Loading...
1989-07-11 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda Packet.CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989 7:30 p.m. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Approval of minutes of March 15, 1989. 4. Election of new Chair and Vice -Chair. 5. Consider Action of Formal Support for Parks Bond Referendum, 6. Consider Name for "Centex" Park. 7. Adjourn. MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS July 7, 1989 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin �/ ri'.. , City Administrator Re: Meeting of July llth FINALLY, you get to have another meeting. Kevin Batchelder will be present to staff the meeting. Following is some information for agenda items 5 and 6. 5. Support for Parks Bond Referendum In March, the Parks Commission adopted a formal resolution of endorsement for the recommendations of the Citizen's Parks Review Committee. Since the current program for the August 15th referendum differs slightly from the March proposal, a follow up action by the Commission to endorse this referendum would be in order. I do not think a formal resolution is necessary; a simple motion would do. 6. Name for "Centex" Park A part of our parks development program is the 27 acre community park in southeast Mendota Heights, to be dedicated by Centex Corporation. For easy reference, we have come to call this "Centex" park, but, in fact, we probably are not going to name a City park after a development corporation! This is on your agenda, so that you can begin to do some brainstorming for an appropriate name for the park. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989 7*30 p.m. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Approval of minutes of March 15, 1989. 4. Election of new Chair and Vice -Chair. 5. Consider Action of Formal Support for Parks Bond Referendum. 6. Consider Name for "Centex" Park. 7. Adjourn. ti MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS July 7, 1989 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin., City Administrator Re: Meeting of July llth FINALLY, you get to have another meeting. Kevin Batchelder will be present to staff the meeting. Following is some information for agenda items 5 and 6. 5. Support for Parks Bond Referendum In March, the Parks Commission adopted a formal resolution of endorsement for the recommendations of the Citizen's Parks Review Committee. Since the current program for the August 15th referendum differs slightly from the March proposal, a follow up action by the Commission to endorse this referendum would be in order. I do not think a formal resolution is necessary; a simple motion would do. :ti 6. Name for "Centex" Park A part of our parks development program is the 27 acre community park in southeast Mendota Heights, to be dedicated by Centex Corporation. For easy reference, we have come to call this "Centex" park, but, in fact, we probably are not going to name a City park after a development corporation! This is on your agenda, so that you can begin to do some brainstorming for an appropriate name for the park. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 15, 1989 The Parks and Recreation Commission meeting began at 7:05 P.M. on Wednesday March 15, 1989 in the Conference Room at City Hall. The blizzard on Tuesday evening forced the meeting to be held on Wednesday. The following members were present: Damberg, Huber, Leffert, Owens and Stein. Also present: Councilmember Blesener, City Administrator Frazell and Administrative Assistant Batchelder. Guests present were: Ken Dallman of U.S. West and Norm Gellerman. MINUTES The minutes of the February meeting were approved after changes were made to indicate that no additional funding was needed for this years T- ball program because costs for T-ball can be kept down. U.S. WEST City Administrator Frazell gave a background report on the application process of the U.S. West plan to provide fiber optics to the Kensington area. Frazell explained the siting of the building on park land with a storage area and rest rooms for park activities. He stated that the City Council has granted a Conditional Use Permit and has referred the request to the Parks Commission to determine which alternative is best. Ken Dallman, of U.S. West, outlined the fiber optics to the home test project that U.S. West wishes to install in the Kensington area. Ile explained how their portion of the proposed 1B ft. by 32 ft. building would be used. Mr. Dallman explained the three alternatives of siting and buildings. The Commission and Mr. Dallman discussed the parking, maintenance, liability and use of the facility. Mr. Dallman stated that U.S. West would only need to get one small service truck into the site at a time and the impact on parking would be minor. Fie stated that U.S. West would maintain the roof and the City would maintain the exterior of the building, there would be no sign or burglar alarms, and that there is no danger from the electronic technology. Councilmember Blesener described the Citizens Parks Review Committee's work on this park site. She recommended to accept a storage room, bathrooms, and an overhang with a window cut in the side and that the facility be located to maximize the parking lot with provision for at least sixty (60) spaces and that the parking lot have a drive through capability. She stated this was the Ballfields sub -committee's preference. Commissioner Leffert stated he had concerns that once again the Parks Commission received a proposal or issue so late in the process that their input was minimized and that a quick decision was necessary on a critical issue. Mr. Dallman explained the process his proposal has gone through and what the city options are on easements and buildings. Commissioner Owens .made a motion to accommodate U.S. West with option one for the east end site with a 3 foot overhanging roof, enabling a 60 car drive through parking lot The motion is subject to planning staff and City Council review. Commissioner leffert seconded and the motion was approved 5-0. ICE ARENA Norm Gellerman appeared on his and John Schwab's account to present a preliminary proposal to build an ice arena and indoor soccer facility. The arena would have two indoor ice sheets and two indoor soccer fields for use by the Minnesota Indoor Soccer League. The ice sheets would be used by local high schools, Mend -Eagan and others with verbal commitments to 3,000 hours of use. It would be a 4,000 seat arena with weight rooms and concession facilities. One ice sheet would have a smaller arena. Year round use for training, meeting and storage. A 21 - acre facility that is privately owned and would operate on a fee for service basis. The Commission queried Mr. Gellerman about parking, users, revenue projections, and traffic impact statements. The Commission expressed thanks for sharing the idea and stated this was an exciting idea and that they wished to be kept posted. CIVIC CENTER City Administrator Frazell explained the cost SOFTBALL projections and that the field's primary use would be for youth baseball. He explained the deduct items in the proposal and stated that it was simple to bring this project in under the $40,000 allotted by the Commission. Commissioner Leffert made a motion to approve the design with a $40,000 limit and the coordination of deduct items with Chuck Mastel of Mend -Eagan. Special thanks were extended to Chuck Mastel and Bill Owens for their work and efforts. Carol Damberg seconded and the motion was approved 5-0. IVY FALLS City Administrator Frazell explained how the BRIDGE neighbors, in a public hearing, had suggested a foot bridge to connect the school with the surrounding neighborhoods.': Commissioner Damberg questioned the $40,000 price tag. Chairman Stein suggested that this bridge went beyond a parks issue and should be included with a roads and bridge budget. Frazell stated the idea of the bridge had the endorsement of the trails sub -committee but not necessarily the price tag. It is part of a stub of the trails system and does provide good access for the area. Chairman Stein stated that the need for the bridge was a valid public safety issue and that this was in essence a sidewalk. Therefore, he felt it was a city issue and, not a valid parks expenditure. Councilmember Blesener stated that the bridge was a good link to access schools as part of a trail system, however, the .$40,000 price is too high. Commissioner Leffert made a motion to reject the bid for a $40,000 bridge at Ivy Falls and to informally ask the engineering staff to develop a cheaper plan. Commissioner Huber seconded and the motion was approved 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS The work on the referendum by the Citizens Parks Review Committee was reviewed and there was discussion of the referendum process. The Parks Board will meet the 20th of April to look at the package the Council will consider on the 21st of April. Councilmember Blesener presented the Citizens Parks Review Committee request for endorsement by the Parks and Recreation Commission for the plans put forward on the referendum. She presented an outline of the Ballfields recommendations, the possible Mendakota acquisition, and the Sibley proposal to the School District. Commissioner Huber presented the Trails recommendations and Commissioner Damberg presented the New and Existing Neighborhood Parks recommendations. Chairman Stein stated that he was impressed by the effort of the referendum committee and that they should be commended. He stated this was the best way to build consensus and it was obvious that they have incorporated all the necessary elements. He expressed a desire to see a resolution that is a public statement strongly endorsing the proposal as it reflects the community's input through a comprehensive process. lie congratulated the committee for their work and the City Council for providing the process. He recommended a motion to this effect that strongly recommends Council approval. Commissioner Leffert made a motion to move the Citizens Parks Review Committee's proposal to Council with a strong endorsement of approval, by resolution. Commissioner Owens seconded and the motion was approved 5-0. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Background Facts Park and Recreation Commission Affected Staff Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. January 17, 1986 SOUTHEAST AREA PARK NEEDS ANALYSIS MENDOTA HEIGHTS 612-332-0421 The Friendly Hills Neighborhood is a 10 acre neighborhood in the southeast corner of Mendota Heights. In 1977, only 38 percent of Friendly Hills, neighborhood 9, was developed. Residential development was predominantly single family homes amounting to approximately 280 units. Based on an average population of 3.7 persons per household, the neighborhood's population amounted to 1,030 people. Precise data on the current number of households in the community does not exist. However, according to the city's subdivision map, approximately 310 homes exist with another 50 lots platted. This brings the number of dwelling units to approximatley 360. Based upon 1985 estimated populations per household of 3.1, approximately 1,120 individuals are currently residing in Friendly Hills and, as a result, are served by Friendly Hills Park. The proposed southeast area land development concept, B-1, anticipates 360 new single family households, 287 townhouse units and 964 apartment units. Based on this housing concept, 3,744 new residents will be added to the neighborhood. This figure could increase if the School Forest area is developed for residential purposes. For example, approximately 128 new units would occur if all 80 acres of the School Forest site are developed for low density housing at 1.6 dwelling units per acre. r^ar;t Needs As illustrated in previous Park Commission meetings, a number of different analysis tools exist which assist in evaluating a neighborhood's actual park needs. It was previously shown that park service radius areas provide optimum service up to one -quarter of a mile from a park facility and moderate service between one -quarter and one-half mile. When applied to the southeast area, Friendly Hills provides adequate coverage for a significant portion of this area; however, the far southeastern corner remains void of coverage. Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road affect this service by acting as barriers to younger park users. It is anticipated that traffic volumes on Huber Drive will provide minimal to moderate barriers; however, Mendota Heights Road will provide a more significant park service barrier. A second analysis tool is based upon an accepted park requirement of two acres per 1,000 residents. 0 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Based on these analysis, it is concluded that the existing neighborhood west of Huber Drive and north of the existing School Forest property are well served by Friendly Hills Par k. The area south of Mendota Heights Road has need for a neighborhood park due to projected moderate and high density residential housing and the traffic barrier posed by Mendota Heights Road. Facilities normally provided by a neighborhood park include a softball field, soccer field, hard surface half court, tennis court, play structure and minimal parking. These facilities could be met jointly through a combination of public and private open spaces. However, it is doubtful that private development alone could satisfactorily meet all of these facilities. The area east of Huber Drive and north of Mendota Heights Road is more difficult to assess. Three alternatives exist to which merit consideration. An examination of each follows: 1. Establish a new neighborhood park east of Huber Drive. This alternative would undoubtedly provide the highest quality level of service and would successfully mitigate any constraint posed by Huber Drive. However, the cost of providing a new neighborhood park in terms of acquisition, development and future maintenance may be difficult both for the developer and the for the city. In addition, park -like facilities may be developed within private lots due to areas proposed low density housing. This Tandem development will also have good access to passive open space previously dedicated and occuring between the area's two wetlands. 2. Rely on Friendly Hills Park to meet the needs of residential development on both sides of Huber Drive. phis alternative is obviously the least expensive because it requires no additional park development. Much of the Riley Property would be served to a minimal level due to its location within one-half mile of Friendly Hills Park. This alternative's weaknesses include a) it fails to recognize Huber Drive as a traffic barrier, b) the neighborhood would be provided a minimal level of park service c) the active facilities at Friendly Hills Park tend to be at the west end of the development, and d) once the opportunity for park land preservation is lost, the opportunity is gone forever. 3. Develop a minimal to moderate size active area within the Tandem and adiacent development. The facilities provided may include a tennis court, active recreation space for pick up game and park size play structure. This alternative recognizes Huber Drive as a traffic barrier and tries to provide some active areas within a small geographic area and at minimal cost. Such a small park may be somewhat less flexible in design and require higher maintenance cost per acre. Related Questions 1. What can be done to overcome Huber Drive as a traffic barrier to young children? 2. What kind of actual park facilities does the Tandem development actually need? 3. What can be done to improve access to Friendly Hills Park from Huber Drive? e.g. trail access Barton=Aschman Associates, Inc. 4. Will any private recreational development occur within the large lot/low density homes likely to occur within the Tandem development? It is the consultant's recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission require land dedication from Tandem Corporation sufficient to provide the following facilities: a) tennis court, b) large play structure, c) open space graded level sufficient for informal soccer or softball games, and d) half court hard surface area. It is recommended that this area occur adjacent one of the developments wetland amenities and be developed as a part of the bond issue development. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DEVELOPER DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL Land dedication or cash contribution will be based on the following table. Dwelling Units Land Dedication Cash Contribution* Per Acre (% of Net Land Area) Per Unit 0-1 Single Family 5% $450 2-3 Single Family 10% 450 4-5 Duplex 12% 400 6-7 Townhouse 14% 325 8-10 Townhouse 16% 325 10-16 Apartment/Condo 18% 275 Over 16 Apartment/Condo 18% 275 Plus an additional .5% for every 1 D.U./Acre over 16 D.U./Acre COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL Five percent (5%) of the gross land area or fair market price *Residential cash contribution amounts should be reviewed every third year. R avid a. V rschi ��� ssar,ia+es, iris. July 8, 1985 h1r. Kevin D. Frazell, City Administrator CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 RE: Professional Park Planning Dear P1r. Frazell: During our meeting last week with yourself, Elizabeth Witt, and Jim Stein, we discussed the City's plans to update it's Park System Plan, including preparation of schematic master plans for two proposed site acquisitions. This effort is scheduled for completion and promotion in advance of a bond referendum n the spring of 1986. Having reviewed the most recent Comprehensive Plan, it appears the City's growth projections, together with population mix, indicates the need for a review of existing park and open space facilities and subsequent recommendation for proposed acquisitions and development. The following is a brief description of our proposed scope of services, subject to modification and tVie City's approval, and will serve as our preliminary proposal for park planning services: 1. Data gathering, information assimilation, meetings with City Staff and Park Commission, to develop a definitive program for a park bond referendum. 2. Inspect existing and proposed sites, inventory existing recreation facilities, and photograph as appropriate. 3. Review previous City Park and Open Space Studies, State and County Plans and proposals, and Comprehensive Plan projections and priorities. 4. Prepare, for Park Commission review, a preliminary analysis and associated recommendations. avid a, kirsch! essou:.kl Inc. - lendscape erchitacfs and file planners fouthdele office centre 6700 !ranee nvvput :oo0i edina, minnesota 55435 ( 612 ) 920-7650 July 3, 1935 Page 2 5. Make necessary modifications and finalize Lite updated Park and Open Space Study with appropriate master plans for proposed sites to be acquired with corresponding graphics. The final product will be twenty four copies in printed booklet form. The proposed fee for professional park planning services indicated above shall be Twenty Three Thousand Four hundred Dollars including expenses for mileage, film and processing, and plan materials. Supplemental servvices not determined at this time include preparation of promotional materials and duplication, the format of which will be determined at the appropriate time prior to the bond referendum. The cost of supplemental services will be determined to the City's satisfaction prior to commencement. The responsibility of P4endota Heights shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Designate an individual who will be the primary contact person for routine communication during the work process. 2. Provide any and all pertinent information needed and available to complete the study in an efficient manner. 3. Schedule meetings with Park Commission, City Council, etc., for review and necessary approvals. 4. Provide general assistance and guidance in matters not readily apparent during the planning process. It is very important that we maintain an open line of communication during Lite planning process to expidite the work in an efficient and economical manner. Bob Kost and myself from our office, both registered Landscape Architects, will be available to answer any questions as we will be working directly on this project. This task will be completed in a timely manner according to your schedule which we will assist in finalizing upon authorization to proceed. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Brief descriptions of professional background and activities of personnel is included for your review with this letter. Respectfully submitted, DAVI KIRSCHT ASSOCIATCS, IhC. David A. Kirscht, ASLA President DK/gk david a. kirscht associates, inc. landscape architects and site planners southdele office centre 6700 France avenue south edina, minnesnta 55435 (612) 920 -7650 David A. Kirscht, ASLA - Project Landscape Architect POSITION IN FIRM President - Landscape Architect & Site Planner EDUCATION Master of Landscape Architecture, Iowa State University, 1967 B.S. Landscape Design, University of Minnesota, 1963 REGISTRATION Landscape Architect, tinnesota tlo. 12320 Landscape Architect, Nebraska No. 34 EXPERIENCE David A. Kirscht Associates, Inc. 14 years Midwest Planning & Research, Inc. 3 years Brauer & Associates, Inc. 2 years Iowa State Highway Commission 1 year Graduate Teaching Assistant, Iowa State 1 year MEMBERSHIP IN American Society of Landscape Architects PROFESSIONAL Minnesota Chapter, ASLA ORGANIZATIONS CLARB Certified ACTIVITIES 1980 Experts Panel, National Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. Member, Minnesota Board of Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects. Commissioner, Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission Region II Director, Council of Landscape Architectural Reg. Boards Robert M. Kost, ASLA - Project Landscape Architect POSITION IN FIRM Project Landscape Architect & Site Planner EDUCATION Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, 1979 REGISTRATION Landscape Architect, Minnesota No. 16381 EXPERIENCE David A. Kirscht Associates, Inc. Arboron, Inc. Robert Engstrom Associates, Inc. Custom International, Inc. 1 2 2 2 year years years years MEPIBERSttIP Itt American Society of Landscape Architects PROFESSIONAL Minnesota Chapter, ASLA ORGANIZATIONS American Horticultural Society ACTIVITIES Commissioner, Orono Park Commission david a. kirschf associates, inc. landscape architects and slfe planners soothdeie office Centre 6700 France avenue south edina, minnesofa 55435 ( 612 ) 920 -7650 PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY RESPONSES, ,TUNE, 1985 1. Have you or any other member of your household used the City parks in the past year? NO-23 1-5 TIMES -22 6-10 TIMES- 19 MORE THAN 10 TIMES -119 2. Name of park nearest your residence. IVY 23 WENTWORTH 30 VALLEY 23 MARIE 38 ROGERS LAKE 14 FRIENDLY H �t p 251� 3. Number of members in household by age group. UNDER 5 - 60 6-9 YEARS - 65 10-13 YEARS - 62 14-18 YEARS - 49 18-35 YEARS - 107 35-50 YEARS - 177 OVER 50 - 103 4. How many years have you resided in Mendota Heights? 1 YEAR - 10 2-5 YEARS - 33 6-10 YEARS - 29 OVER 10 YEARS - 100 5. Which of the following recreation programs have you or any member of your household participated in during the past year? City Park & Rec Programs MendEagan Programs T-BALL, GIRLS - 32 T -BALL, BOYS - 30 VOLLEYBALL - 7 ART IN THE PARK - 25 SENIORS CLUB - 2 TENNIS - 39 HOCKEY - 45 GIRLS SOFTBALL - 28 ' BOYS BASEBALL - 47 SOCCER - 46 FOOTBALL - 8 6. Do you or any member of your household participate in recreational activities offered by other communities or organizations? YES 80, NO 92 7. Should the City of Mendota Heights offer additional recreation programs? YES - 48, NO -89 /ti¢ pro �3 DA KO TA COUNTY JEFFREo nEc COONNELL PLANNING SERVICES/PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT lerzlas��oazs DAKOTACOUNTYGOVERNMENTCENTER 1560HWY.55-HASTING: [�i 7:1; I lif IJ I T0: JIM DAME PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: ALLEN MO SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION DATE: NNE 11, 1985 Dakota County is requesting your comments on the enclosed County Bikeway Capital Improvement Schedule for 1985-1989. The departments of Planning, Parks and Aighway will be undertaking the revisions to the County Trails Plan in the next few months. We need your input to help determine the level of funding requests as part of the 1986 County budget process. We would like you to address- the Following: 1. Identify the next the five projects in your city, if any, that will be constructed in years on the County Bikeway System. 2. 3. Identify Bikeway Capital Identify County Trails any any project schedules that do not coincide. with the attached Improvement Schedule 1985-1989. route designations or segments that should be revised on the Plan. 4. Identify completed any within bikeway project"s, either County or municipal, that have been the last year or will be completed this year. For your convenience, I am enclosing a map of your city, when applicable, with the existing trails system identified. We would like you to respond by returning the enclosed map with your comments or revisions. We will be contacting you during the week of June 10-15 to set up a meeting to get your comments. We will also be conducting a survey of trail usage on the County Bikeway System for the third year. We will be surveying locations for future trails based on the proposed construction schedule, as well as measuring current usage on existing trails. We would also like your suggestions for survey locations during the summer of 1985. Your input on these issues is very important in conducting the planning process for the County Trails Plan. If you have any questions, please contact Allen Moe at 437-0225. cc: Kevin Frazell, Administrator AN E9UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER § §§ §@ \) g! ■ § $ {\\' Air iT cp vili \ \\\/ \ ®:q'® ]ft m/5l2 \ } ' / , lioli ƒ k It It 11 It 11 If it it }/\It it iiit If If It �\ \\ I of _ \ } \ \\\\\ 11 § #\ g2§%.4 §R \\\j\ \\\}\If\ \\ a;ait ;>&G=11 jd it It 11 It it CIE \/I . ��k\) . \\\ \1 §Saga , g i § 9 / sni \\�m)§2 ) �722 (22\( LAW OFFICES � y H$ssLANO MPKAsY & Sonsxsaao HAROLD J. ERBERG ftoFSBBIONAL As6oCIATioNROLLIN T ^JROLAND 0 GRAHAM 1500 MIDWEST PLAZA WEST BUILDING MINN EAPO LIS.M INN ESOTA $5402 16121 330-3000 JOHNAA . KNAPP R. MILLER WILRLIAM So BORCHERS KEITH D. SIMMONS WILLIAM G. SCHUETT. JR. February 165 1984 Mr. R. James Gesell, President Cherokee State Bank 607 South Smith Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107 Re: Mendota Heights Bike Trails Dear Mr. Gesell: DUNSEL: FEB 2 1 oil TOWARD J.OEARTY R.Ileel MAURIc[ A. HESSIAN, JR. 11920 920 19711 AUL OFFICE sA WEST FEDERAL 9UIL01NG SAINT PAULoMINNESOTA 55101 Il121224-4911 OTOFFICE 2200 20TX STREET No NowW , WAlXINGTON,O. C. 20009 IZDYI aeT-sazD 224-4911 WRITER'S DIRECT LINE I am the present Chairman of the Mendota Heights Park and Recrea- tion Commission. Mr. Orville Johnson was kind enough to forward a copy of your January 13, 1984 letter to me for my information. The members of the Park and Recreation Commission and myself were pleased to learn of your interest in constructing bike and walking paths along some of the busy roads in both Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. I wanted to let you know that our Commission has been working with the City's Engineering Staff to formulate specific plans for the construc- tion of an extensive series of bike trails throughout the City of Mendota Heights. At the present time we are in the process of submitting a grant application in conjunction with the Dakota County Park and Recreation Department to the Minnesota Department of Transportation to construct a bike trail through Valley Park. This would connect Marie to a Lilydale road. We have been told that our grant application has a good chance of being approved. However, it will be incumbent upon the Minnesota Legis- lature to appropriate funds for the funding of this grant program. Any help you can give us in this effort will be greatly appreciated. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to provide you with a more detailed description of the City's bike trail system which was approved by our City Council in January, 1984. If you are interested in such a meeting, please give me a call at our firm's Saint Paul office. Mr. R. James Gesell Page 2 February 16, 1984 an you for your interest in this project. If I can provide you with any further information concerning this important project, please be sure to let me know. truly A. Stein JAS:wm cc: Mr. Orville Johnson ✓Mr. Kevin Frazell CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 14, 1984 T0: Park Commission FROM: Kevin Frazell / G/f/✓/ City Administ{ator SUBJECT: Information for Park meeting I am unable to attend your meeting this evening. Not wanting you to feel like orphans, I am sending you this memo. By the time of the March meeting I will be a full fledged resident of Mendota Heights, so it will be easier for me to join you. The purpose of this memo is to give you some updated information for agenda items 5 and 6. 5. Bike Trails Attached is a copy of our grant application as prepared by staff. Although it has not been formally submitted to Mn/DOT, Pat Bursow, bike grant specialist with Mn/DOT has reviewed it, and feels it is a sound proposal. She felt that the portion through Valley Park would do well in competition against other proposals, based on the State criteria for evaluation. Basically that is because it provides a alternative bike route to use of unsafe parallel roadways. The Marie Avenue portion (from Victoria Road to Valley Park) will not rank as well, since Mn/DOT's evaluation criteria suggest that Marie Avenue is sufficiently wide to provide safe bicycle use. The grant application, along with a resolution, has been submitted to the Dakota County Board. The City of Mendota Heights is asking the Board to endorse our project, adopt the proposed alignment into the County trail system and provide $12,500.00 for the local construction match. The resolution has been referred to the County Planning and Parks department for study, and will be reconsidered by the Board on February 28th. Based on our discussions with the County staff, I am optimistic about a favorable recommendation. We will then submit the application to Mn/DOT by the March 2nd deadline. I have also met with the Housing staff of the Metropolitan Council to determine whether the problems with our Comprehensive Plan will hamper the grant application. They have informed me that to the extent it is a project with broad regional impact, housing performance of the local community becomes less of a concern. As you can see by the application, we are "selling" this as a regional project. 1 Action Required: If the Commission has any comments or proposed changes to the application, those can be conveyed to me through Chairman Jim Stein. 6. Wachtler Property At the January 21st joint meeting, the Commission and Council agreed that staff should look into the possibility of retaining a professional park planner to study the need for and development of the Wachtler property. I asked our city planner, Howard Dahlgren, for his thoughts. His initial reaction was that we shouldn't spend toomuch time or money on a study but rather proceed with acquisition. However, Howard is giving the matter more thought, and will develop a report outlining our alter- natives. That report will be ready for the March Commission meeting. 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 18, 1984 T0: Park and Recreation Commission Members FROM: Larry E. Shaughnessy Financial Advisor SUBJECT: Special Park Fund Balance Estimated Fund Balance 12-31-83 1984 Interest Earnings Estimate 1984 Estimated Contributions $187,775.00 16,830.00 64,250.00 $268,855.00 Accounts Receivable 1984 1985 1986 Riley $40,000 Gryc 26,000 Amesbury 45,500 Strub 63200 Eide 3,049 DuPont 2,300 $1239049 Potential New Plats: 20,000 13,000 22,750 6,200 293G 4325 MAC Property Laukka Property Culligan's Valley View Oak 2nd Add: McCloud Property Wachtler Property School District Property Slowinski Property Rauenhorst Property Par III Property King Property Perkeg"}n Property Colon Property 20,000 13,000 22,750 �9a a CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS lu1�10(�1 January 18, 1984 T0: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: Soint Meeting with City Council The joint meeting between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council has been established for Tuesday, January 24, 1984, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The meeting will be held in the Engineering Conference Room, Suite 214. In general, the subject of the meeting will be the Commission's long- range plans for development of the bike trail system within the City of Mendota Heights. More specifically, we want to talk about the possibility of submitting a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation this year to participate in their bike trail construction program. Public Works Director Jim Danielson and I are gathering background information from Mn/DOT and Dakota County, which will be useful to the Commission and the Council in their discussion. That information will be available at the meeting. The Planning Commission members will be holding their monthly meeting in the Community Room at 8:00 P.M. As they have a light agenda, Chairperson Cam Kruse has extended an invitation to the Park and Recreation Commissioners to attend the Planning Commission meeting to share information about future parks plans. cc: Cameron Kruse