Heat. Heat. I'd like to call our June 3rd meeting of the Minnitonka Park Board to order. uh a comment in starting uh tonight's meeting will have to conclude by 7:45 because of the commitments by board members. So I just want to keep that in mind. Um with that we do roll call. >> Yes. Uh Christy >> here. >> Hanley is excused as is Lurman. Uh Schultz >> here. >> Samurski >> here. >> And Cher Ingram >> here. and Kolks and he's here but >> he was here. He's here. Whatever. >> He's here somewhere. >> Uh any comments or uh questions on the agenda? If not, do we have a motion for their approval? >> Um if I may, Sheram, we do have one addendum in the agenda. Uh it is for um comments received for the first item which is the CIP capital improvement program and then the second item 7B which is the big willow park master plan. There were some figures that were um not available when the packet originally went out and then there's a com two comments that came in. Great. A >> motion to approve the agenda including the addendum. I'll second it. All right. Christy, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> Kowalsski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingram. Oh, that's right. >> Yes. >> I keep forgetting. I apologize. >> Okay, with that, uh, move to item four, approval of minutes. Does anyone have any questions or comments on the minutes? I actually had one now that I remember it. Uh, I'm not sure on page four. I'm not sure if we have AI doing the minutes now or how it works, but there's a comment. Ingraham recommended the dollars not be deteriorated for this plan, but rather the dollars fit the plan. Wasn't sure what that meant. It's not critical, but >> uh, what paragraph was that? >> The very first line of the >> page four, >> section. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, Ingraham recommended the dollars not be deteriorated for this plan, but rather the dollars fit the plan. So, it just we just we strange. I don't think I would ever say dollars were deteriorated, but I'm not even sure what that what that would have been, but other than that, I'm fine with the minutes. >> Good question. We can look at the listen to the tape and find out. >> I'll pass. >> Okay. >> So, I have a motion Motion to approve pending that research. >> Do we do that? >> Sure. >> Sure. We can do that. We can fix it. >> I'll second. >> All right. Christy, >> yes. >> Hanley, no, not Hanley. Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingraham, >> yes. With that, we'll go to item five. Citizens wishing to discuss items not on the agenda. Uh, I think we might have at least one. Um, I just want to say the way this works, you come on up to the mic and um, just state your name and do we still require addresses? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Address, s president. And just for reference, we we love having comments and people input. We don't ever take a action on those things today. We just listen and advise and and refer that to staff. >> Hi, I'm Raina Green. I also am on a commission. So, I just wanted to start by saying thank you for the hours that you're giving to our city. I really appreciate it. My friends are handing out the uh issue that I've come here to speak very briefly upon. And it's really on behalf of my entire neighborhood. So, on the side of the map, you'll see our location. I'm at 5911 Covington Court. Uh so, that's the pin drop. And on the other side of the picture show the issue that is in contention right now in our neighborhood. So we have a bridge that was put in. I helped put it in actually about six years ago now I think. And the owners of the property that it sits upon received a letter saying it had to be removed. So they reached out to natural resource specialist Luke Menden um and he said he presented the request to keep the bridge to the city's land committee. Um and then after that meeting said, "Nope, it needs to come down by June 15th or the owners will face a penalty." Uh so they pressed a little further into it and asked how they might seek permission or a variance or any sort of like legal way around the ordinance and were told there simply are no processes or people who are able to grant you permission. And so we just wanted to bring it to your attention because it seems like a silly thing to make this many families and households have to walk either to the Stadola entrance or around on adjacent to 62 the other park entrance when we literally have one in our backyard. So that's the main area of concern that I wanted to bring to your attention. Uh we really would like to do this the right way. Um, we feel like the ecological footprint is very small. Um, and as you can see from the kiddo pictures, we use this bridge all the time, every day. Uh, so that's my concern. >> I guess I'll ask a question. Uh, I don't know if anybody knows the background of this. There's at least three of these crossing the creek. Are all those home each all three homeowners being contacted? >> They are. Y. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for your input. I I don't know we take action here. I can understand the city's reasoning for that. Um but uh and I do know this bridge well. There's a big dog that lives in the hill up above it. >> It's probably my dog. >> His name's Luke. He's very friendly. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Really appreciate it. And if we could just get clarity, that would be the main thing because we want to follow the rules, but we also know that this is really, you know, putting a lot of people in a unfortunate situation where we can't enjoy the park as well as we would like to. Now, to ask kids to go along Highway 62 just to get into the park seems like a lot. >> Mhm. >> So, >> and so chair, I'm happy to to speak uh to her afterwards. This is um Luke Menden is in our natural resources division, so I am familiar with this case. Um I also on the land committee and so we've had discussions around this so happy to talk to you and just talk through some of these issues. >> That would be great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> Are there any other citizens wishing to discuss items on the agenda? >> Big willow. >> No big wheels on the agenda. >> So don't worry about that later. >> Yeah. >> Great. Okay. With that we'll move to special matters if we have any. >> We have none. >> That brings us to item 7A. review of the 27 to 31 capital improvement plan. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh yeah, so we are back here for the second time. This is the first year that we've tried that the two meeting approach, which I think worked out well. So, we brought this to you uh last month in May. Uh draft CIP, our capital improvement plan. Again, that's our fiveyear the city's 5-year plan to look at major projects um you know, assets, things like that balanced against the resources that we have available to um try to do those projects. So, uh, we reviewed, uh, I think there was 20 or so pages that we looked at, um, last time. We talked in specific about three or four. And so, tonight, I'd like to bring those at least those three or four back to to talk about those again. Um, and then if you have any other questions or concerns about other pages that we didn't address in in the May meeting, we can definitely do that. But, I would like to address three specific pages. We're going to start with uh I think it's page four or five, the Cullen uh Nature Preserve Parking and Trails page right there. So, if you remember last month um the page was pending. Uh we had uh like a 400,50 450,000 prior and 450,000 in 2027, but because it was pending, it wasn't active. So, uh the change here is that it has become active. Uh we lengthened the description a little bit and then broke out the funding. So instead of that about $900,000 of non-active dollars, it became active and now we have $856,000 spread out over the 5-year plan. So beginning in 2027 uh and all the way into 2031. And I'll have Matt talk a little bit about why and how all that good stuff. But if you remember, you talked about other pages saying like, okay, we we're going to try to get about $900,000 into the plan. Maybe we should talk about how, you know, things that we have to take out. And so, you know, we've had meetings with our finance director and city manager and talked about some changes. And so, two other pages that we'll talk about would be the Ridgedale Commons um the ice uh and then the second would be the park master planning. So, those two pages did move some dollars out into the future. Um and there were some other changes. Again, the parks and trails section is one of nine sections of the CIP. So, it's a it's a smaller portion of the larger fund, but uh that's how we were able to uh get the $856,000 in was we made some adjustments uh not only within our section, but within the overall CIP. So, maybe I'll just turn over to Matt to kind of explain the the thought behind this. >> Yep. Thank you, Parkboard Chair Anraham. Um so, working closely with finance, I've certainly learned a lot about the process um with the CIP funding over the last few months here. Um, per direction, we looked at a way to sort of phase out if we were interested in opening the park to the public in the relatively near future, what would a phased implementation of the master planning look like? And this was our best attempt to try to um consolidate some funds that Kelly mentioned, rep prioritize from other efforts that we we'll talk through, and sort of roll out a safe um restoration compatible phasing into the park. Now granted, the master plan does spell out um you know quite a wonderful space with interpretive features, an entry plaza, formal parking, um seating arrangements. With this arrangement, we would sort of be rolling out the the scale of that effort um with getting people safely on site uh implementing the trails in year 1 2027 where we could get people through the site safely without um um harming the restoration that's been ongoing, but at least open that site to the public. and then rolling out additional features, formalizing the parking lot, stormwater management related to the the parking lot, um additional interpretive features, and finally the boardwalk down in the future to sort of implement um all the all the aspects of the master plan that were proposed. Um so this was sort of our best guess at how we could roll this out. This would be the safe and and um sort of protecting the natural resources phasing. But after talking closely with the friends of Colin Nature Preserve, it's my understanding that um they would like to delay the opening of the park in favor of a full buildout of the master plan rather than sort of phasing implementation. And we could certainly, you know, from a park buildout perspective be able to manage both those, but interested in hearing your perspective about that tonight before it would go to the city council. So, so to clarify the last part, uh, and I guess Gerald's probably going to comment later when we open is the idea that you would still use the dollars we've got to build out over time, but you wouldn't actually open it until all those stages were done. >> That would be my Yes. >> ideally, we would build as much as possible as fast as possible. ideally cuz this has been closer to the public for a number of years and we have invested quite a bit of of city finances to do the restoration. So opening it as soon as possible would be ideal but we understand the realities of the budget and finance >> but this lays it out so essentially you could open it after phase one >> that's assuming assuming the signage is in place. >> Yes, correct. Okay, >> Caleb. >> Yeah. So I know that this is a unique park opportunity uh both given the nature of how the land was you know given to the city and as well as the uh oak savannah components that are extremely rare. But in your experience, how frequent is it for uh a new uh open space type park to open uh like fully with everything in place uh at at a single event as opposed to uh kind of phased phased work. >> Sure. In my experience, this is a very unique situation that we are performing restoration on a closed park to eventually look to open it. All the public space restorations that I know of are open from day one and the residents see that restoration ongoing before any of these features would be implemented. Um, so we are quite unique in in terms of the timeline here that a bunch of work has led up to this point and we do have an opportunity to do something grand to cut the ribbon on a fabulous um new space to to let people into a you know a a wonderful new preserve. So there is something certainly unique um to that respect. But with that said, I can't think of other examples that have had that scenario where they delayed opening until it was all complete. >> I have a question of course to you know to what extent would like the delayed opening would that expedite the the phases themselves? >> Well the phases themselves are tied to the amount of money we would have available each year. So granted this is our guess. We are in the master planning phase. I haven't bid or designed these features yet. These are higher level estimates. Is there a possibility that phase one elements parking we could do a more formal parking lot in phase one because we get costs in? Yes, that's likely that we could do more sooner. But that's based on um the cost that we would get in >> and we would do as much as we can if we if this was the bud budget allocated. We would do as much as we we possibly could for that particular budget. Okay. >> But there is more design and construction bidding that would need to occur. >> This is a big improvement in budget from what it was last time. So that's great. I totally get that we had to cut a couple things, but I think that will be I think the group will agree. I appreciate that we were able to scrape this much up. I I assume it's not possible to go to get money sooner that you've done everything you can to >> to push. >> Correct. Yeah. That's us working with finance to understand how that sausage is made behind the scenes in terms of city. It's a big machine for sure. >> A big machine. >> And I have spoken with Darren about what staff could potentially implement. Could could public works staff build a parking lot for less expensive than we could potentially build bid it out and have a a contractor build it. So, there is some possibilities there, but >> we're early on in that process. We wouldn't have that quite figured out yet. Yeah, it says a lot that you're still waiting on bids and that you still need to >> to budget to this level of detail at the master planning phase is a little heart horse before the cart situation, but that's that's what we're having to do. >> I trust the park opening time will then sort of feel natural once you have a full project plan and and timeline. >> We would be >> right now it's sort of we're guessing when the best opening time will be. >> Correct. >> But the project timeline and all the bids and the work will >> correct. I think made that make that decision more y natural. >> Yeah. >> Another another question on this um draft phase one with earthn and limestone trails. Would any of those be uh ADA accessible? >> All the limestone trails. So we had looked at a variety of materials. Ideally, we would end up with a crushed granite material, which is uh very stable, drains really well, is more expensive than the limestone trails that you see in our park system now. But constructed from whole cloth like this, we can create them very level, ADA accessible with appropriate drainage so they don't puddle or get muddy like some of our legacy trails do over time. It's just the age of the trails. So yes, that component sort of that upper loop would all be accessible. Yes, I I I'm I'm pleased that I'm pleased that dollars have appeared so at least work can start next year, I guess, versus not knowing when it could start. Um, and I think maybe I'm incorrect on this, but the most important thing tonight in the CIP is funding, not when we open up. Um, and so clearly phase four, the boardwalk is going to be a big lift dollar-wise. Um, and so one of the questions would be, I think even as the work gets underway, you know, how long do you want to wait? Um, I can understand the feedback about wanting to the the I'll call it the big reveal, but once you start doing any work, the curiosity of people is going to go up and interest is going to go up and if trails go in, people are going to want to know, be curious, you know, why why can't we access trails? Just as thoughts. Um, but I'm very supportive of right now the important thing is getting dollars in play and possibly, who knows, as time goes along, maybe more fundraising might be possible to fa to fund phase three, which I know you funded here, but if if you had dollars to do more interpretive signing, then that dollars could go towards moving forward on boardwalk or something. But uh it seems to me this is a a good change from last time from a budgetary perspective. >> Chair, can I show you uh two other the two other pages that we just wanted to talk quickly through? So this would be the park master planning which is near the end. Leslie, sorry. >> Um don't know the page number. >> Uh I don't know the page number. >> Park master planning. Yeah, I uh >> just scroll through. entire should have >> bookmarked these. >> Yes, we should have bookmarked these. >> One more. >> There it is. So, park master planning. If you remember uh at the draft that we had in May, we had dollars in 2028 and 2030. Uh again, those were the future parks are still the same parks, Lone Lake, Meadow, Civic Center, Jadana. We just pushed those to the future. So, those moved out of the current five-year plan out so we could bring extra dollars in. Um, now next year we'll be looking at the 28 through 32. So, that doesn't mean that those parts couldn't come back into a 5-year plan at some point either. It's just for this current plan, they get pushed into the future. And then second page that I wanted to look at was the um the Ridgale Commons, which was a couple down. Same concept. um we had $200,000 right there uh in the draft in May. We had 200 200,000 in 2027. We push that out to the future as well. So, um again, that would be, you know, next year if if there was pressure to do that or if the board really wanted to do that during the 2028 through 2032, we could pull that back in. So, each year we're always looking at a five-year plan. Things can move in and out. We're showing that page just because we think it's something we we might want to do in the future, but it is out in the future. It's outside of the current 5-year plan. So, those were the three major changes that we made uh based on our discussion um last month. And I guess the only other thing that I did want to address, and it's actually Darren uh would be there was talk about the ADA plan for for parks. Um so, we were kind of debating between should this be in a cap or operational budget and Darren's been working with some consultants and I'll let him give an update on that quick. Yeah. So, we worked with a consultant that's been doing a lot of ADA transition plans for the city the last few years. We talked about the scale and size of what it would do to do our 54 or 53 parks. So, uh looking at a higher level and figured probably like a 60 to $80,000 project that would be done in two years. They wouldn't have the capacity to do them all in a year. Um but then which is feasible but if we put it in the CIP now it would be the first year we would start doing would be in 2030 or 2031. So instead of putting in the CIP as we go through the budget process this year we're going to look for adding in 10 to 15,000 in our park at uh operating budget and then we can start next year and just do a handful of parks each year. you know, may probably start with our uh maybe one big park uh and then some smaller ones. You know, focus on, you know, with restroom buildings probably or warming houses with some of the more amenities, but do a mixture of maybe neighborhood parks and one big park or we'll come up with some plan, but at least we can start this way we can start next year. We're not going to do all it as fast, but we'll get a start on it. >> So, just wanted to bring that and see if you had any comments. I think that's probably our direction, but >> happy to hear comments. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. I when I when I got our uh packet, I was like, where's the CIP? Right. So, I'm glad it just wasn't totally put in the trash. Um uh uh obviously it would be great to be able to do it in two years for that 85k, but I I get I get what you're saying and I think the goal is to just make sure we're doing okay. And it may be that if this is the best way to do it, great. Uh I I I think it's to me still seems like a good approach. I don't know if you guys feel like we should be doing it bigger, quicker, but um I think it would be helpful or I would really like for us to be uh updated on the park board as a agenda item probably every year like how is the um how is the ADA review going? Um and I and I guess even prior to it getting ramped up in 2027 with you know five parks or whatever. Uh just uh again another like bring back if you if you do actually successfully line item budget it, you know, because you're you're in the talking stage. But just to close the loop that yes, we did we did we did fund it. it is approved and 2027 we're going to do this many in just so again we all know that there's movement positive movement >> I'm sure that would be something they would probably include in our work plan that we put together each you know January then we can include once we get that we'll know that budget outcome in you know December when the final budget is set so we'll we'll know before the first of the year how that budget piece comes out and then in January, February when we do the work plan then we can a identify which parks we'll probably do and then certainly could do something later on in the year after you know or results of the of whatever parks that we do get reviewed. >> Great chair. That's all I wanted to cover on the CIP. If you have any other question you have a question to answer. >> I think that's a great idea. thanks for being creative and thinking outside the box with that and um seems like it's going to be a lot more timely and spread out and more manageable, too. So, I I really like that approach. >> I I do have one more more uh one question on Shady Oak Beach improvements. if you can get to that one. Um, >> at the top, >> I just want to make sure I understand how the chart works because we're still we still talk about all the improvements that have to happen, but then in the annual expenditures is $10,000 a year and I just want to make sure we can actually do what we want to do in Shady Oak. >> Thank you. Those numbers, uh, it looks like the chart on the bottom did not get updated. Thank you for that. Yes, the the dollars, good catch. The dollars that are listed in the description are the ones that were in there last time and for some reason did not carry over. >> Do you have a page number? >> Well, it's in the packet. It's 26. >> Probably hasn't helped you. >> It's 15 of 21 on the >> There you go. >> Yes. So, the dollars that are uh labeled in the description are correct. the ones on the bottom defaulted back. Thank you for that for catching that. We >> and that won't affect Colin at all. >> No, >> I was almost wondering if some of these dollars went shifted over. Correct. >> Great. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on um >> I just on on the Cullen I I agree when I think back to parks being developed just because of funding abilities and design and construction that it's really hard to do it all before you open it up. I I think a French Baker, Rebecca, Elm Creek, and um there's different portions that are opened up to the public um with it. But I'm I'm really pleased that we found money. Um I guess I want to encourage still looking for alternative funding sources like we talked about the parks and trails council legacy um or the parks and trails legacy account. it would be a really good fit hopefully to have a metropolitan nature preserve um amenities. So I I guess I would encourage other applications to grants to um that. So I I'm okay with postponing it a year and reviewing it, but I I'm not sure I'm a big fan of three years um because I think the word's getting out, people want to see it. It's a public amenity. So, I I respect what um the friends group is saying, but I think once we have amenities that can, you know, handle that, I I don't see a boardwalk as as an example um a reason to hold back the public from being able to visit. So, that's my two cents. >> Great. I guess for the boardwalk, getting into the weeds here. Um, is it a natural or is that a composite material? >> It would Well, good question. It would probably be a composite material. >> Okay. I was I was curious because I know the city's had some relationship with one of those companies. >> Oh, sure. >> Maybe there's maybe they're willing to be generous on a bid when you get to that. >> Perhaps the technology has come a long way. It's certainly less expensive. The boardwalks that we would be proposing at Colin are minimal in the necessity for a lot of railing. They would be generally more cost effective than the three rivers style regional trail boardwalks that you see. They would be much lighter touch than that. >> Great. >> But important to the experience to some degree. >> And at this point, can we we can take public comment on the CIP part? >> Sure. Yes. >> So if anybody wants to comment on Oh, one more question. >> Yeah. So I wanted to just clarify uh on the Glen Lake Park CIP. So uh can you help me understand the you know we see the total project cost and then we see the 2027 amount. So what do you anticipate that that amount of the total project cost? Is it continued planning or is it um some early site work or >> Yes, good question. So, the 150 allocated for 2027 is actually for the raising and the decommissioning of the Glen Lake activity center building. Got it. >> So, there's a lot of utilities, the irrigation of the ball fields leave that building. There's >> lead and asbestous testing that needs to occur. Those sorts of items. >> When does the 400,000 have to be spent by? We have five years from it getting announced. It got announced last year. So we have four years after this year >> and we have to begin using it within that time period. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So with that public comment, >> can I say something? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> You know how to do this. I know you've done this before. >> I guess I'll hold it. Thank you. Uh, my name is Gerald Gon. I live at 13936 Oakland Place, just six blocks from Cullen Nature Preserve. I think I mentioned last time I was six blocks south and just moved after 32 years and I'm six blocks north. So, I'm very connected. I know the area very well. The Friends group has been around for for quite a while. I think six or seven years. We have hundreds of people on our email list. We've been very actively working with the city and with Matt. We're very appreciative that you recommended full funding at a recent meeting and we're also appreciative that that money has been found. But I don't know if you read my letter from uh around I think I said around noon uh we really are concerned about setting the tone the right tone for when people enter the preserve because as we know there's challenges in other parks with misuse and this is so unique. you know, it's uh the savannah's functionally extinct ecosystem. So, we want to have everything in place to open it. And that would include, you know, like you feel like you're going into something, that there's some kind of entrance, that it's not a gravel parking lot necessarily, and that there's there's full interpretation, and that there is there's uh there's a gathering space so we can do education along with the city so people understand this ecosystem. Our fear is that will be misused that you know there'll be unauthorized trails uh you know disturbance of nesting birds I think again the tone is so important and that people need to understand that this is special this is will be our only designated nature preserve Caleb you brought up about you know other places you know with opening >> and Ridgedale Commons I know it's not comparable but it's it's very close was fully funded I think what 8.5 million I was at the ribbon cutting and that's for what 2 three acres I'm not sure column nature sorry how many >> two acres >> two acres okay it was close and uh column nature preserve is 30 acres and I think the master plan is great we we love working uh on the master plan with Lesie and Matt and bar engineering it's a fantastic plan and it's fairly minimal because that's really what it should be so our concern is over a 5-year period period to open it. I mean, we would we would rather wait. I don't want to wait 5 years, but we'd rather wait to open it. And believe me, we're all very eager to open it. Um, but I just can't see having like this kind of, you know, oneif of the work and then opening it. And we did meet, our board met last night. Our board's in total agreement on this. So, uh, also if you look at Westwood Hills Nature Center, that was, uh, you know, with any with any natural area, it's always going to be a work in progress, always. But as far as the amenities for the human uses to appreciate it with the Westwood Hills when they built that beautiful building, that was all done at once. Um, and that was, I believe, $13 million, probably at least 20 million in today's dollars for St. Park has half the budget of Mitaka. I I know there are budget cons considerations and we truly appreciate the work that has been done to get the money together. It's really about the timing and the opening. So, um that's what our ask is. If it could hopefully be done within a 2-year period, most of it, then we can open it and feel like it's um you know, we set the tone, the messaging is right, people understand and respect it. So that's what I have to say. Are there any questions? >> No, I think my only question is do we see do we have a conversation about the master plan again? We will in upcoming months I assume. >> Well, my understanding is you recommended it going to the council >> approval. Yeah. Yeah. So next step would be going to the council and timely to discuss the CIP. We don't have an understanding when that would go to the council but relatively soon. but talking about what we'd want to build in the short term versus the longer term. >> Yeah. >> Appropriate timing. They're going to see the master plan. There's a lot of cool stuff in there. >> I assume we'll have check-ins over the course of the next >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> year or so. >> It's key because they have to approve a master plan. They have to approve it being a park because it's presently nothing. I don't mean that negatively, but it's not it's unofficial anything. >> Yep. It doesn't have the city assurance >> and we need to get the ordinance or I think it's the right term ordinance in place so that only only um service dogs can be in there. >> Correct. >> Um we want to make sure all that stuff happens and then there's money to make it work. So >> Yep. >> And maybe the city council has ideas because it would be great. It would be great to be able to do more sooner. >> Yes. And chair Park, I should have mentioned that the city council will review their first look at the CIP is June 15th. So they will see that will be their first review of that and then they uh approve it later in the year >> because that's just a study session. Correct. >> It is a study session June 15th. Correct. >> Great. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> And one thing I forgot to say I I think it's really about all what's the kind of culture that will be at that >> at Colin Nature Preserve and we just want to set the tone again the messaging. I was in marketing so I know how important that is and just that the culture is consistent with it being totally unique nature preserve etc. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> So we need I think technically we are looking for a motion to move this forward to the CIP or our portion of the CIP to the council. Um motion to move this forward to the CIP to the city council. >> I'll second. >> All right. Christy, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingram, >> yes. >> Passes. >> Great. With that, we're now on to 7B. Big Willow master plan update. We're making good progress. >> Thank you. Park Board Chair Ingraham. So, Big Willow Master Plan has been underway for a while now. Um, tonight's presentation is a bit of bit of a checkin. So, we had a a first draft presented to you back in February at this point where we got a lot of feedback and what I wanted to do tonight was bring updates for areas three and four in between the first draft and what would eventually be the final draft in the coming months. So, this is a bit of a check-in. Um I did need to um look at my scope with my consultants to work on this. So we need a little extra time. I realized that these these um drawings went out on Minnotonka Matters late. So just on Monday they went up on Minnotonka Matters. They weren't in the packet. So apologies for that short fuse. Um, but do consider that this is sort of an interim check-in with you folks to hear feedback on this this content tonight and that there will be a while before the final draft is prepared. That would then be issued to Mitaka Matters with an ample period of time for the city to residents in the city to review that final version of the plan before you folks would see it again. So, a little bit of a background again. I got to this is our boiler plate. Um, we do master planning based on our parks open space and trails postsystem plan. The idea here is to lay out a roadmap for planning park improvements. We're looking to inventory and assess conditions in each of the parks. Identify user trends, hear from local neighbors, prioritize park improvements and investments if necessary. Some of our parks are perfect, I think. So, uh, I'll keep referring to areas three and four. So, we've broken Big Willow Park into four key areas. This drawing that you see is from the previous concept. You'll see updated versions of these drawings, but as a reference, it goes sort of backwards. Area 4 is the furthest west portion of the park. A lot of that isn't actually Big Willow Park yet. It's Mills Landing Park. Uh, previously private residents that will be adopted into the park. And then the largest portion of the park is is area three. So, we've designed these areas to sort of be able to refer to them and they do have different uses. So, area one is where the ball complex is. Area three is where the trails through the through the woods are and the creek for the most part. So the direction we heard on areas three and four from the February meeting were to relocate the proposed off leash dog area from just east of the Mills Landing parking lot in area 4 further east along Minnotonka Boulevard to area three. We also received direction to remove the westernmost bridge crossing the creek into um what is not officially park land but city-owned property north of Minhaha Creek um just north of the Mills Landing parking lot and to reconsider the distance for kayaking and canoeing if we were to park have folks park nearby the stream and ideally get in the stream to canoe or kayak or get out of the stream here. Um, did we have another location that was a bit closer to the to the creek? So, new figure highlighting that area. So, you'll see to the west parking lot is still expanded at Mills Landing Park. Um, we're proposing about six more stalls with a threeseason style bathroom. So, a shelter with a biffy in it. Um, this was uh a location where it does somewhat make sense to provide a canoe or kayak landing. There is some significant grade through here, but our engineering consultant went out and looked at it and we could do some stabilization of those slopes there and provide a uh a gravel style canoe launch from that area. We would want to provide resources in terms of trash and and a temporary canoe or kayak storage where you could rack up and and move your cars back and forth. So, we would need to do some significant grading through that area. But really, um the goal here would be a naturalized canoe landing. It wouldn't be paved. It would be a more rustic canoe landing, but stable. That would uh correct the erosion along the creek in that area. There are some um old timbers and retaining walls and storm water pipes through that area. So, it would be an opportunity to stabilize the creek through there and do some restoration along the the stream corridor. Moving further east along a new proposed trail through the former residence, we then get into area three where we we did relocate the off leash dog area to this location. So what you're seeing here is u about 10 parking stalls, 3 ADA, a four seasons restroom facility, and about a half acre of a fenced in off leash dog area. The challenges here are wetland. So there is an isolated wetland off the creek. So there is high um topography here that sort of separates this wetland. But there are wetland characteristics in terms of soil and plants in this area that sort of give us this, pardon the pun, dog leg shape of the off leash area. And then knowing that we were looking at this area for reservable picnic shelters and trying to understand what the appropriate distance and screening would be necessary for those. Um, we did hear a lot of comments and appropriate concerns about the runoff from an off leash dog area. what would what would happen to the urine and feces in these areas? So, yes, the runoff here could be buffered to some degree. It would enter this wetland, which isn't directly connected to the stream, but it's certainly connected to the stream via groundwater. Um, so it is, you know, somewhat close to the stream, but it it's less of a direct connection than it was formally. So, there are certainly some concerns there that are worth discussing. Um otherwise in this area we are still preserving proposing one larable reservable picnic shelter and I'll showcase some renderings that the consultant did for us and a couple smaller ones um with essentially one picnic table in them where you could get a small group together or just sort of pop in to read your book. We are still proposing a pedestrian bridge to make this trail loop connection. Um so you would be able to cross the existing bridge and work your way through the restorations on the north side of the creek. This would be a substantially long bridge. This to do this we would need about a 140 foot span. For reference, the bridge behind the civic center is just over 100 ft. So this would be substantially longer than that. And a lot of that is related to sort of the bench of wetland that sticks out to the south side. So we would need to reach over that wetland and and limit um any of the flood plane of the creek itself. So I wanted to showcase just some renderings that we had worked up. So this would be looking from Minnotonka Boulevard into the new parking lot. Here we wanted to showcase the relationship of the dog park entrance, the Four Seasons restroom, the parking and the street itself. We do have significant oak trees in this area. So we would really need to think very carefully about the designing of this parking lot, the disturbance from the grading that would be required for it to thoroughly protect the oak trees in that area. This tree is a large elm, desirable native tree, but um certainly worth protecting and considering, but certainly those oak trees are 100 200 year old oaks in that area. So, we would need to do everything we can in our engineering tool book to toolbox to protect those as best as possible. And we would perform additional screening and boulevard plantings to sort of soften that space. As you know, it's a hightraic area. So the idea here is folks getting in and out and being able to walk their dog in an urban style off leash dog setting um fairly conveniently. So looking up the trail past the restroom, these are just placeholder buildings. We would design this architecture later. Um really minimal amount of infrastructure related to a, you know, rugged, highly used entrance fence for this area. We would choose the fence appropriately. I know it looks white here. That was just to make it stand out in these drawings but give you a sense of this overall space. There would be >> it would be double gated. >> It would be Yes, we would we would look into all the appropriate off leash dog measures. So we we are proposing a smaller dog run or an older dog run in a larger area. It's certainly less than that 1acre threshold that the community work group was looking towards, but we're limited with the topography and wetland here. >> Um and it's a bit of a busy intersection here. So, if you were coming up to your reservable picnic shelter, barbecue, you'd be coming past the entrance of this facility. So, it's a little it's a it's a bit tight and there would be some design constraints there. Looking down from the large reservable shelter, you'd be able to see the dog fence down the hill a bit a little bit. There is some topography change there. And the parking lot along Minnotonka Boulevard, you walk past the restroom. Um, again, these would not be paved. This these would be well this would actually be paved to be accessible to get up here. Um but the remainder of the trails would be gravel or limestone. Um looking across the bridge trying to get a sense of the total length of this span and its impact on the viewshed out here. The the aesthetics of the creek are obviously gorgeous. The bridge represents an opportunity to get above the creek. Everybody likes to stop and look over the creek um when you're out there on a bridge. So there is some value there but it would impact the viewshed certainly is in this area. So these renderings are an attempt to sort of um understand the degree of those impacts visual impacts. So >> would it be a nice be a nice viewshed whatever the term is from the bridge. >> It would in both directions cuz currently you can stand on the bank. We have one of those chronologs on the bank here that looks up a very beautiful spot. You can see the the other bridge just to the northeast of here. And then looking west from here, it is all open marsh land. There are some houses on Burwell Drive way down at the end here, but they're not totally in the viewshed. So you you are really focused on the nature when you would be standing on that bridge. >> And then uh creek access. So, we had talked about um originally some sort of kayak landing here, but does that make sense in that location? But at least doing some stabilization along the creek bank. We know people are attracted to the water. So, formalizing that with some boulders and some rip wrap and some erosion control that wouldn't allow that to degrade or erode into the creek knowing that folks are going to want to step on the shoreline. And then finally, I think they went a little crazy with the butterflies here. Ignore those. Um, looking south across the bridge from the existing trail, how far the span of the bridge is, creek access over here, smaller picnic shelters on either side of this topography here. Um, potential for a nature play sort of setting. We're knowing, you know, this would be a relatively safe spot for kids to run around and access the creek. And then the large reservable shelter here. The off leash dog area would be beyond this hill. And then the parking lot is out of view in this particular rendering. So, briefly, next steps. Again, this is sort of an interim check-in because this was the biggest most talked about component um in our last meeting. um receiving feedback from you tonight on these aspects, working towards a final draft of the master plan that would then go on Minnotonka Matters several weeks in advance of the presentation to you folks next time around which would be ideally um late summer, early fall um for your review of the final plan knowing we have some missed meetings and the tour meeting for instance. um with the idea of you potentially presenting this or recommending it to be presented to the city council in the fall or the winter later this year. So with that, I'm open to questions and feedback and I will go back to this figure. >> Any questions? >> I think more comments. Thank you for taking our feedback and incorporating them into it. And I really like the the kayak canoe landing. I mean, you could see how somebody could do a little short stint uh from there. I know some concerns were it wasn't desirable, but I I know a lot of people who would find that desirable. So, thank you. >> Um looking at the map, I remember the last location we were concerned about residents homes being nearby. Is this a significant distance where that will no longer be >> it's certainly further away there is more distance and there is some more topography in the way here to break this viewed up. Yes, >> this is a bit flatter through here and actually in this location the dog area would be slightly higher or at least level with these homes. Here there is substantial tempography that sort of would sink it here. I I I'm not sure, but these residents would probably be able to see the fence in this area, I would assume. Uh the um currently right about where it says creek access area at the top, right about where that there there's a existing kind of structure >> stone thing. >> No, the thing where you can pull up your kayaks. >> Oh, yeah. Are we gonna keep something there too or not? >> That's actually right over here. Yeah. >> Right. >> Well, it's pretty outdated. I know people sit on it quite a bit. Um, it's certainly seen better days. Ideally, we would be removing that. >> So, that would be gone. Yes. >> Okay. I just curious >> in favor of more natural materials, big stones that we'd sink into the bank that you could sit. >> Okay. >> And angle your feet and or at least get close. >> Okay. But the age of that structure, the iron post hammered into the banks, the erosion that occurs behind it because there's some eddying that happens. >> Well, my my comment would be I think uh again, as I said last time, I think this is the whole Big Willow area is really spectacular and important and I think the the master planning process for this park has been really good. And I I do, as Jennifer said, I appreciate you taking into account the feedback. I think the shift in the position for the dog park is um is beneficial for users as well as for the residents across the creek. Um I'm a look, you know, anything they can do to make that fenced area larger as you go in the final design would be great because it's a halfacre is pretty pretty tight. But it's I think serves a different purpose. It's not an off leash area. The way I think of all field are fairies. It's a it's a small dog park, >> a run. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um so but I I think this is a a very positive change. I also like the changes to the all the picnicking areas and stuff. I think this this is a lot more um straightforward and I think it's I think it's good. We're doing some larger like the large reservable shelter because I know from feedback in our other other planning exercises in past years there's a lot of feedback from residents about the absence of having ability to gather with family or groups out in the parks. We don't really have a lot of great uh I don't think we have any great gathering spots other than the Ridgedale Commons. Um, off the top of my head, I think they're all pretty pretty old. Um, so this would be be nice to have if there's no other comment. We'll see. I think any public comment. Great. Okay. >> Sure. Hi, I'm uh Claudia Gunlock. Is it on? Yes. Okay. Um I live at 12901 Burwell Drive and I live Kitty Corner from the parking lot across the creek >> by the kayak that that >> by the kayak. Yeah, by the the parking lot that exists now. Um, so I I I talked last time and I I've written something that you can read, but I'll just be as quick as I can. Um, I got to see this yesterday afternoon um before coming to the meeting. I haven't had a lot of time to see it. Um, that seems like such late notice that this part of the meeting could have been postponed, but I know you want to keep going, so we do our best. I don't think that everyone on my block had a chance to um know that this second part of the plan is even out yet. Um so with that said um my first um my first image of this is that it's um it's great for a park and it's it's really good for people. The dog park, everybody in Manito wants a dog park um off leash. But, uh, Minihaha Creek is a you unique for our area anyway, wildlife corridor. And I don't know how much time you spend on it in this area. When it's quiet, you wouldn't believe what you can see and what what wildlife lives there. I think any dog park there will be disruptive. If you put in a dog park, we will see a lot of the wildlife depart. just it will be too active every day. Um it's a lot it'll be a lot different than walk dogs walking through the park with their owners. Um and keeping those dogs in the dog park I think will also be a challenge. But that's that's um I think just inherent to the to the park. Uh then I'm just going to go to the kayak launch. Um, it is much improved. It's, um, they've added enough parking. I'm still not sure that that grade would be accessible for most people to get down with a kayak or with a canoe. Not as likely. Um it also I'm just worried about erosion in that area and the disruption of wildlife because it does put another group of you know people activity right onto the creek where the wildlife is but that I don't know if if in this park plan is there going to be any of ecological impact statement is there any research that's done or or checking on what the impact will be on the wildlife? Um, I like to bird watch. I don't want to see every herin disappear. Um, I don't know that that's likely, but I I wouldn't know. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a biologist. Um it's just that uh how is the development to natural resources um equation figured out in this in this park and in any park. Um and it' be nice to have that addressed at some time for the city for the citizens. Um because I I know we do have to everybody wants something. It all seems to be something that we build and develop. Other people want just the nature. We weigh that >> you know in some way. Um I just let's see town by the last thing is just the dog park and it's to me a half acre seems huge but I don't own dogs so I don't have an understanding of that. Um I'm personally very concerned about the um pollution from the dog feces and urine. Um it going into a wetland will degrade that wetland that's used by you know I don't know muskrats and ducks geese etc. Um, but I'm also concerned about the noise and you know, mostly the noise to the neighborhood with a dog area that is going to be used all day long every day. It'll be the only dog park in the in Minnotonka. And I don't know that Hopkins has a dog park, so it's going to be a super popular place. And I don't know that that's um I don't know what we you know what we can expect from that in usage. Is it going to be you know 10 dogs all day long or is it going to be 20 dogs all day long? Is it going to be three? I don't know. Hundreds. Anyway. Okay. So that's it for me. Thanks for listening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, I'm D. Brandt and my husband and I um live next to Claudia with the city um owned properties in between us. So, I live right above where it says kayak launch. >> So, directly above that's my my place. Um I wanted to speak um for uh regarding the um dog park first of all and um one of the things is that dog the proposed site sits directly on Minnitanka Boulevard with no buffer. Dogs escape parks regularly at gates under fences during chaotic moment of arrival when owners are getting leashes on excited dogs next to a busy road. We've seen it. It's It's horrible. An escape here puts a dog in traffic within seconds, putting people in in the roads, you know, in um in peril as well. I'd also like the board to ask the board to consider a few practical questions. Would the park be lit in the winter when it's dark by 4:00? Um, has anybody studied the in the traffic impact of cars turning left into and out of the park from Minnotonka Boulevard at peak times, weekend afternoons, which are weekend afternoons, uh, after pe people um Oh, yeah. And weekday evenings after people get home from work, they want to get their dogs out. Those are significant safety concerns. And um sometimes there's I don't know if there's a dog limit and then it's going to be self-limiting. You're going to see you know and also how many cars are going to be parked you know how many spaces are there and are those spaces the same spaces for parking that are going to be available to the people renting the um shelters. So if you've got a group renting for the shelter and you've got four or five cars in there that's four or five less spaces for the dog park. Now, where are they parking along Minnitanka Boulevard? I'm I don't know if that was taken in consideration. Um the environmental impact of the dog park um the wetlands is a big concern because and the runoff further into the creek a very big concern. You've got a concentrated area of dog feces and urine. um other wildlife, the coyotes, the deer, the fox, they're o around all the time. Now, when we've got dogs and activity, they won't be around as much. They just really won't. The proposed site for this dog for this halfacre dog park is arguably the most beautiful spot, the crown jewel if you will, of the Big Willow Park. Um there are large mature apex trees all over there. Rolling terrain, creek views, and open space. This is this is um I was in marketing and advertising. If I'm taking photos, I'm taking a photo of this area to promote Big Willow because this is this is the money shot. >> Huh? >> No buckthornne yet. >> Not yet. But this is the money shot. It's stunning. People put out picnic blankets. People all the time. Hammocks. Hammocks are common. It's it's beautiful. Um so anyway, these are these are big questions. It's really that that spot that's really irre irreplaceable. Um surely of our how many parks do we have in Minnetonka? >> 52. >> Yeah. any there there must be a space that's bigger than a half acre that would be able to be utilized. But that's you know that Matt better than I would. Um fencing, paving and construction equipment will almost certainly damage the root systems of those trees. The tree people know this, the arborists, they know because the burr, especially the oak oaks, if they get if their root system gets run across on top of spring, summer, fall, the damage will show up in 2 to 3 years and they die. So, and there has to be fencing put in. You've got to put in the the restrooms. Um there's the paving. you have so much to do and that's not going to be done in the winter. So, because that of course makes no sense. So, all of those trees will be affected. We're trying to keep the trees, these big, beautiful 200y old trees. Um, beyond the trees, the dog waste and the runoff um from a park this close to the creek will degrade the runoff will degrade water quality over time, even with cleanup stations in place. This proposal also seems to conflict directly with Minnotonka's own 2022 park system plan, which calls for preserving and protecting natural resources, improving habitat quality, and managing the community forest on both public and private land. I do encourage the board to revisit that mission statement alongside this proposal. Seems like we've run out uh of places proposed to, you know, put a dog park in Big Willow. Now, I'd like to um address the kayak launch. Do we need another one? Number one, uh, according to the Minihaha Creek wershed district map, Minnotonka already has six canoe and kayak launches along the creek within the Minnotonka boundaries from Grae Bay Dam all the way east to the Minnitanka Boulevard Bridge near Highway 169. The creek and kayak community is well served. Um the proposed new launch at the Mills Landing, the Shady Oak Road and Minnitankka Boulevard intersection sits just two point 2 miles from the existing Burwell Park which is listed uh in the watershed creek map. Um and 7 milesi the other way from Big Willow Park launch. So that would be three accesses within within a mile within under a mile. I drove it today and I did my odometer on them. Do we need three and one mile and all the money it would take to put in all expand the parking lot, put in a bathroom, do all that stuff? That's a lot of money. Save it for another area, you know, put it to something else to three in one mile. So, um, let's see. So, we're not opposed to investment in our parks and and the time and energy you guys have put into this. I'm I'm incredibly grateful. I moved to Minnetonka here. I moved to that spot about 8 years ago. I think we're very blessed with the uh dedication of the staff, the hours, the work, the the the commitment. Uh, we're very appreciative. Absolutely. Um, but we just ask that this board weigh whether these specific projects are the best use of the resources and whether they're consistent with the values that Minnetonka already has committed to in its own planning documents. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Yep. Hello. Does this just go to the Okay, >> for the recording. Yeah. >> Uh, hi everybody. My name is Evan Everest. Uh, I live near the park as well. Uh, I am a frequent user of the park. I'm there every day. I have dogs. Uh, I love to walk my dog in Big Willow Park. Um, I think a lot of the changes that you guys have made are really great. really appreciate everybody taking the feedback from the group, echoing D's comment. Um I think that's really great that uh everyone seems to be thinking really hard about this. Um I personally have a lot of love for Big Willow and so that's part of the reason that I'm invested in in seeing what the plans are and making sure that I think one of the best uh qualities of Big Willow is preserved, which is the access to nature um and the the outdoors that it provides to people. Um, I remain concerned about the dog park being in Big Willow. And I think really the primary thing is that there's so much concentrated on this southern half of the park that it really is, I think, jeopardizing a lot of the wildlife, wildlife's ability to move around, people's ability to enjoy the wildlife. Um, I think the dogs, as has been mentioned, you know, whether the impact that that could have on scaring off wildlife probably should be looked at, I think, closely in this area. Um, another point that that I haven't heard brought up about the dog park is just sort of the overall impact on and I actually don't know the answer to this, but but does it lead to more off leash dogs in the park directly around it? Or do people have their dogs off leash less because they're in the dog park? My my suspicion, my anecdotal experience is that you have a dog park, people want to utilize the area. outside of that as well if they can with their dog off leash to go for a further walk or maybe go down to the creek and let dogs splash around. So, I'm just I'm thinking that it could possibly encourage more off leash dogs in the park which has its own number of issues. Uh I would also say where the dog park currently sort of dog legs out to the left um that is actually directly visible and sort of at grade with the houses that are at the end of Burwell Drive right there. And it's it's closer than it looks. I think on this aerial map if you were to walk out there you would see it's all actually pretty condensed in that area. Um, I think that's really it. Thanks for your time and consideration. >> Thanks for your input. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Okay. So, with that um if there is any more discussion from the board some questions. So, um, when we were when we were trying to come up with or discussing, you know, the purgatory park, uh, dog issue, there was a lot of discussion about the quality of uh, you know, the the the grade or the quality of the land. And I'm wondering for where this is cited, what is the quality currently? I'd have to look at the natural resources master plan, but what this site has are these legacy oak trees. So, those obviously take centuries to grow. It is currently turf grass underneath those. Those do offer a fairly easy opportunity to restore. Removing turf grass is easier to remove than buckthornne and other invasive trees that could have filled in. They have the most This area has the most essential component which would be the legacy oak trees in terms of restoration. I I believe we we may have called this cultural because there are footprints of homes in this area and driveways and other structures related to the houses that used to be on that site. But in terms of a restoration opportunity, it's quite high because it's oak trees and turf grass. So it's it's not a natural area. We wouldn't refer to it as a natural area because of the formal use of the spot, but it does represent significant restoration opportunity. So just north of the creek where we are doing substantial restoration currently, a lot of buckthorn removal, there are legacy oak trees, it is similar to that, but there is a healthy ground cover there. We're seeing Virginia water leaf, all sorts of native ephemerals come up in that area. So we would be able to do something similar on this side. and and as proposed here, these green areas would be turf areas, but the rest would be restored into Oak Savannah or prairie as necessary. >> And there's been restoration going on in there already. >> Yes, I recall. >> Yep. Substantial. So, the mowing sort of got ahead of that. That wasn't for this proposed dog park. We didn't know what that was happening at the We knew we were getting this property and we could mow that buckthorn down to protect those oak trees just like we did the mowing on the north side here to get oak regeneration to get the spring ephemerals and ground plane species coming in. >> Are we considering so since Purgatory Park's on the south side of town? Yes. >> Are we considering any other options on the north side of town besides this location for the dog park? There's a number of sites. >> Civic center was being >> civic center is discussed and it's on the list of the off leash the community work groups list of locations. Mooney park is another one. >> A lot of the same concerns. >> Uh nice oak trees >> right near the creek on a wetland wildlife corridors. >> All three of them. Huh. >> It's this. We don't have a lot of old farm river they >> Minnetonka. We're lucky. But it's a double-edged sword. We don't have an old industrial park that we can put a dog park in. We don't have an oldow farm field that the farmer moved away and is would be perfect for a dog park. We have all these weird awkward street side, creek side, wetland, fitting it in locations. Is this a perfect location? No, it's not. It's not. >> If I may, um, just to maybe address some of the comments that you heard. Um, so related to natural resource impacts. So nothing here that's being proposed is to the level that would require some a formal like environmental impact statement. So that's not something we would normally do. Um, anything that's proposed certainly would need to meet the city's requirements related to storm water management, tree protection. Um, for instance, the bridge would require us engaging with the Minhawa Creek Wershed District for permitting, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, >> Army Corps of Engineers. So, there's, you know, this is, as you know, it's a master plan. So, it's it's thinking of these big ideas, but when it gets down to actually implementing these um some of these things, then we would follow get get deeper into, you know, what are those impacts? How do we mitigate those impacts? just like we would with any other project that we're building. For instance, uh Mitaka Boulevard is a county road, so the county would have to be involved related to parking lots and traffic and all of that kind of stuff as well. Um so, you know, that stuff would be h have to be part of the conversation if these were to go forward and the city would have to work through those. um related to the wetland and water quality. Certainly um you know having a dog park next next to a wetland there is a potential for more impact. Um we always um require wetland buffers around um projects and so this would be the same case where we would have at least a vegetated buffer between this use and the wetland itself. Um you know one thing with dogs obviously it's a a concentration of dogs but any dog waste is going into the soil which actually does allow it to be broken down any you know kind of um the waste material to be broken down. So that is one benefit. However, you're right. It is next to a wetland. And so, um, not to say there's no impacts, but we would mitigate those impacts the best we can with buffers. And obviously, keeping dogs out of the wetland would be the most beneficial thing we can do. So, the wetland itself would not be within this dog park. Um, I think that was it. Oak trees. And so during construction and post construction, we always consider trees and tree impacts with um any kind of development activity. We understand the critical root zone. Our forestry staff uh review uh potential review activities for potential tree impacts. Um we use pro tree protection um best practices to protect trees. Um if you recall it in front of the marsh the large uh if you've seen the large oak tree um it has about six feet of fill that was um put over that oak tree which we've kind of daylighted. Um trees you know we try to mitigate or minimize impacts to the greatest extent practical. Um trees are pretty resilient. um if there are some impacts they will tend to um um do what they need to do and grow in such such a way that it that they can survive but we always consult with our forestry experts um before any projects take place. So so I just wanted to kind of address some of the things that you were hearing related to the potential impacts. >> Are these changes on Minnotonka matters now? These pages are on Minute Matters, but they didn't go up to get more public comments to see. It's good. >> Okay, good. >> They were late. We were short >> from the consultant for the packet, so I put them up right away on Monday, I believe. But yes, too short of a fuse for a lot of comments. If I if I may, there was one more comment about, you know, the maybe the intensity of the use here, what's being proposed. >> Um, how do you balance that with the natural area and natural protection? And that's really a policy decision. That's that's you know what what that's that's why you get paid the big bucks to make some of those decision. >> Where are those big bucks? Pizza slice that you had. >> I'll throw out one other comment. I think there was a reference to the number of kayak launches along the creek. My recollection is the Brewwell is a takeout. It basically stopped the picnic. You can't really launch from that spot. And the one further downstream is the one we're eliminating >> in Big Willow. And then there's one in Jadana further west. >> Further Yes. Further. Yeah. >> But >> she referred She referred to the three within 7/10 of a mile. >> Sure. And and there's only one here that would be a launchable spot. >> Yep. >> There is one at St. >> Is there? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. I didn't know that one. Thank you. >> I if I may um and and we can certainly provide this information at the next time we talk about this, but I am looking at the habitat quality that was assessed when we completed the natural resources master plan for this area. And it is a what we call a C quality. So definitely high potential for restoration, but the existing quality is our our lowest of our categories. >> Okay. So it really what it's got going for the oaks. >> It's cultural. >> Oh, it's cultural. Sorry, you're right. >> See this bit here. >> That's C though right there. >> That's No, that's the >> It's really nice there. >> Oh, okay. It's sea and looks like some potential cultural. So it's it's a mix. >> Okay. >> Because there there were homesteads here. Yeah. So, >> so I think the all we do now is this was feedback. Did you get enough feedback? >> Not yet, I don't think. >> Um I guess move forward with this or consider moving the off leash dog area. >> I'd like to hear more feedback from the public since it's only been 24 48 hours. >> Oh, sure. Yep. Yeah. And so we could have another check-in where I get a bunch of feedback related to this version. >> Yep. >> And then I we could present that feedback. Yeah. >> But is the park park feel this location from a just the dog park is better than the last location? >> I know. I certainly do. Okay. >> And does too. >> Great. With that, I think we can go to seven. See, we've got about uh 20 minutes left. Park area system. Is this Darren or who's this? >> This is me again. >> Or me. Sorry everybody. >> That's right. I forgot. Yep. >> Thank you. Park board chair Abraham. Um so park areas of needs analysis. So, um, referring back to the 2022 post plan, in that plan, there was a figure 45 which inventoried the park system and identified locations that lacked park amenities, park space due to a bunch of criteria. Those key criteria were walks longer than 10 minutes. Um, areas of the city that had higher density of residents, so our apartment complexes, town homes, those sorts of places. And then areas where there are a density of lower income residents. So that figure tried to analyze where we have gaps in our park system for potential consideration of um future opportunities in terms of park space and park amenities. So looking at this, we met with our GIS specialists, Leslie and I and and Matt Harding, our GIS specialist, and we added some additional criteria to help contextualize this a little bit, other considerations in terms of what folks are really experiencing. So, we looked at property beyond the city boundary. So, for instance, if you were living on the border and there was a park within a 10-minute walk outside of the city. So, you walked into Hopkins to get to your local park. So, we looked at that as a consideration. We also looked at regional trails, knowing that there are key corridors to get to our parks, but then they also function as as recreational opportunities in of themselves. And those weren't featured in in figure 45, the previous version. We also looked at park-like areas significantly schools that were open to the public and had playgrounds and made sure they were accommodated on this map. I know I when my kids were young, we spent more time at the park at the school playground than we did at the park. And then major roadways that limit walkability. So if you were to measure as the crow flies a 10-minute walk, we now account for highways being in the way. So potentially breaking up that walkability a little bit more. So through that analysis we identified three areas that still meet multiple criteria the previous criteria. So norththeast and southeast let's say um so there are some areas of concern left over after that analysis. We know that the southeast one is going to get it doesn't currently have but it hopefully in the near future it gets an opus area park being designed along the east side of the light rail there. But looking a bit closer at the two remaining areas, there are some challenges there. For instance, the east one, this large area of yellow here. Yes, it's a farther than 10-minute walk, but a lot of that is high density residential. There are some apartment buildings in there, but significant open space there is creek and wetland, which makes it fairly challenging for us to first off own that land, which we don't currently, and then implement significant park features. It doesn't mean it's not possible, but we don't own it yet at this point. Um, so additional thoughts would be to continue to refer to this figure as we receive interest, which happens occasionally from the public about the city purchasing parcels or opportunities for us to purchase parcel and consider the factors and and potentially filling in some of these gaps in our park system with purchases or implementation of parks in these particular areas. Another key thing that we're doing, we're still sort of rolling out, is a better mapping and park amenity tool that folks can better understand what's the nearest park, what's in that park that may be of use to me, how do I get there? um just a general understanding of what's in our park system, even if it's beyond a 10-minute walk, just a general sense of of what's more nearby, thus hopefully lowering the barrier to entry for folks who don't quite know what Manito Park systems have to offer. So, keeping this um I saved out this figure next to the where we keep our formal version of the post plan um for us to continue to review and consider moving forward. But for now, um, questions and feedback on this figure. It was an interesting process to look through this. How do we >> Yeah, I appreciate the change of the tweak of the criteria. That makes sense, >> Caleb. >> Yeah. So, I guess I would like to see how we can be a little bit more formal with >> Sure. the nonopus remaining two areas in terms of our uh kind of gradients for what where do we get where do we buy land where do we develop it into a park as opposed to just talking about it because the reason the reason I brought this up is because effectively it was ignored in the 20 from the 2022 post plan. It was data, but it was not data that anybody in the city staff could demonstraably show was act was acted upon. And I don't want this new data to suffer the same fate. So, how can we how can we formulize or permanently elevate these for hey, we got money or hey, we got tracks opened up. And these need to be high priority because they demonstrate significant uh inequity and it's redemonstrated four years later in a new analysis. Thankfully things are smaller these sites. We eliminated one and one's being worked on. >> Eliminated two >> but the uh the there's two remaining. So, how do we be more uh intentional and and specific so that we don't lose sight of these sites like I feel like maybe occurred with the original uh the original data? Well, I I'll just comment. I guess respectfully I having been part of that first plan, I never understood page 45 because to me it made no sense uh in terms of the areas it need. So I don't know that anybody disregarded it in the sense that we aren't acting. I think people who looked at it closely and knew the areas kind of reflected on is there really an issue there and I would encourage you to go to the round circle at 169 and I think it's Cedar Lake Road. >> I was across street. >> Yeah. >> Yep. and and find any space that's not privately owned, that's not a wetland or a creek that could be possibly a park. So, it's adjacent to the high school. Um, I know that area well. I first place I lived when I moved to Minnesota. Um, but it's heavily wetlands, heavily creeks, and heavily apartments and condos, and that do have pools and tennis courts and park-like amenities inside their complexes. Um, but, you know, I would encourage you to look up there because maybe maybe we're missing something there. I'm le much less familiar with the space just above across 494 and and there there are parks there. So I'm >> Yeah, there are parks there. So I'm kind of curious. >> What's the other major cross? >> I'm sorry. 394 across 394. >> 394 the mall. >> Plymouth road. >> Plymouth. >> Plymouth road. >> Plymouth road. Thank you. >> It's I'm not I'm not as familiar with that. And there are parks adjacent to that. It looks like I we got some green spots. I don't know if it's >> this one is Oberlin. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. But but it's it's hard for me to figure out why that's more than 10 minutes away from that circle unless it's the way the roads are laid out. >> Road layout like >> Yeah. So, um so I I you know I I kind of take issue with the implication that we somehow willfully ignored and downplayed the importance of these areas when the post came out. But that's just just my opinion. >> Yeah. And I want to thank you for doing that extra exercise to take a closer look and and do that analysis. And I I am kind of proud to say I live in a city that only identified three. Um but at the same point, it's good information to take into consideration. um if there are willing sellers who approach the city that this is compared to um versus the active acquisition which would be to solicit to see if people be willing to sell is another option and I think from a financial perspective it's not necessarily a highest priority. Um but if someone were to approach us and um ask that this would be used as a a mechanism to compare it. So, >> if we do, that might be something that would gather more interest um and hopefully a lower value perhaps if it was all the wetland area. So, that that's my two cents. So, thanks for taking that extra time and energy to do that additional analysis. Sort of similar. I saw this op I saw this optimistically that we only have three and one has a very active in progress um project. Um felt good. Um I agree with your recommendation about and what you said Jennifer about if opportunities arise I'll go check these areas out. I'm not familiar with the big circle area. Just to see what you're saying, I think will will really help me process whether there's any potential opportunity in that eastern most zone, that big one. Mhm. If I may, um, park board, um, if if there is a desire by the park board to ensure that this is a tool that's being used in decision- making, the strategic plan that you will review and update at the end of the year might be a a way to >> include this as an important tool that's used when decisions when projects are coming up or if there's land acquisition opportunities or donations that are happening. I think that's a that's an opportunity you could look at. >> Great. The comments we can go to uh information items >> we're going to make it. We're going to be done on time >> I think. Uh >> up upcoming minutes meetings. >> Uh yes. Oh yes. That's always I always think your member reports are before so I get confused. >> Um so upcoming schedule um we've talked about the Big Willow Park master plan. Um we had identified uh that August would be a next time to check in on this. Um it does say recommend adoption. However, in talking to Matt further, we do think the tour in September would be a good opportunity to see this site. So would suggest delaying any kind of recommendation on it until fall. Um so likely a big willow plan update but not a not a recommendation. >> But an update would be helpful if there's more public feedback by then. That'd be great. >> Yes. And then we can plan on visiting this location in August or September. So in September we have the park board tour and council. Um we're talking about this site and Opus might be another uh good site to visit since there will be activity um coming up there. Uh and then in October tenatively the Glen Lake park uh plan update. So pro providing some concepts there. Uh in November a red barn site. We call it the red barn site next to Purgatory Park. Um Matt will be working on a feasibility study to better understand what opportunities might exist with that piece of property. Uh and then we will have some habitat restoration and maintenance plans uh coming before the park board uh including Lone Lake Park and Tower Hill. Uh and that's what we have scheduled for business items. And I'll turn it over to Kelly. We have lots >> been busy. It has been busy. How was day one? Last Saturday we had the mountain bike opener at Lone Lake Park. We had 75 people. It was the 5year anniversary. So, five years of that. Uh yesterday was the opener of the market. Yes, we had 870 people yesterday. Uh market is now shifted to the north end of the lot, which allows those first two bays to be open for parking. I did I saw open parking spots the entire time I was there. So, parking seemed to be a lot better yesterday. Uh it was busy. That 870 is compared to like 650 on the first day of last year. I don't remember the weather. Weather obviously dictates a lot. But uh again, uh farmers market Tuesdays at the Marsh 2 to 6:00 p.m. Shady Oak Beach opens this Saturday. Um passes are on sale. I think we already have sold 850 passes. Yoga in the Commons series starts this Saturday as well. Our Music in the Park uh starts the the last Tuesday of June. Uh fourth Saturday, so June 27th is Summerfest. So we're less than a month away from Summerfest. And then as you can see, we've got a number of events out at Ridgedale Commons throughout July and August. So it's we're we're hitting busy season here and and like I said, really good opener at the farmers market and a nice event at the Lone Lake Park for the 5year anniversary. So >> that's it. >> Any park board member reports? Okay, one thought back on the CIP. Um, the one that talks about the $30 million worth of trails still references the following page. >> Sure. >> So, we need to get for the city council. We probably should get the following page in there. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Remember that. >> And thank you for catching the shady oak. >> Oh, well. >> Yep. >> Well, great. Good meeting. And if there's no other reports, want to thank Eric for your time here. >> Oh, yes. >> Are you so apologize? It is Eric's last meeting with us. His appointment is through June and he graduates tomorrow. So, yay. >> Thank you guys. Thank you so much. >> And it sounds like he will be off to college in the fall. And we appreciate all of your service. And you've been a had a been a great >> been a wonderful experience. Yeah. very good inside look at at the process and the tribulation >> contributed a lot to this. So >> yeah, >> I appreciate you guys >> with that. >> Thank you. >> Well, since we have seven minutes, just take a minute or two to explain again what's happening with our board membership. >> Oh um so we so um right now the proposal so we have a vacant position the proposal and this is hasn't gone to council yet. So the council will decide. Um but they're trying to align all of our commissions to to sort of look the same. Um so the idea is that we would not fill the vacant position right now. We would wait and fill it with a new type of position which is a young adult position. So this would be a voting member age 16 to 24. So it' be a seven person board. One of those positions is dedicated to as a youth position. Youth or young adult it's called. >> Great. >> So >> that'll be that'll be great. >> Yes. >> I like the idea of that. So >> yeah. >> And I won't have to feel guilty about not >> taking your vote. >> I know. I know. >> Always makes me feel a little >> uh do I have any other motions? Hint. >> Motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. All in favor? I. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just so you guys know, we don't meet in July. I should >> Thank you so much. >> Yep. Tomorrow morning I uh >> I graduate and then Yeah.