Loading...
052599 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MAY 25,1999 APPROXIMATELY 8:04 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Amst Themig B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission/City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of May 11, 1999 (Att. -#2A Draft Minutes) ' B. Park Commission Meeting of May 11, 1999 (Att. -#2B Draft Minutes) 3. DISCUSSION OF PARK TOURS 4. DISCUSSION OF FREEMAN PARK ISSUES 5. REVIEW OF SHOREWOOD PONDS LETTER (Att. - #5) 6. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: June - Bensman July - Puzak CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • PARK COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS JOINT MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL MEET Co -Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 1i I F T A. Roll Call Present: Co- Chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners Puzak and Themig; Mayor Woody Love, Council Members Stover and Garfunkel; Administrator Jim Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown Absent: Commissioners Colopoulos and Bensman; Council Members Lizee and Zerby B. Review Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. 2. DISCUSS PARK DEDICATION FEES This work session was called as a result of Commissioner Dallman's report to the City Council following the March 23 Park Commission meeting where the Commission had discussed and recommended an increase in the Park Dedication Fees. Mayor Love stated that the City Council wished to revisit the recommendation. He added that the two concerns are: defining the needs, and; if we have a need, should it be based on a high impact fee with so few lots available for development. Council Member John Garfunkel noted his concerns over the amount of discussion about neighboring communities' fees. He asked what the increase would mean dollar wise and what is the actual need. Just doing it because we can is not a good policy. He also stated that this is one more expense that can reduce a property's affordability. Commissioner Themig explained that the initial discussion came up earlier in conversation about needs for Freeman Park and he agreed that a lot of conversation did involve other municipalities. He said it was a mistake not to include the issue of need in the discussion with the recommendation. Commissioner Dallman said there were about 300 buildable lots in the city, which at the present rate that would add an average of $3,000 for parks per year for 10 years. When it's gone, it's gone. • M�A Park Commission/City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Page 2 • Commissioner Puzak added that the discussion to raise Park Dedication fees followed two sessions of "sticker shock" over what it would cost to put in a scaled down bathroom facility at Freeman. That is just one item in a single park and it would have depleted all funds. It was depressing to see that all funds would be spent on just the first item of the wish list. Council Member Stover asked if other funding resources were discussed. Puzak said that the timing of a decision about Park Dedication fees is sensitive with the development of the Senior Housing property. The Park Commission had considered that one of the alternative ways to get a concession/restroom /storage facility is to see if the developer would build it in lieu of paying a fee, since his cost to build the structure would likely be half of what the City would pay to contract it out. Council Member Stover asked if a long term funding solution had been discussed. Puzak replied that the practice that had been followed for about 5 years is of collecting user fees, which would only cover maintenance and some minor amenities. Dallman added that the role of the Park Foundation is fund raising and this is also being discussed. The Park Commission is just in the process of identifying a policy on park user fees, but large expenses (such as re- building soccer fields, etc.) will also need to be addressed. Co -chair Arnst summarized that the Park Commission knows that funding through Park 40 Dedication Fees is running out. User fees are not offsetting our costs. With that in mind they knew they needed to do something about rising costs and depleting resources. The Commission would not be in disagreement of other ideas. Mayor Love recommended looking at sustainability and offered a suggestion. Since Shorewood is running out of undeveloped property, a better solution might be a small impact fee charged at the point of turnover of any property within the City. Depending on legislative authority, the City could attach a fee at the time of homesteading. If it were a percentage of the sale price, it would ride with inflation. Stover said it is an on -going resource, which is why it peaks her interest. Dallman sited the example of Hilton Head, which imposes a title transfer fee tax. Love added that in terms of building amenities (not the general fund), it may be a good idea. Administrator Hurm said there is the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Fund. This would be a third funding category. The big question for parks is depreciation now that the huge needs aren't there as much since the parks are essentially developed. The Operating Budget can cover operating costs and the CIP is for improvements. Puzak noted that part of this discussion is because of a need for trail funds. There have been two walks so far with positive support, yet funding is not determined. Part of the reason for the increase was to meet a need for trails. The need is developing and there is strong support in at least two trail segments. Stover asked if the cost of a trail is known. • Park Commission /City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Page 3 • Puzak said no, because it will depend on individual project needs for landscaping, dealing with obstacles, etc. Puzak added that, while Shorewood is approaching a mature development phase, it is at an immature capital amenities phase (i.e. no public flush toilet at any park). He said the other point is in the data and a survey, which indicate that people do support parks and feel they have a high value in the community. Themig noted that they also said Shorewood has adequate park space. Enhancements and sustaining amenities are now the main concern. Mayor Love sited the example of Excelsior, which is completely developed and relies on income from other sources for park costs. One funding source is through parking fees. There was some discussion about how that may work for Shorewood. Council Member Garfunkel agreed that this is a good time to look for other options. Puzak pointed out that, when spread over a 30 -year mortgage, the additional park dedication fee is very affordable. Dallman added that affordable housing is wiped out already because of the cost of lots in Shorewood. Mayor Love said he has never been against impact fees. His concern is that the proposed increase is a hefty amount. Puzak countered that, without an increase, the City would run out of park improvement funds • after buying the last key amenity at Freeman. Garfunkel said that even a million dollars isn't going to go far. This aside, there has to be another solution. Co -chair Arnst summarized that it seems the Council is not comfortable with what the Commission has come up with and that they need to explore other options. Mayor Love said they are not comfortable with the large increase. This matter, however, has captured the Council's attention, not just about the fees, but about the problem of limited funding for parks. Engineer Brown read notes from City Planning Director, Brad Nielsen. The statutes that allow the City to impose impact fees gives authority to base the amount on a percentage of the value of raw land not developed land. Each parcel would require an assessor's appraisal. A newly created lot has little to offer until after it is divided. It would be tough for staff to advise on the cost, based on value. Puzak said this adds to a whole different number. It is a technical issue that would net less money, depending on the situation. Brown suggested that if the City uses a percent system, then limit it to division of 3 lots or more. When less than 3, use a flat fee. Arnst pointed out that this is still not addressing sustainability, even if we change this policy. Stover added that the City needs to find a way to add to park funds after all of the land is developed. Garfunkel had another concern as a property owner with the fairness of a sudden change from $1,000 to possibly $7,500 for park dedication fees. Commissioner Themig asked if the Council would favor an increase of any kind? Mayor • Love suggested that if averaged out, $1200 to $1500 is fair. Stover added that the present Park Commission /City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Page 4 fee amount has been the same for a while and she does not object to a small increase • because of inflation, etc. Garfunkel agreed. Arnst brought up the point that the initial motion was for a flat fee of $1500. Mayor Love said that amount doesn't send up alarms, but we still have to role up our sleeves to come up with a long term funding solution. Arnst suggested checking into turnover fees and parking stickers for non - residents. Love said that $5 for a parking sticker is not too high. Hurm said the practicality of that idea is questionable. And Themig added that Shorewood parks are not a destination point like Hennepin Parks or the lake. Our parks are more of a basic service we should be providing. Puzak said from coaches' perspective, it becomes a problem of kids being dropped off. Arnst said a parking fee is still something to explore. Puzak asked about increasing funding to parks from the general fund. Hurm said it is at zero for this year, but will hopefully go to $10,000 after that. Puzak said we have zero ability to raise money and asked for change in the zero funding from the General Fund if we can't see a change in Park Dedication fees. The other thing is: if we don't fund the parks by new development, it may be through increasing taxes on residents. He would rather have new residents help with next amenity. Garfunkel pointed out the other danger of no guarantee that the 300 lots will sell. Stover asked about the role of the Park Foundation. Love said that is one resource but we still need to look for others. Mayor Love said that he appreciates the needs, both long term and immediate. He asked • about the idea of having Eagle Crest help with the structure at Freeman. Themig said it still might be an option and needs further exploration. Puzak said it has been on the to do list for 4 -5 years. Funding is flat and cost is going up so we are further away now than 5 years ago. Love asked how do we get that done this year. Amst said Eagle crest is willing to bid on it. Brown pointed out that any developer is going to bid at profit or just say it's not worth it to them. Puzak said that a higher park dedication fee would have helped in this case. Stover said it would be different if it were a developer bringing in high - priced homes. This is to be affordable and any cost increase would be passed on to the buyer. There was further discussion about the role of the Park Foundation in helping with improvements and the need to make the public more aware of the issue of limited funds for parks in Shorewood. Love asked what other cities do when park dedication fees are not an option. Hurm said that some don't do as well at maintaining their parks. Those who do, have help from civic organizations. He was not aware of others charging a turnover fee, but it is an interesting idea. Dallman explained that the building at Freeman has been a major topic of Park Foundation meetings and it always comes down to other questions of how, who, what, when, etc. They have tried to involve the sports organizations and have considered fundraisers. It just hasn't been able to get off the ground. Hurm suggested that another • approach is to go to sports organizations for another user fee for sustainability funds. Park Commission /City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Page 5 Engineer Brown said that he has a bid from the same contractor whom did the existing shelter at Freeman. The City cannot accept it as bid, but it is a good estimate of cost. Themig said the high cost of park buildings is just a reality that says we need to look to other sources of revenue Mayor Love suggested an approach that involves other civic organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and recommended beginning with the concept of a building at Freeman. Arnst said the Park Foundation has a broader role than this building, which is to be a champion of the parks. We need that body to handle some of the "nuts and bolts" matters of parks —one to handle the ongoing public relations aspect, as well. Love said he would like to see regular meetings with the Park Commission and Council and to be in touch with issues of parks. The Council appreciates the problem and wants to look for other solutions and be part of the process. He asked staff to look at the other options that have been discussed. Hurm asked if there was a consensus on an amount of $1500 for the park dedication fee. Love said he could support that, but is not sure of a consensus. Garfunkel said that some impact fees can go up with costs and Love added that the Council could support an impact fee and would like to work with the Park Commission on solutions. Stover added i that a disagreement with the first proposal does not mean they do not agree with some kind of increase. 3. REPORT ON TRAIL WALKS TO DATE Themig asked if the City Council has had feedback about trails from the community. Love said the petition opposing the segment along Howards Point Road is the main response. Stover added there is an occasional letter. Love said it is a tribute to the process. Garfunkel asked if the Smithtown segment connects to a Victoria trail. Arts explained that the Victoria extension does not exist yet, but it is in their trail plan. Hurm said the videotaped copies of the trail walks are available. The Smithtown walk was positive. Garfunkel commented that his comfort level goes up when he sees public support for a segment. If people want it, he's fine with the idea. Arnst added that the Vine Hill walk included about 80% of homeowners along the trail frontage and all were supportive. Puzak said the Park Commission was pleased and surprised that everyone who came out was in support and there was a good turnout. The perception is that those two segments are strongly supported. Garfunkel pointed out that we do not want the attitude that people feel they can't do • anything about it. Arnst stated an example of one resident who began with words like "fight" and "battle," but became part of the process and has changed. Another resident Park Commission /City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Page 6 along Smithtown was concerned about trees and he joined the walk and ended u bein • P g content with the process. Themig made the point that the Park Commission is not advocating one link over another, but will listen to public response and input. Garfunkel said there was opposition at the open house from people who did not attend walks. He asked what happened to the opponents in the process. We want to make sure folks don't feel that they can't fight city hall. The process is very friendly. Love pointed out that a friendly process could turn people around. Garfunkel told the Commission he wants them to try to engage those people who were opposed earlier in the process. Stover said that some people don't care or want to be involved. Love added that we at least want to make sure they are informed. Themig said they would keep them informed with letters. Stover said all should be contacted so those who attended don't feel left out. It was agreed that the City Council has a recommendation still standing for an increase in Park Dedication Fees and can carry on with this added information. They are committed to work on these problems with the Park Commission and will reply after further discussion. It will be on the next City Council agenda. 4. ADJOURNMENT The Work Session adjourned at 8:56 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary • is • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999 8:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING D ,tAFT A. Roll call Present: Co- chairs, Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners Puzak and Themig, Administrator Jim Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown Absent: Commissioners Colopoulos and Bensman; Council Liaison Zerby B. Review agenda Commissioner Themig asked to add time for review of a draft letter to Shorewood Ponds buyers. It will be included under item #8, Other Business. Co -chair Arnst asked that absent Commissioners be contacted about attendance. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of April 27,1999 Two corrections were made. Page 5, paragraph 3, line 2: Change "Iced Tea" to: I.C.T.E.A. Page 5, paragraph 2, line 2: Change "north" to: south. Themig moved, Arnst seconded to approve the Minutes with the noted revisions. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. 4. REPORTS Administrator Hurm reported that several people attended the Arbor Day tree planting ceremony at Manor Park. A photo was taken and will be published in the Sun Sailor newspaper. Co -chair Arnst suggested that others be invited to participate next year, such as a scout group. r� LJ S . Park Commission Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 2 5. REVIEW LITTLE LEAGUE REQUESTS • South Tonka Baseball representative, Gordy Lindstrom reviewed items listed on a May 1, 1999 letter to the Park Commission, requesting permission to make the following changes at Freeman Park: 1. Electric Scoreboard— Lindstrom explained practical and strategic reasons for adding a donated electric scoreboard to the Babe Ruth field #2. They would like to install it near right field by the concession stand. Engineer Brown said a water main is very near that area, which is a problem in case of an emergency repair. Other location ideas were discussed. Lindstrom said the League would work with the City to determine the best location. Themig asked if the scoreboard is still usable if the field is reconfigured for younger players. Lindstrom said yes, or it could be moved if needed. Puzak asked about head clearance and safety for pedestrians and players. Lindstrom said the board would be even higher than the information kiosk just behind it. Hurm asked if this improvement would be worthwhile in case there would be changes to that field by next year. Lindstrom said the future use of the field does have other possibilities, including a transition field for 13 year olds. The league is not sure what can be accomplished for this season and it may be best to wait to see if field #2 is altered. Puzak suggested that the Park Commission can decide to allow South Tonka Baseball to make the improvements they are proposing, provided it passes staff review. Arnst asked Engineer Brown if that would be okay. Brown suggested that Mr. Lindstrom and City staff review together the alternatives if the Park Commission doesn't have a problem with the scoreboard placement. Themig said that would be fine, if needed. But if it can wait two weeks, the Commission could look at options on their park tour on May 25. The five other requests are: 2. Flagpole —To be located by the concession stand. 3. Storage Building —To be moved to a central location between Field #1 and Field #2. 4. Enlarge Fence Openings —The first and third base openings at Freeman Field #2 need to be larger 5. Batting Cages —South Tonka Baseball would like to build two batting cages that would be located parallel to the north side of the existing batting cage at Freeman Field #3. 6. Fence —To create 6 foot wide walking path west of the road located by the right field are of Field #2. Puzak reiterated that this is an organization that is willing to fund their own improvement. He saw no reason to deny South Tonka Baseball a chance to do what it needs. Lindstrom said that the League does realize there are risks in that there may be changes in the future. Dallman added that the first five items are their risk and cost. The sixth request is asking the City to fund a fence and the Commission should take a look at • Park Commission Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 3 • that on May 25. Puzak suggested delaying that decision until the physical visit and when there is possibly more information from Eagle Crest about the development. The City should help with the safety issue which is addressed in request #6. Brown stated that there is an irrigation line, which needs occasional digging, on the north side where they are proposing to add batting cages. Lindstrom said there may be other solutions that won't create problems for the City and gave an example. Puzak recommended approval of the first five requests as long as the change is okayed by City staff. Arnst added that they should also keep esthetics in mind. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to Council, approval to allow South Tonka Baseball to create, provide and install requests 1 through 5, provided that staff sees no conflict with underground piping or any other safety concerns that might arise from balls ricocheting off the structure. Themig seconded. There was no further discussion. The motion passed 4/0. Lindstrom suggested for item #6 that the City look at the idea of a temporary alternative to put up construction fencing to protect pedestrian traffic immediately. Puzak suggested orange cones for a temporary marker and then go with something more permanent after additional information is available. Lindstrom also pointed out that if the field was reduced in size and rotated, it solves both the pedestrian and foul ball problems. The Commission will look at that idea on park tour. Lindstrom will be there as well. Puzak thanked Mr. Lindstrom for approaching the Commission in this way. Dallman reported that the ball field at Manor Park was paced off and there is possibly room for a Babe Ruth field. There may be concern about the field's proximity to the tennis courts. Brown reminded the Commission about the issue of parking, which is quite limited. Puzak added that we also have to consider neighborhood impact. Lindstrom pointed out that East Tonka Little Leaguers currently use the field. The Park Commission will do a concept review on its June 8` tour of Manor Park. Lindstrom told the Park Commission that South Tonka Little League would like to consider selling concessions at the future north concession stand at Freeman Park. 6. REVIEW TRAIL ROUTE STATUS Engineer Brown reported that the City of Greenwood is working with Shorewood on a possible street overlay of St. Alban's Bay Road. There is a good chance, if physically possible to include an on- street trail. Hurm related to Greenwood that safety is important to the City and Shorewood will help financially for more than just half of the street overlay. (Funding has not been decided.) Brown cautioned about setting a precedent in using street funds for the trail portion and said we will want to clarify a policy where the trail is off - street. The Commission will look at the St. Albans Bay Road area during the Manor Park tour. • Park Commission Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 4 Brown gave an update on Mill Street. He learned from MN/DoT that they may leave a • portion of the Mill Street bridge in tact for pedestrian traffic. The plan is hinging on many factors. Administrator Hurm briefly reviewed the Funding Source Summary. Because of early application deadlines, grant funds are not likely for this year. Arnst asked if staff can research grant options further. The possibility of loans were discussed. Hurm said that the City cannot borrow money, but the Park Commission could ask the City Council if money can be borrowed from the City's General Fund. Themig asked where are we with the whole process and said it seems to not be very focused. Hurm referenced the Potential Trail Route Status and Schedule, saying that they are really not off schedule. 7. RE- EVALUATE 1999 / 2003 CIP FOR PARK AND TRAILS Brown recommended they first assign the cost and get the CIP done. Then the Park Commission can decide where to start. Hurm added that a lot of new things have come up this year and the Commission needs to decide what expenses they will have. These next two meetings will be a time to step back and review decisions and possibly rearrange items on the CIP as costs of projects become known. Brown asked Commissioners if there are glaring questions on the project description list. Arnst cautioned against letting parks become ball field dominated. Puzak suggested developing amenities that encourage non - organized sports, adding that the magic square is important and it is now up to staff to proceed. Themig asked if it would be better to spend $5000 on the new building at Freeman. Puzak said the Commission should spend the money as already budgeted and then look to the future. The Commission should do what they have thought about, planned and decided upon. Hurm agreed that would be a legitimate approach. Arnst said that the structure at Freeman is a special project and asked why not go to the Council with the need. Puzak said to first spend down to zero by doing what we have planned and the zero budget will show the need. He said the Commission has done a good job at deciding on park needs and those things should be accomplished first. Then say "What will that sustaining revenue be ?" and then start up new sustaining fee system. 8. OTHER BUSINESS It was agreed to table discussion on the draft letter to Shorewood Ponds buyers until the next agenda. Hurm reported that City Attorney Keane has drafted an easement agreement for installation of netting on property along the west edge of Freeman Park. The property owners have not signed the agreement to put up netting, and yet are complaining about the foul ball problem. Puzak said the City has done all it can do to resolve the matter and acted on the Park Commission's request. It is up to the residents to take the next action. • Park Commission Meeting May 11, 1999 Page 5 . 9. NEW BUSINESS The Park Commission was asked if they want to adopt a garden in the City's new Adopt - a- Garden program. Themig agreed to help with a garden. (Cathcart and the Southshore Center areas are still up for adoption. Brown commented that he thought it was unfair to make the people who help maintain the gardens to pay for flowers themselves. Others agreed that they should be given a budget for supplies. Puzak moved that the Park Commission allocate $50 per garden in the form of a gift certificate from local merchants for supplies to be used for the Adopt a Garden program. Themig seconded and the motion passed 4/0. (The Park Commissioners will plant the garden at the Southshore Center.) Themig suggested not holding the regular Park Commission meetings on May 25 and June 8 and only do park tours on those evenings. Action can be taken back at City Hall after the tours, if needed (provided the meeting is officially noticed). It was agreed to go over the Shorewood Ponds letter and Freeman Park building recommendation and configuration after tour on May 25. Engineer Brown will provide a drawing of the proposed building for that meeting and define the next steps. Puzak will attend the May 24 City Council meeting as Park Commission representative. 10. ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved, Dallman seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 4/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary • 0R4-ft • • May, 1999 Dear Prospective Neighbor: As you consider Shorewood Ponds for your new neighborhood, the Shorewood Park Commission would like to welcome youl As you may know, this development is bordered on the west and north by the acre Freeman park. Freeman Park is a wonderful community resource, complete with trails that meander through a wooded setting, an interactive play structure for children, a picnic shelter for family and group gatherings, access to the LRT regional trail, and active sports facilities. In addition, the Park Commission is currently designing a small picnic and restroom building to be constructed in the north section of the park. Providing a balance in activity while meeting the needs of the community (or, Being a good neighbor...) is one of the Park Commission's main goals for Freeman Park. Each year, over youth baseball games, youth soccer matches, and adult softball games are played in the park. In addition, families from throughout the area use Freeman Park to play, picnic, and recreate. Needless to say, Freeman Park can be a busy place. There will be times of considerable traffic and, yes, noise from children having fun. However, by working with our new neighbors in Shorewood Ponds, we believe that we can continue to meet the needs of the community while providing a truly wonderful community resource for you. If you would like to find out more information regarding Freeman Park or its activities, please feel free to call the City of Shorewood at (612)474 -3236. Sincerely, The Shorewood Park Commission 5