Loading...
01/05/1984 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionAGENDA ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 7:00 P.M. JANUARY 5, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES OF MEETING, DECEMBER 1, 1983 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS a. Berkshire Ponds; Derrick Land Company 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Park System; Sub Committee on Park Finances b. Park Names 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Lexington South Parkland Dedication Jim Curry b. Meadowlands Park Park Plan 6, OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS a. Kehne House Status b. Program Directions 7. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: WESTBURY PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED JANUARY 5, 1984 January 5, 1984 Background: The City Council at its January 3 meeting reviewed the proposed Westbury Plat by Gabbert Development. Members will recall that they had pre- viously reviewed this plat at the October 1983 meeting (minutes attached). The City Council has deferred action on this proposed plat until the January 17 Coun- cil Meeting referring the issue of parkland dedication back to the Advisory Commis- sion. Issues: There are several inter related issues the Council has referred to the Advisory Commission with the re- review of the proposed preliminary plat. The primary issue is Should the City accept the proposed park dedication within the Gabbert Development? Does the parkland provide the type of park desirable for this neighborhood and for the park system? Is there suitable access to the proposed park for the neighborhood? What's the long term usage for the park? Is there another location within the plat or P.D. that would be better? Other issues that are associated with the review of this proposed park come from its commitment from the Lexington South PUD. The Council is aware that Jim Curry has as his goal the dedication of the remaining parkland within the Lexington South PUD within the year. The Council is concerned about the account- ing of the parkland and the acreage credits of the Westbury parcel, as well as other park parcels which have previously been rejected. Staff is also raising the question as to "credits" which might be applied on parkland parcels for ponding areas and the highline trail easements. These credits would further reduce the park acreage within the PUD. The City Attorney's Office has been asked for an interpretation of the PUD Agreement as it relates to this issue. Not all of the PUD materials have been reviewed in their en- tirety at this time to reach a conclusive answer in regards to this question. If in the final analysis, the assumption is born out that the existing parks ordinance applies to the accepted parkland and lesser acreage credits should be given for the proposed park areas, additional parkland elsewhere in the PUD would have to be given or a settlement in cash. At the time of the writing of this memo, staff has not had the opportunity to apply the ponding and easement credit calculations on the remaining parkland to determine its impact. Staff will attempt to provide as much information as has been collected regarding the Lexington South PUD. The Commission is asked to review the Westbury Pre- liminary Plat proposed park for recommendation to the City Council, and to address its concerns regarding the intended actions of Mr. Curry to close out the remaining parkland within the Lexington South PUD. attach. KV /js Westbury Addition The Director of Parks and Recreation explained that the City has received a preliminary plat for the proposed Westbury Addition by Gabbert Development Corporation. The development lies within the Lexington South Planned Unit Development. He indicated that Gabbert Development is proposing changes in the park land dedication which was to be dedicated to the City as agreed up- on in the planned unit development. He continued explaining the changes to the park land configuration indicating that the new configuration may add an additional three (3) acres to the park. He continued saying that a trailway extension from Wescott Road to Patrick Eagan Park would be severed by the new plat design. He explained that the proposed park area had severe topo- graphic changes which made such a trailway difficult. The director also explained that park service section 22 did not have a specifically defined neighborhood park, but the future park is envisioned to be In the trail connection between the Civic Center site and Patrick Eagan. Because of this, the director suggested that the Commission review the possibility of including installation of a tot lot or play equipment apparatus upon a portion of the land to be dedicated within this plat. The director continued explanation of the plat citing other issues for the Commission's consideration and dis- cussion. Chairman Martin indicated that he is in agreement that the need for a trail to the suggested park area would nearly be impossible. Commission member Kubik questioned what could be done other than a trail or play area through the proposed land dedication. There was considerable discussion by the Commission regarding the trail through the proposed park area and access to it from the proposed residential areas. An internal trailway to the Patrick Eagan Park and an access between lots 16 and 15, and the inclusion of park area here for tot lot was also discussed. Commission member Carroll indi- cated that the City was getting back to accepting some unusable land. This was part of the P.U.D. agreement and the Commission should try to salvage the best of the situation. The Commission discussed potential areas for a play equipment area indicating the preference for two lots in the southeast corner, shown at 14 and 15. The Director of Parks and Recreation explained that, in conversations with the developer, that they may be willing to provide the area off of the cul -de -sac as discussed in exchange for originally proposed park property on the west edge. Commission member Kubik suggested that the northern access to the park should be retained. Chairman Martin suggested that the cul -de -sac access in the southwest corner also be retained for a potential future trail to the proposed neighborhood park and community Civic Center site. There was discussion.regarding these two items and an agreement that staff should review the trail access in further detail. After further discussion by the Commission, member Kubik motioned, seconded by Masin, that the City accept the amendment to the park land boundaries as proposed by Gabbert Development with a provisal that addition'al park land over the P.U.D. requirements only be accepted as a gift to the City, further that a bituminous trailway along Lexington Avenue from Wescott Road to the southern limits of the plat be included; that the developer provide an access to the park between lots 7 and 23 as shown in the preliminary plat; that the developer provide an internal method to channel residents to the Patrick Eagan Park access. And, that the developer provide a suitable area for play equipment generally in the location of lot 15, block 3. On a vote of the motion, all members were in approval. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS December 28, 1983 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: JANUARY 5TH ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING The regular meeting of the Advisory Commission is scheduled for January 5th at the new Eagan Municipal Center. This meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers. Usually at the first meeting in January, the Commission organizes for the ensuing year. The City Council has not yet made appoint- ments to the Commission for terms which expired in 1983. There- fore, organization of the Commission will be deferred until the first regular meeting in February. The first item on the agenda for the Commission is the proposed Berkshire Ponds preliminary plat. Commission members will recall that this item was before the Commission at its meeting in December and has subsequently been reviewed by the Advisory Planning Commission. Enclosed in the packet is a separate memo and planning information concerning this proposed plat. There are two items under Old Business. The first item relates to parks finances, the second to park names. Both items are covered by separate memos within the packet. The sub committee on parks finances has met several times and continues to modify and refine its working proposal regarding a proposed park referen- dum. The sub committee on park names has also met and is forward- ing a recommendation to the Commission as a whole. It would be appropriate for the Commission to review all or as many of the park names recommended by the sub- committee for final recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Jim Curry of Lexington South PUD will be present at the Commis- sion meeting to review parkland dedication in the PUD. Again, a separate memo and exhibits have been prepared and are included in the packing for your review. Because there are a number of parcels within the PUD, it would be appropriate for the Commission to take a careful reading of the material for review prior to the meeting on Thursday. The issue will focus on the resolution of parkland differ- ences and the resolution of the remaining parkland dedication. The last remaining item under New Business concerns Meadowland Park. Members will recall that Tim Erkkila has been assigned the task of developing a series of preliminary concept plans for the park. The issue, however, is that the Commission had previously decided that it would like to understand more about the park planning process and therefore, the Parks and Recreation is recommending a process to be followed by the Commission to enhance its understanding of this process. A separate memo has been included outlining the planning process to be taken at the January 5th meeting. Under Other Business and Reports, I would like to spend a few moments to discuss with the Advisory Commission the progress and status of securing an architect for the study of the Kehne House with the sub committee appointed to review this item; and future program directions relative to the use of the Old City Hall by the recreation division of the Parks and Recreation Department. Members are again reminded that should they have any questions with regard to the packet information, they are welcome to contact the office prior to the meeting. If you are unable to attend, please contact the department and notify us of your absence. Both Dorothy and I have been relocated into the new Eagan Municipal Center and can be reached at 454 -8100. Dorothy is on extension #10 while I am on extension #12. The secretary to the department is Jan Severson whose extension is #15. /fully submitted, KV /j as December 27 1983 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: BERKSHIRE PONDS DERRICK LAND COMPANY Background: The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission at its December meeting reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Berk- shire Ponds. No official action was taken by the Commission at that time pending review by the Advisory Planning Commission. Berkshire Ponds is located in Service Section 32 which is also the site of Ridgecliff Park. The proposed location for Berk- shire Ponds is west off of Galaxie and is abuted next to 35E. The proposed plat would contain 73 single family lots in 26.95 acres. A proposed parks dedication amounting to 4.0 acres is also being shown at this time. This park acreage breaks down into 1.56 acres of water area and 2.51 acres of land. This acre age would meet the 10% parks dedication requirement if the Advis- ory Commission recommends that this should be accepted for parks. Alternatives: There are several alternatives for the Advisory Commission to review and discuss in terms of this proposed plat and parks dedication requirement /fulfillment. Alternative #1 is to reject the proposed parkland dedication in favor of a cash contribution. This contribution would be approxi- mately $30,000 based on the current dedication formula. The ration- ale for this alternative is that Ridgecliff Park, which is over 16 acres in size, has been designed to meet the neighborhood needs within this park service section. This proposed residential de- velopment is within walking distance of Ridgecliff Park and is accessed by sidewalk along Covington Lane. Alternative #2 is to accept the land dedication as proposed by the developer in fulfillment of the dedication requirements. At this time, the staff's understanding is that the developer will provide title to the property and in addition develop a tot lot to fulfill the dedication requirements. A graded berm along 35E will also be provided as a buffer to the park area and nearby homes. The developer has indicated that there would be some grading required along the two ponds situated in the park area. This grading would include the de- velopment of open swales for water collection and water drainage from the southern pond to the northern pond as storm water overflow. En- gineering has indicated the normal water levels of these two ponds should be 919 with high water levels at 925. Alternative #3: The developer has indicated that while he is seeking full parks dedication fulfillment through this land con- tribution, they may be willing to dedicate the land parcel and accept partial credit. Such credit would be determined by the City Council upon recommendation of the Advisory Commission and reflect the value of the proposed park to the neighborhood and the parks service section. The developer has indicated that it is their desire to maintain the open space to act as a buffer from I -35E and would not replat this area into homes if it were not accepted. Alternative #4: Should the developer maintain the proposed park area for open space rather than additional housing, it may be desirable to create a Home Owners Association to insure mainten- ance of this area. This would give some assurance that the open space would be maintained to the standards sought by the neighbor- hood, rather than falling back on the City as tax forfeited property. Discussion: The proposed park in Berkshire Ponds can provide for some open space and play amenities for this neighborhood. Such play experiences, however, may be limited because of the limited amount of ground space and the impact of the ponds and drainage swales to the park. If the City were to try to develop the park into a more suitable mini -park application, considerable expense would be incurred to grade the site to accomplish this purpose. Such costs would be duplicative of the efforts and the priorities established for Ridgecliff Park; in addition to incurring addit- ional ongoing maintenance costs. Staff also has some concerns relative to the desirability of the park because of its situation between two ponds and the open drainage swales. While it is in- tended that these drainage swales would normally be in a dry con- dition, it should be recognized that overflow from the ponds will fill these swales at high water times. Therefore, there is some concern for the relative safety of smaller children who are the "target group" for this type of park. Should it be decided that the land will be accepted for partial credit against the parks dedication requirement, the Commission may wish to review in greater detail the proposed grading proposed for the area. Should the site be significantly impacted by the grading required to meet engineering requirements, the value of the park may be enhanced or lessened accordingly. The Commission may also wish to consider, as it has done previously; the impact of the development of this park upon future park develop- ment priorities, future parks maintenance requirements, acceptance in full or in part of parkland which has not been previously iden- tified as needed within a parks service section. This is particu- larly true in this situation because the park does not meet the normal or desired amount of land to adequately service neighborhood needs. Action To Be Considered: The Advisory Commission should review the proposed parkland dedication, and after discussion make its recommendation to the City Council regarding the disposition of the proposed park dedication in Berkshire Ponds. Sufficient reason ing concerning the recommendation should be given. -2- CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, BERKSHIRE PONDS APPLICANT: DERRICK LAND CO., RICHARD BLOOM LOCATION: PART OF THE SWa OF THE NWa OF SECTION 32 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBER 15, 1983 DATE OF REPORT: DECEMBER 12, 1983 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED: The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 27 acres from A (Agricultural) District to R -1 PD (Residential Single Planned Development District) in order to deviate from the normal single family lot size requirement. The second application submitted is a request for preliminary plat ap- proval, Berkshire Ponds, which would consist of approximately 27 acres and contain 73 single family lots and a proposed 4 acre park located in part of the SW 4 of the NW 4 of Section 32. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the property is zoned A (Agricultural) and would allow only one home per 5 -acre tract. The Eagan Land Use Guide Plan designates this parcel as R -II (Mixed Residential) with a density of 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development has a gross density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, it appears that the proposed development request is in accordance with the density allowed in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. COMMENTS The proposed plat abuts I -35E rights -of -way on the west and Galaxie Avenue on the east. The area to the north and south are presently un- developed and is proposed to develop in accordance with an R -II with _a density of 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. Directly east of this pro- posed development is Park Ridge, a single family development which al- so deviates from the. lot size requirements. The proposed plat will consist of 73 single family lots of which all have a minimum of 60 -foot lot width and the smallest lot area is 8,500 square feet to 28,100 square feet, or an average of 11,256 square feet. The proposed lots are serviced by a curvilineal street design with two accesses onto Galaxie Avenue. The 4.07 acres of park being proposed has been reviewed informally by the Commission and has not had officially action at this time. The developer is providing this park CITY OF EAGAN REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, BERKSHIRE PONDS DECEMBER 15, 1983 PAGE TWO as a twofold measure: 1) To provide a buffering from I -35E rights -of -way 2) To provide some active park area within this neighborhood. If the Park Commission decides not to elect to take this as parkland, the developer should look at providing this as an outlot and maintain- ing this park in a homeowner's association by this development or plat. The applicant has submitted the detailed grading plan showing how the homes will fit on each of the proposed lots. The applicant has not labeled the type of unit proposed and should add this or revise this exhibit showing the type of unit proposed on each of the proposed lots. If approved, the preliminary plat and rezoning shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) A planned development agreement be drafted in accordance with the specific plan approved by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. 2) Deviations from lot size for R -1 be allowed in accordance with this specific plan. 3) The plat be reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transporta- tion because the plat abuts State rights -of -way. 4) The plat be subject to the Park Commission's review and comment regarding the proposed park dedication. 5) All lots shall contain a minimum of 60' lot widths at the 30' setback. 6) The detailed grading and house elevation exhibit be amended to include type of unit being proposed on the lots. This ex- hibit should be submitted prior to final plat application. DCR /jach ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 7) A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval incorporating additional grading required to in- corporate the storage volume in Pond AP -16 lost to the propos- ed grading. 8) An approved method of interconnecting the two ponds incorpor- ating Pond AP -16 shall be determined. CITY OF EAGAN REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, BERKSHIRE PONDS DECEMBER 15, 1983 PAGE THREE Engineering Recommendations continued, 9) If installed privately, plans and specifications for internal streets and utilities shall be prepared by a registered engi- neer in accordance with City standards and submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 10) No individual access to Galaxie Drive shall be allowed. 11) The north -south dead -end street shall be eliminated and re- placed with a cul -de -sac. 12) Ponding easements incorporating the high water elevation of Pond AP -16 shall be dedicated as a part of this plat. 13) All internal easements shall be dedicated as required by staff. 14) All publicly dedicated right -of -way shall be 60' unless ex- tenuating circumstances dictate otherwise. 15) Adequate right -of -way for Galaxie Avenue shall be dedicated to provide a 50' half right -of -way. 16) This development shall accept its responsibility for trunk area storm sewer assessments at the rate in effect at the time of final plat approval. 17) The cost of providing all internal utilities and streets shall be the sole responsibility of this development. RMH /jach MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLAN- NER RICHARD M. HEFTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DECEMBER 12, 1983 SUBJECT: BERKSHIRE PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has the following comments regarding this proposed development for consider- ation by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. DRAINAGE /TOPOGRAPHY Existing topography for this proposed development consists of hilly grassland with several depressions. This proposed development lies within Drainage District A as evidenced by Figure 1. As a result, the existing drainage for this development flows, for the most part, to the northwest into two small ponds designated as Pond AP -16 on the City's Storm Sewer Master Plan. Although both of these small ponds are included as one on the Master Plan, only the northerly pond has been provided with a positive gravity outlet. Meanwhile, the exist- ing slopes for this proposed development range from 5 -20 In order to obtain buildable lots on this topography, it will be nec- essary for the low areas to be filled in by taking material from the hilly areas. However, the proposed grading will fill in approximate- ly 3/4 of an acre of ponding area for Pond AP -16. Subsequently, this development will be required to provide the necessary grading to main- tain the storage capacity of AP -16 as designated for the City's Storm Sewer Master Plan. In addition to a detailed grading and erosion con- trol plan being submitted for regular approval, an approved method of connecting the southerly pond in the northerly pond will need to be determined since preliminary indications are the Advisory Park Commis- sion will not accept the proposed land area park dedication. UTILITIES Utilities of sufficient size, capacity and depth exist in the proxi- mity of this proposed development as can be seen by Figure 2. A 12" trunk sanitary sewer cuts through the northern tip of this proposed development along with a 16" trunk water main and an 18" trunk storm sewer. In addition, a 20" water main is located within Galaxie Ave- nue with an 8" service stub to the west. All internal utilities shall be constructed and installed to City standards. If these utilities are installed privately, then the ENGINEERING REPORT BERKSHIRE PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT DECEMBER 15, 1983 PAGE TWO plans and specifications should be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted for approval. The preliminary utility plans appear to be in accordance with the City's Master Water and Sewer Plans. In order to conform to the City's Master Storm Sewer Plan, the two ponds lying within this development must be connected by approved methods. STREETS Access to this proposed development is currently provided by Galaxie Avenue which is a 46' wide 9 -ton design street with concrete curb and gutter and bituminous surfacing. The northwesterly portion of this proposed development will border I -35E, which, of course, allows no access to it. Proposed access to this development is by way of two street connec- tions to Galaxie Avenue. One will be directly across from Covington Lane and the other will be approximately 500 feet north. In addition, additional access to the north and to the south are being provided by stubbing streets to the property line. However, staff feels the pro- posed stub street running to the north is not really necessary since the triangle portion to the north has access provided to it off of old Galaxie Road. Subsequently, staff feels the northerly portion of this development could be served better by a short cul -de -sac. Otherwise, staff concurs with the remaining access points. However, staff does not recommend allowing any individual access to Galaxie Avenue. Subsequently, the internal street layout will have to be modified to provide access to the three lots in the southeast corner of this proposed development. As the Commission knows, access was granted directly across the street for two lots in the Park Ridge Addition. This was allowed for the reason that these lots abutted a pond, and subsequently, could not gain access to the east. This is not true for this situation since the same topographic constraints do not exist for this development. Otherwise, staff concurs with the remaining street layout which provides for excellent circulation. RIGHT -OF- WAY /EASEMENTS Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated for Galaxie Avenue to pro- vide for a total of a 50' half right -of -way. In addition, all inter- ior street right -of -way should be dedicated to a 60' width unless ap- proved otherwise by staff due to extenuating circumstances. A 10' utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to all publicly dedicated right -of -way with a 5' drainage and utility easement being dedicated adjacent all external lot lines and a 10' drainage and util- ity easement being dedicated over all internal lot lines. Also, pond ing easements will be required to encompass the high water elevation for Pond AP -16. Other easements over public utilities should be ENGINEERING REPORT BERKSHIRE PONDS PRELIMINARY PLAT DECEMBER 15, 1983 PAGE THREE dedicated per staff recommendation. ASSESSMENTS In reviewing the assessment records for this parcel, it was revealed that trunk area storm sewer had not been levied. Otherwise, all re- maining trunk area assessments have been levied at their respective rates. Therefore, it should be this development's responsibility to accept the trunk area storm sewer assessments over the net platted area at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. Pre- sently, this would amount to $36,400. This may either be paid at the time of final platting or assessed via a waiver of hearing. All costs for installation of internal utilities and streets shall be the sole responsibility of this development. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report in detail with the Advisory Planning Commission at the December 15, 1983 meet- ing. Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hetti, P.E. Assistant City Engineer RMH /jach ANNE MAIM 1111111111111tArni ll EXCEPTION fI 1: ROBE 1041.1?44OY•74 _4444 r PUMP'S L 1440 $$$$$$071 II 4444 ENGINEERING COMP ""Y, INC. fi r sat 4 4.04 4u..4v 1.4441.711 1111? M .!7 14 .re 1• •.6..E PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BERKSHIRE PONDS w }r' `r DAKOTA COUNTY P;ARK Ek13114 200W N10- ftz.SITM 0 -1 ►0 77 OWL[ MARX LOTS MOSS ACRE4OL I. /S AMES TOTAL L11TI 13 UNITS DENSITY 2.71 UNITS PEA 40K 3441.1.117 LOT SISL 14300 SO. It LARGEST LOT WI 21..00 SO Pt •/E/AGE LOT 042E 11.274 SO IT 440 4.07 4(4E8 1.7(004078[175 7.3•423111 841.4411 0.57 ACNE! PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL INFORMATION DERRICK LAND COMPANY •..0101 f1 112IlOIISI 1104108 LAOS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION w .w 4. 4 .4"4,.% a44•44, r.6. a ..a r •46w4 as w 4444 4444444 w"w M •41.46 Mlw. ROBE E NGINEERING COMPANY, /MIL INC. 00. 1.., ..I /MIL 4.w.. s1, YInh IU I01. II .11 4000 BERKSHIRE PONDS 4- w .M FAY...• M.••• W* R- IA R -4 yaw ..y ..f.1:‘ "2.1j; a i 1 3: 3- V 4". 4 -,7 !ms 1 -Q p l i k„2 1 .i.. ',..4„,i'''-‘1, ).1 j k."..•f 5 1] J I •�1 f 1 +.t �•.)v1'�3; j`) .41 j1,f J 7 w 4 4 .1•v.- ...A:- ..l, j. -7 1 3 .}J._ )7).'d..f••) cr •.J.. "f. x r dal /-1, .,iL?:J J y" 7v l j 7 ,10.:' .A t f L j-4...4.,- F: �f J ►A j.. I�T :l ........4..1.) r c4 e .4:),: ..,41% 4). I PA .4 1 j 4 1 I r e :°114.19r, MEMO TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THE ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1983 SUBJECT: COMMISSION FOR A CITIZENS' TASK FORCE FOR COMMUNITY PARKS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM BACKGROUND In the fall of 1981, the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission, after six months of extensive review and research, recommended to the Eagan City Council to proceed with the development of a City- wide Parks System Study. The City Council agreed unanimously with this recommendation, and after a search process, Mr. Tim Erkkila of Erkkila Associates was hired to begin the Systems Plan Study in April of 1982. The extensive study reviewed community and neigh- borhood park needs as well as issues relative to ponds and lakes, trails, public and private resources and individual park plans. The study began with a communitywide survey and a series of public meetings to obtain citizen input on opinions and attitudes towards parks. After nearly 17 months of effort by the Advisory Commission, the City Council, consultant and staff, the draft plan document was completed in September of 1983. The entire planning process involv- ed over 25 separate meetings by the Advisory Commission with sever- al hundreds of hours of investigation, review, revision and recom- mendation before the final draft could be completed. Upon final review by the Advisory Commission, the Systems Plan was recommend- ed for adoption to the City Council on October of 1983. RECOMMENDATION During the completion of the Systems Plan Study, the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council paid special atten- tion to the current and growing needs of the parks system and the funding requirements to meet these needs. A sub committee of the Commission was formed and a "working proposal" with alternatives was prepared. This working proposal is continuing to be refined and is near a stage of development which would permit and demand a discussion and review by the community. With this in mind, the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission is recommending that the City Council establish a citizens' task force to review the working pro- posal for parks financing with the intended purpose and objective of initiating a parks bond referendum. COMMITTEE'S OBJECTIVES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The Advisory Commission believes a City task force should be di- rected by a well- defined set of objectives and responsibilities. The primary objective, however, of the citizens' task force will be to review the Commission's priorities of parks' needs Memo to Honorable Mayor City Councilmembers, Thomas L. Hedges Commission for a Citizens' Task Force for Community Parks Develop- ment Program December 2, 1983 Page two consistent with the Systems Plan Study, the financing to meet those priorities, and to prepare a recommendation to the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council and to the citizens of Eagan regarding a park bond referendum. COMMITTEE MAKE UP It is recommended that the Citizens' Task Force be comprised of as broad and diverse group of individuals who reside in various park service districts. The task force should consist of individuals that have a concern for the City, and in particular, its parks, are informed about park needs, can devote the time necessary to com- plete the task, are unselfish in their attitudes towards all aspects of recreation. It is further suggested that three members of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission be appointed to this citizens' task force (it's anticipated that other members of the Commission will be involved with the task force), and, that representatives from the various athletic associations be included. It is antici- pated that this task force will range in size from 25 -30 members. SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TASK FORCE It is recommended that the City Council authorize the creation of the citizens' task force at the earliest opportunity with selec- tion and appointment to be made in late December or early January of 1984. Authorization by the City Council of this task force, volunteer citizens and individual suggested by the City Council, Commission and staff could be compiled with a brief background state- ment on each candidate for review. Appointment can then be made by the City Council after consideration of all those who wish to serve. It would be anticipated that a meeting of the citizens' task force could be initiated between January 9th and January 20, 1984 assum- ing a spring bond is an objective. The additional meetings would be devoted to administrative matters, task force organization, etc. In addition to the administrative issues, it is anticipated a spec- ial meeting would be dealing with the Park System Plan and the con- clusions that were reached in that planning document. Because the task force will review work which is based upon two years of accum- mulated study by the Advisory Commission, the task force would not be required to spend a great deal of time to perform an analysis on the park system. Assuming the task force completes its work in four meetings, it is probable that a recommendation to the City Council could be made as earlier as the first two weeks in March. SUMMARY The Advisory Parks Recreation Commission is recommending that a citizens' task force be assembled by the City Council to review the working proposal of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission in anticipation of a parks bond referendum. December 28, 1983 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: WORKING PROPOSAL OF FINANCE SUB COMMITTEE At the December 1 Advisory Commission Meeting, the Advisory Commission recommended to the City Council that a Citizens Task Force be appointed to review the Commission's working proposal and ultimately make a recommendation for a parks referendum. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the letter which was prepared by Vice chairperson Thurston and Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa which went to the City Council. The Council on December 6 accepted this recommenda- tion and has directed the City Administrator and Director of Parks and Recreation to compile a list of potential candidates to be appointed to this Citizens Task Force. The Commission also asked the sub- committee on parks finances to continue to meet and refine its working proposal which would ultimately be reviewed by the Task Force. The sub committee met again on December 7, 1983 and has prepared a Phase I and Phase II approach to parks development. Each phase may be considered as representing the primary and secondary approach to a parks bond referendum. It would be desirable for the Advisory Commission as a whole to review the proposal as prepared by the sub committee at this point for revision and /or acceptance. The Director of Parks and Recreation would also like some insights of the Commis- sion to determine its priorities as it relates to the phasing approach. Staff is of the opinion that while the Citizens Task Force input and direction will be vital, the working proposal should be well thought out and discussed amongst the Commission so representatives from the Commission who will be serving on the Task Force can carry these recommendations and thoughts to the Task Force discussions. Attached to this memo is the working proposal for Phase I;with a summation of dollar costs, sites would receive no work under the Phase I proposal and the result of a Phase I approach. Also, included on page 7 is the results of a Phase II approach and the results achieved if all work were to be done as indicated as Phase II (page 8) The last attachment is a memo dated December 15, 1983 relative to possible equipment needs associated with parks development. The sub committee on parks finances had requested the director to out- line identifiable equipment costs which may be needed to be con- sidered along with the parks development process. This memo is included for your information and discussion. Action Requested: The Advisory Commission is asked to review the Phase I and Phase II working proposal and achieve some consensus that this is the material that should be presented to the Citizens Task Force. RAHN: WORKING PROPOSAL PHASE I November 3, 1983 Revised November 9, 1983 Revised December 6, 1983 Revised December 7, 1983 3 Softball Fields 1 Baseball 1 Soccer (Overlay) 1 Soccer (Renovation) Play Equipment Utilities Parking Landscaping 361,000 (Optional) Maintenance, Storage /Toilet Bldg. (46,000) CAPRICORN: 1 Major Baseball 1 Minor Baseball 1 Soccer (Undersized) Overlay 2 Hockey Vita Course Building /Shelter Parking Open Skating Landscaping 460,000 Soccer /Baseball Field Lights 45,000 NORTHVIEW: Convert Baseball to Softball Fencing Irrigation 4 Softball Fields Irrigation 2 Soccer Fields Lighting 4 Fields Enlarge Parking Trail /Landscaping Building /Shelter SCHWANZ LAKE: Grading Play Equipment Horseshoe Pits 1 Back Stop 6 Open Picnic Shelters Picnic Tables /Grills Trails /Roads Canoe Access Landscaping Utilities 340,000 (Optional) Major Shelter with Restroom (50,000) TOTAL COMMUNITY PARKS $1,487,000 (Does Not Include Options) 281,000 CITY WIDE TRAILS (Lump Sum) 80,000 Page 2 COACHMAN: DE BOER: Grading 2 Softball 2 Hockey 1 Play Equipment Hard Court Shelter Trails /Parking Landscaping Removals /Grading 1 Softball (All Field Area) Hard Court Play Equipment z Vita Course Picnic Shelter Trail /Parking /Bridge Observation Deck /Dock Landscaping EAGAN HILLS: Grading 1 Softball 1 Soccer 1 Play Equipment Hard Courty Trail /Parking FISH LAKE: Grading Parking /Trails Boat Launch Picnic Area Fishing Docks PILOT KNOB: RIDGE CLIFF: WORKING PROPOSAL -PHASE I (continued) Removals: Hockey, Shelter Grading Hockey 2 Hockey Rinks Skating z Vita Course Trails Shelter Improve Ball Field School 1 Hockey 1 Ball Field 1 Soccer (Limited) Play Equipment 2 Tennis Courts Skating Shelter Trails /Parking NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 219,000 230,000 120,000 72,000 153,000 151,000 Page 3 WEDGEWOOD: Grading 2 Ball Fields 1 Soccer Overlay Hard Court Play Equipment Archery Area Open Shelter Trails /Parking Landscaping 2 Tennis Courts BC /BS: BUR OAKS: Grading Ball Field Trail /Parking Hard Court Grading (Assuming Full Acquisition At N /C) 99,000 SOUTH OAKS: Grading /Seeding Play Equipment (Open space will provide for soccer /ball field.) LAKESIDE: Grading /Seeding (Open space will provide for ball field, future development.) CARLSON LAKE: Turf Equipment 2 Play Equipment Trail Observation Deck 2 Docks Stairway /Trail EVERGREEN: Repair 2 Tennis Courts Play Equipment Ball Field Equipment COUNTRY HOME: Tennis Court Repair Play Equipment Turf /Ball Field LEXINGTON: WORKING PROPOSAL —PHASE I (continued) NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (continued) WOODHAVEN: 2 Tennis Courts Repair /Lighting Parking Lot Ball Field Play Equipment All Purpose Court Repair Ball Field Improvement Play Equipment Remove Hockey /Shelter Relocate Skating Area 209,000 100,000 34,000 20,000 46,000 34,000 21,000 35,000 30,000 Page 4 HIGHVIEW: CARNELIAN: SITES FOR PLAY EQUIPMENT OAK CHASE BUR OAKS PERIDOT PATH WALDEN HEIGHTS CINNAMON RIDGE WORKING PROPOSAL -PHASE I (continued) NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (continued) Removal of Hockey Rink Regrade /Improve Turf Replace Play Equipment Hard Court Tennis Court Resurface Soccer Field Parking /Trail Landscaping Remove Part of Hard Courts Remove Hockey Rink /Lights Improve Turf Play Equipment Relocate Shelter Open Shelter Landscaping Community Parks $1,487,000 Neighborhood Parks 1,725,000 Play Equipment 54,000 Trails 80,000 Subtotal $3,346,000 120,000 (Less L.A.W.C.O.N. Funds Rahn Fish Lake) TOTAL $3,226,000 75,000 77,000 TOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REDEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT $1,725,000 54,000 Sub committee members asked staff to identify additional maintenance cost associated with the development of parks. An information memo has been prepared (12 -5 -83) relative to this and supplemented by attachment dated December 15, 1983. Page 5 Vienna Woods Winkler /Jackson Mallard Park Heine Pond Park Donnywood Patrick Eagan /Windcrest Windtree Thomas Lake Blackhawk Ches Mar Oak Pond Hills Cedar Pond River Hills Park East Hill Top WORKING PROPOSAL -PHASE I (continued) PARK SITE WITH NO WORK PROPOSED UNDER PHASE I PROPOSAL Acquisition Not Completed No Park Plan No Park Plan No Park Plan Open Space No Park Plan Developed Developed Developed 11 11 11 11 11 t/ New North Athletic Field Acquisition New North Athletic Field Development Post 1990 I t Park service combined w /P.K. Study Required Study Required; Acquisition Not Comp. Study Required; Acquisition Not Comp. Study Required; Acquisition Not Comp. Page 6 21 Sites with New Play Equipment 4 New Tennis Courts 6 Existing Courts Upgraded 2 Existing Courts Lighted 3 New Baseball Fields 1 New Field Lighted 4 New Softball Fields 4 Existing Softball Fields Lighted WORKING PROPOSAL -PHASE I (continued) RESULTS Meets 1982 Standards Will Meet 1985 Projected Population Will Bring To Total Six (6) Lighted Meets 1982 Standards No Standard, But Will Reduce Future Field Space. Meets 1983 -84 Population Needs No Standard, But Will Reduce Future Needs; (Will In Effect Add Four (4) Will Meet 1985 -87 Project Needs Need Tennis Courts Needs For Field Space Fields)- 4 Existing Softball Fields Irrigated 7 New Hockey Rinks Lighted Meets 1982 Standard, Projected 1985/86 Needs 2 Existing Soccer Fields Irrigated No Standard, But Will Provide Full Season Use 2 Existing Rinks Eliminated 5 New Skating Areas 2 Ponds Made Accessible for Skating 5 Overlay Soccer (Rahn, Wedgewood, Capricorn, Eagan Hills, Coachman) Meets 1982 Need Level If 2 Overlay One Free Standing. 1 Overlay Soccer Lighted Capricorn No Standard. 1 Free Standing Soccer Created (Rahn) 7 New Ball Fields in Neighborhood Parks 5 Hard Court Play Areas Trails Boat Launch Lake Observation (3 Parks) Picnic Areas /Picnic Shelter Parking Areas Landscaping (Signage, Security Lights, Trees, Tables) Shelters /Warming Houses Page 7 1 -2 Soccer Fields 0 Baseball Fields 0 Softball Fields 4 Tennis Courts 3 Hockey Rinks 2 Ball Fields 3 Play Areas 7 Play Equipment Areas 5 Hard Court Areas Trails Boat Launch Fishing Dock Shelter WORKING PROPOSAL -PHASE II RESULTS 0 -1 Short Short Short Would Would Of 1990 Needs By 2 Of 1990 Needs By 2 Of 1990 Needs Meet 1990 Needs Meet 1990 Needs Site Plans for Windtree and Mallard Park have not been done; it is likely that these parks will have park features, i.e. Tennis Courts, Sketing, Ball Fields, which would increase the results listed. BC /BS PHASE 2 CEDAR POND Play Equipment Shelter Landscaping DE BOER (PART 2) Tennis Courts Hard Surface Play Equipment LAKESIDE Tennis Courts 2 Hockey Rinks /Open Skating Ball Fields Play Equipment Shelter Parking /Trail Utilities (Assuming Full Acquisition At N /C) HEINE POND Grading Parking Docks /Boat Launch Landscaping Hard Court, Back Stop Trails Landscaping December 7, 1983 190,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 30,000 SOUTH OAKS Hard Court Shelter Parking /Trail Landscaping Play Field 30,000 MALLARD PARK Grading Other (Lump Sum Amount) 110,000 THOMAS LAKE (Lump Sum) 150,000 WINDTREE (Lump Sum) 150,000 WINKLER /JACKSON (Lump Sum) 50,000 WOODHAVEN Shelter Parking /Trail 2nd Hockey Utilities 90,000 RAHN Shelter Building /Storage /Toilets 46,000 SCHWANZ LAKE Shelter Building 50,000 TOTAL 1,016,000 MEMO TO: SUB- CCtM2ITTEE ON PARK FINANCES At the sub committee meeting on December 7, the staff provided a memo concerning possible costs which might be incurred with the development of additional park land. The staff was asked to concern itself only with the equipment needs and to report back concerning the cost and the possible time of the purchase of these needs. The needs for increased supplies, fertilizer, labor and other related maintenance items was to be recognized as increasing and having an impact on the operational budget. However, the quanifica- tion of these supply items was deemed to be too difficult to achieve without a specific, detailed, and time consuming review. It is just anticipated that these costs will rise and will be absorbed as part of the general fund obligation. Equipment costs identified at this time are as follows: ITEM FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trailer RE: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, POSSIBLE EQUIPMENT NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH PARKS DEVELOPMENT DATED DECEMBER 14, 1983 Large capacity gang mower Flusher truck Tractor Park service truck Medium capacity mower Hand equipment small items COST 1983 DOLLARS TIMING December 15, 1983 $25,000 After development of 20 -40 acres of mobile terrain. 48,000 With development of skating facilities. New flusher truck will become primary unit with existing unit to be back up. 32,000 12,000 13,500 Towards the end of the development cycle. Towards the middle of the development cycle. Early /middle of the development cycle. 4,500 Early /middle of the development cycle. 4,000 Mid -to -late development or post 6,000 development. Staff believes that this is a fairly realistic and comprehensive list of the items which may be required with the developments of parks as identified in the working proposal. New technologies, staffing relationships, and organization of these resources to provide the service level required for the parks may change and consequently, may also change the timing and equipment requirements. At this time, however, it is believed that this is a good outline of equipment needs for the Commission to review. MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: PARK NAMES Background: The Sub- Committee on park names met on December 7 to review the list of suggested names for recommendation to the Commission. As you're aware, attempts have been made to include residents of the community in the naming process. This has met with only limited success. The Committee is recommending the following names: Currently Known As Oak Chase Northview Thomas Lake Carnelian Capricorn Coachman Ches Mar Cinnamon Ridge Country Home Height DeBoer Donnywood Fish Lake Hill Top Pilot Knob Ridge Cliff Wedgewood Windtree Woodhaven Blue Cross /Blue Shield Meadowlands Hi Line Schwartz Lake Recommended Name Oak Chase Park Downing Athletic Fields Thomas Lake Carnelian Park Goat Hill Park Stonecutters Park Robber's Ravine Park Cinnamon Park Country Home Park O'Leary Park Barley Corn Park Fish Lake Park Berry Patch Park Pilot Knob Park Ridgecliff Park Walnut Hill Park or Wedgwood Park Wescott Station Park Woodhaven Park Skyline Park Meadowland Park Loggers Road Trapp Farm Park January, 1984 The Sub Committee is recommending these names because there is 1) a preference shown by the community for the name and 2) the name has some historical signifi- cance to the area. Commission Action: The Commission should review the entire list and recommend to the City Council those park names it is in agreement with. MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: LEXINGTON SOUTH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PARKSLAND DEDICATION December 27, 1983 Background: Lexington South Planned Unit Development has been in existence for several years. Within the PUD, there is to be approximately 185 acres of parks and open space to be dedicated. To date, there has been approximately 60 plus acres in parkland already dedicated to the City. Staff has also been informed by Mr. Jim Curry, owner of Lexington South, that it will be his in- tent to dedicate the remaining acreage to the City before the end of 1984. Therefore, Mr. Curry is attempting to resolve any of the remaining parkland issues before the Commission and City at this time so he may be able to proceed with the dedication process. Parkland Dedications: Lexington South had prepared for the annual PUD review by the City Council and Planning Commission, an exhibit showing parkland parcels which have been dedicated to date and the remaining parcels to be dedicated. Attached to this memorandum are those exhibits. The only parcel not shown on the PUD exhibit is the 1.4 acre parcel which the City is attempting to acquire in addition to the Capricorn Park. This particular parcel was not previously identified in the Lexington South PUD and must now be balanced out against the remaining parksland dedication. Staff has reviewed the exhibits as prepared by the consultant to Lexington South and has the following comments to make in regards to the parcels as shown and the acreage amounts. Parcels #2, #3 and #4, which comprise the Capricorn and ChesMar Park areas, have been dedicated and the City is in agreement with the acreage as shown. Parcels #5 and #8 comprise Wedgewood Park. Parcel #5 is reported to have 7.25 acres however, records indicate that actual acreage is 6.55 or a difference of .70 acres. City records also indicate that parcel #8 consists of 10.25 acres. The developer has shown here 10.20 acres or a difference of .05 of an acre. Net difference then for Wedgewood Park is .65 acres from that which is shown by the Lexington South calculations. Parcel #1 and parcel #9 is parkland which the City was to have received, but did not accept at the time of plating of the ad- jacent land parcels. These parcels were incorporated into the adjacent development, but for which dedication credit had been extended to the developer. Staff is in agreement that the acreage shown in the calculations by the developer is appropriate. Parcel #6 was originally dedicated to the City and was subsequently resold back to Lexington South PUD. Therefore, the 4.04 acres re- corded for this parcel should be accepted. Parcel #6A is a future trails connection through the Oak Pond Hills residential development which has been received as dedica- tion. Staff is in agreement with the calculations of 3.3 acres for this dedication. Parcel #7 consists of two outlots received by the adjacent de- velopments which comprise according to City records of 1.75 acres. PUD calculations record this as 1.98 for a discrepancy of .23 acres. Parcel #15 is immediately adjacent to and surrounds Schwantz Lake. This parkland has not yet been received and is recorded as being 14.1 acres by Lexington South. City records here indicate, however, that the actual park acreage is 13.53. City calculations were de- rived from the plated outlots from Oakwood Heights Second and Third Additions. The discrepancy of 1.28 acres is partly the result of the developer taking a parkland in the Oakwood Heights Third Addi- tion from beneath the highline trail. Members will recall that the City gave its approval to the taking of this parkland with the understanding that acreage would be made up through future park- land dedications in the PUD. The remaining park parcels are areas which are to yet be dedicated. Parcels #10, #11, #12 and #13 are believed to be close approxima- tions of the parcels to be dedicated. These numbers are only approximations, however, and cannot be confirmed until field sur- vey work is done to determine exact acreages. Parcels #14 and #16 have been calculated, but have not yet been included as part of any development. Parcel #14 is believed to be 1.99 acres in size. The City Council has directed that this parcel not be received for parkland, but be included in the develop- ment of Fawn Ridge. Parcel #16 is 8.6 acres in size and was deter- mined to be that acreage when the Northview Meadows Development, which is immediately north of this parcel, was plated. In summation, staff is in agreement or can accept the parkland calculations as provided by the consultant to the Lexington South PUD except for parcels #15, #7, #5 and #8. The City calculation shows a discrepancy in total of 2.16 acres. Calculations for parcels #10, #11, #12 and #13 are subject to review and verifi- cation at some later date. It is also assumed that parcel #17, which is currently being proposed as part of the Gabbert Develop- ment, will comply with the 8.40 acres to be dedicated. Discussion And Review: Staff has previously met with Jim Curry regarding the parkland issues. Unfortunately, staff did not have the benefit of the acreage calculations at the time of that meeting. As of this writing, Mr. Curry is not aware of these various dis- crepancies, but contact will be made with him in an attempt to resolve some of these issues prior to the Parks Commission Meeting on January 5. -2- Mr. Curry has indicated a willingness and a desire to resolve the parkland dedication issues in a positive manner. As pre- viously stated, it is his intentions to dedicate the remaining parkland parcels prior to the end of 1984. The issues that re- main to be resolved are the acreage discrepancies and the resolu- tion of the 1.4 acres to be added to Capricorn Park. Mr. Curry has also indicated that it is his belief he and the Commission should look at land values when discussing exchanges of parcels. The R4 land from which the addition to Capricorn Park comes has been marketed at $22,000 an acre. Therefore, the 1.4 acres has a value of approximately $30,000. In an understanding that was reached earlier with Mr. Rod Hardy, who previously represented Lexington South, that any adjustment in acreages to accomplish this exchange of the 1.4 to the City would be made up in parcel #10. It is staff's assumption that Mr. Curry will use parcel #10 as a balancing area for the parksland dedication versus any cash exchange. Commission Action: Mr. Curry will be at the January 5th meeting to review these issues with the Commissions in an attempt to reach an agreement on the resolutions of the park issues as indicated. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAME OF P.D.: LEXINGTON SOUTH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OWN.ER/DE,VEWPER: JIM CURRY LCrTION: SEE EXHIBIT DATE INITIALLY APPROVED JULY 21, 1975 TERM OF P.D.: 15 YEARS DATE REVIEGED: DECEMBER 15, 1983 PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH WITT, PLANNING ASSISTANT I. LAND USES Residential R -1 R -4 695 acres Park and Open Space 185 acres Commercial 170 acres Rights -of -Way 90 acres TOTAL 1,140 acres II. ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE PAST YEAR Exhibits A -G, which are attached, show the land use summary, phasing, development and park dedication. Land sold and developed to date include: Wilderness Park, Canterbury Forest, Ches Mar 1 -4, Wedgwood, Over- view, Oakwood Heights, Sheffield and Northview Meadows. 34% of the 1,140 acres has been developed and almost half of the park dedication has been made. III. PROPOSED CHANGES The planned development to develop as scheduled. There are 6 areas included in the 1983 85 phasing, and these will probably go as planned. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The planned development agreement was entered into on June 21, 1976 and is for 15 years. The owner may re- quest two 5 -year extensions if mutually agreed upon by the City. The listed owners of the planned devel- opment are the same as last year with Jim Curry plan ning to take a more active part. CITY OF EAGAN LEXINGTON SOUTH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DECEMBER 15; 1983 PAGE TWO V. PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS IDENTIFIED The Parks Director and developer -have park dedication concerns which they plan to descuss in the near future. The developer would like to complete his park dedica- tion in 1984. NOTES The Lexington Avenue extension is open and the sewer along Wescott both serve to promote continued growth. The developer had no problems at this time. December 5, 1983 To: City of Eagan /Planner's Office From: Sienna Corporation Re: Lexington South PUD 1983 ANNUAL PUD REVIEW In facilitating the Annual PUD Review, the following Exhibits are attached to the City's form: Exhibit A Table of Land Use Summary as Approved by City. Exhibit B Graphic of Phasing. Exhibit C Graphic of Land Developed /Sold. Exhibit D Graphic of Parks Dedicated and to be Dedicated. Exhinit E Table of Parcels Developed and Parkland Dedicated. Exhibit F Table of Park Parcels to be Dedicated. Exhibit G Table of Land to be Developed. Total site acreage 1,140.0 acre LAND USE SUMMARY LEXINGTON SOUTH, INC. Acreage Breakdown I. Residential 695.9 acres II. Commercial Land 169.4 acres III.Athletic Field (29.8 +12.8) 42.6 acres IV. Parks and Open Space 142.1 acres V. Road.R.O W 90.0 acres Land breakdowns by percentage: Percentage of land in parks and open space contributed as part of P.D. Agreement 12.5% Road R.O.W. represents those roads clarified as Collector or Area Collector by the city... 7.9% Total 20.4% Total Net Saleable Land: Residential 695.9 acres Commercial 169.4 acres Athletic Field (School District) 42.6 acres ource: P.D. Agreement with City of Eagan 1,140.0 acres 907.9 acres EXHIBIT A .411k til.4\1H-1(411414: 1 ,,......----'k........ '4, I 1 .1 .-9 h‘...,:-• DAKOTA( rf PARR ..T. 4.; 4 -7 N .A s. A l l -1 kd •i! N f, t S ••4 1..11,.7..i 7 4 .....-a' i Iv r:. :1- i t e- .I. t it :-.e._ e 0. i) 1. .7- 1:,.. -4.z f f. Lexington South 4' rlsc- o goo logo isi (:1 j 1-:ri1: V ,N _,(4 3 '1. :.i q volyee T 1983 Annual PUD Review PHASING 1. 1978-19s 2. 1983-1985 3..15'85-1955 .1-4:15'58-1992 Land Sold/Developed Land Use Plan R1 (2un,ac)R1-E(1un-jac.) R2 mil. res.(3-6un./ac.) R3 mix. re s. (6-12un.tac.) R4 multiple (12-Fun-mc-) LB ltd. bus. GB gen.bus. CSC comm. shpng.cntr. dedicated rii space hiking trail all-purpose trail bikes EXHIBIT B i ii /ui /iii as •C:iaC 7 +'t:. l Lexington South moLans,-(s ICIPO a t D•KOri rY DA n,( 1. 1.. is '1 -r 1 i`.- ✓W. •;fir P 15. Oakwood Heights 1st Addition P 14. II II 2nd P 13. 3rd P 10. Northview Meadows mann t 1983 Annual PUD Review EXHIBIT C _.T tr LAND USE f PARK AND OPEN SPACE Pik dedica {e<4 a {o be dedlcaded. •IMF Land Sold Developed RI E(tun_/ac.) R2 mix.res.(3- 6un./ac.) R3 mi:.res.(6-t2unaac.) R4 multiple (124-un.lac) LB ltd. bus. GB gen.bus. CSC comm.shpng.cntr_ i.. 2 dedicated rp1Parks•open space s hiking trail all- purpose trail bikes Land Use Plan J r Land Sold /Developed 1. Wilderness Park 2 Addition 2. Canterbury Forest 3. Chcs Mar East 1st Addition Ches Mar East 2nd Addition Ches Mar East 3rd Addition Ches Mar East 4th Addition 4, Wedgwood Addition 5. J. Barton (Overview Estates) 6. City of Eagan 7. Oakwood Heights Oakwood heights Oakwood heights 1st Addition 2nd Addition 3rd Addition 8, Sheffield Addition 9. Church Sites in P. 11,5,4,2,1,3 10. Northview Meadows TOTAL 52.48 27.30 50.00 9.59 8.65 11.42 11.36 41.00 48.22 379.54 LEXINGTON SOUTH PUD 1983 ANNUAL PUD REVIEW Units Max. Allowed Built Acres Zoning 38.38 R -1 115 85 38.93 R -1 116 19.25 R -2 115 R -2 22.96 R -2 137 R -2 R -2 314 R -1 63 R -2 R -2 57 R -2 52 R -2 68 R -2 67 39 R -2 R-3 578 58 53 (20) (14)62 (28) 85 3 -6 1.6 24 1 -3 1.0 56 38 50 1,682 706 1 -3 1 -3 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 3 -6 156 6 -12 Density Park Dedicated Allowed As Built Acres Description u /ac u /ac u /ac u /ac. 2.7 u/ ac (5)7.25 (6) 4.04 u /ac (6A)3.30 u /ac (7)1.98 (8)10.20 5.8 u /ac (9) 5.01 4.3 u /ac 4.4 u /ac 3.3 u /ac 3.2 u /ac 1.9 u /ac 67.95 acres EXHIBIT E Total Acreage Developed f, Total Acreage Dedick to Parks are 379.54 acres 67.95 acres respectively. The 379.54 acres represents 34% of total proje__ed development (34% of 1,1112 acres). The 67.95 acres of Park represents 49.8% of proposed park. (142.1 acres). 2 u /ac (1)1.26 ac.North of Wilderness Run Rd. 1.5 (2)19.48 North of Wilderness Run Rd. 1.4= 20.88 West of Lexington Ave. 2.7 u /ac (3).43 Between Ches Mar Wedgwood (4)13.60 So. of P27 6 No. of P8 N. of Wilderness Run Rd. 6 S of NSP F, W. of P16. Surrounded by P20 South of Park Parcel 13 W. of P19 f, E. of P18 NSP Easement from Lex. Ave. to E. Line of Wedgwood Add. In Wedgwood Add. (between P17 P16) 50 1 L 'Wetness Fart Chace R79 10 City Park sold R-1 ewooI jj CUIt RV akol a County Park Holland Lake V 1983 PUO REVIE\Aie PARKS I-9 10-17 loix. D edicta4ed edicafed 0 fI EXHIBIT 0 Lexington South rsionszommeamm., Land Use Plan R1 (2un/ac)111-E(1un.itc.) R2 mlx,rea.(3-Bun./ac.) R3 mix.rea.(6-12un./ac.) R4 multiple (124-un./ac.) LB ltd. bus. GB gembus. CSC comm.almng.cntr agricultural parka-open space a 0 park parcel namber ''''ssmo" 1 neeth 5/ a Lit Wariseclioe exception R-2 20 CSAH 32 2 soI4 R-1 Hoc t Arai, PARK PARCELS TO BE DEDICATED Acres Description': LEXINGTON SOUTH PUD 1983 ANNUAL PUD REVIEW (17) 8.40 ac. West of P.1 73.56 ac. To be dedicated +67.95 ac. Already dedicated or 141.51 ac. Total 45.50 EXHIBI (10) 6.44 ac. North of NSP Easement East of Lexington Avenue (9.24 -2.8) (11) 13.14 ac. West, North Ea .t_ of P.15 (including NSP _Easement) (12) 9.12 ac. East of Westcott Hills Dr., North Of Wilde Rd. F, West of P.14 (includes (13) 11.06 ac. South of .Wilderness Run Rd. East of '`P,:19 F --West of P.20 (14) 1.99 ac. SE corner of P.20._ (NW, corner of Cliff Rd. Doad:.B- Yd, (15) 14.81 ac. North NE;,of P.14 North NW of P-.13' (inc-ludes -'NSP) (16) 8.60 ac. East of Westcott Hills Dr. E North of NSP (South of-_ P..10- f total park The Developer intends to, have the remaining 73.56' acres 'o park dedicated prior to <October 1, 1984.. Run Parcel Description Acres Net Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Change Phase Zoning Max. Un. Allowed Zoning Max. Un. Allowed 1. Parcel 1 -5.0 ac. Church) 50.30 R -2 301 2(1983 -85) 2. Parcel 2 -3.0 ac. Church) 117.40 R -3 1,408 R -2 -704) 2(1983 -85) 3. Parcel 3 -3.0 ac. Church) 37.00 R -2 222 R -4 +296) 3(1985 -88) 4. Parcel 4 -6.0 ac. Church) 18.80 R -4 263* 3(1985 -88) 5. Parcel 5 -6.0 ac. Church) 6.20 R -4 87 3(1985 -88) 6. Parcel 7 -1.4 for Park) 68.10 R -4 953 2(1983-85) 7. Parcel 9 +2.8 Park exch.) 172.20 GB /LB /CSC 4(1988 -92) 8 Parcel 10 -43 ac. Northview 20.58 R-3 246 2(1983 -85) Meadows) 9. Parcel 11 -8.0 ac. Church) 39.10 R -2 235 3(1985 -88) 10. Parcel 16 9.59 R -2 57 2(1983 -85) 11. Parcel 20 59.58 R -2 357 2(1983 -85) LEXINGTON SOUTH PUD 1983 ANNUAL PUD REVIEW LAND TO BE DEVELOPED TOTAL 598.85 4,129 *A m: m of 14 units per acre has been assumed as a maximum ;ity for R -4. -408) EXHIBIT G 3,721 MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION December 27, 1983 FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: MEADOWLAND PARK; PARK CONCEPT PLANS Background: At the November 3, 1983 Advisory Commission meeting, the Commission authorized Mr. Tim Erkkila to proceed with the development of a base map and three preliminary concept plans for Meadowland Park. There is also a consensus that the Commission would like to have a training session with Mr. Erkkila -to better understand the development process that a consultant goes through in the development of a park plan. The Director of Parks and Recreation was asked to work with Mr. Erkkila to see if he would be in agreement or willing to take on such a task. Mr. Erkkila has consented -to work with the Director in such a study process as outlined =to hir the Director of Parks and Recreation. Planning Process: Mr. Erkkila has delivered to the Director of Parks and Recreation, a base map for Meadowland Park. This base map rep- resents a significant amount of work and effort in the park planning process. Park boundaries have been confirmed, topographic lines re- drawn to fit adjacent development, and selection of the appropriate scale for display /work. Cutouts of various park facilities have also been prepared for the "Plan It Yourself" park for the Commission to use. the January 5 meeting, the Director of Parks and Recreation would like to have allocated up to 45 <:minutes of "work time" with the Commis- sion for planning Meadowland Park. Please be aware that it is not the Commission's objective to plan the park. Rather, it is the objective to try and understand the process_ of park planning. It would be de- sirable to have several of the members: try to plan the park while two members are appointed as "observers" of the work process. These ob- servers could then report back what they saw happening, helping to note some of the process steps that were taking place. If the Commis- sion completes its "task Mr. Erkkila will be present at the February meeting of the Commission to critique_the work of the Commission, the process that the Commission went through and to outline the process issues that the consultant goes through. Hopefully, the Commission will find this a learning experience and gain some insights into the work performed by a consultant.