Loading...
Parks Commission Minutes 07-18-2002 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - PARKS COMMISSION Thursday, .July 18,2002 - 4:30 p.m. "To enhance community pride through deve/oping and maintaining ci(y pllrk~' with 1I high standard (~lqtla/i(y. .. Members Present: Larry Nolan, Fran Fair, Nancy McCaffrey, Earl Smith and Rick Traver. Council Liaison, Roger Carlson Members Absent: Stall: None Parks Superintendent, Adam Hawkinson Deputy City Administrator, Jell O'Neill 1. Call to Order. 2. 3. Chairman Larry Nolan called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present. Approve minutes of .June 20. 2002 re!!ular Parks Commission meetin!!. Earl Smith questioned whether subcommittee on the hallfields had met and also questioned whether the discussion on moving away from neighborhood parks should have been done in the form of a motion. There was discussion on the Park/Pathway Comprehensive Plan and how it would be impacted by the proposed changes to the Land Use Guide Plan in the ('ity"s Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that the Parks Commission go back and review the Park/Pathway Comprehensive Plan. Earl Smith questioned whether the City wasn't outgrowing their plan. Larry Nolan felt a subcommittee should he set up on this. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TilE JUNE 20, 2002 REGULAR PARKS COMMISSION MEETING. NANCY MCCArrREY SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH FRAN FAIR AI3STAINING. Consideration of addin1! items to the agenda. The following items were added to the agenda: 1) Park Comprehensive Plan and priorities for the park; 2) Development of a fee schedule and policy for charging for use of fields. It was noted that the school district is establishing a ree schedule for the use of their facilities. 3) Update on ice arena; 4) Update on entrance signs; 5) Pathway alignment ror Groveland 3,d Addition; 6) Green space - It was felt that the Parks Commission needs to start describing it and how it is going to be maintained. 'fhe I3ruggeman development was cited as an example. The green space needs to be shown on the drawing, classified as to whether it is wetlands, common area, etc and also designating how the area will be maintained. Rick Traver felt it was important for homeowners in these developments to know what the green space is and how it is proposed to be maintained; and 7) List of pathways for pavll1g. . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 4. Citizens requests. None. Because the developer was present, the Parks Commission next considered the update on the Autumn Ridge Development. 8. Update - Autumn Ridge Deputy City Administrator, JelT O'Neill summarized the proposal for park dedication on the Autumn Ridge plat noting it was kind of an unique situation for the Parks Commission. The Autumn Ridge development is located all of School Boulevard and County Road 117. There is approximately 169- 171 units proposed for the development. Shawn Weinand noted that the development site is t~lirly tlat and is impacted by the power lines along the rear of the property and a gas line easement in the upper part of the development. The property is tlanked on one side by commercial property and on another side by the trailer court. Shawn Weinand said the development would be broken up into approximately fl1ur phases labeled by some identifying aspect such as the trees planted in the arca, i.e. aspen, pine, poplar. The l(Hlr parks proposed would be situated so that each phase had a common gathering area and a trail system connecting them. The parks would be owned, controlled and maintained by the homeowners association. Tcntatively one of the four parks is proposcd for a hot shot basketball court but it has not been determined what would go into the other parks. Shawn Weinand stated that the trail originally proposed for along the back ofthc property was not going to be put in because it dead ends to the trailer park. A question was raised about the street alignrncnt and Jeff O'Neill statcd that the al ignment was only fixed to a ccrtain point. Development pressure and the location of wetlands might dietatc what the final alignment would be. Shawn Weinand brought up the park dedication fees and stated that 10% of the land value is what is acceptable to the developer and not the $835/unit. The per unit charge puts a heavy burden on the developmcnt and 1 or!;) of the land value is considerably less than the per unit cost. Jeff 0 'Nei II stated that the per unit fee came about when the developer gave cash in I ieu of land and the cash amount rellected the cost of development of park land. In establishing the fee the City tried to come close to the aetual cost of development. Under the City's policy apartment units pay the same park dedication fee per unit as single bmily homes. 'The Parks Commission was asked to consider the following questions: 1. Should the developer get credit against the park dedication fees f()r the parks developed within the plat. 2. 10(Yo of land value ~vs- $835/unit. It was also noted that the trail/pathway fee is $200 per unit. The staff felt that the internal trails would be paid f()r by the developer since they serve the same purpose as sidewalks or roads. I Iowever if a trail on the perimeter of the property was developed then funds dedicated for pathway use could be utilized. 2 Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 . Larry Nolan asked if the developer was looking a decision from the Parks Commission tonight. Rick Traver asked if there was a formula established for determining credit to be given. In discussing how to establish the credit the Parks Commission considered: I) Cost to make the improvement; and 2) Value of the land. The total of these items would then be taken offthe $835/unit or perhaps there was some kind of sliding scale that would be used depending on whether the development was single f~lmily or apartments. There was discussion whether apartment units create as a great a demand for parks as do single 1~lmily homes. With the greater unit density there is less open space, so it was felt that the apartments created the same demand for parks as single f~mlily homes and the $835/unit for apartments was justified. . The Parks Commission continued discussion on the parks within the development. It was noted that thc park equipment and installation would have to meet ADA requirements. There was conccrn that if the homeowners association is responsible for the parks how would thc City be able to ensure that the cquipment is maintained. It was also notcd that replacing a play structure or trail surface is a costly itenl and it was questioned how the homeowners association would finance that. Shawn Weinand felt that could be covered in the developmcnt agreement. Adam lIawkinson stated that if this policy is established therc will be other dcvelopers requesting park credit. Park credit policy could take away from funds needed to construct items such as soccer fields, etc. Fran Fair noted that the present policy does not allow for land locked parks. The parks in this development would be almost private lor use by the propcrties surrounding them. Larry Nolan askcd if there was any inlormation on whether other cities allow park credits and what conditions they place on giving credit f()r park construction. Shawn Weinand stated that in a development similar to this which he believed his linn did in lnver Grove Heights the park credit given was based on the value of the land, equiplnent and trails. Ilc stated these parks would be a nice amenity to the development and felt they would take pressure 01T ofthc other city parks. Adam Hawkinson cited an instance of this bcing done in Minnetonka and it puts a lot of pressure on the homeowners association. Generally the homeowners associations are not sct up to deal with maintenance issues relating to park equipment and trails. lIe questioned whether thcse parks wouldn't ultimately end up as just green space. Fran Fair asked how far these parks were fi'om the closest community park. Pioneer Park is the closest to this area. Shawn Weinand stated this developmcnt will be starter homes and will mostly like contain young families with kids. Jc1TCfNeill stated that the internal trail system is serving as a sidewalk which is considered basic infrastructure and wouldn't quality for a trail credit. If the trail has sonle kind of park like structure it could possibly bc considered for trail credit but he questioned whether that would be the case in this instancc. . Shawn Weinand reviewed the development layout. Adam Ilawkinson asked about the trails running through the center of the development. Shawn Weinand responded that the city requircd a trail within 200' of every residence. Jeff O'Neill noted this was because there is a lot of traffic going on the roads and since the roads arc more narrow than regular city street they felt the trails were essential. The trails will be designed to the same as the city design standards f()r trails. Shawn Weinand restated that because of the site, these amenities were necessary. The units will run from $135,000 to ~ -, Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 . $170,000 and the association fees will be $125/month. Additional grading work was done to make a number of these units walkouts. ./eff O'Neill summarized the discussion thus far: 1. Stay with the park dedication fee per unit. 2. Consider a process for giving park credit. 3. Establish a f<.ml1ula ft)r what is being proposed, what is not included at this time is whether internal trails quality for a credit. 4. The park locations proposed would be acceptable but the parks will be privately maintained. . Adam Hawkinson felt that the Parks Commission should have a firm policy in place bcf()re giving any park credit. Earl Smith felt the parks were an amenity f{)1' the development of the property and didn't feel that credit should be given. It was asked how that space would be utilized ifno parks were put in. Shawn Weinand felt it would likely remain green space although they could probably squeeze SOll1e additional lots out of there. Earl Smith noted this was a different type of development in that it was self contained and he agreed that the Parks Commission could not make a decision tonight. He emphasized again that this is an amenity that the developer needs in order to sell his lots. There was some discussion of the Supreme Court decision stating that fees charge must bcjustified by cost incurred. In polling the Parks Commission members, Larry Nolan and Nancy McCaffrey fell that if park credit is given there should be a ftmnal policy or ordinance amendment to reflect the policy. Rick Traver felt the $835/per unit with a credit given for park improvements constructed was reasonable but felt that a minimum of credit should be given. lIe 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 be 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 Commission felt it was too isolated. Adam Ilawkinson noted there was no parking at all in the area so he didn't feel many people from outside the development would be using the f~lcility. Shawn Weinand pointed out that a few parking spaces would be available and Adam Hawkinson countered that most likely these spaces would be utilized by the residents of the development. Adam Ilawkinson felt that a development having its own playground was a good idea but a not a practical one. As the neighborhood kids grow up the maintenance gets to be an issue as no one keeps the equipment up. Adam Hawkinson 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 some protection from disease. Shawn Weinand indicated that they were thinking along the line of two trees in the front yard being the species of the identifying tree for that area. Adam Hawkinson questioned 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 concern raised as to what assurances the city would have that the association would maintain the equipment or even continue an active park in the area. 4 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7 !l8/02 ./eff(),Neill stated that he will bc working with Shawn Weinand on the terms of the developmcnt agrccmcnt. Shawn Weinand added hc was presenting this item to the city council on ./uly 22,2002. JelT O'Neill summarized the Parks Commission points as follows: I. No strong feelings for or against having trails in the rear portion of the development. 2. Basketball court is nixed. 3. Park dedication based on unit fee rathcr than land value. 4. Consideration of possible park credit for playground equipment. Earl Smith askcd if this development would conlC back to thc Parks Commission. JefT O'Neill indicated that if there was a qucstion on funding, it would come back. Earl Smith askcd Shawn Weinand what he thought he should get as far as a crcdit. Shawn Weinand felt 30(10 of the per unit fcc. lie noted that I 001r) ofthc land value has been upheld by the courts. Shawn Weinand statcd thc trail system would bc maintained by the association and would be built to city design standards. The perimeter trail would come fi"om pathway funds. 10% of land value of 21 acrcs based on $30,OOO/acre would be approximately $64,000. The Parks Commission did not fcel they could make a decision at this mceting. Shawn Weinand stated he was proceeding and indicated hc knew that any policy set regarding park land credit would impact other developments down the road. Larry Nolan statcd hc would like to know what other cOlnmunitics do. Adanl Ilawkinson asked if 30% crcdit was given would the city get sornc kind ofreccipt or documentation to verify improvements cqualled the mnount of credit given. fran fair fell since the Parks Commission is setting a precedcnt, they should he vcry clear on what they are doing. Fran Fair was leaning toward giving a credit but not the 30%. Nancy McCaf1l'ey favored a credit but felt thcre should be a cap on thc amount given and felt the Parks Commission needed more information before they could set a policy. Jeff O'Neill stated this dcvclopment was similar to Eagle Crest and Montissippi Trails and thesc devclopments didn't receive any credit for trails. Parks Commission stated they didn't feel they should be giving any credit for trails. Adam Hawkinson noted that with the restrictions on safety zones around play structurcs it may be questionable if Inuch in the way of equipment could fit into the park areas proposed. Rick Traver felt thcy could give some kind of credit but it should be on the parks not the pathways. Larry Nolan agreed that some credit should be given for the park area but not the trails. As f~lr as the amount of any credit to be given, the Parks Commission felt 10%-15% was a more appropriate numbcr. Earl Smith felt the parks proposed were an amenity for the development and shouldn't be givcn a credit. At this time Jell 0' Neill left the lneeting. Bccausc rcsidcnts from the Rolling Woods area were present, thc Parks Commission conducted thc informational meeting on thc devclopnlent plans fl)r Rolling Woods Park. 9, Rollin!! Woods Park - Informational Meeting, The Parks Commission mcmbcrs introduced themselves and explained the purpose of the inltmnational meeting. Adam Hawkinson noted that a resident of the development had conducted a 5 . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 . survey to determine what the residents wanted to see in the park. A copy of the survey results was submitted to the Parks Commission. The Parks Commission had set up a subcommittee to come up with a design for the park. Adam Hawkinson presented the design layout that had been prepared pointing out that the topography of the park land sloped and dropped off which affected the placement of structures. Some residents expressed concern that the play area was too close to the residcnces. Adam Hawkinson noted that ADA requirements dictate in part where the equipment goes. Earl Smith added that the equi pment was placed so that there was enough open area fell' a soccer/ballfield use. A pathway leading into the play area would be constructed and a shelter was also proposed. Residents wanted to know if a fencc could be installcd to separate them from the park area. Adam Hawkinson suggested a split rail fence, if a fencc was done. Rcsidents didn't want the park too close to the homcs because they would hear thc noise from the park. It was pointed out that llloving the play area further into the park away from the residences would require the installation of more trails. It would also reduce the expanse of opcn area. Adam I lawkinson stated that most parks are close to residences, such as River Mill, 4th Street, The rcsidents emphasized the noise and privacy concerns they had with the location of the play area. It was noted that the play structure was placed to minimize exposure to the drop off area and wetlands and that to fencc of the park area would be very costly. Therc was discussion of the play structure including type and number of swings and diggers. The residents indicated thcy would prefcr to have more swings and not thc diggers. Because thcre are no trces on the sitc, a shelter was proposed which would provide some shading. $15.000 has been budgeted for the play structure and that does not include the wood fiber or the concrete bordcr. $3,700 is the estilnatcd cost fl.)!" the pathway and picnic shelter. Residcnts asked if bids wcrc receivcd from other sources. Adam I lawkinson inf()l"lned them of which vendors wcre contacted and how they determined which structure to go with. They were looking for somcthing that would providc the most activities fl.)r thc budgeted amount. Residents asked about widcning the play area and adding more swings. Adam I lawkinson stated by doing that thc safety zone would have to be extendcd that would add considerably to the cost of the project. Residents asked if the park would be lighted. Adam Hawkinson replied that no light is being planned. Thcre could be a sensory light rlaced on thc shelter. The shelter is proposcd to be 16' x 24' rlaced on a cemcnt pad. It is quite likcly with the time frame that the seeding work might not gct done until late fall. Adam l-Iawkinson stated that the City had gotten 70,000 yards of topsoi I some of which wi II be used on this park. . Residents asked about putting in a basketball court. Adam I lawkinson indicated that is something that could be considcred in the future. Rick Traver asked if the baskctball court had to meet ADA requirelllents as far as accessibility. The city will get quotes on the work that park staff is not able to perform. Some residents cxpressed their fcelings that thc rark developmcnt was a done deal and the residents had been left out of the decision making process. -rhe residents stated they didn't want a sheltcr. They wanted some place for the kids to shoot baskets. Adam I--Iawkinson stated the Parks Commission procedure is to come up with a plan which is presented to the residents. Usually residents will give a broad spectrum or what they want in their park. The Parks Commission can not givc evcrything to cverybody. They try to design a park that willllleet the needs for the developmcnt. Those residcnts present stated they would rather get what they wanted evcn if it meant waiting longer. They wanted a basketball court instcad of a shelter. Residents asked about the cost of installing a basketball court. Adam Hawkinson indicated that a preliminary cost estimate would be $3,500 for 6 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 the asphalt, $3,000 for lining, concrete borders $1,000 and hoop/standard about $800. It was pointed out that the City has to meet certain design standards which makes the cost higher. The residents asked about sweat equity. Adam Ilawkinson stated there are liability concerns with that. Larry Nolan suggested that the subcommittee look at the basketball court and see what trade ofT could be made. There was some question whether this park covered both Wildwood and Rolling Woods developments. It was noted that the open park area was in the Rolling Woods development. 'rhe park land in the Wildwood development was f(Jr tree preservation and would probably only be developed to the extent that some benches or trails may be placed through the wooded area. Adam Ilawkinson stated that the shelter is sOll1ething that could be compromised on now but noted that it would be a few years before anything else could be done. The proposed play structure will be moved in a I ittle further away from the road and the basketball court could bc located more toward the middle of the park. However, this would greatly reduce the open area. Residents brought up the issue of traffic tailing to stop for the two stop signs in the development. The Parks Commission directed them to contact the SherifT's Department and bring the issue to the Police Commission. A resident asked the purpose of the concrete border, which Adam Hawkinson replied was to keep the wood chips in place. Because the border is Hush with the ground it makes mowing around the area easier. Residents questioned the value of the land for soccer or ballfield use because of the slope and the presence of wetlands. There was discussion of fencing or buffering fex the area. 5. Scheduline of meetings for Aueust. Because of the amount of agenda items and the need to work on the 2003 budget. the Parks Commission set an additional meeting for August], 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 to the adjacent property owners. Also discussed the use of the fill material from the Front Street project. Adam Hawkinson submitted a sketch regarding the trail alignment f(Jr the Groveland 3rd Addition. Initially the pathway was to be placed above the 100 year high water mark. The developer is requesting to relocate the pathway in order to extend the length of the 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 TI 1/: P A TIIW A Y FOR GROVELAND THIRD ADDITION IN ITS PRESENT ALIGNMENT. NANCY MCCAFFREY SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 7/18/02 7. Pathway and steps at East Bridee Park - Pathway Alignment. Fran Fair agreed that the steps need to be replaced. Adam Hawkinson will submit a plan f(x the alignment of the trai 1. Adam Hawkinson stated that there would be about I' of drop f(Jr every 10' lineal feet. It is suggested that there be a terrace system coming off from the Hower beds. 8. Updates/Reports. An update on Autumn Ridge was conducted earlier in the meeting. In. Adjourn. Because of the lateness of the hour no additional items were considered. Unfinished items from this meeting will be added to the agenda for the August 1,2002 special meeting. RICK TRAVER MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 7:55 P.M. FRAN FAIR SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . ~ _~-A-OS~ Recordll1g Secretary 8