Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/14/2021

Home

Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Date: 01/14/2021 By: Mark Riverblood, Engineering/Public Works Information Title: Consider Land Purchase to Expand Loral I Armstrong Delaney Central Park 5.3. Purpose/Background: Purpose The purpose of this case is to contemplate the potential purchase of approximately 11 acres of raw land east of Loral I Armstrong Central Park for expansion. The present owner, St. Katherine Drexel Church has indicated they desire to sell this land for approximately $517,000, and that there is also interest from residential developer(s). Staff would like the Commission to issue a determination as to if the City should proceed to a Purchase Agreement at this time, or if it may be in the community's interest to consider a trail connection to Central Park and proceed with other capital improvements with a similar investment in another part of the park system (among many alternatives available). Background Following the donation of land for the existing 45-acre park more than 3 decades ago, the city's Land Use [Zoning] Map showed the approximate 35 acres to east as zoned 'public' [park use] or 'quasi public'. Thereafter around 2000, the zoning was changed to residential, and at present it is R-1 MUSA zoning for single-family lots. A decade or so ago, the landowner of the 35 acres (the same church named above) expressed a willingness to sell the Western portion of this land to the City for park purposes. That did not move forward. Subsequently, a Capital Improvement Project page was added to the City's CIP as a placeholder to forecast this potential opportunity to expand the park reemerging. Also during the last decade, the demand for boys and girls softball fields has 'flattened' somewhat in comparison to a growing number youth in the community (soccer and lacrosse is still trending up). And a few years ago the City acquired all the remaining land north of Alpine Drive and east of Lake Itasca for the as yet developed Lake Itasca Community Park (to logically include some athletic fields). Thus, the landscape has literally and figuratively changed a bit relative to athletic field use, and perhaps also the geographic location of where future athletic fields (soccer, football, lacrosse, or ballfields) may be best located. Similarly, there seems to be more requests for the City to light existing baseball fields at Alpine Park, versus adding softball/baseball fields at any particular location within the community. (Staff has a call in to the President of the Anoka Ramsey Athletic Association to obtain a 'real-time' assessment of the near and future youth athletic field needs, to garner more information for the Commission in considering this case.) Another variable here relative to the question as to if the City should consider the purchase of 11 acres to the east of the park is: If the land would not be acquired by the City, a developer may propose any number of residential development scenarios, including potentially a request for greater residential densities, than the present R-1 MUSA zoning for single-family lots. In a traditional residential scenario, the City may impose various development fees, including Park Dedication (land or cash), and also beyond the minimum Park Dedication prescribed in the adopted Rates and Charges, it may be noted. Meaning, if the City does not acquire the western portion of the vacant land for park purposes today, a logical response to a subdivision request may look like the Dedication of Park Land for a multi -use athletic field to the northwest of the vacant land at the border of the existing park (a portion or more of the same 11 acres this case discusses). This 'new' park area could also count toward density transitioning if required, for the theoretical subdivision.