The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP March 8, 2001 '\ " ) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 5, Discuss Proposed 2001 Trail Fee '6, Discuss Position of Park & Recreation Director , . .... - , 7, Discuss Fencing Guidelines For Ball Fields AtVarious Parks j 8, Discuss the Selling and Leasing of Park Property 9, Discuss 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Plan 10, Discuss 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Equipment Replacernent Plan' , ' 11. Discuss 5 Year Trail Improvement PlanlTrail Fund 12, Discuss the Purchase of Andover Lake ~ .. '1 CITY of ANDOVER / I 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and Park & Recreation Commission ,/ FROM: Scott Ericksol!lgity Engineer CC: DATE: March 8, 2001 REFERENCE: Additional Information -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- " , J Attached is additional information for tonight's joint meeting regarding Item #2 Discuss Mitigation Sites/00-18/Andover Boulevard Extension. / 03/07/2001 WCV 16:4~ t'AX IgJ UU.L/ UUJ * \. AlrS~tJ FAX TRANSMITTAL / 3535 Vadnais Cenler Drive, SI. Paul, MN 5511()'5196 651,490,2000 800,325.2055 651.490.2150 FAX o FIELD OFFICE: -..-- S€H FILe NO: AANDOYOO02:.!!1_ ~._._- ~--- ---.-.----..-.. ..-- ~. DATE: , ..._ _,__March 7. 200!.. _____ FROM: Todd Blank -. ---"- ....--.- -- TOTAL PAGES: 3 ----" .. .-.--. (Including COVS' sMst) o URGENT ATTENTION: Scott Erickson _.. ..' CO/ORGANIZATION: 9tY.,~,( Andover - - FAX NO: 763-755-8~n ___ TELEPHONE: 763-755-8923 SUBJECT: Wetland Site Evaluation -.-- REMARKS: ./ Original schedule (currently outdatcd by 3 - 4 weeks) and revised schedule. Revised schedules puts us in a less desirable bidding climate, and carries construction into July of 2002. Additional costS to revise wetland sites, including borings, surveys, wetland replacement design and permitting would be approximately $12,500 to $15,000. Please call me to discuss further. We are o Sending original by moil . Sanding by FAX o"ly Cl Sending BS requested For your . In(ormelloNRsoords Cl Review anri commenr o Approval o Acrlon Cl Ois/rieution o RevIsion and rssubm/rm/ If transmission wes not racsivsd propsrly, plesse conlllct the sender at the phone numbsr above. WE REOUEST A RESPONSe FROM YOU 8Y: ...~ Short Elliott Hendrick9Cln Inc. . Offices located lhroughoul the Upper Midwest , Equal Opportuni' , Employer We Ilerp YOII plan, dt>'ix". UIld u,'hlev. ---- _. . UJ/U,/ZUUl WeV lij:4~ i'All. ~UUZ/UUJ ~ ANDOVER,MN 03/07/2001 ANDOVER BOULEVARD EXTENSION CITY PROJECT NO. 00-18 I SAP 198-110-01 AN DOV0002 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE (Revised for additional Mitigation Site Evaluation) STS Completes Soil Borings. provides to SEH January 26, 2001 Review Soil Borings,'ldentify Wetland Replacement Site(s) January 31,2001 Survey Wetland Replacement Site(s) February 9, 2001 Submit Plans to Anoka County February 9, 2001 Completed Additional Wetland Borings March, 2001 Delineate & Survey Additional Wetland Site(s) April, 2001 Prepare Wetland Replacement Plan May, 2001 Submit COE and CCWD Permit Applications May, 2001 Submit Plans to Mn/DOT State Aid May, 2001 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Authorizes May, 2001 Advertisement for Bids Advertise in Anoka County Union & Construction Bulletin June, July; 2001 Receive Bids July, 2001 City Council Awards Contract August, 2001 (Depending Upon Permits) * Contractor Begins Construction * AugusVSept.,2001 Contractor Substantially Completes Construction July, 2002 Contractor Completes Construction July, 2002 q:\civil\clients\a.. th ru_f\and ov\0002 -sch \I otus\pssch M~O ~~ ~~~1 1~.~O ccr::c Ct"'J UJ/Uj/~UUl WhV lij:4~ i'A.\. 141 UUJ/UUJ , ANDOVER,MN 03/07/2001 ANDOVER BOULEVARD EXTENSION \ CITY PROJECT NO. 00-18 / SAP 198-110-01 ANDOVOO02 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE lC)r'~/'),^ l ':=;<.J,\,~Ll e ) STS Completes Soil Borings, provides to SEH January 26, 2001 Review Soil Borings, Identify Wetland Replacement Site(s) January 31, 2001 Survey Wetland Replacement Site(s) February 9,2001 Submit Plans to Anoka County February 9, 2001 Prepare Wetland Replacement Plan February 16, 2001 Submit COE and CCWD Permit Applications February 16, 2001 Submit Plans to Mn/DOT State Aid February 16, 2001 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Authorizes March 6, 2001 Advertisement for Bids Advertise in Anoka County Union & Construction Bulletin March 9, 16, 23, 2001 Receive Bids March 30, 2001 City Council Awards Contract April 3 or 17, 2001 (Depending Upon Permits) * Contractor Begins construction* May, 2001 Contractor Substantially Completes Construction September, 2001 Contractor Completes Construction October, 2001 q:\civil\clien ts\a.Jh ru_t\andov\0002 -sch \lotus\pssch MAR ~? ?~~1 1S:SQ PAr;1=,~" , ~) u (5) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 8, 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Scott Erickso~ Engineering" . ITEM NO. 2. Discuss Mitigation Sites/00-18/Andover Boulevard Extension The City Council and Park Board are requested to review the status of the wetland replacements relative to the Andover Boulevard project. This discussion will revolve around what type of wetland replacement was proposed for the Kelsey Park site along with a preliminary review of five other locations looked at last week. We need to proceed expeditiously with this issue and to determine if additional sites should be evaluated. A joint discussion on this issue with the Council and Park Board will provide the direction necessary to continue forward with this project. We will have a representative from our consulting firm, S,E.H" available to better define what is being planned for the wetland , replacement and provide insight into the other factors necessary for a successful wetland mitigation. This should be an informative discussion for all parties and will hopefully facilitate direction on this issue. / 03/05/01 MON 15:38 FAX 651 490 2150 SEH U ~001 " "I"" \../ ) ~SEtl FAX TRANSMITTAL 3535 Vadnais Cent., Ome, 200 SEH Cent.., Sl Paul. MN 55110-5118 651,490.2000 800.325.2055 651.490,2150 FAX o FIELD OFFICE: SEH FILE NO: DATE: 3/5/01 \ FROM: ( () (.::> 0 .~l:::>l// ('-,- - TOTAL PAGE'S: ~ (lttaudlng co....., Sheer) o URGENT ATTENTION: S-l'1xr- f r-~c., Cc.-.s.O C) COIORGANlZAT/ON: ~ A-.,.~~~ FAX NO: '9fo "> - S - <i?1:?? TELEPHONE: ,- SUBJECT: - - .0. .. - .. REMARKS: -.. - " . - -" ----- - . --- -..- ,- - --- '- ... . .' - ..----- -...... .---,.. - -- .-_. ..... --' .- - 0"--- ~...----- ,- -" -.---- .- M_"- - -' -- .. .-..-- - ,--.- '. ." We an! o Sena;ng orlg;nal by mafl 0 Senrling by FAX only 0 Sending 8S requestea For your o Informa/ionIReeord$ 0 Review and !;ommenl 0 Approval o Action 0 o;srribu/ion 0 Revision ana resabm;tt.I If /nnsm{u/on was nDC roco;ved proporly, please !;Dntact the sender at the phone number above WE REQUEST A RESPONSE FROM YOU BY: -, - c:.\tcmp"nl\~r:!\c...lt.lw: dot "'>. S~ert Ellioll Hendrickson Jne, . OIlices IocB1ed lhro~ghoullh. upper MidV'iesl . EqU3 Oppertunity Employer WI' help J'f?I~ plat'. Ji:~ig"~ tfna IleJ,il'Vt MAR 05 2001 15:40 651 490 2150 PAGE.01 03/05/01 MON 15:38 FAX 651 490 2150 SEH (,J :-J ~002 " l~i~,.:\'^1 Wetland Mitigation Sites Preliminary Evaluation ~~~j Area Pro's Con's @ Timber Trails - Isolated location - Very permeable soils Park - Large area for mitigation (little runoff) - Good access - Limit surface water hydrology - Park enhancement (small watershed) 8) Timber Rivers - Near Rum River - High ground Park - Good access - Shoreland Protection Zone - Park enhancement considerations (300' from River) - May require substantial excavation - Unknown watertable - Limited watershed (l) Fire Station - Isolated area - Extensive excavation (:::: >10 feet Site - Surface water supply in some areas) - Low topography - Fair access - Condusive soils - High watertables ''(3) Strootman - Near Rum River - Limited acreage Park - Easy access - Limited Watershed (very small) - Existing wetland - Developed park - Restoration of disturbed - Wetland hydrology questionable wetland area - Good soils (silty) @) Kelsey Round - Existing wetlands - Unknown watertab1e conditions Lake Park - Good access - Disturbance vegetation may - Substantial acreage invade constructed wetland - Good location - Unknown soils - Limited excavation to construct - Flat area - not much surface wetland water input - Higher watertables (at least through existing soil borings) - Good habitat development area / A-ANDOVOOO2.01 Task 51WOO MAR 05 2001 15:40 651 490 2150 PAGE. 02 \ / '1 ~) \ / CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE March 8, 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED tn FOR AGENDA Planning ITEM Jeff Johnson tn Zoning Administrator BY: Approve Resolution Serong Park (}). Dedication Fees 2001 Please find attached a resolution for approval (based on a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission) to increase the residential park dedication fees from $1300 per unit to $2100 per unit for 200l. / / MOTION BY: SECOND BY: , \.'-"') "j CITY OF ANDOVER I COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR CASH IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION (PARK LAND). The City Council of the City of Andover hereby resolves: Cash in Lieu of Land Dedication (Residential) Single Family Residence $2,100 per unit Town Home and Twin Home $2,100 per unit Apartment (Multi-Family) $2,100 per unit Lot Splits $2,100 per unit These fees shall be effective March 9, 2001 and shall be paid prior to the final plat being recorded at the County. / Adopted by the City Council ofthe City of Andover on this _ day of , 2001. ATTEST: CITY OF ANDOVER Victoria V olk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor . \ '\ </ "-/ ANDOVER PARK COMMISSION \, / REQUEST FOR PARK RECOMNENDA71ON DATE March 1, 2001 ITEM ~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Dis ' ~eSidential Park Planning ~I~dication Fees 2001 BY: Jeff Johnson, Zoning Administrator , - Please find below and attached information the Park and Recreation Com mission requested regarding residential park dedication fees. The fees for the communities researched have substantially increased the past year. , Discussions with the Anoka County Assessor indicate that raw land in the urban area that is prime for residential development is at a minimum of $35,000 per acre. Andover Land Sales Year Development Price Per Acre 2000 Woodland Estates 2nd $34,700 , 1999 Fox Hollow 30,901 1998 None Source: I Anoka County Property Records and Taxation Staff Recommendation $1650 - $1700 fee per unit for 2001. \ '\ ,-/ ~- ) Sheet1 , RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION FEES (PER UNIT) 2001 CITY SINGLE TWIN/TOWN APTS 2000 FEE FAMILY ANDOVER 1300 1300 1300 1300 BLAINE , 1379 1379 1379 1300 BROOKLYN PARK 1500 1500 1500 1300 CHASKA 1500 1500 1500 1200 CHANHASSEN 1500 1500 1500 1,000 EDEN PRAIRIE 2100 2100 2100 1850 ELK RIVER 1470 1470 1470 1100 I MAPLE GROVE 1950 1950 1950 1125 PLYMOUTH 2000 2000 20001 1600 SAVAGE 1600 1600 16001 1000 WOODBURY I 1500 1500 15001 1000 I I I I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I 1 1 ANDOVER FEES 2001 I I 1 2.1 UNITS PER ACRE (DENSITY) $35,000 AVERAGE PER ACRE LAND COSTS $1650.00 - $1 ,700.00 PER UNIT / Page 1 \j " / LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates I 2140 FOURTH AVE:'-IUE NORTH Legal Assistant ANOKA. Mlt-.'NESOTA 55303 WILLIAM G, HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES PHONE (763) 427-8877 FAX (763)421-4213 BARRY A. SULUVAN E-MAIL HawkLaw1@aoLcom RECEIVED February 26, 2001 FEB 2 7 2001 Mr. Dave Carlberg CITY OF ANDOVER City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Park Dedication Dear Dave: Since the issue of park dedication fees has been frequently discussed in Andover, I thought it might be helpful to provide you with a copy of a thoughtful analysis of the park dedication requirements for the City of Lino Lakes. You'll note in the report it does make reference to the legal opinion from my office to Andover and therefore I felt it was appropriate to share the report with Andover. You may want to distribute copies of this to the park commission and council for their review and consideration. ~ , William G. Hawkins WGH/tju Enclosure '\ '-.j , ) \ , INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to the City of Lino Lakes concerning park and trail dedication standards and the ordinance amend ments 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 I 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 1 sl 2000 population estimate indicated the City's ... ,...~.. A , " '-. _J \ ~ ) J 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 1 st estimates from 1998 to 2000), The number of households within the City has increased by 249 households based upon the April 1 st 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 1ih Avenue) as contemplated by the Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan, The City will need to develop a funding mechanism to implement the 57-acre community athletic complex, , , 2 of 14 \ " ) \ .j STATUTE I 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 la'N, 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 purooses or for oublic use as parks. recreational facilities. olayarounds, trails. wetlands. or ooen space," The statute further provides that the municipality may: / a, 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 aoproval, b, any cash payments received sr.all be olaced 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 Bloominaton (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 dedi cation 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 miaht be arbitrarv as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the 3 of 14 , ~) 0 , , j 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, Tiqard (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 charqed for parks and the related impacts that are aenerated bv 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 provinq 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 reauirement. If the nexus can be demonstrated, the City must also demonstrate a "rouqh oroportionality" between the development and the City's dedication reauirement. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr, Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999), In 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 Wil/iam 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 p<ilrk 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 , , \ 0 '._.-J ..-,... \ 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 y.. 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. Neiahborhood 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 y.. to % 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 is 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 Plavtield / Athletic ComDlex, 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 I 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 \ ' \ \ ) \J ,'. I 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. .. ",,,-,,~.Iable1 1992 Park and Trail Comprehensive Plan Existing Future Total Acres Acres Acres Mini Parks 10,1 I 5,0 I 15,1 ' Neighborhood Parks 58,0 69.0 127,0 Communitv Parks 22,0 45,0 67,0 Communitv Plavfields I Athletic Comolexes I 47,0 83,0 130,0 Total City Parks I 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 I Total Miles J Park Trails (trails w/in linear trail corridors) I 14,1 Transportation Trails (located in r,o.w) I 29,2 Bike Routes (paved road shoulders) I 37.7 Total Trail Miles I 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 1-35E, 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 p,ark 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 , ~~ \,-~ , I Table 3 Park Type I Standard Range Existing Park Acres Mini Park I 0,25 - 0,5 acl1 000 3,76 to 7,5 acres 12,8 acres Neiohborhood Park 2.5 - 3,5 acl1000 37.5 to 52.5 87,5 acres Community Park 5 - 8 acl1000 75 to 120 acres 66 acres Athletic Complex 2,5 acl1000 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 ClearNater 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 NCirth 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 J 7 of 14 \ 0 '-) I PARK DEDICATION ANAL YSIS ~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 I RAW LAND VS VALUE AT FINAL PLAT LAND RAW LAND VALUE VALUE AT FINAL PLAT Typical vacant lot sales price $42,995 $ 28,000 p/acre - Tvpical development costs for utilities etc, (48% lot sales price) - 20,637 Or Lot cost + 20% profit $22,358 $14.000 p/lot * X 10% Park Dedication Fee X 10% X 10% Park Ded, Park dedication collected at the time affinal olat $ 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 I and is required. . L1NO 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 \ U '-_/ , 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 Value of Existing Park I % of, Value/Cost of Future % of System Value ,Facilities Total Park Facilities Total $22,909,399 I $8,964,566 I 39% I $13,944,833 61% Part of the park system analysis included ,8 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 I areas, improvements to existing parks should be borne by current residents within the. 9 of 14 \ \ '-) V / service area of the specific facility, Exhibit 0, Lino Lakes Parksrrrails 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. undersefYed 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 52,490,134 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. Table 6 PARK SYSTEM COSTS BY SERVICE AREAS Total Park and 50% of Total I Existing Development Future Trail System Cost System Cost Develo pment S8,964,566 (Value of Existing System) + 2,490,134 Nalue to meet 50% of Cost) $22,909,399 $11,454,700 $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% pf 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 resi dential 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 \ \ ,_.J '-J / 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 Plari. 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, 0.' 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 - Existinq Households 5,856 Future Households 11,454,700 (Total Future Park Cost) + 5,856 (Future Households) = $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 tei locate studies or guiderines 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. I . 11 of 14 \ / \ I \ j \.____i J 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 commercialfindustrial 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 % of its estimated saturation population of 30,000 people and 11 , 1 00 households. Based upon existing development, approximately 50% of the total park and traii 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 ~pecifying 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 S1,956 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 or- 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, AI! 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 0 - Lino Lakes - Park Trail Facilities Chart - 14 of 14 \ \ , ) Sheet1 '--- '\ LAND SALES FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES I , 1 I COMMUNITY IYEAR ACRES PRICE . PRICE/ACRE BLAINE 20001 391 1 ,65D,000 I 42,307 BLAINE 2000 45,5 1,822,726 40,059 BLAINE 1998 9 525,000 58,333 L1NO LAKES 2000 65 1,280,000 19,692 L1NO LAKES 2000. 35 810,700 23,162 UNO LAKES 1999 35 1,050,000 30,000 NOTE: IN L1NO LAKES THEY ARE DEVELOPING SOME MARGINAL LAND Page 1 , ) U \. / \ ~ CITY OF ANDOVER / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 8,2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd H~ Parks ITEM NO. 4. Discuss DNR Grants The Park & Recreation Commission has requested to discuss with the City Council the 2 DNR grants that were awarded to the City. If the City Council and Commission recalls, one grant was for an underpass at Bunker Lake Boulevard NW and the railroad tracks and the other was at Hanson Boulevard NW at the Andover Elementary School. There is some question as to how the underpasses are to be funded by the City. The City has received a letter (see attached) from the Anoka County Park and Recreation Department \ informing the City that financial assistance from the County will not be available at this time for , / the underpass under Bunker Lake Boulevard but Jon Von Delinde, Anoka County Park & Recreation Director, has indicated through verbal discussions with City staff and the Park Commission that their department would do the restoration (including topsoil, sodding, seeding & landscaping) at no charge to the City. The City Council would be responsible for funding and installing the underpass and the rough grading. Also, since the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard & Hanson Boulevard will be constructed with turn lanes and a new signal with ped crossing, the underpass for the Andover Elementary School probably would not be necessary. The grant awarded for each project is $50,000. Note: This was on the agenda at the joint meeting of October 19, 2000 but due to a lack of time, it was not discussed. / , \ " \ (j \..J ~!!. C--I7 u/.AY'o.:..ll " p.,.,.. r: MID f2ecreo.. ftOI1 Co.....,,}$, Anoka County I Department of Parks & Recreation 550 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW . Andover. Minnesota 55304 Telephone (612) 757-3920 . FAX (612) 755-0230 John K. VonDeLinde :"j-BlffJrfQ Director '" ~132iXXJ 7 CITY n~-"-; __,. \..;(,~ ll;,,i.r"~i""""~~; l-. October 10, 2000 --:.....:,';~ -: " / .. ' ',' Mr.' Scott Erickson,.p.E. City Engineer , Oty of Andover' .".- 1685 Crosstown Boulevard Andover, MN 55304 Re: CSAH 116 Pedestrian Tunnel Dear Mr. Erickson: I Thank you for your recent letter regarding the city's plans to install a pedestrian tunnel under CSAH 116, near Bunker Hills Regional Park. I was pleased to see that you have secured a $50,000 grant from the Department of Natural Resources for this project. Congratulations on your continued success in the trails funding area. I agree with your assessment that the county and the city have enjoyed a good working relationship in the area of parks and trails development. The Bunker Lake Boulevard trail (Central Anoka County Regional Trail) development project is a case in point. Already the trail is seeing significant use by the public for recreation, as well as, for transportation purposes to and from local commercial centers. Upcoming improvements in the park, including a new internal trail link to the regional trail corridor, will further enhance access to the park by Andover residents. As you knowr this project will include a tunnel under the BNSF railroad line, providing safe pedestrian flow across the park. An additional $4.8 million in regional park funding is also anticipated in the next 4-5 years - completing the redevelopment of Bunker Hills Park for the benefit of local, and regional residents. Related to your request for assistance on CSAH 116 tunnel, I am sorry to inform you that the county does not have any funds available at this time, Since the tunnel is not a component ofthe approved regional trail corridor master plan, the project is not eligible for funding under the Metropolitan Parks capital improvements program. Similarily, the county parks and recreation department has not programmed any funds for the project, since it lies outside of the regional park boundary. I also spoke with Jon Olson, County Highway Engineer about the pOSSible use of highway funds for your project. He informed me that all capital dollars for highway projects have already been allocated to specific county highway improvements identified in the county's comprehensive transportation plan. , Again, I apologize that I can't be of more assistance to you at this time. I trust that you will be ableto move forward with the project and to utilize the funds which have been made available by the Minnesota DNR. The project would be of great benefit to local residents by linking the Andover trail system to the regional park facilities, Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer \ \. -) ,-J / Than yo again for the opportunity to consider your request. Please feel free to call me at any time at 767. 86 . cc: Commissioner Dave McCauley Commissioner Dennis Berg J I~' ':xT ----' ~ -'" "f :.' li/.?,;-, -;/1>"'''e,l' ,\'~', A~ 1 '=fL ~T' ',... r'o "\Lu ~ .,\ .....~,1....,I.I"'..I.;"I.I.,i. '. ~ ~~.1"7" ~'Lh~ ~.., ~iJ+ : :/f6eEFEf. ---, , ~;_ ~~, " ~'f' P.=~' .~.!'1t!' ,"P.JCljI'I;'"" ;4Dtf)~ J I 1.1' Nl&HTfNfJ<4JJEESTAT'E. Q;: I ~"I~ I..!."T" ~ _ ~ ~/. 1.:" .' I ~ ,." r c - -. ',~ '..~ NIGHTINGALE , SECOND AiX)frlON ~I lo.: I 11 I 'T:' ' ,~~. ~ It oj ~:.' !A~;, . :~ 0 '0 - \ ~ - - +- ITI J ....I,J.J:13 , .. ~ on .' l!i~~:;< OA",,,IEW " '...,0 ":%f.~J4", . ~~, ~ .",'~: , "~:' ~ ...' "PRAlii/E, T ',~ ESTAtES NIG!fI/Ng*E ' ", . 0 ~; I ~~'2~~,,~~~~,;J'i "~; ,''Y(" ~T. , /, ESr~T";;JJ a..1,:: ~; MIDDLE ~ p....~~~f1:\,w~;~ 0,5 n J' ., "0. I . ~. ' . ': - 1 l.cHOOL I ,"; '~~':""';''''I,,~..s 't, " I . / /OAKS . I . '__h I >~)b .1*1 ' c ,%,~!!.\. I .. 1 I ---- ....',3''':\.I''..r:;: I 1~'j.!..l!.'II' ,,0 '\. AI' ~ ,.1 .." ""7 . I \'" '\. I 1 . J(::(,\~~ f:-1' ~ I I ~ ' "'." . -..' "- I I / I - - 1- ~,J,I"I'I';5r'\6 " '\ , ,,,. CC -cCc, 1 I I /~ ' \ ' , ,'; :,.,- I I ~ J ' I I , 1/,,// "~I : ~HA'''LrON ~~?;" I I II ;P 1/>l/l'~Lf': ',SOUA".. .'" ,~~,.,:~., II I' , ';'-;~;': .~..>~x ",'" I '" ' i <lAE D"ARTME"Ti,) ~:A~ILU ;, 2" -r:,,,s:f!~ ~'~ 1 I I ," . I "I" >.-;;~~. ,~~~ j, _ ' , '" H :i ':i,,: : ":5t;-:~. ."".'~~;)~3. lie tl',;,~," >/.1'''''''' '>''''' .."..... , .....,,- .". .. rfC--- '?,},'()I'''',>3.Y~'~: "I, -___~L- I J .," ;;.iff ~. I' ""I'" ., , I ~' '~,~I-,,''0\'-f~ \~. ,"i ""-. ' --- j..-- - ----- 71-j " If J . "i+f?l'IJ~L.::.1 : 1 -....;: "I~l~'" ',I '. I ~01-!~ ~s...r = ' 'f: ~. 10, k ' I . a 'J ,,, . , ,,, 10 ~ -""'1."r,... , ; , ,;." , ,............ _ :, 'I""" .. . "'lV-H~ 'i:;:::; I / ~. 1 ",..' !.J ' ,II 2 ""I" J ' ;....:..:- - ~ 1oif'f"r, 'M"-,;;J;; ?"~ ~'S~~, ~ J'_ _~ ' . ., ". . . .",To I ' ' '!__' .' +-;'ESrAT~,)2'..... .IHl\lV(~ """""~;? so 1"6 rl'l', 1"- ~WOODL.A@, :f1f~'::';~ ", ; , ~ ,,~~,- I',' ;:@,~,,;; ~ ." '.' ' 'if'" 101.14,,,\.,,.., ~ ~ I.',:" I, SC>lOOl. : I: :; ',.~~ ':,": .:~ . i" ~,'i'\11-"1~: : ,.,,~i:ti2;~: ",.".n II il '-... ' I I ,..'..',.'.'1'''..''. 'I"'" .., . 'I" 1./ ' ! ' -... ",;>- I . ""<',ciim;.,.':oo,,'Il:;:, ," ,.,., I,,;' / '/ : <"}. ,'1~ I' \~t= ". )ff1=~,~~,~~",,;qdi:~':<H- 'l'i'I"'4~:4K;Z'/: ,_.... l--<.....j~~. " I J f. ' :- ~ ~;L:iE .,. -: ;: ' . ~ <>" .>1" I ~."' ~ /~ ~ :. "- , , .1.' 1 ,L, 1.'~:"<>1'" I [. . LU(VI , ":~"~~'~,'~' i .~4~1l;jl.J? F /./ I I....i- BARNES~~l'Ll.I.,'M" '6"".",.,,',.,.,' I J:.::: ; ~:.;r:.:.~..",ltt.' :;,1, , ",,\ I,. '.if I .- J"""..-1< c-_, IS' M ,~. a ~ K'; '1'3., ~~ ~!.. :.~ "e, JtJ\'1 "{,;; 10 \" I I"' K ~ r. ':,..".,..",.:-",1."",': -'. ~ ,;. . ,..,' '~"'''' "" , ,. "'" .>1 ,,',.~'f'!~IfP EN '. PI! ,q!-:, ' "., '1'1' 'I'" i.\ \'fA 'Y'f..,~~}6 , " OA~K rS ,.i. 'ND ;4Tm~",..',.,,' ! ' ~ ~~ ~~~:: _, '. . .. '1-___ '. I , .","""'r .... I !.. .itf.i,~..~.:'. 'H:,1+I'''I'I'I",,;ij'~I'~,'''''' I ;- ,1--"- _,L,_'':?i -~'\-= 1 ' E'STA ';[5-7 ~ .. ~ '@:',l 1 R~RTF!,'E1., ' ,. , I ; ~", "/sS' I' , ' , /.;/ , '."= E ~....: ~I' :..., "'.." " ! ,~E-?r.qfi! + ; ~A}V~o'~co~ I '.' '," //. ' , ~~g 1 .. ; -e'c ',(:.;, ~'" ~''ll'' ' : '," . .. I I , . _ . 19 ~ :~ ,<1\""',1 -/.,,. a' ,," ,.,0.4 1../ I u. Wah;.I1 ~ W ,1, .. ~:: :: ,-': . ' lJ~,! ~ ,fO~= fh~' ' -f' ',' . I - I "" ""'~I:l'I(1" ," ,..,,- I ,,!~i.rt ~~'I'" ~ ! . ~ ... II ;f~Af~' I~' Iml "m' r : ;:J ~: ,4i:~.t\".~ ,r 111:'1'" I,' I I'J',' ~ .. J.(,;'{...~"" ~ "I '" " 'IS~ ' ' ' \~: ~ :~~ ", y"'ESTATES II I I $ "1' 'I"I/"~, /",\ Q: ~'.,...\..'21' II ;.'" ... "" IQ.r~~D,:~~wn.qr, ~ - I' ;"'1J"~~;Jt~4;,... 3~. .....~ ') I ~ . ': :,~~. " ~~~~~. J ~":\ ~lo.I 0 . ,oun.o? 0 ---=- '" ,~'}!~ 'L ,2 .' ,I f()llS '. .". ~ 0 2 . ~.. , l~' l'2 "'''I.Ll'>>. ' I ~ iX;~ h, ." ~'--,': :: '1',,'''EEIt~ ~~ ~ir~' '0"'/ ~' ~ '{NOLr? : . .. . V " I :,p ". . .. ~o' , - ~ ~} ~ .' r,,'<'., ~ " O~~i ' I ~.)~" 0'" I ~ .; ,~I' ,;, ' ; '" . ~ ~:.,' : . \v~ '.> / r.fl /7, co'" ' - ,~ '~,,' I'/7'HF_lnfAd"'- il.o ~, ~~~~d i 1;j,' ,', ,; :1':'1';: ':! ~..v '. ,~~l;l~:';~ -+ 1- _, .. 0.. .....,,,.;so. ., ,. ". ' ~ 'ii@f,g; ,L",,,." " ---- I .""~'" ; " "", ;l\:~ ,'l ~ ~ ,J~ ~~."" '- ~ . ~ oJ, . T.1l"S",."o.t; ~, ". ';" 812",12'5 "~'<>r,i~ I ~ ....... ,,~ i2'I~ ,I '"...........~ ~w,/.~ "7I<EN~, .~.,,~ I" tsj53..m ~ ", "'~''?tr''~~''~E''m~'" : I ~'7,'?l:" :.8;::: ct..,k"'ll'i"";~':;;~ (I :~~ .~~, .. ,I';", "'Io:::U *'2'~\1 ,; "/~I~ ,'''SfCONO ~ .! .;..;.~ ~.~, ...~",,:,.a{l'e1"Ir:;it'~'~2 "- t ,'0:.,.. .~ 01., ~,~ D$"N '., ,K1 -.-' ~ ,.//",-f. . ~', ~",..~~ . ','''-;J-'t' .-.;.' I '~;i=~'i\.rj,J~,;;;;n~". ; I R':"~' ''''\';'~i,mg411''''''.''~'''''''I'I'~i'''' ~~ ,_. .\---l I ~ ~ '11.= :jofi1iit,..' " . f" ".. '" ",,,,,,,,.., ,"0'''' "i' I .,....."..," ...... '''-QY:jj' I "'.~'liZI "' .. " , ~ ' .1'1~~,.rI"'1 .rlVlrl.. ""1 -... " .' '.., l' - " . 'Arc v. ..", .. I 1 NIL '8 7/_f!'~ ~I..I'~~.I';~T. ~ I \!:~?.., ,1'1" . . .~ l -- ._ ",~~.I. 'oomON.'~~ I 1..,l.cIlON"!i'f'~~:"" ~ ~";\' ' ,;i>9'-"'''l'I~.t.S!; , 't__~c, 1,\' '1'/'1'1'11> " ~______~_ ' ;j;Z~'0 '-.-~g I ,,,~ ,~.,;;;f,1 /, ,,~~. ;,..:, >~;.i; ; iff, 1 ~~''''. '~'lfi\(fr '/<,3,;"'1,'19'\';'51'\' ~ I 1 ,'"'''''' ..1 , , .... . '/ , !' ..."'" , ......., ",' 1(~Il.-" '." f(, ;>, 0"./,"" :. ,":,,- "L ' , ' ,,' ..I{~~DD,/~' ;;"'~<;V. ;t'i+', ',.'<> r: " .,. " "' ,;" r,rn".i::l'~~;'T lJi" . " ~21-' , ",' '\'\''''''/4'; l'/>f'Q1;{ , I " .." ',,~' e I~" ',~' ~,~... ; :." ':, ,:'~ ' , f=:;~?(v.>''' . : ".~ .P0, (~lC.,:pF.:!T~'\~~ ;~Ei;~2.,:'.r~ 'ffiI- I, r '. ",' ": ,;~ <;c,"'- : ; I. l~',: /{/Uf,!;I.r:r~ ~k~l".<~~~ f ~"' w' 11:811Nr<E~fl {!.'<</i . ~'T.'11hiWi"~'.?f.j:.<\.~:T.'" ~~'; -" J I'I'J~ ,.'~. . , 16 . '),>';\'" 'r.;-t' _'-~"" it1:li . t~i~ J~-L..:..,,, ,", ~"" ., ::"I,.~r,l.. " '. '.. : :,Jj' ".j;~; ;;'I.q~ "I'-i ':"", "';1'; '~':f-..~ :~f.-}..;'N ~:"~~,;;\;..., 00-:;:..", ....:. ~ ';'fi-~6G.J~f----------'t----- i; -, .... ~ :;l#;"',!'.~ : '~AJNkl;:!~..d~~ I ~",^'fH"lii~ " ~w~~:i ,~:~ff!.D\";NBR; .' . 1 ':,' -;",(!I.;~f.01.;.H:i: ? !: : Bf!N, ~~, f~"" '.' ,.tt."ti~;/'J~t/,o) ..,,' 1 'lL<-l&~,,~';,^D. . ~}(: I.Uii1.sHI:: ,~,;\'\'" ,\ EfJ1<:.,. ,. .' "....,,,: ,,-;-- c7- .14)'~ ..' ',~ ' ..+, I [Gt*"'':1 fif'lf" .. ,~, /. L:r'-"'"-'~r.ili 1 ~NO::: ~~,~,~,:,,;^,~:,~'I"P('/ : _~~.r,;;"".r.'J'ri:',~i::~~e2~:jj'; 1<:-~~;:S':'~",r,:J:'~ ;(~j -'" ~M_ !i '" ""i'XV,' , ' .'.t",_ 17. '. ''''.. '1 ~' ~ . 1,,, 0 :. ~ ~. ;, ':'",\;.,;,,1. ' -L},:;,ii,' ..,;, : 'J:t' : '''; '; i['i'ii """NO '-" ,_ '\il~'~~\'''' ,- ~~ .A. ,~ ~"I"I"".~; ..;~,,~, 'n. r ~\' -. ,n .r;vr;~'l':l .,,~0l>J1/OII/ .--- I .,t-~.,;3f'? ~~ . ~ J[~:-rtr;~l'\-AOO: A ~ ~:-. \1 . = . . .". ,_ 1 " /;{;Flil, ,j,j.!.I', L~~~. r"I \ r .,' 7 j .',', - , c., --' .-1 BUNKER! --- I. . , ,.,OJ 'pJ":"h...0NlAIF e, .""u uo.. ua.. I I \ " .. flV" I c""~,~ ".....n c""~n ! ~ '$srA WATTS 11 .~.... .,-,..1 ..... I -71 I \ "LAKE I ~~~ttj; /0 t I I' 'T&t,o~ oU'''''T'''~'1 ...~14. ~. -... t ~ , '"" 1 .. tl ...... ''"'"'''' i ~'!I""E~ . A',"' ' , GAROEN,/t., .'~''l 11 ..- I ' I~. ~~j-'~ ""Z:'" -, '31'. ',' 7/'::",1 l ..,.~I......~ I ' ~, ,k'.'~ . PM;' L' ~'" ' , ACRES I; I I 1I\o>'",,-e.1 ry-... I "~- \ - ,.~ " L--- ",............, ~ '0 !~ Ill! . ttd ... .'. """"''- \ ~' .,... J HIOOEN'''/,.' CREEl( EAsr / c, ~' "'-- 1 I ' ,.",';t " "'~"'"".r."""'ll.:'" ' ""~'~.Q'~' -----+--~ ,g,- \ 'v'' ' -,',..,.,.,.,......, -. ./.' ,,"'" . r--- -- --- . ",' "0 .tlrlf' ".~ :/.3/, : ,.,~ 0" . -.......... ~ '~:;~::i 1.I'I.ADO,:~:':j ":"S<N,.;;P,=':~,!'f::<~~,1 1 ~~It~ -~I I " OJ ~~I ?W,: ~,: ;p~,;"i,;;,l:;"l"ll-c' ',,:,I.,:~~,~'~~.,:::\T.!~~-'~~~~ \~,: ill IQ.,J....,J t i~~'/KfhBUNK~.. ,I H IL' I l~" f:;l.. ",~/"-i~.&:~,,, ~'" ." , hi.O""..,.! ",,-- I r;N , (" -'.u.! lii1) 3 10 ~iXKr'OIf~ c' i" l .Ji.I~;:....un"'. .g..."" 'I!~,:;-J I. ", I ". ~ ."'" 41i'L * ' I n ~" .."'l." l!:~'1,. . I l,B to '" '0 ' . ..' . ~~." ^', "i\'~~..<"""" _ ~i!'~""N,....",,'fJ1':r.""""W': ,,' I I II I olr I ~," . -.- "~> ..".. '.GL~~[j:1"'~,,'-':-"'""'. ii' ~ _~_~_ u -L.:'...." ",.., llJi' ..,' 'l, 1 -...' I .." ~ r--.=F-"'< .; " -- " CUU! FU::'T':!D~" ,f:,!',;Of(/'\ GG,~.---"'" " ~ '1 , i I @ , / CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FORCOUNCILACTION DATE: March 8, 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Haa~ Parks ITEM NO. 5. Discuss Proposed 2001 Trail Fee The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed 2001 trail fee as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission. The trail fee in place is $350 per unit for residential and the developers of commercial/industrial are responsible for 100% of the cost of the adjacent trail if the trail is proposed as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. Attached for your review are past agenda items and meeting minutes that took place when discussing the trail fee requirements (April 20, 1999 & December 21, 1999). If you have any questions, feel free to contact Scott Erickson or myself. Note: This was on the agenda at the joint meeting of October 19, 2000 but due to a lack of time, it was not discussed. I, , , " ) \- _/ ,- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1999 Page 8 - (Amendment to Ordinance No. 10, Section 9,07, Park Dedication, Continued) Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, that the Park Dedication Ordinance to become effective for any plat getting preliminary plat approval after the date of publication ofthe ordinance; and that it would apply also to any plat that has been preliminarily approved by that date that does not receive final approval by the City Council within 12 months of that date. M?tion carried unanimously. APPROVE TRAIL FEE REQUIREMENTS, CONTINUED Mr. Erickson reviewed a map of the proposed off-street trails that would be located in the City and the phasing of construction. Based on 40 miles of trails still to be constructed, it calculates to be 'approximately $385/unit if the development cost is evenly distributed between exiting and future residential units. The calculations assume some grants will be received, though that is not a guarantee. The fee would go toward the development of those trails as planned on the map. The Council noted the phasing calls for only 8~ miles in the next 10 years, leaving the remaining 38 miles for the 10 years after that. The cost of the pedestrian bridges included in the cost of development was questioned. It was also suggested it would be a benefit to tie the trails to the new county regional park in the northwestern portion of the City, though it may have to be some river crossing. Discu~sion was then on the justification for a trail fee and determining what would be the appropriate fee for residential areas, Attorney Hawkins advised this would be a trunk charge for installing the basic trail system within the City. He felt the calculations are legally defensible based on the comprehensive trail plan for the entire City. Mr. Erickson stated sidewalks are an internal issue and would be charged to the developer. Mr. Fursmanalso acknowledged the proposal means the new residents will end up paying a greater share of the trail costs than the existing residents. It is a new fee. Jerry Windschitl, Chesterton Partnership, stated to the best of his knowledge, the trail fee being proposed is one of the more aggressive in the metropolitan area. The only way this analysis will work is if the City actually builds the $5,754,000 worth of trails. If net, the analysis falls apart and it ends up that the new residents will be paying for the entire trail system. Realistically, the only way to raise that kind of money is to float a bond issue. If that is done, it would mean that the new residents would be paying not only park dedication and the trail fee, but the cost to repay the bond as well, which is paying for the same thing twice. He felt this proposal severely penalizes the new residents of the City. Councilmember Orttel noted many of the trails are in the rural area, which is very expensive. Again, he didn't think the costs for the road crossings should be included in this. Chairperson Blackstad noted commercial development will pay 100 percent of the trails. which is why a trail fee is not proposed for that development. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, the Resolution with the addition of adding a Comprehensive Trail system in the first sentence (A Resolution setting fees for trails in the Comprehensive Trail System in Commercial/Industrial and Residential Developments) , , , <.J 0 :' - Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1999 Page 9 (Approve Trail Fee Requirements, Continued) - DISCUSSION: Several Councilmembers felt the proposed $385 per unifwas too high. Winslow Holasek understood the proposal of the fee based on 40 miles of trail; however, he questioned the location of the trail along the railroad tracks, especially because of the proximity of Hanson Boulevard and Prairie Road. He felt that is a bad place for a t~l, which encompasses about one-third of the trail system. The Council tended to agree, suggesting Staff look at that again. Attorney Hawkins advised the trail fee would be collected at the time of the final plat. Councilmember Jacobson amended the motion to change the price to $300 per unit and to eliminate the words "Mobile Home". (Resolution R097-99) Seconded by Johnson. Motion on the amendment carried on a 3- Yes, 2-No (McKelvey, Orttel) vote. Motion on the amended motion carried on a 3- Yes, 2-No (McKelvey, Orttel) vote. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the trails fee to become effective for any plat getting preliminary plat approval after the date of approval of the Resolution; and that it would apply also - to any plat that has been preliminarily approved by that date that does not receive final approval by the City Council within 12 months of that date. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS POLICY CHANGE ON NEW RURAL RESIDENTIAL STREET AND UTILITY PROJECTS Mr, Erickson asked for direction regarding the City's current practice in the construction of streets and storm sewers for !Ural projects. That policy allows rural developers to construct the streets and storm sewers for their development, and the City does some inspections. They have increased inspections but are still running into issues regarding the quality of the project The contractor is working for the developer; and when there is a controversy, it is difficult to get it resolved, He asked the Council to consider having the City contract for the construction of these improvements. It is felt the quality control for the improvements would be enhanced because the contractor would be viOrking for the City. He talked with Byron Westlund of Woodland- Development who does a lot of rural projects. Mr. Westlund is receptive to trying this on a trial basis. The Council discussed the possibility of increasing the (ees for insp,ections and to do them more often rather than contracting for the improvements. It's not as important that the City do it but that the project get done right. Mr. Erickson stated that could be done but felt someone else would have to be hired to do so. - The Council wanted to see the cost difference and suggested Mr, Erickson work with Mr. Westlund. Mr. Erickson stated the fee schedule can be adjusted to be sure the City's costs are covered. The Council agreed. z ) ~J CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 20, 1999 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item ,Todd Haas, / Engineering ITEM NO. <{ Approve Trail Fee Requirements, Cont. The City Council is requested to approve the propose dollar amount that has been established and is being recommended by staff and the Park and Recreation Commission. A resolution is attached for the City Council's cor:tsideration. If you recall, staff had anticipated 40 plus miles of trail remains to be constructed which calculates out to be a little over $385/unit if the development cost is evenly distributed between existing and future residential units. Keep in mind there was about $5,754,000 of improvements that yet have to be made to build a trail system of some sort which came out to $817 per unit. But obviously these new residents could not be expected to pay the total cost of the improvement and some of the costs should, be the responsibility of these homes that are already here which is about 53%, Therefore, the new residents moving into the City will bear about 47% which figures out to be $385. The difference of $817 -$385 which is $432 will need to be paid for by a combination of types of funds such as park dedication, park capital improvement budgets, municipal state aid funds, TEA 21 funds, TIF, general fund, various grants, etc. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that new commercial/industrial developments be responsible for 100% of the costs of an adjacent trail if the trail is proposed as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. We don't anticipate alot of new commercial/industrial development areas. See proposed draft of the comprehensive plan which is available in the Planning Dept.. Also, an off-street comprehensive trail plan is included in your packet for review. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Todd or Scott at City Hall. / '\ .- \ / '_.J - { Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 21, 1999 Page 9 APPROVE RESOLUTION SETTING TRAIL FEES FOR'THE YEAR 2000 Park and Recreation Commission Chairperson Dave Blackstad stated the calculations made last year for the development of the City's trail system indicated a cost of $450 per lot. The proposal is to increase the per-lot trail fee from $300 to $350 per unit in 2000, Motion by Knight, Seconded by Johnson, the Resolution as presented; (Resolution R270-99) Motion carried unanimously. SCHEDULE ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW The Council agreed to meet on Tuesday, December 28, 7 p.m. for the review of the City Administrator. SET CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE The Council agreed to schedule a workshop on T.uesday, January 11,2000, 7 p.m. at the City Hall to discuss the Hamilton Square assessmentlIP97-26A, the multiple housing policy, the water quality, and to receive the Public Works land update. FINALIZE 2000 WAGE ADJUSTMENTS Mr. Fursman reviewed the procedure used in bringing the wages up to the median of other cities under population of 25,000 and how each person was placed within the step program. The administrator pay did not have the 3-percent COLA factor added to it. For most positions, the increase in the step program means the individual actually goes backwards a step or two to limit the Increase. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, Item 19 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. ADOPT 2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND 2000 TAX LEVY, Councilmember Orttel stated the Council had said it would review the budget after the public hearings. He felt it is important to discuss this and not have it approved on the Consent Agenda. Another issue he was concerned with is in his mind the budget is a financial document, not a policy document. Jjust because an item was included in the budget does not necessarily mean it is automatically approved when the budget is approved. He felt those items still need to come before the Council to be acted upon individually. Councilmember Jacobson argued those items should be discussed when the budget is reviewed line by line. He agreed, however, that the budget is a , \ , ) '-....I CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR TRAILS IN COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. The City Council OF THE City of Andover hereby resolves: Trail Fee (Commercial/Industrial) The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost of the adjacent trail if the trail is proposed as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. : Trail Fee (Residential) Single Family Residence $385 per unit Townhome, Twin home, Multi-Family Mobile Home, and Lot Splits Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 20th day of Aoril,1999. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J,E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk , , \ ~ '-) '----' CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I DATE: December 21. 1999 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Staff, Committees, Commissions Todd Haas, , ITEM NO. Engineering Approve Resolution Setting Trail Fees for the Year 2000 \4. The City Council is requested to approve the resolution setting trail fees for the year 2000 as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. The fee that was established on April 20, 1999 (Res. No. 097-99 that was approved by the City Council) was $300 per unit for residential. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending to increase the fee to $350 for the , year 2000. The Commercialllndustrial trail fee requirement is proposed not to change. . , / Attached are Park and Recreation Commission meeting minutes'from December 2, 1999. . ; , ' , 'j \,-j / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION SETTING FEES FOR TRAILS IN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. The City Council of the City of Andover hereby resolves: Trail Fee (Commercial/Industrial) The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost of the adjacent trail if the trail is proposed as part of the adopted comp~ehensive plan. Trail Fee (Residential) Single Family Residence, $350 per unit Townhome, Twin home, Multi-Family and Lot Splits These fees shall be effective January 1,2000 and shall be paid prior totheJinal plat being recorded at the County. '. \ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 21st day of ..' December, 1999. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J.E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk . / F "- ~) '- ) O;:':"'1<r . l ~l, RECOMMEND TRAIL FEES FOR Y2K Chairperson Blackstad stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is requested to. recommend approving the resolution setting fees for traIls in commercialJindu?trial and residential developments for the year 2000. Consensus was to increase the trail fee to $350: Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approving the resolution setting fees for trails in commercial/industrial and residential developments for the year 2000. Motion' carried on 5 - ayes, 0 - nays, 2 - absent (Grabowski and Kieffer), and 0 - present vote. . . ,'. 'I . :.., '.. REVfEWISSUES LIST .. <:: Mr: Blackstad reviewed the items on the Issues list. CHAIRJl1AN'S REPORT J None. AI>JOURNMENT Motion by Anderson, seconded by O'Toole, to adjourn. M~tion carried imanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8 :45 p,m. Respectfully submitted, '. Nand Libor; Recording Secretary . TimeSaver Of/Site Secretarial, Inc, - '. . . . .' . ' " ( ) J @ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION . I DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Ha~ Parks ITEIVI NO. 6. Discuss Position of Park & Recreation Director The Park & Recreation Commission has requested this item be on the agenda regarding interest of a Park & Recreation Director by the City Council. Note: This was on the agenda at the joint meeting of October 19, 2000 but due to a lack of time, it was not discussed. / I ) c ) ~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Ha~ Parks ITEM NO. 7. Discuss Fencing Guidelines for Ball Fields at Various Parks This is an item that was added to the October 19, 2000 joint meeting agenda but was not discussed due to a lack of time The reason this was added to that agenda was due to some concerns by the Park & Recreation Commission regarding fences that were removed by Public Works. The fences were removed because of liability of the fences being too short. Frank Stone of Public Works will be at the meeting to answer any questions. , ) \. J ~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FORCOUNCILACTION DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Haa~ Parks ITEM NO. 8. Discuss the Selling & Leasing of Park Property The City Council is requested to discuss selling and leasing of park property as requested by the Park & Recreation Commission. The Park & Recreation Commission has been evaluating 2 parks to sell or lease. Cedar Crest Estates (Park #6), which is 0.87 acres in size, is designated as park, which the Commission is interested in selling. Tulip Street (Park #13), which is 1.85 acres in size, is designated as park, which the Commission is interested in leasing to the adjacent property owner (Bennetts). Attached are letters from the City Attorney as to the procedure to sell park property and to lease park property. I The Park & Recreation Commission has recommended the criteria to be used when wanting to consider the sale of park property. The criteria would be as follows: * How was the park acquired? * Is the park used as a landfill? * Does the park provide an area for wildlife to live? * How much time does Public Works spend to maintain the park? * Do the neighbors enjoy this park in its current status? * Is there a need for a park or would it be a practical location for a park? The three landowners adjacent to Cedar Crest Park are interested in having a part of the park attached to their properties. As for Tulip Street Park, the adjacent property owner has in the past few years used portions of the park for farming. The parcel is recommended not to be sold, as the property will be necessary for the realignment of Tulip Street if and when Tulip Street is paved but the Commission would recommend leasing the park. To do this, the City would need to have the park designation removed from the deed. I I \ 11/16/00 09: 17 LRW \ )ICES 2140 4TH RVE ~ 763 755 8923 0 NO. 113 [101 ~ . William G. Hawkins and Associates Memo To: Todd Haas From: Bill Hawkins Date: November 15, 2000 Re: Selling Park Property J am responding to your memo of November 8, 2000 concerning the procedure for selling park property. The ability to sell parI< property would be depend on how the City acquired ownership of the property initiallv. If the property was dedicated in a plat, the City would not have the ability to sell park. property or convey a fee simple interest in the property to a purchaser. If the City acquired the property through a tax forfeiture, it depends on whether or not the application for transfer was for public purpose or private purpose. If the deed restricted us to a public use, we would not be able to convey the parI< land to a third party for private use. We would have the ability to ask for a change in the status from public to private use which would allow us to sell the property, however, an application would have to be made with Anoka County, they would then have the property appraised and the City would have to pay the current market value for the property in order to obtain this designation. It the property was originally acquired for a private purpOS€ and the state deed reflects this, then . the City would have the ability to convey the property to a third party without any further approvals being necessary other than the City Council. If you have any Questions regarding this procedure, please contact me. '" mo.<'lJ:C-+- v.~ flY A~J_ "'--5 .....4/t4.".qV . P..rl:- Jt(,:, tecllV' 4es-t' 8;.ir;tli-::s. Le;+-8 fl- '/ -tJ. ;.~. ~.>oo I' ,.. it , o ~~ $</,: i.Jt'p Sr. Z7CJCJ I I , \ . Page' : ) U LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates 2140 FOURTH AVEI'UE NORTH uRal Assistant ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303 WILLIAM G. HAWKINS T AMMI 1. UVEGES PHONE (763) 427-8877 ~ BARRY A. SULLIVAN FAX (763) 421-4213 E-MAIL HawkLaw 1 @aol.eam January 16, 2001 , r!" ~ {... r"1 !r" n r -" - ..--.~.. \ !'.-'L'r;_ ,./ ~._ i.. r-------, I ._. : I , HI"' I ! - I vPlN I - Mr. Todd Haas l___~_ ~~_.n_~ City of Andover ("T':- ~ .... J, i ~ ". 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW ~_.~--_._.". . Andover, MN 55304 Re: Tulip Street Park Lease Dear Mr. Haas: This letter is written in response to the request that I prepare a lease of property I known as the Tulip Street park. The first question that has been raised by the City Council is whether or not it is lawful for the City to lease public park property. My answer to this question would be dependent on how the City acquired this property. If the City received a warranty deed to the property with no restrictions it would be free to lease the property for whatever purpose it determines is appropriate. If it acquired the property through the tax forfeiture process, it would be determined by whether or not the City acquired the property from the State-of Minnesota either for a public purpose or private purpose. If it was for a private purpose clearly a lease would be appropriate. If it was for a public purpose any lease for the property would have to be for a public purpose. Finally, if the property was received in the dedication of a plat for park, the City could only lease the property for park purposes. The dedication in the plat specifically designates the purpose to which the land can be used by the City and the City holds it essentially in public trust for the purpose. To lease the property for farming would In all likelihood be inconsistent with the dedication if the property was acquired in that manner. , \ U \- ) I Mr. Todd Haas January 16, 2001 Page 2 In view of this opinion, I have prepared a short lease for consideration by the Council if a lease can be entered into. Prior to entering into the lease, you should ascertain the City's interest in this property and that we do have the authority to lease same. If you have any questions, please contact me. /\ ~~ if} }~ , , , William G. Hawkins WGH/tju Enclosure I \ ~ ) \.J ELEMENTS 1 N D I ANT RIB E S F LOW E R S B 1 R D S l ~ l ~ l l l l l n Ul l P l I I ~ l ~ l l . ~ ~ ~ P d I I ~ l l h ~ ~ ~ ~ II n U " l ' ~ l ~ III l · q I : n l ~ " · I d "' n q ~ I a lllll ~ ~ d I · I I ~ l · II q P u " : ) III i! i i! i s I ~ i i Iii I ~ i i ~ i i i I ~ I ~! I ~ ~ i i II ~ i! i i i ~! I ~ i i ~ i ~ i I i I Ii i ~ i i ~!! ~ il i I i ~ ~ ~ III i i i i : ., . : ~E.Jj._L,'(""< {"l 1 ~f(' ..~.~. ,..". ._. "', , -! C:':~f;q~~; ._,::~-~~~.~t~::, . ...1....'.,: ($;.:~."""~,,-,, .' ""'." ".. , '~~"C" r; M , I '12 ' ,i . ; ~:~:i:::"'.)' l I / i =it:r:L':~~~L '''~Tf~ i._.-~~~.--jr~[fi---t:~ . ~".' i' ~i ~ 'p "'''\ " " r,~ }", ,'~' .".",. : l .. .' .~ I, 16 1 ill' Yr. -.. '.P~" .."",. , '. '-~ >\ ' '~::.".,.,_,".."_,,, .i1S7THAVE....", '("_''''_'~: ~ ~ ~ I' '- \' " tl', ' I, 5' ot",E: I ,~. 7l~,,);_.~,LCL';)T-"} I-~ J-- ~l 't~), '. '21' '--~ ...' ,---',,-" ' . ~'J' ~r:.~"." ~e~-o',. / \ t: ~ ~o~.-.,_ ~t--o' _,c" 'II '" ' _.<--.."...<~ ' ........., ~!. iL"w':~~r"'.'/i ~ ,'""" .t, ""'l-'''T' ' )')"'-:,20 "-"1 ".. i,/~'.{:(Y~~~:!-'-T.."" , ~~.j ,utl (i'''"..J . ,,'~ ROU^"D c..~,.~........- . ' ~:.."\ . ...' 26 ' ., " ~',""'-" N ~~....- ~ ! .~, ~" L "/"'::: .: r -.....:.. . 2". L, ".," _....,'~ ,... ,~ l oow, ,- :<,. 6t~""'".,'r. ., --""31" '- 0', >"...,_., :'29 ,_....'.."",' .., , , i . .. ,'~ . '), """"'. 'I ~'~:'27 " c-'-' VY E ~ ~ '; .''''-~r .....:'-.........." ,".-, i I 1_\ !lff.1' ~ ....,,...,.,..""..' ~-i! . ~ '~._,) '".~:: _~_.!"_- \ /.;. "~ ((101'+(, - ~"-" l "",.", . ~K"_ '~'1 _, ',_'~ ,'" " . ._S~~OONCREEKDR_..".. ' L~_~. S '''''''''33 30 ,., ,,,,,' ~"" ,',' ,'-" '.' ~'. .. ~'"""7j.r' ,,'11\ ~;'".;>J'L~::~ "...' 34i-li;.J~C<\,,/' \., :.....{'..-7-." _J ., I' ,,; ," .~~' 6 . " '," f.', c' ,.35 ' ,!-;-",,,,..,,, , ~ ~ ~~... _,1 S' ..t ;>J .ri.,,\"~ ", 1;\...1: ~! Map Sourcss: ' II" ....~""v'~ ;;~.,.. ~ '-, .. ~ g ~ CftyofAndoVerEnglneerlngDepartment . f, t-~"CL=;' L <-.. ..,.....---._~""1 ~ -"fO~~-"':.--"'';' .-.".'\....: city of Andover GJS ,,~,), ' . i~. ...j Voi':, i-~' '~ ' AnokaCountyGISOflic8 ""~"""~'''" eM "~-\ ' 1''')8' 44 41 ,,,'<;, ~...- ~.~ ',"," " 0 ". w> ,._... ~ . '! ~",;J ~ oc, ,roo,,,''!'',,,,,,,,, ' -"'-'i~~ AnOkaCo.un.yAssesso,s mee .... ill" ,39... ~_:_JL.r- i.'.-j ~~j-~-::-t,-!.::'-143 '~ :;':';'.- 'I,. i C" ,..__ J ; D 1 _......I--,~ c;, \ ,,\AQ ,-, I .. , .. Map COIT.pl/at/On Date: . L. .: ~ ";J.-_ iA I ~, I' l"\ "7 .,..~....~ t . - .. June 1998 U .. ," ".,..., '--_. ". '-'-"..-" " , '--" '{. ' Q ,-"~<,, :'_~ I: " ".,-,.--~ I '_-.-~-' ~ - 'i,. f"t., a ;t t . ~ ~~~~~...~:,,,j t..f; ~ '"i,.. MapUpdafsDals: '..,.)"'-<0. .....-- ,_0, ~ .,-r--"'\ .f l :fo--~~l -~ 1,~..4 t. -.~.. r ~ t 4 January 2001 t:.46' Zf"'''''' ~..~'_. ~,"'-"'" r./ . .'; .1'11 i......-T '"18l"""'..... , '" 8~!1 ~ ~-r.---;-- G F /~'t.:, r. ",,: '-r"~ ~,-.--,~" ;- t Scale: R.F.: . L~ . ~ E} ~_<l'''''''''' I' r ~t ,48'\ ~ ~ \" ! ~ """"" 1 Inch = 1,000 feet 1:12,000 ..... _ n L" ~ ~ ~ ~,1<... ~- t'. ..~ ~l.JN l, - ~ '\ ...., ._.o--i - , . ' . ~ .! '. ~ ,- ,'''':'~''''~~'''-- 3t ~,t / l'-"'~ 0\ F" 1"9 . ~".I1!~ ~ ~,~....." "";I-' .I.' tv !'; - ~ \' '="-~"""""''- ~ :; ....00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 _..~,.". '; """, ,~, '" --, , " ,H ,rr- .j~~:;j! :5~ '5~- ~.lri J~~:=~~;i \~ .,~ L,: ~~~\ .r:'~ .... '~r-"~~"'c .~;-~:,~~J, Miles ' _:..."."',..11' } .@, i"-,,,, \52 r\L.~~1...L.H"< [".:'" \ 1/4 0 1/4 112 3/4 1 ,;~.lf' ....''< ~- 8 r. ~.-..l----"""~ f["~.""~',- ~ ~ ~ ( .-. ....-c.~..~! ~ Fe ~"L ~<;;......{~~/_.~_~:~~ 1; Ii ~ t. ~,..,-_,,~~ 0;,.... -~: ~ ~...~ >. i.~!".l ~- J" ~ ~. Layout Name: PARKSMAP_8 Projed Location: E:\GI50ATA\PARKS\PROJECTS\PARKS.APR Date PMnted: 01/10/2001- 01:16:55 PM :' 'i ,-.J ~ ~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Haa/ Parks ITEM NO. 9. Discuss 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Plan The City Council is requested to discuss the attached 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Plan as requested by the Park & Recreation Commission. The Commission would like to see this as a budgeted item in the general fund for new improvements. The Finance Department is requiring all departments to prepare a 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan for bond rating purposes. / \ 0 \_j 5 YEAR PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2001 - 2005 YEAR 2001 Sunshine Park 1. Skateboard/Rollerblade facility - 120' x 100' x 4" concrete pad $60,000 - Skateboard equipment $20,000 2. New parking lot & trail improvements (west side of park) $80,000 3. Picnic area (west side of park) $5,000 4. Security lights $4,000 Hidden Creek North Park 1. Irrigate ball field & soccer field $39,500 Prairie Knoll Park 1. Soccer goals $5,000 2. Topsoil, seed, relocate parking lot, etc. $35,000 Total (for 2001) $248,500 YEAR 2002 Hawkridqe Park 1. New warming house with restrooms $100,000 2. Construct well with controls $100,000 3. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 4. Irrigate fields $50,000 Wild Iris Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 2. New parking lot & trail improvements $75,000 3. Bleachers (1 x $2,500) $2,500 4. Security light $2,000 5. New backstop with overhang $5,000 Total (for 2002) $364,500 YEAR 2003 Shadowbrook East Park 1. Fencing of 2 baseball fields (outfield, infield & dugouts) $30,000 2. New parking lot & trail improvements $75,000 3. Irrigation system for (2) ball fields $40,000 4. Prepare ball field $7,500 5. Security light $2,000 6. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds & 5-12 year olds) $30,000 7. Bleachers (2 x $2,500) $5,000 Total (for 2003) $189,500 YEAR 2004 Hidden Creek North Park 1. Bleachers (2 x $2,500) 1 for soccer & 1 for ball field $5,000 2. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds & 5-12 year olds) $30,000 \ \J ,) Fox Meadows Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 I Timber Trails Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds & 5-12 year olds) $30,000 Strootman Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 Meadowood North Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 Shady Knoll Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 Hills of Bunker Lake West Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 Terrace Park 1. Playground equipment (2-5 year olds) $15,000 Total (for 2004) $155,000 YEAR 2005 Hidden Creek North Park 1. Outfield fencing for ball field $10,000 Hawkridqe Park 1. Bleachers (2 x $2,500) 1 for soccer & 1 for ball field $5,000 Pine Hills Park 1. Bleachers (1 x $2,500) $2,500 Strootman Park 1. Bleachers (1 x $2,500) $2,500 . 2. Security light Terrace Park 1. Bleachers (1 x $2,500) $2,500 Andover Lions Park 1. Outfield fencing for ball field $10,000 Timber Rivers Park 1. Playground equipment (5-12 year olds) $20,000 2. Security light $2,000 3. Finish bit. trail around soccer field $10,000 Crooked Lake Boat Landinq 1. New parking lot $25,000 2. New dock $4,000 , 3. Dredge boat landing area $2,500 / Total (for 2005) $96,000 G:IDA TA 1ST AF FIRHON DM \PAR KIBUDGETlSYRCAP2001200 S.DOC " '\ , \J ~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Haa~ Parks ITEM NO. 10. Discuss 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Equipment Replacement Plan The City Council is requested to discuss the attached 5 Year Park Capital Improvement Replacement Plan as requested by the Park & Recreation Commission. This year Public Works Parks Department received $40,000 for replacement, which will be used for new playground equipment at City Hall Park Complex #1. The Commission is recommending a significant increase in the park's replacement fund to be able to help keep up with replacing outdated playground equipment and updating and/or replacing the existing parks. The top preferences for park redevelopment and/or replacement for the next 5 years recommended by the Commission are as follows: I _ Wild Iris Park - Ball field needs to be relocated and fenced, parking needs to be enlarged and relocated, 5-12 year playground equipment needs to be replaced, trails need to be paved. _ Terrace Park - Playground equipment needs to be replaced, parking lot needs to be paved, need additional fencing for player protection for existing ball field. _ Strootman Park - Fence needs to be replaced (too short), ball field should be turned around (parking is problem because of this), existing shelter and concrete pad need to be sandblasted. _ Shady Knoll Park - Basketball court needs to be repaved, need trail access to meet ADA requirements to playground equipment. _ Prairie Knoll Park - If the park is used as a borrow site for Andover Boulevard Extension, the site would be graded to accommodate soccer fields. Parking lot should be upgraded and possibly a new one constructed at the north end of park, new update to meet ADA requirements. _ Hawkridoe Park - Need to replace 5-12 year playground equipment, need to irrigate soccer and ball fields, hockey rink boards need to be replaced within the next 3 years, concrete mow strips and concrete pads for bench areas are necessary, additional lighting is necessary for the hockey/free skating rink. Public Works has reviewed the top priorities for the replacement plan and they are in agreement with the plan. There may be a few items on the list that could be paid from a new fund (new improvement fund or park dedication funds) rather than from the replacement fund. I / ' C) , ) ~ CITY OF ANDOVER \ REQUEST FORCOUNCILACTION ) DATE: March 8. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Haas/, Parks ITEM NO. 11. Discuss 5 Year Trail Improvement Plan The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed 5 Year Trail Improvement Plan as recommended by the Park & Recreation Commission. The top 6 preferences as recommended by the Commission area as follows: 1. East side of 7'h Avenue south of Bunker Lake Boulevard - $20,000 2. Trail along the north side of Bunker Lake Boulevard between Hanson Boulevard and Crane Street - $20,000 3. Trail along 1615t Avenue (south side) between Hanson Boulevard to White Pine Estates - $59,400 4. Trail along Andover Boulevard (south side) between Hummingbird Street (Nature's Run) and Hanson Boulevard - $10,000 * 5. Trail along Verdin Street NW (west side) between 168th Lane NW and 174th Lane NW (to serve new elementary school) - $40,000 Note: The Commission would like to see the potential trail to be funded from a different fund (transportation) versus utilizing trail funds. The new elementary school will be responsible for the trail along this section of Verdin Street. 6. Trail along Andover Boulevard (south side) between Bluebird Street and Xeon Street (for the potential fishing pier at Andover lake) - $20,000 The following projects would be proposed to be paid from the state aid fund: A. Trail along the new Andover Boulevard Extension west of Crosstown Boulevard B. Sidewalk or trail along the north side of Andover Boulevard between Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard C. Trail along Round Lake Boulevard (west side) between Bunker Lake Boulevard and 133rd Avenue - $158,000 Another project that was considered but not recommended at this time is as follows: D. Complete the trail along Crosstown Boulevard (east side) from Sunshine Park to 148th Avenue (There is the potential of extending the trail to Andover Boulevard.) With the development of an anticipated 337 new lots (Aztec Estates-44 townhomes/3 single, Chesterton Commons North 2nd Addition-39 single, Nature's Run-56 townhomes, White Pine Estates- 67 single/34 townhomes, Woodland Creek Townhomes-18 townhomes, Woodland Oaks-76 single) it is estimated that the City would generate about $117,950 ($350 per unit x 337 units) in new trail fees. Estimated trail cost listed above is based on $15 per linear foot. / 'I '--, 8 ~ ~;>-. '" i!1l P ~ l!' ~~~~g~~~~=~~~~G~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~r.~~,.~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~ :a ~ Go 1J 8 ~ ~~~~-O~~~Q_~_.~~O~d~s~~=~o_~O~O_tl~_~O~~Ntl~~~~==oN~rlU~=~~~O 1 '><<<< ~ Ji ,. ~ ", ~ ~ ~ I dj .. "'U~] {iTuJ-.t .. , = ~ ~ ~5~ ~ HUH - . ] .. ;;., ::; ""~ ", 0 <l; ,., .... Cl .. Z _ p:j ~ '---'" Eo:?S ~ ~ 0 0 :0. Co.. Cl<:;..., ~ ~ ;r: .... .... . II r ~ I ~~. I 1.0 "1 .. "B! . z lh ~~ 0 ; ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g~2~ ~ ~~o ~~ :8~ ~ _ Il 0 .' --;.> ~~.... ;:ja- !iI;.::, ~~iilt!;:!.z - ~zgjld fIliil.oiJ::::i "' "' u z&: '" ~~~~~~~~~~i~ ~~'~Q~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~33~~~~~~"" -n '" ] ! i! '" ~.f' <>ll " ~=~~ I-~~~ ~ '~~I~W~~ 6Iq~~5~ ~Z~ffio ~~ .~~~.p~ j ~ ~ Q~~ ~~ L", TI <~<w~~~~<<.<~~~"~~~"<~"~!<~~~,3~~~'5~8~~~~~j~~~~~~~~~~,.~~< "'u ~ "0 I ~ ~ "' 0 -I~' ~<( <( ~ I.~~i-ii.. ~.' ~~"~R!~ ~ "~~g 0 ~ ~- ~ "&" ~. ~b ~ I~ ~ H! ~ ~ ..l ~. "- .. -l" =__~~~s~~~~~"".g~ .~~~~, ,i~,c_~~ ~~g:~:_ ~_.~;;~~o~t~g~n" ~ .. ~~~~~!~~~~~~B~~g!!!~~~~i~~i~$~I~~g~~g~~~~~~~~~~lll~~~.Em~! "- hnH .. .s: . ~. i . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::......,...::o L ":l ;.:: 0 ~~ c. ~ "~ "< " \fl 0 ll. P. !') I ~~ .. ~ 3 3 ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ 1] n ~"'<: :E " ~ ~ - ~ ~~ R~ ~~. 0 ~ ~ ~. ~,~23~~", ~~~ 0 E II . m . ~ "<" ill~-j'@ gg~ j ~ BRI~~I ~1~B~~~!I~~8 < . '" ~ ~ d ..~ "'<: ~ UlUl t;... _:J1a:: 3. :l P. ~ I 00 . ~lJ. 3 ;5~ a.: Po _ ::1< 0 Z ~g. ~IRHI~lili~llllaliiIBI~81;&i 8~11119g:gg8.11 ~.I~IBI51 G' 8 -'"' 0.. ~ :u ".I~III';O~-" i. w~&R " 10..111 ..~ IB"OaOo~..I:ffi la',o~11 B1i~~ ;~ @ "- i121~BHI .~.99~R~I~I~~6~1:laR ~.BIIB~~II~a~~ag~. g~RI~RI~' dB :l'j"!a .. ~fi 11 "i -'"' p~.hH :u ~Nft.~~~~.~~~~;'~C~~R~~R~NM~~n2M~R~~M~Wiji~gQ~wt~~'S~g~~W~~i u~ <qU Q 1<1.... "- I.. l l .. .. .. I .. .. I .. .. .. I I I .. .. 'l .. I .. I .. I I I .. I .. , .. .. ! ~ t ! ! C ~ , , ! 1 t S ! !l ! t ! t S 1 ! , 1 'f ! ! '( 1: ! . S , ! I i I III I I I , I I I I I I II II I I I I II ! I ! ! II! I --- ..- ....,........... .-- 'en ""'-.0 "'~ It) ,..~ ........-.. 1 ~-, -..:..-... ,I "", "" ' - .-- i -' . .-. m < ..- ~~~ .-- , , '~~L .. -........... . '-l..",woao.o.. co ~~\>P> d Qtll ..... ~! . ......- ~j .".... J ~:;, ~,._'" or; ..-:.= _e______ t.,_ ~ ..1. '. ... ...--- ~..:.,.-, lIlj"""l"-"'l<><>jllu_ ..- ~".' ~. C"") " --. - i ~ -~- -- ' '<".' ..- , .- - . ..- -. ..- .-- .-- ~""~--.'-' '-,' .--.--...........-.... '.....oA-IIl.N:)SN'riI -.~.-~.-..--~.-- .0- ..- . .-. N Q ....- O~ I It) . ..- M I"' . ~ .-- , , - .-- ~)(. ,...l~~_..c~.' . ~ : . - . IIIl _.._ r .-- ....-.0- ~."--,j-~l; i ..- .-- "'-",W .I..~' .-. .~ " .-- .-- ,'c ~ 'N .-- j i '..... .-- , ! , .~. ......~~.__i ~ .-- ! .-- i .-- i':; '- ~'~ ..~ ~.~ I CO j" 1 .-- l.rI' .-- ... .....- i. :!i . ..- ~i a . ..- . , .- 0A1lI3)I't'10lolOOW I< .. -........... :; ..- . , . , ~ . .........., ., J , .-- .-- --- -.,~ .,. ~,,-".j , u_ ~ ;~ i ..~ "'l ~~ Q -...... a ~ _.~ < .-- ~ ......= ~ . .......- 8 ..- . ..- ~ - . ..- r ~ - ..- ~ ~ ....- < .......... ~ ..- ~ '-- ~ ;\ ~ - " ..- I ~ Q .....~ tt11AN0KE5T 8 ~ < --- g ~ ..- ! ! - ..- ~ ~ 0 8 .-- I ......... o 8 " ...",.... i r. ,.. ~ ...".-.. . I ." 0 ..- ~~!!1 8 i' ........... ~~~p 1 r .....'.... ~ . ....... .I. 8 c ~ ..."..- .-+-- ~H!!' ~ o. Q f ........ cc83 glli '; ......-.. Ul'15li.!:!~ ;::Ii lfi , Uf€U Hi< ~ J~ ~, ~ . ~, \ " '1 ' I '-~ ~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FORCOUNCILACTION DATE: March 8, 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORlGINA TING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd HaaY Parks ITEM NO. 12. Discuss the Purchase of Andover Lake The City Council is requested to approve the purchase of Outlot A in Old Colony Estates from the Coon Creek Watershed District (CCWD) as recommended by the Park & Recreation Commission. This item was tabled by the City Council at the January 16, 2001 regular meeting to allow a joint discussion with the Park & Recreation Commission regarding the purchase of the parcel. This is being recommended by the Commission, as they are interested in having a fishing pier constructed at Andover Lake with trails connecting to the pier from the adjoining neighborhood. The Commission has approached the CCWD about receiving permission or having an. agreement to have a fishing pier installed but the CCWD Board was not receptive to this but' was receptive to the potential sale of this parcel. Attached are the following for your review: - January 16, 2001 City Council meeting minutes - Map of the parcel that is being considered - Letter from the City to the CCWD dated November 21, 2000 - Letter from the CCWD to the City dated December 13, 2000 - December 21,2000 Park & Recreation Commission meeting minutes with recommendation Note: In discussions with the CCWD staff, it appears that the CCWD may be willing to sell the parcel for $1.00. The CCWD originally purchased the parcel for $1.00 from the developer. Andover Lake is designated as a regional Stormwater pond for the area. There are a number of subdivisions that do drain into Andover Lake. \ \ \_) \..j I Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 16, 2001 Page 8 CEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING/IPOO-29/LAKEVIEW CE AND ADJOINING AREAS stated this is his neighborhood; so when it comes time to vote on the proj ect itself, he will abstain. Erickson explained they will hold informal meetings with the neighborhood prior to the public he to go over the proposal and cost estimates. This is a petitioned project of35 percent for water. 111 ea was also previously identified for the street overlay program. The assessments for water would be vied, but the time of-actual connection is up to the resident There is also a procedure in place for de ng assessments based on the income level. The portion of Gladiola immediately south of Bunker e Boulevard and 135th Lane are 22 feet wide. The intent would be'to widen them to 28 feet, which' close to the City's standard. He wants to review that Vvith the neighbors as well and review 0 ions. They looked at water without the street improvements, but the residents would then pay half of the street replacement. The proposal is to use street overlay funds for the street work. The will also be a small stonn sewer cost. In addition, the Sloth property could be subdivided into fou esidentiallots. He will be meeting with the owners to discuss the assessment, as it is quite substant I Mayor Gamache asked about the connection to water on the comer 15 of Crooked Lake Boulevard. Mr. Erickson stated they would work with the individual property 0 ers and try to get in close to their wells. In some cases it .may be closer to connect from the line co down the street; others may be served from Crooked Lake Boulevard, whichever is more economi They would have to look at each lot to determine whether the water assessment would be from th roj ect or from the Crooked Lake Boulevard project. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, the Resolution (Resolution ROl 0-01 receivin easibility report and calling public hearing on improvements of watermain and streets, IPOO-29...in the Lakeview Terrace and Adjoining Areas.) Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE REQUEST TO PURSUE PURCHASING PARCEVANDOVER LAKE . The Council discussed the request from the Park and Recreation Commission to purchase Outlot A . in Old Colony Estates from the Coon Creek Watershed District, as they are interested in having a fishing pier constructed at Andover Lake with trails connecting to it from the adjoining neighborhood. The Coon Creek Watershed was not receptive to an agreement to have a fishing pier there but instead preferred selling the parcel to the City. Winslow Holasek stated there are property owners who fish in Andover Lake. At one time it was stocked with fish, but he didn't know what is there now. This is a regional pond. Who vvould be responsible for its maintenance if the City buys this parcel? The pond is very deep and constructed in stages. He was at the watershed meeting when this was discussed, and the consensus he received was that they didn't want the liability of a pier. \ \ , ) U \ ) Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - January 16,2001 Page 9 (Request to Pursue Purchasing Parcel/Andover Lake, Continued) The Council was also concerned with accepting maintenance of Andover Lake, the liability and cost of a pier, with a park along Andover Boulevard because it is a very narrow, busy street and the lack of parking for anyone coming there from outside the neighborhood. Mr. Carlberg suggested this item be discussed at a joint meeting 'with the Park and Recreation Commission after the new Commissioners have been appointed. The Council agreed. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Knight, to table the purchase of the parcel on Andover Lake until a joint meeting with the Park Board and City Council. Motion carrie4 unanimously. . DISCUSS CO-CITIES COMMUNITY CENTER/PHASE II FEASIBILITY STUDY/FOCUS UP/SURVEY Mr. Car rg outlined the letter from Steve Erickson, BWER Architects, on the next steps to be' I taken for the cond phase of the feasibility study for the co-cities community center. Phase 2 is to establish a focus 0 oup, who will tailor a survey being prepared by Leisure Vision to the City. It is suggested the focus g up consist of seven to ten people. The time frame suggested by Mr. Erickson is very short, though he li explained to 1,,11'. Erickson that the City would not be able to meet that time line. He asked the Co '1 to consider the make up of the focus group and then ways to solicit people. The study originally 51 d with the Cities of Anoka, Ramsey and Andover and the school district. Both the school district an the City of Anoka have dropped out, though Anoka might be willing to provide some dollars if their sidents receive a benefit. The Council agreed to proceed with the survey with Ramsey even thou~ it may be shelved. Mr. Carlberg made it clear that establishing the focus group and doing the SUl"\ does not commit the City to a conununity center, nor does it mean the City will go beyond that. . is information gathering only to find out what the people are thinking and to get ideas. Mr. Carlberg continued finding a location for a community enter if both Rfj.Illsey and. Andover ~ proceed will be an issue. When the City of Anoka was involve , he thought was a good location for the center would be where the new library is now off Bunker La Boulevard and 7th Avenue. Location may be an issue for the focus group to look at. As far as knows, Ramsey is still interested. The funding for this phase has already been allocated. It has be an on-going process and this is just gathering information, which would not involve the new City ministrator at this point. He expected the new Andover Today would have an invitation for mem ers to the focus group and the process begun prior to the start of a new administrator. The Council was concerned that the focus group not be an advocacy group. Mr. Carlbero stated definitely not, it is a fact finding, advisory group which will be reviewing the survey by Lel re Vision and tailoring it to Andover. Once the cities finalize the survey, Leisure Vision will maiiit~ out to the residents. . \ ("_'__ t.!>',.n.-s I_' "---""UN"',.,,, I"""'\. ) \ ~. . $E,^,,' ~"'''''ON ,/I~r:p.."" I"", . , . -' '-' I ~\'~~,r.~"~'''~ ~ -' .- ~ "".. '.CI ,,~,'I :'1-'. I" .,', < , /- ,.- ,.. I NlGHn"~'Lr .;.;;."",:,~'i+. . ,.,. I OAKVlr" ',';'" 'b',,,,' ,/.1!l?l:C;\~'" " "IP' " ~. ~v / >~PRAJ;;r I I I T" T"~,"~..., I I, ...~~ ~if.);).'(Q:i:" I ~,:.,,'.}.~6 !$;i~'1^'(;(' ., . . . . ' ,. E$T,4TF;S' <if-':.',ffi~-: "'OOU :~ /-\';~~i', .,,,~.!' ':Ji..: .:' . <.:> /!. I' Ii . ,tD-.:::. i~.. ~~':9*,': ~'I-.I. .'CHO.".'I ~i/G ';"~/'~;'~~r"',fo134,~:~E / Ii ~ I 10~K' . ,I.. I ~! I .--~'""~:..: I "r-"'" .....liJi;Y; KO~/(>> '(~A 1 I If ' .... I.' I 1 '1\.<''' '\... :1'1 .' . '1"'I!~~9',(. I 'T I l~ I .,.,." I - - 1 ~ I ' I R" 1 .~.' '.:~_._,': . "'"'el".I,\',, "- ,. I ! """,i~;;';:I:;'[j,,,:.il:,,;,,'n ~'I '\ " i" ",~,''!''",,,..:I''''i''''''''''' 'I' I ,',' I - !.~. !-!:j;:~;5:,b!.~::~'?"~:~r11,' ~"r"N .' ' 'r" I 'f=] .."....,.i.~/.',.'jl.~'"'''.,,.,'..''''> " '" .,,' . .'''. I I 1 . ...".,",.,...,',.....~...,.. .1, ~ I I Ii :;:..J...-;\~1.'.'. ,l.,-";.!~.,:."'.~'i7):.ll;~'.(...~p' II Sc -9 ./...; .11\10,..," 4" I \ I , :.)ki~,;J~, '1;I-V!~ :;;~l~II~?ii:'l: II VAJ?F ."A':P;~ ~t " r ~I' ",... . I I I FR. CEF^"""NT:';e!i,~:\IW~~;;J, '\ 2. ~'~. II I I I . I \ ;~::;!; ,.b;;iJ;,;;;;"~;~~\' : h ' .\~;{o', . I .%~!- " ' -:-.__ . _ . ;,..;.".., .,.,,"''';-~~ "..",1, ,. '. e:.." ,'. '!-' ~ T;..'o J ... ' ~,:t1:F"'/"'~~ """'W;"""'-'~l' .....- ";,;.-'-"- .,,- -------, d~t~~" iW~~' 7i~~'-.1 II L ~ , ,.$"'" . ~ 'lI,I'-' '. :, "..!r. ,.,.." -- - - f-)--- ' -' . . : "..I~'-Tk', . ",!>I-j. '_'~" ::! i. ....7 ',., c.,"" , ' " "'" ---- ~'V . , ."" ." . I" ,..., '"' ...' ,,' " . . " ~, I .tt!:l.'0,. .,': . . ....~~~~. I " . .... ~'7 f+++~+r.- '" . I 1>.: .1 , ".. ~,. '.. ",:; \ I I' . '" ., ,. ,. r.;. ,W:I'\..~;::;.. '" fTe~''''r ",..,..r--1F..~rArcS.T.j :' ' 'i' ., .,.... " . ~1;1" -l.. /' I , .~ 'oODI.^ND~ ~:;":~~~i '"' .. --" ' 'I;"; ", . ',. I ,/ I...,~, .=.,~~.;cLi ""'~M' :," '''i:'?(-'' '0 " " _, _, , '. .. ,'''-J' ~ : ,I, ;.; '. ,,;.';. ~ .' '. , ~~:.~'fi.r.I-I";W',."W.i./~}\ ,I' "..... '. . ~"'I I' "'-. ~ ~ ~ I ". ..='.,,, 1'/1 ..t..~: "....1 I.... I ,{ I'"'''' "' ......" """"I .,. ~ ' , "'- ." . I r . "-.i..l_1'~ 11' l t I) I <I I I / / ' h3l14- .' ' . '~'J:'OO""" , .. ../ '. . '<l ' I '. T ' ;;;p,"EW,~~'a'JiflT ;,; -+- 'I 'I'I'",",~/'/ / 1\' . . N' .f.'. I. ....'..\ I C" ,',. . ....,~.z ,J ' ' , . . I" "C', ",; , "...... ;r;.' .. . I ~. . ruth , ~~I:';~~:"';"~" ii ' ., ~t?Jt~.'.,l;JI.,~. F ". \' .,pi ( B2RJi.,c;i::fhuJl.....'~..~~.......'...?i..,.',:,:,:.'.);o.~:.,.~i::_..~ I ' -'- _ P.~I'J'Y....,=' " ..,. ...... ' . ., -iI -.- l"""~'" '~'.:>O. , ,-,', "al,\,: ,."'1"" I::" . ,,,,.'~;" ...' ~ ~.'..r..' . i.":i:c,::r!'rl'~:' I T ';...H-'fl{0G!r~E/j 1~J'~".Il"'-ir ':"'.' ""'.'" .;.. 7\\.~?iftfi;X>\;".a.' . ~ ,.,p~!JI~ ;/ oA1Ks_.i:. ND L. ;4z;)..c.v.......!:lj'.;:;.:II..:.~;;.'.: , , '# .Fg]k~i.!1. ~;, . ,."",~""""".,,,, ' ~~ III 'r-~ ~.',"','.,..).,i'!,' -';-'?i:~i I !' =s;y' ~'ll:J\'m.'''' · \./. .,. . , . ,1,1;[; . W-:L'IW~ - ,~.:.::' -r- ~ - ~ - - L -" _:.. .' "'0'" ,.''-'""],;",;"" I 1;.~S~A~_;;-: ~~~: I:J~AI1TAtL~.\~, ~:.i'~ . . I' . /" " , \ I, -.,-~ . ; ~ _ . '.. .m ....' I' ~. ES"AT.'O-r =t>;~. .' ~s~ ' ' . ., ' ;~__g' 1 .'~""" ~" :. .<"",:;:,,'" ~ 'O~ .' \ . T , ..:.A 1 ........ m' .\ . . 'iI' I' -- /' , I !" ,,' "r.TU ,'.,. . i-'-' · . " c', ' ", . ,",'ro ,.'. "'" ~-,..'~. of.. .,., 'r.. I .I'~s.l%'rf~~.l..,..'- Ii 1 ,;' IIH:_" rl : ..~. c;.\\~-\-~fO"" .,' I' i\H~ I , fl~ ~'l' I'~" I' TTl!1T ~ ' i,",1 . ~.... ,n ...... ' .11 1 ~~' . ~;.' .., . ,....'" ' !f;:!;. ,: '+" f''''''' ..... ' ' '.~ I' , . .' . ~.."., . ""v"{""";f"~ i III -,..-=?,. .. ,=~ . ' ~. . . . .~r~" 1"1''''''''''''' I' ~,,= I ',;):f,/;.:. :, .. :"J>,,-' \ . : !~"I' ,It""'''''''~'~ '.....~ ~', ..".,.",,, '1' J .,.' ,~0" .. . I.J<!"V ' , . '~1 ~ f,'rn, "0 ~ w ,,,,.~.,.' , I ;~,':J.X. '~,. ~ '~~.f~. I ; i 'o~9t~;...:.:f~:' ' () r:;:~' i'~ '. ~ [jJj1';J" t::~;.!"l!~~x. I ~'---J: ![f~~" .: i'$..w: ~~l~i~ . j: c~~':.~~2g,J""f~ 1~ II .l' \}.?'1 "I~. '. : i:" . r.ji,: . , r. .. ~ ~;ll~n i!' rJX/J' %'>:0'111'.:. ;,. I Yo. "'~X~~.;;:, .)?~i" 1 !J.. i IF'~~~~a l ~~~] ," ':~l,'''<:'' l\/";~){';;' ~'" 'I~~'" ' ~~ '., ,~~ .. .......1 ~ ,!~~,j: ~<~,.,!B E'Stl);'" ',"" ,',', : - ~'Z/r.// ~ .\..~-tl ,.;;;r. ~'(.....<\i;Y.'\l' '''''.I....~ ~.. I"'."~ ,,"" . " ~.'~ ,,./El,.,,,,," ~I . s..'\,1.1.//>....-.., ;,.~~"';', ~ ' ,r~y;.,~/' n~ ll.';;',; I ~ HT.~ IlRJDI(1 . .' '/~/J"""'-- ,.J"....~.;;:Lj!!!'A... '~~)(""'>4ii ,m'" .... I.~ .U' .. ....',' ,~....'';"'''.l:J!lt3 j!r;~;;" !' Iki,~'.' \\ ::U;i"'l:r.,~ l?....~." - ,_^ . KEN '~'" ,i. ' .""""",", '-""J'''' '." .., '" .~!ti~h;;.""J"'..c.l. .J"""b.f, 11 I"~.i..,.,,~~..........a;].~ '."." ; ~.'.~.~~ I 'I~t~;~~-\~ ~:~~~%:cls~,:'.n ,,,,,Mi;-%~~~....,i"'..wurP , . .{_ ':7'.... '''''''i'''"", . O"IN I .,.."..' "';},' .'" >..,If: "" '." p."" ~.".~'" . "I,"' '." 0' . . I . I'::> ....h..tt,..:.;c;;!1;l~..'.,""l '~'~Y::!"".iI.J...-.'.'.'cr.".".'''''.'':';.D."m. 11~"~';'" J, ~~~4 "",,+,.;;;;;.;;;r.r:I;;;:;~. . .'- .'01'1111111'" 1~._1' .. ":-i;i.~:i!' I "IT~'L" ". ~ . ~.n~'''' ' " r= ...,., r.r~' ;;.....~ _ \ ." EI' ." ,.'''' l'::'k.:.:~ ';" ---~' ... '.'" . . ~~'" 'C t: ; .~_.."'''''''''..'' ,~,,,,. ~ \' I! ,HIL '$h'''f!"~,.~ . - . ,.1.11'111,01. .. I" .........;{t", ..J1'''''. =.- !. ;;' .Y.i< ,I" , . ,!!~.~ .~."", ,~, . ~'\' ~ I" . .:;;; "'f.;'''' ,,71J. !'.""'~~.' "-I"'~~~'~~l'~ ,..lC~....r."'~.,.,,,~ ";'.K@r"'''''-'''' .... ~.,./~.;!.. .~.pi. . ,'1'9cl'~"oI ....~~s1 LJ ~'/~' . . tr,. .... "J".,....,. '''. ,'. . ".,~.,..,. .. "C,.' . .~; :,,' 1..' c; 00'- 1 , . '>(fJ' , . _______.- I , :?' .!~~' ., , _..._,,~. ~. . H'."'" . ,.';,'"'" I, '~I';' ~. ..~.~:::, .;Jj:1". '. II :' ,~'.::.\!.,J.:."."'P,"~"'''.''':TI'-:'!.l'''''':r!:'#I'f.,.Vf.,.''S;;,\,~'I'1I0~W 111')4\""~' . '. 1!:. ~ .,. . . ~,,'!:"W" ,.' .... ".;e KV.l -..1 OJ (, "':..' '''1' '. . i ~:i:~~@'j:;:. , !li"\',,,,.! ~k... DD".." ",,' . Fr:' ',,r:' ",,\h ,;:tc ,,\III - ..r.-lir;";::x.'/j' . .' .. ~~'~ ' I >:'O<ii....-;'~?,X . '\'I'~'~, ."" f? \ r" .;;~~ Ii: ." ".' \ j7\S~~ OJ.. , : ..:L." I 'I"~,~j: I, I' .:/x::1~c;j~~\Y'.:f' \ I\~ I. :' 'ilia "~. '-e. ':: ,,\:o...r::~t.:.~ ' ~~. lj~!JL~ ;)7'\ ~ ...... . "." ". . , "'....)-;1.. '~.".. ,.'" . ,..' ~ . .. . \..~L' .' . :W.:Bi: ' : I " " ',,;;:fJ;''fJ!f. ';;).~~~t; .,::;;t;\. ,;","Ii:~g(<~: .../-f~.' "! ~,';-~ ....,. .' . .n"'i'cLl",," ",.."., . I',~'_" . - 1;;v ...-'~ WI '1-1'.l';:,~.' '," w;.r/}. f?;?i~-; : ! i ~,: · ~-{W/...;, '.. ii'.'i1l.WYt. r,:. ~.I . .p..,~...,~.j~~ft.';:.~~ ~~ f" ,~~~..~." ~ ~"'w~, a.' 'f~~"'i~' ---------'1----'- ,: ~'. 1~(H1;;. :..';;l2'-if~J.:1I.~ 'I""f.;. <~',2'..;.:'.:'?", '~' "';' ,:,",w;:t; ,.;Jl '\.. /..'U!i'1",Vwl.J, ,.: r,,-r.).J." o~.. . Ii: il 8.."'ii~' .. , .: NNKtpf!." 1iJfJ- ".... .-OI-;r;7J.r:r:f4 '1. !r.i;;;f7., i1.....,' ~ '.riY '. ".(~r=..'" ,,: !I ~.r.'. ' '.".. 'I""~ /,.... ~y ,"I" .' . ''in 1'f' ' .~'m(. F/crr-:Jr;. lP,;" ., ,', . . ,'..:..->" " . .,. ".1.. ...",.. ~"" r;; ,fU~~~' ,. ~p.De '~,., !'/.CHAV':""' 11 OAKS', .'" ;. ..,.,;;r;'.;T.'I:~ /), I., ,~."~.!i~';''R,'"I';~~''' t'~,:ij~ 1':~'/o5f~?,:".:i{-.t+~l!f:;?;l!1"""e'~4:"'" """ """ g' , ' ~ " ~ ."".. ""__""~ ' """'~"~'" -~'C :; _,,5 : '; " ;; !,,''''''r~ . ' ,."" - ". '"" .,.' ",,~.,..:,.,., ocrL!:-' " ....... '0 ...; AOu, 1,,0'," ~:!.fo,~l" . (I 1 ..L"Q' lt~itll.I..,:'ilr:,a~"\'i""NO!l~ . ""'7\'\"'<.~J"'/.~:.~ ~:' ,.W~ .__ . .. .'-J' ,'''-;'.''1. '" ',f"~' ".,~~ ./...,6 . ~~ , \' , """- 1'1-'1.3". '.Nt. .,,=~~,I . --ill. tJ....... t ~";' ~"flll"}~~~,ln;\~:l,;o'~l~~'. "":7:".-'''' :W/ . ~ Lf;~~- .-- c ~.. ~.... - ~~ n \ i, " /,i/.I.'" '1'.iJ.l. .,.INJit~..'"' .. "" ...c....".../. '/ ,".". .., . ,..... ~.--~r;- _..~_..~ . '. ,. " .. ". ". / 1'- __.,,_~.== ' - 'n' . "';.::L." 1_.. - ! ' ~., " :r."ooN . P.~iDJ,;,1 A .'1 ; ,= :::.'!. I ::"~~ I .1''''';\'''' .,0- ~/rVI"~ ~K.t:fT.'), '.:, ~ 11 , ' . WATT:5' i i :~_. '-'" ...~ I I \>~,':'i,\: /l k'{"~ ~ :~" :1 'L' " , ,". ..! ,..... ~ ...:"~.' ~ \ V'.'.'{:/'L" ~~ .,11 '- li"~t:O'''Mt; ;.o..""}:! j . GARDEiV&;~'l ~, .- II I I :::"\~ .,;.; ~ .\... "3"C "'S:> - . i~ I ~"-''- \~::.. \,' " .p, K ' ,. "",--"-.:.-"i J ",CI1E$" !~" I I ':;;,: ,,/;~" l.:<Y,i'''-':'''i'''''SlOf!:=''~''PU~!.' wr. -.---. .... .b. \ \ I :}~0\' ~"..:...- .~~""\.~1. ~""y~~,. '1'''!'II!' II,,,, 'i' Ilri%l"~'" ~":' -----r-~----I- .... ,~~,';""~"'.".''': r :r, ~,;, ~o. .:"'1"""'"' '," .,17 ,"x,' I -- - _~:" .""" .,,<1, '''~.-'>.___.'''~;,",EmNr..;;;:;:.r;-." ~ 1 I ',iii.S:; m~'"'<.:'> :!:.li.i"""'~-:J, '~IIJI~ ~~~r.~~""fl41'J;'vltflor. ., I, '. .r'~' I' .. . I "'/('~:; 14 {:}-~:)':':,t!:~}\.'x.-:t-:~,~, 8~; _ , '.' ." .._ . ''If- " 'M"""""" . . . . .n ~"" .J.. ", :~ff'''.u' M;'~~/,,~i"~' ~J ',..."'......,.,.I'~I.!!;.;~i~'" I I 5":' ~;I\::j3f\ .1'~'2'Wl. "~ .m. f: ;..;".~JI~je~.!.r!, . 'ii""""q"' ~ '.; $O~..'tt!i.~~ Eii.crl \ I ;~~['j)1I ," . ',.n ~~..lo/'l~ 'nE~~,~, ....~n \~.'" '~:'g'-'- I I \,~ Z~Th!~~ ",. ~c " II .. . ..,':";"r4....'~~ ~~~ 'Gl.~ t .. ,--"--vI.I...,.: : :..~ ~ ;;,;'}' ___ .~ '. ",",",,~' ,.. " "I ...... ...y I I f [,1' ,~. " . N':,., f)i:: C...t"..........~..l P'''.'-\Ir~,(.. ,.;...-.1,'1-. ......'r =rr-l~~ I ,.,' i!}i ,,' ,'""",,, .......,,...,..,,, "\i'i'-'r..".,.\'A).~-'""'"" =..~. \.) \. ) , \ J CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.' ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 November 21,2000 Tim Kelly; Administrator Coon Creek Watershed District 12301 Central Avenue Northeast Suite 100 Blaine, MN 55434 Re: Andover Lake located in Section 26~32-24 J Dear Tim: As previously discussed with.you, the Andover Park & Recreation Commission is very . interested in receiving permission or have an agreement to have a fishing pier installed at Andover Lake. As you are well aware, the Coon Creek Watershed District is the current owner of this parcel. We would appreciate if the Watershed would review this request as soon as possible or by December 5, 2000, so the information can be presented to the Park & Recreation Commission at their December 7,2000 meeting. If you need further information or have any questions, feel free to contact me at 767- 5131. Sincerely, .t!K;{~ Parks Coordinator T JH:rja ~J () Ar>,.dcv"-t'". ~ ,. ~. 0 N C R E E K W A T E R S H E D 0 I S T R I C T . 1 230 1 Central Avenue Northeast. suite 100 . Blaine. Minnesota 55434 December 13, 2000 RF'C"I'-f) I r:,c<,u - - I 1 I flEe I It ?[}.')~ I ! Todd Haas ... '- l..1J.. City of Andover Clr--- 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. y C'~ . ;-,-'-;"-- I, . ,;., Andover, MN 55304 ...-', Re: Lake Andover Dear Todd: On November 27 the Districtreceived you letter concerning Lake 1\J:1dover. The Board of Managers at their December 11, 2000 meeting discussed the matter. At that meeting, the Board was not receptive to a fishing pier on Lake Andover but was receptive to tbe potential sale of this parcel to the City of Andover provided the parcels primary use as a . regional stormwater pond was maintained. Attached'is a copy of the staff report provided to the Board of Managers. on this issue. The Board'directed staff to work with the City of Andover on a process that could result in the sale ofthe parcel to the City of Andover. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 763-755-0975 Tim Kelly . District Administrator Cc: M. Ulrich / ~-J '\ ,-) COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Request for Board Action MEETING DATE:. December 11,2000 AGENDA NUMBER: 15 FILE NUMBER: ITEM: Lake Andover POLICY IMPACT: Discussion FISCAL IMPACT: Nonbudgeted REQUEST Discuss the potential sale/transfer of Lake Andover Regional Pond to the city of Andover. BACKGROUND On November 17 staff received a call from Todd Haas, City of Andover, concerning establishing a fishing pier in Lake Andover. Haas followed up our conversation with the attached letter. Lake Andover outlot was sold to the District as by Gaughn Company in 1989 for $1.00. The outlot was acquired for construction of a regional pond. The pond was constl.1lcted under contract with Park Construction in 1991. Since that time, adjacent home owners have stocked fish in the pond, as well as constructed the occasional tree house or other structures. ISSUES/CONCERNS 1. Liabilitv: 2. Sale/Transfer of Pond: RECOMMENDATION Discussion Motion Second Yes No Knoll Hentges Hoffman Marvin Williams ~~~) \ ~ \.J p . r: . , , Regular Andover Park and Recreation Commission Meeting 1 Minutes -December 21, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Grabowski mentioned that it would wise to sell off the park properties, since they are the City's responsibility to maintain and the City doesn't have enough manpower to keep them up. . Mr. Bennett mentioned that the best idea would be to have the property leased which would prevent the City from having to buy it back in the future. Motion by Kieffer, seconded by Tom Anderson, to recommend to the City Council that a lease agreement be drawn up for an indefinite period oftime or until the road is reconstlUcted for the park property off Tulip Street. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, O-nays, O-absent vote. UPDATE OF FISHING PIER AT ANDOVER LAKE, CONT. Mr. Haas stated that a response letter dated December 13,2000 has been recei~'ed fi-om the Coon Creek Watershed District. He mentioned that if the Commission is interested they should make a motion to recommend it to the Council. Motion by Grabowski, seconded by Tom Anderson, to recommend to the City Council approval / to purchase Andover Lake from the Coon Creek Watershed District. Motion canied on a 7 -ayes, -nays, O-absent vote. UPDATE OF HIDDEN CREEK NORTH PARK/IRRIGATION SYSTEM Mr. Haas explained that the Commission is being asked to recommend to the Council the ordering of plans and specifications for the improvement for irrigation at Hidden Creek NOlth Park, Project 00-44. COlmnissioner O'Toole questioned how much it would cost or if it would covered by the grant. :tvtr. Haas explained that if the bid were to come in at 5) 19,000 the City would get 1/3 of that paid by the grant. He stated that it might be possible to include some of the areas adjacent to the soccer field. Mr. Haas also mentioned that the City is planning to reseed and feltilize the soccer field as part of the grant. Chainuan Lindahl stated that that would put the City at $45,000 with 1/3 of the cost being paid by the grant, whicl:]. would leave the City with $30,000. Cormnissioner Grabowski stated that the fields are wom out and need to be redone or they won't .be any good. Conunissioner Paul Anderson mentioned that it really should look better along the road. Cormnissioner 0 'Toole stated that he would be in favor of doing the soccer field, the ball field, and the adjacent areas to the ball field and soccer fields. ,~ '\ ' , ~ ' ~/ '--./ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FORCOUNCILACTION \ ) DATE: March 8, 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Discussion Item Todd Ha~ Parks ITEM NO. 13. Discuss Weekend Tournaments of the Athletic Associations Council member Knight had requested at the December 19,2000 meeting that the discussion regarding weekend tournaments of the athletic associations be considered at a meeting in January. On February 6th, the City Council agreed to include this discussion with the Park & Recreation Commission joint meeting. , I I I I \ , ) ,~ ) ) Regular City Council Meeting February 6, 2001 - Minutes Page 2 CONSENT ITEMS Item 1 UpdatekW~et<ei111:crQJ;iJ,1iaiileiJ:t$;JHr;t1le}~tl11~tit;)~?$tiQl~IhSWg;.::;~if ~~, --, - :>'~"';::': ,';;"\ci..."';;.:\:~ ..~. >f..,;,;:".:;;,;;:',,-.:., _,,~ ';',.,", ".'0.'." ._~, -. -"..;',t. ,'-~;;.'-":8"..'~'. ,,;.r~, ~".->l',,"'.,,",~,,", ,-,'_ .. ',"'_" '_~""""'~''''....,''I'.-""" .';",," Itein 2 Approve Change Order #2/99-17 & 98-l1B/Mmiin Street & Jay Street (Resolution RO 11-0 1) . Item 3 Approve Plans & Specs/OI-3/Crack Sealing (Resolution R012-0!) Item 4 . Approve Plans & Specs/01-4/Seal Coating (Resolution ROl3-0!) Item 5 Order Plans & Specs/OO-36/Makah St. & 149th Ln/Stonn Sewer Replacement (Resolution 014-01) Item 6 Waive Public Hearing/Adopt Assessment RoIl/99-36/Sunridge (Resolution 015-01) Item 7 Release Stonn Sewer Escrow/92-l O/Pheasant Meadows Item 8 Approve Change Order #3 (Compensating)/00-22/Misc. Concrete Curb & Gutter (Resolution 0 16-01) Item 9 Approve Final PaymentlOO-22/Misc. Concrete Curb & Gutter (Resolution 017-01) / Item I 0 Update of Selling & Leasing of Park Property Item 1 I Approve Change for Fee Schedule/Right-of-Way Management (Resolution 018-0 I) Item 12 Approve Hiling/City Planner Item 13 Accept Resignation/J eff J oImson/Zoning Administrator Item 14 Recycling Update Motion by Jacobson, seconded by Knight to approve the consent items. Motion carried on a 3-yes (Jacobson, Knight, Gamache), 2-absent (Orttel, Trude) vote. APPROVE AMENDED SPECL<\L USE PERMIT (ASUP 01-01)/14327 7th A VE./RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO John Heer. Reliant Energv Minne!Zasco - noted that they have operated a peak shaving facility at this site for the last 30 years and they would like to upgrade it by adding 3 new propane storage tanks, new buildings and the removal of the existing building, additional gas & fire detection equipment and remote monitoring equipment The landscaping ,,,,ill also be improved. On extremely cold days the pipelines are being run at capacity and this facility is then turned on to serve their custo"mers. Because the facility is only needed a few times each year it is more cost effective to upgrade this facility than to build a big facility. Reliant Energy Minnegasco has 10 of these facilities in the state. The largest is in BUl1lsville, there is one in Mankato, one in Coon Rapids and one in Alexandria. , , : \ r- 'j CITY OF ANDOVER '"-, ,~ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 6. 2001 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Consent Item ~d Haas, Parks ITEM NO. u pd ate~;e.S7~~:1'fgf&~!irtr:'f~m~JjtSyp!rttr~J,~lBl&~fo1~~,!?q,Gi91!WIl!?~]t"~~, I ' "'-'~~"""-"~H.~<""".,=".""'ii:=Lf.,..~"~,.,"'-"'"".:'"",~.:d.\,,,,;:l"'~:l",,,'l(;,",,,,,,'l,W Council member Knight had requested at the December 19, 2000 meeting that the discussion regarding weekend tournaments of the athletic associations be considered at a meeting in January. It may be appropriate to include this discussion at the joint meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission. 1 , \ \ v ,--) .. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - December 19, 2000 Page 17 (Nature's Run/DH Land Company, Continued) Winslow Holasek asked for clarification on the status of the traiL Other developers were required to construct the trail along Hanson Boulevard when the project was constructed. Hanlilton Square paid for almost a fourth mile of trail for 16 acres. It is totally unfair to charge one party and not another. Mr. Erickson stated those put in as a part of the project along county right of way were done at a 50-50 cost share by the developer and City. Now connnercial would pay 100 percent of the trail cost and the residents pay through a trail fee of $350 per lot. Mr. Johnston stated they would not object to an extension of the 60-day time requirement as long as it will be completed in a reasonable time. He also asked to be able to provide testimony at the work session in January, thinking what they are proposing is reasonable. Council asked that the approval for the extension of time be made in writing. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to table Items 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 until the meeting of January 16,2001. At the same time set a Council work session on the 9th of January to discuss the issues relating to the plat brought up at the meeting tonight. Tills extension to the 16th even though it misses the December 31 deadline, The reason for the extension is the Council has a number of questions relating to the plat and some situations and not due to fault of the developer, who got the plat in before the designated time. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, I-Present (McKelvey) vote. ADOPT 2001 FEE SCHEDULES Mayor McKelvey was concerned that the City is subsidizing the athletic associations on their weekend tournaments. Tne associations get a fee for the games, but the City pays out over $3,000 for weekend maintemlllce. Mr. Dickinson stated the direction was to look into an intern for scheduling of park activities. At that meeting there was no direction on the fees but there was discussion on how maintenance was being done. Councilmember Ortte] felt the issue deserves being looked at. Motion by Knight, Seconded by Trude, to table Item 32 until the first meeting in January. DISCUSSION: Mayor McKelvey stated he has been told the Park Board sets their fees only once a year. He did not have a problem approving the fee schedule now with the understanding that this would be addressed and possibly a change made in the near future. \ Councilmember Trude and Knight withdrew the Second and the Motion. . Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Knight, to approve the Fee Schedule as presented. (Resolution R284-00) Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-No (McKelvey) vote. Councilmember Knight asked that the -:f .-7> item on the weekend tournaments of the athletic associations be considered at a meeting in. January.