Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-21 PRC Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:00p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 17,2010 5. Visitor Presentations 6. Unfinished Business a. Dog Park Survey Results b. Gethsemane Park Lease Agreement Discussion 7. New Business a. CIP Presentation 8. Staff Presentations a. Lions Park Update b. Wakefield Picnic Shelter Update c. Phalen Keller Regional Park Task Force d. Goodrich Backstop e. Recreation Summer Programs Update 9. Commissioner Comments 10. Adjourn - (9:30 p.m.) Next meeting - May 19, 2010 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Roman indicated there was a quorum and called to order. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Commissioner Craig Brannon, present Commissioner Don Christianson, present Commissioner Peter Fischer, present Commissioner Dan Maas, present Commissioner Mary Mackey, present Commissioner Carolyn Peterson!!])';' nt Chair Bruce Roman, present \;. Commissioner Therese Sonnek, pre' Commissioner Kim absent Staff Recreation Recreation Manager, Konewko, present 3. of the dog park questions to the agenda. questions under Unfinished Business as section b. Commissioner seconded the motion. to approve the agenda. Commissioner Brannon Ayes: All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. February 17,2010 Commissioner Maas stated on page 4, under commissioner comments it should state that, "there are no lights in the tunnel that goes under Kennard on the Lake Links Trail," rather than "there are no lights under Kennard." 1 Commissioner Sonnek stated on page 4, under commissioner comments for herself, "where" should be spelled, "wear." Commissioner Fischer moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Maas seconded the motion. Ayes: All Abstain: Mackey The motion passed. 5. VISITOR PRESENTATION 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Ranking of2010 Commission Commission discussed best way to prioritize advanced by deciding to discuss list order of highest to lowest priority. Commission ,ne and prioritize in Commissioner Brannon motione specific goal to review Fish Creek. lOin its entirety and make a seconded the motion. goals. Ayes: All The motion b. Dog The commission discussed the survey questions and any changes that should be made before the survey is distributed. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion of Citizens' Parks and Recreation Survey John Held II, City Manager Intern, addressed the commission in regards to the survey and responded to questions and suggestions provided by commission. 2 b. 2009 Commission Report (Commissioner Fischer) The commission briefly went over the report. Commissioner Brannon motioned to accept the 2009 Annual Commission Report with the corrections noted and the additions ofthe goals captured. Commissioner Sonnek seconded the motion. Ayes: All The motion passed. c. Gethsemane Park Lease Agreement Mr. Konewko discussed the progress of the lease yet come to a final agreement regarding the lease. The commission discussed the Gethsemane P~r noted that they have not Commissioner Sonnek motioned to not re Mackey seconded the motion. The commission opened the The motion did The agenda for the next meeting for further B yr Lake Property Tour (Chair Roman) thepi'9pelty and its potential uses. 8. STAFF Commissioner Commissioner Maas to adjourn and table the remainder ofthe agenda. the motion. Ayes: Sonnek, Maas, Fischer Nays: Mackey, Peterson, Brannon, Roman, Christianson The motion did not pass. a. Mississippi Tot Lot Update Mr. Konewko updated the commission on the Tot Lot progress. 3 b. Wakefield Picnic Shelter Update Ms. Robbins updated the commission on where the project is at. c. Legacy Naming Mr. Taylor went over the naming of Legacy Park. Commissioner Brannon made a recommendation that they solicit input from the neighbors for the park. d. National Trails Day Ms. Robbins updated the commission on the progress 9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Trails Day. Commissioner Maas inquired ifthere were under Kennard on the Lake Links trail. Mr. maintenance and public works were looki ' in the tunnel that goes commission that park Commissioner Christianson inquired on the stiI Konewko informed him of the Mr. Commissioner Brannon had no Commissioner Commissioner place Extreme Green Makeover taking like a good program. Commissione difficulty with park. Mr. that the construction at Legacy Park has caused some to the park. He requested that a sign be placed at the look into a solution. 10. ADJOURN Commissioner Brannon moved to adjoum the meeting. Commissioner Christianson seconded. Ayes: All The meeting adjoumed at I 0:45pm. 4 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Parks and Recreation Commission Audra Robbins, Recreation Program Supervisor Dog Park Survey Results April 14, 2010 INTRODUCTION At the March PRC meeting, staff was directed to mail out the Parks and Recreation Commission's survey concerning a proposed off-leash dog park in Shelwood Park. The survey was mailed to every residence within a Y. mile radius of Sherwood Park. DISCUSSION Of the 375 surveys successfully mailed, we received 144 written responses. Staff also received emails, letters and phone calls from citizens wishing to voice their opinions on the matter. Most of the responses were passionate in nature, both for and against the proposed dog park. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a neighborhood meeting be scheduled to better address the concerns of Maplewood Residents affected by this plan. Attachments Dog Park Survey, comments and result totals frQposed Dog Area Survey Tally . Total Number of Surveys Opposing Dog Area: 76 Of the 76 surveys collected 61 do not own a dog, 13 own a dog, and 2 did not answer. . Total Number of Surveys Neutral/Unsure of Dog Area: 17 Of the 17 surveys collected 12 do not own a dog, 3 own a dog, and 2 did not answer. . Total Number of Surveys Favoring Dog Area: 51 Of the 51 surveys collected 15 do not own a dog, 34 own a dog, and 2 did not answer. COMMENTS AGAINST PROPOSED DOG AREA . Comment on Q7: No way! This suggests that it is acceptable for unleashed dogs to run on/across the public walking path, endangering walkers, runners and bicyclists. Maplewood should not put its citizens at risk. I am appalled by the suggestion of an off-leash dog park so close to the public walking path and the Maple Park Shores town homes. Having been bitten by a dog, I am very fearful of stranger's dogs. When I use the path, I expect to enjoy peace and nature, not disturbing barking and having to retreat in fear of unleashed dogs. Peter Fischer told me that the City would have a fence around the dog area, but the map shows it adjacent to the path-this is a terrible idea! My key concerns include: 1. Danger to citizens-dog bites. 2. Dog poop in the park and on the path. 3. Reduced property values at Maple Park Shores. 4. Non-residents parking in the Maple Park Shores lot. 5. Noise from barking dogs. 6. Dogs leaving the fenced area unleashed and going elsewhere in the park and onto the Maple Park Shores Property. . What a waste of a park to consider such a thing, just another example of Maplewood going to the dogs. This is a poor choice of area; why not put it in a park not surrounded by homes, such as Battle Creek, Upper Afton or lower Afton? . It is not the responsibility of the public to provide a place for pets. The council she not be wasting their time and our money on this. . Too many people walk their dog and don't pick up its waste, especially where kids play. let's keep our parks for our kids and our trails to walk in for exercise. People who have dogs should have a large yard for them to run in. I think that you'll have a lot of trouble with dogs running around loose, it's a bad idea. My son has a dog, Brittany, who stays in the yard with her toys. She loves people throwing them for her to retrieve, no trouble at all. Of course, she can leave it to run without a fence; he has an electric collar on to stay in an open fence. I see couples with three or more dogs, bad, bad. . The neighborhood does not need more traffic. If dog owners can't exercise their dogs in their own yard they shouldn't own a dog. Our tax dollars are needed in other areas. . I don't use any dog area, I'm neutral on the off leash dog area. . Keep it a people and children friendly area. Now we are free to fly kites without the fear of dogs, and have freedom to use the swing set and play area. Currently, certain dog owners unleash their dogs in the park disturbing our unfenced yard with their droppings and scaring our kids that play in the backyard. . Even if I had a dog I would not be in favor of having a dog park in this neighborhood. There would then be dogs barking all day and evening in what is a seemingly quiet neighborhood, it is bad enough when people use the park. I thought the county was strapped for money, just how much would be spent for fencing and for people to maintain the area? There are too many homes around the park to make it an ideal place for a dog park it should be in more of a rural area. . It would be nice for dogs, but some people would not follow the rules and would leave their mess. We have a few who walk around our neighborhood now and don't carry a bag with them, so WE have to pick it up. . Don't want one. . Park area and around the lake could be a nice walking/biking area if trails were paved. You could even make a trail over to the island. You could also sod trees for shade and add picnic tables. . A lot of children that live in this area, as well as the day care on White Bear and Cope use the park everyday to play and have fun; they don't want dogs off leash running around them! Dogs can run around in their own fenced in backyards. . We don't need an off leash dog park this area. People have dogs and don't clean up after them. I clean up after my dog. . This park is for kids to play. We don't want no dog park. Whoever came up with such an idea? . I live in this neighborhood, and will strongly consider moving if a dog park is put in Sherwood Park. We use many local parks, and they are already overcrowded. Also, it has been our experience that non-residents tend to litter parks much more that those that live in the park's neighborhoods. Further, it seems unnecessary to have an off leash dog park in this suburban area. lastly, we do not believe it would enhance the value of being a homeowner in this neighborhood, either literally or figuratively. . My age has nothing to do with this matter (65+). In a period of little money, this is one more way Maplewood is spending money we don't have. Why not enforce the leash laws and fencing regulations instead of this? This is another great example of ruining a quiet park and of our present council and their staff thinking of stupid ideas. I don't want my tax dollars spent on a dog area!!!! If this goes forward, it moves me one step closer to leaving Maplewood. . It's probably not advisable to use the lake unless they were very closely supervised. . We have people losing their homes, and struggling, and you want to do this? Our taxes are higher than White Bear lake for god's sake. Get a grip! . Will this help with the gang problem that I have heard about at this park? Keep the dog park fenced, be sure all dog crap is picked up, do not allow dog park to interfere with paved walk/bike path. I do not want to worry about a loose dog chasing me or my kid when we go walking or biking! . I have neighbors who have two dogs in the winter and three dogs in the summer and they let them run all over their front yard unleashed all the time. They used to drop their business in my yard three years ago until I called animal control several times. . This is a small neighborhood park, while I use it daily, I am not certain I want it opened up to more out of neighborhood traffic. Many soccer teams tend to monopolize the park now. A convenient bathroom would be a nice addition, please. . In the past 11 years I have been attacked by 5 dogs, I have had rotor cuff surgeries in both shoulders that were unsuccessful; I cannot lift my arms shoulder high. I pay enough taxes without being burdened with something like this. Who will police the area for poop clean up compliance?? What happens when dogs are in the lake for a swim, choose not to obey commands to come back to owner and take off out on to Cope or Hazlewood street?? Kids with dogs fooling around not watching their pet, no park. I already clean up poop from LAZY pet owners who walk their dogs and do not carry poop bags. . The children in this area need a place to play. Not for dogs. People don't clean up after their dogs. So, therefore the park will be one awful mess. No dog park. . Dog parks are good for apartment dwellers in big cities, not in Maplewood. There are more than 20 houses with small children surrounding the park. The average dog owner does not understand park structure. It is a mistake to assume that every dog is well mannered or well trained. The natural eco system surrounding the lake will be endangered. . Sherwood Park should remain strictly a park for people young and old. Knucklehead Lake attracts wildlife that dogs would scare off. Also, animal droppings from the dogs are unwanted. If there are aggressive dogs there is the potential that children would get bit. . I worry about the lack of parking as well as increase foot and vehicle traffic in the area. . We want the park to be an area for people, not their dogs. Please do not pursue this idea! We live by the park and enjoy using it for our family. This would not be a good situation to have it become a dog park, we strongly oppose the idea. . A poor use of funds, if excess funds exist, put it towards sidewalks for the children who walk to school. . Access to Sherwood is too restricted from County Road B onto Kennard or from Cope onto Flandrau and Lark. A much better place would be off of Beam Avenue where the compost area used to be on Beam Ave. There are no near neighbors to be bothered by the traffic to and from that location. . Let the dog owners take care of their own dogs in their own way. 1. Will create more neighborhood traffic and parking. 2. More barking. 3. Dog fights. 4. More messes. Who will clean up what the dog owners don't? S. Got to be better uses for funds. 6. Dog parks need to be out in open spaces, all alone, not in a neighborhood. . The park is located in a residential neighborhood. Adults and children use the walking trail. Children use the park to play in because we don't have sidewalks. This is the only place they run and play without watching out for cars. I can't believe you would put a dog park over children. I live right on the park. I do not want dogs barking and running around in this space. They should be in an open space area without homes and families around. It sounds like you people think more of dogs than children. I thought people came first. . This park was made for people. Many families from different backgrounds come to enjoy this park for picnics, games and a play area for kids. let's keep it for this. Since the walking path was added last year it is used even more by walkers and cyclists. let's keep it a people park! . How do you propose to buffer the noise from dogs barking to the extra traffic, ect. We currently use the trail and park for our young grandchildren. It would be sad to lose it to dogs! They love to bike to the park and I would no longer feel comfortable letting them go there. . Comment on Q7: No. The wildlife there will be threatened. Dogs should not be running loose on public property, especially in a town around young children and elderly. . It sounds like it has already been decided, that the park is a "go" and you are trying to appease the neighbors and let them think they have a say. Knucklehead Lake is already polluted with geese we don't need to add dogs to the pollution. I have concerns about dogs running loose with little children around. As it is there is a doberman pinscher loose each morning running around the neighborhood, we don't need any more stray dogs from irresponsible owners. . This about the most insane idea ever proposed for this neighborhood. To even propose a place for dogs to bath and swim staggers the imagination. Ridiculous! . I do not favor a dog area at Sherwood Park: 1. Residential area 2. Property value may decrease 3. Noise disturbance of dogs 4. Smell from dog waste S. Children in area 6. Cost of project 7. Cost of maintaining dog area 8. Not the way I want my tax dollars spent 9. Do not use Knucklehead lake for dog area If park is obsolete (used very heavily by Asian community on weekends), consider bUilding low income senior housing or moderate residential homes. . NOT in favor of dog park!!! . This area is way too close to residences. Sherwood Park is completely used each week the way it is now. . There are too many geese on Cope Ave. Unleashed dogs will be chasing them, this would result in the geese relocating probably to Footprint and one which is in my back yard (I have enough here). Do something about the goose population and this could be a possibility. . I am the president of Maple Park Shore Townhome Association. I was a dog owner until last December. I understand the need for off leash parks, but Sherwood Park is NOT an appropriate iocation. The area you show on the map is a necessary habitat for flocks of geese and birds. Far too many geese are killed on Cope Ave. The large park area is a refuge for them. last year lied a group of volunteers to build a shoreline restoration for Knucklehead lake. The next phase of that project is to provide a habitat that is meant to encourage the geese to walk from the lake to the park. I would like to discuss the plans with you. - . Comment on Q7: No. But if it does go thru anyway do include the lakel Sherwood Park is way too small to accommodate on off leash area. Dogs need room to run, the parking lot is not big enough and will spillover into the residential area. Dog parks need to be located in a natural area with woods and a large area to EXERCISE. This would definitely be a detriment to the homes and the people located nearby. . Have you considered parking availability besides the adjacent streets? . In this neighborhood we use the park to play football, play with remote control cares and we have a lot of skaters in the neighborhood. Not many dogs. We would much rather see a skate park or a RC Race track for us All to play, instead of having to listen to dogs from other neighborhoods coming to play in ours. . I would worry about the safety of my kids, as they frequently use the playground. think an off-leash park would encourage dog owners to be a little more relaxed about cleaning up after their dogs. Further, I'd imagine some would bring dogs that shouldn't be off-leash (e.g. pit bulls), making it difficult to control where they go and who they may attack. Who would take liability if an off-leash dog attacked my kids at the playground?? At least with a leash the owner can control their dog... . It will make the park dirtier and more dangerous to children playing around the park. No thank you! . Not a lot of room for parking there. . Comment on Q6: If this were to happen, sheltering the area with trees and shrubs would be a good start. Comment on Q7: No, this area is used by ducks, if dogs were to use this lake the eco- system and duck habitat would change. Sherwood Park is already a hang-out area. An enclosed area would not help this. . My past experiences with dogs have been unpleasant to terrible. I was attacked by a "pack" of dogs as a child. I don't like dogs, even "nice" dogs. COMMENTS NEUTRAL/UNSURE ABOUT PROPOSED DOG AREA . I visited a dog park in Arizona with a friend's dog. I remember that it was fenced with benches within the perimeter for the owners to sit. It was a great event. . We have concerns on parking, noise, and dog droppings. The people living on Sandhurst will not like the increase in traffic. . Comment on Q7: No, I think it would disturb the wildlife. We did have two German Shepherds, but I think some people are not too responsible. . Comment on Q7: Absolutely not, the lake is not suitable for swimming. I already use the park and Weaver Elementary open lot to play ball with my dog, but only when no other dogs are around. If an off leash dog area were designated, who would monitor it to make sure poop was picked up and to control dog fights. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. . My only concern would be the possibility of dogs running loose out of the designated area. I have a day care nearby and I take kids the kids for walks over there on occasion. Would I still be able to do that? . Comment on Q7: No, there is wildlife already there, please leave alone. I already avoid dog feces when I am there with the grand kids. If this makes it cleaner and safer for young kids, it may be ok. Dogs need to be closely watched to use this area, I see many dogs there now. Assuming it is fenced, small kids may like to go over there to watch. . Comment on Q6: Make sure it's a fenced in area, so that dogs could not roam free outside the fence. We don't want stray dogs in our yard and pooping in our yard. Maybe provide a few benches in fenced in area for dog owners to sit down while they let their dogs run free in the fenced area. Comment on Q7: No, I'd be concerned that if the dogs swim in Knucklehead lake they might try to come up on the shores behind other townhomes of Maple Park Shore townhomes and destroy the flowers/natural flowers that some of our residents have planted on the hills behind their townhomes behind Knucklehead. I think the dog park is a fine for dog owners. I'm not sure how big an area like this would be. My only concern would be would this be taking out some of the park where some kids would like to play soccer and then wouldn't be able to? All that would be left would be the baseball diamond, tennis courts and dog park. . The above would be great for dogs and dog owners. I do not intend to have another dog in my lifetime. . Comment on Q7: No. I think dogs would frighten away the birds, geese and ducks already in the area. I think that this area could be put to better use, such as adding more tennis courts, a ball field, or landscaping. . Comment on Q3: It depends, yes if dog is controlled and poop is collected! Interesting concept, how about improving Sherwood for people to walk in? . I would like you guys to do whatever is best. I'm happy with any outcome. COMMENTS FAVORING PROPOSED DOG AREA . Comment on Q6: Must be fenced, must NOT include the asphalt trail or lake, suitable containers for owners to put dog droppings in, rules posted. Rules must be posted. Two fenced in areas are necessary: 1 for large dogs, and a second for smaller dogs. Bags could be supplied for owners to pick up droppings. . We would support this, but...1 have my doubts that this money is coming solely from user/license/private donations. If it is, fine with me. Our strong belief is that our money (not yours, you work for us) must not go into this project or any such like it. This is not growth (although you may argue this will stimulate it), this is not government limiting its size and scope and reach, and this is not an effort to control/reduce property taxes. . Comment on Q6: More trees (shade), add an obstacle course for more curious/energetic dogs along with the open space, several trash receptacles for pet waste. Comment on Q7: Not sure, there are a lot of geese there and geese poop. I believe it is also a storm water run-off area. I'd be concerned about contaminates. Thanks for looking at the idea of an off-leash dog area. . Comment on Q6: benches to sit on, and an available water source for dogs to drink. I use that area now and think it would also help alleviate the goose problem in the area. . Comment on Q6: First, make sure that it doesn't interfere with the walking path. Trees planted between the baseball fields and the dog park would be nice for shade on hot days. Comment on Q7: I am not against it, but keep in mind that many Canadian geese breed there and raise their babies in that lake. I am excited for the proposed off-leash dag park. It has been a large and unused portion of the park, except for an "unofficial" dog park by local residents. . Maybe some of the geese might leave if the dogs were there. . This is an absolutely, perfect, wonderful, great idea. Hopefully it will happen this year, we have a couple of dogs dying to get out there and run around. . If there is anything we can do assist in getting this proposal passed please feel free to contact us: Greg and Elizabeth Kolbeck, 651-777-5024, Iizwoo(Q)q.com. Thank you! . Comment on Q7: depends on where dock is, and what happens to water fowl. Map does not show where dock would be. . We don't want any lights; it should be used during daylight hours only. Maplewood needs a good dog park. . This is a wonderful idea; I hope that it goes through. We would use it all the time. . Comment on Q7: Yes!! Fence off the whole pond to keep dogs and traffic safe. . Not willing to pay for a dog park, but would use it if we had one @ . Comment on Q6: The location is good. It would need to have gates that would secure. . Comment on Q6: Inciude the current walking path and put a people walking path on Cope or sidewalks. People currently are walking and biking in the street. I think we would all agree that putting Cope Avenue through Knucklehead lake was a travesty. Then Sherwood's natural grasses and bush were cut down so the children no longer played back there especially with the regular grass mowing, then the children's bike jumps were destroyed along with 12 to 15 oak trees cut down to make the walk path which already is being primarily used by dog owners. It is good that you are considering giving this wonderful area back to the people and pets so it will once again be used. The larger dogs would sure enjoy a "dock dive." I'm pleased this area is considered to be used for such as this off leash dog area. We can be proud to live in Maplewood, which isn't always the case. . Comment on Q7: No. The waterfowl that inhabit those waters will be impacted in their nesting by allowing the dog's access to the water. Also water fowl shed many parasites into the water that the dogs will be exposed to, as well as the ducks and geese can transmit flu to the dogs and from dogs to owners. . It is important to me that it is a fenced in area as we have children who use the park at Sherwood. . I walk this are with my dogs and the lack of sidewalks is potentially dangerous. A dog park would be a great alternative that is safe for dogs and their walkers. . We're all for this! . Comment on Q6: Have a walk path around the off leash park for those that need to keep their dog leashed. . Comment on Q&7: Yes, great idea! My dog has bad knees, but swimming is great therapy for him. . At our business address there are 4-5 people who would use the park. . Comment on Q6: Have a separate fenced in area for smaller dogs similar to the park on larpenteur, between Rice & Dale. Comment on Q7: We wouldn't use it, but we are in favor of a wide array of options for park users. This is a great idea, thanks for the work on it! . We need this, please make it!!! . I have nothing against a dog area, but am curious as to what the project would entail and at what costs. The park now is used very little. . Very good idea! . Comment on Q6: Add an obstacle course for the dogs to run in, something more than just an open field. . An off leash dog park is a great idea. We have a new puppy and it would be a great place to play and socialize with other dogs and people. . This is so needed! . Comment on Q6: Fence in the dog area, extend to close parking lot. This will be great! There are a lot of dogs on my street. . Comment on Q6: Have a fence around it in case they're running off and make sure the dogs don't get too loud, but probably have kids and a mini playground area for dogs. Comment on Q7: I think it would be a great idea, but the downside to it is that what if people pass by and they want to swim? I think just protecting that little area for dogs would be okay. Overall, I think this is going to be a good area for dogs, so that other dogs can "meet and greet" with each other. Otherwise, good luck! I'm pretty sure other dog owners are excited to let their dogs play and run freely! . I'm glad it will be fenced in. It should help the goose over population issue in our neighborhood. As a dog lover, I totally support this proposal. . looks good, I say go for it. . What about people who play soccer in the park? . My only concern is parking. There is very limited parking available. If you intend to utilize Sherwood for a dog park then additional parking should be part of the plan. The current parking lot is full in the summer due to other activities at the park. . Have a place for small dogs as well as big dogs and make sure that people pick up after their dogs. . I live bordering the park and am in favor of a dog park as long as all the dog waste is cleared up regularly and not left in full trash cans of dog poop for weeks. Questions regarding proposed dog area: 1. What is your age? Please circle. 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 2. Do you have a dog? 3. Would you favor an off leash dog area in Sherwood Park? 4. If Sherwood Park were to become a site for an off leash dog area would you use it? S. How far would you be wiliing to travel in order to use the off leash dog area? 6. On the back side of this survey is a map of a proposed location in Sherwood Park. What could be done to the design of the dog area in order to make it successfui to dog owners in the neighborhood? 7. Would you favor the idea of having an off leash dog area including part of Knucklehead Lake for dogs to swim in orto Itdock dive?1J Comments: over_ AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Parks and Recreation Commission DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Consideration of2011-2015 CIP Budget April 14, 2010 INTRODUCTION At the February 17th PRC meeting, The Parks Commission directed staff to do a presentation on the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan for the Maplewood Parks Depattment. DISCUSSION The attachments included with this report map out the Parks Depattment plans for CIP funds for 2011-2015. The projects planned for 2011-2015 are as follows: Lions Park Improvements Joy Park Improvements Community Field Upgrades Parks - Trail Development Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement Gladstone Savanna Improvements Open Space Improvements Neighborhood Parks Gethsemane Park Goodrich Park Improvements Wetland Enhancement Program Implementation of Non-Degradation RECOMMENDTION Staff is recommending the Parks and Recreation Commission provide their input conceming the 2011-2015 proposed Parks CIP budget. Attachments: Al - AI2 are Parks Depattment CIP Budget Sheets AI CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Lions Park Improvements TOTAL COST: $350,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM03.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Lions Park renovations JUSTIFICATION: Lions Park is a three-acre neighborhood park site located at the corner of Century Avenue and Farrell Street. The park is in extremely poor condition and currently has one marginal ball field with significant erosion, standing water, and major water drainage problems running through the park. The playground equipment is in extremely poor condition and 90% of it has been removed. There is no off-street parking and very limited vegetation. This expenditure will provide for development of a park plan and application for grants. The improvements will be complete by December 2012. ',",ulf}'! '~",",. , 'i.7'2015' :;rFtil"ldin~yat,,11 ;Environmental Utility Fund 25,000 0 0 0 0 I , I lPark Development Fund 275,000 50,000 0 0 0 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2008 Preliminaries: $0 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2010 Construction: $125,000 Equipment and Other: $225,000 NEIGHBORHOOD: 09 - Beaver Lake Project Costs: $350,000 A'L CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Joy Park Improvements I TOTAL COST: $650,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM03.060 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Joy Park DevelopmentlManagemenl/Trail/Shoreland Protection JUSTIFICATION: Joy Park is a 63-acre park site that was conveyed to the city in 1995. The park is located at the intersection of Joy Road and Century Avenue. Joy Park is arguably one of the most beautiful land forms in the city park system. Phase I improvements began in 2008-09 with construction of the Lake Links Trail, reconstruction of boat launch parking lot, installation of five rain gardens, and enhancement of the western wetlands. In 2010 the shorelines will be restored and step platforms and fishing piers will be installed. Phasing for the rest of the project is as follows: 2011--reconstruct western parking lot and internal park trails. 2012- install playground and picnic facilities. 2013--Restore woodlands and wetlands south of road. Woodland and wetland restoration at the park (south of Joy Road), and activities at the preserve (north of Joy Road) are covered under Open Space Improvements. I- ~~37?~f-j~f~~[$if~lr~!ng~$9tJr~~3~~nH::i.Y~~f}J1~p'~'~fYe~r~'i:r~;" i01i;;'F:j:c201:Z ":"1>"'1:613'"1{'1 :T:c2oT4,'xl'F?fF2Q1~f.;'",1Fuildiiig'tdlaIJ ]Park Development Fund 1 200,000 I 100,000 I 01 150,000 I 200,000 I 01 650.000 I PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2007 Preliminaries: $25,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2011 Construction: $525,000 Equipment and Other: $100,000 NEIGHBORHOOD: 05 - Maplewood Heights Project Costs: $650,000 A3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011-2015 PROJECT TITLE: Community Field Upgrades I TOTAL COST: PROJECT NUMBER: PM07.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Community Field Upgrades JUSTIFICATION: $290,000 General upgrades of various community fields. This proposal will provide the City with resources to begin updating and/or replacing basketball and tennis courts, fields and fences. Included in this proposal are upgrades to Goodrich and Wakefield fences, restoration of ball fields at Goodrich and site enhancements to each of these parks. Additional upgrades of other parks determined by the Park Commission is also included in this fund. (General Levy Fund) . :4~f1Wt{[i:f~~:~;H';#[nd}iig":!{o'urc~J:n:r~H:g~i!~:~-, J:Pno'r>fear$',''-f,ci 'C.I.P. Fund I 70,000 I .2011 c' 1: 2012- .r:- 2013c'~1 ~-2014 ~.cl-c2015.:C~~fFuncJi;'gToi811 50,000 I 35,000 I 35,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 290,000 i PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: March 2009 Preliminaries: $0 $0 $290,000 $0 $290,000 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2014 Land Acquisition: Construction: NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Equipment and Other: Project Costs: AL\ CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Parks - Trail Development I TOTAL COST: $460,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM07.100 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Development of a Comprehensive Trail Improvement Plan JUSTIFICATION: This program is proposed to begin with the development of a Master Trail Plan in 2009. This Master Trail Plan would prioritize the use of PAC fees for the acquisition and construction of trail corridors and trail extensions, construction of the transportation and recreational components to meet citizen needs and desires for trail connections and corridors throughout the Community. The Master Trail Plan would identify numerous projects with the City pursuing grants and assistance from outside agencies for the construction of a trail corridor each year. The use of the PAC money is proposed to assist with the acquisition of trail rights of way. This Master Trail Plan will use funds other than PAC fees for the construction of trails. Projects have not been identified at this time but will be developed as part of the Master Trail Plan. The Parks Commission will work with staff on prioritizing trail coridors throughout the city. ,Ft0;\'I'f{;~Fuhding'souiCg:;,,;$;,~~t;'P(jo;'Yea;sl"'".',.li201TY:r,]li'..J,.2012;'j";.zqi3;WS'f''"; 2014}';''/i'ffJ;.201~''};,"!Fundili9'Tolail Park Development Fund I 160,000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 460,000 ! PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2009 Preliminaries: $50,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 2014 Construction: $410,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $460,000 AS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement I TOTAL COST: $240,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM08.040 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: General Replacement of Park Equipment, Fences, Courts, etc. JUSTIFICATION: This project will provide for the periodic replacement of equipment in the City's park system. It will be used for park equipment, fences, basketball and tennis courts requiring replacement over time. (General Levy Fund) . -- - ~ ~Fundin-9 SOU~E{=_ ~~r_-=;TIl~tpri6rYea'rs>I!~\ ~2ohC(fF-'2012"fH ,.."'."1 .'f21l14;L'i.1 ii'itl1S-c=C;:fFunCiingj][ai] ---.._'--,,-,,-,--,,"-- - '2013',"'" ie.I.P. Fund I 50,000 I 40,000 I 25,000 I 25,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 240.000 ! PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2009 Preliminaries: $0 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: October 2014 Construction: $0 Equipment and Other: $240,000 NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $240,000 A(o CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone Savanna Improvements TOTAL COST: $1,680,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM08.050 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Restore Native Plant Communities and Install Trails and Interpretive Signage JUSTIFICATION: Gladstone Savanna is a 23-acre neighborhood preserve that formerly housed railroad maintenance facilities. Located in an area undergoing redevelopment, the improvements at the preserve will add much to the neighborhood and will celebrate Maplewood's cultural and natural heritage. . ,... 2011. 2012 .',' Ir' iBonds-Special Assessment 40,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 540,000 I Park. Development Fund 40.000 400,000 0 250,000 300,000 150,000 1,140,000, PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2009 Preliminaries: $80,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2014 Construction: $1,600,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHBORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone Project Costs: $1,680,000 Al CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011-2015 PROJECT TITLE: Open Space Improvements I TOTAL COST: $350,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM08.060 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Provide funding for open space improvements JUSTIFICATION: This project covers ongoing improvements at open space sites. Rustic trails will be constructed at: Joy Park (preserve, not park), Praire Farm (short segment), Kohlman Creek (short segment), Spoon Lake (full system). Natural areas will be restored and enhanced at: 1) Beaver Creek preserve--prairie, woodland, and basin restoration; 2) Jim's Prairie--buffer restoration; 3) Joy Park (park, not preserve)--woodland and wetland restoration; 4) Priory--woodlands, savanna, wetland, praire restoration; 5) Praire Farm--savanna and woodland edge plantings, 6) Kohlman Creek--woodland planting, 7) Carver preserve--buckthorn removal, 8) Spoon Lake preserve--phase I buckthorn removal. " "- 2011"" ,...""" c._ j r ~Ul~ iPark Development Fund I 50,000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 60.000 I 60,000 I 60,000 I 350,000 I PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2009 Preliminaries: $0 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: October 2014 Construction: $350,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $350,000 40 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Neighborhood Parks I TOTAL COST: PROJECT NUMBER: PM09.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Neighborhood Parks JUSTIFICATION: $350,000 Maplewood has thirty-five parks that need to be maintained and supported with staff time as well as equipment updates. Staff surveyed ail parks in 2009 and rated each park including the condition of the equipment, play areas, basketball and tennis courts, fields, fences and structures. Issues such as drainage, parking and grading were aiso looked at. The existing Parks Master Plan and future amendments to the plan will serve as a valuable tool for these neighborhood park renovations. In 2011 the City will begin developing a master plan for the Legacy Sculpture Garden. . Ji~[HP~W~'~;f4n'djng' ~6urc~:0:'fqf;~;$;;T ~Park Development Fund TPrJory,iarSl -~011 - -1 - -2012 ----1 · c-2013'::~T:::-2014-,:c'IC::~2015c:;clFundingTolall I 100,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 350,000 I PROJECT COSTS NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Equipment and Other: Project Costs: $0 $0 $100,000 $250,000 $350,000 PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2014 Preliminaries: PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 2014 Land Acquisition: Construction: ALl CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Gethsemane Park TOTAL COST: $1,260,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM10.040 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Gethsemane Park Purchase and Renovations JUSTIFICATION: Gethsemane Park is a local neighborhood park that the City has leased from Gethsemane Lutheran Church for the past 28 years. A purchase agreement has been negotiated for a portion of the park in conjunction with a senior housing project that the Church is pursuing. i" .. '"C~[ :;: <<U10.' lOlal [Park Development Fund 0 0 624,000 0 0 0 624,000 Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 225,000 0 0 0 225,000 'Sonds-G.O. Improvement 0 0 411,000 0 0 0 411,000 PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2011 Preliminaries: $29,000 Land Acquisition: $806,000 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2011 Construction: $325,000 Equipment and Other: $10_0,000 NEIGHBORHOOD: 09 - Beaver Lake .' Project Costs: $1,260,000 4/0 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Goodrich Park Improvements I TOTAL COST: $620,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM11.02 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Goodrich Park Improvements JUSTIFICATION: Goodrich Park is a 25 Acre Park located at 1980 No. St. Paul Rd. The park is in extremely poor condition. It is the host site for our adult softball program. The park has significant erosion, standing water, and major water drainage problems throughout the park. Parking has also become a increasing issue. The playground equipment is in extremely poor condition. The expenditure will provide for development of the parks master plan that will be completed in 2010. I- ~ :::21:\'15' ';'ji'uncl[ngt,jlail I 20,000 I 100,000 I 250,000 I 250,000 1 01 01 520,000 I PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: April 2011 Preliminaries: $20,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: April 2012 Construction: $600,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated ~ Project Costs: $620,000 All CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Wetland Enhancement Program I TOTAL COST: $400,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM10.010 T PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Reclamation and enhancement of wetlands and buffers throughout the community JUSTIFICATION: This program is an outgrowth of the Environmental Utility Fund's (EUF) establishment. The EUF fund exists in order that wetlands within the community can be enhanced with pre-treatment structures; wider protection buffers; cleaning of debris and deltas; and expansion of the wetland properties and areas of the existing wetland system. Specific areas will be selected on an annual basis based upon the Annual Report on the Environmental Utility Fund and identification of degraded receiving waters within the community. This program was previously under the Public Works Department, but has been moved due to departmental restructuring. ~ ,c ,';0;:;,,;1 iEnvironmental Utility Fund I 150,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 50,000 I 400,000 I PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2008 Preliminaries: $75,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: July 2014 Construction: $0 Equipment and Other: $325,000 - NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $400,000 .412 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Implementation of Non-Degradation I TOTAL COST: $630,000 PROJECT NUMBER: PM10.020 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks DESCRIPTION: Develop Program to Meet State Mandates for Runoff Quality and Control JUSTIFICATION: This new program is an expansion to the City's NPDES mandated Municipal Storm Water Permit (MS4) requirements. Beginning in 2006, selected MS4 communities must develop a non-degradation plan that addresses pollutant loading to surface waters and wetlands in the city. The city is required to develop a non- degradation plan that will provide stormwater runoff pollutant loads (total volume, total suspended solids, and phosphorus) back to levels present in the City in 1988. The city will be required to develop water quality and land use models to determine the levels present in 1988 and then develop practices and projects to ensure that we do not exceed these levels. The City will also be required to project runoff levels to the year 2020. This program provides planning and improvements necessary to meet this state mandated program. The program will work in conjunction with and enhance the wetland enhancement program. This was previously under the Public Works department, but has been moved due to departmental restructuring. " ,...nor years. Fi'~d iEnvironmental Utility Fund I 280.000 I 50,000 I 75,000 I 75,000 I 75,000 I 75,000 I 630,000 I PROJECT COSTS PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2006 Preliminaries: $60,000 Land Acquisition: $0 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 2014 Construction: $570,000 Equipment and Other: $0 NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $630,000 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Parks and Recreation Commission Jim Taylor, Recreation Program Supervisor Goodrich Backstop April 14, 2010 INTRODUCTION At the March 8th meeting Council approved the purchase of a new backstop and sideline fences for Goodrich Park. This work was completed on March 30th and will be an excellent and much needed addition to our adult softball program. Adult softball is slated to stall the week of April 19th and we currently have 90 teams registered in men's, women's, and co-recreational leagues. DISCUSSION Attached are pictures of the backstop that was installed on field #2 RECOMMENDATION No action required Attachments Pictures of the backstop and sideline fences DUGOUT FRONT REAR