Loading...
10/07/1982 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 7, 1982 The regular meeting was held on October 7, 1982 at the Eagan City Hall. Those members present at the meeting were Martin, Carroll, Kubik, Masin, Schumaker, and Fedde. Absent were members Tilley, McNeely, Gustafson, Thurston. Also present was the Director of Parks and Recreation and systems plan consultant, Tim Erkkila. Preceding the convening of the meeting at 7:00 P.M., members of the Advisory Committee toured the proposed park in the Windtree addition, section 15 park land, and a future potential park area in section 10. MINUTES There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of September 2, 1982 on a motion by Carroll, seconded by Kubik, with all members voting in favor, the minutes of September 2, 1982 were approved. Members indicated that they had not received copies of the special meeting of September 22, 1982. These minutes were not acted upon. AGENDA The chairman indicated that he would like to add an informational item con- cerning Blackhawk Park Silver Bell Road under new business. There being no further additions, on a motion by Fedde, seconded by Masin, the agenda for October 7, 1982 was approved. OLD BUSINESS PARKS SYSTEM PLAN: The Director of Parks and Recreation outlined the discussion agenda for the Advisory Committee explaining the classification system and its significance as well as the critical issues that relate to the development of the Eagan Park system. Mr. Erkkila then began by stating that the classification system was an important and crucial matter. He continued that the definitions and descrip- tions used in the classification of the parks system plan, was to a great degree, the who, what, and how parks are to be developed and utilized in the future. The classification system would act as a resource and decision making tool, and would help to define how each park is to be developed and what is to be in it. Further, the classification system will help the committee de- termine how many and what facilities will be required, and to a certain degree the size of those facilities. Mr. Erkkila reemphasized that the classification system will help with the decisions that the City and committee will have to make and they will be able to relate back to the interpretation of the classifi- cation system and the definition of neighborhood parks. Mr. Erkkila then distributed a copy of the 1980 Park Classification that was utilized in the City's Comprehensive Guide Park Plan. He reviewed in detail the mini -park, neighborhood park and community athletic field classifications as to its use, service area, site size and attributes. He then distributed a second sheet entitled "Proposed Classifications." He stated that there was some clarification and additional concepts in this newly proposed classifi- cation system. He felt that this would be an addition to that which the Advisory Parks Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 2 committee just reviewed. Under mini -park, there were no major changes from the previous definition, but was defined in sentence form. He stated that several mini -parks within a park service area could collectively be considered as a neighborhood park, if the mini -parks contained the necessary components to complete a neighborhood facility. He also suggested that the mini -park classification should not be used as a "catch all" for those land areas that seemed unsuitable or unusable for other purposes. Further, he stated that it would not be the intention to develop additional mini -parks because they were not an essential component of the park system and encouraged the City to continue to seek larger, complete neighborhood park components. In re- sponse to a question, he stated that Oak Chase Park might be a good example of a mini -park, in that it fulfilled some neighborhood needs but could not meet all the criteria for what was necessary for a neighborhood park. Mr. Erkkila then went on to the neighborhood park classification, saying that this presented more controversial and discussion topic for the committee to review. He stated that neighborhood park sites are primarily for local activities on a neighborhood basis. The new definition was expanded to in- clude the concept that basic neighborhood parks would contain a 250' by 250' open field game area, paved hard court game area, trails, play equipment facilities for pre- school and elementary age children and a passive or natural area if available. Mr. Erkkila continued that these would be the only elements which would be included in the definition of a neighborhood park. Essentially, if the City and committee were to adopt such a classification, it would become the standard. And, the City would only intend to provide those most basic of elements in each of its neighborhood parks. He went on to say that optional facilities may be found in neighborhood parks. These might include improved ball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, hockey and skating rinks and parking. Mr. Erkkila stated that the park definition simply stated, the City would be providing a summer facility with the most basic of elements; while not ruling out the opportunity to come back at a later date to provide improved or upgraded facilities, or the inclusion of optional facilities. He stated that the intention of this description would be to provide basic facilities to the community while reserving the right to add additional facilities later. Mr. Erkkila then responded to a question from Mr. Martin, indicating that a good example of such a basic neighborhood park might be the River Hills Park East. In response to a question, he indicated that the open space arm would be promised, but that it does not exclude the fact that a backstop or soccer goals might be installed. The con- cept says that the basic facilities would provide for an open game field area, but you may have more. There was additional discussion of this concept by the committee. Mr. Erkkila then went on to discuss the definitions of the community athletic fields. He stated that these sites really need to have access by major streets and should range from 30 to 60 acres in size with larger areas being the most desirable and should be of a level of development for competitive play. These facilities are on a multi neighborhood or City wide basis. The implication here is that you acknowledge intensive, high level of development of fields, by having adequate parking, shelter facilities and other amenities not normally included in neighborhood parks. If these are included in neighborhood parks you imply that you will then provide for parking, etc. He pointed out that Advisory Parks F, Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 3 the past history of Eagan was to do that; not provide neighborhood parking facilities. However, he stated, that this had somewhat changed in the use of the parks because of the scheduling of community activities into these facilities; hence the requirement for parking areas. He stated as soon as the City begins programming neighborhood facilities, including teams from outside the neighborhood, the need for parking and other amenities increase. He then indicated that he would prefer to review this in further depth with the committee but wished to review some additional policies which he hoped would clarify this concept of neighborhood parks. In response to a question from Mr. Schumaker, Mr. Erkkila stated that the classification system was not intended to replace that which has already been accepted, but to further define and develop it. Mr. Kubik indicated that he saw the difference to the old classification as a passive document and that the new classification would be active. The consultant then distributed a sheet entitled "Additional Policies" for review by the committee. He indicated that these policies were in addition to those that may be existing and seem to be necessary to say as they relate to a classification system. He went on to discuss those additional policies stating that tennis courts should be built in pairs, whenever possible, and preferably fours. Stating this would be economically beneficial and relieve some pressures to build one in every park. In response to a question from Chairman Martin, Mr. Erkkila responded that a single court would cost approximately $16,000 while double courts would cost between $24,000 and $25,000 and a four court complex may be $40,000. Committee member Carroll indicated that the committee must carefully weigh the economical aspects of providing tennis and hockey facilities in groups of two and tennis in four court groups. He continued, the committee must show proper balance for users and cannot place too much stress on economy while forgetting the convenience factor. He went on to state that a disservice would be imposed upon the community if users were forced to drive to separate park locations to make use of amenities such as tennis courts and hockey rinks. Chairman Martin indicated that he too was concerned about the economics of building and establishing facilities which did not show concern for access, usability and serviceability. Mr. Martin then wanted to know why hockey rinks should be considered a community wide resource and not necessarily neighborhood facility? Mr. Erkkila responded that hockey rinks be installed in pairs to make use of lighting, parking, and for shelter facilities. Chairman Martin then asked if we are saying that there should not be any hockey facilities in neighborhood rinks? Mr. Erkkila responded that, by definition, the City would not be obligated to install hockey or open skating in each neighborhood facility, but that it may choose to do so if resources would provide it. He continued saying, that it was not his intent to promise anyone that those facilities would be installed in each neighborhood park. Mr. Erkkila then went on to priority four which stated that timing and develop- ment of facilities should be based largely upon existing and anticipated pop- ulation in the service areas. Simply stated the City would use demographics as a basis for distribution of facilities within the planning district and within the park service areas. He stated that the facility standards were not considered necessary until 65% of required population standard has been achieved. Mr. Erkkila explained how this policy would be enacted saying Advisory Parks F Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 4 that once the threshold had been achieved the facilities should be considered for implementation. He indicated that just because a population might meet a 65% threshold it did not necessarily mean that a facility would have to be installed. It was simply a guide of what development should be occuring. The committee might also consider development standards often being exceeded by a certain per centage. He stated that the 65% figure was simply a number which he had selected on the premise that he felt it was appropriate, but the committee may want to change this number. Mr. Erkkila went on to explain recreational standards and to apply them to the community. These standards are stated as a relationship of population to number of facilities. For an example, he explained, tennis courts might typically be one for every 2,000 population. Therefore, if your population is twenty thousand people you should have 10 tennis courts. He then identi- fied five types of facilities which could be identified as major components within the park system; and which would continually be the issues addressed the most often in the community. Those components are: the scheduable soft- ball facilities, baseball, tennis, soccer and hockey rinks. He stated that facilities such as ice arenas, golf courses and other special use facilities are significant, but are not typically day to day problems that the depart- ment and community will have to deal with. The first facility to be reviewed was programmable softball fields which would have sufficient distance to foul lines 290 -280- and improved infields. He stated that a typical range would be one field per 1,250 to 2,500 residents. It was recommended that a one field per 2,500 population be accepted. He indicated a lesser population ratio would have the net result of producing higher requirements for additional ball fields. Mr. Erkkila stated that the 2,500 population figure was generally an acceptable number with most communities, and seemed to meet the test of existing fields. He indicated, that Eagan currently has eight fields for programmable needs; the four at Northview being the most significant ones. There are additional fields, but because of there sub standard nature, could only be given half credit amounting to a total of 8.5. Applying the recommended standard at 2,500 to the 1980 population of 20,000, this produced a need of eight. Based on the 1980 census, the need was met. In conclusion if the need was eight and the supply was eight it would seem to reason that the range from 1 to 2,500 was an acceptable standard for Eagan. However, it was a decision for the committee to make. He questioned if the present supply did meet present demand to the satisfaction of the committee. Chairman Martin asked the Director of Parks and Recreation to respond if he felt the present supply of scheduable facilities was adequate. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that generally the 8 to 8 ratio seemed to be adequate. However, he indicated that he had numerous requests from outside organizations such as church groups and private organizations, and these groups were having to use neighborhood parks rather than community parks for these activities. He stated that it was becoming more and more of a scheduling problem and it was noticeable during this past summer. He went on to say that he has been contacted by an Eagan girls traveling team seeking a ball field for practice and games for 1983. At this time a field could not be found other than Woodhaven- Beryl. Mr. Erkkila stated some communities have used a lower ration of one facility per 1,250 population. These communities have then developed major facilities in neighborhood parks and scheduled them for play. He indi- cated that it was his impression that the Advisory Committee preferred not to do this if at all possible. He stated this was up to the committee to decide, however, to do so means neighborhood youth would come out to play on the neigh- Advisory Parks F Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 5 borhood ball field and find it being utilized by league players in scheduled events. Walk on opportunities are limited. Further, development of neigh- borhood parks in this manner reduce the flexibility and desirable reserve capacity needed in parks. The committee then discussed the impact of industries and utilization of park resources. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that while there was a number of industrial teams playing in the adult softball leagues, its impact was difficult to measure. He related that the communities of Plymouth and Eden Prairie had substantial numbers of teams because of their large industrial /commercial base. Mr. Erkkila then went on to explain the ratio and standards for baseball, tennis, hockey rinks, soccer fields. The committee questioned why the caculations shown did not include those fields that were being provided by the school district, Blue Cross /Blue Shield or Univac? Mr. Erkkila indicated that he did not include these facilities because generally these were not scheduable facilities, or were under the jurisdiction of the school district and could not be counted on for being available. They could be used in the caculations, if you had a contractual arrangement for use of these fields. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that standards for most communities take into account that there are school related facilities which may supplement the park system. To count the school fields would mean an adjustment in the ratio of fields per thousand of population. Further, private facilities are just that; private and could be taken away at a moments notice. Mr. Erkkila then reviewed a second test of the system standards. He stated that a typical community standard, and one which was included in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, showed be- tween 3 and 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents for athletic facilities. Under that standard the current need of Eagan is between 60 and 70 acres. Presently the City has 70 acres, of which 40 is at Northview and 30 at Rahn. Applying this standard to the 1990 planning horizon, there would be a need for between 110 and 130 acres. With that which is now owned, plus anticipated community athletic fields land of 10 acres at Capricorn, there would be a net anticipated deficiency at 1990 levels of nearly 40 acres in community fields. He explained an alternative is to change the standards and not to deliver the facilities on a level as indicated in the standards. This, however, would not be the realistic course because the demands for facilities would then outstrip facilities, or to put them into neighborhood parks. Chairman Martin, stated he was concerned about placing community fields in neighborhood parks. He indicated that he was not in favor of this and was concerned about the ramifications of placing them into residential neighborhoods. Mr. Erkkila responded that the concern was that while you could do it, intensely develop a particular neighborhood park with three ball fields, you would leave no room for the reserve flexibility need with future development Of residential areas. Further, you may place these facilities into areas in which they would not be appropriate and your development of park facilities becomes "unbalanced" vs other areas of the City. Mr. Erkkila reiterated that he did not wish to propose that the City use all the existing neighborhood sites at this time and not leave a balance for the community in the future. Chair- man Martin questioned that given a choice in the development of fields into scheduled facilities "wouldn't the neighborhood object Mr. Erkkila responded Advisory Parks F Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 6 that it was his intent not to provide highly developed facilities into local parks. If this were to happen it may preclude the use of those facilities by local neighborhood groups. He went on to explain that this does not necessarily mean that those facilities may not be developed to a fully improved status, but it would not be called a scheduable facility by definition of a neighborhood park. Mr. Erkkila then distributed a sheet showing the population distribution by age groups. He stated that the demographic analysis and the descriptions used to date has been based on this existing information. He stated that the base information was formulated on raw data and number of head counts. The committee should be cautious of developing too many facilities for an existing bulge in the present population versus that which can be expected in the near future, therefore this graphic becomes important. To summarize, Mr. Erkkila concluded, the graphic would tend to show sufficient numbers of individuals are in each of the age classifications. The fear of overbuilding, based on one particular age classification, did not seem to be a valid con- cern. Mr. Erkkila then answered several questions in regards to the age distribution sheet. The committee was in agreement that the data would tend to support the conclusion arrived at. Mr. Erkkila then presented an exhibit showing existing park sites with coloration based on existing facilities. Symbols shown by each of the park sites repre- sented facilities that are now of a scheduable nature. These might be included in those park sites to ensure some equal distribution between planning districts. He stated that because a park site was not shown to have a symbol of ball fields, or softball fields or tennis courts, it did not mean that those facilities would not be provided in that site. Mr. Erkkila then reviewed specific elements that were being suggested. He mentioned those parks that would be impacted by redistribution or ditribution of needed facilities between now and the planning horizon of 1990. He stated the problem areas were in section 14 and 15 which appeared to be the most serious and somewhat crucial. He indicated that this general area would be short by 1990 of two hockey rinks, scheduable softball facilities, tennis courts and potentially a baseball facility. He reviewed those park sites that were currently available in this area to handle these facilities indicating that they were either of a neighborhood nature or not suitable. These were the Fish Lake Park, Deboer Park, and future park sites in section 14 and 15. Mr. Erkkila then suggested the City should consider, either distribution of these to neighborhood parks, which would be against the classification system, or to a central athletic complex in the north end of town. He reminded the Advisory Committee that they had looked at a future park site off of Yankee Doodle Road which might be considered as an alterna- tive site for this purpose. Mr. Erkkila then continued to review the impact on some of the individual sites such as Lexington Park, Coachman Park, future Blue Cross /Blue Shield Park, Well Site, and Ridge Cliff Park. In response to a question, Mr. Erkkila drew a comparison between the Lexington Park facility and the approximately 370 people in the planning district, and the area in which Well Site Park is located which had approximately 2,700, indicating that this was perhaps typical of areas the City should be concentrating on for development of neighborhood facilities. He also noted other areas with lesser population densities, deserving of basic neighborhood classification, but could not be justified for significant or improvable facilities versus other areas. In response to a question, Mr. Erkkila stated that if the standards Advisory Parks F, Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 7 were changed or enlarged upon the problem of finding space for additional facilities became more difficult. Mr. Erkkila commented that he kept coming back to the thought that he started out with, there is a tremendous amount of land in the Eagan park system, but when it came to applying the standards to those areas that were now owned there became great difficulty. The alterna- tive then were to place these facilities in existing neighborhood parks or secure more land for these types of facilities. Mr. Kubik summarized by saying it's not the amount of land it's the type of land. Mr. Erkkila then summarized that the information previously discussed this evening concerning the classification, demographics, were now all being drawn together into a more complete picture for the Advisory Committee to discuss. He then reviewed for the Advisory Committee the neighborhood park service areas, within each of the planning districts in which potential problems were beginning or had already surfaced. These problem areas were section 15 with 1,700 people by 1990, the Blackhawk area which has some potential growth but nothing has been figured out for Blackhawk Park in the relation- ship of neighborhood facilities in this area; section 21, which anticipates some park land within the school area. While there is an anticipated growth in this section the problem may be a long term one but should be recognized at this point. Parks service section 22 which currently has the Windcrest addition and Patrick Eagan Park. This section has no site which can come close to a basic or open play space for summer amenities. While the area is attractive the terrain and topography would not allow for basic neighborhood facilities that would be promised in the definition of a neighborhood park. He suggested that innovative thinking might have to be used to solve this problem. The next area was section 23 which included Northview Athletic Fields but did not have any neighborhood facilities proposed at this time. He suggested that this problem would be a ways off and could be worked on with future sub divisions. He suggested that while a portion of Northview Park may be looked at for neighborhood facilities, this did not seem to be appropriate because of the intense development for athletic use. This would be addressed within the system plan. In service section 26, he suggested that while Wedgewood Park would be an appropriate neighborhood facility its location is at the very corner of the service district. He suggested that with the development of Northview Meadows and future development that there may be some problems in the easterly end of the park service area. He suggested that perhaps the solution might be found at Schwanz Lake where some dedication is anticipated. Park service section 27 has numerous park areas but none which satisfy the classification of a neighborhood park. He suggested that the conglomeration of several mini parks; Carlson Lake, Oak Chase, and Well Site could be developed in such a manner as to satisfy the needs for a neighborhood park. He suggested that perhaps the Well Site Park, with the elimination of the hockey rink, could be developed into a more suitable area for neighborhood use. Finally, he mentioned the Donnywood Park area, while population in- tensity would not increase, the park is not suitable to provide the facilities of a neighborhood park. After a brief summation, the Advisory Committee discussed the issues presented. Mr. Kubik stated that the standards proposed seemed minimal and perhaps a higher standard should be considered. Committee member Martin's concern was that a one to two thousand population for softball were a minimum. Advisory Parks Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 8 Committee member Carroll questioned the costs for the bare essentials of a neighborhood park. He went on to say that once dollar costs are known, that it might have an impact on how the decisions may go. Committee member Martin indicated that park land in the north section, visited prior to the committee meeting, might be the most suitable for a major athletic complex. He went on to say the City has previously discussed the need for an area in the northern section of the community and that this would be a logical site. He stated that while this may not necessarily be the highest priority for acquisition at this time, it should be an objective of the Advisory Committee. Mr. Kubik indicated that he agreed. He continued by saying, the biggest impact on him after review of the material was that the focus of attention may not be on each individual park site, but a redirection towards acquisition and development of a major park in the northern part of the community. Committee member Martin said that neighborhood parks, would come as the result of the parks dedication process and should be taken care of adequately. The location of the northern location for major facilities is beginning to shape itself as a significant issue. Mr. Erkkila responded that identification and acquisition of the parcel within the planning horizon would seem to be an achievable objective. He went on to explain that he did not wish to mislead anyone, but it went back to the concept that there was a lack of developed facilities east of the proposed 35 -E. There is the need to provide a balance of facilities throughout the park system. He did not wish to overlook other areas that are in critical need of park facilities. The Director of Parks and Recreation agreed and stated that there are certain critical areas in need of parks develop- ment. A major north athletic complex has previously been mentioned but the Coachman Park area was seen as a possible site. He went on saying that he had some problems with this after looking at the density of the area. Community athletic fields does not improve the neighborhood park situation for the vast numbers of residents in section 9. He went on to indicate that the distribution of athletic facilities between Coachman and future Blue Cross/ Blue Shield Park may take care of the athletic need for the community, but neighborhood needs would not be resolved. The problem would then become where do you put two new neighborhood parks in these two areas. Mr. Erkkila stated while he had not intended to present his material as a case for athletic needs, it came out as an analysis of existing park land and its suitability for development. While this was not the intent of his presentation, it was obvious from the discussion of the members that this has happened. He went on to say that an extremely strong case can be presented for the lack of significant neighborhood park facilties as well as community facilities. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Committee and references made to distribution of softball facilities and hockey facilities in neigh- borhood parks. Committee member Martin stated that he was in complete agree- ment that neighborhood parks should remain and avoid use of these parks for scheduled activities. He went on to state that while he did not object to seeing improved ball fields or hockey rinks in neighborhood parks he does not feel that they should be counted towards being scheduled facilities. This would be unfair to the neighborhood and its users. In response to some questioning regarding the hockey rinks the Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that perhaps the most expensive of recreational Advisory Parks E, Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 9 programs is the care of outdoor skating facilities. He indicated that the most economical hockey facilities is in paired locations and was better for scheduling. After some discussion committee member Masin suggested that currently some problems with the use of Carnelian Park for youth soccer programs, specifically the parking of cars in residential areas and within the park proper. Mr. Erkkila responded that this is typical of neighborhood parks which are used for scheduling of programs and should be expected as a result of an option utilizing these parks in this manner. Committee chairman Martin asked how the City's Comp Plan, as prepared by John Voss compared in numbers of acres and predicted acreage required for park sites to what was shown tonight? The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan did not specifically identify a need or site for acquiring 30 to 40 acres of community athletic fields at the north end of the City. However, the comp guide plan does state 3 acres per thousand population needed for athletic fields would be necessary. He stated that applying this standard, from the Voss conclusion, the plan does indeed state additional park land would be required. Mr. Erkkila stated that there was nothing that had been said tonight that should be termed radical or out of line with that which the City had prepared to date. He continued by say- ing that this information fills in the gap that the Voss plan did not state. He went on to explain that he simply has confirmed that which was developed in the comp guide plan and tried to establish those needs on a per site basis. Chairman Martin reiterated that he was not surprised at the conclusions that have been reached this evening. Committee member Carroll commented that with the impact of the industrial growth and need for recreational facilities, perhaps the realization is that in some manner, shape or form an industrial contributions will probably have to be required. Mr. Carroll continued saying that the north end of the community was predominantly short of park facilities and this is predominantly industrial; perhaps they should bear part of the responsibility for seeing to it that these facilities are acquired and developed. Mr. Erkkila then stated that he would be covering this in the funding and implementation portion of the systems plan. He went on to say that the City has been awfully good to the industrial and commercial development but the scope of the plan is now looming very large and that the commercial and industrial base will have to be tapped at some point in time to help assist in the implementation process. He stated that Plymouth and Eden Prairie are two high growth communities who have extensive commercial and industrial growth and have required parks dedi- cation. They have not been adversely impacted by those dedications. Committee member Masin questioned why the City did not presently have a commercial and industrial dedication? Chairman Martin responded. There was an extensive discussion by the Advisory Committee on the information that had been presented, which staff and consultant responded. At this point in time the consultant stated he would now like to proceed with review of the concept plans which had been prepared for Wedgewood, Capricorn, South Oaks and Lakeside Parks. At this point in the meeting chairman Martin asked that the Advisory Committee get the remaining items on the agenda before reviewing those concept plans. Advisory Parks F Recreation Committee Minutes October 7, 1982 Page 10 Chairman Martin indicated that in reading the material presented for parks dedication and based on the discussion with the consultant and the material just presented, he would like to see this item deferred to November or the December meeting of the Advisory Committee. Committee member Carroll questioned what time line the committee would have to work with before having to make a decision on this issue? After some additional discussion and explanation by the director, this item was deferred to December. Chairman Martin then introduced the next item pertaining to the request from Mr. Stalland for the Advisory Committee to join with him in petitioning the City of Eagan to proceed with the extension of Silver Bell Road to Blackhawk Park. Mr. Kubik stated the hour was late and he would like additional time to review the material prepared by staff and the letter of request. After an initial discussion, this item was deferred to the November meeting for consideration. Chairman Martin asked the director to inquire of the City Attorney if the committee had the authority to act in this capacity. There being no further items, on a motion by Fedde, seconded by Carroll, the regular meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Dated: PARKS DEDICATION ANNUAL REVIEW ADJOUPNMENT K.L.V. Advisory Parks ecreation Committee Secretary