HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.C.1. Park Land Acquisitions
~
" I s:c · J
,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
Subject: Park Land Acquisition
!'
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to authorize staff, the chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, and Councilor Lehman (liaison to the Advisory Board) to proceed with
discussions for acquisition and development of funding options for the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board's priority land acquisition site, the Shutrop Property.
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, the city has been considering acquiring a significant parcel of
land for use as a park. In 2001, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board considered
acquisItion of a parcel on the east side of O'Dowd, but recommended against it due to
access and development issues.
In April, the Advisory Board reviewed four parcels of land that had been identified
previously for land acquisition (see Attachment A). Each of these parcels has the
potential for a combination of passive and active recreational use, which was one of the
conditions for an ideal park site. During May, I conducted several tours of the parcels so
the Advisory Board could have a better understanding of the characteristics of each
parcel.
In June, the Advisory Board recommended that the Shutrop property along CR 16 be the
city's priority land acquisition site, and that the city work with other potential partners to
fulfill long-term park needs. The Environmental Advisory Committee also reviewed the
sites at their June meeting and concurred with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board's
recommendation, although noted that the wetland area is fairly monotypic.
I have met with Norm and Jan Shutrop to discuss their interest in selling this parcel to
the city and they appear to be willing to consider an offer, but our discussion has
remained rather general. They did attend the June Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
meeting when land acquisition was discussed, and they are aware that Council will be
discussing it on July 20.
DISCUSSION
Parcel Description
The Shutrop Parcel is a 103-acre parcel that is located north of CR 16 and bounded
generally by Dean Lake and Southbridge open space to the north, CR 16 to the south,
and undeveloped private prop~rty to the east and west. The parcel contains a mix of
wetlands, wooded bluff line, and upland area. Portions of the parcel are still a working
farm and contain a house and' other farm structures.
J
,
Development Potential
Although the site is 103 acres, the topography and vegetation on the site appears to
promote more passive than active uses. (It may be difficult to construct a sports complex
on the site.) However, the natural characteristics make it ideal for passive uses including
trails, picnicking, and experiencing nature.
A strength of this site is the possibility of acquiring additional adjacent park land as
development occurs to the east and west. On the east side, a wetland complex extends
to CR 18. The city has acquired a four-acre park as part of the Riverside Fields
development along this wetland complex, and could continue requiring park land as
development moves toward the Shutrop property. Going west from the Shutrop property,
there are two parcels along Dean Lake that extend up the bluff that could also be
acquired some day through park dedication, if these parcels develop.
Although acquisition could occur now, development of the property would probably not
occur for 5..10 years. I have asked the Shutrops about their long-term plans, and they
appear to be willing to remain on the property and take care of it until the city develops it
or their plans change. If they remained on the site, the city could lease the land and
buildings back to the Shutrops.
County Road 21
The most significant issue facing the Shutrop property is future CR 21. We met with
Scott County earlier this year to discuss the impact that CR 21 would have on the
Shutrop property. At that time, we were told that the draft EIS for CR 21 that would
identify impacts to the property would be released sometime this spring. Last week we
had a follow-up meeting with the County and were informed that the draft would not be
out until this fall, and the EIS not complete until sometime in 2005.
We were able to get a general idea of the initial CR 21 needs. At this time, it appears
that the County will need to acquire approximately 11 acres for the road right-of-way on
this parcel. In order to fulfill their initial plans for wetland mitigation, they would need
additional acreage on the property, but they are evaluating other options as part of the
EIS. The County's tentative timeline would place acquisition for CR 21 beginning in
2006.
If the city proceeded with acquisition now, the County would either need to come up with
funding for their land now, or purchase it from the city in the future.
Pike Lake Trail
The city's transportation plan update that is underway will determine whether or not Pike
Lake Trail needs to be connected to Southbridge Parkway. WSB will be providing a
preliminary analysis of Pike Lake Trail later this summer.
Partnerships
Shakopee School District is seeking land for a future secondary school site.
Superintendent McBroom has indicated that they will need 80-100 acres of developable
land that could be served by utilities in 8-10 years.
One of the potential weaknesses of the Shutrop property is the ability to construct active
park amenities such as sports fields on the site. In order to address this weakness, the
,
J
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that the city continue to work
closely with the school district as they seek land to determine whether or not a
partnership could be formed where the city would develop the sports fields for the land
that the school district acquires. If we were able to work out an agreement, this would
ensure that sports fields would be available within the next decade to meet the city's
future needs.
Finally, I was contacted by a consultant doing a park master plan for Prior Lake.
According to the consultant, Prior Lake is seeking land for an adult sports complex and
was wondering if Shakopee has similar needs. Since our needs appear to be more
passive and youth oriented, it doesn't appear that a Prior Lake/Shakopee partnership is
practical.
FUTURE STEPS
Development of Funding Options
The 2005-2009 CIP that you will be reviewing on July 22 contains revisions for the 2004
CIP that provides up to $2,000,000 for land acquisition. There may need to be
adjustments to this amount, as well as exploring creative funding options to acquire the
Shutrop property. Part of the action being requested tonight is to authorize exploration of
creative funding options.
Evaluation of CR 21 Impact
When the draft EIS is released for CR 21, it may be advisable to retain the services of a
consultant to help the city evaluate the impact that CR 21 will have on the site and its
ability to function as park land. Further information would be brought forward at that time.
Appraisal
At some point, the city will need to have an appraisal completed on the property. Council
could authorize this now, or at a later time.
Other Parcels
Other parcels could also be considered if this parcel is found to be inadequate or too
costly.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Council is asked to authorize staff, the chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, and Councilor Lehman (liaison to the Advisory Board) to proceed with
discussions for acquisition and development of funding options for the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board's priority land acquisition site, the Shutrop Property.
Council is also asked to provide direction to staff on whether it would like to proceed with
an appraisal of the property now, or at a later time.
~~~
Mark Themig
,
"
Attachment A
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Meeting Date: June 28, 2004
Subject: Park Land Acquisition
INTRODUCTION
The Advisory Board is asked to discuss park land acquisition and potential partnerships,
consider selecting a primary and secondary site for potential park land acquisition, and make
a recommendation to City Council.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In April, the Advisory Board reviewed four potential sites for park land acquisition. Since that
time, some of you were able to attend a tour of the four sites. Hopefully those of you that were
not able to attend one of the tours were able to drive by the properties.
Land Value
At the time we gathered the data on the four sites, all owners were willing to consider a
sale of all or a portion of their land for park uses. However, it is likely that they all will be
looking to be paid the current market rate for land. Recent land sales in the urban
service area ranged as high as $157,000 for open farm land, but all of the properties
being proposed are out of the urban service area and have wetlands as well as upland
areas that would impact the value.
Determining land value for any of the properties would likely involve an appraisal, but
the following are recent land sales outside the urban service area for comparison:
Location Total Acreage Purchase Price Date Per Acre Cost
Q'Dowd 43.3 $1,375,000 9/9/2003 $31,755
Lake/CR17*
2700 Marystown 10 $270,000 11/26/2002 $27,000
Road
(CR15/CR78)
McKenna 19.83 $508,904 6/21/2002 $25,663
Road/CR 16
CR42/ CR83 38.97 $2,316,525 5/22/200 $59,444
(Southwest
Corner)
CR42/CR83 116.44 $5,400,000 5/12/2000 $46,552
(Northeast Corner)
*Previously looked at for park land acquisition
Potential Partnerships
If the Advisory Board was interested in partnering on land acquisition, it may allow for
the acquisition of more land that could be used for multiple purposes. The School
District has funds available for land acquisition and has indicated an interest in possibly
working with the city. I spoke with Superintendent McBroom this week about their
needs. They are looking at 80-100 acres that could be served by utilities within the next
7-10 years. I am meeting with Community Development Director Michael Leek and
Superintendent McBroom on June 25 to discuss the timeline for future expansion of
MUSA and will have more information for Monday's meeting.
Another potential partner is the City of Prior Lake. On June 23 I received a phone call
from Gregg Ingraham of Ingraham and Associates who is doing a park master plan for
Prior Lake. According to the message from Mr. Ingraham, it appears that Prior Lake
may be looking for a partner in land acquisition and/or park development. Although I
was not able to contact Mr. Ingraham or a staff person from Prior Lake prior to
completing this report, I should have an update for you at the meeting on Monday.
Funding
The proposed 2004-2009 CIP has $2 million identified for land acquisition. Depending
on which property you prefer and whether or not you are interested in partnering, there
could be potential to enhance the value of the $2 million. For example, in the case of
the Shutrop property, development of other portions of their land and right of way
acquisition for future CR21 could help fund acquisition of the 103 acres now. If we
would partner with the School District, the land that would be developed for active park
uses could be shared with the District. Other scenarios may exist in working with Prior
Lake.
REQUESTED ACTION
The Advisory Board is asked to discuss park land acquisition, provide direction to staff,
and make a recommendation to City Council. Items you should consider are:
1. Is there a priority and secondary site of the four proposed?
2. Are you interested in partnering with the School District, the City of Prior Lake, or
both?
3. Do you have any other parcels that you would like us to pursue?
,
"
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director
Mark J. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director
Subject: Parkland Acquisition
Meeting Date: April 26, 2004
INTRODUCTION
On Monday, April 26, 2004, staff will conduct a short presentation .on four different properties that are
available for sale to the City for parkland. Three of the properties are located in the City of Shakopee
and one is located in Louisville Township.
BACKGROUND
In the late 1990s, land values in the urban serve areas of Shakopee began to skyrocket at about 20%
per year. By 2000, the cost of an acre of land in the urban service districts was selling for about
$60,000. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that future land
acquisitions for parks be done in the rural areas of the community. The City Council agreed. This
does not, however, include land that developers are required to dedicate for neighborhood parks.
In the summer of 2001, a local realtor notified the City Council of 43 acres of land for sale on the east
shores of Lake O'Dowd. The owner wanted $1.4 million for the land or $34,00 per acre. After six
months of careful evaluation, the PRAB recommended against the purchase of the land. The only
access to the property was through a residential neighborhood and much of the shoreline was very
shallow and inaccessible.
NEW POTENTIAL PARK SITES
Last year, staff met with three landowners who indicated an interest in selling some or all of their
property to the City. Of course, this is if the price is right. Two of the parcels are located in Shakopee
and one in Louisville Township.
. Richard Schmitz of Shakopee has 160 acres located at CR14 and CR79.
. Benard Juerrissen has 118 acres located at CR42 and CR 17.
. Dale and Betsy Theis have 50 acres on CR15 and CR72.
Each of these properties contains a mix of upland and wetland areas that could accommodate both
active and passive uses. Also, we believe that most of the property owners would consider selling a
portion of their property if the City was interested in the entire parcel.
A forth site under consideration is a 100 acre area along the bluff by Dean Lake owned by the
Shutrops. The site is located south of Dean Lake and Southbridge Development, north of County Road
16, east of County Road 83 and west of County Road 18.
The property includes a large wooded area, open space areas for active play and a great vista of the
Minnesota River Valley. The Scott County's proposed County Road 21 Project will split-off a portion of
the property to the west. The new road will traverse through a large wetland area within the park. The
County has a need to mitigate the wetland (2: 1 replacement) and has identified on-site mitigation as
.
.
their preferred method. The County Road 21 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be available
later this spring, which will help identify the road alignment and wetland issues. Finally, there is
potential of acquiring property to the west along the bluff line and lakeshore as those parcels develop.
See attached and Community Park Analysis, maps, and photographs for more details about each
of these four properties.
Finally, there are numerous other parcels that are further out in the rural areas that could be
considered. At this point, we haven't extended much beyond the city boundary in identifying potential
parcels, but certainly could. We also need to have further discussion with Louisville Township about a
cooperative purchase. (Jackson Township already owns a 79 acre parcel on CR 15/CR 78 that serves
as park land for township residents.)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has several questions for the PRAB to consider in its analysis of acquiring property for parkland.
For example:
1. Is it preferable to acquire land within the current City boundaries, or does it matter if the City
acquires parkland in an adjacent township (Jackson or Louisville)?
2. Should the City collaborate with the townships to acquire land for parks? Jackson Township has
about 80 acres of parkland and Louisville has none. Should the City work with Louisville first
because it has no parks?
3. How much land should the City acquire? Should it acquire 40-50-60-80-90-100 acres or 200 acres?
Should the City acquire land at two different sites of 50 acres or more or have it all in one location?
4. What natural characteristics or amenities do you value most in a community park?
Water/Wetlands? Woods? Open space for wildlife? Flat topography for sports fields? Hills for
sliding? Bluffs-Vistas?
5. To better understand how these properties would be developed, what sort of needs (activities) or
priorities should be established? Trails, recreational paths? Sports facilities and fields? Open space
and wildlife? Picnics? Nature Center?
6. Are the properties conducive to the needs and activities you desire in a community park?
At this point, we aren't suggesting that we discuss land costs and funding issues until the Advisory
Board's review of the CIP next month.
By appointment, all four landowners are willing to allow park advisory board members to tour their
property. The PRAB should advise staff if it would like to tour any of these properties, and if so, what
date.
SCHMITZ JEURISSEN THEIS SHUTROP
ACREAGE 160 available acres 118 acres - back 40/50 50 acres 103 acres
acres
ROADS BORDERING CR14 &CR79 , CR42 & CR17 CR15 & CR72 (Behind CR 16 and the southeast
LAND Marystown bar) side of Dean Lake)
TOPOGRAPHY Rolling hills & wetlands Soft rolling hills w/wetlands Flat with some soft rolling Lakeshore, wetland, bluff,
on the back 20 acres topo and upland
WOODS Small woods on west side of Small woods on perimeter Some trees on the northeast Woods along bluff line and
property or about 5 acres of farm fields or about 15 corner of the property. center of site.
acres.
OPEN AREA (Upland) 100 acres (62.5%) 85 acres (70%) 33 acres 66% is farm land 45 acres upland woods and
farm; 12 acres bluff area
WATER Wetland covers 60 acres 5 acres of emergent/aquatic 10 acres (20%) 37 acres wetland with Prior
(37.5%) -listed in the DNR's (5%) wetland and 30 acres emergent/aquatic wetland & Lake outlet chanel
High Quality Wildlife (20%) of degraded wet 7 acres (14%) degraded wet
Corridor Map prairie prairie
DISTANCE FROM About one mile south from Adjacent to Deerview Acres Five miles south of O'Dowd 1/2 mile from Southbridge
NEAREST PARK O'Dowd Lake Park Park (mostly wetlands) and Lake Park and Jackson MNDOT 75 parcel. 1/4 mile
a half mile south from Township Town Hall Park from Riverside Fields park.
Timber Trails Park
EXISTING STRUCTURES Barn and old farm house Farm house and barn. None Farmhouse and buildings.
(no occupancy)
POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES Trails, picnics, athletic fields Trails, picnics, athletic fields Trails, picnics, athletic fields Mixed passive and active
(major grading), sliding hill, (some grading), sliding hill, (some grading), nature uses. Potential for continued
nature activities, disc golf, nature activities, disc golf, activities, disc golf, acquisition of upland and
community events community events community events bluff area to the west as
development occurs.
" ,.
-~--
Schmitz Property
CR 14/CR 79
Jeurrissen Property
C17/CR42
"
-"
-"
-
-----------
-- ~- --
. .
Theis Property CR 15/East of Marystown
,-
u -~ --~._-
,~ -,
Shutrop Property CR 16/Southeast Shore of Dean Lake
I I
I
I
I ~' I
r - -
"
. .
.->c- -~-_.
,- -----------
z=- '110= Z ^:p~do.1d clo.1+nllS
.
.
I
. I
I
.
Jeurissen Property z -=--"-=
I
I
I
I
I
-- I- I
z =.~ -=
I
I I
, o Property
I SchmItz Boundary)
I
I (Red line = Shakopee
I
I
I ......
I "f~'-:'_i:
" .~,- ;; -'
~ -JIA Ijo. ~,
\
, 0' j .
J t ,w;r.
I
i . ".',
" \(0.
, ...,~.
.
~ '~ ~,;) ~ ';0 ~4
.
'. ",fiw-
~ ':/::(1(1' 4:'
,of ""'t,;', _
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
Scott County Page 1 of2
.'~ -(
..,~ -,- ".-
,.-.."
,
,
'<.....~<==..
..".. ,"",' ....-.. ..
, .....- .,~." .~-, ~-". ...._ '.., ..w~
'!g..
.- .-- '--
i
i
....... -. ;
-~ - ,~- t':""'" _n ._. ..l_..~ __.
! :~ t
i , !
I ;
i I
I
.1t~
, ,- .. i -" ~ "__. _, ..,.... -.,.- .~-
'5"'.fC'" .
",po, ,...., ...,
it"
-.. =..~..w~.. ~m-, ,_~.. ........~~_o, .. ........~_..._., wdl
<' .",. ...""'~ <;~_. "".~, ',i<'.1 .,IC:-.., ""'A """'.' ,,~-':
-:......,-- .~-~..,.,_. -""'"
\, I
t"'-
" f~
"1 .........."'\.
\.
l ""x.."..
,
~
I ;
/
<. . -~~. _ ,.l/~""""~;""'--~"""""-:
f ......----=- r -'. /
~"l " I ,~/
'" I
r .. 'I'
..: ""\ .-.'. --",- i ""........'....'.... ....',""..",..,..,~"..""'..,",,.. ,.."'.,......,,,..........,,,...." 1
"-
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a "'1 .{~~~
survey and is not intended to be used as one. This /Srott
drawing is a compilation of records, information, and
data located in various city, county, and state offices,
and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be .
used for reference purposes only. Scott County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If w " ~'-f.
discrepeancies are found, please contact the Scott '<,;r..l
County Surveyors Office. s April 14, 2004
D~lG t ffJ1'TSY 8f!.8wAl TIIIFIS
.. .Icom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Client V ersion=4;O&'fonn=True&Encode=4/14/04
.
,