HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-13 Park Board PacketEDINA PARK BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, September 13, 1983
7:30 P.M.
Edina City Hall - Council Room
AGENDA
I. Approval of Minutes of August 9 Meeting
II. Hennepin County Park Issue
(Read your enclosed copy before attending the meeting)
III. Bredesen Park
IV. Fees and Charges
V. Wooddale School
40
•
BRAE`TAR GOLF COURSE
9/13/84 - proposed & accepted
Patron Cards:
Husband & Wife
Proposed 1984
1983 FEES
Individual
75.00
$ 65.00
Additional Family Member.
00
35.00
30.00
Computerized Handicaps
/5.50
4.50
Lockers
Men's 72"
Men's 42"
30.00
30.00
Ladies 72"
18.00
18.00
10.00
10.00
Club Rental
4.00
3.75
Pull Carts
same
1.25
Golf Cars
18 holes
9 holes
15.00
14.00
8.00
7.50
Group Golf Lessons
Adult
i
Junior
35.00
33.00
20.00
17.00
Golf Range
Large Bucket
Small Bucket
3.00
2.75
2.00
1.75
GREEN FEES
18 hole - non patron
10.00
18 hole - patron
7.00
8.00
6.00
9 hole - non patron
6.50
9 hole - patron
4.50
5.50
4.00
Seniors
18 hole - non patron
9.00
18 hole - patron
6.00
6.50
4.50
9 hole - non patron
6.00
9 hole - patron
4.00
4.00
3.00
Par 3
Adult - non patron
3.75
Adult - patron
2.75
3.50
Junior - non patron
2. 50
2.50
Junior - patron
1.7755
2.25
1.50
Group Fees
12.00
10.00
®
Group Fees Cars
18.00
16.00
9/13/84 - proposed & accepted
U
G
H
00
cf1 N
m
00
.-r
O
c+'1
TJ
u'1 N
M
N
O
N
N
u'1 .--q
—4 N
%.O
O
�
iJ
CN N
N .—A
M
N
co
N
�p
.14
N
W
r -I
O
00
m O
O O
m
C
u'1
O
-
00 n
u'1 111
O
O
m
O
Lf) .-4
�.O .-1
00
O
c-
O
b
00 m
-7 N
N
00
if1
Cl)
N
-17 O
O
O
41
c0
v> v>
to v>
yr
v>
yr
yr
H
W
L7
H
W
O
�
d
M
00
-It 00
CN .-i
O
N
O
V
-
M -7
-4 u1
O\
N
n
O
O^
H
a
b
O>
N O
%Z
n
00
O
OD
C)
O\
Cl) n
lZ
ON
O
D
cd
cb
to th
yr v}
v>-
yr
cr}
cn-
W
U
D
+�
W
d
m
C4
4)
W
W
�
b
m
G
O
O
G
O
O
C4
W
�
a
a
c
00
r,r-
0O
0
u
G
-
C,4
O O
O
O
H
O
-7
'O
O
n -+
M
00
b
Q)
N
Ol
Q)
JJ
H
En
ct
C1
W
4-1
H
m
U
W
W
r;
C
co
a
G
0
00
m
m C14M
-
M M
N 00
�O
'LJ
mN
00N
-.T
N
co
.r{
1J
y
w,
G
�
O
G
00
p
C
-
G cC
41
Fj
O
N
I
N
•
4 r
C
cC O
U
U
N •,1
z
�4
p41
u a�
ro
u
ter+
u u
u
o
Gw
O O
00 0^
o
all
cC
'-i
U
-+ *-+
O, Cl
C7
0. -
W
U
c ATTACHMENT B
.,7 •• �. .'\..l ✓t1 L,..V.. V..i a, a. �eV� ...a 1 1•wla L'
I' -e school district is not in the real estate nor development
business per se. Retaining real estate -and buildings which are
no longer used as school buildings, is outside the historic scope
-. of the traditional school district. Unfortunately, school districts
?a§' have been forced into the real property management business by virtue
a{+' of the decline in school population. The degree to which a school
f w,
o district should maintain its investment in excess buildings, is a
whole other debate. I commend the School Board and the City Council
for being foresighted enough to understand that they are going to
have to work together on these matters. We are fortunate in that,
with a few minor exceptions, the boundary of the city and the school
district is almost 4 -square.
I do disagree somewhat with the School'Board's proposal to hand the
Wooddale School property over to the city for disposition. While
I agree with the premise that the land be used for park purposes,
I disagree with the premise that the city is in any better position
to deal with the disposition of the Wooddale School building thar.
the School Board.
I think that the disposition of the Wooddale School building is a
community matter, and that is the community of both the City Council
and the School Board. Let me once again state that I am in total _
agreement with the proposed disposition of the land. I think it is
• a creative and proper proposal. I am concerned about the disposition
of the building.
I would like to suggest the following:
The issue of whether or not the Wooddale School building survives
_ should not depend on whether there are tax dollars available to
afford its survival. Wooddale School should survive if in"fact a
there is a need for it to survive. That need to survive is based
on whether or not there is an effective .and viable use and occupancy ~'
for the Wooddale building. I think I am as cognizant as anyone
of the desirability of preserving our past. Unfortunately, there ..k`
are limits to our ability to preserve. I want to see the Wooddale t
School building survive, but -not at the expense of an already
`over -burdened taxpayer. -- - •.
A logical question at this point is, "how do we maintain the
Wooddale building otherwise?",.
Obviously, we must find occupants for the building that a
. - Y, p g re '
willing to pay for that occupancy. Right now we are doing that
with the Community Center and, quite frankly, finding occupants
for the Wooddale building would be competitive to the Community
Center activity, except that I would propose that we condomini-
mize the Wooddale School building and that we limit the occupancy
® to governmental or quasi -governmental agencies.
I would provide for a buy-back in the event the school district
needed to use the Facility for school purposes.
Each occupant would be purchasing their square footage on an
improved basis, plus the pro rata cost of the building improve-
ments such as roof, mechanical, etc. I assume there will either
be municipal or private funding available for the financing of
the occupants' obligation. Obviously, if it could be in the
form of an industrial revenue bond where. the yield is tax free
to the investor, the financing rate could be cheaper.
There is enough ground work that's been done on the potential
occupants so that I am not going to bore you with that list at
this time. I think that the potential for occupants is only
limited by our imagination. Perhaps the city government, speci-
fically the Park Department, being in need of an indoor activity
center, gymnasium or community.meeting facility, would like to
purchase the Wooddale auditorium gymnasium. Perhaps the Chamber
of Commerce would like to purchase an office. Perhaps the
Historical Society would like to purchase a room for its museum.
I am sure there are other organizations which would consider
housing their activity in the Wooddale building on this basis.
If, on the other hand, we are not able to get commitments for
occupancy of the facility, it seems to me that the decision is then
made on the basis of the reality of the situation, as opposed to
perception. If we can't find occupants who are interested in the
facility, then we shouldn't maintain it.
2-
I would suggest the following steps are necessary for the implementation
of this plan:
1. Appoint.a task force of citizens to oversee this activity.
t
2. Fund that task force so that they might receive information
relative to the remodeling and rehabilitation work that needs
to be done, together with room designs, etc,
3. Charge them with the responsibility of developing a funding
proposal.
4. Have them report to the City Council and School Board in
3 months with their plan.
Obviously,'=t
consideration should be given to the present tenancies
and their potential relocation difficulties. The prime tenant is
the Montessori School, but certainly there are other opportunities
within the district for their activity.
I welcome your questions and sincerely hope we have an opportunity
for an open discussion on October 10th.
Thank you very much.
GLS:fc Glenn L. Smith
10/7/83.
ATTACHMENT B
PERTINENT DATA
Original school built in 1926.
Addition to rear of building in 1936.
Site
Area of site - 5.06 acres
Ground coverage of building - 0.66 acres
Parking lot capacity - 32 cars
Bui1din4
Floor area of building - Basement
First floor
Second floor
Total area
Net rentable area in building
15,351 sq.ft.
28,878
23,838
68,067 sq.ft.
36,600 sq.ft.
Construction - Tile joist floor system with load bearing exterior
and corridor walls.
Structural steel columns and trusses in gynasium/
auditorium and stage.
Foundations of poured concrete construction.
Building fully sprinklered throughout with
smoke detection system.
ATTACHMENT B
I*
7 October 1983
MEMORANDUM
Re: Wooddale School
From: Foster W. Dunwiddie
cc: File
Smith
Skagerberg-
Dunwiddie
MD834
On Thursday, October 6, 1983 I called Jim Hamann of the Edina
School District to obtain the estimated cost of rehabilitation for
Wooddale School. Following is a tabulation of the estimated costs
as prepared by the District staff:
Year
Plumbing
Electric Roofing
1984-85
$ 50,000
$ 10,000 ---
1985-86
50,000
10,000 $150,000
1986-87
50,000
10,000 ---
1987-88
50,000
5,000 ---
Unit Vent. Misc.
20,000 15,000
20,000 2,500
20,000 6,000
Total $200,OQO $ 35,000 $150,000 $ 60,000 $ 23,500
Grand Total
0
$468,500
ATTACHMENT B
cc: File
City Council
Hoard of Education
9 October 1983
MEMORANDUM
Re: Wooddale School
From: Foster W. Dunwiddie, Chairman
Heritage Preservation Hoard,
City of Edina
The Wooddale School at Wooddale Avenue and West 50th Street in
Edina has long been recognized for its historical and
architectural significance.
Built in 1926, Wooddale School is an excellent example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture. It was designed
by the Minneapolis architectural firm of Sund and Dunham. In
1936, a substantial addition was built on the rear of the school.
The school was closed in 1980 and is currently leased to the
Montessori Academy and the Edina Historical Society.
• Wooddale School was identified in 1979 by the Heritage
Preservation Board (HPB) as one of the significant historic
buildings in Edina. It was recognized for its architectural and
historical significance as part of a city-wide survey of historic
sites conducted by the HPB. Both the Heritage Preservation Board
of the -City of Edina and the Edina Historical Society have
recommended. preservation of Wooddale School because of its
historical significance in the community.
In 1982, Wooddale School was listed in the National Register of
Historic Places in Washington, D.C. as a "pivotal" building within
the Country Club Historic District of Edina.
As a National Register property, Wooddale School is afforded
certain protection from the adverse effect of Federally funded
projects. Government agencies must take into consideration the
impact on the structure of projects involving Federal assistance.
For example, if West 50th Street were to be widened by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation using Federal funds, the
.impact on Wooddale School must be assessed and any adverse effects
mitigated in the design. Review of Federally assisted projects
and a determination of effect is made by the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) under the provisions of the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966. Russell Fridley, the Director of the
Minnesota Historical Society is the State Historic Preservation
Officer in Minnesota.
Wooddale School
Page 2
Projects that are totally funded by State and/or
not require review by the SHPO and are not
provisions and procedures.
9 October 198.)
local sources do
subject to these
One of the benefits of National Register status is derived from
the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Economic Recovery Act of 1981.
Rehabilitation and restoration costs expended on income producing
National Register properties qualify for a 25% tax credit. The
rehabilitation work must be conducted in accordance with the
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation
Projects which are administered in Minnesota by the State Historic
Preservation Office in St. Paul.
National Register properties also qualify for matching State and
Federal grants for rehabilitation costs. These funds are
administered by the State Grant's Officer of the Minnesota
Historical Society. The City of Edina has been the recipient of
several of these grants in the past for the restoration of the
Cahill School and Minnehaha Grange Hall in Frank Tupa Historic
Park. Federal jobs legislation made available $525,000 for
restoration and rehabilitation projects in Minnesota this year. A
Federal jobs bill is currently before Congress to provide
additional funding.
Much attention has been given recently to the physical condition
of Wooddale School. Most -frequently cited is the need for a new
roof, extensive plumbing repairs, electrical repairs and unit
ventilator replacement. On Friday, October 7th I spent several
hours inspecting Wooddale School to assess the current condition
of the school and the need for repair.
Preventive maintenance is a vital part of the preservation of any
historic property. However, in the case of the Wooddale School
the extent and urgency of the suggested repairs seems to have been
overstated.
The existing roof is in surprisingly good condition for a 20 year
old roof. The only leaks that have occurred are in one small area
of the second, floor corridor. An inspection of the roof revealed
that these are attributable to faulty flashing where the 1926
building and the 1936 addition were joined and not the roof
itself. Minor repairs to the base flashing and tile parapet cap
.would correct the current problem..
Most of the plumbing in the building was installed in 1926 and
1936 when the building was built. For the most part this plumbing
is concentrated in the toilet room areas of the building. The
toilet room piping is fully accessible for maintenance purposes in
pipe chases located adjacent to each of the toilet rooms.
Replacement through normal maintenance rather than wholesale
replacement would seem more prudent and less costly. Many of the
homes in the Country Club District have plumbing of a similar
vintage.
Wooddale School Page 3 9 October 1983
Electrical panels in the building are of the older fuse type
rather than the more modern circuit breaker type. Replacement may
be desirable. However, the present -20 amp fusestats have been
performing satisfactorily for present usage of the building and
apparently have caused few problems.
The unit ventilators in the classrooms also are of an older type.
They may need replacement at some future date. However, they are
currently operating satisfactorily and apparently have not been a
problem.
Based upon my examination of the building, it would appear that
Wooddale School is in good condition for a building of its age.
It is structurally sound and has been well maintained.
Undoubtedly the building could benefit from a well planned
cyclical maintenance program. However, it would appear that this
could be accomplished at less cost and spread over a longer period
of time than has been suggested.
In 1980 the City Council and the School Board appointed a citizens
advisory committee to study practical uses of the building that
would be both cost effective and responsive to community concerns.
The Wooddale School Use Committee reported its findings after six
® months of investigation. In the light of current conditions, I
would suggest that a similar committee be established by the City
Council and the School Board to study the matter with professional
assistance and make recommendations with regard to the continued
use of Wooddale School and its future disposition.
U
G
H
-
tr) N
--4 O\
a\
00
cr )
't7
trt N
M ON
1-1
n
N
O
N
a)
tr) -a
.-4 N
110
r l
D1
O
IZT
iJ
O% N
N -4
\D
\O
M
N
cl
N .-4
�p
V} VY
Vt V}
V}
V}
V}
rl
L
EO
W
14
O
00
m O
O O
ON
C
Lr)
O
-
00 r�
Lr) Lr)
O
O
O1
O
cn -4
%.o .-+
00
O
n
O
b
00 O�
I7 N
N
00
tr)
Cl)
a)
-7 O
M r�
O
O
yJ
-4 'A
co
V). V}
V} V}
V}
V}
V}
V}
h-1
N
W
O
A
M
00
-t 00
C% -
O
N
It
O
-
M -7
--4 cr)
O\
N
r"
O
O O
Lr) 00
.-r
N
Oo
O
b
all r-
N O
%D
t`
00
O
0)
-4 rn
Cl) r l
O
L
-4
cz
V} :?
V? Vi
V}
V)
V}
V?
-rl
JJ
to
W
to
.b
G
O
tx
00
r- r`
cc
O
N D1
n -4
O
JJ
cz
4-1H
N
W
co
.b
G
O
M
cc
O\
Cr\ N
-
M M
N 00
b
mN
co
�?
td
t�
G
�
O
G
00
p
O
-
a)
>441
�.
OPte.
1
G cz
N
�
G
p ii
cn c
m O
u G
ctf E
0. z
td O
Er
C)
a) •-1
0. z
>4
y
l4 a -J
a) a1
cz
G
U m
O
G W
O O
--1 e -I
Cl)
tll
I
H
O O
4-1
00 m
cC
1-1
(3)
1-4 .-+
rn rn
L:
0._
x
U
z
EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
MAJOR PROJECTS - 1984
Playground Equipment
New Equipment and Concrete Curbing
$60,000
Tingdale $10,000
Birchcrest 10,000
Normandale 15,000
Beard 5,000
Todd 10,000
Countryside 10,000
60,000
Braemar Arena & Pavilion Repair
$10,000
Parking Lot Arneson Park
10,000
Chairs - 1000
1,000
Bleachers - 2
3,000
Picnic Tables - 12
3,000
Picnic Table Blanks
3,000
Pathways - Tennis Court Repair
15,000
Painting and Park Building Repair
25,000
Gun Range Clay Target Building and Roof
10,000
140,000
® PARK EQUIPMENT
Water truck (with trade-in) $ 22,000
Loader - share with Public Works Dept. 10,000
Tree pick-up truck and tool box (with trade-in) 13,000
Complex Cushman (with trade-in) 7,000
Misc. Equipment 3,000
55,000
Total
Pool
Inlets and bathhouse
(From Developers Dedicated
Funds)
Handicap bathrooms
(Comm. Dev. Funds)
Braemar Golf Course
$75,000 Club House $200,000
Maintenance Bldg. 75,000
Par 3
50,000 Braemar Arena,Pavilion
Pavilion Balcony 50,000
Suggested Playground sites to be completed in
1985
Equipment & Concrete Curbing
York 10,000
Alden 5,000
Lake Edina 10,000
Heights 5,000
Garden 10,000
40.000
Concrete Curb only:
Pamela $ 5,000
44th St. 5,000
Braemar 51000
Chowen 5,000
20,000
$140,000
$55,000
$195,000