HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCPR-04-11-12 SPECIAL (Approved:
CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BOARD MEETING MINUTES
n Special Meeting
April 11, 2012, 6:00 P.M.
Monon Community Center East
1235 Central Park Drive East
CARMEL, IN 46032
MEMBER ATTENDEES MEMBER ABSENTEES M
D Cihak Hansen M Westermeier
J Engledow M Klitzing
W Franklin D Grisham
J Kirsh (left 7:20) Members of the Public
P Knowles
e
J Kristunas
R Leirer
R Taylor A p
I. Roll Call t
ii,,,
The Special meeting of the Carmel /Clay Board of Parks andLRe,� was convened at approximately 6:00 p.m.
on April 11, 2012 pursuant to notice. President J Engledow asked Secretary R Leirer to call the roll. All Members
were present. Others in attendance area n,oted above.
II. CaII To Order and Pledge Of Allegianc 'iPro tocol A''
President J Engledow called the meeting to which commenced after the Pledge of Allegiance and a
recitation of the protocol for the public comment porton a copy of which was available as a
handout to the Public See Appendix A.
NOTE: Hereinafter minutes will state the motion, followed parenthetically by the name of the one who made
If the motion (listedirst) and then the one who seconded it. For example the motion would read, "It was moved to
approve the minutes `etc. (Franklin, Kirsh)." When a motion is carried but not unanimously, the results of the vote
will be listed i.e. "(Frank, Kirsh6 to 2, with 1 abstaining). When the motion was carried unanimously, a "C -Un"
will be added 1 .e. (Franklin Kirshl Un)� g �Action taken without objection will be noted in brackets as well.
Y
III. Consideration of rro m Net Ze iiving Proposal for an Energy Efficient Demonstration Building
A T' :4 Introduction /Staff Recommendation: Michael Klitzing
Using Powe i oint, Micha "el covered the points contained in the attached coversheet previously
distributed to thePark BoardSee Appendix B. He next provided a checklist of considerations with
regard to how thej with the Park Board's adopted planning documents and noted that
the Net Zero Living'Proposal provided a unique opportunity to (a) partner with a not for profit
organization, (b) prom environmentally sustainable construction practices and (c) implement the vision
of the200 Centr Park Master Plan and the 2004 Design Development Documents at minimal cost to
the ParkkBoard o long as Net Zero Living, Inc. is willing and able to meet the following criteria:
Provid 1,200 SF of usable first floor meeting space for Department programs and not for profit
organizations, consistent with practices for the existing Meeting House. Ideally, the meeting space
would be 1 large room with a divider, but could be 2 separate rooms of approximately 600 SF each.
This would make each room about the size of the Meeting Room in the Monon Community Center.
In addition to meeting space, the facility must include a kitchen and sufficient restrooms to
accommodate the meeting space occupancy.
Meeting space, kitchen, and restrooms to be available during designated hours once the building is
constructed and ready for occupancy.
At least one lockable closet for which only Department staff has access is needed for storage.
First floor of the building must be ADA compliant and meet all applicable building codes for a public
facility.
Net Zero Living, Inc. to be responsible for all costs for demolition of existing structure, site
preparation, and construction of the new building. Construction costs to include all required utility
connections.
1
New North Campus entrance and parking lot is constructed, consistent with the plans outlined in the
2004 Design Development Documents, to support the new facility. Construction costs could be
incorporated into other development plans for the North Campus if approved by the Park Board.
Terms of the agreement must conform to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, an
regulations.
Any proposed agreement subject to approval of Park Board, Carmel Clay Parks Building Corporation,
Clay Township Board, and /or Carmel Common Council.
Michael noted that if the above criteria cannot be met, Staff recommends that the Park Board formally
reject the Development Proposal from Net Zero Living, Inc ,,4
B. Public Comment: No members of the public elected to s� this topic.
C. Park Board Discussion /Action
J Kirsh and R Taylor championed the idea of further investigation while D Cihak Hansen and W Franklin
expressed significant concern regarding further expend� m i p ture of staff and consultant time on an upstart
or
'0 Y,4
company with little faith that it would be willing able to meet the recommended criteria. After extensive
discussion, the Park Board referred the matter'°to the Department Staff for further consideration and
approved the topic for pursuit, authorizingtappropriate persons to take the lead(Kirsh, Knowles, 5 in
favor: Kirsh, Knowles, J Kristunas, L Rude an R Taylor too ,Opposed: D CihakHansen, J Engledow, W
Franklin and R Leirer.) 4t
IV. Consideration of the Potential Development of a Dog Park
A. Introduction /Staff Recommendation: Michael Klitzmg
Using Power Point, Michael covered the2points contained i t e attached coversheet previously
distributed to the Park Board. See Appendix,,C. He next summarized the long standing Carmel /Clay
public interest in dog parks and the Park Board sspast action retarding such highlighting the planning
documents that include notable public interest'mtdogparks:
a. 2001 -2005 Parks 8� Recreation M as r Plan (A No ember 2000 statistically valid communitywide
survey reflOdtediVtt9 of residents identified a dog °park as one of the most important park facilities
for the Park Boardttto and it ranked the same as an indoor /outdoor family aquatic center and
VA
highertana skate park (3
b. 2002 Central Park Master Plan "CPMP =.')(While a dog ark was initially included in the CPMP, the
proposed to ation was" ultimately determined to include forested wetlands making it inappropriate for a
dog park whichtogether witget constraints, precluded a dog park); and
c 2O110 2014 Parksfand Recreation: Master Plan: (A statistically valid communitywide survey
corklUetetbin June 2 96 found that 13.0% of residents viewed off -leash dog parks as the most needed
recreation ffac lity, the4h rd most desired amenity among a list of facilities making a dog park one of a
variety of amenities recommended for future development within an existing or new park.).
Mi chael noted that in 2011 increased public requests for a dog park sparked by several articles in the
''Current in Carmel,p #rompted the Dog Park Feasibility Study. Presented to the Park Board in March of
2012the Study included an assessment of existing park properties, identification of best practices
obtamedfrom other park systems, and public input from a February focus group meeting. In view of the
varied ParkBoard member reactions to the recommendation, the Park Board ultimately opted to devote
more consideration to the topic which included an invitation for more public input at a Special Meeting.
Ex
Michael next reviewed site consideration factors, the proposed location amenities and confirmed
adequate funding. All factors considered, he reported that Staff recommends that the Park Board
authorize the development of a dog park in Central Park as proposed in the 2012 Dog Park Feasibility
Study.
B. Public Comment: Many people attended and six (6) spoke, all in favor of the proposed dog park, each
offering their experience and expertise with suggestions regarding development and operational matters
briefly summarized as follows:
a. Keith Boland, 10 Shore Drive, Carmel, IN 46033: Mr. Boland endorsed the Staff recommendation but
offered an alternative phased approach to the Feasibility Study to address monetary concerns. In
keeping with the 175 Anniversary celebration, he suggested consideration of a Pioneer Dog Park as
a first step, making phased improvements over the course of time.
2
b. Judith Anspach,1872 Cecil Street, Carmel IN 46033: Ms. Anspach urged a separate facility for large
and small dogs and suggested that with the proposed facility and rules, the Park Board consider:
i. different days for the 2 dog sizes,
y
ii. prohibition of dog toys;
iii. requirement of initial and ongoing current vaccinations based on veterinarian advice;
iv. banning females in heat; and
v. allowing intact males.
c. Becki Francis, representing the Hamilton County Humane Society: Ms. Francis shared the following:
i. 56% of Hamilton County residents own at least 1 pet;
ii. endorsed the plan for 3 dogs parks;
iii. agreed with the safety factors offered by Ms. Anspach
iv. mentioned that Noblesville started with a pioneer�t,'ype shelter; and
v. offered to assist, thanking the Park Board for considering this matter.
d. Kurt Snyder, 3809 Neva Lane, Carmel, IN 46033: MrSnyde noted the following:
i. 39% owners who'are curren
of Carmel residents are do g tlyAunderserved;
ii. A dog park would serve as economic development;
iii. Restrooms would be great but could have unintended consequences should visitors leave
their dog unattended when using the facility;
iv. The proposed Dog Park is not too,ssmall; and
v. Supported arrangements to allow more users such as day specific p s ses.
e. Greg Magnusson, 10598 N. College Avenue Suite 200; Indianapolis, IN 46280: The Veterinarian of
Leo's Pet Care offered the following: y�
i. The dog park is a good idea; .44
ii. Before development -the Park Board should more input;
m
iii. Positive health asses eats should be a prerequ� t topermit issuance;
iv. A fenced area with rules andmited access is necessary;
v. Assistance with medicaltadvice� �4 Y
f. Vernon Poland 1087 Arrowwood Drive Carmel:IN.46033 Mr. Poland offered the following comments:
i. A dog park may be the only opportunity orSe io rs and the handicapped to exercise their
dogs
I ii. The d es needs to be ADA and used intelligently;
iF there are 1' dogs per household
iv. users is criticalands recommended a phone on site to report issues;
v. Vaccinations important
vi BuildFnow�on thezecommended site.
Thefelear consenst4of the Publ c was to build the facility as proposed in the Study.
Ae c Park Boar Di t o n
N D Cihak Hansen it oved and R Taylor seconded the motion to move ahead with the plan for the dog park
4- 4 i n Central Park a's` roposed The ensuing discussion included reconciliation with the 2.3 acre size, a
'kdeate regarding the wisdom of building a restroom facility, the commitment to providing ADA accessible
facilities, the possible benefit to combining the Net Zero Living facility with the needs of the Dog Park with
regardno the entr parking and restrooms, acknowledging that the former is on a much slower
develo tract, openness to designing the restroom and deferring its construction until it is determined
whether th'8`t Zero Building will go forward and confirmation of the technical ability to be creative with
passes to a low more users without overcrowding the dog park. After discussion, The Park Board
unanimo approved the motion. (Cihak Hansen, Taylor C -Un.)
V. Adjournment After President Engledow thanked the public for attending, the meeting adjourned at
approximately 7:40 p.m. (Taylor, Kristunas without objection.)
Signature: Date:
Signature: Date:
3