Loading...
101299 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners, Puzak, Berndt and Themig; City Administrator Jim Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown; Councilmember Scott Zerby Also Present: Mayor Woody Love Absent: Commissioner Bensman B. Review Agenda Commissioner Berndt asked to include a report on recycling of plastics for Freeman Park. It was added under item #8, Old Business. There were no other changes to the agenda. Arnst moved, Puzak seconded to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 14, 1999 Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to approve the Minutes with the following changes: nd Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 2—Remove 2 apostrophe from the word “today’s’.” Page 10, Paragraph 4, Line 4 —Change “meting” to “meeting.” Motion passed 5/0. B. Park Commission / Park Foundation Joint Meeting Minutes of September 28, 1999 Arnst moved, Puzak seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Woody Love reported that he attended a meeting called by the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of discussing the common needs of the area Cities. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 2 The meeting was also attended by Mayors and Administrators of Excelsior and Tonka Bay, the Presidents of both Rotaries, School Superintendent, Dan Jett, Representative Barb Sykora, and others. The group talked about youth and the need for ideas and projects to unite the communities. The skate park idea was brought up and enthusiastically received. Carl Zinn, President of the Noon Rotary was positive about their ability to raise funds. The Chamber Director and President were also enthusiastic about helping with the project. Mayor Love asked how to approach the next step and involve these groups. Administrator Hurm concurred that people were very positive toward a skate park as a good joint-community project. He encouraged members of the Park Commission to take a look at the skate park in the City of Chanhassen because it is comparable to what we are looking at. He talked with their Park Director who said the cost was around $15,000. Hurm also noticed on two visits that the skate park is well-used. He suggested that if the other Cities each donated a dollar per head (as suggested in the letter recently sent out), it would be a great start. The other steps are to settle on a location and design. Keeping the kids enthused is also important. Commissioner Puzak said this is a great report and is excited to get a group together to look at next steps. The Youth Coalition has found some resources to possibly help with design. Mayor Love said that Shorewood has made a commitment and Excelsior has indicated they will step up. All contributors are contingent upon everyone else pitching in. Mayor Love said he mentioned the possible site of the WPA Park area and it seemed generally accepted as good location. The proximity to Excelsior was considered favorable. Co-chair Dallman asked if a public hearing and Conditional Use Permit would be needed. Hurm said there should be a public hearing. Puzak asked Hurm to handle the legal steps and asked if anyone else wanted to be involved. Co-chair Arnst felt that Puzak is doing very good job and recommended that Matt Pike and friends be included in this next phase since they are an asset and will also benefit by this process. Puzak will contact Matt and work with him on a presentation as a communication tool to address potential supporters. Themig offered to provide photos. Council member Zerby will also help with visuals. Arnst offered to provide transportation for Matt, if needed. Co-chair Dallman asked if the City has title to that property. City Engineer Brown said the property has been committed to Shorewood and forwarded to the attorney for recording. He does not know if it is yet recorded and will reinitiate the title work to be done. He doesn’t see it being a problem, but would like to look at the title to make sure there are no deed restrictions. Dallman asked further about the process of declaring the land for this use and if the Commission is then agreeing this is the best place for a skate park rather than Manitou Park or others. Puzak recalled that the Commission did make a request at some time to Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 3 classify it as parkland. The possibility of a motion was considered. Brown suggested that it might be best if staff first obtains title and prepares a report to this Commission and then it would be more appropriate to make a recommendation. Themig added that there also should be discussion with the other communities before deciding, since it is a joint effort. Puzak recommended they go through step one (obtain clear title) and then write a letter to the other communities and organizations and offer this location. Arnst asked if the equipment is freestanding and could be moved if they find the location is not working. Puzak said the rails would be sunk and more permanent than the ramps. He added that step two is to then go to our own City Council with a recommendation and finally have a public hearing. Mayor Love expressed his thanks to the Commissioners for their excellent work, their innovations, the neighborhood walks and for looking at revenue streams as requested by Council. Co-chair Dallman asked the Mayor to address Council’s decision about snowmobiles from their October 11 meeting. Love explained that the decision was made by simple majority (three in favor, one abstaining and one opposed) to not apply for snowmobile use on the LRT trail. Many issues will need to be addressed, such as how snowmobiles will travel through Shorewood to get to Lake Minnetonka and ways to assure safety in using the streets. He added that the Council approved the use of horses on the LRT because Hennepin County has now granted that authority. The Council is considering the Park Commission as the group to help with these decisions. Hurm commented that there are also issues to identify at the staff level and bring to Council, such as what to do with the trail in terms of winter maintenance. Do they plow down to the gravel to accommodate walkers? How do we include space for cross-country skiing or snowshoeing? There is also the possibility of applying for grant-in-aid funding for grooming equipment. Mayor Love said that he believes the Council wants to see recreational facilities used by as many as possible and therefore applied for multiple uses. Commissioner Themig asked why winter use of the trail is left to the City to decide. Hurm gave some background and explained that the County has issued permits for winter use now for about 4 years. The County does not want the responsibility or expense to maintain or monitor the trail during those months and offers the option to each City to pick that up, rather than to shut the trail down for the winter. Brown said it boils down to maintenance and liability. Hurm said the sooner Council has input the better so we can inform people of the policy. The City would like to provide a brief report in the October issue of the Shore Report to be followed by more details in the November issue. Love said we need to find ways to inform and get the word out in a positive and visible manner. Also there will be horse issues for the Commission to examine. The City will be talking to Police Chief Litsey and perhaps the snowmobile club to help get the word out. We don’t want to have well- Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 4 meaning citizens become violators. Puzak said the 1999 / 2000 snowmobile maps have been printed so there will be problems. Themig asked about the work of the former task force in recommending trail use for snowmobiles. Mayo Love explained his position in the latest vote, saying he feels this has been a long history and there have been valiant attempts to make it work. But that was the decision of the Council in simple majority last night. Hurm asked for a timeframe for the Commission to consider this issue. Dallman recommended a second meeting in October rather than adding it to this agenda. The Commission agreed to meet on October 26 to discuss the LRT winter use issues. Hurm encouraged the Commission to think of the LRT as a linear park with use as a key element. Staff can look at signage, etc. 4. REPORTS A. Report on Trails and Multi–Purpose Building Residents were present to speak from the floor on item 4B. Report on Trails and Multi– Purpose Building will follow 4B. B. Council Consideration of Recommended Policy on Trails (Vine Hill Road) Hurm explained that the Park Commission recommendation went to City Council and they took it under advisement but did not take action. There were residents present who indicated their concern for concrete but didn’t want to pay for concrete. The issue is still open, plus the need to determine if asphalt would be 8 ft. or 6 ft. in width. City Engineer Brown distributed a copy of his memo to City Council, which included; cost estimates for the various trail segments, factors which influence pricing, the life span costs of materials, uses and durability between materials, etc. Brown went on to explain the differences in how concrete and asphalt settle and eventually fail, mainly due to frost conditions. Some do not agree with the analysis of life span, however Brown offered an estimated life span of 20 years whether you use asphalt or concrete. Where asphalt needs resurfacing every 5 or so years, concrete cracks and results in trip hazards and requires immediate repair. Brown referred to a chart on page 2, which shows different costs. He explained that the state aid standard is 8 feet, but if local funds are used, the City is not bound by state standards. Outside funding influences the trend toward 8 feet, coupled with complaints about narrow trails for pedestrians being passed by bicycles, etc. In talking with contractors, Brown has been assured there are paver machines that will pave a 6-foot trail. ADA standards require a 5-foot width, however, 6 feet is the bare bones minimum for asphalt. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 5 Brown reiterated that there are so many factors that influence costs of construction. These estimates are calculated for generic conditions, but are offered as a resource in looking at trail costs. Arnst asked how many linear feet are in front of the six homes requesting concrete. Brown estimated about 500 to 700 feet. Arnst asked about the maintenance or cracking on the Waterford sidewalk. Brown said they are inspected and repairs have been made as needed. Zerby estimated the cost difference between 8 foot asphalt and 5 foot concrete to be about $1,000 per home. Resident Brett Helgeson, 5640 Vine Hill Road, spoke from the floor, stating that he and his neighbors are opposed to having an 8-foot wide asphalt trail in front of their homes. They do not feel they should have to pay the difference in cost to have concrete. Dallman noted that some other residents have even stated that if the surface is not concrete, they do not want a trail at all. Mr. Helgeson explained the concerns as stated in the neighborhood petition; 1) They have noticed that other asphalt trails and driveways have degraded significantly, yet the sidewalk is in very good shape. 2) This is the only part of the Vine Hill Trail that runs across the center of properties. They would like a trail there, but don’t want to sacrifice their whole front yard. (A 5-foot width is better.) They are looking at it as a sidewalk, not a trail. There is bike path on the road for bikers and walkers could use the sidewalk. 3) It would diminish property values and the look of the neighborhood over time if bituminous. Themig asked about front yard setbacks. Mr. Helgeson said the shallowest lot is 123 feet deep so an 8-foot trail would take up much of the front yard area. This is another reason the neighbors feel this should be considered differently from the trail policy of 8 feet. Resident Corrine Kubal, 5620 Vine Hill Road, stated the distance would be only about 23 feet from the front door to the trail if 8 foot bituminous were used. She stated that she wants this trail and believes that a 5-foot concrete walk is better esthetically for the neighborhood and for the City of Shorewood. For example, the small asphalt path up the road looks terrible and this is not what they want for themselves or for the City. Puzak pointed out that it is a segment that does not run in front of homes. Brown said it has not been maintained at all. Themig said there was an impression of some willingness of neighbors to fund part of the cost of an upgrade but now they seem to be saying concrete or nothing. He also brought up the point that bikes would not necessarily stay on the road as Mr. Helgeson stated. The trail is to be for shared use. When asked if neighbors would be willing to pay for the upgrade to concrete, Mr. Helgeson said it is hard to answer without knowing specific amounts. Puzak suggested an estimated $20 or $30 per month for 5 years. Mr. Helgeson said he couldn’t speak for all of his neighbors. Some have said they will move. The neighbors are not all uniform in that. They do feel the precedent was set with Waterford. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 6 Puzak said the Commission would probably agree that 5-foot concrete is as acceptable to our purpose as 8-foot bituminous. This is a new experience for the Commission and it is struggling to pull off any trails within the budget. They ask residents to work with them. The Commission has said they would design around individual needs. He encouraged residents to negotiate 5ft concrete or 6ft bituminous and make the investment to upgrade. He acknowledged that they make a good point of proportions for a narrower trail. The policy is to design around issues such as this. Ms. Kubal pointed out that their neighborhood is not a rural setting. Vine Hill is a busy road and some people will drive on the trail, especially if it is a bituminous surface. The safety concern will be even greater when her son (and others) will have to walk along Vine Hill to catch the school bus next year. Commissioner Berndt asked if all 6 houses want concrete. Mr. Helgeson said they agree on concrete and a width of 5 or 6 feet. Three neighbors refuse to pay more for it. Council member Zerby said his personal opinion is that the community varies quite a bit in look. The Waterford standard may have set some expectations. He thinks the process is to find out what the community wants and find a way to deliver it. There can be an exception made without setting a precedent. Brown explained that the sidewalk along Old Market Road was put in after the Waterford Addition and constructed with state aid funds. With Vine Hill’s topography it would be very difficult to comply with state aid standards. Those are the underlying reasons. Ms. Kubal asked if the City of Minnetonka could be of help since it would benefit both Cities. Brown said he has discussed reconstruction of Vine Hill Road to meet state aid standards with their engineer. Neither city has put it in their 5-year C.I.P. Both agree that something will have to be done in the next 10 years. Commissioner Themig suggested the idea to downsize the width of the entire segment (both Vine Hill and Covington), from 8 feet to 6 feet, and in this section, upgrade to concrete with the savings. He does not see a 6-foot width jeopardizing this type of use. Ms. Kubal agreed. Mr. Helgeson added that it would also save money on the retaining walls, etc. Hurm said he thought other residents would be pleased with a 6-foot width. Puzk moved that because the Park Commission has committed to work with neighbors on design issues and because neighbors have asked us to work with them in getting a concrete surface in front of their homes, we recommend to the City Council on the entire Covington / Vine Hill trail segment that we move from our previously stated standard of 8 feet to 6 feet and utilize the savings to meet their request for concrete in front of the 6 contiguous homes — 5620 Vine Hill Road to 5670 Vine Hill Road. Arnst seconded. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 7 Brown asked for clarification of the financial aspect of this proposal, reiterating that the cost estimates they used are very rough estimates with many factors involved. Puzak calculated a comparison. Brown asked if both alternatives should be bid. It was agreed that 8 feet is not even an option and to only seek bids for 6 feet. It can be assumed there is a savings on the bituminous portion of the trail in reducing the width by 2 feet. Arnst said she is satisfied with the concept based on the estimates already provided. The motion passed 5/0. Brown thanked Mr. Helgeson and Ms. Kubal for their participation. Staff will gather information and a draft letter to the neighbors. The Commission has also committed to meet with neighbors once they have a final plan. Puzak stated we are learning as we go and the process has worked. Themig added that we need to look at trails segment by segment. Dallman pointed out that Council has not adopted a standard for 8 feet. Hurm reminded them that, if funded by MSA, a trail would have to go to 8 feet. Dallman asked if they should leave the recommendation to Council as it is for an 8 foot standard. All said yes. A. Report on Trails and Multi–Purpose Building Brown reported that he prepared a proposal for design services and it was approved by City Council. Design is underway. Co-chair Dallman reported that, at their last meeting, members of the American Legion Post #259 authorized $2,500 donation toward the multi- purpose building. C. Howard’s Point, Edgewood and Grant Lorenz Walk of October 2, 1999 Puzak reported it was a good walk and was well attended. Early tension diffused well and at the end, it was a happy group. Arnst said she reported to City Council at their meeting and also typed a memo to Council, Park Commission and Larry Brown. Council member Zerby said it should be stated that there was opposition. Arnst added that there was also wrong information being passed along by a resident. 5. DISCUSS PARK FUNDING OPTIONS ? User Fees— Themig said the logical next step is work on user fees with the sports organizations. It’s up to the Park Commission to draw up a proposal and finalize the work that was started a year ago and then meet with those groups with our proposal. The Commission took a 5-minute break (9:25) Themig recommended that a sub-committee finish a draft of the user fee policy using all of the data that staff has provided and present it at the November meeting of the Park Commission. The data would include costs of providing facilities and definition of facility Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 8 needs of the sports associations. It is no longer considered a donation, but a fee for providing this service. It must be based on facts and data. There was discussion about the principle behind the policy and a fair approach. It was agreed to try and resolve this by the end of the year. Themig said the biggest question is the philosophy of the City covering basic services. He will put a draft policy together based on the known data. Hurm offered to help. ? Concession Sales & Rental— Dallman asked if the new concession stand would be open for sales for the 2000 season. Brown said it would likely be in late summer. Puzak said we have a responsibility to develop a business plan. Arnst suggested a sub-committee. Puzak said the baseball board members would like to take it on. Themig said it should be open to all sports. Puzak offered that the City draft a letter to all of the organizations to submit a proposal. Dallman added to include the seniors and private enterprise. Puzak suggested they find information from past experience with the temporary trailer and go over the data at the next meeting. Themig offered to get a copy of a Request for Proposal form to look at as an example. ? Parking Fees— Left on the back burner. ? Tower (PCS) Revenue— Zerby said the Council has discussed this a bit. They feel it is kind of dangerous to earmark all fees because it makes everything its own little profit center. Puzak added that the answer was to let the income go to the General Fund and move money to the park CIP. Hurm stated that if a PCS tower is installed on park property, then it’s legitimate to allow those funds to go to parks. There was discussion about the best approach getting a tower in park property. There was consensus to not solicit for one, but to be receptive if a request comes along ? Transfer Fees— It was agreed that this is out of the Park Commission’s hands. ? Park Dedication Fees— Already established. ? Grants— This will be kept on the table as issues come up. ? Private Donations— Themig suggested they look to the Park Foundation for leadership on this. Zerby recommended they change the title to “Private Donations and Bequests.” ? Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising— Arnst said this could also include selling of bricks. ? General City Funds— No input. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 9 ? Liquor Store Profits— There was discussion about the history of liquor store profits— how much and how they are used. Dallman suggested that the Park Commission ask City Council that anything above the projected profits come to parks. Themig recommended they consider this a future option. It has not been demonstrated that there is a potential for profit. Puzak said that the Park Commission did ask the Council to help us and we committed to help them find money and not ask to take money. It would be okay to ask for anything above their expectations of liquor profits. Themig suggested they keep it on the list, but not as a priority at this time. ? Allow Liquor Permits for Events— Themig supported keeping the current prohibition of liquor in parks. Puzak concurred. Arnst said to make this item a lower priority for now. Dallman suggested it might be okay for adult softball, but to table the idea for now. ? Vending Machines— The question of vandalism was considered. Location is one answer to minimize the problem. Themig said they can be protected by a cage and attached to a structure. Ideas considered were; the warming houses at Manor and Badger Park, Freeman, along the LRT, and outside of City Hall. Commissioner Berndt offered her property along the LRT as an option. Hurm said it would require permission from Hennepin Parks. There would also be a Conditional Use Permit and insurance. Brown offered that staff research vending machine companies. He said that Badger warming house is heated all the time and Manor might stay warm enough but space may be an issue there. Staff will look at it. ? Park Event and Shelter Rentals— Hurm suggested they might want to look at fees over the winter. Arnst added that they had talked about marketing to businesses for company picnics also. It was agreed to keep the idea on the list. ? Youth Programming— There was discussion about the resources needed to operate youth programming. It was agreed that it is largely being provided by Community Education and Services at this time. Plus the City is not at the level yet to support a part- time employee for the leadership. 6. DISCUSSION ON THE CONCESSION BUILDING AND OPERATION OF THE MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING AT FREEMAN PARK Tabled. 7.REVIEW OF TO DO LIST ? Park Booklet —Still on list. ? Manor Park Sign —Arnst reported that Commissioner Bensman is still interested. ? Policy for security at warming houses —Staff is working on who is available to be warming house supervisor as one step toward this goal. ? First successful trail segment— In process (see above). ? Multi-purpose building— In process (see above). Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 10 ? Cathcart “No parking” sign— Still on list—probably hold until spring. ? Freeman map for trail— To be winter project. ? Closure of road along field #2— MnDOT has made a verbal commitment that $50,000 toward the parking area should not be a problem. Staff is proceeding with the formal application process. ? Crescent Beach sign— The City of Tonka Bay is not interested. Erase from list. ? Manor and Badger pond aerator— Still on list. Arnst will do research. Brown reported that Commissioner Themig provided information to him. It will be a winter project. ? Wayside Rest / Seal the well— Brown will check to see if it’s the State’s responsibility (depends on title). Puzak suggested the well be restored to functionality, if possible. Brown will check. ? Wayside Rest / Look at property for skate park— In process (see above). ? Wayside Rest / Walkway— Still on list. ? Silverwood / Fill holes— Still on list. ? Stripes on Christmas Lake access lot— Hopefully stripers will be out in a few weeks. ? Smithtown West LRT— Still on list. ? St. Alban’s Bay RoadTrail— Not an option. ? Edgewood / Noble— Done. ? Yellowstone— Will be walked next year. ? Mill Street— Brown will check further and report back. Hennepin County may be looking at upgrading Mill Street. ? Grant Lorenz— Done. ? Howard’s Point Road — Done. ? Smithtown east of LRT— Not this year. ? Galpin Lake Road— Watching for new developments. Brown will keep the Commission apprised. 8.OLD BUSINESS ? Recycling of Plastics at Freeman Park— Commissioner Berndt thanked the Commission for allowing her to reintroduce this issue and reviewed the past conclusions. She asked that the City reconsider a more aggressive approach to recycling of the plastic containers deposited in the summer months at Freeman. In her own research she found that while plastics enhance the burning process when incinerated with trash, there are increased emissions. Berndt suggested alternatives for Shorewood to find ways to constructively deal with the excess plastics, such as a “plastics drive” or promoting the use of materials made from recycled plastics (i.e.composting bins). She offered to investigate further and keep the Commission informed. Themig agreed that there is a responsibility to do something, even if there is cost. ? Rights-of-Way Issues— Zerby reported that the City Council has reviewed information from legal counsel and has recommended to further study rights-of-way along Smithtown Road. The final report will include a map. Park Commission October 12, 1999 –Page 11 ? Park Foundation Representative— Co-chair Dallman reported that the Park Foundation will meet on October 14 and there is still not a liaison from the Park Commission. Arnst asked that appointment be postponed until the Commission is fully appointed in February 2000. ? Miscellaneous— Themig offered to attend a session on the legal aspects of skate parks at the MRP conference and bring back information to the Commission. Offer accepted. Arnst reported that the magic square is done and being used. Brown indicated he was somewhat disappointed in the markings, but it will be improved when they re-coat the surface in a few years. Arnst said it is working out well. 9.NEW BUSINESS The Park Commission meeting will meet on October 26 to discuss LRT winter use issues. The November 9 meeting will cover; user fee proposals, a report on Request for Proposals for the multi-use building, a report on the vending machine idea, and a report on recycling. 10.ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary