Loading...
020403 PK WS MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Chair Arnst called the work session to order at 7:08 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst, Commissioners Callies, Young, Davis, and late arrival Palesch; City Engineer Brown; Technician Bailey, and City Council liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Meyer B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSS GOAL IDEAS FOR 2003 Chair Arnst circulated a list of approximately seven goals for the Park Commission to consider for 2003. With regard to the Concession Stand item, Young relayed thoughts from an experienced concessionaire which indicated that health inspector decisions and reports can vary greatly depending on which inspector visits your site. Callies questioned whether the concession stand license from the health inspector is an item reviewed every year. Brown stated that, after a concession operation obtains its initial licensing, it is subject to an annual review. As the Commission agreed this was a high priority item, Chair Arnst asked if the Commission would support the formation of an advisory research committee to investigate the appeal to the health inspector’s report and develop a marketing plan. She felt Meyer would make a good candidate for this position and would speak to her about the committee upon her return. In reference to interaction with other Park Commissions, Chair Arnst encouraged the Commission to accept Deephaven Park Commission’s invitation to tour their new multi-purpose tennis court. She believed opportunities to partner with other Park Commissions, Three Rivers or Hennepin County, and other community groups could be worthwhile for certain endeavors, such as an LRT clean-up day. While not a priority, Callies stated that this item could be added to the 2003 goals. Chair Arnst introduced item three, dog owner education, as an ongoing mission and one in need of further consideration as the Council would be looking at an ordinance change. She pointed out that signage, similar to the small signs on Chanhassen trails, would be useful. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 2 of 9 With regard to trails, Turgeon stated that the City Council would be changing the Dog Leash Ordinance, thereby requiring pets to be kept on a six foot leash, similar to County trail ordinances. While past ordinances have been difficult to enforce, Chair Arnst hoped that continuing education would reduce problems and complaints about pets, and their waste, on the trails. Young suggested the Commission contact neighboring communities to identify what they’ve found to work. Chair Arnst identified another priority item, the Master Plan/CIP review process. She indicated that the CIP contains $27,000 from the CUB Project and suggested the Commission review the Master Plan for items to be added to the CIP. Brown suggested the Park Commission check with the finance department to see where the debt from Eddy Station stands and if the debt has been cleared. Chair Arnst felt the Commission could take steps with partner organizations, like the SouthShore Community Center in order to improve Badger Park for their use, or research other opportunities, such as a wetland/nature area in Freeman Park. Bailey pointed out that he could, depending on the project, look into matching grant opportunities to do something on a bigger scale. As she learned from a recent SLUC meeting she attended, Turgeon stated that matching grants would be a good avenue worth pursuing. With regard to item 5, Buckthorn, Chair Arnst asked what could be done to further educate residents of how to eliminate this pest properly. As buckthorn tends to take over, Chair Arnst suggested articles be printed in the newsletter addressing people’s concerns and offering tips for its removal, i.e. Buckthorn Busters. Turgeon suggested the Commission consider an incentive program, such as offering a seedling, to encourage people to eradicate the nuisance buckthorns on their property. Young proposed the Commission conduct short seminars on how to identify buckthorn and get rid of it. By scanning a picture of buckthorn to run in the newsletter and featuring articles, Turgeon felt this could be an effective educational tool. As far as Commissioner Development was concerned, Chair Arnst suggested that the Commission or City provide a seminar, perhaps sponsored by the MN Park and Recreation Board, to offer new information or resources to the Commission. She pointed out that this could be an opportunity to incorporate item 2 by inviting other Park Commissions to participate. Young asked if the seminar would address general issues faced by Park Commissions. Chair Arnst indicated that the MN Park and Rec. Board could enlighten the Park Commission on various trends in other communities. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 3 of 9 Brown suggested that items 2 and 6 be combined, since many of the hot topics for discussion could provide the City with an opportunity to network with other Park Commissions. Overall, Chair Arnst maintained that City’s need to be more proactive on how to raise funds for parks. She pointed out that Shakopee charges a $2,700 subdivision fee versus the $1,500 fee charged in Shorewood for parks. Young encouraged the Commission to put a process in place for briefing or educating our own incoming Commissioners in advance. Chair Arnst pointed out that the Park Commission had created a book for the City Administrator, or staff person, to use when going over issues with incoming Commissioners. Davis stated that meeting with Chair Arnst in advance of her first Commission meeting to bring her up to speed was very beneficial. While not wanting to add to Engineer Brown’s workload, Chair Arnst felt he would be the best person to provide an orientation of sorts to incoming Commissioners. Brown stated that he could develop an orientation packet to provide to new members of the Commission. Palesch arrived at 7:32 P.M. Finally, Chair Arnst referred to item seven, the opportunity to consider events for the parks. She asked the Commission if there was interest, or a volunteer, who would evaluate fun events for Shorewood Parks, for example, winter wonderland, skiing to luminaries on the LRT, music in the Parks, etc. Brown stated that the Music in the Park series has gone very well for Plymouth parks. Davis indicated that she would research an activity for the parks. Palesch stated that help on in informal basis. In order of priority, the goals for 2003 were set as follows: 1) Concession Stand 2) Master Plan/CIP 3) Interaction with other Park Commission/Commissioner Development 4) Dog Owner Education 5) Buckthorn 6) Fun activity/event for Shorewood With regard to the Lake Linden Trail planning process, Chair Arnst asked if there was anything else that the Park Commission needed to add. Young interjected that he had been under the impression that the Commission involvement was finished, with regard to Lake Linden events. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 4 of 9 Although CUB would be constructing the trail, Brown stated that the City had not gone thru the public process for the trail, noting that many aspects of the trail were yet unresolved. Brown pointed out that in order to obtain resolution of key issues such as, the location, drainage, corner landscape features, etc. the City would need to involve the public in the process. Young questioned what the Park Commission or City’s role would be in the process versus the CUB developers. Brown stated that the developer would be writing the check, however, the City would be responsible for following the public process. Callies asked what more needed to be done and why the process had stopped. While the developer has been prepping the site for the building, Brown indicated that WSB has been in the final stages of designing a plan that fits the trail, drainage, and utilities along the corridor. Young inquired whether there were anticipated right of way issues. Brown stated that there would likely be right of way issues, which would need considerable public involvement. Young asked if the Commission should be moving more quickly to deal with these issues. Brown stated that there needs to be a technical plan in place to present to the neighbors first. Young noted that, during the earlier neighborhood walk, only one neighbor had expressed any concern to the Commission and he wondered if staff anticipated more resistance. Brown indicated that once stakes appear in people’s yards, the City would likely hear more objections. 3. REVIEW THE DATA COLLECTED FROM THE SMITHTOWN ROAD OPEN HOUSE A. Agree on Criteria for Discussion B. Review Criteria C. Discuss Consensus for Recommendation to Council Having been provided with neighborhood comments and maps earlier, Chair Arnst identified four options for the Park Commission to consider with regard to the Smithtown trail recommendation. 1) 5’ wide concrete 2) 8’ bituminous 3) do nothing 4) other considerations. After researching the various input, analyzing the comments, and tallying the data, Brown shared the right of way maps and neighboring views for and against the sidewalk/trail as laid out in the 10-step process for building consensus. Although it was apparent to her from the extensive data collected that the City had done due diligence PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 5 of 9 in following the trail planning process, Chair Arnst questioned whether they had obtained a consensus from the residents. Bailey pointed out that throughout the 10-step process, in some form, the City has heard from 39 of the 87 residents west of the LRT. Callies felt that no real consensus had been attained despite the 10-step process that would support construction of a trail. Chair Arnst questioned the consensus qualifier itself, from the standpoint that the greater mass of residents desires a trail along Smithtown. She did not feel the Park Commission had addressed the greater community when they developed the trail planning process in the beginning. If the process doesn’t say we need a consensus of the immediately affected neighbors, there is a gray area there. Brown indicated that the process does not state full consensus of the immediately affected neighbors is necessary. While personally, Callies felt Shorewood should have a trail along Smithtown, she indicated that if there is a policy in place which states the City won’t move forward on trail construction without consensus of the neighbors, she could not support the trail. Chair Arnst asked whether the Park Commission recommendation could state that, while they have not reached a clear consensus from the residents according to City policy, if the Council chose to take action, the Park Commission would support option A or B. Of the total 39 residents that responded, Young asked if there was a total number of those who supported the trail at one time or another. Davis pointed out that, at the very least, the City would get a wider road with shoulders, even if the trail did not go forward. Brown stated that 22 residents voiced support for a trail at some point during the 10-step process. Bailey stated that one can find a consensus depending on what side of the road they live on, for example, the south side residents were in support of the trail on the north side. If it is determined that the trail should not go off road, Bailey indicated that the next level for consideration would be what side the 4’ shoulder goes on and what side the 2’ shoulder goes on. Chair Arnst asked what benefit the 2’ or 4’ shoulder would provide. Brown pointed out that a 4’ shoulder is marginally enough for a bike lane and a 2’ shoulder is substandard. If the road were laid out with 4’ and 2’ striped shoulders, Smithtown Road would be similar to Old Market Road. Chair Arnst asked if there was latitude to propose a 5’ sidewalk on the north side and 4’ shoulder on the south side of Smithtown Road. Brown confirmed that the Commission could propose a 5’ sidewalk on the north side, however, the 4’ shoulder along the south side would need to be uniform the entire length of Smithtown Road.. He noted that any off street trail, beyond the ditch, would be beyond the widened shoulder as well. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 6 of 9 Callies questioned the necessity of having both a wide shoulder and off road trail. As there could be difficulties obtaining ROW’s, Bailey felt Callies made a good point suggesting another option, which was, in essence, that consideration be given for skipping the off road trail altogether. Instead going the full 6-8’ width shoulder on one side with a minimal 2’ shoulder on the other side. He indicated that some of the comments would support the idea of widening the shoulder. Considering the proximity to the school, Chair Arnst felt there should be some separation between the area where people would be walking to school or along Smithtown Road and where the vehicles travel. Brown agreed, stating that initial discussions showed that people would prefer separation with a more narrow road, a sidewalk on one side, and 2’ and 4’ shoulders on either side. In fact, identical to Old Market Road. Chair Arnst asked the Commission if they felt 22 in favor sounded like a consensus to them. Bailey pointed out that most of the 22 comments were from people on the south side and that the Commission had heard little from the people who would need to grant ROW’s. He stated, at this point, it was hard to tell what these people were thinking. Callies asked if ROW’s would need to be granted for 2’ and 4’ shoulders, or merely for a sidewalk. Brown indicated that there were varying opinions of how far the City could go before it would have to seek easements if the trail was recommended by the Commission and Council. Since the funding and construction would be available now to provide this infrastructure designed to serve the greater community, Chair Arnst wrestled with the question of consensus. She asked the Commission if they were comfortable with making a recommendation to the Council recognizing this limitation. Personally, as a resident whose home backs up to trail, Chair Arnst pointed out that she is sensitive to the impacts trails can have. Callies suggested they identify the trail as a less imposing sidewalk or pedestrian space. Brown agreed that it is misleading to say sidewalk or trail since different meanings are assigned to each term. Chair Arnst asked the Commissioners which way they would lean on the issue. Young stated that he did not believe the Commission had a mandate from the neighbors, if that’s what the consensus was meant to weigh. Brown noted that the goals of the trail process were divided here. Chair Arnst asked if weight should be given to the affected respondents. Davis argued that, in her experience, a no show implies acceptance. Typically, only those who have a strong opinion one way or another would attend an open house or comment. Palesch asked, if the Park Commission believed a trail should be put in while construction was PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 7 of 9 underway, even in the absence of a strong mandate from the neighbors one way or another, whether the Commission could say they support that. Of the available options, Chair Arnst asked the Commissioners which they would choose. Overwhelmingly, the Commissioners agreed option A - 5’ concrete sidewalk to be the most flexible option as long as mitigating landscaping could be used to offset the construction. With regard to ROW issues, Chair Arnst pointed out that the whole project could be delayed by these issues and asked if the Commission could have any impact on these negotiations. While ROW issues would be a concern, Brown indicated that the Commission would have little influence on the scenario. Chair Arnst asked if the Commission would need to formulate a recommendation to share with Council. Brown pointed out that the Commission should formulate a recommendation this evening in the work session that could be made into a recommendation in the regular meeting later or they would be in violation of the open meeting law. Chair Arnst asked what elements of the discussion should be included in the recommendation. While the data did not reflect a mandate from the neighboring community, she believed staff had done due diligence in its data gathering and collection. She also believed the timing to be critical to move forward with the trail since the money and construction site prep was at hand to construct a 5’ concrete sidewalk on the north side of Smithtown Road, with mitigating landscaping built into it, as part of the vision of the trail planning process for trail connectivity. Brown asked if the Commission would support the construction of a trail or oppose it. In the absence of a consensus, Young stated that, in his opinion, it should not be considered at this time. Even though her opinion would be to move forward as part of the overall vision, Callies questioned the consensus theory and felt that if the Commission wished to weight affected owners comments, the trail support would diminish greatly. She believed that, rather than weighting comments, the Commission should leave it to the City Council to decide. Palesch argued that, if the vision of the Park Commission is to have interconnected trails, she would recommend the sidewalk construction despite the lack of a total mandate. In keeping with the City’s vision, Palesch believed this to be the time to do it right as an asset to the roadway and she would recommend a trail to the City Council. If the City Council chose to support or not support the recommendation, or they felt they needed a bigger mandate, they could ask staff to go out and gain that. Palesch believed that either Brown or Bailey would be capable of going out to gain support for the project. Davis asked what properties would be impacted the most by the construction. Brown stated that there were approximately 4 houses whose trees or gardens would be impacted. He PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 8 of 9 noted that a 5’ sidewalk would allow for the greatest degree of flexibility and maneuverability with regard to trees etc. versus an 8’ bituminous trail. Palesch voiced her support for a 5’ sidewalk. Chair Arnst concurred that if the 5’ pedestrian space offered more flexibility, she would be inclined to support that. Brown suggested that, if the Park Commission were going to make a recommendation in support of a sidewalk, they begin with the reasons in support, the timing, funding, vision, and end with a qualifier regarding the consensus. Chair Arnst reiterated that she would like the City Council to know that, while the Commission has concerns about how the numbers fell and it is a difficult decision, the Commission is comfortable with that. Young indicated that he would be the one dissenting vote. The Commission formulated a motion as follows: The Park Commission recommends a 5’ concrete pedestrian space be constructed, with mitigating landscaping, on the north side of Smithtown Road from the LRT to the Victoria border with a 4’ shoulder on the south side for the entire length of the project. This recommendation is tempered by the knowledge that we do not have clear consensus from the neighbors most affected by the project. The Park Commission support of a 5’ pedestrian space is due in part to the construction timeliness, funding availability, and that it is in keeping with the Commission’s vision for trail interconnectivity. The Commission further believes a 5’ pedestrian space would offer more flexibility and be less intrusive than the 8’ bituminous trail. If the City Council chooses to banish a pedestrian space altogether, the Park Commission would recommend a 4’ shoulder on the north side and 2’ shoulder on the south side of Smithtown Road for the entire length of the project. Young questioned whether adding the 2’ and 4’ recommendation muddies the water. Brown disagreed, stating that construction has always depicted a 4’ wide shoulder on the north side for the most part, unless the trail was to be placed on the north. In fact, Brown pointed out that by making a recommendation about the shoulder on the north side, the Commission has taken a preventative measure for the project being bounced back for further discussion. Turgeon noted that if the City Council chooses to decline its approval for a pedestrian space, the Park Commission shoulder recommendation gives them an alternative to act on to get it done. With regard to the Commission’s 2003 goals, Turgeon suggested the Commission revisit the trail planning process and further define the term consensus. Chair Arnst voiced her concern that the Park Commission not become the mediator of the east west trail planning process. After a 3-minute break, the Park Commission adjourned to it’s Regular Meeting at 9:07 P.M. 4. ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES Page 9 of 9 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary