View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Parks and Recreation


Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes

MARCH 2, 2010

 

PRESENT:              Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Lenz, Pederson, Ristow, Stark, Willmus

ABSENT:                Hiber, Jacobson

STAFF:                   Brokke, Anfang, Evenson

 

1.    INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT

No Public Comment

           

2.    COMMISSIONER RECOGNITION

Commission Chair Willmus recognized departing Commissioner Sara Brodt Lenz for her years of service and contributions to the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission.

 

3.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 9, 2010 MEETING

Commission Recommendation:  Minutes for the February 9, 2010 meeting were                                                                         

approved unanimously.

 

4.    PARK AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN LISTENING SESSION

Michael Schroeder from LHB and Jeff Evenson, Parks Superintendent were present for this Commission Listening Session.  Schroeder spoke of the 10 Master Plan Listening Sessions that have been conducted over the past 8 weeks.  The Listening Sessions have encouraged community engagement and were designed to provide an opportunity for community members the opportunity to share their thoughts on Roseville Parks, Recreation Facilities and Recreation Programs.  Planning staff have met with members of the City Council, four neighborhood sectors, the business community, the arts, friends and athletics special interest groups.  Following the brief introduction, Michael encouraged Commissioners to share their thoughts on the Parks and Recreation System.

§  Willmus commented on gaps in the physical location of some parks and specifically in regards to the geographic disparity in parks in the Southwest sector of the City.

§  Lenz talked of the current disconnect in the pathway system in relation to the parks.

§  Pederson recognized the good variety in neighborhood parks throughout the City and the significant need for increased PIP funding to maintain and/or improve the park resources we currently have in the system.

§  Etten spoke to the fact that neighborhood parks tend to be more neglected than the larger and more visible community parks due to limited resources.  Capital funding needs to be provided in order to keep up structures to a high level.

§  Dave Holt commented on the inconsistency in accessibility to park amenities.

§  Lenz suggested that maybe some parks should be made into more open space if we cannot afford to maintain play equipment.

§  Dave Holt recognized the need for places for teenagers to gather and play.

§  Commissioners spoke to the fact that our community parks are the shining stars in the City, they are destination parks for community members and guests.  We are fortunate the local foundations and Friends organizations have embraced Central Park and it would be nice if there were these same connections to our neighborhood parks.

§  Lenz suggested encouraging volunteers to participate in the Adopt-A-Park program and recommended designing a system for single jobs, not necessarily long term commitments.

§  Mary Holt recommended using signage to promote volunteer opportunities.

 

         Michael Schroeder asked Commissioners to talk about the areas they see as challenges for the department.

§  Commissioners commented on the extensive list of environmental stewardship issues in the parks;

o   Forestry and the diseased and hazardous tree program

§  No resources identified to address this issue

§  A number of neighboring communities have a full-time forester on staff to manage the forestry program

o   Buckthorn

§  No resources identified to address this issue

o   Water Run-Off

§  Dave Holt sees the need to maintain “physical education” components for local kids; practice facilities like fields and courts are needed to continue to keep our kids active.  There is also a need for indoor places to play.

§  Lenz commented on the fact that she thought that sometime during her 6 year term as a Commissioner there would be at least a plan for a community center …

§  Commissioners around the table commented on the need for a centrally located community center

o   There needs to be a way to hear from the people in regards to a community center; if there are enough citizens who want a center and are willing to pay for it there should be some action taken to make it happen.

o   Mary Holt commented on how it is a shame that in so many instances Roseville schools are packing the students up on busses to go to the Shoreview or Maplewood Community Center rather than being able to enjoy a facility at home.

o   Commissioners mentioned that there is no notion of where a community center might be located in the community, perhaps this type of vision would help move the concept along.

§  Lenz suggested looking into using random, empty retail space for community programs.

§  There are aesthetic issues in our park system;

o   Access to Langton Lake ball fields is awkward and inconvenient.

o   Visibility and access to a number of parks needs to be improved.

 

         Michael Schroeder asked which policy areas need to be addressed

§  Fiscal policy with a consistent means for generating the needed revenues

§  Commercial components need to play into the master plan

§  Parking is challenging throughout the system

§  Address tall structures in the parks

§  Explore multiple uses in logical situations

 

5.    COMMUNICATIONS TOWER DISCUSSION

    Staff talked to Commission about the Council’s request for guidance in regards to; placement, design, impacts and use of revenues.

§  Stark, Willmus and Brokke met earlier to frame up talking points to begin the discussion.

§  Willmus reminded the Commission that they initially took action that approved a single pole that housed both lights for the hockey rink and the Clearwire tower needs.

o    Willmus also spoke of the need to establish a general policy that guides activity and requests like this on park properties.

o    Willmus summarized the Commissions comments and discussion as shutting the door on co-location in a park.

 

§  The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends the following as it relates to towers in city parks:

o    General Conditions for Policy on Towers in City Parks:

·         Shall be considered on a case by case basis and must be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan

·         Proposal must be a direct infrastructure benefit to the park

·         Proposal must be a direct benefit to all park users

·         Each case shall be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and recommendation

·         Each proposal shall involve community and neighborhood input meetings

·         Park must be appropriate size to support a commercial use

·         Co-location is not recommended in a city park because of the height and space requirement that are dictated

·         A building shall not be allowed unless there is a possibility for dual use, i.e., restroom/community room facilities etc.? 

·         Agreement shall include a provision to remove pole/equipment and restore area should provider go away where there is no longer a need, i.e. letter of credit or bond

·         Each case shall require a visual impact assessment (visual impact statement)

·         All installation and restoration costs shall be borne by the provider with no cost to the city

·         Appropriate compensation shall be received by the City 

Commission Recommendation: Motion made by Commissioner Etten that the above general conditions be recommended to the City Council when considering towers in city parks, seconded by Willmus. Motion approved 7-1 with Commissioner Ristow voting no. 

 

§  The following recommendation was made on March 2, 2010 by the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission as it relates to a tower in Acorn Park:

o    Monopole (data only):

·         Installation shall be consistent with the park plan and not exceed the following criteria:

o   Dimension of pole similar to existing light or telephone poles              (X  dimension)

o   Height of pole shall not exceed 100 ft.

o   Ground space shall not exceed 7 x 7 ft

·         Installation shall prefer combination use with park amenity, i.e. attached to replaced light pole

·         Installation, maintenance and operation shall not interfere with park activities and shall be scheduled with the Parks and Recreation Department

·         Screening shall be defined by the Parks and Recreation Department

·         Perform a visual impact assessment (visual impact statement)

·         Agreement shall include a provision to remove pole/equipment and restore area should provider go away where there is no longer a need, i.e. letter of credit or bond

·         Agreement shall include a provision to have the pole and equipment moved at city discretion if dictated by Park System Master Plan

·         All installation and restoration costs shall be borne by the provider with no cost to the city

Commission Recommendation: Motion made by Commissioner Stark to recommend to the City Council the above conditions if a tower is considered in Acorn Park, seconded by Commissioner D. Holt. Motion passed unanimously. 

 

§  The following recommendation was made on March 2, 2010 by the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission on the distribution of revenues derived from towers in city parks:

o    Revenues:

·         It is recommended that all tower revenues be deposited in the city general fund and redistributed to departments through the annual budget process

·         Park infrastructure improvements and/or acquisitions may be considered in lieu of cash 

Commission Recommendation: Motion by Commissioner Stark to recommend to the City Council that the above revenue distribution method be used if towers are installed in city parks, seconded by D. Holt. Motion passed unanimously.

6.    IMAGINE ROSEVILLE 2025 ACTION STEPS DISCUSSION

Commissioners made the following suggestions;

§  Need for better use of technology

§  The key component for advancing parks, getting people involved and engaged is the need for staffing positions that have a strong community focus and can support grassroots efforts for volunteerism and community stewardship

§  Commissioners believe IR 2025 initiatives will be flushed out through the Master Plan process and result in the alignment of goals for the Commission

 

7.    DIRECTORS REPORT

§  Master Plan Update

o    The Technical Advisory Team representatives are getting more involved

o    A school district property issue at Fairview Community Center has been brought to the CAT, planning staff and Parks and Recreation staff are exploring the best way to include school district properties in the Master Plan

o    The design team are working with the CAT to indentify eight planning areas for the Master Plan

§  The 2010 PIP was approved by the Council for $185,000

§  The Rice Creek Watershed is planning a project that will cleanout Oasis Pond this summer

§  Thank you Sara Brodt Lenz and Matt Hiber for your service to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City of Roseville

o    The application deadline for Commission positions closed last week.  There were 9 applications for the 2 Parks and Recreation Commission.  Interviews will take place March 8 and appointments will be made March 22

 

8.    OTHER

§  Willmus thanked Sara Brodt Lenz for all her work over the past 6 years

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Jill Anfang, Assistant Director