Loading...
10/18/1982 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionMINUTES OF A SPECIAL ADVISORY PARKS F RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1982 Chairman Martin called the Advisory Committee together at 6:30 P.M. Those present were Martin, Thurston, McNeely, Fedde, Kubik, Schumaker, and Carroll. Members absent Gustafson, Masin, and Tilley. Also present was the Director of Park and Recreation and Systems Plan Consultant, Tim Erkkila. Parks and Recreation Director, Vraa indicated that committee member Masin would not be able to attend this evenings meeting and that member Tilley had indi- cated to the director that she would be resigning from the Advisory Committee. The Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that in addition to review of system plan material, he wished to place on the agenda for the Advisory Committee two informational items. These items consisted of the Walden Heights plat in section 33 and an item concerning Fish Lake Park. Chairman Martin added these items to the agenda for discussion. The Director of Parks and Recreation then introduced the Advisory Committee to the evenings subject matter, indicating that the topic of tonights agenda primarily would be those items discussed but not acted upon from the regular meeting with additional information concerning the classification system, demographic statistics, and an illustration of typical park. Mr. Erkkila discussed the format of the classification system saying that he had revised the materials and placed it in a format similar to that which was done in the comprehensive guide plan. Mr. Erkkila then displayed a visual representation of "basic park facilities" that is envisioned in the new definition and concept of a neighborhood park. Displaying this he indicated that approximately 5.5 acres would be the minimal neighborhood park to accomplish that which had been identified for basic neighborhood park amenities. He then displayed an overlay which expanded the neighborhood park facilities providing optional facilities such as a ball field, tennis courts, hockey rinks, and expanded trail system. He explained that to comfortably put these elements into one park, approximately 11.5 acres would be required. He stated that while the plan was conceptual in nature he felt that it would help to visualize for the Advisory Committee the characteristics of both the basic and expanded neighborhood park concept. Committee member Thurston questioned the amount of open space shown in the two concept plans and the need to be sensitive to topography and the slopes within Eagan which may require additional acreage for parks to include all of the elements shown. Mr. Erkkila responded that in the concept he had shown approximately one acre of land as passive area. He stated that committee member Thurston's comments regarding topography was accurate and would translate into the fact that more park acreage would be required in some neighborhoods in order to accomplish the objective of providing a neighborhood park with optional facilities. He continued saying the Advisory Committee should anticipate, when it looks at potential park sites that it would need 10 acres for a neighborhood park. With changes in topography additional park land should be sought. After a brief discussion by the Advisory Committee, Mr. Erkkila then began to discuss the aspects of the recreational standards. He stated that at the previous meeting the Advisory Committee had looked at 1980 census data, in conjunction with a recommended standard. He indicated that he had updated the visual overlay to show 1982 census and current needs versus current supply. He stated that this new standard, based on the Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 2 1982 an estimated population of 25,000, showed the present need of ten (10) scheduable softball facilities or a deficiency of two. In the other categories baseball would he short Z facility, tennis 2.5 facilities, soccer 2 facilities, hockey approximately 2 facilities. He went on to review the community athletic field test saying that the typical standard of 3 to 3.5 acres for 1,000 residents applied to the population of 1982 yielded a current need of between 75 and 88 acres with the current supply of 70 acres. Mr. Erkkila indicated that this would tend to further support the need for the Rahn Athletic Complex. This would also begin to shed some light on why the City was beginning to hear comments regarding the need for development of recreational facilities. Mr. Erkkila then went on to say that standards are critical, and that some additional research in comparing other communities was made to assist the Advisory Committee. Mr. Erkkila began to review standards as adopted in other communities along with the old Eagan standards as adopted in 1980. He stated it is important to recognize how those services are being delivered in the community to under- stand whether that standard is appropriate. Mr. Erkkila stated that the old Eagan standard is one softball field for 1,500 residents. Maple Grove was using the standard of 2,000, Crystal was 1,250. He stated that Crystal had extensive use of school facilities in order to deliver this level of service and were having community and neighborhood parks fully developed to accomplish this. Mr. Erkkila then went through various communities and facilities standards for tennis, soccer, hockey and baseball facilities. He continued saying that Eagan, with the standard just illustrated, is on the conservative end of each. He continued with the review of the community athletic field standards, which range between 3 and 3.5 acres per thousand. The City of Plymouth has a 2.5 acres per thousand standard. He stated that the present Eagan standards of 3.5 is again conservative. In applying this standard to the current need it would produce between 75 and 88 acres of demand with the current supply of 70 acres. He continued saying that by 1990 Eagan would have a projected need of between 110 and 130 acres of required athletic field lands. In conclusion, there would be a deficiency of nearly SO acres at that time. In comparison he stated, Maple Grove was supplying these facilities at 3.3 acres per thousand, Crystal was utilizing 4.8 acres per thousand which excluded the utlization of school sites for their programming purposes. He stated that Crystal had a joint powers agreement for utilization of these sites which allowed them to be incorporated into the standards. He went on to state that Crystal was having problems in delivering the number of facilities because of the lack of land now available for such development. He indicated that he would suspect that the community, if it could, would lower that standard in order to provide the number of facilities that are now desired. He went on to relate that both Apple Valley and Eden Prairie are 3 acres per thousand while that of Eden Prairie is 2.5 acres per thousand. Committee member Kubik stated that again this shows that Eagan's standards of 3 to 3.5 ratio would be on the conserva- tive side and may short the community of needed facilities in the future if that standard were adopted. Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Erkkila stated that at the previous committee meeting there was a discussion on the gross number of acres the park system currently has and its relationship to population. He stated that in 1980 the ratio of park land per thousand population was 22 acres. This was raw acreage and included both developed, undeveloped, open space, and all those lands designated as park but which could not be developed such as water bodies and steep slopes. Other communi- ties, in comparison, Lakeville at 28.6, Maple Grove at 28, and Plymouth had a goal of 20 acres per thousand population. He stated that the previous standard was approximately 10 acres per thousand population. However, the standard has been revised to 15 acres per thousand and as high as 15 to 20 acres in any areas. He stated that the high number of gross acres per thousand population is typically ahead of that which will ultimately be once a community becomes fully developed because they are receiving park land dedication prior to or in anticipation of growth. It is very typical for growing communities to have an excess of park land per thousand, based on most standards, while the community is developing. Mr. Erkkila continued that with this data on raw park land he wished to discuss the relationship of its numbers based on the six planning districts utilized in the planning process. He reviewed for the committee the projected population growth in each of the planning districts indicating that planning district 4 would probably be the fastest growing as a percentage of existing population. He then stated that with these figures and facts he ran them through to see how the park land distribution would be in 1990 based on projected population growths, and the assumption that no additional park land would be acquired between now and then. Currently, the City has approximately 608 acres of gross park acreage which yields a 24.8 acres per thousand population at present. By 1990 this would drop down to 15.1 acres per thousand, the range the community would like to be at time of full development. Park acreage, projected to a fully developed community would mean that the City would have approximately 6 acres per thousand. This would be well under acceptable standards for a developed community. This would suggest the community is going to have to acquire additional park land if you apply the standard of 10 to 15 acres per thousand population. It would suggest, he continued, that by 1990 the community would want to add between 350 and 500 acres of additional raw land. Mr. Erkkila continued stating that this sounded preposterous and he wanted to check out these projections against future neighborhood parks. Mr. Erkkila said he could check this out by adding known land dedication plus assuming 10 acre neigh- borhood parks in areas previously identified in the comprehensive guide plan for acquisition. By combining all these numbers and putting them into the formula, Mr. Erkkila said, there would be a total of 375 additional acres of park land the community has committd or hopes to acquire as part of the entire park system. Consequently, the community would then be at nearly 975 acres. This number would be not too far off from that which was previously projected. He continued saying that while the City was well on its way to acquiring its park needs, he suggested that there still remains some deficiencies that the City would need to be concerned about in 1990 and beyond. Mr. Erkkila continued the presentation by then reviewing for the committee the distribution of park land by 1990 in each service district. This was based on Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 4 current land holdings plus that which is anticipated through any development agreements. He indicated that the assumption is this land would be received by 1990, therefore the comparison may not be valid. He stated he wanted to illustrate for the committee the ratio of raw park land per thousand population and hoped this would illustrate the areas in which the community may be deficient. Planning district #5 has the largest percentage of raw land per thousand population projected by 1990, while service district #3 had the smallest ratio of park land per thousand population at 7.3 acres, based on 1982 census, which is well below the standard. By 1990 this will drop to 6.3 acres per thousand population. He stated that he did not believe this was surprising for the committee because it had previously indicated the high densities of section 9 and the lack of park and developed facilities within this park service section. Mr. Erkkila continued to show relationships of land to population and relation- ships between an east -west delineation and a north -south delineation. Mr. Erkkila also illustrated for the Advisory Committee a graphic representation showing what would happen if all land areas which were community parks were subtracted from the calculations and then reapplied those to the planning districts. This illustration showed that the newer sections of the community had sufficient gross acreage, but that it was undeveloped. The older portions of the community, such as section 1 and 2, was deficient in land but was developed. Again, he emphasized that this did not tell the committee anything that it didn't know previously but reconfirmed it and quantified the deficiency in terms of acres. In response to a question from chairman Martin, Mr. Erkkila responded that these numbers were based on land currently held and not on anticipated or future acquisitions. For example, he stated, that in district 1 future park dedication in the Meadowlands, the acreage would improve of park land per thousand population in district to a more acceptable and desirable ratio. Mr. Erkkila stated the old comprehensive guide plan stated there would be 3 acres per thousand population of land in neighborhood parks. To use this standard at this time would escew the system. He suggested that this standard not be utilized; or use a much higher acreage in this growth cycle. The Advisory Committee discussed this comment and were in agreement with Mr. Erkkila, as this would be in conflict with the City's desire to acquire neighborhood parks of 12 to 15 acres in size. The committee then discussed various items. Chairman Martin stated that from the data that was presented, it reafirmed to him that a community athletic facility in the northern portion of the community would be necessary at some time in the near future. Mr. Erkkila expanded that comment by saying not only is there a need for such a facility, but there should also be a concern for general neighborhood parks in the northern section. In response to a question from the Advisory Committee, Mr. Erkkila began to review those areas in which he felt acquisition beyond the dedication process may be necessary. Mr. Erkkila continued that at the previous meeting there was the question of drawing a comparison between the City's comprehensive guide plan and that which was being reviewed at this time. He then displayed the page from the City's comprehensive guide plan referring to the necessity of acquisition. He re- flected that the guide plan stated the City had approximately 70% to 80% of its park system now within its holdings. He suggested that this figure may be high and that the actual figure might be more in the 60% range based on what we know Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 5 now in terms of future neighborhood parks, the necessity of community develop- ment of athletic fields and the desire to have neighborhood parks of 12 to 15 acres. Chairman Martin stated that if the City's development is to be 100,000 people that the 70% to 80% ratio seemed high. Recognizing that the City has 600 acres of actual acquisition and that the community is to have 100,000 people the 60% factor would be the maximum. Mr. Martin continued that if we are talking about an additional 300 acres as identified for basic neigh- borhood parks as identified with the necessity of future acquisition of community athletic field facilities, then this percentage seems to be inaccurate. There was considerable discussion by the Advisory Committee in regards to this issue, the consensus being that with existing and proposed dedications there would be less than a thousand acres. This would be below the 12 to 15 acres per thousand for neighborhood, community, and open space park land needed. Mr. Erkkila stated that additional land acquisition may not be the news that everyone wanted to hear. The general emphasis and concern through the tactics study and interviewing process has been on development. Mr. Erkkila stated that he did not mean to say that the City should focus its attention on the acquisition issue. Development was still the primary issue before the community. Rather, discussion of acquisition was to ensure that the Advisory Committee and City continue to focus its long range objectives and realization of the necessity for acquisition as an essential part of the growth of the community into the year 1990 and beyond. His intent was to help the Advisory Committee and the City understand why it may need to purchase and /or spend money on acquisition for key or significant parcels if it is to provide facilities in areas other than neighborhood parks. After additional discussion by the Advisory Committee, Mr. Erkkila then moved on to the distribution and analysis of the various facilities within the park system, which was a review of information that was at the regular October 7th meeting. He reminded the Advisory Committee at the conclusion that the distribution of facilities was based upon projected 1990 needs, the standards that were reviewed but not yet adopted, and the desire to adequately distribute the facilities through the six planning districts. After review and discussion, Mr. Erkkila identified the next task for the Advisory Committee stating that they should come to an agreement on the classi- fication standard issues so work on the systems plan can continue. He stated that his intent, if agreement could be reached, was to hold the committee to this standard during the following phases of the plan. This did not preclude the Advisory Committee from going back, but should feel very confident about these standards so work can proceed. Committee member Thurston questioned the advisability of a potential removal of the hockey facility at Lexington Park as had been indicated. She stated that this neighborhood has few facilities, she has difficulty seeing the justification in its removal. Mr. Erkkila re- sponded that he realized that this was a touchy and difficult issue for the committee to deal with and for the community. He said he could understand an Advisory Committee's decision not to do so, however, he reiterated, that the facility was substandard and that it conflicted with the utilization of the park for ball field purposes. He suggested before removing the rink, a replace- ment within the planning district should be in place. The replacement of these hockey boards would be inevitable and at such times that they became in a state Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 6 of disuse, the City not expend the additional funds to replace those hockey boards. Mr. Erkkila continued saying the Advisory Committee has justification for not installing or spending the dollars to install the hockey rink at this location. There are other neighborhood areas with a higher density of popu- lation which could also be justified for a hockey rink facility. He then re- viewed density figures which would warrant a hockey facility in comparison to the Lexington Park area. Chairman Martin indicated that if the City were to proceed with the removal of that hockey rink, at such time as the hockey boards were in poor state of being, it did not mean the City would not retain the open skating area. In response to a question the Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that the utilization of the Lexington Park area for hockey and skating was marginal. Committee member Thurston indicated that the department has continued to keep and monitor attendance records and that we should continue to do so to ascertain whether the utilization of the hockey rink and open skating areas in this park and other facilities is warranted. The committee, in response to a question from Mr. Kubik, discussed the population projections as indicated in the park service districts to try to determine its potential for growth beyond that which was projected between 1982 and 1990 projectio and the feasibility for multiple housing developments. Committee member Martin suggested that while the planning horizon was 1990 the committee might also look upon what the numbers could potentially be at saturation. Chairman Martin indicated that the intent was not to develop a plan for saturation but to estimate total park land the system should have at saturation level. He in- dicated that this might help to justify the necessity of long range views of additional acquisition for major parcels of park land. Mr. Erkkila responded that while this could be done he hopes that the City and Council would recognize the numerical standards, and the need to distribute these facilities in major planning areas for the community. Committee member Kubik stated that as the community grows and becomes further developed the relative ease of acquisition for parcels become increasingly difficult and the City needs to be aware of this and continue to provide a level of service and a level of park lands to satisfy future generations. He then questioned whether there had been any studies done which might show the increase in cost or difficulty of acquisition as develop- ment occurs? Mr. Erkkila responded that he was not aware of any study of that nature but appreciated his comment. It would seem that park land will become increasingly more difficult and increasingly more expensive as time progresses. Early acquisition in anticipation of future needs would undoubtedly save money, but it would be hard to justify to existing residents not to proceed with de- velopment because of acquisition needs. After discussion, the Advisory Committee questioned the Director of Parks and Recreation as to the amount of money being received annually for parks dedication purposes and the potentiality of seeing these dollars channeled into an acquisition program? The director continued saying that there are a number of instances which acquisition could take place under various contractual arrangements which may spread out the cost for necessary parcels over a longer length of time rather than a direct cash outlay. Committee member Martin stated that it was his understanding that remaining lands for neighborhood parks would come either through the dedication process or through cash donations which would acquire the remaining neighborhood park areas. If this was accurate, all major parcels for community and athletic facilities would have to come through some other source. Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 7 After additional discussion concerning park land dedication, future neighbor- hood parks, athletic areas, etc. the committee agreed that the total park raw acreage number of parks could be large but the quality aspects and usage patterns need to be kept uppermost in the community's minds as the parks system develops. Committee member Martin stated that he agreed that some of the early parks dedication, which was substandard in nature, are now coming back to haunt the community because they show up in calculations of raw acreage rather than in the classification of suitable lands. Tim Erkkila stated that in his review and analysis it would appear that with 600 acres of land, the City really only has approximately 100 acres mowable, maintainable parks at this time. He stated that this was not a criticism of the department rather a reflection of the types of park land and development at this point. Committee member Thurston stated that an additional reason for this might be in the fact that with the topography and vegetation as well as the nature of Eagan, that parks would not have as high a percentage of development as other communities. She continued saying that a higher acreage standard for park land should be required because of this element. Other members indicated that this was an important element to bring out and were in agreement with her comments. Mr. Erkkila continued that a large number for parks land should not intimidate the committee or council. It suggests that perhaps that this was one of the reasons people have moved to Eagan with its large expanses and open spaces. The park system is one way of maintaining that ratio of open space to develop- ment and is seen as a desirable amenity for the community. Committee member Martin agreed with that statement. Mr. Erkkila continued that the Advisory Committee and Council become the "keeper of the land" as much as it was a "deliverer of recreational services." Committee members agreed with this. Mr. Kubik commented that large park numbers scare people, unless they did a thorough examination of those acres that were identified as park land. In response to a question, Mr. Erkkila stated that as the plan progressed he would be coming back to the committee with what he felt would be the prioriti- zation of needs and development of neighborhood parks and facilities as well as any play fields. He stated that this perhaps would help clarify the timing and acquisition of development of these facilities. There were numerous questions and discussion by the Advisory Committee on other aspects, after which they began a discussion on specific standards that would be applicable to Eagan. Chairman Martin indicated that he preferred to take each one separately and reach some agreement or consensus on it before proceeding to the next element. Mr. Erkkila responded that the softball field standard range was 1,250 to 2,500 and that up to this time he had used a standard of 2,500 for the committee. Committee member Kubik stated that he felt that this number was too high and should be reduced. In response to a question from committee member Kubik, the Director of Parks and Recreation outlined the use of existing fields. The utilization of the school fields are extremely heavy and should the fields at Cedar, for example, be closed youth programs of the community would be in serious trouble. Similarly, adult programs would be in serious trouble without Blue Cross /Blue Shield or. Univac. With a brief discussion, the committee agreed that the standard for softball and athletic _fields should be set at 1 to 2,000 population. It was noted by the committee chairman that this number was still in the conservative range and higher than that which was included in the original comprehensive guide plan. Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 8 The committee then moved on to baseball facilities, which the range of facilities was between 1 per six and ten thousand people. In response to a question by Mr. Kubik, Mr. Erkkila quickly reviewed again the standards for the communities, the general standard being 1 facility for 6,000. It was recommended to the committee that the standard be revised to 1 for 8,000 by Mr. Kubik. After a brief discussion with all members in agreement the standard was revised to 1 per 8,000 for baseball facilities. Tennis courts were next discussed. Committee member Fedde stated that he felt that the standard for tennis facilities should be reduced from 1 to 2,000 to a lesser level of 1 to 1,000. Fedde questioned if it was the intent of the committee to improve the park system or to be continually at the conserva- tive end of the scale as they have already been with both baseball and softball? He felt that it was necessary to improve the standard in which we are delivering these services and should adopt a better level of service! The committee then discussed and adopted a ratio of 1 tennis court per 1,750 people. The committee next moved on to soccer fields and after a brief discussion a standard was maintained at 1 soccer field per 5,000. In reviewing of hockey rink facili- ties a standard of 1 per 3,000 was maintained. Committee member Martin also indicated that he wished to see the standard for open skating facilities in- cluded and it was the consensus of the Advisory Committee that this be a ratio of 1 skating area per 3,000. Mr. Erkkila then asked for direction from the Advisory Committee in regards to the classification system. Members indicated that the standards adopted were conservative and they must keep this in mind as the years pass by so the system doesn't become deficient in need. Committee member Thurston questioned, from the previous discussion by the Advisory Committee, the desirability of maintaining the statement of 3 acres per thousand for neigh- borhood parks. She stated that she preferred to see this deleted and the phrase- ology changed to reflect a minimum classification. Members of the Advisory Committee were in agreement and the consultant was directed to change the phraseology to reflect the standard of neighborhood parks as being accepted at a minimum ratio of 12 to 15 acres per neighborhood park site. Mr. Erkkila then thanked the Advisory Committee for their patience and excellent comments in reviewing this material at this time. He stated at the next opportunity the committee would be introduced to the other subject matter including ponds and trails, and the designation of parks for concept design. WALDEN HEIGHTS The Director of Parks and Recreation briefly reviewed for the Advisory Committee the history of the Walden Heights plat. As this was an informational item, he wished to inform the committee that the plat has been picked up by Mr. Rod Hardy of Sienna Corporation and that the final plat for this addition appeared to be forthcoming. He reviewed for the Advisory Committee the park area within the plat and stated that Mr. Hardy had requested revision of the grading that was to take place on the site. He stated that the previous grading plan was to remove a major portion of a hillside which eventually would be designated as a flat open space. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that he felt that this was not desirable and a location further to the south end of the park would be the most desirable. He stated that this had been reviewed with the City engineer and consulting engineer for Mr. Hardy. He stated that the proposed grading plans had yet to be reviewed by the developer. Members of the Advisory Minutes of a Special Meeting October 18, 1982 Page 9 Committee expressed agreement and concern for the restoration of the top soil and seeding. The Director of Parks and Recreation moved on to the informational item titled "Fish Lake Park" stating that it was previously indicated to the Advisory Committee that an area adjacent to Denmark Avenue and Fish Lake, approximated 11/2 acres in size, was not owned by the City. In the past years, in identifi- cation of park land both on zoning maps and City map as well as the concept plan for the P.U.D., it had erroneously been shown as park land. He continued saying this land was owned by a private individual which was now seeking to develop this into town house units. He brought this to the Advisory Committee members attention at this time because the committee had previously directed the planning consultant to prepare concept plans as part of the system plan for this park. However, now that this acreage is not owned by the City, should the consultant proceed with plans for the park? In response to a question the director indicated that there still remains a 45' wide access from Denmark Avenue to the park. This could still provide for pedestrian and vehicular access for park usage. Various members of the committee questioned the previous P.D.'s agreement and background behind an apparent confusion of ownership of this park land which the Director of Parks and Recreation responded to. After additional discussion the director outlined potential options for the Advisory Committee indicating that one potential option would be to acquire through purchase. Members commented that the benefit to the park system was water based recreational activities and perhaps this was the most significant of the lakes in the community under City jurisdiction. Members recognize the lack of park facilities in the surrounding neighborhood and the desirability of obtaining the parcel. Committee member Thurston indicated that while the parcel would be desirable, the cost of the parcel, relative to its benefit should be reviewed. Chairman Martin asked the planning consultant to comment on what he felt could be developed on the site without this outlot? Mr. Erkkila re- sponded that very little could be done other than perhaps a pedestrian pathway into the site with off street parking. He stated that he would not care to comment further until he had an opportunity to review topographical features and other relationships. However, he stated that it was obvious that with the parcel little could be done and that the suggestion for concept development might be desirable at this time to help the committee to understand how that parcel could be sufficiently utilized. After additional discussion by the Advisory Committee the Director of Parks and Recreation was requested to communicate with the land owner to determine an acquisition price of the parcel and to prepare a summation for the Advisory Committee to review at its November 4th meeting. There being no additional business to conduct, the Advisory Committee's special meeting of October 18, 1982 was adjourned at 10 :15 P.M. Dated: FISH LAKE PARK ADJOURNMENT KLV Advisory Narks F Recreation Committee Secretary