10/16/2000 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
PA'
Jill
o III I.
logo
LAamcA
L _ YEcmm ~ ®1IB maw ao~o~ ~ lid
MMOR
IwCS~ SID f~C~IMCMaMRcQlw^= :ss•~~.as+~~
LANDSCAPE/MITIGATION PLAN
AGENDA
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
Monday, October 16, 2000
7:00 PM
Eagan Municipal Center
City Council Chambers
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 September 18, 2000 7:04 pm
E. Visitors to be Heard 7:05 pm
F. Department Happenings Pages 3-4 7:06 pm
G. Consent Agenda 7:16 pm
(1) Highline Trail Corridor Lease Page 5
(2) Gun Club Lake WMO Grant Application for Page 7
Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Program
H. Development Proposals
(1) Kennerick Addition Pages 9-11 7:17 pm
1. Old Business
(1) Summer Program Report Pages 13-18 7:45 pm
(2) Spectrum Commerce Center Update Pages 19-21 8:15 pm
J. New Business
(1) 2001 Park Dedication Fees Page 23 8:30 pm
K. Parks and Recreation Update 8:40 pm
L. Water Resources Update 8:50 pm
M. Other Business and Reports
(1) Park Site Fund Update Pages 25-26 8:55 pm
(2) Moonshine Park Update Pages 27-29 8:57 pm
N. Round Table 9:00 pm
0. Adjournment 9:05 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 16 19 17 14 18 16 20 18
Joseph Bari x X X X X X X X
Terry Davis x X X x x x x X
Cyndee Fields x X X X X X X X
N.Mark Filipi x X 0* X X 0* X X
Kevin Gutknecht x 0* X 0 Resigned 5/29/00
Floyd Hiar x X X 0* x x x X
Barbara Johnson x X X X X 0* X X
George Kubik x 0* X X X 0* 0* X
Daryle Petersen 0* X X X X 0* X X
Dorothy Peterson x X X X X X X X
John Rudolph x X X X X X X X
X = present 0 = absent 0' = notified staff of absence prior to meeting
Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Conittee AcauisitionIDevelomnent 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
MeenshiRe l2aFk Planning meeting 1. Commission Review Workshop
2. Spring Maintenance Demonstration
3. Review revenue sources in lieu of park dedication
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.filipi@metc.state.mn.us
KEVIN GUTKNECHT 1999 651-454-2890 (H) 1/2002
960 Savannah Road Yes (3 yr. 1999) 763-323-57.44 (W) Resigned
Eagan, MN 55123 kggutkne@co.anoka.mn.us 5/29/00
FLOYD HIAR (Alternate) 2000 651-456-0387 (H 8t 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 (3yr.1998) 612-514-5155 (W)
Eagan, MN 55123 daryle.lee.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) 10/15/00
lrudolph@burnsville.k 12.mn.us
Eagan City Staff E-Mail:
eagan.mn.us poisonci.eaaan.mn.us iasfahl@ci.eaaan.mn.us
ghove@cieaaanmnus emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us
1@caQan.rnscmesko.
Phone # 651-681-4661 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.)
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2000
ITEM B: Call to order
ITEM C: Approval of agenda
ITEM D: Approval of minutes of September 18, 2000
ITEM E: Visitors to be Heard
Staff is unaware of anyone wishing to address the Commission.
ITEM F: Department Happenings
Staff will review several items of interest to the Commission and community.
ITEM G: Consent Agenda
If there are no questions from the Commission these two items can be handled
with a single motion.
1. The Commission is asked to review a request to install receiver equipment for
wireless communications on an existing NSP transmission tower in the
Highline Trail corridor.
2. The Commission is asked to review and forward to the City Council a grant
application for Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project. A background
memo is provided.
ITEM H: Development Proposals
Kennerick Addition has been reviewed previously by the Commission. This
proposal provides a revised plan submitted by Triland Surveying.
ITEM I: Old Business
1. This is a follow-up to the summer program review presented by Recreation
Supervisor Nowariak in August. Staff is looking for feedback about the
program(s) and suggestions or options that might be considered.
2. Spectrum Commerce Center returns to the agenda from the September
meeting. Revised tree mitigation information in included for review of this
development proposal.
ITEM J: New Business
1. A report has been prepared reviewing park dedication fees in Eagan and other
communities. This report is in preparation for the annual review of fees and
charges in November.
I.
ITEM K: Parks and Recreation Update
Superintendents of Parks and Recreation will provide updates of their specific
areas.
ITEM L: Water Resources Update
Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth will provide any additional information
relative to the Water Resources division.
ITEM M: Other Business and Reports
1. The Park Site Fund update sheet is enclosed for the Commission's
information.
2. A brief update of the Moonshine Park planning process will be provided. A
memo is included in the packet for your review.
ITEM N: Round Table
Any items of concern that might be placed on upcoming agendas or items of
interest will be identified.
ITEM 0: Adjournment
Z
DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS
October, 2000
1. The October 5, 2000 School Lake Monitoring Workshop in Eagan sponsored by the Dakota County Environmental
Education Program was a success. Twelve teachers from the county received a lot of information from various agency
staff to incorporate lake-monitoring activities into their science classes. City Water Resources staff hosted and helped to
facilitate the all-day workshop. The morning session was in the Eagan Council Chambers, and the afternoon session was
at Blackhawk Park.
2. Data collection will begin in mid to late October for the street sweeping study that is being funded by a Metropolitan
Council grant, the City, and the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization. The objectives of the study are to
determine: 1) the effectiveness of street sweepers to collect nonpoint source pollutants, 2) the extent to which each
sweeper contributes to water quality improvements, and 3) the economic and environmental feasibility of street sweeping
to improve water quality. A rental agreement for use of a vacuum sweeper and a regenerative air sweeper has been
reached between the City and a local equipment distributor. Including the City's conventional street sweeper, three types
of sweepers will be operated in fall and spring sweeping trials.
3. At the 33 C Annual University of Minnesota Water Resources Conference on October 31, Water Resources Coordinator
Eric Macbeth and Water Resources Technician Jim Storland will present the results of a 1996-2000 study in Eagan of the
effectiveness of fabric divider curtains to improve pollutant removal in stormwater treatment basins. The study was
funded by a grant from Metropolitan Council to the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization.
4. At the October 3 City Council meeting, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners recognized the City of Eagan for
being an active partner in helping to implement the 1994 Dakota County Water Resources Education Plan and for its
contribution to meeting countywide goals to protect water resources. Commissioner Patrice Bataglia and Environmental
Education Coordinator Charlotte Shover presented a plaque to the City, specifically recognizing the efforts of Water
Resources Coordinator Eric Macbeth and Water Resources Technician Jim Storland along with Rich Brasch, the city's
former Water Resources Coordinator.
5. The fall fertilization program is underway. The product being used is a high quality, dust free product containing nitrogen
in a slow release form and minimal levels of phosphorus. The use of high quality fertilizers has eliminated the need for a
midsummer application in general park areas. The resulting high quality turf has reduced the amount of herbicide needed
by out competing unwanted weeds. The fertilizer products used are specific to the general needs of each park area.
6. Staff has begun the winterization of seasonal facilities and irrigation systems at the non-athletic sites. All seasonal
restrooms are closed for the season. Portable toilets are provided at sites with scheduled activities.
7. The new play structure at Oak Chase Park is nearing completion. The installation of landscaping around the play area has
begun and will be completed in the next several weeks. The play structure at Country Home Park has been opened for use
though staff still must install a play component that was improperly sized in the original delivery and had to be returned.
8. Staff has completed the construction of a raised concrete slab and retaining wall at Goat Hill Park in anticipation of the
delivery of a new baseball bleacher structure. The supplier has indicated that the new bleacher will be installed the end of
the month.
9. A contractor has completed the paving of a new rink surface and entrance trails at Goat Hill Park. Staff will construct two
new sets of rink boards prior to the start of skating season. The paving of the small parking lot at Thomas Lake Park is
included in the same contract and will be completed this fall. Several new trail segments including a section along the east
side of Lexington Avenue are also under construction.
10. Superintendent of Parks, Paul Olson, represented the City at the third meeting of the Lebanon Hills Stake Holders Task
Force held on October 2a. The emphasis of the meeting was a discussion of the appropriateness of specific uses and the
associated facilities within the park. There are several members who feel the park should be kept completely natural and
re-designated as a "park reserve", while others advocate the continuation and enhancement of controlled use of
appropriate areas of the park. The planning consultant will be presenting several concepts at the next meeting, scheduled
for the end of October.
11. The "resting" of 2 soccer fields at Ohmann Park this fall has proven to be very beneficial to the turf. Staff was able to
aerate, topdress and overseed. Fields were lined at alternative sites to prevent a disruption in scheduling. Additional fields
will be "rested" as logistics allow. Several athletic fields are used year round with no time available for renovation.
3
12. A meeting was held with representatives of the City's environmental consulting firm and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) to discuss the mitigation of the fill slope at the North Park site. The issue has been a stumbling block for
several years. The meeting was very positive, as it now appears that the MPCA is agreeable to minimal slope
modification provided that surface runoff is controlled. Staff will continue to work with the MPCA and consultant to
finalize a mitigation plan. Dakota County has "deferred" to MPCA for resolution of the issue.
13. The x-c ski trails and sliding hill at Trapp Farm will again be groomed under a contract with Dakota County. The County
provides the equipment and operator for a predetermined hourly fee. From all accounts the arrangement has worked very
well.
14. The lease for the former Grant house (Moonshine Park) has been renewed with the current tenant. The lease will expire
on November 1`, 2001.
15. Staff is working diligently on the October 30`h Treat and Terror Trails to be held at Northview Park. Little ones will
enjoy the games and special activities of the Treat Trail from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. Older kids and families should be ware
while walking through the forest between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m. on Monday night. There is no charge for either event, but
canned food donations are collected for the local food shelves.
16. Evening with the Stars was a hit at Thomas Lake Park on Saturday, September 26. More than 100 people attended the
evening program hosted by Walter Hayes, a Minnesota Astronomical Society member. It was a welcomed success after
two previous attempts that had to be cancelled due to weather conditions.
IT Families and seniors are geared up to visit the State Capitol in Halloween dress. On the evening of October 20 more than
20 people will board a bus to the capitol and follow a "night watchman" through the halls and chambers of the State
Capitol lit only by the 1905 torchieres. It's expected to be a wonderful, educational event appropriate for all ages.
18. A new program, Paint and Skate, received overwhelming interest. During the MEA break staff from Dakota Communities
and Courage Center will provide a variety of activities that people of all abilities can participate in. A full day of art
projects, ice skating, and wheel chair demonstrations is planned to show off creative, interesting ways to do things that
may offer challenges to some people on a daily basis. A special thank you goes out to the staff from Dakota
Communities for the art projects they bring, Courage Center for the sled hockey and wheel chair show, and the Civic
Arena Manager for assistance and ice time.
19. 55 Alive classes were very popular this fall. Both the 8-hour first time course and the 4-hour refresher course filled almost
immediately and had wait lists of up to 15 people. The volunteer instructor, Ted Anderson, does a wonderful job
instructing the mature drivers on ways to drive more safely. People that complete the course offered in part by AARP are
rewarded with a car insurance discount.
20. October brings the closure of Fall Softball, closing of the concession stand and Touch Football. This year staff is also
working with the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association on hosting the State Touch Football Tournament. The
tournament will be held at Lexington-Diffley Athletic Fields on October 28-29, 2000.
21. Winter packets for adult sports were mailed out the first week of October. A small group of manager's will have the
opportunity to register on-line for their league. Staff is working towards making this available for all leagues throughout
the year. This will be available on the same site (www.eaganparkandrec.leaguelink. com) that teams can check standings
and schedules.
Date: October 12, 2000
Agenda Item: G1 Tower Lease
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Location Map
AGENDA ITEM: G-1; CELL TOWER LEASE-HIGHLINE TRAIL CORRIDOR
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS
ITEM OVERVIEW: In accordance with existing city policies, Qwest Communications has requested
permission to install receiver equipment for wireless communications at several locations including an
existing NSP transmission tower in the Highline Trail corridor. 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 $14,201 per year. During this past year, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
approved requests for the lease of towers in Rahn Park and Goat Hill Park.
ANALYSIS:
The request is for the installation of wireless communications on an existing tower structure. The
equipment consists of small antennas located on the tower at various heights and a ground level power
cabinet. The installation would be consistent with those elsewhere in the city.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
The tower structure that Qwest is proposing to use is located 80' south of the trail, north of Woodgate
Lane (Pole #147 - Line #0976). The site is a non-maintained section of the Highline Trail. Brush,
small trees and grasses surround the tower. Unlike a previous request for an installation in Rahn Park,
there are no facilities or park amenities within close proximity to the tower and the visual impact will
be negligible. There are no plans for development in this area of the park.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Staff is recommending that the commission approve the request for the lease of an NSP tower in the
Highline Trail corridor with the following conditions:
1. A fence be installed around the ground equipment
2. The site be restored upon completion of the installation
Item: 0-1; lower L ease
Attachment # l/Cafior% r4f
pole'.)
90
-
CACLE CnEST UR
FOXRIOCE RD
BLACKHAWK RO
CENO
Rf [1,
CLOVER LN
0 0
'T1
?Dy r
r) m
Z an
Z . y
U)
M C~'QO
THOMAS AKE-R C(f,~SOjy
D?
g ~ ~ D r
N~~t= M I
i zl~
M a a c~ .
O\AOc
d®t)
ri
vi
M C3
Ij G)
r
z
n N (Y1
o z J ~
Zr.,
z i
O r
m Z
y r \
O
fop-
: lid
EXISTING
Ns? ro~v« Z
N
EXISTING
TREE LINE
1 j
r ~{a /
OwEST
PENCE IM 1
likOWES?
GATE - ~
OwEST
ANTENNAS
(TfP.)
OWEST
EQUIPMENT
COAX i
I V/ \
Wireless
GROWTH CABINET EXHIBIT'S'
(FUTURE) n KA e.a
/ I
sill Haart+c TPA&
uIN-.61
mr. nw
NSP TWER MOUNTED
ANTENNAS AND OUTDOOR
EQUIPMENT
~ ` say Mu
CMMCED Wrr PLAN
~m .r a
0. 8. 16'
NLARGED SITE PLAN
0-stc7 A LE: _O" Z_4 LO
E w$I f NG
/ NSP TOWER
Lx t~~ ! o^ •LL
OWEST
OWEST ANTENNAS
ANTENNA
(EIS I NG
TREES (rIP
6O'-0' / r I 70.-0..
CPS ANTENNA
ll,
OWEST (
EOUIPMENT \
OWEST
FENCE
HIGHLINE
11 , t . ,l
Ili 1 „1
TRAIN
!,II!1Mrt!:1tih ,
SIDMAI K
---------~JOHNNY CAKE RIDGE ROAD
0 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: l/16'a1 -0'
EEO-
1;m j
i VL ~ '
ff i
ff} Date: October 16, 2000
Agenda Item: G-2; GCLWMO Grant
Applicati on
City of Eagan Action X
Parks and Recreation MEMO i[ntormaton X
Attachments X 1. Site area maps
2. GCLWMO grant
lication
AGENDA ITEM: GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION GRANT APPLICATION
Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: ERIC MACBETH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR
ITEM OVERVIEW: Recommend City Council to express support for grant application by Gun Club Lake
Watershed Management Organization for Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project. The outcome of the grant will
be development of a Phase I Diagnostic Report and Implementation Plan.
I III INS
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The 1995 watershed management plan of the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization
identified as one of its high priority water resources activities to assist in the evaluation and selection of
alternatives for protection/nianagement of both Keneally Creek and Nicols Fen. Keneally Creek and
Nicols Fen are located in western Eagan alongside Nicols Road and the railroad tracks that follow the
Minnesota River (see Attachment 1). Harnack Creek is also in the vicinity.
Harnack and Keneally creeks are designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as the
only two urban trout streams in the City of Eagan. Both creeks and the fen are considered "outstanding
resource waters," a classification that carries state priority protected status. However, these water
resources are degraded, mainly from the disruption of natural hydrology: dewatering of groundwater
supplies and addition of stormwater outflows.
Because of the location within several jurisdictions, there is much interest by several agencies in these
water resources. At issue is not only the significant degradation of these water resources, but also that no
one agency can reasonably take the lead to implement a comprehensive restoration strategy-multi-agency
partnership is essential.
ANALYSIS:
On October 12, 2000, the GCLWMO took official action to submit an application for Clean Water
Partnership/Section 319 funds to support a 2 -year resource and diagnostic investigation called Nicols Meadow
Habitat Restoration Project (See Attachment 2). If funded., this investigation would result in a Phase I
Diagnostic Report and Implementation Plan for Nicols Meadow. To match the required 50/50 cost share of
this type of grant, the proposal includes 1 /3 of the cost-share amount to come from each of the following:
GCLWMO, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, and the City of Eagan.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:.
Affirmative action on this item provides the GCLWMO an improved opportunity to receive federal grant
dollars. City of Eagan cost share would be subject to separate action by City Council through the budget
review process.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Recommend City Council to express support for grant application by Gun Club Lake Watershed
Management Organization for Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project.
I
a,
'Je
O~a AFC r
t v a... Je a .arc°, _ ~•,r v ~a';.
top"
lb k-
i-k Burnsville
Jl~
FMK ~r !C ~ f ~ + * r, ar' a ' fa
the V r 4. 5 h
nF 'i
IV,
F f ? R - f . v.
160-i Project Area
,q 9 .y..
Waters of Concern
Fen
1500' 4 1540 Feet J, r x
I i 1 . 1
1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ~ 1'
Irn
M2MNLVGl.D 1 ~ 1 1 • {
Mabs takr ,so ro. x..x,
5 Ylmof persrea e i { I A
Ckh
Vi F-
Chb
V//Pcu AC IKE
T
AA
0 G A N A N
0- 1
LOWER
M I N N E S O T A CITY F AGAN e> A.. I
WATERSHED
DISTRICT°
y8 ® latc ( +
AYdlrwk iaz • A.Id
6 r ® t • i
• e 1
6E Q Ltc
LAC
i Aaeci ~ e •
e •
A LA. LW.
°`h
L
dlWm
Lb 6 IF
PROJECT LOCATION
Waters of Concern
Project Area 0 3000 6000
Tributary Area
Drainage Area
Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project
Figure 2
W t.
y J ~
{
, Ai
u!.
ti r 9SLa~,, 3 ~,,,~C~~..., T\ < k°S \ti\\ f t \~f\~*k „ f
5J1TTEN -IRAN w°` t ys 4i y s
1w , ~'~"i"+a ?s ~ 3''~° aS3'~C~ UP.~ .,rfl \ rrt?~c `s\ ;
t Y'T a Y f f . S\ k f / p\
N THER71, Y S PO i y A \ y Qy,\.
• s4 c ° fit'
NORTHE PLj. \ \ v\\ ~,f c
;4~ i~" L'(a~lf_OUTD RATSxq- ~ c ~ F x~Y•~t ^Fa .4
y i N~ r E5 PO
NORTHER bra \
NORTHERk~Y>~;1~ 4aC<
rp•' rJIF+ s;~ FF'lKS. °'\~f~ \ \u{\ \C\v\'C , Cy'K<•^f F+y
-
gg-
110.
/ i / / \ \ yam.
AN
/ l-,: f v r t 5~c\\~f \c". ~\.C~ J'~vs`~: ~•vw,~;.
M, 'e
Off
t 1, tsar ,~\~\y\~'j~``• NORTHERN NATURAL G
t', "C~~ \ \ t~''f/~,tr} . f~, v~\ ~ 'f ~ Y 1. CvC , $.J . i.$ {o`cC~.: ~
Parcels
Private Owned Parcels
T Public Owned Parcels
1500 y 0 1500 Feet
1 , I 1
I 1 1 1 ' 1 I I 1'
UI-L-w mL;
Item: 6 -25 a rtt-r I p h c, 41 rr,
Attachment #,Z - 4pp, ; ca i4rn
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ('4 payCS
Clean Water Partnership/Federal 319 Program
COMBINED APPLICATION
1. Project Title (10 words, 50 characters or less) Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project
2. Project Sponsor (organization)
Name: Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization (GCLWMO)
Address: 3830 Pilot Knob Road
City: Eagan, MN
Phone Number: (651) 681-4300
E-mail: emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us
3. Project Representative (individual)
Name: Eric Macbeth / Title: Chairman
Address: 3830 Pilot Knob Road
City: Eagan, MN
Phone Number: (651) 681-4300
E-mail: emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us
Indicate who is responsible for results Eric Macbeth
4. Plans: It is important that the water resources in a project area are considered an important
resource on a regional and state level as well as by the project proposers. The following
section refers to several types of plans and assessments.
Name of major watershed the project is located in, 8 digit Hydrologic Unit Code, Lat./Long
information and Watershed ID number:
?Name of major watershed: Lower Minnesota River Watershed
? 8 digit Hydrologic Unit Code: 07020012
? Latitude/Longitude: 44°49'35" North, 93 ° 13' 19" West
? Watershed ID number: 33143
In order to be eligible for 319 funds this type of project must be included in Minnesota's
1994 Nonpoint Source Management Strategy (NPSMS). Please indicate the page numbers
of the NPSMS that relate to this project.
? The project will focus on mitigating problems associated with urban runoff, groundwater
alteration and the restoration of two trout streams and a wetland fen complex. This
project is addressed in Chapter 12 of the 1994 Nonpoint Source Management Strategy.
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:04 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.02/14
In 1998, the MPCA along with 25 other entities completed the first Unified Watershed
Assessment (UWA). For an explanation of UWA process and results, please refer to:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basizWcwaalan-restore.htm]. Using the following web page,
please determine the category your project falls into and check the corresponding box.
http://www.oca.state.mrLus/artworkiwater/basin&/mmla.t)df
¦ Category 1: Watershed in need of restoration
0 Category 2: Watershed in need of protection
0 Category 3: Pristine and sensitive conditions
C Category 4: Insufficient information
Please refer to the following web page to determine ranking of the watershed that your project is
in and check the corresponding box http://www.oca.state.mn.us/anwork/water/b4s4s/may2a.ydf
¦ High
Medium
Low
Is the project in a priority watershed (303(d)/TMDL, UWA priorities, etc)
• The project is in a priority watershed identified in the both the final 1998 and 2000 draft
TMDL List of Impaired Waters. In addition, Nicola Meadow Fen is classified in
Minnesota Rules Section 7050 as a Class 2D water.
Is the project referred to in the county water plan? Please include copies of the pertinent pages.
• A county plan does not exist for Dakota County, but second generation watershed
Management Plans exist for both the GCLWMO and the Lower Minnesota Watershed
District.
Is the project listed in the basin plan (if the basin plan is completed)?
• The project is referred to in the Gun Club Lake WMO Watershed Management plan.
Relevant sections of this Plan are included in Appendix A.
Are there any other plans that your project is identified in?
• The project is also referenced in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District's
Watershed Management Plan. Relevant sections of this Plan are included in Appendix B.
5. Type of Project
¦ Resource Investi ation/Diagnostic.
0 Project Implementation
0 Demonstration Project
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:04 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.03i14
6. Description of Project Area
Project Area (in acres): 20.3 square miles (Including T-nibutary Area)
Population of Project Area: 40,000 (Including Tributary Area)
Land Uses:
% Agricultural
- % Drained/Tiled*
90 % Urban/Suburban
25 % Impervious Surface*
Forest
Wetland
10 % Water
% Other (Describe)
*If this information is not readily available, estimates will be accepted.
Map of watershed and location (please submit on 81/2"x 11" sheets of paper) and indicate the
project area (see attachment at the end of the application for further detail)
For Lake projects please submit:
Lake name: Nicols Fen
Lake ID:
Lake surface area:
Depth (maximum, average):
DNR lake classification:
Number of inflows:
Number of outflows:
Number of public accesses:
For stream projects please submit:
Stream length: 2.3 miles
DNR stream classifications: Class 2, subcategory E and Class 1, subcategory B
Number of tributaries: 0
Number of public accesses: I
Number of dams: none
Drainage area at outlet 20.3 sq. mi.
Miles of perennial and intermittent streams in watershed N/A
Is there any available data on the physical stream channel dimensions for your river of
concern? Anticipated to be developed as part of proiect
7635411700
Ot:T-:'-2000 12:04 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.04/14
Is the water of concern a drinking water source? .Y.1 N
?Groundwater alteration due to adjacent land uses may impact the project and will be
investigated as part of this project
7. Ground Water Information: Please submit if this is a ground water project
Aquifer name (if named)
Type of aquifer
Depth to water table (shallow) (ft.)
Depth to water table (deep) (ft.)
Minimum saturated thickness (ft.)
Maximum saturated thickness (R)
Number of municipal wells
Number of individual domestic wells
Number of irrigation wells
Number of observation wells
Is the aquifer the only source of Yes
drinking water for the project area? Only practical source*
No
*Check this box if there are other drinking water sources available, but accessing them would cost-prohibitive and/or
technically difficult.
8. Local Units of Government In the Project Area:
Counties: I.Dakota 2. 3. 4.
Townships: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Cities: 1 •Ea8i 2• 3. 4.
Other: 1.Gun Club Lake WMO 2.Lowa Minnesota River 3. 4.
WD
State Senate Districts: 38
State House Districts: 38A
? The following government entities are landowners in the project area.
*Minnesota Department of Transportation
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
*Metropolitan Council
4
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:05 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.05/14
9. Funding Request (we will consider all sources of finding that you are eligible for)
Please identify any source of funding that you would not accept to initiate and/or complete your
project:
C Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Fund
¦ Clean Water Partnership Low Interest Loan (available only for implementation projects)
0 Clean Water Partnership Grant
Are you applying for a combination grant/loan?
O Yes
Are you applying for ¦ No
grant funds off? ¦ Yes
Are you applying for loan funds off? 0 N
O Ye
es
¦ No
If grant funds are not available, would you accept loan funds for your project (if eligible)? 0 Yes
¦ No
What other funding programs have you applied to or do you plan to apply to, to support this project?
How much money have you received from other sources to date, and/or how much are anticipating
requesting from other sources?
? The GCLWMO anticipates receiving additional funds from the City of Eagan and the
LMRWD.
For those projects, which are not short, term with a definite end date: How does this project plan to
sustain funding for administration and staffing beyond the terms of this grant?
? One of the goals of the Phase 1 diagnostic study of the Nicola Meadow Habitat Restoration
Project will be to develop an implementation plan that all of the various local, state and
environmental organizations will participate in implementing. The LMRWD, GCLWMO,
City of Eagan and the various state agencies all have the ability to contribute funds and
administer the implementation components which will be defined in the Phase I study.
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:05 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.06/14
10. Project Budget: Please complete the following section for all the sources of match money
and In-kind contributions for your project. The match requirement is SO % of the total
project costs.
Project Sponsors Cash In-kind Total Project
(Attach additional sheets if necessary) Contribution Contribution Support (2+3)
To Project (2) To Project (3)
A. Project Sponsor contribution: $13,500 $13,500
Local Contributing Sponsors:
1. City of Eagan $13,500 $13,500
2. Lower Minnesota River WD $13,500 $13,500
3.
4.
B. Local Contributing Sponsors $40,500 $40,500
Subtotals:
State and/or Federal Contributing
Sponsors:
5.
6.
C. State and/or Federal
Contributing Sponsors Subtotals:
(cannot be more that 20% of the
total project costs)
SUBTOTAL: All project sponsors $40,500 S40,500
(A+B+C)
CWP/319 Grant amount requested
(grant and loan total cannot exceed $40,500
$250,000/year, or $750,000 for 3
years)
Clean Water Partnership Loan
(loans are currently being offered at
a 2% interest rate)
Total Cash Total In-kind Total Project Cost
GRAND TOTALS $81,000 $ $81,000
7635411700
OCT -2000 12:05 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.07/14
10. Cont. Project Outlay Budget Summary
Please complete the following table by listing the program elements that will comprise
your project and estimated cost of each element, for each year of up to a three-year
project.
Funding Types Total
Program Element Cash (1) IIu•ldnd (2) (1+2)
Yr. I Yr.2 Yr_3 Yr.1 Yr.2 Yr.3 Yr. I Yr.2 Yr.3
1. Project Management $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
2. Background Data Collection 5,000 5,000
3. Water Quality/Qwntity 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Monitoring
4. Ecological/Biological, Survey 20,000 20,000
5. Topographic Survey (GPS) 12,000 12,000
6. Prepare Phase I Diagnostic 4,000 15,000 4,000 15,000
Report and Implementation
Plan
7.
8.
9.
10.
Total of Program Elements $53,500 $27,500 $ $53,500 S27,500
Total Project Cost
10. Cont. Loan Element Information: If you are applying for loan fonds please
complete the following section.
Please complete the following table by listing the program elements that will comprise
your project and estimated.cost of each element for up to 3 years.
Program Element Loan Request Designated Source of
Repayment
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1. N/A
1).
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Total Loan Request
Note: The Total Loan Request identified on the page should match the Clean Water Partnership Loan
requested on page 4
**The interest rate charged by the state to loan sponsors for 2000 loans 1s 2%
AA general Oblaatlon Note is required for the amount you wfth to borrow.
7
r
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:05 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.08/14
11. Resource Investigation/Diagnostic Study/Demonstration Project Guidance:
If you are applying for resource investigation/diagnostic/demonstration project grant funds
please provide a brief narrative description using the following sections as an outline .
Those doing a demonstration Project please skip down to section V.
L Introduction - Brief description of the water of concern and project area.
• Include a list of any special features such as wildlife management arm; refuges; unique or rare
biological communities; spawning/nesting areas; or federal, state or regional parks;
The project area is located in the City of Eagan, in Dakota County, on the east bank of
the Minnesota River, approximately 6.3 miles above its confluence with the
Mississippi River. The 525-acre area is located partially within the boundaries of
Fort Snelling State Park.
Included in the project area are Harnack Creek and Kencally Creek. Both of these
creeks have been designated as trout streams by the MnDNR. These are the only
trout streams within the City of Eagan.
Another unique feature of this area is Nicols Fen, a calcareous fen, which requires
specific hydrologic and chemical conditions to exist. This type of wetland is rare and
generally supports unique plant species due to the chemistry of the water. MN Rules
7050 identifies Nicols Fen and classifies it as an "outstanding resource water."
• Plans for protection or restoring habitat for endangered/threatened/special concern species
The project goal is to identify ways to improve water quality through development of
a Management Plan for protection and restoration of the waters of concern. This will
include, but not be limited to, the following.
• Identify alternatives to current dewatering activities
• Identify a storm sewer bypass system
• Develop policies concerning property ownership and land use in the area
tributary to the project
• Develop a plan for the restoration of the trout streams, wetlands, and
calcareous fen.
• What are you hoping to show with your research project?
What we desire to show with this Phase i Diagnostic Study and Implementation
Report is that it is viable to restore the calcareous fen and trout stream habitat present
within the Nicola Meadow complex.
8
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:06 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.09/14
II. Statement of existing water quality conditions and problems.
• What is the current state of the water of concern?
Stormwater runoff has created problems in the project area. The GCLWMO and
LMRWD Watershed Management Plans identify problems related to raised water
temperatures due to storm water flows as being a concern to Keneally and Harnack
Creeks. Nicola Fen has experienced some erosion as a result stormwater runoff.
Nicola Fen has experienced a reduction of ground water inflow due to nearby
dewatering operations and development in upstream areas.
• What are the water quality problems?
One problem with water quality is the limited availability of monitoring data for:
chemistry in the Fen, water tea eratures and oxygen content in the streams and the
overall understanding of the effects that storm water outfalls are having on the Nicols
Meadow complex.
• Please define the issues of concern to local citizens, resource managers and decision makers
The Nicols Meadow Complex is directly adjacent to Fort Snelling State Park and the
National Wildlife Refuge. Several governmental and non-governmental officials
have concerns associated with the continued degradation of trout streams and the Fen
complex. Those officials expressing concerns are: MnDNR, Met Council, Trout
Unlimited, Friends of the Minnesota River, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, City of Eagan,
LMRWD, GCLWMO, and Mn/DOT.
Each of these agencies has acknowledged the decline in habitat resources in the
Nicols Meadow Complex. However, all have also acknowledged that no one agency
is e,' quipped to solve the issues. Therefore, this Phase 1 study will provide the
mec sm through which each agency will be able to contribute its share or part in
restoring this valuable resource.
• Include a summary of any available observational and water quality data including any water
quality monitoring data or existing reports that are available
An initial reconnaissance of available records will be performed as part of the project.
Information that is not available will be collected as part of the field study. The
information that may be readily available includes the following.
• Groundwater pum ing rates from the Seneca Wastewater Treatment plant
• Groundwater levels from the Seneca Wastewater Treatment plant
• Historical flows for the Minnesota River and the creeks in the study area
Additional information that will be gathered in the field includes the following.
• Ecological surveys
• Soils investigations
• Topographic surveys
• Addddiitional stream monitoring for water quality and quantity
• Groundwater study, including chemical analysis, quantity determination,
and elevation/drawdown determination
• Stream Morphology Study
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:06 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.10/14
M. Statement of the existing and desired uses of the water of concern. Be specific!
• What are the existing uses of the water of concern (current reality)?
Historically, both Harnack and Keneally Creeks were categorized as trout streams.
In their current condition the creeks serve primarily as storm water conveyance
systems with degraded trout habitat. This area is directly adjacent to a state park
and will continue to degrade if left in its current state.
• What are the desired uses of the water of concern? Be specific about both the use and the part
of the water of concern when the use is desired. For example, rather than indicating that a
desired use is an improved fishery, specify that you would like to see improved trout fishing
on X stream reach or an improved walleye fishery an Y lake within the watershed.
The goal of the project is to restore both creeks to a sustainable trout fishery
throughout their entire lengths. Return hydrology to Nicols Fen and to establish a
health calcareous fen complex.
• Who do you anticipate would use the water of concern in this manner?
Once the goal is met, fishermen, hikers, and naturalists will use the area for
outdoor recreation. The development of interpretive exhibits would allow the area
to be used by school children, and others, for educational and scientific
opportunities. The City of Eagan is nationally recognized and committed to
providing and improving educational opportunities to their community and
beyond.
IV. Preliminary goals and objectives.
• What you would like to accomplish during the project? Be as specific as you can and include
numerical water quality goals if possible
The primary goal of the project will be to restore Keneally and Harnack Creek to a
sustainable trout fishery by stabilization of stream banks, creation of riles and
pools, establishment of riparian areas, and implementation of BMP's in upstream
tributary areas. The following water quality goals should be met to maintain a
sustainable trout habitat.
• Water temperature: less than 72' F
• Oxygen concentration: greater than 10 mg/l
• How will success be measured in ways meaningful to citizens, local managers and decision
makers?
The ultimate goal of this project is that the public and local managers should be
able to observe a sustainable trout stream and thriving calcareous fen wetland
complex. At a lower level, success will also be measured with the establishment a
warm water fishery and educational opportunities presented by these resources.
The goal of the Phase 1 study is to prepare an implementation plan that will guide
all the agencies involved to achieve this goal.
• What are the desired environmental outcomes? How will you determine if the desired
outcomes have been achieved?
The Phase 1 study will be successful when implementation by the various
agencies begins. The final outcome will be a restored Nicols Meadow complex
that will be used for education and recreation.
1
OCT-12-2000 12:06 WSB & ASS763541
OCIATES 1700INC. 7635411700 P.11/14
V. Demonstration project information: Please describe your demonstration project in detail.
• Who is your target audience(s)?
• What you would like to accomplish during the project? Be as specific as you can and include
numerical water quality goals if possible.
• How will you measure success?(Le. number of participants, newsletter distribution, changes
in behavior)
• Will you be producing a product? If so, how do you plan to distribute it? How will you
transfer the technology?
• Special features of your demonstration project
• How will you do outreach? How will you get people interested and get them to participate?
This project is not a demonstration project.
VI. Identification and summary of project or demonstration activities.
• Include the major program elements.
This project is not a demonstration project.
VU. Preliminary schedule.
• What is the anticipated schedule for the major project or research activities?
A preliminary schedule, including major milestones, is outlined below.
1. Prepare detailed project work plan April, 2001
2. Gather existing background information June, 2001
3. Gather field information August, 2002
4. Prepare Phase I Diagnostic
Study and Implementation Plan December, 2002
VIII. Estimated budget.
• What is the estimated budget for the project?
A detailed description of the $81,000 budget is given in Section 10 of this
application.
• Do you have the resources? If not, is there adequate funding in the request? (Project
sponsors will need to assume most of the technical activities previously done by MPCA staff.
Please take this into consideration when formulating the project budgets.)
The budget was developed with the assumption that staff of the GCLWMO will
accomplish the Phase I work with assistance from: LMRWD, City of Eagan,
MnDNR, Trout Unlimited, Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, and Friends of the
Minnesota River. The funding request has been developed accordingly.
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:07 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.12/14
12 WRAS DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE: Please fill out this section If you are applying
for implementation grants or loans.
In order to be eligible for CWP grant or loan funds or 319 grant funds to do implementation
work, you must have either an approved CWP phase I diagnostic and implementation (work)
plan or a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) to serve as a work plan that can be
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Below is a list of the necessary
elements of a WR.AS.
If you have completed a CWP phase I, diagnostic and implementation plan you do not need
to complete a WRAS, as the information Included in a phase I satisfies the 319 requirement
for a WRAS. Please include an executive summary of the Diagnostic Study and the
Implementation Plan. We understand that your Phase I plan contains much of the information on
your project. Unfortunately not all the reviewers will have access to your plan. To minimize
duplication of effort we encourage you to use information directly from your plan to the extent
possible.
In addition, please include a project summary (maximum 4 pages single-spaced) that describes
your project in this section. This is your opportunity to present the project in your own words
and as a whole.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) Guidance
A well-designed plan for a successful watershed implementation project typically includes the
following:
1. Define the Problem
• State the existing conditions of the affected resource and how the situation presents an
opportunity to prevent water pollution.
• Identify the water quality threat or problem: Please include a summary of observational
and water quality data
• Include a list of existing reports and data concerning water quality and land use
• Critical areas: Please describe the size and location of the critical areas to be treated
2. Build a Project Team and Public Support
• Please describe the roles and responsibilities of agencies active within the watershed.
What is the lead entity for this project?
• What is the process for cross-agency coordination?
• Is the project integrated with existing programs? Does the project reference other
agencies involved?
• How are you going to maintain public participation and involvement?
• Please describe any educational or outreach activities
• How will you communicate the lessons learned through this project to others in the state
and beyond?
1'
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:07 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.13/14
• Please include with the application a flow chart/organizational chart that illustrates the
projects organizational structure. Be sure to include the project sponsors, federal and
state agencies, local governments and any others that will be involved in the project
3. Set Goals and Identify Solutions
• State clear, articulate, and quantifiable goals and objectives.
• What do you expect to accomplish in a 2 to 5 year period? Be Specific! What are the
numeric goals for the project?
• What are the existing uses of the water of concern?
• What are the desired uses of the water of concern? Again, be specific!
• What are the objectives for each of the water quality problems identified?
• Which agency (or agencies) is responsible for evaluation/implementation?
• Does the WRAS contain appropriate measures of progress/indicators toward meeting
project goals and objectives (e.g., number of people attending workshops; changes in
pollutant loadings)
• Have you identified the appropriate lead agencies to oversee the various implementation,
maintenance, monitoring and evaluation activities?
• State the water quality outcomes anticipated directly or ultimately from the proposed
project.
4. Implement Controls
• Please include a schedule and timeline describing the location and types of best
management practices (BMP's), program and educational activities to be implemented
within the project area.
• Please include a discussion as to how all the program components will be applied
(technical assistance, information/education, financial assistance and monitoring and
evaluation).
• Please include a quality assurance plan for construction activities, and a BMP operation
and maintenance plan.
5. Measure success
• What are the desired environmental outcomes directly or ultimately from the proposed
project? Please be specific. How will you measure those outcomes?
• Monitoring and evaluation: Using the project goals identified above, please describe the
monitoring component of your project. How are you going to measure effectiveness. If
the project does not have a post-monitoring commitment, has the state made one?
• Monitoring should be done following a specific plan including concise goals and
targeting, specific milestones and a fine end date. Please describe your plan.
• How will success be measured in ways meaningful to citizens, local resource managers,
and decision-makers?
7635411700
OCT-12-2000 12:07 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.14/14
6. Funding
• What are the details of the proposed project budget?
• Funding needs to support the implementation and maintenance of restoration measures.
This should include funding that would be available through federal assistance programs,
state funds and other resources. Please explain the details of the proposed project budget.
Please itemize your budget with milestones in accordance with your budget plans
(answering what, when, how and how much).
If the project is producing documents, MPCA will need two paper copies of each document if
these documents are not available electronically.
13. Signature of Project Sponsor
To the best of my knowledge, the data in this application and the supplemental data provided is
true and correct, and the governing body of the applicant has duly authorized this application.
Name: Date:
Attachments:
Board Resolution
Map (on 81/2" x 11" sheets of paper for copying purposes)
Contributing sponsor information forms
Appendices:
A. Relevant Sections of GCLWMO Watershed Management Plan.
B. Relevant Sections of LMRWD Watershed Management Plan.
C. Joint Powers Agreement.
14
TOTAL P.14
Date: October 16, 2000
Agenda Item: H-1; Kennerick Addition
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Preliminary Plat
2. Existing Conditions
3. Site Layout
4. Grading Plan
5. Tree Preservation Plan
AGENDA ITEM: H-1; KENNERICK ADDITION
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and
wetlands issues that pertain to the Kennerick Addition development
BONN 1100
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Triland Surveying Company, Inc. is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision (Kennerick
Addition) to create 17 lots and one outlot on 8.6 acres located northwest of Pilot Knob and Lone Oak
Roads in the SE of Section 4. The proposed development has a gross density of 2.09 units per acre
(including the outlot).
This development proposal first came from the APrC in April of this year. This proposal has been
through a public hearing with the Advisory Planning Commission in April, and to the City Council in
June. In response to concerns and issues raised during the public hearing and at the Council meeting,
the developer requested a continuance of his application. The developer has since revised the plans to
incorporate the following changes:
1. The number of lots has been reduced from 19 to 17
2. The average lot size has been increased from 16,199 sq. ft. to 18,074 sq: ft.
3. The grading, drainage and water quality plans have been redesigned and refined and
4. A future street connection to the north is now shown on the plans.
PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION:
This development would be responsible for a cash parks dedication and cash trails dedication.
TREE PRESERVATION:
A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are 111,317 square feet of
significant woodlands on site. Species composition of the woodlands is primarily comprised of
softwood deciduous trees (elm, cottonwood, boxelder and ash).
The development as proposed will result in the removal of 31,430 square feet of significant
woodlands (28% of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable
tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, single-family
residential) is set at 40% of the total significant vegetation. With a proposed removal less than the
allowable amount, there is no required tree mitigation for this proposal.
Recognizing that the application proposes to perform site preparation for the entire site at the time of
initial development, there is to be no additional woodland/tree removal with the construction of each
individual lot. If additional removal is requested at the time of individual lot development, all
woodland/trees remove will be required to be mitigated per City of Eagan Tree Preservation
Ordinance Tree Replacement Schedule.
WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS:
This 8.6-acre development would be located in the City's H-watershed, which is in the northwest
comer of Eagan but which is not associated with any high-priority waterbody. Nevertheless, the
development needs to meet the City's water quality requirement to treat stormwater runoff from the
site. The development proposes to do so by directing stonnwater to a treatment basin to be
constructed adjacent to a natural wetland (City Pond HDP-1). Under the previous proposal reviewed
by the Advisory Parks Commission on April 17, 2000, the wetland was to be excavated to
accommodate the stormwater. However, with changes to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
that became effective August 1, 2000, such excavation in this type of wetland is now regulated
similarly as draining and filling activities.
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). With an impervious fraction of 18 percent, a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.44 acre-feet
covering an area of 0.22 acres would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by this
development.
A 0.6-acre natural wetland is located to the southeast of the planned subdivision. Under the
classification system of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the wetland is classified as Type 5, according
to the wetland delineation report filed June 14, 2000. Type 5 wetlands are inland open fresh waters
and ponds with water usually less than 10 feet deep and fringed by a border of emergent vegetation.
The wetland falls under the jurisdiction of both the Wetland Conservation Act of Minnesota
(WCA)-administered locally by the City-and Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act-
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any proposals to drain, fill, or excavate these
types of wetlands need to meet the provisions of these laws. This development is now proposed not to
impact the wetland by excavating.
However, to meet its water quality requirement to treat stormwater runoff from the site, this
development would need to disturb some of the area alongside the wetland, where the stormwater
treatment basin is to be constructed.
Erosion Control
In several areas of this development, the topography of the site requires proper installation and
effective maintenance of erosion control practices to prevent and minimize soil loss and impacts to
down-gradient resources and water quality.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication.
2. To ensure the protection of preserved woodlands/trees, individual lot tree preservation plans will
be required for lots 2-9, 11-13, and 15-17 at the time of building permit application.
3. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety
netting) shall be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever
is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved.
4. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection
at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing.
(b.
5. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements by creating a stormwater
treatment basin with a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.44 acre-feet covering an area of 0.22
acres. The stormwater treatment pond should be constructed according to NURP standards with a
maximum depth of 6 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design
standards.
6. With the exception of the area adjacent to the constructed stormwater treatment pond, a minimum
30-foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside the boundary of the wetland shall
be maintained before, during, and after construction.
7. Erosion control practices shall be properly installed and effectively maintained throughout the
development process to prevent and minimize soil loss and negative impacts to down-gradient
resources and water quality.
Item:
~ ennerl'c /->~dd;~ron
N•f• k
Attachment # I - Pretimrn.,9 pia}
ti
O
r ; c I AN
>T i 1 I mo
44
d
...As' ~ i 0
I y---------~ r----1 a
01
1 r l I I "i I
1 O I I -o s\ II i
I I I I J oc 8
O ON I 4 \ \
0
°
E I# "i 4~/
000000 C I 3.0
I n I I ng I$ % ---u
1 I
t_! L_ 10, f i
7.OMO.XP ,oar J / 1y~
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-;o x
rrr~ I A g I r
>nZ Oy "b o---!uo_---i -~i
z15 ACO~ I g r'~_ - I 1
>110 0.-
mi3 N 09 :0 I 1- t \ " i L--- -J
- I r-_-----I pi
!r~ I N j l\ I 1
> L
ZCr ' "i I k •
FZ L----------------
-----Ik
T-al
< I L
j 04 • r---
. w v i it 1 !L I
i m~ r-I Is ? " 1 c
mo 1 I t i -I r- mro? .r ?--I 1
zu_ I I r: L__-msai_1
L_~ i 11 !t- r------I g
II V I I "m I - L T 1 t I1H _ I
C __---La _I
ab io > ?I DZ r-- ---1 r \ / /
CA Co >
r a c a+ ..I I I .1 I I I \Vr4 "
04 ~y I J 'Cl ~z {I I_ III .II i ~
s ~ ~ c ( s l ~ 111 i t I» i ~I J,
1 j y I L. + I r ~j ? I ZI I "s
I I II
09 I 7 OI l6dD / IM I Fni rJ I = o
I 1 I ? S ~
_ 0 1
I N I O I o V
oo<~ ~$o.lo 1 I 1 1 m 1 ON
vs,
I 1 1
~+~vN~D!!^ 1~
a rR CA c~ tn~ o° ~a 1 I moo. o-J I p I$
I~ I J I I
..N a l+^ v l I ~ 1 1 I
a' I
a I
1 $ COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) m
a evr w wo. m .v .t a uea .n
KENNERICK ADDITION
uaan. w or n. STAR
C /l w* all ~°"M TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY. INC.
...o.
PRELIMINARY PLAT PC WE =M. £AGA Utlon NJ=
e.a-gas-+eeo
Item: 1~ennerl~K F~oldlr.'ar,
Attachment # z - x r) Cc nd I ~Iens
1 \ 1\\\\\\ )///r \ ! . f t \
1\ i\~, i i 1111 nfi~`r ~\g~~ c, I '1 ' \\1 c'
\ I Ili` ` \ ='M r°-
\NN
X
I\ it \ N
--I
\I / ---I--+---- IN r~ \ 111 N
O _ ` \ Il~~~ l~ - \ \
I/1 D I z 111 I I
1A I r / \ \ 1
qyl
I f ~ I \ I / I 1 \
if I
j j J-i r I \ 1 1 ! 11 r \ 1
1 -4
/ 11
I 1
El 'j
b / 1111
~ ~ I\\ \ 11111 ! /
/ r el --\I pl \11111
1 6111 Jill
111?-^\ i--~~'/ 09
lid \I
I I \ I I>N 1 1 I£ I r
( % 1 1 1 I I
A? ' I L 1 1 I
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) $
w.vMmna~umr.
°
a°°" " ? "~I KENNERICK ADDITION
°.~•T°NO° Lem M u ff 1w T.?z TRILAND SURVEYINC COMPANY, INC.
° w""~ PRELIMINARY PLAT o wit . CASH UwooTA win
N Existing Conditions
Item: H-/• Kenner,clc fr d , f,1On
J
Attachment #3 - 5; to [ y cu t
am
---------I r-----1
\ II I
\ II I
\ II I
\ - - J x
I 4
26 0.
o
4i >
~ I.
r----i -I
I II L -------J
1
I II r
I I r1I -----N - -J L
~
m
r-------~ r-----I t'om`
r
r il~, lr---\ ~
~ t \ N
1 1 o+ar t
it \
> it ~ \ \
\
I I + \ \
\ \ I
Qt 1L-------- J L---- L---- L
I ~?.lo,m r Isar
1 I V m1T IMt M fl. fEC~G~17? 0NSWUM = WAVK A PUAW 10,
° ? ° N KENNERICK ADDITION
TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
r I PRELIMINARY PLAT ro rm nos., u" .NW,. ,,,a
~J~1 Site Layout
t ( Item:
I
I mm~, Attachment #I
gu - rud,'r>t- Plc, ,
\ ..\\\1111111111 1 \ ~ ~ ,
11~?\~ 1111 n~ - i ~ , ~ 11 1
\ 1 I11 ~I ' \ 1\ 1 / 11
\ a~ \\\\\\"+e~ = -+`w\' 111
? II 1 ~ `~.~1- `~I \ 111 . \ `
i L 1 ."rte- \ c I 1
_-mot ~ I I I\ \ ? \ I
/ J ? 1 1 1 \
1 4 1C 1 1
r
1 L= -~1 Irl / I \i ~1% 1 \ \ \
1 /
7_1 \ 1111 tat I t
/ 1 #I I / / ~ ~
/ ,r I I l 1 / 1 I I `
/ 1 I\\
41
l
IIII
eg
N. 1 A
1 I \ P , \
09
$ y 1 I I I
N 1 I I
L
COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) c
L----------------
p pp~ ru rowo n
mn.r KENNERICK ADDITION
"Or a um r
Wo s/t~qntra umi = R.a~roO
ur M un or M ONE TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
PRELIMINARY PLAT M WX EMU uout r I $ot" °61=
4~ Grading Plan °u'°a°
Item: la-I - ennerlcK dd,4,-en
At I ~ \
Attachment #5 T
Pla,-1 - f
\ \\\11111111111 \ , $ti 1 o I ;a U) 01 M
\ 1\\\\\\I/~/u \ O \ \ ` CD 0 n
\ \ ! 1 a \ \ `
3 rn
N 0
a O
I I i I>11\ \ I I \ 1 \ < O a
\ 1 1 -d T \ \ \ ` CD
1 \ / \ \ -
I \ - 1 I / I ••l, ,j / ~-TI \ cD
1 SLZ `
_
~I '4 . ? 111 ;
III Q \ 11~~ u I 1\
I/I D r._1 111
1_ I \ IN Z7(n-1 _V)
(D 0 0
3 0
0
N CL CD >
\ \ Z
/ ` I I - \ 1 co
1 1 \
I I ; X11 1 \ ` \ ` \ LA 00 O0~0
v-. 0
0-0 Lj F-
Z
-0 L.0
/ I/ A 1 I y \ I I I 1 \
I I I `
1 -4
1 11
fD <
i ~l _ (a
;03 cD
\ l /
O 0 a
11 I"V / \ 1
-I\\ 1111 < oq
o
(D OR
0
--N N4
I
11, CD IV°
os
\N r-i
II i I 0q
I I----I I----I CD
t \
I.
o COUNTY RD. #31(PILOT KNOB ROAD) g
1---------------------------------------------
KENNERICK ADDITION
.r° tulvtra u4oi 1114 un v .1c l1.n TRILAND SURVEYING COMPANY, INC.
rn OF '1~ PRELIMINARY PLAT PO . CAC.. IWIOTA 661a
v / Tree Preservation Plan 11 .45z-reae
KL-
Date: October 16, 2000
Agenda Item: 1-1; Summer Program Review
mow.:'
Action X
City of Eagan Information
Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1) evaluation form
2) parent evaluations
3) August report
AGENDA ITEM: I-1; SUMMER PROGRAM REVIEW 2000
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: PAULA NOWARIAK, RECREATION SUPERVISOR
I ITEM OVERVIEW: A report of the Summer in the Park program and its related summer program
evaluations.
BACKGROUNDMISTORY:
At the August Commission meeting, a preliminary review of the Summer in the Park (SIP) and other
summer programs was presented. (see attached) Careful consideration has been given to the
evaluations from various perspectives to make sure that this program is meeting needs and is of sound
quality. Following is a report from the summer of 2000.
During the summer of 2000, there were twelve Summer in the Park sites with 725 participants. The
Wagonful O'Fun had 175 participants for a total of 900 participants in the two programs.
Instructional programs including T-ball, Eaganettes and Games & Sports had over 450 participants.
These programs were held for six weeks during June and July. The program offerings also included a
complete Preschool program with 450 participants during June, July and August. Camps ran for four
weeks with over 750 participants. The combined total of program participants for the summer of
2000 was close to 4000 participants. For purposes of this report, programs being evaluated include:
Summer in the Park/Wagonful O'Fun, Camps and Games, Sports & More.
SUMMER PROGRAM STRUCTURE:
The summer program is structured into the following areas:
1. Summer in the Park (SIP)/Wagonful O'Fun
2. Instructional Programs
3. Preschool
4. Camps
The Summer in the Park program is for children who have completed kindergarten through age 12.
It is conducted at twelve different neighborhood parks for six weeks. The fee is $25.00. Three sites
are two days per week, two are four days per week, and seven are three days per week. Morning
sites run from 9:00-11:30a.m. and afternoon sites run from 1:00-4:00p.m. The Wagonful O'Fun
visits seven park sites throughout the City of Eagan for six weeks. The fee is $5.00. These sites are
visited once per week for 2 V2 hours each.
Instructional programs such as T-ball, Eaganettes and Games & Sports are held at various times and
lengths for six weeks during June and July.
Preschool programs are held year-round, however in the summer the format changes to offering
classes for six weeks during June and July. During the month of August, camps are offered for this
age group.
Camps begin the last week in July and run through the third week in August. This year there were 13
camp offerings with 26 sections. A variety of activities, days and lengths are offered.
There are 37 summer staff hired, ages 16 and up. Many of the seasonal staff are teachers as well as
college students who are studying education and recreation. Recreation Leaders and Recreation
Assistants work more than one program. For example: a Leader may work Instructional T-ball in the
morning and a SIP site in the afternoon. Any proposed change in the format of SIP need to take
staffing schedules into consideration.
A timeline of summer program planning is listed below.
January-April: Planning and hiring staff
May: Finalize plans, All staff hired
June 1-9: Pre-planning, Staff First Aid training, Get sites & equipment ready
June 12 & 13: Staff Training
June 14-July 21: SIP. Wagonful O'Fun, Instructional Programs, Preschool
July 24-August 18: Camps
August 20-25: Last week of preschool
COMMUNITY COMPARISON:
What do other cities do? It's difficult to compare Eagan to other cities of similar size; however, the
following is useful information on the type of programs several cities offer.
City of Eden Prairie:
Offers an afternoon Playground Program for youth. Their program brochures reads as follows:
Youth who have completed grades K-6 can enjoy various games, activities, crafts, arts, music and
more at Afternoon Playground. Youth will be divided up into age appropriate groups. A playground
tee shirt is included.
• Dates offered in 2000 were: Monday-Friday 1-4 pm, June 19-July 14. (4 weeks) The fee was
$14/week.
• There were 6 locations offered each week.
• 5 Field trips were offered for youth who completed grades 1-6 on Fridays from 8am-5 pm.
Before and aftercare was available from 7:30am-6:00 pm for an additional fee.
Camp programs were offered during various weeks during the remainder of July and August for
grades K-6. Camp offerings included: Arts Camp, Day Camp, Soccer Camp, Safety camp, Super
Sports, Primary Sports, Drama camp, Krazy Camps (sports & day camp combo)
• Most camp offerings were day long programs with before & after care available from
7:30am-6:00pm
Additionally, a program called Afternoon Adventure was offered for youth entering grades 1-6 from
noon-5pm. This program follows the Community Ed. Summer School morning classes and was held
at the Eden Prairie Community Center. Before and After care was also available.
City of Brooklyn Park:
Offers a Summer Playground program for ages 3-12. It is divided into three age groups:
• Our Little ones (ages 3-5)
• Our Kids (ages 6-9)
• Voyageurs (ages 10-12)
• There were 2 sessions offered in 2000. June 19-July 20 and July 31-Aug. 24 with a fee of
$20.00 per session for residents and $25.00 per session for non-residents.
• The program is offered on Tuesdays & Thursdays or Mondays & Wednesdays at 3 sites from
9:30-11:30am, 3 sites from 12:30-2:30pm and 3 sites from 3:00-5:00pm.
• A theme was advertised for all sites for each week.
Brooklyn Park also offers a number of sports programs for youth including T-ball, golf, soccer,
baseball, softball, basketball, flag football, and tennis.
City of Apple Valley
Offers a Summer Playground Program for children ages 6-11. Their program brochure invites
children to Run, jump, shout, and play with their friends!
• Dates offered in 2000 were Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from June 12-August
1(7 weeks).
• The program is free
• There were seven locations offered from 9am-noon and seven locations offered from 1-4pm.
• 7 field trips were offered on Wednesdays during the hours of 8-5
A day camp was offered during the week of July 10-14. This was the week summer playgrounds
were not offered. Two fieldtrips were also held during this week. One session each of a sports and
games camp and creativity camp was offered on August 7-9. A Safety camp was offered on August
10 &11. Apple Valley also has a mobile puppet theater that visits neighborhoods from June 12-
August 4.
City of Woodbury
Offers a Summer Playground Program for children ages 6-12. Their program brochure reads as
follows: The playground program will involve your child in a variety of games, activities, crafts and
special events incorporated into a weekly theme. The program will promote the development of
friendships, good sportsmanship, and values, all under the direct supervision of playground leaders.
For many activities the children will be separated into appropriate age groups. The morning and
afternoon sessions of each weekly theme offer the same activities.
• There were 8 sessions offered at $17.00 per session. One morning site from 9-noon was
offered and two afternoon sites were offered from 1-4pm. Days offered were Monday -
Thursday.
• Dates offered were from June 19-August 17
• A theme was advertised for all sites each week.
• 4 field trips were offered on Fridays throughout the summer.
Camp programs offered included sport camps, safety camp, Aquatics Day Camp, and a cheerleading
clinic.
City of Burnsville
Burnsville offers a program called "Kids of Summer". It is designed for youth ages 6-11 or entering
grades 1-6. Their program brochure states that it offers the youth a chance to enjoy the great outdoors
and each other while participating in games, making arts and crafts projects and attending field trips,
along with a few other surprises.
• The program is offered at ten park sites from June 19-August 3.
• The fee was $35.00 with additional fees for four field trips that are held throughout the
summer.
Other programs offered by Burnsville included a Nature camp, safety camp, dance camp, creative
camp and four field trips that were held on Fridays.
PHILOSOPHY:
The philosophy of the Summer programs is to provide a variety of activities for the children of
Eagan in a fun and caring environment. This has been done in four areas. Summer in the
Park/Wagonful O'Fun, Camps, Instructional Programs and Preschool.
The following are focus areas and criteria that supervisors encourage in Eagan summer programs.
• Children are recognized by name
• Emphasis is on socialization between participants
• Emphasis is on a fun and enjoyable program. Learning is incidental.
• Diversity of program opportunities
Additionally, staff utilizes information from the Search Institute to carry out the philosophy and
program objectives. The assets that the Search Institute talks about are important to our programs
because one objective is to provide youth with positive role models. Demonstrated leadership skills
is a vital component when hiring staff. Leadership is also emphasized during staff training and
throughout the summer.
There are many benefits that the summer program provides for children that cannot be measured in
statistics. Some of these benefits include opportunities for Eagan youth to develop new friendships,
art, cooperative play, nature, science, and sport. A typical day at a program includes playing outdoors
in a park setting, a craft project, hiking, learning new games, and playing a sport.
Search Institute
The Search Institute founded in 1958, is an independent, nonprofit, organization. Their mission is to
advance the well being of adolescents and children by generating knowledge. The Search Institute
has studied youth development for more than 10 years. Their findings consistently reveal that youth
need certain relationships, experiences, skills, values and perceptions in order to have the most
success in life.
According to the Search Institute there are 40 developmental assets that form a foundation for healthy
development in young people. (See attachments) These are key factors that enhance their health and
well-being. The Search Institute has surveyed more than 250,000 6th -12`h graders across the United
States and has research to indicate that assets can make a difference. They suggest that if our society
would invest more in the positive things young people need, we could expect our youth to become
healthy, contributing members of families, communities, workplaces and society.
The first 20 developmental assets focus on positive experiences that young people receive from
individuals and institutions in their lives. Four categories of external assets are included in the
framework:
External Assets
• Support
Young people need to experience support, care and love from their families, neighbors, and
many others. They need organizations and institutions that provide positive, supportive
environments.
• Empowerment
Young people need to be valued by their community and have opportunities to contribute to
others. For this to occur, they must be safe and feel secure.
• Boundaries and expectations
Young people need to know what is expected of them and whether activities and behaviors
are in bounds and out of bounds.
• Constructive use of time
Young people need constructive, enriching opportunities for growth through creative
activities, youth programs, congregational involvement, and quality time at home.
A community's responsibility for its young does not end with the provision of external assets. There
needs to be a similar commitment to nurturing the internalized qualities that guide choices and create
a sense of centeredness, purpose, and focus. Indeed, shaping internal dispositions that encourage
wise, responsible, and compassionate judgments is particularly important in a society that prizes
individualism. Four categories of internal assets are included in the framework:
Internal Assets
• Commitment to learning
Young people need to develop a lifelong commitment to education and learning.
• Positive values
Youth need to develop strong values that guide their choices.
• Social Competencies
Young people need skills and competencies that equip them to make positive choices, to
build relationships, and to succeed in life.
• Positive identity
Young people need a strong sense of their power, purpose, worth and promise.
The research from the Search Institute is vital information to Eagan programs. The programs that
exist today embody a great deal of what the Search suggests that youth need. Staff will continue to
pay attention to Search Institute findings along with trends and needs of the community.
EVALUATIONS:
Both staff and participants evaluate programs on a continuous basis. Evaluations are handed out to
the parents and/or the participants at the conclusion of a program. Participants are asked to respond
to the evaluation and return it to the Parks & Recreation Department. The following process is used
to evaluate the summer programs:
1. Each Recreation Leader and Assistant is given a staff evaluation form to fill out for each of
the programs that they are involved in.
2. Each Recreation Leader and Assistant is given an exit interview at the conclusion of the
summer to verbalize his or her evaluation forms.
3. The Recreation Supervisor and Program Assistant compile the parent evaluations, staff
evaluations, exit interviews and any notes and observations that have been noted throughout
the summer.
4. This information is compared to past program evaluations which results in a continuous
evaluation process.
Attached to this report is a summary of the evaluations received from participants. Also attached is
an evaluation form for your reference.
ANALYSIS:
The evaluations from the summer of 2000 indicate a satisfaction level consistent with past year's
evaluations. Parents expected their child to have fun and that was accomplished in a variety of ways.
Many respondents indicated that they wanted the program to last longer. That is one of the goals of .
the program; to want people to come back for more. Some other consistent comments include:
Summer in the Park: Participants generally were satisfied with the times and days that the program
was offered. Many did indicate they would like to see the program last longer. Participants also
made several comments on how satisfied they were with the level of attention that was given to their
/1.
child. They commented frequently on that the instructors knew the child's name quickly and they
were always greeted warmly.
Games that were frequently mentioned were:
• Fishes in the sea
• Eagles Eggs
• Jump the Brook
• Water games
Camps: Participants asked for more section offerings. This can be done in some camps, but are
limited by space and instructors for others. Staff is looking at expanding in as many areas as we have
adequate space for.
Staff: Staff evaluations indicate that they were satisfied with their job assignment and the transition
between Summer in the Park/Instructional Programs and Camps went smoothly. Many of their
favorite games were consistent with the participant's favorites.
Recommendations for change:
After all the evaluations have been read, there are some recommendations for changes for the summer
of 2001. They include:
• Friday programs: There were a few comments this year requesting more Friday programs.
Because of this recent request, staff will look into what could be offered on a trial basis for
next year.
• Games, Sports & more: Work on the curriculum for this program to give it more of a variety
of games. Possible change the name.
• Candy: staff at the SIP sites will need to be a little more sensitive to when and how candy is
given to the participants. It seemed that this comment was isolated to two site
• Times: Several time changes in camps were recommended. Staff will look into what
changes can be made without upsetting the whole balance of the other programs. Sometimes
by changing one camp time, the make-up of the rest of the programs can become unbalanced.
Changing times was not a strong consensus in all evaluations. Some comments wanted earlier
start times, but because of the variety of times and lengths of programs, this will be looked at
carefully.
• Staff will look at tying together the participant evaluation form and the staff evaluation form
so that comparisons can be made between the staff and the participants.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
1. To accept this report.
2. To make recommendations for program considerations for future years
Item: 1,-J; S(~mmer ~rc~} rd rr,~
City of Eagan Attachment #
Parks & Recreation Department
Class Evaluation Form Summer 2000
CLASS NAME: Instructional T-Ball for 6 & 7 year olds
LOCATION: Mueller Farm Park M/W 11:00 a.m.
In order to better serve the participants in our recreation programs, we need to receive as much
input from the participants as possible. Therefore, we would like to ask you to take a few
minutes to answer the following questions and give us your suggestions. THANK YOU!
Please answer the questions with more than a yes or no for that answer does not indicate what
we are doing right or wrong.
1. Organization of the class 2. Instructor's enthusiasm
- Well organized _ Very good
_ Good organization Generally good
_ Usually organized Mildly enthusiastic
Little organization _ Occasional enthusiasm
- Poor organization _ Bored
3. Did your child enjoy the program? - Yes _ No
4. Did the class cover what you expected?
5. Are you satisfied with the attention given your child?
6. What activities were enjoyed the most?
7. Was the time frame satisfactory for you and your child?
8. What hours of the day would you prefer?
9. What days of the week would you prefer?
10. Comments and suggestions for future programming, scheduling and improvement:
Thank you for your input, participation and support. Please fold, stamp, staple and mail this form
to the address on the reverse side.
Eagan Parks & Recreation Department
G:Paula/evaluation form99
Item: l- i ~ S- m me-f t~ro~ .a m s
Attachment #2 - PC, en F- E vn lua tten_
( 1 G ~4s Cs )
Instructional Programs: (Games Sports & More)
Number of evaluations returned: 17
1. Organization of the class
• Well 11
• Good 5
• Usually 1
• No comment 1
• My son was exposed to a variety of activities.
2. Instructors enthusiasm
• Very good 14
• Generally good 3
• Mildly enthusiastic
Comments:
• My son really liked Karen!
• Female very good, male-mildly enthusiastic, but it was a very good
combo!
3. Did the child enjoy the Program
• Yes 16
• No 1
Comments:
• Loved it!
4. Did class cover what you expected?
• Yes 13
• No 2
• No comments 2
Comments:
• I don't know. Because of the age of my child(4 yrs) it would have been great to
receive a summary of activities covered in each class.
• My child enjoyed the class and liked learning about new games
• No -I was expecting more variety like he had last year at this camp(Sky Hill)
• No I was expecting this to be more of a backyard type game class, like redlight
green Light, etc. I think t-ball is a poor choice for 4-5 yr. Olds.
• More than what I expected
• Liked the activities, esp. soccer
• I would have only had 1 day with t-ball. Maybe more group games-soccer great,
offer kickball?
• More games that was great
5. Are you satisfied with the attention given to your child?
• Yes 16
• No
• No comment 1
• Comments:
• Yes, my son was shy on first day, a teacher stayed with him & tried to engage
him in activities
• Yes, the teachers remembered his name right away
• Yes, but there was too much standing around & verbal instruction-he was bored.
• Yes! Loved the small size & having 2 teachers. Teachers were great. Liked
having both male & female. Liked that they were young(college age) very
enthusiastic! Great Teachers! Very Patient!
• He felt special there.
• I would liked to have seen 4 small groups instead of 2 large groups. More
attention could have been given
6. What activities were enjoyed the most?
• Soccer, duck, duck
• Playing the baseball game
• Not sure, he wouldn't go the last day
• Lizard tongue
• T-ball & soccer games
• Soccer, mystery tonguer
• Soccer moves
• Baseball & soccer
• Soccer,baseball
• T-ball
• Soccer
• All
• He enjoyed soccer!
7. Was the Time Frame satisfactory?
• Yes 15
• No
• No comment 2
• Could be longer to work on variety of sports longer
• Yes, the time was plenty
• A little early-but mostly great
8. What hours of the day do you prefer?
• 'Y2 hour later?
• After 9:00am-very hard to make on time at 8:45
• Same
• Later morning or early afternoon
• 9:30
• 9-11 am
• I think this time was ideal(8:45)
• Morning
• Morning
• A little later start time would be ideal
• This worked well!
• mornigns
9. What days of the week do you prefer?
• Same
• T&Th
• Any
• No preference
• Tues & Thurs worked for us
• M,T,W,TH
10. Comments
• I would also suggest on your registration form that you ask for phone # where parents
can be reached during class. (I can't remember if the forms asked for this-if it did
then ignore comments)
• Would you consider putting 5 year olds with 6 year olds instead of 4 year olds.
• More action! Less verbal instruction, more variety in activities, skip grey goose with
5 year olds! Ideas for this camp: relay race, kick ball, obstacle course, field hockey,
red rover, water balloon toss
• The brochure should be more specific and list t-ball and soccer, if that's what will be
covered
• Female instructor was great with kids! Maybe list more in directory about what
games & sports they will be doing (overlap with t-ball was not known at sign-up)
• Wished it would have gone longer than 5 weeks because he enjoyed it so much &
was just getting to know the kids, especially since it was 2x/week.
• He really liked it
• Good work
• Great teacher-were qualified & fun personalities. Keep hiring good people!
• Andrew & Karen are great!
• Taylor enjoyed each class-she couldn't wait to go back-instructors were very
supportive of the kids.
• Instructors did an excellent job!! Thank you very much
• We enjoyed it. May want to re-think how the kids are being put into groups(4 or
more) More attention could be given! Thanks!
• I was very pleased
• Wagonful O"Fun
Number of evaluations returned.- 8
1. Organization of the class
• Well 6
• Good 2
2. Instructors enthusiasm
• Very good 5
• Generally good 2
• no comment 1
3. Did the child enjoy the Program
• Yes 8
• No
4. Did class cover what you expected?
• Yes 6
• No
• No expectation: 1
• Comment: They would have liked the water truck to come for water day.
5. Are you satisfied with the attention given to your child?
• Yes 8
• No
• Comments: small groups offered more than expected
6. What activities were enjoyed the most?
• Games
• Crafts
• Wateday
• Balloon toss, balloon around ankle game, jump the brook
• Secret agent dodge ball
• All, especially the crafts
• Jr. leader day
• Bike decorating
• Wacky hat day
7. Was the Time Frame satisfactory?
• Yes 8
• No
8. What hours of the day do you prefer?
• No comment: 4
• Comments: it was just fine
I
• Time was good
• Morning was great
• same
9. What days of the week do you prefer?
• No comment: I
• Any day, not Friday
• Mondays were great
• Wed pms were great
• Thurs. gook-Friday could work also
• Mon & Fri
• Day was fine
• same
10. Comments
• Staff had control of participants behavior. Positive atmosphere for all. Thanks
• More junior leader days
• Have water truck come
• Thank you -Erin & Lindsay
• Divide the ages up a little more
• The leaders were excellent role models. They were fun, enthusiastic adaptable &
enjoyable
Camps - 2000
670 Participated
82 Evaluation's returned
1. Organization of Class
• 70 well
• 9 good
• 1 usually
• 2 no comment
2. Instructor's enthusiasm
• 75 very good
• 5 generally good
• I mildly enthusiastic
• 1 no comment
3. Did your child enjoy the program?
• 82 yes
4. Did class cover what you expected?
• 72 yes
• 4no
• 6 no comment
5. Are you satisfied with the attention given to you child?
• 78 yes
• 4 no comment
6. What activities were enjoyed the most?
7. Was the time frame satisfactory for you and you child?
• 71 yes
• 4no
• 7 no comment
8. What hours of the day would you prefer?
• 18 no comment
9. What day of the week would you prefer?
• 15 no comment
10. Comments and suggestions for future programs, scheduling and improvement:
Camp Comments
Summer of 2000
Day Camp:
#5: Yes, Dynamite. Day Camper is a great idea
• Yes, he had a blast!
#6:
• Games-not crafts as much
• Games, eagle eggs and predator prey
• Loved Prey Predator, spider web
Comments:
• Many children don't eat a big enough breakfast to wait until 12:30 for lunch. All the games and running
makes them hungrier quicker. Perhaps earlier lunches or have parents send an a.m. snack.
• Thank you!
• It would be great if you could offer 2 weeks of this camp! The kids look forward to it all summer.
• Both of my kids loved the sleepover! This year seemed like a smaller number of kids which kelps the
kids get to know each other. Staff seemed very positive with kids.
Big Games Camp
#4: Better than expected
#5: Very much so-he was very happy to be there!
#9: All week long-maybe 2 weeks.
Comments:
• Slightly older kids would probably enjoy this class too.
Explore the Outdoors
#2: very playful &fun!
#4: exceeded what I expected.
#6:
• Games and Scavenger hunt
• Trails and t-shirt craft
#8: Mornings-9:00-12:00 would be preferable to 8:30 start. Too early!
Comments:
• My son loved it(age 6). He said hiking was his favorite and that it was so fun. Very nice instructors!
• Such a beautiful spot. I would like to go to Camp Sacajawea!.
• You're all terrific
• Ben really loved this camp. The teachers were fun & learned names quickly.
• More openings, seems there was a lot of interest in this class and a waiting list.
• When the leaders welcomed my son by name-he really liked that!
• Keep in Monday-Thursday. That works good if people are leaving for the weekend.
Mystery Camp
• They had a great time.
• Offer this class again next summer
• It was a wonderful four days for my child, much better than expected.
Kraft Camp
• This is the 3`h summer Kayla has done Kraft Camp. These crafts were the best yet. This is by far the
best Kraft camp-we'll definitely do this again.
• There is obviously a reason, but it would be nice to have Fridays as a option on any activity.
• The children thoroughly enjoyed the activities and Kelli and Sarah were wonderful with the children.
• The class and teachers were great. However, we were 15 minutes late to the first class because Rahn
Park Shelter was not on the map provided in the catalog. Rahn Park was listed off of Nichols Rd. and
there was a shelter there. So, please provide a better map in the future. Thanks.
#4:
• The daily themes were very creative.
• Lots of different projects he never made before
#5:
• Both children received individual attention and felt very comfortable with Kelli&Sarah.
• The instructors really seemed to care about each child
• The teachers knew his name after the first day & seemed interested in him
#9:
• Could include Friday too.
• My daughter loves crafts and enjoyed the various ones completed.
Camp Adventureland:
#4: Expected more hiking, canoeing, "outdoor adventure"
Comments:
• So much more than expected.
• Canoeing instead of fishing. Add hiking. Water fun day.
Science Camp
#4:
• It covered a lot of interesting things -a lot more than Jake expected.
• Yes, I liked that she learned
#7:
• Too short 1 hour longer even better. 9-3p.m. 2-3 days.
• Good for me, too short for children
Comments:
• Different experiments next year so it is different for the same children returning
• Very well organized and educational. My daughter said it was "great"!
• Enjoyed having a 2 day camp vs all week.
• Always a worry the classes will fill up and they do quickly. Offer more of them classes to accommodate if
possible.
• Give parents more info on what's going on during class
Nature Camp
Comments:
#5: Yes, she was greeted by her name each day.
• Katie truly enjoyed nature camp! We'll be back next year!
• Nature camp was terrific. Kids liked the hikes to the park & learning along the way.
• My kids participated in Nature camp which was fantastic, they are showing me all kinds of things about
trees and plants! Thanks. Drama camp was very much enjoyed as well as WagonfulO'Fun. Thanks for
all you do!
• I liked the fact that there was an adult in charge and not just high school kids. The younger high school
counselors were nice kids. Good examples for the little ones.
• She learned so much!
• Loved it! Great program
• Monday-Friday-entire week.
Sports Mania
#2: very friendly! Karen & Luke are great!
#4: Yes, fun, non-competitive age-appropriate activities.
#9: five days, Mon-Fri
month long programs would be great
Comments:
• A Great program!
• Sports mania 2 week program instead of 4 days
• Karen was great! Get her next year!!!
• Really very professional at handling kids, noticing individual social interaction needs and keeping it
fun-Thanks!
• Great class-fun & active.
• A lot of children for one session.
• Thank you, good instructors
• Great teachers
• Our sincere gratitude to the instructors! My sincere gratitude to instructors to Karen & Andrew for
their professionalism and extra attention they gave my son.
Safety Camp
#4
• Actually covered more than I expected
#7:
• 8:30-4:30. 8:00 is too early.
• Yes, he was kept busy and enjoyed the days-did not feel it was too long.
Comments:
• Seemed to be very well organized
• My son had a great experience-Thanks!
• Safety camp is the best camp my kids have participated in- in term of quality staff and material covered.
Keep offering W N
!
Summer in the Park (see attachment)
Summer 2000
Number of evaluations returned. 55
1. Organization of the class
• Well 40
• Good 13
• Usually 2
2. Instructors enthusiasm
• Very good 36
• Generally good 16
• Mildly enthusiastic 1
3. Did the child enjoy the Program
• Yes 53
• No 2
4. Did class cover what you expected?
• Yes 50
• No
• No response 5
5. Are you satisfied with the attention given to your child?
• Yes 47
• No 1
• No response 7
6. What activities were enjoyed the most?
7. Was the Time Frame satisfactory?
• Yes 52
• No
• No response 3
8. What hours of the day do you prefer?
• No comment 15
9. What days of the week do you prefer?
• No comment 14
10. Comments
Summer in the Park Participant Evaluations
Summer 2000
Walnut Hill Park
#4:
• Yes, my kids loved the games
• Always!
• Yes, Weston had great time with all the activities
#5:
• Yes, they learned their names
• Always!
• Yes, lots of attention
#6:
• Secret Agent Dodge Ball, Eagles Eggs, Steal the Bacon
• waterday, candy hunt
• Everything
• Jump the brook, Eagles eggs, soccer
#7
• Perfect!
#8
• Hours were fine
• as scheduled worked well
• same
• same-1-4
#9
• Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday
• same
• same m-w Thurs field trips
Comments:
• My daughter thought it would be fun to have a kids choice day
• Great job!
Trapp Farm Park(5&6)
#1
• Hard to tell, I checked her in and left
• The handouts on the first day did not have correct dates for some activities
which was confusing
#4
• My son had a great time, that was all I expected -was fun
• Yes, lots of variety-liked getting a calendar with the themes of the day
• Yes, Activities & fun for 5&6 yr. Olds
• Yes, the water truck was a great idea. It must have been a thrill for most all
the kids
• Yes, summer fun outdoors
• My boys enjoyed the variety of activities
• My sons enjoyed the theme days, knowing ahead what activities would be
• Yes, light, fun stuff
#5
• little opportunity to observe
• Yes, the instructors knew his name & seemed interested
• Yes, Sarah & Kristin always said Hi and were welcoming
• Yes, Ratio & enthusiasm of teachers was appreciated
• They were always greeted warmly. The teachers seemed to learn the kids
names quickly
• Hard to say
#6
• playing games
• everything(per my son)
• Playing with water colors, water race
• Water day
• Bike day.
• Water day, bike day, playground
• The games
• Water relay
• Tug-of-war, biking, free play at park
• Bike day, tug-of-war, water activities
• Tag-games like "fishy fishy in the sea"
• Kelsey enjoyed game time the most
• All, but mostly clay day
• Fishies in the seas, tug-of-war, arts & crafts windsock
#7
• Yes, 1-4 same as older kids SIP would have been a little easier
• perfect
• Yes, Afternoons work well for me with a younger child that still needs a nap
• Yes, great
• I thought it was just the right amount of time
• Yes, could be longer
• Yes, for enough past lunch time so not a rush.
#8
• 9-11:30 am
• afternoon
• It worked well to have it at the same time as older kids SIP for family
organization
• The hours options were adequate
• Afternoons are good for us
• These were great
• Appreciated choice of am or afternoon
• Morning is cooler 9/9:30-
/
• None, this worked well
• Same or 15 minutes later to start.
#9
• T-Th
• doesn't matter
• The days options were good
• M-Th any days
• Glad to have choice of registering for MW or T-TH
• Appreciated choice of MW or T/TH
• None, this worked well
• Same
• Comments:
• I liked the fact that the 5-6 program was held at a park convenient to an older
kids SIP program so that both of my kids could go at the same time & in the
same area
• She loved it!
• Ashley is great with kids!! Group was quite large for the age group &
quantity of instructors
• Ashley at times seemed to have a poor attitude
• I really appreciate these types of programs for our kids. To be able to direct
some of that energy positively is great.
• Maybe 2 long days like 9-12 like 3-4 hours
• Glad you had 3 teachers for this age group-so important for adequate
supervision and fun times. Thanks!
• I'd love this to continue through August!
• Only room for improvement was error where calendar & sheet of activities
didn't match. My sons enjoyed Ashley, Kristin and Sarah. Hope they are
back next year-Great Job!
• My boys enjoyed the variety of activities & kind teachers-I was glad the ratio
was high of teachers:kids. I received feedback from my son that often kids
were misbehaving & the instructors had to discipline them often. Perhaps a
talking with the parents would be helpful to explain how the offending child is
disrupting the class
• This was our 2d summer of SIP. We have been very happy with teachers.
• My daughter is also in SIP at another site. It starts at 1:00, so that was a little
tricky
South Oaks Park
#4
• Yes, liked that each day the activities varied according th the planned calendar
• Yes, Eating your way across the USA taught my child some interesting facts.
Good nutritional facts.
#5
• Yes, teachers were attentive to her needs
#6
• Eagles Eggs, capture the flag
• Games(jump the brook)
• Crafts & Eating your way across USA
#7
• Yes, morning are the best time slot for us
• Yes, mornings are preferred
#8
• Same
• mornings 9-11:30 is great
• mornings 9-11:30
• Monday-thursday
#9
• Same
• Mon thru Thursday
Comments
• Longer into July-August
• Schedule a craft day once a week
Rahn
• #4 Kids say yes, I say I don't know. Never received a calendar of events
• #5 Yes, she said the teachers called on her when she raised her hand
• #6 crafts, tye dying, carnival day
• #9 Mon-Thurs or Mon-Fri
Comments:
• Offer activities at the park on field trip days, Make sure everyone has a calendar &
fills out emergency info sheet. Include procedure for bringing a friend on info sheet
Mueller Farm Park
• Yes, the kids liked the variety of activities
• Everyday my girls had many good stories to tell. I was very pleased how
happy they were.
#5
• Yes, instructors got to know the kids
• Very. They loved the instructors
#6
• The crafts and games
• crafts
• crafts & competitions
#7
• Yes-perfect
• very much. They didn't want to leave
#8
• 1-4 good
• 1-4
• Same no change
#9
• M-w Good
• MTW
• Every day, M-F
Comments
• Kids liked the themes, calendars, obstacle course on bike day
• Kids would like more water play if possible
• We all enjoyed this program. Don't change a thing. See you next year.
Northview
# 4
• yes, a good variety
• I think so, it's the first time our child has participated so I wasn't sure what to
expect
• Yes, Better than expected
• Yes, Fun!
#5
• Yes, he was called by name and always came home talking about Luke.
• Yes, my child seemed to really enjoy Luke
• usually
• I'm not sure
• Not sure-he says no one talked to him, not sure I believe that
#6
• The week of water fun with swimsuits
• Fishes in the sea-running, active games
• Dodge Ball, Jump the Brook, craft, Drip Drip Drop
• Crafts & jump the brook
• Jump the Brook, "everything"
• Water week
• games
#7
• Yes, no shorter, no longer
• Just right
• Perfect!
#8
• 1-4pm is perfect
• For the most part yes, when it was really ot-I was concerned I was too long
• Afternoon was good!
• Satisfied
• Liked the afternoon
I
#9
• M-F
• Monday-Thursday is good
• Monday-Wed good
• Satisfied
• Same M-W
Comments
• I thought the candy could have been left out! Generally satisfied with the
program.
• Thank you-you did a great job we'll be back next Year!(followed by a smiley
face)
• Check out procedures were unclear-we participated at Bridle Ridge prior years
& alays knew they had to check out. I don't think that was enforced as strictly
this year. I LOVE Summer in the Park-sad it's ending!
• I would like to see Blackhawk Park added as a sight to have SIP There seem
to be no parks close to our home.
Sky Hill Park
#4
• yes, good variety of activities
• yes, because she had attended last year
• Yes, they made it very fun that is what I planned(child comments)
• Yes, the games, crafts, and scheduled events were fun!
#5
• Yes, if she could remember the instructors names I know she got lots of
attention!
• Laytee really enjoyed this program
• I felt that he was well supervised and interaction was good
#6
• Stump the leader, talent show-really all of it.
• Jump the brook
• Jump the brook and fishes in the sea
• Field trips
• Crafts and stump the leader
#7
• Laytee would have liked the class to have been longer
• For me, as the adult the time frame was satisfactory. 1 hour more would be
good. Johnny would have liked the program one week longer
• Yes, great
#8 same
• 7:00-5 (1-3 days a week)
• 1-5 pm and one more week
• same hours are great!
#9 same
• doesn't matter
• M-Th with field trips on Friday
• Same days are great!
Comments
• Just want to say that Jessie & Steve were really fun people and very capable
with such a large group of kids. Thanks for making Kari's summer fun!
• For a working mother of 2, 12:45-3:30 cuts into the work hours, therefore, I
would have really liked this program to have been 1-3 dayes a week from
7ish-5is for a higher cost. This program is great. It is really nice having a
place to send my school age child for 4 weeks in the summer. I really would
like to have the class go for 2 months for a higher cost. Thanks for the
asking.the teachers were great She really hopes jesse & Steve will come back
next year! ! ! ! Thank you very much! ! !
Evergreen Park
#4
• Yes, I would have liked more craft stuff-but my boys enjoyed just the play
part.
#5
• Yes, Evergreen is a small group -my boys were well cared for
• No-said Michelle called them "brats" Gennie was nice
#6
• Croquet, eagles, nest, field trips
• The physical ones such as croquet ball, etc.
• Secret agent water activities, eagles eggs
#8
• Same
• Same 1-4
#9
• Same
• The same Mon-Thursday
• M-w good
Comments
• The only improvements I could request was the program to last at least 2
weeks longer
• P.S. The field trips were great. Being a working mother, they were able to do
activities I have no time to take them to
• The leaders were very good. The girls loved going. One is special needs so
I'd say that is a big commendation to the leaders.
Bridle Ridge Park
#3
• He loved it! He was disappointed when it ended!
#4
• Yes, our son loves playing all the games & going on the field trips
• Most days they covered their calendar activities
• Yes, lots of fun
• Yes, my son learned a lot of new games and had a lot of fun
#5
• I think the leaders do a wonderful job with the kids especially with the # of
kids vs leaders
• Yes- he liked his "leader"-Kristi
• It was OK from what my child has said
• Yes, the instructor knew him by name
#6
• Cut the cake, cat & mouse, eagles eggs, fishes in the sea
• Eagles Eggs, & other games & field trips!
• Fishes in the sea, eagle eggs, roller skating
• Talent show
• My son loved being the JR. Leader
• Tag & water games
• Soccer, Jump the Brook, killer wink, killer tongue, steal the bacon, eagles
eggs, limbo hula hooping, fishes in the sea
• Jump the Brook, Eagles Eggs, Steal the bacon, Fishes in the Sea, What time is
it Mr. Fox?
• Field trips
#7
• It could be a little longer(3 hrs. day)
• Yes, the morning is perfect
#8
• I think it is good as is!
• Mornings or afternoon is fine
• AM
• Mornings
• 9-noon
• same
#9
• I think the days are good as is!
• M-Th is great!
• I liked M-Th
• M-F
• Mon-Thurs
• same
Comments
• Eagan Parks & Rec. does a great job with children's programs. Our children love the
programs & have met many new friends! Thanks Eagan for a great job!
• Thanks-it's a terrific program
• My daughter said there needs to be more things to do-not so much repeated daily, as
it gets boring. Maybe more craft things to do.
• The kids loved the program & had a REALLY wonderful time. So happy this type of
program is offered.
• Activities were fun & hop to come again next year. It was awesome & hope to see
the leaders again next year. Good job leaders, thanks for leading all the fun
games(from a 9 year old)
• Had FUN! Loved Cascade Bay, Zoo & Skateville. Carnival was cool. Thank you.(6
year olds comments)
• I thought the program was excellent
• Seemed to come home with candy quite often-more that I like him to have. Would
like to see this decreased.
Captain Dodd/Ohmann Park
#2
• Luke & Emily were terrific!
#3
• They loved it!
#4
• Yes, the kids played unique & fun games, crafts, etc.
• Yes, fun games, exercise, crafts
#6
• Playing games, all field trips
• Kickball, dodgeball, all crafts
#7
• Perfect just long enough
#8
• Same 9-11:30
• Morning or afternoon
#9
• Same T&Th
• Mon-Thursday
• Mon-Thursday
Comments
• Keep SIP at George Ohmann Park! Would love it to be increased to 3-4 times as
week
• I would love it if you offered a 2"d session mid July-end of August.
Item: I -i Gtmmer 13rc4r4 m5
Agen Attachment # J7 _ 4 - t rZe pc rf
(4 pages )
4 City of Eagan Wonnatlon r-xl
4 Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x
1. 2000 Instructional
ftoplann
2. 2000 Camps
3. Program Descriptions
AGENDA ITEM: Preliminary Review of SIP program
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: Paula Nowariak
I ITEM OVERVIEW: A preliminary report and initial review of the current summer program offerings
including Summer in the Park and its related summer programs.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
A review of the current summer program offerings under the Recreation Division has occurred
throughout the past 6 months in a variety of ways. Evaluations are still underway, but following
is a preliminary report intended to establish a framework of understanding.
This writer has been involved in supervising Eagan Parks & Recreation programs since 1986. In
1986, summer programs were offered for seven weeks during June and July. Summer in the
Park was a free program with sign-ups taken by the leaders at each park. There were eight sites
offered from 1:00-4:00 p.m., three days a week with field trips held on Thursday afternoons. A
staff of 24 led the programs in 1986. Other offerings included the Wagonful O'Fun with 8 sites,
Eaganettes dance program, Tiny Tots and Friday Fun day trips for 10-14 year olds. There were
442 participants in SIP and another 300-400 participants in the other programs.
By 1989, there were eleven Summer in the Park sites with 841 participants. The Wagonful
O'Fun had seven sites with 160 participants for a total of 1,000 participants in just the two
programs. Additional programs offered in 1989 were Eaganettes, Games Kids Play, T-Ball,
Tiny Tots, Fitness & Fun, Me Two and Sports & Games Camp. All those classes combined for a
total of 350 participants. Total participation for the summer of 1989 was 1,348 participants.
In 2000, there were twelve Summer in the Park sites with 725 participants. The Wagonful O'Fun
had 175 participants for a total of 900 participants in the two programs. Instructional programs
including T-ball, Eaganettes and Games & Sports have over 450 participants. These programs
were held for six weeks during June and July. The program offerings also included a complete
Preschool program with 450 participants during June, July and August.. Camps are running for
four weeks with over 750 participants. The combined total of program participants for the
summer of 2000 is close to 4000 participants.
SUMMER PROGRAM STRUCTURE:
The summer program is structured into the following areas: (See attachments for specific
program descriptions)
1. Summer in the Park(SIP)/Wagonful O'Fun
2. Instructional Programs
3. Preschool
4. Camps
The Summer in the Park program is conducted at twelve different neighborhood parks for six
weeks. Some sites (3) are two days per week, (2) are four days per week, and (7) are three days
per week. Morning sites run from 9:00-11:30a.m. and afternoon sites run from 1:00-4:00p.m.
The Wagonful O'Fun visits seven park sites throughout the City of Eagan for six weeks. These
sites are visited once per week for 2 %2 hours each.
Instructional programs such as T-ball, Eaganettes and Games & Sports are held at various times
and lengths for six weeks during June and July. (See attached information for more details.)
Preschool programs are held year-round, however in the summer the format changes to offering
classes for six weeks during June and July. During the month of August, camps are offered for
this age group. (See attachment for more detailed program descriptions.)
Camps begin the last week in July and run through the third week in August. This year there
were 13 camp offerings with 26 sections. A variety of activities, days and lengths are offered.
(See attached information sheet on camps for more specific information.)
There are 37 summer staff hired, ages 16 and up. Many of the seasonal staff are teachers as well
as college students who are studying education and recreation. Recreation Leaders and
Recreation Assistants work more than one program. For example: a Leader may work
Instructional T-ball in the morning and a SIP site in the afternoon. Any proposed change in the
format of SIP needs to take staffing schedules into consideration.
A timeline of summer program planning is listed below for your review.
Timeline:
• January-April: Planning and hiring staff
• May: Finalize plans, All staff hired
• June 1-9: Pre-planning, Staff First Aid training, Get sites & equipment ready
• June 12 & 13: Staff Training
• June 14-July 21: SIP. Wagonful O'Fun, Instructional Programs, Preschool
• July 24-August 18: Camps
• August 20-25: Last week of preschool
ANALYSIS:
As part of the review, Recreation Supervisors attended a discussion with other Park & Recreation
Supervisors. The discussion centered on how long cities offer their summer programs. It varied
from city to city, but many cities mentioned they were considering a format similar to Eagan.
Currently, our format consists of six weeks of Summer in the Park and Wagonful O'Fun
followed by four weeks of camps. This format seems to work based on a variety of feedback.
Each summer, evaluations are given to participants and staff. After programs end, these forms
are evaluated program by program by the Program Assistant and Recreation Supervisor. Notes
are made on each class about where changes can be made and what should stay the same.
Throughout the past 15 years, changes have been made based on the evaluations as well as
keeping up with Eagans growing population. The following bullets are some of those changes:
• A fee was charged. Currently fees are $25.00 per child for SIP.
• A SIP site for 5&6 year olds was added
• Morning sections of SIP were added
• There are now 12 sites of SIP
• An arts specialist was added to SIP and Wagonful O'Fun
• A camp series was added during the month of August
During this past summer a few pilot programs were added to the program offerings. Dakota
County Extension Service provided a program called "Eating your way across the USA". The
program visited South Oaks park (a SIP site) four times this summer. They taught the children
about proper nutrition and healthy snacks to make. Each session lasted about one hour and
included a snack that the children assisted in making. It was well received by both participants
and staff.
A new program introduced at the Wagonful O'Fun was the Artmobile provided by Parks and
Recreation and the Eagan Arts & Humanities Council. Highview Park was the site for four
consecutive Tuesday afternoons. Different art media were explored with the children. This
program was also well received by the participants and staff.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
Summer in the Park is a significant part of the summer program offerings. Significant changes to
the program format will affect other program offerings because of the interrelationship between
staff and schedules.
While none of the changes that have occurred recently have been major changes, it has been
observed that the format of programs offered fit the needs and wants of program participants.
These observations are based on demographics, trends and feedback from participants. This
format provides participants a variety of offerings. There are many benefits that the program
provides that cannot be measured in statistics. Some of these benefits include opportunities for
Eagan youth to experience, art, cooperative play, nature, science, sport and develop new
friendships. A typical day at SIP includes playing outdoors in a park setting, a craft project,
hiking, learning new games, playing a sport and much more.
It should be understood that the review of the SIP program was to assure that the department is
offering the best program possible. This past summer's program has been very successful and I
am anxiously awaiting the final review of this years evaluations from participants and staff.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
No Commission action is required. This first report is for your review, understanding, and to
build a base of information for further discussion.
Date: October 16, 2000
Agenda Item: I-2; Spectrum Commerce Center
j:,• Action X
Information
City of Eagan Attachments X Preliminary Plat
Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Landscape Plan
3. Tree Inventory
4. Location Map
AGENDA ITEM: 1-2; SPECTRUM COMMERCE CENTER
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ITEM OVERVIEW: Review parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and
wetlands issues that pertain to the Spectrum Commerce Center .
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Spectrum Development Group, LLC is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to
create three lots on approximately 27 acres located between Hwy. 55 and Blue Water Road in
the NW t/4 of Section 2.
The site generally slopes from north to south and is open. Access to the development site is
proposed from Blue Water Road and from the future extension of Blue Gentian Road. The
proposed subdivision would create three lots, and includes existing MnDOT right-of-way
that the applicant is negotiating with MnDOT to acquire.
Lot 2 is proposed to be 17.8 acres upon which the applicant proposes to construct a 288,510
square foot office/warehouse in three phases. There are no development plans at this time for
Lots I and 3, which are proposed to be one acre and 3.6 acres in area respectively.
PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION:
This development would be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails
dedication.
TREE PRESERVATION:
Existing Total Site Conditions
A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are 111,425 square feet
(2.5 acres) of significant woodlands on site. There are three separate significant woodlands
on site which are summarized below:
Significant Woodland A (Lot 3) = 65,730 square feet (1.5 acres)
Significant Woodland B (Lot 2) = 35,820 square feet (.8 acre)
Significant Woodland C (Lot 1) = 9,875 square feet (.2 acre)
Species composition of the significant woodlands consists of cottonwood (12"- 20"
diameter), pine (8"-9" diameter), oak (8"-19" diameter), ash (20"-25" diameter), and silver
maple (12"-24" diameter) trees.
There are also four (4) significant trees on Lot 2. All four trees are cottonwood trees with
diameters measuring 20", 30", 30" and 40".
Application Proposal
The application as submitted is summarized as follows:
a. Lot 1 - Future development, no tree removal at this time.
b. Lot 2 - 100% woodland and tree removal, proposed building and parking lot
c. Lot 3 - Removal of 38,610 ft. sq. (.9 acre) of significant woodland for a proposed
pond. The size of the proposed pond has been increased 38% in size, by request of
the City, to accommodate runoff associated with the construction of public roads in
the development area. To compensate the applicant for this additional pond size, and
therefore the resulting increased amount of significant woodland needed to be
removed, 38% of the woodland's 38,610 ft. sq., or 14,672 ft. sq. (.33 ac) has been
exempt from the applicant's responsibility. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for
62% of the 338,610 ft. sq. or 23,938 ft. sq. (.55 ac) of significant woodlands. The
balance of the significant woodland (27,120 ft. sq. or .6 acre) will be preserved until
future development of Lot 3.
As proposed, described above, the applicant is responsible for 59,758 square feet (1.37 ac)
of significant woodlands and all four significant trees. Significant woodlands remaining on
Lot 1 and Lot 3 will be addressed at the time of application for those respective lots.
The submitted development application will result in the removal of 59,758 square feet of
significant'woodland (100% of the applicant's responsibility), and in the removal of all four
significant trees (100% of the applicant's responsibility).
According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this
type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, commercial) is set at 47.5% of the
total significant vegetation. With a proposed removal greater than the allowable amount,
there will be required tree mitigation for this proposal.
Tree Preservation Mitigation
The required tree mitigation calculates to sixty-two (62) Category A trees or one-hundred
thirty-two (132) Category B trees or two-hundred sixty-four (264) Category C trees, or an
equivalent combination of the three categories.
The applicant has submitted a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of
forty-three (43) Category B trees and eighteen (18) Category C trees. This amount of
Category B and Category C trees equates to fifty-two (52) Category B trees. The applicant
has offered to fulfill the balance of required tree mitigation through a cash contribution, this
amount calculates to $24,000.00.
WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS:
This 27-acre development is proposed in the northeastern portion of Eagan in the City's F-
watershed. The site is located just west of FP-1, classified as a Class V-Nutrient Trap in the
Eagan Water Quality Management Plan. 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 will need to be according to NURP standards.
A minimum, wet-pond volume of 5.1 acre-feet would need to be created. The pond would
U •
have a maximum depth of 10 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench from the normal water level, and an
outlet skimmer according to City design standards.
In consultation with the City's Engineering Division, the developer of this site is proposing
to create a regional stormwater pond to treat additional stormwater from eventual
developments in the area.
There are no wetlands 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 required tree mitigation calculates to sixty-two (62) Category A trees or one-hundred
thirty-two (132) Category B trees or two-hundred sixty-four (264) Category C trees, or an
equivalent combination of the three categories.
The applicant has submitted a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the
installation of forty-three (43) Category B trees and eighteen (18) Category C trees.
This amount calculates to fifty-two (52) Category B trees. The applicant has offered
to fulfill the balance of required tree mitigation through a cash contribution, this
amount calculates to $24, 000.00.
4. In accordance with NURP standards, a stormwater treatment pond should be created to
accommodate a minimum wet-pond volume of 5.1 acre-feet. The pond should have a
maximum depth of 10 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City
design standards.
2-t
Item: 1 -2 j Jn~~ec~ru m (2Ommuce.
Attachment # PIA t
Z
l4 2
r $
:M3
ILI"
PWTfM AI_ . - - - - - _ - - - - - - -
- _ - - rfl. SwF- i- ; /
\
`
w
r
t~° s? O
j \ r
~sl . , • r
fill
f r y . . 1C
ill
r 7> ~,t ,~1~ w e A
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1--~~ ~~e~fru~, Comn,e rcc~
Item:
- eente+
t t n - La r~i 5 ca e. P l a-,-i
Attachment # 14! INV
ti Z
ors cl O
C•~ •+~.'r1~,{S, / • t ~ U1,
.1 ( ~U P• li , F Q
1$
fit! f Wit,, E Z ~ _
it C~i(J 'G j
y ? p ? ` H !
C;t
O
4 8 „1i•(11iCti{ri1~~
011 1.11111 t;
44 1 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN
>r[r a L009C.Aft PLAN , w•~ .
,w ,
LLJ11Pi
-z • J~~e~S gin, Ccmme,
Item:
/ Attachment #ZZ Tic ? ~
/
s
Z
/ i
/
de v
93cie Y / TREE INVENT
ORY
a nee ~eeeley.noN Rar r~rc A:AM uc PAR A AAOUNT °
sRMUMCo+rvfga;;R
-EN~INkF1l11VC • DESIGN .r~•°j"•.~ .lwr.+'
- MNY 35 A kt aINMr ROAD SOS r.a/a u .va s. n r.•~.~.ea. w
Ertcnul DEftork4w Q.P. cuc ,
Item: 1- Co m r>ic~
Location Map Attachment #
4- - LGCa+,'cn lulu p
Me htq
Sub'ect Site
tom..
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Spectrum Development Group, LLC
Application: Preliminary Subdivision
Case No.: 02-PS-1408-00
Map prepared using ERSI ArcVIew 3.1. parcel bas. map data provided
by Dakota County Land Survey Department and is current as of August 2000.
K' E
City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
tf r F S C T The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are s
C.mmunny Dsv.t.Pm.at Dopartm•nt not responsible for errors or omissions.
Date: October 16, 200Agenda Item: J-1; Park DedicaAction X
Information
City of Eagan MEMO Attachments X 1. PavkeDwedDetio dication Parks and Recreation Report]
AGENDA ITEM: J-1; PARK DEDICATION FEE REVIEVV
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: BETH A. WIELDE, ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Review of the City's Park Dedication Fees from 1995 to 2000, and
identification of future needs
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Developers use park dedication fees in lieu of land dedication for the park and open space
requirement in their plats. If the developer meets the criteria for cash dedication, fees can
allow greater flexibility in site design. Fees are reviewed annually. After recommendation
by the Advisory Parks Commission and approval of the City Council, fees are established for
the upcoming year.
ANALYSIS:
Fees are calculated using a formula based upon the land dedication requirements set by the
City, and the market value of that land. Trail dedications, which Eagan calculates separately
from park dedication requirements, are based upon residential units and commercial/
industrial acreage. A detailed description of the fee calculation is available in Attachment 1.
A survey was conducted of several Metro municipalities. Data was collected from the cities
of Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Woodbury. The
results of the survey indicate that Eagan is below sample average fees in all categories of
property type. Detailed survey results can also be seen in Attachment 1, pages 3 to 4.
DISCUSSION/EVALUATION:
¦ Eagan has incrementally increased park and trail dedication fees in the past.
¦ Eagan's fees are based on a formula that has been used consistently for many years.
Eagan separates charges for parks and trail dedication fees.
¦ A survey of fees in other Metro municipalities of similar size and nature reveals that most
fees are higher than those in the City of Eagan for each property type.
¦ Eagan's fees, even when park and trail fees are combined and compared, are generally
below the sample average for each property type.
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
¦ Approval of fee increase for 2001.
¦ Other.
G3.
Item: J f 2C cc J Fec
Dcdicn4-7Un
Attachment #
P ) / - Fee I<e i Sul 1~r,
a«o
Review of Park Dedication Fees 1®
Each year the Advisory Parks Commission reviews park and trail dedication fees for the
upcoming year, and makes a recommendation to the City Council. Cash dedications are
received in lieu of land dedication for developments, allowing some flexibility in site
planning.
Fees are calculated using a formula that has been in place for at least 15 years. While
some Metro communities use one fee that covers all residential types, Eagan bases its
fees on density and other site-specific standards. Fees are generally based upon the
overall market value of the land, although these figures can be skewed with economic
shifts.
Although some developers may consider Eagan's fees high, there is no evidence that they
have avoided Eagan for projects due to dedication requirements. The rate of
development over the past five years indicate dedication standards and fees have not
acted as a deterrent.
Park Site Fund
When cash is given in lieu of land dedication, it is directed to the Park Site Fund. These
funds are used to purchase land previously identified by the Advisory Parks Commission
for acquisition. These funds are also used for park development. The funds can not,
however, be used for ongoing operation expenditures.
Formula for Residential Parkland Dedication
According to the 2000 Parks Dedication Policy, dedications are based on the gross area
of the proposed subdivision, proposed type of dwelling unit, and density. 1995 Census
data was used to calculate density standards. The census determined a density standard
of 3.3 residents for single-family units, 3.3 for duplexes, 1.97 for townhouses and quads,
and 1.79 for apartments.
The formula for land dedication is:
DWELLING UNITS
(UNITS PER ACRE) LAND TO BE DEDICATED
0-1.9 8%
1.9-3.5 10%
3.5-5.9 12%
6-10 14%
10+ Add .5% for each unit of 10
Cash dedications are based on the anticipated population of the development. Instead of
the straight percentage, the expected cash dedication is the market value of the land, 12
acres for every 1,000 people. 2000 market value of land and 12:1,000 requirements are
available in the current Park Dedication Policy available from the Parks and Recreation
department.
Formula for Commercial and Industrial Dedication Fees
The City has set commercial and industrial dedication at 7.5% of the parcel, and cash
dedications are equivalent to the market value of the land dedication. Commercial and
industrial land uses do not have the same park use as residential units, but they are
responsible for park dedication for two general reasons. First, commercial and industrial
establishments place demand on park amenities, and second they must meet the open
space requirements in the City's zoning ordinance.
Trails Dedication
Unlike most Metro Area cities, Eagan separates its trails dedication from the park
dedication. In 2000, trails dedications were $168 per unit for all residential property
types, and $948 per acre for all commercial and industrial sites. Since 1995, trails
dedication fees have increased $63 for residential units, and $68 for commercial and
industrial acres (see Attachment 1).
Standards for Accepting Dedication of Land for Public Purposes
Seven standards are applied to determine if the developer's proposal qualifies for
accepting a cash dedication in lieu of land dedication. Developers must meet certain
requirements to qualify for dedication fees. These standards, as seen in Attachment 2, are
detailed in the 2000 Parks Dedication Policy.
Review of Fees, 1995 - 2000
Since 1995, Eagan's park dedication fees have increased an average of $287 for
residential units, and $645 for commercial and industrial units (see Figure A, Attachment
1). Figure B illustrates the increase of rails dedication fees, an average of $65.5 since
1995 for both residential and non-residential properties. Unlike park dedication, public
facilities are assessed trail dedication fees.
Figure A: Park Dedication Fee Trends
Property Type 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Increase
Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees between 1995
and 2000
Single Family $875 $950 $1,042 $1,208 $1,235 $1,272 + $397
Duplex $791 $845 $1,038 $1,200 $1,227 $1,264 + $473
Townhouse/ $723 $800 $777 $823 $842 $867 + $144
Quad
Apartments/ $726 $775 $772 $818 $837 $862 + $136
Multiple
Commercial! $2,831 $3,000 $3,200 $3,300 $3,375 $3,476 + $645
Industrial
Figure B: Trails Dedication Fee Trends
Property Type 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Increase
Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees Fees between 1995
and 2000
Residential $105 $150 $150 $160 $163 $168 +$63
Dwelling
Units, All
Commercial/ $880 $880 $880 $900 $920 $948 +$68
Industrial/
Public Facility
Review of 2000 Dedication Fees- Metro Sample
Figure C compares Eagan's dedication fees to those of Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie,
Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Woodbury. For the purposes of comparison,
Eagan's listing includes both park and trail dedication fees. When examined by property
type, Eagan is consistently below a majority of the sample municipal fee rates.
Figure C: 2000 Parks Dedication Fees- Metro Sample
Single Family Townhouse/ Apartment/
Municipality Res Duplex Quad Multi Commercial Industrial
Brooklyn Park' 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 4,000 4,000
Eagan2 1,440 1,432 1,035 1,030 4,424, 4,424
Eden Prairie 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 5,775 5,775
Lakeville3 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,800 4,000
Maple Grove4 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 6,150 5,200
Plymouth 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 5,200 5,200
Woodbury 1,500 1,500 1,100 1,100 3,000 3,000
AVERAGE 1,507 1,552, 1,438, 1,437 4,628 4,378
All residential fees are based per unit. All commercial and industrial fees are base per acre.
' Bob Stewart, Brooklyn Park Parks and Recreation, gave 1999 numbers, but indicated that these
have not increased between 1999-2000
2 Eagan trail dedication fees, usually separate from park Dedication Fees, included in chart. Other
municipalities do not separate these fees. Commercial and Industrial rates are clustered.
3 Pending Council approval
4 Fees are increasing incrementally. These figures are as of Nov. 1, 2000.
Figure D shows comparisons of Eagan's cash dedication requirements to those of the
average of the sample cities. Eagan fees are lower, despite the inclusion of trails
dedication fees into the total. The exception, however, is found in industrial sites, where
Eagan is $46 over the sample average.
Figure D:
Park Dedication Fees:
City of Eagan vs. Metro Sample Average
$5,000.00
$4,500.00
$4,000.00
$3,500.00
$3,000.00
$2,500.00 []Eagan Park & Trails
~ L Sample Average
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00
]AAAJQve oJaa ~J~ G`a
ZO,
F o
a~Q' ~~~~ro PQ~~ G
Recommendation
Despite annual increases in park dedication fees, Eagan's fees are lower than comparative
cities in the Metro area. It is thus recommended to increase park and trail dedication fees
for the year 2001 to compliment Metro standards.
Attachment 1: Trends in Dedication Fees
PARK DEDICATIONS 2000 PARK DEDICATIONS 1999
Cash Cash
Average Units per 100 Equivalent per Average Units per 100 Equivalent per
Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit
Single family $31,588/ acre 29.8 1,272.00 Single family $30,000/acre 29.8 1,235.00
Duplex $31,588/acre 30 1,264.00 Duplex $30,000/acre 30 1,227.00
Townhouse/Quad $36,703/acre 50.8 867.00 Townhouse/Quad $34,875/acre 50.8 842.00
Apartments/ Multiple $40,083/acre 55.8 862.00 Apartments/ Multiple $38,054/acre 55.8 837.00
Commercial/ Industrial $57,680/acre - 3,476.00 Commercial/ Industrial $56,000/acre - 3,375.00
TRAIL DEDICATION 2000 TRAIL DEDICATION 1999
Residential Dwelling Units $168/ unit Residential Dwelling Units $163/ unit
Commercial/ Industrial/ Public Facility $948/ acre Commercial/ Industrial/ Public Facility $920/ acre
PARK DEDICATIONS 1998 PARK DEDICATIONS 1997
Cash Cash
Average Units per 100 Equivalent per Average Units per 100 Equivalent per
Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit
Single family $30,000/acre 29.8 1,208.00 Single family $25,900/acre 29.8 1,042.00
Duplex $30,000/acre 30 1,200.00 Duplex $25,900/acre 30 1,038.00
Townhouse/Quad $34,875/acre 50.8 823.00 Townhouse/Quad $32,900/acre 50.8 777.00
Apartments/ Multiple $38,054/acre 55.8 818.00 Apartments/ Multiple $35,900/acre 55.8 772.00
Commercial/ Industrial - - 3,300/acre Commercial/ Industrial - - 3,200.00
TRAIL DEDICATION 1998 TRAIL DEDICATION 1997
Residential Dwelling Units $160! unit Residential Dwelling Units $150/ unit
Commercial/ Industrial/ Public Facility $900/ acre Commercial/ Industrial! Public Facility $880/ acre
PARK DEDICATIONS 1996 PARK DEDICATIONS 1995
Cash Cash
Average Units per 100 Equivalent per Average Units per 100 Equivalent per
Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit Property Type Market Value Population Residential Unit
Single family $21,850/acre 28 950.00 Single family $20,400/acre 28 875.00
Duplex $24,645/acre 35 845.00 Duplex $23,070/acre 35 791.00 -
Townhouse/Quad $31,325 47 800.00 Townhouse/Quad $28,317/acre 47 723.00
Apartments/ Multiple $33,580 52 775.00 Apartments/ Multiple $31,460/acre 52 726.00
Commercial/ Industrial - - 3,000.00 Commercial/ Industrial - - 2,831.00
TRAIL DEDICATION 1996 TRAIL DEDICATION 1995
Residential Dwelling Units $150/ unit Residential Dwelling Units $105/ unit
Commercial/ Industrial/ Public Facility $880/ acre Commercial/ Industrial/ Public Facility $880/ acre
Attachment 2:
Standards for Accepting Dedication of Land for Public Purposes
A. Land proposed to be dedication for public purposes shall meet identified needs of
the City as contained in the Park Systems Plan and Comprehensive Guide Plan.
B. Prior to dedication of public purpose, the subdivider shall deliver to the City
Attorney an abstract of title or registered property abstract for such dedication.
Such title shall vest in the City good and marketable title, free and clear of any
mortgages, liens, encumbrances, assessments and taxes. The conveyance
documents shall be in such form acceptable to the City.
C. The required dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication shall be
made at the time of final plat approval.
D. The removal of trees, topsoil, storage of construction equipment, burying of
construction debris, or stockpiling of surplus is strictly forbidden without the
written approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
E. Grading and utility plans, which may affect or impact the proposed park
dedication, shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director
prior to dedication, or at such time as reasonably determined.
F. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of
drainways, flood plains, or ponding areas. Grades exceeding 12% or unsuitable
for parks development shall be considered for partial dedication.
Where ponding has been determined to have a park function, credit will be given
at a rate of 50% of the pond and adjoining land area below the high water level;
an minimum of 70% of land above the high water mark shall be dedicated before
pond credit is granted. Other City park dedication policies relating to pond
dedication must also be complied with.
In those cases where subdivider's and developers of land provide significant
amenities such as, but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, handball
fields, etc., within the development for the benefit of those residing or working
therein, and where, in the judgment of the Director of Parks and Recreation, such
amenties significantly reduce the demands for public recreational facilities to
serve the development, the Director of Parks and Recreation may recommend to
the Advisory Parks Commission that the amount of land to be dedicated for park,
playground, and public open area space (or cash contributions in lieu of such
dedication) be reduced by an amount not to exceed 25% of the amount calculated
under paragraph 2 above.
7
G. The City, upon review, may determine that the developer shall create and
maintain some form of on-site recreation use by he site residents such as tot lots
and open play space. This requirement may be in addition to the land or cash
dedication requirement.
EXPENSE REPORT
AS OF 09/30/00
CURRENT Y.T.D. BUDGET TO
ANNUAL MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL PERCENT
OBJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
_-._____=====x=a========a===ass=====_____= a======a==== ==========a====== =============n====== =a===============z== o==ccexceoe
FUND 328 PARK SITE ACQUISITION/ DEVELOP
4240 SMALL TOOLS 0.00 36.67 36.67
4257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL 0.00 4,488.00 4,488.00
SUBTOTAL SUPPLIES,REPAIRS AND MTN 0.00 4,524.67 4,524.67
4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL 0.00 8,850.00 8,850.00
4311 LEGAL 0.00 19.50 19.50
SUBTOTAL OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES 0.00 8,869.50 8,869.50
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 9,649.09 15,129.06 15,129.06
4652 ENGINEERING PARK CONSTR 450.00 450.00 450.00
4655 PARKING-PARK CONSTR 0.00 2,726.11 2,726.11
4659 GENERAL LANDSCAPING/FURNISHING 0.00 5,029.25 5,029.25
4660 PLAY EQUIPMENT-PARK CONSTR 1,934.51 1,959.69 1,959.69
4662 SPECIAL FEATURES/FURNISHING PK 727.44 727.44 727.44
4663 TRAILS-PARK CONSTRUCTION 0.00 18,715.00 18,715.00
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12,761.04 42,949.45 42,949.45
4710 TRANSFER OUT 0.00 1,062,598.06 1,062,598.06
SUBTOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 0.00 1,062,598.06 1,062,598.06
_=====a==========xa===mta a ttan t=a=xa=a=== ==z===xan== ====x==========x= = -
FUND PARK SITE ACQUISITION/DEVELOP TOTAL 12,761.04 1,119,143.76 1,119,143.76
'W CITY OF ~..AGAN Page 3
REVENUE REPORT
AS OF 09/30/00
CURRENT Y.T.D. BUDGET TO
ANNUAL MONTH ACTUAL ACTUAL PERCENT
OBJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
_ _ = x = _ _ = = = _ _ = x = x msx s = = x m= _ = x x = s = = = _ = x = _ _ _ _ _ = s = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = x = x = = m = x = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = x = = x = m = _ = x m m
x = = x = _ = m x m = = x = = x = = x = s x = = o = = c = o o c
FUND 328 PARK SITE ACQUISITION/DEVELOP
3855 PARK DEDICATION 88,241.12 295,680.64 295,680.64
SUBTOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 88,241.12 295,680.64 295,680.64
3821 BUILDING RENT 750.00 6,750.00 6,750.00
3823 LAND RENT 0.00 15,000.00 15,000.00
SUBTOTAL OTHER REVENUE 750.00 21,750.00 21,750.00
• `xmam ss~x=mx=smaxam=xxmms=xmms=xam==x=xx= =x==xm====x=x ==s====__________
==s==ax=mam s=xmx=xmm=msx=x=s=x =x=o:assamsa
FUND PARK SITE ACQUISITION/DEVELOP TOTAL 88,991.12 317,430.64 317,430.64
` __..=====m==== oo==c==co =s=x=xa=n= xm==xxxsxx =m=o=xaxm==s
N
MOONSHINE PARK WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 2000
To: Parks Advisory Commission
From: C.J. Lilly- Park Planner/ L.A.
Date: October 11, 2000
Re: September Commission Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of the October Moonshine Park Workshop is to follow up on
recommendations made at the September meeting. Five study items were identified they
include:
1. Refine the "Rural Road Plan", with a cost estimate.
2. Have a new septic tank and drain field designed.
3. Verify the quality of well water.
4. Evaluate LeMay Lake for weed harvester ramp options.
5. Architectural scope of services for the Retreat Center.
"Rural Road Plan"
During the September meeting, the cost for a 16 to 20-car parking lot and access road
from Jurdy Road was estimated at $75,000. Since this was nearly two thirds of the
$120,000 CIP for 2002, commission members requested another option. The option
suggested is called the "Rural Road Plan". This plan is modified in the following ways:
1. The width of the access road is decreased from 24 feet to 20.
2. The access road more closely follows existing topography.
3. Concrete curbs are eliminated to create a rural section.
4. Paved parking lot is substituted for gravel shoulder parking.
Following these modifications, approximately a third of the money can be saved. This
will reduce the cost from $75,000 to $50,000. Besides reduced costs, additional benefits
may include a more pedestrian friendly environment and less impervious surfacing.
Septic Tank and Drain Field Design
Mr. Gary Staber completed a preliminary design for septic tank and drain field. A final
plan will have to wait until all site grades and improvements in the area are determined.
The cost estimate for a system to serve a maximum of 49 people is estimated at $10,000.
Z7
Quality of Well Water
The Minnesota Department of Health was contacted regarding water quality of the well.
An unofficial background check found very low nitrite levels and no bacteria. A more in
depth official background check must be made before the Retreat Center can be
converted to public use. This test may be scheduled for the fall of 2001.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health, if the well needs to be replaced in the
future it must be located away from the building. The cost for a new 300' deep well is
about $6,000. This compares to over $28,000 to connect to city water using 820 feet of 6-
inch ductile iron pipe from Jurdy Road. A new well is $22,000 less than city hookup.
If the official background check passes there will be no additional cost to provide water.
Weed Harvester Ramp
On September 21", Eric Macbeth and I explored three options for a possible weed
harvester ramp site. Two of the sites were located at Moonshine Park and the third was
located in the northeast corner of LeMay Lake near the LeMay Lake Apartments.
I. A site south of the Retreat Center near the access road turn around would need to be
dredged. The turning radius for this equipment would be an important access issue.
2. A site north of the Retreat Center near the north property line is in deeper water but
may anger adjacent residents. Access from the gated private road appears feasible.
3. A site near the LeMay Lake Apartments would need to be dredged. Land for an
access road would be required.
A cost estimate of $5,000 to build this ramp was suggested during the September
Workshop. However, dredging was not included in that price. The cost and
environmental feasibility of dredging in. LeMay lake must be determined if this concept is
to proceed.
If the site north of the Retreat Center is selected, the approval of adjacent residents must
be sought.
Architectural Scope of Services for the Retreat Center.
Two Architectural firms have shown interest in providing design services for the new
Retreat Center. They are Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. from St. Cloud and the Sabongi
Consulting Group, Inc. from Eagan. Although both firms are well qualified, the proposal
from the Sabongi Consulting Group offers more services for the same $14,500 fee.
Professional qualifications from the Sabongi Consulting Group are better than those
submitted by Short Elliott Hendrickson. My recommendation is to hire the Sabongi
Consulting Group based on their superior proposal.
Related Issues
Two other site related issues need attention. The first is landscape mitigation. When land
is cleared for a road, septic tank and drain field, a significant amount of vegetation will be
removed. The landscape plan will need to project a positive, environmentally sensitive
image, especially since it is at the entry to the Retreat Center.
Second, a hard surface pedestrian access at least five feet wide is needed to connect the
access road drop-off with the Retreat Center. Should quality materials be used for this
entry pavement surface or is bituminous satisfactory?
Commission members should determine how important these issues are relative to the
overall project at Moonshine Park.
Cost Summary
Two major site improvement costs identified here are $10,000 for a new septic tank and
drain field and $50,000 for the "Rural Road Plan" for a total of $60,000. Although other
costs were identified, they were not considered essential at this time.
Recommendations
1. Hire a consultant or evaluate more information?
2. Water Resources to provide more analysis for weed harvester ramp?
3. Additional modifications to "Rural Road Plan" or keep as shown?
4. Other recommended study areas for November Workshop?
5. Next workshop date: Wednesday November 15, 2000 @ 5 pm.?
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September
18, 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 Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jeff Asfahl, Superintendent of Recreation; Paul Olson,
Superintendent of Parks; Gregg Hove, Forestry Supervisor; Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator; Paula
Nowariak, Recreation Supervisor; Mary Pat Ochis, Interim Youth Development Coordinator; Sonja Rippe, Recreation
Supervisor; Cathy Bolduc, Recreation Supervisor; Beth Wielde, Administrative Specialist; Bob Kirmis, Planner; Pam
Dudziak, Planner and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
George Kubik moved, Terry Davis seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as
amended.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2000
Daryle Petersen moved, Joseph Bari seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of
August 14, 2000 as presented.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors that wished to address the Commission under this agenda item.
DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS
Items highlighted by Director Vraa included the start of fall sports, completion of playground installation at
Country Home Park and the beginning installation at Oak Chase Park, continued work efforts with MPCA regarding
North Park, stabilization of the restroom section of Thomas Lake pavilion, the paving of 2 hockey rinks at Goat Hill
Park and the closure of restrooms in parks for the season
CONSENT AGENDA
Commission Members Bari and Petersen expressed concerns relative the lot sizes proposed for the Woodhaven
Villas development. Petersen cited a similar proposal on Lexy Court where the private street is extremely narrow and
the houses are very large compared to the small lot size. The other concern expressed was that this proposal did not
adhere to the City's 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Planner Kirmis stated that this is a development proposal seeking
rezoning to accommodate zero lot line setbacks and a private street. He also noted that this has become a more familiar
form of housing in many different areas and allows options for a more varied population. Member Filipi expressed
disagreement with the concern for this development, noting that this would provide a much needed housing option.
Member Rudolph reminded the Commission that their charge was to respond to and make recommendations
relative to parks, trails, tree preservation and water quality.
After further brief discussion, Daryle Petersen moved, Barbara Johnson seconded a motion to make the
following recommendations to the City Council relative to Woodhaven Villas:
I. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication.
2. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication.
3. This proposal shall be responsible for tree mitigation that calculates to seven Category A trees or fourteen
Category B trees or twenty-eight Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of the three categories.
4. In lieu of on-site water quality ponding, a cash dedication of $1,673 shall be required for this
development.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 2
Daryle Petersen moved and Joseph Bari seconded a motion to recommend to the Advisory Planning
Commission and City Council that this development proposal not be approved until the number of lots are reduced and
that the lots be held to the City's minimum standards. All members voted in favor except for Member Filipi. The
motion passed.
Member Kubik asked if the developer was responsible for requesting an exception to the minimum lot size.
Planner Kirmis stated that they were making that request in the proposal. Member Kubik suggested that a procedure
might be put in place whereby exceptions like this development was suggesting could be flagged ahead of time. It was
suggested that this item be re-visited during the Round Table discussion.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
PERRON ACRES
Following a brief introduction by Director Vraa, Planner Kirmis noted that Manley Land Company is
requesing preliminary subdivision approval to allow a 23 lot single-family residential subdivision on 10.7 acres east of
Dodd Road and south of Coventry Parkway. He added that the property overlays two unplatted parcels and is occupied
by two single family residences.
Forestry Supervisor Hove shared an aerial view of the site noting that is was an open field with significant
vegetation surrounding the site. The development proposes to remove 72.9% of the significant trees, however the Tree
Preservation Ordinance allows a maximum removal of 40%. After outlining the required tree mitigation for this
proposal, Hove stated the applicant has submitted a tree preservation plan outlining mitigation of 110 Category trees
on-site. The plan also indicates that 14 significant trees will be transplanted on-site to a holding area then replanted, via
tree spade, following construction. It was noted that 15 significant trees within the proposed Thames Avenue right-of-
way have been excluded from the inventory.
Member Kubik asked if the 14 significant trees could be transplanted on-site successfully. Supervisor Hove
responded that they would have a good chance if the transplantation is timed well.
Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth reviewed the water quality, wetlands issues. He noted that the
stormwater from a majority of the site will drain to the southeast into a proposed treatment pond and then into a series
of treatment ponds. Macbeth continued that in several areas of this development, the topography of the site would
require proper installation and effective maintenance of erosion control practices to prevent and minimize soil loss.
Director Vraa reviewed parks and trails dedication noting that although a cash parks dedication would be
required for this proposal, the Commission may want to consider a potential trail link from this development to Dodd
Road. Since a trail along Dodd Road is in the City's Master Trail Plan, connection to this potential trail should be
considered prior to the issuance of any building permits within this proposed development.
Member Rudolph stated that this situation is similar to the Lexington Point Trail the Commission dealt with
during the past year. Member Johnson asked if there was a way to ensure that this trail link is constructed before any
building permits are pulled. Director Vraa stated that staff will need to monitor issuance of permits. Member Rudolph
opined that the location of the trail link is the most appropriate and reiterated that the trail needs to be installed before
any permits are issued.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 3
After further brief discussion, N. Mark Filipi moved, John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor
to make the following recommendations to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council regarding Perron
Acres:
1. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication.
2. This proposal shall be responsible for providing an eight-foot wide bituminous trail within a fifteen-
foot easement from the western cul-de-sac to Dodd Road between Lots 10 and 7. Said trail is to be
installed prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. This proposal shall meet its tree mitigation with sixty-two (62) Category A trees or one-hundred
twenty-four (124) Category B trees or two-hundred forty-eight (248) Category C trees, or an
equivalent combination of the tree categories. The applicant has submitted a tree mitigation plan that
shows the installation of one-hundred ten (110) Category B trees to be planted on this development
site. The balance of the required tree mitigation is to be fulfilled through off-site tree installation
(Oak Bluffs development).
4. The proposed development plan indicates that fourteen (14) significant trees will be transplanted
onsite to a holding area, then replanted, via tree space, following construction. These fourteen trees
were included on the inventory with thirty-five other trees proposed to be preserved.
5. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirement through a combination of on-site
ponding and cash dedication.
4 The stormwater pond shall be constructed to meet 8.8 acres of the site. It should contain a
minimum wet-pond volume of 0.5 acre-feet and should have a minimum area of 0.25 acres. The
stormwater treatment pond should be constructed according to NURP standards with a maximum
depth of 6 feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench. An outlet structure acceptable to the City's Engineering
Division should be installed in the treatment pond.
4 In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 1.9 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $3,127 shall
be required.
4 Erosion control practices should be property installed and effectively maintained throughout the
development process to prevent and minimize soil loss.
Member Hiar asked if the trail could be placed at the time the street is constructed. Member Bari opined that
wouldn't guarantee the trail would be installed prior to any homes being constructed. Director Vraa stated that it isn't
uncommon for streets to be constructed after lot construction. Member Kubik stated that staff should monitor
construction of this trail to ensure that there is no misunderstanding by potential lot owners of the trail's location.
Member Petersen addressed the 12,000 sq. ft. lot minimum again asking if there is a concern for the total
square footage of a building on smaller lots. Planner Kirmis stated the directives from the Met Council to use land
wisely. Member Rudolph opined that the City of Eagan will be seeing more and more of this type of development as
land diminishes.
SPECTRUM COMMERCE CENTER
Following a brief introduction by Director Vraa, Planner Dudziak explained that this development proposal
requests a Preliminary Subdivision to create three lots on approximately 27 acres located between Hwy 55 and Blue
Water Road in the NW '/2 of Section 2. The proposed subdivision would create three lots and includes existing
MnDOT right-of-way that the applicant is negotiating to acquire. Lot 2 is proposed to be 17.8 acres upon which the
applicant proposes to construct a 288,510 square foot office/warehouse in three phases. There are no development
plans at this time for Lots 1 and 3, which are proposed to be one acre and 3.6 acres in area respectively, Dudziak
concluded.
Forestry Supervisor Hove shared information he had relative to tree preservation. He noted that there were
three significant woodlands on this site, shared aerial photos to identify their locations and questioned when Lots 1 and
3 might be developed. It was also noted that the developer has not as yet submitted a tree preservation mitigation plan
that shows the fulfillment of the required mitigation.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 4
Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth reviewed the water quality/wetland issues noting that a minimum wet-
pond volume of 5.1 acre-feet would need to be created for this development. The pond would have a maximum depth
of 10 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench from the normal water level and an outlet skimmer according to City design standards.
A representative of Spectrum Properties shared an aerial view of the site and reviewed the proposal, which
shows a "U' shaped building with proposed loading docks for trucks located in the center of the "U" so that they are
not visible to the surrounding area. It was stated that the proposal was planned for 3 phases with the first phase to be
one of the legs of the "U".
Member Petersen asked how much green space is left on the site. The developer did not have that information
available. Member Ban asked if this was a warehouse. The developer responded that it was an office warehouse
building.
Member Bari asked if the tree mitigation issue had been resolved. Supervisor Hove stated that since there was
no specific plan from the developer it could be a combination of trees and cash, however, that has not been negotiated
to date.
Member Filipi opined that the plan seems very regimented. Member Petersen asked if the green space
recommendation was approved by the City Council. Member Davis stated that although they have reviewed the
suggestions and options brought forward by the joint task force members of the APC and AprC, no formal action has
been taken to his knowledge. Those recommendations would have clearly outlined what the green space requirements
might be for commercial development. .
Member Kubik asked if the area in the center of the "U" was bituminous surface. The developer responded
that it was. Member Petersen stated he didn't feel this development would meet the City Council's intention in
establishing green space. Member Peterson concurred, stating she was troubled with the extensive amount of
impervious surface and that it wasn't broken up with green space.
Following further brief discussion, Daryle Petersen moved, Terry Davis seconded with all members voting in
favor to recommend that the Spectrum Commerce Center not be approved. Since the developer was presenting tree
mitigation options for the first time at the Advisory Commission meeting, staff should have the opportunity to look at
tree preservation in more detail and the developer should review green space for each lot.
Member Davis asked the developer if they were asking for more parking spaces than they needed. The
developer responded that they were meeting the City's parking requirements. Planner Dudziak clarified that the
developer could petition for fewer parking spaces or can use proof of parking for their plan, however, should that
parking be necessary at a later date, the green space would be turned into parking. The developer stated that presuming
a parking variance is granted and they can add parking later, if needed, they could live with less parking initially. The
developer added that there is considerable green space between the building and street and they are open to working
with staff to help resolve any landscaping issues in that area.
OLD BUSINESS
There were no Old Business items for the Commission to review.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 5
NEW BUSINESS
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN UPDATE
Director Vraa stated that a Comprehensive Trail System Plan was included as part of a Park System Plan for
the City of Eagan in 1995. Since that time, trails have been extended, added or altered in the course of the City's
overall development. Vraa added that it is timely to review and update the Plan based on changes between 1995 and
2000.
Administrative Specialist Wielde noted that the Plan tried to anticipate future development and recommended
trails in the developable land areas. Since the Plan has not been revised since 1995, many trails are in place that are not
currently a part of the Comprehensive Trail Plan. Wielde highlighted the goals fof the review, shared the existing trails
map and the changes from 1995 to 2000.
Parks Superintendent Olson shared a large map, which was a culmination of a lot of information sources,
commenting that the City has done a very good job with the overall trail system. It was noted that in-park trails were
not included in this review. Review continued of existing trails and links and concluded with a list of proposed trails
and trails under construction.
Member Rudolph commented on the exceptional trail system the residents of Eagan have come to enjoy. He
noted the ability to meander through the city on a wide variety of trails and complimented staff for providing this
comprehensive system. He also thanked staff for the extensive data compiled for the update.
Superintendent Olson stated that the Plan is simply a tool that can be changed. He stated that there are trails
that were installed but weren't part of the master plan. Member Kubik complimented the Plan for its continued effort to
keep trails off-road.
Following further brief discussion, George Kubik moved, Terry Davis seconded, with all members voting in
favor to accept the following recommendations to the Comprehensive Trail Plan Update:
1. Approve changes to the Boulevard Trails and Sidewalks map as shown in the September 18, 2000
Commission packet. Encourage continued progress towards completion of the undeveloped trails
proposed in the 1995 Plan and the inclusion of the following proposed trail segments:
Town Centre Drive from Duckwood to Denmark
Central Park trail
The east side of Coachman Road from Yankee Doodle Road to the Eagan Maintenance Facility
Highway 149, from Wescott to Opperman Drive
2. The 1995 trail plan map should be updated to reflect the changes that have taken place between 1995 and
2000.
3. Future trail construction in developed areas should concentrate on connecting pieces of trail that are
currently interrupted, such as Daniel Drive to Lexington Point Parkway, or the spur on Lexington Avenue
around the Lone Oak Road intersection.
4. Future trail development should occur along the primary corridors such as continuing the Cliff Road trail
to the east, completing Lexington Avenue trail, and Yankee Doodle Road trail. These are especially
important due to their connections to neighboring communities.
5. Future trails should be coordinated with development, connecting residential development to the main trail
corridors to give residents access to major trail paths.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 6
SHINGLEDECKER PROPERTY
Parks Superintendent Olson provided a brief background noting that Louis and Marcella Schindeldecker have
indicated a willingness to consider the sale of their property at 4880 Pilot Knob Road. Olson added that this 6.5 acre
parcel is located south of George Ohmann Park and was part of the George Ohmann farmstead. Since the
Shingledeckers have discontinued active use of the property they are considering several options including its sale.
Superintendent Olson provided further information of the surrounding land use, zoning/comp guide designation,
woodlands, wetlands, slopes and access. Photos of the site and buildings were also shared.
Olson continued that in reviewing this parcel previously for potential acquisition options, a portion of the site
(one-half acre) was considered for access to Lebanon Hills and Ohmann Park. Although a price has not been
negotiated with the owners, they have indicated that the price for the 6.5 acre parcel may be in excess of $500,000.
Since this would be a desirable site for development, if it were sold for that purpose, the park dedication requirement
for this parcel would be approximately .65 acre, which would be sufficient for a trail connection.
Member Peterson stated that the Master Parks Plan shows the establishment of a trail link only in this area,
rather than additional parkland. She suggested acquiring a trail link through park dedication and thanked the
Shingledeckers for their positive and long relationship with the City of Eagan.
Member Petersen suggested that there would be no guarantee that the land would be acquired from a developer
for trail purposes. Director Vraa clarified that since this trail link has been designated on the Master Plan, the City is
well within its jurisdiction to request specific land dedication for this trail.
Member Hiar opined that since there was a parking problem at Ohmann Park, perhaps the purchase of some of
the property for an expanded parking lot might be considered. Superintendent Olson responded that that may be an
option, however significant modifications would need to be made to the CIP to accommodate construction of a road and
parking.
Following further brief discussion, Barbara Johnson moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting
in favor to not acquire the Shingledecker property. Consideration should be given to a land dedication for trail purposes
when this property is developed.
PARKS AND RECREATION UPDATE
Superintendent Olson noted that most storm related park repairs have been made. He added that broad leaf
spraying is underway and that areas sprayed are being marked. Restroom continue to be opened for a limited time at
specific locations given that 85% of seasonal staff are gone.
Member Rudolph asked how the grass is recovering at Rahn Athletic Fields following the flood.
Superintendent Olson responded that they are improving significantly. Member Kubik asked about winter trail
plowing. Olson responded that some trails have been added for 2000 noting that the City Council reviews requests
from the public annually in April
Superintendent Asfahl stated that adult and youth sports are in full swing for the fall. The winter brochure
continues being worked on with an emphasis on improving marketing and writing skills. Further information will be
added in the summer program reports by recreation staff, Asfahl added.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 7
WATER RESOURCES UPDATE
WETLANDS CONSERVATION PROGRAM UPDATE
Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth reviewed the Wetlands Conservation Program specifically reviewing
jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, status of Fredrickson Wetland Bank and grant initiative to
protect wetlands and buffer setbacks. Macbeth noted that Eagan is still considered on the cutting edge of wetland
conservation.
Coordinator Macbeth provided a very extensive background of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Basics from the basic definition of a wetland, through the role of the local government unit, exemptions, replacement
plans, appeals, enforcement and banking. His report continued with explanation of the Wetland Bank Project and the
joint powers agreement between the City of Eagan and Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District for deposit
of wetland banking credits into State wetland bank. Photos of the Eureka Township wetland banking site were
presented so Commission Members could have a better understanding of how wetland banking actually works.
Macbeth suggested that using some of the wetland banking credits might be considered in dealing with the Central Park
site.
Member Petersen commented that if the City were to eliminate one acre of wetland they could draw two acres
from this site. Member Davis suggested that it might be a good idea to look at this issue yet this year. Macbeth
suggested that this might be a good winter project for the Natural Resources Sub-committee to tackle.
Commission Members thanked Coordinator Macbeth for the in-depth, informative report.
STREET SWEEPING STUDY
Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth provided a brief background of the study of street sweeping to improve
water quality in urban lakes. He noted that he is looking forward to receiving proposals for this work so that the results
of this work can be reviewed and analyzed.
OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS
MOONSHINE PARK UPDATE
Parks Planner Lilly reviewed the status of the Moonshine Park planning. He shared cost comparisons between
bringing City water and sewer services to the site versus using the existing well and installing a new septic tank and
drain field. In looking at installation of the access road, it was thought that by eliminating curbs, providing a narrower
road and gravel parking lot there would be a substantial cost savings along with creating a more rustic look.
Lilly concluded that he would continue to refine the costs of this project in preparation for the next meeting
scheduled for October 11 at 5:00 p.m.
BERGIN PROPERTY UPDATE
Director Vraa explained that the Bergin property is currently for sale. He added that there may still be an
option for the City to purchase a portion of the property and will keep the Commission updated.
SENIORS UPDATE
Recreation Supervisor Cathy Bolduc provided a brief background noting that based on recommendations by
the Commission and Recreation Sub-committee a Senior Program Development Team was convened to assist with the
development of programs for seniors. Bolduc noted that the first meeting had 12 participants who shared their ideas
and opinions. Subsequent meetings have been scheduled.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 8
Member Bari asked how this group will connect with the community center focus group. Director Vraa
responded that Supervisor Bolduc is the group leader for the seniors focus group and would be bringing any comments
or concerns from the Development Team.
Member Johnson asked what the goal was for the Senior Program Development Team. Director Vraa
responded that their focus was geared toward looking at programming opportunities for this population.
SUMMER PROGRAM REPORTS
Following a brief introduction by Superintendent Asfahl, Recreation Supervisor Nowariak provided an in-
depth report of summer activities for which she is responsible. Her responsibilities encompassed youth and family
programs and she highlighted the continued successful Summer in the Park/Wagonful O'Fun programs that saw almost
900 participants over the summer. Nowariak also provided background on the preschool and instructional programs
along with the many varied camps offered to Eagan youth and concluded with outlining multiple issues that staff faces
trying to facilitate the community's needs. Photos of programs and participants were also shared. Member Kubik
commented on the positive potential for a reading camp in the future.
Interim Youth Development Coordinator Ochis, responsible for youth development programs provided a recap
of the multiple activities and programs offered at Wescott and Quarry for the families she services. Teen mentorship
programs, preschool, summer lunch and junior summer fun were only a few of the many opportunities offered, which
resulted in total program attendance of 8,042 for the summer. Similar to Nowariak's report,Ochis commented on the
excellent staff helping to facilitate these programs. Her presentation was also followed up with photos of various
participants and activities.
Recreation Supervisor Rippe, responsible for adult athletics reviewed another busy summer of activities.
Summer softball saw 218 teams playing 1,138 games, sand volleyball had 12 teams, men's and women's tennis had 69
participants, co-rec team tennis had 14 teams registered and golf offerings ballooned to 281 participants; up 115 from
1999. Rippe concluded with a successful concession operation at Northview, which was helped by 9 weekend
tournaments. After photos of programs were shown, Sonya concluded by sharing that teams can access schedules and
league standings through an independent website.
Recreation Supervisor Bolduc, responsible for special events reviewed some of the events she was responsible
for this past summer. Some of those included Evening in the Park series, Eagan Fun Run with 328 participants, softball
clinics and camp. In addition, Bolduc was responsible for in-line skating, tennis lessons and involved in several
community wide special events like Express Fest and SORR Music Festival. Seniors programming rounded out a
hectic summer. Bolduc also shared photos of programs and participants.
Superintendent Asfahl concluded by adding some of the projects he was involved in including facilitating
EAA requests for 1,900 soccer, 1,800 baseball and 1,000 softball players. Working with the Eagan Arts and
Humanities Council to continue the growth of the Art House programs, Mens and Womens Chorus and the Friends of
the Farm at Holz Farm rounded out a busy summer. Photos were shared of these programs as well.
Several Commission Members thanked staff for their informative reports and their hard work to provide
quality recreational opportunities to the community.
ROUND TABLE
There were no items discussed under this agenda item.
Advisory Parks Commission
Minutes of September 18, 2000 Meeting
Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to conduct, Joseph Bari moved, Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting
in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Secretary Date