Loading...
020409 PK MIN SP CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 3:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE SPECIAL PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Norman convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. A.Roll Cal l Present: Chair Norman; Commissioners Davis, Trent, Quinlan, and DeMers; City Council liaison Woodruff; Park Coordinator Anderson Absent: Commissioners Young and Hensley B. Review Agenda 2. INTERVIEW FIRMS FOR PARK CONSULTANT SERVICES Each of the three consultants was supplied with a list of questions prior to the meeting to prepare for. Below are those questions and the firm’s answers in italics: 3:00 - 3:30 Damon Farber Chair Norman welcomed Damon Farber (DF) representatives Whitlock and MacLeod to the interview and invited them to begin with their presentation. Whitlock explained that DF is a small 15 year old company made up of a collaboration of professionals in park planning. 1) Please briefly articulate a case study that you think aligns with Shorewood’s current situation. What was the situation, Opportunity for Improvement, Walls or Barriers to implementing changes, and eventual outcomes? Example provided was Bryant Square Park in Minneapolis. The existing park did not meet the evolving needs of the community and funding was limited. DF provided analysis of existing park and provided enhancements, including flexible spaces. 2)Almost fully developed, Shorewood has little opportunity for impact/development money for Parks & improvements in the future. How would you address this financial constraint while making your recommendations to improve the parks? Challenges of funding are common to all communities. Must be addressed in the design and funding of improvements. Set priorities and phase in improvements. Funding can come from a variety of sources City Budgets, Grants, public/private partnerships, in-house improvement potential, and donors. 3)Why do you feel we need your services? What differentiates you from other consulting firms? Build long term relationships with clients balancing creativity and practicality. Work collaboratively with City and its citizens. Small office insures you receive great service and attention from the principals. 4)What percentage of your firm’s business is related to municipal park planning? Will any of your work be performed by sub-contractors? If so, which tasks? 25% of work is park planning. Team with Miller Dunwiddie Architecture for park structures. 5)In your previous park projects, how much involvement was typically needed from the City Staff, Park Commissioners, and residents? Will work collaboratively with City staff and Commission to insure meeting overall goals of City. Commission will guide process and community reach out will also be important. 6)What will specifically be delivered? Under deliverables, each firm mentions giving us something in ‘electronic format’. What does that specifically refer to for each piece delivered? For instance, maps, design guides, specs, etc., our preference would be AutoCAD – what format do you work in? Please bring examples. - NA 7)Could you provide us with some examples of specific ‘mixed use’ projects that you have been a part of that blend the best of parks with urban spaces? Provide sample projects that have crossed traditional parks environment with elements of urban plaza-style space where people want to gather. Number of projects incorporating existing parks with more urban spaces. Examples on Boards: Mankato River Front amphitheatre, Chanhassen Town Square, Towne Greene Maple Grove and Bryant Square Park Minneapolis 8)What has been your experience in incorporating community feedback into the overall design of the parks you’ve been hired to review? What would you expect some of those opportunities and challenges facing a community like Shorewood to be? Have used many methods to gain community input including fliers within existing city communications devices, public input at meetings, web surveys, etc. Will provide pros and cons related to various ideas and make recommendations. 3:45 - 4:15 TKDA Representatives Buss and Gray were in attendance and gave a brief intro. Buss stated that she would act as meeting facilitator and Gray was the municipal and facilities planner, who would conduct the design building piece. 1) Please briefly articulate a case study that you think aligns with Shorewood’s current situation. What was the situation, Opportunity for Improvement, Walls or Barriers to implementing changes, and eventual outcomes? Presented examples from Newport’s Loveland Park and Victoria, similar to Shorewood in that they were fairly built out. Needed to set priorities for long term growth, present the City with ideas and act as the resources providing concept plans for their review. 2)Almost fully developed, Shorewood has little opportunity for impact/development money for Parks & improvements in the future. How would you address this financial constraint while making your recommendations to improve the parks? Strive to develop the ultimate goals despite the present finances so that an intelligent use of resources can be made and as finances become available other priorities can move forward. Examine redundancies you might have in parks, maybe too many rinks or other things, how can you provide added value to the parks. 3)Why do you feel we need your services? What differentiates you from other consulting firms? TKDA will put real structure to the process, breaking down the tasks into realistic pieces to facilitate meetings and planning. Determine what decisions need to be made and how do we move the process forward, even finding common ground can be enough to move forward. 4)What percentage of your firm’s business is related to municipal park planning? Will any of your work be performed by sub-contractors? If so, which tasks? Don’t have percentage. Everything can be managed in-house, there is no need for sub contractors as they have lots of different capabilities. 5)In your previous park projects, how much involvement was typically needed from the City Staff, Park Commissioners, and residents? Work with staff and Commission to identify and evaluate existing park facilities and identify options. Present findings and recommendations to Park Commission. 6)What will specifically be delivered? Under deliverables, each firm mentions giving us something in ‘electronic format’. What does that specifically refer to for each piece delivered? For instance, maps, design guides, specs, etc., our preference would be AutoCAD – what format do you work in? Please bring examples. Will provide reports on broad issues focusing in on the 5 main parks, including graphic formats and CAD, if necessary, but more often communities like picture sketches of park layouts including buildings and playgrounds that can be slipped into the master plan. Also, will provide templates for park buildings, an updated master plan, element options and cost estimates, a phasing plan and timeline. Could also develop a matrix for initiatives in each park and look at economies of scale. 7)Could you provide us with some examples of specific ‘mixed use’ projects that you have been a part of that blend the best of parks with urban spaces? Provide sample projects that have crossed traditional parks environment with elements of urban plaza-style space where people want to gather. Harriet Island Pedestrian gateway and plaza area, Northfield Riverside Commons linear meandering park, State Fair walking paths and gathering area. 8)In your proposal, you reference working on projects that share property with a surrounding community and have experience handling issues that may need to be addressed in this situation. Please provide some specific situations, what issues surfaced, and how they were resolved. Gave two examples and indicated they had assisted in renegotiating the agreements between the parties. One, the city of Corcoran shares a park with the school district, two, Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township share interest in a park. 4:30 – 5:00 SRF Representatives Giese and Griehaber gave a brief intro complimenting the city on its use of stone and laminate wood beam in its construction both at the new City Hall but at some of the picnic shelter at Freeman as well. 1) Please briefly articulate a case study that you think aligns with Shorewood’s current situation. What was the situation, Opportunity for Improvement, Walls or Barriers to implementing changes, and eventual outcomes? Felt public should always have 2 concept plans to review and comment on in an effort to engage them in the design process. Presented Sanctuary Park, Aquafore Park and Town Square Parks in Blaine, Heritage Park in Minneapolis, Landmark Plaza in Saint Paul as a mixed urban use site. 2)Almost fully developed, Shorewood has little opportunity for impact/development money for Parks & improvements in the future. How would you address this financial constraint while making your recommendations to improve the parks? Make contact with associations and agencies to develop partnerships, schools and Park District, create a park foundation or begin to charge user fees to assist in raising capital. Build momentum for improvements in the community and consider a bond referendum. 3)Why do you feel we need your services? What differentiates you from other firms? Wealth and depth of experience. Have many folks in all areas they can tap when they wish. They can lead the City in its visioning process, updating the master plan, doing these initial pieces well. 4)What percentage of your firm’s business is related to municipal park planning? Will any of your work be performed by sub-contractors? If so, which tasks? Find a balance of needs in the parks thru the City and educate users. Three main contacts from the firm and have a large pool of staff to consult with, but use HCM Architects to get to a new level of designs and architectural elements for certain work. 5)In your previous park projects, how much involvement was typically needed from the City Staff, Park Commissioners, and residents? Lay loose options out there, brainstorm, develop min-max use formulas and dollars needed based on general park improvement estimates. 6)What will specifically be delivered? Under deliverables, each firm mentions giving us something in ‘electronic format’. What does that specifically refer to for each piece delivered? For instance, maps, design guides, specs, etc., our preference would be AutoCAD – what format do you work in? Please bring examples. After quick site assessments, will provide concept sketches for feedback, then revise and present final design plans to scale in PDF form. Also will provide a min-max magnitude cost booklet of elements, while AutoCAD would be available at the next level of engineering. 7)Could you provide us with some examples of specific ‘mixed use’ projects that you have been a part of that blend the best of parks with urban spaces? Provide samples that have crossed traditional parks environment with elements of urban plaza-style space where people want to gather. Amphitheater in Blaine, as well as, the Heritage Park development and open space area in Minneapolis. 8)Could you share some insight to your overall project management approach to ensure that all deliverables are being met? It appears that there is a fair amount of collaborative work that will need to be done, and how will you ensure that the overall project leader has the approach & ability to manage these tasks and deliverables? Giese would be main contact, along with Griehaber, and another in-house design architect. 9)You have proposed a ‘large team’ of highly trained professionals to assist with this relatively small scale ‘community’ park planning project, please explain the roles and what necessitates the need for each player within the proposed constraints of the job? Again, Giese would be main contact, along with Griehaber, and another in-house design architect. 10) Who, in particular, will be the Architectural consultant working on the prototype for the structures? Beyond the in-house architect designers, members of HCM, (Hagen, Christensen, and McIlwain architects) would be available too. 11) Once again, when delivering the final report in pdf format, will we receive anything in CAD format that the city can use? CAD format would be deliverable in the next level of engineering. 3.REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION OF PARK CONSULTANT SERVICES Upon departure of the final firm, the Commission took time to discuss their strengths and weaknesses. There was consensus among the Commissioners that TKDA did the best job presenting itself and expressing their ability to think at the same level as the Commission. Though they did not appear to have as much municipal experience as first thought, members felt TKDA understood the Commission’s vision, had the ability to get the job done and provided in the most concrete terms what it was that would be delivered to the city. Based on price only, DeMers stated that he would be inclined to support DF. However, DeMers stated that he preferred the drawings and concept cost estimates provided as examples by TKDA. After further examination of the hourly rates of the top two firms, and the elimination of hours proposed that could be done in-house at the City, the Commission felt comfortable recommending the City Council direct staff to negotiate a deal with TKDA, less staff hours. Anderson and Davis reviewed the TKDA Project Fee Estimate reducing the number of meeting hours and Field Visit time required. Anderson stated that she believed there to be more ‘wiggle’ room within the estimate and suggested staff be allowed to negotiate the details with TKDA. Woodruff stated that he, too, was most secure in their first two preferences. DeMers moved, Davis seconded, recommending City Council direct staff to negotiate a contract with TKDA for park consultant services to include deliverable items such as electronic and hard formats of concept plans for 5 parks with a phasing matrix, costing estimates, sketches, park building templates, element options as updates to insert into the Master Plan, and a visual catalog of options for parks to be phased in over the next ten years. The Park Commission fully expects, thru negotiations, that the price will fall well below $20,000 due to the elimination of elements and tasks from the original RFP that the new Park Coordinator can perform in-house. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Trent left at 6:30p.m. 4.OTHER 5.ADJOURN Davis moved, Chair Norman seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Special Meeting at 6:35p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder