Loading...
06/14/1984 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 14, 1984 A special meeting of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7:45 P.M.. Members present were Bertz, Masin, Carroll, Thurston, Kubik, Martin, Ketcham and Alt. Absent was member Jackson. Also present was the Director of Parks & Recreation, Ken Vraa. Prior to the 7:45 Call To Order, the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission made an on-site visit to Blackhawk Park and Thomas Lake Park. The purpose of the tour to Blackhawk Park was to review the proposed preliminary plats for Blackhawk Lake Addition and Blackhawk Oaks Addition. BLACKHAWK PARK: Chairman Martin asked Commission members to comment on Blackhawk Park and the two proposed preliminary plats now that the Commission has had a chance to make an on-site visit. Commission member Kubik indicated it was clear the proposed roadway would be an obvious detriment to the park and he saw no value to the City and the Parks System relative to these two proposed plats. Chair- man Martin agreed that the on-site visit confirmed to him there would be a great deal more disruption to the site than what seemed to be the case when one was just looking at the plans. He continued saying that although there was no concept plan for Blackhawk Park, the City should still try to maintain an option of gaining access to the north as was proposed under the original Blackhawk Oaks Addition. He indicated that he thought the grades in the park could be worked to accomplish a park road. Commission member Alt questioned whether the City would ever need the park road at all or the access to the north. Commission member Martin stated that that may be the case, but with a 60 acre park with such diversity and natural resources, some type of a park road seemed likely with its major access to the south. A secondary access on the north may be vital to the park. He went on to say that obviously a park concept plan needed to be developed to answer these questions. Members discussed possible realignments of the roadway through the Blackhawk Oaks Addition, suggesting that the best alternative appeared to be for the private road to go through the property to the north rather than the park property. Members commented that this appeared to be the least disruptive to the overall site. Member Kubik commented he was concerned that all of the alternatives have not been researched and reviewed. He has seen only the one and felt there should be more than just-one alternative to consider. Commission member Carroll commented his agreement and that the present plan would be totally disruptive to this area of the park. In response to a question, Director of Parks & Recreation responded that this item would be appearing on the Planning-Co-rdmfss-ion's agenda in June. Member Kubik suggested it would be a good idea for the Commission to address a memorandum to the Planning Commission stating its concerns for this roadway and the negative loss and impact to the Parks System. Members agreed with Chairman Martin adding that he would suggest the Advisory Planning Commission take an on-site view to understand the impact better. Members commented that the proposal solved lots of problems for the developer, while at the expense of the parks, what is the obligation of the parks to make this project work? After further discussion, on a motion by Kubik, seconded by Bertz, with all members voting in favor, the Director of Parks & Recreation was directed to write a letter to the Advisory Planning Commission indicating that the Parks & Recreation Commission had grave concerns relative to the two proposed preliminary plats which would create a significant loss of mature oaks (white oaks), disruption to the site in general, subsequent erosion problems, and the non-benefit to the City of Eagan. Motion carried. Chairman Martin stated that the developer should be required to look at all other alternatives rather than providing this road through park property as is being requested. THOMAS LAKE PARK: Chairman Martin asked Commission members to comment on the Thomas Lake Park tour relative to the informal proposal received the week previously. There were general comments by the Commission relative to the beauty and uniqueness of the site and the proposed locations of the apartment complex. Member reiterated they felt the easterly most building must be moved back further from the shoreline than that which was first proposed. Chairman Martin suggested that the tennis courts that were first proposed were probably not located where he had originally thought, but still was concerned about whether the need for the courts was valid. There was further discussion by the Commission relative to the proposed plan and park site with no action being taken. PARKS BOND/DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Director of Parks & Recreation briefly reviewed an update with the Commission relative to the three alternatives under discussion. Commission member Kubik stated that he preferred to see an internal landscape architect, but such an individual will be difficult to find. He went on to state that the projects in the park will involve not only design detail, but a certain degree of civil engineering as well. Director of Parks & Recreation responded this was indeed the case ad it would be essential to hire an experienced individual versus someone who has been in the field only a short time. Member Martin commented that it appeared the landscape architect position would be the least expensive of the alternatives. Member Alt questioned the need for a professional management team whose cost would be an addition to any design services. Member Martin stated he was in agreement that this was an added cost to the project. Members then reviewed the management project proposal as submitted with the consensus that this was the least preferred method. Kubik indicated that their fees of 2 1/2% plus expenses was, in fact, very reasonable as far as project management firms go, but he felt staff at the City would still have to do much of the coordination and interface with the firm if it were used. There were additional questions relative to the position description for the landscape architect, advantages and disadvantages of an outside consulting firm, and some of the concerns relative to both. In response to a question, the Director of Parks & Recreation responded he has had previous experience under both types of alternatives. He indicated he had a preference for the internal landscape architect position because he felt it offered the best control of the project and that it could be most flexible and responsive to park needs and individual parks problems. He went on to say that the concern was, as Mr. Kubik had previously indicated, in finding the right individual and making the assumption that this one person could complete 2 the entire task. Commission Member Carroll said it was his understanding we would indeed have to have additional services and assistance within the department to accomplish this. Members Kubik and Martin agreed, stating that we will need the flexibility of bringing in additional help or expertise as the case may be called for. Member Martin stated that it was his understanding that cost for this individual would come from the Bond Referendum money and as long as the cost for a landscape architect plus any additional outside fees remained below the 6% outside consulting firm cost, this would be acceptable. There was general discussion relative to the types of services that would be necessary, concluding in agreement with Mr. Martin's statement. Member Kubik stated, however, that he felt the design and management load on staff has still not been adequately addressed. He stated it was already obvious that not only was the department understaffed now in areas of recreation and in the Director's time, but this project of parks development was going to consume at least half of the Director's time in overall management and decision making. He stated that the mere fact the project is underway means that the department is already short 1/2 person and the Commission needs to insure that the project doesn't fail or that other issues in the department are not addressed because of insufficient staff time. Member Thurston inquired as to the workload and status of help available to the department. Director of Parks & Recreation briefly reviewed the current status of authorized employees and positions. Commission member Alt stated that with the successful referendum, now is the appropriate time to review departmental priorities for staffing. She stated she recognized the need for maintenance personnel, but suggested that the authorized maintenance position could be used for other priorities. Commission member Kubik agreed, saying that the special committee on recreation was also concluding that additional help would be necessary in the very near future, if not now, for the growing recreational programs. There was general discussion by the Commission relative to the various priorities and needs of the department and the development projects. Member Kubik suggested that there be a need for general assistance in the overall operation of the department and parks development combined with recreational programming. He continued saying he suggested that the City hire a full-time assistant specialist for Parks & Recreation, rather than the maintenance position. Member Thurston questioned if this wasn't something that should be addressed in the 1985 budget. Martin agreed that that would be the normal procedure of things, but when the budget was prepared a year ago no one knew that we would be sitting twelve months later with the problems of staffing as the result of a successful parks bond referendum. Members stated their agreement that the referendum has brought about a whole new set of circumstances and priorities and would dictate a change at this time, rather than waiting an additional six months when we are well into project development. Kubik continued saying it is important that everyone recognize the impact the referendum will have and the need to react quickly. After further discussion, there was a motion by Dick Carroll, seconded by George Kubik, to recommend to the City Council that a landscape architect be hired for the duration of the parks development program to be funded through the parks bond referendum money; further, that staff be authorized to utilize additional consulting or outside services as may be necessary, including the utilization of the City's Parks Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to begin the development project. Further, that the Council review the need for an additional full time staff person to assist in the department. Motion carried. Chairman Martin asked that the minutes reflect the Commission has taken this action because of the urgency- f_the_action to meet the fall time frame for project development, that this is cost effective and maximimizes the dollars spent on project cost, that it is the most responsive course of 3 action for meeting development project priorities and departmental operations. Commission Member Kubik questioned if the landscape architect is approved and hired and he were to be utilized on other projects outside of the development program, would that be chargeable to another account? Director of Parks & Recreation explained there are certain fundings within the normal operational budget for parks consulting services which could be charged against on an hourly basis for work done outside the scope of the referendum. NORTHWESTERN BELL UTILITY BUILDING: Director of Parks & Recreation asked the Commission to provide further direction relative to the request from Northwestern Bell for a utility building on City park property. He indicated that several members have gone out to the recently staked building location. He stated this new location, with minor adjustments, would have the least impact upon the park. Member Thurston inquired if other issues raised at the previous Commission meeting had been met. Director of Parks & Recreation responded that Northwestern Bell was in agreement with the new building location and had recently contacted him and agreed to the elimination of a turn around. However, he said the 10' wide driveway would have to be increased to 12' in width for safety reasons. He also indicated that Bell was willing to change the composition of the building to meet aesthetic concerns of the Commission and would be seeking direction from the Commission relative to this. There were additional concerns and questions relative to the length of lease, liability, contract termination and concern for disruption to the site during construction. Member Thurston reiterated her concern for precedent setting and the lack of Northwestern Bell to plan adequately. Commission member Carroll agreed, stating that he hated to see disruption to the park site. He questioned whether there would be sufficient room for a trailway in the future. Director of Parks & Recreation responded that such a trail would still be to the north of this building. In response to a question, the Director responded that Northwestern Bell would be responsible for contacting the three residents who are closest to the building to inform them of this issue. Commission member Kubik stated he felt that the lease agreement should include a clause which would terminate the lease should Bell try to use the facility for some other purpose than is being approved at this time. He stated that technology is changing swiftly and he hated to see the facility being used for storage or other purpose than its intended use at this time. Members of the Commission agreed and asked the Director of Parks & Recreation to insure this was included in the lease agreement. Members agreed that the lease should provide for the cash payment up front, with funds to be deposited in the park site acquisition and development fund. Members expressed concern for landscaping of the site. Director responded that Northwestern Bell has agreed to provide the landscaping that may be appropriate. After further discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Bertz, with members voting their approval to recommend Northwestern Bell proceed with a site survey for this location for further staff review. Further, should there not be a need for further adjustments, The Commission approved the recommendation to the City Council for this facility. Director of Parks & Recreation was directed to relate to Northwestern Bell that the facility should be changed in appearance to meet the aesthetics of the park, that a 15 year lease with five year option shall be negotiated, that Northwestern Bell will be responsible for any liability associated with the building and its construction, should the use change from that which is being requested at this time, the lease shall be terminated; that construction limits be established to insure there is no disruption to nearby vegation, and for staff to report back at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Member Carroll expressed concern relative to construction of the facility and 4 possible disruption to roots from nearby trees. He requested that staff be involved with identifying construction limits and exact location of the building to minimize this possible disruption. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Advisory Commission, this movement seconded to adjourn at 9:45 P.M.. Dated: : Advisory Parks & Recreation retary 5