HomeMy WebLinkAbout081913 Park Commission Minutes
MINUTES
City of Lake Elmo Park Commission
Monday, August 19, 2013
Members Present: Chairperson Weis, Steele, Hartley, Ames, Hieptas, Blackford
Members Absent: Zeno (Excused), Silvernale (Excused)
Others Present: Administrator Zuleger, SPW Bouthilet, Mayor Pearson, Councilmember Reeves,
Taxpayer Relations & Communications Coordinator MacLeod; Todd Erickson, Folz, Freeman, Erickson
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Weis at 7:03 PM.
Approval of Agenda
M/S/P: Hieptas, Hartley: Agenda approved after adding a trail subcommittee report and the MPCA
property on Jamaca to agenda. Approved 6-0
Dialogue w/ Mayor Mike Pearson & Council Member Reeves on Council – Commission Synergies:
Mayor Pearson introduced Council member Reeves as the new liaison to the Park Commission. Pearson
discussed the Council retreat and how we can improve processes including how the park commission runs.
One item that was discussed was to interview park commission members so the council can get to know the
members of the commission better, and the commission and council can work better together. Pearson asked
for comments.
Ames has seen intermittent collaboration between the commission and council. He discussed the trail planning
in the past 9 years that has not been implemented and that there is a balance in the account. He believes there
is a misalignment in objectives and would like to see it improved.
Ames mentioned Parks trail recommendations for the Demontreville Road improvements. Blackford
remembers councilmember Smith stating that she could not support spending tax dollars for this trail
improvement. She was one of the members who testified to council. Blackford suggested the possibility that
part of the lack of implementation could be due to the turnover of staff. Pearson mentioned that the issues
related to staff turnover is over. Pearson acknowledged the trail plan – estimated at $24 million and that there
has been a consistent goal. Pearson brought up what he thought was an over focus on one park, Sunfish Lake
Park. Blackford stated that she hoped she conveyed with accuracy that the commission did not cause the
issues that resulted in a large amount of time devoted to Sunfish Lake Park.
Hartley stated that she has been on the commission for three years and that the commission has struggled to
move things forward. She said she is thankful for Zuleger and Bouthilet making it possible to move forward.
Hartley and Weis discussed grant writing through the trail subcommittee (composed of Weis, Hartley, Zeno,
and Jennifer Pelletier). Ames states that he would like to see some help with grant writing regarding the trails,
and Weis pointed out that there are several staff members with grant writing experience. Steele reiterates that
Zuleger will help move things forward, and suggests that meeting once per month is a stumbling block. Steele
reinforces that the agenda is not driven by the commission – dictated by the administrator. Items just pop up
and aren’t discussed fully. Steele optimistic that we will be able to push forward – feels that the issues with the
commission are process issues.
Pearson is not ready to acknowledge that it’s a process based problem. Asks if Sunfish Lake issue was a staff
driven process. Steele replied that the minutes will reflect that there was no continuity or closure to the issues.
Ames opinion is that the water tower and landfill project detracted from the issues in Sunfish.
Bouthilet mentioned that a trail plan is needed for future development. He points out that connecting existing
properties would be a challenge and that there is difficulty putting in a new trail that the City doesn’t own (will
need to obtain right of way). Steele adds that the lack of a plan has also been a challenge with the downtown
area because it was one of the key connecting points.
Ames says we need alignment around how the council views the commission’s mission, which should be to
protect and preserve park land, promote and facilitate proper use of park land, and to develop in the city. He
suggests that friction may be caused by a disconnect in understanding. Pearson talked about recreation and
the idea that Sunfish Lake Park could be a premier park for mountain biking. Pearson questions what would be
the problem with mountain biking. Hartley responded that trust says that we cannot have formalized activity in
the park like that. Pearson mentions that SAHS has come before the City asking to use Sunfish for mountain
biking. Blackford reminds him that SAHS does utilize the park for cross-country training and skiing. Pearson
asks about opposition of mountain biking use. Weis suggested that the first objective was to find if it was
allowable by trust and they found out it wasn’t; and therefore the initiative was abandoned. Blackford and
Steele bring up the extensive history of the park and that literature regarding damage caused by mountain
biking in parks (due to erosion); he added that there are costly re-construction options that would help protect
against erosion. Steele also expressed that the other part of the literature is that there are safety issues and
conflicts between multiple uses from bikers and non-bikers. The national trend is going away from biking where
hiking is present to avoid that.
Hieptas thinks there is a big disconnect between council and commission. One reason for disconnect is the
elimination of a forester. Commission has suggested the re-instatement of Kathy Widen. Has been presented
to council but hasn’t heard anything else. Hieptas expresses her disappointment of a question on the park
survey being changed by council without consulting the commission. Blackford mentioned that council asked
commission to put the lakes question on the survey. Ames adds that the lake question was changed to be self-
serving. Steele mentions that the draft approved by commission was neutral, and inquires to Pearson why the
question was reworded. Pearson mentions that the lakes aren’t the park commission’s purview and that he
requested the question in January before the lakes issue arose. Hieptas suggested that the council should
have consulted the commission before modifying the survey. Pearson said they were simply trying to keep the
survey moving, as it took a lot of time just to get it out. Pearson pointed out that commissioners are volunteers
and that he values their service. He added that by door knocking you will hear people talking about the issues.
Steele mentions that he appreciates Pearson attending and appreciates his honesty. Pearson mentioned that
he spent a Saturday in Sunfish and did not see very many people utilizing the park. Steele points out that there
are no metrics on park usage, and that you can’t evaluate attendance on one day.
Blackford responded to Pearson stating that the commission did do door knocking regarding the mountain
biking and they received hundreds of signatures from residents who were against it. Zuleger iterates that the
point to take home is that we need continuity between council and commission. He added that the Council
does approve their agenda and they are trying to rebuild continuity and the process. Zuleger is committed to
park commission this year, as he worked extensively with planning commission last year. Zuleger expressed
his commitment as staff to handle administrative tasks, ensured that issues going to council will make it to
council; and will be commission driven. Zuleger mentioned the final word on the park commission being that
members of council unanimously affirmed that they want a better relationship with the park commission.
Reeves reaffirmed what Zuleger said at the council retreat; and took away from the meeting an affirmation of
the council’s importance of this city government working well. Reeves stated that this doesn’t always mean
agreeing, but means that you need to respectfully disagree but keep things moving. Reeves stated that
because there is a lot of change taking place, there is a need to have all parts including the council,
commissions and staff all parts working like well-oiled machine. Reeves emphasized that there is a need for
over-communication. Reeves stated that he is appreciative of the service of all commissioners and asked for
the commission help to define the liaison role. In a few years hopes to have people look back and see what all
was accomplished.
Old Business
a. Hammes Development Review (Zuleger)
Dean introduced Todd Erickson of FFE (Folz, Freeman, Erickson) to discuss an amended development plan
for the Hammes Development. The commission had asked for more park land to be created in a particular area
of the plan to provide synergy with Goose Lake Park.
Todd Erickson, Engineer partner if Folz, Freeman, Erickson, took the podium. Erickson states that the Central
park area of the Hammes area is going more toward Woodbury style urbanization plan and that it will draw
young parents with younger kids. Erickson adds that each trail off of cul de sacs in development would have
direct access to the park without having to go on street. Park is for the residents of this development. Ames
asked how large the park space would be. Erickson responded that it would be approximately a 13,500 sq. ft
lot for park (145’ deep x 80’ wide). Erickson also mentioned that there would be over 6,000 feet of trail,
including connections to Lennar and Lake Elmo Park Reserve.
Bouthilet mentioned the development would need to connect with the Stonegate trail on the north eastern side
of the development. Have one east west. Ames stated that the residents of Stonegate would like to have a
paved trail but are resisting to connection into their neighborhood. He continued that the commission is in favor
of paving trail if it connects to city/public trails. Bouthilet stated that now would be a good time to pave the trail,
but the residents don’t have as strong as an interest to pave it.
Hartley asked how wide trails are that are being put in. 5’ foot wide trail, paved. Steele talked about creating
one more substantial space instead of smaller “pocket parks”, which could be accomplished by removing the
pentagon-shaped lot. Erickson responded that removing the lot would result in disturbing the natural wetlands
that they are interested in preserving. Erickson continued that keeping the park in a more centralized location
will attract more people as well.
Zuleger pointed out the park and green space in Section 34, including how they connect to provide an
extended view of the park space in the area. Ames inquired if there is a park dedication impact to the park and
if the trail be developer built? Zuleger confirmed that it would be developer built.
Zuleger pointed out that development will be short on REC units due to a low demand for multi-family housing
units. Hietpas questioned how the City plans on making up for the shortage of REC Units. Zuleger responded
that they will be renegotiating with MET Council on September 13, 2013 and asking for a reduction in REC
units, extended by 10 years.
Weis asked for more comments. Blackford asked whether trails will be dedicated. Zuleger mentions that they
will be city trails. Weis comments that he likes the plan, but was wondering if they can create a park space
larger than ¼ acre. Erickson responded that with the amount of money going into the park ($40k), it will be a
nice park. Weis asked about parking and Steele asked if there would be room for picnic shelter? Erickson
clarified that the money allocated to developing the park, would support various amenities. Blackford asked for
a park that is comparable to ¼ acre. A resident (Delapp) responded that park would be same as council
chambers twice as wide, 5 x as long. DeLapp expressed his opinion that presented park improvements are
great – a fine effort to address concerns.
Hieptas asked what the timeline would be for construction. Zuleger replied that the contract is being drawn up,
which would include both national and custom builders.
M/S/P: Hieptas/Ames: to approve Hammes plan. Approved 6-0
Weis brought up a need to discuss Item A1, the creation of a subcommittee for development review. Weis
mentioned that City Planner Johnson was working on examples and that there was a need for volunteers to
form the subcommittee, with hopes to have information to review by the September 2013 meeting. Steele,
Hartley and Blackford volunteered for committee. Zuleger included that Johnson would be the staff liaison for
the group.
b. Sanctuary Park Update (Bouthilet)
Bouthilet stated that they hadn’t followed up with the Sanctuary Park update. Bouthilet reiterated that where
they left off was Silvernale looking to establish a trail route through Sanctuary and Bouthilet’s suggestion was
to order a survey. Steele asked how much the survey would cost. Bouthilet estimated the cost would fit into the
park budget.
M/S/P: Weis/Hartley: To approve survey request in Sanctuary. Approved 6-0
c. Tapestry Access to Sunfish Lake (Hartley)
Hartley mentioned that there is a resident in Tapestry that doesn’t like people parking cars and using walking
trails or trying to access Sunfish Lake Park and has been distributing no parking signs on people’s cars.
Hartley brought up concern related to access and asked how a gate on Hwy 5 would take care of other access
to park. She asked what kind of solutions would be feasible to address the issue. Blackford suggested putting
up more signage. Ames said that he thinks signage won’t deter people that are entering with motorbikes.
Bouthilet talked about gate options (two gates or one single gate with a split). He said that since the parking lot
will eventually be paved a single driveway is recommended.
Weis asked if a formal motion on Sunfish access is required. Hartley says no action needed at this time just
wants to let the commission know that tapestry thinks it is an issue. Zuleger reminded the commission that the
trails in Tapestry, Whistling Valley and Hamlet were not properly deeded.
Zuleger adds that the gate issue is a law enforcement issue. Issue with Sunfish Lake Park is because it is
isolated/hidden resulting in some more unfortunate law enforcement issues. Zuleger expressed that providing
a gate at Sunfish would help law enforcement to prevent those incidents from happening. Weis says it is clear
that we want a gate and that the commission should make a decision on the number of driveways. Bouthilet
detailed that the gate would be automatic. Ames question whether the entrance could be moved to the width of
one driveway without significant grading? Bouthilet responded that they could not. Steele suggested a
subcommittee on safety to audit parks and return to commission with solutions. Bouthilet discussed some
options for safety including the addition of cameras.
Weis asks Bouthilet for recommendation of associated cost for gates/drive available for next meeting. Bouthilet
said that his first suggestion would be to make a single gate with a split drive. He suggested putting money in
CIP for gravel/paving in the future. Bouthilet said could get figures on gate, and estimate on gravel, prepared
for the September meeting.
d. Forestry Budget Request Update (Zuleger)
Zuleger stated the council met the previous week to discuss two discretionary items: YSB, and the forestry
budget request. He iterated that the council requested an assessment of how to utilize the forester and how
they might help with development review. Zuleger stated that private tree matters would not be covered under
the MN League liability. Zuleger cited a trend of communities leaning toward hiring an urban arborist in lieu of a
forester position. Zuleger asked for a summary in a week to present to council in the next budget session.
Hartley suggested that the urban arborist responsibilities should include going into parks and assess the health
of current forest, trees, shrubs, assess dangerous tress that need to be removed, perform proper pruning and
removal of dangerous trees, recommend in city ROW proper tree selections to provide variety and maintain
health of those trees, and Identifying invasive species such as buckthorn, get groups to come in and help with
eradication. Hieptas added that someone would be helpful in Jamaca storm pond project. Zuleger mentioned
that the city conservatively lost over 700 trees in storm, including 100 trees of good diameter in Sunfish Lake.
Zuleger informed the commission that he would be suggesting the acquisition of a heavy duty four-wheeler to
Park commission at next meeting.
Blackford proposed that a contractor may be interested in paying to remove the lumber, if the damage was
condensed enough. Hartley expressed that she is surprised the city hasn’t hired anyone to do some of the
stuff. Ames commended PW department for their hard work. Weis questioned whether land trust has rules in
pace for removing damaged trees.
Approval of July 15, 2013 Minutes
Blackford found typo in minutes. Steele suggested correction to item F.
M/S/P: Steele/Hieptas: To approve the minutes of 10-15-2012 as amended. Approved 5-0, Ames
abstained.
Park Commission Updates
a. Lake Elmo Days (Zuleger)
Zuleger provided the commission with details about the upcoming Lake Elmo Days festival (which would take
place on the first weekend after Labor Day). Zuleger expressed the need for volunteers and encouraged
commissioners to attend.
b. Park Maintainer Hiring
Bouthilet provided the commission with an update that they had extended an offer to Thomas Kepp. Kepp has
a degree in Park and Leisure with resource management emphasis. Kepp completed his internship for
Audubon society and most recently was working for St. Francis parks department. Bouthilet stated that the
candidate is young but has the knowledge/education and is confident he will grow into the position. The
candidate currently has CDL, water and wastewater operations license as well. He will be sent to obtain his
certified playground inspector, tree inspector licenses.
Park Survey Results (Zuleger)
Zuleger introduced the park survey results stating that we received roughly 13% return (mailed to 3,203
homes, 432 returned). Zuleger noted that the results were heavily loaded by an older demographic. He added
the commission could possibly collaborate with NextGen group to try to obtain a larger sample from a younger
demographic. Bouthilet mentioned that the trend that parks are not used on weekends is not just our
community. Ames added that it might be attributed to the demographic as an older demographic not as
dedicated to park use as a younger demographic. Steele asked to confirm that the demographic skew of the
survey is representative of the population at a whole. Zuleger confirmed. Ames noted that the skew is not
necessarily indicative of future demographic.
Ames suggests that use the chart for current park use when doing CIP and to not discount the mid-level bars
on the graph, which would also indicate desired amenities. Steele suggested being careful to the current park
use responses, about how they currently use parks as opposed to how they want to use parks.
Ames says that the current park use statistics are interesting but the future responses are going to provide
more direction. Blackford asks if the maintenance issues are indicated more specifically anywhere on the
survey. MacLeod responds there was another box with a space to write in answers and that she can get a list,
which includes buckthorn, trash, poor restroom maintenance. Zuleger say MPCA (???) says lack of restrooms
will drive down usage in younger families. Blackford mentions that the question about safety concerns asks
what WOULD make you feel unsafe but doesn’t necessarily indicate those problems currently exist. Zuleger
mentioned that increased lighting and greater park use would drive gangs away. Ames stated that in a
previous slide, users weren’t citing safety issues as a big concern, keeping them from using the parks. Ames
pointed out that he found that the desire for a dog park was interesting in terms of what the city does and does
not have. Steele noted that it’s interesting that from a community that places a lot of emphasis on baseball
fields, the survey indicates that basketball courts and baseball facilities aren’t necessarily high on the list of
needs. Ames points out that the question reads what do we want more of, and people may already believe that
we have enough of those amenities. Future park needs indicate that the need for trails for nature observation
fits nicely with the City’s dedication to open space. Zuleger added that the national trend for parks is open park
space and moving away from organized sports. Hieptas mentioned that the indication for more open space for
organized play doesn’t fit the trend because it falls with the younger demographics. Ames pointed out that one
can’t put too much emphasis on the age groups because they become thin when split out especially in the
younger demographic.
Zuleger suggested skipping the lake questions. Blackford asked if the answers to the lake questions will be
used at all by council. Zuleger said that he had worked on an intake survey at the lakes that was compiled for
DNR that provides more accurate information on actual lake use. Zuleger mentioned that the indication of
swimming use seems high based on what he observed, and that he believes fishing and water skiing are
proportional to what he observed. Blackford stated that there are some strong indicators from the lakes
question. Zuleger said he will not comment on the council’s thoughts. Hieptas pointed out that the use of the
term ‘wake use’ for the City lake use responses is inaccurate based on the question, and continued to point out
that the survey results indicated that low-wake activities are popular on city lakes. Zuleger says that the
commission’s concerns will be noted, and that the lake use questions will be considered invalid and will not be
used by council for any decisions on lake policy. Zuleger added that he didn’t think the responses on lake use
would affect the DNR’s decision either way.
Bouthilet commented (in response to the trail use question) that people want trails just not by their homes.
Zuleger commented that the desire for multi-use trails indicates that trails would be wider. Zuleger mentioned
that trail connection to the Gateway is highly desired and also ranked high on a survey conducted in Oakdale.
Zuleger mentioned that signage keeps showing up on the survey and that the City might look into
implementing some way-finding signs, and do some education on park amenities in an upcoming newsletter.
Schedule Commission Retreat
Zuleger suggested that the commission set a time for 4 to 6 hours to discuss the survey results and decide
where they would like to dedicate the park dollars. He added that the library board went through and benefitted
from a similar process. Zuleger suggested comparing the data from the new park survey to data that was
collected from a previous survey. Zuleger mentioned that questions are being raised by developers wondering
how we are spending the park land dedication fees. Zuleger warned that there have been court cases before
when park land dedication fees have not been spent. Hartley agreed that a retreat is a good idea. Weis asked
for a time preference on when to hold the retreat. It was decided by all that a weekend day would work best.
Trail Subcommittee Update
Weis stated that the committee had met twice and that thus far they have analyzed three different trails and
how they marry up with grants. Hartley commented that DNR and Washington County regulations say that
trails need to be 10’ wide, and suggests revisiting the trail plan to ensure the trails qualify.
MPCA Property on Jamaca
Hieptas suggested deciding how to utilize the money that was allotted to do some landscaping on Jamaca.
When last at Pebble Park Hieptas and Bouthilet met to talk. Bouthilet had folder from Kathy Widen outlying tree
species and cost. Hietpas informed the commission that to complete all items suggested by the forester would
be above budget (believed to be $20K). Heiptas suggested paring down and planting fewer trees or planting
smaller trees which would be work-arounds to fit the budget. Hieptas continued that the next step would be to
pick what areas would like to work on and then need to submit to MCC. Blackford asked who takes care of the
trees after MCC is finished with their work. Steele questioned the maintenance of larger trees. Bouthilet offered
opinion that the bigger the tree the better as larger trees have a lower mortality rate. The commission
discussed voting. Zuleger expressed concern about voting on fiscal matters without public notice, as this was
an added agenda item. Weis suggested shelving until September’s meeting; Hieptas responded that they
weren’t able to postpone the vote, because of the MCC deadline.
M/S/P: Steele/Ames To approve grant application for design not to exceed $21,600. Approved 6-0
Meeting adjourned at 10:12 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Alyssa MacLeod, Recording Secretary