Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-1994 Park Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above named date at 7:00 p.m. at the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Watertown Road to review the layout of the trail proposed for the Tandem Properties (Dickey Property) Subdivision. The following Park Commissioners were present: Chair Richard N. Flint, Sherokee Ilse, Lili McMillan, James White, and Susan Wilson. Robert Howells and Alex Vongries were absent. City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Engineer Shawn Gustafson, Public Works Director John Gerhardson and Recorder Barbara Anderson represented staff. Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. (#1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1994 Consideration of this item was deferred until the next meeting. (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION A. LOCATION OF TRAIL Moorse stated that the City Council would like to be informed of the Park Commission's concerns regarding the trail, if any. McMillan inquired if Moorse had been able to obtain the information regarding the amount of the park dedication fees for this project which was requested by the Park Commission. Moorse responded that he had been working with the City Assessor to determine what those would be but they would not have the figures until next week. Chair Flint stated that the fees would be based on 8% of the value of the property. The question was whether the value should be determined when the land was in an undeveloped state or after development has occurred. Discussion ensued regarding the Park Dedication ordinance and the administration of it. McMillan inquired whether Council had decided to require both a park dedication fee and a trail fee. Moorse responded that issue had not been dealt with yet, but the Council will be considering that issue in the near future. Chair Flint commented he felt it would be appropriate for the Park Commission to make a recommendation regarding this issue to the Council. Moorse commented that since the developer was constructing a segment of the City's trail system he felt he should receive park dedication credit for that. However, no formal decision had been made regarding this issue for this development, and thus far no formal policy has been established for similar situations which may arise in the future. He noted that staff would recommend that a policy be established which would state that any trail construction which becomes part of the City's trail plan should not be taken as a credit against the park dedication fee. He stated he felt the policy should be in place before disallowing trail construction to be used as part of the park dedication fees. He noted that other cities collect both a park dedication fee and a trail fee. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) Chair Flint commented that Orono had no regulations requiring construction of trails or sidewalks by developers but other cities do have such requirements in their ordinances. White commented that Hennepin County bids run about $24 per foot of completed trail which is 10' wide, and an 8' trail would probably run about $20 per lineal foot to construct. Wilson commented that the City Council had not given final approval to the overall trail concept plan for the City and she felt they should have that approval before they required the developer to construct the trail. Chair Flint stated that several years ago the Council had approved an overall conceptual plan for the trails in Orono and this segment was part of that plan. Discussion ensued regarding whether the City should require the trail to be constructed now or obtain an easement so that the trail can be constructed in the future. Other trail segments were discussed and the easement widths of those trails which were constructed with other developments. McMillan inquired what would happen if the developer constructed the trail along the Dickey property without connecting it to other trail segments. Chair Flint commented he believed that the property to the north would be developed soon and there were plans to construct the bridge with the trail segments on both sides. He stated the trail segments would be connected together as the land was developed. Wilson requested that Chair Flint go before the Council to obtain their formal approval of the trail concept plan so that the Park Commission can make the decisions they are being asked to make with the assurance that they have the support of the Council. Chair Flint responded that the Council has approved the concept plan and that gives the Park Commission the authority to make the decisions. He stated that if the other Commissioners concurred he would take the plan to the Council for their formal approval. Moorse stated that the Council has approved (a) the segment of trail along the Dickey property, and (b) the bridge with the trail across the railroad property. The Council also has informally given approval to the idea that there will be a trail along the entire Old Crystal Bay roadway in the future. Gerhardson noted that the Council has not authorized construction of an 8' sidewalk on both sides of the bridge across the railroad. Gustafson commented if this is true the plans needed to be clarified. Moorse commented that the Tandem Properties development would be on the next Council agenda, and he commented that the Council could be reminded to keep in mind the entire trail length when considering the trail on the Dickey property. Gustafson stated that the City owns 66' of right-of-way along Old Crystal Bay Road and he illustrated the various ways in which the trail from the Dickey property could be connected to the Luce Line. One option was to separate the trail from the 2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) roadway with an 8' gravel shoulder, which was a cost effective means of construction. Gerhardson commented that there could be maintenance problems with this design as the equipment was not designed to maintain narrow strips, and while the trail itself would not be plowed during the winter months, damage could occur to the shoulder area of the roadway. Gustafson reviewed the possible costs for the trail segment and noted that if the City opts for the trail separated by the shoulder it would cost approximately $23/foot and if the alternative including the curb and gutter is selected the costs could run approximately $40/foot. The consensus of the Park Commission was that the trail segment along the Dickey property needs to be part of the overall trail plan and not just an isolated segment. Gustafson commented that if the City simply acquires an easement with the intent of constructing the trail segment in the future, they could encounter difficulties once the property is developed, because those homeowners will not want a trail running through their back yards. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of the trail construction and whether to make the connection to the Luce Line Trail at the same time. It was felt that if the Park Commission requests the Council to approve the connecting segment of the trail at the same time as they approve construction of the segment along the Dickey Property, it would give them a commitment to the overall trail concept plan. Chair Flint stated he would recommend to the Council to make the connection to the Luce Line at this time. With respect to use of MSA funding, Wilson commented she felt that roadway reconstruction also was very important, and this item had precedence over the trail construction, which might mean postponement of trail construction. Gustafson discussed the potential for penalties resulting for cities which had large MSA balances left at the end of the year; however, he noted that most cities have some balances left to avoid running out of funds. White moved, Ilse seconded, to recommend construction of the separated bike trail from Watertown Road to the Luce Line at this time and that the developer pay for the portion of the trail located on the Dickey property and MSA funds be used for the remainder of the construction from the Dickey property to the Luce Line. Wilson moved, McMillan seconded, to amend the motion to include that construction of the trail segment from Watertown Road to the Luce Line shall occur as part of the Old Crystal Road Bike Trail. Ayes 5, nays 0 to the amendment. Chair Flint called for a vote on the motion as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. Discussion ensued regarding which trail type would be best from the Dickey property south to the Luce Line. The Commission concluded to build whichever construction 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) alternative the City Engineer recommended. Gustafson commented that because the trail segment follows a transportation route the City will be able to use MSA funds to pay for a portion of the costs, but the City will need to pay for the remainder from the park dedication funds. B. WHO WILL PAY FOR THE TRAIL? Discussion ensued regarding whether the developer should be required to pay both a park dedication fee and a trail fee. Ilse commented she felt a policy needed to be established prior to determining the requirements for a particular development. Chair Flint commented that if a developer has to pay for the cost of a road, why was he not also required to pay for the sidewalk which would run along side it. Wilson moved, McMillan seconded, to accept the staff recommendation for a general policy which would include that in the case of a development that is on the City's trail system, and is along a roadway, the developer should be required to provide the right-of-way for the trail and construct the trail without any reduction in park dedication fees. For "linear park" trails, those that go "cross-country" or in the back yards of a development, the costs should be reimbursed through a reduction in the park dedication fee. Ayes 5, nays 0. Ilse moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend to the City Council that this policy be followed in regard to the Dickey property development. Ayes 5, nays 0. C. WILL WE ACCEPT THE 3 ACRE NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITE AS AN OFFSET TO PARK DEDICATION FEE? Chair Flint read an excerpt from the November 1, 1993 Park Commission Minutes. Discussion ensued regarding whether the Commission needed to take any further action, and the Commission felt that they would stay with their original position on this issue. The issue of razing the existing buildings on the 3 acre site was discussed. Ilse proposed that they wait before razing the barn in case someone was interested in restoring the structure to use as an interpretive center. The costs of preservation were discussed. McMillan stated that the Council felt that the interior trails in the development should be considered public trails, and she felt the developer should receive park dedication credit for their construction. Moorse commented that the Commission needed to look at the difference between recreational trails and transportation trails and noted that interior trails are generally considered recreational trails and are paid for by the developers. In this case, the 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#2) CONSIDERATION OF TANDEM PROPERTIES (DICKEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) developer would construct the trails at his expense and expects to receive park dedication credit for doing this. McMillan expressed concern that the people who purchase the lots in this development are informed that the trails will be public trails to avoid problems in the future. Ilse moved, Wilson seconded, to recommend that the interior trails be public trails and the developer be given park dedication credit for their construction. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#3) UPDATE ON PARK PLANNING PROCESS Moorse stated that he had talked to the people at Decision Resources and was given samples of survey questions. The staff will meet with Decision Resources and put together some sample questions which might be used for the Orono survey to stimulate discussion when the Park Commission and City Council hold a work session to determine the final form of the survey. He stated that the date of April 22nd was open, and the Council usually met about 7:45 a.m. Moorse stated that staff had received input from Shardlow, Dahlgren and Uban regarding their plan proposal and he planned to meet with several other consultants to request their proposals regarding the proposed park plan. Once this has been done staff will make a recommendation to the Council. (#4) UPDATE ON PARK BUDGETING PROCESS: A. STATUS OF PARK DEDICATION FEE Moorse discussed the status of the Park Dedication Fee Fund. Moorse reviewed the budget process in general terms to illustrate the best means for the Park Commission to have input into this process in terms of goals, objectives and programs the Commission would like to implement. First, the Council establishes a set of goals (both short and long term) which provides a guide for setting priorities and allocating resources. Second, property tax rates are determined. Third, staff develops a preliminary budget based on input from the City Council and goal setting sessions. He noted that budget instructions go out to department heads this week, and they will have approximately one month to complete them and return them to him. He then compiles the information and creates a draft budget. Fourth, the draft budget is submitted to the City Council in late June/early July. They will hold several budget sessions before the final budget is adopted, usually in August. This must be completed prior to holding the Truth in Taxation Hearings in December, and still allow Council time to make minor changes. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#4) UPDATE ON PARK BUDGETING PROCESS: (CONTINUED) Moorse stated that in order for the Park Commission goals to be incorporated into the budget, they would need to start early, use multi-year programs and maintenance issues to give staff time to do cost analysis factors and include them in the budget for the City Council's review. He noted this was part of the reason for the Park Master Plan, which will establish priorities. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of ice rink maintenance, cost factors, feasibility, etc. Concern was expressed regarding missing the budget this year. Moorse reviewed the Park Commission items which are contained in the budget at this time. He noted there were funds set aside for ice rink maintenance, but the Park Commission would need to discuss how they felt the rinks should be maintained. He noted that the final decision regarding ice rink maintenance would be made by the City Council. He suggested that the Commissioners think about their priorities and long-term goals in order to be able to discuss them and arrive at some decisions. C. 1994 GOLF COURSE BUDGET AND 1993 ACTUAL Discussion ensued regarding the Golf Course Budget and the programs and purchase of new equipment needed. The Park Commission reviewed the status of the Park Dedication fees and the Current 1994 Budget. Moorse explained that the budget is updated on a quarterly basis. (#5) REPORT ON JOINT MEETING WITH AREA PARK COMMISSIONS AND ORONO SCHOOL DISTRICT This item was deferred until the next meeting. (#6) APPROVAL OF PARK COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA FOR 1994 This item was deferred until the next meeting. (#7) CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL OPENING CEREMONY FOR FRENCH CREEK PARK After discussion, the Park Commission decided that the park was not ready to hold a formal opening ceremony and it would be put off until fall. (#8) UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR OLD CRYSTAL BAY SITE Gerhardson distributed an estimate of costs to prepare a park plan for the Old Crystal Bay Site. He noted that the City Council will hold a public hearing to obtain public input regarding closing of the roadway on April 25th, and then they will make their decision whether to close the road or not. It was decided not to plan the Old Crystal Bay Park site amenities prior to the city-wide survey being completed in order to make use of the 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO PARK COMMISSION HELD ON APRIL 4, 1994 (#8) UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR OLD CRYSTAL BAY SITE (CONTINUED) information obtained through the survey. (#9) UPDATE ON PLANS FOR OBA FIELD ON SCHOOL PROPERTY Gerhardson stated that the lease agreement has come back from the School and the City Attorney is revising it. Wilson noted that if they want to discuss budget concerns it should be on the agenda. (#10) REORGANIZATION OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE This item was deferred until the next meeting. (#11) OTHER BUSINESS Ilse noted that the has have adopted the "Adopt A Park Program" and it will be listed in the paper this week. She stated they have asked the schools if they want their open areas included in the program, and the schools responded affirmatively. The kids who sign contracts will be given recognition for their participation in this program and credit for the maintenance work they have done. ADJOURNMENT Wilson moved, McMillan seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. , ✓ ,6�� - �- ./' �� ���., LF�[ .���/ / Richard N. Flint, Chair 7