Loading...
010802 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. 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 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 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 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 into13 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 Arnst 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, by standers 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 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. 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. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002 Page 7 of 8 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 Arnst 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 11th and 25th, Chair Arnst volunteered for the March 11th 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. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY