Loading...
03/14/2005 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionApproved as amended April 18, 2005 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 14, 2005 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on March 14, 2005 with the following Commission Members present: Joe Bari, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, Terry Davis, Mark Filipi, Duane Hansen, Muhammad Lodhi, Dorothy Peterson and Richard Pletcher. Member Perry was not present. Staff included Jeff Asfahl, Supervisor of Recreation; Eric Macbeth, Water Resources; Gregg Hove, City Forester; C.J. Lilly, City Landscape Architect and Park Planner; Sheila Cartney, City Planner; City Attorney, Bob Bauer; Cherryl Mesko, Administrative Coordinator and Lori Kimball, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Filipi moved, Member Peterson seconded with all present members voting in favor to accept the agenda as amended moving Department Happenings to occur just prior to Round Table. All attending members voted to approve the agenda as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 14, 2005 Member Peterson moved and Member Lodhi seconded with all present members voting to approve the minutes of February 14 as amended. The change will occur in paragraph 2 under Water Resources Update. Member Peterson asked for information on the JP-47 status, not J-9. VISITORS TO BE HEARD 20/20 PARKS VISION UPDATE Bill Bechner updated the APrC by discussing use of the term "open space". Community open space in Eagan is 72 acres to 1000 residents. The list of proposed terms is Neighborhood Park, Community Athletic Park, Preserve, Greenway Preserve (used with a trail), Greenway Corridor, Cultural/Historical sites and Special Use Sites. Bechner cited that Eagan has more acres per resident than the current standard tends to be. Bechner shared a vision to develop an interconnected system of trails around the City. These trails will be city wide, provide an access and emphasize the feeling of connection and continuity. The trails would also provide variety and balance of both transportation and recreation. Bechner said the existing trail would be shared use paths; bike lanes would be along the side of the road and trail signage would be shared with the bike lane. Bechner said an effort for reclamation of Thresher Park's south west corner would consist of planting native grasses to provide a natural resource to cleanse the soil. This area has been abused for many years. The reclamation effort will be a long term community and educational partnership that can be worked on by Scout groups and school groups. Chair Davis asked Bechner if there was concern of what may be in the soil on this site. Bechner said there were no toxic chemicals to be concerned about; the debris that was left there was construction debris like concrete block and other non-toxic items. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 2 The 20/20 surveys are still available for residents to complete. After responses have been received in April, more specific options will be discussed. April 14th is the next public forum. Bechner said the turnout at the February form was 38 people, which resulted in a lively discussion. Member Danner reminded the viewer that on the back page of the new Discover Parks and Recreation brochure is one of the surveys. The website also contains the survey and the phone number to call. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE AND DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Superintendent of Recreation, Jeff Asfahl, informed the APrC of Department happenings for Recreation, Parks and Community Center. • Summer Softball, Spring Basketball and volleyball registration for returning teams was February 28- March 4 with new teams registering March 7-11 or until leagues is full. There are currently 173 teams registered for the spring/summer season. • Eagan Seniors are working on several programs for the upcoming season: the 2°dAnnual Antique Assessment show on Saturday, April 23 is open to the public and a bingo tent for the July 4th celebration. • May 21 is the date of the 20th Annual Eagan Fun Run. This year the Commons on Marice is also taking party by bringing in vendors with health tips and services. It will also be a great lead-in activity to national Senior Health and Fitness Day on Wednesday, May 25th. • The Trapp Farm tubing Hill will officially close for the season on March 13. The hill has not been open since March 3 due to lack of snow. So far the hill has only been open 20 %2 days. • The Eagan Art Festival will take place June 25-26 on the grounds at Central Park. This event is organized and sponsored by the Eagan Art House. They expect over 100 artisans to take part! • The July 4th Fun Fest Committee is working towards this year's event, which has been themed as "Star Spangled Spectacular". The event will again take place on the festival grounds located at Central Park. • This year's Arbor Day event will be held Saturday, May 14th on the north side of the Lexington- Diffley complex. Groups interested in taking part should contact Gregg Hove at 675-5300. • Community groups wanting to volunteer time to clean up a favorite park can contact Paul Graham, Park Operations Supervisor, at 675-5300. • The numbers of personal training sessions have increased at the Eagan Community Center. The Daddy's Little Sweetheart Dance brought 72 dads and daughters to the Community Center and wedding workshop was held in March. The Community Center is now a gathering place for all ages, not just seniors or Teens. CONSENT AGENDA KENNEALY ADDITION Tom Kennealy, for the Estate of Joseph Kennealy, is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision of 2.0 acres to create three lots and a Variance to the required structure set back from a public right-of-way, on property located at 2115 Silver Bell Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 18. Alternatives for Commission Consideration: • The Development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 3 • The development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. • An individual lot tree preservation plan will be required at the time of building permit application. • A cash dedication in lieu of on-site water quality ponding should be required for this development. Member Danner moved and Member Filipi seconded, with all present members voting in favor to approve the Preliminary Subdivision, parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Kennealy addition. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN City Planner Sheila Cartney, provided background for the Steeplechase of Eagan Development. The APrC was asked to review the park dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Steeplechase of Eagan development. The applicant, Toll Brothers, is requesting approval for Rezoning from Agriculture to PD (Planned Development): a Preliminary Subdivision (Steeplechase of Eagan) to create 56 lots and a Preliminary Planned Development to create 37 single family units and 58 town home units for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road (former Diamond T Ranch site) in the SE 1/4 of Section 33. The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission recommended this approval at a July 19, 2004 meeting after reviewing a similar proposal that included 36 single family units and 73 town home units on 112 lots. The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) recommended approval at the July 27, 2004 meeting. City Council, at their August 17, 2004 meeting, directed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared. At their January 4, 2005 meeting, Council accepted the EAW as presented and declared an EIS is not necessary; the item was continued to the February 1, 2005 meeting. At their February 1, 2005 meeting, Council approved the wetland exemption as presented and the wetland boundary/type. The APrC directed the applicant to return to the March 14, 2005 meeting. During the past thirteen months the city has received many letters in opposition of extending Wellington Way for development of the Diamond T Ranch. Residents opined concerns and suggestions, such as desiring a trail connection from the surrounding neighbors to the County Park and concern about previous dumping on the property and the build up of horse manure. Others are concerned with ponding and water drainage The applicant requests to rezone from Agriculture to Planned Development with the Planned Development zoning district is as follows: 1. Provide greater flexibility in environmental design and relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater creativity and environmental sensitivity. 2. Recognize the economic and cultural advantages that will accrue to the residents of a planned community. 3. Encourage a more creative and efficient approach to land use. 4. Encourage the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, natural features, and open space. 5. Encourage a development pattern that is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in regards to land use density, transportation facilities and community facilities. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 4 The APC and City Council will review these criteria. This item is scheduled for a public hearing in front of the APC on March 22, 2005 and is scheduled for the April 5, 2005 City Council meeting. Tree Preservation Gregg Hove, City Forester, discussed tree preservation for the Steeplechase Development. A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are seven-hundred fifty-four (754) significant trees in the inventory for the entire site (detached home area plus attached home area). The results of a tree inventory by a consulting company are as follows, with the balance of the tree inventory is comprised of cottonwood, aspen, crabapple, pine, and willow. Species Count % of Total Oak 474 63% Box elder 78 10% B Cherry 106 14% Elm 28 4% Hove stated that development as proposed will result in the removal of a total of five-hundred forty-eight (548) significant trees (72.7 % of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this development proposal will be calculated based upon the specific use of different parts of the site. The northern third of the site will have single-family detached homes; allowable removal for this area is set at 40%. The southern two-thirds of the site will have single-family attached (multi-family residences); allowable removal for this area is set at 47.5%. The table below shows proposed tree removals. Detached Units Allowable Removal Existing Trees Proposed Removal Required Mitigation (Category B trees) 40% 176 134 (76.1% 148 Attached Units 47.5% 578 412 (71.3%) 386 With a proposed removal greater than the allowable amount, a required tree mitigation for this proposal calculated at five-hundred thirty-four (534) Category B trees. Hove stated that the applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan indicating the fulfillment of required tree mitigation through the installation of 426 Category B trees and 56 Category A trees, for a total equivalent of 538 Category B trees. Hove said this is slightly over what city ordinance allows. Hove stated that, after several meetings with the applicant, staff recommends that overall required tree mitigation be handled on a "floating number" system, where additional trees preserved will reduce the final mitigation number, and additional trees removed will increase the final mitigation number. This system has been used with satisfactory results on past large development sites. Staff recommends this approach to mitigation because of the massive linear footage of grade limits. Hove described that the exact final number of preserved/removed trees will be determined following an actual walk-through along staked grade limits to view specific trees. These specific tree preservation activities will be required to ensure survival of these "edge" preserved trees. The resulting effect of this site walk- through will be the adjustment of required tree mitigation. The final number of required tree mitigation may also be altered as individual lot construction takes place. Hove noted that numbers 5-10 of the Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 5 Alternatives for Commission Considerations (Agenda Item G-1, page 13) included tree preservation suggestions. Members Peterson and Pletcher inquired about rating trees on a 10 point scale and how a rating is determined. Hove responded that a rating depended on the health, physical condition and disease condition of a tree. Use of the site usually causes a lower rate. This land contains trees with the highest tree rating of 8 and the lowest rating 4.1. Average development properties would be slightly higher, Hove said. Member Davis opined these numbers seemed low. Hove responded it is just a natural occurrence. Discussion continued while viewing a map of the southern 1/3 of the land where the majority of the tree preservation would occur. Member Danner asked about the condition of the Oak trees there. Hove responded that the worst ones are located in the lower wetland area. Member Danner, referring to LP-7.2, asked the width of the conservation easement. Member Davis stated that Danner's question was an example of why the city staff recommends a flexible approach. Rather than deciding before actual construction starts, the best decisions of tree preservation can be made during construction. Hove said he hopes the amount of preservation increases as development starts. Water Quality Eric Macbeth, Water Resources, provided background and descriptions pertaining to storm water drainage while using a map of the area. This proposed 38.0-acre subdivision is located primarily in the upper portion of the City's LP1-Watershed, which flows west to east through numerous Class I, III, and IV water bodies in Dakota County's Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Immediately downstream of the parcel and in the county park is Jensen Lake, a state public water (DNR#19-0071) and a Class II Indirect Contact Recreation water body, according to the City's Water Quality Management (WQMP). The northwesterly corner of the parcel is in the upper portion of the BP-Watershed, which drains through Walden Heights Park to Thomas Lake, which is a Class I Direct Contact Recreation water body, according to the WQMP. The developer proposes to address City on-site storm water quality requirements primarily by treating runoff via a series of ponds and wetlands, one pond of which would be new and two areas of which would be modified. A 2.4-acre area (Drainage Area 1) on the north side of the parcel is proposed to drain to a modified, low-lying "dry" pond (Pond 1). Drainage Area 2 (15.5 acres), along with excessive runoff from Pond 1, would drain to a new storm water pond (Pond 2), located next to existing Basin D in the north-central portion of the site. Basin D would receive overland runoff from a surrounding 0.6-acre area as well as some treated storm water from Pond 2. Member Lodhi confirmed that Ponds 2 and 6 would be constructed. Macbeth explained the two areas will be excavated to be used to for storm water treatment. Currently Pond 6 is flooded. Drainage Area 3 (2.9 acres) would receive treated storm water from Drainage Areas 1 and 2 and drain to an existing storm water pond (City Pond LP1-56), which is a Class IV Wildlife Habitat water body, according to the WQMP. It would then drain offsite to the south to a small wetland (City Pond LP1-7A) west of Jensen Lake. However, there is no direct storm water connection to Jensen Lake. Macbeth explained the piping stays West of Pilot Knob Road. Drainage Area 4 (1.7 acres) would contribute backyard overland flow to the northernmost wetland (Pond 4) of the three historical natural wetlands that have since been flooded. The WQMP classifies the historical 3-wetland basin as one Class IV Wildlife Habitat water body. Drainage Area 5 (1.7 acres) would add overland runoff to the southernmost natural wetland (Pond 5) of this flooded basin. Pond 5 would drain offsite to Lebanon Hills Regional Park, but at a significantly lower rate and of an appreciably lower amount than with existing conditions. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 6 Drainage Area 6 (9.6 acres) would drain to Pond 6, which would be a modification of the central part of the flooded (non-natural) basin. On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council officially approved an exemption from wetland replacement requirements for work to establish Pond 6 as a storm water treatment pond. Pond 6 would provide some hydrology to Ponds 4 and 5, and Pond 4 would outlet to Pond 5. Member Peterson asked if there was an amount of water that would drain off site that would be subject to payment to the City. Macbeth responded that there is a 4.9-acre combined area of the parcel that is proposed to drain off site to the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast would be subject to a cash dedication in lieu of onsite storm water treatment. Minimum requirements for volume and area of water quality treatment ponds are based on the impervious proportion of proposed developments (i.e., land covered by buildings, parking lots, driveways, and walks). The impervious proportions of the drainage areas would be used to calculate overall minimum treatment volume requirements for water quality purposes. Wetlands The wetland delineation report for the project site (GME Consultants, Inc.; Project No. 10745) identifies five wetland basins subject to the City of Eagan's jurisdiction according to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Any proposals to drain, fill, or excavate these wetlands need to meet all provisions of WCA laws and rules. The report identifies the five wetlands as Basins A through E. On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council officially approved the wetland delineations for the site. Basin A, mentioned previously as City Pond LP1-56, is considered a Type 4 wetland, under the classification system of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Type 4 wetlands are inland deep fresh marshes in which the soils are usually covered with six inches to three feet or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation may include cattails, reeds, and bulrushes. In this case, broad-leaf deciduous trees are in a semi-permanent flooded basin. Basin B is known as City Pond LP-72, which is also a Class IV Wildlife Habitat water body according to the WQMP. The delineation report identifies this wetland as a Type 3 wetland. Type 3 wetlands are inland shallow fresh marshes that are permanently inundated with six or more inches of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, and smartweeds. Basin C is identified as a flooded depression area that historically held three small wetlands. Together, they are considered Type 3 wetlands, according to the delineation report. Basin D, located near the north central portion of the site, is also considered a Type 3 wetland by the delineation report. Basin E, located near the east central portion of the site, is not typified by the delineation report. However, it likely is a Type 3 wetland. As was discussed in the completed Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, there is significant evidence that all five wetlands have suffered varying degrees of degradation and varying amounts of fill by previous landowners. Wetland Replacement Plan Due to the complexity of the wetland-related issues of this development, the City has relied on its Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) since June 3, 2004 to provide technically accurate and Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 7 objective recommendations relative to the consistency of the project's proposed wetland replacement plan with WCA laws and rules. Macbeth shared the process and conclusions of the TEP. The TEP is comprised of staff with technical wetland expertise from the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the City of Eagan. According to State regulations, the City is required to consider TEP recommendations in its decision making process and to provide reasons if it disagrees with TEP findings and recommendations. On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council requested the developer to provide a revised plan for onsite wetland replacement versus offsite wetland banking, as was originally proposed. The developer provided such a revised plan to the City on February 15, 2005. According to this plan, the developer proposes to fill entirely one of the historical wetlands of Basin C, a portion of Basin D, and entirely Basin E for a total of 17,497 square feet of fill (vs. 26,407square feet of fill originally). The plan proposes to replace these impacts by creating 17,500 square feet of new wetland and by claiming 24,231 square feet of public value credit for construction of storm water treatment ponds and establishing wetland buffers. The proposed amounts of onsite replacement exceed the minimum 2:1 standards of the WCA rules. > Macbeth then said the TEP recommends denial of the proposed replacement and monitoring plan for the following reasons: • Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Replacement Area 1; Macbeth said to create wetland in this area would require grading and removal of 31 trees, which is inconsistent with State standards for created wetlands. • Proposed replacement areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring landscape conditions that support wetlands; Macbeth explained that much grading would have to occur to get the low areas to "take". • Proposed Replacement Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a functioning wetland due to need for continued removal of sediment; Macbeth said this would require a lot of maintenance. • Both replacement areas require significant landscape alterations; • Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would be required along Replacement Area 2, creating safety hazards and prohibiting natural transitions of plants and movement of animals; and • The proposed created wetlands would not result in characteristics consistent with those specified in WCA rules. It is very questionable that a fully functioning wetland could be created onsite within the context of the proposed development or planned land use. ? After thoroughly reviewing the revised application and all supplemental information, the TEP recommends the use of a wetland bank because it creates the best ecological solution to replacing impacted wetlands within this proposed development. > The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for storm water management purposes. Macbeth said this would be for quality treatment. The TEP believes this wetland will likely be lost or suffer further diminished value over time due to significant reduction of contributing watershed area, sediment accumulation, and vegetative alteration by adjacent land use. Although excavation would increase wetland impacts back to the amount originally proposed, it would contribute to a better grading plan from a storm water management standpoint. Macbeth said this would be on the back side of 2 homes and part of a 3ra Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 8 > Minimum 30-foot natural buffers shall be provided next to wetlands on the site to support the City's Class IV-Wildlife Habitat designation of these water bodies. > Low-impact design features such as rainwater gardens and infiltration areas should be considered in the final design phase to reduce the overall runoff volume from this proposed development. > City water resources staff shall be involved in any on-site pre-construction, pre-grading meetings to review and coordinate approved plans. Macbeth assured the commission and viewers the combined experience of these people is 30 years. They have put forth a lot of effort on this matter and take it very seriously. The tech panel is very comfortable with these recommendations at this time. Chair Davis asked if the idea of rainwater gardens was discussed after the plan shown to the APrC or does the current plan not show rainwater garden features to assist runoff volume. Macbeth answered that the TEP's recommendation doesn't include rainwater gardens but the staff recommends it. Member Hansen asked about onsite vs. off site banking. Macbeth said this was not listed as a first priority, but it is. TEP believes off site banking is a good fit for this area. It works with the rules for wetland replacement standards. The proposed idea of retaining walls around a wetland is not how we want our wetlands to be. Chair Davis asked if there is a need to look within the city for another site and move the banking further away. Macbeth responded that the ideal choice is to keep it onsite. When that is not feasible, to move it off site where it would connect to the same watershed. Member Danner asked if wetland sequencing would need to be discussed further. Member Lodhi asked if by changing the numbers of what the developer plans to put there, will a difference be made. Macbeth answered that the commission needs to work with the information they have in front of them Davis questioned whether Wetland D would eliminate the need for a wall. Macbeth answered that excavation of this kind of wetland creates enough of an impact. Member Danner asked about rainwater gardens and where they would be placed. Macbeth said he did not propose where to put them, just suggested the idea as an option. Member Peterson asked if Macbeth would consider placement of the water gardens by walking the site, like Hove's plan, to determine tree preservation. Macbeth responded that they would need to be put in an area of strategic value and function to pay off. Chair Davis asked if placement of a water garden needs to minimize the impact on other areas. Macbeth said the impetus is more runoff, not a wetland issue. When developing a site, if the developer adds more impervious surface it naturally results in more run off and the rain gardens would assist with this. The TEP has provided the City its findings and conclusions on the revised wetland replacement plan. The City will accept public comments on this application until 4:30 p.m. on March 28, 2005. A decision on this matter is anticipated on April 19, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Eagan City Hall. Parks and Trails Dedication Chair Davis asked Cherryl Mesko to give input regarding Parks and Trails Dedication. The area of the development is currently serviced by a variety of parks with a wide variety of amenities within the recommended radius of a service area for a neighborhood park of Y2 to 3/4 of a mile. The largest of the parks, Dakota County's, Lebanon Hills Regional Park, extends the entire length of the developments south boundary. The park provides a number of recreational opportunities including, hiking, mountain biking, canoeing, pavilions, and a play structure. The Jenson Lake recreation area is located approximately '/4 mile from the development and will be directly accessible via a proposed trail connection. Much of Lebanon Hills is dedicated to preservation with hundreds of acres of quality woodland left undisturbed. The development area is also serviced by two existing City parks, George Ohmann and Walden Heights. Each of the parks has a play structure and field space. Ohmann is a heavily used athletic facility that includes a small shelter building. Both are available via a trail or low volume residential road. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 9 The slopes, degraded condition of large portions of the site and allowable density do not appear conducive to proposing the dedication of park land, though there may be opportunity for the dedication of conservation easements, protecting areas of the site, to the City. Easements over the more sensitive slopes, pond buffers and the quality woodlands of a site are very common. Because the under lying title for the property would remain as part of the development, no dedication credit would be given. The Developer has suggested in concept, the creation of easements over sensitive areas in several woodland and wetland areas. Further clarification from the Developer regarding the extent of easements may be necessary. Trails Mesko stated that at the suggestion of staff, the development includes the installation of an 8 foot bituminous connector trail, extending from the existing Pilot Knob boulevard trail, through a portion of the development to the existing County Park trail. The County trail runs under Pilot Knob to the east, via an existing tunnel, to the Jenson Lake recreation area and beyond. To the west, the County trail connects into a number of internal amenities including mountain bike and hiking trails. A direct trail connection from the existing boulevard trail on Pilot Knob has been sought for some time. The intention being to negate the need to cross Pilot Knob, to access County and City park facilities located on the easy side of Pilot knob. Due to the steep slope and desire to minimize disruption, sections of the trail may not meet ADA requirements over short distances. Equivalent access to the County Park amenities is available via a trail from the parking lot on the east side of Pilot Knob. This approach is common in park settings having multiple points of access. Dakota County has indicated general acceptance of the trail connection into the County park system. They have requested that signage be installed informing park users that bikes are not allowed in park except on the designated bike trails. Should the connector trail be installed, the development would be given trail credit, utilizing a City formula. Any balance due would be paid in cash. While functional, credit would generally not be given for any internal sidewalks that are developed primarily at the discretion of the Developer. Collin Roetman, representing Toll Brothers, and Andy Berenberg, Project Engineer (RLK Kuusisto) spoke next. Roetman reviewed previous City meetings and various proposals. Per City Council request Toll Brothers changed the style of homes to be single story homes for "empty nesters" rather than a full two story home. City council also requested a looped road be added and increased the width of the street and right of way. Roetman stated that originally Toll Brothers planned for off site wetlands mitigation. Onsite mitigation causes tree loss to increase by 5% since the houses are required to be wider and deeper, and the streets are required to be wider. These changes required the houses be up to 25' from the curb and shortened the driveways. Roetman said there were a lot of natural features making wetlands mitigation more difficult. The topography is difficult to work with since the land running North to South lowers by 60 feet; therefore the tree areas are naturally deeper. He said it's difficult to get a viable wetland on the North section due to neighbors' concerns about grading. Roetman showed a map to view elevation and further discussed the slop from Basin C, stating there is a problem on the East side since the road has to connect with Pilot Knob. Member Danner inquired about the distance between homes and LP-72. Roetman answered that the wetland edge and the waters edge are 8 feet apart. The developers are trying to keep a minimum of 30 feet between the back of the homes and the wetland edge. Member Danner asked if there is concern of a high water level, however as Berenberg responded, Chair Davis reminded them this issue did not belong to APrC, but to the APC. Roetman stated that using walkout basements is a way to save trees. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes'of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 10 Member Davis asked Roetman and Berenberg if they have experience working with the water plan discussed by Macbeth. Berenberg responded that runoff feeds into the wetlands. Rain gardens try to control the volume of open land that runs off. The rain garden is there to enhance, over and above, what the standards require. If rain gardens are not cared for they can become maintenance issues so the developers want ensure it is designed properly so it does not create future maintenance problems. Neighboring resident, Eric Vevea of 1446 Sherwood Way spoke to the APrC. He voiced his concern about the amount of rain runoff and how it would affect neighboring yards and houses. Vevea suggested citizens to put their name on a wetland mailing list and asked that the City accept liability for damage from storm water runoff. Vevea showed a historic map from the Dept. of U.S. Fish and Wildlife to show the amount of water that was handled by this land and compared it to a current map of this area. Vevea had many questions regarding the wetlands on the site. Berenberg responded that, of the actual runoff, only a small amount that goes into Basin C; 4.9 acres are unmitigated and untreated. The water to LP-72 is not touched, currently over 5 acres and proposing 2 acres. The untouched area will drain back to the treatment ponds. Vevea asked Macbeth to refer to the Fish and Wildlife map and asked Macbeth where the water goes after it has run into the basins that were shown on the map. Macbeth told Vevea that people who work in the field of water resources do not rely on these maps (using it to apply to another map). Macbeth said he does not deny changes have occurred with regards to the area was flooded in the past. The runoff from the site would be similar to what happens now. Runoff is common and the runoff would go to the same place without LP-72. The city has to apply standards to water treatment. The natural lay of the land will remain and drain the same and to try to run them backwards is impervious. They must do the best they can for onsite treatment. Vevea stated that the 1990 Storm water Management Plan Map shows a pipe connecting this development with Jensen Lake and the county indicated LP-56 runs into the park under Pilot Knob. Vevea said the top priority of sequencing is avoidance. He asked if altering the current plans by taking out a few more lots and houses would be considered to provide this better sequencing. Roetman said there could be a pipe shown on the map because if flood water builds up high enough it may go to Jensen Lake. He said that onsite mitigation can be done but it does not seem practical. There is a grade difference from Pilot Knob so the water can go to the West but it would disturb the land. There are not many trees and it is not good wetland soil in this area. Roetman stated if the goal is to save the trees, then on-site mitigation is not feasible due to Basin C. Due to the horse corral and the dumping grounds, this situation has been very carefully designed and looked at over and over. Roetman offered that if someone else can help him do better, he would be open to suggestions. Eagan Resident, Dee Bass introduced herself and said she was there to discuss LP-72. Bass stated that 7 pond owners and 6 other homes use this pond. Bass and the other residents are concerned about building the town homes closer to LP-72. Bass asked Roetman how far the homes are located from the pond. Roetman informed Bass the closest home is 41 feet, then 47 and 68 feet or more; the massing of homes are broken down so they are not extra large and are easier to place around the water. Chair Davis redirected the conversation when discussion became a planning concern. Next, Tom Faber, from 1518 Knottingham Way, said he would like to change the legacy of the Diamond T Ranch from "Pollution, PCB's and Poop" to "Preservation, Protection and Pedestrian Pass". Faber requested a secondary emergency access. He asked for a trail to Pilot Knob Road from Block 2, Lot 5 or Lebanon Hills to connect to Steeplechase Court. Cartney stated the City Staff will not support a second access at this time. This item would have to be presented to the planning Commission. Chair Davis thanked Faber for his creativity and environmental sensitivity. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, ,2005 Page 11 Kay Hamilton of 4872 Knottingham Circle opined the 76% tree removal is excessive. She asked why the numbers are so out of line compared to the ordinance. Hamilton said she believes it is critical to maintain as much land as possible and stated concern about the water runoff caused by missing trees. Macbeth responded saying there is no problem with the runoff, staff and developers know there will be runoff and are taking it into consideration. Hamilton asked that the city enforce the ordinance with no floating number system or allowance for more trees to be taken. Mike Terrell of 1514 Wellington Way asked to discuss "public value credits" and asked how many wetland to pond credits are allowed. Macbeth said there are two areas on the map that have been constructed for storm water treatment, and they can be applied to replacement. The developer is claiming these areas for public value credit, which State Rules allow. Brad Moyer of 1510 Wellington Way asked that a cash Park Dedication be changed to a land dedication. Moyer asked the City to convert the land adjacent to LP-72 to a park rather than receiving a cash dedication. Moyer asked if this land could be used, not as a playground, but to remain as green space that would benefit the water quality. This would also allow homes within 100 feet to see more land rather than townhouses. Hamilton returned, asking why the City would consider eliminating so many trees, having a standard but allowing the ordinance to change so much. Chair Davis asked attorney Bob Bauer to answer this question. Bauer stated that there is a standard set to preserve the trees but there is also an allowance in place to remove more trees when necessary for development. The difference in the allowed amount of trees removed and the amount that are actually taken needs to be replaced onsite or off site. Hamilton responded that if they didn't remove so many that they wouldn't have to replace that many. Bass read from previous plans that stated 100 feet between homes and water. She stated that homes are now closer to the water than before and was concerned about runoff affecting basements of homes. Macbeth responded that runoff occur the same as it does now. Member Filipi encapsulated that the bottom line is the proximity within our standards and if TEP item 3 is marked as yes we can interpret that full requirements have been met. Member Peterson said the alternatives 1-18 were fine. She opined that staff has worked hard and the APrC should trust their professional judgment, trusting they are giving us the best they can right now. When question regarding water flow was asked, Macbeth replied he was not comfortable answering water flow questions; these type of questions need to be answered by City Engineering. Member Belfiori referred to erodable slopes, stating that uprooting takes away natural erosion control. Stating how we choose to do this will result in how we transfer pollutants down stream. Member Bari asked how much weight we give to TEPs, opining that all information discussed about the wetlands seems to be negative. Chair Davis clarified that Bari meant negative in respect to the proposed plan. Macbeth responded that this project is required to get a storm water pollution prevention permit. Regarding TEP recommendations, the City is required to consider them, and if it doesn't go along with them, it must provide rationale as part of its decision. Member Bari asked if the storm water permit would override TEP recommendations. Macbeth answered, no, stating that these two items were under separate and unrelated authorities: Storm water permits, under MPCA jurisdiction, work to prevent downstream damage from runoff; wetlands conservation rules, administered by the City, are meant to achieve no net loss of wetlands. Member Bari asked if the Pollution Control Permit would override TEP recommendations. Macbeth answered, no, stating that these two items were not related to each other. Member Bari asked if these permits carried more weight than TEP Macbeth answered that these are two separate items; pollution control permits work to prevent damage downstream, the Wetland Act works within the city. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 12 Member Danner asked, regarding LP-72, how the topography will change after removal of the dump site, spring erosion and the trees have been removed. Bauer responded that as part of the development agreement, with lots of permits attached, full compliance would occur and this area would be filled in. Member Bari clarified the motion of TEP with Member Peterson. Roetman clarified that onsite mitigation added 5%, 10,000 sq. feet, of wetlands but TEP removed it and added it to the pond area. Member Belfiori asked where the trees typically are planted when offsite mitigation occurs. Forester Hove answered that these trees can be planted anywhere, not specifically near the development or even in Eagan. After discussion of replanting trees, and the suggestion of Chair Davis, Member Belfiori asked that an addendum be attached to their recommendation that tree mitigation take place in the city of Eagan. Lawyer answered that this will be included as part of the rules, making the watershed first priority. Member Belfiori pointed out the watershed is much bigger than the city of Eagan. Member Peterson answered that it is difficult to find a large enough area in Eagan to plan that many trees. Member Belfiori moved to amend that tree mitigation include replanting as many of the trees, as reasonable, in the City of Eagan. Chair Davis motioned to approve Steeplechase Alternatives 1-18 as amended, Member Peterson seconded the motion and all present members voting to approve. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. The park dedication shall be satisfied through a cash dedication. 2. The development shall dedicate conservation easements to the City over those portions of the site described as; (To be determined as necessary). The conditions of said easement to be determined in consultation with the City Attorney and City staff, pending approval of the City Council. 3. The development shall install an 8 foot wide bituminous connector trail extending from the existing west Pilot Knob boulevard trail, south and west to the existing County trail, within a 15 foot easement, to be dedicated to the City. Said trail to be built to City standards with the alignment to be determined in consultation with City and County staff. Said trail corridor to be established prior to the construction of homes. All required walls, guard rails, fencing and other safety features shall be the responsibility of the development. 4. The trail dedication shall be satisfied with a credit of $10 per lineal foot being given for the new connector trail and the reasonable cost of the elements required to construct the trail, any balance due paid in cash. Said trail to be constructed per the agreed upon plan however the credit may not exceed what would be required as a total cash trail dedication. 5. The applicant shall fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of five-hundred thirty- four (534) Category B trees, or an equivalent combination of Category A, B, or C trees. 6. To ensure survival of preserved trees that have encroachment occurring inside the tree's critical root zone (CRZ), staff is recommending that a long-term tree survival plan be prepared by a certified arborist and implemented on all trees with encroachment into the CRZ. The applicant shall communicate with city forestry staff in the actual placement of tree protection fence around these trees. 7. To utilize a "floating number" system pertaining to the final number of mitigation trees required. Complete fulfillment of all required mitigation to be installed prior to final project completion. 8. The applicant shall continue to work with city staff to identify additional opportunities for preservation during the development and construction process. 9. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) shall be required to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 13 10. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 11. Storm water runoff from approximately 87 percent of the site (33.8 acres) shall be treated onsite via a series of constructed ponds and existing wetlands. Minimum volume requirements for such treatment shall be in accordance with the City's water quality management plan. 12. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding shall be required for the 4.9-acre area of the parcel that is proposed to drain off site to the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast without any treatment. 13. The TEP recommends denial of the proposed replacement and monitoring plan for the following reasons: > Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Replacement Area 1; ? Proposed replacement areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring landscape conditions that support wetlands; > Proposed Replacement Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a functioning wetland due to need for continued removal of sediment; ? Both replacement areas require significant landscape alterations; ? Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would be required along Replacement Area 2, creating safety hazards and prohibiting natural transitions of plants and movement of animals; and > The proposed created wetlands would not result in characteristics consistent with those specified in WCA rules. It is very questionable that a fully functioning wetland could be created onsite within the context of the proposed development or planned land use. 14. After thoroughly reviewing the revised application and all supplemental information, the TEP recommends the use of a wetland bank because it creates the best ecological solution to replacing impacted wetlands within this proposed development. 15. The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for storm water management purposes. The TEP believes this wetland will likely be lost or suffer further diminished value over time due to significant reduction of contributing watershed area, sediment accumulation, and vegetative alteration by adjacent land use. Although excavation would increase wetland impacts back to the amount originally proposed, it would contribute to a better grading plan from a storm water management standpoint. 16. Minimum 30-foot natural buffers shall be provided next to wetlands on the site to support the City's Class IV-Wildlife Habitat designation of these water bodies. 17. Low-impact design features such as rainwater gardens and infiltration areas should be considered in the final design phase to reduce the overall runoff volume from this proposed development. 18. City water resources staff shall be involved in any on-site pre-construction, pre-grading meetings to review and coordinate approved plans. NATURES POINT Cartney presented the background and history, saying the applicant is requesting approval of a Rezoning from Agriculture to Public Facility and R-1 single family residential to PD, Planned Development; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Quasi Public to LD, Low Density Residential; a Preliminary Subdivision of 12.8 acres to create 33 lots and a Preliminary Planned Development to allow 32 twins homes. The applicant proposed smaller lots with reduced setbacks, a private drive, and a cell tower that is less than 300 feet from a residential use which do not meet code requirements to allow for Twin Homes. As part of the Planned Development requirements, the applicant provided a conforming plan which conforms Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 14 to R-2 standards, the applicant states this plan is undesirable because of the impact on the tree loss (increase from 67.5% to 74%) and the connection of Taconite Trail to Deerwood Drive would go through an existing wetland in the existing right-of-way of Taconite Trail. The applicant justifies the need for a Planned Development by way of preserving more trees, a lesser unit count (32 rather than 34) and no wetland impacts. The Public hearing for this proposal is scheduled for March 22, 2005 at the regular Advisory Planning Commission meeting. This item is then scheduled for the April 19, 2005 City council meeting. Member Peterson asked for clarification of the date of 120 day application; June 29 is the end date. The subject site is, currently 3 unplatted tax parcels. Two of the lots have single family homes present and the other lot has an AT&T freestanding cell tower. The parcel that the cell tower is located on is zoned Agriculture and guided Quasi Public as proposed the cell tower will be platted separately from the development and will be rezoned to Public Facility and keeps the Quasi Public Comp Plan Designation, the rest of the parcel will be rezoned to Planned Development and re-guided to Low Density Residential. Parks and Trails Dedication Cheryl Mesko informed the viewers that parks and trails dedication for this development shall be satisfied through a cash dedication. Tree Preservation City Forester Hove presented a map, stating the tree inventory indicates there are 317 significant trees. Species Count % of Total Oak 140 44% Black Cherry 80 25% Spruce 28 9% The development will result in the removal of two hundred fourteen (214) significant trees, (67.5%). City ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, single unit residential) is set at 40% of the total significant trees. Required tree mitigation to replace trees removed in excess of allowable limits calculates to two hundred sixty four (264) or one hundred thirty two (132) category A trees. The applicant has submitted a "Preliminary Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan" that shows the installation of 125 Category A trees (the equivalent of two hundred fifty (250) category B trees. Hove stated the developer will also transplant Spruce, but this is cannot be counted in the mitigation. Instead these seven trees are classifieds "preserved trees" on the tree preservation plan. City would require the developer to provide a one year maintenance agreement to guarantee survival of the transplanted trees for the first year. Also, there is to be no encroachment inside protected critical root zone or at the drip line of preserved trees, whichever is greater. The applicant should submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan that would first show no grading inside the critical root zone and second, the Tree Preservation Plan should indicate the correct placement of required Tree Protective measures as shall be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved onsite. Also, 18 trees will be transplanted along Taconite Trail. Water Quality/Wetlands This proposed 12.6 acre residential subdivision is located in the upper portion of the City's watershed A. Storm water will drain to the west toward the Minnesota River. Because of the size and location of the parcel, this project is subject to City water quality requirements. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 15 The developer proposed to meet water quality requirements by constructing one storm water pond in the northwest portion of the site, located just south of the existing cell tower. Wetlands According to a wetland delineation report by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. there are two jurisdictional wetlands associated with this site. Water Resources staff is comfortable with the delineations as presented. One wetland is located at the end of the existing Taconite Trail. The majority of the other wetland is located in the extreme southwest corner of the parcel. Neither wetland is supposed to be directly impacted by draining, filling or excavation. Rich Ragatz of Epic Development informed the viewers he would like to use a storm septer, an underground tank, rather than a pond because of the challenging topography of this area. This septer would do the same job, taking care of 2.25 acres of runoff, and would preserve more of the trees. If a pond is chosen, would take care of 5 'V2 acres of runoff. The current pond would be expanded by 4500 sq. feet which would increase the total tree loss to 72%. Ragatz asked that city staff to offer him alternative ideas if they see any other ways to cut down on tree death, stating he wants to "stay away from the wetlands". Ragatz also said he wants to consult with Macbeth regarding the small pond. Ragatz described the septer as a huge, underground storage tank with a cement lid. A truck is brought in to suction out the debris. The septer requires the same maintenance as an excavated pond and would be paid for the by the Homeowners Association. Member Peterson asked Ragatz if there would be a time setback if the APrC deferred this and asked him to come back with more information. Member Filipi stated he is not a fan of storm septers because of the front cost on the maintenance. Ragatz said in order to utilize the current storm water pond with an easement, the neighbors would like to increase the level of the pond. Lodhi asked how many trees would be transplanted. Ragatz answered it is currently planned 7 to 8 trees to transplant and others will be looked at. He stated it is expensive to move them, but worth it. We wouldn't transplant them if it didn't work. Chair Davis asked Ragatz if he works with an arborist. Ragatz answered yes, he works with someone to provide tree care, for a contracted time of one year. Lisa Brown, 1730 Taconite Trail, addressed the APrC saying she believes her home the most affected by this development. Brown said she was concerned about the number of large trees that would be removed and the amount of water runoff that would flow towards her yard. Brown said her yard ponds regularly when it rains and she is concerned about a larger amount of water flowing into a small area. Discussion revolved around water flow and the group was reminded that this is a subject for the Planning Commission. At this time Lisa Brown, 1730 Taconite Trail, addressed the APrC stating she considered her home the most affected by this development. Brown said she was concerned about the number of large trees that would be removed and the amount of water runoff is a high concern. Brown said her yard ponds regularly when it rains and she is concerned about a larger amount of water going into a small area. Planner Cartney informed the commission they can recommend continuation of this subject until the April 19' City Council meeting. Member Peterson motioned to defer the approval of the septer to April 19`h to have more time to learn about the storm water septer. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 16 OLD BUSINESS There were no items for the APrC to review under Old Business NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: THRESHER FIELDS GRANT APPLICATION The City Council designated the Advisory Parks Commission meeting of March 14, 2005 as the public hearing date required for the application of Outdoor Recreation Grant. This grant will assist with further development of Thresher Fields. Notice of the public hearing section of the March 14, 2005 APrC meeting was published with the APrC agenda in the City's newspaper of record. Chair Davis asked that this discussion be noted as a Public Hearing. He asked C.J. Lilly, Landscape Architect and Parks Planner for the City, to give a brief overview of Thesher Fields. Lilly familiarized the audience with Thresher Fields and the improvements that are desired to enhance the park. Lilly stated Thresher Park is located north of Yankee Doodle at the intersection of Mike Roetman Drive and Orchard Lane. Formerly known as North Park, this site contains a 14 acre pond and a portion was previously used as a construction recycling area. Imperial Developers has already improved the park by adding an access road, and parking lots for 30 cars and 120 cars. Sidewalks and storm sewer are now present and water and electricity are "stubbed in" and accessible for future use. The City of Eagan will submit an application for the Outdoor Recreation Grant to enhance the Thresher Fields complex. The proposed project includes park shelter buildings that will function as a restroom, weather/sun shelter, trail head, play equipment and gathering area. The use of Thresher Fields is mixed; partially groomed athletic fields with uses ranging from practice to tournament play. The proposed shelter building would be the only rest area available for public use in the vicinity. The site is anticipated for heavy use such as tournament play, and a permanent structure would offer comfort and ease of maintenance. The proposed project will include a soft trail that will connect to Yankee Doodle Road to the South. Future trail expansion can provide for a loop to the west and reconnection to the park from the North. The shelter building would serve as the trail head and shelter/rest area for the trail. Additionally, a trail extension from Mike Roetman Drive would enhance the safety of pedestrians entering the park. The proposed shelter building provides refuge for both functions of the park. It will serve as shelter for inclement weather, a meeting area for visitors, host team or personal events like picnics or afternoon play, and provide restrooms. The facility will be ADA compliant and use energy efficient fixtures and resilient materials that have become standard in Eagan park buildings. The building would be an approximately 2,600 square foot open sided pavilion with male and female ADA compliant restroom facilities. There would be additional space for maintenance supplies and storage, bulletin boards, landscape surroundings, picnic tables and grill surrounded by a landscaped buffer from the parking area. The building would have water hook ups to serve the restrooms. Near the shelter complex, a moderate area of play equipment would be installed to provide additional recreational uses of Thresher Fields. Implementation Schedule Park shelter buildings of this size and scope have typically been able to complete substantial construction within the year they begin. It is anticipated that the proposed project could be completed in 2006. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 17 Overall cost and the proposed financing for the project The total anticipated cost of the proposed project is $431,000. The DNR requires a 50% match for funding consideration, thus the grant request is $215,500. The local match, then, becomes $215,500 to be allocated from the Park Site Fund. The Park Site Fund is derived from developer fees during the subdivision process. Costs to be assessed to community residents Project financing is proposed to be 50% state grant funding, and 50% from the Park Site Fund. Since the Park Site Fund is derived from developer contribution rather than taxation or special assessment, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will have any cost assessed to community residents. Other associated project costs Other costs associated with the project would be regular maintenance costs built in to the City's operational and maintenance budget and schedule. Regular maintenance costs are estimated to be $11,118 per year, and value costs (time allocated by staff) are expected to be approximately $9,858 per year over the next 20 years. Member Danner asked for clarification regarding of the amount of money, stating the amount was higher than previously estimated. Member Peterson said 2006 is the anticipated date if the grant is received. Chair Davis confirmed the higher cost estimate did account for a price differential between now and the potential construction date. Chair Davis asked if the audience had any questions regarding Thresher Fields or the DNR grant. The audience remained silent. Chair Davis suggested the Public Hearing come to a close. Member Peterson moved to submit the grant application for the Outdoor Recreation Grant through the Department of Natural Resources. Member Bari seconded and all present voted to approve. The City Council has this item scheduled for its March 15"' Council meeting. The completed application will be submitted to the DNR by March 31, 2005. Should the project request be accepted, the project could be completed in 2006. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE There were no items for the APrC to review under Water resources. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS There were no items for the APrC to review. ROUND TABLE Chair Davis suggested an APrC meeting be held at the Community Center if the ECC had the technical capability of hosting the live meeting. Mesko responded that if a meeting was not feasible, at least an APrC workshop could be held there. Chair Davis also suggested Moonshine Park and Member Bari agreed, suggesting the possibility of an outside fire. Conducting a workshop or tour of the ECC and Moonshine Park will be investigated. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 14, 2005 Page 18 ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, Chair Davis moved, Member Pletcher seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ) I 10 / b's 1 Secretary Date