HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-19-08 Commission Minutes2Lake Elmo Park Commission
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
May 19, 2008
Chairman Steele called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ames, Blackford, Booher, Bruchu, Dunn, Larson and
Zeno.
STAFF PRESENT: Project Assistant Kriegler
Agenda
Agenda was approved, (M/S Ames / Blackford) with 2 additional agenda items:
2.B Jennifer McCormick presentation
9 B Information item: Trail map
9.C Park walk-throughs
2A. Minutes
April minutes to be considered at June meeting due to late receipt for review.
2.B Jennifer McCormick presentation
Jennifer McCormick appeared before the commission. She thanked the commission for
their past support of improvements at Carriage Station Park and encouraged them to
consider including a picnic shelter for Carriage Station Park in a future park improvement
planning. She explained that $4,000 has been committed by the Lake Elmo Jaycees for
such a project. $10,000 had been requested. McCormick expressed that there is a high
level of appreciation for the park though a shelter is considered that last remaining
needed amenity.
Commissioner Ames expressed concern regarding the availability of parking at the site.
Chairman Steele requested that staff research what such a shelter might cost. Mike
Bouthilet encouraged research and consideration of both the purchase of a shelter “kit” as
well as a custom built shelter.
3. Sunfish Lake Water Quality Improvement Project
John Hanson of the Valley Branch Watershed District gave a presentation on a proposed
water quality project at Sunfish Lake. John reported that 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 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.
4. Sunfish Lake Park Land Trust Update
The revised Minnesota Land Trust “Proposed Rights and Restrictions for a Conservation
Easement” document as submitted by Sarah Strommen was reviewed. Members
expressed general agreement with the document while identifying the need for some
clarification / explanation in limited subject areas. Those subjects included lighting,
interpretive center size limitations and the nature of permitted structures and
improvements associated with informal activities in area 2. It was requested that a small
working group, consisting of Judith Blackford, Sue Dunn and Carol Kriegler, conduct a
meeting with Sarah to address these issues and report back to the commission.
5. Provide comments to the city council on the possible locations for lift station in
Reid park for theI-94 to 30th Street Infrastructure Project.
City engineers Ryan Stempski and Jack Griffin gave an extensive presentation regarding
the locating of a future lift station in Reid Park or at an adjacent location just outside of
the park. That presentation is attached.
In response to the presentation and request to provide comment to the City Council,
discussion took place reflecting the general displeasure with the concept of using park
land for the purpose of locating infrastructure.
Commissioner Blackford expressed the understanding that it is her role to preserve,
protect and care for the parks to ensure their availability for future generations and that
she therefore objected to placement of the lift station in the park. She also mentioned that
Tartan Park site could be considered potential replacement for the loss.
Commissioner Ames: Expressed that if location 2 is to be utilized, there ought to be a
provision for the replacement of that land so there is no resulting net loss of park land
from the transaction.
Bouthilet: Recommends site #2 from a public works perspective. Commented that the
lift station must be visited / serviced on a daily basis.
Commissioner Dunn: When the park was sold to the city for a park, it was for a park.
Thanked the engineers for their work and presentation. Expressed concern that residents
are not aware of this issue. Placement of a lift station in a park is not appropriate.
Chairman Steele: Questioned whether locations 1,2 and 3 are the only available options.
Engineer Griffin confirmed.
Ames: Inquired about the concern on the impact on neighbors (noise, smell). Bouthilet
expressed that the impact would be minimal.
Resident in the audience was identified as living in very near proximity to the potential
lift station locations.
Chairman Steele: Expressed that locating of the lift station was setting a very bad
precedent, but if it must go there – would support site 2 while utilizing site 3 as a
potential source of park land replacement. David expressed that he would draft a
document reflective of the commissions sentiments.
6. 2008 Park and trail improvement program implementation plan and
priorities.
Chairman Steele expressed concern about continuing the meeting given the late hour.
Several commission members expressed a willingness to continue with this agenda
item given the interest gaining resolution on the Stonegate trail project and given that
the engineers are present and available with their presentation.
Project manager Kriegler provided an introduction with a reminder of the current
Park Improvement fund balance and the need to prioritize projects and associated
expenditures. Engineers Stempski and Griffin followed with a presentation outlining
the requirement and procedures associated with the public bidding process. That
Powerpoint presentation is attached.
Discussion followed the presentation with Chairman Steele expressing concern about
spending the anticipated $150,000 on Stonegate trail improvements given that the
costs are signifigantly more than originally anticipated. David expressed the desire to
go back to square one and prioritize the trail segments.
Commissioner Bruchu: Questioned the need for engineering on the trail and
suggested calling a local asphalt contractor to lay the asphalt with little or no
engineering involvement.
Commissioner Brooher: Reminded the commission that the item has been budgeted
and encouraged it moving forward.
Commissioner Larson: Questioned whether there were any other technologies
available that could possibly decrease the cost of the project.
Commissoners Blackford, Steele and Dunn: Expressed appreciation for all of John’s
work in moving the Stonegate trail project forward, but expressed some concern
about the cost and merits of moving the project forward without further study.
Commissioner Ames: Expressed that this is a big pile of money.
Commissioner Steele: Advocated that the segments be prioritized and that the
commission only move forward with a recommendation knowing that a particular
segment is the highest priority.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Kriegler
Project Assistant