08/19/1996 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
AGENDA
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
Monday, August 19, 1996
7:00 PM
Eagan Municipal Center
City Council Chambers
A. 6:00 Park Tour - Pilot Knob Park, Blackhawk Park, Oak Ridge Park, Rolling Oaks
B. 7:00 PM Regular Meeting
C. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
D. Approval of Agenda 7:02 pm
E. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 15, 1996 7:05 pm
F. - Visitors to be Heard 7:07 pm
G. Department Happenings Pages 3-5 7:08 pm
H. Consent Agenda 7:15 pm
1. Development Proposals
(1) Rolling Oaks - Pulte Homes Pages 7-12 7:17 pm
J. Old Business
(1) Scenic Enterprises-Comp Guide Plan Amendment Pages 13-31 8:00 pm
(2) Natural and Scenic Grant Page 33 8:15 pm
K. New Business
L. Parks Development Update
(1) Lexington-Diffley Restroom Facility Pages 35-38 8:30 pm
M. Water Resources Update 8:40 pm
N. Other Business and Reports
(1) Wading Pool Study - Brad Eller Pages 39-62 8:50 pm
(2) Bond Referendum Update 9:15 pm
0. Round Table 9:20 pm
P. Adjournment 9:30 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 events. If a notice of less than
96 hours is received, the City will attempt to provide the aids.
MEMO
City of eagan
DATE: August 13, 1996
TO: Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission
FROM: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: August 19, 1996, Commission Tour and Meeting
The Commission will again take a tour of parks between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. Please meet at the south
entrance to City Hall.
The Commission has relatively few items on the agenda, but each has the potential of taking considerable
attention.
The first development proposal is for the Bieter property, located north of Diffley and east of
1-35E. Pulte Homes has proposed a mixed residential development called Rolling Oaks. Members may
recall a previous proposal for this property earlier this year from a different developer. Time permitting, the
Commission will do a drive by of the site to review it before the meeting. Information on this development is
in the packet.
Under old business is the land use change for the former Unisys site from R&D to D-II Residential. The
Acquisition and Development Sub-Committee had an opportunity to review the site on July 29 with owner
representatives. Attached is a memo from planning staff that outlines the issues regarding this site.
Attached also is a brief summary prepared by George Watson of Brauer and Associates regarding the
suitability of the site for a "Central Park" and/or community center site.
The second item of old business is the natural and scenic grant application to help finance the acquisition of
the Lee Anderson property on Lexington Avenue. Superintendent of Recreation Peterson has prepared a
memo for the Commission's review.
There is one item under Parks Development, that being the early design plan for restroom facilities at
Lexington Diffley Athletic Fields. Staff will have the drawing at the commission meeting for review. A memo
prepared by Superintendent Olson, who is the design team's project manager, is enclosed.
Student Intern Brad Ellers has done a survey of the wading pool (enclosed) as part of his student internship
responsibilities. He will be available at the commission meeting to review this survey and respond to
questions.
A late addition to the agenda is the Conditional Use Permit for Shaw-Lundquist. There is a memo included
in your packet, however this item will be added onto the agenda verbally at the meeting. There may also
be other items added to the commission agenda on Monday evening. If you are not able to attend, please
advise.
i5ft813.96
DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS
JULY/AUGUST, 1996
1. Program planning for the Eagan Civic Arena Learn to Skate School has been completed. A change to the program provides
for a skating school coordinator to help oversee the program registration and operations.
2. City staff will be helping to coordinate activities for Eagan Lone Oak Days a two day celebration on the weekend of
September 21 and 22.
3. Todd Burkart has resigned as Civic Arena Manager effective September 13. Mark Vaughn, Assistant Manager, will be
interim manager until the fall when a replacement will be advertised for.
4. Eagan Athletic Association is in need of additional storage space for its equipment used in the youth programs. A meeting
was recently held with EAA representatives to discuss possible solutions.
5. The Eagan Hockey Association has used Goat Hill Park for dry land training. The Association is helping to pay for
installation of an asphalt surface in one of the rinks at the park for in-line roller hockey and dry land training. Installation is
expected soon.
6. Staff is continuing to pursue the possible acquisition of the Wescott Service Center. A report has been prepared and is
expected to go to the City Council soon.
7. Eight Eagan seniors participated in a focus group for the HRA inquiry concerning the need for additional senior housing in
Dakota County. The Department invited seniors who currently live in their own houses or local apartments and are not
participants in Department senior activities held at Oak Woods.
8. A grant application has been submitted to Oshman Corporation in pursuit of funding for girls' sports activities in the Youth
Development program. If successful, the grant could enable Wescott girls to participate in EAA and school sports, provide a
trip to a Lady Gopher basketball game and fund honorariums to bring in women's athletic role models as speakers.
9. The Recreation sub-committee met in July for additional brainstorming on recreation standards. Staff will begin drafting text
as soon as fall programs are planned. The Recreation sub-committee next meets on September 30.
10. Staff have begun work on a program plan for Blackhawk Park. The winter season is of primary discussion at the present
time.
11. Eagan Athletic Association fall programs begin practice the week of August 19. In addition to school facilities, football will
again play at Goat Hill and Clearwater Parks. The Department will provide soccer fields in several locations. Lexington
Diffley will accommodate the K-1 age with 10 fields. Second grade will play at Blue Cross Blue Shield on 6 fields. Third
and fourth grade youth will play at Bridle Ridge, Quarry, Mueller Farm, Northview and Ohmann Parks. The oldest
participants will play at the high school and Northview Athletic.
12. NYSCA coaches clinics for EAA football and soccer are offered the week of August 12. A low turnout is expected due to
high participation in May.
13. Concessions did well at the August 10-11 men's D region softball tournament hosted at Northview. Gross sales topped
$2,300. The concession will remain open for the fall softball season.
14. Eagan High School co-curricular tennis practice opened on August 12. Practices are being held at Rahn park and at
Northview, as space allows during the color coat operation. New head coach, Myndi Cohee, who is also the Department's
tennis director, is flexible to move as court work requires.
15. Sand volleyball has completed the season. Fifteen teams took part this year. Fall volleyball, played in middle and elementary
schools, is a scant month away.
16. Eagan High School has purchased a second bank of wind screens for the Birch pod at Northview. The windscreens will be
installed upon completion of the color coat project.
17. Intern Brad Eller has completed his school related intern requirements, as of the conclusion of his presentation this evening.
Brad is staying on until he returns to school in September to assist with ongoing projects.
v
12. The fall recreation activity brochure will be delivered in the community on September 4, 5 and 6. Pre-school activities,
school vacation day events, 55/Alive safe driving seminars and much more will be offered to the community.
13. Casper's Sports Barn won the women's class D state softball tournament August 10 and I I in Shakopee. Casper's were
winners of our top D league during the regular season.
14. Eagan hosted 48 teams for the Men's class D Region IV softball tournament August 10 and 1 l . Four teams advance to the
state tournament August 16, 17 and 18 in Fridley. Hampton Heat from Farmington took first beating Red Bull from
Burnsville. T.C. Mechanical from Lakeville and Kerber Financial from Savage will also represent Region IV.
15. Summer softball concludes August 15 with make-up games for the West Publishing leagues. Fall softball began the week of
August 12, 13, 14 and 15. Eighty teams filled all ten leagues available.
16. Holz Farm will get it's monthly make-over August 17. The third Saturday of each month has been set aside to work on the
buildings and grounds and to hold a business meeting. Everyone is welcome. Plans are underway to host school group tours
September 20 and hold a fall festival October 6.
17. A boy scout is considering painting buildings at Holz Farm as an Eagle Scout project. He will decide by August 16.
18. Men's touch football has eight teams set to begin play September 4.
19. Fall basketball teams will begin to register August 26. Play begins September 18 and 19.
20. Camp season is underway. The Recreation division has been busy with Mystery, Kraft, Nature and Adventureland Camps
during the month of August for ages 6-12. Camps are also held for preschoolers.
21. Over 200 children danced the afternoon away at Trapp Farm Park during the Picnic in the Park on July 25. Children ages 6-
12 from all Summer in the Park (SIP) sites were together for a barbeque and dancing to say goodbye to SIP. The Chicken
Dance, the Bunny Hop and a wild rendition of YMCA led by the staff were all part of the fun.
22. 108 children participated in the Eagan Youth Safety Camp on August 5, and 7 at Thomas Lake Park. Despite the extremely
warm weather, the camp was a huge success. The Fire, Police and Parks and Recreation Departments worked together to
make the camp successful. Some of the education sessions included were: water, fire, electrical and seat belt safety,
D.A.R.E., home alone issues, operation lifesaver (railroad), National Guard helicopter and a k-9 demonstration.
Recreational breaks were also part of the daily activities. The water slide was a big hit! The camp ended with a picnic and
awards ceremony for all campers and their families. Approximately 400 people were in attendance.
23. Work is expected to begin the week of August 19 to pave the west hockey rink at Goat Hill park to allow for in-line skating.
The preparatory work will be completed by City staff. A contractor has been secured for paving. The project is being
funded through a generous donation made by the Eagan Hockey Association.
24. The shelter building at Carnelian Park has been moved from its foundation to allow for the installation of a raised concrete
floor. The building had been settling due to poor soils allowing water to flow freely into the building.
25. Staff has nearly completed the installation of the first two phases of the new play structure at Northview Elementary School.
Delivery of the third phase equipment is expected soon.
26. Staff has provided excavation assistance at the Eagan High School to allow for the installation of a seating area alongside the
concession stand.
27. A contractor has begun color coating and crack filling of the tennis courts at Northview and Rahn Parks. Northview is
scheduled for completion by August 30. The Rahn courts will be completed shortly thereafter.
28. Staff has removed the large backstop on the major league field at Goat Hill Park. The backstop was damaged in the wind
storm early this summer. A contractor has been hired to install a replacement.
29. A turf enhancement program which includes aeration, top dressing and overseeding has begun at Lexington Diffley.
30. The Twin Cities Tree Trust is nearing completion of an overlook deck at Blackhawk Park. Over 700 hours of youth labor
have gone into the project.
4.
31. The Parks/Forestry research assistant has completed the GPS inventory of all pathways and trails. Coordinate corrections are
currently being made to allow for possible inclusion in G.I.S.
32. The Forestry Department hosted a group of foresters from throughout the metro area who are interested in conducting a GPS
and boulevard survey similar to that completed by Eagan staff.
33. The Forestry staff has completed the installation of nearly 1,000 pieces of plant material at the Municipal Center. Additional
plantings for the new Blackhawk Pavilion have been ordered. New native plantings have also been completed at South Oaks
Park.
fS%q njm.aus
5
ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 1996
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
ROLLING OAKS PULTE HOMES
1. The Tree Preservation Plan should be accepted as proposed with the following
conditions:
a. Tree Protective Measures (i.e. 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.
b. The developer shall contact the City Forestry Division at least five days prior to
the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree
Preservation Plan.
c. The developer shall work with the city staff in attempts to preserve additional
significant trees located in areas within construction limits. Field reviews are
recommended after roads are located and staked and prior to any grading to
identify any significant trees which could possibly be preserved.
d. A performance guarantee will be required for this development. The amount of
the guarantee will be calculated by staff following installation of tree protection
fence. (The amount of the guarantee will be calculated utilizing the total
diameter inches of significant trees intended to be preserved within fifteen feet
of the grading limits). The performance guarantee is to be collected as part of
the Development Contract at the time of final plat approval.
2. On-site ponding shall be the principle means of meeting water quality mitigation
requirements.
3. Pond BP-3 be constructed to have a wet volume and minimum average depth of 2.4
acre-feet and 4 feet, respectively, and that it meet the City's standards for detention basin
design.
4. The discharge from Pond BP-3.3 be routed around Pond BP-3 and discharged directly to
the stub underlying Deerwood Drive.
5. A supplemental cash dedication be required to make up for any shortfall in on-site
treatment.
6. Draining or filling of wetland areas be prohibited.
7. An ungraded buffer of natural vegetation extending at least 30 feet back from the edge of
the four natural wetlands (wetland units associated with Ponds BP-25, BP-25.1, BP-3.4,
and BP3.3) be preserved. Where grading is proposed around' the southern tip of Pond
BP-3.4, the area within 30 feet of the wetland boundary shall be re-seeded with native
perennials and left in an un-maintained condition. The buffers should be identified on
the grading plan.
8. This development shall be responsible for a cash parks dedication.
9. This development shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication.
MEMO
- city of eagan
TO: ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: AUGUST 14, 1996
RE: ROLLING OAKS - PULTE HOMES
BACKGROUND
Pulte Homes of Minnesota Inc. Is proposing a mixed-residential development for the 120 acre
Bieter-Franz site located at the northeastern intersection of 1-35E and Diffley Road.
Except for a small sliver in the southwestern portion of the site, the entire site is zoned
Agricultural and guided D-II, Mixed Residential, (0-6 units/acre). The proposal includes a
rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Development and a Preliminary Subdivision to allow a
total of 505 residential units. The proposal includes 79 single family homes and the remaining
426 units are made up of a mixture of three different types of attached residential units.
PARKS/TRAILS DEDICATION
The Commission previously reviewed a residential development proposal by Rottlund Homes for
this site. At that time a cash parks dedication and a cash trails dedication was recommended by
the Commission. A cash dedication for this proposal would be consistent with the
Commission's previous recommendations.
TREE PRESERVATION
The site can be characterized as consisting of rolling hills with approximately fifty percent
wooded coverage. Tree coverage is primarily oak trees (bur, northern pin, and red), with a
variety of other deciduous trees including elm, ash, cottonwood, boxelder, butternut, aspen,
and black cherry. There is also a small percentage of coniferous trees, mostly spruce, located in
the northern part of the property. Tree diameters range from 6" to 50". There is also five water
bodies located on the site.
Sivnificant Vegetation
The submitted Tree Preservation Plan indicates that there are 1,133 significant trees on
site. The development as proposed will result in the removal of 454 significant trees (40% of the
total). This figure does not include thirty-three significant trees to be removed for the revision of
the revised layout of Johnny Cake Ridge Road as requested by City Engineering staff. According
to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable removal for this type of development
(multi-lot residential) is set at 40%. This is the total site allowable removal, which includes 25%
allowable removal for the initial development and 20% removal of the remaining 75% for each
individual lot. The developer is proposing to prepare the entire site at one time. With a
significant tree removal for the entire site not exceeding the allowable limit, there is no tree
mitigation.
Additional Concerns
Staff is recommending that the developer work with the city in attempts to preserve
additional significant trees located in areas within construction limits. These areas would
generally be located in front of the "coved lots", on or near property lines, or along road right-
of-ways where there will be minimal grade changes. Field reviews are recommended after roads
are located and staked and prior to any grading to identify any significant trees which could
possibly be preserved.
WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS
Water qualitX
This development will generate runoff that will reach Blackhawk Lake a short distance
downstream. Blackhawk Lake is one of seven Class I direct contact recreation water bodies
identified in the City's water quality management plan and is the City's second highest priority
for long-term enhancement of water quality. Because of the size of the development and the
existence of a high priority recreational water body downstream, staff recommends that on-site
ponding be the primary means of meeting water quality mitigation. The ponding configuration
for the subdivision is shown in Figure 1.
As per staff request, a large constructed ponding area (Pond BP-35) in the southwest area of the
site will be used to treat runoff from over half of the development. The north-central and eastern
portion of the site will drain to the north, and staff has directed the developer to construct a
detention basin to treat this runoff prior to discharge off the site. In the most recent set of plans
(received by the City on August 1, 1996), the detention basin is too small to provide adequate
treatment for this runoff. Thus, staff recommend that this detention basin be increased in size
and volume to .6 acres and 2.4 acre-feet at the NWL. In addition, to improve the pollutant
removal efficiency of the pond, staff recommend that the discharge from Pond BP-3.3 be routed
around this constructed basin so that it discharges directly to the stub underlying Deerwood
Drive.
Even with these on-site mitigation measures, modeling indicates that a slight degradation of
water quality in Blackhawk Lake will occur. Rather than require the significant increase in on-
site ponding that would be necessary to fully meet the non-degradation standard for Blackhawk
Lake, staff recommends a supplemental cash dedication to meet mitigation requirements. This
dedication would be used to off-set costs of in-lake treatment measures to protect water quality
in Blackhawk Lake.
Wetlands:
The wetland survey for this site identifies five wetland basins totaling 3.3 acres. Four of the
basins are natural wetland basins, while the fifth-designated Pond BP-35 in the City's storm
water management plan-has been significantly modified. Staff has requested that the developer
avoid direct discharge of runoff from impervious surfaces to the four natural wetland basins, and
the developer has accommodated this recommendation. In addition, the developer is proposing
no filling or draining of wetland areas. Finally, with one exception, the grading plan shows
ungraded buffers around the four natural wetland basins that range from 30 to 300 feet in width.
The exception is an area around the southern end of wetland basin BP-3.4, where a retaining
wall has been proposed to avoid filling of the wetland but grading would extend to the wetland
edge. Avoidance of grading within this area would likely require elimination of a town home
unit. It should also be noted that wetland units associated with Ponds BP-35, BP-3.4, and BP-
3.3 will be part of a proposed natural corridor in the western area of the parcel and that the
wetland unit associated with Pond BP-25.1 will be part of a larger environmental corridor in the
eastern portion.
din IT
~!/i~~~ _ •~'~~U i~~Fi.~ ' - OEERWOOD OR. - \~1~. I
SITE= PLAN - PRLLMMARY PLAY kill-11
s>f fir, y
INNSPY
J-A
D(7 AIL Or HE CORNER i I/ \,t `l
44
!
r•.. 4 1010 \ I 1
/Alv
I'll Nl l1'; . 'f(/""">Y(rt~. ; ,r~ ` ~,S "B,5 r'
J1 U
tlr! Brr \
M Ai
~ tlr1 \
Ali / , .
1 rr
\v ,~t ► (dl Ll}
k%N
(N r.) 013
&ZI
DI ► d.. BAr
mi f 1 CBI bNt tlI0
SREET .1
S ,
o U'
75- C) J WO
1 <
LL.
> Oi Q OZ u)
~h0 Z=
~ C W - nZ0 Q `NH l\1u
Wiz. ate,<~ JC9 0 \Ml
y ~zacs ~Q N EL Z
< 2 a ZZ
Od ~~ZCwtVil< O Fn Sorv O ZW ~Orv
¢2 C-w~OS W WW ~O W ~ NVb
~ ainw_z F ~ ¢ JZ WZ..
C umaa"w.~~o W O? °o W W O o~
ti _r~n .v^^,mnma a a~ SW m¢u
f JP
E>f i $ E `aiR i~ g hist.
~gd 88
F•ap" 3 P { Y Efp«i
;!8 liggs,ilp
1~pg`- ~ py E
Ri:!
~ aai « L'st tt $3 i gF tb sE f x' o
S A's
P
gf-F•- sg d fei[gggggsa_g
hg - al fae: 8 $WtE-" g.Zg i rg s Y
b~ro
" s- Fii>z if t (5 Y a i..~=E I$f _ f
sg~€ -nI i Y t~ Iis~~~~ a:,g$aQ$ _J
g@#sa1p41=a 5! Ull is i leY:Is E o
T-E Y !Rcg~]#a+}FasB #ag£;q!=#Eis~~R{t~~p`£+f~e 8 N
! ~~-EayyF $ L- yEE si, ■ E;I t.tga. •EZ(gi 3_
~ E! 3 !,6= ~f°g$~,ge az ~fr i!Kb~°s x i
v-4111 Mll. b 11,12M
~'.7 r, R 4 I s-~91
[ 1
%
~94 a .t _ 4{`~,,i } ;
~R r4rV acs +l !'=C t~~ ~ o:
_f• \li _ F~ i~ III fit
~II Bg~S ! ~j jj s' -
if ~ b,6 • i ~t a F
is
4 i a #a
s n a I s v
3a ' ,~~r. ~ glgr'
R r• ~ a. ~ 6' 3
b yo4 rep - L tc~
r,
~3Yryir,
16
I ~
l
~ HI
zl, as rnonoas
sll ~ I I
C~~ 31Od70007
c assrais La7N %
°o <
3
W
~ WI
V
~l \11
8
I N II
J I ~ ~ I \
yyR
I.J
° 1`I f
01 N
O R,
OM 30018 3?Ir3 ANNHOC
1 1 1 I 1 I !
~ it I
~ Ram ,Rd ~ I
I
~ I
I ~ I I
1 1 ~J = ~ I~ J \ I
I I ~=li iilil I
'I
I. i.
Z L i I
RR ~ I I
'a ✓ 1 ~ < n < ~ m I~ II 'I~'
< = m p I II 1 I!j lI
~ } < < y "r it II i it
O 1
< I I
II !f
1 ,
` n ' i II i I f~
! ~ - 0 III ~ !I
~ ~ Icy
1 n
c ~ + ti ~ h b \ 0 Vii. ~
j' ~ ~ d \ ~ m m m / ~ 3 III II I~'II I
~J///~ / ~ ~ ~m m m \ \ I I III ~ III
~ f \ m m 0 I
q III
1
a.s ` id m I ! I l
~ j~ 9 ^a m m ~ m ~II
r-t !
1-1 6 ~ ~ ! / g aw Ma.Ri n
i~
/ I~III. II
II
i i III I
1 I
oe,
III !I~
eie, C6 z
I
all
La
CL I I I
IIL
11.I C~ I,~II Ij
Lai
Lam-
l~
4 4 MEMO
- city of eagan
TO: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
FROM: JULIE FARNHAM, PLANN
REGARDING: SCENIC ENTERPRISES - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REQUEST
DATE: AUGUST 12, 1996
Scenic Enterprises, Inc. is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment to change the Central Area land use plan to allow a mix of residential,
commercial and park uses on approximately 80 acres located north of Yankee Doodle
Road, west of Pilot Knob in the area known as the Unisys campus.
BACKGROUND
The City's Park System Plan (1995) does not designate any additional parks in this area.
The area is served by two neighborhood parks; Quarry and Pilot Knob. However, this site
was one of several sites looked at for potential development of a central area park. At
a workshop meeting on June 25, 1996, the City Council stated that they are still
interested in pursuing development of a central area park. They indicated a central park
facility should provide year-round activities, both indoor and outdoor, and should be
suitable to host citywide events; in particular the July 4th celebration. .
Using input from the City Council workshop, the City's parks consultant (Brauer and
Associates) developed a basic program framework of desired park facilities. The 20 acre
site proposed for a park was evaluated to determine how it could accommodate the
program framework. The consultant's report concluded that the land designated for park
use is best suited for passive recreational/open space uses due to natural site
constraints. A fairly large portion of the proposed park area includes wetlands, floodable
land, and wooded hillsides which cannot withstand intense development. Addition land
(preferably level ground) would be needed to accommodate more intense development
such as a community center and associated parking. At this time, ownership and
acquisition of land for a park has not been determined.
Regardless of the land use, any development of this property will be subject to the City's
regulations regarding wetlands, tree preservation and park dedication. According to a
preliminary analysis by staff, about 13 acres of the park area would not be developable
due to restrictions on building placement relative to the wetland elevation. Much of the
20 acre proposed park area also contains significant oak woodlands. Staff will bring more
information on significant woodlands and parkland dedication requirements to the
meeting.
ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The APC reviewed Scenic Enterprises' comprehensive guide plan amendment request
at their July 23, 1996 meeting. They recommended denial of the request. Their primary
reasons stated for denial include: concern about the loss of land suitable for major office
development; acknowledgment that the City has ample land for D-II residential
development; the Central Area Plan calls for major office development; the proposed park
is not large enough for the central area park and another neighborhood park is not
needed in this area. The APC noted that the Comprehensive Guide Plan is intended to
guide long-range development of the City and should not be changed simply to
accommodate current market demands.
APRNRC REVIEW AND ACTION REQUESTED
This land use change request is somewhat unique because it is a mixed use. Typically,
a land use change to allow a park would apply to a specific parcel, separate from other
surrounding land uses. While it is clearly the purview of the APRNRC to review
proposals to create new parkland, the APRNRC does not usually get involved in review
of other (e.g. residential, commercial) land use changes. APRNRC review of
development proposals typically occurs during the subdivision process, which is when
park and trail dedication requirements are determined.
In reviewing this request the APRNRC may choose to look only at the proposed 20 acre
park and make a recommendation about whether the City should pursue acquisition of
this property for a public park. If it is determined that this area should become a park,
the City's Park System Plan should be updated accordingly.
The APRNRC may also choose to make a more general recommendation regarding
preservation of the natural features of this site, regardless of the land use and eventual
development on the surrounding property.
Enclosures:
- Report and Summary letter from Brauer and Associates
- Memo from Rich Brasch
14
TO: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
FROM: RICH BRASCH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RE: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF SCENIC ENTERPRISES PARCEL
DATE: JULY 22, 1996
As we discussed, I have reviewed the above parcel to determine the constraints to development of the
site, placement of structures, etc. due to water-related features. The following are the major findings and
conclusions:
• Pond CP-4 is classified as a nutrient trap in the City's water quality management plan. At
present, there are 3 inlets to the pond. The total drainage area to the pond according to the storm
water management comprehensive plan is about 215 acres, 155 acres of which discharges
directly to the pond. There is no outlet for the pond at this time. The outlet for the pond will be
a lift station that will be installed as part of the development of the Scenic Enterprises parcel.
• The wetland complex associated with Pond CP-4 (green and yellow areas on the attached map) is
approximately 5 acres in area. Those areas in yellow have wetland characteristics but would
likely be exempt from state regulations. Thus, the wetland area that would be a constraint from a
site development standpoint is about 3.7 acres.
• Perhaps the biggest constraint to development of the site is the bounce associated with Pond CP-
4. The high water level of the pond has been estimated at 842.6 for the l 00-year recurrence
interval storm. This elevation is approximately 15 feet above the proposed normal water
elevation of the pond. The area of the pond at the projected HWL is about 7.4 acres. (On the
attached map, the area in purple lies between the estimated wetland elevation and the estimated
HWL). Further, City policy states that the lowest opening to a building should be at least 3 feet
above the estimated HWL, meaning that placement of buildings with walk-out entrances toward
the pond should not be. constructed below elevation 845.6. The area of the site below this
elevation is 13 acres. (The pink area lies between the estimated HWL and 3 feet above the
HWL).
• The estimated HWL is likely higher than what would actually occur, since it was assumed in the
analysis that the impervious coverage of the Scenic Enterprises parcel would be typical of that
for commercial property rather than the multifamily residential proposed now. The HWL could
probably be further reduced by requiring on-site pending for the Scenic Enterprises development
prior to discharge of that water to Pond CP4. Several other alternatives also exist for reducing
the bounce of the pond, including installing a higher capacity lift station and reducing the size of
the watershed draining to CP-4 by re-routing runoff. If you are interested in having us re-
calculate the HWL with these new assumptions, please let me know.
Let me ow if you'd like any additional information, Ken.
l
Rich Brasch
Water Resources Coordinator
LAND USF PI ANNING AND DF..si(,N
BRAUER
July 15, 1996 & ASSOCIATES, LTD
Julie Farnham RECEr,,1E ' JUL
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Re: Scenic Development Site - Park Planning Review and Analysis
Brauer and Associates, Ltd. #96-42
Ms. Farnham,
The following review and analysis of the Scenic Development Site and its potential for use of a portion of the site as
a municipal park is submitted to you for your consideration.
Introduction
We have reviewed the site and the developers proposal for dedication of land to the city for park uses. The site intended
for dedication contains many physical attributes preferred in public parkland. The current surrounding land uses are
compatible for the development of a park and have infrastructure that could be of benefit to the public should a special
event park such as a "Central Park" be built a this location. In addition to the attributes of the land itself, the location
of this potential park is a key to completing connections between the existing neighborhood parks to the west and north
of the site and the future trail along the proposed ring road.
In addition to this report our office attempted to define the basic program and physical requirements and have
documented these findings for the development of a "Central Park" in a separate report to the city. Since, this site has
been mentioned as a possible site for the "Central Park", we have included a summary of these findings in this letter.
Site Analysis
Land Area The community park space, 21.5 acres, identified on the developers plan is made up of both
upland and wetland areas.
Vegetation The eastern portion of the site is upland covered with mature hardwoods. Along with the
hardwoods this piece of the site contains slopes ranging from 10 to 28% in grade. The area
of the site under these conditions comprises between 6.5 and 7 acres. The lower, portions
of the site are vegetated with grasses and soft wood trees such as cottonwood cnd boxelder.
Although these trees may typically be thought of as being of less value. in this situation, they
provide a setting for the wetlands and act as a foil between the wetland area and the
surrounding land uses.
Wetlands Wetlands on the suggested community park property occupy 3 to 4 acres of the land area.
"301 Ohms Lane, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55.139 Tel (612) 832-9-+-5 Fxx (612) 832-9i-i2
Current
Surrounding Land Use The current uses of the land surrounding the proposed community park site include large
office sites with expansive parking lots. This represents a potential benefit to the park
property should programs that demand parking be developed on the site. Joint use of these
lots would of course require the approval of the surrounding land owners. Office use, with
the majority of its' activity during the working hours of the work week, would be
complementary to a special use park, such as a "Central Park".
Stormwater Storage The property also functions as a storm water drainage pond. The 100 year storage
requirement, at full development, is anticipated to be 77 acre feet. This amount of water
would cover approximately 14 acres of bottom land on the site. Flood frequency, duration
and time of year will all effect the use of this portion of the site for recreation.
Urban Utilities Urban utilities exist in close proximity to the park and considering the office land use
originally anticipated for this property are most likely more than adequate for park land
development.
Site Access Access to the area of the site will be exceptional with the installation of the proposed ring
road.
Access into the site from the surrounding streets will be a formidable job. Public right of
way is shown as abutting the south and east sides of the proposed park site. Steep, heavily
wooded, slopes along these streets will require extensive grading and tree loss to gain
emergency and operations and maintenance access to the lower portions of the property.
Site/ Program Potential
The land designated for park use in this proposal is, in fact, best suited for a passive recreational / open space use. The
wetland, and wooded hillsides will not withstand intense development and should be protected. A large portion of the
flat bottom land will be flooded seasonally making it unsuitable for any development other than passive uses. Whether
public or private this scenic portion of the property should be protected.
As configured the 21.5 acres of proposed park property will act as a portion of a desirable connection to two adjacent
parks. Quarry and Pilot Knob parks will be capable of supplying the developers residential land with neighborhood park
facilities. This network of parklands is desirable regardless of the final land use or park program. To complete the
connection trail easements will need to be acquired to both existing parks.
Central Park Program Requirements
The following program description was developed by Brauer and Associates for the City of Eagan as an attempt to
capture the "Central Park" theme discussed by the council at their June 25, 1996 workshop. Further detail regarding this
program can be found in a separate report Central Park Program and Land Requirements, City of Eagan; by Brauer and
Associates, Ltd.; 7/15/96.
The following activities seemed to surface as the most important program items for a "Central Park
• Fourth of July Celebration Area
specifically as a location for display and viewing offireworks, but also as a starting and/or ending
point for parades, acting as a central location for all Fourth activities.
• Amphitheater
this being a natural match with the Fourth of July Celebration Area would bring additional
community wide use to the " Central Park " and provide for smaller programs as well.
• Art Fair
for this study we have assumed that the council was referring to a commercial event similar to the
Edina or Uptown art fairs.
• Community Center
activities requiring building space should include aquatics, fitness and community service, (IE. teen
and senior centers, multipurpose rooms, day care etc.).
Along with the establishment of the program for a "Central Park" minimum land requirements were established for each
of the potential uses.
Program Use Event Land Parking Access Utilities Land Form
Area Area Required Required
V H O S W S P
IN ACRES IN I C M A A T O
ACRES S N T O W
I E R E
T R M R
O
R
Municipal Fireworks Display 16.5 16.5 X X X X Gently
Sloping to Flat
Municipal Amphitheater 4 16.5 X X X X X Gently
Sloping to Flat
Municipal Art Fair 1.7 NA X X X X X X X Flat / Paved
Municipal Community Center 2.5 8.75 X X X X X X X Flat to Gently
Rolling
HC = Handicapped Access OM = Operations and Maintenance Access X = Required
It should be noted that area requirements may overlap and that land required for various combinations of these program
uses will result in different totals.
Opinion
The "Central Park" program anticipates intense development and use of the site. All of the intended "Central Park"
program uses require operations, maintenance, visitor and handicapped access, which as mentioned previously, will be
difficult to achieve and will require the disruption of many of the existing mature trees. Without better site access the
development would in all likelihood destroy the most appealing aspects of the site.
Although the land area appears sufficient to accommodate the "Central Park" program, little of the park will be available
to develop when the wetlands, floodable land and tree covered areas are considered.
The land has intrinsic value and should be saved for the enjoyment of future generations. As configured in the Scenic
Development proposal, the land parcel will ease the future trail connection to adjacent parklands, but it will not support
an intense park program.
Julie, should you require additional information or have questions regarding this letter report please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Brauer ciates, Ltd.
G e Wm. Watson
President
CENTRAL PARIS PROGRAM AND LAND
REQUIREMENTS
City of Eagan
July 15, 1996
Brauer and Associates, Ltd
7301 Ohms Lane
Suite #500
Minneapolis, Mn. 55439
Central Park Program and Land Requirements City of Eagan
Table of Contents
• Introduction Page 2
• Executive Summary Page 3
• Municipal Fireworks Display Page 4 - 6
• Municipal Amphitheater Page 7 - 8
• Municipal Art Fair Page 9
• Municipal Community Center Page 9 - 11
Brauer and Associates, Ltd. July 15, 1996
1
Central Park Program and Land Requirements City of Eagan
Introduction
The following report was compiled by Brauer and
Associates, Ltd. at the request of the City of Eagan's
planning department. The intent of the document is to
aid in clairifing the program requirements for a
"Central Park" concept that has long been described as
being needed within the city. The intent of the "Central
Park concept is to provide a space that functions as a
gathering place for large community events and at the
same time accomodateing every day use. The site
should be central, have good access and be very visible
to the community at large.
At a city Council workshop session held on June;6;
1996, the council and staff discussed the program
envisioned within such a park. The following activities
seemed to surface as the most important program items
for a "Central Park":
• Fourth of July Celebration Area
specifically as a location for display and
viewing of fireworks, but also as a starting
and/or ending point for parades, acting as a
central location for all Fourth activities.
• Amphitheater
this being a natural match with the Fourth of
July Celebration Area would bring additional
community wide use to the " Central Park"
and provide for smaller programs as well.
• Art Fair
for this study we have assumed that the
council was refering to a commercial event
similar to the Edina or Uptown art fain.
• Community Center
activities requiring building space should
include aquatics, fitness and community
service, (ie. teen and senior centers, multi
purpose rooms, day care etc.).
This represent basis for the program studied in this
report.
Brauer and Associates, Ltd. July 15, 1996
as
Central Park Program and Land Requirements City of Eagan
Executive Summary Each site reviewed for use as a "Central Park" should
be reviewed individually. No site will be perfect and
compromises will have to be made.
The following table summarizes the land area and land
form, access required and utilities needed to support the
program previously outlined. Issues such as visual
prominence within the community are subjective and
can only be addresses on a case by case basis. Keep in
mind that these are minimum areas and infrastructure
requirements.
Summary of Basic Requirements
Program Use Event Parking Access Utilities Land Form
Land Area Require Required
Area d
V H O S W S P
I C M A A T O
_ IN IN s Y T 0 W
ACRES ACRES I E R E
T R M R
0
R
Municipal Fireworks Dispaly 16.5 16.5 Y Y Y Y Gently
Sloping to Flat
Municipal Amphitheater 4 16.5 Y Y Y Y Y Gently
Sloping to Flat
Municipal Art Fair 1.7 NA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Flat / Paved
Municipal Community Center 2.5 8.75 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Flat to Gently
Rolling
When reviewing these area requirements it is important
to note the amphitheatercan be viewed as being 100%
compatible with the fireworks display. The
amphitheater would not be a wholly separate space but
one that would function within the same area as the
fireworks.
Brauer and Associates, Ltd. July 15, 1996
C.J`, J
Municipal Fireworks Display
Overview
A fireworks display and viewing area should provide
for the safe display and viewing of fireworks for the
citizens of Eagan. The display should be centrally
located within the corporate limits and needs to be
easily accessible by automobile, public transit, and
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Maintenance and
emergency access will be necessary to the display and
viewing areas. Handicapped access will be required in
the viewing area with accommodations for the viewing
comfort and seating of these citizens.
It should be anticipated that all of the 4th of July
celebration activities should be contained on this same
site or at least originate or terminate at the fireworks
display and viewing site.
It should be assumed that this site will also have
recreational and community value during the 364 days
of the year when fireworks displays are not taking
place at the site.
Criteria for Development
The following criteria have been assembled to aid the
city in the evaluation of potential sites for the display of
fireworks.
Sources contacted in the development of these criteria
include; the Federal Aviation Administration,
Metropolitan Airports Commission, Eagan City Fire
Department and the Loss Control Advisory report
previously prepared for the City on Fireworks Displays
by Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
Display Area
The following table illustrates the recommended
distances between fireworks mortars and spectators:
Minimum Mortar to Spectator Separation
Distances
Shell Size Vertical Mortars Angled Mortars
( inches) (feet) (feet) (a) (b)
<3 140 93
3 210 139
4 280 185
4
Minimum Mortar to Spectator Separation
Distances (Cont.)
Shell Size Vertical Angled
( inches) Mortars Mortars
(feet) (feet) (a) (b)
5 350 231
6 420 278
7 490 323
8 560 370
10 700 462
12 840 555
(a) Note that overall size requirement for display site is
not reduced by angling mortars.
(b) Mortars must be angled whenever aerial shells am to
be reloaded during a display.
Source of this table - Berkley Risk Services. Inc.
Loss Control Advisory: Fireworks Displays
Berkley Risk Services recommends a minimum
= separation distance of 500 feet between fireworks and
spectators, buildings and other structures.
Since fireworks displays are currently in favor with the
public, the city should look for a site that will
accommodate displays larger that currently being
produced.
Access to Display Area Taking the largest vertical mortar for aerial display, 12
inches, and the recommended spectator separation
distance, 840 feet, the area required for a single point
display would be 55,4177 square feet or 12.75 acres.
Access for maintenance and operations, as well as, for
an emergency purpose is critical. Access slopes should
not exceed the cities maximum for street construction.
Turning radii for the access drive should accommodate
a 42 feet inside turning radius.
Paved access is preferred although not required.
Airport Flight Path Approvals According to conversations with the Federal Aviation
Administration and Metropolitan Airports Commission
no approvals are required from their organizations for
5
~J
fireworks display locations. All approvals are at the
discretion of local government.
Spectator Seating Area Most suburban communities in the Minneapolis - St.
Paul area provide fireworks displays as part of their
4th of July celebration. The cities of Plymouth, Edina
and Maplewood all indicated that they have as many as
10,000 spectators for their fireworks event. Each of
these communities indicated that the total number of
spectators exceeds their normal ability to seat
spectators. Edina, for example, takes advantage of the
Southdale parking lots and local streets for both
parking and viewing during their 4th of July fireworks
display. Edina city staff estimates that 5000 people
were accommodated onsite in concert style seating.
Plymouth with a relatively new site provides concert
seating for approximately 6000 people on a 2 acre
amphitheater site.
Concert seating requires a larger area than auditorium
seating to accommodate each person. With the
informality of this type seating and the propensity for
people to bring picnic hampers, coolers, dogs etc. to the
event, a space of 2 `/s ft x 7 ft or 18.75 sq. R would
be required.
The preferred orientations for the seating area are
northeast or south west facing.
Since these facilities are extremely crowded, it is
recommended that Eagan consider seating for 7500
spectators. This amount of seating would require
140,625 sq. ft. or 3 .75 acres.
Parking Required Most communities do not provide 100% of the required
parking on-site for this once a year event. Use of public
streets and private parking facilities is common in most
suburban communities. For an anticipated 7,500
spectators and a factor of 3 passengers per auto, 2,500
parking spaces will be necessary to accommodate the
fireworks display. If this amount of parking was to be
provided on the facility site a minimum of 16.5 acres
would be devoted to this use.
Utilities Required Sanitary facilities will be required for this facility.
Portable facilities are commonly used and can be sized
to suit the expected demand.
6
c~(O.
Municipal Amphitheater
Overview An amphitheater should be flexible enough to provide
a performance area and seating for large and small
events alike. To accommodate the largest civic events
the amphitheater should have access to major arterial or
collector streets and should provide parking within a
reasonable distance. Suburban communities in this
metropolitan area vary widely in their approach to
providing this type facility. Roseville and Plymouth are
examples of communities that have large, (seating for
6,000 or more spectators), amphitheaters with a non
structured concert type seating. Eden Prairie whose
community amphitheater seating up to 500 people on
bench type seats. While a non - structured seating
allows the amphitheater to be used for other activities
during times when events are not scheduled, structured
seating will improve the capacity of the amphitheater.
Some combination of both structured and non -
structured seating could provide increased efficiency
while not totally limiting other uses of the site.
Cities with large amphitheaters do not provide for on
site parking for major events. These towns rely on
cooperative parking agreements with surrounding
private parking facilities and some on street parking.
Some provide shuttle bus service between the
amphitheater site and parking areas.
Suburbs with large amphitheaters uniformly use these
facilities for seating areas for fireworks displays.
Stage Area Requirements
Stage areas should -be paved and large enough to
accommodated bands, orchestras, plays, puppet shows,
etc. A paved area 70 feet square with an equal sized flat
turfed space to the rear of the stage should be adequate
for the largest performance.
Access to the stage should be constructed to accept the
delivery of portable band shells and performance
equipment. A loop drive would allow large vehicles to
drive through without backing. If a drive through for
service to the stage cannot be accomplished, a turn
around will be required.
7
o~~
Total area required for the stage and turn around will
be 13,000 to 14,000 sq.8. or.3 acres.
Seating Requirements Assuming that an amphitheater seating 7,500
spectators, the same number of seated spectators for a
fireworks display the size of the seating area would
also be the same, 3.75 acres
Parking Required The parking required for this facility would be the same
as that anticipated for the fireworks display, at 3
passengers per auto, 2,500 parking spaces or a
minimum of 16.5 acres would be devoted to this use.
Utilities Required Sanitary facilities will be required for this facility.
Portable facilities are commonly used and can be sized
to suit the expected demand.
Electrical service, 120/240 V / 206 amp, should be
provided at the stage. If concession booths are to be
provided at events, the size of the electrical service may
have to be increased.
Lighting for late evening removal of stage equipment
and for the safety of spectators should be included at
the amphitheater.
8
a~fJ
Municipal Art Fair
Overview Art fairs commonly are associated with retail shopping.
Both the Uptown Art Fair and the Edina Art Fair,
examples of successful local art fain, take place in
rather urban retail locations. Public facilities,
restaurants and shops all add to the ambiance of the
event. Available and convenient access, parking and
large areas of pavement for display of art and
handcrafted goods make these areas viable for this
form of entertainment.
Using the Uptown and Edina an fairs as examples the
Display Area Required area that would be required for display would be 1.3 to
1.7 acres of hard surface.
Utilities Required Power and portable sanitary facilities.
Parking Required Parking for these events is normally provided in public
streets and ramps, as well as, private parking facilities.
Actual counts of parking spaces required at similar
events are not available but thousands of spaces would
be required for a successful fair such as the Uptown.
Municipal Community Center A community center for the City of Eagan could
include the following program spaces; Gymnasium,
running track, aerobics and fitness, aquatics, locker
rooms, multi purpose rooms, senior center, teen center
Overview and nursery.
The site must be buildable and very accessible to the
public. Direct connection to arterial streets is desirable.
9
Surrounding land uses must be compatible and tolerant
of the traffic and noise created by the center.
Commercial or office uses would be not only be
acceptable, but could possibly provide infrastructure
needed for the development of a large community
center facility.
The following chart illustrates the building space
Building Area required for a community center with a program as
described above. These areas would be refined as the
program and the particular needs of the community
are bettter known.
Estimated Community Center Space
Requirements
Aquatics Area Leisure Pool 16,000 S.F.
Pool Steam Bath/
Sauna
Whirlpool
Fitness Area single 20,000 S.F.
Gymnasium
Aerobics
Exercize Fitness
Running /
Walking Track
Racquetball
Community Teen Center 16,800 S.F.
Service Area Multi-Purpose
Room
Community
Room / Kitchen
Snack Bar /
Coffee Shop
Nursery / Day
Care
Senior Center
Arts and Crafts
Non Program Locker Rooms 11,000 S.F.
Areas . Office /
Administration
reception / Lobby
/Lounge
Public Toilets
Total building space required is 63,800 square feet. The
site area for a structure of this size is 1 % acres. This
area is for the building only and does not include
setbacks, parking, outdoor amenities, etc.
Parking Required
Requirements and specific examples of parking needed
for this type facility vary from community to
community. The city of Maple Grove which is
currently building a facility of this type, with the
10
inclusion of an indoor hockey rink, will provide
approximately 750 parking spaces. With 250 to 300 of
these spaces built specifically to handle the
requirements of the rink, the balance of the parking,
450 to 500 spaces, would be a reasonable number for
the building. The area required for parking this number
of vehicles is 4 to 5 acres, depending on the efficiency
of design and land form.
Miscellaneous Land Required In additon to the land required to accomodate the actual
facility and parking, space will be required for such
items as landscaping, setbacks, circulation space and
environmental mitigation. These requirements could
account for as much as a 50% addition, 2.75 to 3 acres,
to land area required.
Total Developable Land Required The land calculation, totaling 8.25 to 9 acres thus far,
has assumed a 100% efficiency in the use of the land.
Each site will have conditions that will detract from the
efficient use of the land. Existing vegetation, water
bodies, slopes, and the shape and orientation of the
parcel, will require that more land be aquired than that
which is needed simply to construct the facilities. An
additional 25% land area should be included to
anticipate these factors bringing the total parcel acreage
to 10.3 to 11.25 acres.
Utilities Required Full urban services required for support of this facility.
11
u
MEMO
-,city of eagan
DATE: August 13, 1996
TO: Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission
FROM: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation
Dorothy Peterson, Superintendent of Recreation
SUBJECT: Natural and Scenic Grant Program and Successful Completion for Funding
Background
The Commission may recall that the Department submitted a Natural and Scenic Grants Program
application this spring. The application was for funds to assist with acquisition of approximately 7.5 acres
of land directly south of the Patrick Eagan Park access road off Lexington Avenue. The City's grant
request was $92,000. The City's matching share would be, at a minimum, equal to that amount.
Notice of Funding
The Department of Parks and Recreation has received notification of successful completion for funding
from Commissioner Rodney Saudo of the Department of Natural Resources. The grant award is $26,900.
Issues
• Size of the grant, significantly smaller than the application's request.
• Source of City's matching funds, in light of increased cost to the City for acquisition.
• Grant time frame.
• Reduce the size of the parcel to be acquired.
Discussion
Staff has conferred with Wayne Sames, Supervisor of the Local Grants Program concerning the next
steps and time frame. Potential options were discussed with grants manager, Tom Kranz.
Official action to accept/reject the grant is not required at this time as the project completion date is
November 1, 1996. Contract documents will not be prepared until later this fall. The commission may
wish to consider options at this time, however, in light of the reduced size of the grant.
Options to Consider (subject to the financial picture this fall)
• Pursue purchase of the 7.5 acres, utilizing the grant with increased level of City participation in the
funding.
• Rework the grant with DNR staff, focusing on acquisition of the 4.4 acre piece south of the entrance to
Patrick Eagan Park.
• Rework the grant with DNR staff to acquire the 3.1 acre piece west of the owner's home.
• Reject the grant.
For Commission Action
No action is required at this time. In light of the reduced level of grant funding, the Commission should
provide staff with direction for its near term work with DNR staff.
r6/dp813.96
J~
MEMO
- city of eagan
TO: Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory
Commission
FROM: Paul Olson, Superintendent of Parks
DATE: August 15,1996
SUBJECT: Lexington-Diffley Athletic Fields Building Concepts
In June of this year a committee of staff members began meetings to formulate a design program
for the possible construction of a service building or buildings at the Lexington-Diffley Athletic
Field as part of the 1997 Capital Improvement Program. The Committee, which quietly became
known as the "Dream Team" due to its creative prowess consisted of;
Dorothy Peterson Superintendent of Recreation
C. J. Lilly Park Planner
Paul Graham Park Operations Supervisor
Jon Oyanagi Recreation Supervisor
(Captain) Paul Olson Superintendent of Parks
The basic questions addressed by the team included:
Who - Who could the primary users be and what were their needs?
Why - Why is a building necessary, what purposes would it serve?
• What - What elements and form best met the basic needs?
• Where - What location(s) would best meet the basic needs?
• When - What would the season of use be, when would the facility be
developed?
After considerable discussion of these questions, a very basic program was developed. The
emphasis being to define the opportunities and limitations.
Who- The primary users of the facility are recreational softball players participating in
league games. A limited number of spectators attend league games however,
large crowds would be expected at the State and National Tournaments the
Department hopes to lure to the facility. Walkers, bikers, and in-line skaters
utilize the facility on an informal basis.
1 J,S
Why - On any given evening the number of players at the facility may approach two
hundred. Their need for sanitary facilities and access to water are only partially
met by the presence of portable toilets and containerized water. There is no
shelter available in the event of a sudden summer time storm. The Recreation
Staff has no space to serve as a tournament center or safe on site storage. No
concessions are available.
What - A permanent building or buildings capable of accommodating the basic needs of
players, spectators and staff. Because of the exposure, a visually appealing design
is considered a priority. Compliance with ADA as required.
Where - The two "hubs" between the two sets of fields are considered to be the priority
locations. Utilities were "stubbed in" at both locations during the original
construction. Both are readily accessible from the north and south parking lots.
The footprint of any structure will be limited by the location of the backstops and
the need to retain space for spectators and maintenance vehicles.
When - No winter use of the facility is currently planned, eliminating the need to make
provisions for a year round building. Construction at the first opportunity is
considered to be advantageous to both accommodate the high use and to aide in
the effort to attract prestigious tournaments.
In subsequent meetings specific program elements considered important were listed and defined.
They included (basic premise; ADA compliance as required);
• Restroom - Separate men's and women's toilet rooms to include sinks, counter
space and passive air circulation. An accessible maintenance chase space located
between the toilet rooms accessed by a separate door.
• Mechanical Room - Houses all utility connections, water heater, dry storage for
maintenance items and a utility sink. Secured by a separate exterior doorway.
• Tournament Headquarters - To be used by staff as a staging area for tournaments
and league play. Includes sufficient space for lockable equipment storage.
Equipped with a telephone for staff use.
• Gathering Space - An open area covered by a roof or overhang, sufficient space to
protect players and spectators from rain or sun. Access to a pay telephone is
provided.
2
• Vending - Adequate space and electrical connections to allow for the installation
of a minimum of two vending machines. To be oriented away from the sun with
provisions for a retractable locking screen. Exterior water and electrical
connections for a vending trailer.
• Viewing - Open space oriented to the fields for spectator viewing of games,
covered for protection from the elements.
• Score keol" - Table or counter space oriented to the adjacent fields. Sufficient
electrical connections for a public address and Score keeping system. Protected
from the elements.
Building form - Because of the limited ground space available, the Team settled upon a two level
design similar to that in place at the Northview Softball Complex. A second level would serve to
double the useable floor space without consuming ground space. The increased vertical
dimension would have the added advantage of visually disrupting the horizontal plane created by
the seemingly endless fence lines and flat ground plane in a pleasing and attractive manner.
The Team concluded there was sufficient need for two buildings however the program for each
would differ. The distance between the field "hubs" would be significant enough to dissuade
players in particular from walking from one hub to another for fear of missing a portion of the
game. In tournament play or for small leagues the games would typically be scheduled to "play
down" to one of the hubs for the placing games thus drawing perhaps the largest spectator group
making that hub the center of attention for a greater length of time. This focus of attention would
preclude the need for a complete duplication of building features.
Basic Building Programs
Building #1 Service Building (East Hub)
Restrooms with maintenance chase
- Mechanical space
Lower Level - Tournament headquarter and storage
- Gathering Space
- Vending area with trailer connections
Viewing area
Upper Level Score keeping space
Building #2 Pavilion Building (West Hub)
- Restrooms with maintenance chase
Lower Level - Gathering space
Viewing area
Upper Level Score keeping space
3
Working with architect Jon Miller the Team began to refine design concepts. A list of common
design elements was created. Most were taken from what has become the standard "pallet" of
design elements for Eagan Park buildings;
• Light earth tone stone or brick
• Angular roof lines
• Wooden wall treatments
• Asphalt shingle
• Concrete/tile flooring
• Brightly lit
• Metal doors
• Exposed wood beams
• Flags and pennants (new)
The building concept chosen by the Team for further refinement includes two complementary
two level buildings, each containing the specific elements outlined in the program. A unique
feature of the Service Building would be a centralized walk through hallway which accesses the
restrooms, tournament headquarters, mechanical room, vending, and interior staircase leading to
the upper level. Roll down, locking metal screening on each end of the corridor would provide
security for the building by limiting access to any of the internal spaces or the staircase. An
offset orientation would allow score keepers in the upper level an ideal view of the game action
at each field.
The Pavilion Building would differ slightly in the formation of the lower level. Due to the
absence of a mechanical room and headquarters space there would not be a central corridor but
rather an open gathering space. A single internal staircase would provide access to the upper
level.
Timing and Cost
The Dream Team along with the architect hopes to continue refinement of the designs during the
fall. Upon approval a bid would be let in February of 1997 with construction slated to begin in
late March. Completion would be expected in June.
The very preliminary cost estimated for the project, including both buildings, is $185,000.00 -
$225,000.00. More precise estimates can be made as the designs are refined.
1:\43wp\Icxditbldg.227
4 J
Wading Pool Study
Parks and Recreation
City of Eagan
1996
ITIL:
,rte
t
City of Emw
7!30/%
J
Table of Contents
Page
Background Information ;
Wading Pool Attendance ii
Wading Pool Questions and Results
1. Are you an Eagan Resident? 1
2. Is this your first visit to the Eagan Wading Pool?- 1
2a. If this is not your first visit to the Pool, how many times have you come? 2
3. How did you hear about Eagan's Wading Pool? 2
4. How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today? 3
S. If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you be willing to pay? 3
6. To what age group do you belong? 4
7. To what age group do your children belong? 4
8. How would you rate the wading pool? 5
9. What do your children like most about the pool? 7
10. Where else does your family go for swimming activities? 7
11. Would you support the idea of different time frames for different age groups/heights
at the wading pool? g
12. If that meant taking hours away from a current age group, would you still favor it? 8
Additional comments on the Wading Pool? 9
13. Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool in Eagan? 10
14. Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor pool? 11
15. How many times per week would you use a large community pool? 11
16. How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use a commuaity pool? 12
17. Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading pool? 12
18. In order to construct a pool, it would require a bond referendum. Would you be
willing to support it? 13
19. What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your property taxes to pay to build a pool? 13
Comments on Potential Community Pool Development? 14
Summary 15
Staff Recommendations/Comments 17
Appendix
Copy of Survey
Tally Sheet
ho
Wading Pool Study i
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RMODUCTION:
The summer of 1996 marked the opening of Eagan's wading pool. With a new facility comes new
challenges. Unfamiliarity with such a facility has led to the initiation of a wading pool user survey to better
understand all aspects of the City's new asset.
SSE OF THE S m_v•
The purpose of the study is to gain a better understanding of who's using the pool, how it is being utilized,
how the users perceive it and to gain insight on the future role of pool facilities in the City of Eagan.
DEMMONS:
Resident: Any person whose permanent address lies within Eagan city limits.
Non-resident: Any person whose permanent address lies outside of Eagan city limits.
Wading pool user: Any person who spends leisure time in Eagan's wading pool facility.
N E MOD OLOGI:
Wading pool users were randomly sampled on weekdays, weekends, days and evenings for a two week
period of time. There were a total of 164 people surveyed. 100 users were Eagan residents, while 64 were non-
residents.
4~
Wading Pool Study U
Wading Pool Attendance:
A random count of wading pool users was taken between June S, 1996, and July 30, 1996. Weather dictated
usage and the following trends were observed:
0 Users- rainy, cool, cloudy,
1-10 Users- partly sunny, low to mid-70's,
11-20 Users- sunny, mid to high 70's,
21-30 Users- high 70's to mid 80's,
31-40 Users- sunny, humid, 80's,
Over 40 users- hot, sunny, humid.
Wading Pool Attendance
Z"
M T"771
2,-70
31-40
~ a,eo
~ n•n _
81.90
91-100:
,00.
0 S 10 1s 20 25
0 of Days
~tol .
wading Poo! Study 1
Analysis Qf ata:
Question #1- Are you an Eagan resident?
J
This question reveals the number of residents and non-residents using Eagan's wading pool facility. Out of the total
number of users surveyed, 61% were Eagan residents and 39% were non-residents. These numbers show that the wading pool
is attracting people from other communities.
An You an Eagan Resident?
No Yee
36% 61%
Question #2- Is this your first visit to the Eagan Wading Pool?
This question explored whether the users of the wading pool are first time visitors or whether they are repeat visitors.
The graph shows that 67% of non-residents are first time visitors and 33% are repeat visitors. It also shows that 43% of
resident users are visiting for the first time, while 57% are repeat visitors. The information leads one to believe that word
is rapidly spreading amongst non-residents that Eagan has a wading pool facility. On the other hand, over half of Eagan
residents have already discovered the pool and are making repeat visits to it. Also illustrated is the number of total users,
which visualizes the near equal amount of first time users at 52% and repeat visitors at 48%.
Is this your first visit?
46%
Total
62% a Yet O No
Resident
t,7X
Non-Resident
67%
M
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 70% 80%
Percentage
~3-
Wading Pool Study 2
Question #2a- If this is not your first visit to the Eagan wading pool,
how many times have you come?
This question was used to give insight on how often repeat visitors are frequenting the wading pool. The graph
shows similarities between non-residents and residents. The majority of repeat visitors have been to the wading pool 2-5
times. Second visits were most common with 39% of the total responses.
How many times have you come?
45%
40%
55% Non-Reside
90% O Resident
25% OTotal
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
p- tw Tliw~ it fwd M Mwn Lipt Mw tNErwn TwM~ ill\- ttirl'-
N of Times visited
Question #3- How did you hear about Eagan's wading pool?
This question provides a look at how Eagan's wading pool is being publicized. The graph shows that 56% of non-
resident users discovered the pool through their friends, while 20% saw it while driving by and decided to pay a visit. Also
shown are resident results, with 36% of residents finding out about the pool by driving by, 21% by reading the Sun Current
and 20% through a friend.
It is interesting , yet understandable, to see the difference in results between non-residents and residents. Locality
and residency play a major role in how often an individual would tend to drive by the wading pool facility. It also would
dictate the availability of the Eagan Sun Current.
How did you hear about Eagan's Wading Pool?
Unsure
Open House L* •Total
O Resident
Bulletin ~s • Non-Resident
Family ~x
v Friend sex
Drive-by xx
to+c i i ~
Neighbor
Sun z+x
tx I i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage
~7
Wading Pool Study 3
Question #4- How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
The effort to find out exactly how long people were staying at the wading pool brought about very similar results
from non-residents and residents. An overwhelming 87% of total users are staying at the wading pool for longer than 45
minutes per visit. 11% are staying from 30-45 minutes. The remainder are staying less than 30 minutes.
How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
100% T asx
i1o% n%
on
•NsnResWsrtt
70% OResident
W% t OTOtst
I
50%
40%
30%
20% +
10%+ 1% t% 2% 1% 1% Fin
0%
0.15 Minutes 15.30 Minutes 3045 Minutes 45• Minutes
Minutes
Question #5- If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you
be willing to pay?
This question was asked in order to find out what a reasonable fee would be to use the wading pool. Graph I shows
the greatest number of non-residents(34%) willing to pay $1 to use the pool. 25% would pay $2 and 12% would pay $.SO.
Graph 2 shows 34% of residents also willing to pay $1. 20% would pay $2 and 21% would pay S.50. Graph 3 shows 34%
of total users willing to pay Si is the most popular answer, while 21% of the users willing to pay $2 is the second most
popular. The results show that few people feel the cost should exceed $2.
NORAWWWO. M OWN ww • fN fx sr we" i AWk W. r Own awn a fM far We we" NFL 1s1Y. s snw raw s ue far to a dins roes. rtot
Post, west WN" You in W" to Pay? asst Ww" Yw M a" r osyf wds You N MIYM to pay?
A A A
A A A
A 30 'r A
70U ~ A r• fell
~A w ~am .A
+a +w Iw
_ w n
~ w w w w A
r rr an x nr a non r■ a as ■A n va a as a r a r rr rr P Mr n rr r r r
~J"
Wading Pool Study 4
Question #6- To what age group do you belong?
This question focusses on the age group of the parents who bring their children to the wading pool. As the graph
shows, the majority are in the 31-40 age group. Several are in the 20-30 yr. age range as well.
ITo what age group do you belong
to%
e0% @NorA
50% OResident
OTOM
40%
M%
20% =
10%
i IL-n
0% IL= 11 1 [
under 20 20.30 31-40 41-50 over 50
Ago Group
Question #7- To what age group do your children belong?
As the graph shows, the wading pool is catering to young children. Children 5 + under make up 72% of the total
number of children using the pool. Surprisingly, 27% of the children are ages 6-12. Some of this age group may tend to
violate the height restriction rule.
iTo what age group do your children belong?~
i
16-18
OTotal
0.10% ■ Resident
C 13-15 JO jNon-Resident
P
t9 ax
six-12 U%
Under
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percentage
T~
Wading Pool Study S
Question #8- How would you rate the wading pool?
Several aspects of the wading pool were rated on a scale of 1-10. One represents a low, or poor rating and ten
is a high, or favorable rating.
Size of Pool? r
30R OTON /
,/n t
C r
t
Y~ r s e~ e
Or Tw Wm Fw Rw Y 8~ 1" Nun Tyr
.r MW
3n, Opp eratlon Hours
3" _
~n l
i 'OTG
e r e ~ ~ ~
e
,A e e
OM Tr TIM Few FM iY sw ~ M" mm T-
IMMW
T0%" Location
0011 .
f0K ; OTdN
3m
20% i R
,011 t
~ICC SC !C CC CK C C E
O- Trr TNrr Fw FN Y 6u 6409 Nr Ton
ar w
W lHeight Restrictions
or.r
ton
,K C R
li7 +on . E E
w. #C !t C j
i C C
ri U
or
Orr Tyr TOM Fw M- Y awl mm T-
.AID 842b
Wading Pool Study 6
- Safety Measures
20X snood"
~e ~e ee ee
e%
One TM Thee Rv Rw Mt Mrw 60 NM Ton
am some
26% ` Location of Restrooms
1S%
X =
E
11 IIIU
t
0%
trfL
on. Two Three Few Rw th iaen %M NM Ten
Rob Seek
:s%- Location of Telephone
i.RON"
20% OTOW
IOK -
ON
010 TING Tlree Few Riw ON ft%w 'ran
Rob ~eW
w°d'118 Pool Study 7
Question #9- What do your children like most about the pool?
Illustrated below are the reasons why children like the wading pool.
What do your children like most about the pool?
2%
Sise 3%
~x
3%
ND by Kids OTOW
~x
3% O R"91011"
o6w Kids 3% ■NOrAssident
o%
WO.Vaemp
~3%
3%
AM 5%
l~
Water ux
13%
U%
app 2sx
40%
M%
Fountain 4trx
42%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Powntage
Question #10- Where else does your family go for swimming activities?
Non-Resident Resident Total
Schultz 16 Schultz 46 Nokomis 1 Schulte 62 Brackett 1
Redwood 10 Mendota 12 Crystal 15 Elmo 1
Crystal 9 Bloomington 9 Bloomington 15 Como 1
Backyard 8 Dakota Hills 8 Redwood 13 Snelling I
Bloomington 6 Apartment 7 Mendota 12 Tonka 1
Lake Marion 4 Crystal 6 Backyard 9 Zoo 1
South St. Paul 3 Cabin 5 Apartment 8 Duluth I
Farminton 3 Y 5 Dakota Hills 8 Private I
Edina 2 South St. Paul 4 South St. Paul 7 Valley I
Cannon Falls 2 Blackhawk 4 Y 6
Valley View 2 Holland 4 Lake Marion 5
West St. Paul 2 Redwood 3 Holland 5
Holland 1 Prior 3 Blackhawk 5
Nicollet 1 Lifetime 3 Cabin 5
Bracketts 1 Chaska 2 Farmington 4
Apartment 1 Eagan Athletic 2 Valley View 3
Mendota I Edina I Lifetime 3
Richfield 1 Backyard 1 Edina 3
Beaver Mountain I Richfield 1 Prior 3
Y I Lake Marion 1 Richfield 2
Elmo 1 Beaver Mountain I Chaska 2
Como I Valley View 1 Eagan Athletic 2
Blackhawk 1 Farmington I Cannon Falls 2
Shakopee 1 Snelling I Beaver Mountain 2
'rivate 1 Tonka 1 West St. Paul 2
Nokomis I Zoo I Shakopee 2
Valley Middle I Duluth I Nokomis 2
Shakopee I Nicollet S.H.
W4ding Pool Study 8
Question #11- Would you support the idea of different time frames for
different age groups/heights at the wading pool?
54% of non-residents answered no and 46% answered yes as shown. Resident responses differed with 63%
responding no and 37% yes. The totals equal 6O/c answering no and 4011c yes. It should be noted that parents with one child
were more likely to answer yes and parents with more that one child were likely to answer no to this question.
Would you support the idea of different time frame for
different age groups/heights at the wading pool?
70% i r---,
63% 60% i Non•Resider><
60% + 0Resident
` 64% OTotal
60% T 46%
40%
40% 1
30% T~ [37%
I
20%
10%
0%
Yes No
Question #12- If that meant taking hours away from a current age
group, would you still favor it?
This question relates to those who answered yes on the previous question. The results were very similar amongst
non-residents and residents. Chart 3 shows the total results of 76% still favoring different time frames if it meant taking hours
away from the current group. 23% felt time shouldn't be taken away from the current age group.
If that meant taking hours away from a current age group, would
you still favor It?
1% 23%
76%
Total
3% 19% I I I 76 ~U^i
M Resident 11:3 No
~ Yes
0% I t
Non-Resident 72%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 60%
Wading Pool Study 9
ADDITIONAL COMWNTS ON THE WADING POOL:
- Needs closer rostrums
- Needs closer telephone
- Should be signs for restrooms and phone
- Needs concession stand
- Would like more chairs and tables
- Needs shade
- A fenced in picnic area would be nice
- Needs more play elements like Chaska
- Great/Nice
- Should be bigger
- Should be a sign for the height restriction that reads 'You must be this tall'
- Needs drinking fountain
- Prefers age restriction, not height
- Earlier hours
- Later hours
- Need more wading pools throughout city
- Wading pool should remain free
- Small slides should be added
- Less restrictions
- Restroom location forces parents to bring all their kids to the arena
- Need garbage cans inside fence
- Good deck area
- Should have separate, deeper wading pool for bigger kids
- Should be deeper
- Needs a lifeguard
- Needs better wheelchair accessibility
- Needs portable toilets
- Put padding on fountain posts
- Enforce the height restriction
- Need open hours for all ages
S~
Wading Pool Study 10
Question #13- Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool
in Eagan?
This question was posed to all wading pool users in order to better understand the need for a large community
pool in Eagan. Even though non-residents would not be paying the tax bill for such a facility, their opinion should be valued.
There are many non-residents using current Eagan facilities, such as the wading pool, who would be likely to use a large
community pool if available.
The graph shows 84% of non-residents surveyed feel there is a need for a large community pool. 10% were unsure
and 6% felt there wasn't a need. The vast majority of residents, at 93%, felt a need for a large community pool. 6% felt there
was no need and only 1% were unsure. Of the total number of users surveyed, 90% expressed that they felt Eagan needs
a large community pool. 6% felt there was no need and 4% were unsure.
Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool?
100%, am
90%~ Oyes
00%; ONo
• Unsure
70%
60%
50%-
40%
i
QS: 6% 6Y
30%
i
20% 10%
Ix
10%', f%
i
0%
Non-Resident Resident Total
60
Wading Pool study 11
Question #14- Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor
pool?
This question is a follow up to question 13. It was asked to those who felt there was a need for a large community
pool in Eagan. The results of this question were very similar amongst non-residents and residents, as seen in the graph. Of
the total number surveyed, 63% would prefer the use of a large outdoor community pool. 15% was the second most popular
response with users answering both. 12% preferred the use of an indoor pool. 9% felt either an indoor or outdoor pool would
be nice, and 1% were unsure.
Would you p-r*W to haw an indoor pool or an outdoor pool?
fx
urn,. fx
0% •Taul
o PAPM
18% •f "Oudmt
BOtl1 fI%
13%
FJOfR ~
t2%
f2%
In0ov ~ fIx
!!f
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 50% W% 70%
P-M
Question #15- How many times per week would you use a large
community pool?
Non-resident and resident results were fairly similar on this question as well. The graph shows
39% of the total number of people surveyed said they would use a large community pool twice a week. The majority of
families would frequent the pool between one and three times a week.
How many Umes per week would you use the pool?
aT%
46%
40% s.
06% • ra.R..drr
30%
olt~lawr
25% A
OTaW
20% r
15% T
n• r+•
at N
5% t •
NOaM ~r~ Oa0a0~
Widen Ora TOP Tana far fba I! $own OaarI
tln~
of
~3
W4ding Pool Study 12
Question#16- How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use
a community pool?
This question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of what people are willing to pay to use a large
community pool. As the graph shows, 40% of the total number of people surveyed felt S2 was a reasonable cost to use a
pool. 21% answered $3, 12% answered $1 and 9% answered 52.50.
How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use s
45% T community pool?
35% . Ncr►Rdsidan
C Rasidant
30% •ToW
25%
s s
1 «
20% Y
15%
10%. tit f
5% ? f ff
! ass
61 $1.50 32 1210 33 $4 $5 as
Question #17- Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading
pool?
This question was asked with the thought in mind that a wading pool would be part of or in close proximity to a
large community pool. The chart shows 84% of those surveyed felt the fee should include the use of a wading pool and 15%
did not. 1% of those asked were unsure.
IDo you think the fee should Include the use of a wading pool?
100%
•1% •r.a
•o%
tttnc ONO
ra%
eo%
eo%
30%
+nc
20%
10% n'
~ 1x 1%
o%
Ncn Rea dM Raaitlant Total
J
. Wading Pool Study 13
Question #18- In order to construct a pool, it would require a bond
referendum. Would you be willing to support it?
This question was asked only to Eagan residents who have the power to vote on such an issue.
The chart illustrates 98% of Eagan residents surveyed willing to support a bond referendum, while 00/0 answered no and 2%
were unsure.
Willing to support Bond Referendum?
No
o% thnw~
Yu
!f%
Question #19- What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your
property taxes to pay to build a pool?
This question was asked to those who answered yes on the previous question. The chart shows that of those
surveyed, 33% are willing to pay $5-10, 32% will pay $10-15, 22% will pay $20-25 and 13% will pay $15-20. The $5-10
and $10-15 range proves to be the most acceptable cost to those surveyed. There is still a significant percentage that is
willing to pay more.
What amount is reasonable?
$20.25 $5-10
22% 33%
$15.20 $10.15
13% 32%
J~ '
Wading Pool Study 14
COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL COMMUNITY POOL DEVELOPMENT:
- Creates jobs
- Promotes quality family time
- Brings in money
- Positive childhood experiences
- Opportunity for lessons
- $5 rate at Edina is too much
- Hurry up!
- Need to think long term and have many features
- Have large shallow area as part of large pool
- Programs for special needs
- Need large pool badly
- Put it next to the arena
- If you do it, do it big
- No high dive
- Have concessions
- Will service age range in families
- Need facility for the whole family
- Regulate the cost to Eagan residents. Have higher cost to non-residents due to the fact that
residents pay the taxes to construct the pool.
Wading Pool Study 1 5
SUMMARY:
Eagan's new wading pool facility is a popular attraction to both residents and non-residents. There is a
significant, if not surprising, number of people travelling from other communities to experience Eagan's wading pool.
On average, about half of the users are fist time visitors and half are repeat visitors. Repeat visitors tend to have
come to the pool 2-5 times before they were surveyed. During the course of the survey, many were present several
more times.
The study shows interesting differences in how non-residents and residents discovered the wading pool.
Non-residents heard about it primarily through friends and secondarily by drive-by. Residents discovered the pool
mostly by drive-by, secondarily by the Sun Current and thirdly by friends. Locality. residency and availability of
the Sun were sure to play a role in these statistics, but nonetheless proves to be interesting.
Another surprising statistic is that 87% of all wading pool users are staying longer than 45 minutes. While
conducting the surveys, many people said that they planned on staying for 2-3 hours.
Although some people felt that there should be no fee for the wading pool, the majority have no problem
paying between 5.50 and S2 for the use of such a facility. $1 was the most common answer for a reasonable cost.
As to be expected, parents who bring their children to the wading pool are mostly in the 31-40 age group
and secondarily in the 20-30 yr. range. 75% of their children are 5 and under and 27% are 6-12 yrs. old. Children
6-12 may exceed height regulations at Eagan's wading pool.
Users rated the size of the pool fairly high, yet I received many comments that the city should have built
it with long term goals in mind. With Eagans large population of young families, their point is valid. I have
counted over 100 people in the wading pool facility at one time.
Operating hours received good ratings, yet there were always some people saying it should be open earlier
and later.
The location of the pool had overwhelmingly good ratings. Many people commented that there should be
a large pool in the same location.
Height restrictions were difficult to rate, as the restriction was 36" at the beginning of the survey and
switched to 48" half way through. Whichever the case, people seemed to be pleased that the pool was focussed on
the younger age group. Low ratings were likely to be obtained due to non-enforcement and the fact that some 2-3
yr. olds exceeded 36 " when that restriction was in place.
Most people gave safety measures a good rating. The two comments I heard most were that there should
be a phone closer by and that parents should be responsible for the safety of their children anyway.
The restroom location did not please everyone. Many low ratings came about because parents with more
than one child would have to walk their whole family over to the arena in order to use the restroom.
Recommendations for a portable restroom were made several times. Some people don't seem to realize that the
arena is open and that there is even a restroom available.
The location of the telephone drew some negative attention as well. Many people felt that the arena was
too far to go in the event of an emergency. It should be noted that many people who had access to cellular phones
gave it a good rating.
It's no surprise that the children at the wading pool like the fountains the most. The simple fact that there's
water, as well as it being shallow, is also attractive to them.
Many families that use the wading pool use Schultz Lake Beach as well for swimming activities. Crystal
Lake, the Bloomington pool, Apple Valley's Redwood pool and Mendota Heights pool are also popular choices for
family swimming activities.
Creating different time frames for different age groups/heights at the wading pool received a mixed reaction.
40% of those surveyed favored this idea and 76% of that 40% still favored it if it meant taking hours away from
the current age group. 23% would not favor taking hours away.
Those 40% who initially answered yes to this question had a tendency to be a one child family, which would allow
flexibility in relation to when they could come to use the wading pool.
The 60% who did not support the idea of different time frames for different age groups seemed to feel that
there would be too much conflict and difficulty associated with trying to bring children from different age groups
to the wading pool. Many stated that they like being able to visit the wading pool whenever the desire strikes them.
Different time frames for different age groups/heights may hinder their opportunity to enjoy the wading pool.
The survey results reflect the public's opinion that Eagan has a need for a large community pool facility.
Wading Pool Study 16
Resident opinions should be valued because they would be the primary users of such a facility. They also have the
ability to support, oppose, vote and contribute financially to a community pool construction effort.
Non-resident opinions should be valued as well. They do not have to make the decisions residents must
make, but they do make up a significant percentage of the population that would use a potential pool facility.
Now that there is an awareness of the publics need for a pool, the question of what type of pool they prefer
surfaces. The majority of those surveyed would prefer an outdoor pool. Some would like to see both and indoor
and outdoor pool due to Minnesota's climate. Still others would opt for either an indoor or outdoor facility.
Wading pool users who felt the need for an indoor pool were asked if they used existing indoor facilities
and if not, why? Some answers were: No club membership, Schools are intimidating to enter, They do use the
schools, but there is not an open 'community' feeling, Schools are too far away, Their kids are too young, They
haven't thought about it.
Wading pool users were asked how many times they felt they would use a large community pool facility
per week. The results were similar to how many times repeat visitors attended the wading pool. One to three visits
per week were the most common responses. Two visits was the most popular answer.
Those surveyed were asked what they are willing to pay to use a.large community pool. $2 per person
received 40% of the responses, 21% answered S3 and 9% responded $2.50. This adds up to 70% of those surveyed
feeling 52-3 is a reasonable cost to use a community pool. Many comments were received stating that Edina's S5
per person rate is too high. Family rates and season passes were also suggested.
If the city. were to have a large pool facility in the future, the issue of whether or not there should be a
wading pool available in conjunction with the large pool would arise. The results of question #17 may help in
making such a decision or help in how such a facility is operated. 84% of those surveyed felt that the fee they pay
for the large pool should include the use of a wading pool, if present or in close proximity. 15% felt it should be
separate from the large pool.
An incredible 98% of Eagan residents were willing to support a bond referendum in order to construct a
community pool. S5-10 and S10-15 property tax increases were the most acceptable to those surveyed.
~v
Wading Pool Study 17
STAFF UCONMENDATIONS / COMMENTS:
Eagan's wading pool is obviously a success story. It provides a unique opportunity otherwise not available
in the immediate area. However, the potential for improvement still remains, as it is an unfamiliar facility to those
that operate it and use it. Throughout the survey, there were a few issues that kept reappearing. The public's desire
for shade, closer restrooms and a closer telephone was clear.
Shade provides an important refuge from the sun for young children as well as adults. This facility is
geared towards young children and provides absolutely no shade whatsoever. Given the fact that many families are
staying at the wading pool for long periods of time, shade should be available. Umbrellas on tables provide an
immediate fix which can be located within the main use area. Trees are another option, but will take time to grow
and be some distance away from the use area.
Restrooms in the arena are forcing parents to round up the whole family and head over to the arena.
Parents do not want to leave their children unsupervised for any period of time. Often, parents have several children
and they don't all need to go to the restroom at the same time, which results in several trips to the arena. Users
have regularly suggested the availability of a portable restroom. The convenience it would provide would make the
wading pool facility much more user friendly.
Many people feel that there should be a telephone available at the wading pool in the case of an emergency.
With no lifeguard present, the added security of a visible means to reach emergency personnel could be beneficial.
Many people don't even realize the arena is open and has a phone available.
Operation of the wading pool is costly. Improving the facility is costly as well. To compensate for some
of this cost, a small fee could be charged. The data shows that most people am willing to pay something for its
use. Family rates and season passes are options as well, helping to sustain and improve the wading pool.
The survey showed that people feel there is a need for a large community pool in Eagan. If the city were
to progress on such an issue, a few things might want to be taken into consideration: There are many people willing
to pay to construct a pool, Location and visibility are crucial to a facilities success, A large, elaborate facility is
more likely to sustain itself.
The survey showed that 98% of the Eagan residents would be willing to support a bond referendum for
a pool. Their perception of how much it should cost differed, but it is promising to see that there was no trend
towards paying the minimum amount available as an answer.
It is likely that the wading pool is successful due to it's visibility and location. People are seeing it,
experiencing it and telling their friends about it. A large pool would provide the maximum opportunity to attract
users if it were equally as visible.
The more a facility offers in combination with the proper location, will attract visitors and lead to
sustainability. The wading pool catches the public's eye with the colorful play elements protruding from it. It seems
logical that the same attracting features would help bring people in to a large pool facility and keep them coming
back.
The ultimate potential pool development would provide several large attractions and provide recreation for
a whole family at one facility.
Appendix
C~
Cr Y OF EAGAN
Wading Pool Survey
1. Are you an Eagan resident? Yes No If no, from where?
2. h this your fiat visit to the Eagan wading pool? Yes No
If no, how many times have you come?
3. How did you hear about Eagan wading pool?
4. How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
0-15 15-30 30-45 4S+ minutes
S. If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you be willing to pay?
6. To what age group do you belong?
under 20 20-30 31-40 41-50 over 50
7. To what age group do your children belong?
under S 6-12 13-I5 16-18
8. How would you rate the wading pool?
- size of pool? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- operating hours? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location? low 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 high
- height restrictions? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- safety measures? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location of rest rooms? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location of telephone? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
9. What do your children like most about the pool?
10. Where else does your family go for swimming activities?
11. Would you support the idea of different time frames for different age gruups/beights at the
wading pool? Yes No
12. If that meant taking bourn away from a current age group, would you still favor it? Yes No
13. Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool? Yes No Unsure
14. Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor pool?
Indoor Outdoor Either Unsure
- If arswer is indoor, cak if they use existing indoor pools in the city. If not, why?
15. How many times per week would you use the pool?
16. How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use a community pool?
$2 $3 $4 $5 $6
17. Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading pool? Yes No
18. h order to construct a pool, it would require a bond referendum. Would you be willing to
support it? Yes No Unsure
19. What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your property taxes to pay to build a pool?
35-10 $10-15 $15-20 $20-25
20. What recommendations would you offer the city regarding potential pool development?
21. Additional Comments?
~a_
FROM OPUS NPI 88.89.1996 88:83 P.81
log I- lqzoi-aL
Arlene R. Ann&
1374 7urdy Road
Eagan, MN 55121-2116
~15~030 l ~sb~t35
PARR: Moonshine who?
August 9, 1996
City of Eagan
Parks and Recreation
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
AWN: Advisory Parks and Recreation National Resources Commission Board Members
Living in Eagan for nine plus years, and having always lived in the same block
practically, I request your consideration into purchasing land to create a park for the
marry many children that live in the Eagan area between Yankee-Doodle/Pilot Knob/
Lone Oak and the 35E dissection of our area. There is no Parks in this region for the
children to play. Pilot Knob Elementary School is too far and the children would have to
cross Pilot Knob Road which there is no crossing lights along the Pilot Knob stretch
between Yankee & Zone Oak.
As a Tax-Payer I feel we in this area listed above are abort aided in this respect.
There is no place for the lids to play baseball, etc. It would be great to have someplace
for the kids to play in a sandbox, swing on a swing, or eat at a simple picnic table. Even if
the refuse land of this so-called park- MOONSHINE Park(Its not a park, its just a
unleveled plot of land next to LeMayljkc)-, leveled out it would maybe make into some
sort of MAKE-SHIFT play area.
Please consider my request. I have brought this to the attention of the Parks and
Recreations counter person at the City of Eagan as it is a heightened concern for me and I
aspire that it is also a particular concern for you as a member of this important
commission.
I further would be willing upon request by your commission to respond in any way
means or ihshion necessary to aid or contribute to such a means for a park in this regional
area of Eagan. Thank you for your concern once again.
Sincerely,
Arlene R. Armeli
Eagan Resident, Home Owner
3
R-98% 6129360135 08-09-96 08:10AM P001 533
WETLAND BUFFER TASK FORCE
-MEETING MINUTES-
July 22, 1996 Meeting
Persons Attending:
Larry Frank
Lee Markell
Jerry Segal
Steve Thompson
Tim Callister
Meeting Summary:
• The meeting opened with a discussion of responses to questions contained in a July 11, 1996 memo
to the Wetlands Task Force contained in the packet. The only question for which a response was
not presented was one pertaining to the status of buffers required as a condition of certain
developments for plat approval. This information will be available by the second week in August.
No other questions were introduced for staff research.
• Task force members discussed the need for expanding the Wetlands Buffer Task Force (WBTF) to
include outside members at this point in the process. It was decided that the membership of the
WBTF should be maintained as it is during deliberations on whether buffer strip
protection/establishment is something the City should concern itself with and what the appropriate
role for the City is. If an ordinance is developed, it may be appropriate to involve other parties
(representing developers, environmental interests, etc.) in the drafting of an ordinance.
• Members of the task force were generally in agreement that protection of wetland buffers is
desirable and that the City has a role to play in the protection/establishment of buffers. There was
considerable discussion regarding the relative merits of ordinances versus policies in carrying out
that role. Several task force members expressed concern that ordinances could establish too rigid
of a buffer standard, that once ordinances are adopted they are difficult to change or withdraw, and
that most areas with significant wetland resources have been developed so there is not much left to
protect. Other task force members favored an ordinance as a tool to let developers know of the
standards they would be expected to meet before they initiated a development proposal, were in
favor of the stronger protection of buffers an ordinance would offer, and thought that the few
remaining wetland resources deserved the higher level of protection that could be provided by a
buffer ordinance. All WBTF members agreed that it was desirable and appropriate for the City to
carry out efforts to educate residents on the importance of buffers and provide guidance on how
individual property owners can establish buffers on their own property and that the draft
information sheet included with the meeting packet was an important step in that direction.
• Questions were raised during the discussion about whether horizontal or straight line distances
would be used to measure buffer widths. In addition, there was some sentiment expressed that the
City should be doing more to regulate fertilizer use because of the adverse impact fertilizer mis-use
can have on wetlands. Finally, several members expressed their desire to tailor any buffer
standards that were developed to recognize the primary intended uses of dif ferent categories
of wetlands. For example, wetlands whose primary use is for wildlife habitat should have a greater
buffer than those whose primary use is storm water treatment.
• Task force members tentatively agreed that the best way to proceed might be to develop a buffer
policy, and defer a decision on whether to convert the policy to an ordinance until after the policy
has been in effect for awhile. The Task Force directed staff to put together a draft of a buffer
requirement framework based on wetland size and type that would be the foundation for a policy.
• The next meeting should be held in 34 weeks. Items on the agenda should include review of the
survey results on the status of wetland buffers established through conditions on developments and
a review of the buffer requirement framework drafted by staff.
Meeting summary prepared by R. Brasch on August 6, 1996.
U ~
n ,
k
MEMO
-city of eagan
TO: ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: AUGUST 15, 1996
RE: SHAW-LUNDQUIST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BACKGROUND
Shaw-Lundquist is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outdoor storage of
construction equipment in conjunction with a proposed officetwarehouse building to be located on Lot 2,
Block 1, Eagandale Center First Addition, in the NE 1/4 of Section 3.
The 3.95 acre site has never been developed. The topography o the site generally slopes from the south to
the north and west. Existing vegetation consists of significant trees throughout the property with several
stands of softwood trees. No wetlands are located on the property.
The proposed site contains 19 significant trees, 17 of which are located within the buildable area of the site
and will be removed. The landscape plan provides required mitigation based on the proposed tree removal.
The Tree Preservation Plan submitted will be reviewed at the time of building permit application.
TREE PRESERVATION
From examination of the existing vegetation it appears that there was once a household structure on this
site. Most of the existing vegetation is regrowth of softwood deciduous trees that would fill in areas which
were once open. There is also a fair amount of ornamental tree species, (apple trees, cedar trees, etc.) that
would be used in a residential landscape.
Significant Vegetation
The submitted Tree Preservation Plan indicates that there are 19 existing significant trees on site, comprised
of cottonwood and elm trees in the diameter size of 12" to 320. The remainder of the site has a scattering of
smaller diameter, less than 10° softwood deciduous trees (non-significant). The development as proposed
will result in the removal of 17 of the 19 significant tree (89% of the total existing). According to the City of
Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance, allowable removal for this development is 30%.
Mitigation for the removal of trees exceeding allowable limits calculates to either:
a. reforestation of 13 Category A trees or 26 Category B trees or 52 Category C trees, or,
b. cash mitigation of $7,800.00.
Because this development will be subject to fulfilling a landscape requirement, and there is limited space on
site to install additional trees to fulfill Tree Preservation Ordinance mitigation, staff is recommending that the
cash mitigation be applied.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the Tree Preservation Plan as proposed with the following conditions:
a. To require that the developer provide a cash mitigation of $7,800.00.
b. To require that Tree Protective Measures (i.e. 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting) be
installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of
significant trees/woodlands to be preserved.
c. To require that the developer contact the City Forestry Division at least five days prior to the
issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan.
TREE SURVEY FM
SHAW LUNDOUIST
a MISS '
• 1 :...:.:.:.~1:.::..•R ..1.w. N •.,w• w r N NIy1.N too"
N ! 1 1 . •+r. w.- « • •w 0W." 1•r
unuma.Mumma p• ttreRf 9~ IswP Ivr•f w let ar".n "-W, R•Ir-r
ww r •«i• I.ww M w••• 44.... <.••••w~w .w wl•w r• t•.•~w• •r w.•• raw [.•.w•. [.n.N+.M Iti wl [ 3"M" t► a-MS 0-6 qt Y[ PK YVNe uittilPM P/. s III, • • •
,..•r 1 _I 6., c-, 11 pwNw -01 •MItMC t1•wwy y w. wlwtM M oww. A M-A% f71A•.ON ON K 1+4 a-ft %-I -•W -
! 1 :-.ay.. N•R Ow [yaw •1•-•wl t ww+• r « rww N K
wwnw u flrwR$ .wIN y t/ Y/N Pt••wO1 f1. •bltf p
00• YMNf w4 a. 1
M wrwl N U• t1•Ia N w•.rN w M •ww.• N w•..a r •y.ar M YlN7 M W 4ttw Mw wy tt1rN1 1••1'• 1•rf
Ir•1 ww• tw••.w w trw.ON w . M[wltrab r N wIH w ar.w•w 1 If~f w fMrwwl r w p•.Itf •w1 •1a0• PK-w N• nN11
w •11
IItIp M wIw11 N M 7111• N w•.ww• w w•w••w••1 fw-awt M P••• OH Yraf 4S M1p p0 p•••Nf 1tC•1 M
. • +a r V ww N wr df N t•aw w . aw.. _
1.••1 wlr Iw•••.r 1. fN M M N •yw• r• 0..H. q as
plfll[ \4•f t•a gMN1 rn1
p I.a. M w 11•• ••IIn•r•111a !f•!1• •IO Ma4ryf •001 d 1 y
H •.a• M
w..a1y 1•rrl wr.f 09", PtC4 1•y.stwrn
11 w . Iy J« { Iww M+..r •++yl N w w•r1.fr 111.• a..r«. 1•a1•.1 .
I..,y +r.+r w. avw. [w..w•a . ~•••a. JNN) p1 • •••Mw 11. NN
I •rW~« ~ a «
w • P I r.OlIY stoaVS •IfYY,NO„f www-'__ •ry1F_
4
$71.47
~1 1
' i - ..,r., . • 1 1 t L Y 1 N 0 Y f .o: rtYl .1 s w. r w. . _ r : -'7e
1• 1~ r,• ~~IJYY/'IOYf '•,~,31".x .,11•.,~.LiYY1NO Ys, 1A ~1/~J 1I
• -'I r ~a-.11+. O A A Nn• ~-_~.►1-ATtZ-.-_.~~.~ _~~~r_~ ~L_ _ _ _ .L ~ _ _ _~r~/ ~)`J_ _ _I~ • _ -I
1... - ri ••n • 0117[Yfl p\ iI' 1
I • A 4111 . 1 r_ I ~ • /~J_A ITr- ~ / ~r r\ •C
ti •.IN fnww•1 •w ` i
i. +1-.1 vVr.l t. ~ ~ / ~ \ `.w. ~1~1•v 1 Ni\ ~ : w~~: _ .r. iw~i~.r~~s•`.il~y.
_yI1 ( TM .p~ 11• Kl:.i A r r r r tJ70.,O 6, « J
I l~..I ! l~, t,.~ 1. • por•Iwy G e
13 .•a
_ Io. i~•• ~ 1 . ~Y~~ 7w~14.N ' N. ~ r i • q-. 1 je / J 4.11 tNJ.l.1 • I
i a v f 1, y~.Al • wee I .J l~ 169.43
1•_ i F°tvpv ed ..w.r..
15 Building .{=12•-r . 1~tti IT I
Woo
T S* r, K A,
or*& 40
J. 4•
Ar,r-411- Tree Preservation Plan i
!~Or 4• iMAL •IOIAICMt atlo • •fft ft
+ `J _ ~y / .w,i +}f= .w• 1. 1• .O A.•• 0. if' 1R11w•v. If. IY rwlaw0
r••• ar.w 1 HE ttw f. IY fatss.wr It. IY eMw•.w.. 0• 1 \
- 1-•1 ' :•L: i. p•. _ _ --'~-~'iC:.. 7t• [•twwhle t.. JY Pw U. is tp1•.ay
r k.•••• U• avtf..ws 11. IP trlMS•s it. ,t• [wf•swrw
T• r - N - 11• t>A It. IY owww... b. It- COhcno
1,• C.POI.O9.
4----.zt--~~"9'SZ:.IL!C Cry 331:M^'~~ tf. Jr aaePn.r~
I wf , f-rsa tlsv wr t. 92. avwfs.wr It. /P cnPlww•
~ hr I,f.N M . t••••r0.1 w .PI
hr N/.f• M 1M fwiN •tfN ~ M-
t /i ~(i~tLl• 1~ 16~f / ~Y,jj w ..•.t.r.
J ' /•\•I~ (~,Isf~ /
•...•A.w V..[.[_ ~ f• h«. n •/x• nt.r t• rwhwar w.w
r
%~r v 1 1 i_ 1 t •f•• i t Ir1l. ral V 1 ~ ffi!a •wwprr ts• n r •wl•1r 1f
' ~ / ► IIW+Y. wM 11•Ilpry I,NI hw 111 Ilr. I\• •
4 t.f• Mts.
WOO 'e1.1•Y •ta•rr0 • •.f
N t.s• fr•• wu10 t•artt0 • t.f
tYlOp1lrf w Irwf wi111. ••w M• y Yr..y •...1 H O.M NOONr1M tJMlw rNw ry •
•J N 1• hr••iY •fM OMO I • 0.•
11 N 1•t M M ww M• •a•« M ta•w rMl•M •wir W tW wr N M•• ~•+w'• wrOM w. N 0.1 Mwrr~ N h.•••• 6-M M wrI 1 I./f
•-••t•••N h 1.f• M1•.CC.ft
i•....~ . w. M •.w ~ wrwv4 w ••,1 fr, w w :«•wt •
•4w Mtmr nrM •w1••
is
Iy N r. -1 r awrl r••wy lu.- /•M• wM1•r •ar1 Irr 0.w ••1 N 7.11• M Ys a•• N Orr 1•r tls~
•,.1 I.-.r, •aw
t•..w-• . n• .1 rw O~w/~wwfr• Cmss aL QaxD9 Ckuav wyon1 J n:iJ:
~ [wi.1 w f.r 11[.7. 1r•• 0.0 r M.) ~•x•f•TYJ'Oti~Lzf:s! Iw• twM~•~.r~ •~wIP.1
• . ! :l. 1 hl:.t•O, h. N ,Nr IrN P•11 +•-1.1w•i
n. uw M w.w w ..i r w to uW w•• u.
' ~ i r10Sllwe w.'rl ~ ~
U
t, i i~ i I \ °r9` I
LLJ
I I } s<~;r I
1 I
t -C3 ,
mails J1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 9
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I V f
/ A.~ I ~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
e I
I r!~ I f
E SSS , 1
1 ~ ~e I o I .
L------- --------I
w - LrrBL ,r.61.:L.0u
1
L J
Wading Pool Study
Parks and Recreation
City of Eagan
1996
II!I IU 7'.-.- L.
1
City of Eagan
.7/30/96
Table of Contents
Paee
Background Infonnation i
Wading Pool Attendance ii
Wading Pool Questions and Results
1. Are you an Eagan Resident? 1
2. Is this your first visit to the Eagan Wading Pool?- 1
2a. If this is not your first visit to the Pool, how many times have you come? 2
3. How did you hear about Eagan's Wading Pool? 2
4. How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today? 3
5. If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you be willing to pay? 3
6. To what age group do you belong? 4
7. To what age group do your children belong? 4
8. How would you rate the wading pool? 5
9. What do your children like most about the pool? 7
10. Where else does your family go for swimming activities? 7
11. Would you support the idea of different time frames for different age groups/heights
at the wading pool? 8
12. If that meant taking hours away from a current age group, would you still favor it? 8
Additional comments on the Wading Pool? 9
13. Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool in Eagan? 10
14. Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor pool? 11
15. How many times per week would you use a large community pool? 11
16. How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use a community pool? 12
17. Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading pool? 12
18. In order to construct a pool, it would require a bond referendum. Would you be
willing to support it? 13
19. What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your property taxes to pay to build a pool? 13
Comments on Potential Community Pool Development? 14
Summary 15
Staff Recommendations/Comments 17
Appendix
Copy of Survey
Tally Sheet
Wading Pool Study i
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION:
The summer of 1996 marked the opening of Eagan's wading pool. With a new facility comes new
challenges. Unfamiliarity with such a facility has led to the initiation of a wading pool user survey to better
understand all aspects of the City's new asset.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The purpose of the study is to gain a better understanding of who's using the pool, how it is being utilized,
how the users perceive it and to gain insight on the future role of pool facilities in the City of Eagan.
DEFINITIONS:
Resident: Any person whose permanent address lies within Eagan city limits.
Non-resident: Any person whose permanent address lies outside of Eagan city limits.
Wading pool user: Any person who spends leisure time in Eagan's wading pool facility.
METHODOLOGY:
Wading pool users were randomly sampled on weekdays, weekends, days and evenings for a two week
period of time. There were a total of 164 people surveyed. 100 users were Eagan residents, while 64 were non-
residents.
Wading Pool Study u
Wading Pool Attendance:
A random count of wading pool users was taken between June 5, 1996, and July 30, 1996. Weather dictated
usage and the following trends were observed:
0 Users- rainy, cool, cloudy,
1-10 Users- partly sunny, low to mid-70's,
11-20 Users- sunny, mid to high 70's,
21-30 Users- high 70's to mid 80's,
3140 Users- sunny, humid, 80's,
Over 40 users- hot, sunny, humid.
Wading Pool Attendance
zM,
EYw►20
21.70
71.0 T77 7,
.1.50
w 5140
61-70 5
7140
e1.eo .
e1-100
100. -
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 of Days
Wading Pool Study 1
Analysis of Data:
Question #1- Are you an Eagan resident?
This question reveals the number of residents and non-residents using Eagan's wading pool facility. Out of the total
number of users surveyed, 61% were Eagan residents and 39% were non-residents. These numbers show that the wading pool
is attracting people from other communities.
Are You an Eagan Resident?
No yes
39% 61%
Question #2- Is this your first visit to the Eagan Wading Pool?
_a
This question explored whether the users of the wading pool are first time visitors or whether they are repeat visitors.
The graph shows that 67% of non-residents are first time visitors and 33% are repeat visitors. It also shows that 43% of
resident users are visiting for the first time, while 57% are repeat visitors. The information leads one to believe that word
is rapidly spreading amongst non-residents that Eagan has a wading pool facility. On the other hand, over half of Eagan
residents have already discovered the pool and are making repeat visits to it. Also illustrated is the number of total users,
which visualizes the near equal amount of first time users at 52% and repeat visitors at 48%.
Is this your first visit?
ui I48%
Total
62% ■ Yes a No
67%
Resident
43%
33%
Non-Resident 67%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percentage
~3-
Wading Pool Study 2
Question #2a- If this is not your first visit to the Eagan wading pool,
how many times have you come?
This question was used to give insight on how often repeat visitors are frequenting the wading pool. The graph
shows similarities between non-residents and residents. The majority of repeat visitors have been to the wading pool 2-5
times. Second visits were most common with 39% of the total responses.
How many times have you come?
45%
40%
35% •Non-Resident
30% OResident
25% OTotal
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Oar Tw TMw Fw FM Sk 8- EVd NM T- Eb~ T-W Fdkw TNtl,-
M of Times Visited
Question #3- How did you hear about Eagan's wading pool?
This question provides a look at how Eagan's wading pool is being publicized. The graph shows that 56% of non-
resident users discovered the pool through their friends, while 20% saw it while driving by and decided to pay a visit. Also
shown are resident results, with 36% of residents finding out about the pool by driving by, 21% by reading the Sun Current
and 20% through a friend.
It is interesting , yet understandable, to see the difference in results between non-residents and residents. Locality
and residency play a major role in how often an individual would tend to drive by the wading pool facility. It also would
dictate the availability of the Eagan Sun Current.
How did you hear about Eagan's Wading Pool?
Unsure
Open House L4% ®Total
O Resident
Bulletin • Non-Resident
of c Family
34%
v Friend
sex
-Mi
Drive-by wx 3e%
2M Neighbor 10%
xrx
Sun r
zx
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentage
Wading Pool Study 3
Question #4- How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
The effort to find out exactly how long people were staying at the wading pool brought about very similar results
from non-residents and residents. An overwhelming 87% of total users are staying at the wading pool for longer than 45
minutes per visit. 11% are staying from 30-45 minutes. The remainder are staying less than 30 minutes.
How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
100% 21%
90% 97%
110% •Non-Resident
70% O Resident
80% OToht
50%.-
40%.-
30% 20% +4x
11%
10% ex
0%
0.15 Minutes 15.30 Minutes 30.45 Minutes 45* Minutes
Minutes
Question #5- If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you
be willing to pay?
This question was asked in order to find out what a reasonable fee would be to use the wading pool. Graph 1 shows
the greatest number of non-residents(34%) willing to pay $1 to use the pool. 25% would pay $2 and 12% would pay $.50.
Graph 2 shows 34% of residents also willing to pay $1. 20% would pay $2 and 21% would pay $.50. Graph 3 shows 34%
of total users willing to pay $1 is the most popular answer, while 21% of the users willing to pay $2 is the second most
popular. The results show that few people feel the cost should exceed $2.
Non.ResWsM- N diem wen • he for On wadbq Resident- N two wen a tee for to we M Pool, ToteF N tlme wen a be tar tlr wedhq Poo. whet
pool, what would you be wMIM,e to pet? what would you be wMIM,e to pay? would you be vrieine to pay?
46% M% .6%
.or ar 40%
36% re as%
spy oo% 3e%
~ kr eY f ~ Y. MIS 35M%
- ry
1011 K - - Yf ' :
, - n !S
!1! M
5%
S%
YI - 0%
Y Ytl tl3 N iItl a Qtl a Y Y Y tltl an 11 Ytl a no a Y Y tl Mtl Y.Y !!M tl !1Y Y Y Y
~5-
Wading Pool Study 4
Question #6- To what age group do you belong?
This question focusses on the age group of the parents who bring their children to the wading pool. As the graph
shows, the majority are in the 31-40 age group. Several are in the 20-30 yr. age range as well.
To what age group do you belong
70%
W% •NOn-Resident
OResident
WOW
40%--
30%
20%
10%
0%
Under 20 20-30 31-40 41-50 Over 50
Ape Group
Question #7- To what age group do your children belong?
As the graph shows, the wading pool is catering to young children. Children 5 + under make up 72% of the total
number of children using the pool. Surprisingly, 27% of the children are ages 6-12. Some of this age group may tend to
violate the height restriction rule.
To what age group do your children belong?
0.50
%
1s-1a
Total
050% ■ Resident
C 13-15 G Non-Resident
c six-12
Under 5 OF 70%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percentage
Wading Pool Study S
Question #8- How would you rate the wading pool?
Several aspects of the wading pool were rated on a scale of 1-10. One represents a low, or poor rating and ten
is a high, or favorable rating.
707 Size of Pool? li 1€
25%
Fe-Ft--7
20% OTaal
ow TWO TNw Far FM Sk Eaw1 E#* Nka Tan
Rea aa.h
Opp eration Hours
3D%
2s% •RwM.M
OT"
20% at ~t
15% S S -
10%
0%
Ona T" nh Far 'FM Sk 5~ Eigm Nina Tan
Rah Satla
70%
Location
80%
60% •RaaiOka
OTakM
a0%
30%
20%
10%
t
0%
ON TWO Thm For FM Sk S~ 09M NM TM
Rah Scala
Height Restrictions t
35%
30% /RwgarM
OTahl
25%
20%
10% -
S% Flimute, 1 0 in in In I
on* TM Than Far R. 86. 8a-n EigM NM T."
Rah seem
4-
Wading Pool Study 6
30% Safety Measures t t
2S%
•Rwd"
x% OTdY 16
~t
:0%..
5%
3%
Ono Two Thw Few Ft. 3t 3won E N Nno Ton
RaY tado
n% Location of Restrooms
.f-Rwdrk
20% ~ OTOW
5%
ono Two TTrw Four Five 3t Sown 89M NW* Ton
Rar Soofo
25% Location of Telephone
•Ro6idoft
xox OTOW
15%
10%
5% !
3%
One Two rm Four FM St swm EI M Mrr An
Rib S=k
~V
RVading Pool Study 7
Question #9- What do your children like most about the pool?
Illustrated below are the reasons why children like the wading pool.
What do your children like most about the pool?
2%
Size 3%
rx
3%
No big Kids 41% OTotal
r%
3.
OResident
Other Kids 5% ■ Non-Resident
ox
1x
Warmth/Temp
3x
AN 5%
ox
u%
Water 13%
13%
Dept 2e%
40%
45%
Fountain 4e%
42%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
pereertage
Question #10- Where else does your family go for swimming activities?
Non-Resident Resident Total
Schultz 16 Schultz 46 Nokomis 1 Schultz 62 Brackett I
Redwood 10 Mendota 12 Crystal 15 Elmo 1
Crystal 9 Bloomington 9 Bloomington 15 Como I
Backyard 8 Dakota Hills 8 Redwood 13 Snelling 1
Bloomington 6 Apartment 7 Mendota 12 Tonka I
Lake Marion 4 Crystal 6 Backyard 9 Zoo 1
South St. Paul 3 Cabin 5 Apartment 8 Duluth 1
Farminton 3 Y 5 Dakota Hills 8 Private 1
Edina 2 South St. Paul 4 South St. Paul 7 Valley 1
Cannon Falls 2 Blackhawk 4 Y 6
Valley View 2 Holland 4 Lake Marion 5
West St. Paul 2 Redwood 3 Holland 5
Holland I Prior 3 Blackhawk 5
Nicollet 1 Lifetime 3 Cabin 5
Bracketts I Chaska 2 Farmington 4
Apartment I Eagan Athletic 2 Valley View 3
Mendota I Edina 1 Lifetime 3
Richfield 1 Backyard I Edina 3
Beaver Mountain 1 Richfield 1 Prior 3
Y 1 Lake Marion 1 Richfield 2
Elmo 1 Beaver Mountain I Chaska 2
Como 1 Valley View 1 Eagan Athletic 2
Blackhawk I Farmington 1 Cannon Falls 2
Shakopee I Snelling 1 Beaver Mountain 2
Private I Tonka I West St. Paul 2
Nokomis 1 Zoo I Shakopee 2
Valley Middle I Duluth I Nokomis 2
Shakopee I Nicollet S.H.
Wading Poo1 Study 8
Question #11- Would you support the idea of different time frames for
different age groups/heights at the wading pool?
54% of non-residents answered no and 46% answered yes as shown. Resident responses differed with 63%
responding no and 37% yes. The totals equal 60% answering no and 40% yes. It should be noted that parents with one child
were more likely to answer yes and parents with more that one child were likely to answer no to this question.
Would you support the idea of different time frame for
different age groups/heights at the wading pool?
70%
63% /Non-Resident
60% OResident
60% 54%
G Total
50% 46%
• 40%
40%
30% [37%
20%
10%--
0%_
Yes No
Question #12- If that meant taking hours away from a current age
group, would you still favor it?
This question relates to those who answered yes on the previous question. The results were very similar amongst
non-residents and residents. Chart 3 shows the total results of 76% still favoring different time frames if it meant taking hours
away from the current group. 23% felt time shouldn't be taken away from the current age group.
If that meant taking hours away from a current age group, would
you still favor it?
1% 23% 76%
Total
3% 19% 78 /Unsure
I
Resident O No
/Yes
0% 28%
72%
Non-Resident
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Wading Pool Study 9
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE WADING POOL:
- Needs closer rostrums
- Needs closer telephone
- Should be signs for restrooms and phone
- Needs concession stand
- Would like more chairs and tables
- Needs shade
- A fenced in picnic area would be nice
- Needs more play elements like Chaska
- Great/Nice
- Should be bigger
- Should be a sign for the height restriction that reads 'You must be this tall'
- Needs drinking fountain
- Prefers age restriction, not height
- Earlier hours
- Later hours
- Need more wading pools throughout city
- Wading pool should remain free
- Small slides should be added
- Less restrictions
- Restroom location forces parents to bring all their kids to the arena
- Need garbage cans inside fence
- Good deck area
- Should have separate, deeper wading pool for bigger kids
- Should be deeper
- Needs a lifeguard
- Needs better wheelchair accessibility
- Needs portable toilets
- Put padding on fountain posts
- Enforce the height restriction
- Need open hours for all ages
Wading Pool study 10
Question #13- Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool
in Eagan?.
This question was posed to all wading pool users in order to better understand the need for a large community
pool in Eagan. Even though non-residents would not be paying the tax bill for such a facility, their opinion should be valued.
There are many non-residents using current Eagan facilities, such as the wading pool, who would be likely to use a large
community pool if available.
The graph shows 84% of non-residents surveyed feel there is a need for a large community pool. 10% were unsure
and 6% felt there wasn't a need. The vast majority of residents, at 93%, felt a need for a large community pool. 6% felt there
was no need and only 1% were unsure. Of the total number of users surveyed, 90% expressed that they felt Eagan needs
a large community pool. 6% felt there was no need and 4% were unsure.
Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool?
too% 83% 90%
90% 84% Oyes
ONo
80%
• Unsure
70%
0 80%
50%
a° 40%-
30%-
20%- 10%
Q% 070 ON 4%
10% 1%
0%
Non-Resident Resident Total
I
Wading Pool Study 11
Question #14- Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor
Pool?-_ This question is a follow up to question 13. It was asked to those who felt there was a need for a large community
pool in Eagan. The results of this question were very similar amongst non-residents and residents, as seen in the graph. Of
the total number surveyed, 63% would prefer the use of a large outdoor community pool. 15% was the second most popular
response with users answering both. 12% preferred the use of an indoor pool. 9% felt either an indoor or outdoor pool would
be nice, and 1% were unsure.
Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor pool?
1%
un.m m
0% STOW
oftskWK
16% •NaNtaidrM
Both 16%
19%
Eithw 6%
13%
V
Outdoor sin ME
65%
12%
Indoor 14%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 5096 50% M%
t2NCMdap%
Question #15- How many times per week would you use a large
community pool?
Non-resident and resident results were fairly similar on this question as well. The graph shows
39% of the total number of people surveyed said they would use a large community pool twice a week. The majority of
families would frequent the pool between one and three times a week.
How many times per week would you use the pool?
50%
45%
ro% a.
35% GNa►R08kWt
30% OR
gidM~t
25% 24% 22% 21%
1oa OTOW
20% +
15%-
10%.
°Y
I e% a.
5% t 2%
M1% 0%
WOW i one Two ThM Far Ftw ak 8woe owr a
6 of on"
~3
Wading Pool Study 12
Question#16- How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use
a community pool?
This question was asked in order to gain a better understanding of what people are willing to pay to use a large
community pool. As the graph shows, 40% of the total number of people surveyed felt $2 was a reasonable cost to use a
pool. 21% answered $3, 12% answered $1 and 9% answered $2.50.
How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use a
45% community pool?
s
40%
35% ■ Na~RuidxA
O Residwt
30% sTotal
25%--
20%
^ N
15%
10% l;
5%
its
0%
$1 $1.50 S2 $2.50 S3 $4 $5 $6
Prices
Question #17- Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading
pool?
This question was asked with the thought in mind that a wading pool would be part of or in close proximity to a
large community pool. The chart shows 84% of those surveyed felt the fee should include the use of a wading pool and 15%
did not. 1% of those asked were unsure.
I[)o you think the fee should include the use of a wading pool?
100%
M% my"
90% O No
80% aunaus
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 111%
10%
0%
Non•Rwiidwa Radwt Total
Wading Pool Study 13
Question #18- In order to construct a pool, it would require a bond
referendum. Would you be willing to support it?
This question was asked only to Eagan residents who have the power to vote on such an issue.
The chart illustrates 98% of Eagan residents surveyed willing to support a bond referendum, while 0% answered no and 2%
were unsure.
Willing to Support Bond Referendum?
No
Unsure
2%
Yes
!t%
Question #19- What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your
property taxes to pay to build a pool?
This question was asked to those who answered yes on the previous question. The chart shows that of those
surveyed, 33% are willing to pay $5-10, 32% will pay $10-15, 22% will pay $20-25 and 13% will pay $15-20. The $5-10
and $10-15 range proves to be the most acceptable cost to those surveyed. There is still a significant percentage that is
willing to pay more.
What amount is reasonable?
$20-25 $5-10
22% 33%
$15-20 $10-15
13% 32%
Wading Pool Study A
CONBUNTS ON POTENTIAL COMMUNITY POOL DEVELOPMENT:
- Creates jobs
- Promotes quality family time
- Brings in money
- Positive childhood experiences
- Opportunity for lessons
- $5 rate at Edina is too much
- Hurry up!
- Need to think long term and have many features
- Have large shallow area as part of large pool
- Programs for special needs
- Need large pool badly
- Put it next to the arena
- If you do it, do it big
- No high dive
- Have concessions
- Will service age range in families
- Need facility for the whole family
- Regulate the cost to Eagan residents. Have higher cost to non-residents due to the fact that
residents pay the taxes to construct the pool.
J~-
Wading Pool Study 15
SUMMARY:
Eagan's new wading pool facility is a popular attraction to both residents and non-residents. There is a
significant, if not surprising, number of people travelling from other communities to experience Eagan's wading pool.
On average, about half of the users are first time visitors and half are repeat visitors. Repeat visitors tend to have
come to the pool 2-5 times before they were surveyed. During the course of the survey, many were present several
more times.
The study shows interesting differences in how non-residents and residents discovered the wading pool.
Non-residents heard about it primarily through friends and secondarily by drive-by. Residents discovered the pool
mostly by drive-by, secondarily by the Sun Current and thirdly by friends. Locality, residency and availability of
the Sun were sure to play a role in these statistics, but nonetheless proves to be interesting.
Another surprising statistic is that 87% of all wading pool users are staying longer than 45 minutes. While
conducting the surveys, many people said that they planned on staying for 2-3 hours.
Although some people felt that there should be no fee for the wading pool, the majority have no problem
paying between $.50 and $2 for the use of such a facility. $1 was the most common answer for a reasonable cost
As to be expected, parents who bring their children to the wading pool are mostly in the 31-40 age group
and secondarily in the 20-30 yr. range. 75% of their children are 5 and under and 27% are 6-12 yrs. old. Children
6-12 may exceed height regulations at Eagan's wading pool.
Users rated the size of the pool fairly high, yet I received many comments that the city should have built
it with long term goals in mind. With Eagans large population of young families, their point is valid. I have
counted over 100 people in the wading pool facility at one time.
Operating hours received good ratings, yet there were always some people saying it should be open earlier
and later.
The location of the pool had overwhelmingly good ratings. Many people commented that there should be
a large pool in the same location.
Height restrictions were difficult to rate, as the restriction was 36" at the beginning of the survey and
switched to 48" half way through. Whichever the case, people seemed to be pleased that the pool was focussed on
the younger age group. Low ratings were likely to be obtained due to non-enforcement and the fact that some 2-3
yr. olds exceeded 36 " when that restriction was in place.
Most people gave safety measures a good rating. The two comments I heard most were that there should
be a phone closer by and that parents should be responsible for the safety of their children anyway.
The restroom location did not please everyone. Many low ratings came about because parents with more
than one child would have to walk their whole family over to the arena in order to use the restroom.
Recommendations for a portable restroom were made several times. Some people don't seem to realize that the
arena is open and that there is even a restroom available.
The location of the telephone drew some negative attention as well. Many people felt that the arena was
too far to go in the event of an emergency. It should be noted that many people who had access to cellular phones
gave it a good rating.
It's no surprise that the children at the wading pool like the fountains the most. The simple fact that there's
water, as well as it being shallow, is also attractive to them.
Many families that use the wading pool use Schultz Lake Beach as well for swimming activities. Crystal
Lake, the Bloomington pool, Apple Valley's Redwood pool and Mendota Heights pool are also popular choices for
family swimming activities.
Creating different time frames for different age groups/heights at the wading pool received a mixed reaction.
40% of those surveyed favored this idea and 76% of that 40% still favored it if it meant taking hours away from
the current age group. 23% would not favor taking hours away.
Those 40% who initially answered yes to this question had a tendency to be a one child family, which would allow
flexibility in relation to when they could come to use the wading pool.
The 60% who did not support the idea of different time frames for different age groups seemed to feel that
there would be too much conflict and difficulty associated with trying to bring children from different age groups
to the wading pool. Many stated that they like being able to visit the wading pool whenever the desire strikes them.
Different time frames for different age groups/heights may hinder their opportunity to enjoy the wading pool.
The survey results reflect the public's opinion that Eagan has a need for a large community pool facility.
Wading Pool Study 16
Resident opinions should be valued because they would be the primary users of such a facility. They also have the
ability to support, oppose, vote and contribute financially to a community pool construction effort.
Non-resident opinions should be valued as well. They do not have to make the decisions residents must
make, but they do make up a significant percentage of the population that would use a potential pool facility.
Now that there is an awareness of the publics need for a pool, the question of what type of pool they prefer
surfaces. The majority of those surveyed would prefer an outdoor pool. Some would like to see both and indoor
and outdoor pool due to Minnesota's climate. Still others would opt for either an indoor or outdoor facility.
Wading pool users who felt the need for an indoor pool were asked if they used existing indoor facilities
and if not, why? Some answers were: No club membership, Schools are intimidating to enter, They do use the
schools, but there is not an open 'community' feeling, Schools are too far away, Their kids are too young, They
haven't thought about it.
Wading pool users were asked how many times they felt they would use a large community pool facility
per week. The results were similar to how many times repeat visitors attended the wading pool. One to three visits
per week were the most common responses. Two visits was the most popular answer.
Those surveyed were asked what they are willing to pay to use a large community pool. $2 per person
received 40% of the responses, 21 % answered S3 and 9% responded $2.50. This adds up to 70% of those surveyed
feeling $2-3 is a reasonable cost to use a community pool. Many comments were received stating that Edina's $5
per person rate is too high. Family rates and season passes were also suggested.
If the city. were to have a large pool facility in the future, the issue of whether or not there should be a
wading pool available in conjunction with the large pool would arise. The results of question 1117 may help in
making such a decision or help in how such a facility is operated. 84% of those surveyed felt that the fee they pay
for the large pool should include the use of a wading pool, if present or in close proximity. 15% felt it should be
separate from the large pool.
An incredible 98% of Eagan residents were willing to support a bond referendum in order to construct a
community pool. $5-10 and $10-15 property tax increases were the most acceptable to those surveyed.
Appendix
Wading Pool Study 17
STAFF RECO1VIlVl IENDATIONS / COMMENTS:
Eagan's wading pool is obviously a success story. It provides a unique opportunity otherwise not available
in the immediate area. However, the potential for improvement still remains, as it is an unfamiliar facility to those
that operate it and use it. Throughout the survey, there were a few issues that kept reappearing. The public's desire
for shade, closer restrooms and a closer telephone was clear.
Shade provides an important refuge from the sun for young children as well as adults. This facility is
geared towards young children and provides absolutely no shade whatsoever. Given the fact that many families are
staying at the wading pool for long periods of time, shade should be available. Umbrellas on tables provide an
immediate fix which can be located within the main use area. Trees are another option, but will take time to grow
and be some distance away from the use area.
Restrooms in the arena are forcing parents to round up the whole family and head over to the arena.
Parents do not want to leave their children unsupervised for any period of time. Often, parents have several children
and they don't all need to go to the restroom at the same time, which results in several trips to the arena. Users
have regularly suggested the availability of a portable restroom. The convenience it would provide would make the
wading pool facility much more user friendly.
Many people feel that there should be a telephone available at the wading pool in the case of an emergency.
With no lifeguard present, the added security of a visible means to reach emergency personnel could be beneficial.
Many people don't even realize the arena is open and has a phone available.
Operation of the wading pool is costly. Improving the facility is costly as well. To compensate for some
of this cost, a small fee could be charged. The data shows that most people are willing to pay something for its
use. Family rates and season passes are options as well, helping to sustain and improve the wading pool.
The survey showed that people feel there is a need for a large community pool in Eagan. If the city were
to progress on such an issue, a few things might want to be taken into consideration: There are many people willing
to pay to construct a pool, Location and visibility are crucial to a facilities success, A large, elaborate facility is
more likely to sustain itself.
The survey showed that 98% of the Eagan residents would be willing to support a bond referendum for
a pool. Their perception of how much it should cost differed, but it is promising to see that there was no trend
towards paying the minimum amount available as an answer.
It is likely that the wading pool is successful due to it's visibility and location. People are seeing it,
experiencing it and telling their friends about it. A large pool would provide the maximum opportunity to attract
users if it were equally as visible.
The more a facility offers in combination with the proper location, will attract visitors and lead to
sustainability. The wading pool catches the public's eye with the colorful play elements protruding from it. It seems
logical that the same attracting features would help bring people in to a large pool facility and keep them coming
back.
The ultimate potential pool development would provide several large attractions and provide recreation for
a whole family at one facility.
CITY OF EAGAN
Wading Pool Survey
1. Are you an Eagan resident? Yes No If no, from where?
2. Is this your fist visit to the Eagan wading pool? Yes No
If no, how many times have you come?
3. How did you hear about Eagan's wading pool?
4. How long do you plan to stay at the wading pool today?
0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ minutes
5. If there were a fee for the wading pool, what would you be willing to pay?
6. To what age group do you belong?
under 20 20-30 31-40 41-50 over SO
7. To what age group do your children belong?
under S 6-12 13-15 16-18
8. How would you rate the wading pool?
- size of pool? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- operating hours? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- height restrictions? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- safety measures? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location of rest rooms? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
- location of telephone? low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 high
9. What do your children like most about the pool?
10. Where else does your family go for swimming activities?
11. Would you support the idea of different time frames for different age gwops/beights at the
wading pool? Yes No
12. If that meant taking bourn away from a current age group, would you still favor it? Yes No
13. Do you feel there is a need for a large community pool? Yes No Unsure
14. Would you prefer to have an indoor pool or an outdoor pool?
Indoor Outdoor Either Unsure
- If tsiswer is indoor, ask if they use existing indoor pools in the city. If not, why?
15. How many times per week would you use the pool?
16. How much, per visit, would you be willing to pay to use a community pool?
$2 $3 $4 aS $6
17. Do you think the fee should include the use of a wading pool? Yes No
18. In order to construct a pool, it would require a bond referendum. Would you be willing to
support it? Yes No Unsure
19. What amount is a reasonable annual cost on your property taxes to pay to build a pool?
S5-10 $10-IS SIS-20 $20-2S
20. What recommendations would you offer the city regarding potential pool development?
21. Additional Comments?
~a
FROM OPUS NPI 08.09.1996 08303 P.01
Arlene R. Armeli
1374 Jurdy Road
Eagan, NN 55121-2116
~ 5 03 0 1 q3 ~ ^'7'35
PARK: Moonshine who?
August 9, 1996
City of Eagan
Parks and Recreation
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Al TN: Advisory Parks and Recreation National Resources Commission Board Members
Living in Eagan for nine plus years, and having always lived in the same block
practically, I request your consideration into purchasing land to create a park for the
many many children that live in the Eagan area between Yankee-Doodle/Pilot Knob/
Lone Oak and the 35B dissection of our area. There is no Parks in this region for the
children to play. Pilot Knob Elementary School is too far and the children would have to
cross Pilot Knob Road which them is no crossing lights along the Pilot Knob stretch
between Yankee & Zone Oak.
As a Tax-Payer I feel we in this area listed above are short sided in this respect.
There is no place for the kids to play baseball, etc. It would be great to have someplace
for the kids to play in a sandbox, swing on a swing, or eat at a simple picnic table. Even if
the refuse land of this so-called park- MOONSHINE Park(Its not a park, its just a
unleveled plot of land next to LeMav leveled out it would maybe make into some
sort of MAKE-SHIFT play area.
Please consider my request. I have brought this to the attention of the Parks and
Recreations counter person at the city of Eagan as it is a heightened concern for me and I
aspire that it is also a particular concern for you as a member of this important
commission.
I further would be willing upon request by your commission to respond in any way
means or fashion necessary to aid or contribute to such a means for a park in this regional
area of Eagan. Thank you for your concern once again.
Sincerely,
u ~l
CICL-9
Arlene R. Armeli
Eagan Resident, Home Owner
63
R-9896 6129360135 08-09-96 08:10AM PO01 #33