Loading...
100802 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY OCTOBER 8, 2002 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst, Commissioners Palesch, Young, Davis, Bartlett, and late arrival Callies; City Engineer Brown; Engineering Technician Bailey; Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group Absent: Commissioner Meyers and City Council Liaison Zerby B. Review Agenda Palesch moved, Bartlett seconded, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of September 17, 2002 Chair Arnst revised Paragraph 11, page 7, to read “... no clear definition by either the Park Commission or Park Foundation as to where the bricks would go.”. At the top of page 10 she added, “...reflecting the removal of the Park Commission seat.”. Finally, Chair Arnst added a comment to p. 10, paragraph 6, reflecting that “The Park Commission discussed the remaining 2002 schedule as follows:”. Palesch moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2002, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 23, 2002 Engineer Brown reported that a preliminary plat for a 12-lot cul-de-sac subdivision was granted on the opposite corner of Lake Linden, near the pond. Chair Arnst asked if the subdivision would back up to the Cub Foods store. Brown indicated that it would. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Callies arrived at 7:06 P.M. B. Update on Lake Linden Trail Project Brown reported that the northeast property owners of Lake Linden Drive and Yellowstone, the Kennedy’s, would like to see the trail project wrap around the bend and the addition of landscaping to deter drivers from cutting the corner. Brown noted that while stakes are being placed, there are a number of issues the City must address before proceeding, including obtaining feedback from residents and solving drainage questions. He pointed out that the trail would need to be in place before Cub Foods would be granted its certificate of occupancy. 5. MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mark Koegler, of Hoisington Koegler Group, presented Step 2 of the Freeman Park Master Plan Review, which he had completed after incorporating the input collected from meetings with the Park Commission and Eddy Station’s Open House. Koegler pointed out that, generally, Freeman Park has become a victim of its own success. While its function would not dramatically change, maintaining a balance of active and passive facilities would continue to be a challenge in the upcoming years. With regard to parking and circulation, Koegler acknowledged that construction of the south parking lot will significantly improve the supply of off-street parking, whereas, the access to various parking areas will continue to be hindered by the lack of a roadway connection through the park. The trails within Freeman Park are heavily used by walkers and bikers. On the east side of the park, however, users are forced to walk along Eureka Road, which also carries a significant volume of traffic. Koegler maintained that a new off-street trail is needed along Eureka Road from the park entry drive to the trail stub that intersects Eureka Road, just north of the senior housing area. As part of the internal review of Freeman Park, the Park Commission identified a list of preferred facilities that reflected a mix of active and passive recreational amenities for the park. Of the items listed, Koegler pointed out that the only new activity on the list was Lacrosse. The secondary list of possible facilities in Freeman Park contained a number of other types of uses, like flower gardens, fountains, and a dog park. Koegler indicated that the next phase of the master plan review process would be to collect additional public input. His presentation concluded with a recommendation to consider transferring the scheduling function from an outside agency to an entity within the City. Since interest in Freeman Park’s facilities would likely grow in future years, the administration, scheduling, management, and maintenance of the park by the City would allow for a greater measure of control to effectuate changes. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Arnst suggested that item #2, the population served, be expanded to include the entire school district. With regard to Parking and Circulation, paragraph 4 on P.2, she felt that the size of ball field 2 was a deficiency in itself because it is so large for the space allotted. She argued that the construction of this field has taken away the City’s ability to provide a roadway connection, and was in fact, the impetus for closing the road PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 3 of 11 in the first place. As far as the Eureka Road trail suggestion was concerned, Chair Arnst pointed out that the new trail along Eureka Road was complete. She also noted that the City has moved forward, and Council has approved a scope of services for park scheduling, to be handled in-house through a contracted service provider. Callies asked what would become of this master plan review process. Brown indicated that, ultimately, the park master plans would become part of the overall Comprehensive Plan. Chair Arnst added that the Park Master Plans would then be subject to the same review process as the entire Comprehensive Plan in 2005. Since the Commission had met with neighbors, announced an additional Open House in the paper, and included surveys in the newsletter, Chair Arnst questioned what more would need to be done to complete step three. Brown stated that the City has received approximately 50 survey responses to date and passed out a preliminary results packet. Chair Arnst reiterated the question whether anything more could be done with regard to obtaining public input. Brown asked if the City should provide the residents who attend the Open House a copy of the Master Plan Review of the parks to take with them. Young commented that, as a resident, it would be more beneficial to have a document ahead of time to review and be prepared to comment on at the open house. Brown indicated that they could direct people to the website to learn more about the Master Plan Reviews for each of the parks. Chair Arnst felt that a bullet point piece could be useful and recommended the open house be kept informal. Although everyone would be in attendance, there would be no formal presentation, and she suggested members remain accessible to residents. Brown agreed that the public responds more favorably to an informal format, however, he suggested the Park Commissioners be unified in their message. Since there are not a significant number of changes being made, the Commission needs to be able to explain the park management philosophy and why the change to scheduling will occur. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that by managing the parks, the City is striving to create a balance, which promotes the inclusion of people, versus exclusion. Callies asked if the open house were for review of all the park plans. Chair Arnst stated that all of the park master plans would be available for review. Koegler warned the Commission not to expect a huge turnout for the open house and suggested they post a PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 4 of 11 board for each park which bullet points features. He recommended comment cards be provided, and if the opportunity arises where 10-12 people are present, the Commission give a mini presentation of their master planning review process of the past 18 months. Chair Arnst asked if the City could mail out targeted invitations to specific neighborhoods inviting immediate park neighbors to attend the open house. Bailey pointed out that the Planning Department uses 500’ as a guideline for notification, which could be used for this park mailing as well. Chair Arnst indicated that the open house was merely two weeks from this evening and questioned whether the invitations could be sent out in a timely fashion if the Commission agreed. Young suggested a statement be added that encourages people who receive invitations to go ahead and invite their neighbors. Brown indicated that staff would prepare and conduct a postcard mailing as an open invitation to people to come to discuss the whole park system. He would provide graphic images for each park with a bullet point list of each ones features, comment cards, and the target mailing. Koegler suggested the City hook guests by inviting them to come in and share their thoughts on their neighborhood park, as well as, others in Shorewood. Chair Arnst indicated that the Commissioners were welcome to come and go from 5:30 - 7P.M. She questioned if the results from the survey and open house comments could be incorporated into a rough first draft for review at the November meeting, so that final approval could be granted at the December meeting. Koegler indicated that he would be unavailable to attend the November 13, 2002 Park Commission meeting, however, he would provide Brown with a draft for the Commission to review. 6. DISCUSS PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ON OCTOBER 22 FOR PARK MASTER PLANS Discussed under item 5. 7. REVIEW FIRST DRAFT OF PRIORITY SCHEDULING POLICY Brown presented the first draft of the priority scheduling policy for Park Commission consideration. In his introduction, Brown explained that after reviewing the sample priority policies supplied to them by the Minnesota Park and Recreation Association, he felt that they did not address some of the important items that the Shorewood Park Commission had discussed. Brown stated that, in his draft, he attempted to go beyond what had been glossed over by the samples and dove into the heart of the issues that Shorewood faced. Brown asked for comments on page one, explaining that the definition section, though not complete, was laid out to help people understand the terms used throughout the piece. He pointed out that the intent of the preseason coordination meetings in both February and August would be to determine field usage and identify what groups are currently out there that want field time. He reminded the Commission of their desire for representation by all groups at these meetings if field time is to be allotted. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 5 of 11 Chair Arnst questioned what the ramifications would be if a group did not have a representative present at the coordination meeting. Although a tough policy, Brown stated that if they don’t pay, they don’t play . The Park Commission would like the organizations feedback and provide them with pertinent information at the meeting as well. The organization presence is mandatory. Chair Arnst suggested adding that their attendance is mandatory at the preseason coordination meeting if they want to be considered for field time. Palesch inquired whether the designated representative was required to be present, or if another person from the group could represent them. While Brown stated that he would prefer to have the designated representative, he understood that this might not be possible and would accept a different individual attending the meeting on behalf of the organization. The entire opening paragraph was removed based on discussion to make it less restrictive. If it is the intention of the Commission to exclude any organization without representation at the meeting, Young felt that stronger language should be used which states it is mandatory there be a representative present. With regard to page 2, the categorization of facilities section 2, Brown indicated that most of the non athletic facilities would be available on a first come first served basis, with preference for residents and a potential fee for non residents. Callies questioned how parking lots could be reserved. Brown indicated that, at times, the parking lots are requested as an area to base shuttle service for weddings etc. Since this is something the City would encourage, they would not charge a fee for the space and merely require notification. Page 3, the prioritization for category 1 facilities, Brown indicated that staff considered both organized and non-organized activities. Young questioned how schools might be considered a priority 3 rating for curriculum practices. For example, Brown cited Minnewashta schools, who on occasion, use the skating rink or picnic facilities. Young wondered how the schools warranted a priority when they already have fields of their own. Brown stated that most school activities would occur during school hours and suggested that the games and tournaments portion be removed from the priority list. Callies suggested that either the non-organized and organized activities be defined in the definitions section or different terminology be used. Brown noted that organized activities often refer to sports organizations and non-organized activities to the other events that occur, like family reunions, biology class field trips, fundraisers, etc. Young felt that, in general, these scenarios only warranted a low priority at best in comparison the organized PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 6 of 11 activities, and should perhaps be removed altogether. Chair Arnst agreed, stating that it made sense to strike the non-organized activities from the priority 2 classification. Bailey questioned if allowing more time for the resident or non-organized activities, takes some of the pressure off of Freeman Park. Chair Arnst stated that, by allowing for more field resting time, you might have already inadvertently addressed the passive users need. Davis suggested that the terms passive user or spontaneous user be added to the definitions section. Bailey reminded the Commission that these policies cover all of the parks, not just Freeman. Callies asked what would be done with the priorities staff created. Brown indicated that the priorities would come into play when the park coordinator’s maximum facility use equation is considered. Again, Brown reiterated the philosophy that everyone, who desires field time, goes away equally unhappy. Brown presented the equation with an example: Assuming there are 3 adult softball fields which support two time slots or games nightly (5-7p.m., 7-9p.m.) 3 fields X 2 slots per field X 7 nights = 42 total time slots per week subtract the rest periods (2 per field per week) i.e. 42 - 6 rest periods = subtract a family day of 6 ts = 30 Time slots (ts) left for scheduled activities Brown asked if the Commission were comfortable with this equation that the park coordinator would use to schedule fields. Callies asked if the Commission felt they had established the need for a full day for family time. Young stated that he would support blending the family day with the resting days. Palesch reminded the Commission that the passive users could use alternate parks for family time. Brown explained that field resting is not the same as maintenance, which occurs daily. Young suggested that the Commission wait until the open house to decide if the feedback warrants a community day, in which case this proposal would be acceptable. Bartlett felt that allotting a full day to spontaneous use or family day was excessive, and believed that half a day would suffice. He reminded the Commission that their are other parks for people to use for family outings, versus Freeman Park which is a highly active facility. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 7 of 11 Assuming the time is relabeled spontaneous use time, and cut in half, Brown indicated that the organized activities gain three more time slots, for a total of 33 ts. The intent of the equation from this point would be to divide the total number of players (or teams) by the total number of players overall. Example: 24 kids per team 200 total # of players X 33 TS = 11.33 TS per week thus, the maximum number of time slots a team can request is 11. If they only require 9 TS, there are 2 left over for someone else to use based on the Park Coordinator’s evaluation of the priorities. The Coordinator would be given the flexibility to balance the equation. There was discussion over the proposed K Factor, which the Commission considered too subjective for inclusion in the equation. Palesch pointed out that some of the samples had assigned priorities based on a team consisting of more resident versus non-resident players, and she asked if this were acceptable to Shorewood. Chair Arnst felt that the City Council and the Park Commission did not support either the K factor or weighting the team based solely on the number of Shorewood residents. Callies asked what would happen if more teams requested time than was available. Brown indicated that the Coordinator would resort to using the priority list to balance usage. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that the Priority Policy would be a living document, which could be changed based on data collected by the Coordinator. After reviewing the data, evaluating the problems and successes, the policy could evolve to reflect the changing needs of the community. Brown reiterated that the first year would be the most difficult and offer extensive changes that the traditional sports organizations would need to get used to. Chair Arnst asked what would happen to the equation if the games could begin at 3 p.m., thus allowing an additional time slot. Young suggested the Commission wait and see what happens in that event, since this is, as Chair Arnst indicated earlier, an evolving document. Brown stated that he would make a call to the Chanhassen City Hall to inquire what time slots they use and what sort of equation they base their scheduling upon. Davis pointed out that if an organization had a greater number of players per team versus another group, based on this equation, they could wind up with less field time. She cautioned Brown that membership may weight the equation and encouraged him to consider total number of teams versus players per team. Brown agreed that this was a good point, and reiterated that the intent was to provide larger organizations more access to time, therefore he stated that the numbers of teams clearly makes the most sense. Young stated that the Commission needs to be in consensus on the priority policy facts before they meet with the sports organizations for their feedback. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 8 of 11 Brown asked the Commission if what he had presented, after incorporating the changes made this evening, truly reflected what the Commission felt they should be addressing. The Commission agreed that the draft policy captured the issues of past discussions and Chair Arnst complimented Brown on his hard work and dedication to creating an accurate portrayal of the issues. 8. SET DATE FOR SMITHTOWN ROAD TRAIL OPEN HOUSE Brown reported that he was directed by the City Council to approach the Park Commission on scheduling an open house. The proposed, up to 8’ wide, trail would run along the north side of the road on the western portion of Smithtown Road. After a lengthy six-year process, Chair Arnst was concerned that neither the City Council, nor the City Administrator, fully understood what the Park Commission trail planning process was. She stated that two things had happened to cause her to feel this way, first, over the past 18 months the City Council has been running the process in various directions, which was never the Park Commission’s intention. Including new discussions regarding the Lake Linden Trail planning process, which the City Council communicated on via e- mail last week, and only included the Park Commission in the discussions after being urged to do so by one of the Council members. Second, Chair Arnst was concerned about taking the Open House upon the Park Commission at this point. She explained that the whole park planning process was designed to build trust with the residents and she hoped that, by taking the project back at this time, the Park Commission would not be left with a big mess to clean up. Chair Arnst reiterated that the process is a Park Commission driven process that only she and Council Member Garfunkel are truly familiar with from its roots. Chair Arnst hoped that she would not see any more Council members, including tonight’s liaison, putting this in the political arena, holding meetings with engineers, the PTO etc. which detract from what we are expected to do. The Park Commission is a non-political organization who strives to keep the trust of the citizens throughout the process by delivering a consistent message. Albeit somewhat slower, Chair Arnst felt the process to be very effective and successful. Young asked what had been accomplished over the past six years. Chair Arnst noted that the previous City Council had received a petition from the neighbors to run a trail down Smithtown Road. The Park Commission, at that time, developed the trail planning process, which took about 18 months to create, and was adopted by the City Council in October 1998. Young asked how much of the process was followed on Smithtown Road before the slowdown. Chair Arnst reported that they had performed a neighborhood walk attended by 20 some people, did a survey of the residents, held an open house (which was well attended), and had a preliminary feasibility plan put together by WSB. At that time, the cost was too great, and the feasibility report showed that both ROW and drainage issues existed. The Park Commission went to the City Council in May 2000, who suggested the project wait until MSA dollars would be available with the redevelopment of the road. The Park Commission left it in the City Council’s lap and asked them to comment on which side of the road the trail should go. She heard nothing further until as of late. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 9 of 11 Brown indicated that the City Council held an open house presenting two plans to obtain feedback. Callies asked if Chair Arnst’s objection was that the City Council held the open house versus the Park Commission. She then asked what the purpose of holding a second open house would accomplish and whether there was a different plan to be presented than those at the City Council open house. Brown pointed out that since the original meeting with the City Council, petitions were received that indicated the residents were interested in a trail on the west end of Smithtown Road, the neighbors were then approached for ROW. The neighbors questioned how much ROW would be required, which urged the City Council to further investigate the possibilities and two designs were made to obtain feedback upon at the open house. Now the City Council would like the Park Commission to hold the final open house to present the proposal, which incorporates the various findings. By trying to fit this back into the trail planning process, the City can tell people how much of their land would be impacted and determine who would be willing to grant the ROW’s. Young questioned what response the City would be eliciting now that hasn’t been provided at an earlier open house. He asked whether actual door knocking had occurred or if the open house would provide new information based on a second viewing of a suggested plan. Since there had always been concern by Smithtown neighbors on the east end of Smithtown Road that a trail would be in their future, Chair Arnst maintained that efforts would need to be made to assure residents that the proposed trail would only include the western half of the road. Brown encouraged the Commission to invite both east and west residents of Smithtown Road to the open house and suggested putting out a flyer describing the plan to all the residents with a bit of history that has gotten them to this point. He felt that the issue could be politically charged and that it would be better to educate people ahead of time. Callies maintained that, in her opinion, it sounded as if a process had been followed, after six years and four open houses the City had done much to gain public input. Chair Arnst asked Brown what he would suggest the Commission do. Brown indicated that the Commission should reassure the east end residents that the west end trail is all that is being proposed. While the City Council has directed that up to an 8’ trail be constructed on the north side preferably, staff needs to contact those residents to ask them if they would be willing to give an 8’ ROW. Brown felt it would be awkward to speak to residents before the open house, and believed that based on feedback received that night, the City would know whether 3-5 people need to be persuaded to grant a ROW or 33 people, which would have a bearing on what the City Council does next. Callies agreed that an open house should be held but questioned whether the Park Commission was the right agency at this point to conduct the open house. Chair Arnst pointed out that trails are the City’s linear parks, and it is only natural that the Park Commission should be leading the charge with its trail planning process. While she had reviewed the trail planning process, Callies maintained that most of the Commissioner’s were unfamiliar with this trail. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 10 of 11 Chair Arnst suggested that comment cards be provided at the open house, that Brown, Nielsen, and Bailey are on hand to field questions, and the Commissioners are present as hosts for the event primarily. Brown questioned whether the Park Commission was comfortable with the technical plan that was being proposed. Chair Arnst indicated that she was not comfortable with it. If she were one of the neighbors who was told they need to grant an 8’ ROW which removed her trees and gardens she would be up in arms. Brown pointed out that this is what distinguishes the Vine Hill/Covington Road trail project from the Smithtown Road trail project. The residents of Vine Hill Road wanted the City to put a trail in and gave their ROW’s gladly. Davis indicated that she had never seen the trail plan for Smithtown Road. Brown apologized, and encouraged the Commission to table setting a date for the open house until all of the Park Commissioners could be brought up to speed by reviewing the trail plans for themselves. Brown stated that the Commissioners must buy into the plan and be comfortable with it before they can sell it to the public and explain why they are constructing the trail a certain way. Young noted that he would need to get a sense from those at the open house that they even had interest in a trail at all before he could sell them on it. In the interest of time, Brown suggested the Commission table this item until the next meeting. In the meantime, Brown promised to put together a packet of the petitions, the grassroots effort that was made, the trail plans, and give them to the Commissioners to review. Chair Arnst suggested he include the ROW map and petitions. She indicated that the City Council could, obviously, follow any process they chose, however , she felt the time and effort devoted to developing an effective trail planning process should be allowed to work. Bartlett asked if staff had any running tally of who was in support of or opposed to a trail. Chair Arnst pointed out that Paula Berndt neighbor and past Park Commissioner who had carried the petition, could give the City an accurate estimate of where everyone on the north side stood with regard to the trail. Young questioned how many homes would be effected. Brown stated that 40 homes on one side would be effected. Chair Arnst recommended tabling the discussion until the November meeting. Brown stated that the open house would likely be held after January 1, 2003, however he did not want to delay it much further. 10. NEW BUSINESS Palesch pointed out that the City of Chanhassen had been running an advertisement for a new Park and Recreation Director. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 8, 2002 Page 11 of 11 Brown acknowledged the survey results packet he passed around earlier and encouraged the Commissioners to examine it. Since Cub Foods is being hit with a pretty stiff fire flow requirement, Brown stated that, as of October 8, 2002 at 10A.M., staff decided to request that the City Council approve their conducting a feasibility study to extend City water from Minnetonka Drive all the way to Cub at their next City Council meeting. While the residents would not be required to hook up to City water, it they chose to do so they would merely be required to pay the $10,000 hook up fee. Chair Arnst asked who would pay for the water main through the area. Brown indicated that the developers, of Cub Foods and the new Linden Hills subdivision, would pay for the water main connection. He stated that this would provide an incredible opportunity for folks along that route to have City water. Brown stated that the intent of the feasibility study is to give the City Council the tools to address the cost questions and participation questions. At this time, Cub Foods needs to seek a plan amendment from the City to meet the new water flow requirements. 11. ADJOURNMENT Palesch moved, Callies seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of October 8, 2002, at 10:05 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi Anderson Recording Secretary