Loading...
112498 PK WS MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 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 Colopoulos, Bensman, Dallman, Arnst, Themig, and Cochran; Administrator Jim Hurm, City Planning Director Brad Nielsen, Park Planner Mark Koegler, Shorewood Resident, Steve Kircher B. Review Agenda There were no additions or deletions to the agenda. 2. TRAIL PROCESS A. Review Park/Trail Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Comprehensive Plan (Community Facilities and Transportation) Planning Director Brad Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission is working on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The next two sections they will study are “Community Facilities” and “Transportation,” both of which include reference to parks and trails. They are looking to the Park Commission for input and hope to elaborate on some goals. Planning Director Nielsen stated that the goal for transportation as stated in the Comprehensive Plan is simple: “The City shall provide and maintain a safe and efficient system of transportation, sensitive to the needs of residents and the environment of the community”. He noted that the bullet statements of Mr. Koegler’s memo of November 11, 1998 relate well to that goal, emphasizing the highest importance of safety as priority. Convenience, meeting the needs of residents, efficiency, etc. come after safety. Planning Director Nielsen explained that once goals and objectives are established, the policy statements follow. All together, the goals, objectives and policies within the Comprehensive Plan lay a foundation for taking a step back and saying why we are doing any particular project. That is why it is important that trails and parks be identified in the Comp Plan. Chair Puzak added that the Park Commission needs to give Planning Director Nielsen and the Planning Commission any feedback on goals or objectives which they want included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He suggested starting with the Mission Statement already established by the Park Commission and end with a goal, stated as an outcome. Commissioner Bensman suggested that Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 2 the first bulleted statement in Koegler’s memo could be used: “The Shorewood trail system will accommodate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorized modes of travel.” Planning Director Nielsen commented that the Comprehensive Plan keeps goals simple and more broad. Objectives then become more specific and the Policies tell how to get to the goal. He added that trails are a very important part of the transportation system. It was included under transportation, rather than recreation because it is very related to other parts of the system. Commissioner Colopoulos asked if it is appropriate to make trails one of the objectives of the overall transportation plan. Planning Director Nielsen replied yes. Chair Puzak read aloud the 1996 Mission Statement: The Shorewood Park Commission shall guide the development, implementation, and maintenance of Shorewood’s recreational system. The recreational system, consisting of parks and a multi-purpose trail network, shall provide the community and neighborhoods with safe, attractive and diverse recreational facilities and a designated trail system. Commissioner Themig asked if this discussion is an additional step beyond what was planned for this meeting. Chair Puzak suggested that the next thing to do is to identify evaluation factors by first reviewing the mission statement, which will then signal the Planning Commission as to what they should be helping the Park Commission drive towards. This will provide the anchor point as the Park Commission develops evaluation factors. Commissioner Bensman added that it also makes this work consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In looking at the mission statement, Chair Puzak noted key words: “Multi-purpose”, “Trail Network”, and “Shall provide the community and neighborhoods with safe, attractive and diverse recreational facilities.” Koegler pointed out that even if the City was not in the process of evaluating the Comprehensive Plan, we would still be having this discussion. The intent already was to discuss and define goals. He encouraged the Commission to decide on some ideas and concepts for Planning to look at and to then come back to the Park Commission with their recommendation. The question as we look at trails is: “What is the big picture?”. Planning Director Nielsen stated that in the objective section, the Park Commission will begin to qualify what they are going to do. It is a decision making process that starts out broad and gets specific with issues and problems as they come up. At this point, he is only looking for a consensus that, yes, it is a good idea to put an emphasis on trails in the overall plan. Commissioner Themig added that the trail process would have even more credibility when supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Puzak agreed that it would also align the individual parts of the larger organism (the City) if the goals of each are aligned, resulting in cohesive action. Chair Puzak added that as long as we agree that we want to do the same thing, regardless of who comes first, we can get to the “whats” and “hows” (objectives Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 3 and policies). Commissioner Arnst asked if it is safe to say that the first two “bullets” of Koegler’s November 18 memorandum are true for the Park Commission and pass those on to Brad Nielsen for a start. (Those points are: ? The Shorewood trail system will accommodate the safe movement of pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorzed modes of travel. ? Shorewood trails will provide connections to points of interest in and around the community and will be linked to trails provided by other local and regional jurisdictions. Planning Director Nielsen offered that staff could put these together and bring something back for evaluation by the Park Commission. Commissioner Bensman noted that the Comprehensive Plan is neither the Park nor Planning Commissions plan, but the City’s plan. Commissioner Themig asked if the option of linking trails under the Transportation category would possibly make funding available. Planning Director Nielsen said that the emphasis within the Comprehensive Plan has moved from parks to trails since the early 1980’s. Chair Puzak explained that the Park Commission does not need to create the wording. This can be the job of staff or the Planning Commission. As long as it incorporates the Park’s Mission Statement, it would embody the thinking of the group. Planning Commissioner Nielsen agreed with the importance of going back to the Mission Statement and cited the example of the proposal for a skateboard park, which is in line with the overall mission of the Park Commission. Commissioner Themig stated that the Park Commission has a responsibility to have more input. Planning Director Nielsen replied that they will, but it may be helpful to have a suggested draft outline to react to. He asked for feedback on statements offered in Koegler’s November 18 memo for a start. B. Develop Trail Site Evaluation Factors Park Planner Koegler explained that the intent is to use some criteria to evaluate trails. The seven Trail Evaluation Factors are suggested as this “yard stick” as potential trails are discussed in meetings and while out in the field. He asked if there are other ideas the Park Commissioners want to include. Commissioner Themig said it seems there is a step process. First, the potential trial segment needs to meet a certain level of criteria. Then go to the neighbors for input. And finally it arrives at the stage of design considerations and funding sources. Chair Puzak offered another way of tiering a decision, looking at core objectives, barriers (or hurdles) and then design through or around the barriers. Commissioner Colopoulos recommended that these steps be approached as opportunities, not barriers. Administrator Hurm suggested that the process would start with a large number of possible trails (30 to 40) and then use the criteria to get that down to a reasonable number of sites to actually walk (5 to 8). Those would then funnel down to a feasible amount to begin to build. Bensman offered the suggestion of still asking all of the questions posed in the Trail Evaluation Factors, but assigning Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 4 different weight or value to each factor. Chair Puzak expressed the idea of considering segments based on an eventual outcome of an interconnected system. Commissioner Bensman felt it is important to start with segments that people have already requested in order to get the process going. Commissioner Themig noted that those are two very different priorities. Commissioner Colopoulos said it is okay to have diverse emphasis, but we must consider one thing learned from the past. If a plan is so big that funding doesn’t work, it can get stuck and never move forward. Overall design does not equal overall implementation. Commissioner Dallman suggested having an overall system in mind, but get segments started first, based on: (1) Does the neighborhood want it? (2) Does it comply with goals? (3) Is the engineering possible? Commissioner Colopoulos pointed out that the Trail Evaluation Factors, as written leave room for details to be crafted to suit the needs of neighborhoods. Koegler said that it seems that all of the items are becoming intertwined. He reminded the Park Commission about the process which includes an expectation that when we get to that point, we will have a means to implement a system. We can expect to start the process with segments and it may be up to 15 years for overall success. Koegler reviewed the steps from deciding on a big picture to realistic implementation. Chair Puzak asked for input on which of the seven proposed evaluation factors is the most non- controversial. Commissioner Themig said that all are excellent. Chair Puzak raised a question with the fifth point which asks if the potential segment complies with goals and objectives. He is not clear on what those exactly are. He suggested two basic questions to consider: (1) How does it work for the neighborhood? and (2) How does it work for the community? He is concerned that the pieces do not look to the whole process if we decide segment by segment. Commissioner Bensman agreed that if the answer to question (1) is “No” then it would have to get to the level of what is best for the community. Chair Puzak invited the resident in attendance to state his thoughts. Steve Kircher introduced himself as a neighbor in the Virginia Highlands area. He started by saying that his neighborhood has a “sweet spot” for Smithtown Road because it has valid points all around. He thinks that the first consideration is safety above all else. His area has a lot of kids living where they have no safe way out of their neighborhoods by foot or bicycle. He also sees a trail system as a way to promote the concept of community within Shorewood. Chair Puzak suggested the concept of community as a possible objective. Commissioner Themig stated that the goal is to think in terms of the big picture. The process comes to the neighborhood level, but then how do we apply the evaluation factors and do that? There was more discussion about inter-connectivity, the process, goals, and other factors such as property values and execution of a plan. Commissioner Arnst stated that there are a lot of things we can’t know until we actually do it. Park Planner Koegler said that the process tells us where to start. We have answered the question, “Does Shorewood want trails?” with a yes. But we can’t know where to start until we know the Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 5 hoops to jump through. Chair Puzak summarized that this work session is only part of a long journey which started over a year ago. The journey is to build toward what the people want. The next step at this point is to mark and map potential segments for that system. C. Trail Concept Review Mr. Koegler showed one Shorewood map which was marked to indicate trail sites based on past suggestions. He then provided a “blank” Shorewood map with indications of adjacent cities’ trails (real and potential) and passed around various colored markers. Koegler reminded those present to consider what people have asked for (as indicated on the first map) and what the City had considered in their 1991 Trail Plan. His goal for this meeting is to begin to talk about where they currently think trails should be. Chair Puzak suggested comparing the 1991 plan to the current map and see if segments fit with points on the “blank” map of attractions and linking trails. Commissioner Bensman said that one value is connections to other trails and to school. Planning Director Nielsen pointed out that safety is a prime consideration, asking if a proposed trial segment gets kids off of busy streets. Commissioner Themig referred back to using the evaluation factors. The group identified collector streets (Smithtown, Eureka, Old Market Road, Cathcart, County Road 19, Minnetonka Blvd) and marked the busier roads. The LRT was also discussed. Chair Puzak offered an idea to create a trail segment on the south side of Smithtown, near the golf course in order to create a loop with the LRT. This is based on the frequent comment from residents that they want a trail, but no closer than 1 block from their property. He also mentioned the comment from a resident who wanted a trail away from traffic and lights for night time walks to view stars. After some brainstorming with markers and maps and further conversation, Chair Puzak summarized the discussion: 1.We have an idea of what the community wants. 2.There is some element of connectivity. 3.We have identified a “backbone” (LRT). 4.We have identified some points of interest. 5.A “Dark Starry Night” trail for western Shorewood has been considered. 6.The east side of Shorewood is more inclined to accept formal walking areas (sidewalks). 7.There has been no talk about trails for the Islands. Chair Puzak proposed a next step. He asked if the maps shown can be layered in transparencies for viewing various combinations of data. They could then go over every piece and assess each by asking the seven evaluation questions and narrow down to the top 5 areas with potential. Commissioner Themig asked if this should be done before they have even narrowed down the plan. Park Planner Koegler suggested a timeline to narrow down to a concept map which would go public possibly in Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 6 February 1999. He added that the site evaluations are not just for field review, but would also be used for assessment all the way through the process. There was further discussion as to the best approach, whether to proceed according to a larger goal - or toward specific requests and identified needs. The direction went from evaluating a specific segment to asking about the bigger picture. There was not a consensus about what should be accomplished nor what has been accomplished in this meeting. The discussion went from the concept level to specifics and back to goals. Chair Puzak proposed an action item of reviewing the survey data on connectivity. Commissioner Themig pointed out the need to establish goals and objectives. Park Planner Koegler will provide map overlays at the December 8 meeting. There was also discussion about working around obstacles and opposition. Administrator Hurm recommended that they not design around a problem until they know they have to. Park Planner Koegler said that the purpose of a demonstration approach in trail development is that if you can build successful segment and there is a positive response, you may no longer have some of the current problems with later development. The subject of dealing with easement problems was also discussed. Park Planner Koegler asked the Park Commission how he and staff can assist with preparation for the next meeting. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested that the Commission should make an objective pass at interpreting data. Commissioner Arnst expressed concern with getting bogged down in specifics. Commissioner Themig asked for a draft of a goal statement plus a list of specific objectives (such as safety, connectivity, “dark starry nights”, etc.). Chair Puzak pointed out two unresolved matters which have been revealed: (1) Connectivity and (2) Potential legal hurdles. There were various suggestions of possible trail segments that may have no hurdles. 3. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Park Commission Minutes November 10, 1998 Page 7 Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary