Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 02-21 PRMMINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 21, 1978 CITY HALL Call to Order The Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Johnson at 7:88 p.m. Roll Call Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Vela sco, Schroeder, Bogle, Hickman, Kiefer and Skomra. Also present were Councilman Tony Kuefler, City Manager Gerald Splinter, Park--and Recreation Director Gene Hagel, Landscape Technician Judy Johnson and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. Introduction of Chairman Johnson briefly reviewed the background of New Commissioner the newly appointed Commissioner. Following that background, he took the opportunity to introduce Commissioner Joan Skomra, who had been appointed to the Commission to replace former Commissioner Marie Nyquist at the February 13, 1978 City Council meeting. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Schroeder and seconded by January 17, 1978 Commissioner Vela sco to accept the minutes of the January 17, 1978 Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings The first business agenda item was a public hearing scheduled for 7:15 p.m. on the Central Park and Shingle Creek trail system projects. Park and Rec- reation Director Gene Hagel briefly reviewed the progress of the City°s grant applications. He noted that the two (2) grants had been submitted on the deadline date and that we could anticipate a decision on them sometime in late March or early April. Following Park and Recreation Director Hagel`s comment: Chairman Johnson referred to a survey received in the agenda packbt from the City of Moundsview describing successful and unsuccessful past park bond issues in the metropolitan area. Following a brief discussion about the survey, Chairman Johnson indicated that he would like to receive any further information relative to the survey. -1- 2-21-78 Chairman Johnson called the public hearing to order at 7:15 p.m. Park and Recreation Director Hagel reviewed the tentative park development plans for Central Park and the Shingle Creek trailway. Be noted that the concept of Central Park dates back to 195.7 and that it was incor- porated into the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1966. He reviewed conceptual drawings of both Central Park and the Shingle Creek trailway system noting their relationship to the County Trail System and to the Regional Metropolitan Trail System. Mr. Charles Sabatke of 6306 Brooklyn Drive inquired if the proposed plan didn't overstress baseball./softball fields, .further suggesting that the land could be put to better use. Director Hagel referring to the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Policy Plan noted that it was the City's policy to alleviate the heavy use of neighborhood parks through a central community park. He further stated that the current demand for such facilities is so great that they have had to deny many teams the opportunity to use the fields. Mrs`. Anderson, 6330 Brooklyn Drive, asked what effect the developed park will have on their property taxes and if developing the park was necessary because it currently provides a nice wildlife habitat. The City Manager replied that the upgrading of'the park would have virtually no effect upon their taxes. Further, there would have to be a signifi- cant number of sales histories in that area before any noticable effect would take place. Relative to her question about the necessity of the park versus a wildlife area , the City Manager noted that what was really being defined here were the areas of active and passive recreation. He further noted that much refining of the plan would be done before it became finalized. Mrs'., VanTassel, 6268 Brooklyn Drive, inquired if Garden City Park would be immproved. Director Hagel affirmed that Garden City`Park, which would be incorporated into Central Park, would be'-!mproc,7ed along with the rest of the park area. Chairman Johnson inquired if there were any more comments or uuestions at that time. There being no further questions, Chairman Johnson closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. The next agenda item was the public hearing o.1 the "'win Lake Beach issue. Chairman Johnson called the public hearinq to ,order at 8:15 p.m. He then called upon the City Mana er to give a • brief background of the alternatives to be discmed at the 2-21-78 -2- public hearing. The City Manager briefly described the problems associated with the Twin Lake Beach as had been related to him. He then stated that there were essentially two (2) alternatives to the beach question. First, the beach could remain as it is with the potential to provide additional parking for the beach to alleviate the traffic problems and parking problems now associated with the beach. Second, the beach area could be redesigned by removing the sand and sodding the area over and creating a neighborhood. park and providing neighborhood park facilities. This would be done in the middle of the sunm,er to disrupt the use of the beach and hopefully discourage future_ use of the area as a beach. Following a brief presenta- tion by the City Manager, Direc-Itor Hagel then reviewed conceptual drawings of the various alternatives for the Twin Lake Beach area. Mrs. Diane Schake, 4740 Twin Lake Avenue, asked why we cannot have a beach without a parking lot. She, indi- cated that she felt the City was negative towards the beach because of the expense involved in the parking; lot. The City Manager replied that what she was proposing is what we have now. He further indicated that the expense was not the question but rather the City was trying to make a determination as to the desires of the residents in that area. Mrs. Redding, 4741 Lakeview Avenue, stated that everyone was aware of the problems associated with.. the beach and because of those ;problems, the beach; was not worth it. She further indicated her. concern that the addition of a lifeguard at the beach would invite civil suits against the City. Mr. Duane Schake, 4741 Twin Lake Avenue, that there, there was definitely a need for the beach as attested to by the number of people using it. He further indi- cated that he felt that the approach of eliminating, the beach would not deal with the problems of the beach area, especially the drug use. Mr. Douglas Quady, 4725'Twin Lake Avenue, agreed, with Mr. Schake. He indicated that the closing of the beach would not successfully address the problems.. associated with that beach. Mr. Bradford, 4701 Lakeview Avenue North, inquired as to the problems.found in other parks.around the City. Chairman Johnson indicated that Twin Lake Beach Park -3- 2-21-78 i was unique from the, other parks because of the seclusion of that neighborhood which lends to the traffic- and parking problems associated with the beach. He also noted that many of the problems associated with the beach are similar to problems experienced in other parks. Mr. Duane Schake compared Shady Oak Lake in Hopkins with the Twin Lake Beach situation and asked why we could not also charge. Park and Recreation Director Getie Hagel indi- cated that the size difference between Shady Oak and Twin Lake Beach area was significantly different and that Twin Lake Beach did not lend itself to that type of operation. Ms. Bonnie Lenz, the manager of the Beach Apartments, read a letter into the minutes from Darrell A. Farr, the owner of the Beach Apartments requesting that the 'T'win Lake Beach park be converted to a neighborhood park excluding the beach. Mr. John Jeszewski of 4751 Azelia Avenue North questioned whether or not the City had taken into conside.-ation health factors affecting swimming in the lake. Director Hagel replied that the State periodically tests the water in the lakes through- out the metro area and to his knowledge he is :zot aware of any negative reports. Mr. Paul Scott, 4104 Lakeside Avenue North, ..ndicated that he would not like to see the beach eliminated. He also stated that he considered most of the problems from people outside of the City and not from the residents in that areG . Ms.. Bonnie Lenz indicated that most of the prcblems were from people outside of Brooklyn Center and further Emphasized the need to get control of the people using the bea -,h area, especially , at night Mrs. Diane Schake stated that she felt that the beach should be maintained as a beach and supervised. Ms. Bonnie Lenz of the Beach Apartments inquired why the City could not use stickers on cars similar to the City of Fridley to regulate parking in that area. The City Manager replied that similar cases have been struck down as being unconstitutional in that they discriminate against nonresidents in the use of'a public road. Mr. Bradford suggested that no parking be allowed anywhere in the.neighborhood and that the present parking lot be made smaller. Mr. Fadden, 4711 Azelia Avenue North suggested that the beach just be gotten rid of. 0 0 2-21-78 -4- Ms. Bonnie Lenz of the Beach Apartments indicated that she was also there representing twelve (12) of the residents who could not be present and inquired how the City planned to control the people from 10:00 p.m.-to 6:00 a . m-. She related incidents that have occurred at the Beach Apartments from the use of their parking lot and recreational facilities to the vandalism and knocking on windows and other annoy- ances at night. Mr. Doug Quady related that the problems associated with the beach are not from beach users but from people using it for other reasons. Mr. Redding stated that all of the suggestions do not resolve the traffic problems in that area. He indicated that while we might eliminate the parking, use will still have the traffic flow problem that We now experiencE with heavy beach use. Mr. John jeszewski indicated that he felt that the whole area should probably be marked no parking as a first step towards the solution of the problems in the Twin-- Lake Beach area. Chairman Johnson them closed the public hearing • meeting at 9:05 p.m. He then asked the Commissioners to comment on the proceedings. Commissioner Vela sco indicated that he was a little disappointed with the size of the group, further indi- cating that he did not get enough input from the people to make a valid decision. He further noted that vandalism is common to all the parks and that he was, not sure that the beach was the source of the problems. He further indicated that the City will have to deal with the noncitizen use of the beach area. Commis- sioner Schroeder indicated that he was not sure what the real problem was in the beach area anymore. He indicated that it seems to be vandalism more than anything. Commissioner Kiefer indicated that the parking problem alone will not deal with all the problems, that alot of the problems call for enforcement from the police department and was beyond their scope. The City Manager indicated that once the problems were isolated, the police department would be brought` into the picture and police aspects of the problem could be dealt with. Commissioner Bogle thanked everyone for coming and for their input into the discussion. Commissioner Hickman again thanked everyone for coming, indicating that she did receive some new -5- 2-21-73 insights into the problem. Chairman Johnson reiterated the feelings of the Commissioners that enough people did not attend and that they would like to have another public hearing in the near future. Motion by Commissioner Bogle and seconded by Com- missioner Hickman to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9;18 P.M. C ha irma n Adjournment 0 • 0 2-21-78 -6- . February 21, 197£3 City of Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, ;:Iinnesota 55430 Re: Public Hearing February 21, 1978 Twin Lake Beach Park Gentlemen: As the owners of The Beach Apartments, we would like to express our opinion as to the direction we feel the use of Twin Lake Beach Park should. take. We feel the Park should be converted as rapidly as possible to one of a neighborhood park containing similar neighbor- good park type facilities and excluding the beach. Our reasoning, as the representative of 122 apartment homes in Brooklyn Center, is as follows: 1. Because of the existing problems, the park is rarely used by families; in the neighborhood for which it should be intended. 2. The Brooklyn Center residents that reside at The Beach Apartments are subject to increased vandalism, theft, late-aour noises and other disturbances because of the use of the park as a beach. 3. Our parking facilities are over-crowded in the summer months by beach users parking in our parking lots creating an additional inconvenience for the Beach residents. 4. The integrity of The Beach property and grounds is consistently violated by beach users by the use of our swim- ming pool and other recreational facility. r a Y;ARREL A. RRR . f 'TELEPHONE 612/560-8113 7286 NO^TH 72NO LANE w MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55428 City of Brooklyn Center February 21, 1978 Page Two Thank you for your consideration of this letter and for your concern regarding the use and proposed use of Twin Lake Beach Park. Very sincerely, BEACH ENTERPRISES DARREL A. FAR R, Partner DAF : t cb 0