Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 . DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on January 12, 2005 76 Member's Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Mike Buringa, Paula Higgins and Robin Hanson (arrived at 6:02 p.m.) Member's Absent: None Other's Present: Park and Recreation Director Randy Distad I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Johnson to approve the Agenda as written. APIF'. Motion carried. ill. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Buringa and seconded by Johnson to approve the December 8, 2004 meeting minutes as written. Voting in favor: Higgins, Buringa, Hanson and Oswald. Abstaining from the voting: Johnson Motion carried. IV. Presentations None . V. Old Business A. 2005 Goal Setting Director Distad reviewed the Commission's 2005 draft goals. It was suggested that an overall goal of creating a systems plan incorporate items such as updating the park and open space master plan that would address such things as indoor and outdoor facility shortages, alternative ways to fund or complete projects including volunteer labor, updating the five year Capital Improvement Plan, continue the park master planning process and in 2005 as part of the process address the issues related to the outdoor pool, define or shape a mission and vision statement for the Commission, establish or improve relationships with surrounding communities and townships and develop a cost recovery policy for the Parks and Recreation Department. B. Review First Draft Park Master Plans Director Distad presented the first draft of the park master plans for Vermillion Grove, Middle Creek, Silver Springs and Hill Dee Parks and asked for feedback on each of the plans. Hanson felt that Hill Dee Park should have a hockey rink added around the basketball court so that there was a hockey rink on the west side of Pilot Knob Road. Oswald asked a question about whether or not property owners whose property has been identified to acquire for future park land have been contacted. Distad stated that this would come after the City Council approves the master plans. Distad stated that the Commission would be seeing the second draft at its February 2005 meeting. C. Community Center Survey Update Director Distad stated that the survey was being tabulated and that a February 2nd date has been tentatively identified for a public presentation of the results of the survey along with the market and demographic analysis reports. D. Update Preliminary Plats Director Distad provided an update on the Parkview Pond, Farmington Business Park and Charleswood NE Preliminary Plats all being approved with the trail locations that the Commission had previously supported. The City Council approved the Parkview Pond and Charleswood NE Preliminary Plats as well with the trail locations. The Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat has not gone to the City Council for approval because of a drainage easement issue that still needs to be worked out by the developer. . VI. New Business A. Farmington Fastpitch Fee Proposal Director Distad informed Commission members about a request that the Farmington Men's Fastpitch League has made to staff about having the ballfield rental fees reduced and to include tournaments as part of the reduced fee. Director Distad also made Commission members aware of an alternative way that staff would like to propose back to the Men's Fastpitch League to charge a fee by charging a per player fee rather than a ballfield rental fee. Stafflooked at this alternative fee because of the past work and money that the Men's Fastpitch League has put into the softball field at Rambling River Park that they use for league play. Commission members by consensus agreed to allow staff to send. letter to the Men's Fastpitch League suggesting an alternative fee from what is currently identified in the City's Fee Ordinance. B. Determine Possible Meeting Date(s) and Agenda Topics for Meeting with Empire Township Park and Recreation Advisory Board Suggestion was made to move the February regular meeting date to the third Wednesday from the second Wednesday because of the consultant not being available on the second Wednesday in February to make the park master plan presentations. This would mean the meeting date would be held on February 16th. It was suggested that from 6:00- 7:00 p.m. the business portion of the meeting would be conducted and then at 7:00 p.m. there would be a joint meeting with Empire Township. Director Distad stated that he would contact the chair of the Empire Township Park and Recreation Advisory Board to see if this date would work for them and then would contact Commission members making them aware that the February 16th meeting date was approved. C. Review Heritage Development Conceptual Development Plan in Empire Township Director Distad briefly reviewed the concept plan that has been drawn for a development in Empire Township. He noted that there is a four-field ballfield complex and an extensive trail system in the development. Commission members were surprised that there seemed to be a limited amount of off-street parking and that there was no street frontage for the park. Director Distad stated that the City of Farmington provided comments on an EA W that the developer had completed for the development and that really was the extent of the comments that the City of Farmington can legally provide about the development. Director Distad felt that this development should be discussed at the meeting with Empire Township and should be put on the meeting agenda. D. Review Hometown Conceptual Development Plan Director Distad requested that Commission members provide him with some input on the concept plan that has been . developed for a new development just to the east and behind the Farmington Legion. Director Distad stated that the concept plan has changed a number of times and that he is looking for direction from the Commission members about whether or not they feel that a trail should be constructed through the development. By consensus Commission members felt that a trail connection through the development should be shown. Director Distad stated that once a concept plan has been approved with a trail connection shown, he will bring it back to the Commission. VII. Additions to the Agenda (None) VIII. Staff Report (None) IX. February 200S Meeting Agenda Topics The following items were identified for the February 2005 meeting agenda: . Election of officers . Approve 2005 goals and objectives . Review second draft of the park master plans . Recognition of outgoing Commission member Mike Buringa X. Adjournment Motion by Higgins and seconded by Buringa to adjourn the meeting. APIF'. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . . 76 Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on February 16, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Karen Neal, Dawn Johnson and Robin Hanson Members Absent: Paula Higgins Other's Present: Paul Paige from Hoisington Koegler Group, mc., Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director Mary Miller, Ed Miller, David Pritzlaff, David McKnight, Mark Kozulla, Tami Zakoski, Andy and Danette Roberts, Terry Larimer, Vickie Fischer, Peggy Cerise, Ron Mullenback, and Steve Wilson I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Presentation of Recognition Plaque Outgoing Commission member Mike Buringa was presented a plaque recognizing and thanking him for the two years of service on the Commission. Buringa thanked everyone for the opportunity. III. Introduction of New Member Chair Oswald introduced Karen Neal as the newest member of the Commission. Neal introduced herself and provided some background information about herself. IV. Election of Officers Chair Oswald opened the floor up for nominations for Chair. Hanson moved to nominate Oswald for Chair for the coming year. Neal seconded the nomination. Oswald called for more nominations but there were none. Oswald called for a vote and all voted in favor except for Oswald who abstained. Oswald opened the floor up for nominations for Vice-Chair. Hanson nominated Higgins for Vice Chair and seconded by Johnson. Oswald asked for more nomination and there were none. Oswald called for a vote. APIF for Higgins being elected as Vice-Chair. Oswald will be the PRAC Chair and Higgins will be the PRAC Vice-Chair for 2005. IV. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Neal to approve the meeting agenda. APIF. Motion carried. V. Approval of January 200S Minutes. Motion by Hanson, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2004 meeting. Voting in favor were Oswald, Johnson and Hanson. Abstaining from the vote was Neal. VI. Presentations A. Park Master Plans Paul Paige from HKGI presented park master plan drafts for Middle Creek, Vermillion Grove, Silver Springs and Hill Dee Parks. Silver Springs was presented fIrst. Paige informed Commission members the process that was followed to develop the park plan and explained the features in the park that were developed as part of the process. Hanson questioned whether or not the play boulder would be in the way of the tumbling hill. Paige stated that he said that the exact location of the boulder would be determined when it was installed so that it didn't interfere with the tumbling hill. Johnson moved and Hanson seconded to approve recommending to the City Council that it approve the park master plan for Silver Springs Park. APIF. Motion carried. Hill Dee Park was presented second. Paige identifIed the major additions to the park that were identifIed during the planning process and what kind of impact these new features will have on the park since this park has already been developed. Hanson asked whether or not a hockey rink would work on the basketball court. Paige . . . \ stated that the dimensions of a basketball court are significantly smaller than a hockey rink and he felt that it wouldn't work very well to flood the basketball court. Question was raised about whether the new perimeter path should be concrete or paved. Paige felt that it should be concrete based on the life expectancy being longer for concrete. Distad also stated that the sidewalk might be able to be paid out of a sidewalk replacement program but would have to check on it to make sure. Neal thought that the portable restroom surround should be moved on the west side of the park so that ball players and kids using the playground could access the portable toilet rather than having to cross the ballfield to get to it. Moved by Neal and seconded by Johnson to to approve an amended plan that moved the portable toilet enclosure to the west side of the park. APIF. Motion carried. The third master plan presented was for Vermillion Grove Park. Paige explained the location and the amenities that were identified to be constructed in the park including playground equipment, trails, boardwalk, signage, small shelter and a scenic overlook with a bench. Hanson asked about the switchback trail being constructed along 203rd Street and why it was shown that way. Paige explained that due to the slope, it was necessary to do a switchback trail to provide the correct grade for accessibility. Mary Miller, 19839 Emperor Court stated that she was concerned with the plan showing mowed grass and a picnic shelter and thought that the park should remain natural and left as is. Tammy Zakoski, 20591 Dyers Pass was concerned about mosquitoes and why there would be any playground equipment where there would be mosquitoes. Mark Kazula, 20649 Dyers Pass asked about the boardwalk and how it would be constructed and what materials it would be made from. Distad stated that it would be most likely a galvanized frame with recycled plastic would for the railings and decking. Ed Miller provided several comments and they were as follows: he would like to preserve it in its current state, he does not think anything should be constructed and thought that there should be a switchback from the scenic lookout to the boardwalk because he said that people will naturally shortcut down the side of the hill and cause erosion. Terry Larimer, 20715 Dyers Pass thinks that a picnic shelter is not needed. Commission member Hanson felt that the switchback should be studied further and suggested if it is possible to add a switchback like what Miller had suggested. Chair Oswald wanted to let everyone know that the City is trying to create a trail system that offers loops and that this plan provided good trail loops. Paige stated that he would further study the switchback but thought that it should be brought further back rather than going directly from the scenic overlook to the boardwalk. Hanson moved to approve the plan with the idea that the trail connection from the scenic overlook to the boardwalk be further studied. Neal seconded the motion. APIF. The fourth and final master plan presented was for Middle Creek Park. Paige suggested that the park plan be approved separately from the trail link that was shown to Eaves Way. Paige presented the ideas that went into the park design and included playground equipment, a parking lot, a ballfield, two picnic shelters, paved trails and park signage. Hanson asked a question about the elevation of the shelters being above the parking lot and whether or not they would be accessible. Paige stated that the trail could be routed such as to provide the proper accessible grade. Chair Oswald wondered if the parking lot was too small given all the activities that could be going on in the park at one time. Paige said that the parking lot could be enlarged and would look at that. Oswald wondered if a restroom facility should be shown on the plan. Paige said that you need to balance the site with not putting to many structures in it given the number of oak trees located on the knoll. Zakozki stated that she thought the ballfield and park would get a lot of use by youth baseball and property owners and thought that a bigger parking lot would be a good idea. Andy Roberts, 20617 Dyers Pass asked how the park would be developed if the land on the west side was not acquired right away. Distad stated that the City may have to look at holding off on developing the park until the land to the west was acquired. Larimer questioned whether or not parking would be allowed along Eastview Avenue and Distad stated that it would accommodate some parking. Kozulla questioned if the ballfield would be lit. Distad stated that neighborhood park ballfields are not lit but that the trail would be lit. Ron Mullenback from D. R. Horton the developer who will be building homes just to the north of the park was concerned about the ballfield being available for organized play when there is no parking lot available. He is concerned with all of the cars that would be parking along Eastview Avenue. He thinks that the Murphy property should be purchased first before the ballfield is constructed. Roberts thought it was premature to put in the park. Motion to approve the Middle Creek Park Master Plan but to look at expanding the parking lot and if adopted by the City Council to stage the development of the park made by Hanson and seconded by Johnson. APIF . Middle Creek Trail Link was presented by Paige. Paige showed the Commission members three different acceptable trail alignment options. Hanson asked how it connects to Verrnillion Grove. Paige explained that the trail will connect to Eaves Way which then connects to Pine Knoll Park. There is a sidewalk that connects Pine Knoll Park to a paved trail along 203rd St. that connects to the Verrnillion Grove Park trail. Roberts questioned who the trail will serve. Paige stated that the trail is meant to serve all of the neighbors who will eventually live around the park as well as people who live on Eaves Way. Roberts asked how invasive the trail would be on the wetland. Paige stated that trails are built on the edge of wetlands in a number oflocations and that boardwalks through wetlands have become increasingly more common. Zakoski asked about garbage and pet waste and how much of an issue it is when trails are put in. Paige said that garbage can come from anywhere and not just a trail. Larimer stated that he doesn't like option one for the trai11ink because it will be right behind his property. Robert agreed and said that he talked with City staff before buying his property and was told that nothing would be built behind his property. Mullenback wants the Commission to consider option two and would like the trail pushed as far back into the buffer as possible. He also wanted to work with the City to see if the trail on the south lot could be a temporary trail until the Murphy property could be purchased and then the trail could be moved further south. Roberts handed Distad a petition that was signed by residents who live on Dyers Pass and wanted it entered into the record. Oswald stated that he would like the Commission to select and option and vote on it. Hanson moved to select option three for the trail link to Eaves Way. Johnson seconded the motion. APIF. Johnson made a motion to table the remaining agenda items until the March 9th meeting. Neal seconded the motion. APIF. VII. Adjournment Motion by Johnson to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hanson. APIF. . The PRAC meeting was officially adjourned at 8:17 p.m. . Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on March 9, 2005 Members Present: Oswald, Johnson, Higgins and Hanson Members Absent: Neal Other's Present: Paul Harrington from Farmington Men's Fastpitch Softball League, Daren Betzold, Blair Simonsen and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Director Distad requested that the Garvey Empey Concept Plan Review be moved up the agenda after presentations to accommodate Colin Garvey's schedule. Motion by Higgins, seconded by Johnson to approve the meeting agenda as amended. APIF. Motion carried. ill. Approval of January 200S Minutes. Motion by Oswald, seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes from the February 16,2005 meeting. APIF. Motion carried. IV. Presentations A. Request to Reduce Ballfield Rental Fees Paul Harrington, League Director for the Farmington Men's Fastpitch Softball League presented a request to have the ballfield rental fees reduced for the league's use of a Rambling River Park softball field. He made the following points: . Men's Fastpitch started in the late 1950's at the Dakota County Fairgrounds. . He took over as the league director in 1975. . In 1980 or 1981Jim Bell was able to acquire the old light poles from the old high school's football field. These light poles were installed at the Rambling River Park ballfield. Men's Fastpitch helped trench in the electrical conduit to the light poles. . . They also acquired fencing and helped install it. . The original lights had to be replaced in 1990 and they had to upgrade the electrical for the new poles. Men's fastpitch raised $25,000 primarily through donations that were solicited from the Eagles Club, VFW and American Legion and used to pay for the cost of the lights and the construction of new dugouts. . Men's Fastpitch also provided volunteer labor to construct these improvements. . In addition to these improvements, they also made improvements to the other two ballfields at Rambling River Park including new fencing and bleachers. . Paul felt that it was a massive effort but that it was well worth it and that he was proud of what they accomplished. . He felt that the City and Men's Fastpitch benefited from the improvements. . He further stated that because oftheir efforts, the Bobber Tournament and Dew Days Tournaments were able to happen. . He said other programs such as Men's Touch Football are able to use the fields. Paul also shared that the Men's Fastpitch League will be hosting the Over 40 Men's Fastpitch State Tournament in August at the Rambling River Park ball fields and that there will be 8 teams in the tournament. Paul stated that Men's Fastpitch would be willing to pay $300 per year through the 2010 season and then would be willing to pay the regular ballfield rental fee after that season. He felt that by then, the Men's Fastpitch League would most likely have folded due to lack of teams. Comment provided by the Commission included the following: . Commission member Hanson acknowledged the work that was done by Men's Fastpitch. . . . . Oswald stated that he was not originally in support of reducing the ballfield rental fee but after hearing about all the work and money raised by Men's Fastpitch that he has changed his mind. . Higgins felt that the community will need to step up in the future to help with other facility improvements much like what Men's Fastpitch did. Hanson moved to recommend to the City Council that the agreement drafted with Men's Fastpitch be approved with the understanding that Men's Fastpitch would pay a flat fee of $300.00 per year plus the regular tournament rental fee for each tournament that they held at the Rambling River Park ballfields. The motion was seconded by Higgins. APIF. Motion carried. v. Old Business A. Approve Commission's 2005 Goals The only suggestion was that Commission members thought that a combined meeting with Rosemount and Lakeville Park Commissions should be attempted in early June. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Hanson to approve the 2005 goals as written. APIF. Motion carried. B. Community Center Steering Committee Update Higgins briefed Commission members on the process and progress that was being made on the community center feasibility study including that program spaces have been selected and will be further discussed and refined at the next steering committee meeting on March 15th. Oswald discussed the timeline for completing the feasibility study. Hanson thought that a climbing wall should be further discussed and possibly added back in. Oswald and Higgins will bring this suggestion back to the steering committee at the March 15th for further discussion. VI. New Business A. Review Hometown Concept Plan After some discussion about the trail location, Commission members felt that it should be located on the other side of the street from where it is identified on the concept plan. Higgins moved to recommend to the Planning Commission that the trail in the Hometown Development be moved to the east side of the street and north side of the long cuI de sac so that a majority of the residents in this development do not have to cross the street to access the trail. Johnson seconded the motion. APIF. Motion carried. B. Review Giles Concep Plan Commission members felt that there should be a trail around the entire pond and if possible some kind of bridge or boardwalk should be built across the two closest points of the pond to create a shortcut for trail users. Additional trails were identified in the development that the developer had not identified. Director Distad stated that it appears that there will not be any land dedicated for a park in this first phase of the development and that the City will need to make sure that when the next phase of the development is platted that land for a 35 acre park is dedicated. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Higgins to recommend to the Planning Commission to have the developer construct a trail around the pond and in additional locations identified by the Commission. APIF. C. Garvey Empey Concept Plan. Since the developer was not present, Commission members decided to discuss the concept plan for the Fountain Valley development. Commission members felt that a park should be located in the northeast comer of the development where currently a cuI de sac is located. Commission members also felt that the developer has not met the trail location requirements that were identified in the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map. By consensus it was recommended by Commission members that if the developer was not interested in dedicating park land in this development then the developer should acquire property in the golf course around the clubhouse and the clubhouse itself and then deed both to the City in place of the land that was to be dedicated in the Fountain Valley development. D. Revise the 5 Year Parks Capital Improvement Plan By consensus it was agreed that the revisions made by Director Distad as to which parks will be master planned in 2005 were acceptable to Commission members. Director Distad will also revise the 5 year CIP to show the . new estimated costs of the four parks that were just master planned so that it more accurately reflects the improvements that were identified to be completed through the park master planning process. E. Annual Report Director Distad provided comments about the Department's annual report and opened it up for questions and comments from Commission members. Commission members seemed pleased by the work that was accomplished in 2004 by the Department. VII. Additions to the Agenda There were none. VIII. Staff Report Director Distad informed Commission members that the MUSA Review Committee was going to reconvene in 2005 and reminded everyone that Oswald was the PRAC representative and would like to continue to serve in this capacity. Commission members by consensus agreed that Oswald should continue to serve as the representative from PRAC on the MUSA Review Committee. IX. April Meeting Agenda Items 1. Revised 5 year CIP Plan 2. Garvey-Empey Preliminary Plat 3. Update on the Giles Development Plan 4. Joint meeting with the Community Center Steering Committee X. Adjournnent Motion by Higgins and seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. APIF'. Motion carried. The PRAC meeting was officially adjourned at 8:24 p.m. . )f:?~112J Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary ~. - - Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on April 13, 2005 Members Present: Oswald, Neal, Johnson, Higgins and Hanson Members Absent: None Other's Present: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Hanson moved and Higgins seconded to approve the agenda. APIF ill. Approval of Minutes. Higgins moved and Neal seconded to approve the March 9, 2005 meeting minutes. Voting in favor: Oswald, Higgins, Hanson and Johnson. Abstaining from the vote: Neal Motion carried. IV. Presentations None V. Old Business None . VI. New Business A. Discuss and Recommend Park Improvement Budget for Middle Creek, Vermillion Grove, Silver Springs and Hill Dee Parks Director Distad reviewed the park improvements and the estimated costs from the park master plan to fully implement the improvements. The estimated costs developed during the park master planning process exceeds the estimated amount in the 5 year CIP. Distad stated that the Commission will need to prioritize the improvements and come within or close to within the estimated costs that were shown in the five year CIP. After much discussion, Hanson moved and Neal seconded to recommend to the City Council the prioritized park improvements that fall within the 5 year CIP estimated amount of $475,000.00. APIF B. Review Fountain Valley Preliminary Plat Director Distad stated reviewed the preliminary plat with the Commission. The Commission by consensus still felt that there should be a park required in the development and that trails and sidewalks should also be included in the development in the locations that the Commission had previously identified. C. Review Middle Creek East Third Addition Preliminary Plat Director Distad reviewed with Commission members the preliminary plat and provided details about the trail locations that the developer has agreed to construct the trails in. The trail locations are in the same location as what was identified in the Middle Creek Park Master Plan. Commission members by consensus approved the trail locations and directed Distad to convey this information to the Planning Commission when a public hearing is held on the preliminary plat. . D. Review Tamarack Ridge Retail Development Preliminary Plat Director Distad provided background information about staff s recommendation on the location of a trail and sidewalk. There was some discussion about whether or not the trail and sidewalk locations were appropriated. Hansen moved and Higgins seconded that there should be a trail constructed out to T.R. 3 on the south side of the development and on the north side of 209th Street and that there should a sidewalk constructed along the east side of the north and south street through the development in order to provide a connection from the trail on the south side of the development to an existing sidewalk in the middle of the development. APIF E. MUSA Review Committee Update Chair Oswald provided a brief update about the MUSA Review Committee reconvening to discuss additional . properties being given MUSA. VII. Additions to the Agenda None VIII. Staff Report None IX. May Meeting Agenda Topics None x. Adjournment Motion by Higgins, seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. APIF. The PRAC meeting was officially adjourned at 9:03 p.m. ~]Yl!iV Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . Special Meeting of the Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission . Minutes from the Special Meeting on April 27, 2005 Members Present: Oswald, Neal, Johnson and Hanson Members Absent: Higgins Other's Present: Colin Garvey, John Anderson, Jim Allen, Kim Friedrich, Patty Pietsh, Blaine Eggum, City Planner Lee Smick and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director . . I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Distad requested to add under New Business, Letter E Review Bristol Square Fifth Addition. Moved by Hanson and seconded by Neal to approve the agenda as amended. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. None IV. Presentations None V. Old Business None VI. New Business A. Review and Discuss Mystic Meadows Preliminary Plat Trail Locations Director Distad reviewed with the Commission the location of trails and sidewalks that they had previously recommended. John Anderson from TC Properties acting on behalf of the developer presented to the Commission information that the development was trying to mimic a development in Blaine, Minnesota called the Lakes and a development in Apple Valley called Cobblestone Lake. He stated that the homes in the development will range from about $500,000 and up around the cuI de sacs to $325,000 and up for the townhomes and about $330,000 and up for the remaining single family homes. The intent of the development is to create a lake atmosphere with private access. The intent is to drive up the cost of the value of these homes. They would like to be able to provide an opportunity for property owners to put in docks. He feels that if trails were constructed behind the lots that it would decrease the value of the homes. Size of the pond is 30 plus acres. City Planner Smick stated that she had spoken with the City Engineer and that the City would not allow this to be a private pond nor would property owners be allowed to put docks out into the pond. Hanson asked what kind of access public would have to the pond. Anderson replied little or none but that there might be an opportunity to create a place that could provide public access. Smick stated that the Planning Commission questioned why the developer was being asked to put a trail around the pond when in Parkview Ponds the developer was not required to do this. She also stated that some of the Planning Commission members felt there were too many trails. Hanson stated that this development is different from Parkview Ponds because of the size of the large pond being put right in the middle of the development. Smick informed the Commission that the Department of Natural Resources may require trees to be planted around the pond because it is in the special waters area for trout and so the water has to be cooled before it enters the Vermillion River. This may result in some trails not being able to be constructed behind the lots. Oswald stated that he liked option #2 but suggested that the trail shown by the pond in the southeast part of the development should circle the pond and then the sidewalk should be eliminated. After some continued discussion about where the trails and sidewalks should be located Distad asked for consensus on trail and sidewalk locations. Commission members verbally okayed each of the trail and sidewalk locations as Distad identified them. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Johnson to recommend to the Planning Commission to approve the trails and sidewalks in the locations that have been amended. APIF . . . B. Executive Estates Preliminary Plat Director Distad reviewed the preliminary plat with the Commission. Colin Garvey the developer for this development addressed the Commission by saying that he felt that there was a past agreement with City staff to not take park land and only have a trail along 225th Street. Distad stated that there was no formal agreement and that he had informed Garvey that the trail and park issues had to be worked through the process of having the Commission make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Distad also stated that he had informed Garvey about the future Park and Trail map had shown trails and a park in this location. Garvey stated that the homes being built in this development would cost between $600,000-$900,000 with lots ranging in size from 10,000-15,000 square feet. He also questioned about the trail even being able to go around the wetland. Distad stated that in other locations in the City that boardwalks are being planned to be constructed through a wetland to make a connection. Garvey stated that he is not opposed to having trails in front of homes. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Neal to recommend to the Planning Commission that the trail, sidewalk and park locations be approved as was originally recommended by the Commission. APIF C. Tamarack Ridge Retail Preliminary Plat Director Distad reviewed with Commission members the preliminary plat and provided details about the trail and sidewalk locations. Blaine Eggum the developer stated that he didn't feel that a sidewalk should have to be constructed along a private street in the development. Smick stated that the City has not in the past required sidewalks along private streets. Eggum said that he agrees with the trail being constructed on the south side of the development and extending an existing sidewalk in the middle of the development to the intersection. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to recommend to the Planning Commission that the developer construct a trail on the south side of the development along 209th Street to Highway 3 and that the sidewalk in the middle of the development be extended to the intersection. APIF D. Review Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat Director Distad provided background information about staff> s recommendation on the location of a trail and sidewalk. Kim Friedrich the developer thought that it would be better to have the trail on the opposite sides of the homes and said that she wouldn't want to buy a lot with a trail going across a driveway. Distad questioned about a trail easement that was being shown with a storm utility easement on the southside of the cemetery property. Friedrich stated that she didn't know anything about that and would check with her engineer about the easement. Moved by Hanson and seconded by Neal to approve the sidewalk and trail locations as previously recommended by the Commission. APIF E. Bristol Square Fifth Addition Director Distad provided background information about trails and a private park in this development. Jim Allen, the developer presented his thoughts on the trail and private park. Allen asked that he not have to put in any equipment and that his preference would be to have green space with shade trees. Distad stated that in the previous plat for this development that there was a trail shown going west from the private park to the street but that it doesn't connect to any other trails. Commission members felt that this trail shouldn't be required since it didn't connect to any other trails. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Neal to recommend to the Planning Commission that a private park be approved and that trails should be constructed as shown in a previous plat for this development except for the trail that runs from the private park west to the street. APIF VII. Additions to the Agenda None VIII. Staff Report Distad gave a brief update on the Community Center Feasibility Study Final Report being presented at the May 2, 2005 City Council meeting. IX. May Meeting Agenda Topics 1. Cui de Sac and Bus Turnaround Policy x. Adjournment Motion by Johnson, seconded by Neal to adjourn the meeting. APIF. The PRAC meeting was officially adjourned at 9:08 p.m. . ;o~IY~7P R~ad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . . . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on May 11, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Robin Hanson, Karen Neal and Paula Higgins Members Absent: Dawn Johnson Other's Present: Keith Kramer, John Barter, Jim Cordes, Phil Kramer and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Higgins and second by Neal to approve the meeting agenda. APIF III. Approval of April 13, 200S Meeting Minutes. Motion by Hanson and second by Higgins to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2005 meeting. APIF IV. Approval of April 27, 200S Special Meeting Minutes Motion by Hanson and second by Neal to approve the April 27 special meeting minutes. Voting in favor: Oswald, Hanson and Neal. Abstaining from the vote: Higgins. v. Presentations A. Request to Rename the Farmington Civic Arena by Keith Kramer A presentation was made by an assortment of people about changing the name of the Farmington Civic Arena to the Schmitz-Maki Arena. The following comments were made: Keith Kramer felt that these two gentlemen should be given the recognition because they were two important people that were involved from the beginning with getting hockey started in Farmington and were the driving forces for growing hockey in Farmington. They also both were active in getting the Farmington Civic Arena built through a referendum. John Butler felt that Louie Schmitz should be honored because Louie has had a big influence on youth sports especially in hockey. He felt that Al Maki should be recognized because of his dedication to youth and his coaching skills. He stated that Mr. Maki had one of the best coaching records in the state and that he is also in the Minnesota High School Hall of Fame. He further felt that it would be a tremendous honor if the arena were named after both of them. Jim Cordes stated that both were part of the first group selected for the Farmington High School Hall of Fame. Mr. Cordes informed the PRAC that both men are well known throughout the area. Commission member Higgins stated that her memory of Louie Schmitz was when her sons learned how to skate from him. Chair Oswald asked the question about what would happen to the building when it became to old to use and had to be demolished. Mr. Cordes and Mr. Kramer both stated that when the building was no longer of any use to the City and had to be demolished that there would not be opposition to this and that they only wanted the existing arena named after them and that it does not mean that any new facility would not have to be named in their honor. Motion by Higgins and second by Hanson to recommend to the City Council that the Farmington Civic Arena be renamed to the Schmitz-Maki Arena. APIF. It was suggested that when the memo was written to the City Council that it reflect that both men donated time rather than land if this became an issue for the City Council. VI. Old Business A. Park Improvement Budget Revision Distad explained the revisions that were made to the budget for the parks that were to be improved this year. It was decreased slightly because of limited funding in the Park Improvement Fund. Motion by Hanson and second by Neal to recommend to the City Council that the revised park improvement budget for 2005 be approved. APIF . . . B. Executive Estates Plat Update Director Distad shared information with the PRAC about the public hearing that was held at the May lOth Planning Commission meeting on the Executive Estates Plat. It appears that the developer does not agree with the park dedication requirement nor does he agree with the location with trails. PRAC members asked that Distad find out if the City could require the park to be outlotted and then could be swapped at a later date with the developer if the land to the east were to be annexed into the City and developed. PRAC members by consensus felt that if this were legally allowed then there should be a time limit of two years placed on the outlot for the developer to annex the property to the east and have it final platted. If this were not accomplished then after the two year period the outlot in Executive Estates would be developed as a park. C. Mystic Meadows Update Director Distad shared information with PRAC about the public hearing that was held at the May 10th Planning Commission meeting on the Mystic Meadows Plat. Distad stated that the developer continues to be opposed to the trail and sidewalk locations that the PRAC recommended. After reviewing the trail and sidewalk locations, the PRAC members by consensus made a few revisions that resulted in less linear feet of trail behind the homes and along the large pond being created. VII New Business A. Name Park in the Parkview Pond Development Director Distad stated that the Development Agreement has been completed for this development and that the developer will be deeding a park of just over 4acres to the City. The PRAC's role is to recommend a name for the park to the City Council. Oswald suggested Diamond Park or Bell Park. Commission members seemed to like Diamond Park. Motion by Higgins and second by Neal to recommend to the City Council that the name of the park in the Parkview Ponds Development be named Diamond Park. APIF. B. Purchase Additional Land for Middle Creek Park Director Distad updated PRAC members on the status of purchasing additional land from Babe Murphy for Middle Creek Park. He stated that DR Horton a developer has talked to Mr. Murphy about selling the land to the City and provided this information to staff. Staff however felt that it was too expensive and that the current Park Improvement budget would not be sufficient to pay the price that Mr. Murphy was asking for the 5.6 acres of land. By consensus, PRAC members suggested that Director Distad should make a counter offer of buying two acres ofland and then having Mr. Murphy donate the remaining 3.6 acres ofland since it will be primarily floodplain or wetland and a portion will become street right of way. C. Recommend the Hiring of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) for Community Center Study. Director Distad shared with PRAC members that a proposal was submitted by BRAA to continue the community center study including the steps of identifying up to four potential locations, exploring potential partnerships and developing a concept plan that would include further refine the community center construction costs. Distad also stated that the City Council will be considering the proposal at its May 20th meeting. By consensus, PRAC members felt that BRAA proposal should be approved by the City Council. Distad stated that there have been two positions for the PRAC on a Community Center Study Committee should the City Council approve the proposal from BRAA. Motion by Neal and second by Higgins to appoint Oswald and Higgins to the Community Center Study Committee. APIF D. Winkler Conceptual Development Plan Director Distad reviewed the concept plan that was submitted for the Winkler property on the east side of Farmington. He shared that he has met with the developer and as a result the park area has been moved to the location that it was identified in the Existing and Proposed Park, Trail and Open Space Plan Map. He also outlined the trail locations on the concept plan that reflects the Plan Map locations. Distad asked for comments from PRAC members about the park, trail and sidewalk locations. Oswald suggested that there be some additional trail connections between lots to access the park, that there would be an additional trail shown on the west side of the park and that a trail be looped around the storm water pond. By consensus other PRAC members were in agreement with these additional trail locations. . E. Meeting with Rosemount Park Commission Director Distad shared with PRAC members that the City of Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission is interested in meeting with PRAC. It was suggested that Distad extend an invitation to Rosemount to have them come to Farmington and have a cookout and an informal meeting at Tamarack Park on September 28th at 6:00 p.m. VIll. Additions to the Agenda None IX. Staff Report None x. JUDe Meeting Agenda Following items were identified by Commission member for the June meeting: 1. 2005 park improvement and equipment purchase update 2. Update on the status of the name change for the ice arena 3. Update on Parkview Ponds Development park name 4. Update on Middle Creek Park land acquisition 5. Community Center Study 6. Winkler Development update 7. MUSA Review Update 8. Plan Map discussion . XI. Adjournment Motion by Higgins and second by Neal to adjourn the meeting. APIF Meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ,~~SU~;fjJ , ~~ Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . . Joint Meeting of the City Council and Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Special Meeting on June 8, 2005 City Council Members Present: Christy Fogarty, Steve Wilson and Dave Pritzlaff PRAC Member's Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal and Robin Hanson City Council Member's Absent: Mayor Kevan Soderberg and David McKnight PRAC Member's Absent: Paula Higgins Other's Present: City Administrator David Urbia and Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad I. Call To Order Mayor Pro Temp Fogarty called the City Council to order at 5:03 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Chair Oswald called the PRAC to order at 5:04 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present for the City Council and PRAC. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Fogarty and seconded by Pritzlaff to approve the agenda. APIF Motion by Johnson and seconded by Hanson to approve the agenda. APIF III. Discussion Items A. Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map Discussion ensued about whether or not the Plan Map was working the way it was suppose to be working. The following comments were provided: Wilson felt that every development will have a difference of opinion about the location of park and trails. Johnson commented that she felt that the trail in the Mystic Meadows Development was an example where the trail evolved into a different alignment from what was initially recommended by the PRAC and that she was frustrated with this evolution. She felt that the Planning Commission did not follow the recommendation forwarded by the PRAC. Fogarty felt that the map gives strength for the City to enforce trail and park locations. She also questioned about a linear foot requirement for trails be identified in the ordinance. Distad didn't think that this would hold up if it were ever contested in court. Several PRAC members spoke about the issue of trails conceptually identified on the plan map do not always fit well with the development plan and that is frustrating to have to go back and resolve the differences. Wilson raised the issue about what it costs to maintain the trails. He would like to maximize the trails that the City requires to be constructed but still weigh in on the cost to maintain the trails. Pritzlaff liked the idea that the developer would be assessed for the cost to do the initial crack sealing of the trails much like the City does for the first sea1coating of streets in the development. Wilson wondered about PRAC's frustration when the trail locations in development get changed from the original trail plan proposed by PRAC. Hanson said that it was extremely frustrating. Oswald said that he wanted direction on whether or not the trail system should be driven by the community or should the City react to what the developers propose. There was general discussion about trail maintenance costs and how is it paid for. Distad stated that there are two maintenance costs for trails: crack sealing and overlay. Crack sealing occurs about every 5-7 years and then an overlay is done in the 12-14 years but could be sooner or later depending on the condition ofthe trail and how much wear has occurred. It was suggested that the trail maintenance costs should be folded into the pavement management plan or have the developer pay for the first crack sealing. A suggestion was offered that the City should develop a sinking fund for overlaying trails since these costs will be more significant than crack sealing. It was also suggested that the money to be put into a sinking fund for overlaying trails should be levied at a percentage of the entire levy and then deposited in the Park Improvement Fund and identified for trial overlays. A policy question also came up about what people thought of developing a sidewalk and trail policy that would identify where trails and sidewalks are required. Wilson thought that trails and sidewalks should be split with a certain percentage being required for trails to be behind lots and a certain percentage being required for / sidewalks in front of lots. He thought that sidewalks and trails are what makes a neighborhood attractive to live m. . B. Park and Recreation Department Budgets (While this topic was covered somewhat under Letter A above, there was not enough time to discuss this item separately) C. Community Center Discussion centered initially on the cost to construct the proposed community center versus how much maximum amount the City could legally borrow in the form of debt. The cost to construct the proposed community center exceeded by $5 million the amount that the City could legally borrow in the form of debt. Distad stated that the community center study committee that has been put together to begin looking at sites, partnerships and developing a more detailed cost estimate, would be looking at this and may want to recommend to the City Council to phase in the construction of a community center rather than build it all at once given this financial information. The other part of covering construction costs will be to look at possible partners and what kind of money they could bring to the table to help pay for construction costs. Partnerships could mean either construction or lease. A question was posed to City Council members about how they felt about a possible referendum this November. Wilson stated that he wanted as many people as possible to vote on this issue and a general election vote would provide the opportunity for the greatest turn out of voters. Pritzlaff said that he would like to see a vote being taken in 2005 because his fear is that the school district will be coming forward in 2006 with an excess levy referendum for the voters to consider. Hanson thought that whether there was a special election or a general election it was still each voter's responsibility to be informed and get out and vote. She also felt that doing a referendum in November 2005 would coincide with the normal voting month so it wouldn't necessarily feel like a special election. Urbia explained a spread sheet that he developed that showed how the City's debt limit increases annually as the City's overall total property market value increases. Everyone agreed that this would bode well for a future referendum if the property in Farmington continues to increase in value. . D. Outdoor Athletic Facility Development Distad shared information about where future outdoor athletic facilities are planned in the City but that nothing can be developed until the land is given to the City through the park dedication process. Consensus seemed to confirm that the locations and method of acquiring the land for outdoor athletic facilities were appropriate. E. Future Meetings Everyone was in agreement that there should be future meetings on a more regular basis between the City Council and PRAC and felt that the meeting tonight was very valuable for both sides to gain an understanding of each other. F. Other Items There were no other items discussed. x. Adjournment Fogarty moved and Pritzlaff seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF Neal moved and Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF Meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. ~~~ . Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 8, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal, Robin Hanson and Paula Higgins Member's Absent: none Other's Present: Dick Allendorf, Pederson Ventures, Bob Wiegert, Pederson Ventures Engineer, and Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:44 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to approve the agenda with following amendments: under old business to add 5A an update on the Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat and under new business adding 6C for a discussion on Farmington Youth Travel Baseball's request. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Neal and seconded by Higgins to approve the May 2005 meeting minutes. Voting in favor were Neal, Oswald and Higgins. Abstaining from the vote were Hanson and Johnson. Motion carried. . IV. Presentations Dick Allendorf and Bob Wiegert from Pederson Ventures provided the following information to Commission members about the Vermillion River Crossing development: Project has been worked on for almost 2 years. The development is about 61 gross acres and of this amount 28 acres cannot be developed because of gas easements, floodplain and protected wetlands. Stated that the land is owned by the Knutsen family but is being developed by Pederson Ventures. Developer will be building a regional pond system that the City would have had to build at a cost of $250,000 but that the developer will be paying this cost and not the City. They are making a request of the Commission to consider giving park dedication credit to the developer for the property to the east of the development where the gas easement and wetland are located because in the Spruce Street Area Master Plan it was identified as park and open space. The developer will be giving 22 acres to the City as part of the development and would like to get park dedication credit for it. Hansen asked about who would pay for the fields to be constructed. The developer said that the City would pay for the fields. Distad stated that he didn't think that the fields would work on this site as staffhave learned from Northern Natural Gas that there are restrictions about what can be done in gas easements and anchoring goals or constructing permanent backstops would not be allowed by the gas company. Bob Wiegert stated that he has been able to work with the gas company to allow a trail to be constructed within the outer edge of the gas easement and would run parallel with the gas easement. He also acknowledged that permanent fields are not a possibility because of the restrictions in the gas easements. Oswald also stated that he thought that parking would also be an issue should practice fields be located on the easement. Moved by Hanson and seconded by Neal to table the decision until the July 2005 Commission meeting on whether or not to give more park dedication credit to the Vermillion River Crossing development. APIF. Motion carried. . V. Old Business A. Update on Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat Oswald shared with Commission members that the City Council has asked that the Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat be revised to show a looped street through the development rather than two cul-de-sacs and the developer will be revising the preliminary plat. This will affect the trail alignment and Commission members by . consensus agreed that the trail should be looped along this new additional street rather than in the location currently identified on the preliminary plat. VI. New Business A. City Council Joint Meeting Debriefing The following comments were shared about the joint meeting between the City Council and PRAC that occurred prior to this meeting: . Neal thought that it was a good idea to meet again in the future with the City Council in light of two members not being able to attend. . Hanson was concerned about that ifthe City Council, Planning Commission and PRAC are not on the same page with the park, trail and sidewalk locations it will put a strain on getting future projects through the process in a timely manner. . Oswald thought it was good idea to have this meeting be an annual meeting with a certain month of the year being set as the time for a regularly scheduled annual meeting with the City Council. . Neal suggested that perhaps a meeting should also occur between the Planning Commission and PRAC. B. Vermillion Grove Park Playground Equipment Commission members reviewed the individual play structures that had been sent in the packet and agreed that they would like to have Director Distad solicit proposals from playground vendors that could tie in the different play structures into one common themed play area. The theme for the play equipment should be so that it blends with the natural environment. Distad stated that he would have the proposals back in time for a review at the July meeting. . C. Farmington Youth Traveling Baseball Information Oswald stated that youth baseball asked him to bring information to the Commission about a future complex at Rambling River Park when and if it is redeveloped. Oswald also shared with Commission members some of the improvements that youth baseball would like completed on City ballfields. Distad stated that staff has discussed these two items with youth baseball and didn't understand why it was brought to the Commission. Commission members suggested that Distad make contact with youth baseball and discuss this information with them and that in the future if they wanted to come and make a formal presentation to the Commission, they could do so. VII. Additions to the Agenda None VIII. Staff Report Director Distad updated Commission members on the status of several plats being approved by the City Council. IX. July 2005 Meeting Agenda Topics The following topics were identified for the July meeting agenda: 1. Review and select playground equipment for Vermillion Grove Park 2. Vermillion River Crossing Park Dedication resolution 3. Report on meeting with City of Lakeville Park and Recreation Advisory Commission x. Adjournment Neal moved and Higgins seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF Meeting was adjourned at 8: 18 p.m. c~ctl~!I1)~e;1, . ~~ad,c~ Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on July 13, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal and Paula Higgins Member's Absent: Robin Hanson Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad, Frank Blendetto from Manley Land Development, Bart Winkler and Ethan and Robin Craig. I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion by Neal and seconded by Higgins to approve the agenda with an addition of discussion on high school site update. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to approve the June 2005 joint meeting minutes. Voting in favor were Oswald, Johnson and Neal. Abstaining from vote was Higgins. Motion carried. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to approve the June 2005 PRAC regular meeting minutes. APIF. IV. Presentations A. Request to purchase a portion of Middle Creek Park property by Ethan and Robin Craig Ethan and Robin Craig, 20747 Dyers Pass made a request to purchase a small portion of Middle Creek Park that abuts their property to the west. They wanted to purchase the park property in order to square off their property. Currently . this piece is a triangle shaped piece and the idea would be to fix up this area so that it matched better with their lawn. Higgins stated that she didn't think that it was a good idea to sell park land. Neal and Johnson agreed with Higgins. Ethan Craig thought that the City should create a policy that provided for a maximum amount of land that could be allowed to purchase. Oswald felt that this would be setting a bad precedent that could become a huge issue if park land was allowed to be purchased then everyone abutting a park would want to purchase park land to make their lots bigger. Robin Craig said that the issue is that the park property's landscaping does not match with their property and they wish to do something about it by purchasing this small piece. Director Distad said that the City will work on improving this area as the park is developed. He felt that perhaps the City could look at making some improvements to this small area of the park this fall when it is more favorable for seeding grass. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to deny the sale of the Middle Creek Park property. APIF. v. Old Business A. Winkler and Devney Concept Plan Discussion Introductions were made. Bart Winkler identified the parcel that his company will be developing into a residential development. He explained that the current issue with the property is that there is a flood plain shown on the east side of his property and the Devney property and so he was looking for direction from the Commission about whether or not there should be a park shown in this area for the two developments since this was where a park was identified on the City's Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map. He felt that the FEMA floodplain currently shown on this location would go away once the storm water management plans were created for both properties and thus the park would no longer be in the flood plain. He felt that if the Commission wants to show the park area in the current location then some kind of flood plain study should be initiated. Frank Blendetto commented that he wants to make sure that if the FEMA study were done that it wasn't a long drawn out process and Winkler agreed with this comment. Blendetto said that he wanted to come to the Commission first in order to make sure that this is where the Commission wants the park so that the development can then be designed. Director Distad stated that if after the flood .plain study was completed and the flood plain did not change from its current location that both developers understand that it can continue to be designated as a park but need to understand that under the City's current park dedication ordinance that credit for the land would not given to satisfy the park dedication requirements. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to have a park area designated on the east side of the two properties so that they are abutting to create a larger park and to direct Distad to talk with Engineering to set up a meeting with the developers to discuss the . completion of a flood plain study on both properties in order to resolve the flood plain issue. APIF B. VermilJion River Crossing Park Dedication Requirement Director Distad explained that the developer had requested at the June 2005 meeting that the Commission consider giving park dedication credit for the wetland and the pipeline easement areas. Motion by Johnson and seconded by Neal to give park dedication credit for the portion of the pipeline easement where the trail will be constructed and for the land to be given for a town square and take the remaining park dedication requirement as cash in lieu of land. APIF. C. Executive Estates Plat and Tollefson Concept Plan Director Distad reviewed with Commission members the result of the vote on the Executive Estates preliminary and final plat by the Planning Commission the directed the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and Colin Garvey the developer of Executive Estates to work out the issues with trail and sidewalk locations. He also explained that the Planning Commission voted to take cash in lieu of land rather than outlotting the cuI de sac. This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. Distad informed Commission members that he and Lee Smick the City Planner met with Mr. Garvey and came up with a compromise for the location of trails and sidewalks but did not reach a compromise on the trail location around the wetland. Distad informed Commission members that the issue with the trail around the west side of wetland had to do with the storm water pond construction and the need for a rock area that would serve as an erosion control method for the water flowing from the pond into the wetland. The issue to the south was that the mitigation of a filled wetland had to occur in this location which may prohibit a trail being constructed in the buffer area due to the developer being able to receive wetland mitigation for the buffer area and thus it being treated the same as an actual wetland. Moved by Neal and seconded by Higgins to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the trail and sidewalk plan that the developer and staff drafted with an additional trail on the south and east sides ofthe wetland and north side of the cul-de-sac and outlotting the cul-de-sac until such time that the developer is able to annex and guarantee a park in the property to the east of the development. . VI. New Business A. Select New Playground Equipment for Vermillion Grove and Silver Springs Parks and Picnic Shelter for Hill Dee Park Commission members reviewed the various proposals that were submitted for the playground equipment and picnic shelter. The following companies submitted proposals: Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground, Clearwater Recreation, Ii1c., St. Croix Recreation, Earl F. Andersen, Flanagan Sales, Inc. and Webber Recreational Design, Inc. After some discussion Commission members reached a consensus on the selecting the following: playground equipment for Vermillion Grove from MN/WI Playground, climbing rock for Vermillion Grove Park from Flanagan Sales, Inc. climbing rock in Silver Springs Park from MN/WI Playground, playground equipment for Silver Springs Park from Flanagan Sales, Inc. and the picnic shelter at Hill Dee Park from Flanagan Sales, Inc. B. Discussion on Meeting with LakevilJe Park and Recreation Commission Director Distad said that he has been unable to discuss a joint meeting with the City of Lakeville Park and Recreation Commission but that he has confirmed the date of a joint meeting with the City of Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission for September 28th at 6:00 p.m. at Tamarack Park. Distad stated that he will continue to try and contact Lakeville about doing a joint meeting. C. Review 2005 Park Master Plan Schedule Distad reviewed that the Commission had designated a liaison to the public input meeting for the development of park master plans when the past master plans were completed and asked ifthe Commission wanted to continue this practice for the upcoming park master planning public input meetings. Neal stated that she would be interested in being the liaison. By consensus it was agreed that Neal would be the liaison. . D. Review Shoreview, Minnesota's Community Center Materials Distad passed around the materials that Commission member Robin Hanson picked up when she recently visited the community center in Shoreview, Minnesota. E. High School Site Update . Distad informed the Commission that the City and the School District were looking into possible alternative sites for a high school and that one of the sites possible was the future development known as the Seed Genstar Development. Distad stated that the idea would be to have the City take land next to a high school as park dedication land and then develop it into athletic fields that the high school could use. Distad said that this concept was in the early stages but thought that there might be more information that could be presented at the August meeting. VII. Additions to the Agenda None VIII. Staff Report None IX. August Meeting Agenda Topics The following topics were identified for the August meeting agenda: 1. Winkler and Devney property trail and sidewalk plan development 2. Joint meeting update with Lakeville Park and Recreation Commission 3. Review 2005 PRAC goals 4. Community center update 5. Park Master Plan update 6. High school site alternative update x. Adjournment Higgins moved and Neal seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. ~.~..~s ectfu. lly ~b~.~ itttteel1 ' .~'k~ ~ Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on August 10, 2005 Members Present: Oswald, Johnson, Higgins and Neal Members Absent: Hanson Other's Present: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Higgins moved and seconded by Neal to approve the agenda with a change of moving the new business items before old business items. APIF. III. Approval of January 2005 Minutes. Higgins moved and Johnson seconded to approve the July 13,2005 meeting minutes as written. APIF IV. Presentations (None) v. New Business A. Review PRAC Goals for 2005 Commission members reviewed the 2005 goals that they had set and determined that the following goal has been achieved: Goal #3: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will identify and create opportunities to improve and strengthen City relationships with surrounding townships, cities and Dakota County. Commission members cited that there has been two meetings with the Empire Townships Park and Recreation Commission and a meeting has been scheduled with the Rosemount Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in September. The following goal has partially been achieved: Goal #1: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will work with City staff to further develop and complete an overall parks and recreation systems plan for the City of Farmington. Commission members cited that park master plans are being completed for Depot Way Arts Park, Evergreen Knoll Park and Meadow Creek Third Addition Park area. The Meadowview Park Master Plan is also being updated to show additional trails, parking lot and acreage that has been added to the park as part of the Charleswood Crossing development. The five year Capital Improvement Plan will also be updated at the September 2005 meeting. Other items such as amending park and open space master plan and researching volunteer opportunities and policy have yet to be worked on. The community center study continues to move forward with a recommendation coming to the City Council sometime later this fall or early winter. The following goals have not been completed: Goal #2: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will determine what their role and purpose is for the City of Farmington. No mission or vision statements have been created. Goal #4: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will work with Parks and Recreation Department staff to develop a cost recovery policy for the Department. Director Distad stated that staff will be working on developing a draft policy this fall and will bring the draft to a future Commission meeting later this fall or early winter. B. Park Master Plan Update . . . Commissioner Neal and Director Distad updated other Commission members on the status of the park planning process. There was low turnout for the first public open house but those that did attend provided good input that will be used to develop a first draft of a park master plan for Meadow Creek Third Addition, Depot Way Arts Park and Evergreen Knoll Parks. Director Distad also commented that the consultants met with the Dakota Valley Arts Council (DV AC) for an hour prior to the public open house in order to provide them time to give specific feedback regarding the possible future expansion ofthe Depot Way Arts Park as well as the expansion of outdoor art in general. Distad felt that the consultants received good feedback and ideas from the DV AC members who attended. c. High School Site Update Director Distad provided information concerning several meetings that had taken place on the possibility of the new high school to built somewhere else than on the Christiansen property. He stated that there were two sites looked at in the Seed Genstar property and a third site that was looked at was at the current Fountain Valley Golf Course. In all of these sites, a concept that showed the City receiving some of the land for park dedication and then building and maintaining practice athletic fields that the school district could use for practices. In this scenario, it would create a situation where the school district wouldn't have to purchase as much land for a high school because some of the acreage needed for outdoor athletic fields would be provided by the City. D. Park Dedication Ordinance Text Amendment Director Distad stated that based on new developments that have had to dedicate land for parks that he felt that the current ordinance falls short in a couple of areas. The net developable acreage should be based on what land is available to develop after any wetlands or floodplain is subtracted from the gross acreage. The remaining acreage then is what the developer is able to develop. Streets and ponds are part of the development and so should be included in the net developable area. Under the current ordinance the developers have been able to subtract streets and ponds from the gross acres. This has resulted in the City having less land dedicated for parks than what the City's previous ordinance required. Distad felt that the City should not be going backwards in the amount of land being given for parks. Commission members agreed. Distad also stated that he felt that language should be added to include the City not allowing developers to be given park dedication credit for gas pipeline easements. Commission members also agreed with this. Distad said that the final text amendments that need to be completed are to revise how the commercial and industrial development park dedication is determined. He felt that the existing language in the ordinance should be changed from 5% of the gross area to 5% of the net developable acres after wetlands and floodplain acreage are subtracted from the gross acreage. This would make it consistent with how residential net developable acreage is determined. Motion by Neal and seconded by Johnson to amend the existing park dedication ordinance in Section One, Paragraph B so that language is added that states that the City will not accept gas pipeline easements or other utility easements as park dedication. APIF. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to amend Section One, Paragraph C by eliminating text that states that net area is determined after subtracting public streets and storm water ponds and add language that states that net developable acreage is determined after subtracting wetlands and floodplain and to also amend Paragraph C, (2) and (3) by eliminating the formula based on gross acreage and adding in language that states that the park dedication will be based on net developable acreage after wetlands and floodplain have been subtracted from the gross acreage so that it is consistent with how developable acreage is determined in residential developments. APIF. E. Review Sidewalk Ordinance Director Distad said that he didn't have the opportunity to fully research the City's existing sidewalk ordinance to see whether or not bikes are allowed on sidewalks. He suggested that it be tabled to a future meeting. Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to table the sidewalk ordinance discussion to the September 2005 meeting. APIF. VI. Old Business A. Executive Estates Distad stated that he and Lee Smick the City Planner met with Colin Garvey about the park dedication issue in Executive Estates. Distad stated that Mr. Garvey was invited to attend the PRAC meeting but said that he would not be able to because he would be working at the Dakota County Fair on the same evening as the PRAC . . . meeting. Distad also said that Garvey is no longer interested in providing a lot in his business park for the City to hold and then exchange later for equal property in the Fountain Valley Golf Course if/when it develops because he is fearful that the City would go ahead and develop the business park lot right away for a park. Distad said that Garvey would be willing to put it in writing about the City being able to use the cash in lieu that he wants the City to take in the Executive Estates development and being able to purchase an equal amount of acreage in the golf course when it develops. Higgins was concerned about the information that she heard earlier in the meeting regarding the golf course as a possible site for the new high school and how that would impact the park dedication requirements in the golf course if/when it develops. Oswald said that he prefers the outlotting of the cuI de sac but that the developer could put in infrastructure in the outlotted area so that it can be developed if/when the golf course is developed and the City trades this outlot for additional park land in the golf course development. Commission members were also concerned about the fact that Garvey does not own the golf course land and it is also not part of the City currently and that by giving up the land in the Executive Estates it is virtually impossible to guarantee any future park area for the residents who will be living in Executive Estates. Moved by Oswald and seconded by Higgins to send a recommendation to the City Council that the current stance ofthe Commission to outlot lot the cul-de-sac should be followed by the City Council and that the outlotting of the cul-de-sac should be for at least two years and that the City should not take cash-in-lieu of park land in the Executive Estates development. Motion passed unanimously. B. Winkler and Devney Trail and Sidewalk Concept Plan Director Distad shared with Commission members a conceptual trail and sidewalk plan that was developed by Department staff. The concept plan was included with the packet. Commission members by consensus agreed with the staff's trail and sidewalk concept plan for the Winkler and Devney properties. VII. Additions to the Agenda (None) VIII. Staff Report Distad distributed copies of several memos that he had prepared and sent to either developers or to the Planning Commission and had identified that the PRAC was copied in on the memos. He also updated Commission members on the Riverbend development and the park dedication issue that will be resolved through a future platting of Outlot D in the development. The park dedication issued stems from the fact that the development too more than 3 years to go through the platting process so that by the time the final plat was approved, the park dedication ordinance changed and the formula used to determine the land required to be dedicated had changed. IX. September Meeting Possible Agenda Items 1. Park master plan approval 2. Revised 5 year CIP for Park Improvement Fund 3. Mission and vision statement for PRAC 4. Sidewalk ordinance review 5. High school site discussion 6. Discussion about joint meeting with City of Rosemount 7. Community center update X. Adjournnent Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. The PRAC meeting was officially adjourned at 7:29 p.m. ~.ect. fully .~U~~itt7Y' kJ1 p;.;t;j andy ~ad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . e ~ Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on September 14,2005 Members Present: Oswald, Johnson, Higgins, Neal and Hanson (arrived at 6:26 p.m.) Members Absent: None Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director Randy Distad, David Schreier, Colin Garvey and Leon Orr. I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Distad identified that the Veteran's Memorial presentation from the Veteran's group should be pulled from the agenda as the group was not quite ready yet to make their presentation but would like to make their presentation at the October 2005 meeting. Distad also requested that a discussion item concerning the proposed Town and Country Conceptual Development Plan be added to the agenda under New Business Letter G. Moved by Higgins and seconded by Neal to approve the amended agenda. APIF. Motion carried. III. Approval of August 10,2005 Meeting Minutes. Moved by Neal and seconded by Higgins to approve the August 10,2005 meeting minutes as written. APIF. Motions carried. IV. Presentations A. Request to Rename the Rambling River Park Ballfields to Feely Fields Leon Orr requested that the PRAC consider changing the Rambling River Park Ballfields name to Feely Fields. This name change would recognize the Feely family since the land that the ballfields sit on are actually part of the original Feely homestead and the land was purchased by the City from the Feely family for a park. Mr. Orr also provided some historical information about the Feely family. Mr. Orr said that he has been thinking of this name change for quite some time and felt that the time was right to approach the City to request the name change. He thought the name change would result in people being able to differentiate the city softball fields from the high school baseball fields. Higgins commented that she thought it was interesting that the City of Apple Valley's Park and Recreation Commission mission was to preserve the historical aspects of their City and that this would be an opportunity for PRAC to preserve some of Farmington's history by renaming the ballfields. Neal stated that she often had wondered whose fields were on the north side of County 50 and it is good to know now whose fields they are. Chair Oswald raised a concern about the cost to change the ballfield signs and what would happen if the balIfields would ever go away in the future if the park were redeveloped. Orr said that he didn't think it would cost much to change the wood sign. He also understood that if the ballfield were removed that the Feely Fields name would not be tied to any future ball fields elsewhere. Moved by Higgins and seconded by Neal to recommend to the City Council that the ballfields at Rambling River Park be renamed Feely Fields. APIF. Motion carried. B. War Memorial Request for Farmington Soldiers by David Schreier David Schreier provided a power point presentation to the Commission members about the history of the efforts to create a memorial that honored soldiers from Farmington who died in a war. He requested that the PRAC consider allowing the memorial to be constructed in Rambling River Park on the east side of the Vermillion River and just north of the restrooms in the grassy area. The memorial would be dedicated to the Farmington soldiers who died in battle. He said that construction would most likely begin in 2008. Oswald said that he would like to postpone the decision on this request until after the other veteran's group has had a chance to makl a presentation. Mr. Schreier thought it was appropriate to have two different monuments in two different places. Mr. Schreier stated that he was okay with the decision being postponed until a later date. Moved by Neal and seconded by Johnson to table the decision until after hearing from the other veteran's group at the October 2005 meeting. APIF. Motion carried. V. Old Business A. Executive Estates Park Dedication . . . Colin Garvey the developer for the Executive Estates Development said that he is willing to set aside a lot in the southwest comer of the Farmington Business Park for a park until an offer was made on the lot and at that time cash in lieu would be taken and could be applied to purchase additional land in the golf course property. Oswald asked for clarification of what Garvey stated and does that mean that the lot in the southwest corner of the Farmington Business Park could be held by the City and then swapped at a later date for golf course property equal to the park dedication that is required for Executive Estates and that this would be in addition to the land that would be required to be dedicated for a park in the golf course when it is developed. Garvey answered yes. Hanson asked the question of Garvey that if the lot in the Farmington Business Park would have an offer on it, would he come back and want to give a different lot to the City. Garvey said that he would be interested in doing so if the lot across the street had not been sold. Neal moved and Hanson seconded that the City accept the lot in the southwest comer of the Farmington Business Park and then trade it at a later date for an equivalent amount of park land in the golf course when it is developed and that the land to be given in the golf course be adjacent to the land that would be given for park dedication. APIF. Motion carried. VI. New Business A. Review 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Schedule for Park Improvements Distad outlined changes that he is proposing in the 5 year CIP for park improvements. He said that some existing parks were moved up on the schedule and some of the anticipated newer parks were moved back on the schedule due to delays in development occurring. This means that by switching these parks around, the plan can continue to be implemented without any negative impact. Moved by Higgins seconded by Neal to approve the amended 5 year CIP plan for park improvements and recommend to the City Council that they also approve the amended plan. APIF. Motion carried. B. Perkins Property Conceptual Development Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Distad shared with Commission members that the Planning Commission had reviewed the concept plan for the Perkins property and appeared to not like the higher density that was shown. Distad said that the Planning Commission asked that the developer amend their plan to show lower density housing. Distad shared with Commission members that this property is currently not in the City and will need to be annexed into the City. Since it currently is outside the City, the Comprehensive Plan's Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map will need to be amended to show trail locations in this development. Commission members felt that trails should ring the development and there should be sidewalk on the south side of 21 oth. Moved by Johnson and seconded by Higgins to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan's Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map to show trails on the Perkins property. APIF. Motion carried. C. High School Park Dedication and Park Development Fees Discussion Distad shared with Commission members that it would be good to have a discussion about how everyone felt about the fees that the Farmington School District would be required to pay per the Park Dedication Ordinance for a new high school and elementary school before it came to the Commission. The Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether these fees are paid to the City or are waived. Hanson asked what previous Commissions have done with charging the park dedication fees. Distad stated that he had spoken to Jim Bell the former Park and Recreation Director and had been informed that in the past the City has not required the school district to pay park dedication fees. Distad stated however that the City has since adopted a new ordinance and that it will be up to the Commission to decide whether or not the City would require the park dedication fees. By consensus the Commission felt that more discussion should occur at a later date about how the park dedication fee should be handled with the Farmington School District. D. Discussion on List of Topics to Discuss with the Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission Commission members brainstormed possible agenda items for the meeting that will be held with the Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission on September 28,2005. The following is a list of items that the Commission felt by consensus should be on the meeting agenda: * Veteran's Memorials * Compare park dedication ordinances and process followed * Alternative funding sources for trails and park improvements * Park dedication requirements for public and private schools . * Collaborative programming such as adaptive and active senior programming * Review system plans and update on park and trail development It was also decided that a party sub would be ordered and that each Commission member would bring something that would add to the meal such as chips, beverages and deserts. E. Mystic Meadows Concept Plan Distad provided comments about an early concept plan that was submitted for Mystic Meadows Second Addition. He shared with Commission members that Park and Recreation staff felt that the most easterly cul-de- sac located just to the south of the park should actually be constructed to go through the pond in order to create anther entrance from the south to the park. If this is not done, then all of the traffic coming and leaving the park will be a right in and a right out situation. This would not be good for traffic flow. Since the developer does not own the property to the east of the park, it would not be possible at this time to have an entrance or exit from the east side of the park. However, once this property to the east is developed, there would be an opportunity to create up to two different exits and entrances. Distad stated that he will bring a larger map at the October meeting and will ask that Commission members to start identifying trail and sidewalk locations in the development. F. Mission and Vision Statement Distad stated that one of the Commission's goals in 2005 was to create a mission statement and vision statements for itself. He thought that it might take several meetings to reach consensus on this. He stated that he had included several mission or purpose statement examples from other communities. He asked if the Commission had any thoughts on how to create its mission and vision statements. Commission members said that they liked some of the language in all of the examples. By consensus it was agreed that Distad would try to draft a mission statement for the October meeting that reflected language in the examples provided. . VII. Staff Report Distad updated Commission members on the following: Status of park improvements at Hill Dee, Silver Springs and Vermillion Grove Parks Boardwalk construction Registration totals for credit card use Park dedication table that reflects increased land amounts for parks based on the amendments proposed to the park dedication ordinance Parkview Ponds and Charleswood Crossing parking lot construction and that trails had not been constructed in either development A conversation that he had with Babe Murphy regarding the land adjacent to Middle Creek Park VIII. October Meeting Agenda Items The following possible agenda items were identified: 1. Veteran's memorial group presentation 2. Mission statement 3. Park master plan presentation 4. Debriefing from meeting with Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission 5. Trail Safety and Bike Patrols IX. Adjournment Neal moved and seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 8: 17 p.m. ~:::ctf~ll~~~d, . ~ndy~tad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . ~ Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 12, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald (arrived at 6:11 p.m.), Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal and Robin Hanson Members Absent: Paula Higgins Other's Present: Bev Ersfeld, Mayor Kevin Soderberg, Howard Miller, David Schrier, Ron Ersfeld, Chad Maatta, Amy Bower from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. and Parks and Recreation Director Randy Distad. I. Call To Order Commission member Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Hanson moved and Neal seconded to approve the meeting agenda as written. APIF. Motion carried. III. Approval of Minutes. Hanson moved and Neal seconded to approve the September 2005 meeting minutes as written. APIF. Motion carried. IV. Presentations A. Park Master Plans by Amy Bower from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Distad explained the planning process that was followed in order to gain staff and public input on the master plans for each ofthe three City parks. He informed the Commission members that turnout for the public open houses was relatively low. Bower reviewed the Meadow Creek Third Addition Park Master Plan for Commission members explaining the different features in the park that were included in the park design. Chad Maatra, 190th Street, Farmington, asked if the playground equipment could be moved more east so that it was further away from the back of his property and closer to the sand volleyball court. Commission members seemed to be receptive to this request. George Flynn, 320 Walnut Street, Farmington stated that he was at one of the public open houses and wanted clarification about one of the neighbors concerns for a park sign that was planned to be installed at the end of his cul-de-sac by a trail entrance into the park. Commission member Neal stated that she was at the meeting and it was her impression that the resident did not want the sign next to his property because it already had a number of utility boxes in this location but the resident agreed that it made sense to install the small park sign in this location because it already had other items there that could be grouped together and landscaped around. She thought that the neighbor was okay with this sign location. Motion by Johnson and seconded by Neal to approve the park master plan with the revision of moving the playground equipment more to the east and further away from the resident who requested it. APIF. Motion carried. Bower reviewed the Evergreen Knoll Park Master Plan next. She explained what existing features would remain, what park features would be moved and what new features would be added to the park. Johnson asked whether or not the existing playground equipment would be removed entirely or just parts of it because some of this playground equipment was installed not too long ago. Distad said no that new equipment would be added to existing equipment although some of the older pieces of equipment would be removed due to their age and condition. Hanson said that she thought a looped trail by the parking lot would be a good idea because currently customers walk down the parking lot to access the pool and instead a trail should be constructed so that people can walk safely on the trail rather than in the parking lot. Distad also stated that staff had additional changes they would like to make to the plan including changing from a split rail fence to an ornamental fence and add security lights by the shelter and sand volleyball courts. Hanson moved and Neal seconded to approve the master plan with the changes of adding a looped trail by the parking lot, adding more security lighting and installing ornamental fence rather than a split rail fence. APIF. Motion carried. . . . Bower presented the Depot Way Arts Park Master Plan and highlighted several features including the Spruce Street, Oak Street and Elm Street entrances to the park. George Flynn who is a board member of the Dakota Valley Arts Council spoke about the history of this park and how it came to be. Hanson asked how the art pieces would be picked. Distad stated that since the DV AC has been involved from the very beginning, he thought that they would select the sculptures or art pieces and then they would be brought to the Commission for approval. Neal asked how the art work would be incorporated in the concrete walk. Bower said that the art pieces would be permanently affixed in concrete and that people could walk over them while also looking at them. Oswald stated that he would like to make sure that a space is identified for a depot building to be constructed sometime in the future. He envisioned some kind of open air building that would allow artists to display their work but under the cover of a roof. He thought that the location of where truck parking is currently identified would be the best spot since this is close to where the original train depot once stood. Neal moved and Johnson seconded to approve the master plan with the revisions of identifying a space where a future depot building could be constructed. APIF. Motion carried. B. Veteran's Memorial Group Presentation Howard Miller from the Farmington VFW Club introduced himself and said that the purpose of him being before the Park Commission tonight was to make a request of the Commission to set aside a site for a Veteran's Memorial within the Spruce Street Area development. He said that the veteran's group has no set plans on where the memorial should be located but that they are only looking for a commitment from the Park Commission to set aside space for them for a memorial. Miller shared some of the conceptual ideas that have surfaced during some of the meetings that the veteran's group has held. He thought that a memorial would also be built to honor soldiers from Farmington who died during battle. They are also interested in selling pavers for a walkway that would be used as their main fundraiser to cover the cost of constructing the memorial. He said that the group will be developing a more detailed plan over the next several months and then would bring the plan back to the Park Commission for review and approval. Commission member Hanson asked if there were two separate memorial groups trying to do two separate memorials. David Schrier from the Farmington Area Historical Society addressed the Commission members and explained the difference between his group and the group that Mr. Miller referred to. He said that his group wants to construct a single memorial in Rambling River Park and that the veteran's group had a right to their own separate memorial. He said that the memorial in Rambling River Park would only serve to recognize the soldiers from Farmington who died in battle and he thought that the veteran's group was interested in a larger memorial that would honor all soldiers. Ron Ersfeld from the veteran's group spoke about the size of space needed for their memorial and he thought an area of about 300 feet by 400 feet would be adequate space for what they were planning. He didn't think that the area on the east side of Rambling River Park would be large enough to accommodate the memorial that the veteran's group was planning and the memorial that Schrier wanted to construct. George Flynn tried to explain what he thought was the difference between the memorial for the dead and the memorial that the veteran's group was trying to construct. Hanson thought that both groups should get together and come up with one idea for a memorial. Neal moved and Johnson seconded to make a commitment to the veteran's group that they could either use space in the Spruce Street Area or in Rambling River Park for a veteran's memorial. Mayor Soderberg asked to speak about the motion. He said that he threw his support behind a veteran's memorial and suggested that the whole community get behind it as well. He said that he would like the Commission to make a commitment to the veteran's group that would be included in a veteran's memorial be incorporated into a park master plan for either of these park areas as a way of making a firm commitment to the veteran's group. All Commission members were in favor of the motion. Motion carried. Hanson then moved to bring the request to construct a memorial in Rambling River Park by David Schrier off of the table (it had been tabled from the September 2005 meeting) for discussion and a motion. Seconded by Neal. After some discussion by the Commission about whether or not there should be two separate memorials, Hanson moved and Neal seconded to make a commitment to the Farmington Area Historical Society to allow a . . . memorial to either be built in Rambling River Park or in the Spruce Street area and that both groups should work together to construct one memorial on one site. APIF. Motion carried. V. Old Business A. Discussion of Joint Meeting with Rosemount Park and Recreation Commission Hanson liked that Rosemount seems to use volunteer labor and wanted to have more information about how volunteer labor works and the impact it has on City insurance rates. Commission members agreed that it was beneficial meeting. Neal liked the idea of having a teen representative on the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. Distad said that he will try to get information about how Rosemount arranges to have a teen board member on their Commission. Commission members also thought it might be interesting to see how the two park dedication ordinances compares with regards to the amount of revenue generated from the park dedication fees. B. Mission Statement Discussion The commission agreed that the following language should be deleted from the draft mission statement: "and long range" and ''the livability and character of the City and". Hanson posed the question about whether or not recreational programs should be included as she felt that the Commission currently does not make any recommendations regarding recreational programs. In order for this to be included in the Commission's mission statement then perhaps the Commission should be receiving recreational program information before it is published so that they can review it and provide recommendations on recreational programs. Commission members felt that they would like to have another month to review and consider other possible language that could be included in the mission statement. Hanson moved and Neal seconded to table the approval of the mission statement to the November 2005 meeting. APIF. Motion carried. C. Vision Statements Since the mission statement was tabled to the November meeting, Commission members felt that the vision statements could not be approved until after the mission statement was approved. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Johnson to table the discussion on vision statements until the December 2005 meeting. APIF. Motion carried. D. Comments from Mayor Soderberg Mayor Soderberg requested to be allowed a few minutes to provide some comments to the Commission members. He said that he was excited about the discussion that was taking place about a mission statement and vision statements for the Commission. He said that the HRA has also recently undertaken this process to define who they are and the direction that they want to go forward with. He also thanked Commission members for their time and commitment to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. E. Review 2005 and 2006 Goals Director Distad reviewed the 2005 goals with Commission members. Commission members agreed that there has been progress made in achieving some of the objectives set forth under the four goals that they had identified to be completed in 2005. Commission members agreed that some of the 2005 goals and objectives should be carried forward into 2006 because there would not be enough time to complete them in 2005. These included updating the City's Comprehensive Plan's Park and Open Space Master Plan Chapter and meeting with the Dakota County Park Commission. Commission members felt that it was feasible to achieve the remaining 2005 goals and objectives because work had begun on them. F. Mystic Meadows Second Addition Concept Plan Director Distad shared with Commission members a conceptual trail and sidewalk plan for the Mystic Meadows Second Addition. He asked if there were any revisions that the Commission would like to make to the trail and sidewalk plan that staff had developed. There were no additional changes suggested by Commission members. Distad also discussed the ballfield complex shown in the concept plan and that staff had talked with the developer about having a second entrance into the park by extending the second cul-de-sac into the park. Distad stated that currently the only way in an out of the park is the same place. This does not work well for traffic movement as this access point to the park has been identified as a right in right out access. This will make it . . . , tough for traffic after softball games to get out of the park and head south. Distad said that once this concept plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission and platting begins then the developer should meet with the Commission to resolve trail, sidewalk and access issues. VI. New Business A. Review Draft Recovery Policy Director Distad stated that this policy is in the early stages of development but wanted to include this in the packet of information to the Commission so that they could see from the beginning the format that the policy was being developed under. He asked if Commission members were okay with the format and it seemed that all Commission members were. Distad said that a full draft policy will be coming back to the Commission for further review at a future meeting and the Commission will be asked at that time to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for adoption. VII. Additions to the Agenda There were no additions to the agenda. VIII. Staff Report Distad updated Commission members on the status of park improvements and included the installation of playground equipment and climbing boulders at Silver Springs and Vermillion Grove Parks, construction of the full court basketball court and slab for picnic shelter at Hill Dee Park and trails that have been constructed in the Parkview Ponds development. Distad informed Commission members that it has been difficult to set up a meeting with Lakeville Park Commission as he has not been able to speak yet with the Parks and Recreation Director at Lakeville about a joint meeting. Distad also update the Commission on the status of the boardwalks and he informed them that the bit hold up at this point is getting access to the wetlands for soil samples because the trails have not been graded in on any of the sites yet to allow access to the wetlands. He thought that in the next couple of weeks that this work would be completed and that access could be gained to the wetlands so that soil samples could be taken. IX. November Meeting Agenda I. Update on Meeting with Lakeville 2. Mission Statement 3. Cost Recovery Policy 4. Youth Commission member 5. Volunteer Insurance X Adjournment Motion by Johnson and seconded by Neal to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ~.. ect. fully Submitted, / k~t, ~~ Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Joint Meeting with the City of Lakeville Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee on November 16, 2005 at City of Lakeville City Hall Council Chambers Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal and Robin Hanson Members Absent: Paula Higgins I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the joint meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. II. Discussion with City of Lakeville Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee Lakeville Parks and Recreation Director Steve Michaud described the City of Lakeville's system's plan for parks, trails and open space. He identified that the City of Lakeville has purchased park land and will be receiving additional park land in the Brantjen Farms Development that will be just north of the future 170th Street crossing. This park will be accessible to Farmington's residents once the trails connect along the North Creek Greenway. It will include frontage to a small lake and will have ballfields, soccer fields and other typical park amenities such as trails and playground equipment. They have preserved land around the lake to make a trail loop around the lake that will connect to a trail that will lead to the Cobblestone Lake development in Apple Valley. Michaud also shared that it was important to have this meeting to begin looking at the bigger vision of making trail connections from Lakeville through Farmington to the new regional park in Empire Township as well as this same trail alignment providing a connection through Lakeville to the Murphy-Hanneran Regional Park in Prior Lake and Savage. Parks and Recreation Director Distad then described the City of Farmington's Existing and Proposed Future Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan Map to members of the Lakeville Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Committee explaining the existing park and trail system and how the City has laid out a plan for in the future to connect its parks and trails system to the City of Lakeville's parks and trails system. . Director Michaud then provided a large regional map that Dakota County has developed that shows a large aerial map that encompasses the cities of Farmington and Lakeville to illustrate the importance of trail connections and where these connections seem to make the most sense. At the conclusion of the meeting, both parties agreed that it was important to have an annual meeting in order to continue to discuss both city's parks and trails systems plan and to also include Empire Township's Park Board in on the meeting so that they could also be included in the discussion about how to connect to each other's trails in order to make the connection from Murphy Hanneran Regional Park to the Empire Regional Park. The joint meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 1!.spec.tfU~\ SUbmi.tted' ~ -; J~ J t;ty.JLA '~ Rand~v6istad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 16, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Karen Neal, Paula Higgins and Robin Hanson Members Absent: None I. Call Meeting to Order Chair Oswald called the regular meeting of November 16,2005 to order at 7:45 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda. Neal moved and Johnson seconded to approve the meeting agenda as written. APIF. Motion carried. III. Approval of Minutes. Chair Oswald wanted to see additional language regarding the Mystic Meadows Second Addition concept plan that stated that he said that trails should go around ponds and the developer had previously agreed to this. Johnson moved and Neal seconded to approve the October 2005 meeting minutes as amended with the above comments included in the minutes. Voting in favor of the motion were Oswald, Hanson, Neal and Johnson. Abstaining from the vote was Higgins. Motion carried. IV. Presentations There were no presentations made to Commission members. V. Old Business A. Review and Approve Mission Statement Hanson liked the draft mission statement except that she thought that the following language should be removed: "that will serve to enhance" and "well being of its residents". She thought that this language was not necessary. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Higgins to approve the mission statement with the above amendments made to the mission statement. APIF. Motion carried. . B. Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy Director Distad shared the most recent draft ofthe Pricing and Cost Recovery Policy. He reviewed some of the details about the document including some of the definitions of the words that are referenced in the document, how fees should be set based on a certain formula related to recovering direct and indirect costs and what the City has recovered in costs in the past three years through fees collected. He stated that he wasn't looking for any action tonight, only feedback on the document. Hanson asked what the pricing formula related to. Distad stated that the formula that is shown in the document is a pricing strategy that staff would use internally when setting fees for programs and making recommendations related to other services it provides to individuals and organizations. No action was taken as Distad said that there was still some additional language changes that need to be incorporated into the document before the Commission could take formal action on recommending its adoption to the City Council. By consensus it was recommended to bring this back to the December meeting. . VI. New Business A. Review and Recommend 2006 Fee Schedule Director Distad introduced the item and reviewed with Commission members the changes that either staff members were recommending or the Rambling River Center Advisory Board was recommending. Hanson asked ifthe various youth sports organizations were informed ofthe fees. Distad said no that they were not informed as the only change from the previous year's fees was increasing the additional ballfield dragging that organizations could hire the City to perform on City ballfields. This increased by one dollar per dragging from the previous season. He thought that this was a more than reasonable increase given the fact that fuel costs have increase significantly from last year. Hanson stated that she has a philosophical difference regarding charging a per participant fee to use the ballfields. She thought that the City should provide this service for free because youth organizations provide volunteers to run these programs thus saving the City money from having to run these programs as the City does not have to then hire the staff to run these programs. She felt there was a cost savings to the City. Hanson asked what happens if the same participant uses both a City and School District field would they be charged double to use both fields. Distad said that they would but that it could be avoided if . . the organizations scheduled the same fields for the same kids during the season and would then avoid having to pay both the City and the School District for field usage. Oswald asked if there was some way to have the City and School District work together and charge one fee. Distad explained why the split happened as the City was basically providing the labor to drag all of the School District's fields at the City's cost, which took staff time away from other park projects that needed to be completed. He said that it wouldn't be possible to do one fee because each entity will be scheduling their own fields and dragging their own fields. Higgins moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the 2006 Fee Schedule as presented. Johnson seconded the motion. Voting in favor of the motion were Oswald, Higgins, Neal and Johnson. Voting against the motion was Hanson. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote. VII. Additions to the Agenda There were no additions to the agenda. VIII. Staff Report Distad reviewed the information that he gathered from the City of Rosemount concerning a youth member sitting on their Commission and that the youth member rotated every month and had no voting privileges. It basically served as a way to gather student input while allowing the Commission to use students as a sounding board to their ideas. Distad also informed the Commission members that the City does carry insurance for volunteers but was unsure how the volunteer insurance related to volunteers operating City equipment or vehicles. Distad informed the Commission members on the status of the Community Center Study and deferred leading the discussion to Higgins and Oswald since both Commission members sit on the Community Center Committee. Higgins and Oswald shared information about the Committee narrowing from seven sites to two recommended sites for a community center to be located on. These two sites included the Newland Communities site on the northeast part of the community and a site just to the west of the Vermillion River Crossing development that is currently owned by Don Pederson who is working with Town and Country Development to develop the land for a commercial and residential development. Higgins and Oswald also shared with Commission members about who the potential partners have been narrowed to including three categories of potential partners: Primary Capital Partner including the school district, county, Newland Communities and Town and Country, Secondary Capital Partner including the Farmington Youth Hockey Association and Dakota County Fairgrounds and Leasing Partners including the Northfield Hospital and Dakota Technical College. Higgins and Oswald also informed Commission members that the Committee has also determined that the community center will need to be phased in and that the committee has identified what it would like to construct in the first phase including an aquatic facility, gymnasium, senior lounge, multipurpose rooms, office space, cardio and fitness space, walking track, lobby space and circulation. Higgins and Oswald stated that the next step in the process is to work with an architect to begin to develop a concept plan with these spaces and then further refine the costs associated with these spaces. IX. December Meeting Agenda 1. Cost Recovery Policy 2. Review Park Dedication Fees 3. Vision Statements X Adjournment Motion by Higgins and seconded by Neal to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. R. espectfully Si'b~i7"J. ~...~ 4t f)jl;fJ . Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 14, 2005 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson (arrived 6:10 p.m.), Paula Higgins and Robin Hanson Members Absent: Karen Neal Others Present: Don Hayes, Parks Maintenance Supervisor and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director I. Call Meeting to Order Chair Oswald called the regular meeting of December, 2005 to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Approval of Agenda. Hanson moved and Higgins seconded to approve the meeting agenda as written. APIF. Motion carried. III. Approval of Minutes. Moved by Hanson and second by Oswald to approve the November 16,2005 minutes of the joint meeting with the Lakeville Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. Voting in favor were Oswald and Hanson. Abstaining from the vote was Higgins. Moved by Higgins second by Hanson to approve the November 16, 2005 regular meeting minutes with several typewritten errors being pointed out for correction. APIF. . IV. Presentations A. Presentation on 2005 Park Improvement and Park Maintenance Projects. Don Hayes, Park Maintenance Supervisor stated that he thought that he had the best job in the City of Farmington. He likes what he does. He also said that he has learned to be more patient with his job in the past year. Hayes quickly reviewed some of the highlights of the work that was completed in the last year. Hanson asked about the status ofthe natural trails at Vermillion Grove Park that will lead to the top of the hill and then back down to the paved trail and what kind of surfacing these trails might have. She also wondered if they were going to be left as mowed trails. Distad stated that he would have to go back and check to see if the park master plan referenced the surfacing of these trails. Oswald asked if buckthorn was being removed. Hayes stated that he has looked into Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grants and having Dakota County Sentence to Serve crews to help remove it as well. He said it is difficult to stay on top of because of the time involved and because of limited staff time, has not been able to focus very heavily on the removal of buckthorn because other projects have kept his staff very busy. Oswald asked if vandalism occurs very often. Hayes said it depends on the time of year and whether school is or isn't in session. Oswald made a request that Hayes try to keep a spreadsheet or log on the vandalism including date, location and cost of damage. Hayes said that he could do that. Commissioners thanked Hayes for the work that was completed in the past year. B. Mystic Meadows Second Addition Concept Plan Distad briefed Commission members about the previous nights Planning Commission meeting where a concept plan was reviewed for Mystic Meadows Second Addition. He stated that there were a number of things discussed about the park including parking needs, traffic movement in and out of the park and what amenities might be constructed in the park. Distad asked if the Commission would ever consider moving the park area by switching it with the housing planned to the south so that the park area would abut the future 203rd Street so that traffic could turn right or left at the intersection of 203rd Street and Diamond Path Road. Distad showed a sketch of what this could look like. Commission members by consensus said that the would like to continue to have the park area located where it had previously been shown on earlier concept plans for Mystic Meadows. . V. Old Business A. Review and Recommend Approval of Pricing and Cost Recovery Strategic Plan . . . Distad reviewed the strategic plan with Commission members. He stated that the idea behind the strategic plan being created was so that the Department had a clearer direction from the City Council regarding the level of revenue it should be receiving from fees that are charged for services it provides. He stated that the pricing guidelines developed by the Department are meant more as a strategy that the Department will follow when determining fees for the various services that are provided and will depend on who is accessing the service. The cost recovery rate was meant as a benchmark for what level of the various Departments total expenditure should be covered by fees and how much should be subsidized through other revenue sources such as taxes, donations and/or grants. He said that adopting this plan will assist staff greatly during the budgeting process and when it recommends fees for its services. Hanson thought that the cost recovery part of the plan should not be included because it doesn't relate back very well to the pricing guidelines. She felt that the cost recovery should relate to the amount of direct versus indirect costs that are covered by fees. Moved by Hanson and seconded by Higgins to approve recommending to the City Council that the Pricing and Cost Recovery Strategic Plan be approved with the exception that the cost recovery part of the strategic plan be removed and be created under a separate plan. APIF. Motion carried. VI. New Business A. Review Perkins Property Conceptual Development Plan Distad reviewed with Commissioners comments that were received on this development from the Planning Commission and City Council. He informed that the Planning Commission and City Council had ajoint workshop to discuss the density and timing of this development. At the workshop, there was some feeling about having the developer dedicate some park land in the development and not take the entire dedication of park land in cash. The developer then came back to City staff and to the Planning Commission with a new concept plan that shows a small park area in the southwest corner of the development that would be connected to the trails planned to loop around the development. Distad asked for feedback from Commission members about how they felt about removing a lot and putting a park in this location. Consensus seemed to be that Commission members were okay with adding this small park area as long as it was kept a private park for the development and that it was maintained by the development. Commission members also suggested that an additional trail connection be made between two lots on the northeast corner of the development. By consensus it was further recommended by Commission members that the City take an easement rather than an outlot for the trail. B. Review Skate Park Proposal Distad briefly provided some background information regarding a skate park proposal submitted by 3rd Lair Skatepark. He asked Commission members if they were okay with the proposal and whether or not staff should pursue the drafting of an agreement that would include City staff, PRAC and 3rd Lair Skatepark input. Distad stated that once all parties agreed on the language, then PRAC would forward a recommendation to the City Council for its approval. By consensus, direction was given to Distad to move forward with a draft agreement for review at a future PRAC meeting. C. Park and Recreation Master Plan Distad discussed briefly the framework that he has developed for putting together a Park and Recreation Master Plan. He said that the draft framework was meant as a starting point for creating a 10 year plan for the City. He said that the framework was set up by Department Divisions except for Solid Waste, which would be addressed elsewhere in the budget. He also explained that one of the 2005 work plan goals for the Commission was to complete the master plan but because of the number of new developments that occurred in 2005, there was not enough time to work on it. Distad stated that it is a requirement by the Metropolitan Council that all seven county metro communities have their comprehensive plans updated by 2008. He asked if Commission members liked the framework or if they had other ideas about other things that should be included in the master plan. Commission members by consensus seemed to be okay with the framework to serve as the starting point of the development of the master plan. VII. Additions to the Agenda There were no additions to the agenda. VIII. Staff Report . Distad asked if Commission members would be interested in a mini-retreat either on a Saturday morning or on a weekday evening other than the regular monthly meeting date, to get together and formulate vision statements for the Commission and develop a work plan for 2006. Commission members in attendance seemed to favor a weekday evening and identified Wednesday, January 18th from 6:00-8:00 p.m. as the date and time that they would like to hold a mini-retreat. It was determined that the mini-retreat should be held at the Central Maintenance Facility like it was last year. Distad will put out an email to other Commission member to see if that date and time would work for them. Distad informed Commission members that the picnic shelter at Hill Dee Park was being constructed and should be fully constructed within the next week. IX. January Meeting Agenda 1. 2006 park improvement budget for Evergreen Knoll Park, Depot Way Arts Park and Meadow Creek Third Addition park area 2. City Council workshop discussion on date and time X Adjournment Motion by Johnson and seconded by Higgins to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. ~...e...s.p. e fully SUb.Wmitt ed, 7 ,.-.' , j) ~ / ../, /t ' . I tJ.......~. .dandy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . .