092695 PK MINCITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mary Bensman called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bensman; Commissioners, Dzurak, Puzak, Martin and Wilson; Administrator
Hurm; Council Liaison McCarty.
Absent: Commissioners Colopoulos and Trettel.
3. REVIEW AGENDA
There were no changes to the Agenda.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dzurak moved, Martin seconded to approve the minutes of Tuesday, August 29, 1995 as
printed. Motion carried unanimously.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
6. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
A. Vacation of Silverwood Turf Trail - Commissioner Dzurak reported that the trail
property which was deeded as parkland will remain as public property until the end of time
unless a very unlikely decision would be made by the City to allow residents to buy
portions of the land. The memo from Attorney Keane, dated August 30, 1995 regarding
this issue is an official attachment to these minutes. Chair Bensman asked about the
handling of encroaching structures. Dzurak replied that land cannot be claimed by anyone
not paying the property taxes, so possession would remain with the city. He also
explained that one of the points of adverse possession is that when asked to remove an
encroachment, if a property owner refuses, it is considered a point of potential ownership.
In order to maintain control of the space, the city should remind property owners of
possession every 15 years. Existing encroachments will need to be dealt with and
residents should be informed of the status of the land to prevent future violations. The
Park Commission is aware of one case of a fence structure and one of shrubbery being
within the trail property. The fence will need to be removed and the owner of the shrubs
will need to be notified of the possibility in the future that they may be required to be
moved. Commission agreed that the area needs to be visibly marked and that they are
responsible to monitor for condition and possible future encroachment. It was suggested
to possibly include the trail property as part of the yearly park tours. Administrator Hurm
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
PAGE 2 of 3
noted for the minutes that city staff be diligent to see that there is not encroachment and
suggested that administration draft a letter to affected property owners to clarify this
policy.
B. Snowmobile Task Force - Commissioner Martin commended Jim Hurm for his handling
of a challenging first meeting of the task force. The purpose was to be an organizational
meeting, but quickly moved into the issues with both sides expressing
strong feelings. Hurm read from the resolution when asked to clarify the purpose of the
Snowmobile Task Force, which is basically to gather information and to prepare a
recommendation to resolve the question of possibly banning snowmobiles from trails
and /or city right of ways. It was noted that while a solution will be difficult to find, the
task of data collection will also be hard because it requires objectivity on an emotionally
charged matter. Where a consensus is not possible, there will need to be a majority/
minority report. After further discussion about potential solutions and leadership needs, it
was agreed that Jim Hurm should fulfill the role of facilitator and see how well things
progress during the next month or so. The upcoming meeting dates are set for Mondays,
October 2 and 16.
C. Hockey Task Force - Hurm reported that the meeting of today was canceled due to a
number of members being unable to attend. He did report that John Flood will meet with
the new superintendent prior to another Task Force meeting. Freeman Park is still a
potential alternative site.
D. Parks Foundation - The October meeting date of the Parks Foundation is to be changed
from the 19th due to MEA week. The new date has not been established. Dzurak
reported that there has been approval for a tax exempt status for the Foundation. Steve
Dzurak was commended (and applauded) by the Park Commission members for his work
on establishing the Parks Foundation.
E. Budget Process - Hurm reported that the Council did not hold the work session on the
budget due to the late hour of their regular meeting. Therefore, there are no changes,
adjustments or concerns with the budget at this time.
7. REVIEW 1995 PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Freeman - The trees donated by Wilson Nursery have been planted in a few areas, with a row
planted as a barrier to keep cars from parking on grassy areas. Bushes have also been
planted at one corner of the volleyball area to block balls from rolling onto the road.
Some boulders will also be added. Water fountains and shelter are yet to be installed.
Hurm prepared the commission for a future issue related to the Highway #7 Task Force
which will present the question of changing exit /entrance procedures to the park.
Although this is very preliminary, some options were briefly discussed. Commissioner
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
PAGE 3 of 3
Puzak pointed out the issue of simplicity of instructions for traveling teams. Of course,
safety is the key consideration.
Silverwood - Commissioner Wilson reported that he has finished with the plantings and mulch
on the hill along the large slide. Dzurak commented that the area looks good and that
people seem to be staying off of the plantings, but still "cut through" on the bark at the top
of the hill. The idea of posting signs to stay off the bushes was suggested. Other
problems to address are: the rocks being thrown onto the parking lot and a slide on the
Gametime play equipment that looks warped. Dzurak and Wilson will take a look at this
and report to the next meeting. Bensman asked that the minutes show that the
commission commended Jim Wilson for his landscaping work in the parks and applauded
him for a job well done.
Manor - The parking lot is ready to be paved and should be done this week.
Cathcart -The fence is yet to be moved and parking lot to be installed. The trail will be done
after that. The roof has been installed on the play set.
Badger - Hurm reported that Don may want to leave the hockey area as it is until spring at
this point, depending on the weather. Puzak asked whether the plans for timing needs to
be modified by the Park Commission. Hurm said that it is not necessary. The question
was brought up about the need to add fill to the culvert with the suggestion being made to
consider using fill from the construction of the Senior Community Center. Hurm said that
Public Works will try to coordinate.
General - Hurm presented the Citizen Evaluation Survey Results as they related to the parks.
He stated that it appears that people notice and appreciate the park improvements.
(Results are attached to and part of these minutes.)
8. DISCUSSION ON COMMEMORATIVE SIGNS AT PARKS
A list of existing signs and ideas for additional ones was handed out at the meeting. Puzak felt
that broken signs must be repaired out of respect and appreciation for the organizations and
individuals represented on those signs. It is the commission's responsibility to maintain them
properly, whatever the cost or inconvenience. He suggested the idea of a single plaque
representing the entire park. Discussion led to two issues: Directional signs to define locations of
fields, fountains, satellites, etc. and Commemorative signs at individual equipment sites. Both
functions could be hard to combine in one unit. Bensman suggested a free standing structure
kiosk) similar to those along trail, as a solution to both needs. Puzak suggested bolting a sign on
the pump house at Silverwood. Bensman asked if members would be willing to visit the parks to
assess current situation and to consider ideas.
Martin moved and Puzak seconded that all Park Commission members go out and look at
signs and the newly planted trees and reconvene at the October 24 meeting and proceed
with a decision. The motion passed unanimously.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 1995
PAGE 4 of 3
Hurm added a suggestion that each person take a look at the structure that is just to the west of
the new high school in Chanhassen as a possible idea to combine two satellites and storage area
under one roof.
9. ESTABLISH NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting date is scheduled for October 24, 1995 at 7:30 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Puzak moved, Martin seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:59
p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
♦ j �
• MEMORANDUM
LARKIN, HOFFiV1AN, DALY c4c Lnv DGREN, LTD.
Attorneys at Law
1500 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xer:ces Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 5j431
Telephone: (612) 835 -3800
FAX: (612) 896 -3333
TO: James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Shorewood Park Commission
FROM: Tim Keane, City Attorn
DATE: August 30, 1995
RE: Silverwood Trail
This memo is in response your inquiry relating to Silverwood Park and whether park property
may be sold or put to a future private use.
s
FACTS
The parcels that constitute the Silverwood Park and Silverwood Trail were dedicated to the City
as part of the fulfillment of the park dedication requirement in the development of the Waterford
Second, Third and Fourth Additions. These include Outlots A, B, B' and D.
.I It
Land dedicated for park use must be used for park purposes only. Minnesota law clearly
provides that
Where a grant is made to a city for a specific, limited and definite
public use, the subject of such grant cannot be used for another or
different purpose.
John Wright & Assocs. Inc v City of Red Wing 106 N.W.2d 205, 208 (Minn. 1960). ee a
Allen v. Village of Savage 112 N.W.2d 807, 812 (Minn. 196 1) ( "Where the purpose for which a
dedication is made is restricted, the dedicated property must be used for the purpose for which it
was dedicated. It cannot be used for a purpose inconsistent with the intention of the dedicator. ").
The issue of improper use of property dedicated for a specific purpose was addressed in e d ev
• v. City of Northfield 35 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1949). In 1856, John North and his wife platted as
the town of Northfield certain land owned by North. In the plat, they dedicated the public square
for public use. The square was used thereafter as a public park. During the years 1946 -48,
however, the city developed and adopted a plan to convert more than one -half of the public •
square into a high school athletic held and playground. Several Northfield taxpayers, some of
whom owned property abutting the public square, sued to enjoin the city and its contractor from
carrying out the plan.
The court found that the public square involved in Headley did not belong to the city, but rather
was "the property of the dedicator or his successors in interest, in which the city, as trustee for
the benefit of the public and not in its own right as such, has such an interest as is necessary to
enjoy the use thereof as a public square." Id,. at 609. The court found that the city, as trustee of
the public square, had a duty "to devote the public square to the uses intended by the dedicator."
Id. at 610. Any use of the public square inconsistent with the purpose of the dedication would,
therefore, constitute a breach of trust.
The court said in JJeadLev that a public square is commonly intended to be "an open tract of land
for use of purpose of free passage or of ornamentation and improvement as grounds of pleasure,
amusement, recreation, or health" to which all members of the public have free access. Id.
at 609. The court found that using the public square as a high school athletic field and
playground would be inconsistent with the purpose for which the square was dedicated because it
would necessitate the exclusion of the general public from the square. Ld.. at 610. Accordingly,
the court enjoined the city from carrying out its plan.
In discussing diversion of park property by a municipality, it is said in 39 Am. Jur. 816, 817:
As a general rule, the uses to which land dedicated by its private
owner as a park may be devoted depend upon the purposes of the
dedication, as determined by the intention of the dedicator, and
such land cannot'be used for any purpose inconsistent with that
intention, even though there has been a change in the character of
the surrounding property. The municipality within whose borders
the premises are situated takes them, as trustee for the public, for
the special uses designated by the dedicator. And the use to which
the land is dedicated must be preserved or the land will revert to
the original proprietors.
Likewise, in 26 C.J.S., ed'c ' , § 65, pp. 154, 155, it is said:
Except as appears below, if a dedication is made for a specific or
defined purpose, neither the legislature, a municipality or a
successor, nor the general public has any power to use the property
for any other purpose than the one designated, whether such use be
public or private, and whether the dedication is a common law or a
statutory dedication; and this rule is not affected by the fact that the
changed use may be advantageous to the public. This can only be •
done under the right of eminent domain. On the other hand, the
• municipality cannot impose a more limited and restricted use than
the dedication warrants.
This rule of law has been consistently upheld not only in Minnesota, but in other states as well.
In Carstens v City of Wood River 163 N.E. 816 (Ill. 1928), the court held that the defendant
municipality, to which the land had been conveyed for park purposes, could not appropriate the
major portion thereof for a swimming pool, to which admission was charged, and for a pavilion,
with other surface area devoted to concessions and parking space.
In City_ of Fort Worth v. Burnett 114 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. 1938), Burnett and others brought a suit
against the City of Fort Worth and others to enjoin the defendants from using property given to
the City of Fort Worth for use as a public park, for the erection of a library building. The court
stated that:
It is established by the authorities that, where property is
appropriated to public use by common law dedication of the
owner, the municipality within whose borders the premises are
situated takes it, as trustee for the public, or for the special uses
designated by the dedicator. And if the owner of the private
property offers to donate it to public for purposes of a park, the
offer is accepted and the property devoted to such use, the use
cannot be changed and the property applied to some other use
inconsistent with the dedication, except perhaps in the exercise of
the right of eminent domain. Whether buildings may be erected in
public parks, squares, or commons depends, apparently, on the
purpose of the dedication of the land. No servitude inconsistent
with the purpose which may reasonably be presumed to have been
intended by the dedication may be imposed on such property. If
the land is dedicated generally for use as a park, it is considered by
most courts that the erection of buildings thereon is inconsistent
with the purpose of the dedication; and the policy of many states
has been to add the common law inviolability of parks expressed
prohibition against encroachment by buildings, highways, steam or
street railways. The fact that the use is a public one does not
change the rule, for the use must be the one for which the land has
been dedicated.
Id. at 222_223.
Minnesota law addresses the issues of dedication, use and intent relating to the platting and
donation of land. Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01 states in part:
• Plats of land may be made in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter, and, when so made and recorded, every donation to
the public or any person or corporation noted thereon shall operate
to convey the fee of all land so donated, for the uses and purposes
named or intended ... Land donated for any public use in any
municipality shall be held in the corporate name i trust for the
17urnose set forth or intended. (Emphasis added.)
Further, it is clear that lot purchasers have a right to rely on a final and recorded plat as to the
location of park land. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated:
We have held that one purchasing a lot within a plat may rely upon
the dedication of streets, alleys shown therein, and possess the
right to use the same. [citations omitted] Certainly the same right
would extend to the use of areas dedicated for park purposes.
Etzler v. Mondale 123 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn. 1963). See Allen v Village of Savage 112
N. W.2d 807 (Minn. 196 1) (suit brought to enjoin village from using park land for municipal
liquor store); J n Wri and Assocs Inc. v City of Red Win-9 106 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1960)
(action against city to enjoin the confirmation or renewal of a lease of city owned property);
Headlev V. itv of Nort hf—ld 35 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1949) (action to enjoin city from
consummating plans to convert public square into high school athletic field and playground);
Citv of Z mhro a v Strafford W F�niaration n , 290 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1980) (action to
enjoin city from selling public square property).
CONCLUSION
Land dedicated for park use must be used for park purposes only. Lot purchasers in a
subdivision are entitled to rely on the designation of a park on a plat. Even if the deed from the
developer to the City does not specifically limit use of the land as a park, such restriction is
created by law.
0138089.01
•
4.
0 0
Cifizen Evalualiun Survey - Results
rlpproxielalely 400 residents responded to II►e Shorewood Service
Evaluation 011eslionnaire. The resells have been tabulated below.
I. Satisfaction wilh City services:
Physical condition of lily slicel
Physical condition of sheets in general
Cleanliness of sireels
Amount of street lighting
Number of (ices aluog City sleets
Level of park maintenance
Condiliun of the hiking /biking trail
Condition of park playground equipment
Amount of recreation equipment in parks
Televising of City Council meetings
Feeling of safety in my neighborhood
as sf vILt5hchm
N ut ski51
239
63.9 %n
135
36. I °l,
281
74.9 %n
94
25.1
328
87.5 %n
47
12.5 %,
240
64.9%
130
3 5. 1 %,
308
85.1 1 yf ,
54
14.9 %n
249
92.9 %,
19
7.1
222
93.7%
15
6.3%
188
92.6%n
15
7.4%,
182
89.2%n
22
10.8 %n
132
92.3 %,
11
7.7 %,
344
91.0%,
34
9.O'k
2. I lelpfolness of City Personnel if' contact was made in last twelve
months:
A. Cily Olftce Personnel
II. Cily Assessor
C. Inspeclion Service Personnel
I t. Police Personnel
?. Bile Personnel
F. Politic Works Personnel
( i. Water Iltility Personnel
It, Animal C'onnol Personnel
�Wisils:st.liesisls.n
__- Il�
204
86.40A,
32
13.6 %,
78
70.9 %,
32
29.1%
88
75.9 %,
28
24.1 %,
148
91.9 %,
13
8. 1 %,
60
98.4%
1
1.6%
68
82.9 %n
14
17.1
30
88.2 %)
4
11.8 10 / ,
33
63.5 %,
19
36.5 %n
OI' the residents responding that are currently served by City Water:
Satisfied Residents Not Satisfied
Water pressure 121 91.7% I1 8.3
Water duality 94 71.2% 38 28.8%
Maintenance crew response 17 100.0 % 0 .0%
• r.
t
4. Shorewood residents that have had personal experience with the
services listed below responded as follows:
11 -4 Dire Dept inspection /fire
preventiotl program
Satisfls•� l3�sislsuls_-----
N�
A - 1
Soulh Lake Police, overall service
162
91.5 %
15
8.5
A -2
Police response little to my call
122
95.3 %,
6
4.V
A -3
Police courtesy /professionalism
172
95.0 %,
9
5.0
A -4
Police crime prevention programs
63
92.6 %n
5
7.4
A -5
Police haffic enforcement
109
72.2 %x,
42
27.8`%
II- I
Fire Dept overall service
59
100.0 %,
0
.(1 %,
13 -2
Dire Dept response lime to illy call
39
97.5%
1
2.5 %.
II -3
fire Dept courtesy /professionalism
61
98.4 %
1
1.6 %.
11 -4 Dire Dept inspection /fire
95.0%
preventiotl program
38
C -I
Aninnal control overall service
33
C -2
Animal control response lime to my call
19
C-3
Animal control courtesy / professionalism
37
D I
City Adminisirauor & Clerks oveoill service
189
D -2
Administralive courtesy /prufessiotlalistn
174
F -I
Building inspection overall service
94
1
Illdg inspection courtesy /professionalism
99
F -I
Cily Assessor overall service
73
F -2
City Assessor cotutesy /professionalism
78
0 -1
Planning Dept overall service
52
(1 -2
Planning Dept courtesy /professionalism
52
11 -1
Finance Dept overall service
15
11 -2
Finance Dept courtesy /professionalism
13
I.
Maintenance of my street
226
J.
Snow removal
327
K.
Recycling pickup program
325
95.0%
2
5.0 %n
53.2 %,
29
46.8 'Yo
50.0 %,
19
511.0%
7 7. 1 %,
1 1
22.9 %
87.1 %
28
12.9 %
87.4
25
12.6 %
76.4 %,
29
23.6%x
80.5 %,
24
19.5 %
68.9 %,
33
31 . I %,
75.7 %n
25
24.3 %
68.4 %,
24
31.6 %n
70.3%,
22
29.7
88.2 r,
2
11 .8 %,
81.3%
3
18.8 %,
67.7 %r,
1011
32.3 %
94.2 %
20
5.8 %
90.5%,
34
9.5 %
6. 268 survey respondents noted using; one or a combination of the
following pa► in the past twelve months. The percentage of
respondents satisfied with the park they used is listed below:
a)
35 %n
Freeman
b)
19%
Badger
c)
20 %,
Catlicart
(1) 18 0 /1) Manor
e) 19 %n Silverwood
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
• JULY 199
SURVEY EVALUATION COMMENTS
PARKS
Three Year Statistics of % Satisfied
Written Comments
1
Parks
2
3
Playground equipmenc at Badger is very poor.
Some of the playgrounds don't have much for toddlers Manitou or example has
4
nothing really my 2 yr old can climb!
Is there a way to add a bike path along ✓fill Street between John e Baptist Church
1993
1994
1995
Level of park maintenance
Condition of trails
7
8
91.3%
86.4%
39.6%
36.3%
92.9%
93.7%
Condition of playground equipment
Amount of recreation equipment
children. no walking path - nothing.
81.5%
75.0%
83. - %a
92.6%
39 .2%
Written Comments
1
No bike trail an Covington to Silverwood .
2
3
Playground equipmenc at Badger is very poor.
Some of the playgrounds don't have much for toddlers Manitou or example has
4
nothing really my 2 yr old can climb!
Is there a way to add a bike path along ✓fill Street between John e Baptist Church
• 5
and the 5 way intersection leading to Excelsior.?
When will new playground behind Lake Lucv Rd be complete"
6
1 F -I Parks. None available on Enchanted Island.
7
8
6 Parks. None available on Island.
We live on Enchanted Island where the Ciry of Shorewood collects our taxes and
provides us with minimal police and fire services. �, o park/playground for our
children. no walking path - nothing.
9
10
SB Complaints. Skating rinks not open.
Park in Shady Hills not maintained at all. This land was purchased by Shady Hills
residents and donated as park to city.
11
We use Silverwood Park and it is very near but the big sliding boards are
injuries. Too sharp of
dangerously fast and the bolts on the sides have caused some
12
bolts.
I hope the warming house comes back and skating is available this winter at
Cathcart Park. She would like to have feedback 474 -8848
n
LJ
„
Parks and Recreatiol
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
..I..........
Condition of
playground
equipment
Amount of
recreation
equipment
■ 1993
O 1994
1171995
Level of park Condition of
maintenance (rails