Loading...
1989-10-24 Parks and Rec Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK AND RECREATION COMMIS: MINUTES, OCTOBER 24, 1989 A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Park and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, October 24, 1989 in the City Hall Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Commission Chair John Huber called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. The following members were present: Damberg, Huber, Katz, Lundeen and Spicer. Lachenmayer was excused. Absent: Owens. Staff members present were Parks Project Manager Kullander and Administrative Assistant Batchelder. Dave Ayers and John Nowlin were in the audience. i ��:lZ�l+f 1ti7�uii�tiYY�9 Commissioner Spicer moved approval of the minutes of October 10, 1989. Commission Chair Huber seconded. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lundeen moved approval of the minutes of September 12, 1989. Commissioner Spicer seconded. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 UPDATE ON CONSULTANT SELECTION Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander gave a brief update on the progress of the contract being worked out between the City and Barton- Aschman. Kullander stated that the City Attorney and Barton-Aschman should have the details worked out soon and that as soon as the Council has awarded the contract, he will let commence the design work for Victoria Highlands Neighborhood Park and the landscape design work Hagstrom-King, Ivy Hill and Rogers Lake parks. Kullander stated that the City was beginning negotiations with Mendakota after receiving its appraisal. He stated the City Is appraiser had valued the land at $583,000, which included $100,000 in current assessments. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that the City Council had agreed to appoint a five member committee to negotiate with the School District on the Sibley site, if it was ARCHITECTURE COSTS necessary. Batchelder stated that Acting Administrator Danielson and Councilmember Blesener had met with Bruce Anderson and that they are discussing ownership issues after development would be completed. He stated that the issue was whether the City would retain ownership of a portion of the Sibley site or whether a long term lease agreement could be worked out. Commissioner Spicer suggested that there were many municipalities in the area that had similar joint use agreements, such as North St. Paul, Eagan and Apple Valley. Commissioner Damberg inquired that if the negotiations work out with Mendakota and the City acquires the land, then does the City still do Sibley. Commissioner Spicer said he felt that the original intention of the Ballfields sub -committee was to acquire three sites and develop two as active parks and one as a practice facility that would only be graded. Kullander stated it was his understanding that the City would acquire three sites and that development money for the third site would come out of Proposition 2. Chairman Huber asked for regular updates on Sibley and Mendakota negotiations. Parks Project Manager Kullander stated that Kodet Architecture had been taken out of Barton-Aschman's proposed contract. He stated that a 10% fee of construction costs for each building in the active parks would be charged by Kodet. He stated that originally the first building would have a ten percent fee, and the additional buildings would be a reduced fee. He stated that because each building would have different uses that they could not be designed from the same scheme, thus each building would have a 10 % fee. Commission Chair John Huber stated that during the negotiations with Mendakota that some cutoff point should be elaborated in order that an acquisition cost not eliminate other items in the referendum. He stated there is a certain level we can afford without killing other items in the referendum. He stated that as the dollar costs are coming in during the current design AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CURLEY TOT LOT phase it is apparent that they are high and that there is little room to maneuver within the budget. Commissioner Spicer made a motion to advise the committee working on the negotiations with Mendakota that they realize the budget is tight and that any contingency monies are extremely limited. Commissioner Damberg seconded. Parks Project Manager Kullander inquired of the Commission that if City Council approves the contract with Barton-Aschman, should the City staff release the work listed in the contract and discussed earlier. Commission Spicer stated that he believes it to be a priority to begin this work. Commission Chair Huber polled the Commissioners and they were in unanimous agreement that this work should be released. Parks Project Manager Kullander inquired about what the $4,000 in enhancements dedicated to the tot lot in Valley View Heights was to be spent on. Dave Ayers, Valley View Heights resident and representative, stated that the neighborhood wanted landscaping that included regrading, black fill dirt, removal of large rocks/debris, sodding and seeding and some shrubs or trees towards the back of the park. Kullander and Ayers discussed the enhancements including signs, picnic benches, bike racks, fencing, benches, fitness stations, open areas, and cautionary measures to keep children from sliding in the winter. Mr. Ayers prioritized the enhancements as: 1. Split rail fence to define the front and side. 2. Minimal landscaping. 3. Picnic benches. 4. Bike rack. Kullander stated that fixing the drainage problem would come out of the Parks maintenance budget, as well as the picnic benches, which are purchased on an annual basis. Mr. Ayers requested to be informed prior to construction what improvements were to be built and the final cost. VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS PARK Mr. Ayers stated that the neighborhood wanted the park named Valley View Heights Park. Commissioner Katz stated that this was in line with the concept of the other parks being named after the neighborhood they are in. Commissioner Katz made a motion to change the name of Curley's Tot Lot to Valley View Heights Park. Commissioner Spicer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 FRIENDLY HILLS TOT LOT Parks Project Manager Kullander presented an April 19, 1983 memorandum from the City Attorney regarding Friendly Hills Tot Lot. (See attached memo) Kullander stated that the current play equipment is a severe liability hazard and it would be in the City's best interest to remove the equipment. He also stated that the City had, in the past, explored ways of vacating the land. Kullander stated that he felt this was a good time for the City to clear title to the land, sell it and put the money into the Parks Fund. He stated that adjacent neighbors would oppose this action by the City. He stated that option three in the attached memo would be the most feasible. The Commission discussed the options in the memo. Commissioner Katz stated this land was feasible for a garden club but did not hold much interest as a tot lot with all the new equipment that would be going into Friendly Hills Park which is only a block away. Commissioner Spicer made a motion to recommend that City Council: 1. Authorize removal of 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. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 SUPPLIERS OF PLAY EQUIPMENT Commissioner Lundeen seconded the motion. Parks Project Manager Kullander explained that he was in contact with five suppliers of play ground equipment and that they had all stipulated the City should give them a price and they would design an optimum set of play equipment for that price. Kullander explained that this was a favorable situation for the City because it would eliminate a competitive bid situation and that each supplier would give a little extra in the hopes of getting more parks. Kullander explained that this also saves the City on contingency as we only have to design limited specifications and the play equipment companies incur most of the design costs. Kullander asked the Parks Commission for direction in the type of base material they would like to have with the play equipment. He explained the differences in sand, pea gravel and rubber matting and how they affect liability issues. Kullander discussed the play equipment specifications with the Commission. Commission Chair Huber requested that the Commission be given a range of materials to consider, from wood to metal. Members of the Commission expressed that the new structures should blend in with existing parks and did not desire brightly colored units. The Commission agreed that some accent color would be acceptable but "loud" or "brassy" colored units were not desireable. The Commission also stated that the play equipment should deliver to the whole range of kids, from toddlers to 12 year olds. The Commission reached consensus that only $17,500 should be specified as a price for the play structures in each park. Kullander stated that originally the Citizens Park Review Committee had budgeted $20,000 plus $4,000 in contingency for each play structure. He inquired if it was the NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPROVEMENT Commissions directive to only specify $17,500 for each park. The Commission's consensus was yes. Kullander stated that the play structure suppliers who will be visiting each park before they submit a design proposal should give us there opinions on the location of the new structures, as well as, the usefulness of our existing play equipment. he stated that if our existing units are worth saving these would be incorporated in their overall design for each park. He stated that new timber edging and sand or gravel base would be included. Kullander discussed the line item improvements of each park with the Commission. He stated most of this work could begin in the Spring except for improvements to playfields. Rogers Lake Park Halfcourt basketball, volleyball, horseshoe it, new play structure, regrading, improve existing trail, and additional landscaping. Paving of the driveway and parking lots would not be done at this time. Marie Park Pave parking lot and drive, put in halfcourt basketball, a new play structure. The need for a small section of trail and additional parking were discussed and will be decided on after the location of the new play structure is determined. Fencing in the outfield around the pond was discussed and Kullander was requested to look into the possible use of collapsible fencing. Friendly Hills Park Discussion included the halfcourt basketball, new play structure, landscaping and enlargement of parking area, the need for a storm sewer through the park so fields could be leveled and the need for trails along Decorah and through the park to connect to trail coming from Mendota Heights Road. Since adequate funds were not allocated for the trail or storm sewer it seemed appropriate that money from sale of Friendly Hills Tot Lot could be used for these two items. Valley Park The need for outfield fence and field improvements were discussed. The locating of the new play structure is difficult due to the limited amount of space. Removing of trees along Marie and filling in of the existing ditch were discussed as a way to get additional area. Locating a halfcourt basketball court will be difficult due to limited space. It was determined that this use could be eliminated from this park since a court will be built at both Marie and Victoria Parks which are both less than a half mile away. Ivy Hills Park Three location possibilities exist for the new play structure. A trail will connect to Butler on the north and Maple Park on the south. Exact alignment will be determined once the play structure is located. The half court basketball can be built in the south portion of the park, as well as, additional off-street parking. Staff was instructed to make contact with the Ivy Hills and Ivy Falls homeowners association to see if they were still interested in the City acquiring the open space adjacent to the park. This area could be developed as a permanent soccer field which would allow fencing and other improvements be made to existing play field. additional landscaping improvements are also planned. Wentworth Park Paving of the parking lot and drive would not be done now. once location of the new play structure was selected the siting of the halfcourt basketball pad would be done. Existing bituminous trails will be widened to 8 feet and new trails would connect to 1st Avenue and to Wentworth Trail. Additional landscaping improvements will be determined later. FRIENDLY MARSH PARK TRAILS SYSTEM Kullander informed the Commission that a floating boardwalk through Friendly Marsh would be very expensive and could exceed $75,000 when the cost of a 40 foot bridge was included. This path would also adversely impact the Wetland. Because of these high costs it was determined that staff would contact Dodge Nature Center for help and for information before proceeding with any improvement plans or proposals. NEW PARKS The Mendakota neighborhood park will not be addressed until it is determined if the City will acquire more land for an active play park. Hagstrom-King park will need additional landscape improvements as well as extensive grading and top dressing of the playfield. As with the Mendakota site, the neighborhood amenities for the Kensington and Sibley sites will wait until we have control of the land and our consultants are doing preliminary design sketches. Kullander explained that the engineering and design work being done by City staff was in motion and that it appeared the City could complete 7 miles of trails in 1990. The Commission reached consensus that it would be appropriate to have signage indicating "You are here" throughout the trail system. Commissioner Spicer stated that this would be appropriate for our 11 parks. Kullander suggested we address the entire signage question at a future meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant >i , /�43 1 SHERMAN W OP ROBERT R. TNE HOMAS J. SEXTON RICHARD A. NOEL ROGER 0. GORDON STEVEN C. UREN HART HULLER ON THOMAS M. HART 1Z RRON O NUTSON + LAS 8, ALTM NIY WIL'SON LE GGE R OL GIRARD P. MILLER MICHELE D. AILLANCOURT COLLINS M. JONY J. HOGANSON ALAN L. DWORSKY JAY R. NAPTSGER W I N T H R O P, WEINSTINE & SEXTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW IROO CONWEO TOWER 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAU L, MIN NES OTA 55101 April 19, 1983 �,,,,- Orvil Johnson A+Iministrator Il�udota Heights h 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) 292-9110 You H 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." lra 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. yr. Orvil Johnson Page 2 April 19, 1983 It would appear to us that there are three possible alternative Weans of "eliminating" the application of these restrictions to this property. These alternative means are as follows: 1. The cancellation or modification of the covenants pursuant to the terms of the formal Declaration. That would equire the consent of the owners of 65 percent of the lots in .he Friendly Hills Rearrangement Subdivision, 2. A condemnation proceeding by the City of Mendota Heights could be brought for the purpose of "taking" the interest of the Friendly Hills Rearrangement Subdivision property owners I n this particular property. We would assume that every owner of a lot in the Friendly Hills Rearrangement Subdivision would have to be joined as a respondent in any such proceeding. 3. The City could bring an action to "clear" title to the property in question. The court in such a proceeding would have to determine what type of notice would have to be given to the owners of the lots in the Friendly Hills Rearrangement subdivision. While there is no guarantee of how a court would 'c;termine that issue, it is possible that in view of the cir- <-uinstances, a court might simply require published notice or possibly only mailed notice rather than personal notice on all property owners. From a practical point of view, it would appear to us that if the City did determine to dispose of this property, the most practical and feasible means of eliminating the outstanding restriction would be by bringing an action to clear title in the manner set forth in paragraph 3 above. If you have any questions or desire any additional information in this connection, please do not hesitate to ask. Sincerely yours, WINTHROP, WEINSTINE & SEXTON By - '+'--- Sherman Winthrop SW:srl