Loading...
02/16/2006 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission AGENDA ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA Thursday, February 16, 2006 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. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006 7:03 pm D. Visitors to be Heard 7:04 pm E. Director's Update Pages 3-4 7:05 pm (1) Discover the new Discover F. Consent Agenda 7:15 pm (1) Gustafson Addition- Rick Gustafson Pages 5-6 G. Development Proposals (1) Red Pine Crossing Pages 7-10 7:16 pm H. Old Business 7:45 pm I. New Business (1) Public Hearing - Thresher Fields Grant Application Pages 11-13 7:46 pm (2) Public Art and Memorial Policy Page 14 7:55 pm (3) Fees and Charges Policy Pages 15-16 8:05pm (4) Park Classification Pages 17-19 8:15 pm J. Water Resources Update 8:20 pm (1) Water Quality Management Plan Update-Member Belfiori K. Other Business and Reports (1) Subcommittee Updates 8:25 pm L. Round Table 8:28 pm M. Adjournment 8:30 pm The City of Eagan 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, sex, 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 Monday, March 20, 2006 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2005-06 MEETING SCHEDULE NAME May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April 16 20 18 15 19 17 14 19 12* 16* 20 17 Joseph Bari X X X X X 0 X X X Phil Belfiori x 0 X X X X 0* X 0 Margo Danner x X X x X 0 X X X Terry Davis (Chair) X X X X X X X X X N. Mark Filipi x X X X X X X x X Duane L. Hansen x X X X X X X 0* X Muhammed Lodhi X X X X 0* 0 X X X Dorothy Peterson x X x x x x x X X (Vice Chair) Richard Pletcher x X 0 x x x x 0* x Secrets Ryan Zipf (alternate) X X X X x x X X X X = present 0 = absent O* = notified staff of absence prior to meeting Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acquisition/Development Sub-Committee Richard Pletcher Muhammed Lodhi Dorothy Peterson Ryan Zipf Mark Filipi Margo Danner Terry Davis Duane Hansen Joe Bari Joe Bari Phil Belfiori Terry Davis UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES Holz Farm NRHP Preliminary Evaluation Feb 16, 2006 6 pm Acq/Dev Subcommittee review of parks dedication Volunteer Recognition Methodology calculation process. Patrick Eagan Master Plan ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2005-2006 MEMBERS NAME AND ADDRESS TERM TELEPHONE TERM START EXPIRES JOSEPH BARI 1999 651-454-8442 (H) 5/2008 3033 Timberwood Trail (3 yr. 1999) (3 yr. 2002) ibari1(a~iuno.com Eagan, MN 55121 (3 yr. 2005) PHIL BELFIORI 2002 651-905-0293 (H) 5/2006 3671 Canary Way (1 yr. 2002) 763-287-7167 (W) (3 yr, 2003) pbelfioriawsbeno.com Eagan, MN 55123 MARGO DANNER 2001 651/454-5688 (H) 5/2007 2037 Flint Lane (3 yr. 2001) MN 55122 (3 yr. 2004) mrsmaaoo(a5usfamilv.net Eagan, 1997 651-452-2635 (H) 5/2006 TERRY DAVIS (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(astpaul.com TSIVAD aol.com home May, 1997 651-602-1725 (W) 5/2007 N. MARK FILIPI (3 yr, 1998) 651-687-9866 (H) 836 Overlook Place (3 yr. 2001) mark filipi(a metc.state.mn.us Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr. 2004) DUANE L. HANSEN May, 2004 952-894-9228 (W) 5/2008 3911 Denmark Ave (1 yr. 2004) 651-687-9566 (H) MN 55123 (3 yr. 2005) handOOCo comcast.net Eagan, MUHAMMED LODHI May, 2004 952-278-2629 (W) 5/2007 4361 Bear Path Trail (3 yr. 2004) 651-686-5273 (H) Eagan, MN 55122 m lodhi(a)hotmail.com DOROTHY PETERSON (Vice Chair) 2000 651-454-6532 (H) 5/2006 4337 Sequoia Drive (3 yr. 2000) Eagan, MN 55122 (3 yr. 2003) norsk4337(cDiuno.c0m RICHARD PLETCHER (Secretary) 2001 651-687-9177 (H) 5/2008 1074 Northview Park (1 yr. 2001) MN 55123 (3 yr. 2002) richard oIetcherCo~usarc emh2.armv.mit Eagan, (3 yr. 2005) RYAN ZIPF (alternate) 2005 651-686-2958 (H) 5/2006 4721 Pebble Beach Way (1 yr. 2005) 651-281-1275 (W) Eagan, MN 55123 ¢ipmlmnc.ora RPP! Eagan City Staff E-Mail: jsIohnson@cityofeagan.com cmesko@cityofeagan.com poison@cityofeagan.com shove@cityofeagan.com emacbeth@cityofeaaan.com 2-13-06 Phone #651-675-5505 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.) Eagan Parks and Recreation Phone Number: 651-675-5500 Eagan Parks and Recreation Staff E-Mail Director Juli Seydell Johnson ,jsiohnson@cityofeaaan.com Administration: Cherryl Mesko cmesko@cit o ea an. com Paul Olson polson@cityofeagan. com Forestry: Gregg Hove _ghove@ctyofeagan.com Water Resources: Eric Macbeth emacbeth@cityofeagan.com Recreation Staff: Paula Nowariak pnowariak@cityofeaaan.corn Sonya Rippe srippe@cityofeagan.com Cathy Bolduc cbolduc@cit o ea an.com Holly Champlin hchampiin@cityofeaaan.com Colleen Callahan ccallahan@cityofeaaan.corn Municipal Campus Facilities: Mark Vaughan mvaughan@cityofeaaan.com Community Center: Sandy Breuer sbreuer@)cityofeagan.com TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2006 ITEM A: Call to order ITEM B: Approval of agenda ITEM C: Approval of minutes of January 12, 2006 ITEM D: Visitors to be Heard ITEM E: Director's Update Director Johnson will provide a brief overview of department activities over the past month. Superintendent Mesko will share the new look of the Discover catalog. ITEM F: Consent Agenda Staff has reviewed the Gustafson Addition developments to ensure compliance with the parks dedication, trails dedication, water quality, wetlands and forestry issues. Background information is included in the packet. Since there are no issues for the commission to review no further discussion is anticipated for this agenda item. ITEM G: Development Proposals Detailed information is included in the packet relative to the Red Pine Crossing preliminary planned development. The APrC does not generally review proposals for planned development however there are some forestry and water quality/wetland issues for the commission to review and comment. ITEM H: Old Business There are no Old Business items for the Commission to review. ITEM I: New Business There are several New Business items for the Commission to consider: 1. This is the designated public hearing for the DNR grant application for Thresher Fields. 2. Subcommittee review of the Public Art and Memorial Policy has been ongoing and is ready for Commission review and recommendation. 1 3. Subcommittee review of the Fees and Charges Policy has been ongoing and is ready for Commission review and recommendation. 4. The Commission is asked to formalize the park classification system previously reviewed in workshop sessions. ITEM J: Water Resources Update Member Belfiori may wish to update the Commission on any new information pertaining to the Water Quality Management Plan update. ITEM K: Other Business and Reports 1. Member Pletcher will update the Commission on the subcommittee review of the Donor Policy previously approved by the City Council. ITEM L: Round Table Any items of concern that might be placed on upcoming agendas or items of interest will be identified. ITEM M: Adjournment 2 FEBRUARY 2006 DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS • STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY The selection and approval process for a new electronic reader board sthe pavilion, intended to has replace the existing Central Park sign on Pilot Knob Road, just begun. The sign will continue to denote the site as Central Park and also be able to promote events and activities at the ECC as well as other City functions. The annual Arbor Day event is scheduled for Saturday May 20th on the Municipal Center campus. This will be the 20 to year that Eagan has conducted an Arbor Day event. Plans are in the works to offer some unique opportunities for participants. • The first ever Eagan Indoor Community Garage Sale went over with flying colors in late January. Over 50 tables of garage sale items attracted approximately 500 people to the Eagan Community Center. . The Civic Arena hosted a public skating event on Feb. 3ra that had over 200 participants for 90 minutes of "rock on ice" which included a DJ, prizes and games. • SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT " for spring . 307 Winter preschool participants will have an opportunity to "pre-register spring session February 13-17, and new registrations will be accepted beginning February The Civic Arena will host the Minnesota River different the Vubl c and will nclude Dog show on public May 13 and 14th. The event will be open to dogs. • FOSTER HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Over the past several months, the Lone Oak Room and the Eagan Senior program has hosted three Medicare Part D informational sessions and individual consultations to help sort through the confusion of the new program. CULTURAL AWARENESS (INCLUDING HISTORY & NATURE ROGRAAtaMS) INCREASE On Thursday, February 9, 52 children and 31 chaperones will be touring the Minneso • Children's Museum, featuring "Jump into Japan", Discovering Culture through Popular Art. • PROMOTE HEALTH & WELLNESS Park, Skyhill Park, Rahn Park, • Eight ice rinks at 5 sites remain open. This includes Quarry Goat Hill Park and Clearwater Park. All except Clearwater ave paved surfaces these rinks will exemplifying the winter advantage of a paved rink. Regular maintenance continue as long as conditions allow. February 15 has generally been the bench mark. 3 • Now is the time for residents who would likens for inclusions are considered by the C tYr plowing program to begin the process. Petit Council once per year, that being the first meeting in April. Additional information can be obtained by contacting the Superintendent of Streets at 651-675-5300. DEPARTMENT STAFFING: • 96 applications were received for the vacant Park Maintenance Worker position. 44 of the applicants met the minimum requirements for the position and qualified for the second phase, the written examination. Based upon experience and test scoreapproximately 4 t 6 will be invited to interview and complete the practical examination. g expected early March. KUDOS TO STAFF: Best wishes to former Superintendent of Recreation, Jeff Asfahl, who has taken a position in the private sector. Jeff's last day with the City was February 3 after 61/Z years in the position. 4 Dater February 16, 2006 Agenda Item: F-1; Gustafson Addition Action X 111 Ulf L~ ~n Information tl MEMO Attachments X 1. Location Map ~1 n•iY 2. Preliminary Plat AGENDA ITEM: F-i; GUSTAFSON ADDITION - RICK GUSTAFSON TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Gustafson Addition development. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The applicant is. requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision (Gustafson Addition) of 2.38 acres to create 2 single family parcels for property located at 543 Red Pine Lane in the SE t/4 of Section 36. The subject site is not platted, there is a triangular outlot to the south of the lot which the applicant has ownership of. Said outlot was previously owned by the Finch's and sold to the applicant in 2001. There is an existing single family home built in 1953, a large detached garage was built in 1992; there is also a shed and a cement slab present. The site is heavily wooded and backs up to a pond. The Subdivision is consistent with R-1 zoning requirements. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: Parks and trails dedication for the development shall be satisfied through a cash dedication. TREE PRESERVATION: An Individual Lot Tree Preservation Plan should be submitted at the time of building permit application for Lot 1. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This proposed subdivision is located adjacent to City Pond LP-27, which is classified in.the city's water quality management plan as Class IV - Wildlife Habitat and which is considered a public waters wetland (#19-0307W) by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. These designations help to underscore the relative quality and value of this pond. Through this proposed subdivision, however, the applicant is not proposing any impacts to the pond. Because conservation easements were established on lots alongside the pond in the Finch Place subdivision that is adjacent to this parcel, City staff requested the Gustafson to consider the ossibili of assigning similar easements to the two new lots in exchange for a waiver of the water quality cash dedication fee. Mr. and Mrs. Gustafson declined to pursue any such program at this time. Due to the size and nature of this subdivision, water quality ponding is neither necessary nor feasible. To meet the City's water quality requirements, therefore, a dedication of cash in lieu of ponding is appropriate for this development. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Trails dedication due for the development shall be satisfied through a cash dedication. 2. Park dedication due for the development shall be satisfied through a cash dedication. 3. A cash dedication in lieu of on-site water quality ponding should be required for this development. 4. An Individual Lot Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for Lot 1. Eagan Boundary N Right-of-way Map ~ Parcel Area Locat on o Park Area Building Footprint ©q r5 ~ rs a oamb e 4 8 o r= ~ o p 9 94plp 9 9® ~ o C~ ~ if di 0 8 m © ® o $ 6 a- Q sae 4 ~t39 e® 9~ 1g 9 A r9 S 0 sa ® o edIF _ o Subject Site a 8 a O c9 P A 0 B •0 ti o o o O q lid La n h a 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer.. Rick Gustafson Application: Preliminary Subdivision Case No.: 36-PS-01-01-06 N Map Prepared using ERSI ArWew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY City of EalaIl W E The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S Ce-munny D~v.Iepment Department not responsible for errors or omissions. acs . dt for_ l ~$at = t' R pi{ t3 [t I~ ~ iEt Y C CD ou- a~.~.oac S IR a 5 s I I W 2 ' s N I~8 ...I eEL £ I' \ a ItZ r~ a•m .e O I \ .k2II 8 \ L ~1 8 uman uI W aw snum t • \ f WM \ E N ti \ a \ i N, \ \ Date: February 16, 2006 Agenda Item: G-1; Red Pine Crossing Action X Information City of 1 WH Attachments X 1. Location Map /MEMO 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Existing Conditions 4. Overall Site Plan 5. Grading Plan 6. Tree Preservation Plan 7. Tree Mitigation Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-1; RED PINE CROSSING 8. Sequencing Analysis TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Red Pine Crossing development. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Revestors is requesting approval of a Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision of 9.18 acres to create three lots, located at the southwest corner of Red Pine Lane and Hwy. 3 in the SE'/4 of Section 36. The site consists of two unplatted parcels. The larger parcel is vacant, the smaller parcel contains a concrete block building. The site is separated from Hwy. 3 by railroad tracks. The site is open with some wooded areas and a wetland on the west edge of the property. The property is currently zoned NB, Neighborhood Business and is designated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for Retail Commercial land uses. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to PD, Planned Development, to accommodate multiple buildings on a single parcel, shared access and parking, and establish common architectural themes, site lighting and a signage plan for the development. The applicant proposes to construct three commercial retail buildings totaling 103,150 sq. ft on this site. The existing building is proposed to be removed. The preliminary access to the site is proposed from Red Pine Lane, and is designed to be shared with the adjacent parcel to the northeast. Access to the service area of the southerly building is proposed from Gun Club Road. Ultimately, a secondary access via Biscayne Avenue is anticipated. The development plan shows a "ghost plan" for future redevelopment of the three southerly parcels adjacent to the east. The retail development is expected to be anchored by a grocery store; other uses include office, bank, retail and service uses. The proposed building architecture is reflective of a railroad depot. Ponding is proposed in the southwest corner of the site and rain gardens are proposed throughout the parking lot both to convey water to the pond and to provide added infiltration and treatment for runoff. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: The parks and trails dedication for the development are satisfied. 17 1 , TREE PRESERVATION: A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are six (6) significant trees and 34,056 square feet of significant woodlands located on this site. Most of the individual trees and significant woodlands are located along the west side of the property. Individual tree size and species break down is as follows: one 6" oak tree, one 12" black cherry tree, one 12" and one 14" elm tree, and one 16" and one 20" poplar (cottonwood) tree. The significant woodlands are comprised mostly of softwood deciduous trees, (elm, cottonwood, and willow trees) in the three to twelve inch diameter range. The majority of these woodland trees are located within seventy (70) feet of the existing wetland in the southwest portion of the site. The development as proposed will result in the removal of a total of five (5) significant trees (83% of the total), and 32,556 square feet of significant woodlands (96% of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree/woodland removal for this development is set at 40%. Required tree removal mitigation for this application calculates to ninety-five (95) Category B trees (or an equivalent combination of Category A and/or Category C trees. The applicant has incorrectly submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the fulfillment of required tree mitigation through the installation of thirteen (13) Category A trees and thirty-two (32) Category B trees, for an equivalent combination of fifty-eight (58) Category B trees. A revised and correct Tree Mitigation Plans shall be submitted that indicates the fulfillment of required tree mitigation through the installation of ninety-five (95) Category B trees (or an equivalent combination of Category A and/or Category C trees. Throughout several previous meetings with the applicant staff has provided the following recommendations to the applicant: a. Provide for additional preservation of significant woodlands located within 30-50 feet of existing wetlands. b. Revise the Tree Mitigation/Landscape Plan to provide for appropriate spacing of mitigation trees (located south of the proposed storm pond, in the extreme southeast portion of the site. To date staff has not seen any of these recommendations included on a revised development proposal. The applicant has also been instructed that they will be required to demonstrate which "practical difficulties or practical hardships" should grant them the ability to an exception to City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal limits. To date staff has not seen this type of narrative on a revised development proposal. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: Water Quality This proposed subdivision is in the east upper end of the City's LP 1-Watershed, which contains a majority of Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP). Immediately downstream of the parcel is an approximate 12-acre wetland, "Gun Club Marsh" (City Pond LP-23). This is a state public water wetland (DNR#19-0309W) that drains into Marsh Lake (DNR#19-0308W) in LHRP. The developer proposes to address City stormwater quality requirements via two constructed ponds, which would pre-treat runoff before it drains to the wetland and then to City Pond LP-23. A series of infiltration basins also proposed in part to help address runoff rates and volumes. Minimum requirements for volume and area of water quality treatment ponds are based on the impervious proportion of proposed developments (i.e., land covered by buildings, parking lots, driveways, and walks). The impervious proportions of the drainage areas would be used to calculate overall minimum treatment volume requirements for water quality purposes. The design and construction of the treatment ponds and infiltration basins would need to satisfy City standards and criteria. Wetland Delineation Upon an applicant's submission of a wetland delineation report, the City is obligated to make a timely decision on its approval. The wetland delineation report for the project site (Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.; Project No. 2004-058) identifies one wetland that is subject to the City's jurisdiction, according to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Any proposals to drain, fill, or excavate this wetland need to meet all provisions of WCA laws and rules. The boundaries and characteristics of the wetland were evaluated by the developer's consultant using widely accepted methods. The approximate 1-acre wetland is classified Type 3. Such wetlands are inland shallow fresh marshes that are permanently inundated with six or more inches of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, and smartweeds. In Fall, 2005, City consultants conducted a routine assessment of the functions and values of this wetland as part of the ongoing process to update Eagan's water quality management plan (WQMP). The assessment indicates the wetland to.be of medium environmental quality. This wetland is not currently connected to the City's stormwater drainage system. Preliminary wetland management classifications being developed in the WQMP update process indicate the wetland would receive the second highest protection standards. Protection approaches for this management classification may include requiring: 1) avoidance of any impacts, 2) average minimum natural vegetation buffers of greater than 30 feet, and 3) a setback distance from the buffer. Wetland Replacement Plan Upon an applicant's submission of a complete wetland replacement plan, the City is obligated to make a timely decision on its approval. A proposed replacement plan is not considered for decision until the application is complete (i.e., contains all required and necessary, components). On January 31, 2006, the developer submitted an application; the City determined the application to be complete February 9, 2006. 9, The developer proposes to fill 7,650 square feet of the wetland and to replace this impact onsite by creating 7,650 square feet of new wetland and by claiming 7,650 square feet of public value credit for construction of stormwater ponds. The proposed amounts of replacement meet the minimum 2:1 standards of the WCA rules. Before forwarding complete applications to City Council for decision, City staff must analyze and evaluate the following: 1. whether "Sequencing" requirements have been adequately addressed; and 2. whether the proposed plan meets state standards and requirements. • Sequencing Sequencing is a process-as specified by MN Rules 8420.0520-that ensures applicants' compliance with principles supporting the purposes of the WCA. It defines a descending order of considerations to avoid, minimize, and address temporary wetlands impacts before proposing unavoidable impacts for replacement. Attached are the applicant's Sequencing Analysis (pp. 2-4 of the application) and the Sequencing Findings of Fact for this project. The analysis determines that sequencing is not adequately addressed. If sequencing requirements are not met, the plan cannot be approved. • Plan Evaluation Attached is the Replacement Plan Findings and Decision document. The evaluation indicates the replacement plan cannot be approved. • Wetland Buffer It is customary in Eagan for new developments to provide minimum, 30-foot natural vegetation buffers alongside wetlands. The developer proposes no such buffer. The grading plan indicates a 680-foot-long span of either building or retaining wall along virtually the entire westerly edge of the development, which is a mostly wetland and stormwater pond areas. The retaining wall would be from about 4 to 10 feet high. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. The applicant shall be required to fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of ninety-five (95) Category B trees (or an equivalent combination of Category A and/or Category C trees. 2. Stormwater runoff shall be treated onsite via two constructed ponds. The design and construction of the treatment ponds and infiltration basins should satisfy City standards and criteria. 3. The wetland delineation report for the site shall be approved as submitted. 4. The wetland replacement plan for the site shall be denied as submitted. 5. A minimum 30-foot natural vegetation buffer shall be provided next to the wetland.. Eagan Boundary . all a Location Map spa o park Area tr Building Footprint ®p3 O c! IE6 94PPiP ® 0 G~ 9 m 4 ® 9S CAP, ® g6' 'C+ 4 ® ® © O ® me ~ ®0 f34d (ti ® t'J $ - O ~ 49 rd'S !A p ar @ d no tg a bt 4 4 i! A 03 tl .0 Subject Site CIO ® Esau 9 A Ya ~ CiD a 5:~ Pill 1 '"1 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer. Revestors Application: Prelim. Subdivision/Rezoning/Prelim. PD Case No.: 36-PD-05-12-05; 36-RZ-01-01-06 Map Prepared using ERSI ArcVlew 3.1. Parcel base map data provided N f] qal by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of April 2005. City of Ea THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W+E The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are Community Development Department not responsible for errors or omissions. S is.rMiir ~i>.~iiiTJi a E ~ € C ~ T~= Y .ri•~€ s. t EL ZrJa77. I A., 4. 1104 e n / ' ,i~'f \ N dl' 1 I" r\ it ' i pss I I;pr /A7 6¢g g z I I I. r 1 ~ "ns° r I••8 9+ a ~F LL ;~€+E i ~t . ~ r ~~I 3~ YE - Lt € jilt It ~ °aF =E F [ ! ijF F F q ^ ~ i E ?~~r s e# € E~. a fs LL ~ F= E s E I € € - F? tx t~ ti=e ~ C 3 £ e s a 72 0 's PRELIM' PLAT `ti t: •u IN, 173 IN, P i ~ r fY 11 JZ. / 4p # V11 T / ` I ! t / / 1 CT I - / / V~ ~ I I PCt7?tK.c s TIE fill start (`rkt ~I t nu y $"a a£ ash 'tF £ y iF $ tF a e e 3 _ a ~z is g e Zzi 3!? a P 'a ~ ~ ~ 0 Y t~~+t ay~a 3 ,Q I R t L A $ E ~ O 0 will e 3 :i sue--z___- } Z ft EXISTING CONDITIONS W~~r.l.~.\+w~WeWr .nW..~pV~y.r~ r.i - M+•~N`AM MA../ r 07 ems ~ o I I sib lit 1 ~ 1' 'I I I P . P asell E S I'll ~T Key - grn Vi 55 YR C rJ C O - - 40 C:D Cz~ tl y oll REDPINECROSSING OVERALL SITE PLAN DD-1 Mixed-Use Development I\'I E~Wx. InxxE50T~ b"+ >i ~Y[5TUP5 we I~..•.m ~1 p .14 / 20 3 • 1 I t i 4 ~ - ~g p =1 ~i GRADING PLA Ci RED PINE CROSSING (C nV M` 7 Mixed-Use Development 1t1A! i~ .If OIR~IEf ~M TREE PRESERVATION PLAN RED PINE LANE Q GEND C, rr C/) lip Lli / _ ? ` , s~mfl~anl Woodland Aff s ?M858 sq.Bl I . a . m... ,o Lu IBM 71 cc ° . o \ \ E SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND ~r - /J y I ~fl n Eo9a9a » n".w~ }wE + / y 7 i~ •~s I I•; S1GNIFICANTTREES ' ~ . ~ ~ .:I t ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ j ' ~ l.~ ~ I , I~';., N 6.fffi~E t ~ ~ _ :..r, ` ?vim ~ 1 1• I . j } : ad f 1 » Slanill nI T" To 0'e RF \ _ •.•wvo.. LrW W ~ ~ .s couu om~e wwVr ~4 / ~tY wr,u.ud., ~ GUN R ` ~ / ','.»"•'.A. TOTAL MITIGATION SUMMARY Delmar H Schwarz Lend Steveyora• kit E N555 South Rohar Trefl z E Roaemounl, MN 55088 r . ..w~.••-,r.-....... In Zj~ 4 s~ ~a s: rls+ JAN 0 2006 N a Y MEE i<W ' HiEYFVA TON 0 Sa w IY Lc) rITV CI IDBAITTAI rrr L •m ' hfil JJ , r it { ~t, f f"I GIN CLI'm A. 1, Nil N. E55i}554 • > 111!; 11 a aj[ „1 R m w~ 'i1 11111111 a o z TREE MITIGATION PLAN ; RED PINE CROSSING wouwpmlceepk Gmvk,- ~•L~ zl Wxed-Use Development I 1510 o~vn.,ssymv E K uME50Ta ` M mnopo6 aoh S51 N 0. 8l=.25W fan-7010 r .ww.hkpitpn Mill ° °.s pee.m Red Pine Crossing - Wetland Permit Narrative January 30, 2006 Page 2 PEC Project No. 2004-058 2. EXISTING WETLAND RESOURCES: Delineated Wetlands One wetland (designated Wetland A) was delineated on the property by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) on April 29, 2004 using routine methods as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Appendix B). The boundaries of Wetland A are shown in Figure 2. Wetland A consists of a 1.089 acre seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh). Some parts of Wetland A have a saturated palustrine emergent fringe (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 wet meadow). The wetland receives drainage from the northwest via a ditch along the adjacent railroad tracks and discharges via an excavated ditch that flows to a larger wetland to the south. Based on a review of historic stereo 1945 aerial photographs, the ditch that drains from the south end of Wetland A is of artificial origin and was created from pre-existing upland. Also, the wetland as a whole has been substantially reduced in size by historic filling activity (Figure 3). The wetland is dominated by green bulrush and narrowleaf cattail, with saturated fringe areas dominated by monotypic reed canary grass. 3. PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS The proposed impact has been limited to 7,650 square feet (0.176 acre), 7,177 square feet of which would occur in the reed canary grass dominated Type 2 wetland fringe at the northeast comer of Wetland A. The remaining 473 square feet of impact would involve the artificially created ditch that connects Wetland A to a larger wetland to the south. 4. SEQUENCING ANALYSIS Impact Avoidance The applicant has endeavored to avoid and minimize wetland impacts on the project site to the maximum extent practicable. As required by the WCA, the applicant considered two alternatives that would totally avoid wetland impacts. These alternatives are: No Action Alternative One alternative is the no action alternative, which would result in the project site remaining undeveloped. This alternative is considered infeasible because it would defeat the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the current landowners and the applicant. Moreover, the no action alternative is inconsistent with the City of Eagan's plans for the site. The City's Comprehensive Guide Plan guides the site as RC, retail Commercial. The site is currently zoned NB, Neighborhood Business. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and applicable zoning classification. Leaving the site undeveloped is not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan guidance or zoning for the site. Red Pine Crossing - Wetland Permit Narrative January 30, 2006 Page 3 PEC Project No. 2004-058 Avoidance Alternatives within the Project Site Due to the location and configuration of the wetland on the project site, total avoidance of wetland impacts is not considered feasible or practicable. The applicant has developed a conceptual plan for a total avoidance build alternative that illustrates the problems with such an alternative (Appendix Q. The reasons why the total avoidance alternative is not considered feasible are as follows: 1. The existing print shop property in the southwest corner of the site is isolated from the remainder of the property by the existing wetland. Total avoidance if wetland impacts would make it impossible to include the re-development of the print shop as an element of the Red Pine Crossing project. This would prevent the City from meeting their stated goal of redeveloping this substandard property and wouldn't allow it to be part of the Red Pine Crossing development since it could not be accessed from the rest of the site. 2. This southwest part of the property encompassing the print shop is zoned by the City of Eagan as neighborhood business, but can not function as such accessible only from the end of Gun Club Road, an unpaved road that the city would like to vacate. 3. Under this concept, Building B is forced to extend east along the north side of the wetland creating a visual barrier from the rest of the site, in particular blocking the majority of the south wing of Building C making it marginally leasable at best. 4. The compressed site also results in only one drive accessing the entire parking lot for Building C. This creates a bottleneck for daily traffic as well as provides less than the typically required access options for emergency vehicles. 5. Pushing Building B into the center of the site also reduces the spine of the rain gardens previously arranged down the center of the site to a level below 30 percent of the previous amount. This is a loss both in aesthetic value as well as in infiltration capacity. 6. The proposed site development allowed a pedestrian plaza at the center of the paths, reinforcing the pedestrian nature of the development. In contrast, the total avoidance plan cuts off the circulation around the perimeter of the retail buildings and precludes the concept of a central pedestrian plaza. 7. Finally, the avoidance plan reduces the area of building that fits on the site by over 20 percent resulting in a necessary reduction in building sizes, development quality and the level of detailing necessary balance with the proportional increase in land costs. Impact Minimization. The applicant has endeavored to minimize wetland impacts within the project site to the extent practicable. The proposed impact has been limited to 7,650 square feet (0.176 acre), 7,177 Red-Pine Crossing - Wetland Permit Narrative January 30, 2006 Page 4 PEC Project No. 2004-058 square feet of which would occur in the reed canary grass dominated Type 2 wetland fringe at the northeast corner of Wetland A. The remaining 473 square feet of impact would involve the artificially created ditch that connects Wetland A to a larger wetland to the south. In this location, the boundary of Wetland A forms an irregular lobe that extends northeasterly from the main body of the wetland, making it a difficult area to avoid. The applicant proposes to use a retaining wall in the area of the impact to minimize filling impacts as much as possible. The applicant has substantially reduced the proposed impact from earlier versions of the site plan in an ongoing effort to reduce wetland impacts. The original version of the site plan entailed 26,045 square feet (0.598 acre) of impact (Appendix D). Accordingly, the wetland impacts of the project have been reduced by 72.4 percent from the original plans. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation The applicant proposes to accomplish all compensatory mitigation on-site. New Wetland Credit will be in the form of 7,650 square feet of new wetland created at the southwest corner of Wetland A, about 180 feet southwest of the impacted portion of the wetland. This area will be excavated to have bottom contours similar to the seasonally flooded portion of Wetland A. The proposed replacement wetland will have undulating bottom contours and has been designed to have as sinuous a boundary as possible. The organic soils to be excavated from the wetland that will be impacted the rood systems and seed bank from the existing reed canary grass plant community. Accordingly, these soils are unsuitable for use in the proposed replacement wetland. The bottom substrate in the mitigation area will consist of mineral subsoil to minimize the potential for re-invasion by reed canary grass. The second half of the 2 to 1 replacement ratio will consist of Public Value Credit (PVC) generated by ponding areas within the project site. NURP Pond 1 alone is more than twice the size of the proposed replacement wetland. The applicant is requesting PVC for 7,650 square feet of NURP Pond 1 to supply the second half of the 2 to 1 replacement ratio. Because NURP Pond 1 drains directly into the proposed replacement wetland, it has been designed to meet the two cell ponding system standards set forth in Minn. Rules 8420.0541 Subpart 10 B. (2). The berm between the pond and the replacement wetland provides a barrier for up to a 10-year critical storm event and the replacement wetland will not fluctuate more than 24 inches in a 10-year storm. The proposed replacement wetland, the two on-site NURP ponds and the proposed infiltration basin will all be within a drainage and utility easement granted to the City of Eagan. 5. PLANTING AND FIVE-YEAR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Proposed Wetland and Buffer Seeding The seed mix to be used in the wetland mitigation area is taken from Guidelines for Restoring & Managing Native Wetland Vegetation (Undated, Robert L. Jacobson, Minnesota Department of Transportation and Minnesota Board of Soil & Water Resources, St. Paul, MN). Mixture W2 (BWSR Native Sedge/Wet Meadow) is proposed throughout the mitigation area. Planting Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Sequencing Findings of Fact Date: February 9. 2006 LGU: City of Eagan Project Name or Number: Red Pine Crossing LGU contact: Eric Macbeth Location of Project: NW SE 36 27N 23W V4 1/4 %a Sec. Twp. Range 1. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE 1) Is the project wetland dependent? ? yes ® no (If yes, proceed to Item II of this form) 2) Has the applicant provided documentation describing at least 2 good faith alternatives that would avoid wetland impacts? (e.g. no-build, alternate sites, alternate project configurations) ® yes ? no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) 3) Have all feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid impacts to wetlands been considered? ? yes no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) II. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT MINIMIZATION (8420.0520, Subp. 4) 1) Has the applicant sufficiently demonstrated efforts to minimize impacts to wetlands by considering the following? • Spatial requirements of the project • Individual and cumulative impacts • Locations of existing structural or natural features • Alternative project configurations • Project purpose relative to the proposed impacts • Site constraints • Confining impacts to the fringe of the wetland(s) • Site design relative to natural features • Value, function, and distribution of wetlands on the site • Others as necessary ? yes no (If no, then the LGU shall note the applicant in writing of its objections to the project. If the application is not withdrawn or modified to satisfy the LGU's objections within 30 days, then the statement of objection shall constitute a denial of the application) III. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT RECTIFICATION (8420.0520, Subp. 5) 1) Has the applicant proposed to repair, rehabilitate, or restore to pre-project conditions any temporary impacts associated with the project? ? yes ? no ®N/A (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) IV. DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF IMPACTS OVER TIME (8420.0520, Subp. 6) 1) Will additional wetland impacts be reduced or eliminated by maintaining, operating, and managing the project in a manner that preserves and maintains the remaining wetland functions and values? ® yes ? no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) V. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS (8420.0520, Subp. 7) 1) Will unavoidable wetland impacts be replaced in accordance with M.R. 8420.0530 to 8420.0630? ? yes ? no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) VI. SEQUENCING FLEXIBILITY (8420.0520, Subp. 7a) 1) Has sequencing flexibility been requested? ? yes ® no (If yes, explain compliance with MN Rule 8420.0520, Subp. 7a) Explanation: 2) Will the proposed replacement wetland provide equal or greater functions and values than the impact wetland? ® yes ? no (If no, then sequencing flexibility cannot be implemented) 3ased on the information above, is sequencing adequately addressed? YES) ® NO ? February 9, 2006 Authorized GU ial Date Page 1 of 1 Sequencing FOF Red Pine Crossing.doc (December 2002) Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Replacement Plan-Findings and Decision (8420-0500-8420.0550) Project Name Red Pine Crossing Project Location SE Quadrant of Red Pine Land and TH 52 Date Replacement Plan Complete: February 9, 2006 Date by Which Replacement Plan Decision Must be Made: April 10, 2006 Seguencine Process (8420.0520) Yes No ® ? Has a "Sequencing Findings of Fact" been completed? (If "No," do not proceed with this checklist until a "Sequencing Findings of Fact" has been completed.) ? ® Are the sequencing requirements met by the proposed project? (Attach a copy of the "Sequencing Findings of Fact") ***If the sequencing requirements are not met, the permit cannot be approved. Replacement Plan Evaluation (8420.0540-8420.0549) Yes No ? ® Sequencing completed ® ? Evaluation of Functions and Values completed (replacement and impacted wetland) ® ? Goal of replacement plan is clearly stated and measurable ® ? Type of Replacement identified (i.e., restoration, creation, banking) ® ? Proposed action is eligible to serve as replacement ® ? Size of replacement is sufficient ® ? Timing of replacement is concurrent with or prior to impact ® ? Location of replacement is acceptable ® ? The requirements and special considerations in 8420.0547 & 8420.0548 have been considered Wetland Replacement Standards (8420 0550) Yes No ® ? Will the replacement plan adequately replace the functions and public values lost at the impact site? ® ? Are the replacement plan goals supported by plan specifications? ? N/A ? Is a control structure involved and does it need a dam safety permit by MDNR? ? N/A ? Does the control structure meet the specifications of the Minnesota Wetland Restoration Guide? ® ? Are site perimeter Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the plan? ® ? Does the replacement plan discuss revegetation by seeding or planting? ® ? Have reasonable steps to control invasion by exotic species been included? ® ? Is an erosion control plan included? ? N/A Is placement of organic substrate necessary? ? ® Are there sideslopes of 5:1 or greater in created wetlands and graded portions of buffers? ® ? Is there an undulating bottom in created Types 3, 4, and 5? ® ? Does the created wetland have an irregular edge? ***If any of the above items are checked "No," the WCA requirements have not been met and the replacementplan cannot be approved Wetland Replacement Decisions and Findings Yes No ? ® Can the replacement plan be approved? List findings to support the approval or denial of the replacement plan: Avoidance argument inadequate: 1. Preferred plan utilizes SW corner of site for stormwater treatment pond versus for redevelopment, as stated; 2. Size of Buildings B and C, not the wetland, determines extent of stated undesirable aspects, such as visual barriers, traffic bottlenecks, loss in aesthetics, and pedestrian character. Page 1 of 2 Replacement Plan Findings_RedPineCrossing.doc (April 2003) Replacement Plan Approval Note: This section follows review of a COMPLETE replacement plan application. If any of the items below are checked "No". the replacement plan approval may not be finalized, and no work may begin on the project until this information is submitted Yes No N/A ? ® ? Has evidence of title for land containing replacement wetland been reviewed? ? ® ? Has proof of recording of Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for replacement wetland been received? ? ? ® Has completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits been received? ? ® ? Has a Contractor Responsibility and Landowner Statement Form been completed? ******lthin 10 days of decision, Notice of Decision must be mailed Page 2 of 2 Replacement Plan Findings_RedPineCrossing.doc (April 2003) Date: February 16, 2006 Agenda Item: I-1; Public Hearing DNR Grant Application Action X a ¢ - Information City O1 I ~f n Attachments X 1. Recreation Site Plan j (1 (,ill MEMO 2. Construction Plan 3. Design 4. Sections AGENDA ITEM: I-1; PUBLIC HEARING - DNR OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT THRESHER FIELDS TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS ITEM OVERVIEW: Conduct a public hearing as required for a DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant and make a recommendation regarding submission of a grant for Thresher Fields improvements BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The City of Eagan Parks and Recreation is dedicated to providing residents high quality, cost- effective facilities for residents and visitors. Part of this effort includes securing alternative funding for large-scale projects. The State of Minnesota and the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), has provided an opportunity to apply for funding to supplement projects that would enhance and encourage outdoor recreation. The DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant focuses on facility and structural development that encourages development or redevelopment of recreational facilities. Eligible projects include land acquisition development of recreational facilities, development, redevelopment, or rehabilitation of outdoor recreation facilities on land already owned by the applicant, or a combination of land acquisition and development, redevelopment, or rehabilitation of outdoor recreation facilities. Administrative expenses and legal fees are not eligible for grant funding. The requirements of the DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant stipulate that grant applications must be presented at a public hearing.. The City Council designated the Advisory Parks Commission meeting of February 16, 2006 as the public hearing date for the Outdoor Recreation Grant. Notice of the public hearing of the February 16, 2006 APrC meeting was published with the APrC agenda in the City's newspaper of record. ANALYSIS: Project Scope/ Activity Involved The proposed project includes park shelter buildings that will function as a restroom, weather/sun shelter, trail head, and gathering area. The use of Thresher Fields is mixed; partially groomed I /I athletic fields with scheduled activities ranging from soccer practice to tournament play. The proposed restroom/storage building would provide the only restrooms available for public use in the vicinity. Heavy use of the site is expected to continue given the demand for scheduled tournaments and games. A permanent structure would offer comfort and convenient storage of maintenance equipment and supplies. Some of the more prestigious tournament require on-site facilities. The proposed 2400 square foot, open sided, shelter building will provide active and passive opportunities. It will serve as a shelter during inclement weather, a meeting area for visitors, or the base location for team pictures or personal events like picnics or afternoon play. Grills and picnic tables will be located nearby. The facility will be ADA compliant and use energy efficient fixtures and resilient materials that have become standard in Eagan park buildings. The service building will be an approximately 640 square foot, block and wood, seasonal building with male and female ADA compliant restroom facilities. There will be additional space for maintenance supplies and storage, bulletin boards, drinking fountains and picnic tables separated by a landscaped buffer from the parking area. Water and sewer service to the building site were installed during the first phase of park development. A playground with features intended for accessibility will be installed near the pavilion. It will provide opportunities for young, non-participants or visitors to enjoy an activity at any time. A paved accessible trail will extend from the parking lot past the playground to a scenic overlook deck located above the easterly shore of the lake. The trail beyond the overlook will transition to a soft surface hiking trail and connect with an existing City trail along Yankee Doodle Road. The trail will provide an opportunity for park users to hike between Thresher Fields and the existing City trail system. A future phase of park improvement may extend the trail around the lake. A connector trail segment running north from the park was installed during a recent upgrade of the entry road. Implementation Schedule Park shelter buildings of this size and scope have typically been able to complete substantial construction within the year they begin. It is anticipated that substantial completion of the proposed project would be achieved in later 2007. The grant allows a three year time period for completion of all elements. Overall cost and the proposed financing for the proiect The total estimated cost of the proposed project, including contingency, is $ 394,000. The DNR will fund up to 50 % of an eligible project, thus the grant request is for $197,000. The local match of 50% is expected to consist of $182,000 from the Park Site Fund and $15,000 in in-kind labor costs. The Park Site Fund is derived from developer fees during the subdivision process. The in-kind contribution will consist primarily of the value of City labor used to implement the project. Costs to be assessed to community residents Project financing is proposed to be 50% State grant funding, and 50% from a combination of the City Park Site Fund and in-kind labor. Since the Park Site Fund and is derived from developer contribution rather than taxation or special assessment, use of the Park Site Fund for the project will not require a direct assessment to community residents. City labor will be derived from the /Z . regular allocation of time allotted and scheduled for construction and improvement projects. The assessment of additional funds will not be necessary. Other associated project costs Other costs associated with the project would be for routine and long term maintenance. Said costs would be included in the City's annual operational and maintenance budgetary request. This would include hard cost, (supplies and materials) and in-kind costs associated with on-going City labor. The City has continually demonstrated its understanding of the need to provide for the needs of new facilities. Miscellaneous The submission of a grant application does not obligate the City to accept a grant nor expend funds. Should a grant be awarded, an additional City approval would be required to enter.into a grant agreement. Submission Deadline The completed application will be submitted to the DNR by March 31, 2006. Should the City receive a grant for the project, substantial completion would be expected during 2007 ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: The Commission, upon closure of the Public Hearing, should make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the submission of the grant application. It is anticipated that this item will appear on the February 21, 2006 City Council agenda for final consideration. 1. Recommend to the City Council that a DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Application for the funding of improvements at Thresher Fields be submitted prior to the March 31, 2006 deadline. 2. Recommend that no application be submitted at this time. I~~ t ~ yl l • r •I 1 11 s y 3 warehoucahtonpe I r .I 1 11 ] ! ` - ' ! Yr bduetnal warehousd6atrie b Ndustnal Maintenance Bldg wereliouselctwape _ rc„_ , ~y _ Restroom8 rFra~n .yl yl . Picnic Pavilion + i e ~f Playground m ycr~oCO~ 4 n a i ~U ri a ernee ganpelstorage Overlook Deck J 1~~1 ~i Indust isr [ r re din hd U • Jl V G s ~ ~ 5 O '~U I LL . a ~t \ J 1~,{ ( ~ ` / , ~ - ,nenufsaur -t nr. I / - si I Ly~.CCCL000~ ~ T ~ t t II " `CC 'Q,c~rCC ll U 4 A +r i" t~` x JJ l 1 V ja _ ~ro SCE . - 4 1 I [ p ~ Indus! r~tc Iwuehus~=,•ape s J F~'_5 _ , , ,II ~f - - ' + L 1 I I _ 1 oompost fedrly! ~ s ~ ;os cwnpoN fanldy ~ a nl + J~°~aa~» Trail Easement r rIn..,a tE _ JJ # : " YANKEE DOODLE'RD residential medium density L FJ of Legend City ofEaRiu M3 Thresher Fields Trails Thresher Fields 2' Elevation Contour ~ Existing Paved Trail Building a+ Future Paved Trail Recreation Site Plan Parcels Future Hiking Trail Railroad Park Area = 77 acres N 0 200 400 Boo Feet Dakota County, MN Applicant Signature Date Date: February 1, 2006 MwwaMEeycyorEaten ComwMh•D WbWeIe aPameM Z f• NI/ 1, . \ \ \ \1 x NN. `'•ii~'aa is F~'. ?'iii, ` ,C\ , THRESHER FIELDS PARK t, / \ \ \ ER FIELDS PARK THRESH CONSTRUCTION EAGAN PARKS & RECREATION DESIGN LAYOUT FOR PROPOSED PLAN -A (WEST) PICNIC PAVILION & RESTROOMS DPSIONA WAWN By,. OMMNAL MAN- IAN.O! • SO 10 1% %G C.L=Y- RADANPARKd MAXIM BMWIN6 MAN•AfAR95 ' 1..1 mPtwARe AVIDCAD 70~ ~atuna a,~ 50 SCALE t4P{C.KI~IY ORAWBRBP tAATM ElANI~cWD-mllDPR PARK Cf10l6 \ BOCH YAwcs 2-) UP d w11 .ed mmr d tt5• tnwrM.n t v~ • 9 Dr. WMAL PARR • 1 Tm d Im ,WI d M Aydv,l D+ ..A •tM d m•I •d. Mu pdtE tV0 F-t CE+tE7t tWUSTdAL PARKdMQ Ew'-ty,- 85LBS f..! N1 4. ENI Mn "Acol S7 s` Q \cI \ 7-1 ` ..1 ' 5.0 G s s::s t .'s 6 •-sc 7 - 1 I 111 r It S87 S;i•. THRESHER FIELDS PARK d59'60 DESIGN & DRAWN By' ORIGINAL PLAN-JAN.'OS 1.5 ` - 7d55'9" C.1 us v. EAGAN PARKS PLANNER BUILDR40 PLAN- n4AR os DESIGN LAYOUT FOR PROPOSED REG.LANDSCAPiT; ARCFUTB':--- 2d4'51" SDEnyAM Q84~'R PARK SECTI e021.DW STANI~VOrD•CON. SOPBL ` 411- Cd • 4F r-4 P.4 C) -I ilSj If~t!eU • f i~~ ldfiiSii;•' • 03 03 un FVi~ S:•:? :Sift^?.. o z zo Date: February 16, 2006 Agenda Item: 1-2; Policy for Placement of Public Art and Memorials in City of a ~br City of E a~11 MEMO Eagan Parks. Action x Information Attachments X 1. Draft of Public Memorial and Art Policy AGENDA ITEM: POLICY FOR PLACEMENT OF PUBLIC ART AND MEMORIALS IN CITY OF EAGAN PARKS TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION ITEM OVERVIEW: Subcommittee discussion and recommendation for policy regarding placement of public art and memorials in City of Eagan parks. ''niEF^.'f(i~1~"'~vna"'^~fin"°~;~ -.i.~,a~~9~%~"`°-~=~=°` ~~:t„a;~;.r~i~.yY. -;.:_._a.~ 3+ BACKGROUND/HISTORY: There is currently no policy or guideline in place for making decisions regarding proposals to place public art or memorial structures within Eagan Parks. The APrC was recently approached by a family with a proposal to donate a piece of artwork for placement in a park but has deferred action until a policy is established. ANALYSIS: A work group of metro area Parks & Recreation Directors have been studying and compiling policy examples from more than fifty communities throughout the United States. Director Johnson has been a part of this work group. This information was used to develop the draft policy. DISCUSSION/ EAVALUATION: Developing a policy will provide the APrC and City Council with a guideline and reasoning for explaining/justifying decisions relating to public art and memorial placements to the public. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The Natural Resources Subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 31 to review and discuss this issue. The policy which they drafted is included for your review and consideration. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy be enacted as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy be enacted as amended. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy not be enacted. /I Draft 2-5-06 Public Art and Memorial Installations in City of Eagan Parks Statement of Purpose The purpose of this policy is to encourage the display of public art in the City of Eagan and to provide a mechanism for the inclusion of public art and memorial structures throughout the city's parks and open spaces. Public art can play a vital role in transforming the community into a destination, a distinct place within the metropolitan area. Public art can also acknowledge and celebrate the City's history through commemorative art, memorials, and interpretive projects. While public art and memorials may enrich a park experience for park users, public open space is also a very precious commodity. New structures should be carefully reviewed to balance these two public benefits. Process for Selection Artwork and memorial structures may be acquired through donation, open competition, invitational competition or direct selection. Proposals for placement of artwork or memorial structures must be made in writing to the Director of Parks & Recreation. All proposals for placement of artwork and memorials in City- owned parks will be evaluated by the APrC with a recommendation made to the City Council for final approval. Public Review and Comment Period Each application will be announced to the public at an APrC regular meeting and then made available for public review and comment at Eagan City Hall for a minimum of 30 days before action is taken by the APrC. Required Proposal Information The written. proposal must include: 1. A photo or drawing of the structure. 2. Appraised value of the structure. 3. Description of materials used to create structure including materials needed to display/secure the structure in the park. 4. Dimensions of structure including appropriate base materials needed at the park site. 5. Statement regarding relationship to proposed site including aesthetic, cultural, or historic ties. 6. Statement of probable lifespan of structure and annual maintenance needed to maintain structure integrity. 7. Statement as to whether the work is unique or is a duplicate of other work by the same artist. 8. Statement regarding the significance of the person or event to be memorialized in relationship to the community and to the proposed site. (Memorial proposals only) Public Art and Memorial Guidelines All art and memorial structures must meet the following guidelines before being considered for placement in a City-owned park or open space: 1. Absolute ownership must pass to the City. 2. Donations will not normally be accepted where a condition of donations requires permanent exhibition. 3. In the judgment of the majority of the APrC and the City Council, the structure must be appropriate for display to the general public. 4. Cost of on-going maintenance and repair anticipated throughout the lifespan of the structure must fall within normal park maintenance budget allocations. 5. Structures with political or religious messages will not be accepted. 6. Donations that require the City to pay installation, framing, restoration, or repair are not encouraged. 7. Artist or provider may request a specific site. However, each placement will be evaluated based upon suitability of the structure for the site. The APrC will make a recommendation to the Council concerning an appropriate site for each structure. 8. If proposal accepted by the City is a concept or design then the final product must match the approved concept or design. 9. The person or event to be memorialized shall have been deceased for a minimum of five years. (Memorials only.) Criteria for Review The APrC will make a recommendation based upon the following criteria: 1. The proposed structure should be compared with the artists' best work and the best works in the City collection. The acquisition should strengthen, rather than dilute the collection. 2. The physical condition of the structure should be considered in terms of durability in an outdoor setting. Any requirements for immediate or future conservation should be noted. 3. The structure must add interest and meaning to the environment in which it is placed. It must be compatible in scale, material, form and content with its surrounding and form an overall relationship with the site. Structure must conform to any existing Master Plan of site. 4. The structure must have social, cultural, historical and physical context to the site, both existing and planned. 5. The overall collection shall strive for diversity in style, scale, media, and artists. There shall be encouragement of exploratory types of work as well as established art forms. 6. In addition to the criteria for a piece of art, memorials will be judged on the significance of the person or event being memorialized in relation to local social, cultural or historical context and must represent broad community values. Removal of Public Art and Memorials The City shall remove and dispose of works of art and memorials in its collection only when it finds such action to be in the public interest based upon the following: 1. As a means of improving the quality of the City's collection a. The structure has no relevance to the collection or serves no exhibition function. b. The structure has a duplicate in the collection. c. The structure no longer meets the current standards for public art and memorials. 2. Due to concerns for public safety when a structure becomes a hazard or a public liability. 3. The structure is in a seriously deteriorated condition. 4. Removal should not be based on current fashion or taste. Attention should be paid to maintaining a collection which forms a continuum of the City's visual art history. Process for Removal Action is taken by the City Council after review and recommendation by the APrC. 1. Each request for removal will be announced to the public at an APrC regular meeting and then made available for public review and comment at Eagan City Hall for a minimum of 30 days before action is taken by the APrC. 2. Once approval for removal is granted, the structure shall be disposed of by one of the following methods: a. If the structure was donated to the City then it shall be offered to the person or group who originally donated the structure. b. If the artist who created the structure is alive, it shall be offered to the artist. c. If neither items a or b apply, then the structure may be offered to other public or non-profit agencies in the metro area or sold at auction. Date: February 16, 2006 Agenda item: 1-3; Fees and Charges Policy ° Action X City of Eaaa MEMO Information Attachments X 1. Fees and Charges Draft Policy AGENDA ITEM: 1-3; POLICY FOR DETERMING FEES AND CHARGES FOR PARKS & RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Subcommittee discussion and recommendation for policy for determining fees and charges for Parks & Recreation programs and services. BACKGROUND There is currently no formal policy or guideline in place to guide staff when proposing fees and charges for recreation programs and services. The 20/20 Vision recommended that the department "Adopt guidelines for the Park and Recreation department and its enterprise and revenue components to optimize revenue generations and service equity." Developing a policy for fees and charges is fiscally responsible for the department. A fees and charges policy helps to standardize the fees being charged for each program in order to promote equity and equal distribution of resources. It also provides a guideline and reasoning for explaining/justifying fees to the public. ANALYSIS 20/20 Vision: The 20/20 Vision recommends (pages 9-6&7) that projects be funded according to the following categories: • Fiduciary - Expenditures related to the appropriate care, maintenance and stewardship through the expected life cycle of the physical assets obtained by previous capital investments. Fiduciary responsibilities are generally fully funded by the City. • Public Benefit - Expenditures for public benefit are considered to be facilities and services that benefit the community as a whole or provide an equity benefit by offering services and facilities that have an equitable geographic distribution throughout the city. The 20/20 Vision also states that some programs related to health, safety and accessibility might be designated as public benefit. Funding for public benefit programs and projects usually involves fees or alternative funding sources to supplement the City's funding. • Quality of Life Enhancements - Expenditures for programs or facilities defined for a limited group of specified users. Funding by the City would generally not be appropriate unless there was some measure of contribution from the user group. The 20/20 Vision does not specify actual guidelines for each category or define exactly which programs and services fall into each category. The primary work of the subcommittee will be to develop appropriate categories and funding guidelines for each. The 20/20 recommends a new strategy for fees and charges at the enterprise fund facilities (pages 9-12&13). The 20/20 found that the inflexible fee structure at these facilities does not allow facility managers to react in a timely manner and draw customers to low use, non-peak hours. Establishing an over-all budget with cost recovery targets for each facility and then allowing the facility managers to work within these parameters would likely generate additional revenue. Other Examples: Staff contacted all MRPA Parks and Recreation agencies with an e-mail request for existing policies and procedures. Several agencies responded that they do not have a similar policy in place but would like to in the future. New Brighten Parks and Recreation and Farmington provided their policies which were used as a basis for the policy drafted by the Acquisition/Development Subcommittee. Current Programs: It is difficult to compare "apples to apples" in terms of current program revenues. If a new policy is put into practice, then budget forms will need to be standardized so that programmers can easily set appropriate fees. This process suggests that it may not be possible for all changes to be made in one year, but rather, should be incorporated over at least a two year period. SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW: The Acquisition/Development Subcomittee met on January 18`, and February 8th to discuss and develop the attached draft policy. The subcommittee also discussed the placement of current recreation programs into assigned fee categories. In addition, the draft policy was reviewed by Gene VanOverbeke, Eagan's Finance Director, who agreed with the policy's intent and language. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION 1. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy for recreation programs and services be adopted and implemented as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy for recreation programs and services be adopted and implemented as amended. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the attached policy for recreation programs and services not be adopted. 2-10-06 Fees and Charges Policy Introduction. The Eagan Parks and Recreation Department has the responsibility of establishing a philosophy for recovering costs for use of the City's recreational facilities and for participation in various recreation programs. This philosophy is meant to be a guide for the Parks and Recreation staff to develop a fair and consistent fee schedule. It is intended to establish a standardized approach to assessing fees for all Eagan Parks and Recreation programs, classes, activities and facilities. Philosophy Eagan's general philosophy is to fund park maintenance, its associated operating costs, and departmental administrative costs from other General Fund revenues and to recover a variable percentage of expenditures directly related to a particular program, activity, facility or event through user fees. Enterprise operations are expected to fully support their direct, indirect costs and capital costs. Fees are appropriate because of one or more of the following: • Cost per user hour of service and/or facility is higher than what is expected for general use or upkeep. • A fee will expand activities for all people. (e.g. Funds may be available for an event but charging a fee allows for additional activities to take place during an event.) • Use of the service or facility is limited to a relatively few individuals; therefore, those who benefit to the exclusion of others should be assessed a user fee for the privilege. • Imposition of a fee serves an independent function such as to limit the use of facilities among a large number of users; to aid in discipline and control; and to promote respect for activity and/or service. Authority The authority to establish appropriate fees rests with the Eagan City Council. The Eagan Parks and Recreation staff shall act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in the establishment of a fee structure. Direct Cost Direct costs can be related to a specific activity or service provided. Direct costs are typically supported by user fees. Examples include: program instructors, site supervisors, facility costs, supplies and equipment, program specific maintenance such as lining and dragging fields, and program specific advertising. Indirect Costs Indirect costs are general in nature and are not directly related to a specific activity or service. These costs are typically supported by other General Fund revenues. Examples include: administrative staff, office space, utilities, general department marketing, general maintenance such as mowing, irrigation, fertilizing, and capital expenditures. Categories of Cost Recovery The percentage of recovery for direct and indirect costs varies from program to program and facility to facility. All recreation programs and facilities are expected to be classified in one of the categories listed below. It is recognized that new recreation programs may need an implementation period during which revenue goals may not be met as the public becomes aware of the program and enrollment grows. For this reason, programs must meet appropriate revenue goals by their third offering. Programs in place when this policy is initiated will also have a reasonable time to reach the new target levels. A. Fiduciary - Public Service: These Department activities are offered as a public service to benefit the community as a whole with no admission or registration fee and are supported by other General Fund revenues. Advertising sponsorships may be sold or civic organizations and non-profit groups may partner with the City to enhance these activities as approved as part of the budget each year. Some examples include: Halloween Hodgepodge, Lone Oak Days, Ice Rink Warming Houses, Evening in the Park and Community Concert Series, Open Recreation Hours at the Oasis and Lone Oak Room, and Puppet Stage Performances. B. Public Benefit - Partial Cost Recovery: To provide affordable user fees and promote participation in core community programs and facilities, the Department attempts to recover all direct program costs plus an additional 25% for indirect costs. Examples include preschool programming, summer camps, developmental sports, adult sport leagues and youth recreational classes. C. Market Rate Fee or Quality of Life Enhancement - It may be appropriate to charge a fee that recovers more than 25% of indirect costs if: • The program benefits a specific, narrowly defined user group. • The higher fee serves to ration the amount of service that a facility or program can support. • The average market rate for similar services is significantly higher due to demand. Examples include bus trips, skating lessons, private or semi-private sport lessons, and adult fitness classes. D. Enterprise Operations: 100% of direct and indirect costs, plus a profit margin, are intended to be recovered through user fees. All profits are retained in the fund. Revenue targets/goals are adopted for these facilities; however, staff is given some latitude in order to be able to adjust user fees in response to markettrends, use patterns, and an approved marketing plan. Concessions Although concession operations are provided as a part of Parks & Recreation Facilities as a service to the public, this service must not detract from core programs. Therefore, all concession operations must generate enough revenue to cover all direct expenditures and advertising and are encouraged to generate revenue to offset indirect expenses through appropriate product selection, pricing and advertising. Scholarship Policy A limited Scholarship Fund is available to provide financial assistance for youth under the age of 18 for participation in recreational activities. Scholarships cover a portion of the fees charged. Scholarship applications must be made in person at the Parks & Recreation main office. Use of Subsidized Park Facilities, Pavilions, and Moonshine Retreat Center for Fund Raising or Commercial Profit Generating Activities. Groups wishing to use a park, pavilion, or Moonshine Retreat Center for a fund raising or commercial profit generating activity will be charged a rate that is 15% higher than the public rental per the City's fee schedule. Independent Contractor Guidelines. Independent contractors will only be used to deliver programs through Eagan Parks & Recreation for the following reasons: • Entertainer or speaker at an event or class that is being held as part of an overall program or event. • Company that provides a specialized service (i.e. timing for 5K or lighting/sound for a concert). • To provide specialized instruction where the City is not able to provide the same service through direct hiring of an instructor and the City will benefit from an independent contractor's advanced training, credibility, certification, "following" or "name value". Payment and Terms with all Independent Contractors offering programs and classes: • All registration and fee collection will be the responsibility of Eagan Parks & Recreation. • Eagan Parks & Recreation will promote the program through the Discover Brochure and the City's website. Flyers may also be distributed through other Eagan Parks & Recreation programs. Independent Contractors may also produce/distribute their own publicity for these programs. • 25% of all collected fees will be retained by the City. The remaining 75% will be paid to the independent contractor at conclusion of each class/season. • The independent contractor is responsible for facility rental fees in addition to the 25% of revenue retained by Eagan Parks & Recreation. With advance agreement, this fee may also be deducted directly from the contractor's 75% of program registration fees. • Refunds requested before the registration deadline will be approved by the City. Refunds after the program begins will only be issued with the approval of the independent contractor. Date: February 16, 2006 Agenda Item: 1-4; Park Classification System City of EaU(I aIL MEMO . tl Action x Information Attachments AGENDA ITEM: 1-4; PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JULIE SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS ITEM OVERVIEW: The recently completed 20/20 Vision Plan made suggestions pertaining to the system used to classify parks. The APrC is being asked to review and approve the adoption of a new City wide classification system as developed by staff and the APrC. E-RME; -mill BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The current system of park classification used for Eagan Parks evolved from the 1994 Park System Plan. The 1994 system was a hybrid of the classifications originally proposed in the 1984 Systems Plan. The recently completed 20/20 Vision Plan proposes some alteration to the current system. Staff and members of the APrC have since reviewed the proposal and made alterations thought to be appropriate for the conditions that exist in Eagan. Because the 20/20 document was "Accepted" by the APrC and Council versus "adopted", the concepts put forth remain in the realm of recommendations and function as a resource to aid in decision making. ANALYSIS: In general, classification systems for parks were initially a response to the recognition of the value of "open space". Open space being viewed in simplistic terms as either "active" or "passive". As parks have evolved, classification systems have become more sophisticated and elaborate. Much of the change being made necessary by the creation of park spaces intended to accommodate specific activities as well as increased recognition of the value of open space and preservation. Classification systems have become a reflection of not only physical characteristics of land but also management and planning efforts, and strategies. To this end, local entities responsible for parks and open space have taken it upon themselves to develop systems that are a reflection of priorities, resources, their vision, and, are useful as a management tool and resource for decision making. The system proposed for Eagan is intended to fit this model. Once adopted, specific management strategies for each classification will be developed, each falling within the context of existing policies and standards. However, because standards may tend to imply a "blanket" approach, the recognition that there are factors unique to a site, area or community will remain critical with any system. DISCUSSION/ EAVALUATION: Upon acceptance of the revised classification system staff will work to define a system of maintenance procedures or management strategies that can be assigned to each classification. These strategies will most likely be hybrids of the maintenance "modes" currently applied to park sites. Because of the variability of natural features found within individual parks it may be necessary to a assign a strategy to a specific area of the park versus having the entire park fall under one. This system will also have the benefit of defining the expectation that park users or neighbors should have in terms of facility maintenance Proposed Park Classifications: Nei hborhood Common Intended to serve specific neighborhoods within medium to high density residential areas, that can not be adequately served by a traditional neighborhood park due to physical limitations or access constraints. In certain circumstances, the park may be privately operated. Generally 1 to 4 acres in size with limited amenities that may include a play structure, hard court and some seating, 1/4 mile service area. The amenities may be specific to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhood Park Provides for a variety active and passive, formal and informal, within a park space easily accessible form a defined neighborhood service area, generally 3/4 of a mile. Distribution is throughout the community. Amenities may include ball fields, skating rinks, warming house, play structure, open space and hard courts. The size is variable though most are less than 15 acres. Community Park Facilities and use are targeted are targeted to serve residents of the entire City. The scale and scope of the site, improvements and amenities are adequate for large groups and special events. Generally more than 25 acres in size, they are often associated with a significant natural feature. Easily accessible from collector and arterial roadways. Amenities are non-athletic and may include large shelters and pavilions, hiking trails, play structures, fishing piers and picnic grounds. Community Athletic Field A large athletic complex servicing the entire community, intended primarily for organized youth and adult play including tournaments. Generally more than 25 acres in size and easily accessible. Field space may be developed for a specific sport or remain open to allow for multiple sport use. Fields may be lighted to accommodate extended use. Some opportunity for passive use that includes trails and picnic areas, restroom/service buildings and play structures may be on site. Preserve An isolated site consisting primarily of unique and/or undisturbed tracts of park land. While not physically connected to other park land, it may function as part of an ecological corridor, flyway or a link in other natural processes. Development is associated only with passive activities such as hiking, nature observation or resource enhancement. Some may contain or function as drain runs, retention ponds or stormwater collection points. Access may be limited Greenway Preserve A primarily undisturbed tract of park land containing unique and/or undisturbed natural resources, most often physically connected to other preserves or resources via a natural corridor. Any activities are passive and may include hiking, nature observation and interpretation. The site may contain elements of, or function as, part of the storm water management system. Access may be limited. Greenway Corridor A contiguous lineal corridor or resource that enhances, buffers or connects undisturbed natural areas or features. May allow for physical access between areas via a trail or function as wildlife/ecologic corridor. Access may be from multiple public spaces, streets or trails. Special Use Facilities that provide a unique activity or built environment/amenities that promotes a unique activity. Often intended for a single purpose. The location may be dictated by the physical needs of a specific activity which make it incompatible with other recreational areas. Service are is the entire community. Historic Site A site intended to preserve, protect and/or interpret historic areas or buildings. Improvement are generally limited to those intended to enhance the experience of any visitors or of scheduled, on- site, programs. The site may also be designated as historically significant at the State or national level. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The revised classification system has been reviewed twice by the APrC in a workshop setting. At the workshop held on January 12, 2006, the consensus of those present was that the system as now described was appropriate ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Adopt a revised system of park classification as presented at the APrC meeting of February 16, 2006 2. Adopt a modified system of park classification 3. Other LI Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006 Page 1 Pending Approval ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 12,22006 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on January 12, 2006 with the following Commission Members present: Joe Bari, Margo Danner, Terry Davis, Mark Filipi, Muhammad Lodhi, Duane Hansen, Richard Pletcher, Ryan Zipf, and Dorothy Peterson. Member Belfiori was not present. Staff included Director Juli Syedell Johnson, Superintendent of Operations Cherryl Mesko and Superintendent of Parks Paul Olson. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda Item F-2, Gopher Commons, was moved to G-1, Development Proposal for further discussion. Member Filipi moved, Member Bari seconded, with all present members voting in favor to approve the agenda as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2005 Corrections were made to Page 4 pertaining to the Use of Parks, Trails or Open Space for Large Group Event. The clarification was that a permit and fee for a park or open space reservation would need to be completed in advance of an event and that this fee was in addition to any pavilion rental that might also be reserved. Member Pletcher moved and Member Bari seconded with all present members voting in favor to approve the minutes of December 12, 2005 as amended. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. DIRECTOR'S DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Director Johnson provided a brief overview of recent department activities for the parks, recreation and facilities divisions. She also congratulated Sonya Rippe and Sandy Breuer for their recent recognition at the MRPA annual meeting for their involvement on the MRPA board. Kerry Phillips, an employee at the ECC, was also a recipient of a MRPA scholarship for her college studies. RECREATION DIVISION REPORT Recreation Supervisor, Sonya Rippe, provided a brief quarterly update for the Recreation Division. Rippe discussed the number of people involved in Adult Sports, Community Events, Preschool, Seniors and Teens, Youth and Family and upcoming events. Though January ice has melted away, Rippe stated that league Boot Hockey and Broomball players have been able to continue playing despite the standing water and open pavement. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 19, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA Member Bari moved, Member Filipi seconded with all present members voting in favor to recommend the following action to the City Council: 1. Youth Scholarship Policy Changes - Recommend that a scholarship program be implemented with a $10,000 allocation of CDBG funding for this specific initiative. 2. Yankee Square Addition - • This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication • This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. • The applicant shall fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of forty-two (42) Category B trees, or an equivalent combination of Category A, B, or C trees. • To meet the water quality requirements, one pond should be constructed to treat stormwater from 20 acres. It should have minimum wet-pond volumes and areas according to stormwater runoff and storage models that are acceptable to the City. The treatment ponds should be constructed according to NURP standards with a maximum depth of 10 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench from normal water level. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS: GOPHER COMMONS- GOPHER RESOURCE Superintendent Olson provided a brief background noting that Gopher Resources is requesting approval to create three lots and one outlot, located at the southwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Hwy. 149. The applicafit proposes to construct three office/warehouse buildings totaling 145,000 sq. ft. on this site.. Access to the site is proposed from Yankee Doodle Road. Olson stated that at the time the packet was distributed there were still questions pertaining to the tree mitigation but that information has subsequently been provided. He reviewed the mitigation plan and photos of this site. The development as proposed will result in the removal of a total of all twenty-eight (28) significant trees (100 % of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this development is set at 30%. Superintendent Olson responded to questions from the commission and concluded with an overview of water quality and wetland issues pertaining to the site. Member Filipi moved and Member Pletcher seconded, with all present members voting to recommend to the City Council the following: 1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication. 2. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. 3. The applicant shall fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of forty-two (42) Category B trees, or an equivalent combination of Category A, B, or C trees. 4. To meet water quality requirements, one pond should be constructed to treat stormwater from 20 acres. It should have minimum wet-pond volumes and areas according to stormwater runoff and storage models that are to acceptable to the City. The treatment ponds should be constructed according to NURP standards, with a maximum depth of 10 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench from normal water level. 5. In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater runoff from 2.8 acres, a cash dedication should be required. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006 Page 1 OLD BUSINESS There were no items to review under Old Business OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS There were no items to review under Other Business and Reports ROUND TABLE Chair Davis shared a letter that was sent to Director Johnson from an Eagan resident who donated Scotch Pines to George Ohman Park. The letter expressed Mr. Grundman's appreciation for the efforts of City Forester Hove in helping to complete this project. Director Johnson reminded the group that the February meeting will be on Thursday, February 16. ADJOURNMENT. With no further business to conduct, Member Bari moved, Member Pletcher seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Secretary Date