Loading...
060899 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chair Arnst; Commissioners Bensman, Puzak, and Themig; City Engineer Larry Brown; Council Liaison Zerby Also Present: Girl Scout Troop #170 Representative, Jessica Zerby Absent: Commissioners Dallman (arrived later) and Colopoulos B. Review Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. Themig moved and Puzak seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of May 25, 1999 Page 5, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 Change to: On game days it may become impractical to turn around in the parking lot. Page 3, Bullet 6 Add “know” to the end of the last sentence. Puzak moved and Themig seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion passed 3/0 with Bensman abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 2 4. REPORTS Jessica Zerby reported that Girl Scout Troop #170 is willing to help with painting of the trash cans in Shorewood parks. She asked if the City would cover the cost of paints and supplies. The girls have ideas for designs using a variety of colors. Chair Arnst suggested checking first with Public Works about any existing supplies and also about preparation of cans (cleaning, priming, etc.). Engineer Brown will work with Troop Leader, Theresa Zerby on details. Money will come from discretionary funds. They will start with Badger Park and gauge from there about their availability to paint the others. There are 12 girls in troop. Arnst also suggested that photos be taken and an article be included in the City newsletter and possibly a press release to the Sun Sailor. Arnst moved and Themig seconded that City staff support this activity with supplies and prep work. The motion passed 4/0. It was also noted that the Zerby family has offered to adopt a garden by Silverwood Park. 5. DISCUSSION OF PARK TOURS Arnst asked that these be added to the “To Do” list: Manor ? Aerator for pond. ? Paint the graffiti in biff enclosure. Highway 7 Wayside Rest Area ? Brown was asked to look into the possibility of a trail from stop light to across the ditch. ? Old well to be capped or rejuvenated if possible. ? Look at property as a possible skate park site. ? Look into adding more barricades between the highway and parking area. Silverwood ? Dress up the erosion around the satellites. ? Add plantings on east and west side of slides. ? Buckthorn trees to be removed (2 or 3) ? Remove metal posts near swamp. ? Add fill between bricks around swing set area. ? Change sand to pea gravel in play area. ? Remove thistles around the end of the two big slides ? Rubber mats at the end of the two big slides Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 3 Boat Ramp at Christmas Lake ? No issues. Themig added a comment about Cathcart Park. A park neighbor had asked about adding a “No Parking on the Grass” sign because people have been parking on the grass in wet weather. Brown will look into it. Themig also said the resident complemented him on the new garden area and offered to water it occasionally. 6. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL INPUT FROM PARK COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION Commissioner Themig said that in reading the ordinance vs. the resolution, it seems the ordinance addressed education in environmental issues and the resolution did not. He asked what is the focus of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee and how would the items in Subdivision 3 of the Ordinance be carried out. Council Member Zerby explained that one focus is to carry on with the efforts of the former Land Conservation Committee. The other is more from the Mayor’s side about environmental education. The idea is to blend the two needs into one committee. Themig said it seems that the Land Conservation piece is large and adding education to that is a lot. Zerby added that the emphasis is on education rather than legislation—to allow people to make decisions for themselves. Bensman commented that it seems like the two documents are not consistent with each other, making it hard to understand. She also didn’t pick up the educational part in the resolution and asked where the expertise is to come from. Zerby said that one source is from existing organizations on Land Conservation. Arnst said that she assumed that this is a takeoff from the City’s Land Conservation Committee and they had built a report which would be the launching pad. Themig asked why there is both an ordinance and a resolution. Engineer Brown explained that the resolution is what puts the ordinance into effect. Arnst stated that we want to be sure that the two are consistent. Puzak’s concern is that Shorewood was a small city / village and is becoming fragmented with commissions and committees, foundations, land trust, etc. How are we to stay in touch with what the other groups are doing. He recommend a focus committee, comprised of the core group we already have: 2 Park Commissioners, 2 Planning Commissioners, 2 residents, and 1 Council Member. Bensman is in favor of having more outside people involved, saying we need people who have time and those who already serve on Commissions, etc. will not have the time to devote that it deserves. It would be especially good if there are people who have a passion for the subject to be involved. Hopefully liaisons will be able to report back to Council and Commissions. Zerby suggested that he could see citizens who have personal interest in the issues to be involved on a separate committee. Arnst agreed that more Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 4 outside involvement is better. Zerby pointed out that this Committee does have a sunset clause so the term will expire. Puzak said that he is a little apprehensive about the term, “community value.” Brown explained that it was picked up from public comment in the Eureka Road donation which states that people value open space or green space. Puzak added that his concern is that this creates another separate (government supported) group which could be strongly organized for diverse opinions. Arnst noted that item 3H in the resolution causes worry in that this group may pressure property owners to make a decision and she cautions that it not become a force to interfere in someone’s business. Education is a good goal, but it sounds like this may become more. Puzak asked for the distinction between a committee and task force. Brown explained that a committee is an additional advisory board to the City Council with a longer term than a task force, which is short lived and more specific. A committee doesn’t have any type of authority as a commission does. Arnst asked if the City Code defines “committee” and said that maybe it would be good to define their role so the participants know. Puzak said again that, for a tiny city, we could have too many formal groups trying to manage things. Brown agreed that values such as green space could fall under more than one group. Arnst said that green space, land trust and property rights issues are big—too big for commissions, committees or even the City Council. There’s so much to know, yet we don’t want to have a single-issue group, but need to maintain balance. Themig said it is fine to advocate preservation, conservation, etc., but not to pressure property owners. Puzak said he doesn’t see balance in the list of goals of the committee. Bensman stated that any group is usually balanced and she sees this as an advisory group with an educational piece to it. She does not feel comfortable taking more time of commissioners, yet some group needs to deal with it. She is not assuming the group would be strongly slanted in any direction. It was agreed to take out the wording that makes it seem not neutral. Arnst added that the Bylaws could include a definition of the group make-up for diversity of interest and professional backgrounds. 8:45 Commissioner Dallman arrived. 7. CONSIDERATION OF PARK AND TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A. Cost Estimates for Trail Brown explained that the information is for two groups of trails: (1) Covington / Vine Hill and (2) Smithtown Road. Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 5 1a. Covington Road This section involves paving a portion of gravel road and 6 foot pathway with a small boulevard between. Brown explained reasons for a width of 6 feet rather than 5 feet. The trail would go from Silverwood Park to Vine Hill Road The estimated cost ($56,627.03) includes construction, drawing of plan and specs and 2 keystone retaining walls. Brown views the project as cost effective and feasible. There shouldn’t be any right of way issues. 1b. Vine Hill roadway Brown said there are a few questions with this section. He explained that there are some residents who requested a concrete walk, rather than bituminous pathway. Also, there is existing trail on portions of Vine Hill Road along the Minnetonka (east) side. Right now, the intent is to continue on north from Waterford Place. Feedback has been positive. Brown considers this section also to be cost effective. Themig saw a problem of esthetics with using concrete in front of just some properties which could have a “zebra” effect vs. a continuous trail. There was discussion about the difference in cost between the two materials and various ways to address the question. The square foot cost of concrete is estimated to be about two times that of bituminous. Bensman pointed out that the Park Commission has said they will work with people to do what they want. These neighbors have formal presentations on the front of their properties so it’s understandable that they may want concrete. If the goal is to have people happy, then we need to consider that. Puzak said the Commission had agreed that if a certain number of consecutive properties wants a different surface, it can be done by having the property owners pay the differential. The Commission also has said they would design around individual situations. Themig agreed that we need to explore this issue. Arnst suggested that we offer the option, explaining costs and say the trail needs to have continuity. Then it’s up to the property owners to work it out. 2. Smithtown Road from Minnewashta School to the Victoria Border Brown explained that he gave the consultant freedom to pick north or south side depending on the obstacles. The drawing came back with a crossing just east of Howard’s Point Road. Brown said that while a crossing is never favorable, there are some advantages to the proposed plan. The wetland area is more open with fewer obstacles and might be a nice feature to walk along for a portion of the trail. He added that he will not drop the issue of creating a speed zone at Minnewashta School. The estimated cost is $144,355.58 for a 6 foot bituminous path up to Strawberry Lane. One issue on the south side of Smithtown is drainage. Storm sewer would add to the cost substantially. There was discussion about the safety issues with the proposed crossing location. Brown will take another look at keeping the trail on the south side of Smithtown west of the school and to have a crossing at the School. Howard’s Point Road gets a lot of traffic and speeding is a problem there. Crossing at that point is not best. Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 6 Themig asked why the segment does not go to the LRT trail and how much more would it cost? Brown said the numbers of obstacles increase east of the school, but he will look at extending the trail to the LRT for cost and obstacles, etc. Arnst asked if we have to solve drainage problems, could funds possibly come from another source? Brown said we can look at how it would impact the stormwater management fund. He also pointed out that this trail segment is a widened section of roadway, not a separate trail. Puzak asked what happens to a 3 foot strip of grass to separate the road and trail section. Brown said the grass would not survive. He added that existing trees were a consideration in choosing an on-street trail. He will still have the consultant run an estimate for an off-street trail. Themig noted that we may not have support for on-street trail. Puzak added that a wider road / trail may result in increased driving speeds thereby worsening the safety problem. Brown concluded that he sees the Smithtown segment as a feasible project, but likely as a year 2000 task. Arnst asked if there are City funds that could be used besides the trail budget. Brown said that State Aid funds will be looked at. They do come with many requirements. Themig asked why Smithtown would qualify for State Aid. Brown explained that certain roads are designated as MSA (Municipal State Aid) route. Both Smithtown and Vine Hill are MSA, but there are many design restrictions for liability reasons. Themig said we need to keep in mind the big picture, in terms of funding. Bensman said to go ahead with the Vine Hill / Covington project and then go back to the drawing board on Smithtown with costs and changes because there is a need to show action. Dallman agreed that we should get started on Covington while working out issues on Vine Hill with the concrete / blacktop question. We need to take some action this year and may then use the time until next year to further investigate issues for the Smithtown segment. Puzak praised residents from neighborhoods around both sets of trails for support and high attendance at trail walks, etc. He said the Covington stretch is a priority because of travel to the park, while the “Zebra” problem is worked out—perhaps then go to work on the Smithtown piece. Arnst asked Brown to re-visit the Vine Hill and Smithtown proposals with the questions that have been raised here. Brown said, in his mind, Covington Road seems a popular choice and is not a state aid roadway. The question of state aid exists on Vine Hill and Smithtown. After we have MSA information and pricing for Smithtown and we look at the CIP, timing will be more clear. Themig suggested that Smithtown may fit with DNR qualifications if connected to the LRT trail. Those grant requests are submitted in the fall or early winter. Bensman recommended that both parts of Vine Hill and Covington are done at the same time. Puzak pointed out that MSA restrictions may require flattening of the Vine Hill trail. Arnst said we can proceed with Covington while staff researches issues on Vine Hill and Smithtown segments. Brown said if there is delay on the Vine Hill portion, it can be Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 7 explained because the City is trying to maximize funding. Arnst cautioned to not lose momentum but to proceed with the first step (Covington). There were further comments about possible timing and next steps. Puzak said it’s time to go to neighbors to show the plan because that’s the process we said we would do. There was discussion about a public information meeting. It was agreed that the present diagram for Covington is accurate information and there is no need for a large display. Details of measurements, descriptions, etc. can be provided in addition. The action would be to meet with neighbors and then make a recommendation to Council. Arnst said that Vine Hill residents will ask, “what about us?” The answer is that we have started the process and are looking into state funding. Dallman said that we also must have consensus on a policy about the bituminous / concrete options for Vine Hill and what an upgrade will cost. Themig asked if it is realistic to get a fair bid yet this year since most contractors have their season planned. The time line might escalate the price of the project and cause other issues. Brown explained that the City can reject bids and shelf the project until spring if that happens. He recommended that Covington and Vine Hill be bid together. There was further discussion about timing, funding and safety. Brown summarized that it is not a question of if the City will do it, but how. He suggested going to the entire group of residents with the proposal and explain that it will be done in segments depending on funding and timing, etc. Brown will also look at trail possibilities for all parts of the Vine Hill stretch. There was more discussion about how to proceed around funding and obstacles. Brown will prepare a project schedule and look at the following issues: Smithtown segment —Moving the trail to the south side, checking MSA funding, drainage issues and stormwater management, and possible extension to LRT. Covington / Vine Hill —Get costs for additional segments to Camp Coffee and ideas for time table. A neighborhood meeting date will then be set at the next Park Commission meeting. B. Design Options for Freeman Park Multi-Purpose Building and Project Schedule Brown explained the following points in the CIP: ? The Freeman park building is slated at $200,000. The City is still looking at possible ways to reduce that price and other alternatives. Estimates have not come back from the Chaska Building Center. ? Sanitary sewer was increased from $45,000 to $50,000 to be conservative. ? Bleacher improvements have been added to the budget for 5 years at $5,000 per year beginning in 2000. This amount may possibly be reduced. Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 8 ? The $38,000 estimate for the Freeman parking lot is low, but Brown is negotiating with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to chip in funding because it enables the closing of a highway access point. ? The Cathcart warming house project was moved out to year 2004 because of other projects. The City is working with contractors to sort through plan adjustment for the Freeman Park building and trying to keep it within the CIP. It’s not a question of if, but how the building will be done. Funding Source Summary Brown reviewed the draft of the Funding Source Summary, commenting that the revenue from Sports Organizations is an assumption at this point and relying upon revenue streams which do not have a solid history. He also explained how the park fund borrows $10,000 from the general fund until 2001, which is just an internal process. Themig said we need to step back and look at the Freeman building and say it’s going to be bathrooms only—or whatever it takes to protect the budget in case the parking lot comes in higher than expected. Puzak reminded the Commission they had decided to spend to zero and then go to Council with the question of raising funds or go on hiatus with improvements. Arnst said Council had asked the Commission to find other sources, which is likely the intent of the $10,000 surcharge that has been added. This topic is on the agenda for July. The CIP can be adjusted accordingly. For now, it raises awareness. The idea of moving the Cathcart warming house to 2004 is also significant. Trails will be included in the CIP by the July meeting as well. It was suggested to change the name of “Organization Building Surcharge” to “User-Based Revenue.” 8. REVIEW STATUS OF THE TO DO LIST Arnst asked that staff consolidate all to do lists and put a check mark by each item as it is completed. Themig added to incorporate trails into the list. Trail walks of islands should be added as well. 9. OLD BUSINESS Arnst asked if the police department was contacted about the dog problem at Freeman. Brown said yes, but the police have not yet reported back to him. Brown reported that South Tonka Little League plans to postpone their projects until later in the season. Arnst asked if we had response from the letter to Healy’s. Brown said the letter just went out a day or so before. Park Commission June 8, 1999 Page 9 Puzak reported that students of Minnetonka Middle School West organized to present a petition at the Youth Coalition meeting. Kids and teachers did good job of going through the correct process. About 25 kids came to present their petition and are befuddled by why the project can’t get started. Media was invited, but did not attend. Puzak feels the kids are holding up their end of the deal—they are patient, enthused and doing their part. He feels the communities need to pay more attention to our youth. Bensman suggested sending a letter to the editor to increase awareness. Puzak stated that the Youth Coalition will be coming to the Park Commission for more support, adding that he is more committed than ever. He said it is time to get the ball rolling, and if Shorewood has to do this alone, we should move ahead without the other cities. Arnst asked if they have the funding. Puzak said there are 2 ways to go: The cheap route is about $25,000. A first class indoor facility with supervision is around $300,000. He pointed out that this improvement at least has a chance of support from user fees. Private buildings charge $10 and 2 of 4 have gone out of business. A recommended entry price would be $5. 10. NEW BUSINESS Brown said that because of timing of other projects, the Council and staff agreed there should be a questionnaire sent to homeowners asking what services they desire. They took the liberty to include questions about trails. There were favorable responses along Noble road. He is in the process of tabulating results and will present a report to the Park Commission. Arnst commented that she has biked along Eureka Road to cross Highway 7 and does not recommend a trail crossing there. If adding a trail there would encourage crossing the highway, it’s not a good idea. Brown noted that future improvements to the area of Highways 7 and 41 may lead to an underpass for pedestrian / bike crossing. 11. ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved and Bensman seconded to adjourn. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary