07/17/2000 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
AGENDA
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
Monday, July 17, 2000
7:00 PM
Eagan Municipal Center
City Council Chambers
Tour Faithful Shepherd and Rahn Park
A. 7:00 PM Regular Meeting 7:00 pm
B. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:02 pm
C. Approval of Agenda 7:03 pm
D. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000 7:04 pm
E. Visitors to be Heard 7:05 pm
F. Department Happenings Pages 3-4 7:06 pm
G. Consent Agenda 7:10 pm
(1) Cell Tower Rental Page 5
(2) Space Center Air Cargo Pages 7-8
H. Development Proposal 7:11 pm
1. Old Business
(1) Lexington Point Trail Access Change Request Pages 9-10 7:12 pm
J. New Business
(1) Bergen Property Pages 11-12 8:00 pm
(2) Spettsership Policy - deferred to August 8:20 pm
(3) Review of Stroller Policy - Cascade Bay Pages 13-14 8:21 pm
K. Parks and Recreation Update 8:30 pm
M. Water Resources Update
(1) Dakota County Low Impact Development Initiative Page 15 8:35 pm
(2) Preview of New Web Page 9:00 pm
N. Other Business and Reports
(1) Subcommittee Updates 9:20 pm
(2) Schedule Moonshine Park Meeting 9:25 pm
(3) Park Site Fund Update Pages 17-18 9:27 pm
0. Round Table 9:30 pm
P. Adjournment 9:35 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. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City will attempt to provide the aids.
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
2000 MEETING SCHEDULE
NAME Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
14 20 17 15 19 17 14 18 16 20 18
Joseph Bari x X X X X
Terry Davis x X X X X
Cyndee Fields x X X X X
N.Mark Filipi x X 0* X X 0*
Kevin Gutknecht x 0* X 0 Resigned 5/29/00
Floyd Hiar (Alternate) X X X 0* X
Barbara Johnson x X X X X 0*
George Kubik x 0* X X X
Daryle Petersen 0* X X X X
Dorothy Peterson x X X X X
John Rudolph x X X X X
Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acquisition/Development Sub-Committee
John Rudolph N. Mark Filip Dorothy Peterson
Cyndee Fields George Kubik Barbara Johnson
Daryle Petersen
Terry Davis
Joseph Bari
Floyd Hiar
UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES
FebR~aFy 14,2W9 1. Commission Review Workshop
2. Spring Maintenance Demonstration
April 272W9-- p.m. pip u' ho 3. Review revenue sources in lieu of park dedication
August 1, 2000..........5:00 p.m. - Joint CC/Impervious Surface Subcmte. 4. Review Docks
5. Naming Holz Lake (check if named)
6. Seasonal easement at top of Trapp Farm tubing hill
7. Wetland and Setback Buffers
8. Web Site ideas (July)
9. Workshop to review packet format/content
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
2000 MEMBERS
NAME AND ADDRESS Release TERM TELEPHONE TERM
Phone # START EXPIRES
JOSEPH BARI Secretary 1999 651-454-8442 (H) 1/2002
3033 Timberwood Trail Yes (3 yr. 1999)
Eagan, MN 55121
TERRY DAVIS 1997 651-452-2635 (H) 1/2003
4895 Safari Pass Yes (3 yr. 1997) 651-310-8941 (W)
Eagan, MN 55122-2690 (3 yr. 2000) 452-2152 (Home fax)
terry, davis@StPaul.com
CYNDEE FIELDS 2000 651-686-0351 (H) 1/2003
4725 Weston Hills Drive Yes (3 yr. 2000)
Eagan MN 55123
N. MARK FILIPI May, 651-687-9866 (H) 1/2001
836 Overlook Place Yes 1997 651-602-1725 (W)
Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr. 1998) mark.fiiipi@metc.state.mn.us
l /2002
KEVIN GUTKNECHT 1999 651-454-2890 (H)
960 Savannah Road Yes (3 yr. 1999) 763-323-5744 (W) Resigned
Eagan, MN 55123 kggutkne@co.anoka.mn.us 5/29/00
FLOYD HIAR (Alternate) 2000 651-456-0387 (H 8z W) 1/2001
3720 Knoll Ridge Drive Yes 651-456-0626 (fax)
Eagan MN 55122
BARBARA JOHNSON 1997 651-452-2609 (H) 1/2001
4535 Oak Chase Road Yes (3 yr. 1998)
Eagan, MN 55123
GEORGE KUBIK V.Chair 1993 651-452-3887 (H) 1/2002
3053 Pine Ridge Drive Yes (3 yr. 1996) 612-713-5315 (W)
Eagan, MN 55121 (3 yr. 1999) George_Kubik@mail.fws.gov
DARYLE PETERSEN 1996 651-681-0170 (H) 1/2001
4126 Lantern Lane Yes (3 yr.1998) 612-514-5155 (W)
Eagan, MN 55123 daryle.Iee.petersen@medtronic.com
DOROTHY PETERSON 2000 651-454-6532 (H) 1/2003
4337 Sequoia Drive Yes (3 yr. 2000)
Eagan, MN 55122
JOHN RUDOLPH Chair 1993 651-454-8761 (H) 1/2001
1644 Norwood Court Yes (3 yr. 1998) 612-707-2402 (Fax)
Eagan, MN 55122 612-707-2526 (voicemail) F 7/14/00
)rudoiph@burnsville.k 12.mn.us
FEagan City Staff E-Mail:
kvraa@ci.eagan.mn.us cmesko@ci.eagan.mn.us poison@ci.eagan.mn.us jasfahl@ci.eagan.mn.us
Phone # 651-681-4661 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.),
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: JULY14, 2000
The commission will take a brief tour of park sites prior to the meeting. Please meet at the east
entrance at 6:00pm.
ITEM B Call to Order
ITEM C Approval of Agenda
ITEM D Approval of Minutes from June19, 2000
ITEM E Visitors to be heard.
As of this writing staff is not aware of anyone wishing to be placed on the agenda.
ITEM F Department Happenings
Staff will review several of the items that the public may have a particular interest in.
ITEM G Consent Agenda
There are but two items on the consent agenda for approval. A single motion to approve is
appropriate unless a member has any particular question regarding either item.
ITEM H Development Proposals
There are no items for this month's agenda.
ITEM I Old Business
There is only one item under old business; the Lexington Point 14th trail extension. Last month
the commission reviewed this item and determined that the trail should go where the developer
agreed to place it last year, however, the developer is returning stating that he is not able to place
the trail as identified because of the criteria imposed on the trail construction. Staff has reviewed
the developer's submittals with the engineering department who agree that it would be
impossible to meet the 5% slope requirement at this location. The developer is proposing a
location that can meet that requirement. A memo and letter explaining the issue is enclosed.
Members may want to visit the site again on their own prior to the meeting.
ITEM J New Business
1. The first item pertains to acquisition of a portion of Mr. Tom Bergin's property who lives
next to Patrick Eagan park. A memo is attached.
2. A sponsorship policy is not ready for presentation and will be deferred to August.
3. The City Council has asked that the commission review and make recommendations
regarding a policy at Cascade Bay. Again a memo is included for your review.
ITEM K Parks and Recreation Update
Superintendents of Parks and of Recreation will provide updates on recent activities of their
divisions.
ITEM M Water Resources Update
There are two presentations for the commission. The first refers to low impact development and
the other on the development of a web page for the water resources division.
ITEM N Other Business and Reports
There are three items. The first is subcommittee reports and the second is setting a date for the
next Moonshine Park planning meeting. The third item is the quarterly status report on the park
site fund.
ITEM 0 Round Table
Items of interest or inquiries from Commission members will be addressed.
ITEM P Adjournment
Respectfully submitted
Ken Vraa
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Commission Members for your expressions of
condolences with the recent passing of my brother, Richard. Richard led a full life pursuing his
passions; of which he had many.
Ken
Department Happenings
July 17, 2000
• Throughout the month of June, our athletic facilities played host to several youth association
invitational tournaments (3 full weekends). We hear positive feedback about the condition
and service we provide with these facilities.
• The Parks and Recreation Department provided a good deal of services and coordination with
the recently held Yankee Doodle Arts and Craft Festival and the Fourth of July festivities.
• In concert with our planning and development of the fall edition of the "Discover" brochure,
staff has been working with a writing consultant to enhance our brochure "readability" and
attractiveness. This is all in consideration of one of our departmental goals; which was to
enhance all departmental forms of communication.
• Planning and coordination of outdoor facilities for this years youth fall sports programs is
already underway.
• A considerable amount of park area remains underwater or saturated as a result of the record
setting rainfall that occurred on July 7 (estimated to have been a 1000 year storm). Because of the
volume of water, many lakes and ponds will not return to a normal elevation for some time. Any
rain that falls during the remainder of the summer will slow the process. The full extent of the
damage to park areas cannot be fully assessed until the water recedes. Some of the most likely and
immediate impacts include undermined trails, dead turf, and dislodged retaining walls and timber
borders. A considerable amount of debris has also floated into parks and will be left behind when
the water recedes. The impact on trees, underground systems and wooden play elements that have
been submerged may not be evident for several years. The water resources division expects lake
and pond water quality to be degraded in the coming years as a result of excessive loading of
nutrients in the large amount of stormwater inflows. No park buildings appear to have been
damaged. Maintenance staff has been providing support in the effort to repair and protect the basic
City infrastructure putting many projects and maintenance programs on hold. Most activities
scheduled for park areas have resumed.
• The Forestry Department, working with Community Development, has refined the permitting
procedure for planting within the public road right-of-way. A new easy to read brochure explains
what species are allowed and the technique recommended for planting. The public right-of -way
typically extends 13 '/z feet from the,back of the curb. Currently there is no cost for the permit. The
forms can be obtained by contacting the Community Development office.
• Vandals started a fire in a storage box adjacent to the west storage/restroom building at Northview
Park. The fire charred the side of the building and melted the electric meter. A prompt call from a
citizen to the Fire Department saved the building from being totally destroyed. Staff, working with
an electrical contractor, repaired the damage and had the building reopened within several days.
The total cost of the repair was approximately $2500.
• A contract has been awarded for the replacement of the large set of bleachers at the Goat Hill Park
major league field. Staff will be coordinating the installation of the concrete base pad and entrance
trail prior to delivery of the bleacher. Completion of the project is expected in September. As a
result of the recent bleacher legislation the Goat Hill bleacher is the only one in the system that
must be replaced. Funding is from the 2000 C.I.P.
• Should the athletic fields dry out, staff is hoping to make the summer application of fertilizer.
Once again, a high quality, low phosphorus, dust free material will be used.
3.
• The engineering department has completed the design work for the paving of the north lot at
Thomas Lake Park and a second hockey rink at Goat Hill Park. Park staff will be replacing the
boards on both rinks at Goat Hill as part of the project. Paved rinks have proven to be very popular
and are the first to ice over for winter use. Work on the projects is scheduled to begin as soon as a
contractor has been selected. Both were included in the Department C.I.P. for 2000.
• Several park parking lots will be seal coated in the next month. A new process that utilizes a one
step spray emulsion will be used. It dries in 2 hours and does not require the use of granite chips.
• Under contract with the Water Resources Division, a commercial harvester completed its
work on Fish Lake just before the historic rainfall. Over a week and a half, the harvester
removed 116.5 tons of aquatic plants from the lake. During part of one day, Water Resources
staff tested a small-scale boat-mounted cutter for the first time.
• Water Resources staffjoined a dozen volunteers and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) and Dakota County staff on an all-day wetland reference field trip June 29 as part of
the Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project (WHEP) (Recall the presentation on
the WHEP by two schoolteachers at the May 15 commission meeting). The purpose of the trip
was to provide WHEP program participants exposure to two high quality, wetland reference
sites in the Twin Cities area. Both sites have many wetland plant and animal species, a high
biodiversity of which is used as a standard for high wetland quality by the MPCA. The
reference wetlands are located in public parks within large expanses of historically
undisturbed land use.
• On July 13, Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth represented Eagan on a 5-hour barge tour
of the Minnesota River, as part of the 5`t' Annual Cooperative Minnesota River Conference
hosted by the Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board and its partners. The theme of this
year's conference was "Projects on the Land; Results in the Water." The City of Eagan was
invited to present highlights of its efforts to improve water quality.
Date: July 12t°, 1000
Agenda Item: G1 Tower Use
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Location Map
AGENDA ITEM: G-1; CELL TOWER LEASE-GOAT HILL PARK
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS
ITEM OVERVIEW: In accordance with existing city policies, Metricom Incorporated has requested
permission to install receiver equipment for wireless communications at several locations including an
existing NSP transmission tower in Goat Hill Park. Because the location is within a park area, the
Advisory Commission is being asked to act upon the request.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
With the growth of the telecommunications industry, providers are partnering with other facility owners
to develop and improve the network. One of the most common requests is to use an existing facility as
a base for antennas and transmissions equipment. The most visible example can be seen on water
towers, reservoirs and power poles; height and location being the most critical factors in determining
location.
The City of Eagan currently administers a number of leases for the use of reservoirs as the base for
antennas. Each lease is reviewed by a telecommunications consultant to determine capability with
existing systems. The Engineering Department is responsible for lease administration. The current
lease rate if $14,201 per year. This past March, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
approved a request for the lease of a tower in Rahn Park.
ANALYSIS:
The request is for the installation of wireless communications on an existing tower structure. The
equipment consists of small antennas located on the tower at various heights and a ground level power
cabinet. The installation would be consistent with those elsewhere in the city.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
The tower structure that Metricom is proposing to use is located in the northwest corner of the
intersection of Lexington Avenue and Wilderness Run Road. The site is a non-maintained section of
Goat Hill Park. Brush, small trees and grasses surround the tower. Unlike the previous request for an
installation in Rahn Park, there are no facilities or park amenities within close proximity to the tower
and the visual impact will be negligible. There are no plans for development in this area of the park.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Staff is recommending that the commission approve the request for the use of the NSP tower in Goat
Hill Park with the following conditions:
1. A fence be installed around the ground equipment
2. The site be restored upon completion of the installation
S
Item: & - ~ &OA I ToWtq
l 6 Attachment oN
x I 75~
66) DIFFL``I RCAC
.fir.
Qom. yq~ Rv
.•y RII LAI
iIA ICK
ZCC EFLOWER T
A. ~ W 1,DJ FLOWER CT
LFXING 0N 31 m r1DOOC
Z
1 of _
° a JFCER$ON
< I ( I is U~ _ArrNEC 3E:E_JVUE.r'~
S C r ..+~~~Iy HA TON C m
BAT-:NG AGE,
41 A C A,
r2 l y ~L ~J /~J I / I
t o SUDBERR! OurLOr
WA FOR LANE
Sill FIELD i i
W p (o~t~R I
Lr.
<111,:
(r OUTLOT
JR. BASEBALL 1`4y0 O •
PARKING LOT PLANNED
/ \\l
Pur uo
'LEASURE HOCKEY
G \ ~ 1 t
RINK
EXISTING FOREST
PARK SMELTER HOCKEY
LEAINGTON AVENUE
FIGURE 3 - 18
CITY EAOAN GOAT HILL PARK
NOR H
PARK LAYOUT 1994 DoT TO :GALE
kit ~.rv r~~.T>=5~ Ru*v Fop
Date: July 17, 2000
Agenda Item: G-2; Space Center Air Cargo
Action 11 x
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1. site Plan
2. Final Plat
3. Landscape Plan
AGENDA ITEM: G-2; SPACE CENTER AIR CARGO
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ITEM OVERVIEW: • Review parks, trails, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that
pertain to=the=estahlisht:ant-a€ fight-temm nal_upon a 14.9 acre site.
ar J. ~ ~ooc.'
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Space Center Air Cargo Inc. has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
establishment of a freight terminal upon a 14.9 acre site located northwest of Kennebec Drive
and northeast of Silver Bell Road.
The subject site presently overlays two outlots (Outlots 2 and 3, Silver Bell Addition) which were
established in 1978. To accommodate the development proposal, the platting of the property into
a lot and block will be required. The site is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial which lists freight
terminals as conditional uses.
The subject 14.9 acre site in question is currently vacant. The property is relatively flat and holds
some significant vegetation along its southwestern boundary. In addition, a pond presently exists
along the site's northwest boundary.
The 175,000 square foot office/warehouse building is to be "u-shaped" with outside storage of
trucks occurring within the resulting interior "truck court" and. in the northeastern portion of the
site.
The building will be primarily one-story but will include a two-story office component.
This item is scheduled for consideration at the July 25 Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION:
This development would be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication.
TREE PRESERVATION:
There are no tree preservation issues with this development.
WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS:
This 14.92-acre development is proposed in the western portion of Eagan, in the City's A-
watershed. Because of the size of the development and the extent of its impervious cover,
stormwater will need to be treated through on-site ponding. The design of the water quality
treatment pond should be according to NURP standards. A minimum, wet-pond volume of
h
2.40 acre-feet would need to be created. The pond should have a maximum depth of 10 feet,
a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design standards.
The developer is proposing to meet its water quality requirements by expanding pond AP-52,
which is a constructed stormwater basin with a wet-pond volume of 1.08 acre-feet. Thus, a
wet-pond volume of 2.40 acre-feet would need to be added.
There are no wetland protections issues associated with this development.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication.
2. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication.
3. The existing stormwater treatment pond should be modified to include an additional 2.40
acre-feet, in accordance with NURP standards. The pond should have a maximum depth
of 10 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design
standards.
< l;r1 W Item: C~-Z; pace eeniu'
W
d Attachment # / 5f le- Plan
t~ ;i ~ 3 ~ ~ _ _ o rwn w
iuu I ,I
i
4 r rs
dill
U Q3 x
till
Q 21
SITE PLAN
2 Item: 6-Z, 3 fxue &4r -r
Attachment # 2 _
Final Puf
3 e V a Sf: { i
e: _ ix FFa I
y E~ $ R S 8 F a a` 8 I Y
8 Say e" ' V vE rs 5= g. 6
q o e 3 S i " f 'E fi zrra 3 s fi °
~ a iGi = I`g $SbE fi
g _ s q a _ I a e
a 8 p -z' i $ _ C $
i : s _ fsg: $ £ 3 i• ofi~: : € °a- r
~s s c-> ! Eb#s 3 I 8~ s$
a E¢: $e y $ a$a' s a Ys
E. ~ Y g: S 6d i b ~4 fi€:~ - ~Ec sb
81
s a L
i~ fo.s a ~i R 1= kS .a° $a c
yes - g c ` * ;'sa ~ A r"
s : o YS V+=~.y"f E£ f ~h ~ ~-v ah i° - b ~6 ~ i
e d. d 3~ 2 5~ 2 4:e; rtii ao g 5 a 4a E3 4
e
a'' \ \ \ \ $ j eo
% 14
a- E \
` ~4 \
•1 \ /C
• 05• " \ J \
Q` :r
41
ol-
OZ.
U °i, y ]ae a ~ ~ mss' qa g
rr^^ f' - T - bN 62 Yi mow- ;s,( Y i;
= ~gcsa 37~ fir- ~
as
J 8R7ye^ bbd' •0
b2Sa! f 4 g~ p 2
FINAL PLAT
Item: G_Z) space den
Attachment #3_ Lc, ndSrQ
pe, p!an
1111!!, If
0.4
¢ y6 1-- _
TT T
~7k ' A14
~ I r P
ARM
;!l,{ f iQll zt ~E r 7~~F{ F~1 :~hf 1+ t FI
_ f!' S~! ~ j~~~11 ~QiF! Ir ~E~~#i fi~~ 'F~
,j f t tlt f~ P • i~F F€1P i ~e it ~ ' E N~ 1F~f Q ~ ,tai will 111, cs i
Gil III F eta
F~~ F~1 J1
H k IFi if fit t 1,
ltei trl lr~P 1 0 1~FS
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Date: July 17, 2000
Agenda Item: 1-1; Lexington Point Trail
Action 11 x
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X Letter from Gary Fuchs
AGENDA ITEM: I -i; LEXINGTON POINT TRAIL ACCESS
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARK AND RECREATION
SITEM OVERVIEW: A request to reconsider the trail access in Lexington Point 10 due to steep slopes.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The Commission reviewed this item at its last meeting with a recommendation that the trail be
constructed at the designated location between lots 12 and 13. The developer is indicating that he
can not meet the standards for trail development at this location because he is not able to grade
the trail at a 5% slope, as is required in the development contract.
Attached is a letter from Mr. Gary Fuchs, representing the developers, in regards to this issue.
Staff has also been supplied a larger graphic and photographs of the area. Because of the size and
inability to reproduce these submissions, they will be available before and at the meeting.
ANALYSIS:
The letter states that the trail cannot be built at this location given the standards of construction
contained in the development agreement; specifically the 5% slope requirement. After review,
meeting this condition would be virtually impossible, even with an extensive retaining wall.
However, if the standards were relaxed considerably to allow for much greater slopes, the trail
could be constructed along the general alignment as shown.
Relocating the trail as requested between lots 14 & 15 does mean less slope (grade) and the trail
could meet the standard of 5% as it traverses through the development. Slopes greater than that
will still occur as the trail makes a connection to the park. In fact, it's very likely that there will
have to be portions of the trail greater then 5% regardless of the trail connection within the park.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
The Commissioned has had to deal with a difficult and frustrating issue as it relates to this trail. It
is obvious that a trail connection is important and consistent with the trail plan. It's also obvious
that the connection is wanted as evidenced by the well-worn path that now exists. The issue is
which location best meets the needs of the trail user.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
It appears that the commission has two alternatives;
1. Relax the standards for trail installation and have it installed were it is currently
proposed.
2. Relocate the trail between lots 14 and 15.
9
Item:,- Le' rnyfrn Pola-1 True ,
Attachment # ~ Le+fer
GARY G. FUCHS Gary Fuck s
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
3445 WASHINGTON DRIVE
SUITE 1 00 PHONE: (651) 452-1 214
EAGAN, MN 55122 FAx: (651) 681-0769
July 12, 2000
Mr. Ken Vraa
Parks & Recreation Director - City of Eagan
Eagan City Hall
3820 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Re: Trail Easement - Lexington Pointe 14th Addition
Dear Mr. Vraa:
As you know from our recent conversations, I represent the principals developing
Lexington Pointe 14th Addition. This letter is to request review and reconsideration by
the Advisory Parks Commission of the proposed location of the trail that is intended to
provide access to Walnut Hill Park through Lexington Pointe 14th Addition.
As you will recall, at the early stage of the development of this parcel two
separate trail locations were identified. One is along Lot 1 and Wildflower Lane. That
trail location is not the subject of this request.
The second trail location was identified in the early development stage as
meandering through Lot 1 through 13 along the edge of a drainage and utility easement
that is intended to pond storm water runoff. As I understand it, subsequent to this early
identification, questions arose regarding the necessary ponding capacity of the ponding
area and the periodic impact on the passability/useability of a trail at that location. As a
consequence the trail location was determined to be better placed along the common
line between Lots 12 and 13. That location was incorporated into the Development
Contract between the City and the Developer. (See attached Page 16 and Exhibit D
from the Development Contract).
On behalf of the Developer we are suggesting that the trail location be
reconsidered by the Advisory Parks Commission for reasons of feasibility of installation,
safety and long-term maintenance.
1. Feasibility. The Development Contract lists standards for construction
of the trail that are not feasible in the present proposed location. The
criteria that are not met by the current location are longitudinal slope of
5%, minimum elevation above HWL of 3 feet and, possibly, maximum
side slope of 25%. Two of these criteria (HWL of 3 feet and side slope of
25%) can admittedly be met by relocating the easterly and southerly
portions of the trail elsewhere within Lot 13, but that has significant impact
on Lot 13 and was not anticipated by the Development Contract. The
longitudinal slope criteria cannot be met even by relocating the trail within
Lot 13.
The longitudinal slope of the trail along the location shown on Exhibit D of
the Development Contract, (copy enclosed) would vary between 2.5%
and 28.5 Approximately 35% of the trail would have slopes of 10% or
greater and approximately 50% would have slopes of 6.5% or greater. It
is perhaps possible to fill the trail area to provide a constant longitudinal
slope of 5% or less, but the side slope would then exceed the 25%
maximum. (See attached drawings).
2. Safety. The safety issue is directly related to the longitudinal slope
and side slope criteria. The safety issue is also relative or subjective in
the sense that reasonable people can differ on what is, or is not, safe.
Our concern is that many of the users of this trail will be children and
adults with children. We can reasonably expect some to be on bicycles
or skateboards or roller blades. We believe both the longitudinal slope
and side slope criteria are intended to provide maximum criteria related to
safety for users. Exceeding either criteria creates a safety concern.
3. Maintenance. Maintenance of the trail will be the responsibility of the
City. Slopes that exceed the maximum design criteria may cause
excessive erosion from storm water runoff. The City's easement extends
one foot outside the asphalt surface on both sides of the trail. Erosion
along both sides of the trail will likely occur if the slope maximums are
exceeded. The erosion may well extend beyond the.10-foot easement
area. The maintenance cost to the City will likely be higher because of
the erosion.
PROPOSED RELOCATION
The Developer suggests relocating the trail easement to the common lot line
between Lots 14 and 15. We make this suggestion for the following reasons.
1. None of the design criteria issues discussed above exist at this proposed
location. The slope is relatively flat, the distance is much shorter and
maintenance is less costly.
2. The area residents who currently access Walnut Hill Park through this
development (primarily children) now use the most direct route which is
approximately on the common lot line between Lots 14 and 15. (See
photographs). It is likely they will continue to do so even if the trail is
constructed at the present location. Such use may well create future
problems among area residents.
3. The current purchaser of Lot 15 is aware of the proposed relocation and has
provided written acknowledgement and consent to the relocation. The
Developer owns Lot 14.
4. The cost of installation of the trail at either location is to be paid by the City.
The cost at the new location will be substantially less than at the current
alignment. Costs based on estimates by Bituminous Roadways are
enclosed.
The cost of installing the trail is to be paid by the City. The cost differential as
shown on the enclosed estimates can be significant.
The purpose of this trail is to provide area residents with access to Walnut
Hill Park. This new proposed location of the trail would accomplish that purpose with no
design/safety issues, at less short term and long term cost to the City and may well
preclude future disputes regarding trespass/access issues.
The Developers are prepared to convey the trail easement at either the current
alignment or the proposed relocated alignment. To convey the easement at the current
location the Parks Planner must first stake the meandering alignment so a surveyor can
create a legal description. That process may take several weeks. To convey the
easement at the proposed new location would not require staking or a survey
description. It could be done by reference to the common lot line between Lots 14 and
15, and installation could be completed within a few days.
Your consideration of this request and the consideration of the Advisory Parks
Commission is appreciated. As you know from our prior discussions, I am unable to
attend the Commission's meeting on Monday, July 17th. I regret that conflict. If you
require any further information, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
GARY G. FUCHS
ATTORN AT LAW, P.A.
&C,
AR FU HS
GGF:CLF
City's discretion, to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 of the Minnesota
Rules of Civil Procedure for the District courts at the Developer's expense, to include court
costs and attorney fees. The Developer further authorizes the City to draw upon the Financial
Guaranty in the amount of one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the claim together with
attorneys' fees and court costs, and to deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule. Upon
such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge and dismiss the City from any further
proceedings as it pertains to the funds deposited with the District Court, except that the Court
shall retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses owed to
the City pursuant to this Contract
6.4 Contract Management Account The payment of all sums due hereunder is in
addition to the sum of $6,675.00 paid or to be paid by Developer as a contract management
fee as identified in the Escrow Deposit Agreement signed by Developer.
SECTION VII
PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION
7.1 Park Dedications. The Developer shall pay a cash contribution of Twenty Eight
Thousand Four Hundred Five and No/100 Dollars ($28,405.00) in satisfaction of the City's
park dedication requirements as provided for by the City Code. The charge is calculated as
follows:
Twenty-three lots at One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-five and No/100 Dollars
($1,235.00) per lot.
15
. t=
The contribution for Residential Development shall be paid to the City before the City
releases the final plat for recording.
7.2 Trail Dedication. Trail. dedication shall be fulfilled in this plat through the
grading and installation of an 8-foot wide bituminous trail. abutting Lot 1, Block I and the
establishment of a 10-foot trail easement abutting and within Lot 13, Block 1 as shown on
Exhibit D. The said trail shall be constructed and the said easement established ptior to the
issuance of building permits within the plat.
The trail installation shall be performed in accordance with the following standards:
Trail Design Standards - 8' Bituminous
1. Maximum longitudinal slope - 5%
2. Maximum cross slope - 2%
3. Minimum elevation Above HWL - 3'
4. Minimum distance from NSP tower - 50'
5. Class 5 aggregate base - 6" min.. Compacted
6. Bituminous wear course MnDOT 2341- 2"
7. Provide erosion control as required
8. Backfill topsoil against trail - 3"nun.
9. Concrete Pedestrian ramps at curb cuts
10. Parks Planner to set trail alignment stakes
11. Adjacent side slope grades - 25% max.
12. Establish groundcover adjacent to trail
7.3 Water Quality. Pursuant to the City's Water Quality Management Plan, the
Developer shall meet water quality mitigation requirements through an on-site ponding area
provided by JP-50. The ponding area shown on the final grading plan dated November 9,
1992 with the latest revision date of July 16, 1999, provides the required surface area and
volume of 1.1 acres and 5.7 acre-feet, respectively. JP-50 conforms to NURP standards and
has a skimmer at the outlet
16
LEXINGTON POINTE FOURTEENTH ADDITION
"T 'I --erWWz I
4 .1
I JIM
8' Bituminous Trail
9 ~j11 yI IIf.,' ~i\ .~^.o\ f tt 6 ai 1 1\
2S ;2 21 ,L•
Z~-
g,z 20 - - - -
,yj%~ 3r1i. _ 11Fb
19
-
B I •u
r
mJ 10
- - - - - - - , ¦ w ~I_ 11 . ;
-Y
Ir~.~ •w1Ut.. ' ...•w \ 7
s ! ! 12 ~ , I
-,1. ME , r. pfd ..r.r..•.- `fs
I t6 I 1 15 ! 14 h7 13 r6
1 `I I 1 `
LOCATION MAP .1 j I I
r it
SECTION 26. T27N. R23W 1 •1 I I 1 .16 11 !
a't .•o,ITRn. 1C s IIC
t.stMEMTS ••t s„aww Twrs ~ :Ir
i
.'-y1 +
10' Trail Easement for 8' Bituminous Trail
w : :G-
I •
MwOTN NrONI..C,w10 fT •I :N
UNLESS OTK„w•1E •q¢NCO Ep Ow .LAT lsT.
•I : E
M]OU.wL TK „e,~•. SM x t T,.•. 23. ` ~1 s ;I
M.3 -.111/[0 K11•MG O< 1 srwrw I
It •I
o o[wOTES Y4'. wwow P' (stowusEwT • s 1 : F:?
SET U* CD WITH LICENSE MO.IS233. I t_
OEMOTES IOUND O.Ow PVC 1.OMI.EMT rat\. •0 rr 1
MN.RED *IT" UCEMSE M0. 15231 , a it
MO woµ:wENT T) C 910wM OI. THC PLAT ` 11
wO.C.TES NOM/wt;M73 TO IK SET ACCplOw10 . 1.-----------! 7D;
TO.w.MESOT/ STAND ..I.CH SNAIL
K w r - Ow 194M C THE 13TH DAY OF S so 10 130 s00 ~.w .rt.' .r C sL,. ' 23.00 SE COIbL2 OF
.Cws .sR Tilt NW n4.
SECTION s
HIGHLINE TRAIL AND WALNUT HILL PARK
EXHIBIT D
~orr~ JP 50
NWL= 963
(-AWL..: 16$,0
Z
FT~ / d o Ln
O L
50 100 150 Xo of
IN FEET
COD
Fr-j
x
ti
T
DRAI D UTILIT* r-
Approved Trail Location at 5%
Gravel Base and Bituminous 895' $11,933
Grading $8,750
Retaining Wall $31,680
Culverts $350.00
Total $52,713
Approved Trail Location at 10%
Gravel Base and Bituminous $11,933
Grading $10,000
Retaining Wall $5,000
Culverts $350
Total $27,283
Proposed Trail Location
Gravel base and Bituminous 440' $5,866
Grading $2,500
Total $8,366
Note: Unit prices provided by Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
Date: July 17, 2000
Agenda Item: J-I; Bergen Property
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1. Site Plan
2. Contours
3. Acreage Parcels
4. Letter to Tom Be in
AGENDA ITEM: J-1; TOM BERGIN PROPERTY ACQUISITION
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ITEM OVERVIEW: Potential acquisition of a portion of Mr. Tom Bergin's property for
inclusion into Patrick Eagan Park.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Mr. Bergin owns five acres of property off Deerwood Drive on the west side of Patrick Eagan
Park. (See Attachment)
Mr. Bergin contacted staff several weeks ago about the city's interest in the property. At that
time, he was considering various options for the sale of his property including a possible
combined development with his neighbor to the west or development of just his property. After
reviewing the various options, Mr. Bergin decided to list his home for sale but is willing to
entertain any proposal from the city regarding the land. Attached is a letter sent to Mr. Bergin on
July 10, 2000 for commission review in considering this issue.
ANALYSIS:
The Advisory Parks Commission previously identified this parcel for possible acquisition as part
of the open space study and CIP process completed in 1999. At that time, the commission
identified the completion of a trail loop around the pond that is in Patrick Eagan Park, which
extends into the Bergin parcel. A minimum parcel size of one-half acre was identified as
necessary in order to complete the trail. The site is heavily wooded with significant topographic
change.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
One-half acre was previously identified as the minimum acreage needed for a trail. That was
based on the premise that this five-acre parcel would be developed and would be responsible for
a parks dedication. While staff believes that the one-half acre. parcel will work for a trail, a larger
parcel would provide greater latitude for final trail construction. The commission may want to
consider the opportunity to acquire acreage beyond the one-half acre needed for a trail if tree and
land preservation are important issues.
Although the city may be interested in acquiring only a one-half acre parcel, the owner may not
be interested in selling that small amount. Acquiring a larger parcel will command a higher
price, make a transaction more attractive to the owner and could possibly cost less per square foot
then a smaller acquisition.
A
Staff does not believe there is much potential for development of the entire five-acre parcel
although it may be possible to create one lot between this parcel and the property to the west. It
is more likely that this parcel will be sold as a single-family lot, which would mean that the city
would not get a park dedication.
As mentioned, Mr. Bergin is listing the property for sale. It's possible that if the city is not able to
strike a deal with Mr. Bergin, perhaps the new owner might be willing. While negotiating with a
new owner is possible, it would seem to be more advantageous for the city to negotiate with Mr.
Bergin now. The city always retains the right to use eminent domain as a means to acquire land.
Clearly, a negotiated acquisition from a willing seller is the preferred alternative.
FUNDING
The Parks CIP has identified sufficient funds to acquire additional parkland. To date, the
property acquisition at Blackhawk Park (approved earlier this year) is the only parcel
purchased from these funds. The commission could also consider using Tree Mitigation
funds, but this acquisition appears to be heavily weighted towards the need to acquire the
land for parks, rather than preservation. Any motion to acquire this land should consider the
funding source.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
The Commission should consider a motion to:
1. Recommend to the City Council that staff be authorized to negotiate acquisition of no less
than one-half acre and up to (determine the amount of land) acres of land from Mr. Bergin.
2. That staff not pursue acquisition of any additional property for Patrick Eagan Park from Mr.
Bergin.
item: T- r n Pro p
¦
General Locatior Attachment # s ~e PIa
of
Bergin Property
NOW,
ik-
HYA
CITY OF EAGAN
IIL
BUCK BERGI N
LANGSTRAAT
OF EAGAN
Jli
Olt
W E
S
Item:J-1; Bergin Pry"
Bergi n PropedAttachment#2- Otr-h -vccrs
Contours in Potential Trail Area
7'7 7
"ck
_ - J p gan
826' Contour 830' Contour HWL
830' Contour
P Eagan p 820 Contour NWL
Approximately 130 feet between 830' Contours
N
W E
Item: J- I; ge i n Props. 1-r~
Attachment #3 - ACreaye, rce_Is
Bergin ProperLy
Approximate size and location of
a one-acre and two-acre parcel.
339
2 re - north property I i ne
w
0
1 re, - north property I i ne
w
W E
S
Item: j-1 j i l 7/ €+^h
Attachment #4 - Le4ter
city OF eacjan
PATRICIA E. AWADA
Mayor
July 10, 2000 PAUL BAKKEN
BEA BLOMQUIST
PEGGY A. CARLSON
SANDRA A. MASIN
Council Members
Mr. Tom Bergin
1240 Deerwood Drive THOMAS HEDGES
Eagan, MN 55122 City Administrator
Dear Mr. Bergin,
You called several weeks ago and since then we have had discussions regarding the department's interest
in acquiring the back portion of your property for inclusion into Patrick Eagan Park. Several options were
explored including the development of your five-acre property either independently or in conjunction
with your neighbor. You've indicated that your present plans are to sell the house and land as one, but
that you would be willing to listen to an offer from the city for a portion of the land that abuts Patrick
Eagan Park.
Although a portion of your property was one of several properties previously identified for inclusion into
the park system, you need to know that neither the Advisory Parks Commission nor City Council has
authorized me to negotiate any transaction. However, as part of my responsibility to the city, I do feel that
I can put forth the following as a consideration by the commission on July 17 for a recommendation to the
City Council.
I would propose that the department acquire the southerly two acres of the property for a sum of $58,500.
I would also propose that the city take the lead role in establishing a minor subdivision; creating one lot
(consisting of three acres with your home) and an outlot (two-acre park parcel).
Tom, I believe this represents a good value for you while maximizing the value of the remainder of your
home site. Besides the remuneration, I believe you will also be rewarded in the knowledge that the
property will remain in good stewardship as part of Patrick Eagan Park.
Please give this issue your most serious consideration and let me know your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Ken Vraa
Director of Parks and Recreation
Cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Advisory Parks Commission Members
MUNICIPAL CENTER MAINTENANCE FACILITY
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD THE LONE OAK TREE POINT
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY EAGAN. COACHMAN MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (651) 681.4600 PHONE: (65) 6881--443 51
FAX: (651) 681-4612 Equal Opportunity Employer
FAX: (651) 681-4360
TDD: (651) 454-8535 www.cltyofeogan.com TDD: (651) 454-8535
Date: July 17, 2000
Agenda Item: J-3; Review of Stroller Policy
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1. Overview Memo
2. Minutes from June 20
AGENDA ITEM: J-3; STROLLER POLICY - CASCADE BAY
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARK AND RECREATION
ITEM OVERVIEW: The City Council has asked the Commission to review the policy prohibiting
strollers from Cascade Bay.
1~ III Z2=7
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
At the City Council workshop of June 20, the Council reviewed a resident's request to change the
policy prohibiting strollers at Cascade Bay. After discussion by the Council, the item was
referred to the Advisory Parks Commission for review and consideration to determine if there
should be a change in policy and what that change might be. Attached are the minutes of that
meeting and the cover memo to the Council outlining the issue.
The existing policy at Cascade Bay is to prohibit strollers from entering beyond the gate. The
reasons for this policy (in no particular order) include:
• Strollers become obstacles and will be left in inappropriate areas of the site
• Other facilities have reported that strollers have had to be retrieved from the water by
lifeguards.
• Strollers take up significant space in the site. This is a concern given the potential number
of strollers that could be brought in.
• Facility operators that have tried to restrict strollers to specific areas have reported that
this is not easily managed.
• Cascade Bay does allow individuals to bring infant carriers into the site.
The Commission is asked to study this current policy and make a recommendation to the City
Council. The July meeting provides anopportunity to discuss the issues, determine how the
Commission will organize to review the policy and what additional information it would like to
have in reviewing this policy.
ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the current policy prohibiting strollers is important to the overall safety and
best interest of all the users at Cascade Bay. Once inside Cascade Bay, children are involved in
water activities leaving the strollers empty and unattended. Or, if the infant is left in the stroller,
it's likely the parent is there with an older child. Potentially this means that the adult will want to
keep the stroller as close to them as possible as they watch the older child. By keeping the stroller
close, it means the stroller will be at the water's edge, at least this is what has been reported to be
the situation at other facilities that have allowed strollers into their parks.
/3
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
The Commission should review the salient points of this issue, the desire for strollers to be
brought into Cascade Bay, the need to be "customer friendly" and the desire for additional
information that the Commission may find helpful. The Commission may then want to
decide how to organize to complete this task.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
The Commission may wish to take one of the following approaches:
I . Set a special meeting or place this item on a regular commission meeting as a public
hearing before making a determination.
2. Ask the recreation sub-committee to review.
3. Set a workshop session for further discussion and then schedule this item on a
commission agenda.
4. Establish a three-person study group to meet with staff and take input from proponents of
a policy change.
Item: J- 3, S4i ' /1e - Po l; c: j
j
Attachment # Dvcrvi eW Merr,c
't 4,
city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JUNE 13, 2000
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/JUNE 20, 2000
A Special City Council meeting was scheduled by the City Council for Tuesday, June 20, at 5:00 p.m. The
meeting will adjourn at approximately 6:10 p.m. and a light lunch will be served in the employee lunchroom.
CASCADE BAY POLICIESIUSE OF STROLLERS AND TELEPHONES
At the regular City Council meeting held on Monday, June 5, Mr. Stuart Forseth, 475 West Pilot Knob Road,
appeared at the City Council meeting and expressed his opposition to a policy restricting strollers from
Cascade Bay. Since Mr. Forseth appeared under Visitors to be Heard and time was limited for any further
consideration of this policy matter, the policy restricting strollers from Cascade Bay was deferred to the June
20 Special City Council meeting for further discussion.
When Cascade Bay was under construction, research was conducted on policies and procedures at similar
facilities. The majority of the water parks' research does not allow strollers due to safety reasons. There
have been cases where life guards have had to rescue infants in unattended strollers in the zero depth entry
area of facilities. Research has also indicated that even if the infants in strollers did not have to be "rescued",
they were most often left unattended while guardians utilized the facility with other children or adults, or the
strollers were left empty and unattended. The research also stated that the number of strollers likely to be on
site at any one time would make the site and administration unmanageable and, therefore, the policy decision
to not allow strollers into Cascade Bay for the safety of all patrons was acknowledged during 1999.
During the initial weeks of the 1999 season, there were a number of requests to bring strollers into the site.
As the season continued, these requests significantly dropped as guests found other options. Guests are
allowed to bring portable car seats inside the facility. Strollers, We bicycles, can be kept outside the gate and
locked up. Many guests utilized both of these options. During the 1999 season, 670 infants under the age of
18 months visited the facility. The majority of guests with children in strollers who have visited Cascade Bay
are understanding of the reasoning behind this policy.
Hastings Family Aquatic Center also does not allow strollers into its facility for safety reasons. Darbie
Johnson, Aquatics Director, said they also did research prior to opening in 1999 and developed the "no
stroller policy" for the safety of all of their guests. Hastings is also a zero depth entry Iacility.
Staff has again discussed the policy restricting strollers from entry into Cascade Bay and continue to have
concerns about the space strollers will occupy within the facility, given the number of potential users. Staff
believes that guests are able to enjoy the facility with the current policy and the facility is safer for all of its
guests due to the policy.
4
A question has also been raised about the policy regarding use of telephones for "emergency" calling at
Cascade Bay. There are pay phones both inside the facility and outside the facility for use by the public.
Phones at Cascade Bay are used for emergency purposes only. A question has been raised by a user of the
facility to address the policy relative to telephone usage.
Residents who have raised questions about the stroller policy and telephone policy will more than likely be at
the Special City Council meeting.
4
- ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide staff direction relative to Cascade Bay policies regarding use of strollers and telephones.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE COMMITTEE
The Advisory Plarming Commission is suggesting that a Zo Ordinance Update Committee be appointed
by the City Council. Attached on pagesthrough is a copy of a memo from Senior Planner
Ridley providing information about the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee and a general
timeline for their work.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction regarding the appointment of a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee as requested by
the Advisory Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION RE: FUTURE STEPS FOR THE CENTRAL PARK AND COMMUNITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT
There are a number of next steps involved in proceeding ahead with the Central Park and Community Center
development in light of the bond referendum that was passed on June 6. The following is a brief outline of
the next steps that will occur as the community proceeds ahead with this project.
RFP Process/Architect and Construction Manager - One of the first actions to be considered is
authorization to staff to proceed with an RFP process to select both an architect and construction manager.
It will be necessary to prepare an RFP, solicit requests for proposals and then the City Council will select both
the architect and construction manager following final interviews.
Park Planner - It is also suggested that the City give consideration to a park planner who can review the
entire 60 acre site and provide input and direction for use by the architect, construction manager, focus
groups, staff and community as the City proceeds ahead with the project.
Other Considerations - At a future date, it will be necessary to rezone and re-plat the property. There
will be engineering studies, coordination of the central parkway, construction that was directed by a petition,
a request for feasibility report for Duke Weeks, meetings with adjacent corporations to discuss partnerships
and, finally, appointment of focus groups/design teams made up of Eagan residents and technical staff to
review both external and internal facets of the Community Center and Central Park elernents.
4
C
at
Item:. -3J, 5 l l e-r PO
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2000 Attachment # 2 - 111 i nudes 04 iW
Page ? PAGE ? 17
MINUTES OF A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
JUNE 20, 2000
A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, June 20, 2000
at 5:00 p.m. at the Municipal Center Building. Present were Mayor Awada and
Councilmembers Bakken, Blomquist, Carlson and Masin. Also present were Senior
Planner Ridley, Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa, and City Administrator Hedges.
AGENDA
Councilmember Carlson moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to
approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Mayor Awada asked if there were any visitors to be heard; Marvin Rodich 1345
Deerwood Drive asked the Council to exempt land owners of one or more acres to be
exempt from the vehicle and shed storage ordinance being considered. The City Council
agreed to consider the request and Mayor Awada thanked Mr. Rodich for coming to the
meeting.
CASCADE BAY POLICIES, i.e. USE OF STROLLERS, TELEPHONES &
HOURS
City Administrator Hedges provided an overview of this item.
The Councilmembers agreed to address each issue individually. Mayor Awada
introduced Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa to address the current policy and why
the City decided not to allow strollers into Cascade Bay. Vraa noted that safety and the
potential for many strollers in Cascade Bay were two issues that the City's used to base
their decision. Vraa also informed the Councilmembers that the City researched other
city polices with similar aquatic facilities and found that many cities advised Eagan to
ban strollers from Cascade Bay. The reasons provided by those cities were that the
strollers became obstacles and affected safety. Other cities, which allowed strollers, tried
to use corrals inside the facility; however, patrons often did not use the corrals because
they wanted the stroller near them. Thus, the City decided not to allow strollers into the
facility. Vraa, however, noted that the City does allow car seats and other child carriers
into the facility.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2000
Page ? PAGE ? 2 ?
Councilmember Masin asked Vraa if the City allowed strollers in the former
wadding pool. Vraa informed Councilmember Masin that the wadding pool policy did
not allow strollers into the facility. Mayor Awada informed Vraa that it is the City's job
to serve the public and questioned whether the City was doing this with its current stroller
policy.
Councilmember Masin stated that the current City stroller policy of not allowing
strollers, but allowing car seats into Cascade Bay seems to be the happy medium.
Councilmember Bakken agreed with Councilmember Masin and restated the concerns of
safety and the amount of time pool staff would have to dedicate to runaway strollers.
Councilmember Carlson stated that Cascade Bay is different and today convenience is
important to the public using the facility.
Councilmember Blomquist asked how many complaints have the City received
last year and whether or not the complaints have increased since the implementation of
the current policy. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that the City did receive
a few complaints last year regarding the policy, but once people understood the policy the
complaints decreased. Mayor Awada restated her view that the City should be serving
the public in a convenient manner. Thus, the city should consider allowing strollers into
Cascade Bay. Councilmember Bakken, however, stated that allowing strollers may be
convenient, but again safety and staff time attributed to strollers outweigh the
convenience.
Councilmember Masin moved, Councilmember Bakken second the motion to
defer this issue to the Parks Commission for further discussion.
A vote was taken on the motion. Aye: 5 Nay: 0
Aquatic Facility Manager Kristi Organ provided an overview of the current
telephone policy.
Councilmember Blomquist asked if the public could call into the Cascade Bay.
Organ stated that Cascade Bay does not have a published public line. Councilmember
Carlson stated that due to the volume of calls a published public line would not be
affective. Mayor Awada asked all Councilmembers if the current policy was sufficient.
The Councilmembers all agreed that the current policy was fine.
Mayor Awada addressed the hours of operation for Cascade Bay and sighted that
the facility has been closed too often this season. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa
stated that due to the weather the facility has closed early or did not open on certain days.
Mayor Awada stated that the season pass holders expect us to be open and unless there is
extremely severe weather or mechanical problems the facility should be open.
Councilmember Masin suggested that Cascade Bay have some parameters for closure due
Date: July 17, 2000
Agenda Item: M-1; Dakota County Low Impact
• ` Development Initiative
City of Eagan Action
Parks and Recreation MEMO Information x
Attachments X I.Summary of project
2.Draft Work Plan of project
AGENDA ITEM: M-1; DAKOTA COUNTY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: ERIC MACBETH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR
ITEM OVERVIEW: A guest presentation about a project of the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District to promote and reinforce low impact development and conservation site design as a
way to enhance water quality and mitigate water quantity impacts.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
See Attachments I and 2.
ANALYSIS:
Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, will provide the commission a
presentation on and answer questions about the project.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
This item is for information only. No action is warranted.
Item: m-1 1 kO4 Coo. Low
fmpu.4 ()ev. I n i f i a.4-i ve,
Attachment # I - .n u m mar"
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Low Impact Development Initiative
A MetroEnvironment Partnership Funded Project
The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, in partnership with the Metropolitan
Council, Minnesota Land Trust, Dakota County Environmental Education Program, developing
cities and townships, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and others, proposes to initiate an
intensive campaign to promote and reinforce incorporation of low impact development (LID)
concepts into new developments and retrofit LID into existing developments.
Our goal is to enhance water quality and mitigate water quantity impacts on our County's water
resources - all of which are tributary to the Minnesota, Mississippi, or Cannon Rivers. Specific
BMPs include impervious area reduction, vegetated stormwater conveyance channels, infiltration
basins, and alternative site configurations. Incorporation of these concepts will be closely
coordinated with ongoing greenway efforts to maximize the wildlife benefits of LID practices.
The project is not designed to limit development, but rather to work with local units of
government, developers, agency staff, and other stakeholders to promote smart growth and
sustainable development. Proposed MUSA expansions, citizen concerns, and the underlying
feeling that we can do things better combine to show the time is ripe in Dakota County for
promoting these concepts.
The LID program will set the stage for changing the way we look at developments in Dakota
County. We hope this program can pave the way for similar initiatives in other counties. Work
is already underway to secure funding to adapt the Dakota County LID program in Hennepin
County.
Key project components include:
• Establishing two to three state-of-the-art demonstration projects
• Providing financial incentives to developers/landowners to incorporate LID concepts
• Working with local units of government to adopt stormwater ordinances that
promote/require incorporation of LID concepts to the extent practicable
• Actively promoting the initiative through a variety of outreach and educational activities
• Implementing (developing if necessary) protocols for identifying and prioritizing
subwatersheds where LID practices will have the greatest positive impact
• Coordinating the LID program with other ongoing activities and initiatives, i.e. Greenways,
etc.
Item: M -1 Da kn-!i 0 outrh1 Low
Impat+ Die In,frtfirL
Attachment # T ra f 4 Mork Pic
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Low Impact Development Initiative
DRAFT WORKPLAN - 7/12/00
A MetroEnvironment Partnership Funded Project
INTRODUCTION
The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, in partnership with the Metropolitan Council,
Minnesota Land Trust, Dakota County Environmental Education Program, developing cities and
townships, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and others, proposes to initiate an intensive campaign to
promote and reinforce incorporation of low impact development (LID) and conservation site design
(CSD) concepts into new developments and retrofit innovative stormwater management practices and
structures into existing developments.
LID integrates site ecological and environmental requirements into all phases of urban planning and
design, and it considers the implications of development on a broad scale ranging from the watershed to
the individual residential lot. This comprehensive approach relies on balancing urban development
impacts and site design features while enhancing lot yields, reducing development costs, and encouraging
development and economic growth (Coffman, Larry S and Smith, Jennifer, Proceedings Watershed '96:
Moving Ahead Together, Technical Conference and Exposition, June 8 - 12, 1996, Baltimore, Maryland).
The Dakota SWCD's approach to LID will be to incorporate the extensive knowledge and experience
generated by the Center for Watershed Protection (Better Site Design, 1998), Prince George's County,
Maryland (Low Impact Development Design Manual, 1997), Delaware Department of Natural Resources
(Conservation Site Design for Stormwater Management, 1997), and others into a package that works for
Dakota County, MN. Climactic, ecological, political, and economic factors will be considered to modify
LID and CSD approaches from other parts of the country for our region.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The main project goals and objectives are to:
• Protect water quality and mitigate water quantity impacts of new and existing developments
• Provide multiple incentives for developers/landowners to incorporate LID practices
• Incorporate LID concepts into City and Township ordinances
• Educate developers and landowners about water resource issues and LID benefits
• Enhance greenway corridors and improve wildlife habitat in urban and suburban areas
• Coordinate with other ongoing activities and initiatives
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 2
Low Impact Development Initiative Draft Workplan
WORKPLAN
The primary project elements include:
• Establishing two to three state-of-the-art demonstration projects
• Providing financial incentives to developers/landowners to incorporate LID concepts
• Working with local units of government to adopt stormwater ordinances that promote/require
incorporation of LID concepts to the extent practicable
• Implementing (developing if necessary) protocols for identifying and prioritizing
subwatersheds where LID practices will have the greatest positive impact
• Actively promoting the initiative through a variety of outreach and educational activities
Element 1: Demonstration Projects and Incentive Program
Demonstration projects and LID incentives will be handled similarly - the primary difference will be the
amount of cost-share and oversight/monitoring.
Demonstration Projects: The Dakota SWCD will identify and establish two or three demonstration
projects. The projects will be used to educate future potential cost-share recipients and others about the
benefits of LID. Further, the demonstration projects will be designed to monitor the long-term success
and management requirements for a variety of LID practices. Cost-share may be as high as 100%,
depending on the scope of the project.
Incentive Program: The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District will expand its existing
Community Conservation Cost-Share Grant Program. The Cost-Share dollars would be used to provide
incentives for developer/landowners to implement LID concepts on their property. The cost-share
percentage will likely range from 50 to 75%, with the landowner or other funding source paying the
remainder.
Element 1 Tasks
1.1 Form LID Advisory Team
1.2 Develop site selection criteria and protocol
1.3 Develop LID cost-share grant application form and process
1.4 Review and score proposed sites/projects
1.5 Design and analysis assistance
1.6 Pursue potential applicants
1.7 Administer grant program
1.8 Develop water quality/quantity monitoring program
1.9 Pursue additional funds to subsidize water quality/quantity monitoring program
1.10 Monitor demonstration sites
1.11 Supervise demonstration site maintenance
1.12 Demonstration Project and Cost-Share Grants
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 3
Low Impact Development Initiative Draft Workplan
Element 2: Ordinance Development and Incorporation
Project Partners will work with communities within Dakota County to incorporate LID concepts into
local ordinances. The MPCA's recently released Model Stormwater Ordinance (SWOrd) will serve as the
starting point for this task. A thrilling Power Point presentation will be prepared for demonstrating the
benefits of LID to local elected officials.
Element 2 Tasks
2.1 Form Ordinance Development Team - city staff and elected official membership is
critical
2.2 Conduct nationwide review of existing municipal LID-related ordinances
2.3 Develop model LID ordinance using MPCA SWOrd as the base
2.4 Create presentation for city councils/township boards/planning commissions
2.5 Coordinate closely with municipal staff and other stakeholders
2.6 Coordinate LID ordinance development and outreach with second generation watershed
plan development (Lower Mississippi River WMO, Black Dog WMO, Gun Club WMO,
North Cannon River WMO, and Vermillion River WMO) - work to incorporate LID
concepts into watershed plans
2.7 Present LID presentation to city councils/planning commissions
Element 3: LID Priority Zones
The Dakota SWCD will work with local units of government and watershed management organizations to
develop and implement a cost-effective methodology to identify and prioritize subwatersheds (based on
2-foot topography) in Dakota County where LID practices will have the greatest environmental benefit.
These "LID Priority Zones" will be used as a critical tool when scoring cost-share applications. The
possibility of applying these methodologies to identify retrofit opportunities will also be investigated.
Site specific analysis will require detailed watershed boundaries based on 2ft..contours and land cover
data based on a 1-2 acre minimum polygon size. County storm sewer and regional pond information will
also be incorporated. Prioritization will be achieved by evaluating and scoring the environmental
sensitivity of the land to existing and potential development. Sensitivity factors will include land cover,
distance to water, ground water sensitivity, and presence of highly erodible soils. A comprehensive
literature review will be necessary to determine if impacts to the surficial groundwater table can be
measured with current data. Lastly, the "LID Priority Zones" will be overlayed with high priority natural
areas and greenway corridors to assist in effective CSD.
Element 3 Tasks
3.1 Form LID Priority Zone Team
3.2 Assess Data Needs
3.3 Research and Assess similar protocols
3.4 Purchase necessary software and hardware
3.5 Complete needed Land Cover Mapping
3.6 Incorporate storm sewer and regional pond data
3.7 Develop LID Prioritization Protocol
3.8 Implement LID Prioritization Protocol
3.9 Incorporate LID Prioritization Protocol into site selection criteria as data become
available
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District 4
Low Impact Development Initiative Draft Workplan
Element 4: Marketing & Outreach
Public, agency, and elected official education is critical to the success of this initiative.
Element 4 Tasks
4.1 Form LID Outreach Team
4.2 Develop Dakota LID Initiative logo
4.3 Plan and hold LID workshop(s) - LGU and Design Workshops may occur concurrently
4.3.1 LGU Workshop for elected officials, city staff, and developers
4.3.2 Design Workshop for engineers, landscape architects, and other design
professionals
4.4 Design portfolio
4.5 Design, prepare, and reproduce LID Handbook
4.6 Update and enhance LID component of SWCD web page
4.7 Public Awareness Campaign
4.7.1 Purchase materials for the Dakota County Environmental Resource Collection at
local libraries
4.7.2 Prepare and distribute LID pamphlet/brochure
4.7.3 Identify and undertake other marketing techniques to garner public and private
support for the initiative
4.7.4 MLT Conservation Based Development Video
Element 5: Administration and Coordination
Element 5 Tasks
5.1 Form LID Steering Committee
5.2 Coordinate all project components
5.3 Administer grant
5.4 Provide secretarial assistance
5.5 Other tasks as needed
SEE ATTACHED BUDGET
PROJECT TIMELINE
Task/Item Year
Cost-Share for three years 1-3
Demo Projects 1-3
Ordinance Incooration 1-3
LID Priority Zones I
Marketing and Outreach 1-3
Administration 1-3
CITY OF EAGAN
EXPENSE REPORT
AS OF 06/30/00
CURRENT Y.T.D. BUDGET TO
ANNUAL MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL PERCENT
OBJECT DESCRIPTION. BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
FUND 328 PARK SITE ACQUISITION/DEVELOP
4257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL 0.00 4,488.00 4,488.00
SUBTOTAL SUPPLIES,REPAIRS AND MTN 0.00 4,488.00 4,488.00
4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL 0.00 8,850.00 8,850.00
SUBTOTAL OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 0.00 8,850.00 8,850.00
4570 OTHER EQUIPMENT 0.00 202.08 202.08
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 0.00 202.08 202.08
4610 PROJECT-CONTRACT 0.00 (1,787.10) (1,787.10)
4651 DESIGN & ENGINEERING 0.00 315.00 315.00
4655 PARKING-PARK CONSTR 0.00 2,726.11 2,726.11
4659 GENERAL LANDSCAPING/FURNISHING 5,029.25 5,029.25 5,029.25
4663 TRAILS-PARK CONSTRUCTION 0.00 18,715.00 18,715.00
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,029.25 24,998.26 24,998.26
4710 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 56,300.00 56,300.00
SUBTOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 0.00 56,300.00 56,300.00
CITY OF nAGAN Page 3
REVENUE REPORT
AS OF 06/30/00
CURRENT Y.T.D. BUDGET TO
ANNUAL MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL PERCENT
OBJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
FUND 328 PARK SITE ACQUISITION/DEVELOP
3855 PARK DEDICATION 11,123.20 206,167.52 206,167.52
SUBTOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11,123.20 206,167.52 206,167.52
3821 BUILDING RENT 750.00 4,500.00 4,500.00
3823 LAND RENT 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
SUBTOTAL OTHER REVENUE 750.00 19,500.00 19,500.00
V%o
ti
Subject to approval
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2000
A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on June 19, 2000
with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Bari, Terry Davis, Cyndee Fields, N. Mark Filipi, Floyd
Hiar, Barbara Johnson, George Kubik, Daryle Petersen, Dorothy Peterson and John Rudolph. Staff present included
Jeff Asfahl, Superintendent of Recreation; Paul Olson, Parks Superintendent; CJ Lilly, Parks Planner; Eric Macbeth,
Water Resources Coordinator; Paula Nowariak, Recreation Supervisor; Cathy Bolduc, Recreation Supervisor; and
Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Rudolph asked that the item M-1, Teen Report, be moved up on the agenda to follow
Development Proposals. Joseph Bari moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the
agenda as amended.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2000
Terry Davis moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of
April 17, 2000 as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2000
Barbara Johnson moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of
May 15, 2000 as presented.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors that wished to address the Commission under this agenda item.
DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS
Superintendent Olson touched on several of the Department Happenings included within the packet.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dorothy Peterson moved, Daryle Petersen seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend that
the City Council authorize execution of a joint powers agreement with Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation
District that provides for Eagan's deposit of 3.5 acres of the wetland banking credits into the State of Minnesota
wetland bank.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
There were no development proposals for the Commission to review.
TEEN REPORT
Recreation Supervisor Nowariak provided a brief background of the cooperative effort underway to work
with teens in the community. Several meetings have been held with teens to determine what type of programming
they would like to see provided. Supervisor Nowariak then introduced Amber Stevenson, one of the teens
participating in the meetings.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000
Page 2
Amber stated that four meetings had occurred with 10-18 year olds attending. During the meetings, the
participants brainstormed ideas for events and trips that included camping, tour of the state capital and shopping
trips. Because there was such a large age range, it was decided to break the group into 4-5 grade, 6-8 grade and 9-12
grade. Once the groups were divided, they came up with ideas for events they each could participate in. The 4-5
graders decided to put on a talent show for Summer in the Park kids and take a trip to the Mall of America. The 6-8
graders decided to participate in the talent show and plan a trip to Valley Fair. The 9-12 graders decided to plan
trips to Valley Fair and Galactic Bowling.
Member Rudolph asked Amber where the group had been meeting. Amber responded that they have been
meeting with Paula in the municipal center lunchroom. Members Rudolph and Davis thanked Amber for her
informative report commenting that this is a good start for teen involvement.
OLD BUSINESS
SENIOR QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Following a brief introduction by Superintendent Olson, Recreation Supervisor Bolduc explained that a
questionnaire was sent to approximately 875 seniors in April to acquire information and data regarding current
participation and future program needs for this population. Cathy noted that 336 questionnaires were returned. One
thing that was discovered was that the majority of the respondents do not participate in programs in Eagan. The
results did seem to indicate that a great number of seniors would be interested in more special events, day trips,
health and wellness classes, lunch or dinner activities and special entertainment, like music. Supervisor Bolduc
opined that identifying a core group of 8-12 people within this population to assist with program development and
an overall plan of action for future senior programming needs would be an asset to the department. Cathy concluded
her presentation by asking for direction from the Commission on how to proceed with this issue.
Member Rudolph commented on the interest shown for a senior center noting that it appears this group is
looking for a common meeting place.
Member Peterson asked if this group would participate in on-going programming or focus more on interim
programming. She suggested that an advisory group may be able to help with the plans for the senior center. In the
meantime staff may look at interim programming while moving forward with establishing an advisory committee.
Member Johnson stated the importance of working toward an advisory committee.
Member Rudolph stated he admired Supervisor Bolduc's patience in compiling all the data submitted. He
noted there was a concern expressed for cliques and asked if that was a reality. Bolduc responded that that feeling
has been expressed at existing facilities. Member Bari asked if there were ways to break up these cliques.
Supervisor Bolduc suggested the need to find more common ground given the diverse interests of this population.
Supervisor Bolduc then asked the Commission for direction regarding moving forward with an
informational session to work toward an advisory committee. Member Peterson asked if the Recreation
Subcommittee would help with the advisory committee. Member Davis asked what the group's status would be. He
saw the need for a mission statement to be established to help direct the advisory committee. Member Kubik
suggested that this issue be referred to the Recreation Subcommittee and then be brought back to the Commission.
Following further brief discussion, John Rudolph moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting
in favor to set up a Recreation Subcommittee meeting to develop a proposal to bring back to the Advisory
Commission.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000
Page 3
FISH LAKE CIP
Following a brief background introduction by Superintendent Olson, Water Resources Coordinator
Macbeth noted that a bid opening occurred on June 1. The engineered cost of the project was projected at $76,370,
however both bids came in significantly over that amount and were subsequently rejected by the City Council.
Macbeth added that city consultants Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates have been asked to conceptualize
additional options to enable the city to lower the level of Fish Lake.
Member Kubik asked why there was such a wide discrepancy in the bidding. Superintendent Olson
responded that bidding is not very competitive at this time, which tends to drive up the price.
LEXINGTON POINT 14TH TRAIL ACCESS CHANGE REQUEST
Superintendent Olson introduced this item stating that the developer approached the Advisory Commission
in August of 1999 requesting a trail realignment. The Commission granted the request for the trail alignment, which
placed the new trail between Lots 12 and 13. It was noted that at the time this trail location was moved, the
Commission emphasized the importance of installing the trail before any homes were built. The development
agreement specifically stated that the trail would be constructed prior to the issuance of building permits within the
plat.
Superintendent Olson continued that a letter was received from Richard and Cynthia McNary, who have a
home under construction on Lot 12, requesting that the trail be moved to a different location. It was noted that if the
Commission agrees to move the trail to another location, the City Council would need to amend the development
agreement.
Brad Swenson addressed the Commission noting that he has been involved with the development of this
property since the project began. He shared a graphic indicating that the trail was originally planned for placement
along the back of Lots 6 through 13. Because of the increased pond level, Swenson said that a trail could not be
placed at this location. He then shared the second location of the trail between Lots 12 and 13. The developer is
now requesting that because of the steep slopes and close proximity to driveways and utilities between Lots 12 and
13 that the trail be moved between lots 14 and 15. He stated that this move does not save the developer any money
since the City pays for the construction of the trail. He suggested that the new location would provide a better
access for trail users in this area and would not have the slope issues as with Lots 12 and 13.
Member Johnson reminded Mr. Swenson that it was his suggestion in August of 1999 that the trail be
located between Lots 12 and 13. Mr. Swanson responded that with the condition of the site, the grade works better
between lots 14 and 15. Member Peterson reminded Mr. Swenson that the development agreement clearly stated that
the trail was supposed to have been installed before any homes were built.
Richard and Cynthia McNary addressed the Commission and stated that when they were first looking at
this area to build a home they were told that there was a possibility that a trail may be placed between Lots 12 and
13. They stated they were informed approximately three weeks ago that the City had decided to put a trail in but
that the developer was working with the City to move it between Lots 14 and 15. The McNarys stated that if a trail
is placed between Lots 12 and 13, their garage would be 3 feet from the trail and expressed concern for trail traffic
so close to their home. They opined that there is no other trail that they're aware of that is placed within a 10 foot
easement and cited other trails in the city placed within much larger easements that buffered residents from trail
traffic. They also expressed concern for the slopes and change in elevation if a trail is located next to their property
citing the Highline Trail as a difficult trail to maneuver given its topography. They opined that a trail between Lots
12 and 13 would not provide a safe trail experience for users.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000
Page 4
Mrs. McNary added that they have walked both of the proposed trails noting that people who live in the
area are currently cutting between Lots 14 and 15. She expressed their concern for vandalism to their property with
a trail so near and opined that a bad trail is worse than no trail. She also questioned where this trail was going; that
it would be nice to get to Walnut Hill Park but the slopes would be too steep.
Member Rudolph stated that both Mr. Swenson and Mr. Thorsen entered into an agreement to change the
original location of this trail and that the agreement specifically stated that no building permits were to be issued
until the trail was installed. Rudolph continued that this is a disturbing precedent to set given that both parties
entered into a legally binding agreement. He added that this is a problem that should be between the homeowner
and the builder/developer; not the City. Member Rudolph concluded that there was no evidence brought forward
that-would lead him to believe that moving a trail to another location would be better.
Member Petersen asked if it was the McNary's understanding that the trail would be located between Lots
12 and 13. He clarified that the agreement clearly stated that the trail would be placed completely within Lot 13 and
reminded everyone that both Mr. Thorsen and Mr. Swenson agreed with that requirement.
Member Kubik asked the McNary's who informed them that a trail adjacent to their property was only a
possibility. They responded that a salesperson in Mr. Thorsen's sales office had advised them of that information.
Member Peterson reiterated that this is an issue that is between the developer and potential homeowner.
Mrs. McNary stated that since the original trail had already been moved, the Commission should give them
an opportunity to make the same request to place the trail in a different location.
Member Kubik stated that the aesthetic value of a trail between Lots 12 and 13 is far better than the
proposed location between Lots 14 and 15. He also expressed some concerns for the need for a retaining wall
should a trail be moved between Lots 14 and 15.
Member Rudolph asked the McNarys if they had known there was going to be a trail adjacent to their
property would they have purchased their lot. The McNarys responded they would not. Member Davis clarified
that the McNarys are eight feet from their property line and that the trail is to be contained completely within Lot 13.
Brian Thorsen addressed the Commission stating that the exhibit contained within the development
agreement shows the trail located between Lots 12 and 13. He also stated that a retaining wall would not be
required for a trail located between Lots 14 and 15 and that there would be no drainage issues with this trail location.
Member Bari reiterated that the trail was to be located completely within Lot 13 and did not see any
information presented that convinced him that this agreement should be changed.
Mr. Swenson and Mr. Thorsen began explaining that Parks Planner CJ Lilly had asked them when the trail
would go in and that there were several reasons why they had not proceeded. Member Rudolph asked them
specifically why they had not notified the McNarys that a trail was going to be placed adjacent to their property.
Mr. Thorsen responded that they were told it was a possibility. Member Kubik firmly stated that the leagally
binding agreement that Mr. Thorsen and Mr. Swenson signed very clearly stated that not only would a trail be
installed but that no building was to occur within the plat until it was completed.
Following further brief discussion, John Rudolph moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting
in favor to deny the request for trail relocation. It was noted that the city had not received any previous request from
the builder or developer to move the trail from Lot 12/13 prior to the letter received from the McNarys.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000
Page 5
Chairman Rudolph empathized with the McNarys and their situation and explained that the Commission is
an advisory body and that if they wished to pursue the issue further they could request to be placed on the City
Council's agenda.
Member Kubik concluded by stating that while walking the site he saw severe erosion running under the
erosion fences and asked that a city inspector visit the site to ensure the situation is remedied.
NEW BUSINESS
There were no items under this agenda item for the Commission to review.
PARKS AND RECREATION UPDATE
Superintendent Asfahl commented on the excellent training that occurs for the summer programming staff.
He added that youth sports are well underway but will start to wind down shortly and that several softball
tournaments have been hosted at the athletic complexes. It was also noted that a recent teen concert, or "battle of the
bands" was held at the civic arena. It started from a request by several teens wanting to play for their friends and
peers at one of the local pavilions. Given the nature of what they envisioned, it was felt that their request could be
facilitated and monitored better in the Civic Arena. Member Peterson asked how the word got out about the event.
Superintendent Asfahl stated that it was mostly word-of-mouth but that several hundred flyers were distributed.
I
Member Kubik asked for additional information regarding the Holz Farm mini camps. Superintendent
Asfahl identified some of the upcoming camps and how people could register for them.
Superintendent Olson talked about the mitigation of North Park and how the city would deal with the fill
slope that has been of concern to Dakota County. Olson also updated the Commission on a structural issue at
Thomas Lake pavilion. It appears the hill where the building is located has a large amount of swamp fill that was
covered with sand and is now creating some issues for the building. Member Rudolph asked if there were any
restrictions for the building. Superintendent Olson clarified that there is no potential problem but that it is an issue
that will need to be addressed fairly soon.
WATER RESOURCES UPDATE
Items highlighted by Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth included the recent fishing clinic held for 50,
9-12 year olds. He shared several pictures of the event and noted that there will be another session on July 13 for
kids who live near Wescott Center.
Coordinator Macbeth continued that the alum dosing station at fish lake is showing positive results and that
the weed harvester would be ready to begin within the week. Member Kubik asked how the harvested weeds are
disposed of. Macbeth stated he wasn't sure where they were taken. Responding to a question from Member
Johnson, Macbeth described how the portable harvester worked.
OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS
SET MOONSHINE PARK WORKSHOP DATE
Superintendent Olson introduced this item explaining that the Commission chose to defer the next
Moonshine Park workshop pending the results of the Community Center bond referendum. Now that the referendum
has passed, Olson suggested that the Commission schedule that meeting.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 19, 2000
Page 6
Member Peterson asked if the vision previously done for Moonshine Park should be reviewed or re-done.
Member Johnson added that since there would be a community center built, perhaps the Commission should
concentrate on areas that may not be included in the community center plan and suggested that a questionnaire be
more site specific.
After further discussion, it was decided that a questionnaire would be sent to Commission Members so that
they could fill it out and return to CJ Lilly for compilation prior to a meeting. It was suggested that a meeting be set
at the July meeting.
SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES
A recreation subcommittee meeting was scheduled for 5:00 p.m. July 6, pending the availability of
Recreation Supervisor Bolduc, to discuss the potential establishment of a senior advisory committee for senior
programming.
Member Davis commented that he had not heard as yet heard about a joint meeting with the City Council to
review parking space size and impervious surfaces.
COMUNICATIONS
Chairman Rudolph commented on the letter of resignation from Kevin Gutknecht and thanked him for his
service to the commission.
ROUND TABLE
Member Kubik complimented Chairman Rudolph for running a very efficient and streamlined meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to conduct George Kubik moved, Joseph Bari seconded with all members voting
in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Secretary Date