The URL can be used to link to this page

11/20/2000 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission AGENDA ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA Monday, November 20, 2000 7:00 PM Eagan Municipal Center City Council Chambers A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 pm B. Approval of Agenda 7:02 pm C. Volunteer Recognition - Maynard Ohm and Don Holz 7:03 pm D. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 7:08 pm E. Visitors to be Heard 7:09 pm F. Department Happenings Pages 1-2 7:10 pm G. Consent Agenda 7:15 pm (1) Summit Hill Pages 3-4 (2) R.J. Ryan Construction Pages 5-6 (3) Crane Creek-Wensmann Realty Pages 7-10 (4) Aquatic Plant Restoration Grant Application Page 11 H. Development Proposals (1) Thomas Woods Pulled from agenda 11/16/00 Pages 7:16 pm 1. Old Business (1) 2001 Parks and Trails Dedication Fees Pages 13-16 7:17 pm J. New Business (1) 2001 Fees and Charges Page 17 7:30 pm K. Water Resources Update 7:50 pm L. Superintendents Update 8:55 pm M. Other Business and Reports (1) CIP Projects Review Page 19 9:05 pm (2) Dog Parks Pages 21-36 9:15 pm (3) Shade Tree Disease Report 9:30 pm (4) Subcommittee Updates 9:50 pm (5) Commission Appointments - 2001 9:55 pm N. Round Table 9:57 pm 0. Adjournment 10:00 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. Newt meeting : December s8, Zooo ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2000 MEETING SCHEDULE NAME Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 14 20 17 15 19 17. 14 18 16 20 18 Joseph Bari X X X X X X X X X Terry Davis x X X X X X X X X Cyndee Fields x X X X X X X X X N.Mark Filipi x X 0* X X 0* X X 0* Kevin Gutknecht x 0* X 0 Resigned 5/29/00 Floyd Hiar x X X O* X X X X X Barbara Johnson x X X X X 0* X X X George Kubik x 0* X X X 0* 0* X X Daryle Petersen 0* X X X X 0* X X 0* Dorothy Peterson x X X X X X X X X John Rudolph X X X X X X X X X X = present 0 = absent 0* = notified staff of absence prior to Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acquisition/Development Sub-Committee John Rudolph N. Mark Filip Dorothy Peterson Cyndee Fields George Kubik Barbara Johnson Daryle Petersen Terry Davis Joseph Bari Floyd Hiar UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES February 1f4, 2000......5:330-630 pm Moonshine Park Planning meeting 1. Commission Review Workshop A-30-7,00 pm Gemmissaen n 2. Spring Maintenance Demonstration April 27, 2000 .............S:OA CIPWhop 3. Review revenue sources in lieu of park dedication August 1, 2000 5.00 p.m. pint CC-/imper i;GuS Surface Subcmte. 4. Review Docks 5. Naming Holz Lake (check if named) 6. Seasonal easement at top of Trapp Farm tubing hill 7. Wetland and Setback Buffers 8. Web Site Ideas (July) 9. Workshop to review packet format/content ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2000 MEMBERS NAME AND ADDRESS Release TERM TELEPHONE TERM Phone # START EXPIRES JOSEPH BARI Secretary 1999 651-454-8442 (H) 1/2002 3033 Timberwood Trail Yes (3 yr. 1999) Eagan, MN 55121 TERRY DAVIS 1997 651-452-2635 (H) 1/2003 4895 Safari Pass Yes (3 yr. 1997) 651-310-8941 (W) Eagan, MN 55122-2690 (3 yr. 2000) 452-2152 (Home fax) terry. davis@StPaul.com CYNDEE FIELDS 2000 651-686-0351 (H) 1/2003 4725 Weston Hills Drive Yes (3 yr. 2000) Eagan, MN 55123 N. MARK FILIPI May, 651-687-9866 (H) 1/2001 836 Overlook Place Yes 1997 651-602-1725 (W) Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr- 1998) mark.filipi@metc.state.mn.us KEVIN GUTKNECHT 1999 651-454-2890 (H) 1/2002 960 Savannah Road Yes (3 yr. 1999) 763-323-5744 (W) Resigned Eagan, MN 55123 kggutkne@co.anoka.mn.us 5/29/00 FLOYD HIAR (Alternate) 2000 651-456-0387 (H 81 W) 1/2001 3720 Knoll Ridge Drive Yes 651-456-0626 (fax) Eagan, MN 55122 BARBARA JOHNSON 1997 651-452-2609 (H) 1/2001 4535 Oak Chase Road Yes (3 yr. 1998) Eagan, MN 55123 GEORGE KUBIK V.Chair 1993 651-452-3887 (H) 1/2002 3053 Pine Ridge Drive Yes (3 yr. 1996) 612-713-5315 (W) Eagan, MN 55121 (3 yr. 1999) George_Kubik@mail.fws.gov DARYLE PETERSEN 1996 651-681-0170 (H) 1/2001 4126 Lantern Lane Yes (3 yr.1998) 612-514-5155 (W) Eagan, MN 55123 daryle.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 jrudolph@burnsville.k 12.mn.us Eagan City Staff E-Mail: kvraa@ci.eacaan.mn.us cmesko@ci.eaaan.mn.us poison@ci.eapan.mn.us jasfahi@ci.eaaan.mn.us ghove@ci.eaaan.mn.us emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us F Phone # 651-681-4661 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.) DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS November 2000 1. On November 6d' the City Council approved an extension of the snow grooming contract with Dakota County for a fourth winter season. The contract provides for the grooming of cross-country ski trails in City parks and the grooming of the sliding hill at Trapp Farm Park. Under the contract the County provides the necessary equipment and manpower at an hourly rate. Work is done only when requested by the City. The grooming has improved the quality of the City trails and the sliding hill. The City does not own any grooming equipment. 2. Barr Engineering has been given approval to proceed with the finalization of a report summarizing the mitigation response agreed upon with the MPCA for North Park. The report will be submitted to the MPCA and Dakota County for final approval. This will hopefully be the final step towards the mitigation and subsequent development of the site. Mitigation and limited development could potentially begin next year. 3. Royal Oaks Realty has entered into a purchase agreement for the Parkveiw Golf Course with the intent of creating a residential development on the 80-acre site. Because of the need to first obtain an amendment to the City comprehensive guide plan, no development plans have been submitted. The public meeting and hearing process may begin in December. An amendment to the guide plan will require the approval of the City Council. 4. Through a partnership with the Friends of the Farm, a new storage building is being constructed at Holz Farm Park. The building will be used for the storage of much of the farm equipment currently stored in the barn. This will allow for the potential programming of the barn space. A dilapidated, unusable shed will be removed to make room for the building. An effort will be made to make the new building blend with the other buildings by using materials consistent with those found on the site. The Friends will be donating 50% ($7860) of the building cost to the City. The balance will come from the tower lease revenue dedicated to the Farm. 5. The Lebanon Hills Stake Holders Task Force met twice during the past month. One of the meetings was an onsite review of several of the environmental issues. The discussion has begun to focus on the development of conceptual development plans for the park. The majority of the Task Force members are advocating a low impact approach to the design. The first public open house, intended to gather input, was held on November 9 h. The preliminary master plan will be presented to the public on January 11th. • 6. Park staff is in the process of preparing rinks for the winter skating season. The 2 new rinks at Goat Hill Park, both of which will be on pavement, are. nearing completion. The side boards at Woodhaven Park have been removed due to their deteriorating condition. The end and corner boards were repaired and left in place, snow or soil will be used along the sides to retain water. Staff will be monitoring the use of this new rink configuration over the course of the skating season. Flooding of the rinks is scheduled to begin in approximately. 3 weeks. 7. The Street Department will again rely upon staff from the Park and Utility Departments to supplement street snow plowing. The impact will be greatest following a heavy snowfall when multiple plowing shifts are necessary. Sites with scheduled recreational activities or events will remain as priorities, rink clearing and brooming would be delayed. The filling of several vacant positions should minimize the impacts. 8. Forestry Supervisor Gregg Hove and Water Resources Coordinator Eric Macbeth both made presentations at the recent 63`d Annual Conference of the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association in St Cloud. The presentations highlighted activities and programs in Eagan and shared information that had been compiled. There were many questions and positive comments from their audiences. 9. The Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Project (WHEP), a volunteer citizen wetland monitoring program, received an achievement award for 2000 from the National Association of Counties. The WHEP utilizes adult volunteers to monitor wetland plants and invertebrates as indicators of wetland ecological "health." In the summer of 2000, 80 to 100 volunteers monitored 38 wetlands in 12 Dakota County communities, including the City of Eagan. Secondary biology teachers and natural resource professionals serve as team leaders for the project. The City of Eagan Water Resources Division, represented by Water Resources Technician Jim Storland, is an active participant in the program. 1. 10. The City of Eagan recently purchased from the City of Bloomington a used aquatic plant harvester, shore conveyor, and trailer that was originally borrowed to assist in the emergency cleanup efforts after the July 7-8 super storm. This equipment was crucial in removing from Thomas Lake approximately 750 cubic yards of plant material that was impeding stormwater outlet flow. During the time of the cleanup, the City of Bloomington indicated it no longer wanted the equipment. As part of its comprehensive water quality program, City of Eagan annually acquires DNR permits to harvest aquatic plants from 6 to 8 priority waterbodies. Historically each year, the Water Resources Division has hired a commercial operation to harvest plants from 2 to 3 priority waterbodies, depending on need. With this acquisition, the City of Eagan could harvest plants from up to 6 of its Class I lakes. Water Resources staff expects program budget savings to be realized within a year or two. 11. Friends of the Farm held their Annual Meeting on Wed. Nov. 15. It was another good year for the Friends of the Farm organization. 12. Recreation Division staff recently attended the annual Minnesota Recreation and Park Association conference. This conference is a great networking and training experience for personnel. 13. The fall outdoor athletic programs have now come to a close. Once again these programs continue to grow in participation resulting in increased use of many of our facilities. 14. The youth baseball and softball programs have identified several projects that they would like us to consider for next season. City personnel have completed numerous projects for them over the years, and the youth associations are very appreciative of our department efforts. 15. Director of Parks and Recreation Ken Vraa and Superintendent of Recreation Jeff Asfahl attended the annual National Recreation and Park Association conference in Phoenix October 10 -15. 16. Friends of the Farm are planning for their first winter season event - "An Old Fashioned Holz Farm Holiday". The event is scheduled for Saturday, December 2 from 1- 6 PM. The event will feature sleigh rides, bon-fire, tree trimming, musical entertainment, cookie decorating and more. 2. Date: November 20, 2000 r f Agenda Item: G-1; Summit Hill Action X City of Eagan Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Preliminary Site Plan 2. Preliminary Grading Plan 3. Prelim. Landscapin Plan AGENDA ITEM: SUMMIT HILL - DELTA DEVELOPMENT TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION j ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Summit Hill development. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Delta Development is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, a Preliminary Planned Development and a Preliminary Subdivision (Summit Hill) of approximately 6.6 acres located south of Diffley Road and east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 28. The property currently has a land use designation of D-II (Mixed Residential, 0-6 units per acre) and a zoning designation of R-1 (Single Family Residential). The R-1 zoning designation was applied to the property in 1999 to achieve consistency with the City's land use plan. Prior to that, the property had an R-4 (Multiple Residential) zoning designation. The applican t is requesting an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan to change the land use designation of the property from D-II to D-III (Mixed Residential, 6-12 units per acre). The proposed Preliminary Planned Development involves the construction of six ten- unit townhouse buildings on the site. The proposed development has a gross density of 9.1 units per acre. The proposed Preliminary Subdivision would create six lots for the six buildings, and one outlot which would serve as common property for the development. The property is unplatted and vacant and contains slightly varying topography and scattered trees throughout the site. The surrounding area is developed with single-family homes and townhomes. Access to the site is proposed via a private street that connects to Johnny Cake Ridge Road. A stormwater pond is proposed to be constructed in the southwest corner of the site. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: This development would be subject to a cash parks dedication and cash trails dedication. TREE PRESERVATION: There are no tree preservation issues with this development. 3. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This 6.6-acre development is proposed to be located in the City's B-watershed, which is associated with Blackhawk Lake, a Class I (Direct Contact) waterbody. However, all stormwater runoff leaving the development would route through numerous ponds before entering the lake. Nevertheless, the developer is responsible for treating stormwater through on-site ponding. To meet these water quality requirements, the developer proposes to direct runoff from 6.3 acres of the site to a constructed treatment pond located in the southwest corner of the parcel. Untreated stormwater from 0.3 acres of the site is proposed to drain off- site into the existing stormwater system. The required 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 proportion of 48 percent, a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.695 acre-feet covering a minimum area of 0.29 acres would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by 6.3 acres of the development. The pond would need a maximum depth of six feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level. The outlet structure of the pond would need to be consistent with City of Eagan standards. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding would be required for untreated stormwater draining from the remaining portion of the development. There are no wetlands on this site. 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. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on-site ponding and cash dedication. • The stormwater pond shall be constructed to treat 6.3 acres of the site area. It should contain a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.69 acre-feet and should have a minimum area of 0.29 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. • In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 0.3 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $1,055.00 shall be required. Item: Su mm; ~-i I I Attachment # P IN/ , ~1 4) I r tiJ I ti L-Jr ti f LJ 1 , N~ - I ~Vl ip L-4 y O lliq AAA ®A o o E Z L Si Summit n Q ' P. Hil relimSde Plon Del HEDLUNJ a to Momes ,,,i°""',, s fV ~Y07 C~Mrrob Al.e ¦ /~~.y..q 1w Wx Mi YM[e.G t t 4 10"p~.l~f6W !5127 ~~~L.32 fnGK rrttot. N.u {I PRELIMI. SITE PLAN Item: G- ~u m m r ~F- I-~i I I Attachment # Z - Grad n P14 11 77 % ter, I s\ 40.../ / / / • 1.,_ I~ sy ' \ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~lr~ I a8 h7 f` F R R r .r' • n i i`; seA~!f c y Nut firOF E $$K€bR¢ q; + • j K' ~ ra.b5 pop ai bR ~ p p~ Z F exR a ~ l 1 , ~ w. & B R£ n / 7 d~p Rio R A$ w' PrN m. CNOdm Plon HEDLl1N0 "-~I $ DNIO Homes ~ ~w""«+. w ~ $ PRELIM. GRADING PLAN Item: G SNmrrF+ ~i Attachment #,5- LA rAwp; rn Pj tr r'rr, J L) ~1 ti 0 f O x s0 'r; r I` I I .9 a ; ~o II' \ x e0 s f .d 6 Ij .I Os ©c p- -i x --------------1-- tf----= l .l / 1 s~ I I '~1r 1 lip I rr`C~-1/ eFi i' rD~ aF; fit tft li f~ iF it !E t ~ a Nil :if ! Ri$ iFi jf cft ~ a~ y ~ti 6tee6 lip j! , Arl Summit Hill Nelim. Site talon lTNEDLUND Ddlo Homes es Drag 3907 C-.r. 6~.. lax nw Y 7 =.Yn. Ym.°we 55177 l.ara wKw.. aa~7i 61l~ t5.-1600 ..ial[ p171 .x-alx PRELIMI. LANDSCAPE PLAN Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: G-2; RJ. Ryan Consmuction Action F11 City of Eagan Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments H x1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-2; R.J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION j ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the R.J. Ryan Construction proposal. - - BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Dart Transit is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for outside overnight truck storage at a 41,000 square foot warehouse facility they propose to construct on Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center #5. The subject lot was replatted in July of 1998 as part of the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Eagandale Corporate Center. Replatting created Eagandale Corporate Center #5, consisting of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Lot 2 was developed in 1998, and Lot 1 was graded in anticipation of future development. Additionally, as part of the development of Lot 2 in 1998, a variance to the required five-foot pavement setback in side yards was granted in order that a shared access drive and turn-around for the two lots could be constructed. A CUP was also granted for overnight outdoor storage. Surrounding property is all similarly zoned (I-1) and guided (INCCC) , with outdoor overnight storage granted to the neighboring property to the east. Proposed outdoor overnight storage would take place at the dock doors at the east side of the building and at a seven-stall pad at the south of the parking area. Access is by a shared drive off Aldrin Drive, and a secondary drive, also off Aldrin Drive. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: Parks and trails dedication have been met for this development. TREE PRESERVATION: There are no tree preservation issues with this development. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: Stormwater from this proposed building would be routed to City Pond DP-11.1, which was designed and constructed to handle this additional runoff during the Eagandale Corporate Center 5t' Addition development. Therefore, this proposed building warrants no additional water quality requirements. The proposed building would be located adjacent to City Pond DP-11, which is a designated public water wetland under jurisdiction of the Minnesota DNR. A proposed retaining wall to S'. the south of the proposed building would be located near to the edge of a 30-foot buffer from the wetland boundary. Grading in this steeply sloped area during construction of the retaining wall may pose a risk to the protected wetland should exposed soils erode from the slope before they are stabilized. No disturbance of the 30-foot wetland buffer should occur; this area and its vegetation should be kept in a natural state. Mitigation of any direct impact to the wetland from construction activity of the proposed building would be subject to review and determination by the Minnesota DNR. EROSION CONTROL Alongside the wetland located to the south of the proposed building, the topography requires proper installation and effective maintenance of erosion control practices to prevent or minimize soil loss and impacts. A heavy-duty silt fence should be properly installed and effectively maintained during construction no closer than 30 feet from the wetland boundary. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. This development necessitates no additional water quality requirements. 2. No disturbance of the 30-foot wetland buffer should occur; this area and its vegetation should be kept in a natural state before, during, and after building construction. 3. A heavy-duty silt fence should be properly installed and effectively maintained during construction no closer than 30 feet from the wetland boundary. Item: G - Z, R T Rjc1 n Cons Locate on Map Attachment # J. - Luca fi on 'f .i . , s LI 11 L L Ell 7 Sub'ect Site 1 is mob ¦ Ef i 1W.M i i~ • - • t acicTii 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer.. R. J. Ryan Construction Application: Conditional Use Permit Case No.: 11-CU-08-10-00 M4 E1M kCMWW a1. Ps boas nrp data po4dad N by Dekah t:arhr Lai Sway Depwbmt and isarm s dAWAW X00. City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY w E MINNESOTA The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are s C.nurw.ey o.r.i.pnr.nt a partm.at not responsible for errors or omissions. r Item: G- 2 R r Rij a n Con3 Mm ftI aw/ Attachment # 2 - 5, ie. Plan ItY /i' ?~//./i,t\X\11t it f~ ; Bit Ir 1r a• wr ~ yr ~~y. > 11 7 r r jwjwM r, i sue. a I { ' toll -1 n, `4 IIIHII fill, e= iI ! a~ I i T• L E; I N2.°=tee tI70 iilll~f6i~ • II I I a _e o N'= o = o Z N 11 rm R; u O n ..r.r?rr- ~~I{ t t 1 w[ ~ ~f-~+umr! 4a o p Is l,r~yy: > Z ccII~II '`o sir~inirlE r ij~ S At 11 t__: rSt v=~sFO _ « z H s- z fill r e n 11111 ! !1! 11 ??;iiiiiiiiiiii C / ~~f [ l "~t1FlF~r l 1 I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I; I I 1 I 1 I I I I t I I I I I„ N b e e i = p! i + 111 o t•lliPnq[~*i~ f j sI f [ ' I, I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I,, i l I I, 1 1 I I t t I l I I I 1 I 1 I 1 i a s t~ _ i I~ r a }i i \ :1L1.1I-L I 11,1 I L: u~:.uu : w-uui_:1 u_i_' 1 I g c. rn i~ :_=e cc .0 f Z It j~, 11 \ ~ Ili %~~s+4~\ 1 n ii F~;\ ~ ~ 1 tft[[ ~Ii [[x[~~ \ lily I ftiaio = _ = - J I 1 - J~ NM E { , p aI o : i ~f llr< g I: Proposed Building For x1Ii11 # CROSS COUNTRY COURIER `~I; e E Eagan, Minnesota ~3 # HIST t M: L J r Item: Ga'z j RJ RHQ" 60ns+ Attachment # 3 La m5ca pE Pla n M 02Ysr L -104 ua - '~0i 1 ti If F it t ° \ it AS it I ':Q !tea it I I r ¢ it it if x 11 If - - - L it i H 16 it t I I It 3 t MI I ~ se~ I~^ $=i~ ~ f ti I-r ~ 9 Y it C2 >p l ~ 'i;ii;;ii;;it;;;ii;i;;;;;;iiiiiii;;ii; " 1\ ` .LLJ~LL111LLti1J_I11J_LLLLLLL.- LLLLLiLLL1j I 1~~ III ' ~S ~~+r^v[~ Lo ~ Q I V IJi LI 4 U. ? _ J •mss°L 555•'5'55 s~a~s Proposed Building For ii F' CROSS COUNTRY COURIER rI I i Eagan, Minnesota L J Item: a-2, RJ Noilan iln54- Z Attachment #4 _ Grad/n5 Flag Z ti 3 t l 46 - ei. I a Ly'fy is° J w~R, 3Y .Yc s € 3~t ~..Y s ~ € ~ CN 1 € v, - - _ 04 apiC ~ r .ig ~'r~ e~_/ EFCJ £FF V1 F 55 I ( N O N11 yayY - uu u a 1 i{ gag 3.. F6 c~ sa 7 "A, Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: 0-3; Crane Creek Ormation Action X City of Eagan A rttac hments X 1. Preliminary Subdivision Parks and Recreation MEMO 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Tree Preservation Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-3; CRANE CREEK - WENSMANN REALTY TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION j ITEM OVERVIEW: Review the parks dedication, trails dedication, tree preservation, water quality and wetlands issues that pertain to the Crane Creek development. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Wensmann Realty is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision to allow the construction of 64 owner-occupied townhomes (within 17 buildings) upon a 14.1 acre site located south of Trunk Highway 55 and east of Rita Court. Approval of the requested Preliminary Planned Development would simultaneously constitute approval of a Final Planned Development to be incorporated into a forthcoming PD Agreement. In the summer of 1988, the City approved a preliminary plat for the subject property entitled "Crystal Ponds Addition". The development proposal called for 15 individual buildings providing a total of 137 dwelling units. Final plat approval was never obtained. In the summer or 1991, the City approved a preliminary plat for the subject property entitled "Burrview Pond Addition". The development proposal called for a total of 132 rental apartment units within a single building. Like the Crystal Ponds Addition, final plat approval was never obtained. In February of 1999, the Advisory Planning Commission considered a proposal to construct 119 rental townhomes (within 11 buildings) on the property. Due to unresolved access related issues, the proposal never proceeded on to the City Council and was later withdrawn. The Advisory Planning Commission and City Council previously considered this particular application (64 dwellings within 17 buildings) this past summer. At that time, the development site was accessed solely via the T.H. 55 frontage road. In an attempt to address traffic related concerns associates with the development proposal, the applicants acquired an adjacent single family residential parcel of land (595 Chapel Lane) for the purposes of providing a secondary access to the subject'site. Because the revised development plan constitutes a significant change from the previously submitted plan ( in terms of building layout and traffic distribution), the City Council directed the application back to the Advisory Planning Commission for consideration. The subject site is comprised primarily of open grassland. Several mature tree stands do, however, exist along a pond located in the northeastern portion of the property. The property slopes from southwest to northeast toward the referenced pond exhibiting a topography change of approximately 55 feet. This item is scheduled for consideration at the November 28 Advisory Planning Commission meeting. 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 one-hundred fifteen (115) significant trees on site. Species break down is as follows: Species Avg Diameter Dia. Range Count Percent of Total Box Elder 16" 12"-36" 48 48% Oak 17" 8"-32" 17 17% Birch 11" 8"-16" 27 27% Elm 12" 12"-13" 7 7% The balance of the inventory is comprised of aspen, willow, black cherry, cottonwood and ash trees with diameter ranges from 12" to 20". There are also 146,000 square feet (3.4 acres) of significant woodlands on site. The woodlands are comprised of softwood and hardwood deciduous trees in the diameter range of 4" to 12". The site also has many smaller diameter (less than 4") deciduous trees scattered over it, however this vegetation does not meet the classification of significant trees or significant woodlands and therefore is not included in the submitted inventory. The development as proposed will result in the removal. of ninety (90) significant trees (78.3% of the total), and in the removal of 67,075 square feet of significant woodlands (45.6% of the total. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase multiple-unit residential) is set at 47.5% of the total significant vegetation. With a proposed significant tree removal greater than the allowable amount, there will be required tree mitigation for this proposal. The required tree mitigation calculates to fifty-five Category A trees or one hundred ten (110) Category B trees or two-hundred twenty (220) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of the three categories. The applicant has submitted a Tree Preservation (Mitigation) Plan that shows the installation of one-hundred-ten (110) Category B trees as fulfillment of tree preservation ordinance requirements. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This 14.1-acre development is proposed to be located in the City's G-watershed. All stormwater runoff from the development eventually will enter Bur Oak Pond, a Class II (Indirect Contact) waterbody in the northeast corner of Eagan. To meet water quality requirements, the developer proposes to direct runoff from 6.6 acres of the site to a constructed treatment pond that will drain to GP-2, which is a natural wetland on the site. Untreated stormwater from 4.2 acres of the site is proposed to drain either directly to the wetland or off-site into the existing stormwater system. The required 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 proportion of 42.9 percent, a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.65 acre-feet covering a minimum area of 0.28 acres would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by 6.6 acres of the development. The pond would need a maximum depth of six feet and a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level. The outlet structure of the pond would need to be consistent with City of Eagan standards. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding would be required for untreated stormwater draining from the remaining portion of the development. To treat 6.6 acres of the development, the developer proposes a stormwater pond with a wet- volume of 0.72 acre-feet (versus the minimum of 0.65 acre-feet). The developer proposes the stormwater pond to have a surface area of 0.22 acres (versus the minimum of 0.28 acres), to preserve some of the trees between the pond and the wetland. The 2.9-acre natural wetland on the site is located along S.T.H. 55, northeast of the planned subdivision. Under the classification system of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this is a Type 5 wetland. Type 5 wetlands are open shallow ponds of which the water is usually less than 10 feet deep. A border of vegetation, such as cattails, often fringes them. 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 this type of wetland need to meet the provisions of these laws. This development is proposed not to impact the wetland. To minimize nearby impacts, the development would need to be set back at least 30 feet from the edge of the delineated boundary of the wetland. During and after development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of natural undisturbed vegetation along the wetland would need to be maintained. EROSION CONTROL In several areas of this development, particularly to the northeast along a portion of the wetland, the topography of the site would require 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. 2. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication. 3. The applicant shall be required to install one-hundred-ten (110) Category B trees as fulfillment of the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements. 4. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) shall be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved. 1 5. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 6. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on-site ponding and cash dedication. • The stormwater pond shall be constructed to treat 6.6 acres of the site area. It should contain a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.65 acre-feet and should have a minimum area of 0.28 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. • In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 4.2 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $5,967.00 shall be required. • To minimize nearby impacts, the development shall be set back at least 30 feet from the edge of the delineated boundary of the wetland. During and after construction of the development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of natural undisturbed vegetation along the delineated boundary of the wetland shall be maintained. • 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. / b. Item: (-3; Crane- Cree-K Attachment # / - 3ubd,vi ;i, 9 , n E e ~ R t t G I7 < Ix W t Y w U fig IIiI1g 5i5 I N w O Z 2 N I I i / I - I / I 41 fir of / a ~7 ode 1 • F f . ~ ~ r 4h r L'~ ~ ~ t CJ , if ~Yf C~ R ? of / / F "a*t L J i j 06 ' ? . X Ps C t~ S~, • L,J iI f r ? • , r~l i r r Rnr IRE I t rj~ o •'f sn t 19 R • C3 C~ t l8~~~ to ss tL r r r r ¦ r 12 .i i PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 11 I I i I I PRELIMINARY PLANS SHEET INDEX W CRANE CREEK ADDITION 1. COVER / SITE SHEET v 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT w • 3. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN a _ EAGAN_,--.MINNESOTA 4. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN • s> 3. SITE DATA PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN I ` / 3055 AREA - 14.05 Aars I a 6. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN r,1ANO AREA 2. 3 .arcs A AREA 11.12 ACRES NET ARE IQX •(1LAND ORION - 12.23 ACRES NOW 004C41041 - 0.1725 AGES I 0 1NAL NET AREA • 12.06 ACRES 1 LEGENO 9101LDP4G DATA tN 1 _ _ ` \ OIIOPgK) Don• 4 I N.OR.Nt l x wn ii N T 1 \ , j ` ` \ _ .ua w..[ 62 BLRJ* C SIIE GaMRAGE : . l "arcs j I • 2 1 j ( \ _ \ - uTal 6A1N NET SITE DENSITY - 6.40 wTS/ACPK 3 -4--o -4-Q- - A- - ....W PARKl4C DATA j \ 4 \ \ POND p-2 _ _ _ _ . Kn0 nn •NAs GARAG SPACES - 129 411rc[i\IaIT S ALTA. 404.3 DRIVEWAY SPACES - 129 I ( l \ \ HI. 615.0 ~•0 8 TATE1 / tat[ w - \ \ \ el_._ ~..r . INI.YIIG •6L PARKING STALLS - to TOTAL PARKING SPACES . 274 III a uaT Pau 64 7 \ \ , - POND ftl SETBACKS I 63 'Se 6 \ \ f--"FTUND XLEI w M 2%TO CITY R.0.1E $ - ~P TO LT.". m Z 62 ± ° 9aJ \G I / h ~eY I \ b• TO PROPERTY BOUNDARY O 61 t0PARKIN w LANE 26. FOUNDAnON To 9.aC. F_- l 'i Tip) 1 3W WETLAND 0 oDN TO FOUNDATION 41 \ 11 60 42 \ 12 SETBACK 30' WILAND MEPAREG °r PI NEER ENCNCEPNC, PA. 56 4 13 wLT+DUS POLTA . - / 36• RA" PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER PAUL A. THOMAS S6 B \ P 14 / \ - . - . / CUL-DE-SAC \ - - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER LL S7 44 - 16372 Lli 15 NEC: NoNO. p so 45 16 26 40 xf 46 17 2N6 55 47 3e 37 16 20 21 22 23 24 D wN " HOMES NOV 0 1 2000 Ie25 PLAZA GROVE 48 (AGA . 651 53 49 35 N. u 30 IoIRIAFRC~ecut~K r~aT / 50 1 34 32 31 L : 4 33 ST PARKING , / 1 I•~•r CD L STS IBURRVIEW ACRES I I I° 3 N•, SITE adI: nrrwA. - - CHAPEL LANE LOCATION MAP V` I r~~ .r.-.-r,-. fRLIARE PREIJMINARY SITE PLAN o.NTR WENSMANN HOMES rPOCa CRANE CREEK ADDITION ssn 1 I n Item: G-3; ' Cranes e rec-K _ »m- • Attachment # 3 _ J arr~lsca p~ Plan R Io 3 ~~;~1 l• ~r t! 11ilI Ei~-~~ E~1 1~iit =:r ~t ;t n~ ~ ~ p w 1tfiI s Z VR I / ~ j~/ 11\l t ~ c~ r~ lrl ` CJ (I) I I ~ ` cc till ? tip /i n 1 1' at _ LANDSCAPE PLAN Item: a-3; emine erecK y°° - Attachment # + - Tree. Preser?a~,on P/art axa.~ ^ p _ ? _ I~) t 1 ruF + ! i1 i (H ILLi ~1 I ~1 i r; b ~§tF i • :.i !I ~ Ir :11!f1 !Ir i11 1i''1 1.} + ; m 1 .iIdi 1~{ f I1.1I~. Id1 111 II II iI 1' II ~ `1];} ~i N ail Ili°. r Y ~~tt ~i ; to ii ii t If 1!i it"I 1L1 latli^,r .tlJa. con ? ~4k. W 111111111111112111 fill D4~~ B84fe ...3~4 ff... R f d YwYifiY~Y!k':~b3tbYiLB)1wkiY±'s'z'.YYYYkiiYLkYYYyYY'sYbtihii s J i99~ ~ i E L W _ ~R. , I G YYYYY'Jriri]fYYYYl1tyYYl~f MINIMUM y ~ ~ ~ t~l i d k>tYY'skhrYYb'Jh'sYYkbY1~ 11bYY19L~YikbaltiYYkhftk ~ ~1 v Y 6 j CL i 1 ~ 1f 8 / ` ~ ¢ 11 Lj Q \q - - FI j p `1 n ~ ~ ' WI TREE PRESERVATION PLAN Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: G-4; Aquatic Plant Restoration Grant Application Action X City of Eagan Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments AGENDA ITEM: G-4; AQUATIC PLANT RESTORATION PROGRAM APPLICATION TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JIM STORLAND, WATER RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 1 ITEM OVERVIEW: Recommend that the City Council endorse submission of a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to support restoration of a native aquatic plant buffer around Cedar Pond. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Eagan's 1990 Water Quality Management Plan identified the need to protect wetlands, control erosion and sediment, and establish buffer setbacks. The Advisory Parks Commission's long-term agenda includes developing a mechanism to establish and protect wetland buffers. The Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program has provided volunteers to help LGU's obtain information on wetlands for management purposes. They are also seeking projects to incorporate appropriate BMP's on wetlands. The Cedar Pond site has very good potential for restoring a native buffer and implementing an education program, as well as other BMP's. ANALYSIS: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Aquatic Plant Restoration Grant Program has funding available for projects in 2001 related to plant restoration in littoral and riparian habitats. A minimum 50/50 cost share of the total grant award is expected by grantees. A minimum grant amount is $1,000. DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Aquatic Plant Restoration (APR) Program Grant would augment funding from the Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WEEP) to implement the following BMP's : 1. fertilizer management 2. street sweeping 3. yard waste management 4. restoring a native buffer The above BMP's will be implemented in 2001 and evaluated by WHEP volunteers in 2001 and 2002. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Recommend City Council to endorse submission to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources a grant application to support restoration of a native aquatic plant buffer around Cedar Pond. Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: I-1; 2001 Parks and Trails Dedication Fees Action X Information Attachments X 1. Comparative Data City of Eagan Parks and Recreation MEMO AGENDA ITEM: I-i; 2001 PROPOSED PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEE TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: BETH A. WIELDE, ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fees BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Developers use park dedication fees in lieu of land dedication for the park and open space requirement in their plats. Fees are reviewed annually. After recommendation by the Advisory Parks Commission and approval of the City Council, fees are established for the upcoming year, effective January 1. ANALYSIS: In response to a request from the APrC at the October 16, 2000 regular meeting, proposed park dedication fees have been re-evaluated using new criteria and revised data. The revisions were refined at a subcommittee meeting on November 6, 2000. The following methodology was used to prepare the data: • Contact of several municipalities to determine parks and/or trail dedication fees for six specific property types. Per suggestion from the APrC, additional cities have been contacted and included in the sample since the original sample. • Calculation of average fee amount for each property type category determined a Metro Sample Average (MSA). High and low fees have been excluded from the average. • Determine 10% of the MSA using formula A = These figures have been rounded to the nearest dollar. BF-DO • Addition of 10% to the MSA to determine Eagan's proposed 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fee • Use of the formula (n-b)/b* 100 to determine the percent increase of proposed fees from the Eagan 2000 fees, where n = the new proposed fee, and b= base figure. • The process was repeated, using a 5% increase in fees. Figure A includes Eagan's 2000 combined park and trail dedication fees as part of the MSA /3. Notes on the Municipalities • Cities were contacted in late September and October of 2000. • In all cases, residential properties are calculated per unit, and commercial/ industrial fees are calculated by acreage. • Bob Stewart of Brooklyn Park submitted 1999 fees, but indicated that they were not increased in 2000. • Burnsville fees were based upon specific zoning density rather than property type. For the purposes of the comparison, the appropriate zone has been applied to the property type (R-1 for "Single Family Residential," etc.). • Eagan trail dedication fees and park dedication fees were added to produce the survey data. Usually these fees are separate. • Inver Grove Heights was not included in the comparison. A portion of Inver Grove Height's park and trail dedication fees are generated from landfill revenue. To keep the comparisons fair, they were not figured in to the sample average. • Lakeville data is pending City Council approval. • Fees in Maple Grove are increasing incrementally. The figures included in the study are current as of November 1, 2000. All data is subject to approval by the APrC. Eagan Trails Dedication Fees The data presented in attachments A through E combines Eagan's park and trails dedication fees for comparative purposes. Most municipalities do not separate the two fees. It is intended, however, that these fees will remain two separate entities for the City of Eagan. Residential trail dedication fees have increased by an average of 2.9% a year since 1996. Increasing the park dedication fees is higher priority at this time than increasing trails dedication fees. Trail costs have been stable over the past years. For this reason, it is proposed to leave the trail dedication fees at the $168 for all types of residential and $948 for commercial and industrial properties (0% increase). Precedent for such an action is found between 1996 and 1997, when fees were not increased. The APrC subcommittee recommended that trails dedication fees not be increased for 2001. Trails dedication would be subtracted from the "Eagan Proposed 2001 Dedication Fees" seen in attachment A and B for each property type. The results comprise the "Proposed 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fees" seen below. DISCUSSION/ EVALUATION Attachment A shows the calculation of MSA, 5% of this average, and Eagan Proposed 2001 Park and Trails (combined) Dedication Fees, which is 5% plus the MSA. Attachment A also illustrates the increase percentage between the 2000 fees and the proposed 2001 fees. The. ~1-. scenario is repeated for Attachment B, though 10% is added to the MSA to determine the 2001 proposed fee. Attachments C and D are visual illustrations of Eagan's current fees, the MSA, and how Eagan would compare to the sample average after 5%, then 10% were added (creating the 2001 proposed fees). Attachment E ranks the fees of the sample cities by property type. The first column shows 2000 fees. The highest fee is ranked as number 1. The second column shows where Eagan ranks when the fees are increased 10% over the MSA. The third column shows where Eagan ranks when fees are increased 5% over the MSA. In some cases, fees in two cities were the same. They were given the same rank and are noted by brackets. In the ranking for 2000 fees, Eagan was in the lowest half of the sample in 5 out of 6 property types. Proposed increases by 10% caused Eagan to be ranked consistently 3d or 4`h. Proposed increases of fees by 5% caused Eagan to be ranked generally 4d' or 5`h (except in the case of industrial, where Eagan ranks 3rd). In no case were Eagan's proposed 2001 fees ranked as the highest or second highest. As the Commission is aware, dedication is really a function of density and raw land value. The following table reflects current (2000) land values for each property type and land values under the 5% and 10% scenarios, as seen in Table A. Table A: 2000 Land Values by Property Type Property Type 2000 5% 10% Single Family 31,588 35,338 37,225 Residential Duplex 31,588 35,550 37,425 Townhouse/ Quad 36,703 54,610 57,574 Apartment/ Multi 40,083 60,356 63,612 Commercial/ 57,680 60,253 63,120 Industrial 2001 Proposed Park and Trails Dedication Fees 2001 Proposed Park and Trail Dedication Fees (see Table B) reflect two possible alternatives; a 5% increase and a 10% increase over MSA level. Trails dedication fees would remain constant in both scenarios. Table B: Alternatives for 2001 Proposed Park and Trails Dedication Fees f: l L.. mil°d Property Type 2001 2001 Proposed Combined 2001 Proposed Combined Proposed Park (only) Total at Park (only) Total at Trail Dedication Fee 5% Dedication Fee 10% Dedication 5% 10% Fee 0% increase from 2000) Single Family $168/unit 1,423 1,591 1,499 1,667 Residential Duplex $168/ unit 1,422 1,590 1,497 1,665 Townhouse/ Quad $168/ unit 1,290 1,458 1,360 1,528 Apartment/ Multi $168/ unit 1,298 1,466 1,368 1,536 Commercial $948/ acre 4,118 5,066 4,360 5,308 Industrial $948/ acre 3,571 4,519 3,786 4,734 Public Facility $948/ acre N/A N/A N/A N/A ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: To recommend Park and Trail dedication fees for the year 2001, alternatives include: • Increase of park and trails dedication fees by 5% for 2001. • Increase of park and trails dedication fees by 10% for 2001. • Increase of park and trails dedication fees by for 2001. Item: 2000 Dec!; c4 n-, Fees Attachment Tom Paraf Attachment A: 2000 MSA & Eagan Proposed Fees (5% over sample average) Eagan's proposed fees are calculated at 5% above the MSA. For comparative purposes, the high and low fees of each property category have been eliminated in the calculation of the MSA. High and low fees have been shaded. Single ftownhouse/ Apartment! 1unici ali Family Res Du lex Quad Multi Commercial industrial Comparison not available; calculation method based on percentage per pple Valley acre across the board Brooklyn Park 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 4,000 4,000 Burnsville 1,207 1,162 1,085 1,128 4,750. 2,750' Eagan 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 Comparison not available; park income supplemented by landfill revenue, Inver Grove Heights skewing comparable figures. Lakeville 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,800 4,000 Maple Grove 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 MSA (excluding high and low fee) 1,515 1,514 1,389 1,396 4,825 4,304 5% of Average 76 76 69 70 241 215 Eagan Proposed 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fees 1,591 1,590 1,458 1,466 5,066 4,519 % increase from Eagan 2000 fee +10.5% +11% +40.9% +42.3% +14.5% +2.1% All residential fees are based per unit. All commercial and industrial fees are base per acre. Attachment B: 2000 MSA a Eagan Proposed Fees (10% over sample average) Eagan's proposed fees are calculated at 10% above the MSA. For comparative purposes, the high and low fees of each property category have been eliminated in the calculation of the MSA. High and low fees have been shaded. Single Townhouse/ Apartment/ nici lity . Fami_. Res Duplex Quad ulti Com cial1 Industrial Comparison not available; calculation method based on percentage per pple Valley acre across the board Brooklyn Park 1.300 1,300 1,300 1,300 4,000 4,000 Burnsville 1,207 1,162 1,085 1,128 4,750 ~ 2,750 Eagan 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 Comparison not available; park income supplemented by landfill revenue, Inver Grove Heights skewing comparable figures. Lakeville 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,800 4,000 Maple Grove 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 MSA (excluding high and low fee) 1,515 1,514 1,389 1,396 4,825 4,304 10% of Average 152 151 139, 140 483 430 Eagan Proposed 2001 Park and Trail Dedication Fees 1,667 1,665 1,528 1,536 5,308 4,734 increase from Eagan 2000 fee +15.8% +16.3% +47.6% +49.1 % +20% +7% All residential fees are based per unit. All commercial and industrial fees are base per acre. Attachment C, Park and Trail Dedication Fees, 5% Over Sample Average: Eagan 2000, Metro Sample Average, and Eagan 2001 Proposed $6,000- $5,500- ® Eagan Current $5,000- $4,500- $4,000- ¦ Metro $3,500 Sample $3,000 Average $2,500 OEagan 2001 $2,000Proposed $1,500- $1,000-- 00-- $0 Single Family Duplex Townhouse/ Apartment/ Commercial Industrial Residential Quad Multi Property Type Attachment D: Park and Trail Dedication Fees, 10% Over Sample Average: Eagan 2000, Metro Sample Average, and Eagan 2001 Proposed $6,000 $5,500 $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 BEagan Current $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 ¦ Metro Sample $2,000 Average $1,500- 13 Eagan $1,000 2001 $500 Proposed $o it 1fA A~ Single Family Duplex Townhouse/ Apartment/ Commercial Industrial Residential Quad Multi Attachment E: Rank of Park / Trail Dedication Fees, Metro Sample vs. Increase in Eagan Fees 2000 RATES + 10% INCREASE + 5% INCREASE Single Family Residential 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Eagan $1,667 3. Maple Grove $1,650 4. Lakeville $1,500 4. Maple Grove $1,650 4. Eagan $1,591 C 4. Woodbury $1,500 C 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Eagan $1,440 5. Woodbury $1,500 C 5. Woodbury $1,500 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 7. Burnsville $1,207 7. Burnsville $1,207 7. Burnsville $1,207 Duplex 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Eagan $1,665 3. Maple Grove $1,650 C4. Lakeville $1,500 4. Maple Grove $1,650 4. Eagan $1,590 4. Woodbury $1,500 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Eagan $1,432 5. Woodbury $1,500 C5. Woodbury $1,500 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 7. Burnsville $1,162 7. Burnsville $1,162 7. Burnsville $1,162 Townhouse/ Quad 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Maple Grove $1,650 4. Lakeville $1,500 4. Eagan $1,528 4. Lakeville $1,500 5. Brooklyn Park $1,300 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Eagan $1,458 6. Woodbury $1,100 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 7. Burnsville $1,085 7. Woodbury $1,100 7. Woodbury $1,100 8. Eagan $1,035 8. Burnsville $1,085 8. Burnsville $1,085 2000 RATES + 10% INCREASE + 5% INCREASE Apartment/ Multi 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 1. Eden Prairie $1,950 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 2. Plymouth $1,700 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Maple Grove $1,650 3. Maple Grove $1,650 4. Lakeville $1,500 4. Eagan $1,536 4. Lakeville $1,500 5. Brooklyn Park $1,300 5. Lakeville $1,500 5. Eagan $1,466 6. Burnsville $1,128 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 6. Brooklyn Park $1,300 7. Woodbury $1,100 7. Burnsville $1,128 7. Burnsville $1,128 8. Eagan $1,030 8. Woodbury $1,100 8. Woodbury $1,100 Commercial 1. Maple Grove $6,150 1. Maple Grove $6,150 1. Maple Grove $6,150 2. Eden Prairie $5,775 2. Eden Prairie $5,775 2. Eden Prairie $5,775 3. Plymouth $5,200 3. Eagan $5,308 3. Plymouth $5,200 4. Lakeville $4,800 4. Plymouth $5,200 4. Eagan $5,066 5. Burnsville $4,750 5. Lakeville $4,800 5. Lakeville $4,800 6. Eagan $4,424 6. Burnsville $4,750 6. Burnsville $4,750 7. Brooklyn Park $4,000 7. Brooklyn Park $4,000 7. Brooklyn Park $4,000 8. Woodbury $3,000 8. Woodbury $3,000 8. Woodbury $3,000 Industrial 1. Eden Prairie $5,775 1. Eden Prairie $5,775 1. Eden Prairie $5,775 C2. Maple Grove $5,200 C 2. Maple Grove $5,200 2. Maple Grove $5,200 2. Plymouth $5,200 2. Plymouth $5,200 2. Plymouth $5,200 3. Eagan $4,424 3. Eagan $4,734 3. Eagan $4,519 C4. Brooklyn Park $4,000 4. Brooklyn Park $4,000 4. Brooklyn Park $4,000 4. Lakeville $4,000 C 4. Lakeville $4,000 4. Lakeville $4,000 5. Woodbury $3,000 5. Woodbury $3,000 5. Woodbury $3,000 6. Burnsville $2,750 6. Burnsville $2,750 6. Burnsville $2,750 Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: J-1; 2001 Fees and Charges =mar Action x 4 City of Eagan Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1. Neighboring Community Fees list 2. Eagan fees AGENDA ITEM: J-1; 2001 FEES AND CHARGES TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JEFF ASFAHL, SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION Preparation Date: 11-8-00 Reviewed By: Ken Vraa I ITEM OVERVIEW: Annually, Parks and Recreation staff review the department's fees and charges and recommend approval for establishing the coming years rates. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The Advisory Parks Commission annually reviews the fees and charges proposed for the use of city park, fields, equipment, and service amenity requests. A recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for implementation on January 1. ANALYSIS: Staff took the opportunity to compare our fees with several surrounding communities and have also visited each user fee category to determine the value of the output required to provide each particular service. (See attachment 1) A list of current year Eagan Park and Recreation Department fees is attached. (See attachment 2) DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: The comparison research with other communities demonstrates that Eagan Park and Recreation department fees are both reasonable and comparable. The review of costs associated with the output required has also demonstrated that our fees are appropriate. With only one exception, staff does not see reason for any changes to the fee schedule. Current practice has allowed use by local school district programs free of any charge. Park maintenance and operation personnel have reported that in several instances use by the school groups has left the facility in questionable order. Department staff suggest that we require a once a year refundable damage deposit of $300.00 per school (from only schools that have interest in city facilities). Staff believes that this will heighten their awareness and concern for the condition they leave behind. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Approve with or without amendments and recommend to City Council for action and implementation for January 1, 2001. City of Burnsville 612-895-4500 Type of 2000 Fee 2001 Fee Facility Special Amenities/Notes Res Non-Res Res Non-Res Pavilion w/ 75-150 Kitchen/bathrooms/air conditioning/heat 100/day; 125/day; 105/day 130/day shelter 50/5 hours 70/5 hours Shelter bldgs 25-30 Warming shelter buildings 80/day; 40/5 100/day; Same Same hours 60/5 hours Open shelters 100-150 Bathrooms 85/day; 50/5 105/day; 90/60 115/80 hours 75/5 hours Small Open 35 max 50/day; 65/day; 55/day 70/day Shelters 12/huor 15/hour Amphitheater 75-100 Park with stage. 55/day 65/day 60/day 75/day Garden small Used for wedding photos. Next to City Hall. 45/day; 55/day; 15/hour 20/hour 12/hour 15/hour City of Apple Valley 612-953-2300 Type of 2000 Fee 2001 Fee Facility Special Amenities/Notes Res Non-Res Res Non-Res Open Air 80? Restrooms in park. No damage deposit. 50/day 50/day Same Same Large Park Building 50 Fully enclosed with bathrooms. $50 deposit. 50/day 50/day Same Same Small Open 30 Restrooms in park. No damage deposit. 35/day 35/day Same j . Air f IL4 N I O roll U Dakota County 651-438-4660 Type of Capacity Special Amenities/Notes 2000 Fee 2001 Fee Facility Weekends Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Jensen Shelter to 200 110/day 75/day 115/day 80/day Lebanon Hills Holland Shltr to 50 55/day 35/day 60/day 40/day Lebanon Hills Lake Byllesby to 150 50/day 35/day Same Same Regional Spring Lake West shelter Combined use of west and east shelter accommodates groups 75/day 55/day 80/day 60/day up to 350. Spring Lake East shelter 55/day 35/day 60/day 40/day Do not charge "non-resident" fee. Park maintenance staff prepare sites for reservations. Park patrol "make every effort" to at least stop by and greet each reservation (public relations role). Pavilion: $200 damage deposit for events serving alcohol; $100 damage deposit for events with no alcohol. Picnic Shelter: $50 damage deposit for groups over 100; $100 damage deposit for weddings and other special uses. City of Lakeville 612-985-4610 Type of Capacity Special Amenities/Notes 2001 Fee Facility Res Non-Res Lakeville Business Non-Lakeville Business Open Shelters Ranging in sizes from 35/day 60/day to 50 people: 60/day to 50 people: 110/day 45 to 150 51-100 people: 85/day 51-100 people: 160/day 101-200 people: 110/day 101-200 people: 210/day 200-300(max): 135/day 200-300(max): 260/day Enclosed Ranging in size from 50/day 75/day 75/day 125/day Shelters 30 to 40 "When possible, a park ranger will meet with the group when they arrive, occasionally check on them during their stay, and inspect for damage before they leave. The group's supervisor is responsible for making sure the reserved area is cleaned." $100.00 security deposit BALL FIELD day Shakopee 25/1 day 35/2 days 45/3 days Stillwater 150/deposit 150/fee Vadnais Heights no CITIES 0 -2,500 West St. Paul 350/weekend tournament Excelsior daily 82/r 164/nr wknd 205/r 410/nr Spring Park no CITIES OVER 20,000 Apple Valley 15/4 hr youth 20/r hr adult fields CITIES 2,500 -10,000 Blaine 25/day res 75/tournament Afton of Bloomington r & nr 20/non-profit 25/day 50/even Arden Hills 15/field per day 20/team toum Belle Plaine no Brooklyn Center of Circle Pines no Brooklyn Park 225/day Northwoods 75/day Central Dayton 100/day nr/tournament per field 50/day others Deephaven no Burnsville 10.25-12 pub/game 11-13.75 Falcon Heights 100/season one day/week priv/game 13/hr r 15/nr Farmington no Coon Rapids 50/team 10/ea nr player Forest Lake no Cottage Grove 15 field/4 hr 25/field/4 hr nr Grant no Crystal no charge to 201per game depending on services req Hugo no Edina 6 Jordan no Fridley 1k-1,400 wknd athletic tour/r 10- Lauderdale of 25/hr other activ Mahtomedi no Inver Grove Hgts. currently being reviewed by city Mound no council New Prague 40/res 80/nr Lakeville 35/wknd 25/wkday Newport no Maple Grove 30/day per field North Oaks no Maplewood 25/field per day Oak Grove of Minneapolis 26/2 hrs r/nr soccer etc 14/1.5 hrs Oak Park Heights of practice field Orono no Minnetonka of/resident use only Rockford no New Hope 20-40/game Oakdale 0/resident 42.60/non-res Shorewood no Richfield 40/day up to 8/hrs 15/hr thereafter Spring Lake Park no Roseville 7/hr St. Anthony 45/field/day/r 901feld/day/nr no maintenance (tournaments) 14/dragged/lined Shoreview 10/hr r 15/hr nr St. Francis 251r & nr South St. St. Paul Park of/r 10/per non resident team Paul 35/field/eve r & nr member St. Paul sliding scale city has detail Victoria no White Bear Lake of Waconia city has detail Woodbury 45/field Sun-Fri 60/field Saturday Watertown no Wayzata of CITIES 10,000 - 20,000 Anoka 5/r 10/nr-daylight 8/r 16/nr-twilight Chanhassen no Chaska of Columbia Heights 10/team wknd tour. 0/r 2 hrs 10/nr 2 hrs 35/all do Hastings 20/playerlseason Lino Lakes 125/field/day Mendota Heights 0/r 25/nr 200/2day toum.. 25/prep if requested Mounds View no Prior Lake 50/r 100/nr Ramsey 15/nr Robbinsdale of/r na/nr Rosemount 100/day Savage 35/day + set-up charge if 10/field per 126 Item i-1; 2001 F:,cs E Ct rjcs 2001 FEE SCHEDULE Attachment #2 _ Elan acs Parks and Recreation Charges The following facility rental fees are subject to 6.5% State sales tax, and require a $150.00 damage deposit payable at the time of registration: 2000 PROPOSED 2001 FACILITY RESIDENTS RESIDNON ENTS RESIDENTS RESIDNON ENTS Trapp Farm, Thomas Lake and Blackhawk Park pavilions: • All day rental (10am - l Opm) $100.00 $120.00 • Half-day rental (10a m- 4 pm, or 5-10 pm) 70.00 90.00 Same Same • Blackhawk kitchen 30.00 30.00 Enclosed park shelter buildings: • All day rental (10am - 10pm) $100.00 $120.00 Same Same • Half-day rental (10am-4 m, or 5-1 m) 70.00 90.00 Tennis Courts $2/court/hour $2/cour/hour Same Same Athletic facilities/shelters: • Fields - youth tournaments (per field per day) $35.00 45.00 • Fields - all other users (per field per day) 55.00 75.00 Same Same • Lights, if required (per field per hour) 30.00 30.00 • Building cleaning (per day) 55.00 55.00 Community Room - City Hall (NOTE: after hours rental is 2-hour minimum): • Youth groups (8am - 4:30 pm) Deposit only N/A • Youth groups - after hours (per hour) 9.00 N/A • Local civic groups (8am - 4:30 pm) Deposit only N/A • Local civic groups - after hours (per hour) 20.00 N/A Same Same • Other citizen groups -Per hour rental 20.00 50.00 -Maximum one-day rental 200.00 350.00 • For profit organizations 50.00 50.00 -Per hour rental -Maximum one-day rental 350.00 350.00 The following charges are subject to 6.5% State sales tax: Same Same Sunshelters r day) $30.00 $50.00 Same Same Picnic kit: add add • 3 items 7.00 10.00 $50.00 $50.00 • Each additional item 3.00 5.00 deposit deposit Chuckwa on grill (per day) 30.00 50.00 Same Same Canopy (per day) 55.00 75.00 Same Same Extra picnic tables 25.00 N/A $LO Ot}ltble NIA Athletic Facilities Same Same • Restroomslbases/chalkin (per reservation) 30.00 50.00 Trapp Farm reserved tubing facility: • 1-25 people (per hour rate) 25.00 45.00 • Each add'l > 25 (per person per hour) 1.00 1.00 Same Same (Note: maximum capacity is 100 people) Field/facility maintenance fees: • Traveling youth teams (per team) 70.00 N/A • Adult - up to 9 games (per team) 175.00 N/A Same Same • Adult - more than 9 games (per team) 325.00 N/A Concessions permit (maximum of 3) 215.00 N/A Same Same G:Jeff/2001 fee schedule 2000 FEE SCHEDULE City of Eagan - Parks and Recreation Fee Tax Total Thomas Lake & Trapp Farm Park Pavilions / Shelter Buildings: (also fee for Blackhawk Pavilion reservations without kitchen use) Half Day (10-4 or 5-10): * Resident 70.00 4.55 74.55 Non-Resident 90.00 5.85 95.85 Full Day (10-10): Resident 100.00 6.50 106.50 Non-Resident 120.00 7.80 127.80 Blackhawk Park Pavilion (includes kitchen use): Half Day (10-4 or 5-10): Resident 100.00 6.50 106.50 Non-Resident 120.00 7.80 127.80 Full Day (10-10): Resident 130.00 8.45 138.45 Non-Resident 150.00 9.75 159.75 Sunshelters: Resident 30.00 1.95 31.95 Non-Resident 50.00 3.25 53.25 Canopy: Resident $55.00 $3.58 $58.58 Non-Resident (City park use only) 75.00 4.88 79.88 Chuckwagon Grill: Resident 30.00 1.95 31.95 Non-Resident (City park use only) 50.00 3.25 53.25 Community Room Rental: (2 hour minimum after hours) 1. City Use 0 0 0 2. Youth Groups * During Business Hours 0 0 0 Non-Business Hours 9.00/hour .58 9.58/hour 3. Local Civic Groups * During Business Hours 0 0 0 Non-Business Hours 20.00/hour 1.30 21.30/hour 4. Local Resident Groups* 20.00/hour 1.30 21.30/hour 5. Non-Resident Groups* 50.00/hour 3.25 53.25/hour 6. Profit Making Groups* 50.00/hour 3.25 53.25/hour Picnic Kit (1-3 items): $50.00 Deposit Required Resident 7.00 .46 7.46 Each additional item 3.00 .20 3.20 Non-Resident (City park use only) 10.00 .65 10.65 Each additional item 5.00 .33 5.33 Picnic Tables: (to City Parks only; 10.00/table .65 10.65 Maximum of 5 tables) Trapp Farm Tubing Reservation* 25.00/hour 1.63 26.63/hour Resident (up to 25 people) 50.00/hour 3.25 53.25/hour Non-Resident (up to 25 people) Plus $1.00 + tax per person if more than 25 * Requires Damage Deposit of $150.00 G:Policies & Procedures/2000 fee schedule (updated 1-4-00) Date: 11/20/00 Agenda Item: M-1; CIP Projects Review Action City of Eagan Information X Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Project Summary AGENDA ITEM: M-1; YEAR 2000 PARK SITE FUND PROJECT SUMMARY TO: ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION PREPARED BY: PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS ITEM OVERVIEW: The Advisory Park Commission has developed a Capital Improvement Project Work Plan to be funded from the Park Site Fund. Staff has developed a status report summarizing projects begun or comnleted in the year 2000 utilizine funds from the Park Site Fund. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: This spring the Advisory Park Commission developed a 5-year Capital Improvement Work Plan for the years 2001-2005. The year 2005 was added to the existing 2000-2004 Capital Improvement Work Plan as the "new" fifth year. Projects scheduled for the year 2000 were considered to be "project commitments" based upon previous discussions. The Park Commission will continue to review the work plan and allocations on an annual basis. DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: All projects scheduled for the year 2000 have been completed or are well underway. Due to ongoing negotiations with regulators or late season completion dates, several projects will carry over into next year. Projects to which the City has committed either contractually or financially but not closed out are shown as "encumbered" expenditures in the summary attachments. These funds will be released upon completion and/or request. Several expenditures were made for projects not specifically identified in the work plan. These projects were generally opportunities for an improvement or betterment that could not have been anticipated at the time the work plan was developed. To account for such opportunities, the Park Commission had allocated some funds from the Park Site Fund into general categories including small projects and acquisitions. The development of the Mallard Trail connection and the acquisition of a lot from the Ray MillerBlackhawk Development are examples. A significant contribution from the Park Site Fund was made to the Central Park project to aid in the funding of the acquisition. The unique character of the site and the subsequent passage of a community center referendum appear to have made this a very worthwhile expenditure. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: This summary of C.I.P. expenditures and revenues has been presented to the Commission for informational purpose. No action is required at this time. K:Park & Rec/Adv Park Comm/November Meeting/park site fund / c. PROJECT SUMMARY EXPENDITURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION BUDGETED THROUGH 11/1/00 STATUS/NOTES SPENT ENCUMBERED BALANCE 1. Civic Area Multi-Use Project completed. Used during the Turf Installation $65,000 $63,060 $1,940 spring/summer. Removed for ice installation. 95% complete. Installation of bleacher by 2. Bleacher Replacement at Goat Hill contractor. Wall, base pad & landscaping by Baseball Field $40,000 $1,810 $18,035 $20,155 city. Project completed. Included in a Public Works 3. Thomas Lake Parking Lot Paving $25,000 $16,305 $8,695 Paving Contract. 4. Goat Hill Park, Paving of a Project completed. Included in a Public Works Second Hockey Rink $20,000 $20,635 ($635) Paving Contract. Additional Paving (Est.) $4,500 ($4,500) Trail overlay, installation of entrance drive. Project completed. Includes retaining wall 5. Oak Chase - Playground Replacement $25,000 $25,130 ($130) construction. Project completed. Includes retaining wall 6. Country Home - Playground Replacement $25,000 $24,075 $925 construction. Small Project 7. Northview Park - Entrance Sign ($4,490) $4,490 -0- Project completed. Arbor Day Project Analysis 95% complete preparing mitigation 8. North Park Analysis and Mitigation $150,000 $15,220 $1,600 $133,180 report per MPCA. 9. Mallard Drive Connection to Small Project Project completed. Hi line Trail ($18,715) $18,715 -0- (Small Project Funding) 10. Walden Heights Park Contractor work complete. Project Closure $2,730 $2,730 -0- Remaining work by staff. 11. Lexington Diffley/H.U.D. Site Project Closure $2,245 $2,245 -0- Contractor work complete. 12. Moonshine Park Analysis and Planning $15,000 $ 450 $7,200 $7,350 Ongoing planning, utility and system testing. 13. Moonshine Park - Site Survey Professional Services $8,850 $8,850 -0- Project complete - for planning and design use. 14. Ray MillerBlackhawk Park - Acquisition Document preparation and closure (acquisition Land Acquisition ($25,000) $25,000 -0- funding); split with Tree Preservation Fund. 15. Central Park - Acquisition Document preparation and closure Land Acquisition ($1,000,000) $1,000,000 -0- (acquisition/general funding). 16. Patrick Eagan/Methodist Church Shared funding. Church to contribute $25,000 Shared Parking $130,920 $130,920 -0- to P.S. Fund. 17. Miscellaneous Services $225 $225 -0- Legal fees, other services. TOTALS $1,549,325 $1,158,150 $224,195 $166,980 L•W5b\project swnmary ALLOCATION SUMMARY 2000 EXPENDITURES 2000 - 2005 ESTIMATED SPECIFIC CATAGORIES 2000 5-YEAR ALLOCATION BALANCE Acquisition $25,000 $460,000 $435,000 Other Acquisitions ($1,000,000) Small Projects $23,025 $100,000 $76,975 PARK SITE FUND SUMMARY (As of 11/1/00) Estimated Balance Expenditures Revenue Estimated Balance As of 11/1/00 and Encumbered $2,932,065 (includes interest) $1,549,325 $358,380 $1,741,120(*) * 2000 Interest Entered 2/01 I:45b\project summary Date: November 20, 2000 Agenda Item: M-2; Dog Parks t.~ Action Information City of Eagan Attachments X 1. Twin Cities Metro Dog Parks and Recreation MEMO Parks; field investigation AGENDA ITEM: M-2; DOG PARKS OVERVIEW OF OFF-LEASH DOG EXERCISE AREAS TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: BETH A. WIELDE, ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST I ITEM DESCRIPTION: This item is intended to provide an overview of the issues involved in an off-leash dog park. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The City of Eagan has received a number of phone calls and letters inquiring about bringing an Off-Leash Dog Area (OLDA) to the City of Eagan. According to Eagan records, in 1998 and 1999 4,350 dog licenses were issued. By November of 2000, 3,770 licenses have been issued. In response to the inquiries from Eagan residents, Parks and Recreation staff began investigation of off-leash dog exercise areas. The purpose is to determine if this type of park should be pursued in Eagan. INFORMATION REVIEW: Dogpark.com, an online magazine for dog enthusiasts, defines a OLDA as "a place where people and their dogs can play together." OLDAs (also known as off-leash exercise areas) are a specific area that dogs are allowed to roam off-leash. These areas are often marked by fencing or natural boundaries such as trees or shrubbery. Dogs and owners are allowed to run, play, and explore so long as they follow rules that are designed to create a safe, clean, and fun area. OLDAs have become increasingly popular in cities that impose leash laws in other public areas. With an established OLDA, dog owners are provided with a separate, contained area to let their dogs roam. These areas provide a safeguard for pets, pet owners, and neighbors who may not enjoy a four-legged visitor in their yard. As stated by Randy Quale of Bloomington Parks and Recreation, OLDAs are not defined as a "park for dogs." They are parks for people who have dogs, serving a recreational need much like a ball field serves those who play ball, or a tennis court serves those who play tennis. By nature, there is more self- policing in a OLDA. Users must be vigilant about following the rules for the park to be successful. An off-leash dog area is a privilege that needs the cooperation of administration and park users. 2/. OLDAs- Elements Every OLDA has elements that distinguish it from others. They are as varied as "people" parks. Some parks use fencing, others may use a natural boundary. Some parks are open, unobstructed fields, while others provide trails into a wooded, hilly area. Parks range in sizes from a couple of acres to 30+. The size and amenities depends on amount of available land, local support, and the amount of funds available. Some park elements are consistent, at least in the Twin Cities Metro Area OLDAs (see Figure 1). All Metro Area OLDAs have signage at the entrance stating the rules, boxes with plastic bags for waste disposal, and trash cans for waste disposal. However, this is where the similarities end. Features can be added to provide added comfort for dogs or humans (sometimes both). Some of these include: • Boundary Fencing: This is used around the perimeter of the park to separate the off- leash area from other park uses, to contain dogs, and to keep other animals out. Sometimes natural boundaries such as steep slopes, trees and shrubbery, or ditches are used for the same purpose. • Double Gates: This can be used as an animal "staging" area, where dogs are first taken off their leash. It allows owners to open and close the outside gate without releasing dogs playing within the park. • Water: In some parks, owners are responsible for bringing water for their dogs. Others have water available, and humans are responsible for bringing a container for their dogs to drink from. • Swim Area: Some parks are located adjacent to water bodies, giving the dogs a swim area. Particularly effective on the warm days. • Small Dog Area: Some parks designate an area particularly for smaller dogs that may be intimidated by larger breeds. These areas can be sectioned off from the main area. • Trees: Trees can provide shade for warm days, and give dogs something to explore. • Parking for Humans: Many OLDAs in the Twin Cities are not located near residential areas. Parking becomes a necessity. • Night Lighting: Most communities have not installed nighttime lighting. It would, however, allow the park to stay open for a longer period of time, both daily and seasonally. • Trails and Turf: OLDAs vary in their use of trails and turf. Some combine mowed trails with natural growth, others are fully manicured, and others are long-grass areas with some mowed open space. It depends on the level of maintenance that the administrators are able to provide. ZZ. Table 1: Attributes of Minnesota OLDAs Bloom- ington Champlin Maplewood Rockford Rochester Rogers Shoreview Lake Crow Rice Nesbitt Battle Sarah Hassan Creek and Elm Creek Creek Off- Regional Rochester Park Off-Leash 111th St Park Res. Leash Site Park OLDA Reserve Site Fenced x x X x Natural boundaries x x x x Swim area for dogs x x N/A Tables x x x x x x Trees x x x x X x x Parking x x x x x x x Restrooms x x x x Trash Cans x x x x x x x Permits required x Y-$25 x Y-$25 Mess bags provided x x x Mowed trails x x x x x x Park shelter bldgs Transition Zone/ Double Gates Water x x Surrounding PR/Ag/ PR/Resl Land Use I Res PR/ Res N/A N/A Ag PR/Res I= Industrial PR= Park Reserve Ag= Agricultural Res= Residential N/A= Not Available DISCUSSION/ EVALUATION 23• Park Ownership Investigation of OLDA ownership around the Twin Cities Metro Area reveals that most of the parks are owned and operated by city or county agencies. County agencies such as Hennepin Parks operate the Elm Creek Park Reserve in Champlin, Cleary Lake Park site in Prior Lake, and the Crow Hassan Park Reserve in Rogers. Ramsey County operates its pilot projects at the Battle Creek Off-Leash Site in Maplewood and the Rice Creek Off-Leash Site in Shoreview. Ramsey County is now looking at opening a site in Roseville. Several city agencies have recently opened OLDAs. Bloomington's OLDA opened in 2000. The City of Rosemount opened its OLDA in the early 1990s. St. Paul and Minneapolis have yet to open theirs, although the are in the site selection process or going through an evaluation. OLDA ownership is not always exclusive to cities or counties. In Richfield, the Metropolitan Airport Commission uses some of its land for an off-leash dog exercise area. In another case, the City of Rochester, who opened their park in 1999, teams with the DNR. Planning Considerations 1. Size- Size of OLDAs vary depending on external factors such as whether the park is located on existing park land or newly purchased property and expected user demand. Parks visited by the author in October of 2000 found that the size generally ranged from 10 to 30 acres. 2. Geographical distribution- Geographic distribution will need to take in to account land availability, accessibility and adjacent land use issues. 3. Parking- Owners who do not have walking access to the park would need to have parking provided. 4. Fencing- Chain link fencing, about 4 to 6 feet high, is generally used in those off-leash sites that require fencing. 5. Environmental Factors- As stated in the Boulder policy, "OLDAs should not be located in environmentally sensitive areas that include unique wildlife habitat or where impacts of the fenced area will change the environmental balance negatively. Additionally, OLDAs should not be located on unstable soils and easily eroded slopes." 6. Noise- Also as stated in the Boulder policy, "Fenced dog areas should not be located closer than 150 feet from the nearest resident to create a buffer effect. Additionally, if practical, every effort should be made to locate fenced areas adjacent to tree lines or hillsides to buffer noise." 2+. 7. Signage- Signs should be clear that the area within the fence or boundary is an off-leash dog exercise site. Rules should be posted at this point in easily read letters and colors. 8. Park Amenities- Parks should be sited so as not to interrupt other park activities (if the park is installed on existing parkland). Amenities should create a safe, hospitable atmosphere for both pet and owner, such as picnic tables, litter disposal, open turf and shade trees. Park amenities are determined by budget and site appropriateness. 9. Separation of Park Uses- To avoid conflicts of use, off-leash areas should avoid sharing use with other park activities. For example, bike trails and ball fields should not lie within the off-leash area. User conflict could cause negative sentiment about the park, and make users feel encroached upon by the conflicting use. Physical boundaries may help alleviate this issue. 10. Amending the City Ordinance to include language that would make an off-leash dog area legal is crucial to the process. City Council will need to approve an amendment to the Ordinance. The City of Eagan has at least two provisions in the City Code pertaining to off-leash dogs. The first is Section 10.11, subdivision 2 of the dog and cat regulation: "Running at large prohibited. It is unlawful for the owner of any dog or cat to permit such animal to run at large. The police officers or animal control officer may seize, impound, or restrain any dog or cat found running at large'." 10.23 Subdivision 3 describes unlawful acts in regards to animals in City parks. Part B states, "(it is unlawful to) Bring any dog, cat, or other creature unless cages or kept on a leash not more than six feet in length." This would need to be amended with language permitting dogs to run off-leash in the park's designated dog exercise areas. Rules for Dogs and Owners Like any park, OLDAs must be a collaborative effort by those who run the park and those who use the park. Rules are set up to guide user safety, both human and dog. Rules established in 11 OLDAs nationwide were compared for differences and similarities. The rules analyzed below are posted rules only and may not include recommendations given to park users by other means. For rules found in specific dog areas, see Attachment A and B. Rules common to ALL OLDAs • Vaccinations (or proof of vaccination) required. Cities generally require proof of vaccination to obtain a dog license. In this case, proof of vaccination also needs to be carried on site in case of an incident. • Owners must clean up and dispose of feces. Rules common to MOST OLDAs (5 + of the 11 sample) ' "At Large" is defined in 10.11 Subd. I of the Eagan City Code as off the premises of the owner and is neither controlled by a leash or voice command of owner of suitable age nor confined in a vehicle or a cage." • Licensed pets only. • Owners must maintain verbal control of their dogs.' • Owners are responsible for dog behavior. • Owners must have a visible leash at all times. • Dogs must be leashed prior to and upon leaving the off-leash area. • Dogs in heat not allowed. • Owners must comply with all other park rules. • Dogs showing signs of aggression must be removed. Rules common to SOME OLDAs (>5 of the 11 sample) • Permit required (in some cases a fee in addition to a license) • Dog owners must remain with their dogs and within sight at all times. • Owners are liable for damage or injury inflicted by their dog. • Recommend dogs be spayed or neutered. • Puppies must be older than 4 months. • Digging prohibited, owners must fill holes. • No smoking or eating by owners on premises. • Professional dog trainers may not use park for conducting business. • Do not bring/ closely supervise children. • No more than 2 dogs per owner, or don't bring more dogs than you can handle. If a OLDA was located within existing parkland, it would need to be clear to park users that special rules apply within its boundaries. Physical boundaries such as fencing may help delineate exactly where these special rules apply. A sample of OLDA rules from Minnesota and out of state parks are compared in Table 2 to note the consistency of rules: s As defined by the City of Boulder Mountain Parks, verbal control of dogs means, control of the behavior of a dog which is not leashed or otherwise physically restrained by its guardian or keeper sufficient that the dog does not, without regard to circumstances or distractions: 1. Charge, chase, or otherwise display aggression toward any person or behave toward any person in a manner that a reasonable person would find harassing or disturbing; 2. Charge, chase, or otherwise display aggression toward any dog; 3. Chase, harass, or disturb wildlife or livestock; or 4. Fail to come to and stay with the guardian immediately upon command by such person; And voice control does not exist unless the guardian or keeper exercises this command authority at all times to keep the dog within the requirements of this definition." ZtP- Table 2: Sample OLDA Rules in Maryland, California and Minnesota Green- Palm belt Poway Springs, Bloom- Champ- Maple- Shore- se Policies MD CA CA in ton fin ood R +rs view Liscenced Pets Only x X X X X X Permit Required x X X Vaccination x X X X X X X X Leashed prior to and upon leaving off- leash area x X X X X X X Dog owners must remain with their dogs and within sight/ attend to pets x X X Verbal control of dogs x X X X Owner responsible for dog behavior x X X X X Owner liable for damage or injury inflicted by their dog x x x Owners must have visible leash at all times x X X X Owners must clean up and dispose of feces X X X X X X X X Park provides plastic baggies x X X X' X X Park provides disposal for feces x X X X X X Dogs in heat not allowed x X X X Recommend dogs be spayed or neutered x Owners must comply with all other park rules/ use at own risk x X X X Dogs showing signs of aggression must be removed imediately x X X Puppies must be older than 4 months x Digging prohibited, owners must fill holes x No smoking or eating by owners on premisis x Professional dog trainers may not use park for conduct of their business x Super- Super- Super- Do not bring children vision vision vision Don't bring more dogs than you can 2 dog 2 dog 2 dog handle max. max. max. OLDA Safety As with any new park, starting a OLDA takes a great deal of planning and input by citizens. Safety and addressing citizen concerns are important elements to planning a OLDA, as it will impact the operation and design of the park. Three elements must be considered; the safety of the dogs, safety of the dog owners and visitors to the parks, and safety of the surrounding community. Specific issues were identified by citizens in OLDA communities prior to the park's construction. These issues have been delineated below, with discussion of how they have been dealt with at existing OLDA sites. • Supervision- For instance, are rules are enforceable and by whom, and who settles disputes. In most cases, OLDAs are self-policed, and it is up to owners to be responsible for maintaining control between dogs and between owners. OLDAs tend not to be staffed, and it should be noted that administrators have not expressed problems with the "self-police" method. • Dogs may fight- Hennepin Parks and Ramsey County Parks have encouraged owners to work it out when incidents occur. Most OLDA administrators expressed that dog fighting has not been a particular problem. Owners are required to supervise dogs in the park. Park rules generally require removal of the aggressive dog and ask owners to not bring the dog back to the park. Park permits may be revoked if the dog displays aggressive behavior. • Dogs may form large packs- In their investigation of OLDAs; the Citizen Advisory Council in Minneapolis (CAC) indicates dogs form loose playgroups. Again, dogs must be under owner control at all times. If the owner perceives that the group has become more than a loose play group, they are responsible for removing the dog immediately. • Dogs may create a lot of noise- Planning of the park will help reduce noise to neighbors. Techniques planners can use to reduce the noise impact on neighbors include siting the park away from residential areas, and using buffer material such as trees. • Dogs may escape from enclosed area- Double fencing and fence height can help reduce this possibility. If owners feel their dog is a flight risk, or if they feel they will not have control over their pet at all times in the park, they should consider not taking the animal to the OLDA. • Dogs may transmit worms, illness- In most cases, dogs are required to have a license before entering the OLDA. Dogs are required to have their vaccinations, and proof of vaccination. • Dogs may bite other dogs or humans- There are implicit rules against dogs displaying aggressive behavior in the parks. If a dog bites another dog or human, owners are held liable. Dogs showing aggressive behavior must be removed immediately and may be asked not to return to the park. It is in the best interest of the 2$• owner to determine their dogs' ability to socialize with new dogs and new people prior to bringing them to an off-leash site. • Foul odors from the OLDA may get out of hand- Given that owners are required by rules and encouraged by other park users to clean up feces, odors may not build up and create problems. In some communities, dog-owner groups such as ROMP organize "Clean-Up Days" to walk the park area and pick up stray feces. Since OLDAs are generally self- policed, it is crucial that dog owners know their pets before bringing them to the OLDA. If the pet tends toward aggressive behavior, running away, or ignoring its owners, it may no be appropriate for the owner to bring the dog to the park. An owner's ability to control their dog, understanding the dog's behavior, and following park rules are the most important safety factors in a OLDA. Citizen Participation As with any planning project, it is crucial to involve the public as early as possible. This may be in the form of informational workshops where experts in the animal field can address concerns, or group sessions to determine whether it is feasible to explore OLDAs in Eagan. A citizen task force may help identify potential sites for the park and help with fundraisers. Funding a OLDA Funding is a serious consideration when starting a new type of park. Many taxpayers who don't own dogs are reluctant to spend tax dollars on an amenity they will either never use or outright oppose. Some government agencies have found alternative sources of funding to start their OLDAs. Primary costs are variable depending on the size of the property, whether land needs to be acquired. Some OLDAs are sectioned-off areas of existing parks, others are "stand-alone" was tax forfeit land purchased for the park. Costs would also depend onwhether the park has fencing or natural boundaries, and what amenities would be provided. In discussion with administrators from cities such as Poway and Palm Springs in California, Bloomington, Roseville and Rochester in Minnesota, and literature from the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, it is clear that OLDAs do not necessarily need to be funded by tax dollars. Some alternative funding sources these cities have identified include: • Private donations (as seen in the Poway, California park) • Grant money • Inheritance (as in the case of the City of Rochester, MN) • Increasing dog license fees (the City of Bloomington increased fees 78 cents) • Charging a use permit for OLDA users (Hennepin County, for example, charges $25 for a permit) • Donations from public agencies such as a Humane Society • Rummage/bake/garage sales, individual fund raisers ZR. • Selling personalized bricks and tree plaques (Poway, California used this technique and has said it was very successful) • Fees charged for recreation events planned at the OLDA (Illinois OLDA system) • City/County partnership possibilities/ shared cost programs. Case Studies, Minnesota OLDAs (also see Attachment A) City of Bloomington The city of Bloomington, in response to citizen requests, implemented a citizen task force to help establish a dog exercise area. They investigated land options including a partnership with the County, but the County determined that its parks were too developed in Bloomington. The City persisted, however, and established the dog exercise area as an interim use on city owned land. The area is a 25-acre parcel of rolling terrain, spotted with trees and other foliage. A small pond lies on the east portion of the land for dogs to swim and play in. The area is mostly fenced, with on-site parking and a gated entrance. Installation of the fencing, parking area, and curb cuts cost Bloomington about $25,000. Parks and Recreation Director Randy Quale estimates maintenance costs to be minimal. City maintenance responsibilities include weekly trash pick-up, periodic mowing, and replacement of "mutt mitts;" plastic bags for feces. The City of Bloomington recommends the use of 20 acres or more for OLDA sites, lest the park sites become crowded. They also recommend using public meetings for educational purposes, inviting vets, pet food vendors, and other animal interest groups. They also recommend the organization of a citizen group such as ROMP or a pet owner's association to assist with clean up and other in-kind services. Rochester, MN The City of Rochester was left $100,000 in the will of a citizen to establish a number of OLDAs. In 1999, a 4-acre off-leash OLDA opened to the public. The process of getting the park going was a relatively easy one. According to Dave McDonald of Rochester Parks and Recreation, there was no citizen backlash to the park. He indicated this may have been the result of using private rather than public funds. However, although public funds were not used in the park, Rochester wanted to involve the public in the process. Startup cost for the park is estimated at about $65,000. Fencing took up a bulk of the expense. Land costs are not figured in to the amount. Maintenance costs are minimal; park users are responsible for cleanup and feces removal. The City provides mowing, trash pickup, and general maintenance. MacDonald indicated that the park is a proactive approach to leash laws in Rochester. At this time, there are no leash laws, but the future might see such an ordinance. MacDonald also 30. expressed the positive public response to the park, and stated the park has seen high usage in its 1 year of operation. City of St. Paul, MN In 1999, members of Responsible Owners of Mannerly Pets (ROMP) approached City of St. Paul staff members to request establishment of 5 to 8 off-leash dog areas (OLDAs). The Parks Commission appointed a citizen task force to investigate the one OLDA in the Arlington- Arkwright intersection in the Phalen district of St. Paul. According to City staff member Mike Rossberg, dogs weren't allowed off-leash on any public property. The City recommended an ordinance revision to allow for OLDA's, and provisions in the ordinance were made to make OLDA's conditionally legal. Conditions included getting feedback from the local district planning council, and having the City Council (rather than the Parks and Recreation department) decide whether to allow OLDA's on a case-by-case basis. Feedback was obtained in the form of a survey, which has received 1,003 responses thus far. Citizens were encouraged to attend the public hearings on the matter. The Arlington-Arkwright site will be a fenced 4.5-acre parcel. The City will be responsible for general maintenance and trash removal. Dog owners will be responsible for feces clean up and disposal. The City is attempting to keep start-up costs minimal. The site is already fenced. The City estimates about $2,500 per annum for maintenance, and $800 for environmental monitoring. The City would establish or leave in place vegetation to buffer some of the noise. There is no tax increase associated with the project. The funds would come from an existing surplus or reimbursement from ROMP. The City has had to address neighborhood concerns regarding noise, bites, and neighborhood children no longer being allowed to use the hilly area for mountain biking. To buffer the noise, the City intends to use vegetation. To reduce bite potential, the City has had to assure citizens that this is more a perceived problem than an actuality. But the park has rules state dogs must be within sight and voice control of owners at all times. At a City Council meeting on October 25, 2000, the City of St. Paul decided to go ahead with the pilot program at the Arlington-Arkwright site. The project passed without speakers testifying in opposition and a unanimous vote by the Council. Non-Minnesota: Palm Springs, CA, Poway, CA Palm Springs OLDA, CA The City of Palm Springs, California, established a citizen committee to assist in the establishment of a OLDA. The City Council designated a 1.6-acre parcel behind the City Hall building, and the OLDA began its planning phase. 3~• Rather than use public funds or tax dollars, funds were raised through private donations, fundraisers, and the sale of personalized bricks and plaques to be used in the park. City staff donated time and services. The public arts commission offered to split the cost of fencing. The commission found a California artist to tackle the job. The artist custom crafted an artistic fence to encircle the OLDA and give it a unique identity (See Figure 2). The park amenities can be seen in Figure 3. A $5,000 recycling grant was obtained from the Economic Development Department. The grant allowed the City to purchase park benches, picnic tables, and trash bins that had been previously used. Donations continued to come in for park maintenance and operations. Palm Springs notes a great deal of public interaction at their OLDAs, and community cohesiveness. Jan Truscott, Executive Services Administrator for Palm Springs Parks and Recreation noted that even those who were opposed to the park at first have come around to accept the park. Figure 2 & 3: Palm Springs OLDA Pkil Ev.m. S~lptns l Deai r. Peo_ PALM SPRINGS DOG PARK P..p..J. I Modi$.J My 1998 (WSro..gkt St..t - 14 DDg o. Grin) Mq 13. 1998 32. Aga- I ' .Q O G ae AV, AWAOO SHS44 AEG/u cdt Aar. e-*"6 fixvca REl3/Gl.~ '°RE.° r 7 mo 'AVA = NOTE SoARB.EvtN L W 96 cm= CWr tFNLG WF itq ,e 4110• 11A1- ! i t(iC Ask- £NRf PPU4 SPRlnl6S P PACK CpC4 ciwi~vy E,0vr't A41sa~v-es MlLG OPAUP .tewc Poway, CA OLDA In 1996, the Poway City Council approved funding for a 1.4-acre OLDA in the corner of an existing park. During its investigation of OLDAs, Poway compiled recommendations from other agencies. These recommendations are: • Modify city ordinance to include off leash areas • Fence area in existing parks for special use • Designate early morning and early evening times that dogs may be off leash • Do not allow off leash dogs in neighborhood parks • Provide adequate signs and rules • Enforce strict dog license regulations • Request dog enthusiasts to fund additional fencing and signs • Organize groups to assist in ongoing maintenance of the park. Jim Bentz of the Poway Community Services Department estimated the startup costs to be $23,503. This included mobilization, fencing of various sizes, gates, lighting, irrigation lines, and reseeding. 33. • The Poway park sees about 50 to 150 dogs each day. The park has earned two awards from the state Parks and Recreation Society. The park includes a grassy area with a double-gated entry and removable fencing around the perimeter. (see Figure 4). Citizen efforts have recently focused on a lighting system. Parks and Recreation staff from Poway has been pleased with the citizen response and popularity of the park. Recreation events are scheduled for dogs and their owners have been well attended. From the start, the Poway OLDA effort had been shared between citizens and City staff. This joint effort, according to citizen Bob Burkhardt (the man who convinced the city to pursue the project) is likely part of the reason Poway's OLDA won its awards. Figure 4: Poway OLDA Layout ` WEST 6ALLPIELD umwWlnroll.m. os•wo ~"O FAST FALLELD +J w 7 e ulmn wuvnrsln oene w. fv T IAI 1/ WfffR.iC! , . UM 1Uff~1. • MI ¦fY b • , n - . • ••fl.fptlMbflNMtMKf.MIR-.f6'illil • . Oq.1XtfURfuIMMlf+f.I11i1 •vPV(lWf1-MIflt Yfa . , . •Ml.61NMY1tR1Rf_.fflfMiY!1•. II LIIUInCrLAY t.^ j ' . ~f' : Mf1faY_fIRIIlS46111D11GVG! lluwfCCi-.Rfl.a IN1fE1-M11ME1R4•C /i sl/i MIfL]_IAlfryq VICINITY MAP PDVip~ _ - loll PwW PDWRY CDMMDMIIY PRRK Field Investigation Observations Visits were made to several Metro Area OLDAs in mid-October of 2000. The parks had a variety of terrain and amenities, and range in size from 3 acres to 80. Visits occurred during random afternoon hours of a workweek. Time was spent photographing and wandering about the parks. 34. • Fenced OLDAs were remarkably clean of dog feces. Park users were observed picking up feces of other dogs if the owner had neglected it. • There was a great deal of human interaction. When confronted with a new face, dog owners would ask the new human about the name(s) and age(s) of the dog. • Dog interaction was friendly, despite different breeds, ages, and sizes. This includes dogs that had never "met" before. Owners were present at each new dog "meeting." • A dog showing aggressive behavior was scolded and removed by its owner. She said she would probably not bring the dog back, but would bring the other, non-aggressive dog back to the park. • All of the OLDAs provided a box for plastic bags. In most of them, people had donated plastic grocery bags. It is a shared box- anyone can donate or use the bags. • Owners did not, overall, appear to have difficulty controlling their dogs. Dogs made sure they did not lose their human. • Owners said if they could add anything to the OLDAs, it would be running water for the dogs. Most indicated they would bring their own dish, or donate buckets for others to use. • Most of the equipment at the OLDAs was not new or elaborate. Some just had one or two picnic tables. One park user said that the table was recycled from another park that had received new tables. • None of the Metro parks had night lighting. • Fencing was usually a high chain link. Dogs were not observed along the fence. • Owners expressed emphatic support of the parks. • Some parks have trouble with ADA compliance. Entryways are sometimes narrow and awkward for wheelchair use, and trail materials would cause an impediment to use. • No particular foul odors were noticed. SUMMARY An OLDA can provide dogs and their owners an enclosed area to play and explore off-leash, a feature that is not allowed in other Eagan parks. Good planning and design of a OLDA can protect the safety of park users both human and animal, and safety of the surrounding community. These parks, however, must be self-policed by park users and visitors. Owners must know their dog well, and be aware of the dog's behavior around strange dogs and people. Owners must be willing to follow the posted rules of a OLDA. They must be willing to remove aggressive dogs immediately and pick up their messes. In discussion with most OLDA users, it seems that if someone conveniently "forgets" to pick up their dog's mess, someone else is quick to "remind" them. Cities can let users know that if the rules of the OLDA are not followed, visitor privileges can be revoked. Costs of a OLDA tend to be variable, depending on size, location, and if land needs to be acquired. License fees can be increased, special permit fees can be applied, and donations from 3S the public and private sector can help offset expenses. Costs are dependant on park amenities. If it is a "bare-bones" fenced open space with benches and trash canisters, maintenance needs may only be regular mowing and periodic fence inspection/ repair. Local government costs may also be softened if the County becomes involved in the project. There are many options open to municipalities who decide to pursue an off-leash dog exercise area. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: • Recommend further investigation regarding an OLDA in the City of Eagan. • Recommend not investigating an OLDA in the City of Eagan. • Recommend staff develop a work plan and bring it to the next APrC meeting for approval. 3~. Item: M - 2 D05 Pa rk5 Attachment # I - Fie IoI I AJFS+~ya+ion Attachment A: Metro Area Dog Parks t 1 PaSr') Bloomington Dog Park Year Established: 2000 Size: 25 acres Startup Cost: app. $25,000 Maintained By: City of Bloomington Amenities: • Fenced ir, w ..c xi ~!1 • Natural Boundaries • Swim area for dogs • Tables • Trees _ ~ . - • Parking • Trash cans • Permit required • Mess bags provided • Mowed trails/ area • Water P Surrounding Land Use: Industrial -7177777 Guar"' ~h . niirs Champlin Elm Creek Park Reserve Year Established: N/A <y~Size: 30 acres Startup Cost: N/A yq ~ Maintained By: Hennepin Parks Amenities: • Fenced • Tables • Trees • Parking • Restrooms • Trash cans • Permit required- $25 • Mess bags provided • Mowed trails wYT •"1 Surrounding land use: Park Reserve/ Agricultural/ Residential T-I 4. j x'~r 1. n s Rogers Crow Hassan Park Reserve Year Established: N/A Size: 30 acres Startup Cost: N/A (Hennepin Parks estimates start-ups at about $10,000) Maintained By: Hennepin Parks Amenities: • Fenced (in areas) • Natural Boundaries • Tables • Trees • Parking • Trees Restrooms • Trash cans • Permit required- $25 • Mowed trails Surrounding land use: Park Reserve/ Agricultural/ Residential 1t pJ' Vin.} Maplewood Battle Creek Off Leash Site Year Established: 1997 Size: 10 acres Startup Cost: (est) $6,080 Maintained By: Ramsey County Parks Amenities: • Natural Boundaries • Swim area for dogs • Tables • Trees a x~ • Parking ri • Trash cans • Mess. bags provided • Mowed trails • Sign Board Surrounding land use: Park Reserve/ Residential ti d Shoreview Rice Creek Off Leash Site Year Established: 1997 Size: 10 acres Startup Cost: (est) $1,884 Maintained By: Ramsey County Parks Amenities: • Natural Boundaries • Tables • Trees • Parking • Mess bags provided • Mowed trails • Grassy Play Area • Sign Board Surrounding land use: Park Reserve/ Residential b tZ; IIM~III'I l~ _ eoirn?m ;fir •x f. Rosemount Year Established: app. 1991 Size: app 5 acres Startup Cost: N/A Maintained By: City of Rosemount Amenities: • Marked boundaries N" (split rail fencing) • Mix of mowed and natural terrain f „ 5 Surrounding land use: Public Facility/ City Park Yti2~ +IV'fP City of Rochester Off Leash Dog Exercise Area (photos not available) Year Established: 1999 Size: 30 acres Startup Cost: $65,000 (plus land acquisition) Maintained By: City of Rochester/ DNR Chapter Amenities: I theater, MN • Fenced • Tables • Trees • Parking • Restrooms • Trash cans • Mowed trails • Water Surrounding land use: N/A Subject to approval ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on October 16, 2000 with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Ban, Terri Davis, Cyndee Fields, Floyd Hiar, Barbara Johnson, George Kubik, Dorothy Peterson and John Rudolph. Commission Members N. Mark Filipi and Daryle Petersen were not present. Staff present include Ken Vraa,Director of Parks and Recreation; Jeff Asfahl, Superintendent of Recreation; Paul Olson, Parks Superintendent; Gregg Hove, Forestry Supervisor; CJ Lilly, Parks Planner; Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator; Beth Wielde, Administrative Specialist; and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary. iPPROVAL OF AGENDA Barbara Johnson moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. APPROVAL OF MINTUTES'OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 John Rudolph moved, Floyd Hiar seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of September 18, 2000 as presented. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors wishing to address the Commission under this agenda item. DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Items highlighted by Director Vraa included data collection for the street sweeping study, play structure at Oak Chase Park nearing completion, October 30 Treat and Terror Trails, family and senior trip to the State Capitol in Halloween dress, and the 55 Alive classes. CONSENT AGENDA Dorothy Peterson moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Highline Trail Corridor, Cell Tower Lease. The lease rate was clarified as $3,550/year. Recommend that the request for a lease of an NSP tower in the Highline Trail corridor be approved with the following conditions. • A fence shall be installed around the ground equipment • The site shall be restored upon completion of the installation 2. Gun Club Lake WMO Grant Application for Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Program. Recomment expressing support for grant application by Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization for Nicols Meadow Habitat Restoration Project. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 2 )EVELOPMENT PROPOSALS KENNERICK ADDITION Director Vraa introduced this item noting that this development had previously been reviewed by the Advisory Commission. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth noted that when this issue was discussed in mid- April, the wetland was to be excavated to accommodate the stormwater. With the changes to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act that became effective August 1, 2000, this excavation is now regulated similarly as draining and filling activities. As a result, this development is now proposed not to impact the wetland by excavating. Coordinator Macbeth continued that a stormwater basin would need to be established and connected to the wetland to treat the stormwater generated by this development. He reviewed the specific criteria for accomplishing that task. Macbeth concluded that the plan is a good one and that the developer is comfortable with the changes being proposed for the development. He did caution, however, that the developer would need to pay particular attention to erosion control of the site. Member Peterson noted that everything about this development appeared to be the same as it was in April with the exception of reduced number of lots and the water quality issues. Member Rudolph added that the changes made were 1) the number of lots were reduced from 19 to 17, 2) the average lot size increased from 16,199 to 18,074, 3) the grading, drainage and water quality plans were redesigned and refined and 4) a future street connection to the north is now shown on the plans. Following further brief discussion, Floyd Hiar moved, Joseph Bari seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council relative to the Kennerick Addition: 1. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and 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. 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. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS SUMMER PROGRAM REPORT Director Vraa provided a brief background noting that at their August meeting, the Commission was provided a preliminary review of summer programs. He added that additional information had been gathered to provide the Commission an opportunity to look at the viability of the programs and to see if there was a need to make any changes. Recreation Supervisor Nowariak then provided a very in-depth report on the focused areas of Summer in the Park, Wagonful O'Fun, instructional programs and camps. She noted that there were 725 participants in the Summer in the Park program, 175 in Wagonful O'Fun, 450 in instructional programs and 750 in camps throughout the 2000 summer season. Nowariak then compared programs Eagan offers with other communities. The planning and implementation time line for summer programming was also reviewed. In discussing the philosophy of summer programming, Nowariak noted that staff focuses on making sure that children are recognized by name, emphasis is placed on socialization between participants, emphasis is placed on a fun and enjoyable program, and to ensure diversity of program opportunities. She also commented that there are many benefits that the summer program provides that cannot be measured in statistics including developing new friendships, art, cooperative play, nature, science and sport. In reviewing that mission of the Search Institute, the importance of certain relationships, experiences, skills, values and perceptions were cited as important factors in order for youth to have the most success in life. The assets identified by the Search Institute are referenced during the planning of programs and also passed on to staff working directly with children. One of the most effective ways of determining how programs function, Nowariak continued, was to solicit feedback from participants, parents and staff. To that end, each program has an evaluation form that is sent home with each participant and evaluations are done for each program by staff. Recreation Supervisor Nowariak explained that each evaluation is reviewed and recommendations for program changes are considered based on that feedback. Results of evaluations are also compared to previous evaluations for the program, which results in a continuous evaluation process. Nowariak concluded her report with suggested recommendations for change. They included: • Due to requests for more programming on Fridays, staff will pursue what could be offered on a trial basis for 2001. • Work on the curriculum for Games, Sports & More to offer more variety and consider a name change. • Make staff aware of sensitivity of when and how candy is given to participants at SIP sites. • Time changes were suggested for camps, however, staff will review this issue very cautiously because dates and times hinge on available facilities and staff. • 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. Member Rudolph complimented Supervisor Nowariak on a very thorough report and assessment. He noted he liked the feedback from parents, the fact that staff knows the name of the kids participating, and that they focus on being a good role model. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 4 Member Peterson commented that the evaluation form focuses on the fun participants have had. She suggested that a question might be asked relative to what other programs the child participates in to try to glean how busy parents/children are. Peterson added that Supervisor Nowariak has done an outstanding job in choosing leaders and curriculum for summer programs. Member Peterson asked if the camps have similar curriculum to SIP. Supervisor Nowariak responded that they do. Peterson asked if there have been any comments about parent perception of age appropriateness for a class/camp or feedback on the Behavior Policy and Child Protection Policy. Nowariak responded that those questions are generally received from staff. Member Ban also complimented Nowariak on a good job. He asked if she was satisfied with the number of evaluations received. Nowariak responded that staff may need to find a better way to distribute evaluation forms to try to increase the return. Member Kubik concurred with other Commission Member's comments but stated his support for the "learning is incidental" premise since this is a valuable part of socialization. He added that the use of exit interviews is critical and asked how long the City has been associated with the Search Institute. Nowariak responded that it has been several years since the Search Institute information came out but noted that many of the recommendations the Institute has made, have already been practiced by Parks and Recreation for some time. Member Hiar asked if families have been turned away from programs. Nowariak stated that Summer in the Park and Wagaonful O'Fun have no registration limits but the camps do. Hiar asked if consideration had been given to the consideration of non-resident fees. It was noted that this had been discussed in previous years. After further brief discussion, John Rudolph moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the report by Supervisor Nowariak and recommend that the summer program(s) continue. SPECTRUM COMMERCE CENTER UPDATE Director Vraa provided a brief background noting that the Commission reviewed this development at their September meeting and deferred recommendations because of tree mitigation issues. Forestry Supervisor Hove noted that since the September review of this development, several meetings have provided further review of the site. Hove continued that there are 111,425 square feet of significant woodlands on the site, with three separate significant woodlands identified. Lot I contains 9,875 square feet, Lot 2 contains 35,820 and Lot 3 contains 65,730 square feet of significant woodlands. Development is planned for Lot 2, however there are no development plans at this time for Lots 1 and 3. Hove continued that Lot I has-been identified for future development with no tree removal at this time and Lot 2 will have 100% tree woodland and tree removal for a proposed building and parking lot. Lot 3 will provide removal of 38,610 sq. ft. of significant woodland for a proposed pond to accommodate runoff associated with the construction of public roads in the development area. To compensate the applicant for this additional pond size, and the resulting increased amount of significant woodland needed to be removed, 38% of the woodland's 38,610 sq. ft. has been exempt from the applicants responsibility. The development application results in the removal of 59,758 sq. ft. of significant woodland and the removal of all four significant trees. Hove then reviewed the tree mitigation requirements for this proposal. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 5 Member Davis expressed his concern for the large impervious surface for this development. Member Kubik asked if there would be a perimeter buffer around the pond. Supervisor Hove responded that there would be plant material on 3 sides of the pond. Member Hiar expressed concern for planting a large number of evergreens and suggested that the varieties of trees planted in developments should be monitored. Supervisor Hove stated that of the 180 trees being planted on this site, only 30 are conifer. He added that staff encourages diversity in plantings. A representative from Spectrum provided additional information relative to questions asked by the Commission. He specifically addressed Member Davis' question relative to proof of parking to diminish the impervious surface. The Spectrum representative responded that they did not see a need to decrease the parking needs at this time. Member Davis asked if the parking provided met the needs for Lot 2 only or for the ultimate build-out. The Spectrum representative stated that the parking lot shown was for parking for the development on Lot 2 only. He added that Lots I and 3 will have separate plans. Following further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved and Barbara Johnson seconded a motion to make the following recommendations to the City Council regarding Spectrum Commerce Center: 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 offorty-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. 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. Those voting aye were Cyndee Fields, Dorothy Peterson, Joseph Bari, Barbara Johnson, and Floyd Hiar. Those voting nay were Terry Davis, John Rudolph and George Kubik. The motion passed. Member Kubik commented that he was disturbed that such a large percentage of green space was being lost to impervious surface. NEW BUSINESS 2001 PARK DEDICATION FEES Director Vraa provided a brief background noting that the Advisory Commission annually reviews park and trails dedication fees. It was noted that fees are calculated using a formula based upon the land dedication requirements set by the City and the market value of that land. Director Vraa provided the results of surveys conducted of several metro municipalities for comparison. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 6 Member Peterson asked for industrial/commercial land values for 2000. Director Vraa stated that it depends upon where the property is located; there are no specific values that can be used across the board. Member Davis asked if the Commission used comparisons from other cities when they reviewed fees for 2000 and was there consideration given to the fact that Eagan is considerably more developed than a year ago. Vraa responded that comparisons are typically provided each year for Commission review. Member Davis questioned the viability of comparing Eagan to Lakeville given the lower percentage of development compared to Eagan Several questions regarding how to best determine a percentage increase were discussed with Director Vraa suggesting several options to consider. Member Bari commented that construction costs are up 6-7% and suggested raising the fees 10% above the average shown, with the exception of commercial/industrial. Member Davis commented that if the comparison list is accurate, than that may be an appropriate consideration. Member Kubik noted that Eagan is a very desirable community and has traditionally been behind on fees. Given the declining growth potential, he suggested it may be time to be ahead of average to show the importance placed on green space. Member Davis concurred. Given the number of questions from Commission Members and the need for further review,Terry Davis moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to defer further discussion of this issue to the Acquisition/Development Subcommittee. The direction for the subcommittee was to review fees with a target of 10% above the average of communities identified in the packet. After reviewing the issue, the subcommittee should bring forward a recommendation at the November Commission meeting. SUPERINTENDENTS UPDATE Items highlighted by Superintendent Olson included the paved rink at Goat Hill Park, the retaining wall and concrete slab to accommodate new bleachers, and the Carlson Lake wall that was re-built after the July storm. Olson also commented on the trail and restored turf at Carlson Lake as a result of the storm. Superintendent Olson also provided an update of the Lebanon Hills Stakeholders Task Force which is providing ideas and input of what should be included in this Dakota County Park. Items reviewed by Superintendent Asfahl included attendance at the NRPA conference, completion of the winter Discover brochure, holiday planning by Friends of the Farm for Holz Farm events, fall sports and the up- coming on-line registration of recreation programs. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE Items addressed by Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth included an upcoming conference presentation, which he will update the Commission on at a later date. He also noted an open issue item identified by the Commission. It pertained to the naming of Holz Lake. Macbeth explained that the City Council can elect to name the lake in the City, but if it is to be named through the State, it would need to obtain approvals from the City Council, Dakota County, DNR and then onto the state process. To proceed with the state naming, it was noted that a petition of 15 legal voters with the rational for the name would need to be submitted to the County along with a bond posted by the group. The petition would be sent to the auditor for a County Board of Commission public hearing. Once they took action, it would be sent to the DNR. If endorsed by the DNR, it would be returned to the County Registrar of Deeds and then returned to the DNR. This is the process to get the lake identified on a State map. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Page 7 Member Johnson noted that if it weren't put on a map the public would not be able to find it. She also noted that there was no public access to the lake. She asked if the Friends of the Farm had a strong feeling about the naming of this lake. Member Peterson opined that they would like it referred to as Holz Lake but not necessarily officially named by the State. Following further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved, Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend to the City Council that Manor Lake be known as Holz Lake in Eagan and on the City's map. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS PARK SITE FUND UPDATE Director Vraa brought the Commission's attention to the revenue and expenditure reports for the Park Site Fund noting that there would be a more complete breakdown of the CIP at the November meeting. MOONSHINE PARK UPDATE Landscape Architect/Parks Planner Lilly provided an update of the Moonshine Park planning session. He reviewed the five study items that were identified and further reviewed the components within each of the areas. Member Davis asked if the current driveway would be eliminated. Planner Lilly responded that it would be gated and not open to the public. Member Davis clarified that the Rural Road Plan would include a gravel shoulder substituted for paved parking rather than what was shown in the packet. Planner Lilly stated that a structural analysis is proposed to assess the building's structural integrity and to see if it can sustain the considered modifications. Member Rudolph added that proposals for structural analysis had been reviewed at a recent workshop and the group preferred a local consultant. Member Johnson added that review should continue to determine whether a weed harvester ramp is needed at this site. Member Peterson asked when the neighborhood will be brought into the review process. Director Vraa responded that staff needs to ensure the analysis of the building is completed before bringing residents into the process. John Rudolph moved, Dorothy Peterson seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend to the City Council that the Sabongi Consulting Group be hired to provide the structural analysis of the building in Moonshine Park at a fee not to exceed $14,500. OUND TABLE The Acquisition/Development Subcommittee scheduled a meeting for November 6 at 5:00 p.m. The Recreation Subcommittee scheduled a meeting for November 13 at 3:00 p.m. AA.DJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Joseph Bari moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Secretary Date Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Recreation Sub-committee November 13, 2000 Meeting Summary: Sponsorship Program - Developmental meeting Meeting Objectives: 1) Develop benefits understanding / statement, 2) Develop an administrative plan Benefits: Staff suggest benefits agreement be developed with each individual sponsor. Sponsor related benefits: - Recognition - (demonstrates interest in their community and is an opportunity to educate the community about their business / products, etc.) creates a positive relationship with the event organizer - Tax benefit - Improved image / reputation / impressions - Increased visibility / profile - Self benefit / opportunity for them to network (opportunity for employees ) - Aligns with their mission - May be seeking increased sales and personal contacts with consumers / potential for customer surveys, etc - May need to do this to compete The following is a list of recognition benefits that would become part of any agreement: Pre -event: Brochure, PSA's, flyers, news articles, banners / sign board / marquee Web site , email notices During: promotional handouts / program, announcement, event staff/ volunteer clothing, Banner / backdrop, presentation of recognition gift. Accommodation of space for them to set up a booth / display Post -event: News article / picture, follow up in later season Brochure / city newsletter, involvement with program evaluation, Official City recognition via Park and Rec. Commission and Council, invitation to annual recognition event Web site info. Recognition Reward - (our demonstration of appreciation) Must appropriately relate to the size of the sponsorship value, should be unique, and recognize all sponsors at annual event. Benefits to Eagan" - reflects a resourceful image - adds to the program scope / quality - involve the community / broaden relationships - potential to redirect resources - potential for increased expertise from the sponsor resources Administrative Plan: Necessary components - Commission and Council support - Solicitation is to be coordinated Should have a " menu" of sponsorship program areas that we are seeking and a timeline for organization Research to ID likely sponsors and their area of interest Individual organizations are given a written proposal and personally followed up (this will be the lions share of the work) Other Considerations: - Who does the proposals and follow up work (is this our Department solely responsible? Is there involvement from Commission, Council, other administration?) It is thought that there should be one designated person responsible and that person delegate where necessary and where appropriate. - Do we establish dollar amount targets, and what are they? Does there need to be more than one? It was suggested that for starters we should set one targeted amount and as the program matures we can develop different levels. - Should clearly define our terminology. The Committee suggests that the Administrative Plan be understood to be simply a "Suggested set of Guidelines". We will certainly learn and modify as we proceed. 44 What's next: - Opportunity to introduce the sponsorship program in our Spring / Summer Brochure - Goes to print in Jan. This would be an invitation to organizations to partner with us and become a sponsor. Our preferred menu for starters is: our Evening in the Park Concert series, the Multi Cultural Festival and the Fun Run. The Sub- committee suggested that staff prepare to have an action item on this sponsorship program at our December meeting.