WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=Y_trxmaDJyA Part: 1 1 00:00:46.160 --> 00:01:02.480 Uh good evening everyone. Uh it's time for our uh June 16th Park and Recreation Committee meeting. Uh before we get started, uh we have a new member uh uh Jay uh Zean, is that how you say? And uh 2 00:01:02.480 --> 00:01:22.560 Jay's joining Jay's joining the group here. And uh why don't we go around? I think he's uh introduced himself to everybody, but let's just go around. Maybe start with Owen. Just give us your name. >> Sure. Owen Beckers, 3 00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:38.560 >> Jay Zean, Blake Farber, Chris Casey, >> Alex Han, Adam Der, >> Larry Schulz, >> Amanda Cahill, Mary Larson, >> Jacob Paul, >> Tammy Leonetti. >> Okay. And we have two staff members with 4 00:01:38.560 --> 00:01:54.479 us today. So, want to just introduce yourself? >> I'm Brian McCann. I'm the city planner for the city of Victoria. >> And I'm Mark Nys. I'm the recreation coordinator here in Victoria. Okay, very good. Thank you. Uh 5 00:01:54.479 --> 00:02:09.440 I don't see anybody in the audience uh that so nobody to address the committee at this point in time. So we'll move right on to adopt the final agenda. Is there anyone that would like to uh make 6 00:02:09.440 --> 00:02:26.400 a motion to approve the agenda as it was sent out? >> Motion to approve. >> Okay, motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. >> Motion's been made and seconded to adopt the agenda as it was sent out. Uh all in 7 00:02:26.400 --> 00:02:41.760 favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Post say no. >> Motion carried. Thank you. Regular agenda. U. The minutes of the last meeting May 18th, 2026 were sent 8 00:02:41.760 --> 00:02:59.120 out in your packet. Um, does anybody like to make a motion to approve the minutes as they're sent out? >> Motion to approve. >> A motion to approve the minutes as they're sent out. Is there a second? 9 00:02:59.120 --> 00:03:15.680 >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Uh, a motion's been made and seconded to approve the committee meeting minutes from May 18th. Uh all in favor signify by saying I. I 10 00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:31.440 >> oppose. No. Okay. Minutes are approved. Motion carried. >> The main item this evening, in fact the only item other than the approval of the minutes is uh review of the Historia 11 00:03:31.440 --> 00:03:47.840 Lake Town uh sketch plot. And with that, this evening we have city planner uh Brian McCann in attendance to uh tell us a little bit about that and guide us through that process. So take it away, Brian. >> Great. Thank you, chair and committee 12 00:03:47.840 --> 00:04:03.680 members. Yes, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Brian McCann. I'm the city planner for the city of Victoria. Uh looks like there are a few new faces since the last time I was here, so I thought a brief introduction would be beneficial for the group. Uh otherwise, we can just jump right into it. Tonight 13 00:04:03.680 --> 00:04:20.239 we are reviewing a sketch plat for the project called Historia Lake Town from Ebenezer Development. This is located at 2285 Arburidum Boulevard which is just off of Highway 5 adjacent to the Lake Bridge neighborhood. The project area 14 00:04:20.239 --> 00:04:34.720 consists of four parcels totaling about 56.4 acres. Currently right now there are two single family homes on the property. Uh you can see one here just at the end of Sky Drive and there's another one tucked into the woods back 15 00:04:34.720 --> 00:04:53.199 here. Um as part of this project, the applicant is planning to dedicate the southern two parcels here, this long stretch of land approximately 7 acres large to the city as part of the future Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail Corridor. 16 00:04:53.199 --> 00:05:09.440 Um the site currently has full access to Highway 5. that's proposed to change with their project with their access coming from Sky Drive to the west. There's also significant wetland coverage on the property as you can see with the stream that connects Lake 17 00:05:09.440 --> 00:05:24.880 Auburn to the north and Carl Cray Lake to the southwest. Uh we did review a sketch plat and preliminary plat for this project a few years ago. It was formerly called the Amira project consisting of a 147 unit 18 00:05:24.880 --> 00:05:41.759 senior living age restricted 55 plus apartment building. So I thought it would be beneficial as a reminder for the large group and for our incoming members on what the development process entails and why you are reviewing this request. So the very 19 00:05:41.759 --> 00:05:57.680 first phase of the development process that a developer developer submits is called a sketch plat which is where we are today. Uh it's basically just a concept plan. They're exploring uh development possibilities for a project 20 00:05:57.680 --> 00:06:13.919 and getting feedback from city staff, plan commission, city council, and the parks and recreation committee specifically for the parkland components with this group. Uh what this does it saves the developer costs on the back end of creating engineered plans which 21 00:06:13.919 --> 00:06:30.720 are typically 50 to 100 pages um and it saves a lot of review on a project that they want to know right off the bat is going to be feasible. So that is the purpose of the sketch plat and why we're here. After this they move towards those preliminary PL plans that I mentioned 22 00:06:30.720 --> 00:06:46.000 the more detailed engineering documents and with that they get approval from the city council. Uh but a public hearing occurs with the plan commission prior to that. The city council approvals are called land use entitlements meaning they have rights at that point to 23 00:06:46.000 --> 00:07:02.560 develop the property. And then uh the final step is not city council. Sorry about that. It's the final plat which is the uh final development approvals and is typically only reviewed by the city council. 24 00:07:02.560 --> 00:07:20.080 So here is the proposed sketch plat that was submitted to the city for your review this evening. It's a 76 unit cooperative building here as well as six duplex units. So three separate buildings but there's two in each of these as well as two single family 25 00:07:20.080 --> 00:07:36.960 homes. one new and one that's existing and then they would demolish that one that was down here that I highlighted earlier on the existing uh map. So with that they are proposing a surface parking lot with 63 stalls and an 26 00:07:36.960 --> 00:07:53.680 underground parking garage for the residents with 104 stalls underground there. Uh and then as I mentioned they would be getting their access from Sky Drive and they would be taking away the access that connects to Highway 5 right now. The reason for that is that the 27 00:07:53.680 --> 00:08:10.840 Minnesota Department of Transportation will not allow a direct access to this property. It's just too close in proximity to uh the 511 project just up the street as well as neighborhoods across the street to allow any sort of access. 28 00:08:10.879 --> 00:08:26.479 Then getting into the park trail sidewalk components of this project. They are pro providing a portion of public sidewalk here with the extension of Sky Drive noted in green. And then everything in red is within their 29 00:08:26.479 --> 00:08:42.800 property boundaries that we are anticipating to be a private sidewalk that they would own and maintain. And then the blue area is a extension of that sidewalk that we anticipate to be private with a connection down to that 30 00:08:42.800 --> 00:08:59.920 future Lake Minnetonka regional trail corridor. And then just highlighting for the larger group again uh kind of similar to how I did for the development process, what is parkland dedication? So you might hear this term. It's called an 31 00:08:59.920 --> 00:09:17.200 exaction which is a reasonable cost of development to put it in general terms. Uh parkland dedication is a type of exaction. So with that the city is growing. We need parks and trails for the added population. So this is something that we can ask developers to 32 00:09:17.200 --> 00:09:34.480 do. But to do that we have to do it in compliance with our code that we have written out. So our municipal code lays out a formula uh for dedication of acreage of parkland or the developer has an option to pay a fee in lie of land 33 00:09:34.480 --> 00:09:50.720 which is up to $105,000 per acre. So the parks and recreation committee can recommend either land fee or some combination of those but city council is the one who will ultimately make the decision on parkland dedication. 34 00:09:50.720 --> 00:10:05.360 So, I know you all wanted to do some math tonight when we came here. So, I put down a little breakdown here of how we came to the figure on the next slide with the senior cooperative building. This is the formula laid out in our 35 00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:23.120 code. And any senior project actually only has to provide half of the parkland dedication because they don't have a large park and trail use typically with a senior project. single family homes have to dedicate um 36 00:10:23.120 --> 00:10:38.880 for three and a half units per acre. Sorry, I'm realizing here as well that this does not need a 50% exclusion. This is just two standard single family homes here. Um so their dedication for those two comes out to less than a tenth of an 37 00:10:38.880 --> 00:10:54.959 acre. The cooperative building has to provide a little over 3/4 of an acre. And then the duplex twin homes would also be senior occupied. So they would get that 50% reduction as well. They also have to provide less than a tenth of an acre. 38 00:10:54.959 --> 00:11:12.640 So combined between those two, we're talking just under an acre of dedication that by code they would have to provide. They are planning to dedicate approximately seven acres with this trail corridor. So going well above and beyond the minimum requirement for this 39 00:11:12.640 --> 00:11:29.120 uh dedication of the corridor to the city for future construction of the Lake Minnitonka Regional Trail. Uh we've heard some questions from the public on the staff side if the city is going to require the developer to construct the trail as part of this project or if 40 00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:45.839 we're going to require the developer to seek out acquiring the three properties that are under private ownership just to the east within this corridor. That is not part of the developer's plan and we cannot legally require the developer to do either of those actions. So, I just 41 00:11:45.839 --> 00:12:02.000 wanted to publicly say that >> this picture are those properties in this image. >> Uh, this one, it's just a segment of that property. There are two other ones just to the east down that line that are privately owned. There's like six 42 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:19.120 parcels. Uh, the city owns three of them and then three are under private ownership. >> Thanks for clarifying. >> Yep. Um, with that, I do have a sample motion for your consideration this evening. Staff can stand for any questions you have. 43 00:12:19.120 --> 00:12:34.880 >> I'll open it up for any questions or comments that anyone would have. >> What's the current gap? So, with the corridor proposed to be dedicated and then the effectively six parcels, three of which are city-owned, three are privately owned, that to the east, 44 00:12:34.880 --> 00:12:51.839 that's the gap. What what's the distance there then between well I gap the gap distance effectively between the corridor dedication and the current LRT? >> Chair and commissioners that is a good question. Let me pull up the map and we can just measure it together. 45 00:12:51.839 --> 00:13:08.639 Um I would guess it's less than a half mile. um even closer if we're talking about just to where the city has ownership at the moment and not to the existing downtown area. 46 00:13:08.639 --> 00:13:30.880 >> So the city parcels and the private parcels are contiguous. >> Correct. Yeah. So let me see here. Um, so this is not the format of our maps 47 00:13:30.880 --> 00:13:48.639 that I'm used to, but my understanding is that there's 1, two, three, four, five. There's these six properties that get you to that bridge that goes under Highway 5. The city, I believe, owns these two which connect to this park 48 00:13:48.639 --> 00:14:06.160 here. And then we own one of these four and the other three are under private ownership. >> Can we I missed the last meeting that was specific to the trails. I don't know if you guys talked about this at the 49 00:14:06.160 --> 00:14:23.040 time, but can you share any of the conversations that have been had thus far with those three, it sounds like three homeowners with the properties? Uh, yes. So, I personally have not been 50 00:14:23.040 --> 00:14:38.800 part of those conversations. I've just heard that none of the three owners, the last time they were asked, were interested in selling their properties to the city for this trail extension. Um, it's been a few years, I think, since the city has asked, so maybe 51 00:14:38.800 --> 00:14:53.279 sentiments have changed. [clears throat] Um, but there is also the scenario that they have not. >> Is there an opportunity to ask the city or whoever um to make an effort perhaps with the HO? I'm 52 00:14:53.279 --> 00:15:09.920 on the HOA for Lakebridge and I think we would be happy to partner together and approach those three properties and I say that because the seven acres is great is what it sounds like but that's still not going to fix the access for the trail, right? >> I I think there's a couple issues that 53 00:15:09.920 --> 00:15:26.720 we need to keep in mind. One is even if we were able to get those uh there currently aren't funds available to do that trail. I mean it would open it up for future. So the question becomes one 54 00:15:26.720 --> 00:15:42.000 of city staff when's the appropriate time to approach people to to do that. Um I think that's maybe a key key factor. Uh the city has the council has 55 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:59.279 taken the position of focusing on trails that are becoming parts of uh road projects like the arboritum project is accomplishing a number of the trail gaps. This committee at the last meeting 56 00:15:59.279 --> 00:16:14.320 actually um approved this or recommend that this trail gap be done at some point in time. uh but then it's up to the city council to determine and staff when it's the the appropriate time. So from a committee 57 00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:29.600 standpoint uh you know we've uh approved or recommend it that these these are trail gaps that at some point in time should be filled. So it's a matter of when funding's available and when the time's 58 00:16:29.600 --> 00:16:47.079 right. So I think from a committee standpoint um we've done what we've asked been asked to do and I think the the other decision is not the decision of the committee it's the decision of the council. 59 00:16:47.120 --> 00:17:01.759 Um >> okay. >> So um so if if this development provides this acreage, this parkland dedication, um besides these three parcels that are 60 00:17:01.759 --> 00:17:17.120 in question, does it connect on the other side? Does it >> is it proposed to >> connect the trail behind Lake Bridge that it connects to and the dead ends on 61 00:17:17.120 --> 00:17:32.160 the other end right now? So, so because I'm just just want to make sure like because it there was a lot of talk at the front like the entryway to this facility would be a private trail and then there was a 62 00:17:32.160 --> 00:17:51.840 connection talked about from behind this facility that would be a private connection. So I just wanted to clarify that like if this land was given there is is a public connection possibility 63 00:17:51.840 --> 00:18:09.520 >> chair and comm or um committee members. So this is that um blue section here that would be their private trail connection to the future corridor here. It would roughly connect somewhere around here. Here you can see the general outline um of where they would 64 00:18:09.520 --> 00:18:26.320 plan to do something like that based on what the property owners have been using for access uh to this area. And then um there is an existing point that the trail could connect to the Lake Bridge 65 00:18:26.320 --> 00:18:42.799 neighborhood to the west. Um and then further areas owned by the city to the west as well that could There are there is trail to the west >> in that park. They access it. There's >> Yeah. >> Down in that park. It's not It's not 66 00:18:42.799 --> 00:18:58.160 paved at the >> No, it's all dirt. >> That's essentially what's on the map. That's what we're looking at literally, right? The the gravel path. Yeah. >> And you can get to that trail right now from watermark. >> It's a very steep hill. >> So, yeah. So, it's it it it also impacts 67 00:18:58.160 --> 00:19:13.840 other neighborhoods, >> right? Everything beyond that point. Yeah. Yeah. And >> Yeah. It's it doesn't connect on the other side currently, but in theory that the county's master plan is to connect down to Rap City from the other side of 68 00:19:13.840 --> 00:19:30.080 Lake Bridge. >> So, just a quick clarifying question on their sketch. So, their future, their connection to that trail won't happen until those other properties, let's just say the three properties are addressed. Correct? [clears throat] 69 00:19:30.080 --> 00:19:46.799 Um, chair and committee members, they're still planning to construct that section of their private connection down there. They just won't construct the actual trail corridor down there. So, they won't they won't build on the seven acres that they're giving to the city. 70 00:19:46.799 --> 00:20:04.960 They would just do this segment in blue. It would >> just be a little >> a little path to nowhere. But with the understanding that when that trail gets constructed in the future, they will have a direct connection to it. >> I'm guessing the surface of the trail 71 00:20:04.960 --> 00:20:21.440 things to negotiate on like the type of surface isn't really an option. It's still expensive to level it and all that stuff. >> Correct. Yep. And um any construction of that trail is a future project. Uh it might be a city and county project. It might be other 72 00:20:21.440 --> 00:20:39.919 entities constructing it. So, um, at this point, or are you talking about the blue segment >> either if like I don't know if they would they probably wouldn't want to change their blue to be something cheaper to try to help at least pave some or put gravel down on some 73 00:20:39.919 --> 00:20:56.480 >> maybe at least extend it. >> I'm going to get it started. I'm going to guess since we're talking about a senior facility with a private connection that they're going to want some sort of pavement for the residents. >> Isn't that going through a wetland area 74 00:20:56.480 --> 00:21:12.360 though? I was thinking that was going to be a boardwalk. >> Correct. >> There's going to be a small section of boardwalk. Um the majority of it would be paved, but this area that they would cross here would likely be a small section of boardwalk. >> Okay. 75 00:21:13.120 --> 00:21:30.480 their comments. Oh, >> uh, is it for like the private versus public sidewalk? Is there like a standard or code about when that >> We typically want them to match the 76 00:21:30.480 --> 00:21:46.799 public requirement, which is a 6-ft concrete um section of sidewalk, but if they're proposing their own private um asphalt or buminous trail, I think we would still want at least 6 feet wide, but the 77 00:21:46.799 --> 00:22:02.159 material choice is up to them. I just meant uh between it being private sidewalk ver like is there a requirement that projects build public sidewalks in certain cases and in this project is not. >> Um the green section that they would 78 00:22:02.159 --> 00:22:19.520 construct here would be public sidewalks. So that would have to meet our six-foot concrete requirements. But any of the red and blue on the map here um could be up to their discretion. So I think what you're asking is like 79 00:22:19.520 --> 00:22:36.480 can the city ask them like hey can residents walk along these sidewalks and trails not >> not res 55 plus residents can other neighborhood residents use I think this is a unique we haven't seen maybe this 80 00:22:36.480 --> 00:22:51.760 or I haven't in the committee before where it's like red private >> that's right I've seen it in in Chaza the conference center behind And Costco has like private trails that go down to public trails. >> Um, but I haven't seen a few. 81 00:22:51.760 --> 00:23:07.919 >> There's one actually right out here from that. I don't know what they call it, the apartment building here. It's a short way and it's posted on there >> private. >> Um, >> but yeah, so I think we're asking the 82 00:23:07.919 --> 00:23:23.039 same question like um >> is it just the developer's choice to make it private or can the city require that it's public? It's the developer's choice. It's their private property. >> Other comments, questions? 83 00:23:23.039 --> 00:23:44.720 >> Can I Can I see the the bigger um the lay whatever map that is? Yes. >> Um so I I just just out of curiosity. um their property ends or this property ends at that line that right there where 84 00:23:44.720 --> 00:24:02.000 your cursor is. >> Okay. I'm just wondering if there's another way to construct a trail or a boardwalk to act to bypass any of those properties to get to the one the city owns. I thought I saw 85 00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:18.640 something when the Amira uh developers were talking that there was I thought they had talked about going I'm horrible with directions side like towards where the um Yeah, exactly. Like kind of cutting across that way instead 86 00:24:18.640 --> 00:24:35.440 of going nowhere because I would think their residents would want to head into town and we'd want to make space for them to go into town. There's a lot of people there. >> Yeah. um chair and committee members. So to do that would be working with this private property owner. The city doesn't 87 00:24:35.440 --> 00:24:51.120 own this property. Um that's something that maybe the developer or the city could explore. It's just not what's being proposed right now. So it looks like the the plot this is just a general question for knowledge 88 00:24:51.120 --> 00:25:07.279 sake not point of discussion but like the let's assume the three plots that are privately the three parcels that are privately owned >> are are the three like just to the southeast of your cursor right now >> and then the two to the east of that. 89 00:25:07.279 --> 00:25:26.159 Let's assume it's those three. Those aren't the parcels that the homestead is obviously built on. Right. >> Correct. >> So, but it's still part of their yard, so to speak. So, it and it's already been plotted out for a potential. So, you just Okay, understood. 90 00:25:26.159 --> 00:25:41.120 >> Correct. >> We we had talked previously as a committee way back about you could put a boardwalk out around that, but we're talking mega bucks here. that probably 91 00:25:41.120 --> 00:25:57.279 not going to happen anytime soon. Uh so the best bet is to try to acquire that those properties at some point in time. >> Has the city explored historically doing conservation easements across there 92 00:25:57.279 --> 00:26:14.480 rather than an outright sale? I'm just curious as whether the private land owners might be more accepting of an easement as opposed to, you know, outright selling, >> right? Because you're only talking about 93 00:26:14.480 --> 00:26:29.760 >> or or even the ones instead of the little three kind of going in the little boxes, the the larger land owners to the north might be more willing to accept a conservation easement. 94 00:26:29.760 --> 00:26:43.679 Yeah. Uh, chair and com committee members, that's something we haven't fully discussed as staff to my knowledge, but it's certainly a possibility that we could explore. >> Okay. Okay. I'm going to guess back onto the 95 00:26:43.679 --> 00:27:01.039 the topic at hand and then in our at the end if we emerging issues want to talk about trails a little bit, we can. But from a the applicant here for Atoria Lake Town, 96 00:27:01.039 --> 00:27:17.200 um what they're proposing, the question I would would ask is does anyone have any heartburn over what they're planning on doing here on their property? 97 00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:32.640 >> So, it's essentially dedicating. They only need to dedicate one acre. They're dedicating seven for the trail, which means we have to declare if we're comfortable. Essentially, they're not building a park. It's just going to be dedicated for a trail that might not be built in the near future. >> Correct. 98 00:27:32.640 --> 00:27:48.799 >> And if we're okay with that. >> Yeah. And the sidewalks, you know, part too. So I mean from my perspective um they're going beyond what uh beyond 99 00:27:48.799 --> 00:28:06.080 anything that would be required of them and the fact that they're dedicating that land. They could keep that land and then we'd have to purchase that at some point in time. So at least we're getting some acreage where we have the potential for a trail which we'd like to see at 100 00:28:06.080 --> 00:28:21.279 some point in time. Um, so we're getting that. They're doing that extra piece by the U circle there. Or is that is that a roundabout in there? What is that? >> Uh, that's a culdeac. 101 00:28:21.279 --> 00:28:36.559 >> Culdeac. Okay. So, they're adding some public area there that they wouldn't be required to. Is that correct? >> Correct. in lie of uh putting a playground or or donating 102 00:28:36.559 --> 00:28:53.279 the 98,000 or whatever it was. Anybody else have concerns? >> It's worth getting the land. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Getting land for one of the biggest, you know, the regional trail gap. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 103 00:28:53.279 --> 00:29:09.039 >> Okay. Um we uh motion would be in order. If there's no more discussion to recommend to the city council to accept the light rate uh LRT corridors parkland ded 104 00:29:09.039 --> 00:29:25.600 parkland dedication for the this project. Somebody like to make that a motion. >> So moved. >> A motion's been made. Is there a second? >> Second. And motion's been made and seconded to recommend the city recommend 105 00:29:25.600 --> 00:29:45.679 to the city council that they accept the LRT corridor as parkland dedication for the Historial Lake Town project. [clears throat] Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of said motion signify by saying I. I. 106 00:29:45.679 --> 00:30:04.399 >> Oppose say no. Motions carried. Thank you. Okay. Uh, next is emerging issues. So, if we anybody wanted to talk about any issues that have come up or want to further 107 00:30:04.399 --> 00:30:20.960 discuss uh the trail, uh, now's the time. >> I had just a followup question and direct me to like if this isn't the right form, I totally get it. Um, but would we have we ever 108 00:30:20.960 --> 00:30:37.600 Can we explore going back to the developer and seeing if they'd be willing to look at alternative um trails? Um obviously it's completely up to them, but I I don't know unless that's 109 00:30:37.600 --> 00:30:53.600 something that I have to take up personally with them like as part as far as the HOA. I'm just curious if that would be part of this or something we could explore. >> Sure. Chair and committee members, I'm the direct contact with the developer as they work through their project. So, I'll let them know about the discussions 110 00:30:53.600 --> 00:31:09.039 that we've had tonight and see if they would be interested in considering um considering alternative trail boardwalk options. And if they do come up with something different, I would be willing to bring it back to this group and present it to you. [clears throat] 111 00:31:09.039 --> 00:31:26.320 >> Anything else on that or any other emerging issue? >> Yeah, I did have a question. Um, I was reading over um, city council um, presentation um, concerning the Hunterbrook and Marsh 112 00:31:26.320 --> 00:31:44.640 Hollow Park um, recommendations that we had um, worked so very hard on. I think that was our longest meeting ever and it was like four hours long and there was so many of us um invested in that and 113 00:31:44.640 --> 00:32:01.039 really concerned about you know presenting what residents you know requested for those those parks. And there was just some mention of uh the pump track in there that said we 114 00:32:01.039 --> 00:32:17.440 had only mentioned minor concern over the intersection of pedestrians and the bike track. And there wasn't very much additional 115 00:32:17.440 --> 00:32:32.640 um information presented on just like the depth of our discussions and you know how we Yes. In our motions we only made motions that said here are 116 00:32:32.640 --> 00:32:50.399 the things we would prioritize. We said like three things here is what we would prioritize. But there wasn't mention of like so in in when I saw like oh minor concerns I think multiple committee 117 00:32:50.399 --> 00:33:06.159 members brought it up that like we love the punk pump truck. We need this revised to not intersect uh pedestrian walkways, right? And so I would just hate for that to move forward 118 00:33:06.159 --> 00:33:22.357 and um feel kind of responsible if anything were to happen because so many of us were like this. Yes, this is our we're looking at the proposed concepts. were 119 00:33:22.357 --> 00:33:38.880 [clears throat] reviewing them and I just would not feel right and feel comfortable if all of a sudden that there was like intersections in what was chosen to move forward with. 120 00:33:38.880 --> 00:33:54.559 Um, so I don't know if you have additional information or insights that you can share. And then so as far as like ranking of the the items that we said like yes this is you know the the 121 00:33:54.559 --> 00:34:10.639 things we want prioritized. We also had discussion around like things not to be included and reasoning for that not necessarily just off the table. 122 00:34:10.639 --> 00:34:25.200 >> I I can speak to that a little bit. I actually watched the meeting. >> Yep. And I think they did have discussion about that. Not as in-depth as we did. Okay. But I think they acknowledged that the committee had come up with concerns. >> Okay. 123 00:34:25.200 --> 00:34:41.919 >> And um I also think that our discussion was constrained a little bit by prioritizing because we were told that there was only limited dollars. I think that the council, and I think this is 124 00:34:41.919 --> 00:34:58.240 really a a smart move on their part, said, "Well, we have funds in our our park fund that can only be used for new parks. It's just sitting there. Why don't we do this, right?" And because 125 00:34:58.240 --> 00:35:15.119 the expectation is there and so they actually um move to go ahead with more things >> and uh to do both parts instead of wait. So yeah, and I I think there was that 126 00:35:15.119 --> 00:35:31.359 that discussion and I I think >> uh I know one thing that we said we were concerned about was the community garden piece the how that would look. They they that was brought up that we had said that. Okay. I 127 00:35:31.359 --> 00:35:48.000 believe I think I remember that >> and um you know they >> uh >> were aware of that information and said that you know that neighborhoods out there quite a ways away from the other 128 00:35:48.000 --> 00:36:02.480 places in town that have community gardens or other places that could be and decided to figure out a way to move ahead with that. I think there will be a chance in the final design of the park to address that issue further. 129 00:36:02.480 --> 00:36:18.320 >> Uh because I know that uh >> you know they're cognizant of that. >> Yeah. Was there discussion more on though the like no intersecting piece of the track and the pedestrian walkways? >> Chair and committee members, I'm 130 00:36:18.320 --> 00:36:35.760 actually on the team that's working with the consultant on developing these parks. I wasn't able to make the last meeting that they had uh but I will be part of the next one so I can bring this up. >> Okay. Um because just for for everyone's 131 00:36:35.760 --> 00:36:53.760 you know sharing and saying like where I'm coming from is that it just made me more cognizant to maybe think like if if we only have really the opportunity to show our work through our motions then then perhaps in 132 00:36:53.760 --> 00:37:10.240 the future when we're thinking about them to be very specific like I don't know if we could have done this or if it would have been appropriate, but to like yes, rank pump track, but must ensure 133 00:37:10.240 --> 00:37:27.839 no intersections with pedestrians or something of that sort. Can you speak to like just kind of general uh >> Yeah, I I think you know I think we need to >> best practices. Yeah, I think we need to depend on staff to bring those things 134 00:37:27.839 --> 00:37:44.480 forward when they're presenting to the council because that's the link that we have from the committee to the council and I believe they did a pretty good job of that at the when I viewed that. It's been a while since I looked at that. But 135 00:37:44.480 --> 00:37:58.960 >> yeah, and like I said, I was just reviewing what was written >> and it said like minor concerns and [clears throat] >> because essentially I suppose we're just providing a recommendation at the end of the day. So whether it's, >> you know, verbatim laid out in the motion or not, they're going to consider 136 00:37:58.960 --> 00:38:14.480 the recommendation, right? It might hold a little bit more weight if it's in the motion, >> but it's still, you know, at the end of the day >> looking for your input on and expertise. >> Sure. Um chair and committee members I 137 00:38:14.480 --> 00:38:28.000 can't really say I whole have a whole lot of experience with pump tracks. I more so >> just like for for the motion part. >> Oh, on >> like like does it matter like do we need to be 138 00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:45.839 more specific with motions or does does having our meetings and discussions does that represent enough? >> Having the discussions are representative enough. If you say um like as [clears throat] part of your motion that you would like to 139 00:38:45.839 --> 00:39:02.160 incorporate the changes as discussed, that's a common tactic that's used when making motions to get your point across in one concise manner without listing specific points. >> Okay, super helpful. >> I did want to bring I had two constituents reach out around the park. 140 00:39:02.160 --> 00:39:18.880 One was the general kind of how are we going to give more frequent updates on what's happening. Um so if there's anything we can do on that. The second in the the meeting I was watching that too, I did have a constituent reach out saying they kind of flipped the Huntersbrook part and tried to say it should be for older kids. So there was 141 00:39:18.880 --> 00:39:36.079 concerns that the the feedback that we had given didn't make it forward. So along with if they added more stuff in it was like well why didn't we add younger kid playground stuff back into the Hunters Brook side. So, I think as you're exploring the designs, if there is an opportunity to really try to bring 142 00:39:36.079 --> 00:39:52.560 that younger kid aspect back, that was an ask that I got from a constituent. I don't know if if you had the similar thing watching it, but I I did think they flipped kind of the the feedback we had was make it for young and older kids and then they said in the meeting, well, we'll just do it more for older kids. 143 00:39:52.560 --> 00:40:08.720 And I think it missed what the community was saying. >> Again, I I Yeah, I kind of got that, too. I I think that that project's going to come back to this committee. >> So why don't we see what's designed in 144 00:40:08.720 --> 00:40:24.400 it and if we still have that concern Yep. >> then I think we >> pass that recommendation on at that point in time. But until we see what's actually in there and it we kind of, you know, flipped the I don't think they 145 00:40:24.400 --> 00:40:40.400 there was some comment about don't put the playground in by one person, but that got shut down right away by the others. So I I think there's going to be a playground there and we'll just have to [clears throat] see what what's there. But I I kind of took it a little 146 00:40:40.400 --> 00:40:57.280 bit is >> that they wanted to gear it a little more towards older but not at the expense of taking all the >> y >> other age group away. But we'll wait till we see the >> y >> project and maybe you can pass >> in the design >> you're on the design team so you can 147 00:40:57.280 --> 00:41:15.839 >> you know be cognizant of that as well. So >> absolutely >> other comments or thoughts? Good good questions. >> Thanks for sharing. Anything else for the good of the cause? If not, a great attendance this evening. Thanks 148 00:41:15.839 --> 00:41:31.839 for your attendance. And we had enough discussion and hopefully quit raining. You can ride your bike home. [laughter] >> Is a motion. Motion's in order to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Okay. Motion's been made. 149 00:41:31.839 --> 00:41:38.800 >> Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.