Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION <br />January 5, 2017 <br />suggested that may be too small of an area, and thought every residence <br />abutting the lake should be included, along with all residences within the <br />County Road C, railroad tracks, and Highway 36 boundary. Chair Miller <br />agreed and asked the City Administrator if he could have a survey drafted <br />by the next meeting. The City Administrator stated he could have a draft <br />prepared by then. Chair Miller asked if the survey would be distributed <br />online. The City Administrator stated the survey would be mailed in paper <br />form to the residents, and explained this would ensure the greatest amount <br />of residents are able to participate. Chair Miller suggested including an <br />online link to the survey in the mailing so that residents could go online <br />and staff wouldn’t have to go through the results by hand. He also <br />suggested the link be posted on the website so other interested parties <br />could share their thoughts. Schletty asked what type of questions the City <br />would be asking. He wondered if the central question should be if they <br />want access at all or which access point should be used. The City <br />Administrator stated both questions would be included to gauge interest. <br />Chair Miller suggested including an explanation of the Commission’s <br />discussion on this topic. The City Administrator agreed and explained he <br />would try to incorporate parking and grade questions, as well as if the <br />response is from a person living on the lake versus in the surrounding area. <br />Chair Miller asked the City Administrator to email out the draft so that the <br />Commission would have time to review the survey before the meeting. <br /> <br /> Horwath asked approximately how many would be included in the <br />mailing. The City Administrator thought it would be about 1000 people. <br />Horwath asked what amount of responses the City expected to receive. <br />The City Administrator said he expected about 20 to 30 percent <br />participation. Chu asked the City Administrator if he could share the <br />survey information with the Commission so they could share it with their <br />neighbors. Horwath suggested information about this survey be shared on <br />the Next Door app. Chair Miller suggested including the Savage Lake <br />Public Access points on the Spring Park Tour. Horwath asked what the <br />shoreline looked like. The City Administrator explained the shore does get <br />choked up with Lily Pads, but those effects can be mitigated. Chu asked if <br />the Commission had any information of the costs this project could accrue. <br />The City Administrator noted there were no formal estimates at this time, <br />but thought it would be feasible to make a path down to the lake, whereas <br />a dock might not be as feasible. He further explained a path at either <br />access point may not be able to meet ADA requirements. Horwath asked if <br />street parking would be sufficient or if a parking lot would be needed. The <br />City Administrator thought street parking would be sufficient, but if not, <br />he noted there was room at Nadeau Park for a small parking lot. Schletty <br />asked the City Administrator to clarify if the easements were private or <br />public. The City Administrator stated they were public access points that <br />can be used by the city, but explained some residents can view public use <br />of an easement as a loss of privacy. Darling noted the easements seemed