Loading...
033004 PK WS MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL MEETING 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Arnst convened the meeting at 7:08 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Callies, Davis, Meyer, and Young; City Engineer Brown; and Technician Bailey Absent: Commissioners Gilbertson and Farniok B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSSION OF PARK ACTIVITY MAPPING Brown presented two sets of Maps, Set A and Set B, to the Commission and explained the rationale behind each. Set A evaluated the entities found in each park and categorized them into four areas, including Active Recreational Area, Low Use Recreational Area, Open Space, and Parking Space. Set B identified zoning districts, similar to those used by the Planning Department. Brown questioned the Commission whether they felt Shorewood parks are large enough to warrant districts. Meyer believed districts did a better job of providing a realistic outlook of where things are and the unusable space associated with the entities. Brown noted that the upside to identifying districts might be the fact that open space is not misrepresented as available unused space, for instance the unusable strips of ‘open space’ between usable recreation. On the down side, Brown indicated that districts may misrepresent total open space, thus allowing, theoretically, for an increase in active space. Chair Arnst asked what alternatives the Commission might consider. Brown pointed out that the plat maps would allow the Commission the ability to set up regulations restricting increases in active use space to levels higher than currently exists today. Chair Arnst stated that districts would allow for overall realignment to maintain active sports footprints at a certain percentage; whereas something must go if more is to be added. Davis maintained that the value of the open space would be an integral part of the equation, since a wetland or natural habitat would be far more valuable than a grungy unused parcel. She felt that Set B seemed to be more restrictive. Callies recommended that additional subcategories of open space would need to be defined in greater detail. She indicated that, for the smaller parks, the activity maps are helpful; whereas, the district map may be more applicable to larger parks, like Freeman. Brown questioned whether the level of use may change the classification, for instance, while Badger tennis courts are well used, it is not intensive but rather low use or impact. Bailey suggested that high use and low use activities refer to the seasonal activity of a park entity. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 7 Chair Arnst agreed that the level of use shall be based on the in-season level of use. Meyer questioned why the level of use was pertinent and what specifically the City wished to regulate. Chair Arnst pointed out that, what brought the Commission to this discussion, was the increased demand to add to the number of fields, bleachers, etc. She stated that the City would prefer to have the basis in place to formulate a decision prior to being confronted with the requests. Chair Arnst added that, by modeling the land use zoning regulations and terminology, park space or growth can be monitored. Brown stated that, based on the two sets of maps, the Commission has two methods for evaluating requests, regulation based on a certain percentage of open space or a distinction between high use and low intensity use considered on a park by park basis. Chair Arnst pointed out that the impacts are different between the request for a soccer field, which is a high use amenity, versus the request for a low use amenity such as horseshoes. By breaking down the open space terminology to define natural habitat, corridors, usable open land, etc., the Commission will be better able to evaluate requests. Davis suggested the terms high impact and low impact replace the terms high use and low use. Brown agreed that there is a further need for clarification of open space. He asked whether the Commission felt the use of districts was warranted. Meyer noted that the maps must include vegetation so that percentages can be defined. Davis stated that she disagreed with the district maps identifying the corridor, or collateral space, between activities and fields as open space. Since the Commission had already gone to great lengths within the master plan to identify park maps, Young questioned the need to create maps of unnecessary superstructure. Chair Arnst indicated that she believed the district maps took away some of the Commission’s flexibility, and would prefer to identify activity or impact percentages. Brown concurred, stating that he felt the public, and sports associations, would be more amenable to percentages versus restrictive districts. He stated that, technically, the space between fields in the Commission’s assessment should not be included as open space. Chair Arnst urged staff to keep the language consistent with zoning terms, such as buffer zones, peripheral zones, etc. Other than defining high impact and low impact uses, Brown asked the Commission what other concerns they had with regard to regulating parks, for example lighting, open space, parking, etc. While parking at Freeman park had been addressed, Brown pointed out that the City does not wish to design parking for peak rush hour use overall. Chair Arnst suggested a formula be created, similar to that of the zoning department, which could be applied to park parking issues. She used the example of Cub Foods, when they built the facility; Cub was required to determine the number of spaces necessary to accommodate them. Arnst PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 7 questioned whether the same formula could be applied when planning for the construction of an additional field and determining whether the parking accommodates it. Brown pointed to page seven of the staff memo, which suggested that any proposed expansion of existing park facilities, be accompanied by a parking study to determine if the existing facilities can handle the demand. In addition, Brown asked the Commission its position on expanded concession operations. Chair Arnst noted that, at one point, Cathcart Park had shown concessions as part of its master plan, which has since been removed. Brown questioned whether the Commission could accept temporary concession operations at, for instance, the Skate Park. He asked them to consider permanent versus temporary concessions at community parks, or others. Meyer agreed that concessions were better suited for community parks; however, she would not object to temporary concessions at any of the parks. Young stated that he would prefer to study the request for concessions on a case by case basis versus laying out blanket restrictions. Brown noted that it can be more beneficial to have the rules laid out ahead of time rather than appear to be making the rules up as we go. Although the number of requests has declined in recent years, Chair Arnst stated that it would be nice to have a basis to formulate decisions. Brown asked the Commissions opinion on lighting in parks. He pointed out that glare seems to be the only part of the lighting Ordinance that applies and since making this observation, he has asked Planning Director Nielsen to revise the Ordinance. Brown indicated that there is pressure for lighting at Freeman Park, and in fact, he stated that he would not be surprised if this request did not come before the Commission in the future. He asked whether the Commission wished to regulate lighting on a case by case basis. Chair Arnst stated that she felt lighting was unnecessary in neighborhood parks; however, at community parks, such as Freeman, evaluation of additional traffic and neighborhood impacts needs to be determined. Young stated that even with the installation of lighting, a time limit of 10 PM is set by Code. Meyer stated that she would support lit fields at Freeman, but would need to hear from the neighbors. Callies stated that, it seemed to her, that lighting is an issue that has probably been studied quite a bit in other communities as well. She recommended the City contact other communities to learn how they addressed these issues. Brown indicated that he would research this further and contact the Mn. Recreation and Park Association. He asked for additional comment on fencing. Chair Arnst stated that she regretted allowing the batting cages, nets, and poles to be constructed near the little league fields, since they are so aesthetically displeasing. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 4 OF 7 Brown pointed out that this was one of those cases in which the Commission was faced with a request and forced to act on it. He asked how the Commission would react to such a request for field 5 at the north side of Freeman. Chair Arnst stated that the Commission has encouraged the sports organizations to share facilities. Young stated that they could consider the impacts the added batting cage might have on parking. While the Commission could say it detracts from the park, Callies stated that the Commission has the opportunity to define and provide the organizations with direction. Young stated that, if the sports groups could demonstrate a need for it, he would sacrifice the aesthetics in order to maximize their use and not force them to go elsewhere. Chair Arnst suggested the number of cages be limited, or at least moved to the side. Brown indicated that the Commission could place limitations or restrictions on the use, such as a batting cage per four fields if space permits to the side. Meyer stated that she would be interested to see what other cities have allowed with regard to batting cages, since the public can visit batting cages, similar to driving ranges, for a fee. She added that she would prefer bleachers to batting cages for the public to use. Davis agreed that bleachers were warranted. She pointed out that the City could apply standards to the bleachers, just as they’d discussed for batting cages, by requiring proposed bleachers to meet a certain standard and look. Chair Arnst felt bleachers were an unattractive addition and required ongoing maintenance. Brown agreed that the City could research and select a few bleacher designs as standards. The Commission concurred. With regard to Auxiliary Structures and Warming Houses, Chair Arnst explained that in the past the sports organizations have installed ‘little brown barns’ without permits. Although code allows 10X12’ structures without a permit to be put up for storage purposes, Brown stated that the question is whether the Commission would prefer to place restrictions on storage space on City property by permit only. While Brown recognized the need for seasonal storage space for certain activities, he questioned the legitimacy of year round storage. Chair Arnst stated that she wished to avoid any more of these situations, like the ‘knox boxes’ chained to the fences year round. She maintained that these items need to be removed at season end and should be applied for via a seasonal permit process. She noted that she typically sees one box at Cathcart and 2-3 more at Freeman each year. Brown questioned the Commissions position regarding the potential for kiosks in the parks. Davis felt kiosks could merely provide vandals with another venue. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 5 OF 7 While Little League has a kiosk outside its concession stand, Chair Arnst stated that she would prefer the kiosks be enclosed Plexiglas cases mounted to the building. She asked Brown what the next steps might be. Brown stated that he had enough direction to do some research and report back. He continued, noting that staff could update the maps, keeping area tables, removing district designations, and adding tree lines and vegetation to the maps. At a future work session, he pointed out that the Commission should consider other things worth regulating and breaking down the definitions of open space, as well as, other terms. 3. REVIEW MASTER PLAN ? Consider Plans to Mitigate Various Park Deficiencies As part of the Master Plan review process, Chair Arnst reviewed the park deficiencies for each park with the Commission in order to add any items to the 2004 to-do list. Brown stated that the budget is roughly $50,000, although approximately $8,000 is designated for new Skate Park equipment. Beginning with Cathcart, Chair Arnst noted that the Commission will need to make contact with the senior population in order to ascertain what, or if, they’d like to see specific facilities at this, or Shorewood’s other parks. She pointed out that the public works staff acknowledged that the tennis courts are not heavily used. Young asked staff to determine what maintenance costs were associated with this park and its tennis courts. He suggested that, if the courts were usable and not too costly to upkeep that they remain. Brown suggested that, unless the goal is to clear green space or until use of the space for an alternate purpose is necessary, it would suffice to leave the courts alone for the time being, since seniors do use them from time to time. Chair Arnst recommended that when the time comes for resurfacing, reconsideration of the courts should occur. Brown noted that the City is behind in its resurfacing efforts of City tennis courts. He noted that it doesn’t cost the City a great deal and doesn’t constitute a burden from a cost standpoint. Chair Arnst pointed out that although parking is limited; she believed that Little League had a parking agreement with Minnewashta Church. Chair Arnst noted that two other items under the consideration for change heading had been addressed. With regard to Badger Park, Chair Arnst stated that once again the seniors need to be consulted. She pointed out that she would like to see further cooperation with the senior center. In addition, Chair Arnst noted that the parking conflicts between football, the City Hall, and Senior Center are being addressed by the park coordinator service. The Silverwood Park boundaries were marked as mentioned in the master plan list for consideration. In addition, Brown stated that the tennis courts would also be resurfaced. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 6 OF 7 Chair Arnst inquired as to the status of a warming house. Brown stated that, in his opinion, the need for the warming house has subsided, since he has not seen a great deal of activity on the pond anymore. Chair Arnst pointed out that the tennis courts at Manor Park are also under consideration. With regard to volleyball, Chair Arnst stated that there is no cost associated with the volleyball courts and are simply available for neighborhood use. Although the Skate Park will be updated with a piece of new equipment and reconfiguration, Chair Arnst asked about the fencing. Brown stated that costs have delayed the fencing; however, he hasn’t seen a real need for the fencing as first thought. He indicated that the signage and rules have been posted. Brown pointed out that the cost for well water would have been about $20,000, with the new Carmichael development, the City may have a new opportunity to provide water at the Skate Park. Chair Arnst stated that many of the issues at Freeman have been addressed, including the parking and scheduling. She noted that the perimeter trail will be paved this year as well. 4. MUSIC IN THE PARK ? Review Committee Update Chair Arnst reported that the committee has been evaluating music. Davis suggested a piece be submitted to the Sun Sailor and Newsletter inviting bands apply for the series and asking that CD’s be submitted. Brown reported that the City Council approved the events and private sponsorship of them; however, would like to see the final costs. 5. DISCUSSION OF CONCESSION OPPORTUNITIES Chair Arnst suggested that staff offer the operations of the concessions to the fire fighters and Police departments as a means of fundraising for tasor guns and other items. She felt this could be viewed as promoting community relations. She asked if staff had received any interest from their request for proposals. Brown stated that he will be meeting with an individual who has expressed an interest in the concession operations. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Arnst reported that she had been approached by an 11 year old skateboarder and his boy scout troop to present their suggestions for new equipment and reconfiguration of the Skate Park to be given at the next Park Commission meeting. In addition, Chair Arnst stated that she received a call from little league who had put in a bid for astro turf from the Metrodome and got it, and hoped to install it in their batting cages. While they go through the approval process, they asked if the Commission would allow them to store the piece at Freeman. Chair Arnst stated that she had denied the request to store the piece and encouraged PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 PAGE 7 OF 7 the Commission to take a look at the smaller piece they had installed last year in one of the batting cages. Young asked whether the sports organizations understood that the Commission does not appreciate modifications to the fields and facilities without prior approval. Brown stated that the astro turf could fall within the conditional use permit process. In the meantime, he indicated that he would touch base with Chanhassen to find out whether they are familiar with this request. Callies reported that this evening would be her last night with the Park Commission, since her other City had changed meeting nights which would not allow her to continue to attend the Shorewood meetings. Brown reported that City Attorney Keane was also in the process of switching firms. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the Work Session Meeting at 9:23 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary