Loading...
PRM 12/07/2015 CITY OF FRIDLEY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING – DECEMBER 7, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Heintz called the December 7, 2015 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mike Heintz, Greg Ackerman, Michele Barrett, Shanna Larson, Dave Kondrick Others Present: Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Bryan Harjes, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 2, 2015 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Barrett, to approve the minutes of the November 2, 2015 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HEINTZ DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 7, 2015 MOTION by Ms. Larson, seconded by Mr. Ackerman, to approve the agenda for the December 7, 2015 meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HEINTZ DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 1. STAFF REPORT a. Program Update Mr. Kirk stated that the Program Update has been included in the meeting packet to provide commission members with information on some of the programs and events during the past month. He wanted to call attention to the Veterans Day Celebration at the Senior Center had over 200 people attend. It is a very nice annual event that the seniors look forward to. Mr. Kirk further stated that the Winterfest planning is in full swing. The 2016 event is rd scheduled to take place on Saturday the 23 of January. Mr. Kirk stated that the Nature Center received a donation from Toro Corporation of a maintenance utility vehicle. We just got the paper work on the vehicle today and it is valued at over $23,000. This donation is a result of the fundraising efforts of the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation for the Phase 2 of the SPRING project. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page2 b. Park Maintenance Report Mr. Kirk stated that a December Parks Maintenance Report from Operations Manager Jeff Jensen has been included in the meeting information. The workers have completed the fall cleanup work and winterizing of the park facilities. They normally would be really into ice rink preparation, but due to the warm weather, that is not happening. They have been doing some additional work on the trail system at Springbrook. c. Springbrook Nature Center Report Mr. Kirk stated that the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation has moved into the local fundraising campaign, with a goal of raising an additional $200,000. They are doing a good job funding the SPRING project. Mr. Kirk further stated that the City Council has approved a contract with Split Rock Studios to complete the design and fabrication of the exhibits for the new interpretive building. Mr. Kirk stated that the City Council has also approved a contract with Hoisington Koegler Group to complete the design of the amphitheater, landscaping, nature-based play area, trails and other amenities associated with Phase 2 of the SPRING project. 2. NEW BUSINESS a. Re-development of the Columbia Arena Site Mr. Hickok stated that he is at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting this evening, along with Bryan Harjes of Hoisington Koegler Group, to make a presentation on the re- development of the Columbia Arena site. They would like to present some possible concepts for development and are particularly interested in the feedback of the Commission members. th Mr. Hickok further stated that on September 28, the City Council selected the Columbia Arena site as the site that they wanted staff to further evaluate for a civic campus. Back in 2013, the City Manager engaged an architectural firm (HCM) to study the existing City Hall related to needed improvements and future required facilities. There were a number of issues that were uncovered and a determination was made that the City should look at the costs of renovating and expanding the existing City Hall building, and at the same time look at comparative costs of a new facility. Mr. Hickok stated that earlier this year a citizen’s public engagement process that looked at the potential for re-development of the Columbia Arena site was coordinated. The process sought the input from residents on what they thought would be the best re-use of the arena property. It was interesting that the citizen’s group said that a civic use of a portion of the site would be a nice element to have there. Mr. Harjes stated that he would be very interested in hearing the Commission members reactions to the concept design for the arena site and the thoughts on the park elements included in the design. Mr. Harjes showed the Commission members some slides depicting the early concept designs for the site. The concept plans are similar in that they show the northern side of the property being used for civic uses, including the public work facilities. The central part of the concept shows a park amenity. In addition to some commercial properties, there could be a variety of housing types included in the project. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page3 Mr. Harjes stated that the current concept plan reflects input from all the departments of the city operations that would potentially be part of the civic campus. There could be a city hall facility, a public works facility and possibly a community center type of facility included in the project. The way the schematic plans are diagramed right now, there could be residential property above the two story city facilities. Mr. Harjes stated that to the south of the city facilities, a senior housing facility could also be a part of this project. That could include a continuum of senior housing needs from independent living, to assisted living, to managed care. This could be for a mix of age ranges and housing types. Mr. Harjes pointed out that there could also be some taller towers as part of the project, with retail space on the lower levels and housing on the upper floors. This is a more urban model that you would see happening in Minneapolis, or St. Paul or along transit lines. There is more density in a proposed project like this. Structure parking is also a key to making this higher density happen. Mr. Harjes stated that the big idea to tie all of this development together is a combination of a stormwater feature in the middle, along with a network of trails, bridges and fountains. There could be an amphitheater, as well as a plaza area for small events. Mr. Kondrick stated that it would nice if we could model the development project after the Centennial Lakes project in Edina. Mr. Harjes stated that as they look into some of the details of the park pieces, there is a lot of opportunity at the front end of the park for some great energy with the plaza and a possible concession type building. It could lend itself to some exciting special events for the community. Mr. Harjes stated that the project could include an amphitheater and several good overlook locations which will provide nice views of the naturalized zone. The amphitheater could host special events and concerts. Mr. Harjes stated that there is an area that they call “the green” and it is a connection between the two park areas. This north-south connection zone is like a mall area with trails and roadways to provide access to the development. It will help organize how people and vehicles can move through the site and get to the different facilities. This green area could be a very nice setting with trees and other landscape features. Mr. Heintz asked if there was a space in the proposed development that could host the Fridley 49er Days. Mr. Harjes stated it would depend on the number of people you wanted to attract to the event or program. Mr. Kondrick asked if there was a concern about the height of the buildings being proposed, from a fire department point of view. How high can they be -- five or six stories high? Mr. Hickok stated that with fire suppression sprinkler systems, taller buildings are not the concern that they used to be. Mr. Harjes stated that they have also considered winter use of the park amenities, such as using the pond for skating and having a fire pit area/warming house nearby. The pond could create a very nice skating loop. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page4 Ms. Larson stated that she thought the plans were lovely. The residential options could bring an additional 2,000 people living in this development. In addition to those living there, we would be providing park amenities to attract others to visit the area. Her concern is that enough parking is being planned for. Mr. Harjes stated that there will be a need for two separate structured parking ramps to accommodate the vehicles. There could also be a limited amount of angled parking off the roadway to accommodate some of the visitors to the south park area. Ms. Larson asked if there has been any talk about using the amphitheater for weddings or other rental events. Mr. Harjes stated that would be a possibility if the City wanted to go that direction. Mr. Heintz stated that a pedestrian bridge across University Avenue connecting the Fridley Community Park to this new development would provide additional parking opportunities and open the entire area to programming options. Mr. Heintz asked if there has been any discussion about additional roads that would allow entrance and exit from this new development. Mr. Harjes stated that there may be an opportunity for an expanded right of way and a road going to the north. That would be on the west side of the Target Distribution Center facility. There has also been discussion about a right in-right out access along University Avenue. It could also have a signal that would allow for emergency vehicles to move in either direction. Ms. Larson stated that she has seen and really liked Rail Yard Park in Santa Fe, New Mexico. If we could incorporate some elements, similar to that park, into this park, it would be a facility that would get used. Mr. Heintz asked if the park dedication fees realized from this project could be directed just for improvements to be made on this site. Mr. Hickok stated that park dedication by its very nature is meant to have a nexus between the use that is going in and the demands on parks. He thought that there would be no better place to spend the park dedication dollars than on this development. Mr. Kirk stated that the park dedication fees realized through the years goes into the Parks Capital Improvement fund. The Parks and Recreation Commission makes a recommendation each year on how those park capital funds should be allocated. If this Commission wanted to recommend some development or extra amenities for this site through the park dedication fees to be realized on this project, the Commission could certainly do so. Mr. Hickok stated that the schematic plan shows a small concession building in the central park/trails/pond area. It could be used to provide some refreshments to people using this new park area in the center of the development. In White Bear Lake, a similar type of facility is a huge gathering spot for the community. Mr. Heintz asked what the dollar amount was to refurbish the existing City Hall facility. Mr. Hickok stated that in 2013 it was estimated that it would cost $17 Million and you can add about 11% to that for rising costs. Mr. Hickok stated that he believes that the plaza area outside of the proposed civic campus would be a nice area for some public art. He would envision people walking on the plaza or trail system and being able to sit and ponder some art work. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page5 Mr. Hickok asked the Commission what they thought of a new City Hall being located in the Columbia Arena redevelopment project. Mr. Heintz stated that he liked that idea and thought the project would likely bring other development in the immediate area. Mr. Hickok stated that one of the things the civic component would bring to the project is around the clock life. Police and Fire departments would have 24 hour operations. The living areas above the City Hall would make the plaza and park areas viable opportunities for people to enjoy after work hours. People would view this as a safe environment to enjoy. Ms. Larson asked if the Community Center facilities indicated on the plan would take the place of the existing Community Center by Commons Park or would it be in addition to the FCC. She really would like to see an indoor play area for children if a Community Center was included. Mr. Kirk stated that the thought right now is that the new facility would be about 40,000 square feet and would replace the facilities at the existing Fridley Community Center. A facility of that size would be able to accommodate most of the programs that are being run at the current Community Center. It would not provide the space to accommodate an alternative high school program. Mr. Kirk stated that this proposed Community Center was not a large elaborate facility that would include a swimming pool, exercise equipment and some of the amenities you see at the larger community centers in the Twin Cities area. He agreed that an indoor play equipment area would be a nice addition to the community center facility. Mr. Kondrick asked what it was that was being asked of the Parks and Recreation Commission this evening. Mr. Hickok stated that the Commission has provided some good input on this proposed project. It sounds like the City is on the right path and should now be narrowing down some of the details for the project related to the community center. He would like to get an indication from the Parks and Recreation Commission as to whether they believe the Community Center should be located on this civic campus at the Columbia Arena site. They need to know whether to include a community center here as the planning and design move along. Mr. Heintz stated that he likes the location of the current community center. Kids can get to the facility fairly easily. The arena site will have a lot going on in a relatively small space and it may be difficult to get people to a community center at the new site. Ms. Larson stated that she thought the current location was really good for the ZONE program, because the middle school students could get to the facility quickly and easily after school. Mr. Heintz stated he would be concerned about the parking situation and all the traffic that would now be in the area of the new development and its impact on users of the community center. He just didn’t think that the arena site would be the best place for that type of facility. Mr. Harjes asked if all of the community center facilities would work just as well if they were on the other side of University Avenue, at the Fridley Community Park ballfields site -- possibly connected to the new development at the arena site with a pedestrian bridge. Ms. Larson stated that she didn’t know where you could put a facility on that side, at least without impacting current athletic fields and the parking. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page6 Mr. Heintz stated that he would still favor the current community center location. He would say that if we were going to build a new community center, tear down the one we have and build a new one at that location. Mr. Ackerman asked if Fridley had the financial capacity to do both a new city hall and a community center. He said the City will want to do a good job on these facilities and do we have the resources to do them at the same time. Mr. Hickok stated that this is already a very big project with the City facilities, including the city hall, police, fire and public works functions. We would then not only have to plan for the additional 40,000 square feet of building space to accommodate the community center needs, but also need to plan for parking. One of the biggest mistakes that multi-use campuses make is they don’t realize how much parking a community center requires. At a limited site like this, the parking will have to be structured parking in ramps. Ramp parking is very expensive and estimated at $30,000 per parking stall. Mr. Heintz stated that he could see us putting the senior center over here, but not some of the other community center programs. It might be okay to tie the senior center into the senior housing. Mr. Hickok stated that recent citizen surveys showed that residents were okay with the idea of community center facilities, but did not want to pay more taxes to support such facilities. It was striking in the survey to see how few people would be willing to pay additional for a community center. Are the citizens of the community willing to add another $20 million to an already expensive project to provide a new community center? The surveys have told us they are not. Mr. Harjes stated that his take from the discussion tonight is that the senior center is a possible program component of the building, but other than that, it may be too much and not the most favorable location. The Commission members agreed with the statement from Mr. Harjes. Mr. Kondrick stated that people are going to want to know what this project is going to cost them. Mr. Hickok stated that our Finance Director has been working diligently on determining the costs to taxpayers. He thinks people will be surprised to find that when spread over a number of years that the cost for the civic facilities will be very affordable. The City would need to bond for this project and likely spread over something like a twenty year term. b. 2016 Adult Softball Fees Mr. Kirk stated that staff is recommending the same fees as 2015 for the adult softball leagues this coming season. Costs related to running the league should be the same and we are still trying to attract a few more teams to participate. The recommended fees are comparable to those of neighboring communities. Mr. Kirk stated that the recommended adult softball league fees are as follows: Sunday Men’s League - $710 Monday through Thursday Men’s Leagues - $780 Friday Co-Rec League - $625 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – December 7, 2015 Page7 Mr. Kirk stated that the difference in fees for the leagues is due to a variation in the number of games played. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Barrett, to approve the staff recommended fees for the 2016 adult softball leagues. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HEINTZ DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Glencoe Park Ms. Larson stated that her family went to Glencoe Park on Sunday and saw that the City has a sign at the park, but very little else. She wondered if there were other amenities planned for the park. Mr. Kirk stated that Glencoe is a very small park, with only the basketball court. It is about a block away from Springbrook Park, which has some children’s playground equipment and an open play area. Ms. Larson stated she would like to talk about this park and Springbrook Park at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ms. Barrett, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to adjourn the December 7, 2015 meeting at 8:40 p.m. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HEINTZ DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE DECEMBER 7, 2015 MEETING ADJOURNED.