Loading...
1990-01-09 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA January � 1990 = 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Introduction of Stephen Hunter, new Parks and Recreation Commissioner. 4. Approval of December 12, 1989 Minutes. 5. Verbal Updates a. Referendum b. Council Actions c. Park Maintenance 6. Friendly Hills Tot Lot Wish List. 7. Discussion Items a. Play Equipment Bids and Negotiations. b. Park Name Signs. �. Trails Under County and State Jurisdiction. 8. Adjourn. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 5, 1989 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant'�� Subject: Friendly Hills Tot Lot Proceeds DISCUSSION At the December 12, 1989 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission, at the direction of City Council, had discussed possible uses for any proceeds derived from the divestment of Friendly Hills Tot Lot. The Council will be holding a public hearing with Friendly Hills residents on January 16, 1990 to consider this divestment. (Please refer to the attached staff memos, minutes and correspondence that details the history of this agenda item.) At the last meeting, the Commission had generated a preliminary "wish list" and instructed staff to apply some cost estimates to the items on the list. Guy Kullander will have the cost estimates available for the meeting on Tuesday night. The list as discussed is: 1. Knock off the top of the hill in Friendly Hills Park and build a picnic shelter. 2. The light poles around Friendly Hills ice rink need replacing. 3. Bituminous trails. 4. A comfort station. 5. A new, bigger warming house. 6. The storm sewer improvements to the Friendly Hills ballfield. 7. Additional landscaping. ACTION REQUIRED Discuss the list of Friendly Hills improvements, their costs and make a recommendation to City Council. FRIENDLY HILLS TOT LOT Park Commission Chairperson John Huber was present to review Commission recommendations with respect to the Friendly Hills Tot Lot. He reviewed a letter from Attorney Sherman Winthrop written in 1983 and read the declaration of covenants. Mr: Huber stated that the 1989 referendum provides for improvements to all of the neighborhood parks, however, no money was provided for the tot lot, nor was any intended to be provided. He informed Council that an old swing set and one other play apparatus exist on the tot lot and both appear to be in poor repair. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Commission to recommend disposing of the property and using the funds from the sale to improve the Friendly Hills Park. The Commission has a history of not wanting to maintain tot lots, and the play structure in the Friendly Hills park will be very near where the tot lot is located. Mr. Huber informed Council that the Park Commission feels the most appropriate method of disposing of the property would be to option 3 recommended by Mr. Winthrop, to initiate proceedings to clear title to the lots. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are two issues: dilapidated play equipment which could be dangerous and presents a potential liability, and that the tot lot area is four residential lots. He stated that tot lots do not fit into the park maintenance scheme, and in this particular case, there is a tot lot within 300 to 400 feet of a major park where the tot facilities could be duplicated and put to a wider use. He informed Council that the problem is that the City has title to four lots but there are restrictive covenants stating that they must be used for a public use for a 25 year period unless 65% of the homeowners petition to vacate. He suggested that the play equipment be removed immediately, that action to clear title be started, and that if sold, the sales revenue from the lots be dedicated to create a special tot lot area within the Friendly Hills park. He recommended that Council hold a public hearing, with two week mailed notice to Friendly Hills Rearrangement homeowners and CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 21 1989 To: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Ad trator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis an Subject: Friendly Hills Tot Lot DISCUSSION Both the Citizens Park Review Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission have discussed Friendly Hills Tot Lot and its old play equipment on numerous occasions. There is a general concern with liability issues regarding the old play equipment. (See attachment on liability hazards) When the parks bond referendum was designed there were no funds provided for improvements at Friendly Hills Tot Lot because it was duplicative of the improvements proposed for Friendly Hills Park. With the removal of the play equipment because of its liability potential and with no funds being provided for improvement of the tot lot, the Parks and Recreation Commission feels the best use of this land is to divest it and use the proceeds for further park development at Friendly Hills Park. In both 1980 and 1983 the City had considered divesting itself of Friendly Hills Tot Lot. At the time, there was neighborhood opposition to the City taking this action. Staff feels that this is an appropriate time to reconsider divesting Friendly Hills Tot Lot and brought this before the Parks and Recreation Commission. (see October parks and Rec minutes and attached City Attorney memo) RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council: 1. Authorize staff to remove all the existing play equipment at .-Friendly Hills Tot Lot; and 2. Bring action to clear title to Friendly Hills Tot Lot, sell the land and authorize the funds to the Parks Fund. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTACHMENT November 2, 1989 To: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative AssistanL(� Subject: Site Visit to Friendly Hills Tot Lot to Examine Liability Hazards of Play Equipment DISCUSSION On November 2, 1989 Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander and I visited Friendly Hills Tot Lot to examine the possible liability hazards associated with the play equipment existing on the site. The potential liability of this play equipment has been a concern of the Parks and Recreation Commission for some time. hazards were found and will be listed below. In Many general, the equipment was rusty and in a bad state of repair. There was no surface or base material beneath the equipment, which exceeds todays height standards, only hard earth and grass. I have attached some information from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that explains why the following conditions are liability hazards. MONKEY BARS 1. Numerous protruding rusty bolts 2. Height MERRY GO ROUND 1. Entrapment underneath a possibility 2. Rotting boards, splinters 3. No base material, only hard earth 4. Protruding rusty bolts SWINGS SLIDE AND CHIN-UP BARS 1. Power lines directly overhead of swings (approx. 4 ft.) 2. Exposed concrete footings underneath play equipment 3. No base material, only hard earth surface 4. Approximately eight feet high CONCIsUS I ON Staffs conclusion is that this equipment is an accident waiting to happen, and that for the safety of the public this equipment should be removed. losing balance. Other victims hit protruding bolts, struck the slide rim and edge, or slipped on the ladder and struck the steps. Merry-go-rounds. Most of the injuries associ- ated with merry-go-rounds resulted from falls when children either lost their grip and were thrown from the merry-go-round, fell down while pushing it, or fell while riding it. In some instances those who were pushing were struck by the device. Those who fell while on the merry-go-round either struck or were struck by other gripping bars, or struck the base it- self. Seesaws. Although about one out of every six Injuries occurred when the victim was hit by a moving seesaw, most injuries resulted from fails. In some cases, the victims were punc- tured by long splinters from worn, poorly maintained or damaged wooden seesaws. Other. Other types of equipment involved in Injuries were spring action riding equipment, rope or tire swings, etc. Typically, falls contri- buted to over half of the Injuries associated with this equipment. 4, Planning a New Playground Surfacing As indicated In the preceding chapter on playground Injuries, falls are the most com- mon type of playground accident. Commis- n studies show that the majority (from 60 to 70 percent) of playground -related Injuries are used when children fall from the equipment and strike the underlying surface. Nearly half the injuries that result from falls are to the head, and range in severity from minor bruises to skull fractures, concussions, brain damage, and even death. Until recently, little Information was avail- able on the relative ability of surfacing materi- als to protect children from head Injuries re- sulting from falls. Therefore, the Commission sponsored research by the National Bureau of Standards to develop a method for assessing the energy absorbing characteristics of play- ground surfaces and to test several commonly used surfaces. Analyses of the test results Indicate that, whIle they may require little maintenance orre- pair, hard surfacing materials such as asphalt end concrete do not provide Injury protection from accidental fall Impacts and are therefore unsuitable for use under public playground equipment. More resilient surfacing materials such as bark, wood chips, or shredded tires, for example, appear to provide greater protection to a child in the event of a fall. However, these materials require continuous maintenance to retain their optimum cushioning effectiveness. The choice of surfacing material will, of courseI be based In part upon local conditions and financial considerations. The following descriptions of some surfacing materials and the environmental conditions which affect them are offered to help planners in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of various surfaces. Organic Loose Materials (Pine Bark Nuggets, Pine Bark Mulch, Shredded Hardwoo NTHROP ROBERT R. EINSTINE THOMAS J. SEXTON RICHARD A OEL ROGER D. GORDON STEVEN C.TOURCK HART KULLER AVID P. ARSON THOMAS MEHART 3E DARRON C. KNUTSON DOUGLAS B. ALTM AN WENDY I SON EGGE MARK J. BRIOL GIRARD P. MILLER MICHELE O. VAILLANCOURT MARY M. COLLINS JON J. HOGANSON ALAN L. DWORSITY JAY R. NAFTZGER W I N T H R O P, W E I N S T I N E & SEXTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW IB OO CONWED TOWEF 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAVL� MINNES OTA SSIOI April 19, 1983 Mr. Orvil Johnson City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Re: The following described property situated in Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota: Lots 3, 4, 10 and 11 in Block 18, Friendly Hills Re- arrangement. Dear Orvil: (612) 292-8110 You have inquired as to the right of the City of Mendota Heights to dispose of the above property which is commonly referred to as the Friendly Hills "Tot -Lot." The property in question is in the name of the City of Mendota Heights. According to our information, at the time of the filing of the Friendly Hills Rearrangement Plat, a Declaration setting forth certain covenants and restrictions was also filed which provided that this property was to be used for a "play- ground area or for development as a school location or for a public park or for other public uses or purposes, all as may be permitted under the zoning ordinances of the Village of Mendota Heights, Minnesota." The formal Declaration provides that the covenants and restric- tions continue for a twenty-year period and then are auto- matically renewed for successive five-year periods unless at least 65 percent of the owners of the lots in Friendly Hills Rearrangement agree to their cancellation or modification. City of 1 Aendota Heights January 2, 1990 Dear Friendly Hills Resident, Please find attached a copy of.a notice of hearing for the January 16th City Council meeting. Council ordered the informal hearing after receiving a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to bring action to clear title to Friendly Hills Tot Lot, sell the land and authorize the funds to the Park Fund. The Parks and Recreation Commission made this recommendation to the Council for several reasons. First, it is not the City's policy to have tot lots because it is inefficient for the City's park maintenance crews to maintain them. Second, Friendly Hills Neighborhood Park, which is located adjacent to the tot lot, will be receiving new play equipment as part of the recent parks referendum. This park already provides the recreational needs for the neighborhood and will soon be enhanced with referendum improvements. The existing play equipment in the tot lot was recently removed as a result of City staff inspection and subsequent determination that it posed a public safety hazard and potential liability for the City. Before any further action occurs, City Council wishes to hold a public hearing with the neighborhood concerning the future of the tot lot. The purpose of this public hearing would be to review the proposal and inform the neighborhood. It will also provide an opportunity for the residents to raise questions, provide additional information and express opinions regarding Friendly Hills Tot Lot. Should City Council, following the public hearing, order staff to clear title to the land and sell it, the likely outcome for the parcel would be its development into four new single family homes. City Council has indicated they would like to see the funds generated by any lot sales reinvested into park improvements at the existing Friendly Hills Neighborhood Park. These improvements would be in addition to those already scheduled for Friendly Hills Neighborhood Park as part of the recent referendum. Additional information about Friendly Hills Tot Lot can be obtained at the front desk at City Hall, or by contacting me at 452-1850. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve •Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 5, 1989 To: Parks and Recreation Commission r' From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant/ el ��� Subject: Discussion Items on Agenda On tonight's agenda we have three items that Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander wishes to discuss with the Commission and receive input on. They are the progress of the play equipment proposals and the negotiations with the contractors, the placement of park name signs and the constraints of the trails that are under County or State jurisdiction. Play Equipment Proposals Since the last meeting, Guy Kullander has spoken with all the play equipment contractors that had submitted proposals to the City. In particular, he has discussed the proposals of Earl Anderson, Inc. and Klein Co. with their respective representatives. Mr. Kullander wishes to detail the outcome of these discussions and proceed forward to City Council with a recommendation from the Parks Commission. He will be prepared to outline a recommendation. Placement of Park Name Signs Mr. Kullander wishes to discuss the placement of the name signs in the parks with the Commission. In order to accommodate the proposed landscaping around the name signs, some of the existing signs will have to be relocated. The name signs in the new parks will have to be located. Also, Ivy Hills Park may need two signs, one of which will have to be located. Trails under County and State Jurisdiction The City has contacted both Dakota County and the State of Minnesota about the off -road trails that we have designated for portions of their roads. Some sections of county or state roads will be too cost prohibitive to place off -road and they are suggesting that widening the shoulder may be more appropriate. Mr. Kullander will present the constraints and discuss the options with the Commission. ACTION REQUIRED Discuss the above items with Parks Project Manager Kullander and make any appropriate recommendations.