03/14/1991 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
MARCH 14, 1991
A special meeting of the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 14, 1991 with the following Commission Members
present: George Kubik, John Griggs, Shawn Hunter, Ted Billy, Michael Vogel, Lee Markell, Deborah
Johnson and Dick Carroll. Commission Member Jack Johnson was not present. Staff present included
Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation; Stephen Sullivan, Landscape Architect/Parks Planner; Dorothy
Peterson, Superintendent of Recreation; John VonDeLinde, Parks Superintendent; Rich Brasch, Water
Quality Coordinator; Craig Johnson, Landscape Architect and Cherryl Mesko, Secretary.
BLACKHAWK PARK
Director Vraa reminded the Commission that there were 51 people in attendance at the February
20, 1991 meeting when a public meeting was held regarding the development of Blackhawk Park. He
reviewed the questions that were asked those in attendance noting that the responses were very
diversified. The primary emphasis at that meeting was the preservation and conservation of this park.
The design team that has been working on this process included, Dorothy Peterson, Rich Brasch, John
VonDeunde, Steve Sullivan, Pat Jostad, Craig Johnson, Rich Pelletier and Ken Vraa Pat Jostad was the
only design team member who was unable to attend this meeting.
As background, Mr. Vraa stated that the original Park System Plan was developed in 1982 as a
plan to provide for the future park and recreation needs of the city. A set of standards were developed
establishing the need for specific facilities as the population of Eagan continued to grow. Different park
needs were identified and the designation of neighborhood parks and community parks were clearly
defined. The 1982 plan continues to be a guide for parks development.
The initial meetings regarding the planning for Blackhawk Park included establishing a Mission
Statement along with Goals and Objectives. Mr. Vraa reviewed both these Items point by point noting that
preservation was the main emphasis in the planning for this park. Along with the expertise of staff design
team members, Pat Jostad's naturalist background proved to be invaluable in planning the preservation
and selective development of the site.
Steve Sullivan reviewed the background of the site noting that 40 acres were originally acquired
in the early 70's with addition land being added through parkland dedication over the years. In 1990/91
the acquisition of the southern access was completed through the Murphy property. The issue of access
has been discussed several times with different locations being considered. One of the access points
considered was the southern access off the Murphy property; another was the northern access between
Blackhawk Glenn and Blackhawk Ponds; another was off Riverton Avenue and yet another off Palisade
Way where there is currently an access point.
Steve continued with an aerial view of the site showing the primary characteristics of the site, the
residential areas surrounding the park, the lakes and ponds in and near the park, the very wooded
section on the east side of the park, the smaller wooded area to the west of the park, the open space
where development would be most appropriate, the location of the existing. playground and the existing
trails. Steve then showed a topography of the site indicating the high and low areas throughout the park
site. The slope gradients were next to be displayed and discussed. It was noted that the central plateau
area, which would be most appropriate for development, had a grade of 0-6%.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14,1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 2
Mr. Sullivan continued with the drainage of the area along with information on the soil types and
public utilities. He then reviewed the climatic conditions of the site explaining some of the design criteria
used to plan for things like sledding hills, picnic areas, etc.
Ken Vraa added that Naturalist Pat Jostad had completed an inventory of the flora and fauna on
this site. Additionally, Landscape Architects Steve Sullivan and Craig Johnson as well as City Forester
Tom Schuster completed an inventory. Ken stated that Pat Jostad had been hired to do a site analysis
and was then added to the design team. Since Pat was unable to be at the meeting, Ken showed a tape
of her presentation from the February 20, 1991 meeting. Her presentation emphasized sensitivity to the
park and she commented that the planning process for Blackhawk Park has focused on that point. Pat
continued that her job was to say where everything was in the park, what areas would
be designated for development and what areas could not be touched. Pat explained active recreation
designation as an area where active use will not affect existing vegetation. She stated that it is not a
question as to whether this park will be used rather a question of how to best guide users through the
park. She described a passive recreation area which would include use such as a trail; conservancy area
as a protected area where no recreation penetration would occur and applied management areas such
as slopes that would be covered. All of these areas were identified and located within the Blackhawk Park
site.
Steve Sullivan then reviewed the refined plan for Blackhawk Park. He commented that Pat Jostad
had been very effective in helping to preserve many areas within the park. Steve continued that it is
always a balancing act to preserve parkland areas yet provide for the needs of the community. With the
input from so many people with varying areas of expertise it is felt that the best plan to fit the needs of
the community have been incorporated in the refined plan. Some of the considerations in planning a
community park include trails, interpretive opportunities,picnicking areas, cross-country ski trails, shelter
buildings, sledding opportunities and parking.
Steve continued that the refined plan shows some changes from the original facility plan.
Originally the plan provided for 300 car parking. The refined plan shows this downsized to 165 spaces.
Regarding access, staff has heard from residents to the north that they wanted access to the park, access
from north Murphy Parkway would decentralize and cause grave damage to vegetation in the conservency
area whereas access from Murphy Parkway north of the Murphy property would bring people to the center
of the park with the least amount of disturbance to the park. Access on Palisade currently has a road
stubbed to it which would also provide for easy access from the west. The preferred Murphy Parkway
access will provide for some tree loss, however a reforestation plan has been completed to mitigate that
loss so that the parking lot can be hidden. The Palisade access would provide for a parking lot where
the nursery is currently located and will be tucked back and screened by the existing berm. The facilities
planned will provide for 4-season use of the park. The tubing hill shown is on the north facing slope and
continues to an open flat area which would result in no tree loss. The shelter building would be similar
to that of Trapp Farm Park and would set on top of the tubing hill. This can facilitate tubing groups in the
winter as well as providing shelter for activities in the summer. The open flat area at the bottom of the
hill can provide for open play area in the summer as well.
The area to the south would provide for a larger developed area The parking lot would bring
people to a pavilion/family games area/playground with the building footprint similar to that of Thomas
Lake pavilion. The playground would be central to both building areas as well as accessible to the people
from the north. All development appears to be occurring in the broom grass area
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 3
A small pier/canoe access and boardwalk is provided on Blackhawk Lake. The boardwalk would
help to isolate the east portion of the lake keeping canoeing to the west. The boardwalk would be a low
profile so the site lines wouldn't be impacted. Within the woods there would be an interpretive area and
there would also be four satellite picnic areas throughout the park.
The trails are shown to be hard surface trails that tie Into the park with the balance of the trails
being soft surface. The loop trail around the lake is proposed to be soft surface as well. Steve expressed
some concern for the need for a trail access or turf path on North Murphy Parkway. He asked those
residents who live near that access for their input.
Steve continued that reforestation will occur along the western edge of the park and staff will work
with those residents abutting the park to ensure adequate buffering. Reforestation will also occur along
the 35E side slope and along the south access into the park.
In conclusion Steve stated that in planning this park some of the issues addressed included
wanting to meet the facility needs of the community, sensitivity to the site, need to manage and upgrade
depleted area and the preservation of quality acres. The total acreage of Blackhawk Is approximately 80
acres and with the refined plan only eight of those acres are planned to be developed.
Ken Vraa introduced Bob Byers and Cindy Gray of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. who have
prepared a traffic and parking study for Blackhawk Park. Ken also explained that the Commission
members had a great deal of background information regarding Blackhawk Park that they were
referencing during the meeting. He stated that a copy of all the information in the Commission Members
possession was bound in a book at the front counter and anyone wanting to review this information was
welcome to do so.
Mr. Byers of SEH indicated that their review found that a considerable amount of thought had
been dedicated for the improvement of Blackhawk Park. The main objectives of the traffic analysis was
to determine the traffic volume impacts to those streets from which access to the park could be provided
and identify any operational problems which may result from the access from Murphy Parkway and'
develop potential solutions to those problems. In determining how much traffic would impact this area
estimated trip generation needed to be determined. A trip was defined as any vehicle going into the park
or any vehicle exiting from the park; therefore any vehicle going into the park is accounted for twice.
Based on that criteria it was determined that on a typical summer weekday, 85 trips would be generated;
on a typical summer weekend day, 380 trips would be generated; and on a peak weekend day, 400 trips
would be generated.
Another area studied was the increased traffic on the roadways adjacent to and in the vicinity of
Blackhawk Park. Traffic growth on Murphy Parkway will occur due to the buildout of the single family
residential lots in the subdivision. The current volume east of the location of the park access is estimated
at approximately 240 trips per day. Once all the lots are built on, this volume should be expected to
increase to about 540 trips per day. The weekday traffic volume at the Palisade Way access is estimated
at 30 trips per day. It is estimated that Saturday or Sunday traffic volumes at the Palisade Way entrance
would range from 110-120 trips per day. Both weekday and weekend traffic volumes during the winter
could be similar to volumes generated during the summer months, due to the close proximity of this
driveway to the sliding hill. Based on peak tubing days at Trapp Farm Park, the volume on the Palisade
Way access could reach approximately 100-120 per day, from time to time, when tubing conditions are
ideal.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 4
Average daily weekend traffic volumes of approximately 265-285 vehicles per day on the Murphy
Parkway access represent approximately 70 percent of the total trip generation of the park. Weekday
traffic volumes would be approximately 55 trips.
From a traffic operations perspective, the traffic resulting from Blackhawk Park is not expected to
create any degradation of existing traffic conditions. It was also noted that the maximum holiday parking
demand barely exceeds the number of spaces shown on the conceptual plans by approximately 15
spaces. It is the recommendation of SEH that some thought be given to how overflow parking. will be
handled in those infrequent events when the parking lots are filled.
In looking at the Murphy Parkway access, the 30 foot roadway width is desirable due to the grade
and the existence of the trailway in very close proximity to the road. The design of the retaining walls
appears adequate given the topography constraints and the available right-of-way. SEH noted some
concerns regarding left turning traffic from Murphy Parkway to the access road, however, the low volumes,
lower operating speeds and adequate sight distance make the need for special considerations such as
a turn lane and/or channelization unnecessary.
Mr. Beyers indicated that placement of directional signs along Deerwood Drive, Riverton Avenue,
Blackhawk Road and Murphy Parkway will guide drivers to the park entrances, reducing the amount of
unnecessary traffic on the residential streets which could otherwise occur. A sign 400 feet from the park
entrance on eastbound Murphy Parkway is recommended to inform drives of the left turn entrance into
the park.
In conclusion, Mr. Beyers stated that Blackhawk Park is not expected to negatively impact traffic
operations or capacity on Murphy Parkway,Deerwood Drive, Riverton Avenue or Palisade Way. The
volume of traffic resulting from the park will be noticeable to the residents, however, the park traffic does
not raise traffic volumes to the point where the streets will no longer have a residential character.
Gunnar Isberg, 1528 Blackhawk Ridge Court indicated he lives north of Blackhawk Park. He
commented that he felt the park plan was excellent, that all issues appear to have been addressed. He
specifically is looking forward to the trail system that will allow him access to the park from the north. He
was pleased to see that the sensitivity to the eastern portion of the site was respected. One suggestion
would be to have park benches distributed throughout the trail system to allow for resting stations. He
did indicate a concern for the boardwalk stating he would prefer seeing a bridge at the narrows of the
lake. Mr Isberg complimented staff on providing a good plan for Blackhawk Park.
Paul Hansen, 3900 Riverton rioted that he has been a resident of this area for many years. He
worked for Leo Murphy in the past and knows this piece of property very well. He stated this was a
beautiful park in it's virgin state and did not want to see it developed. He expressed his concern for park
expansion when there are currently other parks in shambles as well as his concern for budget constraints
the City will be facing. He did note that within Blackhawk Park the cross-country trails had only been
tracked once, the playground equipment is in terrible shape and the trails have not been maintained and
cleaned up. He suggested developing the prairie area to its fullest and leaving the park the way it is. Mr.
Hansen thanked the Commission for listening to his concerns and opinions.
Tim Lano, representing Citizens for a Better Blackhawkâ˘, commented on Ken Vraa's assessment
of 'divergence of opinions' from the questionnaire filled out at the February 20th meeting. He continued
that one person from the north side had indicated they like the park plan, whereas 50 people have
indicated they don't want it. He wanted to know why public opinion is solicited when it is not listened to.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 5
He continued that 80% of the people answering the questionnaire wanted a passive park with no pavilion
and the pavilion continues to be a part of the park plan. Mr. Lano stated that this is the only community
park without a direct access.
Dennis Anderson, 1606 Murphy Parkway questioned who wanted this park developed anyway.
He expressed concern for dollars that would be spent for an 'award winning park' that the City didn't
have. He also does not want traffic in this area and asked the Commission to consider the opinions of
the people who have attended these meetings and shared their feelings. He reiterated that they did not
want a pavilion or lights in this park and the statistics of the survey clearly show that people wanted a
passive park with little development. It would appear that they are not being listened to and he would
hope that this plan isn't just 'pushed through'.
Ken Ische, 3881 Palisade Way expressed his concern for the traffic. His concern is that If people
want to park on the east lot and it is full, they will enter via Palisade resulting in traffic going back and
forth from one parking lot to another.
Mike Murphy, 3882 Palisade Way stated that there are no current traffic counts at the intersection
of Cochrane and Blackhawk. He noted that he had informally counted the traffic but felt that this needs
to be done in a more formal manner feeling that traffic entering and exiting at a Palisade entrance would
not necessarily be routed back onto Deerwood. He feels a good deal of traffic enters and exits the park
by way of Cochrane to Blackhawk Road. He asked if there was input from the police department since
they are experiencing trouble with teenagers at the other parks. He asked that a history be provided of
various parks listing things like under age drinking, vandalism, etc. Ken Vraa responded that these types
of problems do exist, as in any community, however with the visibility of the Explorers who patrol the parks
on a regular basis the incidents have been reduced. Mr. Murphy reiterated the need to have a traffic
count done at Cochrane and Blackhawk along with input from the police department.
Ken Lundy, 1593 Murphy Parkway expressed his concern for traffic at Murphy Parkway and the
safety of the children that live in this area His concern is based on the possibility that people will
overshoot the entrance and enter the residential area Secondly he felt the traffic count was not as high
as was previously reported and asked if construction vehicles were included in the count. Last, he
wanted to know what the cost would be for the park.
Cindy Gray of SEH responded that the traffic count for that neighborhood was based on an
industry standard of 10-12 trips per day per home. They used the average number of trips per day at the
buildout of 45 homes. Construction and realtor traffic was not taken into consideration for the totals. The
same method of calculation was used at the Riverton entrance.
Mr. Balsberg, 1610 Murphy Parkway commented that he was opposed to bringing traffic into his
residential area He stated that there are 3 blind curves from Deerwood to Murphy Parkway and
questioned why direct access could not be gained from Deerwood. He stated that a cost estimate to
build the access road would be $500,000 and felt the money could be used for other purposes such as
acquiring more of the Murphy property and bringing access in directly from Deerwood. Steve Sullivan
responded that this was looked at, however the grading costs to bring in an access from Deerwood, trying
to accommodate a parking lot, etc. would be rather prohibitive. Steve also mentioned that a great deal
of time has been spent in analyzing an appropriate access to the park along with negotiating the southern
access. A suggestion from the crowd was to have the City acquire all of the Murphy land and use that
as a direct access from Deerwood.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14,1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 6
Because of the questions regarding costs, Ken Vraa provided the preliminary cost projection.
Anticipated in the first stage would be grading/site work, utilities, parking lot, trails, recreation facilities and
turf establishment with an anticipated cost of $479,175-494,175. Stage II would include shelter/pavilion
construction, lighting, recreation facilities, landscaping and site furnishings for an anticipated cost of
$466,500-516,500.00. Total construction costs are anticipated at $950,000-1,000,000. Ken continued that
the monies would come from the Park Site Acquisition Fund which is funded by developers when they
are required to make a cash parkland dedication as part of their development. In addition the City has
received a LAWCON grant for the development of Blackhawk Park. A question was asked regarding
whether or not the park needed to be completed by a specific time. Ken responded that there was no
deadline for the funds in the PSAF to be spent however they can be used only for park development.
It has also been the policy to keep a balance in this fund for working capital and emergency funds.
Al Rehder, 1581 Murphy Parkway asked what the balance was in the Park Site Fund now. Ken
Vraa responded that there is approximately $1,000,000 in the fund. Mr. Rehder asked if the access costs
included the 8 feet of retaining wall. He also wanted to know if it was keystone or natural wall. Steve
Sullivan responded that the cost is based on a concrete modular wall. Mr. Rehder then asked if the 50-55
foot R.O.W provided for temporary easements and if they did, are those easements current. Mr. Rehder
expressed the opinion that some of the easements have expired on 12/30/90. Steve Sullivan stated he
would look into this and report back.
Nancy Blasberg, 1610 Murphy Parkway suggested that since there is such a substantial balance
in the Park Site Fund the dollars should be spent to acquire the entire Murphy property to provide a direct
access from Deerwood.
Mr. Larson, 3823 Riverton stated he prefers access from Deerwood. He asked what the cost of
maintenance would be once the park is completed. John VonDeUnde responded that based on Eagan's
experience community parks are the least expensive to maintain. Neighborhood parks on the other hand,
typically have facilities like rinks and athletic fields which are more labor intensive. With the 4.75 acres
of bluegrass that will need to be mowed, this will be incorporated into the regular mowing schedule. With
two buildings, the park attendant will be responsible for litter pick up and minor maintenance while they
are at the site and the buildings will then be rotated into the a regular maintenance schedule. It is
anticipated the playground should last 10-15 years before consideration is given to replacing it. The
bituminous trails will become a part of the long term maintenance program. There is not a dollar figure
available to address all maintenance since it will be dependent upon what is actually developed within
the park.
Monica Anderson stated that she was opposed to the Murphy Parkway access and was
concerned for the probability of cars ending on a dead end street. She does not want a pavilion/shelter
building within the park. She feels that an attempt is being made to combine both Trapp and Thomas
Lake into one grandiose park. Further, she wanted a guarantee that this won't be another Carlson Lake
tragedy. She wanted assurances that reforested areas will be planted with trees of similar size to those
that may have been lost. She would like to see some guarantees that this will not happen or what actions
will be taken to penalize people for their carelessness.
Tom Engquist, 3840. Riverton stated he is trying to make a positive comment regarding this
development process but he has a sinking feeling that nobody is listening to the request and concerns
being expressed.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 SPECIAL MEETING
PAGE 7
Cindy Hansen, 1574 Murphy Parkway stated that she is concerned about the steep curvy road
that will bring people into this park. She continued that she has seen Trapp Farm Park and Thomas Lake
Park but those facilities do not seem to be used so she wondered why there was a need to provide for
another pavilion in this park. She also stated that in the winter the school bus will not drive down Murphy
Parkway because of the steep, unsafe condition that exists.
Questions directed to John VonDeUnde by Paul Hansen, 3900 Riverton, included why Blackhawk
Park hadn't been maintained, why weren't the cross country trails maintained, why wasn't the playground
equipment kept in repair. He continued by stating that enough information had not been obtained
regarding the historical significance of this site since he is aware of Indian burial mounds on the site. He
has been in contact with the Mn. Historical Society so that this Issue can be investigated completely as
It should have been initially. John VonDeUnde responded that he agreed with the need to be cautious
and sensitive in developing a site such as Blackhawk Park, however all information required by the
Historical Society relative to this site and as it relates to the LAWCON grant was provided. Decisions
made by governmental agencies were provided to the City and it is John's opinion that all requirements
were met to allow for the development of this site. John concluded that he would be following up with
the State agencies that have worked on this parcel immediately on Friday.
Gunnar Isberg stated that he knew he was in a minority, however he asked the Commission to
think about the 'empty seats' of those who are not attending the meeting. He suggested that perhaps
the trail system could begin and this portion should not impact the neighborhoods.
George Kubik asked that those in attendance honor the opinions of people even if they do not
agree with them.
Judy Epple, 3856 Riverton commented that there is not guarantee that the 'empty seats' would
agree with the planned development. She further stated that she would like to have a meeting where the
Commission listened to input first and did the presentation after that was completed.
George Kubik closed the public hearing portion of the meeting, thanked all those in attendance
for taking the time to attend the meeting and then asked Commission members for their input.
Shawn Hunter indicated that he appreciated the idea of 'untouched' land but indicated the
Commission's role is to look at the needs of the community as a whole. It is usually the case that the
biggest input comes from neighbors immediately surrounding a park and it continues to be problem
obtaining input from residents throughout the city. Shawn noted that he had spent a great deal of time
soliciting input from several people regarding this park. What he found was that they wanted access to
the park; the amount of development is subjective. It appears that with the pavilion being a big issue, the
people that use pavilions regularly look forward to having another one in the City. There was an extensive
amount of work done to substantiate the need for more pavilion/shelter buildings in parks. The issue of
buying the balance of the Murphy property for direct access into a park would be irresponsible planning
on the part of the Commission and the City. He stated he was satisfied that the access points as they
are planned are sufficient to handle the traffic levels.
Deborah Johnson asked if there were any other environmental analysis done besides that of Pat
Jostad. George Kubik brought the Commission's attention to a letter received by the Minnesota River
Valley Audubon Club stating that the plan as proposed addresses the concerns that were previously
expressed in reference to the original proposal. The Chapter then endorsed the plans for Blackhawk Park
in its present form.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 8
Lee Markell indicated that there are always variations in plans. For example could one access
off Riverton be proposed as Phase I holding off on the Murphy Parkway access. He asked about the
possibility of phasing the park development. Shawn Hunter asked If it would be possible to construct the
loop trail around the lake and provide access for those resident from the north. Steve Sullivan responded
that it would be necessary to study these suggestion because of the cost constraints in phasing. Staff
will need to look at reorganizing facilities in priority order with one parking lot.
Lee Markell also suggested that with the safety concerns off Murphy Parkway could consideration
be given to closing this access in the winter only having the west access open in winter.
Mike Vogel commented that if a phased development were proposed access would need to be
based on what portion is to be developed first. He suggested that the first phase could concentrate on
natural resources,trails, access,canoe access, etc. Then after further study,the development of passive
or recreation needs followed by active recreation needs could be addressed. He is not sure this is a
feasible option because of the costs involved but it may be considered.
John Griggs stated he was in favor of the park being developed with minor modifications. He
empathized with the neighbors surrounding the park, however,in his discussion with Eagan residents he
found that they would like to use this park but access continues to be a problem. Parks are planned for
people to use and in order to use them they need access. With access comes the need for parking lots
for people who are not within walking distance. George Kubik commented that people travel to
community parks for specific reasons depending upon what facilities are provided within the park.
John Griggs expressed the need to address the impact of overflow parking before the plan goes
on any further. Shawn Hunter stated that the parking lot should not be sized too large. Because of the
intense development of this site Shawn suggested developing in three phases. Perhaps the upper
parking lot could be developed first with the shelter building, loop trail board walk or bridge then move
on to a second phase to include south access, a portion of the parking lot, a portion of the pavilion and
then expand these facilities as the need arises.
Ted Billy appreciated the concern expressed for a passive park however, having lived in the city
for 20 years he has seen Eagan grow from a village to a city of almost 50,000 people. The bottom line
is that in a city this size development will occur and the Commission's task is to look forward to plan for
the needs of the residents when full growth is reached. He feels that staff has done an excellent job in
trying to meet the needs of future development while staying within the guidelines of the Park System
Plan. He commented that 75% of this piece of property will remain in it's natural, undeveloped state. He
also appreciated the comments regarding wildlife preservation, however, all building displaces wildlife and
the city cannot afford the luxury of dedicating this entire parcel as a wildlife preserve.
Dick Carroll commented that he is a non voting member of the Commission however as a long-
term member of the Commission he is keenly aware of the park facility needs that have arisen over the
last several years. He noted that the Commission's task is difficult since they need to continually look to
the future needs of the whole community in acquiring parkland for future development That is why
Blackhawk Park has been so carefully reviewed and analyzed.
After further discussion and with several questions still remaining, Shawn Hunter moved, John
Griggs seconded with all members voting in favor to table the decision on Blackhawk Park development
until the April 4, 1991 meeting.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 9
As clarification, Ken Vraa asked if staff should be addressing the priority of a trailway, cost
implications of a parking lot on the west side as a phased process as well as looking as different
variations of phasing. George Kubik noted that there were several issues that remain for clarification.
Shawn Hunter and John Griggs withdrew their motion and second.
The issues of clarification included a proposed bridge versus a boardwalk; loop trail installation
early in development; pavilion design flexibility; consideration for switching the location of the pavilion and
shelter building; consideration given to providing concessions within the shelter building and have those
dollars offset some of the maintenance costs as well as the options for phasing.
After further discussion, Shawn Hunter moved, Mike Vogel seconded with all members voting in
favor to table the Blackhawk Park development issue until the April 4, 1991 Commission meeting.
PARK SERVICE AREA 21
Ken Vraa explained that this issue involved the anticipated expansion of a middle school adjacent
to the Deerwood Elementary School site. This is an issue that the Commission will be able to discuss
further when more information is available. It is anticipated that this item will be deferred to the April 4,
1991 meeting.
With no further business to conduct, Shawn Hunter moved, Mike Vogel seconded with all
members voting in favor to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
Q'-~ A~7 Gt4
S retary Date