Loading...
101398 PK MINCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Puzak called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Puzak; Commissioners Dallman, Arnst, Themig and Bensman; Administrator Jim Hurm Absent: Commissioners Colopoulos and Cochran; Council Liaison Roger Champa Also present: Director of Public Works Larry Brown and Park Planner Mark Koegler B. Review Agenda There were no additions or deletions. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 8, 1998 Commissioner Arnst made the following corrections: Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 3: Delete the sentence, "The plan, however is for that purchase agreement to be canceled." Page 3, Paragraph 5, Line 4: change "could make it a well rounded acquisition" to "it could be a well rounded acquisition." Then add: "The Park Commission has a guarded, but general interest in pursuing this purchase ". Bensman moved, Arnst seconded, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed 5/0. B. Joint Meeting With City Council and Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 21, 1998 Dallman moved, Arnst seconded, to accept the minutes as presented. The motion passed 4/0 with Bensman abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 2 There were no matters from the floor Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 3 4. REPORTS A. Report on Youth Coalition Meetings Chair Puzak reported on the progress to date. There is continued support for a skate park from the Cities of Tonka Bay and Shorewood. The City of Excelsior has not been represented at meetings or voted for support, but a spokesperson has indicated that Excelsior does support the idea. The City of Tonka Bay appears to be interested in hosting a site for a skate park at Manitou Park. (Shorewood and Tonka Bay would not proceed without the support of Excelsior.) The committee is now looking for a project manager. One has been suggested who has experience and knowledge fitting the position, and will soon be approached. Data has been collected and the next step is to build a concept design and business plan. Chair Puzak described some options being considered and reported that steady progress is being made. Commissioner Arnst expressed hope that the process doesn't get bogged down in politics and bureaucracy and that things can continue to move. Chair Puzak noted that the next meeting is set for Thursday, October 22, noting that church representation has dropped possibly due to the Wednesday scheduling. B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting Commissioner Dallman reported that the Park Foundation discussed the concession building for Freeman Park and the next step of proceeding with fund raising efforts. There is general support for the idea, but Commissioner Dallman reports that some organizations still see it as a City project and are not leaping to volunteer. A subcommittee is being established to investigate a business plan. While a majority of Foundation representatives are excited about the possibility of a concession stand and rest rooms, there is still questioning of funding and personnel to operate the facility. Commissioner Dallman added that the Chaska Building Center would provide plans free of charge if materials are purchased from them. The Foundation is also considering creating a brochure to go to the community for support of the idea. The Park Foundation also discussed the potential acquisition of the Wagner property adjacent to Freeman Park. They are excited about the idea to add to the parking space and to possibly create more field space. The Foundation recommends that the property be purchased for usable, active park land rather than as a buffer or for development or resale. Their suggestion for funding was to reallocate the $100,000 for a concession stand to be used toward the purchase because this is a limited opportunity. There was further discussion about the role of the Park Foundation and their priorities. Commissioner Dallman stated that additional land is always a big thing to sports organizations. Commissioner Arnst reminded everyone that the results of the recent park survey show that residents rated additional ballfields as a very low priority. Chair Puzak concluded that the Park Commission is responsible to get input from many sources and this is one more piece to add to the body of knowledge. Administrator Hurm added that what the City Council is interested in knowing is whether Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 4 the sports organizations themselves would consider purchasing the land and it seems from this discussion that they would not. Commissioner Dallman agreed that if asked, each of them would likely decline. C. Operating Budget Process Update Administrator Hurm reported that there was one change from what the Park Commission recommended to the City Council with one exception. With the levy limit, there was a need to cut back in each of the budgets. It was recommended that the $10,000 not be transferred to the Park Capital Fund from the General Fund for 1998 only, but will be added for 1999 and each year thereafter. It was clarified that this action was taken only for the purpose of balancing the 1998 General Budget. Commissioner Amst asked how that affects ability to do anything planned for next year. Administrator Hurm explained that it does not affect the ability to handle maintenance needs. The bottom line is that it is $10,000 less in the Park Capital Improvement funds for future projects. 5. UPDATE ON PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY TO ACQUIRE THE WAGNER PROPERTY NEAR FREEMAN PARK Administrator Hurm stated that this is still an active issue. One matter they have addressed is whether the City would be reimbursed for expenses to explore the purchase if the property ends up being sold to another party. The Wagner's attorney indicated that they would not cover such expenses. Public input will be heard at the next Council meeting. Chair Puzak asked if a representative from the Park Commission should be there and if they have an official position. At the last meeting, the Park Commission had established that there was a guarded but general interest. Commissioner Themig said that the Commission should be prepared with some kind of recommendation, either for or against. Chair Puzak asked if there should be a motion read, stating a recommendation. Commissioner Themig agreed that they should do something official. So far there are only minutes of a discussion, but no motion on the matter. Chair Puzak asked for discussion and action. Commissioner Themig named three items that have so far been identified by the Park Commission: There are funds that have been allocated for a structure in the park that could potentially be used toward the purchase of land. A public survey shows that residents are generally not interested in the acquiring of additional land for parks. There is a need for space to resolve some design issues with Freeman Park. Chair Puzak agreed that there is consensus on those points. Commissioner Bensman noted that a motion to acquire the land doesn't automatically mean that it is for the purpose of ballfields. Chair Puzak clarified that a motion would use the term "park land" and not designate a purpose. Commissioner Amst expressed that there are issues still in the way, such as the existing purchase agreement. Commissioner Dallman said that they can still make a recommendation and if it becomes unavailable then the City would be unable buy it. Secondly, Commissioner Amst asked about funding the purchase. Chair Puzak explained that the Park Commission's role is not to decide about funding, Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 5 but to express their recommendation to the Council who then makes the final decision. Commissioner Themig recommended three steps for the Park Commission to take. First answer the question, "As the Park Commission, do we support the acquiring of additional land for park land ?" If we support that decision, then go on to the next step. How do we suggest that it be funded? There are funds that have been allocated for development in the park that could possibly be reallocated. The City will want to look at that and the Park Commission should have some idea of whether we support the idea. Third is what the property will be used for. He added that the first question has to be answered before considering the other two. Commissioner Bensman said that the Council is only looking to the Park Commission for an answer to the first question at this point. While the other two questions are valid, we should not get into the funding or usage issues. All they want from the Park Commission is to say whether or not we approve the purchase. Chair Puzak asked for a motion, second and discussion with possible amendments. Dallman moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City that it acquire the Wagner property for park land. Bensman seconded the motion. Commissioner Themig suggested a change of the word "acquire" to "pursue." He then reversed that suggestion to let the motion stand. Commissioner Arnst asked Commissioner Bensman why she recommended that usage not be addressed. Commissioner Bensman explained that if the property is acquired for park land, her hope is that the City would come back to the Park Commission and ask how it should be used before making a conclusion. Chair Puzak interjected that there is a documented need for 30 to 50 feet for a buffer for safety plus an indication from the survey that there is interest in more green space. Chair Puzak proposed an amendment to the motion that the City acquire the land, a portion of which to be used for a buffer for foul ball issue on field #2 and the pedestrian safety issue between the roadway and the ball fields and that the remainder of the land be looked at as open space. There was further discussion about whether there is a benefit or problem with stipulating use. It was agreed that by designating the purchase for park land, the specific use would not have to be identified at this time. There was no second to the amendment of the motion. Chair Puzak asked if there was need for further discussion before putting the original motion to a vote. Commissioner Themig asked for further input. He pointed out that the recent survey indicates that 87 percent of the respondents said that the City has sufficient park land to meet the needs of their household. If the support is coming from sports organizations, but not the community this needs to be looked at. Chair Puzak asked if this motion is different from the recommendation of the Park Commission from its last meeting. Administrator Hurm suggested that the motion could be a two - tiered suggestion that the Park Commission has a strong interest in the first 50 feet of the property and a moderate interest in the remaining 150 feet. Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 6 Chair Puzak clarified last month's recommendation as 30 to 50 feet for park land and the rest could be used or sold for development. Commissioner Themig said that this was only mentioned at the meeting and that he did not support the idea. Others agreed that they considered this to be only a suggestion. Commissioner Dallman said that the Park Foundation did not feel that the partial purchase would be worthwhile. Commissioner Amst noted that the reminder of survey results is a good thing to keep in mind as this is considered. There was further discussion about the issue of land acquisition in general. Commissioner Themig added that the land is nice, but may not be worth $237,000 to the City. Commissioner Dallman agreed that it is expensive, but the fact that it is adjacent to an existing park is what makes valuable to the City. The timing of its availability and the price are not our choice, but this may be the last opportunity to acquire it. Chair Puzak asked to clarify the opinions of each Commissioner. Commissioner Themig asked Commissioner Amst for her opinion. Commissioner Amst replied that she has a lot of mental red flags and she is very reserved about it. She mentioned the question of why this particular land and whether there is even a need for more land in the eyes of the community. She likes the idea of a 30 foot buffer, but does not think it is doable. Commissioner Themig pointed out that the City's legal counsel recommends that the City not get involved in redevelopment of the land. He asked how to get more input from the community for our recommendation. Commissioner Dallman said that the public will give input at the City Council meeting. The role of the Park Commission here is to give the opinion of itself and the park system. Commissioner Themig asked if this means that the Park Commission focus is not to represent the public directly. Chair Puzak clarified that, yes they are speaking as the Park Commission. This does not mean that decisions are not made in a vacuum. He added that at this point, data has been collected and considered and should now be formulated into a recommendation from the Park Commission to pass on to Council. Chair Puzak said that the Park Commission has a responsibility to formulate a recommendation and that this is the best time since the Council will meet to discuss this before there is another Park Commission meeting. He is comfortable with a limited recommendation that we have a documented, historical need for 30 to 50 feet for safety concerns. We have no other need so we should not create one. Commissioner Dallman noted that the Park Foundation and park users have expressed a need for the additional space. Commissioner Themig asked if a recommendation could be offered on the three levels he suggested earlier; Should the City acquire the land? What are possibilities for funding (potential funds from Capital Improvement Program)? And third, we have a need expressed by the sports organizations. Chair Puzak suggested a two step recommendation of the need for 30 to 50 feet plus the fact that the Park Foundation has requested active park land. Commissioner Themig brought up the issue of the survey results which show very little interest in additional park land. Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 7 Chair Puzak asked that a conclusion be reached and that the standing motion be reread. Commissioner Arnst commented that in view of the future park budget which shows park dollars dwindling, the inevitable costs of park development and maintenance of more land should also be considered. A vote was taken on the motion. The motion failed 2/2 with Commissioners Bensman and Arnst opposed and Themig abstaining. There was discussion about the message that a failed motion will bring to Council. Commissioner Themig pointed out that there is some merit to indicating an interest in the property based on the safety needs for 30 to 50 feet. Chair Puzak asked for a new motion to that effect. Commissioner Themig moved that the Park Commission recommend to Council acquisition of approximately fifty feet of the property to resolve ongoing safety issues associated with the existing ballfields. Chair Puzak seconded for the purpose of discussion. Commissioner Dallman stated that this motion recommends something that in likelihood the Council cannot do because the entire property is to be sold as a whole. Commissioner Themig said that it does recognize that there could be other uses for the remainder of the land. There was discussion about possible rewording of the motion. Commissioner Themig withdrew the standing motion. Themig moved that the Park Commission recommend to Council that the City acquire the Wagner property and retain the west fifty feet adjacent to Freeman Park. There was no further discussion and a vote was taken. The motion failed 2/3 with Arnst, Bensman and Dallman opposed. It was agreed to postpone agenda item #6 until after the report of Mark Koegler. 7. TRAIL PROCESS A. Review of Recommended Time Line Park Planner Mark Koegler explained a draft of a timeline identifying a month when each of the ten steps could be taken given seasonal limitations, etc. The first step of data gathering has been done by the Citizen Review Group to give direction on the kinds of things that specifically need to be looked as far as a trail process. Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 8 The schedule can be preliminary in nature, but this is generally what will need to be accomplished so that by May the Park Commission will be in a position to identify something that can be in the ground by next construction season. Hurm added that a meeting is included in the outline for November 24 which would allow City Planner, Brad Nielsen to participate in discussion. It was agreed to add a second meeting to November at that time. B. Step 1- Consider Accepting Statement of Commitment The recommended Statement of Commitment was approved by the City Council on September 28, 1998 and is now put before the Park Commission for approval. It is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Commissioner Bensman moved and Commissioner Arnst seconded that the Park Commission accept the Recommended Statement of Commitment. It was noted that the word "were" in the last line should be corrected to "where." The motion passed 510. C. Step 2 - Data Gathering Discussion (Citizens Review Group Notes, 7- 23-98, page 1) Koegler explained that this information is presented to the Park Commission for discussion and to see if there is anything above and beyond those points which should also be considered. He then presented a map which highlights potential trail segments that have been identified by documented requests, petitions and correspondence from the school district (relating to transportation issues and safety concerns). Koegler added that this is a common approach among other school districts in the Twin Cities area. The map is presented as a "first cut' to show just the places where people have expressed specific interest for a trail. There is still a need to gather trail plans from neighboring cities to see possible links. Commissioner Themig agreed that it would be important to look at that piece. Administrator Hurm stated that this draft map of 40 or 50 potential trails needs to be trimmed down to a number of trails that will actually be considered. Commissioner Themig added that other people such as staff and trail planning experts need to help with that process and asked about the criteria that would be used to accomplish it. Administrator Hurm said that the plan is to get input first from the Park Commission. Koegler further explained the process that would follow that input phase. Commissioner Themig asked how the Commission is going to narrow these 40 or so trails down to 10 or 5. Chair Puzak agreed that this was a fundamental point, bringing up the survey results that support a network of trails. He questioned how all these highlighted segments would fulfill the interest in a "city -wide connected trail system" as stated in the survey. He said that this would become part of the criteria. Koegler responded that there is still room to have one of the goals be a city -wide trail system. Once the concept is formulated, there will be public input through open forums, meetings, etc. The intent is to listen to those folks, start with one segment that works and show the community in order to encourage another segment. The door has not been closed on what kind of system this will be. Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 9 Koegler suggested the need for a work session to deal with this outside of a normal meeting agenda. Administrator Hurm reiterated that this is a process and not an established plan. Commissioner Arnst said that she believes that if this is approached in a positive and flexible way, and there is a vision, that the City can do this. She encouraged the Commission to think not of obstacles, but in terms of success. The key is that we are open minded and willing to make it a cooperative thing. Commissioner Themig agreed and asked about the next step. Administrator Hurm said that the Commission must now decide if there are factors to add to the evaluation form and then who will walk the potential trails. He suggested some possibilities. Chair Puzak proposed that two data points be added to the map. The first is "points of interest' and the missing geography, such as the City of Excelsior which is situated in the middle. This would show links to other systems. Commissioner Themig stated that this is already naming a goal that has not been identified by the group. There is strong interest in linking, but it has not yet been established as a goal. Chair Puzak responded that both points have been verified through the survey. Commissioner Arnst agreed that seeing the big picture would help. Koegler explained that it is clearly the intent to look at adjacent cities. Shorewood was mapped in this way on their electronic files. Other cities will be included for the bigger picture. Koegler clarified that the intent for this meeting was not to come to a conclusion, but to present information to think about. All ideas that have been considered in the past as well as the current data will be looked at during a future meeting. We need to be open about how that will all come together. Commissioner Themig said that he would prefer to work with a blank map to avoid bias. Commissioner Bensman stated that it is also good to have this information. Chair Puzak asked for overlays of the map showing various phases. Koegler said that this is what he has in mind. Administrator Hurm asked about the viability of the suggested time frame for accomplishing the outlined goals. It was agreed to stay with the recommended timeline. There will be a work session on November 24. 6. INQUIRIES A. Vine Hill Road Trail - North of Covington (Request of Corine Kubal) This request for a trail segment is already marked on the potential trail map. B. Shoreline Message About Crescent Beach Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 10 A caller has requested that the milfoil be cleared from the beach each day and that a covered trash barrel be added because of bees. Public Works Director Larry Brown reported that the milfoil is cleared daily. Commissioner Themig asked if the lifeguards could help pick it up and put it in a barrel. Public Works Director Brown said that there is too great a quantity to do that. This matter will be left to the judgment of the Public Works department. Public Works Director Brown will also look into the covered trash can idea. C. Recycling at the Parks (Further Consideration) Chair Puzak reviewed the history of this issue. The cost is $160 per month. There was discussion about possible arrangements and months of service. Public Works Director Brown noted that the money would probably have to come from the Operating Budget. Commissioner Themig stated that this matter was already resolved at an earlier meeting. Commissioner Bensman thought that the trash cans with lids would still be a good idea at all parks because of esthetics and the insect problems. Commissioner Amst suggested to defer the recycling issue for now and pursue the lidded trash cans. She also suggested that a letter be sent to the person who asked about the idea to let them know the outcome of this discussion. D. Golfing/Frisbee at Freeman (Further Consideration) This has previously been discussed, but there was no resolution. Administrator Hurm said that he spoke with the concerned resident this past week and she has not seen golfers lately. Chair Puzak noted that it was previously decided to invite individuals with suggestions to address the Park Commission at a meeting. If they do not attend the meeting then it was agreed to leave the matter alone. Commissioner Themig read the minutes of the July meeting where this matter was discussed. It will be left alone unless this comes back to the Commission in the future. Chair Puzak reviewed past discussion on the concept of developing Frisbee Golf in Freeman Park. The consensus was that it would not work and the idea was dropped. It was agreed that it should remain out of consideration. There was also a letter from Commissioner Colopoulos expressing his opposition to the idea of Frisbee Golf which he asked to have attached to these minutes. 8. CONSIDERATION OF A 1999 -2003 CIP A. Review Schedule Administrator Hurm explained the recommended Project Schedule and Funding Source Summary for parks through 2003 as presented in the meeting packets. This is based on a consensus of what the Park Commission had discussed. Under "Trails ", the only expense for 1999 is $6,000 for planning. He also noted that the transfer from a Capital Fund to the Public Facilities Fund be set at $15,000 for each year from 1999 to 2003. (This is a correction from what was on the information provided in the meeting packet.) The Project Schedule for Parks was then explained. Administrator Hurm asked if the Park Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 11 Commission would want to consider changing the timeline for a warming house at Silverwood Park. It was verified that this is a popular neighborhood park. Ideas were discussed. Administrator Hurm noted that parking is limited at Silverwood Park. Administrator Hurm was directed to move $32,000 to the year 2000 for the warming house on the Project Schedule to identify it as a higher priority. B. Concept of Magic Square This item is tabled until the next meeting. 9. CONSIDER LIAISON FOR LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Administrator Hurm said that only a few committee meetings remain and they are writing their report. It is up to the Park Commission to decide if they want a representative to attend. Commissioner Themig asked if it would be intrusive to their efforts to add a liaison at this point. Administrator Hurm said that it would not. Chair Puzak noted that it would be good to get a summary by attending these last meetings and then carry that body of knowledge. Commissioner Themig is willing to attend the meetings as liaison. Commissioner Arnst moved, Puzak seconded, that Commissioner Themig become the Park Commission liaison to the Ad Hoc Land Use Committee. Motion passed 510. 10. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Themig noted that his work on the park brochure will now be delayed. He is still very interested in working on it. 11. NEW BUSINESS Administrator Hurm asked if there was still interest in a second October meeting on the 27 Commissioner Themig noted that the policy for athletic associations is still hanging out there. There is also the topic of the Wagner property which may require additional input from the Park Commission. It was agreed that the November meeting agenda will allow 30 minutes for developing a policy for athletic association guidelines. There should not be a need to discuss trail plans at that meeting since there is a work session set for November 24. Public Works Director Brown reported that aerial typography is now available which may interest the Park Commission for field configuration, etc.. 12. ADJOURNMENT Park Commission Minutes October 13, 1998 Page 12 Bensman moved, Themig seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 510. The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary t • 0 STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT The Shorewood City Council and Park Commission recognize that residents have a substantial interest in establishing a trail system in the community. As a result, both groups are committed to establishing and carrying out an on -going process that with continuing public involvement, will identify opportunities and address concerns resulting in the construction of trails where deemed appropriate by the community. Reviewed and adopted by the City Council on September 28, 1998. Reviewed and adopted by the Park Commission on October 13, 1998. • Memo to: Park Commission cc: Jim Hurm Date: October 13, 1998 Subject: Frisbee Golf I apologize for missing another meeting tonight, but I will be tied up and probably won't make it. I did, however, want to make sure I shared my input regarding the above agenda item. I would ask that the message delivered here be submitted as an addendum to the meeting minutes in my name. The last time we discussed this issue was during our park tour of Freeman Park earlier this year. I came away from that meeting with the impression that some of the Commission's members found the idea of "expanding" the trail area to accommodate a Frisbee golf course an acceptable consideration worth pursuing. I am concerned that if such a plan were to be approved, it would mean removing a considerable number of trees and substantially altering what is now an arboretum -like trail system. I am opposed to such an idea for several reasons: ➢ There is insufficient interest in Frisbee golf to warrant destruction of a valued park asset. ➢ Conversely, the Freeman Park Trail System is one of our most valued and popular park assets (it ranked P in our recent survey at 66 %; behind playground equipment, 67 % and grassy areas which scored 69 %). ➢ Frisbee golf requires considerable space and infrastructure (18 "holes" each of which, by any standard one cares to use, strongly resemble garbage baskets). In addition to the above reasons, I can also offer a personal observation, based on an experience 1 had playing Frisbee golf myself. r I had the opportunity to go to an event sponsored by my company at a park in Bloomington that had a Frisbee golf built along its perimeter. 1 chose to try Frisbee golf with along with several of my associates. All of us were average Frisbee throwers and reasonably aware of the object of the game. Without going into too many details, we abandoned the game after six holes and decided instead to play volleyball. We found the game dull, and of little interest once we had played a few holes. For us, the novelty wore off very quickly. I would invite all members of the Commission to try playing the game before they favorably consider any proposal for constructing a Frisbee golf course in one of our parks. I was also surprised how much room the game required and how intrusive it was to other activities that were going on near by. After playing even a couple of holes it became apparent to me that we could not integrate a Frisbee golf course into our trail system at Freeman Park, without removing most, if not all, of the trees to make room. I would hope this would, by itself, be enough reason to abandon the idea. I also asked a resident that lived near the park in Bloomington what they thought of Frisbee golf. She told me that she had played only once herself, but that she rarely saw other people play, other than a few groups of teenagers who came by from time to time and "made a lot of noise ". She also commented that since the "holes" were distributed around the park perimeter, their resemblance to waste receptacles made them "garbage magnets" that had to be manually emptied. At one point earlier in the summer, things got so bad, park maintenance people put garbage bags in several of the "holes" that were positioned too near the picnic area. I could go on, but I think you get my point. 0 Bill Colopoulos