Loading...
062182 PK MINCITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK C0124ISSION 1:'`EE-TING • MONDAY, JUNE 21, 19 M I N U T E S COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COU14TRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER CHAIRMAN CARL called the June 21, 1982 Park Commission meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Gary Carl, Launisse Cousins, Marty Jakel, Gordon Lindstrom, Conrad Schmid, and Roger Stein. Late: Carol Chapman - arrived at 8:23 P.M. Also Present: Council Liaison Tad Shaw, City Administrator Doug Uhrhammer, Planner Anne Bronken, Northwest Associated Consultants, =Inc. and Assistant West. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lindstrom moved, Cousins seconded, to approve the minutes dated Monday June 7, 1982 as written. The motion carried unanimously. CO1TINUED DISCUSSION OF FREEKXtT PARK DEVELOPMENT • Anne Bronken was present to assist the Park Commission in setting priorities for the development of Freeman Park. Power and lighting were discussed in regards to their placement on the priority list. Lighting the Park was listed as an expensive item. It was noted that the lighting desired was minimal - to deter vandalism and misuse of the Park. There was debate as to whether or not it would be a solution to the prob- lems. It was agreed that more patrolling by the Police might have an effect. Cousins moved, Jakel seconded, to have the City formally request that the S.L.M.P.S.D. patrol Freeman Park on a regular basis - to include driving back into the park, walking around and checking the buildings and facilities. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Carol Chapman arrived at 8:23 P.M. It was noted that posting signs to limit access, hours, trespassing, and rewards for arrest and conviction of vandals might deter violations. It was also suggested that other options should be explored in terms of power and lighting, and that an -up to- date cost estimate was needed from NSP. PARK: COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - JUNE 21, 1982 • 40 PARK DEVELOWENT DISCUSSIO1v - CONTIiNTED Planner Bronken suggested that entrances to the Park with signs are priority items. She felt they set standards for future park development and that a good motif was important. She distributed rough drawings of an entrance utilizing timber posts with a maximum cost estimate of $2,000 including materials, labor and landscaping. She noted that although not vandal proof, this type of entrance was relatively easy to replace. Bronken messed the other priorities as listed at the May 17, 1982 Park Commission meeting. A cost estimate for a Gravel drive from Eureka Road to the BMX track including a drainage way crossing was seen as realistic. It was noted that the solid base for the road was already in place. Bronken conceptualized the crossing with decorative rubble head walls to give the drainage way a stream -like image. It was suggested that suns placed in the Park denote what is allowed, hours and what is prohibited. Locations mentioned for signage were the entrances, 100 to 200 feet inside the Park, at the boundaries along Strawberry Lane and the railroad right -of -way. The Park Commission noted that Ordinance #91 Regulations for Parks i and Beaches, should be updated, posted in the parks, and enforced. The Commission asked the Planner to develop cost figures for the entrances and signage. The Park Commission discussed what was desired for a trail system Ten feet was the minimum suggested width. It was noted that wood chips were available from NSP for trail cover and the trails could be laved without too much cost. Labor was seen as the greatest single expense. It was agreed that elevation changes were not needed at the present time and that the problem areas needing additional dirt and mounding would become apparent with usage. The Park Commission noted that the trail system was intended -for pedestrians, not horses or bikes. In conjunction with the trails, Bronken noted the need for planned buffer plantings between the Park and adjacent propertied and the activity areas. She suggested a mixture of plantings, both deciduous and evergreens. Bronken noted that a list she had prepared of the costs of individual items and equipment showed figures as if ordered from a catalogue. The Park Commission discus- sed development of the passive areas of the Park. It was agreed that a plan was needed to establish what the City wants to provide for passive activities, where to locate the facilities, and how much the costs will be. It was noted that these PARK COMMISSION MINUTES — 3 — JnNE 21, 19 FREFMZ PARK DEVELOR4 SIT DISCUSSION — CONTIiTUED might be areas to develop in one move following the placement of water and electricity in the Park. The suggestion was made that the facilities in the passive areas might be obtained through donations of money, time and labor. The possibility of a public relations campaign to approach businesses, organizations and individuals was mentioned. The Park Commission voted upon the items discussed and formed the priorities for the future development of Freeman Park: 1st Priority.-......Trail System 2nd...4.0....4......Signage 3rd .................Entrances 1th .................Buffer Plantings 5 th .................Road Access (Eureka) 6 th .................Passive Activity Areas 7 th ... ..............Electricity /Power 8th Priority........Water Chapman moved, Cousins seconded, to establish this as the Park • of priorities for developing Freeman replacing t n P he tentati The motion carried unanimously (7 -0). following list of ission's list May 17, 19 list. It was noted that two of the major deciding factors in the formation of the list was the costs involved in each option and the amount of money the City has available. PARK DEDICATION FEES Administrator Uharhammer continued his report from the June 7, 1982 meeting. He noted that Ordinance x#9 set a flat $35 cash contribution per subdivision for park dedication fees in 197 8 . In 19 the fee changed to $500 per subdivision. There is some question as to the legality of this change and the basic flat fee policy that the City charges as being arbitrary in nature. Uhrhammer presented a draft section to replace Section VII of Ordinance #79 regulating park dedication fees, changing the Ordinance to meet State statutes. The proposed section covers Reservation of Land, Dedication of Land Schedule for Dedication of Public Land in all Areas Zoned: Resid ential Subdivision/...Nonresidential Subdivision , Cash in Lieu of Land, and Delayed Dedication Paymen 9 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES — 4 — JUNE 21, 1982 PARK DEDICATION FEES — CONTINUED After discussion, Schmid moved, Chapman seconded, to send a Resolution to the City Council recommending adoption of the proposed section entitled " Section '# c,,'Public Land Dedication " as drafted. The motion carried Unanimously (7-0). The Park Commission noted a desire to provide input to the City Council in terms of the need for either land or cash dedications from subdivisions. DISCUSSION OF MAINTiNANCE OF EXISTING PARKS A request by Jim Jones, Minnetonka Community Services, for the City to maintain the Little League fields was noted. Administrator Uhrhammer stated that the City would pick up the maintenance for this year only, not necessarily on a permanent basis. It was agreed that consistent policies need to be developed for maintenance of park facilities. Volunteer help, association maintenance, or user charges were noted as options, and the possibilities of assessing the costs of maintenance in terms of fees (dollars) or labor (time). CONTIITIED DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING APPLICANTS TO THE PARK COMMISSION The Park Commission reviewed the proposed procedure to fill vacancies on the Commis— sion as written by Stein and amended (see page 2 of the June 7 1982 Park Minutes). Lindstrom moved, Schmid seconded, to accept as a part of the Park Commission Bylaws the proposed Procedure for Evaluating and Recommending Applicants to the Park Com— mission as follows: A): An official notice in local papers will be released informing the public of vacancies and asking for candidates. Also, a set deadline for applying for the Park Commission positions will be stated. B) All candidates will be asked to submit a written resume that should express their qualifications and their reasons for wanting to become members of the Park Commission to the Park Commission Chairman. All Park Commissioners should have at least one week to review all submitted resumes. C) All candidates will be asked to attend a meeting of the Park Commission after the published closing date of applications for a question and answer session. An informational session will be given to provide the applicants with background on the Park Commission. Informal discussion /interviews will be conducted with each candidate on an individual basis. (continued...) PARR COMMISSION MINUTES — 5 — June 21, 1952 • PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING APPLICANTS — CONTINUED D) A vote will be taken to select new member(s) at the next regularly scheduled Park Commission meeting after the interviewing is completed. Attendance by applicants at.this meeting will be optional. (A suggested voting method would allow Park Commission members to vote for as many candidates as there are openings, or none at all. Any candidate receiving a simple majority vote would be considered acceptable for member- ship to the Park Commission. If there are more acceptable candidates than open positions, a second -vote could be taken with the top vote getters re- ceiving the positions. Additional votes would be taken in case of a tie.) E) Recommendation of the tentative appointments to the Park Commission will be sent to the City Council for approval at their next meeting. Notification will be mailed to all applicants and the tentative appointees will be re- quested to attend the Council meeting to answer any questions. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Chairman Carl noted a June 1952 Report of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Advisory Committee. He requested a review of the report and possible recommendations from the Park Commission at the next meeting. ADJOUR1vVENT Lindstrom moved, Stein seconded, adjournment of the meeting. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was closed at 10:56 P.M. Respectfully submitted, T V� - W� Kathleen West, Assistant