The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-06-16 PACKET 12.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 6/16/2010 PREPARED BY Administration Ryan Schroeder ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Workshop: Public Safety /City Hall Site SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Ryan Schroeder. ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Attachments. ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS Z lz� lj� /, City Administrator Date Ile COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑APPROVED ❑ DENIED &XOTHER Document2 City of Cotta Grove Minnesota To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator Date: June 10, 2010 Subject: Public Safety /City Hall Site Consideration Workshop At the Council workshop of June 2, 2010 Council pared down a list of potential sites for consideration for the Public Safety / City Hall project to five from an initial list of eleven. These sites are: 1. Norris Marketplace 2. Ravine Park 3. Cottage View 4. Fire Station #2 5. Existing City Hall The advantages /disadvantages of these remaining sites are presented in an attached exhibit as was presented on June 2. We have also enclosed aerials of the potential sites and in two cases we have provided additional site information. This additional information is: Norris Marketplace: After a design charrette in which we participated, we have received concept site drawings showing how the Public Safety building, a YMCA or community center, a county library, and housing could be provided for on that site. The site as drawn allocates 3.36 acres to the public building and provides that approximately 152 parking spaces would be under the building (of an estimated 172 required). A portion of those spaces (45) are already assumed within the space needs study to be in enclosed space which means the balance (107) would present an increased cost beyond current budget estimates of approximately $1.1 million (9.6% of construction). To make the site economically viable there would have to be economic savings elsewhere within the project. At this stage we do not yet know the land cost for a Norris Marketplace site but have allocated $1,306,800 toward a land purchase. If the market price of land at Norris Marketplace is $8 1square foot the land cost as shown would be $1,170,893. We would anticipate, however, that additional property would be necessary for a project at this location to function from an access /egress standpoint. From a utility perspective all utilities and storm water and to some extent the pad are already in place. However, some of that existing infrastructure would necessarily be removed. At this point, however, we believe all of the existing sites are basically in the same position relative to "pipe." All have ready access to sanitary and water or have the ability for that access given that all sites have at least one scenario under which pipe is readily available. 2. Ravine Park: At the time of the initial space needs study and with development of the County South Service Center we had the opportunity to provide analysis of site infrastructure. This infrastructure would include an extension of 85 Street to connect to an extension of the Ravine Parkway. These road extensions are within the existing CIP and are not dependent upon the Public Safety /City Hall project to be constructed as the Parkway is part of the longer term neighborhood plan. At the same time, however, some portion of at least 85 Street would require construction in order to provide access to the Public Safety project. The project in total is estimated as follows: Sanitary Sewer: $ 39,756 Water Main: $ 161,548 Storm Sewer: $ 192,724 Street: $3,157,001 Lighting: $ 307,125 Landscaping: $ 396,492 Total: $4,254,646 'note that $543,375 of the street cost is a'' /z share of the ravine crossing that is a County responsibility The land as shown in the attached exhibit is 34 acres although a significant portion of that does not have great utility due to steep slopes or sensitive soils. While we have the ability to make use of this land at no cost we would have the obligation to replace the land with alternative property at a point in the future. Currently that point is by December 31, 2015. We would intend to attempt an extension of that obligation in order to provide an opportunity to gain that land through subdivision development. 3. We are viewing the CottageView site as one that also includes the Jansen property. This site has the opportunity to have direct access to utilities, site dependent and may or may not have roadway costs again depending upon the chosen site configuration. We would suggest that a 58,000 square foot City project in a straight forward bare land development could potentially fit on a 5 acre site. At this location it is believed that 5 acres would be available at under the $1,306,800 budget number. However, unless part of a larger development roadway construction could be a cost factor if the project was not located on existing frontage. 4. Fire Station #2 is shown as a 45 acre site with a significant portion allocated toward park, storm water, water utilities or existing Fire Station #2. This site has also been identified as a preferred site for a future water treatment facility. The land is owned by the City, and would not require any road extensions or utility extensions of any significance. Concerns exist for the quality of the subsoils which in the worst case scenario could result in significant costs and project delays. This site also resides in the middle of existing neighborhoods with an uncertain resident acceptance. The site has the potential to be the lowest cost site from both land cost and site development among all of the choices absent the subsoil concern. The subsoil concern, however, is a significant concern and prior to proceeding on this site soil borings would be required. 5. Current site: The current City Hall site is 3.18 acres. We show that the site opportunity may be as great as 7.25 acres by elimination of a portion of Hemingway Avenue and a combination of the Library parcel and a vacant parcel across Hemingway (would need to confirm with a traffic study that a closure would work). The site would not require significant utility work or any road extensions and any land cost should be below $300,000 although if one assumes that the library would need relocation that could add $750,000 to land cost at 2.75 acres elsewhere for a 30,000 square foot building at $6.25 /square foot (25% lot coverage). Demolition of the two existing buildings could cost $645,000 at $15 /square foot over 43,000 square feet if required to facilitate the project (estimate should be on the high side but uncertain at this point). A concern would be how the project may be phased. If it would be required that we move out of this building a foot for foot replacement (24,148 x $15) could be $362,220 per year plus tenant improvements which at $20 /square foot would be an additional expense of $482,960 plus an additional move expense. If this were the chosen site we would work on a phasing and development plan to avoid such a move for both fiduciary and operational reasons. We have asked the County Library system and the St. Paul YMCA to rank each of these sites from their current perspective. Initial comments are: 1. Norris Marketplace: This appears to be the preferred site for the Y due to location, traffic patterns and visibility to Highway 61. They believe that a collaborative with Presbyterian Homes would be a plus. They expressed a concern that the density created through the charrette may be an issue but that the charrette design was much more positive than they had expected. They scored the site at 4 on a five point scale due to the density concerns. The Library system sees the site as a poor choice for their long term needs. 2. Ravine Park: This site was the lowest ranking site for the Y as it is not within current traffic zones, nor in the normal commuting pattern although being adjacent to the park they see as a positive. They scored the site at 2 on a 5 point scale. The library system scored the site at 4 on a 5 point scale due to the fact that the site exists and appears favored by the County Board. 3. Cottage View: The Y ranked this site at 3 on a five point scale due to visibility and access to Highway 61 (assuming that the chosen site actually has that visibility) and that proximity to commercial is a real plus. The downside is locating away from natural traffic patterns. The Library is concerned for the length of time the site may take to develop out sufficient to provide synergy created by adjacent commercial. They also note that there is significant distance from schools to this site but all in all they ranked the site as 4 on a five point scale. 4. Fire Station #2: The Y scored this site at 3 points out of five in that the location is not conducive to high volumes of traffic and it isn't a site that is on lifestyle traffic routine patterns. The park adjacency is seen as a positive. The Library sees this as potentially the best site due to proximity to schools and parks. They ranked the site at 5 points out of five. 5. Current City Hall site: At five acres they are concerned that the site is not large enough to fit all users but otherwise they rank the site at 4 out of five due to traffic patterns and location. They see it as a positive to be adjacent to the Elementary and High Schools. We believe the Library would perceive this as a positive site as well given proximity to schools and the already developed customer patterns. Enclosed is additional material relating to the various sites along with a spreadsheet suggested to provide ranking of the site options. Note, that we believe there are four scenarios to be ranked. One is as a stand- alone City project. The others are various combinations of partnership opportunities. We have provided some preliminary staff project team ranking on each of the sites given the sometimes limited knowledge we have on some aspects of the site metrics. Note that we use Y or YMCA as a proxy for community center or nonprofit or private fitness center. Public Safety Site options 061010 a (1) 0 U VT n r- LO I-- M Co LD M M O1 U M O O Lo O N N V O N - �S cU) EQ S O U i 'O N * N W L 0 N � V C) O O N O) M m 3 � z F m N O CO d' N It LO V> N N N M N C N C N N m G O C") E O a O N a R m O N C L 6_ U Lo U U) dt co U) a E m N d V In LO a) V M M M M M N N M 3 °- U) m 3 Y a m 0 o a m N 0 T (D O m U r O m C) W O O .� O O U LoMU)UZS� a N r r N T N to S � � m m CL N N x m x N > c U a w v > M >y to q i0 N m co O O O U �Z WU)Ue»� m N Lq to M to to N Ch th N N U C M M _ 00 it It r lfJ Ch N t O "O U) CO a N N w t _N _N c0 6 n E E� 3 m i 0) O c`? m N m m O U Z M S 3 S S S � m C) cn ® .. .�. Y J O °' en E C w Q d V7 U) .�+ 7 Y W O .O U) ` N 9 E} E J E a E O� a (6 C m m e m m e (D Z3 m e m E ,u i 0 O B 0 O O E N N m Y O N N m Y O N y m O 0 U) N R Y O N U) 75 In V U a U� C Q N N N N Q) N N N N _� N N N N�_ W N N m N w w 0) m - m 'm U N N :- ltl m U LO a) N @ m m U OL N N m m U O5 N (- @ CL m M<M<0JU) =3 � mE(DaOu) W m CDaOcow m CDaOin� m�C�aOU)U) ,�V N City Hall /Public Safety, Library, C. Cntr /Athletic Center Site Options June 10, 2010 1. Norris Marketplace Advantages: A. Interested Development Partner B. Provides solution to languishing retail site C. Potentially efficiently priced (uncertain) D. Adjacent infrastructure in place and site infrastructure potentially In place E. Good "Y" site, secondary Library site F. Site probably well received by public G. Good Transportation corridor access H. Potential for site adjacent to Fire Station Disadvantages: A. Utilization of potential retail /taxable property B. Leveraging for future retail is limited due to small site and limited adjacent opportunities C. Potential structured parking cost D. Existing development pro forma would need workout; tax impact E. Existing site pad prep and utilities may not coordinate well F. Potential for Public Safety access difficulties G. No South Service Center coordination 2. Home Depot Eliminated from consideration 3. CottageView Theater Advantages: A. Site acquisition costs probably within projections B. Best site for leveraging additional development C. Excellent Corridor access with ability to design for site access avoiding congestion issues D. Probably good "Y" site E. May be seen by County as reasonable alternative to Ravine Park site if located on NE portion of site F. Develops leg of Ravine Parkway Disadvantages: A. May be deficient Library site B. Would not be perceived as centrally located C. Potential for infrastructure /site prep costs D. Ravine Parkway cost potential E. Adjacent site development phasing could appear "unfinished" F. Removes amenity from Gateway District G. Tax roll impact 4. Ravine Park Advantages: A. Original site selected, County agreement; consistent with AUAR B. City has site control; most straight forward /easiest development C. Various site amenity and expansion options D. Develops leg of Ravine Parkway (see below) E. Good corridor access Disadvantages: A. $5 million in infrastructure costs to develop site B. Met Council agreement extension would be required for Land exchange C. Deficient "Y" and "Library" site potential; no walk in traffic likely D. Limited or no additional development opportunities E. Removes amenity from Gateway District 5. 70 Eliminated from consideration 6. Langdon Eliminated from consideration 7. Fire Station #2 Advantages: A. Centrally located B. Would eliminate "requirement" for apparatus space in project If Station #2 not impacted C. City owned therefore no acquisition costs (deed restrictions ?) D. Good corridor access Disadvantages: A. Surrounded by residential uses /potential conflicts B. No development leveraging C. Probably deficient "Y" site, secondary Library site D. Could eliminate future treatment plant option E. Unknown /uncertain quality of site environmental issues F. No South Service Center coordination 8. West Point Douglas from Jamaica to 80 Street Eliminated from consideration 9. Industrial Park Eliminated from consideration 10. Frattalone Property Eliminated from consideration 11. Existing City Hall /Library Site Advantages: A. No site acquisition costs but for Library replacement (which could be $1,089,000 at $5 /SF for 5 acre site) B. Remodeling of City Hall /Library at $50 /SF would be below any new construction cost ($2.2 million); assume new construction for 10,000 SF @ $200 /SF plus soft = total project of $5.4 million C. Central location D. Good corridor access E. Maintains building in Gateway Disadvantages: A. Deficiencies of current building would continue unless addressed through remodeling B. Interim solution C. No opportunity for development leveraging D. Eliminates potential for Y E. Library project would be standalone F. Lost opportunity to sell building is a project cost in comparison G. Aesthetic design challenges H. No South Service Center coordination [ a�� !•7t {a=►�[%1l!F%t�[ +l t" i Locati GENERAL DESCRIPTION CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities Site A Location — Norris Marketplace, 6999 — 80t" Street Land Area — 7.5 acres Zoned PDO, Planned Development Overlay CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities pJ2nainog aBuejc-� ■ i ■ � DOD a o ❑a m 0 O m 07 L m �eg mio �. Cottage Grove / Waspmgtan Cty Ilbramy / YMCA / Presbybman Homes opnoN B d p El E:l �r CITY WALL a bt NORRIS SQUARE CITY HALL FIRE $TATICN 4l m 0 [0 N Ol c m Y Wadley Ave 5 D 0 p�p� a C7 El D . E �N NORRIS 501ARE CITY WALL ® lot. and Hadley Ave S 0 FIRE STATION J -71mo w ^ '� Caftge Grove / Wash%n gtm Cty Labrar r / YMCA / Presbyteu° m Homes OMON c O7 m l7 � \ � \ � \ t \ � \ \ \ : \ \\ \� � \ � \ � \ \ \\ � \ � \ � \ � \ � \ \ §: \z \2} � \ w \ � \ � \ ` \ 2 \a � \ � \ a \ st e r`� ,; �, Y.:.,% �, F '- i,' 1 � ,' t� Y *x 4 :- I } �; _. ti ,l � \ � \ e \ \ >\ \ /� \ /1 \\ � \ � \ � \ \\ � \ � \ � \ � \ � \ \ \ \ \ : VV`; �: t` i �.... e, ms's "! .. r... yynf' i r: �� ,„ �� is 4 z; >� „�, Fry �� {{ Li u_�^ �� l" � \ � \ � / � \ � / � ( \ k ( � \ � \ Wi : \ Site E Location — North of Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park 13000 Ravine Parkway Land Area — 34 acres Zoned R1, Rural Residential CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # 7 DATE 12/15/04 1, PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider authorizing the execution of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Land Transfer and Replacement Agreement with Washington County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the execution of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Land Transfer and Replacement Agreement with Washington County. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY El DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Howard Blin dated 1217/04 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: 1) Land Transfer and Replacement Agreement 2) Map ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * lm N � CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Howard Blin, Community Development Director DATE: December 7, 2004 RE: Agreement on Land Transfer and Replacement with Washington County for City /County Campus Introduction Authorization is requested to execute an agreement with Washington County which covers replacement of land currently in the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park to be used for the City and County government campus. This agreement is necessary to satisfy conditions required by the Metropolitan Council on use of the current park land. For the past several months, the City and County have been exploring jointly developing land at the northwest corner of the Regional Park. As shown on the attached drawing, the property proposed for the government campus includes two areas divided by a ravine. The southerly area is 16.5 acres in size and would be developed in 2005 -06 by the County with a South Service Center and other possible facilities in the future. The City's portion of the site would be the northerly 21.8 acres and would accommodate a future Community Center /City Hall complex. In planning for the government campus, the City and County have completed sketch level layouts of buildings, parking areas, and roads on the sites. Preliminary engineering studies have also been completed to determine the cost of serving the sites with utilities and constructing a segment of the East Ravine Parkway, which would run through the area. .r The area of the park to be developed was originally acquired by Washington County using Metropolitan Council Open Space Funds. To allow that area of the park to be developed, the Metropolitan Council has required that the land be replaced on an acre- for -acre basis. The East Ravine plan calls for extending the park to the north, along the ravine to 80 Street. The City and County have identified a 38.5 acre piece of the area designated for park expansion which could be used to replace land developed in the park. This piece is within the ravine, with steep slopes which make most of the land undevelopable. It is assumed in the agreement that much, if not all of this replacement land could be acquired through park dedication as the surrounding area develops. The main elements of the agreement are as follows: • The City and County have until the end of 2015 to acquire the replacement property. If the replacement property is purchased, the City and County would each contribute a proportional share of acquisition costs based on the percentage of parkland developed by each party. • If the property is acquired by the City through park dedication, the County will reimburse the City for a proportional share of the dedication fees the City would have collected if a cash contribution were accepted to satisfy park dedication requirements. • The City and County have a common interest in preserving additional land lying between the 38.5 acres of replacement land and 80 Street for future expansion of the park. There is however, no obligation on either party to acquire this land. The Washington County Board will consider the agreement at its December 14 meeting. The Metropolitan Council will consider the request to release the existing parkland at its December 15 meeting. The Metropolitan Council's Community Development Committee and Park and Open Space Advisory Committee have both recommended approval of the request. That the City Council authorize the execution of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Land Transfer and Replacement Agreement with Washington County. ,4 � Gd WASH INGT COUNTY GO Washington County Dept. I 'J Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Par Di f arks Land Transfer and Replacement Agreei i effit m 1 a / ly /oS With City of Cottage Grove THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Cottage Grove, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Washington County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County ". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and County desire to build future City and County facilities in close proximity to each other; and WHEREAS, the City's concept land use plan (Exhibit A) for the East Ravine area has iden- tified approximately 40 acres of land that is currently part of the northwest corner of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park as a location for public service facilities; and WHEREAS, both the City and the County have analyzed and prepared preliminary site investigations and designs for this approximately forty (40) acre site (Exhibit B), and; WHEREAS, this property, most of which is now in agricultural use, is well suited for a County south service center, a main north entrance to the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, City offices, community center, and related uses; and WHEREAS, the City has done a feasibility study which analyzed the need for utilities and streets to serve this property, and found the location feasible; and WHEREAS, the County wishes to request the Metropolitan Council to allow the County to take this 40 acres out of the Regional Park and put it to use as a location for City and County Public services facilities; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council must review and approve any plan that places City and County public institutional facilities on Regional Park land; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council requires a formal agreement between the County and City setting forth the parameters and timeframe for park land replacement; and WHEREAS, a condition of Metropolitan Council approval will include a requirement that converted park lands be replaced acre for acre by adjacent land over a set time period; and WHEREAS, the City and County have a common interest in preserving additional land that will protect and preserve the drainage alignment from Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park to 80th Street; and WHEREAS, the plans and conditions for park land replacement must be set forth in an agreement between the County and the City and forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. Washington County Land TransferlRe placement Agreement with Cottage Grove Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Washington County and the City of Cottage Grove will work jointly to replace acre for acre the land removed from Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, which the City and County propose to use to build their public service facilities. The timeframe for replacement will be January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. The replacement land shall be adjacent to the Cottage Grove Ravine Park and have natural characteristics similar to the park. 2. Acquisition of the replacement lands will be by direct purchase, eminent domain, or park dedication. a. If direct purchase or eminent domain is used to acquire the land, the County and the City will pay a pro -rata share of the acquisition costs based on percentage of the parkland acres used for the respective public institutional facilities. b. If the land is obtained by the City through a land dedication to satisfy park dedication requirements for the subdivision of adjacent property, the County will reimburse the City for the loss of park dedication fees which would be paid to the City's Park Trust Fund if a land dedication were not accepted. The amount of this reimbursement will be based on a pro -rata share, based on the percentage of parkland areas used by the County, of the fees which would be collected at the time of the land dedication. 3. As a condition subsequent to this Agreement, an agreement which defines the terms and conditions of the planned County and City development of the parkland will be executed upon approval of the Metropolitan Council allowing for the conversion of Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park to public institutional use. This agreement shall include specific terms including but not limited to ownership, financing, utilities, site development, architectural standards, and financing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives. WASHINGTON COUNTY Myra Reterson Date Chair ounty Board J la. a Ja es R. Schug bate County Administrator CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE /7/o, Sai d -Shiely -I Date Mayor Schroeder Date City Administrator Appro d as to form: c f Count Att ney Date Revised 11/9/04 7516 80th Pa l \, I- II JN X/1 ` l r YJ C *\ F Y EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 651- 458 -2800 Fax 651 -458 -2897 TDD 651- 458 -2880 .a3" 3 # t t '$ fi' £ 7516 8i}tfl & ,' tytin ota 55016319 � � I / �"��, „,+�� J/ 651 -458 -2800 Fax 651 - 458 -2897 www cottagerapa TUD 651 -468 -2880 e x n a Oewfope Im s k v s n 15.3Aatea� n (V J �r 1 i ti� �t 1 S �` 1 y y Iq� IN �. "sus � 3»�sJ y Q1, Sons f I( III�1 � "Iii I his } Developable �``q -ji 7.0 acres ! vosa WASHINGTON COUNTY I CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE JOINT FACILITIES STUDY EAST RAVINE SITE 0 200 400£t N 0 R T H EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER EA 158 -2800 Fax 651 - 458 -2897 651- 458 -2880 751�6BOf re t Sou h / C ttage -�Grov N n as to 55016 -3195 P 2 g 65 'TC _ €mmm ° F�o.. u�id dig f\ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ w�« , \ { \� 133US KIN « � »� y 133US KIN « � »� i t �N I wz P are „dW [ a. —— — — 9 p l X 6 IL) Z yy N � 11 iU 1� li d „»p (l L.ttt till 1 �' + l 111(1 11111 �i w zeoxu� v�cy,om 13381S H198 H106 N 3 YS w � r a 6 il>I w w. .W ®�illl J y ♦r + a 3 a a a —i / Apo � �Aa �W ��¢ mnm¢ouAarw�novmeuw \Mr �,: .'xL! r; -�, �s k � �/ �. � ,y <� � ) � � ^� / \ I I =Ila Site C Location — Fire Station No. 2, 8641 — 80th Street South Pinetree Pond Park Land Area — 45 acres Zoned R3, Single- family Residential CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities Site D Location - Cottage Grove Drive -In Jansen Farm E. Point Douglas Rd./ Keats Ave Land Area — 5 acres Zoned R4, Low Density Residential and AG2, Agriculture CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities Site B Location — City Hail, 7516 — 80th Street Park Grove Library, 7900 Hemingway Avenue Vacant Parcel 79th Street Vacated Hemmingway Avenue Land Area — 7.25 acres Zoned B -1, Limited Business District CRITERIA SCORE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, Transit, etc.) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to Other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities 7d Preliminary SITE ALTERNATIVES INFLUENCING FACTORS SITE A: SITE SITEC SITED4 SITE Parcel Size Access (Street, Pedestrian, Bike, and Transit) Proximity to Center of Population Proximity to other Facilities Outdoor Recreation Acquisition Costs Site Preparation Costs Availability of Utilities Overall Site Score Site Rankings