Loading...
011399 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Arnst Themig Cochran B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of November 24, 1998 (Att.42A Draft Minutes) B. Park Commission Minutes of December 8, 1998' (Att. -#2B Draft Minutes)' 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. TRAIL REVIEW (Att.44) A. Approve Trail Site Evaluation Form (Att.44A) B. Approve Goals, Objectives and Policies (Att.44B) C. Complete Trail Concept Map - With Identified Alignments (Att.44C) D. Identify Priority Alignments E. Prepare for Public Information Meetings 1. Dates and Times 2. Further Data Needed 3. Role of Park Commission 4. Format for Meeting 5. Format of Newsletter Insert 5. REPORT ON DRAFT ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICY (Att.45) 6. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT AND LOCATION OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING - POSTPONE TO FEBRUARY MEETING 7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999 PARK COMMISSION OFFICERS AND LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMISSION 8. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO COUNCIL 9. DISCUSSION ON A COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR 1999 10. OLD BUSINESS Council Liaison: Jan. 11. NEW BUSINESS Feb. - 12. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1998 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMIS S ION MEETING Chair Puzak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p. m fi A. Roll Call Present: Chair Puzak; Commissioners Colopoulos, Bensman, Dallman, Arnst, Themig, and Cochran; Administrator JimHurm, City Planning Director Brad Nielsen, Park Planner Mark Koegler, Shorewood Resident, Steve Kircher B. Review Agenda There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. TRAIL PROCESS A. Review Park/Trail Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Community Facilities and Transportation ) , • Planning Director Brad Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission is working on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The next two sections they will study are "Community Facilities" and "Transportation," both of which include reference to parks and trails. They are looking to the Park Commission for input and hope to elaborate on some goals. Planning Director Nielsen stated that the goal for transportation as stated in the Comprehensive Plan is simple: "The City shall provide and maintain a safe and efficient system of transportation, sensitive to the needs of residents and the environment of the community". He noted that the bullet statements of Mr. Koegler's memo of November 11, 1998 relate well to that goal, emphasizing the highest importance of safety as priority. Convenience, meeting the needs of residents, efficiency, etc. come after safety. Planning Director Nielsen explained that once goals and objectives are established, the policy statements follow. All together, the goals, objectives and policies within the Comprehensive Plan lay a foundation for taking a step back and saying why we are doing any particular project. That is why it is important that trails and parks be identified in the Comp Plan. Chair Puzak added that the Park Commission needs to give Planning Director Nielsen and the Planning Commission any feedback on goals or objectives which they want included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He suggested starting with the Mission Statement already established by the Park Commission and end with a goal, stated as an outcome. Commissioner Bensman suggested that the first bulleted statement in Koegler's memo could be used "The Shorewood trail system will accommodate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicycles and other non - motorized modes of travel." Planning Director Nielsen commented that the Comprehensive Plan keeps goals simple and more broad. Objectives then become more specific and the Policies tell how to get to the goal. He added that trails are a very important part of the transportation system. It was included under transportation, Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 2 rather than recreation because it is very related to other parts of the system. Commissioner Colopoulos asked if it is appropriate to make trails one of the objectives of the overall transportation plan. Planning Director Nielsen replied yes. Chair Puzak read aloud the 1996 Mission Statement: The Shorewood Park Commission shall guide the development, implementation, and maintenance of Shorewood's recreational system The recreational system, consisting of parks and a multi- purpose trail network, shall provide the community and neighborhoods with safe, attractive and diverse recreational facilities and a designated trail system Commissioner Themig asked if this discussion is an additional step beyond what was planned for this meeting. Chair Puzak suggested that the next thing to do is to identify evaluation factors by first reviewing the mission statement, which will then signal the Planning Commission as to what they should be helping the Park Commission drive towards. This will provide the anchor point as the Park Commission develops evaluation factors. Commissioner Bensman added that it also makes this work consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In looking at the mission statement, Chair Puzak noted key words: "Multi- purpose ", "Trail Network", and "Shall provide the community and neighborhoods with safe; attractive and diverse recreation facilities." Koegler pointed out that even if the City was not in the process of evaiaating the Comprehensive Plan, we would still be having this discussion. The intent already was to discuss and define goals. He encouraged the Commission to decide on some ideas and concepts for Planning to look at and to then come back to the Park Commission with their recommendation. The question as we look at trails is: "What is the big picture ? ". Planning Director Nielsen stated that in the objective section, the Park Commission will begin to qualify what they are going to do. It is a decision making process that starts out broad and gets spec with issues and problems as they come up. At this point, he is only looking for a consensus that yes, it is a good idea to put an emphasis on trails in the overall plan. Commissioner Themig added that the trail process would have even more credibility when supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Puzak agreed that it would also align the individual parts of the larger organism (the City) if the goals of each are aligned, resulting in cohesive action. Chair Puzak added that as long as we agree that we want to do the same thing, regardless of who comes first, we can get to the "whats" and "hows" (objectives and policies). Commissioner Amst asked if it is safe to say that the firs two `buffets" of Koegler's November 18 memorandum are true for the Park Commission and pass those on to Brad Nielsen for a start. (Those points are: • The Shorewood trail system will accommodate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicycles and other non- rnotorzed modes of travel. • Shorewood trails will provide connections to points of interest in and around the community and will be linked to trails provided by other local and regional jurisdictions. Planning Director Nielsen offered that staff could put these together and bring something back for evaluation by the Park Commission. Commissioner Bensman noted that the Comprehensive Plan is Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 3 neither the Park nor Planning Commissions plan, but the City's plan. Commissioner Themig asked if the option of linking trails under the Transportation category would possibly make funding available. Planning Director Nielsen said that the emphasis within the Comprehensive Plan has moved from parks to trails since the early 1980's. Chair Puzak explained that the Park Commission does not need to create the wording. This can be the job of staff or the Planning Commission. As long as it incorporates the Park's Mission Statement, it would embody the thinking of the group. Planning Commissioner Nielsen agreed with the importance of going back to the Mission Statement and cited the example of the proposal for a skateboard park, which is in line with the overall mission of the Park Commission. Commissioner Themig stated that the Park Commission has.a responsibility to have more input. Planning Director Nielsen replied that they wild, but it maybe helpful to have a suggested draft outline to react to. He asked for feedback on statements offered in Koegler's November 18 memo for a start, B. Develop Trail Site Evaluation Factors Park Planner Koegler explained that the intent is to use some criteria to evaluate trails. The seven Trail Evaluation Factors are suggested as this "yard stick" as potential trails are discussed in meetings and while out in the field. He asked if there are other ideas the Park Commissioners want to include. Commissioner Themig said it seems there is a step process. First, the potential trial segment needs to meet a certain level of criteria. Then go to the neighbors for input. And finally it arrives at the stage of design considerations and funding sources. Chair Puzak offered another way of tiering a decision, looking at core objectives, barriers (or hurdles) and then design through or around the barriers. Commissioner Colopoulos recommended that these steps be approached as opportunities, not barriers. Administrator Hurm suggested that the process would start with a large number of possible trails (30 to 40) and then use the criteria to get that down to a reasonable number of sites to actually walk (5 to 8). Those would then funnel down to a feasible amount to begin to build. Bensman offered the suggestion of still asking all of the questions posed in the Trail Evaluation Factors, but assigning different weight or value to each factor. Chair Puzak expressed the idea of considering segments based on an eventual outcome of an interconnected system Commissioner Bensman felt it is important to start with segments that people have already requested in order to get the process going. Commissioner Themig noted that those are two very different priorities. Commissioner Colopoulos said it is okay to have diverse emphasis, but we must consider one thing learned from the past: If a plan is so big that funding doesn't work, it can get stuck and never move forward. Overall design does not equal overall implementation. Commissioner Dalhnan suggested having an overall system in mind, but get segments started first, based on: (1) Does the neighborhood want it? (2) Does it comply with goals? (3) Is the engineering possible? Commissioner Colopoulos pointed out that the Trail Evaluation Factors, as written leave room for details to be crafted to suit the needs of neighborhoods. Koegler said that it seems that all of the items are becoming intertwined He reminded the Park Commission about the process which includes an expectation that when we get to that point, we will have a means to implement a systm. We can expect to start the process with segments and it may be up to 15 years for overall success. Koegler reviewed the steps from deciding on a big picture to realistic implementation. .a Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 4 Chair Puzak asked for input on which of the seven proposed evaluation factors is the most non- controversial. Commissioner Themig said that all are excellent. Chair Puzak raised a question with the fifth point which asks if the potential segment complies with goals and objectives. He is not clear on what those exactly are. He suggested two basic questions to consider: (1) How does it work for the neighborhood? and (2) How does it work for the community? He is concerned that the pieces do not look to the whole process if we decide segment by segment. Commissioner Bensman agreed that if the answer to question (1) is "No" then it would have to get to the level of what is best for the community. Chair Puzak invited the resident in attendance to state his thoughts. Steve Kircher introduced himself as a neighbor in the Virginia Highlands area He started by saying. that his neighborhood has a "sweet spot' for Smithtown Road because it has valid points all around. He thinks that the first consideration is safety above all else. His area has a lot of kids living where they have no safe way out of their neighborhoods by foot or bicycle. He also sees a trail system as a way to promote the concept of community within Shorewood. Chair Puzak suggested the concept of community as a possible objective. Commissioner Thernig stated that the goal is to think in terms of the big picture. The process comes to the neighborhood level, but then how do we apply the evaluation factors and do that? There was more discussion abotrt inter - connectivity, the process, goals, and other factors such as property values and execution of a plan. Commissioner Artist stated that there are a lot of things we can't know until we actually do it Park Planner Koegler said that the process tells us where to start. We have answered the question, "Does Shorewood want trails?" with a yes. But we can't know where to start until we know the hoops to jump through. Chair Puzak summarized that this work session is only part of a long journey which started over a year ago. The journey is to build toward what the people want The next step at this point is to mark and map potential segments for that system. C. Trail Concept Review Mr. Koegler showed one Shorewood map which was marked to indicate trail sites based on past suggestions. He then provided a "blank" Shorewood map with indications of adjacent cities' trails (real and potential) and passed around various colored markers. Koegler remanded those present to consider what people have asked for (as indicated on the first map) and what the City had considered in their 1991 Trail Plan. His goal for this meeting is to begin to talk about where they currently think trails should be. Chair Puzak suggested comparing the 1991 plan to the current map and see if segments fit with points on the "blank" map of attractions and linking trails. Commissioner Bensman said that one value is connections to other trails and to school. Planning Director Nielsen pointed out that safety is a prime consideration, asking if a proposed trial segment gets kids off of busy streets. Commissioner. Thenig referred back to using the evaluation factors. The group identified collector streets (Smithtown, Eureka, Old Market Road, Cathcart, County Road 19, Minnetonka Blvd) and marked the busier roads. The LRT was also discussed. Chair Puzak offered an idea to create a trail segment on the south side of Smithtown, near the golf course in order to create a loop with the LRT. This is based on the frequent comment from residents that they want a trail, but no closer than 1 block from their property. He also mentioned the comment from a resident Park Commission Minutes • November 10, 1998 Page 5 who wanted a trail away from traffic and lights for night time walks to view stars. After some brainstorming with markers and maps and further conversation, Chair Puzak summarized the discussion: 1. We have an idea of what the community wants. 2. There is some element of connectivity. 3. We have identified a "backbone" (LRT). 4. We have identified some points of interest. 5. A "Dark Starry Night! ' trail for western Shorewood has been considered. 6. The east side of Shorewood is more inclined to accept formal walking areas (sidewalks). 7. There has been no talk about trails for the Islands. Chair Puzak proposed a next step. He asked if the maps shown can be layered in transparencies for viewing various combinations of data They could then go over every piece and assess each by asking the seven evaluation questions and narrow down to the top 5 areas with potential. Commissioner Themig asked if this should be done before they have even narrowed down the plan. Park Planner Koegler suggested a timeline to narrow down to a concept map which would go pubic possibly in February 1999. He added that the site evaluations are not just for field review, but would also be used for assessment all the way through the process. There was further discussion as to the best approach, whether to proceed according to a larger goal - or toward specific requests and identified needs. The direction went from evaluating a specific segment to asking about the bigger picture. There was not a consensus about what should be accomplished nor what has been accomplished in this meeting. The discussion went from the concept level to specifics and back to goals. Chair Puzak proposed an action item of reviewing the survey data on connectivity. Commissioner , Themig pointed out the need to establish goals and objectives. Park Planner Koegler will provide map overlays at the December 8 meeting. There was also discussion about working around obstacles and opposition. Administrator Hurm recommended that they not design around a problem until they know they have to. Park Planner Koegler said that the purpose of a demonstration approach in trail development is that if you can build successful segment and there is a positive response, you may no longer have some of the current problems with later development The subject of dealing with easement problems was also discussed. Park Planner Koegler asked the Park Commission how he and staff can assist with preparation for the next meeting. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested that the Commission should make an objective pass at interpreting data Commissioner Amst expressed concern with getting bogged: down in specifics. Commissioner Themig asked for a draft of a goal statement plus a list of specific objectives (such as safety, connectivity, "dark starry nights ", etc.). Chair Puzak pointed out two unresolved maters which have been revealed: (1) Connectivity and (2) Potential legal hurcRes. There were various suggestions of possible trail segments that may have no hurdles. • Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 6 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p. m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secn'tary CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 0 "' P 1. CONVENE PARK CONDUSSION MEETING Chair Puzak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p. m A. Roll Call Present: Chair Puzak; Commissioners Bensman, Dalhnan, Arnst, Therrig, and Cochran Absent: Commissioner Colopoulos; Council Liaison Roger Champa; Administrabr Jim Hurm Also Present: Director of Public Works Larry Brown; Park Planner Mark Koegler (laer arrival); Mayor -elect Woody Love; resident Jackie Colesworthy B. Review Agenda Commissioner Therrig requested a discussion on the draft of the Park Use Policy for athletic associations, if time allows. The request was noted. Commissioner Bensman suggested that item #6 be held off since it has been the cusbm to wait until after the new City Council is in place and new Park Commissioners have been appointed before selecting officers and a liaison for the coming year. It was agreed that this item and item #7 will be considered at the January Park Commission meeting. Commissioner Thernig noted that a resident who is present at the meeting may be interested in discussion about the trail planning and asked if that agenda item ( #8) could be moved to an earlier point in the meeting. The resident was asked and replied that she did not mind if the time of that discussion was later in the evening. The change was not made: 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Arnst moved, Dallman seconded, to accept the minutes as presented. The motion passed 510 with Bensman abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Resident Jackie Colesworthy (5480 Howards Point Road) explained that she was interested in trail development and in viewing the process. She feels that the increase of traffic in her area is becoming a life and death matter and she would like to become involved and see what is being done to improve safety for pedestrians. U Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 . Page 2 4. REPORT A. Report on Youth Coalition Meetings Administrator Hurm was not present to report on the recent activity of the Youth Coalition Committee. Chair Puzak did not have any further information to offer since his last report. B. Land Conservation Committee Commission Themig was not in attendance at the most recent Committee meeting. He said that their report is being finalized and a presentation will be made to the City Council at their December 14 meeting. In addition to identifying potential sites for land conservation, their job was to find methods for people to donate land or designate land as open space in ways that offer benefit to the land owner and community. Public Works Director Brown interjected that there is already a group of neighbors who are interested in pursuing one of the land conservation options. Commissioner Themig added that the Committee and staff intern have done a tremendous amount of work and a nice jab. 5. DISCUSS LOCATION AND IZIN G OF FREEMAN PARK MU U PURPOSE BUILDIN 7 Commissioner Dallman reported that the City Council approved the Park Commission's request to move $5,000 from the 1999 CIP to be used to develop plans for the multipurpose facility to be " constructed at Freeman Park An architect has sketched a concept floor plan for a 30' X 96' structure which includes rest rooms, storage area, warming house with an area set aside for concession purposes, and a picnic shelter. A site which was previously staked out at 30' X 70' was looked at again. Commissioner Dalhman described that location and how the structure could be situated in relation to existing amenities and a possible future skate area to the north of the building. He added that the existing water irrigation equipment could be housed within the new structure. Director Brown distributed copies of the concept floes plan and displayed a copy on the overhead projector. He explained the different square footage figures for both inside space and outside dimensions and possible cost estimates. The cost for the last picnic shelter built by the City was $25 per square foot and the architect has estimated current costs at around $100 per square foot Because this drawing had arrived just that day, Brown did not have time to research the cost figures. He also needs to look into utility information which will also be a factor in costs and plans. One possibility to minimiz cost is to reduce the number of sinks and lavatories in each rest room by one. Brown explained that he is looking for feedback from the Park Commission abort the desirable functions of a multi purpose building and reactions to the basic concept that has been presented. He added that the more windowed side of the building would face the skate area to provide visibility for the rink attendants. The size of the storage area could be reduced and the picnic shelter is open sided. Other comments were as follows: Bensman: Move the women's rest room to the side of the building that is well-lit and has more activity and exposure. Dallman: Replace one window on the "rink side" of the building with a windowed exit door. Brown: Agreed, adding that this could also create more wall space on the interior of the warning house and possibly allow flexibility on the position of a concession area Arnst: Asked about the size of the existing shelter at Freeman. (It is also 30'X 36'.) Themig: Our similar buildings (Ramsey County) have been running around $130 per sq. ft. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 3 Puzak: About 30% of this building is rest room area which is the more costdy portion, especially with the possible use of stainless steel fixtures. Arrest: Could the two extra sinks and toilets be roughed in for future expansion to save money? Brown: The fixtures are not the big cost The savings by excluding them would be in the utility work and smaller space required. The only time this could present a problem is during high level park use for tournaments, etc. and that can be resolved with portable rental units. Themig: This looks like a great start. One question is whether there will be excessive traffic to rest rooms through the shelter area during high use times. (Outside entrances would be an option.) Brown That is one reason that the concession window is on an exterior wall. Themig: The picnic shelter has revenue potential from reservations during special events. Dallman: Also with the possible operation of concessions by large groups using the facility. Themig: , Has the architect addressed health code requirements? Brown: The biggest concern of the health department with the other concession structure seems to have been the raising of dust from nearby traffic. That matter might be a concern for this structure as well. Themig: How would this addition impact Public Works daily operations? Brown: Staff already cleans and checks warning houses daily during winter use. It could put a wrinkle in things as far as security issues when hours of use are not during staff hours. Themig: What is the next step? , Brown: I would like to come back with a revised floor plan and more answers about utilities, etc. One thing to look at is how the sanitary sewer could possibly shortcut if easements were made available through private property. Themig: Will the rinks be lit at night during the winter months? And have we talked to affected neighbors? Brown: Yes, there will be lighting. Neighbors have not been contacted at this point about lighting. Arrest: Where did the plan for rinks come from? Brown: They are placed by the Master Plan which is in existence and we need to look to the future as we plan this stage. Puzak: The storage area seems spacious now and the thought to reduce the rest room utility makes sense. Regarding the once considered "ice sheet", if we eventually need a mechanical area, would the space be too small? Brown: Such a future hockey skate area would be constructed further to the east and would have to stand on its own to accommodate equipment. Dalhnan: The hockey association's proposal provided its own building for mechanicals and a zamboni. We had in fact; considered tapping into their structure for possible concessions and/or rest rooms. Puzak: The storage area should have a door to the exterior which could eliminate the door into the shelter area and create a spot for concessions. Brown: Then concessions would not have access for outside sales. Puzak: The rest rooms could have exterior doors only which would allow the concession area to be moved to the corner and then have that outside access. Brown: In winter then, the rest rooms would be accessible only from the outside which would not allow the attendant to easily monitor those areas. Puzak: I see the two primary uses of the structure to be (1) rest rooms and (2) concessions. Themig: It seems tome that rest rooms are first and the warming house area is second. I would like to see the concessions area protected. Dalknan: I like the idea of keeping the storage area accessible to the inside for access to concession supplies. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 4 Bensman: Also, when the rink is open, there would be an attendant who could keep an eye on storage and concession areas. Brown: The size of these areas will depend on square footage cost One thing noted from the Carver structure is that they did a good job of building it as vandal - resistant. Themig: Our (Ramsey) buildings are done with a center run area and it works out well Puzak sununarized that these are good thoughts and the next step is to get costs which may reveal some additional barriers. He thanked Brown and asked him to further research and come back with an idea sin to the one presented and discussed here. There was a request and brief discussion about a fireplace being included. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION MAKING REC NDATIONS FOR 1999 PARK COMMIS ION OFFICERS LIAISON TO PLAN NNING C OMMIS S ION Arnst moved and Themig seconded to table agenda item #6 "Consideration of a Motion Making Recommendations For 1999 Park Commission Officers and Liaison to Planning Commission" until the January Park Commission meeting. Themig made a friendly amendment to include agenda item #7. Arnst accepted the amendment. Themig seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 7. CONSIDERATION OF SC HEDULE OF PA K LIApSONS TO COUNCIL Tabled until January meeting. There was a two minute break. 8. TRAIL REVIEW A. Develop Trail Site Evaluation Factors Park Planner Mark Koegler began by saying that the hope is to capitalize on what has been learned from the work of the last meeting. The packet includes a draft of the original Trail Evaluation Factors along with a reformatted version provided by Commissioner Dalhnan. This revised format is one that Koegler said could actually be used on site or in the process of considering possible trail segments. Themig said that he likes the new version and thinks it takes the Commission to the next step. Dallman explained his purpose in formatting each step. Puzak suggested that the two forms be dovetailed in some way. He would like to add the question of "Why?" to Item B which asks "Does it comply with goals and objectives T. Bensman commented that she still sees this form as the basis for discussion about whether or not this is a viable roadway, and not as a test for scoring points. It should be a tool to guide discussion. Koegler agreed that it is not meant to be a definitive measuring stick, but serves as a guide for the process. Arnst asked if the two forms could just be melded together. Puzak asked Koegler to blend the two and mail or fax it to Commissioner Dalhnan and then bring it to the next meeting. Mayor -elect Love asked if there was a place to include the issue of safety as part of the evaluation factors. Bensman thought it would fit under Item A as an initial reason for its being considered (along with funding options and neighborhood acceptance) Themig agreed that it is a good point to bring Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 5 up, but how do you evaluate safety since it is a relative issue? Cochran said it is an issue that will come up in talking with neighbors who will offer some insight. Puzak asked how to measure safety for each type of trail. Love explained that his question was not meant to analyze the definition of safety. He wanted to know how safety rates in consideration with other factors such as points of interest, etc. Dalknan pointed out that if we establish safety as a goal, then it will be covered under item B - "Does it comply with goals and objectives?'. This indicates that goals and objectives should perhaps be addressed first. Puzak agreed that goals should certainly be reviewed at each instance. Brown said that hopefully we can some day get to making trais for recreational purposes with safety as a secondary factor. Koegler suggested that safety fits under item A and D. He stated that safety will be represented in the evaluation form in some fashion. B. Review of Goals, Objectives and Policies Koegler explained that this step is related to the Comprehensive Plan and yet the area of goals, objectives and policies would need to be formalized at this tune, even if the City was not looking at the Comprehensive Plan right now. He added that the language of the last meeting (from the Mission Statement as well,) has been woven into the Goal as stated in his memo of December 2. The City should establish an interconnected system of trails to enhance Shorewood's sense of community by accommodating the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and other non - motorized modes of travel. Puzak noted that the final statement of a goal is one that the Park Comnssion will own and then ask the Planning Commission to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan and eventually be adopted by the City Council as a direction for the City. This should be understood as we evaluate the goal statement. Artist commented that this goal as stated was discussed by the Park Commission and agreed upon some months ago and it is still fine with her. Themig recommended that the word "should" be changed to "sh&' or "will." Puzak agreed and Koegler said it would be consistent with language used in other goal statements. Cochran asked if the matter of safety should be augmented by moving it to the front of the statement. Themig said that while it is important to include safety as part of the goal, he had concern that this would take away from the focus of creating, first of all, a system. Puzak said that he was also gun shy about putting a strong emphasis on the word "safe." Cochran agree, noting that the flip side would be that an emphasis on "safe" could create an illusion of safety which has been a negative in the past Puzak also cautioned about getting bogged down with just one aspect of trails. Trails are to be a community asset, used by lots of folks for assorted reasons. Daman suggested that the original goal from the Mission Statement could be the trail system goal as well Arnst said that part of what we want to accomplish also is a sense of community. Themgg noted that the goal talks about development of trawls and asked if it considers long term maintenance. Koegler said that aspect would fit under policy statements and the goal should be more broad based. Bensman felt that it makes sense to make a strong statement about what we want to do and that a good job had been done on the policy statements. • Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 • Page 6 Themig asked if the word "interconnected" could be eliminated from the goals statement. Puzak added that at some point there will clearly be a need to build a segment that does not connect to others. Also he wouldn't want interconnection to became a limiting factor. Bensman liked the idea of at least starting with a vision that trails will be interconnected. Koegler suggested going through the Objectives and Policies sections before taking final action on any of the three areas. Themig suggested incorporating safety into the objectives. Arnst reminded the group that this is a living document, which allows room for future re- evaluatnn of any given statement. Bensman agreed that there is flexibility in the process and no need to be afraid of the final document. Puzak added that he would also like to see safety included in the objectives. Koegler said this can be accommodated and Puzak said to go ahead and work safety into the objectives. The policy statements were then discussed. Amst asked if they are in priority or planned order. Koegler said they were random, but should have some sequence. He added that although they are equally weighted, the reader tends to put more emphasis on those at the beginning. Themig asked if the words "business persons" should be changed to "businesses" in the second statement. Koegler explained the distinction and left the statement as is. Puzak said that he sees elements that were key from the beginning such as: design, safety, funding and community involved, and asked if there were other points to be added. Amst suggested a re- ordering of the eight policies so they have better flow. Bensman asked about the reference to grant funds, saying that it sounds as if that is the only funding source because of its special mention. She suggested including statments that the City will continue to pursue other funding sources and that the source and strings attached will fit with local needs. Puzak suggested adding "Shorewood will explore all funding options, including funding grants" to the existing statement. He then went back to Commissioner Amst's suggestion of reorganizing the statements and asked if she was trying to prioritize or to group statements. She replied that she wantd to group them so there is better flow of thoughts, and then detailed the sequence she would recommend. Puzak asked Koegler to look at that suggestion if the statments are to be retyped anyway.. The point of this is just to make sense of the statements, not to assign a pecking order. Puzak asked if the concept of multi purpose could be added to the design or safety list Or possibly should it be added as a policy? Koegler stated that it is already included in the goal statement. Puzak invited comments from the flocr. Resident Jackie Colesworthy replied by commending the Park Commission for "gong through this painful process" and complimented them for building a good foundation. She anticipates there will be residents who would pick at the goals, policies, etc., but still thinks it is excellent and complete as is. She encouraged the Commission to move ahead with confidence. Mayor -elect Love also spoke from the floor. He thanked the Commission for indulging his presence and expressed appreciation for their work He offered a suggestion for the final policy statement which references Lake Minnetonka. While it is a great resource, Mr. Love pointed out that it is certainly not the only natural resource worthy of being a destination. The policy should also allow for trails which direct people to some of the other natural areas in Shorewood and beyond. Themig agreed that it is good to make that policy more generic by perhaps adding "other significant natural resources" to the statement. Dalian agreed. There was further discussion about including mention of access to other environmental features. .4 Park Commission Minutes • December 8, 1998 Page 7 Koegler explained that the reference to Lake Minnetonka was included partially to check reaction to it and see where it would fit with Shorewood's trail concept. He agreed that other natural features would be included. Dallman stated that the first objective is to connect to other commentates. Puzak said that the objective says we want to inter-link the City, which is a strong driver. The policy about Lake Minnetonka is subordinate Thernig suggested removing the words, "Lake Minnetonka" from the policy statement to soften it. There was consensus to leave these comments and the draft with Mr. Koegler to work on and bring back for approval. He will include a reworded version in the packet for the next meeting. Puzak thanked the visitors who attended the meeting for their input. Ther ig asked about future plans to involve residents in the process. Puzak said this group should continue its work, noting that the process says Park Commissioners are facilitators of a community process. Every time we get to a stage of trail walks, - the community will surely be included. Therrig asked those present if that is the level of involvement they would be interested in. Ms. Colesworthy said yes, on a neighborhood level. She added that there are certainly enough people with opinions to make it work for each neighborhood segment. It. is a hot topic in Shorewood. Arnst asked about the status of the time frame. Koegler said that the first part of February is when he hopes to get into the pubic information stage and envisions an open house format to get public acceptance of ideas. He added that we are not working in a vacuum and making decisions without input. There was a two minute break to setup tables for viewing maps. C. Trail Concept Review Koegler displayed a Shorewood map with colored markings to indicate existing features such as the LRT, parks, schools, and points of interest. There were also trails of adjacent cities indicated where they meet with the Shorewood borders. Some potential tra routes were also indicated based on past data and discussion. Koegler explained the intent which is to discuss what a concept should look like: He suggested adding lines to indicate more potential routes or to use the map as a framework for discussion only. Additions would be drawn later and brought back to the next meeting. The group decided to begin marking ideas down on the map and Therrig suggested starting with the trails which would address safety issues. Puzak said there are so many faMrs besides safety such as inter- connectivity and a sense of community. Arnst marked segments according to the group's instruction: extensions to surrounding community trails and the LRT within Shorewood, near schools and points of interest and in areas where residents have requested trans. Brown noted that a trail from the West Middle School to the Highways 7 and 41 intersection will be included as part of the realignment work planned for that intersection. Puzak reminded the group that the first step should be building a segment that has high potential for success which would then serve as a model for the future of the process. Themig clarified that the lines being drawn are not to indicate on or off street designs. They are just an indication of movement. Puzak noted that before the school district asked for trail construction along Smithtown Road, the City had already included that as part of the 1991 Master Plan for parks. Artist added that another consideration with the school is the potential cutback of transportation services. Two areas of strong public support for trails were noted: west of Minnewashta Elementary School along Smithtown and the Vine Hill Road area Brown agreed, saying 2/3 of the calls he receives related to pedestrian and bicycle safety involve to those two areas, along with the segment of Old 4A ' , z Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 8 Market Road leading to Silverwood Park Ms. Colesworthy suggested incorporating the western segment of Smithtown road into a loop along Howards Point Road, Edgewood Road and Eureka North. She added that opinions about that segment would be highly polarized among residents. The long term residents seem to be more reluctant. Themig suggested extending along Smithtown from the school to the LRT crossing. Mr. Love noted that in talking with residents during his campaign, there was a lot of dialogue about that segment. Themig asked about addressing the trial needs on the islands. Puzak recalled three people who attended a meeting last year, asking that the islands not be forgotten in the trait development process. A segment was added to the map and there was brief discussion about the potential for wood chip trails within the system. Brown noted that he has often observed island residents walking along the roads there for recreation and exercise. Discussion came up about connecting the LRT to Smithtown along County Road 19. This could tie in well with a potential skate park at Manitou. Brown shared some possible plans for realignment of the Smithtown/County Road 19 intersection which could positively impact trail plans for that area He added that Hennepin County and the City will want feed back from the Park Commission at some point on this matter, reminding the group that those improvements will be lengthy process. Puzak summarized the progress made in this map exercise. A few more short segments were drawn in. Koegler will compile the information as discussed and drawn. He will provide smaler copies of an updated version of the maps to each Commissioner to "doodle on" for the next meeting. There was some discussion about the problem of crossing Highway 7 in the east end of Shorewood. Mr. Love asked again for clarification that the markings on the map are not indicating actual trail locations, but flow areas. This was agreed. 9. OLD BUSIN There was no oldbusiness. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 11. ADJOURNMENT Dalhnan moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary • MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ©© ®® TO: Shorewood Park Commission DATE: January 6, 1999 SUBJECT: Trail Review FROM: Mark Koegler A number of trail review items are scheduled for the Park Commission meeting on January 13 The following is a brief overview of each of the primary agenda items: A. Approve Trail Site Evaluation Form At the last Commission meeting, we discussed the trail evaluation form. Based on the comments that were offered, the form has been modified for further review. B. Goals, Objectives and Policies • At the last meeting, the Park Commission also offered a number of comments on the draft goals, objectives and policies. The suggested changes are included in the attached text. The policies have also been placed in the sequence that was suggested at the meeting, even thought their listing is still not intended to imply any order of importance or priority. C. Trail Concept Map The attached copy of the trail concept map represents the "working copy" of the Park Commission's preferred trail alignments. The map started out as a clean sheet of paper with adjacent local and regional trail links identified. In subsequent meetings, the Commission added collector roadways and potential trail links. When the last meeting was adjourned, the Commission had not concluded its review of potential trail alignments. The trails map is intended to represent the full trail system. Even though we are attempting to identify a complete system, it is realized that total implementation will take many years and in reality, all of the segments identified may not actually be built. Because of limited resources and public interest, priority segments will be identified. D. Identify Priority Alignments When the trail concept map is assembled, the Park Commission will need to review all of the • segments and decide which should be initially considered as priorities. Determining priorities should rely on the criteria noted on the trail evaluation form. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 Aq Memorandum January 6, 1999 Page 2 It is our intent to identify priority segments for presentation at the public open house that will be held in February. In doing so, we can focus comments on those segments that appear to have the best chance of actually being implemented. At that session, we will also present the entire trail concept as an expression of what is eventually desired. E. Prepare for Public Information Meeting(s) The trail review schedule calls for a public meeting in February to solicit public comments on trail planning efforts. Information to be presented at the meeting includes but is not necessarily limited to an overview of the trail planning process; goals, policies and objectives; the overall trail plan; and priority trail segments. The forum will be structured in a manner that will allow people to review the information and provide feedback in a small group setting, probably an open house format. At the Park Commission meeting on the 13 consideration needs to be given to dates and times for the meeting(s), further information that will be needed, the role of the Park Commission and the format for the meeting. Once some of these items have been discussed by the Commission, a newsletter article will need to be prepared in order to initiate public information efforts. • 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 c a tl4, ail ; City of Shorewood TRAIL EVALUATION FORM Trail Segment A. Origin of Request: Park Commission Administration Neighborhood School District Other (Identify) Does the trail segment comply with Goals and Objectives? Yes If yes, how? (check all that apply): Connects community points of interest Connects to regional or other local trail systems Improves safety Neighborhood support Other (Identify) C. Does any segment of the trail tie into the Shorewood trail system, the regional system, or another city trail system? Yes Which segment? No Distance to nearest segment D. Was trail segment discussed at public information meeting? Yes No If yes, date of meeting and comments received: No M Y E. Trail walk completed? Yes No If yes, Date(s) • Commission Members Present City Staff Members Present Others Present Trail Characteristics /Comments: (i.e. potential trail surface material(s), potential trail location relative to road/structures, physical constraints, visual restrictions/hazards, traffic concerns, right -of -way /easement status, etc.) F. Administrative Review: (attach reports if available) Engineering Public Works Police/Fire Minnegasco NSP Cable TV Other Utilities G. Cost Estimate H. Funding Sources I. Proposed Construction Start Date date: date: date: date: date: date: date: -------------------------------------------------------- Approved Rejected Date STAFF PARK COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL M: S horewood/97- 45/evalform.doc Goal • The City shall establish an interconnected system of trails to enhance Shorewood's sense of community by accommodating the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and other non- motorized modes of travel. Objectives ■ Shorewood trails will provide safe connections to points of interest in and around the community and will be linked to trails provided by Hennepin County and adjacent municipalities. ■ Trails segments will be implemented on an incremental basis consistent with an overall plan. Shorewood Park Commission Memorandum Policies ■ Trail planning and design efforts will involve the general public with an emphasis on residents and businesspersons located adjacent to trail alignments. • Shorewood will establish development standards for the construction of trails and maintenance standards and programs to ensure safe conditions. ■ Trail segments shall be established within parks to provide connections between various facilities and to accommodate recreational usage. ■ Priorities for the funding of the construction of trails shall be established on the basis of safety concerns, funding conditions, and neighborhood acceptance. ■ Shorewood will explore all funding sources including outside grant funds for the construction of trails providing that such funding sources accommodate local needs and design criteria. ■ Shorewood will cooperate with other jurisdictions including the school district and Hennepin County in providing a trail system that meets local and regional needs. ■ Shorewood will work with other area communities to investigate the establishment of a trail network that could provide connections to points of interest and environmental features including continuous access around Lake Minnetonka. ■ Shorewood will work with other area communities to investigate the establishment of bicycle and mass transit linkages that would serve bicycle commuters. The regional trail could provide access to a transit hub with busses that can accommodate the transport of bicycles. AV i ! All CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 (612) 474 -3236 DELIVER TO: BULK RATE U. S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT #128 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PLANNING YOUR COMMUNITY ✓ What should Shorewood be like in 5, 10 years? ✓ Plan on attending a neighborhood meeting ✓ Your input is important Over two years of work by the Shorewood Planning Commission is coming to a head with the presentation of the 1995 update of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. This update is a legal document which will be formally adopted by the City Council as it's new Comprehensive Plan. It provides a decision - making framework to guide development and change within the community as we head into the twenty -first century. This newsletter cannot begin to summarize what is in the Comprehensive Plan document. It is intended to highlight some of the issues being discussed which may be of interest to you. Some of the recommendations for action are briefly listed. Many of these issues and recommendations will affect you and your neighborhood. How can you learn more, become involved? 1) Watch the televised program "1995 Comprehensive Plan Update" which is periodically being telecast on cable access channel 21. (Check channel 21 for telecast schedule.) 2) Stop in at City Hall and review the proposed document. 3) Attend the informal neighborhood information meeting scheduled for your neighbor- hood (see map and schedule on the inside of this document). 4) Attend the official public hearing (see box below). C The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council encourage you to read the brief summaries of recommendations in this newsletter of the four major sections of the Plan. Learn as much as you can about the Plan. Talk to your friends and neighbors. Attend a neighborhood meeting. Your input is important. Following the neighborhood information meetings the last opportunity for input will beat the public hearing. It will be held : February 21,1995 at 7:00 p.m. Place: Minnewashta Elementary School, 26350 Smithtown Rd., Shorewood, MN. NATURAL RESOURCES The City is committed to maintaining the high quality of its natural environment. To do so the Plan's recom- mendation includes: The City will adopt standards regulating develop- ment on steep slopes. For example, grading or construction which results in disturbed slopes of 3:1 (three horizontal to one vertical) shall be restricted. • In order to limit the loss of vegetation the City will amend existing codes to include tree preservation and replacement and site landscaping for all developments. • The requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act will be incorporated into Shorewood's wetland code. • Setbacks from wetlands shall be established - no less than 30 feet or an equivalent to the rear yard setback for the zoning district in which the site is located. • New developments will be required to construct sedimentation ponds designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. • The City will take a role in examining the benefits versus potential damage of various chemical treatments, such as lawn fertilizers and mosquito spraying. c January 30 12w 400' 0 a00 A00' 2000' 2640' / nnemxEO •r: vewu.nr a•x I SHOREWOOD PLANNING DEPARTMENT I Y February •° Neighborhood Meetings Schedule This section of the Plan addresses "nuts and bolts" issues relating to public lands and buildings, services and systems: • Sanitary sewer • Public safety • Water system • Solid waste • Storm water • Other public utilities • Parks and recreation • Municipal buildings and schools The following is a summary of just some of the recom- mendations for action that are in this section: • Prioritize small drainage projects based on: 1) public safety and health; 2) substantial financial impact to the City; 3) public nuisance; and 4) private nuisance. • Finance large drainage projects through special taring districts based on established subwatersheds. • Stormwater runoff shall be managed based upon the principle that the rate of runoff leaving a site after development shall not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development • Focus future park planning on the development of existing sites rather than on acquisition of land. • Consider expansion of Freeman Park if financially supported by local athletic organizations. • Establish four to six refuse collection districts within the community, awarding contracts to low - bidding private haulers. • Require all new development to place all utilities • underground and establish a program to eliminate overhead wiring over the next 10 to 15 years. • Continue to work with other southshore communities to provide a community center for senior citizens. from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood Cit Hall, 5755 Country Club Road. COMMUNITY FACILITIES /SERVICES I���l 11 \� \�IJ •'`(1) I_ • Develop a ten (10) year plan for expansion of the municipal water system which currently serves about 35% of the City. Among the short term objectives hoped - to be reached by the approach are: • Provide a reliable source of water for fire suppress- ion in areas where the municipal system exists. Enhance the financial viability of the system on the west side of the City, and make that system more reliable by providing elevated storage capacity. The first phase (3 to 4 year) might include: Construct a water tower on the Minnewashta Elementary School site. This tower is necessary to enhance the safety and reliability of the existing system on the west end and to provide water to new developments. Extend watermain to new development where feasible. Where watermain is not immediately available consider provisions for future connection, such as dry pipes, extra right -of -way width, etc. The second phase (3 years) might include: Interconnect the west end of the system with the Victoria water system in conjunction with development of the southernmost parcel in Shorewood east of Smithtown Road. Extend watermain to connect the Amesbury system to the southeast area system. Extend watermain to connect the Boulder Bridge system to the Badger system. The third phase (4 or more years) might include extending watermains as economically feasible, to residential areas not served in the first two phases. It must be realized that providing water service to the entire City is unrealistic. The plan should be devised to reach objectives gradually over a number of years. LAND USE This section of the Plan is intended to guide how land within the City is to be developed and used. It strives to establish a pattern of land uses which is consistent with the residential and recreational character of the community. In doing so the Plan's recommendations include: • Commercial development should be consistent with the residential character of the community and concentrated to three primary locations: 1) Country Club Road/ County Road 19; 2) Lake Linden/Highway 7; and 3) Vine Hill Road/Highway 7. measures to encourage the development of affordable housing. • Take action to set aside land which is considered suitable for senior housing. • Encourage residential clustering to preserve natural features (e.g. wetlands and shoreland). • Require formal platting procedures for the subdivision of land, allowing metes and bounds divisions only in the simplest of cases. • Prepare a separate housing plan describing Shorewood's existing housing stock and identifying • Determine to what level the City is willing to participate financially in the development of senior housing. • Seek ways to bring the Howard's Point Marina and the Shorewood Yacht Club into substantial compliance with the Lakeshore Recreational (L -R) zoning district. • Work with the LMCD to identify suitable locations for public access to Lake Minnetonka in Shorewood. TRANSPORTATION The transportation section of the Plan looks at the total transportation system. It identifies transportation goals, policies, and recommendations to ensure a safe, efficient and convenient transportation system which limits negative impact on the environment and is sensitive to the needs of residents. It defines the classification of your street. Should parking be allowed on your street? Is your street a local, a local collector, a minor or intermediate arterial? This section defines Municipal State Aid streets and addresses mass transit, street width and bicycle /pedestrian issues. Some of the recommendations are as follows: • Reevaluate design criteria (width length of cul -de -sacs, curbing, etc.) for new City streets. • Reconstruct existing streets to current widths but not less than 20 feet. • Consider regulations which limit the extent of damage done to City streets by garbage trucks. • Prepare a circulation concept plan for the area located west of Grant Lorenz Road between Edgewood Road and Smithtown Road. • Prepare a "corridor study" of County Road 19 through Shorewood, examining the intersection at Country Club Road for possible signalization and limiting direct property access to County Road 19. • Prepare alternative designs to the Galpin Lake Road intersection realignment. • Close the Lake Linden Drive entrance to Highway 7 and redesign the north half of the Highway 41 intersec- tion. • Construct a right -turn lane east of the entrance to Freeman Park and consolidate private property access with the park entrance. • Remove Edgewood Road and Birch Bluff Road from the existing Municipal State Aid (MSA) system. • Remove Yellowstone Trail west of Country Club Road and east of Lake Linden Drive from the existing MSA system. • Add Cathcart Drive, Galpin Lake Road and Vine Hill Road to the MSA system. • Designate Country Club Road/Yellowstone Trail/Lake Linden Drive as a local collector route. • Designate Minnetonka Boulevard as a local collector street. • Recognize Vine Hill Road north of Covington Road as a minor collector. • Consider prohibiting the use of snowmobiles within the community. • Realign Seamans Drive with Arbor Avenue in Chanhassen and detach Yellowstone Trail from the Highway 7 right -of -way. • Implement the Master Trail Plan. removing the turf trail north of Silverwood Park from the Trail Plan reserving the land for "open space ". • CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99 002 A RESOLUTION NLUM NG COMMISSION APPOPiTME1NTS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood citizens to Apply to serve on the Planning Commission and Park Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council did complete a review and selection procedure for appointment to said commission. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Planning Commission effective immediately with term expiranon as indicated: Planning Commission: Member Term 1. Donna Woodruff January 31, 2002 2. Laura Turgeon January 31, 2002 3. Tom Skramstad January 31, 2002 Said appointments complete the seven member Planning Commission which consists of the following additional members: • Member Term 1. Neil Anderson January 31, 2000 2. Patrick Collins January 31, 2000 3. Paula Callies January 31, 2001 4. Jeff Bailey January 31, 2001 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Park Commission effective immediately with term expiration as indicated: Park Commission:. Member Term 1. Mary Bensman 2001 2. Ken Dallman 2001 Said appointments complete the seven member Park Commission which consists of the following additional members: Member 1. Pat Arnst Term 1999 2. William Colopoulos, Jr. 1999 3. Dan Puzak 2000 4. Mark Themig 2000 5. Chuck Cochran 7000 Resolution No. 99- 002 Page 2 of 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT that the City Council shall make the following Commission position appointments for the year 1999: Planning Commission: Chairperson Vice Chairperson Park Commission: Chairperson Vice Chairperson ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OL � C� SHOREWOOD this 11 th day of January 1999. 7/ / ATTES T: