Loading...
Park & Rec Board - MINUTES - 10/14/2002 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING CITY OF MUSKEGO October 14, 2002 Approved 11/11/02 Board President Toby Whipple called the monthly meeting of the Parks and Recreation Board, City of Muskego, to order at 6:37 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance The meeting notice was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law on Thursday, October 10, 2002. Present: Ms. Debbie Carlson, Mr. Jerald Hulbert (6:40 p.m.), Ms. Kelly Koble, Ald. Eileen Madden, Mr. Richard Manchester, Mr. Howard Schneider, Mr. Toby Whipple, and Director Craig Anderson. GUESTS: Mayor Slocomb, Alderman LeDoux, Alderman Petfalski, Alderman Salentine, Bill Kumm, Wayne Koelsch, Jodi Staral, Diane O’Reilly, John Casper, Ginny Long, Robert & Olga Rammer, Peter Plew, Mark & Dawn Maynard, Dan & Molly Gallegos, Phyllis Sukalich, Jim & Carol McCormack, Billy & Kay Hacker, Paul Johnson, Peter Kujawa, Casey Sauer, Bridget Rake, Bill Carity, Dan Lecus APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 9 Board Meeting Ms. Debbie Carlson moved, Ald. Eileen Madden seconded, to approve the minutes of the September 9 meeting. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. PERSONAL APPEARANCES: Snowmobile Trails in Parks Mr. Dan Lecus of the Muskego Icetronauts requested permission to have mark snowmobile trails through Bluhm Farm Park, Denoon Park and Little Muskego Lake access (#17). The trails would be the same as last year. They would be putting up the necessary snow fencing. Ms. Carlson moved to approve the trails through Bluhm Farm Park, Denoon Park and the Little Muskego Lake access. Ald. Madden seconded. Mr. Manchester questioned if there was any damage from the trails last year? Director Anderson reported no problems last year. The only problems experienced in the past have been some rough areas of grass growth, but by the end of spring, everything was fine. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Police Department Incident Reports Director Anderson reported that on September 11, the portable toilet at Denoon Park was tipped over; broken glass over the parking lot and garbage from the containers was thrown all over the park. The Police Minutes, Parks & Recreation Board Meeting, October 14, 2002, page 2 Department had notified the department. By the following Thursday, the parks crew had everything cleaned up. Other Reports Director Anderson shared with the Board members a constituent’s thank you for the new playground at Denoon Park. It was greatly appreciated. The playground is now completed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Quietwood Subdivision Recreation Trail Mayor Slocomb refreshed those in attendance regarding the options A, B, C presented at last month’s meeting. It was at that time determined from an engineering standpoint they could do any of the three but that option B was not viable. The issue now with A and C is the dollar cost of over $200,000 to construct. He mentioned that currently the developer has a liability of $60,000 to install the pedestrian/bike trail. Mr. Carity was asked for his input and his limitation of contribution. Another issue that will be addressed would be changing the existing trail from 8’ of asphalt trail to 6’ of concrete trail and see if that is a viable alternative for the Board members and the property owners. Mr. Carity addressed those in attendance and the Board members on the dollar issue of options A and C. He had been asked to take a look at the cost to construct A and C. Some of the costs were dependent on the second phase of Candlewood Creek subdivision development and the unknown time frame of the development. Mayor Slocomb went over the placement of a 6’ concrete trail. It would be exactly in the location as the original placement of the trail on the map. The other issue involved was the addendum that the owners signed in addition to the offer to purchase. The addendum states that it was the developer’s intent to install an 8’-wide asphalt pedestrian path in front of specific properties. It was acknowledged that some were not made aware of it or were misled by the builder. A number had no foreknowledge if they bought from a builder. Attempt was made to the original purchaser of the lot to be made aware of this pedestrian path going down through the subdivision. There is no alternative but to put it in its present location from the developer’s standpoint. Mr. Carity said that he had contacted his attorney regarding the offer to purchase and the addendum. His attorney advised that the document constituted a quasi contractual obligation between the developer and everyone that purchased a lot. If pursued hard enough by someone who wanted the path in its current location, he might lose in a court of law. It describes an intent for him to install an asphalt path. They could be sued by other parties who want the bike path in its current location. Mayor Slocomb went over the specific section in the developer’s agreement that guarantees the developer is to put in all the amenities as set forth in the specifications, plans and other documents for the benefit of the people that live in that subdivision. Mr. Carity and Mayor Slocomb’s office have been contacted by people that want the path in its current location. It’s what they wanted when they bought the lot and they stressed it was important to them. Mayor Slocomb stated that now the issue is looking at it being 8’-wide asphalt or 6’-wide concrete. He explained that the 6’-wide concrete is the minimal width you can have for a bike path that is the lowest class of bike path that is recognized for a recreational-type activity. Eight-foot width is desirable for two-way traffic and 6’ is the minimal width you can have for one-way traffic for pedestrian and/or bikes. The other concern for going with concrete is that it would fit into the subdivision as most of the driveways are concrete. Mr. Carity Minutes, Parks & Recreation Board Meeting, October 14, 2002, page 3 went over the quotes he received for an asphalt installation and a concrete installation. The asphalt installation was $60,000 for the subdivision and the concrete installation of $100,000 was the best number. His preference is to spend the $60,000 for asphalt as compared to spending an additional $40,000 for concrete unless there is significant participation on behalf of the homeowners in the subdivision and that would be for someone to quantify. He thought that the asphalt would blend in well in the development. He recognized the emotional impact the issue had on the homeowners. He would like to know how much the residents would like to participate in the additional cost and how many would participate? Although he would be willing to put it off until next spring, his developer’s agreement states that the bike path would be put in with the final lift of asphalt within the subdivision and half the final lift was done this past week. It would seem to Mr. Carity that the Board essentially has two things before them. Does the bike path go in as originally planned and what is the size of the bike path? If the Board were to consider a 6’ bike path, he would consider negotiating with the people a price around that in terms of how that could occur. Mayor Slocomb reiterated that at the last meeting one more meeting was given to finalize the issue. He could not see anything happening with options A and C for the next few years. In allowing the additional time, they focused looking heavily at the other alternatives within the subdivision especially the concrete section. He stated they had contacted other municipalities regarding the structures they had in place. He explained what would be involved with the concrete installation. Ultimately, once it is turned over to the city, the city would have the liability for this path. The city would also have to maintain it and at times, the city would be taking city vehicles on the path and it would have to withstand this traffic. The city can maintain asphalt more easily than concrete. The Board would have to decide if they want a 6’-wide concrete path or an 8’-wide asphalt path. If there was a motion that the Board would recommend approval of a 6’-wide concrete path subject to Plan Commission and Common Council because it is a substantial change to the planned unit development and it does have to go through those two bodies and also subject to residents in the area, the developer, coming to an agreement on price, put a timeline on it that says that if the agreement happens within 30 days, 60 days, 45 days, then that would be allowable; if that agreement cannot come to pass at Plan Commission or Common Council or the developer cannot get an agreement with the people of the subdivision, then it automatically defaults to the 8’wide path. Mr. Carity’s contractor stated that the window of opportunity to put this path in this fall is closing with the end of the construction season eminent. Chairman Whipple questioned if it doesn’t go in this fall, will the asphalt cost be increased next spring? Mr. Carity stated the cost of the asphalt is dependent upon oil prices. Chairman Whipple brought the issue back to the Board and asked if anyone on the Board wished to change the location of the path from the originally approved location? Mr. Manchester preferenced his remarks that he was not in favor of the bike paths since their concept, but accepted that majority rules. He noted that most of the people in the audience are not in favor of the bike path. He moved to put it up to a concenses of the homeowners and call a moratorium on the issue until next spring. Motion received no second and failed. Ms. Carlson explained that the decision on the path is not an easy decision. She had received many calls from homeowners that signed the form and wanted the bike path and they would be very upset. She made a motion to put in a 6’-wide path, whether it is asphalt or concrete and it would have to be decided between the developer and the homeowners who are opting to pay for some of the increase if it is concrete; if not, she would recommend it goes 6’-wide asphalt. The homeowners are saying they will participate in some of these costs; it should be an option for the homeowners. Personally she would like to see the concrete but did not think the city would pay additional cost-sharing. Her motion was to recommend a 6’ concrete or asphalt recreational trail in the current location; if it goes concrete, then the additional cost would have to be worked out between the homeowners and the developer. Mr. Manchester questioned which homeowners? Ms. Carlson stated the ones in the subdivision and it should be an option. Motion received no second and failed. Minutes, Parks & Recreation Board Meeting, October 14, 2002, page 4 Mr. Hulbert moved that the option of a 6’-wide concrete path be put forward in place of the 8’-wide asphalt path with a 30-day time limit on for the expediency of putting this in with the connectivity that has been talked about in the past. The cost will not be carried by the city. It will be determined by the developer and the homeowners who wish to make the change from the asphalt if the change happens. This would be the original location, 6’ concrete as an option, going back to the original 8’ asphalt if within 30 days an agreement cannot be reached. Ms. Koble seconded. Mr. Manchester questioned if the maintenance of the bike path would be the city’s and all the taxpayers would be responsible for its repair? Chairman Whipple stated this was correct. Mr. Carity asked that the change in the developer’s agreement adding time for the bike path to allow it to go in by July of next year. Mayor Slocomb said this would be an administrative issue and further advised that his letter of credit would have to be extended. Mr. Hulbert asked if the Mayor considered it a reasonable direction for the Board to take, should less time be extended as he was concerned about not having resolution to the issue? He thought that within three weeks the homeowners could decide whether or not they wanted to pay for putting the concrete in front of their houses. Mayor Slocomb indicated whether it is 30 days, 60 days or next July, he did not look at that as a huge issue although it does deprive some people of the benefit for a short time. If they can get an agreement to change the agreement and it doesn’t cause a technical, legal problem, they can go that direction. This would then go before Plan Commission and the Common Council and he did expect some discussion at Council regarding the concrete issue. Mr. Manchester questioned do we need bike paths, how much recreation can the city afford? No other discussion. Mr. Hulbert restated his motion that the bike path be put in the original location as determined by the city. The option being that if resolution between the developer and the homeowners can be obtained with the trail changed to a 6’-wide concrete instead of the asphalt with a 30-day time limit on resolution of the issue. He thought that within 30 days the Plan Commission and the Common Council could come to resolution of the issue and deferred to the Mayor who acknowledged this was ample time. He assumed that the subdivision would want to meet right away to make a decision. He thought it could be worked through within the 30 days and the homeowners can get together within the time period and if they can’t, any action taken by Council or Plan Commission will revert back to the original plan. (Board took a five minute recess.) Ald. Madden expressed her disappointment with the residents that they had not come up with a resolution. Ms. Koble asked if a 6’ concrete path is approved and is installed within 30 days, is the city responsible for acquiring the special equipment to maintain the path, possibly tearing properties on either side of the path and then dealing with the maintenance of those properties? Director Anderson explained the priorities given to the recreation trails for snow removal. With only 6’ foot, he did say there was the possibility of going into the grass area along the path. The city would also have to stake the path so the parks crew would know exactly where the grass and the concrete match so they do not go off of the path. No further discussion. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Manchester voting against. ALDERMAN'S REPORT Nothing to report at this meeting. DEPARTMENT REPORTS Recreation Director Anderson said the department is working on the winter/spring book right now. It is scheduled to be mailed out the 3rd week in November. The department will be looking at working with the historical society for use of the Old Town Hall for future programming, possibly using it for teen events. Parks Minutes, Parks & Recreation Board Meeting, October 14, 2002, page 5 Boardwalk Director Anderson informed the Board that the boardwalk at Veterans’ Memorial Park has been started and should be done within the next month. Boxhorn Launch Boxhorn launch paving has been done. The wiring for the lights has been trenched in and they should be looking at putting up the lights soon. The parking lot striping is done or will be very shortly. The information kiosk has been ordered. The signage is done. The launch should be done by the end of the year. Manchester Hill Park Shelter Manchester Hill Park shelter is just about done. The electrician is running the electrical lines. Wood chips have been placed around the area around the shelter so it looks nice. The path still has to be brought up from the pond and the fountain still has to be installed. This should be completed by the end of the year. NEW BUSINESS MHS Athletic Fields Chairman Whipple shared with the Board members the discussion that took place between the school board and the city on the expansion of the athletic fields at the high school. There is a sub-committee of school board members, council members and administration. They had their first meeting today prior to this Board’s meeting. They will be meeting at least two more times to discuss priorities. They had discussed sharing the cost of the infrastructure. Director Anderson had prepared and distributed to the Board members cost and usage percentages on the proposed athletic fields. Board members also reviewed a map on the locations of the proposed fields—3 soccer fields, 1 football field, 4 baseball/softball diamonds. The purpose for the Board was for their input on what the participation should be for adding these fields. Common Council has indicated that the money for the cost-sharing would come from the landfill tipping fees; park dedication funds would not be used. Cost projections for the project was roughly $720,000 to $842,000. It is proposed to cost-share 50% on the infrastructure of the facilities. OTHER BUSINESS Subdivision Plans from Plan Commission Big Muskego Lakes Estates II Subdivision Mr. Hulbert informed the Board members of the area that is already platted. They will be setting aside a conservation plan with several nature areas. This does not impact for the recreation trails. Mr. Hulbert moved to accept park dedication fees per lot in lieu of land dedication. Ms. Koble seconded. No further discussion. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. Weatherwood Courts Subdivision Mr. Hulbert pointed out the boundaries of this subdivision—Ryan Road and OO. He mentioned they were Minutes, Parks & Recreation Board Meeting, October 14, 2002, page 6 concerned about the lots and wanted to make sure the lot pads were big enough. There is no impact and no recreational trails. Mr. Hulbert moved to accept park dedication fees per lot in lieu of land dedication. Ms. Carlson seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. Next Meeting –November 11, 2002 COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW Chairman Whipple asked if the portable toilet had been scheduled to be removed from the Manchester Hill Park? He discovered it missing this past Sunday afternoon. Director Anderson indicated the toilet should be there through the end of October. Since it is obviously missing, he will have the parks supervisor check on it. Chairman Whipple questioned if the Denoon Park shelter needed some maintenance? Director Anderson responded that it is on the schedule to be done next year along with the Bluhm Farm Park shelter. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, Mr. Hulbert moved for adjournment at 8:40 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Schneider. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried . Stella Dunahee, CPS Recording Secretary pc: Board Members, Craig Anderson email: Mayor, Alderpersons, Department Heads, Peter Theis, Irene Schuder, Tammy Dunn,