The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.E.2. Authorization to Proceed with Final Design and Specifications for the Development of Parcel 75 �,�� Consent Business 4. E. 2. 51 i r�KOI'f_I� TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jamie Polley, Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Director DATE: 08/07/2013 SUBJECT: Authorization to Proceed with Final Design and Specifications for the Development of Parce175 (A, B) Action Sought If the City Council concurs, authorize the appropriate staff to enter into an agreement with WSB in the amount not to exceed $58,100 to prepare the final design and specifications for Parce175 (Southbrige Community Park). Background On November 20, 2013 the City Council approved a concept plan for Parce175 that includes a dog park, lit hockey rink, trails and a parking lot. The City Council directed staff to reorganize the dog park committee comprised of citizen volunteers and obtain communiry input. At this time 33 people have volunteered to be on the dog park committee. The dog park committee has met three times to discuss the concept, desired amenities and the role of the committee. A community meeting for comments on the concept of Parce175 was held on April 1, 2013 at Red Oak Elementary School. Approximately 16 people were in attendance (this does not include the PRAB members or City Council member who also attended). Participants completed a comment form and the comment form was available to the public until April 19th. A summary of all the comments received is attached. The community input listed water as the number one desired amenity. The ability to bring water to the site is available. There is a waterline along Southbridge Parkway that can be tapped into. Other comments included additional plantings to increase the buffer between the houses and the park and parking lot. In addition to the community input staff has been working with MnDOT and Xcel energy to insure the park plan was acceptable. MnDOT is currently putting together a lease agreement for the use of two of the five acres on the north end of the park. The two acres would make the dog park larger. At this time MnDOT will charge $500/year for the lease of the two acres. Xcel Energy reviewed the plans because a large portion of the dog park in planned within their easement. The City has received a preliminary letter from Xcel Energy approving the concept plan. Xcel Energy will review the final design once completed and an encroachment agreement will be executed allowing the use of their easement. Finally, WSB was hired to conduct a soil survey of the site to determine if the sandy soils of the site can withstand the traffic of the park users. It was found that the soils are highly erodible; however, there are options to minimize the erosion through additional plantings, site preparation, and strategic design. The soils and topography of the site will be addressed during the final design of the park. Discussion On May 20, 2013 the PRAB reviewed and discussed the community comments, MnDOT and Xcel Energy's comments and the soil survey results. The PRAB is recommending to the City Council to complete the final design of the park including construction plans and specifications. WSB is under contract with the City to complete engineering services and conducted the soil survey of Parcel 75. Staff has obtained a quote from WSB to complete the final park design as well as develop the cost estimates and specifications for the park construction. The proposed amount for the following services; survey preparation and construction staking, preliminary design services, construction document preparation, bidding services and construction administration is not to exceed $58,100. During the final design process it will be determined what amenities of the park will be contracted and what items can be completed utilizing city staff or volunteers. Budget Impact The 2013 Park Reserve CIP has allocated $100,000 to the development of the park. It was anticipated that $50,000 would be used for design services and $50,000 would be needed for the site preparation such as invasive species and dead/dying tree removal. The 2014 Park Reserve CIP allocated $500,000 for the park development. Time line The proposed time line for this park is to have the final design approved by the PRAB in September and approval by the City Council in early October. Preliminary site preparation will begin in late October. The park amenities will be added in the spring of 2014. Staff will be working with the Dog Park Committee and the PRAB to develop rules and possible fees for the dog park area in August and September of this year. Relationship to Vision A. Keep Shakopee a safe and healthy community where residents can pursue active and quality lifestyles. B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and change. Requested Action If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the appropriate staff to enter into an agreement with WSB in the amount not to exceed $58,100 to prepare the final design and specifications for Parce175 (Southbrige Communiry Park). Attachments: Comments Summarv Concept Plan Parcel 75 Park Development Community Comments Comments as of 4.4.13 Number of Respondents 18 1. Please indicate your level of support for the proposed park improvements Very Supportive 12 Somewhat Supportive 2 Not Supportive 4 Reason for Choice: uev.wui negativeiy impact property value&quality of life, Noise and increased traffic in back yard,My house will now face the Great use of space,Good exercise for whole dog park development, dog&me,3 dogs,3 dogs,Nothing Impact on wildlife and rare species, else like this available in Shakopee, nice to have a real natural area to Promotes good health for dog& enjoy the natural woods&wildlife, owners,Excited to have a dog park, Concerns about parking, eye-sore w/litter&broken down Good addition to neighborhood& noise&lights,effects on fences where dog owners and community,own a dog and would like home values in classics, smoke cigarettes and talk on cell a dog park that is close,We will use pollution,barking,crime, phones while dogs run loose,dog often. smell&lights from cars. feces. 2.Are you a dog owner: Yes 13 No 4 No Answer 1 3. Have you ever visited a dog park? Yes 13 No 5 4. If yes to#3, how often do you use dog parks and which ones have you visited? Daily 2 Three Rivers Parks (Cleary Lake, Spring Lake &Others) 5 Several times a week 2 Bloomington 2 A few times a month 3 Staring Lake Occasionally 3 Burnsville Not specified 2 Eden Prairie 2 5. Do you have any comments on the amenities or design of the dog park? Sitting Areas(benches/tables) 2 Ample space 1 Trash Cans/waste bags 2 Different surfaces 1 Water(drinking) 5 Looped Paths (woodchiped) 3 Double gate entrance 2 Fencing like Cleary Lake 2 Small dog area 2 Trees for Separation w/homes 1 A. Unsure of why dog park is adjacent to houses,seems like along 169 would be better placement to minimize disturbance to residents near park. B. I don't think it should be located as near to a residential area as it is. Use the current park system like Vets park to find a better location. Parcel 75 Park Development Community Comments C. Parking lot will almost be right in my back yard. Ice rink.. No kids park? Lots of trees block houses. D. Have Dog Park open year round. E. If pond please enclose. 6.What other amenity would you like in this park? Heavy tree line as a buffer from residential properties (from park& parking) 3 Small dog area 2 Waste receptacle w/bags 2 User registration so there is an area that has the info of the park users A place to contact with questions/concerns Dog wash/fountain/hose/water 5 Lighted parking lot that will not effect homes and accommodate high usage 3 Mowed trails Tall fence 7.Are you familiar with the proposed general rules and operating procedures for the dog park? Yes 14 No 3 No Comment 1 Comments: A.Good plan B. I think residents could get a park permit similar to clearly lake,this would avoid the "drop box" payment idea,which poses a risk, and does not hold everyone accountable for paying. C. I don't believe it should be located anywhere near a residential area for obvious reasons. D. Concerned with noise. 8.This park needs an official name,what do you think this park should be called? Veterans Park Dog Haven Derby Park Windsor Park Pooch Park 2 Shakopee Dog Park Savannah Oaks Dog Park Southbridge Dog Park 2 Southbridge Community Dog Park Great Oaks Park Paws at Southbridge The Park at Southbridge Herrgott Dog Park Riverside Dog Park 9.Any other comments? A.Great Idea-Thank you! Fine with a fee based approach B.We would love to have this park! C.We appreciate&support! Let me know if you need committee, rulemaking,etc. assistance Parcel 75 Park Development Community Comments D. I think my property value will plummel. (Go down) How many people want a dog park in their neighborhood? Who will enforce rules?How available are they? If this isn'et in your backyard why would you care.So numbers are against us. E. I live at XXXX Falmouth Curve very close to this park. It will be a shame if I can see people walking in the woods while I am in my house. F. It is important to note that the people that live immediatley on the west side of the parcel whose back yards now will have to look directly at this dog park, do not have dogs. Please be carefule when you say,everyone wants this dog park because that is false statement and many people DO NOT want it. G.Would like park to open as soon as possible so I don't have to continue to purchase other City dog licenses for other cities to use their dog parks. H.This park will get a ton of use.There are no close dog parks which is why we don't go often. I.There is no need for a dog park in this part of town.There are miles of sidewalks and trails in this area. Spending the money on a dog park is a waste of public resources.The cost of developing and maintaining a dog park is not worth the benefit.There is a cheaper alternative to building the dog park in parcel 75.There must be a place in Shakopee where parking already exists.There must be a place in Shakopee where a smaller, easier and cheaper to manage dog park could be located.Tahpah Park or the Community Center are perfect examples. It would be easier to maintain the fencing in an open area and it would be easier to impose a fee on users if necessary.A better use for the property is to maintain it as a natural area. Why not continue to slowly develop a trail system in the park where people could walk their dogs on a leash!This will preserve the natural aspect of the park.There are better uses for the money that a dog park at parcel 75.The City should use the money to start to develop Shutrop Park or Quarry Lake where it has access to waterfront and is a much better use of money that dumping it intoa fence system with a parking lot that will require constant upkeep and repair. I believe the dog park is a terrible idea for the reasons I explained.At least put a large fee on the users and ban smoking anywhere in or around the park to keep the litter problem down. I hope that the City Council will reject spending any money on this project and save parcel 75 from destruction. �- ,�� y y� `,' :��►� �r�,' ,;�� `,�� ;� � � � � � � � � � �l ' , i • r � � • -. � '��'L��' �� F �� +�� I � � '�� F � , � ��.�� . .� . �. y�. _ � � ♦� �� . ., , r� � . �.�� i? . •� _� 1 ' . � � , . . , • � V' ti. o ^ Q / : 6.,,' ..�I. �.. . .: '.. � � .. �� 11r,ullt�/�j�t r ' � ,� � t ' 1 � ��f �� r " .- ` N ; . .. �� k ��. ��"4 nP . . . . . . ' . . �' ^�,,p ' .. 1 �. �. � . . � . /j i ♦ 1 • �di Ir� . i�. .� i i �i � . �'` ,��`�� ' � � 7 � ��N��I�a��i � �� . . . . ,. .� �'/ ;_ � - � .�: t .<.E � ' ,r,'� � }�r 4'� � �/� ., r. . , ' . . ,. . � ... . .. ' . , � 4 j � i .�� A - . .. . . . . '��-� _ �.' �� § ��. , `` 1 r� r rr � �` � �k 4"W:� � �� - .. ., � , � ' . " �♦I�y -� �..' ,'��A ��. 1 - �, " �, ., . . J �1 �> � �, � ��` .a! ' i � q` .�.: � � •; �. �, � E�t � � �'� " � `�r�' I�in►• a,�i�.- i� � � �� , r .� ,�• . �r ..-_�.,;,�� r ► > . , < �, . . .'�� i` �� ``�y�; `� � . . � _ " �4, ..� _ '`�,�� °� ,�",�� : � ' � � � � — ��' , _. :, , � � �� ;.�» � J y ��'''p ��.,�� `t $ .� �,.,�J�� '1 l= J �� y. �°��Y� �y.''' � 4�'�i ,*� . . wwY r �,} ��j�' � � s�� »�'� ��+a ^.. �-R":� ��,[� « 4 j's, \ � . � . �� ,y �y sr �fY F �,'�'�r '�+ •'Sz �..� � '. / • � � r r ��. � fi�+d"r ��' a'� . �,^ ,�/ �` ��: 4" �.�'� � ,� e" i*� +'...� '�'"' r�. { �� y�. �•.�} � �C.,i�?, �,"��{ u. ?�,iL,y.�" : i 'S�° !�+�r•� Jr �1' �. r .e's� �?�r.! t ��M�''�. +�'•�.i�.,N•TS,yy� �, •'JyE�ES : �aW . �� ` �w �� '� �.�,' � ..tr �'��j. „+��&�'v'�� r',�. 9 �.{' , r _ fif �.+"�':;�`�&' :.r �`�' �d�� y,�, {N .. :�-"A� ��'R'� Y k�� '�`� �`�� .� � ,a d r , g�.„�.'�� f�� Y =;$� ,��- "r`+ � � a �� ,'� .,�r+' . -Y �. �` .��s.�.�;,':1.�� .�� s� ��c. +"�+,"�,�� , � '�'�( ,� � ,£i� s"s�` .A ,r u,.� �`�r s x � °` •�� s�� # d`� �� ,�,� � �.;�� r,�,;�� ;� : ` _,„;s."% ,i :1�i tr �.`, �� i�^� �� ,i + ,Mi.or��' F� � J� � r� �"+"' ri�, . -�, � t.f'�.. � °�fw�' ".;f��a, 'SG z . ��*s��.,�,r� . ,�' � . $ , � � � � �� .. 'y� '�� ,_,�. . � �.� `:� ✓ \I s�- �� .�� .� �"^, `�'�. '+�'DS'r�C . � �,,� ..� :�k �s�:�� ,�=�'�- � � �' � �., � ,� �. d�� . �;,; �, � '�:, �� r �;� � �'.. • , , , � �K. . S ' - � � �, y ;F�4 ¢* ��;,�. F �` ��'��v .,, � �� -fi� � .- �� >' � g� .� .� � . A� � ��`�,�'�w�� * ,.r� ` '�r' '�� I �\*�� 'i, �� :`� " ��s �� } ' ��`�� ' `, �t��` �� j E ; � � �� _ � � ' , ,� � : � \ � Y# .T/y'. `� �� f,�� fa ' � �''� � �a$ \ �� Q �h " k .. F 4� v. lC��f ... A� � k` r�� !� .c..�� b . ., �'�M'k ^" A ° � � ,�> a� � �� .#r. ! �i��Y"„�:�!�', .t-� �t'3�*�f'r 'C`f:� r . . "� z r r�P . � .— - - � -. r ^.ra,..„ ' d' s�`� �e.{r ;c ,� i^ x.. n \ t .. �°a�',� 7``� ��.' . . �;. � � _,,�1 - r.�4.r i�Y e�+,..,� ��° +�t r,s r� ��+' . . fr'}'�r� t ` 'a.y" '� �*r '✓ `'"'� �"�' , y T n�m � � ,+�.�, �.�'�. �•.� �� a�e^ � � t ,H �" �. 1�?��y �Y-•.t�` . r � • � i �T��' I '� ��'�:� �� . .. , — — — — — �' � �� . � O \ '. .,N�Gd �'° � �- ! � . � � _�,(�� :. �' `_ � �y,� ! I �4 R 'ti y;; � —` L � �V' � � w�y�� —._ �. �} � _\ -.. '.... • � — � _ '�- � � � � � "'- � . �J �.—�* la,�r '�T r�r'� �('' � '�f �,� S ' � ��... l + .. �+�Y . � E t'�'�� ;. �. 4� �,�g �.�. 4 �f .. . ...✓.' ;R 7� �;'_: F,.E,}�(j :-�.t� . . . � r � _�� `,, � e �+� F r�'rL., . , . ��t x,� y . �'�+/��i� .�y " , .� r,?'�� ';1 * ,� � t � ,� . , , ��, � �:� , � ,.<-� .i �°;"� �*.3 f , ! +�_. `., 4 , ��(� � � , ,.i .' * 'K . �...'. . �... _ . i7� r �` � "�� . � , � � `� . � r �� . , �1 ' �r".` ,>�° '�j • ,� '�i �.��. ''� ' � � � P t�� .` ,��'' , . r.,� � < �� ,� '�" , � ±.� � .: ��.r . � '� ��- ` r �� 1 „�„k_ !�. • .