog Owner: City of Edi Ila The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input lin Issue,; reldtt;d to t c; developrnccnt v the proposcd Vti"t�.:iJ5 c1V5 1 -al Yi C�.J :.! S. ill l\. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking toff of France Avenue next to the well house - map encloscd). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board .nneeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so in writing to me at the return address on this letterhead. Sinc rely, J i Kepno , irector Edina Park and Recreation Department (612) 927-8861 6223 France Ave. So. Edina, Minnesota 55410 MEES, LLC. May 30, 2000 Mr. John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Edina City Hall 4801 West 501" Street Edinm, Mn 55424-1394 Dear Mr. Keprios, am very much in favor of the of the proposed off -leash dog site proposed adjacent to Weber Park. I would definitely be willing to purchase a license for the same. My only other comment is that you need more then one of these areas in Edina. To expect everyone in the city to come to one location that is not convenient for everyone is extremely unrealistic. have an English Springer who has to be able to run on a daily basis. I am relegated to taking my, dog at night, to run in the parks. I have to do that so I can keep from getting picked up from one of your over zealous park rangers. They mean well but do not understand that certain dogs have to run on a daily basis in spite of the law. I have no problem picking up after my dog, as do most good dog owners. I pay taxes too and want some more areas for dog runs in the city other then the one proposed. Certainly, the City of Edina is big enough to support more then one area. Sincerely, ./ �' �J'A- Richard E. Eichhorn Resident Real Estate Executive Services, specializing in all facets oCcanituercial real estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linda Helland 5720 McGuire Road Edina, Mn 55439 June 2, 2000 Dear Minneapolis Park Board: I am writing to you in regard to the proposal for an off -leash dog site on the property near 42nd and France Avenue. It is a site I am very familiar with, as I have been walking a succession of family dogs there for almost 20 years. I am a supporter of off -leash areas in general theory. However, I am opposed to the formal designation of this site for that purpose at this time. I think that the city should move more cautiously in this case and table the proposal until adequate assessments are made of the three sites designated earlier this year. I think, further, that the unique character of the 42nd and France site warrants special consideration. Some of the potential problems that concern nearby residents are parking, increased usage by higher numbers of people and dogs, a broader mix of age groups which could very well lead to demands for additional and multiple use facilities, regulatory problems, the need for increased park personnel to regulate and maintain the area, and the resultant expense. The proposed site also offers one of the few relatively wild areas easily accessible in the city. As such, it offers a wide range of topography, flora, and wildlife3 all of which would suffer under the proposed plan. Additionally, the proposed size of the fenced in off -leash area is a fraction of the total acreage of the site. If you build it, they will come --in great numbers for a too small space. I urge you to study the other sites first to understand the unforeseen problems that always accompany a new effort. Please do not approve this plan as written at this time. Once this area is "improved", its value as a natural area will certainly decrease -irrevocably. Perhaps the planned, planted, fenced sites with parking areas are best placed on park land that has already been in use in more highly urbanized settings or in areas which are intended to meet all the recreational needs of all the people. Please do not pass this proposal . Sincerely, ��47�4 �" Linda Helland cc: Edina Park and Recreation Depatment Edina City Council Minneapolis City Council City of Edina May 19, 2000 Dear Dog Owner: The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Park. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street i arkin off of France Avenue next to the well house - ma enclosed). The off -leash dog P g� P ) g site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents �j • would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: 1 TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 V� �n 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so In writing to me at the retuni address on this letterhead. Sin rely, Jdfin Keprio ,iD rector Edina Park and Recreation Department wa--fao .S -q/7 .bon"'a�— aoo4w 4d" na /-Tnl City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379 City of Edina May 19, 2000 Dear Dog Owner: T'he Edina Park Board and Edi -1-1.9 Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Parte. The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking (off of France Avenue next to the well house - map enclosed). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestions, please do so in writing to me at the return address on this letterhead. Sin rely, J Keprio , irector Edina Park and Recreation Department A,7 4-x4 a,4 --e - City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 )(�a m"z�4 s (X (6 927-886126-039 � FAX (612) 826-0390 TDD (612) 826-0379 J 'fit I" -AAO 5 ••'"q #� M C 31 74 n law _ Mw . --7,�f4 k k n 'A IRV'+4r' . �� s -• "' P ,�' #'SsiPb � � ,. may_ y P s � � y� . AL e I��` _'i *�^, j a. y sty y� •.�ixaT t .` K + ., � .�' "� . � t ti� �� • � � .: �w �, i'i�, t tr , t �n - � ,� , 4 ��, �� <,•, � �: � i g.� y= rye R+s, �, � � * + � r . �► � r... Y et" „� elff r. �c �p ! •. ^yw,+�•y>°�t, a+'. - r N. j7t ,,CALVIN 777 4ik,� t r "'^ .� "� s�+1ij • - .. ;�'51,_ > s za . ;}`a"a _ �:.. a �&,� �'"'#:: a `s a m ",r?� '� ,. _.. iy�'t�; fiaf.b., q'rf4[ ,3 I 4 Q CTM . ZI _ @ �. y N s� w T , WEBER PARK ' x.d ..v �3• z t 4 x y q+ Pi "�. . t AtiQ t '�” 'i ! e'$'y! _ d[ " U7.l1•1LOol :3m»:r±V.y:e2:A =1 =ff,�l hDA :r r Darcy E. Winter 5112 Indianola Avenue Edina, MN 55424 May 27, 2000 Mr. John Keprios Director Edina Parks & Recreation City of Edina 4801 West 50'h Street Edina, MN 55424-1394 Re: Proposed Development of Off -Leash Dog Park Minneapolis Public Works Site Edina and St. Louis Park, MN Dear Mr. Keprios, I am an Edina resident and am unable to attend the Edina Park Board Meeting on June 13, 2000 due to a scheduling conflict. I did though wish to express my interest in seeing an Off -Leash Dog Park created at the proposed site, the City of Minneapolis Public Works Site which is located off 40`b and France, a portion of it being in Edina and a portion in St. Louis Park. I would also like to see the City of Edina Park and Recretaion Department consider creating an Off -Leash Dog Park on its own. I think this is an asset to the community and another resource aimed at community residents, some of whom would use this park and do not use other parks, but still participate in the overall cost of park and recreation programs. Please share my views with your Board and Council, as appropriate. Cordially, LIM Darcy E.Vinter DEW/mmi John Keprios To: Pufy2l@aol.com ubject: RE: (no subject) Hello Kevin: Thank you for your e-mail. That is great that you guys are willing to work with me to establish a skate park in Edina. As for the bikes, that decision has not yet been made, however, I think it would be a good idea to accomodate bikes in the proposed skate park. Stay in touch and thanks again. Sincerely, John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department 952-826-0430 -----Original Message ----- From: Pufy21@aol.com [SMTP:Pufy21@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 1:38 PM To: jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us Subject: (no subject) Hello my name is kevin wilsdon(brother of david wilson) my brother has contacted you and u contacted him back. by the way we are s0000 sorry that we have not contacted you in a long time. but any way, i think it great that u guys are biulding a unsupervised skatepark. and i would like to now if bikes could cum in the skatepark. You can tell me weather bikes can come in and any other info uyou have by contacting me at Pufy21 @aol.com John Keprios From: WOWGOALIE@aol.com ent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 1:49 PM 1,0: jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us Subject: Info on skate parks HI my name isjoe lewis. I am an edina resident. I would like some info on the new skatepark. I would also like to help with the plannig of it and bring some ideas to u. It would also help your park if u can allow bikers in the park. So wouldl u please email me back asap. I got your name from people so this idea is getting reall popular. Thanks for your time Joe Lewis P.S We would like to spread the word. George Wm. Watson 5,417 Doncaster Way Edina, Minnesota 55436 Phone 952-922-6562- Hm. E-mail georgc&Dbrauer-Itd.com Phone 952-238-0831 Ext 10 -Wk. May 23, 2000 John Keprios, Director Parks and Recreation Department City of Edina 4801 West 50`h Street Edina, MN 55424-1394 Re: Edina City Parks John, I'd like to thank you for the time you spent the other day discussing with me my concern over the level of maintenance of our city parks and the budget and policy restrictions that your department is operating under. Please be sure that I understand the difficulties that the combination of budget constraints and policies have placed your department under. The fact that conditions this spring brought this situation to everyone's attention was, as you mentioned, inevitable. I'm sure that you, the park board and the council are hearing from numerous residents all with complaints related to the condition of the turf in the city parks. Some of these complaints probably are coming from the various sports associations and relate to the quality and by inference, the safety of the athletic fields. Other complaints are coming from park neighbors complaining about the appearance of the turf and it's detrimental effect on their property value. These are valid concerns. The policy that eliminated the use of herbicides in city parks was, I'm sure, a knee jerk reaction to citizen concern over the perceived environmental effects of using such materials. The effects of this policy are now beginning to be apparent Perhaps it's time for the city to review this situation. Since we now know the results of this policy, can we find an alternative approach to this complex problem, keeping our concern for the environment and safety of our citizens as a top priority? Other communities in the metropolitan area have this same issue to deal with and are trying innovative approaches. Do we need to have every square inch of park land in manicured turf? Are there areas in each park were turning a portion of the land to a more natural, `no mow', situation would not only eliminate the need for chemical applications to keep them looking nice but, would also provide habitat and interest to our park land and reduce the ongoing cost of upkeep? Turf areas that are intended to support athletic or other intense use activities will always remain manicured. Let's not fool our selves into believing that this can happen without a management program that relies on the use of modern turf management techniques. With a holistic study of the cities park land and current maintenance requirements, I think the city could concentrate its precious resources in those areas where it is actually required and achieve the desires of the diverse interests in our park land. Due to intense use, the condition that many of the cities athletic fields are in makes them unsalvageable without a heavy George Wm. Watson 5417 Doncaster Way Edina, Minnesota 55436 Phone 952 922 6562 Hm. E-mail george@brauer-Itd.com Phone 952-238-0831 Ext 10 -Wk. investment of redevelopment monies. The fields at Braemar are an excellent example of well kept athletic fields. Fields that provide it's users and guest teams with safe, convenient and pleasant place to play. This wouldn't be the case if the city hadn't invested redevelopment dollars into their rejuvenation a few years ago. Could it also be that the dollars spent to correct safety and drainage problems at this facility are now being recaptured in maintenance and operations savings? This savings should be measured in cost pre user hour not just on a per field basis. This sort of analysis would point to the need to invest periodically in our facilities and how the dollars would be recaptured in O&M savings, to say nothing of the greater satisfaction we would all get from knowing that we were maintaining a legacy for future generations. I know that the city is currently working to better the fields at Pamela Park, while returning portions of the park to a more natural state. You and the city are to be commended for this effort. Let's apply this same logic to the system as a whole. Thanks again for letting me bend your ear on this matter. I'm not criticizing you or your department as much as I am asking the city and it's citizens to become more pro active in searching for better ways of maintaining our park land. Sincerely, George atson ...... - - ----- maria fesenmaier 05/26/00 To whom it may concern, Please submit the attached documents for public record. We are opposing portions of the proposed referendum - affecting the rec facilities, Kuhlman field, etc. Thank you for your attention, Maria Fesenmaier 5713 Concord Ave Edina MN 55424-1538 HERE IS A SAMPLE OF THE FLYER WE HAVE PASSED OUT TO HUNDREDS OF. RESIDENTS IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SITE IN THE PROPOSAL. The referendum includes a 3 -gymnasium Fieldhouse and a removeable dome for Kuhlman Field. While the need for additional sports facilities in Edina is evident, THE COMMUNITY CENTER AREA IS TOO SMALL FOR A YEAR-ROUND SPORTS COMPLEX!!! CAN'T WE FIND A SITE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK? ACCESS TO THE AREA IS PRIMARILY THROUGH YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. DO YOU WANT MORE CONGESTION? DO YOU WANT CARS & BUSES STREAMING DOWN YOUR STREET UNTIL 10 OR 11 P.M. EVERY NIGHT? DO YOU WANT YO' � � lPROPERTY TAXES TO GO UP WHILE YOUR PROPERTY'S VALUE GOES DOWN? The City Council has NOT considered the impact of their proposal on our streets and neighborhoods. No environmental impact studies have been done. Yet every school and park improvement has been tied to a 3 gymnasium fieldhouse and improvements to Kuhlman Field at the Community Center site. There is NOT adequate parking for the current programs at the current facilities. One hundred+ additional parking spaces wouldn't alleviate the current parking shortage during special events. THERE IS NO FREEWAY ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER COMPLEX COMING FROM THE SOUTH OR THE WEST---- EXCEPT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!!I YET THERE IS NO MONEY ALLOCATED FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY, INCREASED ACCESS, OR EVEN STOP LIGHTS AT THE BENTON AVENUE EXIT & HIGHWAY 100. AND THEY WANT TO CRAM A SPORTS COMPLEX BETWEEN 2 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND THEN RENT THE FACILITIES OUT TO ANYONE IN THE STATE FOR PRACTICE AND STATE TOURNAMENTS. WILL OUR CHILDREN BE SAFE??? PLEASE WRITE TO THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE MAY 30TH. There will NOT be an opportunity for the public to speak at this hearing. Your concerns must be written statements in order to be entered into the g_ublic record. Address your letters to: Edina City Council City Hail 4601 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 . TSOUTHVIEW LANE b s NEW v' ! PARKING 9 LFOOTBAL 1- c: z + EDINA '1ELD _ _ I COMMUNITY j zl I CENTER i FI i _F SOUTHVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL B3 B2 �t I 1WCART�Y FIELD t , i �. e a El NI E f. \\ _''-a • - / it CONCORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RESIDENTIAL AREA [ SCHOOL RD. PROPOSED EDINA COMMUNITY CENTER CAMPUS PLAN The Proposal (turn pagc over to see map): A list of items, totaling $31 million, including: • A 3-*,•mnasium fieldhouse with a running track connected to the Edina Community Center (ECC), to be built on the current south parking lot (see letter "D"). • New south parking lot on current site of McCarthy Field_ between 34`s Street and proposed fieldhouse (see letter "B1"). • Remw4able dome and artificial grass on Kuhlman Field for year-round public use (see letter -X'), • Renovations to the 770 -seat auditorium in the ECC (sett letter `'K"). • A new gymnasium at Concord Elementary School with a shell for classroom space underneath. The School District has stated that it will address Concord's classroom shortage regardless of whether the referendum goes forward (see letter "E"). The Money: • The funds for construction will be raised through a property tax increase. • Edina School District will pay to operate and maintain all ECC facilities. s NEW v' ! PARKING 9 i FI i _F SOUTHVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL B3 B2 �t I 1WCART�Y FIELD t , i �. e a El NI E f. \\ _''-a • - / it CONCORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RESIDENTIAL AREA [ SCHOOL RD. PROPOSED EDINA COMMUNITY CENTER CAMPUS PLAN The Proposal (turn pagc over to see map): A list of items, totaling $31 million, including: • A 3-*,•mnasium fieldhouse with a running track connected to the Edina Community Center (ECC), to be built on the current south parking lot (see letter "D"). • New south parking lot on current site of McCarthy Field_ between 34`s Street and proposed fieldhouse (see letter "B1"). • Remw4able dome and artificial grass on Kuhlman Field for year-round public use (see letter -X'), • Renovations to the 770 -seat auditorium in the ECC (sett letter `'K"). • A new gymnasium at Concord Elementary School with a shell for classroom space underneath. The School District has stated that it will address Concord's classroom shortage regardless of whether the referendum goes forward (see letter "E"). The Money: • The funds for construction will be raised through a property tax increase. • Edina School District will pay to operate and maintain all ECC facilities. maria fesenmaier ,ent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 6:11 PM o: 'jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us' Subject: referendum Importance: High City Council Members, Planning Taskforce and Professional Team, Mr. Mayor: I am a tax paying resident of the City of Edina. We have owned the home for 47 years, since it was built, in 1953. It was one of the very first in the neighborhood, directly across from the parking lot, adjacent to the Southview Middle School, on Concord Avenue. We watched the school and surrounding parks being built. We voted our tax dollars to do so, for the better of our choice of life, the environment, and most importantly - OUR CHILDREN. We, and most of our neighbors, were informed two night ago, that a meeting was held to determine the next course of action in a vote to create and complete a study for the new recreational facilities and renovation to surrounding fields, buildings, school pool, etc... I can not tell you how upset and irate we all were to find that this meeting was less than publicly announced (swept quietly under the rug) and that we only have until 5/25/00 via mail to respond. As you should know, dozens of us canvassed the surrounding area passing out flyers to inform all of those who were not aware of the issues. Of the hundreds of homes we contacted -only two were in favor of the changes. They were both retired folks planning on moving any way. i"he main purpose of this message, is to inform you of our position on this proposed referendum. We do not oppose the entire package. We support several issues with minor modifications. Please see the below items of concern, and add our response to the public record. Also please note, that we do plan a rally, continued involvement since you are asking us to pay for the changes/upgrades, and possible legal intervention if necessary. Thank you for your time and attention. Many of us look forward to seeing you on 05/30/00 at the meeting, and please remember our concerns affect our decisions at the next voting poll. Maria Fesenmaier 5713 Concord Avenue Edina MN 55424 612.922.6734 (h) 612.591.4106 (w) maria.fesenmaier@wcom.com 'LEASE TAKE US SERIOUSLY, WE WANT TO BE HEARD f. BEFORE TOO MUCH TIME - ENERGY - AND MONEY IS SPENT UNWISELY. 1) Dome over a new Kuhlman field Not in this neighborhood, not year round. Build it somewhere else. Since it is to be used for other scholastic events -build it on all the extra non-residential grounds around the current Edina High School. Or how about over by Braemar arena?They will have the room and parking and highway access. Do not build it in a highly populated residential area that needs more: roads, sidewalks (handicap accessible), city cleanup service, Police enforcement manpower availability. traffic control, access to highways, sufficient parking already in place. Do not make our streets unsafe - year round - for our children. With increased traffic, (which is already getting speeds that still need slowing down), and multiple sporting events -we are inviting fast driving, congestion, tailgating, reckless or unsafe drivers that love to drink and party in association with sporting events. Check the police statistics. 2) Upgrading the gym facilities for Concord Elementary School: Not a bad idea -those students could really benefit but we need actual numbers and design plans to decide. 3) Upgrading the Southview School pool: Not a bad idea -those students could really benefit but we need actual numbers and design plans to decide. 4) 770 Seat auditorium: Only if it is a secured facility, and if we have actual numbers and design plans to decide -but probably not. Build it by the dome you want. They will have the room and parking and highway access. 5) Artificial turf: You are posing a greater threat to the safety of our children. If your proposed vendor say's it is safe -I want to see tests and results and a second opinion from at least 5 other vendors. 6) 3 Gymnasium fieldhouse and running track: No, we already have a track. No other building can be supported at this site -move them to the other new dome site. They will have the room and parking and highway access. 7) New south parking lot to replace McCarthy Field: No. Why replace a great usable filed to park cars at a dome that will not be built on this site, and that have no traffic lights or adequate access to the highway? 8) Ask me to pay for all of it with taxes: Joubt it -but let us see the numbers. In response to certain parts of the proposal, I have annotated our suggestions next to the proposal F;ndings. See below: Community Center Campus Predesign Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Edina Minneapolis-based Decision Resources in March surveyed approximately 400 randomly selected residents to determine which elements of the proposal the community supports, if any. The surveying firm provided to the Council May 2: (results in part, direct from the City Edina publishing) Methodology: Decision Resources, Ltd., contacted 400 randomly selected households in the City of Edina. Residents were interviewed by telephone between March 15 and 22, 2000. The average interview took 19 minutes. The result of this sample may be projected to the universe of all adult residents of the City of Edina within f 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. / . O i c / I i ' ' l l I ' r ' . ' ! ! . « ! i ! ! ' ! ! . ! �i , i� ! i . iT i1��FIS►I%ffMMAW5 Residential Demographics: The typical Edina resident had lived in the city for 14.1 years. While 24% had resided there for five years or less, 22% had been in the community for over 30 years. The median adult age of residents was calculated at 53.5 years old. Twenty-nine percent of the sample were under 45 years old, while 32% were 65 years or older. Women outnumbered men by 8% in the sample. Seniors resided in 34% of the households; in fact, exclusively senior households composed 23% of the city's households. School -aged children were in 30% of the households and pre-schoolers could be found in 15% of them. Thirty percent of the households reported membership in a private health club. nar romancor Niro fartc ahout who voa intarviowod_ hat thov wore a wove aftime to Called if the residents interviewed were not Bond Referendum Components: Residents were initially queried about their support for a tax increase to undertake 25.5 million dollars of recreational facility additions and improvements at the Community Center Campus and Edina Public Schools Campuses. Three proposals received impressive majorities of support: increased parking at the Community Center, renovation and remodeling of the Community Center Auditorium, and renovation of the swimming pool at South View Middle School and either construction of a new swimming pool or renovation of the current pool t Valley View Middle School. In each case, at least 59% supported the proposal and less than 21% opposed it. Narrower majorities were registered in support of the two projects: additional gymnasiums at the Community Center and Concord School and upgrading of the soccer, softball and baseball fields at Edina High School. Weak support or outright opposition was expressed on three components: a 49%-33% split supported lighting the tennis courts for night play at the Community Center; a 38%-34% verdict opposed renovation of the Kuhlman Field Stadium, including artificial turf; and, a 43%-35% judgement opposed an air -supported fabric ome at the Kuhlman Field Stadium during winter months. I. /' /l[ [' /' '/ !" I I/Il /[ ! 'r / _'( [' /"! l /• !,'[ 'r 1. ! ! /l. ! '(! 1. ! !' l 1. l '! Il. ! ! 'r [ !'/ [ .! [' '/ I /, , [, •[! / /' [.[[/' !'! (' !l [sit it if 771 Residents were next queried about their support for a tax increase to undertake 4.5 million dollars of recreational facility additions and improvements at City Parks. Four proposals received significant support: upgrading of existing fencing, parking lots and tennis courts; construction of additional trails and improvement of existing trails; installment of fire protection systems at Braemar Arena and two historical buildings; and improvements of pathways at three parks and provision of additional pathways at Cornelia School Park. In each case, over 60% favored the project and less than 30% opposed it. A narrower majority, 53%, favored upgrading softball, baseball and soccer fields, while a 35%-18% plurality opted for development of Van Valkenburg neighborhood park and playground area. Only one proposal was opposed: by a 32%-23% margin, residents rejected a tax increase for replacement of the Courtney Fields concessions building. 7eferendum Atmospherics: The typical Edina resident would support a property tax increase of $138.00 per year for a plan to expand and improve recreational facilities in the City of Edina. Seventeen percent, however, would support "no tax increase" for this purpose. But, on the other hand, 16% would support property tax increases of $250.00 annually. In reaction to a 30.0 million -dollar bond referendum proposal for building of additional gymnasiums, renovation of sports stadiums and the community auditorium, trail expansions and improvements, improvement of sports fields, and upgrading of swimming pool facilities, a 60%-33% majority favored the package. Support was principally based on "need," "benefit to the community," "maintenance of property values," and "acceptable cost." Opposition stemmed from "lack of need," "too comprehensive of a proposal," and "high taxes." Our reponse: How could 60% - 30% maiadU favor the package, if they do not have an accurate "picture" explained to them? These statistics are very vague and have little integrity Run the numbers again, in order to make an accurate decision.. Summary and Conclusions: 1) Edina residents were very satisfied with the current park and recreations system. They gave it very high ratings both overall and for maintenance and upkeep. In fact, 60% felt the system was "better" than any of those in neighboring suburbs. Almost 80% regularly used the system, and 96% believed there was a strong tie between and extensive and attractive park and recreation system and residential property values. 2) Walking and running facilities play a special role for most residents; almost one-half of the sample listed those activities as their favorite outdoor leisure time activity. Similarly, there was a marked preference 4 [I [ ITUDME 7eferendum Atmospherics: The typical Edina resident would support a property tax increase of $138.00 per year for a plan to expand and improve recreational facilities in the City of Edina. Seventeen percent, however, would support "no tax increase" for this purpose. But, on the other hand, 16% would support property tax increases of $250.00 annually. In reaction to a 30.0 million -dollar bond referendum proposal for building of additional gymnasiums, renovation of sports stadiums and the community auditorium, trail expansions and improvements, improvement of sports fields, and upgrading of swimming pool facilities, a 60%-33% majority favored the package. Support was principally based on "need," "benefit to the community," "maintenance of property values," and "acceptable cost." Opposition stemmed from "lack of need," "too comprehensive of a proposal," and "high taxes." Our reponse: How could 60% - 30% maiadU favor the package, if they do not have an accurate "picture" explained to them? These statistics are very vague and have little integrity Run the numbers again, in order to make an accurate decision.. Summary and Conclusions: 1) Edina residents were very satisfied with the current park and recreations system. They gave it very high ratings both overall and for maintenance and upkeep. In fact, 60% felt the system was "better" than any of those in neighboring suburbs. Almost 80% regularly used the system, and 96% believed there was a strong tie between and extensive and attractive park and recreation system and residential property values. 2) Walking and running facilities play a special role for most residents; almost one-half of the sample listed those activities as their favorite outdoor leisure time activity. Similarly, there was a marked preference 4 for individual recreational activities over group activities. 3) A key information deficit, though, was noted in the perception that current facilities met residential demand and were generally not crowded. The City may wish to inform residents more fully about the existing gaps between demand and availability. 4) Residents were especially keen about several expansions and improvements: renovation and remodeling of the Community Center Auditorium, increased parking at the Community Center, renovation of the swimming pool at South View Middle School and either construction of a new pool or renovation of the current pool at Valley View Middle School, construction of additional trails and improvement of existing trails, installation of fire protection systems at three facilities, improvement of pathways at three parks and additional pathways at Cornelia School Park, upgrade existing fencing, parking lots and tennis courts in need of repair or replacement 5) In every case, at least 59% favored the proposal and opposition was below 30%. Two proposals, though were somewhat controversial: renovation of Kuhlman Field Stadium, including artificial turf for the field and widening of the track; air supported fabric dome at Kuhlman Field Stadium during winter months. Our r Fponse• 30% is veru high -take it seriously before the matter reaches expensive legal resident intervention. 6) The 30.0 million -dollar bond proposal stands a reasonable chance of passage if a strong information and grassroots advocacy campaign is assembled. The comfort level for a tax increase of a typical resident was $138.00 per year, consistent with the 30.0 million -dollar bond proposal. Our reponse The residents interviewed did not receive an accurate, in depth anatuis of what will happen to the homes around the site in question,. for only S138. 00 per year, This is unacceptable Please run the numbers again. May 22, 2000 John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director & The Edina Park Board Dear Director Keprios and the Edina Park Board: As you are all undoubtedly aware, on 5/16/00 the Edina City Council voted to cede a portion of Sherwood Park to the Opus/Clark development in the Grandview area. I write to express my great disappointment in your actions: 1) I first learned of the "redesign" of the Opus/Clark proposal on the evening of 5/9/00. According to Heidi Kurtze's communication with our neighborhood, Opus/Clark had yet to submit anything to City officials. 2) Imagine my surprise on 5/16/00, when I learned that Director Keprios supported the re -design. I was utterly amazed when Park Board Member Presthus addressed the City Council on 5/16/00 and claimed that the Park Board completely supported the ceding of land from Sherwood Park. 3) Wondering when you could have considered this as a body, I checked records and discovered to my dismay that you had a regularly scheduled meeting on 5/9/00 and that "Grandview Square -Sherwood Park" was on the agenda under Item # 3 "Updates". I am surprised, and greatly disappointed, that if the issue of Sherwood Park was on the table for your consideration, that no one from the Richmond Hills neighborhood was either notified or invited to attend. I am further concerned that the Park Board would take formal action on an item listed on their agenda as an "update". But all the above pertains to process. Most importantly, I believe you have failed in your stewardship of our Parks. Sherwood Park is a small, neighborhood park used by neighborhood children who cannot safely reach larger Edina Parks on their own. You have not only permitted but also recommended via Member Presthus that Sherwood Park lose a significant portion of its open play area. This land is irreplaceable. While I can accept that the City Council may allow itself to be persuaded that Opus/Clark's landscape buffer to this development, when ceded to the City, somehow replaces open parkland, I would believe Park Board members incapable of believing such fiction. I have attached my letter to the City Council of May 19, 2000. I will not repeat the content here. Because of your actions on this topic, I regretfully inform you that I will actively oppose any referendum designed to increase taxes for Edina Parks and Recreation. I no longer have any confidence that you will either spend the revenue wisely or protect valuable Edina neighborhood Parks. I am very disappointed in both your process and your decision making. You represent the whole community, including Richmond Hills. The least you could have done was give us the courtesy to be heard at your meeting on May 9, 2000. I believe you should have gone further and been our advocate in protecting a precious and irreplaceable neighborhood asset Sincerel i, John M. Menke 5301 Pinewood Trail Edina, MN 55436 612-922-2608 Mayor Dennis Maetzold May 19, 2000 Council Members: Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelly Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing with my final comments to you on the Kunz -Lewis development process. I have scant hope that I will persuade you to do anything other than you have already done—but you still have the opportunity to correct a grievous error. I encourage you to search your conscience and vote against final rezoning of the properties involved. My understanding is that only two votes can stop rezoning and force changes in the development plan. Before I begin with specific references, I want you to know that in the neighborhood meetings prior to The Council Meeting on May 16, 2000, I advocated that to date you had done the neighborhood no harm either actually or in your own estimations. Therefore, there was no need to presume enmity or retain counsel. I suggested that local elected officials, particularly historically in Edina, were sensitive to the opinions of their constituents, especially in relationship to neighborhood Parks and land use. I believed then, and said as much, that the Council would not permit Sherwood Park to be used in the development, nor were they likely to approve 55+ foot structures so close to the Hedwall & Tomale residences at 5232 and 5400 Edenmoor (southernmost portion of the development) or at higher elevations on the site. Although the developer's spokesperson Heidi Kurtze consistently claimed that unnamed members of the City Council encouraged Opus/Clark to locate buildings in Sherwood Park, I did not believe her. Obviously, I was incorrect. I am still stunned that you have so completely disregarded the shared concerns of the Richmond Hills neighborhood. Mayor Maetzold, I appreciate your attention to the neighborhood's concerns and your vote on 5/16/00. 1 hope you will hold to your position. Council Member Hovland, for your information, height and traffic have always been neighborhood concerns about any redevelopment in the area. Those items have been clearly and consistently stated in writing and in oral presentations throughout this process. To claim, as you publicly did, that I had never raised the issue of building height bears no resemblance to the truth as contained in the public record. It is true that I did not repeat content contained in previous letters—at the Council's request. I assumed, given that request, Council Members read and retained important information. Indeed, my personal (as well as that of many neighbors) opposition to the Opus/Clark development proposal, from the start of this process last year, was due to the fact that they had the highest buildings closest to the existing single family homes and also at the highest elevations on the site, their potential traffic impact, and their willingness—indeed eagerness—to use Sherwood Park as an exploitable piece of land. We have never had a developer seek to use Sherwood Park for buildings or for development landscape in the past. Never as in not once! Remember that the other full-scale developer (Frauenschuh) not only left Sherwood Park intact to its present configuration, but also added land to the Park. Their proposed buildings nearest the existing single family homes were only 2 stories in height. I would also note that Nan Faust, on 11/1/99, specifically asked Ron Clark if he would do something about the height of the buildings. Although Mr. Clark indicated he would "do what was possible", he clearly knew then as now that he would make no effort, due to economics, to alter the building height. Council Member Faust, you and those on the Council who voted with you, have accommodated all concerns save those of the neighborhood. As Heidi Kurtze intoned on 5/16/00, you made adjustments for the library, the senior center, their (not our) city traffic flow concerns, the "future residents" of the development, etc., etc., etc. You have completely neglected the neighborhood concerns about Sherwood Park, building height & appearance, and traffic flow. As you stated, the area you have allowed to be appropriated from Sherwood Park was not used for scheduled recreation activities. It was used by parents playing with & teaching various sports to their children, and children of all ages actually playing those sports. I would emphasize again, this is a neighborhood park used by children who do not have safe access to other play areas. Yes, the field was not regulation size for any sport. But children could play all field sports and many other games there which require a long open space. "Regulation" fields are not required for play. Further, they are generally reserved for organized activities. If you value Edina children and families, you would see the value of this resource. You have coldly and deliberately taken this resource from the neighborhood. "Adding" some area to the lower end of the Park—area which on all the drawings appears nothing more than landscape buffer for the development deeded to the City for maintenance at taxpayer expense, is not adequate replacement for the area taken. John Keprios conceded as much. Further, the fiction that grading will improve the Park is just that—a fiction. The contour adjustments, placement of the pump station, and existing grades at the existing homes & Sherwood Road prohibit any significant change. As for your measurements of remaining Park land during the meeting on 5/16/00, not only do I believe Mr. Keprios' outline on the aerial map was overgenerous based on schematics previously distributed, may I ask why the developer, or the City, did not distribute actual measurements in feet? I accept your, and Council Member Kelly's, mocking of my "walking off' the measurements—but in the absence of real measures, what was the option? Given that the road into the development (which will be far wider than Eden Circle) from Sherwood cannot be shifted significantly to the North from the current location of Eden Circle, I presume the 55 foot tall building will be located some 10 to 20 feet (as a setback) south of Eden Circle into Sherwood Park. The building pad is 96 feet wide, although possibly wider at this point to accommodate the garage entrance/exit onto Sherwood. Then there would be, at least, the claimed path/roadway to the Pump Station, perhaps 10 feet wide, the landscape buffer—another 10 feet. In all this represents a total incursion of @ 140 feet. Sherwood Park from Eden Circle to the property line at 5244 Edenmoor is @ 283 feet. You have cut the Park—at that point—virtually in half. I realize that here, as elsewhere in the "Park", the developer has probably assigned the pathway and the landscape buffer to the City, allowing you to call it "parkland" and permitting the Edina taxpayer to pay for its maintenance. The reduction in usable open space is the same, regardless of whether development landscape buffer is called "parkland" as a tissue thin rationale for the destruction of usable Park area. Your comments during the Fall decision making process comparing the appearance of the small businesses in the area to the old gravel pit across from the former France Avenue Drive -In Theatre rivaled only Council Member Kelly's perorations on condemnation law in insensitivity. Unfortunately, your comments did not approach his in accuracy. Your blatant disregard for the contribution of small businesses to the Edina community in the name of some superior concept of appearance for appearances sake displays the appalling type of elitism for which residents of Edina are too often stereotyped. To add further insult to real injury, your call to my neighbor explaining your vote on 5'16/00 was extremely disturbing. To claim that the reason you voted for Opus/Clark was that otherwise the WMEP school proposal would resurface raises disturbing questions. Quite honestly, I cannot see hovv a school building with Sherwood Park being preserved would be a worse project for this neighborhood than 55 -foot high condominiums and loss of usable Park space. Unless, of course, either you are afraid of these particular elementary school children, or are trying to scare the neighbors about them. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, WMEP is not funded now, and seemingly would not be funded for another 2 years. As well, there are many private developers still interested in the site. Council Member Johnson, I realize you were not elected and do not intend to stand for office, but you accepted a position which has some inherent obligations to the general public. I detected no interest on your part in attending to citizen concerns about this development. Your focus appeared to be on being a good team player and following the lead of co -managers Kelly and Faust. Your obligations to the citizens of Edina, including those of us who reside in the Richmond Hills neighborhood, demand that you stand up for what you believe—not go along to get along with your fellow members of the City Council. Council Member Kelly, you have advocated from the fust for Opus/Clark. I appreciate that you, from the start of this process, have not pretended to care about anything other than the complete development by Opus/Clark of this entire site without any regard to the existing neighborhood or small businesses. I do not expect that to change now. However, I would be remiss if I did not comment on five items: 1) You may believe the fiction that the developer's project landscaping "adds" to Sherwood Park something other than a taxpayer expense for maintenance. I do not believe it, nor do my neighbors. You have significantly changed the functioning of Sherwood Park to the severe detriment of children and families in this neighborhood. It is a resource that once gone, cannot be replaced. 2) Viewed most charitably, your comments on 5/16/00 (as well as at several previous hearings) that you have known the Rauenhorsts & Clarks your entire life, that they are friends as well as fine, upstanding people may have been intended to impress the audience that they were in good hands. However, it appeared to me, as well as to many in attendance, that your testimonials to these individuals were nothing more than a public declaration of a very significant personal conflict of interest regarding these developers. The neighborhood was not reassured either about the developers or about your decision making process. 3) As on 11/1/99, your pointed explanation about the legal purposes of condemnation—"fair" payment for physical property—although undoubtedly accurate, displayed an unforgivable disregard for the effects of your blithe decision to deprive several long standing small business people their livelihoods. I have been attending Edina City Council meetings for the last ten years. Never have I seen a particular member—let alone an entire Council—display such a blatant disregard for the property and welfare of small business owners. There was no over-riding public purpose which was served by effectively condemning the Edina Pet Hospital, the Hair Salon, the Noonan Building, or even the TAGS building. The veterinarian will suffer significant financial harm, as, most probably, will the Hair Salon owner. Most, if not all, the remaining small businesses will suffer some negative economic repercussions due to their unnecessary forced relocation precipitated by your decision on 11/1/99. Your actions in leading the drive to take these businesses without a second thought will live in infamy in this community for many years. 4) Your lack of courage in addressing the school bus garage issue is amazing; You had the opportunity to fix the problem on 11/1/99 by adopting the Jerry's proposal. Even if you could not choose that option, rather than condemn school property, you chose to condemn private lands and dismember a public park. It is bothersome that School Board property is treated with greater deference than private property and parkland. 5) Finally, you claimed on 5/16/00, that the Richmond Hills neighborhood opposed many previous developments for the Kunz -Lewis site. In point of fact, since 1990, only one proposed development was universally opposed by the Richmond Hills neighborhood: the Rainbow Food store. In retrospect, that would have proven a less intrusive site use than the Opus/Clark project. Many other developments were supported in whole or in part by the neighborhood. The only development proposal which has ever approached the united neighborhood opposition to the use of Sherwood Park and the building height in the current, City Council approved Opus/Clark development plan was the Rainbow proposal. And, quite frankly, even Rainbow did not come close to the united concern regarding Opus/Clark. This neighborhood has consistently supported the responsible development of the Kunz -Lewis site. In the past, our concerns were attended to by both developers and the City Council. It is regrettable that such is no longer true. Finally, you have subjected this neighborhood to an extremely long development schedule while at the same time, by your actions, told the developer that they can ignore neighborhood concerns with impunity I have absolutely no hope that the developer will take into account this neighborhood during construction activities. They have learned, and learned well, that there is no such need. I did not expect any of you to agree with or concede all neighborhood concerns. I did expect that the neighborhood would be persuasive regarding Sherwood Park and building height near the residences on Edenmoor. I hoped for a different traffic pattern, and adjustments on overall residential building height and appearance. I see no real point in pursuing remedies for your decisions through the Courts. However, I do not intend to remain silent on what I perceive to be a gross dereliction of responsibility on your part to this neighborhood and to your duties as elected representatives. I apologize for sending this correspondence to your homes, but feel common courtesy requires that you receive it before I submit it for publication or general distribution. At this point, I feel my only option is to publicly express my concerns in the available media about the site development. Sincerely, >_tl� John M. Menke 5301 Pinewood Trail Edina, MN 55436 952-922-2608 City Of Ed.1118 May 26, 2000 John M. Menke 5301 Pinewood Trail Edina, MN 55436 Dear Mr. Menke: Thank you for your letter dated May 22, 2000, regarding the Sherwood Park issue as it relates to the Opus/Clark development. I understand your disappointment given the perception that the Park Board discussed and voted on the revised drawing for Sherwood Park. Please know that that was not the case. The item was on the agenda for the May 9. 2000, Park Board meeting as an information item update only. There was no formal action taken at that meeting on the new proposed plan. If I had requested action on the agenda item, I would have most certainly informed all the neighborhood residents as I have in the past. i As you recall, at their April meeting, the Park Board passed the following motion: "THAT WE ASK THE DEVELOPERS TO LOOK FURTHER WITH THE CITY TO EXPLORE OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES IN EFFORTS TO SACRIFICE EVEN LESS AND IF POSSIBLE NONE OF THE EXISTING PARK LAND AT SHERWOOD PARK." The developers met that challenge. I will continue to respectfully disagree that the new configuration will result in a larger mini -park that has fewer recreational opportunities. I am disappointed and saddened that you have lost all confidence in me. Nonetheless, my staff and I will continue to serve Edina to the best of our ability and I will continue to do what I feel is best for Edina as a whole. S' ely, ohn Kepno ,irector Edina Park and Recreation Department City Half (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDO (612) 826-0379 r A Dno,-K ter. v)()(r4 Cf-)- J�T 0 Cc-C5t`6nJJ -H� wc-� n 1a"115 0 1 City Of Edna May 22, 2000 c a.�.0 �" t -F Y G IQ. A FE Dear Resident Meber Park Neighborhood.- q 2,Lt Z Q.. ( A-A-eS AV —Q"_ L D( NSA , kA nJ S S'416 The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department are seeking your input on issues related to the development of the proposed off -leash dog near Weber Park. q26 -S s 1 3 The Edina Park Board is going to consider staff's proposal to enter into an agreement with the Minneapolis Park Board and the City of St. Louis Park to cooperatively create an off -leash dog site on property owned by the Minneapolis Public Works Department adjacent to Weber Park. The agreement calls for a fenced in 4 acre site with off-street parking (off of France Avenue next to the well house - map enclosed). The off -leash dog site would be maintained and enforced by the Minneapolis Park Board. Edina residents would be allowed to purchase a license to use Minneapolis Park Board off -leash dog parks at the resident rate. Therefore, you are invited to share your views at the following Park Board meeting: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS If you cannot or choose not to attend the meeting but wish to express your concerns and suggestiono-, please do so in writing to ire at the return address ou iris ietterhead. 74 2Si ely, Kepri ,tor Edina Park and Recreation Department, OVA ►-� � � a d d C� Y" h` ,,, &� GA-pL S City Hall �� Q - , -f / L a s (X (6 927-886126-039 4801 WEST 50TH STREET AX (612) 826-0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394S D (612) 826-0379 I�L�T Jun -12-00 11:34A �0 • ,�p�� �e��rioS (� bC-( ��S Ct r s cpm V - 40 S � �`- ` `-e `A -s c�- � q /° Page ginger traul From: john traul <jtraul@lightdog.com> To: <jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us> Cc: <mfkelly@ciedina.mn.us>; <nfaust@ciedina.mn.us>; <ghughes@ciedina.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:52 PM Subject: Aquatic Center I was surprised to learn today on my first visit to the Edina Pool that it would be closed the weekend of June 17th and 18th. There is absolutely nothing on this web sight calendar of events or in the Aquatic Center information on this web sight that would indicate this. Since I had checked both places prior to planning my daughter's birthday party as a pool event for Saturday the 17th, I was more than a little dismayed. In the many years I have been going to the Edina Pool I simply fail to understand how the city can close a facility such as this on a summer weekend to the benefit of so few. Two years ago the event was moved to another location to the joy of 99% of the Edina families that are Aquatic Center users. Why can't this event either be scheduled during the week when the pool is not in greatest demand or be permanently scheduled at one of the school pools or elsewhere? Also, why can't the information the Aquatic Center and the city put on it's informational web page be accurate so this is not a surprise? I would really appreciate hearing back from you on these issues. Thanks! Ott. aim. of ai vU 06,,13- 00 TUE 17:30 F.y:i A 13 June. 2000 - John heprio-s, -Director--__--- Edina Park and Recreation Department City Mall, 4801 West 50th. Street Edina MN 55424-1394 --� FAX: 952-826-0390 Re: Minneapolis Park Board proposed off -leash dog area John, Appreciate your asking for comments. I have read the Police Chief s concerns in the Sun and I feel those are manageable. The focus of this issue should be, for what purpose can this land be used? Minneapolis and is grown up to scrub brush_ They profess 1. It belongs to the City of .vanting to hang onto it for some future water storage structure_ 2. The soil is compressive, thus not suitable for residences if they should decide to sell it. 3. Will a fence and a parking lot degrade the area? NO 4. Will this proposed use hinder any future use? NO 5. And finally, it is better than having people walk their dogs and letting them poop and pce on lawns' So. my reeling is let them build it, and by the way how are the plans and construction schedule for the completion of the Braemar Nature Trail coming along? Very truly yours. Kenneth �V. Miller, P.E. 6016 Fairfax Ave_ S. Edina MN 55424-1826 2001