Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 02-10-1981
Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission X511!, Regular Meting of February 10, 1981- 7:30 p.m.,o Plymouth City Center Council Chambers PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING IS TUESDAY, Agenda 11 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations A. Athletic. Association Representatives B. Others C. Rick Busch and Jane Sletten 4. Report on Past Council Actions 5, Unfinished Business A. Playfield Update B, Bass lake Access _ Report from Staff and FRAC Sub -Committee,-,, >;fl C. Carlson Center Request for Neighborhood. Park (See Decemb0t, stofif report.) D. Comprehensive Park Plan - Selection of Consultant PRAC-Sub-CQrrmj ttee Report E. Contract for East Beach Design F. Neighborhood Park Development Update uncia G. Set Date for FRAC Training Session H. Joint Meeting with City Council (Monday, March 30) - Di5cua${P0ss,Able Agenda Items I. 6. New Business A. New Plats B. Park Rental Policies for 1981 C. 7. Commission Presentation 8. Staff Communications 9. Adjournment Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation. Advisory Commission January 8, 1981 Commissioners Present: dames Rice, Steve Chesebrough Barbara Edwards, Betty Threinen, John Mullan, and Alan Brass Commissioner Absent= Frank Dvorak Staff Present. Eric Blank, Rick Busch, Nancy Helgeson., Mark Peterson, and Jane Sletten Others Present: Representatives of Prudential Insurance Co., residents. interested in the Bass Lake Access, and Judy Frakesx President of the Mission Homeowners Association 1: CALL. TO ORDER. Chairman Rice called the meeting to order at 5::05 p.m, in the Plymouth City Center Council Chambers. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES' Commissioner Chesebrough motioned for approval after making a correction on page 3 of the December minutes regarding January's, meeting beginning at S:OO instead of 5;30 as stated in the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brass, A Mote was taken, and the motion carried with all ayes. 3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS A. tAthl.etic Association representatives were not present at this meeting. B. Others' presentations will be co.vered.in detail later in the minutes.. C. Jane Sletten discussed three trips that Plymouth offered in December which were all successful, with the exception of one, participant suffering a broken leg during downhill ski lessons at Birchpark. New classes this winter include American Karate, Creative Dance and Ballet. Demand for cross- country ski lessons was so great, that three additional classes are being offered, and a. second CPR class will be addedin February. Rick Busch discussed the warming houses and attendants, Not all permanent shelters are finished, and in the interim, temporary trailers are being used. Six teams have signed up for Adult Co-Rec Broombail which begins on Sunday, January 10. `youth wrestling registration began slowly, but enough have signed up to make it carry.: Because of the nature of the meeting, the following agenda items were taken out, of sequence.. S. UNrINISHED BUSINESS D. Prudential Insurance Co. Director Blank reviewed his staff report of last i6nth regarding the ru ential Northwest Business Campus and the: proposed trail along Plymouth Creek. He also shared maps and popu ation charts with the commissioners. and; discussed a couple of areas that are available for park;. Neighborhood #27 (Creekwood Heights) does not have a park at this gime, but does have access to the West Medicine Lake Community Club, Jaycee's Hemlock park, West Medicine Lake beach, Vision of Glory church, the future Medicine Lake Regional Park, and many acres of opnn space. Director ek' Minutes of the FRAC Meeting January, 8, 1981 Page 2 Blank pointed out that Prudential had met with the neighborhood, and the Planning Commission has held hearings. on this development, but apparently, no one in this neighborhood has requested a park on this site, Commissioner Brass asked if neighborhoods #23 3 27 could somehow be tied together and served by one park in between? Director Blank said there is potential for a park between these two neighborhoods. Dick Knutson, McCombs -Knutson, then addressed the commission and shared a map showing a 13) acre parcel as undeveloped along I-494. They are proposing this area for a park. The commissioners continued discussing this item, and two motions were passed. COMMISSIONER CHESEBR)UW MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THE CITY NOT TAME A PARCEL NEAR CREEKWOOD HEIGHTS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.: COMMISSIONER BRASS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH THEN CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. COMMISSIONER'CHESEBROUGH MOTIONED THAT THE CITY NOT ACCEPT THE 133 ACRE PARCEL RECOMMENDED BY DICK.KNUTSON FOR DEVELOPMENT AS A PARK. THIS MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MULLAN,. AND ALSO CARRIED WITH AIL, AYES,, Mr. Knutson then wanted to know if PRAC thought the City would like to have this hand as a gift? PRAC suggested staff should explore this option further. Commissioner Brass asked that the: minutes reflect that PRAC is aware and concerned about developing parks for neighborhoods X23 and #27, and PRAC instructed staff to review these areas for potential park sites in updating the Comprehensive Park Plan. 6. NEW BUSINESS C. 1981 Reforestation Plan - Director Blank introduced Mark Peterson, who is the Pars an ,Environments Supervisor, Mr. Peterson explained that this plan's ultimate goal is to reforest our parks, many of which start out as bare land. He shared a document with the commission that showed the plantings for one park on a, yearly basis and explained,that for every tree we purchase, the. State of Minnesota reimburses us $50. This Year's program involves 245 plantings. COMMISSIONER CHESEBROUGH MOVED THAT PRAC ENDORSE THE REFORESTATION PROGRAM AS RECOMMENDED IN STAFF'S MEMO OF JANUARY 5, 1081.. COMMISSIONER THREINEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH THEN CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. B. Selection of Neighborhood Park Design Consultant Director Blank introduces this item Yy reading his memo outlining t e neighborhood involvement process:, He also shared a memo with the commissioners regarding Design Consortium's costs for constructing three parks in 1981, and, recommended the commission endorse the selection of Design Consortium as the park consultant for Mission, Timber Shores, and Schmidt.Lake parks. Commissioner Mullan was concerned about some of the: costs that Design Consortium had excluded in their original bid, and he asked staff to get a new lump: sum bid from DS1 to include those items. Judy Frakes, Mission Ridge Homeowners Association President, addressed PRAC and gave them a copy of a survey/questionnaire that her neighborhood had. put together for purposes or getting neighborhood involvement in designing new parks.. Minutes of the PRAC Meeting January $", 1982 Page Following; her presentation, and further discussion on Design Consortium, two motions were passed, COMMISSIONER BRASS MOTIONED THAT PRAC RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THE ACCL° TANCE OF DESIGN CONSORTIUM AS THE PARK CONSULTANT., THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, AND CARRIED WITH ALL AYES., COMMISSIONER EDWARDS MOTIONED THAT -PRAC ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS OUTLINED IN DIRECTOR BLANK`S MEMO DATED DECEMBER 22, 1980 REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT PROCESS INCLUDING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE MISSION RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, COMMISSIONER THREINEN SECONDED THE MOTION; AND IT CARRIED WITH ALL AYES; The commissioners then adjourned for a short five minute break before; beginning the Bass Lake Access item. E. Bass Lake Access - Director Blank introduced this item by reviewing a staff report_35-te-c December 31, 1,980. He concluded his report by saying that staff recommends, three options including the refusal of Palmers property as an ;access, making multiple use of Timber Shores Park, and exploring. the possibility of purchasing land on the west side of Bass Lake. Chairman Rice -then opened the meeting for disGitssion and comments by the audience. Wendell Davidson, the new president of the Bass Lake Improvement Association, gave a historical report. on Bass Lake which detailed how the reside.its had taken it upon themselves to improve Bass Lake, including aeration, maintenance, and stocking it with fish. Mr,. Davidson feels that there are other lakes in Plymouth that can accommodate large boats and he would prefer that Bass Lake be limited for use by canoes and small boats, Curt Swanson., 5440 Balsam Lane;, stated that he purchased his property in 1975, and Timber Shores was not developed at that time. He was told it would always be a nature area, and this is why he purchased his lot. He is opposed to access through Timber Shores because it would require additional policing and maintenance of the area, and he is concerned about; vandalism, also. Mike: Paxton, 11610 57th Ave N is opposed. to access for Bass Lake because it is not a big enough lake to support large watercraft, there are rock formations just below the surface that could be hazardous, and because of the long-term deterioration of the 'take. James RYdeen, 5605 Evergreen Lane, is apposed to lake access through limber Shores because he was told this area was to be left natural, and he: concurs with Wendell Davidson's statennts, Frank Pinc, 5345 Larch Lane, agrees with Wendell Davidson in that the lake cannot support large boats. He is opposed to the DNR putting in an access, because he feels they simply want, to take over the fish management of Bass Lake. Bill Pucell, 5705 Evergreen Lane, stated that he thinks the DNR is using Palmer's proposal of land as a wedge between themselves and the City of Plymouth. He is in favor of others being able to use the lake, but is opposed to large watercraft. He is not against people carrying in canoes or using small horsepower motors. Minutes of the FRAC Meeting January 8, 1981 Page 4 Roger N orlin, 12110 both Ave N, is concerned about lowering the level of Bass Lake. He claims that trash and debris are very apparent when outsiders use the lake,, and he also was told that Timber Shores was supposed to be a nature area. Sylvia Schultz, 5420 Kirkwood, does not support a fully developed access to Bass, Lake. She also understood that Timber Shores was to be a nature area.. She stated that there are five accesses available in other locations. Pete Thomsen, 11730 54th Ave N', gave more historical background on Bass Lake. He is in favor of making the area more available to as many people as possible and is in support of the City installing a fishing pier as an alternative to an access. He was, however, in favor of a "grandfather clause" which would allow persons already living on the lake and in possession of large boats to be able to continue using them, but new residents would be limited to a certain orator size. This statement brought up the question of whether this clause could be legally implemented. Council member, Virgil Schneider, was in the audience and stated that since the lake is within the City of Plymouth, it can be zoned anyway the City desires. The commissioners then began to discuss some of the concerns that the audience had expressed. Chairman Rice asked staff to obtain engineering data on dredging and connecting the pond in Timber Shores to Bass Lake as well as the levels of the lake vs. the pond, and what would happen to the bottom seal of the pond. He was also concerned about existing documentation the City might have regarding preserving Timber Shores in a natural state. He would like staff to present a progress report regarding public access for Pike Lake, Director Blank responded to these questions by showing a map including eleva- tions of the lake and pored that had been taken a few weeks ago by our city crews. There are no records regarding the bottom seal of the pond, The commission continued asking questions of the audience and of Director Blank, and they are interested in a legal opinion on whether or not the Palmer property can be transferred to the DNR by way of lot division or easement. Each commissioner was then asked to state his feelings on providing public access to Bass Lake. Commissioner Chesebrough is in favor of an access for small horsepowered'boats only. He feels that Pike and Medicine Lakes can be used by residents with large motorboats. Commissioner Brass, is concerned about maintenance,, controlling the size of motors, and how to handle the overflow of cars and trailers if a ramp to accommodate large boats is installed on Bass Lake. Commissioner Mullan is against developing Boyer Palmer's property and is concerned about the development of Timber Shores, as well. He is in favor of an access with restrictions on the size of boats. Commissioner Threinen favors public access but.questions parking and the installation of a ramp. She endorses the use of small boats and. canoes. Minutes of the PRAC Meeting January 8, 1981 Page: 5 Commissioner Edwards is against access through Timber Sores, but is in favor of some access to accommodate small boats. Chairman Rice is in favor of making Bass Lake available to more citizens but is against development of the Palmer property. He is interested in limited development of Timber Shores, excluding a boat ramp. Following the commissioner's statements and further comments frau the audience, four motions were passed. COMMISSIONER CHESEBROUGH MOVED THAT PRAC ENDORSE THE COOCEPT OF INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS TO BASS LAKE. COMMISSIONER THREINEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. COMMISSIONER'BRASS MOVED THAT THE PRAC SUB COMMITTEE, AFTER FURTHER STUDY ON REGULATIONS, SHOULD REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR WATER USE ON BASS LAKC. THIS SUB -COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSULT WITH STAFF, THE DNR, AND THE BASS LAKE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CHESEBROUGH AND THEN CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. COMMISSIONER CHESEBROUGH MOVED THAT STAFF SHOULD STUDY TWO ALTERNATIVES: HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO DO A STUDY TO DETERMINE, WHETHER OR NOT TIMBER SHORES. PARK CAN BE TIED INTO BASS LAKE, OR HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO DEVELOP A SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF BASS LAKE, AND HOW TO FUND THESE ALTERNATIVES. COMMISSIONER MULLAN SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. COMMISSIONER CHESEBROUGH MOVED THAT PRAC SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION' AS OUTLINED IN A DECEMBER 31 MEMO WHICH RECOMMENDS AGAINST ANY PUBLIC ACCESS COMING THROUGH THE PALMER PROPERTY. THIS MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER. MULLAH, AND CARRIED WITH ALL AYES. it was decided that the following people would serve as official contacts:. Mike Marcell and Del Barber from the DNR, and Wendell Davidson from the Bass Lake Improvement Association. 4. REPORT CN PAST COUNCIL ACTIONS Director Blank gave the commissioners a handout outlining aipolicy that the Council had adopted at their last meeting which deals with the orientation of commissioners and the introduction of new commissioners. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Playfield Update - All shelter buildings at the various playfields are nearly complete, and one by one, the temporary trailers are being removed, Director Blank has met with the Pilgrim United Methodist Church representatives regarding the swapping of property for the Zachary playfield. Chairman Rice wants staff to try and come up with some sort of grand opening event for the playfields and shulters. Staff should check with the Council and Jim Willis regarding a. good time for this type of thing. Minutes of the PRAC Meeting; da nuary 8, 1981 Page 6 B, Comprehensive Park Plan - The sub committee which consists of Alan Brass, Frank Dvorak, and BettyiTi en will interview three, firms and make a. recommendation to PRAC.. C. Carlson Center Director Glank had nothing new to report on this item. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. New Plats -- There are no new plats at this time. 7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION It was decided that the: PRAC Bass Lake Sub -Committee would meet with the DNR and the Bass Lake Improvement Association on Tuesday, January 20, at 3:15 p,m. at the City Center, The next PRAC meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 10, at 7:.30 p.m, due to scheduling conflicts. At the next meeting, PRAC would like staff to give an updated report on the workhouse development proposal. Commissioner Threinen announced that the latchkey program is being presented to the school board on Monday evening, January 12. The MRPA meeting; on Tuesday, January 13, will, be attended by Director Blank and Commissioner Threinen. Anyone else interested in going should meet them at the City Center for car-pooling purposes.. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATION Director Blank is showing the PIP to the Shenandoah Homecwners Association on Thursday, January 15, at 7:00 p.m. at the Wayzata Sr. Nigh school. He also announced that the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources has approved the East Beach LAWCON grant. PRAC agreed that staff should get council authorization to hire B.R.W. to proceed with working drawings and specifications so that when final approval comes about March 30, we can then proceed to get bids for construction. 9. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Brass mo, one<i.to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., t, i PS Ntiih^aki7l.'.S`.'TAI'IQN ENGINECaINu+i+frtl:F4t;,;#tE anuary 14, 1981 Mr. Epic Blank Director of Parks and Recreation City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Re-, East Medicine Lake Park Improvement Program Dear Eric: In response to your request for a cost proposal to prepare plans, specifications and necessary planning for the East Medicine Lake Park, we offer the following for your consideration: 1. Perform such professional services as hereinafter stated which will include civil engineering, structural, architectural, landscape architecture, mechanical, electrical engineering, and site surveying. Z. Consult with the owner's representative on the scope of the project and'on specific project requirements. 3. Obtain specific site information regarding boundary surveys and topographic surveys. 4. Arrange for, on behalf of the owner, a soils investigation to determine the general nature of the soils. 5. Prepare working drawings for the site improvements. 6. Prepare working drawings for the, building construction. 7,, Prepare the final estimate of}costs. 8. Present the project to the. City Council for their approval. 9. Assist in securing of bids, evaluation, and awarding of a contract for the constructiln of the improvements. BATHER RINGROSE WOLSFEID JARVIS. GARDNER INC 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE 5 E MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 PHONE 612: 379•7878 Mr. Eric Blank January 14, 19811 Page 2 10. Provide construction surveying relative to the: horizontal and the vertical positioning of improvements. 11. Provide periodic inspection of all work to insure that the project is in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. 12. Review the contractor's request for periodic payments. 13. Prepare as -built drawings. 14. Make final inspection and recommendation on completion of the project. We propose to furnish the services outlined above for a not to exceed amount of 21,800.00. including designeffortsand construction observation for the site improvements and building construction. There are still a few questions that we have relative to the building and how it is to function. We would like to review this proposal with, you and answer any questions you may have. Very Truly Yours, r BATH it-RINGROSEE--WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. C Frank L. u Jr., R! Associate FLB:nb cc: Proposals A i AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER/ARCHITECT FOR REVP1tW_'0NLY THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made as of this 30th day of January in the year Nineteen Hundred Eighty One by and between the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, hereinafter called OWNER) and Sather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc., (hereinafter called ENGINEER). OWNER intends to construct one park facility, known as East Medicine lake Park. An approximate description of the improve-ments to be made to the park is as listed on attached Exhibit Art, (hereinafter called the Project). OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants herein agree in respect of the performance of professional engineering and. Landscape architecture services by ENGINEER and the payment for those: services by OWNER, as sel, forth below. ENGINEER shall serve as OWNER's professional engineering representative in those phases of the Project to which this: Agreement applies, and will give consultation and advice to OWNER during the performance of his services. SECTION i - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEER 1.1 General 1.1.1 ENGINEER shall perform professional services as herein- after stated which include landscape architecture and recreational design, civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and architectural services incidental thereto. 1.2 Phase. I - Concept Design After written authorization to proceed, ENGINEER shall: 1.2.1 Consult with OWNER, and OWNER's representative to determine the requirements for the Project. 1.2.2 Obtain from OWNER, and OWNER shall furnish all available data pertaining to the Project.. 1.2.3 View and inspect the site and familarize himself with the Project. ` 1.2.4 Arran9e for, on behalf of OWNER, a so i. I investigation of the. site, if necessary, to determine the general nature of the soils. 1.2.5 Prepare concept plans,, Including preliminary cost esti- mates for such concept plans. 1.2.6 Meet with OWNER's representative to review concept plans. and make modifications as necessary.' 1.2.7 Prepare final concept plans and cost estimates for City Council appr$v ,I, and make a presentation of the concept plans to the tit (bunciI, as necessary. 1.3 Phase 11 Construction Documents Phase After written authorization to proceed, ENGINEER shall: 1.3.1 Perform detailed topographic surveys of the park site and prepare suitable maps illustrating the existing con- ditions that are pertinent to the design of the Project. 1.3.2 Prepare preliminary architectural plans. 1.3.3 Prepare preliminary grading and drainage plan. 1.3.4 Prepare a summary of basicc materials and specification to be used in the Project. 1.3.5 Prepare preliminary lighting plans. 1.3.6 Review with OWNER and secure approval of preliminary designs. 1.3.7 Prepare and provide final design and construction detail drawings for: grading, drainage, utilities, lighting, buildings, pathways., landscaping, and parking/access areas. 1.3.8 Prepare and provide specifications, proposals, instruc- tions to bidders, performance bond in statutory form, insurance requirements, and related documents for all Improvements to be constructed on the Project sites. 1.3.9 Assist in securing any permit~, required to construct the Project. 1.3.10 Prepare a final cost estimate based upon the final design and construction documents. 1.3.11 Assist in the securing of bids and awarding of a contractor contracts for the construction of the Improvements, including arrangement for required advertisement for public notice, and notice to possible bidders. 1.3.12 Assist OWNER in evaluating bids and make a recommen- dation on the award of contracts. 1.4 Phase III Construction Phase After written, authorization to proceed the ENGINEER shall: 1.4.1 Perform surveys to stake out the location and elevation of the various improvements. 1.4.2 Provide periodic on-site inspection of the construction activities. 1.4.3 Perform or make provision for testing of materials to document compliance with the plans and specifications., 1.4.4 Coordinate the activities of the various contractors, public utilities and related. OWNERts activities on or near the Project sites. 1.4.5 Review shop drawings or other details as provided by the contractors to determine conformance with design concepts and plans/specifications. 1.4.6 Measure and document the quantity of work performed as the Project progresses. 1.4.7 Review contractors periodic payment requests and make recommendation for payment. 1.4.8 Prepare Contract Change Orders when required. 1.4.9 Measure and record the location of all facilities and prepare and furnish OWNER with a set of reproducable mylar "as built" drawings of the completed Project. 1.4.10 Conduct an inspection to determine if the Project is sL bstantially complete and a final inspection to deter- mine if the Project has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and if each contractor has fulfilled all of his obligations thereunder so that ENGINEER may approve, in writing, final payment to each contractor. 1.4.11 ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, any subcontractor or any of the contractor(s)' or subcontractors' agents or employees or any other persons (except his own employees and agents) at the Project site or otherwise performing any of the work of the Project. SECTION 2 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF ENGINEER If authorized 1n writing by MER, ENGINEER shall furnish or obtain from others Additional Services of the following types which are not considered Basic Services; these will be paid for by OWNER as indicated in Section 5.. 2.1.1 Preparation of applications and supporting documents for governmental grants, loans or advances in connection with the. Project and preparation or review of environ- mental assessments and impact statements. 2.1.2, Services to make measured drawings of or to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by OWNER. 2.1.3 Services resulting from significant changes in revising previously accepted studies, reports, design documents or Contract Documents that have been prepared by ENGINEER when such revisions are due to causes beyond ENGINEERfs control. 2.1.4 Providing renderings or models for OWNER's use. 2.1.5 Preparing documents for alternate bids requested by UWNER for work. which is not executed or documents for out-of-se,,fluence work. 2.1.6 Investigations involving_ detailed consideration of operations, maintenance and overhead expenses; and the preparation of rate schedules, earnings and expense statements, feasibility studies, appraisals and valuations; detailed quantity surveys of material, equipment and labor; and audits of inventories required in connection with construction performed by DINER. 2.1.7 Furnishing the services of special consultants for other than the normal civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering and normal architectural design incidental thereto, such as consultants for interior design, selection of furniture and furnishings, communications, acoustics and kitchens_._*-, 2.1.8 Services in connection with change orders to reflect changes requested by OWNER if the resulting change in compensation for Basic Services is not commensurate with the additional services rendered, and services resulting from significchnt delays, changes or price increases occurring as a direct or indirect result of material, equipment or energy shortages. 2.1.9 Services during out-of-town travel required of ENGINEER other than visits to the Project site as required by Section 1. 2 0,1 0 Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) work damaged by fire or other cause. during construction, (2) a significant amount of defec- tive or neglected work of any Contractor, (3) prolon- gation. of the contract time of any prime contract by more than sixty days, and (4) default by any contractor. 2.1.11 Preparation of operating and maintenance manuals; exten- sive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system (such as initial start-up, testing, adjusting and. balancing); and training personnel for operation and maintenance. 2.1.12 Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for OWNER in any litigation, public hearing except before City Council or City Commissions or other legal or administrative proceeding involving the Project. SECTION 3 - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES OWNER shall: 3.1 Provide full information as to his requirements for the Project. 3.2 Assist ENGINEER by placing at his disposal all available infor- mation pertinent to the Project including previous reports and any other data relative to design and construction of the Project. 3.3 Furnish to ENGINEER, as required by him for performance of his Basic Services, data prepared by or services of others, such as core borings, probings and subsurface explorations, hydrographic. surveys, laboratory tests and inspections of samples, materials and equipment; appropriate professional interpretations of all of the foregoing; property, boundary, easement, right -of --way, topographic and utility surveys and property descriptions; zoning and deed restriction,; and other special data or consultations not covered in paragraph 2.1; all of which ENGINEER may rely upon in performing his services. 3.4 Guarantee access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER to perform his services. 3.5 Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals and other documents presented by ENGINEER, obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor and other consultants as he deems appropriate for such examination and render in writing deci sions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time sous not to delay the services or ENGINEER. r 3.6 Pay all costs incident to obtaining bids or proposals from contractors. 3.7 Provide such legal, accounting, independent cost estimating and insurance counseling services as may be r4nuired for the Project, and such auditing service as OWNER may v"Ic , re to ascertain how or for what purpose any contractor has+ usea' h moneys paid to him under the construction contract. 3.8 Designate in writing a person to act as OWNER's representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions,, receive information, interpret and define OWNERfs policies and decisions with respect to the Project. 3.9 Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER whenever OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the Project. 3.10 Furnish, or direct ENGINEER to provide, necessary Addition,: - Services as stipulated in Section 2 of this Agreement or other services as required. 3.11 Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of this Section 3. SECTION 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICES 4.1 The provisions of this Agreement, and the basis of compensation for ENGINEER's services provided for elsewhere in this Agreement has been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly and continuous progress of the Project through completion. of the Construction Phase. ENGINEERts obligation to render services hereunder will extend for a period which may reasonably be required for the design, award of contracts and construction of the Project including extra work and required extensions thereto. 4.2 The services to be provided by the ENGINEER, and the reviews and decisions required by the OWNER shall be performed in such a manner and? a schedule which will result in the following events, occurring on or before the dates indicated. Date Event 2/20/81 Submittal of concept plans and preliminary construction estimate to the OWNER. 3/--/81 OWNER (City Council) approval of concept plans. 4/6/81 Presentation to. OWNER (City Council) of final Ccntrac+ Documents and sett-ing of bid date. r 5/18/81 OWNER (City Councils award contracts. 9/30/81 Completion of improvements. 4.3 If OWNER has requested significant modifications or changes in the scope of the Project, the time of performance of ENG l NEER' s services shall. be adjusted appropriately. 4.4 If OWNER fails to perform required reviews or fails to take required actions which are necessary to allow the ENGINEER to continue to perform his services, the time of performance of the ENGINEER's services shall be adjusted appropriately. SECTION 5 - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER 5.1 Methods of Payment for Services and Expenses of ENGINEER 5'.1.1 AIC services provided directly by the. ENGINEER shall be based upon the actual direct labor cost of the employees assigned to the Project, plus labor additives, plus. general overhead and administrative costs, plus a fee of 15% of the sum of the direct labor, labor additives and general overhead and administrative costs. Labor additives and general overhead and administrative costs shall be as set forth in Exhibit 11111 which is the must recent audit letter of the ENGINEER by the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. 5.1.2 All services provided indirectly by the ENGINEER by the use of subcontractors shall be based upon the actual cost of such services to the ENGINEER from the sub- contractor plus a flee of 15% of that cost. 5.1.3 Services performed for the Project by the ENGINEER after January 14, 1981 but prior to the date of this Agreement shall be included for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 5.2 Times of Payments 5.2.1 The ENGINEER shall submit monthly statements in the form approved by OWNER for all services performed in the prior month and payment shall be trade by the OWNER within 30 days of receipt of the LwGINEER's statement.. Amounts not K id. within 30 days shall be increased at the rate of 1$ per month. 5.3 Maximum Pyment 5.3.1Except to the extent that the scope of the Project and the scope, of.,ser`v i ces to be provided by the ENGINEER is modlfle n #& 'that presented herein, or the ENGINEER provides services as set forth in SECTION 2, the maximum. fee paid to the ENGINEER shall not exceed $21,800. All basic services and related costs except soil and. materials testing are included in the stated maximum fee. SECTION' 6 - GENERAL CONSIDWTION5. 6.1 Termination 6.1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days' written notice in the event of substantial. failure by the other part,- to perform in, accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party. 6.2 Reuse of Documents 6:2.1 All documents including drawings and specifications fur..- nished by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of his services in respect of the Project. They are not intended, or represcttad ,, be suitable for reuse by OWNER or others on exten,4A'tos of the Project or on any other project. Any reuse without specific written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER will be at OWNER's sole risk and without liability or legai exposure to ENGINEER, and OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom.. 6.3 Estimates of Cost 6.3.1 Since ENGINEER has no control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, or over the contractor(s)l methods of determining prices;, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, his opinions of probable Project Cost or Construction Cost provided for herein are to be made on the basis of his experience and quali- fications. and represent his best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry, but ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee the probable cost prepared by him. If prior to the Bidding OWNER. wishes greater assurance as to the Construction Cost, he shall employ an independent cost estimator. 6.4Arbitration 6.4.1 All claims, counter -claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties hereto arising out of or relating to. this Agreement or the breach thereof will be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry At-bitra'`lon Rules of the American Arbitration Association then obtaining, subject to the limitations stated in paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 below. This Agree - merit so to arbitrate and any other agreement or consent to arbitrate entered into in accordance therewith as provided below, will be specifically enforceable under- the prevailing law of any court having jurisdiction. 6.4.2 Notice of demand' for arbitration must be filed in writing with: the other parties to this Agreement and with the. American Arbitration, Association. The demand must be nada within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other netter in question has arisen. In no event may the demand for arbitration be made. after the time when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 6.4.3 All demands for arbitration and all answering statements thereto which include any monetary claim must contain a statement that the total sum or value in controversy as alleged by the party making such demand or answering statement is not more than $200,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). The arbitrators will not have jurisdiction, power or authority to consider, or make findings (except in denial of their own jurisdiction) concerning any claim, counter -claim, dispute. or other matter in question where the amount in controversy thereof is more than $200,000 (exclusive of interest and casts) or to render a;monetary award in response thereto against any party which. totals more than $200,000 exclusive of interest and costs). 6.4.4 No arbitration arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement may include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, any additional party not a party to this Agreement. 6.4.5 By written consent signed by all the Qarties to this Agreement and 'containing a specific reference thereto, the lim=tations and restrictions contained in paragraphs 6.4.3 a;d 6.4.4 may be waived in whole or in part as to any claim, counter -claim, dispute or other matter speci- fically described in such consent. No consent to arbitration in respect of a specifically described claim, counter-cla%m, dispute or other matter in question will constitute consent to arbitrate any other claim, counter -claim, dispute or other matter in question which is not specifically described in such consent or in which the sum or value in controversy exceeds $2000000 exclusive of interest and costs) or which is with any party not specificaly described therein. 5.4.5 The award rendered by the arbitrators will be final, not subject to appeal and judgment may be entered upon it in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 5 Successors and Assigns 5.5.1 OWNER and ENGINEER each binds himself and his partners, successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other party of this Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of such other party, in respect to all covenants of this Agreement; except as above, neither OWNER nor ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any per- sonal liability on the part of any officer or agent of any public body which may be. a party hereto, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits hereunder to anyone other than OWNER and ENGINEER. SECTION 7 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS OWNER and ENGINEER agree that this Agreement is subject to the fol towing special provisions which together with the provisions hereof and the exhi- bits and schedules hereto represent the enti.re. Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER; they may only be altered, amended or repealed by a duly execut-d written Instrument. 7.1 Exhibit A Park Program Summary. 7.2 Exhibit 6 - August 13, 1979 Audit Letter of ENGINEER by Minnesota, Department of Transporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. OWNER: ENGINEER; h EXHIBIT "All Slur Boardwalk Parking Lot improvements Landscap%ng UN l iti es Necessary for BvI ld ing Operation Ot';er Miscellaneous Pathway Construction General Area Sevirity Lighting Picnic Facilities O3FZP=C3C OW X-a0C1L3L A61qM T.Tn3BJLTq JLV2r;11 Xn8 MINKSOTA STAT[ PLANNING AG:N.CY Or CAPITOL SQUARE BUILDING • ST. PAUL MINNESOTA S3101 • PHONE (412) 296.7041 January 13, 1981. Eric J. Blank., Director Parks and Recreation City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: FY'61, Final. Application Last nIedi.ci ne Lake Beach City of Plymouth, Hennepin Cowity Dear Mr. Blank,. We are pleased to inform you that your final developoen , applicatioa fob;' FY 19811 funding has been approved by the. Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources/ Legislative Advisory Commission (LCr2R/'LAC) as of December 16, 1980 for State Grant money. The State Grant is 25 percent of the total cost of the ?project. This application is also programed for a Land and Water Conservation (L 16rC:C I grant. The Office of Local and. Urban Affairs will submit the final application to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 14, 1981 for final, grant approval. Do not initiate developnent of this project until formal approval has been granted by the federal HCRS. Failure. to Damply will result. in making the portion of your project listed ineligible for assistances. To be eligible: for matching assistances, costs must have been incurred within the project period. Preagzeement planning costs for developrent projects such as the cost of site investigation and selection, site planning, feasibility studies, preliminary design, preparation of cost estimates, construction drawings and specifications may be eligible for assistance, although incurred prior to project approval.. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call this office at 612/296-1145. Sincerely, Peter. W. Klose, Project Officer Parka and Recreation Grants Section PWiC • cak. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER REFERRkl.TQ: CITY KANAGEP, t CITY OOUNCiL PUBLIC %M DIRECTCR FI`IAtiCE DIRECTOR ---- PLANNING GIRCCTOR --5 1 PUBLIC SAFETY WECWO' ---- ADMINISMITIVE tSS1STOIT -- PARK COMMISSION t-- CITY ATTORNCY atHER -- DATE e t UL 7LY w Kit tui MIAICIN LAKE rr~ t _ i j•" N 3 ar '' y 1 b is Ila a,, 04,11, 13r. l r V j Sao 34r ; O 36 OR of r1 i t i t ° • ° w.. 12 , M1 N TO o" I R!° A s • 1 ' f t kwAkt 1 ] Y N Mifi sN eie. , it A w C s n Cep annex acAr7QN MAPGAllltllMO'!Iq'Itt, WC, NCCp..Yfy„O. fMpp.1,..IG EXHIBIT A c At i y n x x F I xx i C f p•b'. VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 0 K 1 t!.\F ,! r fit. ...wk...,.,.«...», aF.«».w...» ...:,»»,.,^....,.._...r «1a c«,,: , w r.,. ,+, Nl frll AVC t.. ra V,,,. wtw t .a w i li•. . wq: r. w li MOWN, oN TVLI Ilk All I if b w r. t„ N iYMY 1 1 ! 1 n 1 taC+tli 1 40 If c"Laa+ e«oM.Ks, iwc. rc<awwtrww haocwna lwc ri yit.l. NOTCI a a 1K.W WIM+1. 6.1 i laa. altiNrll+r. iaM. vow ria yaw. v ". a.. tv* w. 61j t t. k" w. Y.ry tOTr H.Wyt A \eti.. lV. sl+rii !•Y4 Y. ioni.. a li. awula.dr,Y >,er•. 11 1 41.. .W. •As. 1, wltl,etw 1. L1 LOr Gua w :r We" ir. 41400 "tM4 is 1 frwwwN N valla O.W't ft, pe*Qam Ab ftaom"v ommv --a. MlY\ M. A. AMaMC it t+N flrC 000WM Vt1y Y.. i.6w 4:u.d it PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBIT D e W G01 keg lk,"'j d r L.` Otr- i LQ4TF 1• Yw•:....]3 LMfy Mh1M r. rYr1 v.r. µ•Ty MM.a NM. W SUP10— k w...r.,,w.. rwu$09, 806. 4wF MiV Vow ahmmommo W"ww"aww . ww 0 wTrwn• kmM ben& AON MiM•• NI r:.1"Na loftbY \ . CO&W CA& ntx c"Um Moes, aic. oNrrw wr.Mun nr. we I prD ..._ • 10 PRELIMINARY GRADING 6 DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT t w CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441' TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 QATEt January 2.3, 1981 MEMO TO., James G. Willis, City Manager F ROM; Fred G. Moore, City Engineer SUBJECT: Projected Project Schedules 1981 Projects REFERRAL TO, C" MANAUR CITY 0" 01. M RLIC WORK DIRECTOR FINANCE DIRECTOR NING DIRECTOR _ i POOLIC SAFETY PUT' R ADMINISTNATIVE AZISTAWT PARK CE1t. Ml, ;i;)'N CIIY ATT Wt_y OTHER cAr Attached is a. projected project schedule for the 1981 projects. The schedule as shown only carries projects through the award of contrasts. After contracts are awarded final completion dates will be added. The following are general comments with regard to the projects:: Project 606 - Parkers take Improvement In aodition to setting a,bid date on the project for February 6, 1981, the Council has also set a public hearing on the final assess- ments for February 17 Protect 708 - County Road 15 -Trail, Phase II. The City has received a letter from Hennepin County stating that the County Board has removed the bikeway participation funds from. their 1981 budget. This was on the recommendation of the Capital Improvement Task Force. The County Board will be reconsidering this at the end of January and making a final recommendation; on the bike- way funds. Project 915 45th Avenue/Galilee Addition This project has been ordered for construction.. Sfar•+o Project 101 Carlson 4~ Addition This project has been ordered for construction. Project 103 Ridgemount Avenue Watermain We are awaiting an answer from the School District whether they still want the fire protection loop around the Ridgemount Junior High School included in the project. Memo fames G. Willis January 231, 198-1 Page Two Project 104 - 19th Avenue/Oakdale Test Addition This project has been ordered for construction. It is contingent upon the developer sinning the development contract. Project 112 - Lost Lake Moods Addition The final plat.for this addition has been approved by the Planning Commission., It isexpectedthat the final plat will be presented to the City Council at the February 2 meeting. Project 113 Pinetree Middle Pond Bids will be received on this project on February 10. We are: in the process of obtaining the necessary permits and easements for the project. J Fred ore. , P.E. -. FGM.bw Attachment: Project, Schedule CITY OF PLYMOUTH PROJECTED PROJECT SCHEDULE - 1481 pV.r»,« WiTV MKIII IIEETIN Oct, , lgev.. Oe w tr January February March. April May June July August September Oct. 0eact. No. - scription _ ] 1 • ! .12 13 i 11 1 1 i 1 • 1]] 10 7 31 7 ii ! 13 Parksrs laky ] J + s • i,... 1 _ ._; . .-,_ w 708 - Co. 15 Ycri1 Ph•li Awaiting State, and County grant approval 1 N Sere! !Ittron 10 - Dwkiy-t Lara Food Mth Ave, iilse MO I+_ ! • 20/011 Twtla lake Area t oae; - Pike i i * Sewer. PA. t r s. t Pike lake Swier. Ph 11 r i . 10 - Co. Rd. 9 Vatsrnin Tt 11 - Mss lkPiata utilities. Schedule will. be established after Project 008, Phase It is approved 101 Carlson .'nd Aft, 1 1 ! • i . r + 103 - Ridgeeount Ave. Wateran 1. 104 19th Ave,/Oakdale West a - ` ,5 1 • 105 Vicksburg lei/Nwy 55 Sig _ t _1 i '+ • [ l 106 - Timber Shores Park4f ! • 1 _ 107 - Mission dills Fork 1 4 108 Schmidt lake Park3 6 109 - E. Medicine lake beach 110 City Cntr Prkno lot Exp 1 _ 1981 Street Su;'facinq _ ! • C Ill - 1980 TV inspection S '• _ I 112 lost lake Woods 113 Pinetree Middle Pond " '! 4 4 1 1 1 1 1. order report. ` t 2, Receive report/set public improvement hearing, j b ; 1 3. Public improvement hearing, i + Project awaiting land purchase by Hennepin i 4. Order project. ( County Parks. 5. Advertise for bids.. "! Awaiting developer approval, ' i 6. Award contract,+ca Will be added with Project 011. y ~ 7. Project completion. ( ''-'r` —+•+ Assessment method be reviewed by Cotmcil Assessmrnt Committee, t s.. PARK FACILITY RENTAL POLICIESAND FEE SCHEDULE The City of Plymouth's Parks and Recreation facilities are provided for the whole- some leisure time activities of all area residents., Use of these facilities is governed by policies established by the Plymouth Parks and Recreation. Department in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council. The following procedures and policies have been developed for athletic facility useage A. Permits for park fac- ies will be considered by the following priority list: 1. Youth Athletic Associations serving Plymouth residents.. 2. Plymouth Parks and Recreation. Department sponsored programs.. 3 Plymouth non-profit civic organizations.. 4. Teams participating in City leagues. 5. Plymouth resident groups. b. Plymouth companies. 7. Outside groups (eligible for tournament and special event rental only).. B. Daylight athletic field reservations, including rinks, are free (excludes tournament reservations). C. Weekend Tournaments 1. Softball tournaments must be sanctioned by the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association and use state: certified officials. Z. No game will. start.before 8:00 a.m. 3. No inning, period, or quarter will start after 10:00 p.m. on Friday or Saturday, or after 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. 4,. No motorized vehicles or machines are permitted on park property without the written consent of the Plymouth. Parks and Recreation Department. 5. Beer drinking contests are prohibited. No intoxicating beverages or malt beverages are allowed on park property without first obtaining a City permit.. 6. Any application for foud (concessions) permits or beer permits is to be made through the City Clerk. 7. In the event of total cancellation of a tournament due to severe weather, all fees will be refunded. The Plymouth Parks and Recreation Department will determine the amount of refund on any partially completed everts. 8. Any beer wagons, vans or trucks must be located in parking lots only, and cannot remain on park property overnight. D. Fee Schedule 1.. Field use (softball, baseball, football, soccer) a. Plymouth Youth Athletic Associations, Plymouth non-profit civic organizations - FREE b, Plymouth private groups, teams, or organizations $30/FIELD/DAY c. Outside groups, teams, organizations - $40/FIELD/DAY 2. Field Attendant (will assist with maintenance, open bathrooms and supervise park useage) - $5/HOUR 3. Lights ao Softball, baseball, football, soccer $15/HOUR b. Hockey rinks - $10/HOUR 4. Holleywood bases, field liner, field drag all are included in field rental 5. Chalk is available to all groups for $2.50/bag. 6. Damage Deposit a. Plymouth Youth Athletic Associations - not required. b. All other groups are required to pay a $100 damage deposit with their application. If the request is denied, the $100 will be refunded.. If the application is accepted, the deposit will be returned after the tournament only if the park is left in acceptable shape. r Park Facility Rental Policies and Fee Schedule Page 2 THE DEPOSIT WILL NOT BE REFUNDED IF THE: PARK REQUIRES SPECIAL MAINTENANCE DUE TO YOUR USE OF THAT FACILITY.. 7. All fees must be paid in full three days before the tournament begins. i. Rink permits will be granted to City groups for skating parties or activities only during hours not normally scheduled for public skating,at a fee of $5/hour for a. supervisor plus any fee for rink lights. ALL GROUPS ARE: RESPONSIBLE TO REPAY IN FULL ANY AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THEFT OR VANDAL -SM TO ANY EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES USED DURING THE RENTAL PERIOD. tan Parks and Open Space Commission January 21, 1981 TO: Prospective LAWCON/LCMt Applicants 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 10 1. 612/291.6401 SUBJECT: Public Meeting on fiscal Year 1982.LAWCON/LCMR Grant Review Criteria Enclosed for your information are the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 1982 LAWCONILCMR. grant review criteria for the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission will conduct a public meeting to receive comments. on the review criteria.. The meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 9 at 3 p..m in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul. Those wishing. to comment, should call Debbie Peine (ph. 291-6401) to be placed on the agenda. We ask that you limit your remarks to five minutes. If you canvat attend the meeting, please feel free to submit written comments to Arne Stefferud prior to February 9. We would especially like to call your attention to a new criteria (Issue I on page 1.0). It proposes that applications from communities that have not granted consent for the acquisition of a regional recreation open space system unit be penalized 20 points on their recreation score. The Commission is considering alternatives. to this criteria and methods that would give the Commission and Metropol i tan Council some flexibility in applying it. We would appreciate your comments on this issue. EP/dlmp enclosure. Sincerely, Elliott Perovich Chairman mai to- Cm IIAIiAMA MOM Established by the Minnesota lAgislature as an agency of the Metropolitan. Council PARK COMMI'MON, v1W Mr METR0P0LI'TAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota. 55101 MEMORANDUM January 14, 1981 TO; Metropolitan Parks and. Open Space Commission FROM: Parks and Open Space Staff, Arne Stefferud, Charles Smith, Florence Mys ajek SUBJECT; FISCAL Y£AR.1982 LAWCONILCMR CRITERIA INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This memorandum contains a proposed schedule of the FY 182 LAWCON/LCMR. grant review process, and an analysis of funding recommendations. and recreation criteria, to be used by the Council. Staff is requesting the Commission to adopt the recommendations (pp. 12-14) for purposes of receiving comments from prospective FY 182 LAWCONILCMR applicants. A summary of the: issues and recommendations is given below. Criteria that are proposed to be, changed from FY 181 to FY 182 are highlighted with an asterisk M. A. Policy Planning Area Allocations are recommended to be the same as FY 181 since there are not enough comprehensive plans in yet to develop new allocations. H. Recommendations for using excess funds from policy planning area allocations remain,the Uwe as FY 181. C.e Boat launch projects are again given top funding priority for FY 182. It is recommended that 1.0 percent off the top should be used for this purpose. SPA will make a presentation on this issue at the January 19 meeting. D.• Grant maximums should remain the same except that Freestanding Growth Centers should be eligible for $100,000 not $50,000 grants. E. Recommendations on exceeding the grant maximum Ire the same as FY 181. F. Humber of grants per community based on planning area is the same as FY 181. G.e Project review criteria are revised based on experience gained from FY 180 and 181. Overall, the point total (375) is the sage but the point breakdown has been changed. H.• Quality threshold of projects is kept at 60 percent but is applied only to the "need" and "site auitablity,'design" criteria.. Pa 1.0 Implementation of a new policy in the new Recreation Open Space Policy Plan calls for penalizing applicants 20 points on their recreation scores if they have not consented to acquisition of regional recreation open space in their jurisdiction. J. Development Framework policies from FY 181 are recommended for FY 182. K. Implementation of Housing Policy 39 is carried out the same as FY 181. AUTHORITY TO REVIEW Applications for Federal hand and Water Conservation (LAWCON) funds and state Legislative Commissiof, on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grants fall under the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. This circular requires that applications for federal categorical aids be submitted to the regional, clearinghouse for review and comment as to Consistency of the local application with regional plans. The Metropolitan Council has been designated as the A-95 review clearinghouse in the Metropolitrn Area. The Metropolitan Council. Act. of 1967 Chapter 473.181 Subd. 2, has expanded this A-95 review and comment authority to approving or disapproving acquisition grants according to the plans and policies of the Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan. In implementing this responsibility and because there are limited funds, the Council ranks the applications for funding., GRANT REVIEW PROCESS The State Planning Agency (SPA) and the Metropolitan Council conduct a coordinated review of the grant applications. The review process is shown below with reQommended dates for action based on the schedules of the Commission, Council and deadlines of the SPA. Jan. 19: Metropolitan Parks and Open Space CO=ission (MFOSC) considers grant review criteria for purposes of receiving public comments. Feb. 9: MPOSC holds public meeting to receive comments on grant review criteri- . Feb. 23: MPOSC considers comments and recommends final version of grant review criteria for Metropolitan Council adoption. Note: Feb. 9 and 23 meetings are the second and fourth Mondays in February. These meetings would replace the usual first and third Monday meetings.) March 5: Physical Development Committee (PDC) considers MPOSC recommended grant review criteria and makes recommendations to the Council. March 12: Council adoption of grant review criteria.. March 16: SPA mails packets to applicants. May 1: Deadline for submitting applications to SPA and the Council. May 11-- Site inspections of applications by SPA and Council staff. MPOSC May 1.5: members welcome to accompany staff. 3 Tentative) June 11: SPI and Council staff combine their rankings and notify applicants of preliminary staff ranking. Tentative) June 18-- Applicants invited to comment to Council staff on their grant June 24• review. Tentative) June 25: MPOSC conducts public meeting to hear additional comments from applicants. (Note: No additional comments for revising recreati rankings of. Council staff will be permitted after this meeting.) July 6: MPOSC considers final staff recommended rankings. July 16: Physical. Development Committee considers MPOSC recommended rankings. July 73: Metropolitan Council approves rankings. July 24: SPA and applicants are notified of Council approved rankings. ISSUES A. Policy Planning Area Allocations For the past. six years the grant funds were allocated. by the four policy planning areas (fully developed, area of planned urbanization, freestanding growth centers and rural areas). This allocation "gas originally basedon a formula of 60 percent population and 40 percent fiscal effort tax base of the planning area. The policy area shares, based on this formula, fluctuated a great deal when the formula was applied for the Fiscal Years 1977 to 1980. For Fiscal Year 1981 grants, the Commission recommended that the allocations remain the same as FY 180. The Commission had hoped that the local comprehensive plana would be available for use in developing a more realistic caeasurement of local rs reation need for FY 182 grants. Unfortunately, not enough comprehensiv;: ;-Ians have been reviewed by the Council yet to assess local recreation need. SPA staff estimate that the FY 182 LAWCONlLCMR funds will ;probably be the same as what's been received for FY 181 (approximately $2 million) for the Metropolitan Area. Staff therefore recommends that the allocations for the policy planning areas remain the same as last year: Fully developed Area 49 percent Area of planned urbanization .......... 34 percent Freestanding growth centers ........... 11 percent Rural area ............................ 6 percent (max. $100,00) B. Excess Funds in Planning Area Allocations In previous years, the Council has also recommended the following to SPA: That in the event any policy planning area has unused funds after all quality projects (over 60 percent) are funded, the excess shall be re- diatributed to the other planning areas in proportion to the planning area allocations percentages." 4 Staff received no comments from applicants regarding this policy. It was not used in FY 181 as there Was no excess funds in the planning areas. However, this policy is reasonable under appropriate circumstances. Staff recommends that it be retained for FY 182 grants. C. Boat Launch Priority In an attempt to meet the demand for more boat launch sites on lakes, in the region, the Council, SPA and Dept. of Natural Resources implemented a cooperative program in 1979. A top priority for LAWCON/LCMR grants was given to bc-L launch.projects for FY 180 and 181 grant cycles. In FY 180 five projects were programmed to receive a total of $232,725 LAWCONfLCMR funds.. In FY 181 only two out of four projects received were funded with 154,875. The two remaining projects, both on Lake Flinn-tonka, did not. receive grants as one was done with other funds which prevented it from being open to the public on weekends, and the other project did not meet adequate parking space requirements. Although the number of boat launch applications dropped from.FY 180 to 181, the Metropolitan Public Access Task Force in its 1980 Annual. Report has recommended that top funding priority be given to eligible boat launch projects for the FY 182 grant cycle. The Task Force feels that local governments should be given ample opportunity to provide lake access sites boat launches) to selected lakes through the LAWCON/LCMR program. If local governments do not take the initiative, then the state (DNR) and/or county park agencies should be given the opportunity to provide these access sites. The Task Force felt that a more thorough job of informing local governments of the opportunities ofproviding boat launch sites is needed. It will.do the following tasks in 1981 to meet that objectives 1. Promote and participate in workshops related to LAWCON funding, which would include a, public access session, information on the water use regulations and DNR's responsibility to provide public access. 2. Expand information that is included in pre -application packets regarding the task force and its objectives. 3. Include within the project selection criteria a higher priority ranking to priority lake applications and inform local officials of possible lease -back opportunities. 4. Include a representative of DNR in all field inspections where lakeshore acquisition is involved. For FY 131 the Metropolitan Council LAWCONILCMR funds be made available additional allocation of funds was ; make a presentation on this matter Staff feel, that allocating an amour is a fair method as it spreads the allocations.. A.question that remail top"? In FY 180, 19.8 percent of L, when the 15 percent off the top cri recommended that up to 15 percent of to eligibleboatlaunch projects. This concern of the SPA. SPA staff will, t the January 19 meeting. Council off the top for boat launch projects mpact o tr all planning ,area s is how much should be taken "off the WCONPLCMR funds was used. In FY 181 eria was applied, eight percent of 5 LAWCON/LCMR Rinds was used. Staff recomends 10 percent be taken off the top for FY 182. If additional funds are needed, staff recommends that these funds come from the policy planning area allocation in which the boat launch is located in proportion to the total cost of all boat launch projects located in. each planning area. This is the same procedure Used for FY 181 grants. D. Grant Maximum For FY 181 grant-, the Council set the grant maximum at 200,000 .......... Ful-ly Developed Area 150,000 .-......... ,area of Planned Urbanization 50,000 ......... Freestanding Growth Center 50,000 Rural Area The top ranked projects are eligible for a 50 percent LAWCON and a 25 percent LCMR grant with a 25 percent local share. After the LAWCON funds. are expended, the projects are programmed for a 50 percent LCMR grant with a 50 percent local share. Therefore, the total project costs covered by maximum grants at a 75 percent funding level would be 256,500 Fully Developed Area, 200,000 .......... Area of Planned Urbanization 75,000 .......... Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Area Ths grant maximum,for Freestanding Growth Center and Rural Area applications was reduced from $100,000 to $50,000 by the. Commission for FY 181. This VAs done to promote more grants in these policy planning areas. Staff received comments from the cities of Rosemount, Chaska and Prior Lake that the $50,000 grant limitation was too low for Freestanding Growth. Centers. They requested that the Commission consider raising the grant maximum back to at least $100,000 for FY 182 grants. Following is an analysis of FY'180 and FY 181 grants and the effect the $50,000 grant limitation had on Freestanding Growth Centers. Five grants will be awarded. At the present time only four have been awarded as Shakopee had to withdraw its application on O'Dowd Lake. It didn't have enough funds to match the grant. FY 180 FY 181 Percent Change Grant maximum 100,000 50,000 50 No. of applications received 13 9 30 Amount of grant funds available 244,000 191,740 21 No. of grants awarded 4 5* 20 Average total project cost 94,053 83,174 11 Average grant awarded 61,000 38,348 37 Average grant percentage Of cost 64% 46% 28 Average local match percentage 36% 54% 33 Five grants will be awarded. At the present time only four have been awarded as Shakopee had to withdraw its application on O'Dowd Lake. It didn't have enough funds to match the grant. 6 In analyzing this information, staff drew the following conclusions: 1. Reducing the grant maximum has not encouraged more communities to apply. 2. Reducing the grant maximum has only Tightly increased the number of grants made (4 to 5). 3. Reducing the grant maximum has forced communities to provide more local funds in order to accomplish a project (54 percent local match in FY 181 vs. 36 percent local match in FY 180). Shakopee had to withdraw its application as it did not have $80,000 needed to acquire a $130,000 parcel on O'Dowd Lake. 4. The fact that communities have to provide a greater share of project costs negates the increased number of grants awarded. 5. One could speculate that communities are not even applying for grants as they cannot afford the increased local share. (Drop in applications from 13 to 9.) Based on these conclusions, staff recommends that the grant maximum for Freestanding Growth Centers be raised to $100,000. E. Exceeding Grant. Maximum For FY 181, the Council recommended: In any planning area, the grant maximum may be doubled if all qualified projects in that area are fundedprior to redistribution of unused funds to other planning areas." and That recognizing the need for flexibility in administering the grants, State Planning Agency has the discretion of awarding approximatley ten percent in excess of the grant maximum and that the State Planning Agency report annually to the Commission as to the impact of the grant maximum and limitations and exceptions noted." The first policy was not used since there were more applications than available funds. It is unlikely that there will be a year when grant funds will exceed applications. However, should such a situation arise, this is an appropriate way of distributing, excess funds. The 10 percent discretion SPA hay 13 also an appropriate policy. Both ;recommendations should be applie. in FY 182. SPA will comment on this issue at the January 19 meeting. F.. Number of Grants Per Community In FY 181, the Council recommended: No limit on grants to communities in the Fully Developed Area. 7 Limit of one grant per community in the Area of Planned Urbanization, Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Area. An additional grant may made to a community which receives a grant for a boat launch. If boat launch projects are given a top funding priority as recommended by the Public Access Task Force, these grant limitations are appropriate for FY '82. G. Project Revie« Criteria The project review criteria (see Table B) have been modified somewhat because of experience gained from both FY 180 and FY 181 grant cycles. Overall, the point total (375) is the same, but the breakdown between major categories has changed as follows: FY 181 FY '82 Staff feels this breakdown gives appropriate weight to each major category and satisfies the intent of the Regional Open Space Policy Plan. Changes in the number of points awarded for each subcategory and the methods for awarding them are as follows: I. A. Local - There are no p6int changes here. The points for population in the service area will be awarded on a separate scale for each planning area so as to allow projects in each planning area a chance at the maximum number of points. B. Non -Local - No change II.A. Suitable for Intended Use - An increase in the number of points for each subcategory (10 to 15) was necessary to maintain the overall weight of this section. B. Suitable for Multiple Activities - Separated from MUltiple seasons criterion, but the number of points and basic method of awarding them has remained the same. C. Suitable for Multi -Season Use - Separated from multiple activities criterinn and increaset' from 5 to 10 points. Staff feels it should be equal to the multi'!' activity criterion. The method of awarding points remains the same. Category Points Points I. Need 125 125 II. Site suitability/design 115 125 III. Maintenance and program compatibility 45 40 IV. Other factors 90 85 Total. 375 375 V. Lack of ,vocal consent for the regional system units 0 20 Staff feels this breakdown gives appropriate weight to each major category and satisfies the intent of the Regional Open Space Policy Plan. Changes in the number of points awarded for each subcategory and the methods for awarding them are as follows: I. A. Local - There are no p6int changes here. The points for population in the service area will be awarded on a separate scale for each planning area so as to allow projects in each planning area a chance at the maximum number of points. B. Non -Local - No change II.A. Suitable for Intended Use - An increase in the number of points for each subcategory (10 to 15) was necessary to maintain the overall weight of this section. B. Suitable for Multiple Activities - Separated from MUltiple seasons criterion, but the number of points and basic method of awarding them has remained the same. C. Suitable for Multi -Season Use - Separated from multiple activities criterinn and increaset' from 5 to 10 points. Staff feels it should be equal to the multi'!' activity criterion. The method of awarding points remains the same. D. Site Development Plan (to scale) -The points are reduced (25 to 20) and the method of awarding them has changed.; Toreceivethese points an application; must contain, a drawling showing the layout of proposed facilities. It must be done to scale. The level of sophistication of this drawing will. not affect the evaluation as has been the case in the past. E. Design Relationships 1) Conflicts Between Recreation Uses - the number of points has increased from 15 to 20 and they will.be awarded based on potential problems caused by poor relationships between recreation facilities and the possibility of solving these problem on the same site with abetter design. 2) Facility Design Criteria. The number of points has increased from 20 to 25. They will be awarded by comparing the sizes, orientation, etc, of facilities to accepted design standards and judging whether these standards could be met by modification to the design. 3) Effort needed to correct problems - This 10 point criterion has been eliminated by combining it With E1 and 2. above. Site Intrusions no change in points or method of award. IIIA. Maintenance - The number of points has increased from.15 to 20 and will be awarded differently. In the past, these,points were awarded on structure of the park maintenance function in ?the: applicant city. It was assumed.that this better structure would lead to better, maintenance. This issumption may or may not be true, i.e., different, structures work better for worse) in different communities. Therefore, staff Will inquire about the maintenance strff, budget and experience of each applicant. A judgment will then be made as to whether, the applicant can do an adequate job of maintaining the project if it is accomplished.. Staff feels that the major concern here is spotting applicants that obviously can't take C3equate care of the land,or facilities involved in the project. If this case can be made, this criterion, can be used to penalize the project by giving fewer or no points.. If it can't be made, the applicant should r.reive full points,, regardless of the structure of the, maintenance function.- B. Program - The number of points has decreased from 35 to 20 and will, be awarded similarly to those for maintenance. Staff, budget and experience will, be questioned and a general evaluation made. Particular attention will be paid to school district. and other joint programming arrangements; N.A. Fiscal Effort - The number of points has increased from 30 to 35. They will be awarded similar to last year except that there will be x aspera*.a ,point spread (0 to 35) for each.planning area.. This will allow each area a chance at the maximum number of points, thereby accom'pl 3hing,the desired overall weightint, system. 0 R. Planning Condition - The number of points has increased from 20 to 25 as a result of giving 10 points (instead of 6) for a park dedication ordinance and 5 points (instead of 4) for resource regulations. Staff feels that a park dedication ordinance is of primary importance in a local park program. The points will be awarded based on the amount of dedication and the amount of control the, local goverment has over the decision. Qther points in the category will be awarded similar to last year. C. Special Emphasis - The number of points is the same, but the method of awarding them has changed as followsZ. 1) Access to Significant Resources - This will be applied to both acquisition and development ;)rojects, in a manner similar to previous years. This criterion only applies to the project to be. accomplished with the current grant, not the entire park. 2) Immediate Action This will be applied to acquisition projects only. The points will be awarded sparingly based on potential for major changes in land usein the project area. 3) health/Safety Factors This will be applied to development protects only and points will be awarded similar to last,year. 4) ElderlylHandcapped - This will be applied to development projects only. Points will, be awarded similar to last year., i.e., they are for extra effort in this area rather than simply meeting codes for the proposed development. This method allows 25 points for this subcategory, regardless of whether the project is for acquisition or development. This maintains the desired overall weighting system. V. Lack of Local Content for Regional System Units This is a new negative bonus category as directed: by Policy 2 of the Regional Cpen Space Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council on November 20, 1980. The number of points chosen was -20 in order to give it equal importance with some of the other major categories in the weighting uy3tem (e.g., service area distance, use conflicts) without causing; the outright d13gUtlification of an otherwise worthy project. H. Quality Threshold For FY''79-t8l, the Council recommended that applications must receive at least. 60 percenb of the available project review points in order to be eligible for funding. That criteria was not applied in FY 179 and '80 as many applications did not meet this quality threshold. It was .'Applied in FY 181 except or applications in the Rural Area. Applicants from the FY' 181 grant cycle felt that the quality threshold should only apply to the need" and "site suitability/design" criteria. Staff agrees with this suggestion as the other criteria are not equally applicable to all applications. 10 Using only the "need" and "site suitability/design" criteria, number of Points received; far all.applications Was 70 percent Thula the "average" application would have easily exceeded the threshold of 60 percent. Staff recommends that the threshold. percent in order to promote high quality projects and that it applications from all policy planning areas. 1 Recreation Open. Space; Policy the average for FY 181. quality: remain.at 60 be applied to The retwtly adopted Recreation Open Space Policy Plan contains the following policy that applies to review of LAWCON/LCMR grants: Policy 2.. In reviewing grant, applications for local recreattm open space acquisition and develapaent, the Council and Metropolitan. Paa:Lz>a and ©pen Space Gcmmisafon will adoopt criteria that consider the fcOIouing, Consistency of the project with the community's comprehen ive plan for leisure service. k Need for the project. Site suitability. Abality of the applicant to program and use the site effectively. Local fiscal effort for parkaand recreation, and Consistency of the applicant's comprehensive plan with this policy plan, including the granting,of local consent for regional, system components within the community." With the exception of the first and last requirements regarding comprehensive plan', this policy has been implemented in the past and is. continued for FY 182 applications. A problem arises in applying the comprehensive plan requirements for FY 182 grants aX some communities will not have submitted a.,compreheiisive plan in time for its use in reviewing their grant application. Staff recommends that comprehensive plans not be used to evaluate FY 182 grants. However, the position of oommunitiea that oppose acquisition of regional recrreaton opera space wiithln their jur 3diation,i3 known from public hearing; testimony on the now Recreation Open. Space Policy Plan.and past positions taken on specific regional. units. Therefore, staff has. included a "negative bonus" to be applied to applications from communities that have not granted consent for a regional system unit located within their ajurisdiction. This would take 210 points off the final recreation score of an application. J. Development Premswol* Policies; In addition to applying the recreation criteria developed by the Commission, the Council has used several. Development. Framework policies in. reviewing grants. These policy decisions will be made by the Physical. Development Coemtttee Duw are, presented here for the Cen=iss on'3 information.. The following Development Framework policies have been used in previous grant reviews and are proposed for "Win FY 18 11 1'. The Metropolitan Area should consist of an L'rban Service Area and a Rural Service. Area. metropolitan Systems and urban services will be. provided only wittin the.Urban Service Area. Rural service standards will be met in the Rural Service Area, and Fersons choosing a rural lifestyle should not expect to receive urban services. 18. To provide an alternative tc scattered growth in the general rural, use regions of northern Anoka and west -central Hennepin Counties, areas without Freestanding Growth Centers, St. Francis and Maple Plain.are designated as proposed Freestanding Growth Centers and as areas where the Metropolitan Coizneil Will. encourage growth to occur. The Council will give preference to funding, requests from Sts Francis and Maple Plain over rural centers where similar dewonstrated need is shown...." 19b. The regional purpose of the general rural use region is to provide very low -intensity 14vid uses. such as commercial farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural resources, passive recreation: and$ in some cases, to act as a holding or transition area between long-term agricultural area and urbanisation areas. 19e. The regional purpose of rural centers is the provision of support service to agricultural enterprises and accommodation of residential developsont at a scale appropriate,to their ability to finance and administer services..." Given, the above-cited policies, the following criteria should be applied to applicationo from communities in the Rural Service Area. 1. Consideration should be givon to all applications, both active and. passive, from Rural Centers. 2. Consideration shold be given, to applications only for passive. recreation activities from those. communities in parts of the Rural Service Area outside of Rural Centers. This requires defining passive areas. Neither the: Development Framwork nor the Regional K. -t reation Policy Plans defines passive recreation. Staff recommendsthat "passive"' should include such areae as;; natural resources areas, picnic areas, tent camping, Wayside rests, non -motorized trail activities, boat lauenh sites and beaches. Active areas would include ballfields, court games, playgrounds, and any organized activity (football, soccer, hockey). The Rural Area Taak Force Report does .identify, some or the conditional and non -suitable recreation activities for the Rural Area. 3. Proposing Freestanding Growth Centers should receive priority for other Rural Centers where there is similar (or greater) demonstrated need. If an application from a proposed Freestanding Growth Center does not receive priority on this basis, it should be ranked; along with other applications from Rural Service Area communities according to the recreational project review criteria. Council staff makes the following recommendations on the above issues: 1Z That the following Metropolitan Development Framework criteria be applied: 1 all appllcati*33 from Rural Centers will be considered (active or pasaiva). 2. In those parts of the Rural Ser, viole Area -outside. of Rural Centers, only applications for passive recreation will be considered. 3. In setting_ priorities among quality projects; from Rural. Centers, the proposed Freestanding Growth Centers will be given priority over applications from other Rural Centers when demonstrated needs are 312ilar or greater in the proposed Freestanding Growth Center. 4. Applications from Rural Centers would be ranked with applications from communities outside of the Rural Centers on the basis of recreational project reVJ*Wr criteria. 5. That projects located in the.Rural Area but sponsored by a Freestandin,: Growth Center or a community in the Area of Planned Urbanisation be ranked in the sponsor community's planning area. Fundingcriteriagiven above shall be applied where appropriate. K. Housing Policy 39 The Council has applied Housing Policy 39 by giving a one third weighting Of an.applicant'a housing ranking as part of the overall Council ranking. This procedure is recommended for FX t82. Community housing points are being revised at this time but will be available for distribution on Marek 1.6 with the application packe.ts., Communities will be given until. May 1 to make comments on their housing points.. RSCOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan .Parks and Open Space Commission schedule a public meating for Monday, February 9, 1981 at 3 p.m. to hear public comments on the proposed FY 182 LAWCON/LCMR recommendati,)ns: 1. That applications Which meet the general guidelines for beat launches on lakes identified on.Table A, be given priority for funding as follows.. a. From the amount (not to exceed 10 percent of total available grant funds) taken "off the top" prior to allocation of funds to planning areae. b. If additional funds beyond this 10 percent are needed in order to fund. all qualifiedboat launch projects, these funds shall be taken from the planning areas in which the boat launch projects are located In proportion to the total project cost of the qualified boat launch projects in each planning area. 2. That funis available after a maximum of 10 percent is allocated off the top for qualified boat launch projects be allocated by Policy Planning Area as follows: 13 Fully Developed Area 49 percent Area of Planned Urbanization ............. 34 percent Freestanding Growth Center ................ 11 percent Rural Area .. ........................ 6 percent with a maximum allocation of $100,000 Note: the 10 percent allocation for boat launch projects Will be used for FY 182 applications. This allocation Will be reviewed prior to any decision regarding its use in future years. Likewise, the allocations by policy planning areas will be reviewed based on comprehensive plans submitted to the Council under the requirements of the Metropolitan.Land Planning,Act.) 3. That the Metropolitan Council adopt project review criteria (Table B) that consider the following: Need for the project. Site suitability. Ability of the applicant to program and use the site effectively; Local fiscal effort for parks and recreation. Consistency of the applicantO3 comprehensive plan (if available) with the Recreation Open Space; Development Guide Policy Plan (November 1980),, including the granting of local consent for regional system components within the community. 4. That all applications meeting or exceeding 60 percent of the "need" and situ suitability/design" points in the project review criteria (Table B) be,eligible for funding. S. That there be a grant maximum of $200,000 in the Fully Developed Area, 150,000 in iie Area of Planned Urbanization, $100,000 for Freestanding Growth Centers, and $50,000 in. the Rural Area. In any planning area the, grant maximum may be doublad if all eligible projects in that area are funded, prior to redistribution of unused.funds to other planning areas in. accord with. Recommendation No. 6. 6. That in the: went any policy planning area has unused funds after all eligible projects (exceed 60 percent) are funded, the excess shall be redistributed to the other, planning areas in proportion to the Policy Planning Area Allocations (Recommendation 2).. T. That. there be a limit of one grant per community in all areas but the Fully Developed Area. In the case where a community has a qualified boat launch project, that community is eligible for an additional grant. 8. -That recreation criteria be given two-thirds weightand housing performance one-third weight for the Council's staff ranking. 9. That the following Metropolitan Development Framework criteria be applied: a. In those parts of the Rural Service Area outside Rural Centers, only applications for passive recreation will be considered. Examples of passive recreation applications are: natural resource areas, picnic areas, tent camping, wayside rests, non -motorized tails boat launches and beaches. Examples of active recreation applications are: athletic fields, court games and playgrounds, and motorized trails. 14 b. All applications from Rural Centers will be considered (active and Pa33ive) C* In setting priorities among Quality projQats from Rural. Centers, the. proposed Freestanding Growth Centers will be given priority over appl.cations,from other Rural Centers when demonstrated needs are. similar or greater in the proposed Vre63tanding Growth Center. d,, Applications from lural Centers would be ranked with considered applications from other communities. in the Rural:Area on the basis Of recreational project review criteria. e. That projects located in the Rural Area but sponsored by a Freestanding Growth Center or a community in the Area,of Planned Urbanization. be ranked in the sponsor community's planning area. Ading criteria given above shall be applied where appropriate DM034A GENERAL GUIDELINES: FOR BOAT LAUNCHES ACCESS FEATURE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1`. Parking space for vehicle" One space for each 20 acres of lake surface with trailer 730 square.feet (15' x SO`) where parking spaces are unmarked 500 square feet (101 x SOS) where parking spaces are marked Z. Boat launch ramp -`Each ramp 12 feet wide Not more than 20 parking spaces per ramp Maximum. of four 'ramps per access site Water depth of two feet within 20 feet of lake shore 3. Turn -around - Dimension - 1:5' x 50' 4, Roadway - `2 feet wide for two-way traffic 11 .feet wide for one. -way traffic S. Buffer zone 700 square feet per parking space ('exclusive ofarking space, ramp, turn -around and road- way) for purpose of screening access from residentialdevelopment OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES 1. Open at least 18 hours a day between 4.00 a.m. and 12.:00 midnight. 2. No fees charged for launching any craft. 3, where an access is provided within a park.,; un.iform.fees shall be charged to a.11, users, regardless of residence. C. No special, regulations that do not apply equally to the riparian boater. SITE SUITABILITY GUIDt"7NES Access site development should not result in majornegativeenvironmental impacts. On some lakes, access opportunities may be limited; to propertieswhichare low and wet, steep, or have other characteristics that make them difficult to develop. Public agencies should try to iicquire accesses which do not require excessive. dredging, filling, and other shoreland modifications or roadway cuts; and fills which may result in erosion or be visually unattractive, 82 TABLEA a Lakes for Public. Access LAWCON/LCMR Priori tLRanki nQ* Maw. Lake and Lound Acreage 1. Ann, Carver 170 », 2. Bass, Hennepin 1.75' 3. Bone, Washington 206 4. Burandt, Carver 138 5. Clear,. Washington 440 6. Crooked, Anoka 130 T. Oftntrevi l l e, Washington, lab » S. Dutch, Hennepin 170 9. Glen„ Hennepin 170 10. Jane, Washington 159 11. Josephine,, Ramsey 110 12. Langdon, Hennepin 168 13., Little Long, Hennepin 104 14. Long, ,Heikepi n 279 15. Lotus. Carver 254 15. Lucys Carver 137 17. Miller, Carver 145 18.. Witchell. Hennapirt 1'16 19, Netta, Anoka 162 20, Olson, Washington 100 21. Orchard, h!"ota 243 22. Pine Tree. Washington 174 23. Sunset, Washington 124 f 24. Thole, Scott 131 » 25. Upper Twin. Hennepin 130 26. Virginia, Carver 239 A The lakes are Listed alphabetically with the map number being the key to the lake location on the up r .qy... raww YwM, a M .r N Maw 1 SIM av" n:w4Wew — rN.A— _ 1 41NwD44 SAIr 1tNltl. 111411116 1 a.r 1ROv( a411oT ANOKA CO. l ? b CaM 11ANal 4lfia Nl#10. t*fCrNAlf. I rAf a 6111V! U _ iIa1` M) laftYaMr{Kaia : . ANINw. ill Pt!YaaILY. Ra{Nn slI2GR l{M 14mitpoi 'OSa=la a fNK C. ti as WON en LAI" 1 AIfRr:aNI 1111INTMa iw« l .ALu1OtRM atY.v r i 1 0 6wa"@Ap m I'iaRM.GY! 0 e. WAcaWA k%AtTQ'v E t due Plus" E CAR R, CO, aR "A t OK A r17j I A: wW a cA RoRmck"71 11ila l A1aaoh VDUND N WWA ,, SINTO«: I '.•— a1ta' MA R4 _ W J WON SliOAN r N. CgttlMaGi I1 iia L l,Au N[w su«OIA. rD11[srtAKt I l 11Na l.atl `T _ A_ali EMU. f tots. IkittrlCR apaiN 11 NRI MAY NY{A r1 WASHIIlGTON CO. ftlllw.rla GRANT ISHO It IC'tilYl) it ""= Pk 101000 t 111AM31V CO. I SrHaT M1. 1 uz I011111 41101! DAKOTA CM 1 l wleaivllltMISNL i AwlaVA4l11T 11.{{..YY., ri.Q . lAal YAYLRNN. ILA 1) wtir lAK[1.N0 CWX Is riwiWRr AfTOa sort&" a!«a E Ot-Ami R NAiL1Ntl. i vc.NullaN 1r"Mr It Lowsrata 6wa"@Ap m 111 0 ago 9019T. ( 1 kArifON. E DOUGLAS IMN I ( r 9414111111Wi l t rtellfi{4, un SliOAN r N. CgttlMaGi I1 iia L l,Au N[w su«OIA. rD11[srtAKt I l 11Na l.atl `T _ A_ali EMU. f tots. IkittrlCR apaiN 11 NRI MAY NY{A r1 WASHIIlGTON CO. ftlllw.rla GRANT ISHO It IC'tilYl) it ""= Pk 101000 t 111AM31V CO. I SrHaT M1. 1 uz I011111 41101! DAKOTA CM 1 l wleaivllltMISNL i AwlaVA4l11T 11.{{..YY., ri.Q . lAal YAYLRNN. ILA 1) wtir lAK[1.N0 CWX Is riwiWRr AfTOa sort&" a!«a E Ot-Ami R NAiL1Ntl. i vc.NullaN ND CHEEK ` SJW*G LANE CatOtT u1WlYFL S tMriN.i ( E rAR5NAN Rlli[RI. 1 . to Will TOR: t. vu LIQ E NIaw' score CO. xr.lAwR{«c[I I 1 t..._ ,r SSLu 11LAAM I NlwMARaEt [alt! 1lIIR 1I l , E t K NAKllty '. 44LLK PLN"t '. N{LSNA CC'OAlt 4RRe A EUREKA } CASTLE ROCK E E W{RR IIago9019T. ( 1 kArifON. E DOUGLAS I ( r 9414111111Wi l 00" Ar( l - l GRIERYAIE: WAr[RFORO iii/// VVv I (fCtQ!A l TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Political Boundaries, 1979 1 MMN 1,1111. ANow" l7 F"C" 1411111,11111111a.. NN LAWS MsaS 10. "ma "u to "" fA. 0 SINN"$" MOitA County BoundarylwWuotaRNAU"oi I[ Mala{ uWa rARc Is rraAu v V1WT1 seat ItIftA MtIS: Y. 11. si{r. a. Gale CLOUD. a """T 6 Municipal BoundaryIamm" a 011161,111, a L~ALL n •ttkame Pa saww.." 14_oftemA Oman a M&"" 10"a PAN naliwn, s A='u'i—_ Township BoundaryrwomanIsMANTN"T .10 "M "I sl LAMA" WANS P Is lwwewLAu IsLANN§NM 8. Y `$2. 11, N/LCrtR LAKE ACCESS ,''AP a TABLE LAWCON/LCMR'PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA. FISCAL YEAR 1982 I'. NEED A. Local 1. Service Area a. Distance b. Population 2. Accessibility 3.. Uniqueness of Project in System. 4. Relevance to Service Area. Population a. Domographic Chart b. Service to Predominant. User Croups 5. Local Park Systom Acreage (acquisition or development) 1 B. Non -Local II. SITE SUITAEILITi/DESIGN A. Suitable for Intended Use 1. Topography 2. Vegetation S. Suitable for Multiple Activities C. Suitable for Multi -Season Use. D. Site Development Plan (to scale) L. Deman Relationships 1, Conflicts Between Recreation Uses 2. facility D031$n:CriteriaL F. Site Intrusions 20 20 5 5 10 40 15 20 25 10 SUS 12 12 i, 4; 1I1. MAINTENANCE AND PROGRAM CAPABILITY 40 A. Maintenance (Staff. Budget, Experience) 2O B. Proarae (Staff, Budget, Experience) 20 IV. OT iEA FACTORS 60 A. FYsoal Effort 35 A., Planning Condition Z:. C.I..P., Budget Adopted.-Fk ,)Jeet included 5 2. Faris Dedication Ordinance 10 3. Resource Regulations 4. Citizen Participation 5 C. Special Emphasis 15 1'. Protects or Provided; Access to Significant Natural Environment or Scenic Resources Acquisition or Development) 15 2. Immediate Action Ne(-,easary (Acqu13ti0n Only) 10) 3.. Improves HealthlSafety Factors of Site Development Only) 5 4., Increases. U3ability for Elderly/Handi'capped Development Only) 5) Y. LACK OF LOCALCONSENTFOR REGIONAL SYSTEM UNITS 20 375 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH,, MINNESOTA 554411. TELEPHONE (612) 559=2600 DOTE February 4, 1981 MEMO TO, P.R.A.0 PROW., Eric Blank, Director of Parks: and Recreation SUBJECT; Carlson Center Annex You tabled action on this item at your December meeting at the request of area residents. Based on this new information (see attachment), staff does not recommend a City owned park. be developed in this area. This neighborhood may wish to form a homeowners association which could own property as open space. EB:bw CITY OP' PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD,, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE: February 10 1981 MEMO TO P. R.A.C. FROM: Jane Sletten SUBJECT: 1981 Winter Recreation Glass Enrollment 1; Activities # of Classes Enrollment Baton 2 17 Tap 5 45 Ballet 5 55 Disco 2 15 Dancel i ne 1 9 Creative Dance 2 24 Gymnastics 8 132 Karate 1 9 Puppetry 1 7 Downhill Skiing 1 62 Teeny Tumblers 4 32 Theatre - Cinderella 1 44 ADULT Activities # of Classes Enro11ment Aerobic Dance 3 68 Ballet 1 6 Bod Squad 2 24 C.P.R. 2 34 X -Country Skiing 4 32 Jazzercise 1 35 Racquetball 4 44 Slimnastics 2 15 Special Trip 1 34 r Other Program Involvement: Gals' Getaway, .Family Fare, Senior Citizens, Adaptive Programs, NW Bell Winter Fun Festival 197911980 Class Comparison for Winter Quart., 1979, Classes Enrollment Classes Enrollment Youth "' 33 Adult 15 2350 29 Number, of Non -Plymouth Residents its Programs Youth Glasses Adult Classes Corcoran 2 Brooklyn Park 2" Delano 10 Corcoran 1 rol den Valley 1 Crystal 4 Hamel; 5, Deephaveh 2 Maple Plain 1 Excelsior 2 Minnetonka 7 Hamel: 6 New Hope 16 Long Lake Robbinsdale 1 Loretto r St. Louis Park 1, Maple Plain 1 Wayzata 26 Minnetonka 6 Mound Total 12' New Hope 4 Robbinsdale 1 St. Louis Park 1 Wayzata. 1 Total 55 y CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PI.YMOUTH BLVD,, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE: February 13, 1981 MEMO TO P. R. A. C. FROM, Eric Blank SUBJECT, February ZE Special Meeting re Mission Hills/Mission Ridge and Timber Shores Attached are copies of the results from.questionnaires sent: to Mission Hills/Mission Ridge residents, Schmidt Lake residents,. and Timber Shores residents. I have also included a copy of the letters sent. to two of these neighborhoods inviting them to the meeting on the 26th. Nancy informed you by phone last ween that the Mission Hills/Mission Ridge meeting will begin at -6:30, and the Timber Shores meeting will begin at 8:30. Since then, there has been a location change. Dura to a scheduling conflict, we wi"ll be meeting in the lunchroom on the: lower level, rather than in the Council Chambers. ER/nh Att. Questionnaires sent: 227 Questionnaires returned.; 42 SCHMIDT LAKE QUESTIONNAIRE Number of Residents TY pe of Facility Requesting this Facility Ball, field 20 Open Space 17 Skating Rink 26 Open Air Shelter 24 Hard Court 17 Play Equipment 33 Trails 28 Volleyball 15 Landscaping 27 Benches 31 Drinking Fountain 2:3 Other: Tennis Court 5 Rest Room 1 Beach 1 Tables 2 BoatLaunch 2 Hockey Wading Pool 3 Household Members Number Senior Citizen 2 Adult 73 High School 6. Junior High 7 Elementary age 29 Pre-schoolers 28' see other side for comments) Prinrity Rankinc 1 2 3 5 4 1 1 O 4 6 g 5 3 1 2 3 13 9 4 7 1 3 1 1 2 1 6 1 3 3 1 Res i dents' Comments Thanks for the opportunity of contributing input into this park." Suggest abundant use: of wood timbers in landscaping treatments - a great outdoor blend with the: neighborhood." "A small gazebo or Japanese tea house structure near entrance to set off park and give us a bit of the old American town square. Also it would be great to have multitudes of crocus bulbs planted under any sod or scattered about thickly near tree areas as is commonly done in the northern European parks. They don't require, care and finish blooming 'before lawn cutting season." "Is there an official name for the park? How about 'Mayflower' to commemorate Flymou.th's tie to the colonial days?" "Some nice rising slopes for winter sledding for the kids and,sled-towing parents." Ques'tionrairet sent: 115 Ques ti on«ai res returned: 38 TIMBER SHORES QUESTIONNAIRE Number of Residents Type of Facility Requesting this Facility Priority Rankin 1 2 3 Open! Air Shelter 10 2 1 Hard Court 19 4 i 3 Play Equipment 24 3 2 5 Trails 27 12 4 4 Volleyball 11 1 4 Landscaping 24 1 8 1 Benches 16 5 Skating Rink 21 2 5 4 Fishing Dock 6 1 Drinking Fountain 14 1 2 Other: Sanitary Facilities - Skating rink w/boards 2 Keep Natural area 5 Picnic Area 1 Tennis 5 Hockey 1 Picnic Tables Household Members Sanior Citizens Adult. High Scho0 Junior High Elementary age Pre-schoolers Number 6 66 11 8 31 10 see other side for comments) Residents' Comments I would like to have it clearly stated if and where we have legal access to Bass Lake. 'We' being citizens of the Arrowood development. There has been much discussion about this." The ponds and adjoining wetlands are important nesting areas for duck and other marsh wildlife. These areas must not be ruined during the planning and making of a city park. The park would be better the way it is than to fill in thl wet.l>and and Cover it with pavement and playground." We are not in favor of a trail. However, if a trail is designated as part of the design, we would not like it behind our home (in our backyard.) Also we feel the map isn't drawn to scale. It appears that the size of the ponds have been misrepresented making a trail around the pond appear to be very desirable. Let's preserve the nesting for Canadian Geese, severaltypes of ducks, muskrats, mink and birds galore. Plymouth is fortunate to have this area - please protect it; it's unique. As of -now, humans have not been able to destroy it." We believe it should be a natural wildlife area with trails and observation p I a tform." Absolutely no public access on this lake - it is not big enough - much too shallow!" Place some berms and landscaping buffers between pond and houses for noise protection. If a narrow strip access to Evergreen is possible, it would give bicycles a way to reach south area streets and park. Allows for the unfavorable County 10 riding of bikes and also Zachary Lane." We are definitely opposed to allowing access to Bass Lake through Timber Shores Park, particularly if a road is constructed through the park itself (from 53rd)!" No open air shelter - it encourages vandalism. The parking lot has become a great late night spot, with broken bottles and cans 1r:4t. Police patroling of area should be increased first." Our greatest concerns are: hooligamism, beer busts - all night, noise, litter, and so-called motorized pleasure toys." TO Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Residents SUBJECT: Mission fills/[Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park Plymouth has planned for a neighborhood park in the area, north of 39th Avenue (map attached). Final planning will begin in January, with construction to begin next Summer. The park will be ready for use in 1982. The city park planning board looks to the neighborhood residents For inputs on how the park should be designed. Historically, when planning other parks, the planning board: has received mixed signals from area residents because the inputs were given in open meetings where everyone spoke their mind. There was no consensus. The Nome Owners' Association is conducting a survey so that all the neigh- borhood resident's views are shared with the park planners. By giving our views to the park board in this way, our park will be one we can all enjoy. What is a neighborhood park.? A neighborhood park is intended for use only by those people living in the immediate area. Improvements typically include such things as: children's play areas with swings, sandboxes and the like, walking/bike/jogging paths, a field for informal ball games, picnic tables, etc. There are no provisions for organized sports nor are there such things as hockey rinks or tennis courts. Some residents have expressed an interest in maintaining natural area(s) in the park. By doing so, the natural beauty of the area would be maintained and the wildlife already present in the area would flourish. This viewpoint is reflectedin the questionnaire, so that it also can be incorporated in the final park plan. Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Nome Owners` Association rJu y Fras. President MISSION HILIoS/MISSION RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD Mission Hills Addition 1Y 1 Z R i t 39 i 1 Mission Ridge • a th N f Mission Mills i Outlot • i Area DMissionends Il 36- Avenue . _._. ,. ___ ._ 1 ME 1— Name Address Association Member? MISSION HILLS/MISSION RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SURVEY I. Park Concept Two different schools of thought regarding the basic park concept have surfaced among neighborhood residents. Descriptions of the two different concepts are summarized below: Natural Area The purpose of a natural area is to provide natural beauty in. the neighborhood and support the area wildlife. Improvements, if any were made, would be limited to the addition of trees and shrubs. The natural area would receive minimal, if any, maintenance i.e., mowing) through the year. Recreational Area The purpose of a recreational area is to provide a place in the neighborhood for neighborhood children (and adults) to play. Improvements might include such things as a children's play area with swings and the: like, paths for walking/biking/jogging, a, field for informal ball games, picnic benches, etc. A recreational area would receive regular maintenance through the year. Below is a list of statements which cover a, range of park descriptions from all natural area to all recreational area. A. Please check the statements below which would be acceptable to your family. B. Please put.the number 'T' next to the statement which best des- cribes the concept your family would most to see adopted for the park area. All natural area Mostly natural area with some recreational area(s) About half natural area and half recreational area Mostly recreational area with some natural area(s) All recreational area No preference C. Comments: 2_ IL. Park Improvements Below is a list of improvements the city considers appropriate for a neighborhood park. A. If you. do not wish to have any improvements, check here and ignore B and C. Go on to page 3. B Please check those improvements your family would like to see included in our park. C. Please indicate your top 3 choices in order by numbering them. 1, 2, 3. Tot lot (wooden play structures with swings, slide, etc.) Paths for walking, jogging, biking Picnic tables, grills Picnic shelter Field for informal ball games such as baseball, football soccer Skating rink (no improvements for hockey) Basketball backboard with ? size black top court Others (please write in) Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park Survey Conducted by: The Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Homeowner's. Association December, 1980 Background The city of Plymouth will begin planning for the Mission Hills/Mission Ridge (MH/MR) Neighborhood. Park. in early 1981. The H1H/MR No-neowner's Association has conducted a poll of neighborhood residents to assist. the city park planning board in designing the park to best suit the resident's desires and needs. One hundred and eighty four of the approximately two hundred and twenty homes (84%) responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire covered three general areas. These were park concept, park improvements and suggestions/concerns. (The questionnaire is included in the attachments for review). The Park Concept section attempted to determine the resident's desires for balance between recreational and natural areas in. the park. The Park Improvement section attempted to determine what improvements (i.e. tot lot, play field', trail's, etc.) residents wanted. The suggestions/conce.,ns section gave residents the opportunity to give inputs which they could not express in the structured. portions of the questionnaire,. Resident's interests in the park concept and park improvements were assessed in two ways: acceptability and preference. Although the two are closely re ated, they do provide differeitt information. Acceptability is used, to identify which concepts and improvements are acceptable to a majority' of residents. Since it was quite possible that more than one concept or a number of improvements would be acceptable to a majority of residents, pref- erence was sought to identify the most acceptable concept and to rank the improvements. 2A SUM ry, The majority of'neighborhood residents will be satisfied if the: park area is designed with a balance between natural and recreational arQa, Preference is strongest for keeping about half of the area, natural. There: is little interest in having the area be totally recreational. The majority of residents would find paths, a tot lot, a play field and a skating rink to be desirable improvements. Little interest was expressed: in picnic tables, grills and a shelter. An often cited issue was poor access to the park area. Residents to the North have no outlots for public access. Even those on the North side with homes adjoining the park have no access due to the water which extends along the north, side. There is only one: outlo.t providing access from the South. The major public access is from Zachary Lane on the east border, where there currently are no sidewalks and the speed limit is 45 MPH. There were many additional worthwhile inputs from neighborhood residents than those summarized here. All results are presented in the following sections of this report. 3 - Results Park Concept The park concept that was acceptable to the majority (52%) of households was "about half natural area and half recreational area".. The "mostly natural" concept. was acceptable to nearly half (46%) of the respondents. All recreational" was acceptable to 11% of households while "all natural" was acceptable to 28% of households, showing there. is a clear interest in. maintaining a natural setting in the park area. Preference scores fell in Line with acceptability, again showing strong interest in maintaining a balance between natural and recreational areas. Acceptability and preference results for park concept are summarized in Table 1. Park Improvements The majority of households said paths.( 7%), a. tot lot (59', 01.), skating rink (58%), and play field (55%) were acceptable to them. Picnic tables, gr-rls, shelter and basketball were acceptable to less than one third of respondents.. Only 9.2% of respondents said they wanted no improvements. When residents were asked to rank their choices for improvements, paths were most preferred in both first and second place categories. Tot Lots, a play field and a skating rink received next highest votes for preference, respectively. (See Tables II and 11b.) "Other" improvements were mentioned by about 10% of the respondents., but received, only 1.2% of first ;:4,ce, votes. There was no one item mentioned more than once in the "others" listed. The other items. mentioned are listed in Table II. 4- Suggestions/Concerns Most of the voluntary comments made by respondents identified concerns. There were two topics frequently mentioned. Access Access to the park area is poor, particularly from the North. People, bordering the park do not like others cutting through their yards. There are no sidewalks in along Zachary Lane. These need to be in when the park is done. Auto access to the. park must be prevented. Parking along Zachary should be prevented by putting up No Parking signs, Safety Must avoid allowing the park to become a teen hangout. Tot lot should not be near, the water. Water areas have steep banks - easy to fall in, hard to get out. Speed limit on Zachary is too high.. Need lower speed limit and/or walking paths on Zachary. All suggestions and concerns. are listed in Tables III and IV. 5 - Recommendation These results are intended to reflect the interests of all. the residents of the Mission Hills/Mission,Rdge neighborhood, not.just the: opinions of the MR/MR Homeowner's Association members. All neighborhood residents sere provided: with a questionnaire. Over 8002 of those were returned and the inputs from 184 questionnaires have been summarized as accurately as possible in this: report. Therefore, it is the- recommendation of MN/MR Homeowner's Association that the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission take these results into Serious considerati:on.when developing their plan for development of the Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park. Summarized and W 'teen by, G Jose R. Leple 395Q Balsam. Lane N Received and Approved by, Judy rakes, President Mission Hills/Mission Ridgy Homeowner's Association C Mission NillVMission Ridge Neighborhood Park Survev Summary. of Results Ta -b-1 e 1. 1. Park. Concept A. Check those concepts which are acceptable to your family:: Base = 184) Concept responding households all natural 28 mostly natural 45 about I/2 and 1/2 52 mostly recreational 35 all recreational 11 no preference 0.5 B. Which of these concepts would be of best interest to your family? Base - 184) Corse t. % responding households all natural 16.3 mostly natural 25.5 about 1/2 and 1/2 33.7' mostly recreational 20.6 all recreational: 2.7 no preference 1.2 1,06.0 Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park Survey Summary of Results jabie Ila ITa Park Improvements A, Do not: want any improvements; 9.2% Base = 184,) B. Check the improvements which would be acceptable to your family: Base = 184)' Improvementresponding households tot lot 59 paths 77% picnic tables/grills 18% shelter 10%. play field 55% skating rink 58% basketball 23% others* 9& tennis court horseshoe pit. cross country trails hockey rink/warming house volleyball court sled riding hill equipment for handicapped all were mentioned only once. Mission Hills/Mission Ridge Neighborhood Park Survey Summary of Results Table Hb. 11. Park Improvements (continued) C. Identify your family's top three choices in order of preference. Improvements of -place votes 1st n 3rd tot lot 29.3 18.4 14.6 paths 42.5 26.6 16.1 picnic tables/grills 1.8 11,4 10.8 shelter 0.6 1.3 2.3 play field 15.0 22.8 18.5 skating rink 8.4 15.8 30.8 basketball 1.2 3.7 6.1 others* 1.2 0. 0.8 100.1 UO.O TO Base) 167) 158) 130) other" receivingfirst place votes was tennis. other" receiving, eceiving third place vote was horseshoe pit. 1, k. moi` Mission Hills/Mission Ridge: Neighborhood.Park Survey Summ§= of Results Table III Suggestions The comments and Suggestions made by respondents are provided below. Some have been condensed to simplify reporting. All question aires. have been retained by the Homeowners' Association and are avail- able for review by residents or city officials. Develop the park,for children, not teens or adults Incorporate a fitness course Integrate park trails with the city trail system Homeowners' Association members could,donate time to plant trees and shrubs to reduce and speed up construction, Need waste containers A berm with shrubghalong Zachary, like the one at the corner of. Zachary and 36 , would be nice. Play area should be off outlot on 39th Put benches. along walkways Some thought should be given to lighting the paths Put paths between natural areas and recreational areas as a buffer Upgrade natural area, if necessary, to support and en- courage wildlife.. I Mission. Hills/Mission Ridge Neighborhood,Park Survey Summary of Results Table IV Concerns Concerns expressed by respondents are provided below. Some have been condensed to simplify reporting. Some concerns were expressed by more than. one family. Multiple mentions, are indicated, by the number in parenthesis. All questionnaires have been retained by the Homeowners,' Association for review by residents, or city officials. 5)- Worried about teens drinking-, don't. want a teen.hangout. 4)- Make sure there is no auto access to the park. 4)- Need good. access from the South 4)- How will people get into the park from the North? Need an. an access and a bridge, 6) Don't, allow parking along Zachary. Put up No Parking signs. 3)- Need Baths along Zachary completed.Don't want kids on or near the road. Don't want neighbor kids cutting through our yard to get to the park. 2)- Don't want organized sports in the park. 1) Keep tot lot away from water, Plater areas all have very steep banks easy to fall in, hard to get out. 1)- Park costs- now and in the future. 1)- Mosquitos are terrible now. City should control mosquitos in natural areas. T)- Speed limit on Zachary is too high. 1)- Need playground signs on Zachary when park is done. 4•. t t+' V rl 1 r' rf• r, 46 7R sem` r' V r / 73 f 1 it roee • l r _ r r M • i ` ir. et `' ` ' f, r h; • r . - 3((3) "4 t. , isIREr tz WA r f , R ` Vit. r. t :%l. i• M ., ao ff 16 14 M» '/' J ` `. ! } Y f Y qtr s, 44 1 a lop ACRE4GE f HQ 1 S E k; Q SW' 1/4 1FE. c.E. s 41,70' F 1 Q1029e.4Q l Sq. 1.31" 42,G k l0.34: .!0•S • i Y OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD.; PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55,141 TELEPHONE (612) 559-28W OATS; December 220 1980 MEMO TO: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission FROM Eric Blank, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT Neighborhood Involvement Process Park Design Before we can proceed with the design of Timber Shores, Mission and Schmidt Neighborhood Parks, the City Council would like an outline of the process We intend to follow for citizen involvement. Listed below are the steps that t would recommend you consider. 1. Send a written questionnaire to every home in the walking neigh- borhood. 'this survey will be used to determine the preferences; of the kinds of facilities the neighborhood would like to see developed. One of the things we will do is give then a check list of the more typical facilities that are found in a neigh- borhood park. We would explain that facilities such as hockey rinks and lighted.ballfields belong in playfields. We would also send then a sap of the park and ask them to draw a sketch of how they think this park should look. 2. This information willbe given to the design, consultant. From this and other pertinent data, the architect will prepare two or three concept plans. 3. 'these plans will be presented to the neighborhood by FRACstaff and the consultant at ,a public meeting. The citizens will! be asked to cormenL on the good and bad points of each plan. s. Rased on the results of this previous. meeting, the consultant would then prepare one final concept plan. This concept plan. would be presented; to the neighborhood at a PRAC meeting. Based on the results of this meting, the concept plan as drafted or modified would be sent to Council for their review. With Council's approval, final plans and specifications would, be ordered. The proposed; time line for this rork:would be as follows: Zanuary a RAC review neighborhood involvement plan and'selection of'design consultant. January 19 City Council review and approve neighborhood involvement plan and selection of design consultant.: Now to PRAC Re: NeiohbQnccad, Involvement. Program December 22, 1980 Page January -19-30 Questionnaires are mailed out to each park neighborhood and returned. February -20 Concept plans are prepared by consultant February Neighborhood meetings are: held with each of the three neighborhoods to review concept plans. March 12 We fina,1 concept plans for each Site will be presented at a special PRAC meeting on Thursday, March 12, with each of the neighborhood groups. March 23 e .anal concept plan for each of the three sites will be presented to the Council. Final plans and specifications are ordered. April 20 Final plans and specifications approved. Bid date set.. May 18 + Council awards bids. M25 Work starts. A recommendation for the selection of a consultant will be made at the PRAC meeting. We were still reviewing Design Consortium's proposal at the time this agenda was mailed out: to you.