The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.B. Park Planing Process Policy-Res. No. 7134 _ _ _ _ __ . __ _ . � �� , I CITY OF SHAKOPEE ' �`" � � • ��' � � � � i MEMORANDUM '��' I To: Mayor and City Council i � Mark McNeill, City Administrator � From: Jamie Polley, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources i , Meeting Date: November 1, 2011 � Subject: Park Planning Process Poficy, Resolution No. 7134 � � INTRODUCTION I City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 7134, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Establishing a Policy for the Park Planning Process as recommended by the Parks I and Recreation Advisory Board. � BACKGROUND I i Since 2004 the City has planned a number of parks for land that was given by the developers to i satisfy their park dedication requirements. The City has followed a similar planning process for � each park. The park process utilizes a series of steps. The first step is to refer to the 2030 I Comprehensive Plan that was developed to determine the needs of the City based on projected growth. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan also evaluated the projected acreage needed to ' I accommodate the future facility needs. The second step was to hold neighborhood meetings for feedback on the park design. The third step was to present the design to the PRAB and the final step was the design presentation and approval by the City CounciL � It is the second step that slightiy differed from park to park and has been determined by the size � � and type of park. There have been multiple neighborhood meetings for smaller parks that are ; generally designed for the immediate neighborhood (Cloverleaf had three neighborhood � meetings). The larger parks that are planned to accommodate City athletic facilities as well as I I serve the neighborhood have had one to two neighborhood meetings for the neighbors to i comment on the design and provide feedback (Westminster had two neighborhood meeting, Greenfield East/Park Meadow had one neighborhood meeting). j j For all of the parks above the City has brought concept plans to the neighborhood meetings for �' comment. In no case did the neighborhood completely design the park from the ground up. In i all cases staff took the neighborhood feedback and made multiple changes to the plans to come up with a plan that served the greater purpose of the park. i I In other developments the City has required the developer to build the park with the � � development and the developer received credit towards park dedication for the land as well as the park improvements. These park designs had no neighborhood input (Royalty, Saddle � Ridge, Glacier, Hackney, Langdon Terrace). I DISCUSSION I On June 27, 2011 the PRAB began the discussion of what the park planning process should include; What is staff's role in the planning process and what is the process for neighborhood � input, if neighborhood meetings are a vital part of the park pfanning process, what is the number of ineefings that best serves the neighbors as well as the community as a whole, at what point � are the plans taken to the PRAB and the City Council and finally how involved should the PRAB � � and City Council members be within the park planning process. j I � � � � i I - I � The PRAB first discussed the successes and breakdowns of the last park planning process. ' i The successes included: • Holding neighborhood meetings for the neighbors to be heard. � I • Getting neighborhood input. i, • Parks being built. I • Realizing that we need to improve the park planning process. � i i The breakdowns included: I , • Concept plans were not reviewed by the PRAB prior to neighborhood meetings. ; • Process seemed rushed. ' I • City lost control — no common ground was found. �I I • Definition of neighborhood park and hybrid park not clearly illustrating what the park should serve. � • The City Council was involved by residents prior to the concept plans coming to the ! PRAB. , • Communicating expectations of what the park should be utilized for and/or should I , include. • Designed two parks at one time. ' ! The PRAB discussed the following suggestions to be included within the park planning process; � 1. Send out notices to residents about what is happening and how the process was going j to go. 2. Notify all residents using multiple media outlets and get away from only inviting neighbors. ', 3. Encourage the City Council to send the park plans back to the PRAB for further � discussion and review if the City Council does not agree with the PRAB's � recommendation. 4. Prepare more facts, data and information about particular amenities. 5. Clearly outline the benefits of the proposal. ! 6. Bring only one park development at a time. ' 7. Constantly provide the neighborhoods information and updates about the uses and � j amenities planned for the future park in their neighborhood. � On September 25, 2011 the PRAB directed staff to develop steps that would outline the park I planning process. The PRAB suggested that the action steps include input from the PRAB and , City Council on the initial designs prior to hoiding the community meetings to insure the PRAB � and City Council are on the same page regarding the park layout and amenities. It was also i suggested that during the design process staff would prepare the facts and data needed to ' assist the PRAB and City Council understand the desired and needed uses and amenities for i � the specific park. The inclusion of the PRAB and City Council in the design stage, also builds a communication and a common understanding of the needs, uses and desires of the proposed � parks. ; i � On October 24, 2011 staff presented the PRAB with the park planning process steps for parks �; to be built with the development and parks that are planned to be built at a later date. The PRAB has reviewed the steps and recommend to the City Council the adoption of these steps to be ' used in the future as the Park Planning Process Policy, attached. RELATIONSHIP TO VISION I B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and I change. � REQUESTED ACTION City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 7134, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, ! Minnesota, Estabfishing a Poficy for the Park Planning Process , I, i � RESOLUTiON NO. 7134 � � A RESOLUTi ION OF THE CfTY OF SNAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ESTABLtSHIIV� A PD�.ICY i FOR TH� PARK PLANNING PROC�SS I I I � � l�,�HEREAS, Th P�r a^d Recreatic^ P.d�isor,; Board recc��e�us a��ptirg a p�licy for the i I park planning process; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set forth the policies, standards and a philosophy for the j I planning of parks for the city. � � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF i I SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, thatthe Park Planninq Process Policy, dated November 1, 2011, j attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. � � Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this I ', day of , 2011. i I I Mayor of the City of Shakopee i � � � l�iiesi: c;ity Cierk � I I I i I � � I j I I � � � i I i i i � � I I � � � I I I I - - -- - -- — -- - - -- - --- -- - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - -- - -- -_ _- - __ _ - - - _ f � Park Planning Proce�s Poiicy 11.1.11 i 1 The processes for planning parks to be built with the development include: ' I 1. PRAB and City Council determine park plan and purpose during the development review , process. (This is to ensure that the City is accepting the correct amount of land/cash for a specific purpose). �I 2. Receive PRAB and City Council approval on design, function and name of park, , 3. Plan and build the park with the development. ' 4. Post the development plan and name during the construction of the park on the City website and a board at the park to keep it in front of the community and future residenfs. 5. PRAB reviews process The processes for planning parks that are planned to be built at a later date include: 1. PRAB and City Council determine park pian and purpose during the development review process. (This is to ensure that the City is accepting the correct amount of land/cash for a specific purpose). 2. Receive PRAB and City Council approval on concept design, function and name of park. 3. Post the development plan and name during the construction of the park on the City website and a board at the park to keep it in front of the community and future residents. 4. PRAB, City Council and Staff re-evaluate conce t lan each ear durin the bu . PP y det 9 9 discussions and presentation of the Park Reserve CIP. Changes wiN be made prior to ; receiving neighborhood ieedback. ', 5. Conduct 3 neighborhood meetings to review previously designed concept pfans and obtain feedback. 6. PRAB reviews the concept plan for recommendation to the City Council following the neighborhood meetings. i 7. The City Council reviews the recommendation from the PRAB on the final concept plan. 8. If the City Council does not agree with the recommendation, send the concept plan back to the PRAB for revisions or hold a joint work session with the PRAB to determine the final concept plan. 9. PRAB reviews process. ' � � I � I I � � i , � � i