Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Okay. I'd like to call uh I would like to call the February 4th park board meeting to order. Um, welcome those who are here in attendance and uh, those you call roll. >> Uh, Christie here. Hanley here. Before I say the next name, we have a new park board member. So, I'd like to introduce Ryan Cadet. He, uh, was appointed to the park board by the city council on Monday. So, welcome. And we're doing roll call. So, I just call your name and then you say yay if you're here. here. >> So, Cadet >> here, >> Lairman >> here, >> Schultz >> here, >> Samurski >> here, >> and Chair Ingram >> here. Next, uh we'll look for approval of the agenda. There's two things to point out. Um scroll up. Did it change on the screen here or not? The order? >> No. >> Okay. Uh first, we're going to be uh changing the order of the business items. Big Willow will go ahead of Cullen for a scheduling reason. And then um also there's an addendum to the packet which maybe not everyone's had a chance to see but if you go online now excuse me and [clears throat] click on the packet uh the addendum starts at page 188 which is uh includes comments received since the packet went out primarily relating I think all relating to big willow plan. Yes. Mhm. >> So, just to clarify, um, if you approve the change to the addendum, item 7 C would become item 7B, >> right? >> And then item 7B would become 7 C. >> So, do I have a motion for approval of the agenda as noted? >> I move to approve the agenda as noted. I'll second. >> Uh, Christie, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. Cadet, >> yes. >> Larman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Cherry Ingram, >> yes. >> Next, approval of the minutes of our January 7th meeting. Any questions or comments before we look for a motion? Corrections? If not, >> I move we accept the minutes as written. >> I second. Uh, >> all right. Christie, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Cadet, abstain. I should note that. Uh, Lairman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingram, >> yes. >> Um, next item is citizens wishing to discuss items not on the agenda. I do see people here tonight. Anybody want to make any comments on something that's not on the agenda? >> Okay. If that not we'll go to uh special matters of which we have none. >> We have no special matter >> which brings us to business item 7A which is the appointment of chair and vice chair. >> Yes. So chair Ingraham and park board members um at the February meeting of each year the park board is charged with uh electing a chair and a vice chair. Um currently as you know chairing Grahamham is chair and uh Kate Samurski is acting as vice chair. Um, and so I will really turn it over to you. You can handle it in a few ways. You can self-nominate, you can nominate somebody else, you can talk amongst yourselves, but we will need to have a motion and a second to determine who is chair and vice chair. >> Any comments? >> Uh, yeah. Comment. >> Yes. >> Do you guys want to do it again? >> Is that Sure. >> Sure. Okay. >> And we can do it again. >> All right. Well, so I'm going to nominate these two fine people to reup. [laughter] >> That's a motion. >> That's a motion. >> That's my motion. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. All right. That's easy. Uh Christie, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Cadet, >> yes. >> Lairman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingram, >> yes. >> That was easy. >> Thank you both. Okay. >> Thank you. So, now we're going to go to item seven B, big willow master plan. >> Big. Yes. Um, chair and parkboard members. So, I will turn this over to Matt, but just to remind you, um, for this item, this is the first time that the parkboard is seeing this draft plan as a whole. You've had some conversations about different parts of it. Um, but this is not a time where we're looking for a motion. We're looking for discussion and feedback. you may want to hear from some of the community members as well. Um, so I'll have uh turn it over to Matt and our consultant Eric Holtz who's from uh Bolton Bank and then uh they can present you can certainly ask questions and then maybe hear from the public. >> Thank you Leslie Cherry and Graham Park board. Um tonight I would like to present the first draft of the Big Willow Park master plan. So a little bit of a background on this process. So the park master planning uh strategy was laid out in the parks open space and trails plan. Uh I'll keep referring to this as the post plan throughout this presentation. Really the idea is to lay out sort of a roadmap for planned park improvements over the next decade or two. It's a long-term master plan. Really big ideas is the is the logic here. So park master planning is really about inventorying and assessing the conditions of our major parks throughout the city. identifying unique user trends, new trends in park users um and to prioritize park improvements invest and investments if necessary. So the mission statement behind the post plan is uh comprised of several guiding principles. These are around advancing environmental sustainability and resiliency to provide connections to our park and trail system. Um, and all the programmings that recreation puts on in our park system to promote community health and wellness to promote equity and inclusion and support excellence and innovation in our park system. So really park master planning is about surveying and outreach to the community. It's really meant to be a discussion amongst city leaders and the community about what they want in their park systems. So we ask residents how do they use the park. We're not pushing change for change sake. So we ask people what shouldn't change and if so if anything should change what needs improvement in these particular parks. Um we use what's called human- centered design considerations. These are about creating inclusive placemaking. We seek to accommodate the largest group of potential users while protecting our highly valuable natural resources in the city. So that was a little bit of a background. Big Willow Park Planning started off um earlier this year. So we we put a a variety of signs throughout the park with a QR code that brought people to this Minnitonka Matters page. So this has been the hub for park planning for six plus months now. We hosted a table for information about the park planning at the open house in the city back in October. I believe this point we hosted a table at the Latino Cultural Heritage um celebration in Hopkins. So engage with a lot of folks out there. Um we've received 1,700 plus visitors to Manitonka Matters on this page. 26 fresh downloads of the draft plan and all its chapters that was just issued um last week. There's been 73 downloads of the restoration plan which is also included on that page and 308 survey responses during that period. [snorts] So we got this pretty new document with the help of Bolton Bank. They're a cross-disciplinary um engineering firm. I have Eric Holt here tonight. He'll jump in a little later. He's a landscape architect who helped um with his communications uh folks on staff, engineers on staff. It's really a multid-disciplinary effort to get these plans together. So, I'll walk through briefly [clears throat] the table of contents and and what we're calling the guiding principles of this particular document. So, in the table of contents there, you'll see in the document, it's it's quite a long PDF overall. There's an executive summary that looks at the overall vision, these guiding principles and the and over and an overview of the recommendations and implementation plan. Out of this master plan document, there's an introduction which sort of lays out the purpose of these plans, where they sort of fit in the greater scheme of park improvements. Um, it outlines the process and an overall timeline and all the related studies that we referenced, the natural resources master plan, the post plan, variety of other documents. Then we outlined this inventory and analysis process, how we went through looking at the condition of the park that it's in currently, sort of get a beat on on how things are are holding up out there. Um, we explain the community engagement process and go through the engagement results, the survey results we got from the community. Um, and then we go through plan recommendations for four discrete areas within the park. And we'll get into that a little further. And then we get into what we call design standards. So, sort of the basic concepts of what improvements in the park could look like, precedent images of other similar park-like features, sort of set the tone, put the vibe out there on what we're proposing in the park. The guiding principles for this particular document are lined up with the post plan for the most part. Advance environmental sustainability, connections to nearby trails and other parks, um community health and wellness, equity and inclusion, and excellence and innovation in our park system. So a little bit on the process here. Um that inventorying the blue top left is really um the first stage of the process. We do that during the initial part of the engagement. Then we look through the existing conditions in the park in in that analyze phase. Then we begin to make recommendations for park improvements. And that's where we're at now. We're sort of um in that the beginning of that recommendation phase where we put this back out into the community to give them something to consider, to sink their teeth into, to react to and thus uh start to present it to city leaders, see see what folks are thinking. So the inventory and analysis is really quite detailed. There's quite a few pages in the document about it. We really looked at current conditions and tried to look at essential needs and opportunities. there's sort of this matrix of things that are in good condition, things that are in relatively poor condition and could use some some uh improvement. So, I know this is a lot to take in on this screen here. I would advise looking through the document, but the key themes in the inventory and analysis are connectivity, safety and accessibility, facility condition, and program offerings. So, what sort of elements do we offer in our park system? So, some initial engagement results. There's a lot more in the document, but um through the survey and openhouse feedback, we found that people generally live close to Big Willow who go there and they go there often. They go there quite frequently. So, we've had 24% of survey respondents say they go more than three times a week. So, they're making it a point to to get into the park quite often. And there's a fairly even split between people who actually walk into the park um through its various entrances and folks that actually drive there or go for ball um baseball um events on the field and use the the parking lots sort of distributed around the park. Um some key findings also include that folks are really interested in the trail network. There's beautiful rolling hills. The creek goes through Big Willow as you know. So folks are really interested in the trail network out in Big Willow and and want to see, you know, want to see it improved. Um there's a lower amount of residents that feel that the park is generally accessible. So we did realize through this process that there are some slope issues and some of the bridge crossings that need improvement. So we did see that in some of the survey results that there were some concerns about general accessibility through the park. Um overall 43% of the people wanted to see additional trail uh connections uh additional considerations for loops within the park and additional connections into the park. So parking and ways to access the park. So we divided the park into four general areas. So the idea here was sort of um to have sort of discrete areas that we could talk through. Big Willow really has a eastern area which is a big ball complex and then more of a western natural rolling hills area. Um the idea was to divide the parks up into this area to focus in on them. And with that I'm going to turn it over to Eric Hol and he'll walk through some of the particulars of each one of these areas. So Eric. Sure. Thanks Matt. Um yeah. Yeah. So, as that said, you know, this is a a pretty large uh community park, >> the east portion of the park, which we're calling area one is this athletic complex basically, right? That's your most active uses. Um kind of separated geographically from the western portion of the park with uh some surface waters there. You know, the railroad embankment is an interesting challenge for this sort of the connectivity and continuity of this park. Um, and I know there's been some safety concerns over the years with folks making their own crossings. Um, and then, uh, you know, even some, you know, recent land acquisitions and, um, things further west and thinking about the park in the context of, um, you know, sort of greenway connectivity along Minnotonka Boulevard and along Miniha Creek. Um so how do we treat the park as you know one um connected consistent park um but then drill down to kind of organize at least for the the recommendations here um in a way it's easier to to chew. Um so area one like I mentioned you know this is where the most uh sort of physical built infrastructure is this is probably the most active operations and maintenance uh occurs um big use events with baseball and softball tournaments soccer this is where uh 90% of the parking off street parking of the park is. Um, so, uh, as we look at these, I before I kind of list all the areas, I want to say, you know, overall kind of what we're trying to do with this project is, um, distribute some more, you know, parking, easier access around the scale of this park, right? Kind of spread things out just a little bit. Um, and so as we look at these different areas, there's kind of different uses that kind of emerge. Um anyway, we're looking at most mostly kind of uh reinforcing and improving the uses in area one here, right? Um there are there's some things at the end of its life as far as infrastructure getting towards the end of it, paving things like that uh need to be budgeted for. Um overall, I just want to mention that improve accessibility. Um there are locations here where um there aren't very good accessible routes from parking to the ball field facilities. Right. So without getting the nitty-gritty, I'd say that's one big push is to fix those kind of little sight specific issues where there's no pedestrian ramp or there's not accessible parking or there's tripping hazards, things like that. Um just to prove the function right now and safety. um midterm some larger improvements in largy in the soccer field. It's actually a little undersized right now [clears throat] for regulation. Um and because this area is still built out and things are tight, that actually requires, as Darren knows, some pretty big infrastructure changes, moving, retaining walls, things like that. Um, so as as we and Matt will get this later, but as we sort of list out these recommendations later, we will assign kind of planning level costs to all these specific improvement projects um for budgeting purposes. Um, another one here is, you know, this is about c, you know, improving that connectivity between trail loops, um, adding a a boardwalk, um, both at the along the creek at the north side of the wetland there and on the east side of the wetland, um, to really connect kind of the east and western parts of the park and north to south. Um, oh, and then you know where how and and where can we squeeze a little more off streetet parking uh into the park without um losing some of the recreation amenities. So, we've looked at, you know, a little bit more parking potentially between um the driveway to public works uh uh there. Um a couple other parking expansions here and there. So, um those are the big ones, I guess. Do you have a I think we have a long-term >> Yep. >> Uh further down the road, um maybe some larger improvements to the concourses, you know, these paved areas that connect uh the ball fields. Um there's drainage issues, there's paving issues, there's sort of um lack of seating and not the most comfortable spaces to to sit and watch a game. So, what can be done there over time to improve those and kind of um match some of the expectations and and quality facilities that these leagues might be using at other regional facilities too, right? Um updating and replacing buildings, uh uh concession storage. Um there's there's a handful of buildings in different ages out here, but um trying to plan for longerterm replacement of those. Um and then renovate and and possibly enlarge the playground. Um which is I would say in the last sort of third of its life as a as as play equipment goes generally. Um, so keeping that important function here, but maybe expanding that and bringing more folks to this area just to play. And I'd like to note quick that we are doing some improvements to the main concession in the middle of the ball pin field pin wheel here this year. But those are, you know, those are substantial improvements. But in terms of actual long-term eventually replacing that building, having that identified through this master planning process, even though that concession stand is going to be nice and updated and modern um over the next few years, and I mean it's defined in the document, but um uh short, mid, and long-term we're saying kind of 1 to 5 year time period, 6 to 10, 11 plus basically 11 to 15, 11 to kind of a 15 to 20 year lifespan on this document. >> Yep. >> Um why don't you go to the area >> too? So north of the tracks. North of the tracks which you know I I think for some visitors maybe don't even know what's there, right? Um if they're coming only off up off Boulevard. Um >> so uh this is really about kind of formalizing improving upon what's there already. So, we're not proposing any major um kind of program changes or new uses, but um short-term improving kind of formalizing some of the off- streetet parking. There's a handful of stalls off a residential street up the northwest corner. Um improving, you know, the entry signage, um restroom, expanded parking, um uh kind of enhancing the wayfinding signage throughout the whole park. We look at that every place because it is such a comprehensive network of trails and people need to know how to navigate who aren't familiar. >> That particular recommendation comes up as short term for all these areas. It's general parkwide. >> Um midterm. Uh this is an interesting one. Some of you may be aware that there is a a primary trail that does run under the um railroad bridge along the creek and that's the only connection to the south part of the park. But in flood conditions that's under a foot of water >> pretty typically. Um so one idea was just to create a loop um for folks with another boardwalk extension along the creek there through the wetland. Um creates another new feature to attract people as part of the park. they don't have to sort of back come to a dead end and turn around um change that experience a little bit. So it basically extends the use of this during that flood condition in some ways. >> I'd also like to note that d uh in the post plan it is one of the key priorities to include more boardwalks in our wetlands. Um unfortunately a lot of our park system is wetland which is often you know inaccessible in terms of trails and other amenities. So in installing more boardwalks through these wetlands allows people to get close to the creek in this in this area and offers a bit of a loop like Eric was was describing. >> Do do you just want to speak to the challenge or the restrictions around the why we can't just fix the flooding area because of the railroad? >> Yeah. So the creek has a dedicated ele elevation and we can't restrict creek flow in any way. So, we can't raise that pathway through there that cuts underneath that trestle bridge. We also can't change the elevation of the railroad bridge. We don't have authority over that particular corridor. So, we're really stuck in a box, the covert, actually, the trestle bridge. Um, where we can't add fill under there to raise the pathway up and we can't raise the bridge itself. So, we're we're somewhat stuck. It's unfortunately a dead end for three, four months, a year depending on creek conditions. We did a project about 10 years to raise it as much as we could but still get snow equipment underneath it. We could have raised it maybe a little bit more where you could walk under it, but then we wouldn't have been able to plow it. So, we had to find the balance to be able to still plow the trail and get the trail as high as we could, but still get equipment under. >> So, this solution is more doesn't solve that problem. just makes area two more usable. >> Yes. So, it gives you an option rather than, >> you know, if you lived on the north side coming to a dead end and and breaking the law and climbing over the tracks like you're not supposed to, but a lot of people do to at least be able to make this loop and and circuit your way back up plus the experience of the of the wetland and the board itself. Yes. Um, lastly here I'll say uh long-term looking at kind of formalizing there's a there's a existing footpath I'll call it uh kind of informal trail um along the north edge of the park there that connects to the St. Albins Mill uh apartment entrance. Um we know that those folks do like to walk into the park. Uh um so turning that into more of the standard primary larger trail more accessible. >> So acknowledging when these cow paths form over time, folks are coming into the park here. We know it for a fact. Let's make it safe and stable and and and recognize it as one of our primary trails. Area three. Area three. So this is, you know, kind of the middle portion of the park, uh with the creek mandering through the middle. um have a mix of these wooded uplands and wetland complexes down by the creek, rolling hills. Um one thing that's interesting for those of you that are familiar, you know, a lot of this portion of the park, especially south of the creek, were previously uh residential lots that were acquired or donated over the years to the city. Um so it has sort of more of this open character. There's, you know, old remnants of I think there's an old chimney. around barbecue pit thing. >> Yeah. And so, um, one thing that we talked about as kind of a way to expand use in this area and still be sort of, you know, environmentally sensitive to it is is, um, formalizing picnicking. So, um, I guess that's the longer term, but, um, in the in the short term, uh, we're still looking at ways to, um, improve and enhance that trail connectivity. Mhm. >> Um there's an existing pedestrian bridge that unfortunately the the slopes leading up to it are very steep. >> Yep. >> Um and so we've looked at uh relocating that and regrading that to create a little bit more accessible creek crossing north to south. Um extending this the kind of formal trail along the creek east west um which doesn't really exist right now. There's some informal trails, but you know, sizing sizing this up to be the the eight, you know, foot, uh, asphalt or crushed rock trail. Um, and then down in the lower right corner, there is an existing off- streetet parking lot here. Um, but, uh, we're [clears throat] looking at kind of re repaving and formalizing that, adding a a at least a portable restroom, the screen enclosure. Um, and then further down the road, if we go to Do we have a slightly good term on this one? >> Yep. >> Okay, >> there we go. >> Um, like I mentioned, uh, kind of developing some reservable picnic shelters, um, which is something that we don't really have in this park, especially not in this area. So, again, we're trying to distribute some of these uses around the park. We're in conjunction with that looking at adding another off- streetet parking lot down in the center bottom of the image there. Um that could serve, you know, with a with a with a a four-season restroom. Um that could serve a couple picnic shelters close by further down the road. Maybe a couple more picnic shelters could be, you know, installed and those could be reservable for larger small groups. >> So this again references the post plan. through our surveying in the post plan. We do have for instance a reservable picnic shelter at Lone Lake Park and it's needs some love but it is highly used. That post plan identified the need for more reservable picnic shelters. So your family reunion, your outdoor party. Um we have some precedent images of what we think would be appropriate types of architecture. These are meant to be, you know, fit in the landscape, placed appropriately, not building for building's sake. And if we were going to do reservable picnic, then you would need accessible parking nearby. So, um, those two sort of go together. You kind of need one without the other. You couldn't do a picnic shelter without parking somewhat nearby. >> Mhm. >> And are the little brown rectangles, is that are those the shelters? >> Yep. That's just some very highlevel concept design. How many would be appropriate? Um what's the appropriate spacing? How many would each accommodate in terms of picnic tables and grills or whatever? Um party size. That would be part of the more detailed planning um if this was moved forward out of this master plan process. >> And and it's maybe worth noting at Lone Lake, we lost the picnic shelter. Yep. >> When pickle ball went in and pickle ball demands a lot of that parking space now. So that's you know. >> Yep. Is there a trail currently that starts at P1 and goes north? >> Informal. >> Oh, at the top there. >> There's an informal one. Oh, down at the bottom. >> I see. >> You're talking at the bottom. >> Oh, down here. So, that's uh one of the old driveways. >> Yeah. So, what we end up getting is people, this parking lot, the existing parking lot overflows and you'll see people parking along the street here >> and then that that isn't really a formal entrance beyond it being a a remnant parking or driveway from there's pillars. There's pillars. There's actually two driveways. >> One where the parking lot is shown here and then one on this east side of this wetland. >> Okay. It it for people not familiar, it's a little tricky on this one because your yellow lines show your new improved what we would call primary trails these days, >> but the primary trails are a little harder to tell for people that aren't familiar. You might want to Yeah. Trace. >> Sure. Yeah. This one over here is a primary trail. Yes. So, making that distinction a little clearer. >> And then and then over from the other parking lot on the right. >> Uh yeah. Over here. >> Yeah, cuz that one looks the same size. >> That's true. This is a primary trail through here. Yep. >> Yep. And we throughout this process have been making this distinction between our primary trails and the informal footpaths and and making sure they preserve those characteristics. [clears throat] Um lastly on this uh again looking at the possibility of another bridge crossing at some point to kind of again you know kind of increase the density of this loop system. have a a trail crossing at that north south point there in line with these reservable shel shelters and new parking lot. Um we also have looked at uh kind of ways to improve the creek access in that area. So I can see this this new parking lot at the south also doubling as a trail head for water trail users if someone wants to bring their kayak out. Um there's an old dock >> that's worked itself out of the ground and sits about 3 ft above normal water level. Those aren't usable anymore. So, >> you know, um kind of redoing a a water access there. >> How far is that from Mitaka Boulevard and the parking? >> Good question. That's probably I don't know 200 yards. >> Yeah, 200 yards maybe. >> Say 4 or 500 feet. >> So, it's a walk. It's a how many to carry? How many uh heavy boat? >> What do they call it? Rods. >> Yeah. >> How many rods? >> Um divided by 16. Um >> I'll get back to you. >> 12 rods. >> So yes, uh a bridge crossing is a big idea, right? Big ideas need to start in this document. This would take a lot in terms of permitting. >> I just was I'm not >> sold on the dock. >> Maybe we should hold off. I'm >> sorry. I I'll restrain myself. >> I have a lot of questions, too. >> We'll brace ourselves. >> Next. Area four. Area four. So, the furthest west I would say portion of the park, although actually right now, um part of the land that you're seeing in sort of green here, the blue boundary, this area, >> um is not formally part of Big Willow Park. Um, part of it is, uh, the existing Mills Landing Park, um, which sounds like a water access point, even though it's not. >> There are some old walls back between the parking lot and the creek there. So, it may have actually been a landing at some point. >> That's the issue. Yep, that's the issue. >> There's old timber walls up in there. But an idea that this plan puts forth is is kind of incorporating that piece of ex that little small park piece into Big Willow Park, connecting it through here along uh with um some of the recent private property acquisition that's happened right there. Um piecing this all together as one continuous park land. um which allows us to run these trails through. Uh looking at um expanding the parking that's there now, formalizing that a little bit more, having another four season restroom um with with a dog park associated fenced off leash dog park. >> Yep. So dog park off leash dog park. So a little background on the dog park. So, this was a post plan priority initiative was to study areas throughout our park system to identify locations for dog parks. Um, through the purgatory park master plan, as you're all familiar, um, we began a city-wide discussion about off leash dogs in the city. Um, through that process, a Minnotonka off leash dog strategy and guidance plan was created with the help of a community workg group. This happened last winter. that community work group um developed criteria to find the sort of the right characteristics of a potential dog park. Um we looked at through that community workg group process a sort of a more woody, you know, trails in the woods style dog park and what a what we're calling suburban or urban style fence dog park. So they they created through that workg group a variety of criteria and then the city council it was presented to the park board back in April of last year and that strategy was adopted by um the city council on May 5th. So in that document you'll see a uh highle criteria of what would make for a good dog park and it listed some parks that we would be studying through the master plan process in the future and considering those as options for dog parks in the future. Well, we're now at that point. So having this ex there's some benefits to this location and there's some drawbacks. So the benefits are there is existing parking there. It is at a key hub in the community with a lot of traffic nearby. It's generally accessible. There is ADA parking and a restroom opportunity in this location. It's generally centrally located in the city. Um it is as drawn here. This light green area is about an acre and a half or so, which all fits in the criteria of the community work group's ideal characteristics. Some concerns. Um, the plant community is not extremely diverse here, but there are some nice oaks, but it's a lot of buckthornne, so it's not what we'd consider a high quality e ecosystem, but it does have some nice oaks in that area. Um but it is right adjacent to Minihaha Creek. So there are cons some concerns about it being so close to the creek and as shown it is within about a 100 ft of neighboring properties which were identified through the community work group as a as a something to consider during this process. >> Houses are on the other side of >> Yep. So so we the city owns a couple lots here which are again are not part of Big Willow but then there are residential houses. This is Burwwell Drive through here. There, this is a culde-sac. There's residential houses just on the north side of the creek, both east and west of this proposed area. So, a little bit of background of why the off leash dog area is in this version of the plan at this point. >> And do you want at some point do you want to talk about why it was cut off there instead of I mean why it's placed exactly where it is? So the logic of the placement is to create a little bit more room for some additional parking. So this is again a highle master plan version of this. There would be a lot more >> if this was pushed forward there would be a lot more design that goes into this. But the logic was um additional parking and then there is wetland here. >> So there is a driveway to to the to the home that's still there but the city owns now. So the it's sort of an awkward cut off to the east because there is significant wetland through that area. >> Okay. >> But again, it would require significant design to figure it out further. >> Yeah. >> So midterm, long-term for this area, Eric? >> Yeah. So, um, that really looks more at again extending this these trail loops. Um, so Matt mentioned that the city actually owns three lots across the creek to the north there and they're not under they're undeveloped right now. So, we saw that as an opportunity to extend a trail up across there. Um, it almost aligns with a an existing trail head. Um so a short walk on the street would sort of connect that loop um for users and as we know we have a lot of people walking from that neighborhood into the park. Um uh of course exceeding the trail north would mean another bridge crossing. Um so you know this plan does look at again kind of rebuilding the one existing bridge and adding two more. Um I you know I think there's a lot of logic to having that happen here. The land available the grades um that I want to uh kind of call attention to that uh long-term. So, um, that brown dashed line to the west of the park, uh, which is around this sort of commercial strip, you know, we're just saying, you know, there's an opportunity to think about future development, redevelopment of that area, how some of these greenway and park amenities could maybe continue along the creek and connect over to um, um, Mitanka Mills Park. Um so uh you know at that point this becomes a little bit more of a a hub right for whatever redevelopment could happen there as well potentially. >> And I would like to point out this there's a bit of an error in the drawing here. Property lines are here. So these residential folks they own to the pavement edge here. So this dash line >> they do cross the creek. Yep. They cross the creek. So there's a we we meant to just say this area, but really we should have been more uh clear that >> um these residential parcels continue to right at the edge of pavement back here. >> So and so we can update that for a little more clarity there. Okay. Um a little bit I touched on this briefly design standards. So, there are some images in the document to sort of um get at some of the architectural concepts that we think would make sense in if we were to go move ahead with park shelters. Um some ideas for the boardwalk. Um there's there's a lot of detailing in there that showcases how we like to install trails for stability, for clearance, for maintenance, those sorts of things. So, a lot of that is is um almost cut and paste from our previous master plans at this point. Um but really, we like to have it as as part of a living document moving forward. those help us with the overall cost estimation. Um so the final items that get included in this plan um can have a dialed in cost um a little bit more. You'll see in the second or the second half of the document there's a recommendations matrix. So this is more about implementation. You'll see a variety of columns describing each element. Um that that number code system on the far left relates back to the figures. So they have sort of a coding system so you could find it. Um this is very high level draft at this point based on feedback we're getting from you folks. These could be removed entirely and then we have to consider the prioritization. Where does it make sense? Are these big dreaming ideas down the line or these things we feel uh need improvement um clo closer to the present than than out into the distant future. And then we like to uh uh highlight the associated guiding principles for each one of these elements to sort of give them weight. So overall next steps um this is just the draft master plan. Um this has been published on Minnotonka matters for feedback and we're already receiving feedback. I'm getting plenty of calls. Um all the comments will be compiled for review as part of the the evolution of this document. Um the final master plan would be update updated based on your feedback tonight. Um it'll be finalized later this spring and represented back to you folks and then depending on your recommendation it would eventually go to city council for adoption in the summer or so of this year. So with that we're ready to take some questions and hear some feedback. >> Yeah. And what I'd like uh we have people I think want to talk. We'll have the park board make comments or questions first and then open it up for people who want to make public comments and then depending on if there's still interest, we could come back to the park board for further comment. So with that, uh, any park board folks with questions or comments for Matt or Eric? >> Um, sure. Okay. Um the regarding having um >> let's let's try this too. >> Okay. >> If it works, let's try and do area by area. Would that make it easier too? >> Yeah, let's do it that way. >> Yeah. >> Um okay. To think about that. >> I'm not ready to talk. >> I'll do I'll [laughter] just make a high level comment. Um, I thought you did a fantastic job soliciting community input. Um, I think the recommendations do a good job of addressing the challenge, the highest priority challenges and dreaming up new cool things that could be added to the park. Um, that's great. Um, I assume you're looking for area by area input tonight. Okay. There's no vote tonight. It's just feedback. >> Yep. feedback, but these are things that >> the consultant is here to receive. You know, ideally, um, we're getting as much >> necessary changes to the document through this conversation. >> Yep. And I appreciate all the link backs to the postb plan and the natural resources plan um to ensure we're developing a healthy overall park system. >> Agreed. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> So, any comments or questions on area one? [clears throat] >> Yeah, I have one sort of comment or question. Um, it seems that extending that soccer field is a pretty heavy lift and probably very necessary so that you know, communities and soccer clubs and whatnot can use that area. I'm wondering if there was any consideration or if there might be any consideration of other athletic uses in the park right now just because there's already going to be a lot of work put into that spot. you know, are there community groups that were consulted about other sports, other things that could happen on such a large and being expanded open space? >> Sure. Well, we did reach out to our sports communities through our recreation and these are well-used fields. So, um, we didn't necessarily get a lot of ask for changing the programming on these particular fields knowing that they are well reserved and and well used by the community. So, at this point, we didn't recommend any changes uh beyond making it a regulation size soccer field. >> H how how much bigger was it? Length, width, both >> both. >> Primarily the width. Um, and I can't remember off the top of my head right now, but um, if you're familiar, you know, there's um, an existing asphalt trail just to the east of that kind of runs >> on the slope. >> So, we're looking at kind of, you know, extending this the the field itself. I want to say it was almost 15 feet or something to the east >> and then having to have a couple of stepped walls there to still keep a path along there and so it gets a little tighter. >> Um there would be some tree removal likely. There's a big beautiful silver maple here that would likely be impacted. Additional concerns, not just pushing it out this way, um how close the seat wall is to the sidelines over here and that there is asphalt there. I've been at games where that's a bit problematic that there's not a lot of runoff or room for the referees. >> But is there it's you're not you're not anticipating removing all those retaining walls? >> No. Everybody loves those retaining walls. >> So, it'll be just going trying to fit it to the east. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And in in our recommendations, it's repairing and replacing that wall. Um >> Okay. >> You know, we acknowledge that that works well. >> Yeah. Caleb. So, I see that it's a medium-term, but I this soccer space, but I also am wondering if it's consistently booked, why is it a medium-term? And also, what's as opposed to a long term? >> And then also, what's the potential benefit given that it's consistently booked >> from it being regulation? Yeah. Um I might have to defer to Kelly a little bit on the amount of the bookings and would enlarging it if it's already full. Do we need to enlarge it is the question? >> Definitely. I mean most of our fields are are booked at capacity. Uh especially soccer, baseball, softball are very booked. I think some of the things that we put on there, we put youth sports on there too. So if you make a a field bigger, we can divide that into smaller fields. So it gives you more options for more kids to to play. So, um, yes, it gives you regulation where you could maybe have other teams that aren't currently using it, but it also gives you just more space in general for multiple teams and multiple fields within a big field. >> Have we ever had to turn down a tournament or a game or not game would be too small, but because the size isn't regulation? >> I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay. >> Just curious. and and I do walk here um daily in the summertime and there are leagues I see the the co the wreck co-ed >> um but having a son who played competitively I I'm not seeing those teams out here. >> Okay. >> So I think yeah so I think by making it regulation size you might have more and soccer fields are in high demand right now. So I I I think it's a great addition. It is one of our lit fields, too, which adds use certainly on those warmer spring and fall nights. And >> um I noticed that replacing turf with native plants to minimize mowing and that kind of stuff was put as a long term and it I would suggest that if we're going to be ripping stuff up anyway. >> Sure. >> That we take the opportunity to seed or plant or whatever um >> just to get as many natives in as soon as possible. >> Yep. No, it makes sense. We want to be thoughtful about when when we do it and that we follow up and get that establishment of those areas and um but there's lots of opportunity there. Yeah, we can move that up. >> And I think it's unfortunate with the trees cuz I do enjoy watching all the kids playing in the trees. Um especially the one by >> um the sidewalk, if anyone has seen it, it's some kind of a pine and it's got like arms and branches and usually you see kids pretty much hanging out of it. Yeah. >> So something like that would be really desirable. Well, I've got another one on one if no one else does. Just um you don't have to go back to it, but uh and maybe it's all the little green blotches, but >> the one the very first slide you had of the area you had the safety ADA safety issues and erosion issues and and that that play area is just dominated by all those little nasty blue and yellow things. Uh is it is it that bad? I mean it looks like a war zone there. >> Yes, we we talked about that internally. It's a little dramatic. There are there are some more troublesome concerns where sidewalk heaves for instance. So a route comes through and there's a sidewalk heaving. So officially it would be considered a trip hazard. But those are things that we manage and maintain actively. Every year we're going out. >> So that's not part of the master plan. It's just fixing it now. >> Yep. It's while going through this process, we can inventory all that. >> Okay, great. And a lot of that is handled in our through our maintenance crew. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I think part of the way I think about is that you know these paved areas in the baseball pin wheel and up softball fields it's >> um if and when there's a larger investment in those what can be done to avoid these problems in the future because there is a lot of band-aid work that needs to happen in those. Um, so great. Thanks. >> Uh, this is a broader question having to do with the boardwalks and it's really sort of relevant to not only area one but throughout. I just have a question as to what are the environmental sort of concerns that you have to look at when you're building a boardwalk in terms of water quality, degradation of the existing wetland, you know, habitat destruction. What's the trade-off between that and the actual boardwalk? >> Sure. Great question. >> Yeah. So I can take that chair and park board members. So um our city ordinance does allow for boardwalks to be constructed in wetlands. Um it's not considered a really significant impact. Most of these wetlands are primarily [clears throat] cattails or reed canary grass which are frankly our invasive species. So they're not from a species perspective it's not that big of an impact. >> Not the cattails. >> Well >> cattails are invasive. >> Cat most of the cattails we have are invasive. a native one and a non-native. And >> yes, most of our cattails are considered invasive. >> Um so, uh you know, as long as you're maintaining the flow of the water, which usually happens because these boardwalks are elevated, >> um it's not that big of an issue. You know, you you're shading out some of the vegetation underneath. Um but to be honest, it's not it would be much more impactful if the trail were actually on the wetland than above the wetland. you you still are going to get some growth underneath it. Um you're you know you're not impeding water flow. So that's the most important thing when it comes to wetlands. Um it's you know frankly I think we often feel getting people out to experience the wetlands is outweighs any of the small impacts that you would see from it. >> There's been recent technology too where rather than burying big footings they do what's called helical peers. these big screws that they drive in the ground that don't disturb a lot of soil or compact the soil in the wetlands that minimize disturbance. There's timings of installation that help minimize those type of disturbance and then it offers us an opportunity to do restoration around those areas as well. >> Great. Thank you. And that's something that also um does get addressed in that design standard section which kind of sets some of those considerations um and and there's some references even there to some sustainable trail guidelines and kind of best practices for um designing and installing wetlands or boardwalks and wetlands. So yeah, if you're curious uh take a look at that, too. >> I I'm very excited about I forgot that was in area one. So, I'm glad you pointed that out because to me, the boardwalks are are a great addition. >> I remember back when there was a boardwalk that crossed the I'll call it the pond. Yep. >> And it was just always interesting to kind of go across that and be in [clears throat] in the in the environment, if you will. And it also is helpful if people want to avoid going down the hill. >> Correct. The steep asphalt hill. Um >> so rather than coming down here being able to get through here. Correct. >> Yeah. And it creates it kind of creates a non-game time another parking opportunity because you can park you could park up there and and create loops down into the you know the traditional walking paths and stuff. So I think that's pretty exciting. >> I think people who don't who've never driven back there don't probably know that all that parking exists. >> Yep. >> Um I didn't. I have to admit a lot there. >> Yeah. Yeah. Are you too >> on on on the entry >> uh parking? Can you describe more what that what the vision is for that S.1? So um so S1.1 is is a subdrive paving replacement and improvement that I think you guys have that scheduled for is >> yeah in the near future. So right now it's one lane in, one lane out. We would widen it so you have a right turn lane and a left leaving the park and then one lane for coming in. So >> make it a little easier for traffic to get out. >> And we have a lot of trucks and residents for the brush drop off coming in and out of that entrance too. So >> and then adjacent to that, you know, improving that existing parking lot by the >> uh playground which kind of is the front door, right? >> Mhm. Um, I think, you know, repaving that, uh, with concrete curb and gutter and pedestrian ramps and, you know, perimeter plantings and I think there's even probably the the ability to squeeze a few more stalls in there. Um, and just make it work a little bit better with the playground space, too. So, Katie, >> one more highle comment before we go to area two. Um, so I'm finding it challenging to give feedback without any cost estimates yet because they all seem like great ideas when they're free [laughter] >> or when they're all equivalent. Yep. Um, will that come in the next round the plan? Yeah. So that does take some effort. So measuring trail distances and all this stuff. So um, the thought was lock in the big ideas and then in the next version have better estimations. >> Right. >> And we usually do a cost range on those anyway. you know, this is the planning level cost. Um, so >> long-term things that we're saying might happen in 20 years, who knows what materials will cost at that point. >> Area two north of the tracks. >> Well, I guess I'll start off again. And I think the boardwalk uh through the wetlands there is great for the looping purpose because I've done that out and back several times although I do occasionally [clears throat] cross the railroad tracks. Um but uh I'm just curious on area three you show an awful lot of the informal trails that are up in the hill but here you don't show the informal trails right where your pointer right where your pointer was. >> Um >> back in here. Yeah, there is. So, there is the old mill earth work back there, and there's >> some mountain biking trails that we see pop up every now and again that we get some complaints about. Um, but yeah, there are some trails in there that we could >> identify key primary ones that we'd want to >> or they're informal, but because they're as significant as that little teeny loop >> up there, just up a little more to the right. That was Yeah, they're the same same width and all that. >> That's true. And yeah, this is a big area of park. PE, we know there's trails in here. Yeah, >> people are going to go through there. So, we should sanction some of those. Yep. >> We have all that mapped out, too. >> Katie, no. Okay. So, I think go to area three. Well, I'll continue on with my little rant about the >> the landing um for the canoes or water >> water things. Um when I've canoed down the creek, I've gotten out at Barewell School and or any Dina. This is this doesn't seem to be very convenient. Uh, it's far from if you've got a heavy canoe, you're not taking your nice fiberglass 70 lb canoe down the creek, probably 35 lb canoe down the creek. You're taking something heavy and that can hit stuff. >> Mhm. >> Um, so I I would just take out the landing personally. Okay. >> So, with that note, we we do describe it as a landing, but I think some of the intention there is creek access. So, we know that >> um children want to get in the creek. >> Okay. >> Um people want to experience the creek. Um when I help design the the Burwell House gardens, we put in some stones that sort of >> step down towards the creek and I always see people standing out there taking pictures. So the idea is to >> stabilize some access whether or not you're lifting a canoe in and out. Your kids are maybe splashing around when the water's flowing. >> And and if you have the picnic structures, people could canoe the >> the picnic. >> Yeah. >> And we know we know people are going to get to the water. So we we design and stabilize it in a way that says here's the best spot for that. >> Okay. I just wouldn't sell it as a >> semantics. Um, okay. And then is the idea to have both the parking at the far right >> and the one in the middle long-term? That seems like >> we have parking over on section one. We've got two parking lots here and another one in four >> and one up in three. >> Really, this parking is related to whether or not we want to do reservable picnic shelters. If we want to do reservable picnic shelters, these parking lots >> even this are are too far away >> and too small. >> Wait, which one? The >> So, the existing one over here, >> right? >> And then the Mills Landing one which has no trail connection currently through it. So, if we were interested in reservable community picnic shelters, we would need some parking nearby. [clears throat] The appropriate amount of stalls and those sorts of things would need to be designed. >> Okay. So, I'm just wondering if then could we decommission the one on the far >> this one >> is it needed? >> Well, it's real popular. >> Don't do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I hear you. These are expensive bits of infrastructure. They're impervious surfaces. They're extrabuilt things. So, we have to make a good case of why we would use them. >> The the the the 3.1 is also does that have the four season restroom? >> That would Yes. Yes. So, so the way the way the way I would suggest that when we look at that that part of area three, we look at the picnic structures as part of the investment because it's if you don't have the picnic structures, you don't need the parking, you don't need the four season. So, you need to look at that as do we want to spend that much money for picnic structures. That's what's driving the other that's just a suggestion to think of it that way. It >> makes sense, >> Caleb. Uh so I was looking at uh S3.1 which is the uh replace and realign of the existing bridge to achieve assess accessible trail grades. >> Yep. >> And then of course that impacts S3.2 2, which here is described as um a project whereby there's uh gravel added to a primary trail to improve connectivity and stabilize the shoreline PRN as necessary. And then of course we have a existing trail in bold white I guess on the other side of the >> of the bridge that I I I'm going to ask is would that be also ensured to be kind of accessible product uh to terrain you know covering and in in general uh could you help me understand better what what it would take or what what it might look like after the S31 is is uh the work is done. >> Yep. So, the issue with S31 is it's high off the creek to allow for flow and it's sort of beautiful that way, but that creates these really steep slopes on each side. So, there would be significant grading around those bridge abutments to pull that grade out. So, it'd be softer essentially. So there would be additional fill and those abupman slopes would be pulled out in either direction to soften them. Um so there would be but it would the goal would be ADA accessibility if we could manage it which is a 12 to1 slope which ends up still feeling pretty steep but certainly not as steep as it is out there. Now, part of the challenge with accessibility is how um snow and ice builds up and it's hard for our crews to stay on top of it. It gets walked so frequently that that snow gets packed down immediately and then we have a difficult time getting it off. So, those those grades and how much of that is potentially paved to allow us to scrape it and clean it better. That would be part of that design process. Um, and yes, this the trail on the north side of the creek through here is a fairly level grade. I don't think we need to augment that much at all >> till you get to the north south part of it. >> So, it makes that bend. It's it goes up a hill there a little bit right above >> P2. Yes. Yeah. >> That's what that area is paved because it was a little steeper. So, we had wash out problems. So, that section is paved. >> Yep. I think to you to avoid the the you can see how many um [clears throat] topo lines it crosses. >> Yep. >> You could go around the bottom in the mucky part maybe >> down here. You mean? >> Yep. >> Yeah. So there there is a foot path through there. There is even a bench with a Yep. >> swing over the creek >> rope. >> Yep. You see how eroded those shoreline get over time. >> Yeah, that'd be hard. >> Stabilizing it and being thoughtful about that where necessary. Well, um, as Jennifer pointed out several meetings ago, 3.1 has to happen because you can't get, you know, even an able-bodied person with grippers on their shoes if it's icy has a challenge going up and over that that that arc. >> Um, your 3.2 yellow line is um is really just making the existing because that's a pretty good size path now, but it's making it better. >> Yes. My concern there. You see the way the creek bends here, the creek wants to [laughter] eat that slope, right? >> So the more foot traffic we get on there, there are some memorial benches that are now oddly perched up because there's a significant amount of erosion there. >> So >> looking at that really carefully in terms of the appropriate width and stability of that trail, >> I Eric might have mentioned that it would be, you know, ideally 8t wide. I don't think that's ultimately practical through a lot of that slope in there. Um, I don't know that we'd be able to get it that wide without significant impacts to the trees through there, but stabilizing it to make sure that human foot traffic isn't eroding that slope into the creek. >> And and my other personal plug would be, you know, you have in some of these you show interpretive sign positionings and stuff. I would really put a plug in for the interpretive signing on the homestead just above the parking lot because that unless you're going to knock down all those pill those pillar the brick pillars and the footings. >> It just it begs what is this thing? What was it? It's really cool. >> It's a cool cool spot. >> That's why we like to showcase the historic aerials in the document to show that that house was there and you get a lot of questions. I love stumbling upon old remnants of that sort of thing in the woods. It tells a story from the past >> there. There was some information in the design guidelines about um the bridges. I didn't really maybe I didn't get to the right part, but um would there be enough headroom so that you can actually get a canoe with humans in it underneath? >> That would be an absolute necessity when we would have to permit that project with the wershed district. I would imagine we'd need a permit for that. um flood, making sure that any new bridge abutments couldn't restrict flooding at all. That's a big red flag, but that allows for lots of bounce in that creek. You see how much change it happens when they open the dam. So, yep. >> Yeah. >> Making sure. >> I can remember going through some culvert where we had to lie down to get through. >> That was in a different town than >> Yeah, that was a dinos. >> I think it was not Minnitonaka. Okay. Um, all right. I'm I'm done. I I'd like to say that um I really like the second crossing. I think it's it's nice to have >> new use areas uh further out and again it's a very condensed in the play in the ball fields and the play area and the soccer field. So, this is kind of a nice new user group. You know, we'll have to look at the costbenefit analysis of the pigment shelters and what kind of re revenue they could bring in to offset some of those. >> But, you know, I I'd love to put my kayaks in and trying to find a good spot and and to me carrying a kayak, you know, that distance wouldn't be a big deal. So, I hear what you're I hear what you're saying with a canoe certainly. Um, but my my little 9- FFT kayaks, um, this would be a really nice amenity as another access um to to get on cuz I always see people going as I'm standing on that bridge going down like I want to be one of you guys. I want to go down >> with it. But it was like trying to find where do I put in and and seeing that this is like an authorized public land um might encourage >> users like us. >> Best place is right here. You know the spot the spot right down by watering. >> Oh, it's right at the end of the road where the wood bridge here right going to Brad's probably. >> You know what? I do know that. >> Yeah, that's that's because you short walk. >> Yeah, you're right. I do know about that. But I want one closer to home. >> Okay. And and something that I don't know if we've communicated very well today, but I think hopefully comes through in the document is, you know, 3.2, 2 3.3 another bridge at 3.1 or L3.1 I should say potentially um you know any of that stuff it's about kind of recognizing and formalizing you know recognizing the creek as a recreational resource here um there's there's a lot of erosion issues right on this pot this spot and a lot of that's because it is just these sort of bare slopes where people want to get down to the water they're scrambling up and down >> so some of this you know we even describe you know some stone block terracing and things like that that you know create places to climb, play, sit. Um, and if there's ways to integrate an easy way in and out of the water there for waiting or >> [clears throat] >> um a kayak, I think that's that's kind of more what we're looking at. And I So, we can maybe tweak our our language a little bit to hammer some of that home. I have one last question. the very top end of that map. Um, you don't show the I'll call it a trail, the trail that goes right along the railroad tracks on the north side. Is that because it's in a rideway and it's not supposed to be there or because that's it's only like 8 ft wide >> and you could drive a truck down it >> um and that that creates the loop that that allow you make a circle around the top. Is that is that intention? >> I think it's an oversight, Dave. I think >> Okay. So, you can put that in. Yeah, but >> that would be good to show. >> And something that we are those P1 and P2, those are there's a few of these spots where we've talked about implementing some new signage um to try and deter people from crossing the tracks. >> Yeah. >> Both in this part and actually all areas. >> But that trail is really prominent and it loops loops down right behind your >> What everybody does is they'll turn here and go this way. >> Yeah. >> Yep. We should be showing that. >> Yeah. Okay. That'd be great. Other comments on three before I get to the really good one. >> Um I I think signs will probably there are already signs. I [clears throat] it's pretty easy to look away. So I think that the answer is to make it user friendly to do something else than walk across the tracks. So I >> Yeah. Um, >> right. >> And I I don't I'm not sure what else to do that we've already not, you know, beyond what we've done. But you have to make it easy for people to do the correct thing. >> Easy and pleasant. >> Yep. >> A mural underneath the railroad bridge. >> Graffiti down there. I'm sure there's some already. Well, I was thinking of tiles or something. >> I don't know. >> Well, I think the challenge is for the some years it's two two plus months where that's flooded. >> And in that time of year, I it's going to be nice to have be able to do loops on the north side, but you're still going to have people go, I you know, I want to extend my walk. So, >> can I can I ask was there any sort of consideration for what the next best legal route is from that north area into the main park? >> We're really limited by the condition of the track there, how elevated it is in the one crossing. Are you suggesting some sort of bridge or some other crossing? I'm just wondering if if there was sort of consideration of like formalizing a next best route, but >> maybe there is not one. >> There isn't one. >> The railroad authority really has like very strong authority over this. They wouldn't entertain anything like that. and a a bridge over. There are some there's one down in Burnsville's sort of area that you have to go up pretty high. Really high to walk over. It would >> Oh, yeah. >> Definitely wouldn't be accessible. >> You have the loose line as well that's really high. >> Yeah. >> So, >> it could be done. It would be expensive and it'd be a lot easier to cheat and run across the tracks. But you didn't hear me say that. >> It's not on. [clears throat] >> Okay. Area four then. >> So, in the interest of I'll just leap in if I may. Um, in the interest of saving some money, we could somehow encourage people to walk by all these nice local businesses and spend some money and then cross at Bridge Street and walk down Burwell Drive >> to get to enter this park entrance. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, this is existing >> because that's what we used to do in the old days. We recognize that this is a big idea. You know, we were just looking holistically at a loop system >> and we manage. >> I understand the coolness of it. I also remember in wet springs it's very wet in there >> back in here. Yep. That's why we own these parcels cuz I think they're tough to build. I I don't know if you'd need an elevated walkway or um I don't think it's wet enough for a boardwalk, but it's in that [clears throat] um awkward middle stage of >> mushy. Y >> I appreciate that you're looking for other off leash dog areas. the the con that you said that it's 100 ft away from houses seems like a really big con and I think you have other ideas for other spots that are central that might >> there is a list of other park options in that community dog strategy >> y >> one we did say through the master planning of big willow we would consider a location >> and it's worth commenting that this a a very different kind of dog park experience from what we have in purgatory. [clears throat] It's >> Yes. This is the traditional fenced in higher traffic of one small dog, one large dog area >> and it couldn't go further east because that's wetlands. >> Yes, it is wetland. There's a bit of a ridge and then the house through here, >> but I don't know that we'd want to neck it down in any weird way and it really couldn't push out into here. >> Okay. >> It's very soggy. >> Yeah. Ryan, >> um just since since it is an area so close to local businesses, I'm I'm first wondering if there is any existing area plans because I think you had earlier mentioned the chance of that area being redeveloped. I wasn't sure if that was formal or just could be. And then also because some of those are food places was an alternative to having a dog park there, moving picnic areas closer to existing restaurants and food service. >> Sure. I'm not aware of a small area plan for this, but we are going through a big conversation about um zoning in the city and what we're calling village centers. And this would be one of the village centers in the city. We don't have a downtown. So, this is one of them. Um, but I'm not aware of an existing area plan for this. Um, what was your second question? >> Yeah. And then, and then I was wondering just since there were picnic areas offered, but we had had some discussion about if that was the right place for them. So currently there is in this little red rectangle here there is a few picnic tables that people do walk down and use and then there is um gazebo >> that folks walk across and they sit in that gazebo too. So there is some options to >> show me where the gazebo cone. >> Where's the gazebo? >> My station. The gazebo's just off the map here. Just just over bridge >> the other. >> And then there's a few picnic tables on the lawn right here currently. >> It's right behind the between the car wash and the parking lot. >> Parking lot. >> Sort of inconspicuous. Matt and I band banded around a lot of ideas for that little commercial strip, you know, smaller plan. So, but of course that's kind of above and beyond the scope of park master planning, but >> that's why I wanted to throw this in here to hopefully get a process started there to think about how those parcels could be redeveloped >> um to kind of better fit within this greenway concept along the creek. You know, I mean, all those businesses right now are, let's see, the the parking is on the creek side. >> Mhm. >> And the building frontage is on the busy road. >> Mhm. >> Right. With no buffers or anything. Um, you know, I think that whole area could be kind of rethought. So, and and I do think that, you know, as that uh if and how that gets looked at, you know, thinking about how that could affect the layout of these amenities with the park, you know, and the dog park, that should kind of be considered too, cuz maybe that's what you're getting at too is more like if there's a future, you know, fivetory mixeduse, you know, development with residential, does the dog park move closer to that or something? You know these I mean those are you have your planner hat on. I know but uh you know uh I think those are good questions. Um >> so if you build a dog park here how can it be fit into a future redevelopment there too? Right. >> I hope the people who own those businesses little antennas are up. I mean to me that it shouldn't be bandied about quite so blullly but >> redevelopment. >> Yeah. I don't know. >> Sure. just >> okay I they've they've been those have been there for a long time and there's certainly sort of >> it mostly came out of the conversation that you know the the trail connection right now is at the back of the curb on the north side of Nanka Boulevard basically so you're right on the street >> right >> and that's your main connection between these parks >> on Makka Boulevard and it's just too bad that that's not on the creek y so that that was basically what we were talking Yeah, because when you do go down to behind the Dairy Queen to the creek, which I now realize might be someone else's property >> through here. >> It's really It's really, you know, my grandkids love to go down there and stand in there while they're eating their Dairy Queens. >> Yep. Um but uh I do liken this to regardless of what all happens the idea of extending what's it M M42 you know just extending the path down >> you know any anything you can do to create longer longer trail runs is a good thing in my mind. So that's that's a positive. So regardless of the the dog area, we could provide a trail connection to this existing parking lot. So you could walk with your Dairy Queen, not along the sidewalk of Taka Boulevard into the park. >> And we are planning to demolish that house in the winter. >> Other questions or comments on area four? It kind of it kind of moves it from area 4 to the the feasibility of it um if we didn't go with the picnic areas. Is there enough space or topography for potential moving the dog park in that area? >> We had considered that as well. We would need parking if we were going to do a formal off leash dog area. We would need parking through that area. There's more topography there. And from a ecological perspective, there's a lot of white and burr oaks in that area, which are some of our apex species. Um, and disturbing underneath them is tough. >> And that would be a larger area. >> It would be larger. Yeah, >> we can look into it per park board direction. >> Where you What area you talking about? >> If you could go back two part um area >> that area. So, how much active restoration has been done there? >> Well, we've done quite a bit of buckthornne mowing >> um both east in both east and west directions. And just on this side along this trail here, there's been significant volunteer efforts over the years. Um, in terms of our our goal in Oak Savannah, this lawn through here that could be easily sprayed out and restored into prairie grasses and Oak Savannah habitat um fit amongst these potential shelters. In in theory, [clears throat] we could have both. I guess I'm always a I don't want one or the other. I want both kind of a person. >> I don't know. both where? >> Well, could we have both looking at a potential dog off leash area as well as some um picnic areas in there? And that's >> You mean to compare them >> um >> or both in the same spot >> in the same vicinity? So, you know, we've got some picnic shelters >> that 3 L32. >> You know, do we need to have what am I counting? Four shelters there. um one, two, three, four, which is a a a fair amount um in a close proximity based on my regional park and state park background. >> Um >> but you know, could one or two with the dog park, you know, I I don't know what the I am seeing a lot of gray there. >> There is a lot of up and down through here. >> Yeah, >> this is low through there was a house here and there was a house. >> Where's the chimney over to the left? Right there. Right here. Okay, that was my guess. >> I haven't walked in that area a lot cuz I >> It's really nice. >> Well, because I don't know if it's public or private, so I get kind of funny about that. You know, >> don't let that stop you. >> I know too much. I know too much to to to not want to do that. So, now that I'm seeing this as all public, >> there's a lot of folks that walk. You You walk in the snow, you [clears throat] see a lot of tracks. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It'll be my weekend activity. So to get familiar with it, but just just throwing it out there, you know, to kind of have that separated use a little bit. >> We could study further this area. >> How could we fit off leash dogs in this area in favor of picnic or no picnic, less picnic shelter seems to be what we're hearing. Um, we could certainly redefine this and move off leash area over here potentially. I think for me, I want to hear what the public is here and what their concerns are. I'll be honest, I didn't get a chance to look at all the the comments in the amend uh addendum. >> Mhm. >> And so I'm just making assumptions and so they could be right and they could be off. So I just thought it was worth asking before we open it up to the public >> and whenever you find it. Yeah, >> I'm I'm okay with looking at it, but I we had agreed that higher quality habitat would um was our last choice for where to put a dog park. >> Yeah. In the terms of the p criteria. >> Yep. >> If I could just add um chair and park board. So, according to our natural resources master plan, which I don't have up here, but that area um that he's referencing regarding picnic shelters is generally uh it's all low qual considered lowquality habitat >> and or and then there's turf. >> Yeah. Turf grass here now. >> Turf grass. >> So, the only really higher quality of some of those trees. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think looking at expanding the use around that specific area helps justify the expanded parking Sure. >> in that spot as well. And so just sort of >> based on that, I think it's a good area to look into. Mhm. >> Well, my I guess if we're commenting that much, I'll I'll throw my two cents in on a and again, I don't know how this works well for the plan, but um as I said earlier, I think you really have to look at this little center part here as an investment around picnicking. You know what I mean? because you're doing four season garage, four season park uh restroom plus the additional parking for to support the picnic structure. So, you just want to make sure you we should be looking at the bundle investment if you will. >> Sure. >> This area is actually always been my preference for the additional off leash dog areas. You kind of know I think the the rolling topography, the openness that already exists is is good. It's a larger footprint for that offensed in off leash area. Um, so I don't know if if that's still a consideration to look at a either or comparison. Um, if we're really interested in the picnic structures, I think Ryan's Ryan's idea of maybe the picnic structures moved to where the proposed off leash area is, which is adjacent to two things. the parking plus you could uh support the local businesses and and go over to the picnic whatever. So I would be open to evaluating that as well. And I think I it's a it's a little it's a bigger footprint. I think you could expend a little bit to the east and the west there. I do have a question. The bend in the bend in the creek higher. Yeah. That that is that's pretty much wetlands, isn't it? >> Yeah. So you really can't This is all open. No, but [clears throat] but on this side of the creek, is that usable or is that wetlands? >> There is this like pocket depression here. This must have been an old channel that came through here. So, this is real low and shrubby through here. >> But if you if that were to become an off leash area in that vicinity, that would probably be still not usable. >> This would be really tough. I don't know that we could fence this. That's what I thought. This is like upland. You can sort of see the coloration here. >> So, really, it's this upland bit. the rest is pretty soggy. >> So, that would be that would be my my feedback relative to uh a preferred use. And then you certainly alleviate some of the concerns of homeowners along Burwell Burwell Drive >> maybe >> roadwell >> drive >> drive. >> Caleb, so perhaps this would be accomplished with the S3.4 four um kind of upgrades. But I do think the benefit of M3.1, even if there's a it's a later point in time that there's a picnic shelter expansion, is that it would provide uh parking at M31 for people who aren't there in any capacity for sport >> use. >> They're there to simply uh enjoy the nature trails. And even that's a bit of a concern with 3.4 for S3.4 is that that might that may be already uh kind of effectively overflow for sport. >> Yep. >> So then um M3.1 provides effectively a nature specific trail use kind of parking space. So to me that would um in my mind necess necessitate elevating it um >> elevating 3 3.1. >> Yeah. From like a M to to maybe an S. Okay. >> Then then to to focus area four and this is just a more of a broad idea. I guess we all uh or we we know from from um [clears throat] the post that places for off leash dogs is a priority, but I don't know that we want to, you know, try to fit a square peg in a round hole because there may be other places, other parks that we're going to go through master planning that really do have great they have terrible space and but they're nowhere near neighbors. Yep. >> Right. Uh and so just [clears throat] because it's it's slotted in here doesn't necessarily mean that we should think it has to go there, but then we would just keep it elevated. Okay, next ma master plan. Is there a better space? And uh in part maybe you guys are already thinking that ahead of us because this is what you live and breathe. So, you might be able to inform us on the next round. Uh, we heard some of the concerns. Here's some other limitations to move it elsewhere within this specific park. But just so you know, we've got some probably really nice opportunities at other centrally or west or I'm sorry, eastern eastern northern uh locations. And I I thought I was done, but I had another thought. When I when I do go to the park, especially in the off seasons, there is a limited uh restroom >> opportunities. And so I'm like, okay, it's going to be embarrassing to say, but can I make it home? >> Yeah. >> You know, and what are what are the what are the pit stops? And if especially if we're after October 15th, I don't know if that's your deadline, but it's about that time, >> you know, then I don't have the middle of the the middle of the play field. So having something >> um within the park for four seasons, I I guess I wanted to put a plug in for that regardless if it's at S24 or at M31. having a four seasons. I know it's more maintenance and it's more upkeep, but we need to have that for the the hiking trail areas. >> There's definitely a need. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, >> yeah. It also amazes me that if we can have a whatever you call enclosed portaotti at Roland Road. >> Yep. >> We ought to be able to have one at 3.4. >> Yeah. I would >> I think it gets more more use than Rand Road does. So, >> yeah. I I agree. So there's a big demand whether it's portable but ideally flushable year round. So I wanted to put a plug in for that regardless of what we end up with. >> Got it. >> Other questions or com? I have a comment to make before we go to open it up, but anything else? I I just wanted to echo what Katie said. Um I think uh this you know master plan is terrific. I think there's a lot of really good ideas. As I said earlier, for those who were on the park board three years ago, to me, the purgatory master plan, which was our first park master plan, was really disappointing because it was a single issue plan. It really wasn't a master plan. It was a really great effort, hard effort, but it was around a single issue. This one you can clearly see a lot of creativity and a lot of really great ideas around um you know taking what's already I think a exceptional piece of geography park into something that's at a whole another level assuming assuming we can afford it and do it. Um so I wanted to compliment the staff and consultant and everyone on that effort and uh kind of see where it goes. So with that we'll open into public uh comment and if if if the parkour wants we can talk some more after that but for those that want to how many people want to comment so we just know. Okay. So if you can just take turns coming up and I think you should state your name and uh you don't have to your address anymore but if you're a resident or not and if you're what ward you're in although I think we probably know what ward you're in. So, whoever wants to go first. >> Okay, come and go. >> And maybe you should put area forward up. Area four up. >> I'm guessing >> I'm guessing it's around area based on reading the end of full park. >> Hi, I'm put microphone on. >> Sure. >> I've been I've been Thank you. >> Okay. Hey, I'm Claudia Gunlock. I live on Burwell Drive. I live that um say 100 ft from where the the dog park or the Mills Landing is going in. Upper Mills Landing is um on it. >> You don't see my house on any of the maps. I'm not sure why that is. >> But you're one of these lots that's along >> I'm the lot on the edge of the the the city property. >> Okay. Oh, that one. Okay. Um, so I'll try to make it shorter than I wrote. Um, one question I had was, is there still a city plan for the creek to be meandering? At one point many years ago, there was, you know, the city had wanted to buy up the properties along the creek so that they could allow meandering of the natural flow of the waterway. I'm not familiar with plans. If there were, there in the past that >> Okay. So, I'm gonna just I was guessing that just went away at some point um when the city spent their the money that they'd gotten for buying up green space in Minnetonka. >> Um because I know that that was voted on. Um, most of the most of the residents wanted money spent not necessarily on development of recreation and parks, but just to have green space in the city. That's what I like. So, that's my leaning. Um, I kind of looked over this and I felt that there were just a lot of changes. If everything was done, that was just going to be way too much paving and development of uh Big Willow Park, which I my understanding is is a um Big Willow is a natural preserve. >> It's a community park and natural preserve. Most of our community parks are natural also preserves. And I I understand that it's not the large, it's a smaller >> smaller one and it looks like it just is drawing a lot of development for being a preserve. >> Um spec now I'll get to specifically about the dog park. >> Um I'm very concerned that a an enclosed dog park with a high concentration of predators in an area more than not more than 60 feet from a creek is um going to be very detrimental to the the wild the wildness of a creek corridor because a any waterway, any creek is an animal or a a wildlife corridor. um animals, birds, mammals, fish, whatevers do come up from the Mississippi and go to Lake Benitona via uh Minihaha Creek. It's a pretty if if you live on it, you pretty much know it's an animal highway. So if you're if you set in a lot of um I'm afraid anyway if you set in a lot of dogs every day there will be a group of dogs doing dog stuff barking having a little noise. Hopefully not they won't be wild but it's going to have an impact on the wildlife and the birds that use this creek all the time. um animals like great blue herand and egrets and some of the ducks, wood ducks, uh deer, they don't like to be around groups of animals. They can tolerate people in, you know, the low numbers that the um they come across in the park, but to kind of have a a smell and a presence of animals might be a deterrent for wildlife to use that habitat that they do use now. Um, I noticed in in November there was a um on that Mills Landing the land on the slope was cleared. Um, and they did start to clear out even the brush and the the fallen trees, but that's actually habitat for a lot of animals that you know you just don't see. I live there. I see them. So, just thought I'd inform inform you guys of that. Um, so I'm not just I just don't think I mean I just I would like to see a study done on whether a dog park is a good idea near wetlands and near the creek corridor. Um, and I didn't I didn't see anything mentioned that there'd be an environmental impact plan or a whatever. Maybe that's already that's a thing you guys do. I just didn't see it there. Uh the other thing when I when I read through this, I did get pretty confused. And I I did only have like a day and a half to look at this and then try to write something and work up, you know, oh, I don't want this by my property, but wait a minute, what's really going on? Um so if I'm a little disjointed, I apologize. Um, but when I looked at it, I saw one map that has it's the I guess the future plans, the dream plan of but there's a trail, a paved trail going through my property. I wasn't thrilled with seeing that. That seems a little um uh I don't know. Suspect. Yeah, that's it. Um I I realize now that that wasn't uh that's not in a in a plan, but um it is it was a little disconcerning especially because the grade would not accept a paved trail. The one one of the other maybe concerns I have here is that there the bridge that's proposed by Mills Landing uh in the in the future um and would go through the one of two or three of the parcels that the city owns. >> Right here on the map. Yeah. >> Right here on the map. >> Yeah. >> Um it right there on the map. It goes through two little sections of wetland that are generally underwater. at least one of them is underwater most of the year. Um, so that didn't quite I don't know. It seemed like it wasn't planned out quite right. It would the trail would probably have to go straight up to the street. And then what it ends up doing is splitting our neighborhood in half. It and five of those houses or five or six of the houses would be encircled by trail by park trails. Um, and I have concerns that uh people would be instead of parking on the Minnotonka Boulevard side, they just come down Burwell Drive and park on the street. We get a few people who do that anyway because of the entrance at the end of our block. >> Um, >> it's narrow, too. >> It's pretty narrow. There wouldn't there isn't room to have even with one Well, with one car, I think it's okay. Um, but if you get up to Bridge Street, if anybody's parking up there, people park on that bridge, they park on one side, they park on both sides. Um, and it's illegal. The city doesn't do anything about it. I'm not sure why. [clears throat] Uh, but it does concern us because we are you have to go over a bridge to get into our neighborhood and it's our only entrance and exit out of our neighborhood. Um, and emergency vehicles need to get through. I think that's another issue. Anyway, it breaks up the neighborhood. And then I also noticed with some of the um I'll reread this and try to get to understand this a little bit better. When I read what the the park board survey came up with was that 82 of the respondents um feel the Big Willow offers the amenities they're looking for now and that um 76% felt access was good enough. Now that leaves others who don't feel that way. Um 21% would like a dog park. 26% would like more parking. 20% would like more green space. And I think what that all came down to was that we're putting a lot of demands on this parcel these parcels of land and u not everybody's going to get uh everything they want unfortunately. So anyway, that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And I should have commented too generally in the public whatever this is called the public comment area. Yeah, >> we appreciate your comments. We don't respond traditional typically >> to the comments here, but but we we work with staff through on that. Thank you. >> Okay, that's >> good feedback. >> Yeah, thanks. >> Sorry, I get nervous. >> Sam, you did good. >> I didn't cry. >> That's a good We do appreciate your feedback. I think I got that on right. Hi everybody. I'm Ethan Everest. I live in Minnetonka. Um I just want to say first of all that I think this is a really exciting plan to have um Big Willow looked at more closely. I'm in there every day. I have kids. We we swim in the creek. We play baseball at the Willow Park. Excited about new concessions. Uh because I operate the hot dog roller sometimes. Um and so I think there's a lot of really positive things here. Um for the community and for the park as a whole. A couple things that I'm just concerned about. I mean at the beginning somebody mentioned Big Will is a big community park and it is relatively but it is the smallest community park in Minnetonka >> and effectively it's cut in half by the railroad. A lot of that means there's there's a northern part and a southern part. The southern part is getting a lot of attention which makes sense. It's not Minnitonka Boulevard but it means that it's getting very dense with a lot of the the aspects that are being put into it. And I think one of the things that people really value about Big Willow is that it is open. Um, you can walk around people. We walk our dogs in there all the time. We love it. Uh, you get to see wildlife. And the more structures that are built and put in place, the less you can sort of navigate in the open space of the park. And I think that's one thing people really enjoy. Um, specifically to the dog park, um, I I have some specific concerns about that. Um, you know, one of which is that it's very close to the creek itself. I don't know if there's been any discussions with the watershed about concerns about um, not just, you know, even the residents nearby, but with runoff into the creek. And I know that part of the plans were to have maybe more access for kids downstream to be in the creek. And as somebody who has kids that play in the creek, I'm not super thrilled about like a dog park being directly above where my kids might be playing in the creek. Um, and even though it's spread out a ways, I mean, there is there's data that says look, if you're within x amount of distance of a dog park, that waste can actually cause ecoli. You hope that people pick up dog after their dogs, but you know, hope springs eternal, but reality is people don't. We get a lot of rain that just gushes right into the creek in that area. Um, and so I would say I I was happy to hear some discussion about maybe moving where the dog park is either whether that's within Big Willow or you know whether it's somewhere else just given if there is a better location that is not right on the creek for I think some of those ecological concerns but also just space. Um, and again the openness of Big Ba I think is something that makes it really valuable. So that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for letting us speak. I'm part of the neighborhood on Burwell Drive. And uh before I get into the >> Your name? >> Oh, sorry. Brad Olsen. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to make a comment about one of the other areas just real quick. Um, there is a uh the discussion around the picnic areas. That is really a beautiful spot. I could see that being a picnic area where somebody mentioned the chimney >> uh that's there. Yeah. And there's topography there. So, if it ever was that the dog park got moved to that location, there's a hill in between. Most people probably know that. So, just something for consideration. But that is a lovely spot overlooking the creek there. So that's that. But mostly I want to talk about area 4 and the proposed dog park mostly. Um so uh the city actually bought our property and it was part of the green space there where the where the proposed bridge would go and all that. >> So I got a little experience on the creek for the last 40 years on Burwell Drive in a couple different locations. So I know the area pretty well. Um, I think uh what I want to do is just read briefly what one of our other neighbors uh De's husband Pete wrote this and I thought it was very good. And so I'm mostly just going to do this real quick and then just conclude with a couple of comments. So the proposed dog park is undersized relative to comparable facilities in the area and is located immediately adjacent to Mitaka Boulevard, a hightraic arterial roadway. This sighting creates a foreseeable and elevated safety risk that is inconsistent with generally accepted park design and risk mitigation. Dog park incidents most commonly involve escape at gates or perimeter fencing due to latch failure, human error, digging, jumping, or leash slippage. In this location, there's no meaningful setback or buffer between the dog park and the active traffic lanes. Any escape would place a dog directly into vehicular traffic within seconds, creating a high consequence hazard that is not reasonably mitigated by standard fencing or doublegate systems alone. There's just one more paragraph. Additionally, continuous traffic noise and visual stimulation increase canine stress and reactivity, particularly in a small constrained park. This increases the likelihood of escape behavior and conflicts. Dog parks located within interior park areas or buffered by natural space provide greater safety margins and reduce exposure to these risks. Relocating or setting back the dog park would materially reduced foreseeable safety concerns and potential liability. And I actually lived this out um I don't know if it was 101 15 years ago. I was coming back on the trail right along Minnetonka Boulevard about to go on Bridge Street to go down Burwell Drive. [snorts] And uh before I turned on to Bridge Street, a guy had his little Westy in his arms. It escaped, ran out into the street, got mowed over by a car, dog died. Uh the the man and his son were there. So I've seen it. And so that's why I think this makes sense. I could see how this could be not a good location for for that reason. its location along a busy road and it is a busy road. There's >> we hear sirens from squad cars and fire trucks and all that. So I also don't think that coming out there at Shady it's basically that parking lot most of you probably know that's at the intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and Shady Oak Road. And I don't really think getting in and out of there is really all that great. Um it's it's a little tough getting in and out of there I think. So, I just have a couple of other concluding thoughts as all maybe some possible alternative sites for the dog park. Um, one has already been mentioned further to the west, but still in this this parkland. Um, I even wonder if Metal Park, uh, there's two skating rinks there, and I don't know how much they get used. Um, and I wonder if one of those could be taken for a dog park if that would be big enough. Um, and I also wonder about the recreational area if maybe up along the railroad tracks on the back side of the softball fields. Um, there's a long stretch there and there's that burm where the tracks are cuz they're elevated, I believe. And so there's really no worry about noise there. I wonder if there's enough room in there for maybe a more linear, longer um, dog park. Um, then what other one? Maybe off of Plymouth Road. >> [snorts] >> Uh just before you cross the tracks as you're leaving Minnotonka Boulevard and you're about to cross the railroad tracks heading towards Ridgedale, there's a little used to be a road that went down in and there's an area there of [snorts] flat land down in the park area. Uh I don't know if that'd be a possibility, but there might be enough land in there for it, too. So I just wonder about some other other alternative spots for it. So that's all I have. >> Thank you. I'm wasn't going to talk, but I'm going to talk. It's just really brief. My name is Alice Harlo. I'm a Ball Drive resident, and I would just like to stress I really appreciate Pete writing that up about the uh safety for dogs and their owners, etc. Um, and I would just like as a resident to stress my biggest concern is noise and we have dogs on our street and a dog park looking out their window at a dog park. I just feel like there's got to be a better place than across from a residential area. And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> And and Pete's letter, is it Pete? Pete's letter was is in the addendum >> in in its entirety. So, >> good evening. Diana Houston, Minnetonka. I live um fairly close to the park. I've spent a few hours over in the park with the park uh group doing restoration. I see a lot of activity over there. I do a lot of walking over there. I'm going to start with diagram number one. And so the um gentleman who spoke just before uh referencing that um north side of that back area for a dog park, I thought that I think is coming up as a really good s suggestion. When I've walked in that back area, I call the back area u where the parking lot goes curves back there, you know, witnessing what I define as nefarious activity. Uh, I didn't hear any mention of any of that tonight. I assume that may happen at a number of different parks. Uh, I was um glad that I had my walking sticks with me at that point. And regardless, if there was a dog park, I just thought there's so little activity back there if there isn't anything going on. And I thought if there's a dog park, then you get that rotation of activity and more people. It's just that resolves that. So that was the one thing I had concerned about that particular area there. >> Just to clarify, can you go to area one? >> Sure. >> Can I just trying to >> Are you talking about this little piece there? >> Yeah, I think you're talking about that for the dog park, that green area on the north side and then you've got that stretch of parking lot right there a little bit further. Yes, that's kind of where the vehicles like to hang out. Okay. you know, and so I was just walking all the way down to get to the gazebo, dead end, you know, and >> so anyway, so that would address that also on this diagram. Love the proposal for having some type of metered crossing that you see at Gileiam Park. >> Yes, that area there. Love that. >> Uh because I can tell you kids, bikes, walkers, you know, that would be beneficial. the uh area two, not a lot of comment on that at all. What I see in this is where the other than the boardwalk areas where there's the brighter yellow, you're enhancing paths or walk areas that are already existing. So, to me, it's reinforcing those. So, even though there's that great big um big one up by Cedar Lake Road, uh I agree that that um would help shore that up because, you know, it's just a dirt path. Mhm. >> Uh and then moving into number three, that's a complicated one and I think it's because you talk about the bundled plan, >> that big parking lot and then um the shelters, the bridge over there >> and I'm wondering if it's more beneficial to take the bundle, pull it out, hold on that. It's going to be a big bundle dollar-wise, too. Work on the other aspects. The thing that I see in this is again the path. If there isn't a path there, people will make it. I mean, they're going to find a way to get from A to B into Z. So, uh, I still see if you continue on further development, they're going to be doing that east west kind of southwest. They're going to be walking through there. It's a new area for them to explore. >> People were talking about the hillside and the rolling and the topography. you know, the hammocker people like to be out there, you know, people are out there, you know, picnicking and, you know, having a good time. Uh, and so supporting that's supporting more of the activities already naturally happening out there and having some nice access points out there. There was a mention of the small parking lot, the very small parking lot in the north, the souththeast. Yes, I generally see over there people parking, dog walking, heading into the park. really not the transfer of, you know, people getting over to the soccer. >> I don't see that as much as an overflow. That's really for the park itself. >> And I would say regard if you build it, that big parking lot there, I still going to believe they're going to be parallel parking along Minnitaka Boulevard. Shortest distance to the path area where they want to walk. So, >> you know, you only do what you can do. Then uh area four um you know I have mixed feelings again for the various reasons already spoken about the dog the leashed I um off leash dog area that's fenced and understand what people are saying proximity to the houses to the Minnotonka Boulevard. I kind of look at this as I know the city is looking for a location for this. Big will may just not be suited for it for a variety of reasons. So that may be something to consider not you know finding a better location as mentioned as some other possible areas. Uh the last comment that I will make it has to do with the demolition of the building. What I've appreciated in the park is a little bit history of there of there's a remnant from every household that's been there. And so I'm anxious to see what the remnant will be from that most recently purchased parcel. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming. And thanks for your volunteer work in the park. You and your group do a great job. >> Thank you. >> Any more comments, questions? >> Yeah. Sorry, I came mostly to maybe just hear the Cullen presentation, but I'm uh Joe Van Sloan. I'm a resident of Minnetonka. I'm also the former chair of the history commission of Minnetonka, which existed and doesn't at this point, but I just want to put a push in for there's a possibility of more historical interpretive signs in the park. I think that would be a fantastic idea. uh our commission brought forward a plan for several plan um signs around the city. Uh it had budgeting and then it kind of disappeared. So um if that opportunity is there with the funds, I think that would be a great additional opportunity to show um the community's history, inform newer residents that moved in this area what the history is of this community and I think that would be fantastic. So thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, want to thank all the people who came and com commented tonight and we'll staff will take those into consideration. Some good good feedback. Uh, any more from a formal perspective, you have enough feedback from what we've shared for you to work towards your next draft. >> Absolutely. I think we're getting that direct feedback. That's what we needed. like we, as I mentioned, we throw a lot against the wall in this process. So, it's very helpful for me to have this conversation in this setting to really talk it through. You know, >> great. >> Um, you know, we're pulling from a lot of previous plans and a lot of previous meetings that have discussed these things, but the rubber really hits the road when we put things on paper, and I know that's when it gets serious. So, this is the time if we're pulling, trying different things. We're hearing that tonight. Well, then I think I want to again thank you for your effort uh Eric and and Matt. Oh, you got >> one more note. Um the plan is available on Minnotonka Matters for download. Apologies for the large file sizes. There is a guest book open. Um we can certainly take emails to my inbox. I am the contact person listed there. I'm always happy to talk on the phone as well, but that guest book is open and we're going to have that plan up for the next several weeks, month and a half or so for feedback as we um incorporate these comments that we've heard from the park board tonight into the next version. So, plenty of opportunity. This process is really just getting started to some degree. So, um be sure to reach out as necessary. >> Great. Well, I want to thank you. Great job. >> Thank you. So, with that, we're going to go to, uh, I guess it's now 7C, uh, the Coen Nature Preserve Master Plan. >> All right. Thank you, uh, chair and parkboard members. Um, appreciate some members of our audience who've been very patient here. Um, so this is the Cullen Nature Preserve Master Plan. As you recall, you have seen a draft of this plan before. Um, and so Matt will provide uh a presentation, an update of of what we're considering a final draft plan. Um, we are looking for a this is where we're looking for a motion from the park board to recommend approval to the city council if we can get there. Um, if there are perhaps minor changes that the park board is interested, we can certainly incorporate that into the motion if you would like. So, so we would we are hoping to get a motion out of this one. >> So, again, a bit of a summary. Um, this Cullen uh nature preserve parcel came out of the post plan. The city had owned this um at that point in 2022 and I'll get into a little bit of background, but I presented this to you folks in August, I believe. at this point. Um so we have a um a opportunity for a new park that's rare in a in a developed second ring suburb like Minnetonka. Um so early in 2025 we started working with Bar Engineering to develop a master plan for Col Nature Preserve. It's been closed to the public um since the city has owned it. Um, we have this ongoing relationship with the friends of the Cullen Nature Preserve and Bird Sanctuary that have helped uh coordinate a lot of the restoration work out there that I'll cover briefly, but also helped inform this master planning process quite a bit. Um, so some key things that we wanted to consider in this master plan. Um, it is not open to the public yet. So, we need to provide resident access to the ex to the site to experience these restorations um within these natural plant communities. Um, we really want to lean into this idea of this distinct nature focused sense of place and that you'll see that reflected in all the amenities and elements in the master plan. Um, we know we need park access. There's no formal parking lot at this point. So, this master plan identifies a location for a new parking lot. Um, we certainly want to support the key partnerships, the friends and other volunteer groups um that spent a lot of hours out there and really have built a sense of community around this particular space in the city. Um the master plan also includes design standards as I mentioned in the big willow plan. How we build trails, how we limit impacts from the construction of various features. Um this will also um provide an opportunity to interpret these highquality native plant communities um for ongoing generations. Really the goal here is to develop stewards for the future. So new document available again up on Minnitonka Matters. This is considered the final version at this point. Um, we did include comments from the last time we we talked this through. So, I'll point that out as I go through this document. So, again, a little bit of the history for the new member in the house tonight. Um, this is a 30 acre historic homestead [clears throat] site. Um, it was sold to the city a number of years ago and it's under conservation easement with the Minnesota Land Trust. Um, we identified it early on on as an ideal site for natural resources restoration and restoration really began in earnest in 2022. It is under conservation easement. So that means it requires the land to remain undeveloped and to be available to the public for nature observation, study, and reflection. We can't install um any buildings or any active recreational ball fields or anything on a parcel like this. So, parking, trails, benches, signage, and small gathering spaces constructed are permitted to provide access and comfort on the site. So, here's a idea of where the the parcel is in Minnetonka. So, just just north of where we are at this point. You can see it from 494 just before you get on the exit onto 394. I always glance over in that direction as I drive by. It's 30 acres of land. A lot of it is upland oak savannah. increasingly uh oak savannah at this point. We've done significant restoration to get it to that point. Um it's a mix of prairie, wetland, mixed deciduous wood woodland and and again wetlands because it is a lot of wetlands. So as I mentioned, we work very closely with the friends of Cullen Nature Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. They have a very beautiful website. I'd recommend checking it out. Um they're highly engaged. They've really spent um hundreds of hours at this point on this site talking it through with us, meeting us with us and and offering their insights. It's really been an amazing relationship. They've also provided financial support through this project and have worked really closely with us throughout the the the ongoing restoration that we've been performing. So, we did go out to um the community for input on this. So, we we offered these image boards to try to get a sense of what sort of amenities the the folks were generally interested in, and you'll see that summarized in the in the master plan document. Some of the key considerations that we know we had to um look at closely in this process, the parking location and the right amount of parking. um how could we accomplish uh trails that would fit into the landscape, not um add to erosion issues and generally provide loops that that sort of highlight the overview of the wetland and some of the really beautiful substantial viewsheds through that area. So, where do we sort of site those throughout the park? And you'll see that represented in a number of figures and images in the master plan. Um, for the parking, we're proposing moving the parking to Oakland Road. There was some conversation at the last park board meeting about what the right amount of [snorts] parking is. We're building this is we want it modestly sized, but we certainly want to be able to get buses in and sort of um, you know, the consideration of more we're getting more traffic than we expected. We want to make sure that there's available parking. So at this point I want to again reiterate this is a master plan concept that [snorts] there would be out of this process a more thorough design that would look into the real footprint of this parking and the appropriate amount of stalls. Um we feel strongly that this is the appropriate amount for the needs. There is overflow parking in Meadow to the south but it is a bit of a walk. Um but again if we were budgeted to design this this there would be further considerations about the amount of stalls. >> Can of course later let's do you want to go through let's >> finish. >> Yeah getting there. So there is some precedent images in the document that sort of highlight the type of architecture, simplic simple lines, modern um timeless aesthetic, appropriate materials using um the right metals, the right woods that that sort of fit into the landscape that don't become objects out on the landscape. We want um a sort of threshold feature near the parking where you sort of get the sense that you're leaving your car behind. You're entering this this nature focused place. So um using some architectural artistic features to sort of create that vibe as you enter into the park. Um in the document you'll find a trails concept. We had heard previously some concern about some of these trails being close to property boundaries. Um keep in mind that as a master plan process there's a lot of um onsite consideration of where these trails that that where where they will go needs to take place in the field. So there are lines on this figure now, but there's a lot that would happen in terms of determining the exact location. We certainly wouldn't want trails to be able to um see nearby houses. So we would fit those into the landscape appropriately. Um, what we would like to do is create loops that that move up and down these slopes in a way that don't damage the slopes where we're trying to fit in the grade of these these um natural paths in the landscape in in an appropriate thoughtful way. We also want to get to sort of significant um secondary gathering places that folks are going to want to stop and look out on the landscape where we could include some um simple park amenities like benches. We have some uh precedent examples in the document. You'll see some classic stone council rings um locally sourced stone seating very simple very easy to maintain um aesthetic to the whole thing. some visualizations of the overlook and sort of the the extent of the view sheds that you get in the park. Um we are proposing a boardwalk um two segments of boardwalk um down along the wetland edge. We could use this as an opportunity to do significant wetland plant community restoration on the inside of the boardwalk knowing that we can sort of isolate it from the invasive fragmitees and cattails and reed canary grass. we could sort of showcase um wetland plant community restoration along this boardwalk in a in a sort of controlled environment where we're already doing a ton of upland restoration. So, an opportunity to to focus in on wetland restoration, which is something we don't get to do very much. Um we do have detailing and standards in the document again highlighting how we would construct some of these trails to reduce erosion and sort of keep the character of the space in mind. So um these earthn style paths relatively small footprints but they would have to be benched into the slopes appropriately and cited appropriately um so that they conform with the landscape and don't um add to erosion or or increase foot traffic over time increasing erosion. So we want this document to serve as a mission to champion the conservation values. Um, we're going to do that through thoughtful interpretation of the on-site features, specifically around not only the history of Anne Cullen Smith donating this parcel and her legacy in the city, but the restoration work, the volunteerism, and sort of the means and methods of restoration on site. Um, really the goal here would be to establish Colin as a nature preserve and really define that as a as passive uses that don't impact the ecology. And with that said, at the last meeting, um you folks talked quite a bit about this additional consideration of of potentially changing park ordinance to limit the use of the site, specifically around um only allowing service dogs in the park. So, I'd like some additional feedback tonight on that particular um conversation. The current funding situation is that unfortunately we applied for but were denied a legislative citizen commission on Minnesota Minnesota resources grant la early last year. That was a big ask to implement all the elements of this master plan. We were turned down unfortunately. Um but we do have capital improvement plan um efforts coming up and that that budget may be included in the um as per council direction. We will include that in the as an ask in the capital improvement plan. But the council will discuss and uh apply budgets appropriately. And then we're exploring future grant opportunities moving forward. So there's certainly a lot more restoration to do and there are grants available to implement some of these park amenities. So we're looking keeping an eye on all those things, but restoration is certainly continuing. Um we're we've been very successful out there. The friends are hosting a variety of um inventorying style events, scientific citizen science events out there, bird, vegetation, and pollinator surveys. Really amazing way for folks to engage in these natural spaces. We're going to go for the prescribed burn. Last time the bullet said we're going to burn in 2025. Unfortunately, the burn failed for some reason. It appeared to be great conditions, but we just could not get that thing to start. um despite the contractor running around and dropping flaming oil all over the place, it just wouldn't get going. So, we're going to try it again this spring in hopes that the grasses out there have been matted down and thoroughly dried out more. So, we're hoping to do a big spectacular burn out there. >> Spectacular, huh? >> Yeah, it will be spectacular. And then future phrasing of the restoration is tied to the grant and overall budget availability. So, the action tonight requested is to recommend approval of the Colin Nature Preserve Master Plan to the Minnitaka City Council for review and adoption. And I would thank you and I'm open for questions. >> I'm guessing Ann wants a question. >> I had a couple. There's a little u regarding parking. >> Yes. on the east side of Oakland Road, there was a little tiny sliver of land and I wondered if there that must have been owned before the Oakland Road was put in or something. >> Yep. >> Um, is that big enough to put a couple cars? >> It's a really tight spot and the concern would be an additional crossing. >> Yeah, true. I I understand that. But it's >> there's all there's a trail along there. So the part the cars would have to go across and fit in there. So it probably wouldn't work. >> Okay, never mind. >> Um the see if there was CIP funding that would be available when it seems like >> 27. So >> Oh, okay. Not as far out as I was. >> The goal would be it was a a contingent page in last year's plan, but we didn't unfortunately get the grant. So, we would rewrite it in a way asking for the funds, >> the whole amount. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um, >> asking the city. >> Yes, the city. >> And then I was interested to hear that you were willing to consider some wetland restoration. In other plan documents, we've said we're not going to do wetland restoration because it's a big mess. It's hard to it's hard to start a restoration in a wetland that doesn't have some sort of discrete boundary to it. There's a lot of inputs. But in an area like this where we have an active restoration community and we would have a lot of eyes on it in that perspective, it seems if we're ever going to do wetland restoration, this seems like the spot to to take it on. >> I don't want to get too much in the weeds, so just give me the really short answer. So it I understand the delineation. So you've got these crescentshaped areas. Wouldn't seeds and stuff flow back and forth with the water and uh >> there I I wouldn't say that there's flowing water through here. It does slowly elevate and get saturated and there's standing water through there. But yes, there are cattail seeds blowing all around. >> Okay. Um >> it Okay. I'm I'm not saying don't do it. I just I was just trying to catch up with >> we would have to think very carefully about the effort that that would require. What ongoing maintenance would that require? >> It it would be interesting to see what it's supposed to look like. So, okay. Um, and can you talk a little bit about the where the trails go over or across the ravines? >> Yes. So, there are some sort of ephemeral creeks that form at various times of the year. And in the plan, you'll see some detailing of what these sort of rustic crossings could look like. They would require a little bit of engineering um to make sure that they don't erode or fall in these areas, but um provide crossings where you're not scrambling through these these ephemeral [clears throat] creeks that form. >> And so it would prevent erosion and all that good stuff. >> Exactly. >> Um do these trails need to support a vehicle? the the goal would be whatever restoration we're doing and those ATV style vehicles for instance the burn crews had these um >> side by sides >> yeah side by sides okay >> that style of vehicle low ground pressure they're generally known but not we wouldn't be clearing snow off these trails we wouldn't be needing to access them the way we do on our formal trails >> on the even the accessible loop >> the accessible loop would be the distinction I think that would that would be one that we would um consider maintaining throughout the winter. >> So the access I was thinking about vehicle weight the the small >> gator type things aren't very heavy and >> correct >> so >> not they wouldn't support a pickup a regular pickup truck >> with the sort of dimensions of these foot paths that we're proposing. We wouldn't want pickup trucks on either side. They're not going to be designed for that. Okay, I that's that's good. Thank you. >> Other questions come? Jennifer, >> um at what time or at least I recall our conversation was to have a boardwalk to the island. People usually like walking to islands. Is that part of the connection because I'm not seeing it. So we had talked um with the friends and others internally about preserving the island as a true preserve as a sanctuary that you can experience it with your binoculars and while listening for bird song but keeping that as a true sanctuary not bringing foot traffic out there. >> Do people try to get out there or do you think we will? >> It's tough to walk through most of the year. It's It's tricky to walk through there except for the driest parts of the summer. >> Okay. And then my other questions were about the LCCMR. Did they give you an explanation of why they didn't fund it? >> Well, it was a really tough year. There was a lot of funding cuts from a lot of that money comes from the federal government. Um, >> well, that's state government, but there were funding cuts in a lot of university related scientific studies that would have been federally funded. So what I heard is the LC LCCMR monies went to those ongoing studies that would have lost their federal funding. >> Did they encourage you to apply again or do they think that's going to be a >> We were pretty low on the the matrix of um we're in a tough spot. Um there are a lot of needs coming out of that grant pool. >> I used to apply myself in previous work and but we got funded at the state park level. Um, and so legacy, I'm assuming you're going to look at some legacy and Met Council funding sources. >> DNR, community partners, legacy fundings. Those seem to be the key opportunities. >> Sounds good. Thank you. That's all I had. >> Oh, you can go first. >> Yeah. Um, I really appreciate this plan. I think it must have been very fun to have the opportunity to make a new park um, in the middle of the city. I also appreciate the small piece of storm water infrastructure in the parking lot. It's always a good sort of learning opportunity um for everyone to sort of see some storm water infrastructure, a rain garden there. What I'm wondering is really about these gathering spaces. There are a lot of them on here and I'm wondering if I I'd like to hear a little bit more about what the intended audience or intended use for those are and if they're all being designed if you're sort of picking one of the design offerings or making them each different for specific uses. >> Yep. So, great question. [clears throat] The the placement of these are sort of based on there's you can see in some of the topography um these sort of nodes that overlook one another and they're sort of natural destinations. you know, we have this humanist thing to go to the overlook. So, um, rather than allow those to form on their own, we would sort of site a little bit of seating in those locations. And they do look crowded on this figure, but in reality, when you're out there, they're at a distance to one another. And we would position the benches or the viewshed in a way that you're not just looking at the back of somebody's head on the next null. Um, and throughout that design process, as I mentioned in terms of the trail layout, it's really cited in the field. We put these lines and these overshed locations, these viewshed locations on this map, but really it comes down to walking out there and determining what are we looking at and flagging in the field prior to trail installation. So, it's really a thoughtful field process more so than us just drawing some lines on this figure. >> Yeah. be because um I I appreciate that. I think it's nice to sort of be able to widen the path in areas where you expect people to stop anyway because you had mentioned like the parking lot having room for maybe buses to come by as well. Is there I guess there's one like primary gathering space. Is there a space designed a little bit more for larger group gathering? >> Yes, that would that's the idea of that sort of council ring primary space that it could be an educator with 20 kids or so. We even did some um radius drive analysis through that little parking area. Could you get a little bus through there? So, we would have to study that closer. Ideally, we could drop kids off and then the bus could turn around in Meadow and come back up for pickup. So, yes, those are things we'd be thinking through. >> Katie, >> um three comments. One, um is this going to have online community feedback as well? >> Yep. It's up for feedback now. >> Okay. I didn't hear you say that. Okay, good. So, that's coming in. >> Um, and then two, in the last plan, I really appreciated the table >> that summarize the recommendations and the priority levels cuz they're all spread out in the three sections and they're hard to get >> your head all around. So, something like that with costs too >> would really help me um assess what can we really do um what do we really think we can budget for and what's not. I don't remember what we have in the CIP specifically for how many of these things we could fund over the next three years. So >> that all together table might help >> put it all together in measure. >> Absolutely. And there we do have cost estimation and really this being a a brand new park it was sort of all lumped together rather than um high priority low priority. The thought was we'd implement this all at once and have a big grand opening. That was the intention at least, but >> there's a price really. >> So, [laughter] for reference, we we requested over $700,000 for the LCCMR. >> Does that seem like enough? >> Doesn't seem like enough. I don't I don't know. Um, third comment was, I'm still worried you're grossly underestimating the parking. >> Yeah. >> How do you feel if people are parking up along Oakland? Cuz that's what's going to happen. They're not going to they're there's so many people from accessibility standpoint that aren't going to walk from that. >> I'm nervous about overbuilding parking and having it unused for a few times of the year when we would need it. Um we'd have to be thoughtful about that. >> Yeah. With an investment of the size that I'm imagining >> my my neighborhood park has more parking spots than than this park does. It's >> out of this master plan process, we would then enter a design of that parking lot and that would be engineering. >> So, we'd look again real closely at that. >> Caleb. >> Yeah. So, uh, was wondering, you know, I had mentioned, uh, at a previous meeting the the city-owned marsh, um, lands and whether or not they could just be basically incorporated into what what we'd be calling the Cullen Nature Preserve. Yes, they're not part of the original Cullen Homestead, but they're why not effectively add them and make them. It's not demonstrated in this um, legend. So, can you address that? And then I have a a second question. >> Um I you're talking about these parcels out here. >> Yeah, you have them in a previous >> Yeah, it shows map. That's um larger, you know, overview. >> So you can see one and two, >> the triangle and then the trapezoid, >> right? >> Yep. >> Those are city owned. >> These ones that >> that Yep. The the difficulty there is that it's really inaccessible that there's short of a boardwalk into that along the highway there. It just felt nice to keep Colen sort of discreet with the island loop. >> And Cullen has specific it'd be a little tricky if you made it part of the same thing, but it's not restricted to the same degree. In other words, there's specific rules around the pink area that wouldn't apply to the city outlots, if you will. Nothing's a park yet. >> No, no, but I just mean if it became part of the park, you could do things on the left that you can't do on the right. >> And utility work you would want to get into. >> That is true. >> That's just my thought anyway. >> So So you you're concerned that those two marsh areas would would need significant development. >> No, no. I just mean I just mean if for some reason Darren or somebody had to do something in those spaces, you wouldn't want to have confusion about whether they're restricted as Cullen is because Cullen's covenants are, for lack of a better term, covenants are pretty restrictive and require at least two or three governmental groups to review them. >> The current land trust easement that we have is this parcel. >> And it, you know, it's not uncommon to have a deed restriction in one parcel and not in others in a park. And so, but I I hear what you're saying and I guess I I want to get a an homage, is that the right word? Um, to the Cullen and and keep it pure. And I I [clears throat] like just keeping that one even though there is adjacent lands. I I don't know, like you said, how accessible or how desirable it would be without having boardwalks in there. >> And you could still do that, but not have it be technically called the same, if you will. Whatever. >> I'm sorry. You added another comment, too. >> Well, I mean, I hear what you you guys are saying. I guess I guess I'm just like like >> why not add those in? And yes, they have the same restrictions and make them have the same restrictions. I mean, why wouldn't we want to protect those marsh areas the same as we would colon? So are you saying because it's contiguous too? because it's continuous and also you know this is one part of the plan but 20 years from now people may be saying >> yeah we want boardwalks out in that space and it's part of Colin and we want to get out there and loop around and like yeah that's money and it's time and it's down the road but >> if uh if we just incorporate it now into the the named Colin Nature Preserve with the same restrictions >> well the the restrictions just because I come from a real estate background with conservation easement was given by the previous land owner and is being held by MLT and so in order to have those same restrictions on the city parcel then they would be putting a restriction on their own land which isn't very common for public to put that you would have your own >> that's a better way to put what I'm trying to say >> you would have your own administrative guidelines of what the limitations are like not having dogs in there but you wouldn't >> she you could manage it the same way you manage it identical without formally >> putting those restrictions because those conservation reasons also include monitoring and a lot of other um staffing levels to do the to comply with conservation in terms so but you could in theory doing it >> do we think that not incorporating them into a single colon nature preserve would be detrimental to future kind of integration of those sites into uh like a boardwalk use or some other use that connects what would be two separate park spaces. >> The city manages and provides protections for wetlands all over. Um so those regulations and requirements would be in in effect regardless um whether or not it's officially part of Cullen. I I think from my point of view, if this was upland, I I would probably be a champion with you. >> Um, but I'm seeing this wetland area is not um desirable and uh locations for the public to outdoor recreate um because it's it's going to be wet and uh perhaps not safe for people to go out there. It's also very close to 494 and at that point there's no sound wall. >> Yep. >> So it would be the closer you get to 494. I mean I I understand the your drive to expand the you know why not make the park bigger? that it's um I would [clears throat] my feeling is that if there's money to be if we have money to put boardwalk out that close to 494 would be one of the last a lower priority than many of the other things we've been talking about in the other in this park and in Big Willow. But I do like what you talked about before um Caleb with connecting it and having some connection to the meadow >> in that south um >> east corner. >> Yeah. I'd rather have boardwalks and meadow connecting over to Cullen. You're kind of right where you are there. >> I think you brought that up last. [clears throat] >> Um okay. Thanks. Thanks for the feedback. Uh the second thing was I had asked about expanding the accessibility trail. It looks like it's the exact same size. So what was the >> uh why is that? What are the issues? >> The issues are flat >> creating accessible slopes and the amount of engineering and the sighting of those particular trails through that area. At this master plan level, it's really hard to to say we could get ADA trails in here. um we would need to look really closely at it. So I did add a bunch of language stating that we would look very closely during the trail design where could accessible trails be implemented beyond the one we show um as sort of intentionality in the future that we would try to get as much of that in balancing the impacts to the the plant communities out there as much as we could possibly could. >> Yeah. Even if it's not a even if it's not, you know, loop, >> even if it's, oh, we can extend an accessibility trail to a >> uh a communal space, you know, a roundabout is what I guess I would call it, right? >> Then all the better in my opinion. Like for instance, this particular node here, >> how this slope works, would there be a chance to get >> get an ADA trail through here? That would be an option. >> And especially, you know, cuz I was able to walk this with the friends. The uh the the I'm going to I'm going to say north. Yeah, the north natural surface >> is I mean that's how we walked back and it was pretty flat >> coming back to >> across the top >> across the top of the park. >> So again, that may be a place where an out and back uh is uh accessible. >> Yep. >> Absolutely. >> Well, I've got a couple uh comments. Um well, first question. So the neighbors on the north side's concerned, you're going to be taking into account what I gather as you do your actual sighting. >> Absolutely. Visibility. Okay. >> I don't I don't think anybody wants to walk on a nature trail that sees a residential house. The whole intention here is that those are significantly separated. We've heard the concern um about that trail being too close to the property boundary. And I mean it when I say we don't want to be able to see houses and by the benefit those people wouldn't be able to see anybody in the parks ideally. >> Um the second thing is uh I would concur with Katie about the I'm nervous about the parking lot size. >> Sure. >> Don't want it so big that it looks empty or take up space. By the other hand, don't want it so small that it's you know. So, I I would really look hard at that because it it feels tight to me. We had talked about um different types of paving like a traditional asphalt lot with an ADA stall and then a gravel overflow portion where additional parking could stack up but it's we don't need to plow it or maintain asphalt for instance that there's sort of an overflow. And then maybe oddball question, uh, memorial part memorial benches, they're pretty popular in various parks. >> I don't see any reference here. Has there been thought about that? I have a perspective on that, but has there been thought about that? we and I'd have to refer to the document, but I think there was some talk amongst us during the this process that if there was to be any memorialization, it could happen at this entry feature potentially. >> Okay. Because personally just one person vote, I I would I like memorial benches, but I would not I think this is sort of a planned preserve and the idea of populating it with people calling say I want to get a memorial bench would be detrimental to your plans. I think the intentionality of this entry sort of feature would potentially be the the appropriate spot to do that sort of thing. >> Um I think the plan is great and I really applaud your efforts. I applaud the the friends. I mean the h having gone through the space after it was bought unofficially in the woods trumping around through buckthornne so thick I could hardly see. I lost my dog. This is before there were problems about that. and now seeing how much it's come, it's it's just incredible the the progress and I applaud you all for those efforts. Um, regarding the dogs, I'm not too sure what our vehicle is. Uh, I would I would second the point of view about restricting to service only because we have to have service dog access, so to speak. But I would I would we've never had dogs here and why and I'm a big as you all know I'm a big dog lover but I would prefer we don't introduce them where they haven't been particularly given the intent of uh the the grantor or whatever whatever the the Smith family's terminology is. Um I don't think that would be consistent with what they had in mind nor nor what the intention of the preserve is. So, I don't know if we if the park board's in agreement whether we do that as a motion uh as part of the adoption or what however you can tell us how we do that. Um yeah, chair and park board members, if you um do move to recommend approval of the plan, you could add as part of that motion that the uh you know the the master plan could be tweaked to say or put have some language put in it to say that the intent is that off well any dog would be precluded from being on the site except for service dogs. So, basically what I'm saying is you could pass a motion to recommend approval, but have it include language related to um keeping dogs out of the property um except for service dogs and have that be as part of your motion. As far as the how that happens, then you know the council once they approve the plan um then we have to go through the process to actually designate this as a park which would be more of a legal process and at the same time could also then um change the park regulations to have a special regulation for Colin specific to this park >> specific to Colin and have specific rules for Colin. >> And are we calling this a park or a preserve? >> Well, my understanding is it's city park land. I mean any park land is a designated park and that's more of a zoning code I guess. Um but it's a preserve in in name and type based on our post >> and it would be our only preserve. >> The only Yeah. True nature preserve. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah. >> That's what I'm understand. >> Yeah. >> But it's still a park. I mean >> Yeah. >> Parkland. Good. Because people have this cons there's this confusion about our community parks preserves cuz all of our big parks are combination parks preserves and >> this is a preserve. >> This is a 100% a preserve. >> Okay, great. >> Let's follow up to that. First of all, just a great plan. I mean, I said this many months ago. It's so rare that you get an opportunity to have a blank canvas and paint on it like this. So, just wonderful. Is there any way to partner with the concept of this being a preserve, but I also want to sort of focus on it being a bird sanctuary? >> Um, is there any way to uh partner with nature conservancy, uh, Cornell Ornithology, any groups that could also create some granting opportunity and fundraising opportunities in collaboration if we focus on the bird sanctuary part of it? Well, I think you're describing a lot of what our friends of Colin Nature Preserve and Bird Sanctuary do these days. Like they're doing the citizen science work and they are pursuing grant and other financial opportunities quite a bit. So, they're really locked in on that. >> Um, >> great. >> And it's amazing to have a partner that's not the government. This does have a nice ecosystem specifically for birds that are not being seen in other parts. Like I think at one point someone said there's a redheaded woodpecker you never see anymore. Um that's a draw. That's a really big draw for the people in the birding community. >> Absolutely. >> Bigger parking lot. >> No, it's true. I mean people who are birders are pretty fanatic. So, >> I'd also be supportive of that um additional language um regarding restriction of of dogs and that's just a conflict of interest with wildlife and birds and autobon society is another um potential source when you brought that up. As far as the parking, I'm I'm going to disagree respectfully um that I like the limited parking because I think that the increased parking would >> um be detrimental to >> Yeah. It's a balancing act. >> Yeah. That it'd be detrimental to the intent, which is reflective observation, not crowds. So, I I'm just wanted to to voice that alternative opinion. >> And oh, Ann, go ahead. >> Um, okay. I'm I'm in favor of no dogs. Um I'm in favor of the existing small parking um amount with some signage that says we invite you to park >> down at Meadow and >> get your extra steps in. Um I and the third thing is I know that you're the concept is do it all at once. Um, I would suggest that if there's not enough money to do it all to save the boardwalk section of trail and it's the little tails that go down to it till later just rather than delay everything if that was >> sure >> an option. >> If there's no more comments now, um I think we have Gerald wants does anyone want to speak or not? >> I can say a few words. Sure. >> And then and then we'll come back to our motion. >> There's there's people behind you, too. Did you do you all want to talk? >> Yeah. You said you wanted to talk, didn't you? >> Well, I think I'm okay at the moment. >> Okay. [laughter] >> How about you? >> I apologize. I don't I don't have eyes back here. I didn't miss that. >> You're all right. >> You do. I'm Gerald Gerson, president of the Friends of Col Nature Preserve and Bird Sanctuary, and I live in Minnetonka. In fact, a little factoid, I lived for 32 years, six blocks south of the preserve, and we just moved six blocks north of the preserve. So, we're very, very committed to this incredible jewel that we have here. And thank you all for your support. It's been great collaborative effort working with the city. We really appreciate that and thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your excitement for what's going to happen and uh we're just really happy. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> You all right? Well, at a minimum, do we want to have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I apologize. I apologize. See, >> I still can't see. >> Go on up there and you have to you have to give us your name and talk into the little microphone. apologize. >> My name is Randy Circum and I live on Crown Hill Lane which is just north of the preserve area and we're very excited for the development of the preserve area. I mean, we've lived there for 8 years now, and you know, I've tramped through there, you know, just to kind of check it out. But to have a a area that has trails and uh uh development be uh a big addition to the to the park. My main question is um what is the process for designing the the the trails and the timeline for that? Yep. >> And what are the opportunities for community input? >> Sure. Absolutely. So, as I mentioned that that trail design process is really a sort of intuitive field process. So, I could see us um doing some walking out there, doing some flagging. Um even standing in certain areas and having nearby residents look out their window. Can they see those sorts of things? I think that's very reasonable. Like I said, we wouldn't necessarily want a trail heading towards a house where we can see into a kitchen window. So, we want to make sure those are appropriately spaced. So, I could see us doing some flagging or or laugh and applying some wooden L through there and and test running it for a little while as we sort of figure out the placement of it. And that wouldn't be until if the budgeting was approved by the city council. That wouldn't be until spring 27 or ground thaw 27 when we could start walking and laying the trail out. >> What is the best way for us to remain involved in that? friends through the Mitaka matters. What's the best way? >> Through me specifically, the Minnitaka Matters will continue to have updates on that. Um, but as the plan sort of begins to be um, you know, rolled out through the implementation process, there would be a diff additional mailers and that's what I'm here for. I'm here to answer questions and and I would just ask that you you log into matters and sort of stay tuned to the latest. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you. We did the mountain bike trip. >> Hello again. I'm Joe Van Sloan, uh, resident of Minnitanka. Um, and I mean, I've been driving by the preserve, you know, for the past three or four years. I go, "Is it open? >> Is it open? Is it open yet? Is it open? I see cars. Is it open?" Um, I also have the fortunate I help uh facil run a family foundation that's started by my aunt and uncle and I got on to the friend site which is very nice and they kept saying well we're going to fun in 2025 no maybe 2026 because we didn't get the LCC Margaret well 2027. I go okay this we got to figure something out here because this is going on forever. Uh, so I'm working with Gerald and the friends to see if we I can help facilitate some greater funding this year. Uh, and maybe go forward with trying to complete the restoration portion of it. Um, I know it's the ask is for 900,000 to complete it all, but we'll see what we can make happen as soon as possible. So, thank you. >> Well, thank you for that comment. >> Anyone else? >> I'm with him. I'm with >> Okay. [laughter] murder people. >> Yeah, I remember from a couple meetings ago, right? >> Yeah. The burglaries >> the Glen Mason house. >> Well, and the other one across the street from our house and two of eight. So, >> thank you. >> Any if there are no more comments or questions, >> uh, >> any more discussion? Anyone want or do I want to hear a motion? >> Do you want to hear a motion? >> Yeah. Yeah. If people are ready for a motion. >> Okay. Um, I move that the park board approves the plan with the um with the additional specification that only service dogs are allowed and anything else. >> So, just a reminder, this is a recommendation for the council to approve the plan. The council's actually approved. So, you're making >> So, we're not approving the plan. We're approving the moving forward to the council. >> Exactly. and recommending that the council approve the plan. >> Yeah, >> it's confusing. I know. >> Oh, >> okay. So we >> with the addition of the dogs, >> I move that we recommend approval of the >> Colin Nature Preserve Master Plan to the Minnitankka City Council for review and adoption with the one addition that it's specified that there's no dogs allowed except service dogs even if they're on leash. >> Right. Only service dog. only service probably best say only service dogs would be allowed in the park would be my guess because they're always >> and do we also need to then specify that there needs to be a special Cullen Park ordinance or >> that was come out of it >> that would come out of the adoption of this by the council >> I second the motion all right no more discussion Um, I will take roll call. So, Christy, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Cadet, >> yes. >> Larman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chair Ingraham, >> yes. >> All right. >> And if you go back to the very first slide, >> are you sure the first one? >> Well, I think No, I'm sorry. The third slide for that one. Fourth slide. >> This one. >> Just want to compliment whoever took that picture. [laughter] courtesy of the friends at Cola Nature Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. >> Someone snapped it though and that's a great picture. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you all. Thank you for your patience. All of you, including the people behind me. >> Uh now we're on to 8A information items from ST reports from staff. Um yes, chair and parkboard members. We have one information item and this relates to a project on Purgatory Creek in Purgatory Park that you may have uh heard about. So Matt is going to provide an update because it's Matt's project. >> Me again. Thank you, Chair Angerham Park Board. Um, a couple years ago now, we accepted 104 over $104,000 in grant funding from Bowser, the Board of Water and Soil Resources of the State of Minnesota, and the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to stabilize the banks of Purgatory Creek in Purgatory Park. It's a 300 foot stretch that has been eroding and eating the trail away. Um more recently the um city council signed off on a maintenance agreement with the watershed district to facilitate permitting of this project. We've been undergoing substantial permitting with the or army corps of engineers and the wershed district to ensure that um this project um meets the standards that they require. Um but we are at the point where we are expecting permit approval and this project will be implemented this year. So we will be um removing some trees around the area to create this new remander of the stream. And I do have a couple quick Is this going to work? Okay. So we're all familiar with the way the creek is eating away the trail here. Um, that's sort of the problem. >> And the new Oh, boy. >> Just go back. >> And it's a little tricky to to read, but this is the Remeander diagram. So, um, these were created by um stream restoration engineers. And we're going to use what's called bioengineering. So, they're natural materials. We're not armoring the banks. That was part of the necessary um solution here is it would be um impermissible for us to armor the bank with some sort of hard material. So if we wanted to keep the trail there, we need to move the creek away. So the red line is the existing creek um center line and the green is the proposed. So we're swinging it away from the creek and we're doing it in a way where these bends are armored with natural materials. So, um, primarily root wads that are plunged into the banks and then reveated. They're sort of naturalistic. But to accomplish this, we do need to pull some trees out of this corridor. There's some um big willows that are have been sort of splitting apart through this area. It's a highly visible spot. It's um, you know, highly used trail corridor. So, we wanted to make the public and you folks aware that we are going to be pulling these trees down this winter on frozen ground and storing those large roots to be used in this bioengineering and and sunk into the banks to protect those slopes. Um, so >> plans to do anything with the rest of the tree. >> Haul it to our brush yard is the plan now. >> Okay. But >> why do you want some mulch? I was >> there's there's some value to having just down trees. >> Yep. >> And I >> I understand it can look messy and but >> well part of the plan will be to fully reveate it with appropriate native plant communities. So there are solutions beyond native seeding. Um live staking. Willows can be used for live staking. There's a variety of native willow shrubs, peach leaf, um, EB's willow, other ones that can be installed in a way where we get, you know, shrub cover for birds along that creek corridor. Um, so we would sort of reintroduce the willows over time. Um, but yeah, we would treat it like any of the trees we take down in the city would come to our brush yard. >> Were they would they be substantially rotten in the middle? I wondered if they could be, you know, a big chunk could be put up as a a standing snag. >> We can look into it. The problem with willows is they're soft. It's generally soft, fast growing wood and they do hollow out in the inside. You've we've lost a lot because they'll be multi- trunkked and start to split apart and once you lose one side, you'll lose the other side. It's a little hard for us to pick and choose logs when we're out there besides saving the stumps for the the bank stabilization, >> right? >> But it's a good note. We're always looking to create habitat and down material >> and rotting logs do just that. >> Yeah, there's cavity nesters and all that. So, >> thanks for the update. Of course. >> Okay, so I can go through upcoming uh schedule. So, we have a few items coming up in March. We're going to give Matt a break. Um, so, um, we have, um, hopefully we'll have Three Rivers Park District coming to talk about the Bryant Lake Trail and provide an update on that, uh, that effort. Um, we also based on some conversation with the park board, prior uh, meetings uh, learning more to learn more about the park investment plan and the trail improvement plan, um, Darren will come and provide a background on those plans. Um, you know, >> oh, >> look for feedback on how that's how the maintenance and scheduling and rehabilitation and how all that works. >> If you recall, we that had that conversation when we talked about rehabilitating um parking playgrounds. >> Mhm. And then uh we'll talk about the natural resources division uh uh provide an update and talk about up the um education and outreach plan that we implement every year and just look for feedback on that as well. Uh and then in May, so we don't meet in April. Um that is the falls on the spring break. So we take April off in May. Um expect to see the Glen Lake park plan. that would be a draft. Um and then also if you recall we talked about sort of digging into the park areas of need um that figure 45 from the propos. So we will provide some information on that and then in June you'll likely see the capital improvement plan uh come forward before the park board >> and I will turn it over to Kelly. Can you talk about the upcoming events >> other activities? Uh Sonia in the park is going strong. We have had 1,900 reservations already from September through today. That goes through April. Uh currently operating Wednesday, Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays. Uh our summer registration dates are out. So we will have summer registration March 3rd and 5th. Those are very busy dates. Uh the uh recreation brochure is to the press right now. We anticipate that to hit mailboxes last week of February for that March 3rd registration date. And then lastly, uh at the end of March, Saturday the 20th, we have the spring extravaganza. That's an event kind of geared for kids up to 10. Uh here at the community center, egg hunt, things like that. Uh that is the registration. Uh you have to register for that event. We still have about 70 spots open, but that usually does fill up. So, a couple things coming up. Thank >> when is the yeti search, whatever it is. Yeti >> the Yeti hunt is done. >> It's done. >> Yep. We had the Yeti hunt is complete. >> Darn. >> They did. Yes. [laughter] >> Where was it found? >> We found him. We got him. this on the season. >> Darn, I missed that. >> Thank you. >> When will the uh big willow plan come back to us? >> Uh we're looking at the summer at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh number nine then park board me. Is there any park board member reports? >> Caleb. >> Yeah. So, uh, given the recent, um, ICE activity in our, um, community, I, uh, just wanted to report I reached out to Tom Olsen, a Minneapolis Park Board member, as well as Jace Alexander to get a better sense of what we as a park board or as a city could be doing to um, to counter the ICE offensive. um and got some some interesting ideas and feedback as well as some reassurance from Jace Alexander about activity the city's already engaged in including uh joining the safe and stable coalition. And so one of the things I was thinking about because I know the Minneapolis Park Board did this. Of course, they're a different body than ours, but uh effectively saying we don't we do not want staging operations occurring on city park lots or park spaces. Uh and then of course the city council at Minneapolis at the direction of the executive order from the mayor effectively doing some of the same activity. Um, from my understanding with conversations with Jace Alexander, the safe and stable coalition is working on that kind of language and the members of the coalition want to kind of speak in a in the same voice for there to be the same kind of policy for multiple communities who've decided to be a part of it. So, I'm very pleased to learn this and wanted to pass it along to you all. if you weren't aware. Um, and uh hopefully this shores up how our neighbors are are doing. >> Mhm. >> Very good. >> Um, just an update. I I did attend um this weekend's um sorry now I lost the name. It's too late. >> Kids the kids fest. And it was very well attended and the the staff and volunteers were very helpful and friendly and uh everybody looked like they had a great time and there was a lot of different variety of activities inside and outside for the kids. So nice job. >> I I did order the weather. So >> did you and it was perfect. It was kind of like raining, you know, when someone sings Purple Rain at the Super Bowl, but you know. [laughter] >> That's right. That's good. Um, I'll just say for the record that I've started to go to Minnetonka Matters, been very pleased with uh the quality of the presentations. I learned a lot. It's very interesting. Um, even the financial stuff was pretty interesting. So, I highly recommend it if you haven't been. >> That the website you mean or the >> the class? >> The class. Okay. That's Minnitanka Academy. >> Thank you. Sorry. No, >> that's good. >> Minnitanka Academy. >> Thank you for the plug. I have to do that. >> Um I I just say uh briefly um couple couple things. Uh Leslie and I presented at the city council meeting on Monday, our mission and along with all the other boards and commission our uh key accomplishments from last year and our work plan for summary of our work plan for the coming year and I think it was wellreceived. Um >> you did a great job. the uh and and to to uh Kayla's point as an aside uh I didn't stay for the whole meeting, but I stayed up past public comment and uh and the council members comments and the mayor's comments the beginning and and uh the city is heavily engaged in addressing the ice issue at a level I wouldn't wouldn't have even anticipated here. So, I think we should all feel based on what I heard, we should all feel good about what our elected officials are doing and the the coalition is a key point of that. Um, and and along those lines, I just wanted to say, I mentioned this just in passing at that meeting is, you know, with everything going on, it's sort of like why does this matter? You know, we're just parks. And um I just would say as we learned during COVID which was another very challenging times uh totally different but challenging uh our parks are really a key place of um refuge uh balance uh for our our residents and visitors. And so, um, we're fortunate in Minnitanka to have a great park system and a great, uh, staff of people, uh, you know, managing our parks and natural areas. And, um, I know people appreciate that, you know, always, but I think particularly in times like this, people seek, you know, outlets and our parks are that, so this does matter a lot. Um, anyways, >> amen. >> If anything, if nothing else, I'll I'll take another motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor. >> Okay. All in favor. Great. >> Thank you. Good meeting. >> You're the chair. >> Good stuff, huh? >> That's why you're the chair with that one.