Loading...
011100 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2000 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Themig and Berndt; City Engineer Larry Brown; Councilmember Scott Zerby B. Review Agenda City Engineer Brown asked to include a discussion of the trail portion of the Comprehensive Plan, which is at the request of City Council. It will be added as item #5. Co-chair Arnst asked to add an item to discuss the problem of dog waste in parks and on trails. It will be brought up under Old Business (#9). Commissioner Berndt asked that report 4A, Review Recycling Scenarios, be put on hold until further information is available. 4A was replaced by a new item—Commissioner Themig’s report on the City Council meeting of 01/10/00. Puzak moved and Dallman seconded to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of December 14, 1999 Puzak moved and Dallman seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 2 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of January 10, 2000 Commissioner Themig reported that there was discussion about the role of the Shorewood Parks Foundation and the City Council would like to set up a joint session with the Park Commission and Foundation to review the current status and how to move forward. The Council will discuss this further at their January 24 meeting and set a date in February for the joint meeting. There was not a resolution to move the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA) membership forward. The Council would like additional information at their next meeting and a resolution authorizing staff. Themig will provide the further information to staff for preparation of that meeting. Councilmember Zerby explained that there was a question about the specific value to the Park Commission and the City. Arnst replied that one value is that of development for Park Commissioners. Zerby agreed, saying that others have questions. Themig said the Council also asked for an update from the Parks Foundation on progress and future plans. Specifically, there were questions about the development of their promotional brochures. Themig said he did not have all the answers, but those will be covered at the joint session in February. B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting of December 9, 1999 Commissioner Dallman said there was no official meeting, due to lack of a quorum. Financial Planners were invited to show how to approach benefactors in setting up a living trust as a way to donate to parks. The Foundation will try to incorporate that information in a visitation plan when meeting people about donations. Dallman said he is also not sure of outcome of the brochure. Engineer Brown explained that the City has asked an architect to put a rendering together of the park shelter building to incorporate in a flyer which staff has been creating. Dallman added that none have been printed and the Foundation is delaying their meeting until they are ready with the material. Themig asked if it is the Park Commission Liaison’s role to run the Foundation, or is there someone in the community to step up to the plate? Dallman explained that he was Chair from the beginning because of his role with the American Legion Post. Themig asked if someone else could be appointed to lead the Foundation and not have other Commission responsibilities, etc. Dallman said there may be one or two individuals currently serving on the Foundation who could be considered. No one has come forward on their own. Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 3 C. Grant Application Possibilities Commissioner Themig explained that Jim Hurm is working on some special projects for the City, including grant applications. They met last week, and based on discussion at the December Park Commission meeting regarding a Smithtown trail, Mr. Hurm will work on the Gideon Glen grant (along with the Land Conservation / Environment Committee) and on a grant for the Freeman park building. They also talked briefly about the skate park, but may need some clarification on whether to pursue that one. Puzak stated that he doesn’t see why it should not be attempted. Themig explained that it falls under the same grant as the Freeman building grant and he is not sure if it could be detrimental to do both. Puzak said that they do not have all the money yet for the skate park. About half of it is pledged and there has been some verbal discussion with the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce that they will raise a significant amount. He has not seen the Chamber come forward however, and recommends exploring alternative sources for funds. Themig agreed and said the first step in the grant application process is simply a letter of interest, which doesn’t require official action. There was further discussion. Puzak moved that the City of Shorewood submit a grant application to the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) and other funding agencies to help us raise money to complete the skate park. Themig seconded and the motion passed 5/0. Themig said that the other grant in question is for a trail along the western portion of Smithtown Road. As of now, based on the Commission’s discussion in December, they are not submitting a grant. One reason is that they are waiting for the right-of-way final report. Plus, it is a matching grant so the City would need to come up with additional funds to qualify. Brown provided an update. They have the attorney’s opinion as to Smithtown Road rights-of-way and had hoped to find early documentation to prove the City’s case. What they found came close, but not quite. Council proposed a report and graphic to show the status of Smithtown, which will hopefully bring a conclusion to the question of rights-of- way. Brown noted that there is a substantial amount of work involved and it will be a very long and arduous process to determine and obtain rights-of-way. Co-chair Arnst asked if it is realistic for the Commission to continue movement forward. Brown said that it’s undesirable to stall out and forget about it, yet realistically it will require other funding. The City will keep working on Smithtown matters as they have other issues such as road reconstruction itself. Arnst asked for an approximate time frame. Brown said that road reconstruction is actually slated to 2002. They may look at alternatives to State-aid construction. Councilmember Zerby asked if the rights-of-way study helps with the possible idea of a Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 4 bike lane. Brown said it will make clear to us where the larger obstacles lie, adding that right-of-way is defined to be to the edge of the shoulder or bottom of the ditch. Themig asked for an approximate percentage of places on the western portion of Smithtown where there are issues. Brown said he did not have even a guess without looking back at the information. Anrst asked if this can go back on the February agenda with further information after the Council discusses it at their January 24 meeting. Brown said yes. Themig added that the Commission has a responsibility to respond to Smithtown residents as to why the process has stalled and to show where right-of-way issues are involved. Commissioner Berndt asked if a majority of those with right of way property are among the people who are opposed to a trail or is that known? She asked if they have been approached as to their opinion. Brown said all of the above, adding that on the west portion, the Commission heard the most recent and best feedback during a trail walk. Arnst suggested holding a neighborhood meeting. Puzak suggested starting with the western portion where the process may be easier, but only if we are prepared that half of Smithtown may be all we do for perhaps an additional 5 years. He also asked if this should be led by the Commission or City Council because it’s financially and politically intensive. He said he is willing to do it, but needs to know what we are up against. Brown said that, either way, it is logical to look at Smithtown in two segments. On the easterly portion it may be logical to do something with a future roadway project. If the westerly trail is done by then, it may make a trail more palatable to the east. From a cost and manageability standpoint, it also makes sense. Berndt brought up the fact of the school and safety concerns, which make it an ideal place to begin, instead of waiting for both halves to be ready. Co-chair Dallman suggested approaching some property owners for a voluntary grant of their right-of-way. Once we know which ones we need, we can put the word out in a graphic display. Dallman said he would like to move forward on a west side segment. Brown also suggested they can wait and save through the C.I.P. and allocate dollars toward it each year. Themig said they could bring this back at the February meeting to decide on an approach and recommendation once we have graphics and further information. Others agreed. Themig added that this is a big picture issue and City Council needs to give direction on what they would like and on their thoughts. Dallman also agreed that it is up the City Council at that point. Puzak stated that it is the Park Commission’s charter because it is a trail. We can lead the way and identify issues, and present data to the Council, saying it is a winning proposition Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 5 and these are the facts. When you are done you will have a trail that completes this part of the master plan. We can do in a non-destructive, non-disturbing way. Let’s take responsibility to lead to a win-win solution. Councilmember Zerby said that he thinks the majority of the City Council is in favor of a trail, but like the municipal water issue, they won’t force it on those opposed. He told the Commission they have done a great job on the Vine Hill trail process and the Council is looking to them to continue. Themig recommended to contact people in February who have communicated to the Commission about a trail. Arnst stated to put the matter on the February agenda for a full report from City Engineer Brown and to discuss our next steps and how we will communicate to residents. Puzak added that they need to communicate to neighbors and to have another walk because of new information. They also should let residents know about the possibilities of State-aid funding, which is a fork in the road that must be faced and presented to the community. 5. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENT Engineer Brown distributed a copy of Planning Director Nielsen’s memo to the City Council, suggesting new language for the Comprehensive Plan document and labeling for the map trail segments. He explained that this is the only remaining hold-up to the acceptance of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Themig added that there was discussion at the council meeting about how to present information on the concept map to indicate that there are segments that have been looked at, but for the time being there is not a need for a trail. The Council asked for 3 or 4 designations, such as: completed, under development, to be studied, and previously studied—deemed unplanned. Brown pointed out that Mr. Nielsen’s memo suggested 4 designations and is asking that the Commission identify and prioritize segments around those labels, if verbiage is acceptable. Themig stated that he would like to simplify the wording. Zerby said the debate was over segments where there is strong public opposition and whether to leave it on the map. He defended the plan to include the map as a tool to show studies that have been done and potential sites. The Council compromised that the map reflects trails have been studied and then opposed. Themig said it might be beneficial to indicate if segments have been studied and not desired, rather than to remove those from the map entirely. Puzak pointed out that the island was looked at and those residents asked the City to help clear brush and open a walkway. It is a success, in that the City followed through and got Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 6 the citizens what they want. How do you state that on a map, since it was a very different solution? There was further discussion about labels for the map segments and possible review cycles for reconsideration of the various segments. Brown asked for clarification on trails for the islands and if there is still a consensus of no trail. Puzak agreed, saying it is a matter of policing the weeds every 6 months and reviewing the status every 5 years. With regard to the Smithtown west segment, Puzak labeled it as “Neighbors desire, Commission and Council have right-of-way and financial issues to be resolved.” Conversation turned to how much detail is required for the map and the Comp Plan document. Other suggestions were made for a labeling system. Brown reminded the Commission a lot has gone into Comprehensive Plan, including a thorough review by the Park Commission. It is a big picture document, which envelopes philosophies and takes a life of its own and lives and is reviewed periodically. Arnst stated that the bottom line is a problem with Grant Lorenz / Howard’s Point Road. Zerby agreed that the residents have wanted it taken off the map and the Council wants some way to indicate that opposition if it stays as a line on the map. Puzak said it should be shown as “Consensus No Trail.” Brown asked about other segments that have been walked. They were designated as follows: ? Vine Hill / Covington—Well Received and in Design ? Smithtown West—Well Received ? Smithtown East—No Comment (Have not followed our process.) Brown asked if the Commission is comfortable with the text addition on page 2 of the memorandum (as shown in italics). Themig suggested to add a similar comment after item #3, such as “where resident consensus supports trail development.” The Commission agreed to that addition and asked to then delete the italics suggested after item #5 on the draft. Themig moved that the Park Commission recommend to Council the changes in the Comprehensive Plan as noted and amending the Trail Concept Plan with the designations discussed. Puzak seconded and the motion passed 5/0. 6. PREPARATION FOR JANUARY 31 SPORTS ORGANIZATION MEETING Co-chair Arnst reported that she has talked with Park Planner, Mark Koegler and he will provide an outline format based on discussion at the last Park Commission meeting for use at the January 31 meeting (which will begin at 7:30 p.m.). Commissioner Berndt said she will not be present at the January 31 meeting. The co-chairs will make follow-up phone calls to encourage the sports representatives to attend. Themig asked what kind of information is being prepared for the meeting. Puzak said the data of park costs which was prepared by Larry Brown is a crucial piece and needs to be Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 7 presented well. He added that he is comfortable with the way Brown presented it in the past. Brown noted that Mark Koegler will have some suggestions to make it more clear and understandable and they will look at it together before the final presentation. Brown agreed to create it in a Power Point format and to lead that discussion. 7. SCHEDULE DATE AND NOTIFICATION PROCESS FOR WINTER TRAIL WALK The Commission considered delaying a walk along the LRT trail until there is more snow. Commissioner Berndt commented that the LRT has been groomed beautifully and is very pleasant to walk on. Arnst added that there has been a lot of use at night, including many bicycles. A walk was set for 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 12. City Council will also be invited to attend. They will start at Cathcart Drive and walk toward the east to County Road 19 (E.T.A. of 10:00 a.m.). Cookies and hot cider will be carried in a wagon to share with trail users and neighbors. If the temperature is below zero, the walk will be delayed until th the 19 of February. An announcement will go in the February issue of the Shore Report, encouraging residents to walk along, meet the Park Commissioners, and talk about park and trail issues. The Council has been invited to join them and will be interested in discussing community issues. The purpose is to discuss and look at things such as winter use. 8. RECOMMENDATION FOR GARDENS 2000 Co-chair Arnst said that she hopes the Commission will again support a plan for gardens around the park entrance signs again this year, reminding them that there are 7 locations and each was budgeted $50 for supplies. Themig suggested the idea of identifying a theme and will think of some ideas. It was agreed that there is support for the plan and there is no need for a motion An article will be included in the March issue of the City newsletter to promote the Adopt-a- Garden program. 9. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst reported that she was in Freeman Park and counted a dozen piles of dog waste in the area where she walked. She feels it is embarrassing and unhealthy and wants to discuss possible actions that can reduce or remedy the problem. Arnst observed that the mutt mitts are being used and the dispenser is not being vandalized. Themig asked what kind of use is allowed. Brown said that dogs can be off leash if they are under their owner’s control. Themig suggested to look at the ordinance that allows Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 8 dogs to be off leash. If the dog is under greater control, the owner may feel a greater sense of responsibility. Arnst asked about enforcement. Brown said, from a practical standpoint officers are busy with other things. Themig said that self-policing can be successful if a warning is posted of the consequences of disregarding City policy of cleaning up after dogs. Brown agreed, saying that Charlie is out in the parks early in the morning and people who bring dogs out for exercise are the repeat offenders. Even when asked, once the threat is gone, they are back out there with the same problem. Themig commented that people are using the park as an off-leash pet exercise area and it is not. Berndt noted that there is a sign at the park which states people are to pick up after and leash their dog. Arnst suggested to start with a newsletter article that is more direct. Berndt referred to her own experience, stating that a dog owner can be cited if their dog defecates and the owner does not pick up after it. Puzak urged to lead with education and by asking for people’s cooperation. It has been done and should be reiterated—then reinforce. He said he will always argue for good people who do the right thing and wouldn’t want them to be required to leash their dogs unless we are at some breaking point. Arnst said she is troubled that we have an ordinance we are not prepared to enforce. Berndt said she is surprised they are allowed off leash because the sign indicates they have to be on leash. Brown explained that it asks people to leash their dogs, but not that it is mandatory, adding that he hears about it almost daily from Public Works. Puzak suggested to do a reminder and provide the mutt mitts. He does not want to restrict dogs from parks. If it is a health issue, we should communicate that openly and honestly. Themig asked where the signs are posted and asked if more should be added. Brown gave a quick inventory and asked they not add to that because signs are clearly marked already and are expensive to purchase. Themig said to encourage self-enforcement. Puzak suggested they follow the trail walk process in parks and invite neighbors to meet with the Commission and have conversations face-to-face. The improvement will take a couple of years, but it’s a community process. Other approaches were considered and it was agreed there is a need to be more assertive on this issue. There was some discussion about wording and approach with a newsletter article. Brown suggested stating that the privilege to have dogs in park could be jeopardized. Arnst said to keep the topic alive. In other Old Business, Themig stated that he is still hoping to write a brochure on Park History and would like help from staff. Brown suggested he contact Dan Randall. Park Commission January 11, 2000 – Page 9 Arnst reported that a letter was sent to horse owners asking for cooperation when using the LRT trail. The mailing did not include one horse owner who lives at Cathcart Road and the LRT because it is a Chanhassen residence. She would recommend that the same letter go to them. Berndt asked if the letter stated that parks are off-limits to horses. Arnst said no. 10. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Themig asked for an update on staff changes. City Engineer Brown explained current vacancies and the new job descriptions approved by Council. Co-chair Arnst encouraged each Commissioner to think about goals for the new year and stated that this was the last meeting as Chairs for Mr. Dallman and herself. The Council is hoping to have a visioning meeting at the end of February along with both Commissions and the office staff. The issue of Park Commission goals will be on the agenda for the February Commission meeting. The Commission was reminded that they will also select a new Chair in February and will need to have four members present for a quorum. 11. ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary