Parks and Recreation Board

Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board Regular meeting October 17, 2024 Regular meeting The regular meeting was called to order by Chair, Bill Lewis at 7:00 p.m. Board members present Present in the Chambers were Chair Bill Lewis, Vice Chair John Ferm, Board Members Ken Helvey, Kelly Cunningham, Andy Mielke, Krista Kuhnly. Board members Board Members absent was: Board Member Deb Syhre absent Also present Also present in the Chambers were: Council Representative Hanson, Chuck Stifter, Director; Ben Jaszewski, Parks and Planning Superintendent; Aimee Peterson, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director; and Angie Dehn, Community Center Manager. Approval of agenda Chair Lewis called for any changes to the agenda. Director Stifter replied there are none. Motion made by Vice Chair Ferm, seconded by Board Member Kuhnly to approve the agenda for the October 17, 2024 meeting as presented. Upon call for the question, on a voice vote, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Public comments No requests were received. Special business No items present. Board Member reports Board Member Kuhnly stated she greatly enjoyed attending the Park Board tour. Staff reports Director’s report: Director Stifter thanked the Park Board members for attending the park tour. He explained this was a great way for staff to showcase the work that has been done over the past year. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 2 Director Stifter stated he was in Atlanta last week at an NRPA conference with Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Peterson and Community Center Manager Dehn. Assistant Parks and Recreation Director’s report: Aimee Peterson reported she enjoyed attending the park tour with the board. Ms. Peterson commented on internal events that have been expanded. She stated Oktoberfest was held on Saturday, September 28 and there were over 3,000 attendees this year. She indicated the Water Lantern Festival was held at Town Green on September 28 as well. Ms. Peterson explained Maria’s Voice held their tribute to domestic violence last week at Central Park. Ms. Peterson discussed the staff outreach event that was held at the University of Minnesota, noting staff was able to speak with students about career opportunities. Ms. Peterson reported Maple Grove was recently recognized as the number one Learn to Skate program in the State of Minnesota and twenty sixth in the nation. Ms. Peterson stated Minnesota Parent recently announced the 2024 awards for family favorites and Central Park was awarded third place in the best destination playground category. Parks and Planning Superintendent’s report: Ben Jaszewski updated the Board on Village Park. He noted the play equipment would be finished up early next week along with the landscaping. He indicated the arbor would be installed around November 4. Mr. Jaszewski reported the playground equipment at Nottingham and Donahue North parks was now installed. He stated work continues at Village Park and Polaris. Mr. Jaszewski stated the Kerber tennis courts were paved in early October and would be painted next spring and noted the fencing and nets would be installed yet this fall. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 3 Mr. Jaszewski thanked the Rotary Club for donating $10,000 to assist with the planting of trees. Mr. Jaszewski indicated the splash pad would be closing after this weekend, noting staff would begin preparing for the winter program at Central Park. He explained due to the amount of maintenance required the Crokicurl would not be built this year. Community Center Manager’s report: Angie Dehn discussed how the facility maintenance coordinator was working to find a balance with the gym use at the Community Center and noted open volleyball has become very popular. Ms. Dehn reported Trinity Church has been a great partner with the Community Center and was holding church services on a weekly basis. Ms. Dehn provided the board with construction updates and displayed photos for the Community Center expansion project. She commented further on the proposed construction timeline. She reported all of this information was available on the city’s website. Ms. Dehn reviewed upcoming events that would be held at the Community Center which included an Endeavor Schools professional development conference, an Anambra Association of MN Gala, the Lions Waffle Breakfast, North Central College Health Association Annual Conference, a Halloween Gift and Craft Show, a Minnesota Law Enforcement Wellness Summit, a Holiday Craft Boutique hosted by the Maple Grove Lions and Maple Grove Seniors, an American Red Cross Blood Drive and the Maple Grove Home Show. Chair Lewis commended staff for keeping operations going at the Community Center during the expansion project. Council Liaison’s Report: Council Member Hanson provided the board with an update from the City Council. She commented on the recent ribbon cutting ceremonies the City Council had attended, which were for Axis Precision, Mama’s Happy and noted Grackle would hold a ribbon cutting Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 4 tomorrow. She explained she attended the domestic violence event that was held at Central Park, noting this event was very well done. CONSENT BUSINESS Consent business Chair Lewis requested Item C be presented by staff. Parks and Planning Superintendent Jaszewski introduced Parkkeeper Jack Denzer to the Park Board. Parkkeeper Jack Denzer stated he was thankful to have the opportunity to work for the City of Maple Grove and explained he looked forward to beginning his work with the city tomorrow. Motion made by Board Member Helvey, seconded by Board Member Cunningham to approve the Consent Items as presented. A. Minutes – September 19, 2024 regular meeting B. Approve claims C. Appointment - Parkkeeper D. Appointment - Community Center food services coordinator E. Special use permit – Maple Grove Community Organization – Halloween Family Fun Event F. Special use permit – Experience Maple Grove – Turkey Trot Fun Run event G. Grant application – Community Center play equipment – Resolution No. 24-130 PB H. Grant application – 2025 play equipment replacement – Resolution No. 24-131 PB Upon call for the question, on a voice vote, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Old Business, Item A Parks and Planning Superintendent Jaszewski stated staff is Pickleball court use and requesting board discussion and direction on the management maintenance of pickleball facilities within the park system. Staff conducted a study of pickleball court locations and their proximity to Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 5 residential areas to address recent resident concerns about nuisance noise levels. Pickleball has a distinctive sound, and in certain conditions, can carry into nearby properties and in some cases be a nuisance. The study focuses on identifying which courts have potential to create nuisance noise levels and exploring effective solutions, such as sound barriers and fencing upgrades, to balance recreational use with the quality of life for the immediate neighborhood. The goal is to maintain access to this popular recreational game while respecting the quality of life for those that live in close proximity to the courts. Mr. Jaszewski reported there are currently 17 locations within the city that have tennis courts painted with pickleball lines, and eight of these sites have courts that are located within 200 feet of residential areas. All locations feature dual-use courts, where at least one court has lines for tennis and pickleball. This shared-use approach has been a practical solution for meeting the growing demand for pickleball facilities at neighborhood parks without the need to build new courts. However, the proximity of these courts to residential homes has raised concerns about noise impact, particularly at the eight sites closest to residential properties. This has led to a more focused examination of noise control measures, such as sound barriers and fencing upgrades, to minimize disruption while preserving access to recreational facilities. Ms. Jaszewski explained to mitigate sound concerns at courts near residential areas, two primary options could be considered. The first option involves installing sound abatement materials on fences within 200’ of residences along with strategic landscaping to help absorb and deflect noise from pickleball play. These barriers, combined with trees and shrubs, could provide an effective buffer between the courts and nearby homes, helping to reduce the impact of the sport's distinctive noise. The second option is to remove pickleball lines from these dual-use courts and return them to tennis- only facilities. This option completely eliminates structured pickleball play and the associated noise issues at these locations while still maintaining recreational use of the space for tennis, which is typically less disruptive to nearby residents. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 6 Both options have the potential to reduce noise impacts and as a result improve the quality of life for nearby residences. Mr. Jaszewski indicated based on the provided data, the average cost of installing sound barriers and fencing for pickleball courts near residential areas varies depending on the length of the fence and the direction of the homes. At some sites it may be necessary to upgrade the fencing and footings to handle the additional load of the sound barriers, which can contribute to the overall costs. The cost for sound mitigation material is estimated at $30 per linear foot (installed by park staff), while the cost of fencing is $110 per linear foot (installed by contractor). On average, sound barrier installations would range from $3,180 to $6,780, and fencing costs range from $11,660 to $24,860. The total cost for both sound barriers and fencing at individual sites typically falls between $14,840 and $31,640, depending on the distance of the fence and the proximity of the courts to residential areas. Based on the data, the total cost for implementing sound barriers and fencing at all identified sites would be approximately $198,440. This reflects the significant investment required to effectively mitigate noise at courts that are located closest to homes. Landscaping modifications would vary by site and are not included in the above estimates but could be funded through the parks' annual tree planting allocation from the general fund. Mr. Jaszewski indicated staff recommends that the board consider using Fish Lake Woods Park as a test site for implementing sound barriers and landscaping to mitigate noise from pickleball courts. Given its proximity to residential homes (only 92 feet away) Fish Lake Woods is an ideal location to assess the effectiveness of these measures. Additionally, staff believe the courts at Fish Lake Woods are naturally protected from high winds due to surrounding terrain and vegetation, which means that the existing fence likely would not need an upgrade, further reducing costs. The combination of sound barriers and natural landscaping could help absorb and reduce noise, while maintaining the site’s aesthetics. By using Fish Lake Woods as a test site, the board can evaluate whether sound mitigation techniques can be a feasible, long-term solution before expanding efforts to other locations. If Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 7 successful, this approach could be applied to other high- priority courts near residential areas. Vice Chair Ferm indicated the reasoning for replacing the fence would be to assist with covering the weight of the sound barrier. Mr. Jaszewski explained the fencing material would need to have footings to carry the added wind load on and weight of the sound barrier material. He stated the footings would only be required on one or two sides of the fence being discussed for sound mitigation efforts. Vice Chair Ferm questioned if the sound would be pushed from one side of the park to the other with the proposed sound barrier. Mr. Jaszewski stated this was not his understanding through the research he has read. Rather, the sound barrier would muffle or mute the sound. Chair Lewis asked if the sound barrier for Fish Lake Woods would be for two sides of the court. Mr. Jaszewski reported this was the recommendation. Board Member Cunningham stated she understood the city had received one complaint for noise at Fish Lake Woods which was why staff was recommending the noise barrier be tested at this park. However, she also understood these pickleball courts were not the closest to homes. She believed it would be more fair to test the sound barrier material at a different park where the pickleball courts were closer to neighboring homes. Chair Lewis asked if the city had received complaints from residents for other parks. Mr. Jaszewski stated he was not aware of any other complaints. He indicated at Donahue North, the nearest neighbor was 50 feet away, but it was to the side. He commented on how the direction of play impacts how sound travels. Board Member Helvey requested further information on how the new courts at Kerber Park would be painted. Mr. Jaszewski stated Kerber would have two tennis courts and one pickleball court painted. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 8 Board Member Helvey indicated he would like to see this revisited given the fact there used to be four pickleball courts at Kerber Park. Board Member Helvey suggested a test on the sound material be done at Fish Lake Park due to the direction of the sound. Board Member Mielke supported this recommendation. Board Member Cunningham thanked staff for pointing out how the placement or position of the pickleball courts impacts how the noise travels. She stated she could support the sound barrier being installed at Fish Lake Park for testing purposes. Board Member Kuhnly commented if the sound barrier was used and it was ineffective, could this be repurposed at another park. Mr. Jaszewski reported this would be the case. Chair Lewis indicated he visited Fish Lake Park recently, and discussed the investments the city has made in this park. He wanted to see the city bringing purposeful programming to the community in a meaningful manner without overly impacting the neighbors. He stated he supported testing the sound barrier material at Fish Lake Park on two sides (south and east) of the fencing. Board Member Helvey questioned if the sound barrier could be installed yet this fall. Mr. Jaszewski indicated he did not have this project in the budget for 2024. He explained his plan was to purchase and install the sound barrier material in the spring of 2025. Board Member Cunningham asked that signs be posted regarding pickleball rules and hours at Fish Lake Park. Mr. Jaszewski stated signs had been printed and would be posted. Vice Chair Ferm indicated he was pleased the city had only received one complaint to date and he appreciated the fact the city would be testing the sound barrier material for the one park of concern. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 9 Old Business, Item B Director Stifter stated the Park Board last reviewed design and Lions pavilion costing for the Lions pavilion at the April 1, 2024, joint work replacement session with council. Generally, the board and council supported the direction of the pavilion design but asked staff to find some cost reductions where possible. Additionally, the funding strategy previously proposed needs final approval from council. Staff is recommending the Park Board review and recommend a design and funding strategy for council consideration. For this meeting staff is proposing a discussion to reaffirm the desires of the board. A motion to advance a recommendation to council is appropriate if the board so desires. With the advancement of the Community Center project the loss of the Lions pavilion and playground along with the skate park were unfortunate but necessary to capture usable space on the west side for needed parking to serve the arena expansion. During the planning it became apparent these amenities would need to be relocated to maximize efficient parking lot design. The proposed location creates a greater separation between the proposed pavilion/playground and the arena front doors but does provide some purpose to the lake shore side of the large parking lot and will provide a prominent overlook of West Arbor Lake and Town Green. The pavilion will be available for various events and programs and rentable for private use. The added restrooms are a much- needed improvement to the campus. Director Stifter reported since April, staff has worked with the consultant to confirm four design options for the pavilion along with associated cost projections. Options consider a spectrum of designs to replace the pavilion on the MGCC campus near a planned new Lions playground. As a reminder, the funds to pay for these two amenities come from several sources, namely, the playground replacement fund, building replacement fund, Lions contribution and the park dedication fund. Total cost for the two amenities is estimated at $1.5M. These costs were shared at the last joint work session as part of the overall community center renovation and expansion project “sources and uses” breakdown. Playground replacement $300,000 Building replacement $165,000 Lions’ contribution $140,000 Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 10 Park dedication $895,000 Total estimate $1,500,000 Director Stifter commented the first four options are architecturally designed incorporating components of the new Community Center architecture in both look and materials. option 2 was most preferred at previous showings so options 3 and 4 are iterations that simplify the design to reduce costs. Director Stifter explained a fifth option to consider would be to purchase a catalog pavilion of the likes of the new Lakeview Knolls Park pavilion near the pickleball courts. That, in combination with a standalone toilet building, could be a cost- effective approach to the project. The Lakeview pavilion and toilet building cost about $385K but are about half the size of the proposed Lions pavilion. A budget estimate for a more cost-effective Lions pavilion and toilet building design would likely be in the range of $750-$950K. Further cost saving may be achievable if the project is separated from the Community Center improvements and bid separate. Staff would need to evaluate the potential savings if this option is the preference of the board. This fifth concept has not been reviewed with the Lions nor the City Council. Staff is seeking discussion and direction from the board and if appropriate a motion to recommend the council proceed with a specific option. Adam Barnett, JLG, commented further on the design modifications for the Lions Pavilion Park replacement and displayed images for the pavilion options. He explained option 1 would have a flat roof with storage in the pavilion along with bathrooms. He stated option 2 would provide a shelter with a strong gabled roof with storage and bathrooms. He reported option 3 would square up the footprint and would still have storage and bathrooms. He indicated option 4 would be the simplest as it would have a “masonry box” for storage and bathrooms with no canopy. He commented option 5 would provide an off-the-shelf option and would be the most cost effective. Phil Leith, President of the Maple Grove Lions, explained he met with staff several times to discuss this project. He commented this pavilion is used for the Lions Corn Feed and Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 11 several other events. He questioned if the old pavilion was similar in size to options 1 and 2. Director Stifter stated options 1 and 2 were similar in size to the old pavilion. Mr. Leith asked that the new pavilion not be smaller in size. He indicated he would also like to be involved in the water and electricity plans. He thanked the city for working together with the Lions on this project. Board Member Cunningham thanked Mr. Leith for his input. She agreed the pavilion should not be smaller than the original pavilion. She recommended the board not make a decision on the pavilion until further information was available on the out of the box option (option 5). She stated this may provide cost savings for the city and then the inside of the building could be more customized. Board Member Mielke inquired if option 5 would lead to a great deal of savings for the city. Director Stifter stated he hasn’t looked into this option too closely. Board Member Helvey commented this was one of the first things people see when the drive into the Community Center lot. He explained the city has not typically done things on the cheap when it comes to its park amenities. He supported the city moving forward with a well-planned and consistently designed park pavilion. He stated he supported option 1 at this time, noting this option would nicely compliment that adjacent ice arena. Board Member Kuhnly questioned if the roof pitch in option 2 had to be this high. She indicated she was not a fan of the flat roof in option 1 either. She suggested the roof pitch in option 2 be reduced slightly. She stated there were a lot of great ideas within each option, but noted she was not a fan of the numerous brown posts either and stated she would like to see more white on the pavilion. She asked if option 2 would be taller than the Community Center building. Mr. Barnett stated this would be the case. Vice Chair Ferm stated it would be worthwhile to learn more about option 5. He explained of the other four options Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 12 available to the board, he supported option 1 because the look would tie in nicely with the Community Center and entire civic campus. Board Member Cunningham commented she typically supports a gable end, but in this case she supported option 1 moving forward with a slightly higher pitch on the roof. She noted she would still like further information on option 5. Board Member Kuhnly suggested skylights be considered if option 1 were to move forward in order to add dimension and light into the pavilion. Director Stifter indicated another option to consider would be to explore reorienting the pavilion in order to open the pavilion to the Community Center. He stated he would take the direction and feedback from the board and noted this item would come back to the board for further consideration in November. Chair Lewis thanked the board for their feedback and stated he wanted to ensure the Lions pavilion was done right because this was an important amenity to the entire campus. NEW BUSINESS New Business, Item A Parks and Planning Superintendent Jaszewski stated this PUD is Subdivision – Rush Hollow located north of Highway 81, along Territorial Road bordered 5th Addition by Maple Grove Parkway and lies within the city’s Park Service Area (PSA) 4. A neighborhood park is planned for this PSA. Pedestrian access to the planned regional trail system and neighborhood park are essential in connecting new residents to the many nearby park amenities. Mr. Jaszewski explained the applicant previously satisfied a portion of the park dedication obligation with a land dedication of 1.09 acres which equates to 9% of the required obligation for the entire Rush Hollow PUD. The dedicated land, outlots U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, are for future local and regional trail corridors. The 9% reduction in the park dedication obligation will carry forward to all future subdivisions within the Rush Hollow PUD. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 13 Mr. Jaszewski reported the balance of the park dedication obligation will be paid in cash. The Rush Hollow 5th Addition subdivision consists of 4 single-family residential units and 76 multi-dwelling units. The current single-family rate is $4,092 per unit or lot. The land dedication (9%) reduces the single- family rate to $3,782 per unit and the multi-dwelling rate to $2,980. Cash dedication for Rush Hollow 5th Addition calculates as follows: PUD 583 units 1st Addition 221 single family units 2nd Addition 33 single family units 3rd Addition 186 single family units 4th Addition 12 single family units 5th Addition 80 (76 multi & 4 single family) units Remaining 51 units The cash dedication for the Rush Hollow 5th Addition calculates as follows: 4 single family units x $3,724 per unit = $14,896 76 multi-dwelling units x $2,980 per unit = $226,480 Total Cash Dedication = $241,376 Staff recommends the Park Board approve the Rush Hollow 5th Addition plat and accept the cash dedication. Motion made by Vice Chair Ferm, seconded by Board Member Cunningham to approve the park dedication requirements on the Rush Hollow 5th Addition plat pursuant to Maple Grove Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 30:18, Provision of Land for Public Use: • Applicant shall fulfil the park dedication requirements on the plat with a cash dedication minus any credit for a previous land dedication and based upon residential rate in effect at the time the plat is released by the city for recording. Park Board Meeting October 17, 2024 Page 14 • Applicant may pay the fee at any time after the final plat has been approved by the City Council, but it must be paid before the plat is released for filing with the county. The final cash dedication is based on the rate at the time the dedication is paid. Rates are reviewed annually by the City Council at their first meeting in February. This may affect the final cash dedication requirements. Upon call for the question, on a voice vote, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. Adjournment Motion made by Board Member Cunningham, seconded by Board Member Kuhnly to adjourn. Upon call for the question, on a voice vote, there were six ayes and no nays. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Chuck Stifter, Director Parks and Recreation Board City of Maple Grove