Loading...
120898 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 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 Bensman, Dallman, Arnst, Themig, and Cochran Absent: Commissioner Colopoulos; Council Liaison Roger Champa; Administrator Jim Hurm Also Present: Director of Public Works Larry Brown; Park Planner Mark Koegler (later arrival); Mayor-elect Woody Love; resident Jackie Colesworthy B. Review Agenda Commissioner Themig requested a discussion on the draft of the Park Use Policy for athletic associations, if time allows. The request was noted. Commissioner Bensman suggested that item #6 be held off since it has been the custom to wait until after the new City Council is in place and new Park Commissioners have been appointed before selecting officers and a liaison for the coming year. It was agreed that this item and item #7 will be considered at the January Park Commission meeting. Commissioner Themig noted that a resident who is present at the meeting may be interested in discussion about the trail planning and asked if that agenda item (#8) could be moved to an earlier point in the meeting. The resident was asked and replied that she did not mind if the time of that discussion was later in the evening. The change was not made. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Arnst moved, Dallman seconded, to accept the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5/0 with Bensman abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Resident Jackie Colesworthy (5480 Howards Point Road) explained that she was interested in trail Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 2 development and in viewing the process. She feels that the increase of traffic in her area is becoming a life and death matter and she would like to become involved and see what is being done to improve safety for pedestrians. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 3 4. REPORTS A. Report on Youth Coalition Meetings Administrator Hurm was not present to report on the recent activity of the Youth Coalition Committee. Chair Puzak did not have any further information to offer since his last report. B. Land Conservation Committee Commissioner Themig was not in attendance at the most recent Committee meeting. He said that their report is being finalized and a presentation will be made to the City Council at their December 14 meeting. In addition to identifying potential sites for land conservation, their job was to find methods for people to donate land or designate land as open space in ways that offer benefit to the land owner and community. Public Works Director Brown interjected that there is already a group of neighbors who are interested in pursuing one of the land conservation options. Commissioner Themig added that the Committee and staff intern have done a tremendous amount of work and a nice job. 5. DISCUSS LOCATION AND SIZING OF FREEMAN PARK PURPOSE BUILDING Commissioner Dallman reported that the City Council approved the Park Commission’s request to move $5,000 from the 1999 CIP to be used to develop plans for the multipurpose facility to be constructed at Freeman Park. An architect has sketched a concept floor plan for a 30’ X 96’ structure which includes rest rooms, storage area, warming house with an area set aside for concession purposes, and a picnic shelter. A site which was previously staked out at 30’ X 70’ was looked at again. Commissioner Dallman described that location and how the structure could be situated in relation to existing amenities and a possible future skate area to the north of the building. He added that the existing water irrigation equipment could be housed within the new structure. Director Brown distributed copies of the concept floor plan and displayed a copy on the overhead projector. He explained the different square footage figures for both inside space and outside dimensions and possible cost estimates. The cost for the last picnic shelter built by the City was $25 per square foot and the architect has estimated current costs at around $100 per square foot. Because this drawing had arrived just that day, Brown did not have time to research the cost figures. He also needs to look into utility information which will also be a factor in costs and plans. One possibility to minimize cost is to reduce the number of sinks and lavatories in each rest room by one. Brown explained that he is looking for feedback from the Park Commission about the desirable functions of a multi purpose building and reactions to the basic concept that has been presented. He added that the more windowed side of the building would face the skate area to provide visibility for the rink attendants. The size of the storage area could be reduced and the picnic shelter is open sided. Other comments were as follows: Bensman: Move the women’s rest room to the side of the building that is well-lit and has more activity Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 4 and exposure. Dallman: Replace one window on the “rink side” of the building with a windowed exit door. Brown: Agreed, adding that this could also create more wall space on the interior of the warming house and possibly allow flexibility on the position of a concession area. Arnst: Asked about the size of the existing shelter at Freeman. (It is also 30’ X 36’.) Themig: Our similar buildings (Ramsey County) have been running around $130 per sq. ft. Puzak: About 30% of this building is rest room area which is the more costly portion, especially with the possible use of stainless steel fixtures. Arnst: Could the two extra sinks and toilets be roughed in for future expansion to save money? Brown: The fixtures are not the big cost. The savings by excluding them would be in the utility work and smaller space required. The only time this could present a problem is during high level park use for tournaments, etc. and that can be resolved with portable rental units. Themig: This looks like a great start. One question is whether there will be excessive traffic to rest rooms through the shelter area during high use times. (Outside entrances would be an option.) Brown That is one reason that the concession window is on an exterior wall. Themig: The picnic shelter has revenue potential from reservations during special events. Dallman: Also with the possible operation of concessions by large groups using the facility. Themig: Has the architect addressed health code requirements? Brown: The biggest concern of the health department with the other concession structure seems to have been the raising of dust from nearby traffic. That matter might be a concern for this structure as well. Themig: How would this addition impact Public Works daily operations? Brown: Staff already cleans and checks warming houses daily during winter use. It could put a wrinkle in things as far as security issues when hours of use are not during staff hours. Themig: What is the next step? Brown: I would like to come back with a revised floor plan and more answers about utilities, etc. One thing to look at is how the sanitary sewer could possibly shortcut if easements were made available through private property. Themig: Will the rinks be lit at night during the winter months? And have we talked to affected neighbors? Brown: Yes, there will be lighting. Neighbors have not been contacted at this point about lighting. Arnst: Where did the plan for rinks come from? Brown: They are placed by the Master Plan which is in existence and we need to look to the future as we plan this stage. Puzak: The storage area seems spacious now and the thought to reduce the rest room utility makes sense. Regarding the once considered “ice sheet”, if we eventually need a mechanical area, would the space be too small? Brown: Such a future hockey skate area would be constructed further to the east and would have to stand on its own to accommodate equipment. Dallman: The hockey association’s proposal provided its own building for mechanicals and a zamboni. We had in fact, considered tapping into their structure for possible concessions and/or rest rooms. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 5 Puzak: The storage area should have a door to the exterior which could eliminate the door into the shelter area and create a spot for concessions. Brown: Then concessions would not have access for outside sales. Puzak: The rest rooms could have exterior doors only which would allow the concession area to be moved to the corner and then have that outside access. Brown: In winter then, the rest rooms would be accessible only from the outside which would not allow the attendant to easily monitor those areas. Puzak: I see the two primary uses of the structure to be (1) rest rooms and (2) concessions. Themig: It seems to me that rest rooms are first and the warming house area is second. I would like to see the concessions area protected. Dallman: I like the idea of keeping the storage area accessible to the inside for access to concession supplies. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 6 Bensman: Also, when the rink is open, there would be an attendant who could keep an eye on storage and concession areas. Brown: The size of these areas will depend on square footage cost. One thing noted from the Carver structure is that they did a good job of building it as vandal-resistant. Themig: Our (Ramsey) buildings are done with a center run area and it works out well. Puzak summarized that these are good thoughts and the next step is to get costs which may reveal some additional barriers. He thanked Brown and asked him to further research and come back with an idea similar to the one presented and discussed here. There was a request and brief discussion about a fireplace being included. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1999 PARK COMMISSION OFFICERS AND LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMISSION Arnst moved and Themig seconded to table agenda item #6 “Consideration of a Motion Making Recommendations For 1999 Park Commission Officers and Liaison to Planning Commission” until the January Park Commission meeting. Themig made a friendly amendment to include agenda item #7. Arnst accepted the amendment. Themig seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 7. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO COUNCIL Tabled until January meeting. There was a two minute break. 8. TRAIL REVIEW A. Develop Trail Site Evaluation Factors Park Planner Mark Koegler began by saying that the hope is to capitalize on what has been learned from the work of the last meeting. The packet includes a draft of the original Trail Evaluation Factors along with a reformatted version provided by Commissioner Dallman. This revised format is one that Koegler said could actually be used on site or in the process of considering possible trail segments. Themig said that he likes the new version and thinks it takes the Commission to the next step. Dallman explained his purpose in formatting each step. Puzak suggested that the two forms be dovetailed in some way. He would like to add the question of “Why?” to Item B which asks “Does it comply with goals and objectives?”. Bensman commented that she still sees this form as the basis for discussion about whether or not this is a viable roadway, and not as a test for scoring points. It should be a tool to guide discussion. Koegler agreed that it is not meant to be a definitive measuring stick, but serves as a guide for the process. Arnst asked if the two forms could just be melded together. Puzak asked Koegler to blend the two and mail or fax it to Commissioner Dallman and then bring it to the next meeting. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 7 Mayor-elect Love asked if there was a place to include the issue of safety as part of the evaluation factors. Bensman thought it would fit under Item A as an initial reason for its being considered (along with funding options and neighborhood acceptance). Themig agreed that it is a good point to bring up, but how do you evaluate safety since it is a relative issue? Cochran said it is an issue that will come up in talking with neighbors who will offer some insight. Puzak asked how to measure safety for each type of trail. Love explained that his question was not meant to analyze the definition of safety. He wanted to know how safety rates in consideration with other factors such as points of interest, etc. Dallman pointed out that if we establish safety as a goal, then it will be covered under item B - “Does it comply with goals and objectives?”. This indicates that goals and objectives should perhaps be addressed first. Puzak agreed that goals should certainly be reviewed at each instance. Brown said that hopefully we can some day get to making trails for recreational purposes with safety as a secondary factor. Koegler suggested that safety fits under items A and D. He stated that safety will be represented in the evaluation form in some fashion. B. Review of Goals, Objectives and Policies Koegler explained that this step is related to the Comprehensive Plan and yet the area of goals, objectives and policies would need to be formalized at this time, even if the City was not looking at the Comprehensive Plan right now. He added that the language of the last meeting (from the Mission Statement as well,) has been woven into the Goal as stated in his memo of December 2. The City should establish an interconnected system of trails to enhance Shorewood’s sense of community by accommodating the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized modes of travel. Puzak noted that the final statement of a goal is one that the Park Commission will own and then ask the Planning Commission to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan and eventually be adopted by the City Council as a direction for the City. This should be understood as we evaluate the goal statement. Arnst commented that this goal as stated was discussed by the Park Commission and agreed upon some months ago and it is still fine with her. Themig recommended that the word “should” be changed to “shall” or “will.” Puzak agreed and Koegler said it would be consistent with language used in other goal statements. Cochran asked if the matter of safety should be augmented by moving it to the front of the statement. Themig said that while it is important to include safety as part of the goal, he had concern that this would take away from the focus of creating, first of all, a system. Puzak said that he was also gun shy about putting a strong emphasis on the word “safe.” Cochran agree, noting that the flip side would be that an emphasis on “safe” could create an illusion of safety which has been a negative in the past. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 8 Puzak also cautioned about getting bogged down with just one aspect of trails. Trails are to be a community asset, used by lots of folks for assorted reasons. Dallman suggested that the original goal from the Mission Statement could be the trail system goal as well. Arnst said that part of what we want to accomplish also is a sense of community. Themig noted that the goal talks about development of trails and asked if it considers long term maintenance. Koegler said that aspect would fit under policy statements and the goal should be more broad based. Bensman felt that it makes sense to make a strong statement about what we want to do and that a good job had been done on the policy statements. Themig asked if the word “interconnected” could be eliminated from the goals statement. Puzak added that, at some point there will clearly be a need to build a segment that does not connect to others. Also he wouldn’t want interconnection to become a limiting factor. Bensman liked the idea of at least starting with a vision that trails will be interconnected. Koegler suggested going through the Objectives and Policies sections before taking final action on any of the three areas. Themig suggested incorporating safety into the objectives. Arnst reminded the group that this is a living document, which allows room for future re-evaluation of any given statement. Bensman agreed that there is flexibility in the process and no need to be afraid of the final document. Puzak added that he would also like to see safety included in the objectives. Koegler said this can be accommodated and Puzak said to go ahead and work safety into the objectives. The policy statements were then discussed. Arnst asked if they are in priority or planned order. Koegler said they were random, but should have some sequence. He added that, although they are equally weighted, the reader tends to put more emphasis on those at the beginning. Themig asked if the words “business persons” should be changed to “businesses” in the second statement. Koegler explained the distinction and left the statement as is. Puzak said that he sees elements that were key from the beginning such as: design, safety, funding and community involved, and asked if there were other points to be added. Arnst suggested a re-ordering of the eight policies so they have better flow. Bensman asked about the reference to grant funds, saying that it sounds as if that is the only funding source because of its special mention. She suggested including statements that the City will continue to pursue other funding sources and that the source and strings attached will fit with local needs. Puzak suggested adding “Shorewood will explore all funding options, including funding grants” to the existing statement. He then went back to Commissioner Arnst’s suggestion of reorganizing the statements and asked if she was trying to prioritize or to group statements. She replied that she wanted to group them so there is better flow of thoughts, and then detailed the sequence she would recommend. Puzak asked Koegler to look at that suggestion if the statements are to be retyped anyway. The point of this is just to make sense of the statements, not to assign a pecking order. Puzak asked if the concept of multi purpose could be added to the design or safety list. Or possibly should it be added as a policy? Koegler stated Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 9 that it is already included in the goal statement. Puzak invited comments from the floor. Resident Jackie Colesworthy replied by commending the Park Commission for “going through this painful process” and complimented them for building a good foundation. She anticipates there will be residents who would pick at the goals, policies, etc., but still thinks it is excellent and complete as is. She encouraged the Commission to move ahead with confidence. Mayor-elect Love also spoke from the floor. He thanked the Commission for indulging his presence and expressed appreciation for their work. He offered a suggestion for the final policy statement which references Lake Minnetonka. While it is a great resource, Mr. Love pointed out that it is certainly not the only natural resource worthy of being a destination. The policy should also allow for trails which direct people to some of the other natural areas in Shorewood and beyond. Themig agreed that it is good to make that policy more generic by perhaps adding “other significant natural resources” to the statement. Dallman agreed. There was further discussion about including mention of access to other environmental features. Koegler explained that the reference to Lake Minnetonka was included partially to check reaction to it and see where it would fit with Shorewood’s trail concept. He agreed that other natural features would be included. Dallman stated that the first objective is to connect to other commentates. Puzak said that the objective says we want to inter-link the City, which is a strong driver. The policy about Lake Minnetonka is subordinate. Themig suggested removing the words, “Lake Minnetonka” from the policy statement to soften it. There was consensus to leave these comments and the draft with Mr. Koegler to work on and bring back for approval. He will include a reworded version in the packet for the next meeting. Puzak thanked the visitors who attended the meeting for their input. Themig asked about future plans to involve residents in the process. Puzak said this group should continue its work, noting that the process says Park Commissioners are facilitators of a community process. Every time we get to a stage of trail walks, the community will surely be included. Themig asked those present if that is the level of involvement they would be interested in. Ms. Colesworthy said yes, on a neighborhood level. She added that there are certainly enough people with opinions to make it work for each neighborhood segment. It is a hot topic in Shorewood. Arnst asked about the status of the time frame. Koegler said that the first part of February is when he hopes to get into the public information stage and envisions an open house format to get public acceptance of ideas. He added that we are not working in a vacuum and making decisions without input. There was a two minute break to set up tables for viewing maps. C. Trail Concept Review Koegler displayed a Shorewood map with colored markings to indicate existing features such as the LRT, parks, schools, and points of interest. There were also trails of adjacent cities indicated where Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 10 they meet with the Shorewood borders. Some potential trail routes were also indicated based on past data and discussion. Koegler explained the intent which is to discuss what a concept should look like. He suggested adding lines to indicate more potential routes or to use the map as a framework for discussion only. Additions would be drawn later and brought back to the next meeting. The group decided to begin marking ideas down on the map and Themig suggested starting with the trails which would address safety issues. Puzak said there are so many factors besides safety such as inter-connectivity and a sense of community. Arnst marked segments according to the group’s instruction: extensions to surrounding community trails and the LRT within Shorewood, near schools and points of interest and in areas where residents have requested trails. Brown noted that a trail from the West Middle School to the Highways 7 and 41 intersection will be included as part of the realignment work planned for that intersection. Puzak reminded the group that the first step should be building a segment that has high potential for success which would then serve as a model for the future of the process. Themig clarified that the lines being drawn are not to indicate on or off street designs. They are just an indication of movement. Puzak noted that before the school district asked for trail construction along Smithtown Road, the City had already included that as part of the 1991 Master Plan for parks. Arnst added that another consideration with the school is the potential cut back of transportation services. Two areas of strong public support for trails were noted: west of Minnewashta Elementary School along Smithtown and the Vine Hill Road area. Brown agreed, saying 2/3 of the calls he receives related to pedestrian and bicycle safety involve to those two areas, along with the segment of Old Market Road leading to Silverwood Park. Ms. Colesworthy suggested incorporating the western segment of Smithtown road into a loop along Howards Point Road, Edgewood Road and Eureka North. She added that opinions about that segment would be highly polarized among residents. The long term residents seem to be more reluctant. Themig suggested extending along Smithtown from the school to the LRT crossing. Mr. Love noted that in talking with residents during his campaign, there was a lot of dialogue about that segment. Themig asked about addressing the trial needs on the islands. Puzak recalled three people who attended a meeting last year, asking that the islands not be forgotten in the trail development process. A segment was added to the map and there was brief discussion about the potential for wood chip trails within the system. Brown noted that he has often observed island residents walking along the roads there for recreation and exercise. Discussion came up about connecting the LRT to Smithtown along County Road 19. This could tie in well with a potential skate park at Manitou. Brown shared some possible plans for realignment of the Smithtown/County Road 19 intersection which could positively impact trail plans for that area. He added that Hennepin County and the City will want feed back from the Park Commission at some point on this matter, reminding the group that those improvements will be lengthy process. Park Commission Minutes December 8, 1998 Page 11 Puzak summarized the progress made in this map exercise. A few more short segments were drawn in. Koegler will compile the information as discussed and drawn. He will provide smaller copies of an updated version of the maps to each Commissioner to “doodle on” for the next meeting. There was some discussion about the problem of crossing Highway 7 in the east end of Shorewood. Mr. Love asked again for clarification that the markings on the map are not indicating actual trail locations, but flow areas. This was agreed. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 11. ADJOURNMENT Dallman moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary