The URL can be used to link to this page

092804 PK AgPr CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Davis Gilbertson__ Meyer Young Farniok Westerlund Wagner B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2004(Att. #2A Draft Summary) B. Park Commission Special Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2004 (Att. #213 Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 13 and 27th 5. UPDATE FROM CARVER COUNTY PARKS ON DOG PARK (Att. # 5) 6. CONCESSION STAND REPORTS AND OPERATIONS FOR 2005 (Att. #6) 7. DISCUSS GOALS, PRIORITIES AND WORK PROGRAM (Att. - #7) 8. DETERMINE INVOLVEMENT WITH MN REC AND THE COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (Att. 8) 9. DISCUSS SIGNS FOR THE PARK (Att. #9) 10. REVIEW OF THE 2004 AND 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Att #10) A. Review Schedule of Improvements B. Accept Proposal for Southshore Community Park 11. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: October II:Farniok 12. ADJOURNMENT October 25: Westerlund CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2004 0 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Roll Call Present:Chair Davis; Conunissioners Faimok, Gilbertson, Meyer, Westerlund, and Young; Council Liaison Zerby; and Engineer Brown Absent: Commissioner Wagner B. Review Agenda Westerlund moved, Gilbertson seconded, Approving the August 10, 2004, Park Commission Agenda as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2004 Farniok moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Park Commission Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2004, as amended, on Page 6, Item 8, Paragraph 2, change "Westerlund asked where the additional" to "Discussion proceeded regarding the additional." Motion passed 6/0. B. Park Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2004 Westerlund moved, Farniok seconded, Approving the Park Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of August 9, 2004 U- gincer Brown reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 9, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). B. Community Rec. Resources Second Quarter Report Engineer Brown stated Community Rec. Resources continued to provide excellent Park Coordinator services to the City during recent months, and noted efforts of this firm provided a savings to the City in staff time. He then introduced Sally Keefe, of Community Rec. Resources, the City's consultant providing Park Coordinator services. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. Ms. Keefe stated she was present this evening to report on the second quarter activities taking place in the City parks. Ms. Keefe stated inclement weather in the spring had afforded opportunit for increased communicatinn with the sports organizations utilizing the City parks. �> �. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 2 of 9 She also stated CRR would be working with City Staff to enhance field cancellation procedures as well as documentation retrieval processes prior to the Spring Information meeting with sports is organization representatives. She went on to state increased monitoring of the City parks had provided many unique insights in field use, and noted the concession stand at Eddy Station appeared to be successful and received well by park users. The Commission provided suggestions regarding additional lead time for the Spring informational meeting as well as providing an incentive for full documentation provided to the City by deadline. A brief discussion was held regarding the options for allowing a representative from one sports organization to turn in documentation from another representative of a different sports organization. Engineer Brown explained it was imperative one person represented each sports organization utilizing the City parks to provide continuity of contact, connnunication, and consistency in working with the sports organizations throughout each sporting season. Chair Davis thanked Ms. Keefe and Community Rec. Resources for its efforts and report of the second quarter activities within the City parks. 5. SOUTH TONKA LITTLE LEAGUE PROPOSAL FOR FIELD IMPROVEMENTS TO FREEMAN PARK Tim Beduhn, of South Tonka Little League (STLL), thanked the Commission for allowing his request to be part of the Park Commission Agenda this evening. He stated SILL was very proud of the efforts made toward working with the City to continue to make the playing fields an exceptional park space. He also stated he wished to thank Community Rec. Resources for efforts made toward providing and maintaining clear communication channels in working with the City. He stated there remained three areas of improvement with regard to the fields STLL utilized each year in City parks, and STLL was willing to fund the improvements should they be allowed to proceed. First, he explained STLL would like to replace the existing scoreboard behind Field #1 at Freeman Park. Also, he stated STLL would like to utilize Astroturf on the floor of the batting cages between Fields 1 and 2. He went on to explain these cages were in need of updating and were unusable in rainy weather. He stated he had contacted representatives from the University of Minnesota regarding placement of turf and he anticipated no major problems with the turf in the cages since obtaining that information. Various Commissioners requested clarification on plans for the batting cages related to turf specifics. Engineer Brown stated he had previously been concerned with the ag lime process of construction moving or breaking down over time. To that end, he stated he would appreciate it if the concrete would be placed approximately two inches outside the batting cages as a foundation, as it provided a solid area on which the turf could rest, and would also mitigate unsightly weed maintenance issues in those areas. In response to Commissioner Westerlund's question, Mr. Beduhn responded, STLL would be responsible for the long -term maintenance of these cages and turf, and he too, was quite proud of the park and wished to keep it looking nice for all parties concerned. Engineer Brown requested the first two batting cages be constructed prior to a third cage being requested by STLL. This third cage could be reviewed and redone once successful construction and implementation had been found with the first two cages. Discussion ensued regarding the appropriate consideration of the scoreboard issue as it related to the Donor Policy appearing later in the evening's Agenda. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 3 of 9 Farniok moved, Meyer seconded, Accepting the Request for Field Improvements to Freeman Park, including the replacement of the Scoreboard, subject to Staff recommendations for consistency with signage, and placement of concrete and Astroturf. Discussion again ensued regarding appropriate verbiage to be placed on the scoreboard given the implications for potential guidelines found in the Donor Policy to be considered later in the evening's Agenda. Farniok withdrew the motion. Engineer Brown departed the meeting at 8:00 P.M., and returned at 8:02 P.M. Engineer Brown stated he had recently spoken with Planning Director Nielsen who had explained the scoreboard would require action by Council for a sign permit. For this reason, he stated no action was required of the Park Commission at this time. Engineer Brown directed Mr. Beduhn to provide specific plan dimensions and other planning elements necessary for application for a sign permit. Mr. Beduhn stated his third request included plans for "skinning" the STLL infields, noting they were becoming a safety hazard for park users due to the uneven playing service. Young moved, Westerlund seconded, Recommending Approval of Construction of the Batting Cages at Freeman Park, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Farniok moved, Young seconded, Recommending Approval of Infield Repairs to the South Tonka Little League fields, subject to Staff Recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. FREEMAN PARK PLAZA PLAN FOR LANDSCAPE AND PICNIC TABLES Ken Dallman and Gordon Lindstrom, of the Shorewood Park Foundation, presented conceptual plans to the Commission for the Freeman Park Plaza project. Mr. Dallman stated he had simply had the drawings redone to show the donor recognition plaque and trees as directed by the Commission at the most recent Park Commission meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the specific details to have been placed in the plan prior to this evening's meeting. Engineer Brown explained, despite the best of intentions by all parties concerned, additional details were warranted prior to consideration by the Commission and Council, as a conceptual drawing did not provide sufficient permanent historical record of the prof ect. Engineer Brown explained a scaled architectural drawing depicting the following elements was needed prior to further consideration by the Commission and Council. He stated the plan must include: 1. trail location and width 2. tree plantings, including type of tree, and exact location • 3. width, stamped pattern, and color of border around the plaza 4. materials of cross section of concrete pad 5. detail of furniture to be installed 6. detailed size, and materials of plaque, including construction materials and exact location of marker and plaque PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Dallman and Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern for expediting the process so that construction could take place this fall in response to enthusiasm and momentum for the donation of the project by the donor's family. The Commission agreed, should plans be returned to City Staff as indicated by Mr. Dallman, a meeting could be held on Monday, August 16, 2004, and if need be an alternate date of August 30, 2004, would be designated to accommodate the requests of the Park Foundation. Additionally, Engineer Brown stated City Staff would provide a site plan drawing to be utilized by the Park Foundation for enhancement of the requested elements to the site plan. Discussion ensued regarding the best method of communication and impacts to the meeting regulations in order to accommodate the tight timeline being considered. Engineer Brown stated once plans were received from Park Foundation members, including requested elements, Staff would communicate the next available meeting date to the Commission. Chair Davis recessed the meeting at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. 7. REVIEW AND APPROVE REVISIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNIZING DONATIONS TO THE PARKS Chair Davis explained this was a second draft of the Donor Policy being designed to recognize donations to the parks. The Commission reviewed the draft policy and made revisions to the document. 40 Westerlund moved, Gilbertson seconded, Directing Staff to Provide an Updated Donor Policy including an expanded definition of routine items including scoreboards, dog houses, and batting cages, included as part of Item E, on page 2 of the policy presented this evening, and also an expanded definition as part of Item H, of the policy presented this evening, under Donors and Donations, listing Items to be Excluded from the Donor Policy, such as scoreboards, minor signage, etc. Motion passed 6/0. A detailed revised copy of the Donor Policy, minus the elements contained in the motion above, is attached to these minutes for further consideration and review. Young moved, Gilbertson seconded, Recommending Approval of Construction of a Scoreboard by South Tonka Little League, as proposed on August 10, 2004. Commissioner Meyer stated she would not support this motion as she believed it set precedent for allowing sponsorship in the City parks. Commissioner Young stated there existed ample evidence in the world that funds or volunteer hours could not be secured with a simple thank you and without recognition of some form. Motion passed 4/2, with Davis and Meyer dissenting. Engineer Brown stated these items recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the August 23, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. He also stated, given the lateness • of the hour, it might be prudent to continue the remaining items on the Agenda for this meeting to the September 13, 2004, Park Commission Meeting. Gilbertson moved, Young seconded, Continuing Items 5 -10 on this Agenda to the September 13, 2004, Park Commission Meeting Agenda. Motion passed 6/0. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 5 of 9 8. DISCUSS GOALS, PRIORITIES AND WORK PROGRAM 9. DETERMINE INVOLVEMENT WITH MN REC AND THE COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 10. DISCUSS SIGNS FOR THE PARK 11. DETERMINE PARK LIAISON FOR SEPTEMBER Chair Davis stated she would be the Park Commission Liaison to the Council at the August 23, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting, in the absence of Commissioner Westerlund. 12. NEW BUSINESS No new business was presented at this time. 13. ADJOURN Westerlund moved, Gilbertson seconded, Adjourning the August 10, 2004, Park Commission Meeting at 11:25 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED • Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator • PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 6 of 9 DONOR POLICY 1. DONOR RECOGNITION The City of Shorewood seeks to recognize donors who wish to support the City's park system through distinguished effort or substantial gift. This policy determines procedures, for a fixed period or indefinitely, for recognizing donated amenities or projects, also noted in this policy as a "Substantial Gift ", found within Shorewood parks. . For the purposes of this policy, "Substantial Gift" is defined as at least 50% of the estimated cost of. (a) new construction, remodeling, or renovation; (b) developing a new real property, i.e. park buildings, structures, real estate, etc.; or • (c) replacement of an existing, unnamed facility or landmark that requires substantial renovation at the time of the gift. Items found in this policy include park structures (pavilions, warming houses, shelters, plazas, etc); real estate to be used for parks, trails, or open space, interpretive areas, or active recreation; or other large -scale projects as discussed with the Park Commission and City Council. 2. DONORS AND DONATION "Donors" or "Donation" as defined in this policy means a substantial financial contribution toward the cost of an amenity or project. This contribution is defined as at least 50% of the total estimated cost of stated amenity or project. Recognition may be in honor of individuals, groups of individuals, or corporations. a) Donors or donor representatives must sign a donor agreement that delineates terms of the contributions, unless donor wishes to remain anonymous. The Donor Agreement will include the following: (1) In the event of demolition or deconstruction of a structure, its recognition or any part of it shall be subject to new recommendations. 2 The style of recognizing structures and facilities should be • consistent with the City's visual standards, or adhering to any City ordinances. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 7 of 9 (3.) The Director of Public Works or designated staff person is responsible for overseeing compliance with policy requirements, including completion of consultations and approvals, securing signatures on donation agreements by donor, donor representative, and City of Shorewood. (4) Groundbreaking, dedication, or other ceremonies relating to gifts, shall be reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (5) The City Council may rescind a donor's recognition for just cause. "Method of donor recognition must be agreed upon and formally approved by City Council Nip or to signing the donor agreement. (b) The nature of the donation will assist in determining the type of recognition. (c) A plaque, or other negotiated signage, may be placed on a building, room, or facility to recognize a Donor. The design, wording, size, and location of the plaque require the approval of the City Council. (d) A donor recognition or memorial plate may be affixed to routine furniture items. The City shall specify the size and location of the donor plate and the donor will pay for the plate and engraving. The City shall approve the wording of the donor plate and affix the plate to the furniture. (e) Plaques or markers will not be placed for routine tree donations. (f) Donations of a routine nature (e.g., trees, park benches and other furniture) shall be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or the Park Commission. (g) The donor shall pay for the delivery and installation of the amenity and /or donor recognition plaque or plate. (h) The option of funding the amenity for life of said amenity is negotiable and would require assurance of sufficient funding. There is no exclusive right to sole recognition in cases of expansion or other structural modifications. Recognition carries no power of direction to the City on matters of schedule, design, furnishing, or priority of use. 3. PROPOSALS PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Proposals must have the written approval of the person or corporate representative for whom the recognition is to be given. If the person is deceased, the approval of the family or designated representative should be obtained. If the person is deceased and there is not family or a designated representative, recognition can proceed through the submission process. 4. PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL Any proposal for recognition shall be made through a formal submission process to the Park Commission. The Park Commission will make a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. Procedures governing approval of recognition proposals are set forth below and may also be supplemented by such operational guidelines as the City of Shorewood may adopt from time to time. Exceptions from policy requirements must be authorized by the City Council in advance of the donation. Step One A Schematic design and details will be submitted to the City of Shorewood and shall include the following elements: (a) A scaled architectural drawing or plan drawn to scale to be completed by a landscape architect or civil engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota, and would include: 1. site plan 2. architectural details 3. landscape plan 4. tree preservation plan 5. sign or memorial detail Please note: The Schematic design phase of the submission process will be overseen by the appropriate departments of the City of Shorewood according to established procedure. Proposed recognition should be designated at the time of submission of schematic design, as found in Step One, a5. Recognition may not be allowed after the amenity is operational except by Council review and approval. Step Two: After submission of the schematic design, the individual, group, or corporation will formally present their request to the Park Commission. The Park Commission will then make a recommendation to City Council. Step Three: Upon approval by City Council, the Donor Agreement will be signed and kept on record with the City of Shorewood. 5. METHOD OF PAYMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DONATION • Donation associated with recognition proposals can be made by the donor with financial assurity or cash escrow for the full amount of the donation and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction of amenity or project. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2004 Page 9 of 9 Individual donors may gift a portion of their contribution through an irrevocable trust or a contractual bequest mechanism. Should the donor renege on any payment once the project has commenced and the donor agreement has been signed, the City shall be allowed to keep any portion of the donation already paid, and recognition shall not apply. Should the City fail to use the funds for the stated purpose in the Donor Agreement, the funds shall be returned to the donor. 6. NAMING The City of Shorewood will commemorate long -term service to the community or to a distinguished person, and such recognition is contingent upon Council review and approval. The City of Shorewood will consider naming opportunities for outstanding contributions, such as a parcel of land or new donation outside the geographic confines of the existing park system. The City prefers not to name facilities within its park system that are made possible with donations. Naming a building in honor of a person who has given extraordinary distinguished service to the city will not normally be considered until after his /her substantive formal relationship with the city has ended. The name used should normally be the family name, or in the case of a corporate entity, the shortest possible name. Unless the City Council determines otherwise, a name may be used only once. 7. STEWARDSHIP Stewardship requires that the City of Shorewood honor the expectations of donors and abide by gift agreements, including recognition provisions. Recognition is generally expected to last the lifetime of the building, facility, unit, program, or other endeavor. There may nonetheless be extraordinary circumstances that justify cessation of the use of a recognition, or "renewed recognition," such as change in use, substantial renovation, or demolition of an existing building, facility, or part thereof, major programmatic changes, failure of a donor to meet the financial commitment of the donor agreement, or other situations unforeseeable at the time of the original recognition. In all cases, the City • Council must approve the renewed recognition. The City of Shorewood sincerely wishes to thank all donors for contributions made to the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2004 5:15 P.M. MINUTES , r 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Meyer, Young, Farmok, and Westerlund; City Engineer Brown; Administrator Dawson; Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Wagner B. Review Agenda Meyer moved, Westerlund seconded, approving the agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. REVIEW PARK FOUNDATION PROPOSAL FOR FREEMAN PARK PLAZA DRAWING Brown reviewed the revised Plaza plans with planting designations. From a technical standpoint, Brown felt the proposal could move forward, if the Park Commission was comfortable with the submittals. Farmok interjected that a tree that currently exists on site was placed incorrectly on the plans. In addition, she suggested the Foundation consider a `Y' shaped sidewalk accessing the plaza as opposed to the two straight sidewalk paths designated on the plans. Finally, she questioned how the traffic would flow around the picnic table area. Since she believed patrons to the park might cut across the grass to the corner of the plaza instead of using the sidewalks, Westerlund suggested some additional landscaping be planted to deter cut through traffic. Although Davis felt the Commission could approve the slab and the general proposal, she had contacted a landscape architect who would be willing to work with the Foundation on other details including the garden design. Foundation Chair Dallman stated that the donor group planned to attend the next Commission meeting to present their plaque proposal. Westerlund encouraged staff to abide by ADA standards. Brown stated that he believed the design was ADA compliant; however, indicated that he would follow -up. Farniok moved to accept the plaza plan per the architectural drawings subject to review by a landscape architect regarding the table placement, trail access, garden recommendations, tree selections, and the donor plaque. Foundation member Callies asked whether the Commission could approve the proposal subject to staff approval of the details so as not to necessitate another meeting on this issue. The Commissioners agreed. °,rte/ PARK COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 3 a Farniok amended her motion as follows, to accept the plaza plan per the architectural drawings subject to staff recommendations and review by a landscape architect regarding the table placement, trail access, garden recommendations, tree selections, and the donor plaque. Westerlund seconded. Motion passed 5/0. Davis promised to supply the Foundation with the contact name and number of the landscape architect. 3. REVIEW AND APPROVE REVISIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNIZING DONATIONS TO THE PARKS Brown presented a revised Donor Policy for the Commission to review based on comments from the previous Commission meeting. The Commission reviewed the document and made minor modifications to the Policy. Westerlund questioned whether the scoreboard discussions of the previous meeting fell under Section 2, f, `donations of a routine nature'. Brown stated that, while replacement of an existing sign might be considered routine maintenance, the installation of a new scoreboard might be a different subject; therefore, should be left out of the routine nature subheading. Westerlund agreed that the Commission should make the decision with regard to a new scoreboard when it is approached with a request. Brown acknowledged that there would be many subjective conditions that the Commission could not possibly define in this document, since the standards are yet to be determined until the Conunission is faced with items considered routine. Brown suggested that the scoreboard subject be left to fall under the sign permit process as opposed to the donor policy. Meyer questioned how the City would handle a donation of a lump sum of money without a particular donor project in mind. Administrator Dawson indicated that the donor would be thanked and a plaque considered for items funded with the donation. Meyer moved, Westerlund seconded, to approve the revised Donor Policy as amended. Motion passed 5/0. Brown congratulated the Commission on finalizing this policy, which he guaranteed would be tested over time as a living document. 4. NEW BUSINESS n U Council liaisons: September 13 Westerlund October 11 Farniok October 25 Westerlund PARK COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 3 . Brown encouraged the Commission to give thought to its 2004 -2005 goals and priorities. Other than sign issues as they pertain to parks, and skate park equipment, he asked what goals the Commission would like to set for itself. Although she wished to pursue the dog park proposal for Minnewashta Park, Meyer stated that she would like to see an accounting of the entire park budget. Brown stated that the City Council had also discussed the dog park project, though no formal motion was made, he believed many of the Council members were in support of this proposal. He pointed out that the City has received many favorable emails for its construction. Brown suggested that the Commission consider making a recommendation to the City Council that it would like the City to support this project and put forth the funds that are available to move it forward. In addition, Brown indicated that he would bring back the Minnewashta Park representative for a status report. Young maintained that it would be appropriate for the Commission to review its goals that it had set up for this year, before it decides to distribute too much of its funds on new projects. He believed many of the Commissioners would benefit from a review. Westerlund concurred. Farniok stated that, since joining the Commission, she has felt that they have been behaving `reactively', as opposed to `proactively'. She indicated that she would prefer to be proactive, by working from a plan laid out which covers the topics for discussion. Young suggested that a discussion regarding the increased incidence of damage in the parks be a matter of concern and discussion. Brown asked what additional items the Commission would like to consider on future agendas. Those identified included, water quality at Manor Park pond, and beyond, signage in the parks, concession operation numbers for 2004, the role of horticulture and a tree inventory for the parks, buckthorn control, identification of preservation areas within the park system, etc. Davis suggested the Commissioners email Twila Grout, Park Secretary, additional discussion topics. S. ADJOURNMENT Westerlund moved, Meyer seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Special Meeting of August 30, 2004, at 6:26 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Ap, DATE: September 25, 2004 RE: Update From Carver County Parks on Dog Park On July 13, 2004, Mr. Lenny Schmitz, of Carver County Parks, appeared before the Park Commission to gauge support from local cities for an off leash dog park in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. It would be the Counties intent to set up a partnership with the Cities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Chaska, Chanhassen, and Victoria to fund the project. The County has recommended construction of this type of facility, since there are no off leash dog parks in the vicinity. Feedback solicited from community members indicates that the public would like to have such an amenity. Attachment 1 is an excerpt of the minutes from the July 13` Park Commission Meeting. At that meeting, the Park Commission requested that Mr. Schmitz return to the Commission, at a later date, to provide an update regarding the level of support amongst the neighboring cities for such a facility. Mr. Lenny Schmitz or Mr. Marty Walsh, representing Carver County, will be present at Tuesday's meeting to provide this update. - Staff has also informed the City Council of the July 13` presentation for the dog park, as part of the liaison reports. On a concept level, the proposal was met with enthusiasm from the City Council. It is likely, that Carver County will be requesting a financial commitment from the City at Tuesday's meeting. If the Park Commission recommends a financial commitment to the City Council, these funds -would be obtained from the Park Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Review of the CIP has been scheduled later in the Park Commission's agenda. • S-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD EXCERPT OF PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 Page 1 of 2 6. PRESENTATION BY CARVER COUNTY PARKS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. A. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Off Leash Dog Park Lenny Schmitz, of Carver County Parks, stated that he wished to gauge support from local cities for an off leash dog park in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. It would be the Counties intent to set up a partnership with Shorewood, Excelsior, Chaska, Chanhassen, and Victoria to fund the project, since there are no off leash dog parks in the vicinity and the public would like to have that amenity. He noted that funding is the biggest obstacle, since the County has dedicated it's funding in recent years to land acquisition. He asked if there was interest within the Commission to pursue a partnership with the County and other local communities. Davis asked how many acres the park would consist of, as well as, an estimated price tag. Schmitz stated that the cost would range anywhere from $20,000 - 40,000 and the size from 15 to 20 acres. Since there is 15 -20 acres available in the northeast corner of the park with a separate entrance and parking area, staff felt this would be an ideal location for the dog park. Schmitz explained that no concrete plans were in place yet and that he was in the initial phases of gauging support for the project. In addition to city funding, Schmitz stated that fund raising by pet owners was another avenue worth pursuing, since the park would be a regional facility available to numerous potential users. Davis asked if additional user fees would be put in place. Schmitz believed a season pass or daily use fee would be required to use the park, but cautioned that little enforcement is available, thus, making this difficult to enforce. Gilbertson asked who would be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs. Schmitz stated that ongoing maintenance would be absorbed by the County. He indicated that he wished to obtain a commitment of $5,000 - 10,000 per community which would then enable the County to have site plans and concept designs put together. Schmitz stated that he had met with Victoria, and would be meeting with the other cities in the coming weeks. He stated that the City of Chanhassen has been eager to see the development of the off leash park, especially since they don't allow pets in their parks at all. Davis commented that BARK Magazine voted the Minneapolis area as a dog friendly City. She stated that she believed this would be a great use of that unused portion of the park and a great place for pet owners to visit. While this portion of the park is blanketed with a combination of open space, maples, oaks, basswoods, and exotics, Westerlund voiced her opposition of removing much of the canopy beyond the exotics. I] • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD EXCERPT OF PARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. Page 2 of 2 Davis asked what Schmitz wanted from the Commission this evening. Schmitz stated that he would like to know if the Commission is interested in joining a partnership and seeing what can be developed. Brown stated that dogs in parks and related issues have been difficult burdens for cities to carry. In addition, Shorewood and it's neighboring communities are strapped for space; therefore, if the Park Commission wishes to pursue the dog park, this would be an excellent opportunity. He asked if the Commission was prepared to make a financial commitment, knowing the dollars are available in the CIP. Administrator Dawson interjected, stating that the Commission could proceed to explore the alternatives. He asked what the level of contribution would be based on, a standard number of dogs or a certain dollar amount per community. Dawson recommended that the County consider some type of proportionate amount for each prospective partner, based on the size of the community. Schmitz stated that the County would not wish to turn away any partner that wished to contribute on some level. Davis stated that she was confident that the Commission was amenable to the partnership and asked what the proposed timeline for the project was. Schmitz indicated that the project would be slated for fall of 2005 or spring of 2006. He promised to follow -up with Shorewood after his upcoming meetings with the other prospective partners and keep the City abreast of any developments. Brown introduced Mark Themig, Shorewood resident, past Park Commissioner, and interested pet owner. Themig stated that he and several of his neighbors were excited about the off leash dog park and believed it would be a great asset to the community. Gilbertson asked how dog owners could help forward this mission. Brown suggested information and updates be published in the newsletter and website, as well as, requests for comment and feedback. 0 ATTACHMENT I 0 Memorandum To: Park Commission a From: Twila Grout, Park Secretary � u Date: 9/23/2004 Re: Agenda Item 6 — Concession Stand Reports and Operations for 2005 I have been in contact with Scott Qualle in regards to the sales and operations of the concession stand this past summer. Following is the sales information that Scott provided: May 8 -31 (except for the 15, 21 -23, 27 -31) - $3,525.18 June 1 -30 (except for the 1, 5, 9, 11 -12, 19, 25 -27) - $5,881.58 0 July 1 - $221.85 Sales for July Music in the Park were $208.00 At this time Scott is unable to provide other reports as his computer crashed and it will be a couple weeks before his computer is up and running. Scott will send the City his reports as soon as his computer is fixed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I @ci.shorewood.rnn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works el DATE: September 25, 2004 RE: Goals, Priorities and Work Program Attachment 1 is the Stated Goals for the Shorewood Park Commission for the 2004 year. At the August 30, 2004 Special Park Commission meeting, Staff recommended that a 12 month work plan be developed for the Commission. During that meeting, it was suggested by the Commission that the following items be scheduled within the work program. ♦ Review current balances and programmed improvements for the Capital Improvement Program Explore methods to reduce vandalism within the parks ♦ Examine water quality issues and treatment options within the parks. ♦ Review park signage ♦ Review concession operation numbers and plans for the coming seasons ♦ Role of horticulture and tree inventory for the parks ♦ Buckthorn control ♦ Identification of presentation areas within the park system At Tuesday night's meeting, the Park Commission will be discussing these goals and priorities and working on setting a prioritization for these items. 0 ®*! PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 7 SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION 2004 GOALS Water Garden — Freeman . W (Ongoing) ( g 2. Community Event(s) — (January /February) • Define a vision • Define partners • Produce a revenue stream for parks • Regular programming 3. Dog Park - (March/June) • Explore space possibilities 4. Implementation Piece of Master Plan — (January /Ongoing) 5. Stay on Top of Highway 19 Trail Opportunities — (Ongoing) 6. Explore Skate Park Improvements and Incorporate into CIP if Appropriate — (April) 7. Explore LaCrosse Markets — (February) 8. Continue to Develop /Improve Concession Opportunity and Contract — (January) 9. Continue Commission Development Program — (March/April) 10. Keep a Full Commission — (Ongoing) 11. Signs for the Park — (June) • Explore Theme and cost 12. Continue Working with CRR on Year 2 of Field Allocation — (Ongoing) ATTACHMENT 1 0 CITY OF SHOREWO 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -012.8 • www.b.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @d.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 25, 2004 RE: Consideration of Involvement with the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association with the Commission Development Program The Park Commission may recall that the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association (MRPA), assisted the City of Shorewood in hosting the first (annual ?) Commission Development Program. The Park Commission hosted this seminar at the Southshore Senior Community Center. Park Commissions of cities of similar size to the City of Shorewood were invited to attend the seminar to discuss current issues and view a presentation. MRPA assisted in the printing of flyers, coordination of the presenters, and hosting of the meeting. Comments received at a "post- seminar review" proved that it would have been beneficial to provide more time for communities to present current challenges being faced by each community, innovative planning and management practices that have been successful, and at time to share ideas. The Park Commission stated that this type of forum may be insightful. Many of the Park Commissioners involved with this project are aware that the President of MRPA, Jon Gurban, resigned to explore other interests. As such, it is Staff's understanding that the Commission desires to discuss what involvement the Commission is to have with MRPA in the future. The cost to belong to the organization is approximately $350 per year. For this price, the City receives a monthly periodical, has the ability to call on MRPA for advise on events and can utilize MRPA's research articles regarding various park issues. Staff will solicit comments by Park Commissioners to determine the desire of the Commission to remain members of MRPA. It may also be beneficial to determine if the Commission would like to initiate hosting a second seminar. • �-* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWO 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 25, 2004 RE: Park Signage Park signage has been listed as one of the stated goals for the Park Commission for 2004. At this point in time, Staff is soliciting feedback from the Commission, on a preferred method of study for this goal. Options that have been suggested previously include: ♦ Staff can coordinate a tour for Commissioners at other parks to review signage. ♦ Staff can obtain pictures of various signs and present these pictures to the Commission. ♦ A sign or architectural consultant can be contracted with the review existing park signage and potential updates and associated costs. ♦ Brochures of typical or creative signage may be obtained and presented to the Commission. Staff will solicit feedback from Commissioners at Tuesday's meeting regarding this issue. 0 # " �") ,e PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER (:ITI' OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 25, 2004 RE: Review of the 2004 and 2005 Capital Improvement Program Attachment 1 is the 2004 — 2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This excerpt from the Cities overall CIP indicates what projects can be anticipated over the next five years. Ths has alos been shown in Table 1 below. 2004 - 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Section IIH. PARK AND RECREATION - PROJECT SUMMARY Proj Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Freeman Park Walkway * $ 12,000 2 Skate Park Equipment $ 8, 000 3 JPark Improvements $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 TOTAL $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ - 10,000 $ 10,0001 $ 10,000 Notes * The Park Commission has recommended that this improvement to Freeman Park be completed as a park improvement project. TABLE 1 Project Item 3, "Park Improvements," is an item that was added by the City Council, at the time of review and approval of the CIP document. Historically, the City Council had approved a $10,0000 transfer into the Park CIP such that various improvements could be performed. This often included rehabilitation of tennis court surfaces, upgrades hockey rinks etc. However, the past few years have seen the constraint of levy limits. With budgets constrained, this $10,000 that had been placed into the Park CIP was removed to meet other funding constraints. q-4� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Park Commission Capital Improvement Program September 25, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The Park Commission has requested that the Finance Director, Bonnie Burton, prepare a memorandum updating the Commission on balances of the Park CIP Fund. Th Finance Director has indicated that this documentation will be provided at Tuesday's meeting. Funds earmarked for 2004 include construction of a paved trail around the north perimeter of Freeman Park, and an upgrade to the equipment of the Southshore Community Skate Park. Currently, an aggregate base has been placed for the trail, and approximately one third of the trail has been paved. Public Works personnel will be paving the remainder of the trail within the last week in September. It should be mentioned that this process is dependent upon weather and soil moisture conditions. To assist the Park Commission's review of the CIP, Staff has obtained quotes for the purchase of various pieces of skate ramps for the Southshore Community Park. These quotes were obtained with the assistance of Mr. Tim Hughes, designer of the original park layout. Commissioners may recall that this update was prompted by a recent ruling by the City's insurance carrier to allow a four foot height restriction, versus the previous three foot height restriction for what is known as a "Level 1 Skate Park." Any park equipment that exceeds the Level 1 constraints will ultimately cost the City in additional insurance premiums. The quotes obtained include many potential additions for equipment. Attachment 2 is a picture of the items which Mr. Hughes discussed with the manufacturers. Table 2 below is arranged in an ascending order of recommended pieces to be considered. This order is based upon recommendations from City Staff, Tim Hughes, and a few skate enthusiasts. Item No Description Quote from Rain tech, Inc. Quote from True Ride, Inc. 1 4' High Quarter Pie $ 2,777.00 $ 4,156.50 2 4' Bank Ramp $ 2,543.00 $ 4,628.29 3 3' Street Spine $ 2,301.00 $ 3,487.76 4 Custom Multilevel Box $ 2,456.00 $ 8,537.20 5 Shipping $ 2,600.00 $ 725.00 TABLE 2 Certainly, it is evident that there is a dramatic pricing difference between the two firms. To date, Staff is not aware of any dramatic differences in the means, methods or materials of the two . Park Commission Capital Improvement Program September 25, 2004 Page 3 of 3 manufacturers. Often times, pricing provided on a quote reflects the current work loads of the firm providing the cost estimate. Staff will continue to query other cities as to issues, or information they may have before Tuesday's meeting. Ramptech supplied the existing skate park equipment. It should also be noted that in Mr. Hughes' enthusiasm in discussing the design pieces, that there was shown a "highway barrier and launch ramp" shown in the upper portion of the design diagram. While Ramptech indicated these items within their quote, Staff ahs determined that there is not an adequate amount of room for this item, versus the other items in the priority schedule. Therefore, True Rides quote did not include these items. Shipping is also shown as a lump sum. Clarification for each piece will be required prior to the placement of any orders for equipment. Staff will present these items in detail at Park Commission meeting. 0 D , CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Consisting of a Capital Improvement and Finance Plan for the Calendar Years 2004 —2008 Drafted By: City of Shorewood Engineering, Public Works and Finance Departments June 2003 • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION H. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN A. Municipal Water System ..................................... ............................... B. Municipal State Aid Roadway System ..................... ............................... C. Local Roadway System ...................................... ............................... D. Stormwater Management ................................... ............................... E. Sanitary Sewer System ....................................... ............................... F. Public Facilities and Office Equipment .................... ............................... G. Equipment Replacement Fund ............................. ............................... H. Park and Recreation ............................................ ............................... 9 I. Trail System ...................................................... ............................... III. APPENDICES 0 I. INTRODUCTION This Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated schedule of municipal capital projects, improvements, and purchases for the years 2004 through 2008. Furthermore, it is a Capital Improvement Finance Plan. It identifies sources of revenue to pay for the planned capital project improvements and purchases. There are two main parts that are integrated into this program document: The Capital Improvement Plan and the Finance Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan consists of a project proposal that indicates the title of the project, year that the project or expenditure has been scheduled, and the appropriate funding sources for that expenditure. After the project proposals for each section of the CIP is a summary table that indicates the overall schedule of the projects. The Finance Plan is a summary table of general fund appropriations for capital projects over the period of the CIP. The Capital Improvement Program is an important element of the comprehensive planning process. See Step 4: "plans, projects, programs" of the Comprehensive Planning Process Chart on Page 2. It is the bridge between policy planning and implementation. It is the direction the City will take over the next five years and beyond in undertaking and financing capital improvements consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. With this Capital • Improvement Program, the City Council is integrating the City's physical needs with financial resources. It is important to recognize that needs, resources, and projections change over the years. Therefore, the CIP needs to be a fluid program, with review and update annually. It is reviewed and updated based upon priorities established by the City Council each year. It is also a very important financial planning document as it projects the City's capital improvement needs and identifies financial resources to meet those needs. It clearly identifies areas where policies are lacking and where problems may arise in the future. Each project, which is identified in this program, must be approved by the City Council under normal processes. 0 0 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This section of the Capital Improvement Plan explains proposed capital projects and expenditures by function. Specifically, the CIP is broken down into the following sections: A. Municipal Water System B. Municipal State Aid Roadway System C. Local Roadway System D. Stormwater Management Program E. Sanitary Sewer System F. Public Facilities and Office Equipment G. Equipment Replacement Fund H. Park and Recreation I. Trail System • • H. PARKS Over the past few years, the Park Commission has focused on park management, education and minor infrastructure improvements. Reductions in the available revenue, generated by development, have decreased over the last few years. Therefore, management strategies have been redefined to best CP utilize the resources available. The following are Project Proposals for each Park Project, an overall Project Schedule, and Funding source summary. • 2004 - 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Section IIH. PARK AND RECREATION - PROJECT SUMMARY Proj Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 Freeman Park Walkway * $ 12,000 2 Skate Park Equipment $ 8,000 3 Park Improvements $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 TOTAL $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Notes The Park Commission has recommended that this improvement to Freeman Park be completed as a park improvement project. 0 • I Proposed Project: 2004 - 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PARK AND RECREATION FUND - PROJECT PROPOSAL Skate Park Equipment Proposed Schedule Design 2004 Construction 2004 Project Description: Involves installation of an additional skate park feature at the Shorewood Community Park. Total Estimated Costs: Design, Survey & Administration $ Right of Way and Easement Acquisition $ Construction or Work $ Construction Inspection $ Contingencies (10 %) _ Total $ Source of Project Funding Park Fund Total z 0 r-- M z z Is s Z m 2 r 8,000 m 0 NORTH 2004 - 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PARK AND RECREATION FUND - PROJECT PROPOSAL Proposed Project: Freeman Park Walkwa Proposed Schedule Design 2004 Construction 2004 Project Description: Involves installation of a bituminous walkway around the perimeter of the north end of Freeman Park. The trail is to be constructed by the Departmen of Public Works. Total Estimated Costs: Source of Project Funding IMER , _. PALPLE - AE r �--- Design, Survey & Administration Right of Way and Easement Acquisition Construction or Work Construction Inspection Continaencies (10 %) Total Park Fund Total $ 11,000 $ 1,000 $ 12,000 G. 0 12,000 12,000 r: V v 0 4 E 0 0 0 PIPE 4' ft high ft wide SPINE 3' ft high 8' ft wide CUSTOM BOX ONE WITH MINI LIKE ( high 6 i ' (box height) 6' ft wide HICHWAY BARRIER 3' ft high LAUNCH RAMP 2' ft high CUSTOM BOX TWO WITH MINI RAIL ) 2' ft high (box height) 6' ft wide BANK RAMP 4' ft high 8' ft wide SHOREWOOD, MN SKATEPARK - PHASE 2 ♦- 0 S iP 8 '1 v 'y , SLe .. r,nt, TrueRide Inc. 5781 Berquist Rd. Duluth, Minnesota 55804 218.525.2625 taa.525.2850 www.trueride.com Shorewood, MN Layout # A Attraction Equipment Description A Multi Level Grind Box with Stairs and Rail B 4' Quarter Pipe 8' wide C 3' Street Spine 8' wide D 4' Bank 8' wide Equipment Total: Shipping: Installation: Grand Total: Price Valid for 60 Days 9/23/2004 Price $ 8,537.20 $ 4,156.50 $ 3,487.76 $ 4,628.29 $ 20,809.75 $ 725.00 $ 1,644.57 $ 23,179.32 40 SEP-10 02:53 PM RAMPTECH,INC 7034921023 P.02 Ramptechv Inc. 14855 Persistence Drive Woodbridge, VA 22191 Phone: 703-492-2378 Fax: 703-492-1023 wwwramptech-cOm Skatepark Estimate NAME/ ADDRESS City of Shorewood Skatepark Attn: TimothY.Hughes 1780 Lake Lucy Lane TE TER S DUE DATE REP PrOPOSal #. DATE Excelsior, MN 55331 1. - . . d u c 100% i Is I 1439 I 9/9/2004 11 .. . . .ON COST COST TOTAL D E SCRI P T] 27 2,777.00 4 Quarterpipe - 4'H x &W x 101 1 2,543.00 2,543.00 4' Bank Ramp - 4'Hx6 'Wx 1 21 1 2,301.00 I 2,301.00 Street Spine - YH x 8'W x 1 0'L I 1,214.00 1,214 Custom Box One w/ Mini Ledge i 1 I 1,242.00 1,242.00 Custom Box Two w/ Mini Rail i 0.00 0.00 2' Launch Ramp -2'Hx4'Wx5'L�1')C' 0.00 1 0,00 Highway Barrier 1 2,600.00 2,600.00 Shipping I O is estimate was conngured w i t h R inc. shipping the above items FOB Woodbridge, VA. no City of Shorewood will be responsible for the assembly/installation for each item. (Please notc-nis quote expires in 30-days) 12-year Limited Warranty 5�year Skatelite Pro Riding Surface Warranty O Sajc, Exempt for Sales Tax Thank you an... ......._........ - -- _ .___.... - -.. - - - -- - -.. ..._.... d SKATE HARDI 0 0.00% TOTAL 0,00 51 r: We would like to have a dog park in the Excelsior /Chanhassen area � °D 2�4 LO VI ill (ALL-U, - I a s al L u _ e n° el 41 A�6 � °D 0 ) A/z, would 13<4 to have a dog park in the ��c��e .lic►ir/C�1ar�hoiss�E:n area .7 c: • %Vt!+ wcj(� l lil�te to have n► dog park in the E:�t,a:els �c►iI +C��ar►h�ass +::n area mr!:1 We would like to have a dog park in the Excelsior /Chanhassen area 0 0 <Z� I r �r ON mill 1 - % a -. . OPMAMACTMEAMMORM WRA 7 IL I r 0000"" X11 � would jij jr,ro have in, dog park in the area joc (og i�j Jn C'\qod W N aLs- V 5�v anv L 1 4 3-3 oe - POO -- L&aly-1 l6r, Unacceptable Behavior for Dogs' Anything that makes another dog (or its owner) fearful or anxious is unacceptable in an off -leash park. Says Nash: "Unacceptable behavior is the behavior that another dog ` owner is asking you to stop." Even if you think your dog is playing well with another dog, the other dog's owner may not be comfortable with the level of play. If anoth- er dog owner asks you to stop your dog's behavior, stop the behavior! �.I {; Unacceptable Behavior for Dogs' Anything that makes another dog (or its owner) fearful or anxious is unacceptable in an off -leash park. Says Nash: "Unacceptable behavior is the behavior that another dog ` owner is asking you to stop." Even if you think your dog is playing well with another dog, the other dog's owner may not be comfortable with the level of play. If anoth- er dog owner asks you to stop your dog's behavior, stop the behavior! 9 Wood '� ��` ��' '� conduct for people and ti \;� i r' m �e d � , T3� � � '� vl h� � � Y t rti � �rl � � aye ,i �T�� '� y \ � �.� 1 ��:�ev< K S• dse� y a! �� . ,�d� a a, .d � ��, their pets at dog parks at it. Charging— Running, fill -bore, up to d dog or person ,as they enter the park. Body= slamming — Full -speed body- slam- ming into another dog or a human being. to play in the park. Do this at home before you.leave far the park and again in the parking lot at the off-leash site. Redirect your dog's unacceptable behavior by calling it and walking away or by giving it the command it does best (such as "sit') and then reward it for doing something right. If your dog persists in unacceptable behavior, take it home. Ifyou take it home promptly when it misbehaves, your dog will learn that it gets to stay at the park only if it behaves. Predatory behavior — Defined as one dog treating other dogs (or even a child) asp rey chasing them and trying to bring them down. Territorial behavior— Includes growling, snapping, or barking incessantly in an If 'a doggie exchange is heating up, squirt., the dogs' faces with a water bottle, or throw a jacket over the dogs. Never wade into the day Use the leash as a temporary control to remove your dog from a tense situation or if another owner asks you to remove your dog. But do not normally leash your dog in an off -leash area. A long, lightweight line with a knot on the end ii , a , training tool if you insist on visit - ing a dog park without a reliable recall. Let the dog drag the line. Step on the line if the dog runs away. The knot will.keep the line from slipping out from under your foot. . Bring treats to help redirect your dog's behavior (but dispense them away from other dogs and wear them high on your bod If you are concerned about how another dog is treating yours, speak up! You need to say to the other owner "This isn't working. Please call your dog away." Misinterpretation of Dog Behavior Some people misinterpret what's going on in an off - leash area and become overanx- ious. Trainer Christi Madison emphasizes that you must look at each situation with this question: What happens next? Does a dog that seems to be getting the worst of it in wrestling with another dog keep going back to the same dog for more? If so, then the play is probably fine. ;3 10 Behavior that May Be Acceptable at Home but Not at the dog Park Some behaviors that are OK at home and with other familiar dogs may be inadvis- able, particularly in busy off -leash areas, with unfamiliar dogs. Super -noisy play. Nash says: 7 have two Dogs that growl or snap at other dogs that come too close or are too energetic are not necessarily aggressive — they are often cor- recting a rude or persistent dog that has come too close or is too playful for their taste. Keep these dogs moving and keep space between them. Don't let your dog get out of sight. Don't call your dog only when its time to go home. And don't send mixed signals to your dog. A dog owner may be saying, "Come," but his or her body language and voice are ,Damieni Conan r: saying, "I'm going to kzll your Keep moving. The potential for rowdy and offensive behavior escalates when dogs mill around in one small area. Don't just plant yourself in one spat for the entire time. Pinning and holding other dogs. Behavior Analyst Linda Brodzik says, `My bull mas- tiff is bred to pin and hold. I can control him, but an off=leash park is just not the place for that behavior. " Acceptable Behavior for Dogs Acceptable play behavior in an off -leash park includes wrestling (including wrestling on hind legs), chasing, and pouncing. Growling and mouthing can also be a part . of dog play. However, all dog interactions need to be closely supervised with an eye to possible escalation or injury. A °Fevv` Comm "on r Sense `Gu`idelin`es `% u`` If an incident happens in an off -leash park, for Humans `chill out. "Breathe slowly and use a calm Off -leash dog parks are for dogs and their voice to your dog if the situation gets tense. owners. Remind others who are using the Don't scream. That just excites the dogs fur - park in other, incompatible ways— biking, then. As mentioned earlier, don't make it a jogging, skating, skateboarding, skiing to ." big deal to your dog orget overly sympathetic. take their activities elsewhere because it could be dangerous for them and others. Off-leash areas are safe for the most - part. Other rules for humans include: They can be made safer by being' alert.for unacceptable behavior, knowing how to Don't keep your dog on a leash in an off - leash park unless its under temporary con- trol to redirect its activities or to lead your dog out of the park. Don't allow unattended children to go to off leash parks. Ifyou see unescorted chit - -.! dren in an off-leash dog park, ask them to leave and explain why. Don't chase your dog when trying to recall it. When you chase the dog, the dog thinks it's a game. Instead, call the dog and then turn around and move AWAYfrom the dog. halt it, and telling others how to keep their dogs and themselves safe. Phoenix, an Australian shepherd from the Aussie rescue group, takes special care of Never ever drop off a dog and leave it at an Ginny, a freelance writer whose article on the off-leash park to play. problems and pitfalls of dog ownership will be feature 6rZ i Depending on where you live, the political one set of rules. In the Twin Cities, we are shepherding your OLDA idea through a process of establishing an off -leash site can lucky to have access to many OLDAs, (16 maze of rules and regulations. It's important take months or years to wade through. and growing!). They are each operated by to be organized, persistent, and patient. Often, local dog ordinances must be different jurisdictions, have different sets of changed to allow OLDAs to exist. This can rules, and offer different types of facilities. become a formidable road block if officials Some sites require permits, some don't. or citizens oppose the idea of an OLDA. Some sites are fenced, some are not. Sizes However, more and more Iocal govern - vary from cramped half -acre plots to spa -FRIgi menu are recognizing off -leash recreation as cious 40 -acre sites. Permits do not "trans- y xd" both a legitimateuse of public land and as fer" to other jurisdictions, requiring you to a service to their citizens. Today, the biggest purchase a permit for each park system that # f likely to be financial 5 3� barriers are more "rather than political. Citizens trust be pre- requires one. pared to pony up both dollars and volun- Establishing an off -leash area in your dis -x teer labor to get a site established and make trier starts with contacting your city councilg " similar contributions for ongoing opera - or your county commissioners. This What is ROMPS tions. requires research about who you r elected "Access, Education, and Advocacy: Making officials are, when their meetings are held, a World of Difference for People and their Administrative and operational decisions how to get on the agenda, and, finally, `' Pets"" • (such as permit systems, rules and enforce- showing up to make your request. Once went, maintenance) are also under the your request is officially acknowledged, a ROMP (Responsible Owners of Mannerly jurisdiction of the local government. In variety of scenarios will ensue. Chances are Pets") is dedicated to helping people and most places, there is only one OLDA and you will discover the joys, or frustrations, of 12 feature i01 Dog Park Locaytio and There are eight off - leash sites located within a 15- minute drive of downtown Minneapolis /St. Paul. There are an additional seven sites located in rural /suburban areas of the seven - county metropolitan area. Some sites require permits for off -leash use or parking; others have no permit requirements. Please read descriptions carefully. Bloomington Bloomington Off-Leash Area 111th and Nesbitt Daily Hours: Dawn -10 p.m. Approximately 25 acres, partial- ly fenced, tables, disposal bags, trees, parking, trash cans, swim- ming hole available. Access for the disabled. No permit required. Burnsville Alimagnet Dog Park 1200 Alimagnet Pkwy. Daily Hours: 5 a.m. -10 p.m. Fenced, 7 acres, benches, tables, disposal bags, trees, water, phones, restrooms, parking, trash cans, pond, wooded areas, open field, mowed prairie grass trail, double -gated entrance. A permit is required; phone the Recreation Department at (952) 895 -4500. Dayton Elm Creek Park Reserve Daily Hours: 5 a.m.— sunset Fenced, tables, trees, parking, restrooms, trash cans. Over 30 acres with mowed trail through- out area. Use is by permit only; day permits are available at the site. For an annual special -use- permit phone Park Guest Services at (763) 559 -9000. Maplewood Battle Creek Off -Leash Site Lower Afton and McKnight Daily Hours: sunrise — sunset Partially fenced, 12 acres tables, parking, trash cans. No permit required. Minneapolis All Minneapolis dog parks require a permit for use. The Minnehaha site also requires a permit for parking. For Minneapolis Dog Park permit information, phone (612) 348 -4250. 1. Columbia Park St. Anthony Parkway off Central Avenue Daily Hours: 6 a.m -10 p.m. Approximately 2 acres, double - gated entry at the east and west ends of the park, fully fenced, parking, disposal bag dis- pensers, bench. 2. Franklin Terrace Franklin Terrace and 30th Avenue S. Daily Hours: 6 a.m. - -10 p.m. Fully fenced, 2.6 acres, double - gated entry at the east and west ends of the site, disposal bag dispensers, bench, on- street parking. 3. Lake of the Isles Park Lake of the Isles Parkway and W. 28th Street Daily Hours: 6 a.m. -10 p.m. Fully fenced, 2.6 acres, two double -gated entry vestibules at the northern end of the site, lighted at the southern end, dis- posal bag dispensers, benches. 4. Minnehaba Park Minnehaha Avenue and E. 54th Sttt�t Daily Hours: 6 a.m. -10 p.m.' Approximately 4.2 acres along the Mississippi River (where dogs can swim), partially fenced, disposal bag dispensers, lighted parking area (permit required), Sattelite in parking area. Plymouth Egan Park 17105 Co. Rd. 47 Daily Hours: sunrise — sunset Approximately 10- acres, with mowed trails, open play area, trash cans. Not fenced. No per- mit required. Prior Lake Cleary Lake Regional Park Daily Hours: 5 a.m.— sunset Fenced, 35 acres with pond, tables, parking, restrooms, trash cans. Trails are mowed in sum- mer, packed in winter. Annual pet exercise area permit or daily use fee required; day permits are available at the site. For an annual special -use- permit phone Park Guest Services at (763) 559 -9000. Richfield Airport Dogpark Hwy. 62 and 28th Avenue Trees, lights, parking (NOTE: there is no parking at the FAA Building at 6020 28th Avenue South); This 80 acre spread is owned by the Minneapolis Airport. As private property, city leash laws are not enforced. The Airport encourages people and dogs to come as parking lot crime has been reduced 100 percent thanks to the dogs. Bring your own water and dis- posable bags; mostly used 5 -7p.m. weekdays, all day weekends. Rochester Rochester Dog Park Pinewood Road SE across from Pinewood Elementary, about two blocks east of 11 th Avenue. Daily Hours: sunrise — sunset Fenced, tables, handicap access, poop -bags, trees, parking, water, trashcans. Fully fenced, 1/4 acre; the rest of the area is par- tially fenced. Open grassy area with training equipment, wood- ed area with a creek; no permit required. 606 �J 1 � Rockford Lake Sarah Regional Park Approximately 30 miles west of Minneapolis and east of County Road 92 Daily Hours: 5 a.m.— sunset Trees, parking, restrooms, trash cans. Over 30 acres with mowed parking area. Use is by j permit only; day permits are available at the site. For an annual special use permit phone Park Guest Services at (763) 559 -9000. Rogers Crow - Hassan Park Reserve West of Rogers on Sylvan Lake Road Daily Hours: 5 a.m. — sunset Fenced, tables, trees, parking, restrooms, trash cans. Over 30 acres with a mowed trail throughout the area. Use is by permit only; day permits are available at the site. For an annual special- use - permit phone Park Guest Services at (763) 559-9000, Rosemount Schwartz Pond Located at 13787 Dodd Blvd. County Road 42, north on Hwy 3 to Dodd Blvd and park is on the left. Not fenced, No per- mit required. Roseville Woodview Dog Park Located off Larpenteur Avenue, just east of Dale Street (access gate to main off -leash area is about 100 yards down the bike trail) Daily Hours: sunrise — sunset Partially fenced (along bike trail only), 3 acres, disposal bags, trees, water, tables, Parkin g, trash cans. Separate fenced area for small dogs. Access for the disabled. No per - nut required. Shoreview i Rice Creek Off Leash Site Located just south of County Road J on Lexin Avenue Daily Hours: sunrise — sunset Not fenced, 12 acres, tables, parking, trash 13 cans, flat with prairie vegetation, small Fenced, 4.5 -acre site with trails and woods, pond. No permit required. disposal bags, tables, parking, trash cans. There are multiple entrances, and park St. Paul users occasionally leave the gates open; be Arlington- Arkwright (ArlArk) Dog Park sure you have voice control of your dog to Located on Arkwright Street at Arlington prevent escapes. No permit required. Avenue Daily Hours: sunrise— sunset Off L eash Dog Ar eas in the Ferf( ti+aeFtn �'^ H�ee � '� Ragfo e Lake r ush P 1'0p[t6pA1*1 Columbia W Re4i� Park 1, W y: • • • *1 PLANT LIST: QTY. KEY BOTANI N COMMON NAME SIZE/ROOT 2 ABM Acer x freeman➢ 'Jefferered' Autumn Blaze Maple 3.0" B&B 1 GMM Acer sacchorum 'Green Mountain' Green Mountain Sugar Maple 3.0" B&B 20 KFG Colamogrostis x acutiflora 'K. Forester' Karl Forester Feather Reed Grass 2 Gal. Pot 17 SDO Hemerocollls op. 'Stella de Dro' Stella de Oro DgHles 2 Gal. Pot 10 LIPS Spiraea japonica 'Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea 2 Gal. Pot 4 B Accent landscape boulders 24' -36" DIa. or to fit planting bed Flower Garden: Perennial species to be 24" tall or greater, I.e. Siberian Irls, Black —eyed Susan, Shrub Roses, Autumn Joy Sedum, Russian Sage, Daisy, Garden Phlox, Oriental Poppy Planter Beds: Annual flowers I PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AREA PLANT NOTES l Landscape contractor shall visit the site prior to submitting a bid to become familiar with site conditions. The landscape contractor shall have all underground utilities located \ prior to cny digging. The landscape contractor shall coordinate installation with General Contractor. All plant materials shall conform with the American Association of Nurserymen standards and shall be of hardy stack, free from disease, damage, and disfiguration. jf there is a discrepancy between the number of plants on the list and the number shown on the plan, the P shall govern. a rr � Contractor shall keep all plant materials in an upright position for the duration of the o warranty period. Wrap and stake all trees if necessary. Great care shall be taken not to disturb the existing trees shown on the landscape plan which shall remain on site. An irrigation system is in place and shhll be extended (if necessary) to cover all landscaping. Edging and mulch in planting beds shall be selected by the Owner prior " " R'TTTT to installation. All trees shall have a mulched tree dish, 4 feet in diameter with 4 " -6" w■ess M deep shredded hardwood mulch. Existing soils may be used for planting if in the dgtermination of the Landscape Contractor that existing soils are suitable to establish and maintain vigorus plant growth. If the soils are determined to be inadequate, the soils shall be ammended replaced, or supplimented as needed. Perennial flower garden shall be designed by a qualified gardener. Plant species shall reach a minimum of 24" in height at maturity. Annual flowers shall be selected yearly for their color and longevity. The Landscape Contractor shall guarantee all trees in a healthy and vigorous condition for one year from the date of final completion and acceptance by the Owner. _ X I 1 1 Ile 3 ■al WAR lee ADA7 DISCONNECT IRRIGATION FEEDLINE AT THIS HEAD LOCATION X Ld Z / z J Z a H L3 H W ry I I J 1---1 Q i 4" TOPSOIL � 4" TOPSOIL X I SURFACE TREATMENT �--' As sees loot I hereby ow" that this plan was prepared by me or BRODSHO CO NSULTING under my direct suWywi«i and that I am a duly Leese" A,een"We sas nee" Ibensad Lands0011 Architect under the laws of the � SIEEE STME State of Wainseata. 698 NORTHBRIDGE COURT ■ EAGAN, MN 55123 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC — PHONE: 651 -688 -8023 Wi40E THE BALL At ANpLE - 3 PER INEE FAX: 651- 456 -5748 Debra Brodsho Una ED REG. NO 23849 DATE Ld Z / z J Z a H L3 H W ry I I J 1---1 Q i 4" TOPSOIL � 4" TOPSOIL TIM &W ^as seem or 1111! &Von Awt Now rp. O goo DUOU� �P W N" IL 10 � sell■ol SURFACE TREATMENT �--' As sees loot ,r P0.YPRCPttENE oR NNK StRM TVP,I 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT FREEMAN PARK OOU" t]O' RI YAL M. E - ""' ( # 4 BARS 12" O.C.E.W. ) � SIEEE STME iREE wxM ro nRSr NNAHCH TuRNHUCREE wrx oowEE smnno ^' ° k eNE -'PEN REE 24" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW ■ uttN Cf SHREW[O HAI1Hfg00 Y " 9A�IZA- E%iEN� PAST STN N& NN, cRnoE cr PLANT ro EWAL dEPNA1 ORAOE ='.Y'.w SiMES SET M MART GEOTEXTILE FABRIC — r� Wi40E THE BALL At ANpLE - 3 PER INEE CONCRETE PAVEMENT Una ED TYPICAL 300( SHORREWOOD � '°"�` --- : '°°°` TIM &W ^as seem or 1111! &Von Awt Now rp. O goo DUOU� �P W N" IL 10 � I 0 30 / 60 EDDY / STATION Be; NO SCALE NOTES: 1. Edge areas to be restored with a of topeoll and re— vegetated with sod 2. This detail / specifications are minimumn requirements, additional design may be required depending on existing sub -grade so0 conditions. 3. All materials sholl conform to MOOT specifications dated YR 2000 4. No. 4 BARS shall be 60,000 psi in accordance with MDOT SPEC No. 3301 5. Saw Cuts not greater than 8 feet on center PICNIC TABLE SPECIFlCATION Textured Concrete Picnic Tables 6000 # psi welded rsbar per cut sheet attached EXISTING SAN, �&ER SIG ,(� I ❑ N -W 1 4- O C�W� /�/ EXISTING WATERMAIN I s kCF I I EXISTING I PARKING _ I D I AREA I 0 T 17- I sessio sa Iss sell■ol am 1 • 30 ' As sees loot seas a Isar sower 11ew ass nM, seewlysm a 0~ V sr . we PIWI'tlwleraIMUMu 1sT I M A "" "Is "" rresltlleL MINIMUM uses w use w w arses v Ie,aeA SYSTEM FREEMAN PARK FAMILY PLAZA SITE AREA 10 �•. Qend � elrllk 11610111111199 ■ ■ xoot ■ I 0 30 / 60 EDDY / STATION Be; NO SCALE NOTES: 1. Edge areas to be restored with a of topeoll and re— vegetated with sod 2. This detail / specifications are minimumn requirements, additional design may be required depending on existing sub -grade so0 conditions. 3. All materials sholl conform to MOOT specifications dated YR 2000 4. No. 4 BARS shall be 60,000 psi in accordance with MDOT SPEC No. 3301 5. Saw Cuts not greater than 8 feet on center PICNIC TABLE SPECIFlCATION Textured Concrete Picnic Tables 6000 # psi welded rsbar per cut sheet attached EXISTING SAN, �&ER SIG ,(� I ❑ N -W 1 4- O C�W� /�/ EXISTING WATERMAIN I s kCF I I EXISTING I PARKING _ I D I AREA I 0 T 17- I sessio sa Iss sell■ol am 1 • 30 ' As sees loot seas a Isar sower 11ew ass nM, seewlysm a 0~ V sr . we PIWI'tlwleraIMUMu 1sT I M A "" "Is "" rresltlleL MINIMUM uses w use w w arses v Ie,aeA SYSTEM FREEMAN PARK FAMILY PLAZA SITE AREA 9/" Qend � elrllk 11610111111199 Ke xoot w 300( SHORREWOOD � '°"�` --- : '°°°` S H O R E W O O D, MINNESOTA ew, FA 07/13M 2 IE