Loading...
02/11/1987 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 11, 1987 A specal meeting of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Martin, Porter, Sames, Alt, Bertz, Masin, Caponi and Carroll. Also present were the Director of Parks & Recreation; Landscape Architect/Parks Planner; Rod Hardy, and John Uban, Developer and Planner for Eagan Hills Farm. The Director of Parks & Recreation explained new handouts, describing each of the five proposed park parcels within the P.U.D. Each of the five parcels provided total acreage and an accounting of the ponding area, intermittent ponding area, and slopes greater than 1200- It was explained that the P.U.D. encompassed 388 acres. Mr. Uban presented slides of the area depicting the five park parcels. He continued, giving a brief explanation of the proposed parkland and trail areas. Mr. Caponi questioned if on park parcel #3, the trail may be jeopardized as a result of the proposed high water elevation. He questioned if additional space would not be necessary to insure the trail is always passable. In response, Mr. Hardy said the developer was working with the Engineering Department to insure that all utilities were put in now so the ponding levels could be controlled. He stated he was very much aware of the problem as he, himself had a subdivision with a trail under water. Mr. Hardy said that the next phase development would be done to insure a trail passage. Mr. Uban further explained that the ponding areas would be connected and controlled by a lift station. Mr. Sames questioned parking and accessibility to the site, and particularly, parcel #1. The Director of Parks & Recreation responded that it was staff's belief that park area #2, the central park, should be developed with the project. Park area #1 could be held in reserve for later development. Staff had been depicting a ball field to help illustrate the size of the area. This area may be developed as a ball field, soccer, or other play space. Mr. Martin questioned a lowland area within park parcel #1 and if it was susceptible to flooding and ponding. It was explained that this area is a reduced drainage district. While this area may be susceptible to becoming wet, it should not become a permanent ponding area. There were additional discussions regarding the trailways and the accessibility of all five park areas. Mr. Martin and Mr. Caponi questioned if staff had had an opportunity to review the analysis of the site to determine if an athletic field were possible. Parks Planner/Landscape Architect, Stephen Sullivan, presented to the Commission, a field layout and grading study of the property nearest the intersection of Dodd and Wescott Roads. The five field layout, including three softball, two soccer, and a parking area were depicted on approximately 25 acres. He explained constraints of the site relative to ponding and a ridge line. These two elements constrained planning more than a 25-acre parcel. In response to questions regarding grading, Mr. Sullivan stated that Adv. Parks & Rec. Comm. Page Two grading would be less than what was demonstrated on the Peterson parcel and equivalent to that shown for the southeast parcel. There were general comments concerning the proposed layout as being efficient, but not of good design. There was a question relative to access to each of the fields from the parking lot and additional questions relative to grading of the parking lot and ball fields. Responding to a question, the Director of Parks & Recreation stated that staff did not care for the design and it was not very workable. The only alternative would be to come up with three fields.. This would not be a solution to the City's community athletic fields problems. Chairman Martin concluded from Commission comments and materials presented by staff that this site was unsuitable for athletic field usage. -Mr. Martin then stated he felt it would be appropriate for each member to discuss their feelings regarding the park areas so a sense of direction could be concluded. He stated he felt that ,ark area #1 & #2 would be a good amenity, with grave doubts about park area #3 & #4. Park area #5 was not suitable, or usable, for any purpose. The 40-acre parkland dedication would be excessive and it would not be appropriate to take this much, at least for dedication purposes, for this service district. Commission member Alt expressed her agreement with conclusions on parcels 1 & 2, but liked parcels 3 & 4 because of the beauty and desirability for walking. She expressed concern regarding passage of the trailway and ponding elevations. Commission member Sames indicated it would work great for the people, particularly within this subdivision. Other members commented regarding the five park parcels, with Mr. Caponi and Mr. Carroll stating they favored parcels 1 & 2, but also liked #3 & #4. Each would like to see the issue of trails worked out better. There should not be full credit for these parcels, perhaps only half credit or less. Mr. Caponi added that it's a benefit for all, that nature really has put it there and needs to be protected, that it is of good value, and let the City utilize it. He emphasized the issue of trails and ponding as being important. Member Masin stated she liked the concept, but needed to negotiate the credit. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Commission regarding the parcels need for maintenance, trails surface,. timing of development, etc. Mr. Hardy addressed the Commission, - saying that it appears it was the concensus of the Commission to accept parcels 1 & 2, and that #3 & #4 have some desirability, certainly not at full credit; and finally that parcel #5 appears to have the least interest of any of Commission members. He stated he would like to see the City take all of the parkland proposed and he understood rationale for partial credit. He then stated his proposal to the Commission which included the City taking all five of the parkland parcels, and a cash amount of $100,000 to be bonded against the P.U.D. land. Chairman Martin questioned the bonding element as being unfamiliar and new to the Commission. Mr. Hardy explained that the developer would agree to having $100,000 added to the sale of bonds for utilities, which would strictly be for parks development. In this manner, the Parks Commission would get its $100,000 at the beginning of the process, along with the land, and could then develop the park simultaneously with the residential development. Cost of the bonds would be assessed against the property which would be paid off when the lots were sold. There was a great deal of discussion and question regarding this financing method; the Director of Parks & Recreation was asked for his opinion Adv. Parks & Rec. Comm. Page Three if this was workable. He stated the solution was workable, although it would have to be approved by the Finance Department and City Council. Mr. Martin stated that if it was agreeable to the City, he had no objections and felt it was a workable compromise and certainly fair to the City and developer. After further discussion, there was a motion by Masin, seconded by Mr. Caponi, to accept parcels 1 & 2 as parkland dedication, with the platting of the first two developments. All members voted in favor. Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. Sames relative to the P.U.D., that Commission recommend conceptual acceptance of parcels 3, 4, & 5 and a cash amount of $100,00 be financed by bonding if acceptable to the Director of Parks & Recreation and Finance. Second, that a trail system around the ponds in park #3 is feasible, with staff to review and negotiate the trail alignment. Third, in the event that funding in this method is unacceptable, parcels 3, 4, & 5 be returned to the Commission for further negotiations. All members voted in favor. ADJOURNMENT There being no additional agenda items, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 9:05 P.M. DA SECRET RY/ URER