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