Loading...
Parks Commission Agenda Packet 09-19-2002 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . 7. 8. . AGEN A PARKS COM ISSION September 19, 2 02-4:30 p.m West Prairi' Room "To enhance co/ll/llllni(r pride thmllgh del'elapil/g allll /IIaintaining ci(r plnhs with al igh .\Iandard of Ifllality" Call to Order Approve Minutes of August 15,2002 reg lar Parks Commission meeting. Consideration of adding items to the age da. Citizens rc{luests. Monticello Youth Hockey Representativ s Front Street Pathway Alignment Park Maintenance Items lJ pdates/Rcpo rts A. Subcommittee meeting - Fields B. Entrance Signs C. G rove land Concept Plan n. Sports Association Policy 9. Adjourn . . . NOTF.S TO PARK CO MISSION AGENDA September 19, 2002 Note: I will be out of town frOIl1 September 19~24 anI will not be available to take minutes. C. Groveland Park - The City has received the -Iced for Outlot H in the Groveland 2nd Addition. It has been signed but not yet been recorded. Adanl Hawkinson can update the Parks Comll1ission on the status of the development plan for this park. D. Sports Association-Discussion of Field tJse At the last meeting, the Parks Commission rec ived information from the League of Minnesota Cities relating to sports associations. Attached to thi agenda are copies of the city's agreements with the various sports organizations at least the ones I ould find in our files. Other Ice Arena/Soccer - At the Council meeting of September 9,2002 the Council approve rezoning and concept stage PUO approval fiJr the proposed site of the ice ar na. Attached for your information is the background information the Council received on this proposal. Meadow Oaks Pathway - The Council also approved "eplaeemcnt of pathway in the Meadow Oaks area per the attached Council agenda item. . . . MIN TES REGULAR MEETING - ARKS COMMISSION Thursday, August 1 ,2002 - 4:30 p.m. "To enhance community pri e through developing and maintaining city parks with' high standard of quality" Members Present: Larry Nolan, Fran Fair, Nanc McCaffrey and Rick Traver. Members Absent: S taiT: Earl Smith and Council Liais n, Roger Carlson. Parks Superintendent Adam awkinson Deputy City Administrator, J ff O'Neill 1. Call to Order. Chair Larry Nolan called the meeting to ord I' at 4:35 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. A rove Minutes of Au ust 1 2002 re ul r Parks Commission meetin . 3. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO APPROVE T E MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1,2002 PARKS COMMISSION MEETING WITH A CORR CTION ON PAGE 5 THAT THE $1,680 WAS THE AMOUNT Of THE CONSUL TINO f. E. FRAN FAIR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Consideration of addin None. 4. Citizens ReQuests. 5. None. Discussion of ark dedication credit - Aut The Parks Commission at a previous meetin discussed the proposal for allowing a park dedication credit for the Autumn Ridge Addition. The 11atter was requested to be placed on the Parks Commission agenda f(Jr this meeting. AutUl n Ridge is a private PUD with some play areas being provided. The Parks Commission was asked to give park dedication credit for the play area in the development. Shawn Weinand submitted a etter outlining his finn's feeling on the park dedication requirements imposed by the city. A court c se had set 10% park dedication fee as a reasonable fee. The 10% of the land value is based on t1e value of the land at the time of platting. Jeff O'Neill stated the City's rate of$835/per unit is the c )st per person fiJr providing park services. Steve Grittman, City Planner had provided Jeff 0' eill with some background on the court case. According to Steve Orittman in the court cas , setting the land value was not the key item but rather . Parks Commission Minutes - 8/15/02 having the park dedication fee based on the 'ost to satisfy the demand. Jeff O'Neill suggested the Parks Commission might want to consider a study to determine what it takes to build a park system and that cost would be used to establish a value for the dedication fee. Shawn Weinand stated that he was merely pointing out how the I ()lYo de ication fee originated. He realizes the City needs to look at the long term but he felt a study to d termine if the present park dedication fee was reasonable was worth researching. Shawn einand noted that areas like Plymouth and Maple Grove have higher park dedication fees hut t 1eir land values are higher. He added that his firm had put extra work into the land such creating br aks in the topography to make the area more appealing. He felt the parks they would bui d in the development would be of some value. The issues relating to maintenance of the playgro md equipment could be regulated through the homeowners association. He added that the _ ower lines take up approximately 2 acres of the parcel. The estimated price for the units thc are building are about $140,000. The developers want to make sure they arc competitive in th market and would appreciate any consideration the Parks Commission would give their request. Fran Fair pointed out that when the city inst, lIs playground equipment it has to meet certain design standards and be ADA accessible but a priva e party is not hound to those same standards. Shawn Weinand stated they arc willing to put playg ound equipment in to ADA standards but they would not be using the same playground equipment vendor as the City does. Fran Fair felt that cost of building to city standards would be higher w ich may offset any credit given and that is something the developer needs to consider. She felt tha there was an advantage to the developer of not having to comply with city design standards nd the Parks Commission would not be put in a position of setting a precedent. Rick Traver sked about reducing the fees since it was a planned unit development. Jeff O'Neill stated you w uld not want to reduce the fees unless there was something given somewhere else and you would have to document it thoroughly. Jeff O'Neill stated this could be worked out in the development nd iinal stage PUD approval. Larry Nolan stated that the maintenance of the playground equip nent is considerable and questioned who would make sure proper lnaintenance would be done. Sh, wn Weinand said that language could be added to the association agreement covering that. The P rks Commission discussed legal implications for the city and potential liability. Adam Ilawkinso noted that Pioneer Park is only 2 blocks away so he didn't think a park within the development w)uld have a lot oCvalue to the overall park system. He asked whether the proposed park would be c nsidered a public park. Jeff O'Neill indicated it would not be a public park. JetlO'Neill fe t that if the park within the development reduced the park development costs somewhere else then maybe credit could be given. The proposed development docs have a higher unit density er acre so the park resources are needed. Adam Hawkinson asked if a pathway has to be insta led to take the children from this development to Pioneer Park. JeilO'Neill replied that the int mal pathways arc funded by the developer and the external pathways are funded by the $220/per unit pathway fee. Rick Traver asked what internal trails are required. Shawn Weinand stated th yare putting in 8' paths in lieu of sidewalk. Rick Traver said they could consider giving credit 'or the cost difference between the 3' sidewalks and the S' pathways. . . '2 . . . 8. Parks Commission Minutes - 8/15/02 Fran Fair stated that the standards the City would impose could be more costly and even if the developer did put in their own playground e uipment there would still be a demand on other park facilities. Adam Hawkinson pointed out th t the park dedication fees go facilities such as ballfields and hockey rinks as well as play equipment. With the proposed development containing 169 homes you could have approximately 170 children ho would be using ballfields, soccer fields and ice rinks. Adam I lawkinson stated that in prici g the playstructure for the Rolling Woods Park. the structure alone was $14,000 and that did no include installation cost, or fiber material. I Ie felt in a private park the developer could build it for less. 'fhe Parks Commission felt the it would be more desirable to keep the park private. Parks Co nmission discussed a pathway credit instead of a park credit or possibly a credit liJr the work done on the terrain. Shawn Weinand noted that they were not required to do the work to change the te rain but chose to make that improvement. There is one storm water pond which according to .Ie I O'Neill would be maintained by the City since it is a part ofa regional storm water holding pond. .TeffO'Neill will look at the development plan and trail to see ifthere is a way for the City to pay fo part of the trail or build part of the trail and report back at the next meeting. 6. Review of 2003 budeet. Adam Hawkinson indicated the only change to what was discussed at the last meeting was that they are thinking about replacing the orange van. 7. er Mill Trail. JclIO'Neill reported on a meeting with Mnl OT regarding the realignment of the 1-94 bridge and outlined 10 options to change the bridge arec curve so that it is a safer curve. It was mentioned that there is steel fatigue in the bridge structure it elf. One option .Teff O'Neill discussed was to leave the area as is but run the railroad tracks over the op of the traJTic. In order to do this option MnDOT would have to keep the freeway open and in mler to do that they would have to build a by-pass. The by-pass most likely would be in the area where the trail is located. If this happens the trail could be preserved but it would be on the ere 't. Jeff O'Neill didn't think it was worth investing a lot of materials on the trail at this time. The nDOT project is proposed for 2007. Some discussion on the proposal's impact on the p rk and trails and it was thought that the City would get a delineation of the MnDOT project by Febn ary. Rick Traver mentioned that Earl Smith had notice that an area by the trail was not drainil g. They discussed putting up some signs so that residents in the area would know where the t ail would be going. Adam Hawkinson noted there were some dead trees that need to be remove and once the trail was cut in they could put conbit (concrete/bituminous mixture) in. It was un ikely that anything would be happening as j~lr as blacktopping this segment of trail. Jeff O'Ne lllelt at this point. Concept plan - Groveland Park. Adam J-Iawkinson did not have a developmen plan prepared fCJr this meeting. 3 . . 11. . Parks Commission Minutes - 8/15/02 9. Park Maintenance Items: Adam Hawkinson submitted a list of the wo k completed. It was noted that the Parks stalThad worked in Otter Creek Park and Adam Haw inson indicated that they had put money in the 2003 CIP for pavers for a path that leads offthe tr il to bench. Because it is a popular park should some consideration be given to install parking. TI e Parks Commission felt Otter Creek was suppose to be a park fiJr walking and that was why park ng wasn't included originally. 10. Sorts Associations - Discussion of olic or field use. The Parks commission discussed the inform tion from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding sports associations. The Parks Commission 'elt this was something that should be studied further and directed that it be placed on the next age da. The Parks Commission discussed participant fees and what Inaintenance is required for th groups that use the [lcilities. Roger Pribyl from the baseball association said they pay someone t take care of the fields and it didn't make any difference to the association whether a contr' ctor did the maintenance or the City did. Roger Pribyl said if you charge a fee people will expect something in return so the City needs to be specific in what the fee will cover. It was felt the eity s 10uld have an agreement with each association that uses the facilities. Roger Pribyl suggested i they charge for use of the fields they should consider basing it on a percentage fonnula of field us ge. Larry Nolan felt the fee should be uniform and the liability issues need to be addressed. Roger ribyl thought if the city was doing the maintenance on all the fields for all the groups there would b more unifonnity in the maintenance. lJ pdates/Reoorts. A. Subcommittee meeting on fields - Rick Traver reported they met and ca 1e up with a couple of items: I) 4th Street option for f()()tball field use is being put on hold 2) City balllields - Earl Smith talked to Xcel energy about getting additional property forlelds which he thought might take a year or so. Adam Hawkinson will draw a plan showing where the existing fields are and how maybe 2 or 3 more fields could be placed. If additi nal fields are added, there needs to be transportation around the lields. Rick Traver stated in the short term the Parks Commission would have to give the softball fields to the Mont'cello Youth Football program few use. It was hoped in the next 5-10 years 2-3 additional fiel s would be developed. 3) There is a field being farmed right now adjacent to this site which was also considered. Earl Smith and Adam Hawkinson felt that since most of the development is to the south that is where some fields should be placed. Roger Pribyl felt tl e present fields were fine for baseball and the new complex should be used for softball. rhe Polecats said the baseball field should be added on to with an additional I 0' on the left side and 20' on the right side. Property in the area of Kjellberg mobile home park was Ie oked at. Another site that was considered (the Gold Nugget property) is currently a subjee of litigation. Another suggestion was to look at land on the side of the river. In looking at acreage f()I" a complex that would contain 4 softball 4 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 8/15/02 fields, 2 youth 1()()tball fields and 2 occer fields it was thought about 30 acres of land would be needed. Rick Traver noted that a cording to the ordinance, signage on ball fields was allowed. B. Entrance signs - Nancy McCaffrey and Adam Hawkinson met regarding the initial design of the sign and some related roblems such as rusting. They came up with an alternative and a sketch was submitt d. The Inateriallooks like stone but is light weight and is pre-cast. The preliminary sketch as taken to a vendor who said it could be done. The estimated cost is $4,625 per sign wit1lighting and landscaping being extra. Nancy McCaffrey and Adam Hawkinson 10 )ked at the west entrance sign and it appears there would still be enough room at the 10 ation, however there would be more wires to work around. The Parks Commission disc Issed since the proposal/()r the sign is more costly how should it be approached as far a' financing. Also they felt all 4 signs should bc purchased at once which would prov de some savings as far as shipping, etc. There was some discussion on whether to go wi h a 9' or 12' sign. Adam Hawkinson and Nancy McCatli-ey will meet again on this. c. Pathway Alignment - Adam Hawki son brought up that the project on Front Street had started and the contractor on very sh rt notice wanted to know the al ignment of the pathway. Adam Hawkinson directe that it be kept close to the curb line for right now. In the future, a spur could be run oil ti'o n the trail towards the river and then maybe it could be looped back. The trail will be asphal and will start where the trail comes out of West Bridge Park. 12. Consideration of rental of Otter Creek Pa k. The Parks Commission was asked to conside whether Otter Creek Park should be available for residents to rent. The Parks Commission feI because of the limited amenities in the park and the lack of parking, Otter Creek Park should not e rented. Other: fran Fair asked about the pruning of the shrubs at Ea.t Bridge Park. [n previous years the City allowed them to use some of the City's power equipment to d) the pruning. [t was her understanding that would not be the case this year. Adam [lawkinson suggested hat if the group could be present and indicate what needed to be pruned he would have a staff person theT to operate the equipnlcnt on certain dates. Fran Fair stated their group would haul the trimmed mater al away. Fran Fair also asked about the steps at East Bridge P rk. Adam Hawkinson stated that the present steps are in a very deteriorated condition. The city could g) with new steps, a combination of steps and pathway or eliminate the steps altogether. There is $20,000-$ 5,000 in next years budget for this item. 5 . . . Parks Commission Minutes ~ 8/15/02 Adam Hawkinson submitted a handout on the Ado t-A-Park and emphasized the importance of giving these volunteer groups recognition. There is mo ey in the budget for this. 13. Adiourn: RICK 'I'M VER MOVED TO ADJOURN T 6:45 P.M. NANCY MCCAFFREY SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION C RRIED UNANIMOUSLY. _"n_.._,_. __."_'."_."_'."'~_".__.. Recording Secretary. 6 . . . City Council Agenda - 09/09/02 5J. Consider-ation of a re uest to rezone a PUD Planned llnit Develo ment to ace l'om llcx and future commercial develo The Point Group. City of Monticello, reel from R-3 Multi Ie Familv Residential to mmodate the construction Of~l Hocke 'ISoccer ment. licant: Silver Creek Develooment. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission conducted the p lblic hearing then tabled the item at the meeting held in August pending additional information. Much of the added information requested stemmed from concerns raised b neighbors. After reviewing thc supplemental information. the Planning Commission acted to recommend approval of the request as proposed. Follo\ving is the report provided to the Planning Commission along with supplemental information. Also provided i a copy of the report presented at the August meeting. along with the meeting minutes. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to approve the concept pun rezoning. based on Jlndings identified by the Planning Commission. ! l'v1otion to deny the concept PUD re onmg. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. based on the general concept sketches provided at this time. Because the neighbor 100d across 7th Strect does not utilize that street for direct access, the traffic issues are Treatly reduced. By focusing on screening of the site (particularly the parking lot areas) fr m the residential area, the overall impact of the project should be reduced, even from tha of a multiple family residential project (as the site is currently zoned). Follow-up revie will require more complete site and building plans of both the recreation and cOl1mercial portions of the project before a final PUD permit can be considered. As noted in his report, while there are some legitimate concerns to the project, the PUD zoning sho Id provide adequate protection for the City's planning process and the neighborhood. SUPPORTING DATA Report provided to the Planning CommissioJ as submitted by The Pointe Group Agenda items from 9/3102 and 8/6102 Meeting minutes from 8/6/02 . Council Agenda - 09/09/2002 5K. Consideration of re lacernent of at wa in Mcadow Oaks between Meadow Oak Avenue and Meadow Oak Drive. (1.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The pathways in the old portions of Meadow Oak re badly in need of repair. There is a 557' stretch of 6' pathway that runs from Mcadow Oak A venue to the new 10' pathway coming off of Oak Lane. This section runs through the trees and hugs the railroad ight ofway fence and is in extremely poor condition. The easterly 962' of the 6' pathway is also in need of replacement from the trail leading to Oak Lane on the west end to the play structures near Meadow Oak Drive. We've been talking about getting this section ofpathway completed for several years and never se med to quite get it done. Once when it was budgeted for the money was used for other park improve ents. There are sufficient funds in the pathway maintenance fund to make these i mprovements. We would like the first stretch of pathway widened to 8' on the west end and the second stretch of pathwa widened out to our, current standard of 10'. The estimated cost of replacement of this pathway is between $30,000 - $35,000. We have obtained a price fi'om the contractor doing the Gillard Avenue pathw y and we're obtaining one other price from Buffalo Bituminous and will have those prices available for onday evening's meeting. It would not be prudent to reveal the price from the contractor on the Gillar A venue project until we have obtained the second . quote from Buffalo Bituminous. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. The tirst alternative would be to replace the ection of patln-vay between Meadow Oak A venue and Mcadow Oak Drive based upon the I w quote provided at Monday evening's meeting. 2. The second alternative would be not to re lace the pathway at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation that the City Council appro e the replacement ofthis section of pathway based upon the lovvcst quote proviw.'d at Monday evening' meeting and authorize the work to proceed and be completed this fall. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Quotes \vill be prm'ided at the meeting. . I . . . SEP-13-2002 09:44 A. WSB,\ J WSB & ASSOCIATES I C. 7635411700 P.01/02 cI: AsstJCitlle$. N. Fax Transmittal ~ To: Jo~~~\MA~ Orgllni;ation: C , . ~ ~ ""~ Il 0 ~-t S-02- Date: Fax No: Re: Project No: Number of Pages Following This Lead Sheet F,om:~rd- ( Comments: -r(J ~ s> wkr "J:+- rS ---['5 L~ fo~ WI. ~ (:>>0 d~ ~ CA LV't~t- ~. '-'J~~ ~ ~~ Co~"'-'t LJ~. wk,,- ~ ~S b; ol- ~ III'\. <i2. +l... W...J- -h> do? ~ re& ~c. Faxed this date at am / pm c: Initials WSB & ASSQ 'ates, Inc 41 SO Olson Mem ial Highway Suite 3 0 Minneapolis, 'N 55422 P: 763-541; 4800 F: 763-5411700 SEP-13-21211212 1219:45 WSB & ASSOCIATES IN . 76354117121121 P.12I2/1212 . M 155t s ( pp I RIVER. \ 1 i ~ ~aNNEcr TO IX.:SA~lf.~ ~ ;. CORE DRilL oUIDI.....- llIlV a lo:.~.. 16ST -,& INVUT~ INII. :.!~l:.1..utluT. :;; " - 11. PlfC SOA JS . . O.SItt CQNNlcT TO EXIsrlNC "~TtIlM4IN -ITI'I Ie r- ~Z '/2' eE~ AND U IN ,.. Te:E . -..--...._~..... --y l.l: .... "'If --:- -~ ---........- - - - __.._f ~ ..~..t.:'" '11'1"'~"~_'" - . (~~ '~ ! ! ( ~;~> .i&rL~ 1I(1l1J:'l" wUEiu.i7iN-' - -- "'-. O!P'l'H ANO LDCATIQN 11'1<1011 TO.a,ll'l~TRUc"rotL._ \'~ '" P~OTECT EXISTINe ST ~ SEwEll /INCIOEN'I'A/"l I". '''..Ti! ...- ..mo," W[Sf I .:- 1:0. v. ,.... ~s. , I . ! i I . . I , i . i aeNe.., ~RKELf" 11$.70 T.N.ij. H.C. O~ANT 'AONT 5TR~ET & WA~NUT STIlEtT -.. "" ~ "J , '\lJ \~ -' f " '( "." - 91~ ,t ..... . '" I . I .. . . . ,. . . II t " . ; . . . . : : : . . ,I' . . . , . . , . . . . (' . . . . . . . ......._-~I.__.'.....~-oAo..._ I . . . II . - , . I I ~... ... t '" '..". - . . ~ . . . . I , . . _ . -..j----......"'I'""i~I.......I..II..~.....,.,__ . II (t . II 4 ~ I " . . . - - I I . i . . . . , , . C . .... . . I . , , , -r--" .......~J.,,_...,....... , ..+..:-' . . . .. . . . . . . - ' .:"'-,; :~:: ::. :.' :.' r; :~ .:-.....-.. '.'~"-.."'Y',;-",""'''.~kl.!l,;..".:~~~...~. .~-;--:"~I-;_.;.~-j-fJL:.jLLLJ:. ; - : : : ' ~ : j - . - . . _ _ ,. - . . '. ., . . ... ._.j'l ." ~"'" ............."... . . · r' . . . . . . . . . : : : : . . . . .'f.o.., . : : .. : . . . . . i . . . . . . '"': ':.-:--r.-....--.,..._..._~....;...-,_._....-.". ..:..' , . ~ ..- .- I . . I . . . . . ~. ._.-i........~..II.....,,'...._ . . ,. .; .... _;._ . .." . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . r . . . . . . . *""",,,.. ....'._i+l. ..,_. i . . I ..~. Q: ,,' t . . . . . I . j . . I I . fl.',."., I j . . '. . ....,,-........."._.......,, ...J! . . . . . .. .. . . ; . . . . . . . . . I. ....,. i . , . . .. . )0 I , _ , . . ~ ......~........h~~"...._,......,.,-'-- - . . I I . ,; ill . . . .. . . , . . . .. f . ill . . : : : : : ~. ;: >~I~~: i: '. I. I_..~I"'I-...j :~-:-:.'..._.h-:-.t.:--.-....~I ..:-.:.....:....:-~~-:...:._..:....:...~....~~__II..~_...~... . . ....... _' . 11.51". ~, , . . . . . I \D'" . '.. .' ---""'" ....:.---...-...II==I...I.lr.n..:-...I..I.I..hl...~J.,u" ;'" . . III : : : .. :' .. .: . Z I . . .. . . . , I ...-. /...............,.. ,. It ~ . . . . .. i' . . . . . . I .1 . l ; : : ", ~.. ~. ~ .. ':_1:' ....; ~ _':Iol~ I"II~I.- 'i .----,......: ...., "II'~"""~.'~'I_: .,..i._: , , . ; . . i TOTAL P.12I2 "0