Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-24-03APPROVED Members Present: Mike Eliason, Mark Jacobs, Eric Johnson (arrived 7:07 p.m.), Steve Wilson, Phil Sterner (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) Members Absent: None Student Volunteer: Philip Harris Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary Others Present: Homer Tompkins, President of Contact Property Developers Company (CPDC) 3030 Centre Point Drive, Roseville, MN CALL TO ORDER: Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2003 AGENDA: MOTION by Wilson to approve the November 24, 2003 agenda. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 3. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 27, 2003 MINUTES: MOTION by Eliason to approve the minutes of October 27, 2003. SECOND by Wilson. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Athletic Complex – Schultz gave the Commission an update and reviewed the proposed facilities check list. Schultz thought the Commission should move forward with a recommendation to the City Council to start looking at a draft site plan and cost estimate for a future athletic complex. This will give us an idea of how many acres we’ll need for the facility and a cost estimate for the facility. MOTION by Sterner recommending that the City Council move forward with securing a draft site plan and cost estimate for a future athletic complex as listed on the proposed facilities list. SECOND by Eliason. There was concern that we would be limiting the facilities that would be included in the athletic complex by referencing the proposed facilities list. Schultz recommended starting with the proposed facilities list, including an aquatic park, and adding alternative sports areas or other items later. Schultz will bring back a generic layout and the Commission can plug in some of the other items. Jacobs asked for a friendly amendment regarding the facilities list portion of the motion so as not to limit the options for facilities. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Sterner to put a period after the word “complex”. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. b. Brockway Concept Plan – Staff reviewed a map of the Brockway concept plan. Last month the Commission discussed the concept and talked about some of the ideas for the property. The most recently submitted plan calls for 612 units, which would require 24.48 acres of parks dedication. At this point 12.9 acres are being proposed, which would leave approximately 11.5 acres for parks dedication. Based on the concept plan of 612 units, the Parks Master Plan would require a neighborhood park to be built in the development. Our typical neighborhood park service standards are 300 to 650 households. The acreage area being proposed for the park is located in the southwest corner of the development, and includes a number of trees and a small wetland. The area would most likely be set aside for passive recreation. The developer is also proposing to build a private park, community center and other recreational amenities across the street from the public park area. Schultz he has urged the City Council and City staff to make sure that we provide enough active recreation areas in new developments so as not to over-burden current facilities that are already in high demand. Schultz would recommend that we incorporate the private area designated for a ball field into a public use area. Schultz recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission approve the concept plan, but take another look at the separation between some of the private and public park amenities and follow the Parks Master Plan with regard to meeting the criteria for a neighborhood park and the type of land that is acceptable for credit toward parks dedication. Mr. Tompkins addressed the Commission and answered questions regarding the concept plan. He asked for clarification of parks dedication requirements. Schultz stated that parks dedication is 1/25th of an acre per unit. This is based on the units built, not on a percentage based on the type of housing unit. In order to meet the City’s requirement for 24.48 acres of parks dedication, Mr. Tompkins stated that in lieu of paying cash parks dedication, they would prefer to build the amenities in the public park, with direction from the Commission as to the amenities to be included. Mr. Tompkins asked how the Commission would feel about taking the private park area and converting it to a public park, (with the exception of a defined area for the clubhouse and swimming pool) and having that area be dedicated to the City as a public park. He asked the Commission for direction as far as the park amenities they feel would be advantageous for the size of this community so as not to create a burden on other park facilities in the City. He also asked the Commission to keep in mind that they are designing the community to be intergenerational housing and asked if there are other amenities the Commission feels seniors would use that could be added to the plan. Mr. Tompkins asked for a recommendation from the Commission for approval of the concept plan provided that they provide either cash, or public improvements satisfactory to the Commission in lieu of cash, within the Brockway development. If they are considering having to pay parks dedication he would be willing to include park amenities/facilities in the public park in lieu of some of the cash parks dedication requirement. With input from the Commission, Mr. Tompkins would like to come up with a plan to build these facilities. He was looking for specific direction from the Commission as to the facilities they would like. There was discussion regarding the proposed tunnel under the road that bisects the park, and the possibility of removing this road from the plan. This removal would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. If the road is retained, Mr. Tompkins had several suggestions for slowing traffic, such as narrowing the road at both ends, adding pavers, etc. There was discussion about including a parking lot, which Mr. Tompkins supported whether the road was there or not. Mr. Tompkins also suggested that it would be nice to have a trail connection to Central Park. Adding amenities such as tennis courts, mini-golf, a putting range, bocce ball, etc. was also suggested. Mr. Tompkins thought all of these were good ideas. He seemed very willing to work with the Commission on developing the parkland and adding amenities in this area. Mr. Tompkins is looking for a recommendation from the Commission that the concept plan is fine and it would be o.k. for them to build recreational facilities to help them meet their park dedication requirement, those facilities to be determined at a later date when they come back with a more defined plan. He was also looking for direction from the Commission regarding what to put on the plan. Schultz stated that the details need to be worked on down the road, the key is that the developer is moving in the right direction. If the Commission is o.k. with the proposed concept plan, Schultz suggested that the they recommend that the City Council approve the concept plan, and we can then work out the details for the park and also decide what would be credited toward parks dedication for both land and amenities built. MOTION by Johnson to approve the concept plan as designed including that the public park area designated in the southwest corner as well as the designated private park currently displayed as a baseball field, as being all part of the public land toward the parks dedication for the City, pending guidance from the Parks and Recreation Commission on the amenities to be included in that park. (We would need to give that to the developer next month.) Re-reading of motion: Approval of the concept plan, taking as park dedication land both the public park designated in the southwest corner as well as the private park area currently displayed as a baseball field, pending guidance from the Commission on what actual amenities will be included within that park. SECOND by Eliason. Schultz asked that the Commission include Mr. Tompkins’ request for parks dedication credit for amenities built as they did for the Evermore development, i.e. playground, shelters, trails, parking lot, irrigation which were all put toward their parks dedication. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Eliason that the Parks and Recreation Commission would not accept park dedication for any pipeline easements, ponding, or other easements. Johnson accepted this amendment. Sterner felt that because we are looking at so many changes, he couldn’t approve this concept plan. Johnson agreed with Sterner, but felt we should move forward and give the developer direction as to what the Commission would like done. Johnson agreed with giving the developer credit for paying for park amenities as long as they are built to the satisfaction and standards of the Commission. Jacobs asked for a friendly amendment to consider allowing the developer to pay for and install amenities in lieu of cash dedication fees with approval of the Parks Commission. Re-statement of motion by Johnson: Recommend approval of the concept plan as shown including the public park area on the southwest corner of the property as well as including the designated private park area that is reflected as a baseball field today, pending guidance from the Commission on what the requested amenities will actually be on that property. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Eliason that the dedication not include any easements for pipeline, ponding or right of ways. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Eliason to consider allowing the developer to pay for and install amenities in lieu of parks dedication with the approval of the Parks Commission. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Sterner) c. Irish Dome CUP – Schultz received an updated plan last week. There was a request for an extension of the hours of use. They now would have the dome available for public rentals from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday when school is in session, and when school isn’t in session, it would be available from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Weekend hours would be 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Schultz felt that they might want to use it during school hours too, and before 7:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Schultz reviewed the updated plan for the dome that included the changes requested by the Commission regarding parking and access roads. They’ve added parking on the east and north sides of the dome and shifted the dome to the west, so it’s closer to the property line. They identify an area coming into the dome entrance from the Community Center parking lot, and they also show a one-way exit leaving the dome through the Community Center parking lot to the driveway on Dodd and also Connemara Parkway. Drainage for the property will be to the north of the dome to an infiltration pond, approximately one-third of which is on school property and two-thirds of which is on City (park) property, and a NURP pond located on National Guard property. Use of the National Guard property would have to be approved by the MN State Armory Commission. Any recommendations made by the Commission regarding ponds and drainage would have to be approved by our City Engineering Department. There was discussion on ponding, drainage and run-off, hours, parking, access roads to the dome, maintenance of the access roads and parking lot, and the dome’s impact on Schwarz Pond Park. Schultz felt that the plan at this point would have minimal impact on the users of the public park unless the infiltration area turns into a problem. The Commission still had many concerns about construction of the dome at this location. Schultz suggested that the Commission make a recommendation on the extended hours of use of the park and also on any impacts on City parkland, which would include driveway access and ponding areas. The Commission could recommend that the City Council recommend granting an easement across our property from Schwarz Pond Park towards their parking lot, another easement on the other end, and a ponding easement. Schultz suggested the Commission could table the issue and schedule another meeting prior to the Dec. 22 meeting to discuss this further. Johnson felt that the Commission should move forward with this issue based on the fact that the dome personnel have made the changes recommended by the Commission at the last meeting, i.e. parking, and now the Commission has an issue with ponding. Johnson felt that the Commission should either make a recommendation to move forward with the dome or let the dome personnel know that the Commission will not approve building the dome at this location. Eliason felt that we were giving away property for the road or trail and the ponding area and this is something we haven’t done before. Schultz stated that what we would actually be doing is granting easements for a road and for drainage and that we wouldn’t be giving them the land, we would still own the land. MOTION by Jacobs to grant easement to the north and south sides of the facility for vehicle access and pending approval of the City Engineer allow an easement on the designated area on the north side of the parking lot for drainage. SECOND by Sterner. Schultz will bring back the easements and language to the next meeting. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Johnson) Motion passed. Schultz suggested that the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to midnight subject to change if necessary. MOTION by Sterner to change the hours of operation for the Irish Dome CUP to 7:00 a.m. to midnight every day. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. d. Proposed 2004 Fees and Fee Policy – Proposed changes to the fee policy were as follows: on the first page of Appendix 2 under 1. Definitions A. – remove “Share the Spirit”; 3. Facility Fees under B. Fee Class of Users 2. – add “ISD 196”; Eliason asked that Appendix II Definitions G. Resident Groups be defined more tightly. Schultz suggested changing this to “Resident athletic groups, including RAAA and RAHA”.; 6. Arena – Schultz referred to the Executive Summary for a list of proposed fee increases for Prime Time Ice, Non-Prime Time Ice and Open Skating and reviewed the fees charged by other nearby cities. Regarding Outdoor Facilities Fees, Schultz felt we should include language that gives us the ability to terminate use of facilities if use will be a detriment to the facility. Section II. Outdoor Facilities 1. Park Facility Priority Use under B. add “Resident”; under C. add “Non-Resident”; 2. Facility Fees A. remove “and tank refill deposit (Refundable)”; and under D. Independent League Field Fees increase fee to $225/season. There was discussion on use of fields by certain non-resident groups and how much they are charged. There was concern about the over-use of fields and how this damages the fields, as well as the amount of field maintenance/up-keep involved. Certain groups have also run tournaments in the rain or over used fields and done a lot of damage to them. Staff felt that we should bring this item back to another meeting, looking at an outdoor policy and a field resting/rotation policy. There was discussion about not giving permits to groups that damage the field, some other type of consequence, or limiting use to rest fields. Schultz will bring something back to the Commission regarding field resting and rotation, etc. Schultz felt that the Commission should also look at items C. and D. again. Schultz recommended increasing residential park dedication fees $10,000, and that industrial and commercial fees remain the same, based on the parks dedication study conducted last year. Schultz is waiting for an annual parks dedication fees survey that is done by the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association, and asked if the Commission would like to see the survey before making a decision. Per Schultz the Commission could make a motion to approve the changes for the Community Center and the Ice Arena tonight and take care of the Outdoor Facilities and Parks Dedication fees at the next meeting. MOTION by Wilson to approve Appendix II, Section I of the Rosemount Parks and Recreation 2003 Fees and Fee Policy, as outlined, and defer approval of Section II of Appendix II until the December 22, 2003 meeting. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT by Jacobs to also defer approval of Park Dedication Fees. SECOND by Johnson. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. NEW BUSINESS a. Pahl Concept Plan PUD – Schultz reviewed maps of the development. They are proposing to build 440 townhouse units on property located just south of the business park. They did outline an area for a public park, but based on the number of units to be built in this development at this point they would need to dedicate 17.6 acres of land to parks dedication. They are proposing 5.64 acres. Currently, steep sloping land is included in parks dedication, which limits the amenities that could be built. This park site is not included in our Parks Master Plan as the area is currently zoned as Business Park. Schultz recommended following the Parks Master Plan with regard to criteria for neighborhood parks for this type of development. Schultz would recommend that the Commission ask the developer to redesign the park area or that the Commission recommend to deny the plan. MOTION by Sterner to recommend that the City Council deny the concept plan submitted for the Pahl property. SECOND by Wilson. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Director’s Report – Schultz verified that the December 22, 2003 meeting date worked for all of the Commission members. We should also have more direction from the City Council at that time regarding what they want to do about the other facilities other than an athletic complex, if the want to have a task force, what will they be looking at, what will their goals be, etc.   8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Wilson to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Sterner. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary