Loading...
020999 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Pat Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs, Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners Colopoulos, Puzak, Themig, and Cochran; City Administrator Jim Hurm; Council Liaison Scott Zerby; Park Planner, Mark Koegler Absent: Commissioner Bensman Also Present: Gordy Lindstrom, Baseball Representative; Public Works Director, Larry Brown (later arrival) B. Review Agenda Item #5 is moved to the March meeting agenda. Themig moved, Puzak seconded to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion passed unanimously (6/0). 2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 13, 1999 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Puzak moved , Colopoulos seconded, to accept the minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Gordy Lindstrom, Shorewood resident and Little League Baseball representative, addressed the Commission to: (1) review improvements and changes that have been made to the ball field areas; and (2) give an update on changes in the baseball program for 1999. He displayed a map of the ball fields at Freeman Park and explained the changes to field #3 over the past year. Those included: adjustment of the parking lot to the north, addition of bullpen areas, electronic scoreboard and a flagpole. He stated that these adjustments perhaps eliminate the need to install additional fencing for safety reasons. Mr. Lindstrom added that the League has also installed electrical service to the pitchers’ mounds on Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 2 field #1 and at Cathcart Park for the operation of pitching machines. All of these changes are to allow for a more efficient program, which has served children of ages 6 to 15. This year, the South Tonka Little League has merged with East Tonka Babe Ruth (housed at Bennett Park in Minnetonka). Therefore, the League would like permission to eventually make changes to field #2 at Freeman to accommodate older players. This would require the use of some additional land to the east of the ball field (the Wagner property) for reconfiguration of the ball field and traffic areas. The League has been given some estimates of the cost of such improvements, which they will cover if the City is able to acquire the additional property. In the meantime, the League would like permission to sod the infield of the Babe Ruth diamond this spring. Chair Arnst asked how much additional land would be needed. Lindstrom said a minimum of 20 to 30 feet. Colopoulos asked if the boards of the two associations have also merged and if the new board is in favor of the reconfiguration. Lindstrom said they have merged and that the reconfiguration should not be a problem. The other advantage in rearranging the ball field is that the noise would project away from the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood which is to the west of the park. Dallman asked if the poles and nets will still need to be installed as was planned for a protection from foulballs going into private property. Puzak recommended that this be addressed soon for the sake of neighbors, regardless of plans for future changes which could be slow in coming. Colopoulos pointed out that there will likely be more practices and games than in the past. He would personally approve the use of the current field configuration for only the prep league (13 year olds) because of the current space situation. Council Liaison Scott Zerby interjected that the City Council voted the night before to settle the lawsuit with the prospective developer of the Wagner property and approved the initial application of the PUD for 60 to 62 units. The proposed plan was shown on the overhead projector for the Park Commission. There was discussion about how this proposal would affect the options for reconfiguration of the ball fields and the affects on traffic flow and safety. Administrator Hurm pointed out that the plan is only a concept. Colopoulos said that the reduction in the number of units from the last proposal was not in the area of the concern, but to the north, which is a wetland area, adding that the needs of the park are ignored in this plan. Puzak reiterated the concern for safety, especially to and from the concession stand near that area, and stated that the additional 30 to 50 feet would definitely be needed. Lindstrom indicated that this is all the more reason to reconfigure the field. Colopoulos said that the problem would still exist without the acquisition of additional space for traffic. Arnst suggested waiting until the Council further discusses the proposal from the developer and then provide an updated report for Mr. Lindstrom at the March meeting. Lindstrom asked if the League could sod the infield this spring. Themig asked if it would require irrigation. Lindstrom said no, that it would just need to be heavily watered at the beginning. Hurm said that the question of a backstop and poles and netting still remains. Arnst said that those issues can also be discussed at the March meeting and still allow time for installation. It was agreed that in any case, additional land would be a positive point for safety, room to play the game and a wider road to handle increased traffic. Themig suggested that the reality might be that we have a park which may not Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 3 be able to support this program. Puzak said that in light of the long term relationship with the Little League and all they have done to enhance the park, he would hate to not come through with 30 feet to allow them to continue safe play. Lindstrom briefly explained some of the history of the park development and concluded that it is reasonable for the City to request additional land in order to be a good neighbor to residents all around. 4. TRAIL REVIEW - MARK KOEGLER A. Review Format for February 23 Meeting The meeting will be an open house format with displays and exhibits. Commissioners, staff, Council members and Park Planner Koegler will be on hand to visit with residents and answer questions. B. Review Handouts/Exhibits for February 23 Meeting Park Planner Koegler described the planned set-up for the Open House including a series of stations with maps, a timeline from 1991 and into the future, a larger text display of goals, policies and objectives, and an exhibit of trail types. There will also be an area for comment sheets with a goal that people will hopefully be comfortable with expressing their thoughts. Arnst asked about information regarding funding sources. Koegler explained that they do not plan to go into great detail until more is known about the process. He added that cost estimates would also be difficult to project at this point because of all the variables such as right of way issues, obstacles, etc. Themig asked how to address questions that may come up regarding interest in some bridging over Highway 7. Puzak suggested the possibility of requesting State funds along with that idea, which is still very much in the future. Colopoulos added that priority will be assigned in all options, depending on public interest. Cochran brought up the idea of having a suggestion board at the open house for getting that kind of input from residents. C. Review Roll of Park Commission Koegler reviewed the plan that Commissioners will take a front and center role and had taken assigned times during the evening so that at least one Park Commissioner would be present at all times. Staff and consulting staff will be there as a support to the Commissioners. Colopoulos recommended that everyone keep notes of verbal conversations and comments. Hurm said that he will be at the sign-in area to encourage people to register their presence and to introduce them to the format. Colopoulos suggested a goal of communication with soft input collection, with Koegler adding that the atmosphere is to be friendly and casual. Cochran asked if survey results will be posted. Koegler said that copies will be available. D. Consider Targeted Mailings Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 4 Arnst stated that the City Council has urged the Park Commission to consider mailings to encourage attendance at the open house meeting. Hurm said that a mailing is planned for those properties along the priority trail sites and asked if the Commission would like to expand the mailing list. The Commission approved the draft mailer for the immediate property owners and discussed whether to go beyond that list. Puzak said that the trail process (and trails) are for the entire community and all should be personally invited. This will result in getting a more balanced response, and not just hearing from those more directly impacted. Cochran commented that it will be good to have responses of impassioned people, even if it is a more negative tone. Themig asked about mailing a postcard to all residents in addition to the “targeted” mailer. Colopoulos said that the February newsletter insert which was sent to all residents will trigger attendance, and yet a postcard reminder would be good for those who may have forgotten or didn’t read the newsletter. Administrator Hurm said that most comments have so far been positive. There was one Edgewood Road resident in the office today who was strongly opposed to a trail along her street. Cochran noted that people may trust the process more and go away with a positive attitude if all are included via invitation. Puzak added that if attendance is lower with primarily negative responses, it could unfairly drive the decision. Dallman said he liked the idea of staying with the list of most affected residents rather than the whole community. Zerby also agreed with the targeted mailer, pointing out that some of those residents may be supporters of the trail. Those residents should be specifically invited as they may become “partners/caretakers” of the trail. Their feed back may also help in prioritizing in order to establish some success stories for trails in Shorewood. Hurm noted that there will be a public announcement published in the local papers as well. Puzak said that he is still uncomfortable with just the targeted mailer. All will benefit by trails and all should be invited. He is concerned about repeating history where a strong minority derailed the interests of the community. Puzak moved to send a letter to each household in Shorewood that would announce the trails open house. Wording for those on the trail would say “your street” (as written on the draft invitation) and all others would say “your neighborhood.” The motion was amended to say that all residents will be sent a postcard and the 210 “targeted” mailers will be letters. Cochran seconded the motion as amended and it passed 6/0. Koegler noted that, in error, the map which was part of the newsletter insert was missing a segment of indicated trail along Smithtown Road, east of Minnewashta School. His concern is that it may give the perception of inconsistency. He asked if it should now be included on the new map for the open house display. All agreed that it should be added because it was approved in earlier discussions as a priority trail segment. Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 5 E. Consider a Time Line for 1999 Trail Planning Process Administrator Hurm reviewed the timeline draft including sunset times for March, April and May. Arnst added that the mission is to keep this schedule until prospective trails are identified. There was discussion about scheduling trail walks for Saturday mornings in addition to or instead of the proposed Tuesday evening schedule. That question will be added to the open house feedback form to get citizen input. F. Update on Funds Allocated for Park Planner Arnst asked if there were any questions or problems with the information provided in the January 19 memo from Administrator Hurm regarding trail planning costs. There were none. Hurm added that the cost of the additional mailer will be also drawn from the trail fund. All agreed. G. Other Issues Commissioner Themig mentioned a mailer he received about trail development in Chanhassen, which supports possible trail links with Shorewood segments. He also shared information about the trail grant programs, which he said favor state and regional connections. There are lots of dollars available from other programs which would be appropriate for application next year. Arnst stated that Mayor Love has asked that the open house be posted as a public notice in case a majority of City Council members attend. This will be taken care of by staff. 5. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING This item is tabled until the March 9 meeting. 6. REVIEW ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICIES (DRAFT) AND FEE FORMULAS A. Finalize Policies Commissioner Themig gave an update on the work that has been done to date. Public Works Director, Larry Brown has provided a detailed analysis of costs to operate the parks on a yearly basis. Brown explained that “Base Costs” would cover basic maintenance of the park land owned by the City. These are defined as the cost of having green space for people to enjoy which includes mowing, weed control, trash pickup, aeration, park equipment and general turf care. The “Above Base Costs” include dragging/grooming ball fields, equipment specific to ball fields, materials, fencing and fence repairs. Brown noted that some could be argued as “gray areas.” Puzak said that it should be footnoted that park development is not factored into these figures. Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 6 B. Decide on Funding Formula Themig said that the Committee then looked at costs for space provided to each sports association. The purpose is to come up with a concept on how to determine a fee to propose to the associations as a formula for their user fees. Brown went on to explain Table 3, a summary of hockey costs. Biff rental is included, but could also be considered a base cost. Hurm pointed out that much of the figures reflect “ice costs”, since the hockey association may have it only reserved for a small amount of available ice time. Mr. Lindstrom added his observation that the average amount of actual use is only about half of the scheduled time due to weather, ice conditions, etc. Brown commented that it would be interesting to survey surrounding communities on how they address reserved park space. Arnst noted that the Shorewood tax base does not have commercial resources. Plus funds for parks are limited and decreasing so we look at Shorewood differently. Hurm added that the Minnetonka Community and Education Services which does scheduling for park facility use have not been able to come up with a formula. Themig said that one idea they have discussed is an hourly fee for exclusive-use ice time that would involve a formula which prorates ice costs. Hurm noted that in looking at the three associations that are the greater users of park space, the costs are very different from one to the next. Yet the yearly “fee” has been the same for all. The estimated above base costs are: Softball $12,648 Baseball (Little League) $8,217 Soccer $4,775 Football $1,555 Themig asked Mr. Lindstrom if he was surprised at the figure of $8,217 for Little League costs. Lindstrom said that it is understandable, but will take some time to digest. Colopoulos stated that the process of studying this information is a healthy exercise which now requires a look at the fiscal policy before establishing formulas and user fees. Themig replied that this has been the process. Puzak said that there is also a need to incorporate into this information, contributions in “cost and kind,” citing the example of Little League which has done and given so much. Themig said that this data is strictly looking at maintenance, not improvements. What Little League has done was done to benefit Little League. Lindstrom said that the Little League does not have a problem with paying for exclusive use. Themig explained that determining the hours available in a season vs. hours of actual use could give a formula for a percentage of the cost. Hurm said that perhaps an hourly formula should include base costs. Brown commented that he stayed away from including base costs because that is just for providing basic green space. Themig added that the City would cover some percentage of these costs as part of their fiscal policy. Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 7 Colopoulos brought up the question of real estate values and how other communities compare in amenities they provide to residents. He asked how Shorewood’s fiscal policy would fit into the wider picture. Arnst noted that the fiscal policy should be included in the discussion of park user fees and costs. Colopoulos added that a partnership attitude is needed between the sports associations and the City and if special adjustments in fees are needed, it should be shown. Puzak complimented Mr. Brown on a good job of collecting and preparing the data on park costs. He agreed that a fiscal policy of some kind needs to be developed. He reminded everyone that the sports organizations are our partners, working with our community’s children and therefore providing benefit to the greater community. He urged that we work together to solve the problem. Themig asked if Community Education and Services can provide information on the number of hours of field time requested by the various groups. Hurm said that they can, with some time to gather that information. Arnst recommended that the committee take the next step to develop a fiscal policy, get information on hours of use and then put together a formula of ideas to look at in the next meeting. This was agreed upon. C. Set Date / Format for Session with Sports Organizations Themig asked if sports association representatives should be invited for the next meeting’s discussion. It was agreed that ideas need more work and solidifying before they are presented. Themig asked if the City Council should be more involved with this part of the process. Puzak responded that the Park Commission needs to develop a concept before presenting a plan to the Council because that is the responsibility assigned to the Commission. Mr. Lindstrom interjected a comment about the softball association and some of its changes in order to explain why they may have declined to contribute to the park fund for this past year. He added that Todd Strott, past President of the softball association had donated many hours to operate the concession stand at Freeman Park. Colopoulos suggested that the softball area could possibly be shared with women’s softball or other groups if the men’s softball is lower in numbers this year. It was mentioned, that because of the timing of a policy decision, any changes made to the policy will not be effective for this year. 7. REVIEW 1999 “TO DO” LIST This item is tabled until the March meeting agenda. 8. REVIEW PARK DEDICATION FEE Hurm explained that the Park Dedication Fee is the major resource for Capital Improvements. The current fee is set at $1,000 per buildable lot. Puzak recommended a fee schedule based on linear or square footage. Colopoulos asked how the fee would apply in the case of a multiple Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 8 unit development (such as Eagle Crest). Hurm said that the situation of senior housing and donated land create a different scenario. Themig asked for the reason that an increase is being considered. Hurm explained that Shorewood has a significantly lower fee than most of its neighbors and Arnst added that park funds (and buildable lots) are on the decline. Hurm said that there are about 300 buildable lots remaining in Shorewood averaging about 10 home constructions per year. He added that the revenue dollars from park dedication fees are earmarked for improvements of parks (not maintenance or trail development). Colopoulos commented that the cost is ultimately passed on to the homeowner, not the developer or builder. Yet, over the life of a mortgage, it does not increase payments significantly. Hurm suggested that there be a flat fee rather than a formula to determine the amount. Colopoulos said that P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) decisions should be brought to the Park Commission because it impacts park planning and decisions. Hurm replied that it has been the practice in the past to involve the Park Commission. Themig moved to recommend to City Council that the Park Commission amend the Park Dedication Fee to remain at $1,000 per unit and add $500 per unit for trails. There was no second and the motion died. Puzak said that he is not ready for the idea of including trails in that policy. Themig explained that the parks are primarily developed and this idea would focus additional resources on our current development (trails). Puzak replied that there are still a lot of development and improvement expenses ahead for parks and he is not willing to say that we don’t need the money for park development. Colopoulos said that he is not yet ready to specify funds to trails. Themig pointed out that the recent community survey says that (1) parks meet the needs of most peoples and (2) that there is a desire for trails. Dallman moved to recommend to the city Council that the Park Commission raise the Park Dedication Fee to $1,500. Colopoulos seconded. Cochran questioned if $1,500 is enough of an increase. Dallman said that it is increased on a yearly basis. Colopoulos suggested considering a friendly amendment that the Park Commission make this part of their fiscal policy. Puzak said that this may be a missed opportunity. In looking at other cities, some use a percentage of the market value to set a fee which results in a significantly higher amount. By comparison, Shorewood is on the low end of the scale. He recommended going with 7% of the market value with a minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $3,000. Arnst pointed out that with an average lot price of $100,000, the fee will almost always max out at the $3,000 limit. Themig asked why “penalize” those who build houses this year and still why not include trails? Puzak said trails could be included and Colopoulos said that there is not a limit to where it is spent in the current plan. Arnst asked where does the money get spent if the fee is raised to Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 9 $1,500? Hurm said that is up to the Park Commission to decide. A vote was taken on the motion currently on the floor. The motion failed 3/3. Puzak asked if there was a time limit on when this decision is made. Hurm replied that the earlier in the calendar year, the better. Arnst said that with the added element of trails, the Commission will want to recognize that option. Themig added that it would be good to consider this in the fiscal policy discussion. Puzak said that including trails is a huge change and it needs more thought than there is time at this meeting. Themig asked if Excelsior has a Park Dedication Fee and Hurm said that there are no undeveloped lots to speak of in Excelsior. Themig asked when Shorewood last changed the fee amount. It was changed from $750 to $1,000 two years ago. 9. REPORT ON LETTER TO COUNCIL REGARDING WAGNER PROPERTY Council Liaison Zerby reported that the City Council approved a motion to settle the lawsuit with Eagle Crest Inc. because the Council felt that the judges settlement would likely be less favorable than coming to terms between themselves. They also approved a Resolution to accept the PUD at a lower density and continue the process. There are still a lot of details to work out. One issue is traffic, which is a concern, especially of residents along Seamans Drive. The City cannot deny the project for traffic reasons, but can work with the developer to resolve traffic issues. Arnst pointed out that the Park Commission had already expressed to the Planning Commission and City Council that they were in consensus about the need to acquire a portion of Wagner property to resolve safety and traffic issues within Freeman Park. Zerby replied that the City Council had considered the request and decided that it was not appropriate to discuss that matter with the developer at this time. Colopoulos added that the Park Commission does have a legitimate concern to maintain the integrity of the park boundary and hopes that the Council recognizes that. Themig asked if the development involves other properties. Zerby said that Eagle Crest has purchase agreements with three landowners. 10. OTHER BUSINESS Public Works Director Brown reported that some windows have again been knocked out at the Badger warming house. This year has seen an inordinate amount of damage to the park shelters.Because we are nearing the end of the ice season, the Badger and Cathcart rinks will likely be closed before the pond skating areas, partially due to the vandalism problem. Brown said he hopes that this decision is not against the desire of the Park Commission and that the action will make a statement to the community. The City is taking steps internally in regard to security. One is to increase patrol time of the rink supervisor next season. Another may be to install a smaller window at Badger, which unfortunately reduces natural lighting and the visibility for rink attendants to keep an eye on the rink. Themig suggested steel shutters on the exteriors of the buildings. Arnst suggested an article in the City Park Commission Meeting February 9, 1999 Page 10 newsletter about the problem. Colopoulos said that he is opposed to giving the impression that we are letting vandals “win” by reducing access to parks for all other park users. Themig suggested offering a $100 reward for information leading to the conviction of a vandal. Puzak said that if it is too late for this season, perhaps there should be a policy established for next season. Zerby asked if there is signage which states penalties for vandalism. Brown said not yet. Arnst also noted that there is still a significant problem with pet owners not cleaning up after their pets and asked if the next newsletter could include a reminder about mutt mitts. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. The March agenda will include discussion on the trail open house, and the athletic association policy along with more information from Community Services about the amount of hours reserved for park facilities. Brown will also report on the status of the multi-use building plan. 12. ADJOURNMENT Cochran moved, Colopoulos seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary