Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1994 Park Board Packet , ^ City of Lino Lakes PARK BOARD MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1994 6 :30PM ***AGGIDA*** 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30pm 2 . Approval of Minutes from September 7, 1994 6:35pm Approval of Minutes from September 22, 1994 3 . Open Mike 6:40pm 4 . Concept Review A. Shores of Marshan II 6:45pm 5. Updates A. Recreation Complex/Referendum (verbal) 7:30pm B. Recreation Focus Committee (verbal) 7:45pm C. Friends of the Park (verbal) 7:55pm D. 1995 Goal Session 8 :05pm E. Other Park and Recreation Updates 8:15pm F. Shoreview Building (verbal) 8 :20pm 6. Old Business 8 :25pm 7. New Business A. Volunteer Recognition (verbal) 8:30pm B. Trail Dedication Ordinance 8:45pm 8 . Schedule Next Park Board Meeting 9 :00pm 9. Adjourn 9:05pm All times are approximate. Please call Sandie at 464-5562, Extension 176, if you cannot attend this meeting. C I T Y O F JINO LAW WRANDUM Date: September 28, 1994 From: Marty Asleson To: Park Board Members Subject: Pre-Park Board Field Meeting Please meet on the East side of Lonesome Pine Trail, at the cul- de-sac, in Birchwood Acres at 5:30pm for our field meeting this month. I have attached a vicinity map to help you locate Birchwood Acres/Park Grove Park. n n PARK, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE, LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562 CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 The City of Lino Lakes Park Board meeting was called to order at 6:35pm by Ken Johnson. There was NO audio or video for this meeting. Roll Call was taken, members present: Ken Johnson, Sharon Lane, Amy Donlin, Joe Schmidt, Pam Taschuk, and Brian Bourassa. Also present were Marty Asleson, Park, Recreation and Forestry Coordinator and Sandie Wood, Recording Secretary. George Lindy arrived at 6 :45pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Sharon Lane made a motion to approve the August 1, 1994 minutes, Joe Schmidt seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. George stated he liked the flow of the minutes and the way they were done. Prior to the meeting Brian Bourassa gave all the members his letter of resignation, which would go into effect at the end of his term. He discussed his reasons for this decision and indicated he wishes to continue working with the Recreation Focus Committee and wants to be involved in other park related issues in the city. Marty commended Brian for the work that he has done on the Park Board, Recreation Focus Committee, and with the Eagle Scouts in the community. All members stated they were sorry that Brian was leaving and they were going to miss his expertise on the board. OPEN MIKE: There was no one present to speak under Open Mike. CONCEPT REVIEW: Wood of Baldwin Lake II - Marty Asleson explained that it is a 5.59 acre subdivision and is zoned R-1X. The minimum lot sizes are 12, 825 square feet for a housing density of 2 .32 lots per acre, a total of 13 single family lots. This has been an area of frustration in the acquisition of adequate amounts of park open space. The area that is being focused on, for future park area, is south and east of the area south of Oakwood Lane and possibly to the west of the southern portion of Oakwood Lane, as well as the possibilities that might exist in the Regional Park. The developer has proposed a cash dedication of approximately $14, 749.00. Tim Kytonna was present to represent Kosner Goertz Homes, Inc. He stated the plans have been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and that they will be going before the Planning and Zoning Board at their October 5th meeting. They are going to have an engineer look at the sewer plans because there might be an area that the sewer may be too shallow. rti Amy Donlin asked who was interested in selling their land. Marty 1 �-� stated he had contacted Mary Ann McDougal and she showed no interest, at this time, in selling her land. He showed on the overhead the area she owned. Amy also asked if Mary Ann had talked to Marty about the trail problem she was having. Marty said he had and a barricade would be placed. Ken asked if Marty was using the 10 percent formula and density factors to arrive at the $14, 749.00 dedication amount. Marty stated yes, but it will depends on the raw land value, and total purchase price less the sale of two houses. Marty recommended to the board that they accept the park dedication for this development in the form of cash payment, to be verified by the project engineer for compliance to our dedication formula. NOTION: After further discussion Ken Johnson made a motion to accept park dedication of cash for the Woods of Baldwin Lake II Subdivision in accordance with the dedication formula. Motion was seconded by Brian Bourassa. All voted aye. Motion carried. UPDATES: A. Rice Lake Estates: George said he talked to Jim Keinath and he says that the city is not dragging their feet but the city attorney is. Marshall Dahl told George that he will help work ^ this out and get the wheels turning. Marty explained that Kate Drewry has been out to look at the lots and it was determined that only one lot could be built on. Marty has received a letter from Pete Kluegel, Lino Lakes Building Inspector, stating that the project was not done and it was still possible to build houses. George mentioned that he would meet with Marty on this issue. Ken asked about the letter he had received from the Circle Pines Park Board inviting the Lino Lakes Park Board to their board meeting on September 12 . Marty knew nothing about this meeting as he had not received a letter. There was confusion about why the Lino Lakes Park Board had been invited and what they were going to discuss at the meeting. Marty will make contact with the City of Circle Pines to see what the agenda is and will report back to the board members. B. Wood of Baldwin Lake Mini Park: Marty reported that the he had a contractor come into the park to clear the land and mulch the brush. He stated that the machine had encroached on one residents property but the city would put up snow fence and they would do some planting next spring to replace the brush that had been damaged. Joe said he had talked to a couple of people from the area and they are very happy with the work that has been done so far. Marty then explained that on September 24, 8am to approximately 4pm, there was going to be a playground raising. 2 ^ The playground equipment company would have an expert at the site to help put the equipment together and direct the neighborhood group on where to place it. Joe Schmidt said he would be at the raising. C. Recreation Complex/Referendum: Marty passed around photos that he and George had taken from an airplane. Marty said that he has solicited quotes for delineation and an engineering survey. The low bid for delineation was $400 . He feels it is necessary to meet with the homeowners to see how they want to finance this. He said he had received quotes to have the property appraised but has not done anything with them yet. Marty stated that he and Council member Linda Elliott feel that the City Council and the Park Board should have a joint meeting to discuss this issue. There was further discussion and several questions were raised by the board members. Sharon wanted to know if the recreation complex was outside the MUSA boundary. Amy wanted to know who owned the land that the delineation is going to be done on. Marty stated Vivian Noren and Donald Lundgren owned the property. RECOMMENDATION: George recommended he follow up with the delineation, get an appraisal and give the information to the Rice Creek Watershed District. After this is done the Park Board should meet with the City Council for a work session. He ^ asked Marty to talk to Council Member Elliot and City Administrator Randy Schumacher and get this item on work session agenda. Marty said he would make calls September 8 and get the process started. The chair decided to go to New Business, item B, because there were people present to discuss this issue. NEW BUSINESS: B. Brandywood Neighborhood Concern Meeting: Jim Bruce and Rich Migner were present to discuss their concerns, frustrations, ideas, and to invite the Park Board members to their meeting on September 8th. Bruce explained that there were 70 lots in the subdivision. Sixty-seven houses have been built, two were in progress and one lot remained vacant. The average cost of the homes is $150, 000. He added there are 50 children and 20 daycare children in the area at a given time. They feel they need a park in their subdivision because the closest park does not have a safe access (must cross over a 55 mph road) and the closest park, with playground equipment, is two miles away. George and Marty gave background on priority listing. Jim and Rich asked what they could do to facilitate the process. Marty explained how the city tax dollars were divided as they pertains to recreation. Rich stated that the fathers in the area will do everything they ^ can, including a fundraiser, to get things going in their 3 neighborhood park. Brian asked Marty what it would cost to put playground equipment in the park. Marty responded approximately $12, 000. Amy said she knows it is frustrating for them, she is happy to see them take such an interest in their neighborhood, and appreciated them coming before the park board with their issue. She also stated, in the future, maybe the developers should be made more responsible for developing the park areas. Brian thank them for coming to the park meeting and told them they did an excellent job. He asked if anyone was going to attend the neighborhood meeting September 9th. Marty and George will attend the meeting. UPDATES CONTINUED D. Recreation Focus Committee: Brian Bourassa gave an overview of what has transpired at the last two Recreation Focus Committee meetings. He said there was a need to have a neighborhood meeting in the Wenzel Farm area. He further added that the committee felt it was necessary to have a survey done. Marty added that Ray Weber is willing to work on the survey. Various Park Board members gave their views on a survey. They felt residents throughout the city should be ^ included in the survey so they had the true feelings of the residents. There was also discussion on the possibility of the City Council doing a survey. Marty would like the Recreation Focus Committee and the Park Board to be included in the process if the city decides to do a survey. He then reported that there was a young man, Rob Schleicher, on the Recreation Focus Committee and Teen Subcommittee that was a real go-getter. Marty discussed what has transpired on the Teen Committee. They would like to have a dance but we really do not have the proper facility to have one. He also stated that when the time comes to do something like this it must be successful the first time around because there won't be a second chance with the teens. Pam Taschuk stated that the school year might not be the proper time to have a dance. Maybe we should focus on a summer event. She also stated that the Brandywood child population was a good example of what could lay ahead for the City of Lino Lakes in regards to the teen population. Marty said that he had put in the budget, money to hire a parttime community outreach person. He thought it was important that the teens had someone to identify with. Amy suggested that if we were looking for a project for the teens maybe they could debrush Baldwin Lake Road. In conclusion, Brian stated if any members had anything they n would like brought to the Recreation Focus Committee they should 4 let him know. E. Other Park and Recreation Updates: The Shores of Marshan Woods trail has not been completed yet. Marty has met with the property owners regarding their concerns. He added that the 1994 trails were paved today (9/7/94) and a grader backed onto the Quail Ridge boardwalk and collapsed it. He reported that the inspector is doing a great job, he is really on top of things, and makes sure the contractor is doing things right. Pam then asked about the church area. Marty stated that it has been left up to the property owners and the church to work out the problems. He said Jack Farris was to work with an engineer and they were to move the trail themselves, if this is what they decide to do. Marty stated that there would be another development brought before the Park Board in the near future. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED: A. Joint/Cooperative ADA Meeting: Marty discussed a community bridging meeting to create an effective and viable recreation program for people with disabilities. He explained that the participating numbers were not there. He also stated that Jim Peterson, from Blaine, is very positive that they want to do something. He could not make the first meeting but he was going to meet with Marty and Becky on September 15. Brian Bourassa asked what programs have been tried. Marty explained they have tried walking groups and an aquatic program that did not go because there was not enough people to participate. George talked about the waterskiing program in White Bear Lake. It was slow to start but once it got started it has grown very fast. Sharon said that we should make contact with the Courage Center. It was also suggested that the YMCA and Shoreview Community Center be contacted. Marty explained that Becky has met with the group homes in the community to see if she could get some programs started. Marty then mentioned the ADA compliance report. He said that bids were let, JoAnn Wright, Anoka County approved the procedure, and we have hired Julee Quarve-Peterson to finish the compliance portion of the ADA report. It should be done sometime this month. C. Fall/Winter 194- 195 Brochure: Marty discussed the brochure and how registration for the programs were going. Joe asked about the locations for volleyball. Brian wanted to know why some programs had date, time and location listed and others did not. Sandie explained the programs (ie. basketball) that did not list time etc. were programs that we wanted the people to call in because they required further explanation and we had to send a registration packet to them. It was also explained that Barry 5 had sent information packets to teams that had participated in 5- player football for the last 3-5 years. D. City of Shoreview Park Building Donation: Marty explained that the building being offered was the same type building that had been donated to the Park Board a few years ago and placed in Birch Park. The last building had cost $2600 to move, the concrete slab had come to $5522, and the footings were another $3260. Additional costs included sewer and water installation at $4346, electrical installation at $2 .30/ft, gas installation at $3 .50/ft, and engineering costs of about $1000.00 . Marty told the Board Members to keep in mind that if a site with stable ground was selected we would probably not need footings. We could probably eliminate most engineering costs if we used the same footing and foundation plan as the last building. He also stated that this building was closer to Lino Lakes than the last one. Sharon wanted to know the size of the building. Marty said it was a 26 ' octagon park shelter. Brian asked where the building was to be placed. Marty thought City Hall Park was a good location for this building. There was discussion on where it could be placed in City Hall Park, the lighting of hockey and skating rinks, if sewer and water were needed and if it should be placed in another park. George asked Marty to meet with the City Council and get authority to use up to $10, 000 from the dedicated park fund. Marty said he would talk to Jeff Schoenbauer and get his opinion on where the building would fit into the comprehensive park plan. NOTION: George made a motion to acquire the building and proceed with getting a quote to move the building and place it on a slab. AMENDMENT: George then amended the motion by asking Marty to draw a layout of the park, place the building at a feasible location, and bring it to the next meeting. Brian said the next meeting was a month away and asked if the sketch could be mailed to each board member. Motion and amendment carried. Marty said he would talk to Jerry Haffman, City of Shoreview, and get a time frame when they wanted the building off their property. NEXT MEETING: The Board set Monday, October 3, 1994 at 6:30pm for the next regular Park Board Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:56pm. 6 C I T Y O F INO LAW MMORANDM Date: September 28, 1994 Frown: Marty Asleson To: Park Board Members Subject: 1995 Park Goals Priority Attached please find the 1995 Park Goals set forth in the 1994 Goal Setting Session on Thursday, September 22, 1994 . Please prioritize these goals, according to your level of importance (0 being low - 10 being high) and bring them to the meeting with you. Thank you. PARK, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE,LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562 City of Lino Lakes 1995 Park Goals There was discussion and a poll was taken, of the members, as to their level of priority for the items listed below: 1, N14 (Land Acquisition) Amy - high Ken - middle Pam - middle # George - middle Brian - middle Sharon - middle 2 . Country Lakes Park - Additional expenditures $10, 000 Master plan done, clean up area, restructure access and parking area, salvage gravel, purchase black dirt and seed. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 3. Trails - Additional expenditures $15, 000 Most trails are paved and Pheasant Hills are cut. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 4. A-3 Recreation Complex - $10, 000 Keep moving with project. Offer the property owners a 1st right of refusal on the property. Do appraisal and final concept plans. Amy lockup land before development Ken lockup land before development Pam lockup land before development # George lockup land before development Brian lockup land before development Sharon keep moving City of Lino Lakes 1995 Park Goals 5. Rice Lake Estates Amy keep working on it Ken keep working on it Pam keep working on it # George keep working on it Brian keep working on it Sharon keep working on it 6. Rice Lake Elementary Tennis Courts Do as money becomes available. Work on a five year plan. Use as a selling point for bond referendum. Amy low priority Ken low priority Pam low priority # George low priority Brian low priority Sharon low priority 7. M5 Pheasant Hills - Dedicated neighborhood park. Work with developer - he is willing to finance. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 8. City Hall Park - $10, 000 - expenses for moving, slab and engineering for the building - $12, 000 for a hockey rink (boards, poles and lights) . Move the building and place on a slab in the most reasonable and accessible location. Also keep the pleasure rink at this location. Talk to the hockey association and see if they will help with this project. Amy middle priority Ken middle/high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority City of Lino Lakes ^ 1995 Park Goals 9. Jeanne Drive Trail Link - $300 for wetland delineation. Do delineation and then review. May apply for permit to fill approximately 1/2 acre of wetland to build trail. Not done in 1994 . Amy Ken Pam ## George Brian Sharon 10. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS # M-3 - Wenzel Neighborhood Park - $15, 000. (95% developed) Picnic area, grading and playground equipment. The developer has irrigated 1/2 the park. Do concept plan with neighborhood input. M-2 - Shores of Marshan Neighborhood Park - (98% developed) Have a pleasure rink this winter. Leave this park until Shores of Marshan II is done. No need to budget money for the rink. N-13 - Brandywood Neighborhood Park - $20, 000 top end. (98% .� developed) To be discussed after concept plan is done. Playground equipment, grading, seeding, and brush removal. Enter into a business agreement with person that has a bobcat and is willing to do work in the park. (if insurance issue can be resolved) N-10 - Pine Ridge Park - $13, 000-$15, 000. (80% developed) Park is graded and seeded. Concept plan is done. There is 5 acres in the park and 5 acres is proposed. N-12 - Quail Ridge - (60% developed) This area should be looked at to see what level of development is done and see if there is eminent need. Decided to put on hold City of Lino Lakes ^ Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 The goal setting meeting started at 6:15pm at the Lino Lakes Park, Recreation and Forestry building on September 22, 1994. Members present were Brian Bourassa, Amy Donlin, Pam Taschuk, George Lindy, and Ken Johnson. Staff in attendance were Marty Asleson, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Coordinator, Barry Bernstein, Recreation Program Supervisor, and Sandie Wood, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Secretary. Board member Sharon Lane arrived at 6:30pm. Marty Asleson started the meeting by reviewing the goals in the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide and the criteria for prioritizing acquisition according to the plan. Marty advised the board that the dedicated park fund total as of August 31, 1994, is $147, 000, total committed funds of unspent pending projects is $83,800, leaving a total dedicated park fund balance, after conanitments, of $63,200. He than passed out a memo from Mazy Kay Wyland that indicated $202,963 remain to be transferred from the individual subdivisions escrow account (s) to the park fund. She indicated the transfer of funds would be made prior to fiscal year-end 1994. Marty talked about the survey that was done in 1988. He then discussed a handout that indicated the rating of park facilities and activities. Marty said that he had put money in the budget to do another survey next year but he did not know if the money would remain there. George Lindy discussed the change in population. He said we all have to keep that in mind when we are planning neighborhood parks. Currently they are toddlers but in 5 years or so they will be older and the parents will want different things in their park. As an example, a baseball field instead of playground equipment. He said a good example of population change is the Brandy Wood development. There is only three teenagers in the whole area and the rest are younger. Marty thought 60 percent of the kids were between the ages of 3 and 5. Amy passed out a survey. She stated she had meet with different neighborhood groups and they had formed this survey. Marty said the Recreation Focus Committee should be involved in the survey process if one is done. Amy asked if this survey could be passed along to the City Council. Marty responded yes. Brian said he thought the survey was slanted and recommended that they meet with the person on the Recreation Focus Committee who seemed to have expertise in this area. Amy was thankful for the feedback and said she would take this information back to her neighborhood groups. Pam suggested that when a survey was done we look for someone that is working on a masters degree and would do the survey as a research project. Amy talked about the Mayor' s 101-N 20/20 Vision and voiced her concerns with it. 1 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Marty explained that since the last Park Board meeting he has talked with Council Person Linda Elliot and she said the City Council will be ready for a work session, with the Park Board, in January to discuss alternative funding and where things are going. Marty commented on the goals of the Park Board for the last two years and their status: 1993 Goals NORTH SIDE OF THE CITY - $10000-$12000 for a hockey rink (probably at City Hall) - Not completed. COUNTRY LAKES PARK - $2000-$4000 for re-master planning - Cost - $4000 - Done. N-14 PARK AREA - $2000-$4000 for master planning - Done. SUNSET OAKS PARK - $12000-$15000 to replace the playground - Done. r� TRAILS - $12000-$14000 to pave existing gravel trails for 1993 - Cost - $15, 000 - Done. 1994 Goals RECREATION CCMPLEX - $5000 for the preliminaries for A-3 recreation complex acquisition, with a later approval to exceed this amount with approval. Amounts spent to date: Brauer and Associates, $2400 max (project still in process) ; Engineering, $1295; Wetland delineation, $400. Total committed to date $4095. Land appraisal quote is $750. This would bring the total to $4845. TRAIL PAVING - $15000 for continued paving. This years cost - $30000. $15000 was allocated through the general fund to make up the difference - Done. COUNTRY LAKES COMMUNITY PARK - Phase 1 - $15000 for engineering. This is presently being completed; $3000 for clearing and beach improvements - Not done. WOODS OF BALDWIN LAKE PARK - $18000 for the completion of the park development - presently in progress. PICNIC TABLES - $1000 to start replacing and adding to this growing need - Done. 2 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 RICE LAKE ESTATES - $40000 committed to park development by the development agreement, plus the sale of two lots. One lot is buildable and we would have to request a variance to the wetland laws for the second lot. LINO PARK PARKING LOT - $5000 for parking lot improvements - Done. SUNSET OAKS PARK - $300 for access to park - Not Done. CONCEPT DESIGN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PARKS - $2000. BIRCH PARK - Land acquisition - $8000. NEW AND UNAPPROVED ITEMS - Shoreview Park Shelter - $10000 After general conversation on the status of the 1993/1994 goals Marty discussed an issues report he had written. He also passed out a map so members could see the areas he was discussing. Future Land Needs: N-14 - Dedication was taken for land development in the Woods of Baldwin Lake II. Dedication dollars were also taken for the Woodridge development. We still have park land needs in this area. N-11 - Birch Park - dollars are needed to purchase additional land for the Trappers Crossing Development. Dollars from Trappers Crossing should be used for this. JU-3 - Pheasant Hills Preserve - Dollars from the PHP development should be used to purchase 8-10 acres in this area. He feels the school is not going to develop it as a school site. Marty briefly discussed new, partially or fully dedicated parks, no amenities with the board members. This included Shores of Marshan, Wenzel Farms, Birchwood Acres/Park Grove, Qual Ridge, Brandy Wood, and Pheasant Hills Preserve parks. He then continued by talking about Birch Park and Woods of Baldwin Lake Park which are new, partially or fully dedicated parks with some amenities. The overview continued by discussing older park areas with some amenities which included Lino, Arena Acres, City Hall, Sunset Oaks, Sunrise, Shenandoah and Lamotte Parks. Older park areas with no amenities (Rice Lake Estates) and Joint use parks with some amenities (Rice Lake Elementary) were the last items 00N, discussed in this presentation. 3 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 There was discussion on land acquisition at Birch Park and the cost. Marty stated that he estimated the cost to be approximately $8,000. Amy asked about dedicated fees and if they were guaranteed. It was explained that developers must post a bond and the city would get the money even if they went bankrupt. Marty continued by explaining staff and his role in the process. He went on to say that when establishing goals for 1995 he hoped the board would included a realistic look at available staff and the need to hire contractors if necessary. He did not feel it was likely that additional staff would be hired for 1995. He also continued by saying that as more improvements are made more pressure is put on the department to inspect, correct and maintain the areas. Brian thought the Park Board had programmed rather well for 1994 as everything was completed but one item. Marty commented that we did meet the goals that were set, but other things were neglected, such as inspection for safety and appearance. Ken asked who makes the determination on whether a job is contracted ^ or not. Marty responded that it was the City Council that makes the decisions. Ken suggested that after the priorities are set maybe they should be looked at and decide how much manpower is needed and establish what should be contracted. Marty told the Park Board that he was going to propose to redo the trail development ordinance. He would like to get the contractors to do the trails in the development rather than the city doing them. Marty talked about another city that receives $150/lot to go towards trail development. Marty told the board that Moline Concrete would like to do something in the community, on the north side, whether it be completing a city park or something else. Marty told Moline Concrete that the N-7 Park cost $240, 000 to develop. They to Marty that they do pre-formed concrete picnic tables and asked how many he wanted. The Park Board members hoped something would come out of this. George then said the board should look at what was not done last year and then look ahead at future issues. There was general discussion on the status of N-14, Country Lakes Park, trails, A- 3, Rice Creek Estates, Wenzel, Pine Ridge, Brandywood, Quail Ridge, Shores of Marshan, N-12, Rice Lake Elementary Tennis Courts, Pheasant Hills Preserve and the status of the Shoreview ^ building. Ken stated that projects that are near completion should get top priority. Marty added that the trail on Jeanne Drive is important and should be considered. 4 ,..� City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Brian reviewed what George had gone over, there was discussion and a poll was taken, of the members, as to their level of priority for the following items: 1. N14 (Land Acquisition) Amy - high Ken - middle Pam - middle # George - middle Brian - middle Sharon - middle 2. Country Lakes Park - Additional expenditures $10, 000 Master plan done, clean up area, restructure access and parking area, salvage gravel, purchase black dirt and seed. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 3 . Trails - Additional expenditures $15, 000 Most trails are paved and Pheasant Hills are cut. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 4. A-3 Recreation Complex - $10, 000 Keep moving with project. Offer the property owners a 1st right of refusal on the property. Do appraisal and final concept plans. Amy lockup land before development Ken lockup land before development Pam lockup land before development # George lockup land before development Brian lockup land before development Sharon keep moving 5 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 S. Rice Lake Estates Amy keep working on it Ken keep working on it Pam keep working on it # George keep working on it Brian keep working on it Sharon keep working on it 6. Rice Lake Elementary Tennis Courts Do as money becomes available. Work on a five year plan. Use as a selling point for bond referendum. Amy low priority Ken low priority Pam low priority # George low priority Brian low priority Sharon low priority 7. M5 Pheasant Hills - Dedicated neighborhood park. Work with developer- he is willing to finance. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 8. City Hall Park - $10, 000 - expenses for moving, slab and engineering for the building - $12, 000 for a hockey rink (boards, poles and lights) . Move the building and place on a slab in the most reasonable and accessible location. Also keep the pleasure rink at this location. Talk to the hockey association and see if they will help with this project. Amy middle priority Ken middle/high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 6 ,..� City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 9. Jeanne Drive Trail Link - $300 for wetland delineation. Do delineation and then review. May apply for permit to fill approximately 1/2 acre of wetland to build trail. Not done in 1994. Amy Ken Pam # George Brian Sharon 10. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS # M-3 - Wenzel Neighborhood Park - $15, 000. (95% developed) Picnic area, grading and playground equipment. The developer has irrigated 1/2 the park. Do concept plan with neighborhood input. M-2 - Shores of Marshan Neighborhood Park - (98% developed) Have a pleasure rink this winter. Leave this park until Shores of Marshan II is done. No need to budget money for the rink. N-13 - Brandywood Neighborhood Park - $20, 000 top end. (98% developed) To be discussed after concept plan is done. Playground equipment, grading, seeding, and brush removal. Enter into a business agreement with person that has a bobcat and is willing to do work in the park. (if insurance issue can be resolved) N-10 - Pine Ridge Park - $13,000-$15, 000. (80% developed) Park is graded and seeded. Concept plan is done. There is 5 acres in the park and 5 acres is proposed. N-12 - Quail Ridge - (60% developed) This area should be looked at to see what level of development is done and see if there is eminent need. Decided to put on hold Lino Park - $2,000 approved last year for inside lighting. 1994 - finish park building for warminghouse. George stated that they need to look at the items from previous priority lists and make sure that funding is not being set aside again. Marty told the Park Board that there would no longer be free water for flooding ice rinks. We will be given a meter and charged $1.45/1000 gallons of water used. It would be a good --r idea to make rinks on ponds in the areas that have them. 7 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 Some of the work may have to be contracted out or have the neighborhoods help build them. Marty explained that it cost $400 to have someone from the playground equipment company come out and help put the equipment together. Marty stated that we had enough manpower to do a couple of large projects and a couple smaller projects each year and still keep up with the maintenance that is necessary. It was noted that the cost of the items on the priority list came to approximately $90, 000. There was discussion on what the cost of the projects done last year came to and what the total cost would be for the two years. There was discussion again on the trail ordinance. Marty said he was going to be doing research on this and would report back to the Park Board. It was requested that the priority list be put in the next Park Board meeting packets so the members could review, prioritize, and bring them to the meeting. The meeting ended at 9:45pm. 8 C I T Y O F .0-N. 11NOLAW ME&DRANDUM Date: September 28, 1994 Fram: Marty Asleson To: Park Board Members Subject: Members Terms Listed below is the date appointed and term expiration for each member on the board. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Member Date Appointed Term E=ires n George Lindy February 1993 December 1995 Kenneth Johnson February 1993 December 1995 Brian Bourassa February 1992 December 1994 Joseph Schmidt February 1993 December 1995 Sharon Lane** February 1994 December 1994 Amy Donlin February 1994 December 1996 Pamela Taschuk February 1994 December 1996 * Ms. Lane is completing unexpired term of John Baumann n PARK, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE, LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562 STAFF ORIGIlT&T ; 1MWt y A81080a DATE: 28" 1994 TOPIC: Trail 09dicati00 t3�insanut e BACKGROUND Please find attached a copy of our present trail dedication ordinance. This ordinance requires all developers to rough - grade and gravel ell trails within 'a subdiYasion that are necessary to carry dut the goals of the Lino Lakes Parks Comprehensive Plan. In the past the city , has ant .they dollars to overlay these graveled areas with asphalt surfacing.' This year, it cost the city $30,000 to mash this, surfacing project. Growth and development has greatly impacted the park Boards ability to supply other services and facilities as they relate to neighborhood concerns. It is the purpose of this proposal to amend the present trail ordinance to include the provision requiring developers to completely finish all dedicated trails including the asphalt surfaces. I have inclosed a copy of the Lakeville approach to this. In essence, the Lakeville_model charges developers $150 `per lot for park trails. In this wanner there is a consistent charge for park trail needed and weather a developer has no trails or two miles- of trails. Please refer to, the article from the League of Minnesota Cities Journal entitled Co ras. and the article fk6 the Ninnesota 'Recreation and Parks E%rk QWJQ,4i in Still t Basically, what is summarized in these articles, is that'for park or trail dedication, a city must (1) demonstrate how the dedication requirement- promotes a legitimate public interest: and (2) provide a factual basis why the proposed use of the subject property sufficiently impacts the public so that the dedication is necessitated by development. Factual information should include population' numbers, statistics of park use:, geographical location, etc. to support the dedication. I have enclosed a copy of the Lake Valle Dedication Ordinance that we may want to look at. Please also refer to the correspondence i, from Alan Brixius with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. The t idea here is that the dollar dedication for trails would be to pay . for any uni+dentii*,tied, Intel. to the development trail links that are needed to allow for transportatiah flout as outlined in our policy statements in our Comprehensive Plan. All identified trails in our Comprehe i,04,_ pl tat old bey the total respousibility of the developer to install. We have some need ioation- that' is presently being worked on by our engineering tedh, kerning promote 2010 housing and density issues. I have also asked one_ of our -City bVineers to crunch the numbers on lineal foot 'trail bouts. in Limo Lakes. We need this information before we can proceed any further. OPTIONS 1. Maintain the. pr t ordinance. 2. ed " ®d RECO MMATION Option . n KN OW', ? cash in lieu of the land. Under the place on new development,it is Dedication subdivision regulations,cities often important to consider that government requirements for require developers to put in place may not require a person to give up a public improvements such as roads, constitutional right in exchange for a developments sewer,and water and then dedicate discretionary benefit conferred by the these to public use. government where the property sought cause new While these regulations are still by the government has little or no f, permitted,the United States Supreme relationship to the benefit. There must concern Court recently issued an opinion which be"an essential nexus"existing requires cities to justify the conditions between the legitimate state interest imposed on developers. Although the and the permit or zoning condition. If CARL,A HEYL U.S.Supreme Court was considering this essential nexus exists,the court will conditions placed on building permits then examine the regulation to under Oregon law in Dolan v. City of determine whether the degree of f Tigard,the same rationale will be exaction under the subdivision regula- nder Minnesota law,cities applied to Minnesota cities in deter- tion bears the required relationship to can require subdividers mining that the conditions they impose the projected impact of the proposed requesting platting or on new development are justifiable and development. replatting of land to permissible under the United States What does an"essential nexus"and dedicate land for parks, Constitution. the"required relationship"mean to public open space,storm In considering what restrictions and specific cases in Minnesota? In the water holding areas or to contribute dedication requirements a city may Oregon case,the U.S.Supreme Court Providing Public Finance Greater Protection-By-Annual Attention Solutions for Nearly A Proven Yearly Maintenance E Half a Century Plan For Your Elevated •Represent issuers on competitive and negotiated WatertowerS general obligation and revenue bond issues. •Coordinate capital improvement program preparation. Servicing Municipalities •Develop cash flow modeling for capital projects. Since 1921 • Evaluate refunding and restructuring of bond Issues. l • Develop debt management policies. WatertOwer Paint& Repair Co., Inc. •Review economic development and "The Tank With the Red Roof" j public/private partnership projects. i Providing dependable service to municipalities since •Assist in referendum approval of capital 1921 and offering the experience,skilled workmen, projem• adequate insurance coverage and the best of equipment and materials to perform the highly specialized trade of painting and repairing elevated watertowers.Prompt z SPRINGSTED service on emergency winter work. PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Interior Inspection By Color 85 East Seventh Place,suite 100 Video Camera Available. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2143 (612)223-30M Area Code P.O. Box 67 515-357-2101 Clear Lake, Iowa 50428 Saint Paulo Milwaukes•Minneapolis*Kansas City-Washington, Member of American Waterworks Association * found that preventing flooding and Cities must now be able to specifi- In the Oregon case before the U.S. reducing traffic congestion are legiti- tally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court,the city did not mate purposes. The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular attempt to make any individualized existed between preventing flooding development. Certainly,standards determination to support the require- and li siting development within the stated in the subdivision regulation will ment that the landowner leave 15 creek's floodplain. The essential nexus give guidance for the need of requiring percent of her property as open space, also existed between traffic congestion public dedication for necessary public and dedicate a public greenway in the reduction and providing alternate improvements and open space. But flood plain when a private greenway means of transportation such.as bicycle cities will be required to articulate and could also have been an effective flood paths. justify the particular street,park land, control measure. The city also failed to In Minnesota,cities should be able to sewer,and water.conditions proposed meet its burden of demonstrating that meet the essential nexus requirement on particular developments. the additional number of vehicles and by enforcing their present subdivision Minnesota courts have also been bicycle trips generated by the develop- regulations as they have in the past. In requiring cities to make clear their ment was reasonably related to the general,the essential nexus test would findings in zoning matters,so the U.S. city's requirement for the dedication of be met if the city has a legitimate Supreme Court's requirement for a pathway easement. The Court stated public purpose in reducing the findings should not be that onerous to the city must quantify its findings negative effects of development and cities. Proving the need for specific beyond a conclusory statement that the the regulations are geared to merely development dedication requirements pathway dedication could offset some reducing these negative effects. also should not be very difficult for of the traffic demand generated by the However,the second question may cities. This new zoning requirement is development.(See also Legal notes, be the more difficult one to answer in somewhat analogous to cities having to page 26.) determining whether the required prove special assessments for individual Under these guidelines, Minnesota condition bears the proper relationship lots,and show that the burden imposed cities must be able to state with some to the projected impact of the pro- on the property owner does not exceed particular specificity,the reasons for posed development. The city must the benefit granted by the city's action. requiring subdivision dedications and have findings sufficient to justify the Arguably,the same standard will be regulations to particular development conditions imposed through the applied in determining that the burden proposals in order for their actions to subdivision regulations. There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. a"rough proportionality"between the not exceed the benefit to the develop- Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney city's conditions as they relate to the ment by the subdivision requirements. with the League of Minnesota Cities. impact of the development. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some type of A PREVENTIVE individual determination that the APPROACH TO required dedication is related to the TALENT PUBLIC LAW. proposed development's impact. This determination must consider both the nature and extent that the condition will impact the proposed development The United States Supreme Court views this test as"a reasonable relation- Anticipating problems is a critical aspect of ship"test. This is the same standard our government practice. Our attorneys that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied in approving subdivision W I S D 0 M assist clients in applying strategies to regulation and exaction. In theory,the minimize risk and avoid liability. We regulations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S.Supreme Court standard, ser m public clients with sensitivity toward r because they have met the reasonable _ touts and with a desire to bdp goarrnments relationship test used by the Minnesota Supreme Court. function more effectively. Call Suesan Lea However,the U.S.Supreme Court Pace for morn information. requires findings by the city to show the reasonable relationship between the e i z a a 3 4800 city-imposed condition and the proposed development. Minnesota courts have not previously required cities to have written findings justifying the conditions imposed or to articulate the specific reasons the conditions are 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET,SUITE 3300 required MINN EAPOII`,MN $3402 August 1994 Keeping Up Page 13 Park Dedication Is Still Legal! We have had a number of phone "legitimate state interest" (genuine City to find a factual basis for its calls expressing concern over the public requirement)for which the City dedication requirement. implications of a recent Supreme Court wants the property and the required , Can we still get parkland?Yes.This decision involving a public easement for dedications.The Court agreed that case is similar to the 1987 case,Nolan a pedestrian pathway. In this s cific prevention of flooding in the floodplain v. California Coastal Commission and instance the Supreme Court determined and reduction of traffic congestion by merely refines the law. the city did not provide a justifiable providing a pathway were legitimate What must we do?In the future, if reason for acquiring the property. government interests. cities intend to require park dedication Does this mean you cannot secure But the Court stated that although in exchange for plat and subdivision park property via development the City's interests were legitimate, the approval, or various permits, a city is agreements?Absolutely not! As you can City still had to demonstrate that the going to (1)have to demonstrate how see by reading the following article, dedication of the greenway and pathway the dedication requirement promotes a courtesy of our Association attorneys, had a sufficiently close relationship to legitimate public interest;and(2) Severson,Wilcox and Sheldon,you can accomplishing the City's purpose. The provide a factual basis why the proposed still secure park dedication.Pay Court examined the City's reasons for use of the subject property sufficiently particular attention to the final requiring the property. The City had impacts the public so that the park paragraph! made a finding that increased storm dedication is necessitated by the water would flow from the expanded development. For example, if a Store into the floodplain requiring more developer intends to create a residential Dedication of management of the floodplain.The City community, dedication of a park area is had also found that the expanded use of necessary to alleviate overburdening Park Land the parcel-would increase traffic other park areas by the increased congestion and the pathway would brought in b the residential we can still get park land. population g y Rmcntly, the United States Supreme provide an alternate means of development and to satisfy the Court decided the extent a city can transportation that"could" ease some of legitimate government interest of require dedication of land for park and the increased congestion. providing recreational areas for the playground space in conjunction with The Court held that the City's citizens of that city. City staff should development. In Dolan v. City of reasons for requiring the owner to give present the Council with population Tigard,a plumbing and electric supply up the property were not sufficient.The numbers, statistics of park use, store owner sought to expand the size of court held that a required dedication geographical location,etc., to enable the the store and applied to the city for a must be"roughly proportionate" or, Council to make acceptable findings building permit.The expansion and generally equal, to the nature and the supporting why the park dedication in intensified use were permitted by the extent of impact of the proposed that case is necessary. city's zoning regulations. The city's development. The Court said that the planning commission granted the permit City had not demonstrated why application but required the store owner requiring a public easement from the to dedicate part of her property lying store owner permitting recreational within the floodplain for greenway and visitors along the floodplain easement also required dedication•of an additional aided the City's flood control instead of 15-foot strip of land next to the just prohibiting construction within the agen�� floodplain that would be used as a floodplain and requiring a private public pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The easement. area of the pathway amounted to nearly The court also stated that the City 10%of the total size of the property. had not demonstrated that the additional 0&1 The store owner sued claiming that traffic caused by an expanded use of the requiring dedication of these areas in property owner's parcel was reasonably ,1�V(0 ". exange for the permit was an related to the City's requirement for 6 ti SO S u stitutional taking of her property dedication of a pathway easement.The ope•. 1,g00' g.9�5 for which she should be compensated. Court did not accept the City's .1� The United States Supreme Court "conclusory statement that [the stated that the city must demonstrate Pathway] could offset some of the traffic that"essential nexus" (essential demand generated"by a plumbing and connection)exists between the electrical supply store but required the SEP-2871'994 07:47 NAC 612 595 9e37- --P.03i08 10-4-7 10-4-8 F. Soil testing to determine the ability of the proposed subdivision to support development. G. The limitation of development on slopes steeper than three to one (3:1). _ H. Structure conformance to the natural limitations presented by the topography and soil so as to create the least potential of soil erosion. (Ord. 613, sec. 18, 11-1-93, eff. 1-1.94) 10-4-8: PARK AND TRAIT. DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS: A. As a prerequisite to subdivision approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces and trails and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Park Fund and Trail Fund as provided by this Section. B. Land shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used In evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover, access and location. Land with dead trees, trash, junk, pollutants and unwanted structures is not acceptable. C. The Park and Recreation Advisory Committee shall recommend to the City Council the land and/or cash contribution requirements for proposed subdivisions. D. Any increase in density of subdivisions shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Committee for reconsideration of park land and/or cash contribution requirements. E. When a proposed park, playground, recreation area or other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map or Comprehensive Plan and is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be conveyed to the City. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land required hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation. 294 City ojLakeville SEP-28,1994 07:48 NAC 612 595 9831 P.04 08 10-4-8 10-4-8 F. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit developments. G. Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas may be used for credit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the land or cash dedication requirement for park and recreation purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do S0. H. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be conveyed to the City if the City determines that present or future residents would require greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes. �. In residential subdivisions where a land dedication is required, the following formula will be used to determine the park land conveyance requirements: Density: Units Per Acre Land Dedication Percentage 0 - 2.5 10% 2.5 - 4 11% 4.+ - 6 13% 6.+ - 8 16% 8.+ - 10 17% 10.+ 17%-20% In commercial or industrial plats where a land dedication is required the following formula will be used to determine the park land dedication: Five percent (5%) of the gross area of land being platted. J. In lieu of a park land dedication the City may require the following cash contribution: Single family dwelling units $650.00 per dwelling unit Multi-family dwelling units 650.00 per dwelling unit Commercial/Industrial 5% of current market value of the unimproved land as determined by the County Assessor. 244 City o(Laleeuille SEP-28-1994 07:48 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05i08 10-4-8 10-4-8 K. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land and development of the land for park use. The fair market value of the land the City wants and the value of the development of the land shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash contribution required by subsection J above. The remainder shall be the cash contribution requirement. L. 'Fair market value' shall be determined as of the time of filing the preliminary plat in accordance with the following: 1. The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market value, or 2. The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal --- submitted to the City by -the subdivider at the subdivider's expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of the SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. 3. If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivider's expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser, which appraisal shall be r: conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land. M. Subdividers of land abutting streets that have been designated in the City's Comprehensive Trail Systems Plan for the construction of a trail shall be required to pay flve-eighths (5/j of the cost of constructing the trail. ( N. Residential subdividers shall pay a fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per residential dwelling unit for trails. This payment is requirement whether or not the subdivider is required to construct trails. O. Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. P. Park cash contributions are to be calculated at the time of final plat approval. The Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment shall include interest at a rate set by the City. 294 City of Lakeville SEP-26-1994 0?:48 NAC 612 595 983? P.06i08 - 10-4-8 10-4-11 Q. Cash contributions shall be deposited in the City's Park and ; Recreation Development Fund and shall only be used for park planning, acquisition or development. (Ord. 475, sec. 1, 12-21-92) R. Property being replatted with the same number of lots shall be exempt from park and trail dedication requirements if similar requirements were satisfied in conjunction with an earlier platting. If the number of lots is increased, then"the park and trail •dedication shall be based on the additional lots added to the plat. (Ord. 490, sec. 18, 3-1-93) 10-4-9: MINIMUM DESIGN FEATURES: The design features set forth in this Chapter are minimum requirements. The City may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and-overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided. (Ord. 169, sec. 11, 8-18-80) 10-4-10: ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY: Preliminary -and final plats may only be approved if they are consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Preliminary plats may not be approved prior to adoption of any rezoning or other Zoning Ordinance changes necessary for final plat approval. (Ord. 437, sec. 1, 8-5-91) 10-4-11; TREE PRESERVATION: The following process for preserving significant trees shall be required of subdividers. Subdividers, however, are encouraged to preserve all ' healthy trees of significant value even if the trees are less than six inches (6") in diameter. A. Definitions: The following words and terms, whenever they occur in this Section, are defined as follows: DIAMETER: The measurement of a tree's trunk measured four and one-half feet (4.6') above the ground. DRIP-LINE: The farthest distance away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree. 294 City of Lakeville ✓� SEP-28-1994 0?:49 NAC 612 595 983? P.0? 08 TrAN Northwest Associated Consultants Inc . UASAN PLANNING - DES 1 G N • MARKET RESEARCH MFMORL NDUM / 44 TO:. Steve Michaud +� FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 22 June 1992 RE: Lakeville - Trail Fees FILE NO: 336.00 - 92.10 At your request, we have proceeded to measure the length (in linear feet) of all projected trail corridors within the City as well as those which specifically lie within the 2010 MUSA. From such information, we have determined trail costs per projected household for both the 2010 MUSA area and the balance of the City. It should be recognized that the trail Casts are only applicable to new households within the said areas. HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION To determine trail costs for both the 2010 MUSA area and the area outside the MUSA by household, it is necessary to calculate the number of additional households expected in these areas. Costs for new trails will apply only to newly created households. HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION Ultimate Development 1990 Total Ne 2010 MUSA 6, 787 29, 778 22, 991 Outside 2010 MUSA 1, 056 22,427 21, 371 Total 7, 843 52,205 44, 362 As shown above, the City of Lakeville is expected to ultimately hold 52,205 households. The existinj 2010 MUSA is expected to add 22, 991 new households to its existing base of 6, 787. The balance of the City is expected to accommodate an additional 21,371 households. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 S5P-2871'994 0?:49 NAC 612 595 983? 0.08i08 TRAIL COSTS In addition to a household distribution breakdown, calculation of new MPTWs and sidewalks must be derived. From such a calculation, a cost per linear foot may be applied to. determine trail costs. TRAIL COSTS Linear Feet Cost/Foot Total Within 2610 MUSA: MPTWs 340,900 $ 9 $ 3, 068, 100 Sidewalks* 40, 800 $11 448, 800 Sub--Total $ 3, 516,900 Outside 2010 MUSA: MPTWs 172, 500 $ 9 $ 1,552, 500 Sidewalks -- - $11 -- - Sub-Total 172,500 $ 1,552,500 Total for City: MPTWs 550,400 $ 9 $ 4, 648, 600 Sidewalks 61, 800 $11 448, 800 n TOTAL $ 51097,400 * Does not include CBD sidewalks NOTES: o Cost estimates for MPTWs and sidewalks provided by Lakeville Engineering Department and represent 1992 costs. o Linear foot allocations apply only to new trails. 2 TOTAL P.08 xr-� -1»-� �o•4 rvrv� 612 595 9837 P.02/08 IN Northwest ' Associated Consultants Inc . A C UNNAN PLANNING DESIGN M ARK E Y RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Marty Asleson FROM: Alen Rrixius DATE: 29 September 1994 RE: Lino Lakes - Trails FILE NO: 194.02 - 94.16 At the last staff meeting, the issue was raised as to how to finance trail construction. This issue is particularly emphasized in Lino Lakes with limited budgets and Charter restrictions for assessing public improvements . The following options are available r� to address this issue. 1. Have the developer abutting a trail corridor, as identified by the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, be responsible for the construction and financing of said trail. 2. Establish a trail dedication requirement similar to ' park dedication fees. This dedication would then be applied on a per lot basis for all new subdivisions. 3 . A combination of the Options 1 and 2. The park dedication is imposed on all subdivisions, however, credits may be given for plats that are required to construct trails. In review of the aforementioned options, it would appear that Options 3 offers the most equitable treatment of all developments and provides a trail system revenue source for other City trail improvements. In establishing a dedication ordinance, the City must demonstrate the following items: 1. The dedication is equitably applied to all developments. 2. The City must demonstrate that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the proposed development's impact. 5775 Wayzata Blvd,• Suite 555 •St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 t SEP-2971994 08:45 NAC - -'612 595 9837 `�P.03i08 Ecuitv_._ Tinder Option 1, the City would require a subdivision abutting designated trail corridors to absorb the entire cost of trail construction, while subdivisions away from any trail corridors would have no construction costs. This is an inequitable treatment of development in that the trail improvement intended for use by the entire City must be financed solely by subdivisions that fall along a designated corridor. This inequity may result in one of the following conclusions: 1. Potential legal challenge of the dedication requirement imposed by the city. 2 . Loss of trail construction revenues that may be captured by requiring all new lots creating a demand for the trail system to pay for a share of the trails. A. trail dedication fee addresses the aforementioned concerns. ' This would give the City the opportunity to establish an alternative funding source for trail construction and right-of-way acquisition. Determination of What Dedication Relatea to !=act. To determine the amount of trail dedication, it is necessary to calculate the construction Cost of the City's entire trail system and divide these costs by the City.' s projected ultimate household growth. This methodology will provide a trail cost per housing unit which can then be applied to each new subdivision. Suni mary we have attached a summary of Dolan vs. the City of Tigard Supreme Court case for your information. In respect to this newest case law, we would suggest that the City give consideration to a trail dedication requirement uniformly applied to all new subdivisions. pc: Bill Hawkins Randy Schumacher 2 SEP-2971994 08:45 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04i08 DWXCATIONS AND MUCTIONS REVISITED by Christopher J. Dietzen LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835-3800 1. What is a Taking? A. The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property (shall not) be taken for public use without just compensation. " The essential purpose of this clause is to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Penn Central 'Tranagortation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 123-124 (1978) . B. The takings clause originally was applied only to physical takings of property, but in 1922 Justice Holmes recognized that regulations on property will also be considered takings if they go "too far. " Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S . 393, 415 (1922) . Just how far a regulation must go before it will be considered "too far" under the Fifth Amendment has not been specifically defined by formula or rule. -Consequently, judicial determinations have relied on ad hoc factual inquires and case-specific weighing of the competing public and private interests. C. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified factors to guide courts in ad hoc factual inquiries. The factors include: 1 . The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; 2 . The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectation; 3 . The character of the government regulation. Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124; see Parranto Bros. V. City of New. Brighton, 425 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. App. 1988) (restricted zoning ordinance held not a taking after applying three-factor n inquiry) , (pet. fox, rev. denied. Minn. July 28, 1988) . i SEP-29-�1994 08:46 NAC 612 595 9831 -_. P.05 08 D. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two categories of regulatory action that constitution compensable takings without a case-specific inquiry or balancing of public and private interests. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893 (1992) . The first occurs when regulations compel owners to suffer physical invasion or occupation of their property. The second occurs when the regulation "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. " II. The Dolan Case. A. Dolan,v. City.....of ._Tigard, S.Ct . (62 Law Week 4576 (decided June 24, 1994) B. Dolan challenged the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court which held that the City of Tigard could condition the approval of her building permit on the dedication of a portion of her property for flood control and traffic improvements. The State of Oregon enacted a comprehensive land use management plan in 1973 . Pursuant to state requirements, the city developed a comprehensive plan which it called its community development code (CDC) . - CDC requires property owners in the area zoned central business district to comply with a 15 per cent open space and landscaping requirement which limits total site coverage including all structures and paved parking to 85 per cent of the parcel. It also requires that new development facilitate this plan by dedicating land for pedestrian pathways where provided for in the pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan. C. Dolan owns a plumbing and electric supply store located on Main Street in the central business district of the city. The store covers approximately 9, 700 square feet on the eastern side of a 1.67 acre parcel which includes a gravel parking lot. Fanno Creek flows through the southwestern corner of the lot and along its western boundary. D. Dolan applied to the city for a permit to redevelop the site. Her proposal plan calls for nearly doubling the size of the store to 17, 600 square feet and paving a 39-space perking lot . The existing store located on the opposite side of the parcel would be razed in sections as construction progressed on the new building. In the second phase of the project, she proposed to build an additional structure .on the northeast side of the site for complementary businesses .and to provide more parking. 2 . 5EP-29-1994 08:46 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06i08 E. The commission required that she dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year flood plain for improvement of a storm drainage system along Fanno Creek and that she dedicate an additional IS-foot strip of land adjacent to the flood plain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The dedication required by that condition encompasses approximately 7, 000 square feet or roughly 10 per cent of the property. F. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court held that the city' s dedication requirements constitute an uncompensated taking of property. Under the well settled doctrine of' "unconstitutional conditions" the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. In evaluating Dolan's claim, it must be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra. If one does, then it must be decided whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. G. preventing flooding along Fanno Creek and reducing traffic congestion in the district are legitimate public purposes; and a nexus exists between the first purpose and limiting development within the creek' s floodplain and between the second purpose and providing for alternative means of transportation. Deciding the second question - whether the city' s findings are constitutionally sufficient to justify the conditions imposed on Dolan's permit - the necessary connection required by the Fifth Amendment is "rough proportionality. " No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the proposed development ' s impact. This is essentially the "reasonable relationship" test adopted by the majority of the state courts. The findings upon which the city relies do not show the required reasonable relationship between the flood plain easement and Dolan's proposed building. The CDC already required that Dolan leave 15 per cent of her property as open space, and the 3 . SEP-2�-1994 08s4? NAC 612 595 983? P.07i08 undeveloped flood plain would have merely satisfied that requirement . However, the city has never said why a public as opposed to a private greenway in required in the interest of flood control. The difference to Dolan is the loss of her ability to exclude others from her property yet the city has not attempted to make an individualized - determination to support this part of it$ request. The city has also not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle trips generated by Dolan's development reasonably relates to the city's requirement for a dedication of the pathway easement . The city must quantify its finding beyond a conclusory statement that -the dedication could offset some of the traffic demand generated by the development. III. Practical Implications of Do la . A. The Dolan case has changed the rules regarding dedications and exactions. specifically, the government now has the burden of showing that the degree of the dedication or exaction demanded by the permit condition bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. r-� B. The dedications typically required by the goverment include the following: Park land (residential and commercial) , trail segments, environmental easements including conservation easements, .wetland easements, bluff land easements, flood plain easements, ..scenic easements, no mow, cut or disturb easements, sensitive environmental area easements, bike paths, sidewalks, drainage easements, utility easements, street right-of-way easements, highway right-of-way easements, off-site street easements, off-site ponding, solar access easements, and height limitations. C. In evaluating the city's proposed condition, it must be determined (1) whether an essential nexus exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition, and whether the degree of exactions demanded by the permit condition is reasonably related both in nature and extent to the proposed developments ' impact. IV. Here are three examples that frequently occur. A. Developer Bob proposes a 75 single-family detached housing subdivision in the City of Exaction. As a condition to subdivision approval, Exaction requires that Developer Bob dedicate the upper portion of the property for an arterial roadway. Developer Bob 4. SEP,w29-1994 08:48 NAC 612 595 9837 P.08i08 says it is not reasonably related to the project because 750 trips does not require an arterial. The City argues that the arterial is necessary as part of the city-wide transportation system. B. The second example involves the park land dedication. Developer Bob proposes a mixed commercial use project. consisting of multiple retail uses. As part of the PUD approval., exaction requires a park dedication for the upper corner of the project . Developer Bob argues that park land dedication is not reasonably related to the commercial use. Exaction argues that it is necessary for its city-wide park plan. C. The third example involves the dedication of off-site ponding. Developer Bob proposes a mixed commercial use. As part of the conditions to approving the PUD, Exaction requires that Developer Bob dedicate land for off-site ponding. Developer Bob argues that it is not reasonably related to the impact of the project . Exaction argues that it is necessary for the city-wide drainage requirements. V. Conclusion. A. The Dolan case places a strict burden on the city to make an individualized determination substantiating that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent. to the proposed development ' s impact. It may not be enough for the city to rely on previous calculations . B. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently demonstrated a penchant for protecting property rights. As a result, state courts will review the conditions of zoning approvals by municipalities with more scrutiny. CJD:BR6s C I T Y O F -� INO LAW City of Lino Lakes PARK BOARD MEETING ! Thursday, September 22, 1994 6:0 Opm The Lino Lakes Park Board will be meeting at the Park, Recreation and Forestry Building, 7204 Lake Drive, to set goals for 1995 . Please call the Park, Recreation, and Forestry Department at 464- 5562, Ext. 176, for additional information. PARK, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE, LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 The goal setting meeting started at 6:15pm at the Lino Lakes Park, Recreation and Forestry building on September 22, 1994 . Members present were Brian Bourassa, Amy Donlin, Pam Taschuk, George Lindy, and Ken Johnson. Staff in attendance were Marty Asleson, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Coordinator, Barry Bernstein, Recreation Program Supervisor, and Sandie Wood, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Secretary. Board member Sharon Lane arrived at 6:30pm. Marty Asleson started the meeting by reviewing the goals in the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide and the criteria for prioritizing acquisition according to the plan. Marty advised the board that the dedicated park fund total as of August 31, 1994, is $147, 000, total committed funds of unspent pending projects is $83, 800, leaving a total dedicated park fund balance, after commitments, of $63,200. He than passed out a memo from Mary Kay Wyland that indicated $202, 963 remain to be transferred from the individual subdivisions escrow account (s) to the park fund. She indicated the transfer of funds would be made prior to fiscal year-end 1994 . Marty talked about the survey that was done in 1988. He then discussed a handout that indicated the rating of park facilities and activities. Marty said that he had put money in the budget to do another survey next year but he did not know if the money would remain there. George Lindy discussed the change in population. He said we all have to keep that in mind when we are planning neighborhood parks. Currently they are toddlers but in 5 years or so they will be older and the parents will want different things in their park. As an example, a baseball field instead of playground equipment. He said a good example of population change is the Brandy Wood development. There is only three teenagers in the whole area and the rest are younger. Marty thought 60 percent of the kids were between the ages of 3 and 5. Amy passed out a survey. She stated she had meet with different neighborhood groups and they had formed this survey. Marty said the Recreation Focus Committee should be involved in the survey process if one is done. Amy asked if this survey could be passed along to the City Council. Marty responded yes. Brian said he thought the survey was slanted and recommended that they meet with the person on the Recreation Focus Committee who seemed to have expertise in this area. Amy was thankful for the feedback and said she would take this information back to her neighborhood groups. Pam suggested that when a survey was done we look for someone that is working on a masters degree and would do the survey as a research project. Amy talked about the Mayor' s 20/20 Vision and voiced her concerns with it. 1 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Marty explained that since the last Park Board meeting he has talked with Council Person Linda Elliot and she said the City Council will be ready for a work session, with the Park Board, in January to discuss alternative funding and where things are going. Marty commented on the goals of the Park Board for the last two years and their status: 1993 Goals NORTH SIDE OF THE CITY - $10000-$12000 for a hockey rink (probably at City Hall) - Not completed. COUNTRY LAKES PARK - $2000-$4000 for re-master planning - Cost - $4000 - Done. N-14 PARK AREA - $2000-$4000 for master planning - Done. SUNSET OAKS PARK - $12000-$15000 to replace the playground - Done. TRAILS - $12000-$14000 to pave existing g gravel trails for 1993 - Cost - $15, 000 - Done. 1994 Goals RECREATION COMPLEX - $5000 for the preliminaries for A-3 recreation complex acquisition, with a later approval to exceed this amount with approval. Amounts spent to date: Brauer and Associates, $2400 max (project still in process) ; Engineering, $1295; Wetland delineation, $400. Total committed to date $4095 . Land appraisal quote is $750. This would bring the total to $4845 . TRAIL PAVING - $15000 for continued paving. This years cost - $30000. $15000 was allocated through the general fund to make up the difference - Done. COUNTRY LAKES COMMUNITY PARK - Phase 1 - $15000 for engineering. This is presently being completed; $3000 for clearing and beach improvements - Not done. WOODS OF BALDWIN LAKE PARK - $18000 for the completion of the park development - presently in progress. PICNIC TABLES - $1000 to start replacing and adding to this growing need - Done. 2 n City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 RICE LAKE ESTATES - $40000 committed to park development by the development agreement, plus the sale of two lots. One lot is buildable and we would have to request a variance to the wetland laws for the second lot. LINO PARK PARKING LOT - $5000 for parking lot improvements - Done. SUNSET OAKS PARK - $300 for access to park - Not Done. CONCEPT DESIGN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PARKS - $2000. BIRCH PARK - Land acquisition - $8000. NEW AND UNAPPROVED ITEMS - Shoreview Park Shelter - $10000 After general conversation on the status of the 1993/1994 goals Marty discussed an issues report he had written. He also passed out a map so members could see the areas he was discussing. Future Land Needs: N-14 - Dedication was taken for land development in the Woods of Baldwin Lake II. Dedication dollars were also taken for the Woodridge development. We still have park land needs in this area. N-11 - Birch Park - dollars are needed to purchase additional land for the Trappers Crossing Development. Dollars from Trappers Crossing should be used for this. JU-3 - Pheasant Hills Preserve - Dollars from the PHP development should be used to purchase 8-10 acres in this area. He feels the school is not going to develop it as a school site. Marty briefly discussed new, partially or fully dedicated parks, no amenities with the board members. This included Shores of Marshan, Wenzel Farms, Birchwood Acres/Park Grove, Qual Ridge, Brandy Wood, and Pheasant Hills Preserve parks. He then continued by talking about Birch Park and Woods of Baldwin Lake Park which are new, partially or fully dedicated parks with some amenities. The overview continued by discussing older park areas with some amenities which included Lino, Arena Acres, City Hall, Sunset Oaks, Sunrise, Shenandoah and Lamotte Parks. Older park areas with no amenities (Rice Lake Estates) and Joint use parks with some amenities (Rice Lake Elementary) were the last items discussed in this presentation. 3 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 There was discussion on land acquisition at Birch Park and the cost. Marty stated that he estimated the cost to be approximately $8, 000. Amy asked about dedicated fees and if they were guaranteed. It was explained that developers must post a bond and the city would get the money even if they went bankrupt. Marty continued by explaining staff and his role in the process. He went on to say that when establishing goals for 1995 he hoped the board would included a realistic look at available staff and the need to hire contractors if necessary. He did not feel it was likely that additional staff would be hired for 1995 . He also continued by saying that as more improvements are made more pressure is put on the department to inspect, correct and maintain the areas. Brian thought the Park Board had programmed rather well for 1994 as everything was completed but one item. Marty commented that we did meet the goals that were set, but other things were neglected, such as inspection for safety and appearance. Ken asked who makes the determination on whether a job is contracted or not. Marty responded that it was the City Council that makes the decisions. Ken suggested that after the priorities are set maybe they should be looked at and decide how much manpower is needed and establish what should be contracted. Marty told the Park Board that he was going to propose to redo the trail development ordinance. He would like to get the contractors to do the trails in the development rather than the city doing them. Marty talked about another city that receives $150/lot to go towards trail development. Marty told the board that Moline Concrete would like to do something in the community, on the north side, whether it be completing a city park or something else. Marty told Moline Concrete that the N-7 Park cost $240, 000 to develop. They to Marty that they do pre-formed concrete picnic tables and asked how many he wanted. The Park Board members hoped something would come out of this. George then said the board should look at what was not done last year and then look ahead at future issues. There was general discussion on the status of N-14, Country Lakes Park, trails, A- 3, Rice Creek Estates, Wenzel, Pine Ridge, Brandywood, Quail Ridge, Shores of Marshan, N-12, Rice Lake Elementary Tennis Courts, Pheasant Hills Preserve and the status of the Shoreview building. Ken stated that projects that are near completion should get top priority. Marty added that the trail on Jeanne Drive is important and should be considered. 4 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting Thursday, September 22, 1994 Brian reviewed what George had gone over, there was discussion and a poll was taken, of the members, as to their level of priority for the following items: 1. N14 (Land Acquisition) Amy - high Ken - middle Pam - middle # George - middle Brian - middle Sharon - middle 2 . Country Lakes Park - Additional expenditures $10, 000 Master plan done, clean up area, restructure access and parking area, salvage gravel, purchase black dirt and seed. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 3 . Trails - Additional expenditures $15, 000 Most trails are paved and Pheasant Hills are cut. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority # George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 4 . A-3 Recreation Complex - $10, 000 Keep moving with project. Offer the property owners a lst right of refusal on the property. Do appraisal and final concept plans. Amy lockup land before development Ken lockup land before development Pam lockup land before development # George lockup land before development Brian lockup land before development Sharon keep moving 5 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 5. Rice Lake Estates Amy keep working on it Ken keep working on it Pam keep working on it ## George keep working on it Brian keep working on it Sharon keep working on it 6. Rice Lake Elementary Tennis Courts Do as money becomes available. Work on a five year plan. Use as a selling point for bond referendum. Amy low priority Ken low priority Pam low priority ## George low priority Brian low priority Sharon low priority 7. M5 Pheasant Hills - Dedicated neighborhood park. Work with developer - he is willing to finance. Amy high priority Ken high priority Pam high priority ## George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 8 . City Hall Park - $10, 000 - expenses for moving, slab and engineering for the building - $12, 000 for a hockey rink (boards, poles and lights) . Move the building and place on a slab in the most reasonable and accessible location. Also keep the pleasure rink at this location. Talk to the hockey association and see if they will help with this project. Amy middle priority Ken middle/high priority Pam high priority ## George high priority Brian high priority Sharon high priority 6 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 9 . Jeanne Drive Trail Link - $300 for wetland delineation. Do delineation and then review. May apply for permit to fill approximately 1/2 acre of wetland to build trail. Not done in 1994 . Amy Ken Pam # George Brian Sharon 10. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS # M-3 - Wenzel Neighborhood Park - $15, 000. (950-. developed) Picnic area, grading and playground equipment. The developer has irrigated 1/2 the park. Do concept plan with neighborhood input. M-2 - Shores of Marshan Neighborhood Park - (98% developed) Have a pleasure rink this winter. Leave this park until Shores of Marshan II is done. No need to budget money for the rink. N-13 - Brandywood Neighborhood Park - $20, 000 top end. (980-o developed) To be discussed after concept plan is done. Playground equipment, grading, seeding, and brush removal. Enter into a business agreement with person that has a bobcat and is willing to do work in the park. (if insurance issue can be resolved) N-10 - Pine Ridge Park - $13, 000-$15, 000 . (80% developed) Park is graded and seeded. Concept plan is done. There is 5 acres in the park and 5 acres is proposed. N-12 - Quail Ridge - (60% developed) This area should be looked at to see what level of development is done and see if there is eminent need. Decided to put on hold Lino Park - $2, 000 approved last year for inside lighting. 1994 - finish park building for warminghouse. George stated that they need to look at the items from previous priority lists and make sure that funding is not being set aside again. Marty told the Park Board that there would no longer be free water for flooding ice rinks. We will be given a meter and charged $1.45/1000 gallons of water used. It would be a good idea to make rinks on ponds in the areas that have them. 7 City of Lino Lakes Park Board Goal Setting Meeting September 22, 1994 Some of the work may have to be contracted out or have the neighborhoods help build them. Marty explained that it cost $400 to have someone from the playground equipment company come out and help put the equipment together. Marty stated that we had enough manpower to do a couple of large projects and a couple smaller projects each year and still keep up with the maintenance that is necessary. It was noted that the cost of the items on the priority list came to approximately $90, 000. There was discussion on what the cost of the projects done last year came to and what the total cost would be for the two years. There was discussion again on the trail ordinance. Marty said he was going to be doing research on this and would report back to the Park Board. It was requested that the priority list be put in the next Park Board meeting packets so the members could review, prioritize, and bring them to the meeting. .-N, The meeting ended at 9:45pm. 10"o 8 Section 2•�)Ommm 01A-(r ation Needs City L )no Lakes e 6. Cky Park and Recreation Facilities and M RATING OF RATING OF CITY PARK FACILITIES AND ACTIVtT-I CITY PARK FACILITIES AND AACILITES The following table ranks ft tan park facilities aril activities most,desired Within 14 The following teWe lists those services least desired(never)to those Services most yeamtsy ago group. desired(IA percentage). 6 10 1.5 No Bach AUG" AaltfAdfl AQUAOM A 2iist Um Wooffie Yam Years S1PilliO4 1. MM1M1pfV11saAhpf rayalnpTrols HII&OWaNany R04110 tt►Irr -Oft Jogging Trafis Jogging Tmsk Indoor Ice Arena 37 21 9 14 to 2. I11Wtdktp TrefU WOMI"Wititiv Ten Recreation MOM Outdoor Swownklg Pod 32 20 10 20 14l Indoor Swknming Pod(tie) 29 23 12 is is a Youth Regression Y�atlreatlon Youth Y SnowrnobteTrallsble) 29 /6 9 26 to 4 Taslf•RaM/won TsslvUtggrwtlort ObydYgTNp 1 Exercise Courses 20 20 13 28 21 & RastuNilrng In Parks Amoo m In Parks Restroonr in Parks 91s)l (fl(t< Horseback Riding Trolls t9 29 to 21 25 a' fCgitipnlala M Senior Rem ohm Archery Field Is 24 10 17 28 7• Sksrp $AV cm40w">jkilll� , volleyball Courts(tta) la Qe 11 14 31 Horseshoe Coups ele) to if 19 i4 28 Community Center flit► is Its is 17 13 R (&Grounds with OWjWs wkh Adult Recreation "Wow- „ Basketball Count Mitt 16 Zs 17 t0 0 a *WdW Recreation 1110111110111" Mcnic Grounds wltll Ea Flaking Piers 14 21 14 09 ttk Adult tocroadon Adult Rltgraation Pla*Sleeker flldpp Football/Soccer IrM�ir 12 se 14 Et 29 Tennis Courts 1 t 27 1 s 26 Picnic Shelter Sklps(0) 9 24 is tab n7 Picnic Grounds with GwIls(lie) 9 24 12 ss 1� Baseball Fields ft* 9 Its 16 3s -22 Nature Study Ares 9 20 /6 33 212 Cross-country S"Trails(tie) a is 13 47 1-7 Adult Recreation Prsareht4(tie) 6 21 13 30 22 Softball Fields(ilk 7 24 is 36 t9 Senior Recreation Progrents(tie) 7 21 12 37 t?2 Restrooms In Parke file) 6 17 9 56 113 Playground Equipment(tie) 6 17 11 49 17 Bicycling Trans(tie) 6 10 11 62 11 Hiking/Walking/Jopging Trolls(tie) 6 10 11 63 11 Youth Recreation PMrems(lie) 6 13 6 59 17 Teen Recreation Programs(tie) 6 13 8 56 16 Source: Lee Mehrkens Management Consultants MMW40 Z-A MOBW MEASKIDAMMT 010 Im V AS V Liu Lis City Hall L .k4e se• �Ierrts rmni be of votitig�_ige-- I�tS _us ter c �Ier. ; 1189 main R. NAME lino Lakes,MN 55014 NAME PH:464.5562 ADDPE S PHONE FAX:444.4569 7NYgKY7N7Y.1kRY:YtRKY:%:Y:RRRR71:KciR71tiK767K7R71tkYyGK�YyJi7RRRilUIC W ik�i7R1ki4y�y{y[Y•7tyfyl7R11tYpk7RY.7RYCYgkiRI7UYpK1K1C11gWY.iR11gRYf7R1RY:M1R1gKKYgkYtYgRYqk7RYciRYtY7R7k71gkYt*71ti7RlklltGkX761k71tiR1N71ggk7NYt INSTRUCTIONS : Circle the following answers, once for a single person-- or if 2 people choose the some answer, circle that answer twice. It is not necessary to answer each and every question and remark. Only answer those questions that)you feel comfortable with. However, we would appreciate your opinion on as many items as possible. If more room 15 needed, use your own paper-- place on top of this sheet--fold, and mail. (before Oct. 15, 1994) Thank you. I . ArP you (1}SAT(SEtED a� (2}DtSSAASEtED with the amaunt of grawth {housing deve, apments} in the City? REMARKS: 2. Would you like to see (1) FASTER or (2)SLOWER growth f housing developments) in the City? REMARKS: 3. Would you prefer to see additional rezonings for (1) SINGLE FAMILY and EXECUTIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS or rezonings for (2) LOTS CONSISTING Of ACREAGE ? if you answered " lots with acreage ", would you prefer either (1)2.5-ACRE (2)5-ACRE (3) 10-ACRE parcels ? REMARKS: 4. Wrtuld yc�,,dike to see f a).MORE cir f2)IEZ L-utsinew do the 0ty? Wf)ot t of Ljusinew woUid you prefer--(1)INDtyblli AI and MANI)fAC1UTONG COMPANIES (2)WORES and SHOPPING AREAS (3) FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS and FAMILY-ORIENTED SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS ? REMARKS: 5. What number of homes would you like to see"built per year" in the City? Circle one of the following numil--)eis : 30 50 75 100 150 175 200 250 300 REMARKS: 1 6. Would you We to see a "moritr)6.im" jjeaporarystop) on biAding home,in the City? Ao rweN*: YES NO If ye)ia c��et"e9yF%,-",. wcy.*J yeya prefer, (1)6 MONTHS (2) 1 YEAR REMARKS: . 'it there wcm a referendum on the bdliot today. to I.-jroposse fhe coristruc hon of new sdhodis-- which would be financed by increases in property taxes, would you (1)SUPPORT (2) REJECT it ? REMARKS: �! r 8. Do you prefer "wildlife" and "rural areas" in the City? (1) YES (2) NO REMARKS Goa 1 Summary 1 9 9 3—1 9 9 4 The following is a summary of the goals of the Park Board for the last two years and their present status: 1993 Goals $10,000 - $12,000 for a hockey rink on the north side of the City. Probably City Hall. Not accomplished. $2000 - $4000 for re-master planning Country Lakes Park. Cost- $4000. Done. $2000-$4000 for the masterplanning of the n - 14 park area Done. $12,000 - $15,000 to replace the playground at Leonard and Bradley. Done. $12,000 - $14,000 to pave the existing gravel trails for 1993. Cost - $15,000. Done. 1994 Goals Recreation Complex $5000 for the preliminaries for A - 3 Recreation Complex acquisition, with a later approval to exceed this amount with approvals. Amounts spent to date: Brouer and Associates, $2400 max ( project still in process ) ; Engineering, $1295; Wetland delineation, $400. Total committed to date $4095. Land appraisal quote is $750.00. This would bring the total to $4845. Trail Paving $15,000 for continued paving. This years cost - $30,000. $15,000 was allocated through the general fund to make up4he difference. This project is done. Country Lakes Community Park Phase 1 of Country Lakes Park development: $1500 for engineering. This is presently being completed; $3000 for clearing and beach improvements, not done. Woods of Baldwin Lake Park $18,000 for the completion of the park development; presently in progress. Picnic Tables $1000 to start replacing and adding to this growing need. Done. C I T Y O F INO LAW MEMPUZIMUM Date: August 17, 1994 Frcmn: Marty Asleson To: Marilyn Anderson Subject: Park Board Meeting On Thursday, September 22, 1994, the Lino Lakes Park Board will be having a meeting to set their 1995 goals. The meeting will be at the Park, Recreation, and Forestry Building at 6 :00pm. Could you please post the attached meeting notice for me. Thank you. PARK, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE,LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562 FAX TRANSMISSION TO Theresa Berg, Circulating Pines FAX NO. 784-4325 FROM : Marilyn Anderson, Clerk PHONE NO. 464-5562 FAX NO. 464-4568 NO. OF PAGES 2 including cover page MESSAGE: Please publish the attached special park board meeting notice in the September S. 1994 edition of the Circulating Pines. Thank you for your attention to this matter. r-� CITY OF LINO LAKES SPECIAL PARR BOARD MEETING Thursday September 22, 1994 6:00 P.M. The Lino Lakes Park Board will meet at the Park, Recreation and Forestry Building, 7204 Lake Drive, to set goals for 1995. Please call the Park, Recreation, and Forestry Department, 464- 5562 , Ext. 176 for additional information. This meeting is open to the public. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk-Treasurer FAX TRANSMISSION TO Legal Publications FAX NO. 429-1242 FROM Marilyn Anderson, Clerk PHONE NO. : 464-5562 FAX NO. 464-4568 NO. OF PAGES 2 including cover page MESSAGE: Please publish the attached special park board meeting notice in the September 6, 1994 edition of the Quad Press. Thank you for your attention to this matter. r"� C IT Y OF -� LIN, LAW City of Lino Lakes PARK BOARD MEETING Thursday, September 22, 1994 6:0Opm The Lino Lakes Park Board will be meeting at the Park, Recreation and Forestry Building, 7204 Lake Drive, to set goals for 1995. Please call the Park, Recreation, and Forestry Department at 464- 5562, Ext. 176, for additional information. PARK,RECREATION AND FORESTRY DEPARTMENTS 7204 LAKE DRIVE,LINO LAKES,MINNESOTA 55014 (612)464-5562