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-