Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHammes Park Materials i III l CONCEPT SKETCH C t 1,---100'Greenway Buffer � �,�,�e 100 Greenway Buffer I � _�' •- �� • • • • r • • • •• • • �rlVet. • �• �� i•�• �•• • • • • • • • 6e i • •• • •• •• . Pond/ •• -1 Pond/ "Jl� ���� � ��f � � • Infilt Infilt. k4; �_ •� �� Wetland"d t -� • ! _i wet. Y ♦ • I��� / - - 75'Builder _:. : ' • rp �-�\ Wet. `J _ -� Lot(typ.) • - . . I- • 5� ♦ Pond/ • ,. 4,•. Infilt. • '� // • Y r. t • — i r/ 1 . d 1 � 7 Neighborhood �a � r. 1 I �� 'Pik 'r • ,� r Green • • a I� Tt�' 'Il �� . Wetland = ? • _ � '_ it ill • 85'Custom • �� _ 111 it� J ( • Lot(tYp�) Pond/ � � Infilt. COO 60'PUBLICS O.W. ( PondU Infilt. } , ' l.,�i _ � 75'Builder `� • Lot(tYP.) i � �� ., � �i• �� � _._ �311 �� '- _-� �" 'ail - it � � 1 P C 60'PUBLIC R.O.W. 60'PUBLIC R.O.W. CONCEPT DATA -� as'custom _ � � Gross Site Area: 78.0 ac Lot(tYP) 'r" • `� _ - _ ,>>r �� r i .�^; � "' i Wetlands(approx): 2.8ac Greenway Buffers: 7.2 ac V-1 (100'reguired buffer netwetlands)Net Developable Area: 68.0 ac Overhead I,;+r.- ce,. O `T - .�,. ♦ _ - �•�°- - (� _ Overhead r 1 ' r•lY— • i �' - ---_r werline _ Powerline�= _ � s 00 _ Other Open Space: 8.9 ac �__ —_ _- I Gndudes trail corridors.we[buffers greens.nondma. ' t Iw�,JJI I �I 1 I ��� I, f `! I 7 &mfiltrationnet 100'greenway&wetlandmeas) ^I 4 ,xn- ( • - I- I� �iz•a✓ aea ra#n.r„II.%sm II •r ra'av•r CHIP ower Edsement Proposed Single Family Lots: 164 lots ;J r Q 5 O 7 IlT y 10 Custom 8l-85'widex140'deeptypical: 63lots I u L-- -�lL— 71 �� ` National 75'widex140'deeptyp. 101lots d L_ 2 ' °'- 3 qTr E r--/f I 1 -1�' y�., �� // f• 1 Pronosed Single Family Setbacks: ��� 1II -- --- -- \ Front Setback: 25' f� -3 Side Setbacks. 7.5'/7.5'(15'total) III IF _ �I �\\ r Overall Gross Density: 2.10 un/ac � 4 g �I 7�1 S 5 I 4 �I� 1 �� i •n -. - II''t r; asc>.r ra xn, aa'c-, rastn� rasaC' it vs. Overall Net Density: 2.41 un/ac "5� ", L\ X ( —JII�5 f r jIr _s �__'.L' - - �, �q p�grt ny '.X, 1� �� ;� ^-/ \ g Aerial photography from State of Minnesota; r � --_ -� - � R\�,' CI rf �. / / - •r Topography from State LIDAR RYLAN D - - _�- .STH S7RFE;: - 1-3-2014 HA1ViNIES PROPERTY �' �. OCLIM HOMES ; / fir• 0' 100' 200' 300' yycstwood -I�., :rr-'-S� E LAKE E L M O, M N �s �' ,-;-��i �. . `, ,�u .�, '►'m � Ames says we need alignment around how the council views the commission's mission, which should be to protect and preserve park land, promote and facilitate proper use of park land, and to develop in the city. He suggests that friction may be caused by a disconnect in understanding. Pearson talked about recreation and the idea that Sunfish Lake Park could be a premier park for mountain biking. Pearson questions what would be the problem with mountain biking. Hartley responded that trust says that we cannot have formalized activity in the park like that. Pearson mentions that SAHS has come before the City asking to use Sunfish for mountain biking. Blackford reminds him that SAHS does utilize the park for cross-country training and skiing. Pearson asks about opposition of mountain biking use. Weis suggested that the first objective was to find if it was allowable by trust and they found out it wasn't; and therefore the initiative was abandoned. Blackford and Steele bring up the extensive history of the park and that literature regarding damage caused by mountain biking in parks (due to erosion); he added that there are costly re-construction options that would help protect against erosion. Steele also expressed that the other part of the literature is that there are safety issues and conflicts between multiple uses from bikers and non-bikers. The national trend is going away from biking where hiking is present to avoid that. Hieptas thinks there is a big disconnect between council and commission. One reason for disconnect is the elimination of a forester. Commission has suggested the re-instatement of Kathy Widen. Has been presented to council but hasn't heard anything else. Hieptas expresses her disappointment of a question on the park survey being changed by council without consulting the commission. Blackford mentioned that council asked commission to put the lakes question on the survey. Ames adds that the lake question was changed to be self- serving. Steele mentions that the draft approved by commission was neutral, and inquires to Pearson why the question was reworded. Pearson mentions that the lakes aren't the park commission's purview and that he requested the question in January before the lakes issue arose. Hieptas suggested that the council should have consulted the commission before modifying the survey. Pearson said they were simply trying to keep the survey moving, as it took a lot of time just to get it out. Pearson pointed out that commissioners are volunteers and that he values their service. He added that by door knocking you will hear people talking about the issues. Steele mentions that he appreciates Pearson attending and appreciates his honesty. Pearson mentioned that he spent a Saturday in Sunfish and did not see very many people utilizing the park. Steele points out that there are no metrics on park usage, and that you can't evaluate attendance on one day. Blackford responded to Pearson stating that the commission did do door knocking regarding the mountain biking and they received hundreds of signatures from residents who were against it. Zuleger iterates that the point to take home is that we need continuity between council and commission. He added that the Council does approve their agenda and they are trying to rebuild continuity and the process. Zuleger is committed to park commission this year, as he worked extensively with planning commission last year. Zuleger expressed his commitment as staff to handle administrative tasks, ensured that issues going to council will make it to council; and will be commission driven. Zuleger mentioned the final word on the park commission being that members of council unanimously affirmed that they want a better relationship with the park commission. Reeves reaffirmed what Zuleger said at the council retreat; and took away from the meeting an affirmation of the council's importance of this city government working well. Reeves stated that this doesn't always mean agreeing, but means that you need to respectfully disagree but keep things moving. Reeves stated that because there is a lot of change taking place, there is a need to have all parts including the council, commissions and staff all parts working like well-oiled machine. Reeves emphasized that there is a need for over-communication. Reeves stated that he is appreciative of the service of all commissioners and asked for the commission help to define the liaison role. In a few years hopes to have people look back and see what all was accomplished. Old Business a. Hammes Development Review (Zuleger) Dean introduced Todd Erickson of FFE (Folz, Freeman, Erickson) to discuss an amended development plan for the Hammes Development. The commission had asked for more park land to be created in a particular area of the plan to provide synergy with Goose Lake Park. Todd Erickson, Engineer partner if Folz, Freeman, Erickson, took the podium. Erickson states that the Central park area of the Hammes area is going more toward Woodbury style urbanization plan and that it will draw young parents with younger kids. Erickson adds that each trail off of cul de sacs in development would have direct access to the park without having to go on street. Park is for the residents of this development. Ames asked how large the park space would be. Erickson responded that it would be approximately a 13,500 sq. ft lot for park (145' deep x 80' wide). Erickson also mentioned that there would be over 6,000 feet of trail, including connections to Lennar and Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Bouthilet mentioned the development would need to connect with the Stonegate trail on the north eastern side of the development. Have one east west. Ames stated that the residents of Stonegate would like to have a paved trail but are resisting to connection into their neighborhood. He continued that the commission is in favor of paving trail if it connects to city/public trails. Bouthilet stated that now would be a good time to pave the trail, but the residents don't have as strong as an interest to pave it. Hartley asked how wide trails are that are being put in. 5' foot wide trail, paved. Steele talked about creating one more substantial space instead of smaller "pocket parks", which could be accomplished by removing the pentagon-shaped lot. Erickson responded that removing the lot would result in disturbing the natural wetlands that they are interested in preserving. Erickson continued that keeping the park in a more centralized location will attract more people as well. Zuleger pointed out the park and green space in Section 34, including how they connect to provide an extended view of the park space in the area. Ames inquired if there is a park dedication impact to the park and if the trail be developer built? Zuleger confirmed that it would be developer built. Zuleger pointed out that development will be short on REC units due to a low demand for multi-family housing units. Hietpas questioned how the City plans on making up for the shortage of REC Units. Zuleger responded that they will be renegotiating with MET Council on September 13, 2013 and asking for a reduction in REC units, extended by 10 years. Weis asked for more comments. Blackford asked whether trails will be dedicated. Zuleger mentions that they will be city trails. Weis comments that he likes the plan, but was wondering if they can create a park space larger than % acre. Erickson responded that with the amount of money going into the park ($40k), it will be a nice park. Weis asked about parking and Steele asked if there would be room for picnic shelter? Erickson clarified that the money allocated to developing the park, would support various amenities. Blackford asked for a park that is comparable to '/4 acre. A resident (Delapp) responded that park would be same as council chambers twice as wide, 5 x as long. DeLapp expressed his opinion that presented park improvements are great— a fine effort to address concerns. Hieptas asked what the timeline would be for construction. Zuleger replied that the contract is being drawn up, which would include both national and custom builders. M/S/P: Hieptas/Ames: to approve Hammes plan. Approved 6-0 Weis brought up a need to discuss Item Al, the creation of a subcommittee for development review. Weis mentioned that City Planner Johnson was working on examples and that there was a need for volunteers to form the subcommittee, with hopes to have information to review by the September 2013 meeting. Steele, Hartley and Blackford volunteered for committee. Zuleger included that Johnson would be the staff liaison for the group. b. Sanctuary Park Update (Bouthilet) Bouthilet stated that they hadn't followed up with the Sanctuary Park update. Bouthilet reiterated that where they left off was Silvernale looking to establish a trail route through Sanctuary and Bouthilet's suggestion was to order a survey. Steele asked how much the survey would cost. Bouthilet estimated the cost would fit into the park budget. M/S/P: Weis/Hartley: To approve survey request in Sanctuary. Approved 6-0 � p y• f, i' CYO _ I s wNt t 5 f ' on nT 4.:`,- t �r i I CITY of — MAP 7. 2030 PARK SYSTEM PLAN LAKE EXISTING PARKS PROPOSED PARKS SEARCH AREAS ®-NEIGHBORHOOD PARK -REGIONAL PARK � -NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ® -COMMUNITY PARK _-COMMUNITY PARK -SCHOOL -COMMUNITY -GREENWAY SPORTS COMPLEX _-SPECIAL USE PARK * -DNR BOAT LAUNCH © -SPECIAL USE PARK -WASHINGTON TKDA COUNTY MARCH 2O08 -GATEWAY STATE TRAIL GREENWAY -1. _,.Itc .— Comprehensive Parks&Recreation Plan Part 3-15 March 2008