Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-25-06APPROVED Members Present: Jason Eisold, Mike Eliason, Mark Jacobs, Eric Johnson, Kelly Sampo Members Absent: None Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary Student Volunteer: Jonathan Nutzmann Others Present: None 1. CALL TO ORDER: Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Director’s Report – Update on Request for Outdoor Rink at Shannon Park. 3. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 28, 2006 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Jacobs to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2006 meeting. SECOND by Sampo. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None. 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Lot Split – Great River Energy – This item was discussed previously at the May 23, 2005 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. At that time, the Commission recommended collecting cash in lieu of land for parks dedication. Great River Energy (GRE) originally was proposing a lot split on a 79.32 acre parcel. The lot would be split by Ehler’s Path and would divide the parcel into two sections, one being 4.06 acres and the other 75.26 acres. GRE felt that the $50,000/acre fee for the lot split was too high, as they had paid $15,000/acre a couple of years ago. The $50,000/acre fee was based on our fee policy for parks dedication collection for industrial use. After several discussions between staff and GRE, it was agreed that a lower fee would be brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff is recommending that we collect a parks dedication fee of $180,000, ($180,000 divided by 7.9 acres = $22,784/acre) for the lot split. The reasons for the lower fee are that the land is currently zoned for agriculture, it is worth less than land being developed on the west side of Hwy 52, and our subdivision ordinance allows us to review subdivisions on a case by case basis. The Commission discussed the revised parks dedication fee and expressed concern that it was quite a bit lower than the $50,000/acre allowed per our current fee policy. Eliason asked what would happen if the land was sold and rezoned to be used for another purpose at some time in the future. Per Schultz, if that should happen, our subdivision ordinance allows for this to be reviewed again and we could collect an additional fee if appropriate. MOTION by Sampo to recommend that the City Council accept cash in lieu of land to satisfy the parks dedication for the GRE lot split as presented by staff. SECOND by Jacobs. Discussion followed regarding the revised fee. Eliason felt that the City was not collecting as it should and that $22,784/acre was too low. If it is rezoned to industrial, the land will instantly be worth more. Jacobs asked what would happen if the land was sold and rezoned residential. Per Schultz, if this should happen we would look at the amount we had already collected, what the new use would be and its impact on the parks system. Our subdivision ordinance does allow us to review the property being resubdivided and to collect additional parks dedication fees if they are warranted. Eliason felt that if we tried to collect additional fees, it would be challenged. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Eliason) Motion passed. b. Bloomfield Park Sun Shelter - This item was tabled at the last meeting and Schultz was bringing it back for further discussion. Schultz provided a photo of the park and pointed out an area near the playground and an area on the southeast side of the trail that would be suitable for a sun shelter. Schultz was recommending adding up to $25,000 to the 2007 CIP Budget for the proposed sun shelter. If the Commission was in favor of doing this, the decision should be made by December to be included in the 2007 CIP Budget. The Commission asked if the Bloomfield Park Shelter had been included on the City Council agenda for further review as they had discussed at the last meeting. Per Schultz, it has not yet been included and the earliest it could be would be October. Johnson asked if the Commission’s confusion on this item and their wish to discuss this with the City Council was conveyed to the Council. Schultz explained that he had e-mailed a memo including the section of the minutes from last month’s meeting regarding this item to the City Council and asked them to contact him regarding it. He had spoken to Council Members Sterner and Baxter so far, and had discussed this with the City Administrator, too. Johnson asked what would happen to the $250,000 that was originally budgeted for the shelter at Bloomfield Park. Per Schultz the parks improvement fund balance rolls to the next year and the funds that were to be used for the shelter will remain in the parks improvement fund. Eliason stated that he had spoken with Council Member Shoe-Corrigan regarding this issue and asked her to take a look at the minutes when she received them. He had not heard back from her. Schultz asked if the Commission would like him to bring back examples of other sun shelters, or if the Commission would like to have further discussion with the City Council about this before making any other improvements to the site. Nutzmann thought that the Commission should see what happens as far as the original shelter before looking at building a sun shelter, and they should wait until the next meeting to see what the Council has to say. The Commission decided to table this issue and asked Schultz to bring it back next month. MOTION by Jacobs to table the discussion of a Bloomfield Park Sun Shelter until next month’s meeting. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. c. Intermediate School District 917 – Recreation Facility Partnership - Schultz was bringing this item back with answers to questions the Commission had asked at last month’s meeting. Schultz had spoken with John Christianson, Superintendent for Intermediate School District 917. Schultz informed the Commission that the student population who would be attending the new school would be those with emotional and/or behavioral challenges. The students would be in grades K-12. The school doesn’t have after school activities and would be using their gym and outdoor facilities only during school hours. The Commission also had asked Schultz to bring back information on partnerships the City has with other school districts. Per Schultz, we currently have agreements with District 196 for tennis courts at Charlie’s Park, and ball fields and the north parking lot at Shannon Park. We have partnered with Dakota County Technical College in the past for use of their softball field and parking lot. The Rosemount Community Center currently has an agreement with the high school for the use of 44 parking spots at the Community Center for student parking by permit. Per Schultz, District 917 is still looking for land to purchase at this time. This item will be brought back as developments occur. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Appointment to St. Joseph’s Church Task Force – At their work session on September 13, 2006, the City Council asked Schultz to recruit a variety of community members for a task force to decide the future use of the old St. Joseph’s Church/School buildings. The task force will meet once a month for eight to 12 months, beginning in January 2007. Schultz asked for a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission to be part of the task force. The Commission felt it would work best to have a representative attend the monthly meetings on a rotating basis due to various scheduling conflicts that could arise during the year. The representative would update the rest of the Commission on what was discussed at the monthly Commission meeting. MOTION by Eisold to recommend that the City Council appoint a rotational committee representation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to the St. Joseph’s Church Task Force. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. b. Request from Father Frank’s Foundation – Mayor Droste and staff recently met with representatives from Father Frank’s Foundation. The Foundation donated $2,000 approximately a year ago to be used at Central Park to recognize those who have served our country in the military or to improve the park in some way. Father Frank’s Foundation is willing to donate an additional $3,000 for the memorial. They have also contacted Flint Hills Resources asking for donations from them for the project. One of the ideas the Foundation suggested was to sell brick pavers for approximately $200 each that would be engraved with an individual’s name, etc. The pavers could line the sidewalk near the current memorial. The Commission thought that placement of memorial pavers in Central Park would not be the best option, as the pavers would be trampled during certain times (Leprechaun Days). Eliason mentioned there might also be maintenance issues such as keeping them free of snow in the winter so that anyone wishing to view their paver could do so. Schultz also mentioned the option of moving the current memorial to an area north of the hockey rink in Central Park. Schultz reviewed drawings of the area near Central Park where Polfus Implement and Rosemount BP/Amoco are located and explained that the City has previously applied for grants to purchase these properties in order to expand the entrance to Central Park. We did not receive the grants, but if this redevelopment were to take place it might provide a better location for the type of project the Foundation is suggesting. Schultz asked if the Commission had any interest in this project, whether it be pavers or a monument. Schultz also asked if the Commission would be interested in getting price quotes for developing a master plan for Central Park to plan for future development/uses that might occur. Jacobs was not interested in having a master plan done until the downtown redevelopment issue is settled. He did support doing something to honor veterans. Eisold thought that this might be something for a more passive area, or another park, possibly in the new athletic complex, that could be called “Veteran’s Field”. Eliason was in favor of doing something to honor veterans but thought that pavers were not the best idea, that Central Park would be too busy, and we’d want to make sure the location was easily accessible. He also thought that there might be a different park, or a future park that could be called “Veteran’s Park”, that would be a better location for a memorial. Sampo suggested that the former Blue House Daycare site might be a good location for a memorial. Johnson stated he had no interest in this proposal, or in moving anything, and wouldn’t have supported it the first time around. He stated that this is a private enterprise that wishes to honor veterans, which is a wonderful cause, and they have every opportunity to do so on a private basis. Based on the discussion, no motion was made to recommend staff secure price quotes for a master plan. c. Director’s Report – The park improvement fund balance as of August 31, 2006 was $1,661,856.97. No parks dedication fees were received. Interest for the month was $8,548.67, and there were expenditures of $1,401.97 for a retaining wall border around the park sign at Meadows Park. 2007 Budget – The next City Council budget discussion will be held at a special work session on Wed., Oct. 25, 2006. Schultz stated that if additional budget meetings take place, staff will let the Commission know. Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Update – We will be waiting a few months to begin working on the update, based on a revised timeline set by the Community Development Department. Active Communities Grant – Commissioner Eisold will be representing the Parks and Recreation Commission on the planning team for the active communities grant. Tom Schuster, Parks Supervisor, will also be on the planning team. The team will be discussing how cities can focus on health and help integrate physical activity into residents’ daily routine. Underpass at Shannon Parkway – We have been contacted by a couple of residents regarding concerns with water in the underpass during heavy rainfall. The underpass was originally built as a below-grade sheep crossing. Schultz asked if the Commission would be in favor of getting cost estimates to conduct separate feasibility studies for rebuilding or restoring the Shannon Parkway underpass, as well as for the construction of the underpass that was proposed for Hwy 3. We could then discuss whether we want to move forward with conducting feasibility studies for these improvements. Schultz will bring this back to the next meeting. Request for Hockey Rink at Shannon Park – This item was originally discussed at the July 2006 Commission meeting. Mayor Droste received a letter from a resident requesting a hockey rink be built at Shannon Park, and he forwarded this letter to Schultz. The parks master plan identifies a hockey rink with lights, a park shelter building, or tennis courts at this park. A possible location for a rink, additional parking, or a shelter building would be the flat area northwest of the parking lot. Schultz provided a photo of the area and asked the Commission what their highest priority would be at this time. The Commission thought that even if we added additional parking, it wouldn’t totally solve the parking problem that exists here. They also thought that there could be neighborhood opposition to lighting a hockey rink. Schultz stated that we could address this when we update the parks master plan, looking at current usage of rinks to see what is needed. The Commission thought this was a good idea and that we could look at the needs for all of our parks at that time. Commission Chair Johnson asked how many requests had been received. Per Schultz, only one request was received. There was no motion on this item. Outdoor Recreation Complex – Johnson asked for an update from Schultz. Per Schultz, the report is the same as last month. Flint Hills is processing our request for land near Akron Ave. and 135th St. Schultz met with the owners of the triangular piece of land that was also being considered. There are concerns with the ag-reserve designation until 2010 on this property. UMORE is waiting for a vision report that will be going to their university board in October or November. Johnson asked if the referendum was still planned for the spring of 2007. Per Schultz, most likely not, based on not having land secured yet. If Flint Hills Resources contacts us in the near future, we could still have a referendum in the spring. Otherwise, we would wait to hear from UMORE regarding partnering with them. Concern was expressed by the Commission that we are now putting projects that we have budgeted for on hold for a project that may never happen. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Eliason to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Sampo. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary