081109 PK MIM
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1.CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
A.Roll Call
Present: Chair Norman; Commissioners Davis, Robb, and Edmondson; Park Coordinator
Anderson; Public Works Director Brown; and late arrival City Council liaison
Bailey
Absent: Commissioners Trent, DeMers, and Quinlan
B.Review Agenda
Item 5, Maintenance of Manor Pond, was moved up to follow Matters from the Floor.
Davis moved, Edmondson seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0..
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Minutes of July 14, 2009
Davis moved, Robb seconded, approving the Minutes of July 14, 2009, as submitted.
Motion passed 4/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
5. MAINTENANCE OF MANOR POND –
(Director Public Works, Larry Brown and
Dick Osgood)
Dick Osgood, of Osgood Consulting and representative of The Lake Minnetonka Association,
stated that he had been consulting the Amesbury neighbors for approximately 15 years with
regard to their pond. As mentioned during the Manor Park neighborhood meeting, Osgood
indicated that the Manor Park pond is a shallow ¾ acre site which has become overgrown with
vegetation. While not uncommon for ponds to undergo change over the years, Manor seemingly
wants to be a natural wetland, which is often common when waters are so low and there has been
little rain to deter vegetative growth. Osgood stated that he was not surprised to see the pond in
its current condition, as many others are faced with the same issues, even though the neighbors
have recently voiced their concern regarding its state. Osgood noted that, as part of the overall
stormwater management system, Manor Pond functions as a retention pond which in turn protects
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 2 OF
Lake Minnetonka down stream. He questioned whether the pond could serve both functions, as a
stormwater retention area and aesthetic amenity to the park.
Due to its small size, Osgood stated that many contractors would likely recommend herbicides
and bubblers. Though he himself does not sell such items, Osgood indicated that he could make
recommendations and hook the city up with the right people. Osgood pointed out that,
oftentimes, treatment plans shift over time based on varying conditions and that there are
generally three options to consider: 1. Do nothing – the City and neighbors could decide to do
nothing and let nature take its course. 2. Minimal Approach – spend approximately a couple
thousand dollars annually for manual weed removal and treatments. 3. More intensive
management measures – from $5,000-10,000 annually to set up an ongoing maintenance
schedule. In addition, some communities choose to dredge their ponds which provide relief over
time.
City Council member Bailey arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Osgood encouraged the Commission to consider what the primary function of this pond is, as a
stormwater pond or a park amenity. Obviously, a disturbed system, Osgood maintained that the
pond could likely be improved with a major intervention, but at what cost. As a visual amenity,
the city would need to decide what value it places on making these improvements.
Edmondson asked whether wildlife might be attracted to the pond if it were improved.
Osgood stated that, really, the pond needs to be deeper to attract much more wildlife. He added
that some cat tails, lily pads in sections, and open water space would be ideal for wildlife as well.
Osgood pointed out that some things are getting choked out, as there is little oxygen to share.
Chair Norman concurred, stating that a higher water level and potential dredging might be
beneficial.
Robb questioned whether the Commission would seek to turn the functioning stormwater pond
into a park amenity, and asked what the cost of dredging might be.
Public Works Director Brown thanked the Commission and representative Osgood for their
consideration. He asked to begin by clarifying a few misnomers shared by the neighborhood
residents near Manor Park.
Brown provided a brief history of Manor Park pond, explaining that it was untrue that the City
had ever filled the pond with sand in the past. Brown stated that in interviews with public works
staff that have been with the City in excess of 25 years, there has never been an instance in which
the City filled the pond with sand in an attempt to pull out any snowplowing equipment, or for
any other purpose. The only work done near the pond was a small access point that was leveled
along the edge of the pond to allow for entrance and exit by equipment near the warming house.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 3 OF
Brown shared topographical details with the Commission, stating that in 1997 the water level was
at 986.5’ before the outlet was constructed. He noted that the pond is not considered a wetland,
but in fact, a stormwater pond which must in turn meet the 100 year storm event measure which
set the water line at 986’ (1/2 foot difference). Brown stated that though merely 3.5’ deep in the
center, the 100 year high water mark is 988’ which allows for adequate ‘bounce’ in the water line.
Brown pointed out that the warming house itself sits at 988’.
As part of the stormwater management plan, Brown explained that the function and values of
each pond are measured. The MCWD recently put out a mandate that requires cities to document
the depths of each pond and provide a plan of how frequently cities will clean out their ponds.
Though necessary and possibly delinquent in doing so, Brown stated that this is a very expensive
proposition, and although the City is in the process of putting together a formal plan to perform
these functions there is not additional funding which accompanies the standard. Brown estimated
that this would entail $1.8 million worth of improvements within a stormwater plan which already
far exceeds what is in the fund. He indicated that the City will need to evaluate which of the many
competing projects for the same limited funds will be completed.
Brown stated that if the Park Commission recommends this pond to be an amenity as opposed to
a stormwater pond, he would recommend the funds come from the Park CIP. He noted that, quite
honestly, once the city performs their required studies, there will likely be higher priority ponds
than that at Manor Park, thus the City would be faced with the decision of what to do then.
Davis asked how much dredging cost. She was hesitant to use chemicals.
Brown stated that, shooting from the hip, a rough estimate would be between $60,000-100,000
per pond, mainly because much of the deposits are considered hazardous when removed, besides
the obvious fuel costs and disposal site. Brown stated that the concrete outlet structure was only
built three years ago with the watermain and should be in pretty good shape compared to many
others. He encouraged the Commission to consider the costs, the stormwater management
question versus the park amenity ideal, and generally, what characteristics the Commission wants
for that park pond, habitat, or deeper basin.
Davis asked what the phosphorous load coming off the new development might be.
Anderson interjected that the small aerator fountain sprinkling in the middle of the pond does not
appear to have a hose circulating or disturbing the sediment, but instead appears to be merely a
superficial amenity which, in conversations with Engineer Landini, do no harm.
Brown stated that, in 2005, a MCWD limnologist partnered with the City to study the condition
of the pond and did a number of tests to evaluate the water. The tests were deemed inconclusive
at the time but also eliminated filamentous algae from the mix.
Chair Norman encouraged staff to pursue the MCWD and DNR once again to partner and have
more studies done.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 4 OF
A Manor Park area resident stated that it seemed to him the depth alone was a concern for the
neighbors and felt from what he heard that, if deeper, some of the vegetative growth would be
discouraged. Though a costly fix, he questioned whether dredging may be the best solution.
Chair Norman stated that he would like to see an estimate for the minimal approach, the
maximum chemical treatment options, and the costs associated with dredging.
Robb reiterated his earlier comment, questioning whether the Commission or City is interested in
changing the intent or definition of this pond, especially since it is a functioning stormwater pond.
Chair Norman questioned whether the pond could be both an amenity and stormwater pond.
Davis stated that neither the Commission nor the City is in the position to pay the bill. Faced with
a difficult decision and extremely low water year she was reluctant to be rash.
Osgood pointed out that he saw no real impact from the neighboring development or from their
aerator. He indicated that phosphorous tests are cheap, and in any event, at minimum, the City
may wish to control that. Osgood was not sure this pond was ready for all out herbicide
treatments.
Davis stated that the City really needs an army of volunteers, or Manor neighbors, willing to come
in and manually pull the lily pads themselves by hand to begin the process.
Chair Norman suggested staff explore finding an Eagle Scout troop or volunteers willing to do
the removal.
Brown stated that he was wrestling with the dredging or mechanical removal options and asked
the Commission to let staff pursue some cost estimates and come back with a report.
Chair Norman agreed, indicating he would like to know the costs associated with the various
options.
Edmondson suggested the water tests be followed up.
Brown stated that the testing costs were negligible and could be pursued to start as opposed to
dredging.
4. REPORTS
A. Report on City Council Meeting
Bailey stated that the City Council voted to support the proposed plans for the Park
Commission’s 2010 budget. He indicated that they were pleased the Park Commission was
pushing forward on some plans, even though not all of them may be complete in 2009 and may
overflow into 2010, progress was clearly being made.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 5 OF
B. Update on Eclipse Painting and Eddy Station Shelter
Anderson reported that she had been in contact with the contractor, Eclipse Painting, who was
very cooperative and wanted to make things right with the City. She noted that they promised to
th
complete the 4 side, re-sanding and staining it to match the other three sides before the next
meeting in September. She relayed that the contractor explained to her that he performed the
same work as the original builder with a natural polyurethane seal, but since the stain was a
different tint it stood out. She pointed out that the underside of the arched roof canopy would not
be stained to match. Anderson stated that staff had agreed the city shall pay for the supplies but
the labor would be supplied at no change by the contractor.
C. Report on Garage Band Jam Event
Chair Norman stated that he was very impressed with the Garage Band Jam event and that he
estimated 350-400 people were in attendance throughout the evening.
Anderson concurred, stating that the event was a success. That there were many volunteers,
judges, and coordinators which put together a great evening. She recognized Edmondson, a
judge, B Grizzly’s pizza, the concessionaire, and B96 – a bit urban for the suburbs but a gracious
group who participated for the event. She stated that it was unfortunate some vandalism occurred
overnight and maintained that this may have occurred despite the GBJ.
Brown indicated that the damage had mostly been resolved.
D. Update on Silverwood Park Shelter
th
Anderson reported that there would be a neighborhood meeting next Tuesday, August 18, from
5:00 – 6:30pm at the City Hall to share the Silverwood park shelter concepts with the public. She
invited members of the Commission to be present to visit with neighbors. She stated that she had
received several estimates for the work and would post photos of the proposed shelters.
Chair Norman asked how many invites were distributed.
Anderson stated that Park Secretary Grout had mailed at least several hundred, though she was
unsure of the exact amount. She noted that after the neighborhood meeting, the concept would
move on to the Planning Commission for a CUP amendment the following week.
E. Update on Manor Park Shelter
Anderson reported that she had met with Building Inspector Joe Pazendak to discuss the
renovation and have him look at the current state of the building to determine whether a remodel,
as opposed to an entire re-build, would be adequate. She indicated that, while the design and
spec phase would occur in 2009, the construction would not likely begin until spring 2010.
F.Report on Hennepin Ballpark Grant Program
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 6 OF
Anderson explained that Administrator Heck had forwarded a grant program for review. She
indicated that the Mn Amateur Sports Commission would be administering the grants and that
they were to be considered on a first come first served type basis. To that end, Anderson stated
that she shared the concept with the sports organizations at the fall sports meeting and that the
hockey association jumped at the chance to partner and improve the rinks in Shorewood. In
addition, Anderson stated that she proposed several other options for consideration, including
astro-turf tennis courts and other recreational amenities. She stated that while there were other
priorities that the Commission wished to focus on for 2010, construction of shelters were not
‘active’ recreation and would not be considered for the grant program. Anderson stated that she
would update the Commission as she moved forward with Mr. Stawski.
Chair Norman suggested Anderson consider other additions like updated fencing at the ball fields
and bleachers at Freeman, Badger and Cathcart.
Davis commented that it would be nice if this campaign were an ongoing annual grant opportunity
the City could apply for each year and encouraged staff to see if it will be ongoing.
6. CONTINUED FROM JULY 14, 2009 MEETING – REVIEWING AMENDMENT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LITTLE LEAGUE SIGNAGE AT
BALL FIELDS
Chair Norman shared the proposed changes with the Commission for their review, many of which
were originally posed by the Park Commission itself at their previous meeting. He stated that
although he did not agree with the direction the City Council was moving, it was moving forward
with or without the Commission and he would at least prefer to have the wording covered and
make sure there is an ‘out’ for the City should this fail miserably.
Robb echoed Chair Norman’s comments.
Chair Norman added that he would like to consult the little league books on an annual basis to
ensure that the money is staying within Shorewood.
Edmondson moved, Davis seconded, approving the Zoning Code Amendment allowing
signs on the fencing. Motion failed 1/3, Davis, Norman, and Robb dissenting.
Davis moved, Robb seconded, denying the approval of the License Agreement allowing
signs on the ball park fencing. Motion passed 4/0.
7. REVIEW AND APPROVE SIGNAGE FOR THE PARKS
Anderson presented the Commission with a sample faux polystyrene stone provided by Duane
DuMont for their consideration. She noted that it was difficult to obtain comparisons for the
stone, as the other contractors did not offer a poly faux stone, but instead offered a faux stone like
that on the building. Anderson pointed out that DuMont also could provide the faux stone, like
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 7 OF
that of the building, for the monuments for roughly $55,900. She noted that the poly stone sample
had been supplied to her rather hastily and that the contractor indicated he did not have a chance
to dye the stone perfectly to match, nor cover the sample with the anti-graffiti coating that would
be used for the project.
The Commission did not mind the appearance of the stone from a distance but questioned the
durability of the poly plastic stone on the monument signs. They tried to ‘damage’ the material as
if a vandal were disparaging it and succeeded in poking holes in the poly with the end of a
screwdriver and points of a hammer. The Commission asked Anderson to continue to pursue
their options and speak with DuMont about the flammability of the product and other references,
City’s who had used this product for their signs and the success or failure they’d seen.
Anderson indicated that she would like to contact the contractor to obtain a ‘non-rushed’ sample,
ask more about the durability of the polystyrene against the outdoor elements, vandalism, and
flammability. She indicated that there is a graffiti remover that works on the surface but would
ask for more information about repair kits. Anderson stated that there had also been some
developments within the contractor’s company itself and that she would feel more comfortable
holding off until these questions could be resolved.
The Commission tabled the sign discussion to allow for more information at the next meeting.
8. REVIEW FALL SURVEY
Anderson asked for the Commission’s feedback on the proposed fall survey.
The Commission asked to see the focus continue to be on the programming piece. Specifically,
removing the third question for a later date and adding a question after the trails question, which
asks ‘do you primarily walk or bike on the trails’ and another ‘where would you like to take a trail
to ___’ .
In addition, at the top of the second page, revising the first question as follows, ‘… household
attend any of the following activities in the parks’ and include a box for Arctic Fever. The next
question adding the word ‘interested in renting’ a Community Garden plot.
Finally, the Commission asked if the survey provider could identify multiple filers in an effort to
screen or cut down on people answering the same survey multiple times.
Anderson stated that she would have the survey updated with the changes and check to see if the
city had contracted with a survey company as of yet, which may allow for screening multiple
filers.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009
8
PAGE 8 OF
9. REVIEW AND APPROVE THE ADDITION OF BIKE RACKS
Anderson passed around a photo of the proposed 5-loop bike rack for the Commission to view
and explained that she had contacted several contractors to price out 7 of the bike racks for the
parks, including two at Freeman. She indicated that, though a bit more that first thought, the big
difference could be found in the shipping fees from each company. She pointed out that the
savings would also come from asking public works to install the bike racks as opposed to having
the contractors install the surface mounted racks.
Brown interjected that, while public works can install the racks, they are completely overwhelmed
and could not guarantee the installation of even one or more of the racks before winter. He said
he could not commit to a firm date since they were in the process of sealing over pot holes and
other numerous projects.
The Commission empathized with the issues facing public works and stated they would be willing
to order the racks and have them available for public works to install at their convenience between
now and next spring sometime if that would be acceptable.
Davis moved, Edmondson seconded, to recommend the purchase of seven 5-loop bike racks
from Gametime at a cost of $1,756.02 to have stockpiled for public works staff to install as
soon as possible at their convenience. Motion passed 4/0.
10. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 24, 2009
th
Robb volunteered to act as liaison to the City Council on August 24.
11. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
12. ADJOURN
Davis moved, Robb seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of August 11,
2009, at 8:42 p.m. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kristi B. Anderson
Recorder