Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 08-27 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 APPROVED Members Present: Maureen Bartz,Mike Eliason,Jason Eisold,Sandy Knight,Kevin Strayton Members Absent: None Staff Present: Dan Schultz,Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl,Recording Secretary Student Volunteer: None Others Present: Ed McMenony,Bud Curly&Sister Mary Louise McKenna from Rosemount's Veterans'Memorial Walk;Randy Anderson,Vice President of Finance and Operations and Cam Stoltz,Director of Student Life, from Dakota County Technical College. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Eliason called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None,but Schultz asked to rearrange the order of the agenda items to accommodate the guest speakers. 3. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 23, 2007 MEETING MINUTES: MOTION by Bartz to approve the minutes of the July 23,2007 meeting. SECOND by Strayton. Ayes: 5 Nays:0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None. 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Veterans' Metfl01'181 W11k— Ed McMenomy addressed the Commission and explained the purpose of the Veterans'Memorial Walk,an organization whose board is comprised of McMenomy,Bud Curley,SisteY Mary Louise McKenna,and Jack Warweg. T'hey have applied for 501c 3 sta.tus so that those purchasing pavers may deduct the cost. McMenomy provided pictures of a veterans'memorial in Hutchinson,MN that he visited and also talked about an elaborate veterans'memorial in Arlington,WI that was financed by Ashley Furniture Industries,Inc. T'he Veterans'Memorial Walk organization is interested in selling pavers to honor those who have served or are serving in the military. They have no limit to the number of pavers they would sell. The pavers would include the name,branch of service and conElict of the service person. McMenomy stated that they are ready to move ahead with the project and were at tonight's meeting to convince the Parks and Recreation Commission to support the project and recommend that the City Council support it as well. Their initial thought was to place the pavers along the Koch Trail in Central Park. Recendy,Bud Curley asked architect Charles Novak to design a plan for a more elaborate memorial at Biscayne Park. McMenomy provided this plan for the Commission to view. The preliminary cost estimate for cement, grading and a parking lot was $200,000 to$225,000,not including the cost of monuments. They would like to partner with the City on some type of inemorial at any level the City would like. They had been asked if they would consider doing something at the new athletic complex,but the board did not like that location. McMenomy said that the location is entirely up to the City and they would trust the City to pick a location that is adequate. Those who built the original monument at Central Park have weighed in with regard to their memorial and do not want it moved. If the City deddes to add to that through the Koch Trail,that would be fine with the Veterans'Memorial Walk board. They want to start collecting money for pavers and they think they can collect a lot of funds from those sales. Per McMenomy,the pavers would sell for $200. Of that amount,$100 would cover the actual cost of the paver and engraving. 'I'hey provided the Commission with examples of pavers that were given to them by Cold Springs Granite Co. They would go through the proper channels to choose a company to provide the pavers,but Cold Springs Granite Co.is a probable source. These were examples of pavers like the ones used at the Hutchinson memorial. McMenomy explained that their plan would be to handle the applications for pavers,collect the payment, - 1 - PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 and put it in the bank,order the pavers and have them delivered to the City for installation. Of the$100 remaining after paying for the pavers,$50 would be remitted to the City on a quarterly basis. Per McMenomy they also believe there would be corporate donations. The remaining$50 would be kept by the Veterans'Memorial Walk Corporation and used for ofHce overhead and to purchase pavers for service people from Rosemount who are deceased with no one to purchase pavers for them. They believe this project would bring favorable publicity to the City. They would like the City to take over the lea,dership and call a meeting of all of the service groups to discuss this further. Knight asked about the two locations,Central Park and Biscayne Park,and whether the plan for Biscayne Park would fit in Central Park.Per Schultz,it would not. T'he plan that was submitted fills most of Biscayne Park. Knight referred to the memo from the original Veterans Memorial Committee,da,ted August 15,2007,which was included in the Commission packet. The memo included information that each of the veterans groups (VFW 9433,American Legion Post 65 and Vietnam Veterans,Dakota,Co. Chapter) had discussed the issue and voted on it. They were not opposed to additions or improvements to the original memorial monument,but they would prefer that it not be moved. Schultz explained that the plan for Biscayne Park was an aggressive,nice plan,but monuments,benches, irrigation,etc.,were not included in the cost estimates. He did not know where the funds would come from for the plan. Monuments are expensive and this is a new theme from the original idea to honor veterans by installing pavers. Knight asked for a plan for something that would be incorporated around the current memorial at Central Park and asked if the board would be opposed to putting the pavers around Central Park. McMenomy said he hoped the various veterans organizations could get together and come up with funds to have someone design a plan,and the Central Park location would be fine with him. Schultz stated that the Commission has said that they support some type of inemorial project,but they want to do it right and they want to make sure that it is clear that this is not going to happen overnight. It may take more than a year. If it could be scaled down to pavers,they could possibly start in the spring. The plan drawn by their architect for Biscayne Park does not fit,it is too big for that location. Strayton agreed that his is a worthwhile project,but the City will not take the lead in promoting it,that needs to come from private citizens. McMenomy and the other board members will need to push for this themselves. They are the ones who need to drive the process. Strayton liked the Central Park location. McMenomy stated that Mayor Droste and Schultz have been enthusiastic about the project. Strayton stated that enthusia,sm is different than driving the project. Per Schultz,pa�ers can be easily installed,but the plans that were drawn up for Biscayne Park go well beyond that,with the monuments,etc. The group will need to clarify what they want to do. Bartz asked whether they wanted to focus on the branch of service,or the conflict,and whether people prefer conflict based recognition. McMenomy stated that the board has no intention of naming the site,they feel that the leadership should come from the Ciry. He said that paying respect to individuals is the most important thing. Eisold asked about including this in the Parks Master Plan update. Per Schultz,we can do that. Staff will meet with the veterans groups and clarify what they are trying to do. We have to make sure there is support for anything more,monuments,etc.,and find out who will lead this. He will call a meeting with the veterans groups within the next few weeks and bring back more information negt month. Knight again asked for the project to be incorporated into Central Park. Schultz will bring back a better plan of what we will be recommending to the City Council. Knight liked the idea of having the conflict information on the pavers and that the pavers can be moved and incorporated into another design if needed. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. DCTC FaCllity Pa1't11ePShlp—Schultz handed out a narrative joint powers document for the proposed DCTC soccer complex and a site work plan that included a topographic survey,site plans and a grading plan for the soccer fields. He reviewed the map of the site which is located at Akron Ave. and County Rd 42,and pointed out the existing amenities on the site including a generous parking lot,and excellent access from County Rd 42. We have talked in the past about parmering on this project;DCTC has collegiate soccer and would like to have an on-site facility and the City needs recreational fields. The discussion at the community meeting on August ZO emphasized that we have a need for more soccer fields. DCTC has had an architect design a plan for the complex,parking would not be an issue,and DCTC would like to partner -2 - PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 on an artificial turf field. Schultz reviewed all of the items that were outlined in the joint powers narrative provided by DCTC. Schultz mentioned that we have to consider what would happen if DCTC decided not have athletics on site in the future,and we would have to make sure any agreement the City enters into would be favorable to the City in the end. Randy Anderson,Vice President of Finance and Operations, introduced himself to the Commission,explained his role in the process,and sta,ted that this is a high priority item for them and he has spoken with MNSCU regarding it. If we decide to move forward,they would review the current design,work on joint powers/joint use agreements and re-do cost estimates. Strayton asked about groups using the concessions facilities for tournaments. Per Anderson this is something that would be included in a joint use agreement. Strayton also asked how long it would take if both sides decide to move forward. Per Schultz,an artificial turf field could be up and running in the spring. For the other fields,we would seed in the spring,and be lucky to have games in the fall. Eliason stated that it would probably take two years. It was mentioned that the cost for materials and installa.tion for artificial turf would be approxitnately,$480,000 to$500,000. Schultz asked the Commission for feedback and direction to give to the City Council. There was discussion regarding changes to the design, grading,reaching an agreement for use and coming up with the estimated cost. The City would be a financial partner in building the fields,and once they are done we would take over the scheduling. Knight stated that at the August 20 athletic complex communiry meeting it was made very clear that we need more green space. Eliason thought that a turf field would benefit soccer,lacrosse and football,but moving ahead with that would depend on the funds available and the City Council's recommendation. The Commission supported moving forward with this item. Schultz asked for a recommendation to support the continued efforts of DCTC to come up with a joint powers agreement and that we continue to work with the City Council. MOTION by Strayton to recommend that City staff continue to pursue a joint powers agreement with DC'I"C that will address partnering on building and use of soccer fields on DC'TC property. SECOND by Knight. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Knight asked when this would go to the Ciry Council. Per Schultz he will bring it to them as an add on item for this Wednesday's work session. 6. OLD BUSINESS: b. P�eStwiCk PIBCe— Pa�k PlBnning —Schultz received a revised park plan last Friday and included copies in the Commission packet. Two major changes are that the commercial development has been eliminated and that Centex is no longer part of the plan. There will now be approaimately 340 units instead of the origina1700+units. The developer has made some changes based on staf�s requests and comments. They have altered the park layout and the alignment of drainage. The park is now 7 acres without ponding. It still includes .8 acre for pipeline. We had originally asked for 8 acres. The amenities include a 260' baseball field with a soccer overlay,a parking lot with 40 stalls,a 24'x 30'sun shelter,a tot lot,a sport court for basketball,and a trail that connects the facilities and also connects to Connemara Trail and Street 9. One change that staff had recommended that hasn't happened was the relocation of the manhole cover to the street or to the edge of the park. Moving this would provide for fle�biliry in placement of baseball and soccer fields. Schultz will be discussing this with the developer. Schultz asked the Commission for comments on the layout. There was discussion about whether there was enough parking-per Schultz 40 stalls should be enough,along with on-street parking along Street 9;that it would be best not to have overla,y fields;whether the baseball backstop was too close to the tot lot;and about moving the baseball field around and including a smaller soccer field. The Commission felt that if we have a baseball field and a soccer field,and if there is a baseball game and a soccer game at the same time,40 parking stalls would not be enough. Per Schultz,this will be more for in-house and informal use,and the addition of fields at the athleric complex and DCTC should take care of the needs for traveling programs. Schultz explained that neighborhood parks axen't designed to be used for organized traveling sports,although sometimes we are forced to use them. Part of the parks master plan is to try to keep traveling sports in larger facilities. I�night asked that the fields be designed so that they aren't overlay,and scheduled so there is only one group using the fields each night. Strayton asked for our current inventory of fields,specifically park by park,and what the fields are used for,who is using them and when they are being used,along with the numbers of participants. Schultz had the inventory list by park with him and will go over it later in the meeting. There was no recommended action on this item at this time. - 3 - PARKS � RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 c. Outdoor Recreation Complex- There was egcellent tuxn out for the August 20 athletic complex community meeting and good input on facilities,needs and comments on the different plans from the different use groups who attended. Schultz reviewed the topography of the different sections of Plan 3A and how different areas work well for the different types of fields and tennis courts. It was suggested that tennis courts could be staggered to fit in the southwest corner of the property. Schultz then reviewed information on the participation levels for 2007 provided by the athletic associations: In-House Softball— 225;Traveling Softball—80;In-House Baseball—625;Traveling Baseball—243;Football—300;In-House Soccer—950 (this may be higher—waiting to hear from them)Dakota REV—Rosemount—175 and All Participants—572;Adult Softball—1,020 (this is an estimate based on rosters);In-House Tennis—75; Traveling Tennis—40. Lacrosse isn't included because the program is too new. Schultz then reviewed the list of the facilities at each Rosemount park. Facilities at Rosemount Middle and High Schools were also included. This list was included in the July 9 Special Work Session packet. There was discussion on the current facilities and the possibility of using fields on Friday nights and weekends when they typically are empty. Adding tennis courts to Charlie's Park was discussed. Per Schultz,he has talked to the principal and tennis coaches about this but ISD 196 has not moved to add courts here. Charlie's Park is owned by the school district,with a joint use agreement that allows city use of the tennis courts. Strayton asked for a breakdown of Rosemount Parks by type,i.e. neighborhood,community,etc. Per Schultz,the parks are identified this way in the Parks Master Plan. Discussion continued about what type of ball fields would be the most useable at the athletic complex. Baseball requires three sizes of fields,depending on the age of the users. Eisold mentioned that he was recendy involved in a similar project,and they wish they had included larger fields. Based on comments from the August 20 community meeting,youth fields were the most in demand. There was a comment that larger multipurpose fields would not be as useful. There were also requests for more green space,and to include at least 8 tennis courts,laying them out differenfly to better fit them into a smaller space. It was suggested that the tennis courts could be broken into smaller courts and moved to the southwest corner of the site,and another soccer field could be put in their current location on Plan 3A. Eisold thought that the athletic complex sight was not the best location for tennis courts,and that they could be incorporated into another park,possibly the new Prestwick Park,Claret Park or Meadows Park. Eliason mentioned that R.AA.A does not break the numbers down by resident/non resident for baseball and softball,but Dakota REV does break down their numbers this way. There was discussion on the accurary of the numbers and that it is difficult to track because the programs are run by volunteers and it takes a lot of time to put together this information. There is also a turnover of directors every couple of years. Eisold asked for more accurate numbers from RAAA. Schultz asked the Commission for their input as far as what size fields would serve the most groups. Knight sta.ted that Jon Adams would be able to best answer that for baseball. There was discussion on weekend use of fields and that other communities do have games on weekends. Schultz asked the Commission whether they thought there should be two games a night on certain fields. Knight felt that the Commission could not answer that question. Bartz stated that the various athletic associations know what is best for them. If they don't want to have games on weekends,the Commission should not force them to. Schultz asked the Commission for their egpecta.tions for weekend use of fields. Some members thought that it was up to the associations to decide when to play. Eisold said that we haven't tried it,but if the referendum for the athletic complex should fail,we should offer this as an option,and we may have to go to Saturdays to utilize the resources we have. Discussion continued on what we need for facilities at the athletic complex. Eliason thought that Plan 3A stood out as the best option,that we need to get as much into this plan as possible,all ponding should be moved under the power lines,we need to build as close to the road easement as possible,we should redesign Erickson Park and some of Shannon Park,and we should continue to work with DCTC. All of these combined will be a huge step forward. There was continued discussion on what size baseba.11 fields would be the most useful;whether they should be large,multipurpose fields and have portable fencing or whether they should be youth fields. Making the fields at Erickson Park youth size was discussed. At the community meeting on August 20,Jon Adams had asked for two 315'fields and four 225'foot fields. T'here was discussion on whether portable fencing would work or not,and issues with pitching mounds. Eisold said that pitching mound maintenance issues can be fiaed. Strayton asked that we talk to others -4 - PARKS 8� RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 about the baseball field issue to get more input. Schultz will go back to RA.AA and verify all of their information,and the resident/nonresident numbers and verify for each sport how many fields they are using and put the information into a chart to show who we should be trying to accommoda.te. Knight thought it was still unclear what size fields we need and asked how it would be decided. Strayton would like to see set mounds and fences for the baseball fields. Right now there is only one field in Rosemount that is sized right. Knight asked that Schultz talk to Brian and Dave who have a lot of egperience and would have good input regarding what size fields would be best,and based on what they can come closest to agreeing on,redesign the plan with that size fields. Schultz will contact all of the user groups,get information on field use and provide a chart of all of the information the Commission requested. 7. NEW BUSINESS: b. D'I�ECtor'S RepOrt — The park improvement fund balance as of July 31,2007 was$2,124,206.40. No parks dedication fees,grants or donations were received. Interest for July was $11,559.54. There were expenditures of$9,943.41 for parks master planning services,outdoor recreation complex planning,and Prestwick Park planning. Parks,Trails and Master Plan Update—Staff is continuing to work on updating the master plan. Schultz will bring more information later this fall. Other Items-T'here are a variety of UMORE committee meetings coming up. Schultz will forward information on these meetings to the Commissioners. We have applied for grants to continue with the natural plantings around Rosemount. The mayor and city staff received some complaints about parking near Shannon Park and Bloomfield Park. Schultz provided maps of both areas. People attending events at Shannon Park were parking in cul de sacs near the park. In the Bloomfield development,people attending events at Bloomfield Park were parking in private driveways,cutting through private yards,littering,and blocking access for residents. We can look at adding parking to the parks master plan if there are issues with over crowding in some parking lots. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Bartz to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Knight. Ayes: 5 Nays:0 Motion passed. T'he meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary - 5 -