The URL can be used to link to this page

03/02/1993 - City Council Special .4(7 AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Eagan Municipal Center Building Tuesday March 2, 1993 5:00 p.m. I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION II. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION REGARDING PARK DISTRICT #36 III. REPORT BY PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ON THE LEXINGTON/LONE OAK INTERSECTION PROJECT IV. REPORT BY THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ON THEIR REVIEW OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR POSITION V. OTHER BUSINESS I', MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1993 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/MARCH 2, 1993 A Special City Council meeting was called by Mayor Egan for Tuesday, March 2 at 5:00 p.m., to discuss items that appear on the attached agenda. All four (4) City Councilmembers were contacted and concurred with the.time, date and necessity for the workshop. - PARK DISTRICT #36 The Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa is in need of Council review and direction regarding a plan to acquire and eventually develop park land in the neighborhood service district #36 located in southeast Eagan. For additional information on this item, refer to the attachments enclosed on pages </ througl . PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE The Public Works Committee, City Councilmembers Wachter and Masin, met with Council Commissioners Bataglia and Richards on Thursday, February 25 and would like to share information and the outcome of that meeting with the City Council. Also in attendance were Director of Public Works Colbert o bert and City Administrator Hedges. Enclosed and referenced as pages ,'l through is a copy of minutes of the Public Works Committee meeting for your information. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING The Personnel Committee also met on Thursday, February 25, including City Councilmembers Awada and Masin in addition to Assistant to the City Administrator Duffy and the City Administrator. The purpose of the meeting was to review the job description, minimum qualifications and how the position of Community Development Director would be advertised. The meeting resulted in several modifications and changes to the on ' al informtionesented to the committee and, for a copy of that data, refer to pag sg ,_,.f through ]. This item is included on the consent agenda and may not require a great deal of discussion at the work session. There is no other business proposed for discussion at this time. City Administrator TLH/jeh MEMORANDUM TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTO R O F PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1993 RE: PARK SERVICE AREA 36E - Issue There are actually three issues before the City Council concerning Park Service Area 36E. The first is an affirmation of the need for a neighborhood park within this park service section. Two, if it is concluded that indeed a park is needed, make a determination which of the target sites staff has studied is a preferred park location and three, the method of acquisition. Background To re-familiarize the City Council with this particular issue, staff has provided the packets from November 26, 1991, and January 3, 1992, in which the issues of park needs were identified. The City Council has previously directed staff to review specific locations for a neighborhood park in the search area. Staff has developed four possible scenarios for parkland development. The first alternative provides a total park of 9.34 acres of which six acres could be purchased through one land owner. This parcel has considerable wetlands and is heavily treed, therefore, the functional area of the park within this six acre parcel is somewhat limited. Access to this parcel is questionable given the long term and future development of the surrounding area. Alternate two is approximately 7.9 acres and is situated in such a manner that it would take the dedication from three separate property owners to acquire the entire parcel. It is likely that a portion of this park acquisition will have to come through purchase and/or probable condemnation. Alternate three, which is 4.4 acres, has a similar scenario but is clouded by an uncertain acquisition time frame. It is likely that again, the property will have to be acquired by condemnation if there is an intent on behalf of the City to have the park available in the next five to seven years. Alternate four provides for a park which is 5.9 acres in total. It is based on the acquisition of park property from two property owners. It is possible that these two parcels could be combined through dedication and purchase to make the park. Staff will review the four alternates at the workshop session. Reaffirmation by the Council on whether they wish to acquire park in this park service section will be necessary and then a strategy to acquire the park determined. It will also be necessary for the Council, if it so designates a neighborhood park within this area, to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to show a specific area within this service section for a park. Other issues the Council will be reviewing include methods of acquisition, whether to acquire the property through dedication and/or purchase, possible and probable road access issues and location and serviceability of the park. KV/dj COWISSIONSERVJCE36E MEMORANDUM TO: ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION FROM: STEPHEN SULLIVAN, LANDSCAPE ARCHl'1'ECT/PARKS PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 RE: PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PARKS NEEDS STUDY Background An application has been received by the City of Eagan for the platting of 136 single family units on 63.64 acres. The Weston Hills preliminary plat is located south of Cliff Road and east of State Highway #3. - _ The parcel is within Park Service Area �`� ' ' - 36E. The development activity with the y • l a` .R._. . E X01 • platting request for the Weston Hills / d�_ ap i .. . � Subdivision facilitates the need for a parks. ��, �', � '',,� � p ' : study of Park Service Area 36E. The =-;}� 71i /,,'��0.0= study process is intended to be separated ,! _. 'p/� ��- A W into two parts: The first study phase is the - ;� ;� ,� :' a> W Commission's determination whether a ?�. �4t .� park is needed within Park Service Area ./4f "O �i ®CC 36E. This evaluation will take place at the � ' 47/#4. a n Recreation 000 OOios> December 5 Advisory Parks, ,�e 0 0 a,i oz and Natural Resources Commission i 7A' rii; meeting. i� , `�*� Figure #1 Area Location Map s t�0� ��' ,MOB Staff will provide the Commission with the following information for their evaluation. 1. Eagan Parks Standards 2. Park Service Area Demographics 3. Comparison to other Park Service Areas 4. Typical Service Area needs 5. Site Location 6. Typical Facility Programs 7. Cooperative Community Park Scenario Park Service Area 36E November 26, 1991 Page 2 If the Commission recommends the need for parkland acquisition within Park Service Area 36E, staff will then proceed with the second phase of the parkland study. This phase will identify a specific site or sites for parkland acquisition. The Commission would evaluate P potential parkland acquisitions at the January 9 Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting. Staff would provide the Commission with the following information for their evaluation: 1. Site Specific Parkland Acquisition Alternatives 2. Service Area Efficiencies - 3. Development Efficiencies 4. Site Attributes 5. Facility Program Potential 6. Acquisition Process & Timeframe Comprehensive Parks System Plan In 1982 the City of Eagan adopted a Comprehensive Park System Plan. This working document provides the framework for development, acquisition, funding and parkland standards for Eagan's Park System. Since its inception, this document has been the basis proven system. This report will rely on the ro for all planning efforts within Eagan's park sy po y p strength of the Comprehensive Parks Systems Plan. The Comprehensive Parks System Plan identifies six(6) _ i ' •N I Tannin districts. The z:. ._. . . planning - - - 12n districts are based on a _� -- . . r geographic population , 12s context which overlay - Y v borhood ark -se eral nei h P g _service areas. This districts provide the basis for • =; AlroOm `11 ~ • - equitable distribution of apr 1, ;/ parkland and facilities within the City of Eagan. ji _ t.7_ . The study area is located ' within Planning District #5. @ M =— '"wort 37-.R, _ �T '' g STUDY ARE 31w. _ V _, Figure 2 Park Planning Districts , Park Service Area 36E November 26, 1991 Page 3 The Comprehensive Parks Systems Plan further distills the City of Eagan into 38 Neighborhood Park Service Areas. The intent of this "designation" is to meet recreation needs within a neighborhood park which is accessible and within reasonable proximity to all residents in Eagan. This study is located within Neighborhood Park Service Area #36E which is not currently served by any park.The Comprehensive Parks Systems Plan does not specifically recommend a parkland acquisition with Park Service Area #36E but mentions . the potential of a joint development park between the cities cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. ;. = =_ .no.A.E rain- '/ a q, . , ....., it1-.' Fr, _ r a,. f._ AI : L-7 i,' t. 6," — • -- ' 9 p vil, ...... . .i.;* z...-1...ee 41,-1:..1° 04AR ° _ . 1 . ._,...,._ . ....,, _. ._ .•re s t/ i ,, 40 ," -.o I f • •4 t i V 4 - —seq.. la' .:.: ' I( ---- - i-:. / . 't:- . -el; ' JA,4,_ _Mk!' ' l'_,___ : .._ __ , r ,,, 7■ r. ---, II tri.;;;-,:, IF/WI i—4, II 11 i•---4,..:...._,-116----lic , ,- dr - 4,, , . , --,..... ,,-.. ,0 Ai - •ait-. (� m 'fin-♦ .A .. 1::- ' vitrotelpli t ga 7111,N grar411/:_.. 7,, - , `' , r j .00,- , LJE:d1:;_,- ,'s- is_a_ J. , . :-. -.jai - A WA 6, is ..rfv or ` . A+ g1•- :1711 i MOUn vuf. '---111* pow we said __ �oreldus A.Figure #3 Neighborhood Park Service Areas The Park System Plan as a result of "specialization" has developed classifications and corresponding standards. These parkland classifications are as follows: 1. Mini-Park 2. Community Park 7. Special Use Park 2. Neighborhood Park 5. Linear Park 8. School Park . 3. Community Athletic Field 6. Historic Park 9. Regional Park LP Park Service Area #36E November 26, 1991 Page 4 The scope of this report will focus on the classifications and standards in regards to the need for either a mini-park or neighborhood park. A "mini-park" is defined as a park for local recreation which is not large enough to be a complete Neighborhood Park. The mini-park may either serve a smaller service area or provide only a limited number of facilities. The site must be usable for its intended purpose and is not intended to be a "catch all" classification. The typical mini-park provides very limited and basic facilities such as play equipment or an open field games area. Several mini-parks within a Park Service Area could collectively be considered as a Neighborhood Park if each of the Mini-Parks contained one or more of the necessary components of a complete Neighborhood Park. Ideally, a city would have no mini-parks. They are only provided when there is a park need in an area which cannot be fulfilled in any other way. A "neighborhood park" is defined as a park designed primarily for local, recreational activities on a park service area basis. Neighborhood parks are the basic unit and will be the most common type of park in the system. Facilities provided in the basic neighborhood park are a 250' x 250' open field game area, paved hard courts games area and trails, play _ equipment facilities for preschool and elementary age children and a passive or natural area. Optional facilities which may be found here are improved ballfields, soccer fields, tennis courts, hockey and skating rinks and parking. The optimal service area is usually within 1/2 mile radius and should not extend beyond major access barriers. A neighborhood park must be a minimum of 4 acres but is typically 8 to 12 acres. COMPO- USE • SERVICE SITE SITE SITE NENT AREA ATTRIBUTES LOCATION Mini Park Serves a concentrated Services a Size Sonic portion High density population,specific age small varies of the site must neighborhood (City juris• group,or provides only service but be suitable for s where diction or limited facilities on a area, usable the specific use typical private private) local basis. Typically usually less area is which required yards do not mini parks provide only than 1/4 typically the site. most.May be one or two basic mile 1 to 4 in locations facilities such as play radius, acres. such as equipment,open field population apartment games area,or a short served is complexes, trail. at least townhouse 500 developments residents. or commercial centers. Neighbor- Area for ha] Optional Ten Physiography Accessible to hood Park recreational activities service acre suited for intended • au: such as a 250'x 250' area is mini- intense service area. • Ground open field games area, usually mum;is development. More active paved hard courts within a typically Some natural parks need (City juris- games area,trails,play 1/2 mile 20 to 12 amenities are better access diction) equipment for preschool radius. acres desirable but to collector and elementary age Service but may not required. streets. children and a passive should not be as Must have at or natural area. extend large as least 80'of Optional facilities may beyond 20 frontage on a include improved major acres. public street. ballfields,soccer fields, • barriers to tennis courts,hockey access. rinks,skating rinks and 2,000 to parking facilities. 5,000 population served. Figure*4 Park Standards-1 Park Service Area #36E November 26, 1991 Page 5 Inventory/Analysis, The Park Service Area is comprised of interim type land uses. The 64 acre Weston Hills parcel is located within the northern 1/3 of the Park Service Area and is characterized by . a farmstead and pasture. The southern half of the Park Service Area is comprised of other farmsteads, 5-10 acre single family lots, a 40 acre tree farm and an 8 acre light industrial plat called Halley's 1st Addition. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates D-1 residential (0-3 units per acre) for the entire geographic Park Service Area. The developmental timeframe is uncertain but with the extension of roads and trunk utilities via the Weston Hills Subdivision will facilitate the developmental potential of the adjacent parcels. The current population of Park Service Area #36E is estimated at approximately 30-50 residents. The buildout population of the Park Service Area based on 100% development to D-1 residential is 1287 residents. The following is a comparative sampling of buildout populations for other Park Service Areas: Park Service Area Park Buildout Population # 2 Lexington Park 324 # 3 Country Home Park 249 #20 Blackhawk Park 1537 #24 Captain Dodd Park 1221 #31E Kettle Park 495 #34 Ohmann Park 792 #36W Manor Lake Addition 1251 #36E Study Area 1287 Figure #5 Park Service Area Buildout Comparisons • This demographic information indicates that Park Service Areas of similar buildout population typically support parks of varying classifications. Park Service Area 36E is approximately 1 mile in length in a north/south orientation and varies from 1/8 mile to 1/2 mile in width along the east to west axis. The geometric configuration does not accommodate the service standards of a 1/• mile radius for a mini- park. The ' mile radius standard for a neighborhood park serves a majority of the Park Service Area when located centrally. t Park Service Area #36E November 26, 1991 Page 6 Based on this central orientation providing the greatest service coverage and the Commission's recommendation of park need, staff would concentrate the acquisition study within this defined area. A joint community park scenario may reorient the study area easterly covering the potential service population within Inver Grove Heights. ,... 1 .Resin[ -- - WPM PA Ma "I" N Mesa- diEcar 11:77-' —,. 2 Illitr ' ' . CC - - J > ';',1 ._ Itt*, ter !► OAK POMU Ml:LS P.W. �7 ' pr_ • ; I� 4 I NW N ! �� I 1I # I ‘,,____,„ #.4 44 dals -=1/4 MILE RADIUS {f$----- Meet I .. ry./j/ ', 1 , . 1 P.S.A. #36E ' • > �P S , ei `,�e 4 I' Or- STIR tt r I / --7// . Figure #6 Service Area Coverage The review of similar Park Service Areas in comparison to 36E concludes parks with a range in facility programs, site attributes and acreage. Typically, all parks meet facility program and standards of a mini-park as outlined within Figure #4. Other similar Park Service Areas such as 31E, which is served by Kettle Park, provide a host of facilities, site attributes and acreage characteristic of neighborhood park standards. These differences do not show inconsistencies of the Comprehensive Parks Systems Plan as much as individual parks exceeding basic standards through opportunistic and effective planning. The typical park characteristic for Park Service Area 36E may have a facility program including a playground, hardcourt, open play area, trails, picnic area, passive area and parking lot. The acreage range of similar Park Service Areas range from 3 - 7 acres. The acreage and facility program for park within Park Service Area #36E would change with the joint f tYP Sr P g community park scenario. Increased user population would typically increase facility types and level of design. Acreage requirement may also increase dependent upon the revised facility program and projected level of use. Park Service Area #36E November 26, 1991 Page 7 The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, completed in the early 1980's concluded that "...this area can best be planned with the adjacent are a in Inver Grove Hei gh ts...A joint agreement eement between the cities should be developed at that time with a jointly planned parks facility." The Inver Grove Heights Park Department has been contacted and is currently evaluating the potential of a shared park. This scenario, although foreign to Eagan, has been P undertaken successfully by several communities within the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Eagan staff will be working with Inver Grove Heights in determining the viability of a joint park. The timeframe for this evaluation is intended to dovetail with the site selection phase of the study if deemed necessary Y b Y the Commission. Cash The Commission may also want to consider or review the alternative of accepting a cash dedication (136 x 700 - 95,200) and to utilize those proceeds to enhance the parks opportunities in Park Service Section 36-W. This area is within the 1/2 mile radius, but is separated by a major transportation barrier. Summary, The platting application of Weston Hills Subdivision facilitates the need for a study of Park Service Area #36E. The study process is separated into 2 parts with the first being the determination of whether a park is needed within Park Service Area 36E and the second phase being the selection of an appropriate park site. The Comprehensive Parks System Plan suggests the possibility of a joint park with Inver Grove Heights. This scenario is currently being reviewed by both Cities. The buildout population of Park Service Area #36E exceeds minimum standards of a mini- park classification. Typically, existing Park Service Areas of similar demographics to Park Service Area 36E are served by parks ranging in classification from mini-parks to neighborhood parks. The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission will need to evaluate and make recommendations whether a park is needed within Park Service Area 36E. • For Commission Action The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission may consider the following recommendations: 1. A park is needed within Park Service Area #36E. Staff should begin identifying P park ark sites. 2. No park is needed within Park Service Area 36E. Park needs can be adequately met with an enhanced park in #36W. The City should rely on Inver Grove Heights to provide any needed park amenities. 3. Th Y ty SS/nh TO: PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM: RICH BRASCH WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1991 RE: WATER QUALITY DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WESTON HILLS DEVELOPMENT. Introduction The Weston Hills development is a 64 acre, 132 unit residential development located south and east of the intersection of Cliff Road and Highway 3 in the NE 1/4 of Section 36 in southeast Eagan (Figure 1) . Storm water drainage from approximately 60 acres of the developed site will discharge to Pond LP-27, a 3 .2 acre pond classified for wildlife habitat in the City's water quality ' management plan. LP-27 will discharge to LP-26, currently classified to support indirect contact recreation. Other downstream waters potentially affected by the proposed development include Manor Lake (LP-28) , Hay Lake (LP-31) , and Schwanz Lake (LP- 32) which are classified as indirect contact, indirect contact, and direct contact recreation lakes, respectively. Water Ouality Analysis Because of the high value of many of the water bodies immediately downstream from the development, staff recommends that the City require on-site ponding to meet the mitigation requirements of the Eagan water quality management plan. After reviewing and discussing the preliminary site plan with the developers, an analysis was conducted to determine the size and location of the treatment ponds. Based on this preliminary analysis, two ponds will be needed to meet the requisite treatment standards. One pond of about . 6 acres in surface area and 2 acre-feet in wet volume will be created by deepening a small semi-permanently flooded . wetland in the northwest corner of the site along Highway 3 to treat runoff from about 20 acres. Another two-cell pond with a surface area of approximately .8 acres and a wet volume of 3-3 .5 acre-feet will be necessary to adequately treat the runoff from the remainder of the site before it is discharged to Pond LP-27. c Issues for Commission Consideration Assuming the Commission concurs with the rationale to require ponding instead of a cash dedication for this development, there is another issue that could arise. The initial location for the two- cell pond would have placed it in an area between LP-27 and Highway 3 which contains a pocket of high value mixed hardwood and softwood trees in a larger softwood tree stand dominated by aspens. At a meeting on Wednesday, November 27, City staff requested that the developer evaluate other locations for the pond that would preserve the mixed hardwood/softwood stand and still meet the water quality treatment requirements. The results of that evaluation will be available in time for discussion during Thursday's Commission's meeting. Depending on the outcome of that evaluation, staff may need direction from the Commission on how best to weigh the relative values of water quality protection, tree preservation, and the developer's desire to maintain site integrity and minimize the loss of potential home sites. 441* 15%.4,-,4■■44._ Rich Brasch Water Resources Coordinator cc. Steve Sullivan John Wingard i 1.- E.4.. VII , f� - ,. ��N i'� `;`y '�% tl' JP-23 1. 42i3 3C.!I/� .as�onCL.11 4:'''''1% ?r�'� r.•- � •�'-��'7 JP 2•� •• •Is.o ~� •- --9.1 -`2f`, 21_,,./2: /I-- CLV -...k �t(J i } = ``, -;••-, :.� VI' R- Figure l Al I2 ►` ✓✓. 1I `� '- 12" JP-25.1 z �`" 3 JP-22— CL_V CO L f�. JP TRICK c rPP-29 -� I _ �� aw CL. EAGAN — CL.V11 / — -.,_ r._..., r; PARK — �: ri :>s_ I ,/� DAN 49-29.1 '.1 ,�:, _-"I�L.S.-Ifi�• I 1 �-J-� r„.....0,--___ '•o ]0CL".toil - '.-'7�` _` a 51_7 V •. ' f,y� ,�A►t�ry��1- !1" .9 �' i is \ p Io s• y UP-51 _A,.AP W' v 2;, C rte_, ` E. �. c. t\ 1 CL.VII :E]x- `y� u " •uaroKS asp az C c... LP 43 d ee`° Q I /,� ��- coffin', �'._ ��'' I ;1....= CL. 11 1..E�esi Isf ACC g,:,......T ® s Ya�u _ t ��_-+ _ ;POIN �• . �'r_ ' JP-68 JP-52 . ,; I's °p 'POINT ., tt, �F CL.IV CL: V HIR '- J ...4tipji.v.o....AV:;), .....-.....____,A, :r�. !�- r LE%INGTOK •Oj • / \ w 4s!..' -:♦ - 1 •.D • N D n OIUTErrn • :�� _,:yI1 FARM A t,'�? `�_ ..+ -� -• �n''_ • ta]Irq f�'.•� Pt � ‘* 4.' ._ � �. r .� -r e! Hp'p I(1• _ ` Akio- LP-61.I �� ,� .� � CFLA WALNrlL V I • C L.V �+i I ��A.i SD 11 PARK r "ILL � �� ! L < .e��q. ��- �• "rA -•• , V1 aI} _ PA' ��I�l ^'EY-A:E.? i _6? h IJ•,-...,%* ,-,_ . - r : \ 2 t2 +stto� �i CL.II _, .---041K" I l ^LP-67 ,-'- :,1f<.�5+ _ s•- • p - - _ _.. •,. P-117 CL.VII tl Aw:� �a+Y� r r,l g ',,s L ;; a ��" spew CLJV 30 ,-,g, fir5:7 .. •r-ikaQb-2 � ' 1 -�.f" ��P:2+9 ' if• .e r Qom, CL. It \\___.L. N' cq __ p LP-38 F _ - ... LP-68 CL. I ` , _� CL IV �I ‘2.'' _ r e sue' , f 2 s, L_ ,' -�y_ j O j�:..r•J A aR _ Rte, i..�� CP• IY— 7,-2. / 00"'"/ / `r LP 20 l JN- LP-21 LP 24 ` ,,,t r '� (( CL.1 , ` :.-..,1,,T,..,. CL.IV .IX CL.I '� ty.:2.. • "' Via. CL.IV ;\\- ■' , -� .1 CL-,V,. �- 1P LP-13 )—�. c1. II I '�= ih.n1DEt _ �;� LP-19 ip Orton .y`s r-- `,, .L� I'8 .�� / C L. 1 p;- f Ih,cL, I ;;,,ao: . 'Ir Area Of Development 2 i�\ CLI tr • --EP 1 - CL. V r I LP-14 2 CL. II CL. IV / ^a �, - la I. Jh• `' D4 RK CL. nI P•17 ;j �' R / ` LP-16 =z 1 P-11 ; Y RO EMOUN /I.L. VII / � f i —........., a s� -� 3EMENT PLANT 200o,I,2 M HT*. I Noe TERBOD1ES 0 Ronne �AndeAik i a Assodates bone•a memos • •N APRIL 1990 • . CITY OF EAGAN PARK SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENTS FEBRUARY 1980 A PARK SERVICE AREA: 36W (See map) Present Proposed 5-Year Park Acres Condition Improvements Doddview 6 Undeveloped NB None Population Summary (EST. ) : 1980 70 1985 70 1990 90 Conclusion: It would be preferable to work out an agreement wherein this isolated neighborhood could be served by facilities being provided in the adja- cent Dakota County Regional Park. However, if this could not be • achieved, the proposed Doddview Park should be acquired by the City when this area receives more extensive development which is not ex- pected to occur until after 1985. PARK SERVICE AREA: 36E Present Proposed 5-Year Park Acres Condition Improvements None N/A N/A None Population Summary (EST. ) : 1980 35 1985 40 1990 50 Conclusion: This area is not expected to see extensive development until after 1985 or later. Service for this area can best be planned with the adjacent area in Inver Grove Heights which also is not, expected to • experience extensive development until after 1990 because of the availability of utilities• A joint agreement between the Cities should be developed at that time with a jointly planned park facili- ty. VII-51 . ` 2:" SIHD3H 3n0L19 83AN! -'-- � 1 .z ■ .. to C W ,--_, di - ,, • --------______ - - . ....,z0 ...., ._, ul 0 , - -_ : -. _ ____ z-,_.,, .. : ,,,>- , cc---,--''t ' -- ''' ' ' -',. , ,„,: .(5 „ el -- ...:, . , :_-_--- 7 :I.P. -,----"'- 67- "_;_2_1"--- "CT — s.'' '".. I -4;•.--,'' i •A" C ti ALT..iir -2-___-1----,%----. 0 (7i- • .. .. • . - --- .itg - - : • E"-=-&s1 i _-- __....... • s _ •' L -• - I -- - y • 3� V . +- I c _ ---- - — J •—� Z 1: ;-•• C r^ . (.. J G- _ La , , 1„I's-, Niii • o Z cr • 'j ( - - Icd ,♦ i� •- .. —_ 1 .; `— CIS'' +r #•i it M•.1-\7-.N fil -' ' V.1 1 • • - -- —1 ) E CI) - . , - ,. - -\\.........r ,-4 .b..........."*".......st.3 ','4 f--""-- : , , . .i.-•,. Nks. r i N ,.v ��r:j J 1• ,N.;:,▪ -i -.If-1.7 ', , , a _.., _ ,..=,.::,....... „_, . , , ,,, : ....: ,:....e..... :: ....:: t i ;:j w '4-- - CO Z NY CC • Q MM F(:'"r N4,. W \ - 4_ 1,0=7:c \ % \ .• - \ _ - -_:=•._ - �.rn-� 31linSNtl18 3m a,�-r MEMORANDUM TO: ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM:Y•4 KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES STEPHEN SULLIVAN, PARK PLANNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DATE: JANUARY 3, 1992 RE: PARK SERVICE AREA 36 E - PARKS AREA STUDY BACKGROUND The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at the December 5th meeting made recommendations regarding the need for a park within Park Service Area 36E. The Commission requested staff to evaluate potential park site acquisition areas which could service the park service area. The Park Service Area is located south of Cliff Road, east of State Highway 3, north of the City of Rosemount and west of the City of Inver Grove Heights. (See Figure #1) This area is currently comprised of interim type land uses. The Comprehensive Land Use PIan designates the entire area for single family residential at 0-3 units per acre. The developmental time frame for Park Service Area 36E is unpredictable. The platting of the Weston Hills Addition facilitates the development potential of the remaining undeveloped parcels via the extension of roadways and utilities. SCOPE OF MEMORANDUM The scope of this memorandum reviews large park study areas. The study evaluates two sites within Park Service Area 36E and one located within Inver Grove Heights. (See Figure #2) The primary criteria.of review for each study area are: • 1. Standard site analysis items i.e, topography, drainage, vegetation, etc. 2. Development efficiencies and constraints. 3. Service area efficiencies and constraints. 4. Acquisition considerations. 5. Economic considerations. PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PAGE TWO ANALYSIS - COMPREHENSIVE PARKS SYSTEMS PLAN The Comprehensive Parks System Plan does not specifically indicate a parkland acquisition within Park Service Area #36E,but instead mentions the possibility of a joint park between the Cities of Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. Based on the joint park concept staff has re-defined P.S.A. #36E to include an area within Inver Grove Heights which lies south of Cliff Road, north of Rosemount and West of County Road #73. The newly defined Park Service Area is approximately 1-1/4 miles in length by 1 mile in width. A centrally located park (i.e., Park Study Area #1 & #3) would place the park within 3/4 of a mile of all residents. The build out population for both communities within this Park Service Area is approximately 1,700. Eagan's Comprehensive Parks System Plan defines mini-parks as serving a minimum of 500 residents within a 1/4 mile radius. The mini-park parcel size is typically 1-4 acres. A mini park facility program is typically an open play area and playground. Resource based facilities and site requirements are typically not utilized within mini-parks. Eagan's Comprehensive Parks System Plan defines a neighborhood park serving 2,000 - 5,000 residents within a 1/2 mile radius. The facility program is enhanced by including hardcourts, parking lots, trails and miscellaneous resource based facilities. The parcel size is typically 10 - 20 acres. Based on this criteria, it appears that the 1,700 build-out population and the re-defined service area size has a closer reflected need to a neighborhood park than a mini-park. A second approach is to service only the residents of Eagan within Park Service Area #36E. A centrally located pa r k within m the Park Service a Area (i.e. Study Area #2 & #3) would serve a majority of the population within a half mile radius. This is consistent with Eagan's typical neighborhood park classification standard. The build out population for Park Service Area 36E is approximately 1,287. The service population meets the 500 minimum for the mini-park yet falls short of the 2,000 - 5,000 service population for a neighborhood park. Service areas of similar population demographics include the recently platted Manor Lake Addition "Park Area" and Captain Dodd Park. Both park areas contain approximately 5 -7 acres for active type facilities such as hard courts, open play area or overlay fields, playground and parking lot. Captain Dodd Park also includes another 7 acres for a resource based trail which circles a pond. Manor Lake Addition park area is less resource oriented with a spur trail to a canoe launch on a small lake. These parks typically support a bias toward basic active neighborhood facilities at a limited development scale (i.e., open play area or field overlay in lieu of separate full scale play fields, half hardcourts, smaller playgrounds. As well, the resource based facilities have a secondary bias to the active based facilities. This secondary bias, as in the case of Captain Dodd Park,does not preclude opportunistic design or acquisition. Staffs evaluation using these two parks as typical examples indicate a hybrid park classification which serves 7 10. PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PAGE THREE populations larger than the 500 mini-park criteria and less than the 2,000 neighborhood park standard. These hybrid parks typically have service areas typical of neighborhood parks. Based on this observation, staff concurs with the Commission's recommendation for a park within P.S.A. 36E. Also, in maintaining consistency with the hybrid classification concept, it appears the park parcel size would need to be 4 - 7 developmentally efficient acres. PP P P P ANALYSIS - SITE #1 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS Study Area #1 is located within Inver Grove Heights. The site lies 1/4 mile south of Cliff Road, west of Albavar Path, east of the Eagan/Inver Grove Heights border and south of several large, single family parcels. The study area is central to Park Service Area 36E and the Inver Grove Heights neighborhood south of Cliff Road and west of County Road 73. (See Figure #3) The study area is comprised of approximately 25 acres which can effectively support a smaller park parcel. Two meadow areas of 10 acres each, with slopes averaging 2 - 7%, lie to the north and west. A seven acre wooded pond area with shoreline slopes of 15 - 30% lies to the southeast. The woods adjacent to the pond are primarily matured red oaks, hophornbeam and aspens. An evergreen and red oak stand lie south of the western meadow. The meadow areas are cultivated in cash crops. A majority of the drainage flows to the pond. The pond is not currently tied into the Inver Grove Heights storm sewer system. The pond and woodland resources are of high visual and ecologic quality providing the potential for passive recreation opportunity. The meadows flat to moderate slopes and lack of significant vegetation provide opportunity for active use facilities such as open play area, playground, hardcourt and parking lot. Development costs would be low to moderate due to efficient grading, compatible vehicular access, structural soils and no utilities. The study areas geometric configuration allows flexible park layout maximizing.design potential, as well as development efficiencies. Acquisition would be possible via a purchase of the parcel from a single or possibly two landowners. Staff estimates that the 25 acre study area could be reduced in size to 10 - 14 acres resulting in an estimated acquisition cost range of $120,000 to $182,000. A joint governmental agreement between Inver Grove Heights and Eagan would be necessary to define acquisition, development, maintenance and operational responsibilities and costs. Subsequent to staffs evaluation of study area #1, a meeting was held with staff members from Inver Grove Heights to discuss the joint park concept. Inver Grove Heights and staff indicated an openness to the concept, but needed to evaluate their yet to be adopted Comprehensive Parks System Plan. At a second meeting, Inver Grove staff explained that their philosophy for parkland classification utilizes 40 acre minimum park preserves to serve PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PAGE FOUR rural populations. These preserves are strategically placed throughout their city optimizing population bases and service areas. Unfortunately, the 400 - 500 Inver Grove Heights residents within the study area were to be served via a park north of Cliff Road. ;This conclusion therefore stymies the viability of a joint park concept and Study Area #1. ANALYSIS • STUDY SITE #2 EAGAN Study Site #2 is located within Eagan. The site lies within the southwest corner of the proposed Weston Hills Addition adjacent to Pond LP-27 and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. (See Figure #4) This study area is small comprising only 18 acres. The parcel is characterized by a rectangular configuration oriented northeast to southwest approximately 1,300' in length by 600' wide. This geometric configuration is based on a strong topographic characteristic of a pond to the southwest with a plateau depression to the northeast. The plateau area is predominantly flat to moderate with slopes ranging from 4 - 8%. The pond edge is encircled with slopes ranging from 4 to 20% and covered with overstory trees. Mature oak trees ring the northeast side of the pond. The northwest edge of the pond contains a mixed tree mass predominantly aspen, oaks, sugar maple and willow. The plateau area is comprised of herbaceous plant material and may be suspect to poor soils. In order to be conclusive, additional geo-technical evaluation is necessary. A majority of the watershed within the study are drains to Pond LP-27. Approximately 13 acres outside the study area drains through the plateau prior to outletting into Pond JP-27. The pond is not currently tied into Eagan's storm sewer system. The Comprehensive Water Quality Plan designates the pond for wildlife habitat. The pond and adjacent woodland resource are currently of high visual quality and could provide passive recreation opportunities. The plateau with its flat to moderate slopes and lack of significant vegetation provides opportunity for active use facilities. Development costs would be low to moderate based on efficient grading, compatible vehicular access and no need for utilities. The uncertain development item is whether soil amendments would be necessary to provide a structural base for the parking area. The small developmental area of the plateau provides minimal design flexibility. The railroad, oak trees and pond provide essentially a non-expandable development edge. Any expansion in acreage to accommodate additional active facility development could only occur to the south and east. The areas south and east of the plateau area are characterized by a 10 -20' vertical slope with gradients ranging from 10 - 20 %. Facility placement outside of the flatter plateau area onto these slopes increase design flexibility, but also increase grading costs and acquisition area. PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PAGE FIVE Acquisition could be done via parks dedication of 6.3 acres within the Weston Hills Development or possibly through purchase. It appears that the developer prefers a cash _ dedication of approximately$94,000 in lieu of a land dedication. The cash dedication could then be used for either acquisition and/or development costs. The developer tentatively considered a land dedication subject to the City providing cash credit toward the pond and adjacent steep slopes. This credit could account for approximately 2.1 acres leaving a balance of 42 acres within the plateau area. Staff's preliminary evaluation indicates the remaining 4.2 acres within the plateau area cannot support the typical, active facility program without significant grading and the removal of oak trees. The small developmental area provides extreme influence on facility layout and flexibility. The land equivalent to the $94,000 park dedication would essentially purchase acreage characterized by a pond, trees and terrain of minimal value to active facility needs. The option of accepting a smaller portion of the pond and a larger developmentally efficient area within the plateau is a more equitable and effective parkland acquisition. This option provides a viable park which can accommodate a balanced facility program. The developer felt this approach to parkland siting does not accommodate the layout and economics of the Weston Hills development. ANALYSIS STUDY SITE #3. Study Site #3 is located within Eagan. The site lies south of Farm Road,west of the Inver Grove Heights Eagan border and north of a 40 acre tree farm. (See Figure #5) The study area is approximately 22 acres which can effectively support a smaller park parcel. The area is characterized by a square geometric configuration with the southern 1/2 being a flat meadow and the northern half being a combination of meadow and low wooded area. The southern meadow is currently utilized for cash crops and has slopes ranging from 2 - 10%. The northern area topography has slopes ranging from 2-6%. The study area is void of significant vegetation, although wetland tree varieties are located within its northeast corner. A majority of the drainage flows to a small wetland located within this wooded area. This four acre wooded wetland area offers minimal visual or habitat qualities in regards to parkland development. The remaining flat meadow areas, which are void of significant vegetation, provide opportunity for active use facilities such as open play area, playground, hardcourt and parking lot. Development costs in this study area would be low to moderate due to efficient grading, compatible vehicular access, structural soils and utilities. The geometric configuration and available acreage allows for flexible park layout maximizing design as well as development efficiencies. Resource based facilities are not provided for within this study area. Enhancement of the small low area or reforestation may be a viable developmental consideration to provide some passive use opportunities. a)-° PARK SERVICE AREA 36E PAGE SIX Acquisition would be possible via purchase from one or two land owners. The smaller size of the parcels does not support a parkland dedication alternative. Staff estimates that the 22 acre study area could be reduced in size to a 4 - 7 acre park. The estimated acquisition cost may range from $48,000 to $91,000. In consideration of the limited parkland opportunities within Park Service Area 36E, the use of condemnation may be a viable acquisition methodology if the seller contests the City's pursuit for an agreeable purchase. SUMMARY The most complimentary park site, capable of serving both Eagan and Inver Grove Heights is within Study Area #1. The Inver Grove Heights Parks Systems Plan reflects a park to the north, thus eliminating this study area alternative. Therefore,a small park within Eagan to serve the potential 1,300 residents seems appropriate. Study Area #2 within the proposed Weston Hills plat indicates that a 6.3 acre dedication could be made, but that there would be a significant loss of vegetation and higher development cost in order to meet typical parkland design and layout standards. Study Area #3 provides property that is developmentally cost efficient and provides design flexibility. The resource based opportunities are not available, but could be provided via the design process. FOR COMMISSION ACTION The Commission may consider the following recommendations: o A park is needed to serve residents within P.S.A. 36E. o To recommend parkland designation within the preferred study area. o To provide staff with the preferred acquisition methodology and approach. KV/SS/bls • • J• 4-4 1#13--4 i 'r DR _ . 114 10 • r A11A1v7 C ,t i. . 1ff1 �� ilkt% c z I`v 'U � �=' (fir^1 +{ N.HAY LAKE ARXH �� Z��\, • -,°Rut F._r. .- ac. -I _ P�' . Y � A.,E Q iip— 4! ._ CLIFF RD ITT:, OAK POND HIL LS PARK 1.2) LLAN / ' IDOI E NW o NE� Q ,/. 44 ( .---\..I•7/-z•:... - t '. ---:-\-- 7/. i-. ''%4:404 c' -4890— ... :[A•• HALL s ill 1 FARM , i SW R5AD r ' 1 .7 IC A► _.11. 4 Utai • V l)! 1201H STIR Et w. 1 i /: I I 6501 6001 • ' C• Dr o.n By Dre.i+q belt Stephen M FIGURE #1 Sullivan r Dote: Cityit Van 603_,-' PARK SERVICE AREA #36E fl 81111K t0. 1/5/92 \, _ AREA LOCATION MAP a r' . �9lC.,» )L- X2111 : 1.`' ILAND C - ' 1 -,___,,-, /•,A N. HAY LAKE GREE°'EAF A!/TH _ a -,ARK I k% 14, {110) • F E CLIFF (l (OAK POND , • 11E' -+ • HILLS PARK U) 1 l� LLAN "PIDDLE NW )RD NE' I •-TUDY REA #2 �- ti I . . / STUDY AREA #�1 r_;_ __- _ A ` • V - -4898-- - r -� �r t . . NAUV00 W Y AREA st3 tl►' /1/ TUD HAIL : vi--- tl; b 'ARM GUN S SW ROAD SE I1 EAGAN INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 8 i . / ,___ i 1 v ) i 820TH STR ET W. ROSEM UNT 1 I e ►0 ' 6901 8001 —0°1 _. Dr awn 8y' is w owing TOO Stephen FIGURE #2 jnllivan �� nom s0.� i Dote: PARK SERVICE AREA #36E- I 1 /5/92 ` _ AREA LOCATION MAP , i / . '/ i I 8 •, 2 /, 1 . . , . ....... . (to ( i ,;.,, / ....., ____ . \ K h ;. - ( is ■ .! : . a . ) ,..., s, ...- -.4-.1. t, . \....... rice..r i Pa\/ eee. \ 1 '`'t S 1: ••• , ; • / if•) ....; *•:. . 4. i \I\ it a 1 —-•••——_ -�- -- - eta \ .•> — _ , . : ir •ma I. I , \ 1 ..4f• l °1 • . , . fat.. - \ • , wI w. t "�SA1•ri.• . r ' , •• Ire All/ 'I \ 1 �i•• 0 1- t ` 1.1'. 6 •teI t•. 1 . • i , i ..... .... \ • 131 -A — _ • • • • - _- .I 1 .y I st PC T • IMO an mop ■g amp=NO=Ws WINN um, OP. { 4).,-:,,, 1 / ,, n ..—. Ci.iiiO i_t_....„e...„.,, -,--,-'-......4,,,,..,... ' f'STUDY ARE \ ' , , r 4, ,. , ,,, N .,.... . A • . •. • _, 1, I •. • 1 •ace• �4 —• ` a :. 1 .,. i•, gal I / `.:.) : . e).•• 1 4�, r I r:‘r[ J, ! J • ._4_ ' �1 T ' L --• .el•. 1 1J\ Ir17S -=- ---=—�� NORTHit. 0 200 400 Dr Step �, owing TitFGURE #3 Sullivan_ �p PARK STUDY AREA #1 QJ92 JOINT COMMUNITY PARK CO EPT • _ y • ./' ^ 1.;p• \� . • • • -• . • a.? , ,j., ..• •. . ,_ i * .-,- . ./: ''.""fr'-/Vt' ',/'' -. ; ..::\ %`. e ,''.' : \ _r , ) � , ' ,/. .,, , 4 • • „.• 1\•,- ,.. \ ; ..- . . • i . , .. . , . . , :, ,,./,,....:., e• :, . - N. _ .• ..._,, , ,' t'f' ''. 4' ,„( • lir. ., , iti. .\. t• A.e/ ikili, .. I : 4;•;i.l. :// 10 4110# t , ' • 1, � _ Y � A lt A s___,--- - 1 .1r-if. iacs,.-7 44052115E,VOLO61204 - � . . ' 1 i}; ;�� • - z,-TS Irk awe• / I' I /' / ... . ^�La• '-,- i : II _•- I 1, ' • r• f: ; ova•n • •� ., f _ • •��- NORTH 0 200 400 r Step n•8b• ;2 r: owing Tit-IGURE #4 Sullivan .p Dote- PARK STUDY AREA #2 nawt moo. • • 1/5/92 ti PARK SERVICE AREA #36E • • 1 . y, , %t tp- • W' . - 1 I / , \ 1 1 • • 1 , \\‘.•\ • al* •I' t ".. / I I....4. 1 • I t / INA� 'I .. .., . t�•�•..CA '' "i _ -1:-. �.�;� it __ . � PJ71....!..er.;,..r-A . ..1 ,'.''' ..:..I....,e‘i ) .11 ft \....... ' .. DART OF 1 � \ w• '� I; �� • i S $ _ L II )J . 1 /:• - r Et/0e \ 1,- \ ../ 1 - _ ■ �, , Pre( STUD ,•_� __ _ I / - I --t� • / - . ....... .. _ r -_-. _�1` _- 1k. —� 1 I w, [: C..' .:. , 4 i / , , .-----•„Ni ' G.. : .. ... . . , .. : . . , . • i. I �1rN 11 .. 4 --' / ,•1 . , 1 • i �/�• / ).••!if : a t 0 % • '� • •i 0 ..' , ■ I • t•■ , , I ti i = _ • ; I 200 400 1. NORTH 0 /fli- .. Dfown By '_ to ►f-1 Droving Titie Stephen III s FIGURE #5 Sullivan 0 ""—'..'—" Dote PARK STUDY AREA #3 'Ilium pro., 1/5/92 PARK SERVICE AREA #36E MINUTES PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRAUARY 25, 1993 A meeting of the Public Works Committee was convened at 9:25 a.m., on February 25, 1993, in Conference Room A of the Eagan Municipal Center. Those present were Committee Chair Councilmember Ted Wachter, Councilmember Sandra Masin, County Commissioner Dee Richards, County Commissioner Patrice Bataglia, City Public Works Director Tom Colbert and City Administrator Tom Hedges. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the history", recent City Council and County Board actions and future options regarding the intersection and signalization improvements of Lone Oak Road (County Road 26) and Lexington Avenue (County Road 43) identified as City Project 601A and County Project 26-16. Chairman Wachter opened the meeting by identifying the concerns the City had with the project as it pertains to the overall cost, loss of full access to affected property owners and the application of different design standards for this intersection as compared to Pilot Knob Road one mile to the west. Commissioner Bataglia indicated it would be difficult to do design comparisons without having traffic counts and turning movements for any and all intersections being compared to ensure that there are similarities for comparison. Councilmember Masin identified the concerns raised by Crate Prospects as it pertains to the current problem of traffic congestion for northbound 35E through the metered ramp and its potential for backing up into the intersection and possibly negating any benefit from the improvement. Commissioner Bataglia recognized that there were several different issues and concerns that appeared to be going in different directions. She recommended that there appears to be a need to get everyone together on the same level to discuss all issues collectively (I.e., traffic counts, safety issues, congestion, median/access restrictions, phasing, etc.). Commissioner Richards felt that based on past litigation and liability issues, there wasn't much hope for a majority of the County Board members to approve a design that incorporated any local access breaks in roadway designs that incorporate medians. There were several comments concurred by all that, recognizing the hardships and impact on the adjacent property owners, this is not a "perfect" design but taking into consideration the overall safe and efficient needs of both the present and future commuting public, its a workable solution. 1 i Commissioner Bataglia informed the City that the Dakota County Board was firmly against i compromising the design by having a median phased in over a 2-3 year period due to the increased expense and disruption to perform a future improvement that is recognized and needed at the present time. It was the consensus of both Commissioners that if the modified design that was considered at the January 19 meeting were brought back to the County Board with full concurrence from the City Council, it still, in all likelihood, would not receive support from a majority of the County Board Commissioners. Both Commissioners reiterated their sensitivity to the local issue and commitment to represent the City's interests. In response to a question by Councilmember Masin. as to the future of this project, Commissioner Bataglia indicated that the County would not initiate this project without being assured that there was local support due to the fact that, in comparison to other needs throughout the County,this does not have the level of problems that would warrant the County pursuing against the City's wishes. Tom Colbert provided an accident history for the past two years that showed a total of 21 accidents with four personal injuries occurring at this intersection with 8 (7 and 1) accidents occurring in '91 and 13 (10 and 3) occurring in '92 and none being experienced to date in '93. Commissioner Richards indicated that the County had passed a Resolution (copy attached), forwarded it to the City and is waiting for the City's response as to the future of this project. Both Councilmembers Wachter and Masin recognize the need for this project to proceed and will report the results of this meeting to the City Council at a workshop scheduled for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 2. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Minutes prepared and submitted by //-- ,, t---7-t/'...-,-7. , -- _6(4/ ' 1.......__ rector of Public Works TAC/jj , ' Attachment 2 , 4 • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DATE February 2. 1993 RESOLUTION N0. 93-109 • Motion by Commissioner Turner Seconded by Commissioner Batae1 ia WHEREAS, Dakota County Project 26-19, scheduled for 1993 in the approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) , includes center medians on CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Road) and center medians on CR 43 (Lexington Avenue) at its intersection area; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer has suggested temporarily constructing a short median on CR -43 north of CSAH 26 which would permit left turns until such time as conditions show the median is needed. .for intersection operation, traffic safety or traffic congestion; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan did not approve the project at the January 19, 1993 Council meeting with a vote of three for, one against and one abstention; and WHEREAS, the Commissioners at the January 26, 1993 Physical Development Board Committee expressed concern regarding safety and liability in a compromise design with a shortened raised north median; and WHEREAS, the center median design is necessary to provide acceptable traffic flow directions and to restrict unsafe left turns close to the intersection; and WHEREAS, the existing traffic volumes combined with the 20 year traffic forecast indicate that the intersection of CSAH 26 and County Road 43 is very heavily traveled and will continue to be a major crossroad of high level County highways. YES NO Harris X Harris Maher X Maher Bataglia X Bataglia Richards X Richards Turner X Turner Jensen X Jensen toeding X loeding _ State of Minnesota County of Dakota I.Joan L. Kendall.Clerk to the Board of the County of Dakota. State of Minnesota.do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. Dakota County, Minnesota.at their session held on the 2nd day of February 19 93, now un file in the County Administration Department. and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof. Witness.my hand and official seal of Dakota County this day of 1/1.3 ,29 go.", • • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners supports the proposed design of the intersection of CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Road) at CR 43 (Lexington Avenue) , with no median breaks or shortening -of medians as approved by the County Board on August 6, 1991. • • • I ' CITY OF EAGAN POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION TITLE: Community Development Director DEPARTMENT: Community Development REPORTS TO: City Administrator POSITION SUMMARY: To plan, direct and provide leadership for the community development, economic development, planning and zoning, general government building and protective inspection programs/ divisions in the City of Eagan in a manner that will facilitate and insure the safety and health of the community and provide for an effective and sound development procedure/ policy consistent with council policies and established codes and regulations. ESSENTIAL POSITION FUNCTIONS: 1. Plans, directs and coordinates short and long range planning for all divisions of the Community Development Department (planning and zoning, protective inspections, economic development, and general government buildings) by directing and coordinatin g -work of department staff and consultants. 2. Plans, directs and coordinates the administration of planning and zoning ordinances, policies and procedures for the City. 3. Plans, directs and coordinates the administration of protective inspection functions for the City. 4. Plans, directs and coordinates ' the administration of economic development functions for the City. 5. Plans, directs and coordinates the administration istration of general government buildings functions for the City. 6. Plans, directs and coordinates the administration of special development studies and projects, such as housing for the aged, redevelopment projects, HRA functions, alternate transportation studies, etc. 7. Prepares annual departmental budget request and monitors expenditures. 8. Conducts research and develops agenda items and proposed ordinance revisions for presentation and consideration. 2 / 9. Works with consultants and other outside individuals/groups involved in studies affecting the physical development of the City and coordinates special projects and studies. 10. Supervises directly reporting employees by assigning tasks, evaluating performance, providing training, establishing procedures, conducting semi-annual performance appraisals, etc. 11. Responsible for the preparation of planning/economic development grant proposals. 12. Represents City to other government agencies regarding planning/economic development/protective inspections issues. 13. Administers the Star Cities Program and serves as staff liaison to the Economic Development Commission. 14. Coordinates community development/redevelopment projects with other departments and government agencies. 15. Makes oral presentations regarding department agenda items at City Council meetings including the use of visual aids. OTHER POSITION FUNCTIONS: 1. Conduct neighborhood and community meetings during the development/redevelopment process. 2. Performs other duties as apparent or assigned. WORKING CONDITIONS: 1. Office Settings 98% Field 2% 2. The workload of this position is such that during some periods of time activities will be hectic and stressful with numerous and diverse tasks being performed at fast pace. 3. Field work includes visiting sites planned for development/ redevelopment. HOURS OF WORK: FLSA exempt position DIRECTLY SUPERVISES: City Planner, Chief Building Official, Assistant Chief Building Official (government building maintenance functions only) , Community Development Department Secretary MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Baccalaureate degree in public administration, urban studies or closely related field. �Z, 2. At least five years experience in government administration, with increasing responsibility, including two years at a department head or extremely responsible assistant department head level. 3. A thorough knowledge of state, federal and municipal policies, laws and codes affecting department operations. 4. A demonstrated ability to motivate, train, direct and supervise others. 5. Ability to develop and maintain positive and effective working relationships with employees, elected and appointed officials, architects, contractors, developers and the general public. 6. The ability to be a creative and innovative thinker. 7. Ability to communicate effectively orally, graphically and in writing. 8. Ability to perform all essential position functions under the working conditions as described. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree in public administration, urban studies or closely related field. 2. Five years experience as a department head in a City of over 20, 000 or as an assistant department head in a City of over 35,000 or a combination of both. 3. Experience in working with a municipal growth community. 4. Experience working with municipal redevelopment functions. 5. Working knowledge of municipal protective inspection functions. �3 SUGGESTED PLACEMENT OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Publication Date Minnesota Cities Bulletin March 8 or 15 Issue ICMA Newsletter March Issue "JobMart" Publication from the American Planning Assn. March Mpls Star/Tribune (regional editions) March 7 and March 21 St. Paul Pioneer Press/Dispatch March 14 Mn. Suburban Newspaper (includes Eagan Chronicle and all other company publications March 10 ThisWeek Newspapers March 14 Minnesota Women's Press March 10 Insight News (African American) March 8-10 In addition to the above advertisements, posting notices will be sent to the regular listings of minority and employment organizations and cities in the Metropolitan area. 347 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TENTATIVE HIRING SCHEDULE March 7, 1993 Ads placed in local newspapers, national and state publications April 9, 1993 Application deadline April 12-16 Applications screened April 16 Notify applicants for first interview April 28 Hold first interview*, May 11 Special council meeting/interview finalists May 18 Officially approve hiring June, 1993 Possible starting time *Suggested interview panel would include City Administrator Hedges, Assistant to the City Administrator Duffy and a Community Develop- ment Director from another community. Members of the Council's Personnel Committee could observe. 2?<_r