HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-27 PRC packetr
1wa ter
*_.H,..'
R ! RR T�F. O F 611 N N[ S O i A
CITY OF STILLWATER
STILLWATER PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012 AT 7:00 PM
The City of Stillwater Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on Monday, February 27,
2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street.
AGENDA
Approval of the January 30, 2012 minutes
2. Open Forum - The Open Forum is a portion of the meeting to address the Board on
subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Board may take action or reply
at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the
concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your
comments to 5 minutes or less.
Action Items
3. Community Garden
4. Lowell Park Improvements
Informational Items
Commission Items/Topics
CITY OF STILLWATER
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 30, 2012
Present: Linda Amrein, David Brandt, Scott Christensen, Rob McGarry, Solveg Peterson,
Don Stiff and Councilmember Mike Polehna
Absent: Sandy Snellman
Staff present: Assistant Public Works Superintendent Tim Moore
Chair Amrein called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Christensen, moved approval of the
minutes of December 19, 2011, as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received
ACTION ITEMS
July 4 th Fireworks Display
City Administrator Hansen reviewed the responses to the six Request for Proposals (RFPs) the
City sent out and his recommendation for the selection is RES Specialty Pyrotechnics. Two of
the six vendors, he said, have done displays for the City in past years and are known
commodities to the City. Mr. Hansen spoke of the difficulty in analyzing the responses and said
basically reputation, references and past experience are the determining factors. He said
someone in the industry had also reviewed the RFP responses and concurs with the
recommendation of RES Specialty Pyrotechnics. Mr. Hansen spoke briefly about the fact that
the City does have a current contract for the fireworks, a contract which has been suspended.
Pending the resolution of that matter, he said the City cannot award a second contract. He said
should the Commission make a recommendation; it should be contingent on the resolution of
the issue with the existing contract. He said the intent is to award the contract for this year's
display no later than February 29 He said there is an alternate plan should the legal issues
not be resolved by that time. Ms. Amrein asked if someone had already been contacted to do
the 4 th of July fireworks. Mr. Hansen said he did not have that information but said the City
would be very cautious of that potential. Mr. McGarry asked what action was being requested of
the Commission, suggesting that evaluating bids /proposals was a function for City staff. Mr.
Hansen said he would like the Commission to approve the recommendation. Mr. Hansen
apologized for not providing the RFP responses to Commissioners, but noted some of the
information is proprietary. Mr. Polehna pointed out the recommended vendor is the only one
who provided a listing of exactly the number and size of shells that would be included in the
display; he said he had spoken with a friend in the industry who agreed with the
recommendation. Mr. Christensen asked how much the City spent on fireworks last year. Mr.
Hansen said for many years, the City has given a contribution of $40,000 for both shows, 4 th of
July and Lumberjack Days finale. Mr. Hansen said the vendors have told him their costs have
been $28,000 for the show; he said there have been some indications of support from other
entities. Ms. Amrein moved to accept the recommendation provided by Mr. Hansen. Ms.
Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Eagle Scout project
Jonathon Osafoyia, a life Scout from Boy Scout Troop 114, working on his Eagle Scout project,
proposed that Troop 114 design and build a canoe rack for Lily Lake for seasonal storage of
Park and Recreation Board Minutes
January 30, 2012
Page 2 of 3
canoes. He said Scouts would also be able to store some of their canoes there and teach
canoeing and do other activities. Mr. Moore said there have been similar request in the past and
said it was decided that a better use of an Eagle Scout project would be to work on kiosks; he
said there are two Eagle Scout projects committed to the kiosks. The Eagle Scout candidate
said he had some concept plans from the proposed project. On a question by Ms. Amrein, he
said the rack(s) could be put in the ground permanently or removed after the canoeing season;
he said the rack would accommodate 4 canoes. Mr. Moore noted there is a rain garden between
the boat launch and the dock at Lily Lake and asked whether the plan would be to place the
rack north or south of the dock; Jonathan said whatever location would be most convenient. Mr.
Moore noted the area to the north is wooded and fairly limited in access. Ms. Amrein explained
that normal procedure is for the Eagle Scout candidates to work closely with City staff on their
projects. Mr. Polehna suggested another possible location might be at the south end of Long
Lake. In discussion regarding a potential location, it was noted that Lily Lake likely has more
traffic than Long Lake as well as the availability of parking. Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Stiff,
moved to have Jonathon work with staff on the details of the project proposal.
Friends of Stillwater Area Dog Park
Mr. Moore noted that after the November presentation, the Commission asked that the group do
some additional research about maintenance of a dog park at the proposed Boutwell Cemetery
site and other issues, such as liability. Sarah Jaycocks said research indicates that annual
operating costs to the City would be trash pick -up four times at week at an estimated cost of
$1,800; snow plowing estimated at $350 for a total of $2,150 in soft costs. She said the
organization's out -of- pocket costs would be for sign maintenance; satellite toilet (if desired);
fencing; parking lot, estimated at $28,000; possible rain garden work in conjunction with the
watershed district; and benches and shelter. She said the dog park would be covered under the
City's existing liability policy and, according to the League of Minnesota Cities and no additional
liability insurance would be needed. She said the League also indicated that there has been no
significant history of claims or significant liability risk associated with dog parks. Regarding the
size of a park, she said Minneapolis Parks and Recreation staff have indicated that there have
been no significant issues with smaller off -leash parks, similar to the size proposed; she noted
there are more than a dozen dog parks in the metropolitan area that are about 1- to 2 -acres in
size.
Ms. Jaycocks provided comments regarding other potential sites mentioned by the Commission:
the dump site, which would need to be resurfaced with gravel and would require additional
fencing; the Aiple site, which might be subject to annual flooding and is already designated for
other uses, including the bridge staging area, boat launch and trail system; and the dome site,
which is smaller than one acre and would require complete excavation.
Ms. Jaycocks noted that Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society has
suggested that the proposal would be a good use of the land and the park would increase public
awareness of the historical significance of the cemetery and deter vandalism; she said he also
indicated that the Historical Society would assist in the maintenance of the historic cemetery.
She concluded that the Boutwell site is still the best choice as the size of the site does work for
an off -leash park; increased care for the site would honor its historical significance; the land
could be maintained as a natural area with additional plantings to improve the area; the
proposal has support from a number of individuals and organizations; and a sunset clause
would allow the agreement to be terminated if things don't work out to the satisfaction of the
parties. Ms. Jaycocks reviewed what the organization would propose as improvements: a five -
foot fence with gated entry around the park area; historical and interpretive sign and benches at
the cemetery; two waste receptacles near the parking area; signage with dog park rules; and
benches and small shade structure within the dog park area.
Park and Recreation Board Minutes
January 30, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Ms. Amrein asked about the comments regarding the dump site — that it would be "inconvenient"
for the City, according to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen explained that the City needs a snow deposit
area. He said if the dog park were to be located there with fencing to maneuver around when
dumping snow, it would be inconvenient. Ms. Amrein asked about the comment that there would
be no legal impediment to using the Boutwell Cemetery site, noting that the Comprehensive
Plan states there is to be no dog park. Mr. Moore stated the Council felt the Comprehensive
Plan didn't need to be so detailed to specifically state the City would have a dog park, so the
Plan does not include any language related to a dog park.
Ms. Amrein asked what action was requested of the Commission. Mr. Moore said he was
seeking a recommendation regarding this proposed site. Mr. Christensen noted the Parks
Commission is just the first step; the proposal will also have to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission where different concerns likely will be raised and then it will go to the City Council.
Mr. Christensen suggested it would be appropriate to take action and send the proposal on to
the next level where a different group of people will have different questions. Ms. Peterson
expressed her concern about the size of the Boutwell site and the potential for the need for
additional land if the park is successful. Ms. Amrein noted the original consultant's plan for this
land was to leave it as a natural, open area; she said she did not think a dog park was a great
use of this land. Allison McGinness said she didn't think there should be a concern about
possible expansion due to the nearby wetlands, but said it could be made clear in an agreement
with the City that there would be no future expansion of the use. Mr. Polehna suggested there is
a potential 3 -acre site in Stillwater Township, immediately adjacent to the City; he said the two
chair persons of the Township's park board have indicated they would be willing to talk with this
group about the possibility of having a dog park there. Mr. Hansen said he had been working
with the dog park proponents and he had recommended the Boutwell site because the proposal
would not be in competition will any other proposed users; every other space in the community,
he said, there was competition from other users. Mr. Hansen said he had indicated to the group
that he would support their proposal; however, he said he thought this new site mentioned by
Mr. Polehna ought to be explored, suggesting that another month's delay wouldn't hurt. Ms.
Jaycocks asked whether the group would have to come back before the Commission a third
time should the Township location not work out. Mr. McGarry agreed that the group deserved
some direction from the Commission at this point and should either approve or disapprove of
the Boutwell site. Mr. McGarry said he would have no issue with the Boutwell site, noting it is a
park and it is the Commission's function to promote use of public space; however, he agreed
that the Stillwater Township site should be explored and would be much better as it has more
space.
Mr. Brandt moved approval of the concept of the Boutwell site as proposed by Friends of
Stillwater Area Dog Park. Mr. McGarry seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -2.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
No informational items presented.
COMMISSION ITEMS /TOPICS
No items discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. on a motion by Mr. McGarry, second by Mr. Brandt.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
s
I w ater
T.,P...`_B A H° 1. A C t O F M I N N F S 0 f A
Memo
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Tim Moore, Assistant Public Works Superintendentlj'!'�
Date: February 23, 2012
Re: Community Garden
City staff has been approached by a group who wish to develop a community garden on the old
basketball court at Staples Park. Representatives from this group will be present at the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting to discuss their proposal.
f _
'
��
R21W R20W R19W
F j•
T32N T32N
T
• ,�i
T31N T31N
Y o u MENEnE
_ —
f �` ' • /i y' ' f • .
T30N T30N
T29N T29N
T28N T28N
'L27N T27N
W- -P t '
R22W R21W R20W
Vicinity Map
�• r,
I
PI A
A r
0 100
Scale in Feet
„
_-
• r
i i t
t
r
• . " -
9wLF
, W
{
Location Map A•a
-
• •:
TM1is drawing a Me - at a mmplaenn
oM�reproE d r4 esry oy
� rca�a
w�oravwm, nee
a a
same w.smremacoe�rtrsv.- ewrsorcKe.
Par rten laaaGa Eo F5 WlnPoma o
,MmupM1'. Decem4r31. Al2
aF
� . __ _ -:_ .5�— -_ _ _ a. :�- -
Prin4N: Fehmary ]9, 2g,]
L
W
VJ
O -4--a
L
c
0
0
L
L.L
a�
a�
a
c�
c
L
U
E
E
0
U
N
=
L
C:
cn
C:
N
Co
�
Q
.N
C:
O
E
o
U
- r
- t
O
Z
v
�
O
co
C:
O
U
c
ClIft
L
>I
0
U
c�
O
O
O
. a)
C:
O
O
4 --j
O
C6
El
0
.
U
O
a)
O
O
O
a)
C:
O
U)
m
a)
U
0
W
n L
W
C-
n �
W
n �
W
C6
C
N
0
N
L
O
O
C6
O
O
O
a�
C6
O
m
O
U
O
O
O
O
a�
O
O
O
O
O
C6
O
C6
U
O
0
C6
m U
0-
O
O
O
O
�U
O
X
O
O
2
0
O
• X11
C6
O
O
O
L
0
O
O
O
L
Mm
0
U
�o
a�
a�
c�
Li
O
O
a)
L
V,
0
-1-mo
^ V)
W
x
O
ma
Lem
L
■®
C/)
W
.r.
f .-A
L
W
Mr.
4 -.-j
0 cl
r
V
O
o
C
n L
W
�i
-
%v
^♦
77"
C:
a)
0
W
^ Q
C/)
:
r
W
W
�.
0
CL
0
�
0
C�
(1)
C).
O
U
CL
p
c
V
p )
♦ )
Q.
�o
W
i
r L
V
O
O
a)
L
V,
0
-1-mo
^ V)
W
x
O
ma
Lem
L
■®
C/)
W
.r.
f .-A
L
W
Mr.
4 -.-j
0 cl
r
V
O
o
C
n L
W
�i
c
L
b 1 J
A 16A1 t'A
, �L
10
f.
Ilk
L- M 0)
O 0 0 0 c '>
a) 00 �o ac�E
m N U N _ L 42
U M N U 0 CU
oo�� o0 ov�
o��oo� 3: o
C: - � °°
N00 �0 o L-
0
U
_ L E cu C: E
_ (V E � 0 CIO
U cu
N N'- N � U
c: Ec5z cm cow
0 0 a�0 0 °
11 � <
oil
7j'
aoq.redr� _
a�ueaw` Ln
t4•� w �. 11
c
r
C
• � y
Q
•
. . .......... y
ti
N
y •
I
F
In A
`a
�
Y
O
t
�-
*
•
O a N
.�
W
z
O
_
4
C a
c
Q
F w
60 +
.. �p
•
s
is
•r ..
v
U.
k-. k.-
0 0
ou
0
E �
0 0
O
4-
O
a)
OO ID
C:
A-a
O
O
._
C/)
C/)
cn
a)
cU
cn
cu
a�
2
0
O
c:
m
U
�
�
c
L
C;)
�
CU
C:
�
L
c
._
�
>-.
cn
-*--a
a�
Cl)
0)
C
v
>.*
Cu
E
■ _
c
■ _
E
E
E
E
E
0
p
O
O
4
U
C:
�
O
.O
>
�
-*--a
O
L
O
O
0.
>
cn
CU
O
Q
:
k-. k.-
0 0
ou
0
E �
0 0
4-
O
OO ID
O
.
cn
a)
cU
cn
0
a
a)
0
C:
�
O
O
�
O
CU
C
C -
C:
0)
0
>.*
E
■ _
c
■ _
E
E
=3
E
k-. k.-
0 0
ou
0
E �
0 0
A
�
\` \ � � �
��% ��
� \
�
\ \
^ \
\ \
��
�
�
=3
Q
/ /\ �\ ~
1wa ter
7 H% B':A H ° ACE OF M1NNE>0 T
Memo
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Tim Moore, Assistant Public Works Superintendent
Date: February 22, 2012
Re: Lowell Park Improvements
BACKGROUND
The City has delayed any improvements in Lowell Park due to work to be completed by the
Corps of Engineers (Corps). With the Corps work is in its final design stages, indications are
work would begin this summer. The project has been downsized significantly from a piling wall
built to an elevation of 691.00, with parking lots and storm sewers, to now just constructing all
the underground features, including storm sewer, pumping manholes, and a gate structure
along the west parking lot from Nelson Street to Mulberry Street. With minimal disruptions in
the park, from the Corps project, staff would like to begin implementing some improvements
to Lowell Park including grading, irrigation system, painting the gazebo, power pole relocation
and bathroom improvements in South Lowell Park. I have been researching costs, for irrigation,
re- grading, rehabilitating the Gazebo and bathroom improvements. Prices are based on the
concept plan included in the comp plan update, along with a preliminary plan for the
bathrooms.
Grading of North Lowell Park
The Corps has indicated that any grading in the park is considered betterment and that these
costs would be 100% city responsibility. Staff has requested that this work be deleted from
their scope leaving this work the City's responsibility. In addition, staff feels the City would save
considerably in the cost of grading of the park if it were done by us. The City would follow the
Corps grading plan that called for grading of the North Lowell Park from Myrtle Street to
Mulberry Street. The elevation along the west side of the park or east of the parking lot would
be raised 2 to 3 feet with a lean clay mix, the grade would then gradually slope down to the
upper flood wall on the east side. Engineered fill for the top 4 inches would be imported to
help with drainage and to create more suitable soil for turf. Fill would also be brought in at
Mulberry point to level the grade for winter ice skating area. Estimated cost is between
$35,000 and $60,000. Grading of the amphitheatre would not occur until after the Corps has
installed the underground storm sewer.
Irrigation
Currently, the park has an irrigation system from Myrtle Street to Nelson Street, the system
was constructed with galvanized pipe with quick coupling heads and needs to be operated
manually. There is no irrigation system in North Lowell Park and watering the park takes
several man hours in a day to roll out hoses, set up sprinklers and put away. It is proposed to
install a new system throughout the park (Nelson Street to Mulberry) that would be completely
automated. An irrigation system is critical in establishing and maintaining the turf in Lowell
Park. The irrigation system would be installed in the majority of the park, except for the
amphitheatre and areas immediately adjacent to the parking lot. These areas would be
extended when that particular work is completed. Estimated cost $50,000.
Gazebo
The gazebo has been through several high water events in the past 15 years and is showing
signs of fatigue and failure. Work would consist of paint removal and repainting, replacement
of decaying material and correcting failing concrete around the structure. This cost is estimated
to be $25,000.
Lowell Park Bathrooms
The bathrooms in Lowell Park are almost 40 years old, not ADA compliant and in need of an
upgrade. It is proposed to expand and renovate the bathrooms to bring them up to code. The
Parks and Recreation Commission has approved the concept for a bathroom upgrade, but
nothing more has been done. The next step in the process is to solicit RFPs with Architects to
develop plans and specifications. The bathroom addition and improvements is estimated to be
$175,000.
Utility Pole Relocation
A number of utility poles along the existing parking lots will need to be relocated to
accommodate the future amphitheatre and future parking lots. The work has been designed
and would be completed by Xcel Energy. Estimated cost $30,000.
Timing
Work could begin as soon as the end of March (weather permitting) and be completed by the
end of June in time for Fourth of July. There are a number of factors that suggest that this
spring is an opportune time to begin improvements in Lowell Park:
1. Recently, the Corps has indicated that they would not begin construction until after
August and since the project limits of the Corps work would not encroach into the park,
improvements could be completed earlier, without disrupting the Corps project.
2. Indications are that there will be little chance of any spring flooding this year, this
would allow grading and work to begin as early as April this year.
3. With two less major events in the park this summer, work disruptions and impacts to
the new turf would be reduced, creating a better turf establishment.
Financing
Estimated cost of all these improvement is $340,000. Funding would come from the Lowell
Park Improvement Fund, where there is $500,000 available for improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss these improvements and they concur and make a
recommendation to the City Council approving the improvements and expenditures for the
Lowell Park Improvement Fund.
8
! L
�
w �
4
c
Co
r
L
Co
r
W
C'L
L
Oda a-
V3
Ln
— N
O O
L
L L
ca �
N
O bp
J - 0
O N
z a�
o E
0
b N
L
b •E
Q�
Q�
N U
E
o�
N �
N �
C6 _0
• E_ o
• Q)
-0 C:
0
bD
� • L
C6 �
C6 C6
� N Q
L L • C6
O �
z
o � �
� � o
� N o
a
Q
N
O
Q
E
O
N
E
O
N
O
a-J
N
E
N
U
C6
Q
N
L
N
N
0
2
U
O
C6
a-J
E)
C6
N
L
O
N
N
C6
N
E
N
U
C6
Q
N
L
N
N
L
U
O
U
C6
C6
U
4-J
U
_N
N
L
O
.
bn
a-+
Q
C6
O
E
Q�
L
a�
}
W
h
Cf1
G'3
r
Li
Li
J
W
J
F--
d
41
L.I
?h
4
W
cr
�t
IL
a
e�
J
LL
IL
6
IL
X
ll
a-J
0
Q
Q�
0
E
0
v T
^ N /
W
L
1 � 1 '
/ T
^ T
W
E
' 0
v
h � h �
�. n
.
W
,.�..,�
eiv.i i+aiw�aa3�h 1d3�Ci5 .+emwni and Y
ar my
�
a�
}
W
h
Cf1
G'3
r
Li
Li
J
W
J
F--
d
41
L.I
?h
4
W
cr
�t
IL
a
e�
J
LL
IL
6
IL
X
ll
a-J
0
Q
Q�
0
E
0
v T
^ N /
W
L
1 � 1 '
/ T
^ T
W
E
' 0
v
h � h �
�. n
.
W
/
2�
§)
-■
2�
&�
§�
27
!#
\\
§k
)�
\§
;t
k
m�
E
C6
2�\
Ik
�
/2
\4i
�]k
)2k
f #§
£kk
;d
k22
�
�
.�
�
O
O
�
4-J
O
�
�
N
(3)
r-I
4-J
O
0-
�
D
�
O
.�
�
_ ei�lnr� , iiNhTM LS • • • . + .
� r �
S ?VC HiVO ANYd 113 01
i
dSn 3h, .Hd]J1* idl�bva � ecx:anoYlnf r -� .
r —
ll:
F
A,
i.J H
e � i
�.J
'g i3
a d
Ab
ol .
I L
r
i d I;
OL
�ry
�K
55 i. f
cc
h
^
W
Q
bD
Q�
0
L
Q�
0
O
E
Q�
L
O
E
L
a�
a�
z
V
h O ► � / �
�:RA/
W
1 CL
T
1 �
T
h � y � / �
�.UJ
L
L
2 W
W
z
-i:k41 LLiIM:7la6
!.
.
3hh41
-_
V}4�IH1't+9 ilkltfc� ln
—
-�
-
I 77
Al
_
� a
I
•1:
H
J
W
Q
}
W
J
W
F-
LY
.'l
V
h O ► � / �
�:RA/
W
1 CL
T
1 �
T
h � y � / �
�.UJ
L
L
2 W
W
z
- -- t
3hh41
—
T
1 �
T
h � y � / �
�.UJ
L
L
2 W
W
z
y ,
L
N
O
4-
O
U
N
Q
/ N
V
bD
-J
4
L
O O
� 0
O N
U
.� _0
txo C:
.
C6
N a-J
Q
_N N
T5 0
. N 4.�
Ul O
O
a-