Loading...
09/01/1998 - City Council Special AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday September 1, 1998 5:00 p.m. Municipal Center Community Room I. ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. GREENSBORO DRAINAGE ISSUE IV. PROPOSED ACQUISITION/DON GRANT PARCEL V. REVIEW OF BIDS FOR BATH HOUSE & CONCESSION BUILDINGS/AQUATIC POOL PROJECT VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: AUGUST 28, 1998 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 GREENSBORO DRAINAGE DISCUSSION The Engineering Division has spent a significant amount of time working with the residents of 3734 and 3738 Greensboro Drive to resolve concerns about the drainage of their property. The residents have become frustrated at the lack of their success. With few options remaining, the residents are requesting the assistance of the City Council in providing a permanent resolution to this problem. For additional information on this item,refer to pages 3 through _. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: That action could consist of: 1) Direction to grade the drainage Swale according to the original grading plan and raising the houses, 2)Direction to construct a non-standard drainage pipe and connect into existing storm sewer, 3)Do nothing. The action regarding the financing of these options includes: 1)Assess the cost of the improvement to all of the benefited properties,2)Assess the two property owners that petitioned for the improvements, 3) City finance the entire cost. PROPOSED ACOUISITION/DON GRANT PARCEL At the August 18 regular City Council meeting, a recommendation was presented to the City Council by Lee Markel, Chairperson of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, to acquire a 4.78 acre parcel of land owned by Don Grant adjacent to Moonshine Park and LaMay Lake. The City Council took action directing the acquisition based on the recommendation of Mr. Markel. Before a proposal/purchase agreement is prepared, there are some issues staff would like to review with the City Council which involves use of the residential structure, access to the house, would the City connect to the proposed sanitary sewer and water, how will be site be used in the future and whether the financing should come from the park site fund or a different revenue source. f For additional information on this item, refer to a memo prepared by the Director of Parks and Recreation and support information staff provided the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission that has been previously copied in APrC and City Council packets prior to the August 18 meeting on pages 9 through ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide staff with direction on the issues listed in order to proceed with negotiations and a purchase agreement for the Don Grant parcel. REVIEW OF BIDS FOR BATH HOUSE AND CONCESSION BUILDINGS/AQUATIC POOL PROJECT Bids for the bath house, concession buildings and equipment building were received on Tuesday, August 18. The bids have been reviewed by staff, construction manager and architect and a final cost summary will be available for review by the City Council at the meeting on September 1. Also, color charts will be available to determine what color combination the City Council would desire for the buildings. The construction manager and architect would like an opportunity to discuss the bids and answer any questions the City Council has about the buildings during work session. The only bidding that remains in the Aquatic Pool project is the fence and landscaping. For additional information about the bids, refer to item "N"that appears on the consent agenda for the regular City Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide an opportunity for discussion on the bids for the bath house, concession and storage buildings with the understanding that this item will be formally acted upon at the regular City Council meeting. If there are questions at the work session or at the regular City Council meeting, the item can be pulled from the consent agenda for separate action. /S/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator '.;.... MEMO city of eagan TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: RUSS MATTHYS,CITY ENGINEER _ 1 DATE: AUGUST 28, 1998 SUBJECT: GREENSBORO DRAINAGE DISCUSSION The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has spent a significant amount of time actively working with the*residents of 3734 and 3738 Greensboro Drive over the past 12 months to resolve their concerns with the drainage of their property. Throughout the previous 9 years, staff also assisted the resident of 3738 Greensboro Drive in attempting to resolve this drainage issue privately with the builder and developer. The residents have expended a significant amount of money in attempts to solve the problem privately and have become frustrated at the lack of their success. With few options remaining, the residents have requested the assistance of the City Council in providing a permanent resolution to this problem. BACKGROUND The property descriptions are Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Greensboro 2nd Addition. The lots are located north of Wescott Road and directly south of the Carriage Hills Golf Course. See the attached exhibit. On September 17,1997, City Staff received a letter and petition from Julie Hermann Casey, 3738 Greensboro Drive, and Brad Wendel, 3734 Greensboro Drive. The petition requested that the City resolve a drainage problem in the back yards of the properties. Since 1990, Ms. Casey has had water in her basement every year. The Caseys have made improvements to the house and yard each year in an attempt to correct the problem. In 1997, the petitioners contacted a contractor to discuss corrective options. Suggestions involved the placement of drain tile within the drainage and utility easements to the south or to the east. The petitioners set up a neighborhood meeting and sent permission request forms to the affected neighbors. They were not successful in obtaining the neighbors' permission to work within the easement in their yards. With the assistance of the City after the cancellation of the public improvement, the petitioners were successful in obtaining the permission of the neighbors and privately constructed a drain tile within the public easement. I have attached a memorandum to the City Council dated August 3, 1998. It gives the details of the drainage problem and the attempted public improvement. 3 Potential special assessments to the properties adjacent to any improvements were the main reason the public improvement was canceled. Many of the neighbors are not concerned with the drainage deficiencies because they do not have a significant effect on their quality of life. The petitioners have exhausted their standard financial resources, as well as their emotional resources. They have made efforts in excess of what should be expected of a typical homeowner. Staff has done everything within our means to address the concern. Any additional assistance would require Council direction. OPTIONS The original grading plan of the development allowed for the adequate drainage of these two lots, as well as the rest of the block. It is evident that the drainage swale was adversely revised with the construction of the houses and grading of the individual yards. Also the two houses with the drainage concerns were built lower than what was designed. The original solution is still the best solution, a drainage swale graded in accordance to the grading plan. In order to do that now both houses would need to be raised and the entire swale would need to be regraded, as well as the landscaped yards adjacent to the swale. Without complete cooperation from the neighborhood,this option would not be desirable. Raising the houses is not feasible. In the Feasibility Report for Project 726 staff presented two options for draining the back yards of the two properties. One of the options involved the construction of storm sewer to drain to an existing catch basin at the intersection of Greensboro Drive and Cross Road. This option could provide drainage for both properties with the regrading of each, which the owners have stated they would happily do on their own. With the use of non-standard plastic drainage pipe, which is less expensive than reinforced concrete pipe, the construction of this option is estimated to cost $13,500 to construct. A third option would be to leave things as they are. On Saturday, August 22, 1998, 3738 Greensboro Drive received runoff water in the basement for the third time this year. This option is not acceptable. With the completion of any public improvements, the issue of financing arises. Based upon the previous experience with the attempt of assessing for the proposed feasibility improvements, staff feels that the affected property owners would strongly object to any new assessment proposal. The Caseys and Wendels have both stated that they have expended all that they can afford to try to resolve the drainage problem. The options of having the builder or developer construct the improvements or pay for them has long since expired without legal assistance. A remaining option is that the City would finance any improvement from the Storm Sewer Trunk Fund. The Caseys and Wendels want a permanent solution to the drainage problem. They are tired of the wet basements and yards. They see few options left and have come to the City before taking any legal action against the builder, developer, and City of Eagan. o r\n �F dp 80' 10 i � F-51 � SOAP O • C 1 `V aPRIPO "EAST LINE" o� 4 F4 DRAINAGE AREA f BOUNDARY HUNTER 5 ; 4 ♦; S� LN. 74 1 \� ; P o U-) 72 Ix PROPOSED WEST LINE 1 V) FU � N c M a a i 17 LOTS TO BE ASSESSED GREENSBORO DR. f WENSBORO ADD.- STORM SEWER 12-12-97 CITY OF EAGAN PROJECT 726- LOTS TO BE ASSESSED F'9' S <:,'.•, �•:.�<:�:'�i:..:.;.Y.,.:. MEMO .—. city of eagan TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS L HEDGES,CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: RUSS MATTHYS,CITY ENGINEER DATE: AUGUST 3,1998 SUBJECT: DRAINAGE PROBLEM: 3738& 3734 GREENSBORO DRIVE The private efforts of the property owners who had petitioned the City of Eagan for Project No.726,Greensboro Addition Storm Sewer,have been completed. While the improvements function and have improved the drainage of the two properties,flooding of the basements still occurred the weekend of June 27. Summarized below is the chronological history of the drainage problem from the perspective of the property owner located at 3738 Greensboro Drive. Additional details from staff follow the resident's perspective. City staff has continued to work with the residents since the close of the public hearing, as directed by the City Council. Staff cannot resolve the drainage problem without further direction from the City Council. As you%%ill read,this is a drainage problem that has been occurring since the property was originally developed. • Greensboro 2`4 Addition was developer)in the spring of 1987 and the home construction of 3738 Greensboro Drive began in the summer of 1987. A drainage swale was graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. • In the spring of 1988,Joe Miller of Joe Miller Construction informed the property owners that the grade mas completed incorrectly and requested they hold off landscaping until the site was regraded. At this point the lot drainage seemed to function properly. • About one month later the site was regraded, sod started going down as homes were completed, property owners began watering their yards, and the drainage problems started. Letter %N-as sent out to the City, Builder,and Developer.The developer claimed the house%%-as built too low. • The Developer arranged for the regrade ofthe lot in the fall of 1988 to the maximum possible grade of 0.8%. • In 1989 the neighbors began to start planting landscape in the rear drainage easement. • In 1990 the property owner received Mater in the basement and added a sump pump. • In 1991 the property owner received additional water in the basement and raised the grade around the house. ' • In 1992 the property owners received additional water in the basement and standing water in the yard. • In 1993 the property owner at 3728 Greensboro Drive placed trees and mulch in the easement,water came into the basement with each rainfall and the property owner added additional fill around the foundation of the Party • 1994 and 1995 the property owners continued getting water in the basement. Suggestions by engineers investigating the problem-were not financially feasible for the property owners. • In 1996 the property owners had the basement floor tom up to have the drain tile replaced which was incorrectly installed.The rest of the summer the basement was dry. • In 1997 the property owner added an addition to the home. Shortly after the completion of the addition,they realized the problem was not resolved. They started investigating the installation of drain tile for the yard at the City's recommendation, but were unable to generate support from neighbors whose yards they would need to go through to outlet the drain tie into the public storm sewer system. 6 • September 17, 1997 the property owner submitted a petition to the City for a public improvement to resolve the drainage problem.The only other resident to sign the petition was a neighbor who was also experiencing the same problems. Once the City received a petition it was brought to the City Council,a feasibility report was ordered,and a public hearing was set for February 3, 1998.The following events occurred after the petition was received. • A feasibility report was prepared and notices for a neighborhood meeting were sent out to the affected property owners. • Due to the high cost of the City improvements, that were to be assessed to the benefiting properties, the property owners decided to consider hiring a contractor to do the improvements privately. The City Council continued the public hearing for one month to allow the property owners to discuss the private options and directed staff to assist the residents in their efforts. • The residents returned to the continued public hearing with a commitment to proceed with the private improvements. The council canceled Project No. 726 at the close of the public hearing. • Freidges Landscaping was hired to install four-inch drain tile along the rear property line and outlet the pipe into a catch basin. In addition, the two yards would be regraded to drain into the drain-tile inlets. The pipe size was limited by the method of construction that the neighbors would allow to be used. The installation was completed with a walk-behind Ditch Witch to keep the disturbance at a two-foot width. • The drainage improvements were completed in May of 1998. • Rainfall events in May and June resulted in water ending up in the basements of 3738 and 3734 Greensboro Drive. • The area run-off collected within the two yards easily drains out within a 24 hour period. However, the resulting water in the basements indicates the drain tile is not large enough to adequately handle the peak of the higher intensity rainfall events. The property owners are quite frustrated. They have spent a considerable amount of money over the past ten years,with the largest portion involving the drain tile improvements installed this year. They have spent a great deal of time trying to resolve the drainage problem on their own throughout the decade. Unfortunately,there has even been some damage to some of the neighborhood relationships, in part,out of the frustrations associated with • this drainage problem. The residents are asking the City to completely resolve their drainage problem. They do not want to involve any of their neighbors with cost participation and want to limit any disturbance to the neighbors' yards. They are asking for more than staff can address. The two property owners are asking for this assistance in lieu of suing the builder,developer,and City. I will await your direction. —W(4_� � City Engineer CC: Tom Colbert,Director of Public Works Attachment: Map of Area �. -,.. MEMO city of eagan TO: TOM HEDGES,CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA,DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: AUGUST 27,1998 SUBJECT: DON GRANT PROPERTY You had asked that I provide you with a memo outlining the Advisory Park Commission's discussion of the above referenced item. This item first appeared on the July Commission agenda. Attached is the information that was provided at that time along with the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Grant was at the meeting to present his ideas about the property and why the City should acquire the land. Staff also provided the Commission with a preliminary site analysis that included a location map,topography,vegetation,and location of structures on the property. It was the Commission's direction that the Acquisition/Development Sub-committee make an on-site visit to the property to determine how the property could fit with the existing Moonshine Park. They also wanted to see how the expected future park dedication from the undeveloped property to the south would fit into the overall site. The Acquisition/Development sub-committee met on-site on August I Oh. After a tour of the property and an inspection of the home the sub-committee discussed the issue. Staff and Commission Members raised several questions concerning the property. Not all questions were, or could be answered, and direction from the City Council will be required. Some of the issues reviewed were: What about access and use of the home? The Commission determined that, in the near term,use of the house should be restricted to being rental property because the current access is residential in character. Expanded(future)use of the house would most likely come after acquisition of additional property from the site south of Le May lake. This would provide a vehicle access from Jurdy Road. Access to the house could be developed along an old roadbed now over grown with vegetation. What is the condition of the house and what about utilities? The house is in good to very good condition and appears to have been well maintained. The Commission realizes that the septic system needs to be brought up to new state requirements with a new hard bottom tank. Possible connection to the proposed sanitary sewer extension was left unanswered, as was connection to city water. The well on site is in good condition . How will the site be used in the future? Commission Members discussed a number of options. Mentioned most frequently was the outstanding view of the lake and access to the lake that the property provided. The establishment of a trail head that extended around the south end of Le May Lake and then to the east side of the lake was seen as a possibility. Lake access for canoe use was also meitioned frequently. LeMay Lake has good water clarity and is one of the seven lakes designated for indirect contact. The Commission also recognized that this park service area does not have a developed park and that the current park lacks the ability to provide any usable park amenity. This acquisition would go a long way in advancing the need to develop a park facility in this park service area. More park planning needs to be done with future acquisition. Where will the financing come from? Commission Members agreed that when the Council directed that they develop a program for parks, and were limited to the money in the Park Site Fund,that money specifically was earmarked for acquisition of property just like this. They felt this was too good an opportunity to pass up. The money should come from the Park Site Acquisition and Development fund. There were other question raised, some of which were left to the future and the City Council to determine. Design of the park and location of specific elements was also left to further study and review as time permits. The Commission felt that since time was of the essence(as a result of the proposed public works project)that the Council should have the Commission's recommendation to acquire this property. MEMO city of eagan TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA,DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: AUGUST 12, 1998 SUBJECT: DON GRANT PROPOSAL TO SELL PROPERTY BACKGROUND: At the Jule Commission meeting. Mr. Grant presented a proposal to sell his property to the Cite for park purposes. It was recommended that the Acquisition and Development Sub-committee meet and further review the issue. On Monday August I Ith the sub-committee (Lee Markel, Terry Davis,Michael Vincent and Bonnie Karson)met at Mr. Grant's home to review the property in person. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: The sub-committee had additional questions regarding the property and home which Mr. Grant answered. The house has three bedrooms, a finished basement. and was built about 1962. The home is ingood to very good condition having been well maintained and taken care of. The septic system is in good condition, but will have to have a new holding tank to meet January 1,1999 Statutes that require a hard bottom tank. The well is in good condition with a new pump having been installed within the last seven years. Mr. Grant says the water is excellent and would recommend that the City. if it were to acquire the property, continue to use it. Following the tour,the sub-committee had a brief discussion about some of the issues concerning this proposal. The sub-committee will meet again at 5:30 p.m., August 17 to continue the review process. Questions that still remain include: • What use can the house be put to in the short term and long term? • If the parcel is used for public purpose, will the private road that now serves the parcel be adequate? • What will be the reaction of the two neighbors that also share the private road if this is the only access and it's used by the public? • Is this the biggest priority for land acquisition? • What is the fair market value of the property?(Mr. Grant has stated that he will be selling the property regardless of the Commission's decision. but because of the impending assessments associated with the public works project. there may be an advantage to the City to acquire the land at this time) • Has an appraisal been done on the property? No. There has not been a determination that one is needed. A decision to do one might be made at the public hearing scheduled for Sept. 1. A9 vc ' • How long would the property to the south of Le May Lake be left open and undeveloped? The City has not been contacted about the development of this property. (A portion of this undeveloped land will be required for park dedication thus providing a contiguous land parcel along the south end of the lake,which could potentially include this parcel.) • Could the house be moved if it's not suitable for public use? FOR COMMISSION ACTION To review the proposal to acquire the Grant parcel and make a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. MEMO t: s� _ city of eagan TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: C.J. LILLY,PARKS PLANNER DATE: JULY 17, 1998 SUBJECT: DON GRANT OFFER TO SELL BACKGROUND/ISSUE Mr. Don Grant, of 1275 Towerview Road, has approached the City with an offer to sell his property. This parcel of land is located on the northern border of Moonshine Park. Mr. Grant's property is composed of four key areas(see attachments): 1. Landlocked parcel on west side of pond,wooded with steep slopes 0.73 acres 2. Shallow pond, approximately 120 feet wide 0.75 acres 3. Home site, gently rolling land with mature trees 1.60 acres 4. LeMay Lake, good water clarity, excellent wildlife habitat 0.68 acres TOTAL AREA 3.76 acres Three real estate firms did a competitive market analysis for this property at the request of Mr. Grant. The following is a summary of their analysis: Real Estate Company ffigh Average Low Burnet $270,000 $265,000 $260,000 Edina 269,000 264,000 260,000 Century 235,000 230,000 225,000 Based on this market analysis, Mr. Grant said he would be asking $240,000 for his property. He has tried to sell the landlocked property on the west side of the pond to his neighbor who abuts it but she has shown no interest at$25,000. PARK ANALYSIS Moonshine Park, preveiously known as Doneywood Park, was received by the City as parks dedication from the `By The Shores" plat in 1973. The park dedication is too small to develop. Like the Grant property to the north,it is composed of four key areas: 1. West side of pond,wooded steep slopes,poor access 1.25 acres 2. Shallow pond,approximately 120 feet wide 1.31 acres 3. Narrow park with access to LeMay Lake and Jurdy Road 1.80 acres 4. LeMay Lake, good water clarity,excellent wildlife habitat 0.24 acres TOTAL AREA 4.60 acres A� ✓J The residential area surrounding Moonshine Park is bounded by interstate 35E to the east and south, Lone Oak Road to the north and Pilot Knob Road to the west. The nearest playground facility is at Pilot Knob Park at the southwest intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Lone Oak Road. The 1982 Park system Master Plan suggested park expansion that would include play equipment and hardcourts to meet neighborhood needs and provide access to LeMay Lake. The City has been waiting for the Carl Olson property, located immediately to the south to develop for park dedication in order to expand the park. Mr. Olson was approached a couple years ago regarding a cash sale of ten acres. However,his price of$800,000 was too high for serious consideration. There are currently no development plans for the Olson property. The sale of the Olson property may become feasible in a shorter period of time if the proposed Ring Road concept is implemented. It would most likely cross 35E just south of Moonshine Park and would stimulate development of the Olson property. A park dedication of the Olson property along LeMay Lake would create an opportunity to connect Moonshine Park to a trail easement on the east shore of LeMay Lake which runs near the Farm Bureau building. This trail connection would benefit people walking from the munti- family homes on the north shore of LeMay Lake to gain park access. Proiect 743 Recently,the City Council received a petition from the two property owners adjacent to Mr. Grant for sewer and water service. This has been identified as Project 743. Attached is a memo prepared by Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works, which describes the project and costs associated with the project. Mr. Grant will be at the Advisory Commission meeting to present his proposal. The Commission should consider the value and benefits to the community if the property would be acquired. How would the property be used? How would it be accessed by the public? What would be the short term and long term benefits? How would the existing home fit the plan for the park? Is acquisition of this property more/less important than other land acquisitions? Does the parcel, because of its proximity to LeMay Lake, present an unusual opportunity and represent "good value"? FOR COMMISSION ACTION To make a recommendation concerning the proposal for acquisition of Don Grant's property. Donald & Claudia Grant 1275 Towerview Rd. Eagan, MN 55121 612454-2758 June 19, 1998 Tom Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan,MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: On your recommendation I am submitting this proposal for your review and submission to the Director of Parks and the City Council. In 1974 The Cadence Corporation and Creative Housing, Inc. submitted the plat for the Donnywood Addition that bordered my property on the Southwest and South side of the addition number Two and Three. Three was as an easement to my West property line. I agreed to withdraw my objection to delay the project on the following conditions: Access to my property with my motorized tractor over outlot from Quarry to Quarry Lane and outlot Quarry Lane to the Southwest of my Property line. The developer agreed to fill the North end of the pond on Vanmeter and Grant properties to create a 30 foot road access with project fill giving a vehicular access to the West end of my property. The project was approved and the outlot was installed. The developer never completed the land fill, thus leaving the west end landlocked. The failure to fence, maintain and complete the walking paths has allowed residents to dump yard waste including tree limbs on both park and Grant property. In July of 1969 the Eagan Town Board and Engineer Bob Rosene (in conjunction with ' Master Storm Sewer Plan and Development of Rauenhorst Industrial Property) approved the installation of an inlet and outlet on Lemay Lake. To eliminate a possibility of erosion with a higher lake level the Township requested permission to reslope the east shoreline of the Grant Property. This request was granted September 1969, but no easements were given. Upon construction of Highway 35E , a new inlet to Lemay Lake was installed by the Minnesota Highway Department with two holding ponds on the east side of 35E. This created minor problems with the rainfall of 18" in 1986. Upon development of Eagan Town Center Promenade, additional water flow was created by 1997's eight inch rainfall which caused flooding up to 24 feet on the East shore that took two week to recede. This �r in turn killed the grass and left 20 feet of softened shoreline,which affected five old growth trees. Each subsequent rainfall of 2" or more contributes to more softening and more erosion. As new Promenade buildings and developments are approved this will increase the problem. On site inspection for high water and softening was viewed by councilman Wachter and your Engineering Department. Recommendations to correct existing problems of flooding and shore erosions: A. 24 inch berm/fill with gravel at water's edge and back to a necessary distance for ground level on the 280 feet of shoreline. B. Increase exit outlet size to allow for present and future levels. C. City of Eagan to fill pond 30 feet wide with culvert for water flow giving land access to landlocked property for development on south of Grant property line. D. City of Eagan to acquire landlocked property which is about 200 x 300 feet or 1 1 /2 acres and join this to existing Park property to correct City failure to follow up developers promise to fill access. E.Acquisition of Grant property in total. This would allow/eliminate/enhance the following: 1. No need to build up shoreline. 2. No need to connect land locked property except for a possible walking bridge in center of"wildlife park". 3. Eliminate any need to fence park and private property. 4. Provide the city a "shoreline easement" on their own property and I believe the last easement not acquired on Lemay Lake. 5. An opportunity to develop a usable wildlife park that could be doubled in size, a lake level picnic area of 263 feet on Grant frontage combined with 550 feet of park land for a total to 813 feet of lake shore (about 6 acres). This would allow completion of walking paths that will connect with existing and proposed paths. Future acquisition of the Olson property on the south side of Lemay Lake either by purchase or condemnation (Eminent domain)will provide continuation of paths on South and East side of Lake. Not only will this provide for a usable park in the NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 of Section 10, (that is now without a usable park),but will tie into the five year bridge plan proposed to the North of Yankee Doodle and will provide access to the Eagan Promenade Expansion. 6. Provide an easement from Towerview on the North thus not locking out access to existing Park property and providing an existing house and garage capable of use as Park Maintenance or daily or weekly hostel camp out or church/group gatherings. 7. We have had market evaluations by five realestate brokers in the past three weeks to explore sale of our property. As 4.78 is much to maintain for just the two of us,we have always desired to keep it intact as one parcel, but believe the park acquisition would be a wise and superb move by the city at this time because it is needed, available and good for the City and it's Citizens. �s� r I have provided maps of the proposed areas and our property for your on site review at this time. Thank you. Sincerely, Donald E. Grant am. N d ..... * Jt 1 4Y Oly d yO .41 �� a 1W0 * 1 I + ►►.�._.. 0 N bJ b3 1°s�N�y i i ."'�� ....t: �=� .j:r�(:moi+'♦ - r- '!� - -_ ,�.•s.-`'•. N'A a•J �, � I .t ...•i s' P r �� f1 IS I 16 cil ./ i `• . ,, 1' ' �;. f V. C'j it AF •:.�� �O , + i.. . : c < it .r M. . . ....•-' •. "'..'I ee ef �.• (avow i . • F. � i I 1 &C6, r i N0I � +s •6/ * + CIV O 1r I 310,QNb ♦, bd•�b 101y0/ �� ~ 0,3 ..ter;^-� ,� _•�.. • •.e�r�� �,�`'`•. �/h' a ' ... •�: , _-rr�f fi :�`—�„L __.�'tt'1-s�•e '• �jLil.J �. %...f o No /.,• i ,� ! 1 s •• ::O� :oma;' ` IB 73- IH '�•1 1 = f 1� :�•' • I � 'lit �1 • 11 5.5 � ' . {, •� w = j � Ill •+`'• .� � ` ��•t• ,/� f/j '1r�.,r—,�;:syO�, �, � ' } _�t Y � F• : { !1< TI .• ,e.'• p, � Y 1 ,ww,.. ..� ;'i '1 _l wY ♦r r• � ••r � � j � f t 1 i 1 7 • IO�Otl YON lOIldl���--- — Npl syVd1si 4YO 40 0. Am N �.1 I= 1 • � • Iit ;. cmcm Apt 'aN 3� �,. 5 � .�- � ' , �•' "+moo = ., �, ' - tea' � �r � ,r' � •O y+Pc, •;•♦ '�'�yy, . -gym'\ ! `• y •Y ..=.r •wr• ;•�w f 1,: t.._.:.. •I,tr iiS •/� 3`0!.+ / ,� ZZ /1 S N i ' IJ r •••�'•• t LL w �L �r t�• NcN ANO IM �T+- + owe -ww• _ it•�— • w , •M.r•S•D lam.. (avow _— MEMO S t'"• city of eagan TO: KEN VRAA,DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION FROM: TOM COLBERT,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JULY 16, 1998 SUBJECT: PROJECT 743,TONNERVIEW ROAD/LEMAY LAKE—UTILITIY EXTENSIONS It is my understanding that the City has received a request from Mr. Don Grant (1275 Towerview Road)to consider a partial or total taking of his property for potential park purposes. This property is referenced as Parcel 041-31 located in the northwest quarter of Section 10 along the western shore of LeMay Lake. The attached topographic map shows the location of this property. On May 5, 1998, the City Council received a petition from two of his adjacent neighbors requesting the preparation of a feasibility report to evaluate the scope, cost, financing and scheduling for extending and installing City sanitary sewer and water facilities in this area. The Engineering Division has retained a consulting engineering firm to assist in the preparation of this study. Although Mr. Grant did not petition for this improvement, service to his property will be included in the study since he would be the lone remaining parcel without City sewer and water. Currently, all three property owners are on private well and septic systems and share a private drive with cross easements and private maintenance agreements. Due to the unusual configuration of the property lines, the location of the homes and related out-buildings along with the steep and wooded topography, the ability for these parcels to subdivide is limited at best. Also, the lower topography would require the installation of a small sewer pump. These factors all result in a limited number of building sites available to finance the cost of these public utility extensions. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the total cost for these utility extensions would be in the range of$100,000 to be shared proportionately between the benefiting properties. Please let me know if additional information would be helpful in the City's consideration of Mr. Grant's request regarding acquisition for possible park purposes. Respectfully submitted, ,..,000;;:41 �l�i�-�..�...e Director of Public Works TAC/j j Attachment: Location Map 4032 -31 Ini \\\ ` col WE r �I \� \ � ► \� � 871). 2 033-31 r � � � c. �� �i�iui�ii muu►nuu�uuouuaunum�i i i i i i i��� \ . � �"� 5 y pill n 1A1'` 04!•3 ) / 1 �t;\` ' �� \� � / _ cp OD A / 10 A, 875. �k\ <\ i� ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN,MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 20, 1998 The regular meeting of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on July 20, 1998 with the following Commission Members present: Terry Davis,Jerry Farlee,Barbara Johnson, Lee Markell,Daryle Petersen,John Rudolph and Michael Vincent. Members not present included N.Mark Filipi, Bonnie Karson and George Kubik. Staff present included Ken Vraa,Director of Parks and Recreation;Dorothy Peterson,Superintendent of Recreation;Paul Olson,Parks Superintendent;Rich Brasch,Water Resources Coordinator;Gregg Hove,Forestry Supervisor,CJ Lilly,Parks Planner/Landscape Architect and Cherry]Mesko, Recording Secretary. BLACKHAWK PAVILION AWARD PRESENTATION Marcie Padgett,representing the MRPA Awards Committee,was present to make a presentation to the City of Eagan from the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. The Award of Excellence plaque was presented for Blackhawk Park Pavilion which received an honorable mention award in the field of Recreation,Parks and Leisure Services. Ms. Padgett reviewed how the nominations are made and the criteria used by the awards committee in reviewing determining the winners. The plaque was presented to the Advisory Parks Commission and the Parks and Recreation Department by Ms. Padgett. Commission Member Chair thanked Marcie for the presentation. AGENDA Barbara Johnson moved,John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. • MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF MAY 18,1998 AND NNE 15,1998 Member Petersen noted that the minutes of June 15,Page 3, last paragraph,sentence 2 should read,He suggested that the parking lot be made smaller and that more green space be provided between the Art House and the parking lot. Michael Vincent moved,Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of May 18, 1998 as presented and the minutes of June 15, 1998 as amended. DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Items highlighted by Director Vraa included 1208 children participating in the first three days of summer programs, in-line hockey camps and ice shooting/stick handling camps are in full swing,summer adult softball is nearing completion with the fall season following quickly, a craft specialist has been visiting Summer in the Park and Wagonful O'Fun sites,a$10,000 grant has been awarded through the Conservation Partners Grant Program,free wood chips are available to Eagan residents,plans for the installation of lighting at Little Goat ballfield is nearing completion,Dakota County STS crew will assist with mulching of trees and planting beds and construction continues at the Lexington/Diffley service buildings. y Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of July 20, 1998 meeting Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Michael Vincent moved,Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendation to the City Council: 1. NOREEN ADDITION-JAMES S.NOREEN • This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication for the newly created lots. • This development shall be responsible fora cash trails dedication for the newly created lots. • Individual lot tree preservation plans shall be required at the time of building permit application for Lot 1 and Lot 3. • The development shall meet its water quality mitigation requirements through payment of a cash dedication in lieu of on-site ponding. The amount of the cash dedication should be based on the area and development intensity of the two new lots that will be created. • Filling or draining of wetlands on the site shall be prohibited. • A variance to the minimum lot area requirements within the shoreland impact zone for Holland Lake shall be granted for Lot 3. 2. LEXINGTON POINTE THIRTEENTH ADDITION-SEMPER DEVELOPMENT,LTD. • This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication. • This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. • This development shall be responsible for a cash water quality dedication. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DART TRANSIT-R.J.RYAN Director Vraa introduced this item noting that Dart Transit is proposing to construct a 215,000 square foot warehouse in Eagandale Corporate Center south of Aldrin Drive. Vraa then addressed both the parks and trails dedication recommendations adding that the developer might consider a soft surface trail along the pond extending from the school property to the south. It was noted that this trail may be difficult to construct because of steep slopes and the possibility of encroachment into the 30 foot wetland setback. Water Resources Coordinator Brasch continued by reviewing the water quality/wetland issues outlined in the staff report along with recommendations by staff. Forestry Supervisor Hove then reviewed tree preservation issues also outlined in the staff report. One correction made by Hove was that mitigation would be 12 Category B trees,or the equivalent Category A or C trees,rather than the 36 Category B trees identified in the staff report. He also noted that the tree mitigation would be in addition to landscaping. Chuck Hall,representing Faithful Shepherd Church,the property directly south of this proposal,stated that when their property was purchased from Dart one of the requirements was that a trail be provided to connect these properties. During their development review they showed a trail to connect around the wetland on the western portion of this site. Since there is not a trail shown in the Dart Transit plan,there was concern about where the Faithful Shepherd trail would connect. Members Markell and Vincent asked if there would be a way to ensure the internal trail connection for these developments. Director Vraa stated that the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council,however since internal trails are not shown in this location in the Master Trails Plan a trail.was not recommended as part of the dedication requirement. Both Skyline Displays and Faithful Shepherd have provided trail connections as part of their developments,however,grading around the wetland on the western portion of the site may be difficult,Vraa added. Member Petersen opined that a trail could fit on the east side of the Dart building but that it may not be possible to the west. c23 5 Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of July 20, 1998 Meeting Page 3 Member.Johnson asked if the school was required to provide trails as part of their purchase from Dart Properties. Mr.Hall stated they were required,as part of the purchase agreement,to provide trails connecting to properties surrounding their property. The representative from R.J.Ryan stated this was the first time he had heard anything about a potential trail for this development. Member Vincent suggested that a recommendation be made to see if there could be some consistency in providing trails throughout this entire area of developed and developing properties. In response to a question, Director Vraa noted that there are no trails planned along Aldrin Drive. Following further discussion,Michael Vincent moved,Terry Davis seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council regarding the Dart Transit-R.J.Ryan proposal: I. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication. 2. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. 3. Staff is recommending denial of the submitted Tree Preservation Plan ntil the following conditions are met: • Indicate on a revised Landscape Plan/Tree Preservation Plan size,species and location of 12 Category B mitigation trees,(or an equivalent combination of category A or Category C trees). These 12 mitigation trees are in addition to any City of Eagan landscape requirements. If all 12 trees cannot fit on this site,they may be installed on other applicant property within the City of Eagan,or a cash mitigation option may be applied. • Indicate on a revised Grading Plan and a revised Tree Preservation Plan proposed grading limits and the location and type of Tree Protection fence. Tree Protection Fence is to be placed at the edge of the Critical Root Zone(a distance of one foot per inch of tree trunk diameter). • Indicate on a revised Tree Preservation Plan site/soil restoration efforts in areas where trees are to be preserved(areas east and southeast of the building,where trees are indicated to be preserved, have had fill brought in over the Critical Root Zone,this fill must be removed to original grade). 4. All runoff from impervious areas shall be directed to existing detention basins for treatment as per the master drainage plan for the development. 5. An ungraded,un-maintained buffer extending at least 30 feet back from the delineated edge of all wetlands on the site shall be preserved. sediment control provisions identified on the grading plan dated June 30 1998 shall 6. The erosion and sed p gr g p , be followed. 7. All graded areas with a slope greater than 4:1 shall be permanently established in a native perennial grass cover using MnDOT seed mix 20A or equivalent and that this vegetation be left in an un- maintained condition. 8. The Advisory Commission suggests that all the owners of property purchased from Dart(including Faithful Shepherd and Skyline Displays)look at providing continuity to an internal trail system. Apparently Dart made that a requirement of some of their purchase agreements and the Commission felt it would be beneficial if all property owners were subject to the same requirements. The Master Trails Plan does not show trails through this area which is why a trails recommendation was not made. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of July 20, 1998 Meeting Page 4 BIETER PROPERTY PROPOSAL Following a brief discussion,Terry Davis moved,Michael Vincent seconded with all members voting in favor to reaffirm the Commission's previous recommendations relative to the general conditions for site development for this property as a framework upon which specific conditions and detailed plans can be developed. OLD BUSINESS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SHARED PARKING PROPOSAL Director Vraa reminded the Commission that they had heard a request from Advent United Methodist Church in June to consider developing a joint parking lot. The church proposed to create a new entrance that would align with Northview Park Road to enhance the safety of access to both the church and Patrick Eagan Park. Director Vraa noted that the park area proposed for parking is currently being used as a tree nursery. Although this location has worked well for that purpose,the trees can be relocated into other parks. It was noted that a preliminary estimate for development of the parking lot was projected in the range of$175,000-200,000. Advent United Methodist Church was planning to provide a proposal for cost sharing however,one has not been provided to date, Vraa stated. He added that the church is planning a neighborhood meeting for July 30 to advise them of their proposal. Member Johnson asked if there were other sites for the nursery to be relocated. Director Vraa responded that some of the larger trees would need to be moved to various parks for landscape enhancements but that the smaller ones would be lost. It has been anticipated that the nursery would be removed to accommodate future development of Patrick Eagan Park. Needed tree stock will be purchased from nurseries in the future. SKYLINE DISPLAYS PARK UPDATE Director Vraa noted that Skyline Displays has been working on their site following the recent storm damage. Staff has not received further information to date relative to Discovery Park. NEW BUSINESS DON GRANT OFFER TO SELL Director Vraa reviewed the background of this request noting that the parcel referenced is located on the northern border of Moonshine Park. The four key areas that comprise Mr.Grant's 3.76 acre parcel were also reviewed along with the competitive market analysis prepared by three realtors. Vraa concluded that Mr.Grant is proposing to sell this property for$240,000.Mr.Grant has also unsuccessfully attempted to sell the landlocked property to the west of the pond to his neighbor that abuts it. Don Grant, 1275 Towerview Road stated he purchased this property in 1961 and built his home in 1962. The pond to the west of his property was dry at that time but with time and run-off from future development around his property the pond held water on a regular basis. When Donneywood developed,Mr.Grant continued, the developer indicated his willingness to fill in a portion of the pond to allow access to the western land locked area. Requests from surrounding residents to have city water and sewer brought to their properties have prompted Mr. Grant's decision to sell his property. Issues regarding the level of water in the pond that continue to landlock the western portion of his property are addressed in his letter to City Administrator Hedges. Mr.Grant opined that since Moonshine Park is not developed and may not be for some time yet,this may be a perfect opportunity for the City to acquire his property to allow for development of Moonshine Park along with a public access point to LeMay Lake. He also noted that the proposed ring road could provide another potential connection to this park in the future. Mr. Grant expressed his willingness to remove the swimming pool on his property should the City decide to acquire it. } Advisory Parks Commission ` Minutes of July 20, 1998 Meeting Page 5 He also noted that should the City not buy the property at this time and he should have water and sewer put in,the lot could be split and sold for much more. He reiterated the significance of providing a potential public access to LeMay Lake should the City acquire his property. Member Vincent asked if there would be time to defer this item to the Acquisition/Development Sub- committee for future review and recommendation citing the need to view this property as it fits into the overall park plan. Mr.Grant reiterated the value of this lake access to the public and that he is ready to sell his property and would like to proceed as quickly as possible. Vincent stated that the Commission may make a recommendation that Moonshine Park stay undeveloped. Mr.Grant stated that the City would still have to deal with the landlocked parcel since it was his opinion that the drainage from surrounding development created the problem. If the land to the west of the pond were not landlocked,Grant opined that it would be worth$50,000. He suggested that if the entire property was not purchased by the City that the City should purchase the landlocked parcel for$25,000 and then fix the drainage issue. After further brief discussion, Michael Vincent moved,John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor to defer this issue to the Acquisition/Development Sub-committee to further review the pros and cons of potential acquisition of Don Grant's property. It was determined that the sub-committee would meet on August 10, 1998 at 5:00 p.m.at the site for a tour followed by a meeting with Mr.Grant to discuss options. PARKS DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Parks Planner/Landscape Architect Lilly noted that the grading and retaining wall was completed at Walden Heights Park. The turf is expected to be established in August and landscape boulders donated by Lundgren Brothers have been put into place. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE EDUCATION SURVEY RESULTS Coordinator Brasch reviewed the memo provided in the packet regarding the results of the water resources education survey. Following the 1994 cooperative water resources education program with Dakota County a follow-up phone survey was conducted. In October, 1997 a second survey was done to compare the level of knowledge and behavior profiles in individual cities with those for the County as a whole. The analysis was completed and Brasch reviewed the findings outlined in his staff report with the Commission OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS STORM DAMAGE/OAK WILT UPDATE Forestry Supervisor Hove provided an in-depth staff report regarding the significant storm damage and the impact on the spread of oak wilt disease. He noted that the storms damaged or destroyed as much as 4,000 trees in the city. Potential reforestation ideas were presented for future consideration. Member Johnson asked what the first signs of oak wilt were. Hove responded that the disease results in the tree shutting off the vessels that carry food throughout the tree which chokes off the whole system. This results in the leaves wilting from the outside in,which is the first sign of the disease. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of July 20, 1998 Meeting Page 6 V 1999 BUDGET Director Vraa stated that staff is currently working on the 1999 budget for Council review. Currently the Government Buildings and Forestry portions of the budget are completed. Vraa added that if Commission Members have specific questions or if there is a specific request that should be incorpomted for consideration they should let him know as soon as possible. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Member Petersen stated that the Natural Resources Sub-committee met on July 8 with a group of residents wanting to enhance the pond in their neighborhood. After further information is received,the sub-committee will continue to review this request before bringing it to the Advisory Commission. POOL UPDATE Director Vraa provided a brief update of the aquatic facility that Commission Members visited prior to the meeting. He shared the elevations of the buildings and where the outdoor shower area would be. It was note that much of the work would be completed this year but that the landscaping,fencing,slides and decking would be completed in the spring. As a final note,Vraa stated that the wading pool would close on August 2 and be removed the following week. SET MEETING FOR ACQUISITION/DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE The Acquisition/Development Sub-committee set a meeting for August 10, 1998 at 5:00 p.m.to discuss the request from Don Grant to purchase his property as well as to continue discussion of the Advent United Methodist Church shared parking request. STORM REFORESTATION COMMITTEE Director Vraa stated that the City Council had requested that a Storm Reforestation Committee be convened to discuss how to proceed with a plan to re-forest the City after the significant tree loss over the last few years. The Council is looking for two representatives from the Advisory Parks Commission,Vraa added. Chairman Markel]stated he had received a letter from City Administrator Hedges requesting that someone representing the Advisory Commission attend a meeting on July 27th at 4:30 p.m. Members volunteering to participate on the committee included Lee Markell,Daryle Petersen and Michael Vincent, ROUND TABLE Member Davis referenced the City Council's recent decision to provide 575,000 toward the YMCA's teen - center. Stating that the Commission wrestled with the issue at great length before recommending that the Council look at the option of providing a teen center location at the Civic Arena,Davis wondered what happened. Director Vraa clarified that the Y had approached the Council for a decision since they needed to proceed with their plans. The Council had expressed the opinion that the$75,000 investment was a good one to allow for this teen use but it did not preclude the Council from moving forward with a recommendation to provide another/other locations for teens to meet. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct,Michael Vincent moved,Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Secretary Date