Loading...
030298 CC SP Min . . . 1':0 ".. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL/ PARK COMMISSION MEETING MONDA Y, MARCH 2, 1998 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCILIPARK COMMISSION MEETING Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Park Commission Chair Puzak; Commissioners Colopoulos, Bensman (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Dallman, Arnst, Themig and Cochran; Administrator Hurm; and Mark Koegler. Absent: Councilmember Stover. B. Review Agenda Mark Koegler was in attendance and explained the process which was discussed at a previous meeting and followed thus far relative to the issue of parks and trails in Shorewood. The group devised a list of information they would like to see as a result of the survey. 1. Does the community want a trail system? If so, what kind of trail, integrated or neighborhood and point specific. 2. Can/should a trail system be implemented with neighborhood opposition? Issues need to be defined in order to be able to engineer around those issues. Neighborhood opposition/support needs to be determined. 3 . With respect to Park completion, what do the residents want in the parks? 4 . What types and kinds of trails are acceptable in terms of bituminous trail, turf trail, etc. 5 . What is the perception of the community relative to the benefits/threats of a trail to the community. . 6. Improve communication/input from the citizenry. Mayor Dahlberg questioned whether it would be logically possible to ascertain whether the community wants a trail without knowing what the trail is going to be. Commissioner Colopoulos felt the response will be no if the residents are not sure what they are being asked. Mayor Dahlberg stated his belief the residents want trails as long as the social and economic costs are acceptable. He also felt residents would not be opposed to an integrated trail system if the social and economic costs are again acceptable. . . . f"~ .. CITY COUNCILIPARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 - PAGE 2 Mayor Dahlberg felt this survey process to be product research rather than policy research. He was uncertain the question of determining whether or not the community wants trails can be separated from describing what type of trails. Commissioner Bensman stated her belief, should the indication be to go ahead with a trail plan, the City will not be dealing with a single product, but rather a range of different treatments depending upon the situation. Commissioner Puzak explained when this issue was initially discussed, it was not discussed in the context of policy or product research. The Commission discussed going through a process which was first visionary, proceeding to a mission statement to build or not to build. From a vision, there would be goals. The goal would be to allow persons living in any neighborhood to get to the closest park without having to cross two streets. Mayor Dahlberg was uncertain whether the City will obtain clear and precise results utilizing this framework. Commissioner Puzak did not feel he could use the product research method since he is unfamiliar with it. Mayor Dahlberg noted product research is about acceptance and change. Councilmember O'Neill asked how to perform product research without having a product. Mayor Dahlberg explained it can be accomplished through product concepting, conjoint analysis, and focus groups which review the product concepting. Councilmember O'Neill felt this would be designing a product prior to the community's indication whether they want trails or not. Commissioner Bensman felt the citizen review group could be that focus group, however, she felt the process described by Mayor Dahlberg would involve a substantial amount of time and money. Mr. Koegler stated his impression the City did not want to depict various scenarios for the residents to react to, but to first try to understand in a qualified way what they want to see. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern this may not be the approach to get the City to where it is going. Mr. Koegler commented there may be a variety of approaches which can be utilized. Commissioner Colopoulos asked how this survey information can be integrated with prior surveys and petitions which have produced certain data. Commissioner Arnst stated she is very comfortable with the process. The residents are given numerous opportunities throughout the process to have their voices heard. Mr. Koegler commented there are many pieces of information, including the prior surveys and petitions, which the citizen review group will be provided. Councilmember Garfunkel did not feel the community had been involved as a whole in the community forum which was held on February 19, 1998. He noted approximately 75 percent of the residents who attended the forum live west of County Road 19. He felt there could have been a better way to get the community involved rather than sending them a postcard. Commissioner Bensman pointed out that in addition to sending the postcards, the meeting was noticed in the Shorewood newsletter as well as the local newspaper. Mr. Koegler stated he had suggested a round of invitations, however, this was deemed to be inappropriate due to concern this would be showing favoritism to one segment of the community. Mayor Dahlberg stated the methods which are used must be valid methods. He felt true random samples to be essential. l" ." CITY COUNCIL/PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 - PAGE 3 . Commissioner Puzak explained the Park Commission made the decision to send postcards to the community. This issue was discussed at length, the pros and the cons, and at the conclusion of the discussion, there was consensus. Mr. Koegler felt a reasonable turnout had been obtained. The purpose of the meeting was to gather citizens to give their thoughts and ideas and also to see who the interested citizens are. He suggested there may be candidates for the citizen review group which could be obtained from the public forum attendance list. 2. REVIEW FEBRUARY 19, 1998 OPEN FORUM RESULTS Mr. Koegler reported on the February 19, 1998 Community Meeting as outlined in his summary of this meeting. Commissioner Themig reported he felt there was concern among the residents attending the open forum relative to the threat of a trail system. Commissioner Cochran noted a number of residents had expressed regret at not being able to attend the meeting and felt this to be an indication there will be future support on this issue. Commissioner Puzak felt the closer the City gets toward a concept and a design, the more input which will be received. . Mayor Dahlberg questioned how the group will know they have an answer. Mr. Koegler stated the Commission is attempting to provide that answer in a packet of information which will not eliminate the Council making the final decision. The Commission will provide the Council with a recommendation, a base of knowledge and a base of input to assist in making that fmal decision. Mr. Koegler stated it is important the process has integrity and the process has had meaningful opportunities for the residents to supply input which can be figured into the decision process. 3. DISCUSSION ON MAKEUP AND ROLE OF CITIZEN REVIEW GROUP Mr. Koegler stated the Council must be comfortable that the citizen review group is a body that can provide a recommendation. He felt a target number would be 12 participants and suggested each member of the Commission and the Council identify one person to participate in this group. Mayor Dahlberg suggested a random sample of the community by sending an invitation to approximately 100 residents and then accept a set of those individuals who wish to participate. Mr. Koegler felt this would work very well since the group should not be tailored to any specific viewpoint. . Mayor Dahlberg stated once invitations have been sent he would be willing to make telephone calls to encourage residents to participate. Mr. Koegler felt the suggestion of a random sample to be a good one, however, he would not be in favor of telephone calls. Mr. Koegler asked who will determine which of the responses will be selected to participate in the review group. Commissioner Bensman stated the Commission will need to be specific relative to the time commitment involved and what is expected of the group. It will need to be articulated very specifically what they will be expected to do. Mayor Dahlberg suggested starting with 50 invitations and the process can then be repeated if necessary . . . . " , . CITY COUNCILIPARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 . PAGE 4 Commissioner Puzak noted there are still numerous opportunities for community input by way of public hearings which will be held. 4. REVIEW DRAFT SURVEY QUESTIONS Opening Paragraph Councilmember Garfunkel requested the greeting be made more specific relative to park and trail issues facing the City rather than issues in general. Commissioner Themig was opposed to using the word "issues." Commissioner Colopoulos suggested changing the language to state, "this is a random sample of residents to get your opinion about parks and trails." Commissioner Puzak felt the name of the survey company could be deleted. Commissioner Bensman felt all questions relative to demographics should occur at the end of the survey and it was agreed Question I would be added to those questions. Question Nos. 2 through 8 Commissioner Bensman felt Questions 2 through 8 could be deleted because they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. Mayor Dahlberg and Commissioner Puzak were in favor of retaining Question 3. It was the consensus of the group to eliminate Questions 2 through 8. Question Nos. 9 through 15 Commissioner Bensman suggested using the word "average" rather than "only fair." Commissioner Themig commented this information is being obtained through the questions which follow. It was agreed Question Nos. 9 through 15 will be integrated. Question Nos. 16 through 24 Commissioner Bensman suggested adding the LRT to the list of items reflected in Nos. 16 through 24. Commissioner Arnst suggested Crescent Beach be included as well. Councilmember Garfunkel felt adding the LRT may be confusing. Commissioner Puzak stated there have been discussions relative to the LRT in the past and Hurm felt it would be important to identify the trails which are being talked about and make it clear the LRT is not what the City is addressing through this survey. Julie Dahlberg was in attendance and suggested referring to a potential trail system as a "shared use pathway" to avoid confusion with the LRT. With respect to the introduction paragraph to Item Nos. 16 through 24, it was the consensus of the group to reword this paragraph to say, "Are the following things valuable to you in our community?" Hurm related his understanding this section of the survey is not park specific. The purpose of this section is to determine what facilities people will use if they were available in a . park. Question No. 25 It was agreed Question No. 25 is acceptable as proposed. CITY COUNCIL/PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 - PAGE 5 Question No. 26 . Commissioner Bensman stated Question No. 26 is not germane to the issue at hand and she felt it should be deleted. She commented it is a hypothetical and too complicated. Commissioner Puzak commented this question will reveal the amount of protection which should be provided on the last 25 acres of land. Commissioner Arnst remarked open space is not preserved for active recreational areas such as ball fields, but rather it is developed. Hurm pointed out the Comprehensive Plan does state the City will not obtain more park property. Mayor Dahlberg suggested rewording the question to ask how the resident feels about preserving open space as a dimension of the trail system. Commissioner Puzak also suggested rewording the question, but not deleting it from the survey. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern relative to the label "open spaces." The consensus of the group was to have the question reworded while maintaining the essence of the question. Question No. 27 Commissioner Puzak suggested "How much would/does a trail system impact your enjoyment of the city?" Mayor Dahlberg questioned how a respondent to the survey would be able to measure the impact of a trail in the abstract. . Commissioner Arnst requested the word "impact" be changed since it is negative. Councilmember Garfunkel was in agreement this question needs to be reworded. It was the consensus of the group to reword the question in some form for further review and consideration. Introduction Paragraph - Question No. 28 It was agreed the paragraph prior to Question No. 28 is a valuable question, however, it needs to be rewritten, striving for easy to understand terms. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested, "In considering development of a trail system in the City, one option might be ..." Councilmember Garfunkel felt the wording of the question should be very generic and abstract. Question No. 29 Commissioner Arnst felt the reference to five to eight feet should be deleted from Question No. 29. She felt this would give the impression pre-planning had been done in this regard. Commissioner Puzak questioned whether this question is needed. Mr. Koegler stated general information is needed relative to the issue of on road/off road. . Commissioner Cochran expressed concern residents will not realize how wide a trail could potentially be. Mayor Dahlberg felt the question may be irrelevant at this time. Mr. Koegler explained this information will be of value since it will give the Citizen Review Group an idea of where there are more concerns. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out this could be influenced by the layout of a particular neighborhood. He also felt this question to be premature. It was agreed this question will be conditionally removed. , . . . CITY COUNCIL/PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 - PAGE 6 . Question Nos. 30 through 36 It was agreed to add Question No. 36-A "Other" Question No. 37 Commissioner Puzak felt a question should be asked relative to how a resident would feel about a trail the closer it comes to a resident's home. Commissioner Bensman felt the measurement of feet should be changed to a measurement such as one block, two blocks, etc. Commissioner Puzak agreed stating the wording is unfair since it presupposes the resident will use the trail. Mayor Dahlberg felt this question should be reworded. Question No. 38 . Councilmember O'Neill noted it is the position of the Council not to design a trail to which there is neighborhood opposition. Commissioner Bensman suggested perhaps the proximity question could be asked in another way. She felt it important to find out how residents feel about a trail, the closer it comes to their property. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out only a small percentage of the population in Shorewood would abut a potential trail, since a trail would not be on every street. He felt the question would not be valid for the general population of the City. Mayor Dahlberg commented if support of the trail is a function of proximity, there may be a need for additional branches to it. Councilmember O'Neill suggested adding language which makes the point this question is a hypothetical. It was agreed to keep this question, however, it should be reworded. Introduction Paragraph to Question Nos. 39 through 41 Mayor Dahlberg stated he will not make a decision based upon subjective estimates of safety. Commissioner Bensman felt this question could be asked in a neutral manner. She suggested using a list of neutral issues such as safety and land use. Commissioner Puzak suggested a question relative to whether trails add to the safety of the community. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern the resulting data would constitute a subjective estimate of safety. Question Nos. 39 through 41 It was agreed to delete Question Nos. 39 through 41 since they can be pursued at some point in the future. Commissioner Puzak suggested a question regarding the resident's perception of benefits and/or threats of a trail. He suggested the resident be provided with a list of issues to choose from such as safe/unsafe, convenient/inconvenient. Mr. Koegler inquired whether perception is important. Mayor Dahlberg felt this to be an important factor. Councilmember Garfunkel felt perception would be important at some point in the future. It was agreed Mr. Koegler will work with the perception of benefits and threats. Mayor Dahlberg suggested this be an open ended question. . . . . . 1 ,~ t CITY COUNCIL/PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 - PAGE 7 Question Nos. 42 through 51 Mayor Dahlberg stated he is opposed to the intrusiveness of any income question. It was agreed Question No. 49 will be deleted. Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out the option of "none" should be removed from Question No. 44. It was agreed to delete Questions 47 and 48 based on the feeling occupation and home ownership is irrelevant to this survey. Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether there is any concern relative to Question No. 50. Commissioner Bensman felt this item should remain, noting this is not a question which is asked, but one which is answered by observation of the caller. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested given the costs involved, there should be some prioritization to determine where a trail plan ranks among other issues such as green space purchase. Mr. Koegler stated when the survey is returned to the group for further review, Decision Resources will be present to discuss any questions which might arise. Mayor Dahlberg stated he does not reject this process, however, he does question whether there are contemporary methods which would be more efficient. Commissioner Puzak pointed out this matter has been discussed at great length at the Park Commission. He stated the Commission felt a slow and conservative approach would be best. The Commission is dedicated to working on this issue in an open, honest and communicative way throughout the entire process. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Dahlberg adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST: AYOR