Loading...
041503 CC SP Min . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PARK & PLANNING COMMISSIONS TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2003 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:45 PM MINUTES 1. CONVENE JOINT COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS MEETING Mayor Love called the joint work session to order at 5:51 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, City Council Members Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Planning Commission Chair Bailey, Commissioners Woodruff, Pisula, Gagne, Borkon, Packard, and White (arrived at 6:02 P.M.); Park Commission Chair Arnst, Commissioners Meyer, Davis, Young, and Callies; City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Park Commissioner Palesch B. Review Agenda Chair Arnst moved, Council member Turgeon seconded, to accept the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 15/0. 2. PARK COMMISSION REPORT ON 2003 GOALS Chair Arnst reviewed the 2003 Park Commission Goals stating that, in the absence of a working budget at the time goals were set, many of the items were housekeeping measures. White arrived at 6:02 P.M. The first priority, the Concession Stand operations at Eddy Station, continues to be of utmost concern to the Park Commission and is nearing some resolution that will allow it to operate Monday through Thursday evenings. Thanks to the recent Park Dedication fees contributed from the Cub Foods and Lake Linden developments, Chair Arnst noted that funding is available to complete some small scale amenity items from the Park Master Plan/CIP. Interaction with other Park Commission/Commissioner Development continues to be a priority. Chair Arnst reported that the City, in conjunction with the Minnesota Recreation . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 2 of 7 and Parks Association, plans to develop and host an annual semInar for Park Commissioners in the southwest metro area. With regard to dog owner education, Chair Arnst indicated that the Commission would strive to develop an educational plan to educate dog owners of the ordinance change. Item 5, buckthorn removal education, would continue to be an ongoing message relayed through newsletter articles and recognition of those who have successfully eradicated this pest. Chair Arnst indicated that the Park Commission plans to explore a small scale fun event to be hosted by the City, for example, a summer music series or winter wonderland event. Rounding out the 2003 goals would be a review of the Trail Planning Process. Chair Arnst suggested a work session be held to evaluate the process, its pros and cons, and identify how the process failed on Smithtown Road. Turgeon questioned whose priority the redevelopment of the trail planning process should be. . Young suggested tapping into the identifiable leaders of those opposed to the trail to determine what went wrong with the process and what the City could have done differently to elicit responses from opposition groups prior to the execution phase. Young indicated that he was baffled by the number and vigor of response opponents presented at the last moment and wondered where they had been throughout the process. Garfunkel assured Commissioner Young that this response was not unusual given other situations. While he had no suggestions how to correct this, Garfunkel pointed out that, often, folks come out at the eleventh hour in opposition to a project. Lizee maintained that the safe passage via sidewalksltrailslbikes should be viewed as a transportation issue and safety concern and not just as a mere amenity. Zerby stated that the trail planning process was developed as part of the community's vision as a means of connecting our amenities. While the process was followed, Zerby suggested that residents had too many unanswered questions until the final meeting where details were provided; therefore, the opponents seemed to come out of the woodwork. As the City reconstructs roadways, consideration of other improvements needs to be done. Zerby maintained that, without funding, however, the City has taken the trail planning process about as far as it can. . Chair Arnst believed that the opponents and ROW issues continue to be the biggest obstacles. . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 3 of7 Garfunkel questioned whether these same obstacles would exist anywhere throughout the City. Brown stated that landmark court decisions have changed the precedent with regard to ROW. He pointed out that, where there has not been formal dedication or platting of ROW, the City is only allowed the paved or traveled surface of the roadway and maintenance boulevards. In recent developments, Brown indicated that the Planning Commission has been diligent to ensure that some sort of right-of-way exists via platting or dedication. Mayor Love pointed out that he had seen some success at the open houses during the trail process, and felt a deeper concern would be to determine how to balance the needs of the community with the objections of the few. He encouraged further refinement be made by evaluating what group to look at during the process and defining the term consensus. He indicated that the ROW issue is of great concern to the future of undergrounding utilities as well. Bailey questioned whether the City would have moved forward with the trail, based solely on the objections shown, if the ROW issue had not come forward. . Mayor Love stated that, in his opinion, he would have based his decision on the process that had been taken to lead to the recommendation in front of him. He would have placed his confidence in those individuals who had evaluated the process and made a recommendation. While Garfunkel concurred, he added that the addition of new information, such as the folks who objected to the project, would have caused him to further consider the recommendation. Gagne asked if similar problems might accompany the Lake Linden Trail project. He indicated that one of the reasons he supported the Cub Foods project in the first place was the assumption that the City would hold them to their commitment to construct a trail. He strongly voiced his concern if this weren't the case. In her opinion, Callies stated that the process itself worked and she, for one, would not wish to study the process again. She maintained that the Commission followed through with its responsibilities and as in any recommendation, in the end, the City Council must evaluate the other issues when making its final decision. While Callies believed there was no point in spending a great deal of time discussing the process, she agreed that further consideration be given to the term consensus. . Mayor Love concurred that the process itself had not failed. The City brought straight information to the people and met face to face with the public. He felt that further . . . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 4 of? consideration should be gIven to addressing who has a stronger voice m each trail planning process. Turgeon referred to Administrator Dawson's memorandum, in which he attempts to identify who makes up the whom when moving the process forward. She indicated that two kinds of trails exist, trails that come with road reconstruction versus new development. She asked whose job it should be to look at a trail in these different scenarios and evaluate whether to pursue them. She suggested a work session be held to define the circumstances under which the City Council, Planning Commission, or Park Commission would take the lead, pursue the ROW issues, etc. She further suggested flagging a property, when it goes up for sale, in order to give the City an opportunity to negotiate additional ROW. As a realtor, Mayor Love indicated that, oftentimes, buyers want to live near trails, whereas the sellers don't recognize this value. Turgeon asked if the City would prefer holding a joint session to define the process together versus each group approaching the topic independently. Mayor Love indicated that, if he were on the Park Commission, he would encourage the City Council to define this issue. Chair Arnst moved, Meyer seconded, to recommend that the City Council define the trail planning process. Meyer explained that one of the most difficult tasks proved to be identifying the who, when considering who is affected by the trail and considered in the process. Mayor Love agreed that a general guideline of who is affected should be determined and invited into the process. Zerby suggested consideration be given, in advance, to what is on the future horizon with regard to trails and areas of redevelopment. He noted that the Smithtown Road trail project was set aside largely due to the funding problems of obtaining ROW etc. He suggested identifying future areas for redevelopment that might need additional funding ahead of time and not waiting until the time comes to consider the process again. Garfunkel believed that consideration should be given to trails anytime a road redevelopment project is proposed. Mayor Love asked if there were any objections to this going to Council for further evaluation; there were none. . . . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 5 of? Zerby acknowledged that the Sports Scheduling issue was missing from the 2003 Park Commission Goal list. As the initial roll-out year, he asked if on-going monitoring continued or if the Commission believed the Sports Scheduling initiative had been achieved. Chair Arnst indicated that, at this point, the Commission has received positive reports from Community Rec Resources (CRR), and will continue to allow them to work. At the end of the season CRR will present the Commission with a report or an evaluation of year one. In her opinion, Chair Arnst indicated that things have gone even better than first anticipated with CRR and the sports scheduling, and that this goal is close to being achieved. Brown added that, based on his observations and feedback from various coaches and sports organizations, CRR has done an excellent job. This was a tough assignment which has been handled well by CRR. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON 2003 GOALS Chair Bailey indicated that the Horse and Pony Ordinance Study had been done and that the Commission was considering special zoning requirements for the Historic Preservation Study. With regard to the County Road 19 Corridor Study, Chair Bailey indicated that the Commission would like to revisit what the proposed corridor would look like. Chair Bailey reported that the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by Met Council and minor modifications were made. From time to time, in an effort to review chapter summaries, the Commission will strive to schedule an annual review. Chair Bailey complimented the Park Commission on its Park Master Plan and recommended its incorporation into the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comp Plan. With regard to the Transportation section of the Comp Plan, Chair Bailey indicated that the opt-out transit option did not seem to offer the City any real alternative, and in fact, might cost the City more in the long run. Mayor Love suggested this section be bookmarked for future consideration as this would be the City's only chance to get different service to the area. Chair Bailey reported that, after consideration, the Commission could not identify any mass transit need that was not currently being met. He was hesitant to pose an opt-out bluff, of sorts, in the event this would backfire. Packard asked if the City had leveled with Met Council on its position. Mayor Love indicated that the City does not have a plan to replace the mass transit system, to which $400,000 is spent annually in Shorewood's name. He pointed out that 5 years ago . . . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 6 of7 Southwest Metro Transit was offered an alternative option, but SMTC declined. The Mayor reiterated the need to bookmark this section indicating that, in 2003, the City made a transportation decision based on its needs at that time. Gagne felt the consultant's credibility was somewhat questionable since she was not informed of all transit operations that exist in Minnetonka and Shorewood, for instance Dial-a-Ride. Gagne questioned whether the City got what it paid for from the consultant. Chair Bailey pointed out that the next item, the Senior Housing Ordinance Amendment, would decrease the density for any future senior housing development. He noted that this item was to be discussed on the Planning Commission's Agenda this evening. In addition, in an effort to maintain lower income type housing, Chair Bailey reported that the Minnetonka Housing Trust would offer an attractive concept for the City to support. With regard to zoning, Chair Bailey noted that both the signage and recreational equipment restrictions need to be tightened up before any problems occur. Nielsen noted one omission from the Planning Commission 2003 Goals, the NUR Pond study. Borkon questioned the City's jurisdiction with regard to recreational lake equipment. Mayor Love indicated that the LMCD would have jurisdiction over surface lake issues. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Administrator Dawson presented the City of Shorewood 2003 Council and Staff High and Medium Goals and Priorities list. He noted that many of the goals warrant a high priority. First, based on new budget realities, Administrator Dawson indicated that it is a Council priority to pursue changes in the SLMPD agreement regarding budget approval requirements. As he continued through the goals and priority list, Administrator Dawson noted that progress was being made regarding the water system extension process and ordinance. Nielsen updated representatives on the water system extension ordinance process. He explained that the ordinance would adjust the fee structure to take advantage of opportunities to extend water systems. For example, in the cases of Cub Foods, Capestone, and the Lake Linden development projects, the developer would pay the cost of the project or the connection fees, whichever were greater. Nielsen indicated that, based on developer feedback thus far, the new ordinance looks as if it would provide a win/win situation to both the City and developer. . . . . . . . JOINT CITY COUNCIL/P ARK COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 15, 2003 Page 7 of 7 Several other items Administrator Dawson expanded on from the priority list include; the relocation and upgrades to Liquor Store No.2 within the Shorewood Village Shopping Center to provide a more unique presentation; the County Road 1915mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection project, of which Jim Grube of Hennepin County indicated that, while some construction would occur in 2003, the majority would likely occur in 2004; and finally, the addition of additional staff. Gagne questioned whether a trail would be constructed near the EFD West/SLMPD station, as discussed in earlier meetings. Mayor Love reported that he thought the trail would be incorporated into final landscaping plans and that he, personally, would support a trail near the public safety facility. Zerby noted that the City Council had included consideration of a trail as part of its original motion for the project. Chair Arnst requested that communication between Council, Commissions, and staff be broadened to ensure that pertinent memorandums be forwarded to the affected Commissions to keep everyone current and on the same page. In an effort to keep everyone up to speed, she felt it would be valuable to copy the Park Commission or Planning Commission on items the Council or staff discuss that impact those groups. Mayor Love thanked everyone for their attendance and contributions to the evening's discussions. 5. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded, to adjourn the Joint City Council/Park and Planning Commissions Meeting of April 15, 2003 at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 16/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: