Loading...
021202 PK AgP{ ,CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Meyer Bartlett Puzak Callies Palesch Arnst Young • B. Review Agenda C. Introduction of New Members 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2002 (Att.42A Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of January 10' January 28"', 2002 and February 11, 2002 5. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING A. Review Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study -(Mark Koegler) B. Review Recommendations on Draft User Policies - (Engineer Brown)(Att.- #5B) C. Review Ordinance for Motorized Vehicles Driving on Fields or Green Space (Att.-#5C) D. Review Park Management Matters Memo of January 8, 2002 (Att. -#5D) E. Discuss Mn Recreation & Park Association Membership(Att.45E) F. Discuss Other Ideas 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING NIINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES PROPOSAL (Att.46) 7. DISCUSS/PRIORITIZE PARK COMMISSION GOALS FOR 2002(Att. - #7) 8. 9. i 10. 11. 12. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO CITY COUNCIL(Att. - #8) DISCUSS APPOINTMENT OF PARK LIAISON TO PARK FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2002 NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: February: Callies March: Arnst S • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING - ` i ) #% E Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. DRAt A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Callies, Dallman, and Young; City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; and Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group Excused Absent: Commissioners Meyer and Bix B. Review Agenda Puzak moved, Dallman seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission and City Council Work Session Minutes of December 11, 2001 • Callies moved, Puzak seconded, approving the Park Commission and City Council Work Session Minutes of December 11, 2001. Motion passed 5/0. B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2001 Administrator Dawson referred to his memorandum dated January 7, 2002, which changes paragraph 5 of page three to read: "Dawson stated that due to levy limits the Council had asked the Park Commission to review the user fee, with the intent to restore the balance to the park improvement fund and to regain the outlay for Eddy Station." Puzak moved, Callies seconded, accepting the Park Commission Minutes of December 11, 2001 as amended by Administrator Dawson's memorandum dated January 7, 2002. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS Postponed for discussion following items 5 A - G. 5. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING Chair Arnst asked that discussion begin with item B. • Engineer Brown introduced Mark Koegler of the Hoisington Koegler Group pointing out that Mr. Koegler 0=102 r r PARK COMMISSION MINUTES s TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 t Page 2 of 8 was present at the joint Park Commission and City Council meeting of December 11, 2001. He added that the • parking and field inventory report of the evening was merely a draft report that Commissioners had not yet seen or had time to comment on until now. B. Report on Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study Mr. Koegler presented the Freeman Park Parking Analysis and indicated that he would walk the Commissioners through the presentation pointing out the finer points. He stated that his charge was to objectively look at parking and issues that have arisen since the original master plan was developed in 1990. Simply stated, Mr. Koegler agreed that a parking problem exists at Freeman Park. He maintained that the problem might be due to one of two conditions, 1) a shortage of off - street parking or 2) over use of facilities creating excessive parking demand. He acknowledged that although passive uses do generate a need for parking, the amount of demand is insignificant compared to the demand generated by active facilities. In his analysis, Koegler examined the original park master plan, the current use of the park, standards used by other area communities, and general observations and recommendations. Based on the original Park Master Plan, a number of major active park facilities were identified, including softball fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, Multi-use building, picnic shelter, and tennis courts. Based on the uses identified in the original plan, Freeman Park had a planned parking demand that ranged from 264 to 304 spaces. Koegler continued that the master plan provided 355 spaces within five planned lots. When the master plan was completed in 1990, Koegler pointed out that concurrent use of all active recreational facilities was not envisioned. As a result, it was felt that the parking supply would reasonably • serve the planned facilities, and allow for excess spaces based on one space per participant. Freeman Park today differs from the master plan of 1990 in a couple of ways. Koegler pointed out that lot 5 was never constructed reducing supply to 314 actual spaces. The loop road was modified and is now not a continuous loop, creating a more difficult situation for park patrons having to access two separate areas. Koegler identified that the two most significant changes to Freeman involve the concurrent use of all active park facilities including baseball, softball, soccer and picnic /multi -use building and the expansion of the use of soccer areas in a manner not articulated in the master plan. By adding the current soccer use scenarios to the use of other facilities, Koegler demonstrated that the demand totals approximately 288 to 393 parking spaces. With an existing supply of 314 spaces, he maintained that the parking supply ranges from + 26 to - 79 spaces at one space per participant at any given time. Furthermore car - pooling may affect these numbers as well. Mr. Koegler then shared information regarding the parking standards used in seven other communities, which revealed a number of facts to consider in analyzing parking at Freeman Park. First, the cities noted used a parking standard that ranged from one space per participant to two spaces per participant. Secondly, the surveys highlight the overlap problem that exists in most of the communities. He pointed out that only Minnetonka seeks to manage the overlap by staggering game schedules by 15 minutes. Currently, Freeman Park schedules games back -to -back creating overlap problems. In general, Koegler maintained that Freeman Park is being used in a manner that differs from that envisioned in the original master plan. It is being used more intensively in terms of the concurrent use of the park facilities and the more intensive use of the areas in the park devoted to youth soccer. Koegler continued, that • if the City of Shorewood wants to at least reduce the parking problems, consideration needs to be given to PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 3 of 8 • adding additional off - street parking and/or reducing the number of activities that are occurring on a concurrent basis. From discussions with the City, Koegler believed that adding parking which would displace passive areas in the park that are now open, wooded areas and trails, was out of the question. A balance between both active and passive facilities to serve a broad range of community interests needs to be maintained. Koegler suggested that a more realistic approach would be to expand lot 4. The expansion would add a net of 76 additional parking spaces bringing the total off - street supply to 390. Koegler stated that, clearly, overlap needs to be addressed at Freeman. He continued that the issue could be addressed by staggering game times by at least 15 minutes. In 1997, it was noted that games were staggered by 20 minutes with a notable decrease in parking problems. Koegler indicated that while staggering games should help parking shortages, changes in park usage may also be necessary. Mr. Koegler made several recommendations for consideration. First, by implementing a series of changes over the next two to three seasons, changes would be adopted gradually. The changes consisted of: • Initiate staggered game times of at least 15 minutes • Expand parking lot 4 as drafted in the original master plan • Build -in excess capacity to accommodate overlap when managing total parking supply • Manage the use of active facilities consistent with available parking Koegler pointed out that cooperation of both the sports organizations and MCES is imperative in solving the is parking problems that currently exist. He added that a meeting with the various affected sports organizations that use Freeman Park, as well as, with MCES would be the next step to carrying this issue forward. Chair Arnst asked for Commission comments and questions. Commissioner Puzak had two questions. First, he disagreed that TUSA split the fields into 13 smaller fields other than on tournament weekends and argued that during other times that fields were split, the same number of players use the fields. Second, by enlarging parking lot 4, he asked whether the City could identify the lots on either side of the park as either soccer or baseball. Finally, he added that in many instances participants are using two spaces at events. Chair Arnst asked about the possibility of establishing a more formalized working relationship with the sports organizations. As discussed in previous meetings, could we invite leaders or boards of the sports organizations to talk through our policies and share what we've learned through our parking inventory study. She hoped this cooperative effort might afford us an opportunity to encourage better communication among organizations and their members, as well as, promote car - pooling etc. Mayor Love inquired what impact recommending a 15- minute minimum separation might have on the sports organizations. Would this cause the organizations to drop a game each night or force them to play under dim lighting, thus, safety concerns arise. Puzak felt the sports organizations would support a separation between games. We simply need to state that the separation between games is mandatory. Callies asked why the separation did not continue after 1997. Both Puzak and Chair Artist believed that it was due to a lack of communication. Puzak questioned the impact of a 20- minute separation or longer and asked Koegler to investigate that possibility. Chair Arnst indicated that a meeting with the sports organizations would be scheduled for the end of March. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8,2002' Page 4 of 8 She asked Koegler if this allowed him time to complete his analysis and present it at the February meeting. • He saw no difficulties with this, however, asked that changes be submitted to him within a week's time. D. Review, Discuss and Make Further Recommendations on Draft User Policies Chair Arnst moved on to discuss the User Policies drafted by Engineer Brown. She asked for discussion and recommendations of the Facility Use Regulations and complimented Brown on the outline. Chair Arnst herself asked that a bullet point be added saying that all park ordinances apply and attach a copy of them. Puzak then inquired whether an ordinance would be required to impose a $200. fine. Brown stated that it would and that he needs to check with the City Attorney before getting an ordinance in place. Puzak suggested adding that the fine would be imposed in addition to any damage done. Puzak asked Koegler to further clarify the use of green space outside the designated fields as he revised the study. Mayor Love asked who would personally be responsible for the fines. Is it the person who signs the agreement who is personally responsible? Dawson stated that it does not speak to the organization and indicates that the individual is personally responsible. Is it the individual on the paper who is responsible or the person caught Mayor Love questioned. Young asked how we could hold a person accountable and /or responsible for controlling all of the people on the fields, including a viewer at a specific game who breaks the rules. He believed posting signage on fields • would be adequate, but found it unrealistic to have the representative of that organization held personally responsible. Brown maintained that the violations typically occur by people on the fields working for the organizations, the set up crews, vendors, retrievers, and the biff people driving across the fields. He pointed out that no matter how much his staff has tried to communicate the no driving on the fields' rule; organizers have not followed through. Mayor Love stated that even sports organizations have said that they have difficulty keeping track of their teams, players, coaches, bystanders etc. to make sure they are following the rules. While he appreciates their dilemma, in turn, they are asking the City to step in to that role otherwise. He argued that it is really the teams who have to be held accountable for the behaviors of everyone who is there under their watch. Mayor Love maintained that accountability needs to start with the person who signs these forms. Brown stated that the City of Shorewood has no way of tracking a vendor back to see who is accountable, that is why we, need to force the sports organizations to do so. We need just one sole contact person. Brown recognized that refinement might need to be made over who the individual drivers are. Puzak stated that he was uncomfortable with holding someone accountable from the community, a volunteer, who would be fined for someone else's actions. Puzak stated that if the City is looking for leverage it should require a damage deposit be put down by the organizations. Brown concurred that the City needs to have an ordinance and post signage that no driving on the grass /field is allowed, perhaps the fine could be taken out of the regulation. • PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 5 of 8 • Mayor Love indicated that via conversations with Brian Tichy, it was he who suggested having one person accountable on the form from the City and Sports Organizations. He understood that while his name was on the line for the $200 fine, he would stand up for it, and the league would pay back the money. Callies believed that one person should be held accountable as a representative to an organization. She maintained that when someone rents a party room they become responsible for the behavior of their guests. Dawson added that the organizations do know who is using each of the fields and the organization should take the accountability actions with its own members when at fault. Callies pointed out that the consensus seems to support the accountability and one contact issue, but should consider taking out the fine. Chair Arnst agreed that a damage deposit might be a better way to go. She questioned the legalities of having an individual person sign as representative of the group and the City ever really being able to collect from the individual. Chair Arnst did however maintain that the three strike rule still apply. Young wondered why if it isn't worth charging the sports organizations for the small damages done to sprinkler heads, how is it worth writing more rules that we cannot enforce. Brown agreed that by posting signage and keeping track of infractions the City is in a better position of later enforcing the three -strike rule. Callies suggested that the City work out a joint use agreement with each of the larger sports organizations. Each organization would sign an individual agreement with the City after we've cooperatively reviewed each other's expectations and they clearly understand our position. • Young then recommended changing the name of the contract to the Facility Use Agreement instead of Regulations, in order to reflect this joint agreement. Mayor Love asked Brown how removing the $200 fine impacts his position. Brown stated that the enforcement issue has been the hardest one facing his public works people. They constantly try to educate the participants, coaches, and organizations daily on the fields, and no sooner do they do so, the groups do as they please once public works has left. He stated that he was clearly frustrated and at a loss. Puzak asked if an ordinance would help. He said that it would in a punitive way, however, he believed it failed to motivate the representatives of the organizations to communicate the rules to everyone. Brown indicated that, at this point, it would be worth the try, to change the language, institute an ordinance, and post signage. Chair Arnst stated that the Commission ask City Council for an ordinance, if one does not already exist, prohibiting unauthorized motorized vehicles from the fields. Chair Arnst also asked to have the suspension over the use of the facilities statement in the closing paragraph moved up to a bullet point. C. Report on MCES Interest in Field Scheduling for 2002 Administrator Dawson reported that MCES is planning to offer the same level of block scheduling as they provided in 2001, and is currently putting together a proposal for expanded levels of service to examine in 2002 for the 2003 season. Chair Arnst stated that the proposal should be ready for examination after January 21, 2002. Puzak questioned the status of the software that was offered for purchase by the City of Shorewood. Brown stated that MCES has shown no interest in receiving the software. Dawson indicated that from his conversations with MCES, they have no interest in the software and their administrative support person has been cut back to three- quarter time eliminating this opportunity. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 6 of 8 Chair Arnst asked staff to check to see if MCES would like to include the purchase of the software in their 18 proposal. A. Review and Discuss Administrator's Memo of 12 -19 -01 Chair Arnst referred to the memorandum from Administrator Dawson summarizing the joint work session of December 11, 2001. As mentioned in the memo, she reinforced the need for a late March meeting with sports organizations in order for the City to discuss their new policies, give Mark Koegler an opportunity to share the capacity study, and as Jeff Bailey suggested, offer the organizations a forum to work out their scheduling together with the City. Dawson pointed out that his memorandum was based on his observations of the meeting, and not necessarily, a consensus of the members present. His use of the word consensus may have been too strong. Callies questioned the efficiency of the City and its Commissioners working on scheduling. She felt it would be rather chaotic. Chair Arnst suggested using Mark Koegler as the neutral third party facilitator directing the meeting. Since he will be present sharing the capacity study, it would be logical to have him stay to direct the meeting, which could include the scheduling. Similar to MCES, Chair Arnst believed the City could offer its support and open the lines of communication in order to optimize scheduling efforts. Young maintained that the sports organizations should be informed ahead of time so that their main contact person is present to go over the new agreement and schedule fields. 0 E. Review, Discuss and Prioritize Issues as Defined at Meeting of 12 -11 -01 Chair Arnst referred to her Park Management issues list asking for discussion and/or prioritizing. Based on discussion, Chair Arnst will rewrite the list of issues omitting items 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 17, which were essentially consolidated and/or addressed in other areas and have it to present in February. Within item 13, Puzak argued that there is perceived ownership by the sports organizations who have virtually made all the improvements that have been done over the years to the parks and maintained that it will be difficult to change that way of thinking. He continued that he believed we need to become comfortable with that mind set. Mayor Love emphasized that while it is important to recognize that the sports organizations have been good stewards of our ballparks, the City sets the rules, issues the permits, and owns the parks. Brown pointed out that the Mayor is referring to ownership, while Puzak is referring to investment, which are two entirely different perspectives. Confusion seems to have existed in the past. Dawson stated that the organizations simply need to understand that permission is needed to make improvements to the parks. Chair Arnst added that a balance needs to be struck between the contributions and investment made by these organizations and the opportunity for others to use that facility. Callies noted that from her perspective, much of the discussion raised at the joint meeting centered on whether we were going to even go with MCES for scheduling or come up with another alternative. She asked if that had changed, and believed it sounded as if the decision to work with MCES had already been made without further investigation. Chair Arnst maintained that there had not actually been any proposal presented by MCES at this time. Callies concluded from the meeting that for the upcoming season we had to use MCES, but all of these issues and alternatives would be examined for the future. 0 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 7 of 8 a Chair Arnst emphasized that the City and Park Commission wants to establish face to face communication with the sports organizations. These meetings, in turn, would pave the way to introducing new policies and contacts once or twice a year keeping the flow of information available. Callies questioned the efficiency of having the Park Commission run these meetings and doing the sports scheduling. Adding that, supposedly, that was the reason we used MCES, a staff person/coordinator, or outside contractor in the first place. Chair Amst agreed that this issue needs to be further discussed at a work session. 8. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that the City has implemented a sports user fee with the hockey associations. Twila has been in communication with the associations and has not been received well. Brown pointed out that half of the objection has stemmed from confusion and half from those who do understand and are opposed to it. The confusion has been created off of a memo that someone had been circulating misinforming users that the fee is paid per use and not per season. Brown stated however that once the confusion had been cleared, individuals still were opposed to the fees. Brown continued that while one coach has agreed to the fee, the majority has transferred their games to other rinks. He stated that he has received many calls on this matter and wanted the Commission to be aware of the issue if they were contacted. He added that he has invited the disgruntled users to write or attend meetings themselves to voice their opposition. Chair Arnst agreed that the leaders or boards should be invited to a Park Commission meeting to learn the rational behind the user fee and voice their concerns. She added that an article should be submitted to run in the March newsletter which explains the sports user fee and the four year process that led up to its introduction. Mayor Love reported that the Watershed District committed an additional $350,000 for the Gideon Glen project. He stated that sometime during the next few years the Gideon Glen interpretive area would become a part of the Park Commission's jurisdiction. 6. DISCUSS PARK LIAISON FOR LAND CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Callies reported that no meetings have taken place or been scheduled. Chair Arnst tabled discussion until February. Council Member Turgeon, just returning from a Planning Commission work session, asked to add a piece of new business. As a part of the planning district review, she pointed out that there is a small piece of land by the southeast water tower, on the south side by the cemetery, that has come up for discussion. The question arises whether the Park Commission would like to use this area, the old public wayside, for any special park purpose. The Planning Commission would like the Park Commission to discuss whether or not they would like to add it to part of their master plan and approach MnDOT in order to procure the parcel for parkland or for public use. Chair Arnst asked that the topic be added to the February agenda. 7. APPOINT PARK LIAISONS FOR FEBRUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS While Commissioner Callies will act as February liaison for the 1 lth and 25th; Chair Amst volunteered for the March 1 lth and 25th City Council meetings. • 9. ADJOURNMENT PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 8 of 8 Dallman moved, Young seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of January 8, 2002 at 9:43 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. is 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.mn.us • cityhaI1 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 2002 RE: Review of Freeman Park Parking Study Attachment 1 is the Freeman Park Parking Analysis, as prepared by Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. • The report does an excellent job in framing the issues while putting some logical numbers to the problem. Because of the vast range of topics and analysis in the report, it will not be summarized in this memorandum. It should be pointed out that page 11 of the report summarizes the action items suggested for the Park Commission and City Council. Certainly, these action items appear to address both short term and long term goals. As such, it is advised that Commissioners come on Tuesday with a formulation as to what is perceived as immediate, intermediate and long term goals and or activities. This will insure that the discussion stays productive. • C�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER q� 4Z A Feb 05 02 10:38a PARK REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. To: Shorewood Park and Recreation Commission and Staff From: Mark Koegler Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 p.2 , HK 3i Residents of Shorewood and the surrounding area use Freeman Park for a variety of active and passive recreational pursuits. Over the past 15 years, the city of Shorewood has constructed ball fields, shelters, trails and other facilities that make Freeman Park one of the premier community parks in the western Twin Cities area. Because the park has some of the finest ball fields and open turf in the area, it is heavily used for adult and youth sporting activities by a number of local organizations. In recent years, intense usage during the summer months has resulted in serious parking problems. At peak times, parking has occurred outside of designated areas including along interior park roads, along Eureka Road and across pedestrian trail areas. This overflow parking poses safety issues both within the park and in the adjacent neighborhood along Eureka Road. The Shorewood Park Commission and City Council initiated this study to objectively examine the parking capacity of the park. Information generated from this analysis will serve as one of the tools to help shape future changes to alleviate problems caused by overflow parking. Problem and Analysis Approach Simply stated, a parking problem exists at Freeman Park. Parking outside of designated off - street parking lots causes operational and safety concerns. At a general level, the parking problem might be due to one of two conditions, 1) a shortage of off - street parking or 2) over use of facilities creating excessive parking demand. In order to investigate these and other factors affecting parking in Freeman Park, this analysis will follow an incremental approach that will examine: • The original park master plan • Current use of the park • Standards used by other area communities • General observations and recommendations The parking analysis will focus on parking demand generated from active recreational activities. • • 123 North Third Street, Suite 10 Ph (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) Attachment 1 Koegler Report Feb 05` 02 10:38a • Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 2 Passive uses such as hiking generate a need for parking, however, the amount of demand is insignificant compared to the demand generated by active facilities. Original Master Plan The master plan for Freeman Park that was prepared in 1990 has generally guided development of facilities for the past decade. The plan, shown on Exhibit 1 identified a number of major active park facilities. These facilities and their associated parking demand are identified below. Softball Fields — the plan identified the three softball fields that exist today. Maximum parking needs generated from these fields can be calculated as follows: ■ 6 teams @ 16 players each= 96 parking spaces Soccer Fields — The original master plan identified two soccer fields and a football field area that could double as a second youth soccer field. Since football has not been a programmed activity in Freeman Park, parking demand is calculated as follows on the basis of three soccer fields: • 6 teams a@ 12 players each= 72 parking spaces ■ Since soccer is largely a youth activity, consideration could be given to reducing the parking demand by 25% to reflect carpooling. This results in the need for 54 parking spaces. Baseball Fields — The master plan identifies two Little League fields and one Babe Ruth baseball field, all of which exist today. Maximum parking needs generated from these fields can be calculated as follows: ■ 6 teams a 15 players each= 90 parking spaces ■ Since Little League and Babe Ruth baseball are youth activities, consideration could be given to reducing the parking demand by 25% to reflect carpooling. This results in the need for 68 parking spaces. Multi -Use Building The master plan called for the construction of a multi -use building adjacent to the softball field area. In the summer of 2001, the city of Shorewood Park opened Eddy Station, a multi -use building that contains both indoor and outdoor picnic space, restrooms and a concession area. Assuming use of the building by a group not at the park for another activity, Eddy Station is likely to generate the following parking demand: p.3 9 ■ 50 people at 1 space per 3 people 17 parking spaces. One parking space per three Feb 05 02 10:38a Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 3 people is a common zoning ordinance parking requirement for places of public assembly and reflects carpooling. Picnic Shelter The picnic shelter located north of the Little League fields generates parking demand identical to that of Eddy Station: ■ 50 people at 1 space per 3 people = 17 parking space s Tennis Courts The original master plan called for the construction of four tennis courts immediately north of the Little League parking area. Had the courts been constructed, they would account for the following parking demand: • ■ 4 courts (2 double /2 single) —12 users =12 parking spaces Note: The parking demand calculated above is based on one parking space per player per activity • unless otherwise noted. Based on the uses identified above, Freeman Park has a planned parking demand generated from active facilities that ranges from 264 to 304 spaces. (carpooling to non - carpooling) Parking Supply The Freeman Park master plan identified off-street parking in five locations throughout the park. All parking lots were accessed via an interior park road that looped through from Eureka Road to Highway 7. As shown on Exhibit 1, the following parking lots were planned: Lot 1 84 spaces Lot 2 130 spaces Lot 3 50 spaces Lot 4 50 spaces Lot 5 41 spaces Total 355 spaces When the master plan was completed in 1990, concurrent use of all of the active recreational facilities was not envisioned. For example, soccer was thought to be a predominately fall activity largely occurring after completion of both the softball and baseball seasons. As a result, it was generally felt that the parking supply would reasonably serve the planned facilities. In fact, the plan p.4 ' Feb 05` 02 10:39a P.5 10 Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 4 allocated an excess parking supply of parking spaces based on one spacer per participant. Freeman Park today differs in a couple of ways from the master plan that was prepared in 1990. Parking lot 5 was never constructed reducing the actual existing parking supply to 314 spaces. The loop road was modified due to an adjacent residential development and now is not continuous though the park. While the road modification does not impact the parking supply, the two separate park access points does create a more difficult situation for park patrons in conveniently accessing all parking areas. Exhibit 1 - Freeman Park Master Plan • is Feb 05 02 10:39a Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 5 Current Park Usage Current activities in Freeman Park differ from the expectations that existed when the original master plan was assembled. The two most significant changes involve the concurrent use of all active park facilities including baseball, softball, soccer and picnic /multi -use buildings and the expansion ofthe use of the soccer areas in a manner that was not articulated on the original plan. The concurrent use of all active facilities creates a demand for parking that exceeds original expectations. However, the supply of existing parking (314 spaces) will accommodate all of these facilities at the one space per participant standard assuming a reduction for youth activity carpooling. The calculation related to this conclusion is as follows: Adult Softball (3) 96 parking spaces Youth Soccer Fields (6) 54 parking spaces Youth Baseball (3) 68 parking spaces Multi- Use /Picnic Buildings (2) 34 parking spaces Total 252 parking spaces The original master plan assumed that three soccer fields would be striped in the open turf area just northwest of the softball fields. Based on scheduling information from Tonka United Soccer for the Spring /Summer period in 2001, five fields were striped for soccer on Monday evenings and six fields were delineated for games on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings. During tournaments, Shorewood staff has actually counted up to 13 soccer fields in use a one time. The following offers a comparison of the demand for parking generated by the youth soccer fields: 3 fields — 6 teams @ 12 players each = 72 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling = 54 parking spaces (original assumption) 6 fields —12 teams @ 10 players each =120 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling = 90 parking spaces (based on Tonka United's schedule) 13 fields — 26 teams @ 10 players each = 260 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling =195 parking spaces (based on staff observations during tournaments) Adding the current soccer use scenarios (non tournament) to the use of other facilities generates the following existing parking demand: r� LJ • Adult Softball (3) 96 parking spaces Youth Soccer Fields (6) 90 parking spaces Youth Baseball (3) 68 parking spaces Multi- Use /Picnic Buildings (2) 34 parking spaces p.6, Total 288 parking spaces • Feb O5'02 10:39a Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 6 With an existing parking supply of 314 spaces, the parking supply exceeds parking demand by 26 spaces. This supply /demand relationship, however, does not account for parking overlap, which is discussed later in this report. Other Area Community Standards • • In order to provide some level of comparison to parking standards used in other communities, a survey was conducted of seven other cities. The cities of Chanhassen, Plymouth, Mankato, Champlin, Northfield, Chaska and Minnetonka were chosen because all have active community park facilities and sporting programs that resemble those in existence in Shorewood. The following chart illustrates the results of the survey: Exhibit 2 — Sample of Community Standards City Parking Method of Scheduling Notes Spaces per Calculation Field Chanhassen Baseball and Soccer 3 Soccer Fields Schedules back to back Problems during overlap Bandimere 40 per field in 2 3 Ball fields games, does not stagger Start times & Tournaments. Park lots- one large and 240 stalls times. People tend to park on the one small Averaged them side of the road rather than High parking demand time walk from the further lot depends on # of games and schedule Plymouth 60 (ball field) 1 parking space per Games scheduled back to Conservative Ratio player per field x 2 back 45min overlap time Mankato 45 (ball field) 1 parking space per Games scheduled back to player per field x2 back and then reduce the amount to account 20 minute overlap for carpooling (softball) Overlap time is less than it might be because people are aware of the parking problem and tend to arrive and leave close to game times A little more time between baseball games - less overlap P.7 Feb 05 02 10:40a Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 7 p.8 City Parking Method of Scheduling Notes Spaces per Calculation Field Champlin 40 -50 (ball field) One space per player Games scheduled back to Fields in a commercial Same general rule of per field and then a back area might need less thumb for soccer few extra for overlap Overlap 20 -30 minutes parking because they can (30 players at a use existing on street time) parking or share lots. People in residential areas generally complain about on street parkin Northfield 39 -46 (bait field) 3 youth baseball Games scheduled back to 26 (soccer) 139 space lot (46), back. Parking problem (planned) 1 regulation during overlap for softball baseball 45 space but not baseball lot 2 softball fields and 1 picnic shelter 87 spaces(39) New soccer complex with 6 fields and 160 s ace lot Chaska 30 -60 spaces per At least One space Gaines scheduled back to Parking problem depends field per player per field back on perception. People do and up to 2 spaces not want to walk far to p er player per field their destination Minnetonka 38 stalls per field 2 adult softball, one Lights are turned off Ea There tends to be more regulation baseball 3 staggered times forcing the carpooling for youth 44 stalls per field little league fields game times to be staggered games than adult games would serve their and one regulation and they schedule games 15 needs even at the soccer field served by minutes apart to help with busiest times 248 parking stalls the overlap and 20 curbside stalls The parking survey reveals a number of interesting facts that need to be considered in analyzing parking in Freeman Park. First, the cities noted used a parking standard that ranged from 1 space per participant to two spaces per participant. Applying the two space standard to Freeman Park would result in substantially increased parking shortfalls. • • Secondly, the survey highlights a problem that exists in most of the communities. The problem is overlap. Due to a number of factors including the desire to maximize the use of fields, the efficiency of hired game officials, and other items, most baseball, softball and soccer games are schedule back - to- back resulting in an overlap at the conclusion of one game and the beginning of the next game. Only Minnetonka seeks to manage the overlap by staggering game schedules by 15 minutes. Most communities either realize that they are going to have a parking shortfall during the overlap period or try to provide enough parking to account for overlap periods. Games at Freeman Park are scheduled • F-eb O5 02 10:40a • Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February S, 2002 Page 8 back -to -back creating overlap problems. General Observations • This analysis focused on examining parking problems in Freeman Park in order to determine if a shortage of off - street parking exists or whether or not existing facilities are being overused. Depending on one's perspective, the information contained in this analysis might lead to the conclusion that one or both of these conditions are applicable. The issue primarily influencing the parking shortage in Freeman Park is the fact that the park is being used in a manner that differs from that envisioned in the original master plan. It is being used more intensively than the original design envisioned. If the City of Shorewood wants to at least reduce the parking problems in Freeman Park, consideration needs to be given to adding additional off- street parking and/or reducing the number of activities that are occurring on a concurrent basis. Exhibit 3 — Potential Parking Expansion — Lot 4 p.9 0 i ttP" j Qllill X WIN iid go In !J-qq4 i p.9 0 Feb 05 02 10:41a p.10 Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis • Date: February 5, 2002 Page 9 Freeman Park has been actively developed over the past ten years in a manner generally consistent with the master plan. Substantially increasing the supply of off - street parking is not likely to occur since added parking would need to displace passive areas in the park that are now devoted to open space, wooded areas and trails. It is important to maintain a balance of both active and passive facilities to serve a broad range of community interests. Additional parking might be supplied by constructing Lot 5 that was shown on the original master plan. A more realistic possibility is the expansion of Lot 4 that can be accomplished due to the reorientation of park access roads. Exhibit 3 illustrates the expansion of this lot. The expansion of the southern parking lot would add a net of 76 additional parking spaces bringing the total off - street parking supply up to 390 spaces. Assuming that Freeman Park has the ability to accommodate a total of 3 90 off - street parking spaces and assuming that the City wants to avoid parallel parking along the park road as well as Eureka Road, the use of all park facilities needs to correspond to a parking capacity of 390 vehicles. Use of recreational facilities, therefore, needs to be balanced to create a demand not significantly exceeding 390 parking spaces. Before examining potential ways to accomplish this balance, the issue of overlap needs to be addressed in Freeman Park. • The communities surveyed responded that they experience overlap periods generally ranging from 20 to 40 minutes at the start/completion of games. This means that parking demand will be at its peak during this time period. Other communities accommodate overlap by either staggering game times or more commonly, by constructing additional parking. While all communities acknowledged that it is impossible to meet all peak parking demands, for example tournaments, most try to reasonably accommodate parking by using a standard that exceeds one space per game participant. The examples cited include Plymouth who uses a 2 space per participant standard on the high end to Champlin on the low end who uses one space per participant and provides "a few extra spaces" to accommodate overlap. Shorewood could address the issue of overlap by staggering game times by at least 15 minutes. In 1997, games in Freeman Park were staggered by twenty minutes and the result was a decrease in parking problems. Staggering games should help parking shortages but is unlikely to alleviate all problems. Changes in park usage may also be necessary. Other Parking Considerations In analyzing parking issues in Freeman Park, two other factors need to be considered. First, the preceding analysis primarily focused on a planned parking capacity at Freeman Park, not existing parking capacity. The second factor to consider relates to the layout of the park and the geographic split in the park's facilities. • F�.eb OS• 02 10:42a • Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 10 The expansion of parking Lot 4 as shown on Exhibit 3 is only planned at this time. As a result, the existing parking supply in the park totals 314 spaces. Applying the excess capacity factor of 25% to the existing supply results in an available existing parking supply of approximately 251 spaces. This quantity of parking is 37 spaces short of the requirement for the full usage of all facilities simultaneously. In order to avoid parking problems, activities in the park may need to be balanced to reflect the 251 space parking capacity. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways involving different scheduling scenarios of the baseball, softball, soccer and multi -use building facilities. The following examples illustrate two of the many ways that this could be accomplished. Example 1 Soccer Fields (6) 108 spaces Baseball Fields (3) 66 spaces Softball Fields (1) 32 spaces Multi -Use Bldgs. (2) 34 spaces TOTAL 240 spaces Example 2 Soccer Fields (3) 54 spaces Baseball Fields (3) 66 spaces Softball Fields (3) 96 spaces Multi -Use Bldgs. (2) 34 spaces 250 spaces The second adjustment factor to consider is the layout of the park. Parking areas in Freeman Park is are segregated due to two unconnected park entrance points. As a result, parking that serves the baseball fields is separated from parking that serves the balance of the active park facilities. Accessing all parking areas requires the user to enter and exit the park at two locations. The existing segregated park access likely contributes to users parking in inappropriate areas such as along internal park roads or along Eureka Road. People may park in inappropriate areas rather than tolerate the inconvenience of driving to the other entrance point and then having to walk longer distances to their desired destinations. It is difficult to quantify the relationship between the location of parking lots and their relationship to specific park facilities. People arriving at the park to participate in softball or soccer are likely to use the northern most park access off of Eureka Road. This entrance provides access to parking Lots 1, 2 and 3 as shown on Exhibit 1. These parking lots have a total capacity of 264 spaces. Parking Lot 4 is accessed solely off of Park Drive. Park Drive intersects Eureka Road further to the south. Lot 4 has an existing capacity of 50 spaces with the potential to expand the lot by an additional 76 spaces. In its expanded form, Lot 4 has excess capacity even when all baseball fields are in use. Accordingly, softball and soccer field users will need to park in Lot 4 in order to maximize the usage of existing spaces. Encouraging softball and soccer field users to park in this more distant location will present a challenge. Recommendations The following recommendations are offered for consideration by the Shorewood Park Commission and City Council: p.11 • Feb 05 02 10:43a Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: February 5, 2002 Page 11 Implement a series of incremental changes over the course of the next two or three summer seasons to effectuate changes in Freeman Park. By implementing incremental changes, the City can avoid undue hardships on sports organizations while allowing a "working model" approach to solving the parking problem. Suggested increments include: Initiate staggered game times of at least 15 minutes. ■ As soon as practical, expand parking Lot 4 consistent with the prepared concept plan. Prohibit parking expansion beyond Lot 4 in order to preserve the passive areas within the park. • Plan on the use of a total parking supply that "builds in" an excess capacity to accommodate overlap periods. Initially, a 25% excess capacity could be used. This number might be increased to 35 %, 50% or higher depending on the results that are achieved. ■ Manage the use of active facilities consistent with available parking. P. 1z" 0 The management of active facilities consistent with available parking becomes the challenging part of solving the parking problem. For example, building in an excess capacity of 25% results in an available parking supply of approximately 310 spaces out of a total of 390. This would accommodate the scenario outlined earlier in this report that examined the concurrent use of three softball fields, six soccer fields, three youth baseball fields and both the picnic shelter and Eddy Station. These facilities would use a total of approximately 288 of the allocated 310 spaces. If it becomes necessary to increase the parking overlap threshold to 35 %, the allocated parking space count would drop to approximately 290 spaces. A 50% overlap threshold would result in an allocated space count of approximately 265 spaces. The 50 % overlap alternative would reduce the amount of activities that could be scheduled in the park. This analysis is intended to facilitate a discussion about parking problems in Freeman Park and the identification of specific solutions. The next steps in carrying this issue forward should include a meeting with the various affected sports organizations that use Freeman Park to seek their ideas and input and a meeting with Minnetonka Community Education Services (MCES) who actually conducts most of the facility scheduling in the park. Under the present organizational structure, the cooperation of both the sports organizations and MCES is imperative in solving the parking problems that currently exist. One final note: The standards and numbers used in this analysis are not hard and fast rules. They are, however, generally accurate and should be appropriate for use as a guide in discussing viable options for solving existing parking problems. 0 CITY OF 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 2002 RE: Review of Revised Facility Use Agreement At the previous Park Commission meeting conducted on January 8, 2002, the park commission recommended changes to the Facility Use Agreement. This document is the guiding document for sports organizations, renters of park facilities, or other interested parties that use the parks or • facilities in an intensified manner. Per the direction provided at the last meeting, the following changes were made to the agreement: • Name of the document was changed from Facility Use Contract to Facility Use Agreement • Fee for driving outside of designated vehicle areas has a penalty of $200.00. • All users must obey all of the park ordinances. (with a copy of the ordinances attached) If the revised draft meets the approval of the Park Commission, this will be forwarded onto the City Council for their review and approval. • ®�0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City of Shorewood's Facility Use Agreement • In an effort to maintain safe conditions for all park patrons and insure that the City facilities are used appropriately, the City of Shorewood has set in place the following regulations for the use of the City's facilities. • Field or rink use will not be allowed. until the city has received the player roster, certificate of insurance, memo agreement and user fee. • All Park Ordinances apply and agree to adhere to them. • A City of Shorewood tournament permit and fee shall be submitted to the City a minimum of 15 days prior to the tournament. Tournaments shall not conflict with the other regularly scheduled activities for the facility. • All leagues, associations, or groups using the facilities must provide the City with a single contact that is to serve as the representative for the organization activities. • Games shall be scheduled to provide a 15 minutes break between games or warm -up sessions. • No driving of motorized vehicles is allowed on the fields or green space. Individuals caught driving on the fields will be fined $200.00 for each offense. • It is the responsibility of the sports organization to clean up after tournaments. If the City performs the cleanup, the sports organization will be charged for the time, materials and labor for this service. • • Users of the park are not allowed to make alterations to the facilities or terrain. • Facility improvements that the associations may want to make can only be completed after following appropriate required steps. • Using green space outside of the designated fields is not permitted. • Disposal of paint cans shall not be done in the facility trash receptacles or on the park site. • Failure to follow these regulations will result in suspension of the use of the facilities. It is the City's desire that all of the patrons who use the park facilities are able to enjoy the park system safely and conveniently. These regulations have been set in place to achieve this goal. By reading and acknowledging that the organization has read the regulations and agree to adhere to them, continues the privilege of utilizing the park system. I hereby certify that I am the primary representative for the league or group desiring use of the City's facilities, and that I have read the above regulations and agree to conduct the activities in accordance to the regulations above. Furthermore, I acknowledge that failure to adhere to these regulations shall result in suspension of use of the facilities for a 1 year period. • Nam e Representative for what League /Association Date Contact Number CHAPTER 902 0 SECTION: 902.01: Purpose 902.02: General Regulations and Rules of Conduct 902.03: Animals in Park and Recreation Areas 902.04: Vehicle Restrictions 902.05: Additional Rules for Use of Park and Recreation Facilities 902.06: Use of Recreational Facilities by Athletic Associations 902.07: Discrimination in Parks 902.08: Application of Provisions to City Employees 902.09: Administrative Rules and Regulations 902.10: Violation 902.01: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the use of and to provide uniform rules of conduct for City parks and recrea- tional areas in the City. C7 Subd. 1. Closing Hours: Enter or remain in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. unless such per- son is participating in an organized activity authorized by the City. Subd. 2. Overnight Use: Set up any tent, shack or other temporary shelter in any park, nor shall any person leave any property including, but not limited to, vehicles, campers and trailers in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. without the writ- ten permission of the City Administrator. Subd. 3. Tampering With City Property: Deface, destroy, tamper with, injure or remove any City property including but not limited to furniture, struc- tures, vegetation, signs or soils. . . 902.01 PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS 902.02: GENERAL REGULATIONS AND RULES OF CONDUCT: No person in a City park or recreation area shall: 902.02 Subd. 4. Littering: Scatter or litter the grounds or any lake, pond or watercourse within or draining into a park with any form of trash, but shall place such material in the proper receptacles where these are provided. Where receptacles are not provided, all such trash shall be carried away from the area by the person responsible for its presence. is City of Shorewood 993 902.02 902.03 r Subd. 5. Fires: Start a fire, except a small fire for cooking purposes in a designated area and then only in a fire ring, grill or portable stove, or fail to fully extinguish such a fire. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) 0 Subd. 6. Sales: Sell or conduct any commercial enterprise unless authorized by written permit from the City Council. (Ord. 266, 1- 25 -93) Subd. 7. Handbills and Advertisements: Paste, affix or inscribe any handbill, poster or sign or distribute handbills, circulars or announcements of any kind for a commercial purpose, unless authorized by written permit from the City Council. Subd. 8. Gamble. Subd. 9. Liquor: Use or bring alcoholic beverages, including beer, without a written permit issued by the City Council. Subd. 10. Drugs: Use or bring illegal drugs. Subd. 11. Glass Containers: Bring any glass containers. Subd. 12. Use of Restrooms: If over five (5) years of age, use any restroom or washroom designated for use by the opposite sex. Subd. 13. Weapons and Fireworks: Bring any firearms, air rifle, BB gun, sling shot, explosives, fireworks or devices capable of discharging blank am- munition into any park. Subd. 14. Use of Toys and Equipment: Ride, propel or. use any equipment or toy in any public park in such a manner as to interfere or endanger any pedestrian. Subd. 15. Improper Conduct: Appear nude, commit any nuisance or use threatening, abusive, insulting, obscene or indecent language or act in an indecent, lascivious or improper manner or do any act which constitutes a breach of the public peace. Subd. 16. Harassment: Harass any visitor or behave in a reckless manner which would endanger any visitor's property. Subd. 17. Disobey City Officials: Disobey any reasonable order or direction of . any. City employee, law enforcement officer or other person designated by the City Council or Park Commission' to give such orders or directions. 902.03: ANIMALS IN PARK AND RECREATION AREAS: No person in a City park or recreation area shall: 1. See Chapter 202 of this Code. • 993 City of Shorewood 902.03 902.05 Subd. 1. Kill, trap, hunt] pursue or in any manner disturb or cause to be disturbed any wildlife. Subd. 2. Bring any dog, cat or other animal unless caged, kept on a leash not more than six feet (6 )1n length or under control of its owner. Subd. 3. Permit any animal to disturb, harass or interfere with or endanger any visitor or visitor's property, or tether any creature to a tree, plant, building or park equipment. Subd. 4. Permit any animal to enter unauthorized areas. Unauthorized areas are active play areas, picnic areas and park buildings. Subd. 5. Release any insect, fish, animal or other wildlife, or introduce any plant, chemical or other agent potentially harmful to the vegetation, water supply or wildlife of the area. Subd. 6. Ride a horse, except with prior approval from the City. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) Subd. 7. Permit any domestic animal to defecate in or upon public property. The owner or person having the custody or control of the animal shall be responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner (Ord. 334, 4- 27 -98). 902.04: VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS: Except police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in performance of their duties, no person in a City park or recreation are shall: Subd. 1. Drive or park a vehicle, except an authorized or emergency vehicle, on any turf or other area not designated for parking or travel. Subd. 2. Wash, grease, dismantle, repair, change or deposit the oil of a vehicle anywhere in a park or recreation area. Subd. 3. Operate a motorized vehicle except on marked trails during times designated by the City Council and/or Park Commission. Subd. 4. Operate any watercraft within designated swimming areas. (Ord. 246, 10- 28 -91) Subd. 5. Operate a motorized vehicle in excess of 15 miles per hour. (Ord. 294, 9- 12 -94) Subd. 6. This section does not prohibit the operation of any manual or motorized wheelchair as defined by Minn.Stat. 169.01 Subd. 24A. (Ord. 364, 06- 26 -00) 902.05: ADDITIONAL RULES FOR USE OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES: The following are additional rules pertaining to the use of public tennis courts, use of waters located in City parks and use of public skating rinks. No person shall: 1. See Chapter 703 of this Code. 2. See also Section 801.06 of this Code. • 993 City of Shorewood 902.05 902.05 Subd. 1. Public Tennis Courts: a. Be allowed on any tennis courts while wearing street shoes. 0 b. Be allowed to make use of the tennis courts except for playing tennis. c. Use a tennis court for longer than sixty (60) minutes when other tennis players are waiting to use the tennis court. Subd. 2. Swimming in Park Waters: a. No person shall swim except at designated areas. b. No person shall swim beyond buoys marking the limits of the swimming area. C. No child under ten (10) years of age shall be allowed at a designated swimming area without competent supervision. d. Any person swimming at a public beach when a lifeguard is off duty swims at his or her own risk. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) Subd. 3. Public Skating Rinks: a. Skating areas shall be posted for "hockey" or "free skating ". b. No hockey sticks or pucks shall be allowed in the "free skating" area. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83; amd. Ord. 164, 3- 11 -85) 902.06: USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS: Subd. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide for an orderly method of the use of public recreational facilities in the City, and to insure that such use by participants is with the required safety equipment, and permitting the City to recover a portion of the cost of maintenance of such facilities. Subd. 2. Authority to Contract for Use: The City is hereby authorized to enter a contract providing for the exclusive use of its recreational facilities for set periods of time with athletic associations and other nonprofit groups; provided, that such use does not entirely exclude the general public from making use of such facilities. Subd 3. Fees: The City Council is authorized to determine an appropriate fee to be charged for exclusive use, which fees shall be used solely for development and maintenance of the parks and recreational facilities of the City. All sports organizations that make exclusive use of recreational facilities in Shorewood shall pay a fee as specified in Chapter 1301 of this Code to compensate for their exclusive use of these recreational facilities. (Ord. 310, 2- 12 -96; amd. Ord. 365, 8- 14 -00) Subd. 4. Insurance Required: As a condition for exclusive use, the athletic association or other group shall be required to provide the City with copies of insurance policies covering medical and accident insurance for participants. (Ord. 123, 10 -6 -80) • 993 City of Shorewood 902.05 Subd. 5. Conditions of Contract: 902.06 a. Safety Equipment: It shall be the responsibility of the sponsoring athletic organizations to require participants under the age of nineteen (19) to wear proper protective equipment. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) b. Additional Conditions: The contract shall contain such other provisions as the City Council deems necessary for the protection of the participants and the public interest. Subd. 6. Prohibited Acts and Conditions: a. It shall be unlawful for any person, group or athletic association to use park facilities in the City for athletic events scheduled by such association without such association having previously entered into a contract with the City for use of said park facility. (Ord. 12, 10 -6 -80) b. The general public shall not be allowed to use or occupy any athletic field, rink or area during those times the field, rink or area is scheduled for authorized use by the athletic associations. Any person who shall violate this paragraph shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) Subd. 7. Violation: Unless otherwise provided for herein, any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a petty mis- demeanor. (Ord. 123, 10 -6 -80) . 902.07: DISCRIMINATION IN PARKS: No person involved in any event or in any use of the parks or recreation areas including, but not limited to, sponsors of teams, shall deny another person access to, admission to, utilization of or benefit from any such event or use because of race, age, sex, color, creed, religion or national origin.l 902.08: APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS TO CITY EMPLOYEES: Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent City employees, including law enforcement officers, from performing their assigned duties. y 902.09: ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS: The City Council shall have the right to issue additional administrative rules and regulations relative to, but not conflicting with, this Chapter. No person shall violate such rules or regulations, and any such violation may be subject to the penalties of this Chapter. 902.10: VIOLATION: Any person who shall violate any provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. (Ord. 140, 2- 14 -83) I. See Chapter 204 of this Code. 993 Cin• of Shorewood CITY OF 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD e SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works" DATE: February 8, 2002 RE: Review of Ordinance for Motorized Vehicles Driving on Fields or Green Space During the previous Park Commission meeting conducted on January 8", the Commission discussed the necessity of revising the City Ordinances to address a penalty for driving outside of designated • areas within the parks or green spaces. City Ordinance 801.06 states: 801.06: OPERATION OF VEHICLES IN PARKS OR ON PUBLIC GRO UNDS: (Ord. 246, 10- 28 -91; amd. Ord. 312, 6- 24 -96) Subd. 1. Operation of Vehicles in Parks or Public Grounds. Except police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in the performances of their duties, no person should stop, stand, or park a vehicle or operate any vehicle, or ride any bicycle or horse, except in compliance with the directions of a police officer on any park property or other public grounds within the limits of the City, except when such areas are designated for any of such uses and signs prohibiting any of such uses on any parkproperty or public grounds shall be complied with.' Subd 2. Parking of Vehicles in Parks or on Public Grounds: No person shall park a motor vehicle in parks or on public grounds except in designated parking areas and where parking areas provide for striped parking stalls no person shall park more than one (1) motor vehicle per designated parking stall. For purposes of this section, parking shall not include those attended vehicles stopped in the process of accessing public waters. ' See also Chapter 902 of this Code. ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER�.�/� Park Commission Ordinance Revision February 8, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Subd 3. Violations. Violations of the provisions of this section may be subject to a fine not to exceed $35.00 and/or towing. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that 801.06, Subd 3 be revised to: Subd 3. Violations. Violations of the provisions of this section may be subject to a fine not to exceed $200.00 and/or towing. • • TO: Park Commission &ROM: Pat Arnst RE: Park Management Matters DATE: January 9, 2002 At our January 8 meeting, we reviewed the list of "matters" that developed as a result of our joint meeting with the City Council. Our purpose in that review was to clarify, categorize and set a time frame for resolution of the matters. There are currently three plans of action on the table that will help to address most of the issues. PARK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS HKG1 Report • parking /traffic • blanket scheduling of fields and coordination of activities Development of Facility Use Regulations Issues being addressed • unauthorized alterations to and construction of facilities • damage to facilities • streamline staff time involved in administrative oversight • parking /traffic • establish lines of communication with correct contact person Joint Session with sports organization, city staff, park commission, and MCES • blanket scheduling of fields and coordination of activities • clarify relationship with MCES • establish clarity about who uses fields • inclusion of all potential users and organizations • establish clear communications between city /users /MCES • identify stakeholders • streamline staff time involved in administrative 0 MA; Schedule for Completion Final report due February 12 • After thorough discussion, Park commission requested minor refinements to the first draft. Next draft due February 12 Draft of Ordinance relating to driving on improved areas due February 12 Park Commission asked for a separate ordinance for prosecution of any individual(s) who may cause damage to fields and facilities with motor vehicles. Park Commission agreed that accountability is important. However, it did not agree on a process for holding the appropriate person /organization accountable and will discuss further. Last two weeks of March • Meeting may be facilitated by Mark Koegler, with assistance from city staff. • Park Commission will be present only to answer questions. • Koegler will explain the findings and recommendations of the capacity study. • Staff will explain the new facility use regulations ordinance, insurance documents and fee collection process and other documentation. • Commission will consider doing field scheduling at Also note: • The Park Commission agreed on the importance of establishing key contacts from each sports organization, as well as a central contact at City Hall. Twila Grout, Park Secretary, was recommended for that role as she is familiar with the organizations, MCES, the Park Commission and other matters relevant at this time. Further, she is currently performing many of the procedures now in place regarding insurance, fee and roster collection, etc. • The Park Commission has not reached consensus on MCES' role in scheduling for 2002. MCES has indicated that they would provide the same level of service as in 2001, and will be sending a proposal, for Park Commission consideration and discussion, at the February 12 meeting. • It was agreed to convene a work session on February 26 to: • discuss recommendations in the HKGi report, • understand and finalize the Policies and Ordinance, • make recommendations to Council on each, and • develop a format for the March joint meeting. C7 • • • • U TO: Park Commission FROM: Pat Arnst RE: Mn Recreation & Park Association DATE: February 4, 2002 T Several years ago, the Park Commission recommended to the Council that the City join the MN Recreation & Park Association. That recommendation was apparently overlooked. Therefore, I am attaching information concerning the association. I ask that you review this for discussion at our next park commission meeting. Membership in this organization has several benefits to the park commission and city staff that assist us: (1) Resource for information and support on such timely matters as user fees, park management, trends, developments and future changes related to parks and recreations; (2) resource for funding sources, both public and private; (3) staff and commission development; and more. Please review these items and be prepared to discuss and recommend. Thank you. SSE minnesota Aecreation ana rarK Association 3954 Bryant Ave S, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • Phone 612 -825 -2200. 1 -800 -862 -3659 • Fax 612 - 825 -1829 The purpose of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, through its members, is to improve the quality of life in Minnesota by providing excellent park and recreation services. We create and support opportunities for all Minnesotans to live a healthy lifestyle through participation in physical activity and to learn and grow as they experience the cultural and natural diversity of Minnesota's parks and recreation facilities. Origins and History The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) was formed in 1937 to foster the growth and development of the parks and recreation profession throughout the state. Presently we have over 1,500 members located in virtually every community through- out the state. Our goals include • foster and maintain high standards of profes- sional qualifications and ethics among the members of the association; • provide continuing education, technical as- sistance and social exchange among all mem- bers; • support and promote effective education within colleges and universities; • encourage study and research in the field of leisure services; NWA Services Publications — we feature a monthly newsletter, Keeping Up, as well as numerous other brochures specifically targeted to the issues and disciplines within the realm of parks and recreation. Resource Center — our collection of videos, slide presentations, studies, and research data, and especially our referral network, help our members do their jobs more effectively. Recognition — we have a series of awards that recognize and en-,,. courage outstanding achievements by individuals and groups related to parks and recreation, including volunteers, facility design and management, innovation, and creativity. Membership Directory — to encourage the exchange of ideas and information anion arks and recreation profes- & Recr alp "Your Best invest�rr�entl • take a proactive position on legislation affecting the parks and recreation field; • encourage public support and promote awareness and under- standing of the values of recreation, parks, and leisure in the lives of individuals; • promote effective relationships with other organizations for fur- ther advancement of parks, recreation and leisure service oppor- tunities in Minnesota; • provide recreational services including tournament competition, youth sports training, and sports management services; and • serve as an information resource on trends, developments and future changes related to the delivery of parks and recreation services. Education and Training Education and training are essential ingredients for success. The MRPA conducts an annual state conference which provides over 100 educational sessions for parks and recreation professionals Through- out the year we also coordinate dozens of workshops, seminars, and institutes to provide our members with the best information and training available. The most influential park and recreation organization in the state. gr sionals and agencies. Product Demonstrations and Displays —to help inform our membership of the latest develop- ments and technological advances in the indus- tries that affect them. State Tournaments — produce, coordinate and sanction various sporting events to ensure safe, fair and respectable competition. We have a Rec- reational Sports Commission, elected by our members, to oversee this aspect of our operation. Special Events — produce and implement a vari- ety of special events and promotional programs across the state of Minnesota. Affiliations —with other local, regional and national organizations, so that we may benefit from strategic alliances and activities else- where. We are part of the Great Lakes Regional Council, National Recreation and Park Association, United States Specialty Sport As- sociation, Minnesota Park Supervisors Association and the United States Tennis Association- Northern Section, just to name a few! Values The following values serve as a philosophical framework of the as- sociation in meeting the needs of our entire membership: • continuing education opportunities • promotion of the leisure services profession • recognition of member and agency achievements • proactive leadership by MRPA members • volunteer service to the park and recreation profession • communications and information networking • financial stability of the association • commission and board member involvement • social interaction and fellowship • professional support-staff development • central clearinghouse of technical information • information and referral services • promotion of a legislative agenda • • • • Benefits of Agency Membership • Park and Recreation Board or Commission Members Receive Keeping Up Newsletter. • Full Agency Listing in Annual Membership Directory. • 30% Discount on all Individual Professional Membership Fees. • Eligibility to participate in MRPA Awards and Promotional Programs. • Play an active role in promoting the Benefits of Parks and Recreation! Agency Membership Fees "Parks and gardens alone cannot solve the problems faced by our cities, but they are crucial to the health of urban communities. We need to take seriously the evidence that open space counts in human lives and that places where we play can be places of hope." — Martin J. Rosen, Trust for Public Lands 2002 MRPA Agency Membership Fees (City, County, Special District, State, Private Agency, and College or University) Population of Jurisdiction Agency Fee Discount for Professional Members Up to 10,000 $250 30% 10,000 - 24,999 $350 30% 25,000 - 49,999 $475 30% 50,000 - 99,999 $600 30% 100,000 and up $695 30% Nonprofit Agency $275 30% College or University $275 30% 0 �Q cA55p�� Membership Application on reverse. Questions? Please call us at 612 - 825 -2200! o� & Recr 0 a 'Yo Best Investment' r� U CI'T'Y OF S HOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaI1@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 2002 RE: Proposal by Minnetonka Community Education Services (N10ES) for Additional Park Services MCES was to have provided a revised schedule of services and fee proposal for and "intensified" scheduling and management service for oversight of the sports organizations. Unfortunately, • nothing has been received from MCES. Staff has been unsuccessful at contacting the individuals involved with the proposal. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that this item be continued to the February 26 2002 Park Commission meeting. • 4®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - / CITY OF SH OREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us lul � • • 1 � TO: Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 2002 RE: Discussion of Park Goals Park Commissioners were e- mailed a request requesting priorities and goals for the year 2002. Of the response received the following items have been included for year 2002. • Complete Park Master Plan process and incorporate as part of the. Comprehensive Plan • Develop a process for park management and scheduling It is proposed that the Park Commission review the above items and list any other goals that are desired by the Commission. ®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2002 SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO COUNCIL The schedule for 2002 is as follows: Commissioner Puzak Commissioner Young Commissioner Meyer Commissioner Callies February Commissioner Arnst March Commissioner Bartlett Commissioner Palesch Liaison To Planning Commission will be appointed on an as- needed basis. Liaison to the LCEC will be appointed on an as- needed basis. 0