The URL can be used to link to this page

05/19/2003 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission AGENDA Tour of : ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION • Bur Oaks Trail EAGAN, MINNESOTA Meet at Ci all ty , upper level parking lot at 6:00 pm Monday, May 19, 2003 7:00 PM Eagan Municipal Center City Council Chambers A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 pm B. Approval of Agenda 7:02 pm C. Volunteer Recognition 7:04 pm (1) Lake Monitoring Volunteers (2) Holz Farm Volunteers D. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 17 and April 14, 2003 7:30 pm E. Visitors to be Heard 7:32 pm F. Superintendent's Update and Department Happenings Pages 3-4 7:33 pm (1) Cascade Bay Update - Aaron Hunter G. Consent Agenda 7:45 pm (1) Northwood Pond - Delta Development Pages 5-7 (2) Soderholm 2'" Addition - Manley Land Dev. Pages 8-9 K Development Agenda (1) Marcella Woods - Marcella Woods Partnership Pages 10-12 7:50 pm L Old Business (1) Bur Oak Trail Public Input Pages 13-15 pm (2) Alternative Funding Update/Discussion Page 16 pm J. New Business (1) Maintenance Facility Expansion-Plan Acceptance Page 17-18 pm (2) Donor Naming Policy Development Page 19-20 pm K Water Resources Update pm L. Other Business and Report (1) Caponi Art Park Study pm (2) Subcommittee Updates pm (3) Community Center Update pm (4) Communications Pages 21-23 pm M. Round Table PHI N. Adjournment pm The City ofEagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, set disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons wishing to participate are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance of the event. I fa notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City will attempt to provide the aids. Next Advisory Parks Commission Meeting: June 16, 2003 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2003 MEETING SCHEDULE NAME Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 13 17 14 19 16 14 18 15 20 17 15 3oseph Bari x X X Phil Belfiori x X X Margo Danner x X X Terry Davis x X X N. Mark Filipi X 0* X Elizabeth Perry x X X Dorothy Peterson X X X Richard Pletcher x 0* X Ken West (alternate) X 0 0* Melvin Williams X 0* X I X = present O = absent O* = notified staff of absence prior to meeting Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acouion/Development Sub- Richard Pletcher N. Mark Flipi Comnittee Melvin Williams Elizabeth Perry Joseph Bari Ken West Phil Belfiori Margo Danner Uaison to Holz Farm Study Dorothy Peterson Terry Davis Dorothy Peterson UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES 1. 5-21-03: Capon Art Park Study Committee 2. 3. ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2003 MEMBERS NAME AND ADDRESS TERM TELEPHONE TERM START EXPIRES 3OSEPH BARI 1999 651-454-8442 (H) 1/2005 3033 Timberwood Trail (3 yr. 1999) Eagan, MN 55121 (3 yr. 2002) jbaril@juno.com PHIL BELFIORI 2002 651-905-0293 (H) 1/2006 3671 Canary Way (1 yr. 2002) 651-297-8026 (W) Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr. 2003) phil.Belfiori@BWSR.state.mn.us MARGO DANNER 2001 651/454-5688 (H) 1/2004 2037 Flint Lane (3 yr. 2001) Eagan, MN 55122 mrsmagoo@usfamily.net TERRY DAVIS 1997 651-452-2635 (H) 1/2006 Chair (3 yr. 1997) 651-310-8941 (W) 4895 Safari Pass (3 yr. 2000) 452-2152 (Home fax) Eagan, MN 55122-2690 (3 yr. 2003) terry.davis@stpaul.com N. MARK FILIPI May, 1997 651-602-1725 (W) 1/2004 836 Overlook Place (3 yr. 1998) mark.filipi@metc.state.mn.us (3 yr. 2001) Eagan, MN 55123 ELIZABETH PERRY (LIZA) 2002 651-452-3201 (H) 1/2005 3298 Rolling Hills Drive (3 yr. 2002) 651-994-8808 (W) Eagan, MN 55121 Iperry64@hotmail.com DOROTHY PETERSON Vice Chair 2000 651-454-6532 (H) 1/2006 4337 Sequoia Drive (3 yr. 2000) Eagan, MN 55122 (3 yr. 2003) norsk4337@juno.com RICHARD PLETCHER 2001 651-687-9177 (H) 1/2005 Secretary (1 yr. 2001) 1074 Northview Park (3 yr. 2002) richard.pletcher@usarc-emh2.army.mil Eagan, MN 55123 KEN WEST 2003 651-687-9152 (H) 1/2004 600 Lone Oak Road (1 yr. 2003) 651-303-3316 (W) Eagan, MN 55121 (alternate) MELVIN WILLIAMS 2001 651-994-6727 (H) 1/2004 823 Wescott Square (3 yr. 2001) tuboj@msn.com Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan City Staff E-Mail: kvraa@ci.eagan.mn.us cmesko@ci.eagan.mn.us poison@ci.eagan.mn.us iasfahl@ci.eagan.mn.us shove@ci.eagan.mn.us emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us bwielde@ci.eagan.mn.us Phone #651-675-5505 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.) 3/13/03 Eagan Parks and Recreation Phone Number: 651-675-5500 Eagan Parks and Recreation Staff E-Mail Administration: Ken Vraa kvraa@ci.eagan.mn.us Cherryl Mesko cmesko@ci. eagan. mn. us Paul Olson polson@ci. eagan. mn. us Jeff As fah? jas fahl9ci.eagan.mn. us Beth Wielde bwielde@ci. eagan. mn. us Forestry: Gregg Hove ghove@ci.eagan.mn.us Water Resources: Eric Macbeth emacbeth@ci.eaqan.mn.us Parks Planner/Landscape Architect CJ Lilly cjlilly@ci.eagan.mn.us Recreation Staff: Paula Nowariak pnowariak@ci. eagan. mn. us Sonya Rippe srippe@cLeagan.mn.us Cathy Bolduc cbolduc@ci.eagan.mn.us Holly Champlin hchamplin@ci.eagan.mn.us Colleen Callahan ccalahan@ci.eagan.mn.us Cascade Bay: Aaron Hunter ahunter@ci.eagan.mn.us Civic Arena: Mark Vaughan mvaughan@ci.eagan.mn.us Community Center: Sandy Breuer sbreuer@ci. eagan. mn. us TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: MAY 16, 2003 111011111,111 -M"Elllllllllll,l _M10,10=11 REMINDER A tour of Bur Oaks Trail will be done prior to the meeting. Please meet at the upper level parking lot at 6:00 p.m ITEM A: Call to order ITEM B: Approval of agenda ITEM C: Volunteer Recognition Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth and Recreation Superintendent Asfahl will be recognizing several people who have volunteered numerous hours over the past several years monitoring Eagan lakes and maintaining a farming heritage for residents to enjoy at Holz Farm. ITEM D: Approval of minutes of March 17 and April 14, 2003 ITEM E: Visitors to be Heard Staff is not aware of issues that may be brought to the Advisory Commission under this agenda item. ITEM F: Superintendent's Update and Department Happenings Staff will review several items of interest to the Commission and community including an update by Facility Manager Aaron Hunter on Cascade Bay's upcoming opening. ITEM G: Consent Agenda There are two Consent Agenda items that can be addressed with one motion. Background memos are included in the packet for Northwood Pond and Soderholm 2nd Addtion. ITEM H: Development Proposals Background information has been included in the packet for the Advisory Commission's review of the Marcella Woods development near Ohmann Park. ITEM I: Old Business 1. Public input will be taken regarding the proposed Bur Oak Trail. The Advisory Commission will have had the opportunity of touring the site prior to the meeting and should be prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the trail's location. 2. Staff has prepared a memo outlining previous discussions relative to alternative funding. The Advisory Commission should consider what future direction they will take. 1, ITEM J: New Business 1. Public Works Director Colbert has prepared a memo outlining the expansion of the maintenance facility into the adjacent Blue Cross Blue Shield property. The Advisory Commission will be asked to review the plan to ensure its compliance with tree preservation, water quality and any park/trail related issues. Acceptance of the plan as presented, or with amendments, will need to be forwarded promptly to staff coordinating this effort. 2. Staff has prepared a follow-up memo regarding policy development for donor naming. Staff will be seeking further direction on this issue. ITEM K: Water Resources Update Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth will provide any additional information relative to the Water Resources division. ITEM L: Other Business and Reports 1. A brief review of the Caponi Art Park study should be followed by direction from the Advisory Commission as to how they wish to proceed. 2. Subcommittees that may have met since the last commission meeting may wish to provide a brief update 3. A verbal update will be provided for the Community Center. 4. Communication materials being passed on to the APrC for information include: • Letter from an elementary school student relative to the skate park and staffs response. ITEM M: Round Table Any items of concern that might be placed on upcoming agendas or items of interest will be identified. ITEM M: Adjournment I\Parks and Recreation\Advisory Commission\Monthly Meetings\Nlny 2003\Cover Department Happenings May 2003 RECREATION DIVISION • The summer fall edition of "Discover" was distributed to all Eagan households during the week of May 5. The fall edition will be delivered during the week of August 11. • Friends of the Farm have been very busy with their involvement with the Holz Farm master planning process, spring clean-up day activities on May 3, support to the Eagan Garden Club plant sale on May 10, and the annual Spring Festival on May 17. • All youth athletic association programs are underway. Arrangement s for utilization of space were unique this spring. The park maintenance division has done a superb job in getting these sites prepared. • The Eagan Art House hosted a special sneak preview fundraiser at the Community Center this past May 3rd. It was very successful - generating over $7000.00. • Summer is in full swing for the adult sports programs and concessions. Thus far softball has not been cancelled due to rain. • The next focus for adult sports is getting the fall information put together and out to teams by the beginning of June for softball and the beginning of July for basketball, volleyball and touch football. • All seasonal Recreation Leaders and Recreation Assistants are hired for this summer. Staff training will be held during the week of June 9 and programs begin on June 16. • Registrations for summer programs have been coming in at a steady pace since March. Currently there are over 533 registrations for Summer in the Park and Wagonful O'Fun. Many camps and other programs are filling up as well. There are still openings in many programs including Instructional T-ball, Eaganettes, and a variety of camps. See the Discover brochure or check out what is available at www.cityofeagan.com. • Funding dollars from Local Collaborative Time Study (LCTS) are in jeopardy. These are funding dollars that Youth Development has depended on for a number of years. ISD 196 requests are not currently being accepted. We currently have support through 2003. ISD 197 approved a reduced dollar amount of $10,000 for the school year 2003-2004, which supports the Pilot Knob after school collaborative. With the implications of these budget reductions we are focusing our efforts on building partners in recreation, establishing fee structures to help support programs and engaging in a public awareness effort to inform target communities about all of the opportunities in recreation throughout the City of Eagan, for both children and families. • Scholarship resources and recreation programs in target communities have been enhanced through C])BG monies. • Teen Programs: 350 people were in attendance at the "Battle of the Bands" at the Eagan Civic Arena. Some time in Late June or August an article will be in the St. Paul Paper talking about the entire program. One of the groups that competed in the Battle will be featured at the City Community Services Open House on May 21' from 4:00-5:00p.m. • A number of summer program are offered this year for teens including, rock climbing, cheerleading, a series of teen parties, tournaments, and volleyball. Our local teen collaborative group continues to meet and work together to be cost efficient, cross promote, and facilitate these programs- • Eagan-Teen Advisory Board is busy researching community centers, gathering feedback and compiling questions for teens and the teen center. They assisted in the Battle of the Bands and are planning on helping host the teen parties, working with the Eagan Healthy Community Initiative 40' of July fund raiser and our Eagan Film Festival. They have designed a logo and are price shopping for t-shirt quotes. The teens are very interested in the teen center, volunteering in the community and in creating awareness about the group. PARKS DIVISION • For the fourth consecutive year, Corps of Engineers research staff from Texas is studying the effects of an herbicide (Aquathol K (9) on curlyleaf pondweed populations in Blackhawk and Schwanz lakes. On April 24, the lakes were treated. City staff again will be supporting the study by collecting water quality data. • Staff has begun work on the Moonshine Park Water Resources Demonstration Project. The lawn areas to be converted into natural lakeshore vegetation have been delineated and treated with herbicide in preparation of topsoil application and subsequent planting. Another herbicide treatment appears to be necessary to kill the grass so it won't compete with seeds and plants that are installed. Planting is scheduled to occur in mid to late June. • The aquatic plant harvester and shoreline conveyor has been returned to the City after being at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault for repairs and maintenance. Since last fall, inmates have repair-welded and upgraded steel structures, and the equipment also was repainted. • Water Resources Coordinator Eric Macbeth represented the City as an invited speaker at a noontime session of the University of St. Thomas' Earth Day program. Macbeth described the City's water quality program to students majoring in environmental studies. • The City's routine water quality monitoring program began last week. This year, data will be collected from 15 lakes, ponds, and wetlands. • Park maintenance staff began mowing in earnest the last week of April. Nearly 500 acres of turf and 70 miles of boulevards are mowed on a weekly basis. 11 mowers ranging in cutting width from 6' to 15' are sent out daily. • With the growth of spring turf grass comes dandelions. The Parks Department does do selective spraying throughout the park system. Signage is placed at the entrances to the any park that has been sprayed to inform potential users. The supplier has indicated that once the material has dried, the health risks associated with entering the turf areas are minimal, much like home lawn products. Dandelions, while a nuisance are not considered a noxious weed and therefore total control is not mandatory. • The contractor has made excellent progress in the construction of the new Thresher Fields athletic complex (formerly North Park), though the recent rains have slowed progress. Most of the utilities and rough grading have been completed. Completion is expected by July 1' , however the turf will not be ready for play until the fall of 2004. • Staff has placed the orders for the replacement playground equipment, through the CIP, to be installed at O'Leary and Walnut Hills Parks. A small piece will also be installed at Rahn. Park to replace a "tiny tots" piece that has deteriorated. Staff reviewed from proposals submitted by five different vendors before making the selection. • The Twin Cities Tree Trust will begin work at Blackhawk Park in early July. They will be rebuilding a lakeside observation deck and assisting with the installation of a sand volleyball court. The Tree Trust is a youth training and employment agency that provides their services at no cost to the City. • The Arbor Day celebration was held at the new Central Park Pavilion on May 3`d. The beautiful weather made for a wonderful day with over 125 people attending the event. Many City "dignitaries" including the Mayor and three Council persons were in attendance. Special thanks to APrC members Danner, Bari and Davis who assisted with the preparation and serving of food • The annual tree sale was held on April 26th. Nearly 300 pieces of plant material were sold. While this is a significant number, it continues the downward trend in numbers and may suggest that it become a bi-annual event. • The City "Community Services Open House" will be held at the Civic Arena on May 21't from 4- 7 PM. All City Departments will have informational displays, equipment, and staff on hand. • Architectural and engineering work has begun on the replacement of the toilet/storage module at the Thomas Lake Park pavilion. The pavilion will be closed shortly after the July 4th holiday for construction. Completion is expected by late fall. 4- Dale: May 19, 2003 Agenda Item: G-1; Northwood Pond Delta Development Action NX S ~~f Information City of Eagan Attachments 1. Location Map Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Preliminary Site Plan 4. Tree Inventory 5. Tree Mitigation Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-1; NORTHWOOD POND - DELTA DEVELOPMENT TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Northwood Pond development. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Delta Development is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation within the Special Area from O/S, Office Service to MD, Medium Density, a Rezoning and Preliminary Planned Development, and a Preliminary Subdivision (Northwood Pond) on property located east of Pilot Knob Road at Marice Drive, between Sherman Court and Interstate 35E in the SW'/4 of Section 10. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into seven lots for the construction of 42 townhome units in six buildings on approximately 5.45 acres. Access into the site is provided from several locations along Sherman Court. The project has a gross density of 6.68 units per acre and a net density of 7.71 units per acre. This density is consistent with the Medium Density land use designation that is proposed. The proposal overlays three parcels, all of which are platted and located adjacent to Interstate Highway 35E. The site is wooded and contains a centrally located wetland. The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the site as part of Special Area 4, which further defines the land use for this property as O/S, Office/Service. The northerly parcel is currently zoned PD and designation for uses consistent with the Limited Business zoning district and the two southerly parcels are currently zoned GB, General Business. Northwood Parkway has been constructed at its intersection with Pilot Knob Road, and exists as right-of-way extending to the east, but has not been constructed to the 1-3 5E right-of-way. A future bridge overpass is planned in this location over I-35E and it is anticipated that Northwood Parkway will be constructed to its full extent in conjunction with the installation of this overpass in the future. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication and cash parks dedication. TREE PRESERVATION: A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are one-hundred sixty-three (163) significant trees in the inventory. Individual tree size and species break down is as follows: Species Avg Diameter Dl& Range Count Percent of Total Cottonwood 14" 12"-20" 129 79% Box elder 14" 12'-16" 17 10% Oak 22" 10"-24" 10 8% The balance of the tree inventory is comprised of pine trees (averaging 10" in diameter) and willow trees (averaging 20" in diameter). The development as proposed will result in the removal of one-hundred forty-five (145) significant trees (89 % of the total). The plan submitted by the applicant indicates that 127 significant trees will be removed. However, through staff analysis of the tree inventory and proposed grading plan an additional 18 trees have been classified as being removed because they are either completely within areas to be graded or have grading occurring with the trees critical root zone. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, multiple-unit residential) is set at 47.5% of the total significant trees. With a proposed removal more than the allowable amount, there will be required tree mitigation for this proposal. This required tree mitigation calculates to sixty- eight (68) Category A trees, or one-hundred thirty-six (136) Category B trees, or two-hundred seventy-two (272) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of any Category.. The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that shows an incorrect calculation of required tree mitigation. The correct tree mitigation requirement (including the additional 18 trees to be considered as being removed) should be as indicated above. A revised tree mitigation plan should be submitted indicting the correct tree mitigation amounts. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This proposed 6.3-acre townhome development is located in the "C" Watershed, where stormwater will drain westward through a few basins to CP-4, the wetland in front of the Community Center in Central Park. From there, the infrastructure delivers stormwater to the Minnesota River. The developer proposes to meet the City's water quality requirements primarily by directing stormwater runoff to three small treatment ponds that will be constructed adjacent to the wetland in the central portion of the site. The largest pond, at the northeast edge of the wetland, will treat stormwater from 2.6 acres of the site. With 56.3-percent impervious cover proposed for the development, this pond would need a minimum treatment volume of 0.33 acre-feet covering a minimum surface area of 0.19 acres. The stormwater pond would need to be constructed no deeper than 6 feet and with a 10:1 aquatic bench from the normal water level. The other two ponds, located on the south edge of the wetland, are each adequately sized to handle stormwater from a small drainage area. Stormwater from 1.95 acres of the parcel is proposed to drain off the site, requiring a dedication of cash in lieu of ponding. There is one wetland on this parcel. Under the classification system of the Fish and Wildlife Service, it is a Type 2 wetland, which is an inland fresh meadow in which soil usually is without standing water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of the surface. Dominant vegetation often consists of reed canary grass, sedge, and sandbar willow. The wetland is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), which is administered locally by the City. Any proposals to drain or fill these types of wetlands need to meet the provisions of this law. It is highly improbable that federal jurisdiction via Section 404 of the Clean Water Act applies to impacts to this wetland because it is isolated from federal navigable waters. The developer proposes 1,924 square feet of fill impact to the wetland. However, WCA rules allow up to 2,000 square feet of such impact to these types of wetlands without requiring a replacement plan. This is a so-called de minimis exemption. According to appropriate procedures, the developer has applied to the City to be certified for this exemption. It is noteworthy that a 30-foot buffer strip around the wetland is not proposed to be part of this development. This appears to be the case because of dimensional (geographic) limitations of the parcel relative to the location of Sherman Court west of the wetland and the entrance road north of the wetland. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. This proposal would be subject to a cash parks dedication. 2. This proposal would be subject to a cash trails dedication. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised tree mitigation plan showing the fulfillment tree preservation mitigation requirements through the installation of sixty- eight (68) Category A trees, or one-hundred thirty-six (136) Category B trees, or two- hundred seventy-two (272) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of any Category. 4. A revised Tree Mitigation/Landscape Plan shall be submitted addressing the following recommendations: • Mitigation/Landscape conifer trees should be relocated away from roads and/or buildings to allow for needed crown width for mature tree growth- • Mitigation deciduous trees (especially willow trees) should be spaced at least 25- 30' apart. Willow trees should only be used near wetland/pond areas and not be placed adjacent to roadways 5. 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 on-site. 6. 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. 7. A storm water treatment pond shall be constructed with a minimum treatment volume of 0.33 acre-feet covering a minimum surface area of 0.19 acres. The pond should have a maximum depth of 6 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench from the normal water level. 8. A dedication of cash in lieu of ponding shall be required for storm water that is proposed to drain off 1.95 acres of the site. 7, Item:(a'_I1 Ivor-f1iccWd Por?d Location Map Attachment 4 T- 17 0 =1. A , EE3 E31. • d c., S V'~ 7-4 Jr -N __v Subject Site 4r ao ice, 91, (~j m®Q r _ EEk ED 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Delta Development Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Rezoning and Preliminary PD; Preliminary Subdivision Case No.: 10-CG-04-04-03; 10-RZ-06-04-03; 10-PS-08-04-03 Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel bass map data provided N by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of February 2003. W E city of eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S Community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. Item: B\IOr-M &Ocd And aun-cm q +w" Attachment # Plat MY 707 +"¦a ra 4"..~rr~ .ea S U Z7 .9 WAS O 3i~ C ~~Y_ F ~ ~ t~ hh R O ~TJ3 i 5~ .;Y p E !I fY ip~4YC k71 I \ I / ~r°r~M l " I . / . s 00 w ~ S y 8 /~•ti•^-J r4a f u ~e I i . " aa~ t / °df a°bAb b °.t'Qe'°j t sc . f p 46i-o ip-L°l 3 .[450.0° "-u z s atl . is, v3 NY;+33N5 ' • 4 ' " 0 1 O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I W I s I m I I I I ti: I I I I PRELIM. PLAT stilt (M) Item: AfortM>aod Foal - W. 9.•i.•. 3 -S ieltw. ma •~.f.f _ •.a .•o .~ffot y a " MY M ^ M 0 N%170SH Aachment # 3, 49re!/n-u ri ry E 5i M- Plan yy +.w•~Ia IM 4N_ Q N - ;;sRe.s Opol o O c~ I QTR O • b SSA - Z y R w. " AA~_d P'go L iC f U Wr s. .e n$gt~e.s i ~fa+ig a o CLz . O V >n x3sbtY SkXg °~f^i u R a°y x~k:l4~ i~f;1R f. YY ZYC Y.YY m h e'a a "ee3 seee ^~g i :iii i N T\ I \ 1 :C 1 \ 4 \ l may':' s_F \ \ 16- A 1 \ / ruc \ \ .4 Ala / / r I 1 I I _ n I = II " I I I ( I u ~ 4 m I PRELIM. SITE PLAN Item: a-/ j Afor-M1Lk A! POnd m«-m. l,eMt aFJVJ77aF I/ Attachment # ` IrIn ven' , wi.w w Nrww. _Mw wa Nw N.wrl " o ~ ~ ~2 g< I}OI Q y e'i N Q rR !~~Q ~y ~~11 q9 pe IL O Q Ofg x a E$$$€Ee< 6 W I E : '85 g 6~ qq N v o, CL O I I I I 'iii 11141 W444-W W4 I W444 41 ) i 993~S % a.- r - fTn J'O 12f1UR Hld3HSs6 25 nm s xi a xi s 'SS a R- i r a • a r #_8 a,R } sa x i @•s & T~ ~z..i! R F. „a. ~~z x aaI a~ c.ii R ~ s :-•-'~.9a$ 'F lid I I u I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS/TREE INVENTORY Item: Q/5 N1 r*v., d Pouf M=~ llnl y! M U 11 P Attachment # 5. 600 ONfl70JH N17d NO/J P14n 33333333iF~===i 333 !I 333 ~a~aaI I c Q Q = "a ..wNNN,iw°-_ n I~ >_z t d vs Z Qj g O C sj €=1 ' Z93 Sr ~ , LLJX 01 ZO jo, I_. !{i ~~I # I liIalIafliI!±II!II i = F 3 F j a dZ L g 4 ILI1ti1 f !j i I; !PiI1:iifi1i1±iti= 1 5 : 3F~~~}P'f,t_ :xC•®®04®OOOsoOe~~o ;®@0 ai;~= : ;=E; ;x _'~•lssi~~~;~ iF~ Yl9al~g:¢stE:S~sei< y :a•;,`.~~i'~'Es~•' J \ ' a~ F~A$9 fFA It II" I II II aasaaaaa sasasasasassassaasaaasusassaau aaas I III~~`~~~. ~ a3 Vqk j'' III A! ~ t , 1p '11 / ® 1 n " V N r r u n I j. W °yI s t L PRELIM. LANDSCAPE & TREE MITIGATION PLAN ' Date: May 19, 2003 `tom Agenda Item: G-2; Soderholm 2' Addition Manley Land Development Action X Information City of Eagan Attachments X 1. Location Map Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Existing Conditions 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Site Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-2; SODERHOLM 2"D ADDITION-MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Soderholm 2 d Addition proposal. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Subdivision to create two commercial lots and a Planned Development Amendment to allow an office at 4155 Lexington Way, Lot 4, Block 1, Soderholm Addition. The existing lot is about 2.9 acres in size, after the subdivision Lot 1 will be about 29,870 square feet and Lot 2 will be 97,535. There is not a minimum lot size requirement for Planned Development zoning. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Subdivision to create two commercial lots and a Planned Development Amendment to allow for an office building on the newly created lot. The subject site is part of the Soderholm Planned Development that was approved in November of 1995. The subject site was originally approved as a 24,000 square foot medical clinic. In 2000 a Planned Development Amendment was approved for the subject site to allow a daycare facility. The daycare facility was developed and is located in the middle of the existing lot with a pond to the east and vacant land to the west. The proposed office building is about 5,870 square feet on a 29,869 square foot lot. The proposal provides adequate parking based on net leasable office area. The proposal has questionable setbacks. The existing daycare was developed with Neighborhood Business District standards at the time of approval. The proposed development meets all the NB setback requirements except for the rear yard setback. The new property line as proposed will create a rear yard setback for the office building and the existing daycare of 10 feet. NB requires a 20 foot rear yard setback. Furthermore the proposal indicates the trash enclosure will be detached and located in the southeast corner of the lot, the NB district requires trash enclosures to be attached to the principle building. The acceptability of the proposed setbacks and detached trash enclosure are considered a policy matter to be determined by City Officials. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: Both the park dedication and trail dedication was satisfied at the time of the original platting. 8, TREE PRESERVATION: There are no tree preservation requirements for this development. Such requirements were addressed at the time of the first subdivision. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: There are no water quality requirements for this development. Such requirements were addressed at the time of the first subdivision. There are no wetlands associated with this development ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: There are no recommendations for the Advisory Commission to make to the City Council pertaining to parks/trails dedication, tree preservation or water quality that have not been previously addressed. This information is being provided to make the Advisory Commission aware of this development. Item: _Z rho/m IQdcl. Location Map Attachment # z1x4A1611 kof ~ 'es` ~ ~ v. a v 47 ~~,~o. ~ ea0 3~ ° Oo9 tf .v i- 3 s SubJect Site ;q to ~ J 6 3.,. a J 7; 1 IF I 7 i A f m° m 1 .3 ~ -w. o "P s, acs 0 z 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer. Soderholm 2nd Addition Application: PD Amendment, Preliminary Subdivision Case No.: 23-PS-06-04-03 & 23-PA-06-04-03 Map Prepared using ERSI A cVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided N by Dakota County Office of GIS and Is current as of February 2001 w E li: OF en nn THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY CV The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS . : j:i ' \ w r wreBroi tr _ eta \ - 11 I G ° w i i`j r ~s ;a••.. o CAL "nt - ; POND yi.iii 5 I Ile .y. hr r t _,1' - - s I .•i:c.i:;G•.:: yl t It i 1 tale WWO" }:...:...::K. - ......................SB076'B•7~.'.::::.iCi`.y ~ ~::"a~lfTii::.::~::~r'r..!S':::: i:•.r [i•ll1 r::;L I 0 LEGEND Jim. I a p I I I PR(PMED By P4 IUR RERMG. PA C v awrw. rea .a«a ANN C. LARSON I » »-..wr ww. na . Me ao°" r---s w _I i BEOIS7FNEO PROf>:59ONAL SOAVE . w.... w.a w. I - N I I --..RBI uS v i+ ( BG N0. e.oa.w mm I.R. Q. uwue uw. ua aan.n ai naw wiE ` 1w u.mw.. •wll sne P.. i . ve..s.e.~ ~--jam---( xCnoN Zt, tr.:A Ro[. 23 wt.Pwe swIA s w ro;rr • .-.-.-.--..Nws w.a ®.a.w wa * PgD~BSR • NISTING CONDITIONS MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT SODERHOLM 2ND ADDITION Iala ~ IZ Item: -z~ erl~o(m 2" Add. Attachment #,3. pmljmtnaj P(at F~ j T 3 s. t.7 `-1 Z or" , I € Z cla t.f tt~ r .~J Q fJJJ~`f ~fr•/',VC`~'Jr"`~ 40t/1 r' r h [4 ,tip • < r d p / p rl r- r--'-- fat 6 Z Q h ~----~•-ter , a at J i) T ~ e j/y'+ ~1 tQ t' IY ~ A z F- t N Cj 1 W M ! m i2c It t LJ ; -L O 0 ¦ C [ 10 i ~ Q! pgpg i! r l_..>a...,.---------------------------------) CIA 11 c - - - - - - - - - - - - - • .~ni ;vv+n Item: Q-Z j 90ae01olm I" ~~Attachment # + s Jill E 1910, 0 --1 Eie grE~ till r U , U I 00'69 ~,.:1.',' U ( k o N Ljj LLA LLJ ¦ I I ~ I~ ~ z 52 15 1 3.91 L L00S ~ 06'ZLZ . u i ~ AVM NOi~NIX3~ y 19, 2003 1; Marcella Woods Marcella Woods Partnership FA n Map 1. Locatio City of Eagan Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Existing Conditions 3. Site Plan 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Preliminary Grading Plan 6. Tree Preservation Plan AGENDA ITEM: H-1; MARCELLA WOODS - MARCELLA WOODS PARTNERSHIP TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Marcella Woods development. BACKGROUNDARSTORY: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from P, Park to LD, Low Density, a Rezoning from A, Agriculture to R 1 Residential Single District, and a Preliminary Subdivision to create 15 single family lots and one outlot located at 4880 Pilot Knob Road in the SW '/4 of Section 34. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into 15 single family lots and one outlot. In order to accomplish this proposal the applicant is required to rezone the property from Agriculture to R-1 Residential Single district and a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from P, Park to LD, Low Density residential. The existing lot is about 6.4 acres in size with an existing single family home located in the southwestern half of the lot. There are about 12 accessory buildings, 2 building pads and a silo also located on the southwestern half of the lot. All existing buildings will be removed upon development. Access to the existing house is from Pilot Knob Road with a shared driveway to the property to the west. The proposal will provide access to the new lots via a Grace Drive extension. The eastern portion of the lot is rather flat with limited vegetation. The western half of the lot is heavily wooded. The outlot will be utilized as part of a trail connection to Ohmann Park, Parkview Golf Course and Lebanon Hills Regional Park. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: Trails At the request of staff, the Developer is proposing to create, and dedicate, "Outlot A" to the City for the purpose of installing a connector trail from Ohmann Park to Lebanon Hills County Park. The outlot is 397 square feet (.009 acres) in size and is located in the northeast corner of the development at the terminus point of Lebanon Hills, Parkview Golf Course and Ohmann Park. The development of a trail connection into Lebanon Hills at this location is identified in the Park System Plan and was considered a priority in two recent acquisition studies conducted /6. by sub-committees created by the APrC. The trail would allow for non-vehicular access to the County trail system from several neighborhoods surrounding Ohmann Park. The County has indicated a willingness to accommodate the connection as part of ongoing trail improvements resulting from the implementation of the new master plan for Lebanon Hills. City staff will construct a soft surface trail through the outlot and install the appropriate signage. Existing vegetation will be retained to the extent possible to provide screening from the residences. Because the dedication is one of land, and thus considered a park dedication, the development will be responsible for a cash trails dedication. Parks The development shall be responsible for a cash park dedication. Credit will be given for the land dedicated in "outlot A". TREE PRESERVATION: A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are sixty (106) significant trees in the inventory. Individual tree size and species break down is as follows: Species Avg Diameter Dia. Range Count Percent of Total Elm 15" 12"-23" 42 40% Box elder 17" 12'-25" 35 33% Oak 20" 6"-36" 17 16% The balance of the tree inventory is comprised of cottonwood, ash trees averaging 10" in diameter and spruce and pine trees averaging approximately 12" in diameter. The development as proposed will result in the removal of sixty (60) significant trees (56.6 % of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, residential) is set at 34.7% of the total significant trees (two of the 15 lots will be custom graded with tree removal occurring at the time of building permit approval, therefore the allowable removal has been calculated to this adjusted amount). With a proposed removal more than the allowable amount, there will be required tree mitigation for this proposal. This required tree mitigation calculates to twenty-nine (29) Category A trees, or fifty-eight (58) Category B trees, or one hundred sixteen (116) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of any Category.. The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that shows fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements through the installation of fifty-eight (58) Category B trees. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This 6.5-acre development is proposed along a drainage district divide between the City's B- and LP 1-watersheds. Stormwater runoff to the north eventually will reach Thomas Lake, a Class I (Direct Contact) waterbody in the south central portion of Eagan. Runoff to the south eventually will reach Jensen Lake, a Class II (Indirect Contact) waterbody in Lebanon Hills Regional Park along the southern edge of the City. To meet water quality requirements, the developer proposes to direct runoff from 42 percent of the site (2.7 acres) to a treatment pond (to be constructed as part of the development) that will drain to the southeast. Untreated stormwater from 58 percent of the site (3.8 acres) is proposed to drain off-site. This proposal appears reasonable given the topography of the site. The required volume and area of water quality treatment ponds are based on the impervious proportion of proposed developments. With an impervious proportion of 38.4 percent, a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.25 acre-feet covering an area of 0.16 acres would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by 2.7 acres of the development. The pond would have a maximum depth of six feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding would be required for untreated stormwater runoff from 3.8 acres of the development. There are no wetlands associated with this parcel. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. The development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. 2. The development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication, minus credit given for the dedication of "outlot A". 3. This development should meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on-site ponding and cash dedication. 4. The stormwater pond should be constructed to treat 2.7 acres of the site area. It should have a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.25 acre-feet and should have a minimum area of 0.16 acres. The stormwater treatment pond should be constructed according to NURP standards with a maximum depth of 6 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench. 5. In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 3.8 acres of the site, a cash dedication should be required. 6. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised tree mitigation plan showing the fulfillment tree preservation mitigation requirements through the installation of twenty- nine (29) Category A trees, or fifty-eight (58) Category B trees, or one hundred sixteen (116) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of any Category.. 7. The revised tree mitigation plan shall require that mitigation trees are not placed within Outlot A, or within 15 feet of utility easement areas. 8. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) 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 on-site. 9. The applicant shall be required to 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. ~Z . Item: N Mq/r~~/l2 INS Location Map Attachment # 1. afidn 1 f a ~3~ ~ F go g meSD ® ® D ® ® O = I d t~ 11W..-R ® a~ b® ® a ~ DS ~9g~~ ~ ea ~ ~ i ~ ® da3 Subject Site aa6® lob ~ ®M c-a 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer: Marcella Woods Application: Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Subd. Case No.: 34-CG-05-04-03, 34-RZ-05-04-03, 34-PS-05-04-03 Map Prepared using ERSI ArcView 3.1. Parcel base map data provided N by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of February 2003. I w E city The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. Item: II-.I M4 ree //,a- Woods r Attachment #Z, Ej15b Cordifid/'?5 \ was srl.r 1. ~N.rM Sani.._I• J I s/ ~ OCIfL 'a.ot.fcffs f 1 ~ _ ' / / / / Y r r fa2•~ W - - a c 1 \ 1 1 d c N V J a = s ! n ( ` 1 s i'll~tAll z ax s ' ' !a 1 ^I u~ X31 I Nil' Its y~ t I , Sf a ~i E I / / / F Ff `i1 is~` Q \ p ! Fd ! x / R/ E J /x ! ) F ii! tt;igi~j°~ 1i W I TI fill 1, iliftl, pr// R l i Fir- s x / / s y//CLi•/7i/ / / i~ - 1~i<_!=y+7i<ii }~x 1i {t III V W Lyl i~ % /era ] }~ct(j1t<;c g~ ltl,iii~,i ,'F 5II ` c!i~~It! lil• Iii ~xji{c.•ji; [j jl~jt~i= 71 1 r j' ; ? it1i~E~~t~tI n fill l1117l1<;11 I 1 ' 41 i Inv - Vin. i.l n ih--.' r., n. •.~•v.~.,~ E 19 Y fg Yy g68$¢ F+~ d Yg6 iil liii gggg g y ! ' I_~,.a IE.aa Ijhtq y- MIRH , IS R@ a@Be~R~~e~E !@;c;Ppr@; k @;g-ee ' i : ! s Ir i. la W € gagg s 2323 3gdydyd~yyd ~ g'§g9;199G~ Y~~3~ 2 R } y1 1~ ~aGY.2.F . Y.E~.''G CLC!_ i! g[....__ L aC q 5 s IS SAO! . ' ~I: 11111111 ,1~u ;i•b'; •i til~1: ozoi-ij. 1111111.. <~fwtysal ' s : i .1: f : c:sas ,::~I~I j n~. 11111111 - ' ! BSY.' o'v o~• ~ I i I : i'~•i •~K sooonn vn338vw Item: -j' IarceiIa. V-kOds Attachment #3 Plan zz> . I a N • r W ~ Y Z a.. 00 F: I F: z zy aaaF LLJ JQU ZZZ< N ~1¢ 1 ` a-,z~~~F 3~ =a < WUWWW S, ! o~ Y awdaa < m3 - - - - - a y 1 < / < < f f C z 2 m a S Y a z (n ~ N a 0 I- m ! ? Z z z~ (D Z o- z w J - ; L_aI E U) F r n O C Of F t L CL C tl N S -I ? \ It U Ii I I 1 / I . I , I 1 I + / ' I I' iti 1 ; I + 11z 1 {f}t I • Itt I. z' ~t I + Iii j.f! 1tt g` ! i i I ! ~ij# .ti ~pt t n y I E 1 (OY 8ON)1 1011d) IT '0N 'H'Y'S'J ttf fiI all 1 f t f lit I1 t1I. It ii tnt Item: H ~J ~ar[,i(Q- k/42is Attachment #4 I e,limlmry P/at 7 i N 9 S S~ 9 9 99 aat - _ .4 ! 7 j W < - c U . 0 < co E c ~ l a a m R' 1i1 f 0 S o i to Y Y Y t: gg d f_ i ni 0 w =U 3 •C < 1 4? Y t CJWi f~ i ^ i Nf}i Q' CJ I- F • ° C ~ N < e f i I L - J r it! id{}} a J Y r cY, g eil W CC i I I t ili U i f ! E ~ I g ~ ii ! l /-lvn;I `7n~1;~ I~-1I 1 • -i1~1 -L J.~.~,.,.y E !~f i ,~Jrvn vlr;l iv uc~ L, vlr I r o f t 1 - Col. noo • Item: I/-/; Q i ~Ge.I /Q. WIOd S Attachment # 5, Prc4t m r nary 4 1 r' ) Grading Pla+, r c r ee~ f'! \ 3 S ( n I / ! ; as-d - r ~ / IFS ti I~ ~ ~K¢ I / I I; . !1 3! a I t 64 Q -i O` j / tt a LLJ O ~1 1 ? .'1a s a 1 ~ ~ F Hog. u!•l a::ea 3 e ~1::4!a E~' k@se~ 111g ¢l~c~~ a g u uu1~Al w Iffj i.~ f€ "gx $ glir;~ 3 cep U11.1 s@: $"~@ b^er2`I: " @.-@I@@@~@@MPH @r@9°¦@@ ! (Ila 11xit>; Ft>} ~ m • ¦ e r :F a4 @rY a gdi i Hal Ill ssgzs;g $~9a33~3r~~~~~3~~?~~er~ I • 1 I 1111111 C I F'I'B I.¦b' toI:Os)iw.r~a~ II~IIII¦.~oof4~o(.Y I , ! ~5 I •I a I) c ~+1rY.lonon¦i .f I II:.' ~ II II111 .°0 r°. Item: H -1J fi1arc /fa 4' 5 Attachment # FF raa rr r • Trees YreSeN4~74n Plan s rrr rrr:r r rr r rr ! sail l i 3isi i s~ ~ ls~ ~~sas saasai ~ls~ar ~as ~ ~ra x sa'sa J ! Y e W ~•>f! l~ I;1! ~l ! I e ! Y f C C C C~ Yi gC $'C C t C CC ? C 1 I Y ~ E r iii J1! !>~!!r!!! ! ~ 9!!!! Y~ ! ! ! ! r6~:iYi it 11pp111111 u!1!~!!>< as s<~!! a ! !!!!!H!I!!! !!ha iaeaaE~aaaaaaaa1a1a11aa1aaeaaa1111ia a7aa77a1a1aa1a1a1111aIta If 1aliaaaaa4~aa~l1111Qlaai61/!1l1aa1aaa1111aaBaaa7ala11l11l111111a1111a 1 >:?nk'sikhkkllk`_':k:kke*tkkkYkkskk}k~kk:k!bkk!kt6ckk56kk2klkkitki.kr~akk kklrlkk!kk skki4:kb 6kkkkkkkkkkkhtr~4k':~ikkkk6hkkk}ykkkbkkYLkkkkkk ERPEEPEPPPcccc'cPiit!PP:PPPPPERr_~@E~PEPPP:IP3PPz:zP~PPPPEPEPESP#PPEPPEF.fE'cPPEEEPEIfI~PtPEIPPEBPEPPEPPICP@i3lEEP'ssF":si:E=E'sfitiS2aB6EH613a3~c•? ~1:1I Yl i ~ / ; i IslFa ,s ItE`C~t 4r Est @i ~ g • ~ z?i C ;Z8 z fl J Z z i I I / 1 ill nF~ >-F Z.V W LLJ VJ 1 I all W o U.J • ,i! v shit e o 1 .-L 5 ILI / ~ cn I IP / -j J < i 1i t 1 i ,~j ! as x . ~ jp. ~Lyy~~ r u i~ u W z c P t IMMA F~ -41 will! / I I / / it•s Mimi = 1, , ~J;/ ; / / U tq N 1 L---_ I I ' i A~wN ~ i rr IV cc Date: May 14, 2003 Agenda Item: I-1 But Oaks Trail City of Eagan Action X Parks and Recreation MEMO Inrornmation Attachments x 1. Mecting Swmmary 2. Preliminary Trail plan 3. Cost Estimates AGENDA ITEM: I-1, BUR OAKS PARK TRAIL PLAN TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS CJ LILLY, PARKS PLANNER ITEM OVERVIEW: The City Council directed staff to conduct a trail study for Bur Oaks Park The APrC is being asked to make recommendation on trail alignment and surfacing based upon input provided by staff and area residents. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: During the public meetings conducted for the proposed Chapel Lane street improvement project, the issue of trails within adjacent Bur Oaks Park was raised. Several residents expressed a desire to see the trail system improved. The City Council subsequently directed that the staff working with APrC, conduct an analysis of the existing trail system, hold a neighborhood informational meeting and prepare a plan for trail improvements. On March 13, 2003, staff conducted a neighborhood informational meeting at the Eagan Municipal Center. Over 300 meeting notices were sent out to residents in the area of Bur Oaks Park. Approximately 3 5 residents attended the meeting. Staff presented an analysis of the existing conditions and gathered the input of the meeting attendees. A meeting of Acquisition Development Sub-committee of the APrC was subsequently held on April 3rd to review the resident input and provide staff with general direction towards the development of alternatives. The issue was presented to the APrC at the regular April meeting held on April 14th, 2003. The APrC recommended the implementation of those improvements determined by staff to be "maintenance" based and concurred with the trail alignment presented by staff. The issue of trail surfacing was delayed until the May meeting to allow the APrC the opportunity to visit the site. ANALYSIS: The existing system of trails appears to be functional but not adequate to meet the desires of the area residents who were in attendance at the neighborhood meeting. Most were in favor of enhancing the trail experience for all users by creating a loop, possibly including a bridge, in the existing lineal system. Many indicated that there was significant use of the informal trail on the east side of the lake, expressing a desire that it be improved. It was noted that there are limitations due to slope and soils particularly on the north and east side. A resident attending the April 14th meeting expressed the opinion that no additional paving should take place. A variety of ancillary issues related to the current conditions of the park have also been brought forward during the review process. While not all are directly related to the issue of trails they are important to the overall quality and function of the park. They include; Additional signage, boundary and entrances Security lights Reinstalling a bench A trash container near the courts Trimming of trees along some corridors Additional mowing of the existing east side trail Monitor off-trail biking, removing jumps Use of rental canoe racks Improved visibility and speed control on west side trail DISCUSSION/ EAVALUATION: The issues identified during the review process can best be classified into two distinct but related categories; 1. Trail Improvements (Longer Term) - The original request of the City Council was that the park trail system be reviewed. Issues in this category are the basis upon which the trail improvement decisions can be made. They generally focus on the alignment and surfacing of proposed and existing trails, and the patterns of trail use. To facilitate and implement concepts for trail improvements will require engineering, design and construction costs that are beyond the realm of the operational budget and may be best suited for possible inclusion in the Park Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Currently $50,000 has been allocated as a "place holder" number if the 2004 CIP. The number would be refined, based upon the chosen alignment and surfacing alternative, prior to the next CIP review. A general cost estimate has been included for reference. Possible surfacing Alternatives; • Natural/turf Inexpensive, minimal run off, flexibility, minimal maintenance, easy to modify Susceptible to wear, erodable once worn, limits some wheeled trail use, uneven • Compacted nular Median priced, ease of installation and repair Erodable, becomes uneven over time, increased maintenance, limits some wheeled use • Bituminous Smooth consistent surface, unlikely to washout, low maintenance, accommodates most uses Higher cost, increases run off 2. Maintenance/Improvement (Shorter Term) - At the recommendation of the APrC, many of the ancillary issues brought forward have been, or will be, addressed this year by staff, through existing maintenance and improvement programs. They include signage, park amenities upgrades, lighting and improved visibility along trails (as listed above). Funding to address the majority of the issues is available through the general operational budget, the exception being security lighting which could be funded through the "small project" allocation in the CIP. /1-• The issue of trails along Chapel lane and Rolling Hills Drive has been discussed with City Engineering staff. A trail in either location would require the use of additional road right of way on the front of residential properties. Connection into the City wide trail system may be most appropriate at the time HWY 149 is improved, as the improvement would most likely include trails. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The Acquisition-Development Subcommittee along with other members of the APrC reviewed the issue at a workshop on April P. The general consensus of the members present included; • A loop trail, possibly including a bridge should be considered • A foot trail was adequate for an access from the east, through the woods • Wet soils, grades, and the need for an easement were deterrents to a northerly trail • Implementation of the short term improvements was advisable • A variety of trail surfaces could be considered • The project should remain in the CIP At the April 14 meeting the APrC agreed in concept with the recommendations of the sub- committee, though the issue of trail surfacing remained unresolved. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: The recommendation of the APrC will be forwarded to the City Council as part of the response to their request for a trail study at Bur Oaks Park. Possible alternatives include; 1. Recommend approval of trail improvements, to include surface upgrades, bridge installation and the construction of new trail segments. Consider funding the trail improvements through possible inclusion in the 2004 Park CIP (To be presented in the spring of 2004). The cost for any security lights to be funded as a small project from the 2003 CIP and maintenance items to be funded through the operational budget. 3. Recommend additional study 4. Recommend that no additional improvements are necessary 5. Other /5 Item: •Z-/J &r(lks /rtfi Attachment # M.errhn9 iumn n j BUR OAKS TRAIL STUDY Public Informational Meeting 3/13/2003 Meeting Note Summary Short Term Imurovements/Maintenance 1. Install signage at trail heads, include "No Vehicles", consider barricade post 2. Install security light near south playground and north entrance 3. Provide boundary signage where applicable • 4. Replace bench in Northwest corner--removed due to damage 5. Install trash container near tennis courts 6. Trim trees to improve visibility at south access (curve) 7. Trim landscape at Chapel lane corner to improve visibility 8. Mow the entire length of trail east of lake 9. Consider a rail and/or speed control on woods trail-hill 10. Monitor "BMX" use, remove jumps when found 11. Additional patrols by Police as possible 12. Provide rental canoe racks Improvements for Consideration 1. Connect trails to the City system, crossing at'149 is difficult (MnDOT considering' the upgrading 149 to allow turn back to County, may include trans and crossings) 2. Secure property on the north end of the lake to allow for a complete loop trail 3. Pave/surface the east side turf trail, consider alternative materials 4. Relocate the west trail to reduce the steep grade through the woods, add a rail 5. Install a bridge over the channel, allow room for canoes to pass Misc. Comments 1. Considerable use of the park by bikes, on and off trail 2. Little interest in the installation of additional amenities, benches etc. 3. Chapel Lane is unsafe for pedestrians Paved Trail Gravel Trail Turf Grass Trail Trail Cost Estimate P 1 $14.50/ L.F. $7.80/ L.F. $2.50/ L.F. THE FOLLOWING PRICES WERE USED TO CALCULATE THE INSTALLATION. Flit w.-1.OA r,•. n•. Upland i )pland Upland BIT. WEAR- TYPE 41 = $45.001 TON Lcvcl I.cvcl Lovcl CLASS 5 AGG. CRUSHED = $16.00/ TON STRUCTURAL FILL = $12.00/ TON $39.70/ L.F. $32.90/ L.F. $32.40/ L.F. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC = $2.00/ S.Y. SILT FENCE _ $2.00/ L.F. TURF GRASS = $0.061 S.F. Fla w _71-111d.' NATIVE GRASS = $0.10/ S.F. THE AMOUNT OF LABOR REQUIRED _ . - , ~ - ~ Lowland lowland Lowland owland . - l..cvcl I.cvcl l..cvd TO INSTALL THE TRAIL WILL VARY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM ONE SITE TO ANOTHER. THE PRICES QUOTED ARE P3 $19.70/ L.F. G3 $13.00/ L.F. I.3 S 10.30/ L.F. FOR EASILY ACCESSIBLE CLEARED SITES. AREAS THAT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LABOR TO PREPARE A Fln w.- i.o a S I T E FOR TRAIL C O N S T R U C T I O N ARE Al_..:.:.= 1:10 1:10 l:lU STEEP SLOPES LOW WETLAND AREAS $19.60/ L.F. $17.80/ L.F. WET & YIELDING SOILS ® $26.30/ L.F. 0 'I'4 WOODED SITES Flnw.-:.o.r EXISTING WOODLAND FOOT TRAIL 1 IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO MACHINERY. 1:5 • 1:5 1:5 HAND LABOR WILL BE REQUIRED. $12.10/ L.F. + HAND LABOR I.5 $9.60/ L.F. + HAND LAI3OR Bur Oaks Park 0 5 10 15 20 25 ' ` ' " 1:3 1:3 Woodland Woodland Trail Stud Graphic Scale in Feet I`ool 'frail Foot Trail Eagan Parks and Recreation Department Director of Parks and Rec. - Ken Vraa Superintendent of Parks - Paul Olson TRAIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: ALL SLOPES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS REPRESENT CROSS SLOPES. TRAILS FOLLOW THE Park Planner/ LA. - C.J. Lilly CONTOUR OF THE LAND. LONGITUDAL SLOPES, THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT A 5% SLOPE OR LESS. MAXIMUM LONGITUDNAL SLOPE FOR PAVED TRAILS SHOULD NOT EXCEED 10%. TRAIL CROSS SLOPE SHOULD Public Comment & Review- March,'03 BE BETWEEN 1 AND 2 PERCENT FOR DRAINAGE. PAVED TRAILS MAY HAVE THEIR CROSS SLOPES SUPER ELEVATED Advisory Parks Commission- April; 03 Ira, M+.4 M;; Item: ear Oak-5 t• ~ 59.s2 120.00 170.00 t 330.00 ~ +70m ,30:00 uo.oo. _ =__cw-uwe ` Attachment #Z. li 11,14 ,30.00 ,30.00 130.00, ,t 0.00 , , 1 .00 13020. ,70,90 $ s ~ ~ • ri. _ t ~ ' ! i Tiaj l flan. 30 ___J ..i ~ ~'t•~. 170.00 +70.00 '~c - :ia ' b 17500 I} 1 I i 'moos s,om 8' 17080' 70.00 170 30.00 ,30.00 130.00 130.00 V ` 8 8,522 OOai L EG END AG I U 'rV,S A G 7P' tO 'T'RAIL d -?ROPOSE08'fAVED TRAIL 4 + D D D PROPOSES TURF TRAIL. Q 210.00 c. 220.85 - ue23 • • • • • ~EOPDSED NATURhI. SutzFACE TQR IL Q r PROPOSE O PEI), 5RI b r.F- arv , mar a ~~5S K+ son OrtYOIEAam 1 107.77 ,80.73 • • ei 8 7 qty a' h ,t@ J 1 s ° 0000 1 • • m•, ti~i '*4s1 814. i i.Y,g$ 22 • 1 • Ram 8 \ 1186 o. • ~ •le~ CmoF EAWN ~ • • • of • • e• • g 3.00 1 140 ' •2..~ ~',t7.38 ~ \ f . i 8 9728 ~ . J i i n ~ Lw~' 8• $ g f X77 , \\~~°b' J 8 • ,S s ! g $ 1 \ y,p. 9027 „ , .gam - 2 +~op ~ ,o1aa. M / • ~ t\~ i , 3 ~~i~'O ~ 1 f•°,~~s ~J'v `~\4 ~i ~ • ~ 55.72 t 7c°•W G \t+1 + c <zr 7,0 Tao • 9$ ti U + +aacy Clti r? r \ + x y lRf q Q t 1 107-M 03,10 I,. IS 3 $ g ,~,xsat q: 1 t ~0-•I ,t ip „ i \ +00.00 MOD ,0000 4&35 si. oo as.oo 1.020 ' oo • Is - ----------------L--HI E DR. - ! n+ . 2 1 8529 : 95 00 j 0.527 - ,250, 1~ ~,.Ag~ A• w $ I 20.00 ' ` . • " ~6a' i .85 188.87 121.03 53.27 85.00 6500 85.78 8120 AM 38.97 'fib ,8 ell • • 170 l1 d+ . 47-11 G-A ,1" . ;L 590•a mti ~1.~ 100., 100.12 LA d~S q g X012 2 8 77 's, 100 I , 1 .00 OUI=C 111 I t Op 8 eau 5009 5020 p dt 1 ; 1 'a I :0 , I ~1z A I f .w , s2 8613 00.99 ' 80.00 5020 03 Item:l_/ j jjup, OAKS TR4ic_ Attachment #,3. 0451 e rm,4s BUR OAKS PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE TRAIL PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE: The recommended plan calls for 2,610 feet of new paving for an eight foot wide bituminous trail loop, this includes the southern portion of the east trail corridor (1,725 feet) and the east portion of the central trail corridor (885 feet), this plan also includes a 40' pedestrian bridge. The recommended plan includes a turf trail, (815 feet) connecting the northern portion of the east trail to Chapel Lane. The distance between the two points where the new proposed trail corridor intersects the existing paved trails is 1,550 feet. Therefore, this new trail creates a loop that is 4,200 feet long,( 1,550'+2,610'+40') or nearly 8/10 of a mile in length. Cost estimate for the 8 foot wide trail, is based on how much site preparation is required to develop a reasonably sound and firm trail foundation and the surfacing materials. Cost estimates for various trail sections will vary based on the quantity of materials required for their construction. Not included in ' this plan are the following elements: North trail corridor," (no trail easement), west portion of central trail, (steep trail bypass) and the woodland trail. EAST CENTRAL TRAIL WITH BRIDGE: Since the west portion of the central trail corridor was not included, the access point for this trail segment has been moved east to the west side of the tennis courts. Beginning at the southwest comer of the tennis courts, the trail goes around the tennis courts across the left softball outfield and across a lowland area to the proposed pedestrian bridge crossing. After crossing the bridge, the trail corridor will intersect with the east trail alignment. COST ESTIMATE FOR EAST CENTRAL TRAIL THIS TRAIL CORRIDOR IS 885 FEET IN LENGTH; IT IS COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS. LENGTH DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL 290 FEET TRAIL- P1 $14.50/FT. $4205 365 FEET TRAIL-P2 $39.70/FT. $14,490 230 FEET TRAIL- P3 $19.70/FT. $4,531 $23,226 40 FOOT BRIDGE + $27,500 TOTAL= $50,726 NOTE: The pedestrian bridge cost is based on conversations with representatives of pedestrian bridge suppliers. Actual cost for the proposed bridge installation is based on variables which at this time are not known. The next step in this process is to order soil borings in the area where the bridge abutments would be located. This information will clarify the bridge cost, since supporting concrete abutments can be as much or more than the cost for an entire bridge. EAST TRAIL The southern portion of the east trail shall be paved and the northern portion improved as a turf trail based on recommendations received. There are a considerable number of lowland areas and steep side slopes that must be mitigated to achieve a good trail base. COST ESTIMATE FOR SOUTH PORTION OF EAST TRAIL THIS TRAIL CORRIDOR IS 1,725 FEET IN LENGTH; IT IS COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS. LENGTH DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL 400 FEET TRAIL- P1 $14.50/FT. . $5,800 525 FEET . TRAIL- P2 $39.70/FT. $20,843 600 FEET TRAIL- P3 $19.70/FT. -$11,820 200 FEET TRAIL-P4 $26.30/FT. $5:260 TOTAL= $43,723 COST ESTIMATE FOR NORTH PORTION OF EAST TRAIL THIS TRAIL CORRIDOR IS 815 FEET IN LENGTH; IT IS COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS. LENGTH DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL 230 FEET TRAIL- G1 $7.80/FT. $1,794 135 FEET TRAIL- T3 $10.30/FT $1,391 450 FEET TRAIL- T2 $32.40/FT. $14,580 TOTAL= $17,765 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY: TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT NORTH PORTION OF EAST TRAIL= $17,765 (UNPAVED) SOUTH PORTION OF EAST TRAIL= $43,723 (PAVED) EAST PORTION OF CENTRAL TRAIL= $50,726 (PAVED) ' %c- TOTAL= $112,214 CRANE Crane Creek Association 10 k-A Eagan, Minnesota CREEK May 7, 2003 Lynn Kosloske 585 Chapel Lane Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Ms. Kosloske: Thank you for informing our association of the proposed changes to Burr Oaks Park in your letter dated May 7, 2003. The Crane Creek Association was not notified of the proposed changes, nor do I personally recall receiving such notification. Crane Creek Association was completed in 2002 and includes 64 homes on Crane Creek Place and Crane Creek Lane. Many of our homeowners enjoy the proximity to Burr Oaks Park and use the facilities frequently. On behalf of the Board of Directors for the Crane Creek Association, we wholeheartedly support the efforts by our neighborhood residents to upgrade the facilities within Burr Oaks Park. We are in agreement to expand the multi-use trail system to encircle the lake, the lighting additions, and signage improvements. We believe the improvements are deserving particularly because highways 55 and 149 border our community and make it unsafe (especially for children) to cross over to established multi-use trails on Pilot Knob Road and Lone Oak Road. We sincerely hope the proposal will be passed and look forward to the changes in 2004. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our property manager, Susan Baker, at Wensmann Management Company, 1895 Plaza Drive, Suite 200, Eagan, MN 55122. Sincerely, e"'4~0 P'24c&~) Kevin P. Freborg President Crane Creek Association ti l19/v3 t~r1- `lam t - rYju am ct - ie n-~- Cc - -iu S i nc A ` ; , f\4k.?-) .Q~tapvne4S c c\ Cj)o,~ La. : o.o (,ire, cyb di) ~ 1v.c ~S St~rre~vx,~u? P43 A Lfr\ S~ckQ }s5GPI(r&. !G - tom ° 7Uia ~ Burr Oaks Park Petition 5/7/03 We the undersigned support Eagan's Park & Rec. improvement plan for Burr Oaks Park in the year 2004. We support the paved trail on the south side of the park for multiple use of the park and for the safety of residents walking on Chapel Lane. Name: Address: Signature: S(. CL 'I (1 y 1 S.S I I r./A-" 1111N 5o3 Cti'Po'- c r cc / , 7 s-j 21, 06 ~Ve t. ~J ^cI J L G~ c~ z. -mow. 'Cl.r~ (TC4 ,L KPH' 1 A U r c:ti b/d SVO CA Ct C' e~ ~f ~r Lklb 6SIL'ar- sg~- a ~a L!c 51Ic a°-~ Burr Oaks Park Petition 5/7/03 We the undersigned support Eagan's Park & Rec. improvement plan for Burr Oaks Park in the year 2004. We support the paved trail on the south side of the park for multiple use of the park and for the safety of residents walking on Chapel Lane. Name: Address: Signature: ,5 p L C,/, . e, V C`~ ~ e Lq~ tip. - wc Burr Oaks Park Petition 5/7/03 We the undersigned support Eagan's Park & Rec. improvement plan for Burr Oaks Park in the year 2004. We support the paved trail on the south side of the park for multiple use of the park and for the safety of residents walking on Chapel Lane. Name: Address: Sign Q~ c~C' c~~, r& 3 I f Lip. L Joy /4,27-TV 5 33~.~,P~~ u' -rec e ar~e~1 ~fzn~cf~(~t~3/~ kOIL Z-/l) , /L~LZ 7 ~L 1 ?--,d xz e 3y3/Z Date: May 19,2003 Agenda Item: 1-2; Alternative Funding Update/Discussion Action ' J~~-.~ Information City of Eagan Attaents Parks and Recreation MEMO AGENDA ITEM: 1-2; ALTERNATIVE FUNDING UPDATE/DISCUSSION TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION BETH WIELDE, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROJECTS ITEM DESCRIPTION: Staff is seeking input from the Advisory Parks Commission about how to proceed in revising the Alternative Funding Study. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2003, the APrC met with City Council to discuss current issues and get direction on a number of projects. One of the items reviewed included the Alternative Funding Analysis compiled by staff using APrC input. Attachment 1 is an excerpt from the minutes of the special meeting. ANALYSIS In order to refine the study, staff needs APrC input as to the best way to proceed. In particular, what elements the APrC wants included in the analysis, and what the outcome of the revision should be. The APrC should help determine, where appropriate, the best methods for achieving this outcome, specifically statistical models. If new material is to be introduced in the analysis, the APrC should provide a methodology, detailing up front elements they want included in the analysis. If the revision is to include discussion of philosophical matters, the APrC will need to determine how to approach this and what should be included in the report and report this to staff. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION 1. Direct staff on how to proceed in revisions for the Alternative Funding study. 2. Table the issue. /6 MEMO city of eagan TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: TOM COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 14, 2003 SUBJECT: CENTRAL MAINTENANCE ADDITION - TREE MITIGATION AND WETLAND REPLACEMENT BACKGROUND The City's Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) is situated on 20 acres of unplatted property located in the southwest corner of Yankee Doodle Rd. (Co. Rd. 28) and Coachman Rd. This is the primary facility for the City's Streets, Utilities, Equipment, Forestry, Water Resources and Parks Operation and Maintenance Divisions. Also located on this site are 4 separate well houses and a 12 million gallon per day (MGD) water treatment facility. This Coachman Water Treatment Plant (WTP) will be expanded to a 20 MGD capacity including an addition for the Utility Maintenance Administration, Treatment and Field Operations activities and a vehicle storage garage. A contract is scheduled to be awarded June 17, 2003 with completion in June 2005. This expansion will be primarily located on the south and west side of the existing facility. It will also include a 2 million gallon buried water reservoir to be located on the north side. Combined with the projected future 12,000 sf cold storage building and required open space operations/staging yard, it was necessary for the City to purchase additional property from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to the west. Taking into consideration the various property development constraints (topography, gas pipeline easements, wetlands, residential developments, etc.), the City identified a 3.93 acre parcel (170' x 870') along its west boundary. BCBS has received preliminary approval for their 96 ac. Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of an office/business campus (four development phases) and a residential component adjacent to and west of the City's CMF. One of the conditions of this PUD approval is the need to construct a connector road as a secondary outlet from the BCBS development to Coachman Rd. through the City's property. The only feasible location for this connector road is along the north side of the WTP expansion and the south side of the existing wetland (Pond CP-2) adjacent to Yankee Doodle Rd. LAND ACQUISTION AGREEMENT As a result of extended negotiations for the acquisition of the 3.6 ac parcel from BCBS, a purchase agreement was drafted identifying various obligations of each party. These are summarized as follows: 1. Conveyance of Property. BCBS will convey fee title to 3.93 acres of land per a survey prepared by the City. 2. Platting of Property. The City will include this parcel in its overall plat of the Central Maintenance Addition. This plat will also dedicate the necessary public right of way (0.647 ac.) for BCBS's PUD required street connection to Coachman Rd. 3. Construction of Connector Rd. The City will construct the Connector Rd. from Coachman Rd to the west boundary of the newly acquired property under the contract for the WTP expansion. This new road will also provide a secondary access for the City's new WTP and existing maintenance operations. 4. Tree Mitigation. The 3.93 ac parcel is part of a 75 ac significant woodlands on BCBS property. The entire area of the proposed parcel is wooded with a variety of deciduous trees. Much of the understory is the undesirable invasive Buckthorn. The acquisition parcel is proposed to be cleared and regraded to match the adjacent CMF elevations in order to accommodate a future cold storage building. A 40' buffer will be preserved along the. west edge. The attached memo from City Forester Hove documents the related mitigation requirements. Since there is no room on the City's CMF property, BCBS will agree to perform this mitigation as a part of, and in addition to, their future phased development obligations. 5. Wetland Replacement. Approximately 6,582 sf of wetland will be filled and another 4,077 sf will be excavated to provide additional pond storage capacity, resulting in a total wetland impact of approx. 10,659 sf. According to the required 2:1 Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules, 21,318 sf (0.49 ac) of replacement wetland will have to be created. BCBS will agree to perform this replacement as a part of, and in addition to, their future phased development obligations. This replacement will have to be approved by the City. However, because their development plans have not been finalized to the extent and within the time necessary to provide the required detailed replacement plans, the City could apply to the State of Minnesota to withdraw existing credits from Eagan's wetland bank account. Then, the BCBS wetland replacement would be approved by the City if the State accepts the replacement to be deposited into the wetland bank. This will effectively replace the credits used for this project. PROPOSED ACTION Recommend approval to the City Council to authorize the use of existing credits from Eagan's Wetland Bank to replace the wetland impacts for City project 868 (Water Treatment Plant Expansion) and require Blue Cross Blue Shield to perform all required Tree Mitigation and Wetland Replacement to City standards as a defined plan element of developing the overall Blue Cross Blue Shield Planned unit Development (PUD). I would be happy to discuss this issue in further detail with the APrC at their convenience. Please let me know if additional information is necessary or would be helpful. Att: Proj 868 site plan layout Cc: Ken Vraa, Parks & Rec Dir. Wetland impact graphic Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coord. Tree mitigation memo Greg Hove, City Forester Wayne Schwanz, Utility Supt. 1~ j , • Item: J-1, Cen-lr4/ kaiA#. Add Attachment Ptellmtnlzr Draujin5s / POO, _ _ - =89:51 - .S0~30" 869.44 J~/\\ N mc) .1 or 13 < -y EAST LINE OF /2 OF NWl/4 ;16-27-23 " -•1 coot . ;W1 ' 2 \ \ ' ST-LINE: a.. t + i - y ` I } ` _ _ r Y DIP _ A I• l ocz6'IO - o)S ld,p` -p t '~l ~ :.D O,.- ..'j ~~ti• ~L I Via„ ~-.:,,T>a- ~ 1 . ' it - } I• Fir ~ ~ l ;r_• 'mr r _ 1 P]p - 1 1 >s .g 1E PUN SEH FU NO. A-EACAN000400 ""'['•'r""'• TM'' '"O "<O"~'101' CITY PRO.ECT NO. BBB NORTH WATER TREATMENT ISSUE BY: NOV 13, 2002 PREQ 1 INARY PLANT EXPANSION n o JI- DRAW B1: JB DRAWING FOR THE CITY OF EAGAN. MINNESOTA 9,a1 EWbll HwWIen. bc.O tSEM) uAnN own: o[scAVnou a 1 ' ? ( 414 ;i~! < '/;'..j r/ 1 I,~ c in ; J i;• ~ 1r it F" !{li !I W=W OZ N ~F II INK gg~ , r• ,i• r' 1 ~t{js 4 is U try - 1 'i ; zY; Ir' rt ll U KjW'-' 3~O F- cc 6WEn I!'?'1~17,'; U 023 i = ! r r ; ! am r., s All !t!iff(LLL'1' ij'j~';itI. c* f ? a' res s IPT t 111 ( d: 'IF I I : Fj~ J: 21 Pf; 1 1 4.2767.. _ - - - 1 77: V7 ca r i ~ if I ,t4i ~ .ilk b~•/ ~ v Yv,~~oooxrDV3\tul\sana\rooo\xrJVYUrwu\M `sr.rooMai\wW\xrov34vlxw\i a9r: ala,. Y3i11 „0 tli L4 Lo-P1-11 lava Item: J- 2j `e,Jra I fain{- Add. Attachment #2, lre,. PreserYahon s a - C3 P2Ss ) 1VJJN:MV city of eagan TO: PAUL OLSON,, PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPERTENDENT FROM: GREGG HOVE, SUPEVISOR OF FORESTRY DATE: May 7, 2003 SUBJECT: REVISED - TREE PRESERVATION STATISTICS - MAINTENANCE FACILITY EXPANSION USING A 40 FOOT PRESERVATION BUFFER Attached is a revised spreadsheet with information pertaining to tree preservation statistics relating to the expansion of the City of Eagan Maintenance Facility. On this revised inventory significant vegetation has been preserved within a forty foot wide area on the west and north sides of the city property. This significant tree inventory indicates that there are 189 significant trees located within the lot (please refer to the attached spreadsheet and tree inventory list). The entire area is proposed to be cleared with an exception of 40 feet running the entire length of the west property line and 40 feet along the entire length of the north property line. The proposed status of each tree can be seen on the tree list as save trees are highlighted green, while remove trees are highlighted orange. Off-site trees are indicated with a red line. With the proposed removal conditions, 142 (75.1 of the existing significant trees will be removed. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance, allowable removal for this type of development is set at 30% (57 significant trees) of the existing significant trees. With a proposed removal greater than the allowable removal, resulting tree mitigation calculates to 192 Category B trees (2.5" caliper deciduous trees or 6' height coniferous trees) or a cash equivalent of $57,600.00. (Cash equivalent is calculated at $120.00 per caliper inch of all required category B trees). Feel free to contact me with any questions pertaining to tree preservation. I:\ghove\2003fi1e\treepres\Individual Tree Pres Stat at Maint Fac Expansion - 5-7-03 MAINT NCE FACILITY INDIVIDUAL TREE INVENTORY - CALCULATF VORKSHEET 5-7-03 plan with 40 foot wide preservation zones Development Type = Single lot, single-phase, Commercial Existing Allowable Actual Actual Required Cash Trees Removal Removal Preserved Mitigation Equivalent 189 Trees 30% 142 Trees 47 Trees 192 B trees $57,600 57 Trees 75.1% 24.9% MITIGATION CALCULATIONS (Applicant to mitgate: 85 Trees) Category of Tree Number of Mitigation Total To Be Removed Trees Removed Per Tree (B) Mitigation (B) Specimen Trees 1 6 6 Hdwd Deciduous 21-30" 8 4 32 Soft Deciduos >24" 1 4 4 Conifer > 24" (12" dbh) 0 4 0 Hdwd Deciduos 6-20" 75 2 150 Soft Deciduous 1224" 0 2 0 Conifer 12-24' (<12":dbh) 0 2 0 total 85 TOTAL MITIGATION 192 Category B Trees MITIGATION SUMMARY Number of Mitigation Number of "B" Tree Requirement Cash Equivalent Trees Required Trees Provided Balance (B Trees) Balance 192 0 192 $57,600 NOTES: The tabular inventory list shows tree numbers from 1 to 245. The difference (between 245 trees and the 189 trees used in this calculation is that there are 45 trees located off-site, and there are gaps in the numbering sequence due to field inventory procedures (lost tree tags, etc.). . ' I • _ - - +G , j I BITUMINOUS REMOVAL -2 (T 7B 00 _e- 1 7t a °m .Tm~sa as da a9s_ea c9"raw3y' REMOVE rq r WATERMAIN v- J + yc k SITUMNOUS REMOVAL ..b~0 ' : 1 - w CLEAR AND GRUB PAID BY TREE EAST & T ° 10 SOUTH OF THIS LINE AND BY THE ACRE -1T 1 Ms.M WEST AND SOUTH OF DASHED UNE. AND g ,J-CE 0 BY THE ACRE WEST AND NORTH OF LINE. INA T" J O °UI iP SERV. ~Q D B ;VC C Ig, ¦ REMOVE SIDEWALK 30' DIP AA I J+• I u 9 . ho ! REMOVE CB'S REMOVE + l M ABANDON WAiERMA1N ®qs# ¦ 8 ,~q R lJ' qq0~' ¦!,p `S SSEE STORM ! 1 F Ids V _ 1 p / .f yo m REMOVE SMUT Y TREE NVENTORY CK CHERRY ,0c I ti a P/•~ % ° 80 BUR OAK 1P~00 . ( 1 • ' ;f XXKXd4Xl iDBBHOt _ BX BOXELDER ` ti 0..i• ! + EASTERN COTTONWOOD lyV EC a REMOVE MH D' - GA GREEN ASH "CO-199 ¦ Y~c°y- ° / 6' O~ HB HACKBERRY l• /0~/~1 7'E S 1j BITUMINOUS REMOVAL ERC EASTERN RED CEDAR ~•r 19'q. p yye H M I RD RED OAK R00 2 SE SIBERIAN ELM o e/ aNOUs WO WHITE OAK ties' a ka G4 '1~ ¦ _ V hq QA5,01, A- 2 / css O °yo REMOVAL LE 0~ 0t -i BIT4MMCU5 ' ® F ~y 4 AAAAAA ABANDON PIPE XXXXXX - REMOVE PIPE REMOVE CONCRETE CURB oqv Mlyy+ SAO ® ® J 4-0 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT \y > e ° `a ¦ % REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK O` P o ~q'sF' (8.a, WgQ„g~ ¦ BV / X - CLEAR k GRUB TREE nj 0 n B 0.O ~ ~ >~I,iP ¦ / ti~ / aO'RO ¦ I / BIiUMM01;5 w ¦ q di ,01 O (y~~" P': s ~70'NO i",c' ~5~~'SSTA°'dddk[p ~ M61pW, 0G ¦ 1 (.aF ~0vF ry~PO / I / / NORTHERN NATJRAL O EASEMENT of O^/ ¦ / N / ' . of OE- ~dl Dam: May 19, 2003 Agenda Item: J-2; Donor Naming Policy Development Action t z a.~. Information 4 City of Eagan Attachments X 1. Survey Results Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Edina Donor Policy 3. Prototype Policy AGENDA ITEM: J-2; DONOR NANIING POLICY DEVELOPMENT TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION BETH A. WIELDE, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROJECTS jITEM DESCRIPTION: Analysis of Donor Naming Policies in the Twin Cities Metro Area BACKGROUND Council has recently charged the APrC to discuss donor naming in conjunction with contributions toward major park amenities. In recent years, there have been some significant contributions toward park amenities in Eagan, but no clear policy guiding the acceptance and recognition of these donations. Council has requested that a policy be discussed to help with donor recognition, to provide consistency in practice when large contributions are received, specifically for park amenities. For example, Coca-Cola contributed funds for scoreboards at Northview Park. Donor recognition was undertaken through recognition on the scoreboard itself, rather than re- naming the park or its amenities. The Rotary Club made a significant contribution to the bandshell at the new Central Park. The amenity was then named "Rotary Bandshell at Central Park" in recognition of their contribution. To assist the APrC with this charge, staff asked other communities about their experiences with donor naming policies and procedures. On April 1, 2003 staff sent a survey to 47 Metro area communities and 28 in non-Metro Minnesota communities. By April 15", 25.3% of surveys had been returned. Survey Overview Survey analysis (attachment A) indicates that respondents do not generally have a separate policy dealing specifically with donor naming of park amenities. The exception is Edina, who has guidelines regarding recognition policies, though does not include a specific clause for donor naming. The Edina policy can be seen in Attachment B. Although the survey did not yield results that have salient application to the discussion of donor naming as a separate policy, there are many examples of donor naming and donation procedures that may be helpful as the APrC investigates this matter. Iq, DISCUSSION Land Issues vs. Financial Contributions For most survey respondents, donor naming has meant donations for park land specifically. The donation then falls under their Park Naming Policy. Given the percentage of land already built in Eagan, there is little land left to be developed into completely new, freestanding parks. Thus the issue of donor naming and donation acceptance policies become focused on amenities within Eagan" s park system, rather than park naming itself. Expectation One of the most delicate aspects of receiving a donation is how to recognize the donor in a way that satisfies both the donor and the City. Occasionally, a donor will contribute with specific expectations for recognition, whether it is placement of a corporate or agency logo on an amenity paid for by the contribution, or naming an entire amenity after the donor. Donor Naming There is a significant difference between donor naming and donor recognition. Donor naming allows the donor to actually apply their name to the amenity, thus creating long-term recognition for the donation. The local example of the Rotary Bandshell at Central Park is a prime example of this. They contributed significant funds toward the construction of the facility, and will receive perpetual recognition for their contribution. When the community speaks of a donor-named amenity, the donor name will be attached in the manner of the Excel Energy Center in St. Paul, the Target Center in Minneapolis, or the Kiwanis Park in Little Falls. Donor Recognition Donor recognition still allows the donor to attach their name to the amenity, but it does not integrate the name into the general colloquialism of the community. Recognition typically takes the form of a sign, a plaque, integration into marketing materials, special mentions during presentations, etc. Although their name does not become immediately identifiable with the amenity, the recognition is still very evident, and the logo will be seen by the target audience. Donor recognition is especially effective if the donation is one that may not be sustainable, such as a rotating fund, a grant, or a one-time gift that did not substantially cover the cost of the amenity. Donor naming may be more appropriate in cases where the project would not have been possible without the donation. Prototype Policy A prototype policy was drafted for the APrC to look over, for understanding how a donor naming policy might look. The prototype is intended to address some of the major elements of a naming policy, issues that the APrC and Council may be faced with as naming opportunities present themselves. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION 1. APrC begins discussion into a naming rights policy. 2. Other. 2O, Item:`f -Z~ pr dOtn i nq P (iey oit of ea Attachment # s'urvcy 1Cewl 9 9an parlu and recreation ~/S pafs} DONOR NAMING POLICY SURVEY MAY 19, 2003 In the spring of 2003, the City Council charged the Advisory Parks Commission to offer input into a possible donor naming policy for park amenities. To assist the Parks Commission in this study, staff posed some fundamental questions about donor naming to other Minnesota cities. - 75 surveys were distributed to a vast array of cities, from the small to the large, from urban to rural communities. The population base of respondents is illustrated in Chart A: Respondent Population Base. Of these 75, 19 were returned, a 25% return rate. St. Paul and Minneapolis were contacted, given their experience with such amenity naming issues, but neither city was able to respond to the survey. The questions are meant to assist the Advisory Parks Commission with their discussion into donor naming of park amenities in the community. Chart A: Respondent Population Base 65,000 60,000- 55,000- 50,000- 45,000-/ 40,000- 35,000- 41 30,000- 25,000- 20,000 -g Li s F 15,000 10,000 0 _ +D O L 5,000 co O > E U W (9 U; E 0 -0 o aNi c X it N LU CL O N N 8 4 2 General Findings: • 63% have no provisions, either informally or within a policy, for donor naming of parks or park facilities. 16% do include some form of naming policy in their parks/ facility naming processes, and 16% occasionally allow donor naming, when it is proved by Council or specifically requested by the donor. • 84% have no formal policy for donor naming. 16% have provisions for naming included in their general Park Naming Policy." No respondent had a stand- alone policy that specifically deals with donor naming. • Despite the low percentage (16%) of respondents who have stipulations for donor naming, 37% have parks or facilities that have been named after donors. • There was no specific trend in responses as to whether the respondent, in their personal opinion, felt that donor naming have been positive or negative. There were arguments for and against, but generally it appears to be a positive when the community is involved and the donor contributes enough to significantly reduce the overall project cost. One city noted that naming after a living or active entity may cause problems if that person or entity falls into disrepute. It can also be detrimental if facility/ park maintenance above and beyond normal is expected from the donor. • Most respondents have not heard positive or negative response from the community (74%). Of those who have, 16% have heard positive feedback, 5% negative feedback, and 5% have experienced a split. • 39% of respondents either have a stipulation for park/ amenity donor naming or may be considering one in the near future. Given the sensitivity of the issues and current financial conditions, some cities are looking in the matter. 4 3 1. What is the process your department has for handling N/A donations for Parks? 11% Applied Other Directly All survey respondents indicate following 11% 31% a specific process when donations are received from private or corporate entities. Six broad categories have been created in an attempt to spot trends in donation Council recipient processes. This does not mean 16% that there is no overlap in these categories; cities very likely use more than one method to handle donations, Recognition Policy/ 15% depending on external factors including Program 16% • Amount given, • Whether the donor has identified specific projects, • Whether City Council has the sole determination of where donor funds are used. Applied Directly- 31 % of respondents apply donations directly to specific projects, either at the suggestion of the donor, Council, or the Parks department. E "All donations are accepted by City Council. If the donations are for a specific Andover park, it will be identified and kept track of by the finance (department) as such for that park for which it is intended." Fridley "Donations are designated for specific projects or equipment for the park system." Maple Grove "We receive the donation and allocate the money to the intended program account." "If a group approaches us, we work out the details and place it on our CIP. Some project in the past, like a batting cage for instance, bypass the CIP and Prior Lake commence as soon as our crews are able to get to them. If there is a significant case donation, we like the donating body to suggest possible projects for funding." "For general donation, the City asks if there is a specific project or special St. Michael purpose that it should be applied towards. If not, then the Park Board makes the determination. We always provide the donor with a recipet and a letter of appreciation from the Park Board and Council." "Usually when we receive a donation, the donor has somewhat of an idea on Stewartville what they want the money to be used for and have always been good about taking idea/s suggestions from our park board, who always asks the opinion of " the public works department. 4 4 Recognition- 15% of respondents discuss the donation process cumulating in semi- permanent or permanent recognition. Blaine "Recognition of donation in park b plaque or si na e." Typically donations are well under $500. Hardly near the cost of a park. If anything- a significant donation might merit a brass id tag on a bench... Parks Robbinsdale have been named for YEARS!! No place to put a new park. Last park (made by purchasing and removing 4 houses at an intersection and putting in a park) was named after the chair of the HRA who came up with the idea. Rosemount "We have a Memorial Donation program for benches, trees, etc. Policy/Program- 16% of respondents cite consultation of established programs and policies when determining how donor funds are allotted. Burnsville "I have attached our Park Naming Policy. We use this and judgment regarding the acceptance of donations and naming a park in honor of someone." Cottage "We accept most donations as long as they do not have any long-term maintenance costs or replacement costs. We are in the process of developing Grove a city-wide donation program." Edina Submitted current donations policy Council- 16% state the Council is responsible for the acceptance of formal donations. "The City will accept donations from individuals or organizations for specific Alexandria improvements made to a park or parks. It is held in account until such improvement is implemented." Elk River "We accept them at a Council meeting and thank the group. We do not/ cannot per statute fundraise." Roseville "All donations are formally accepted by the City Council." 5 Other, Acceptance and Catalog- 11 % have "Other" methods of donation acceptance, including general acceptance and development of a donation catalog where donors can choose park amenities. In such catalogs, donation amounts are delineated for specific items. Golden "City staff can not solicit donations, but if a group offers a donation it can be Valley accepted by the City." "We are in the process of establishing a "Lasting Legacy" program. The brochure is attached. This program will allow individuals or groups to donate items to the park system. The city has not taken the step to figure out how much money each individual item, such as a tree, park bench, or litter Mahtomedi containers cost. We would like to have that information available so the person making the donation would know how much an item would be and if their donation would cover the cost. I assume that once a donation is made it would have to be accepted by resolution by the City Council. The Parks Commission may also play a role in recommending acceptance of the donation. We have not had any donations under this program yet." Not Applicable- 11% did not responds to the question or the question was not applicable to the municipality situation. Bloomington Not Applicable Little Falls No Response 2. Is there any instance in which you allow corporate or private entity (i.e. citizen NIA donor) donor naming for ark facilities 5% P Sometimes or amenities? 16% Most respondents indicated that donor naming is not commonplace in their communities. Many of those responding "No" have indicated that this situation has not presented itself as of yet. Yes 16% No No- 63% of the respondents indicated that they 63% do not currently have any stipulation in City policy that allows for corporate donor naming. E I "If an individual or organization purchases a piece of equipment and requests Alexandria signage or recognition it is up to them to purchase signage to that effect. They are informed that the parks department will not replace or maintain signage. Si na a is to be minimal and placed on equipment." Blaine "Have not gotten in to that." Bloomington No Edina "No policy in place regarding naming rights, however, our Park Board has suggested the topic." Elk River No Fridley No- "Not to date." Golden No- "No such policy." Valley Mahtomedi No-'We have not had this situation come up." Maple Grove No Robbinsdale No-(see Question #9 Rosemount No- "Only within the program mentioned." St. Michael No Yes- 16% of respondents have indicated that they do, in most cases, allow such naming opportunities. "We have several parks where the land was dedication by a family and the Burnsville park named after a family/ family member: e.g. Wolk Park, Rudy Kraemer Nature Preserve, Sue Fischer Memorial Park." Cottage "Yes" (policy attached) Grove Roseville "See attached policy" Sometimes-16% say that they may occasionally allow donor naming. "For the most part, the answer would be no. I know of only 2 cases. One of the cases was due to a traffic accident death of a Park Commission member. Andover The other one was due to a long time property owner/farmer that sold property to the city for the development of a park at a reasonable price without having to go through condemnation." Little Falls "The City Council would consider." Prior Lake "Some donations.have specifically requested donor naming. Not Applicable- The situation was not applicable to 5% of respondents. Stewartville Not Applicable 3. If so, how do you determine when you will allow the naming to occur? As seen in question 2, most respondents do not have specific stipulations for donor naming. The table below describes when parks are named via request. Alexandria "The Park Board must approve request." Burnsville "It is a judgment call, using the Park Naming Policy as a guideline." Cottage Grove See attached policy "We have a park, street, and public place naming committee comprised of Prior Lake two appointed Advisory Parks Committee members and two City Council members. " Roseville See attached policy 8 4. Does your City have a formal policy or PNP-Land or ordinance language for or against corporate Financial and private entity donor naming at park Donor 16% facilities? Several cities have indicated that they have policies established for naming new parks in the community.' Policies cover the process of how parks are named, and in some cases, discuss park name generation. No- 84% of respondents indicated that they either do not have a formal Park Naming Policy or do not No or N/A include stipulation for donor naming accompanying 84% a financial or land donation. No- "We have no formal policy in regard to this matter. We request they Alexandria appear before the Park Board for consideration and approval. Requests are reviewed on a one-on-one basis." Andover No formal policy. Blaine No Bloomington None Edina "There is no standing policy." Elk River No Fridley No Golden Valley No Little Falls No Mahtomedi No Maple Grove No Robbinsdale "No- hasn't been an issue." Rosemount No Roseville No St. Michael "No, although we do allow advertising in Community Parks- ordinance language shown (in attachment)." Stewartville No formal policy. PNP (Park Naming Policy), Land or Financial Donor- 16% of respondents say there is a stipulation for donors when it comes to naming parks or park amenities. The policies generally state that the naming comes after a significant land or financial donation. Burnsville "We only have the Parks Naming Policy." Cottage Grove "Yes" (see attached policy) Prior Lake "Not specific to corporate donations." Prior Lake attached a policy for private donations. 9 Five respondents attached their park naming policy with their completed survey. The following chart details specific provisions in their policies: s- . Histor al Land` Finaru as Land L b inl Y , Fi urel } s Utnr x,<Donation Donation. Evora. ' Features N'hnod Burnsville X X X X X Colloquialism Cottage X X X X X Grove Prior Lake X X X X Roseville X X X X X 100% 75% 50% 75% 75% 100% Burnsville- Aside from the typical criteria or donations, historic figures, (and and topographic features, and naming after subdivisions, nearby streets, etc., Burnsville allows parks to be named if an informal site name develops as a colloquialism by neighbors. Cottage Grove- The Cottage Grove policy states that parks named after people must meet certain criteria. Foremost, the person must be at least six months deceased. They must have one or more of the following criteria; at least ten years of service to the community, show outstanding assistance or support for the park system, or be a historical figure or family. Edina (not listed above)- Edina's donor policy is separate from their park naming practices. The donor policy does not have a provision for naming of a park or park facility. Roseville- Careful consideration is given to naming parks after individuals (alive or deceased), groups, associations, or businesses. These will only be considered if there is a significant land or financial contribution. St. Michael (not listed above)- St. Michael's City ordinance allows for advertising in parks. Advertising space is recommended to Council by the Park Board, who regulates the type, location, visual impacts, etc. of advertising. Land features may include topographic details, water bodies, proximity interest such as being adjacent to a waterfall, etc. 2 Location/ Neighborhood- Parks may be named after adjacent streets, subdivisions, schools, neighborhoods, etc. 10 5. Do you currently have any facilities that N/A have been named after a corporate or 11 private donor? Even in cases where municipalities did not have a specific policy for donor naming or include a No provision in their parks naming policy (84%), Yes 52% several respondents had parks that were named ° after significant donors. 37 No- 52% of respondents do not currently have a park named specifically after a donor. Blaine No Edina "We currently do not have anything named after corporate sponsors." Elk River No Fridley No Golden None Valley Mahtomedi No Maple Grove None Robbinsdale Not really (see notes) Rosemount No St. Michael No Yes- 37% of respondents have a park named after significant contributors, either land or financial. Alexandria Yes- Noonan Park, Knute Nelson Ball Park, Fred Foslien Park, Lake Connie park, Dean Melton Park. Andover Strootman Park, Eveland Park. Burnsville Yes- Wolk Park, Rudy Kraemer Nature Preserve, Sue Fischer Memorial Park "Nina's Park- they adopted the park (spring/fall clean-ups, taking care of Cottage flower beds, etc). Grove Peter Thompson Park- newly constructed park of which all costs were covered in the neighborhood development costs." Little Falls Yes- Jaycee Park, Kiwanis Park, Legion Park Lions Sand Point Beach (Lions Club) Prior Lake Veteran's Field at Memorial Park (VFW) Harriet Alexander Nature Center Roseville Muriel Sahlin Arboretum John Rose Minnesota Oval 11 N/A- 11 % of respondents said this question did not apply to their situation. Bloomington N/A Stewartville Not Applicable 6. Did the donation covered the entire cost or a certain percentage of it? Cities who have parks named after specific donors were asked what percentage of the project the specific donation covered. Park names were allotted to individuals who donated very little or nothing to land or funding up to 100% of the project. There was little consistency in the frequency of project percentage covered by the donation. Alexandria Most of the parks were donated land and development costs were not included. Andover • Strootman Park- no donation received • Eveland park- no donation received. • Wolk Park- "some of the land" • Rudy Kraemer Nature Preserve- "Land and development costs, but also Burnsville require for wetland restoration." • Sue Fischer Memorial Park-."Some of the land." Cottage Grove All costs for Peter Thompson park were covered in the development costs. • Jaycee Park- 25% Little Falls • Kiwanis Park- 25% • Legion Park- 33% "Donations covered only a percentage of park development, however they Prior Lake are ongoing, and not just one lump sum when the park was developed. Donations still occur from these organizations to these specific facilities." Harriet Alexander Nature Center- Fully funded bequest Roseville Muriel Sahlin Arboretum- Largely funded bequest John Rose Minnesota Oval- No private funding 4 12 7. In your opinion, have donor naming been a positive or a negative for your community? Please explain why. This question was intended for the expression of an opinion only. Respondents were asked to discuss their experiences with naming of park facilities, sharing observations that other communities may want to consider if the issue of donor naming and park name generation. Municipalities tend to be split between donor naming as a positive or a negative. It seems that naming can be a positive thing when the community is involved and the donor contributes enough to significantly reduce the overall cost of a project. It can become a negative if the person or organization the amenity is named after later engages in unseemly practices, or the donor has expectations above and beyond normal park maintenance. I "Negative. The responsibility for upkeep and expectations of the donor is Alexandria added duty beyond normal park maintenance and care. In most cases it is not a problem, but certainly an additional thing to continually be aware of and oversee." They have had a positive impact. Lowered costs for park acquisition and Burnsville development. In one case, it wouldn't have even happened without the dedication. We have also accepted up to $200,000 without any park naming requirement. "Positive, the policy has allowed us to have structured guidelines in naming Cottage Grove parks. It makes the process much easier than handling each situation individually." Edina "In my opinion, there needs to be a written policy about naming rights of parks or parks facilities. I recognize that not everyone shares the same opinion and it's not staffs decision. In most cases, naming of a park facility has been very respectful, appropriate, and honorable. In other cases, the naming of a park or park facility has been, in my opinion, inappropriate. It is a very politically sensitive issue that at times results in hard feelings and constantly heightens the "what about me" issue. In Edina, it has been and continues to the only political in nature and not based on any criteria. If there was only one restriction that governed the naming of a park or park facility, it should be that "no park or park facility shall be named after anyone that is still alive." As an example, (name of defendant in a recent criminal case deleted) might prove to be a good case in point. It would be very embarrassing to name a park after a person who later becomes a criminal or someone less than the model citizen the City wants to honor eternally. I also believe that only facilities should be named after people and not parks themselves, unless the person is of historical significance worthy of eternal recognition. Facilities have a life expectancy, whereas parks do not. Once a political body names a park after a person, it becomes very difficult to ever change that name in the future. Park facilities, however, have a life 13 expectancy and can be renamed each time a new replacement facility is built, which also opens the door to alternative funding. "The other issue that I feel strongly about is naming small park facilities and Edina trees after lost loved ones. Parks are for the public to enjoy and recreate (continued) themselves, not to feel like they are in a cemetery. We have one small 4- acre park that has 12 memorial plaques on various park amenities and trees with plaques naming lost loved ones and even poems that are arguably religious in nature. These become problematic when the park bench or tree reach their life expectancy and the donor demands that the plaque be kept in the park eternally." "Most examples have been positive because of the naming after the subdivision the park is contained in to give it established identity to a certain Prior Lake neighborhood. The negatives and controversy has occurred when a group or neighborhood advocates having a park or facility re-named, for whatever reason. To date our City Council has not re-named a park or facility and there are criteria now in our policy to address that issue." Roseville "Positive if policy is outlined fully and there is community involvement." Respondents in 13 cities (68.4%) said this question was not applicable in their community. In some cases, the city did not have a policy for donor naming, did not have any facilities with donor names, or did not reply for reasons that were not expressed. The following communities deemed the question "Not Applicable:" • Andover • Mahtomedi • Blaine • Maple Grove • Bloomington • Robbinsdale • Elk River • Rosemount • Fridley • St. Michael • Golden Valley • Stewartville • Little Falls 4 14 Negative Split pli 8. Has citizen comment been in favor or 5% against donor naming of park facilities? Or has this not been an issue in your community? Positive 16% Respondents were asked whether there has been public concern or positive feedback for donor naming used in the park system. Those with experience in this matter have indicated that when done with care, adhering to a policy, citizens and park boards have responded well. N/A 74% Not Applicable- 74% of respondents have not encountered this issue when applying a name to their parks, or it has been an overall 'non-issue' in the community. • Alexandria • Golden Valley • Andover • Little Falls • Blaine • Mahtomedi • Bloomington • Maple Grove • Burnsville • Robbinsdale • Elk River • Rosemount • Fridley • Stewartville Positive- 16% of respondents have indicated that when there is a clear policy and formal process with which to work, their experience has been overall fine. Cottage Grove "Positive feedback." Roseville "With clear policy in place, it seems to be able to be worked through." St. Michael "Not much public comment, but the Park Board has been generally open to the concept." Negative- 5% of respondents have had negative experiences when trying to name a park after a person. In this case, it was less to do with donor naming than with recognition of the service of a staff person. "Some residents have commented to me that certain parks named after staff was done so inappropriately because those "staff" have already been rewarded for their Edina duty; they go paid for their work. I have also heard negative comments about the City Councils decision to name a particular park amenity after receiving a recommendation from their Advisory park Board to not name the park amenity after this particular person. Again, it created hard feelings among various residents." 15 Split Decision- In Prior Lake, the decision to recognize the services of a Vietnam solider raised concern with the community; there was discussion both for against. This matter formed the basis of Prior Lake's naming policy. Again, this was dealing less with donor naming and more with recognition of a fallen soldier. "Our newest athletic complex is named after the first Prior Lake soldier to perish in Vietnam. In that particular naming issue, a contingency of the soldier's family and friends contacted the mayor at the time and really Prior Lake pressured the City Council to name the complex after him. That example is why we formed our naming policy. Some in the community were in favor of the name, some were not. It ultimately came down to a City Council decision by vote." 4 16 9. What are the arguments for or against donor naming you have encountered thus far? 58% of the respondents have not Concerns encountered arguments for or against donor 42 naming. The matter may not be a "forefront" None issue for the community, or they may not ° have had to deal with discussion about it yet. 58 None- Cities who have not yet encountered this matter or have not heard specific arguments for or against donor naming are: • Alexandria • Golden Valley • Robbinsdale • Bloomington • Little Falls • Rosemount • Cottage Grove • Mahtomedi • Stewartville • Fridley • Maple Grove Concerns- 42% of municipalities describe their sense of how donor naming either are perceived or might be perceived in their community. It is typically described as a very political issue that requires staff time for administration and may have long- range repercussions when it comes to the maintenance of the amenity, or produce a "misplaced honor." The Parks Commission has had an issue of determining what it is that the Andover potential honoree has done for the residents of the city that would warrant a park naming. Blaine "We have approved selling of advertising on baseball fields." Burnsville "We have been concerned about setting precedent that may come back to haunt us, but it has not happened so far." Edina See comments in # 7 Elk River "I think in a small community, this is too political and would cause hard feelings. We prefer advertising instead- it's more neutral." "We have named some adjacent parkways after the family that we acquired land for certain parks and facilities from in lieu of naming the specific facility after the family. There has been some discussion regarding the price we Prior Lake paid to acquire the land and that the family was not doing us any "favors" by charging the City the price. Does the family then deserve to have a park amenity or roadway named after them when the City purchased the land at market value? That is the question." Roseville "Funding- is it enough? Where does it start and where does it end?" St. Michael "Main problem identified at this point is lack of staff time to devote to development of a policy and then administer it." 4 17 10. If your community does not currently N/A have a donor naming policy, has there 6% been any discussion about starting one? Yes 17% For most respondents, the issue of donor naming is one that is not foremost in their community. This is seen in a variety of population bases and "buildout" status. No 55% No- 55% of respondents said their city is not In Place currently discussing a policy regarding donor 22% naming for donors, or there is no discussion anticipated in the near future. Alexandria No Blaine "Not yet." Elk River No Fridley No Little Falls No Mahtomedi "No, we have not had any discussion of developing such a policy." Maple Grove "None to date." Robbinsdale No Rosemount No Stewartville No- Have not discussed it. In Place- 22% of respondents said their naming policy is in place. In many cases, it is included in their park naming process policy, which guides the process of naming parks and park amenities, and often establishes guidelines as to what a park can be named. Several of these include provisions for financial or land donors. Burnsville There is one in place. Cottage In place Grove Prior Lake "Currently have one in place" Roseville (inclusive in policy) 4 18. Yes- 17% of respondents said their city may be ready to discuss creation of such a policy, or that the issue may be coming up in the foreseeable future. "Yes! The Edina Park Board has suggested establishing a policy. It Edina is a very sensitive political issue that I have been directed to leave alone until directed by Council to address." "there has not been discussion, but with current financial conditions, it Golden Valley could become a priority." "Yes. A Park Board member had heard that St. Cloud has done this St. Michael on a few occasions and the Park Board discussed it for a while but never took it further, due to number (9)." N/A- Bloomington responded that this question was not applicable to their situation. Bloomington N/A Item: J-Z; QOmr 6mir1 0lc7 Attachment #z e d, nu Donor (Z pays) Po 11Cq DONATIONS/MEMORIALS POLICY (ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL JUNE 20, 2000) The City of Edina encourages and welcomes donations from civic groups, organizations, individuals, businesses or churches for a variety of community programs, projects, events, equipment, park amenities and land. Donations shall be recognized in a manner based on the amount or dollar value of the donation. In other words, all donations greater than $300.00 but less than $5,000 that are accepted by the City of Edina shall be recognized by: 1. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1-December 31). 2. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the first edition of each year). 3. Sending letter of appreciation from the Park and Recreation Department to the donor(s) for their contribution. 4. Keeping a permanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical Society. Donations of $5,000-$24,999 shall be recognized by: 1. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1-December 31). 2. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the first edition of each year). 3. Sending a letter of appreciation from the Mayor to the donor(s) for their contribution. 4. Keeping a permanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical Society. 5. Permanently displaying the name(s) of donor(s) on "CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EDINA PARK SYSTEM" board under the bronze category. 6. Upon request, displaying a permanent bronze casting of the name of the donor and accompanying language at a location approved by the Park and Recreation Director. Donations of $25,000 or more, shall be recognized by: 1. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1-December 31). 2. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the first edition of each year). 3. Presenting an engraved plaque of appreciation by the Mayor to the donor(s) for their contribution at an appropriate time and location, i.e. a ribbon cutting ceremony, a City Council meeting, or All Volunteers Awards Reception, etc. 4. Keeping a permanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical Society. 5. Permanently displaying the name(s) of donor(s) on "CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EDINA PARK SYSTEM" board under the appropriate category, i.e. Silver, Gold or Platinum. 6. Upon request, displaying a permanent bronze casting of the name of the donor and accompanying language at a location approved by the Park and Recreation Director. The permanent display board that gives recognition to those who have made significant contributions to the park system shall have the following categories: CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EDINA PARK SYSTEM PLATINUM $100,000 or more GOLD $50,000 - $99,999 SILVER $25,000 - $49,999 BRONZE $5,000 - $24,999 Those who have contributed less than $5,000 at one time will not be placed on this permanently and publicly displayed board. Those who have collectively contributed more than $5,000 over a period of time (but never $5,000 or more at any one time) would still not be placed on the board. This permanent display board will be placed in the Council Chambers or its adjacent hallway. Item: J- 7-j Donor AiamiAj Policy Attachment #3. Profo1y,,, Po !!c y C-~ ) PROTOTYPE DONOR NAMING POLICY DONOR NAMING The City of Eagan occasionally recognizes donors who have supported the; ? arks and Recreation department through distinguished effort or substantial nanclal { ti J endowment, by naming facilities in their honor. This policy of ers a gw~ielin to determine when such cases are appropriate and which may be better served 1y a formal 'ILI This policy determines procedures, for a fi :edperiod or uidefinitely, for naming of amenities found within Eagan p ACS. Items included under this policy incld but are not limited to: • Scoreboards • Ice Rims • B4I,c6urts of any • Pa lions'n • Spor fields of any kind • Sun'slielters Ind : • Pools • Nature Centers • Tree projects • Trailheads • Bleachers, • a harming Houses • Co neessidns stands The City N'ill'flnly recognize ©)tstanding contributions, specifically those which enable the arpenity,to be initk' ly built (i.e., without the donation the amenity would not be constructed): Sponsorship and Donation Naming may be in honor of sponsors or donors, who may be individuals, groups of individuals, or corporations. (a) All negotiations for naming rights will be conducted in the first instance by the City Administrator and the Director of Parks and Recreation, under the authorization of City Council. (b) The individual, group, or corporation will present their request to the Advisory Parks Commission. The APrC will then make a recommendation to City Council. (c) The nature of the sponsorship may assist in the determination of the naming opportunity. Normally, meeting more than half of the capital cost of a building or more than half of the cost of smaller facilities may warrant consideration of granting naming rights to the sponsor. Generally, such naming rights would be granted where there is a minimum commitment of five years. Where the sponsorship extends beyond 10 years, consideration will be given to naming in perpetuity. (d) An amenity may be named in honor of a sponsor who has contributed all or a substantial part of the full costs relating to its establishment, and will contribute sufficient recurrent funding to maintain it or substantially maintain it for at least five years. (e) The option of funding an amenity in perpetuity is negotiable and would require assurances of sufficient recurring funding. (f) A plaque may be placed on a building, room, or facility to acknowledge a sponsor. The design, wording, and location of the plaque require the approval of the City Council. Naming rights carry no power of direction to the City on miters GENERAL GUIDELINES (a) The name used should normally be the fatnily name, or in the case of a corporate entity, the shortest possible,na e. Unles's Council determines, otherwise, a persons or corporations name may be used in naming a City facility only once. (b) Where the name of a corporate entity is used; the period of naming will be limited to the life of the corporate entity. (c) In the event of demolition of deconstruction of a structure, its name or any part of it shall .be,tlie subject of fresh recommendations. (d) Nanjing a building in honor of a person rho has liven extraordinary distinguished service to the City will not normally be considered until after that members substantive formal relationship with the City has ended. (e) The style of naming of structures and facilities should be consistent with the City's visual standards. (f) Council may cancel a name for whatever reason it feels appropriate. (g) Facilities will not normally be named to honor persons who have no formal connection with the City unless they are substantial sponsors. (h) The City will consider the naming of a building in recognition of a corporation which is a benefactor when that corporation: (i) Provides not less than 50% of the capital cost of the building, or (j) Supports the City with endowments exceeding a specific dollar amount. TIMING (a) Proposed naming should come at the time of amenity construction. Naming will not be allowed after the amenity is operational. (b) Donors will be responsible for annual operations donation. (c) Perpetual naming will be at the discretion of the City Council. PROPOSALS (a) Any proposal for naming shall be made in formal submission to the City. (b) A proposal for naming after a person shall be accompanied by a comprehensive citation. (c) The City will examine all formal proposals for the naming of park space received. The APrC will make a recommendation to Council on proposals. (d) Proposals submitted to the City must have the written approval of the person or corporate representative after whom the naming is to take place. If the person is deceased, the approval of the family should normally have been obtained. If the person is deceased and there is not family, naming can proceed. April 28, 2003 Lauren Haberman 945 Wescott Rd. Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan Parks and Recreation Dept. Advisory Park Commission 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Committee Members, I am a student at WOODLAND ELEMENTARY school. My name is Lauren Haberman. I am writing to you because I skateboard at the Eagan Skate Park, and I want you to build a bike park next to it. When skateboarders are skateboarding, bikers come and bike on all of the jumps when they're not suppose to. Maybe, if you built a bike park next to the Eagan Skate Park, they wouldn't get into so much trouble. The people of Eagan probably don't like to drive way out to Burnsville just to bike at a bike park. They may be a lot happier if they could just drive right down to the new "Eagan Bike Park." Also, they could watch us skateboard if they were right next to us. When bikers come and hog the park, it just creates another danger for little kids trying to get to the half-pipe. Bikers may run into a person who is crossing. Also, some of the bikers are very disrespectful to us, and rude to. Building a bike park right next to the Eagan Skate Park would be ratifying to a lot of people and would make them happier. Sincerely, Lauren Haberman city of eagan Lauren Haberman PAT GEAGAN 945 Wescott Rd Mayor Eagan, MN 55123 PEGGY CARLSON May 6, 2003 CYNDEE FIELDS MIKE MAGUIRE Dear Lauren: MEG TILLEY Council Members , Thank you for your recent letter and input as Ito how the City might fix the problem of bikes in the skate park. It's very kind of you to be concerned not only for your THOMAS HEDGES own activity, skating, but also show concern for the youth who want to bike. City Administrator You are correct, bikers ignoring the rules at the skate park is a problem. Enforcing the "no bikes" rule has always been a concern for the City. Recently, we have enlisted the help of the police to step up monitoring of the skate park. Also, there is a volunteer group of teens who will be at the skate park this summer to make sure Municipal Center: people are following the rules. This group will be at the park once a week. 3830 Pilot Knob Road The City has built a place for bikers to go. At Pilot Knob Park, there is a course that Eagan, MN 55123-1897 has dirt bike jumps for bikers. There will be another one constructed at Ridgecliff Phone: 651.675.5000 Park this summer. The City will try to redirect bikers to these two locations. Fax: 651.675.5012 TDD: 651.454.8535 Unfortunately, putting a bike park next to the skate park would be a problem. A bike park would need to be about the same size as the skate park. If it is smaller, the bikers will likely just go back to the skate park. On all sides of the skate park, there Maintenance Facility: are things that would block a bike park of similar size to the skate park: 3501 Coachman Point North: Parking area and a house. Eagan, MN 55122 East: Parking lot and softball outfield. Phone: 651.675.5300 South: Softball and soccer fields. Fax: 651.675.5360 West: Steep hills, trees, and private property. TDD: 651.454.8535 Another problem we face with installing a paved bike park with ramps is, of course, money. The skate park that you see at Lexington-Diffley cost $75,000. The City www.ciryofeagan.com didn't use tax money to pay for this, but used the Park Site Fund. Park Site Fund money comes from when new houses are built, the person who builds them gives the City money or land for new parks. But Eagan is almost all full now, so the City isn't getting much money for the Park Site Fund to pay for a lot of new parks. THE LONE OAK TRLE The svmhol of strength You make some very good points, and we will share your letter with the Parks Commission at their May 19th, 2003 meeting. You may want to watch the meeting on cable channel 16 at 7:00 to see what they say. Letters are usually talked about toward the end of the meeting. I will also write to you with the minutes from that part of the meeting. Thank you again for sharing your idea for a bike park next to the skate park. Respectfully yours, Beth A. Wielde, Research and Special Projects City of Eagan Parks and Recreation 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 c~ 3 Approved May 19, 2003 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 14, 2003 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on April 14, 2003 with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Ban, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, Terry Davis, N. Mark Filipi, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, Richard Pletcher and Melvin Williams. Commission Member West was not present. Staff present included Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jeff Asfahl, Superintendent of Recreation; Paul Olson, Parks Superintendent; Gregg Hove, Forestry Supervisor; Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator; Beth Wielde, Research and Special Projects; Colleen Callahan, Youth Development Coordinator; CJ Lilly, Parks Planner; Jim Storland, Water Resources Technician; John Sealey, Intern and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA N Mark Filipi moved, Margo Danner seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. ARBOR DAY POSTER RECOGNITION After a brief review of the annual Arbor Day poster contest Forestry Supervisor Hove introduced the winner of the 2002 poster contest, Heather Goff. He noted that Heather is a 3rd grade student and that she and her family had the opportunity to tour the West Group facility. West Group prints the posters that are distributed to the community and has been a partner of this contest for many years. The original framed 2002 poster was then presented to Heather by Coordinator Hove and Commission Chair Davis. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2003 Dorothy Peterson moved, N Mark Filipi seconded with all members voting in favor to defer recommendation of the March 17, 2003 minutes to the May 19 Advisory Commission meeting. VISITORS TO BE HEARD WHEP ANNUAL PROGRAM REPORT Tom Goodwin and Jane Tunseth were present to provide an annual program update of the wetland health evaluation program. A series of volunteers work each summer testing various wetlands. During the summer of 2002 study areas in Eagan included wetlands at Cedar Pond, in a residential neighborhood at Diffley and Johnny Cake Ridge Road, near Glacier Hills Elementary school and behind Faithful Shephard school. Mr. Goodwin and Ms Tunseth provided an in-depth review of the vegetation and invertebrate species identified in each wetland in the study. At the conclusion of the report, the Advisory Commission thanked Mr. Goodwin and Ms Tunseth for their efforts and suggested that people interested in volunteering to help with the study next year should contact the City of Eagan Water Resources Division. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE AND DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Superintendents Asfahl and Olson highlighted several items of interest pertaining to the Recreation and Parks Division respectively. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 2 RECREATION UPDATE - COLLEEN CALLAHAN Youth Development Coordinator Colleen Callahan presented the Advisory Commission with a background of Youth Development from 2001 to the present, specifically highlighting the change in programming priorities that have evolved during that time. She focused attention on the cooperative programming opportunities with ISD 196 and 197. In addition she reviewed the growth of the teen programming which now includes the involvement of a Teen Advisory Board to look at methods to reach other teens and to provide a means to share programming ideas. Coordinator Callahan also shared the vision and goals for the Teen Advisory Board (E-TAB) and the enthusiasm this group shares for this project. INTERN REPORT - JOHN SEALEY Director Vraa introduced Intern John Sealey and noted that as a part of an internship with Parks and Recreation, interns are given an issue to research and are required to make a presentation to the Advisory Commission with their findings. Intern Sealey noted that the project he was assigned was to survey the users at Trapp Farm Park Tubing Hill following the implementation of a $2.00 charge for tube users. Sealey indicated that 32 surveys were answered and reported on the demographics of those surveyed. He then reported on the responses to the user fee; 65% felt it was a reasonable price and 18 of the 32 responses indicated they would purchase a season pass if one became available. Responding to what he might do differently, Intern Sealey suggested that starting the survey earlier to get a larger sampling would be a priority. He also suggested that breaking the survey down further by age might also be useful information. CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Peterson moved, Elizabeth Perry seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following, recommendations to the City Council: 1. Arbor Day Proclamation. • To acknowledge the resolution setting May 3 as Arbor Day and May as Arbor Month in the City of Eagan. 2. Centennial Ridge 2nd Addition - Manley Land Development. • The applicant shall fulfill required tree preservation mitigation through the installation of twelve (12) category B trees (or an equivalent combination of category A and/or category C trees and/or cash payment). • Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) 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 on-site. • 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. • A storm water treatment ponds shall be constructed with a minimum treatment volume of 0.41 acre-feet covering a minimum surface area of 0.21 acres. The pond should have a minimum depth of 6 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench from the normal water level, and an outlet structure that meets City design standards. • A dedication of cash in lieu of ponding should be required for storm water that is proposed to drain off 0.34 acres of the site. 3. Zehnder Acres - River Run Properties • This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. • This development shall be responsible for meeting tree preservation issues identified at the time of building permit application. • This development shall be responsible for a cash dedication in lieu of storm water treatment ponding. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 3 DEVELOPMENT-PROPOSALS PINEY WOODS - MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT Planner Dudziak provided a background of this development noting that Manley Land Development is requesting approval of a rezoning from Agriculture to Single-family residential and a Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 4.9 acres to create 10 single family lots on property at 4650 Dodd Road, east of Dodd Road and south of Cliff Road in the NW '/4 of Section 36. Forestry Supervisory Hove reviewed tree preservation and mitigation issues with this development noting that this is a revised plan with much less tree removal than what was originally proposed. The applicant is proposing to transplant 322 conifer trees from this site to a "safe site" and then back onto this and other Manley development sites in Eagan. When asked where the "safe site" would be, Hove responded that although it was not clearly identified it will need to be close to the site. Member Peterson added that neighbors of Holz Farm are concerned about the trees around the perimeter of the property being removed because they feel it will negatively affect the visual view from Holz Farm. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth reviewed the water quality, wetland, shoreland zoning and erosion control issues that pertain to the site. Parks Superintendent Olson then reviewed the parks and trails dedication issues. He outlined the surrounding properties and how this residential development will gain access to Holz Farm Park as well as Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Olson reviewed a trail option that would require the developer to provide a 6 foot concrete sidewalk extending from the Dodd Road intersection with Rosa Court along the length of the yet un-named roadway through the development to its north terminus and that the trail would be located on the south and east side. Superintendent Olson shared photos of the area adjacent to Holz Farm, which clearly showed the buffer of trees that currently exists between the properties and identified the area where trees would be removed. There was discussion by the Commission regarding the benefit of providing a restrictive covenant or easement within this development to maintain a buffer between this development and Holz Farm. Member Perry opined that a conservation easement would be more effective than a restrictive covenant. Several Commission Members agreed that some type of restriction should be placed on the property border to provide the buffer to Holz Farm. Director Vraa noted that in order to best preserve the visual impact to Holz Farm it might be in the City's best interest to consult with the City Attorney to determine how best to proceed. After further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved, Elizabeth Perry seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council relative to the Piney Woods development: 1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication 2. This development shall fulfill the trail dedication requirements by providing a minimum 6' concrete sidewalk along the length of the yet un-named collector street extending through the development, built in accordance with applicable City design standards. 3. The City Attorney shall be asked to provide language that, in the best interest of the City of Eagan, would restrict the construction of sheds, fences, dog kennels, etc within 15 feet of the easterly property line of Piney Woods to preserve the visual integrity of the adjacent park property. 4. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) 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 on-site. 5. The applicant shall be required to transplant three-hundred twenty-two (322) trees per the following specifications. Transplant trees shall: a. Be moved with a 90" tree space b. Be watered as needed per specs c. Be mulched with wood chips out to a radius extending 12" beyond the 90" tree spade area d. Be moved before grading takes place e. Not be moved during period of new growth f. Not be moved after mid-September Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 4 6. The applicant shall be required to 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. 7. This development should meet the City's water quality requirements by expanding stormwater treatment capacity of at least an additional wet-pond volume of 0.30 acre-feet and at least an additional surface area of 0.19 acres. The modifications to the existing stormwater treatment pond should be consistent with NURP standards of a maximum depth of 6 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level. SIENNA WOODS - MANLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT Planner Dudziak provided a background of this proposal, which was followed by review of tree preservation, water quality and parks/trails dedications issues by Forestry Supervisor Hove, Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth and Superintendent Olson. Member Perry questioned how the water from Lots 1 and 2 would get to the holding pond because it appeared that it would create some erosion problems. As the discussion progressed it was suggested that a retaining wall might be considered to protect the integrity of the most affected lot. Coordinator Macbeth agreed that a recommendation to pay special attention to this particular lot during construction might be worthwhile. After further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson move, Melvin Williams seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council regarding the Sienna Woods development: 1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication. 2. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. 3. This applicant shall fulfill required tree preservation mitigation through the installation of one hundred sixty (160) category B trees (or an equivalent combination of category A and/or category C trees and/or cash payment). 4. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) 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 on-site. 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division as to the timing of tree replacement activities. 7. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements by constructing stormwater treatment capacity of at least 0.28 acre-feet of wet-pond volume within at least 0.17 acres of surface area. The stormwater treatment pond should have a maximum depth of 6 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level. 8. No draining, filling, or excavation of the delineated wetland shall be permitted unless the developer allows the appropriate process and meets the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, which may allow said impacts. Special attention shall be paid to the lot to protect the wetland, which may include a retaining wall in conjunction with grading the site. 9. A 30-foot buffer of undisturbed land shall be maintained before, during, and after construction to protect the wetland from unauthorized impacts. OLD BUSINESS DISC GOLF UPDATE Researcher Wielde noted that staff responded to three questions requested by the Advisory Commission at their last review of this issue. Those questions included looking at a potential collaboration with ISD 196, determining public opinion and try to quantify other communities' description that disc golf was as asset to their community. Wielde reviewed the comments from each community that had indicated this was an asset, shared Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 5 correspondence from the public expressing their support for this amenity and shared the discussion with ISD 196 regarding a potential partnership on the wooded property behind Dakota Hills Middle School and Eagan High School that abuts Northview Park. The Advisory Commission was then asked how they wished to proceed. Member Bari commented that the information appeared to be positive and opined that the best option would be to partner with the school district. Member Williams stated that he did not see the demand that would warrant this amenity at this time. Members Bari, Perry and Filipi opined that this would generate a great deal of interest if it was in place, that it provided a positive intergenerational opportunity and that although there were not dozens of requests for this amenity it should still be a consideration. After further discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved, Terry Davis seconded a motion to continue the disc golf study with the following parameters: 1. Continue dialogue with the School District regarding land sharing for a 9 or 18 hole course. 2. Determine possible costs for construction based on a 9 or 18 hole course. 3. Obtain LMCIT input regarding insurance coverage in a land-sharing situation. 4. Work with School District to consider assistance with the construction through volunteers and staff. 5. Place this item on the CIP parking lot for future funding consideration. The motion was called. Those voting Aye included Joseph Bari, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, Terry Davis, N. Mark Filipi, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, and Richard Pletcher. Melvin Williams voted Nay. The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS BUR OAKS PARK TRAIL PLAN Following a brief introduction by Director Vraa, Superintendent Olson noted that the City Council had directed staff to conduct a trail study for Bur Oaks Park following the public meetings conducted for the proposed Chapel Lane street improvement project. Following Council's direction, a neighborhood informational meeting was held on March 13 with approximately 35 of the 300 noticed residents in attendance. Based on the input from those residents and following an Acquisition-Development Subcommittee meeting on April 3, the general consensus of the APrC members present was to 1) provide a loop trail, possibly including a bridge 2) a foot trail was adequate for an access from the east, through the woods 3) wet soils, grades and the need for an easement were deterrents to a northerly trail 4) implementation of the short term improvements was advisable 5) a variety of trail surfaces could be considered 6) the project should remain in the CIP. Superintendent Olson pointed out the existing trail, the proposed bituminous loop trail, access from the east through an outlot and shared photos of the areas identified. He noted that signage and some small replacement items can be accommodated this year and that there was approximately $50,000 in the 2004 C1P for improvements to the park. Olson did note that soil borings will be needed if a bridge is considered. Parks Planner Lilly then reviewed the cost estimates for the various trail sections noting that the total proposed project cost is $112,214. Director Vraa added that the Advisory Commission is being asked to make a recommendation that can be brought back to the City Council. Julie Pint noted that she was one of the residents on the northern side of the park off Chapel Lane and they have a concern for lighting that might be placed within the park. She opined that it is not necessary and expressed her concern for light pollution. She also asked the Commission to consider keeping the multiple surfaces that exist rather than placing a bituminous surface on the trail. She also spoke against providing a bridge, opining that it would merely be a gathering place and may create more misbehavior than currently exists. She suggested that the dollars allocated for the CIP could be better used to provide a fishing pier near the tennis courts or for the removal of buckthorn or for water quality education for surrounding neighbors. She also noted that several residents on the north side of the park prefer multi surface trails rather than bituminous. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 6 To clarify, Member Danner asked Julie if she supported a loop trail. She responded that she did not want a loop trail. Member Perry commented that at the neighborhood meeting several residents. expressed the need fora. safe access to park amenities without walking on Chapel Lane. Julie responded that perhaps education of the speed limit along Chapel Lane would do more to help that issue instead of creating a bituminous trail link/loop to the north. Addressing the concern for lighting in the park, Member Peterson asked where the security lights would be located. Superintendent Olson responded that they are common in neighborhood parks but that staff could review location further once the overall trail is determined. Member Pletcher suggested that the Commission visit the site. Member Davis noted that there were some very good issues that had been raised regarding overdevelopment of a trail within this park and wanted to make sure the Commission considers all of the concerns. Davis suggested that the Commission might consider proceeding with the plan to the City Council with the caveat that it can change specifically as it pertains to the bridge, lighting and costs. Member Perry added that although a loop trail would be nice-to have she doesn't know that it's worth $112,000. Perry's concern was that this residential area is not accessible to any other park and the residents are very interested in improving this park. Member Williams asked if this plan was based on feedback from the residents at the neighborhood meeting. Director Vraa responded that it was with the exception for the bridge. The bridge was a design option that was added to provide safe loop access and a good experience for users. Director Vraa noted that the plan before the Commission was a concept only. Following further brief discussion, N. Mark Filipi moved, Richard Pletcher seconded with all members voting in favor to proceed with the short term improvements identified and that further study of the lights, bridge, and trail surface be reviewed after the Commission has had the opportunity to visit the site. The motion further accepted the concept as presented to allow the plan to proceed with further review. NAME RECOGNITION FOR DONATIONS Director Vraa provided a brief background noting that the City Council had asked the Advisory Commission to review what others are doing in regards to naming rights and to help craft a policy/guideline for the future. Vraa added that although there is a policy for naming parks, there is no policy currently in place for partnership projects were funds are donated to the City of Eagan. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth updated the Advisory Commission on several issues including notification from the MnDNR that the City of Eagan will receive full funding for their Moonshine Park Lakeshore Grant. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE Director Vraa noted that the ECVB moved into the building on April 1, which is 2 weeks earlier than they had originally planned. He added that the Building Maintenance Supervisor, Rental Coordinator and one of the clerical staff will move into the building the week of April 21 followed by Sandy Breuer the week of April 28. All of the moves are in preparation for the opening of the indoor playground and the beginning of reservations in the building. Director Vraa added that the work outside the building has not begun yet but is expected to shortly. COUNCIL/COMMISSION JOINT MEETING Commission Members Perry, Bari, Davis and Danner commented on the positive and productive meeting and that they felt the City Council had devoted a great deal of time to park issues. They added that they are looking forward to continued positive communication. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 14, 2003 Page 7 ROUND-TABLE Dorothy Peterson updated the Commission on the Holz Farm Master Plan project. She noted that at a meeting with the consultants on April 10 they had the opportunity to review 3 concept plans for the park to unify the site. It appears that the critical issues are points of access and parking. Other items discussed were the buildings on the site and the potential to have animals. The level of programming has not been discussed to date. It was noted that neighbors focused on the playground they feel they have outgrown and the desire to have a shelter building in the park. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Joseph Bari moved, Richard Pletcher seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Secretary Date