Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-26-05APPROVED Members Present: Mike Eliason, Eric Johnson, Mark Jacobs, Kelly Sampo Members Absent: Leslie Defries Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary Student Volunteer: None Others Present: None 1. CALL TO ORDER: Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 6. c. Old Business: Final Plat – Glen Rose Development 3. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 22, 2005 MEETING MINUTES and AUGUST 8, 2005 WORK SESSION MINUTES: MOTION by Jacobs to approve the minutes of the August 22, 2005 meeting and the August 8, 2005 Work Session, 2005. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None. 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Portable Restroom Enclosures – Schultz provided four examples of enclosures and cost estimates for each type of enclosure. We were unable to get a quote for a poured-in-place wall structure as the vendors we contacted were too busy with other construction to do a project like this. Schultz recommended that the enclosure identified as Example 1 be built at Chippendale Park. The cost of the enclosure would be approximately $500. Per Schultz, this would be a good Eagle Scout project, with the City supervising the construction. The enclosure would be built in the spring of 2006, as we would not have time to complete it this fall. We would start with the enclosure at Chippendale Park, see whether it is vandalized during the spring and summer, and then move forward with building enclosures in other parks. Jacobs asked about other materials that might be used to build the enclosures, such as the composite material used for decking. Schultz stated that he thought the first enclosure should be a wooden structure, and that we should see how this works before possibly using other, higher cost materials. Eliason stated that he had never seen a portable toilet burned that was in an enclosure. Johnson asked about the timeframe for building enclosures in other parks. Per Schultz, this would be based on complaints received. If we are able to locate the portable toilets at other parks so that we don’t receive a lot of complaints and don’t have problems with them being tipped over on a regular basis, we might not need to build additional enclosures. We could review the need for the enclosures annually, and install them as needed. The reason we are building the enclosure at Chippendale Park first is that we have not been able to find a portable toilet location that makes everyone in the neighborhood happy, and we have received complaints from neighborhood residents about this for several years. Johnson liked the idea of having the enclosures as the standard for all of parks with portable toilets. He would like to look at which of the designs we would use per park, and felt that Example 2 would be a good choice for some of the larger parks. Sampo wanted to clarify that we would revisit this issue once a year and decide if additional parks need enclosures. Per Schultz, one of the things that was briefly discussed at one of the work sessions was service levels/standards and updating the parks master plan based on what’s happening with the comprehensive guide plan. Making portable toilet enclosures a standard item instead of reviewing this every year to see if there are any issues might be something that we would add to the parks master plan. $300-$500 per structure is not a lot to spend to spruce up the park. The enclosures do help prevent tipping because they are locked in place so they can’t be pulled out and tipped to the side or blown over during a storm. Johnson had two recommendations: 1) That we see how the first enclosure works out, and if there are no significant issues, he’d like the Commission to talk about making this a standard for our parks. Future parks would then be designed with this in mind, depending on the size of the park. 2) That we develop a plan to determine the parks that currently have portable toilets, and budget for the installation of enclosures at these parks. Hopefully we could budget so that more than one park per year could be done, similar to the installation of park signs. Schultz recapped that the enclosure at Chippendale Park will be completed in the spring of 2006, and that we would know by the middle of next summer if we like the way it looks and if it functions well. Per Schultz, we’ve included Miscellaneous Improvements Projects in the CIP budget for 2006 and we’ll be talking about the CIP budget next month. These are funds that can be spent on small projects like this without the need for City Council approval. The funds must be used for new projects only. MOTION by Sampo that we a build a portable restroom enclosure as illustrated in Example 1 at Chippendale Park in the spring of 2006. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. b. Climbing Structure at Birch Park – The 2005 Capital Improvement Budget included $12,000 for a climbing wall/structure at Birch Park. We sent out proposals asking for quotes for a climbing wall/structure/rock not to exceed $10,000. The remaining $2,000 in the budget would be used for site work, curbing, and safety surfacing. We received eight proposals offering a wide variety of options. All of the proposals came in at $10,000. Schultz reviewed each of the options. After discussing the size, various features, and pros and cons of each option, the Commission decided that the play structure from Flanagan Sales, “The Rock”, was the best choice. MOTION by Jacobs that we select the option from Flanagan Sales, described as “The Rock”, for Birch Park. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. c. Final Plat – GlenRose Development – The final plat for the GlenRose Development was submitted by the developer. The preliminary plat was compared to the final plat, and they were found to be consistent. Schultz was bringing this item back due to the concern the Commission had with the underpass. He wanted the Commission to know that the developer has included all of their requests, including the necessary easements for the underpass. Schultz was recommending approval of the final plat with the same conditions as recommended with the preliminary plat: 1) Cash dedication with the payment to be made at the rate at the time of payment. Fees as of September 26, 2005 would be $3,000 per unit @ 76 units, totaling $228,000 in park dedication fees. 2) The trail connection at the mid-block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on their plan as a future connection to the north, giving us access to Connemara Trail. 3) Grading is allowed in the park as per the plan, with only the seven identified trees to be removed from the northeast corner of the park. 4) The developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property. 5) Increase the buffer at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to create a buffer from the lights, etc. 6) The applicant dedicate a public trail and access easement over 100’ between Hwy. 3 and the southern private street for an underpass and a 10’ easement for a sidewalk system along the southern side of the private drive to link with the trail adjacent to the overlook shown on the plans date stamped July 12, 2005. The applicant is required to install the 5’ sidewalk in back of the curb of the private drive around the pond, terminating at the private driveway or some reasonable location acceptable to staff. The applicant shall dedicate a 400’ temporary easement between Hwy. 3 and the western private drive that shall be in effect until such time as the City constructs an underpass or the City vacates the easement. To facilitate the future construction of the underpass, the southern private drive shall have a 945.1 elevation at the western edge. Schultz reviewed the location map, the final plat, and the proposal drawing for the underpass. Sampo asked who would build the underpass. Per Schultz, the City could construct the underpass at some time in the future. We’d work with the City Council on budgeting for this. MOTION by Sampo to recommend that the City Council approve the final plat for the GlenRose Development with the same conditions as the preliminary plat approval. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. Director’s Report – The Parks Improvement Fund Balance as of August 31, 2005 was $1,119,871.89. We will be receiving parks dedication from the GlenRose Development in the amount of $228,000, and by the end of the month we will receive $420,000 in parks dedication from CPDC for the Brockway Development. Bills from Meadows Park are coming in. The Meadows Park playground equipment is in, the backstop is in, and we are waiting for dry weather to complete the installation of the sun shelters. No Dedication Fees were received last month. Interest was $4,943.03. Expenditures were $6,275.10, for material for building the border around the playground at Meadows Park. Rosemount Community Center Parking – A memo of understanding between the City and Rosemount High School is now in place to allow overflow parking at the Rosemount Community Center (RCC). Once the school runs out of student parking passes, they have access to 44 parking spaces at the RCC. The RCC will have access to the 44 spaces should we need them for RCC customers. Approximately 20 students are using the available parking spaces. Pedestrian Facility Improvement Plan – At the City Council’s work session on September 10, 2005, the Council reviewed the proposed 2006 Pedestrian Improvement Project. There were no objections to moving forward with the 2006 projects. Schultz had asked the City Engineer to include the comments from the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, and he did. They discussed using $46,000 in parks improvement funds in 2006 to add trail connections to areas along Shannon Parkway that they wanted to prioritize. These sections were: Shannon Parkway, from Dearborn to 141 Court; Dander Court to Connemara Trail; and Daffodil Path to 133 Court. The City Council has taken off the long-term funding plan and they want to look at this on an annual basis. Per Schultz, we will bring this project to the Parks and Recreation Commission on an annual basis, looking for recommendations and talking about funding opportunities. The City Council would look to use park improvement funds, and we could write grants to the DNR for funding those trail connections on Shannon Parkway from Dearborn Path to 141 Court, Dander Court to Connemara Trail, and Daffodil Path to 133 Court. There were concerns among some of the Commissioners about using parks dedication funds for completion of these trail segments. At last month’s meeting, the Commission had suggested loaning the funds or exploring other funding options to speed up the improvements and complete them as quickly as possible. It was not their intention to give the funds without having them paid back. They felt that if completion of these sidewalk and trail connections was a safety issue, the improvements should be completed as soon as possible, and the funds should come from another budget. The Commission was concerned with setting a precedent for the future by using parks improvement funds in this manner. They questioned whether parks dedication funds could be used for this type of project. Per Schultz the new trail connections are a justifiable use of parks improvement funds. Jacobs asked about the viability of getting outside grants. Per Schultz, there was about a 20% chance that we might get a DNR grant. There are some other grants that we could apply for, but those would be hit or miss. Schultz suggested a few options to consider. The Commission could recommend delaying the improvements on Claret Ave from 155th to Cornell, because that’s an internal type of connection. That would reduce the amount needed for 2006 improvements by $51,000, which would cover the amount of parks improvement funds the City Council had proposed using. The City Council could prioritize the Shannon Park segments over the Claret Ave. sections. Another option would be to recommend that they drop certain sections of Claret Ave. so it will fit into the budgetary projections. If the Commission would prefer that park improvement funds not be used for this project, they could make a recommendation that the City Council not use park improvement funds for the Pedestrian Facility Improvement Plan or ask the City Council to reprioritize the project list, because in the near future we are facing opportunities to use significant amounts of those funds on other facilities such as an athletic complex, etc. MOTION by Jacobs to recommend that the Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Plan consisting of the items identified as being completed by 2017 be accelerated to be completed by 2007 with no funding from the parks dedication fund. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 (Sampo) Motion passed. Sampo thought we should consider using parks improvement funds for the improvements. She was fine with moving up the completion time, she just felt that some of these were responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Commission BMX Area – Schultz included information from the League of Minnesota Cities about the BMX area in the Commission packet. Staff has also spoken to the City of Eagan, and they had received the same information. The area just to the east of the skate park was recently mowed as part of annual maintenance. This gave us the opportunity to look at the terrain, and it appears that it would actually work quite well. We would not have to do too much grading to prepare the area. It’s relatively level, although there are some areas that need to be filled in. We could probably do that fairly quickly, and may be able to get it up and running this fall. We’re trying to contact a couple of other groups to see what would be the best material to make the jumps with. Schultz felt that we shouldn’t give them free reign to use their own tools and equipment to rebuild the jumps. We will purchase and post signs similar to those at the skate park, re-wording the signs so they are appropriate for the BMX area. We will try to have something started in the next couple of weeks. Sampo asked if there would be weather-related issues – would it be closed if it rains? Per Schultz, we really have no way to close it because it’s an open area. The understanding will be that with this kind of facility, the weather will affect it somewhat, but because we’re going with the smaller jumps it should be safe in almost any weather. Interpretive Trail Plan – Planning continues on this project and an updated version is not yet ready for review. Schultz will bring this item back for the Commission to review when it is complete. Great River Energy – Parks Dedication Update – Great River Energy recently contacted the City via a letter regarding our recommendation on collection of parks dedication fees for their subdivision in Rosemount. Originally our City Attorney had recommended that we collect parks dedication on the entire site, which is approximately 160 acres. Since receiving the letter from Great River Energy and reviewing this further, our City Attorney is recommending that we only collect on 80 acres in the subdivision. Great River Energy is also contesting the dollar amount per acre that is approved as the cash dedication per acre for industrial land. They claim that the fair market value of the land is $15,000 per acre instead of the $50,000 per acre that is the fee according to our Fees and Fee Policy. Based on state statute, we cannot charge over the fair market value. Per our City Attorney, if Great River Energy provides the proper information showing that the value is less than our Fees and Fee Policy identifies, then state statute calls for using the fair market value for the amount per acre to be paid. No one from Great River Energy has contacted Schultz to discuss this matter. Our City Attorney will be writing back to them regarding their concerns, and Schultz felt that we would hear back from them soon. Once we hear from them, negotiations will start. Schultz has told our City Attorney we will try to be as fair and equitable as possible in this matter. Agenda for Meeting with Farmington Parks and Recreation Department – Schultz verified that the Commission members had received a copy of the agenda, and briefly reviewed the list of items to be discussed. It’s a special meeting that will be run by the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department. They will be taking the minutes. Johnson asked where the three sections that make up the $46,000 were listed on Pedestrian Facility Improvement Project list. Per Jacobs, they are subsections of segments on the list. Johnson asked for clarification of what we were asking them to swap out. Schultz explained that if the approach was to drop something from the 2006 project list, he would recommend dropping segment five which was ranked sixth. Johnson asked which segment number would replace it. Per Schultz, it would be replaced by sub segments of segments 12, 14 and 15. Johnson asked if it would make sense if they went that path that we reclassify what segments 12, 14, and 15 look like so we know this has already been done. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Sampo to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary