Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-07 PACKET 04.A.iii.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # Lj • . DATE 9 /7/11 m w e PREPARED BY Community Development John M. Burbank ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission's meetings on September 13, 2010 and June 13, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission's meeting on September 13, 2010 and June 13, 2011. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ® PARKS AND RECREATION 8/8/11 ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY El SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Parks Commission meeting on 9/13/10 and 6/13/11 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS a � t C Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Parks Commission meeting on 9/13/10 and 6/13/11 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS a � t C Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER City of Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission September 13, 2010 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was duly held on the 13th day of September, 2010. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Douglas Butler, Keith Kleinsasser, Paul Poncin, William Schumal, Derrick Lehrke, Ryan Simmers, Maureen Ventura Members Absent: Chelsea Butler, Krystal McCalvy Others Present: John Burbank, Senior Planner Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Manager A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. Motion carried. None OPEN FORUM None ACTION ITEMS A. Park Request for Pinecliff /Silverwood Neighborhood Burbank stated that in August 2010, the City received a petition to install a neighborhood park in the open space area between the Silverwood and Pinecliff neighborhoods, which is located north of 65th Street and west of Hinton Avenue. After field verification with the City Engineer, a site ad- jacent to the trail that would accommodate a 40 -foot by 40 -foot play structure was identified. The City received an estimate of approximately $29,000 for playground equipment. After grading and other site work, the total cost to install a neighborhood park in that area would be about $35,000. There are 129 households in those two neighborhoods, and the petition contains about 80 signatures. The neighbors in that area were invited to the meeting tonight. Burbank explained the reason there is no neighborhood park in that area is because there will be a larger neighborhood park in active development located to the west. He showed the location of the proposed park area and a couple other options that would require more site work. He de- Parks Commission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Page 2 of 6 scribed the equipment that could be installed. In the original petition, the residents were asked about being assessed for 10 to 15 years. The two options that will be presented to the City Coun- cil are to either assess the costs to the property owners or to pay for the park out of park trust funds. One of the questions raised was how much money was collected for park dedication from the two neighborhoods. Burbank stated that the Silverwood developer paid $137,000, and for the Pinecliff neighborhood there was a combination of land dedication for the development on the east side of Hinton and this area. There would be funds available in the park trust fund. If the property owners were assessed, it would be about $65 a year for five years. Ruby Mower, 7682 62nd Street South, stated that she submitted the petition. She passed out a copy of e -mail that she sent to Burbank after last month's meeting explaining why their petition included information requesting that the City assess the properties over a 10 -to -15 year period. She explained that in her discussions with city staff, she was told the neighborhood needed to figure out a way to finance the park they are petitioning for. She did not know at that time that there was a park trust fund. She believes that if their builders have paid into a park trust fund, that fund should be available to the residents of Pinecliff and Silverwood. She stressed that while they asked in the petition to be assessed, they would like to finance the park construction through the park trust fund. Darin Rippentrop, 7472 61 st Street South, asked if the park trust fund is used to pay for this park, how would that affect the park planned for the development to the west. Burbank responded that the park that is planned to the west would still be part of that development as it is in the city's comprehensive plan. There should be funds available for the development of that park. Rippentrop asked if the play structures would be scaled back if the proposed park is built. Burbank stated that the city tries to avoid is redundancy, so there would be different types of equipment. Tim and Heather Drkula, 7598 63rd Street Circle South, pointed out that the proposed park loca- tion is behind their property. They expressed concern that play structure would block their view of the pond, which is why they built in that location. They signed the petition because they thought that the park would be located in another area of the development. They and all the neighbors who signed the petition would support a park but not right behind their house. They expressed concern about safety at the pond when it fills with water and asked if it would be fenced. Dockter responded that this pond, like the 120 ponds in the city, would not be fenced. Burbank showed where the three proposed sites were located, noting that this is the location discussed at the last meeting. Mower stated that the residents did not want that location due to its proximity to the pond. She pointed out the location that the neighborhood agreed on, including the property owners adjacent to it. Burbank explained that the city engineer identified that site would need tree removal and additional fill. Ventura asked if there was any elevation change at the site identified by the engineer and the residents' backyards. Burbank responded that he estimates that the back of the houses are three to four feet up in grade. It was asked if the site Mower is suggesting would be feasible. Burbank stated that some trees would have to be removed and fill would be needed. Would the estimated cost change? Burbank responded yes. Chris Reese, 6284 Hedgecroft Avenue South, stated that he was concerned when he heard there was going to be an assessment. He noted that a park area is already platted on the other side of Hinton and there will be a park when the area to the west develops. Lehrke stated that he is also Parks Commission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Page 3 of 6 not in favor of the assessment but this decision should be made by the Council. He believes the proposed park to the west should be scaled back if this park is constructed. Poncin recapped the discussion stating that there is a request to build a play structure behind 6200 Hedgecroft Avenue South. He stated that the proposed site would require grading and possible tree removal. He believes this project should be paid for from the park dedication fund. It was noted that the trees that may need to be removed are not hardwood trees and some are in poor health. Poncin asked if there would be a way to get at least one swing in that location. Burbank stated if that was included in the motion, staff will attempt to fit it into the design. Dockter explained how the park trust fund works, noting that if this park gets built using those funds, another project that was approved as part of the five -year Capital Improvements Plan will get pushed back. Poncin stated that the residents in these developments did get assessed for park dedication fees as part of the purchase price of their lots and funding for a playground structure for this area should come out of those funds. A motion was made and seconded to locate a neighborhood park behind 6200 Hedgecroft Ave- nue, have the staff determine age appropriate equipment for that park, and have the Council de- cide on the funding. Kleinsasser amended the motion to allow a meeting between residents and Parks staff on the equipment for this park, if Council approves the project. There was a discus- sion about whether this amendment would set a precedent. Dockter stated that park design choices come before the Parks Commission and residents are invited to attend. The amendment was seconded. The motion and amendment passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). B. City Code Amendment — Animal Leashing Requirements Dockter stated that he reviewed last month's meeting and was responding to the Commission's comments on the proposed animal leashing ordinance. He noted that in response to the question of other communities' ordinances, information was submitted with this month's meeting memo. He summarized the findings of his survey, noting that most cities have what we are proposing, which is that dogs in public places should be controlled by leash and not just voice command. He explained that the current city ordinance requires dogs to be on leashes on trails, by playgrounds, and near sport fields; the proposal would now include open spaces. The reason for this change is that he gets a call at least once a month from a resident who has been attacked by a dog and that feces are not being cleaned up. With the new dog park, people have the opportunity to let their dogs run off leash. The proposed ordinance was also brought before the Public Safety Commis- sion and they are in favor of it. Dockter stated that he has not yet received a response from the police department about this being a misdemeanor, and he noted Public Safety would have input on what the actual fine is. He believes the penalty would be an administrative fine that would grows if the owner continues to break the rules. Tony Flandrich, 8264 85th Street South, stated that he is a city employee but he is here as a resident. He called other cities to see what they have. Woodbury, Shakopee, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Burnsville, Oakdale, Maplewood, Eagan, and Hastings all have leash laws. He noted that one day he was working at Hamlet Park, five out seven dogs were off leash; at Wood- ridge six of nine dogs were off leash; at Kingston nine of twelve were off leash; at Highlands three of six were off leash; and at West Draw Park all three dogs he saw were off leash. He stated that Parks Commission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Page 4 of 6 there are issues with people not cleaning up after their dogs, even when asked by a city em- ployee. He has also had park visitors express concern about walking their dogs through parks when dogs are off - leash. He believes that all dogs when off their properties should be leashed. He provided numbers he received from the Police Department, from January 1, 2009, to Decem- ber 31, 2009, there were 410 complaints of animals at large and from January 1, 2010, through August 15, 2010, there have been 254 "dogs at large" calls. That is only what is being reported. Now that there will be the off -leash dog park, there is no reason to let dogs off leash at other city parks and trails. Lehrke stated that he is concerned about the offense being a misdemeanor due to the possibility of jail time and suggested it be a petty misdemeanor with a $1,000 cap on fines. He thinks that dogs that are properly heeling could be allowed to be off - leash. There was discussion about penalties for off -leash dog violations. A suggestion was made that fines should escalate with each violation. It was noted that the off -leash dog park was designed for socialization of dogs, not for training or playing Frisbee. Burbank clarified that the planned dog park consists of 14 acres of which several acres are outside the fenced area that can be used to train dogs. It was asked why there would be a problem to play or train a dog off -leash in an empty park. Poncin suggested issuing permits to allow dogs to be off leash in a park. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of this option. Poncin noted that there are more complaints about dogs roaming loose in neighborhoods rather than in parks. Poncin stated violating leash laws should not be a misdemeanor. Dockter stated that the Parks Commission could make a recommendation on the level of offense and send this back to the Public Safety Commission. Burbank stated that the misdemeanor is in the current language and recommended the penalty portion be reviewed by the City Attorney. A motion was made to adopt the amendments in the ordinances as stated and to have the city attorney look at the misdemeanor language. Poncin seconded, but wanted the language about misdemeanor removed. Burbank stated that is the current language in the ordinance. Poncin asked why it is in there. Burbank responded that the language may be in there for processing purposes, but the city attorney should review it. This could be part of the discussion at the City Council level. There was a question about public notification and signage. Flandrich suggesting adding to the park rules signs language stating all dogs must be leashed or the owner will be fined. He asked about enforcement, including if city staff can write administrative tickets. Burbank responded that there are city employees who issue administrative citations. In terms of the signage, the city has been working on improving the identification of public properties and installing the dog waste bag boxes, so signage could be part of the program. It was suggested that notification of the off -leash ordinance could be put into the dog license renewal letters and in the City's monthly newsletter. Lehrke made a motion to amend the original motion to allow administrative permits for dog train- ing in parks. Ventura seconded. There was discussion on how this program could work, including paying a fee, stipulations such as hours or certain parks it is allowed in, and penalties for violating the permit. The motion for this amendment passed unanimously. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Poncin called for a vote on the original amendment to allow for the ordinance language as amended by staff with the addition of having the city attorney look at the misdemeanor language. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). C. Military Discount Burbank summarized the staff memorandum regarding military discounts on recreation program fees and asked the Commission to recommend offering a discount on recreation programming fees for the families of qualifying Beyond the Yellow Ribbon (BTYR) program participants and to forward the recommendation to the City's BTYR Task Force and City Council. Poncin asked what programs would be discounted. Dockter responded youth programs for their children. There was a question if these would include CGAA fees. Dockter responded no. Lehrke asked what the fees are. Dockter responded the fees range from $5 to a couple thousand dollars for participating in the full season of summer park programs. Lehrke stated that he would not be opposed to discount fees for those children whose parent(s) are currently serving overseas. He suggested a discount of 50 percent or 100 percent with a cap of $100 a year. It was asked why overseas deployment and not just for ac- tive duty. Lehrke responded there is more risk being deployed. It was noted that many service members on active duty are stationed in another state. Lehrke suggested that the program be avail- able to all who are stationed outside Minnesota. Burbank stated that it is his understanding that we cannot discriminate between active duty, those who deployed and veterans that have been recently discharged. There was a discussion on the size of the discounts and how they would impact total revenue. Dockter does not believe it would have a large impact on total revenue. Burbank stated that a maximum cap could be part of the recommendation. Dockter suggested continuing the dis- cussion to the next meeting, and he would provide more detailed information on the financial impact and what other cities are doing. A motion was made and seconded to continue this discussion at the next meeting. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). PRESENTATIONS None REPORTS None None COMMISSION COMMENTS None Grosskraus reported that the City Council set the preliminary budget for the 2011 -12 calendar year, and overall, taxpayers in Cottage Grove will see a decrease in their taxes. He stated that the City is moving forward with the Public Safety /City Hall project and information will be available on the city's website and in the local newspaper. Residents can also call Councilmembers if they Parks Commission Meeting Minutes September 13, 2010 Page 6 of 6 have any questions or concerns. Poncin asked if the budget includes the park structure. Grossklaus stated that he does not believe anything requested by city staff was denied this year except for more employees. STAFF COMMENTS Burbank stated that he had received an email today that he wanted to share with the Commis- sion. He read the email from Carl Isley on Iverson Avenue, who offered his congratulations to the Parks and Recreation Department for the success with the prairie restoration project on the Cottage Grove trailway corridor. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. City of Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission June 13, 201 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission was duly held on the 13th day of June, 2011. CmL1>�>�is li7 :107 7 Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Douglas Butler, Paul Poncin, William Schumal, Ryan Simmers Maureen Ventura Members Absent: Chelsea Butler, Keith Kleinsasser, Krystal McCalvy, Mark Nelson Others Present: John Burbank, Senior Planner Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Manager David Thiede, City Council Liaison APROVAL OF THE AGENDA A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. Motion carried. APROVAL OF THE MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the Parks Commission minutes from May 9, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Parks Commission minutes from August 9, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM 1►C.7Ta ACTION ITEMS A. Pinecliff Development Park Naming Dockter summarized the staff memorandum and described the City's park naming process. He asked the Commission to narrow down the list provided in the memo to three names or recom- mend one. He stated that the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation suggested a name, Sunny Hill Park, which was the name of a school established in that area in the early 1900s. Burbank provided background on Sunny Hill School. Schumal asked if there was going to be a park closer to Sunny Hill Road and if so, that park should be called Sunny Hill. Simmers stated that both Holz and Bothe fit the park naming criteria, but he does not feel that Wilcox is related to that park or location. Dockter noted that there is only one park named after a person, Peter Parks Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Thompson Park, which was because he donated the land. Ventura stated that she likes the idea of using a local focal point or point of interest in relation to the park. Burbank displayed a map pointing out the location of current parks in the area and the route of Ravine Parkway that would have open space areas. He pointed out where Sunny Hill School was located, noting that it would be possible that a park could be developed further to the east that could have be named after the school. Schumal stated that he likes the name Sunny Hill Park. He agrees with Simmers on Wilcox. His two favorite park names are Sunny Hill and Upland. Dockter explained that Upland came from the City's Natural Resources Inventory, and the Upland Area is north of 70th Street and west of Jamaica Avenue. Poncin asked what the name of the development is. Dockter re- sponded Pinecliff. Ventura stated that she likes Pine Summit Park. Burbank stated that the city has a neighborhood further to the west named Pine Summit, so that could be confusing. Poncin summarized that there are four names suggested by the Parks Commission: Upland Park, Holz Park, Bothe Park, and Sunny Hill Park. Ventura suggested not naming the park after a person, which is the precedent in the City. After discussion, the two recommended names for the park are Upland Park and Sunny Hill Park. Dockter explained that at the next meeting, the Parks Commis- sion will make the final recommendation on the name and suggested that Commissioners discuss this with others. A motion was made and seconded to recommend Upland Park and Sunny Hill Park. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). B. Historic Tree Program Burbank provided background on the proposed Historic Tree Program. He reported that the Advi- sory Committee on Historic Preservation recommended that the City proceed with establishing an historic tree program. He suggested looking at other communities programs. He asked the Parks Commission to make a recommendation on if the City should have an historic tree program, and if so, identify a name for it. Simmers asked what kind of resources would be needed to run this program. Burbank responded that the City Forester would need equipment to establish tree ages, but otherwise it would be administrative paperwork. Simmers asked if there are any county or state programs on which the City's trees could be registered. Burbank responded there is the American Heritage Tree Program that the DNR participates in. Dockter stated that the cost for the age measuring equipment is about $850. Ventura asked if trees have already been identified that could potentially meet the criteria. Burbank stated that the larch trees along Lamar Avenue that are already on the local historic register; the ACHP would like to include them on the Historic Tree Program. He provided the history of the larch trees. He noted that there are other large trees in the City that could also qualify for this program. Schumal suggested the moniker "Cottage Grove Champion Tree Register." He asked what measures would be needed for preservation of these trees. Burbank stated that he does not anticipate that there would be an ordinance prohibiting removal of these trees; it is a voluntary program recognizing the champion tree within the com- munity. It was asked if this list would be posted on the City's web page. Burbank responded the ones that are readily visible by the general public. Schumal made a motion to support this pro- gram and use "Champion Tree Register" as its name. Poncin seconded. Motion passed unanim- ously (5 -to -0 vote). .. 0 A. Facility Use Policy Revision Dockter stated that the City Council held a workshop on May 18 to discuss revising the current facility use policy. No formal action was taken at that time, but the City Council asked the Parks Parks Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 5 Commission to review the proposal. He summarized the staff memorandum and provided back- ground on the issue. He stated that this would amend the City's existing facility use policy to only acknowledge one community based in -house association to operate at the Priority III level. The association at the Priority III level gets free access to fields Monday through Friday and for in- house tournaments. Any association could apply for that priority, but they would have meet cer- tain criteria, such as open to all residents and adequate management of funds and volunteers. Also included with the packet are the current recreational facility use policy and the changes that the City of Woodbury had recommended. He stated that staff spoke with the City Attorney who stated that the City has the legal right to manage the fields as they see fit. He noted that this would only be for in -house programs, not traveling programs. Poncin asked why East Ridge would need its own in -house tournament. Dockter stated that the associations say that is where they get your players, but people don't know where a five or seven year old will go to high school. Poncin expressed concern that kids join traveling teams where their elementary schools are because that is who they know, and many Cottage Grove kids in the East Ridge attendance area may not know the kids there. Dockter stated that there are two points: the splitting of the community and to make sure there are opportunities for the feeder pro- grams for traveling teams. The main focus is on ensuring that facilities are used appropriately. He noted that teams in both associations are struggling to get the appropriate numbers for the in- house leagues. He stated that the East Ridge in -house softball program has merged with Cottage Grove's. There was a discussion on in -house leagues for the three athletic associations, how the in -house players feed into the traveling and high school teams, and if the Priority III organization should be geographically based rather than school based. Dockter stated that what the city would look at is which association can best meet the criteria and serve our residents. He noted the association not awarded the Priority III level could be in the Priority IV level; however, there would be a fee for field usage. He then reported that the Woodbury City Council adopted their recommended change and that document was included with your packet. Dockter noted that he is not looking for a recommendation at this time; he asked the Commission to review and discuss the proposal and provide feedback to staff. Poncin stated that he does not mind ERAA requesting to use the facilities and CGAA getting priority, but if the City does not charge CGAA, he would not charge ERAA either even though they would have lower priority. Schumal asked what would happen if Cottage Grove pass a similar agreement to Woodbury's. Dockter responded he does not think that it would have a big impact. He believes the overall goal is the same; if there are fields left, another association would be allowed to apply for that priority. He suggested creating an additional priority level, Priority V, so Priority IV would not be charged fees but it would be behind Priority III. Dockter stated that he would bring back a more formal proposal at the next meeting. He asked if there was a consensus for adding a priority level with no fee at Priority IV. Poncin stated that it was the consensus to allow one association to have a lower priority level with no fee. Schumal suggested that both associations would not be charged fees but whichever is awarded Priority III gets first opportunity for field usage; Priority IV gets whatever fields are open. Simmers asked if it is limited to only East Ridge and Cottage Grove. Dockter stated that right now there are only two recognized athletic associations in the city. B. City Organizational Changes Dockter stated that the memo included in the packet is for informational purposes. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 5 C. WAG Farms Dog Park Burbank reported that the WAG Farms Dog Park will have its grand opening on July 9. Staff has been working dog park association on cutting trails, debris removal, and fence installation. It has been a cooperative grass roots effort. There was a question about which company will supply and service the portable restrooms. Dockter responded that every two years the City goes through a bid process. He noted that also included in the packet is a copy of the dog park management agreement, which was reviewed by the City Attorney, that will be acted on by the City Council at their meeting on June 20. D. Splash Pad Project Update Dockter stated that the City Council approved the preparation of plans and specifications for a community -size splash pad at Highlands Park. He summarized the staff memo and explained the schedule for construction. The splash pad should be open July 1, 2012. Burbank stated that the staff -level the kick -off meeting was held today. Some of the issues discussed were ADA accessi- bility, linking that facility to existing facilities, and bicycle parking. E. Community Center Update Dockter reported that the Community Center Task Force has been meeting for two years and they officially forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to pursue a partnership with the YMCA to build a community center in the East Ravine government campus. The Council ap- proved that recommendation. The city is currently negotiating with the YMCA on this project. The financing would come through a referendum. There will be two task forces created; one will mar- ket the YMCA and the campaign to vote for the community center, and the other will be charged with gathering and presenting information for communication with the public. He asked if the Commission knows anybody that is interested in participating, to let staff know. Currently the City is in the negotiation stage with the letter of intent going to the YMCA very soon. ACTION UPDATES None NO"M COMMISSION COMMENTS None COUNCIL COMMENTS Thiede stated that the executive director of the Hastings YMCA discussed the fundraising for the YMCA portion of the bill, which was interesting. He reiterated that there are two ways to get in- volved with the future community center, through fundraising group and the communication group. He reported at the June 1 meeting the Council apporve the Gateway North park and open space. At the May 18 meeting they approved the final plat for Everwood Third Addition. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS Burbank reported that the Strawberry Festival is this weekend at Kingston Park. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.