Loading...
051199 PK CC JT AgPf CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS • JOINT MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1999 AGENDA B. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL MEETING B. Roll Call Mayor Lave Stover Garfunkel Lizee' Zerby ' Calopvulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Arnst Themig B. Review Agenda £ochran 2. DISCUSS PARK DEDICATION FEES (Att. -#2) 3. REPORT ON TRAIL WALKS TO DATE (Att. -#3) 4. ADJOURNMENT " Council Liaison: May 14th — T'hemig May 246- p June • Bensman )f 4 1� To: Park Commission From: Jim Hurm, City Administrator Date: January 28, 1999 � Re: Park Dedication Fees In surveying some area cities staff has learned that we may want to consider increasing our park dedication fees which are set by Resolution at $1,000 per unit (or lot). The survey is enclosed. The Commission may wish to recommend an adjustment to the City Council. �s SURVEY OF CITY PARK FEES JANUARY 1999 Shorewood $1,000 per unit Minnetonka $700 /unit Mound 10% of fair mkt value of land $500/lot minimum Orono 8% of fair mkt value of land $4,900 maximum Plymouth $1,500 /unit residential $4,500 /acre C/I Tonka Bay $1,200 /unit in 1999 i $1,000 /unit in 1998 Victoria Unknown $1,500 /unit Park Imp Fee Wayzata SF 7% of fair mkt value of land $450 min, $2,000 max/unit MF 7% of fair mkt value of land $300 /unit minimum C/I 3.5% of fair mkt value of land Chanhassen $1,200 Park/unit $400 Trails /unit it Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 5 6. DISCUSSION OF CHANGE IN PARK DEDICATION FEES CONSISTENT . WITH FISCAL POLICY Commissioner Colopoulos explained that the conclusion was to look at how other cities handle park dedication fees, yet it is hard to compare since Shorewood is in a unique situation with limited land space and planning capability. We also want to have a policy that is consistent with a fiscal policy rather than to take an opportunistic approach. Puzak said that his intent has been, and still is, to raise the fee and now the question is just about the timing. There was some discussion about the validity of basing a fee on market value rather than a flat amount. Puzak said that he would like a balance that protects the first time builder of a smaller home, but also to realize that there are the "exclusive community" home builders at the o_ ther extreme. A flat fee cannot satisfy both. He recommended a percentage (5 %) with a cap ($1500 per lot). There was a comparison made to Wayzata's fee of 7% with a $2000 cap. Bensman stated that the percentage approach seems like a policy change. Colopoulos said that we should know how the extra dollars would be used in the budget before making a change in policy. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $5,000. Themig seconded. There was discussion about lot prices in Shorewood and what an average fee would realistically • be. Themig pointed out that a maximum of $5,000 would be reached for most lots in Shorewood. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,000. Cochran seconded. Themig said he was concerned about how this much of a change in fee would appear. There was discussion about examples of possible lot prices. Bensman suggested a separate cap amount for developers vs. the single home building project. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,000. Themig seconded. Themig noted that there has been discussion in the past about applying a certain percentage to trail development and that it may be appropriate for some to be designated to a trail fund. Zerby said he likes the percentage formula and commented that it is good to be in line with neighboring cities' policies. Puzak pointed out that with a cap, the higher value lot actually pays a smaller percentage. Zerby noted that some would ask why one family should bear more of the expense of parks than another family and that becomes controversial. Others agreed and discussed fair percentages. It was also agreed not to earmark funds for trails. Transfers to the trail fund from the park fund can be made on an as- needed basis with approval from the City Council. i I Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 6 Puzak withdrew the motion on the floor to state a new motion. Themig and Cochran a concurred. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $7,500 per lot. Dallman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Hurm will review the motion at a staff level to see how it reflects current development and then report at the April Park Commission meeting if there are problems. Otherwise the recommendation will go to Council as stated. 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEXT DRAFT OF ATHLETIC_ ASSOCIATION POLICIES. FISCAL POLICIES AND PROPOSED FORMULAS Tabled until the April 13 meeting. 8. REPORTS A. Report on Youth Coalition Meeting of March 11 Puzak reported that one person had researched the idea of an inflatable dome which extends the season and allows for a winter facility. This would, however, eliminate the option of Manitou Park as a possible site since Tonka Bay wishes to use the space for winter recreation. Puzak said . there is interest in the land along Highway 7 that is to be deeded to the City of Shorewood (as mentioned earlier in these minutes). Ideas are being considered for funding options as well. .� Arnst reported that the Adopt -A- Garden idea is a go The next meeting agenda will include: 1. Finish the Comprehensive Plan Review 2. Report on the Multi- Purpose Building at Freeman 3. Little League Proposal for Field Configuration 4. City Administrator's Report on Council Action Regarding Park Dedication Fees The next "meeting" is a trail walk on April 10. Ken Dallman is the Council Liaison for April. 10. NEW BUSINESS - There was no new business. Smithtown Road Trail Segment Walk Saturday, April 10, 1999 ShorewoodNictoria City Limit to LRT Residents Present and Comments Lucinaa Kircher, Lake VA Maple Ridge • Cut off from Smithtown; won't let kids use Smithtown due to traffic. Alane and Dan Johnson, 27944 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment due to traffic conditions on Smithtown. Darrell Carver, 27910 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment on south side of Smithtown. Diana Eckerberg, 27260 Smithtown (accompanied by two children and Pamela Space) • Supports trail segement. Tim Duffy, 26710 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment; would support trail on north side of Smithtown also. Brad Peck, 25975 Wild Rose Lane • Concerned about fairness to property owners and impact to trees. Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown Road • Generally supports trail segment, but has concerns about impact to trees on north side of Smithtown. Also concerned about possibility of trail down Grant Lorenz, resulting in trail on two sides of his property. Shannon Steinhibel, 27075 Beverly Drive • Supports trail segment, but would like to see it extended to County Road 19, Tim and Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment, but issues of crossing to Minnewashta need to be addressed. Also drainage problems at corner of Strawberry Lane. Christine Lizee' • Supports trail development adjacent to her property. Comments on Trail Walk • Right -of -way from Victoria border is not clearly designated. • Fiber optics line recently installed on north side of Smithtown Road. • Snow melt is late on south side of Smithtown Road. • Will trails be plowed in winter? • Road and apparent right -of -way narrows at cemetary. • Drainage ditches begin a cemetary. • Should we cross the road at Cajed Lane? • Storm sewer drains are present at Cajed Lane. • Drain tiles and drainage ditches between Afton and Cajed. • Drainage ditch and embankment between Afton and Cathcart may require retaining wall. • Road and right -of -way again narrows at Cathcart. • At sunset, driving is difficult due to angle of sun. • All driveways between Cathcart and Strawberry Lane have culverts. • New cluvert installed at Strawberry Lane. • Right -of -way widens again at Strawberry Lane. • Drainage problems occur at various points between Strawberry Lane and Eureka Way. • Black Walnut trees at Eureka Way narrow right -of -way. Updated 4 -29 -99 3 Comments at Minnewashta School • Off -road trail separated from traffic is needed. On -road trail would only result in faster speeds. • The width of the trail should be considered. A narrow trail would be better suited for walking and children biking. It was felt that adults could still use Smithtown. • Asphalt or hard surface was preferred due to condition of rock trails in spring. • Biking to school was discussed. Biking was prohibited several years ago due to safety concerns. Trails might open up the possibility of biking, but safety issues could still remain. This issue needs to be explored further. • Drainage along Smithtown could be a major issue. • Enforcement of speed limits on Smithtown is a major issue. Minnewashta School Crosswalk Discussion There was considerable discussion on crossing Smithtown Road to Minnewashta School. Currently, only about 2% of students walk to school, due to traffic safety concerns. In addition, parents are also discouraged from picking up their children due to space issues. An effort is underway to examine traffic flow for buses and parents at the school. Part of this study will examine the possibility of installing a crosswalk at the west end of the school and extending the sidewalk to avoid walking behind busses. Updated 4 -29 -99 MAY 06 '99 10 :34AM FLANNERY CONSTRUCTION -•, p,1/1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL May 6, 1999 , TO: Larry Brown - City Engineer City of Shorewood FROM: Ken Hinz RE: Shorewood Park Shelter Our bid to include the following: Excavate for new building. This will include a soil correction on main building and a partial. on the open air section. We propose using a rock face block entirely to truss'plate line. Truss and plywood main building. Canopy section to have glue laminated beams with 2x6 machine grade fir decking: All to receive asplalait shingles. Aluminum fascia and soffits. Interior finishes to i include all ceiling applications,,doorrs and hardware, toilet partitions and ceiling insulation. All plumbing, heating and a �ctrical pei code. All toilets to have electronic flushing devices. Electric to have occupancy sensors. All utilities by owner to within 5' of structure.' Permit by, owner. Total Bid' $192,027,00 For further discussion an specific details of our proposal, please call to set up a meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to present this project. 351 East Kellogg 131vd. • St. Paul, MN 55101 a (651) 225 -1105 • Fax (651) ?25 -11Q0 ty�cLQ, sjktjgg 4 I ml N Y i C�r� 7td J ti .s v ��G CIO c�1�