Loading...
2003-03-11 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda Packet�, Csec. qG) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:30 p.m. —Council Chambers Note: This meeting will be televised by NDCTV. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. February 11, 2003 Minutes 4. Rogers Lake Park Tier I Skateboard Park 5. Ballfield Lighting 6. Parks Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 7. TilsenBurow Farm 8. Paster Enterprises 9. Updates a. Recreation Programmer's Update b. Wentworth Warnung House c. Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas d. Police Report (No incidents during February 2003) 10. Other Comments 11. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 11; 2003 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Richard Spicer and Commissioners Stan Linnell, Larry Craighead, Raymond Morris, Missie Hickey, and Dave Libra. Commissioner Missie Hickey was excused from the meeting. City Staff present were Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Councilmember Ultan Duggan and Scott Miller of MHAA were in the audience. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. This meeting was televised by NDCTV and replayed the following Friday at 1:00 pm and 7:00 pm. MINUTES Commissioner Morris moved to approve the January 14, 2003 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Libra seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PARK MAINTENANCE ISSUES Mr. Kullander reviewed a memorandum that he had provided to the Commission regarding various parks maintenance items. ROGERS LAKE PARK TIER I SKATEBOARD PARK Mr. Kullander informed the Commission that the Council had agreed to allocate $25,000 for the construction of a skateboard park facility at Rogers Lake Park. Mr. Kullander added that the Council had instructed him to work with local interested skateboard enthusiasts regarding the design of the skateboard park. Mr. Kullander said that this item would appear on the March and April Parks Commission agendas and would be submitted for Council review and award on April 15. Council had decided to ask the Parks Commission to investigate the possibility of lighting only three sites in the following order: Saint Thomas Academy, Civic Center, and Sibley High School. Mr. Miller said that he remembers well that the last time the subject of lighting Mendakota ballfield was discussed, the surrounding neighborhood came out against lighting the fields. Mr. Miller said that nevertheless, he would like to put Mendakota on the table again. Mr. Miller said that the demographics of the City are changing and that there is now a shortage of ballfreld time. Chair Spicer said that this would be the fourth time he has participated in discussions about lighting ballfields since the beginning of this tenure on the Parks and Recreation Commission in 1988. Chair Spicer said that since both he and his children have been heavily involved in baseball, he is sympathetic to the issue. Chair Spicer said that Mendota Heights is the only community in the south metro area that does not have lighted fields. Chair Spicer added, however, that he saw two problems with lighting the fields. Chair Spicer said that the first issue was money, and that the second issue was neighborhood opposition. The Commission then discussed the idea of folding ballfield lights into a larger parks bond referendum to cover various items and asked Mr. Kullander to convey that idea to the Council for their reaction. UPDATES Staff provided updates on the following items: Recreation Programmer's Update Police Report OTHER COM10'iENTS None. ADJOURN Motion made to adjourn by Portz and seconded by Libra. AYES: NAYS: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. City of Mendota Heights h'd=1dM71►1�I11��11 March 7; 2003 Memo to: Parks &Recreation Commission �` From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager CFI Subject: Skate Park in Roger's Lake Park Background: Letters seeking product information, design/layout suggestions, maintenance costs, and references were mailed to eight vendors, six of which responded (see attached letter and vendor list). (Note: Custom Skatepark Concepts owned by Dave Shyne did not submit materials) Discussion: The plan presented to the Commission by Mr. Meyers, if constructed, would exceed the available budget of $22,000.00. Most of the vendors responding to my letter proposed one or more alternate layouts that were more in the range of the dollars available. Another approach would be to select a "total" design to be implemented in two or three phases with the first phase meeting the existing budget and completion of the "total" design considered if the original installation is deemed successful. Rather then present you with a large packet of vendor literature and design options I will be prepared to discuss each in detail at Tuesday's meeting. I have summarized what I think are the important items I believe will drive the Commission's evaluation of the various products offered. True Ride: Treated wood structure with SkateLite Pro Skating Surface (Composite) One-year guarantee on skate surfacing - Constructed on site -screws. In business since 1997 - Duluth, MN Skateparks International: All steel construction, steel skating surface -welded. Units that must be connected must be welded on site -additional costs involved. Warranty is for 15 years. In business since 1982 - Colorado Athletica (Ramp Rider): Distributes product made by True Ride (see above) Mpls. Earl Anderson (Landscape structures): Steel frame, steel skating surface with PVC coating, Premalene side panels, steel decks PVC coated -warranty is 15 years -welded construction-5 yrs experience in skate ramps-35 yr. in playground compone nts-Mpls. February 5, 2003 Skate Park Vendor List: 1. Custom Skatepark Concepts 2500 University Ave. St. Paul, MN 55114 2. Flannagan Sa/es, lnc. 2845 Hamline Avenue North-# 108 Roseville, MN 55113 3. TrueRide, lnc 5781 Berquist Road Duluth, MN 55804 4. Earl F. Anderson 9701 Penn Avenue Soi Bloomington, MN 554� 5. America amp CompG 601 i ev 6. Athletica 4814 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 7. Midwest Playscapes, lnc. 500 Pine Street -Suite 104 Chaska, MN 55318 8. Skateparks International, Inc 13080 Cavanaugh Mile Road Hudson, CO 80642-7625 �� d � its ►RieuT�iz Questions: 1. Would you recommend that the existing tennis court net poles be ... a. Cut off at ground level b. Remove pole concrete footings c. Can be left in place and "padded" d. Other... 2. Do you recommend that your components be "anchored" to the paved asphalt surface? 3. What would be the approximate cost for your firm to provide and install similar components to those illustrated in the attached "Basic Design"? 4. If the amount exceeds 522,000.00 what part of the "Basic Design" could be installed for that amount? a. 75% b. 50% C. 25 % 5. If you wish to present an alternate design for a first phase development skate park for our consideration, please do so. Indicate approximate cost for components and installation. 6. Provide list of several local sites where you_have installed Tier I components. Also indicate year project was completed and a local contact person familiar with the use of the ramps and jumps that I may contact. 6. Does your firm provide trained technicians that can perform routine safety checks of installed components and can you provide repair services if required? What would be the cost for the inspectors time? How would repairs be billed? 7. What type of warranty or insurance do you provide on equipment installed by your company? 8. From past experience, what would the average maintenance or repair costs be for a Tier 1 park, similar to our proposed project? Assume that all required maintenance or repair is not preformed by City staff, but by your firm. Please project costs for 1" year after installation, 2"d year and 3`d year. 9. Would someone from your firm be available to attend a meeting with our Parks and Recreation Commission? This would be an evening meeting, held at 6:30 pm. on Tuesday, March 11 `h City of Mendota Heights MEMORADNUM March 6, 2003 Memo to: Parks &Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager l Subject: Ball Field Lighting Request -Council Direction to Commission Draft minutes from the March 4"' Council meeting wi//not be avai/able for review until later this week. /n the following memo l will try to summarize comments and issues discussed at that meeting. The Council requested the Commission to further review this issue but asks the Commission to make a recommendation on how to proceed with evaluating ball field and other park needs. Discussion: Discussion of this issue covered many subjects and lasted more then 20 minutes. The following list represents comments made by Council members and several residents that spoke. (The comments are in no particular order) 1. A majority of the Council would not support a bond referendum that contained ball field lighting at Mendakota Park. 2. Lighted fields would most benefit adult leagues that could play two or three games following earlier youth games that start at 5:00 pm. 3. Look at under utilized fields such as the JV field at St. Thomas or Sibley that could be upgraded to provide playing fields for older baseball use. 4. Upgrading or enlarging existing neighborhood park fields would "close out" current usage by younger youth teams (no real gain in field time/usage) 5. A lighted baseball field would allow two games. Youth 14/1 5 and under at 4:30 to 7:00 followed by older youth game at 7:15 to 10:00. (St. Thomas and Sibley are the only two existing suitable fields with 90 baselines) 6. Council is reluctant, with current budget concerns, to commit to a bond referendum in the next year or two 7. Current fields usage fills available time slots with no capacity for expansion of existing programs or new teams 8. Review undeveloped parcels with potential park use - funding for land purchase was not discussed 9. Contact St. Thomas and Sibley to determine if they are interested in modifications or upgrades to their ball field sites City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM February 27, 2003 Memo to: Mayor, Council Members and City Administrator Cop O JJ From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Ball Field Lighting - Parks and Recreation Commission Response / Review Background: Mr. Scott Miller presented a request to the City Council (January 215) and Parks and Recreation Commission (February 11 th) to consider installation of sports field lighting systems at Mendakota Park, Civic Center Ball fields, Sibley varsity ball fields and the St. Thomas Academy varsity baseball field. After a far-ranging discussion that included project financing, previous neighborhood opposition to lights, site selection, city-wide trail maintenance, other park needs, and the successful 1989 Parks Bond Referendum the Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to hear Mr. Miller's proposal, review the Council's comments and to make a recommendation back to the City Council. Discussion: The Commission recognizes the myriad of options and problems that will be presented if the lighting issue and/or consideration of a city-wide bond referendum is explored and are willing to present to and work with residents in development of a project proposal/recommendation for either option. The Commission does not recommend consideration of a bond referendum if lighting of one or two ball fields are the only planned projects. They would support a citywide bond referendum that would encompass maintenance or enhancement of facilities throughout the existing trail and park system and construction of new facilities some of which may include sports lighting. If the Council chooses to consider a bond referendum it is anticipated that this would be a 10 to 15 month process and be included in the November 2004 General Election process. Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission requests further direction from the City Council on this issue. Action Required: If the City Council wishes to proceed with either of the above discussed issues they should direct the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop a preliminary plan of action at their March regular meeting and to discuss their recommendation at the March 18t" council, meeting. Attachment: June 11, 1996 "Findings of Ballfield Lights Task Force for Mendakota Park" DISCUSSION The Task Force was unable to arrive at a consensus and make a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their meeting on June 11, 1996. However, the Task Force did issue a report entitled "Findings of the Bal field Lights Task Force For Mendakota Park." This report was an attempt to distill facts of the issue so that the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council could consider the policy issues related to the request for lights at these ballfields. (Please see attached report entitled "Findings of the Ballfield Lights Task Force For Mendakota Park. ") In attempting to define the need for additional field space, the Task Force looked at the growth in adult softball and youth baseball/softball, the demographics of the community and the levels of participation that are occurring in Mendota Heights. The Task Force also examined the inventory of available fields and how the various programs are scheduling the use of these fields. (Please refer to the Findings of the Ballfield Lights Task Force for a detailed discussion of these factors.) The Task Force also examined other alternatives such as acquisition of additional park land and construction of new fields. (Please see March 14, 1996 memorandum from Guy Kullander on Ballfield Development, June 27, 1996 memorandum from Guy Kullander on the Freeway Road site, and June 28, 1996 memorandum from Guy Kullander on the Friendly Marsh site.) The Parks and Recreation Commission was also unable to arrive at a recommendation for the City Council on this issue due to a split between members in favor of lights and members opposed to lights. The Commission was unanimous that additional field capacity was needed to address growing youth and adult programs in Mendota Heights, but they could not agree as to the best alternative. MHAA feels that the installation of lights at Mendakota Pazk is the best solution to address their long term needs for field space. They state that with the addition of two fields at Friendly Hills Middle School and the installation of lights at Mendakota Park, they will have all the field capacity they require, with the exception of the need for one baseball field for age 14 to adult (90 foot basepath). MHAA feels that lights are the most cost effective option for the City to add field capacity that will address their needs. MHAA has submitted a letter with exhibits making their case for lights. (Please see attached June 28, 1996 memorandum from Dr. John Norton, with exhibits.) Dr. John Norton will be prepared to present the request by MHAA on Tuesday evening and to discuss their need for fields based upon their numbers for games, practices and teams. Those opposed to lights at Mendakota Park are not limited to the immediate neighbors of the park. The City has received numerous letters and correspondence in opposition to lights, their cost and this use of the park. Resident members of the Task Force have a different interpretation of the Findings than MHAA and feel that the need for additional tU11GS OF THEI 1 .! ' LIGHTS1 1 AKOTA PARK June 11, '. Mendakota Pazk was built in 1992 with funds from a bond issue after approval in a city- wide referendum. The four fields were specifically designed for use by adult softball players, and meet the specifications of the American Softball Association. This assures that the softball program is sanctioned for tournament play and qualifies for liability insurance coverage available through the association. The fields are set up in pinwheel -type design. There was some consideration that the fields might be lighted at some point in the future. Four square areas were left unpaved in the central concourse area, which are now used as planters. One of those is dedicated as a memorial to a Korean War veteran. If lights were to be installed, the planter areas could be used as sites for the light poles without breaking up the existing concrete. Conduits for wiring lights were not installed because it was determined to be cost effective to "gopher" the electrical wiring as needed. Adult Softball The adult sofbail grogram has lead significant growth since the construction of Mendakota Park. From 1985 to 1992, there was one men's softball league with 8 teams and 120 players. In 1993, this went to 4 leagues with 28 teams and 420 players. In 19952 there were 5 leagues, 38 teams and 565 players. In 1996, one of the 5 leagues, Co-Rec If If was moved to Friday night because of scheduling shifts made to accommodate youth games on other nights. This league had 6 teams in 1995. However, only two teams signed up in 1996 and the league was dropped. On Friday evenings, 3 fields were given to a league from the Bethel Baptist Church, with a condition that they would accommodate field reservation requests from residents. Sibley Area Girls Fast Pitch uses one field on Friday evening. In 1996, there are 4 leagues with 32 teams and 496 players. These leagues play all their games at Mendakota Park, with the exception of "Hens over 30, which also plays two games at the Civic Center field on Thursdays. Two adult games are played each evening at 6:15 and 7:15 p.m. Adult softball has exclusive use of Mendakota Park fields on week nights in 1996, as listed below: Several new fields will be coming on line soon with the construction of the Friendly Hills Middle School. There will be one youth softball find and one combined use field at the new middle school which will be available in 1998. These new fields will be scheduled by the Independent School District 197. Demographic information and enrollment projections provided by Independent School District 197 indicates that the present population of K-12 school aged children will remain stable for the next five years. During the years from 1985 to 1990, there was a 2-3 % annual growth rate in the number of school age children. From 1990 to the present, the rate of growth has been 1 % per year. Demographic information suggests the rate will remain stable. Residential growth in Mendota Heights has slowed significantly in recent years and the adult population is expected to remain stable. Generally, it is true that the demand for adult softball fields will exceed the amount of facilities available, if non resident teams are given access to the program. Adult softball is one of the fastest growing participatory sports in the nation and city staff expects that there will be further expansion of leagues from within Mendota Heights.. Adult softball is scheduled Monday through Thursday evening. On Thursday evening, adult softball is also scheduled at Civic Center park. Two fields at Sibley Park are capable of hosting adult softball, but have been scheduled to accommodate youth play. JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASING FIELD CAPACTTY The demand for additional youth athletic fields is based on three factors. First, some of the fields formerly relied on by the MHAA are no longer available. Second, there is a wedge of players in the 10-14 age range that are straining the current resources. Third, there appears to be an increase in the number of youth participants, which is attributable to greater levels of participation, if not increasing population. MHAA figures show that in 1995, there were 28-29 youth softball teams with 11-13 members on each team. The number of softball teams in 1996 is 26. Three softball teams were converted to SAGFP. In 1995, there were 4142 youth baseball teams with 12-14 members per team. For 1996, there are 39 baseball teams representing a loss of two traveling teams. There were 28 T-Ball teams in both 1995 and 1996. Two traveling teams were not created in 1996 due to a lack of fields. The idea for putting lights in Mendakota Park is seen as a solution for adding capacity which will allow youth games to be played in the early evening hours and assuring that 16 youth games per week may be played at Mendakota Park without affecting current adult use on a Monday -Thursday schedule. There are many alternative scheduling scenarios that could be used City Owned Property - T.H. 110 R.O.W. at Freeway Road Would accommodate 2 youth baseball fields or one baseball field with 90' basepaths No cost for land acquistion Significant grading costs (may be offset if 88th Army Command will work this site) Purchase Properly and Construct New Fields Expensive to purchase land Availability of suitable sites is limited Alternative Scheduling at Existing Fields Other time periods available besides Mon-Thurs prime time May cause participation to drop due to incovenience Attachments: 1996 Mendakota Schedule 1996 MHAA fields 1996 Softball Breakdown ISD497 School District Demo MI -IAA Growth and Participation M:�SHARE�\FINDING2.BLT II III IV V VI TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS/GROWTH TRENDS Introduction 1 Importance of Recreation 1 Existing Park Plans and Housing 3 Socioeconomic Profile 4 Community Growth Trends 9 EXISTING FACILITIES Existing Facilities 11 Inventory of Non -Municipal Recreation Facilities 16 Park Inventory Assesment 20 RECREATION NEEDS AND DEMAND ANALYSIS Analysis of Service Areas (by neighborhood) 41 Comparison to Standards 49 Trends and External Factors Affecting Needs 52 Expressed Needs 55 GOALS AND POLICIES Overall Goals 58 Park Hierarchy Concept 56 Implementation Tools 60 Considerations for Acquisition and Development Priorities 63 Roles and Responsibilities; Relationships with Other Agencies 63 Ideas and Suggestions to Cooperative Efforts 64 COMMUNITY TRAILS Existing Trails and Pathways 67 Adjacent Community or Other Agency Trails 69 Goals and Policies 70 Bicycle Trail System 76 Pedestrian Trail System 79 Cross Country Ski Trails 80 Design Criteria 82 FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Park Facility Needs and Improvements 90 Athletic Complex Needs 97 Other Community Facility Needs 98 Summary 98 CHAPTER I COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS/GROWTH TRENDS Introduction The purpose of the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan is to develop a coordinated program for park and recreation facility improvements based on an assessment of existing facilities and projected needs. This study follows three basic steps. First, all existing public recreation facilities will be inventoried, and analyzed for the range of opportunities offered and available to local residents. The inventory includes public, local and regional resources, and recreational facilities and programs other than those owned and operated by the city such as schools, so that the full range of recreation opportunities are recognized. Next, the study process will survey community perceptions of the current recreation program and invite users to suggest future directions and programs. The process includes a previously completed community survey, participation at public meetings, and input from the Park and Recreation Commission. Finally, the identified needs and demands ranked according to the established goals and policies. Those being ranked as the highest priority will then be recommended for inclusion in the capital improvements program so that the programmed needs can be realistically achieved. Importance of Recreation Leisure time is defined as that time which is not committed to work or other necessary duties, and so is available for discretionary use. Recreation means specifically to create anew, restore and refresh oneself and sense of well-being; it represents a constructive use of leisure time. The opportunities in recreation and use of leisure time are important components in the quality of life, and are significant measurements of our civilization. Not only are recreation opportunities important for the individual, they are important for a community as a whole. The nature and variety of parks and other recreational facilities help to give a community and its neighborhoods a sense of identity and pride. Well -maintained facilities have a positive influence on residential property values, and can help to revitalize otherwise declining areas. Many industries and businesses consider recreation as a factor in evaluating new locations, as a community rich in recreation resources will hold greater value for relocating and attracting workers and their families. Additionally, the location of recreation and park facilities can be a tool in guiding a community's growth and development. The recreation facilities in a community are particularly important to daily life as they represent opportunities that are close to home. Most leisure time does not occur in substantial blocks of time that would permit travel to other areas, the way a week's vacation does. Typically, individuals have 3440 hours of leisure time per week with several hours available daily.(1) -Those with larger blocks of leisure time, such as children and retired persons, frequently have limited mobility, and must rely on meeting most of their recreational needs close to home. Indeed, (1) Social Indicators 1976, U.S. Department of Commerce. 1 1. 2. 3. 0 5. PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY RESPONSES, JUNE 1985 Have you or any other member of your household used the City parks in the past year? NO - 29 1-5 TIMES - 27 6-10 TIMES - 22 MORE THAN 10 TIMES - 153 Name of park nearest your residence. IVY - 32 WENTWORTH - 41 VALLEY - 26 MARIE - 53 ROGERS LAKE - 31 FRIENDLY MARSH - 41 Number of members in household by age group. UNDER 5 - 69 6-9 YEARS - 75 10-13 YEARS - 79 14-18 YEARS - 79 18-35 YEARS - 141 35-50 YEARS - 222 OVER 50 - 140 How many years have you resided in Mendota Heights? 1 YEAR - 10 2-5 YEARS - 38 6-10 YEARS - 36 OVER 10 YEARS - 124 Which of the following recreation programs have you or any member of your household participated in during the past year? City Park & Rec. Programs T-BALL, GIRLS - 34 T-BALL, BOYS - 34 VOLLEYBALL - 8 ART IN THE PARK - 23 SENIORS CLUB - 3 TENNIS - 57 MendEagan Programs HOCKEY - 53 GIRLS SOFTBALL - 37 BOYS BASEBALL - 55 SOCCER - 55 FOOTBALL - 9 6. Do you or any member of your household participate in recreational activities offered by other communities or organizations? YES - 939 NO - 121 Rank Order of Expressed Desire for Park Facilities Improvements If No = 208 Yes (1+2) No 1. BIKE/WALKWAY TRAILS 184 (88.0%) 2. CROSS-COUNTRY SKI TRAILS 157 (75.5%) 3. SELF GUIDED NATURE TRIALS 127 (61.1%) 4. NATURE STUDY 124 (59.6%) 5. SWIMMING (BEACH OR POOL) 122 (58.7%) 6. PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITIES 121 (58.2%) 7. OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL COURTS 116 (55.6%) 8. LIGHTING FOR TENNIS COURTS 110 (523%) 9. BASEBALL FIELDS 109 (52.4%) 10. PICNIC AREAS 105 (50.5%) 11. OUTDOOR BASKETBALL 104 (50.0%) 12. ADULT SOFTBALL 100 (48.1%) 13. PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 90 (43.3%) 149 FOOTBALL/SOCCER FIELDS 82 (39.4%) 15. PRE-SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AREA 77 (37.0%) 16. MORE PARK SHELTERS 76 (365%) 17. MORE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 75 (36.1%) 18. LIGHTING FOR BALL FIELDS 65 (31.2%) 199 HORSESHOE COURTS 62 (29.9%) 20. OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATRE 40 (19.2%) 2le ARCHERY 39 (18.7%) City of Mendota Heights TII3�UIi �"VIRAVAU1 March 6, 2003 Memo to: Parks &Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Capital Improvement Project Schedule (revised) for 2003 Background: The Commission revised the Parks Five Year (2001 thru 2005) Capita/ /mprovement Plan project completion schedule for 2003 to better match the availability of staff time to prepare, design, bid and implement proposed projects. Discussion: All of the planned projects must be submitted to the City Council for final approval and bid award. Following is the preliminary re -scheduled project list. If the Commission affirms this as the working schedule to complete all of the projects in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan I will prepare a more detailed project description list and present it to the City Council for acknowledgement. 2003 Projects 1. Wentworth Park -replace warming house 2. Wentworth Park -bit. pathways, railings, benches S 35,000 City of Mendota Heights CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIVE YEAR (2001-2005) PLAN March 6, 2003 The following list of projects have been requested by residents or have been discussed by the Commission within the past five years. 1. Park Enhancement Projects identified in Natural Resources Management Plan - Wentworth Park - Copperfield Ponds - Valley Park Project(s) would include eradication of invasive species and restoration of area with native plant species. 2. Ballfield Lighting at various sites: St. Thomas Academy, Sibley Park varsity field, Mendakota Park, and Civic Center ballfield. Project proposal(s) to be presented to City Council by MHAA in January 2003, 3, Picnic Shelter in Marie Park 4, Picnic Shelter in Victoria -Highlands Park 5. Install asphalt pavement in Marie Park hockey rink 6. Swing set (2 or 4) in Valley Park 7. Tiny tots play equipment in Friendly Hills Park 8. Tennis court "bang -boards" in various tennis courts 9. Victoria Road- "infill" trail section at Celia Drive. 10. Trail along Dodd Road- Mendota Hgts. Road to Mendakota Park 11. Trail along Delaware- Huber Dr. to Mendota Heights Rd. 12. Trail along Mendota Heights Rd.- Pilot Knob Rd. to Hwy 13/Sibley Memorial Hwy. 13. Permanent lake aerator "stairway" in Roger's Lake Park 14. Trail along Wagon Wheel Trail- Roger's Lake Park to Dodd Road 15. Varsity Baseball field(s)- Location to be yet to be designated City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM March 6, 2003 Memo to: Parks & Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Ae Subject: Burrow Farm Site Development Background: Development of this approximate nine -acre site will be on the next Planning Commission's agenda for consideration on March 25th. The developer proposes to plat the property into seven single-family home sites. The site is surrounded by single-family homes on three sides with the Eagle Ridge Condos on the east. The City retains storm water drainage easements over the pond and shoreline that will not change with the development as proposed. Discussion: The developer will be subject to a Park Dedication requirement of either ten percent of the usable land area or $1,500,00 per lot (6 new lots x $1,500 = $9,000.00). Staff received a copy of a letter from Kate &John Thul, residing at 970 Stratford Road (south side of pond) with a request "dedication or memorial" to the former land owner (see attached). Recommendation: I recommend the Commission request the required Park Dedication be in the form of cash, $9,000.00. Action Required: If the Commission accepts the recommendation they should so inform the Planning Commission and make any other suggestions or observations they deem relative to this development. It EN CIRCLE FIF le j I It it I ,I It a,ct weoil J, Fee le IF _ . EN CIRCLE FIF le j I It it I ,I It a,ct weoil J, Fee le IF _ . IF Fit Fir r € 6 4 3 -... IF .:. Fer IF IF, ME 1 i . c � c ar IF 4 Fit IFFI l IF a d LATEST RENSION: 2-21-03 Preparetl For. Burow Pond LLP 285 wen�ew onK IF W. St. Paul, MN 55118 EAGLE RIDGE IF Fee It Fit IT It it 9 IF It IF te IF It I Fir tc xu,ri . 3 CONCEPT PLAN BUROW POND household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. (8) No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers. All equipment for the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (9) Exterior of all structures shall be finished in wood, stucco, aluminum, steel, vinyl, cement board, brick, stone or other approved exterior hard materials and all wood surfaces shall be painted, stained, varnished or lacquered. (10) No filling or storage of refuse, discarded materials, junk or other obnoxious matter shall be permitted upon said premises except within the house or garage. No commercial or business equipment or materials shall be permitted upon said premises except within the house or garage. No parking or storage of commercial vehicles shall be permitted upon said real estate other than for normal delivery to and from premises, except within a garage of normal passenger vehicle size. (11) No seasonal or long term parking or storage of boats, trailers, motor homes and other similar recreational vehicles shall be permitted upon said real estate except within a garage of normal passenger vehicle size. (12) Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or be permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or which may change the direction of the flow of drainage channels in the easements, or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. (13) The easement between Lots Five(5)and Six(6), Block One (1), is an easement for access to Burow Pond. No fences, plantings, structures, or regrading shall occur within the easement that will limit the ability of city personnel to perform maintenance at Burow Pond. (14) All land within thirty-five (35) feet of the shore of Burow Pond, and all land within the wetland area, as shown on the recorded plat, shall;also be known as a shore land -wetlands preservation easement. Within said areas no building shall be placed nor shall any material or refuse be place or stored. Natural vegetation, wildlife and water courses shall not be disturbed or altered. No herbicide or fertilizer that contains phosphorus shall be used. Any replacement or additional seeding or planting shall be native material suitable for its location. Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Quality, Minnesota DNR, or an equivalent publication, hall be used as a guide. March 4, 2003 Mr. Dan Iusen Mr. Jim Tilsen Tilsen Homes, Inc. 285 Westview Drive West St. Paul, MN 55118 Dear Neighbors, We read with great interest the reports of your recent purchase of the Burow Farm property. Congratulations. We are delighted that the property will be developed by people with a true understanding of the history and significance of that particular piece of land. We are especially interested because our home at 970 Stratford Road shares a border with the pastureland at the south end of the property. The newspaper account stated that you are long time residents of the neighborhood and that you are sensitive to the attachment that the neighbors feel for Mr. Burow's farm. We know, then, that you will be fine neighbors and we are confident that your development can enhance our neighborhood (even though we'll surely miss the wonderful barn and farmhouse). We would like to make a suggestion to you and would appreciate your thoughts regarding this idea. We would like to see some of the existing pastureland and pond saved as open, natural space and left for all residents to enjoy. It would be especially nice if that open space were dedicated to Tom Burow and if it became a neighborhood gathering spot. Today many residents enjoy strolling past the property to enjoy the view. Many types of waterfowl utilize the pond as their natural habitat. Additionally, the farm was always a welcoming place for area children. Perhaps some of that spirit could be preserved in Tom's honor. Such an open space would be a true example of how Mendota Heights encourages individual development, yet strives to maintain for the community its important natural resources. Perhaps this is something that Tilsen Homes and the City of Mendota Heights could work on together. Our hope is that this would provide us all with one last opportunity to preserve at least some of the natural beauty, nostalgia and neighborliness that was the Burow Farm. Thank you for your consideration. Kate &John Thul 970 Stratford Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-456-5898 cc: Mayor John Huber &Mendota Heights City Council Mendota Heights Plaruling Commission Mendota Heights Parks Commission City of Mendota Heights 11 ail �1�1[� : e ► � u March 6, 2003 Memo to: Parks & Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Concept Plan for Mendota Plaza Development Background: Paster Enterprises, owner of the Mendota Plaza on the southeast corner of Dodd Rd. and Hwy. 110, have presented a concept proposal to add five separate structures on the east side of the current shopping center. The area in question is approximately ten acres in size. After review by the Planning Commission this concept proposal may be presented to the City Council for review and comments. If developer decides to proceed, formal applications and submittals would be submitted to the City for consideration and the Park and Recreation Commission would formally review those submittals. Recommendation: If the Park Commissioners wish to provide comments to the Planning Commission regarding this concept proposal they should direct staff to communicate their comments to the Planning Commission in the agenda packets for the March 25' meeting. MENDOTA PLAZA - PHASE 2 Southeast Quadrant Dodd Road & Highway 110 Mendota Heights, MN The enclosed Concept Plan represents the intent of Paster Enterprises LLC for the commercial development of approximately ten (10) acres located immediately east of the existing Mendota Plaza and west of the Dodge Nature Center, Paster Enterprises LLC has the underlying fee rights to purchase this property and has been working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to secure this site (known as Parcels 35 and 36). Hydrology studies and site plans were submitted to MnDOT, appraisals have been obtained, and they have approved the release of these parcels. The topography of this property will determine and dictate the type and size of commercial buildings that would be suitable for development. Because of the elevation differences, smaller clusters of retail buildings are proposed rather than a larger building footprint. It is our intention to treat the existing drainage ditch and water detention area as amenities and position the building structures accordingly. The overall concept plan provides for five (5) separate single story structures totaling 52,100 SF. Two of these buildings would be proposed to be free-standing 61400 SF restaurants with outdoor seating areas, positioned along the drainage area to take advantage of this water feature. An additional 12-15,000 SF single or multi -tenant building is proposed in the northeast corner adjacent to Highway 110. Two additional multi -tenant retail buildings are proposed in the south portion of the property. These structures would be in line with the existing retail center and tie together the adjacent Dakota County Senior Housing development with the shopping center. The Dodge Nature Center has the underlying fee rights to purchase the adjacent, Parcel 38, property to the east of this proposed development. We would propose that the City of Mendota Heights purchase this property for the purpose of extending South Plaza Drive from the existing cul de sac at the senior housing development north to Highway 110. A right -in and right -out access would be proposed at Highway 110. We have met with representatives of Dodge Nature Center and they are receptive to this concept provided that access for parking would be available from the extended South Plaza Drive into their property. This roadway would benefit all adjacent property owners and reduce the traffic level at the Dodd Road/ Highway 110 intersection. Internally, the current main shopping center entrance off of Dodd Road would be extended to provide for traffic circulation of the proposed new areas. The As described above, the density of the commercial development will fall below the norm due to the existing site constraints such as topography, wetlands, and waterways. We anticipate adding approximately 52,100 SF of commercial space on the 10 acre parcel. In reviewing the Short Elliot Hendrickson traffic study for the Mendota Heights Town Center, the retail portion is of a very similar size to this proposed development. It is anticipated that the retail portion of the Town Center will generate 3,100 vehicle trips per day. This proposed development would generate a similar amount of traffic. Due to the existing Mendota Plaza Shopping Center's proximity to this new development, we would assume that a certain number of these trips would be from customers already visiting the existing stores. The addition of the South Plaza Drive extension should reduce a certain amount of traffic from Dodd Road. This proposed development will provide additional service, restaurant, and retail facilities for the community. It will add to the existing commercial base at Mendota Plaza and the future office and retail space of Mendota Heights Town Center. This addition will help create a more regional commercial hub at the Dodd Road -Highway 110 intersection. This added development will also increase the property tax base as the property is currently not on the tax rolls. This proposed retail center will be an asset to Mendota Heights. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 0, 2003 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: TERESA GANGELHOFF RE: FEBRUARY 2003 PARKS AND RECREATION REPORT Programs The followingprogramswere offered by the Parks and Recreation Department during the months of February: Learn to Skate: Classes ran through mid -February. Classes are being held at the Friendly Hills Park pleasure rink. Senior Programs: Puttingtogethersome day trips for 55 +once a month along with WSP seniors and Thompson Park Activity Center. Still trying t o get a few more card players so we can start a card club on Wednesday's at 1:00. Rink/warming House Update The Ice Rinks were opened all of February. Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks -Saturday, June 7, 10:00 - 1000 Mark you calendars as we Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks! The celebration will be from 10 —1 at Mendakota Park. Let Teresa know if you would like to help volunteer at this event. Softball The Men's D and Women's D on Tuesday night have been filled. Men's over 30league is full on Thursday. I added a co-rec league Sunday evenings and I am still looking for 4 more teams. New Programs This Summer: Tennis: We will be offering tennis lessons for youth this summer and will try and form teams in conjunctionwith USA Team Tennis and play other area teams. Our instructorwill be Tim Garvey and I hope to hire a High School Varsity Player to assist him. Gymnastics: Three sessions will be offered at Henry Sibley HS this summer for ages 3 — 14 February 26, 2003 Theresa Gangrlhoff 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Theresa Gangrlhoff: Congratulationsl Mendota Heights has been selected to host a 2003 Minnesota Twins Youth Clinic. The clinics, a program of the Twins Community Fund, will visit 30 communities in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Manitoba. Your willingness to host a youth clinic is appreciated and we look forward to an exciting season ahead. Created in 1961 by longtime Twins scout Angelo Guiliani, the clinics serve as a way for the ball club to promote the game of baseball with youngsters throughout the region. Since the program began 42 years ago, more than 800,000 boys and girls have taken part in the Twins clinics. All boys and girls attending the clinic will receive a coupon redeemable for free Twins tickets. The three-hour clinic is free, requires no registration, and is open to boys and girls ages 6 to 16. The clinic will be broken into two 90-minute sessions, the first for kids 6 to 9 years old and the second ages 10 to 16. Twins baseball instructors will teach hitting, fielding, and throwing at each session. In the following days, I will contact you regarding the date of your clinic. In most cases the schedule will reflect any specific date requests you made and your geographic location to other clinic communities. In your application, you indicated that the outdoor site for the clinic would be the Mendakota Fields and the indoor site would be the Henry Sibley HS. Please make me aware if this, your contact information or anything else contained within the application has changed. Enclosed is a pamphlet on the ins and outs of hosting a youth clinic. Please familiarize yourself with this information and contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Once again, thank you for agreeing to host a 2003 Twins Youth Clinic. I look forward to working with you this season. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 612-375-7507 or BryanDonaldson@twinsbaseball.com with any questions or concerns you have. Regards, Bryan P. Donaldson Youth Baseball & Softball Coordinator, Twins Community Fund ENCL: Clinic Guide TWINS COMMUNITY FUND 34 KIRBY PucxETt PIACE MINNEAPOLLS, MINNESOTA 55415 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: 612.375.1366 www. twinsbaseball. com City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM March 6, 2003 Memo to: Parks &Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager l Subject: Wentworth Warming House Background: At the February meeting the Commission directed me to present a request to the City Council to not proceed with construction of an addition to the Wentworth Park warming house (see attached memo dated February 14th, 2003), Discussion: The City Council discussed this issue at length (see attached Council minutes) and decided not to proceed with this project until staff had a chance to inspect the structural integrity (in early spring) of the existing structure, document rink usage during this season, and to evaluate possible other uses for a warming house structure in this park. Recommendation: Inspection of the support timbers cannot be accomplished until spring when the frost is out of the q�round, This item can be more fully discussed at the commission meeting on May 13t . Action Required: Provide direction to staff on possible "other uses" for a warming house structure in this park so that staff can prepare preliminary concepts for discussion at the May meeting. Page No. 6 February 18, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 18, 2003 WENWORTH PARK Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager WARMING HOUSE Kullander regarding Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation that Council not proceed with the proposed expansion of the Wentworth Park warming house. Mayor Huber stated it is his understanding that last year Council approved spending up to $20,000 to expand the building. He asked for clarification, stating that he did not believe Council's motion was to send it back to the commission. Apparently the commission has asked Council to reconsider. Assistant Hollister responded that in general there seem to be two different view points on what to do with the warming house. There is concern that the building is too small and too old. It is the oldest of the city's warming houses. Council is of a mind to add on to the warming house. The Parks and Recreation Commission's opinion is that it is in such bad shape that it should not be expanded but should be replaced. The commission is asking Council to reconsider its decision. Mayor Huber stated that Commissioner Duggan and he were not on Council at the time of the motion. His concern is that for the past several years the winters have been uneven. The city's ability to build ice and then maintain it over the courts of the winter has been hit and miss at best. He stated that he lives close to the park and drives by it a lot. His an information reading of the situation is that the ice does not get a lot of use, and he has noticed that most in recent years. When his children were young there were many times at Christmas and New Year's when the warming house was closed and there were many people at the rink. He was very concerned about putting $34,000 into that facility when there is such uneven use of the rink. To expect that there will be good ice much before Christmas is not realistic. When he was young, he was a rink attendant and his job didn't start until Christmas vacation and was over in late February. To spend $34,000 on a warming house for six weeks a season is a stretch. RAFTPage No. 8 February 18, 2003 decision should be made about what Council really wants there. There was no one at the rink tonight when she passed by it and no one there at two different times for three Saturdays in a row. There were many kids skating at the Marie Park. If a new warming house is built, she would like it to be a multi -purpose building. She stated that children are skating indoors and they are not skating outside as much as they used to. She would like the commission to come up with some idea on what other things could be done with a building at Wentworth Park. Mayor Huber stated that Council should hold off doing anything for now and look at the matter more. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would like a report back from an engineer on the condition of the existing structure to be sure it is worth saving. Mayor Huber stated that the building is 30 years old and was always undersized, and one has to wonder about the structural integrity. He agreed that Council needs to look at whether putting $20,000 into it is a decision Council should take a second look at. Administrator Lindberg asked if Council is asking the commission to make a recommendation or staff to come back with an engineering report on whether the base of the structure is sound. Mayor Huber responded that he thinks that when the weather pernuts, it should be determined whether the building has the structural integrity for an addition — whether there is any structural integrity left for the floor of the building and whether that is something that can be repaired or whether the entire building has to go. There needs to be an assessment of the entire building in order for Council to decide if an addition would be viable. Councihnember Schneeman stated that she also feels that Council needs to know how much the building is being used. Agreeing with the commission now will give Council time to see how many children are really skating there. She stated that Council should also e proactive — there are other needs, and she would like the commission to give Council more suggestions. Councihnember Krebsbach agreed that Council should look at other uses for the building, perhaps a storage facility that has a warming house component. Councilmember Schneeman suggested another use would be for summer programs, but the structure should have windows. Mayor Huber stated that year round use has been considered, but there were concerns that a lot of windows would result in vandalism, and a year round building would raise the price considerably. February 6, 2003 Division of physical Development Cari Lindberg, City Administrator Gregory J. Konac Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Dakota County Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124-8579 Dear Ms. Li er 952.00 As you are aware, Dakota County voters approved a $20 million bond Fax 952.891..89I.7031 vaww. c o. d ako ca. m n, us referendum on November 5, 2002 to protect priority farmland and natural areas in Dakota County. Although we have adopted a plan and general program criteria, we are now in the process of developing the specifics of the program, which we hope to have in place by Summer 2003. As we begin developing the program, we would like to invite your staff to participate in a city/county work session on Thursday February 20, 2003 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Western Service Center in Apple Valley where city staff and county staff can discuss developing the new land protection program. We suggest that you send those whom you believe can best represent your city's open space plans and objectives (e.g. someone from your parks and/or planning departments, or your natural resource specialist). The work session will also offer ffie opportunity for your staff to communicate important questions, concerns, and city issues related to the new an protection program prior to a County Board workshop scheduled in March. The County is planning to hold an open house in May 2003 for public review of the program, including the land selection process, and release a draft program for public comment in June 2003. VVe took forward to working vdith your city and the other cities and townships as we begin developing an implementation program for the Farmland/Natural Area Plan. Please send the names of staff who plan to attend the workshop to Kurt Chatfield (952-891-7022) or email to kurt.chatfield(a co.dakota.mn.us so that we can send an agenda prior to the work session. Sincerely, Greg Kona Physical Development Director Physical Development Division Dakota County Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 952,891.7030 City/County Farmland and Natural Area Work Group AGENDA Thursday, February 20, 2003 Library Conference Room (11.139) — 1:00 — 4:00 p.m. I. Introduction and welcome, Greg Konat, Physical Development Director II. Update of County Program III. City issues and concerns IV. Discussion of how program will work in cities V. Meeting summary —next steps, Greg Konat, Physical Development Director City/County Work Group 2/20/03 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Project Update Project began with Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) Grants: Project partnership was formed; SWCD, Township Officers Assoc., Friends of the Mississippi River, Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Land Trust, Trust for Public Land, Township Agriculture Protection Task Force, Extension, 1000 Friends of Minnesota Phase 1 (7/1/99-6/30/01): Develop a natural resource inventory, conduct citizen surveys, hold citizen meetings, prepare a plan Phase 11 (7/1/01-6/30/03): Conduct landowner outreach, develop tools and ordinances, establish a land protection program County Board Action: • Adopted Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan on January 29, 2002 • Adopted Program Criteria on June 25, 2002 • Adopted Interim Strategy on January 14, 2003 (accepting only donated conservation easements until program can be developed) • Approved issuance of $20 million in bonds February 18, 2003 Plan and Program characteristics: • Voluntary • County -wide . • Permanent easements and fee title acquisition • Competitive application process • Use partnerships to combine interests and leverage outside funds • Create natural corridors (greenways) • Protect blocks of quality farmland natural areas, lakes, rivers and streams Referendum: Referendum passed 57% to 43 % with 88 % voter turnout Referendum passed in each of 11 largest cities and 9 of 13 townships Draft Principles (Staff currently using to guide draft program outline) • Given the number of parcels to be acquired, the potential interest in participating in the program and the limited amount of funding, a structured program (e.g., application rounds) that allows the ability to compare and prioritize applications and approaches (easements vs. acquisition) is desired. The program should also allow the County to take advantage of opportunities that arise "between rounds' where time is of the essence because of the nature of the parcel or because of ability to coordinate with/leverage other land protection programs and funding. • Build on/adapt existing program models (e.g., Metro Greenways). To take advantage of today's costs and act prior to development, target spending the bulk of the funds as soon as possible but hold a portion of the funds in reserve for future opportunities. 0 Maximize external revenue sources. T C � w - m N L O c --cN a m mm N C c E n N "= O N m -O 'm 0 N o ° a� c -o O° TOl mod ma �LLm °� 3.ENo� mL caoc v mmc m.o 3°To �c mn3"3- @c 3mTE o 0 m m c v c a) O N OL mL O i�UIt! m`o UCDmm Ov -°v' CL N 2 E c m 2 0 w « L p m (] ° acE.NO>a� �a OEaci 0 zECma 0 ° N 0 C w N m C N N m _° E EE T m; m -to mNc w 3 C N m m c o C m ..°0 c�.3 E N EN oN L a m o: o m m N m `m m e a.. N d y II G N m N C N m O T m .o N 'O c O p m >. p L m> O "O m3 Ec-r °cowM _a a) 0 m N p U C E d-O 'pY L E C C LLO O N m m m O m p p o a m m m c 0 o m° N c.aw 0�o Lm a) 'O p p �~ �aEic�o3Um...3pC ° N m o E E 0 a1 O 0 N C m a) N N N C Y N '= C a) O N 0 C 0 Q 0 0 0 0.0 m _ _ m C C m C U O m L C N N a-O a E �- N W a 0 O> O'NO» O� N o D Q m E a n c o m ° ° C m _ E ° N 3 o N m � m n m �c Nc o'o m L.p nEE m3 aci o mmm c m mmo o� m v cam Oc m do- -0 wo N" nE ny °m m?m E� N X an d a) m U O U L L N 0 Q p\ C N N m C O L Y C -C O (a n :n 3 O m m m m O) N L N S] O y m cccOyc c° c o m E m oL.W m�� mcinE _ a C O a 0 _° 3 C N O L T E U y O E ° c 0 m N N L n O C m C > E — m m °-w @ >..w>>co Yacct6mo ac' oC �c0 Eco0Nmami=m� oocmia 0�m3ma� U - m m° ma c 1O E m m et aci o� na n N'O U C O N L m C 3 m 0 0°; o r c c o E 0 o Q m m 5 o N U Y U m m�oc.ic� m C O) a1 m m c (6 3oc= m� ME�mNrn -O E m E 61 O D U N U O U p J Z C LL- N lL n F- L d °U Q. More... Questions and Answers Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Program Q. What is the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Program? A. If approved by a referendum in November, the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Program would be a voluntary program in which Dakota County would work with willing landowners who apply to have their land protected. The program would use financial incentives to protect farmland and natural areas in one of two ways. 1) with permanent conservation easements that restrict future development on private land. 2) by acquiring the property as a public wildlife area/natural area park. Farmland would be protected with permanent agricultural conservation easements. Natural areas could be protected either with either permanent easements or through public acquisition. Q. What is the overall goal of the program? The overall goal of the program is to protect large contiguous agricultural areas, and natural areas in natural corridors sometimes called greenways. Again, the program would be strictly voluntary - landowners in priority areas are not required to participate Q. Where will land be protected? A. Natural areas would be protected county -wide, in the northern and the southern parts of the County. Farmland would be protected in the southern part of Dakota County beyond the 2040 Urban Reserve Boundary where cities in Dakota County are planning to grow. Q. How would the program work? A. Dakota County would have $20 million over 10 years to buy and hold conservation easements, and to buy public land. Landowners would apply under one of two . programs 1) farm/and protection 2) natural area protection. Each program has a set of established criteria that would be used to score and prioritize the individual landowner applications (although there may be overlap between farmland and natural area protection efforts). The Dakota County Board of Commissioners, through the assistance of an advisory committee, would make the final decision on what lands are protected. Q. Can Dakota County leverage funds from other agencies to protect land in Dakota County? A. Yes. There are a number of federal and state programs that can be leveraged using local matching funds. The new federal Farm Bill allocates almost $1 billion for agricultural conservation easements nation-wide over the next several years, provided that a local match exists. Similarly, programs such as the States Wildlife Corridor's program provides a source of matching funds for natural area protection. In addition the County may be able to work with non -profits and environmental groups to form public/private partnerships to raise funds to protect certain lands. Q. Whnt is n conservation easement? A. Conservation easements are an interest in land, and are defined on a property deed. When a landowner voluntarily sells a conservationeasement to Dakota County the land remains in private ownership but landowners give up some rights to the property, including the right to develop that property. Easements for agricultural land are written to allow for typical agricultural uses of the property. Easements for natural areas are written to protect the natural resource values of the property. Both types of easements restrict future development of the property. Q. Are conservation easements permanent? A. Yes. Conservation easements run with the land. The easements would restrict development of the land in perpetuity and would be disclosed and transferred to the next owner when the original owner sells the property. Q. Is there public access to private land that has a conservation easement on it? A. Not necessarily, unless the private landowner agrees to make public access a condition of the conservation easement. The County Board has adopted criteria to give added priority to land protection proposals that include some level of public access. Q. Who will hold conservation easements? A. Dakota County intends to hold the easements but in some cases easements may be co -held by Dakota County and another government agency that contributed funding to the land protection proposal. Q. How would the value of easements be determined? A. The value of the easement is determined through an appraiser, who assesses the difference between the fair market value of the property prior to an easement, and its fair market value as restricted by the terms of the easement. Farmland and Natural Area Project Schedule Jan. • Interim approach identified (see attachment A) • Program development approach and schedule established • Staff continues to research other programs and identify different methods for using PDR and land acquisition in other parts of the country Feb. Begin Program Development • Project partners (from plan development) meet to discuss results of staff research about other programs. Project partners include: ✓ 1000 Friends of Minnesota ✓ Dakota County SWCD ✓ Dakota County Township Officers Association ✓ Friends of the Mississippi River ✓ Minnesota Farmers Union ✓ Minnesota Land Trust ✓ The Trust for Public Land ✓ Township Agricultural Protection Task Force ✓ University of Minnesota Extension Service • City/County work group meets to determine city role on Feb. 20, 2003 Mar. Project partners make recommendations on program characteristics that they think could work for Dakota County • County Board Workshop: ✓ Governance Structure ✓ Role of Committees (technical and advisory committee) ✓ Program Criteria (to score applications) ✓ Operations/Application Process ✓ Program Tools (conservation easements) ✓ Coordination with other land protection programs and funding ✓ Long term care and operations (monitoring and enforcement) ✓ Program evaluation Apr. Complete program development including advisory committee May Public Open House to review draft program June. CB releases draft of program Official public commentperiod begins July Board receives comment and adopts final program ' Priority Farmland and Natural Areas ULYDl N WEST �.:... i MEND sou Highest Priority Farmland (42,000 Acres) STPAU� i HETs 1 ° 'p Private Natural Areas (36,000 Acres) b�.. Public/Institutional Natural Areas = - Greenway Opportunity Areas Fp � EAGAM ` fJVER GROVE 4 { BURNSVILLE 77' b APPLE VALLEY , 4 RbSEMOUNT q '✓<+ r NININGER TOWNSHIP HASTII�G �! (.A d ". } CcIiiws kL VERMILLION - M M 1 TOWNSHIP r•''saa� RAA� w �E B�r MARSHAN T S. ILLE - �, I ,I",,, ON TO+W�NSHI�pI�. 10 V v " EMPIREFA IN 'k TO SHIP .G-V Tlt ,. G kI 'f -� ANAMPTONEM 4tIEft Ej' � MIESVILL rKA SHIP CASTLE}R(LK-`,I+ ppUGLAS n TOWNSF}IR: HAMPTON d'4 ( ,'max TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP i MOO RANDO WATE 4 E N TO. NS I aNrta er. ooAeec orna. ..x oz. �TOWNSHIP av ' GREENVALE'�"� +^i TOWNSHIP, '� SCIOT�1 TOWNSHIP AT µy These priority areas were identified and discussed by citizens who attended public o t.s 3 6 meetings over a two-year planning process. Miles Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan