11/07/1991 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 7, 1991
A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 7, 1991 with the following Commission Members present:
John Griggs, Shawn Hunter, Jack Johnson, Ted Billy, Lee Markel), George Kubik and Dick Carroll.
Commission Member Deborah 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 VonDeUnde, Parks Superintendent, Jon Oyanagi, Recreation Supervisor and Cherryl
Mesko, Secretary.
AGENDA
John Griggs asked that St. Paul Chamber Update be added as Item #6 under Other Business and
Reports. Shawn Hunter moved, Lee Markel) seconded with all members voting In favor to accept the
agenda as amended.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1991
Page 6, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2 should read, ".....if a similar event Is proposed...". Sentence 8
should read, "....market based ticket pricing versus cost based ticket pricing for another..."
John Griggs moved, Lee Markell seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the October
3, 1991 minutes as amended.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
There were no development proposals on the agenda.
BLACKHAWK PARK ENCROACHMENT
After this item was introduced by Chairman Kubik, Landscape Architect/Parks Planner Stephen
Sullivan explained that the Commission reviewed an encroachment Into the trail access on the north side
of Blackhawk Park at it's October meeting. The encroachment was the result of a survey error by the
builder of the home owned by Mr.and Mrs. Vatterott. At the October meeting the Advisory Commission
voted 4-2 not to sell any of the park property to the Vatterotts as they had requested. Since the Vatterott's
original request in October they have asked that the Commission consider another plan to sell a smaller
portion of land which, in their opinion, would fit their needs and those of the City's. The proposal the
Vatterott's will make to the Commission moves the retaining wall 11 feet from the trail which reduces the
original land sale request of approximately 2400 square feet to approximately 1600 square feet. The
Vatterott's feel that the greater distance from the trail to the wall should alleviate concerns for safety for'
bicyclists coming down the trail and being too close to the wall. The second change to the Vatterott's
October recommendation was that there would be no plant material Identified. This would be left In the
hands of the City to determine plants and location.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 2
Mr. Sullivan reviewed the options open to the Commission. Option #1 would be to reaffirm the
Commission's decision in October not to sell any park property. Option #2 would be to allow the Vatterotts
to place the retaining wall as depicted, but not sell the property. This option would allow the Vatterotts to
maintain a sense of privacy and an extension of their backyard, however, the property would still be owned
by the City. The City could then formalize an easement or license for use of the park property divided by
the retaining wall for the Vatterotts or choose to take no action whatsoever. Option #3 would place the
retaining wall back entirely onto the edge of the Vatterotts property. This action would not require approval
by the Advisory Commission, It would simply be a homeowners Issue whether they wish to install a retaining
wall on their property or not.
Mr. Vatterott addressed the Commission by stating that after reviewing the tape of the October
meeting one of the Commission's main concerns was for the height of the retaining wall and the concern
for safety to trail users due to the close proximity of the retaining wall. With that in mind, the Vatterotts are
proposing to remove 6-7 feet of the east/west retaining wall allowing for an open area between the trail and
retaining wall for barrier foliage on City property. This compromise would allow the Vatterotts to retain some
of their expanded yard by purchase of City property as well as providing for a buffered area between the
trail and retaining wall.
Mr. Kubik asked what type of plantings would be recommended for the barrier. Mr. Sullivan
responded that the previous landscape plan called for trees such as Black HUI Spruce, Crabapple and
ornamental plantings near the entrance along with screening to the homes on either side of the trail.
Ted Billy stated that the last time the Commission dealt with park encroachment there was a
concern about the legality of selling park property at all. Mr. Sullivan responded that he has been in contact
with the City's legal staff and In this case this property was not dedicated as parkland, rather it was platted
as an outlot which does not legally restrict the sale of this property.
John Griggs asked the value of the property which is being asked to be sold. Steve Sullivan
responded that it was a very small amount of money. Mrs. Vatterott stated that In her previous
conversations with Ken Vraa she recalls an amount discussed of approximately $800.
Shawn Hunter asked the distance between the trail and the retaining wall. Mr. Sullivan responded
it was 11 feet at the closest point. Shawn then asked what the cost would be to the City if a formal
easement was drawn up by the City Attorney to allow for Option #2. Steve responded that he didn't know
the exact dollar amount, however, this type of easement has been done in the past under other
circumstances and would be a routine document.
George Kubik, noting that he was not present at the October meeting, asked if he could have a
quick review of the Issues. Mr. Vatterott reviewed their search in locating this particular lot and their request
of the builder that a large flat back yard be part of their home purchase. They purchased this particular
home with the understanding that the area, as it appears today, was their property. It was quite by accident
that the error was discovered and the Vatterott's came to the City Immediately to attempt to remedy the
situation. Mr. Kubik asked what the depth of the lot was to which Mr. Vatterott responded 153 feet. In an
attempt to further explain the discrepancy, Mrs. Vatterctt surmised that the confusion In lot lines may have
occurred when both Mentor and Sienna contributed a parcels of land for park purposes. The Vatterott's
think that during the grading of their lot, the differentiation of the Mentor and Sienna lot lines were confused
resulting in the Vatterott's lot line appearing more to the west than it actually was.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 3
Mr. Kubik then asked the Vatterott's builder for his response to this issue. The builder stated that
he had hired the same company to do the survey as had done the plat work. He confirmed that the home
was sold with the condition that the lower level of the home and the yard would be completed prior to move-
in. He continued that Mr. Vatterott wanted a flat back yard and the grading and retaining wall was
completed based on the comer markers that were still In place. After the sod was Installed there was a
conversation with Mentor and it was noted that the sod line exceeded the lot line by 20 feet. The builder
then outlined the footprint of the house and the retaining wall location for the Commission.
Mr. Vatterott Interjected that he understood the Commission's ooncem with setting a precedent by
selling park property but his main concern is for losing their home. He expressed their sincere desire to
work this issue out In the best interest of both parties and In whatever way was possible.
Mr. Kubik commented that the purchase and location of parkland Is planned for the long term. The
value of this particular piece of trail access in inconsequential in and of itself, however it Is an integral part
of Blackhawk Park. The sale of park property has not been allowed in the past under similar circumstances.
The builder stated that if the Commission looks at this In a practical sense the access of the park
would not be compromised by moving the trail slightly to the west and allowing for the Vatterott's
compromise in land purchase. He continued that the Commission is dealing with merely an access to a
park. Mr. Carroll responded that the Commission is dealing with adverse occupancy of platted property.
The builder stated that placing sod over property is not adverse occupancy. To clarify, Mr. Carroll
responded that if the sod had been placed on the builder's own property it would not be adverse
occupancy. The property upon which the sod was place belonged to the City of Eagan, not the builder.
Further, Mr. Carroll took exception to the builder's comment that this Is "merely a trail access". The builder
explained that it was not their Intention of adversely occupy City property, however the outlot for the trail
access is 50 feet wide and the trail width Is only 8 feet; there should be some room for some compromise.
Dick Carroll commented that the builder should not be concerned with the width being planned for a trail;
the trail access of 50 feet was planned for a specific purpose.
John Griggs stated that Mr. Carroll's points were well taken. He asked where the money would go
if the Commission were to approve the sale of this park property. Mr. Vraa responded it would go Into the
Park Site Fund.
Mr. Vatterott reiterated their desire to work out a compromise. He suggested that they purchase
the foliage to be used for the barrier between the trail and their property and have the City plant what they
would like.
Jack Johnson stated that the Commission was here to deal with a precedent setting Issue not to
assess guilt or blame to a situation that has occurred. He stated he did not see how 1600 square feet would
negatively impact the park or access to the park. Mr. Johnson did not see Option #2 as a viable option
because of title problems and maintenance problems that may occur In the future. He suggested that the
Commission decide to sell this land or not. He felt the Vatterotts had been very patient and have tried to
work with the City to solve this problem. Jack stated he was in favor of selling the land to the Vatterotts
based on the revised plan provided by the Vatterotts.
Lee Markell asked Steve Sullivan if he was comfortable with the trail alignment. Mr. Sullivan
responded that if the retaining wall was not there, there would be a slope up to the Vatterott's property from
the trail. The slope area would be planted allowing for a natural buffer from the trail to the homeowner's
property. Mr. Marken expressed his concern that future homeowners of this lot may not share the same
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 4
ideas the Vatterott's are expressing today and may want to make changes that will alter the Integrity of the
trail access area. Mr. Markell stated he would like to see two winners in this situation
John Griggs stated he didn't feel that selling the property would negatively impact the park or it's
access. He suggested the Commission consider not selling the property at fair market value, rather increase
the price to allow for mitigating circumstances. Mr. Vatterott expressed their concurrence with this option
and that they are very willing to give something back to the City for it's consideration of this land sale.
George Kubik offered a compromise that would retain the north/south property line of the Vatterott's
property at the actual property line. The area south of the east/west retaining wall would remain graded
as It is to allow the Vatterott's the open play area that they expressed a strong desire in keeping. The
property ownership would remain as it actually is, but would allow the use of the southern flat area for the
Vatterotts. Mr. Kubik then asked for input from other Commission members. John Griggs agreed with the
proposal but wanted a response from the Vatterotts; Shawn Hunter had no problem with George's proposal;
Jack Johnson, Lee Markell and Ted Billy all agreed to this compromise.
Mr. Kubik, as a point of clarification, stated his understanding was that the highest priority for the
Vatterotts was the southern flat area of the lot. He asked the Vatterotts if that was the case. The Vatterotts
responded affirmatively.
Mr. Vatterott stated he could see why the Commission would consider this alternative, however their
concern is for lack of privacy If the open flat area south of the retaining wall and east of the trail were to be
left as open space. This scenario would bring park users closer to the Vatterott's property and provide the
potential for trespassing. He also stated that the area north of the retaining wall (where the playground
equipment is currently located) is also an important area they had hoped to retain. It was noted that the
flat area south of the retaining wall was perfect for their three growing children and will work to
accommodate a small soccer/sport field or volleyball court at a later date. The area north of the retaining
wall provides a playground area for the children and the Vatterotts had hoped to be able to install a pool
in this area, however if the property line reverts back to it's actual location this option will not be viable.
Ted Billy suggested that some type of pine tree be planted in the westerly flat area to discourage
park users from trespassing onto the Vatterott's property. The Vatterotts replied that if this Is done than the
Vatterotts will be given exclusive use of park property. George Kubik explained that that would not be the
case since a foliage barrier was planned from the trail to the private property Initially as a buffer for the
homeowner.
After further discussion, George Kubik moved that the actual property line on the western end of
the Vatterott's property be maintained, that adequate plantings be placed in the area east of the trail access
to the farthest west southwest point of the Vatterott's property and that the area south of the plantings be
left as open space so as to be used by the Vatterott's as an extension to their property but the property will
remain as park property. Additionally, that portion of the retaining wall west of the Vatterott's property is
to be removed. Lee Markell seconded the motion with the following members voting in favor; Shawn Hunter,
Lee Markell, Ted Billy and George Kubik. Jack Johnson and John Griggs voted against the motion. The
motion passed.
John Griggs explained that he felt this was an opportunity for the Commission to help remedy a
situation by selling park property without compromising the park. He suggested that a land swap or a
monetary gain could be negotiated between the Vatterotts and the City. He did not like the idea that a
portion of park property would be available for exclusive use by a homeowner. George Kubik acknowledged
Mr. Griggs comment and noted his point for the record.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 5
The Vatterotts expressed their disappointment with the Commission's decision and stated they felt
the Commission was simply protecting a precedent and that the integrity of the park would not be
compromised by this land sale. They continued that If they did not feel that this could have come to a
reasonable compromise they would not have spent the amount of time they had to try to remedy the
situation.
John Griggs explained that the decision made by the Commission did not mean that the Vatteratts
could not see this process to the next point. John noted that the Commission is an advisory body and as
such makes a recommendation to the City Council which makes the ultimate decision In this case. He
suggested that if the Vatterotts were still dissatisfied with the Commission's decision they could follow
through at a City Council meeting when this issue would be brought before them.
CITY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
Superintendent of Parks VonDeUnde briefed the Commission on the background on this issue. He
noted that in June, 1989, staff from Parks and Recreation, Forestry, Community Development and
Engineering began work on a comprehensive revision of the City's Landscaping Ordinances. City staff
recognized the benefits of creating a more "pro-active" ordinance addressing tree preservation and
community tree conservation. The ordinance revision was broken into two elements; the first dealt with the
creation of a new City landscape preservation ordinance in respect to new land developments and
residential subdivisions and the second dealt with the 'post development' landscape ordinances affecting
maintenance of trees on private property, along streets and in public places. In July, 1990 the City Council
adopted the post development ordinance without change from the Commission's recommendation. The
"development" portion of the ordinance has not been presented to the City Council for ratification at this
time, however, Mr. VonDeUnde explained that Jim Sturm from the Community Development Department
would be present at tonight's meeting to review its current status.
Mr. VonDeUnde then reviewed the four primary sections of the post-development ordinance which
Includes 1) shade tree disease control, 2) planting and maintenance of trees on private property, 3) tree
contractor licensing and 4) planting and maintenance of trees on public right-of-way. John continued that
the maintenance of private property section was improved with a new policy requiring turf establishment on
newly developed properties along with requirements for timely erosion control. Contractors were also
required to obtain a license before working on private property.
Changes affecting street right-of-way Included allowing residents to plant trees within public right-of-
way areas under a new tree permit planting system administered by the City Forester. The second change
authorizes the City Council to establish and implement a comprehensive Master Street Tree Planting
Program in the City. Regarding the second Issue the Council wanted more review of this Issue before acting
on It.
Mr. VonDeUnde shared the planting standards for the Boulevard Landscape Ordinance which
Included the following horizontal setbacks; 2 feet from gas,electricity, phone and cable television lines; 4 feet
from public trails or sidewalks; 10 feet from sewer and water lines; 10 feet from back of curb; 10 feet from
driveways and general provision for intersections. The spacing would be a minimum of 20 feet and the
branch clearance would be 13.5 feet over streets and 8 feet over trails and other public places.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 6
Shawn Hunter asked what the typical placement of utilities are in this area. Jim Sturm, City Planner
explained that there is not at the current time a standard placement of unities. Mr. Sturm explained that
a standard plate is being proposed for new subdivisions which would adopt an Engineering guideline for
placement of utilities. This proposal would place utilities as dose to the back of the curb as possible. Mr.
Vraa responded that in the past the utility companies have wanted the maximum flexibility in placing their
lines resulting In the spreading out of these lines wider than what is necessary. The movement to adopt this
standard placement of utilities would get this area down to a 7-8 foot area.
Mr. VonDeLinde explained that most of the Infra-structure is in place. He showed the Commission
an analysis that had been done showing that approximately 4 miles of trail/boulevard areas would meet the
proposed ordinance requirement. The graphics available showed that to amend the ordinance to an 8'
setback an additional 4.5 miles could be added; to amend the ordinance to a 6' setback would encompass
approximately 15.25 miles of boulevard infra-structure; to amend to a 4' setback would encompass
approximately 35.25 miles and if the ordinance was amended to less than a 4' setback the balance of 84
miles of infra structure would be within the ordinance. John concluded that it may be impossible to plant
in existing boulevards based on the existing utility infra-structure.
Shawn Hunter suggested that the City move forward with the County to see It the proposed
standard placement of utilities could be incorporated within the County structure to obtain a consistent utility
Infra-structure.
After further discussion, Shawn Hunter moved, George Kubik seconded the motion' that the
Commission recommend that the setback requirement be changed from 10 feet to 8 feet. John Griggs
amended the motion by adding that City Staff take the setback recommendation to Dakota County and
attempt to solicit their support of the recommendation. The motion continued to Include that an
underground analysis be completed by the spring of 1992 on the segment of Wescott Road between Pilot
Knob and Lexington. All Commission members voted In favor of the amended motion and it was carried.
Director Vraa reminded the Commission that they also wanted an update on the Tree Replacement
Policy. This is an issue that has been in the review process within the Community Development Department.
City Planner Jim Sturm noted that the issue for tree replacement has hinged on the Boulevard Tree
Ordinance and it is felt that once a standard utility location plate Is adopted for use in new developments
it will be easier to then address the tree replacement issue.
John Griggs reiterated the Commission's concern for the numbers of trees that are removed during
development and the need to establish policies and procedures to replace some, if not all that are removed.
George Kubik asked Mr. Sturm if this issue can come back to the Commission at a later date. Lee Markell
suggested that a starting point for Community Development would include looking at existing tree
replacement policies, looking at possibilities of instituting similar policies, and, finally, looking at what future.
development exists within the City of Eagan and what the long-term impact would be for a tree replacement
policy.
After further discussion, George Kubik asked that this Item be scheduled on the January, 1992
agenda. He thanked Mr. Sturm for his informative report on these important issues and asked that Jim join
the Commission at the January meeting.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991
PAGE 7
PROPOSED CHANGE IN 1992 ADULT SOFTBALL RULES
Director Vraa Introduced Recreation Supervisor Jon Oyanagi and explained that after the 1991
summer softball season the League Leadership Committee met to make recommendations for the 1992
season. Mr. Oyanagi explained that the League Leadership Committee was maintained as an advisory group
to hear and recommend changes In rules,league offerings and policies. The committee Is comprised of
representative league/team managers from the various men's and women's leagues. The League
Leadership Committee has recommended that the number of non-residents allowed per team be changed
from the current level of three (3) to five (5). John continued that a survey done in 1990 shows that 9 cities
have an extra fee for "outside" players, 2 cities allow local" players and 3 cities have no charge for outside
players. The "outside player' fee ranges from $10.00 per player with an unlimited number of players up to
$25.00 per player with a limit of 3 players. Some cities charge team fees from $50.00 - $100.00 with
anywhere from 50% to an unlimited number of players rostered being considered non-residents. Both team
fees and fees charged per player are above and beyond the entry fee teams are charged.
Jon explained that currently 20 players can be rosters on men's and women's recreation leagues.
Eligibility for the over 35/40 includes players south of the river and co-rec limits outside players to 2 men
and 2 women. Since the recreational leagues are the most popular this appears to be an issue that primarily
affects the men's and women's leagues. The Issue came up based on the fact that several of the teams In
the league have played for many years, continue In the league but residence for some of the rostered
players has changed.
George Kubik commented that currently the adult softball leagues are bulging and the City has not
been able to accommodate the needs of all teams wanting to play. Shawn Hunter stated that a $25 outside
player fee does not cover costs. He suggested cutting down the number of outside players. John Griggs
added that he was not in favor of expanding the outside player option beyond 3 players. Ted Billy asked
what the rationale was for charging $25 for the 4th and 5th outside player. Ken Vraa stated that that figure
was used only as an example.
Jon Oyanagi stated he was comfortable with expanding the outside player number to 5. He
suggested that this will result in teams staying in the league for a longer period of time. Dorothy Peterson
stated she was in favor of staying with the outside player limit as it is at 3 players, however she does
understand the manager's concern for expanding that number to 5.
George Kubik expressed his concern for adding to the outside player eligibility because if, M the
future this needs to be decreased, it could be very difficult to do so. Lee Marken suggested leaving the
outside player limit at 3; Jack Johnson suggested leaving It at 3 and asked that a $25 fee be paid by those
3 players.
After further discussion, John Griggs moved that based on discussions held with EAA and the limited
field space available to date, that the outside player limit be reduced to 2 players and that all outside players
be charged a fee of $25. There was no second to the motion.
Jack Johnson moved, George Kubik seconded the motion that the number of outside players be
limited to 3 and that a player fee of $25 be charged for all outside players. Jack Johnson, Shawn Hunter,
Lee Markell, Ted Billy and George Kubik voted in favor of the motion. John Griggs voted against. The
motion was carried.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 8
John Griggs noted that he felt strongly about reducing the number of outside players based on the
present and projected need for facilities. George Kubik asked that Jon Oyanagi provide feedback to the
Commission regarding this Issue once he has met with the League Leadership again in January.
REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE
Superintendent of Recreation Peterson explained that the first memo in the Commission packet
covered proposed facility/equipment rental changes for 1992. Dorothy outlined those facilities and services
that were most valuable and most popular during 1991. One of the proposed fee increases is for picnic kits
which were $5.00 in 1991 and are proposed to increase to $7.00. Another increase proposed Is for pavilion
and shelter building reservations. The half-day fee would change from $50.00 to $60.00 and the full-day fee
would change from $75.00 to $85.00. The sun shelter reservations would change from $20.00 to $25.00.
Another proposed change was a maintenance fee for travel softball which would become similar to that of
travel baseball.
John Griggs asked, relative to pavilion/shelter building fees, for a break down of peak hours at these
facilities in an attempt to determine If there was a "down" time to allow the offering of facilities to non-profit
organizations. Dorothy explained that from April through October there were 94 weekday reservations and
98 weekend reservations. She then broke those numbers down by month reflecting almost equal use of
facilities during the week as on the weekend. John thanked Dorothy for the information and concluded that
it appears as though there is not a "down time" to allow for non-fee or reduced fee reservations.
George Kubik commented that the citizens of Eagan are getting a real bargain with the types of
facilities and services being offered to them. Mr. Kubik moved, Ted Billy seconded the motion with all
members voting In favor to accept the proposed fee schedule for 1992 as presented by staff.
Superintendent Peterson explained that the second memo referenced fees as they relate to primarily
athletic facilities. The fees that are charged frequently first appear as a result of an Administrative response
to a new situation In Eagan's dynamic community. Some of the proposed changes Include Adult Sport
Leagues (minor sports) change from $50.00 to $60.00; travel soccer was added to the inclusion of travel
sports; church adult leagues fees change from $20.00 to $25.00; challenge games change from $20.00/40.00
to $25.00/50.00 and in-house youth tournaments at Class A sites will be charged a fee of $35.00 field/day
which Is a reduced rate.
John Griggs asked what access organizations had to running the concession stand at Northview
Athletic. Dorothy noted that this concession can only be run by the City and on an occasional basis by one
of the adult softball teams since the dollars to set up the concession area were donated by adult softball.
John asked what the dollar amount was that was donated by the softball players. Dorothy did not know
the exact dollar amount however, noted that it was a significant investment. John continued that he would
like to see the City consider not grandfathering the adult softball league In to the operation of concessions
at tournaments for an undetermined period of time. Rather, he would like to see staff determine the dollar
amount expended by the adult leagues to set up the concessions and then determine at what point they
would have recouped their Investment leaving the option of the concessions to be run exclusively by the
City so that all revenues would be received by the City. Director Vraa commented that John's point was
well taken and that this Is an issue that needs to be reviewed.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 9
John Griggs moved, Jack Johnson seconded, with all members voting In favor to accept the
proposed fees and charges, Part II for 1992 as proposed by City Staff.
1992 PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION
Director Vraa reviewed the history of dedication fees from 1989 to 1991 with the Commission
reminding them of the significant jump In fees In 1989 to reflect the development boom of the time. As the
Commission looks at the current development trends there have not been a great deal of land sales In the
recent past. Ken explained that a survey of other communities was done to determine their dedication fees
for the near future. It was determined that there would be little, if any, increase In park dedication fees In
the communities surveyed. Based on that information, Director Vraa stated that he saw no justification for
a change in the 1992 fees.
After further discussion, George Kubik moved, Jack Johnson seconded with all members voting In
favor to have the 1992 Parks Dedication fees remain the same as the 1991 fees as recommended by Staff.
PARKS DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Stephen Sullivan noted that the early snowstorm has slowed down projects that were to be nearing
fall completion. The construction on the Trapp Farm Park playground Is on hold until weather will permit
crews to complete the project. If they are unable to get back to it this fail, completion will be
spring/summer of 1992.
WATER QUALITY UPDATE
Director Vraa stated that the special water quality workshop originally scheduled for Saturday,
November 16 would need to be rescheduled. After checking calendars, the meeting was re-scheduled for
Tuesday, November 26, 6:00 PM.
DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS
Some of the items mentioned by Chairman Kubik Included the new phone system at City Hall, MRPA
State conference scheduled In November, the return of Clearwater Park as a skating rink, the success of
the Halloween spook trail In spite of the weather, the beginning.of 3-man and 5-man basketball and the
proposal that will come before the Commission in December for the first soccer tournament to be held In
Eagan.
MAINTENANCE REPORT
Superintendent of Parks VonDeUnde briefly updated the Commission on the status of parks
maintenance, operations and forestry. Some of the items reviewed under the forestry division Included the
Arbor Day program co-sponsored by First Bank Eagan, the planting of nearly 100 trees and shrubs at the
Arbor Day celebration at Slaters Acres Park and the successful Public Tree Sale where more than 750 trees
were sold to the public. Several landscaping projects were completed including Carlson Lake Park,
Northview tennis courts, foundation/entry planting at Bridle Ridge Park, plantings at the library and Phase
I landscaping at the Maintenance Facility. It was also noted that In 1991 more than 100 trees and shrubs
were replaced and 200 saplings were Installed In the Patrick Eagan nursery expansion.
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991
PAGE 10
Items noted relative to athletic fields included the expansion of 2 youth baseball infields at Northview
Elementary School, approximately 1000 individual striping operations, Installation of athletic benches,
enclosure of softball field #2 at Rahn Athletic Park, lining of fields for over 2,215 softball games and a total
of 4,200+ grooming operations on the city's diamonds.
A new playground was constructed at Ohmann Park and Carlson Lake Park. A collaborative project
between School District 196 and the city resulted in a new playground at the Downing Park/Oak Ridge
School site. In mid-September new playground construction was begun at Trapp Farm Park but the early
snow has hampered the progress of this project.
John noted that slightly more than 500 individual tennis court and basketball court inspections were
conducted, a new drainage tile system was placed within the Ohmann horseshoe court area. After
highlighting additional items, Mr. VonDeLinde noted that the trend has shifted more to maintenance rather
than construction. He also commented that there is also a trend for more volunteerism and Inter- dlvislonal
cooperation toward completing these tasks.
Chairman Kubik thanked Mr. VonDeLinde for his extensive report and suggested that a letter of
appreciation be sent to the maintenance staff from the Commission commending them on their outstanding
work.
REVIEW PARKS TOUR OF OCTOBER 26, 1991
Chairman Kubik commented on a very informative park tour suggesting that the Minneapolis Park
system gives the City of Eagan a good view of where they may be In 20-30 years. Shawn Hunter asked if
Minneapolis has had to switch the use of any of their facilities. John Griggs commented that as the needs
in Minneapolis have changed, the facilities have changed. John further commented on some of the building
characteristics that were noted during the tour Including brick pedestals for buildings. John VonDelinde
noted that a bridge they saw was similar to what could be considered at Blackhawk Park. Another area
John Griggs commented positively about was the fact that there were several distributed mini community
centers in the community that had a marquis in front of them to keep the public updated. John also
commented that Minneapolis Commission members were elected positions and that their park system has
a $20,000,000+ budget.
1990 CENSUS INFORMATION
Director Vraa brought the Commission's attention to the information provided in the 1990 census
and asked them to specifically note the numbers of children under the age of 5.
ROUND TABLE
Mr. Vraa, noting that the January Commission meeting would fall immediately after January 1
suggested that the meeting be postponed until January 9th to facilitate final holiday plans. The Commission
agreed to change the January meeting date to January 9.
John Griggs stated that Mayor Egan had faxed a letter to him responding to the St.Paul Chamber
Orchestra questionnaire John had distributed to those who had attended the concert. George Kubik noted
that this is an Item that should be further reviewed at a brainstorming session. Jack Johnson recapped the
responses that were received regarding this questionnaire stating that there were high ratings for the
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MEETING
PAGE 11
performance, facility, and operations. Those areas receiving a low rating included marketing for young
families, overall setting ticket prices, marketing operations In general, poster advertising and TicketMaster.
George Kubik commented that as long as the Commission Is able to learn some positive things about this
endeavor it is not a failure. Jack Johnson noted that the results of the survey are Important information to
have.
With no further business to conduct, John Griggs moved, Lee Marked seconded with all members
voting In favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Secre ry Date