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.