Loading...
05/20/2002 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission Approved June 17.2002 ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2002 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on May 20, 2002 with the following Commission Members present: Joseph Bari, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, N. Mark Filipi, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, Richard Pletcher, John Rudolph, and Melvin Williams. Commission member Davis was not present. Staff present included 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, Research and Special Projects; Pam Dudziak, Planner; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA N. Mark Filipi moved, Elizabeth Perry seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 18 AND APRIL 15,2002 Member Peterson noted that the date indicated on line 1 of the first paragraph should be March 18,2002. Dorothy Peterson moved, John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of March 18, 2002 as amended. Member Peterson noted the incorrect spelling of Eagan in the Patrick Eagan Park Preservation Committee title. John Rudolph moved, Joseph Bari seconded with all members voting in favor to accept the minutes of April 15,2002 as amended. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors who wished to address the Commission under this agenda item. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE AND DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Items highlighted by Superintendent of Recreation Asfahl included various spring preschool classes and programs, Friends of the Farm events, youth athletic programs, trips taken and planned for seniors, the successful Fun Run and youth development/teen programs. Items highlighted by Superintendent of Parks Olson included awards and recognitions recently received, annual tree sale and Arbor Day celebration, playgrounds at Slaters Acres and Lexington Parks, efforts by maintenance staff to move ahead on spring maintenance program, Metro Greenway program grant, pavilion construction at Central Park and the installation of a new batting tunnel at Goat Hill Park CONSENT AGENDA There were no consent agenda items for the Commission to discuss. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COVINGTON TOWNOFFICE PARK - DAVERN, INC. Project Planner Kirchoff noted that this was a request for a Preliminary Planned Development for an office development and Preliminary Subdivision to create nine lots on 2.82 acres south of Cliff Road on Slater Road. She noted that there is significant tree removal proposed and that the tree mitigation would be in addition to the landscaping requirement. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 Page 2 Forestry Supervisor Hove reviewed the tree preservation issues noting that the development proposed the removal of83.5% of the total significant trees. He noted that the allowable tree removal is set at 30% of total significant trees and that the required tree mitigation calculates to 116 Category B trees. He added that the submitted Tree Mitigation Plan shows the fulfillment through the installation of 87 Category B trees and the balance through a cash payment of$8,700. Hove also addressed other issues relative to the tree mitigation plan that needed to be corrected and stated that a new Tree Mitigation Plan needs to be submitted. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth reviewed the water quality and wetland issues and reviewed the minimum wet-pond volume that would be needed to treat the stormwater generated by this development. He also noted that to the extent practicable, a 30-foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside the boundary of the wetland should be maintained before, during and after construction. Member Bari opined that the biggest issue with this development appears to be the tree loss and he saw no reason to discuss it further until the new tree mitigation plan was submitted. Member Peterson asked if members of the neighborhood had commented on the development. Supervisor Hove indicated he had received some calls. Member Belfiori asked if the developer typically works with the City during the review process to minimize impacts. Supervisor Hove responded that staff works very closely with developers to try to minimize impacts and they are then responsible for responding to those recommendations. David Ficek of Davem, Inc. addressed the Commission and indicated that he had been led to believe from his consultants that all issues were worked out with this development. They were hoping to begin utility work in July and begin construction during the winter. Member Rudolph asked if the Commission deferred this item to June ifit would still meet the development review timeline. Director Vraa indicated that this proposal could proceed to the Advisory Planning Commission and have time to come back to the APrC prior to Council review in June. After further brief discussion, Joseph Bari moved, Melvin Williams seconded with all members voting in favor to defer action on the CovingtonTownoffice Park until a revised tree mitigation plan is received and acceptable to staff and the Advisory Parks Commission. GIFT OF MARY CHILDREN'S HOME Planner Dudziak introduced this item as a request to rezone 35.5 acres of Agricultural land to Planned Development and a Preliminary Planned Development on property north ofHwy 55 bordering Inver Grove Heights. She explained that the proposed development is residential/school incorporating 20 two-story residential units to house up to 10 children and 2-3 adults in each. The school is proposed to be 95,000 sq. ft and the site will also provide for several playgrounds, sports fields and a pedestrian walkway system. Planner Dudziak reviewed the existing site and what elements were planned to remain. Forestry Supervisor Hove provided a brief overview of the vegetation on the site. He noted there were 503 significant trees indicated in the tree inventory and described the species that ranged from 6" to 30" in diameter. The development proposes the removal of226 significant trees (44.9%), which is above the 30% allowed by the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance. Hove explained that the mitigation required for this development equates to 176 Category B trees and felt that they could comfortably be accommodated within the proposed site. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth identified and located the 5 wetlands totaling 2.86 acres on the development parcel. He noted that the delineation was conducted during the non-growing season and that field verification of the delineation is required to be done before final approval. Macbeth noted that the first wetland is not specifically designated as a public water wetland by the DNR, however due to its proximity to such a public water in the northeast portion of the site, it appears to be hydrologically connected to the public water wetland. Macbeth then identified Wetland 2 as a Type 1, seasonally flooded basin; Wetland 3 as a Type 3 wetland; Wetland 4 as a Type 1 wetland and Wetland 5 as a Type 2 wetland. He identified each of them on a location map and described the characteristics of each. He noted that 20% (.57 acre or 24,957 square feet) of the wetland area is proposed to be filled by this development and that no draining or filling is proposed. Macbeth explained that Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20,2002 Page 3 because of the proposed fill impacts to wetlands, this development would be subject to replacement plan provisions of the WCA. He noted that wetland restoration or creation is required on a 2: 1 basis, with at least 1: 1 of that basis being 33,276 square feet of public value credit (buffer areas, stormwater treatment basins, etc) and that public value credit is factored on a .75 basis. Coordinator Macbeth concluded by stating that the proposed wetland replacement plan is subject to appropriate public noticing, review and final review by the City. Member Rudolph asked if any of the wetlands are open water. Macbeth responded that a small part of Wetland 1 was. He added that there is a plan to upgrade Lone Oak Road within 3 years and that may significantly impact both Wetlands 1 and 2. Member Peterson asked when the wetlands would be verified. Macbeth responded that it could be any time the consultants are ready. Member Belfiori suggested that the Technical Evaluation Panel be brought in to independently review this complicated site. Coordinator Macbeth concurred that would be a good option. Director Vraa reviewed the amenities proposed for the site including softball field, tennis courts, playground, internal walking paths, community center and athletic field with overflow event parking. He reminded the Commission that it has the latitude to provide credit against cash park dedication when the developer provides significant park amenities. Director Vraa then reviewed several options for parks dedication for the Commission to consider. Those included full cash parks dedication; no parks dedication but enter into a joint use agreement with the developer for use of their recreational areas; issue a credit to park dedication fees based on the lack of impact to existing park facilities; defer cash parks dedication to a future date whenlifthe land use changes from it's current use. He did note that the development would be subject to a cash trails dedication. Discussion relative to the parks dedication included concern that this would not be a good candidate for a joint use agreement because of the proposed use by the facility. Members Rudolph and Bari did not support deferring the parks dedication but discussed providing a credit for the amenities being proposed on the site. Member Danner expressed a preference for deferring the parks dedication fees similarly to past practice for a school or church particularly because they are providing so many amenities on site. Member Bari asked if there was a formula for calculating a credit for amenities. Director Vraa stated that although there is no specific formula, the Commission would need to weigh the amenities provided on site against the demand for services on other park facilities. He added that previous practice has not exceeded a 25% credit for parks dedication however there has not been such an extensive provision for park amenities in any previously proposed development. Member Perry pointed out that if the Commission were to request a land dedication it would be for approximately 3.5 acres. This development is proposing approximately 6.5 acres for recreational space. Director Vraa confirmed that the proposed acreage does exceed a required park land dedication requirement. Member Peterson indicated her support of deferring the parks dedication but suggested that the soccer field design be changed to a north/south orientation rather than east/west as shown. After further brief discussion, Margo Danner moved, Dorothy Peterson seconded a motion to defer the full cash parks dedication for this proposal. If the land use changes in the future, the parks dedication fee will be payable based on the fee at that time. Those voting Aye included Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, N. Mark Filipi, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, Richard Pletcher and Melvin Williams. Members Rudolph and Bari voted Nay. The motion passed. Dorothy Peterson moved, Elizabeth Perry seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend that this proposal be responsible for a cash trails dedication. Don Elsenheimer, 3912 Westbury Way addressed the Commission about the wetland and tree preservation plan proposed for this development. He opined that the proposal as presented will alter the natural environment of the site. Dr. Elsenheimer then presented a very extensive review and analysis of the wetland alterations and delineation based on his research and knowledge of the site. He expressed concern that there appeared to have been no discussion about the water table depth and that the Pinnacle wetland location map poorly matches the plan sheets. He opined that the wetland is dependent on water run-off to remain wet and that the proposed mitigation plan will not work because it takes the water supply away from the wetland. Dr. Elsenheimer further stated that the Corp of Engineers has yet to waive jurisdiction and that the wetlands application has not yet been released to the public. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 Page 4 Dr. Elsenheimer also expressed concern for the extensive removal of trees including a 30" diameter oak. He added that stands of trees will be cut down to build a connecting road between the homes and school, event parking, stormwater pond and a wetland mitigation area. Elsenheimer suggested that if the site were divided into northern and southern lots and developed separately significant woodlands could be preserved. Dr. Elsenheimer concluded his presentation by asking the Commission to postpone or reject the proposal because of the wetland and tree preservation issues outlined in his presentation. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth was asked to respond to Dr. Elsenheimer's comments. Macbeth stated he had no basis to refute any of the information provided by Dr. Elsenheimer. With respect to the Corp of Engineer's review, Macbeth opined they would probably waive jurisdiction. Dr. Elsenheimer pointed out that the 30-day wetland review conflicts with the 60-day development review time line required of the City for a development. The developer's representative responded that in response to the northern wetlands, it was their understanding that they will most likely be removed/impacted at the time when Lone Oak Road is upgraded. He added that he had also heard that Hwy 55 was also slated for expansion in the future and that the wetlands to the south could also be impacted. It was noted that tree removal needed to occur to connect the north portion of the site to the south. The developer's representative responded that they would work with staff to incorporate the 18 trees that were missed in the initial tree mitigation Dr. Elsenheimer opined that the upgrade of Lone Oak Road would trigger an EA W or EIS before the wetlands could be impacted. He also stated that he hasn't seen a plan that shows the exact location of tree mitigation. Responding to the 30-day review required for wetlands, Member Belfiori stated that cities routinely approve projects conlingent upon this review and explained the 30 day public review process. He suggested that the Technical Evaluation Panel be convened for the analysis of the 5-3-02 delineation, sequencing, water quality impacts, groundwater recharge, mitigation and the grading impacts on drainage. He added that the Commission's recommendation would be contingent upon the Technical Evaluation Panel's recommendations for approval. After further brief discussion, Phil Belfiori moved, Dorothy Peterson seconded a motion to recommend the following to the City Council: 1. The applicant shall be required to fulfill tree preservation mitigation through the installation of one hundred seventy-six (176) category B trees (or an equivalent combination of category A and/or category C trees and/or cash payment). 2. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) shall be required to 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 on-site. 3. 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. 4. This development shall meet the City's water quality requirements by creating stormwater treatment capacity through a minimum wet-pond volume of 1.9 acre-feet covering an area of 0.6 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. 5. Field verification of wetland delineations shall be conducted in Mayor June, before final acceptance of the delineation report. 6. The wetland replacement plan application should be accepted and submitted, per WCA requirements, for a 30-day public review and scheduled for City Council decision no sooner than June 18. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 Page 5 7. With the exception of the area adjacent to the constructed stormwater treatment pond, a minimum 30- foot wide buffer of natural, undisturbed vegetation outside the boundary of the wetland shall be maintained before, during, and after construction. 8. 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. 9. Technical Evaluation Panel evaluation shall be included relative to the site. N. Mark Filipi urged the Commission not to recommend this proposal at this time and that they should wait to hear the feedback from the public review of the wetlands before making a recommendation. Member Danner suggested that would probably be covered by the Technical Evaluation Panel. Member Pletcher asked how the Commission could balance meeting the needs of the 30 day wetland review and feel comfortable with a recommendation while not delaying the 60 day development review requirements the City of Eagan needs to abide by. Member Rudolph suggested that if Commission Members were comfortable that staff and the technical folks would adequately review the issues of concern and make appropriate recommendations they should be comfortable voting in favor of the motion. If they felt this issue should come back to the Commission based on the findings of the Technical Evaluation Panel, they should vote against the motion. When the motion was called, those voting Aye included Joseph Bari, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, Richard Pletcher and Melvin Williams. Members Filipi and Rudolph voted Nay. The motion passed. OLD BUSINESS FISH LAKE CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth shared a presentation of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency grant award in 1995 to implement a $252,795 project on Fish Lake. The project was designed to improve lake water quality through a collection of best management practices and capital improvement projects. It was noted that the project extended from July 1995 through August 2000. Coordinator Macbeth noted that the Commission was being asked to review the Fish Lake Clean Water Partnership Project final report and recommend that the City Council accept it and officially authorize completion of the grant project. Member Rudolph noted that the Commission has watched this project unfold over the years and it's good to see the results of those efforts. After further brief comments, John Rudolph moved, Joseph Bari seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend that the City Council accept the Fish Lake Clean Water Partnership Project final report and officially authorize completion of the grant project. Furthermore, acknowledge that water quality challenges ofFish Lake remain and that priority management of the lake needs to continue indefinitely into the future. Member Belfiori thanked Coordinator Macbeth for the presentation and added that there has been very good press throughout the State for this project. BIKE PARK UPDATE Following a brief introduction by Director Vraa, Researcher Wielde shared a powerpoint presentation outlining the investigation into the feasibility of a bike park for the City of Eagan. She noted that the impetus for a bike park came through letters and calls received by the public, disappointment that bikes could not use the ramps in the new skateboard park and the various informal, unauthorized ramps and trails built within several parks over the years. Researcher Wielde recapped the types of courses that could be considered, the insurance implications and the various questions and concerns that have been raised regarding the development of a bike park. She also recognized Jonathan Jones who had solicited over 200 signatures on a petition to develop a bike park in Eagan. Following the Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 Page 6 presentation, the Commission was asked to give staff direction as to whether or not a bike park should be considered and if so, to determine the type and potential location. Member Bari commented on the impressive petition presented by Jonathan Jones and asked him how he solicited the signatures. Jonathan responded that he talked to his friends and most of them came from his school. Member Perry asked ifhe had talked to kids at Eagan High School. Jonathan responded that he had only solicited at the school he attends and had not talked to anyone at EHS. Member Peterson congratulated Jonathan for the work he had put into having a bike park included in Eagan and suggested that the Commission consider several dirt courses scattered throughout the community. She suggested Carnelian, W oodhaven or Pilot Knob Park for potential locations since they all had hockey rinks that could accommodate a dirt course. Member Rudolph added that the success of the skateboard park resulted in the expansion of that facility and suggested that this would be a viable option to meet the needs of another user group. Member Danner expressed a preference for starting with one facility so that the use patterns could be monitored. She suggested that if the use exceeds the space needs then a decision could be made to expand to another location. Member Rudolph suggested that Pilot Knob be selected as the initial site. Member Bari asked if the single site would be enough. Member Pletcher asked how quickly staff could respond to adding an additional site if the need arises. Superintendent Olson responded that a second dirt course within a hockey rink would be fairly easy to bring online. Director Vraa added that staff would need to make sure that the dirt being used is good quality to allow proper drainage but from that point the kids would shape the course to meet their needs as long as the height was under 3 feet. Member Peterson suggested starting with the Pilot Knob Park hockey rink and have staff recommend 2 other sites for possible expansion. Member Williams expressed concerns for the safety at these sites and opined that the risk of not staffing a bike park is too high. After further discussion, Elizabeth Perry moved, Margo Danner seconded a motion to establish a dirt bike course within a hockey rink at Pilot Knob Park and that staff monitor the use and make recommendations for expanded locations if the need arises. Those voting in favor included Joseph Bari, Phil Belfiori, Margo Danner, N.Mark Filipi, Elizabeth Perry, Dorothy Peterson, Richard Pletcher and John Rudolph. Melvin Williams voted Nay. The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS DAKOTA COUNTY PARK REPLACEMENT PLAN Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth explained that Dakota County Parks is developing a new entrance and improving parking lots to support a new visitor-interpretive center and trailhead facility in Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The project is also intended to address inadequacies of the existing entrance drive. Macbeth noted that the work being done falls under the decision authority of Eagan to implement the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. He then reviewed the efforts made by Dakota County to mitigate those impacts. After further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved, John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor to recommend that the City Council approve at its May 21, 2002 meeting, the wetlands replacement plan of Dakota County Parks for Lebanon Hills Regional Park. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE There were no further updates under this agenda item. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of May 20, 2002 Page 7 OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS TOBACCO FREE PRESENTATION FOLLOW-UP Director Vraa indicated that Commission Members had suggested at the May meeting that this item be discussed further and asked how they wanted to follow up. Member Peterson suggested that the Recreation Subcommittee review the issue and bring it back to the Advisory Commission. Lynn Deml, representing CAFE, reiterated the support that could be found through various agencies to help get this implemented at park locations where youth participate in sports. She suggested that the Commission should take a stronger position and perhaps begin with signage at events, contests, etc. where youth will be participating in sporting events. After further brief discussion, Dorothy Peterson moved, Melvin Williams seconded with all members voting in favor to refer this item to the Recreation Subcommittee for review. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES There were no subcommittee updates. COMMUNITY CENTER UPDATE Director Vraa provided a brief update of the community center construction. He added that the City Council had requested proposals for the fitness component of the facility and that May 31 was the deadline for those submittals. COMMUNICATIONS There were no items to be discussed under this agenda item. AGENDA FORMAT The agenda format was changed to include staff reports under the Department Happenings portion of the agenda rather than under Other Business and Reports. ROUND TABLE Member Peterson asked when the Advisory Commission would meet to begin discussing alternative revenue sources. Director Vraa responded that a workshop could be scheduled in June. Members Williams and Perry noted that they have experienced problems receiving their packets in a timely manner. Staffwill follow up to make sure this doesn't happen again. Members were asked to contact the office if they have not received their packet prior to the morning of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct Dorothy Peterson moved, John Rudolph seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ~ ':Jt ~ tyt- -' . .. (1.. ~ ~1f1/\ Secretary Date Jol/<1(C? [