The URL can be used to link to this page

03/06/1986 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionREMINDER 6:30 P.M. - PARK NAMES COMMITTEE MEETING (PRIOR TO 7:00 P.M. MEETING) EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 6:30 P.M. NAME COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M. COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6TH 1986 D. Old Business E. New Business F. Park Development G. Other Business and Reports H. Adjournment AG ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION CO 1►`SSION EAGAN, MI SOTA A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance B. Adopt Agenda and Approval of Minutes of February 6, 1986 C. Development Proposals 1. Park Knoll Tri -Land 2. LeMay Lake 2nd Addition 3. Lexington Place 3rd Addition 1. Bur Oak Hills Harstad Company 2. Park Dedication deferred from 2 /6/86 3. Park Service District #21 deferred from 2/6/86 1. Deerwood Frontage Road Name Suggestions 2. Golf /Batting Cage 3. Winter Program Report 1. Spring '86 Construction Cost Estimates 2. Athletic Site Ohman update 1. Proposed Park /School Site update 2. Brown Property Service Section 33 0 TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION CO SSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION DATE: MARCH 3, 1 986 RE: CH 6 ADVISORY Cr M_r:S ON ETING DE PROPOSALS There are three development proposals before the Commission. The first proposal is for Park Knoll Addition by Tri -Land Properties. Park Knoll is the platting of Outlot B, Oakwood Heights Addition. This plat is within Parks Service Section #26 as immediately north of Wilderness Run Road. Because it is part of the Lexington South P.U.D., there shall be no cash parks dedication requirement. A trailway along Wilderness Run Road, however, should be a condition of plat approval. Eagandale Lake Second Addition, a co ercial P.U.D., is the second item under Development Proposals. This proposed addition is immediately east of the LeMay Lake Appartments which have been under construction on Lone Oak Road. The entire plat is to be broken into six parcels, all of which are designated commercial usage. Therefore, a recommendation for a cash dedication consistent with the City's commercial /industrial dedication requirements is recommended. Staff is recommending that the P.U.D agreement also contain a provision for a trailway easement of 75' in width adjacent to LeMay Lake. This would allow for future consideration of construction of a trail extending to the LeMay Lake Apartments from the proposed acquisition of park property on the south end of LeMay Lake. Lexington Place Third Addition is a proposed replat of Outlot C of Lexington Place South. The Advisory Commission has previously reviewed this replat when proposed by U.S. Homes. Frontier Midwest is the new owner of this property and they too are proposing a replat, although they have significantly reduced the number of units being proposed and has limited grading to the existing contours. A separate memorandum has been prepared and included within the packet. OLD BUSI The first item under "Old Business" is Bur Oak Hills by Harsted Companies. The Commission had deferred action on this item from the February 6 meeting. As of the writing of this memorandum, staff has not received any submittals from the Harsted Company. The Director of Parks Recreation spoke with Mr. Merila on Friday the 14th. Earlier in the week, Parks Planner Sullivan had received a phone call indicating that revised plans had been sent. Inasmuch as the plans had not been received by the 14th, a call was made to Mr. Merila who then indicated plans had not yet been released. During the week of February 17th, a draft copy of the minutes of the Commission meeting of February 6 was sent to Mr. Merila's attention with a memorandum indicating that packet preparation for the March 6 Commission meeting would take place on Friday the 28th. Any revisions to development plans would be required by that time to give staff an opportunity for review. On Thursday the 27th, staff had a conversation with Mr. John Johnson of Merila and Associates concerning the parks with an indication that we would be hearing something perhaps yet that day or on Friday the 28th. A message was received on the 28th indicating that Mr. Briggs would be talking to staff. As of yet, this has not taken place. At this time we have no further information to provide to the Advisory Commission. This item will be scheduled for the City Council meeting scheduled for March 18. Item B under "Old Business" is Parks Dedication. This was deferred from the February 6 Commission meeting. Staff has attempted to reduce a very complex and involved issue into a few simple pages. It is likely there will be a great deal of discussion regarding the parks dedication and direction which the Commission would like to proceed. The materials have been included within this packet for your review. Item C concerns parks within Parks Service Section #21. This item has been deferred since January and is a study issue for the Advisory Commission. Again a memorandum has been prepared for the Commission which staff will enlarge upon with graphics at the Co ission meeting. The first item under "New Business" is the naming of the Deerwood frontage road. The Parks Name Committee will be meeting at 6:30 P.M. and hopes to develop some suggestions for the Commission's review. Item B concerns a golf /batting cage. This item was from an earlier discussion by the staff and Commission concerning Goat Hill Park. Preliminary cost figures have been prepared for discussion with the Advisory Commission. Item C is the Winter Program Report. Again a separate memorandum has been prepared and is included in the packet. There are several items for discussion by the Commission within this memorandum. Staff will be seeking Co ission's direction concerning these separate items. BUSI S PA DEVELO Item A under "Parks Development" includes review of the cost estimates for the five parks plans reviewed in February. These cost estimates have yet to be finalized because of the number of problems encountered in the detailed parks work. As of the writing of this memorandum, staff is not prepared to give a commitment that these cost estimates will be completed by the time of the Commission meeting. If not, it may require the Commission to meet again, perhaps within a week to review these cost estimates. The second item under "Parks Development" concerns the athletic site and the Ohman property update. A separate memorandum has been included for Coy rission review. Essentially, it appears that the Ohman property is to be developed by Derrick Land Comany which precludes the opportunity for the City to develop this as an athletic site. Please review the enclosed memorandum for additional information and alternatives for discussion by the Commission. OTHER BUSI S REPORTS The first item is an update on the joint park /school site aquisition on Wescott Road. This has taken another turn of events from the time that the Advisory Co ission reviewed it in February of which staff would like to keep the Commission advised. Item II is an update on activity within Parks Section #33 known as the Brown property or Walden Heights Park. There is little definitive information regarding this, but some activity appears to be taking place at this time. I have been asked to place on the agenda a request from Coachman Land Company to reduce /eliminate the requirement for a tot lot within its development. Staff has requested the developer and the homeowners to submit their request before presentation to the Advisory Commission. Inasmuch as this was a recent request, there would not have been time to prepare and submit a letter for inclusion within the packet. It is staff's understanding that this will be submitted in time for presentation to the Commission on Thursday evening. I have also received a letter from Sally J. Beauchemin regarding the desire to meet with the Advisory Commission to discuss the needs of horse owners in Eagan. The Director had a lengthy conversation with Ms. Beauchemin several weeks ago regarding this particular issue. She was requested to formalize and reduce her comments to a letter format which could be delivered to the Advisory Commission in advance of her meeting with you. This was not done; although a request was received during the preparation of the packet information for an opportunity to speak with the Commission. This item is now being placed under "Other Business and Reports" for visitors to be heard. As always, should members of. the Advisory Commission have any questions concerning any of the information in the packet or request additional data concerning any of the items, please feel free to contact my office. Respectfully submitt�.ed, w� W Director of Parks Recreation KV /hb 1 ES OF A REGI; R MEETING OF ADVISORY P RECREATION CO SSION EAGAN. SOTA FEBRUARY 6, 1986 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7 :10 P.M. Members present were Martin, Porter, Ketcham, Alt, Masin, Bertz, Kubik, Caponi and Thurston. Richard Carroll had notified staff he would be unable to attend. Also present were Parks Recreation Director, Ken Vraa; Landscape Architect /Parks Planner, Stephen Sullivan; Planner, Jim Sturm and Administrative Assistant, Liz Witt. Dorothy Peterson introduced newly -hired Recreation Supervisor, Paula Sunder, to the Commission. Chairman Martin welcomed newly- appointed Commission member, Bob Porter. Other guests were present to address specific items on the agenda. AG A Items were added to Park Developmet and Other Business. Commission member Thurston moved, Kubik seconded, that the agenda be approved as amended. The motion carried. OF J IARY 9, 1986 A correction was noted on page four that it was Commission member Alt, not Masin, who commented on three wheelers being operated on City streets. Sandy Bertz moved, Ketcham seconded, the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Parks Recreation Director, Vraa, called for nomination for Commission chairman. Roger Martin was the only nominee and was elected unanimously. Chairman Martin then called for nominations for vice- chair; Carolyn Thurston was nominated and elected by unanimous ballot. Chairman Martin then called for nominations for secretary. Richard Carroll was the lone nominee and elected by unanimous ballot. Following the election of officers the committee assignments were made. DEVELO PROP ALS A. STUART'S FIRST ADDITION STUART NO SUBJE TO PROVAL Planner, Jim Sturm, reviewed the development proposal for the Commission. He noted there are to be 144 rental units with a recreaiton building in an R -4 zoned district just west of Tomark near Lexington and Yankee Doodle Road. One bedroom units will rent for $575 and two bedrooms for $675 per month. Director Vraa said that Lexington Avenue is to be upgraded and that the City should recommend trail dedication along Lexington payable when the improvement takes place. Carolyn Thurston made the motion, seconded by Alt, to recommend cash dedication for the units and trail dedication on Lexington to be paid when Lexington is upgraded. All voted in favor. B. BUR 0 LLS RSTAD CO. 2 Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 Jim Sturm noted that proposal is the former South Delaware Hills P.U.D. It consists of 111 acres bounded by Hwys. 149 and 55 and Inver Grove Heights. The current proposal is for 204 single family homes all on lots of greater than 12,000 sq. ft. He said that Harstad Co. wishes to abandon the P.U.D. concept and proceed with R -1 zoning. The Planning Commission approved the proposal subject to concerns of the Parks Recreation Commission and amendment of the P.U.D. agreement. Planner Sturm said the Planning Commission approved the proposal after their concerns with cul -de -sacs and grading had been addressed. He noted that the park dedication has been sharply reduced from the original P.U.D. proposed dedication and that some of the proposed trail is lower than the high water elevation of 820'. Mr. Jim Merila, Registered Engineer for the Harstad Companies, then presented a brief slide show of other Harstad development and various shots of the Eagan site. He said the main access to the development would be off Highway 149. There would be an interior looped street, thus reducing the number of cul -de- sacs originally proposed. Mr. Merila noted there are 25 1/? acres of park and pond area, most of which are under the high water elevation of 820'. He said the Company worked with Eagan Parks Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to provide a concept plan for the proposed activity site in the NW corner of the 25 acres. The developer is prepared to do some grading and build retaining walls by the tennis courts. Mr. Merila cited a cost of $200 per lineal foot of roadway which would prohibit giving up 400 -600' for access purposes. He did say that the proposed ball field area is at the 820' level so it's conceivable that it could be under water some of the time. He did not think that this situation was unusual for ball fields in many communities. He noted the City has proposed to construct a pedestrian bridge along the south edge of Bur Oak pond which could connect to the trail in the development. Mr. Merila noted that the trail will be constructed at the 817' level even though that level is 3' under the 820' high water elevation. He noted that the pond itself is set at an 809' control level. He concluded by saying that the difference between the original and present proposal was an exchange of park along the eastern edge of the pond for a piece in the north and one in the south. Mr. Ken Briggs, Development Director for Harstad Companies then spoke to the Commission. He noted there are 100 less units with this proposal than with the original P.U.D. He said the neighbors are supportive and the Planning Commission gave unanimous approval. He stated further that there will be no P.U.D. arrangment with the proposal. He said that to meet code requirements, the developer is to give a certain amount of parkland period. Mr. Briggs stated that it would cost too much to provide a 600', or even a 400', access to the park as asked for by staff. He said the Harstad Companies is providing usable parkland of more than 10% and they have no further obligation. Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. Feruary 6, 1986 Commission member Bertz noted that the developer picked up at least 12 lots with the new park configuation and "gave" the City a small, steep parcel in exchange. She said the current proposal is not giving the City adequate usable parkland. The limited access does not allow for adequate parking. The proposed overlay of ball and soccer fields is dangerous. The developer gave pieces of land which are under water, have steep slopes or are on the pipeline. Mr. Briggs responded that the developer is meeting the required park dedication and how the City lays out the amenities is its responsibility, not the developer's. Chairman Martin addressed another concern that of the proposed trail set an an 817' level which is 3' less than the "100 year" high water elevation of 820'. He noted there is already an unusable trail around a pond in Eagan and he didn't want to have another. Chairman Martin said pond outlets are getting plugged with all the additional sediment from so much construction and now those ponds are always at the high water elevation. After additional discussion, Director Vraa showed the development with an overlay of water and topo features which impact a potential park. Of the 25.6 acres which the Harstad Companies proposes to dedicate, the pond area and area of greater than 14% slope amount to 19.6 acres. The remaining six acres are in three pieces of 2.9 acres, 1.8 acres and 1.3 acres. He reminded the Commission that water can be credited for 50% as long as 70% of it is above the high water mark. He felt the 1.8 acre parcel was not useful to either the developer or the City. Mr. Vraa said the developer had followed the letter of the law, but not the intent. Mr. Vraa continued. Because the developer insists on abandoning the P.U.D, the Commission should determine if this (his) proposal meets the 10% parkland dedication requirement. If not, what should be done so it meets City standards? He also stated that Parks Planning Consultant, Tim Erkkila, had called and stated that he did assist the developer with a park concept; but the developer changed the plan and Mr. Erkkila made it clear he has no ownership in the present plan. Director Vraa reviewed the specific concerns with the play area of the park saying that the developer did propose to do some grading and lower the height of the retaining walls. He voiced concern, however with the proposed parking lot location and proximity of the adjacent homes. He was also concerned with the overlay of ball /soccer fields and the location of the ball field under the high water elevation. He then showed staff proposed a concept plan for the park which moved the amenities to provide better utility access and greater road frontage. Ken Briggs objected to the staff plan. He said the Eagan code does not spell out specifics of parks dedication. The developer is required to give 11 acres which is 10% of a 111 acre parcel. The developer objects to taking of street frontage of 600' for access because that is over and above what is required. He felt there was no need to have open access to the park because the park was for the neighborhood. "Outsiders" should not be invited in via open access. Mr. Briggs cited a San Francisco Parks Planner who advocates little or no access to a park. Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 Chairman Martin said the developer is telling the City what land it can have for park and the Commission does not find the proposal acceptable. Carolyn Thurston said that the Commission is charged to provide quality parks. She noted it was apparent the developer was hung up on the use of street frontage for park access. Ms. Thurston said the City is interested in usable land for parks and the developer has taken all of the usable land for lots. Three small pieces have been provided, none of which really address the need for active parkland that has been demonstrated for that park service area. Mr. Briggs said Harstad Companies cannot develop the land and pay an additional one -half to three- fourths of a million dollars to accomodate road frontage for a City park. He said that if the Commission could not accept the present proposal, then the property will revert back to the old P.U.D. with its greater housing density. Commission member Caponi said that the City cannot use land and trails which are under water. He felt if the City accepted the parkland and trail as proposed, then the City would be faced with water problems and the developer would be long gone. Mr. Caponi noted that a good park will increase the value of surrounding land. Mr. Briggs said the parcel would be worth much more without a park. He said, further, that most people who live by parks hate them. He said the developer intended to deepen the pond, thus enlarging the storage capacity subject to approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Commission member Kubik noted there is an excess of land that the City cannot use for a park. He asked if there were a better piece somewhere on the parcel. Ken Briggs said that the developer had to pay for 25 acres of water and cannot afford to provide the road frontage staff had proposed. The concept plan proposed by Mr. Erkkila was then reviewed. Chairman Martin said that space is needed for active play and that he felt a larger road access than is being shown by the developer is necessary. He is apprehensive about the trail being placed at the 817' level in the first place. He thinks enlarging the pond's storage capacity might serve to raise the water level even more. Mr. Briggs said he would like to work with the Commission and if it's more space than they want for parks, the developer will provide it, but he won't provide it if he has to give up road frontage. George Kubik asked if it would be possible for staff to meet with the developer and see if there might be some alternatives which might be acceptable to the City and the developer and the Commission could look at it in March. Mr. Briggs said he intended to be on the February 18 City Council agenda regardless of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission's recommendation. 4 After further discussion, Commission member Caponi made a motion, seconded by Kubik, that staff meet with the developer to consider alternative designs to meet City needs. Staff should bring the following concerns to the discussion and return to the Commission in March: 1. There is a need for active parkland in the area. 2. The trail should not be below the 820' elevation. 3. There must be adequate access to the park. 4. There should be adequate, internal parking in the park. 5. Safety must be foremost when locating recreational amenities. The motion was approved unanimously. Commission member Kubik requested staff to review bounceback of the pond area, the potential for flooding and other related engineering data. Chairman Martin added erosion control to the review list. These issues will be included in the March agenda with the Bur Oak proposal. C. AD TED iHODIST sRCH The church is to be constructed south of the Westbury Addition and the contractor wishes to drain the site into Patrick Eagan Park. Director Vraa said the staff will be meeting with church representatives to provide for temporary drainage until Lexington Avenue is upgraded. George Kubik moved, Masin seconded, to recommend there be no cash dedication unless the use changes. Trail dedication is required, but would be postponded until Lexington is upgraded. The motion passed. D. K. C RLES DEVELOPMENT Planner Jim Sturm explained the proposal as 18,000 sq. ft. of strip shopping center with 13,000 sq. ft. in retail and 5,000 sq. ft. in food stores. The center will be located near the intersection of Duckwood and Crestwood. The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plat. Commission member Alt made the motion, seconded by Bertz, to recommend cash dedication for the center and the landscape plan as shown be implemented. The motion carried. E. UPDATE STURM Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 Planner Sturm stated that the Remick Addition by Highview Park had been approved while the Greensboro proposal was continued. Upcoming for the February Planning Commission agenda are: Lexington Third consisting of 10 lots; Park Knoll which is a single family development and a 23 acre site owned by Opus Corporation which might feature a long term residential hotel, a gas station, fast food and restaurant facilities. OLD BUSINESS A. PARK /SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION SECTION 14 Director Vraa explained the land survey completed for the site revealed that there is not as much land in the proposed site as originally thought. In order to make the site work, Mr. Vraa proposes the City and school district jointly purchase Parcel A, an adjoining five acre piece. The purchase price for Parcel A is reportedly $45,000. Stephen Sullivan described various concept plans utilizing Parcel A. He reaffirmed the need to acquire Parcel A because the surveyed parcel did not allow sufficient space for field distances, road access. Chairman Martin asked if the City was to participate in a partial or the entire purchase of Parcel A with the school district. Commission member Caponi asked who and how is the jointly -owned site administered. Director Vraa stated the school district was primarily concerned with siting the building, road, etc. leaving the City to be concerned with the rest of the land assuming both would work together. The director stated that he was hopeful that the district will buy the entire 33.05 acres and the City will purchase 11 from the district. Commission member Caponi made the motion, seconded by Kubik, to recommend that staff work with the district towards reaching a joint purchase agreement for up to one -third of the entire site and that the City have full use of the land. All voted in favor. B. PARK DEDICATION REVIEW This item was deferred to the next meeting. C. VOL EERS CONTRIBUTORS RECOGNITION CO _t$ REPORT Special Issues Committee Chair, Roger Martin, stated that the committee agreed that the people who are park volunteers should be honored or given some recognition. Included in the packet is a list of awards which might be given with a brief description of recipient qualifications. Awards range from a plaque to pens. Commission member Thurston moved, Bertz seconded, to approve the recognitions program as recommended. The motion carried. D. PARK LOCATION SECTION 21 This item was deferred to the next meeting. E. D LETTER D.•:OTA CO t BICYCLE TRAILS P A. ROAD N The Commission reviewed the original letter along with another which made some changes. Commission members were appreciative of the effort and on a motion by Kubik, seconded by Ketcham, approved the Caponi revised draft which will be submitted to the newspaper in March. Commission members were encouraged to write individual letters too. BUSINESS Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 A request had been received to name the connecting road into Blackhawk Park after former Mayor, Leo Murphy. There was some discussion, then the Commission referred the item to the Park Names Committee. Committee Chair, Richard Carroll, will set a meeting date soon. 6 B. 1986 B Director Vraa distributed the 1986 City budgets. the parks section. C. LETTER OF SUPPORT PRESID 'S CO SSION ON A. PARK S.' TER BUILDINGS PARK DEVELOP B. PARK CONCEPT P. REVIEW COST PROJECTIONS 7 Adv. Parks Rec. Comm.. February 6, 1986 He noted some corrections to ICAN 0 r.RS The President established a Commission to study the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities in the nation. The State of Minnesota then established a Commission of Minnesota Resources which will address Minnesota needs. Director Vraa recommends the City send a letter of support emphasizing the importance and continuing need to expand /improve recreational opportunities. Commission member Kubik moved, Martin seconded, to approve sending a letter of support for the federal and state commissions. The motion carried. Director Vraa and Landscape Architect, Stephen Sullivan, presented the new design for the park building at Goat Hill Park. The tower had been deleted and the resulting structure keeps the continuity with other Eagan park structures. The building was also shifted on the site to allow for a view of the pleasure skating rink. Commission members favored the new design, but were still concerned with the lack of windows for viewing the remaining play areas. After further discussion, Carolyn Thurston made a motion, seconded by Kubik, to approve the new design and requested that other exterior applications be explored to make it a more interesting building. The architects are to address the present lack of view of the play field by adding more windows and /or shifting the building on the site. All voted in favor. Director Vraa then reviewed the costs for the park shelter buildings. He said projected costs are $462,000 which include a $30,000 contingency. He asked for direction in case the bids went over estimate. After some discussion, Commission member Kubik moved, seconded by Bertz, to approve the encumberance of $462,000 from the Park Site Fund. The Commission is concerned with the total costs and will allow flexibility on individual structure costs. If total costs are unreasonably high, the Commission prefers to review again. All voted in favor. Blue Cross /Blue Shield Park The City will acquire 10.5 acres and not 12 with the acquisition to be completed within 60 days. One ball field was eliminated and the park access was relocated. Park Planner /Landscape Architect, Stephen Sullivan, described park amenities and locations of each. Director Vraa noted that the 10.5 acres appears sufficient and there is no significant benefit in acquiring all 12 acres with this revised plan. Member George Kubik moved, Martin seconded, to accept the Blue Cross /Blue Shield plan as presented. The motion carried. COAL /QUARRY HILL PARK Stephen Sullivan presented the concept plan for Quarry Hill Park. He noted it is very similar to what was originally proposed. George Kubik moved, Thurston seconded, to accept the plan for Quarry Hill Park as presented. The motion carried. Stephen Sullivan noted that plan is also similar to what was originally proposed. Internal trails are tied to the Highline Trail; there are sliding hills and a frog catching deck. The Commission was reminded that the two tennis courts were deleted in the bond proposed. Commission member Alt moved, Bertz seconded, to accept the plan for Meadowlands Park as presented. PILOT KNOB PARK Director Vraa stated there is a natural gas line fairly shallow in the ground. This means the establish a sufficient base for the hockey rinks three designs which would call for 10,000, 5,000 or 2,000 cubic yards of fill accordingly. The Commission discussed the three plans and preferred Alternate C which was the least expensive having the tot lots by the tennis courts and away from the road. On a motion by Caponi, seconded by Martin, the Commission recommended Alternate C be prepared as the preferred concept plan. The motion carried. SOUTH OAKS PARK This concept plan was modified somewhat because more accurate topos dictated change. There is only room for one tennis court unless the Commission saw the need to eliminate additional trees. There are some steep grades, but most of the area is very flat and more fill is needed to create drainage. A few oak trees will have to be removed and there will be a trail and stairs to the beach. It was noted that the canoe launch was not included so some shifting around will have to take place in order to accomodate it. Commission member Kubik moved, seconded by Ketcham, to accept the plan for South Oaks Park with the addition of a canoe launch. The motion carried. C. UPDATE 0 PROPE Director Vraa said that Mrs. Lemond has agreed to $13,000 per acre for 15 acres. There will be no written agreement until the estate is settled. There is no activity on the property to the north which Derrick Land Company is planning to develop. Chairman Martin expressed concern that a great deal of time has passed and still no athletic site. The Commission should relook at the property east of Highway 149 and make a decision if it can afford to risk the wait on the Ohmann parcel. An athletic site must be acquired soon. 8 Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 through the site and it lies City cannot grade enough to Stephen Sullivan presented A. UPDATE STORM S R DATED: 1 I` OTHER BUSI ROV NTS ADJOUR 9 S REPORTS PARK Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. February 6, 1986 This item was deferred to the next meeting. B. GOLF ING, BATTING CAGE This item was deferred to the next meeting. C. WINTER WE ND Chairman Martin asked that all members review the weekend schedule and volunteer to assist with at least one activity. Members should contact Dorothy Peterson with their preferences as soon as possible. Commission member Alt moved, Kubik seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Time of adjournment was 11:20. ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION SECRETARY CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT REZONING PARK KNOLL ADDITION APPLICANT: TRI -LAND PROPERTIES, INC LOCATION: SE4, SECTION 26 EXISTING ZONING: P.D. (LEXINGTON SOUTH) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 14, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING ENGINEERING APPLICATION: Two separate applications have been submitted request- ing 1) a rezoning of 6.6 acres from R -2 (double) to R -1 (single family) and 2) a preliminary plat for 15 lots in the area known as the Oakwood Heights Addition. ZONING LAND USE: This site is located north of Wilderness Run Rd and is bounded by Trapp Farm Park to the east, the Highline Trail to the north and west and the Oakwood Heights Addition also to the west. The 15 lots will give the Park Knoll Addition a density of 2.2 units per acre. The existing zoning would have allowed for 39 units at 6 units per acre. All lots meet or exceed the 12,000 S.F. code requirement and some along the Highline Trail are greater than 20,000 S.F. SITE PLANNING: Two of the proposed units in the Oakwood Heights Addition have been completed. This new plat will eliminate 2 of the existing building pads by creating 3 single family lots. All 15 lots will have access onto a loop road (Park Knoll Drive). This wooded site, consisting primarily of oaks, falls towards the south with a fairly uniform 20% slope. Since the soil is quite sandy, grading on this hillside will be kept to a minimum. The lots on the north side of the Park Knoll Dr have been designed so that a ravine between lots 7 8 will remain untouched. As a result, not all of the lots meet the 85' minimum width at the setback line. Variances for a 20' setback on lots 5, 6, 7, 8 9 are desired to reduce the grading of the hillside. The setback along Wilderness Run Rd is 35' and the existing buildings in the Oakwood Heights Addition will meet code setback requirements. PARK KNOLL ADDITION PAGE 2 GRADING: Prior to this preliminary plat application, the City approved a preliminary plat called the OakWood Heights Addition. This development requires substantial grading on the very steep northerly hillside of this area to provide for townhome /condominium sites. This development proposes single- family use and staying away from any grading on the very steep northerly side hill. Not having to disturb the side h i l l w i l l save a great deal of erosion problems in the future because of the sandy soils located in that side hill. The applicant's proposed grading plan is feasible and in accordance with City guidelines and codes. The applicant shall finalize the preliminary grading plan and submit it along with an erosion and sediment control plan prior to final plat approval. DRAINAGE: The applicant proposes to preserve the existing westerly drainage patterns over this parcel. To do this, the applicant will have to extend an existing 15" storm sewer pipe located near the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 2. This storm sewer runs through the Oakwood Heights 1st Addition into Pond LP- 50. As you can see from Figure 1, Pond LP -50 has an existing outlet to the south under Wilderness Run Road into Pond LP -46. However, Pond LP -46 presently has no outlet and staff has received several complaints from adjacent property owners regarding its high water level. The most recent water elevation staff has on this pond is 883.5 taken in November of 1985. This is 2 ft. over the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan's high water level. Council is considering the storm sewer outlets for Pond LP -46 along with other ponds in the Holland Lake area under Project #444R. The Council will probably be making a decision regarding Project #444R in April, 1986. Because of the importance of installing a control gravity outlet to Pond LP -46 to control the water level prior to adding any more runoff from additional developments, staff recommends that a condition of final plat approval be that Council approve Project #444R. UTILITIES: Trunk water main and trunk sanitary sewer are in place within Wilderness Run Road. These lines have the necessary capacity and depth to provide service to this development. STREETS: Wilderness Run Road abutts the southerly boundary of this proposed development. The City's Master Thoroughfare Plan classifies this roadway as a community collector street. Presently, Wilderness Run Road is constructed to an interim 34' wide roadway. When warranted, Wilderness Run Road will be upgraded to a 44' wide roadway with concrete curb and gutter and built to 9 -ton standards. Part of the City collector street standards require the installation of a trailway along it. For Wilderness Run Road, the location for this trailway is along the north side. This trailway should be the responsibility of this development. Although the internal "U- Shaped" street will provide good access and circulation for this small development, staff recommends against providing two bubbles at the corners. These bubbles will PARK KNOLL ADDITION PAGE 3 not provide any benefit to any of the lots and will create additional pavement area for future City maintenance. Figure 2 shows what this street would look like with a 70' outside radius and 20' inside radius. Although the applicant did not show the intersection of Sudberry Lane with Wilderness Run Road on his submittal drawings, staff researched this and found that Sudberry Lane is located about 125' east of the west intersection of Park Knoll Drive and 205' west of the east intersection of Park Knoll Drive and Wilderness Run Road. The City code requires a minimum of a 125' offset between center lines. While the preliminary plat indicates sufficient distance, the Council should not approve the final plat until the exact distance is known. RIGHT -OF- WAY /EASEMENTS: This development will be responsible for dedicating a 40' half right -of -way for Wilderness Run Road. The 50' full right -of -way for Park Knoll Drive meets minimum City codes and is acceptable to staff on the condition of eliminating the bubbles and providing a 20' radius for right -of -way on Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1. This 20' radius is necessary because when building a roadway within a narrow right -of -way, the curb radius would be located as such that no boulevard would exist between the lot corner and the street. The applicant shall provide a 20' utility easement for the storm sewer between Lots 3 and 4. PERMITS: The applicant will be responsible for obtaining approvals or permits from the following agencies: 1. MPCA sanitary sewer extension. 2. Mn. Dept. of Health water main extension. 3. MWCC sanitary sewer extension. ASSESSMENTS: Our assessment records indicate that the City has assessed all trunk area related assessments, including lateral benefit, to this parcel, with the exception of trunk area storm sewer. As a condition of final plat approval, this development shall accept its responsibility for trunk area storm sewer on the net area of this proposed development. At 1986 rates, this would amount to $12,500 (250,000 sq. ft. x $0.05 per square foot). Staff will determine the final assessment amount based on the final plat area and the rates in effect at the time of final platting. All costs associated with internal streets and utilities, plus the trailway construction along Wilderness Run Road, will be the sole responsibility of this development. PARK KNOLL ADDITION PAGE 4 CONDITIONS: 1. This development shall comply with all applicable general engineering conditions. 2. Council shall approve Project #444R to provide a positive gravity outlet from Pond LP -46 prior to final plat approval. 3. Park Knoll Drive shall not contain any "bubbles" and the intersection with Wilderness Run Road shall be offset at least 125' from the center line of Sudberry Lane. 4. The right -of -way have a 20' radius on Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1 where Park Knoll Drive turns. 5. This development shall dedicate a 40' half right -of -way for Wilderness Run Road and a 50' full right -of -way for Park Knoll Drive. 6. This development shall dedicate a 20' drainage and utility easement over the lot line between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2. 7. This development shall be responsible for its trunk area storm sewer assessments at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 8. This development shall be responsible for the costs for the internal streets and utilities and also for the trailway along Wilderness Run Road. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits or approvals as referenced in the report. 10. A blanket variance be granted for a 20' front setback for lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 11. All standard plat conditions shall be adhered to. BP -34 988 0 (006 0 PAr,K VIEW F CCRJRS E 81 8 7 830 0 4 859.4 "TUI 8652 kl-dd JP Jr 884,0 JP-53 JP-22 891.9 864,0 820.7 i 8 jd 0 AGFO%' 6804 8400 PARK JP-29 LP 926 0 855.0 945 0 2'. -1 r x 896.0 JP -27' VJF -2 1 3 3. i 1 8580 904.0 i ‘1K7 ;NC L',1:RC LP- i8 9086 9107 L 0 LP-64 sa OAKS LP PARK 886.3 ovERH1L 8896 ;F4F0t STORM SEWER MASTER PLAN standard approved: plate .OAKS FAFK OVERHILU' SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: CITY OF EAGAN REZONING PRELIMINARY PLAT EAGANDALE LE MAY LAKE 2ND ADDITION OPUS CORPORATION (RESIDENCE INN) PART OF THE NW4, SECTION 10 NB (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, GB (GENERAL BUSINESS) R -4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE) FEBRUARY 25, 1986 FEBRUARY 20, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING ENGINEERING DEPTS APPLICATION SUBMITTED: The first application is a request to rezone from NB neighborhood business), GB (general business) R -4 (residential multiple) to a commercial planned development which would include some neighborhood business uses restaurants, retail sales and gasoline service facilities. LB (limited business) use for a 72,000 S.F. office facility and RB (roadside business) which would allow 120 room hotel Residence Inn. This entire commercial planned development would consist of approx. 20.5 acres. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this 20 acre parcel as an LB (limited business) site and some of the uses fit the LB category, however, most uses are proposed asa higher intensity use than an LB. Some of the commercial /retail uses are in conformance with the existing zoning on the property. One of the major differences is that the southerly triangle of the property is presently zoned R -4 (residential multiple) and the proposed office building would be consistent with the Comp. Guide designation of LB. The majority of the retail is of a higher intensity than the LB (limited business) district. The one use that does not fit the zoning or the Comp. Guide would be the 120 room Residence Inn Hotel facility. It has been integrat- ed into the overall commercial plan through the planned development process. SITE PLAN: The property is bordered by Lone Oak Rd on the north, 35 -E on the east, LeMay Lake Apartments on the west LeMay Lake to the south. The Opus Corp. submitted an overall sketch plan as to how they foresee this parcel developing with the detailed development plan of LeMay Lake to the west. It was decided that only one access would be used to service both the multiple project and the proposed commercial project on the east. This 20 acre parcel would have access provided by a loop street where six lots would be created for six specific uses. These uses are as follows: 1. A service station facility of approx. 3,000 S.F. 2. Retail strip commercial facility approx. 22,000 3. Three restaurant facilities ranging from 10,000 S.F. to 4,000 S.F. both being the sit down fast food category. OPUS CORP EAGANDALE LE MAY LAKE 2ND ADD FEBRUARY 25, 1986 PAGE 2 4. A Residence Inn containing approx. 4.4 acres and having 120 rooms. 5. An office building of four floors and 72,000 S.F. The applicant is proposing to plat 6 individual lots of which the major emphasis will be on the lot containing the Residence Inn. The detailed site plan, lot 1, block 1, will consist of 4.4 acres and contain a 120 room Residence Inn with lot coverage 21.6 The Residence Inn facility is an extended stay hotel of which the average length of stay would be seven days. The site plan consists of 16 buildings, 15 eight -plex units and one gate house which contains approx. 3,000 S.F. for a common office meeting area to be used by the residents. The gate house will have a full basement for storage and laundry facilities available for the residents use. The buildings are clustered around an interior courtyard effect with general parking and circulation on the outside around the perimeter of the lot area. As mentioned earlier, each unit will be a suite. One out of every four will be a penthouse suite which would contain two bedrooms, two bathrooms cooking facilities and a fireplace. It is staff's understanding that all units will contain fireplaces and all units will have full cooking facilities. The required parking for the 120 unit hotel would be 135 parking spaces. The applicants are proposing 144, approx. 9 above City Code requirements. There will be a 20' green area from the interior loop roadway with 3 accesses onto Eagandale Place. Good circulation for this facility has been provided. They are providing a common court walk area with an outdoor swimming pool and hot tub facility. The buildings are proposed to be two story, gabled roof with each unit having an exterior entrance from the courtyard area. The setbacks between buildings are approx. 10' to allow pedestrian movement. This setback between buildings is being reviewed by the Bldg. Dept. so that setbacks for fire protection are met. The applicants will be present at the Feb. 25th meeting with a slide presentation to better inform the APC on the concept of the Residence Inn. At the present time, the major emphasis of this proposed development is placed on the Residence Inn. The other 5 lots are set up to be platted as lots, however, the detailed site plans will be reviewed prior to any of the building permits being issued. The applicants have indicated that as a condition of this plat, the site plans could be reviewed by the APC and City Council prior to permits. Consequently, no detailed review has been done on the remaining lots with the exception that when lot 4 is platted, it should be split into two in order to accomodate the two buildings proposed. OPUS CORP EAGANDALE LE MAY LAKE 2ND ADD PAGE 3 GRADING /DRAINAGE: The applicant graded most of this site using excess material generated from the I -35E construction in 1983 and 1984. The proposed grading plan is basically a refinement on the existing site grades to accommodate more specific uses as proposed by the applicant. The preliminary grading plan the applicant submitted appears to meet all City codes for grading. This area is located within Major Drainage District D as shown on Figure 1. The site development grading on this site will require construction of storm sewer throughout the site to handle parking lot drainage and street drainage. Under City Contract 85 -7, the City installed a 54" storm sewer line down Eagandale Place to provide adequate capacity for upstream areas and this site. This new line is suited to handle the flow from this proposed development site. The City will not have to construct any new trunk storm sewer as a result of this development going in. UTILITIES: Also under City Contract 85 -7, the City installed water main and sanitary sewer within Eagandale Place. If the City approves this project, then the water main and sanitary sewer can easily be extended into this site to provide necessary service for this area. Staff would like to see the water main from Eagandale Place extended easterly to connect to an existing 12" water main located near the northeast corner of this proposed development as a condition of approval. This connection would benefit this area by improving water flow characteristics. STREETS: Eagandale Place is an existing City street built to its ultimate design which provides access to this proposed development. The City also constructed this street under Contract 85 -7. It will be this development's responsibility to remove the existing turn around on Eagandale Place and extend the street in a circular fashion to loop back onto itself as shown on the proposed submittal drawings. Staff recommends this roadway width be 36' wide with no parking on either side. Staff recommends that driveways on the internal street for future developments meet the following criteria: 1. Where possible, driveways opposite each other shall line up. 2. A 75' offset will be required for driveways which cannot be made to line up. 3. There shall be a minimum of a 100' separation between driveway center lines on the same side of the street. OPUS CORP EAGANDALE LE MAY LAKE 2ND ADD PAGE 4 PERMITS: The applicant for this development will be responsible for obtaining the following permits or approvals if the applicant chooses to install public utilities under a private contract: 1. MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit. 2. MWCC sanitary sewer extension approval. 3. Mn. Dept. of Health water main extension approval. RIGHT WAY /EASEMENTS: The 60' right -of -way the applicant is proposing to dedicate for Eagandale Place presents no problems for staff because they are dedicating an additional 20' drainage and utility easement adjacent to the public right -of -way. In addition to the easements required by code, this development will be responsible for dedicating a 20' easement over the water main segment looping to the northeast of this site, which is not located within City right -of -way. ASSESSMENTS: In researching the City's assessment records, portions of Parcels 010 -01 and 020 -26 and all of Parcels 030 -26 and 010 -04 were assessed at the multiple rate for trunk area water assessments in 1976 for Improvement #179. Staff proposes that this development be responsible for the upgrading of the trunk water assessment from multiple family to commercial /industrial over the portion of Parcel 020 -26 that was assessed at the multiple rate and also over the entire portion of 030 -26 and 010 -04, which were also assessed at the multiple rate. The following table summarizes the amounts based on 1986 rates. Description ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE Est'd 1986 Quantity Rate Amount Trunk Water Area Upgrading 010 -04 0.14 Ac $1,830/Ac (1) 256 020 -26 3.44 Ac 1,830/Ac (1) 6,295 030 -26 5.43 Ac 1,830/Ac (1) 9,937 (1) Commercial /Industrial Rate Multiple Rate TOTAL $16,488 OPUS CORP EAGANDALE LE MAY LAKE 2ND ADD PAGE 5 Staff feels that Parcel 010 -01 has fulfilled its obligations regarding trunk area storm sewer. Staff's reasoning is because the original parcel contained 20 acres with 17.6 acres being assessed at the commercial /industrial rate and the remaining 2.4 acres being assessed at the multiple rate. It would be extremely difficult to determine where the multiple rate was assessed in relation to the residue left after the I -35E taking. Because of the small area (1.92 Acres net) assessed at the multiple rate, staff feels the remaining parcel of 010 -01 has fulfilled its obligation for trunk area water main assessments. This development will be responsible for all costs associated with the construction of internal utilities and streets. CONDITIONS: 1. A Planned Development Agreement be entered into the concept plan for the six (6) lots be the exhibit to be followed for the Planned Development. 2. This development is impacted by the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance and shall be reviewed by the Dept. of Natural Resources for their comments prior to final plat approval. 3. The plat shall be subject to the Park Commission's review for trail access and park dedication. 4. A determination shall be made as to whether a Comp. Plan amendment would be required for this development proposal. 5. Any Conditional Use Permits such as 4 story buildings, pylon signs or drive -thru facilities shall be made with separate applications. 6. An overall architectural theme shall be established and control- led signage should be taken for this total development. 7. All plat conditions shall be adhered to. 8. This development will be responsible for complying with all applicable general engineering conditions. 9. This development will be responsible for looping the water main within Eagandale Place to the existing water main at the northeast corner of this development. 10. This development shall dedicate a 60' right -of -way for Eagandale Place. 11. A 20' drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent all public right -of -way. 12. A 20' utility easement shall be dedicated over the water main not located within City right -of -way. 13. All driveways which cannot be made to line up shall be offset a minimum of 75' and there shall be a minimum of 100' separation between driveways. 14. No driveway shall be constructed closer than 100' to the curb line extension of the street intersection. 15. This development will be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals and permits if utilities are constructed under private contract. 16. This development shall be responsible for the trunk water area upgrading assessment at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 17. This development shall be responsible for the costs of all internal streets and utilities. aaV A `J z LJ EACANDALE BLVD, Z 0 EAGANDALE LE AY LAKE 2ND ADDITION Woo.. u., ,m 0,1710, 0 oaf ft. MINARY PLAT OF: Raver LAKE LE MAY soi fro 4 aeon Hotel 120 Rooms 4 Acres Ea.andale Phce Fast F 4,000 Sq. F 1.3 Ac Restaurant 8,000 Sq. F 1.1 Acres Eagandale Blvd. ELMHE Q 7 ©E[ LEMAY LAKE DEVELOPMENT ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN OPUS CORPORATION NNW INC, 700 THIRD $711111 SOUTH MINNIAPOLU MN NORTH JAN. 71, 1111 070 -0700 Lemay Lake Restaurant 10,000 Sq. Ft. 2.5 Acres Retell 22,000 Sq. Ft. 2.4 Acres ke Apartments L? !/r z z W r U 0 z W yWz zU? W Q Q w L Lvd 3OVid 31VaNVDV3 ax 0 Zw ZZ wZ_ Z ¢U2 aoQZ w?< }'G W¢w Z z c}? ww w z U Y Q Ya Z & O Y ma 1 e.— ar 6 17. Weera even ta (60%. Ira doe a. itaar..ar, isa OM It, stSert11,0 Crenif .646 sat411 4.01 two 01, SI. ire 0) LW.. tat Mt NOMA, B0 6,470 (Mot. 0,1 LI a. ■L, em Les Es. taarrw 401a 4 i■er 6, V) tea. in,are attn Imam ./o0 ta NO, *ft MICoMMOR l01. 140. PMELIMINARY PLAT OF: EAGANDALE LEMAY LAKE 2ND ADDITION L-54 eSt (0,COVES11° I I r E-_,n•L1:,.[:-.1-,L..Eir 1 ;7 F,■ 1 ,r 1-- 11 r-A I 1 I 31 IL../1 LE tlovreti 9 a oF 4 .1. 61.CP184, 4 arwat *Ls., Letseagers NE //q p 1\‘ gdC Illwrlotryloug •1 .0 -1 0.3 1.0 C-k POST NO 3 SCH OOL 24" DP-17 N 0 880.0 DP-2 874.0, A., H> L- ACH PARK COD TRY s■ P I a- 876.0 875.2 POPPL HOME A k" ts. DP- 4 874 8 L.S.-7 DooDL q‘oAD lo I DP-20 D 901 0 DP 904 2 DP- 7 2 0 I 897.6 1/4, '0'1 E PXRK, 882 2 ACM 893A D -11-■ 2" 1 PILQT 9 1 890 0 x"---> p 1 0 C 8 E 8 NT 0 E RC:Cv",i L 871 OL 44A, 7a VP-47' 851,7 ''C 844.0 4 PARK DP 857.3 866.5 12" DP-19 884 0 eso.o s PT SER\ 860.0 87/.7 I 84.5 JP 815.7 830.0 EAGANDAL 5--Tft TER I( NO. 2 1 E-tLONE OAK 24 NpAir 7:71 GAiiCENS 24" F7T e+CEtt tt.Nrittv C'g v- ri is C 825.0 2n,1 .JP-2 85/.5 .1■ city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GH; :VIE -h JP 5 823,6- 834,0 i 5 SUBJECT PARCEL STORM SEWER MASTER PLAN DP- 11 8560 864.4 8391 L Ex F-d\ 1 CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF D19 873.0 882.0 DP-5 838.3, 655.4; _(00. RD, 28 8 DP ,IY60.0 858.3 862.8 (2Nrit EP 3 .1,21 877.2 876.3 6 CI) P '2 5 1 1 1Si N 886.4 ,REACE; i ........‹.....64-81 1 _1 ■_.,.2: 8 JP ,7 :7---;, "JP 8955 0 r, 8871 893 TMLY;v as 893 .5 12" 411.1 8851 J P 63 ir 899,7 s c.: JP 900.7 w ft 885 JP t. 8 8p9,9 774 i 88 868. I F 87 t.1 1 __9,=...SCJI-T ROAD ‹t ,.--,--,,-1r---..----------7,. .=i approved: FIG. +1 standar plate SUITE BUILDING (COVERED STAIRS) ...1!1 SO 01.111•111111.10 MOON, seam*" 011.111■•■■ 1111N•1•11111114•■ 1011100.111■11111.11111111111111111/ .01,110.1111114110111•1111141.111• 1......1.7 STUDIO MN Milo MOS 00 I ao•Z: mos. orometosso IF 40 •■■•••■■1111. Z DRESSING STUDIO KITCHEN „STUDIO GROUND FLOOR PLA 0" SUITE BUILDING MEZZANINE P N STUDIO PENTHOUSE 1111111 11isto" tp• ♦IIIt1 1 #1 I ECH. AT PENTHOUSE STUDIO P AN TE RUI NC February 28, 1986 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: MARCH 3, 1986 RE: LEXINGTON PLACE SO D DITION BACKGRO The City has received a preliminary plat application for Lexington Place South 3rd Addition by Frontier Midwest, who has acquired the property from U.S. Homes Corporation, the original developer of this P.U.D. This development is in parks service section 14 and is immediately east of Lexington Avenue. Frontier Midwest is proposing to develop outlot C, Lexington Place Second addition into 8 new lots, while replatting two additional lots. Originally, outlot C was designated as "open space" to be under ownership of a Home Ownership Association. HISTORY Back in March 1982, the property owned by U.S. Homes was zoned R -4 residential multiple. In March of 1984 U.S. Homes replatted and rezoned a portion of the site known as Lexington Place South into an R -1 P.D. residential single family district which allowed for 134 single family homes. The replat was a new concept which included zero lot lines with a common easement between dwelling units. In this proposal there were two outlots outlot A, and outlot C which were to be considered as passive, open space. This open space was to eventually be under the ownership of a Homeowners Association which would control and develop the outlots with parklike amenities. Between April and May of 1985, U.S. Homes and again approached the C: propose the replat of outlots A and C, creating approximately 19 new This was subsequently reduced down to 16. y to ots. The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal at a July, 1985 Commission meeting. (See attached minutes pages 2,3,4 of July 11, 1985 Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission) In brief, the Advisory Commission failed to pass a motion to retain the open space as provided in outlots A and C; then passed a motion reco ending to the City Council that would reduce the number of lots in outlot C,(and reduce the amount of area filling in the pond) while maintining outlot A as proposed open space. PROPOSAL Lexington Place South 3rd Addition, which is being proposed for replat by Frontier Midwest, would create 8 new lots within Lot A. All lots exceed the 12,000 square foot minimum lot size. Two lots are being replatted along Falcon Way to absorb an area previously designated as an access or walkway point to the outlet. PARKS DEDICATION REQUIREMc4 S The attached planning memorandum indicates that the parks dedication fee has been fulfilled. This is incorrect and, if the City approval for this preliminary plat application is given, it should be subjected to a cash dedication requirement. FOR COMMISSION ACTION The Commission should review the proposed preliminary plat entitled "Lexington Place 3rdddition", and make a recommendation concerning platting of outlot C its associated parks dedication. eee Ken linaa KV/bls enclosure rector of Parks and Recreation B. Lexington Place South Addition Director of Parks Recreation Vraa indicated that members Martin and Kubik had recently visited the parcels in question for a visual inspection. Roger then presented a brief slide presentation to show the two outlots and surrounding vegetation. Mr. Bob Hoffman, speaking on behalf of U.S. Homes, traced the history of the platting of D.S. Homes from 1982 in which the original proposal was for 8-4 development. He stated at that time the Advisory Commission indicated they did not wish to have parkland within the development. He went on to say that the area south of Duckwood was then replatted into single family homes. He again indicated the Commission did not want parkland. Mr. Hoffman completed his presentation by saying the current outlots are owned by U.S. Homes which now wishes to plat them for the purpose of showing ownership of the outlots. Roger Martin questioned how much fill is currently in place and how much will go into the various ponds in order to create these lots. He went on to say that apparently there is a lot of fill encroachment in the ponding areas and the Commission has a concern and sees the need for wildlife and maintenance of vegetation and its habitat. He stated this fill would also increase the pond height with a negative affect on the aesthetic quality which would not be a benefit to Eagan and these residents. Commission member Carroll questioned Mr. Hoffman's comments regarding the Parks Recreation's previous recommendation not to accept parkland. He stated that the Commission was reacting to O.S. Homes proposals which in fact provide for open space and park amenities with the multiple development as well as the single family platting. Chairman Martin questioned that if U.S. Homes owned the outlots at present, why not continue to own the outlots and maintain them for the association? He said that U.S. Homes had made an agreement with the City and should be held accountable to that agreemeot. Mr. Hoffman stated that the open space amenities were to be under a private ownership for the amenities that were to be provided. The Commission did not give park credit for these amenities even though U.S. Homes had requested such. He went on to say that 90% of the area in question would remain as is, but that only lO% of the area would be filled in order to create the lots. Mr. Chuck Winden, Planner for U.S. Homes, was present and responded to a series of questions regarding fill. Member Tom Ketcham said that U.S. Homes is bound to an agreement to place the tennis courts and swimming area or be in default of the development contract. He questioned what other areas U.S. Homes would not be fulfilling as previously agreed to. Commission member Carroll stated the reduction in density and the changing of development approaches by U.S. Homes was a request 2 Adv. Parks Rec. Comm July 11, 1985 to the City and that the City decided to give approvals based on U.S. Homes request. He questioned how the current proposal differed from previous requests seen last month. Mr. Hoffman responded that U.S. Homes had made a reduction of three lots. In response to a question from the Commission, the Director of Parks Recreation explained problems associated with replatting the entire Lexington South Addition and extension of lot lines through Outlot A. Chairman Martin again asked why O.S. Homes could not own the outlots. Mr. Hoffman responded that U.S. Homes would probably not maintain them once the residential lots are sold, the outlots will be abandoned and fall back to the City. He stated that it was his impression the City wishes to avoid this type of maintenance responsibility. Chairman Martin questioned why Outlot A was already partially filled. U.S. Homes responded that in order to place the roadways and right— of—way, a portion of' this ponding area was filled in. Mr. Windom indicated that all grades are in accordance with the approved plan for the Lexington South Addition. Commission member Fedde questioned what the maintanence cost for the outlots by area would be per year. Director Vraa responded that no figures are available, but that such costs would be minimal if the area were properly graded. Member Fedde questioned why the developer could not be obligated to put money into an annuity to help offset maintenance cost. There was no response by U.S. Homes. Chairman Martin recommended that the outlots remain as open space as was previously agreed to. Member Kubik stated that the current proposal does provide significant fill and land alteration, loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat and general desirability of the area. Mr. Hoffman responded that there would be minimal loss and the current plan provides for large lots and should, in effect, maintain the open space area but under ownership of single family homes. This would be a benefit to the area. Mr. Kubik responded that the benefit to B-4 and to the single family is not necessarily a benefit to the City as it is to U.S. Homes. Member Kubik suggested that perhaps the amount of fill could be reduced on Outlot A and blended into the existing environment if there was reduction in the number of lots. Mr. Hoffman questioned the Commission that what if the development did not fill in the pond at all. Martin said, "Why not create three lots in lieu of five, therefore, preserving the pond and echo system". A variance may be required to provide less front yard setback to allow for a building pad. D.S. Homes indicated this may be a possibility. Mr. Martin indicated that the Commission had spent a considerable amount of time on this issue and that a consensus be formed. Member Kubik indicated he liked the concept of platting Outlot A into fewer lots and giving a setback which would give ownership of the outlots to single family residents and maintain the pond and echo systems. Commission member Fedde stated that the outlots could be maintained and that the City would eventually maintain the property or require the developer to put money into an annuity for maintenance. Commission member Carroll said reduction in the number of lots in Outlot A is a reasonable alternative. Member Ketcham felt that U.S. Homes should revise the entire plan in return. Member Alt said the entire area should be left as open space. Member Thurston expressed concern about the loss of open space and fill in the pond under the existing proposal. After additional discussion by the Commission concerning fill and open space as well as ownership, Chairman Martin made a motion to recommend that Outlots A and C stay as previously proposed; the motion was Adv. Parks Rec. Comm. July 11, 1985 seconded by Alt and failed by a 3 to 5 vote. Member Martin then made the motion that Outlot C remain as proposed and Outlot A have the number of lots reduced by two and that the City provide a variance for lot frontage on one lot. The motion was seconded by Fedde who added that the objective would be to reduce the amount of fill in the pond to increase open space. The motion passed 8 to O. Immediately following the action of the Commission, Commission member Kubik suggested that the Commission inform the Council via letter, using the current situation as an example, regarding the ackwardness of these types of situations and how the Commission reacts accordingly to the development proposal. It was suggested that Council understand the Commission's concern for open space and the maintenance of quality of Eagan's land forms. Mr. Martin and Mr. Kubik indicated that they would prepare a letter on behalf of the Commission regarding this issue. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT LEXINGTON PLACE SOUTH 3RD ADDITION APPLICANT: FRONTIER MIDWEST LOCATION: SW4, SECTION 14 EXISTING ZONING: P.D. LEXINGTON SOUTH DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 14, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING ENGINEERING APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a preliminary plat for 10 single family lots in the Lexington South Planned Development, north of Wescott Rd and east of Lexington Av. COMMENTS: Originally this site was intended to be an amenity /pool area for the residents of the Lexington South Development as proposed by Orin Thompson. This new plat has been designed around the existing easements and the homes will contain approx. 1,000 S.F. with the style being the same as the others in the development. All 73 lots within Lexington Place 2nd have been sold and 35 are built. The remaining, as well as these proposed lots, should have occupancy by July. Lexington Place 3rd has already been graded. The site layout will create 2 lots fronting on Falcon Way and 8 lots on a new cul -de -sac connecting to Blue Jay Way. All lots will exceed the 12,000 S.F. code requirement. The width on the cul -de -sac lots vary from 62' to 88' at the setback line. Lots 4 5 (along Falcon Way) exceed all R -1 code requirements. The park dedication fee has been fulfilled.i GRADING /DRAINAGE: The existing topography over this site is fairly flat with slopes generally less than 5%. The main grading consideration will be to maintain a 2' vertical grade separation between the high water elevation for Pond JP -46 and Pond JP -62. Pond GP -45 borders the eastern edge of this parcel and has a high water elevation of 897.3. Pond JP -62 borders the westerly portion of this development along Lexington Avenue and has a high water elevation of 895.5. As a result, the minimum basement elevations for Lots 1 through 6 should be 899.3, while the minimum basement elevations for Lots 7 through 10 should be 897.5. This development will not require constructing any subsequent downstream trunk storm sewer. UTILITIES: An 8" sanitary sewer line serving the Lexington Place South Addition north of this site almost bisects this development. The sewer is deep enough and has sufficient capacity to allow this development to construct services off of it. The water main will have to be looped from Blue Jay Way to connect to the existing 4" water main at the north end of Lot 4. Staff does not recommend removing the existing 4" line to Falcon Way and replacing it with a 6" line for the following reasons: 1. The head loss through this short section of pipe is not significant. 2. The 4" main will provide the looping benefit with the 6" main providing the fire flow and direct usage benefit. STREETS: Blue Jay Way borders this development on the north and Falcon Way borders Lots 4 and 5 of this development on the south. Both streets are built to their ultimate residential design standards. The cul -de -sac off of Blue Jay Way is how the applicant proposes on accessing Lots 1 through 3 and 6 through 10. This cul -de -sac is within City Code for length. PERMITS: This development will be responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals from the Department of Health for the water main extension. Because only sewer services are necessary, it will not be necessary to obtain MPCA approval. RIGHT WAY /EASEMENTS: The applicant proposes to dedicate a 50' right -of -way street with a 55' radius cul -de -sac. The code requires a 60' radius for cul -de -sacs. However, staff would recommend that the Commission consider the 55' radius request in this instance for the following reasons. 1. A 60' radius would push Lots 8 through 10 closer to Pond JP -62 and Lots 3, 6 and 7 closer to the platted lots within Lexington Place South Addition. 2. The 55' radius still allows for a 10' boulevard which meets the Engineering Department's minimum requirements for boulevards. This development would be responsible for dedicating a 20' utility easement over the water main not constructed within City right -of -way. ASSESSMENTS: City assessment records indicate all trunk area related assessments over this site were spread over all the lots within the Lexington Place South Addition, thereby completing this development's responsibilities for trunk area related assessments. All costs associated with the internal sanitary sewer services, water main and services, and street will be the sole responsibility of this development. The new development will be responsible for 1/4 of the residential equivalent street assessment rate along Lexington Avenue for future improvements to Lexington Avenue. The 1/4 residential equivalent rate is being applied to all new R -1 developments which do not direct access onto but abut arterial streets. At the 1986 rates, this would amount to $3,283 (389 f.f. x $8.44/f.f.). Staff will determine the final amount using the rates in effect at the time of final platting. CONDITIONS 1. To suit the necessary freeboard requirements, the minimum basement elevation shall be 899.3 for Lots 1 through 6 and 897.5 for Lots 7 through 10. 2. This development shall loop the water main from Blue Jay Way to the existing water main on the north end of Lot 4. 3. This development shall be responsible for complying with all standard engineering requirements that are applicable. 4. This development shall dedicate a 20' utility easement over the water main not located within such right -of -way. 5. This development shall be responsible for lateral street assessments for Lexington Avenue at 1/4 the residential rate in effect at the time of final platting. CARRIAGE .,HILLS 4 GOLF COURSE 7,7PF or sac 0,00 t (3fN3AV NO.DNIX31 CO •0N 0 ON .t1Nnoo G JP-4 24 A 8 ,5' fti JP-5 '1 1 823.8 834.0 I 4' C1T 80.S "11 HALL 1111 111/1 82013 8. 830 0 t I JP-6' BP-28 862 6 1 1 1 JP-49 868 0 It KOVD4LE 818 1 98 a b 8300 JP 36 -1 7 1 22 870 6 j p,_ 35 4p 7 1 873.2 4 859 rcii 872.4 865 2 2 BP 882.1 886.0 BP 3 874 5 886.5 JP 819 2 r 8740 12 872.0 874.5- 830 0 875.0, 00, 858.0 13P 792.3 901.0 -3 DP 860.0 "1..^ 6 58.5x 862.8 2 8930 2 0 .111 1 7..1/4.........!.' 5 i 844.0 56 1 871.0 6118 11 44 2 °/".1° ‘/T 8 7 6 0 7 4 111 0 5 1 1 7 471\ 7 t 82 0 L- 1 75P 66 1 8900 7 1,./ Ls° DP-22 .7; 7' 04. 1 OP-25 11 4 0 i mom* mama 00..agoo 0 „AKA 8822 1 1 8887 23:00 21 DP/.23 .1- D i 50 11 1,,, 8 01‘,.3.15 7 9 4 2 0130 2 C N EI:' 17 8 825.0 2 ntl o c 1 867,6 7000 90/5 J p /2 8973 887 1 0 JP:46 888 1 8907 Jilt P3 j 3 -4 `,„tr cc -1 11,/ j p .a' 1 l :1 1,___ j 9 8 0 9- 0 96 7 4 U 'r, t 17 3 5 P ,1. i l E 88 ,1 75'4' 8 315070 t JP 1 ;4 4 1 1 r, 880.4 C 95 17 8r 88, 873.0 879.4 4 cP9i .9 52 BP 5 874 2 886 5 ,B/81 8 18 92.0 E101-ITS city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P- 43 851 1 853 8 L L-di r SUBJECT PARCEL STORM SEWER MASTER PLAN 411000 JP-59 1 8.5 1 \4-3 JP-34 J 884.0 89 1. 8i 1 JP-29 NI 926.0 Ici 9450 j P 5 I 976 0 980.0 ee I L N S i N,„ 1 P -2 8 95 6. 0 ist 9 969.4 8. '7', 5 5, -1- 2:44L.S.,8 27 1/ L' L L L L JP 9E 4 L AEL.ti 12 al.....L.q cors;eggea *No.._ 97 7 8 1 0 21 9- 7 I 99(8:29(5,1 58 ap t T i ■2!_44 ILLY; Hit 5LNUT P .r, L 8 98 L'il 11.. 4 L 9 -g8 44 8 LP-41 0 870... 03 5 1_, HILL ,r71.Lp-54 181441 15 v4 5 7\ 7-7 1 1, 8jiI.3 5 L 8 P 8 3 5 11.: /111 7 7-1 111 1 1111 11 approved: FIG. #1 standard plate 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 city of ea December 10, 1985 MR JAMES MERILA MERILA ASSOC INC 7216 BOONE AVE NO BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55326 RE: BUR 0 PARK BUR 0 LTS PROPOSED DEV OP Dear Mr. Merila: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your inquiries regarding parks dedication in the vicinity of Bur Oak Park and the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Cour c4 Members THOMAS HEDGES City Aammutrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Qty Clerk The South Delaware Hills P.U.D., of which you are currently planning a proposed development called Bur Oak Hills, has a negotiated park area to be dedicated to the City at the time of development. Inasmuch as the area to be given for parks purpose was the result of a negotiated agreement and became part of a contract, I see no reason at this time to make any changes in the proposed park area. However, if it can be demonstrated that there is.a significant benefit to the parks system because of property line change, this may be permissible. In summation, the City has a negotiated agreement for parks within the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. and sees no reason to modify that agreement. Should you have further questions regarding this particular area, please feel free c contact me. S Ke aa Director of Parks Recreation KV /js CC: Dale Runkle, City Planner THE LONE OAK TREE.. E S BOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY `MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1986 BACKGRO /I UE: TAD D LOP BURR O S P Harstad Development is proposing to develop the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. (Burr Oaks Park area) into 204 single family residential lots. The South Delaware Hills P.U.D. previously proposed both single and twin family homes with a P.U.D. commitment to provide parkland dedication amounting to approximately 28 acres. This development proposes a change in 1the shape and amount of parkland to be dedicated. The Advisory Commission should determine if the proposed changes in the parks dedication are acceptable as presented or require revision. PA': HISTORY SO s :i DELAWARE RIMS S P.U.D. The history of parks in the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. is very long. This report will highlight some of the more significant events as a means of tracing the history of parks proposal to the present. In December of 1976, the City first received an application for rezoning from agricultural to P.U.D. for the general area now known as South Delaware Hills. The original parcel was somewhat smaller than what is now considered within the P.U.D., but also considered development which was part of Inver Grove Heights. From its original application in 1976 until 1977, the Parks Commission was reviewing the possibility of receiving through dedication 25 acres of parkland in Eagan, primarily around the existing lake area and five acres in Inver Grove Heights. This five acres was flat and more suitable for active area development. In October of 1977, Inver Grove Heights denied the rezoning of that area within its community after which there was little or no activity concerning the P.U.D. In August of 1979, the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission recommended, and was agreed to by the developer, to provide a parks dedication of approximately 20 some acres. Also recommended and agreed to was the provision for a trail from the main park area in Eagan to the eastern five acre park within Inver Grove Heights. Eagan was responsible for the development of the Inver Grove Heights parkland with the developer being responsible for the grading of the Eagan parkland. There were a series of public hearings before the Advisory Planning Commission and Advisory Parks Recreation Commission; after considerable pressure by residents of Burr Oaks on the developer, the parks dedication in Eagan was increased to approximately 28 acres with the developer agreeing to provide three proposed lots as part of the parks dedication and to grade the area to City specifications. This was in order to accomodate the installation of a ball diamond /active play area. This then became the area negotiated under the P.U.D. During 1980 and '81 the developer proposed several amendments to the P.U.D. which would have increased the number of multiple dwellings. Prior to one such revision in March of 1981, Mayor Blomquist and the Director of Parks Recreation met with residents of the South Delaware Hills area regarding the parks dedication and their concerns over the property to be dedicated. It was noted that most of the area was wet and provided too small of an area for active recreational interest, as well as much of the soil was unstable and unsuitable for most uses. It was noted, however, that the City had already entered into an agreement and therefore, was committed to accepting the 28.5 acre parkland. PROPOSED PA r S DEVELOP Staff met with Mr. James Merila regarding the proposed development of the South Delaware Hills property in the fall of '85. A letter was provided on December 10, 1985 (copy attached) explaining the City's position regarding parks dedication within this P.U.D. Subsequently, the developer provided a preliminary plat dated 12/16/85 which then reduced parks dedication to approximately 14.07 gross acres. Staff found this totally unacceptable, but continued to work with the developer by authorizing Parks Planning Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to work with the planners to provide a more suitable parks layout. Staff also presented a list of of criteria that the park should meet in order to be acceptable. In January the developer presented staff with a preliminary plat and revised site plan. The Director of Parks Recreation opposed the plat because it did not meet the previously submitted standards, was not site sensitive and did not provide adequate road frontage. NOTE: (The plat has changed as a result of better engineering and park concerns, i.e. cul -de -sacs and roadway alignment. This has had minimal impact upon the parks.) The parks plan as presented by the developer does not necessarily represent the work of Mr. Erkkila.) However, the plat has proceeded forward and was presented to the Advisory Planning Commission. PARK ANALYSIS: The total park area provided within the developer's parks plan proposed is approximately 25.6 acres. Parkland dedication in the P.U.D. provided 28.5 acres. In assessing the proposed dedication, 10.3 acres is above the 820 contour which is the high water elevation for Burr Oaks pond. 3.24 acres is between the 817 and 820 contour and subject to flooding. 12.09 acres is below 817 and is therefore, water. A close look at the acreage above the 820 (water) indicates that by subtracting the area with grades in excess of 14% there is only six acres. This is in three separate areas. The first area is approximately 2.9 acres and is the area generally designated as the more active space including the parking lot, ball field, tennis courts, etc. The second area is to the south which provides access to Rolling Hills Drive. This area is approximately 1.8 acres in size. (However, this is further reduced by the computations associated with pipeline easements.) The other acreage is on the east side of the park adjacent to the protruding cul -de -sac which is equivalent to 1.3 acres. In summation, of the 10.3 acres above the high water line the largest is 2.9 acres in size and only six acres has slopes of less than 14 2 `In reviewing the park concept provided with the preliminary plat, staff has the following comments: (See attachment "Developers Park Proposed 1) The soccer and ball fields are completely overlaid. The soccer field is improperly oriented, a portion of which extends onto the infield area; therefore, its usefulness is doubtful. 2) The parking lot is located between two single family homes which just meets setback requirements. Staff is concerned with residential objections to park usage once these homes become occupied. 3) In an earlier parks plan, staff had concerns over the central park area which was to receive extensive grading west of the tennis courts. This resulted in a loss to a substantial number of significant size oak trees. In order to complete the necessary grading and contours, the developer proposes to build a series of retaining walls of approximately 300' in length and at places, up to 6' in height. This retaining wall psychologically separates the open space that is trying to be preserved from the park and relegates it to an unusable area. There is some doubt whether retaining walls will save the adjacent oak trees which could be eventually lost because of disturbance associated with grading. 4) The proposed trailway around the lake falls below the normal high water elevation of 820 with 13 lot locations and is therefore, subject to flooding. 5) The proposed tennis courts on the northeast corner becomes a fill area and requires a retaining wall to facilitate it. 6) The proposed backstop for the ball field is approximately 50' from the rear lot line to the adjacent property. Commission has previously looked with disfavor with other parks plans that have shown this close of a proximity of infield to residential lots. RECO DATIONS: In response to the developer's parks plan and to meet the deficiencies just sited, staff has prepared a recommended park design (see staff park plan). This design eliminates the need for retaining walls in order to save the oak trees. The soccer field is reorientated and falls outside of the infield area of the softball field. The parking lot is removed further from residential homes. Spacial relationship is much more suitable in the overall layout. A safer transition from street to park is made. In order to accomplish this, this City would need to recapture part of its parkland commitment currently being shown with five residential lots. This is equivalent to approximately 1.5 acres. Other recommendations for consideration include: 1) The developer be responsible for grading and restoration of the area for parks development. That the proposed trailway around the lake be fitted and benched in above the 820 contour. 3) The long fingerlike projection on the east side proposed for parks dedication (part of the William Bros. Pipeline) will not be accepted for parks dedication which is approximately .8 of an acre in size. In order to accomplish this plat, the developer will require a storm sewer easement across existing parkland property immediately north of this development. The developer will require an easement from the City Parks Recreation Department. Second, the developer is to submit erosion control plan and performance bond relative to the restoration of sloped areas where grading has extended into proposed parks dedication areas. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION It would appear that the Advisory Planning Commission in its review on January 28 rezoned this site to R -1, single family. Thus, the P.U.D. and the proposed parkland dedication of 28 acres would no longer be in effect. This would relegate the City to negotiate a new parkland dedication which would encompass 11.11 acres. (10% of the 111 acre development). Members will recall that the formula for parkland dedication provides that the City may provide credit for parks which are below or within flood plains where it is deemed to be part of the parks value provided that 70% of the overall dedication is usable above the flood plain. The Commission should consider whether the space being provided under the developer's proposal meets this criteria for parks dedication or if another area for parks dedication should be considered. FOR ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION To approve /disapprove of the preliminary plat for Burr Oak Hills, to revise as may be appropriate, to make a recommendation regarding parks dedication. Or to approve, subject to Commission recommendations. Or to table to March, pending further review and negotiation regarding staff's recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Director of Parks Recreation KV /js R CONSIDERATIONS MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1986 RE: PA DEDICATION ORDINANCE REVIEW BACKGRO /UPDATE At the time of the annual review of the parks dedication requirements, the Advisory Commission requested staff to prepare a report which would address several areas of concern expressed by the Commission. Subsequently, a memorandum was addressed to the Commission indicating that other communities were also reviewing their parks dedication ordinance for possible revision; that the directors from these communities were to meet, discuss, and perhaps work together in a review process. The Directors of Parks Recreation from the communities of Maple Grove, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Lakeville and Eagan, as well the Economics Director from the City of Blaine, met for nearly a full day to critically evaluate each ordinance and the relationship it has with existing state law and judicial findings. It is not the intent of this memorandum to review all that was discussed at this meeting. It is important to note that from this observer's standpoint there can be no single ordinance which could be easily adopted by each community. Significant differences in each community, philosophical and the current status of their respective park systems, make such a document improbable to develop. However, this meeting did produce some significant discussion which should help this community to improve its parks dedication ordinance. MEETING OBSERVATIONS It is this writer's opinion that Eagan's parks dedication ordinance, at least philosophically, is one of the strongest and fairest to developers. In comparison, it was noted that 1) Eagan is the only community that provides for partial parkland dedication credit for areas which are below the 100 year flood mark, 2) provides park dedication credit for areas which are part of utility easements. 3) The City's commercial /industrial park dedication requirement provides for credit where there are significant on -site provisions for parks and open space. It still appears that Eagan's parks dedication ordinance could, and indeed should be strengthened to better comply with State statutes. For example, the Eagan dedication ordinance should 1) strengthen the relationship between the amount of dedication (land or cash) and the impact of the subdivision's platting and its relationship to parkland needs. 2) The existing land dedication provides for a constant percentage 10% regardless of density. This can be construed as "inequitable" and therefore, should be reviewed for modifications. It must be recognized that it is not the intent of the strengthening of this ordinance to mean to increase parks dedication. Rather, strengthen means to better show the relationship between the platting review, the need for parks, its reasonableness in order to comply with the State statutes and thus, make it less susceptible to court challenge. STATE STATUTE Attached is the State statute which initially allowed for cities to develop and implement parks dedication ordinances. In providing for these regulations, it should be noted that there are several key words and phrases which are significantly important. The first of these is that "a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated." The second is that dedication, at least for cash, should be "based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of the final approval." Third, "a municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated." In essence, these are the three critical issues that a parks dedication ordinance should address. Perhaps one of the most significant court cases relating to parks dedication is Koolis vs. the City of Bloomington in which the State Supreme Court upheld Bloomington and that its 10% land dedication was a reasonable portion. Consequently, many communities have adopted the 10% standard. A word of caution in adopting this 10% standard. Municipalities still must be able to demonstrate that this is reasonable and that it will need to acquire this percentage and a particular parcel for parks purposes to satisfy the residents needs. Because of Eagan's Park Systems Plan which contains a significant amount of information regarding the demographics of the community (as well as projected future growth and development), individual park standards, ratios of facilities, a neighborhood park standard, the type /quality of property the City seeks to acquire for parks purposes and has defined parks service areas, as well as pencil locations for parks, the City is in an excellent position to support its case for parks dedication as reasonable. It would seem prudent, however to incorporate and /or at least identify the Park Systems Plan and its continuing updating as the basis for the City of Eagan's parks dedication ordinance. Further, because the City has established its standards for parks based on population, it would then seem appropriate to establish its land dedication (and cash) based on population i.e. density of a development. A eonstant land dedication of 10% for single family as well as for multiple family development of high living unit density per acre is, in fact, inequitable and may be a case for unreasonableness. It would be prudent for the City to have a land dedication requirement that is based on a sliding scale which increases with unit density and has a basis, in fact, for providing parks in relationship to demand /impact. BASED UPON FAIR MARKET VALUE State statutes indicate that the municipality must base its dedication on "fair market value." A review of other cases indicates that it appears acceptable and reasonable for a municipality to establish market value collectively, rather than for a single parcel being considered for subdivision. It also appears acceptable to set the value at the time of the final subdivision plat rather than raw land value. In summation, it appears 2 that the City of Eagan's history of setting values for parks cash dedication that is based on recent land sales is an appropriate methodology. Therefore, staff would recommend that this procedure continue, but that the ordinance indicate the methodology used. D �M ATION OF r TO BE DEDICA OR FEES TO BE PAID Through the City's Comprehensive Park Systems Plan and its analysis of facility needs for residents, the City has generally determined that a standard of 15 acres of neighborhood and community parks and open space per population of 1,000 persons is an applicable and valid standard. Approximately twelve acres of this 15 acre amount shall constitute neighborhood parks and shall be the minimum standard established by the City. Therefore, the City shall require dedication, either land or cash, of sufficient amount which shall meet the standard for neighborhood parks. Dedication shall be based on density of residents in the following residential unit types (1985 census date): DEDICATION Single family 3.5 Duplex 2.8 Townhouse Quads 2.1 Multiple 1.9 In brief, the City should relate the parks dedication on a more equitable basis based on number of residents per type of unit, utilizing the City's standard for park acreage. Based on the number of persons per residential unit as previously described, land dedication shall be as follows: Alte to I 0 -1.9 units per acre 8% 2 3.5 units per acre 10% 3.6 units per acre 12% 6 units per acre 14% 10 units per acre Add .5% (Alternate II) This alternative would be a calculated dedication utilizing the type of unit times the number of residents for that unit. This would equal "demand for parks." This to be multipled by the parkland equivalent per individual .012 to determine the exact amount of land dedication. EXAMPLE: Developer X intends to develop 40 acres twenty acres for single family and 20 acres for apartment. The single family development will have 3.5 units per acre and the apartment has 11 units an acre or 70 single family homes and 220 apartments. 70 units X 3.5 people 245 people x .012 (standard area per person) 2.94 acres TOTAL: 7.95 ACRES Therefore, the dedication is .012 acre per person. CASH DEDICATION It shall be the City's intent to provide for, where land is not a requirement, a cash dedication fee. This cash dedication shall be based on composite value of properties within each of the zoning classifications. This value shall be determined annually by the City upon recommendation of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission. The land value is to be divided by the number of units per acre to determine the cash fee which shall equal an equivalency of 12 acres per thousand population times the composite fee of properties of similar zoning values. This formula shall be as follows: HOUSING Single family Duplex Townhouse /Quads Multiple /Apts 220 units x 1.9 people 418 people x .012 (standard area per person) 5.01 acres REQUIRED CASH EQ. (ACREAGE X LAND VALUE) $13,200 $15,600 $18,000 $20,400 ALTERNATE I RESIDENTS PER T 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.9 VALUE $11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 CASH (CASH EQ. TS) TS PER 100 POP I :;T ION 28 35 47 52 $13,200 $471.00 single family 28 $15,600 $445.00 duplex 35 $18,000 $382.00 townhouse /quad. 47 $20,400 $392.00 apts. 52 Similar to the alternate being provided in the land dedication, this would be a cash equivalent per person. EXAMPLE: 20 single family homes x 3.5 people x .012 acres x $11,000 (values of property per acre) .84 x $11,000 $924.00 DISCUSSION Alternate II in the proposed land dedication holds constant the value of property to be dedicated with each plat. Based on 12 acres per thousand residents, this is the equivalent of .012 acres per person. Upholding this value constant for each individual, it is quite easy to calculate land dedication. One will only need to take the type of living unit being proposed times residents per unit times the .012 factor to determine the acreage to be dedicated. On the surface, this constant value of land per person seems most equitable. The fallacy with this formula, however is that it does not take into recognition that single family dwellings are likely to have more children 14 who are generally more consumptive of parks. Consequently, it would seem that constant value of parkland person is biased against the multiple (or for single family) by requiring the same amount of land for adults as for children from single family homes. Alternate I under "Land Dedication" takes into consideration, at least to some degree, that single family residents are generally more consumptive of parks than multiple family residents. Consequently, even though there is an escalating percentage of land dedication based on the units per acre, this percentage is still less than the straight .012 acres per person. The increasing land dedication percentage seems much more fair than the straight 10% land dedication regardless of units per acre. CASH DEDICATION The cash dedication calculation is very similar to that which is being used currently other than the fact that it has been updated based on residents per unit. For example, under the existing parks dedication policy, single family is currently allocated for residents per unit and consequently, 25 units per 100 population. This has now been changed to 3.5 residents per unit and 28 units per 100 population. The other value change has been that the City is using 12 acres per 1,000 population as its standard. Utilizing this new standard of 1.2 acres per 100 population times the land value of $11,000 per acre, the required cash equivalent is $13,200. This figure, when divided by the 28 units per 100 population, equals the cash equivalency of $471.00 per unit. The proposed cash dedication takes into consideration that land values escalate with each type of housing unit. Currently, multiple family units are paying their cash dedication based on land values for single family versus land values for multiple. Under the current plan, there may be inequities between similar developers where one is providing a land dedication from a multiple dwelling area versus a cash dedication. Obviously, the cash dedication is significantly less expensive for a developer to provide than the land dedication, particularly since that cash dedication is now currently calculated on single family land values while the land dedication is obviously of higher value. It is improbable that an ordinance containing land and cash dedications is going to be completely equitable and without flaw. However, any recalculations, computations and variations should attempt to continue to be fair and equitable as is possible both to the City and developer as well as between developers. Under Alternate I for cash dedication, the table shows the result of escalating land values based on units per acre. You will note that in the multiple apartment dwellings using land values of $17,000 per acre, the cash equivalant would be $392.00. This would be an increase of $92.00 from the 1986 adjusted fee of $300.00. However, noting that the parks dedication requirement could provide credit for on -site amenities provided by apartment developers, this fee could be reduced for on -site amenities. Those developers that provide tennis courts, swimming pools or other amenities with their apartment units could be credited up to the 25% reduction in the cash dedication. This would reduce the $392.00 dedication to $294.00 per unit. Those apartment developers who fail to provide any amenities on -site, thereby probably increasing the demand for park usage by apartment dwellers beyond the norm, would be paying the full $392.00 per unit. Essentially this provides greater flexibility for the City by providing credit against a cash dedication and is closer to the value of the property upon which they are developing. INDUSTRIAL /CO CTAT, Industrial /commercial dedication requirements shall remain as is. It appears that this dedication requirement and verbage should be sufficient to cover any contingencies associated with this dedication. However, this portion of the ordinance should contain and provide for updating of the cost per acre by resolution. This would allow the City to continue as it has in the past, but would formally recognize the process. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In reviewing what other communities have done with their parks dedication requirements, it is interesting to note that for example, Blaine has included the cost for development of park facilities as part of their park dedication fees and included it in their calculation. The cities of Eden Prairie and Plymouth are doing likewise. State Statutes do not address the cost for development of facilities, although it seems clear that the intent of the state statute was to not require existing properties to pay more as a result of increased development. Therefore, a reasonable portion of development construction could be construed as being part of a parks dedication requirement. Most communities do not provide for credit for parkland within easements or if part of a flood plain. Eagan's ordinance provides for this. It is this writer's opinion that because the City has a significant number of ponding areas utilized for storm water basins and because the City requires these for storm ponding easements from the developer, it appears that where parkland is also taken, partial credit should be given. Again this is an issue for discussion and review, but to do otherwise as a double taking of property. Several communities have "a savings clause" within their ordinance. The savings clause is simply a requirement that where the City has indicated a future park and the developer provides required parkland dedication and the park space needed is greater that the developer is required to set aside, the additional property be set aside for up to one year in order to allow the City to purchase this additional land. The savings clause establishes a procedure and price for the property and is typically tied to the City's current fair market valuation for single family zoned property. This writer would strongly recommend that such provision be included within the parks dedication or zoning ordinance. FOR CO SSION ACTION: KV ,js To review the staff report regarding park dedication, to accept or refuse, to recommend /not recommend it being sent to the City Council. Respectfully s bmi ed, Director of Parks Recreation 6 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1986 RE: PARK SERVICE DISTRICT 21 BACKGRO t School district 196 has purchased and plated property for an elementary school to be constructed this spring. The elementary school Deerwood will be the first development activity within park service district #21. The cities Comprehensive Guide Plan and Parks System Plan has generally designated a neighborhood park for this service district. With the first development activity beginning within this park district, a review and probable location for a park and possible alternatives seems appropriate for review by the Commission. SERVICE DISTRICT ANALYSIS Park service district #21 is bounded on the south by County Road 30, Pilot Knob Road on the east and Interstate 35E on the west and north. These physical boundaries give this district an unusal shape. The area is also severed by Deerwood Drive. This service district encompasses approximately 500 plus acres of land. Much of this land has an agricultural zoning, although the Comprehensive Guide plan indicates it's future use as R -2. The parks system plan indicates little growth within this service district through 1990. The construction of the school, however, will bring municipal sewer and water into the area which will likely be followed by residentual development. The Department staff anticipates that upon total development of this area, the population could fall between 5,800 and 8,700 people. (500 acres x 4 -6 units per acre x 2.9= 5,800 8,700) Due to its odd shape which is nearly two miles in length, this service district could have some accessibility problems to future residents, particularly since the entire service district has very difficult topography. PARK LOCATION Both the Park Systems Plan and the City's Comprenensive Guide Plan have generally defined and supported a general location for a park. Both have suggested a school /park plan location. This alternative provides for a combination of land. The Deerwood school site is quite centrally located within the park service district, and this concept appears to be positive from the Parks perspective. In reviewing this as a possible alternative, staff has worked with the city's parks planning consultant. A proposal for a four acre park acquisition adjacent to the althetic facilities being provided by the school, appears feasible. Facilities proposed for the park site will be an open field g es area, tennis courts, public roadway access, and development of play equipment. Because of the previously mentioned accessibility problems for some future residents, linkage from the park site to the surrounding neighborhood is also recd ended. This would generally fall along the roadways, but would also connect to the school and potentially high amenity area south of the school site. These trails are viewed as an important link to serve the school and park and service district °internally and to provide trails outside the service district, i.e. Blackhawk Park,etc. Staff will present a park site detail, which explains this alternative at the Commission meeting OTHER ALTERNATIVES The remainder of park district #21 has been reviewed for other possible park land alternatives. It would appear that if there are other site alternatives, they would be in an area south of Deerwood. The area north of Deerwood trail represents a smaller portion of the park district; a portion of which has commercial zoning. As it appears that the bulk of the population will be south of Deerwood, it appears that any park site alternatives should be confined to this half of this park service districts. The Commission may wish to explore alternatives to having the park adjacent to the school site. (Such an acquisition would be through the City's park dedication policy) Alternative park areas could be done by a review of the topographic map of the area and /or by an on site visit by members of the Commission to the service district. FOR CO SSION ACTION To begin the review process for proposed future park within park serviced area #21. KV /bls MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DOROTHY PETERSON, PARKS AND RECREATION SUPERVISOR DATE: MARCH 4, 1986 RE: 1985 -1986 SKATING AND WINTER PROGRAM REPORT The skating season co enced on December 21, 1985 with skating rinks opening other than Goat Hill and Ridgecliff Parks. These two facilities did not open officially until January 10, because of the delay in the construction and erection of the lighting system. Goat Hill was added as a Class A site and Ridgecliff as a Class B site. Overall, attendence throughout the skating season remains strong other than at Highview Park. Rahn remains the busiest facility in the city. Scheduling by the Eagan Hockey Association at this site along with increasing interest by pleasure skaters continues to rank Rahn Park as the n ber one used facility. Carnelian Park is the strongest in attendance of the Class B sites. Attendance at both Goat Hill and Ridgecliff may have been affected by a late opening. Goat Hill will become a strong A site hockey tet +s like the site for their practices and look forward to a permanent building. With the opening of Goat Hill, Well site experienced a decrease in use with the n a ber of skaters there being more typical with Carnelian. Ridgecliff attendance was less than staff had anticipated. It is noted that the children in the neighborhood are young and frequently everyone leaves for home by 7:30 P.M.. As this area continues to infill and mature, it is likely the characteristics of the attendance will change at this park site. Of the Class C sites, Lexington continues to have attendance more typical of a B site of 10 to 14 hockey players, 2 to 6 pleasure skaters. The relocation of the pleasure rink and reaiming of the lights improved the site from previous years and may have had an impact on attendance. Highview Rink, during the Christmas holiday period, posted an attendance of 2 to 7 hockey players and 2 to 3 pleasure skaters at the recording times. Since mid January, however attendance has most frequently been zero with the attendants closing by 8:00 on some week -end nights for lake of skaters. The Department continues to schedule broomball at this facility which frequently brings in crowds of 30 to 40 people. Cedar Pond Park continues to be maintained as an open pleasure rink without warming house facility. This year, a speed skating oval was created in an effort to generate some interest in this facility and this particular skating activity. It is anticipated that in next years program planning, a speed skating activity will be offered at this site. WINTER WEEKEND February 7, 8, 9, were this year's winter weekend Wind chills varied from minus 10 to 25 minus degrees indeed made this a true "Winter Weekend Staff felt that participation in the events was effected by these conditions. Perhaps the most successful event was Sunday's picnic and sliding party at Trapp Farm Park. Approximately 100 people participated during the day, with the department serving hot cider and a bonfire helping to ease the cold. CROSS- COUNTRY SKI LESSONS All sections of this year's Cross Country Ski lessons filled. Interest remained high by participants of the class throughtout the lesson series. Evaluations submitted by class participants indicate that they are very satisfied by the lesson experience and with the departments instructor. Rental equipment was used and did present a problem for some participants with all lessons being held at Di and T Ranch. SKATING LESSONS The department attempted to offer skating lessons at all rink sites on three consecutive Saturdays. The skating rink attendants taught the lessons with the largest "crowd" being recorded as four at Rahn Park. The department is considering returning to the previous lesson format used several years ago with one instructor and a lesson registration. This format might place more emphasis on the lesson format rather than the "instructional help" provided this past year. STAFFING The Department staff has come to anticipate difficulties in finding individuals to act as warming house attendants. Criterian used during the selection process is to find people who appear to be dependable, reasonably personable, and can be a positive influence in their interactions with children and possess a certain amount of maturity of judgement. Finding suitable seasonal staff this year was extremely difficult. In fact, it appears a new standard has been set by which we can measure "difficult It was mid January before all positions were filled and in order to find and fill all positions, individuals who were "a neutral factor" had to be hired simply because there was not a sufficient n rber of applicants from which to select or choose. Almost without exception, it was predictable to determine which attendants would perform successfully and which would not. One attendant was relieved of the responsibilities because of his lack of dependability. Administrative staff feels this is a most serious problem affecting the departments ability to provide the skating program up to the expectations of the community. FACILITIES Temporary trailers were used as warming houses at both Ridgecliff and Goat Hill parks. Equipped with electric heat, these units seemed functional and of ample size for using the park. Only at Goat Hill on those evenings in which team hockey practice were scheduled and continuous did the facility seem to be inadequate. While adequate in size, the department has yet to resolve the deficiencies of the other city warming houses. As an example, the warming house facility at Well Site does not meet the electrical code for electrical service and the floor is sagging from a rotting subfloor. ISSUES FOR CO FISSION CONSIDERATION The preceding program report was a brief overview of the skating season. The Department Staff would like to discuss with the Advisory Co mission several issues for which direction an input should be given. HIGHVIEW PARK As previously reported, attendance at this skating facility is almost non- existent other than during Christmas break. The department uses the hockey rink for broomball activities. Use beyond this is minimal. The Commission may recall that past direction has been given to reduce the number of days that the facility is available by closing down Tuesday, Wednesay and Thursdays when school is in session. Further, the hockey rink is in very poor condition. Members may recall a visit to this park site in 1984 in which it inspected the hockey boards. If the facility is to remain, a complete and total reconstruction will be necessary. WARMING HOUSE ATTENDANTS Department staff is open to suggestions on how to entice or recruit applicants for the warming house position. While it is expected that salary levels may be less than adequate, this may not be the entire reason for the lack of applicants. The pay range is from $3.50 per hour to $4.00 per hour for returning or lead attendant. Apple Valley pays $4.50 an hour, but they too have indicated some problems in finding staff. Suggestions from the Advisory Co mission on how to attract applicants is requested. WARMING HOUSES The Commission has previously discussed the replacement of deteriorating warming houses through construction by City forces or assistance from the Dakota County Vo -Tech. The staff believes that the recent success of the temporary trailers used at Ridgecliff and Goat Hill Park should now also be considered. While there is little information yet available concerning the economics of either reconstruction, new construction or rental, an initial response from the Commission would be helpful. The trailers cost $175 per month; they are 8x24 in size. (Additional cost: for set -up, remount, insurance, etc., are not included in the rental cost. PROGRAMMING The staff has already begun to look ahead to next years winter programs. New ideas that are being considered, include: snow shoeing and speed skating at Cedar Pond, along with a series of weekend "Happenings" that incorporate a number of outdoor activities. The department is even considering an "I Like Winter" button to give out to winter program participants who involve themselves in two, three, or four winter activities. As always, we are open to suggestions regarding next years planning. FOR CO ON ACTION The Co t fission is to receive the winter progr report. To discuss the listed issues and provide direction to staff concerning changes /modifications for the 1986 -1987 season. KV /bls 4 MEMO TO: THE ADVISORY PARKS AND REC"'TION COMMISSION FROM: KEN V' DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1986 SUBJECT: ATHLETIC SITE OHMANN PARK ACQUISITION CU D ISSUE NT STATUS The City has attempted to acquire much of the property from the Ohmann estate for an athletic site. At the same time that the City was attempting to purchase property, Derick Land Company had acquired Parcels A, C, D, and E from the estate. The City has offered to purchase 15 acres from the owner of Parcel F. The City has received a verbal response to this offer to sell to the City, although no purchase agreement has been entered into. LOPMENT ACTIVITIES The City has just received a preliminary plat application from Derick Land Company for single family dwellings on all of the property north of Parcel F. This development is entitled Fairway Hills. Apparently, the developer has been able to purchase the one remaining parcel B to complete the 59.67 acres. This preliminary plat application will officially appear on the March Planning Commission meeting and at the Parks Commission meeting in April. The Development proposes single family residential development, the smallest lot size meeting the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum. (See Attachment) Because this plat affects the park systems and the Commission's thinking regarding an athletic site, staff is asking for direction concerning possible alternatives relative to the impact of this plat on the neighborhood park land and, discussion regarding the proposed purchase for an athletic site. ALTERNATI S NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Neither Engineering or Planning has yet to review this preliminary plat application for feasibility and code requirements, it appears that the plat application will meet these requirements. Consequently, the City must determine how it will determine the issue of parks relative to this application. Alternate One Pursue the purchase of the 15 acre parcel with an acquisition cost of $13,000 per acre. The intent would be that approximately 10 acres of this would be developed for park with 5 acres of it to be sold off at some time in the future. A cash dedication for the proposed Fairway Hills would be reco ended. Alternative Two Drop from consideration the purchase of the 15 acre parcel: take a land dedication for a neighborhood park which OHMANN PARK ACQUISITION FEBRUARY 26, 1986 PAGE 2 would approximately be 7.5 acres (5.9 from Fairway Hills 1.5 from Parcel F 7.4 acres). DISCUSSION Alternate 1 would provide the greatest flexibility for the planning of a neighborhood park. Staff has not done any park schemes and the 10-acre park is just that, an approximation. Dependent on the program for the park, the size requirement could be more or less then 10 acres. After some initial planning a more definitive size could be determined and the balance of the 15 acres sold for other development purposes. The sale of the remaining parcel, however, should be coordinated with the Fairway Hills plat to assure access to that portion to be offered for sale. There is a certain amount of risk involved with this proposal. Although the City has received a verbal agreeement from the owner to sell, a change of mind could leave the City without an acceptable neighborhood park. If this should happen after the Fairway Hills plat is approved (assuming a cash dedication), the City's park land dedication would amount to 1.5 acres on the remaining parcel, not enough for any type of neighborhood park. This alternative is also the most expensive in terms of cash outlay for the City. Because the park dedication fee formula is based on property at $11,000 per acre, and the City is purchasing the 15 acre parcel at $13,000 an acre, it would be far cheaper for the City to accept a land dedication vs. the cash dedication from Fairway Hills. (Fairway Hills 145 lots x $440.00 $63,800 vs. land dedication 5.9 x 13,000 76,700). Alternate 2 has the advantage of insuring the City of a neighborhood park of at least 5.9 acres from the Fairway Hills plat. If the owner of Parcel F were to change their mind or, another issue arise that affects the sale to the City, the City would at least have the beginnings of a neighborhood park. Although the acreage would be less than desired for a park, it would appear that this size could accomodate the basic needs of the neighborhood population within this service district. If the golf course were ever to be developed, additional land dedi- cation could be extracted and added to the 5.9 acres, and the neighborhood park could be enlarged. Development of Parcel F could also include a 1.5 acre dedication, increasing the neighborhood park to almost 7.4. As mentioned earlier this is the less expensive of the two alternatives. The staff is asking for the Advisory Commission to review the issue of a neighborhood park, assuming that the preliminary plat for Fairway Hills proceeds, in order for staff to provide direction in discussions with the developer. OHMANN PARK ACQUISITION FEBRUARY 26, 1986 PAGE 3 ATHLETIC SITE With the plat application for Fairway Hills, it appears that the City's desire to acquire a larger parcel for an athletic site at this location is now very improbable. The Commission has previously reviewed three other alternatives: Alternative 1 is the 20 acre parcel in Section 10, owned by Opus Corporation, immediately east of 35E and west of the U.S. Bulk Mail Center; Alternative 2 is the Peterson parcel south of Cliff Road and west of Dodd amounting to approximately 43 acres in size and Alternative 3 is south of Cliff Road and east of Dodd which would be an acquisition of the Beyer and the Ed Dunn parcel. A fourth alternative is now being reviewed by department staff. This parcel is being marketed at this time and is east of the proposed high school site of District 196 off of County Road 30. The parcel is approximately 80 acres in size and is being offered for sale at $8,500 an acre. At the writing of this memorandum, the preliminary layout work has just begun and the feasibility of this site has yet to be evaluated. Staff will present its findings to the Commission on Thursday evening. The staff will continue to review other site locations and feels that there are few remaining sites which would be economically feasible from a topographic standpoint (or current zoning) for and would thus "price out" the City from acquiring. For Commission Discussion: Commission is asked to review the remaining alternatives for athletic sites including the alternative being presented by staff on Thursday for their direction. Direc 0' KV:jh Parks and Recreation Z 009,0 01, 0 0 z CLIFF RD. 1714 MI a Z. SAN 000 Klett 1 SEE DETAlt. PARCEL A lI_ AC. It0V 4.000' ts''t .084 01.. PARCEL 11 27 AC. PARCEL II 27 AC. PARCEL 11.27 At PARCEL E 11.27 AC, PARCEL F 15 00 AC, nor ea 5414 PARCEL, 11 33 `AC 111 25 01, PARCEL G 50 AC 00 trewoar.'0 10 10 1■01100.14 0 SURVEY OF GEORGE OHMANN ESTA"