HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/1978 � §�. � . . . . . . . . .
.. .. . .. � . . � . -... . � . • .� . .. . . .
� � CITY OF APPLE VALLEY `
SPECIAL JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/PARK COMMITTEE MEETING I
RE: UPDATE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
JtiNE 14� 1978
.
FRESENT: 7:00 Special Planning Commissian Meeting Regarding Cammercial -- Chairman
Ulrich, Planning Commission Members Ronay, Hughes, Wirtanen, Chulyak, &
Thorberg.& Humphrey(arrived at 8:45), Staff Members Gretz & Kelly.& Bassett.
8:00 Jaint Meeting - Park Committee Chairman Roger Wangen, David MiT1er,
Ellen Milos, Robert Naegeli , Virginia Sterling, Joe Bell (arrived at 9:00).
Chairman Ulrich called the meeting to order.
MOTION: of Chulyak, seconded by Thorberg to approve the agenda. Yes - 6 - No - 0.
Further Consideration of Commercial Designations on Comprehensive Plan Sketch Plan._
A. Valley Commercial Second Addition -- B-3/B-4 Dlvis�on
B. Airport Property Land l7se.
John Gretz reviewed the discussion items. The specific question is where the line should
be between the B-3 and B-4 designations, between 147th & 145th Streets. The Planning
Gommission should also discuss the airport property and what uses could go in there.
It is the feeling of the Planning Commission that the corner of the airport praperty should
be left vacant to allow.for a major developer to come in with a retail type use such as
•Montgomery Wards.
Mr. Neulieb and Mr. Eaton were present to discuss the B-3/B-4 uses in Valley Commercial
Second Addition. Mr. Gretz stated that he and Rick Kelly have looked at the area and
they believe that the split on the back lot line would be better than following Granada
Avenue and having the B-3 across the street from 6-4; with the division on the lot line
the same uses would be across the street from one another. Hughes agreed to splitting down
the lot 1ine. Chulyak questioned the differences in B-3 & B-4. h1r. �Gretz stated that the
B-3 is the heavy commercial uses such as auto dealers, tire dealers, etc. The B-4 is
retail sales and does allow office buildings. The B-3 designation does not .allaw affices '
as a principal use. Mr. Gretz noted that Joe Graeves, Kendrick ETectric, the car wash
and tire store are consistent uses in the B-3 area at the present time. Ghulyak questioned
the problem with zoning a few years ago. Mr. Gretz reviewed the histary of the char�ge in
the zoning ordinance and the zoning changes. Chulyak suggested using the entire area as
a combination B-3/B-4 uses. Gretz stated that legally you can't carry two designations
however, this area is under Planned Development and you could allow either the B-3 ar B-4
uses. You could then end up with an office building between an auto dealership and a
retail stare. Thorberg questioned the zoning for Sunnyside Chrysler. Mr. Gretz stated
that is zoned B-3; however, Mr. Natwick has told him that within the next couple years he
wants samething else there and he plans to go to a B-4 use. The Rollerway was questioned
and Mr. Gretz stated that is either a B-3 or B-4 use -- roller rinks and bowling alTeys don't
fit in either one. Ulrich questioned setting a public hearing date. The Planning Commission
can initiate the rezoning. Arleigh asked Art Eaton for his opinion. Mr. Eaton stated that
he feels that going into the 6-4 would be more consistent with the demand and also more
cansistent with the original zoning. He stated that several prospective builders have been
confused with how they can use the property. There is a demand for the smaller parcels
�of land and the smaller multi-use building. Arle�gh stated that he feels the back lot line
makes sense. Ulrich questioned if additional roads would be needed. Mr. Gretz stated N0.
Page 2 � �
JOINT PARK/PLANNING MTG.
6/14/78
Mr. Gretz reviewed the plan for the airport area as shown on the Sketch P1an. The petitio r
has asked for limited industrial for the office/warehouse type of situation. He also nat�
that the Planning Commission has recommended that the area across from the townhouses and
;Cedar Park Elementary School alang Cedar be zoned M-4. Mr. Gretz explained the petitioner's
proposal for the area {see attached map). Mr. Ulrich stated that he does not feel we
have enough B-3. Chulyak questioned going east of the airport property with additional
commerc�al and also west of the commercial area into the Carroll Property. What happens
if we find that we need additional commercial in the future. Hughes questioned the
reality of additional needs. Gretz stated that he feels the development will continue
with the 6-4 and B-a uses; we may see a need for more B-3 uses for the automobiie agencies.
They prefer to be on Cedar Avenue or County Road #42 -� do we continue to allow them along
the major roads? Thorberg questioned where Sunnyside will move to if they move out of
Natwick's building. Ulrich stated that he doesn't think the commereial should go a�est
of Pennock Avenue. Thorberg stated that the plan has always been that Carroll 's property
would be residential , not corr�nercial . Ne would rather see the commercial expanded into
either Art or Ray Fisher's property to the east. Mr. Gretz stated that he doesn't feel
we will get alot of requests for 6-3 uses other than the auto dealerships -- we have. three
tire stores now and a lumber yard. Ulrich stated that he feels there should be some
flexibility as to where the B-3 uses want to go. Gretz stated that he feels it would be
difficult to go into the Carroll property with commercial . The Fisher property is backed
by industrial proper�y and Tt would be easier to expand into that area. Ranay said he
feels the area across from the Cedar Park Elementary School and the townhauses should be
B-1 -- there is enough property to the north for B-3. Arleigh Thorberg made several
eomments regarding the Dakota Electric Property; the substation is located just east of
the airport property on County Road #42. They are looking for additional land to park
a mabile sub-station and they may be purchasing another mobile sub-station. They are
negotiating for more property at the present time. He agrees with the 6-3 expanding into•
the Fisher property and not expanding into the Carroll property.
Ar1eigh asked Mr. W7nkler, the owner of the airport property for his thoughts. Dick
Winkler referred to the attached map. He feels the need for the light industrial for the
office-warehouse type use. Mr. Ulrich noted that there is a strong desire Qn th� part of
the City �o preserve the corner. Mr. Winkler stated that he is thinking of the corner as
a subregionnal type shopping center simi1ar to Southtown. There may be a need for more
than just the corner. Ulrich noted the need for B-3; Thorberg questioned if he has talked
to anyone. Mr. Winkler stated that the car dealers have approached him and they prefer
Cedar Avenue to Gounty Road #42. Hughes questioned how long he can keep the corner. Mr.
Winkler stated that he feels there will be a need within five years. Thorberg questioned
the B-3 across from the school . Gretz stated that he feels the car dealerships wou7d fit ,
better on the north side. Ulrich noted that they could expand east of the sub-station.
MOTION: of Thorberg, seconded by Hughes to request a public hearing to rezone the area
south of 145th Street, north of one lot deep on 147th Street, east of Pennock
Avenue and west of the quarter section line from B-3 to 6-4. Yes - 6 - No - Q.
It was noted that generally it is the feeling of the Planning Commission to concur with the
B-4 uses in the airport area. Thorberg stated that using the back lot lines as shown on
Winkler's drawing makes sense to him. There was some discussion regarding the number of
auto dealers that would come into the area. Thorberg made some camments regarding a future
post office for Apple Vailey -- he noted that across from Cedar Park Elementary School
wou1d be a gaod use. Mr. Gretz & Mr. Kelley will work with Mr. Winkler and come up with
a new plan for the airport area. �
Mr. Eaton questioned if Mr. Neuleib could go forward with his plans. Mr. Gretz suggested
ordering the public hearing and make a report to the City Council . If there is no abjection
from the Council he should be ab]e to proceed without any problem.
P�ge #3
Joint Park/Planning Meetir• •
6/14/78
�DISCUSSION OF 7RAILS PLAN AND OTNER PARK REGOMMENQATIONS REGARDING THE CQMP. PLAN UPDRTE.
Mike Bassett gave introductory comments and background of the Trails Plan. He feels there
is a need for something more than just a map; a gaod trail system starts with a map and
they plan ta have a "traiT system pTan" similar to the Five Year Park System P1an.
TMe Basic Park Committee philosophies regarding the Trail Flan are as follows:
1. ?hey plan to basically serve the long term needs of the pedestrians and bicyclists. '
They have found that it is not practical to include the other uses such as horses,
motorized vehicles, etc. In the short term they plan to continue to work with the
County Trail System �o provide snowmobile access routes into �he outlying areas.
They alsa plan to have a major link to the Metro Park and the County is planning
to accommodate horseback riders and motorized vehicles in that area. A major
link will also be shown to connect into the Minnesota R�ver Valley through Eagan.
They plan to work with other agencies of government to aet the other types of trail
uses for the residents of Apple Valley.
2. They plan to connect the major points of interest in App1e Valley with the Trai1
Syst�m; for example the schvols, parks, commercial area, Zoo, etc. Practicality
and economics show that the majority of the trail system should be along the major and
minor collector streets.
The Trail System is planned for two phases. The first phase would be to provide
the 8' wide asphalt- trail to serve both the pedestrian and the bicyclist. In the
• long term or phase 2 they plan to try �o separate the two trails along each road-
way to provide safety for the pedestrian. For example,along 140th Street a trail
is shown on both sides of the Street; one side could be for pedestrian and the
other side for bicyclists.
3. Funding -- They would like to construct the trails in conjunction with the road
and the upgrading of the roads. The easements are available and the praper trail
]ocation can be established along with the road plans; FAU funding or other road
funding is available for trails. There are certain segments of the trail system
that can be put in in conjunction with the road being built by either the County
or State.
4. Mr. Bassett explained the conceptual map showing the sidewalks and the asphalt trails.
They are showing one under pass at 127�h Street and C.edar. The Brown Cir.cles are
shown as "Trail Head Loeations" or rest stops. Hopefully they can be incarporated
into the park system and have drinking fountains, etc. availab�e: They are proposing
a kiosk which would show an orientation type system to the 7rails in AV.
5. The Park Comrnittee br.iefly looked at the Commercial Area. They feel that there needs
to be a good circulation pattern through that area for pedestrians and bicyclists as
well as bicycle parking areas.
The map is the first phase -- there is a need now for documentation for implementing the
plan. They plan to do this with the process of the Comprehensive Plan and it will be a
support document in the Comprehensive 6uide Plan.
�
Page #4
Joint Park/Planning Mtg. • • ,
6/14/78
Mike Basset� read the following motion af the Park Committee: �
MOTION: af Bell , seconded by Milos recommending the following priorities in terms of
Trai1 Development.
1. In the first five years emphasize should be p7aced on trails with the
: major upgrading of major and minor arterials; specifical7y the falrtowing:
a) Zoo Road, b) Cedar. Avenue, c) 140th Street, and d} County Road #42.
2. Emphasis on destinaticns ►;���1� be the Minnesota z{j�..'.^���a� a?rden,
Burnsville Center and the Downtown area of Apple Valiey.
3. Emphasis should also be placed on the importance of the link of the
trail leading to the west to Burnsville Center coinciding with the
upgrading of County Road #42.
MOTION TO AMEND: of Naegeli , seconded by Bell recommending that a Trail should be
established from Galaxie Avenue to 132nd Street, then north of 132nd
Street on Johnny Cake Ridge Road to the Zoo prior to the completion of the
Proposed Zoo Access Road. Yes .- 6 - No - 0.
VOTE ON N{OTION AS AMENDED: Yes - 6 - IVo - 0.
Chairman Ulrich asked the Park Committee members for their comments. Chairman of the
PaY�k Committee Roger Wangen commented that the Park Committee has been considering
various concepts; the Committee has been unanimous in the praposed plan; they have •
made revisions and corrections and have been looking for 1inks to the schools, Zoa,
etc. Naegeli commented that the reason the amendment is critical is because a1Qt of
Apple Valley kids are working at the Zoo and there is no way to get up there easily.
Ulrich asked the Planning Cammission for comments. Chulyak questioned if there are -
aware of the detached frontage road on Cedar; Mr. Bassett stated that they feel that
there is a potential spot for a underpass at 127th & Cedar.
The Zoo access was discussed at length. Bassett stated that the Rationale for having
the Zoo access trail on the south side is for circulation; a majority of the population
is on the south side of the road. Chulyak questioned the change in the Trail with the
Parkway System that is being proposed by MNDot. Bassett stated that he does not feel
that will change the design in the trail . Gretz stated that the City Couneil passed
a Resolution asking for a bench for the trail on both sides of the road and asked that
no trail be built. MNDot is anxious to get the trail plan approved and they would like
a posftive recommendation on the trail and there is a very good chance that they wi11
build it along with the construction of the Parkway. Hughes stated that MN�ot has
requested that they would like to be at the Trail meetings. Bassett questioned who was
contacted; Hughes stated that they were also interested in working with the Cedar
Avenue portion. Hughes also questioned priorities with funding for connections to the
Zoo Trail if it were to be built. Gretz stated that 140th will probably be built the
fall of 1979 and #42 will be upgraded the Fall of 1979. Galaxie and Johnny Cake Ridge
Road may also be upgraded in the near future. Cedar Avenue will also be upqraded to
the Zao Road.
Humphrey arrived at 8:45 p.m. •
Hughes stated that from the neighborhood standpoint it is not desirable for the people
that Tive on the south side of the Zoo road. It appears to him that people will be
crossing at the entrances and it would be dangerous. ,
.
- Page #5
, Joint Park/Planning Mtg� �
6/Z4/78
He agrees with the need far the 132nd Street link -- the trail on the south side of the
� Zoo Road would be in his back yard, it would take away his privacy and he feels that
it would be better on the north side and it would eliminate the dangerousness of crassing
from the south across the Zoo Parkway.
Bassett stated again that the large part of the population of Apple Va1ley lives on th�
sauth side and it would pravide immediate access to the Trail ; they also feel tha� it
wi11 be easier to contral the traffic on the south side. Hughes questioned them
crossing to the north at Galaxie or Johnny Cake Ridge Road -- he feels that it will be
dangerous for crossing at the Zoo entrance. Wangen stated that the Park Committee
respects Mr. Hughes feelings; he also quPStioned where there would be stop 1ights.
Mr. Gretz stated that at Cedar Avenue the Trail would be accommodated with an underpass;
Galaxie and Johnny Cake Ridge Road will be signalized in��rsections. The speed limit
wi11 be between 45 to 50 mph. Mr. Hughes stated he feels peoplP wi11 be tempted tc�
cross at the sauth Zoo entrance because of the parkway type road rather than going to
Johnny Cake Ridge Road entrance. Naegeli stated that the Park Committee had anticipated
that there would be a fence. Mr. Gretz questioned the number of people that will ride
their bicycles to the Zoo; how many small children will be allowed to go out there on
bicycle; he feels that we are over-emphasizing the number. Hughes stated that he is
concerned about the older children that work at the Zoo. Naegeli pointed out that the
Trail is not just for Zoo access; it is part of the entire loop around the City.
Bell arrived at 9:00 p.m. '!
Mr. Ulrich asked the Planning Commission to stay with the general outline and philosophy
af the Trai1 P1an; he� can appreciate Ron's problems.
• Ginny Sterling stated that they want the Trai1 Plan to get people araund Apple Valley
from ane place to another and not necessarily to one part�cular spat. They feel that
a lot of families will be bicycling to the Zoo and the older children will also be
bicycling to the Zoo: Humphrey noted that the point was we11 taken. :
Mr. Ulrich stated that he has looked at the plan and the philosophy; the funding wil�
be the most crucial . He doesn't agree with a11 of the details of the map; Apple Valley
has to have a trails plan which serves the large percentage of the population of AV.
Wangen stated that the Park Committee appreciates the chance ta visit with the Planning
Commission and they are interested in their input and are willing to work with them.
Thorberg questioned the sidewalks and the trails. Gretz stated that the City requires
4' sidewalks along residentiaT streets and 5' sidewalks on colleetor streets. The b'
sidewalk could accommodate the bicyclers and the concrete is better for maintenance
- purposes. Thorberg questioned a trail along Palomino Drive; he also questioned a
trail along Galaxie and sidewalk along 127th St. Bassett stated that they will look
at the continuity in the Trails and sidewalks. A Band Issue for the spring af 1979
was discussed. Gretz stated that funding for trails is available along minor arterials;
he reviewed the plans for 140th Street. Bassett asked far recommendations from the
P1anning Commission regarding the Trails Plan.
Ronay questioned a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council
regarding the Zoa Trail . Gretz stated that it is his opinion that MNDat wiil buiid the
� Trail . He recorr�nended that if they plan to make a recommendation to the Cauncil it
should be done sometime within the next thirty days. Nughes suggested inviting MNDQt
to a Park/Planning Commission meeting. Gretz stated that the Council has said they
want a bench on both sides and no trail ; the recommendation should go to the Councll
for reconsideration. There was considerable discussion regarding inviting MNDot to a
meeting and sending a recommendation to the Council .
. , .
Page #6
Joint Park/Planning Mtg. . • ,
6/14/78
It was noted that the Park Committee is asking for reconsideration. Thorberg stated .
that the Park Corr�nittee is talking about a Trail Plan for the entire City. Wirtanen
noted that she feels that it will be more dangerous if nothing is built in the way of
a trail . Ronay stated that it is recommended that the Chairman in behalf of the
P1anr�ing Commission make a recommendation to the City Counci1 to take advantage of
the �iming on getting the State to put in a trail . He feels that this is important
because the trail would be put in with no cost to AV. It is felt that there is na
other priority item regarding the Trail Plan at this t�~.�.
Naegeli pointed out that the Park Committee �n� � ianning Commiss�on recommended that
the trail be on the south side �` �he �o� Road some time ago. The Council dec�ded
that a bench should be ��� ��i;n sides and no trail built. Ne feels that the City
t,��ti�,t;,;l needs to �^p�!�� a deci s i on on the Trai 1 1 ocati on. The Counci 1 shoul d 6e asked
to reconsi�;�,�.
Hughes voiunteered to contact the Plinnesota Dept. of Transportation regarding having
them come to a meeting with the Park Committee and Planning Commissian. Thorberg
stated that the City Council represents the City; the Planning Commission is a
reeommending body to the Council -- he feels they should go to the Council first.
It doesn`t make sense to meet with MNDot until they ga to the Council . Chulyak
stated that he feels they are confusing two trails -- a trail to serve the Zoo and
it should be looked at as a trail to serve the entire community.
Hughes stated that the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation owns the proper�y and the
raad and the trail will be their jurisdiction -- they are the ones that are planning
the road and will build it. Gretz stated that the procedures fol3owed by �he .
Minnesota Department of Transportation are that they request that the City Council
comment; then the Council passes a resolution. MNDot is not bound by that, however,
they have to have a good reason for not following the recommendations of the Council .
The City does not have any rights or obligations as far as maintaining or construct-
ing the road or trail .
Humphrey questioned following Roberts Rules of Order regarding the previous motion
and recommendation to the Council . He feels there needs to be a motion to reconsider.
Ulrich recommerrded that the Planning Commission take the issue up at a later date
if they wish to -- it can be on a later agenda.
Bassett reviewed the other motions of the Park Committee regarding Open Space designations,
etc. on the Sketch P1an Map.
N10TION: of Naegeli , seconded by Bell to recommend that the Land Use Guide Plan
be changed to show the area that encompasses Lac LaVon frvm proposed
R-1 to Regional Open Space and further recommended that the area should
be acquired as a Regional Park. Yes - 6 - No - 0.
MOTION: of Bell , seconded by Sterling to recommend the expansion of the Metro
Open Space located north of the future Zoo road and east of Johnny
Cake Ridge Road bounded on the north by the Metro Park �s Regional
Open Space. Yes - 6 - No - 0. ,
In reference to the abave motion; Mr. Bassett stated' that Staff will be contacting �
the County Park Director to see if he is interested. It might be erroneous to put
in an open space designation if they do not have any intention of purchasing the land.
MOTION: of Naegeli , seconded by Mi1os to recommend that the designated Park Area
in the Carrall Property be the southeast corner of approximately 25 acres
including the farmstead area. Yes - 6 - �lo - 0.
.. TL... ......_.....__ _t tV'_ t_ i_ r_._.v �__.v_ �."�_ _r ___�.___��-_� n__�__._!�_. ^___'_ � . .
- Page #7
Joint Park/PZanning Mtg.• �
6/14/78
� MaTION: of Milos, seconded by Sterling to recommend approval of the draft af the
Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive P1an as it relates to
Parks and Open Space. Yes - 6 - No - 0.
Thorberg questioned the LacLavan land use designation change. Bassett gave the Park
Committee Rationale -- If the area is shown as Open Space on the Guide Plan the
potential for be9ng acquired as a Regionnal Park is higher and if the developer eQmes
to p7at the property he can be delayed far up to six months to allow final efforts to
secure regional funding to be pursued. It was noted that right now the area is zoned
industrial with a temparary sand & gravel agreement. There is no expiratian date.
Mr. Skeleton has put the area into a tax shelter and it won`t be soTd for two years.
Thorberg stated that he doesn't disagree, however, the end use plan was fior residentia1
and he questioned the developers agreement. Hughes questioned Mr. Skeleton wanting to
use the area as open space. Mr. Gretz stated that it is his understanding that Mr.
Ske1etan would like to have the area as open space. Ulrich questioned contamination
of the water table; also the stockpiles of gravel . Bassett stated that the area a�ould
probably just be seeded. Mr. Skeleton said that he would spread the sand wherever it
is desired. Mr. Bassett stated that it might qualify as a regionnal park and alsa
that it might qualify as special use water based resaurce. The DNR is interested as
far as a trout fishing facility; they plan to do some research and testing this summer.
f o e s ace
i ed or n
U l r i c h q u e s t i o n e d i f t h e P a r k C o r r�n i t t e e w o u l d l i k e t o s e e i t r e t a n p p
even though the City of Apple Valley would not have the funds to acquire it. The
Park Committee realizes that the City cannot provide the funds for purchase; their intent
�s ta have another agency of government purchase the area. Humphrey questioned rezoning
from the end use plan to a down-zoning. Gretz stated that you can show anything on the
Sketch Plan. . .
• Gretz uestioned the trian le. He feels there should be a firm commitment before the
�I 9
land use designation �s changed. The City Council relies heavily on the Park Corr�aittee
and Planning Commission recommendations and if the County wan`t purchase the City wi11
have to purchase the area. He has spoke to the owner af the property and they would
like to put in a residential development.
Humphrey questioned showing the area as Park and then developers coming in with a housing
plan. Could create some lively meetings. Gretz stated that the Sketch P1an is a draft
working document. If homeowners or adjacent property owners contact the Gity they would
be toTd that it is zoned industria1 with an end use plan. Chulyak noted that some
people on Whitney assume that the area is park land. Hughes questioned the Resolutions
of Burnsville, Lakeville & Apple Va11ey asking that it be pursued as park 1and. h�r.
Bassett stated that they encouraged the County Park Department to pursue the area, however,
the Caunty had other funding priorities.
Humphrey questioned whether the City reviews the developers sales materials and what they
represent the surrounding areas will be. Mr. Gretz stated that it does not -- it was
discussed previously as including something in the Planned Development Agreements,
however the City Attorney advised against it because if the Developer doesn't then the
City is responsible. If the prospective owners ca11 �he City Hall they are told.
Chairman Ulrich questioned if there were any other comments that the Planning Corr�nissian
or Park Committee would like to make. He complimented the Park Cammittee on their
park planning.
� ChuTyak questiQned the horseback riders on the asphalt trails on the east side. t�;r.
Bassett stated that they would try to get somet�aing in the newspapers.
Meeting adjourned.
.
PARK COMMITTEE MEETING -�fol�o�►ing the Joint Park/Plannj� Meeting) -- 6/14/78
.
�"
Chairman Wangen reported on the Meeting with the VAA Board of June 7, 1978.
� He reported that the VAA Board is interested in working with the Park Corrrgnnittee. They
would help with telephone interviewing and gathering information. They are also interested
in working up questionnaires. He was disappointed in the attitudes and looking at
the Future of the City. Roger has data available.
The VAA doesn't want to recognize the numbers problem. The VAA curve is tapering off.
They need more facilities; Roger has figures on baseball and soccer. He asked for
three specific reason� and they gave none. They are about 30% overextended; about 30%
have to play in other cities. They axe fifteen teams beyond the available facilities.
Instead of limiting the number of teams they jacked up the number of teams. They
couldn't see the problem and lack of facilities. Roger stated that available facilities
are limited and they have a problem. He reminded them that they are practicing in
unauthorized parks. Roger predicted that the VAA won't last more than 3 or 4 more
years unless they get board members who will look to the future. The VAA wants more
facilities, but they won't help sell the bond issue --- only if it comes out with
90� athletic facili�ies on it. Roger mentioned the conclusion -- that if the bond
issue doesn't pass with athletic facilities the Park Committee must conclude that the
City and the people don't want athletic camplexes and facilities and we must look to
other groups. The VRHA is very interested.
Dave Miller suggested contacting the Board members individually. Bob Naegeli recommended
that they forget further stimulation of the VAA Board and go on to other areas and
let them decide on their own. He stated that perhaps they should go a 2-part issue
with VAA oriented on one and hockey, tennis, etc. on the other.
� Ginny recommendedithat they go to the members of VAA; don't stress just the Board.
Roger stated that they are not asking for Board support so much as member support.
Ginny stated that letters to Editor in general and other support would help. Roger
suggested a flyer however there was no reaction.
Meeting adjourned.
�