The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.B. Southbridge Savanna Oaks Park Design <' ,q B r.' /:If' / CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: City Council, Mayor, City Administrator From: Andrea Weber, Parks and Recreation Landscape Designer Meeting Date: November 15, 2005 Subject: South bridge Savanna Oaks Park Design INTRODUCTION At their July 25th meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Recommended approval of the Park Design Option 4 "Butterfly" for the Southbridge Savanna Oaks neighborhood. This project is being brought to City Council for approval of the schematic design and authorization to prepare plans and specifications. DISCUSSION Park Design and Community Involvement The site for this park was dedicated as a future park site in the original South bridge Parks Master Plan, see Attachment A. Currently, the site is open space planted with native vegetation. Southbridge has one developed City park, in the Hamlet neighborhood, and a playground and ball fields at Red Oak Elementary. Some discussions in 2003-4 suggested that the next park site to be developed would be a site at Sussex and Cambridge, and this site would focus on older aged children and teens. However, when this was included in the Fall 2004 Brochure, several residents contacted the Park and Recreation Department expressing the need for a playground for younger children in the Savanna Oaks neighborhood. Staff met with theSouthbridge Community Association Board (SCA), which has representatives from all of the Home Owners' Associations in Southbridge, to get feedback on which site to develop first. This meeting took place on May 25 '05. The SCA Board was strongly in favor of a Tot Lot in Savanna Oaks as the next site to develop. [The SCA also supported the development of a park with more active uses for older children in the open space along Southbridge Parkway as the following development, to provide a balance of amenities for the area.] Staff held a neighborhood Open House at Red Oak Elementary on June 20th, 2005. Approximately 30 people attended. There were three Schematic Designs presented. All of the options included a tot lot/play structure. . The option titled "Seq:~entine" was the most preferred. . There were comments received which wanted play options for older children as well as those who did not want to see any park development. . There was also opposition to the trail connection from the site to Southbridge Parkway. This trail connection was a part of the original Southbridge Park Master Plan. However, due to existing wetlands, the trail link would involve wetland mitigation and/or a bridge crossill9, which is not within the scope of the park budget. It is not proposed to proceed at this time, but may be reconsidered in the future. ".", ,. . .:'!iJlJ :; ',~.;ft ,", ~ > At the June 2ih Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, staff presented the three options which were shown at the Open House. There were several residents who attended the meeting who did not want the park developed as a tot lot. The Advisory Board requested that staff send out a survey to Southbridge Area Residents to determine if a park with a Tot Lot was needed and desired by residents in Savanna Oaks or if a park which was mostly natural with wildlife viewing areas would be better received. The Advisory Board also requested information on how well used the Hamlet Tot Lot was and if the usage there warranted another park with a tot lot in Southbridge. Staff sent out surveys to the same mailing list as was sent for the open house with 544 addresses. There were 96 surveys returned, which is an 18% response rate overall. Of the addresses in Savanna Oaks, there was a 33% response rate to the survey, A copy of the survey and tabulation of the responses received is attached, see Attachment B. The survey included two new park designs; Option 4 "Butterfly," is a hybrid of Option 1 and Option 2 from the Open House. It included a gazebo, combined play areas, and the trail along the South of the play areas, near the center of the site. Option 5, "Prairie Path" was a minimal impact design with a trail leading to a gazebo facing the South pond. Park Design Selection The surveys indicated a nearly 5:1 preference for the design with the Tot Lot, called Option 4 "Butterfly," see Attachment C. The majority of the reasons given for this preference were due to the need/desire for play equipment, the large numbers of children in the area, the distance to walk to the other playgrounds (Hamlet and Red Oak), as well as the need for a place to interact and socialize with neighbors. On Question 6, Residents were asked how important including a tot lot was in Savanna Oaks, 78% said it was Extremely Important or Very Important. I also received many e- mails regarding this park. Of them, I received 17 i~ favor of the Tot Lot and one against. Of the comments from those who preferred the alternate option 5, "Prairie Path" or those that preferred no development at all typically indicated that they wanted to preserve the nature in the area or did not use parks and only used trails. At the July 25th Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the Board recommended approval the Option 4 "Butterfly" which includes a Tot Lot, small Gazebo and small lawn, with the majority of the site left as native vegetation. Powerline Easement At the Open House and in the survey I did get questions on the safety of having a park under the power lines. The Environmental Advisory' Committee did review the issue of health effects of High Voltage Transmission Lines earlier this year and determined that there was no conclusive evid~nce to support either position. I spoke with Scott Johnson of Xcel Energy Right of Way, who confirmed that parks were allowed encroachments within Power Line Easements, provided that no structures be constructed within the easement, tree heights are limited, and no grading changes are allowed within the easement. Staff will need to send the park plans in to Excel for their . review and to get a letter stating that the proposed encroachments into the power line easement were approved by Excel. Budqet . The current CIP allocation for this project is $147,000. The main components of this project include: play equipment ($40-45,000) and the gazebo ($20-25,000). Trails, edging, surfacing, soil investigation, grading and plantings are other expense items in addition to staff time, contingency, Trunk Water Charges, Surveying and Staking, Erosion Control, and Testing. Preliminary estimates are $146,840.00, which is within this budget, see Preliminary Estimate, Attachment D. Timeline The proposed timeline for this park is to have bid documents available for advertisement in early 2006 for spring 2006 construction, when the bidding climate is most favorable. Proposals for the Playground equipment will be requested in early 2006, when updated catalogs are published. There will be another neighborhood meeting to get input on the selection of this equipment. Play equipment purchase authorization will be brought back to Council in spring 2006 after park bids are received. REQUESTED ACTION 1. If Council concurs, make a' motion to approve the Schematic Design Option 4, "Butterfly" for the park site in Savanna Oaks in South bridge and authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. , It- 0 PARK PARCELS 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PRESERVE 5 SMALL PARK PARCEL 9 OPENSPAC' ATTACHMENT A Approximately SO acres, developed for recreationalu5eS Benc.alh power line cascmcntaoo part of pondingarca Not large enough for any recreational development. Southbridge Community / Deans Lake Area as well as a nature preserve (see enlargement plan). for housing development. Provide minimal development SUgw.'St maintaining it as natural green spar.c. 2 OPEN SPACE (see enlargement plan). 10 SlYIAlL PARK PARCEL Not large enough for any recreational development. 6 OPEN SPACE Provides nel~ood r.onnection to lraik and informal OVERALL MASTER PLAN 5uggesr mainrainingiTasnatUtal green space. Benealh power line easement and part of Deans lake grccnspacc. 3 OPEN SPACE area. Provides access to trail system. 11 SMAll PARK PARCEL Not large enough for any recreational development 7 OPEN SPACE large enough for minmal recreational development (see 5uggest maintainingil as natural green space. Not large enough for any fecreational development. enlargement plan). 4 OPEN SPACE Suggl3l maintaining it as natural green space. 12 ElEMENTARY SCHOOL PARCfl Part of greenway system I power line easement along 8 OPEN SPACE Will help provide ballfields, open field space and Southbridge Parkway. Trail S)'Stem located in greenway Notlargccnoughforanyrccrcationaldevclopmcnl playgmund activities for the neighborhood. with arca~ of interest and scating along !lail. Naturall suggcstmaintainingitasnaturalgrccnspaccorpmvidc nativclandscapcthcme. some small corner ornamental planting beds. ~~ South bridge Community / Deans Lake Area Master Plan Project II J---'" ....... GRAPHICSCAJ..E k Mad;~' 5 ~ Savanna Oaks Park Survey SHAKOPEE The Shako pee Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Department of Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities would like to hear your thoughts on proposed schematic design options for the Savanna Oaks Park. We recently held an Open House about the schematic design of this park on June 20th. Two of the three options presented were equally favored by resid,ent feedback. In contrast, some residents favored preserving the existing wildlife habitat and providing wildlife viewing opportunities without a playground. [One proposed feature, the trail connection from the park site to South bridge Parkway via the land bridge between the two ponds, is currently not among the proposal options, due to the need for a bridge, which is above current budget limitations.] The Parks and Recreation advisory Board requested that we seek additional feedback from residents on these issues. The attached drawingsshow two new schematic deskms based on this request for feedback. We are seeking your help to determine what will best meet the current and future park needs of this area. Please review the two attached drawings and fill out the survey on the following page. Surveys received or postmarked by July 15, 2005 will be compiled in a report to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at their July 25th meeting. . Option 4 "Butterflv", below, is a hybrid of the two most favored Tot Lot designs. It features combined play areas and a shorter path, with a gazebo at the end. Savanna. Oaf'~s Option 4 "Butterfly" This option is a hybrid of earlier options 1 and 2 ("Caterpillar" and "Serpen- tine"). It has a combined ages play area north of the trail, which enters the site in the middle of the west side. The winding trail end's with a gazebo looking toward the south pond and is away from the existing woodland. Plantings include shade trees, flowering trees, a small lawn ., and prairie plantings. ,. .'~'" . . Option 5 "Prairie Path" , below, is a more eco-centric design which does not include any plav equipment, and preserves more of the existing habitat while providing opportunities to view wildlife. Savanna Oaks. Park Option 5 "Prairie Path" This is an option without a children's play area. It preserves most of the site for native plantings and wild- life habitat. There is a trail leading to a small gazebo with benches for wildlife viewing. The existing woodland is pre-; served. Plantings include shade trees, flowerlng shrubs, a strip of h'.\<'" lawn along the trail, and prairie plantings. /... v", ~ Please answer the short survey on the following page and return it by mail, fax or in person by July 15th to: South bridge Parks Survey c/o Andrea Weber Shakopee Community Center 1255 Fuller St., Shakopee, MN 55379 Fax: 952-233-3831 Results of this survey will be presented at the July 25th Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting. Your input is greatly appreciated! Help shape your park! Please return your responses via mail, fax, or in person by July 15th to the Community Center 1255 Fuller St., or contact Andrea Weber at 233-9511 or aweber@cLshakopee.mn.us to obtain an electronic copy of this questionnaire. To provide further input, you may also attend the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting July 25th at 7p.m in City Hall. ~ SHAKOPEE + Southbridae Parks Survev- 1. Where do you live (street name, number)? 2. How many pe'ople are in your household? _under 2 years ~-5 years _5-12 years _12-18 years _adults 3. On average, how often do y,ou visit parks and/or playgrounds? _almost daily _ 1-2 times/week - 1-2 times/month _1-2 times/year - never 4. In the past year, approximately how often have you visited Hamlet Park at Windsor Drive and Cambridge St.? _almost daily _1-2 times/week _1-2 times/month _1-2 times/year - never 4. What other Shakopee parks do you visit, and for what activity(ies)? 5. How important is including a tot lot/playground equipment in the Savanna Oaks Neighborhood park? W Extremely Important w Very Important W Maybe w Not Important W Extremely Not Important 6. Which of the attached two Schematic design Options do you prefer: W Option 4 "Butterfly" Why do you prefer this option? W Option 5 "Prairie Path" Why do you prefer this option? THANK you! ~ SHAKOPEE Please return your responses via fax, mail or in person, by July 15th, to Andrea Weber at the Community Center, 1255 Fuller St., To provide further input, please attend the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting July 25tti at7p.m in City Hall. Southbridge~Savanna Oaks Park Survey July 2005 , Question Oxford Wakefield Wakefield Waterford Ashboume (Savanna Oaks 1 Where do vou live (street name, number)? Oxford N Oxford S Place Ct. Cir. Ct Cir Streets-129 tot) xvi xi ii i i iii v 39 Berkshire Berkshire Cambridge Carlisle Danbury Falmouth Greenbriar Classics and . not given Ct. Ln. Rd. Cv Coventry Ln. Curve Curve Cv. Hamlet Streets .. iiii iiii iii ii iiii i i ii iii 24 Sussex Ct. Whitehall Tumbridge Windsor Hartley Blvd. & Place Sussex Ln Whitehall PI Rd Ct Lane Windsor Dr ii iii ii i iii i vii viiii 28 TOTAL 91 2 How manv people are in vour household? <2 yrs 2-5 yrs 5-12 vrs 12-18 yrs adults Child 0-12 Child:adult 0-18:adult 27 59 47 22 168 133 0.79 0.92 On average, how often do you visit parks almost 1-2 timesl 1-2 timesl 1-2 timesl 3 and/or plaVQrounds? daily week month year never 10 45 23 8 5 In the past year, approximately how often (didn't have you visited Hamlet Park at Windsor almost 1-2 timesl 1-2 timesl 1-2 timesl know 4 Drive and Cambrid~e St. ? daily week month year never about it) 5 26 28 14 19 1 . Memorial Red Oak Park-PG, Lions- pool, park, PG, Pearson bike, walk, What other Shakopee parks do you visit. and Elem- walk, . frisbee golf, pic nics, Elem-PG, Baseball enjoy 5 for what activity(ies)? playground ducks None music soccer Parks nature 21 14 13 19 3 2 3 Meunchow- Tahpah-g- Community Stans, Whisper- Murphy's many in Shakopee Baseball softball Center Sweeney Tennis Prior Lake ing Oaks Landing 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Prior Lake Cleary Park Blooming- Blooming- Sandy in Prior ton Blooming- ton Dredd Linden Hills MN Valley Point Lake-to Chutes & ton Hyland Scott- PG, PG Kiddie Wildlife parks outside Shakopee Savage beach walk Ladders for fishing BB pool Refuge 1 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 How important is including a tot loUplayground equipment in the Savanna Extremely Very Not Extremely Not 6 Oaks Neighborhood park? Important Important Maybe Important Important 34 35 5 5 9 27/30/3/4/8 Option 5 prefer Which of the attached two Schematic design Option 4- "Prairie neither no majority for 7 Options do vou Drefer: "Butterflv" Path" option selection Butterfly: 1 South bridge-Savanna Oaks Park Survey July 2005 76 13 2 1 4.75 this is one of very few nieghborhoods with no park, we considered NOT Why do you prefer this option? moving here because of no park. this wouid eiiminate the need 10 go int We have been waiting 5 like option becal another neighborhood & walk down Southbndge (Speedway), it would years for our park in our 7.a. fBUTTERFL YJ complete Savanna Oaks neighborhood equipment, child Living adjacent to Hamlet Park, I see the infiux of families daily Our development (Savanna As the neighborhood to this playground, beginning with the first warm day in spnn~ Oaks) does not allow it gives kids a safe place to proximity to matures in maybe 15-20 Large number of through fall. It Is overcrowded and having another option for playsets, even though some congregate instead of playing power lines a years, the park could be familias to walk/bike to would be beneficial for our children. people have them -ii on the streets concern changed if desired. area, size of are would also think about need to ofter more equipment than a tot lot. my B-yr old is People with children have needs for this and they are the ones hope to see putting in please too big and ciimbs on top of the equipment wi the older Place to socializ most likely to visit. VVhenwe had children a visit to our baseball, tennis, consider porta boys. This is not safe for them or others, we need neighborhood park was almost a dialy ntual basketball basketball potty basketball. skating rink in the neighborhood place It is small enough not to West end does r It is unfortunate that this park cannot connect to Southbridg prefer no Including a playground make We won't draw too many Parkway, people wouldn't have to walk through neighborhoo ~athand no park a destination place to use park if it people in by play equip, exist if it were Gazebo walk to is just a path car. to walk preferred Waste of money Toddlers and young children don't really care about natural We don't have kids now, bu we havea young grandson separate play prefer hybnd praine, however if they play in that environment, maybe plan to and will visit parks that will soon be old enough areas in original design with appearance playground, no n subconsciously the appreciation will "rub "ft." and playgrounds a lot to use a playground plans play area and layout PG we already have areas; minimal i wildlife; good bal play and wildlife Why do you prefer this option? (PRAIRIE It just fils our Preserves existing concept of conservation easement which is part of master development family's needs for City and Southbndge area, we beiieve certain park facilities encourage loitenng an PATH) more congregating wlo a real purpose (teens), Interested in preserving our pnvacy.-ii It keeps the integrity of the development as it currently exists. I the rapid rate of growth & construction in this drive by Hamlet park 6 times a day, it is seldom used. A lot 0 area has already destroyed so much wild Preserve natural look of environment; less less damaging homes have plyground equipment in yards Existing nature is habitat. I strongly feel we should leave what maintenance and won't look dated or funk to the area, hard to replace once removed. My wife and I truly enjoy the we can. Shakopee needs more nature as soon. Also it is the most respectful plan more peaceful natural setting as it currently is. education!-iii for houses viewing the park ii We need more adult not important to have a tot lot. Would mostly Less disruption to wildlife. To discourage unattended play time- park-walking use for a trail, also iike the eco-centric kids left alone. areas design Having lived here 3+ yrs, I disagree that park would disru t wildlife. deer and geese are infrequent visitors and will wa k Neitherl People with tots tend to have in park regardless, they walk and eat in my yard more tha plyground equipment in yards. (Ii) The whol in the field now, neighbors adjacent just want to keep neighborhood is a "Prairie Path." Better ide privacy. I would be interested in "playfieid areas" soccer. Other coments is tennis courts and basketball courts Baseball for children neither option .Everyone with children has PG equip in their back yards. It would be (no demographic information given on this much more valuable to provide tennis court survey) Why spend other people's money and basketball courts because these aren't for your own need/want? If you want pleas available at all in this part of Shakopee. Als use your own own own money. you are nch it is unnecessary to have wildlife viewing money for you is not important but for others You since we can all do that from our backyardS is important. ok? , ,0 > . Me( c l1 W\Pv\f' 17 ~ No. estimate Estimate Item Units d price Qty. Option 4 Notes PARK IMPROVEMENTS CIP Budget 147,000 I LUMP MOBILIZATION (5% Max) SUM 5%* 130,000 I $ 6,500.00 2 LUMP CLEARING & GRUBBING SUM $ 800.00 I $ 800.00 comDarable to GWNP 3 COMMON EXCAVATION (P), CUYD $ 10.00 3800 $ 38,000.00 greenfield bid was 9$/CY 4 SILT FENCE UN FT $ 3.00 600 $ 1,800.00 5 GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE V SQYD $ 2.50 120 $ 300.00 6 GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CUYD $ 25.00 50 $ 1,250.00 7 CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (100% CRUSHED UMESTONE)--CONVERT from 100 CY TON $ 16.00 35 $ 560.00 8 TYPE MVWE45035B OR SPWEA230C WEAR COURSE MIX (B), 3" TillCK, (in two lifts) SY $ 12.00 270 $ 3,240.00 300 If tal 8' wide 9 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $ 10.00 20 $ 200.00 marginal if needed 10 CONCRETE TERRACE 4" TillCK, SIDEWALK SY $ 60.00 100 $ 6,000.00 smaller Qty. than GWNP 11 not likely to need, but planning for 4" PERFORATED PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT $ 25.00 150 $ 3,750.00 anyway! 12 SEEDING TURF GRASS AC. $ 1,500.00 0.5 $ 750.00 .4 ac actual 13 2.1 actual, reduce to disturbed area SEEDING NATIVE MIX AC. $ 8,000.00 0.5 $ 4,000.00 only, O.5ac 14 SODDING LAWN TYPE SQYD $ 5.00 o $ ALTERNATE FOR lawn seed - 15 added 3 evergreens for screening TREE INSTALLATION EACH $ 510.00 9 $ 4,590.00 nei!rhbors 16 added shrubs for screning SHRUB INSTALLATION EACH $ 45.00 40 $ 1,800.00 neighbors 17 not shown, could sub alternate for VINYL EDGING LF $ 3.00 300 $ 900.00 cone edging 18 to replace vinyl with concrete, ad CONCRETE EDGING, 6" WIDE x 4" DEEP LF $ 14.00 o $ - $3,300.00 19 to replace vinyl with concrete, ad STEEL EDGING LF $ 10.00 o $ - $2,100.00 20 CONCRETE PLAY BORDER 6" WIDE x 12" DEEP LF $ 25.00 300 $ 7,500.00 21 SURFACE MOUNTED BENCH EACH $ 1,200.00 5 $ 6,000.00 22 BIKE HOOP EACH $ 300.00 I $ 300.00 23 STEEL GAZEBO EACH $ 12,000.00 I $ 12,000.00 24 LUMP PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT and surfacing SUM $ 30,000.00 I $ 30,000.00 Construction Bid Estimate Tot . $ 130,240.00 Trunk Water Charge (1348/acre x 0.5 acres ), WCC Acre $ - 0.5 $ - Mise Testing EACH $ 600.00 Staking EACH $ 2,000.00 SuiffTime EACH $ 7,000.00 Contingency (5%) EACH $ 7,000.00 TOTAL Cost EstimatE $ 146,840.00 Notes: (P) Planned Quantity Basis of Measurement (CV) Compacted Volume