HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-08 PacketCWW
LAKE City of Lake Elmo
ELM 0 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615
Www1akeElmo.Org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Parks Commission will conduct its regular meeting on
Monday, May 19, 2008, at 7:00 p.m.
1. Agenda
2. Minutes
a. April 21, 2008 (Minutes to follow)
3. Sunfish Lake Water Quality Improvement Project
4. Sunfish Lake Park Land Trust Update
5. Provide comments to the city council on the possible locations for lift
station in Reid Park for the I-94 to 30th Street Infrastructure Project.
6. 2008 Park and Trail Improvement Implementation Plan
• Update on Stonegate trail improvement cost.
• Public bidding process
• 2008 Project priorities and implementation schedule
7. Heights Park Neighborhood Meeting Follow-up and Improvement Plan
Process
8. Lowes Partnership Program Update
9. Information Items
a. Park Partners Reports
10.Adjourn
The public is invited to attend.
Park Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
INFORMATIONAL
Item: 3
ITEM: Presentation on a proposed water quality improvement project at Sunfish
Lake.
SUBMITTED BY: John Hanson, Valley Branch Watershed District
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
City Council
SUMMARY: John Hanson from the Valley Branch Watershed District will give a presentation on
a proposed water quality improvement project at Sunfish Lake. The proposed project involves
adding alum to the lake and seeding it with zooplankton. The alum would be sprayed on the
lake's surface and sink to the bottom of the lake, where it will react with the phosphorus in the
lake's sediment. This reaction will prevent the phosphorus from causing so much algae growth,
which will improve the water clarity. Adding alum to a lake is a safe and proven lake -
improvement technology.
Park Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
REGULAR
Item: 4
ITEM: Sunfish Lake Park Land Trust Update
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah Strommen, Conservation Director, Central Region, Minnesota
Land Trust
REVIEWED BY: Carol Kriegler, Project Assistant
SUMMARY: Sarah Strommen, Conservation Director for the Minnesota Land Trust presented a
"Proposed Rights and Restrictions for a Conservation Easement" document at the May Park
Commission meeting. Members expressed general agreement with the document while
requesting a few mostly minor changes and revisions.
Sarah has recently provided a revised draft of the document, dated 5/12/08, reflecting the desired
changes. Changes are indicated by bold italicized type.
Since the March meeting, Sarah has prepared the Minnesota Land Trust project summary, which
she expects will be presented to the Land Trust's Conservation Committee and Board of
Directors in July for approval. This is consistent with the project timeline.
REQUESTED ACTION: Review and comment on the revised draft document.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. "Proposed Rights and Restrictions For a Conservation Easement" Draft dated 5/12/08
2. Draft Process and Timeline
Minnesota Land Trust
Proposed Rights and Restrictions
For a Conservation Easement
Sunfish Lake Park
City of Lake Elmo
Land Use Restrictions & Rights
Detail
Industrial or commercial use
Prohibited.
Agricultural use
Current agricultural use of Area
Two allowed to continue until
restoration occu�„
Residential use and development
Prohibited
Structures and improvements
Prohibit e�ee t for:
1)1noT c structures
s
suich as ten�,.trail barriers,
"benches, picmtables,
boardwalks, oUse vation
platforms, birdhobse and
� 3
Jnfornation kiosks:
2 Skating rink, picnic area,
aid warming
h6 center in
"'finterpretive
Are& o
Utilities
Itt are allowed to serve those
activih permitted by the
easement but otherwise limited.
Divisk the pro y F :,
Prohibited.
Development Rights N
.`Transfer of development rights to
a
another property is prohibited.
gas sway
Access across the property to
develop adjacent land is
prohibited.
Iinin �'�
Prohibited.
Small, unlighted signs for
informational or interpretive
purposes is allowed. A sign
z
designating the name of the park
also is allowed.
Roads and trails
The access road and parking area
are allowed. Roads are otherwise
prohibited. Unpaved paths or foot
trails, including footbridges and
boardwalks are allowed. A paved
trail will be allowed in Area 2.
Surface alteration
Alteration of the natural
topography or surface of the land
5/ 12/08
Minnesota Land Trust
Proposed Rights and Restrictions
For a Conservation Easement
is limited.
Vegetation and habitat Management of natural vegetation
management to improve its habitat and other
conservation values is allowed,
subject to an approved
Water Alteration of natural water bodies
and wetlands, or actions
detrimental to water quality are
prohibited
Dumping Dumping or accumulation of trash
or other urtly material is
Vehicles
(i.e. habitat r'eoration or
Recreational and educational use
purposes that do not impact the
conservaon values of the land are
allowed. Tbfiswould include
vuiking, hilr, horseback riding,
Cress�oountfy skiing, orienteering,
etc. Thy would not include
2 5/12/08
Draft Process and Timeline
For Sunfish Lake Park
Land Trust Application
(As of 2-19-08)
ENTITY
ACTIVITY
APPROXIMATE DATE
Park Commission
Send letter to Land Trust with report and council
comments on three areas of clarification
February 21, 2008
(if approved by Park Commission)
Land Trust Staff
Receive document
February 23, 2008
Land Trust Staff
Visit site and document the property's natural and
scenic values
March, 2008
Land Trust Staff
Obtains supporting documents and maps
March, 2008
Park Commission
Land Trust project report, gets clarification where
needed
March 19, 2008
.and Trust staff
Updates project report based upon meeting with Pad
April, 2008'
Commission
Park Commission
Park Commission approves the project report
May, 200`8
City Council
City Council reviews project report; approves the
June, 2008
project report
Land Trust Conservation
Reviews and approves project report
July, 2008
Committee
Land Trust Board
Reviews and approves project report
July, 2008
Land Trust Attorney
Takes final project report and turns it into a draft
August, 2008
conservation easement
City Attorney Review the draft conservation easement to be sure August, 2008
that any city legal issues are addressed before
proceeding (city attorney is accustomed to Land
Trust easements)
Land Trust Attorney
Finalizes easement documents
September, 2008
Park Commission
Review and approve easement
September, 2008
City Council
Review and approve easement
October, 2008
Land Trust
Records easement
October, 2008
All parties
CELEBRATE O
Parks Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
REGULAR
Item: 5
ITEM: Provide comments to the city council on the possible locations for lift station in Reid Park
for the 1-94 to 30th Street Infrastructure Project.
SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: City Council
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asking the Park Commission to
provide comments on what the Commission believes the potential impacts from locating a future
lift station in Reid Park, sites 1 and 2, may have on the park and to have these comments
returned to the city council for its consideration before directing the engineer on the final design
for locating the lift station. The comments will be most useful if they describe the concerns about
impacts on park use, circulation, aesthetics and other park related activities. There is also a third
location outside of the city park area to the south. (See Attachment) All three sites have pros
and cons to implementation which are being weighed by the city council. The park commission
input is part of the information that the city council needs to make an informed decision,
The chair of the park commission is being asked to consolidate the comments from the
commission so these can be included as a report in the agenda item, scheduled for the June 17,
2008 city council meeting. ---The city council asked for the direction from the park commission
after the city council determined that it will be asking the engineer to put the lift station at one of
these three sites because of efficiencies of service and economics (eliminates the need for two lift
stations) and not asking the engineer to locate it in a location that is not anywhere near Reid
Park.
Elements are involved in the lift station
The lift station site will need to accommodate the lift station wet well and structure, control panel,
valve vault, forcemain piping, gravity sewer piping, 3-phase power transformer, odor control
dosing tank, stand-by generator, and access driveway. There is an option to bury the chemical
dosing tank.
A chemical dosing tank will be required at the lift station site for the purpose of odor
control. Chemicals stored in the dosing tank will pre -treat the wastewater in the lift
station. Treatment inhibits the growth of hydrogen sulfide bacteria, which causes
undesired odors and increases the corrosiveness of wastewater. Bioxide®, a non -toxic
nitrate compound, is the most commonly used chemical. The dosing tank can be installed
above ground or buried at additional cost. The city council is interested in burying the
tank for aesthetic reasons.
A permanently mounted stand-by power generator will also be necessary at the site to
ensure uninterrupted operation in the event of a power outage or other emergency
situations. The life expectancy of a generator is approximately 25 years.
The proposed lift station will require 3-phase power at the site. A transformer will be
required at the lift station site to receive the primary power. The city council directed that
any power lines associated with this be buried if at all possible.
Potential Sites
Preliminary engineering work has identified three potential lift station locations in the vicinity of
Reid Park. The locations selected and reviewed at this time provide a cost effective sanitary
sewer system for both the initial capital costs and on -going operational costs; and provide the
most functional and flexible trunk sewer system for servicing both new development and existing
homes and business in the Village area.
The alternative sites were selected after reviewing the general topography of the sewer service
area as defined in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan; generally locating the lift stations in the
lowest topographic region to maximize the lift station service area. The area around the southern
part of Reid Park provides the lowest topography, is City -owned, and is adjacent to the project
corridor. The three sites identified for council consideration include (please refer to the attached
location map for these site locations):
• Site Alternative No. 1: In the southwest corner of Reid Park; access from 30th Street,
• Site Alternative No. 2: In the southeast corner of Reid Park: access from 30th Street, and
• Site Alternative No. 3: In a City -owned parcel adjacent to the southeast corner of Reid
Park. This site would require easement acquisition to accommodate the sewer pipe and
the access driveway. Also, soil borings, a wetland delineation, and additional engineering
work will be required to verify the feasibility of this site.
Public Works Review
The public works superintendent was consulted on each site layout. Two primary concerns were
identified: 1) access to each site with the equipment necessary to maintain a lift station and 2)
the proximity to the recreational facilities within Reid Park. Based on these items, the public
works department recommended Site No. 2. This site provides sufficient maintenance vehicle
access and has natural screening from the surrounding wooded area.
PARK COMMISSION ACTION
• Presentation by Jack Griffin, City Engineer
• Questions of the presenter
• Discussion
• Comments — please provide comments to the Chair of the Commission tonight and/or, if
desired, after the meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
Potential Sites
Layout of recreation area in the context of the potential sites
2
Park Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
INFORMATIONAL
Item: 6
ITEM: 2008 Park and trail improvement program implementation plan and
priorities
SUBMITTED BY: Carol Kriegler, Project Assistant
Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer, TKDA
Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Superintendent
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The 2008 park capital improvement plan includes expenses totaling $256,000. Given the budget
balance as of this time of roughly $300,000, it will be important to evaluate and prioritize all
expenditures before proceeding. The Commission is being asked to review the 2008 C.I.P. and
provide staff with direction in implementing improvements that are identified as high priorities.
Stonegate Trail
The Park Commission is being given an update on the proposed trail improvements to Stonegate
Trail based upon the city engineer's review of the project in more detail. This initial review
identified steep slopes, tree locations, private landscaping locations, easement location, and
drainage issues as items to be mitigated or addressed.
The estimated cost for this work is likely over $100,000. Prior to the initial review, the project was
estimated to cost anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000. Given the anticipated cost of the project,
the city will be required to enter into a competitive bidding process (law change from $50,000 in
August 2008). Bidding requirements will increase the administrative / design cost of project due
to the associated required engineering time to draw up the plans and specifications and manage
the bidding process. The estimated cost for this work is roughly 20% of the construction cost.
Public Bidding Process Information as Background for the Commission
This information is being presented as background for the commission as it begins to take on
park and trail projects that may be impacted by these state laws since the state bidding practice is
quite specific about its required steps and extends the timeline for any project. The process
typically requires council authorization to order the improvements, public advertisement for bids in
the official newspaper, opening of sealed bids, and a recommendation and award of contract to
the lowest qualified bidder. The required bid process is designed to assure the public that the city
is paying the lowest price for the work by a qualified bidder. Entering into a competitive bidding
process can raise the project cost because of the length of the process as well as the guarantees
that are required.
Review of 2008 Park Capital Improvement Plan
The Commission is being asked to review the 2008 Park CIP and provide staff with direction in
implementing improvements that are identified as high priorities.
Presentation on trail
Ryan Stempski
Brief overview of bidding process Ryan Stempski
• Questions
Commissioners
• Direction, if any, to park commission staff Commission
for follow up with engineer /other
ATTACHMENT:
Location of Stonegate Park Trail
a
0
J
W
w
Y
Q
J
U-
0
}
H
U
N
O
N
co
O
O
N
C
!0
a
.r
c
G)
d
O
E
m
!Z
m
u
N
C
G1
E
E
O
U
N
�
C',N
N
O
O
O
O
N
�
CD
r
N
O
O
C
N
O
O
N
M
CD
O)
0
0
0
0
�wo
0
N
r`
O
O
r
o
N
O
O
o
O
O
N
O
O
N
LO
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
Cl)
W
N
U
�
Z
o
Q
J
'C
a
m
a
z
o
0
LL
c
O
O
V
C
�
7
O
N
y
a
a
_O
O)
c
Y
m
Q
O)
C
.N
X
a�
0
U)
m
0
0
c
C
6
O
00
O
O O
O
O
O O
N
LO
O c0
N
U') c0
O
Op
O
p
o 0
C)
O
O Co
L
O
O CO
0 0
0
0
Ld
O �
O
0
O
0
0
00
CD 0
O
CD
O O
C)CDO
O
O
O
O
CD
r
p
O
p
O O
O
C)
O
O
�
O
C)O
CDO
C:)
O O
O
O
O
O
C)O
C)
O
O
O
O
O
C)
N
O
C)O
04
LO
co
CO
�� LO
N
1
Y
i
R
d
y
1c
IL
i
m
J
m
3
m
L
N
—
y
i
m
y
Z'
R
IL
IL
m
L
is
N
N
0)
Y
>
au,
s
am
°'
ca
a
.>_
o
a
O
t
li
a
.LO.
C
U
R
C
Q
N
U
d
C
C
m
O
L
O
.0p
R
C
N
LL
4
_O
i
cz
LY
>
a)0
_0a-
NO
J
w
Y
d
O
OcOQ
WE
O
LLJ
C
Cm
>
U)
O
J
N
O
L1U
O
t]
U
O
O
U
oW
a)
-0
_ _
CO
CC
N`
U
CN m
Park Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
REGULAR
Item: 7
ITEM: Heights Park neighborhood meeting follow-up and improvement plan
process
SUBMITTED BY: Carol Kriegler, Project Assistant
SUMMARY: The Park Commission conducted a Heights Park neighborhood meeting on
Wednesday, May 7. The meeting was attended by 12 neighbors and 4 commission members. A
summary of the meeting is attached. Carol Kriegler will offer direction related to the continued
activities related to the park planning process.
HEIGHTS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Wednesday, May 7
Meeting Summary-
1. Park Commission Chair David Steele opened the meeting with a welcome and expression of
gratitude for their attendance and past input. An overview of the park planning process was given
as follows:
A.. May 7 meeting - input gathering from neighbors in creating a general vision for the park.
What characteristics currently exist at the park that they feel compelled to preserve or
protect, and what improvements or added amenities might they support.
B. Input from meeting will be used to generate a vision or plan for the park that might (or
might not) include proposed improvements or added amenities.
C. A vision for the park will be presented at a future neighborhood meeting. Neighbors will
be invited and encouraged to provide feedback and input to this vision and any proposed
improvements.
2. Carol Kriegler gave a brief presentation related to the park's "footprint", current physical
characteristics of the park, and identification of the associated issues and challenges in planning.
Identified goal: Finding the balance between:
Adjacent neighbors need for privacy and protection versus the right to public access and
reasonable use of a neighborhood park.
3. The meeting was attended by 12 neighbors and 4 commissioners. The meeting was positive in
tone and very productive. Neighbors made comment in 3 general areas:
1. Preservation Goals - - what qualities and characteristics exist at the park that they'd like to see
preserved.
2. Concerns - - what concerns do they have related to the park as it exists now as well as if it
were to be improved.
3. Project Goals - - - what "improvements" might they support
There seemed to be a great deal of respect for all comments expressed and broad support for a
park vision focusing on site restoration with an improvement in plant quality and diversity, wildlife
habitat improvement, soft walking path, possible mowed green space for play and relatively
passive use. Attendees expressed their appreciation to the Commission for conducting the
meeting.
Preservation Goals
Natural state
Consistency with the character of the city
Quiet / tranquility
Water retention
Wildlife habitat
Concerns (Current conditions / Improvements0
Users cutting through yards to access
Trash
Improper use
Currently hard to use by people
Safety of kids (lack of visibility)
Pond safety
Potential drainage problems
Impact on trees, etc.
Proiect Goals
Clean up site
Grading, fill ruts
Community planting project
Walking path
Open green space for play
Backstop
Mowed / maintained
Proceed with test period for mowed play space. See how it is used.
Pleasure skating area
Park Commission
Date: May 19, 2008
REGULAR
Item: 8
ITEM: Lowes Partnership Program Update
SUBMITTED BY: Carol Kriegler, Project Assistant
SUMMARY: Carol Kriegler will provide an update on the Lowes Partnership Program.