HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-11 PTRCChair:
Steve Scott
(exp. 2011)
Committee Members:
Cindy Garretson (exp. 2011)
Phil Kramlinger (exp. 2012)
Don Messerly (exp. 2012)
Chuck Michaelson (exp. 2011)
Nancy O'Malley (exp. 2011)
John Peck (exp. 2013)
Harold Petersen (exp. 2013)
Rich Straumann (exp. 2013)
Council Liaison:
Ed Werner
VQT.HILLS
Parks, Trails, and
Recreation Committee
April 19, 2011
6:30 p.m.
Arden Hills City Hall
1245 W. Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
651.792.7800
www.ci.arden- hills.mn.us
City .Vision
A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness,
and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and play.
Agenda
CaII to Order
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES
A. February 15, 2011 Regular Meeting
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Valentine Park Improvement Discussion — Paul Paige — HKGi
B. Joint Meeting Debrief
C. Other Unfinished Business
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Pulte Home Development Park Dedication Requirement Discussion - Meagan Beekman, City Planner
B. Park Bench Location Discussion
C. Newsletter Articles from the PTRC
D. Other New Business
5. REPORTS
A. City Council Report
B. Public Works /Parks and Recreation Report
6. NEXT MEETING
A. Tuesday, May 17 — 6:30 p.m.
A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting.
Agenda Item 2A:
Minutes for Approval: February 15, 2011
N EHILLS
Draft
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Scott called the February 15, 2011, meeting of the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee to
order at 6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Steve Scott, Committee Members Phil Kramlinger, Harold
Petersen, and Rich Straumann.
OTHERS PRESENT: Park and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson, Council Liaison Ed Werner,
Public Works Director Terry Maurer, and former Committee Member Donald Messerly.
ABSENT: Committee Members Cindy Garretson, John Peck, Chuck Michaelson, and
Nancy O'Malley.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Committee Member Petersen motioned to approve the agenda as presented, seconded
by Committee Member Kramlinger. The motion carried unanimously.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 11, 2011
MOTION: Committee Member Straumann motioned to approve the January 11, 2011, minutes
as presented seconded by Committee Member Petersen. The motion carried
unanimously.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. 2011 Goal Approval
Chair Scott informed the committee that Ms. Olson did incorporate the changes
suggested at the previous PTRC meeting into the 2011 goals and asked the members if
they had any other changes or suggestions.
MOTION: Committee Member Straumann motioned to accept the 2011 PTRC goals as
presented seconded by Committee Member Petersen. The motion carried
unanimously.
B. Facility Fee Discussion
Ms. Olson recapped that Council did give the PTRC approval to look into charging fees
for use of facilities. She recapped that at the last meeting she had heard from the baseball
association and they had asked that the City wait until 2012 before charging fees so they
could budget for the expense. She stated she did meet with NS SA, the soccer
association, and they informed they have some Capital Improvement money that they
wanted to spend and asked if there were any projects that could use funding. Ms. Olson
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes February 15, 2011
Page 2
stated she informed the NSSA that at this point there really is no need for an additional
field because enrollment for soccer and other programs has gone down. Since the City
will be acquiring Hazelnut Park, the NSSA did express interest in giving a donation
possibly for irrigation of the field. The City had looked at the cost of irrigating when
they first looked at purchasing the land and the estimate came in at around $21,000-
$26,000 for the project. Ms. Olson felt that if the NSSA wanted to give a significant
contribution for the irrigation, this might be something that the PTRC would like to look
at for the CIP. The NSSA will be bringing back a proposal regarding the donation for
irrigation after talking to their board.
Committee Member Kramlinger asked if Council was only looking for the PTRC's
recommendation on going forward with this or if they also wanted the PTRC to set the
fees?
Ms. Olson stated they could discuss how in depth Council wanted the PTRC to go with
this at the March meeting.
Chair Scott indicated he feels that unless the City is faced with a real cash flow issue, and
since residents already pay tax dollars to maintain the fields, he would rather not charge
fees.
Chair Scott indicated if it does come to the fact that some fee structure is mandated, he
would like to recommend that they focus on the adult activities rather than the youth
groups.
Ms. Olson indicated this would be brought back for analysis after the March joint
meeting.
C. Valentine Park Improvement Process
Mr. Maurer recapped that when he attended the last PTRC meeting they had talked about
the second drainage report which was presented to Council. The Council had accepted
that study and gave direction to move forward to expend the money in the CIP in the
amount of $50,000 for play structure replacement and $260,000 for other drainage /park
improvements. He indicated in January he went to Council and presented the memo
which is included in the packet under agenda item 3C. Mr. Maurer summarized the
process. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that after the public participation they
plan to meet with the PTRC on recommendations and then take those recommendations
to Council for direction on proceeding with the plans and specs, and then once again
meet with the PTRC on the completion of plans and specifications. The process is set up
so that construction would not start until later this year making the park available during
the summer months and also allowing enough time for the process. Public Works
Director Maurer informed that he and Ms. Olson had met with a park planner earlier that
day and will be looking for a proposal from them. If the proposal is appropriate they plan
on embarking on public participation in the form of an Open House and will include
some kind of questionnaire in the Open House notice that the residents can send back
with options for the park.
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes February 15, 2011
Page 3
D. Other Unfinished Business
Committee Member Straumann indicated that Ramsey County will be placing 300
benches throughout their regional parks and this would include the Tony Schmidt
Regional Park.
Ms. Olson recapped the 1,000 Bench Grant Program through Active Living Ramsey
County. This was a program they looked at a couple of years ago and because of the
requirements of the grant it was not cost - effective to move forward with it. They are
making changes to the requirements and then this may be something the committee
would like to revisit. Ms. Olson indicated that they will also have $5,000 from the Bench
Implementation Program in 2011 and also have one donated bench they will be placing.
She will bring back a map with placement of the benches to see if the committee agrees
with the placement.
Chair Scott asked if they would be doing the trail tour before placing the benches. Mr.
Maurer indicated they could always order the benches and wait until after the trail tour to
place.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. PTRC /Council Joint Work Session Agenda
Chair Scott mentioned that their next meeting is the work session on Monday, March 21,
and that since this falls on the Monday before their regularly scheduled PTRC meeting;
they will not have the PTRC meeting.
Ms. Olson indicated the packet includes a draft agenda for the March work session. She
and Mr. Maurer impressed upon the committee that this is their meeting to find out where
the Council would like the PTRC to spend their time and energy. Goal Setting, CP Rail
Mural Contest, Valentine Park Improvements and CIP Input are suggested topics. In
May the staff will start looking at the next 5 -Year CIP and she would like the committee
to bring forth any ideas for improvements. Mr. Maurer indicated what the PTRC needs
to discuss with Council is what investment they feel should be allocated to the park
system over the next 5 to 10 years and what they feel is a reasonable investment in parks
relative to the other areas they need to spend money on. He indicated the trail
maintenance plan will also be on the agenda this year and any maintenance to the trails is
also a CIP improvement that would fall under the parks designation. Another item of
discussion would be in regards to trail expansion, which would fall under the CIP, and if
Council feels the PTRC should look for grants for specific trials or if the PTRC should
look for grants wherever they can find them.
Committee Member Straumann asked where things were at regarding reconstruction of
Old Snelling. Mr. Maurer indicated Council has all the information but basically has put
on hold until the CIP is done to see if Old Snelling is a priority versus some of the other
neighborhood streets. Mr. Maurer indicated he does not expect Council to discuss this
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes February 15, 2011
Page 4
anymore until probably later this summer or early fall when they start formulating the
next five years of the CIP.
Committee Member Straumann indicated he feels that since they have the underpass they
should really pursue aggressively to get something done. Discussion ensued regarding a
bridge over Hwy 10.
Mr. Maurer stated he believes the PTRC should get together with Mn/DOT, the bicycle
people, Ramsey County, Shoreview, and any other surrounding communities, to work on
some kind of regional plan that talks about where to have crossings of highways and
interstates. Committee Member Straumann asked if Mn/DOT had started the study from
35W to Rice Street. Mr. Maurer indicated he did meet with MnIDOT the other day and
they indicated their pedestrian/bicycle /trail people were talking about it.
Ms. Olson indicated she and Mr. Maurer put together a draft agenda for the joint work
session based on our 2011 goals for discussion purposes and asked if anyone had
anything else they wanted to add or change and how they wanted to present it.
Chair Scott asked Ms. Olson to send out a follow -up e -mail reminding everyone that next
month's meeting is the work session and not the regular Tuesday meeting, and to include
what is expected of the committee at that meeting. Chair Scott volunteered to work with
staff to put together a PowerPoint presentation. On March 15 the members will meet to
work on the presentation.
Mr. Maurer felt the members should narrow down the list to the three top priorities in
order to make sure those topics are discussed.
Committee Member Straumann felt they should also look at their goals with Ramsey
County since there are now legacy funds available for some of the trails and some of the
trails are within Tony Schmidt Regional Park.
B. Other New Business
None
5. REPORTS
A. Public Works/Parks and Recreation Report
Ms. Olson indicated the ice rinks were currently closed but may reopen Friday depending
on the weather.
Ms. Olson stated that she and Mr. Maurer have been looking at different grants that are
available. They looked at the Legacy Grant and are looking at doing a segment on Old
Snelling. They are working with Ramsey County to discuss options and are having
engineers look at the possibility of going from County Road E through the CP Rail
underpass to Lake Johanna or E2. Ms. Olson stated that because the trail is required to
be regionally significant, this is the only trail that could apply for the Legacy Grant.
They are also looking at the local connection trail (the DNR) and are looking for options
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes February 15, 2011
Page 5
for that as well as Lexington Avenue from Arden Plaza to Ingerson Park. Ms. Olson
asked if the committee had any comments or suggestions on either of these segments and
informed that both of those grants are due by March 31, 2011, and that funds would have
to be expended by the end of 2013. She is waiting for Ramsey County's partnership
because she does not want to do anything to take away from the grants the county is
going for. Jody Yungers and Greg Mack, of Ramsey County, are going to get back to her
with their thoughts on the Legacy and Local Trail Connection grants.
Ms. Olson mentioned that the Recreation Guide for Spring /Summer will be in the mail
the end of February /beginning of March.
B. City County Report
Council Liaison Werner indicated he attended the meeting with Pulte Homes and that
residents on Keithson Drive had concerns about the road being extended since the road
would be close to their homes.
Mr. Werner indicated that the previous night he attended a meeting regarding the high-
density housing development planned for County Road F. The $10 million project
consists of a 47 -unit development on 2.75 acres. He mentioned the City is in the process
of looking at GAP financing for the project.
Council Liaison Werner also informed that at the Council Retreat Saturday, February 12,
discussion mainly revolved around TCAAP and the Viking Stadium issue.
6. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for March 21, 2011, time to be announced later. There will also
be an informal meeting on March 15, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. for those members who would like to
assist with the PowerPoint presentation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Committee Member Petersen moved to adjourn, seconded by Committee Member Straumann.
The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Agenda Item 3A:
Valentine Park Improvement Process
IWENHILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 19, 2011
Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Valentine Park Improvement Discussion
Background
In 2008, WSB was hired by the City to conduct a drainage analysis of the Valentine Park Area.
The purpose of this study was to identify sources of flooding in Valentine Park and to provide
solutions that would reduce or eliminate the flooding. The City Council retained Bolton and
Menk, Inc. to render a "second opinion" on the WSB study. Staff presented the findings to the
City Council and PTRC at meetings in December 2010.
On January 31, 2011 the City Council approved a process with a tentative schedule on how to
proceed with park improvements in conjunction with needed drainage enhancements. The
tentative schedule was as follows:
February 7, 2011
March 15, 2011
March/April
April 19, 2011
April 25, 2011
May -July
July 19, 2011
July 25, 2011
August 29, 2011
September- November
June 1, 2012
Request quotes from selected park planners
Review park improvement options and public participation
with PTRC
Implement public participation process
Review public input and staff recommendations with PTRC
Review PTRC recommendation regarding park
improvements with City Council
Plan Preparation
Review plans and specifications with PTRC
Authorization to proceed to bidding
City Council consider Award of Construction Contract
Construction
Construction Complete
The 2011 CIP has a total of $310,000 for improvements to Valentine Park. Hoisington Koegler
Group Inc. was retained to lead the park improvement process. A Public Open House was held
on April 7, 2011 at City Hall from 6:00-7:30 p.m. 233 residents were mailed invitations and it
Page 1 of 2
04192011 Valentine Park Improvement Process. doc
was posted on the City website. An online survey was available for all residents to give input on
potential improvements. 53 residents completed the survey either online or at the open house.
28 people signed in at the Open House. Attached are the results of the online survey
(Attachment A) and comments received at the Open House (Attachment B) for review. HKGi
will be in attendance at tonight's meeting to present these findings and go over the next steps in
the process.
Requested Action
Staff is looking for the PTRC to make a definitive recommendation to the City Council on what
amenities and activities should be in the park. The layout will not be determined until after the
drainage analysis is complete and therefore is less of a focus at this point. This recommendation
will then be brought forward to City Council at a May meeting (date to be determined) for City
Council consideration to proceed to design.
Page 2 oft
04192011 Valentine Park Improvement Process. doc
Attachment A:
Online Survey Results
Arden Hills - Valentine Park
ry
:i Ji :%.CYO
17.0% 9
13.2% 7
0 3
62.3% 33
0
7.5% 4
`` 1,:g.:,' ', Y,' 'n•5 9;..!ti 'k{,: ` :r'y ;i�°'} a
3.8% 2
13.2% 7
28.3% 15
0
54.7 /0 29
1 of 15
..................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
O
79.2 /0 42
3.8% 2
13.2% 7
3.8% 2
17.6% (9) 21.6% (11) 60.8% (31) 51
14.0% (7) 24.0% (12) 62.0% (31) 50
55.6% (25) 28.9% (13) 15.6% (7) 45
39.1% (18) 30.4% (14) 30.4% (14) 46
28.6% (14) 40.8% (20) 30.6% (15) 49
22.2% (10) 24.4% (11) 53.3% (24) 45
25.0% (11) 54.5% (24) 20.5% (9)
Other (please specify)
44
16
2 of 15
: . < grag#
WIM$`.'v�:`�:} :``:':. . /%i. . .... . !fir,`,'.. .
' :ii:;:��:�•,'. �� �iii:� �!i:�i:�i$5''iiiiY:i�:�ii:��: r
: .b}�;�' y/{: f'f�#%i�rf'��:#'i.3A*l,°.i/.,¢� y77.#'` i7'' 37iY°i��liY�.•:x:/..�li> "s^}}.. iiiil�. iY•:'71:.J3A":t°rr�'iY..
...N�;:..: i ?f::l.'.v ,. .. .. v . . .............. 4 .............................. ............a.............,a... a......... a...... . ..., . ii�
:.. ..•.:.:. �'•.:' �; :: y.'` ��A. �A A—i3"'��YXh�i..:.:�:"n,§'rlr A''A . •�7r`+.D"',3A/,r�*i'i.D*,):fi*t7 A',D'
....,;....: 3.! �::. �.. 1•..•..;:::;:; r;; rr: � :,:�,r":xt;•>• <• >:: /;•;:•::•;>:•;;,'•:•:;:;?:: �% f�;.,: t:/ �s; s=:,.::•:;.::..;: :,!?.'!}�'�y'.;:;..•yj..�J%.'<�
................................................................... ...............................
}Y{XfiyrllVY ir�h/3yi/4§ F%i <>� i' / /t} At>s Y�3iY <!/i/ fiYrrJrir s: iY ii u sl/ii%T kffi /!s3
.::.:.::.:: :....:................::::::...
W .%!/.i.if*E..4.,W :! W%i.I /I.//!/ -/i:%! . /i °:! /i%/1 %/fit /�99%?w°S
4 r*'i9f?: >'O';i:':.
INOICKTVERM
Y:::::i:::N IpMe.:4,51:i40;;WROgi,,f***- %n ..Y/1li':*!!/J%%S<: f /rry:::•.!! °� i '
0
94.3 /0 50
73.6% 39
60.4% 32
32.1% 17
60.4% 32
0
39.6 /0 21
13.2% 7
67.9% 36
54.7% 29
24.5% 13
28.3% 15
17.0% 9
39.6% 21
Other (please specify)
16
3 of 15
43
22
>:r >:r; . ,r s.A' fl' S.
::.:::.::.•::•:::::•::::.:./..! 1.1 �.:.:!%% l.{J.:... �, F,:.. 1,} r.` i/. �/.. �YJ. 3,`. �+ 1°!% �/ �/.•% ir9/•<. Yr, �.;,; 5,'. fr: �Y%/:. J• 1.•%}/.•?/ f'/ f,.'•% �' ffSr: iffi! Y A lsi' ��fY,.../ �:./.% .:::.::..3..I.'.'Y:.�i':....�.. f/..• fi.,+ i/• rrfS,:W,�Y...F.,.,.::2•.
7fr'. fG9/. D/`:': FnF., fiY: 9l i': 9'T.. 9i9. n, n..• i' �r33fi�` rs ?r,91ln�F//1:':;?"i'/lfR'S :,svf ;sr`•4'/i atrc>rN f> rra n' A' : g• > „ ::s,. ^r,•Y.•;{; vi`...gC,,:>rc•',.. , {
::::::::::::::::: 1...:::.::::::...................:...../' i..................,/ r,:,:::.:.:.: ��::,•:::::: f:;?.`? t..:.:.:::::: 9. �:. s'".. �'.! 7J,. )/.:.�/.k. :!�iJ/:,!:fi. h?' i% PI.°.. fF:} P/. x..:.:...:......., r.., .,.:......:ff7/,$�Frs?.a.::s.•.
97.0% 32
97.0% 32
4 of 15
5 of 15
6 of 15
7 of 15
8 of 15
9 of 15
10 of 15
11 of 15
12 of 15
15 of 15
Attachment B:
Open House Results
Open Ho
Apt- 17th ,201
What are your thoughts on the preliminary inary concepts displayed? Wha
each of the concepts? Do you have a preference?
Concep
4- 1 /2. ac ball a ur+ wvovId 66, befter. 1,--ke rain erciens.
Nol I ac all (...our r'i on Free. lines. Ve, noel
The fail, chetfer, added parki
cowl' a'k ball cur a . 1 r
s you like o
dislike about
ovf. dart r
'1. 0
f
4- 1 -think. vvem, or vat i nfr on what The am
16o de✓e!o F ecd
X11 bat a1I
°' -too pardn Trhe, bail frld dotes not need to be
0frne5. The back-fit-ball covvi- iS too c.Joca to ho+,SciS.
1'd pvfrr of have, file a i tre teld, if prvth
don't Think. vve need an ice rink., 1 didn't- cee myth
-the 1513 coca - i o c,loce in The hovcec (noice). 'a
and rain . r' c, 1- +he vvater ouf o e
4- 1 like The
nice, view
Of OC� ,
ff Thr iC
I - is , 1
arera,
- back all &ovrf becavce, 1 play backettiali. 1 alto Ii,
vv000lc
cc Il +a it,
or non wall . 1 Tin
j �
ext.,4 have The 1orir pan
&Teneniffi li :r. Tip o on by+ no+ az a6o - ba (tall courf. - ale ciori}f lie 19 prd 1lr. Pon'1- do
hi fhe woodc weld ar-d fo waft..4i kick vv/ wafer ' . nd co near.
look. : Not cum how m to eb, l td yen Ked. love +he .r 1 look in
Pon " - like 2.0 Pon' li la b, all -ov± - 1acaI l
1 lid: -f- prmina}1 dila.n
-fie ho rind i c i o 4 +ion. The, can: and the ne v landse-a ►ink.,
1 pvfrr Mid r. n auce 1 pIa plai 17acetiall hem. 1 al co i vie+ often he and Tic &eft is
cured for ice, rink.. 1 would alto Deaf- plaiirg..backelliall here one hoop' are iroprov .
Etc chonm arm rye ally 5.reaf. 1 like e 6acall covrf
C-onc,e,
---ARQENH ILA Valentine ParK Mister Plan
Concept 2:
6offi ver1
1,4k. The
0
4
The ope,n field ad iemalier parkin5,_ to1 .
und and The, c-ourf.
r +hie ,lan I -I- +he, (a round evvin evvalic.
die concept vvould 6e, rytorr, of a nei5bborhooci' parts vviihovi- a formal tiall field +here wovld leee viei-
+Orc.
V C.,3Y1
4,11
yoci cont-epi';, tvt- prefer concept 2.. (NIP! need 1/2 kvfball COW+ mom ac.,colvimoclafi r email
kick.
Wovict pmfer la
co roue im
FiIfr fhic
41#
r yr,en area. 1-ike II paild lot. ‘441,e4iever pleace pvt frail on 11-wi 1 €2. Ifc
otri- one,.
Fle,ace, niaac foyw4 run-off
•
poeilionin. of file parkin5._ and +he, pond e r accurvivlaiin wafer. 1--i1C e, The ffacc infie,Id. The, foci-
lionifw of -tile platiscound k reaconale,
4- M fircfc'mnc-c' I likr? The/ cnialle-r Park-in lak I +11c' itlformal fId, I Think. it iC nVire" trViii—purpocc- for
mom are. 1'01 like -the r btackcft,all court- fie,re, 1..-ooice lkr The, plr,und vvill bee, ec-yr,eneci from Th
Yle'i5tit'OrC fireAr,C, I'Vhial IC ood. I+ 'IC pr-e--t+i c4oe -1-0 come, frioucc. 1 like, The, bric1 ,.. c and 6,oardvvalk_g.
w can aJd 1-11c4e, Pro +railc coon. aionjr,1-ake, Valenfine, le,oaci co peopk wfti kicic c-an
The park.
I do* prerfeh- tIi maller 6,geke4-ba11 cow+. Tilerel; alto vo bre" hotiee. one k riorc- advif and l'rr a
k.:101 and -file ?f The lace, we c.-an vo.911c, -17).
13/0/1'+ 1ifrf, plat,e4Yle4lt of Would a Ii-1- 'IVY-their frOrli horoec.
•
r
triA, will b.e, a 1iit5.improve4v1ewil! have done a nit,c, jot, of plannin cks-Fiii_rc vvi
covid im,m4e,d.
I like- Tic 64, te,,,1": ci?)r no+ 17, fake. avva 'Hie, view o Th Ia.
OWf The, cizZ, 0 The, 69cke4311 COVY± We, The,
*
v loc-a-lion on con 1
-ARmHius
Valentine Park Master Plan
What type/style of playground would you prefer?
Traditional. Deck and Post Style
ClimbfflgortetStyteWoDecks
bination Style
•
•
•
....
•
•
Traditional Style
Climbing/Net Style (no decks) Style
ed or Nature Style
11 Combination Style
No preference
RZEN HILLS Valentine ParK Master Plan
Do you have a color theme preference?
Primary/bright colors
.
Earth tone/muted colors
No preference
General comments?
Nee"ci cwi
3g. ov+ firm
Thank.
OV
r in ,ark,
1 na'tural frld - od for fv-icke-, coct,e-r, +ovc,-1-1 football, v fitraf'» fric&e-e, ic popular. t don't
want file, playouncl cvvin or bacfc6*all court ri#1+ on mi properfi 1in. Niovc, i+ incide. +he, pc-me4-er cide,
141311C,
iCe, cisr lei I+; 'tic+
nd
file- kick.
2.. (Al te101 and crral
10-1-.
COV
-bali on
-Fitre,! fvt-
111 neck-c1 and drain
1-on6 color c would be# ae4heffic,alli appe-alin. A co
6,141164 ci-rv&-tvre,c ic and wovld c&rv6 man
4- 1 hope, -I-hc#m vvfI a 12ank, of cwinc. I -think. icicic of all alt ac dc love, -the-wi. f c
of c,v6rithin,. p1 1-he, park,. Malbe, a candbox for locloile#K? II- would tic, -17) have a
•
look; The, la 4 rd ar,yric; an if and wa-1-6.11
e,,C (of) o n and
cwiri
4- f -1-hini(. The, le, or t-orytbina-fion c be,c+ tiez-avc& 1 e.njoj c„linit,in and ac-five , civff bvt-f-e,r
Than de-cifcc. 1 think. -the, ilfr,e, flouce, and -the, r 6,ackeittg11 court ic a (911e.f.,-,4-
ilovv-up ethin5_
11-tic vt, iov for 1:n5_ Otir park- Would alco 1Ze a Cmaile-r
&fle,nview 6,our1-/CITle-nvie.w AV. re,'ckrr1-' whci ou do ncf cleci
17on)-1- 1fr c.,IirvA
1C 1001c,c Clan tic
1 ceie- frJd cMmn Q +he" 5homvie,w
ark.
4- 1 didn't cezt ani and of The 5wintic chovid intorporalr,ci in-to the, plan. The crv4 ce>+ cAir-
ce-e- be, if i0-1- ve4.
4- I.:Ike, The. -fre-e- chown o conc.e, 1 board. I like, 'the, cado us#dcr 1iie plai5round. ( would like, to ce,e,
a fracii-tional clifelnaityr31 plawound. k -1-wo ceafe-r cw4 for advi-i-c -to cif and mad or vvhile,
fhe,ir kick.
told should
a ?art&
0
0 ,0
al fa ,o-11-1 ovn
gjENHILLS
r
and older
Valentine Park Master Plan
Agenda Item 3B:
Joint Meeting Debrief
HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Joint PTRC /City Council Meeting Debrief
Background
The March 21, 2011 joint PTRC /City Council meeting went well. There was good discussion
on all topics on the agenda. The City Council agreed to the 2011 committee goals presented at
the meeting, expanding some and giving more specific direction on others. Minutes of the
meeting are attached for review (Attachment A). Staff revised the goals based on direction from
the meeting (Attachment B).
Discussion
The PTRC may want to take this time to discuss their thoughts on how the meeting went,
consider expanding their work plan based on ideas shared at the meeting and any other related
discussion that the committee is interested in.
04192011 Joint Meeting Debrief f. doc
Attachment A:
Minutes from March 21, 2011 Joint PTRC/City Council Meeting
��EN HILLS
Approved: April 11, 2011
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — 5:00 P.M.
AND
CITY COUNCIL & PARKS, TRAILS & RECREATION COMMITTEE
JOINT WORK SESSION MEETING — 6:00 P.M.
MARCH 21, 2011
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the City
Council Work Session meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Nick
Tamble and Ed Werner. (Councilmember Tamble arrived at 5:09 p.m.)
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Members Steve Scott, Harold
Peterson, Phil Kramlinger, Nancy O'Malley, Charles Michaelson, and John
Peck (Committee Member Peck arrived at 6:31 p.m.).
Absent: Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Members Cynthia Garretson and
Rich Straumann.
Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer;
Parks & Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; Deputy Clerk Rebecca Brazys; and Parks,
Trails & Recreation Committee applicant Don Messerly.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried
unanimously (4 -0).
1. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
There were no comments or requests at this time.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 21, 2011 5
concurrent with the interchange project and to totally fund it with Trunk Highway
dollars. This is an estimated $400,000 project.
6. On Condition #14, dealing with the County Road E Bridge, MnDOT states the bridge
could be advance constructed and commits to working with the County and City to
develop the project. Ramsey County's letter indicates they are working with MnDOT
on the project, will be applying for STP funding, and the application will include
pedestrian facilities the City sought in 2009.
Public Works Director Maurer stated that Staff believes MnDOT has moved a significant
amount from their original response to the City's 14 conditions and that this is the best deal we are
likely to get with the commitment to making bridge improvements and getting potential assistance
with the funding of County improvements on Lexington Avenue. He explained that Staff would
like direction from Council regarding the noise wall and whether or not MnDOT's current
response is acceptable for granting Municipal Consent. He then stated if the Council is not
agreeable, then they would move forward with the Appeals Board process.
Councilmember Holden questioned what the Appeals Board considers.
Public Works Director Maurer explained that the Appeals Board will only look at things in the
lay -out and pedestrian facilities would be outside that scope. He added that the State
Transportation Commissioner can ignore the Appeals Board ruling if it would be in the best
interest of the state transportation system to do so. State law gives the Commissioner that
authority for projects on the Interstate system.
Councilmember Holden stated that if the City decides not to proceed with a noise wall then that
should be communicated to the residents in that area.
Mayor Grant stated that it was 6:00 p.m. and time for the Joint Work Session with the PTRC.
Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Tamble seconded the motion to move to
item 3.A on the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 -0).
3.A 2011 PTRC Goals and Work Plan
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Chairman Steve Scott commented that more people
work in Arden Hills than live in the City and that there is full use of all recreation opportunities
within Arden Hills. He stated that the number one amenity in cities is their recreational and green
space area. He stated there are 14 parks in Arden Hills. He then asked each PTRC member to
introduce themselves and talk about where they live in Arden Hills.
Committee Chairman Scott then reviewed the 2011 Goals for the PTRC:
GOAL 1. Review and analyze the impact of establishing a fee structure for field use
in the City and bring a recommendation to Council.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 21, 2011 6
Councilmember Holden stated she doesn't like having to charge fees, but there are non - residents
that use our fields and a lot of maintenance is required so she believed that the PTRC should look
into establishing fees, including fees for leagues.
Councilmember Holmes stated that fees for park use should also be reviewed; particularly for
residents as compared with non - residents.
Councilmember Tamble noted that enforcement of such fees would be difficult and that
enforcement could result in people feeling discouraged about using parks.
Mayor Grant stated he would support fees for outside organizations. He added that neighboring
cities have a fee structure and that the fees could help offset the expense of maintaining the parks
and fields.
Committee Chairman Scott listed the second goal and asked if the Council would welcome
comments from the PTRC on this issue.
GOAL 2. Recommend future enhancements for the 5 year Capital Improvement
Program.
Councilmember Holden stated that park renovations and tennis court maintenance and parks and
trails related facilities need established guidelines for maintenance. She then referred to a 2002
Parks and Open Space Plan and asked if there is a more current version.
Parks and Recreation Manager Olson stated that the document was updated and included in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. However, public input has not been solicited since that time.
Mayor Grant commented that the Council would welcome PTRC requests for CIP funds but
reminded the PTRC members that the Council has to consider many such requests.
(PTRC member John Peck arrived at this point of the meeting — 6:31 p.m.)
Councilmember Holden noted that the National Guard is building a Community Center in the
near future which will be open to uses by the City. She asked if the PTRC had considered what
uses could be added to that site, and, if not, maybe it should.
Committee Chairman Scott then discussed the next PTRC goal.
GOAL 3. Research, review, comment and recommend approval on the following
specific projects:
a. Bench Implementation and Location
b. Valentine Park Improvements
c. Adopt a Garden Program
d. Trail Maintenance Plan
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 21, 2011
Committee Chairman Scott explained that the PTRC would like to highlight committee
activities such as the bench donation program through the City Newsletter to inform residents and
solicit input. He also suggested the Committee could write or suggest articles for the Newsletter,
possibly quarterly.
Councilmember Holden suggested that the PTRC work with local businesses to establish a
bench donation program. She also suggested that they consider extending the trail to allow
students access to the high school property.
Councilmember Holmes commented that the PTRC should focus on bringing the Crepeau
Nature Preserve back to its original intent. She also talked about the triangle shaped property that
Presbyterian Homes will be donating to the City and thought that might be a good place for a
garden area.
Mayor Grant commented that some of the City gardens do very well while others do not. He
hoped that the PTRC would look at fixing up and replanting the less successful City garden sites.
Committee Member O'Malley suggested that the PTRC take a look at all the City garden sites
when they do their annual park tour.
Don Messerly suggested the following as possible PTRC projects:
• Garden Club
• Bird Club
• Rain Gardens Education
• Plant Trees on Arbor Day
• Community Survey
• Recognize Private Gardens in the City
• Park Clean -up Days
• Banners
• Wild Flowers in Crepeau Park
Committee Chair Scott then reviewed the final PTRC goal.
GOAL 4. Review the need for trail signage along trail corridors in the City and
recommend a trail signage plan.
3.B CP Rail Mural Contest Recommendation
Committee Chair Scott reported that the PTRC had decided not to proceed with the mural
contest for the CP Rail railway crossing where there has been so many problems with graffiti. He
explained that the committee suggested planting vines to cover the surface or possibly some type
of lighting to deter graffiti.
Councilmember Holden questioned if a different surface could be placed on the bulkhead that
would deter graffiti.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 21, 2011 8
3.0 Grants for Parks, Trails and Recreation and Overall Regional Trail Analysis
Committee Chair Scott stated since the 2002 Parks and Open Space Plan was developed, the
PTRC has maintained a list of potential trail segments for development and these priorities are
reviewed annually. He explained they would like to discuss priorities with Council regarding
grant opportunities as well as the importance of an overall regional trail analysis. He reviewed an
Arden Hills Pathway map provided to the Council.
Mayor Grant encouraged the PTRC to seek grants for all levels of trails as the Council is open to
opportunities to stretch City funds. He pointed out that the Safe Routes to School trail is very
well used and is a benefit to the community.
Councilmember Holden suggested that the PTRC meet with our Public Works Director to
identify costs related to each of their priority projects as the cost could be an important factor.
Committee Member Kramlinger questioned if cheaper trails could be built to save costs; such as
using crushed limestone instead of a paved surface.
Parks & Recreation Manager Olson explained that when grant dollars are used, ADA
compliance is mandatory and, therefore, the non -paved surface would not comply.
Councilmember Tamble commented that the unfinished surfaces would be difficult to maintain
in the winter.
Mayor Grant thanked the PTRC members for their participation in the joint work session and the
Council returned to their discussion on Agenda Item 2.D.
2.D I -694 / TH51 Interchange Project
Public Works Director Maurer explained that according to MnDOT, there weren't enough noise
reduction benefits to justify the cost of the noise wall but they have committed to covering
$1,050,000 of the cost of the noise wall with the remaining $475,000 to be the City's
responsibility. He explained that there must be at least a 5 decibel reduction per property which is
then measured against the cost of the wall to determine if the cost is justifiable. Under the new
Federal law, he explained, this wall would never be proposed because it does not meet the cost -
effective criteria.
Councilmember Holden questioned how the City would come up with the $475,000 balance.
There was some discussion about assessments and how many homes would actually benefit from
the noise wall.
Public Works Director Maurer stated only 30 homes would actually benefit (per MnDOT
funding policy) and as far as assessments, that would be difficult in this situation because the
benefit of the noise wall varies from one property to the next.
Attachment B:
2011 PTRC Goals
Commission and Committee:
Committee Name: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
Year: 2011
A. General Purpose for Committees and Task Forces:,
While the City Council and City Staff have the sole responsibility for all activities within the City
of Arden Hills, from time to time they find it desirable, advantageous, and necessary to bring
together residents of Arden Hills in order to broaden and enrich the discussion around possible
decisions. As an example, the City Council's ability to debate and consider far - ranging
alternatives is stifled by the risk that the mere discussion of alternatives will engender them with
undeserved merit. In addition, Arden Hills will always seek to hire the most qualified and
capable employees, but in doing so we will frequently hire staff that is not intimately connected
to the Arden Hills neighborhoods. Therefore, it is critical that the City create a mechanism where
the City Staff can get unfettered and unbiased reaction to their novel thoughts and ideas.
The Commission, Committee, and Task Forces are established to broaden and enrich the content
that will ultimately be enacted or authorized by the elected City Council.
B. Mission/Purpose:
Parks, trails, recreation and natural resources in Arden Hills increase the desirability of the city as
a place to live or work, enhance the health and well -being of citizens and guests, and improve the
value of citizens' property. The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC) represents the
interests of Arden Hills citizens in leading the continuing development, expansion, and
improvement of those resources. The PTRC recommends to the City Council actions that support
those interests; monitors the use of and the improvements in parks, trails, and recreation; and
collaborates with other City committees and commissions in improving parks and trails.
C. Goals:
ONGOING and AS NEEDED:
1. Recommend actions that advance the vision for parks, trails, and recreation.
2. Assist in identifying ongoing parks and trails maintenance /improvement priorities.
3. Recommend and review grant opportunities, sponsorships, and partnerships for parks and
trails.
4. Assist, advise, and monitor plans for parks, trails and recreation within TCAAP at the
appropriate time.
5. Continue to work with Ramsey County on mutually beneficial trail /park projects and
activities.
6. Monitor potential road improvements to encourage inclusion of pedestrian friendly
infrastructure whenever possible.
7. Look to enhance /add recreational opportunities in our parks.
8. Sponsor and organize Community events such as clean up day and buckthorn removal
day(s).
9. Assist in preparing a list of topics and potential articles that the Committee would like to
see highlighted in the City newsletter.
2011 GOALS:
1. Review and analyze the impact of establishing a fee structure for field and park use in the
City and bring a recommendation to Council.
2. Recommend future enhancements for the 5 year Capital Improvement Program.
1
3. Research, review, comment and recommend approval on the following specific projects:
a. Bench Implementation — Bench Location
b. Valentine Park Improvements
c. Adopt a Garden Program
d. Trail Maintenance Plan
4. Review the need for trail signage along trail corridors in the City and recommend a trail
signage plan to the Council.
D. Committee Expectations:
While the work required of PTRC members will vary both across members and across time, the
following expectations are generally held of all committee members:
1. The interests of Arden Hills and its citizens are foremost
2. Participation of PTRC members is key to their contribution —
a. Members should be present and involved in meetings of the
committee.
b. Members should be actively engaged in discussing issues, sharing
perspectives, and raising questions that are essential to good
decision- making.
c. Effective participation derives from continually learning about
Arden Hills parks, trails, and recreation and the physical and
political environments in which they exist. This learning includes
those formal opportunities afforded by the PTRC, as well as
informal opportunities that occur in the course of one's activities.
d. As a general guideline, members should expect to spend
approximately 6 to 8 hours per month in their work on the
committee.
3. The PTRC is a group of peers — no one member has more standing or power than
others.
4. Respect for the opinions of each other, and for those with whom the PTRC interacts,
is a hallmark of the committee's work. Members seek clarity in presenting their
views, and represent a sense of stewardship in all that they do.
5. PTRC members engage in continual self - assessment of their performance on the
committee. As needs arise, they seek education and skills necessary to their
performance. As a collective, the committee develops changes in its composition,
structure and function as needed.
6. The PTRC provides opportunities for the education of its members, both as part of
committee meetings, and through access to educational events in other settings.
Members actively engage in this education as part of their responsibility to the
committee.
7. Some of the work of the PTRC is in areas of subjective judgment, where there is not
enough hard information to make the decisions that are necessary. Members who are
most successful in these decisions are those who are aware of the values they hold,
willing to engage in the discussion of those values, and respectful of those values
held by others that may differ from their own.
8. The PTRC is composed of individuals with diverse perspectives and experience. The
committee benefits from the contrasts that this diversity engenders, and seeks to
improve the decisions it makes and the actions it takes by understanding the conflicts
and resolving the disputes that arise in the discussion of issues and plans.
2
Agenda Item 4B:
Park Bench Location Discussion
2^‘W HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Park Bench Location Discussion
Background
The park bench implementation program was approved in 2010 by the City Council. This
implementation program is on a four year cycle. The CIP includes $5,000 each year for the
years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. We are in year two of the cycle. At the March 21, 2011 joint
PTRC /City Council meeting, the park bench implementation program was discussed. The City
Council would like the PTRC to recommend locations for the benches before they are installed.
The PTRC indicated that they felt it was best to wait until after the park tour in June to
recommend placement. At their April 11, 2011 meeting, the City Council authorized the
purchase of eight benches. However, they indicated that they would like the PTRC to choose
locations as soon as possible so that the benches will be able to be used throughout the entire
spring /summer. Staff has included a bench location map for review that includes where
existing benches are; Ramsey County proposed locations and potential future locations for future
benches. These locations can be changed or alternate locations can be added by the committee.
Staff provided potential locations only for discussion purposes.
Requested Action
Staff is asking for the PTRC to review potential locations for eight park benches and recommend
placement in order for staff to proceed with installation.
04192011 Bench Implementation Process. doc
Agenda Item 4C:
Newsletter Articles from the PTRC
N HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Newsletter Articles
Background
At the March 21, 2011 joint PTRC /City Council meeting, a City Council member suggested that
the PTRC begin doing regular articles in the City newsletter. The committee sounded
interested in providing occasional articles. Staff received a phone call from the Chair of the
Communications Committee in March asking for the PTRC's article for the April issue. I
indicated that the PTRC was receptive to providing input for articles but would not be meeting
until April. Staff would like to know if the PTRC members are interested in writing a
monthly /bimonthly /quarterly article in regards to the committee and parks and trails. The
committee does have an ongoing goal that indicates the committee will assist in providing
potential articles for the City newsletter. How does the committee want to handle what is
written and who provides it? Does the committee want to ask for volunteers to write articles,
etc... Staff is willing to assist with providing information or potential topics.
Discussion
The PTRC should decide what involvement they would like in the City newsletter and provide
direction for staff to bring back to the Communications Committee.
04192011 City Newsletter Articles. doc
Other Attachments:
1. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Agenda — April 13, 2011
2. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 9, 2011
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2011
4) ACTIVE LIVING RAMSEY COMMUNITIES! REPORT
5) BATTLE CREEK REGIONAL PARK PICNIC SHELTER LOCATION AND DESIGN
6) TAMARACK NATURE CENTER DESTINATION FOR DISCOVERY UPCOMING EVENTS
7) DIRECTOR'S REPORT
8) REPORT FROM CHAIR AND OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS
9) ADJOURNMENT
........................ ...............................
........ ...............................
1
The regular meeting of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission was
called to order by Chair Pederson at 6:00 p.m., at Ramsey County Parks and
Recreation Department, 2015 North Van Dyke Street, Maplewood, Minnesota.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Jack Ditmore, Deb Falkowski, PhD Jenni, Gale Pederson, Candy
Petersen, Richard Straumann, Brian Tempas
Bryan Shirley
Greg Mack, Scott Yonke
John Dietrich, RLK
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Mr. Tempas, that the agenda of the Parks and
Recreation Commission be approved as mailed. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Pederson asked for a motion to approve the minutes of February 9, 2011. Mr.
Tempas moved, seconded by Ms. Falkowski, that the minutes of February 9, 2011 be
approved with two revisions. The first revision is in the first paragraph changing Chair
Straumann to Chair Pederson as the person who called the meeting to order. The
second revision is clarifying language in the Deer Management section regarding which
portions of the parks are appropriate for deer hunts. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OTTER LAKE BOAT ACCESS AND
OFF -LEASH DOG AREA PARKING LOT
Mr. Yonke reported on the site development plan for the Otter Lake boat access and
off -leash dog area. The improvements include:
• Reconstructed boat launch
• 40 -stall parking lot, 2 handicapped car stalls, 3 boat trailer stalls
(1 handicapped), 6 overflow boat trailer /car stalls
• Rain garden
• 2 stall unisex restroom
• Signage for the off -leash dog area
1
After the plan is reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, it will be presented
to White Bear Township and the Rice Creek Watershed District for formal review. The
plans will also be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for
review. The project is funded through a Legacy Grant awarded to Ramsey County.
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Ms. Falkowski, to recommend the proposed plan
for approval. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF THE PREFERRED LOWER AFTON TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Mr. Yonke reported that the trail project is funded first through Mn /DOT /Metropolitan
Council using transportation funds for enhancement projects. Cost of the trail extension
is approximately $720,000. The project also will be funded with a Legacy Grant
appropriation in the amount of $450,000. RLK is the consultant on the project.
Mr. John Dietrich from RLK presented the details of the project. The trail extension
creates connections to existing trails. It will be 12 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders. Parts
of the trail will run through wooded areas enhancing the trail experience. Other
segments will be adjacent to Lower Afton Road. There will be some retaining walls
where necessary and those walls will be terraced as much as possible to allow for
landscape plantings. The trail will be well away from the concrete storm water flume
along Lower Afton Road. The trail will be wide enough to accommodate bikers and
walkers simultaneously. Because the trail is federally funded, there are more
requirements to meet as far as sightlines, slope and width. There will be stop signs at
the intersections of the trail at Battle Creek Road and Winthrop Street. Mn /DOT
regulations dictate where the road and trail crossings will be. Guardrails are necessary
in areas where the trail is less than 25 feet from the road. RLK met with the Ramsey
Washington Watershed District about installing box culverts in two locations for
drainage. Use of box culverts is acceptable to the Watershed District. There was also
a public meeting with the District 1 Council to present the overall preferred plan. District
Council 1 approved the plan. Many of the components of the trail will be constructed
using recycled products. There will be some tree removal (approximately 80) to
accommodate the trail.
Mr. Ditmore moved, seconded by Mr. Straumann, to recommend the proposed plan for
approval. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF BENCH LOCATIONS FOR "PATHWAYS TO HEALTH" ON RAMSEY
COUNTY PARKS AND TRAILS
The 1,000 Benches Program, created by Active Living Ramsey Communities! and the
Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, was brought before the Board for approval in
2007. It is a cooperative program between Ramsey County and the municipalities
within Ramsey County. The program intended to place benches in strategic locations
along trails to assist more people getting out and walking. The program was redesigned
in 2010. Under the redesigned program, benches will be placed on smaller slabs and
the active living messages will be on the backs of the benches rather than on pavers on
larger slabs that were a component of the original program. Up to 300 benches could
be installed in Ramsey County park areas. Ramsey County will provide the slab and
2
the benches will be provided at no cost. Mr. Yonke displayed several aerial maps
illustrating key locations where benches could be installed in the parks and along
regional trails taking into consideration existing bench locations. Ramsey County Parks
and Recreation staff considered standards of where to position the benches in relation
to the others, about every 1,000 feet up to Yit mile apart in some places depending on
the trail.
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Mr. Tempas, to recommend approval on the
proposed bench locations within Ramsey County Parks and Regional Trails. Motion
carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Mack reported:
• The Governor's recommendation for General Fund appropriations for operations
and maintenance for regional parks is a 40% reduction. There will be a hearing
on March 10 before the House to introduce a bill that will seek a comparable
reduction to the state for regional parks at 5 %. If the 40% reduction was put into
place, it would impact beaches with lifeguards, the ability to maintain winter trail
access (plowing) and the ability to maintain natural resources.
• Legacy funding was approved by Minnesota voters in 2008. The first years of
appropriations from that fund were 2009 -2010. The Governor has proposed
distributing the Parks and Trails Funds in the following proportions: 42% State
parks, 42% metropolitan regional parks and 15% statewide grants for regional
parks. Counties in greater Minnesota are requesting a larger share of the
appropriation. The Legacy plan that relates to parks and trails proposed by the
DNR supports the Governor's appropriation.
REPORT FOR CHAIR AND OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS
Rich Straumann reported that he has volunteered for the legacy brick program group at
Tamarack Nature Center.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon appropriate motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Victoria Dahlquist
3
Agenda Item 4A:
Pulte Home Development Park Dedication Requirement Discussion
-A,R�N HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #11 -006
Applicant: Pulte Group and Alliant Engineering
Property Location: 4500 Snelling Avenue North
Background
The applicant has a purchase agreement for 25.4 acres of undeveloped land on the southeast
corner of Highway 96 and Snelling Avenue N. The property is zoned R -1, single- family
residential, and is guided for Low Density Residential in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The property was currently owned by the Reiling Estate. The applicant is requesting approval to
subdivide the property to allow for 39 single- family homes. The project, as it is proposed,
complies with all requirements of the City's Zoning and Subdivision regulations, and would be
developed at 1.9 units per acre.
At their April 6, 2011, meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
application materials and Staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval for the proposal to the City Council. The City Council will review this
application at their April 25, regular meeting.
Because this project includes a subdivision of land, the City can require park dedication. While
the City Council makes the final determination as to what the park dedication requirement will
be, it is common for the PTRC to review the proposal and provide a recommendation.
Park Dedication Requirements
The Subdivision Code requires developers of subdivisions to dedicate to the public a reasonable
percentage of the tract to be developed. Section 1130.08 Subd. 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance
dictates that for a subdivision that results in new dwelling units at less than two units per acre,
City of Arden Hills
PTRC Meeting for April 19, 2011
I\ Metro- inet.uslardenhillslAdmin \Committees & Commissions\Parks Trails and Recreation CommitteelLetters- Memos104- 19 -11- PTRC Report -
Pulte.doc Page 1 of 3
the applicants shall dedicate six percent of the land area in the subdivision for the purpose of
playgrounds, trails, parks, wetlands or open space.
The Code also states that in lieu of the dedication of land, the City Council may require the
developer to pay to the City an amount in cash equal to the percentage of the required land
dedication, multiplied by the fair market value of the property at the time of final approval of the
development application. For negotiating the park dedication requirement the City has
determined the fair market value of the land based on the Ramsey County assessed value of
$2,220,800. Six percent of the assessed value is $133,248.
In addition to the City's park dedication requirements, State Statutes dictate how a City can use
park dedication. Land and /or cash received for park dedication purposes must be used to expand
a City's recreation system, and cannot be used for maintenance of existing facilities. In addition,
park dedication should be used to provide enhanced recreation facilities for new residents
associated with the new development; however, City's do have leeway to use park dedication to
build out planned facilities provided those facilities are associated with a master parks and trails
plan.
Park Dedication Options
For this application, the developer is dedicating to the City drainage and utility easements over
all of the wetlands and storm water ponds within the development area. In addition, the
developer has agreed to extend the drainage and utility easements beyond the delineated wetland
areas to create a wetland buffer area. The wetland buffer area will be a minimum of five feet
from the delineated wetland area, with an average buffer of twenty feet throughout the
development. This wetland buffer area will be demarcated with plaques identifying the area as
protected. This dedication is in addition to the six percent park dedication that the City will
require.
For the park dedication requirement the City can require up to six percent of the total land area,
six percent of the assessed value in cash, or some combination of the two. The City had a traffic
study done by SRF Consulting, which looked at the anticipated vehicle trips generated because
of this development. The traffic engineer also looked at pedestrian and bicycle movements and
made two recommendations for possible trail connections (Attachment A). The possible trail
connections were a north/south connection from Highway 96 along Snelling Avenue North and
an east /west connection from the new development to the north/south trail to the east.
City of Arden Hills
PTRC Meeting for April 19, 2011
I tMetro- inet.uslardenhillslAdmin \Committees & Commissions\Parks Trails and Recreation CommitteelLetters- Memos104- 19 -11- PTRC Report -
Pulte.doc Page 2 of 3
Discussion
The PTRC can consider one or more of the following options for their recommendation:
1. Charge the developer 6% of the assessed value at an estimated amount of
$133,248.00. This will be put into the Park Fund for future Park Capital
Improvement Projects. As stated earlier, these funds cannot be used for maintenance
costs.
2. Create a north/south connection from Highway 96 along Snelling Avenue North.
This trail connection was changed by the PTRC in the priority list to restriping of the
roadway versus an off -road pathway. The restriping on Snelling Avenue North is
listed as a high priority.
3. Create an east /west connection from the development to the existing north/south City
trail. State Statute states that park dedication should be used to provide enhanced
recreation facilities for new residents associated with the new development.
Although, the City has some flexibility in this. This trail connection would satisfy
this point. The trail would be approximately 80 feet of trail /boardwalk (Attachment
B). It is estimated to be under $30,000 for construction. One advantage to
constructing this trail with the development is that the developer would provide an
easement with the construction. If this trail would be considered at a later time, an
easement would need to be acquired with a possible fee. This trail is not listed on the
PTRC's trail priorities because there is currently no development there and therefore
never considered. With new homes, this connection would be nice for the residents
to be able to access the current north/south trail.
Requested Action
The PTRC is being asked to review the options pertaining to the park dedication requirement for
the Fox Ridge subdivision and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
City of Arden Hills
PTRC Meeting for April 19, 2011
IlMetro- inet.uslardenhillslAdmin \Committees & Commissions\Parks Trails and Recreation CommitteelLetters- Memos104 -19 -11 - PTRC Report -
Pulte.doc Page 3 of 3
Attachment A:
Traffic Study from SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
..........................
.......................... ...............................
......... ................
Consulting Group Inc,
SRF No. 0117417
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Kristine Giga, P.E., Civil Engineer
City of Arden Hills
Meagan Beekman, City Planner
City of Arden Hills
FROM: Craig Vaughn, P.E., PTOE, Senior Associate
Matthew Pacyna, P.E., Senior Engineer
DATE: April 6, 2011
SUBJECT: PULTE HOMES TRAFFIC STUDY
INTRODUCTION
As requested, SRF Consulting Group has completed a traffic study for the proposed Pulte Homes
residential development located in the City of Arden Hills (see Figure 1 — Project Location). The
main objectives of this study are to evaluate the existing roadway conditions; determine the
future traffic volume generated by the development and any subsequent traffic impacts to the
adjacent roadway network; and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the
proposed development. Furthermore, a review of area traffic patterns was completed to
determine the impact of the proposed roadway connections within the area.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing traffic operations were analyzed at the following key intersections:
• County Road 96 and Snelling Avenue
• County Road 96 and Keithson Drive
• Snelling Avenue and Royal Hills Drive
• Hamline Avenue and Arden View Court
All of the key intersections are currently unsignalized, with side - street stop control. County
Road 96 is a four -lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour (mph).
Hamline Avenue North is a three -lane roadway (two -lane roadway with a center two -way left-
turn lane (TWLTL)) with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The other roadways within the study
area are two -lane roadways with posted speed limits of 30 mph. Full- access is provided at each
key intersection. Intersection observations and vehicular a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning
movement counts were collected by SRF Consulting Group in March 2011. Existing geometries,
traffic controls, and peak hour traffic volumes for the key intersections are shown in Figure 2.
www.srfeansuitingicom
One Carison Parkway N .5 7-4443 763.475,.001() x7 75 ;29
An Equal Oppmtnnity Employer
?:nw:: }.ZI.vU}Cyt. iij:vv •.JI.•�m
Cortsuf ling C ;roui . ri
00117417
April 2011
Project Location
Puite Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 1
-atostiartaill,
LEGEND
)0( - A.M. Peak Hour Volume
(XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Volume
Q - Side-Street Stop Control
Note: Peak hour turning movement
counts were collected in March 2011
1E4
00117417
April 2011
Existing Conditions
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 2
Kristine Giga, P.E.
City of Arden Hills
April 6, 2011
Page 4
An operations analysis was conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at each of the key
intersections to determine how traffic currently operates in the study area. The key intersections
were analyzed using a combination of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and
Synchro /SimTraffic software (version 7). For documentation purposes, the operations reported
in the following tables are based on results produced from the HCM, which depicts a more
accurate result due to its ability to account for dual stage crossing.
Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates how well an
intersection is operating. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle. Intersections
are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and
LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. In the Twin Cities metropolitan
area, LOS A through D is generally considered acceptable by drivers. For side - street stop
controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of
service of the minor approach. Traffic operations at unsignalized intersections with side- street
stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection
level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and
the capability of the intersection to support those volumes. Second, it is important to consider the
delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is
attributed to the side - street approaches in most cases.
Results of the existing operations analysis shown in Table 1 indicate that all key intersections
currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m.. and p.m. peak hours with
existing traffic control and geometric layout. Based on observations, side - street access from
Snelling Avenue and Keithson Drive to County Road 96 can be relatively difficult during the
peak hours. However, the large median along County Road 96 does allow for a dual stage
crossing, which significantly aids motorists along Snelling Avenue and Keithson Drive accessing
westbound County Road 96. Therefore, all side- street approaches operate at LOS D or better
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Average side - street delays associated with these approaches
are generally considered acceptable and do not require mitigation. No queuing issues were
observed.
Table 1
Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service and. Delays
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
LOS
Delays
LOS
Delays
County Road 96 and Snelling Avenue*
A/C
20 sec.
A/D
25 sec.
County Road 96 and Keithson Drive*
A/B
15 sec.
A/C
20 sec.
Snelling Avenue and Royal Hills Drive*
A/B
10 sec.
A/B
10 sec.
Harnline Avenue and Arden View Court*
A/D
30 sec.
A/B
15 sec.
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control.. The overall LOS is shown followed by the
worst approach LOS.
Kristine Giga, P.E.
City of Arden Hills
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
April 6, 2011
Page 5
The proposed residential development is bounded by County Road 96 to the north, Arden View
Drive to the south, Keithson Drive to the east, and Snelling Avenue to the west. The
development site, currently vacant, will be converted to a 39 parcel single - family residential
development. Two roadway connection/access alternatives were developed. The first alternative
(Alternative 1) provides access to the development via a new roadway between Snelling Avenue
and the Arden View Drive /Royal Hills Drive intersection and includes a cul -de -sac near
Keithson Drive. The second alternative (Alternative 2) is similar to Alternative 1, however it
includes a connection to Keithson Drive. Potential neighborhood impacts based on the two
alternatives are discussed later in this memorandum. The proposed site plans for Alternatives 1
and 2 are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
TRAFFIC *FORECASTS
The proposed development was assumed to be completed by year 2012. Therefore, traffic
forecasts were developed for year 2013 conditions (one year after construction). Based on
existing area growth patterns and historical annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes, an
annual growth rate was applied to the existing turning movement volumes to develop year 2013
background traffic forecasts. Using this approach, an annual growth rate of two percent was
applied to the through movements along County Road 96, while an annual growth rate of one
percent was applied to all other turning movement volumes. To determine the trip generation for
the proposed development, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 8th Edition was used. Trip
generation estimates for the proposed development are shown in Table 2. The proposed
development is expected to generate 29 a.m. peak hour trips, 40 p.m. peak hour trips, and 373
daily trips.
Table 2
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Type (ITE Code)
Size
(Units)
A.M. Trips
P.M. Trips
Daily
In
Out
In
Out
Single - Family Residential (210)
39
7
22
25
15
373
The directional trip distribution for the proposed development is based on a combination of
existing neighborhood travel patterns and historical AADT volumes within the area. The
directional distribution is show in Figure 5.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS
Due to the proposed roadway additions and/or modifications, the local neighborhood streets were
reviewed to estimate travel pattern shifts or changes. To determine the impact the proposed
development will have on these roadways, area traffic volumes and route characteristics were
reviewed to estimate the potential impact to neighborhood roadways.
00117417
April 2011
Site Plan - Alternative 1
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 3
e Plan Alt 2,cdr
O
H: \Proiects \7417 \TS
•
•9fVA>r -.N ..N
�`.�4Y.M!a {N:N:iFa .js_xvnnmwti:n.� w. •:.
•
•
.Y .
00117417
April 2011
Site Plan - Alternative 2
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 4
I �
Consulting Group. Pulte Homes Traffic Study
Directional Distribution
00117417
April 2011
City of Arden Hills
Figure 5
Kristine Giga, P.E.
City of Arden Hills
April 6, 2011
Page 9
Using the future Arden View Drive and Royal Hills Drive intersection as one end point and the
Hamline Avenue and Colleen Avenue intersection as another, travel time runs were completed
between the two points to determine if one route was quicker than the other. The roadways
associated with the two routes include:
1) Arden View Drive, Arden View Court, and Hamline Avenue
2) Royal Hills Drive, Snelling Avenue, McClung Drive, Colleen Avenue, and Hamline Avenue
Results of the travel time comparison (shown in Figure 6) indicate that the difference between
the two routes is negligible. Based on this information, the amount of development traffic that
originates or is destined for Hamline Avenue (south of the development) is not expected to take
one of the two routes more than the other. Therefore, the increase in traffic volume due to the
proposed development along Colleen Avenue and Arden View Drive will be similar. Taking into
account the expected trip generation and directional distribution, these roadways will see an
increase of approximately 75 vehicles per day (vpd) respectively. This increase assumes
Alternative 1 conditions, which represents a worst-case scenario for impacts to these roadways.
To determine the increase in traffic volumes along Keithson Drive due to the potential roadway
connection (Alternative 2), the location of the driveways within the proposed development were
reviewed. These driveways were reviewed to determine the most likely route that vehicles will
use to enter /exit the neighborhood. Based on this analysis, Keithson Drive will see an increase
of approximately 75 to 100 vpd. It should be noted that approximately 75 vpd correlates to
approximately 5 to 10 vehicles during the peak hours. The combination of background traffic
and trips generated by the proposed development for year 2013 Alternative 1 and 2 build
conditions are shown in Figure 7 and 8, respectively.
YEAR 2013 ALTERNATIVE 1 BUILD CONDITIONS
To determine how well the existing roadway network will operate under year 2013 Alternative 1
build conditions, an operations analysis was completed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Results
of the year 2013 Alternative 1 build operations analysis shown in Table 3 indicate all key
intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. All side - street approaches will
continue to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with minimal
impacts to the side - street delays. No queuing issues are expected.
Table 3
Year 2013 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis — Alternative 1
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service and Delays
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
LOS
Delays
LOS
Delays
County Road 96 and Snelling Avenue*
A/C
20 sec.
A/D
30 sec.
County Road 96 and Keithson Drive*
A/B
15 sec.
A/C
20 sec.
Snelling Avenue and Royal Hills Drive*
A/B
10 sec.
A/B
10 sec.
Hamline Avenue and Arden View Court*
A/D
30 sec.
A/B
15 sec.
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control. The overall LOS is shown followed by the
worst approach LOS.
IM $S,
• , .' ' 0.' • . ,) 'v' >�\ , »
+.\,";- : <.:- :."'....:2'�)`•):: �:.,�� {Uri •
V\\ \\t,``\ t
.}y.
r?.
i'.,✓. }v -.;r: ..T!'1;M)?i'V': vim:: - .v- /- f.:Hirt:.:if. .. l-.y., %v:
'M \• \ \.�
i4# 4 JJ +1�4u
"`;4',+t- Fir:: j4`r,•
i M � �$ '• f 'CC �v'A�f'N rf
of
rir
9J}JG: 'lfJ�h` }� :i$r:INR rsrl Ni {4'hTi:f S
- Route 1 Average Travel Time -114 seconds
- Route 2 Average Travel Time -115 seconds
Costsu1 €iris; Grniup, icr<
00117417
April 2011
Travel Time Comparison
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 6
111,51,001
E
LEGEND
XX - A.M. Peak Hour Volume
(XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Volume
Q - Side-Street Stop Control
kk
Coniufting Gtoup,
00117417
April 2011
Year 2013 Alternative 1 Build Conditions
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 7
•
" .
" .lasfien*
E
LEGEND
)0( - A.M. Peak Hour Volume
(XX) - P.M. Peak Hour Volume
Q - Side-Street Stop Control
Consulting Group, Inc,
00117417
April 2011
Year 2013 Alternative 2 Build Conditions
Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 8
Kristine Giga, P.E.
City of Arden Hills
YEAR 2013 ALTERNATIVE 2 BUILD CONDITIONS
April 6, 2011
Page 13
To determine how well the existing roadway network will operate under year 2013 Alternative 2
build conditions, an operations analysis was completed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Results
of the year 2013 Alternative 2 build operations analysis shown in Table 4 indicate all key
intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. All side - street approaches will
continue to operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No queuing issues
are expected.
Table 4
Year 2013 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis — Alternative 2
Level of Service Results
Intersection
Level of Service and Delays
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
LOS
Delays
LOS
Delays
County Road 96 and Snelling Avenue*
A/C
20 sec.
A/D
30 sec.
County Road 96 and Keithson Drive*
A/B
15 sec.
A/C
20 sec.
Snelling Avenue and Royal Hills Drive*
A/B
10 sec.
A/B
10 sec.
Hamline Avenue and Arden View Court*
A/D
30 sec.
A/B
15 sec.
* Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control. The overall LOS is shown followed by the
worst approach LOS.
Based on the results of the year 2013 Alternative 1 and 2 build operations analysis, there are no
significant traffic impacts expected due to the proposed development. The existing roadway
network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
SITE REVIEW
Review of the proposed site plans were completed to determine if there are specific issues that
should be addressed. The following comments and recommendations (shown in Figure 9) are
offered for your consideration:
a) Ensure proper traffic controls are installed at new intersections created as part of the
proposed development
o Uncontrolled intersections can create potential safety hazards and cause driver confusion
o Side - street stop control should be implemented at these intersections
b) Consider providing pedestrian facility connections (sidewalks and/or trails) to existing area
sidewalks /trails along County Road 96 and Arden View Drive (east of Keithson Drive)
o Although most single family homes within the existing neighborhood do not currently
have sidewalks, providing these pedestrian facility connections can improve pedestrian
safety and local connectivity to parks and trails
00117417
April 2011
Recommended Site Plan Improvements
"'"` Pulte Homes Traffic Study
City of Arden Hills
Figure 9
Kristine Giga, P.E.
City of Arden Hills
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
April 6, 2011
Page 15
Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
• Results of the existing operations analysis indicate that all key intersections currently operate
at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with existing traffic
control and geometric layout. All side- street approaches operate at LOS D or better during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Average side- street delays associated with these approaches are
generally considered acceptable and do not require mitigation.
• The proposed development site, currently vacant, will be converted to a 39 parcel single -
family residential development. Two roadway connection/access alternatives were
developed.
o Alternative 1 provides access to the development via a new roadway between Snelling
Avenue and the Arden View Drive /Royal Hills Drive intersection and includes a cul -de-
sac near Keithson Drive.
o Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 however it includes a connection to Keithson
Drive.
• Based on existing area growth patterns and historical annual average daily traffic (AADT)
volumes, an annual growth rate was applied to the existing turning movement volumes to
develop year 2013 background traffic forecasts.
o An annual growth rate of two percent was applied to the through movements along
County Road 96, while an annual growth rate of one percent was applied to all other
turning movement volumes
o The proposed development is expected to generate 29 a.m. peak hour trips, 40 p.m. peak
hour trips, and 373 daily trips.
• Depending on which site plan alternative is ultimately selected, the following neighborhood
impacts include:
o Arden View Drive and Colleen Avenue will see an increase of approximately 75 vehicles
per day (vpd) respectively. This increase assumes Alternative 1 conditions, which
represents a worst -case scenario for impacts to these roadways.
o Based on Alternative 2 conditions, Keithson Drive will see an increase of approximately
75 to 100 vpd.
• Results of the year 2013 Alternative 1 and 2 build operations analysis indicate all key
intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. Impacts to side- street
delays at the key intersections will be minimal and no queuing issues are expected.
• Ensure proper traffic controls are installed at new intersections created as part of the
proposed development
• Consider providing pedestrian facility connections (sidewalks and/or trails) to existing area
sidewalks /trails along County Road 96 and Arden View Drive (east of Keithson Drive)
H:\Projects \7417 \TS\Report \110406_7417 DRAFT Pulte Homes_Arden Hills Traffic Study.doc
Central Files Information
Original contracts, agreements, lease agreements, affidavits of publication, Public
Works project records, and grant documentation should all be maintained in Central
Files.
Such records should be submitted to the Deputy Clerk for inclusion in Central Files.
A database for Central Files is located at the following file path:
Metro 1 -net; Admin; Central Files; Central File Catalogue
To retrieve a record from Central Files, you can:
- Request assistance from the Deputy Clerk.
- Review the Central File Catalogue to see if the record has been placed in Central
Files.
- Check the Central Files cabinet located near the front counter.
Each Central file is color -coded and labeled for easy access. An example of a file label
is attached for reference.
Categories currently being used for Central Files:
G Grants
� Legal (contracts, agreements, affidavits of publication)
P Public Works
S Streets
If the need arises, additional categories may be created.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Deputy Clerk.
NOTE:
Public Works project files are located in the drawers beneath the Central File drawer.
Coding has not yet been established for these records.
City of Arden Hills I Mach 8, 2011
Attachment B:
Pulte Homes Preliminary Plat maps
OA:g:iw A Y
A ?ROW
DRIVE'WAr-
APRON
z
Q ,
o
Z -
W
T. SCE'. AL+,
1
2
1 4-00
T
3
J
2 +00
r
4
1 M
KEITHSON :
1
/_
COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 96
4 4 -BIT SIDE'WAL'K -'
RE T. 'WALL -'
-3FT ;iT CHAIN _INK
FENCE
5
1
i
1 8618 Ct
L_ AND GU
m 3+0C
1 -f
00 DRIVE '
\' `vVETL
\�_ 4,813
0.11
/
1
AND E ‘•
s. f. or
acres
!RB
TIER J
4 +0 +0
2
�)l
7
BLOCK 2
-SPLIT RAIL
, FENCE
BIT. DRIVE
ALLIANT
ENGINEERING, INC.
233 PARK AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, M N 55 415
PHONE (612) 758-3080
FAX (81 2) 758-3099
J
6
s
t
F3LOCK
5 +00
7
8
J
7 +,00
DRIVE
BIT . SIDEWALK
10
/
/
7
4/
/ A
'/ //1
L
-f
95.00'
- -(i- J—
-
— = 37-70T1'�
L= 57.80'
A= 89'30'33”
11
J
„CYO< 4
L_
12
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB AND
GUTTER
r SURMOUNTABLE
'1 CURB AND
GUTTER
\ \
\
DATE ISSUE
I HEREBY CERriot' FHA F THIS PLAN.
SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER'4i'
DIRECT SUPERVISIOS .a\D THAT 1
AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER
THE L ALPS ()E THE STATE OF
AIINNESO TA
CLARK W RC'KLUND. PE
DATE LICENSE `O.
PROJECT TEAM
DESIGNED AtPR
DRA■A N: ELL
PROJECT NO: ! 90055
QA/QC REVIEW
B�
DATE
DATE ISSUE
3 -2 -It
3 -'-1i
3 -18 -i I
11'()RKS1IOP
PRELLMIN aRY PLAT
PRELIMINARY STAFF REYIESV
/0. 147
14
O -0v
n DRIVE
I
±=r7,17--
, -, r--- F - - - - - -
LEGEND:
NOTES:
EASEMENT LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
LOT LINE
R.O.W.
PRESERVED TREES
1. ALL PROPOSED HOUSE PADS ARE 50 FT IN WIDTH.
2. ALL PROPOSED HOUSE PADS ARE 60 FT IN DEPTH
EXCEPT LOT 6, 14, 15, 17 AND 18 OF BLOCK 4
WHICH ARE 50 FT IN DEPTH.
ROW
EASEMENT
6
40' FRONT SETBACK LINE (MIN.)
30' REAR SETBACK UNE
THERE ARE A FEW
INSTANCES WHERE
PROPOSED FRONT
SETBACK ARE GREATER
THAN THE MIN. - LOTS
9,10, BL 1, LOT 1, 8L
2, LOTS 3 -5, BL. 3 AND
LOTS 1 -4, 18. BL 4.
F - FULL BASEMENT
WO - WALKOUT
LO - LOOKOUT
REAR SETBACK
DENOTES TYPICAL
6 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS UNLESS
OTHERWISE SHOWN
ON THE PLAN.
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
60'
5
15.0' 16.46'
26.46' -30'•
30' TY"
- WEAR COURSE TO BE PLACED I" TO }" 6"
ABOVE FRONT EDGE OF CURB.
mmasummour
ROW
3" (PLUS) CUSHION
UNDER CURB (TYP.)
4" OR 6" PERFORATED
DRAINTILE
(WHEN NEEDED)
- SURMOUNTABLE CURB AND
GUTTER.
TYPICAL ROAD SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
.KEITHSON DRNE FROM STA, 9 +58.55 TO
END OF NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS A
VARIABLE DIMENSION FROM C/L TO
RIGHT OF WAY. THE DIMENSION VARIES
FROM THE 30 FT STANDARD TO 26.46
FT.
0 25 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
FOX RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND TEXT AMENDMENT
SUBMITTAL
SITE PLAN
SHEET 7 of 21
BL
I
L_
OCK 2
PT:
_NCE
8
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB AND
GUTTER
12
•
�— L \aI° .2/—L=\• '81.20-' • 8933„
7
N
7
Possible Boardwalk
Connection
•
U OMMI
�\ T
�3 \,
7
/
15 +15
R= 3'00.00'
_= 153.69'
L= 2540 4
/
m 13 +00 J o
m EItHSON 1
/
/
0
0 18
0
50.00'
\ \\ \ 6
94+6 SF
ND II $
` • aiifies •
Mi
9'x'2?'
r\ De
Exemption
POND 2
1
WETLAND A2
1 .. 15,690 s.f or
J 0.36 acres \
\ I
LEGEND:
4
L ,J
\
4
1
1'
1
POND 1
WETLAND A l
62,552 s.f. or
1.43 acres
EASEMENT LINE
BUILDING SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE
LOT LINE
R.O.W.
PRESERVED TREES
FENCE 0 5 SOUTH
SPLIT RAIL -,
FENCE _ _
0 3 WEST-,.._
ri
_ L _
1 \ / / / i- 1 /— —1
ARDEN VIEW DRIVE
•
•
0 25 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
ALLIANT
ENGINEERING. INC.
233 PARK AVE. SOUTH. SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415
PHONE (612) 758-3080
FAX (612) 758-3099
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,
SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE 01
MINNESOTA
CLARK WICKLU ND. PE
PROJECT TEAM
DESIGNED: MPR
DRAWN: ELL
PROJECT NO 1!I,i()ii
QA/QC REVIEW
DATE ISSUE
3,11 woRKsuov
3 -'-I 1
DATE ISSUE
I
i
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PRELIMINARY S CAFE RE, Ih:W
I
DATE LICENSE \O.
BY
DATE:
fi
1
FOX RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND TEXT AMENDMENT SITE PLAN
SUBMITTAL
8
SHEET 8 of 21
A,aenda Item 4B:
Park Bench Location Discussion
--�AjTEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Park Bench Location Discussion
Background
The park bench implementation program was approved in 2010 by the City Council. This
implementation program is on a four year cycle. The CIP includes $5,000 each year for the
years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. We are in year two of the cycle. At the March 21, 2011 joint
PTRC/City Council meeting, the park bench implementation program was discussed. The City
Council would like the PTRC to recommend locations for the benches before they are installed.
The PTRC indicated that they felt it was best to wait until after the park tour in June to
recommend placement. At their April 11, 2011 meeting, the City Council authorized the
purchase of eight benches. However, they indicated that they would like the PTRC to choose
locations as soon as possible so that the benches will be able to be used throughout the entire
spring/summer. Staff has included a bench location map for review that includes where
existing benches are; Ramsey County proposed locations and potential future locations for future
benches. These locations can be changed or alternate locations can be added by the committee.
Staff provided potential locations only for discussion purposes.
Requested Action
Staff is asking for the PTRC to review potential locations for eight park benches and recommend
placement in order for staff to proceed with installation.
04192011 Bench Implementation Process.doc
Agenda Item 4C.*
Newsletter Articles from the PTRC
XQDEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 19, 2011
TO: Parks Trails and Recreation Committee
FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Newsletter Articles
Background
At the March 21, 2011 joint PTRC/City Council meeting, a City Council member suggested that
the PTRC begin doing regular articles in the City newsletter. The committee sounded
interested in providing occasional articles. Staff received a phone call from the Chair of the
Communications Committee in March asking for the PTRC's article for the April issue. I
indicated that the PTRC was receptive to providing input for articles but would not be meeting
until April. Staff would like to know if the PTRC members are interested in writing a
monthly/bimonthly/quarterly article in regards to the committee and parks and trails. The
committee does have an ongoing goal that indicates the committee will assist in providing
potential articles for the City newsletter. How does the committee want to handle what is
written and who provides it? Does the committee want to ask for volunteers to write articles,
etc... Staff is willing to assist with providing information or potential topics.
Discussion
The PTRC should decide what involvement they would like in the City newsletter and provide
direction for staff to bring back to the Communications Committee.
04192011 City Newsletter Articles.doc
Other Attachments:
1. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Agenda — April 13, 2011
2. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 9, 2011
RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING
.e net ay; r/13, 20116:00 p.m
RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
2015 NORTH VAN DYKE STREET
MAPLEWOOD MN 55109
1) CALL TO ORDER
2) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2011
4) ACTIVE LIVING RAMSEY COMMUNITIES! REPORT
5) BATTLE CREEK REGIONAL PARK PICNIC SHELTER LOCATION AND DESIGN
6) TAMARACK NATURE CENTER DESTINATION FOR DISCOVERY UPCOMING EVENTS
7) DIRECTOR'S REPORT
8) REPORT FROM CHAIR AND OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS
9) ADJOURNMENT
* * * COMMISSION MEMBERS
PLEASE CALL 1I IDAHL NIST A T 651-748-2500, X307
IF l'OUA !' ` SABLE TO ATTEND
1
RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 9, 2011
RAMSEY COUNTY PARKSAND RECREATION
2015 North Van Dyke Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
The regular meeting of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Commission was
called to order by Chair Pederson at 6:00 p.m., at Ramsey County Parks and
Recreation Department, 2015 North Van Dyke Street, Maplewood, Minnesota.
Members Present: Jack Ditmore, Deb Falkowski, Phil Jenni, Gale Pederson, Candy
Petersen, Richard Straumann, Brian Tempas
Members Absent: Bryan Shirley
Staff Present: Greg Mack, Scott Yonke
Others Present: John Dietrich, RLK
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Mr. Tempas, that the agenda of the Parks and
Recreation Commission be approved as mailed. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Pederson asked for a motion to approve the minutes of February 9, 2011. Mr.
Tempas moved, seconded by Ms. Falkowski, that the minutes of February 9, 2011 be
approved with two revisions. The first revision is in the first paragraph changing Chair
Straumann to Chair Pederson as the person who called the meeting to order. The
second revision is clarifying language in the Deer Management section regarding which
portions of the parks are appropriate for deer hunts. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OTTER LAKE BOAT ACCESS AND
OFF-LEASH DOG AREA PARKING LOT
Mr. Yonke reported on the site development plan for the Otter Lake boat access and
off-leash dog area. The improvements include:
• Reconstructed boat launch
• 40-stall parking lot, 2 handicapped car stalls, 3 boat trailer stalls
(1 handicapped), 6 overflow boat trailer/car stalls
• Rain garden
• 2 stall unisex restroom
• Signage for the off-leash dog area
1
After the plan is reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, it will be presented
to White Bear Township and the Rice Creek Watershed District for formal review. The
plans will also be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for
review. The project is funded through a Legacy Grant awarded to Ramsey County.
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Ms. Falkowski, to recommend the proposed plan
for approval. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF THE PREFERRED LOWER AFTON TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Mr. Yonke reported that the trail project is funded first through Mn/DOT/Metropolitan
Council using transportation funds for enhancement projects. Cost of the trail extension
is approximately $720,000. The project also will be funded with a Legacy Grant
appropriation in the amount of$450,000. RLK is the consultant on the project.
Mr. John Dietrich from RLK presented the details of the project. The trail extension
creates connections to existing trails. It will be 12 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders. Parts
of the trail will run through wooded areas enhancing the trail experience. Other
segments will be adjacent to Lower Afton Road. There will be some retaining walls
where necessary and those walls will be terraced as much as possible to allow for
landscape plantings. The trail will be well away from the concrete storm water flume
along Lower Afton Road. The trail will be wide enough to accommodate bikers and
walkers simultaneously. Because the trail is federally funded, there are more
requirements to meet as far as sightlines, slope and width. There will be stop signs at
the intersections of the trail at Battle Creek Road and Winthrop Street. Mn/DOT
regulations dictate where the road and trail crossings will be. Guardrails are necessary
in areas where the trail is less than 25 feet from the road. RLK met with the Ramsey
Washington Watershed District about installing box culverts in two locations for
drainage. Use of box culverts is acceptable to the Watershed District. There was also
a public meeting with the District 1 Council to present the overall preferred plan. District
Council 1 approved the plan. Many of the components of the trail will be constructed
using recycled products. There will be some tree removal (approximately 80) to
accommodate the trail.
Mr. Ditmore moved, seconded by Mr. Straumann, to recommend the proposed plan for
approval. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF BENCH LOCATIONS FOR "PATHWAYS TO HEALTH" ON RAMSEY
COUNTY PARKS AND TRAILS
The 1,000 Benches Program, created by Active Living Ramsey Communities! and the
Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, was brought before the Board for approval in
2007. It is a cooperative program between Ramsey County and the municipalities
within Ramsey County. The program intended to place benches in strategic locations
along trails to assist more people getting out and walking. The program was redesigned
in 2010. Under the redesigned program, benches will be placed on smaller slabs and
the active living messages will be on the backs of the benches rather than on pavers on
larger slabs that were a component of the original program. Up to 300 benches could
be installed in Ramsey County park areas. Ramsey County will provide the slab and
2
the benches will be provided at no cost. Mr. Yonke displayed several aerial maps
illustrating key locations where benches could be installed in the parks and along
regional trails taking into consideration existing bench locations. Ramsey County Parks
and Recreation staff considered standards of where to position the benches in relation
to the others, about every 1,000 feet up to % mile apart in some places depending on
the trail.
Mr. Straumann moved, seconded by Mr. Tempas, to recommend approval on the
proposed bench locations within Ramsey County Parks and Regional Trails. Motion
carried.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Mack reported:
• The Governor's recommendation for General Fund appropriations for operations
and maintenance for regional parks is a 40% reduction. There will be a hearing
on March 10 before the House to introduce a bill that will seek a comparable
reduction to the state for regional parks at 5%. If the 40% reduction was put into
place, it would impact beaches with lifeguards, the ability to maintain winter trail
access (plowing) and the ability to maintain natural resources.
• Legacy funding was approved by Minnesota voters in 2008. The first years of
• appropriations from that fund were 2009-2010. The Governor has proposed
distributing the Parks and Trails Funds in the following proportions: 42% State
parks, 42% metropolitan regional parks and 15% statewide grants for regional
parks. Counties in greater Minnesota are requesting a larger share of the
appropriation. The Legacy plan that relates to parks and trails proposed by the
DNR supports the Governor's appropriation.
REPORT FOR CHAIR AND OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS
Rich Straumann reported that he has volunteered for the legacy brick program group at
Tamarack Nature Center.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon appropriate motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Victoria Dahlquist
3