HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-12 Park Board Minutes WS 1
Minutes of the
Edina Park Board
Special Work Session
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Edina City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray O’Connell, Howard Merriam, Randy Meyer, Todd Fronek, Karla
Sitek, Andy Finsness, Linda Presthus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Sorem, Mike Damman, George Klus, Carolyn Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton,
I. WAIVE FEE FOR FUND RAISER EVENT – BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
Susie Miller, Assistant Manager of Edinborough Park, made a formal request of the Park
Board to waive the fees for a fundraiser event on June 29, 2007. She explained that the
fund raiser benefit tournament event is intended to raise money for the Larry Nelson
Family Fund. Ms. Miller informed the Park Board that Larry Nelson is a golf
professional instructor who has donated endless hours of his personal time and energy to
the Edina Adaptive Golf Program. She noted that Mr. Nelson was recently diagnosed
with brain cancer and therefore the golf community and staff would like to raise funds to
help Mr. Nelson and his family during this difficult time.
Ms. Miller stated that they are asking that the greens fees and golf cart fee be waived for
the participants of the tournament in order to give more money to the family fund.
Mr. O’Connell commented that Mr. Nelson has also been very involved with the junior
golfers in Edina.
Karla Sitek MOVED TO WAIVE THE GREENS FEES AND GOLF CART FEES.
Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that typically they charge a premium for greens fees for a group
fund raiser, however, this is an exception because it really is a show of support for
someone who has given so much to the city and adaptive programs.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ray O’Connell MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 8, 2007 PARK BOARD MINUTES.
Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
III. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. Keprios introduced Dan Cornejo, Comprehensive Planner. Mr. Cornejo first pointed
out that the title is wrong and should read “Edina Parks, Open Space and Natural
2
Resources”. Mr. Cornejo explained what the big picture is of the comprehensive plan as
well as what everyone’s role is in putting the plan together.
Mr. Fronek stated that he has two points to make. First, if an area is going to be
redeveloped he thinks that is should almost be a requirement that the developer devote a
portion of it to park land. Mr. Keprios replied that currently when new development takes
place the developer can pay 7% cash in lieu of land if they don’t donate a portion of the
land they are buying. However, this does not apply to renovation or redevelopment. Mr.
Keprios explained that currently this issue is being revisited because state law has just
changed. He noted that he agrees with Mr. Fronek in that this should be included in the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Fronek suggested adding it in the Park and Open Space Land
Acquisition Plan.
Mr. Fronek indicated that secondly he knows there is fishing at Lake Cornelia, however,
he didn’t see it pointed out anywhere in the recreation programs. He stated that it might
be something they may want to add because he knows other communities have fishing
programs.
Mr. Merriam stated that, based on the needs assessment survey, the whole idea of trails
and connectivity is very important. He noted that he thinks there should be some kind of
provision that states there will be moneys available to at least look at land acquisition or
easement acquisition so that they can start to build the system. He commented that it’s
very difficult for people to get around within Edina.
Mr. Keprios commented that on page 12 where it addresses the goals and policies on that
subject, the goal is to create connectivity between Edina’s individual interior trails and
regional trails that connect Edina’s parks to neighboring community trails in particularly
trails that are part of the greater regional trail system. He stated that he thinks it probably
should be added under policies. The policy could state that when the opportunity arises to
acquire property to make that happen. Ms. Presthus pointed out that there already is a
very similar policy to that on page seven. Mr. Cornejo responded that it doesn’t
specifically mention trail connections. Mr. Keprios suggested that they state “to acquire
easements and property where needed and available to create regional connections”.
Mr. O’Connell indicated that on page 15 under the “Parkland and Open Space Land
Acquisition Plan” where it states: “The goal is to also study the feasibility of acquiring
additional park and open space land as more private land may become available for public
acquisition”, he would like to take out “goal” and feasibility” and have more definite
language. He stated that he thinks it should be similar to what is noted on page 7, as well
as it would be more consistent.
Mr. O’Connell stated that on page 9, “Wildlife Management Plan” under the goal the first
paragraph reads fine. However, under the second paragraph he thinks the word “control”
should be taken out and be replaced with “manage” because they cannot control animals.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that under the “Natural Resource” area they really
don’t have anything that addresses a mandatory buffer on shoreline. He noted that the
Park Department’s involvement in water quality has been very minimal. Therefore, he’s
3
not sure where that should fall within the comprehensive plan and added that it may
somewhat fall between the cracks.
Mr. Meyer stated that he thinks as part of the “Walking and Biking Trails Pathways Plan”
maybe they should look at somehow incorporating those types of paths and trails from the
schools to the parks. He stated that he thinks if more sidewalks were put in then a lot
more kids would be willing to walk to school. Mr. Meyer commented that it may be
reaching a little bit beyond the scoop but perhaps there could at least be some dialog. Mr.
Keprios replied that he is going to ask Wayne Houle, City Engineer, where sidewalks fit
within the master plan because he is in charge of the sidewalks.
Mr. Meyer indicated that he’s not sure what this would fall under but he would like to
know how we can build community. He asked if there are things that can be done in the
parks to build a sense of community. Mr. Merriam stated that he could envision some
kind of signage system that would reflect the identity of Edina. He noted that it wouldn’t
build community in the sense that people are face to face but it could be something that
visually could start to tie things together.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that sometime in the near future he would like to
see the Park Board change their mission. He noted that he would like to keep it simple
and have it state “To create community to people, parks and programs”.
Mr. Cornejo commented that one of the negative things he has heard is that people don’t
want multiple family dwellings near the parks because they feel that anyone who lives in
anything other than a single family home is not a resident. He explained that as a planner
one of the ways to mitigate some of the down side of a dense environment is through
public spaces to create the “community” feeling. He noted that for people who don’t
have a backyard and live within ¼ mile of a park along with single family homes the
park becomes a way for people to meet their neighbors. Mr. Cornejo stated that they
need to find a way to grow gracefully and in a neighborly way. He stated that they need
to design facilities that are intended to be shared beyond the immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Keprios explained that the philosophy back when the parks were first built was to try
to have a park within biking distance so that every kid in Edina would have a park to go
to. However, as a result of that they are now scheduling large athletic events
everywhere. Therefore, as they continue to progress, a lot of the people who live closest
to the parks are seeing the parks as more of a nuisance than a benefit. Therefore, it’s not
creating community but rather creating a nuisance which is what recently happened with
the hockey rink at Todd Park. Mr. Keprios pointed out that these types of issues are
going to continue and worsen as times goes on. He stated that policy-wise they are
heading down a road that is allowing the people who live closest to the parks dictate what
happens in those parks, which is very unfortunate. Mr. Keprios noted that the reason he
brings this up is because in the big picture they are now at a crossroads where they need
to think hard and serious about how they want to address this issue in the long-term.
They need to look at and decide if they want to find a way to put all of the athletic events
into one package and pull them out of the neighborhood parks to help eliminate some of
this. He stated that otherwise they need to have the mindset of this is what we are going
4
to do and we are going to encourage more associations to schedule more during the day
because Edina just doesn’t have any more land.
Mr. Meyer replied that he thinks there are other things they should do such as planting
trees, creating parking lots, etc. where neighbors are going to say they don’t want it at
their park. He stated that it needs to be made known that these parks are not their
backyards but rather a public space for everyone. He noted that they need to create an
atmosphere where people will perceive that certain things should be in the parks because
they are for everyone.
Mr. Cornejo commented that sometimes people say if something is going to be put in
their park then they need to have some type of buffer, however, instead of buffers maybe
they can try to create a neighborly transition for the residential use near the parks. They
need something that will recognize it but yet not have a 12 ft. high fence, such as the
freeways do, to buffer the noise. They need to remind the neighborhoods that it’s not
their property, it is public property.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that it’s their duty to make things adaptable to change and adjust
to the needs. For e.g., tennis is not what it used to be and maybe they need to look at
converting some of the tennis courts to skate parks. Ms. Presthus suggested that
somewhere they add a statement about being adaptable to change.
Ms. Presthus asked Mr. Keprios that he highlight any changes that are made on the next
draft of the comprehensive plan.
IV. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN –
Mr. Keprios reviewed with the Park Board the changes they proposed to the Capital
Improvement Plan. He informed the Park Board that they did not get any grant money for
the Garden Park Master Plan so they are going to have to rely on their own funding.
Therefore, he has now added $90,000 for the Garden Park Pathway Plan.
Linda Presthus MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN. Ray O’Connell SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
V. OTHER
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they only received one bid for the Courtney
Fields Maintenance Building. He noted that they budgeted $190,000 and the bid came in
at $207,000. Therefore, he is recommending that they reject the bids and revisit to try and
get more bidders.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.