Loading...
030904 PK WS2 MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Arnst convened the Work Session immediately after the regular Park Commission meeting. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Davis, Meyer, Young, and Farniok; City Engineer Brown; City Council liaison Liz é e; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Callies B. Review Agenda 2. QUESTIONS / REVIEW OF MASTER PLAN Brown indicated that the task before the Commission is to determine how the City can manage its parks. This is the next step, looking at the master plan to determine how use and development should be guided. The Commission has been charged with holding public hearings, evaluating request that come before them, and saying does this fit within the guidelines of our comprehensive plan or doesn’t it. By putting forth a comprehensive planning document and policies and guidelines which govern it, the Commission can make an objective decision. Once this tool has been recommended by the Commission, and receives City Council approval, this tool will act as a planning diagram for the Council when evaluating requests that come in. Brown acknowledged that this process will take a considerable amount of time in order to determine strong policy statements to accompany the guidelines. Brown stated that the first steps include taking an inventory of what the City has, and what each park offers. With regard to the Badger Park Map, Brown reviewed the inventory list and suggested that the Commission consider setting up a zoning map of sorts for park use, similar to Planning Maps. By identifying areas within parks that are active or passive, the park activity maps will help to differentiate classifications. 3. DISCUSS PARK USE / ACTIVITY MAP A. Define a Balance and What We Want to Achieve Young stated that, within Badger Park, the Commission has not fulfilled any of the recommendations they made to themselves when reviewing the master plan. Bailey explained that the activity maps provide a snapshot of where the parks are at. Brown stated that the proposed ‘goals’ for the parks will be different than the ‘zoning maps’ for the parks that they will be developing through this process. Brown admitted that, while the Commission needs to strive to achieve the goals set forth in the master plan, this process will help to direct requests and development of the parks as they work towards those goals. For example, given the park master plan and the activity map, the Commission will know how the park is PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 5 governed and to be zoned. He suggested three or four colors be used to define high intensity use, medium intensity use, low intensity use, or passive on each given park activity map. Chair Arnst compared the high mega intensity use of the little league fields to the appearance of lesser use activity at the other end of Freeman. Farniok asked how open space or green space fit into the equation. Brown gave the example of a sports organization request for additional ball fields in place of a picnic open space. By building open space into the activity map, the Commission can refer to this as a method or tool which justifies the park activity or lack of activity for a given park. Chair Arnst pointed out that, based on the most recent surveys, open space is one of the most desirable aspects of Shorewood resident’s parks’. On the other hand, the ones who will come before the Commission to make requests will be the sports organizations. Brown suggested the Commission consider what is worth preserving in each of the parks, as well as, what the basis is for this assumption. By defining what is most important in a park, for example open space, the Commission has identified a district which guidelines and regulations for that district can follow. While the framework has been set up for these districts, such as neighborhood parks, community parks, community playfields, regional parks, etc. Bailey suggested activity districts be identified by color which could then follow the types of parks. Brown stated that neighborhood parks would consist of Cathcart, Manor, Silverwood, and Badger and serve nearby neighborhoods. Community Playfields consist of Freeman facilities and Minnetonka school district fields. Freeman would also overlap as a community park. Young questioned how open space could be defined. Brown asked what the Commission felt the definition should be for open space. Chair Arnst suggested they refer to the definition supplied by the LCEC for open space. Brown indicated that it would be a passive space, a green open space that could be further defined by the Commission to fit its needs. Brown believed that what constitutes park open space can be reduced through this process. Chair Arnst stated that she envisioned open green space free for use and play without structures, but may be mowed. She indicated that the Freeman woods would not be considered open space. Young agreed the Commission must agree upon a definition for their purposes of both open space and passive use before they proceed. Brown concurred with Arnst that the ‘cozy woods’ is space that is not high use and still may be a passive use area, but is definitely not open space. He asked others to share their definition for open space. Young stated that, in his opinion, the definition of open space would be the absence of a formally defined play activity or structure. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 5 Farniok stated that the open wooded area may be a worthy preservation area which would be ‘unavailable’ for development. Davis stated that she would identify four areas as undeveloped land, undevelopable land (treed area worth preserving), unstructured park space (open grassy space), and natural space (wetlands/gardens). Young agreed that these would all fit within the sub heading of open space. In this working definition, Chair Arnst stated that the term open space would act as an umbrella for those four sub headings presented by Davis. Brown stated that he did not know of any other community who has gone so far as to setting up park zoning maps and activity maps which is cutting edge and driven by the demand for intense use. He asked for other comments regarding open space. Chair Arnst indicated that it would be her desire to preserve what open space the City has. B. How to Accommodate Sport Organizations and Other Activities Brown noted that now is the chance for the Commission set up the comprehensive guidelines of what they wish to see preserved within the park system as the Commission is approached with requests from organizations. While the assumption is that the Commission wishes to preserve what we have, Farniok noted that this might not dictate what development may occur. Brown stated that it would not be unreasonable to say the Commission does not wish to add any more high intense use areas than what currently exists if the Commission is in agreement. Chair Arnst pointed out that, as demand increases, the existing park land dedicated to high intensity use can be reconfigured to accommodate that use to maintain a balance situation. The example of LaCrosse was discussed for shared field use. Brown stated that as he reviewed Badger and Cathecart parks they both fall within the definition of two park classifications, i.e. neighborhood parks. While he had hoped the Commission could eventually arrive at a percentage for each park classification, Brown acknowledged that there may be overlaps in which parks may need to be classified individually. Chair Arnst stated that it seems to her that the priority expressed by the Commission thus far is to preserve the green space or open space that exists. On the other hand, Farniok suggested that the Commission attempt to maintain the balance of open space to active use, since no one knows what future use might be. Chair Arnst stated that this would make sense, by giving the City some flexibility to move some things around and mitigate for additional use in certain areas while balancing the use in other areas. Brown stated that the flexibility would justify the case for percentages rather than delineated color coded areas. By assigning a certain percentage for designated green open space in each park, the City can therefore preserve the aesthetics of a park, but also allow for flexibility in development. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 4 OF 5 One area could be restored to a natural state, while another area is turned into a useable space if necessary. Bailey stated this might be a good way to regain unused developed space for natural habitat in exchange for a different usable location. Davis suggested that the natural space definition within the open space definition should include the term habitat. For clarification, Brown repeated the four sub headings within the open space definition, which included, undeveloped, undevelopable land, unstructured park space, and natural habitat. He felt the next task would be for Bailey to return to the maps and try to calculate the total amount of space within each park today which makes up this open space definition the Commission has created. While this mission may take a bit more time, Brown stated the Commission could continue to develop the definitions for the park activity map. Davis asked who’s jurisdiction the open space falls under. Brown stated that this question has been under debate and was addressed by the Mayor and the LCEC. Since Gideon Glen falls within the open space definition, and once the LCEC was disbanded, the question remained under what jurisdiction open space parcels fall. Although she recalled asking the question, Chair Arnst stated that she was unaware of how this decision was left. Davis stated that the differences would need to be addressed between the various sub headings of open space. Brown indicated that he would find the answer to that question and return with that for the Commission. Davis acknowledged that there are worthy areas to preserve in Shorewood and she questioned how the City would do this. Brown stated that, although the LCEC was disbanded, it was left that they could be called to action upon request. Chair Arnst asked if the Commission could provide Brown with any further direction this evening. Brown stated that he left the discussion very open this evening and, in fact, he was surprised at how far they’d come with their discussion. He felt the next step would be to look at the designated parking areas to determine if and when they would ever be expanded. After that, Brown suggested they examine the high intensity use areas, and if or how they should be governed. Meyer stated that the neighborhood parks would be far easier to govern based on lighting and noise levels within the residential area. Brown stated that an alternative to creating more field space might be to add lights to make more effective use of the field space available, as one possibility. Chair Arnst asked if the Commission should hold an additional work session to discuss these topics. PARK COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2003 PAGE 5 OF 5 Brown agreed that might be a worthwhile endeavor. Chair Arnst stated that they could schedule a short work session later this month. She asked Brown if they were at a point at which the wetland tree inventory could be added to an upcoming agenda. Brown stated that he was striving to meet a deadline regarding MS4 stormwater plans. In the meantime, Brown indicated that he has learned that Dakota County was awarded a grant for aquatic plantings. He mentioned that inventorying trees at Freeman will be an enormous task, and require much manpower. Chair Arnst suggested they add the discussion of a dog park to the next work session agenda, as an off shoot of open space planning. Young stated that he was uncomfortable re-examining this new effort of inventorying without whole heartedly completing the goals as laid out for the parks. He felt some time should be devoted within the next work session to evaluate the master plan goals of each park before proceeding with a new effort. Brown asked for suggestions regarding this discussion. The Commission complimented Brown on the forum and discussion which led to the open space definitions. It was agreed that the upcoming work session would be held on March 30, 2004. 4. ADJOURNMENT The Park Commission Work Session adjourned at 10:05 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary