Loading...
Parks Commission Agenda Packet 08-01-2002 . . . AGE PARKS CO August I, 20 West Prai "To ellhallce COlllfIlll/li(v pri e throllgh developing alld lIlailltaining ci(l' parks with II high standard (!f '1l1aWv '.' 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes of .July 18,2002 regul r Parks Commission meeting. 3. Consideration of adding items to the ag nda. 4. Citizens requests. 5. Park Comprehensive Plan 6. Priorities for park development 7. Development of fee schedule and policy or field use. 8. Update on ice arena. 9 Pathway Groveland ]nl Addition 10. Green space 11. List of pathways for paving 12. Other Items: A. Budget B. Entrance Signs C. Park Credit Information 13. Adjourn . . . NOTES TO PARK CO MISSION AGF.NDA Au~ust 1, 2002 Information: There were a number of items that were left from the last agenda and these items formed the basis for the agenda. Again, the list is fairly long and the items re m;:~jor so it may not be feasible to try to get through all of them at this meeting. 5. Comprehensive Park Plan - It was not clear what exactly the Parks Commission was proposing to do as l~lr as the comprehensive plan. Was th intent just to review the plan to see that it still reflected Parks Commission philosophy or were there specific items that the Parks Commission was looking to change. If it is the latter, then a listing of the pecifie areas of concern could be drawn up, it could be researched as to how other communities hand e that specific issue, any proposed changes could be drafted, etc. This could be a lengthy item an might merit either a special meeting just on that item or establishment of a subcommittee who would ork on the specific concerns and bring their recommendations back to the full board. 6. Priorities for park development - Again it as not clear whether the Parks Commission was looking at establ ishing priorities for just the upcoming year or whether you were doing a five year or ten year development plan. 7. Development of fee schedule and policy for 'ield use - This item has been mentioned at several meetings but at this time no draft: of a lee sche ule or policy has been submitted to the Parks Commission. Would the Commission prefer 0 review a draft document submitted by park statl or do they want to l()[mulate the document? 8. Ice Arena Update - This was an item placed .n the last agenda by .lefT O'Neill. Adam Hawkinson will be requesting Parks Commission input on whether improvements proposed and budgeted for some outdoor rinks should be delayed until the ice a ena plans are more fully developed. 9. Pathway Groveland 3rd Addition - At the las meeting the Parks Commission moved that the pathway alignment for Groveland 3rd Addition remain above the 100 year high water mark. There is some question whether the developer will be c anging the alignment. Adam Hawkinson will discuss this further with the Parks Commission espeei lily the concern that the recommendations of the Parks Commission are not being complied with 10. Green Space - This was added at the last meet ng but what the Parks COlllmission was going to do or discuss was not clear. II. List of pathways for pavin~ - Earl Smith incli 'ated that he had priority listing for the pathway work. Given that a good portion of the pathway funds will be depleted by the Gillard Avenue Pathway construction, the Parks Commission will have t) determine what pathway work will have priority for the remaining funds. . . . 12. Budget - The budget worksheets were sent tc the various department heads and staff on July 22"d. The preliminary budget and tax levy must be clpproved by the City Council by September 13th. (The 15th is on a Sunday) Once the preliminary I vy is set the City can reduce their preliminary levy amount but not increase it. Being it is an election ye r, government spending is sure to be an issue at all levels of government. Entrance Signs - Nancy McCaffrey added th s update to the agenda at the last meeting but the Parks Commission did not get to it at that meeting. Park Credit Information - The developer 0 the Autumn Ridge plat requested the Parks Commission to consider giving him a credit on his park de lication fees for land and playground equipment he is proposing to install within his development. ince Monticello has no ordinance or policy governing this a number of cities have been contacted in an ffort go find out what they do. Of the cities contacted only two have done park dedication credit. L no Lakes has limited the park dedication credit to be applied to land only and they give no credit f I' installation of equipment. Inver Grove Heights apparently does not have a written policy but oes it on a case by case basis. Unfc)rtunately the person in charge of that is out of the office for severa weeks so more detailed information on their policy is not available right now. All of the cities contacted pointed out areas 0 concern: Control - Most communities have park plans that specify where parks will be developed and how they will be laid out. Should the city be the one to say this is where we want parks and this is what we want in them? If the land the developer is offering 's not designated in the comprehensive plan, does the city want it? If the land is in the comprehensive . lan, why would the city not take it outright as the 1 m/o land dedication? Why would the city want a private party to own and develop park land that is in the city's overall park plan? Uniformity of design - With any park develo ment, there arc certain design standards that are followed such as what type of facilities would be placed in a community park, a tot lot, etc. There is also uniformity in material and construction st'lndards. i.e. wood fiber chips as compared to sand. the area of the safety zone, ete.. How does the cit assure that these standards are continued when park dedication credit is given? Since the city WOL Id not be owning the land in these instances, can they require that city standards be applied to privat property? If the standards that will apply arc going to be covered in the park dedication ordinance, a detailed written description of these standards will have to be prepared and there would have to be SOl e provision for enforcing the standards or a penalty for failing to COll1ply to the standards. With the ork load that the parks staff has, would it bc feasible to expect them to be policing whether playgroun improvements on private property are up to city standards? Liahility Issues - Is there any risk or liability xposure for the city if there is an injury on equipment that is inappropriately designed or has laulty c nstruction? Even though the construction was done by a private party on private property does thc city xpose itsclfto any liability because instead of having the park dedication funds being used in a public flcility meeting specified safety standards, the city is allowing the developer a credit for the use of ark dedication funds to construct something that the city can't impose their design standards on. . Maintenance and Replacement - It was me tioned at the last meeting, who is going to be responsible for maintenance and rcplaccment ofthcsc facilities? While the developer indicated that it would be the responsibility of the homeownc's association, is it a leap of faith to believe that the association will do the required maintenance. nd do long term budgeting to handle repair and replaccment costs? Does the city have any d )ut to compel the homeowners association to do repairs or replacements? A number of communities ointed out that evcn though these are privately owned, when there are problems the residents will be contacting the city. Authority - The city has certain powers wh .ch are spelled out in the ordinances that they adopt. [f thc Parks Commission wants authority to gra t park dedication credit or waive park dedication requirements, etc., the ordinance should be a 1endcd to give that authority. You can only do what your ordinances allow you to do. [fthe Parks Con mission amends the ordinance to allow park dedication credit, they may want to have the city attorne prepare or at least review any ordinance amendment. Benefit - What would be the benefit to the c ty in giving park dedication credit? For the city if they want the land, the current park dedication req lirements allows the city to take up to 10% of land area. Are there any situations where giving the par dedication credit will give the city something more than they can get under the current park dedication provisions? . . JUL-24-2002 16:44 CITY OF LIND LAKES I 651 982 2499 P.02/02 ~- 7 Ordinance 01-06, Park Dedication page 2 Subdivison 4. The applicant shall confer' with City Staff and the Park Board at the time the preliminary plat is under consideration, to sea recommendation as to the IDeation of any propertY that should be dedicated to the public. s as parks, playgrounds or other public property. The prllHminary plat shall show the location d dimensions olall areas to be dedicated. in this ltI"nftet. Such c:ontribution r' recorcmendatiouCs) will be scat to the. Planning Commission !or revieW and COmtneDt and subequently to the City Council for their approval. Subdi,o.~ion s. When a proposed park. p yground, recre&tiol1ltea or other pUblic ground hu been indicated in the City's ofBcial map or omprebensi.vo Plan and is located in whole or in part within & proposed plat, .it &hall be dedi ted to the appropriate sovemmental unit. If the applic:am elects not to dedicate an area in II of the land required hereunder for such proposed public site. the City may consider Ie. the GCess land through purchase or condemnation. Subdivision 6. Where private open sp for park and recrearlon purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas may be sed for credit, at the discretion or the City Counc:t1~ against the land or cash dedication req,uir ent for parle and recreation purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public intere t to do so. Subdivision 7. The City, upon consi 'on of the particular type of developUlent, may require that a lesser parcel of land ould be dedieated due to patticular features of the development. In such cases. a cash con "bution s.ba1I be required above the land d.edication to ens~that compensation is received for he fUll amoum: of the impact on the City's parle. and trill system. Subdivision 8. In all new residential, i - subdivi5ions. ten (10) percent of!l1~,,~~.~~divi~~.~).t~~i~~ r pub~~~2-n ~a~_~thet p~blic use as established by City Council resolution. A ame nt percentage may be applied as the City "CC)uncll shall determine to be reasonably necessary as result of the subdivision approval. This_ _.!~~. p"~c~.!h~,b~. ~~pul,~~ o~ ~~_n~~,.~.~~~.s the gross ar~.~!~.~~!#~~~.2!.~P..~. ,...,~s the...M~.~"~~W~~~., ,.The land dedicatwu Ior pu JiCIicreanon sOia. ge in addition to property dedicated for streets.. ~eys, easements, or 0 public ways. No areas may be dedicated for public use unIil such areas have been ap oved by the City Council as suitable and necessary for the health, safety, convenience and pn welfare of the City. Subdivision 9. When a subdivision is pr posed, the developer shall raake a dedication ofland for public park and trail use. as pro ded for in Subdivision 8, oltbis Section. or shall pay a fee in lieu of sucb land dedication is lishecl by City COW1Cl1 resolution. Said amount is the City's best estimate of the effect oCthe s bdivision aD the City's park system. . TOTAL P.02 . . . MINlJ ES REGULAR MEETING - ARKS COMMISSION Thursday, .July 18,2002 - 4:30 p.m. "To enhance community prid' through developing and maintaining ci(l' parks with a ligh standard (?f quality. .. Memhers Present: Larry Nolan, Fran Fair, Nancy McCaffrey, Earl Smith and Rick Traver. Council Liaison, Roger Carlson Members Ahsent: Staff: None Parks Superintendent, dam Hawkinson Deputy City Administr tor, Jeff O'Neill 1. Call to Order. Chairman Larry Nolan called the meeting to 0 del' at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. A rove minutes of .June 20 2002 re ular arks Commission meetinv. 3. Earl Smith questioned whether suhcommittee n the ballfields had met and also questioned whether the discussion on moving away from neighbo hood parks should have been done in the form of a motion. There was discussion on the Park/Pa hway Comprehensive Plan and how it would be impacted by the proposed changes to the Land Use Guide Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that the Parks Commission go ack and review the Park/Pathway Comprehensive Plan. Earl Smith questioned whether the City wasn't outgrowing their plan. Larry Nolan felt a subcommittee should be set up on this. RICK TRA VER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TI IE ./UNE 20, 2002 REGULAR PARKS COMMISSION MEETING. NANC MCCAFFREY SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH FRAN FAIR AB 'TAINING. Consideration of addin items to the a end . The following items were added to the agenda: 1) Park Comprehensive Plan and priorities f(Jr the park; 2) Development of a fee schedule and p liey for charging f(H use of fields. It was noted that the school district is estahlishing a fee schedule f(Jr the use of their facilities. 3) Update on ice arena; 4) Update on entrance signs; 5) Pathway alignment for Grovcland 3rd Addition; 6) Green space - It was felt that the Parks Commission needs to start (escribing it and how it is going to he maintained. The Bruggeman development was cited as an exa pIe. The green space needs to he shown on the drawing, classified as to whether it is wetland, , common area, etc and also designating how the area will be maintained. Rick Traver felt it was inportant for homeowners in these developments to know what the green space is and how it is pr posed to be maintained; and 7) List of pathways for pavmg. . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 4. Citizens requests. None. Because the developer was present, the Parks -:ommission next considered the update on the Auturl1n Ridge Development. 8. Update - Autumn Rid2:e Deputy City Administrator, Jeff O'Neill sunu arized the proposal for park dedication on the Autumn Ridge plat noting it was kind of an unique sitt ation for the Parks Commission. The Autumn Ridge development is located off of School Bouleva-d and County Road 117. -rhere is approximately 169- 171 units proposed for the development. Sha n Weinand noted that the development site is fairly flat and is impacted by the power lines along the rear of the property and a gas line casement in the upper part oUhe development. The property 's tlanked on one side by commercial property and on another side by the trailer court. Shawn Weir and said the development would be broken up into approximately four phases labeled by some id ntifying aspect such as the trees planted in the area, i.e. aspen, pine, poplar. The four parks proposed ould be situated so that each phase had a common gathering area and a trail system connecting tl em. The parks would be owned, controlled and maintained by the homeowners association. -r entatively one of the four parks is proposed for a hot shot basketball court but it has not been deten 1ined what would go into the other parks. Shawn Weinand stated that the trail originally propos d for along the back of the property was not going to be put in because it dead ends to the trailer pa k. A question was raised about the street alignment and .Jeff O'Neill stated that the alignment was only fixed to a certain point. Development pressure and the location of wetlands might dictate what th final alignment would be. Shawn Weinand brought up the park dedicati n fees and stated that 10% of the land value is what is acceptable to the developer and not the $835/t nit. The per unit charge puts a heavy burden on the development and 10% of the land value is considerably less than the per unit cost. Jeff O'Neill stated that the per unit fee came about when the dev loper gave cash in lieu of land and the cash amount reflected the cost of development of park land In establishing the fee the City tried to come close to the actual cost of development. Under the Cit 's policy apartment units pay the same park dedication fee per unit as single family homes. The Pa ks Commission was asked to consider the f(Jllowing questions: I. Should the developer get credi against the park dedication fees for the parks developed within the plat. 2. 10% ofland value -vs- $835/m it. It was also noted that the trail/pathway fee is $200 per unit. The stafT felt t at the internal trails would be paid for by the developer since they serve the same purp se as sidewalks or roads. llowever if a trail on the perimeter of the property was eveloped then funds dedicated fi..)f pathway use could be utilized. 2 . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 Larry Nolan asked if the developer was lookit g a deeision from the Parks Commission tonight. Riek Traver asked if there was a formula establish d f(Jr determining credit to be given. In discussing how to establish the credit the Parks Commission onsidered: 1) Cost to make the improvement; and 2) Value of the land. The total of these items w uld then be taken off the $835/unit or perhaps there was some kind of sliding scale that would be lsed depending on whether the development was single family or apartments. There was discussion hether apartment units create as a great a demand f()r parks as do single family homes. With the gr ateI' unit density there is less open space, so it was felt that the apartments created the same demand 'or parks as single family homes and the $835/unit for apartments was j usti tied. The Parks Commission continucd discussion n the parks within the development. It was noted that the park equipment and installation would ha e to meet ADA requirements. There was concern that if the homeowners association is responsible or the parks how would the City be able to ensure that the equipment is maintained. It was also note 1 that replacing a play structure or trail sur1~lce is a costly item and it was questioned how the h0l1eowners association would !inanee that. Shawn Weinand felt that could be covered in the dev lopment agreement. Adam Hawkinson stated that if this policy is established there will be other d velopers requesting park credit. Park credit policy could take away from funds needed to constn ct items such as soccer fields, etc. Fran Fair noted that the present policy does not allow f(.)r land locked parks. The parks in this development would be almost private for use by the properties surro nding them. Larry Nolan asked if there was any inf(mnation on whcther other cities allow par credits and what conditions they place on giving credit for park construction. . Shawn Weinand stated that in a development imilar to this which he believed his firm did in Invcr Grove I leights the park credit given was base on the value of the land, equipment and trails. He stated these parks would be a nice amenity to he development and felt they would take pressure off of the other city parks. Adam Hawkinson cite- an instance of this being done in Minnetonka and it puts a lot of pressure on the homeowners asso'iation. Generally the homeowners associations are not set up to deal with maintenance issues relatin to park equipment and trails. He questioned whether these parks wouldn't ultimately end up asjust green space. Fran Fair asked how i~lr these parks were from the closest community park. Pione~r Park is the closest to this area. Shawn Weinand stated this develoPlllent will be starter homes nd will mostly like contain young families with kids. .lefT O'Neill stated that the internal trail systen is serving as a sidewalk which is considered basic infrastructure and wouldn't qualify for a trail redit. If the trail has some kind of park like structure it could possibly be considered for trail credit b t he questioned whether that would be the case in this instance. Shawn Weinand reviewed the development la out. Adam Hawkinson asked about the trails running through the center of the development. Shawl Weinand responded that the city required a trail within 200' of every residence. .Jeff O'Nei II noted this was because there is a lot of traflic going on the roads and since the roads are more narrow tha 1 regular city street they felt the trails were essential. The trails will be designed to the same as the ity design standards 1'(,)1' trails. Shawn Weinand restated that because of the site, these ameniti s were necessary. The units will run from $ I 35,000 to . 3 Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 . $170,000 and the association fees will be $12 /month. Additional grading work was done to make a numbcr of these units walkouts. .lefT O'Neill summarized the discussion thus .ar: 1. Stay with the park dedication fee per nit. 2. Consider a process for giving park cre fit. 3. Establish a formula for what is being. roposed, what is not included at this time is whethcr internal trails qualify for a credit. 4. The park locations proposed would be acceptable but the parks will be privatcly maintaincd. Adam Hawkinson felt that the Parks Commis, ion should have a flrm policy in place before giving any park credit. Earl Smith felt the parks were, n amenity for the development of the property and didn't feel that credit should be gi ven. It was asked how that space would be utilized if no parks were put in. Shawn Weinand felt it would lik Iy remain green space although they could probably squeeze some additional lots out of there. Ea I Smith noted this was a different type of development in that it was self contained and he agreed tha the Parks Commission could not make a decision tonight. He emphasized again that this is an a llcnity that the developer needs in order to sell his lots. There was some discussion of the Supreme Curt decision stating that fees charge must be justificd by cost incurred. . In polling the Parks Commission members, I. rry Nolan and Nancy McCaffrey felt that if park credit is given there should be a formal policy or or - inance amendment to reHect the policy. Rick Traver felt the $S35/per unit with a credit given for p rk improvements constructed was reasonable but felt that a minimum of credit should be given. e felt no credit should be given on the $200 charge for trails/pathways and that the internal pathways should be constructed to city design standards. . The development is 21 acres and there would e approximately 45 residential units for each park. Larry Nolan felt the proposed basketball court was not in an appropriate location. In discussing the basketball court location, the Parks Commissi n felt it was too isolated. Adam I lawkinson noted there was no parking at all in the area so he dUn't feel many people from outside the development would be using the facility. Shawn Weinand pointed out that a few parking spaces would be available and Adam Hawkinson countered tha most likely these spaces would be utilized by the residents of the development. Adam Hawkin. on felt that a development having its own playground was a good idea but a not a practical one. As he neighborhood kids grow up the maintenance gets to be an issue as no one keeps the equipment l p. Adam Ilawkinson responded to the idea of each neighborhood in the development being identified by a type of tree planting in their area, cautioning that the species should be mixed to provide so le protection from disease. Shawn Weinand indicated that they were thinking along the line of two rees in the front yard being the species of the identifying tree for that area. Adam I lawkinson question d whether it was practical in this type of development to have a park. You have to consider the cost to the homeowners association to maintain and replace the equipment and pathways. There was also oncern raised as to what assurances the city would have that the association would maintain the e luipment or even continue an active park in the area. 4 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 Jeff O'Neill stated that he will be working wi h Shawn Weinand on the terms of the development agreement. Shawn Weinand added he was pr senting this item to the city council on July 22,2002. Jeff O'Neill summarized the Parks Commissi m points as follows: I. No strong feelings for or against havir g trails in the rear portion of the development. 2. Basketball court is nixed. 3. Park dedication based on unit fee rath. r than land value. 4. Consideration of possible park credit t I' playground equipment. Earl Smith asked if this development would c me back to the Parks Commission. Jeff O'Neill indicated that if there was a question on fundi 19, it would come back. Earl Smith asked Shawn Weinand what he thought he should get as far as a credit. Shawn Weinand felt 30(};) of the per unit fee. He noted that 10% of the land value has een upheld by the courts. Shawn Weinand stated the trail system would be maintained by the assoc'ation and would be built to city design standards. The perimeter trail would come from pathway fun s. 1011'0 of land value of 21 acres based on $30.000/acre would be approximately $64,00. The Parks Commission did not feel they could make a decision at this meeting. Shawn Weil and stated he was proceeding and indicated he knew that any policy set regarding park land credit ould impact other developments down the road. Larry Nolan stated he would like to know what othc communities do. Adam I lawkinson asked if 30% credit was given would the city get some kind of receipt or documentation to verify improvements equalled the amount of credit given. Fran Fa r felt since the Parks Commission is setting a precedent, they should be very elear on what they are doi g. Fran Fair was leaning toward giving a credit but not the 30%. Nancy McCafhey hrvored a ere it but felt there should be a cap on the amount given and felt the Parks Commission needed more i f(Jrmation bef(ne they could set a policy. Jeff O'Neill stated this development was similar to Eagle :rest and Montissippi Trails and these dcveloptl1ents didn't receive any credit tl)f trails. Parks Cor mission stated they didn't feel they should be giving any credit for trails. Adam Hawkinson noted that ith the restrictions on safety zones around play structures it may be questionable if much in t e way of equipment could fit into the park areas proposed. Rick Traver felt they could give s me kind of credit but it should be on the parks not the pathways. Larry Nolan agreed that some ered t should be given for the park area but not the trails. As far as the amount of any crcdit to be given, the Parks Commission felt 10%-15% was a more appropriate number. Earl Smith felt the parks proposed were an amenity for the development and shouldn't be given a credit. At this time JcffO' Neill left the meeting. Be'ause residents from the Rolling Woods area were present, the Parks Commission conducted the 'nformational meeting on the development plans for Rolling Woods Park. 9. Rollin · Woods Park - Informational Mccti The Parks Commission members introdueed t emselves and explained the purpose of the informational meeting. Adam Hawkinson not d that a resident of the development had conducted a 5 Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 . . survey to determine what the residents wante to see in the park. A copy of the survey results was submitted to the Parks Commission. The Pa ks Commission had set up a subcommittee to come up with a design for the park. Adam Ilawkinso presented the design layout that had been prepared pointing out that the topography of the park la 1d sloped and dropped off which affected the placement of structures. Some residents exp 'essed concern that the play area was too close to the residences. Adam Hawkinson noted that AD requirements dictate in part where the equipment goes. Earl Smith added that the equipment as placed so that there was enough open area f()r a soccer/ballfield use. A pathway leading into t e play area would be constructed and a shelter was also proposed. Residents wanted to know if fence could be installed to separate them from the park area. Adam Hawkinson suggested a spli rail fence, if a fence was done. Residents didn't want the park too close to the homes because they auld hear the noise hom the park. It was pointed out that moving the play area further into the park away from the residences would require the installation of more trails. It would also reduce the expan'e of open area. Adam Hawkinson stated that most parks are close to residences, such as River M'll, 4th Street, The residents emphasized the noise and privacy concerns they had with the location 0 the play area. It was noted that the play structure was placed to minimize exposure to the drop off a ea and wetlands and that to fence of the park area would be very costly. There was discussion 0 'the play structure including type and number of swings and diggers. The residents indicated they WOL Id prefer to have more swings and not the diggers. Because there are no trees on the site, a shelte was proposed which would provide some shading. $15,000 has been budgeted f()r the play struct Ire and that does not include the wood fiber or the concrete border. $37,00 is the estimated cost hI' the pathway and picnic shelter. Residents asked if bids were received from other sources. Adam Hawkinson informed them of which vendors were contacted and how they determined which strL cture to go with. They were looking for something that would provide the most activities for the budg ~ted amount. Residents asked about widening the play area and adding more swings. Adam Hawkin on stated by doing that the safety zone would have to be extended that would add considerably to th -, cost of the project. Residents asked if the park would be lighted. Adam Ilawkinson replied hat no light is being planned. There could be a sensory light placed on the shelter. The shelter is pro osed to be 16' x 24' placed on a cement pad. It is quite likely with the time frame that the seeding wo k might not get done until late fall. Adam Hawkinson stated that the City had gotten 70,000 yards at topsoil some of which will be used on this parle . Residents asked about putting in a basketball ourt. Adam llawkinson indicated that is something that could be considered in the future. Rick T aver asked if the basketball court had to meet ADA requirements as ttlr as accessibility. The city ill get quotes on the work that park staff is not able to perform. Some residents expressed their feeli gs that the park development was a done deal and the residents had been lell out of the decision ma ing process. The residents stated they didn't want a shelter. They wanted some place for the kids to shoot baskets. Adam Hawkinson stated the Parks Commission procedure is to come up with a p an which is presented to the residents. Usually residents wi II give a broad spectrum of what t1 ey want in their park. The Parks Commission can not give everything to everybody. 'rhey try to des gn a park that will meet the needs for the development. Those residents present stated they would rath ~r get what they wanted even if it meant waiting longer. They wanted a basketball court instead of a sh Iter. Residents asked about the cost of installing a basketball court. Adam Ilawkinson indicated hat a preliminary cost estimate would be $3,500 for 6 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 the asphalt, $3,000 for lining, concrete border $1,00 and hoop/standard about $800. It was pointed out that the City has to meet certain d sign standards which makes the cost higher. The residents asked about sweat equity. Adam H< wkinson stated there are liability concerns with that. Larry Nolan suggested that the subcommittee ook at the basketball court and see what trade off could be made. There was some question wh ther this park covered both Wildwood and Rolling Woods developments. It was noted that the 0 en park area was in the Rolling Woods development. The park land in the Wildwood development as fix tree preservation and would probably only be developed to the extent that some benches or rails may be placed through the wooded area. Adam Hawkinson stated that the shelter is somethin.J that could be comproll1ised on now but noted that it would be a few years before anything else co Id be done. 'rhe proposed play structure will be moved in a little further away from the road a d the basketball court could be located more toward the middle of the parle However, this would reatly reduce the open area. Residents brought up the issue of traffic failinJ to stop for the two stop signs in the development. The Parks Commission directed them to contact the Sheriffs Department and bring the issue to the Police Commission. A resident asked the purpose of the concrete b rder, which Adam Hawkinson replied was to keep the wood chips in place. Because the border i flush with the ground it makes mowing around the area easier. Residents questioned the value 0 'the land fi)r soccer or ballfield use because of the slope and the presence of wetlands. There wa. discussion of fencing or buffering tell' the area. 5. Schedulin2: of meetings for August. Because of the amount of agenda items and th need to work on the 2003 budget, the Parks Commission set an additional meeting tor Au ust 1,2002 at 4:30 p.m. 6. Park Maintenance Items. It was suggested that the park land on Mississippi Drive had little value for park purposes and consideration should be given to returning it t the adjacent property owners. Also discussed the use of the fill material from the Front Street proje t. AdamI-Iawkinson submitted a sketch regardin J the trail alignment fi)r the Groveland yd Addition. Initially the pathway was to be placed above tl e 100 year high water mark. The developer is requesting to relocate the pathway in order to xtend the length oftbe lots. The new alignment would place the trail in the 100 year high water mark and the Parks Commission had concerns about the trail flooding out. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO KEEP THE PA llW A Y FOR GROVELAND 'nORD ADDITION IN ITS PRESENT ALIGNMENT. ADAM I I WKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 7. AIi nmcnt. Fran Fair agreed that the steps need to be repl ced. Adam Hawkinson will submit a plan for the alignment of the trail. Adam Hawkinson stat d that there would be about l' of drop for every 10' lineal feet. [t is suggested that there be a tel' ace system coming off from the Hower beds. 8. U pdates/Reports. An update on Autumn Ridge was conducted 1arlier in the meeting. 10. Adiourn. Because of the lateness of the hour no additio al items were considered. Unfinished items from this meeting will be added to the agenda for the A 19ust 1. 2002 special meeting. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO ADJOURN A ' 7:55 P.M. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMO JSL Y. Recording Secretary 8