Consider Land Purchase to Expand Loral I Armstrong Delaney Central Park

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.
 
 

Note: At this time there is no proposed plat for the land this topic discusses, this case is to respond to the offer to the City to purchase approximately 11 acres, no special notifications are required.

Observations:
At its essence this case is a yes/no to the question as to if the City should attempt to proceed to a Purchase Agreement for 11 acres to add to one, of five existing community parks.  However, there are many different ways to evaluate or factor the potential investment of over half a million dollars to acquire the raw land. The following are a few highlights of these myriad considerations—staff will attempt to organize these concepts in more detail for the meeting.

Alternatives/Questions for consideration:

~ Is the proposed $517,000 a 'good value' for the City's future park system?
Capital improvements; grading, turf, irrigation, trail connections, trees, etc. amounting to another quarter million potentially, would be needed to realize this investment in a useable way as additional athletic field(s).   However, at present, there is no more irrigation capacity to irrigate any more acreage at this park. Either city water would need to be available, or a new water well (with power supply, pump and controls would be needed); a new well with power may be $300,000 or more.

~ Is a similar value realized by specifying that any new residential land use to the east of the park, would require Park Dedication (land) to result in additional field space to be added? 
The same capital improvements are needed for the athletic field, but under this scenario, municipal water is brought to the site.  Cash savings may be 3/4 million for one or more athletic fields.

~ Is additional athletic field space needed 'now'?

~ Might capital expenditures in a new athletic field(s) be more valuable at Lake Itasca Community Park, given there is no significant developed park space near there, and it has double the density of children in proximity?
In this scenario, a trail to connect Central Park to Variolite Street would still be recommended.

~ Might the best way forward (for both the church and the City) be to 'ghost plat' all the property the church does not need for their building (before a Purchase Agreement is developed), to ensure that the land is developed to it highest and best use?

Funding for any potential land acquisition (or capital improvements) this case discusses would be from the Park Trust Fund.

Staff recommends the Commission embark upon a robust discussion on the question this case proposes, and by consensus or motion, provide staff a clear next step in responding to the church's proposal, or for City Council action.

Based upon discussion.