Loading...
01/11/2001 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission Approved February 15.2001 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11,2001 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on January 11,2001 with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Bari, Terry Davis, N. Mark Filipi, Barbara Johnson, George Kubik, Daryle Petersen, Dorothy Peterson and John Rudolph. Commission Members Cyndee Fields and Floyd Hiar were not present. Staff present include Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation; Jeff Asfahl, Superintendent of Recreation; Paul Olson, Parks Superintendent; Gregg Hove, Forestry Supervisor; Jim Storland, Water Resources Technician; and Beth Wielde, Administrative Specialist filling in for Recording Secretary Cherryl Mesko. APPRO V AL OF AGENDA Director Vraa suggested combining item E, Department Happenings, and item K, Superintendents Update. Superintendents Asfahl and Olson will be responsible for the presentation. Member Filipi moved, Member Kubik seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 18, 2000 Minutes were not included in the Commission packet and will be reviewed at the February 15th meeting. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to address the Commission under this agenda item. DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Items highlighted by Recreation Supervisor Asfahl were softball team coordination, progress on the sponsorship policy, the writing deadline for the Spring brochure, requests for summer field use, preschool programs, ice rink hotline for rink availability, events of the "Don't Break the Ice" program. Items highlighted by Superintendent Olson include rinks and ice conditions, bringing snow to the Trapp Farm Park sledding hill, the meeting of the Lebanon Hills Task Force where some concept plans were shared (scheduled for County Board review on February 17th followed by a 30-day comment period), renewal of Sentence to Serve contracts, renewal of rental house leases, and trimming along the Highline Trail. Member Ban inquired where funding for upgrading comes from. Director Vraa responded that funds come from the operational budget, that Park Site funds are not used for maintenance costs. CONSENT AGENDA METRO GREENWAY PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION Member Johnson moved to approve the Metro Greenway Planning Grant Application. Member Filipi seconded, with all members voting to approve. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11,2001 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FINCH PLACE, BASIC BUILDERS, INC. Planner Pam Dudziak provided background on the Finch Place development. The property is currently zoned agricultural, and the application requests it be rezoned as single family residential. The site is wooded, and has a pond in the SW corner. The development calls for 23 lots on 2 cul-de-sacs with a private street extension at a density of 2.5 per aCre. City FOrester Gregg Hove presented the tree inventory, showing 427 significant trees on the site, primarily in the northern portion by the water body. Trees on the current farmstead are primarily boxelders and aspens, averaging 14" diameter. 15% of the trees are oak, averaging 14" diameter. Sizes range from 6" to an 84" willow. Hove stated the plan calls for removal of 270 trees (63%). City ordinance states that for this type of property, the removal allowance is 40%, so tree mitigation is necessary. 113 of the trees on this property must be mitigated with Category A trees or equivalent Category B Or C trees. Development plans show 112 trees being mitigated, thus developer must re-submit a mitigation plan allowing for the 1 tree difference. Member Dorothy Peterson asked if custom grading was possible on the site. Hove said it hadn't been proposed, and that it was mOre common to see total site grading. Chair Rudolph asked Hove to elaborate on the expectations regarding hardships, and what hardships were stated in the proposal application. Hove stated the developer is to be held to the 40% requirement, unless hardship was proven. Hove said he had no answer as to why 60% of the trees could not be preserved. The developer was not present to answer inquiries. Member Kubik wondered if the City should be getting legal advice about hardship determination. Member Johnson noted the City has not seen a revised plan as of yet. Forester Hove states the developers have not responded to staff request. Member Daryle Peterson noted that staff has inquired but has had no response regarding revised mitigation plans at this time, although the developer has been notified of the requirement. Chair Rudolph stated the Commission was is a difficult position trying to determine the hardship associated with this property. He stated he was not comfortable taking down trees for roadway purposed and claiming the trees present the hardship. Member Daryle Peterson asked Planner Dudziak to review some planning standards regarding Shoreland Overlay districts and house sizes on the lots. Dudziak did so, noting that all the footprints are conceptual at this time, no dimensions were available, but it meets the 85' standard. Forester Hove noted that the trees will need to be mitigated on-site, and this requirement has been met. Member Dorothy Peterson inquired if any of these significant removed trees will be oak. He noted that there weren't any big oaks on the site. The oaks are about 12 to 14 inches, largest is 24 inches. Most preservation will occur around the water body. He reiterated the "tight" configuration of the development. Water Quality Technician Jim Storland, filling in for Coordinator Eric Macbeth, described retention ponds on the site. He noted that stormwater requirements were met by two ponds on the site. There are about three acres not being treated by the pond. Cash dedication of $5,239 will be required. Storland noted a 30 foot buffer strip encroached on backyards of seven lots, and that protection of the buffer strip is not included in the plan. Water Quality staff would like to see an attemptto preserve the strip by backyard grading or retaining walls. Member Davis asked Storland to identify which lots abut the retention pond. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11, 2001 Page 3 Storland indicated lots along the south and west boundary of the pond. He indicated uncertainty of the exact slope of the back yard areas. Member Davis noted many problems associated with the lack of yard space and grade of the land; fertilizers and other pollutants could intrude into the pond. Daryle Peterson stated the problem with the buffer is the development density. Rather than approve with conditions that would have to be followed through upon in depth, Member Daryle Peterson moved to deny the proposal. Member Dorothy Peterson seconded. Chair Rudolph expressed concern with the proposal, and agreed with the motion to deny the proposal. The vote was unanimous to deny the proposal. Member Kubik requested staff investigate the definition of hardship and the legal implications thereof. GLEN POND 2nd ADDITION Planner Pam Dudziak gave a brief background of the Glen Pond project, including that other plans have been presented to Commission and Council before. The site plan includes three recreational areas, which were not on previous plans. City Forester Gregg Hove noted the trees were generally deciduous. Trees were inventoried by square feet of significant trees rather than numbers. The western 2/3 are regrowth from previous development. Trees along the pond area have been there for a long time, with diameters ranging from 3" to 12". Larger trees lie around the water body. Hove mentioned the development proposes to remove 4 Y2 acres of trees, totaling 68.9%. Allowable tree removal by ordinance is 47.5%, thus necessitating a tree mitigation plan. A mitigation plan has been submitted with the landscaping plan, showing the intention to preserve vegetation around the water body. Of the 255 Category B trees on the site, the mitigation plan shows replacement of 214, with the balance (41) to be placed on adjacent property owned by the applicant. Hove stated that the applicant would be required to submit a plan for the 41 off- site tree replacements. Hove wishes to add that the applicant be required to install 214 Category B trees as on-site mitigation (which has been done), and the applicant submit a mitigation plan showing the off-site mitigation trees, in addition to standard requirements. Member Johnson asked for confirmation that the applicant has indeed met mitigation requirements. Hove said that it has been met by the on and off-site plans. Johnson also inquired whether the proposed ring road would become a factor in this case. Director Vraa stated that the developer had asked that the APrC review the plans regardless of where the ring road would be, since the decision rests with Council and has not yet been determined. The APrC can consider it as a stand-alone issue. Water Resources Technician Jim Storland noted that the stormwater was treated by one pond, by excavating a Type II wetland. To excavate a Type II wetland (which is permitted by state law), the developer will need to submit a "no loss" determination application with the City. They will also need to submit a detailed excavation and grading plan to the Army Corps of Engineers. This will be subject to 30-day public review, and no grading can take place before the 30-day period is up. Chair Rudolph asked if there was a reason that the trees could not be preserved at 68.9%, and asked if the developer was present to ask questions. Dick Krohn of RBA Architects, spoke on behalf of Larry Wenzel of Glen Pond developments. He noted a correction on the recreational space, short about 20,000 feet. There are 228 units, as opposed to 238, but that equates to 68,400 feet, "We're at 46,200." The site plan indicates room around Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11,2001 Page 4 property for recreation space in flat areas around Marice Drive. Krohn mentioned the desirability of the land features. Mr. Krohn stated that one-third of the trees were on the unbuildable wetland, and adapting units doesn't make economic sense. Member Davis inquired how level Recreational Area 3, which is right along the wetland. Mr. Krohn stated that was sloped, but not radically. It could be used for unstructured and pick-up games. He noted that Areas 1 and 2 would be relatively flat. Rudolph asked if that area was being maintained and mowed. Krohn said it was. Member Bari expressed concern over the Ring Road issue, and felt that until the Ring Road issue was resolved, the project could not go forth. He expressed concern that the City Council would not approve the project. Chair Rudolph asked whether efforts of the Ring Road project would cause the project to move, and will it result in loss of recreational space if the buildings had to move. Mr. Krohn said if the Ring Road project proceeded, Recreational Areas 1 and 2 are unbuildable, and the recreation area would be cut in half. Daryle Peterson asked for clarification whether the implementation of the Ring Road would require the Glen Pond project to come back before the Commission. Director Vraa stated that the preliminary plat had been approved, and that the Ring Road agreement had not been set. He stated the new plans would replace the original preliminary plat. Chair Rudolph asked what the timeline was for the development to proceed. Mr. Krohn said that they were slated for the spring. Chair Rudolph asked if all of the buildings would be constructed at the same time, and whether it would be a phased development, a one or two year project. Krohn indicated it would be phased. Rudolph also inquired whether there was a timetable for the Ring Road. Director Vraa said the Ring Road project was supposed to go to the Advisory Planning Commission at the end of the month. Member Davis stated that the plan should be judged on its own merit, regardless of developments on the Ring Road issue, with acknowledgement that the Ring Road could impact the project. Davis expressed that he has no problem accepting it on its own merit. Member Daryle Peterson stated that the project was acceptable in terms of tree mitigation and water quality conditions, and whether these terms were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Krohn stated that the terms were acceptable. Member Davis asked what the intent of the recreation spaces were, and Mr. Krohn responded that they were open green spaces. Member Davis commended the applicant on being sensitive to impervious surface. Member Davis moved to approve the proposal, including the tree mitigation in place. Member Johnson seconded the motion. After brief further discussion by Member Bari, Member Davis, and Mr. Krohn about whether the plan would come back if the Ring Road were to go through, a vote was taken with all members voting in favor to approve the proposal on its own merit. SURE CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Planner Pam Dudziak provided background information on the project, which proposes to include a 31 % impervious surface cover, exceeding the conditional use requirement of 25%. The variance application requests a 9' wide parking stall. Member Daryle Peterson inquired what business would be occupying the building. Planner Dudziak stated it would likely be medical and dental, but other tenants are unknown. Director Vraa said it was unusual for variance applications to come back to the Advisory Parks Commission, knowing their sensitivity to impervious surface issues. Chair Rudolph stated it was unsettling to see the increase given all the work put in to decreasing impervious surface. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11,2001 Page 5 When asked by Member Davis to specify the parking stall requirements, Dudziak stated the ordinance specifies a 10' X 19' stall. The plat shows 19' stalls. Member Davis asked if an 18' stall would be too short for consideration, and if shorter stall would help reduce impervious surface. Member Johnson asked if shorter stalls were included as part of the variance application. Director Vraa stated that there would need to be a variance for an 18' stall. Member Filipi inquired about the reason for the road connection between the two parking areas. Planner Dudziak stated that it was to prevent the parking lots from being isolated from each other and improving traffic circulation. Staff requested the developer create the connection. Member Filipi commented on the conflict between need for internal traffic circulation and desire for less impervious surface. Planner Dudziak provided background on a similar project along Towne Center Drive. Daryle Peterson inquired if the phosphorus loading on O'Leary Lake is known at this time. Storland stated that it was unknown at this time. Dorothy Peterson noted there is aesthetic similarity to nearby developments, that there is no real break in impervious surface in that area. Member Joseph Bari asked about the handicap parking ordinance requirements. Planner Dudziak stated the standard was 1 to every 50 stalls. The handicap parking shown on the plan exceeds the requirement. Member Davis inquired about the four stalls in the SW corner of the plan. He stated that these seemed "tagged on," and wondered if they were there because of the lot connector. Planner Dudziak responded that there had been some changes to the design plan. They are most likely there to meet the numeric parking requirements. Dudziak said that proof of parking is acceptable, and it would need to be shown on the plan that the space is there for the stalls. Daryle Peterson inquired about the parking lot space to the north of the development. Planner Dudziak stated that this is a parking lot to a different development. Member Daryle Peterson asked if there was a way to connect the lots. Dudziak stated that a connection was discussed, but it has not been explored fully. Planner Dudziak stated that they did discuss a second access on the southern stubout, but the slope was too great. Member Davis questioned whether the plan lends itself to an angled parking layout to reduce aisle space. Planner Dudziak said typically a one-way drive aisle is a 16' width. Member Dorothy Peterson mentioned water quality issues and impact on O'Leary Lake. She suggested withholding decision until more information about water quality on this site has been researched. Planner Dudziak said that the major issue is phosphorus runoff, and that staff hasn't yet completed an analysis of runoff impacts to O'Leary Lake. Chair Rudolph agreed. He stated this issue combined with the impervious surface issue would negate all the work done on reducing impervious surface. Based upon the lack of information and impervious surface issue, Rudolph made a motion to deny the proposal. Member Filipi seconded. Member Daryle Peterson wished to note he did not object to a 9' stall, but he does object to the other stated issues. Member Davis said he would like to see more thought on getting to 25%, perhaps by using alternative surface materials on sidewalks or other surfaces. He would also like to investigate the possibility of a "Proof of Parking" alternative. Rudolph commented that as space becomes limited, developers have to try to compact more into a property, and this could lead to similar conflict. Member Johnson asked if Planning staff had requested the driveway on the west side of the building. Dudziak said yes, and they are unsure of exact additional impervious surface. Member Filipi stated the conditions to be met should be listed; the APrC should know what they are. Planner Dudziak, reading from the City Code, listed these conditions. After the vote on Chair Rudolph's motion, the proposal was unanimously denied. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for the Commission to review. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11, 2001 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business for the Commission to review. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE Water Resources Technician Jim Storland discussed three aeration units, described the installation of a solar powered Helix on East Thomas Lake, and wetland restoration efforts on Cedar Pond. SUPERINTENDENTS UPDATE This item was presented in conjunction with Department Happenings. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS SETTING FEBRUARY MEETING DATE With the President's Day holiday on February 19th; the February APrC meeting date needed adjustment. Director Vraa suggested that the February meeting include an introductory session for new members. He recommended that this occur before, rather than during the next APrC meeting. Chair Rudolph concurred with this suggestion. The regular meeting is set for February 15th at 7:00, with an introductory session to begin at 6:00. 2001 CIP UPDATE Superintendent Olson noted that the Commission has developed a Capital Improvement Project Work Plan to be funded from the Park Site Fund. Olson added that the Commission reviews the priorities every year and makes recommendations based on existing needs, which allows some flexibility for changes. Olson reviewed projects that were due for implementation in 2001, including: . Blackhawk Park, parking lot security lighting Northview Park, parking lot security lighting Lexington Diffley, parking lot security lighting Rahn Park, hockey rink light system upgrade Replacement of playground structures, sites yet to be determined North Park, installation of infrastructure. Approval is pending conceptual plans. Planning process will begin upon final approval of proposed mitigation plan by the MPCA and Dakota County. Carryover items from 2000, including: o Moonshine Park planning o North Park mitigation . . . . . . Member Johnson inquired about progress of the contractor review. Park Planner Lilly stated that the engineering review should be done by the end of the month. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11, 2001 Page 7 ROUND TABLE John Rudolph mentioned an article regarding the Supreme Court decision about wetlands jurisdiction. Director Vraa described the ruling stating that the decision would limit the Corps of Engineers power over wetlands, giving jurisdiction to the state. Vraa stated it appeared to increase state rights, but that staff would be investigating the matter further. Director Vraa also described two letters given to the Commission, one regarding parking by high school students at the North Park parking lot, and a letter to Steve Sullivan regarding dog park efforts. Sullivan has responded that the stakeholders group would be meeting, and the topic may arise. He also mentioned a Star- Tribune article about how Minneapolis citizens are becoming discouraged over the slow progress on their dog parks. Member Johnson noted potential conflict should a dog park be sited near residential properties. Chair Rudolph took time to thank Commission Members Barbara Johnson and Daryle Peterson for their participation on the Commission, and wished them well in their future endeavors. Member Peterson encouraged citizens to participate in their local government. Member Kubick presented a challenge for staff to compile a "Best Practices" manual Or brochure for developers. Terry Davis noted that some staff has been pursuing similar things. Member Johnson noted that increased coordination with the Advisory Planning Commission may be a practical and more efficient way to arrive at recommendations. Vraa noted that a more detailed "Morning After" memo is produced shortly after meetings to keep other staff updated on APrC actions. Member Johnson requested that the APrC be given a copy of one of these. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Member Kubik moved, Terry Davis seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.. 2~.~'f2"'-r 1/-1;;:;, L-, Secretary J Advisory Parks Commission l!kjc)5