Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
12/18/2000 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
AGENDA ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA Monday, December 18, 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. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 7:03 pm D. Visitors to be Heard 7:04 pm E. Department Happenings Pages 3-4 7:05 pm F. Consent Agenda 7:10 pm G. Development Proposals (1) Silicon Graphics Pages 5-8 7:11 pm (2) Woodstone Townhomes-Tollefson Development Pages 9-13 7:20 pm Pulled - January, 2001 H. Old Business (1) Sponsorship Program Pages 15-16 7:30 pm 1. New Business (1) Skateboard Park Overview Pages 17-27 7:40 pm J. Water Resources Update 8:00 pm (1) GCLWMO Divider Curtain Study (Gun Club Lake Water Management Organization) K. Superintendents Update 8:30 pm L. Other Business and Reports (1) Senior Summary Page 29 8:40 pm (2) Subcommittee Updates 8:50 pm (3) Mosquito Control District Update 8:55 pm (4) Communications M. Round Table 9:10 pm N. Adjournment 9:15 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. 6.•00 p.m. Workshop Lebanon Hills Regional Park System Plan Review ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2000 MEMBERS INAME 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 (31?. 2000) 452-2152 (Home fax) terry.davls@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 X 960 Savannah Road Yes (3 yr. 1999) 763-323-5744 (W) Resigned Eagan, MN 55123 kggutkne@co.anoka.mn.us 5/29/00 X FLOYD HIAR (Alternate) 2000 651-456-0387 (H & W) 1/2001 3720 Knoll Ridge Drive Yes 651-456-0626 (fax) Eagan MN 55122 X 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 daryie.lee.petersen@medtronic.com DOROTHY PETERSON 2000 651-454-6532 (H) 1/2003 4337 Sequoia Drive Yes (3 yr. 2000) Eagan, MN 55122 y 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 (voicemaiij 1on5ioo jrudolph@burnsville.k 12.mn.us Eagan City Staff E-Mail: kvraa@ci.eaaan.mn.us cmesko@ci.eaaan.mn.us poison@ci.eaaan.mn.us iasfahl@ci.eagan.mn.us shove@ci.eaaan.mn.us emacbeth@ci.eagan.mn.us Phone # 651-681-4661 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.) ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION 2000 MEETING SCHEDULE NAME Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 14 20 17 16 19 17 14 18 16 20 18 Joseph Bari x X X X X X X X X X Terry Davis x x x x x X X X X X Cyndee Fields x X X X X X X X X X N.Mark Filipi x X 0* X X 0* X X 0* X Kevin Gutknecht x 0* X 0 Resigned 5/29/00 Floyd Hiar x X X 0* X X X X X 0* Barbara Johnson x X X X X 0* X X X X George Kubik x 0* X X X O* O* X X X Daryle Petersen 0* X X X X 0* X X 0* X Dorothy Peterson x X X X X X X X X X John Rudolph x X X X X X X X X X X = present O = absent O* = notified staff of absence prior to meeting l01§10§00 11 Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acauisition/Develoornent Sub-Cormrittee 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 1. Commission Review Workshop 2. Spring Maintenance Demonstration 3. Review revenue sources in lieu of park dedication 4. Review Docks 5. Seasonal easement at top of Trapp Farm tubing hill 6. Wetland and Setback Buffers 7. Workshop to review packet format/content TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2000 REMINDERS: ¦ There will be a workshop at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 A&B for Commission Members wishing to comment on the Dakota County Master Plan for parks. Commission Members should have received a copy of the information some time ago. The County is not looking for any action or adoption by the City but they are looking for comments on the plan's content. Staff will act as a "collection center" for your comments and pass them on to County staff. ¦ For Commission Members whose terms expire after the January meeting, please note that applications for reappointment are due to the City Administrator's office by December 22, 2000. I will have application forms available at the meeting, or you can obtain them at City Hall. ¦ Finally, you should be aware that Cherryl Mesko will again be assuming the duties of Cascade Bay Manager. This will necessitate some changes in the department's operation because the new duties will (have) use up all of her time as she prepares the facility for the up-coming season. ITEM A: Call to Order ITEM B: Approval of Agenda ITEM C: Approval of minutes of November 20, 2000 ITEM D: Visitors to be Heard Staff is unaware of anyone wishing to address the Commission. ITEM E: Department Happenings Staff will review several items of interest to the Commission and community. ITEM F: Consent Agenda There are no Consent Agenda items for the Commission to review. ITEM G: Development Proposals 1. Silicon Graphics. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth has been particularly pleased with this development plan. They have made numerous and significant changes fro their original proposal to meet wetland and storm water run-off criteria. Eric wanted the Commission to know the efforts the developer made to meet established criteria and follow the process. 2. Woodstone Townhomes is a proposed development on 10.7 acres north of Deerwood Drive across from Deerwood Elementary and Blackhawk Middle Schools. ITEM H: Old Business Recreation Superintendent Asfahl will bring back the Sponsorship Program the Commission initially looked at several months ago. The Recreation sub- committee has recently reviewed this issue and a brief memo outlining the program is provided in the packet. Staff will be seeking a motion to approve the program for implementation. Staff believes this is a good start to a managed program of seeking sponsorships for various programs and events. ITEM I: New Business Several requests for in-line skating and skateboard facilities in the past generated the need for further research. Administrative Specialist Wielde was asked to prepare an overview of "skate parks" for the Commission. Her report is intended to introduce the Commission to the issues associated with these types of facilities and to get further direction from the Commission. Similar to the off-leash dog areas reviewed by the Commission in November, in-line/skateboard facilities are receiving increased publicity and are growing in popularity across the country. ITEM J: Water Resources Update Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth will present information regarding the Gun Club Lake Water Management Organization curtain study. The Commission had previously requested that this information be provided. ITEM K: Superintendents Update Superintendents of Parks and Recreation will provide updates of their specific areas. ITEM L: Other Business and Reports 1. Recreation Supervisor Bolduc will be present to update the Commission on the Senior Program and respond to any questions the Commission may have. No action is required. 2. If there is any additional sub-committee information that should be shared or meeting dates to be set they should be addressed at this time. 3. Representatives of the Mosquito Control District will be present to provide an overview of their efforts over the past year. As part of their public information program, and the community's sensitivity towards environmental issues, the district has asked for the opportunity to brief the Commission on their program. ITEM M: Round Table Future agenda items should be identified or information of importance for the Commission to share. ITEM N: Adjournment 2. DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS DECEMBER, 2000 1. The fall sports programs have come to an end and winter is right around the corner. Winter league registration is as follows: ¦ Basketball - 33 teams ¦ Boot Hockey - 7 teams ¦ Broomball - 29 teams ¦ Hockey - 4 teams ¦ Volleyball - 64 teams All leagues will begin after the first of the year. The winter leagues will be able to view schedules, standings and other league information on www.eaganparkandrec.leaguelink.com. 2. Nineteen Eagan Seniors spent the first day in December dining on Orange Roughy, Chicken Kiev, potatoes, vegetables and ice cream at the Manor in St. Paul followed by a theatrical performance at the Great American History Theater. Along with DARTS and Community Education more than 60 seniors in the Eagan and Apple Valley area lacked off the holiday season with warm food and a warming holiday story about the historic Swede Hollow. 3. Starting Saturday, December 16, many outdoor winter facilities will be available for the outdoor enthusiasts. Assuming the weather cooperates, there will be eleven outdoor rink locations and the Trapp Farm Park tubing hill for Eagan to play at. The Recreation Happenings hotline is set up and the Department encourages people to call before going to a site. The number is 651-681-4670, option #4. 4. The 5-year review of the City's Water Quality Management Plan is on indefinite hold until the analysis of the July 2000 "super storm" and the update of the City's Stormwater Management Plan are completed. At the April 17, 2000 meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission, staff proposed to complete the review of the program no later than December 2000. However, ramifications of the storm have helped to delay the stormwater plan update. Hopefully, the storm analysis and stormwater plan update will be completed in a timely manner so that the water quality review, through the Commission's Natural Resources Subcommittee, can be completed in 2001. 5. On December 4, 2000 by unanimous consent, the Eagan City Council officially named the waterbody near Holz Farm Park, Holz Lake. This name will only be recognized locally, however. Naming or renaming waterbodies to be recognized by state and federal geographic references is a time-consuming process that frequently does not favor using family names for such features. 6. The Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization (GCLWMO) agreed to cost-share up to 10 percent of the total project budget for the $5,000 Metropolitan Council grant to develop Eagan ordinances in sediment and erosion control, buffer setbacks, and wetlands protection. The Advisory Parks Commission asked the GCLWMO to consider such a cost-share during its August 14, 2000 meeting not only because the WMO originally submitted the proposal but also because the WMO could benefit from the work Eagan conducts. 7. Friends of the Farm hosted "An Old Fashioned Holz Farm Holiday" this past Dec 2. This Inaugural winter season event was a great success! It was a beautiful winter day that brought out an estimated 500 participants who enjoyed a variety of musical entertainment, horse drawn sleigh rides, cookie decorating tree trimming activities and more. 8. A meeting to coordinate the outdoor ice allocation for the area youth hockey associations was recently held. The coordinators expressed appreciation for the department's efforts with maintaining quality ice and facilities. 9. A meeting took place on November 27 that involved 18 local teens working with Recreation Division personnel to consider plans for a special event over Spring Break. The teens were excited to be involved and provided excellent ideas! 10. Plans are underway for this years-3rd annual Ice Show at the Civic Arena. Participants in the skating program present this program. 3 11. The Lebanon Hills Park Stakeholders Task Force met on Thursday, November 30th to continue the process of developing a new master plan for Lebanon Hills Park. Superintendent of Parks, Paul Olson represented Eagan at the meeting. The emphasis of the meeting was the refinement of the concepts that had been developed at the previous meetings. The consultant hopes to present a more detailed plan at the January meeting. The emphasis of the plan continues to be preservation and enhancement of the resources, with opportunities for intensive use limited to the periphery of the park or blended into areas of existing development. 12. The park maintenance crew started a split shift schedule on December 3'd to facilitate the flooding of rinks. During the build up period the split shift allows crews to flood twice during the same day; once in the morning and again during the evening. Thanks to the very cold weather all rinks are anticipated to be ready for opening prior to the Christmas holiday period. This will mark the first time in the last four years that rinks will be open on schedule. Once again this season, weather permitting, the "A" sites will be maintained seven days a week (Bridle, Goat Hill, Rahn, Sky Hill, Clearwater, Quarry). 13. The City and its consultant have forwarded to the MPCA an amendment to the original work plan for the mitigation of the North Park site. The amendment outlines the very minimalistic approach agreed upon in concept by MPCA staff at a meeting late this fall. Upon approval, City staff will begin the preparations for implementation of the mitigation and the refinement of conceptual development plans. 14. An inspection of the new bleacher system at Goat Hill Park has been scheduled for early next spring. The inspection by a "certified building official" is the final step towards compliance with the new bleacher safety requirements. All other outdoor bleachers at City facilities are compliant. 15. Staff attended a grant information workshop conducted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in anticipation of applying for at least two grants. A Metro Greenways Planning Grant is being sought for the development of a natural resources inventory and assessment of the City. An Outdoor Recreation Grant may be sought to help fund additional amenities on the new Central Park site. 16. The Park and Recreation Superintendents participated in an orientation session for the two newly elected Council members. The discussion focused on the structure of the Department, programs and issues. A similar orientation will be scheduled for new Commission members. 17. The contract for the construction of the new storage building at Holz Farm Park has been completed. Materials will be delivered this month with construction scheduled for January. Several modifications intended to make the building appear more authentic have been made to the building plan. The project is being funded by the City and the Friends of the Farm. 18. The maintenance division has taken delivery of two new replacement mowers. The mowers were immediately put into service on rink and snow removal routes. An additional high capacity mower will be ordered for spring delivery. Thanks to an intensive program of preventative maintenance the City was given a substantial trade credit for the old mowers despite the fact they were seven years old and had over 4000 hours of use. 19. Three Park Division management stag members recently attended the Minnesota Turf and Grounds Association Annual Conference at the Minneapolis convention center. There were a wide variety of sessions specific to park, forestry and management issues. 4 Date: December 18, 2000 Agenda Item: G-1; Silicon Graphics Action 11 X City of Eagan Information Packs and Recreation MEMO Attachments X 1. Existing Conditions 2. Site Plan 3. Grading Plan AGENDA ITEM: H-1; SILICON GRAPHICS 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 Silicon Graphics development BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Silicon Graphics Inc. has requested approval of a Final Planned Development to allow the establishment of two office buildings (totaling 170,000 square feet) upon two lots located north of Lone Oak Road and east of Lone Oak Drive. The subject site presently overlays four outlots (Outlot A, B and C, Cray 2°a Addition and Outlot G, Lone Oak Addition) which overlay 42.5 acres of land. To accommodate the development proposal, the platting of the property into two independent lots (corresponding to each building) will be required. The site is zoned PD, Planned Development and governed by a Preliminary Planned Development Agreement which specifies office uses as being acceptable. Lot 1 measures 32 acres in size and is proposed to accommodate a two-story, 60,000 square foot building. Lot 2 measures 10.5 acres in size and is intended to accommodate a four story 110,000 square foot building. The subject site in question is currently vacant. The property contains varied topography and three wetlands. This item is tentatively scheduled for consideration at the January 16th City Council meeting. PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: This development would be subject to a cash parks and cash trails dedication. TREE PRESERVATION: A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there 515,897 square feet of significant woodlands existing on site. Most of the significant woodlands are located in the east side of this site. The largest woodland is 316,866 square feet in size. This large woodland is comprised of tree species including oak, aspen, maple, elm, and scattered evergreens. The remaining smaller woodlands are comprised mostly of softwood deciduous trees including quaking aspen, cottonwood, willow and some ash trees. Diameter ranges from of the deciduous trees range 8" to 30", averaging around ten inches. The development as proposed will result in the removal of 122,566 square feet of significant woodlands (23.7% of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, commercial) is set at 47.5%. With a proposed removal less than the allowable amount, there is no required tree mitigation. WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: SPECIAL NOTE: Water Resources staff believes Silicon Graphics and its representatives deserve special commendation for the way in which they worked closely with City staff throughout the development proposal process. Original development designs were significantly modified in order to accommodate existing natural resources: in particular, to avoid impacting wetlands on the site. The wetlands delineation report was of high quality. A thorough stormwater modeling report that was submitted showed that discharge from the site under proposed conditions would be less than under existing conditions. In summary, the overall responsive professionalism with which Silicon Graphics representatives addressed water resources issues has been exemplary. This proposed 42.5-acre development would be located in the City's F-watershed, which is not associated with any of the City's high priority waterbodies. Because of the size of this development and the extent of its impervious cover, stormwater would need to be treated on- site to meet the City's water quality requirements. The developer is proposing to construct three stormwater treatment ponds to address water quality issues. Pond 1 would be located in the southwest comer of the developed parcel. It would treat stormwater from 5.8 acres of the site that would contain 54.0 percent impervious cover. Pond 1 would receive stormwater runoff from the parking lot nearest Building 1 as well as any excess runoff that may exit the elongated wetland (Wetland "C") northeast of the pond. Pond 1 would discharge into the City's stormwater trunk along Lone Oak Drive. It would span 0.4 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 1.2 acre-feet above normal water level. Pond 3 would be located in the north central portion of the developed parcel. It would treat stormwater from 6.3 acres of the site that would contain 60.4 percent impervious cover. Pond 3 would receive direct stormwater runoff from the majority of the parking lot nearest Building 2. It would discharge into Wetland "C," which is being proposed as an infiltration wetland to naturally recharge groundwater. This pond would span 0.3 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 1.1 acre-feet above normal water level. Pond 4 would be located east of Wetland "A" in the southeast corner of the developed parcel. This pond would treat 5.8 acres of the site that would contain 40.4 percent impervious cover. Pond 4 would receive direct stormwater runoff from a portion of the parking lot nearest Building 2. It would discharge into Wetland "A," which, in turn, would discharge into the City's stormwater trunk along Lone Oak Drive. Pond 4 would span 0.2 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 0.7 acre-feet above normal water level. The design of the three water quality treatment ponds is proposed to be according to NURP standards. The ponds would have maximum depths of 10 feet, 10:1 aquatic safety benches from normal water levels, and outlet skimmers according to City design standards. According to modeling results submitted to the City by the developer's engineering consultant, off-site stormwater discharge from the site under proposed conditions would be less than under existing conditions for 24-hour storms of up to 6.0 inches, which is a 100- year event. There are three natural wetland basins located within the project limits. Wetland "A" is in the southeast corner of the property, near Lone Oak Drive and Performance Drive. This 1.6-acre feature is a Type 4 wetland under the classification system of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Type 4 wetlands are inland deep fresh marshes in which the soils are usually covered with six inches to three feet or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes cattails, reeds, and bulrushes. In open areas, pondweeds, coontail, and water lilies may occur. Wetland "B" (City Pond FP-7. 1) is a 0.7-acre resource located in the northeast corner of the property. The Eagan Water Quality Management Plan classifies wetland "B"as "Class IV- Wildlife Habitat." Under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, it is a Type 3 wetland, an inland shallow fresh marsh that is permanently inundated with six or more inches of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, and smartweeds. Wetland "C," which covers 1.3 acres, is on the north side of the project limits. This is a Type 2 wetland, which is an inland fresh meadow in which soil usually is without standing water during most of the growing season but is waterlogged within at least a few inches of the surface. The dominant vegetation consists of 80% reed canary grass, 10% sedge, and 10% sandbar willow. All three natural wetlands fall 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 or fill any of the wetlands or to excavate wetlands "A" or "B" are subject to the policies and procedures of these laws. This development is proposed not to impact any of the three wetlands. In fact, Ponds 3 and 4 are proposed specifically to minimize stormwater impacts to Wetlands "C" and "A," respectively. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. To require that Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) 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. 2. To require that the applicant 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. 3. To minimize nearby impacts to wetlands "a" and "c," the development would need to be set back at least 30 feet from the delineated boundaries of the wetlands. During and after development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of undisturbed, natural vegetation along the wetlands would need to be maintained. 7. 4. All three stormwater treatment ponds should be constructed according to NURP standards. They should have maximum depths of 10 feet, 10:1 aquatic safety benches from normal water levels, and' outlet skimmers according to city design standards. Pond 1 should span 0.4 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 1.2 acre-feet above normal water level. Pond 3 should span 0.3 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 1.1 acre-feet above normal water level. Pond 4 should span 0.2 acres at normal water level and have a wet-pond volume of 0.7 acre-feet above normal water level. 5. To minimize nearby impacts to wetlands "a" and "c," the development should be set back at least 30 feet from the delineated boundaries of the wetlands. During and after development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of undisturbed, natural vegetation along the wetlands should be maintained. Item: G-I • . 'i i%Gon Orurhic5 s» q s Attachment 6jj:5 h•„ 3 eondl~; o a x» 0 a B a g Co , fi ~y` k c.. 8" ,:yi ` i Q a a.w a »sw: s C- - Lu g, R I•:?. t=s .rte F.o_. 'mss' " ;.i_ - =:.-:a~;:;c B'iz': _ - . -:~1;•..'~_''c"--~ 7 4, it - ` f - - v _ ~ - - _ +i: ,~Y'~- l•:{Itr! iii:, f " •l. I ..err I• _ *'~i-• - ~;'.'<'''~.'>:y:::; ii. eau Lh L'~;'II~~1 rr<!• nro `-ma~.-iKBnsri'~.-_ _~I•I': _ o t i,pi i:;/,. .~'i,:•.:,tyytasz?!~fo.: --_.-.~i::`.. - :\:.`i•/r . f~ -s... ilia ••-„f[ra~::~ :~•~"ice=''c.i: _ _ dpi LLJ 0- U z 42 LL) E LLJ Lif f~i OJ J CM N14 Z s 0 w 2i ; s IY F EXISTING CONDITIONS I r~?, Cerra phits Item: Ch-/- ~ 7U) Attachment # 2. 3 i >*e 014r) 1~ / O _ _ I I 11 O H S~ Fil~ ~ .C,aH d i. _ O CC G 3,SZ,ZS.OON i i I: I f"^ Y - I LJ~ 11 3 _ r r a ~ M 01'501.` 1 ?3 ~ $ - .ro.vccos ~9'es Q \ \ M.r.,~f's \l•. ! a n I II\ ~ 3 W ¢ nul. 65 _ \~_~~II , O O F:~ lfiiNJl Q Q F ae.Ml o III, III/ UUUU w uo'IC,~~c ar~u~« k Q Z O O 4-0 +I r W e a8 , 3 I • I C~ ~ w V n ~ 2 o r CL - `3 9``O % v w ° e<srr2. rry Z ~pC' FDA m w Lij L.Li Z J g~ O N~6 O 1 ~ J ° w ~s ~ i 9r i I I p , J ~ i! 3~ r i~ e ~ i v _ M SITE PLAN Item: G-!; Si won (IraphICS Attachment #3• ~jrad;na~ Plan _ : X930_ - ~'i~)~~:' 1.j1;~. I~ IN. ro~. • ~;rl \ ` ~ .\.y ~ 910' I 0'- /yZ r _ ~ - °a ,fs~ Paz $ l o• / _ -x\91: b!, Ida $.i- F C Is 1 © CjOr O .~'KW a tt z Q Li II~I Y Y 4 Y J r a € Q gooi 4 8 Y€ 3 GRADING PLAN Date: December 18,20W Agenda Item: G-2; Woodstone Townhomes Action X City of Eagan Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Aawhmma X 1. Potation Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Site Plan 4. Tree Inventory 5. Lan iti on Plan AGENDA ITEM: G-2; WOODSTONE TOWNHOMES-TOLLEFSON 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 Woodstone Townhomes development BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Tollefson Development is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision (Woodstone Townhomes) of approximately 10.7 acres on property at 1525 and 1535 Deerwood Drive, located north of Deerwood Drive across from Deerwood Elementary and Blackhawk Middle Schools in the NE'/. of Section 21. The proposed development consists of 37 lots for the construction of 36 two-unit townhomes. Street access is proposed from private streets throughout the development with a single access point onto Deerwood Drive to the south. A stormwater pond is proposed to be constructed in the south-central part of the site, ringed by walkout units on Lots 5-12. Exempting dedicated right-of-way for Deerwood Drive and including credit for the existing pond area on the site as allowed by the City Code, the density of the proposed development is 3.6 units per acre. The subject site consists of two parcels, both unplatted, and contains two existing single- family homes and several outbuildings which will be removed with this development. The houses were built in 1964 and 1968. Both existing parcels currently have a zoning designation of A, Agricultural, and a land use designation of D-II, Mixed Residential (0-6 units per acre). The City's Draft Comprehensive Guide Plan (1999) assigns a land use designation of LD, Low Density (0-4 units per acre), to the property. The property slopes down from the north and southwest toward the center of the site and to the northwest. The site contains an existing pond and several wooded areas. The pond, a jurisdictional wetland, is approximately one acre in size and is located in the northwest corner of the site. An existing storm sewer and associated 20' drainage and utility easement crosses the property from northwest to southeast. A private access easement crosses the central portion of the site from south to north; this easement is proposed to be terminated with this development PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION: This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication. Cj. TREE PRESERVATION: A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are two-hundred ninety-two (292) significant trees on site. Species break down is as follows: Species Avg Diameter Dia. Range Count Percent of Total Ash 14" 6"-44" 76 26% Oak 16" 6"-38" 27 9% Pine 25' Hgt NA 39 13% Cottonwood 18" 12"-40" 49 17% The balance of the inventory is comprised of boxelder, silver maple, black cherry, birch, elm and willow with diameter ranges from 6" to 34". The development as proposed will result in the removal of one-hundred forty-seven (147) significant trees (50.3% of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single-phase, multiple-lot, multiple-family residential) is set at 47.5% of the total significant vegetation (139 trees). With a proposed removal greater than the allowable amount, there will be required tree mitigation for this proposal. The required tree mitigation calculates to twenty- two (22) Category A trees or forty-four (44) Category B trees or eighty-eight (88) Category C trees, or an equivalent combination of the three categories. The applicant has submitted a tree mitigation plan that shows the installation of thirty-eight (38) Category B trees. The applicant has indicated that 100% tree mitigation will be achieved through either additional tree planting or through the installation of a combination of Category A and Category B trees. A revised landscape/tree mitigation plan will need to be submitted that shows complete mitigation. According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance, significant trees that exist on- site and off-site are and are to be preserved shall be protected through the installation of tree protection fencing placed at the drip line or at the perimeter of the critical root zone (CRZ), whichever is greater. Also, there cannot be any grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials within this protected area. Two points need to be addressed here. First, the Tree Preservation Plan submitted by the applicant shows several areas (within the development site) where there is encroachment inside preserved trees CRZ's. The applicant should correctly revise the placement of tree protection fence for tree numbers 24, 25, 39, 43, 46, 172, 173, 174, 209, 214, and 217. If encroachment cannot be kept out of CRZ's of these trees, (no grading to occur within tree protection areas), the tree preservation plan will need to be revised and required mitigation increased, as these trees will then be considered as trees to be removed. Following a telephone conversation with the applicant they have indicated that the location of tree protection fencing will be placed at the perimeter of the CRZ, where possible, to avoid encroachment. Where this revision is not possible, other tree preservation activities will be employed, such as final grading with small equipment/hand grading to ensure tree survival. Second, on the private property to the west (Doehling property) there are many existing significant trees (deciduous trees averaging 12" diameter, and conifer trees averaging 30 feet in height) that will require tree protection measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater). According to the applicant following a telephone conversation, a revised grading.plan will be received that addresses this issue. The retaining wall, Deerwood Bend turnaround area, and house pads will be moved approximately ten feet to the east to provide for required tree protection measures (i.e. no encroachment inside preserved tree CRZ's. Also, a tree protection fence will need to be installed appropriately to ensure protection for these off-site trees. Also, tree numbers 241 and 242 have been taken off the preserved tree list because are in areas that will be graded for road construction. Tree number 211 has been excluded from the tree inventory list as it is shown to be located off the development site. These changes are reflected in tree preservation calculations listed above (versus those calculations provided by the applicant). WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS: This 10.7-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. Because of the size of this development and the extent of its impervious cover, stormwater would need to be treated on-site to meet the City's water quality requirements. To meet the water quality requirements of the City, the developer proposes to direct runoff from 6.3 acres of the site to a treatment pond, which would be constructed in the central portion of the parcel. Stormwater from 3.1 acres of the site is proposed to drain into the existing stormwater system through off-site runoff or via overland flow to the natural wetland and then into the 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 35.9 percent, a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.54 acre-feet covering a minimum area of 0.25 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 stormwater draining from 3.1 acres of the development because the development is not proposing to treat it on-site. One 0.95-acre natural wetland is located in the northwest comer of the site. Under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, this wetland (City Pond BP-28) it is a Type 3 wetland, an inland shallow fresh marsh that is permanently inundated with six or more inches of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, and smartweeds. The wetland is 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 the wetland is subject to the policies and procedures of these laws. This development is proposed not to impact the wetlands, so this development proposal is not subject to review under state or federal authorities. As is customary within the City, to minimize nearby impacts to the wetland, the development would need to be set back at least 30 feet from the delineated wetland boundary. During and after development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of undisturbed, natural vegetation along the wetland would need to be maintained. /1. EROSION CONTROL The severe topography in the northwest corner of this development requires proper installation and effective maintenance of erosion control practices to prevent and minimize soil loss and to avoid impacts to the wetland. Water Resources staff has concerns about potential fill impacts to the wetland because of disturbance to the buffer zone and any erosion that may result from construction of the access driveway, installation of the retaining wall, and the building of townhome units 35 and 36. Any inadvertent fill of the wetland greater than 400 square feet (the maximum amount allowed) would require mitigation, under state wetland conservation authority. 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. 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 both on-site and off-site on private property. This will involve installing or shifting the tree protection fence location to the perimeter of the CRZ as required by ordinance and the submission of a revised Tree Preservation Plan. Where this is not possible, alternative tree preservation measures shall be employed. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised tree preservation plan and revised grading plan indicating the installation of the additional above mentioned tree protection measures. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised tree mitigation plan indicating 100% fulfillment of required tree mitigation. 6. The applicant shall be required to contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 7. This development should meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on-site ponding and cash dedication. • The stormwater pond should be constructed to treat 6.3 acres of the site area. It should contain a minimum wet-pond volume of 0.54 acre-feet and should have a minimum area of 0.25 acres. The stormwater treatment pond should be constructed according to NURP standards with a maximum depth of 6 feet, a 10:1 aquatic bench beginning at the normal water level, and an outlet skimmer according to City design standards. • In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 3.1 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $4,535.00 should be required. /Z-. 8. To minimize nearby impacts to the wetland, the development should be set back at least 30 feet from the delineated wetland boundary. During and after development, a minimum 30-foot wide buffer of undisturbed, natural vegetation along the wetland should be maintained. 9. The development shall properly install and effectively maintain erosion control practices to prevent and minimize soil loss and to avoid impacts to the wetland. Any inadvertent fill of the wetland greater than 400 square feet (the maximum amount allowed) shall require mitigation, under state wetland conservation authority. Item: G-2; ~n/oo 15IOne It m hem Location Map Attachment /-Oco ~;oI, MU ms's = 1 • r s d : a ! 7 ¦ 'r ) M I !t! ! ! • 3 ? s Jib g a e 1 ! ! IBM r • i +r S: M~. a ! « • , tw lp 7 7 w ts. • ! y- NO • s J kff l Subject Site ik J 4 , 1j • a Vw R1®j ••e s ¦ ~1 v R Y • y ~ ! w• ¦ 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Development/Developer. Woodstone Townhomes Application: Preliminary Subdivision, Rezoning, and Prelim. PD Case No.: 21-PS-17-11-00, 21-RZ-12-11-00, 21-PD-03-11-00 Map Prepsed fRSI ArcView 1t. Pscd base map dsa provideed u by D= Canty Lard Sway cVIew 1. and is arrant as of Nop id 2DOO. City of Eagan THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W+ E M I N N E S O T A The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information and are S Cw,nrnanay D.v.NyrNet b•~arnn-nt not responsible for errors or omissions. Item: +1-2; Waax s4vre-- %wnhor es y H Attachment #2. Pre m, na rti Pia I xa r i ~ acoo ? RFC MCC i Y I Sa ro 8 re BB R ( I ? E 8 I oa.oo `s.oo ? I 8' 81 a 68 b ~ 8 I I ^ m ~ ro Y~ ro M g all rr x a~» 4 \ 4a ° P w an - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 6 °0 6 ii' •F e2~w 8 8 ' 8 $ g8 8 8 75 m may` x.a 8 ro v ~ / / e~ r x.4 B ) , ` 8 8 ao.q 8a ~ y 8 ~ A¢a xz.a u.oo o _ $ / it x ac4 8' H ya8y VC:1 'O $ - . .w I , MIhZ.2.. NMI I I. A..I. \ / / / I I lT- T _ ~ t ~ n RPP` {-.o to fd s: cg~cc~ 5 1ft t r¢d"i c t c O it =6aEe<c;CC~ t '.~1 [/O~ J Ei:fi v f _ e~ Et !i! `AN : te~o x 1 ` ; tyt! BFI C i `r 8 § rg5LtlE4 ~;5 WOODSTONE TOMNHOYES PRELIMINARY PLAT TOLL£FSON' DEVELOPMENT I~ roc zap ¢v» s»..or If ww. , o> o.:.. rrrrn.. (172, MO-Nar r~... Ila: .M-NOC r•. f[s.; w [[o. PRELIMI. PLAT Item:(a-Z; Wuudsfona ucun hams Attachment # 3 Safe Ptci n 2- 2~1 U N ,I a IR'li 11 ~l I a ro g - ee , 1 •f. 1! n 1' N u j n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N Y N % e a i a a' tl o ".`iI P , I ro ro p~ n Ao ~ d - n I L_1 v 6I \ / ! ~ ? / i ro - \ r Y III a \ b , / V r / G Y ~ ~ I I I/ / L L I ? - ' ~ l~ , / ~ 1J_ 1 J-mil 1 `I ` 1 1 11 I -I 1 1 / all K Ihi el lel e:S ni ;Z: ~8Y,4[/~: /~~1 OO 1 a7 to ~8 137L3 O got ~ 0 ' X D C7 SSE ~ ' x x v iii `X~i~i N y porozrownoMEs ~"a >r 11, PR£LJMJA:IRY SITE Ill' TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT HEDLUND I ti ~ ae~ L.«asii • xoo~Os~w A+K nvc ero,. ou; ua.u~ ere.'.' iem~ .a~ sa ~„aec •....~.....e ns a - L I « res.. .n-ewe SITE PLAN AHO1N3ANI 33 11 013.13a 13a VOSJ97 ! ! 3 Y0Si377o1 onrri~o~~r .crat.Y.;c1.Yr 337lt , , S3AON.VJ1O1 3.YOt saoOA ,..I ~_~J I- - I l i j j I I I :.o t 1~ lil ili illl I~`.~ p II'ill III II 11 I II I' III II I I it I II II I I I'iill j!jjll~l III ~.-k~ s y I I I I .I' I ICI I I , j I I II'i' ' i I III VIII .S~" Q1 V I al I I VIII II II I I II' Y`~ O C C a nil ll l Ij j II rl !III: ~°gib 6 g < i. I II ~I II al a I al II 111 !I~I III I III r I 3 Win III' I V ~ ~ I I,u~;l lil II tl .II I II III I ~ I I I ~t $oO c III i'I[IIIII Hill "'II II I_ a III III .III; .11'111. I Irij III II i I I i I I 1 1 1 111 1 1 I gig Xi II R t/~ i. ~ s~ t-_I i I~ ~•I- ii i ~~I. 39353s913 71- a, i I~I88 1111 y,;,~ 1 - i ! s 12j a~ V- ' JI u it a , ~a.e ,7 i~1. 1 tl s sq 2?I .rSt r I s .y `I _I 1 tl t ; ~ ^ r ~i 3y u ~ h tl . tl I .io r'}. Ij A i y ..i ii. • ai t i 1;~. p II i Fla s a ~ ui aN I~~P~~f~a I Y- `~.+1 i - 1I 1I E ~ ~Gi J nI I~~7 ~-IrI O hL ~d {Itll \ % i y y p y NVE2 hA a+ua/~u »a juaugavud c .uo y wn°I Item: G-2; w00d5" T own homes Attachment #5. 14 _ _ , Gand!cupe_l fnif-I --r011 Plan Z. `I i / I\ II1~ _CC C yo F 61 Ea\ EE ES t [i5 It r [ tt ;Ei ~ / t , 1 1 F~ Ei b( E _i -ri lllyl, ~ i E ~ _ t ~j ,F fr 1 tx • ~ .E [i l ~ r jam, a 1; . , ~ ; v y~l f - ilk •r,ll .T. rI IIl z c F so~~ 1 r 1~ r ~ r T 77, Ilk ' 'III E, 6Ea6EE:g4 J :w EYr~I~ w .i I, ~~'l - -;Y \ /y ter'-- r\tt ~I t1{fs 1 i , J` it It t E fit i[,tt 1{I111ti~ 1€tiff r11fr*1[1t~t1f 1 r r ~fw rJ [ E i~t Jy p..t~t t f{!7TE,f,ii fill I ~ ~ [ ~ ' !s tftF fE ~ ,i{ cie (t iE`ic I RE~i . tE 1t 1 1l b r 1E'~ iE iii sa3~; 'ieecceci aasa ,.,..";t~$£§§§ t~! 4i 1[~~ f; < <E [E EEEEE rrrrrr.rr EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE! t [ r E~ t `t 4.4- It 1r { It-pit z~ ~f:et= E[t `(F tail££aaasF zejcsi[ p ticF£E.:ai([ asF=c:3 .sc ~ I tl ~ if ~ tit Eti F E~i [ti ~ txt[tetk K t~ •tsesat~ F E E~1 t i~~ tt~ ~E t~( t r O FEt E1 i a• <i ft 1:t tiiiiE [ F11FEt ' t 1° iiii:P: j t f r 6f f1€ 1ti{{litittt 1!1'I!P s it it € IFi + 1 { i {;1f~ 1 + tt t tE.,..1ii1 l1..i1 E a ,....1 f1 m 4 0 i EI 1 Etl E i,j1$ ; 1 111~1tji , ; I1, E ;ttflla i {II{tit ,1~i'~{F~' n o ~ 11iat! 11 HIM t ii1Ff 1t f 1 a i'1` a iil [t J ; 11a ~ t11 1E~ r i1 ~ it [t [1 r: i r td.r jr rJr;It t t~~~`t aJ~liE~p~ r ril~lt p d Vf t la 1 [ E i it 11 ti Ft.E..." ifigg G E..^i` ! 6 y r,~ 6 `t !11 i t{f [1 ( t 1• 31 1` . it1f f{if J 6 • 11 [ pi ° p 't1{` ;1 s'r,ii t 1' 'r I t ' f "tr : I t •l It. Sy4 F a C it 15; 1 rCCf CCfE :IS;G;;:~-[ / rtCiCPC 1 EEEEaE rl - t 1 y EE ` t 1 i 1 EE EEEt.EE E I~i r, [t EEcEEEEHEE t z:: l: i: EEEEEEEEtEs 1 :eanri~ O y ii! i~ t i, 'I I! 'I m i PrOODSTON£ TOWNHOUIS °'Q°•"'' I _ II n PR£LIAalXARY LiNDSCAP£ PLZX 1 RED/ UND V B oos~` ~ws~.nu- aI TOLL£FSOX D£f£LOPY£XT w,: cvcwnmvc a.,rmr E 1' E ~ 1 w . - - s_+.. twe a. a~.. uns w r,>- C~ i.".~.iru."wwo-°t.i LANDSCAPE/MITIGATION PLAN Date: December 18, 2000 Agenda Item: H-1; Spomorship Program Actlon City of Eagan Informatlon Parks and Recreation MEMO Attacmnenb X 1. Benefits list 2. Sample invitation cover memo 3. Sample benefits agreement 4. Rec.Sub-Committee Meeting Summafy AGENDA ITEM: SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: JEFF ASFAHL, SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION j ITEM OVERVIEW: Over the past several months work has been ongoing related to the development of an official sponsorship program to be administered by the Parks and Recreation Department. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: At the August 2000 Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the development of an official sponsorship program was discussed. The Commission favored the concept and urged continued development. ANALYSIS: As part of the Commission's interest in the sponsorship program, various items were raised as being important considerations and components to the program and its related practices. The following considerations were raised: ¦ Benefits to each party as a result of a sponsorship need to be identified and understood. (See attachment 1) ¦ An administrative plan should be developed. ¦ The guidelines should consider a position on naming rights. • The guidelines need to be sensitive to other service organizations that are dependent on sponsors. ¦ Possible effects on local business should be considered. The primary intention for considering a Sponsorship Program relates to the belief that current program offerings lend themselves to community involvement. Additionally, because of the mutual benefits of partnerships, many businesses are attracted to the promotional opportunities sponsorships can offer. DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: Over the past few months, staff along with the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commissions Recreation Sub-committee has worked towards the development of a well-organized Sponsorship Program and Guidelines. The following Sponsorship Program Purpose and Guidelines are recommended. SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM PURPOSE ¦ The sponsoring organization and Eagan Parks and Recreation will mutually benefit from the sponsorship agreement. ¦ The end result will provide a higher quality leisure program experience for the community. ¦ A sense of good will towards the community will have been created between all parties involved. SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM GUIDELINES ¦ The initial targeted program areas for sponsorship are: the Evening in the Park program, the annual Multi-cultural Festival, and the Eagan Fun Run. ¦ Sponsors will initially be offered participation at the following dollar amount levels: $150.00 and $500.00. The sponsorship level will relate in value to the negotiated benefit agreement. ¦ The following terminology will be used: ¦ Benefit agreement: The formal, written contract between the Parks and Recreation Department and the sponsoring organization. These agreements will meet legal requirements and will include the appropriate indemnifications. ¦ Sponsor: Organizations that participate at the $500 level. ¦ Contributor: Organizations that participate at the $150 level, or any organization that provides an in-kind (non-monetary) contribution of materials or service. ¦ The Superintendent of Recreation will oversee and direct the sponsorship program. ¦ The Parks and Recreation Department identity and accountability is important to each program and each will be represented in the agreement. ¦ Each program sponsor will be recognized at an annual appreciation event and will be presented with a token item of appreciation (to be determined annually ¦ Through the Department's Spring / Summer edition of the "Discover Us" activities brochure, sponsors will be invited to join in partnership annually. ¦ Each year, a plan will be determined to coordinate the partnership invitations. ¦ Invitations we will be customized and personal. ¦ Solicitation efforts will be sensitive to other local service organizations and the business community. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Recommend approval of the Sponsorship Program and its guidelines to City Council for adoption and implementation in January 2001. 2. Refer back for further considerations. 3. Recommend with suggested revisions. Item: I"'i Sponsors' p progra m Attachment t3ene/ I Lrst Decmber 18, 2000 Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission Attachemnt 1 - List of Sponsorship Benefits 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 could 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 Parks and Recreation - 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 Item: 14-/; 3palisor.5hlp PrUr rare Attachment #2. npln 1nvi +ion Coyer Memo a-~ MEMO city of eagan Contact Name Title Sponsor Name Address SAMPLE Dear "Contact First Name": The city of Eagan Department of Parks and Recreation is now planning our summer "Evening in the Park" entertainment series. We are planning to offer 7 individual performances in a variety of community parks for the summer of 2001. Past program attendance levels have determined that approximately 1700 individuals are in attendance throughout the summer. That is significant exposure. Each night's entertainment is designed to reach families and individuals of all ages. It is obvious that your organization understands the value of advertising. The Eagan Parks and Recreation Department is extending an opportunity for (organization name) to join us with providing another great summer of entertainment in our area parks. You will receive excellent promotional value for your sponsorship with us. Our sponsorship program offers two levels of investment. Choose either the $150.00 Contributor level or the $500.00 Sponsor level. For those interested in larger investments, negotiations are available. Regardless of your investment level, you will receive exceptional local recognition. Following is a sample of promotional benefits that your investment may yield depending on the level of your contribution. - Recognition in our "Discover Us" activities Brochure - Recognition at the performance - Recognition in various public service announcements in the local papers - Exposure to approximately 1700 program attendees - Display space at the performance site As a representative of our department, I will work with your organization to assure appropriate promotional value to your organization in relation to your level of investment. If you have any thoughts as to a service or product that you could provide in exchange for sponsorship, we are ready to listen. I will be in contact with you soon to further discuss your consideration of a partnership with us. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 651 - Sincerely, Eagan Parks and Recreation Rep. Item: 1-I-1; Sponsors/ ip Priram Attachment #3. rnlp~. &n+ 4-.5 Ayreemenf- f`a-~ y MEMO city of eagan TO: Sponsor Contact FROM: Park and Recreation Representative DATE: December 2000 SUBJECT: Benefits Agreement & Indemnification SAMPLE On behalf of Eagan Parks and Recreation, I want to thank you for your partnership with us! Your sponsorship is helping to provide another great season of entertainment in our communities beautiful parks. Please find below the conditions that we have mutually agreed upon. - Recognition in our summer edition of the "Discover Us" activities brochure. - Recognition in all Public Service announcements submitted to Eagan This Week and Sun Current. - Recognition on our Web site promoting the program. - Space at the event for your organization to display your products and services. - Recognition on a banner at the performance site. - Recognition on promotional flyers that will be distributed to all area elementary schools. - Official recognition by Eagan City Council at a future meeting. - Recognition at the event via a program announcement. - Invitation for up to 8 guests to our annual sponsor appreciation banquet. - Acknowledgement of your sponsorship in our winter activities brochure. Indemnification The city of Eagan shall completely indemnify, protect and save harmless (Sponsor) from any and all costs, expenses, liability, losses, claims, suits and proceedings of any nature whatsoever whether brought against the city or (Sponsor) provided that the same arise out of any negligence, or other breach of duty by the city of Eagan. Similarly, (Sponsor) shall completely indemnify, protect and hold harmless the city of Eagan from any ad all costs, expenses, liability, losses, claims, suits and proceedings of any nature whatsoever whether brought on by the city of Eagan or (Sponsor) provided that the same arise out of any negligence, or other breach of duty of (Sponsor) Sponsor Representsative Date City of Eagan Rep. Date Item: N-i; 3ponsors/,i p PrrY)ri n. Attachment ~%b-Cmn,ii°ke Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission k5p- i o4 Z ~ ^q Su ma rct 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 could 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. 11 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. Date: December 18, 2000 J Agenda Item: I-1; Skateboard Park overview {y f Action X Information City of Eagan MEMO Attadbments X t figuration of Select Skate Parks and Recreation AGENDA ITEM: SKATEBOARD PARK OVERVIEW TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: BETH A. WIELDE, ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST ITEM DESCRIPTION: Overview of Skateboard/ In-line Skate Parks, with emphasis on Tier 1 level parks. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Trends in the skateboarding industry have seen an increase of activity in recent years. According to the Skateboard Park Feasibility Study conducted for the City of Phoenix, AZ, skateboarding is the 3rd most popular sport for the 6-18 year old age range. With over 10 million participants nationwide, skateboarding ranks as the 6t' most popular sport overall.' The International Association of Skateboard Companies reports an average sales figure of $500 million worth of skateboard and related products. With skateboarding as a sport featured in the media in ESPN's "X Games," and other various programs on NBC, FOX, and MTV, the industry has proven itself as a legitimate sport for many youth. As with any sport, mixing skateboarding and other public property use can result in damage or injury. Separation of uses by designating areas for skateboard use may mitigate some of this potential hazard. In response to the damage and injury issue, however, several communities have implemented ordinances that ban skateboarding in public areas. Despite such policies, skateboarders continue to practice their sport, since they often have nowhere to go other than the public right-of-way. This creates a safety hazard to both skaters and pedestrians. In response to the needs of those who skateboard, citizens often begin the steps of implementing a skate park. Youth groups will circulate petitions and try to work with local government officials to get a skate park. The City of Eagan currently does not have a policy against skateboarding on public roads and trails, although efforts to discourage this activity are implied. Staff reports problems with skateboarders damaging property at city parks and at the Civic Arena. Stairs, railings, and park benches have been scraped and gouged by skateboards. Edges of benches are wom and splintered. Should the City determine negative impacts of skateboarding necessitate an ordinance to ban skateboarding in public areas, a skate park may meet the needs of skateboarders who would otherwise be breaking the law. Even without such and ordinance, a skate park may mitigate the property damage reported by staff and private businesses. To supplement the operation of the 1The National Inline Hockey Association (USA) i7 large scale skate park in Burnsville, a small scale (Tier I) skate park may serve small-scale skateboarding needs of Eagan youth. Public demand Individual calls and letters have expressed interest in exploring the feasibility of a skate park within Eagan. Teen groups have identified a desire for a skate park. The issue arose in another venue during the earliest phases of discussion about the Community Center grounds. With moveable features found in Tier I parks, it is feasible to explore this option. Several years ago, a petition was presented to the City expressing a desire for a skate park. The result was a collaborative effort between the cities of Eagan, Apple Valley, Rosemount, and Burnsville. Eagan gave the City of Burnsville $5,000 towards construction of their Tier II skate park, built near Burnsville City Hall. Tier H parks, with their more "intense" skate park configuration, have stricter policies and usually an entrance fee. For the recreational user, a Tier II may be larger and more regulated than desired. In-line skaters also use skate parks. Providing an area specific to skateboards or in-line skaters where they can hone their abilities may alleviate some of the conflicts with City property and other park and trail users. Since in-line skating has not yet been banned in many communities, skateboarding will be the focus of this overview. SKATE PARK OVERVIEW Levels of Skate Parks There are various levels, or "Tiers" associated with skate parks. The requirements for these levels determine the policies and insurance rates operators must adhere to. The level of regulation often determines what tier a municipality selects. Tier 1 skate parks have ramps that are no higher than 3 feet. Tier I parks do not require extra insurance for operation, and often do not charge user fees.2 Tier I parks are generally not staffed. Safety equipment such as helmets or knee pads are generally not required. These parks can be any size or configuration, and are often composed of moveable parts for set-up and takedown as the seasons change. Tiers II and above have ramps higher than 3 feet have specific requirements for operation. They must be fenced, supervised, and must obtain extra insurance for operation.3 Safety equipment is required to use the park. In uries One of the problems frequently associated with skate parks is the potential for injury. The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Committee states more than half of skateboard injuries are due to irregular surfaces or collision with cars. Providing a skateboard area away from automobile traffic may be a safe alternative to letting residents skateboard on streets or trails. 2 Harlow, Tim. "X-Treme to Mainstream." Star-Tribune August 23, 2000. E-1. 3 Harlow, Tim. "X-Treme to Mainstream." Star-Tribune August 23, 2000. E-1. Injuries don't only happen to the skateboarder. Skateboards and pedestrians may conflict over use of trails and other paths. A collision could leave the pedestrian injured as well. Providing a space for skateboard use may help alleviate some of the conflicts that can arise when recreational skateboarding is done in pedestrian areas. A compilation report by the National Safety Council and the Consumer Safety Commission based upon 1996 data shows skateboarding at the lower tier of injury percentage when compared to other popular sports (see Table A) Table A: Comparative Injury Rate for Popular Sports t t. •~,its :::::i3: XX: Baseball 36,600,000 437,207 1.26% Basketball 29,600,000 761,358 2.57% Football 14,700,000 409,296 2.78% Ice Hockey 1,700,000 61,264 3.60% Soccer 10,300,000 146,409 1.42% Volleyball 20,500,000 112,120 0.54% Skateboarding 6,200,000 27,718 0.49% Source: National Safety Council and the Consumer Safety Commission, 1996 Ray Vogtman of Hopkins Park and Recreation has cited that injuries at the Overpass Skate Park (Tier II) have been normal injuries associated with the sport; "cuts, scrapes, sprains and broken wristS.4 The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention concur that severe injuries related to skateboarding were uncommon. Moderate injuries such as bone fractures were the most common of injuries. 74% of injuries relating to skateboarding were injuries of the extremities such as the radius and ulna, and 21 % of injuries were to the head and neck. The Committee states, "Skateboards should never be ridden near traffic... Communities should be encouraged to develop safe skateboarding areas away from pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic." According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Committee, skateboard related deaths are most frequently attributed to falls or collision with cars.5 Falls are generally attributed to new skaters, or experienced skaters trying new tricks or hitting foreign substances on roadways. Thus, skateboarders are more likely to be mortally injured outside of skate parks than within. Potential construction costs Skatepark Association USA details some potential construction options and costs. These costs, of course, would vary depending on amenities and associated construction costs. Construction options and associated costs include: Portable/ Wood Skate Parks 10,000 soft $10,000 - $25,000 Wood parks offer the advantage of affordability and portability, but require regular maintenance. 4 Harlow, Tim. "X-Treme to Mainstream." Star-Tribune August 23, 2000. E-1. s U.S, Consumer Product Safety Committee Fact Sheet #93: Skateboards M. Steel Frame Skate Parks 10.000 sq. ft $30,000 Steel frame parks are weatherproof, more permanent, and reasonably affordable. They still require maintenance, though to a lesser degree than wood parks. Concrete Parks 10,000 sq. ft $140,000 Concrete parks are permanent fixtures, and offer the benefit of minimal maintenance. However, any mistakes made in creation of a concrete park are permanent and costly. A concrete Tier I park may not be economically feasible. Insurance Since there is no extra insurance required for a Tier I skate park, this cost is non-existent. However, insuring a Tier II or higher can cost anywhere from $2,500 to $7,500 per annum, according to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.6 Funding Some cities require potential park users to raise the money on their own, but this method shows inequity between skaters and participants of other recreational activities. But this doesn't mean that a skate park has to be 100% subsidized; like any park, alternative funding sources are often used. These options include: • Grants • Public or private donations • "Adopt a Park" programs • Fundraisers with school-age volunteers • Charge fees for "special events" at the skate park 6 Harlow, Tim. "X-Treme to Mainstream." Star-Tribune August 23, 2000. E-1. 20. Components Elements of a skate park depend on several factors, including funding available, the materials used to create the park, and the needs of the park users. Focus groups of youth and other potential users are often formed to determine which ramps and other elements they would most like in the skate park. Configuration examples can be seen in Attachment A. The following elements are examples of wood skate park features under 3' qualifying for Tier I status 7: rlllq Grind Rail Fun 8OX syc`-.vf;,`-':'•`::;~.;~ lt.{~{<;A: z~hs:~;:cK~ ::tN:.~..+ {.y. 'amS:` vim: '..ti......= Yii:;ii``: q'3•}_`i.^kg i Spec?•: xo11 :':4x.+x:?;:,'1>.rc:::,;:::v:: ;t:•K .:ti'.:.(•.'•2,,::;•...:4 YSv:::•:.::,S.iS,'1,.:.1 ~Lyt,:;:j;:;J+:j{i:ii'}t~ 4$41;;4 r:: vi i4••n•: Kinked 41111; ~t.`iLSi:~!{i: ••Iy. ryt:vvj • {:{?C:} '3::dw::.{dv~N11.~\O.{•).+\.1+:1~ii..`:iCv. `ii •nJ\ ih":'}IFSivSp`.is3: Kinked grind box 7 www.suburbanrails.com/pages/plguide.html Zl. 2'lPoomid Ytounc ;;,r, •:i} `_p!•}v ^ ' ?iY p ;,tit .+c::i.::?::..::=::::~::}}},};.crJ'f5: *w` .:ti';Sti.C+ ..•4%t'•:a'a}:o:..Y: Elbow with banks f Zv Issues Generally Associated with Skate Parks Implementing a Tier I skate park takes a great deal of input from users and operators. Citizens and City officials delineated specific issues prior to the skate park's construction. These issues are delineated below, with discussion of some possible steps to mitigate potential problems. "Tagging" and Vandalism- In several skateboarding Web-based magazines, "tagging," or spray-painting graffiti, is discouraged. To quote a one such site, "Too many skate spots get ruined by some kid who is intent on putting his name everywhere he goes." It also encourages users to "...report taggers to the property owners.s8 However, graffiti and vandalism have been cited as a primary skate park expense by some Metro municipalities. Some parks let users know that if the park is vandalized or covered with graffiti, operators may shut the park down for as long as it takes to clean up or repair the damage. Litter- Since Tier I skate parks are self-policed, there is no attendant to watch that litter is cleared as it occurs. Many cities cite litter and trash as the greatest expense associated with their skate park. As with any park that has high daily usage, vigilant daily pick-up is needed to mitigate litter issues. Controversy about charging for the facility- Charging a fee for skate parks at Tier I levels may not appeal to potential users who may just use the street for free. As stated by a park user Dave Rebus, "The day I pay to skate is the day they actually offer something that was impossible for me to find in the public domain. "9 Tier I parks in the Metro area generally do not charge a user fee. Larger Tier H facilities generally charge for use. Requiring helmet and protective pads in a Tier 1 skate park10 With the limited height requirement at a Tier I park, requiring helmets and protective pads may be encouraged, but requiring them may be a detriment to park users who face no such requirements on the street or on trails. Negative or Detrimental Behaviors- Some parks are located close to an operational "home base" such as a City Hall or Community Center. This allows a certain level of monitoring without expending staff. Parks are also sometimes located within existing parks, which are regularly visited by Park staff. Tier I parks being moveable, if one location doesn't work it can be moved. It is important to remember that anything negative behavior that can happen at a skate park could happen at a basketball court, a softball field, or almost any other type of facility. Noise- The Institute of Noise Control Engineering reports at their 1998 conference that skate park noise can be mitigated with careful park planning." Siting the park away from residential areas may help buffer the noise. However, the park location should be sensitive to those who must walk or skateboard to the park. s www.sleestak.net/sameparks.htm 9http://web.cps.msu.edu/%Edunhwnda/dw/park_lx.htn-d 10 http://web.cps.msu.edu/%Edunhamda/dw/park_lc.html Chad Weltzin, Proceedings of the National Conference on Noise Control Engineering 1998, pg. 439-442 Z3. . Stereotypes of Skate Park Users- As with other activities, skateboarding has created a sort of "subculture" that has garnered a negative stereotype through media or word of mouth. But not every skateboarder adheres to the negative stereotype. To categorize all potential skate park users as "punks" or worse is discriminatory and unfair. Skateboarders and are as diverse as any group who shares a common interest. Location According to skatepark.org, Tier I skate parks average about 10,000 square feet. Tony Gembeck, a skate park designer concurred with this estimate. Gembeck also recommends parks be located on existing "pads"- paved areas such as converted tennis courts, paved hockey rinks, and sections of parking lots that are generally unused during the summer months. In fact, Gembeck went on to say that the configuration of a hockey rink is quite good for a skate park, with the rounded walls that can absorb a collision. Planning Good planning of a skate park will determine whether it is a popular site or sits empty on warm summer days. After researching several techniques of planning a skate park, several themes arose repeatedly. 1. Talk to potential users of the facility. Find out what they would consider a "good Tier 1 park."12 Discussion with a focus group of skaters would give the City the best idea of what the users want in their park. 2. Include a beginner's area. Keep it away from the main features; this will help avoid collision and injury 13 This may be less of an issue in a Tier I park, but should be considered anyway. 3. Cleanliness, vandalism. and injuries are major concerns for any park. Serious skaters realize the importance of not vandalizing their park. Trash cans should be bolted down, and brooms available for debris in the skate area. la 4. Choosing a park site15- a. Access- many users will not be able to drive, skate, or bike to the park. Make sure the park is accessible to as many users as possible. b. Parking- Although a great number of users would not be able to drive, there needs to be somewhere for drop off/ pick up, and for users with cars to park that is adjacent to or nearby the park. c. Keep the park away from busy roads- Boards that stray into traffic could result in property damage or injury. d. Separate park uses. Skate parks should not disturb more tranquil park activities or land uses. Noise conflict should be considered when siting the park. Case Studies- Metro Several Metro municipalities were contacted about their Tier 1 skate parks. Responses are seen in Table B. Further discussion is found below. 12 www.sleestak.net/sameparks.htm 13 www.sleestak.net/sameparks.htm '4 www.sleestak.net/sameparks.htm is www skatepark.org 24. Table B: Minnesota Tier 1 Skate Parks Parks N N N .j <<'s Y N y N N N N Y N Y N N >;r 000 0 000 $60,000 $25, $6 , :r„ $39 995 $30,000+ ::::4+y NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE 50-75 (wkdys) Many (no 50-100 75-150 wknds count) 100-150 75-100 N N Y N N Moveable Mixed Mixed Y Mixed Y Y Y Y Y Maintenance/ Litter pickup, grounds clean up/ Garbage park patrol, Repair of Vandalism toilet rental V safety inspections Removal Equipment CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK • To implement the project, the City invited youth to participate on a task force. The focus group was made up of youth who had e-mailed regarding skate parks, and those who had been issued tickets for skating on City Hall steps. The demographic was primarily boys from ages 8-18. • The task force visited various existing skate parks in the Twin Cities area. They were surveyed about what they liked and disliked. • The City decided to work with a Tier 1 park for three primary reasons; insurance costs are lower, there is no protective equipment required for park users (helmets, knee or wrist pads, etc.), and Tier I parks are not required to be staffed. • The City contacted True Ride (a skate park design firm out of Duluth) to discuss Tier I equipment. • The task force was asked to select equipment they wanted. • The City and the task force went to the City Council to propose plan and request funding. • The City purchased land for the park. • Equipment costs were $24,995, and black top and fencing were $15,000. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 26. • The Parks Commission originally recommended the park. • A Tier 1 park was selected because the City did not want to provide staff • After the City Council approved the budget, True Ride was called, and equipment orders were placed. • Construction was done in a 2-phase process; phase 1 cost $15,000, and phase 2 cost $15,000. Additional costs included land purchase, asphalting, fencing, and lights. CITY OF COON RAPIDS • Youth organizations contacted the City Council about the potential of a skate park. Council referred the issue to the Parks & Recreation Commission. A recommendation for such a park was then given to Council. • The City decided on a Tier I park because of the lower insurance, and it would not need to be staffed. • The park is located within a hockey rink, allows the rink a year-round use. • The City found that the need and desire for a park was very strong. "When the park was done, the skaters were there immediately. We did not advertise... we didn't need to." Operators also state, "Our skate park has been the best money the City has spent in the park system. Dollars spent versus hours used by many youth, this has been an economical investment." CITY OF OAKDALE • Oakdale's skate park was included in the CIP process. • Oakdale contacted True Ride for equipment. • While the park is capable of being moved, it is generally considered permanent. Public Works employees are authorized to move components; they are not to be moved by park users. SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE • The Parks Commission presented the idea of a tier 1 skate park to the City Council. • The City decided on a Tier 1 park due to less stringent state regulations, favorable insurance cost/ policy, and there was overall public support for a Tier 1. • The City did not feel it was necessary to go through the RFP process nor hire a consultant; the equipment supplier designed the park. • The $60,000 startup cost for a 65' by 110' park includes fencing. GENERAL ANALYSIS OF METRO SKATE PARKS • The parks are not revenue generators, but are well used. • Averaging costs for the park would be skewed due to variations in size and components. • Most cities chose Tier I parks because of insurance requirements (or lack thereof) and because there is no staffing requirement. • Park operators report heavy use, usually 75-100 users a day. • Most parks did not go through the RFP process. • Focus groups were used in 2 of the 5 cases. • Most parks opted for moveable elements, allowing both variety in configuration and ability to "store" the park for the winter. • Duluth company True Ride was used for 3 of the 5 sample parks, Brooklyn Park, Chanhassen, and Oakdale. 2to • City staff addressed the following concerns before implementing their skate parks: o Size of the park o Safety for a Tier I o Location o "Attracting the wrong kind of kids." Summary A Tier I skate park would provide the recreational skater an opportunity to participate in their sport without posing a hazard to themselves or non-skating pedestrians. The need for a Tier II park is met in Burnsville, but the small-scale recreational skateboarder then has to travel quite a ways to use the facility. The facility may be too large and regulated than the beginner or recreational skater may care for. Eagan citizens have expressed interest in bringing a skate park to the community. A wood Tier I park can be an economical way to meet the need for a designated skating area. Elements can be set up in the warm season on existing pavement such as parking lots or hockey rinks and taken down to allow for winter sports. Tier I parks do not require extra insurance or staffing to operate, thus eliminating those costs. Nor do they pose a specific safety threat, with reported injuries lower than those of many other popular sports. Most skate parks are self-policed, and would need posted rules and policies. Graffiti and litter seem to be the biggest problems in Metro skate parks, and would need to be monitored vigilantly. The high usage of such parks and the increased safety to skaters and pedestrians may make a skate park a worthwhile investment. A municipal skate park survey conducted by Qualicum Beach, British Columbia, states 94% of surveyed communities said their skate park was a benefit to the community. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: ¦ Recommend Staff investigate whether a Tier I skate park is feasible in the City of Eagan, with emphasis on not acquiring any new land. ¦ Recommend Staff does not pursue a Tier I skate park in the City of Eagan. ¦ Other 21. Item: 1-1; S? ?6oar Phi- Attachment #1. C~onfiyu,-, or• o f Attachment A: Design Examples P49~,df a Select 5kah. Panics The Suburban Rails Company out of Athens Ohio provided several designs on their Web Site (shown below). These designs are not all Tier I parks, but are meant to demonstrate the variety of skate park layouts found across the country. All designs shown below are wood structures. Athens, Ohio Charleston, South Carolina 22,400 square feet / approximate price $85,000 12,800 square feet / approximate price $50,000 Findlay, Ohio Findlay, Ohio (design only) t VON 13,200 square feet / approximate price $55,000 12,800 square feet / approximate price $45,000 Port Clinton, Ohio Lebanon, Ohio 7W. 4 12,600 square feet / approximate price $40,000 5,250 square feet / approximate price $22,500 Upper Mainline YMCA - Berwyn PA Cedar Falls, Iowa AW 4 " am- ~ ~ ~'ems f f ri. 11,500 square feet / approximate price $45,000 6,300 square feet / approximate price $30,000 Ridgley, Maryland Yellow Springs, Ohio i 5,000 square feet / approximate price $20,000 4,000 square feet / approximate price $20,000 Elkhorn, Wisconsin Avon Lake, Ohio y4l.' ~ 'F: to .t t". r Yi' 17,250 square feet / approximate price $100,000 10,600 square feet / approximate price $65,000 Date: December 18, 2000 Agenda Item: L-1; Senior Summary Acfion City of Eagan Informatlon x Athichments Parks and Recreation MEMO AGENDA ITEM: Eagan Seniors Update TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Cathy Bolduc, Recreation and Events Supervisor ITEM OVERVIEW: Eagan Senior Citizens Program Team: Update BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Continuing the efforts encouraged by the Advisory Parks Commission in regards to involving seniors in planning programs, the Eagan Senior Citizens Program Team (ESCPT), formerly the Senior Program Development Team, has been meeting on a fairly regular basis to expand and increase the opportunities for senior involvement in Eagan. Originally, 30 individuals were asked to participate in an informational meeting. Since that time, a core group of approximately 12 people have dedicated their time and energy to the Team. DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: In early November the ESCPT developed and organized an informal Senior Forum for City council candidates and seniors to interact and discuss senior issues in Eagan. Approximately 60 people attended the forum to ask questions and listen to views of the four council candidates. ESCPT was very pleased with the forum and is considering organizing the event again in the future. Since that time, the group has been diligently working on identifying a site for seniors to gather and visit each week for cards, coffee and other low-key activities. From the search, they have found that the Banquet Room at Cedarvale Lanes Bowling would be available at no charge on a weekly basis. They are very anxious to start weekly activities and have seen the room and posed many questions to be addressed with the building owner. However, accessibility and ADA compliance is a major concern. ESCPT would like to offer the Eagan Seniors a schedule these activities by January 2001 and is also considering hosting an open house to kick off the new activities. Staff will be at the meeting to update the Advisory Parks Commission further and respond to any questions. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: No action requested. Zy A Reception honoring outgoing Councilmembers Bea Blomquist Sandra Masin for their years of dedicated service will be held Tuesday, December 19, 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. The open house reception is scheduled prior to their final Council Meeting in the Eagan City Council Chambers. The Public is encouraged to attend /on_ /-off Headline: NEW REPORT HIGHLIGHTS STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AMONG YOUTH HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala and Education Secretary Richard Riley today delivered a report on physical activity for young people to President Clinton Promoting Health for Young People-through . Physical Activity and Sports identifies 10 strategies to promote better health among young people through increased participation in physical activity and sports. "This report lays out an important agenda for action to promote physical activity among our young people," said Secretary Shalala. "It provides a comprehensive vision to encourage lifelong health and fitness, and it offers concrete steps to make that vision a reality." "This report should stimulate action to make sure that daily physical activity for young people becomes the norm in our nation," said Secretary Riley. "Not all children will grow up to be Olympic athletes, but all of them deserve to experience the joy and lifelong health benefits of regular physical activity." A major emphasis of the report is the importance for all children, from pre-Kindergarten through grade 12, to participate in quality physical education classes every school day. The report includes strategies to promote participation in physical activity and sports through family activities, after-school care programs, community-based youth sports and recreation programs, and media campaigns. It also discusses the need to promote walking and bicycling by creating more sidewalks, bicycle paths, trails, and recreation facilities in communities. Secretaries Shalala and Riley also met today with interested public and private partners to discuss ideas and plans for implementing the strategies recommended in the report: Today's meeting will mark the start of some key partnerships needed to carry out these strategies. The Sporting Goods Manufacturers' Association will work with HHS, Education and other private partners on a national campaign to inspire youth to participate in physical activity and sports. The United States Olympic Committee will expand the focus of its Champions in Life program, which brings Olympic athletes into the schools, to advance the goals of the report and encourage schools to restore quality physical education to the curriculum. Additionally, the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity will work with the departments to convene an ongoing public-private working group to carry forward the work begun today. Recent studies have documented the decline in physical activity among young people, with resultant health consequences. "We are facing a serious public health problem," said Jeffrey P. Koplan, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "We have an epidemic of obesity among youth, and we are seeing a troubling rise in cardiovascular risk factors, including type 2 diabetes, among young people. Physical activity can help protect our children from these health problems." Participation in regular physical activity and sports can promote social well-being, as well as physical and mental health, among young people. Sports and physical activity programs can introduce young people to skills such as teamwork, self-discipline, sportsmanship, and leadership and socialization: Promoting Health for Young People through Physical Activity and Sports was developed at the President's request by an interagency work group that included representatives from the President's Council for Physical Fitness and Sports, CDC, the Office of Public Health and Science in the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program in the Department of Education. Significant input into the report's focus and recommendations came from 21 private sector partners involved in various aspects of youth physical activity and sports, including the U.S. Olympic Committee For the full report, see the CDC Web site: httv://www.cdc.gov/nccdphu/dash/presphysactret `(t Chris Kimber, Minnesota Council on Physical Activity and Sports (MCPAS) Subject to approval ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2000 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 2000 with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Bari, Terry Davis, Cyndee Fields, N. Mark Filipi, Barbara Johnson, George Kubik, Daryle Petersen, Dorothy Peterson and John Rudolph. Commission Member Floyd Hiar was 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, Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator, Beth Wielde, Administrative Specialist and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA George Kubik moved, Dorothy Peterson seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 Barbara Johnson moved, Joseph Ban seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of the November 20, 2000 meeting as presented VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to address the Commission under this agenda item. DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Items highlighted by Director Vraa included the construction of a new storage building at Holz Farm Park, preparation of rinks for the winter skating season, presentations made by Forestry Supervisor Hove and Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth at the annual MRPA conference, the recent purchase of a used aquatic plant harvester, and the Old Fashioned Holz Farm Holiday event scheduled for December 2. CONSENT AGENDA Terry Davis moved, Barbara Johnson seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Summit Hill ¦ This development will be responsible for a cash parks dedication and cash trails dedication. ¦ This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on- site ponding and cash dedication; o The stormwater pond shall be constructed to meet 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. o I lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 0.3 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $1,055 shall be required Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 2 2. R.J. Ryan Construction ¦ This development necessitates no additional water quality requirements. ¦ 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. ¦ A heavy-duty silt fence should be properly installed and effectively maintained during construction no closer than 30 feet from the wetland boundary. 3. Crane Creek ¦ This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication. ¦ 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. ¦ 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. ¦ 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. ¦ This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements through a combination of on- site ponding and cash dedication. o 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 squatic bench, and an outlet skimmer according to City design standards. o In lieu of ponding to treat stormwater from 4.2 acres of the site, a cash dedication of $5,967 shall be required. o 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. o 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. 4. Aquatic Plant Restoration Grant Application ¦ Recommend the City Council endorse submission to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources a grant application to support restoration of a native aquatic plant buffer around Cedar Pond. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS There were no development proposals for the Commission to review. OLD BUSINESS 2001 PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION FEES Following a brief introduction and background by Director Vraa, Administrative Specialist Wielde reviewed the analysis of dedication fees based on direction by the Advisory Commission in October and a subsequent sub-committee meeting in early November. Several municipalities were contacted for comparison of six specific property types. Calculation of an average fee for each property type was determined followed by formulation of fees that would represent 10% and 5% above the metro sample average. After reviewing how those numbers were calculated, Wielde reviewed the impact to dedication fees based on both the 5% and 10% scenarios. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 3 Director Vraa reminded the Commission that whatever fees they recommended to the City Council, it was important to remember that the fees must relate back to a land value. Member Peterson asked if other cities experienced any hesitancy by developers relative to their fees. Specialist Wielde stated there was no indication. Member Davis clarified that in calculating the metro sample average, both the highest and lowest fees of other municipalities were disregarded. Member Petersen noted that the land values used in calculating the fees seemed low. Director Vraa clarified that the land value is based on raw, undeveloped land. Member Kubik opined that Eagan has been behind the curve on dedication fees and felt they should be on the curve or shortly above it. Member Petersen concurred noting that there is very little land left to develop. Member Rudolph added that he would like to see the City take a more aggressive stand in showing just how much they value preserving land. Following further brief discussion, John Rudolph moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council relative to 2001 parks and trails dedication fees: Parks Dedication Trails Dedication ¦ Single Family Residential $1,499/unit $168/unit ¦ Duplex 1,497/unit 168/unit ¦ Townhouse/Quad 1,360/unit 168/unit ¦ Apartment/Multi 1,368/unit 168/unit Commercial 4,360/acre 948/acre Industrial 3,786/acre 948/acre ¦ Public Facility N/A 948/acre NEW BUSINESS 2001 FEES AND CHARGES Following a brief introduction by Director Vraa, Recreation Superintendent Asfahl reviewed the summary of fees being proposed for 2001. He noted that a survey had been done of other communities and found that the fees proposed are well within the range of similar fees, therefore was recommending no change in fees for 2001. Superintendent Asfahl did note that a policy change was proposed to require local schools, which use park pavilion facilities at no fee, to pay a $300 damage deposit per school. This was an attempt to create more accountability by groups using the City's facilities. Member Peterson asked if there was discussion with maintenance staff to determine if fees charged are covering their costs. Asfahl noted that the maintenance staff concurred that the costs were being covered. As a point of clarification relative to which schools would have fees waived, it was noted that any school in which the City has a reciprocal agreement, would be eligible to use picnic pavilions as long as they provided a $300 damage deposit. All existing policies regarding when fee waived school reservations could occur will remain as they have been established. After further discussion, Daryle Petersen moved, George Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the fees and charges proposed for 2001. Fees for pavilion reservations would be waived in lieu of a $300 refundable deposit with any school that has a joint powers agreement with the City of Eagan7 Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 4 Member Kubik suggested that given the increase in salaries, maintenance costs, etc. it might be helpful for the Recreation Subcommittee to review the fees and charges in greater detail some time during the year. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth updated the Commission on the street sweeping project and added that the Toadily Turtle presentations have begun in local schools. SUPERINTENDENTS UPDATE Superintendent Olson stated that Dakota County would continue to provide snow-grooming services for cross country ski trails and the Trapp Farm Park tubing hill. He continued that flooding of rinks will start on December 4 in preparation for the December 16 opening. Olson also brought the Commission up to date on the Lebanon Hills Stakeholders meeting regarding the overall planning for Lebanon Hills Regional Park. He noted that the plan would be shared with the public on January 11. The final update referenced by Superintendent Olson was the greenspace recommendation appearing on the November 21 City Council agenda. The three elements of the recommendations were to amend off-street parking requirements in relation to the square footage of the building on site, to change the off-street parking dimension to 10' x 19', and to increase the percentage of green space for commercial and industrial properties. Member Davis asked if there was input from the public when this item appeared before the Advisory Planning Commission. Superintendent Olson stated there were none referenced in the minutes. Member Rudolph complimented Commission Members Davis and Petersen for their pro-active role and their work effort to bring this issue to fruition. Superintendent Asfash reiterated that December 16 is the tentative opening date for warming shelters. Other items reviewed included the recreation division's review and development of goals, the December 2 Holz Farm holiday event, the distribution of the winter brochure and planning for the spring/summer brochure, the registration of 107 teams for basketball, and the recent Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association conference attended by several staff in November. Member Rudolph asked if the department was accepting applications. Superintendent Asfahl responded that staff is always looking for additional seasonal staff. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS CIP PROJECTS REVIEW Superintendent Olson noted that the Commission has developed a Capital Improvement Project Work Plan to be funded from the Park Site Fund. The projects identified covered the years 2001-2005. Olson added that the Commission reviews the priorities every year and makes recommendations based on existing needs, which allows some flexibility for changes. He also identified the Mallard trail and acquisition of property adjacent to Blackhawk Park from Ray Miller as examples of projects not previously identified on the CIP. The project summery was reviewed in further detail along with costs allocated for each project. Member Kubik commented that the City has been astute in planning how dollars are spent and complimented staff for the excellent job in keeping costs in line. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 5 DOG PARKS Director Vraa introduced this item and noted that a number of inquiries about bringing an Off-Leash Dog Area (OLDA) to the City of Eagan have been received. After reviewing those requests, staff felt it would be appropriate to review the issue further to see if it might be a viable option to pursue. Administrative Specialist Wielde provided an overview of her research into existing OLDAs. She obtained information from Bloomington, Champlin, Maplewood, Rockford, Rocherter, Rogers and Shoreview. Although each area had elements that distinguished it from others, some of the features included boundary fencing, double gates, water stations, swim area, small dog area, trees, parking for humans, night lighting and trails. Wielde then reviewed the attributes in each of the OLDAs researched. - Planning considerations identified included size, geographical distribution, parking, fencing, environmental factors, noise, signage, park amenities, separation of park uses and amending the City Ordinance. Rules common to all OLDAs included proof of vaccination and clean-up of feces. Rules common to most OLDAs included allowing licensed pets only, maintaining verbal control of dogs, owner responsibility for dog behavior, owners are to have a visible leash at all times, dogs must be leashed prior to and upon leaving the off-leash area, dogs in heat are not allowed, owners must comply with all other park rules and dogs showing signs of aggression must be removed. Rules common to some OLDAs and safety issues were also reviewed. Relative to funding, several options identified included private donations, grant money, inheritance, increasing dog license fees, use permit, donations from public agencies, fund raisers, selling personalized bricks and tree plaques, fees for recreation events at the OLDA and City/County partnership possibilities. Administrative Specialist Wielde noted that Bloomington has a site 25 acres in size at a cost of $25,000; Champlin has a site 30 acres in size; Rogers has a Site 30 acres in size at a cost of approximately $10,000; Maplewood has a site 10 acres in size at a cost of $6,080; and Shoreview has a site 10 acres in size at a cost of $1,884. Based on her visits to several OLDAs, Wielde reviewed several observations and provided a summary of her research. Direction was requested relative to whether or not the issue should be studied further. Member Rudolph asked how many requests had been received and if any existing parks in Eagan met the criteria for an OLDA. Director Vraa stated that several requests have been received and that this is a fast growing amenity being added by many communities in response to their residents. He added that an assessment of existing park sites was not included as part of this research. Member Rudolph opined that many of the OLDAs are fairly recent, which shows a trend toward this type of amenity. He suggested that the City may need to continue to examine the need for a like facility. Member Kubik stated that for something like this to be successful, responsible pet owners are vital. He added that currently there are many dogs that are not leashed nor do their owners pick up after them as the existing ordinance requires. Member Peterson asked if Lebanon Hills Regional Park is considering a dog park in their master plan. Superintendent Olson replied that it hasn't been identified as an option at this point. Member Petersen asked if there was an organized group that might help plan for an OLD, Administrative Specialist Wielde stated that a group called ROMP has indicated an interest in helping any community. Member Davis opined that since we don't know yet what the demand is for this type of facility that further information should be obtained. He suggested talking with Apple Valley, Rosemount or Dakota County to see if some type of joint venture might be considered. Member Petersen asked how the demand could be determined. A survey of residents or licensed dog owners was suggested as an option. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 6 John Randolph moved, and Terry Davis seconded a motion to further investigate an OLDA in the City of Eagan. Member Johnson offered an amendment that limited the investigation within parkland in Eagan. Member Rudolph accepted the amendment, however Member Davis expressed concern that limiting the investigation to Eagan parks would diminish the opportunity to work with surrounding communities and withdrew his second to the motion. The motion was seconded by Barbara Johnson and called. Those voting Aye included John Rudolph and Barbara Johnson. Those voting Nay included Joseph Bari, Terry Davis, Cyndee Fields, N. Mark Filipi, George Kubik, Daryle Petesen and Dorothy Peterson. The motion failed. After further discussion, John Rudolph moved, Dorothy Peterson seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend further investigation regarding an OLDA in the City of Eagan. - SHADE TREE DISEASE REPORT Forestry Supervisor Hove introduced this item and provided a brief background. He noted that Mike Sauer has prepared an annual report and presentation of the status of the shade tree disease program. Hove added that Mike is also responsible for creating the Forestry and Water Resources web sites, which provide extensive information for residents as well as links to pertinent sites to help with their concerns. Mr. Sauer presented a very in-depth presentation on how oak wilt disease is spread and the various methods available for mitigation. He also reviewed a new process where spore checks are done on marked trees in an attempt to track the spread of the disease. In areas where a vibratory plow cannot reach the roots, trees are injected at the roots to help stop the spread. This is a process that has been done for approximately 20 years in Texas with reasonable success. Statistics of oak wilt over the past several years were also shared. It was noted that in 1995 through 2000 234, 194, 155, 101, 80 and 149 trees respectively were identified with oak wilt disease. It was also noted that Dutch elm disease is steadily reducing, which was seen as an indication that the shade tree disease program is working. Member Kubik asked if there was a way for users on the website to make comments and show a phone number to call if they have further questions. Mike showed how users can access the site and how they can obtain almost any information they need regarding their trees. Member Kubik thanked staff for an excellent report and acknowledged the continued efforts being made to reduce shade tree disease in Eagan. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Superintendent Asfahl recapped the Recreation subcommittee meeting relative to the sponsorship program. Member Johnson commented that she appreciated having a written update of the meeting. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS - 2001 Director Vraa reminded Commission Members whose terms expire in January that they needed to apply to the City Council for re-appointment. SET JANUARY MEETING DATE The January Commission meeting date was set for January 11, 2001. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Page 7 ROUND TABLE Member Kubik asked if would be appropriate for the Commission to review the tree preservation ordinance. Member Rudolph suggested that the Natural Resources subcommittee might look at this issue in identifying how best to preserve trees in the community. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Dorothy Peterson moved, George Kubik seconded with-all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.. Secretary Date