Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK PACKET 01292001PIZZA AND BEVERAGE WILL BE SERVED CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PARKS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA January 29, 2001 5:30 PM Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 8, 2001 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. IV. INTRODUCTION OF MAURY ANDERSON. V. APPOINT CONSTRUCTION LIAISON FROM PARKS COMMISSION FOR CENTRAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. VI. PRESENTATION ON PARK BUILDINGS BY MOLLY OLIVIER FROM SHORT, ELLIOT, HENDRICKSON. VII. REPORT/UPDATE FROM ROBERT KOST, BRW, INC. VIII. REPORTS. A. Community Services. B. School Board. C. Sports Boosters. IX. OTHER BUSINESS. X. ADJOURNMENT. CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 PARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 3 January 8, 2001 a 7:00 p.m. 5 I. CALL TO ORDER. 6 Chair Jindra called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. 7 II. ROLL CALL. 8 Present: Chair Carol Jindra, Commissioners Dan Ganley, Colleen Hallada, Jan 9 Jenson, Doug Koehntop and George Wagner to Absent: Commissioner Julie Gebhardt 11 Also Present: Public Works Director Jay Hartman, Representative from Community 12 Services Diane Skrivseth; Representative from Sports Boosters 13 George Zurbey. 14 III. PARK COMMISSION LIAISON FOR CENTRAL PARK. 15 Jindra noted that at the last Park Commission meeting they made a recommendation to have a 6 construction liaison for Central Park being Morrie Anderson. She indicated he was a Parks 17 Department worker at the City of New Brighton. Jindra stated that during construction of Central 18 Park this liaison position would allow the Park Commission a voice and would keep them informed. 19 She explained the Park Commission would also be interested in having a Park Commission member 20 as a liaison to the weekly construction meetings. 21 Wagner indicated he felt that Mr. Anderson being a consultant on the Park Commission's behalf was 22 not necessary. Ganley indicated he felt the liaison from the Park Commission would be useful as 23 they would have a seat at the table. 24 Zurbey indicated he felt the consultant would be worth the money as this was a large project for the 25 City and Park Commission to be undertaking. 26 Ganley indicated the consensus reached in past discussions was to strictly have a liaison at the 27 weekly construction meetings to keep the Park Commission abreast of the ongoing issues. 28 Mr. Hartman stated he felt a Park Commission liaison could be on this committee but asked what 29 their role would be. Jindra indicated she felt the role of Mr. Anderson was to share his experience 30 and expertise as the park reaches the construction phases. Zurbey concurred. 31 Mr. Hartman asked what role the Commission would like Mr. Anderson to assume and how long 32 they would like him to work for the City with this project. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 2 1 Mr. Hubmer indicated the recommendations made by Mr. Anderson would need to have some level 2 of review by the Park Commission if he is speaking on their behalf, He indicated this may be 3 opening a "can of worms" if there is no accountability and no definition of his job position. 4 Jindra explained she felt the reasoning behind seeking Mr. Anderson was to seek expertise beyond 5 Mr. Hubmer and to keep another Park Commission voice at the construction meetings. 6 Councilmember Thuesen asked the Park Commission to name the roles they foresee Mr. Anderson 7 taking on. 8 Zurbey indicated he sees Mr. Anderson bringing additional options to the table for the construction 9 process. Mr. Hartman indicated he understands his expertise and usefulness on this project and 10 decision making abilities. He asked the Commission how much time they would like Mr. Anderson I I to spend on this item. 12 Jindra asked that this item be tabled to hold discussion on the Central Park Pavilion and asked for 13 additional comments regarding the Park Commission's use of Morrie Anderson as a consultant and 14 voice for the work at Central Park. 15 Mr. Hubmer noted he was surprised by the actions of the Park Commission and indicated he was 6 sorry for the mixed feelings of the Commissioners from the past meeting. He noted he works on this 17 project with numerous staff at BRW. Mr. Hubmer indicated the role of Mr. Anderson was a question 18 to him as well because of the cost involved on the City's part. 19 Mr. Hubmer indicated he is not trying to be difficult with the Commission, but is trying to step back 20 and determine the process for the members to follow. He explained the process or chain of 21 command he was suggesting has been used in other communities and was very typical for such large 22 projects. Mr. Hubmer stated it was not his intent to be obstructive with the Commission or ignore 23 their decisions. He indicated that at the time of construction documents much of the decisions are 24 brought to a staff level, and then brought to the Park Commission through staff. 25 Mr. Hubmer noted he is willing offer his suggestions in lowering the cost of the project. He stated 26 the final decision would remain with the Park Commission. Mr. Hubmer indicated construction 27 items could be bid out any way for the Commission to review. 28 Jindra noted she was not concerned with financial spending at this time, but work towards a nicer 29 pavilion. She indicated she feels the City of St. Anthony does not have a typical situation for this 30 park because the City does not have a parks and recreation department. Jindra stated the Park 31 Commission does not want to be left out of the planning process from this point forward because of 32 all of the work that has went into the process thus far. 33 Mr. Hartman stated the Commission's degree of involvement would be maintained throughout this l-- 34 project. He indicated the handout diagram on the level of command for the project was standard and Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 3 t not meant to hurt anyone's feelings. Mr. Hartman explained there needs to be some resolution of 2 feelings between the Commission, staff, and the consultants. 3 Jindra stated she would like to see the communication increased between the Commission and staff 4 to resolve hard feelings and keep all issues in the open. Zurbey concurred. 5 Jindra indicated she would like to have someone involved throughout this entire process and to have 6 access to the site. She noted this was the reasoning behind asking for Mr. Anderson and a Park 7 Commission liaison. Mr. Hubmer indicated this would not be a problem. He stated he is not looking 8 to snub the Park Commission and would like to continue to serve the City and Park Commissioners. 9 Mr. Hubmer stated the hard feelings started from his work on the pavilion and lack of comments 10 from the Commission. He indicated he was unaware of the negative feelings of the Commission as I I he only referred to the meeting minutes for direction from the Commission. Mr. Hubmer reported 12 he does not want to work against the Commission within any aspect of Central Park. 13 Koehntop stated there was agreement to have a Park Commission liaison at the construction 14 meetings on a weekly basis to listen and update the Commission on the issues. 15 Wagner volunteered for the position and indicated he worked on several projects in the past with the 16 City. Jindra indicated she was not ready to appoint a liaison at this time, but stated she wants the 17 Commission to come to a greater consensus on this issue. 18 The Park Commission came to a consensus to have a liaison from the Park Commission to the 19 weekly construction meetings. They noted this position would be to have an extra set of "eyes and 20 ears" for this project and to report back to the Commission of the upcoming events and issues. 21 Zurbey indicated he would like Mr. Hubmer to keep the project roughly $1.6 million and to keep the 22 Park Commission aware of options or tradeoffs for savings within this project. Mr. Hubmer stated 23 he would keep on top of these tradeoffs and keep the Commission aware of their options. He 24 explained that because the Commission meets once a month he would like subcommittee members 25 to report to Mr. Hartman of their suggestions and questions throughout the month. 26 Jenson asked how the Park Commission subcommittees would work. Mr. Hubmer stated he would 27 pass along the first set of plans to the Commission members upon receipt from BRW, for review 28 within the subcommittees before the next Park Commission meeting. He noted after review the 29 subcommittee's comments and suggestions could be forwarded to staff and then brought to BRW's 30 attention. 31 Mr. Hubmer asked how the chalk line for the ball fields was done in the past. He questioned if the 32 Commission would be in favor of flexible stakes in the ground for alignment. Mr. Hartman noted 33 the chalk lines were measured each time in the past, but the flexible stakes would be a great addition. law Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 4 1 Zurbey asked how the subcommittees would be able to respond to all the questions of the community 2 and staff. Mr. Hubmer indicated the subcommittees would have to work through Mr. Hartman to 3 reach BRW with all questions and concerns. 4 Mr. Hubmer noted he would need direction from the Commission on the pavilion and concession 5 stand. He stated the north end of the park was still in flux. Mr. Hubmer encouraged the Commission 6 to take their time with designing and placing the pavilion within the park. Mr. Hubmer indicated 7 the shape, size and location of these footprints would need to be noted before BRW could finalize 8 the park layout plans and commence bidding. 9 Mr. Hartman asked for a final date on having the size and footprint of the pavilion and concession 10 stand. Mr. Hubmer indicated he would need this information by the February meeting. 11 Zurbey indicated he did not feel it would be possible to have this information by February. Mr. 12 Hartman stated he felt this would be possible if the subcommittees were to meet several times 13 between now and the February meeting. He indicated if the subcommittees meet and have 14 presentations at the next meeting, the rest of the park would not be held up any further. 15 Mr. Hartman asked if the buildings would be under a separate contract or within the bid of the entire 16 park. Mr. Hubmer stated the Park Commission would be better served with the buildings as a 17 separate contract to allow the Commission time to resolve the pavilion and concession stand issues. 18 He noted the Park Commission would not be spending any more money if the project was done in 19 conjunction with the park or completed separately. 20 Mr. Hubmer indicated the City has allotted $180,000 for the building construction and engineering. 21 He noted if the City chooses not to use BRW for the pavilion and concession stand those funds 22 would be allocated to the firm the Park Commission chooses. 23 Mr. Hubmer reviewed the Phase I Environmental plans with the Park Commission. He noted the 24 MPCA has been alerted him of borings from this site which were questionable. Mr. Hubmer stated 25 the City would be entering in the VIC program with the MPCA to clean up the Central Park site if 26 needed. He noted the site has been capped at this time with four feet of clay to allow for the use of 27 the ball fields. 28 Jenson asked how deep the borings were at Central Park. Mr. Hubmer indicated the borings were 29 approximately 25 feet at the Central Park site. He noted the Phase II Environmental study would 30 greater define the area of contamination and the actions that the City would need to take. 31 Jindra asked if the sledding hill would be kept intact. Mr. Hubmer stated there would be a ten foot 32 vertical change and a five foot section would be eliminated on one side of the hill. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 5 I Mr. Hartman asked for a clearer definition as to the access to the wading pool and pavilion area. Mr. 2 Hubmer stated the service road could function as a trail but that a sidewalk system may need to be 3 added in this area. 4 It was noted the Park Commission would like shuffleboard dropped from the Central Park plan 5 because the equipment would be too hard to find and keep stocked. 6 Jindra questioned if the main entrance to the park on the northern side of the park. Mr. Hubmer 7 explained a main set of stairs could be added to the area to allow for additional access. 8 III. APPROVE DECEMBER 11, 2000 PARKS COMMISSION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING 9 MINUTES. 10 Motion by Ganley, second by Jenson, to approve the December 11, 2000 Parks Commission I I Neighborhood Meeting Minutes as submitted. 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 APPROVE DECEMBER 11, 2000 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. 14 Motion by Ganley, second by Jenson, to approve the December 11, 2000 Parks Commission 15 Minutes with one change on Page 3, Line 2, to read, "Jindra noted the Commission is looking to 16 recreate the shelter and add a picnic pavilion near the shelter as a free standing structure." 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 IV. DISCUSS PAVILION AND WARMING HOUSE DESIGNS WITH JOHN DRUGER FROM 19 SADNESS CONSTRUCTION. 20 Jindra reported John Druger was before the Commission to present them with potential plans for 21 the pavilion and warming house for Central Park. Mr. Druger reviewed the plan and layout of 22 the pavilion with the Commission. 23 Jindra asked for the size of the structure. Mr. Druger indicated there was approximately 1,300 24 total square feet. 25 Mr. Druger reviewed the outdoor picnic area near the pavilion and stated the area would be 24 26 feet by 36 feet. He indicated there would be handicap access near the building to allow access to 27 the building and picnic area. 28 Skrivseth asked if there would be a folding wall between the large room. Mr. Druger indicated 29 there would be a folding wall between the rooms to have the meeting room be split in two if 30 needed. 14 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 6 1 Skrivseth questioned if storage areas were noted within this plan. Mr. Druger indicated he 2 designed storage areas throughout the pavilion and that doors and locks could be added to the 3 storage for safety and security. 4 Jindra asked if the restrooms would have access from the indoors and outdoors. Mr. Druger 5 indicated indoor and outdoor access would add to the number of square feet within the structure 6 but could be accomplished. He indicated he wasn't certain of the Commission's wishes when 7 designing the proposed pavilion. 8 Koehntop asked if the positioning of the restrooms would be a concern. Mr. Hartman noted there 9 would be a concern with the restrooms in the rear of the building as far as vandalism. He 10 explained that they would not be attractive in the front either. 1 I Jindra asked if the windows were standard windows or vandal proof. Mr. Druger indicated the 12 windows were placed relatively high on the structure to avoid easy access and provide 13 ventilation. He noted the siding would be painted concrete block which would be easy to remove 14 any graffiti from vandals. 15 Mr. Hartman asked for a sketch on the concession stand. Mr. Druger indicated he did not have a 6 sketch of the building at this time, but indicated it would have a similar structure as the pavilion 17 but scaled down to a 20 foot by 20 foot building with restrooms and a concession stand. 18 Jenson asked if the height of each structure would be the same. Mr. Druger indicated the height 19 of the pavilion and picnic area would be within one foot of each other. 20 Mr. Hartman asked for the elevation of the building. Mr. Druger stated the eave was at nine feet 21 which should be high enough to remove the temptation of climbing on the roof from vandals. 22 Zurbey asked if the copula would look appropriate on the 20 foot by 20 foot concession stand. 23 Mr. Druger stated it could be placed on the concession stand as is, or altered and used only for 24 ventilation. 25 Koehntop indicated he would like the pavilion and concession stand to remain a more recessed 26 part of the park and not have the Commission make a bold statement with the structures. 27 Mr. Hartman thanked Mr. Druger for the presentation and indicated the Park Commission would 28 now be forming several subcommittees to greater define the uses within each structure. Jindra 29 concurred. 30 Jindra indicated the Commission would be forming a subcommittee for purposes of discussing 31 the ball fields, landscaping plan and the pavilion/concession stand design. A. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 7 1 Jindra indicated Colleen Hallada, Doug Koehntop, and Dan Ganley would be the acting members 2 for the landscape committee. She explained Denise Dunn, Jan Jenson and George Zurbey would 3 comprise the ball field subcommittee. Jindra explained Diane Skrivseth, George Wagner, Julie 4 Gebhardt and she would work on the pavilion and concession stand design. 5 Jenson asked for direction from staff on how the subcommittees would function. Mr. Hubmer 6 noted all final questions of the Park Commission from BRW would be forwarded along with the 7 park plans for the committee members to review. 8 Jindra asked that all subcommittees meet before the next meeting and report back to the Park 9 Commission at that time. 10 Jenson suggested the pavilion restroom entrances face the park and not face the residential area. 1 I The Commission concurred. 12 Skrivseth indicated she would like to see greater ventilation within the pavilion for summer 13 recreation activities for Community Services. Jindra noted this suggestion for the subcommittee 14 to discuss. 5 Mr. Hartman reviewed several pavilion plans from SEH for the Commission subcommittee to 16 review. He asked if the Commission would be interested in seeking additional park pavilion 17 plans from SEH. Mr. Hartman stated he could seek out this information for the next meeting if is warranted. 19 Ganley indicated he feels Mr. Druger's work was adequate and at a lower cost than SEH. Jindra 20 indicated she would respond to this in greater detail after reviewing the plans both sets of plans. 21 Councilmember Thuesen asked if the warming house would be torn down for next season or if it 22 would be available for community services programs. Mr. Hubmer indicated that building was 23 not part of the Central Park project. 24 Councilmember Thuesen indicated he would like to see Community Services kept in mind for 25 the pavilion services and amount of storage available. 26 Councilmember Thuesen indicated this would be his last meeting as a Councilmember liaison. 27 He stated Randy Hodson would be the liaison for the year 2001. Councilmember Thuesen 28 suggested the Park Commission suggest to him to level of commitment expected from him as a 29 liaison member. 30 Jenson stated the Lion's may be interested in providing dug outs at Central Park if this field 31 became the home field for the Legion Team. Koehntop stated the neighboring residents may be 32 hesitant to take on this commitment. The Commission indicated they would discuss this matter 33 in greater detail at a future meeting. .r. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2001 Page 8 1 V. REPORTS 2 A. Community Services. 3 Skrivseth noted there was nothing new at this time. 4 B. School Board. 5 Dunn reported she was busy with the retirement of Warren and are looking for a 6 replacement. She noted a consultant group was seeking applicants at this time. 7 C. Snorts Boosters. 8 Zurbey indicated there no meeting held in December. 9 VI. OTHER BUSINESS. 10 A. Nomination of Chair and Vice Chair of the Park Commission for 2001. I 1 Motion by Koehntop, seconded by Ganley to nominate and appoint Jindra as the Chair for the 12 Park Commission for 2001. 13 The motion passed unanimously. 14 Motion by Jindra, seconded by Hallada to nominate and appoint Doug Koehntop as the Vice - t5 Chair for the Park Commission for 2001. T1 The motion passed unanimously. 17 VII. ADJOURNMENT. 18 Motion by Wagner, second by Hallada, to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 Heidi Guenther 21 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. .sR