Loading...
01/11/1984 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JANUARY 11, 1984 Chairman Martin called the Special Advisory Commission to order at 7:10 P.M.. Members present were Alt, Martin, Thurston, Jackson, Kubik, Fedde and Masin. Absent were members Bertz and McNeely. Also present was the Director of Parks and Recreation and Mr. Jim Curry of Lexington South. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that it was the Commission's direction from the last regular meeting for staff to review the Lexington South PUD agreement and any related materials for determination of parkland dedication credit which might be applied in the PUD. He explained he had spent many hours reviewing materials and in conversation with City staff, the consultant planner and attorney, regarding the issues of parkland dedica- tion in Lexington South. He continued saying that records and recollections were not clear or definitive, which would lead to an easy resolution of the parkland issues of credit. He retraced for the Advisory Commission the early PUD presentations from the planners report dated May of 1974. This planners report covered a then proposed Lexington South PUD which covered 1,511 acres. A portion of this land was sold off prior to the conclusion of a PUD agree- ment which now includes 1;150 acres. This preliminary planners report stated that there would be parkland credits for easements and ponding, however, total acreage exceeded the 10% dedication requirement which was to offset the credits for easements and ponding. There were several questions from the Advisory Commission regarding the background of the PUD agreement which the director tried to respond to. In response to the question of the documentation of parkland credits against existing dedicated parkland, the director responded that as late as December of 1979 no such chart existed. Although several references have been made to such a chart and attempts were made to compile one, there was no formal documented or approved chart which showed park dedication and dedication credits. The director concluded his remarks and background information presentation to the Advisory Commission and responded to numerous questions by the Commission. Mr. Curry, who had previously distributed a graphic representation of the remaining parcels in the PUD to be developed, stated that he had come to the Advisory Commission willing to negotiate and discuss the various par- cels. He stated that the parkland PUD commitment was for 140 + acres which is well above the 10% land dedication requirement. He went on to explain that he has stood by his obligation and is willing to commit the remaining park parcels to the City. He was not able to negotiate other land parcel dedications because the remaining land was committed in one form or another. Minutes January 11, 1984 Page Two. There were additional questions of Mr. Curry regarding the land parcels which he has shown as being committed, sold or as park parcels. After a lengthy discussion, the Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that it would appear that each park parcel must be reviewed for determination of park credits. He then displayed a parkland tally sheet on the overhead projector which listed each parcel's gross acres and status. He went on to explain that it would appear that negotiations in regards to each parcel would have to be concluded to determine the total acreage which should be applied against the parks dedication requirements within the PUD. The Advisory Commission and developer then reviewed each of the listed park parcels to determine the parkland credits to determine net acres for each parcel. In reviewing the park parcel as proposed in the Westbury Preliminary Plat, discussion centered around the lack of access to the proposed open space area from the north, its only use as an open space area which is duplicative of the efforts in Patrick Eagan Park, as well as other factors. The Advisory Parks Commission, while recognizing the open space value of the parcel, reached a concensus that its inclusion as parkland in the City's park system was not an objective. Therefore, there was a motion by Carroll, seconded by Masin, to recommend to the City Gpuncil that the proposed 8.4 acres of parkland in the Westbury Preliminary Plat be rejected for the reasons previously discussed. Mr. Jim Curry of Lexington South indicated that he would like to donate to the City as a gift the area which is currently shown as an outlot. He ex- plained his reasonings to the Advisory Commission, explaining that Gabbert Development Company did not wish to include the parcel into residential lots. He provided other explanations as to his not wanting to include it as part of the residential lots and indicated that he would then have a parcel of land which would not be suitable for any other purposes. He indicated that he did not wish to maintain the parcel and have it go tax forfeiture and he did not wish to be known for having parcels of land in a Community which would even- tually fall under this category. The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission then discussed the acceptance of this parcel as a donation to the City. Member Thurston questioned the issues of maintenance and future obligations for the parcel from adjacent residents. She asked if there was a mechanism which would protect the City from having to, in future years, provide park development to the area. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa responded that the parcel could be accepted as a gift and a letter extended to Mr. Curry noting that this parcel had been received in such a manner. In this manner, the parkland would not be credited against the Lexington South PUD. He went on to explain that the parcel could be designated in the lowest category of parks maintenance and carried in the Minuutes January 11, 1984 Page Three. - parkland inventory listing as "open space". It was also suggested that the marketing materials of Gabbert Development reflect this as open space and not as City parkland or nature area. After further discussion, there was a motion by Thurston, seconded by Masin, to recommend to the City Council that the out- lot of 8.4 acres in the proposed Westbury Plat be accepted as a gift from Mr. Curry, assuming that the parcel is classified as open space and no park- land credits against the Lexington South PUD is recorded. On a vote of the motion, all members were in favor. Chairman Martin said that a letter to Mr. Curry thanking him for the gift should also be extended which he might be able to use for tax purposes. The Commission then discussed Outlot A, Kensington Place, which consists of 1.4 gross acres which is not part of the PUD. Chairman Martin noted that the Commission had not extended credit on other parcels which had shown strong desirability for the park system. Chairman Martin also noted that on the park credit for Outlot A, the 1.4 acres was credited at a higher rate, based on the value of commercial property for parks dedication. The Commission concluded that 2.57 acres credit should be given for the parcel for a total of 102.14 net acres against the park dedication in the Lexington south PUD. (Chart attached.) There was considerable discussion regarding the resolution of the deficiency of approximately 13.1 acres of parkland. Mr. Curry reiterated that there were no areas in which he could provide additional parks because of commit- ments. He immediately suggested that a cash contribution be made which would be applied against the commercial property. Member Thurston suggested that the commercial and industrial parks dedication requirement should still be applied against the remaining acreage within the PUD. Mr. Curry reminded the Advisory Commission that the PUD agreement was explicit in including this area for parkland dedication already. An application of the commercial dedication requirements would be a doubling of the City's park dedication requirements on this property. Commission members and developer discussed the cash or land exchange to make up for the parkland shortage. In response to questions, the director indicated that the City was using the figure of $10,000 per acre for parkland at this time in its cash dedication require- ment, which seemed the appropriate figure to use as a cash settlement. Mr. Curry stated this would amount to approximately $130,000 which he offered to spread on the commercial property at $1,000 per acre. He noted that there was 160 acres remaining in the commercial area which would net the City $160,000. Member Kubik stated that it would take a period of years for this cash to come to the City and with inflation, it would discount the value of that cash dedication. He continued saying while he agreed with the cash amount as being a good source of funds for years to come, there needed to be some type of an escalator to discount the impact of inflation. Members discussed a five and ten year limit on the cash amount due. It was suggested that a 10% escalator be applied. Mr. Curry indicated this would be acceptable to him. It was then confirmed by the Commission and developer that the cash dedication settlement for the 13.1 acres would be at a rate of $1,000 per acre in the commercially zoned area, to be paid at the time of the building permit. Calculations would be on actual acreage within the platted area in which the building permit was drawn. This would be similar to the City's existing commercial and industrial dedication re- quirement. It was also noted that a 10% escalation factor would be applied for every year beginning in 1985. Minutes January 11, 1984 Page Four Chairman Martin stated that this should conclude the meeting and thanked Mr. Curry for his approach to the parkland dedication requirements. Mr. Curry said he understood that the Commission was trying to seek a fair settlement for the City and appreciated their position. He said he felt that he had tried to be open, honest and fair about this and believes that this is something that he can live with. ADJOURNMENT In a motion by Jackson, seconded by Masin, the special meeting of the Advisory Commission was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.. Dated: Advisory Parks and Recreation Secretary KV/js LEXINGTON SOUTH PD JANUARY 11, 1984 PARKLAND TALLY SHEET NET GROSS ACRE PARCEL # ACRES STATUS COMMENTS CREDIT 1 1.26 PLATTED INTO LOTS 0 2 20.88 DEDICATED 4.5 ACRES OF PARK IN HIGHLINE 18.63 .43 DEDICATED POND .21 4 13.6 DEDICATED OPEN SPACE/PONDING 11.9 5 6.55 DEDICATED WEDGEWOOD PARK 6.55 6 4.04 DEDICATED/SOLD CITY ACCEPTED PARK PARCEL - RESOLD 4.04 6A 3.30 DEDICATED OAK POND HILLS - TRAIL/PARK 3.3 7 1.75 DEDICATED PONDING .83 8 10.25 DEDICATED HIGHLINE TRAIL; WEDGEWOOD PK. 5.3 9 5.01 PLATTED INTO LOTS 0 10 9.24 DEDICATION PENDING NORTH OF WEDGEWOOD; IN AREA OF 9.24 COMMERCIAL ZONING 11 13.14 DEDICATION PENDING- 4.90 ACRES-OF HIGHLINE, PONDING 10.69 12 9.12 DEDICATION PENDING 1.83 ACRES OF HIGHLINE; PROPOSED 8.2 SCHWANTZ LAKE PARK 13 11.06 DEDICATION PENDING MARSH, TRAIL CONNECTION 5.5 14 1.99 TO BE PLATTED INTO LOTS 0 15 13.53 DEDICATION PENDING 8.04 ACRES IN HIGHLINE 6.7 16 8.6 DEDICATION PENDING PART OF PROPOSED SCHWANTZ LAKE PK. 8.6 17 8.4 PENDING 0 18 1.4 OUTLOT "A", KINGSTON PL. NOT PART OF PUD 2.57 * 102.14 Amount Required 115.3 ac. Net Acres 102.2 Deficiency 13.1 * AS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MR. JIM CURRY, LEXINGTON SOUTH AND THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON JAN. 11, 1984.