The URL can be used to link to this page

031103 PK AgPa , CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD '�6 tARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL FA ' TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Meyer Davis Young_ Palesch Arnst Callies B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2003(Att. - #2A Draft Summary) B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2003(Att. -#2B Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. City Council Meeting of February 24, 2003 B. Concession Stand Review Memo from Twila Grout Update on Appeal Process with Health Dept.- Larry Brown, Public Works Director C. Update on Park Coordinators and First Weeks of Operation Larry Brown 5. CAPESTONE PONDS P.U.D. — RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TRAIL — (Att. #5)(Brad Nielsen, Planning Director) Applicant: Capestone Builders Location: 20775 Manor Road (Carmichael Auto Salvage) 6. LRT CLEAN -UP DAY (Att-#6) A. Discuss Feasibility of Doing Joint Clean Up With City of Excelsior and Three Rivers Park District 7. CITY'S DOG ORDINANCE A. Determine if Dogs should be required to be on a leash on the Southwest LRT trail (Att. 47A) B. Consider Adding Language to Ordinance That Clean Up Receptacle is Required (Att.-#7B) S. TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS A. Clarify the term "Consensus" per Smithtown Road Pedestrian Space Discussions 9. DISCUSS CONCEPT FOR PARK COMMISSION SEMINAR } PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 10. DETERMINE DATE FOR JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL 11. DETERMINE COUNCIL LIAISON FOR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING 12. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: March: 13. ADJOURNMENT April. I� r • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003 7:00 P.M. MINUTES �A 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Callies, Davis, Young, Meyers, and late arrival Palesch; City Engineer Brown and Technician Bailey Absent: City Council liaison B. Review Agenda Callies moved, Young seconded, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2003 Chair Amst asked that Little League be capitalized on Page 2 under Item 9 New Business. Meyer moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2003 as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. B. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of February 4, 2003 Chair Arnst requested that Old Market Trail on Pages 5 and 6 be changed to Old Market Road. Davis moved, Young seconded, Approving the Park Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2003 as Amended. Motion passed 510. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. Commissioner Palesch arrived at 7:03 P.M. 4. REPORTS A. City Council Meeting of February 10, 2003 Brown reported that staff had forwarded the Smithtown Road trail recommendation to the Council. He indicated that Council concerns centered on how the City should spend it's Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding. To clarify MSA funds versus state aid funding, Brown explained that MSA funds are taxes collected directly at the gas pump for roadways, and make up the backbone of maintenance for collector �a14 PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 2 of 9 streets. He pointed out that $150,000 - $160,000 of MSA funding, plus an additional $50- 60,000, is held in account by the State for construction and maintenance to roadways. While 80% of the state aid funds come from the City gas taxes, 20% comes from the State's general fund, which Brown indicated could be cut by the Governor. State Aid funding, on the other hand, is altogether different and the old HAKA system, which is money provided to City's by the state. Currently, Brown indicated that Shorewood has approximately $2.5 million dollars of MSA funding available, which virtually matches the $2.2 million price tag for the Smithtown Road project, whereas the County Road 19 intersection project could be in competition for those dollars. Fortunately, the City Council views both projects as vital to the community and has chosen the Smithtown Road project due to safety concerns. Brown reported that the City Council directed WSB and staff to choose a design that includes a 5' concrete pedestrian space on the north side of Smithtown Road to the Victoria border. Having set a design, Brown explained that now the City needs to come to agreements with the neighbors in order to obtain ROW (right - of -way). He pointed out that the City intends to go door to door to gain ROW's, however, he may end up reporting back to the City Council at a future date that they need to take an alternate route, if ROW's cannot be obtained. Young questioned whether the eminent domain issue only comes in to play due to the trail need. Brown indicated that eminent domain, or ROW, is not an issue for 80% of the project, which does fall within the footprint of the roadway. He pointed out that the need to solve current drainage issues will help in obtaining the easements in order to solve this problem properly. 0 Having attended the City Council meeting, Young inquired whether having to obtain easements would slow the overall process down, since they cannot go forward until the ROW issues have been handled. While the state aid department has made this statement, Brown felt the City could potentially challenge this. He pointed out that, while the process could be slowed if there were many eminent domain issues, Brown stated that the City could invariably leave out certain portions of the pedestrian space if there was total opposition. 5. PARK FOUNDATION PRESENTATION ON THE TWO DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR BUY -A- BRICK Gordon Lindstrom, of the Park Foundation, presented two concept designs for the buy -a -brick program layout at Eddy Station in Freeman Park. He began with Option 2, which portrayed the bricks next to Eddy Station near an existing patio at a cost of $9,300. Option 1, showed a larger area south of the existing playground with a patio leading to a picnic area with, potentially, a fence and gardens. The estimated cost for Option 1 was $16,000. While more costly, Lindstrom reported that the Park Foundation would recommend Option 1 to the Park Commission as the most beneficial design. 0 " PARk COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 3 of 9 Young questioned how many bricks it would take to accomplish either Option, and asked whether enough bricks were presently sold to do so. Lindstrom explained that either option would provide flexibility in adding additional bricks, especially Option 2. While he could not estimate the total number of bricks sold thus far, Lindstrom pointed out that these were concept plans and requested the Commission recommend which Option it preferred. Palesch asked whether the money to complete the project was available now, or if the proposal was a two step plan to be accomplished over time. Although the funding was currently unavailable, Lindstrom pointed out that the project was in the works and the Foundation would continue to sell bricks once it had a concept plan to present to buyers. Chair Arnst stated that the Foundation was in search for a concept plan recommendation this evening. She asked Lindstrom what the picnic tables were to be made of and whether they were part of the proposal. Lindstrom was unsure but assumed the tables would be concrete. Palesch stated that she preferred Option 1, despite the expense. While Meyers agreed that the Commission preferred Option 1, she asked the Foundation whether the expense concerned them. Chair Arnst stated that she favored Option 1 and that, historically, the Commission had believed this space would be a rest spot for passive use. She believed this to be an attractive oasis and liked the addition of trees to the space. Mr. Keeler, of the Park Foundation, stated that the Foundation had sold approximately 75 bricks so far, at a value of $5,000. He maintained that the Foundation could sell many more bricks if people knew where they were going to go and what the plan was going to look like. Keeler stated that, while the Foundation could take care of selling the bricks, he hoped the Commission could lend financial aid to the purchase of benches or trees for the oasis. Chair Arnst stated that she would like to see the Commission extend its support of this concept. Meyers asked if Brown found the maintenance for either option acceptable. Brown stated maintenance would not be an issue and felt that the designs do an excellent job answering the issues the Commission had. Chair Arnst suggested the Foundation speak to the Southshore gardeners and a well know nursery supporter. Callies stated that she could support the Park Commission contributing to this amenity from the Park Foundation. Palesch moved, Davis seconded, to accept Option 1 as the preferred design from the Park Foundation • for the Buy -a -Brick oasis in Freeman Park. Motion passed 6/0. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 4 of 9 Lindstrom indicated that the Park Foundation would be meeting in a couple of weeks and he would report back to the Commission after that time. 6. SOUTH TONKA BABE RUTH & SOUTH TONKA LITTLE LEAGUE PROPOSALS Tim Beduhn, of South Tonka Little League and Babe Ruth, presented visuals and a timeline for completion for four projects it had proposed at the previous Park Commission meeting. The four projects included retrofitting the bleachers on fields 1, 2, and 3; opening up the concession stand a bit; installation of safety fencing; and warning tracks. Beduhn stated that Little League has long had safety concerns regarding the bleachers and would like the Commission to approve their proposal for retrofitting the bleachers as soon as possible in order to order the materials and have them fit by mid April. He explained that the options were to replace the bleachers, at a cost of $3,300 each, or to have them retrofit with chain link fencing 42" up from the back seat at a cost of $2,500 each, which is their preferred plan. The entire cost for fields 1, 2, and 3, which will be paid for by Little League and Babe Ruth, is $10,650. He added that it is estimated that teams of people will assemble these the week of April 15 -20. Chair Amst asked Brown if the any inspection would be required on the City's part. Brown indicated that, according to the law, a building official would need to sign off on the retrofit when complete. He noted that, currently, the City inspects its own playground equipment, and he foresaw this to be a similar scenario. Beduhn questioned whether he was correct in assuming they get approval, do the rebuild, and have staff come out and approve it after the fact. Brown stated that Beduhn was correct. He pointed out that the retrofitting was a very standard design and that the chain link would do little to obstruct views. Meyers moved, Young seconded, to accept the retrofitting design for the bleachers on fields 1, 2, and 3. Motion passed 6/0. Meyers thanked Beduhn, Little League, and Babe Ruth for this safety improvement to the park. Beduhn continued with the proposed safety fencing between fields 1 and 2. He pointed out that they wished to extend the fence by adding 3 more poles and approximately 75' of mesh netting. He explained that they felt this to be the most aesthetically pleasing option, short of covering the entire area by netting like Big Willow in Minnetonka. He indicated that they hoped to accomplish this in May. Palesch questioned whether the extension would interfere with traffic patterns. Beduhn felt it would not, since the traffic could continue behind the fencing. Brown asked that this be tabled until he could look at this with Mr. Davis, to ensure that maintenance equipment could maneuver in and out of the area, and that people could circulate without obstruction. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 5 of 9 Callies suggested that they approve the proposal subject to Brown's determination in order to facilitate this for Little League and Babe Ruth. Young moved, Palesch seconded, to accept the installation of additional safety fencing and mesh netting between fields 1 and 2, subject to staff findings with regard to maintenance equipment maneuverability and pedestrian circulation patterns. Motion passed 6/0. Beduhn asked if he should follow -up with Brown on this last issue. Brown confirmed this. With regard to the Concession stand, Beduhn stated that he would like to talk to Brown at a later date about getting some effective ventilation in there. Moving on to Warning Tracks, Beduhn stated that they would like to get this started before the season begins, however, if weight restrictions or the paving project prohibit this, they would be forced to delay their installation. Beduhn asked who would be responsible for moving the sprinkler heads. Brown indicated that Little League or Babe Ruth would be responsible for moving them. Beduhn continued by noting that they would not be purchasing a brick in honor of Steve Jaeger, as suggested at the last Commission meeting, but would instead take some time to come up with a monument plan to present later. Chair Arnst thanked Beduhn for his time and indicated that the bleachers would be set for approval at the next City Council meeting. Beduhn asked if he could place the order or whether he should wait until after the City Council meeting and speak to Brown. Brown suggested they wait to order until after the Council meeting, and indicated that he would bring all of their topics before the Council at its next meeting. 7. DISCUSS 2003 OPERATION OF CONCESSION STAND Meyers stated that the operations of Eddy Station were a big consideration for the Commission, however, she believed that options did exist. First, she felt the Commission should decide whether they don't want to have concessions or they do, and second, whether the City should run them again like last year, or offer it to another organization. Meyers believed that any option would likely cost the City some money to come up to code. While she did not wish to see Little League closed down, since they make valuable contributions to the park, she recognized that they fail to meet code as well. Callies questioned why the City does not have its code issue re- evaluated. Brown stated that, the best case scenario would be to go back to the County and challenge the first code report. He maintained that the City could not afford to modify Eddy Station at an additional $50,000 - $60,000. Unfortunately, Brown stated that if the City challenges the first code report, Little League will undoubtedly be brought into the spotlight. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 6 of 9 Callies asked if Little League had a license to sell concessions. 0 Brown indicated that anyone needs a vendor's license to sell more than candy bars and soda, however, Little League does not have a license to sell what they do. While the health department had indicated to the City that they were going to investigate the other concession stand last year, they did not do so, and Brown had not pushed that. Callies pointed out that, no matter what the Commission chooses to do, it will cost money to look into the original inspection or appeal what had been said. She asked how they had been led astray in the original construction of Eddy Station, since they had invested a great deal of money believing they met the requirements for a concession stand at that time. Brown stated that it shouldn't cost that much money to challenge the appeal. Since this was the Commission's top priority for the year, Callies maintained that they should hire someone to follow -up this appeal. Young pointed out that during interviews for the Coordinator position, one of the interviewees had vast experience in concessions and had suggested the City have a second inspector come out and investigate this. He further questioned whom the supervisor was, that the City had relied on, that have given us incomplete advice. Brown indicated that the advice was not completely inaccurate, it was merely the difference between what was required by the State versus the County regarding concessions. If the concessions could be given to soccer, for instance, Meyers questioned whether the City could ask for a percentage and still make money. While he was unsure whether the City could overcome the health inspector's report, Brown felt they could at least challenge it, and check into getting someone new to come in and run it. Young asked what sort of response the City got from the original RFQ for concessions. Brown stated that he was surprised so few concessionaires were in business anymore. Young asked if it was worth it to pursue the potential interest expressed by Bennett concessions. Meyers maintained that it would be an issue to the Bennett concessions people that there was a noncompliant competitor nearby. Chair Arnst suggested they, step one, appeal the original findings, and step two, pursue any interest. She questioned what the process of appeal might be. Brown indicated that he would speak to Attorney Keane next week to get his recommendation, then have staff follow thru with his suggested process. Brown thought that the City Attorney might even suggest alternatives that the Commission was unaware of at this time. Palesch asked staff to make contact with the MN Park and Recreation association to see if they had 0 PARk COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 7 of 9 additional advice on this subject. Meyers reiterated that she did not wish to threaten Little League's position, however, she would like to see the City pursue it's own concessions. Chair Arnst pointed out that the City would need to talk to Little League, at some point, about the problems it is having with this facility and the impact it could have on them. Brown stated that he would approach Mr. Beduhn on the subject over the next several weeks as they talk about the ventilation issues with their concessions. Chair Arnst asked Brown to relay to Beduhn the Park Commission's support for their concession stand. Young questioned where the original health inspector and his report disappeared. Chair Arnst stated that it was now the time to reexamine it, and asked Brown to follow -up and give the Commission a quick update after the Sports Information Meeting on February 25, 2003. Palesch asked that Meyers act as the liaison or committee leader to investigate the matter. Meyers stated that she would like additional help. Callies stated that she would assist Meyers once we have spoken to the City Attorney. Chair Arnst recapped the suggestion that staff contact the MN Park and Recreation Association, talk to Attorney Keane, and report back from there. Palesch felt that turning the concessions over to someone else to run, as long as the City could rely on them, was a good option. Davis stated that it is difficult to monitor a cash situation, even with a tape. Meyers also believed it was good for organizations to have an opportunity to make money. Depending on what the City would be required to put into the facility for maintenance and what the inspector's report says, Brown indicated that it could be worth it to the City, at that point, to run it themselves. 8. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO CITY COUNCIL Callies stated that, it was her understanding, the purpose for continuing liaisons was to be discussed at the next work session with the City Council. Chair Arnst indicated that the City Council had agreed to meet with the Park Commission in a work session to review our priorities and goals for 2003. Callies asked the Commission if they could come to a consensus on how they see the liaison and inform the City Council of their position. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 8 of 9 1 Jr Palesch agreed, questioning whether it was incumbent upon the Park Commissioners to come to the City Counci* meetings to merely read them the Minutes. Young felt it was redundant also. Davis indicated that, if the City Council provided them with the same level of interaction as the Park Commission does with their liaison, it could be useful, however, that is not the case. Callies disagreed, stating that the Park Commission is it's own entity and should not have the City Council having interaction or undue influence on their discussions. She did not believe it was their role, or the Park Commission's role, to add input into discussions at their independent meetings. Young stated that he hadn't felt the City Council liaison's interjected a great deal during discussions. While Palesch felt the liaison's purpose was to keep the two entities connected, she believed work sessions would do the same. Chair Arnst asked the Commissioners whether they felt the Council member's presence was inhibiting their discussions. Callies felt their presence was inappropriate, since they were not members of the Commission. Chair Arnst maintained that there are times it is important to have a Park Commission liaison present at Council eetings to explain the Commission's position on matters, such as the Smithtown Road trail issue. As the Council never has questions or interaction with those liaisons to warrant their added value, Young questioned the necessity to have a liaison present that simply rereads the Minutes. Chair Arnst pointed out that, historically, the Commission has worked hard to get recognition as a valuable entity and people, she believed this discussion should be heard by the City Council at a work session. Davis felt this and other things should be addressed at a work session. Meyers questioned whether the Commission could be the one to ask for this meeting. Brown indicated that it was interesting to hear the Commission's feedback. Chair Arnst stated that she would like to schedule a joint dinner work session meeting to discuss this issues, as well as, the Commission's 2003 goals. Callies maintained that the Commission should not be asking for the Council's validation of its 2003 goals. Brown indicated that there was a good benefit to sharing the Park Commission goals with the City Council, even if they don't agree, the Park Commission does not have to take every direction they suggest. He felt that the Commission had worked hard to earn the respect of Council and maintained that their job was to continue to challenge the Council. He reiterated that there is always a need for ongoing communication between the various groups to be aware of each other's goals. 0 PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Page 9 of 9 0 9. RECOMMENDATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2003 Davis moved, Meyers seconded, to keep Chair Arnst and Vice -Chair Young in their current positions, with alternate Chair in training. Motion passed 5/1, Young dissenting. 10. NEW BUSINESS Callies questioned the status of newsletter articles, stating that she was unprepared to continually provide detailed submissions on an ongoing basis. Chair Arnst indicated that she would continue to put articles together recapping Park Commission accomplishments and ongoing updates, whereas, on occasion she would look to others for help. Chair Arnst pointed out that there continues to be an empty Commissioner's seat. Brown stated that there would be a notice in the newsletter, website, and perhaps in the Sun Sailor publication. Chair Artist asked staff whether they had paperwork to accompany any contributions made by sports organizations over the past 24 months. Other than the scoreboard for field 2, Brown indicated that there had been no other improvements that he could think of that would have required paperwork. With regard to the Cub Foods funds discussed at the last Commission meeting, Brown reported that the Finance Director had indicated that the City Council had wiped out the Eddy Station debt, therefore, the new dedication would be put into the park fund, less some minor debt items. He noted that approximately $20,000 would be available for the Park Commission, as well as, an additional $18,000 from the Lake Linden Project. 11. ADJOURNMENT Palesch moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of February 11, 2003, at 9:00 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary t. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY HALL 8:00 P.M. OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SPORTS MEETING MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Amst called the meeting to order at 7.45 P.M. RAt I A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Young, Davis, Palesch, and Callies; City Council liaison Turgeon; Engineer Brown; Technician Bailey; and Park Secretary Grout Absent: Commissioner Meyer B. Review Agenda Palesch moved, Callies seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. UPDATE ON CONCESSION STAND Brown reported that City Attorney Keane recommended that the Commission appeal the original inspector's report to the supervisor in order to get another reviewer to take a look at the concessions. Brown stated that was the Attorney's,opinion to investigate and appeal the review before following any other legal process. After contacting John Gruban, of the Minnesota Sports and Recreation Association, Grout reported that his recommendation was to contract the concession business out to a non -profit organization because of the difficulties with the health departments or consider a vending service. She had hoped to hear back from him with more information regarding vending services but did not receive a return call. Chair Arnst asked why a non - profit organization should be allowed to operate a concession stand under different parameters than the City. Palesch stated that, technically, the City shouldn't have to turn the concessions over to a non -profit organization to allow it to work. Chair Arnst suggested they consider the Park Foundation, as the City's nonprofit concessionaire as one option. Callies suggested staff follow the direction towards a specific administrative internal appeal process. Young asked if the informal appeal process might be speaking to the supervisor and telling him that we have difficulty accepting the first investigator's report. Palesch agreed that the City needs to go back and state that we'd like to appeal this decision and what will it take to do so. ��6 PARK COMMISSION MEETING February 25, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Chair Arnst recommended that staff proceed with this direction from the Commission and report back at the next meeting in order to expedite the concessions for spring. She feared that if they didn't get the ball is rolling soon enough, similar to last year, the concessions would not be operational until mid summer. Brown indicated that he would try to follow -up with this process and supply the Commission with a report soon. Grout asked the Commission if they wished to pursue the vending route, as they had gone down that path before. The Commission preferred to head in the direction of concessions and was hesitant to give the vending operators all the business. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that Jim Grube, the Hennepin County Transportation Director, had indicated at a recent meeting that he was sure the County Road 19 project would happen this year. Brown stated that this was the first time he had heard Hennepin County get behind the project in this way. He added that Tom Higgins, owner of Truffle Hill, and the new strip mall owners were also on board. While the Hennepin County Commissioner is aware of the increased costs for the project, Brown stated that there are more parties lining up in support of the project at this time than ever before. One last item Brown noted was that Hennepin County would be handling the ROW issues with regard to the liquor store. Another item of new business that Brown shared was the condition of the Minnetrista Bridge, leading to Enchanted Island. Brown indicated that studies have shown that the bridge is deteriorating more than originally thought, so much so, that school buses and some SUV's will exceed the new weight i restrictions. He noted that even emergency vehicles would find it difficult to cross the bridge. Brown reported that the notification process would begin soon, with construction slated for May, which would include a pedestrian space. Brown reported that the Lake Linden paperwork was now in -house and that hopefully the trail process would be a short one. With regard to a work session, Brown reported that the City Council was hoping to hold joint sessions with the Commission to go over their 2003 goals and priorities in the near future. In regard to the Smithtown Road project, Brown reported that the City put out a mailing to the greater area notifying them of the City's decision to move forward with the construction including a pedestrian space. While the City anticipated numerous calls, Brown stated that they have not received a single comment or call. He mentioned that Dave Hutton, of WSB, would be taking the lead with regard to gaining easements, assisted by both Boyd Bailey and himself. Turgeon reported that at the most recent Council meeting, the City Council did not approve the additional netting and poles for Freeman Park as requested by South Tonka Little League. The Council did not approve the request due to the aesthetics and the fact that the perceived safety issue did not exist in their opinion. The Council felt the bleachers were adequately screened and the additional poles and netting were unwarranted. Chair Arnst reported that prior to the Park Commission meeting she attended the Spring Sports Information meeting hosted by the City and Community Recreation Resources (CRR) and was pleased = 1. PARK COMMISSION MEETING February 25, 2003 Page 3 of 3 with the presentation made by CRR. She asked who would be providing reports with regard to the park coordinator responsibilities and whether a liaison should be present at Park Commission meetings. Brown indicated that he would provide updates and reported from CRR would be provided quarterly. Turgeon requested that the Council liaison be provided with the updates or mailings as well. 3. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Palesch seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of February 25, 2003, at 8:06 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi Anderson Recording Secretary C Memorandum To: Park Commission , (� —I) y From: Twila Grout, Park Secretar Y -� Date: 03/07/03 Re: Park Agenda #4B — Concession Stand Following is information I received from a conversation that I had with Jon Gurban, from MN Park and Rec. Jon said communities are getting out of the concession operation. There are too many hassles! He said that Cities are leasing the concession out to local athletic associations or non - profit organizations. It is then the organization's responsibility to contact the health inspector. If the organization does not pass the inspection, some cities will collaborate with the organization and determine who will fix or update what is needed to be done. The city will lease out the concession for one season. The organization is charged a flat rate (Jon said the first year is a "modest" rate). Charging a flat rate is a lot easier, you do not have to worry about volume, and there is no finger pointing. You would want to put in the contract with the organization that a financial statement would need to be provided at the end of the season. It could then be determined if the rate being charge is sufficient. Another option Jon said was becoming popular with cities and sophisticated would be vending services. The city receives a percentage of the profit. The service that Jon recommended is Theisen Vending. He said that there are about a dozen cities using this service. 0 �416 J► • MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Park Commission Brad Nielsen 7 March 2003 Capestone Ponds P.U.D 405(03.01) — Trail on Manor Road The City has received a development proposal for the property currently occupied by Carmichael's Auto Salvage. The proposal is described in a staff report, dated 30 January 2003 (attached). Greenwood residents to the west of the subject property have suggested that the City either require the developer to construct a trail or sidewalk along Manor Road, or the City should use park dedication fees from the project to assist Greenwood in constructing such a trail. The Planning Commission has referred this issue to the Park Commission for its recommendation, and it has been scheduled for discussion at your 11 March meeting. With respect to the developer putting in the trail, it must be realized that the twinhome units in the project will be oriented to Excelsior Boulevard. There is no proposed pedestrian feature that would encourage the new residents to use Manor Road. It is also difficult to require any developer to install off -site improvements. As proposed the project will generate $36,000 in park dedication fees. Given the limited financial resources of the park fund, there is some question as to using that money for a trail that would be of little benefit to Shorewood residents. This is compounded by the difficulty in locating a trail on Manor Road to begin with. The City Engineer has examined this in the past and suggests that the terrain on Manor Road, especially on the Shorewood side of the road, does not lend itself well to the construction of a trail. The Engineer will elaborate on this at Tuesday night's meeting. Cc: Craig Dawson • Larry Brown I'+ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER T� a • MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952)'474-3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 January 2003 RE: Capestone Ponds P.U.D. — Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan is FILE NO.: 405(03.01) BACKGROUND Capestone Builders propose to build 12 twinhomes on the property located at 20775 Manor Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). In order to accomplish this type of development they have requested an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation for the property from "Minimum Density Residential (0 -1 units per acre)" to "Medium Density Residential (3 -6 units per acre) ". They have also requested concept stage approval for a rezoning from R -lA/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland to a P.U.D. district. The property in question is made up of three parcels of land, one of which is actually located in Greenwood. In total there are 11.1 acres of land, of which 3.4 acres exist as wetland. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the terrain on this property changes dramatically. For example, the elevation of the wetland is approximately 934 while the northeast corner rises to elevation 1015, a difference of over 80 feet. Much of the site ranges in elevation between 955 and 970. A steep, cliff -like embankment forms the northeast corner of the site, as illustrated by the heavy shading on the topography map. Exhibit C shows the distribution of trees on the property, most of which are located around the perimeter of the property and on the higher ground near Excelsior Boulevard. • ip .• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ' Memorandum Re: Capestone P.U.D. Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan 30 January 2003 The subject site is presently occupied by Carmichael's Auto Salvage. The home of the current owner is situated in the northwest corner of the site. Four outbuildings associated with the salvage operation are situated in the center of the site. Much of the surrounding development is shown on Exhibit C. As mentioned above, the subject property is currently zoned R -lA/S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland. Land uses and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: North: single - family residential; zoned R -lA/S East: single - family residential and two - family residential; zoned R -1A/S and R -2A/S, Single and Two - Family Residential, respectively South: Excelsior Boulevard and State Highway 7 East: single - family residential (in Greenwood) The developer proposes to build 12 twinhomes (24 units) on the property, leaving the existing single - family home in the northwest corner of the site (see Exhibit D). Access to the development would come from Excelsior Boulevard. It is proposed that the road would be privately owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. A pond is proposed near Manor Road to address site drainage. Given the acreage of the site, it is assumed that the pond would be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) is standards. The twinhome units shown on the plan are intended to be conceptual, but are patterned after the new twinhomes under construction on County Road 19. The developer further explains the project in Exhibit E. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The development as proposed requires two actions by the City: 1) an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan; and 2) rezoning. A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Before the issue of zoning can be addressed, the City must consider its Comprehensive Plan. Shorewood's Proposed Land Use Plan designates the subject property as "Minimum Density Residential (0 -1 units per acre) ". It also highlights the property as an "area of further study". The developer requests that this designation be amended to "Medium Density Residential (3 -6 units per acre)" to accommodate the proposed development. Staff has calculated the density of the project as 3.2 units per acre. This is based upon the net area of the site after wetland and road areas are subtracted. It should be explained that the density is based upon a 40,000 square -foot unit (sometimes referred to as the "Shorewood acre "). Consequently, the land use designation need only be changed to "Low to Medium Density Residential (2 -3 units per acre)" for this project. C� -2- Memorandum Re: Capestone P.U.D. Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan 30 January 2003 It is worth noting that the subject site was originally designated for higher density in an earlier edition of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent was to provide additional areas for a variety of housing choices, with higher densities near major roadways. More importantly, it was intended to create an incentive for the redevelopment of a very nonconforming and potentially environmentally problematic site. The Planning Commission took this into consideration when it designated the site as an area of further study. In making a determination as to the acceptability of the proposed amendment, it is recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council review the goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Natural Resource and Land Use sections. Undoubtedly, one of the key questions relative to any redevelopment of this site is its environmental condition. Although the present owner has worked with the Pollution Control Agency over the years, it is expected that the historic use of the land has resulted in some contamination. The developer's engineer informs us that a Phase I environmental study has been completed and that a Phase II study is nearing completion. Preliminary soil testing indicates the presence of some soil contamination. As of this writing no environmental reports have been do received. Needless to say, any redevelopment of this property will have to adhere to MnPCA recommendations and requirements. B. Rezoning. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment proves successful, there are two ways the property could be zoned to implement the amendment. First, the land could simply be rezoned to the R -2A/S, Single and Two - Family Residential district. This would have to be followed by a conditional use process for planned unit development. The P.U.D. provisions of the Shorewood Code contain the legal mechanics for such things as zero lot line development and ownership and maintenance of the private road and common areas. This could be viewed as a logical extension of the R -2A zoning that already exists to the east of the subject site. Alternatively, and recommended, is to establish a P.U.D. district. The advantage of this approach is that if the project as approved would fall through, the zoning of the property reverts back to its current R -lA/S zoning. The standards established in a development agreement would serve as the zoning requirements for the project. It is recommended that the development agreement would reflect R -2A requirements for building height, building setbacks, etc. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning are favorably considered, the following should be taken into consideration in the review of the proposed Concept Plan (Exhibit D). -3- Memorandum Re: Capestone P.U.D. Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan 30 January 2003 1. The plan provides for a 35 -foot wetland buffer and 15 -foot setback from the buffer, consistent with Shorewood's wetland protection requirements. It is recommended that future reforestation and landscape plans for the project provide for protection and restoration of wetland vegetation, particularly on the developed side of the wetland. 2. The rear yard setback at the perimeter of the site is shown as 30 feet. The Zoning Code provides that this setback should reflect the zoning requirement of adjoining properties. As a result, the setback adjacent to the south 265 feet of the easterly lot line (abutting the R -2A district) should be 40 feet. The setback for the rest of the property should be 50 feet, reflective of R -lA standards. While this will require some modification of either the building design for units 23/24 or possibly the site plan. The remainder of the site easily accommodates the suggested 50 -foot requirement. Assuming that the existing home would have its own lot, its setback from the north property line would be 10 feet. It is worth mentioning that considerable separation will exist between the proposed development and existing homes, by virtue of topography, distance and vegetation. 3. Buildings must be set back at least 20 feet from the proposed road. 4. The traffic projections included on Exhibit E -2 are considered light. Residential units of this type are typically calculated at 5 -8 trips per day. Single - family residential generates 8 -10 trips per day. The result from this development would be a range of 128 — 202 trips per day. If the developer's anticipated market of singles and empty nesters is accurate, the lower end of the range might be anticipated. 5. Staff from the City of Greenwood has expressed concerns about additional traffic at the intersection of Manor Road, St. Alban's Bay Road, and Suburban Drive (a.k.a. five corners). It is anticipated that the majority of traffic from this site will use Excelsior Boulevard. Also, only the single - family home will access directly onto Manor Road. 6. The design of the private road should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the local Fire Marshal. 7. In addition to the two parking spaces required for each unit, the developer has provide additional guest parking areas in strategic locations. 8. Although not indicated in the narrative, it is expected that the twinhomes I R would be subdivided for individual ownership. -4- Memorandum Re: Capestone P.U.D. Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan . 30 January 2003 9. Most of the Greenwood parcel of land is in the wetland area. A protective covenant should be required to ensure that this parcel remains undeveloped and legally tied to the rest of the project. 10. The developer has expressed an interest in extending municipal water to the project. If the increased density is to be approved, this should be a requirement. It is important to realize that such an extension would provide a very valuable piece of the connection between the Amesbury and Southeast Area water systems. The City Council has agreed that such opportunities should be taken to increase the number of users on the system. 11. The City Engineer will address under separate cover the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer system relative to this project. RECOMMENDATION Although it is assumed that any environmental issues associated with this site can be overcome, it would be useful to know more about the extent of the contamination and the alternatives for mitigation. While the Planning Commission could condition its decision on satisfactory resolution of the environmental concerns, it would be useful to have the information sooner than later. In this regard, the Commission may wish to continue the discussion, pending receipt of the environmental studies. Nevertheless, the project appears to have some merit in terms of the redevelopment of a very nonconforming use of the property. Once a concept plan has been agreed upon, the developer must submit development stage plans. This is where details such as grading, drainage, utilities and landscaping are presented. Also, more information is provided relative to the design and construction of the actual buildings. Ultimately, final plans for the project are incorporated into a development agreement and declaration of protective I covenants. Cc: Craig Dawson Larry Brown Tim Keane Brian Har u Roger Anderson -5- Lake Minnetonka (St. Alban's Bay) 1 Rp pISSON 4 Exhibit A 400 0 400 Feet SITE LOCATION N Capestone P.U.D. NWT ND SAP 0 4 ik R14 10 P.P. 0 kv �J- F \�+ Y !rN/�ll�( i �-i '"e 1 � t l, \ t. r�� z. . f e PUMPING ' NG SrATON X 11 �,� 11 c1 _ . \ !•'INV. -9333 �i� 1 M4 F- W \ INK- 17.1 \ J ~h ( ao e rr ( i ��!►�� v��y.$ 1: / %,. ,/ - 1 sp y '\ •` `rr / � 26 ` ''1 �'q � /r r r� f % / ... ' ! ./ ' f !' • r r , ` r r'' ,/ � , ydt' . 1 v 9 ,, t \ )/ ! • � F 1 ,� 1 % / /.� ` ,,�' ! 96 0 -`.. -% � ' t G�*{t er r t! \, �, /1 I' f .__ \.( r l' 1 r j '+ j • r / /' '� :` � ter, � �/� � 4 � ; � .\ T I ' i' ,,.' (• 1 �,� ./ ,, /: ' � ' / / %. lap - 911.6 t;< �,\`, \ ,\ \ � \ \ �\` \S _' - ) � }�, / /� /' • J i f F i � � INK - 931.6 I t �• .t �\t / / !',`.' �•' .'� ,�� all % TINV. OP -fYy\ C� ` ".,, ' •'``;±`• ' 80RINa SAY. �`t ` 3 `, t•` )jj O 1 L ` \ 1 O BORING SAMPLE- w\ 40-- "7',;' •. ^'��'.. �.` — _�..• \\ / - x - 1�' GO f SOU1H LIME OF THE SOUII N WARIER OF THE - - -- SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25 'R MSEAP 117 m N88 30'21 "W� \ •\ ;\ ` NORTH. RANGE 23 WEST. 4 4 '"•• .. _ ' J ('•` \ �; S89'55'S0 "W ;\ \ - 40.09 / - -- RANGE 23 WEST. SOUTHWEST CORNER 0.F THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER \ 6; \ / 1 `t?r' ./ 45' • : ETAIL' O �1$ THE SOUTHWEST OUARTEA sEa710N 20 TOW1ESHiP p�.+ �, �\ •.�, • \� �• ._' --` ' y69' �� y,, M. 1 �A' 0. O� , ;'\ \ �`. \1•.. _ • p t ( - �.� - _ `�� E - % -` , l i ' NK. ` �C ;•' % %: ,` V 936 117 NOR NI wv -911. 9 µ,5 y <-_ E ST�� / ` �9y " - .:'•-'�!•' - - ` _01•�WAY UN • � r�-: I �" � � ._� Eli. -- �• y'\ t1 j pa au ;��{ RIGNT /_ ��:"� :• =c -- i ` - -.... y� �Q eras � +• _ / -- < . --• - -. -.._ -- -- __ = � =:_, 1�= �!•' ''' 1 � °-^ VALVE - : p eiT�R F'-- -_ ` ' uiW+ • • \ i <TAR-a VAS - L 4. _ �-•�_ "- 955 =''�' ' .__Y...''f'r: %'' , , , `� i X. � rOp -960 ��,`, • �. INV 910.6 , •, . _ -�_ f ,.-� �. 1 A A y�''� HjGK f •..�— "'--'I _ — ^= � =-�'�' ice..- -_ --- -- l 11:A r, r r -1 r`V 3. No title or the e 4. Topogrc7 5. Existino from Other all uti i utilities 6. The tree trained determ r accurc W ^, t• ✓ r �If ME -LUNG \ m \ \ TOP -970.6 i O !' to \•I 16 9660 ' •`�� t 1\ i i T i� Exhibit C EXISTING CONDITIONS Ca P estone P.U.D. CERTinCA7 I hereby cE and that! Doted this Revised thi NORTH NOTES_ The oriel the Sou 44 mina: ie arec 3. No title or the e 4. Topogrc7 5. Existino from Other all uti i utilities 6. The tree trained determ r accurc W ^, t• ✓ r �If ME -LUNG \ m \ \ TOP -970.6 i O !' to \•I 16 9660 ' •`�� t 1\ i i T i� Exhibit C EXISTING CONDITIONS Ca P estone P.U.D. Q 0• E .� 6`Z 6 \\ � 6 OO GA *y O / O � V� o . / Q4 / p ' i o� � m S 89'57'32" E 525.69 • — • 30' SETBACK 16 15 13 I \\ \\ h 14 \��\\ S G \ \\ \ \`\\ \ 12 \ 11 co I 10 0 1 ` •\ mk 17 I 18 19 i 20 21 22 \\ \�` • \ 6 � 35' BUFFER Z \\ 5 WETLAND ` \ 2 15' SETBACK \ �` • \ • \ u' (T'YP) ROAD (rw> rI s • 961.7 HIGH NO. 7 2 23 24 J 5 CAS CONCEPT DATA — PROPOSED CHANGE FROM R1 —A TO PUD. — 12 TWIN HOMES — 1 SINGLE FAMILY HOME — 25 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS — TOTAL SITE AREA: 483,775 sf (11.1 AC); 100% — AREA FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: 4,483 sf (.6 f — AREA FOR TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL: 197,626 sf (4.5 A( — AREA FOR STREETS: 24,998 sf (.57 AC); 5% — AREA FOR WETLAND: 146,822 sf (3.4 AC); 30% — AREA OF OPEN SPACE: 89,846 sf (2.1 AC); 19% APPLICANT CAPESTONE BUILDERS 4109 ECKERT AVE SE DELANO, MN 55328 ( NA .RJU: 982- 932 -5999) NORTH Exhibit D CONCEPT PLAN Capestone P.U.D. \� oll \ rJ HIGHWAY µ� " W ORTN RIGNT�OF-WAY LINE S 80'4 e-TA TF M O C0 rn M 30' SE19AM r-3 s O1 d' O O cn 16.50 S 89'55'37" W ul co Sri rn r 3 e rn 0 0 \ \ 4 ••`• \ \ 3 \ \ 0' SETBACK N88'3 40 09 S89'55'50 "W \ •� _ _ _ (� 40.00 \ , �� (. • � 1 rI s • 961.7 HIGH NO. 7 2 23 24 J 5 CAS CONCEPT DATA — PROPOSED CHANGE FROM R1 —A TO PUD. — 12 TWIN HOMES — 1 SINGLE FAMILY HOME — 25 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS — TOTAL SITE AREA: 483,775 sf (11.1 AC); 100% — AREA FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: 4,483 sf (.6 f — AREA FOR TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL: 197,626 sf (4.5 A( — AREA FOR STREETS: 24,998 sf (.57 AC); 5% — AREA FOR WETLAND: 146,822 sf (3.4 AC); 30% — AREA OF OPEN SPACE: 89,846 sf (2.1 AC); 19% APPLICANT CAPESTONE BUILDERS 4109 ECKERT AVE SE DELANO, MN 55328 ( NA .RJU: 982- 932 -5999) NORTH Exhibit D CONCEPT PLAN Capestone P.U.D. \� oll \ rJ HIGHWAY µ� " W ORTN RIGNT�OF-WAY LINE S 80'4 e-TA TF M O C0 rn M 30' SE19AM r-3 s O1 d' O O cn 16.50 S 89'55'37" W ul co Sri rn r 3 e rn 0 0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of 0 20775 Manor Road Supporting Information The Applicant is proposing a comprehensive plan amendment for the existing parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Excelsior Blvd and Manor Road. This site is currently operating as an auto salvage yard by Mr. Bruce Carmichiel. This use has been grandfathered into existence on the R -IA zoned property. Current zoning is at the R -lA level. Previous history relating to the zoning showed that during the last zoning change the site was guided for higher density development. This zoning was created as an incentive to bring the non - conforming use property into a conforming use. Recent guide plan amendments brought the zoning back to the R -lA status it is today. The comprehensive plan change would be a direct approach to cleaning up and handling the environmental issues associated with the auto salvage yard. The site is currently undergoing a Phase 1 and 2 environmental assessments. Any harmful products found on- site or underground will be mitigated per MPCA guidelines. • Makin g the shift to higher density will put the land into a greater tax base for the City. Specific proximity to current duplex units and Highway 7 makes the site very amenable for twin -home use. This type of housing expansion in the city gives future residence a viable choice in housing. The applicant has reviewed the concept plan with the adjacent residents. There was a favorable reaction from all of the parties. Applicant, Consultant and Site Data Applicant: Capestone Builders c/o Brian Ha& 4109 Eckert Ave SE Delano MN 55328 763.972.5999 ph 763.972.5890 fax CJ Exhibit E -1 APPLICANT'S PROJECT NARRATIVE Capestone P.U.D. • Owner: Bruce Carmichiel 20775 Manor Rd Shorewood MN 55331 952.474.0871ph Professional Consultants: Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC Roger Anderson, P.E. Mike Brandvold, P.E. Jack Bolke, L. S. 1340015' Ave N Plymouth MN 55441 763.383.1084 ph 763.383.1089 fax Land Title Jeff Christian Suite 200 1900 Silver Lake Rd New Brighton MN 55112 651.638.1900 ph 651.638.1994 fax Site Control: See attached purchase agreement Title confirmation to follow Traffic Comparison: Current use of the property is for commercial auto parts sales. Existing traffic flows from Excelsior Boulevard north to the Manor Road entrance of the facility. The estimated traffic count is approximately 25 vehicles per day. This includes customers and minor delivery vehicles and tow trucks. Proposed traffic patterns would shift to exclusive use of the Excelsior Boulevard frontage road with access north into the site. The proposed traffic would be of homeowner vehicle nature with weekly refuse pickup. Estimates for proposed traffic volumes would be in the range of 50 -60 vehicles per day. • E -2 Site Data: Number of estimated units: Area of Residential use: Area of open space: Area of Wetlands: Area of Streets: Zoning Classification Change: 24 (12 twin homes) 5.0 Acres 4.5 Acres 3.4 Acres 0.6 Acres Change from R -lA to PUD Proposed Wording of Comprehensive Plan Text: "Subject area shall be guided for medium density development with PUD zoning status." • Effects on streets, utilities, and parks: The change will allow the construction of an access into the site off Excelsior Boulevard. This development will be at the expense of the applicant. The current commercial use entrance off Manor Road will be closed. Utility construction will connect the proposed homes to the existing sanitary sewer along Excelsior Boulevard. Watermain connections and/or private wells are being reviewed at this time. Parkland dedication fees will be paid in lieu of land. A mix of age /family ranges is expected. Single adults and semi- retired owners are expected in the housing development. E -3 %mu v oFA , v i i . .it O w aAO ' nve. Y � r I � a • January 29, 2003 Bradley Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad, U reenwood City on the Lake SAN 3 0 2 403 j � r y The city has received your public hearing notice for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to permit 12 twin -homes on the property located at 20775 Manor Road. I have sent a copy of the notice to the adjacent neighbors on Channel Drive, Oak Lane, St. Alban's Bay Road and St. Alban's Green in the City of Greenwood. I would expect . you would hear from some of these residents about traffic concerns. Having discussed the project with you and a representative of Capestone Builders, I • understand the preliminary thought is to disperse traffic to both Manor Road and Excelsior Boulevard in an attempt to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. The City of Greenwood is very concerned about the potential increase in traffic in the "five corners" area. The city recently required a property owner adjacent to that intersection to transfer property to the City of Greenwood as a park dedication when he subdivided his property in an effort to improve vision sight lines. The city, and I'm sure, the local residents will be very interested to see what steps will be taken to ensure the continued safety of the intersection. If you have any questions please contact me a 952- 474 -4755. Sincerely, A LON� Gus Karpas Zoning Coordinator 20225 Cottagewood Road • Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (952) 474 -6633 • Fax (952) 474 -1274 - Public Works /Building Inspections (952) 474 -4755 � S 0 Memorandum To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout, Park Secretary Date: 03/10/03 Re: Agenda Item #6 — LRT Clean Up Day I contacted Bo Carlson of Three Rivers Park District. Three Rivers Park District has a spring clean up on the LRT. They have a volunteer coordinator who will set up dates for groups that would like to clean up the LRT. The coordinator also recruits volunteers for clean up of the LRT. If Shorewood and Excelsior decide to do a joint clean up of the LRT, Bo said that Three Rivers Park District would provide staff support, smaller equipment and bags (Three Rivers will pick up the bags, once the clean up is completed). • •1 • • FORD A"MIJ411 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shoreweod.mn.us DATE: January 21, 2003 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk J' CC: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator RE: PET ORDINANCE The City received an email from a resident inquiring about the City's dog ordinance, specifically relating to the Southwest LRT trail. The resident would like the City to require dogs be on leash on the Southwest LRT trail. A copy of this email is attached, as well as staffs reply to the inquiry (see Exhibit A). Background The Southwest. LRT trail is under the jurisdiction of Three Rivers Park District during the period April 1 through November 14. During this time period, the Three Rivers Park District rules are to be enforced by the Three Rivers Park District Park Police. Its ordinance states that pets are required to be on a 6 -foot leash on the Southwest LRT trail. A copy of the Three Rivers Park District ordinance pertaining to Pets in Parks is attached (see Exhibit B). The City has a permit to use the Southwest LRT trail from November 15 — March 31 for specific activities, including pet walking. During this time period, the City's rules are to be enforced by Orono Animal Control. The City's ordinance requires dogs to be under restraint, and identifies this as such: "A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained by a leash or chain or is within 10 feet of the person having custody of it and is obedient to the command of that person." co PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -# 714 January 21, 2003 Page Two 0 Issue As the City and Park District pet ordinances differ, this may be confusing for residents using the Southwest LRT trail for pet walking. Council may discuss options for clarification of the City's dog ordinance as it pertains to the Southwest LRT trail. City Council Action Council should direct whether staff should prepare an ordinance to amend dog regulations on the Southwest LRT trail. • • rage 1 of 2 Jean Panchyshyn From: Jean Panchyshyn • Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:22 PM To: Brad Nielsen; Craig Dawson; Larry Brown; Christine Lizee (E- mail); John Garfunkel; John Garfunkel 2; Laura Turgeon (E- mail); Scott Zerby (E- mail); Woody Love (E- mail); Woody Love (Home) Subject: FW: UPDATE on Hennepin County Trail FYI, Here's the 2nd message I sent to Marge Yaeger re: the LRT Trail. Jean - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jean Panchyshyn [ mailto: jpanchyshyn @ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:19 PM To: 'MargBlu @aol.com' Subject: RE: UPDATE on Hennepin County Trail Dear Marge, I was partially incorrrect when I stated that the LRT was under the jurisdiction of the Three Rivers Park District. It is, except during the winter months (November 15 - March 31.) The City has a permit from the Three Rivers Park District to use the LRT during the period November 15 - March 31, and with this permit the City is responsible to enforce its rules and regulations. Therefore, you would actually need to call Animal Control Dispatch at 763 -525- 6210 if there were any violation of the City's pet ordinance on the LRT during the period November 15 - March 31. The Three Rivers Park District rules would be enforced from April 1 - November 14. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this. I will keep you informed of any future discussion of this topic by the City Council. Sincerely, Jean Panchyshyn Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk Phone: 952 - 474 -3236 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jean Panchyshyn [mailto: jpanchyshyn @ci.shorewood.mn.us] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:21 PM To: 'MargBlu @aol.com' Subject: RE: Hennepin County Trail Dear Marge Yaeger, Thank you for your email stating your concerns about the leash law in Shorewood and on the Hennepin County Trail. Your message has been forwarded to the City Council. In answer to your question asking what "under control" means, the City's pet ordinance states, "A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained by a leash or chain or is within 10 feet of the person having custody of it and is obedient to the command of that person." The Southwest Regional LRT Trail is under the jurisdiction of the Three Rivers Park District. Its ordinance • on pets in parks or trails does state that dogs must be on 6 -foot leash when in authorized parks or trails. You may refer to pages 18 -19 of this ordinance 1/21/03 Exhibit A Yam ' at hftp://www.hennepinparks.orci/shared/20020rdinanceBook.pd I called the Three Rivers Park District and was told that if you want to report a pet violation on the trail, you should call 911, state that your call is not an emergency, and ask for a Three Rivers Park District Park Police Officer to be dispatched to the area where you encountered the violation. Unless residents make the call, no action can be taken. Dogs must be on leash when on the LRT. Even though Shorewood's ordinance on pets does not require dogs be on leash, it does not pertain to the LRT trail. City police officers are authorized only to enforce the City's pet ordinance. The City will continue periodically to publish notices in the ShoreReport about being a responsible pet owner, and to remind pet owners of the laws within the City and on the LRT. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Since a leash law on the LRT is already in effect, I hope this addresses your immediate concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jean Panchyshyn Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk City of Shorewood Ph: 952- 474 -3236 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MargBlu @aol.com [mailto:MargBlu @aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:50 PM To: cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Hennepin County Trail Jan 2 2003 Shorewood City Council Dear Councilmembers; I think that it is time for every owner keep their dog on a leash when using the Hennepin County trail. Now, the dogs only have to be under the control of their owners and within 10 feet of the owner to be lawful. I'd like to know what "under control" means. We're talking about dogs here, and it doesn't take much set them off running and barking, and, without being leashed, anything can happen! Maybe that law is OK for the rest of Shorewood, but the Hennepin County trail with all the packed snow is less than ten feet wide. Also, it is used by lots of people, including children, and mothers pushing their babies along in strollers. It would be a real tragedy if one of these dogs "under owner control" attacked a baby! The City Council should not wait for that to happen. It's just not worth it. Also I have seen that these roaming dogs will go off and mess on the trail, with the owners looking the other way pretending not to see. Its a lot tougher to ignore this if the dog was on a leash! Of course, all owners have to clean up after their animals. I hope the Council will change this law. Marge Yaeger 5445 Timberlane Shorewood, Mn 55331 952 -474 -2676 • 1/21/03 • CHAPTER IV - REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO GENERAL PARKLAND OPERATION Section 1- Commercial Use /Solicitation /Advertising/ Photo - graphy /Constitutionally Protected Rights of Expression It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Solicit, sell, or otherwise peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids or edibles in a park except by authorized concession or written permission granted by the Board. b. Operate a still, motion picture, video or other camera for commercial purposes in a park without a permit (news coverage or media journalism is not considered a commercial purpose; therefore, a permit is not re- quired). c. Expose, distribute or place any sign, advertisement, notice, poster or display in a park without authoriza- tion from the Superintendent or designee. d. Participate in a constitutionally protected expression activity on Park District property without a special use permit. Section 2 - Pets in Parks It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Permit a pet, except trained service dogs to assist persons with disabilities, to be in a park except in areas that may be designated by the Board, including camp- grounds, trails, pet exercise and training areas. 18 0 0 b. Bring a pet into an authorized area of a park unless ca ed or kept on a leash not more than six feet in length, unless in a pet exercise or training area designated by the Board. c. Permit a pet under his /her responsibility to disturb, harass or interfere with any parkvisitor, a parkvisitor's property or park employee. d. Tether any animal to a tree, plant, building or park equipment. e. Have custody or control of any dog or domestic pet in a park without possessing an appropriate device for cleaning up pet feces and disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. f. Operate a dog sled, skijoring device or any other sled/ ski equipment pulled by a pet or other animal except on designated trails at dates and times designated by special use permit. Section 3 - Noise /Amplification of Sound It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Install, use, operate or permit the use or operation within the Park District of any of the following devices: 1. Loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment with- out authorization by permit. 2. Radios, tape players, phonographs, television sets, musical instruments or other machines or devices for the production or reproduction of sound in such a manner as to be disturbing or a nuisance to reason- able persons of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility. 19 4 MEMOR ANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.d.shorewood.mmus - cityha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us DATE: January 31, 2003 TO: Mayor and Council Members n FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk CC: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator RE: DOG ORDINANCE AMENDMENT At its meeting on January 27, 2003, the City Council discussed the current dog ordinance as it pertains to dogs on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail. The City's dog ordinance differs from that of the Three Rivers Park District, which requires pets be on a six -foot leash on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to require that dogs be kept on a six -foot leash on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail. The proposed new language to the dog ordinance is noted in underline: Section 701.01 DEFINITIONS Subd. 4. RESTRAINT: A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained by a leash or chain or is within ten feet (10) of the person having custody of it and is obedient to the command of that person. This provision does not apply to the Three Rivers Park District Southwest Regional LRT Trail (see Subd. 5 1. Subd. 5. RESTRAINT ON THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LRT TRAIL. Dogs must be kept on a leash not more than six -feet in length on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail per regulations of the Three Rivers Park District on behalf of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority r(HCRM COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of a dog ordinance amendment to include language that requires dogs on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail be kept on a six -foot leash. • is �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER P k l 5 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 701 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO DOGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 701.01, Subd. 4 of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows: Subd. 4. RESTRAINT: A dog is under restraint if it is on the premises of the person harboring or keeping the dog, or if the dog is with the person having custody of it and is effectively restrained by a leash or chain or is within ten feet (10') of the person having custody of it and is obedient to the command of that person. This provision does not apply to the Three Rivers Park District Southwest Regional LRT Trail (see Subd. 5). Section 2. Section 701.01 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to add: Subd. 5. RESTRAINT ON THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LRT TRAIL. Dogs must be kept on a leash not more than six -feet in length on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail per regulations of the Three Rivers Park District on behalf of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 10th day of February, 2003. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK 0 Memorandum To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout, Park Secretary Date: 03/06/03 Re: Park Agenda #7B- City's Dog Ordinance I have researched other cities to see if they have an ordinance where a clean up receptacle is required when walking your pet. Attached are various city ordinances pertaining to this subject. The four ordinances that I have attached are from City of Excelsior, City of Burnsville, City of Plymouth and Three Rivers Park for your review. • 401 I =L, ZU UJ Ut. 1YP- u 1.J 4 r' L- 1 C1J1U1 Exc�lsI or § 6 -9 EXCELSIOR CODE section, it shall be no defense that the offending animal escaped or is otherwise at large without the permission or sufferance of its owner. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsec- tion (a) of this section, the owner of a cat shall not permit such animal to be at large on public property or on the private property of another unless the owner of such property actually con- sents thereto. (Code 1982, § 430:40) Sec. 6 -10. Condition of property; excrement. It shall not be a violation of this section if the dog is barking, crying, or making other noise due to harassment or injury to the dog by a person who does not own, keep, harbor, or maintain the dog, or a trespass upon the premises where the dog is located. (b) Penalty. A first time violation of this section shall be deemed a petty misdemeanor. (c) Seizure of barking dogs; noise abatement. Any police officer or animal control officer may enter onto private property and seize any barking dog, provided that the following conditions exist: (1) There is an identified complainant other than the police or animal control officer making a contemporaneous complaint about the barking; (2) The officer reasonably believes that the barking noise meets the criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section; (3) The officer can demonstrate that there has been at least one previous violation of subsection (a) of this section at this ad- dress on a prior date; (4) The officer has made reasonable attempts to contact the owner of the dogs or the owner of the property and those attempts have either failed or have been ignored; (5) The seizure will not involve forced entry into a private residence. Use of a passkey obtained from a property manager, land- lord, innkeeper, or other person autho- rized to have such a key shall not be considered as a forced entry; (6) No other less intrusive means to stop the barking is available; and (7) Written notice of the seizure is left in a conspicuous place if personal contact with the owner of the dog has been reasonably attempted without success. (d) Disposition of seized animals. Any dog seized under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section shall be taken to the animal impound shelter and kept there to be reclaimed by the owner. No impound fee shall be charged unless the circumstances indicate that the owner failed to cooperate with or obstructed an animal control (a) Dog and cat excrement generally. It is un- lawful for any person who owns or has custody of a dog or cat to cause or permit such animal to defecate on any private property without the consent of the property owner or on any public property, unless such person immediately re- moves the excrement and places it in a proper receptacle. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to dogs, such as a Seeing Eye dog, that are assisting and under the control of disabled persons, or dogs while being used in city police activity. (b) Receptacle required. It shall be unlawful for any person who owns or has custody of a domes- ticated or nondomesticated animal to walk such animal anywhere within the city limits without having in the person's possession a usable recep- tacle for picking up excrement. (c) Penalty. Violation of this section shall be a petty misdemeanor. (Code 1982, § 430:45) Sec. 6 -11. Barking dogs. (a) Prohibited acts. It shall constitute a public nuisance and be unlawful for any person who owns, keeps, harbors, or maintains a dog to cause or permit any such dog to bark, whine, howl, bay, cry, or make other noise excessively so as to cause annoyance, disturbance, or discomfort to any in- dividual. Dog noise shall be deemed excessive if such noise lasts for a period of more than five minutes continuously or, if intermittent, contin- ues for more than one hour, when any such noise is plainly audible from a distance of 100 feet or more from the premises where the dog is located. CD6:6 UL, L: tY It U:J U i • • 8 -6 -10: ANIMALS: Page 1 of 1 f)un I 5 • 8 -6 -10: ANIMALS: (A) Where animals are permitted, they shall be restricted at all times by a suitable leash not exceeding six feet (6) in length and under command of the owner or custodian. (B) No person shall permit a dog or other animal to disturb, harass or interfere with or endanger any visitor or visitor's property. No person shall tether and leave unattended any dog or animal to a tree, plant, building or park equipment. (C) Any person having the custody or control of any dog or animal shall have the duty to immediately remove any feces left by such animal in any park and to dispose of such feces in a sanitary manner. It shall furthermore be the duty of each person having custody or control of any dog or domestic animal in a park to have in such person's possession a device or equipment for the picking up and removing of animal feces. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a guide dog accompanying a blind person or to a dog when used in police or rescue activities. (Ord. 276, 6 -17 -1985) • • http://66.113.195. 234/ MNBumsville /09006000000010000.htm 3/3/03 Section 915 - Animal Control - moui-h Page 5of11 915.17. Dogs and Cats Prohibited from Running at Large Subdivision 1. General Rule No owner of a dog or cat shall permit it to be At Large within the City. Every Owner of a dog or cat shall keep it Under Restraint at all times. An exception to this requirement is dogs are allowed within a . body of water for training and/or exercise purposes as long as they are not within 300 feet of any public swimming area and are not found to be creating a nuisance as defined in this ordinance. Subd. 2. Exemption Cats who are outdoor cats within the city at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be exempt from this section of the ordinance for the lifetime of the animal by meeting the following requirements. The owner must register the cat by December 31, 1998, the cat is required to be spayed/neutered, and the owners must agree to be responsible for any damage to property done by the cat and work with victim and police to ensure solution to the problem being created. Subd. 3. Exem to ion If a cat is unable to be trained to be indoors and the only other option for the cat is euthanasia and the owner produces documentation from a certified veterinarian proving such, the cat may be allowed outdoors. In this circumstance the cat is required to be spayed/neutered, and the owners must agree to be responsible for any damage done to property by the cat and work with the victim and police to ensure solution to any problem being created. (Ord. 98 -43; 12116198) 915.19. Public Nuisances, of Nuisance; Notice of Violation No Owner shall '--' permit his or her Animal to damage or foul any lawn, garden or other property. An Owner shall have the responsibility of cleaning up any feces of the Animal and to dispose of such feces in a sanitary manner. The City has the authority to impound any animal creating such a nuisance. Any owner or any individual walking an Animal off their own property must carry means to dispose of feces. Lack of such means is prima facie evidence of intent to violate this section of the ordinance. (Ord. 98 -40; 11 /18/98) 915.21. Animal Limits Subdivision 1. No person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody of more than four dogs and cats in combination, no more than two of which may be dogs over six months old on their property without having first secured a Multiple Animal License as required herein, except individuals involved in any animal— related business. Individuals involved in the business of selling, boarding, breeding, treating, or grooming animals must receive a Kennel License. Animals which have been specially trained and certified to perform certain tasks such as for handicapped, police K -9s, search and rescue, and other designated working animals are not counted in this requirement, nor are animals that are part of any registered foster parent program. Subd. 2. Duration of Multiple Animal Licenses Multiple animal licenses shall be issued on an annual basis and shall be made for the whole or unexpired portion of the year ending on December 31 next following the effective date of the license. Subd. 3. Multiple Animal License Fees The license fees for multiple animal licenses shall be as provided in Chapter X. Plymouth City Code 915.21, Subd. 4 Subd. 4. Late — License Penalty Fee If the multiple animal license is obtained after an animal is has been impounded then there shall be a penalty fee added to the regular license fee equal to the regular license amount. This fee shall be paid in addition to any animal licensing, impounding or http : / /www2.ci.plymouth.mn.us /pls/ cop /docs/FOLDER/CITY GOV /C... /SECTION 915.HT 2/27/03 M 0 �Pwe__'V-3 CHAPTER IV - REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO GENERAL PARKLAND OPERATION Section l - Commercial Use /Solicitation /Advertising/ Photo- graphy /Constitutionally Protected Rights of Expression It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Solicit, sell, or otherwise peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids or edibles in a park except by authorized concession orwritten permission granted by the Board. b. Operate a still, motion picture, video or other camera for commercial purposes in a park without a permit (news coverage or media journalism is not considered a commercial purpose; therefore, a permit is not re- quired). c. Expose, distribute or place any sign, advertisement, notice, poster or display in a park without authoriza- tion from the Superintendent or designee. d. Participate in a constitutionally protected expression activity on Park District property without a special use permit. Section 2 - Pets in Parks It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Permit a pet, except trained service dogs to assist persons with disabilities, to be in a park except in areas that may be designated by the Board, including camp- grounds, trails, pet exercise and training areas. 18 • ' 4 b. Bring a pet into an authorized area of a park unless ca ed or kept on a leash not more than six feet in length, unless in a pet exercise or training area designated by the Board. c. Permit a pet under his /her responsibility to disturb, harass or interfere with any parkvisitor, a parkvisitor's property or park employee. d. Tether any animal to a tree, plant, building or park equipment. e. Have custody or control of any dog or domestic pet in a park without possessing an appropriate device for cleaning up pet feces and disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. E Operate a dog sled, skijoring device or any other sled/ ski equipment pulled by a pet or other animal except on designated trails at dates and times designated by special use permit. Section 3 - Noise /Amplification of Sound It shall be unlawful for any person to: a. Install, use, operate or permit the use or operation within the ParkDistrict of any of the following devices: 1. Loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment with- out authorization by permit. 2. Radios, tape players, phonographs, television sets, musical instruments or other machines or devices for the production or reproduction of sound in such a manner as to be disturbing or a nuisance to reason- able persons of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility. 19 Ate-