Loading...
111302 PK AgP' CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2002 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Callies Meyer Bartlett Young Palesch Davis Arnst B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, A. Park Commission Minutes of October 8, 2002(Att. - #2A Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of October 14 and 28, and November 12, 2002 (Council member) 5. REVIEW AND FINALIZE PRIORITY POLICY A. Set date for meeting with representatives from Sports Organizations (Att. #5A) B. Discuss plan for finalizing and recommending to Council (Att. #5B) 6. MASTER PLAN REVIEW -(Mark Koegler - Hoisington - Koegler Group)(Att. #6j A. Discuss plan for finalizing and recommendations to Council N 7. REVIEW HISTORY OF TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS AND SPECIFICALLY, SMITHTOWN ROAD EVALUATION STEPS - (Larry Brown, Public Works Director) (Att. #7) A. Discuss date for neighborhood open house 8. DETERMINE PARK LIAISON TO CITY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 9. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: November. Meyer 10. ADJOURNMENT December :.? CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 8, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING D ML Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. JL A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst, Commissioners Palesch, Young, Davis, Bartlett, and late arrival Callies; City Engineer Brown; Engineering Technician Bailey; Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group Absent: Commissioner Meyers and City Council Liaison Zerby B. Review Agenda 0 • Palesch moved, Bartlett seconded, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of September 17, 2002 Chair Arnst revised Paragraph 11, page 7, to read "... no clear definition by either the Park Commission or Park Foundation as to where the bricks would go. ". At the top of page 10 she added, "...reflecting the removal of the Park Commission seat. ". Finally, Chair Amst added a comment to p. 10, paragraph 6, reflecting that "The Park Commission discussed the remaining 2002 schedule as follows: ". Palesch moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2002, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 23, 2002 Engineer Brown reported that a preliminary plat for a 12 -lot cul -de -sac subdivision was granted on the opposite corner of Lake Linden, near the pond. Chair Arnst asked if the subdivision would back up to the Cub Foods store. Brown indicated that it would. _�fo* PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Callies arrived at 7:06 P.M. B. Update on Lake Linden Trail Project Brown reported that the northeast property owners of Lake Linden Drive and Yellowstone, the Kennedy's, would like to see the trail project wrap around the bend and the addition of landscaping to deter drivers from cutting the corner. Brown noted that while stakes are being placed, there are a number of issues the City must address before proceeding, including obtaining feedback from residents and solving drainage questions. He pointed out that the trail would need to be in place before Cub Foods would be granted its certificate of occupancy. 5. MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mark Koegler, of Hoisington Koegler Group, presented Step 2 of the Freeman Park Master Plan Review, which he had completed after incorporating the input collected from meetings with the Park Commission and Eddy Station's Open House. Koegler pointed out that, generally, Freeman Park has become a victim of its own success. While its function would not dramatically change, maintaining a balance of active and passive facilities would continue to be a challenge in the upcoming years. With regard to parking and circulation, Koegler acknowledged that construction of the south parking lot will significantly improve the supply of off - street parking, whereas, the access to various parking areas will • continue to be hindered by the lack of a roadway connection through the park. The trails within Freeman Park are heavily used by walkers and bikers. On the east side of the park, however, users are forced to walk along Eureka Road, which also carries a significant volume of traffic. Koegler maintained that a new off - street trail is needed along Eureka Road from the park entry drive to the trail stub that intersects Eureka Road, just north of the senior housing area. As part of the internal review of Freeman Park, the Park Commission identified a list of preferred facilities that reflected a mix of active and passive recreational amenities for the park. Of the items listed, Koegler pointed out that the only new activity on the list was Lacrosse. The secondary list of possible facilities in Freeman Park contained a number of other types of uses, like flower gardens, fountains, and a dog park. Koegler indicated that the next phase of the master plan review process would be to collect additional public input. His presentation concluded with a recommendation to consider transferring the scheduling function from an outside agency to an entity within the City. Since interest in Freeman Park's facilities would likely grow in future years, the administration, scheduling, management, and maintenance of the park by the City would allow for a greater measure of control to effectuate changes. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Arnst suggested that item #2, the population served, be expanded to include the entire school district. With regard to Parking and Circulation, paragraph 4 on P.2, she felt that the size of ball field 2 was a deficiency in itself because it is so large for the space allotted. She argued that the construction of this field has taken away the City's ability to provide a roadway connection, and was in fact, the impetus for closing • the road in the first place. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 3 of 11 • As far as the Eureka Road trail suggestion was concerned, Chair Amst pointed out that the new trail along Eureka Road was complete. She also noted that the City has moved forward, and Council has approved a scope of services for park scheduling, to be handled in -house through a contracted service provider. Callies asked what would become of this master plan review process. Brown indicated that, ultimately, the park master plans would become part of the overall Master Plan. Chair Arnst added that the Park Master Plans would then be subject to the same review process as the entire Master Plan in 2005. Since the Commission had met with neighbors, announced an additional Open House in the paper, and included surveys in the newsletter, Chair Arnst questioned what more would need to be done to complete step three. Brown stated that the City has received approximately 50 survey responses to date and passed out a preliminary results packet. Chair Arnst reiterated the question whether anything more could be done with regard to obtaining public input. Brown asked if the City should provide the residents who attend the Open House a copy of the Master Plan Review of the parks to take with them. Young commented that, as a resident, it would be more beneficial to have a document ahead of time to review and be prepared to comment on at the open house. Brown indicated that they could direct people to the website to learn more about the Master Plan Reviews for each of the parks. Chair Arnst felt that a bullet point piece could be useful and recommended the open house be kept informal. Although everyone would be in attendance, there would be no formal presentation, and she suggested members remain accessible to residents. Brown agreed that the public responds more favorably to an informal format, however, he suggested the Park Commissioners be unified in their message. Since there are not a significant number of changes being made, the Commission needs to be able to explain the park management philosophy and why the change to scheduling will occur. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that by managing the parks, the City is striving to create a balance, which promotes the inclusion of people, versus exclusion. Callies asked if the open house were for review of all the park plans. Chair Arnst stated that all of the park master plans would be available for review. . Koegler warned the Commission not to expect a huge turnout for the open house and suggested they post a board for each park which bullet points features. He recommended comment cards be provided, and if the PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 4 of 11 opportunity arises where 10 -12 people are present, the Commission give a mini presentation of their master planning review process of the past 18 months. Chair Arnst asked if the City could mail out targeted invitations to specific neighborhoods inviting immediate park neighbors to attend the open house. Bailey pointed out that the Planning Department uses 500' as a guideline for notification, which could be used for this park mailing as well. Chair Arnst indicated that the open house was merely two weeks from this evening and questioned whether the invitations could be sent out in a timely fashion if the Commission agreed. Young suggested a statement be added that encourages people who receive invitations to go ahead and invite their neighbors. Brown indicated that staff would prepare and conduct a postcard mailing as an open invitation to people to come to discuss the whole park system. He would provide graphic images for each park with a bullet point list of each ones features, comment cards, and the target mailing. Koegler suggested the City hook guests by inviting them to come in and share their thoughts on their neighborhood park, as well as, others in Shorewood. Chair Arnst indicated that the Commissioners were welcome to come and go from 5:30 - 7P.M. She questioned if the results from the survey and open house comments could be incorporated into a rough first draft for review at the November meeting, so that final approval could be granted at the December meeting. Koegler indicated that he would be unavailable to attend the November 13, 2002 Park Commission meeting, however, he would provide Brown with a draft for the Commission to review. 6. DISCUSS PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ON OCTOBER 22 FOR PARK MASTER PLANS Discussed under item 5. 7. REVIEW FIRST DRAFT OF PRIORITY SCHEDULING POLICY Brown presented the first draft of the priority scheduling policy for Park Commission consideration. In his introduction, Brown explained that after reviewing the sample priority policies supplied to them by the Minnesota Park and Recreation Association, he felt that they did not address some of the important items that the Shorewood Park Commission had discussed. Brown stated that, in his draft, he attempted to go beyond what had been glossed over by the samples and dove into the heart of the issues that Shorewood faced. Brown asked for comments on page one, explaining that the definition section, though not complete, was laid out to help people understand the terms used throughout the piece. He pointed out that the intent of the preseason coordination meetings in both February and August would be to determine field usage and identify what groups are currently out there that want field time. He reminded the Commission of their desire for representation by all groups at these meetings if field time is to be allotted. Chair Arnst questioned what the ramifications would be if a group did not have a representative present at the • coordination meeting. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 5 of 11 • Although a tough policy, Brown stated that if they don't pay, they don't play . The Park Commission would like the organizations feedback and provide them with pertinent information at the meeting as well. The organization presence is mandatory. Chair Arnst suggested adding that their attendance is mandatory at the preseason coordination meeting if they want to be considered for field time. Palesch inquired whether the designated representative was required to be present, or if another person from the group could represent them. While Brown stated that he would prefer to have the designated representative, he understood that this might not be possible and would accept a different individual attending the meeting on behalf of the organization. The entire opening paragraph was removed based on discussion to make it less restrictive. If it is the intention of the Commission to exclude any organization without representation at the meeting, Young felt that stronger language should be used which states it is mandatory there be a representative present. With regard to page 2, the categorization of facilities section 2, Brown indicated that most of the non athletic facilities would be available on a first come first served basis, with preference for residents and a potential fee for non residents. 0 Callies questioned how parking lots could be reserved. Brown indicated that, at times, the parking lots are requested as an area to base shuttle service for weddings etc. Since this is something the City would encourage, they would not charge a fee for the space and merely require notification. Page 3, the prioritization for category 1 facilities, Brown indicated that staff considered both organized and non - organized activities. Young questioned how schools might be considered a priority 3 rating for curriculum practices. For example, Brown cited Minnewashta schools, who on occasion, use the skating rink or picnic facilities. Young wondered how the schools warranted a priority when they already have fields of their own. Brown stated that most school activities would occur during school hours and suggested that the games and tournaments portion be removed from the priority list. Callies suggested that either the non - organized and organized activities be defined in the definitions section or different terminology be used. Brown noted that organized activities often refer to sports organizations and non - organized activities to the other events that occur, like family reunions, biology class field trips, fundraisers, etc. Young felt that, in general, these scenarios only warranted a low priority at best in comparison the organized activities, and should perhaps be removed altogether. . .r PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 6 of 11 Chair Arnst agreed, stating that it made sense to strike the non-organized activities from the priority 2 gT g g classification. Bailey questioned if allowing more time for the resident or non - organized activities, takes some of the pressure off of Freeman Park. Chair Arnst stated that, by allowing for more field resting time, you might have already inadvertently addressed the passive users need. Davis suggested that the terms passive user or spontaneous user be added to the definitions section. Bailey reminded the Commission that these policies cover all of the parks, not just Freeman. Callies asked what would be done with the priorities staff created. Brown indicated that the priorities would come into play when the park coordinator's maximum facility use equation is considered. Again, Brown reiterated the philosophy that everyone, who desires field time, goes away equally unhappy. Brown presented the equation with an example: Assuming there are 3 adult softball fields which support two time slots or games nightly (5- 7p.m., 7- 9p.m.) 3 fields X 2 slots per field X 7 nights = 42 total time slots per week subtract the rest periods (2 per field per week) i.e. 42 - 6 rest periods = subtract a family day of 6 is = 30 Time slots (ts) left for scheduled activities Brown asked if the Commission were comfortable with this equation that the park coordinator would use to schedule fields. Callies asked if the Commission felt they had established the need for a full day for family time. Young stated that he would support blending the family day with the resting days. Palesch reminded the Commission that the passive users could use alternate parks for family time. Brown explained that field resting is not the same as maintenance, which occurs daily. Young suggested that the Commission wait until the open house to decide if the feedback warrants a community day, in which case this proposal would be acceptable. Bartlett felt that allotting a full day to spontaneous use or family day was excessive, and believed that half a day would suffice. He reminded the Commission that their are other parks for people to use for family outings, versus Freeman Park which is a highly active facility. • Assuming the time is relabeled spontaneous use time, and cut in half, Brown indicated that the organized activities gain three more time slots, for a total of 33 ts. The intent of the equation from this point would be IL PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 7 of 11 to divide the total number of players (or teams) by the total number of players overall. Example: 24 kids per team 200 total # of players X 33 TS = 11.33 TS per week thus, the maximum number of time slots a team can request is 11. If they only require 9 TS, there are 2 left over for someone else to use based on the Park Coordinator's evaluation of the priorities. The Coordinator would be given the flexibility to balance the equation. There was discussion over the proposed K Factor, which the Commission considered too subjective for inclusion in the equation. Palesch pointed out that some of the samples had assigned priorities based on a team consisting of more resident versus non - resident players, and she asked if this were acceptable to Shorewood. Chair Arnst felt that the City Council and the Park Commission did not support either the K factor or weighting the team based solely on the number of Shorewood residents. Callies asked what would happen if more teams requested time than was available. Brown indicated that the Coordinator would resort to using the priority list to balance usage. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that the Priority Policy would be a living document, which could be changed based on data collected by the Coordinator. After reviewing the data, evaluating the problems and successes, the policy could evolve to reflect the changing needs of the community. Brown reiterated that the first year would be the most difficult and offer extensive changes that the traditional sports organizations would need to get used to. Chair Arnst asked what would happen to the equation if the games could begin at 3 p.m., thus allowing an additional time slot. Young suggested the Commission wait and see what happens in that event, since this is, as Chair Arnst indicated earlier, an evolving document. Brown stated that he would make a call to the Chanhassen City Hall to inquire what time slots they use and what sort of equation they base their scheduling upon. Davis pointed out that if an organization had a greater number of players per team versus another group, based on this equation, they could wind up with less field time. She cautioned Brown that membership may weight the equation and encouraged him to consider total number of teams versus players per team. Brown agreed that this was a good point, and reiterated that the intent was to provide larger organizations more access to time, therefore he stated that the numbers of teams clearly makes the most sense. Young stated that the Commission needs to be in consensus on the priority policy facts before they meet with the sports organizations for their feedback. Brown asked the Commission if what he had presented, after incorporating the changes made this evening, truly reflected what the Commission felt they should be addressing. A PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 8 of 11 The Commission agreed that the draft policy captured the issues of past discussions and Chair Arnst complimented Brown on his hard work and dedication to creating an accurate portrayal of the issues. 8. SET DATE FOR SMITHTOWN ROAD TRAIL OPEN HOUSE Brown reported that he was directed by the City Council to approach the Park Commission on scheduling an open house. The proposed, up to 8' wide, trail would run along the north side of the road on the western portion of Smithtown Road. After a lengthy six -year process, Chair Arnst was concerned that neither the City Council, nor the City Administrator, fully understood what the Park Commission trail planning process was. She stated that two things had happened to cause her to feel this way, first, over the past 18 months the City Council has been running the process in various directions, which was never the Park Commission's intention. Including new discussions regarding the Lake Linden Trail planning process, which the City Council communicated on via e -mail last week, and only included the Park Commission in the discussions after being urged to do so by one of the Council members. Second, Chair Arnst was concerned about taking the Open House upon the Park Commission at this point. She explained that the whole park planning process was designed to build trust with the residents and she hoped that, by taking the project back at this time, the Park Commission would not be left with a big mess to clean up. Chair Arnst reiterated that the process is a Park Commission driven process that only she and Council Member Garfunkel are truly familiar with from its roots. Chair Amst hoped that she would not see any more Council members, including tonight's liaison, putting this in the political arena, holding meetings with engineers, the PTO etc. which detract from what we are expected to do. The Park Commission is a non- political organization who strives to keep the trust of the citizens throughout the process by delivering a consistent message. Albeit somewhat slower, Chair Arnst felt the process to be very effective and successful. Young asked what had been accomplished over the past six years. Chair Arnst noted that the previous Mayor intended to run a trail down Smithtown Road after receiving a petition from the neighbors saying they wanted a trail. The Park Commission, at that time, developed the trail planning process, which took about 18 months to create, and was adopted by the City Council in October 1998. Young asked how much of the process was followed on Smithtown Road before the slowdown. Chair Arnst reported that they had performed a neighborhood walk attended by 20 some people, did a survey of the residents, held an open house (which was well attended), and had a preliminary feasibility plan put together by WSB. At that time, the cost was too great, and the feasibility report showed that both ROW and drainage issues existed. The Park Commission went to the City Council in May 2000, who suggested the project wait until MSA dollars would be available with the redevelopment of the road. The Park Commission left it in the City Council's lap and asked them to comment on which side of the road the trail should go. She heard nothing further until as of late. Brown indicated that the City Council held an open house presenting two plans to obtain feedback. Callies asked if Chair Arnst's objection was that the City Council held the open house versus the Park Commission. She then asked what the purpose of holding a second open house would accomplish and a - PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 9 of 11 0 whether there was a different plan to be presented than those at the City Council open house. Brown pointed out that since the original meeting with the City Council, petitions were received that indicated the residents were interested in a trail on the west end of Smithtown Road, the neighbors were then approached for ROW. The neighbors questioned how much ROW would be required, which urged the City Council to further investigate the possibilities and two designs were made to obtain feedback upon at the open house. Now the City Council would like the Park Commission to hold the final open house to present the proposal, which incorporates the various findings. By trying to fit this back into the trail planning process, the City can tell people how much of their land would be impacted and determine who would be willing to grant the ROW's. Young questioned what response the City would be eliciting now that hasn't been provided at an earlier open house. He asked whether actual door knocking had occurred or if the open house would provide new information based on a second viewing of a suggested plan. Since there had always been concern by Smithtown neighbors on the east end of Smithtown Road that a trail would be in their future, Chair Arnst maintained that efforts would need to be made to assure residents that the proposed trail would only include the western half of the road. Brown encouraged the Commission to invite both east and west residents of Smithtown Road to the open house and suggested putting out a flyer describing the plan to all the residents with a bit of history that has gotten them to this point. He felt that the issue could be politically charged and that it would be better to educate people ahead of time. Callies maintained that, in her opinion, it sounded as if a process had been followed, after six years and four open houses the City had done much to gain public input. Chair Arnst asked Brown what he would suggest the Commission do. Brown indicated that the Commission should reassure the east end residents that the west end trail is all that is being proposed. While the City Council has directed that up to an 8' trail be constructed on the north side preferably, staff needs to contact those residents to ask them if they would be willing to give an 8' ROW. Brown felt it would be awkward to speak to residents before the open house, and believed that based on feedback received that night, the City would know whether 3 -5 people need to be persuaded to grant a ROW or 33 people, which would have a bearing on what the City Council does next. Callies agreed that an open house should be held but questioned whether the Park Commission was the right agency at this point to conduct the open house. Chair Amst pointed out that trails are the City's linear parks, and it is only natural that the Park Commission should be leading the charge with its trail planning process. While she had reviewed the trail planning process, Callies maintained that most of the Commissioner's were unfamiliar with this trail. Chair Amst suggested that comment cards be provided at the open house, that Brown, Nielsen, and Bailey is are on hand to field questions, and the Commissioners are present as hosts for the event primarily. Brown questioned whether the Park Commission was comfortable with the technical plan that was being J PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 10 of 11 proposed. Chair Arnst indicated that she was not comfortable with it. If she were one of the neighbors who was told they need to grant an 8' ROW which removed her trees and gardens she would be up in arms. Brown pointed out that this is what distinguishes the Vine Hill/Covington Road trail project from the Smithtown Road trail project. The residents of Vine Hill Road wanted the City to put a trail in and gave their ROW's gladly. Davis indicated that she had never seen the trail plan for Smithtown Road. Brown apologized, and encouraged the Commission to table setting a date for the open house until all of the Park Commissioners could be brought up to speed by reviewing the trail plans for themselves. Brown stated that the Commissioners must buy into the plan and be comfortable with it before they can sell it to the public and explain why they are constructing the trail a certain way. Young noted that he would need to get a sense from those at the open house that they even had interest in a trail at all before he could sell them on it. In the interest of time, Brown suggested the Commission table this item until the next meeting. In the meantime, Brown promised to put together a packet of the petitions, the grassroots effort that was made, the trail plans, and give them to the Commissioners to review. Chair Amst suggested he include the ROW map and petitions. She indicated that the City Council could, obviously, follow any process they chose, however, she felt the time and effort devoted to developing an . effective trail planning process should be allowed to work. Bartlett asked if staff had any running tally of who was in support of or opposed to a trail. Chair Arnst pointed out that Paula Berndt, a neighbor and past Park Commissioner, could give the City an accurate estimate of where everyone on the north side stood with regard to the trail. Young questioned how many homes would be effected. Brown stated that 40 homes on one side would be effected. Chair Arnst recommended tabling the discussion until the November meeting. Brown stated that the open house would likely be held after January 1, 2003, however he did not want to delay it much further. 10. NEW BUSINESS Palesch pointed out that the City of Chanhassen had been running an advertisement for a new Park and Recreation Director. Brown acknowledged the survey results packet he passed around earlier and encouraged the Commissioners to examine it. Since Cub Foods is being hit with a pretty stiff fire flow requirement, Brown stated that, as of October 8, h PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 11 of 11 2002 at 10A.M., staff decided to request that the City Council approve their conducting a feasibility study to extend City water from Minnetonka Drive all the way to Cub at their next City Council meeting. While the residents would not be required to hook up to City water, it they chose to do so they would merely be required to pay the $10,000 hook up fee. Chair Arnst asked who would pay for the water main through the area. Brown indicated that the developers, of Cub Foods and the new Linden Hills subdivision, would pay for the water main connection. He stated that this would provide an incredible opportunity for folks along that route to have City water. Brown stated that the intent of the feasibility study is to give the City Council the tools to address the cost questions and participation questions. At this time, Cub Foods needs to seek a plan amendment from the City to meet the new water flow requirements. 11. ADJOURNMENT Palesch moved, Callies seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of October 8, 2002, at 10:05 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi Anderson Recording Secretary • CITY 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 / / FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works `� DATE: November 11, 2002 RE: Setting Date for Sports Organization Meeting As part of the ongoing management of the park system, it was discussed and agreed that a sports organization meeting would be conducted to accomplish the following: 1. Introduce the Park Coordinator to each organization 2. Provide an information packet, prepared by the Park Coordinator that provides information on criteria to become and eligible team, scheduling criteria, information requests, etc. 3. Discuss responsibilities of the Park Coordinator and of the Sports Organizations of team signups, day to day activities, and season wrap up Of key importance in the process is actually having the Park Coordinator on board and involved in the preparation of material and meeting format. This insures that the Park Coordinator has a vested interest and understanding in what is being presented, and reinforces the concept that the Sport Organizations are to utilize this firm or persons as the primary contact for information. Sports organizations have started their recruiting for the spring seasons. As such, there have been requests to conduct the above referenced meeting in December. While this may convenient for the sports organizations, this is not the preferred route from Staff. As mentioned above, one of the primary reasons for conducting such a meeting is to begin to build a relationship between the Park Coordinator and the sports organizations. Both parties have to have a vested interest in this meeting for this process to work. The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Park Coordinator services will be advertised in November, with hiring to take place in December (in accordance with the 2003 budget). This firm or • individuals will be on board January, 2003. Aside form the familiarization process; one of the first assignments of this person will be to assist with the information packet that is to be presented to the Sports Organizations. This is necessary, as the means by which this firm chooses to communicate and handle requests will be outlined in these materials. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Park Commission Meeting Date Sports Organizations November 11, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • Staff makes the argument that while it may not be as convenient for the sports organizations, having the park Coordinator part of this process and meeting is vital to it being a successful change in management. Therefore, scheduling the meeting on Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. is recommended. • 0 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: November 11, 2002 RE: Revised Draft of Park Priority Policy Attached is the latest draft of the Park Equity Policy, based upon comments received from the Park Commission at the last meeting. Deletions have been indicated with a str-ikeeut and additions have • been added by boldface/italics/and underlines In summary, changes made include • Making mandatory attendance at the preseason meeting • Addition of a definition of a Non - organized event • Removal of games and tournaments form Category 3, priority 1 activities • Deletion of the field rest day during the week • Deletion of the "K' Factor which would provide adjustment for gender or other variables. • Equation modified to a Team basis versus Number of players This item will be reviewed at Wednesday's meeting. If this policy is approved by the Park Commission, this would be considered at the Council Meeting of November 28, 2002. • c • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER X546 City of Shorewood Park Priority Policies The pufpese ef this peliey, whieh establishes guidelines fer- the pfieFity use ef parks and f6eilifies the City of Sher-eweed, is te pr-evide for- health, safety and welfiffe of the . and— in a manner- whieh is fair- te all eligible er-ganizatiens that request. it is the k#ea4 ef this pehey to grant use of publie pafks and f4eilities in aeeefdanee to the use. ' DEFINITIONS Preseason Coordination Meeting: A meeting, hosted by the City of Shorewood, prior to the anticipated seasons of activities between the City Staff, City of Shorewood Park Coordinator, and, sports organizations, nonprofit groups and non - organized groups who are requesting dedicated use of facilities. The purpose of this meeting is to outline polices and regulations for requests and scheduled use of the facilities, and to address questions, concerns, or issues associated with field use or schedules. All organizations or groups requesting dedicated facility usage shall fflust have a representative at the preseason Coordination meeting. Failure to attend this meeting shall result in loss of dedicated field time for the season. It is anticipated that Preseason Coordination meetings will be conducted as follows: ♦ Spring and Summer Events: Fall and Winter Events: Second week in February First week in August ♦ Other preseason coordination meetings may be conducted, should event schedules dictate. Designated Representative: Each organization or group requesting priority field or facility use, shall designate and file with the Park Coordinator the name, address, and contact information of the individual who shall serve as the sole contact for the City of Shorewood. This individual shall serve as the liaison for all matters between the City of Shorewood and the sports organization or group requesting field use. Facility Use Equation: An equation which assists the Park Coordinator in allocating facility use for organized sporting events. This equation (described further in this document) sets forth the maximum allocation of facility time available to each organization for all athletic events. • Non - Organized Event Users of the narks or facilities outside of any connection: with the sports organizations. Sports Organization: An Organization which has registered with the City of Shorewood Park and Recreation Coordinator and has successfully filed with the City of Shorewood a copy of the bylaws with which they are governed, appropriate certificates of insurance, fees, and team rosters. Tournament Permit: Permit required for all activities involving a succession of activities falling within a defined period outside of the normal game or practice times allocated for the organization. Nonprofit Organization: An organization that meets the requirements of Minnesota State Statutes as a Public Service Group and is defined as a group organized to provide a public service to the entire community for all individuals in the community within the age group being served. CATAGORIZATION OF FACILITES The City of Shorewood owns and operates athletic, non athletic, and passive use type facilities. To assist with the administration of these facilities, each one has been placed in a category shown below. Category 1 Facilities: Athletic Facilities Little League ball diamonds Babe Ruth ball diamonds Softball diamonds Soccer fields Football fields Hockey rinks Free skating rinks Tennis courts Volleyball courts Skate park facilities Category 2 Facilities: Non Athletic Facilities Park Shelters and multi -use buildings Playgrounds City of Shorewood Parking Lots Category 3 Facilities: Passive Use Open Park Space for events 9 2 AVAILABILITY OF FACILITES Facility Descri tion Available From To Softball Fields Aril 1 August 31 Babe Ruth Field Aril 1 August 31 Little League Fields April l Au st 31 Soccer Fields Aril 1 October 20 Football Fields August 1 October 31 Hockey Rinks December 20 February 15 Free Skating Rinks December 20 February 15 Open Spaces Year Round Year Round Playgrounds April 1 October 31 Skate Parks May 1 October 31 Park Shelters Year Round Year Round Volleyball Courts May 1 October 31 Tennis Courts May 1 October 31 Parking Lots Year Round Year Round • PRIORITIZATION OF FACILITY USE REOUESTS The intent of this policy is to grant all users the opportunity to utilize facilities within a managed and predictable manner. Facility allocations shall be evaluated first by the type of request (or need) received, in accordance to the "Category of Facility" outlined previously within this document. Prioritization for Category 1 Facilities: ♦ Priority 1: Field resting time ♦ Priority 2: Non - organized activities and organized activities within the predetermined time allocations. ♦ Priority 3: School District 276 Programs (examples curriculum programs, interscholastic team practices, games, tetffnamen4s, etc.) ♦ Priority 4: Non profit Organizations located within the South Lake Minnetonka Communities ♦ Priority 5: Business or service organizations located within the South Lake Minnetonka Communities ♦ Priority 6: All other requests falling outside of priorities 1 -5 defined above shall be . considered by formal request. 3 • • Note: Throughout the priority schedule, regularly scheduled activities shall take precedence over scheduled tournament activities. Prioritization for Cateeory 2 and 3 Facilities: ♦ Priority l: ♦ Priority 2: ♦ Priority 3: Resident request on first come first serve basis Organized activity , previously registered with the City of Shorewood Park Coordinator. Non- resident request. MAXIMUM FACILITY USE EQUATION The intent of this section is to allocate time for facilities described in the Category 1 on a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Therefore, the City of Shorewood has compiled an equation to determine the maximum time that is to be allocated to any organization for initial facility assignments. This equation is based upon the following assumptions: ♦ All turf areas are to be "rested" the equivalent of one day per week. ♦ Facility Time Periods are based upon a -29L.A 1.5 hour time periods. ♦ Times may be further limited based upon the occurrence of limited parking or other facility demands. ♦ The Maximum Facility Use Equation will arrive at a decimal equivalent as to the maximum time allotted per activity. The final maximum time slots shall be rounded down. ♦ The Maximum Facility Use Equation is evaluated "Per Activity." The Park Coordinator has the authority to adjust scheduling based upon compatibility between two events occurring simultaneously, or other facility limitations. • 0 The maximum number of initial Facility Time Periods (MTPs) available to any team is based upon . the following equation. Variables: P = Players per team T = Total Players Teams Registered in that activity K — Germder ien e i-virhe priorities such as gender - er need. Fer purposes e This diseussien, this is assumed to be 1.0. Equation: MTP = O(K)(Total Time Periods Available) T While using the Maximum Facility Use Equation as a starting point, the Park Coordinator has the authority to increase the MTP for any one organization, providing that a separate organization has indicated that an equivalent amount of their allocated time is not going to be utilized. • n 5 0 Memorandum To: Park Commission_ J From: Twila e Date: 11/12/02 Re: Park Agenda Item Number 6 — Master Plan Review Agenda item number 6 — Master Plan Review will be available for review at the park meeting. Any questions you can contact me at 952.474.3236. Twila • 0 1 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 FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: November 11, 2002 RE: Smithtown Road and Trail Process Over the many years of park and trial planning, the Park Commission has set forth a process to follow to insure a uniform and easy process is in place to provide continuity during park and trail projects. The following is an excerpt of a memorandum prepared by Mr. Mark Koegler dated September 1, 1988. This process, as outlined, was reviewed and approved by the Park Commission. • Trail Planning Process " Step 1 — The Park Commission and City Council meeting jointly and/or separately agree that the trail evaluation process should continue and both parties adopt a common commitment statement. Step 2 — Building on information collected from the public participation process to date, the Park Commission completes additional data gathering analysis. Items to be addressed include: • Plans of adjacent municipalities • Goals for trails related to safety, quality of life, community connections, etc. ■ Gather information on value, use, safety, national standards, financial implications, right -of -way constraints, etc. Step 3 — Based upon information gathered in Step 2, the Park Commission assembles a trail concept depicting trail alignments (verbal and/or graphic) that satisfy identified issues and needs. This step creates a working concept rather than an overall plan. The concept will be further refined by public input into the process. Step 4 — Publicize the concept. State for example, that the City of Shorewood is interested in providing some type of trail from point A to point B and that the residents in the vicinity of AB will be invited to a local meeting to learn more and to offer input. %� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4 7 Park Commission Trail Planning Process November 11, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Step 5 — Hold a local (neighborhood) meeting for each geographic area described in the trail concept. The purpose of the on site meeting is to review the interest in constructing a trail, seek input on the type of trail that might be appropriate, provide computer graphics or actual photographs of areas with trails and similar landscape characteristics, and record comments, concerns and issues raised by meeting participants. Before, during and after the meeting, complete a uniform site evaluation form that may include: • The purpose and anticipated function of the trail segment • A description of the physical characteristics of the alignment area. • Photographs of the alignment • Comments on consistency with identified overall objectives • Trail options (types) • Preliminary project costs and funding sources • Comments offered by meeting participants SteP66 — Collect and revise the results of Step 5. Based upon responses received, eliminate trail segments that seem unfeasible and assign priorities to those that appear workable. Step 7 — Inclusive Trail Design — For high priority segments, invite all area residents to be involved in • the trail design process. Provide those who participate with parameters for trail construction established by the City Council. Depending on the circumstances, the design process could be facilitated by a design consultant or individual with mediation training. Staff should be available to provide technical assistance. The role of the neighborhood design group could be to present a package of recommendations to the City Council within established parameters on plan details including trail width, locations, landscaping, etc. The group could continue some lever of involvement through the actual construction phase of the project. Step g — Build a trail segment with neighborhood involvement. Step 9 — Continue the process by moving on to the next trail segment in the priority listing. Step 10 — As time passes, revisit the alignment areas identified in Step 5 to determine if conditions have changed. The ten steps identified above could serve as the foundation for an ongoing process to add trails in Shorewood. Admittedly, this process may be costly and time consuming. However, it may be the best way to involve the community in a manner that results in the construction of trails in a cooperative fashion without promoting dissention and possibly litigation." 1 The City Council has directed the Park Commission to conduct an additional Open House meeting for • the Smithtown Road and Trail Project. During Tuesday nights meeting, we will discuss the trail planning process, and the elements of project for preparation of an open house. MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Shorewood Park Commission and Staff From: Mark Koegler Subject: Draft Park Plan Date: November 12, 2002 The attached Park Plan draft dated 11/02 combines the park section of the existing Comprehensive Plan with material recently prepared and reviewed by the Park Commission. The format of the Park Plan is consistent with that of the Comprehensive Plan for eventual inclusion in the larger document. This draft is complete with two exceptions. First, we still need to incorporate color park plan graphics. It is my understanding that such graphics exist, however, we have not yet received them from the city's consulting engineer. The second item that we may want to include is the recent park survey. Since this survey will change from time to time, it is suggested that it be added to the plan as an appendix. After a review by the Park Commission, we will make any additional changes and add in the missing graphics. • 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1659 Ph (612) 338 -0800 Fx (612) 338 -6838 www.hkgi.com Direct (612) 252 -7120 Email mkoegler @hkgi.com • Parks and Recreation At present, the Shorewood park system contains five major park facilities and a number of smaller areas that provide additional recreational opportunities. The park system contains approximately 96 acres of usable recreation land. Additional land that is part of the park system is not suitable for active development. These areas, which contain wetlands or steep terrain, compliment the overall active park system by providing substantial areas of open space. Park and Open Space Policies The following policies are intended to help guide future decisions pertaining to park and recreation areas. 1. Shorewood's park and recreational open space system shall be classified in accordance with standards established by the Metropolitan Council. 2. The allocation of funds for park improvements for specific facilities will be made on the basis of balancing overall community park needs with the specific needs of each facility. 3. The community shall provide for an appropriate balance among active, passive and cultural recreational areas and activities, tailored to the needs of Shorewood's total population. • 4. Recreational facilities and a year -round program of activities suited to the varied recreational needs of all age groups within the community shall be provided. 5. Usable open space suitable for recreational activities shall be provided in all types of residential developments. 6. Parks and recreational facilities shall be distributed throughout the community, based upon neighborhood needs and characteristics of each planning and development district. 7. Sufficient park land to fulfill the needs of the present and future population of the community shall be acquired and preserved. Park development shall be undertaken as residential development demands and as funds are available. 8. Recreational open space improvements shall be programmed in accordance with a capital improvement program, updated on an annual basis. 9. Parks shall be designed and maintained with proper lighting, landscaping, shelter design, etc., to ensure a high degree of public safety and protection for public property. 10. Where necessary, parks shall be screened, fenced and/or buffered for the safety and protection of the user as well as the adjacent property owners. • 11/02 CF -1 0 11. Parks shall be improved and developed to take maximum advantage of natural features of the city of Shorewood. 12. Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, and adequate parking to serve recreational facilities shall be provided. 13. The use of motorized recreational vehicles shall be limited to designated areas. 14. Park and open space facilities and programming shall be planned and developed in cooperation and coordinated with similar services of surrounding communities, the school district, private organizations and the metropolitan area as a whole. 15. Studies on a periodic basis shall be undertaken to analyze the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the community recreation program. These studies should serve as the basis for recreation open space planning and programming. 16. Continual citizen participation in planning, development and operation of recreational open space shall be maintained. Classification System Shorewood has a variety of different types of parks that are components of the overall park • system. In order to examine existing parks and to project future park needs, a uniform classification system is used. The following categories have been established: Local Facilities Classification: Mini -Park Description: Specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or specific group such as young children or senior citizens; may be in locations such as apartment complexes, townhouse developments or commercial areas. Location Criteria: Less than '/4 miles service area Site Criteria: Usually less than one acre. Classification: Neighborhood Park/Playground Description: Area for intense recreational activities such as field games, court games, crafts, apparatus area, skating, and neighborhood centers. Location Criteria: '/4 to '/2 mile radius to serve a neighborhood population. Site Criteria: 10 — 25 acres; physically suited for intense development and frequently in close proximity to elementary schools. Classification: Community Playfield Description: Area for intense recreational facilities such as athletic fields and swimming pools; could include neighborhood use. • Location Criteria: Serves 3 to 5 neighborhoods 11/02 CF -2 • Site Criteria: 25 — 50 acres; physically suited for intense development and frequently in close proximity to community facilities and resources. Classification: Community Park Description: Area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation such as walking, viewing, sitting, and picnicking; could have some field and court games. Location Criteria: Serves 3 — 5 neighborhoods Site Criteria: 25 — 50 acres, contains natural features of varied interest and may be in close proximity to other community facilities and resources. Classification: Conservancy Lands Description: Areas of natural quality such as watercourses and wetlands that are preserved for environmental or aesthetic benefits to the community and/or because of the negative environmental or economic effects of their development. Location Criteria: In a municipality, township or county Site Criteria: Based on the extent of the resources; natural resources that merit preservation and that would be negatively affected by development. Regional Facilities Classification: Regional Park Description: Area of natural or ornamental quality for nature- oriented outdoor recreation such • as picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping and trail uses. Location Criteria: 3 — 5 communities Site Criteria: 200 — 500 acres; complete natural setting contiguous to water bodies or water courses where possible. Classification: Regional Park Reserve Description: Areas of natural quality for nature- oriented outdoor recreation such as viewing and studying nature, wildlife habitat, conservation, swimming, picnicking, hiking, boating and camping and trail uses. Location Criteria: County or multi - county area Site Criteria: 1000+ acres; where the resource occurs; sufficient area to encompass the resource envisioned for preservation. Diversity of unique resources, such as topography, lakes, streams, marshes, flora and fauna. Local or Regional Facilities Classification: Linear Park Description: Area developed for one or more varying modes of recreational travel such as liking, biking, snowmobiling, horseback riding, crosscountry skiing, canoeing and driving. Location Criteria: Local (municipalities, townships) or regional (county, multi - county area) Site Criteria: Sufficient to provide maximum protection of resource and maximum use; sufficient to accomplish purpose. Utilize human-made and/or natural linear resources such as . utility corridors, rights -of -way, drainage ways, bluff lines, vegetation patterns and roads. Used 11/02 CF -3 • to link components of the recreation system. Use to link other community facilities such as schools, library and commercial areas. Classification: Special Features Description: Areas that preserve, maintain and provide specialized or single - purpose recreational activities such as golf courses, nature centers, marinas, zoos, conservancy areas, arboretums, display gardens, arenas, gun clubs, downhill ski areas and sites of historic or archaeological significance. Location Criteria: Metropolitan area. Site Criteria: Varies with type of feature. Existing System Analysis Shorewood is approaching full development. Over the next twenty years (2020), the Metropolitan Council projects that the community's population will increase by 150 people. Given the fact that the City is not expected to see significant additional residential growth and the fact that few vacant land parcels remain in the community, Shorewood is not expected to add new park sites. The existing parks are considered adequate in size and location to meet the future needs of the community. Shorewood residents are generally well served by the existing park system. With the exception of the islands and a small pocket south of Galpin Lake, most areas of the community are within a • '/2 to one -mile radius of neighborhood park facilities. As a result, the focus of future park planning will be on developing existing parks, as opposed to acquiring more land, with one possible exception. Some local athletic organizations have expressed interest in possibly expanding facilities in Freeman Park. The City remains open to considering organization - supported expansion of the park as well as other existing sites as need dictates and funding allows. Also, as land becomes available through tax forfeiture, vacation of public right -of -way, donations and/or other means, it will be examined for possible inclusion in the park system. One such site is the old wayside rest located on the south side of Highway 7, west of Old Market Road. The former wayside rest on the north side of the road is the location of a recently constructed skate park. Existing Park Classifications Considerable planning has gone into Shorewood's park system. Master plans for each of the City's parks have been prepared and are included in this plan. These master plans considered the classification system for local and regional parks that was previously identified in this plan. The following is an overview of Shorewood's existing park classifications: Neighborhood Parks. Four of Shorewood's existing parks — Cathcart, Badger, Manor and Silverwood — fall into this category. In addition, facilities at Freeman Park also serve the nearby neighborhoods, as do facilities at Minnewashta School. • Community Playfields. The Minnetonka School District has historically been heavily involved in providing playfields for local recreation. Specifically, in Shorewood, Minnewashta 11/02 CF -4 • Elementary School functions in part as a community playfield. Freeman Park is viewed as satisfying the majority of the community's need for playfields. Community Park. Besides its neighborhood functions, Freeman Park is the only community park in the Shorewood park system. Given the proximity of various regional parks, the need for an additional community park in Shorewood is not anticipated. Conservancy Lands. Shorewood's wetland system, while not suitable for active recreation, is preserved for its aesthetic value, as well as its environmental benefit. Special Uses. Crescent Beach and the Christmas Lake access on Merry Lane are essentially single - purpose recreational facilities — access to Lake Minnetonka and Christmas Lake, respectively. Crescent Beach is used exclusively for swimming, while the Christmas Lake access is used for fishing and boat launching. Both sites provide winter access to the lakes. Shorewood Park System — Existing Parks and Plan Recommendations Shorewood's park system is shown on page CF- 6. Seven sites constitute the core of the present system. They include: Cathcart Park (in Chanhassen, but owned by Shorewood) 4.8 acres Freeman Park 67.8 acres • Badger Park (including City Hall) 10.2 acres Crescent Beach (joint use with Tonka Bay) .4 acres Manor Park 4.5 acres Silverwood Park 8.1 acres Merry Lane Access .5 acres Total 96.3 acres In addition to these parks, other recreational facilities exist, including a playground at the Minnewashta Elementary School and a semi - public golf course on the south side of Smithtown Road, west of Country Club Road. Several old fire lanes, which have been held by the City also provide limited recreational opportunities to various neighborhoods. The City has also adopted a Trail Plan as shown in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The following is an overview of each of the primary parks and recommendations for future improvements: Badger Park Badger Park is a neighborhood park focusing on organized sports, with limited individual /pick- up opportunities. • 11/02 CF -5 le I* 10 11/02 CF -6 I 1 d F r w ? ! 2 �g r � t 4 1 �4 IH ti f T j i Y P . j W s 3 �i y 11/02 CF -6 • Facilities include: • Hockey rink/warming house (doubles as practice facility for soccer players in season) • Family skating rink • Tot lot (playground equipment) • Tennis court • Picnic tables • Open space, mowed and natural wooded area • Two community adopt -a- gardens • Portable restrooms (no running water) • Paved parking shared with South Shore Senior Center • Short nature trail looping through wooded area on the east edge of the park • Pedestrian bridge leading to the wooded area over a small stream Population served: Primarily youth Deficiencies in service and/or opportunity: ■ Senior population The facilities in the park show a deficiency in services to adult, or senior adult populations. Although this facility adjoins a community center used largely by seniors, there are no activities for the senior population. ■ Parking: Space is shared with the South Shore Center and Shorewood City Hall. There • is conflict between the South Shore Center and football events. ■ Old bridge: Limits use of wood chip loop trail through woodland. Recommendations for further action: Explore a partnership with South Shore Center for idea gathering concerning enhancements for the senior population and for the marketability of the Center. Commence discussions with the South Shore Center regarding the parking conflict. Coordinate scheduling of football events w /South Shore events, or overlap in scheduling of football events in the same night to alleviate parking concerns Other Discussion: The Park Commission held considerable discussion focusing on two issues within this park: (1) the compatibility of football activities with the South Shore Center and (2) exploring a "partnership" with the Center to enhance the park facility for more diverse users. The football facility is important to the community and if not located at Badger, the City would have an obligation to locate it in another park, most likely, Freeman. Moving the field presents both budget and space problems. Since there have not been neighborhood complaints regarding the noise or light generated by the games, the football field is expected to remain permanently in Badger Park. The South Shore Center is a likely partner for the park. They share parking space and often activities held at the Center spill over into the park. The relationship between Badger Park and the South Shore Senior Center should be further explored to determine how the facility can better serve as both a neighborhood park and an asset for the senior center. 11/02 CF -7 The tennis courts at Badger Park are frequently used for lessons, by teams and individuals. Additionally, the City will continue to explore an offer by a local garden club to enhance the nature loop trail in the woodland area. This would be accomplished through the planting of native wild flowers in undisturbed areas by the garden club. • Badger Park serves both the surrounding neighborhood and the South Shore Senior Center. 11/02 CF -8 I* • o� No1rH • 11/02 CF -9 • Cathcart Park Cathcart Park is a neighborhood park with a mix of uses, including organized sports and individual /pick- up opportunities. Cathcart Park is unique because it is owned by the City of Shorewood but is actually located in the City of Chanhassen. Facilities include: • Little League baseball field • Hockey rink/warming house (doubles as practice facility for soccer players in season) • Family skating rink • Basketball court • Magic square • Tot lot (playground equipment) • Tennis court • Picnic tables • Open space • Community adopt -a- garden • Portable restrooms (no running water) • Paved parking for 38 vehicles Population served.• ■ Cathcart Park focuses primarily on the activities of youth and young adults, i.e., hockey, Little League, soccer. ■ It serves the neighborhood and through the organized sports, a wider range of youth in the community. ■ There appears to be a deficiency in service to senior citizens. ■ While the tennis court offers opportunity to adults, it is uncertain to what extent the court is used. Deficiencies in service and/or opportunity: The facilities in the park show a deficiency in services to adult, or senior adult populations. There are a limited number of designated parking spaces. Parking reaches critical mass during Little League games. As a result vehicles park along Cathcart Drive or West 62" Street in "no parking" areas. Lack of natural open space because of space limitations Recommendations for further action: • Seniors o Target senior audience gather input. • Tennis court: Gather data to determine the use of the tennis court through: . o Neighbors o Park employees 11/02 CF -10 • o Passive survey (in newsletter) o Public open house • Parking: • Gather data to determine parking needs • Consider discussions with Minnewashta Church to use parking facilities • Coordinate MCES scheduling of Little League and soccer events to lessen parking problems ■ Property ownership: o Develop a written agreement between Chanhassen and Shorewood outlining ownership of and improvements to the facility, or update existing agreement • Remove the "concession stand" from the current Master Plan • Consider closer management of the windbreak on the south edge of the park to prevent interference with activities and damage to turf of ballfield. • Installation of a warning track before the tree line. Other Discussion: Overall, Cathcart Park makes good use of its available space in offering a variety of activities, although the site has a deficiency in natural open space. Due to surrounding land use constraints, that deficiency cannot be rectified. There are no opportunities for further facility development or land additions to this park. • The ownership of Cathcart Park is somewhat of a concern. Staff has been unable to verify the existence of a written document detailing the ownership of the park. If an agreement can't be found, a legal document should be drafted outlining the terms of agreement between the two cities. It is recommended that the Litt le League field remain as is, and not be considered '''` for expansion because of PARI space and parking considerations. Removal of SHOREWOOD the currently designated "concession stand" is also recommended because there is not enough use, nor is there sewer, water, or electricity available parking to support such a structure. Since Cathcart Park is in Chanhassen, such a capital improvement, by Shorewood, to another city's parkland may be inappropriate unless an agreement is formalized by both communities. • 11/02 CF -11 19 • 62ND ST W PMKM s�el�r eAu HELTM HOCKEY OPEN WATINO �G PLAY BASEBALL PU1Y AREA TENNIS CATHCART PARK U' bo' — moo N o 2 T s • 11/02 CF -12 • Manor Park Manor is a neighborhood park focusing on unorganized activities, with very limited organized sports opportunities. Facilities include: • Pond skating rink/warming house • Tot lot (playground equipment) • Tennis court • Picnic tables and shelter • Open space, mowed • One community adopt -a- gardens • Portable restrooms • Water fountain • Parking for 23 vehicles • Softball field • Shirley Rice Memorial Garden (adopted by community volunteers) Population served: Families, adults, and Little League teams Deficiencies in service and/or opportunity: • Tennis court It is questionable if this tennis court gets enough use to justify the cost of its maintenance. ■ Volleyball court: Unknown if this facility is used. Recommendations for further action: ■ Gather data to determine the use of the tennis and volleyball courts through: • Neighbors • Park employees • Passive survey (in newsletter) • Public open house Recommendations for change: • Explore installation of horse shoe pits and bocce ball • Consider aeration of pond Other Discussion: Historically, there has been concern about the infrequent use of the tennis court at Manor Park. A review of tennis court usage is ongoing and after additional data has been collection, the City will address whether or not to continue offering tennis in Manor Park in the future. The Rice family has contributed $2500 for the improvement of the Shirley Rice • Memorial garden, which is currently adopted by volunteer gardeners. 11/02 CF -13 • r1 LJ .7 11/02 CF -14 • • • 11/02 CF -15 10 1* Silverwood Park ■ Silverwood is a small neighborhood park utilized by young children and their families. Facilities include: • Playground • Slide • Sliding hill • Free skate on the pond • Community adopt -a- garden • Portable restrooms (no running water) • Picnic tables and grills • Practice tennis court • Basketball court • Trail • Paved parking Population served: Silverwood Park serves families with young children. Deficiencies in service and/or opportunity: • Practice tennis courts are in poor condition. • Investigate the trail walkway. Recommendations for further action: • Consider replacing practice courts with painted soccer net or magic square and hopscotch. • Consider adding a warming house for the free skaters. • Study use of the trail. 11/02 CF -16 • • • 11/02 CF -17 r� U 0 p INOBTB 11/02 CF -18 • Freeman Park Freeman Park is Shorewood's principal community park. Its 68 acres accommodate a wide variety of both active and passive recreational activities. Facilities include: • Adult softball fields (3) • Little League baseball fields (2) • Babe Ruth baseball field • Soccer fields (6+ - depending on field layout) • Volleyball Courts (2) • Multi -use building (Eddy Station) • Picnic shelter • Playground (2) • Picnic tables • Trails • Off - street parking for approximately 390 vehicles Population served: Freeman Park serves a diverse population of users from the City of Shorewood as well as residents of the Minnetonka School District. Because of the diverse range of active and passive recreational facilities in the park, users are individuals of all ages. The • parks hosts baseball, softball and soccer games that are part of organized leagues. During the non - winter seasons, Freeman Park serves approximately 138,000 users. Deficiencies in service andlor opportunity: In its current form, Freeman Park has a number of minor deficiencies that can be remedied over time as funding permits. A point of discussion that has been addressed as part of this planning effort focuses on the future form and use of the park. At the present time, Freeman Park is somewhat the "victim of its own success." Problems such as parking shortages have occurred because the park provides much needed facilities to serve active youth and adult portions of the area population. It is intensively used for baseball, softball and soccer, all of which tend to be activities that dominate the park during the summer months. The park's intensive use for active recreational activities makes it difficult to for users to enjoy the park for more passive pursuits. Picnicking and walking on the trails, for example, are less popular activities during peak active times due to traffic congestion, noise, etc. Frequent trail users typically use the park during off -peak active times such as early morning hours. Maintaining a balance of active and passive facilities will continue to be a challenge in the years ahead. The overall lack of readily available land in the area indicates that the active facilities in the park will remain in place indefinitely. Assuming that to be the case, the City of Shorewood will need to continue to try to find ways to accommodate a full range of both passive and active • uses in the park. 11/02 CF -19 • Parking and Circulation — Construction of the south parking lot will significantly improve the supply of off - street parking. Access to various parking areas will continue to be hindered by the lack of a roadway connection through the park. The City is investigating additional scheduling controls and limitations that should help ease parking problems during peak times. It is essential that an adequate supply of parking be maintained in the park in order to accommodate the use of all park facilities. Field #2 — Field #2 is located between private property (abutting homes) and a closed access road. Netting protects the adjacent homes from the intrusion of fly balls. The location of the field precludes the use of the adjacent access road, which complicates circulation through the park. Recommendations for further action: Since Freeman Park is Shorewood's primary community park, the community needs to have input on the future of the park. The Shorewood Park Commission has discussed a number of future park scenarios and an open house was held for area residents in July of 2002. The focus of the open house was on adjacent neighbors, either those living along Eureka Road or residents living in the senior housing area just south of the park. Further master planning for Freeman Park will need to involve a larger audience from the Shorewood community. Park Commission Review — The internal review of Freeman Park that was conducted by the • Shorewood Park Commission identified a number of facilities that were envisioned to be part of the park's long -term future. Preferred facilities include: • Concessions • Walking Trails • Multi -Use Building • Wetland Trails • Bike Trails • Off - Street Parking • Open Field Areas • Totlots • Lacrosse • Baseball • Softball • Soccer • Picnicking • Horseshoes This list continues to reflect a mix of active and passive recreational facilities in the park. Of the items noted, Lacrosse is the only new activity on the list. Lacrosse was added to the list due to the growing popularity of the sport, especially among young women. In addition to those facilities identified as preferred (primary list) a number of other facilities were identified as also worthy of future consideration. Of the items identified, a number of them 11/02 CF -20 • are game activities such as disk golf, badminton, croquet, and lawn bowling. Of these, disk golf requires specialized facilities that may be hard to fit within the existing park. Badminton, croquet and lawn bowling can be played in areas with high quality turf. Freeman Park currently contains high quality, open turf areas that are irrigated. If desired, turf game areas could be established by reducing the area now designated for soccer. The secondary list of possible facilities in Freeman Park contains a number of other types of uses. Items such as flower gardens, fountains, and a dog park were also suggested for consideration. ■ Public Involvement — Gather community -wide input on existing uses and desired future park uses involving: • Neighbors • Passive Surveys (newsletter, web page, etc.) • Public Open House ■ Park Schedulinp, — A review of overall park usage and a detailed examination of off - street parking revealed the need to better coordinate the scheduling of activities in the park. At the present time, MCES provides scheduling services to the City of Shorewood. Consideration should be given to transferring the scheduling function from an outside agency to an entity within the City. Scheduling by City staff would allow for easier adjustments of game times and other measures to equitably manage • the park's facilities. Interest the use of Freeman Park's facilities is only likely to grow in future years as current programs expand and new programs are added. Administration, scheduling, management and maintenance of the park will need to keep pace with escalating pressure from user groups and the general public. At the present time, the City is actively pursuing in -house scheduling of park programming. .7 11/02 CF -21 • • C. 11/02 CF -22 • p spp Opp no IT a C 11/02 CF -23 • General Recommendation The City should continue to work with adjacent communities and the School District to maintain a clear understanding of the total recreational needs of the area. The south shore area has a highly cooperative recreational and transportation system that will continue to require constant coordination (playfields, parks, and trails). The Park Commission and City Council should continue to monitor the needs of area residents in implementing the park and recreation plan. The City will also need to continue responding to the strong local interest for the expansion of the Shorewood trail system. • 11/02 CF -24 CITY OF REWOOD S140 . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 =8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall0d.shorewood.mn.us OPEN HOUSE PARIS. SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:30 p.m. — 7;00 p.m. City Hall „ 5755 Country Club Road You are cordially invited to attend the above open house to comment and review the parks master plan. Majority of City Council, Park Commission may be present. No action will be taken. �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER