Loading...
032399 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING 1. Co-chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs Arnst and Dallman; Commissioners Colopoulos, Puzak, Themig, and Cochran; Administrator Jim Hurm; Council Liaison Zerby B. Review Agenda Cochran moved, Colopoulos seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. Park Commission Minutes of March 9, 1999 A. The following corrections were noted: Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 1: Delete the second “t” at the end of the word “point.” Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 2: Change the word “they” to “we.” Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 1: Delete the word “to.” Page 3, last paragraph 5, sentence 1: Insert the word “is” after “Commission.” Page 8, item 7, paragraph 2, sentence 1: Change the sentence to: “Co-chair Arnst asked if the Commission should revisit the purpose of the Park Foundation.” Page 7 & 8, item 6, paragraph 1: Change paragraph to: “Commissioner Colopoulos noted that the existing Babe Ruth field can exist in its current configuration. Either way, the nets and poles will need to be installed this year. Re-sodding the field will be put on hold for now. Lindstrom asked if block 2 could be moved within the development to create more space. Nielsen said the wetlands may limit that, but will check into it.” Colopoulos moved, Themig seconded, to table approval of the minutes until the April 13 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 3. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 2 Gordy Lindstrom, Little League representative submitted a proposal for reconfiguration of the ballfield area at Freeman Park which he said may alleviate safety concerns and foul ball issues. He stated that the Little League association would like to work with the City and Eagle Crest (the developer) to resolve space problems. The matter will be put on the agenda of the April 13 Park Commission meeting. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO PARKS AND TRAILS 4. City Planner, Brad Nielsen explained that the City hopes to complete work on the Comprehensive Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council by June 30. Two elements need to be considered by the Park Commission: (1) Transportation Plan (regarding trails); and, (2) Community Facilities Chapter with respect to parks overall. The main question is if the Parks element of the Community Facilities Chapter is still accurate or do changes need to be made? Nielsen hopes to make recommended changes based on discussion and return with text revisions for approval at the next meeting. The goals and objectives for Community Facilities was discussed (CF-3). Nielsen pointed out that they are general statements, but still relate to the parks. Themig asked for Nielsen’s recommendation. He replied that there is enough here in the 1995 plan and it is okay not to change it unless there is an important piece missing. There was a consensus that the Community Facilities/Services Goals and Objectives seems to include all the elements. The paragraph on Parks and Recreation (CF-6) was discussed. The term “trail plan” should be changed to “trail planning process” and a reference to implementation of a trail planning process needs to be added. Nielsen will revise and bring changes back to the Park Commission. Nielsen asked for any suggestions on the 16 policies “Parks and Open Space” (CF-9 & CF-12). Themig asked for clarification of the term “open space” (Item #11) to mean park land rather than natural resources. All agreed to the change. After discussion on item #10, it was agreed to strike the words “open space” from the first line. Council Liaison Zerby asked about the reference to horses in item #13. Since horses are to be ridden on streets only, they will be excluded from item #13. Administrator Hurm asked if the word “recreational” should be removed in item #16 to leave the definition of “open space” to include land preservation. Nielsen said that Council suggested a glossary be added to the document for clarification of such terms. Puzak raised the question of who will be the keeper of open space? Nielsen said that the Council has addressed this and may appoint a committee or commission. The decision has not been made. Puzak stated his recommendation that they include 2 Planning Commissioners, 2 Park Commissioners, 2 Councilmembers and 2 staff persons. Hurm said that a draft of the ordinance which will outline the committee will be available for review by the Park Commission. There was discussion about the terms “Park Land” vs.“Recreational Open Space” which are similar to each other, yet different from the concept of “Conservation Open Space.” It was Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 3 agreed that clarity in communications around these topics must be maintained. Nielsen suggested the term “Parks and Recreational Open Space” for the community facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan and “Conservation Open Space” for the natural resources section. Themig asked about the first two statements under “Lakeshore Use” on CF-12. Nielsen explained that this is implemented in fire lanes which is city-owned land that allows access to the lake for various needs according to historical use. The DNR has looked in the past at places for public access, but it is unlikely that fire lanes will be used for recreational access. It has been a non- issue. Nielsen added that the Lakeshore Use section does pertain to the Christmas Lake public access in which case the City did adopt very specific regulations. On page CF-25, paragraph 5 a request was noted to change “...the City has also adopted a Trails Plan.” to say, “...the City has adopted a Trail Planning Process”. It was agreed that any similar wording in the document will be corrected accordingly. Commissioner Puzak asked about the status of property along the north side of Highway 7 just to the west of Old Market Road and the property on the south side of Highway 7, west of the City’s water tower. It is public land that was owned by the State of Minnesota, but will be deeded to the City. Puzak suggested that both properties be named as potential recreational land in the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen agreed that it can be designated as an area for further study. Nielsen pointed out statements 13 and 14 on page CF-40, asking if they still reflect the position of the Park Commission with reference to land acquisition and park development. There was discussion about the limitations imposed in these statements. It was agreed that the City should not cut off the possibility of land acquisition even though the focus for parks has been the development and maintenance of existing park land. Puzak referenced the recent interest in acquiring part of the Wagner property to solve space issues at Freeman Park. There was a consensus that wording of statements 13 and 14 should be re-worded as follows: 13. Focus future park planning on the development of existing sites leaving open the possibility of acquisition of land. 14. Consider expansion of existing park land if funding exists. Discussion went back to CF-25, paragraph 6. Dallman recommended changing “future needs” to “needs.” Themig asked how the consensus has changed in five years from having adequate space to now saying we may need more space. Bensman pointed out that park land was considered adequate because it was all the City could afford to maintain. Puzak added that what is considered adequate at one point may change with time and growth. It is wise to keep options open. The point was also made that Shorewood already provides a good amount of the park facilities for players from the surrounding areas. Lindstrom said that Shorewood does support recreational groups well and that the Little League association has approached Excelsior and Chanhassen Park Commissions to find other field space. Nielsen will make changes to the Community Facilities section and return with a draft at the next meeting. He said that some changes have been made to the Transportation section around the recent trail process goals and objectives. Themig asked if points 1 through 6 on page TR-10 need Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 4 to be included since they deal with design rather than a process. Nielsen noted comments and will adjust where needed. Arnst pointed out that there is no indication that the LRT may not always be available to trail use. Nielsen agreed that it should be addressed in the Comp Plan. Brian Lieffers, 5970 Strawberry Lane spoke from the floor, mentioning that Hennepin County could some day ask the City to purchase the segment of the LRT which passes through Shorewood. Nielsen explained that a nutshell version of the trail planning process has been inserted into the Comp Plan draft on pages TR-33 to TR-39. He asked if it is accurate and reflects the Park Commission’s position. Arnst asked why the section on snowmobiles (page TR-39, paragraph 4) has been partially cut since, based on comments from residents this remains a valid concern. Puzak agreed that the work of the Snowmobile Task Force should not be negated by striking those statements. Nielsen suggested that snowmobiles be a separate topic with its own heading and include the information as is. Puzak asked that it also be clearly stated that any added trails are not intended for snowmobiles. Nielsen will revise and discuss changes with Arnst and Puzak before presenting a draft at the next meeting. 5. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING - LARRY BROWN City Engineer Larry Brown presented a plan with cost estimates for a multi-purpose building according to the ideas discussed by the Park Commission at past meetings. He explained that some trimming was done to keep costs down and yet the estimates came in much higher than expected. He has since approached Chaska Building Center for cost estimates for a similar plan. Those figures were considerably different and he would like to do further research to come up with a realistic estimate. At this point, the question is whether the design matches the identified needs. Dallman noted that the picnic shelter portion seems adequate. Puzak confirmed that the plan does include a heating system. Brown also asked for suggestions about where to cut cost if needed, adding that one option is to eliminate direct access from the interior to the rest rooms. Puzak suggested that taking a “design/build” approach may save money. Brown will look into that as an option for the Park Foundation to consider, since the City is not allowed to go that route. He will get cost estimates accordingly. Puzak also suggested the idea of asking Eagle Crest to consider a trade in kind instead of payment for the park dedication fee. Brown said that is a valid point, but details would need to be well-defined and timing will be compromised. Brown will try to get a more detailed tree inventory to investigate other routes for the sewer line to take the path of least destruction. He will check with Brad Nielsen about the idea of Eagle Crest being involved as well. There will be a report at the April 13 meeting. Due to the late hour, it was agreed that item 7 will be tabled until the April 13 meeting. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 5 6. DISCUSSION OF CHANGE IN PARK DEDICATION FEES CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL POLICY Commissioner Colopoulos explained that the conclusion was to look at how other cities handle park dedication fees, yet it is hard to compare since Shorewood is in a unique situation with limited land space and planning capability. We also want to have a policy that is consistent with a fiscal policy rather than to take an opportunistic approach. Puzak said that his intent has been, and still is, to raise the fee and now the question is just about the timing. There was some discussion about the validity of basing a fee on market value rather than a flat amount. Puzak said that he would like a balance that protects the first time builder of a smaller home, but also to realize that there are the “exclusive community” home builders at the other extreme. A flat fee cannot satisfy both. He recommended a percentage (5%) with a cap ($1500 per lot). There was a comparison made to Wayzata’s fee of 7% with a $2000 cap. Bensman stated that the percentage approach seems like a policy change. Colopoulos said that we should know how the extra dollars would be used in the budget before making a change in policy. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $5,000. Themig seconded. There was discussion about lot prices in Shorewood and what an average fee would realistically be. Themig pointed out that a maximum of $5,000 would be reached for most lots in Shorewood. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,000. Cochran seconded. Themig said he was concerned about how this much of a change in fee would appear. There was discussion about examples of possible lot prices. Bensman suggested a separate cap amount for developers vs. the single home building project. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,000. Themig seconded. Themig noted that there has been discussion in the past about applying a certain percentage to trail development and that it may be appropriate for some to be designated to a trail fund. Zerby said he likes the percentage formula and commented that it is good to be in line with neighboring cities’ policies. Puzak pointed out that with a cap, the higher value lot actually pays a smaller percentage. Zerby noted that some would ask why one family should bear more of the expense of parks than another family and that becomes controversial. Others agreed and discussed fair percentages. It was also agreed not to earmark funds for trails. Transfers to the trail fund from the park fund can be made on an as-needed basis with approval from the City Council. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 6 Puzak withdrew the motion on the floor to state a new motion. Themig and Cochran concurred. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $7,500 per lot. Dallman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Hurm will review the motion at a staff level to see how it reflects current development and then report at the April Park Commission meeting if there are problems. Otherwise the recommendation will go to Council as stated. 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEXT DRAFT OF ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICIES, FISCAL POLICIES AND PROPOSED FORMULAS Tabled until the April 13 meeting. 8. REPORTS A. Report on Youth Coalition Meeting of March 11 Puzak reported that one person had researched the idea of an inflatable dome which extends the season and allows for a winter facility. This would, however, eliminate the option of Manitou Park as a possible site since Tonka Bay wishes to use the space for winter recreation. Puzak said there is interest in the land along Highway 7 that is to be deeded to the City of Shorewood (as mentioned earlier in these minutes). Ideas are being considered for funding options as well. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Arnst reported that the Adopt-A-Garden idea is a go. The next meeting agenda will include: 1. Finish the Comprehensive Plan Review 2. Report on the Multi-Purpose Building at Freeman 3. Little League Proposal for Field Configuration 4. City Administrator’s Report on Council Action Regarding Park Dedication Fees The next “meeting” is a trail walk on April 10. Ken Dallman is the Council Liaison for April. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 7 11. ADJOURNMENT Themig moved, Puzak seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 7/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary