HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-12-05 special meetingAPPROVED
Members Present: Eric Johnson, Mark Jacobs, Kelly Sampo and Leslie Defries
Members Absent: Mike Eliason
Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation
Student Volunteer: None
Others Present: None
1. CALL TO ORDER: Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
3. AUDIENCE INPUT: None.
4. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
Athletic Complex – Schultz reviewed the 2005 Proposed Facility List that identified how many outdoor athletic amenities currently exist and what is tentatively planned for the future.
The Commission discussed what approach to take for planning for a new athletic facility. Schultz reminded the Commission that at the last meeting it was mention that we could possibly
come up with a few options on what we needed to build. It was mentioned that until we have a piece of property in mind for the park, we are spinning are wheels on coming up with a design.
Jacobs agreed and felt we should not spend too much time trying to design a complex for a site to be determined later. Schultz reviewed a number of Arial photos from other local athletic
facilities to let the Commission get an idea of how many amenities can fit on to various acres of land. Johnson asked if we should come up with options for the City Council since we
do not know what land we could be building on. The Commission came up three options:
Option 1: 2 multi purpose facilities of 45 acres each.
Each complex would house:
2 large baseball fields
4 softball
1 football
4 soccer fields
4 tennis courts
Option 2: 3 single use facilities (A, B and C) The complexes would be divided as follows:
A - 55 acres for: 4 large baseball fields
8 softball fields
B – 45 acres 2 Football fields
8 soccer fields
C – 15 acres Site for Swimming/Diving facilities
Possible site for future Ice Rink
Option 3: One large facility to house the following amenities: (105 acres)
4 baseball fields
8 softball fields
2 football fields
8 soccer fields
8 tennis courts
The Commission discussed the options and felt comfortable that this would give us the flexibility needed at this time. Motion by Sampo to recommend three master plan options to the City
Council regarding a future athletic Complex SECOND by Defries. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Proposals Climbing Wall at Birch Park – Staff reviewed the proposals that had been received for the climbing structure. Because staff were not able to get the proposals to the Commission
prior to the meeting staff felt is was best to review the submittals at the regular Commission meeting on September 26. The Commission agreed and there was not further discussion on
this item.
b. Review and Recommend Service Levels – Staff asked the Commission to review and comment on our current services levels. The two items discussed open gyms and skate rental in the arena.
Staff will look further into feasibility of providing these two services. No action was taken on this item.
c. Review the Maintenance Standards For Landscaping Installed by Developers –
Schultz explained when the City has a developer or a private landscaper install trees or shrubs on City parkland, there is an expectation that the plantings are healthy when they are
purchased and installed. Before the City buys trees and such, we ask about the warranty and any special care the plantings might need. Schultz stated that our usual practice is to have
the City staff do most of the planting of trees in our City parks. He also stated that before having outside vendors plant trees in our parks, we review the ability to maintain the
plantings with our Public Works staff.
The Evermoor Development included the planting of many new trees. There were a number of outlots that were dedicated as City parkland that had new trees planted by the developer. Schultz
stated that in the Evermoor Development, most of the trees have survived. The trees that have not made it are typically replaced by the developer once they notice the dead tree or once
notified by City staff. There was no further discussion on this item.
d. Developer Interaction/Plan Review Process - Schultz explained the process for reviwing development plans. He stated that when the City receives a development plan, there are a number
of items that are required to be submitted before staff can start the review of the plans and move them through the development review process. He also mentioned that there are also
state statutes that require the City to act promptly on a complete submittal. Schultz said the Community Development Department leads the review process and that the development plans
are also reviewed by the Police, Fire, Parks & Recreation, Public Works and Administration Departments at the City. The Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission also
review the plans before going on to the City Council for final approval. The issue of reviewing the Glen Rose development was brought up and how it felt like the review was being pushed
through without having all of the information needed for a complete review. Schultz stated that for this item, he felt it was important that the Commission did not table that item but
that they make a recommendation to the City Council. This would provide the Council with an understanding of where the Parks and Recreation Commission stood on the issues with the development.
Schultz informed the Commission that he
would discuss with other staff the issue of incomplete information coming to the Commission. There was no further discussion on the item.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Sampo to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Jacobs. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Dan Schultz,
Parks and Recreation Department