11/15/1999 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
AGENDA
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
Monday, November 15, 199
7:00 PM
Eagan Municipal Center
City Council Chambers
A. 7:00 PM Regular Meeting 7:00 pm
B. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:02 pm
C. Approval of Agenda 7:03 pm
D. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 18, 1999 7:04 pm
E. Visitors to be Heard 7:05 pm
(1) Friends of Le on Hills Park - Bob Gold Pages 3-21
F. Department Happenings Page 23 7:10 pm
G. Consent Agenda 7:15 p
(1) Town Centre 100 Eighteenth Addition - Elder Jones Co., Inc Pages 25-28
H. Development Proposals 7:16 pm
I. Old Business
(1) Tree Mitigation Funds Pages 29-39 7:17 pm
(2) Selection of Planing Group for Moonshine Park Review 7:30 pro
J. New Business
(1) 2000 Parks and Trails Dedication Fees Page 41 7:35 pm
(2) 2000 Fees and Charges Pages 43-44 7:45 pro
K. Parks and Recreation Update 7:55 pm
L. Water Resources Update 8:05 pin
(1) Majestic Oaks Wetland Update
M. Other Business and Reports
(1) Tree Inspector Report 8:15 pro
(2) Subcommittee Updates 8:35 pm
(3) Commission Appointments - 2000 8:40 pm
N. Round Table 8:45
0. Adjournment 8:50 pm
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities, and
employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation,
or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons wishing to participate are available upon request
at least 96 hours in advance of the event. I fa notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City will a '711-3 provide the aids.
5:30 p.m. Subcommittee meeting regarding develop ent/i pervious surface
chaired by Terry Davis.
ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
1999 MEETING SCHEDULE
NAME Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 7a rr
11 15 19 17 14 19 16 20 18 15 fb
Joseph Bari x X X X X X
Terry Davis 0* X x x x x x 0*
N.Mark Flilpi x 0 0*
Kevin Gutknecht x X 0 X 0 X X
Barbara Johnson Vice Chair X X X X X 0*
Robert Kane, Jr. (Alternate) X 0* X 0* X
Bonnie Karson Secretary 0* x 0* 0* X
George Kubik x x x x x X X
E
Lee arketi Chair
x x x x x x x
Daryle Petersen x x x 0* x x x 0* x
John Rudolph x X X X
Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Si.,-Comr. !tree Acquisition/Development Sub-Committee
Joseph Bari
Kevin Gutknecht N.Mark Filipi Terry Davis
George Kubik Barbara Johnson
Robert Kane, Jr. Daryle Petersen
John Rudolph Bonnie Karson
Lee Marken
UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES
1. Commission Review Workshop
2. Spring Maintenance Demonstration
3, Recognition of Sharon Holbeck
4. Review revenue sources In lieu of park dedication
5. Review Docks
6. Naming Holz lake (check If named)
7. Seasonal easement at top of Trapp Farm tubing hill
8, Wetland and Setback Buffers
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS ANI RECREATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1999
SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 15 COMMISSION MEETING
Preceding the regularly scheduled meeting, there will be a 5:50 p.m. subcommittee met r -r,,-
9
development/impervious surfaces. The meeting will take place in Conference Rooms 2 A an;i B and will
be chaired by Terry Davis.
Following the approval of the agenda and the minutes of the October 18 meeting, a resident has
requested to address the Commission. Bob Gold contacted the office indicating his desire to discuss
concerns raised by the Friends of Lebanon Hills Park. Dakota County Parks Director Steven Sullivan
indicated last month that the county would be soliciting input regarding their Master Plan Update. Mr.
Gold is providing information only, therefore, no action is required by the Commission.
Although there are no development proposals, the only Consent Agenda item has a memo attached for
review.
A memo is included that addresses tree mitigation funds. Attached to the memo are two background
memos to provide some further information to members who may not be familiar with this issue and also
to refresh the memories of members who reviewed this previously. Direction on how to proceed with
this item is sought. Also included under Old Business is the selection of the planning group to review
potential development of Moonshine Park.
Every year the Advisory Commission reviews fees for parks and trails dedication as well as other
department fees and charges. These fee recommendations are passed on to the City Council for their
review and approval and then become effective January 1. Memos are attached for your review.
The Majestic Oaks Wetland Update will be a continuation from the October meeting and will be verbally
presented by Water Resources Coordinator Eric MacBeth. This will be followed by the -7n„°' Tree
Inspector's report and subcommittee updates. The last item prior to Round Table and U,-'e, _'j -I
reminder that several Commission Member's terms expire in January. Staff has application : > s for
those Commission Members who wish to re-apply.
As usual, should you not be able to attend the meeting, please call 651-681-4661 to let us know.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Vraa
1.
FRIENDS OF LEBANON HILLS PARK
Presented by
Bob Gold
651-452-9211
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ALL OF THAT
CONSTRUCTION?
* MAP SHOWS AREA UNDER CONSTRUCTION
o OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT GRANT BREAKDOWN
INDICATES WHAT PROJECT D5 COVERS.-
• ADD 20 - 25 FULL HOOKUP RV CAMPSITES
• ADD 15-20 TENT CAMPSITES
• ADD SHOWER/BATHROOM BUILDING
• ADD TRAILS
• ADD PLAYGROUND
LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK
CAMPGROUND DEVELOPMENT
t J ! : rrr' ' , j
I/,vp
} t r ~t1} IJ~rrf J}ttt} {
CERPARD
i 1tt f l I { r pit \ \ AII(E J'\ y 1 {1
f t
It it ~(1r/ !®}r Ctlf r f~(r. i7 Z ti \ \ / ,
/ i FISH DOCK
} I f Jt _ t 1`{ 1 t t! CANOE ACCES,lf ~!y\ t t
905 9 50
450./, ~trl~t Ls
l~/ \ ,Jl //,r ,r~,, ~'r~J1~fr~f,r,,,;, / 1)~Irf /ff?f 11~
~i}f r f / ALK•(N
I, ISTING R
I .r1
r ra TENT CAMPING -,r }
ll Ir ~r ~,J1 ! t g`' ' CAMMPGROUND 4. Ifv f`"~~.,~~{1t4_=mss
r
. OFFICE BUILDING
7'= 1
y{~) { I 1
r ! . A' 'TENT CAMPING/\'
EXPANSION AREA
RV CAMPING ° 1 , 'f
,III ` 'PPROPOED EXPANSION AREA 'CAMPGROUND' J(l
1 l 'r, BUILDING,,, ®WILOLIF
f • v ' if®f'' l \ C 11 OEVAT70N 1
l
AREA
SWIMMING 1 f tI .
POND— ACCESS f r
A-2
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The funds granted under this agreement shall be used to accomplish the following projects within the
boundaries of Lebanon Hills Regional Park:
roiect D5•
Expansion of existing campground currently operating at capacity, by addition of 20-25 full hook-
up RV campsites and 15-20 tent campsites, plus shower/bathroom building, trails, and playground.
List Of Deliverables: Estimated Costs
Building Improvements:
Shower/bathroom building, including utilities $215,000
Architectural services: design, plans and specifications
construction observation, permits $ 23,500
Contingency (10%): bids exceeding architect's
estimate, cost overruns, unforeseen circumstances $ 26,500
Building Improvements Subtotal $265,000
Site Improvements:
RV-tent campsites, utilities, site furnishings and
complementary recreational amenities, including trails, playground $508,000
Engineering services: design, plans and specifications, construction $ 63,500
Contingency (10%) $63,500
Site Improvements Subtotal $635,000
Total Project Cost $900,000
Source Amount
1996 State bonds $900,000
1996-97 Council bonds -0-
A-1a,
THE PRELIMINARY CAMPGROUND A. MAP
SHOWS - CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
THE A R.K
ROADS TO ALLONV CAR ACCESS GO CLEAR INTO HEART
PARK
9 LARGE BUILDINGS PLACED WELL N
OF PARK
ii! { ' t I,' ...1 ,7 V r~(r'i Ba~ re?O.,•`_ d a ;a
l:. r r t Irl ° It, ,°!°g :'..PS'"~ 9 It.l \ f rs
Y7 rX~t iy
''i wtma rr'1i°tt,;\.
.t'. a'~t' `t\tt `tt``s4 s+~J~~ %A,' LLr!/e s;.
1I -11A Li 1 LA K Mttll.Tial
CA"rM t t\ t.' II• , ttaar tr f rJJr
fj! h \ ' CAW 1 t,' )x «1\t}'tt+, } / r~y1V tiaa O1`Jq/ ( ~Ji
.r ~ 1 11)tx tt, ,It trl t VI
i r ip ~ "t It r i.
4.1 t , O we
` l . U 9 'tt \y1t re q t ('r f e' a d s t o P
,4 + t ~s yy ' f ~ a t ult "\ta t ~ rr'r,::E..- ",tl + v z J
} C\ t / irr a~\~ \ \\•.4 °'Jn~Iirj ~~t}\•`,'\', t t Y~''.'Ir
tdf 1,'-.,/ °~r°°...1.~ t,`,~ 1\ ~`tQ?~J r?~',",~,(.tci],fi~,,;},•i` f;,,~,--~"" rr,+;
? ! t ` r, r r y°"p"._'= t e ;i' 1 ttl\ ru6~rr.. •.V) lI, 6,t;i os~,'J _ \l
Motu WrP id I,rr yl lit a '~t• 't( a F
iINT
t4 !r fir 'r r,r,. r. ®a t t
k e 4 J{rrrrlrrrrroara'fti~~. _ JB 1t \ 1
lv 9t ,
'a
PKM
„!~i rrg 1 wtlwa ( 1+,'tr++rJrr r jr' r• - a~ vt1 A -
~,1. ~ ~r I ~ e° r,r rrrr`, t r.•. \e'a';~t ~ "p.°` ,°tl'
t ~~tt + '~r ',t q~•r~ ''t rtrr rrrt rl' \ _ \ _ - /r .t'
{ 1 ` I' .r J °rr rJr r ` t a ° P 8 °e \ ° r r
.~c \l' _ I~?ir11r lru rrrl~ t\~tk% f,.`%i i.v" rr -
4 -+a- 1 i r r.rfJ ` t , q n,B, ~s rr - P t r e , t t
n (t+r {rtnr~ t\,._ ri dr"\r na t ' rr
1. 4~ try t CAfvtM, ~'J}tS ru t t t ` 1 ra•• P .a . a r
` r r i r J !rr
4n t .441a(r , s., i, f •J d t r Jr. \ r
t t ~ f"3• A f, as ~ r r
.'k )rlIL tc ltomtw ctknrcttwr. ' r 1°'• ~s...
4'. sc
fdi~r4d~(° ~ ° a4P'.~' ' - ( y,tr ( r tt jr ,
°P Jr ra"f i ,J n' i ~W%DDA e h : ?P J"' ® ®~1 ar'r FTJ aIr a / "It{,''t a
IV, ' rI Jf t rl/ 1 ill ~t ~tl _ w.
t~f:rllR .^.-^-.r~ k. 3m&a.r+er• 'B A'+a~.,1.,~q.. ttf ~~f ii t9i~~ •4
(IJu~i 4(.' `aa` ~ l kt , •r ~ t'~. it)rrur .'/+i. P \~a p?, ~a a,
J Fr"r 7' .y(6 ~ dlt ..y t~ °'r / A ar r '~%,/~r'l'`~°P •
t }(aittdoifi ~ r't ` ) r a r r•r rr ii,ttat
`c I r a x ;r , S f I i' !'ri:!•. r re ra`t``\.•..: 1t1.. .
t,~, t~.: ~ @ I r?.9. ~ t , /^'rP- f°rf JJi;ii{i1,` Q
t 'r ATC)Pr' tRAlAA. ! h r rP Pi~lr~'1°t~ s I 't 1 i ,ems
w 0-
r r °,aa ® _ irr'`i,ij' 1° ~9r ml \t`®t t ! + a a
I^
~'~P a rt~,~~,,,(~Ipt~tr~tli -'^r....,~ _ ` 1 yyt+ c r a r I a { {
%
,!"'!J,._._ r tt``"n4 jzi''r~{rJ,!~rl/ibe'°'\ ttt ' (11 1 Jr J
/ " w1 / f pygAj:}Oy. rr ,C.W'ali~,`t\t' t v \ v i t 1~ t, , r r ° _ Y7)
r ` r _ 'tom ! .
r{' ~ tr( r, x aazaegJ rti i"~\~it .r~ t r - ~ ®®.o: °t ~~garq.au 'CD - r
'ii KI -t P, pF'~t~'°® . L7m.st~i1 ® f ei~`'et f - tP,'® =;1 1' p~~ °(•1
. 11 a r p i. ~,y !W.AUt3. E, .°t t 'y. °°t t ~ ` °
08
ilrir 1 _(f. _ YA;r~7, ic4,D t -t~ ti . _ (tAt tBt7~' `^F.'ilt~'SR t`~ . ` d t
tp B t r i r _f 1 r. l i p ~.p'~ t i Z I
r 'V
t f
rr r P i t u,rdo"Ane of ,,.`":.ate.. t n t \ ft ` t t 1 4, t t \ y r r t r
rIr J'>~ ~ Pt4 rl y°r ~@6F tat }.a ,~)~~r 11` r i. eri ~e\ e' ` f ,
I ~P 1„r, 91 !a It 1 ^t 1~ir.JJ' 11 fg}t~'Q' r 6A Ata.'u f " 7 r r 1 , .
1 r r tt 7 t~_ Y
{ ,(,r, irP4r7P~~ „ ;ft ~1... _.•1. _ -_%,,rr .l _ r \n r~ ~ it ,'!i'r
~(((u~ 1 AILW! t{ t o a 4 J' J r'
'
1 B f( rP
Fa1tT uX "r t° rt a _ r r
{ _ )r-v` 1 ' 9/trr{(ifrrtiB'q, r(rref r ({sir{,i•.
d I t~.~« t° / P d r rl t ~I iilP'lt'I f {'iii 'tr
t~~~6aeaDpkr,S7~~ 9}{~n ~ rj rr 4iT r, 4, ,.x.. ,T4 {i,,.
, a° . /r. ^F1r r f`flrtF P . t ry
ANI4A 1 •c6! WNM1Ol7? r[17HS Q ftt 771
! ( w ]r
! tr hi ' lrltt - - a t f t , ,^'I dr(.rJ rr~~ rt Ott \ t•JJ ,
.1 -~~a1 V l ~ ~ e_"TT'~?_r (r afar r'Pf ~y ° re I rr' /fr r 1 l \ a t, t \t t.
nn, .a. nA7POrM pfu ® T r t r t t t , \ 1`;t , 4.
t° rl,~ \ \ y + x A",
4 6~ylt k taP dY ) J V, _ YUX9J aV.Mr •eP/ °4®i ' P 1 ( 9 8 4 \ } 4
{ 31, ~ ~ Ll,. •a i' (r0 f P ~ 1 f , @ PA rt r 4S ~ 1\ I i1JP, ,
1/J Al't~ i 't i r is{+itrir ~,r D rD rt r
'~nCaKri. \r / ~t ! r r) rf t r r lun{o r u
' r"°^r r 1' 1~lrrrt rr, - I r
1 11 illirrtli itit J rf
't _ xt ; \ id" ,t.tl ; 1""•a t~ ~J~7,,\ 1~`x\t t %t ` c',
LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK (E rU " °
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Preliminary Campground Master Plan
WIT O ARE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN'THIS CON . C'110N' PLAN?
STATE MINNESOTA . - .T
P. TIM i GSI-296-3949
SEN. DEANNA WIENER 651-297-8073
V4 LOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FLOWTIOUGH. NO REVIEW OR SERVICES
.NNIETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
-
NANCY RODRIQUEZ MET. COUNCIL PARKS PLANNER
DAKOTA COUNTY
(NEXT SLIDE)
THE DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT PEOPLE
s
INVOLVED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION PLAN,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NANCY SCHOUVVEILER 651-438-4430
PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NANCY SCHOUWEILER 1651-438-4430
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAURA HEDLUND 651-405-9751
PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF
STEVEN SULLIVAN (DIRECTOR) 651-438-4662
Table 5' A ric-ded 2004-2005 Metropolil Regional Par Capital Improvement Program
(draft i hearing by Metro. C4 it to replace adopted on May 27, 1999)
C ent Projects Continued
2004 Cumula-
Co nparison of Project to MMMetro. State Cumula- we
Cou Icil's Policies on Funding Proposed Bonds or tive State Metro. :ro.
Regional Pr?oa ities for Parks/Trails, L,.nL Project 2005 Appropri- C-z.--cil C+ L ncil
Priori Park nndit~ons or future tinanc'al Grant LCPJR ations ands bo_ids
Ity Agency Park/Trail Name Project Description @" money is apr=ro '1E _k 1 ($000's) ($000's) ($000's: ($000-S)
! Nature/Rec/Ed center M . ' cy 6, priority 1 ue< <s it
"($1,400,000); campground exF ,,r i a facility in a docur rated
office/mufti-purpose building high use park (4997 9998 est. was
!($600,000) and light 4 miles of 144-7-,:?Q9 403,900 visits). Project is
Dakota !cross-country ski trails 1rar' =d fourth based on visitation
4 Co. !Lebanon Hills RP ($200,000). o~ s. $ 2,200 $1,320.0 $ 2,365.0 $ 880,0 $ 1,580.0 IMe is policy 6, priority 1 because it
a improves a facility in a documented
!high use park ( 1998 'st. was
40&,-400 213,80 visits). F rc' act is
Ramsey Prairie and oak-savanah ranked fifth based on vis
5 Co. !Battle Creek RP resource work benefits. $ 150 , $ 90.0 $ 2,455.0 $ 60.0 $ 1,640.0
Meets policy 6, priority 1 because it
!improves a facility in a documented
!high use park (4,997 1998 est. was
'44937800 163.100 visits). Project is
ranked sixth based on visitation
benefits. Park agencv needs to
submit and the Metro. Council
needs to approve a master plan for
this protect bDecember 2003 in
order to be eligible for fundin under
Rice Creek Chain-of Phase 2 dev. (campground olio 10. Park agencv intends to t
6 !Anoka Co. i Lakes PR improvements, etc) !submit master, tan by ay 1999. $ 2,086 $1,251.6 $ 3,706.6 834.4 $ 2,474.4
Meets policy 6, priority 1 because it
improves a facility in a documented
high use park ( 1998 est. was
30 79.900 visits). Project is I i {
Lake Minnewashta ranked &&v&# eighth based on
8 "Carver Co.iRP !Build 1.5 mites of aved trail visitation benefits. $ 216 $ 129.6 $ 3,836.2 $ 86.4 $ 2,560.8
Page 11 2000-05cipamendment
DRAFT 8/16/99
2000 - 2CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Year2000
CARRY TOTAL METRO
OVER PARK PROJECT PROJECT COST OPEN SPACE OTHER COUNTY
C Lake Byllesby Regional Park Dam Maint./Const. 100,000 100,000
Lake Byllesby Regional Park Dam Repairs/Misc. 25,000 25,000
Lake Byllesby Regional Park Erosion Mitigation Project 25,000 25,000
C Lake Byllesby Regional Park Boat Launch Relocation/Const. 320,000 320,000
C Lebanon Hills Regional Park Holland Parking Lot/Const. 91,500 91,500
Lebanon Hills Regional Park Erosion Mitigation 10,000 10,000
C Lebanon Hills Regional Park RV Expansion/Const. 100,000 100,000
C Lebanon Hills Regional Park Trailhead Building/Design 180,000 180,000
Lebanon Hills Regional Park Water Control Improvement 150,000 150,000
Lebanon Hills Regional Park Parks Planning 25,000 25,000
C Thompson Park Pavillion 245,000 245,000
Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Erosion Mitigation Project 12,213 12,213
Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Prairie Planting 15,000 15,000
C Mlesville Ravine Park Reserve Primary Access lmprmnts/Constr. 50,000 50,000
C Playground Development Schulze Beach 65,000 65,000
C Playground Development Byllesby Beach 65,000 65,000
Phase III BRRT Design 150,000 150,000
Phase I NURT Design 90,000 90,000
Phase Ili MRRT/SSP Land Acquisition 322,900 322,900
Phase Ill MRRT/SSP Construction 397,800 397,800
All Parks Land Acquisition 700,000 700,000
All Parks Signage Program 25,000 25,000
All Parks Reimbursement 0 307,000
Parks Capital Contingency Fund Park AcqiDev 97,278 97,278
2000 Total: 3,251,691 1,907,000 1,664,413 97,278
PARKS
ocaaz s ¦aaa 08/25/1999
ONE OF THE MUL14PIX, BUILDINGS PLANNED
TO BE CONSTRUC.1"E"D INCIX-DES THE
CAMPGROUND OFF'.ICE/NA'IJ,I--.4TIPt-.TRPOSE
BUILDING ($600,
11000)
Dual ur os o0 1' _ Lcti oo
The dual-purpose room will include the following equipment:
- I meeting table 30 in. x 96 in. with 6 chairs
- 2 bookshelves 48 in, x 72 in.
- four computer terminal hookups for guest use
- four computer desk staging areas with lights and desk space for paper materials
- I marker board 36 in. x 60 in. attached to the wall
The dual-purpose room should be well lit and bright throughout. It should have
adequate window space to view the surrounding park and campground area.
The room should be separated from the registration/information/store space.
It should be accessible by one door from the inside of the facility. The door should be
a solid door with a lock.
The room should include adequate open wall space for posting of wildlife art, maps
and information.
O:LHRP\CGARCHPG 7
I~PYdANY~~ i
/ R•ff
WF I qjg{
}
i F
gem
FA1LT
FLOOR PLAN •G FOOTAGE Jb0l
T i
F•FNI~{R PEBAL FA5
}
CEDAR FASCIA
_ CEDAR WARD AhD
BATTEN STSTEti
PRECAST C4W-WTE
WLT COURSE
"VER COL"
C`VEftZW ROCK
FACE CM
~ ELEYATi
USING DATA PROVII)ED BY DAKOTA COUNTY,
THE FOLLOWING IS THE BREAKDOWN
SHOW-11IN"'(Y' WHO CANIPS AT LEBANON HILLS
58 % 01.)T OF STATE
39 % MINNESOTA RESIDENTS FROM
OUTSIDE THE METRO REGION
2 % DAKOTA COUNTY RESIDENTS
1 % METRO AREA RESIDENTS
OUTSfDE OF DAKOTA
DOCUMENTS THE
MANAGEMENT COUNTY PARKS.
• LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK MASTER DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (1980)
9 DAKOTA COUNTY PARK POLICY PLAN (1994)
• MET. COUNCIL RECREATION OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
GUIDE/POLICY PLAN (
INCONSISTENCTES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION
AND THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT P1,AN INCLUDE,
it is necessa y tc background information for determining the_ needs and desires of the
residents in the adjc reas of the park. (page 9)
be an deavor to protect the uni' a area, to develop, and manage the recreational facilities
there must
so that the area is preserved for generations to cc (page 9)
state. and that
it is imperative that the utilization of these' rat resources be placed in proper perspective
40)
each be protected to avoid destroying somethin; rat could never be restort 't- ` s ori$ area ...with the information gained a from pcreaton input meetings it was det
area utilizing the natural feadtuhest such as plant and
should be developed basically passive re a e 53
wildlife wa cof he area should hiking, etc. rather than an active type area...
maintained and protected to preserve the natural environment
Topographic
features that now exists. (page 53)
It is felt, therefore, that the natural beauty of the area must be Protected... (page 53) o be as
possib
trusi
e Extra effort should be made to design all manmade
The design themert k the adopt d is therefor ` Maintl~ n
to avoid adulteration of the natural beauty of the area.
to be
the Natural." (page 55) propose
limited ..recreation vehicle accommodate theeast side of Johnny Cake h ch des a short eRidge
cR a ping of ormal y one to three
in size and will accommodate rgore ecreation vehicles w
days... (page 78)
POLICY 6 FROM THE MET COUNCIL
OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT POLICY/PLAN.
Recreation anen Soace
Policy 6
Development in regional recreation open space
should be based on the principle of providing
and maintaining quality public park areas and
facilities primarily for citizens of the Metro-
politan Area. The following priorities are ap-
plicable for development and redevelopment
of regional park reserves, parks, trails and special-
use facilities:
1. Projects that provide new facilities, rehabilitate
facilities or increase capacity where there is
documented existing or projected high use, and
where there will be no adverse effect on the
natural resource base.
2. Projects continuing a phased high-priority pro-
ject or one of relatively high priority that is
timed with other public improvement projects
to achieve significant economies in cost of
construction.
3. Projects providing a specific facility that meets
a documented need, is currently not available
or is significantly underrepresented in the
system and where there will be no adverse ef-
fect on the natural resource base.
4. Projects to serve planned future use in a loca-
tion with no adverse effects on the natural
resource base.
Dakota Count
®a
I
•
•
Dakota County believes that accessible recreational opportunities and
the preservation the natural environment are important elements
which contribute to a high quality of life.
Dakota believes that all of its citizens should have
opportunities recreation able enjoy nature ` settings
unhindered pressures development.
Aunty believes the lllei -f of its residents requires
land 4 _ ` aside for se t c and recreation.
y with 1 1 quality
Dakota . co itted to
facilities variety resource-oriented
num
recreational `tis.
Dakota County believes that parks are legacy be lei r future
generations.
lic Plan Pa a 100
Dakota Count Park o
appropriate by the Board. The park acquisition and development reserve funding ceiling will be
reviewed on an annual basis.
STRATEGIC ISSUE 2- PARK SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Future Development Options-
Recommended Policy:
Park development efforts will be primarily focused on development within the boundaries of
existing and planned park facilities. However, based on the recommendatiorf of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Committee, the County will consider acquisition or development of additional
park facilities if those facilities meet the following conditia :
New facilities must be compatible with the County Park Mission Statement.
New facilities must meet the park criteria requirements outlined the Dakota County Park
Policy Plan.
Feasibility studies for new facilities will include analysis of new County funds needed to
acquire, develop and operate the proposed facility and discuss any funding impacts to
existing or currently planned facilities. 40
Benefited units of government will provide cost sfor feasibility studies, acquisition,
development and operations of non-regional facilities.
It must demonstrated that the proposed facility financially sound with committed
support base that will not divert funds from other facilities in the system.
Because feasibility studies can costly, it is recommended that the County share of such studies
be funded through the County general fund, upon the priority iven to requests for these studies.
This will serve to help protect funds set aside for park development and acquisition.
Criteria for Regional Parks
Recommended Criteria:
To qualify as a Regional k in Dakota County, the park must meet all criteria set forth the
Metropolitan Council's Recreation pen S ace DeveloDment Guide/Policy Plan and the following
County criteria (County criteria are indicated with /italics):
1) Parkland must intrinsically support a wide range of outdoor, resource-oriented,
recreational opportunities.
2) Parkland must be contiguous with a lake, wed and, water course or other natural amenity of
unique, inherent, or high enough quality to generate public interest and use of the park.
3) Parks can be no less than 200 acres, unless it ran be demonstrated that a unique and high
quality resource exists that warrants a smaller regional park.
4) In a proposed park, the majority of the property to be acquired must exist large
undeveloped tracts.
5) It must be demonstrated that parkland will provrecreational opportunities not provided
by parks administered by other organizations or governmental units within the service
area of the proposed park.
i M.a _ N . .C . , NSA.. .
CITIZEN SUBCOMMITTEE DAKOTA COUNTY PARK TJSljl?S
SHOULD DEVELOP THE UPDATED TNI-kSTER DEVELOPTNIENT PLAN FOR THE
REVIEW BY THE PARK COMMITTEE AND
CITIZENS
• PROCET) PUT IN °PflAkCE AND FOLLOWED TO ENSURE THAT
PLANS/POLICIES ARE , USED AND t [ENT OF
OURPARKS
J ROOX181EETING M liUILDING NOT BE BUILT IN LEBANON
HILLS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE UPDATED MASTER
DEVELOPME NT PLAN
• FRIENDS OF LEBANON HILLS MUST BE OBSERVANT AND ACTIVE DAKOTA
COUNTY CITIZENS. OUR INPUTS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES TO THE
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF DAKOTA COUNTY
PARKS ARE VITAL. THE ONLY WAY WE WILL BE ABLE TO SAVE THE
NATURAL RESOURCE BASE THAT LEBANON HILLS UNIQUELY TIOLDS IS
TO BE ACTIVE INVOLVE, D IN FUTURE PLANS.
LA r RTMEN PP .N N S
November, 1999
1. Forestry staff conducted a fall prairie bum in Thomas Lake Park. A fall bum will promote the growth
of forbes while spring bums promote the growth of grasses. Staff is hopeful that this most recent
bum will add diversity to the plant community in the park.
2. Forestry staff coordinated the transplantation of fours-, - 4" diameter trees into the e: or pi is
area at Cascade Bay. The trees will add much nc, ' '
3. Glacier ills and Pilot Knob elementary schoc: s L t 'process of ra ° "r to
their existing play structures and possibly add new, pm it. i a kk rIaff w" ' W. ls n ut nd
information to both groups and aiding with installation should the projects bey-o--ie a reality.
4. The unseasonably warm weather has allowed the maintenance staget a jump on spring activities
including ball field maintenance and pathway installation and repairs.
5. Because of staffing realignment and consolidations in other departments, additional park ma?.ntnance
staff will be needed to plow snow from streets. This will impact the Department's ability tc w a,
snow from fink areas following a snowfall. Staff is in the process of revisiting its winter i Tice
plan.
6. Park staworking with an Eagle Scout candidate who will be developing a Dd. to=ic bi,-- tg
route through Eagan.
7. The new tis court facility at Rahn Park was recently vandalized. Fences were cut and a <o}ped
ridden on the courts causing black tire tracks. Several surfaces were also spray painted. Staff has
begun making repairs and will monitor the police investigation.
8. The gear up for winter sports has begun. Registration for winter sports runs from November 8-12 for
returning teams and November 15-19 for new teams, Programs that will be offered include:
Basketball - Men's 3-on-3 and 5-on-5 and Women's 3-on-3
Boot Hockey
Broomball - Men's and Co-rec
4-on-4 Hockey
Volleyball - Men's, Women's and Co-ed
9. The fall basketball and volleyball sessions are coming to a close. A few leagues will wrap up in
November and the rest in early December.
10. Winter sports officials will also be hired for the upcoming outdoor season.
11. The Halloween Terror Trail was held on October 25 at No view Park. About 500 , sod adults
dared to enter the haunted trail. Many participants brought food items for the food s" l ke 35
volunteers all had a good time.
12. Warminghouse attendants who worked for our department last year has been invited to n t:.n and
new employees are currently invited in for interview. Orientation is set for December 14 and 15
with rinks scheduled open on December 17 weather permitting.
13. The Halloween Treat Trail was held on October 25 at No view Park. The weather was warm, but
windy. estimated 450 children ages 6 and under played carnival-like games,- d the Northview
Park concession building. All participants received a "treat" after e; pl-y(' ''h cvctrt was
staffed by girl scout and boy scout troops from Eagan. Th-, ' YP-" a
14. A group of 70 participants from Eagan rode a school bus d " Sl, rise e Circus.
Highlights were the magical illusions, silly clowns and the hur : n cannonball.
15. All preschool classes had a visit from the Eagan Fire Department during Community Helpers week.
The children learned what to do in the event of a fire in their home, saw the equipment the fire
fighters are dressed in and toured the fire truck. Thanks Chris and Dale.
hparks & r ecreation i ory parks conmissiou/novatal r it h& gs
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: ADVISORY APRKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 1999
SUBJECT: TOWN CENTRE 100 EIGHTEENTH ADDITION-ELDER JONES CO., INC.
BACKGROUND
Elder Jones Company Inc. is requesting Preliminary Subdivision approval to allow t' of a two lot
single subdivision entitled "Town Centre 100 Eighteenth Addition". The proposed --tbdiv ,;:c.. overlays 2.4
acres of land located north of Town Centre Drive and east of O'Leary Lane upon prope 'y currently platted as
Outlot B, Town Centre 100 Sixteenth Addition.
The subject property is zoned LB, Limited Business and lies within the shoreland overlay district of O'Leary
Lake.
The subject property was originally part of the Eagan H l rs Commercial P . l,,}, t' N ted in
1982. In 1987, the property was platted as Town Centre 100 Third Additior I _unctiu[1 wit' tiie
development of the Allina Medical Clinic in 1996, the subject property was r-r" d as Outlot B of the Town
Centre 100 Sixteenth Addition.
The proposed lots are undeveloped and exist as a single outlot. The subject property is an open grassland that
contains no wetlands or significant trees.
The proposed subdivision is being pursued as a result of the applicant's desire to develc I clinic on
the southern portion of the property (proposed Lot 1), As part of the City Council's previoi onsideration
(and approval) of the LB, Limited Business zoning designation it was determined that uses allowed within the
LB zone (which includes "clinics for human care") were compatible with the surrounding area.
As shown on the preliminary subdivision, two individual lots have been proposed. Proposed Lot 1 measures
1.5 acres in size and is planned to contain a medical clinic. Proposed Lot 2 measures 0.9 acres. No specific
development proposal for Lot 2 has been brought forward.
This item is scheduled for consideration at the November 23 Advisory Planning Commission.
PARKS AND TRAILS DEDICATION
The parks dedication has already been fulfilled for this development, however it would be responsible for a
cash trails dedication.
TREE PRESERVATION
There are no tree preservation issues for this development.
WATER QUALITY/WETLANDS
There are not water quality/wetlands issues relative to this de ent.
FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
1. This proposal shall be responsible for a cash trails dedication.
TO . E 1A FN
D+
a 1
\
a j%,» t~. 1 1 1
OT B
NTR ,per
4 4 a C
OUTLOT C
oo1T1 OUTLOT C 1
l r; , . 62,8 188.04 149.98
224.1 403.10
97.0 240.98
DR. ll~l
G
147, 4 199.00 1 2.0 16
DRAIN UT1 EAR.
2
Ji w u' o
4
2 n
1 1
146.79 199.00 192.00 193.E 206.00 241.00
~ 1 9 +
OL) CITY JOWN CENTRE ADDITION
1177.47
.6 11 2-38
.4s w
O' Y
2 263.
h w
ri
0, 24
~l ccia
SITE VICINITY
»s i
Oil al.
Nil
o m'as4~ n y5y1` O3~`i
WV :U, 9 .4
A - ! 1 11 Sh
HIS
s 3 i _ 5 8
3 3~~ o c t
tt Rti Yi
/ 1 J
a= /1 1f ~1 ra Ii 1/ a ' +
5 a; 1 j1 ' c
lo-
in'
LAN
PRELIMINARY ISMIN
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 '1 60
a man 20 IW
VI Tt 1jE1 y t_ T
``{A S69'17'51"W T~ 159.34 L_u v t \ CEMH 200 2' RAa. TO Ek
~ V1 A 9E 694 79 NURP
®,r.v e90.m2 46 3• AAO. L 0 I 1 on E:
3' AAn.
RID 21"-12,- OCT,
E 59, 20'
L50 t.2O"z R RE .7E
!NV
TIP. S' R.eO.
` 1 ,r^ 1 8M ~ ~ 765
1t~' • ` TYP.
rop C 1
A i 45
BLOCK 1
r(p
1 , E
OA-
C3 4 S' Rya. N
Ex. Sn+R 1 4 25
a9i7 $F WCUT AND RE+.tOVE EX C;FtE.A E-'-. - w.
SI WALK AS NECESSARY. G Pt $E y t /
55 P
C SITE. INSPF_l PEGES RI td .u- ` ( ~gy F, ry v+000 w
! f.'S LaG. S.F.
iG,
FINISHED FLOOR
SAwCUT AND REuOvE Ex 66:! _ 3' sAC <
CONCRETC CURS & GUTTER 41 87TO z N
u,STALL CONCRETE CO:eMEee A6~
DR,VE WAY APRON.
SAV:C FT AND REE+Gv'E Ex.`?r:~: S' AQ 1 , Q
DEW 'K AS NECESSARY. a>:.
Al r TCA CONCRETE s PAZ. INVERT 859.2 °°It
i...+ C> .d, im.
c - t
y b CONN
L _e 1 1 . . fY_' w ta' Q, INVER
CON,,
i_t~ C n~ R a~ P.~N T5.7v o LOCA
/ M O
> IA ~ 2' A A9. • ~ I ~ z 5a I CONNECT TO Ex!STING 6" DIP P
CTOR CORPORATION.
C P 1`*A 'p
LOC Sn a~ j
LOCATION AND VERIFY EXISTING
ATION AND ELEVATION. i ~ I. i TYP 107
IJA , v s R.D. EX M.ad).
a loo
f I• 19+ L RE $94 t, ~N ._„,,.r°' p ~
INV 897.69 .r^^'° .1 oQ
E C9. I-
N89"17'51"E 100.00
rR' R»!' • 132 • P - = ^E^+ P t M-. F'
Ea ST- 1.3 , '
K.11" 90
EX SSYw 35' elS ra WR93 _ S t ~
TOWN
LOT 1 CONCEPT PLAN
RE-caa+o
t".10 city of n
TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: GREGG HOVE, SUPEVISOR OF FORESTRY
THROUGH: A, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: 15,1999
SUBJECT: POLICY FOR TREE PRESERVATION MITIGATION FUND
ISSUE: USE OF TREE MITIGATION FUNDS
INTRODUCTION
Several years have taken place since the conversion of the original Tree Preservation Guidelines
(1993) into a city ordinance (1996). One of the revisions integrated into the new Tree Preservation
Ordinance was the establishment of a "cash mitigation" option. Funds collected through this
mitigation option have been set into a separate Tree Preservation Mitigation account. To date no
policy has been set up to utilize funds from this account. This memo summarizes past actions
concerning the use of these funds, reports the current status of this fand, and recommends potential
uses.
HISTORY OF TREE PRESERVATION MITIGATION
Please refer to the attached memos, dated January 22, 1998, and April 8, 1998 for preliminary
background information.
In "a nut shell", during early 1998, the APrC Land Acquisition Subcommittee and cit,; nirc;, tt::
discuss options for the use of collected Tree Preservation Mitigation Funds. A good deal c
positive discussion took place, however no decision was reached.
TREE PRESERVATION MITIGATION FUND AMOUNT
As of October 18, 1999 the cash mitigation option has been applied to five develo;
developments and cash amounts are summarized below.
1. Professional Plastics, $16,070.00
2. Extended Stay of America, $12,000.00
3. Eagan Business Commons, $20,184.00
4. Eagan Senior Living, $15,750.00
5. Apollo Business Park, $30,000.00
Total amount of cash mitigation collected = $94,004.00
Additional funds may be collected with the issuance of the building permit for the Gramercy
development site. The applicant of this site has proposed a Tree Preservation Mitigation of both
installation of trees and a cash amount. The cash amount is $48,900.00.
DETERMINATION PRESERVATION MITIGATION
As of July 1999 City attorneys have informed staff that alterations needed to be made in the
procedure used in fulfillment of tree preservation mitigation. Staff/Commission can no longer
recommend the type of mitigation to be collected (i.e. staff cannot request that a cash mitigation
amount be collected in lieu of reforestation). The procedure that is now used is as follows:
1. Applicants submit a development proposal that includes both a tree inventory and a
tree preservation plan,
2. Staff reviews the submitted plan for accuracy and confirms the calculation of any
required tree mitigation,
3. Staff informs applicant (through meetings) that they need to submit (if not already
submitted) a proposal to fulfill 100% of their required tree mitigation. The specific
type of mitigation is up to the applicant to propose. As necessary, staff does review
with the applicant mitigation options, which will be acceptable.
4. Applicant submits (on a revised plan) their full mitigation proposal.
5. Staff writes report for APrC meeting.
6. APrC members approve or deny the applicants proposal.
7. Revisions are made by applicant or they proceed to APC and City Council with their
original mitigation proposal.
Even with procedural revisions as to how tree preservation mitigation is fulfilled, the cash option
can still continue to be used by the developer. Mostly it is used in applications of non-residential
development on wooded or steep graded sites. Because tree mitigation, in the form of
reforestation, is in addition to city required landscaping, often there is not sufficient space on the
development site for the installation of reforestation trees. Therefore, to fulfill 100% of their tree
mitigation requirement, the applicant proposes a cash mitigation. This trend will likely continue
to occur as a greater percentage of development is proposed on "difficult" sites.
UTILIZATION MITIGATION
Staff has recently had conversations with the city attorney concerning potential uses of the tree
preservation mitigation funds. Two types of uses now seem appropriate and need further
discussion.
One use is the preservation of trees/woodlands within the city through the use of purchased
conservation easements or the purchase of property. The other use is the reforestation of land
through the purchase and installation of new trees. These options are discussed in more detail
below.
Conservation Easements
The objective of purchasing conservation easements is to preserve the greatest amount of
"valuable lands" within the City of Eagan while expending the least amount of fimds. What
comprises "valuable lands" will need to be defined. A conservation easement can be
described as a legal agreement made between a landowner and a cooperating agency, such as
2
the City of Eagan. It typically places perpetual mutually agreed upon restrictions on
development of the land. The landowner will retain ownership of the land. All future owners
would be bound by the terms of the conservation easement.
Along with the concept of conservation easements, a couple of areas of consider d to
be addressed. With the purchase of conservation easement land -.ome type of acc to
these areas needs to be provided. For example, if a wooded one around a pond is
set into a conservation easement, this land will need to be acccsscd for future maintenance
needs. Some type of linear easement may also be needed.
If considered, the Conservation Easement Program might be most efficiently applied in
applications of new developments. In these instances both parties, the applicant and tl it city
have identifiable goals; the applicant desires approval of the developm it pil . whfic: t ~ city
desires the conservation of natural resources.
The application and implementation of conservation easement will require the city to identify
mechanisms to support the need to set aside lands as conservation easements. These "special
situations" could include unique location, minimization of surface runoff, aesthetics, or some
identifiable relationship between the preservation of trees/woodlands and the benefit of the
city as a whole (i.e. clean air or less surface runoff). Also, the creation of conservation
easements will need to address some type of maintenance program for lon-1 erm
management of the conserved area. Often, the cost of setting up a conservation casement is
not significantly different than the cost of outright purchasing of the land. The most efficient
use of limited ds may come with the proposal of setting up easements on lands that are for
some reason "economically developable". Ironically, in reality these may be just the sites
that are best suited for preservation of natural resources. They might include wooded slopes
surrounding wetlands, low wet wooded areas, or steep wooded hillsides. These types of
natural areas provide many environmental benefits while usually costing rely --ci vely high
amounts of money to develop. Lastly, the possibility of setting up a cons e r at o,-, casement
will require a "willing seller". Obviously, the more willing the seller, the less expensive the
purchase of the conservation easement.
Reforestation Program
For a quick bit of background information, as stated in the attached memo dated J ant -try 22,
1998, the Forestry Division presently has `thin its budget a line item for the pi:--l ' cf
trees to be planted on municipal property. Additional money is available f o r larE~,_,--
installations through park improvement fimds when part of a development project. P i tc point
here is that with limited staffing and available planting time, the potential to take on
additional large projects will require additional work force or contractual assistance.
Therefore, utilization of a relatively large fund, such as the tree mitigation fund, will require
special circumstances with careful long range planning. It may be appropriate to investigate
the use of these funds as small number of (if not a single) reforestation projects.
A Reforestation Program of open space land is a potential use of Ti ~ : Preservation.
Mitigation funds. This type of project would include the purchase and contractual
installation of trees. associated cost with reforestation projects will also include some
amount of money be spent on the establishment of a maintenance period (i.e. irrigation, tree
staking, pruning, etc.). The initiation of a reforestation project will also involve the selection
3
of available land to install the trees on. This land(s) can be either public land or private land,
if the installation of trees on private lands provides for some type of defensible long-term
public benefit for the city.
By applying some cost estimates, the amount of funds presently available ($94,000.04) may
allow for the purchase and installation of about 350-400 trees (2 .5" diameter). To install this
many trees at adequate spacing will require about four to five acres (at a spacing of twenty
feet by twenty feet). In other words, a fair amount of land needs to be available for the
installation of trees in urban setting.
A last consideration for both a Reforestation Project and a Conservation Easement is
"localization" of project sites. Efforts should be made to either reforest or provide for
easements as near to original development/mitigation sites as possible. Oftentimes this may
not be possible or practical, as special situations may dictate where projects take place, but
there should be consideration into this matter.
COLLABORATIVE
During previous APrC Subcommittee meetings (see attached memo dated 4-8-98) discussion has
taken place concerning reforestation efforts being incorporated on sites other than city property.
For example, we discussed the option of reforestation occurring on large pieces of privately held
property either during or following development. Staff has recently had conversation with the
city attorney's office regarding this item. It is in their opinion that collaborative efforts involving
the City of Eagan and a private property owner should not be recommended. Reasons identified
included the difficulty in showing a overall public benefit for purchasing and installing trees on a
specific private property, and the complication of creating a long-term agreement to ensure the
health and survival of planted trees.
However, the consideration of collaborating with other public agencies does have merit.
Cooperating with County or State agencies is option for the utilization of Tree Preservation
Mitigation funds.
POLICY I
As stated in previous memos, the City has not yet adopted a formal policy for the use of tree
mitigation funds. A subcommittee or task force should:
a. be developed to research potential uses of tree preservation mitigation ftmds,
b. develop a policy for the use of said Rinds, and
c. present a proposal to city council for consideration and approval.
There is no critical time constraint on the utilization of ftmds, but a "policy" needs to be
developed and adopted by City Council which clearly outlines intended uses of the tree
preservation mitigation account.
FOR COMMISSION ACTION
To review and provide comment and direction for recommendations for use of tree mitigation funds
to the City Council as a policy.
I:\ghove\1999fi1e\tree preservation\Tree Mitigation Fund Memo 11-15-99
4
MEMO TO: Advisory Parks Commission
FROM: Gregg Hove, Supervisor of Forestry
THROUGH: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: January 22, 1998
SUBJECT: Tree Mitigation Fund Policy - Land Acquisition Sub-Cry nittee Meeting, 1-28-98
INTRODUCTION
The Land Acquisition Subcommittee will meet on Thursday, January 28, 1998. The goal of this
meeting will be to develop appropriate criteria and a policy concerning the use of Tree Preservation
Ordinance cash mitigation funds.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 1996 the existing Tree Preservation Policy was officially converted into ordinance
status. As this action occurred, several revisions were incorporated into the new ordinance. Among
them was the inclusion of a cash mitigation option for development 1,11 cations that exceeded
allowable tree removal limits. According to the Tree Preservation tree n pL cement
mitigation would occur as either:
a. "on-site" reforestation (tree planting at the development site),
b. "off-site" reforestation (tree planting on other applicant owned property within the City
of Eagan),
c. "public property" reforestation (contractual tree planting on public property at the
applicant's expense), or
d. cash mitigation.
The cash mitigation option is exercised only when all reforestation options are explored and
exhausted. That is, if preservation of all significant vegetation is not possible, the preference is to
have new trees installed close to the site where they were removed as possible. And basically,
this is what generally has occurred in the past. Since the original Tree Preservation Guidelines were
adopted in July of 1993, only four development sites (3%), out of a total of 162 developments that
have been reviewed for tree preservation action, have had the cash itiga+~or -on apr!iw d to them.
The amount of mitigation funds collected is $60,854.00, ($12,600.00, $12,1_ '.00, $16, 't~::F11WO, and
$20,184.00). To date, only one development has had the option of "public property" reforestation
applied to it (reforestation mitigation for Regal Cinema will be contractually installed at Lexington
Diffley Athletic Fields this spring).
33,
As stated above, the preference is to reforest the development site through on-site mitigation,
however, this is becoming more and more difficult as development is now occurring on sites that are
either heavily wooded (leaving very little room for additional tree planting) or sites that are relatively
small for the amount of development occurring on them (again leaving very little room for additional
trees). All of the cash mitigation collected so far has been on sites developed in late 1996 or during
1997. Trends show that the option of cash mitigation will be more common in the future than in the
past. Also, it is city policy that any tree preservation mitigation to occur on site is in addition to any
landscape requirement. Typically we have found that the landscape requirement completely fills the
site with plant material, leaving no available space for tree mitigation, thus requiring the mitigation
to be in the form of cash.
DISCUSSION
Discussion at this meeting should concentrate on developing a written policy as to setting priorities
for the use of collected tree preservation cash mitigation funds. There are several topics that need
to be addressed:
1. How should cash mitigation funds be applied?
a. actual preservation - to purchase land (i.e. Lot 3, Prairie Oaks)
b. reforestation - to purchase trees that staff will install in parks
c. reforestation - contractual tree installation in parks
d. other land acquisition options, conservation casement purchases, contract-
for-deed purchases, etc., or
e. Landscape Grants - plant installation byte private sector on public land
f. what other ideas do you have?
2. When should current mitigation funds be used?
3. Should the APrC or city staff actively seek out possible land acquisition sites, or
identify them as development proposals are reviewed?
The sub-committee should also be aware that within the Forestry Division operating budget, there
is a $20,000.00 line item for the purchase of trees to be installed into the park system. Along with
this, an additional $109,500.00 has been expended since 1993 for forestry related activities (tree and
shrub planting), with funds derived from park improvement funds. Since 1993, just over 5,000 trees
and many thousands of shrubs and perennials have been planted into Eagan's park system with these
funds. These points are brought up here to let you know that a large amount of trees have been
recently installed into our system, utilizing a relatively small forestry staff. Basically, with the
available staff (one full-time and three to four seasonal persons), there is a finite number of trees that
can be installed within our limited planting season. Some examples of major landscaping tasks this
year are at Lexington Diffley, South Watyer Treatment Plant,. and at the new Ice Arena. If the option
of reforestation via use of tree mitigation funds is explored, outside contractual services will
probably need to be explored. The negative impact with this contractual option is less trees will be
installed with the same amount of money being spent because about half of the cost is associated
with labor.
34e
POLICY ISSUE
The City has not adapted a formal approach to the process and use of tree mitigation dollars.
Because it has always been thought that cash should be the last preferred alternative, there would not
be a large sum of money collected, and whatever was would easily be consumed through
reforestation. Obviously, that has not occurred and the opportunity to c0 ;der open ;,place land
purchase should be considered. Any forested land, .,,.c -I through theF, t, f homd !,.o. held
permanently in a "preserve" state, no land alteration or d, rE lopment would occl i. elieves that
the commission should consider this issue and develop the appropriate criteria for consideration and
recommendation to the Council.
FOR SUB-COMMITTEE ACTION
To determine appropriate criteria and possible recommendation on land i6 ii: sition in uric of or
in addition to tree planting as a use of tree mitigation funds.
H:\Ghove\I998fi1e\Aprc\Mitigation fund memo
MEMO TO: Advisory Parks Commission
FRO : Gregg Hove, Supervisor of Forestry
THROUGH: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: April 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Tree Mitigation Fund Policy
INTRODUCTION
Several meetings have taken place to date with the goal of developing appropriate criteria and a
policy for the use of ftinds generated through the implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
This memo summarizes past actions by staff and by the Land Acquisition Sub-Committee
concerning developing a policy to utilize tree preservation mitigation finids. The recommended uses
of these funds includes providing for preservation, reforestation, and research. Proposed actions
are described below in the discussion section. Please refer to the attached memo, dated January 22,
1998, for background information.
BACKGROUND
Background information is provided in the attached memo. To date the cash mitigation option has
been applied to four developments, and currently now totals $60,854.00. One additional
development, which will receive final plat approval this May, will add $15,750.00 to this fund,
bringing the balance of funds to $76,604.00.
DISCUSSION
The policy being proposed for the use of accumulated ftmds includes three actions; an effort to
preserve significant trees which would otherwise be adversely affected by development, effort
to perform community reforestation, and effort to research potential areas where long-term
conservation easements could be applied. These actions are detailed in the same order below.
Innovative Tree Preservation Tech i u rant Program
RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE: $25,000.00 ($5,000.00 MAXIMUM PER GRANT)
OBJECTIVE: To encourage the implementation of unique tree preservation practices that will
promote the survival of significant and specimen trees, which would otherwise be removed because
the cost to preserve them would be prohibitive.
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS: Projects will be selected based upon project selection criteria and priorities
set by the City of Eagan Forestry Division. Eligible projects will be those that achieve improved tree
survival through the utilization of approved construction techniques as listed below.
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
Local matching funds may be used for approved project expenses expended within the grant period
including:
a. pre-construction tree transplantation,
b. pre-construction tree fertilization, soil aeration, radial trenching,
c. utility installation through tunneling under tree roots versus trenching,
d. retaining wall installation to prevent or minimize grade change within the Critical Root Zone,
e. aeration/drainage system installation under proposed impervious areas.
PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
The City of Eagan Forestry Division will be reviewing grant applications, and selecting projects to
be funded.
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA
All projects to be funded must meet the following criteria:
- Purpose: The proposed activity must maintain or improve the health and survivability of the
tree(s) affected.
- Eligible Appiic t: The applicant is a developer or owner of:
a. commercial or residential property to where the City Tree Preservation Ordinance is
being applied, or
b. existing commercial property which contains significant or specimen tree(s) or
c. existing residential property which contains specimen tree(s)
where construction activity will take place.
- Grant Amount: The grant amount may not exceed $5,000.00.
- Non-Local Match: The funds requested must be matched (cash) at least 1:1 by the applicant.
- MonitorinA Bement: The project applicant agrees to undertake post-treatment monitoring as
approved by the City of Eagan.
- Completion Date: The project must be completed as approved by the City of Eagan.
APPLICATION DEADLINE
December 31, 1998
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregg Hove, Supervisor of Forestry, 3501 Coachman
Point, Eagan, Minnesota, (612) 681-4300.
21
o i Reforestation Program
RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE: $25,000.00 ($5,000.00 MAXIMUM PER PROJECT)
INTRODUCTION
This concept was originally proposed as a "Public Property Landscape Grant Program". However,
after er discussion and research by staff, a revised proposal is being recommended which should
allow for more efficient distribution and use of funds as well as more control over specific tree
species installed as a result of this program. The recommendation is to develop a "reforestation"
program whereby tree species would be made available to landowners in "areas of need". These
areas would be those that have recently endured some type of vegetation disturbance. Examples of
"areas of need" would be a windstorm damaged area such as what happened in Eagan in May 1996,
or areas affected by some type of tree disease or insect epidemic (oak wilt losses or gypsy moth tree
losses).
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The need to implement this type of reforestation program would be dependent upon the occurrence
and severity of disturbance. There may be certain years where the reforestation program is not
needed, while there may be other years where this type of program will need to be implemented
more than once. City Forestry staff will monitor the need for and develop specific program criteria.
PROGRAM DESIGN
- Criteria to determine eligible sites will be developed based upon need
- The reforestation program may occur on either public or private lands
- Reforestation needs will be determined by forestry staff, with discussion occurring between staff
and landowner(s)
- Small diameter, containerized trees will be provided at no cost to affected landowners
- A written agreement will be created by forestry staff outlining follow-up tree maintenance needs
which will be provided by landowner(s)
Conservation Easement Research P
RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURE: $5,000.00 (RESEARCH ASSISSTANT SALARY)
$20,000.00 (EASEMENT PURCHASES)
PURPOSE
The objective of this program is to preserve the greatest amount of "valuable lands" within the
City of Eagan while expending the least amount of funds. The vehicle for this program is the
purchase of conservation easements. ("Valuable lands" will be defined as those providing one or
more of the priorities listed below). A conservation easement will be described as a legal
agreement made between a landowner and a cooperating agency, such as the City of Eagan. It
places perpetual, mutually agreed upon restrictions on development of the land. The landowner
will retain ownership of the land. All future owners would be bound by the terms of the
conservation easement. This program will be designed to be both pro-active (we will seek out
potential easement properties) and re-active (we will be open to inquiries from the general
public).
APPLICABILITY
Priority will be given to land which:
1. is adjacent to city park land and contains,
a. specimen trees,
b. significant trees or woodlands,
c. unique plant or aquatic vegetation
d. native prairie or grassland.
2. provides visual or physical screening for users of city park property,
3. provides for a greenway or natural corridor between city owned wooded areas, or
4. provides for the benefit of the community as a whole through the preservation of trees and
greenspace.
IMPLEMENTATION
Research will need to be conducted before this conservation easement program is impICFnIC11tcd. It
has been recommended that a research assistant be hired to:
1. search for potential lands fitting program criteria, via maps, aerial photos, and ground
surveys,
2. research costs associated with purchasing conservation easements,
3. develop methodology for implementing conservation easements, and
4. create a written Conservation Easement Management Plan
MEMORANDUM SUMMARY
Three uses of the Tree Preservation Ordinance Cash Mitigation Fund are presented. Through the
implementation of the three options we will:
1. ensure the survival of large trees which may have been otherwise destroyed as the result of
construction activities,
2. reforest areas of Eagan that suffer tree loss from some type of natural nd
3. provide for the perpetual conservation of naturally significant land areas.
POLICY ISSUE
As stated in previous memos, the City has not yet adopted a formal plan for the use of tree mitigation
dollars. To date, the funds collected have exceeded original expectations. Thc Land Acquisiton
Sub-committee and staff are recommending the preceding plans for in pk-nw,-,tation of tree
mitigation funds.
FOR COMMISSION ACTION
To review and provide comment on the proposed recommendations for use of tree mitigation fit T s.
H:\Ghove\I998file\Aprc\Mitigation fund memo
MEMO
city
TO: ADVISORY FARKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN A, DW.ECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 44,1999
SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 PARKS/TRAILS DEDICATION ff-'ES
ISSUE:
To rend Park and Trail Dedication Fees for the year 2000.
BACKGROUND:
The Advisory Commission annually recommen es f _ I ion t tinn, City
Council for adoption and implementation be ' in, vith the final plats a •o, I of the ti j st of the
year,
Historically the review process looked at recent sales of raw land; ld where there was no se°-°^r r'
water service available. The land sales formed the basis for determining the park d tine ,
the adopted City Code formula. recent years, land sale transactions have not been a r,
since there is no "raw land" left in Eagan, Virtually c,,very parcc l of property ha W
consequently, the Commission has reverted to an w p roach to esL i;1 as --s. Attached
is the November 1998 Commission memo reflecting the last recommendation. Al a attached is the
Park Dedication Policy and Trail Dedication Policy.
DISCUSSION:
A recent conference program of the Minnesota Park and Recreation Association focused on park
dedication ordinances and fees being charged. Although most communities have not yet acted oa
2000 fee schedule, it would appear that adjustments completed for 1999 w - r li 2-5% over
1998 fees. As you would expect, not all communities have stayed withil t I iuts. pa lcularly
those that are now experiencing rapidly increasing land values like Eagan e rrS uct in the late 80's
and early 90's. Chanhassen, for ele, increased their rates significantly W 1998 for this reason and
also to play "catch up" for when their fees went unchanged.
The Council implemented the Commission's recommendations from last year, which was
approximately 2.3%. Staff applied a 3% increase to the current fee schedule with the following results
as a basis of discussion.
PARK DEDICATION I) I C; i t;N
Single Family $ 1,222/ it Res- LU4I $ 168/ a it
Duplex $ 1,264/unit Cc;ir-,.ercial $948/acre
Townhouses/Quads $ 867/ it
is ultiple $ 862 /unit
Co ercia d. $ 3,476/acre
FOR COMMISSION ACTION:
Make recommendation for year 2000 park and trail d -_on fees.
41,
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
JEFF ASFAHL, SUPERINTENDENT RECREATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 9,1999
SUBJECT: FEES AND CHARGES, FY 2000 PROPOSAL
BACKGROUND:
The Advisory Parks Commission annually reviews the fees and charges proposed for the use
of City park, field, equipment and service amenity requests. A recommendation is forwarded
to the City Council for implementation on January 1.
FACTS:
¦ The level of fees charged by the City of Eagan for pavilion and shelter use are
comparable to neighboring communities south of the river. Facilities found in other
communities are not necessarily comparable.
¦ Differences in fees charged to youth athletic associations are found, some communities as
a matter of policy, charge no fees to youth programs. The policy in Eagan is to charge no
fees to in-house programs. Minimal charges are assessed to travel sports and for
tournaments which require higher levels of maintenance.
¦ 1999 revenue to date from pavilion, field and equipment use is $34,843.
CONCERNS:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The only change in fees that staff is recommending is:
¦ Require a $50.00 damage deposit for picnic kits
¦ To have extra picnic tables moved to a park would be $10/table. This is a very labor-
intensive request.
FOR COMMISSION ACTION:
To review the attached proposed fees and charges for facility use in FY 2000. A
recommendation to the City Council is appropriate at this time.
2000 FEE SCHEDULE
Parks and Recreation Charges
The following facility rental fees are subject to 6.5% State sales tax, and require a $150.00 dam a e deposit payable
at the time of registration:
1999 PROPOSED 2000
FACILITY RESIDENTS RESIDENTS NON RESIDENTS ID NTS
Trapp Farm, Thomas Lake and Blackhawk Park pavilions:
• All day rental (l Dam - 10pm) $100.00 $120.00
Same Same
• Half-day rental (10a m- 4 pm, or 5-10 pm) 70.00 90.00
• Blackhawk kitchen 30.00 30.00
Enclosed park shelter buildings:
• All day rental (loam - l Opm) $100.00 $120.00 Same Same
• Half-day rental (l0am-4pm, or 5- l Opm) 70.00 90.00
Athletic facilities/shelters:
• Fields - youth tournaments (per field per day) $35.00 45.00
• Fields - all other users (per field per day) 55.00 75.00 Same Same
• Lights, if required (per field per hour) 30.00 30.00
• Building cleaning (per day) 55.00 55.00
Community Room - City Hall
(NOTE: after hours rental is 2-hour minimum):
• Youth groups (8am - 4:30 pm) Deposit only N/A
• Youth groups - after hours (per hour) 9.00 N/A
• Local civic groups (8am - 4:30 pm) Deposit only N/A
• Local civic groups - after hours (per hour) 20.00 N/A
Same Same
• Other citizen groups
-Per hour rental 20.00 50.00
-Maximum one-day rental 200.00 350.00
• For profit organizations
-Per hour rental 50.00 50.00
-Maximum one-day rental 350.00 350.00
The following charges are subject to
6.5% State sales tax: Same Same
Sunshelters (per day) $30.00 $50.00 Same Same
Picnic kit: add -dd
• 3 items 7.00 10.00 0 .0 0 -30.00
• Each additional item 3.00 5.00 depot losit
Chuckwagon grill (per day) 30.00 50.00 Same Same
Canopy (per day) 55.00 75,00 Same Same
Extra picnic tables 25.00 N/A S 10.00/table N/A
Athletic Facilities Same Same
• Restrooms/bases/chalking (per reservation) 30.00 50.00
Trapp Farm reserved tubing facility:
• 1-25 people (per hour rate) 25.00 45.00
• Each add'l > 25 (per person per hour) 1.00 1.00 Same Same
(Note: maximum capacity is 100 people)
Field/facility maintenance fees:
• Traveling youth teams (per team) 70 000 N/A
• Adult - up to 9 games (per team) 175.00 N/A Same Same
• Adult - more than 9 games (per team) 325.00 N/A
Concessions permit (maximum of 3) 215.00 N/A Same Same
G:Jeff/2000 fee schedule