The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019.10.16 Parks PacketAgenda Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission Meeting of October 16, 2019 Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm 1. Approve Minutes from September 18, 2019 Meeting 7:02 pm 2. Update on Adelaide Landing Future Park 7:15 pm 3. Update on the Trail Feasibility Study 7:30 pm 4. Sunset Lake Future Park Planning 8:00 pm 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 3 Parks Commission Agenda October 16, 2019 Background Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission Meeting of October 16, 2019 Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm Approve Minutes from September 18, 2019 Meeting Staff recommends approval of the minutes of the Parks Commission meeting of September 18, 2019. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED MINUTES. Update on Adelaide Landing Future Park The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission reviewed a sketch plan of Adelaide Landing at their July 13, 2016 which included an area for a park. Excelsior Group made a proposal for park dedication that included a combination of 7.8 acres of land plus $1,128 per unit in fees which the Parks Commission approved. It was also agreed upon to work together on the park. At the meeting of January 11, 2019, the Parks Commission heard an update from Ben Schmidt of the Excelsior Group that the 3rd Addition is ready to start. Excelsior Group proposed a partnership with the City to complete the park. The City of Hugo would plan the park and install the majority of the park features. Excelsior Group would construct paved areas within the park as a part of their upcoming pavement projects in exchange for a reduction in their park dedication fees. The Parks Commission discussed what they would like to see in the plan: sufficient park (30-40 spots), pickleball court, basketball court, large picnic shelter, strong trail connections between the park parcels, and playground for multiple ages. The Parks Commission reviewed plans for the future park at their meetings of April 17, 2019 and May 15, Commissioners approved a plan that included a circular parking lot, basketball court, tot lot, pickleball courts and park shelter. Staff will provide an update on construction including updated estimates. THE APPROVED PARK PLAN IS ATTACHED AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED PARK SHELTER. Update on the Trail Feasibility Study At the meeting of April 17, 2019, the Parks Commission approved a feasibility study of the missing trail connections around 130t" Street and the Hardwood Creek Regional Trail. Funding was received through an active living partnership project with Living Healthy Washington County and the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). The total cost of the feasibility study, preliminary design, and project report is estimated to be $13,000 with $10,000 being covered by the SHIP funds. WSB completed a site evaluation and proposed three potential trail layouts. The Parks Commission discussed the options at their meeting of June 19, 2019 and August, 21, 2019. Staff met with representatives of Wilson Tool and Washington County Parks and Public Works. Washington County has requested additional time to review the concepts. Staff will provide an update on recent discussions. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED CONCEPTS DATED OCTOBER 7, 2019. Page 2 of 3 Parks Commission Agenda October 16, 2019 Sunset Lake Future Park Planning The Parks Commission and the City Council included planning of the future park on Sunset Lake in their 2019 goals. At the meeting of April 17, 2019 the Parks Commission approved a timeline and planning proposal from WSB and Associates. At the meeting of August 21, 2019, Candace Amberg and Jordan Gedrose from WSB presented two concepts for a park at Sunset Lake. The Commission asked for a few changes to be made but agreed to host a neighborhood meeting to gather input on the concepts. A notification letter was sent to nearby property owners. The two concepts were presented for public review at the meeting of September 18, 2019. The input received was mixed. Staff recommends additional discussion and direction to staff as to what next steps the Parks Commission would like to take. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO. THE PARKS PLAN CAN BE FOUND AT: https://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/2040compplan Page 3 of 3 Parks Commission Agenda October 16, 2019 Minutes Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission Meeting of September 18, 2019 Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm Present: Roger Clarke, Shawn Haag, Cathy Moore — Arcand, Nicole Schmid, Dave Strub, Ranell Tennyson Absent: Mat Rauschendorfer Staff Present: Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner Emily Weber, Community Development Assistant Chair Strub called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes from the August 21, 2019 Meeting Tennyson made a motion, Clarke seconded to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2019 Parks Commission meeting. Ayes - Roger Clarke, Shawn Haag, Cathy Moore — Arcand, Nicole Schmid, Dave Strub, Ranell Tennyson Abstained — None. Motion carried. 2. Sunset Lake Neighborhood Meeting Denaway introduced the Sunset Lake Park project and provided a brief background on the City owned property along Sunset Lake. The City has a total of 1.63 acres along Sunset Lake that has been set aside as park dedication from two developments: The Preserve on Sunset Lake and Royal Haven Estates. The City recently did a 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, which had a large focus on park and trails. During the process, the City heard from residents that they would like more access to the City's natural resources as well as a broader connection to all parks and trails throughout Hugo. The potential Sunset Lake Park would provide public recreational access to Sunset Lake. The site would not be a launch site for motorized boats. The Parks Commission reviewed two concept plans for the Sunset Lake Park on August 21, 2019 and provided comments to staff. Staff made changes to the concept plans based on the feedback from the Commissioners. Denaway introduced Candance Amberg, the Landscape Architect from WSB working on the project. Amberg provided an overview of the two concept plans to the residents present at the meeting. Concept One shows a loop parking lot with access off of Homestead Avenue North, drop off zone for people unloading unmotorized water craft, and internal park trails. Concept Two shows a drop off and unloading area, vehicular access off of Homestead Drive and 125t" Street, and internal trails. Amberg stated that there has not been a traffic study done and the plans are still conceptual. Concept Two also shows a fishing pier and boulder outcroppings along the shoreline. Chair Strub stated that the Parks Commission would like to take comments from the residents on the potential park's design and emphasized that the funding and economics of the park is something that will be discussed at a later date. Strub invited residents to come forward. Many residents addressed the Parks Commission and provided thoughts and feedback on the general design of the park. Popular topics that came up were the maintenance of the park, the potential park users, the ecology of Sunset Lake, and the number of parking spaces shown on the concept plans. Residents were generally worried about increased traffic in their neighborhood and on the lake. Comments included: • There are too many parking spaces shown in the park and the number of spaces should be reduced to two to five. • Where would residents be able to put their lake weeds? • There was a concern that property values would decrease with the park. • One resident asked the City to pay association fees and to be responsible for restocking the lake. • There was concern with how many trucks would drive on the lake during winter. • Residents were concerned with the hours of the park and it was mentioned that the park should not be open past daylight hours. • How would the City manage loitering in the park? • A few residents stated that they did not want access from Homestead Avenue North. • One resident stated that access from 1251" Street North is dangerous. • Some residents want a toilet on site, some did not. • Some residents were okay with a picnic table, but not a shelter. Others did not want either on site. • One resident stated that the plans looked really nice, but is worried the park would be too manicured. • Some residents would prefer that there be no lights or electricity on site. • Could there be access to other lakes like Oneka Lake or Egg Lake? The Commissioners and staff answered the residents and their concerns and provided additional details on how parks are developed in the City of Hugo. Commissioner Clarke made a statement that one of the Parks Commission's role is to respond the needs of the community as a whole. Of the 30+ residents in attendance at the meeting, 13 residents came forward to voice their opinions. The Parks Commission understood that many residents were not in support of the concept plans presented. The Parks Commission directed staff to tone down the concept plans. 3. Adjournment Schmid made a motion, Clarke seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. All Ayes. Motion carried. 02017 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. / / / B/TUM/NODS TRAIL / I \ 1 \ ]RASH RECEPTACLE 1 \ ---- -------- 22 � \ / � 1 P RK Ar �I `l1\\ \\ \ QPEN SPACE (7UR IRRIGATED W771l\ WATER• REUSE SYSTEM) PARK BENCH (n"P•) \ / \N. CSESS TOT LOT A (100' DIAMETER) \ I PARK BENCH rl� \\ ' 23 \> \ ' PARK SHELTER (24'x36 SHRUB & PERENNIAL PLANTINGS ADA PARKING I i SHRUB & PERENNIAL \ / / 24 35 STALLS F2s I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I BUI7-ER PLA 77NGS I FOR SCREI NING ADJACEQIT TO HOMES /l PARK SIGN AND ` PLANTINGS \ BASKE78ALL1 7/ HALF COURT 7SMIEWALK BOARDWALK OVER WETLAND— — — 30 1 OVERHEAD — POWER N,— �� — / EASEMENT \— C� Westwood afor. cw LANDBCMB Ae(tD'[@CI wda tEe levee of de BNte of Mwa,M.. pane (952922 Ml12i01 W6iteweter Drive, Suite e300 rev (952)9-lSw nnebnke, MN 55363 +ew¢ SAA rd Fee (999)93]-5150 WeAW00dpf.cOm aemrd o..��a.re Walwood Profedenel5wk®, ItK. aew LI¢vee Na OP5 Adelaide LLC 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 / /.' • 0' 20' 40' 60' Call 48 Hours before digging: 811 or ca11811.com Common Ground Alliance IS nat. 05/08/19 shah 1 or 1 0008463SITE CNP05.dw A D E LA I D E Neighborhood Park Plan - - L A N D I N G— Public Amenities Det l Hugo, MN 30'-0" 8'-0" 22'-0" 12 loll - DECORATIVE STEEL SUNBURST (BOTH ENDS) 0 bo SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 40'-0" 24 GA. PRE-CUT STANDING SEAM STEEL PANELS & TRIM ti 3" x 3" TUBE STEEL CURVED WIND BRACE (TYP) DECORATIVE o STEEL SUNBURST 8" x 8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN Eo w/ CLASSIC BASE (TYP) FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = T-0" 40'-0" 2'-0" 18'-0" 18'-0" 2'-0" o � N 7" x 5" TUBE STEEL RIDGE BEAM (TYP) 0 0 N ao 7" x 5" TUBE STEEL RAFTER BEAM (TYP) 0 0 M 8" x 8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN w/CLASSIC BASE (TYP) 0 0 N 6" x 4" TUBE STEEL Eo PURLIN (TYP) 0 2-0" 716'-0'0 2'0" FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" Steelworx CrossGable Shelter - 30' x 40' 11800 East 9 Mile Road Model: CGA-3040-SW-SS-CC-WB Warren, MI 48089 Office:(586)486-1088 C70VERWDRX Fax: +��+�*�rialArrhiterrue�e Free: 800) 6 7 Toll Fr info@0verworx.c Email: info@coverworx.com DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS A Division of Ross & Barr Inc. www.Coverworx.com 7; -77-77-7 - - - - - - - -- �-�-pv. ■ . / � Pip r / � +} f Z r =` SEE ENLARGEMENTS ON r� ` 2Q �''!t•'tf PAGES 2 AND 3 \ 2 r j t WILSON TO \ \ _ _ — rs•r \ \ INTERNATIONAL ' 4 b \ OAK SHORE PARK Pi ` � � '� . '� I I L . I , � i '� -- I I �" ,1►s1-tea � f yt) I :...�rp lye 7C.A. v CONCEPT 1: TRAIL J °F ®..Y 'CONTINUES ON FALCON CT N / (SHARE THE ROAD SIGNS) I CONCEPT 2: WOULDREQUIRE EQUIRE \ ' ✓� THE REMOVAL OF BERM WITH BUFFER VEGETATION N. El i. fir• •�ED VOL.' ?sTNST C~i m At E g 12*5�r t Hardwood Creek Regional Trail - 130th St to Faclon Ct N Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 I WSB Project number: 013720-000 LEGEND: -- - PARCELS a - PREFERRED CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT Ed El E3 - - --F- - - 0' 75' 150' 300' � A / /-. �/-� Scale in Feet V \V/ J r1�J1 1 y I I •S :...- -,. OAK SHORE PARK 7�7 r rf r r r r t , vast M , I UO F . 1 Q� 1 Hardwood Creek Regional Trail - Inventory Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013720-000 \ 130TH ST N T� / I .+:. ,J _ , 1 z r 1 I r r 1 *, WILSON TOOL ' INTERNATIONAL I I � I J X'_ its m W 4 • 1 T I EXISTING PATH LEADING TO FALCON COURT EXISTING PATH EXTENDING FROM "WILSON TOOL INTERNATIONAL" PARKING LOT SMALL AMOUNT OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN RAILROAD TRACK AND BUFFER VEGETATION - 8 wsb Scale in Feet 2 — — 130TH ST N „— _ PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO — — CONNECT TO EXISTING TRAIL I I I r I I -- '.--- _ EASEMENT REQUIRED ' BRIDGE . R CULVERT — ! LEGEND: ---- PARCELS 2 FT CONTOUR PREFERRED CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT uullnnllllu BRIDGE • • • • BOARDWALK INN ----- Q ' 1 w BOARDWALK EXAMPLE 4 a I •.4 �rr � ( �� s� i� • , i I 4 r 1 T BOARDWALK ALTERNATIVE ROUTE (LOWER WILSON TOO .. } �• SPEED SIGNS) ' INTE L LU / V to \Q� I 0 1 err ` OAK SHORE C I, PARK I/ EASEMENT 1 REQUIRED— > BOARDWALK I \ \ �. 1 I ` ;.i': 1 • E TRAIL CONTINUES ON (FALCON ` CONCEPT WOULD REQUIRE CT N (SHARE THE ROAD SIGNS) THE REMOVAL OF BERM WITH BUFFER VEGETATION {, a b s 1 / / aLL Hardwood Creek Regional Trail - Enlargement Plan Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 I WSB Project number: 013720-000 o' qo. $o• �6 0' ws b Scale in Feet 3 1 2 / J 1 J m I � HYDRANT / 130TH N 130th Trail Feasibility - Inventory Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013720-000 ' HYDRANT 1 / POWER POLE (TYP) ° 1 RAIL CROSSING ARMT� HYDRANT r'r 4h -- -- — 130THSTN 1 I 1 1 I NOTES: - PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING REQUIRED -APPROX. 8 POWER POLES IN ROW -2 HYDRANTS IN ROW LEGEND: -- - PARCELS 2 FT CONTOUR CONCEPT TRAIL ALIGNMENT w= !f-; J 0] h W a, 0 a i I � r I I I I II I I — TRAFFIC SIGNAL l \ 1 \ I � 09 I�/—\ 0' 25' 50' 100' � /� /� N Scale in Feet 4 I I ! 1 ! 2 ! 1 ! r O 'co' SIGN ITTO BE RELOCATED r— EXISTING POWER POLE 1 / (APPROX. LOCATION) � ! EXISTING HYDRANT I 2 T T 130TH N Concept 1 1 1 EXISTING ROADWAY SIGN IN BE RELOCATED 1 PEING HYDRANT I ♦ rr r- I EXISTING MAILBOX, G MAILBOX / LANDSCAPE BED, AND T BUSINESS SIGNAGE EXISTING L — — — 1 .. HYDRANT — — REDUCED 12' DRIVE LANES O- _ - - - - - - . - - - - - fr '' ! / _,-'�'�s.. � ( •III BA NOTES: PROS: CONS: - ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED EXISTING POWERLINES WOULD NOT NEED TO BE RELOCATED - REQUIRES THE ROAD TO BE RECONSTRUCTED TO NARROW DRIVE LANES TO 12' WIDTH WITH B618 CURB IN MAILBOXES TO REMAIN ON NORTH SIDE OF ROADWAY ORDER TO ALLOW EXISTING POWER POLES TO REMAIN IN PLACE 8' WIDE TRAIL WITH 2' CLEAR ZONE ON EACH SIDE OF TRAIL WOULD MEET AND TO INCREASE THE BOULEVARD WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONAL TRAIL DESIGNATION - COORDINATION WITH MNDOT AND RAILROAD REQUIRED l 2 I O m / EXISTING ROADWAY SIGN TO BE RELOCATED 2 / EXISTING HYDRANT Concept 2 1 s-� 1 1 EXISTING HYDRANT I 1. 1 EXISTING ROADWAY r SIGN TO BE RELOCATED it / EXISTING MAILBOX, / LANDSCAPE BED,AND BUSINESS SIGNAGE NOTES: PROS: CONS: - 8' TRAIL ALONG BACK OF CURB 8' WIDE TRAIL WITH 2' CLEAR ZONE ON EACH SIDE OF TRAIL WOULD MEET MAILBOXES MOVED TO SOUTH SIDE OF ROADWAY -COORDINATION WITH MNDOT AND REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONAL TRAIL DESIGNATION EXISTING POWER LINES TO BE MOVED TO R.O.W. OR TO RAILROAD REQUIRED NO ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT REQUIRED SOUTH SIDE OF 130TH ST 1outn i rail Feasibility Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013720-000 V it I PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD I CROSSING: • STRAIGHTENED / CROSSWALKACROSS FOREST BLVD N RAILROAD STOP ARM ' ON BOTH SIDES OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 1 COORDINATION AND 4. PERMITTING THROUGH a RAILROAD JOINTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: SIGNAL JUSTIFICATION REPORTFOR MODIFICATIONS (ALL PUSH BUTTON SYSTEM) MAY QUALIFY FOR STATE AID FUNDS J m COORDINATION AND PERMITTING WITH W MNDOTAND COUNTY 0; (TH REVIEW) O STRAIGHTEN OUT Vi CROSSWALKACROSS FOREST BLVD N -RELOCATED CROSSWALK PUSH BUTTON / PEDESTRIAN STOP ARM RAILROAD CROSSING EXAMPLE fir,. I EXISTING — —HYDRANT 130T 5 IZ 14 ca t— co W O L I PEDESTRIAN RAILROAD CROSSING: • RAILROAD ARM EXTENSION ACROSS TRAIL COORDINATION AND PERMITTING THROUGH RAILROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: SIGNAL JUSTIFICATION REPORT FOR , MODIFICATIONS (ALL PUSH BUTTON SYSTEM) MAY QUALIFY FOR STATE AID FUNDS COORDINATION AND PERMITTING WITH MNDOT AND COUNTY (TH REVIEW) -SOME ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEETADA I U I I � MR1 5 EXISTING BOULEVARD O CONCEPT 1 TRAIL SECTION 130th Trail Feasibility - Sections Hugo, Minnesota October 7, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013720-000 CONCEPT 2 TRAIL SECTION C wsb 6 CITY OF HUGO PARKS COMMISSION MEMO TO: City of Hugo Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission FROM: Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner SUBJECT: Future Park on Sunset Lake DATE: October 11, 2019 for the Parks Commission meeting of October 16, 2019 1. INTRODUCTION: The City of Hugo has three undeveloped parcels of park land on Sunset Lake. The Parks Commission has started conceptually planning two of the parcels located on the south- west side of Sunset Lake of approximately 2 acres. 2. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of October 18, 2018, the Parks Commission approved a park dedication proposal for The Preserve on Sunset Lake. The proposal included dedication of .93 acres of land on Sunset Lake adjacent to the .7 acre city -owned parcel. At the time of the development approvals, there was neighborhood interest in those parcels being developed into a park. Both the Parks Commission and the City Council included planning the future park in their 2019 goals. At the meeting of April 17, 2019 the Parks Commission approved a timeline and planning proposal from WSB and Associates. The project plan including evaluating the site and drafting concept plans to identify what could reasonably be constructed at the park given the site constraints. The site was evaluated. At the meeting of August 21, 2019, Candace Amberg and Jordan Gedrose from WSB presented two concepts for a park at Sunset Lake. The Commission made minor changes and agreed to host a neighborhood meeting to gather input on the concepts. The concepts included: a 9-10 stall parking lot, vegetative buffers, drop off and storage areas for canoes/kayak, fishing piers, trails, turf, a future picnic shelter, portable restroom location, and spots to fish along the shoreline. A notification letter was sent to 118 nearby property owners. The two concepts were presented for public review at the meeting of September 18, 2019. -I- Future Park on Sunset Lake October 16, 2019 About half of the 30+ people that attended the neighborhood meeting on September 18, 2019 shared their input on the concept plans and potential park. Generally, the people that shared their input were not in support of a park. Some people were supportive of the park but recommended changes to the plan such as no parking, no portable restroom, no picnic tables, no winter access, and providing the vehicle access in different locations. There were concerns regarding the lake being overfished. There were also concerns over the amount of people that the park would attract. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission directed staff to "tone down" the plan. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan does not identify a need for a neighborhood park in this area because it is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). One of the Guiding Principles of the 2040 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan is to create a connected, multi -functional park system that supports the recreational, ecological, and social needs of the community. This includes "providing access to and protect Hugo's water resources including wetlands, lakes, and streams." (pg. 130). With the 2040 Comprehensive Plan updates, residents expressed a desire to see "natural water amenities for outdoor activities such as boating and winter fishing." Additionally, the Implementation Plan includes studying the availability of water based recreation in Hugo and utilization of city owned properties. (pg. 288) 4. NEXT STEPS: Staff and Council Members have received correspondence to follow up on the neighborhood meeting. Staff recommend additional discussion and that one of the following next steps be taken: • Do nothing. • Approve one of the concept plans as drafted. • Recommend changes to a preferred concept plan. The plan would be reviewed by the Parks Commission and then an additional neighborhood meeting would be held before final approval. • Direct staff to provide additional research. There were concerns about traffic, DNR lake regulations and grants. These items could be studied further and additional information could be provided. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Sunset Lake Park Concepts dated August 6, 2019 2. Sunset Lake Park Concepts dated September 9, 2019 3. Letter from Coderre dated September 21, 2019 4. Email from Rawson dated September 19, 2019 and staff response 5. Email from Baumann dated October 3, 2019 -2- Future Park on Sunset Lake October 16, 2019 CONCEPT 1: • Drop off zone for people unloading unmotorized watercraft (secondary option could incorporate a small boat launch next to dock) • 1 vehicular access point off of Homstead Dr • Internal park trails could connect to future 125th St N trail • Parking located on north side of property to allow buffer from 125th St • Water from existing outflow structure, could be treated in parking lot island rain garden APPROX. LOCATI OF EXISTING WATER O TF FUTURE TRAIL n 1 °f mw ¢ Y - 1 4011 FISHING PLATFORM CANOE / KAYAK STORAGE RACK Sunset Lake Park - Concept 1 Hugo, Minnesota August 8, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013980-000 srro i, Jr OCTAGON FISHING PLATFORM I PORTABLE RESTROOM DROP OFF AREA CANOE STORAGE RACK DOCK SUNSET LAKE STORMWATER TREATMENT PICNIC AREA WITH GRILL TURF SHELTER PAVED TRAIL FISHING PLATFORM SEATING AREA NATIVE GRASS AGGREGATE TRAIL EXISTING TREE (TYP) ,,-FISHING PLATFORM (TYP) 0' 15' Sp' 60" WS Scale in Feet EX SRTIING WATER O OTF 9 a, r 4 v i _ STORMWATER ,tip BUFFER VEGETATION SHELTER — — TREATMENT LOOP TRAIL AV- Mx_'r SUNSET LAKE SAND BEACH DOCK FUTURE AIL CANOE STORAGE RACK CONCEPT 2: 7 S 4 I o PICNIC AREA WITH GRILL ry • No drop off area, but larger parking stalls � ST � i PARKING LOT (10 STALLS) ., , could be incorporated to allow space for PORTABLE / _ TURF removing watercraft from vehicles RESTROONATIVE GRASS • 1 vehicular access point off of Homestead Dr with the option to add an / additional vehicular access point off of 125th St POTENTIAL \ N° • A looped internal trail could connect to a ACCESS TO \ PAVED TRAIL future trail along 125th St N 125TH ST FISHING BOULDER OUTCROPPING (TYP) • Parking located in center of property to i \\ \ g' EXISTING TREE (TYP) allow close proximity to waterfront —, . \ \ \ \ \ MOWED TRAIL FUTURE TRAIL a — FISHING BOULDER CANOE / KAYAK STORAGE RACK OUTCROPPING" Sunset Lake Park - Concept 2 Hugo, Minnesota August 8, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013980-000 0' 15' 30' 60' V V Scale in Feet sb APPROX. LOCATI OF EXISTING WATER O TF FUTURE TRAIL \` \ SrN CONCEPT 1: • Drop off zone for people unloading unmotorized watercraft • Vehicular access point off of Homstead Dr • Internal park trails could connect to future 125th St N trail l FISHING PLATFORM CANOE / KAYAK STORAGE RACK ,,J Sunset Lake Park - Concept 1 Hugo, Minnesota September 9, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013980-000 EXI&INQ VMETATIV BUFFER 4 N, (jJfj�l I' \ OCTAGON FISHING PLATFORM PORTABLE RESTROOM DROP OFF AREA WINTER ACCESS CANOE STORAGE RACK DOCK STORMWATER TREATMENT TURF PARKING SUNSET LAKE (9 STALLS) FUTURE SHELTER n FUTURE FISHING PLATFORM (TYP.) FUTURE TRAIL FUTURE FISHING PLATFORM 0' 15' 30' 60' V V Scale in Feet sb APPROX. L CAI OF EXISTINGWERO F STORMWATER - TREATMENT p ,ggg \FUTURE IL S � rN PORTABLE RESTRb(x CONCEPT 2: • Drop off and unloading area • Vehicular access point off of Homestead Dr and 125th St • A looped internal trail could connect to a future trail along 125th St N 4{d"N �ro Oki - FISHING BOULDER, CANOE /KAYAK STORAGE RACK OUTCROPPING,., gut Sunset Lake Park - Concept 2 Hugo, Minnesota September 9, 2019 1 WSB Project number: 013980-000 C31 >, 2-- EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER 3 PARKING (10 STALLS) SUNSET LAKE FUTURE SHELTER TURF PHASED PICNIC AREA FISHING PIER WINTER ACCESS DROP OFF AREA CANOE STORAGE RACK NATIVE GRASS p MOWED TRAIL ,X. FISHING BOULDER OUTCROPPING (TYP.) TURN LANE \\�`` FUTURE TRAIL y � � (D 0' 15' 30' 60' V V Scale in Feet sb To: Chuck Haas, City Council City of Hugo 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Park Proposal for Sunset Lake Date: September 21, 2019 In my opinion, the City owned property is too small to contain a canoe, kayak, paddle board launch, a fishing pier, a picnic shelter, bathrooms and off -road parking. I fully support the pier and launch. However, I believe the parking, picnic shelter and bathrooms should be moved to a location across 125tn St. It's my understanding that some of the area within the new development will be walking paths open to the public. The parking, picnic shelter and bathrooms should be located within that area. And, hopefully, lots of trees should be planted in the area also. Because this City owned property is low, filling it for parking access and structures would require removal of trees. In the age of global warming, I don't feel this should be done. It would make more sense, to construct a walking path to the shoreline to allow access to the pier and launch area. The naturalness of the area should be preserved, not destroyed. I may be contacted by email at: bdcoderrec@hotmaii.com. Or by snail mail: 12833 Homestead Dr. N., WBL, MN 55110 Thank you, Diane Coderre From: Shayla Denaway To: 'Rawson, John C (MNIT)" Cc: John Rawson Subject: RE: Sunset Lake park proposal Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 4:30:00 PM Hi John, Sorry for the late response, we held the Tour de Hugo community bike ride this weekend. Please give me a call at 651-762-6342 to discuss the proposed park. Here is some information regarding public properties. https://www.Imc.org/media/document/1/purchase_ and sale_ of real_ property_pdf?inline=true In particular, pg. 18 discusses land held in trust, such as the park property we are discussing. The applicable statues and case laws are referenced. Thanks, Shayla Denaway PARKS PLANNER CITY OF HUGO - MINNESOTA 14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N., Hugo, MN 55038 o: 651.762.6342 1 www.ci.hugo.mn.us From: Rawson, John C (MNIT)[mailtoJohn.c.rawson@state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:45 PM To: Shayla Denaway <SDenaway@ci.hugo.mn.us> Cc: John Rawson <johnrawsonjr@netscape.net> Subject: Sunset Lake park proposal Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Shayla, When you get a chance, please send me information on why the City of Hugo cannot sell, trade, or donate the land on Sunset Lake set aside for future parkland. I found an article where Bloomington tried to do that and there was no mention of legal issues in what I read, they ran into neighborhood opposition because they wanted to sell an existing golf course. Here is the article: httD://www.citvDaees.com/news/bloomineton-looks-to-sell-Dublic-parkland-and-DeoDle-arent- happy/455011953 The two parties who donated the land for city use are still alive and in the neighborhood. If they are agreeable to having it disposed of, I don't know that there would be any legal issue. I would like to see the land donated to the Sunset Lake Homeowners Association. I really liked the high quality design work for the two options presented last night, really nice! But, the consensus seemed to be don't make it much more than a safe place where people could launch non -motorized boats and fish. This morning I was thinking that the other piece of city owned land may be a better site because: 1) It's not in a high traffic area 2) There's room for 3-5 parking spots 3) It's easy to launch non -motorized boats 4) A porta-potty and trash receptacle could be placed there 5) Pathways could be made to for access to other parts of the peninsula The house next to that park (Jim and Barb Alfords) have a private boat ramp that would probably need a chain across so people don't start launching boats there. Thank you! John Rawson 12686 Ingersoll Ave N Hugo, MN 55038 Caution: This e-mail and attached documents, if any, may contain information that is protected by state or federal law. E-mail containing private or protected information should not be sent over a public (nonsecure) Internet unless it is encrypted pursuant to DHS standards. This e-mail should be forwarded only on a strictly need -to -know basis. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (1) notify the sender immediately, (2) do not forward the message, (3) do not print the message and (4) erase the message from your system. From: Nicholas Baumann To: Tom Weidt; Chuck Haas; Shayla Denaway Cc: AA Kate Subject: Proposed Park on Sunset Lake Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 11:18:45 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Honorable Mayor Tom Weidt Chuck Haas, Council Member Ward 3 cc. Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner Dear Honorable Mayor Weidt and Council Member Haas: A neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at the Hugo City Hall to discuss the Park Commission plan to add a park to Sunset Lake. 38 people from the Sunset Lake neighborhood attended the meeting, and not one person from the neighborhood was in favor of the park proposed for the south shore of Sunset Lake. I believe one person from the Hilo neighborhood attended, but did not speak. Near the end of the meeting a summary was provided indicating that the Parks Commission is hearing the residents asking for the plan of the proposed park to be "toned down." It was stated during the meeting more than once that the Parks Commission has repeatedly heard from citizens of Hugo that the citizens would like more access to lakes for swimming and fishing. During the meeting of September 18, multiple neighborhood attendees spoke and the primary concern for the proposed plan was safety along both Homestead Drive and 125th Street. More than one lifelong resident of the neighborhood stated that an exit from the proposed park to Homestead Drive would be an accident waiting to happen AND that an exit from the proposed park to 125th Street would also be an accident waiting to happen. One resident stated his opinion that the plan appeared to have been drafted by people with no familiarity of the traffic pattern on Homestead Drive and no appreciation for the speed of traffic on 125th Street. Since there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, the safety issue is not so much a fender -bender concern, but a concern of a pedestrian being struck by a high-speed automobile. We all know that the sightlines along 125th are limited by rolling hills, and traffic speeds exceed 60 mph daily on 125th. If the proposed park moves forward with parking spaces and an entrance/exit on either Homestead Drive of 125th Street, it is reasonable to expect a pedestrian will be struck by a vehicle, and the result could be fatal. The neighborhood attendees of the September 18 meeting were not asking for the proposed park plan to be toned down. The neighborhood attendees of the September 18 meeting were speaking up to warn the Parks Commission that the proposed plan is unsafe. Second, in a letter mailed to residents on August 28, 2019 Ms. Denaway stated, quoting: "One of the things that the Parks Commission heard from residents when the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan was being updated was that they were interested in better access to Hugo's water resources and this property allows for that." However, the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan that was mentioned (available here: htWs://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenterNiew/18623/Parks-Trails-and- Onen-SSpace) is 72 pages long and it makes reference to "Access" only 22 times. Not once does the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan reference a comment from a resident, much less a resident from the city of Hugo. The Plan that Ms. Denaway cites to provides no support for the assertion that residents are "interested in better access to Hugo's water resources." Moreover, the City of Hugo 2040 Comprehensive Plan (available here:https://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7BBED5C6AO-2687-460E-9C61- 6B7CCADA2CBA%7D/uploads/2019-02-28 Hugo _2040_Comprehensive _Plan _Update.pME discusses park use and future plans, and bases the discussion on a 2016 survey conducted by theMetropolitan Council. The Met Council authors surveyed 5,459 people, with only 389 people from Washington County (not Hugo, just Washington Count). The relevant key findings are listed on page 113, and include: 1. Hiking, walking and biking are the most popular activities. They are also the most commonly mentioned primary reason for visiting a regional park or trail. The City of Hugo 2040 Comprehensive Plan interprets the information by stating, quoting: "Washington Count survey data (Figure 6-1) shows that in addition to hiking, bicycling and jogging, water activities such as swimming and fishing are just as popular." City of Hugo 2040 Comprehensive Plan, March 04, 2019, p. 113. Pdrnary Reason for Visit io Parks in WashingtDn County Sp*" wws sm�,byv OHw*fth txld saoiarq rMMM9 adva—�d f-rhirQ Svammng rtttrr t ioggfrj rumY�g � do not agree that the Xl'et CAncil'%rve7dat upp6?t th onclusion that "water activities Bch as swimming and fis1MTa?iVas"pBM" as hiking and bicycling. Fig. 6.1 seems to indicate that 20% of Washington Count" es nTs-Mira p� rrto bicycle and about 13% visit a park to swim. However, even if the statement is true, note that the data show about 13% of Washington Count respondents surveyed visit a park to swim. 13% of the 389 Washington Count respondents is 51 people FROM THE COUNTY. In contrast, 38 tax -paying residents of HUGO made the time to attend the meeting on September 18, 2019 to soundly disapprove of the proposed park plan on Sunset Lake. Several members of the Parks Commission, and the above -referenced letter of August 28, state that residents of Hugo want more access to water resources. While this sounds like a plausible public sentiment, the question remains, where is the support for the oft -repeated justification of the Parks Commission? This is a reasonable question, and indeed, this very question was raised twice during the September 18 meeting. Without a microphone being available for the meeting, the answer was difficult to hear, but the answer seemed to indicate that support could be found in the City of Hugo 2040 Comprehensive Plan. I found no such support, but I welcome a response as to why the Commission feels that erecting a park on a small lake 5 miles outside of the city of Hugo will address its oft -repeated assertion that the residents of Hugo are clamoring for water access. It is noted that both proposed plans for the park on Sunset Lake include a paved parking lot with 8 to 10 parking stalls, and one plan proposes a rack to store water kayaks. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Sunset Preserve provides for 10-13 "exclusive home sites on five -plus rolling acres, with views and access to stunning Sunset Lake." Edina Realty quote: "Select from 13 exclusive home sites on five -plus rolling acres, with views and access to stunning Sunset Lake." htijs://www. edinarealty. com/new-homes-mn-wi/developments/preserve-sunset-lake-hugo- mn#/ It might very well be likely that the proposed park will be erected on the south shore of Sunset Lake no matter the level of opposition from the neighbors and homeowners on the lake. However, I left the meeting feeling that the justification of "the residents want it" in support of building the park is a front. The more likely justification is that a park on Sunset Lake is an attractive amenity to the future Sunset Preserve owners. The Park Commission should consider some straight talk for the next meeting. The Park Commission should consider addressing the 38 current citizen -attendees, who oppose the proposed park based on safety concerns, and explain why the 13 future residents of Sunset Preserve have been so persuasive in moving the proposed park plan forward. If or when the proposed park is erected on Sunset Lake it would be nice if it included native grasses and wildflowers, few or no parking spots, no pavilion, and a barrier to expected launching of watercraft and ice fishing trailers. The proposed park looks like an asphalt and concrete eyesore, just like one would expect from a park in 1950s America. If the Parks Commission insists on moving ahead with this unpopular plan, perhaps the Commission could review the general guidelines for community parks at page 144 of the City of Hugo 2040 Comprehensive Plan, where it is noted that such parks should conserve trees and natural resources. A greener, more ecologically wise footprint with native vegetation would be an improvement to the proposed plan, and likely less expensive. I have no advice for mitigating the safety concerns of the proposed park identified by the neighborhood residents; good luck with that aspect. Best regards, Nick Baumann & Kathy Rose & family 12929 Homestead Dr. 651-503-8655 All thumbs from my Whone