Loading...
08/04/1983 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA AUGUST 4, 1983 The regular meeting of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin. Members present were Martin, Jackson, Masin, McNeely, Bertz, Thurston, Fedde. Absent were Carroll, Alt, and Kubik. Also present were the Director of Parks and Recreation, Ken Vraa and Planning Consultant, Tim Erkkila. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS Chairman Martin introduced members of the Advisory Commission to the two newly appointed members. Martin indicated that he was pleased to have the two new members appointed to the Commission and that he hoped they would find the experience fulfilling. He indicated that the Commission has been deeply involved in the Parks System Plan Study which has been a rewarding ex- perience for the Commission and an accomplishment for the City. AGENDA Commission member McNeely moved and seconded by Fedde to approve the agenda as presented. All members approved unanimously. MINUTES It was pointed out that in the minutes for July 7th regarding Lexington Place, that the motion omitted the recommendation to install a trail along Lexington Avenue. After discussion by the Advisory Commission of the motion made at the July meeting, there was a motion by Martin, seconded by Thurston to the City Council that a bituminous trailway along Lexington Avenue be required of the Lexington Place development as originally proposed in the preliminary plat. All members approved. After further review of the minutes, on a motion by McNeely, seconded by Fedde with all members in favor of the minutes of July 7, 1983 were approved. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS The Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat from Tri Land Company for Sunset 3rd Addition. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that this would create an additional 6'single family lots plus the platting of an existing home. The director reviewed other aspects of the preliminary plat, and in response to a question from Chairman Martin regarding a trail to the nearest park at Schwanz Lake, the director indicated that it would not be possible because of existing family homes. The alternative would be to go down Golden Meadow Road to Dodd and then to the park area. On a motion by Fedde, seconded by Thurston, with all members approving a recommendation to the City Council that a cash dedication be accepted for the newly created lots at time of platting. Minutes - August 4, 1983 PHEASANT KNOLL CONDOMINIUMS The Director of Parks and Recreation reviewed the proposed Pheasant Knoll Condominium development indicating that this item had not yet been before the Advisory Planning'Commission. He indicated that the developer has re- viewed this preliminary with the staff. Review by the Advisory Commission at this time seems appropriate because there is potential for park dedication. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated the development includes approxi- mately 18 acres which included approximately 10 acres of proposed park land dedication via the Blackhawk South Planned Unit Development. The ten acre park would encompass the majority of Heine Pond with access to County Road 30. The Director of Parks and Recreation continued saying that in the discussion with the developer, that additional park land beyond the 10 acre dedication may be sought as indicated in the Systems Plan Study. The director indicated that the developer found this agreeable and would be willing to make such additional dedication or gift to the City. Chairman Martin questioned the pond elevation indicating as he recalled there was discussion regarding the N.O.H.W. and the impact to the park. The Director of Parks and Recreation was asked to review this and bring this information back to the Commission at the September meeting. There was no additional questions regarding the proposed plat. Commission action was deferred until the September meeting following the Advisory Planning Commission's review of the proposed plat. OLD BUSINESS SURREY GARDENS: The Director of Parks and Recreation reviewed the Surrey Gardens proposed development as was previously presented at the May meeting. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that the Advisory Commission had made a recommendation for a cash dedication based on the number of units and for a bituminous trail along Yankee Doodle Road. He went on to explain the developer, Mr. Dan Gustafson was present to discuss with the Advisory Commission a past agreement which had been entered into with the City at the time of the Surrey Heights development. The director stated the Surrey Heights development goes back to 1971, and consisted of approximately 40 acres. The apartment units were included as part of'the development planned at that time. The director indicated that during the Surrey Heights phased development, which consisted of 156 units, the developer had prepaid the parks dedication on the townhouse units at $40.00 per unit. The prepayment was made in advance because park dedication fees were to advance from $40.00 to $100.00 per unit. At that time developers were allowed to prepay on the remaining units. The director indicated however, that there was no prepayment of the park dedication fees for the apartment units. The director asked Mr. Gustafson to elaborate on the history of the development and provide additional details to the Advisory Commission in regards to the parks dedica- tion fee. Mr. Gustafson stated that he had purchased the remaining parcel for the apartment units from Gold Medallion Corporation, of which Mr. Gustafson was once the head of the realty division which developed Surrey Heights. Ile stated that although he, staff and the City Attorney could not find the agreement for the Surrey Heights development, it was his under- standing that an agreement contained a provision for the payment of $75.00 per unit parks dedication fee for the apartments. He stated that this development agreement can no longer he found even though he feels that this agreement did exist. He said he was not here to ask the Commission to abide _2_ Minutes - August 4, 1983 by the $75.00 per unit fee, but perhaps to negotiate a fee which would be agreeable to the Advisory Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Martin, Mr. Gustafson indicated that the prepayment of the townhouse units was made because the City was increasing its dedication fees from $40.00 to $100.00. He said the City had advised him of this increase and if they wished topay the dedication fee in advance that this would be agreeable. He indicated that the developer did not wish to prepay the cash dedication re- quirement on the apartment units because of the slow economy during this time period. There was a number of questions by the Advisory Commission to Mr. Gustafson regarding the platting and phasing of Surrey Heights, ownership, etc. Chair- man Martin indicated that he did not think it would be fair or wise to give the developer-a $75.00 per unit parks dedication fee in absence of a document'to that effect as this would not be fair to the park system with todays cost. This would amount to a reduction of park dedication fees which are normally due at time of final plat. Mr. Martin continued saying, that if the development agreement were to show that $75.00 had been agreed upon, the matter would be different by the fact that the dedication fees are payable at time of final platting. Mr. Gustafson indicated again that City staff have been most cooperative in trying to find the agreement, but it cannot be found. He continued saying that he did not want to try to mis- lead the Advisory Commission by saying that this was a P.U.D. agreement but that there was a agreement for the development of the Surrey Gardens/Surrey Heights area. He indicated that in the absence of that agreement that he would ask that the Commission review the issue to establish a cash dedication fee. Commission member Bertz questioned why the cash dedication for the townhouse units were prepaid to avoid the increase to $100.00, if the Gold Medallion Corporation had an agreement which established fees at a set amount? Why prepay? Chairman Martin said that if he understood the question correctly is that the point is "that if there was an agreement for dedication why prepay to avoid an increase." There was additional discussion regarding the time period and circumstances surrounding development in the early 19701*s. Mr. Gustafson indicated that it was during this time frame which policy and development were being developed simultaneously. Chairman Martin said that the question remains, for the commission to resolve this with a compromise, at the rate currently in 'effect, or agree to the $75.00 per unit dedication charge. Commission member Thurston said if there is an agreement that the City should stick to it if the agreement can be found. She said that the City should set the existing cash dedication with the provisal for a refund if the agreement is found. After discussion, on a motion by Thurston, seconded by Fedde, the recommendation is to accept a cash dedication at the time of final plat based on an existing cash dedication requirements and that the City offer a refund to the development based on the $75.00 per dedication requirement should the agreement later be found. Systems Plan Consultant, Tim Erkkila reviewed the section of the study entitled "Funding and Implementation." Ile distributed copies of the draft to members of the Commission and briefly reviewed the section, Development Cycles and Overall Development of the Park System. He reiterated that the development framework or C.I.P. was developed with a projection to 1990 or 37,000 projected population. Development cycles may be stretched out or condensed depending upon rate of growth, he said. Mr. Erkkila reviewed the -3- Minutes -!August 4, 1983 first segment of the section: Definitions, Capital Improvement Guide, Policies, and Park Development Summary by Development Cycle. Mr. Erkkila stopped frequently to answer questions and note clarifications by the Advisory Commission. He indicated that the five development categories amounted to approximately 6 million dollars. He stated that the bulk of these funds were needed for site preparation because of the result of the topography in many of the neighborhood park areas. He stated that he wished to be cautious in the use of this number because there are many variables that can affect it; inflation, unit cost variables. He stated however that he thought this was a conservative number, taking the conservative approach to . parks development the Commission and City Council have expressed. He then went on to review the funding sources which included intergovern- mental revenues and parks dedication. In reference to the chart in J 15, he stated that for purposes of computation, park dedication have been calculated in terms of gross cash contributions, by housing units even if land is to be accepted. Land is then deducted to determine estimated cash income from the time period of 1983 to 1985 and 1986 to 1990. The sum total of this would be approximately $477,000.. Chairman Martin questioned whether this was conservative and how he derived the number of units which this was based on. Mr. Erkkila stated that the rate of development and the type of development was based on figures within the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. He stated that this number may be somewhat conservative and pointed out that he had used 543 developed units of single family between 1983 and 1985. He continued saying that he is aware that the number of single family units to date in 1983 exceeds 300 and therefore this cash dedication may be somewhat conservative. He cautioned however that you would not want to project the entire 1983 to 1990 time frame for a single family construction on a very successful 6 or 7 month time period. Chair- man Martin indicated that he would like the systems plan consultant to re- view the number and type.of housing units with the City Planner to see if there has been a rethinking in terms of the number, types and rate of develop- ment. Chairman Martin stated that he was surprised that the parks cash contributions would not amount to more. Mr. Erkkila continued by saying that the entire parks dedication plus other funds that might be contributed from intergovernmental would still be short of the necessary funds to do most of the projects identified in the first development cycle. He went on to say that this shortfall would be even greater if the higher priority items such as playground equipment were included during the first cycle, further enlarging the shortfall. Members of the Commission had numerous questions regarding affected land and cash contribu- tions and the acceptance and timing thereof. Mr. Erkkila and the Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that there currently exists a shortage in most facilities and that planning and construction detailing will require at least two years before most facilities could be provided. Mr. Erkkila then reviewed the section entitled "Municipal Bonds Financing." He reviewed the City's total bonded indebtedness, bond rating, tax rates and tax rate comparisons with other communities. In summation the City would be in good position for bond financing based on this information. He went on saying he added a sheet entitled the "Magnitude of the Undertaking" which shows total projected park cost through the 1990 planning framework. This totaled approximately 8 million dollars in parks acquisition, dedication-and development. Of this 8 million, almost one and three quarters million would be by land dedication, 5.4 through development and other expenses .6 million by acquisition by purchase. Funding would be approximately 2 million dollars -4- Minutes - August 4, 1983 from dedication which would encompass both land and cash. Remaining amount would have to come from bonding, grants, revenue sharing and other sources. There were comments by the Advisory Commission concerning the size of what would have to be financed for development. Chairman Martin indicated that the only alternative would be to pare down or revise the Systems Plan Study which he felt would not be the correct course of action; revision to the development cycles or changes in the standards which also would not be appropriate. Following discussion of the material present, Mr. Erkkihasaid, the next step would be to submit this to the City Council at a joint meeting for further reviewal by the Council and Commission. It was agreed that the. information was complete and the funding and implementation section should be discussed with the City Council. A joint meeting was requested with notification to the Advisory Commission members when that date has been established. It was agreed that Mr. Erkkila, the City Administrator and the Director of Parks and Recreation would meet to review the agenda for that meeting to ensure that a complete agenda would be prepared. Mr. Erkkila stated that once this section had been completed, the system draft would be ready for action and ready for a public hearing, then adoption. OTHER BUSINESS/REPORTS The Director of Parks and Recreation reviewed several items under "Other Business and Reports" for the Advisory Commission for informational purposes. He stated that the fiscal 1984 L.A.W.C.O.N. grant application for Fish Lake Park had been submitted. The application was for a total of $64,000 which approximately 50% would be sought from L.A.W.C.O.N. The director indicated that distribution to residents of flyers seeking suggestions for "Park Names" was nearly ready. He stated that three volun- teer groups had been contacted and have indicated their willingness to dis- tribute flyers during the month of August. Commission member Bertz questioned. if it was the intent of the Advisory Commission to rename parks, which might cause confusion. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that the intent was that many of the parks have never been officially named and that the process of officially naming included the contacting of residents near parks to solicit their suggestions. He indicated that it was not the intent to rename all of the parks, stating that several parks would probably not change. However, other park areas which have been simply identified might bare reviewing before the official name designation. The director indicated that the Parks and Recreation Department is cooperating with Comserv Corporation in the construction of a softball field at their corporate headquarters. No dollars are being expanded by the City on this facility other than the utilization of City staff to prepare the infield material. The director indicated that he had reached an agreement with the Comserv Corporation for doing this work under the understanding that the City will be able to utilize this facility for its purposes. He indicated that the facility should be ready for full use in 1985. The Director of Parks and Recreation asked the Advisory Commission to indicate its preference for reviewing recreational facilities in other communities. He stated that the Commission had previously indicated in its goals and suggestions that it wished to visit major facilities as well as other communities' parks. -5 Minutes August 4,1983 Commission members indicated that at this time they would like to review neighborhood park facilities in adjacent communities and that major facili- ties might be deferred until later in the year. The Director of Parks and Recreation was asked to compile a list of potential park sites at the September Commission meeting. A date and time would be set to review those park sites at that meeting. The Director of Parks and Recreation then reviewed the proposed race track facility with the Commission indicating that this would appear on the September agenda for review and comment by the Commission. He suggested if members were interested in further information that they might wish to attend the Planning Commission meeting in August. He stated that he had received a phone call that afternoon from an official of the State Planning Agency regarding the Rahn Park grant application, stating that the grant has now been approved by all reviewing agencies. He stated that contract documents would be forthcoming, indicating the final dollar amount allocated for Rahn Park would then be known. The director indicated that once a contract had been signed he would be making a recommenda- tion regarding plan detailing, construction, etc. The Commission then discussed the annual Parks and Recreation Commission's picnic tentatively set for September 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business to be considered at this time on a motion by McNeely, seconded by Thurston, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. K.V. Dated: Advisory Parks ? Recreation Commission Secretary /bp _6-