The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/05/2001 Park Board PacketCITY OF • IN KE Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 • CITY OF LINO LAKES PARK BOARD MEETING Monday, March 5, 2001 ** *AGENDA * ** 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30pm 2. Approval of Minutes from February 5, 2001 6:35pm 6:40pm 6:45pm 5. Review Park and Trail Dedication Study 6:50pm 6. Review Outdoor Recreation Grant Application for Development of 7:05pm Clearwater Creek Park 7. Recreation Department Update 7:15pm 8. Parks Department Update 7:20pm 9. New Business 7:25pm 10. Old Business 7:30pm 11. Next Park Board Meeting — April 2, 2001 6:30pm 7:35pm 12. Adjourn 7:40pm 3. Setting Agenda 4. Open Mike If you are unable to attend the meeting please call Sandie at 651 982 -2442. sw /parkbrd/3 -5 -01 Park Board Agenda.doc 1 Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes • The February 5, 2001 City of Lino Lakes Park Board meeting was called to order at 6:30pm, by Acting Chair Huelman. • • Roll call was taken, members present were Pam Taschuk, Bill Kusterman, Michael O'Connor, and Pat Huelman. Members absent were Chris Welsand, George Lindy, and Paul Montain. Also present was Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4, 2001 MINUTES: Pam Taschuk made a motion, seconded by Bill Kusterman, to approve the January 4, 2001 minutes. The minutes were approved. SETTING THE AGENDA: The agenda was passed as presented. OPEN MIKE: No one was present for open mike. REVIEW LAND HOLDING GROUP PRELIMINARY Rick advised the Land Holding Group acre development located at the n and 12th Avenue. There are 13 si The Comprehensive Parks and T II Level Transportation Tra intended to be located with iminary Plat is an eight - west corner of Holly Drive amily lots proposed. System Plan indicates a Class g Holly Drive. This trail is existing road right -of -way. Therefore, staff's recom ■' =a io is to recommend 100 percent cash park dedication = +r th`' .nd Holding Group Development. Rick suggested that t el per inform potential property owners along Holly Dri e regarding the future trail placement. Pam inquired about a name for the development. Rick advised at this point, the development is named Land Holding Group. Acting Chair Huelman inquired about the trail currently in the right -of -way in Trapper's Crossing. Rick advised there are not any existing trails along Holly Drive. However, there is adequate room in the existing right -of -way for a trail when Holly Drive is renovated. Acting Chair Huelman asked if staff sees any need to connect to 12th Avenue. Rick advised the future trail along Holly Drive will continue to 12th Avenue. There is a trail in the Perigrine Pass Development along the eastern side. 1 • • • Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes Pam Taschuk made a motion, seconded by Michael O'Connor, to ask for 100% cash dedication for the Land Holding Group Development. The developer should make sure potential homeowners along Holly Drive are aware a future trail may be placed within the existing right -of -way. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ON CONCEPT PLAN OF SPIRIT HILLS DEVELOPMENT: Rick advised the Planning Department recently received a concept plan of the Spirit Hills Development located near Apitz Garage, on the north side of Birch Street. The proposed development is a mix of neighborhood business, townhomes, and single- family homes. The Comprehensive Parks and Trails System Plan indicates a Class Level II Transportation Trail along Birch Street and State Highway #49. It is intended that both tr 'ls are located within the existing road right -of -way. The Shenandoah Third Addition Developme ocated directly east of the Spirit Hills Development. e ity has secured a trail corridor at the north end of Ho ive to connect to the future Regional Park Reserve Trail m. Since the existing Sioux Lane is proposed to continu • the west, this should provide adequate access for resi• in the spirit Hills Development to access the Regi.4- rk Reserve Trail System. The purpose of this discuss '. is to get input from the Park Board regarding potential p. ". nd trail connections prior to the plans being finalized 'ndicated that at this point, he does not foresee any nee or trils in the Spirit Hills Development. Acting Chair Huelman a ed if staff is familiar with the County path plan. Rick advise the intent is to continue on the north side of Birch Street to Hodgson Road. Everything to the north and west of this development is the regional park area. Mr. Huelman asked about the possibility of a trail connection within the regional park area. Rick advised that a trail connection would be very difficult due to wetland issues. Pat questioned where the neighborhood park would be for residents within this development. Rick advised Rice Lake Elementary School and Shenandoah Park are the closest park areas. Acting Chair Huelman inquired about the location of the commercial development. Rick advised the commercial development is right along Birch Street. The first phase of the plan calls 2 • • • Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes for residential only. Rick noted the City currently owns the corner lot. DISCUSS AND APPROVE 2001 PARK BOARD GOALS: Rick advised that after extensive discussion at the January Goal Setting meeting, the following goals were established for the Park Board's 2001 goals: • Trail connection - Pheasant Hills trail to Regional Park Reserve $50,000 • Trail connection - Trapper's Crossing to Birch Park $40,000 • Marshan Park Development - grading, igation, Seeding, landscaping $15,000 • Trail Renovation • Behm's Park Development - grad Seeding, landscaping of 50' t SW corner of Mustang Lane a irrigation, 1T orridor and omino Lane $10,000 $ 7,000 Assuming the above items remai nchanged, Rick indicated he included an updated summary e gnated Park Dedication Funds. Listed below are projects t re discussed should additional funding become available. Begin development of uail '' d Park Begin development of t r Creek Park Pave trails in Behm's eve opment Install playground equi ent at LaMotte Park % court basketball cour s throughout park system Pheasant Hills trail connection to neighborhood park Trail segment through Outlot F to Sunset Oaks Park Up to $200,000 Up to $300,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 20,000 The below listed items were released from last year's designated funds: • Wheels Project - $10,000 • Trail Renovation Throughout Trails System - $9,200 • Pave Trails in Behm's Development - $35,000 • City Hall Park - West Improvements - $2,667 • Parks and Trail Improvements - $27,444 • Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes Rick advised the Park Board should make a motion to approve the 2001 Park Board goals. The 2001 Goals will be discussed with the City Council at the Wednesday, February 21, City Council work session. Acting Chair Huelman stated the goals do a nice job of covering the specific goals and keeping track of other things the Park Board would like to accomplish if funds become available. Bill asked if Country Lakes has been dropped from all future discussions. He stated that he believed park benches for Country Lakes was to be placed on the proposed list. Rick advised the list can be modified to add Country Lakes. Bill indicated Country Lakes should be discussed again during next year's goal setting meeting. Bill Kusterman made a motion, seconded by' =`aschuk, to approve the 2001 Park Board Goals as outlined. tion passed. REVIEW AFTER HOURS SHELTER RENTAL RE S ORM: Rick advised the Lino Lakes Parks eation Department attempts to make available the fo arming house shelters for parties, neighborhood groups or • special events after posted shelter hours. Rick referred •y of the application and policies relating to renting a ing house shelter. Pam inquired about the time advised the time varies f location. The shelter c the cost of a super +r helters currently close. Rick - 9:OOpm depending on the ke.t open longer for a fee to cover Bill asked if the City can keep the shelters open past 10:OOpm. Rick advised the City's "•ark ordinance states all public parks are closed at 10:OOpm. Because of the park ordinance, a supervisor or city employee is needed at the shelter if it is kept open. Acting Chair Huelman asked if it is conceivable for a group to have the shelter before closing time. Rick advised a group may rent the shelter before the stated closing time. Michael asked what time the shelters open. Rick advised the shelters open at 11:OOam or 12:OOpm on weekends, and depending on specific location, 4:OOpm on weekdays. . RECREATION DEPARTMENT UPDATE: Rick referred to the Program Highlights Flyer from January 2001. He noted an estimated 250+ people attended this year's Snow Day 4 Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes • event that was held on Saturday, January 27, 2001 at Wargo Nature Center. • Rick advised the ski trips went well this season. The first trip on December 28 was canceled due to low registration. However, the numbers increased dramatically for the last two trips of the season. Rick noted the warminghouses are seeing an increase in attendance due to the near normal weather conditions this year. Rick added that staff is currently working on the Spring Activities Guide that will be in resident's homes the last week in February. PARKS DEPARTMENT UPDATE: Rick reviewed a memo from Mike Hoffman, P summarizes the maintenance highlights for stated maintenance activities during Janu maintenance at ten skating rinks. Othe assisting the Public Works Department streets and parking lots and trail pl ks Supervisor, which uary 2001. Rick cluded daily rink ities have included he snow plowing of and trail widening. Rick noted approximately 175 Chri s trees have been chipped at Sunrise and Birch Parks. NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: Outdoor Recreation Grant 2001, the City Council Outdoor Recreation meant Clearwater Creek Pa - Rick advised on January 17, ri'Tzed staff to submit a $125,000 lication for the development of n January 18, a letter was sent to interested residents regarding the Outdoor Recreation Grant development. Last week ichael O'Connor developed a brochure and hand delivered it to all residents in the Clearwater Creek Development. Rick referred to a copy of the brochure. Mr. O'Connor will be gathering petitions this weekend to indicate support for the proposed Outdoor Recreation Grant Application. A public hearing will be held at the Monday, February 12, 2001, City Council meeting at 6:30pm. Residents will be given the opportunity to comment on the proposed Outdoor Recreation Grant application. The deadline for submittal is March 31, 2001. Funding announcements are expected in the summer or fall. Bill asked how the City Council felt about the grant. Rick Ilkadvised the difficult part of the grant is the matching dollars. However, the City Council was receptive. 5 Park Board Meeting - February 5, 2001 Minutes • Acting Chair Huelman asked if the City Council has determined a funding source for the grant. Rick advised the City Council has committed to the grant but a funding source has not yet been determined. He noted some items included in the park amenities are not eligible for the grant. • • Acting Chair Huelman asked if there are other ways the Park Board can show their support for the grant. Rick advised a resolution will be presented at the next Park Board meeting indicating support for the grant application. Updated Parks and Trails Map - A copy of the updated Parks and Trails Map was distributed to Park Board members. Rick noted there will be a few more updates and a final copy will be run off for residents within the next month or so Acting Chair Huelman asked when the tra j = °ving project will begin. Rick advised the major trail s are large enough that the project will not be done wit e street paving. Staff is in the process of preparing the n and specifications for the projects. Mr. Huelman asked if the Birch advised staff is having a Jiff' the property owner's attorne property. When the prop proceed. The engineering i SCHEDULE NEXT PARK BOARD trail is in line. Rick me getting cooperation from set up a closing date on the s acquired, the project will ady in place. The next Park Board - -ting "`.,,3 1 be held on Monday, March 5, 2001, 6:30pm, at Lino! _:. C ty Hall. ADJOURN: Pam Taschuk made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Bill Kusterman. The meeting was adjourned at 7:OOpm. Respectfully Submitted, Kim Points Recording Secretary 6 Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 February 28, 2001 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Review Park and Trail Dedication Study Attached is an updated draft copy of the Park and Trail Dedication Study conducted by Northwest Associated Consultants Inc. There have been some changes since the preliminary draft was sent out to Park Board members earlier this month. Please review the draft copy prior to Monday's Park Board meeting. Park Board members will have the opportunity to comment on the report and proposed revisions to the current Park Dedication Ordinance. It is my understanding that the city council will be discussing this topic within the next few months. 2/28/01 RD /Park Board /new park dedication study • • • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS. INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Smyser FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross DATE: February 15, 2001 RE: Lino Lakes — Park and Trail Dedication Study FILE NO: 194.02 — 00.06 INTRODUCTION, The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recpmmendations to the City of Lino Lakes concerning park and trail dedication standards and the ordinance amendments suggested to implement the City's Comprehensive Park and Development Guide Plan. The City's existing park and trail systems have been developed based upon the 1992 Comprehensive Park Plan, construction of school facilities and new subdivision activity. The City has been successful in acquiring land during the subdivision process to provide neighborhood and mini parks throughout the community. Athletic fields and other recreation improvements have been provided based upon a combination of City and School District facilities. The Rice Creek Park Reserve is a 2,500 -acre natural open space and greenway system that is located in the central part of the City surrounding a number of lakes ISSUES / ANALYSIS The City is experiencing increased demand for development of the park facilities due to the influx of residential subdivision and population to Lino Lakes. While the need for parks and trails continues to be strong, the financial resources being dedicated to the park and trails system is declining. As a result, the City implementation of the park and trail system is lagging behind neighborhood development and the system is not adequate to meet current demand. This situation is expected to continue into the future and perhaps intensify, as larger, more expensive community athletic complexes are needed to serve larger populations. The following points summarize the key issues facing the City concerning its park and trail system: 1. The Comprehensive Park Plan was developed to serve an ultimate City population of 30,000 people. The April 1st 2000 population estimate indicated the City's 1 of 14 • • • population to be 15,053. Based upon the population estimate, about one half of the park system should be implemented to accommodate the existing population. The City has well over half of the land acquired for the park system but falls short in park facilities development. Approximately $2,490,134 dollars in infrastructure and trails is needed to equip existing parks and provide trails to serve existing neighborhoods. 2. The Comprehensive Park Plan envisioned development of about 80 miles of trails throughout the community. To date, approximately 14 miles of trails have been constructed in the City. Based upon the population estimates, half of the planned trail system should be implemented to serve existing residents /development. Approximately $1,089,528 dollars of trail improvements (3.55 miles of park trails; 9.3 miles of transportation trails; and 13.6 miles of bike trails) in addition to the 14 miles of existing trails should be in place to serve the existing population. 3. The City has not traditionally included park improvement funding in its annual budget process. As a result, the City has fallen behind in park development and it is estimated that $2,490,134 dollars of equipment and improvements are needed to equip the existing parks for the current residents. The capital outlay for parks and recreation has been used for acquisition of tractors and trucks but not generally for park equipment and improvements. Previous `budgets have appropriated about $15,000 annually for trail improvements. In. 1998 the City Council authorized expenditure of $150,000 for park improvements, which was the result of a one -time excess fund balance. The 2000 budget appropriated $50,000 for the improvement of Black Duck Trail. There is a need to establish a park fund to provide funding for park equipment, facilities, land acquisition, and trail development. 4. At the same time that park capital outlay budget is decreasing, the City population and households continues to increase by 4.69% and 5.6% respectively. (The City population has increased by 707 people based upon the April 1st estimates from 1998 to 2000). The number of households within the City has increased by 249 households based upon the April 1st estimates from 1998 to 2000). 5. Within the next twenty years, the City is expected to grow to a population of 20,500 residents housed in 7,575 households. If growth occurs as anticipated, the City will be two thirds developed by the year 2020. Within the next twenty years, the City park and trails system will need to add about 16 acres of land and about 39 miles of trails to accommodate its future population. 6. The City is considering development of a 67 -acre, community athletic complex southeast of the intersection of Birch Street and Centerville Road. Preliminary design cost estimates for the facility range from $3,279,437.50 to $6,965,372.50. The community athletic complex is planned to replace the proposed 36 -acre Community Park (Birch Street and Hodgson Road) and 50 -acre Athletic Complex (Holly Drive and 12th Avenue) as contemplated by the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The City will need to develop a funding mechanism to implement the 67 -acre community athletic complex. 2 of 14 • • STATUTE / CASE LAW The City authorized this study to be conducted by NAC to review current regulations and dedication requirements to determine if current practices are adequately providing for existing and future anticipated park and trail demands. This Report will summarize the objectives of the 1992 Park Comprehensive Plan and provide updated inventory information to establish a base line for future dedication needs. Factors including property valuation, service area needs, facility cost analysis, future development and implementation strategies will be reviewed. Recommendations will be set forth establishing mechanisms for the City to provide park and trail facilities in a manner that meets Comprehensive Plan goals, establishes a relationship between park /trail need and development impact and that will accomplish the system in an equitable manner, consistent with Minnesota Statutes and recent case law. Minnesota Statutes — Park Dedication Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b., provides the enabling legislation that allows municipalities to extract parkland or cash dedications for park acquisition and development. The statute specifically provides: "that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space." The statute further provides that the municipality may: a. choose to accept an equivalent amount rin,cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, b. any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, c. in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and d. the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in Subd. 2b. as a result of approval of the subdivision. Collis v. City of Bloomington (1976) The statute described above was further interpreted by the case of Collis vs. City of Bloomington. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Bloomington's Ordinance, which set forth a ten (10) percent park dedication requirement "as a general rule." The Court found for this particular case and developer /project, that "as a general rule, it was reasonable for the City to require dedication of ten percent of land or payment of ten percent of the value of undeveloped land for park dedication." The Court noted that the ten percent requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the 3 of 14 particular subdivision and recreational need in the community. The Court was not, • however, prepared to say that the ten percent requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). Dolan vs. Tigard (1994) The enabling legislation of Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b cited earlier in this report has been further influenced by case law. The U.S. Supreme Count (Dolan vs. Tigard) found that land use extractions must be reflective of a development impact on the infrastructure system. In this respect, park dedication extracted from a land use must reflect the demand they generate for park and recreational facilities. This case established that a rational nexus or relationship must exist between the fees charged for parks and the related impacts that are generated by the use. Kottschade vs. City of Rochester (1995) In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that in the case of a dedication, the City is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right — the right to receive just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the City has the burden of proving the required relationship between the property development and the City's need for land dedication. To meet that burden, the City must prove that an "essential nexus" exists between the need for the land and the dedication requirement. If the nexus can be demonstrated, the City must also demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the development and the City's dedication requirement. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). other words, the City must be able to prove that the proposed project will create a need for additional park facilities and that the amount of dedication required is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required, however, the City must demonstrate that an individualized determination has been made to support the land /cash dedication requirement. City Attorney Comments — (Exhibit A Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). "In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized determination. It should not be difficult for the City to meet the first or nexus part of the standard, i.e., that the proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does not pass the second part of the test. A flat fee charge does not provide an individualized determination that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be reasonable and must be based on the fair market value of the land." 4 of 14 1992 PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • The City of Lino Lakes adopted a Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide in 1992, which sets forth goals and objectives for achieving a coordinated park, recreation and trail system designed to serve the ultimate population of the City (30,000 people) at full development. Exhibit B illustrates the 1992 Park Comprehensive Plan. The system contemplates dividing 339.1 acres of land into the following park system classifications. • Mini Park. This type of facility is intended to provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population. Mini parks are typically located within neighborhoods and in close proximity to multi - family development or housing for the elderly. These facilities serve people living within less than 1/4 mile of the mini park and should have an area of 2,500 square feet to 2 acres. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 6 mini parks (15.1 acres) throughout the City. Neighborhood Park. This type of facility is intended to provide both active and passive recreation activities, serving children, teens, adults, seniors and special populations. Neighborhood parks are typically located in neighborhoods and intended to serve people living within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the park. The land area comprising a neighborhood park should contain about 14 to 17 acres of which, 50 to 70% should be developed with active facilities. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 15 neighborhood parks (127.0 acres) throughout the community. Community Park. A community park is an area that's intended to be used for passive or community -based recreational activities and gatherings. A community park should contain natural or ornamental qualities and serve several neighborhoods within a 2 to 2.5 mile radius. The size of a community park can range between 20 to 80 acres. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 2 community parks (67.0 acres) both of which are located along the south side of Rice Lake. Community Playfield / Athletic Complex. This type of facility is intended to provide an area for intensely programmed active recreational uses including facilities such as athletic fields, hockey rinks, tennis courts, outdoor basketball and volley ball courts as well as support facilities like on -site parking, concession stands, multi - purpose buildings and utilities. The size of community playfields / athletic complexes should be from 20 to 65 developed acres and serve the entire community. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 3 athletic complexes (130.0 acres) including City Hall (northern part of the City), Sunrise Park (located west of Rice Lake), and a third facility in the southern part of the City (located northwest of Cedar Lake). Joint -Use Parks and Recreational Facilities. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Lino Lakes Elementary, Rice Lake Elementary, Centennial Middle School, and Rice Creek Park Reserve as joint use facilities. These facilities provide recreation and trail opportunities that are provided jointly by Anoka County, the School Districts and City. The Comprehensive Plan identifies 55 acres of land and the 2,500 -acre Rice Creek Park Reserve as joint use facilities. 5 of 14 Trails. The trail system is broken down based upon the function that the trail serves • including linear corridors, special use trails, park trails, transportation trails, cross - country, ski, horse and snowmobile trails. • • Table 1 illustrates the type and acreage of park facilities contemplated by the 1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan. Table 1 1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan Trail Type Existing Acres Future Acres Total Acres Mini Parks 10.1 5.0 15.1 Neighborhood Parks 58.0 69.0 127.0 Community Parks 22.0 45.0 67.0 Community Playfields / Athletic Complexes 47.0 83.0 130.0 Total City Parks 137.1 202.0 339.1 Table 2 illustrates the type of trail facilities contemplated by the 1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan. Table 2 1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan Trail Type Total Miles Park Trails (trails w /in linear trail corridors) 14.1 Transportation Trails (located in r.o.w) 29.2 Bike Routes (paved road shoulders) 37.7 Total Trail Miles 81.0 EXISTING PARK SYSTEM & PARK PLAN MODIFICATIONS The existing system of `''City parks provides relatively even coverage for the local population. Exhibit C "Existing Park Service Area Map, indicates the location and type of park facility and its service area (based upon the service area objectives of the Comprehensive Park and Trails Plan). With the exception of about 230 acres in the far northwest corner of the City and approximately 650 acres located east of I -35E, the entire community is served by "mini, neighborhood and community" parks. School sites with athletic and play equipment serve neighborhoods that are not within the local park service areas. Future parkland acquisition and development will provide an even distribution of park and athletic facilities to the remaining areas of the community. The existing park system was further analyzed in terms of the service area per 1,000 population guidelines set forth in the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The following table indicates that the City exceeds the park acres per 1,000 population guidelines in all park categories. 6 of 14 • Table 3 Park Type Standard Range Existing Park Acres Mini Park 0.25 - 0.5 ac /1000 3.76 to 7.5 acres 12.8 acres Neighborhood Park 2.5 - 3.5 ac /1000 37.5 to 52.5 87.5 acres Community Park 5 - 8 ac /1000 75 to 120 acres 66 acres Athletic Complex 2.5 ac /1000 37.5 acres 67 acres Total 233.3 acres City Staff was requested to evaluate the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trails Plan to identify areas where the plan has or should be modified to accommodate changing community needs. Based upon City Staff input, the following modifications to the Park Plan were incorporated into this analysis. 1. 2.2 miles of trails were deleted from the plan on the basis that the segments were no longer needed or impractical to construct/implement. 2. 130.9 acres of future parkland were deleted from the plan on the basis that existing development precludes further acquisition or is impractical based upon physical constraints. The specific park and land areas affected are identified as follows: ■ 6.0 acres deleted from Highland Meadows Park • 0.9 acres deleted from Behm's Century Farm' • 4.5 acres deleted from Birch Park ;. • 3.0 acres deleted from the Woods of Baldwin Lake Park • 4.5 acres deleted from Clearwater Creek Park • 36 acre C -2 future Community Park deleted • 50 acre A -3 future Athletic Complex deleted • 10 acre JU -4 Joint Use Park deleted • 36 acres deleted from A -1, City Hall Athletic Complex 3. The resulting park plan calls for development of 294.3 acres of community parkland including the 67 -acre Community Athletic Complex and the addition of 61 acres of land indicated as follows: • 3.0 acres for park M -4 (Future mini park south of Ward's Lake) • 8.0 acres for park N -1 (Future neighborhood park East of Lake Drive and North of Evergreen Trail) ■ 7.0 acre addition to N -3 Arena Acres Park • 8.0 acres for park N -4 (Future neighborhood park on Bluebill Lane North of Main) ■ 1.5 acre addition to N -8 Rice Lake Estates Park • 4.5 acre addition to N -13 Brandywood Park • 9.0 acre addition to C -1 Country Lakes Park • 20.0 acres for future park N -16 Future Molitor Park 7 of 14 • • PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS -RAW LAND VALUE VS. VALUE AT FINAL PLAT Pursuant to State Statute, the City can collect park dedication based upon the value of land at the time of final plat. It is our opinion that value should include raw land value plus the profit from lots created by final plat approval. The land value at final plat should comprise the value of the lot and profit less improvement costs. Residential developers were contacted to identify typical lot improvement costs (assuming an 80 foot wide lot), associated with single - family subdivisions. Typical improvement costs for single - family developments consist of utilities, roads, grading, engineering, area connection charges and fees, which approximate 48% of the total vacant lot sales price. The developers that were contacted also indicated that a development must yield a minimum 20% profit in order to be a viable project. For illustration purposes, the following table provides a breakdown of land values as they relate to the collection of park dedication based upon raw land value versus the value of land at the time of final plat. Table 4 PARK DEDICATION / RAW LAND VS VALUE AT FINAL PLAT LAND VALUE AT FINAL PLAT RAW LAND VALUE Typical vacant lot sales price - Typical development costs for utilities etc. (48% lot sales price) $42,995 - 20,637 $ 28,000 p /acre Or $14,000 p /lot * Lot cost + 20% profit X 10% Park Dedication Fee $22,358 X 10% X 10% Park Ded. Park dedication collected at the time of final plat $ 2,235 $1,400 per unit * Based upon 2 units per acre The application of park dedication at the time of final plat, based upon the value of 10% of the project (lots + profit), results in an equitable dedication policy that is superior to the current dedication based on raw land value (at the time of preliminary plat). The existing method treats developers differently based upon whether a cash or land dedication is taken by the City. The current cash dedication policy requires a developer to give up a percentage of the raw land value of the project at the time of preliminary plat. The developer that gives a land dedication is impacted to a greater degree because they give up land value plus future profit. Whereas the developer who pays a cash dedication at the time of preliminary plat looses only raw land cost. This situation treats developers inequitably based upon whether they are required to dedicate land or cash. Using the land value at the time of final plat will result in an equitable treatment of developers in that the same value will be applied regardless of whether cash or land is required. LINO LAKES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS City Staff provided a summary of existing and planned park facilities and trails, which were used to establish the value of the existing park/trails system and identify costs to complete the community system. A major component of the system is land and to 8 of 14 • • determine present land values for Lino Lakes, a review of land sales records (certificates of real estate) from the Anoka County Assessors Office for 2000 and 2001 was conducted. The land sales records revealed the following: 1. Raw land sales for property within the MUSA ranged from about $22,600 to $30,000 per acre with an average of $26,300 per acre for residential properties. 2. The land value identified at the time of preliminary plat (for the purpose of calculating park dedication), for Bluebill Acres and Highland Meadows ranged from $23,164 to $26,023 dollars per acre. 3. Vacant lot sales within the developments of Cedar Creek 3rd Addition, Behm's Century Farm 5th Addition and Highland Meadows West ranged from $40,942 to $45,706 per lot with an average vacant lot sales price of $42,995 dollars. For the purpose of estimating future land costs to acquire the parkland identified by the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, the figure of $28,000 per acre was used. This figure approximates the average sales price of raw land within the MUSA for the City of Lino Lakes. RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Exhibit D "Lino Lakes — Park Trail Facilities Chart" identifies the park sites pursuant to the 1992 Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The name and address of each park including existing and future acres, facilities and values are also identified. City Staff provided the list of facilities and corresponding costs. Trail values were determined based upon a rate of $15.00 per lineal foot for park and transportation trails and $1.00 per lineal foot for bike trails. The existing City park and trail system is valued at about $6,471,816 dollars. To complete the system per the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, an additional $14,362,583 of land, facilities and trails will be needed. The $14,362,583 dollar future system cost includes costs to improve the new community athletic complex with the premium level package estimated at $6,965,373 dollars. Table 5 illustrates the value of the existing and proposed park system identified above. Table 5 PARK SYSTEM VALUE BASED ON CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Total Park System Value Value of Existing Park Facilities % of Total Value /Cost of Future Park Facilities % of Total $22,909,399 $8,964,566 39% $13,944,833 61% Part of the park system analysis included a land use review to determine the service areas for the existing parks and to identify the proportion of existing and future development that will impact the system. Many of the existing parks are located in areas of the community where future development will occur and as such, a proportion of the park infrastructure should be borne by new development. In fully developed areas, improvements to existing parks should be borne by current residents within the 9 of 14 service area of the specific facility. Exhibit D, Lino Lakes Parks/Trails Chart indicates • the percentage of each planned park service area that existing and future development will impact. Table 3 indicated that the current park system is land rich and that the City has acquired more land than is needed to serve the existing population (based upon the National Recreation and Parks Association guidelines). However it is important to note that the NRPA standards are guidelines only and that parkland and facilities need to be community specific. • • The current City population of 15,053 residents and 5,255 households is approximately 50% of the projected saturation population of 30,000 people. Table 5 illustrated that the existing population is underserved in relation to the available and planned park and trail facilities (the existing park system is 39% as opposed to 50% developed). The City will need to invest $2,490,134 dollars into the existing system to bring it up to the 50% level and provide the current residents with the level of park and trail services needed. Minnesota Statutes and case law have established that park dedication fees cannot be used for maintenance purposes or to provide facilities to the existing population. Therefore, the City will need to find alternative funding sources such as referenda, user fees, tax increase, grants etc., to raise the $2,490,134 dollars needed to equip the system to meet the needs of existing residents and accomplish 50% of the total park and trail system cost. Table 6 illustrates that the total park and trail system cost should be distributed on a 50/50% basis between existing and future development for an equitable distribution of system impact. PARK SYSTEM COSTS BY SERVICE AREAS Total Park and Trail System Cost 50% of Total System Cost Existing Development Future Development $22,909,399 $11,454,700 $8,964,566 (Value of Existing System) + 2,490,134 (Value to meet 50% of Cost) $11,454,700 $11,454,700 Table 6 indicates that half of the total park and trail system costs will be provided by future development through the application of park dedication fees. The unit cost to implement 50% of the future park and trail system based upon a total population saturation of 30,000 people and 11,111 households is $1,956 dollars per residential unit. Please note that the 10% park dedication figure per lot ($2,235) listed in Table 4 was used for illustrative purposes to show the difference between raw land value and land value at the time of final plat. The actual valuation fluctuates based upon the land characteristics of the project and the specific improvements required for the development. It is therefore not appropriate to use the example as a basis for establishing unit charges, as the value will fluctuate for each subdivision. 10 of 14 The charge of $1,956 dollars per residential unit is the amount of money that will need • to be generated to complete 50% of the planned park and trail system for Lino Lakes, based upon implementation of the plan with the lands and facilities described in Exhibit D, which is based upon the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan. The $1,956 dollar figure takes into account the park service areas (% of park impact associated with new vs. existing development), park and trail impacts, projected costs for the park and trail system, future population and household projections and is therefore our best estimate of park impact per unit. The information shown in Table 7 indicates the method by which the residential unit fee was derived. • Table 7 Park Cost per Residential Unit Based Upon Total Projected Park System Cost (at full development) Total Lino Lakes Persons per Saturation Population Household 30,000 - 2.7 = 11,111 Total Households /Buildout - 5,255 - Existing Households 5,856 Future Households 11,454,700 (Total Future Park Cost) _ 5,856 (FutureHHouseholds) = $1,956 (park cost per unit) '' COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Minnesota Statutes and recent case law have identified that Cities must now be able to specifically articulate and justify dedication requirements on a project -by- project basis. Cities have the burden of determining that the park dedication requirement is related to the park benefit that will be derived due to the development. Individualized determinations must be made for each project and the City has the responsibility to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the dedication requirement and the park impact generated by the development. The current commercial and industrial land dedication requirements of the City are at issue with the case law and opinion of the City Attorney. There is no question that many communities charge park dedication for commercial and industrial uses. At issue is that there appears to be no rational basis for the dedication. Several sources were contacted to locate studies or guidelines related to the impact commercial and industrial land uses have on park and trail systems. The League of Minnesota Cities, National Recreation and Parks Association, and the American Planning Association were contacted with regard to this matter and none of the agencies were able to provide documentation on the relationship of these uses to parks and trails. 11 of 14 In the case of the City of Lino Lakes, City Staff indicated that there has been no formal • response from the business community with respect to team participation or employee use of community park facilities. If this is indeed the case, the collection of park dedication fees from commercial /industrial uses may result in the unintended consequence of collecting park dedication twice, once on a resident's lot/home and again from the resident's employer. Unfortunately, there is no further data that our office could find that breaks down the number of actual Lino Lakes residents and employees that utilize the community park system as opposed to non - resident use. In the event that a relationship cannot be established concerning business impacts to the City park and trail systems, it is recommended that Lino Lakes discontinue the commercial /industrial park dedication requirements. • SUMMARY Case law and Minnesota Statutes provide that dedication requirements can only be applied facilities that will be impacted by the specific project. Future park dedication fees cannot be utilized to improve or maintain existing park and trail systems in fully developed neighborhoods unless a correlation can be made between the development and park use. The amount of cash /land dedication required from new development must be proportional to the impact that the project will generate on the park and trail system. Minnesota Statutes also provide that park dedication may be based upon the value of land at the time of final plat. As Table 4 indicates, the value of land at the time of final plat is generally higher than raw land value because the final plat value considers raw land plus profit. This being the case, it is recommended that the City consider calculating park dedication at the time of final plat. The total planned park and trail system is estimated to cost $22,909,399 dollars, based upon the current Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, 2001 land values and current facility costs. The City is developed with about 1/2 of its estimated saturation population of 30,000 people and 11,100 households. Based upon existing development, approximately 50% of the total park and trail system or $11,454,700 should be in place to satisfy current resident demand. The current park system is land rich but facility poor based on national park per capita standards. The existing system provides for more land acreage per 1000 population than is required (based upon NRPA guidelines). However, the park system analysis indicates that the existing infrastructure is 39% as opposed to 50% developed. The analysis indicates that an estimated $2,490,134 dollars of improvements are needed to equip the system to meet current population demand. As such, the City will need to find alternative funding sources, other than park dedication, to generate the $2,490,134 dollars to equip the system for the current population. The balance of the planned, future park and trail system is estimated to cost $11,454,700 and should be paid for by future development. Based upon the saturation population of 30,000 people and 2.7 people per household (projected number of people per household pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Update), the balance of the park system should be paid for by the 5,856 households that will be developed in the future. • It is important to note that the projections for community growth indicate that the City will 12 of 14 • • be about 2 /3rds developed by the year 2020. The ultimate park and trail system will not be completed by the year 2020, based upon current population and household projections. Based upon the analysis presented herein, the best estimate of park impact per residential unit is $1,956 dollars (11,454,700 [50% park costs] : 5,856 future housing units = $1,956), to pay for the completion of the balance of the Lino Lakes park and trail system. The per unit charge has been determined based upon an analysis of current land values in the City (raw land and platted lot sales were included in the review), park facility and trail costs (in 2001 dollars). RECOMMENDATION 1. To maximize the value of cash dedications it is recommended that the City update its Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate the Minnesota Statute language specifying that land value (for the purpose of calculating park dedication) will be determined based upon the value of the land at the time of final plat. The following language is suggested: Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established at the time of final plat approval. The City 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 may include interest at a rate set by the City. 2. The park impact for new developments, based upon the analysis provided herein, approximates $1,956 dollars per residential unit. The City should amend its Subdivision Ordinance and fee schedule to incorporate the $1,956 per residential unit charge and discontinue the practice of utilizing raw land value to determine park dedication. A periodic review of land values and facility costs should be done to ensure that the park impact fee remains current based upon market conditions. 3. The Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to provide an alternative to the developer to conduct an individualized study for the subdivision to determine park impact, should there be a question as to the applicability of the $1,956 per residential unit fee. The following language is suggested: If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in the City fee schedule (pursuant to this park dedication analysis) fairly and accurately represent the effect of the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request that the City prepare an in -depth study of the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system an estimate of that effect in money and /or land. All costs of such study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision. 13 of 14 4. The City will need to generate $2,490,134 dollars through sources other than park • dedication fees to equip the existing park and trail system to meet the needs of current residents and accomplish 50% of the planned system. Alternative funding methods should be pursued including grants, charitable contributions, referenda, and /or tax increase to raise the funds to equip the existing parks. • 5. The City should consider incorporating park and trail infrastructure planning as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan. The budget should also be amended to include a separate park fund to ensure that adequate dollars are available for park equipment, facilities, land acquisition, and trail development. Attachments: Exhibit A - Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999 Exhibit B - 1992 Lino Lakes Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit C - Existing Park Service Area Map Exhibit D - Lino Lakes — Park Trail Facilities Chart 14 of 14 03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH AUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 P02 LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates Legal Assistant WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES BARRY A. SULLIVAN March 3, 1999 Mr. Todd Haas City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Park Dedication Fees and Trail Dedication Fees Dear Todd: 2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (612) 427 -8877 FAX (612) 421 -4213 You have asked for our analysis of the proposed use of park dedication fees and trail dedication fees in the City of Andover. We have reviewed the applicable statute and case law and would ask that you consider the following information. The current situation is as follows: the City imposes a park dedication of 10% for new plats. The developer is asked to dedicate either 10% of the land or an amount in cash equivalent to 10% of the value of the land. Developers are directed to choose from a panel of appraisers and pay an amount based upon that appraisal. The City is considering a change in the park dedication fee from a percentage calculation to a per unit charge. The proposed charges are as 'follows: Type Amount Single Family $1,350 Townhouse $ 1,000 Mobile Home $ 1,200 Lot Splits $1,350 Commercial $4,000 (acre) In the typical residential urban zoning district, we would expect to see two Tots or units per acre. Consequently, under the new unit charge system, the unit charge per acre would be S2,700. I understand that an acre of land in the City of Andover suitable for a residential development would typically sell for $ 13,000. The City is also considering the imposition of a trail dedication fee. This fee was imposed previously but discontinued some months ago. The City is contemplating the renewed use of this fee. It is anticipated that the fee would be imposed at the rate of $250 per unit payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, EXHIBIT A 03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 P03 110 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 2 • developers are expected to pay 50% of all trail construction costs for trails located in the plat. For the reasons discussed herein, 1 have strong concerns about each of these dedication fees. Minnesota law specifically authorizes municipalities to require dedication for parks and trails in the subdivision approval process. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2d (1998) provides: "Dedication... In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation- purposes or for public use as parks,...trails...or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval...." It is obvious from the statute that the City may impose a dedication requirement and accept either land, cash or a combination of land and cash. However, the statute sets forth two important conditions. First, the size of the dedication must be reasonable, i.e., the City may require that "...a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated...." Second, the statute also makes clear that the amount of the dedication must be "...based on the fair market value of the land...." The statute has been interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts and a review of those decisions is instructive. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of § 462.358 as applied to a Bloomington ordinance that provided: as a general rule, it is reasonable to require dedication of 10% of the land or payment of 10% of undeveloped land value." The Court noted that the Bloomington ordinance set forth the 10% requirement as "a general rule" and that the developer could obtain judicial review. Under the facts of that case, the Court was not prepared to say that the 10% requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court did note, however, as follows: "Thus, there exists the possibility that the developer...will be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the city's park and recreation costs. While the city has apparently made a 03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH AUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 PO4 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 3 record in this case showing that 10% is not unreasonable as to the property of these plaintiffs, given the particular needs of Bloomington, the 10% requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between this particular subdivision and recreational need in the community." Not surprisingly, since the Collis decision, many if not most municipalities have adopted a 10% park dedication fee requirement. The Collis case stands for the principal that a municipality may require dedication of land for public use as a condition of plat approval if a reasonable relationship exists between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land. In Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N. W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), the Minnesota Court of Appeals returned to this issue in the context of a right -of -way dedication requirement. The Court in Kottschade analyzed and applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994). The Court noted that in the case of a dedication, the city is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right —the right to receive just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the city has the burden of proving the required relationship. between the property development and the city's need for land dedication." To meet that burden, the city must prove two things. First, the city must show that an "essential nexus" exists between the legitimate state interest (the need for the land) and the condition exacted by the city (the dedication of the land). Second, if the nexus can be demonstrated, the city must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the plan development and the city's requirement for a dedication of land. "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 impact of the proposed development." In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. It is important to reiterate some of the language used by the courts. A "precise mathematical calculation" is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized determination." It should not be difficult for the City of Andover to meet the first or "nexus" part of the standard, i.e., that a proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does 03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE -) 651 464 4568 NO.592 P05 • Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 4 not pass the second part of the test. I do not see how the flat fee charge can be seen as an "individualized determination" that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be "reasonable" and must be "based on the fair market value of the land." I do not see how a unit dedication takes into account the value of the land or takes into account the impact of the subdivision upon the City's park requirements. I believe the City has to conduct a study that will allow the City to make a finding that the subdivision will create an increased need for park facilities. The City must then determine what amount the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the City must take into account the fair market value of the undeveloped land. The amount of the proposed unit dedication demonstrates my concern. At $ 1,350 per unit for single family residents, and assuming two units per acre, this is a park dedication requirement of $2,700 per acre. If we use the 10% figure from before, this means that the value of undeveloped land in Andover must be at least S27,000 per acre. I do not believe this is the case. • The trail dedication fee is a charge that is in addition to the park dedication requirement. The same law discussed above is applicable to the trail dedication fee. Assuming that a new subdivision creates an impact and a need for additional trail facilities, the City must still be able to demonstrate that the • amount of the trail dedication fee is roughly proportionate to that impact. A unit charge may be an appropriate starting point as it takes the element of density into account. However, it does not take into account the fair market value of the land or the impact on a trail system from the particular subdivision. Another problem 1 have with the trail dedication fee is that it is not a plat dedication fee at all. It is not a fee imposed upon the developer as part of the platting process but is a proposed to be a fee imposed upon the land owner at the time of application for a building permit. I see no authority for the City to impose this charge at the time of building permit application. The statute clearly authorizes the City to impose a trail dedication as part of subdivision approval. It is my recommendation that a trail dedication fee be a condition of plat approval and not a charge assessed at the time of a building permit application. • CONCLUSION. Minnesota law clearly authorizes a municipalities to require developers to dedicate a reasonable portion of their subdivisions for park and trail purposes. In order to sustain such a dedication, the city must prove that a relationship exists between the proposed subdivision and the city's requirements. That is, that the proposed subdivision will have an impact and increase demand upon park facilities. Second, the city must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the city must make some sort of individualized determination that is based upon the fair market value of the land. I do not believe that the proposed per unit park dedication fee meets this legal standard. 03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE -> 651 464 4558 NO.592 P06 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 5 1 would like the opportunity -to discuss this issue with you and to review ways in which the City may lawfully impose park and trail dedication requirements. Yours very trul William G. Hawkins WGH /tju • • City of Lino Lakes' • Section 6 - Park and Trail System Plan z �U • Park and Trail System Plan O N go. ,...- rrwrr�wwo `•wilwwww11■ T 1 0 0 Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue \ \ \ - / 000'L9$ $128,000 0 § Q Cost Estimates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o \&2 /$ 696969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \$\ \k% _e e 69 69 0 0 0 7 0 0 o - 000'9$ 000'6$ 000'0£$ 0 0 CO- & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q&G% e_ 0 0 0 Future Park Facilities 1/2 Court Basketball Landscaping C « / \ a) 6 ) /E]° j § � 0 o(00,g §E =2 ;0)§] z «0Ju.... N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Playground 1/2 Basketball Ct Landscaping Sub Total Horseshoes Landscaping Bridge Sub Total Value Existing Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 RRR 64// ® 0 0 R 0 Q 0 0 0 0 RR �/ Q 0 0 R 1 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 //�k 0 0 0 e 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 }69 ..- 0 0 &� Existing Park Facilities 2.1 acres land Playground Ballfield \ e 3 c \ \ \ \ aE 1.0 acres land Playground Basketball Sub Total N/A Sub Total 3.0 acres land Playground Basketball Overlook Sitting Area Sub Total _ ; I- < • \ m g n 0 n \§ }k 0 @ o 0 o r g o Existing Acres - m w cci 0 0 o 0 r Address k z 100% Existing Development 100% Existing Development 100% Existing Development 100% Future Development Pheasant Hills Park 50% Existing Development 50% Future Development . ƒ$± ,- (.1 S m 2 2 e • 10 a 0 � 0 0 • Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue o o 0 N r- 69 0 00 0 '4 r- t7 64 0 0 '7 c0 69 0 0 0 m (n 64 0 00 0 V V 64 0' L11 0) N 69 Cost Estimates 0 0 o o 0 0 O 0) 0 O 0 1E) 0 O 0 V 69 000'053$ 000'433$ 0 O 0 V 7 69 0 O 0 (E) 6^4 0 O 0 (I) 000'003$ 0 O 0 (0 0) 64 0 O 0 .4:' N Efl 0 O 0 O N 69 0 O 0 V V 69 0 64 O 64 Future Park Facilities Playground Equip. 1/2 Basketball Court 8 acres land General Dev. Sub Total General Dev. Sub Total 8 acres land Value Existing Facilities 0 0 0 O N 69 0 0 0 00 N 64 0 64 0 64 $75,0001 0 0 0 0) N- (() 69 0 0 0 OO N 64 0 0 0 O M 64 0 0 0 0) 69 0 0 0 (0 U) 69 0 0 0 00) N r 64 0 64 0 E4 0 0 0 O 1- N Efi 0 0 0 O C4 69 0 0 (E) .- 64 0 0 0 (f) N 69 0 0 0 «) r- 69- 0 0 (A 0) N 64 Existing Park Facilities 1.0 acres and N/A Sub Total General Development Sub Total Basketball N/A Ballfield c0 ` o U Q O r O (0 O W O 00 O 0) 4) n d 7 U u- Q O O O 0) O O O n O 00 O O Existing Acres O O O 0 O 0 0 O L0 Address 0 E o Z 100% Existing Development 100% Future Development 50% Existing Development 50% Future Development 100% Future Development Lino Park 100% Existing Development o a in z (0 r N z 0) z V z c!) z O N 0 0 0) N Y � a ' 0 Y t X ) •d d S a m a LL O 8 ..E d EO N 0_ • O J f O N E y p O L 2 Z U, Q • Z U T- O 0 Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue O o N ca spa O co ai in 69 o 0 0 r--: co v3 0 0 co- co 6 Cost Estimates 00 0 in N69 00 0 ( 00 0 00 0 0 0 69 N N 69 64 0 0 (0 ER 000'83$ 000,0£$ 000'Zb$ 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 6 Future Park Facilities Gen. Development Sub Total 1/2 Basketball Court Park Structure Landscaping etc. Sub Total 1.5 acres land Clearing,Grading, Seeding Tennis Court Sub Total 1/2 Basketball Court Sub Total Value Existing Facilities 0 O 69 $112,000 00 CO O - O co 0 r fH 69 0 CO 0 N EA 000'6$ 000'0£$ 000'93$ 0 O CO Efl 00 0 0 o N co N to fA 0 0 Lo N 69 Existing Park Facilities Sub Total 6.1 acres land Playground Sub Total 1.0 acres land Playground Basketball Sub Total 8.0 acres land Playground Sub Total To 0 U H a O $ V r 0 0 t0 7° 7 Q LL 0 O 0 O r o O Existing Acres O v (p O r 0 C0 Address ;6697 SandhiII Drive m E CO Z 50% Future Development 25% Existing Development 75% Future Development Rice Lake Estates Park 100% Existing Development Shenandoah Park 100% Existing Development Y 0 a N O z n z (0 z O) z Total Park CostNalue o / o \ \ / Cost Estimates o o0 000 0 co 000 / \ Q \2 69. e 69 69 $143,000 0 0 0 0 \ \ e 0 0 $ e 00000G 0000G 000 00)0001( $ R2& ° °S \$ \ & $0 69 69 6969 e N Future Park Facilities Ts \ / f2= - $ \# 2$ ` f 2 / ® » % s f $ 2 §E]2>0 a) . , \ \ / \ \ ] ` \ / o m_ e» m 7 a o 2 / - G 2 = 0 — 7 2 ) } 7 m 0 0 co \ - E # �\ / 0 = O -- _ §$ ° § 0 e ƒ \ l ® $ ? co \ « +)ic§�232® b > = 0 ° ° < -0 J % s 3) / §) * 8 t a c m e 4== e co Value Existing Facilities 0 0 o 0 o g 90 2/ ® /e Q 0 o % $ $ o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 «R0 0 $\ - ®%G/ 69 &9 69699 0 0 ® 0 0 0 m & 0 0 0 $ & Existing Park Facilities as o / 2 7 }2 G/ 7 / ƒ d as / / a) 3 = }/ 20 co T5fta b 2 , e $ > = LO / } \ \ s 2 _ a) % \ /� f ƒ/ 0 _ e§ 2u Ia 0 a 0 '6 0 6 Existing Acres � Q [ Address / m \ / m \ m 6520 Pheasant Run South ) } / 0 ,- ) /EE $ § £ § > > » 0) tz / \\2 }01 C E Birch Park 25% Existing Development 75% Future Development /\ § 2 , 0> s ) ) { k &j» O \ ~ 0 o �3 o ± / a } 0 $ + % 9 « � % # • Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue o oo co CO M 6`3 $114,00 o 00 O) CO in 69 0 0 O O a0 69 0 00 N- _ O 69 Cost Estimates $126,0001 O 0 O LO- co CV 69 0 69 0 69 0 LO N (O co 49 0 LO N (O a) Ea 0 0 0 O Cfl 10 64 0 0 0 O 0 CI 49 0 0 0 O CO CO 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (V O Ln LO- CO- LO V V r Eft N 49 69 En 0 0 0 •- Ef) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O) r r 69 69 69 0 0 0 (O I, (Efl Future Park Facilities 1/2 Basketball Court General Dev. Sub Total Sub Total General Dev. Sub Total General Dev. Sub Total N N = 1-- °_ 0 a O v a-� C— Nu) TS C W U N t 6 N 0 a 'E '(4 >+ y ti Il L N = U F- N 0 LL 0 0 N p d _es >0 N m y (V U = N (6 0 m ca O O d P o a m Y O a) N of a 0= w= CC r IZ Value Existing Facilities 0 o 0 co O 69 0 0 0 0 00 0 o Ch N Efl EA $148,000 0 0 0 v O CO CO 69 69 o 00 v r — 69 $154,0001 $442,7501 O 0 0 0 o O o (o o o _ (O 69 ff3 69 0 0 (0 M CO di- Existing Park Facilities Playground Looped Trail Sub Total Playground Sub Total General Development Sub Total Sub Total II 0 C - c as N 7 CD CO N U C O . C6 L C N N LL O 1-16 0 O ::. mS c{i ++tf Ln Ln O O N O � U LL Q Existing Acres in o oi Ln Ln O O O N o O Address 0 (D (0 J 3 0 -o as t (n 0 0 0 (0 d E R z 50% Future Development 50% Future Development 25% Future Development Country Lakes Park 50% Existing Development 50% Future Development v 2 c E co au) z z z z v O I0 • • 0 / Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue o \ 0 . \ \ CO & Cost Estimates o &2 e o G e 00 00 ° ° g& &&e 0 / e \\\ co- a; 0 6969& e 10 )k / § & - ma \ p / e \ % m & \o0 G$ Re 6969 \ $ Future Park Facilities 1/2 Basketball Court Pave Rink Pave Parking (Fld 1) Sub Total # =_ _ - / \ \\ j j- _ % ) / 2= G 3 X 2/ \3a. « \�= � LL ® E = } §) $ o G 0mc j j§ / • •�D)o 5 s 3 % 2* _� E 0\ 0 0 >co 0 / / f 0 E $ L § e _ ] fJ § E g i a_ Value Existing Facilities o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 04 m r m o o,- 52 5&& } 64 0 0 3 EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 o o m o 0 0= &2$ S/&& 69 0 0 69 0 0 0 e \ & 0 0 0 m \ Q Existing Park Facilities Playground Ballfields (2) General Rink* Hockey Rink* Warming House Sub Total / .0 ym 7$ _ = . f , it c §333 G° 2 /) E Cl) $ 2 \ } / / } _ ) § 2 \ .0 0 CU o • co G o ° ( \ 2 }k ® S ° ° a; \ Existing Acres 0 3 0 % ere 0.0 0 2 Address V \ } 7 2 50% Future Development Sunrise Park 50% Future Development 50% Existing Development x E as g \ \ :a) / /\ E° E 0 { 7 E E // \ �± \ 2 6� /\ ie.o 23\ m 4 ƒ 40 /< • � 0 : » : 5 0 • Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart Total Park CostNalue 0 0 0 10 Cost Estimates O O CO 69 O 0 io w Future Park Facilities Tennis Courts (2) Sub Total Value Existing Facilities Existing Park Facilities 20.0 acres land Playground Ballfields (3) Basketball Soccer (2) 15.0 acres land Playground Ballfields (3) Basketball Soccer (2) Looped Trails Ballfields (4) Soccer Fields (4) Tennis Courts (8) Looped Trails o U Q d H V L Q t Existing Acres Address 725 Main Street 575 Birch Street Birch Street S. of Sherman Lake Center of City 319 Elm Street d E co Z Lino Lakes Elementary (20 ac.) Rice Lake Elementary (15 ac.) Centennial School District (10 ac.) Rice Creek Park Reserve (2500 acres) Centennial Middle School Y cis M 10 m O r n o O r N N +- N r � Q N ci E E I-- a = u LL u LL LL 6 O 0 H 1- O CO O N N N 69 M Q) N O O Total City Park System co N r 69. N CO co N V CO Trails (1992 Comp Plan) Trails Not Necessary O Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 • • February 28, 2001 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Review Outdoor Recreation Grant Application for Development of Clearwater Creek Park Attached is a draft copy of the narrative section of the Outdoor Recreation Grant Application for Development of Clearwater Creek Park. As you review the draft copy, please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. I will be finalizing the entire grant application submittal over the next few weeks. The application deadline is March 31, 2001. 2/28/01 RD /Outdoor Recreation grant/park board review o-4 • 2001 Outdoor Recreation Grant Program City of Lino Lakes Grant Application Development of Clearwater Creek Park Item 2. Project Narrative The Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition is a 163 acre residential development located within the city of Lino Lakes. This development is among the most unique and ecologically sensitive residential developments in the metro area. A cooperative effort between the developer and the city of Lino Lakes have made significant efforts to protect and incorporate more than 60 acres of woodland, prairie, and wetland open space habitats for the benefit of the environment and residents. A 5.5 acre neighborhood park is located at the center of the Clearwater Creek Development. The master plan for Clearwater Creek Park was approved by the City Council on January 8, 2001. The development plan of this park includes playground equipment, '/2 court basketball, sand volleyball, a gazebo, paved trails, and open space for informal play. Clearwater Creek Park is the only park located east of Highway 35E (Exhibit A). Clearwater Creek Park serves as the neighborhood park for over 350 families. Future development is expected to provide an additional 100 homes. The reality that this will be the only park to serve Lino Lakes residents that live east of 35E, places the development of Clearwater Creek Park a high priority within the city's parks system. To fulfill park dedication requirements, the developer dedicated the 5.5 acre park to the City of Lino Lakes, and paved approximately 1.2 miles of trails. There has been a tremendous effort to enhance the wetlands and open space. An open Space and Management Plan has been implemented to enhance the wetlands and open space. For example, more than 35 acres of degraded plant communities have been restored to provide more diverse and higher quality wildlife habitats. In wooded areas dominated by mature oak, maple and basswood trees, the removal of non - native invasive shrubs such as buckthorn, prickly ash, and honeysuckle allows sunlight to reach the ground and stimulate the growth of lush herbaceous ground cover. This Open Space and Management Plan effort has created a tremendous environmentally friendly development. However, this has resulted in insufficient funds to develop the only neighborhood park located east of Highway 35E. An award of an Outdoor Recreation Grant would allow the City of Lino Lakes to develop Clearwater Creek Park that will complement this unique, ecologically sensitive residential development. The hundreds of families that are separated from the city's existing parks system have made it very clear the urgency of developing Clearwater Creek Park. • Item 3. Cost Breakdown for Land Acquisition • • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 2 of 8 The 5.5 acre parcel of land is currently owned by the City of Lino Lakes. Therefore, there is no additional land acquisition associated with Clearwater Creek Park. Item 4. Cost Breakdown Description Total Price Removals, Earthwork, Erosion Control, Etc. 35,000 8' Wide Asphalt Trail Construction (approximately 2,600 linear feet) 27,500 Seed / Sod 8,500 Landscaping 15,000 Pre - fabricated Gazebo, Concrete Base & Footings, 4 Picnic Tables, etc. 34,750 Miscellaneous Site Amenities (benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles, bike 15,500 rack, etc.) Ornamental Fence (adjacent to play area) 15,250 Sand Volleyball Court 4,500 '/z Basketball Court— 54' x 50', adjustable backboard from 6 - 10 feet in 8,000 height to appeal to variety of age groups and abilities Chainlink Backstop for Informal Ball Field 3,500 Play Area - Includes separate structures for 2 - 5 age group, 6 - 11 age 70,000 group, and swings. Approximate play area is 7,000 square feet. Includes concrete curb container, safety surface, etc. Identification Signage 5,000 Surveying 10,000 Sub -Total $252,500 Contingency (10 %) $25,250 Design & Engineering Fees (15 %) $37,875 Total Estimated Cost - Clearwater Creek Park Site Improvements $315,625 Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 3 of 8 Item 5. Project Time Frame Description Timeline 44•4 Removals, Earthwork, Erosion Control, Etc. Fall, 2001 Trail Construction Fall, 2001 Seed / Sod Fall, 2002 Landscaping Spring, 2002 Gazebo Fall, 2001 Miscellaneous Site Amenities Summer, 2002 Ornamental Fence Summer, 2002 Sand Volleyball Court Summer, 2002 1/2 Basketball Court Fall, 2001 Chainlink Backstop for Informal Ball Field Spring, 2003 Play Area Spring, 2002 Identification Signage Summer, 2002 Surveying Fall, 2001 Item 6. Local Match The City of Lino Lakes has committed to contribute at least one half of the total project costs in the form of cash. The monetary commitment consists of a combination of General Fund dollars and Park Dedication Fund dollars. Source of Local Match Dollars: City of Lino Lakes - Year 2001 $75,000 City of Lino Lakes - Year 2002 $50,000 Also, neighborhood residents have committed to volunteer their time and effort to install the playground equipment. Maintenance staff will also be available to assist the neighborhood residents. In addition, maintenance staff will undertake a significant portion of developing Clearwater Creek Park, including, seeding, landscaping, identification signage, and sand volleyball. Item 7. Local Government Resolution !` See attached Resolution 01 -20 (Exhibit 8). • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 4 of 8 Item 8. Public Hearing The Public Hearing to obtain citizen input on the proposed Outdoor Recreation Grant Application was held at the February 12, 2001 City Council Meeting. This Public Hearing followed normal public hearing notice requirements (Exhibit C). The minutes of the February 12, 2001 Public Hearing are attached (Exhibit D). Item 9. Projected Operation and Maintenance Costs The City of Lino Lakes Parks Department will be responsible for the operations and maintenance of Clearwater Creek Park. The estimated maintenance costs for the various time periods are listed below: Annually - $4,400 Turf Maintenance - mowing, seeding, etc. $2,500 Sweep trails twice per year $ 500 Plow internal trails during winter months for pedestrian use $ 500 Bi- weekly playground inspections $ 500 Sweep basketball court twice per year $ 200 Sift/clean safety surface of playground area $ 200 Every 3 - 5 Years - $3,250 • Import Engineered wood fiber safety surface in playground area $2,000 Import/replace sand for sand volleyball court $ 750 Prune trees as needed $ 500 Every 10 Years - $7,800 Sealcoat/Overlay trails $3,000 Resurface basketball court $2,500 Paint/refurbish gazebo $2,000 Paint /refurbish entrance sign $ 300 Every 20 Years - $72,000 Replace playground equipment $60,000 Replace basketball court $12,000 Item 10. Park and Recreation Organization The City of Lino Lakes has a formally established Park and Recreation Board. This Board provides advice to the City Council on matters relating to park acquisition, planning and development, and recreational programs. This seven member advisory board is established by the Lino Lakes City Code - Chapter 211. Members are appointed by the City Council to serve staggered three year terms. The Park and Recreation Board meets the first Monday of every month in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Meetings are broadcast on the local cable LI ) CJ C) G_ FC _ 0 IJ� : 3 if tO aTt ° M 00 CO 3 1 1 1 1 6 7Y7611‘.../r‘. r\ . l/71 T1 AII1 1 /'1 IT A /\ ->r-C. 1 VV IL_I \741 1 nvl \L_.: W • 0 0 �o 521 u i O E- N 101.54 • DRAINAGE 204.00 500°37'02"W • - OU TLOT A R 204.00 N00 °37'02 "E 204.00 500.33'26 "W 54.62•-' \ V 120.20 26 \ 2001 0! \ / \ 30 663.91 S00 °37'02 "W T \All ! I/ N I 17- A/ L> 1 \ L_.: I VVIL_I \7V1 I ON 1r\ A t- 11 1\ t_.3 k 011.177 202.59 231.06 106.25 / • EASEMENT -4: 1'1 27 //' 1 // J< „ • 30 La, 62 -^ 40.65 79.55 012A9480E 6 U EASEMENT 1 -06- 8 r.\ 411 20 \ -7; 14427 yr. In L - - -- J: 1, 36 ,6770 5.l. \--145.24 4j - '406,-, 34 1 ° \ 1.102 ZJ. d1 7 / - /1 37 4N. 24S1a yr. 434°7 ar 38 • - MN yr. z1� 39 II l .•6r. 60.00 I a l 4's X:13 • I 25 / , . Ti�A� , �/ / \ ,y / / 24 \ - / nwv. 1 O 0 ,1) 5.4- 00 1A / z SCALE IN FEET 60 120 1 11th " 60 teat 270.03 500 °37'02 "W 106.26 al g1 J 1 40 74442 Ir. 10.09 180 ✓ 5.o 1 1 11 I40a O 1 1a 031 1 42 `°E gRG �50�'� 1 ,])12 S'' I - Z C -Q !;. p0�9 "1 / 1t' $ L - 1Y YSJi ,is\ -�� Imo- . p N ` ---- - -r 2 A c1,% • \1' OT 1$ ,v\nl\1 L -- -- 76.32- 8 X \x \2fi�19 1 \ 1!4001/ i / �\ \ 22 / \ \ 19621 v. \ \ 21 24156 yr, 23 ap\ 12244 Y. $ 11440.67 ry0 - 145.00 - -1 19 I$ ,2546 L. r L- 145.35 -4.l- .5.l '6�I-'1�- 166.4 y zsc_ri MARILYN / �r '° , r \8. 14 411 , 134 'V 1 12441 v. OL - - -- J 1 n5. pj1 .N1 �' ro „� 2 2 •_,I,rv�,,? 11210 1 \3\ \\ 1110 i/ .\ \'a7\ i / 10 74122 SY. N // \ J 109.77 260.22 50 33 1, 7. 1 LJ CA 00 N 0 .o 0 r- 7 MR e1 .16 I1N 1 V - 1 >27.41 / 141.57 15 26274 11. of - �- *'$ STREET °C" 44 ' .13 2106 yr. 14 \\ sl x42 U. \\ 3- 41 / • (I!". � 1' - -• X1.0,= •- -•-'"• ' 7-- DRAINAGE `. `32.67 ......... '•-' 224.31 \47 013 l :n Um 2.r. 19 /•: -,/ \ \ \ 'y'\ \ \ \ v \\ `''i' ' ��\� J:.7.,. \\ �/ 20 , \ SAY \\ \ ^../'/ , »n b //\, \\ \ 16 \\ S,a\/ . / / \..rr • p / 6. \ \ / `�' // 411 \ 172 Sr. as v '3 F \\ / /3y9 • +`--. 2T.eA Ds4r .'// 22 • o-�/ \'6ea N. >/,�� ,$\• / d// 23 >4,.D. 404 k / �J'� // %// 12222 yr. I I 1 / �^ • \ / 'I I 6 Ix I / -▪ le, / 2oe6 u. y / \ 157428,... 1 11. �. // / /\ .66' b �. I/ i2� 4 \\ 1 I I I y/ // \v ,x 31.7) 1' - 4- . \\ 1 / „N162. a// / r 16.,7 \7'1116 11/ �- � \ v 3 81 +A \ my v. 1 l IA �/ 2 166 �_ -r 30 O.C� / / N9o9 U. -1 1 1 rim / • �� / I 43\ L_ 6 117.!4 qL N. 1• • !MARILYN R - >o \ T' =_,3 - 30 /< 0 oCo 60.66 N \ ',<, /. 5 � J r - Tu37 1 a5. 7 (a •▪ 1 ,tan Sr. In L_____J r - ,,-35.00 - 7 1 43]14 yr. 67:8 -1- -1 / 140.61 L1=16 °47'04" R= 480.00 C.BRG. =S00 °35'00 "E 54.72 1- - S77 °38'32 "W (I) \ \ 1.7J `5.J �_ 77.07 7 1 p =12 °51'27" - -� R= 343.45 1 L. ,3 l 7 O< M� L' ^ \ CO I Z B LI - -69 (3') 0 LC S00 °35'21 "W 34 30.00 30.00 66.53 r 5426 36,53 // ,425. / I I^ so 71 " RI 1 12200 L. • 4 \ 109.09 OUTLOT. B 6543 L. 44 6 UTILITY EASEMENT ��.Z: 7 '.D9 12050 Sr. / \° / 8 1 .�Cl 2»M yr. / 'l�' d rD� .7 `,' 76.87 ••- �I t Ir- 1 Jt -∎r.I rN L.L.- kJ L_L.IL.L. I 'JINLl.. 197.07 1292.48 S00 °33'22 "W `34.2! -- • / y DRAINAGE UTILITY 4.0 x57._9 6!271 I- I 3Z II 2 17100 11. 81 1 ' I- gII I II 02.01 1ze.se 71. r,;\ 152.31 8 Q 7.36 8 -- 7 \04,. x1 2 k 96- 1 \ 60.23 �> 6=2112'55" R= 162.66 \` 5 103.68 210.69 �D 17024 yr. n 30 213.76 30 ;.> &= 2112'55" R= 280.00 54.94 /7- 589'30'01 "E K A A D EXISTING ZONING R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ACREAGE 34.67 ACRES pRoPosro SITE DATA PROPOSED ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOTAL LOTS 75 LOTS OUTLOTS OVERALL SMALLEST LOT AREA LARGEST LOT AREA AVERAGE LOT AREA 27.72 ACRES 6.66 ACRES 0.29 ACRES 34.67 ACRES 10.860 S.F. 40,594 S.F. MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT REAR SIDE YARD INTERIOR SIDE YARD CORNER (STREET) MINIMUM LOT 1MDTH 0 SETBACK MINIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT AREA 30 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 30 FEET 80 FEET DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWY THUS: 2. BEING 5 FEET IN MTH ON ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN YAD714 ON ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESS OTFIERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLAT PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West 860.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota, Except Parcels 32. 33, 34. and 35, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota And The East 300.00 feet of the West 960.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Except Parcel 36, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota And Outlot D and Outlot E. all in HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County, And That part of Outlot C, HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST. according to the plat thereof. Anoka County, Minnesota, lying northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Outlot C; thence South 00 degrees 33 minutes 22 seconds West, assumed bearing along the West line of said Outlot C, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 54.94 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 103.68 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a. radius of 280.00 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 80.23 feet along a tangential curve. concave to the southeast. having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a radius of 162.86 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 215.13 feet to the point of beginning. cd CC CJI LLJ LLJ CC crs '&0> rn 1-1 ETI DRAWN BY PLM DATE REVISIONS 2/6/01 Faseme=ts CAD FILE 20196pp.dwg PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. 1-01-011 SHEET 3 OF 8 0001 0004 L_ ! ll 0 6909 R 69•1512- 1410 _ 060.00 6001 OUTLOT C Inn 9211 �.i OUTLOT 0 1811011 • MAIN STREET C.SA.H. NO 14 NIf19'Z"W Ne919'36•W 0.01 10.0( 6 }. 0007 N I9.19lrw 7\) 300.00 48.90 z N 69.19'3.5• W 125.00 L Z-4 0 3 • n . /LR015e)DER: IM Dreelopne0L Lx. 7/OWNER: So M?4 Sc z 4 Anoka MN 55307 Phone: (612) 1769121 H fir 19•T W 163.00 3 1 > g:YCLYEEA Me:L A Atomisers. Inc I s SURVEYOR: 1401 -71" A.3. MS - Brooklyn Park. SDI 54411 Phone: (612)133.7195 1 3 1 1 _3 uu LZCAL DESCRITIIDS: - 7 6 I 6 t3,4.4 t: PLY /6E31.z2.11�6/9_4_4 Thr Sooth.ea V. of 6e Sonheas In M Session 6. Tewnslxp 31. Ran1e 22, Anoka Covey, Mimmu. amyl the NIlo..ieg pool: 5 I 1 11w North 231.00 f of the Wen 13300 Set of the Era 6111 ! of Ore Sood,.ee Quarter o( de Nad1n. Quarter of So ;on 0. Township 31. Ranee Anoka Carey. Minnesota. Subject to and together with an memo/ for roadway pompous over the North 3300 (oo .(do Wee 310.00 feet of she East 660.00 feet fluid Soabwert Chinn of the Northeast Ousree end t090577 with as e tsnee for stun end erns o.o de En. Id feet of the North 75.00 fee and owe the North 33.00 het of de Eau 33000 few ds.id Southwest Charter of tit• Narheav OUTLOT E Owner. (39.0031 A1.) Turd •• PIN 00631. 72.11.4909 The Fain 330 Le el At Wen 990 fen .fide Nnnh.ea Darter of de Northeat Quern of 549'990 1. 79.2549 31. Range 22. Anoka Covey. M,n .snn deep he East 300 fmt of the '.k'e. 950 feet of the North 660 feet thereof. and also except Parcel 37 Anoka Cm.my Highs. Z Rrght of W cry PI. No.13, acceding m de United Sues Do.ere ens 1,006y thereof and 90144 in Anoka Corny. Mmea,a. (1.4379 Ac) Z. Lund 3: FIN 0ol-31- 2 2 49193 9 O �\ The Seth ken of deN Northwest the 15Quarter of Section 1. iwnt9p 71. Range 22. 01t. ept the Wen 990 )1 u and de East 161 fen dhonof. Together with an easement for ingress awl eras ova the fdb..onp: The Ere 324 fen of the O r�thr 33 reel of she Southwest Curter of the Taodeae (Name of Section 1. Township 31, ? pRR...,ihllhte. 1.4949 AO 2 N W TstM 4: PIN 061- 31.11.12.0003 OUTLOT E 1 LI bR� 111 ' err I1 h zwirst 2 nee 113 1- . t. u I ELIZABETH -�_.� -..1• (11.11 s phis. 083717 1 N 411552•W 165.00 tsr_LSS� MAJOR 001 ▪ ---- _FEE' .. :2--14. -- '1: Fi_'. -?- F The N.J... punnet affix Nerduast p 1 the North 264 he, the South 396 feet and 990 f� t f. bu3uxl the Women 30 1 3 fen of the Fan 191 fen of Aar Nord 264 (en of said Northwest Quarter of the Neehr a 1 Dower, weeps that pee taken he Anoka Corny Highway 13. (5 0099 Az.) z 7, Tan Arm. 50./511.5 ewes Eakdag LaMar R -I (Single -Fri ty Rddemial) Proposed I Pr•ped L 0011 P1...l: 1.1 (Single- Femilyderde.d4l M ule.Fa.ily: 17-3 Medium Drum, Readsoal 515.i1 PraPmed: Phase I: 11 gas facsimile faniy hem. 1 • 94,14-7..01,. .39 Mgt, Twl Usk, 107 E OUTLOT 1 4.1830171 02 115.00 WM for 7 ,aP 1017 'II, 10 2 • • c.01143011 a 94MZ17/ 679 0100• ; tt 1 L L "tc LANE; 8 0 . ,4 r' 8. 1 0217 0} 2 W 4 W 6 °o , . C ) r 2 1,R, r? x.'”0" • a: A s 0 0 3 ":4d: - -r 7117 ' 19' ' 11x. ; LANE R eta '•y__ 5- it 0 a • 9la44r i nJ✓ 2- t;r57R MM SIR net _,0617 11 laM aora a. _s meager ,R M a o1.. MN . 00 17' 4--Ts� ' . c - p1t 3C. -11 ! 1 ,51:0` 9'Q, ..•I A. ^e 0001 I y LOaO I4ht 1IiN!N MET 0 V1 5C 2 $ 1 : N arinter W „AR ^L E'S !- AP.SARA LANE. 1307.36 cS 7 AIE5 a 6190 SCCilRC ::T.r"" nte I h• •a it 0031 de W 0017 0526 •` 0' Wetmore LM Sian. 10.600 5 F. >11a..r Width: 10 feet (a measured dons the hone eet.b.ek lilt) Mimi..,. Seb..lu: Fiat yard • 30 fee STREET Reaywd • 30 foe lidr yW.'ve 10 feu . 500904410.00.1306 • 30 fen J • 4 N.,. Side yet -p. p.- intehs • 3 feet If Ores b no arn•0001 shown between de strew righto(..rw and de building wino. den the whack Ike is at the vandal 30' depot Ds1. of P reps .awe Nevenber 0.1999 Naar: Drainage sod With Easements shall 5. po.ided as Chown by the haw setb.a lines al3etnueg a e1 05l9of.way Nees. 5 feet in .00. ad ad0oin;.0 other h Hoes ad as otherwise monied Park D.Iwd..e Duda A 0.14 sera On61C 4.01 acres OAR Q..x a.9' . Taal 5.00 sets r. NORTH 0 90 100 5 5 SCALE LEGOCI 200 FEET (0.16,95 rota af.Em.0115 4901 P1\.10• POOO. Of kn. O 0 OM • 0 was . 10.12 -99 . HIGHLAND MEADOWS t. )4* _ 1 71 /4.14%. „-. • for TSM DEVELOPMENT INC. ......a �• REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA 001E 11l91b,.OSSCAeno• .r t 9»eer town ea 000.1 -9 .o d.9t w nowt 4907 750 A.w.r. N6. 9r.. 63 e0.300V t Oak, kW 56420 M E RI LA TWMe. 612.633-7595 F0a 612. 3141937 & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING w o•.aw a •a a ewe. 9y see comma roe 1 rn • oµ .p�ue L. 3•.•••00 OES1pi®� M " RC t J. w. sr a.9' a •• 9r.• a laewa. '� "•0"° II�Z'°l � t1'a'Sa has NO 99-015 9 • • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 5 of 8 access channel to provide an avenue for residents to be informed on current parks /trails developments and various topics of discussion. During "Open Mike," residents can express any concerns /questions they may have regarding the parks and trail system. All minutes are forwarded to the City Council to keep council members informed on issues that are being discussed at the Park and Recreation Board meetings. The following is attached: 4tt ♦ City Code - Chapter 211 (Exhibit E) ♦ Current Committee roster (Exhibit F) ♦ Resolutions Appointing Current Members (Exhibit G) ♦ 2001 meeting schedule (Exhibit H) Item 11. Property Deed or Appraisal(s) Attached is a copy of the Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition final plat (Exhibit I). The 5.5 acre parcel of land labeled "Park" indicates that this parcel is owned by the City of Lino Lakes. Also attached is the portion of the legal description that indicates that the developer "hereby donates and dedicates to the public use forever the circle, courts, drives, lanes, roads, park and easements ..." (Exhibit J). In order to comply with the Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation Project Agreement, the City of Lino Lakes does hereby impose the following restrictions on the property: 1. The property shall be managed and maintained for outdoor recreation purposes consistent with the approved grant application. 2. The property may not be used for any other purpose without the express prior written approval of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Item 12. Agreements There are not any agreements or contracts related to the acquisition, development, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project. Item 13. Environmental Intrusions There are not any environmental intrusions related to the development of Clearwater Creek Park. • • • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 6 of 8 Item 14. Permits to Work in Public Waters Clearwater Creek Park is not located near a shoreline adjacent to a river, stream, lake, or other public body of water. Therefore, a permit is not relevant for this project. Item 15. Statement of Accessibility The entire development of Clearwater Creek Park will be in compliance with the American with Disability Act. With the exception of the sand volleyball court, all critical components of this park will be handicapped accessible. The major components are accessible as follows: Playground Area - The playground structures are designed in accordance with ADA guidelines. Engineered wood fiber will be installed to provide handicapped access to both structures, spring events, and swings. 1/2 court basketball court - The backboard will be adjustable to allow the hoop to be set from 7 - 10 feet. This will allow people of all ages and abilities to adjust the hoop to the desired height (Exhibit K). Trails - All trails will be paved and have no more than a 3% grade change. The trails are eight feet wide and connects the primary components of Clearwater Creek Park. Curb cuts will be installed to provide a safe connection to the trails that continue throughout the development. Picnic Tables - Will have handicapped accessible seating (Exhibit L). Item 16. FSA Aerial Photo An FSA Aerial Photo is attached (Exhibit M). Item 17. Location Map A location map to Clearwater Creek Park is attached (Exhibit N). Directions to Clearwater Creek Park: Take 35 E north to Lino Lakes. Exit 123 ramp, County Road 14. Take Right (East) Take Right on Otter Lake Road (South) Take left on Tart Lake Road (East), proceed to Clearwater Creek Park. • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 7 of 8 Item 18. Recreational Site Plan A site plan for Clearwater Creek Park is attached (Exhibit 0). DRAFT Item 19. Building and Trail Plans All buildings, trails, playgrounds, and athletic facilities will be accessible to persons with disabilities and meet the American with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Building plans for the gazebo are attached. This includes front and side views, dimensions, and materials list (Exhibit P). All trails within Clearwater Creek Park will be paved and be 8 feet in width. The base material will consist of 4" of Class 5 aggregate, and the surface will consist of 2" MnDOT 2331 Type 41A asphalt. A typical cross section of the trail is attached (Exhibit Q). Item 20. Playground Plans A site plan of the proposed playground equipment is attached (Exhibit R). The • accessible components are highlighted. Engineered wood fiber, 12" in depth, will be placed throughout the entire playground area to provide an excellent safety surface and provide wheelchair accessibility. The proposed playground equipment plan meets guidelines set forth in the ADA Proposed Guidelines for Public Playgrounds Checklist. It is designed to provide an integrated play setting for children of all abilities. Two park benches (Exhibit S) will be placed adjacent to the playground area to allow adults an opportunity to supervise their children and socialize with other adults. • Outdoor Recreation Grant Clearwater Creek Park — Lino Lakes 8 of 8 • SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS • • Exhibit A City Map Depicting Location of Clearwater Creek Park Exhibit B Resolution 01 -20, Authorizing Submission of Grant Application Exhibit C Public Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit D Minutes from Public Hearing Exhibit E City Code - Chapter 211 Exhibit F Current Park and Recreation Board Roster Exhibit G Resolutions Appointing Current Members Exhibit H 2001 Park and Recreation Board Meeting Schedule Exhibit I Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition Final Plat Exhibit J Legal Description Indicating Park Land Owned by City of Lino Lakes Exhibit K Adjustable Basket System Exhibit L Picnic Table Diagram Exhibit M FSA Aerial Photo Exhibit N Location Map Exhibit 0 Clearwater Creek Park Site Plan Exhibit P Gazebo Specifications Exhibit Q Trails Cross Section Exhibit R Playground Area Site Plan Exhibit S Park Benches Diagram 2/28/01 • • • Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department Program High l igh is - February Park Board Update Youth Youth Instructional: Our Floor Hockey Mini Camp concluded this month. Our next session will begin in April. FOG and Pre - Kids- er -cise also concluded this month. Soccer Mini Camp and Toss, Kick and Catch are still going strong. We had to add an extra week to the end of the schedule due to a school closing in late January. Both programs are scheduled to end mid -March and new classes will be starting in April. CLUBS - 31 children attended our President's Day field trip - "Cinema Cafe and Hayride." We were fortunate to have mild weather that day and the children had a great time. Our next set of field trips is scheduled for the week of April 9 - 13. Warminghouses Warminghouses were officially scheduled to close on February 25. However, the weather caused them to close on Saturday, February 24. Employment Opportunities We are currently accepting applications for a variety of summer positions including playground leaders, Options leaders, soccer instructors, tennis instructors, preschool leaders and day camp leaders. For an application, contact the Parks and Recreation Department at 651- 982 -2440. Activities Guide Our Spring Activities Guide is completed and is scheduled to be in homes the first week in March. Questions? Please call Liz Bursack or Barry Bernstein at 651- 982 -2440. 1 tt Lino Lakes Parks and Recreation Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 February 27, 2001 TO: Park Board Members FROM: Mike Hoffman, Parks Supervisor SUBJECT: February Maintenance Update Is winter ever going to end? February has found us pushing snow (lots of snow). We have been kept busy assisting the Streets Department keeping the roads and cul -de -sacs clean. Other maintenance activity have included: • Trail widening — with all the snow the trail edges have become increasingly high. As a result it has become difficult to push the snow off the trails. We have been widening trails using our Case Skid Steer with 6' blower. • Rink maintenance — pleasure and hockey rinks have been maintained as needed. Shelters were officially closed for the season on Sunday, February 25. • Reorganizing maintenance shop • Cleaning and maintenance of warming houses. • Ordering fertilizer and chemicals for upcoming season. Those are the major highlights for February. sw /parkbrd/Mike Hoffman/February 01 Update.doc •