Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Workshop #5

Transcription

1 Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Workshop #5 MEETING SUMMARY HELD Tuesday, August 26, :30 8:30 PM Nokomis Community Center 2401 E. Minnehaha Pkwy Minneapolis, MN Meeting Purpose: Discuss recommendations for regional park master plan. CAC Attendees: Sandy Colvin Roy (Chair), Bryan Barnes, Bob Fine, Amy Greeley, Ryan Holweger, Mary Lynn Kadrie, Cammie Kimmes, Dave Kornecki, Chris Lautenschlager, Robert Srichai, Kyle Werremeyer, Jeanne LaBore Consultants: Bryan Harjes (HKGi), Jennifer Cater (HKGi), Kevin Biehn (EOR) MPRB Staff: Adam Arvidson (Project Manager), Cliff Swenson (Planning Director) Approximately 20 members of the general public were in attendance. The meeting was opened by Sandy Colvin Roy (CAC Chair) who welcomed attendees and began with reviewing the purpose of the meeting. Adam Arvidson (MPRB) then reviewed where we re at in the current the project process and provided an overview of where we ve received input throughout the process. Preferred plans presented at this meeting are based on this collective input. These plans are not necessarily the final plans. The CAC may recommend the preferred concept; may recommend with caveats, exceptions or changes; or may opt to not recommend. A question was asked about whether the CAC would also be deciding about priorities for implementation in the master plan. Adam confirmed that the CAC will do this at the end of CAC #6. It was suggested that the MPRB develop a tool for making these decisions about priorities that may include: What does the element do for the park? Who would it serve? What does it cost? What is a realistic expectation for implementation time-frame? The meeting moved to review of each recommendation topic in this order: A. Natural Resources Framework B. Recreation Framework C. Nokomis Main Beach & Athletic Fields Focus Area D. Nokomis Community Center & East Beach Focus Area E. Cedar Avenue Crossings Focus Area F. Lake Hiawatha Focus Area G. Circulation / Connectivity Framework Page 1

2 NATURAL RESOURCES FRAMEWORK CAC Discussion - Are there wetlands proposed near Lake Hiawatha and golf course? [staff response] Very little space east of lake and topography doesn t lend itself well to added wetlands. Likely there are places in the golf course for more wetlands, but we can t explore this as part of this process. - Use of the term no-mow implies turf grass allowed to grow long. We should not confuse this with natural landscape. [staff response] We will make that clarification. - What is the purpose of the creek re-meander? Is it meant to create more green space? What happens to the trails there? [staff response] Re-meandering of Minnehaha Creek is something the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has been exploring along the entire creek. Re-meandering can increase water storage in the creek-bed. It will impact trails, which will need reconstruction. Page 2

3 Seen as a long-term implementation opportunity. A good example of a re-meander exists just west of Cedar Ave and in Hopkins. - Concern with natural areas about safety / security. [staff response] Our recommendations would include preservation of sightlines around trails and active areas. Keep special attention to parkway levels and views. - Needs more detailed thinking height is not only important, but also type and other microclimate conditions. Experience around Harriet is cooler due to wooded areas, but also more slopes. [staff response] We will caveat recommendations with BMP strategies for implementation / ecology. - Will new regional stormwater wetlands be created by dredging? [staff response] Yes, dredging and ongoing maintenance will be needed. - Where is the increased natural area? Will the increase from 10-50% be done at once? It should be phased. [staff response] Increase is largely at shorelines and throughout park between use areas. The implementation of this would definitely need to be phased. - In southwest part of the park, there is no way to cross from Edgewater to the parkway; natural landscape will limit people walking or running across. [staff response] Trails are proposed to connect this we will discuss later - Adjust area of the arboretum to be less turf. - Steps from 52 nd would provide access that continues to lake. MOTION A motion was made and seconded to recommend the preferred concept for the Natural Resources Framework with the following amendments: 1. Use terminology like restoration or habitat areas instead of no-mow 2. Include safety/security BMPs for naturalized areas in the master plan document 3. Revise area around arboretum to reflect low wet conditions 4. Identify where new naturalization would take place and note a phased approach to implementation Public Comments - Will there be an approach to stabilizing of turf areas that are often wet but planned for use? [staff response] Yes this would be considered as part of implementation - Do not implement landscape reconstruction until MPRB has ability to maintain. - With water quality improvement efforts, how much more capacity for runoff treatment is proposed? [staff response] We can calculate based on land cover in the master plan document. Page 3

4 - Add more space for play that s not wet - Managed turf on edge of golf course in northwest corner of park is used by nearby residents. Keep as a use area. - Can we have more information about costs? For instance, is there a cost benefit to having more naturalized landscape compared to turf? [staff response] Not necessarily; it is a different maintenance regime. Implementing the new landscape will be more expensive as an up-front cost as well. - East Beach is part of an Active Recreation area and will be managed for use. VOTE A vote of the CAC was taken. The motion was upheld unanimously. Page 4

5 RECREATION FRAMEWORK CAC Discussion - Where do people park to attend more amenities [staff response] There is some planned expansion but otherwise at existing locations - How big is the amphitheatre? [staff response] As proposed would fit around people; will discuss more in focus area plans - Strike reference to the event center in the vision/goals. o [staff response] A clarification: an event center building is not included in the plans. The event space is near the beach, as existing, and is a n open lawn area for set-up for races and such. - Are trails planned close to the lake? [staff response] We ll address this in the circulation framework. Page 5

6 - The legend is wrong switch symbols for fishing and canoe launch. - Support for revitalizing the vitacourse. Public Comments - Support for skatepark. (Approximately 6 people were in attendance to support inclusion of the skate park, though not all spoke individually.) - A skatepark serves that demographic of 8-18 missing from a lot of the other park amenities. It s a feature though that needs money upfront to make it happen. Recommendation that MPRB place implementation as a high priority. - Support for amphitheater. - People who run don t like how the paths conflict with beach uses. - Support for added bathrooms. - There s also a need for more drinking fountains there are no proposed new drinking fountains. [staff response] We will address this. - What will canoe launch areas be? [staff response] Could be a small dock/pier or just sandy area. - How did you determine the number of picnic areas? [staff response] The intent is to provide a variety of options for picnic; some open, some shelters/grills, some tables. - The area between Cedar/Derby is really busy with heavy traffic not an ideal location for managed picnic space. - Define event space/neighborhood gathering. [staff response] Large open lawn for larger groups. - Is there bus service to park? [staff response] Only on 28 th Avenue and Bloomington/54 th Street. MOTION A motion was made and seconded to recommend the preferred concept for the Recreation Framework. VOTE A vote of the CAC was taken. The motion was upheld unanimously. Page 6

7 NOKOMIS MAIN BEACH / ATHLETIC FIELDS Adam noted park/recreation staff supports the decision for the proposed field layout rather than pinwheel due to the ability to accommodate a wider variety of sports. CAC Discussion - Bikers and runners want to avoid beach house area. Propose alternative: split path and have 2 bike options, one near beach house that is multiuse where bikers are encouraged to slow and another that brings bikes on northwest side of parking lot. - It s either a bike/runner conflict or bike/car conflict move path out to parking and give right of way to one. - Prefer pinwheel to support tournaments. - It looks like beach volleyball location creates conflict with restaurant goers. - Add more than 2 volleyball courts and move to south picnic location. Page 7

8 - Keep picnic area near restaurant. - Add more shade options on beach. - Support pinwheel because it s more efficient and still allows for other field sports. - Running on bike trail is a problem make this trail near beach wider to accommodate both. - Proposal to revisit field design. Do we need to decide now? o [staff response] We could consider noting that some arrangement of athletic fields will exist, and that these will be refurbished in some way, but the arrangement will be determined in the future. Staff will check with Metropolitan Council to see if this would be acceptable in a Regional Park master plan - Restrict winter parking on athletic fields. - Support pinwheel on north, like the center hub idea. Establish other field sports on south end. [staff response] Currently 7 fields, and our proposal has 6. All fields are currently used, so losing more and leaving 4 total softball fields will be tough. Adam will follow up with recreation department - Support for pinwheel it s more efficient and still allows for other field sports. - Opposed to added parking west of parkway. If this is intended for ballfield users, it will still be used by beach goers. [staff response] Aim is to alleviate parking demands in general also help from people parking on Cedar. [staff response] Will add raingardens, redirected drainage and pervious pavers to mitigate / improve current drainage. MCWD permits now require BMPs for approvals. Will also add trees to shade asphalt. - Additional parking will also address need for users to have a place to park boat trailers. Public Comment - Make bike path near road. - Kids at beach/picnic wander into bike both suggest adding vegetated buffer and stripe crossings. - Support bike near road bikers should avoid beach area completely. - For athletic fields, support flexible fields. Look at what youth are playing today. Compare numbers of youth involved in softball vs soccer and think what this will be in 30 years. Soccer is more popular and make sure to accommodate soccer use. Page 8

9 MOTION A motion was made and seconded to recommend the preferred concept for the Nokomis Main Beach / Athletic Fields Focus Area with the following amendments and exceptions: Amendments: 1. More volleyball courts to replace picnic south of beach and add picnic back to restaurant area 2. More shade options on beach 3. Parking recommendations will integrate BMPs for stormwater and heat island mitigation Exceptions: 1. The decision about the athletic fields layout is tabled until the next meeting 2. The decision about the location of the trails near the beach area is tabled until the next meeting VOTE A vote of the CAC was taken. 6 members voted YES / 4 members voted NO. The motion was upheld. GENERAL COMMENTS Some members of the public attended to specifically speak about Lake Hiawatha: Preserve the western shore of Lake Hiawatha. Don t add new uses no ped/bike access. Add wider buffer / natural area around lake. Do not support seasonal trail. Keep beach open. The order of the agenda will change for the next meeting: B. Conclusion of the Main Beach Focus Area C. Lake Hiawatha Focus Area D. Nokomis Community Center Focus Area E. Cedar Avenue Crossings Focus Area F. Circulation / Connectivity Framework Recommended Priorities The meeting adjourned at 8:45pm. Page 9