Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-02 Parks Minutes CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, July 2, 2008 6:30p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner Binko Commissioner Christianson Commissioner Sonnek Commissioner Fischer Commissioner Roman Commissioner Peterson Commissioner Schmidt Staff - Chuck Ahl, Ginny Gaynor Others - Pastor White from Gethsemane Lutheran Church Absent: Commissioner Brannon Commissioner Yang 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Binko made a motion to accept the agenda. Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion. All - ayes 4. GETHSEMANE PARK PROPOSAL Chuck Ahl presented a recommendation that is up for approval. This is part of a proposal in which the first phase will go to the City Council on July 14. All the approvals will happen over the next month, by other commissions. The final vote by City Council will be on August 25. This is the Park Commission's opportunity to propose the status of the 10 acres which was commonly referred to as Gethsemane Park. For 25 years the city has paid one dollar a year for the use of the park. The 10 acres is private property, the lease has expired and the church has land rights. The city is now faced with determining a reasonable use for the land. Staff has been meeting with representatives from Gethsemane to work through the process. Mr. Ahl presented that recommendation to the commission for consideration and suggested that a recommendation be made to the city council. The property has been divided into two parcels; six acres will be used for a senior housing facility and the remaining 4 acres will be used for city park usage. According to an appraiser hired by the city; value of the 4 acres is $106,000. There is an easement over the parking area and we have easement rights over 80% of the parking lot. The parking lot is in need of repair with an estimated cost of approximately $250,000. Finally, there is a $200,000 improvement cost for the park. The total cost of this project is $1,260,000. The church's contribution to this project is $591,000. Mr. Ahl discussed funding options for this park and parking lot. The church has some rights in usage of the park and parking lot. He discussed mutual usage of the park and parking lot including usage of the church's school gym by the city. This is all contingent on the approval of the senior housing development. Questions and Concerns: Several comments were made regarding the pipeline cleanup; what action is being taken and what impact does this have on this property. There was also concern about the safety of vent pipes. Responses included the following comments from staff; o Clean-up is still underway. o There have been extensive borings and studies in that area. o The vent pipes are not where the park will be. o The pipeline leakage is monitored and reported to the city. o The vent pipes are the extraction to clean up the mess. There was extensive discussion on the parking lot. There were comments on the use of the parking lot and how much money is being put into the parking lot. What will the bottom line cost be for the whole project? Chuck Ahl stated that this parking lot is also used for clean-up and other gatherings and that the city has use of the gymnasium. We simply wanted to have the rights to use it and to stage functions in that area. He said that it will cost city taxpayers about $25,000 a year for about 15 years. The other expenditure is outside levy limits. There is $258,000 available for park land from existing PAC money. There were several other questions and concerns along these lines regarding money. Pastor Richard White stated that to make this equitable we need to trade use of what we have. Consideration would be made in scheduling events to not conflict with the city's scheduled events. This is not new, this has been going on for 28 years and it has been working. We are trying to be as accommodating as we can. Chuck Ahl talked about the 50/50 agreement and clarified the proposal. . The City of Maplewood agreed to match the church's PAC charge by $181 ,000. . Gethsemane agreed to pay for 50% of the parking lot improvements and the City agreed to match that. . Gethsemane agreed to pay for 50% of the park improvements and the City agreed to match that. . Then it came down to how do we match it? . First choice was to use 100% PAC funds. . Another choice is to use zero PAC funds. . If the City is going to do matches for assessments, how do we get additional funds into the park system? The goal was to determine how to put a plan together that will get approval from both the Park Commission and City Council. A nexus of 50-50 was established and that is how the levy was determined. It didn't have anything to do with usage. . We need to find other sources of money since there isn't enough PAC money. That is why a nexus was made. What basis can we use for the program that is understandable to justify going to the taxpayers and say, yes we are going to use some of your tax money for this purpose? Mr. Ahl wants to be very clear that this discussion took it to the next step which wasn't his intent. This is how to come up with $669,000 of city money in order to match their $591 ,000. A motion was moved by Commissioner Christianson and seconded by Commissioner Roman; that the Park Commission provides a positive recommendation to the city council on overall terms of the park purchase from Gethsemane Lutheran Church, consistent with proposed terms as outlined in the staff report, subject to review of details on the final agreement to be approved by the parks commission. Motion voted and passed with 5 ayes and 3 nays by Commissioner Sonnek, Commissioner Binko and Commissioner Peterson. Brief recess 5. CONTINUATION OF THE CIP DISCUSSION Chuck Ahl commented that the commission is to meet with the City Council on August 4 at 5:00 pm. The subject is: 1. To work on the comprehensive plan 2. To discuss the CIP Capital Improvements plan and the commission's recommendations. Chuck suggested that they go to item 6 (The Comprehensive Park Plan) with Jennifer Haskamp and to table further discussion on the CI P to the meeting on Aug 16 along with any other issues you would like to present to the city council. It was moved and seconded to have that discussion at the next meeting. 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION Jennifer Haskamp talked briefly about the memo attached to the packet. She had taken comments from last meeting and included that with a draft document. The advisory panel made a series of recommendations which we voted through on the last meeting. The objective tonight is to make a recommendation in respect of this draft and to move it forward to the planning commission. She suggested that it might be beneficial in the Implementation Section to add something in terms of 'review the bylaws for each of the commissions, moving forward so that you are establishing networking relationships across all commissions so responsibilities are clearly identified.' There was a suggestion that there is a need to outline who is responsible for what and clarification on how commissions interact with other commissions. Jennifer Haskamp made the following recommendations: o In one of the goal statements to add in a statement with respect to review the bylaws established for the parks commission and update as necessary. We may want to collaborate or establish some kind of joint relationship with other commissions to allow some opportunities that might work in some of our parks such as demonstration projects. o Adding something on page 37 on Parkland Management, Acquisition and Development that would talk about maintaining and establishing relationships with other commissions to explore opportunities for joint development and redevelopment of park facilities and open spaces. Comments and discussion: Commissioner Binko would like the language to be changed to say "these were identified not recommendations." There was a comment from a commissioner that he does not feel the implementation table belongs in this document. There was discussion on special use parks versus special use within a park. Jennifer Haskamp suggested on page 10 in the classification section adding a sentence or statement that gets at the issue "the entire park need not necessarily be a special use and that there could be a special use within a park identified as well." Commissioner Schmidt referred to the first sentence on page 27 under Beaver Lake Neighborhood; she feels the language is too strong and would like the wording to be more general. Jennifer Haskamp responded that she will work on softening the wording on page 27. Commissioner Peterson wants to see more in the school site section. Jennifer Haskamp commented that the idea is to recognize that these school sites are part of our program and there is a need to get a handle on how they are used and to note opportunities. Trails plan Jennifer stated that on page 32 she pulled out more specific trail discussion items. The information applied to specific trail corridors that we had discussion items related to. Comments and Questions: Chair asked if we can somehow prioritize these trail corridors. He suggested looking at ideas to work on those trails that would enable us to get larger portions in an easier way. Jennifer Haskamp suggested on page 37 under Acquisition and Development section adding in the trail corridors section "to identify key areas or opportunity areas for lining and completing the trail system in the most efficient and cost effective manner" or something along those lines to identify those areas right up front. Commissioner Peterson does not want it stated in the document that there is guaranteed access into all natural areas. Jennifer Haskamp suggested that instead of saying 'the development of a trail system that protects the environment but provides access," change the wording "from provides access" to "considers access." Commissioner Schmidt suggested that language could be added "provides access to high quality natural areas without being a detriment to the area." Chair referred to pages 30/31 commenting that it was helpful seeing the mileage included in the table. Jennifer Haskamp said they can add the mileage back in. She asked if it would be helpful to have just the mileage total. She can add in a summary table that summarized what is based on fig 6.2 that states number of miles for existing trails and number of miles of proposed trails. All commissioners mutually agreed to the above suggestion by Jennifer Haskamp. Jennifer made a suggestion based on discussion of trails in natural areas; it might be advantageous to add in something on signage; something about the appropriate and adequate signage to add it as its own topic. Commissioners were in agreement. Implementation Jennifer Haskamp discussed the following changes made to this section: 1. A recommendation or suggestion to add in implementation strategies by goal topic area. How we can accomplish some of those goals? 2. Under cost analysis added in a section to talk about the summary table 6.6; the paragraph underlined is new. 3. Pages 36 and 37 under table 6.7 are all new. 4. Took the general goal topic areas and identified some implementation strategies this group and the advisory panel talked about. Cost Analysis changes - no discussion Page 36 table 6.7 discussion Chair recommended leaving this section more generic; leave the prioritization out as there may be some changes later on because of the City Council meeting coming up. Jennifer Haskamp commented that there will be opportunity where we can go back and add in a summary section and a table later on. A comment was made that it is difficult setting priorities by general categories because there are individual parks that may have more needs than others. Jennifer Haskamp recommended adding in a statement that refers specifically to "our priorities will be set on a project by project basis through assessment of the overall system and considering its impact on residents and referring to the whole picture." Everyone was in agreement to this. Implementation strategies by goal topic area A request was made from a commissioner to split the goal we can add the "review of the bylaws" piece to "Update, Modify and Create Ordinances." We would then put "zoning and land uses" in another bullet which would take care of the review of the process along with the ordinances because it is city code. Jennifer Haskamp will take the first statement and will separate the first sentences from the second sentence adding a statement in the first about reviewing the bylaws and making sure everyone understand their role. Parks, Trails and open space goa/s- no discussion Community and partnerships Chair feels uncomfortable with the wording "Identify a liaison from the parks commission to monitor adjacent cities, agencies and trails...." He feels it might be more appropriate to word it as "occasionally there are joint ventures coming from other governmental agencies looking for commission people to serve." Jennifer Haskamp recommended adding "establish a representative from the parks commission to serve on joint ventures or task force or advisory panels." Commissioner Peterson voiced concerns that she does not know if anyone of us have the time or ability to do those things. It sounds like something the parks director did. Jennifer Haskamp responded that this statement is more of an opportunity than a charge. It is a way of keeping people in the loop of what is going on. Commissioner Christianson commented that we don't want to say it is strictly a staff function. Commissioner Sonnek suggested that it could be worded to identify opportunities for parks commissioners to gather information from other agencies. Jennifer Haskamp suggested adding "staff and commission members should explore opportunities to work with adjacent cities, agencies and school district parks and trails planning initiatives and share that information with the commission." This will help identify potential opportunities for collaboration and efficiencies. Ecological resources and restoration management Jennifer called attention to the first bullet; making sure there is a review process for the parks commission. This statement is worded as they want it to be. She left the sentence general so it would not create any unnecessary red tape; she wanted to make sure it states that there be opportunities for review. After discussion Jennifer will change wording to "develop a review process" so it is not locking us into anything in particular. Consensus is yes. Commissioner Fischer commented that around open spaces and parks where there are large natural areas, people mow right up to the property border. Is there anything on educating and encouraging property owners to use parts of their lawns as buffers to they will volunteer to allow there to be natural areas? Where would that fit in? Jennifer Haskamp feels it should be a component in the education and recreation programs. Could add something along the lines of "provide education, stewardship along park and open space borders. " Trail corridors, right of way, acquisition and development Jennifer Haskamp reminded people that a bullet was added, "identify opportunities for lining and completing systems in a cost effective way." A commissioner commented that on "the create ordinance language" we should use the same language as the ecological resources about creating a review process. Recreation and education programs Jennifer Haskamp reminded the commission that a third bullet was added about "education and stewardship along borders." Funding A commissioner would like to see the third bullet become the first one; identify grant money be the third one. The first two seem more time sensitive. Jennifer Haskamp commented that grant money would be the function of staff. Commissioner Peterson commented on the "grant money to support the development of the trail system", page 33 the last statement on south Maplewood nature trails, the wording, "soft surface" part should not be in there, she stated that the trail has to be hard surface for federal funds. Commissioner Peterson suggested the wording "this trail is proposed to be sustainable designed as a hiking or nature trail." Ginny Gaynor proposed a change "the trail is proposed as a hiking trail to provide residents access." Commissioner Peterson would like it to be general and take out the word hiking and just leave it as trail Jennifer Haskamp suggested the following wording- "this trail is proposed as a sustainably designed trail." So we are getting at ways for little environmental impact. Commissioner Binko commented on definitions, page 10; she would like to see a brief description of a natural area greenway. Staff will work on the definition. Commissioner Peterson referred to page 33 - trails are becoming connecting trails; she would like language added "provide access to residents to the natural areas in south Maplewood and possible connections to other trails" seems like that should be a part of it because that is the direction these trails are moving. Jennifer responded that is a good point; that is something we can pull out in the bullets at the front; playing up the importance that we are not only connecting to parks but are connecting to other trails regionally within the city and also connecting to schools and public facilities. She will work on the language so it is not too strong. Commissioner Fischer made a recommendation to pass this on to the planning commission which will meet July 29. Commissioner Peterson would like to see the draft copy. Staff is looking for a recommendation with the understanding Jennifer will give the commission a draft. Commissioner Peterson would like to read it through first since there is a meeting before it goes to the planning commission. Commissioner Schmidt made a motion to put on the agenda "that we could highlight anything we feel that we need if a commissioner feels that they want to discuss a specific point to be brought to our attention." This was seconded. Commissioner Fischer requested a vote of approving what we have with the opportunity of one last review at our next meeting. Seven Ays - one nay. Motion to Adjourn - All ayes