HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks Packet 05.20.20Agenda
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission
Meeting of May 20, 2020
Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm
This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to MN Statute Sec. 13D.021.
Anyone who wishes to speak at the meeting is strongly encouraged to make arrangements by 4:30 pm on the
meeting day by contacting Parks Planner Shayla Denaway at 651-762-6342.
For more information on the remote meeting and participation, go to
https://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/participate.
Meeting ID# 820-6107-7167
7:00 pm 1. Approve Minutes from April 15, 2020 Meeting
7:02 pm 2. Hugo Gardens Park Dedication
7:30 pm 3. Adelaide Landing Future Park Playground and Construction Update
7:50 pm 4. Proposed Public Works Facility
8:10 pm 5. Lions Park Feasibility Study
8:30 pm 6. Neighborhood Park Updates
8:50 pm 7. Adjournment
Page 1 of 3
Parks Commission Agenda
May 20, 2020
Background
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission
Meeting of May 20, 2020
Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm
Approve Minutes from April 15, 2020 Meeting
Staff recommends approval of the minutes of the Parks Commission meeting of April 15, 2020.
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED MINUTES.
Hugo Gardens Park Dedication
Hugo Garden Apartments, LLC has submitted an application requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat and
Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for a residential development to be known as "Hugo Gardens
Apartments". The development consists of 84 apartments in seven buildings located east of Lions Park. The
development proposes construction of apartments on Outlot B and construction of stormwater ponding on
Outlot D of the LaValle Fields Plat. Keystone Place was constructed with the first phase of LaValle Fields and
2.11 acres of land was dedicated. The remaining park dedication for the Hugo Gardens Apartments shall be
satisfied with a fee of $87,414. The developer is proposing to extend a trail to Lions Park and an easement is
required. Staff recommends approval of the park dedication fee and requiring the needed trail easements.
PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED MEMO. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THE ARCHITECTURE, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, ETC AT
THEIR MEETING OF MAY 14, 2020. PLEASE SEE THEIR MEETING PACKET FOR INFORMATION ON THOSE ITEMS:
https://www.ci.huizo.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=5DF87A8A-B1B2-49DC-9511-94CEEE608CDB&DE=OB47A965-
5B2A-4AAF-B12F-420EA596BDFC&Type=B BASIC
Adelaide Landing Future Park
At their meeting of June 3, 2019, the Hugo City Council approved a site plan for the new park in Adelaide
Landing. The park will include 100 + acres of wetland, ponds, and open space with 1 + mile off -road paved
trail. The active area of the park is to include a pickleball court, basketball court, sport field, large picnic
shelter and playground. Construction of the park is being done in partnership with the developers.
At the meeting of May 16, 2018, the Parks Commission requested proposals for a playground to be installed
in Lions Park this summer. At their February 3, 2020 meeting, the City Council approved funding not to
exceed $100,000 to construct the playground. A request for proposals was sent out and a notification was
sent to residents in the neighborhood.
At the meeting of April 15, 2020, the Parks Commission held a neighborhood meeting and heard proposals
from four playground designers. Each of the proposals met the base requirements to include soft surfacing in
the $100,000 budget and ensure installation by August 31, 2020. The proposals were made available online
and staff collected input from residents following the presentations.
Page 2 of 3
Parks Commission Agenda
May 20, 2020
Staff recommends that the Parks Commission select a playground to be constructed in the future park in
Adelaide Landing. Staff will provide an update on construction of the park.
A CHART SUMMARIZING ALL INPUT FROM RESIDENTS RECEIVED IS ATTACHED AS WELL AS EMAILS. THE PLAYGROUND PROPOSALS
ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT https://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/parks rec
Proposed Public Works Facility
Public Works Director Scott Anderson will discuss a possible expansion of the Public Works facility. The
current Public Works facility is unable to accommodate long term needs beyond 15 years at its current
location. A study was done that evaluated construction of a brand new facility which would utilize 10-15
acres of the 125 acre Irish Avenue Park. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 4, 2020. A City Council
Workshop to review the site plan was held on May 14, 2020. Anderson will provide an update.
Lions Park Feasibility Study
On May 13, 2019 the Hugo City Council and Parks Commission held a workshop to discuss funding of
community parks. A background was given on City parks and the approved community park master plans.
The City's financial consultant provided information on how cities can fund park improvements and survey
opportunities. The City Council and Parks Commission discussed parks usage, phasing and prioritizing of park
improvements, and funding options.
At the meeting of June 19, 2019 the Parks Commission identified their priorities for community park
development. This was later presented to the City Council at their budget workshop on September 5, 2019.
The first priority was re -development of Lions Park to include a large picnic shelter, parking lot, roadway
improvements, and stormwater improvements, memorial garden, playground, splash pad, sports courts, fire
pit and amphitheater.
The City Council included "prepare for and begin construction of new Lions Park" on their goals for 2020. The
Parks Commission discussed a work plan for Lions Park at their February 19, 2020 meeting. The first step was
a feasibility study which included a master plan updates, phasing plan, and update cost estimates. The Hugo
City Council approved the feasibility study at their April 20, 2020 with their discussion on the Road Capital
Improvement Plan.
THE PROPOSAL FROM WSB FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY IS ATTACHED AS WELL AS THE APPROVED LIONS PARK MASTER PLAN.
Neighborhood Park Upgrades
Starting in 2017, the Parks Commission has reviewed Hugo's neighborhood parks for necessary updates. In
2018 projects included resurfacing courts at Arbre Park and Val Jean Park. In 2019, the largest project was
removal and replacement of all of the soft surfacing at Oneka Lake Park. Staff will provide an update on
needed projects identified in the spring review of the parks. The Parks Commission allocated $40,000 for
park upgrades in 2020 with the Capital Improvement Plan.
THE PARKS PLAN CAN BE FOUND AT: https://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/2040compplan
Page 3 of 3
Parks Commission Agenda
May 20, 2020
Minutes
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Commission
Meeting of April 15, 2020
Hugo City Hall, 7:00 pm
Meeting held remotely pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
Present: Roger Clarke, Shawn Haag, Cathy Moore —Arcand, Nicole Schmid, Dave Strub, Ranell Tennyson,
Matt Rauschendorfer.
Staff Present: Scott Anderson, Public Works Director
Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner
Debi Close, Secretary
Michele Lindau, City Clerk
Strub called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes from the February 19, 2020 Meeting
Tennyson made a motion, Moore — Arcand seconded to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2019 Parks
Commission meeting. The meeting of March 18, 2020 was cancelled due to COVID-19.
Rauschendorfer abstained.
Ayes: Roger Clarke, Shawn Haag, Cathy Moore—Arcand, Nicole Schmid, Dave Strub, Ranell Tennyson
Motion carried.
2. Adelaide Landing Future Park Playground Proposals
Four vendors gave presentations proposing play structures for the future park in Adelaide Landing:
Briana Cohen, MN WI Playground
Chad Simich, Flagship Play
Mike Basich, St. Croix Recreation
Andrew Pudwill, Ultimate Playgrounds
After the presentations, the Parks Commission asked the residents that were participating online, for their
feedback or questions.
Items discussed included:
• Concerns of the zip line being placed in the middle of the playground area where other playground
users may be.
Page 1 of 3
Parks Commission Minutes
April 15, 2020
• Excitement to see large climbing structures
• Preference over a tennis court versus pickleball courts
• Naming the park
• Current issues with motorized vehicles on trails and dogs not on leashes
The Parks Commission thanked everyone for participating on line and will continue to review the feedback
from residents. The meeting will be on the City's website to watch under Granicus for more residents to
participate and the playground proposals are online to view. Final playground selection will be made at the
May 20 meeting.
3. Proposed Public Works Facility
Public Works Director Scott Anderson presented the Public Works facility planning at Irish Avenue Park.
Background: The current Public Works Facility staff includes 14 fulltime employees, 7 part time employees
and 8 Sheriff's deputies who use the space when needed. The public rental room is adjacent to the main
entrance and is used frequently by many groups. The parcel is 8 acres which including a storm water pond
and 5 acres of wetland. It stores many vehicles, heavy equipment on (double parked) and off site with
shortfall. The space is at maximum capacity for office space, restrooms, and lockers. Public Works maintains
36 square miles, 132 miles of city roads, 3 water towers, 5 wells, 10 sewer lift stations, all sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, water mains, 19 + park properties, 4 public buildings, 39 vehicles and many pieces of
equipment.
Irish Avenue Park History: The property is located at 140th and Irish. It was owned by the Hansen family
whom leased the property to be used as a gravel pit, asphalt production, and rock crushing facility. The City
purchased the land in 2008 for $900,000 with a 10 year tax abatement bond that was combined with the
Hanifl Fields Athletic Park improvements. The City required the site be cleaned up including removal of the
structures, junk vehicles, debris, and garbage. In 2009, a neighborhood discussion included long term uses of
the property- ballfields, athletics, lights/noise and traffic. Short term uses included a dog park, equestrian
trails, archery, walking paths and passive uses. The goal of the Irish Avenue park land was to be enjoyed by
the public. The City Council included "prepare plans and begin construction on Public Works expansion" in
their 2020 goals. The public works feasibility study shows that an expansion is needed with population
growth increasing steadily. The current Public Works site does not allow for expansion to accommodate the
needs of the projected population beyond 15 years. The Council requested that building a new facility at
Irish Avenue Park be explored. A site plan has been drafted. The new building at Irish Avenue Park would
utilize about 9 acres, not include a community, and provide access off of County Road 8 and parking for park
users. Public Works Director Scott Anderson informed that the City is in discussions with White Bear Lake
Area Schools for their purchase of the current Public Works building.
4. Goodview Avenue Trail Feasibility Study
Denaway presented the Goodview Avenue Trail Feasibility Study proposal from WSB. A Statewide Health
Improvement Grant was applied for in 2019 through Living Healthy Washington County. The study would
evaluate a possible trail along Goodview Avenue North between Egg Lake Road and 1451h Street as shown in
the Trails Plan. The Grant was approved and funding expires October 31, 2020. The study will include a
wetland delineation. The study also includes drafting concepts, Parks Commission meetings, and a 30%
design of the preferred trail alignment.
Page 2 of 3
Parks Commission Minutes
April 15, 2020
Strub made a motion, Tennyson seconded to authorize a feasibility study of the Goodview Avenue North
trail.
All ayes. Motion carried.
S. Adjournment
Moore —Arcand made a motion, Haag seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 pm.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Page 3 of 3
Parks Commission Minutes
April 15, 2020
Agenda Number: 2
CITY OF HUGO
PARKS COMMISSION REPORT
TO: City of Hugo Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission
FROM: Shayla Denaway, Parks Planner
SUBJECT: Hugo Garden Apartments, LLC. Request for a PUD Amendment and
Preliminary Plat for "Hugo Garden Apartments"
DATE: May 13, 2020 for the Parks Commission meeting of May 20, 2020
1. BACKGROUND:
In 2014, the City approved a preliminary plat and planned unit development for "LaValle
Fields" on 39.56 acres. The preliminary plat included one lot for the senior housing
facility and four outlots: Outlot A was dedicated as public park (2.11 acres), Outlot B and
C were planned for future development and Outlot D was planned for stormwater
management.
The Hugo Gardens apartment project includes development of Outlot B and construction
of stormwater ponding on Outlot D.
2. DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD amendment and Preliminary Plat to allow
construction of 84 apartment units in seven buildings.
The property to the south is guided Medium Density Residential (MD), zoned PUD and
developed as Keystone Place at LaValle Fields senior housing. The property to the east
is guided MD and Mixed Use (MX), zoned Central Residential (CR-3) and developed
with single family homes and Lions Park. The property to the north, across 147th Street,
is guided MD, zoned CR-3 and developed with St. John's Cemetery and vacant City -
owned land. The property to the west is guided MD, zoned CR-3 and platted as Outlot C,
LaValle Fields First Addition.
-1-
Hugo Gardens
May 20, 2020
The PUD Amendment proposes 84 apartment units in seven buildings instead of the 165
approved units in three buildings. The building has a mix of one, two and three bedroom
units for rent. The original PUD allowed an increase in the maximum density from 6
units per acre to 18 units per acre for the overall PUD. Outlot B is 17.61 gross acres
(7.88 net acres), which means the proposal has a net density of 10.66 units per acre,
which is within the allowable density for the PUD.
The developer is requesting flexibility for building and parking setbacks with their PUD.
In exchange for this flexibility, the city expects a higher level of design and amenities
within a project.
3. PARK DEDICATION:
With LaValle Fields, park dedication was approved at the Parks Commission meeting of
December 11, 2013. The developer proposed dedicating a combination of land and fee.
Originally, the approval was for 295 units on 16.18 buildable acres which is over 18
units/ acre. The amount of park land to be dedicated is based on the density. At over 10
units per acre, 17% of the buildable land is to be dedicated which would be 2.75 acres.
2.11 acres land was dedicated which satisfied 77% of the requirement. The remaining
23% was to be satisfied with fees.
The 2013 calculations were based on a 165 units of apartments in phase 2. The current
proposal is for 84 units. This reduction brings the density to over 13 units/ acre.
Therefore, the density still exceeds 10 units per acre and the required amount of land to
be dedicated would be the same.
At this time, the park dedication fee is $2,400 per unit.
The developer requested dedicating the land with the first phase and fees with the other
phases. This significantly complicates the calculations, but the Commission accepted the
arrangement. Because of this arrangement recommended by the developer, fees paid
with the apartment project would be collected based on the total number of units in the
entire development.
The fees would be calculated as follows:
Keystone Place
Hugo Gardens
Future Expansion of Keystone Place
TOTAL:
100 units
84 units
30 units
214 units x 23 % x $2,400/ unit = $118,128
Therefore, the total amount of fee to be paid with the entire LaValle Fields development
is $118,128. The developer had indicated that the fee would be split up between the two
remaining phases. If this calculation is to be based on number of units, the apartments
would be responsible for 74% of the fee and the future Keystone Place expansion would
be responsible for 26%. Or $87,414.72 and $30,713.28
-2-
Hugo Gardens
May 20, 2020
In summary, with 84 units, the proposed apartment project is required to pay $87,414.72
in park dedication fees.
4. CONSISTENCY WITH PARK PLAN
Open Spaces/Parks
The neighborhood is served by Lions Park. The park is considered a community park
and includes neighborhood park amenities. Lions Park was expanded with the LaValle
Fields PUD and is located immediately east of the proposed apartments. Finale Avenue
is proposed to be re -constructed with the apartment project and would allow for
expansion of Lions Park and utilization of the land previously dedicated. The developer
is also showing a parallel parking lane on the east side of Finale Avenue which could
serve visitors to both the apartments and the park.
Trails
The developer has provided good sidewalk connections throughout the site and out to
Finale Avenue. They will also connect to the existing trail near Keystone Place and bring
it through the site and out to Finale Avenue near the southwest entry to Lions Park.
The design of the trail extension through the Hugo Gardens Apartments requires
additional trail easements. The plans currently show the trail straddling the property line
adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant will need to obtain an easement for the trail
from the senior housing property or redesign the trail to follow the existing easement to
the site.
The plans show a 10-foot wide bituminous trail. The detail sheet shows an 8-foot wide
trail but the trail shall be 9 -foot 4-inches wide in a 10-foot wide easement to match the
existing trail.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Parks Commission discuss the trail and sidewalk connections
and recommend that the necessary trail easements be provided. Staff recommends
approval of $87,414 in park dedication with the proposed 84 units of the Hugo Gardens
Apartments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Illustrative Plan dated May 7, 2020
3. Site Survey dated September 23, 2019
4. Site Plans dated April 17, 2020
5. Park Dedication Policy
6. Existing and Proposed Trail Map
7. Neighborhood Park Service Area Map
-3-
Hugo Gardens
May 20, 2020
At '111&
f
IVA
OIZ6
CD
0
AM m1mbbsWiffik P"
z Upper 146Th Stree
co
ii
MR.
HUGO GARDENS
CivilSite 9 22 0 00331 6321339618
G R O U P—CivilsiteG—P.mm
Pmj-Number: 19296 Revision Numbe,.
Issue Dale: 05.07.2020 Revision Date:
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
-for- HUGO HOUSING, LLC
-of- OUTLOTS A, B, C & D,
LAVALLE 171ELDS FIRST ADDITION
I&
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1-F. G. 1011 a SON& INII
Professional Land Surveyors
-'1776 Lake (Drive NE Sulte'110
Lino Lakes, IVIN 55614
—9"77H—STN
VICINITY MAP
PP4T OF 5f:0. 9 & 20, — 31, 4NG. 21
NO sc—
LEGEND
I IN =
>
N
(SHEET 1/2)
vi .0
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
V -for- HU130 HOUSING, LLC
'
71.� T�11��' -of- OUTLOTS A, B, C 8, D,
-7LAVALLE FIELDS FIRST ADDITION
-----------
oii
,
Z
OUTLOT
--6m0T c
Z=1 751
14,
J
OUTL01, _ 02lv
N.
A91Z
U 4!;�
WICINO MAP
E
MATCH,
Lffiml
--To -OTA
1. BUD soms- INC.
Professional Land SurveyorszNN NOM
6736 Lake Drive NE Suite 110
Lino Lakes, MN 5564
U1)361-8200 F,.(651)361-8701
V1. 1
�4
O
a.. WETLAND
CONSTRUCTION UNITS
rL �/
eJ�O
�SURM/OUNTABLE
C&G, P.
r„/ 5 CGNG
/ as
/ O
I N az
P, r
am�)
IC S
1
I 'I
I I
I
I r
I [1
EXISTING
GARAGE
EXISTING
HOUSE
EXISTING BUILDING
11 ('lull
/
1 �1 �♦
♦1
1 �1
I� i■ ...anommom�0 MENEM nommommommol.....
•
� ♦*pun■■Basel
,
�' -' ('„ •PRPROPOSED: F
mm .
• .UNTABI
SITE DATA:
Gross Site Area: (767,265 at
17.61 AD.
Zoning:
Parking:
(OuNot B)
EJdaffng Zoning:
PUD
9k18'Stalls
Existing Wetland Area:(266,371 d)
6.12 Ac.
Proposed Zoning.
OLD
24'Dnve Isles
.at Council Easement(14,471 so
0.33 AC.
Max. Dens4yin OLD perprevioua approval:
164 units(20.81 We)
2dalls per unit +l per every 5 units
County Ditch Easement (12,495 af)
0.29 As.
Proposed Density:
84 units (10.65 We)
Miss D&U Easement: (100,210 s11
2.30 AC.
Max. Building Coverage.
40%
Net Active Development Area: (343,253 4
7.88 AD.
Net Developable Area: (373,718 a�
8.58 As.
Max. Hardcover,
70%
Proposed Bldg. Footprint (70,448 Sry
2.34 As. (20.6%)
OuZ B (East of Wetland):
7.88 AC.
Setbacks:
Proposed Parking (Driveway): (18,480 al)
0.42 Ac. (5.3%)
CLIO B (West of Esmt. for Ditch):
0.70 As.
Buildlna
Parlang
Proposed Parking (Stalls): (8,000 sf)
0.18 AC. (2.3%)
25'front/rear
10'6onfIROW
Proposed Drivelane5:(60,934 sf)
1.40 Ac.(17.8%)
Existing Wetland Area:
6.12 AC.
10'side
5'side
Proposed Sidewalks: (12,932 4
0.30 AC. (3.8%)
Wdland Removed:
0.00 AC. (0%)
Proposed Greenapace: (172,459 4
3.96 AD. (60.2%)
Wetland Saved.
6.12 Ac. (100%)
CD
O
o
R
B. C&G,
M.
SURMOUNTABLE 1
�CEO-.
SITE LAYOUT NOTES:
i fte
j i. wr
� J.L�61
a US, ®
and W
RT011GINNINGmMRS�LLO STRUCTION IspnouroUT NOTLLsIEELEMEnTs
1 PRIORT HE OFENINGCONNDPROOSINCLUDING BUTNESLIMITED To.
L Arms oFE%3SnNGANDPROFO6D PROPER. s,
1j
- ^
CONTRACTORS
SETBACKSBLE FORES,BUIDINGSANO PFALL ELEM ELEMENTS FORCTORM
RESPONNSKQORFINAFERCOMMENC FALLLELEMCONS CTION THE UANY
RENSIOns REOUIR INTIR-LM NCEMENr OF COnsiaucnONo.
HHALLBET ADDTITHE cosrro
si L^^i^P.k, Mx
ssais
IqJ
OWNS ADJUSTMENTSTO SHALLTDATNO
OWNERADJUSTMENTSTCHHIECT PRIOR TONGEKLNTON OF MAMMALS.
GNG1NELAYOUT
STAKE FOR APPROVAL
IJ HE CONTRACTOR SHALL ORTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERIMIs PRIOR TO
NTABLE CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-0F ANDSFREET OPENING PERMIT.
EXIST. ROW, --_ 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONSNOIEGINFHEGEO
TYP. TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.
4. COMPACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMEN6KN8
OF THE BUILDING AND STANG FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS
NEPREBENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MAMRIAL3.
5. -Na OF STRUCTURES,ROP➢WAY PAVEMENTS, 1JRw ANDGUFTERs,
AND WALKS ARE APPaowM4TE AND SHALL BE STAKED N THE FIELD,
PRIOR TOINSTALIATION,FORRENEWANDAPPROVALBYTHE
�7NG,P. ENGINEERNJJOSCMEMCHIFEGi. BCURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACEOF CURB. BUILDING DIMENsron6ARE
TOFAGGOTCONCREMFOUNDATKINLOCATIONOFBIJUDINGISTOBUILDING
FOUNDATION ANDSHALLSEAsSHOWNONTHEDRAwlHECONTRACTOR
ASOLIARDs,
SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR a9MFLES AS SPUCHED
rFORREVIEWANDMPROVPLBYTHEENGNEER DB %F CHFECTPMR
TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH
UPF
U
As BUT NOT LIMITED To WE FOLUANING FURNISHINGS PAVEMENTS WAI
6T�RNLNGSBENCHES, FIAGPOLESLANDING PADSFOR CURB RAMPS AND LIGHT
AND POLES THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT To REJECT INSTALLED
J
J
FERIALS Nor PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
\ J
/^
Y'
I 6 PDESTRIMCURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTEDWnH TRUNCATED DOME
Imo• Q
IANDNG AREASN ACCORGANCE WITH ADA REOUREMENTSSEE MEAL
Z N
I R. CROsswN RIPINGSH LLBEN't DEWHREPWNTEDUNE SPACE -ON
A\
Lff N
BFLDRIVE CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO ME FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWAU(
W
C
G�
ALL BE 6'WTDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MMNNGB SHALL BE WHILE IN COLOR
SH21
I UN LESS OWERMUSE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING
T! �
V
Rzw BODIES.
L o
d' z
10. SEE 9ILE PLAN FOR CURB ANDGIRTER TYPE. rnDSEE TAPER BETWEEN CURB
z
u1
d
DETA
F , ALL CURB NADII ME MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Q >
P. CONTRACroR SHALL REFER To FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS,
O
Z
AREAS A DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
O (U
O Z
NGSI
1B. FIELD VERIFY ALL E%ISTITE CONDITIONS,DIMENSIONS.
14. PARWNGISTOBESETPARNFUL OR PERPENGICUTARTO EXISTING BUILDING
GTHERWISE.
Of
>O
NLESS NOTED
LLP MKING LOT PAINT SIWPPING TO BE WHILE, 4' WIDE TYR
1B. DILUBI NOTED. SEE
=
O
SIFEEPAVINGT VEMENGHT ONS.NLES&OFHERWI6E
ETAIL6HEET5 FORPAVEMENT SECTIONS.
UI
--- -�
• T WRHA
RTHE
SEE LTECTEDFROCUMENTS.
CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE SEE LANPPGPE DOCUMENTS.
CONSTRUCTIONCRP LINE.
1141aUCFIN1
a LIMITS SITE PLAN LEGEND:
NT.6EE
WHT DUTYBITUMINOUSREPORT
FOR AG
NIDEWAIN, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FORAGGPEGATE BASES
WEM COJ.E oEPW SEE OFAnL.
GEMLIFT BRUMINOUSPAVEMENT. SEE
ECHMCAL REPORT FORAGGPEGpTE BASE&
WEAR COURSEDEPTH.SE"AGIL.
3B
AG
N REM
COONCRE E DEPTHS, SEE GECIMD (PAD DR WALp
SURMOUMABLE SEEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE
& G,IYP. 8 CONCRETE DEPTHS, BEE OETNL.
LILENSEOPR P.-NALWANNEM
EXIST. ROW, - - - - PROPERTY LINE
rvP. INME ME ME CONSTRUCTIONLIMIIS
0
oATFy1.x1.ZUR0 ucwaexo.
44lw
-----
CURB AND GUTFERSEE NOTES LF.0.) TIP OUT �p
GUTTER WHERE APPLN:A&ESEE PLAN
ISSUESUBMITTAL
SUMMARY
„
P ON
TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL MNOW PAVEMENT MARKINGS
r---J t t
1 qs.
I
__.___......_ ENO OFSTREET
L----JyCONGTRUCTION. SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.
TYP -- / HC=ACCESSIBLESIGN
.---------- ___ /" " NOPMKINGFIREINJE
r CP GDMPACTCARPAR-ONLY
CITY OF HUGO SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: SITE AREA TABLE:
1. RE6ENVEDFORCNYSPECIHcxGFFs. STEAREACALCULATIONG
BUIIMNG [OVERAGE E%ISTI OSF NDITIODN. PR"Asso SFS ONDnIOZ%
ALL NONPAVEMENT6 761,-4 F 300.0% s]BkB1 SF ..8 Ftt
OPERATIONAL NOTES: REASION SUMMARY
srvowASNOW Toruvre AaFA TST,as4 sF aaD.ax TST,zw sF LaD.
ALL
SNOW SHALL occuaoN SITE. PFmnous suPFUE
TRASH REMOVAL: ENSTING CONDITION F lEx. v6 OSF 0.0%
TRASH REMOVAL SHALL OCCUR: PER MANAGEMENT. pIMEPFN 3S3b3F 16 cPaoP.l IS3b3336SF D6
DEUvrRIES: SOUTH SITE PLAN
DDVERIDSHALLOCCUR FRONT DOOR. O V
Call beforeyoM dig. spa® L
SITE LAV R NOTES: iv fla fte
i PROSTOToa s1111111FYLocanoxsano urour OFALL SITE ELEMENT$ Ilan u�
,����•, / r' \ \\!\� PRIORTO BEGINNINGCON3TRUCnONINCLUDINGBUTNOi LIASEENT ® Ma u ® n u0
saumns of Exisnnc nno PaovosEo PROPERTY LINES, EPSEMENrs,
ETBACKs,unun$s,BwLDINOSANDPAVEMENTs. GONTRACToaW
/ oxlMATE Boo zaNE NE PER `\`\• i Mons REEMGUUSTM NTTS6H 13E� oaRECT ONINoA�DIFFO NE px np oxnsrea.sM� bm�,•
Rev OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE oDIeTa s. m°�, P.k, Mx 55<1x
.� ^ l\QF • L n0 EN a cosiro
_ FT OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BV THE
�� r ' [ .EIR x[ OaTE of lie. ENGINEAYOUT FOR
ARCHITECT PRIOR I INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS.
�,-/,�// T, zolo �ORr . z TrPKE LAYOUT FORAPPRova.
�l HE CONTRACTOR $HALL OBT S— NECESSARYPERMrts PRIOR TO
/ lot, � \`\\`\ate CONSTRUCTION.INCLUDINGPRIGHF-0E-WAY PN03TREET OPENING PERMR.
3 THE CONTMCTORTHALL VTOINSTECO&1MENOATITEIMP EOINTHE GEO
TECHNICAL REPORT PRIORroINSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTMATERMLS.
a CPT COMRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LDION DIMENOONS
FUTURE
$TREET °IS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR RENENANOPPPROVPL BYTHE OWNERS
CorvsmucF. a o REPREGENTAnvE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.
rvP. S LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTE, CURBS ANDCUFTERG,
BOLIARDS,AND WNHS ARE APPRowMATE AND SHALL BE$TAKED IN THE FIELD,
SL. \` /I/ ¢3 PRIOR TOINSTALIATION,FORRENEWANDAPPROVALBYTHE
�® ENGINEERNJJDSCAPEARCHITEGT.
/ MAINTENANCE BENCH, ' \ , a\ I B. CURB pMENGI0N0$HGWNARE TO FACEOF CURB. BUILDING OIMENGgN$ARE
10 p P WETLAND �� !aa TO
FAC CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOWION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING
/ FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AESHOWN ON THE DPAIMNGS.
END T THE CONTRACTOR$HALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMFLE3 AS SPEGFIED
/ / ZONE X I `S EXIST."EAR �\ oj' COp6TRu ® FORREVIEwANOMPR BYTHEENGINEEwL.wosc %P CHITECTPRIOR
¢ TYP A ry m 14) ] TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREEMISCATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MPTERMLS SUCH
vy ` V 'ZONE X� As. BUT NOT LIMITED ro THE FOLLovnNG, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, Maus, U
�/' ' IX
_d" _®^�, Rauncs, B6xcHEs,FucvoLEs, LANDING PROS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT J
z rr°m iz °nn„ p nacre 0o p ` em use ___ a AND FOLES. THE OwNEa RESERVFGNED. GIrtroaEdEcrINSTPLLED J
o;°.� — FERIPLs nor PRenousLr PPPRovEO.
ee suRMourvrARLE � MA N
a C80'TMP',]{p — PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE wn3TRUCTEOwrtx TRUNCATED DOME Imo.
'�� \• rnec�nom) uOre mue, °na , GOINSTIOCTIINIUMIT3_ 9 's a oa BgI10C8G,P R ``` o CONSTRUCTION —__---_ — 1 S UNLESS RIPIN ST LLBENM TMMKING$SHALLBE SPACE
L Z N
ING En$ IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RPOUIREME—EE JIN
B—BE
STRIPING SHALLBE F' OF HREIC. MBDTFIOFCOESMAN0.ON A\ Iff N
�l LIMITS CENTERPERPEEALLLOTHE THE NIGNOC. WIDTH OF WHITE
IN COL �W C
n FEINCOLOR G
G I mERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BYADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING O ~d'
BODIES. L d' z
FENCE M. �P5. RBSV III 10. SEE STE PLAN FOR CURB ANDGUFTER TYPE. TAPER BETYEEN CURB TYPED-SEEZ d W
•,', ZONE `` ',',Y WETLAND �• a.0 xv 1V I . ALLCO. RADII ME MINIMUM IF UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Q >
/
AIL
AE ' / 5APC SURMOUNTABLE I Q
C&G,TYP. I 6 1E. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FIN& PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDMIEG,NUMBERS, o Z Q
SFMG C I AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENT$, O (C 0Z
1 PoWAIN, I 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS DIMENSIONS. C7
rvP. 1 / 14P NG IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENOICUTAR TO EXISTING BUILDING
/ aTAm IS H, _ U UNLESS NOTE OTHERWISE. t <>O
11 ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHRE I WIDE 11
GO
1M1 1 BRUMINOUGPAVINGTOBE "LIGHTD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE = O
B MID I 1 ALL TRLSFEEVSFORP1WEES THAT ME
MENTSE ME TO
UI
]. ME E ATTHEIONE T E. SEE L PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A
I SNFG z TTI I CONSTRUCTION FENCE ATTHE DRIP LINE SEE (AND3GPE DOCUMENTS.
GI�EM&X, S+:SC ID TH LI
RETAINING /; —C m E.ITING OLTL.T=MA.SF I $ (NvoT SITE PLAN LEGEND:
FENCE, SURMOUNTABLE -DO
I' I LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE u
r/ CBc,TYP. I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASER
HFM VY COURSE DEPTH, GEE DETAL.
WETLAND i' !— DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE
S;� OW1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE&
/A/y EXIST. R, WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL.
f / O 's.�' lTP CONCRETE PAVEMENTAS SPECIFIED(PAD ORWALK) Ux A a ATEDF
SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE
I — /� yMC = — Z ---- PRONCRETEPERTY
DEPTH$, GEE DETAIL
L
' 4CSC ,P PROPERTY LINE
r
/ BSMD BMFG O 'o � � � I � a� a� a� IN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS onTe D2 xt xas0 uc w.exo 441w
11 YOKE UBMITTAL SUMMARV
I] 6 CURB RWHEREERSEENOTESR.O.InPO(TI
I D-,&,K. O iOCSC v. \ SURM ___________ ISSUE5
slDEwnLK, 3aPM0 i a ro cuTTERwxERE PPVLICPBLESEE PLM
OUNTPBLE G
av J CBS, TYP. lJ
m O 1 TRAFFIC DIREcnONALMaow PAVEMENrMARKINcs
p1g
RGMO OU , /% bCSC 6 \\ / SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. CHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.
I
5GSC
PC Q� 'C 7 /" N P = NO PARWNG FIRE LANE O &C$ GD / a SURE QULLNTe
6KFG,.BL \ Y F-_ CP=COMPACTCARPARONGONLY
60KL O .4KFFGGG 6CONC.
sxFG / Y1R S. \ \ \ $SDEWALK,
SURMOUNTABLE Y 14MBjJ AY GBG, FYP.
C&G. rvP MD .` � \ EY%PST. ROW.
' O 9 / 6wNU aC$C NUMBER lzae
5WNE. vC C `�\� EttREVISIDH SUMMARY
SURMOUNTABLE
I aCGC SIDEWALK
WETLAND —G, 11.
'/' acsc rvP
✓/ rl \
CONSTRUCTIONUMITBBSMD / Ry F� CRO$SWALN
IN 58f STRIPING. TYP.
A 3DKL 0a(FG (nrzONE.nea ° O \\ \,&5 10'BIT. TRAIL
I 1aTQ xFG O BLINDcn°cca 0°°a pi
BM16C8G, CENTRAL SITE PLAN
�/ 0J R�. °m_)cuO � U
bGSM4OXG�
US STRIPING
'SURMOUNTABLE _G iB BR.TMIL _ I
/ CBS. rn. ELPMDDBIOW. 1'=40'ff
Call netoreyox dig. sna® C2. 1
I $ �J
1. CONTVOUTNOTES: RVE'Ra e
CONTRAGroasHALLVENFYLOCAnOxs MD uvoIT OFALL'RE ELEMENTS ® B@ 0 u UP
W ToNSPEOUREDA ERN MENIoaRETTeFConIST UIRNory a BIT
1Tw
55 I3 x55
ro MN 114
SESPONSIBLEFORS,BUILOCATONSOFALLENTS. CONTRACTNTS FOR THE ORS
ALC •iuF 4n m•Po va••m umivai�•
SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILOINGSANO PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTORR S ie P.k
LOCH NG AND PROPOSED PROPERTYLNES, EASEMEM
a�tw aMns�sreao
' ` OftEREABUUST ENT TO THELAOUTS ALL BEAPPROMNOB THE ANY
/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REVIBIONB REOUI
LocA usTM ss CORRECTED oADDITIONoRIEALs. ro
` OWNER.ADJUSTMENTS RTHE T PRIOSHALLBEAPPROVEOBVTHE
r I N rz STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL
} \ HE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTNNALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR i0
1 I \ CONSTRUCTION. INCLUDING ARIGHTOF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.
e /
1 /)
I THE CONTRACTORSH/1LL VERIF1'RECOMMENDAnONB NOTED IN THE GEO
r — — _ — _ I / ' TECHNICAL REPORT PRIORroINSTALLATION OF IRE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS,
4. CO MRAGTOasRAND SAVERIFYCGORDINATESANO LOCATION DIMENSONe
OF RESENIDING AND RTO FOR RENENANOPPPROVPLBYTHEOWNERS
REPREBENTAnVE PRIOR wsTA .N OF FOOTING MATERIALS.
5. LOCA�ONG OF STRUCTURE �,RCADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GOITERS,
BOLIARDS, AND WALKS ARE APP—MAM AND SHALL BE GTAKED IN THE FIELD,
PRIONRTO EE IRNNSTAOUAT0 FORREMEWMDAPPROVALBYTHE
ENGU
B. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE
TOFACEOFCONCRETEFOUND DN.LOCATIONOFBUIIDINGISTOBUIIDING
I1 U MAINTENANCE BEN TOUNBATION AND SHALL BE ASSHOWN ON THE DPAWINGS.
1 / CONTRACTOR $THEHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED
FOR REVIEW AND MPROVPLBYTHEENGINEERrt.WDBWPEARGHREGTPRIOR
I. OFABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT VIRYTERIALS SUCH V
I ^ / AS, BUT NOTLIMITED TO WE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS,W LLS,
PS, AND LIGHT
REGIONAL POND BASINt RNHNGS,BENCHES, FIAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMJ
U / / MATERIALS
POLESTH . E OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED
OP.EoSOT=859.00 ATERIALS NOT PRcuaB BAREVIOUSLs sY APPROVED.
=eGDc PEOEsmI•N eCATED DomE . a
� xnu w BE nsTRucTEDwrtx TRUNN Fes..
MAX 4.1 SLOPE I LANDING AREAS IN ACCOROANCEwRH ADA REOUIaEMENTSSEE I—L Z
j u7
B. CROGSWAIN STRIPING SHALL BE N'WIDF WHRE PANTED HNE SPACED 4B• ON A\ Ui N
( VA // ; CENTER PERPENDICUTARTO MEFLOWOFTRAMIC.WTDTHOFCROSEWALK Y/ C
Y ` FUTURE STREET / �% _^^ SHALLSE5'WTDE.ALLOTHER PAVEMENT MMKINGB SHALL BE WHITE IN DOLOR Q F
STRUOTON, UNLESS NOTED OR REQUIRED BY OR LOCAL GOVERNING L O
Z
g \ \ \_—' _ 10. SEESITEPIPN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE TAPER BEWCEN CURB TYPEssEEBAIL
Z d W
r �7
4/�/ iU♦11. ALL CURB RADII ME MINIMUM B' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. g Q >
`RF - 'LOT CORNER 1E. OCHRRAcroRSHALL REFER TOFIN&PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, Z G
FALLS IN DITCH AREvsanD OIMENSM)NS PRIOR TO SITE ImaaoVEmaNTs. Lu=
''/ ORTh; ��✓� / ♦ - 13. REIDPLVERIFYE%ISTINGSITECONEI LONG, DIMENSIONS. O ❑ CZ9
14. PMgNGISTOBESETPARAUEL OR PERPENOICUTARTO E NG BUILDING K
Y' •� BIT. SURMOUNTBLE ♦ NLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. < > O
EASi.ROW, ��� ^\\® _ ----- ♦ LLPMNG LOT PAINT STWPPING TO BE WHIT4' E, WIOE 11
TPR
_ ��� \\` ♦ I t. SITU MMINOUSPAVINGTOSE "LIGHT DUTY• UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BEE = Q
\ f ETAILSHEETSFORPM/ MENTSECTIONS. UI
'f ¢¢ /�/ \` em=_ = „ram—� � \\ \® ♦� tI MA ALL TREES THAT ME TO RE N ME TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH
/ / °m------------_ +�� \ `mow`♦ FUTURE STREET CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDS—E DOCUMENTS.
TYYp STRDGTDN
SITE PLAN LEGEND:
\ ' WHr DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE
V�/ Pip/ / XIbT.ROW, /\`' A, 41.
.,:. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE&
0� I �\ . 0 WEAN
couRSE DEPTH, SEE OEAnL.
�mm`'"%° / sloEwAuc �♦ �. ���,yC. HEAw DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE
C1P/ 1/ maw `mm Rz+mom'' / ryp, ; / ��\` GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE R
JWEAN COURSE DEPTH, SEE CETNL.NN
CONCRETE PAVEMFNTAS SPECIFIED (PAD OR—) UNOEa nTEOF
j �/ p '�/ c�a°sm°°4 p,, / �,�__ -' i �♦ / r !+,\ \\o.` SEEGEOMCHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE
PRONIBETEPERTY
DEPTHS, BEE DETNL
WETLAND 9 ♦ �'� R �� \4j ��` PROPERTr LINE Msws.No.
�1P,
/ ' °°a< 6¢ ♦, / \ tiP` \ �jH �. a� III IIIIN wnsTRucnon uMHs
J
/
// / T I• P ♦ �• //\ / \j ��\ CURBMDGUTIERSEE NOTES RC.)FI OUT
To GDTTERWHEREAPPLICABLESEEPLAN
ISSUESUBMITTALSUMMARY
i / / /' �. ,u°= '�� ' Yoh;'/♦{�_' / _ _ 1EM MAP.,cam \Np �`
/ / / / / L` %� /♦ / / �` B, z0w E EFFEcM8ERnuE DAs o<FSE. aw \R�, wow TRAFFIC DIRECTIONALMaow PAVEMENTMARKINcs m" p�ue•
/./% / / -- ---" _�� ,♦/ / j \\ SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.
✓// / /--__----- -- �� /% ; ' *� // '�� / HC=ACCEBBIBLESIGN
NP= NOPAN(ING FIRE LANE
O �I• ,j '' 1 \ '\ 1 CP=COMPACTCMPAR—ONLY
1a MAINTENANCE BENCH I Q, WETLAND
S. F
REGICNALPOND RASIN2 ZONE X R y j ttRUN
0N5UMMARV
NVrL=90E.o0 l^ / PG:j ' nAre4az mt o.rzz onznmmi c y
V _=( H.00-OU815 � ' z SURMOUNTABLE
VOL=a905.0090].00)=45,DHO CF es ham ,%ammo I e&G, TIP.
MAz i SLOPE<nm��e ooe7Re� .mm P
.......... � � �'�'�,' / -_� P ° u1. CONSTRUCTIONLIMITS NORTH SITE PLAN
,
RETAINING p
I FENCE, rm. - T /� /�
- xnPwall bef BIDw. r=4B•m / . /
ZONF�♦I .�n, WETLAND �% 4rsc Call betoreyou dig. sna® L L
Municode
http: //library municode.com/print. aspx?h=&clientlD=143 56&HTNMeque...
Sec. 90-324. - Park dedication.
(a) General dedication standards. In order to develop a system of parks within the community to serve
the public's health and recreational needs, a percentage of the net buildable acreage based on the
density of all land subdivided for residential purposes shall be dedicated to the city as public
parkland. The city finds that the more dense a development is, the more demand for park land it
creates since lots can be smaller affording less private recreational space and more occupants per
acre. The following formula will be used to determine the dedication requirement where a land
dedication is required:
Density
Percentage of Land to be Dedicated (of the buildable land)
0-3.99 units per acre
10 percent
4.00-5.99 units per acre
11 percent
6.00-7.99 units per acre
13 percent
8.00-9.99 units per acre
15 percent
10.00 < units per acre
17 percent
The land so dedicated shall be subject to approval by the city council in accordance with the city's
Comprehensive Plan for parks. At the city council's discretion, a parkland dedication fee may be accepted
or required instead of or connection with land dedication. The parkland dedication fee shall be set annually
by the city council and adopted as part of the city's fee schedule. The parkland dedication fee shall be
charged for each dwelling unit originated by the subdivision or development of any property in the city, not
including any dwelling unit that may be in existence at the time of the adoption of the ordinance from which
this article is derived, or which is subject to an approved development agreement with the city that includes
a parkland dedication provision.
(b) Appeal process. The parkland dedication fee may be appealed to the city council before the city
council makes a decision on the final plat and shall be calculated as follows: The percentage of land
to be dedicated will be multiplied by the fair market value of the net buildable acreage.
The fair market value shall be determined by the city council, following their review of a current
appraisal submitted to the city at the developer's expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who
are approved members of the SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies.
If the city receives written notice of a dispute over the parkland dedication fee before approval of the
final plat, the developer shall pay the fee into an escrow account pending a decision of an appeal of the
fee. If an appeal is not filed within 60 days following approval of the final plat, or if the person aggrieved by
the fee does not prevail on the appeal, then the funds paid into escrow must be transferred to the city.
(Prior Code, § 1215-040.1; Ord. No. 2010-449, § 1, 11-15-2010)
1 of 1 10/5/2012 2:23 PM
1 e �
Bald
Eagle
Lake
1
159>n
♦ One Lake
— —1
, 1 I ♦
1 , 1 ♦I
6' o° 0 151St
3.0 �
2 , U 150th
o,
�
�
1
1
1
1
1
1s
Ith
(F�
1
�
1
Round
Lake
Lake
CITY QFF
IU
EST. 1906
Existing and Proposed
Trails Map
City Park
DNR Wildlife Management Area (WMA)
Undeveloped City Property
Regional Trail - Existing
Regional Trail - Proposed
City Trail - Existing
City Trail - Proposed
Sidewalks
Municipal Boundary
Q 2040 MUSA Boundary
Parcels
Open Water
Streams and Ditches
Street
0 0.25 0.5 1 O
Miles NORTH
3/4/2019 Map 6-7
th
trF
17 Tth
orses
-T7
d
k
fi
0165h—,
-L
JE
159m
o
_
d
Onek Lake
01
15MI
15 th
e`
e
155th
h
i
15,
'1
77�
Central Anoka County
g ��o
a�
-
®®
Regional Trail
o
147th
V,cbr �
Egg
lasth
Rice
Lake
e
ose
Lake
Y
e
1�
0
1 th
�3
Pak Lake
Bn F
7th
z
ca dbe
136111
e
h SC 0
�ay8o�\ever
'� 'on L
th Sch
tion Lak
- - ❑
13 fi
1
,
w 128
1 6th
Sunset
i
w
Gallivan
Lake
o a
125th
Bald
24a,
Eagle
Lake
'd
� 12�a
12 nd
Round
-
-y
1s
9 tie
er Head d�
Lake _
CITY QF
EST. 1906
Existing Trails and
Sidewalks Map
City Park
DNR Wildlife Management Area (WMA�
Undeveloped City Property
Regional Trail
City Trail
Sidewalks
Municipal Boundary
M 2040 MUSA Boundary
C Parcel
Open Water
— Streams and Ditches
Street
0 0.25 0.5 1 O
Miles NORTH
31412019 Map 2-2
Future Park in Adelaide Landing
Playground Preferences
Updated May 15, 2020
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
Resident
Notes
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
Jon Corcoran
Flagship Recreation #1 (Wave)
Maria Rubbelke
love the versatility it provides with many different "play" components from slides to rock walls, offering something fun for a variety of ages
Flagship Recreation #2 (Venti)
Elizabeth and Rob Bovee
13042 Fondant Tr. N
instead of the tire swing would prefer a number of regular kid swings
MN/WI #1(lonix)
Flagship Recreation #1 (Wave)
Vicki
because of the swing set, wave because center structure looks more toddler friendly
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
St. Croxi Rec (Level X)
Meghan Tripp
*see email, was also in meeting
Flagship Recreation #1 (Wave)
Lori Mcnamara
MN/WI #2 (Xscape)
Lee Dordal
would seem to have the best assortment of equipment to meet the needs of children in a range of ages
St. Croxi Rec (Level X)
MN/WI #2 (Xscape)
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
Sandy Steffan
called
really needs swings though. But structure great for big kids. Likes climbing things for her teen grandkids
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
Flagship Recreation #1 (Wave)
MN/WI #1(lonix)
Karen Hayes
called
Needs swings, zipling, shade, wants younger kid area
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
Dufranse Family
in meeting
like zipline, group sing, tall slides, worried about zipline in middle
Flagship Recreation #2 (Venti)
Englemeyers
in meeting
like swing mix, wants toddler slides, likes todder area, likes zipline, worried about zipline location, likes disc sing
Ultimate Recreation #3 (Space Net)
Flagship Recreation #2 (Venti)
Rudi Destics
in meeting
kid wants to be able to stand on zipline
Flagship Recreation #2 (Venti)
Ultimate Recreation #3
Sarah Strate
in meeting
likes FIR #2 but with normal swings, nervous about mid zip in Ult #3, wants pull up bars
Keep Pickleball courts
Lori Mcnamara
Thinks neighbors would like dog park
Roger Schwinghammer
Summary:
UR Space Net: 5 votes
1 vote
1 vote
7 votes total
FR Venti: 3 votes
1 vote
4 votes total
FIR Wave: 2 votes
2 votes
4 votes total
St.0 R Leve X: 1 vote
1 vote
2 votes total
MN/WI lonix: 1 vote
1 vote
2 votes total
MN/WI Xscape: 1 vote
11 vote
12 votes total
From:
Jon Corcoran
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Playground Input
Date:
Tuesday, April 21, 2020 8:54:34 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hey,
Looking at the models - my favorite look is the space net design. It looks the most appealing
to me if i had to chose one.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Get Outlook for Android
From:
Maria Bothwell
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Hugo Playground Vote
Date:
Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:02:28 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello!
My vote is for the Flagship Recreation "Wave" design. I love the versatility it provides with many different "play"
components from slides to rock walls, offering something fun for a variety of ages!
Maria Rubbelke, Hugo Resident
From:
Lori Mcnamara
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Adelaide Landing
Date:
Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:12:04 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Please don't change the pickle ball court into a tennis court. There are so many young families in this area with lots
for them to do as per the proposal ... but don't forget about the large number of retired elderly crowd. They need
movement too! Thanks!
Sent from my Whone
From:
Sarah Strate
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Adelaide Landing playground
Date:
Thursday, May 7, 2020 8:34:28 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hello!
I am a resident of Adelaide Landing. My husband, Jason, and I attended the zoom meeting
about the playground. I just wanted to send an email to let you know what our preferences are
for the playground that will be put in.
We liked the Ultimate Playgrounds #3 (Space Nets), and both Flagship Recreation ones. My
preference is the Wave one (in part, because of the coloring, in addition to its features), but I
like the blue climber in the Venti, as a more varied age group can use it.
Some things I have heard in talking with neighbors, and were also shared during the meeting,
are as follows:
• As a whole, we would prefer a tennis court to a pickleball court. I know the issue of
fencing was brought up, but I think it would get more use as a tennis court, even if that
means a fence needs to be put up.
• Most of our residents are families, with parents in their 30's - 40's. We have a lot of very
young children, several in the 7-10 range, and several teenagers. We want to make sure
that we have activities that will be appropriate (and safe) for all different ages. I know
even the adults would like to be able to have at least one piece of equipment they can
use to do some sort of pull-ups on too.
• Swings are something that seem to be somewhat lacking in all the designs. I know there
was one that had an all -abilities swing, as well as toddler swings, but none of them had
regular swings for the older children. Swings offer a lot for large motor development, in
addition to brain development. It is also a soothing/calming activity for children, teens,
and adults. Here's an article talking about all the benefits of swinging and other types of
playground play: hUs://www.canr.msu.edu/news/just-a-swinging-sliding-and-climbing
• I know there were a lot of safety concerns with the zipline going across the middle of a
couple of designs. It looks like that may have been adjusted some, as I only saw it in one
remaining design.
• Several of the designs have a lot of nets or rope features. I think we need to be careful
with these, as we have so many young children that could fall through, or get hurt on
these features. The number of rope or cable features should be limited.
I know you were also looking for possible names for the park. Two neighbors have suggested
ideas that would be cute. One was "Dragonfly Park". I like this idea, as it ties the sign at the
entrance of our neighborhood in with the park. Another was "Kangaroo Krossing", since we
are Adelaide Landing, and Adelaide is in Australia. I thought both were cute, and wasn't sure
if they had been shared with you or not.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sarah Strate
From:
Elizabeth Bovee
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Fwd: Adelaide Landing Park -vote
Date:
Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:07:04 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Good Morning Shayla,
Thank you for taking community input on the park design.
We prefer the Venti option but instead of the tire swing would prefer a number of regular kid
swings.
But we are just glad to have something there eventually!!
Best,
Elizabeth and Rob Bovee
13042 Fondant Tr. N
From: nounieyCalgmail.com
To: Shayla Denaway
Subject: Playground Input
Date: Monday, April 13, 2020 3:26:15 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Hi Shayla,
I live in the Adelaide landing neighborhood and wanted to provide input for the proposed playgrounds. I like the
ionic and the wave. The iconic because of the swing set and the wave because the center structure looks more
toddler friendly.
Thanks,
Vicki
From:
Meghan Tripp
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Adelaide Landing Park Input
Date:
Wednesday, April 15, 2020 2:31:05 PM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Ultimate playgrounds #3 space net
Shayla,
Thanks for the opportunity to have some input on the park in the
neighborhood. My kids (4 & 7) are so excited to have it built and get
to play, hopefully this summer.
As a teacher with summers off I've had the chance to take my kids to
so many of the hugo and surrounding parks. Based on this and what I
know kids will have interest in the longest I would love to see the
Ultimate playgrounds #3 "space net" in Adelaide Landing. I think it
has really good longevity for kids at higher ages, but still looks
good for some of the littlest ones. There isn't a zipline at parks in
the area and this plan has the best zipline out of the bunch. I also
like that it has swings of various types and the rope pyramid is more
fun for kids than the rope wall that is pictured in the Robinia
version.
My concerns about the "space net" is the toddler area and the zipline
placement. The toddler area doesn't seem that engaging and from my
experience my kids would not have played with something like that.
Little houses or tunnels for toddlers are much more engaging.
Additionally, with the zipline through the middle of the park, even
though it makes for the best zipline, it is a safety issue. Kids will
have a hard time moving from one side of the park to another if kids
are on the zipline. They have to walk around and can't run as freely.
All of the options seem great, but I know my kids would love to see a
really cool zipline as well as lots of swings.
Thanks,
Meghan Tripp
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Lori Mcnamara
To:
Shayla Denaway
Subject:
Playground
Date:
Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:17:32 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Flagship Recreation Wave
Sent from my iPhone
From: Shayla Denaway
To: "Lee Dordal"
Subject: RE: Adelaide Landing - Park
Date: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:41:55 AM
Hi Lee,
Thanks for taking a look at the plans! I will be sure to pass your preference on to the Parks
Commission. This situation is a bit different for us. Normally, the Parks Commission would hear the
proposals and go over them with the neighborhood face-to-face. The Commission is going to give
people a bit longer to look at the plans online and make their decision at their May 20 meeting. We
are on track to complete the park in Adelaide Landing this summer.
If you have any ideas for a name for the park, they are also seeking help picking that out.
Thanks again for your input!
Shayla Denaway
PARKS PLANNER
CITY OF HUGO - MINNESOTA
14669 Fitzgerald Ave. N., Hugo, MN 55038
o: 651.762.6342 1 www.ci.hugo.mn.us
From: Lee Dordal [mailto:leedordal@gmail.coml
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 10:27 AM
To: Shayla Denaway <SDenaway@ci.hugo.mn.us>
Subject: Adelaide Landing - Park
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Shayla —
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed park plans. They are all very reasonable,
but we prefer the MN/WI plan D10112B — Xscape. It would seem to have the best assortment of
equipment to meet the needs of children in a range of ages.
Thanks again.
Lee Dordal
5422 130th Way N
Hugo, MN 55038
Leedordal(@Gmail.com
651.235.7479
Vehicular Circulation & Parking
Main park access off of Fitzgerald, 147th & Finale Ave. N.
Fitzgerald connects all the way through with the parking lot
designed to cut the flow / slow traffic.
90 Degree Parking along Upper 146th ST. N.
Approximate total of 1 60-1 70 parking stalls. {
ENTRY
Pedestrian Circulation
Entry plaza spaces along corners to emphasize entering the
park
Internal and external pedestrian loops.
Park Amenities
Main Park Pavilion:
Picnic Space
Warming House / Community Room
Restrooms
Community Sports Pad:
Tennis
Basketball
Pickleball
Various Open Lawn Spaces (size and location)
Active recreational amenities placed along perimeter of park.
lip
,.n
PLAYGROUND EXAMPLES
PAVILION EXAMPLES
{
SPLASH PAD EXAMPLES
T1
Z
D
r
m
m
Q
PLAYGROUND
(APPROP IATE FOR WIDE
RANGE OF AGE GROUPS AND
ABILITIES)
11
a...
ENTRY PLAZA 1
r
i
r
TI
z
D
D
{
m
Z
SPLASH PAD /
COMMUNITY PLAZA
147TH ST N
COMMUNITY
SPORTS PAD
;KING (23)
AMPHITHEATER /
STAGE
OPEN SKATING
FIRE PIT
MEMORIAL
UPPER 146TH ST. N.
ENTRY PLAZA:
• TRUCK ACCESS FOR GOOD
i
NEIGHBOR DAYS
MAIN ENTRANCE TO OPEN FIELDS
OPEN FIELD
i
OPEN LAWNd`$�l'�I SKATE PARK
PARKING (28)
PARKING (28)
Woo I L6111111111110
t
� j
;ONS PAR
—CONNECTION TO
REGIONAL TRAIL
o so' ioo
Scale: I" = 50'
2
0
U
C7
z
W
m
u,
C
00
a
a
Cl)
Z
u?
J
0
a
a
W
z
z
0
co
W
7)
U)
T
W
D
Z
W
a
a
z
W
x
0
wsb
March 25, 2020
Shayla Denaway
Parks Planner
City of Hugo
14669 Fitzgerald Avenue North
Hugo, MN 55038
Re: Lions Park Feasibility Proposal
Dear Shayla:
am pleased to submit this letter proposal on behalf of WSB to the City of Hugo (City) for the
Lions Park Feasibility Study.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is our understanding the City of Hugo seeks a masterplan and cost estimate update for Lions
Park. The process related to the site work will also be coordinated with Mark Erichson who is
leading a separate street feasibility study, to include on -street parking and street utilities adjacent
to Lions Park. As part of the master plan update, we will collaborate with Mark to guide optimal
placement of on -street parking and connectivity to the site (both pedestrian and vehicular). We
anticipate this work will be completed within 3 months of contract approval.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following scope of services is meant to provide the City with the steps necessary to complete
the feasibility study.
A. Site Review and Topographic Survey: WSB will set up project base map documents and
identify/confirm existing site conditions to conduct the feasibility study to include:
a. Site Analysis: WSB will review the extents of the project site based on the
adopted masterplan and other information / desires gathered at the kickoff
meeting. This will allow our team to gain an up to date understanding of existing
conditions and potential opportunities / constraints related to the desired
improvements
b. Topographic Base Survey: WSB will prepare a site topographic survey illustrating
existing site development and elevations. This will provide the team with a
higher level of detail for reviewing and updating the master plan and will also
serve as the basis for final design and construction in later phases following the
scope of this proposal. Note: a boundary/property line survey is not included.
B. Preliminary Feasibility: WSB will refine the master plan based on the confirmed or refined
information collected through the steps above. An updated cost estimate will also be
developed. This is expected to include:
a. Kick-off Meeting with key city staff to review and confirm project goals, timeline,
key stakeholders and to collect city perspectives on revisions to plan elements or
other opportunities that should be considered. Meeting notes will be collected,
summarized and distributed to attendees.
b. Updated master plan graphic.
c. Preliminary stormwater management strategy.
d. Cost estimate.
G:\Group Data\Municipal\Clients - Cities - Counties\Hugo\Proposals\LTR PROPOSAL - Lions Park Feasibility_2020-0325.docx
Shayla Denaway
March 25, 2020
Page 2
e. One (1) city staff review meeting (Zoom) of the preliminary master plan will be
held to review and discuss the plans and collect feedback on direction of
elements that may need further refinement or consideration of
sequenced/phased approach. Meeting notes will be collected, summarized and
distributed to attendees.
C. Final Feasibility: Based on the feedback from city staff, WSB will prepare final revisions
for an updated Master Plan to include:
a. Final illustrative master plan graphic.
b. Proposed design direction (may include photos or sketches).
c. Stormwater management strategy.
d. Cost estimate.
e. One (1) city staff review meeting (Zoom) of the final master plan.
f. Memo identifying the final approved master plan with summary of
recommendations, phasing approach (if applicable), and estimate.
D. Optional Service — Visualization / 3d Rendering: As an optional service, WSB can
develop a photo realistic rendition of the proposed park site illustrating several views.
E. Additional Services: Services other than those listed in the Scope of Services above and
requested and authorized in writing by the City. These services shall be billed on an
hourly basis according to the current Hourly Rate Schedule.
FEE PROPOSAL
It is proposed that the Scope of Services to be billed on an hourly not to exceed basis as follows:
Task A (Survey): $7,000
Task B (Preliminary Feasibility): $5,000
Task C (Final Feasibility): $3,000
Total: $15,000
Optional Task D: (Visualization): $4,000
If you are in agreement with the terms as outlined above, please sign where indicated below and
return one copy to our office.
Sincerely,
Candace Amberg, PLA
Project Manager
ACCEPTED BY:
City of Hugo
Name/Title:
Signature:
Date:
G:\Group Data\Municipal\Clients - Cities - Counties\Hugo\Proposals\LTR PROPOSAL - Lions Park Feasibility_2020-0325.docx