Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-05 PTRC Minutes ----------- . -- ~fIIBLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA JOINT MEETING OF THE PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. CUMMINGS PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITY 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Henry called the July 26, 2005 joint meeting of the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee and Plamring Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: PTRC: Chair Bill Henry; Committee Mcmbers Lanny Baumann, Jim Crassweller, Derrek Hames, Dave McClung, Rich StraummID, Joani Wemer, Cindy Wheeler, Roger Williams and Steve Zilmer. Planning Commission: Chair Dave Sand; Vice Chair Clayton Zimmerman; Planning Commission Members Clay Larson, Elizabeth Modesette, Roberta Thompson and Dave McClung. . OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Moore, Operations mld Maintenance Director; Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Supervisor; Scott Clark, Community Development Director; Peter Hellegers, City Planner; Greg Brown, City Engineer; and Bonita Sullivan, Recording Secretary. MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved by consensus. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Approve June 28, 2005 Minutes. MOTION: The Committee approved the June 28, 2005 minutes as presented by consensus. The motion carried unanimously. 3 PRIORITIES Chair Henry stated that the PTRC is currently working to develop a mission statement and a list of project priorities for the City parks and open spaces that would be based on the Committee's suggestions and recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that the . PTRC is trying to create a vision and a process for the Committee to bring issues forward to PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREA nON COMMITTEE MEETING . JULY 26, 2005 Page 2 of7 Council for consideration. He stated that the Committee would like to jointly discuss ideas on how to stimulate funding while developing trail connections in various parts of the City. He stated that the Committee is working through the pieces, noting that there is a need to get the big picture and then work to determine how to improve what is already there. He stated that the PTRC, as a Committee, is interested in teaming what the Planning Commission's priorities are and see how it works together with the PTRC goals. Commissioner Sand stated that the Planning Commission is interested in knowing what the PTRC priorities are and what the Committee would recommend with respect to maintaining what the City already has. Mr. Moore reviewed the trail maintenance process stating that they are starting to maintain the trails the same way they do for City streets. He explained that the maintenance process is done on an annual basis noting that the trails are crack-sealed annually and next year seal-coating for the trails would be included as a budgeted item. He referenced the signage noting that staff would have samples of the new design for trail signs available for review noting that the signs would be similar, in design, to the existing park signs. He indicated that the signs would be installed in September. Chair Henry asked the Planning Commissioners to review their priorities for the City of Arden Hills. . Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission is moving towards a more proactive process in how the City reacts to various requests and reviewed with the Committee. Commissioner Sand confirmed noting that the Commission has been working through some of the major City projects with the Economic Development Authority. He stated that much of their work is based on reaction to development requests adding that the Commission has been discussing the idea of updating the design guidelines and standards for PUD projects. He stated that thc guidelines currently list certain types of materials noting that stucco-type products are not included in the current guidelines. He referenced TCAAP stating that one of their recommendations is to hire a consultant to assist the City in determining and updating the design guidelines. Community Development Director Clark concurred noting that the City still has a 20-percent vision plan that would require further clarification of specifications and would involve coming to an agreement on housing densities, infrastructure, and traffic impacts. He stated that each would have a redevelopment design guideline attached and reviewed. Chair Henry asked if there is a master plan that the Planning Commission works from. Commissioner Sand stated that the Planning Commission works with what is outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Clark stated that one of the bigger issues for the City is development in and of itself, in terms of acceptance within the community. He stated that when . PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREA nON COMMITTEE MEETING . JULY 26, 2005 Page 3 of7 looking to the future there is a need to come to some type of 'value' understanding in terms of how the City would deal with development projects. Conunissioner Sand agreed stating that the City of Arden Hills is somewhat divided in its population where a portion of the population wants Arden Hills to remain rural and a portion of the population would like to have more modernization and amenities provided_ He stated fuat the City has housing and operating needs noting that there is an opportunity here to better educate fue Community as the City works through this process. Commissioner Thompson agreed stating that there is a real need to determine what the vision is for the City of Arden Hills. She explained that by not having a clear vision of what the City wants for its' future creates a form of competition between those who want the area to remain rural and those who would like to see some amenities brought into the City. She stated that having a clear vision would help to give a better understanding of what is happening within the residential and commercial communities of Arden Hills. Committcc Member Hames suggested that Planning Commission review the City's track record on various developments and fue reactions offue community to that development as a part of the process for developing guidelines and standards. Commissioner Zimmerman clarified the Planning Commission's basic responsibilities noting . that it is fue Commission's responsibility to review new development proposals and requests to ensure that they follow the guidelines outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Hemy asked what the Planning Commission's vision is for the Parks and Trails north of Highway 96. Community Development Director Clark explained fuat this would be part of the 20-percent noting that the plan is clear that the main trail, internal to the TCAAP area, would go along and connect to Rice Creek corridqr. He stated fuat in reviewing this trail both fue PTRC and the Planning Commission would have to determine where to connect this trail in thc south areas of the City. He stated that fue City has to review and update the Comprehensive Plan noting that the changes are due to the Metropolitan Council by 2008. He suggested incorporating all of these items into the Comprehensive Plan noting that this would give them the ability to tie some of these items together for a better overall vision and plan. Commissioner Sand commended the PTRe for park and trail signage noting that this is fue best thing that has happened for the Parks in over ten years. He referenced the TCAAP property and urged the Committee to really listen to the residents of Arden Hills as they start the process of planning for this area. He stated that the City, fue Commissions and Committees should listen to the needs of the people who live and work in this area before they hear fue needs of groups outside of Arden Hills. Committee Member Williams agreed and proposed a closer relationship between the Planning Commission and PTRC as they mov.e closer to the planning process for the TCAAP property. . ---- PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING . JULY 26, 2005 Page4of7 Community Development Director Clark indicated that the Economic Development Commission is currently discussing the TCAAP area noting that ultimately the area would have to be renamed. He stated that discussions would soon begin to discuss the marketing and promotion of the area. He stated that this process would be done in stages with the first being how to promote name recognition for the City of Arden Hills and secondly determine the name for the development. He stated that the sports facility concept is one of the big issues that would be discnssed noting that it has always been very clear that the City of Arden Hills is not going to purchase the property. He stated that currently the discussions have been very general in nature adding that the initial discussion is planned for the September City Council work session and encouraged both groups to attend the work session and listen to the discussion. City Planner Hellegers invited the PTRC to participate in the annual Planning Commission bus tour. He statcd that he would forward an email to each of the Committee Members that would include the dates, times, and subj ects of the tours. 4. OTHER ITEMS A. Highway 10 Bridge City Engineer Brown stated that he has preparcd a budget view to detennine the feasibility of what a trail placed under the CP Rail Bridge would cost. He indicated that this has been a . concern for several years and recently came up in a discussion with the Council as a part of the ongoing County Road E discussion. He explained that he contacted the County and CP Railroad to discuss thc bridge and the finances. He indicated that the proposed trail was approved as long as it did not impact the bridge. He stated that they did a quick structural review of the bridge abutment and pier and determined that they could install a trail six to eight foot trail between the abutment and pier. He indicated that CP reviewed the proposal approximately one month ago and came back to the City stating that the trail looked feasible and that they were comfortable with the possibility of adding the trail. He stated that the rough cost estimate is approximately $130,000, plus an additional $100,000 for a path to the wetlands area for a total minimum cost of $230,000. He indicated that he spoke with Mr. Moore and Ms. Olson regarding the costs and it was determined that the next logical step would be to determine the budget and whether it would be viable to run the trail up to County Road E and the Vento crosswalk. He stated that the Master Plan does include a trail that would go all the way up to Highway 96 adding that there is talk of pushing this project out to 2007. He noted that the roadway up to and north of the railroad bridge is already curb and guttered, which would require minimal grading with a two- foot buffer strip. He stated that the City's first interest was to present an option for a crossing over the bridge and thcn shoot for a County Road E or a Highway 96 connection. He noted that Highway 96 is a regional trail and it is their hope that there would be some fonn of connection with County Road E. He reviewed the State funding process and trail size with the Committee and Planning Commission. He indicated that an 8-foot trail would be an acceptable width that would allow multiple nses and would include a few additional restrictions on clear zones and safety zones. He stated that this could add some additional costs to the project noting that it would be matched with State aid funding. He asked the PTRC to review the proposal and provide the Planning Commission with their feedback. . --.---..----- -------- PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING . JULY 26, 2005 Page 5 on Committee Member Hames asked if anyone has looked at the pattern of use noting that both Bethel and the High School utilize the east side both ways. He explained that traditionally people who use this area tend to cross at County Road E2 and sometimes at Valentine, which is a pretty dangerous traffic area that extends from the Railroad Bridge. He noted that County Road E2 is congested pretty much all day and expressed concerns about the safety of the residents. City Engineer Brown stated that if the trail is curbed or protected by a buffer the site line and safety issues should go away. Committee Member Hames asked if there would be any liability issues with Bethel. City Engineer Brown clarified that the road is a County road and that Ramsey County would carry the liability. Commissioner Thompson asked if there has been any discussion with Bethel College as to how the crosswalk is used. She suggested considering a pedestrian cross bridge. Ms. Olson noted that the pedestrian cross bridge was considered as an option through City Council and reviewed. City Enginecr Brown clarified that Ms. Olson and City Administrator Wolfe are looking for budget recommendations noting that County roads are eligible for state funding and could be matched. . Committee Member McClung stated that this is an important connector adding that if there is a way to possibly do something along Snelling up to County Road E where the City would have connections east/west and north/south then the City would be tied together and they could then move forward to try to COlUlect into the regional trail system. He stated that this should be designated a high priority item and that the PTRC should continue to push for the trail connections. Chair Henry asked what would happen to Highway 10 south of Highway 96. City Engineer Brown explained that Highway 10 would go over the top and Old Highway 10 would intersect with the existing frontage road. Hc further explained that it would then becomc a four-way intersection onto Highway 96 and that it would maintain a contiguous four-lane intersection. He indicated that there is approximately 30 to 40 feet of right-of-way along this area and reviewed. Chair Hemy asked if there would be an entrance into the TCAAP area at Highway 96. Community Development Director Clark stated that the entrance would come across from North Heights Lutheran and the other location would be an overpass on Highway 10, or west of Highway 10 and Highway 96. Committee Member Williams noted the possibilities and asked what the next step would be to keep this proposal moving forward. City Engineer Brown indicated that the City could reasonably ask for the CP Railroad passage and then try to build something that would connect to Highway 96. He noted that one of the . problems with going beyond this point is due to the rural nature of the area beyond this point. PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING "::-, JULY 26, 2005 Page 6 of7 .' He noted that if the road is urbanized they could bring in curbing as a barrier versuS a ditch and reviewed. He stated that if they do a curb the drainage issues would also have to be address noting that this could all be packaged into one request for T21. He urged the PTRC to communicate their ideas and suggestions to the City. Conununity Development Director Clark noted that the PTRC should take some form of action this evening if they want to get something in front of Council for consideration, as the Council plans to discuss this item at their first meeting in August. City Engineer Brown asked if it is key for the trail to be 8-feet or 6-feet. Chair Henry stated that ifthey are going to do the trail they should do it at 8-feet. Commissioner Zimmerman suggested putting together a packet that identifies each priority within the project and its associated costs_ He explained that this would provide an avenue to include everything they want adding that it could end up that all or a portion of the project would be approved. Conunissioner Sand clarified with City Engineer Brown that his figures are assuming an either/or option. City Engineer Brown confirmed and suggested that they either decide to do one side at a time or do both sides at the same time. e Chair Henry asked City Engineer Brown if it would make more sense to focus on one side first. City Engineer Brown stated that either way, the project would be expensive. He stated that he is leaning towards the decision to pick one spot, near County Road E2, design a connection that is as safe as possible and them move south. Motion by Committee Member McClung, Second by Committee Member Zihner, to recommend, as high priority, that the City Council investigate a trail from County Road E through the Bridge to Highway 96 and to direct staff to determine funding options_ Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commissioners agreed with and supports the recommendation and motion made by the PTRC B. Gateway Signs Mr. Moore stated that the Council has directed Staff to come up with designs for the Gateway signage. He stated that he has three design options for the Conunittee to review. Committee Member Hames stated that the City Council has approved one location for the gateway sign at County Road D and Cleveland. He explained that the sign couldn't be larger than four feet. He reviewed each option with the Committee noting that all utilize the Kasota stone in various ways. He noted that the examples are drawn to scale adding that Option 2 meets all of the requirements for the gateway sign. He explained that the width of the sign could vary depending on the proportions noting that the design they choose would be used at all locations. . He reviewed the materials noting that all signs would be a colored cement or stncco finish with ---.-.- PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 26, 2005 Page 7 of7 . green lettering adding that Option 2 would fit the best, especially with the County Road D and Cleveland restrictions. The Committee took a simple vote to determine each option and determined that Option 2 would fit the best and recommended moving forward with Option 2. Commissioner Sand asked if the signs would be lit. Committee Member Hames explained that the signs would have ground lighting that would sit at a 45-degree angle from ground level. The Committee agreed, by consensus, to recommend approval of Option 2 as the sign design for the Gateway Signs. Motion carried unanimously. 9. NEXT MEETING AGENDA None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The Committee agreed, by consensus, to adjourn the meeting 9:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. . Respectfully submitted, Bonita Sullivan TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc_ .