Loading...
041304 PK AgP• CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Arnst Davis Gilbertson Meyer Youn Farniok B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2004(Att. -#2A Draft Summary) B. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of March 23, 2004(Att. -#2B Draft Summary) C. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of March 23, 2004(Att. -2C Draft Summary) D. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of March 30, 2004(Att. -2D Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of April 12, 2004 B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting C. Update on Water Garden D. Update on Music in the Park E. Update on Concession operator solicitations 5. EXPLORE SKATE PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND INCORPORATE IN CIP IF APPROPRIATE A. Presentation by Will Kelsey 6. DISCUSS PROPOSAL FROM LITTLE LEAGUE REGARDING ARTIFICIAL TURF IN THE BATTING CAGE AT FREEMAN PARK (Tim Beduhn) 7. DISCUSS FREEMAN PARKJBRICK WALL CONCEPT (Davis) 8. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: April 26 Gilbertson 9. ADJOURNMENT May 24: Young CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY HALL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING K IR k A.F w i m Chair Amst called the meeting to order at 7:04. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Davis, Meyer, Young, and Farniok; City Engineer Brown; City Council liaison Lizee; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Callies B. Review Agenda Young moved, Meyer seconded, approving the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2004 Meyer moved, Farniok seconded, approving the Park Commission, Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2004 as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. B. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of February 10, 2004 Young moved, Davis seconded, approving the Work Session Minutes of February 10, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of February 23, 2004 and March 8, 2004 Engineer Brown reported that there was a petition at the February 23' meeting for the extension of watermain along Timber Lane, the petition was found to be adequate; therefore the City will begin a feasibility report for the extension of water along Timber Lane. The Southshore Senior Center also gave a report. Music in the Parks was brought up to the Council as a Parks item and was received favorably by the City Council. Based on feedback, it seems many people have been excited by the idea since it has been published in the periodicals. Brown stated that there was also a Shorewood Lane resident who is pursuing changes that he desires regarding grading of the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety facility. Of concern is the north and • east slopes, as his rental property backs up to that. On March 8 the resident returned and Council directed him to seek a remedy through the coordinating committees. Brown stated that since the Public Safety Facility is not owned by the City of Shorewood, it is owned by the Fire, Police, coordinating committees comprised of Councils of each City to manage that property. On March 8 there was discussion about traffic along Radisson Road where residents had requested �7 /1 that changes be made to eliminate cut through traffic. Council did authorize an expenditure of funds /T PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 5 to study some alternatives for Radisson Road. Finally, Brown stated that he had presented the County Road 19 plan to Council last night without the streetscape items. The landscape firm will be incorporating this portion of the plans into the proposal within the next few weeks. He indicated that he would bring those plans to the next Park Meeting to share with the Commission. He mentioned that the Shopping Center owner has reached a tentative agreement with the County of how their mall and parking will be impacted. The County has indicated that they anticipate having the right of way in hand by August 1 with construction expected to begin early in the season, mid May. B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting — Park Commissioner Callies Chair Arnst noted that this was addressed in an earlier work session this evening. C. Update on Concessionaire Agreement — Larry Brown, Public Works Director Brown reported that the Concessionaire Agreement was revised to include item 6, regarding unsold items. The one update that was not included in the memorandum was that Charlie Davis has indicated to the City that he does not wish to continue to act as the concessionaire this year. While the contract was revised to include weekends, Brown did not believe this impacted the concessionaire's decision. Chair Amst asked if Brown had contacted Girls Softball about the availability to run the concessions. 10 Brown stated that he had not yet notified the sports organizations. Meyer asked if Brown would still be involved in the concessions. Brown stated that he will likely be more involved in the process. Staff has been discussing the potential of requiring the concessionaire to purchase the product; however, he felt the City would lose the ability to control the inventory and cash flow. Meyer also noted that it would be unlikely the City could find an independent contractor to foot the bill for inventory. 5. DOG PARK A. Explore Space Possibilities Chair Arnst explained that a resident had recently encouraged the Commission to consider the introduction of a dog park to Shorewood which, in turn, persuaded the Commission to add it to its goal list for this ear. She suggested this item be considered further in the work session slated after the meeting this evening as the Commission examines the park maps. 6. UPDATE ON MUSIC IN THE PARK Chair Artist indicated that Park Secretary Grout had done some investigation regarding the Music in the Park concept and suggested the Commission make a motion to recommend to the Council that the City host a series of three music events this summer. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 5 • Brown suggested the Commission consider making a second motion to recommend whether this will be a sponsored event. Meyer asked whether the Commission was comfortable with the amount of money estimated for these events. Chair Arrest suggested that a couple of Commissioners determine a budget and what kind of sponsors the City could get for the event and then fit that together with the price estimates. Meyer questioned whether the Commission had the budget to execute the series without a sponsor. Brown felt there was a great deal of momentum behind this concept, based on the positive feedback he'd received regarding this event. He did not believe gaining sponsored support would be difficult. Brown pointed out that the Commission has park funds and capital improvements funds available. Young felt it was important to launch the series well and not be concerned about cutting corners in order to save money. Farniok moved, Davis seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the City host a series of • three Music in the Park concerts, one each in June -July- August. Motion passed 5/0. With regard to the question of sponsorship, Young indicated that he was very comfortable with sponsorship. Davis suggested the Commission lay out guidelines for sponsorship. Famiok agreed with Brown that there are soft benefits for that type of cooperation within the business community which demonstrates how the City and businesses are working together to benefit the community. Davis moved, Young seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the City pursue sponsorships. Motion passed 5/0. 7. DISCUSS ASSIGNMENTS FOR COMMISSIONERS A. Monthly City Newsletter Articles Chair Arrest indicated that she was feeling overwhelmed by the number of events she has been pursuing on behalf of the Park Commission and asked for assistance from the Commission. • As the deadline is approaching on the 15` Chair Arrest asked for assistance covering the articles for the rest of the year. Davis indicated that she would cover the article for this month. She stated that a series of articles about water quality would be her initiative; whereas, others could just write up notes about the meetings. Davis stated that she could extend her series to cover March -May. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 4 OF 5 Farniok stated that she would help with a "blurb" of the meeting for April and turn that over to • Davis. B. March 13 Minnewashta Church Event Chair Arnst explained that the Minnewashta Church, near Cathcart Park, contacted Brown last week to inform him that they will be hosting a health fair next weekend entitled Mind, Body, and Spirit. For the "Body" part, the Church representative suggested the City provide a display that has to do with Shorewood parks and trails, promoting physical health. Gilbertson has volunteered to take the 10 -1PM shift and Chair Arnst asked if someone else would be willing to take the second shift. She indicated that Julie Moore has photos, brochures, and information that could be put together for a display. Young indicated that he would be willing to cover the second shift. Chair Arnst suggested he coordinate that with Gilbertson and contact Moore about supplying you with a display for the event. Brown indicated that he would also leave a note for Moore. C. Music in the Park Chair Arnst, Farniok, Davis, and Meyer stated that they would assist with the Music in the Park series. D. Skate Park Research Brown stated that it would be far easier for City staff to take this effort on and meet with Tim Hughes to determine what updates should be made. E. Park Commissioner Seminars Chair Arnst asked the Commissioners how they felt about trying to delay this until fall or whether the Commission should try to pursue the second in the series for spring. Young stated that he would be inclined to delay the seminar until the fall to give the Commission an opportunity to meet with the new head of the Association and determine if she has the same level of enthusiasm to further the program. Chair Arnst noted that they had not even determined what the agenda would consist of. • Meyer stated that she would be interested in including the water quality subject that would be of interest to others. Young suggested they let the other cities know that they are thinking fall for the next in the series and would encourage them to bring some of their examples of `best practices' to share at the meeting. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 5 OF 5 • Meyer suggested an October timeline. 8. NEW BUSINESS Farniok stated that she had her orientation and found it to be useful. 9. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Young seconded, to adjourn to the Work Session. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SIBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING UKAFT Chair Arnst convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Callies, Davis, Meyer, Young, and Farniok; City Engineer Brown; City Council liaison Lizee; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioner Gilbertson B. Review Agenda 2. PARK FOUNDATION Commissioner Callies indicated that she requested this meeting, as Park Foundation liaison, to discuss the relationship between the Park Foundation and Park Commission. Many members of the Foundation • were concerned about what they were raising money for, and how the Park Commission perceived them. Callies stated that the by -laws do identify what the connection between the Foundation and Commission is, in that the Foundation serves the Park Commission. Since the Park Foundation is raising money for park purposes, it makes sense that the Park Commission shares its vision with the Foundation. Callies stated that it is the Foundation's intent to promote what the parks have and to promote the idea of generating endowments for the parks. She emphasized that ongoing communication needs to continue to promote the park vision. Meyer indicated that the Commission had recently supplied the Foundation with a numbered list of priorities in January. Meyer asked whether it is legal for the Park Commission liaison to be a voting member on the Park Foundation. Lizee stated that Attorney Keane indicated that the Foundation by -laws do allow for a voting member from the Park Commission on the Board of the Foundation. The Commission requested a formal opinion from the City Attorney on this item. Chair Arnst asked for a directive and clarification from the Council as to the role of each organization. Lizee stated that at the last meeting, the Council discussed the fact that the Foundation is meant to be a fundraising vehicle for Shorewood parks. She stated that the Foundation's connection to the Commission is to work with the Commission to get ideas from the Commission and be able to promote them. Ultimately, the Council must make the decisions, as the Commission is a recommending body and the • Foundation is a fundraising body of volunteers. Lizee stated that, although separate, the two groups should work together. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 2 Discussion ensued regarding the role of the Park Commission liaison to the Parks Foundation, and is cooperation between the two organizations. Callies had to depart; however, suggested the Commission continue to discuss the role of the two entities. Chair Arnst asked for definition or clarification regarding interaction between the Commission and the Foundation to be given to the Commission by the Council at the next meeting. Speaking for herself, Lizee stated that the Foundation is a group of volunteers whose mission is to raise funds for park purposes in Shorewood. The Commission is a planning group that works with the parks, has visions for the parks, gets ideas, and generates plans. She stated that she did not view the Commission as a fundraising arm of the City and, in fact, the two groups are two distinct organizations that work together towards the same goals of improving parks in Shorewood made up of volunteers. She agreed that clarification of these rules was necessary to move forward. The Commission requested to see a copy of the by -laws for their review. 3. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned to their Regular Park Commission Meeting. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary a CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 REGULAR MEETING • MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING �e , F1 Chair Arrest convened the Work Session immediately after the regular Park Commission meeting. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arrest; Commissioners Davis, Meyer, Young, and Famiok; City Engineer Brown; City Council liaison Lizee; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Callies B. Review Agenda 2. QUESTIONS / REVIEW OF MASTER PLAN Brown indicated that the task before the Commission is to determine how the City can manage its parks. This is the next step, looking at the master plan to determine how use and development should be guided. The Commission has been charged with holding public hearings, evaluating request that come before them, and saying does this fit within the guidelines of our comprehensive plan or doesn't it. By putting forth a comprehensive planning document and • policies and guidelines which govern it, the Commission can make an objective decision. Once this tool has been recommended by the Commission, and receives City Council approval, this tool will act as a planning diagram for the Council when evaluating requests that come in. Brown acknowledged that this process will take a considerable amount of time in order to determine strong policy statements to accompany the guidelines. Brown stated that the first steps include taking an inventory of what the City has, and what each park offers. With regard to the Badger Park Map, Brown reviewed the inventory list and suggested that the Commission consider setting up a zoning map of sorts for park use, similar to Planning Maps. By identifying areas within parks that are active or passive, the park activity maps will help to differentiate classifications. 3. DISCUSS PARK USE / ACTIVITY MAP A. Define a Balance and What We Want to Achieve Young stated that, within Badger Park, the Commission has not fulfilled any of the recommendations they made to themselves when reviewing the master plan. Bailey explained that the activity maps provide a snapshot of where the parks are at. Brown stated that the proposed `goals' for the parks will be different than the `zoning maps' for is the parks that they will be developing through this process. Brown admitted that, while the Commission needs to strive to achieve the goals set forth in the master plan, this process will help to direct requests and development of the parks as they work towards those goals. For example, given the park master plan and the activity map, the Commission will know how the park is governed and to be zoned. He suggested three or four colors be used to define high PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 5 intensity use, medium intensity use, low intensity use, or passive on each given park activity • map. Chair Arnst compared the high mega intensity use of the little league fields to the appearance of lesser use activity at the other end of Freeman. Farniok asked how open space or green space fit into the equation. Brown gave the example of a sports organization request for additional ball fields in place of a picnic open space. By building open space into the activity map, the Commission can refer to this as a method or tool which justifies the park activity or lack of activity for a given park. Chair Amst pointed out that, based on the most recent surveys, open space is one of the most desirable aspects of Shorewood resident's parks'. On the other hand, the ones who will come before the Commission to make requests will be the sports organizations. Brown suggested the Commission consider what is worth preserving in each of the parks, as well as, what the basis is for this assumption. By defining what is most important in a park, for example open space, the Commission has identified a district which guidelines and regulations for that district can follow. While the framework has been set up for these districts, such as neighborhood parks, community parks, community playfields, regional parks, etc. Bailey suggested activity districts be identified by color which could then follow the types of parks. Brown stated that neighborhood parks would consist of Cathcart, Manor, Silverwood, and • Badger and serve nearby neighborhoods. Community Playfields consist of Freeman facilities and Minnetonka school district fields. Freeman would also overlap as a community park. Young questioned how open space could be defined. Brown asked what the Commission felt the definition should be for open space. Chair Amst suggested they refer to the definition supplied by the LCEC for open space. Brown indicated that it would be a passive space, a green open space that could be further defined by the Commission to fit its needs. Brown believed that what constitutes park open space can be reduced through this process. Chair Arnst stated that she envisioned open green space free for use and play without structures, but may be mowed. She indicated that the Freeman woods would not be considered open space. Young agreed the Commission must agree upon a definition for their purposes of both open space and passive use before they proceed. Brown concurred with Arnst that the `cozy woods' is space that is not high use and still may be a passive use area, but is definitely not open space. He asked others to share their definition for open space. • Young stated that, in his opinion, the definition of open space would be the absence of a formally defined play activity or structure. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 5 • Farniok stated that the open wooded area may be a worthy preservation area which would be `unavailable' for development. Davis stated that she would identify four areas as undeveloped land, undevelopable land (treed area worth preserving), unstructured park space (open grassy space), and natural space (wetlands /gardens). Young agreed that these would all fit within the sub heading of open space. In this working definition, Chair Arnst stated that the term open space would act as an umbrella for those four sub headings presented by Davis. Brown stated that he did not know of any other community who has gone so far as to setting up park zoning maps and activity maps which is cutting edge and driven by the demand for intense use. He asked for other comments regarding open space. Chair Arnst indicated that it would be her desire to preserve what open space the City has. B. How to Accommodate Sport Organizations and Other Activities Brown noted that now is the chance for the Commission set up the comprehensive guidelines of what they wish to see preserved within the park system as the Commission is approached with requests from organizations. • While the assumption is that the Commission wishes to preserve what we have, Farniok noted that this might not dictate what development may occur. Brown stated that it would not be unreasonable to say the Commission does not wish to add any more high intense use areas than what currently exists if the Commission is in agreement. Chair Amst pointed out that, as demand increases, the existing park land dedicated to high intensity use can be reconfigured to accommodate that use to maintain a balance situation. The example of LaCrosse was discussed for shared field use. Brown stated that as he reviewed Badger and Cathecart parks they both fall within the definition of two park classifications, i.e. neighborhood parks. While he had hoped the Commission could eventually arrive at a percentage for each park classification, Brown acknowledged that there may be overlaps in which parks may need to be classified individually. Chair Arnst stated that it seems to her that the priority expressed by the Commission thus far is to preserve the green space or open space that exists. On the other hand, Farniok suggested that the Commission attempt to maintain the balance of open space to active use, since no one knows what future use might be. Chair Arnst stated that this would make sense, by giving the City some flexibility to move some things around and mitigate for additional use in certain areas while balancing the use in other • areas. Brown stated that the flexibility would justify the case for percentages rather than delineated color coded areas. By assigning a certain percentage for designated green open space in each park, the City can therefore preserve the aesthetics of a park, but also allow for flexibility in PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 5 development. One area could be restored to a natural state, while another area is turned into a • useable space if necessary. Bailey stated this might be a good way to regain unused developed space for natural habitat in exchange for a different usable location. Davis suggested that the natural space definition within the open space definition should include the term habitat. For clarification, Brown repeated the four sub headings within the open space definition, which included, undeveloped, undevelopable land, unstructured park space, and natural habitat. He felt the next task would be for Bailey to return to the maps and try to calculate the total amount of space within each park today which makes up this open space definition the Commission has created. While this mission may take a bit more time, Brown stated the Commission could continue to develop the definitions for the park activity map. Davis asked who's jurisdiction the open space falls under. Brown stated that this question has been under debate and was addressed by the Mayor and the LCEC. Since Gideon Glen falls within the open space definition, and once the LCEC was disbanded, the question remained under what jurisdiction open space parcels fall. Although she recalled asking the question, Chair Amst stated that she was unaware of how this decision was left. Davis stated that the differences would need to be addressed between the various sub headings of • open space. Brown indicated that he would find the answer to that question and return with that for the Commission. Davis acknowledged that there are worthy areas to preserve in Shorewood and she questioned how the City would do this. Brown stated that, although the LCEC was disbanded, it was left that they could be called to action upon request. Chair Arnst asked if the Commission could provide Brown with any further direction this evening. Brown stated that he left the discussion very open this evening and, in fact, he was surprised at how far they'd come with their discussion. He felt the next step would be to look at the designated parking areas to determine if and when they would ever be expanded. After that, Brown suggested they examine the high intensity use areas, and if or how they should be governed. Meyer stated that the neighborhood parks would be far easier to govern based on lighting and noise levels within the residential area. . Brown stated that an alternative to creating more field space might be to add lights to make more effective use of the field space available, as one possibility. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 5 OF 5 Chair Amst asked if the Commission should hold an additional work session to discuss these • topics. Brown agreed that might be a worthwhile endeavor. Chair Arnst stated that they could schedule a short work session later this month. She asked Brown if they were at a point at which the wetland tree inventory could be added to an upcoming agenda. Brown stated that he was striving to meet a deadline regarding MS4 stormwater plans. In the meantime, Brown indicated that he has learned that Dakota County was awarded a grant for aquatic plantings. He mentioned that inventorying trees at Freeman will be an enormous task, and require much manpower. Chair Arnst suggested they add the discussion of a dog park to the next work session agenda, as an off shoot of open space planning. Young stated that he was uncomfortable re- examining this new effort of inventorying without whole heartedly completing the goals as laid out for the parks. He felt some time should be devoted within the next work session to evaluate the master plan goals of each park before proceeding with a new effort. Brown asked for suggestions regarding this discussion. • The Commission complimented Brown on the forum and discussion which led to the open space definitions. It was agreed that the upcoming work session would be held on March 30, 2004. 4. ADJOURNMENT The Park Commission Work Session adjourned at 10:05 P.M. RESPECTFULLYSUBNIITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary 1�1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 • MINUTES n F T 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING D, Chair Arnst convened the meeting at 7:08 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Callies, Davis, Meyer, and Young; City Engineer Brown; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Farniok B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSSION OF PARK ACTIVITY MAPPING Brown presented two sets of Maps, Set A and Set B, to the Commission and explained the rationale behind each. Set A evaluated the entities found in each park and categorized them into four areas, including Active Recreational Area, Low Use Recreational Area, Open Space, and Parking Space. Set B identified zoning districts, similar to those used by the Planning Department. Brown questioned the Commission whether they felt Shorewood parks are large enough to warrant districts. • Meyer believed districts did a better job of providing a realistic outlook of where things are and the unusable space associated with the entities. Brown noted that the upside to identifying districts might be the fact that open space is not misrepresented as available unused space, for instance the unusable strips of `open space' between usable recreation. On the down side, Brown indicated that districts may misrepresent total open space, thus allowing, theoretically, for an increase in active space. Chair Arnst asked what alternatives the Commission might consider. Brown pointed out that the plat maps would allow the Commission the ability to set up regulations restricting increases in active use space to levels higher than currently exists today. Chair Arnst stated that districts would allow for overall realignment to maintain active sports footprints at a certain percentage; whereas something must go if more is to be added. Davis maintained that the value of the open space would be an integral part of the equation, since a wetland or natural habitat would be far more valuable than a grungy unused parcel. She felt that Set B seemed to be more restrictive. Callies recommended that additional subcategories of open space would need to be defined in greater detail. She indicated that, for the smaller parks, the activity maps are helpful; whereas, the district map may be more applicable to larger parks, like Freeman. • Brown questioned whether the level of use may change the classification, for instance, while Badger tennis courts are well used, it is not intensive but rather low use or impact. Bailey suggested that high use and low use activities refer to the seasonal activity of a park entity. � aD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 7 Chair Arnst agreed that the level of use shall be based on the in- season level of use. . Meyer questioned why the level of use was pertinent and what specifically the City wished to regulate. Chair Arnst pointed out that, what brought the Commission to this discussion, was the increased demand to add to the number of fields, bleachers, etc. She stated that the City would prefer to have the basis in place to formulate a decision prior to being confronted with the requests. Chair Arnst added that, by modeling the land use zoning regulations and terminology, park space or growth can be monitored. Brown stated that, based on the two sets of maps, the Commission has two methods for evaluating requests, regulation based on a certain percentage of open space or a distinction between high use and low intensity use considered on a park by park basis. Chair Arnst pointed out that the impacts are different between the request for a soccer field, which is a high use amenity, versus the request for a low use amenity such as horseshoes. By breaking down the open space terminology to define natural habitat, corridors, usable open land, etc., the Commission will be better able to evaluate requests. Davis suggested the terms high impact and low impact replace the terms high use and low use. Brown agreed that there is a further need for clarification of open space. He asked whether the Commission felt the use of districts was warranted. . Meyer noted that the maps must include vegetation so that percentages can be defined. Davis stated that she disagreed with the district maps identifying the corridor, or collateral space, between activities and fields as open space. Since the Commission had already gone to great lengths within the master plan to identify park maps, Young questioned the need to create maps of unnecessary superstructure. Chair Arnst indicated that she believed the district maps took away some of the Commission's flexibility, and would prefer to identify activity or impact percentages. Brown concurred, stating that he felt the public, and sports associations, would be more amenable to percentages versus restrictive districts. He stated that, technically, the space between fields in the Commission's assessment should not be included as open space. Chair Arnst urged staff to keep the language consistent with zoning terms, such as buffer zones, peripheral zones, etc. Other than defining high impact and low impact uses, Brown asked the Commission what other concerns they had with regard to regulating parks, for example lighting, open space, parking, etc. While parking at Freeman park had been addressed, Brown pointed out that the City does not wish to design parking for peak rush hour use overall. Chair Arnst suggested a formula be created, similar to that of the zoning department, which could be applied to park parking issues. She used the example of Cub Foods, when they built the facility; Cub was required to determine the number of spaces necessary to accommodate them. Arnst questioned whether the same formula could be applied when planning for the construction of an additional field and determining whether the parking accommodates it. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 7 • Brown pointed to page seven of the staff memo, which suggested that any proposed expansion of existing park facilities, be accompanied by a parking study to determine if the existing facilities can handle the demand. In addition, Brown asked the Commission its position on expanded concession operations. Chair Arnst noted that, at one point, Cathcart Park had shown concessions as part of its master plan, which has since been removed. Brown questioned whether the Commission could accept temporary concession operations at, for instance, the Skate Park. He asked them to consider permanent versus temporary concessions at community parks, or others. Meyer agreed that concessions were better suited for community parks; however, she would not object to temporary concessions at any of the parks. Young stated that he would prefer to study the request for concessions on a case by case basis versus laying out blanket restrictions. Brown noted that it can be more beneficial to have the rules laid out ahead of time rather than appear to be making the rules up as we go. Although the number of requests has declined in recent years, Chair Arnst stated that it would be • nice to have a basis to formulate decisions. Brown asked the Commissions opinion on lighting in parks. He pointed out that glare seems to be the only part of the lighting Ordinance that applies and since making this observation, he has asked Planning Director Nielsen to revise the Ordinance. Brown indicated that there is pressure for lighting at Freeman Park, and in fact, he stated that he would not be surprised if this request did not come before the Commission in the future. He asked whether the Commission wished to regulate lighting on a case by case basis. Chair Arnst stated that she felt lighting was unnecessary in neighborhood parks; however, at community parks, such as Freeman, evaluation of additional traffic and neighborhood impacts needs to be determined. Young stated that even with the installation of lighting, a time limit of 10 PM is set by Code. Meyer stated that she would support lit fields at Freeman, but would need to hear from the neighbors. Callies stated that, it seemed to her, that lighting is an issue that has probably been studied quite a bit in other communities as well. She recommended the City contact other communities to learn how they addressed these issues. Brown indicated that he would research this further and contact the Mn. Recreation and Park Association. He asked for additional comment on fencing. • Chair Arnst stated that she regretted allowing the batting cages, nets, and poles to be constructed near the little league fields, since they are so aesthetically displeasing. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 4 OF 7 Brown pointed out that this was one of those cases in which the Commission was faced with a • request and forced to act on it. He asked how the Commission would react to such a request for field 5 at the north side of Freeman. Chair Arnst stated that the Commission has encouraged the sports organizations to share facilities. Young stated that they could consider the impacts the added batting cage might have on parking. While the Commission could say it detracts from the park, Callies stated that the Commission has the opportunity to define and provide the organizations with direction. Young stated that, if the sports groups could demonstrate a need for it, he would sacrifice the aesthetics in order to maximize their use and not force them to go elsewhere. Chair Arnst suggested the number of cages be limited, or at least moved to the side. Brown indicated that the Commission could place limitations or restrictions on the use, such as a batting cage per four fields if space permits to the side. Meyer stated that she would be interested to see what other cities have allowed with regard to batting cages, since the public can visit batting cages, similar to driving ranges, for a fee. She added that she would prefer bleachers to batting cages for the public to use. Davis agreed that bleachers were warranted. She pointed out that the City could apply standards • to the bleachers, just as they'd discussed for batting cages, by requiring proposed bleachers to meet a certain standard and look. Chair Arnst felt bleachers were an unattractive addition and required ongoing maintenance. Brown agreed that the City could research and select a few bleacher designs as standards. The Commission concurred. With regard to Auxiliary Structures and Warming Houses, Chair Arnst explained that in the past the sports organizations have installed `little brown barns' without permits. Although code allows 10X12' structures without a permit to be put up for storage purposes, Brown stated that the question is whether the Commission would prefer to place restrictions on storage space on City property by permit only. While Brown recognized the need for seasonal storage space for certain activities, he questioned the legitimacy of year round storage. Chair Arnst stated that she wished to avoid any more of these situations, like the `knox boxes' chained to the fences year round. She maintained that these items need to be removed at season end and should be applied for via a seasonal permit process. She noted that she typically sees one box at Cathcart and 2 -3 more at Freeman each year. Brown questioned the Commissions position regarding the potential for kiosks in the parks. . Davis felt kiosks could merely provide vandals with another venue. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 5 OF 7 While Little League has a kiosk outside its concession stand, Chair Arnst stated that she would prefer the kiosks be enclosed Plexiglas cases mounted to the building. She asked Brown what the next steps might be. Brown stated that he had enough direction to do some research and report back. He continued, noting that staff could update the maps, keeping area tables, removing district designations, and adding tree lines and vegetation to the maps. At a future work session, he pointed out that the Commission should consider other things worth regulating and breaking down the definitions of open space, as well as, other terms. 3. REVIEW MASTER PLAN • Consider Plans to Mitigate Various Park Deficiencies As part of the Master Plan review process, Chair Arnst reviewed the park deficiencies for each park with the Commission in order to add any items to the 2004 to -do list. Brown stated that the budget is roughly $50,000, although approximately $8,000 is designated for new Skate Park equipment. Beginning with Cathcart, Chair Arnst noted that the Commission will need to make contact with the senior population in order to ascertain what, or if, they'd like to see specific facilities at this, or Shorewood's other parks. She pointed out that the public works staff acknowledged that the tennis courts are not heavily used. • Young asked staff to determine what maintenance costs were associated with this park and its tennis courts. He suggested that, if the courts were usable and not too costly to upkeep that they remain. Brown suggested that, unless the goal is to clear green space or until use of the space for an alternate purpose is necessary, it would suffice to leave the courts alone for the time being, since seniors do use them from time to time. Chair Arnst recommended that when the time comes for resurfacing, reconsideration of the courts should occur. Brown noted that the City is behind in its resurfacing efforts of City tennis courts. He noted that it doesn't cost the City a great deal and doesn't constitute a burden from a cost standpoint. Chair Arnst pointed out that although parking is limited; she believed that Little League had a parking agreement with Minnewashta Church. Chair Arnst noted that two other items under the consideration for change heading had been addressed. With regard to Badger Park, Chair Arnst stated that once again the seniors need to be consulted. She pointed out that she would like to see further cooperation with the senior center. In addition, Chair Arnst noted that the parking conflicts between football, the City Hall, and Senior Center is are being addressed by the park coordinator service. The Silverwood Park boundaries were marked as mentioned in the master plan list for consideration. In addition, Brown stated that the tennis courts would also be resurfaced. Chair Arnst inquired as to the status of a warming house. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 6 OF 7 Brown stated that, in his opinion, the need for the warming house has subsided, since he has not seen a great deal of activity on the pond anymore. Chair Arnst pointed out that the tennis courts at Manor Park are also under consideration. With regard to volleyball, Chair Amst stated that there is no cost associated with the volleyball courts and are simply available for neighborhood use. Although the Skate Park will be updated with a piece of new equipment and reconfiguration, Chair Arnst asked about the fencing. Brown stated that costs have delayed the fencing; however, he hasn't seen a real need for the fencing as first thought. He indicated that the signage and rules have been posted. Brown pointed out that the cost for well water would have been about $20,000, with the new Carmichael development, the City may have a new opportunity to provide water at the Skate Park. Chair Arnst stated that many of the issues at Freeman have been addressed, including the parking and scheduling. She noted that the perimeter trail will be paved this year as well. 4. MUSIC IN THE PARK • Review Committee Update Chair Arnst reported that the committee has been evaluating music. Davis suggested a piece be submitted to the Sun Sailor and Newsletter inviting bands apply for • the series and asking that CD's be submitted. Brown reported that the City Council approved the events and private sponsorship of them; however, would like to see the final costs. 5. DISCUSSION OF CONCESSION OPPORTUNITIES Chair Arnst suggested that staff offer the operations of the concessions to the fire fighters and Police departments as a means of fundraising for tasor guns and other items. She felt this could be viewed as promoting community relations. She asked if staff had received any interest from their request for proposals. Brown stated that he will be meeting with an individual who has expressed an interest in the concession operations. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Arnst reported that she had been approached by an 11 year old skateboarder and his boy scout troop to present their suggestions for new equipment and reconfiguration of the Skate Park to be given at the next Park Commission meeting. In addition, Chair Amst stated that she received a call from little league who had put in a bid for astro turf from the Metrodome and got it, and hoped to install it in their batting cages. While they • go through the approval process, they asked if the Commission would allow them to store the piece at Freeman. Chair Amst stated that she had denied the request to store the piece and encouraged the Commission to take a look at the smaller piece they had installed last year in one of the batting cages. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 7 OF 7 • Young asked whether the sports organizations understood that the Commission does not appreciate modifications to the fields and facilities without prior approval. Brown stated that the astro turf could fall within the conditional use permit process. In the meantime, he indicated that he would touch base with Chanhassen to find out whether they are familiar with this request. Callies reported that this evening would be her last night with the Park Commission, since her other City had changed meeting nights which would not allow her to continue to attend the Shorewood meetings. Brown reported that City Attorney Keane was also in the process of switching firms. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the Work Session Meeting at 9:23 P.M. 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 • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 411104 For more information: Jean Panchyshyn, 952 - 474 -3236 CITY OF SHOREWOOD SEEKS MUSICIANS FOR "MUSIC IN THE PARK" EVENT The City of Shorewood is seeking local musicians for its first "Music in the Park" series to take place on the 2 ° Friday during the months of June, July and August, 2004, from 6:30 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. at Freeman Park in the City of Shorewood. Interested musicians are asked to submit a sample of their work on CD, video or audio tape, along with their fee, to the City of Shorewood, Music in the Park, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331. Deadline for submission is Noon on April 23, 2004. Sample work will be returned upon request. For more information about the "Music in the Park" event contact the City of Shorewood at 952- 474 - 3236. 0 0 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER / • April 2, 2004 Police Chief Bryan Litsey 24150 Smithtown Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Police Chief Litsey: The Shorewood Park Commission would like to offer your organization the opportunity to operate the Freeman Park Concession stand for the 2004 season. A partnership between your department and the City would be of outstanding benefit, not only to us, but to the users of the Park. The City operates the concession stand, with a vendor, on a contract arrangement. The current • contract states: • 75% of the net profits go to the vendor, 25% to the City. • The city purchases the product, and has the equipment necessary for operation on site. • The vendor assures the City that the stand will be open for operation Monday - Thursday from 5:30 -8:30 p.m., and on Sundays from approximately 1:30 -5:30 p.m. (times tentative), from May 1 through June 30. Net revenues from the first year of operation (2003) for the vendor were about $4,000 for Monday through Thursday operation only. The City also has in place, in partnership with the Park Coordinators, a web site that is used to notify teams and other interested parties of cancellations. This is helpful in determining potential closure of concessions due to weather conditions. We have also developed an arrangement with Minnetonka Girls Softball where they provide 1 -2 volunteers per night to assist the vendor. MGSA has worked closely with us on this piece because of their belief that the concession operation is a very important amenity to the recreational experience of their players. They have proven to be reliable and enthusiastic partners. It is understanding that MGSA is willing to continue this relationship in the 2004 season. The City's goals for the concession stand are to break even financially, but most importantly, to offer a wonderful amenity to the park during peak usage times. We feel that in working with • your organization, we would offer you not only financial gain, but valuable community involvement and positive public relations in a way that is new and unique for Shorewood. �uE • If you are interested in discussing this opportunity more, here is what you can do: • Get a copy of the contract and 2003 sales statistics from Larry Brown at Shorewood City Hall; and • Let us know of your interest and ask to be placed on the April 13 Park Commission Agenda by contacting Twila at 474 -3236. We hope that you will give this offer serious consideration. Sincerely, Shorewood Park Commission • jjjjj �l To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout Date: April 8, 2004 Re: Park Agenda #6 — Proposal From Little League At the last Park Commission meeting Chair Pat Arnst stated that she received a call from Little League who had put in a bid for astro turf from the Metrodome and got it, and hoped to install it in their batting cages at Freeman Park. Attached are pictures of the batting cages at Freeman Park for your review. A representative from Little League will be present at the Park Commission meeting to discuss the artificial turf in the batting cage at Freeman Park. LJ • O r A + e. • � It 3 5 IN S ? 'tiwyx.Jk 1� • � � � d �k �i i �� p . �' '{ i s f a-w.w i - ' -„if �`.".""° r � e 5 s :tea a I r-'7 0 e ti'1 v 9 Ax t - PC � . a?�,.r i I F 7 , ,.f ;� �'�k•.. ;:1 . � a ? v• e* .... _� , ,.. x'. ` , 1 . c� '�k1 s <' `^'' ". r p t 1 rt �` � , : � a' s � .w:€'' 4 fln�.� � . 9'�. � a4r � t� �n rA,"1 "^� , <.1 n MPH 1 .ro � �7 i ,#�u,_^ ib ut' 3 q'£ .,w " . -: y 1, *v! ,'�"� 6.a ' '�, �: .- •4 �i } + �i A''y��y "�, � to s>a � , � t . � �'� �'i J� � S ��� � �" d rJ r •�. X "'�� • w. � ,.., v� -�+ maumwur•w.,x5w+'wwM. �n <r. v- w.�r.r,�n.M1:- ..r .., r sw. o-, �: �. x�,; �h..: �„ �. Mrh+ �+, +�.�w�r,�..� « "u:4ti«.w5s, + +.msaw iw.�,.,.,en «wr..+"i,.e: m+ewa...r.C.. �.wH..; .��. .. r ...,..•:,���..wttu.. .. �...,...;:w.. ,„�,. awa ��.�.:.+.. .«,.:..- .:�...��«�n -a ��.a. a�-« an;, �w �» aw.,. uWewr+ k�.. ��» a.. ir+ �uwre +�a�wb!p�trw�a?:�w4a�mnw.m�y:,. A i � � � � � � � �, s � �' ° �� " a y � ti k ;! � � � � � � � | \ \m §� � � � \� �� � � � \ .� � / \ /���� \� � � � �� d\ ,� v : ,� >\ � . (�>� � � � � m LJ • • "4 fir+ of T• � ! � r � � 1 Y /�• /i � j fig d f , f "' � ` r � J' f , r �" {� � �, �, < �. a w � � T R d AY ,Al 1 J '4 7 e � � � A ., � "� if xT �� Q �� < ✓ � • �`I�..1 �" d " �T 1 * � i N � �,"'A d 1 #k � &� 'f.p n J^ � 4 &'[" ' A JM F. % x , `� � � � .. ys a � � r � � "� S #NN t a r � �f f r�{ C y r� �4 flit k f � a � -i CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaIIGci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W: Dawson, City Administrator DATE: April 8, 2004 SUBJECT: Roles/Responsibilities of the Park Commission and the Shorewood Parks Foundation The Park Commission has requested that the City Council state its expectations regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Park Commission and the Shorewood Parks Foundation. These entities are separate; and apparently they would benefit from clarifying whether and where their functions may overlap. The following description may (with modifications) serve as the Council's response. • Park Commission According to the City Code, the Park Commission was established in 1975 "as an advisory body to the City Council to aid [it] in the expenditure of monies so that the greatest.. . benefit may be obtained from the use and maintenance of the parks." Under the Code, the Commission's designated responsibilities are to: • "Consider, review, report and advise on all matters which the Council may refer to the Commission. • "Plan, on a long -term basis, for the future park and recreational needs of the City and recommend a feasible means of financing such long -term requirements.. • "Recommend operating policies and procedures for use of existing parks. • "Develop and refer to the Council a recommended operational and capital improvement budget for the ensuing year. • "Submit to the Planning Commission comments on any proposed subdivisions, as the same may or may not affect the City's park and playground requirements: " The Commission is thus an important advisory body involved in the planning, policies, and financing of Shorewood's park system. As the Commission develops knowledge and expertise in parks in general and Shorewood's parks in particular, the Council expects that the Commission will take initiative in identifying and evaluating relevant issues and trends. As there has been growing interest in recent years in programming recreational and cultural activities for Shorewood's parks, this too is • appropriate for the Commission's purview. C OP PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Roles/Responsibilities; Park Commission and Parks Foundation April 12, 2004, City Council Meeting Page Two • Parks Foundation The Shorewood Parks Foundation was established in 1995 as a 501 c3 corporation with its registered office being Shorewood City Hall. It is an entity technically separate from the City of Shorewood. The City Council acts as an oversight body for purposes of accountability of the Foundation, and the Council has offered to make limited support available to the Foundation. The Foundation was restructured in 2001 to focus on fund- raising activities to support and enhance Shorewood's park system. According to its by -laws, the Foundation will work to: • "Promote the preservation, protection, improvement, establishment and enlargement of parks, trails, bikeways and open space for the residents of the City of Shorewood." • "Provide more and better facilities at Shorewood's parks for organized sports activities and for unorganized recreational activities, all of which shall be calculated to: • "a. Add to the general quality of life for Shorewood and its broader community; • "b. Allow for more residents and civic organizations to participate in recreational activities; • "c. Provide an opportunity to encourage donations to Shorewood's parks." (Regarding this item, donors may prefer the Foundation be a recipient of donations rather than the City directly. Also, as a 501 c3 organization, purchases are not subject to sales taxes, whereas the City's generally are.) • "Provide the framework for raising of funds to support and improve Shorewood's park • facilities expeditiously, by: • "Raising and disbursing funds for: • Park capital improvement projects as listed in the City of Shorewood's five -year Parks Capital Improvement Program; • Park improvement projects in the long -range Park Capital Improvement Plan, which extends beyond five years; • A portion of the cost of maintaining Shorewood parks; • Working with the City to apply for and provide matching and in -kind contributions for various grants." Specifically, its by -laws also place limits on implementing the Foundation's improvements: • "All park improvement project proposals [by the Foundation] must be submitted to the City of Shorewood Park Commission, which shall review proposals and submit recommendations to the Shorewood City Council, which must approve such proposals before the project can be implemented." The Foundation's purpose is to supplement the City's park system financially through private donations. Overlap? The Commission and the Foundation have complementary interests in financing and • improving Shorewood's park system. The Commission can develop plans and identify fugding, and the Foundation can assist in financing and suggesting improvements. Communication bet"en the two bodies to align priorities, and to identify what can be accomplished practically, would appear to further the progress of each in the areas of their respective responsibility.