Dear Robert. Phone: Cell: Robert,

Transcription

1 From: Ringold, Jennifer B. To: dwyers Cc: Tabb, Anita; LWielinski_Home account; Michael Hinton Weber, Andrea S.; Chamberlain, Bruce Subject: RE: Items of Concern Date: Tuesday, May 29, :11:07 PM Dear Robert Thank you for your questions below. We have provided clarifications for items in each section. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Hope to see you on Saturday for the open house. Best, jbr Jennifer Ringold Manager of Public Engagement and Citywide Planning Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN Phone: Cell: From: Chamberlain, Bruce Sent: Tuesday, May 29, :41 AM To: dwyers Cc: Tabb, Anita; Wielinski, Liz; Paul Kieffer; Michael Hinton; Ringold, Jennifer B. Subject: RE: Items of Concern Robert, Thank you for your . I have asked Jennifer Ringold to respond to your comments so please expect an from her later today. Bruce Chamberlain, ASLA Assistant Superintendent for Planning Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN bchamberlain@minneapolisparks.org From: dwyers [mailto:dwyers@ties2.net] Sent: Saturday, May 26, :27 PM To: Chamberlain, Bruce Cc: Tabb, Anita; Wielinski, Liz; Paul Kieffer; Michael Hinton Subject: Items of Concern

2 Dear Assistant Superintendent Chamberlain, I wish to bring to your attention some items of concern resulting from our review of the recent CAC meetings and information provided by your staff. We hope these items can be resolved or clarified before or at the coming Open House and CAC meeting on June 2nd. Short Term Golf Academy: This item appears on the Financial Approach presentation from the latest CAC meetings as item A-12,a "modification to the Par 3". I contacted Andrea to find out more about this. Apparently this item was discussed at a CAC meeting which I was unable to attend. She referred me to the record of the March 20th meeting but unfortunately there was no detail in the on-line record. Andrea also mentioned that the CAC was told on March 20th that the design and operation of the Academy was not within their scope of responsibility. At the time she me she expected that the CAC at the May 1st meeting might be able to recommend that this short term solution be abandoned in favor of simply waiting and doing the long term solution on the front nine of the 18 hole course. Was this item given a low priority at the May 1st meeting? Is it virtually off this list of what will happen? If not, what are the specific modifications to the Par 3 that will occur? Will hole routings or lengths be changed? How will the operation of the academy affect the operation of the Par 3? We need to know the answers to these question so we can respond intelligently and in a timely manner. Par 3 golfers are used to the course being reserved for short periods of time when leagues have there scheduled competitions. This includes Park Board leagues, company leagues, and youth leagues including youth programs like the MMJGA, high schools, and the First Tee. We support the mission of the First Tee. But we need to be sure that a short term golf academy will not unduly interfere with the successful operation of the Par 3 course. How often and for how long will golf academy operation affect course availability for other golfers? This was one of the last items the CAC considered at the May 1 meeting. While the CAC did prioritize the front 9 modifications with the driving range, they had not taken any action on the short-term golf academy. Bruce asked the CAC to make their intentions for that option known by taking action, especially in light of the concerns raised by Par-3 golfers. The CAC voted to remove the short-term golf academy from consideration. Dog Park: I have nothing to add to the you received from Scott Wylie, dated May 22nd. I will repeat however that the location for the Dog Park in the April 2011 presentation clearly did not interfere with the chipping hole. We do not expect this chipping hole to be eliminated just because there are elaborate plans for a Golf Academy across the parkway some time in the future. Scott s question prompted a good staff discussion about project staging and timing. Since the design charrette in November 2011, concept diagrams illustrated a dog park adjacent to as well as in place of the chipping hole. The CAC has taken action in support of a dog park in that location. However, staff believes it is important to the golf operation to keep the current chipping hole in use until the planned changes to the front nine will implement a new driving range and chipping hole. To account for this, staff will bring a recommendation to the CAC at the June 2 meeting to stage implementation of the dog park with the western portion (outside of current golf use) opened first and expansion over the current chipping hole occurring only after the new practice facility is in place. Pond Name: Maps presented by staff at the last CAC meetings show the pond and marsh next to the 4th, 5th and 6th holes of the Par 3 labeled as "Ski Jump Pond". I have never seen a name associated with this pond/marsh

3 before. What historical record was found supporting this name? I have looked at early plat maps for this area of Golden Valley but have not found any name on them. If anything I would expect that original name of this pond/marsh may have been the name of the earliest property owner. I know first hand that the ski jumps at Theodore Wirth, up through the late 50's or early 60's, were no where near this location. This may seem like a small matter but putting a name on a map encourages a sense of entitlement. Par 3 golfers do no wish to have to fight again the battle to preserve as golf holes the hills on the Par 3 course. Unless some historical precedent for the "Ski Jump Pond" name can be found this name should be taken off MPRB maps and documents. In our research of the park, one of our historic maps shows the name of the pond as Ski Jump Pond. Golfer Involvement: Between information provided by Andrea and your latest information release on the coming meetings I think Par 3 golfers have a pretty good idea of the process that will occur into the future. I have written to the Friends of the Theodore Wirth Par 3 membership to describe this process and indicate our concerns. I can send you a copy of that if you do not already have it. From the Open House through the Planning Committee and Board actions, through the preparation of the Full Master Plan, the comment period and the presentation and approval by the Met Council, and then through final design and the actual implementation of the items in the plan, we understand that significant changes can occur to any of the plan elements in response to a variety of circumstances. Determinations will be made regarding the Design Advisory items; new factors might change the status of an item or its priority; design work may reveal that an item needs to be modified or eliminated or replaced; new funding might change the priority of existing or new items. There will be no Citizen's Advisory Committee to discuss these changes and provide for public input. Many of these changes might simply be decided upon by staff. It is vital that MPRB staff keep golfers, and other affected park users, informed and involved in the discussion and resolution of any significant item that might affect the previous understanding of what was agreed upon. I know at the April 24th meeting a CAC member asked if there was a precedent to provide for a procedure like this and your response was affirmative. We need to know how you plan to keep golfers, and other park users, informed and involved so that serious public issues do not arise later. Staff will provide brief written quarterly updates on the project implementation through website news release and e-gov subscription. The updates will include announcement of a public meeting to be held on site (at MPRB HQ in winter) during business hours as an additional opportunity for residents and park visitors to ask questions. Notes from meetings will also be posted on the website project page. Meetings will continue as implementation of the master plan continues. Robert Dwyer Friends of the Theodore Wirth Par 3

4 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chamberlain, Bruce scott wylie Tabb, Anita; Wielinski, Liz; Ringold, Jennifer B.; Weber, Andrea S.; George Puzak RE: Significant Boundary Change to Wirth Dog Park Removes Chipping Hole Tuesday, May 29, :36:45 AM Mr. Wylie, Thank you for your . Your question prompted a good staff discussion about project staging and timing. Since the design charrette in November 2011, concept diagrams illustrated a dog park adjacent to as well as in place of the chipping hole. The CAC has taken action in support of a dog park in that location. However, staff believes it is important to the golf operation to keep the current chipping hole in use until the planned changes to the front nine will implement a new driving range and chipping hole. To account for this, staff will bring a recommendation to the CAC at the June 2 meeting to stage implementation of the dog park with the western portion (outside of current golf use) opened first and expansion over the current chipping hole occurring only after the new practice facility is in place. If you would like more of the history on CAC discussions on this matter, I encourage you to contact George Puzak, CAC Chair who is copied on this . I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bruce Chamberlain, ASLA Assistant Superintendent for Planning Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN bchamberlain@minneapolisparks.org -----Original Message----- From: scott wylie [mailto:swylie@mninter.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, :30 AM To: Chamberlain, Bruce Cc: Tabb, Anita; Wielinski, Liz Subject: Significant Boundary Change to Wirth Dog Park Removes Chipping Hole Dear Assistant Superintendent Chamberlain, The Project Budget Estimate handed out at the May 1st Wirth Park CAC meeting has the following language describing item A-14: "Establishment of dog park at current chipping hole". This came as a surprise to golfers who had relied on the "Dog Site Map - Area B and B-2" presented at the April 26, 2011 CAC meeting. AREA B and B-2 DO NOT INCLUDE THE CHIPPING HOLE. This boundary change to include the chipping hole did not appear on the Concept Master Plan distributed at the April 24th, 2012 CAC meeting. There is no record that this boundary change was ever presented to or approved by the Wirth CAC. Golfers oppose the loss of the chipping hole (formerly part of hole #8 before the realignment of the front 9 many years ago) for a dog park entrance on Wirth Parkway. There are several important reasons for this opposition including the effect on parking - both summer and winter - at the nearby Par 3 lot. Prior to a concerted effort by golfers to fight this boundary change, the question arises as to whether this is another staff "mistake" or a conscious attempt by staff to change the dog park boundary without

5 public input. Golfers await your reply concerning this issue. Regards, Scott Wylie

6 From: Pulscher, MaryLynn To: Public-Inquiry Cc: Wilkins, Susan L.; Weber, Andrea S. Subject: RE: Theodore Wirth Park - Quaking Bog Date: Thursday, May 31, :16:52 PM Hi Iris, Susan Wilkins has offered to make and install temporary signs directing people to the bog. As part implementing the Wirth Park Master Plan, a new way-finding system will be implemented in the park including the walking route to the quaking bog. mlp -----Original Message----- From: Public-Inquiry Sent: Thursday, May 31, :52 AM To: Pulscher, MaryLynn Subject: FW: Theodore Wirth Park - Quaking Bog Hi, MaryLynn: I like the idea of tying ribbons to trees to find the bog. Is this possible? Iris Pahlberg Peterson Customer Service Department Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board From: Marlene Austinson [mailto:mmaustinson@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 20, :13 PM To: Public-Inquiry Subject: Theodore Wirth Park - Quaking Bog Last week, my neighbor and I took our grandchildren to Theodore Wirth Park after reading about the Quaking Bog on your website. After we parked the car, we had no idea at all about how to find the Bog. We asked a gentleman on a bike if he knew about it and he pointed to a trail and said to follow it. Well, we followed it until we came to a split and then had no idea which way to go... so we randomly picked one of paths and followed it until we came to another split... again, which way do we go? THERE WAS NOT A SIGN ANYWHERE TO DIRECT US!!! We finally turned around (hoping we could find our way back) and tried a different path from the first split... only to encounter the same dilemma. Finally we gave up and tried to find our way back to the parking lot. By now the grandkids wanted nothing to do with finding the Bog because they were afraid of getting lost because there was nothing to help us find our way... either there or back. Back at the parking lot, we looked around and finally found a little sign that said simply "Bog" with an arrow down another path... so we tried the whole experience all over again on a different set of paths... only to encounter the exact same problem... NOT A SIGN IN SIGHT!!! We finally gave up altogether and went to the Bird Sanctuary. At least there we had signs to direct us. In the Visitor Center we commented to the attendant about the lack of signs at the Bog site and she just said something about not being able to "fund" the cost of the signage. I just said "You've got to be kidding! How are people supposed to find it?" To which she replied, "I know, unless you know where it is, it's pretty hard to find!" Really? Really?!?!? My neighbor said, "All you have to do is tie some colored ribbon/cord to some trees so that people can follow it." To which the attendant replied "Yeah, that's a good idea."

7 So, my question to you is... how ARE people supposed to find this Quaking Bog without any direction at all???

8 From: Anita Tabb To: "chuck larson"; Tabb, Anita; Weber, Andrea S. Subject: RE: Wirth Park Open House 6/2 & Public Hearing 6/20 Date: Tuesday, May 29, :00:27 AM Dear Chuck and Phillip, Thanks for your input. Your letter will be placed in the public record and is part of the information that the CAC reviews for consideration when making their final recommendations. Also, regarding safety: if you even have a safety concern of any kind, you can call 911. The police closest to the incident respond no matter whether they are city or park police and no matter the hour. I am not exactly sure how Minneapolis coordinates with Golden Valley but they have protocols that they use to respond. Again, thanks so much for being a part of the process. Anita Tabb Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board District IV Commissioner (Park Board) extension (home) From: chuck larson [mailto:lars1275@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 28, :25 PM To: atabb@minneapolisparks.org; aweber@minneapolisparks.org Subject: Wirth Park Open House 6/2 & Public Hearing 6/20 May 28, 2012 Commissioner Anita Tabb Andrea Webber As we are not able to attend the Park District meetings on June 2 & 20 Public Open House & Public Hearings we wanted to share some of our thoughts and concerns on the Theodore Wirth Regional Park Project. Minneapolis has a wonderful and rich history of amazing parks. We are in favor of park improvements and increased park utilization, but as residents of Area 7 we ask that you consider the following when planning the improvements:

9 Increased utilization of the park raises the following safety and maintenance issues: a. Safety of pedestrians crossing Glenwood due to poorly marked pedestrian crosswalks over Glenwood Ave (crossings both west of the existing parking lot and at Xerxes Avenue) mainly due to the speed of traffic on Glenwood Avenue - - as most vehicles travel faster than 30 mph on Glenwood b. We have been told that the general operations and maintenance budgets for the parks are not increasing thus how does the park district propose to maintain the park improvements AND provide security to people using the park c. In addition to maintenance and security within the park, how is the park district going to respond to the needs of the neighborhood surrounding the park increased utilization of the park means more people will be passing through the neighborhood bringing with them increased noise, garbage, safety concerns d. Increased utilization of the park across the street from our homes will make us more aware of situations at the park and for the safely of our neighborhood, we will need to know whom we can contact day or night. It is not currently clear whom we are to call: the Minneapolis Park District, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis or the City of Golden Valley The Parking Lots current & proposed: a. The decreased size of the existing parking lot by the lake has caused people to park on Glenwood Avenue raising safety concerns for pedestrians. Is it possible to add back the parking slots that were removed (The new playground & volleyball courts cause the smaller parking area to overflow evenings & weekends) b. Is there truly a need for the 100 spaces in the location suggested at the corner of Xerxes/Glenwood. Are people really going to park in the proposed lot and walk to the lake or are they going to continue to park on Glenwood. (It is the area around the beach that people are interested in using) c. The additional noise, traffic & garbage due to the proposed parking lot will have an effect on the neighborhood surrounding the park how is this going to be addressed by the Park District d. The light-pollution caused by the amount of lighting needed to provide safety at the proposed lot

10 e. Safety of cars entering & exiting the newly proposed parking area at Xerxes/Glenwood due to the curve in Glenwood Avenue at the point of the driveways f. Is it necessary to have two entrances/exits at the newly proposed lot? The parking lots at the Quaking Bog and Wirth Lake have only one entrance/exit thus slowing traffic in and out of the lots vs. two entrances/exits allowing cars to drive through the lot without stopping or slowing down THANKS for your work on behalf of the park system, Chuck & Philip 2909 Glenwood Ave Mpls 55405

11 From: Cheri Petro To: Weber, Andrea S. Subject: Wirth Park - Concept Plan Date: Thursday, May 31, :53:15 PM Ms. Weber, I am a Bryn Mawr resident and have lived there my entire life. I would like to make a few comments in light of the upcoming MPRB June 2 Open House and June 20 Public Hearing regarding the proposed concept plan for Theodore Wirth Park. I have attended most of the CAC meetings in the last two years and they have done a wonderful job. My comments are in regard to the proposed 100-space parking lot on Glenwood and Xerxes Avenues. I never quite understood the reasoning of eliminating the existing Wirth Beach parking only to create a huge lot somewhere else (farther away from the hub of activity). According to the current Concept Plan (meeting May 1) the Wirth Beach lot shows 74 parking spots, in actuality there are 53 marked spaces (included ADA). This is exactly half of what was in the lot prior to the current new lot. Nevertheless, if this new lot is really a need, I am appealing to you to consider the following in relation to the creation of the 100-space parking lot on Glenwood and Xerxes. When this lot was first introduced there was much concern from the CAC members about safety and line-of-sight with traffic driving both east and west on Glenwood. The lot will have two entrances both of which are unsafe. Vehicles heading east are coming off a blind curve and heading west drivers are coming off a blind hill. Speed has always been an issue especially driving west and once the lot entrance can be seen over the hill, there isn t much time to slow/stop. The lot will be lit all night long. The lights that burn in the Beach parking area are extremely bright and there are homes right across the street from the proposed lot. Could motiondetection lights be considered? Since no parking is allowed past 10:00pm could we use gates (i.e. Lake Calhoun) instead of these bright lights? Can we ease into the development of this lot? Could a portion be paved with a grass lot as backup? Will 100 spaces truly be necessary? Can we determine the interest level the park draws before we create such a large lot? Also, how many of those 100 new parking spaces will be utilized in a given year? The lot will rarely be used to that capacity in the winter and not to capacity on the majority of the days/evenings in the summer. Could we also regard the beauty that is Wirth Park in this area? Is it possible to line the street side with bushes? With the creativity of the design team and the push to be green I could imagine a solution that doesn t quite destroy this beauty with such a large paved lot. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you, CHERI PETRO MEETING & EVENT PLANNER / BUSINESS LOYALTY

12 Aimia (formerly Carlson Marketing) 1405 Xenium Lane, Suite 150 / Plymouth, MN / USA D / T / F

13 From: chuck larson To: Tabb, Anita; Weber, Andrea S. Subject: Wirth Park Open House 6/2 & Public Hearing 6/20 Date: Monday, May 28, :24:43 PM May 28, 2012 Commissioner Anita Tabb Andrea Webber As we are not able to attend the Park District meetings on June 2 & 20 Public Open House & Public Hearings we wanted to share some of our thoughts and concerns on the Theodore Wirth Regional Park Project. Minneapolis has a wonderful and rich history of amazing parks. We are in favor of park improvements and increased park utilization, but as residents of Area 7 we ask that you consider the following when planning the improvements: Increased utilization of the park raises the following safety and maintenance issues: a. Safety of pedestrians crossing Glenwood due to poorly marked pedestrian crosswalks over Glenwood Ave (crossings both west of the existing parking lot and at Xerxes Avenue) mainly due to the speed of traffic on Glenwood Avenue - - as most vehicles travel faster than 30 mph on Glenwood b. We have been told that the general operations and maintenance budgets for the parks are not increasing thus how does the park district propose to maintain the park improvements AND provide security to people using the park c. In addition to maintenance and security within the park, how is the park district going to respond to the needs of the neighborhood surrounding the park increased utilization of the park means more people will be passing through the neighborhood bringing with them increased noise, garbage, safety concerns d. Increased utilization of the park across the street from our homes will make us more aware of situations at the park and for the safely of our neighborhood, we will need to know whom we can contact day or night. It is not currently clear whom we are to call: the Minneapolis Park District, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis or the City of Golden Valley

14 The Parking Lots current & proposed: a. The decreased size of the existing parking lot by the lake has caused people to park on Glenwood Avenue raising safety concerns for pedestrians. Is it possible to add back the parking slots that were removed (The new playground & volleyball courts cause the smaller parking area to overflow evenings & weekends) b. Is there truly a need for the 100 spaces in the location suggested at the corner of Xerxes/Glenwood. Are people really going to park in the proposed lot and walk to the lake or are they going to continue to park on Glenwood. (It is the area around the beach that people are interested in using) c. The additional noise, traffic & garbage due to the proposed parking lot will have an effect on the neighborhood surrounding the park how is this going to be addressed by the Park District d. The light-pollution caused by the amount of lighting needed to provide safety at the proposed lot e. Safety of cars entering & exiting the newly proposed parking area at Xerxes/Glenwood due to the curve in Glenwood Avenue at the point of the driveways f. Is it necessary to have two entrances/exits at the newly proposed lot? The parking lots at the Quaking Bog and Wirth Lake have only one entrance/exit thus slowing traffic in and out of the lots vs. two entrances/exits allowing cars to drive through the lot without stopping or slowing down THANKS for your work on behalf of the park system, Chuck & Philip 2909 Glenwood Ave Mpls 55405