Loading...
02/14/2005 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission AGENDA ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA shop session 6:00 p.m. work Monday, February 14, 2005 20/20 Vision 7:00 PM Eagan Municipal Center The Eagan Room City Council Chambers A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 pm B. Approval of Agenda 7:02 pm C. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 17 2005 7:03 pm D. Visitors to be Heard (1) CEHP - 20/20 Vision Plan Update 7:05 pm (2) Maintenance Division Update 7:20 pm E. Superintendent's Update and Department Happenings Pages 3-4 7:45 pm F. Consent Agenda 8:00 pm G. Development Proposals 8:01 pm H. Old Business 8:02 pm 1. New Business (1) Grant Application for Improvements to Thresher Fields Pages 5-6 8:03 pm (2) Wetland Replacement Ordinance Consideration Page 7 8:10 pm (3) 2005 CIP Recommendations Pages 8-9 8:30 pm J. Water Resources Update 8:40 pm K. Other Business and Reports (1) Subcommittee Updates 8:45 pm (2) APrC Term Expirations 8:50 pm L. Round Table 8:51 pm M. Adjournment 9:00 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 attempt to provide the aids. eri saw p es ro ®a ~ -mge ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION MEMBERS 2004-2005 7 &4911 s* aEs ;.mom JRES TERM TELEPHONE TERM phone START EXPIRES JOSEPH BA RI 1999 651-454-8442 (H) 5/2005 3033 Timberwood Trail (3 yr. 1999) Eagan, MN 55121 (3 yr. 2002) ibaril@iuno.com PHIL BELFIORI 2002 651-905-0293 (H) 5/2006 3671 Canary Way (lyr. 2002) 763-287-7167 (W) Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr, 2003) pbelfiori wsbenq com MARGO DANNER 2001 651/454-5688 (H) 5/2007 2037 Flint Lane (3 yr. 2001) Eagan, MN 55122 (3 yr. 2004) mrsmaooo usfamily.net TERRY DAVIS 1997 651-452-2635 (H) 5/2006 4895 Safari Pass (3 yr. 1997) 651-310-8941 (W) Eagan, MN 55122-2690 (3 yr. 2000) 452-2152 (Home fax) (3 yr. 2003) terry.davis(a)stpaul.com TS1VAD(a~aoi.com (home) MARK FILIPI May, 1997 651-602-1725 (W) 5/2007 836 Overlook Place (3 yr. 1998) 651-687-9866 (H) (3 yr. 2001) merk.filipi(a.metc.state. mn.us Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr. 2004) DUANE L. HANSEN (alternate) May, 2004 952-894-9228 (W) 5/2005 3911 Denmark Ave (1 yr. 2004) 651-687-9566 (H) Eagan, MN 55123 hand00 comcast.net H ED LO HI May, 2004 952-278-2629 (W) 5/2007 4361 Bear Path Trail (3 yr. 2004) 651-686-5273 (H) Eagan, MN 55122 m lodhi@hotmail.com ELIZABETH PERRY (LIZA) 2002 651-452-3201 (H) 5/2005 3298 Rolling Hills Drive (3 yr. 2002) 651-994-8808 (W) Eagan, MN 55121 Iperry64Ca)hotmait,com DOROTHY PETERSON 2000 651-454-6532 (H) 5/2007 4337 Sequoia Drive (3 yr. 2000) Eagan, MN 55122 (3 yr. 2004) norsk4337a(juno.com RICHARD PLETCHER 2001 651-687-9177 (H) 5/2005 1074 Northview Park (1 yr. 2001) Eagan, MN 55123 (3 yr. 2002) richard pletcher(a.usarc-emh2 army.mil Eagan Ck-`y Staff E- Mail: cmesl(o@ci.qAgqnmn.us polsongci.eagan.mn.us iasfahlC~ci.eagan.mn.us ghov_e2ci.eagan.mn.us emacbeth@ci.eaganmn.us 9-16-04 t', Phone #651-675-5505 (Cherryl's # after 4:30 p.m.) Eagan Parks and Recreation Phone Number: 651-675-5500 Eagan Parks and Recreation Staff E- ail Administration: Cherry) Mesko cmesko@ci.eagan.mn.us Paul Olson polson@ci.eagan.mnus Jeff Asfahl iasfahl@ci.eagan.mn.us Forestry: Gregg Hove ghove@ci.eagan.mn,us Water Resources: Eric Macbeth emacbeth@ci. eagan. mn. us Recreation Staff: Paula Nowariak pnowariak@ci.eagan.mn.us Sonya Rippe srippe@ci.eagan.mn.us Cathy Bolduc cbolduc@ci.eagan.mn.us Holly Champlin hchamplin@ci. eagan. mn. us Colleen Callahan.ccalahan@ci.eagan.mn.us Cascade Bay: Civic Arena: Mark Vaughan mvaughan@ci.eagan.mn.us Community Center: Sandy Breuer sbreuer@ci.eagan.mn.us ADVISORY COMMISSION 2004-2005 MEETING SCHEDULE May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May NAME 17 14 19 16 20 18 15 20 13* 14 14 18 16 Joseph Bari X X X X X Phil elfiori x 0* X 0* X 0* Margo Danner x X x x x Terry Davis 0* X X X N. Mark Filipi x 0* 0* Duane Hansen 0* x Muhammad Lodhi x 0* X Elizabeth Perry x X 0* 0 0 Dorothy Peterson x X 0* X 0* X Richard Pletcher 0* 0* X = present O = absent O` = notified sff of absence prior to meeting Recreation Sub-Committee Natural Resources Sub-Committee Acquisition/Develo 2ment Sub-Committee Terry Davis Mark Filipi Terry Davis Joe Bari Phil Belfiori Dorothy Peterson Richard Pletcher Muhammad Lodhi Joe Bari Duane Hansen Elizabeth Perry iviargo canner Liaison to Holz Farm Study NE Eagan Study Master Plan - Large Group Dorothy Peterson Richard Pletcher Mark Filipi Elizabeth Perry Joe Bari Margo Danner Muhammed Lohdi UPCOMING MEETINGS: OPEN ISSUES Holz Farm NRHP Preliminary Evaluation Parks Master Plan Review Volunteer Recognition Methodology PARK SYSTEM PLAN MEETINGS • February 17 Public Forum - Eagan Communit yCenter • March 14 APrC Council Update • April 12 Public Forum - Eagan Community Center • May 10 APrC Council Workshop • May 16 APrC Adoption of Plan *Tentative dates - subject to change. T : ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2005 REMINDER: The City's consultant, CEHP, will be presenting Advisory Commission Members with an update on the status of the 20/20 Vision Plan and the work that has been completed to date. ITEM A: Call to order ITEM B: Approval of Agenda ITEM C: Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 17, 2005 ITEM D: Visitors to be Heard 1. CEHP will provide an update of the 20/20 Vision Plan for the viewing public. This presentation will be rebroadcast over the next month to continue to educate and solicit input from the public. 2. Park Maintenance Supervisor Steve Taylor and Park Operations Supervisor Paul Graham will be present to provide an overview of the maintenance division's operation.. ITEM E: Superintendent's Update and Department Happenings Staff will review several items of interest to the Commission and community. ITEM F: Consent Agenda There are no Consent Agenda items for review. ITEM G: Development Proposals There are no Development Proposals for review. ITEM H: Old Business There are no Old Business items for the Commission to review. ITEM I: New Business 1. Staff is seeking a recommendation to the City Council to proceed with a grant application for enhancements to Thresher Fields and to designate the March 14, 2005 APrC meeting as the public hearing for that application. 2. Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth will provide background and facilitate discussion relative to a potential wetland replacement ordinance consideration. The APrC may wish to make a recommendation to the City Council to consider this further. 3. It would be appropriate for the APrC to make a recommendation to the City Council relative to their review of the 2005 CIP. ITEM J: Water Resources Update Water Resources Coordinator Macbeth will provide any additional information relative to the Water Resources division. 1 ITEM K: Other Business and Reports 1. Subcommittees that may have met since the January meeting may wish to update the APrC on their discussions. 2. Terms will expire for Commission Members Bari, Hansen, Perry and Pletcher. Members wishing to re-apply will need to have information submitted to Administration by March 18 for Council appointment in April. New terms will take effect at the May 16 meeting. ITEM L: Round Table Any items of concern that might be placed on upcoming agendas or items of interest will be identified. ITEM M: Adjournment 2 DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS February, 2005 Parks Division • Due to last weeks unseasonably warm weather only 4 rink sites were left in condition that allowed for them to remain open the balance of the season. This includes the rinks at Goat Hill, Quarry, Rahn and Skyhill. All other rinks are closed for the season. Three of the four rink sites remaining open have paved rinks, exemplifying their ability to tolerate weather variation and be quickly rebuilt. Most area Cities are in the same situation. • With the closing of rinks, maintenance staff is moving back to the traditional work schedule of 7 to 3:30, M-F. Staff will be completing a number of carpentry, building improvement projects, and equipment changeovers, in addition to beginning some preparation for spring • Ice on area lakes and ponds also was subject to considerable melting over the past week. Anyone venturing on the ice should use great care to test the conditions as they go. The City does not monitor ice conditions on area lakes and ponds. • Some spring thoughts----the biannual tree sale will be held on Saturday April 30th at the Eagan Public Works Building. To facilitate the goal of enhancing the "urban forest", this years sale will focus upon the sale of individual trees versus landscape packages as have been sold in recent years. Residents will be able to obtain order forms from the City web site or at City offices. • The annual Arbor Day celebration/ planting event will be held Saturday May 14th at the Lexington Diffley Fields. Planting will take place on the north side of the new public roadway extending through the park and around the reservoir and maintenance areas. • Forestry staff has been working with the City technology consultant, Logis, to create a diseased tree inventory and data base that can be carried into the field on a hand held computer notepad by the Forester or Tree Inspector. The new program will allow for rapid archive reviews and updates on individual trees. • Staff will continue to work cooperatively with the Street Department to continue the boulevard trimming program. Areas of the City are completed on a rotational basis. Most work this year has been in the SW and South Central areas. • Additions to the City trail plowing program will be considered at the first Council meeting in April. There is a petition process therefore residents with request are encouraged to start early. Additional information can be obtained by containing the Street Superintendent at 675-5300. This is the only opportunity prior to the 2005/2006 winter. • The County Plat Commission agreed to ROW variances for Diffley Road along the Caponi property. The standard variance of 75' from the center line will apply only along the NE 10 acres. Should additional ROW ever be required, the balance of the property will in the public realm and ROW can be negotiated. • TPL has completed a revised appraisal of the property in the format required by the DNTR and s,..! it.rd it for review. The appraisal is required to receive the State grant. Recreation Division • Softball packets have been mailed out for the fast approaching summer season. Registration for returning teams is February 28 - March 4 and new teams March 7-11. There has already been a steady stream of inquiries, especially with the most recent spring like weather. • Planning has begun for the concession season. Deb Buntjer is back for another year to help with this program. Staff information will be going out within the next month. • The outdoor winter leagues are winding down. Mother nature has given us quite an array of weather, going from -30 below windchill to 6-8 inches of snow and then to 50 degrees. Throughout that weather, only a few cancellations had to be made. • Preschool is at the halfway point of Winter session. Close to 300 children are registered for the session, additional staff is needed to accommodate the growing numbers. • A field Trip to the Children's Museum was offered on February 2 and 3 for the Preschool program participants. 78 preschoolers with parent chaperones attended the trip. Once again, the bus ride to St. Paul being was the highlight of the trip! • Pre-registration for spring session will start February 14'h , and the public is welcome to register upon receipt of their brochure during the week of February 21 • The Trapp Farm Park Tubing Hill was finally able to open for the first time this season. The hill opened on Saturday, January 22 after a 5 inch snowfall. The building's opening was short-lived as heavy use and warm 3 temperatures wore down the snow-packed hill. The site closed on Sunday, January 30 after 71/2 days of being opened and will remain closed until we receive another 5-8 inch snowfall. • During the week that Trapp Farm was open, use was heavy on the weekends. There were 336 visitors on the first day and 357 visitors on the second day. Use during the week averaged 48 visitors each day. On Saturday, January 29 there were 355 visitors. Total attendance after 7 days is 1,412. • Snow Daze was held on February 5. It should have been called "Ice Daze" as all events had to take place on Schwan Lake in Trapp Farm Park. The temperature was a balmy 55 degrees with rapidly melting snow. Events that took place were sled dog rides and ice fishing. Attendance was around 50-75 people for ice fishing and 27 youth received a sled dog ride. Everyone who attended was having a great time in the beautiful weather. A coupon to come back and tube at the Tubing Hill was also handed out to participants. • With the varied weather during January, the rinks were closed for 3 days due to the dangerous windchills and 1 day because of the snow storm. The month of February began by closing for 6 days due to the warm temperatures. Rahn and Goat Hill were able to stay open for the adult leagues. Sites were able to reopen on February 7. Thanks to the maintenance crews for getting 4 sites back in skating condition-they are Goat, Rahn, Quarry and Sky Hill. Ridgecliff, Camelian, Clearwater and Bridle Ridge are now closed for the season. • The third Family Play Day was held on January 23 at the Eagan Community Center. Participants had fun making crafts, playing games and listening to stories based on a "Snow " theme. • A new cooperative effort with ISD 196 Community Education will be starting on Feb. 14 at the ECC. Preschool Gymnastics will be offered for ages 3-5. Registration is steady so far. • A Super Science class, Underwater Adventures and a Games and Sports class are the current offerings for home school students. These classes are offered for 2 hours at a time at the ECC. This is another cooperative effort with ISD 196 Community Education. • Summer will soon be here and applications for Recreation Leaders and Recreation Assistant are now being accepted. Communi Center Happenings • January was a busy month in regards to activity in the Fitness Center. We sold 235 memberships during our January special. In 2004 we sold 159. Over 55 of these new members enrolled in the Frequent Fitness Health Promotion with HealthPartners. • The virtual tour numbers for 2004 are in. We had 3125 hits to this Community Center sight. This translates into a cost of.16 cents per hit. We feel this is an excellent service to provide at such a low cost. Our contract is up for renewal this year and it is our intent to renew. • On the weekend of Jan. 14 & 15th we accomplished another first at the Community Center. We rented the facility to two separate groups for back-to-back overnights. These overnights are taxing for our custodial crews, but they managed to make these events go off smoothly. • On January 29 the SES and the teen program hosted a "Silence the Violence" event. A crowd of over 400 was in attendance. • The Recreation Division, along with the Eagan Skate School offered a Family Skating Extravaganza on the ECC Pond On January 30. It was a great collaborative program with about 75 attendees. • We hosted our first special event tin the Blast, called Flashlight Night for children age's 7-10. We had over 20 children register for this program. • The Preschool Open Gym/Blast program continues to be well attended by parents of preschoolers on Tuesday and Thursday morning from 9:30-11:30 a.m. • The open gyms for adult basketball and volleyball on Monday and Thursday evenings and Saturday afternoons is busting at the seams. We now are entering new territory as we need to put policies in place for over capacity. • Our new Fitness Coordinator, Marshall Grange began in mid-January and is learning quickly and adapting to the fast pace at the ECC. + The Eagan Rotary Art Gala was held the weekend of Feb. 5th. This event uses a large chunk of the banquet, meeting, and atrium areas for their event. + We will be attending an Eagan corporate health fair on Friday, February 11. This is a great way to promote our fitness center and group fitness classes. • The Daddy's Little Sweetheart Dance will be held on Saturday, Feb. 12th. • The ECC will be promoting the Blast at the 2005 Children's Expo at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Feb. 19 & 20. This is the first time we will be doing this event and we are anxious to promote the facility. • Interviews have begun to fill the full-time custodian position for the overnight shift. 4 Date: February 14, 2005 Agenda Item: I-1, Thresher Fields Grant i City of Eagan Acton x Information Parks and Recreation MEMO Attachments x 1. General Concept Plan AGENDA ITE : I-1, CONSIDERATION OF THRESHER GRANT APPLICATION TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION FROM: PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT of PARKS ITEM OVE : The APrC is being asked to consider recommending the preparation of a grant application to the DNR Outdoor Recreation Program to provide funding for improvements to Thresher Fields Park BACKGROUND/HISTORY: Thresher Fields Park was developed in 2003/2004 to provide additional open turf area intended to meet the increasing need for field space. The park will be open to the public for the first time in the spring of 2005. Because of the cost of development, amenities such as toilets, service area, water and a shelter were not included in the first phase. Water, sewer and electricity were extended into the site in anticipation of the implementation of future phases. ANALYSIS: Based upon initial projections, use of the park will be heavy throughout the year with a variety of organized sports using the fields. Because of the size of the turf area and available parking, the site will become a popular location for tournaments. The master plan for the site also includes a series of trails and other public amenities. There are no restroom or drinking water opportunities within several miles of the site. All other major City athletic facilities have access to amenities including water, restroom and shelter DISCUSSION/ EVALUATION: The DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program is very competitive, funds have become limited due to budget cuts at the federal and State level. The program provides for a 50150 funding match with selected local units of government. A similar grant was submitted in 2004 but was not funded. Several changes have been made to create the most current design including the addition of a playground that would benefit non-participants and the public and a simplified shelter. The estimated project cost is either side of $390,000. The City share of approximately $195,000 would be in the form of cash, most likely from the Park Site Fund and/or in-kind (staff) labor. A more refined estimate will be available for consideration prior to the March 31 submission deadline. The City Council has been asked to approve the preparation of the grant at their meeting of February 15, pending an APrC recommendation. The APrC will also be directed to conduct a required Public Hearing on the grant request at the regular March 14 APrC meeting. The results of the hearing and an APrC recommendation regarding submission of the grant will be forwarded 5 to the Council for final approval on March 15. Submitting an application does NOT obligate the City to accept a grant or expend funds. If successful, the project would be considered for implementation in 2006. Applying for grant funds is consistent with the APrC initiative to identify alternative sources of funding. ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Recommend that a DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant for improvements at Thresher Fields be prepared. 2. Table the item for consideration at a future time. 6 ~i ~r•. Item: , ~(:~efcP Attachment # I i f} J, oz m 71 ~J ~ A 1r nv t~='r f m t~ z' b x Avow i5~ zk, ! ' 1 Date: February 14, 2005 Agenda Item: I-2; Wetland Replacement Ordinance Consideration ° City of Action MMO Information Parks and Recreation E Attachments X 1. Wetland Conservation Act Manual Excerpts AGENDA ITE : 1-2; WETLAND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION T : ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: ERIC MAC ET , WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR ITEM OVERVIEW: Consider report by Natural Resources Subcommittee on possible development of a wetland protection and management plan for the City, which would result in local ordinance. With 1 appropriate reviews and approvals, this would be an alternative to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Rules. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: At its last meeting, the Advisory Parks Commission directed the Natural Resources Subcommittee to convene with staff before tonight's meeting to review and discuss: 1) "State of the Lakes Report, 1990-2004;" and 2) "Local Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan." ANALYSIS: For the second item, the attached background information was provided. The subcommittee reviewed this information and assembled the following list of policy considerations and management implications: DISCUSSION/EVALUATION: Benefits: • Allow the use of wetlands for stormwater • Functions and values • Identify protection and restoration potential • Saves time and resources • Public & open process • Local enforceability improved • Brings City in line with others • Important to have in place for re-development (i.e. Burnsville) • Valuable tool in managing non-degradation plan Concerns: • Time and resources to inventory • Challenge to integrate with other regulations (federal/state/local programs) • Does ordinance have more/less risk over state/federal requirements ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: To assist the Commission's consideration of this issue, Messrs. Chad Donnelly, Water Resource Engineer of the City of Rosemount; and Terry Schultz, Natural Resources Director of the City of Burnsville have agreed to share their experiences. Both cities have had wetland protection and management plans for a number of years. 7 Item; - [i f Attachment # 8 In accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0650, as an alternative to the WCA rules - a local governmental unit may develop a comprehensive wetland protection and manage oca / meet plan. The purpose of this plan is to provide for alternative standards for manage- ment ment of wetland resources, based on the needs and priorities of the LGU. amprehensive The planning process must include the following: ,t r provide for resource agency and public participation; e an ¦ wetland functional assessment information for the plan area; ¦ high priority area identification; Protection meet no-net loss of wetlands within the plan area; ¦ follow Wetland Conservation Act requirements; and a{? ¦ a local ordinance that implements the plan. Management Prior to developing a plan, an LGU must first provide notice at the beginning of the planning process to BWSR (through a board conservationist), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Depart- s ment of Agriculture, all affected local governments, and local citizens inviting participa- tion in the development of the plan. An agency that is invited to participate in the devel- opment of the plan but declines to do so and fails to participate or to provide written comments during the local review process, waives the right to submit comments during the BWSR review, except for comments concerning consistency of the plan with laws and rules administered by that agency. In determining the merit of an agency's comment, BWSR will consider the involvement of the agency in the development of the plan. After BWSR approval and adoption by the local government unit, replacement plan, exemption, and no-loss determinations are made according to the plan and ordinance. The WCA rule provides minimum standards for a plan. Local government units must require equivalent or greater standards and procedures for wetland conservation, but not less. Elements of a Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan The contents of each plan will vary, depending upon the area of the state in which the LGU is located. Therefore, each plan should include an introduction that describes the reasons for developing and implementing the plan. Classification of wetlands All plans must include a classification of wetlands in the plan area based on the follow- ing: ¦ an inventory of wetlands in the plan area; r an assessment of the wetland functions, based upon a methodology chosen by the technical evaluation panel (TEP) from one of those established or approved by the BWSR in the WCA rules; and r the resulting public values of the functions provided. Sequencing standards The plan may vary certain standards used in making decisions regarding replacement plans for wetlands impacted by drain, excavation, or fill activities. Plans may vary the application of the WCA sequencing standards for projects, based upon the classification and alternative standards set forth in the plan. Faye 46 Wetland Conservation Act Manmal/Jan. 2004 Replacement standards Comprehensive wetland protection and management plans may vary the replacement standards as spelled out in the rules. Any variance to replacement standards must ultimately ensure that there is no net loss of the public values within the area subject to the plan. In 50 to 80 percent areas: One to one replacement must be met in the plan area. In less than 50 percent areas: Two to one replacement must be met in the plan area, with at least one to one being new wetland credit. In greater than 80 percent areas: The replacement ratio must be based on the alternative standards set forth in the plan, and replacement credit may be awarded for any project that increases the public value of wetlands, including activities on adjacent upland areas. Additional (optional) local requirements for wetland management While WCA allows for local plans to adopt alternative standards for greater flexibility in administering WCA, there is also the opportunity for the LGU to provide additional requirements that are more restrictive than WCA. Enforcement and appeals of any local standards that are more restrictive than state law or rules must be provided for through local means as WCA processes (including any alternative standards in the comprehen- sive wetland protection and management plans) will not apply, even if they are part of a BWSR-approved plan. BWSR review and approval Once the LGU submits the final plan to Board of Water and Soil Resources, the BWSR has a 60-day period in which to review the contents of the plan. The plan is deemed ap- proved if BWSR does not disagree with the plan within that 60-day review period. In its review of the plan, BWSR will note the elements of the plan that are more restrictive than state law and rules. Plans are approved by a resolution of the full BWSR board with a notice of decision letter sent by the BWSR chair or executive director. The process that BWSR uses in the event of a disagreement with the plan contents is spelled out in Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0650, subpart 3, items D, E, and F. In the event that such a disagreement occurs, the LGU should immediately contact their board conservationist to begin the process for resolving any differences. A comprehensive wetland protection and management plan may be developed as part of or in conjunction with a local water plan. See Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0650, subpart 3G., for additional information. Local capacity requirements Local government units that pursue incorporating the contents of a comprehensive wetland protection and management plan into a local ordinance must provide documen- tation to BWSR that demonstrates local capacity to implement the plan. Reporting and oversight The local government unit must submit an annual activity report to BWSR that docu- ments compliance with plan standards. The annual report must include all items re- quired in Minnesota Rules, part 8420.0650, subpart 8. Paqe 47 Weiland Conservateon Act Manual/Jan. 2004 8420.0650 LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT PLANS. Subpart 1. General requirements and participation. A. As an alternative to the rules adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2242, subdivision 1, and the public value criteria established or approved under Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.3355, a comprehensive wetland protection and management plan may be developed by a local government unit, or one or more local government units operating under a joint powers agreement, provided that: (1) a notice is made at the beginning of the planning process to the board, the commissioner of natural resources, the Pollution Control Agency, local government units, and local citizens to actively participate in the development of the plan; and (2) the plan is implemented by ordinance as part of the local government unit's official controls under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 394, for a county; Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462, for a city; Minnesota Statutes, chapter 366, for a town; and by rules adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103D, for a watershed district; and Minnesota Statutes, chapter 1038, for a watershed management organization. B. An organization that is invited to participate in the development of the local plan, but declines to do so and fails to participate or to provide written comments during the local review process, waives the right during board review to submit comments, except comments concerning consistency of the plan with laws and rules administered by that agency. In determining the merit of an agency comment, the board shall consider the involvement of the agency in the development of the local plan. The technical evaluation panel must be consulted in all components of plan and ordinance development including, but not limited to, conducting wetland functional assessments, establishing wetland management classifications, and identifying local reference standard wetlands. C. After board approval and local government adoption, replacement plan, exemption, and no-loss determinations are made according to the plan and ordinance. This part provides minimum standards. Local government units must require equivalent or greater standards and procedures for wetland conservation, but not less. Subp. 2. Plan contents. The comprehensive wetland protection and management component of the local water plan may: A. provide for classification of wetlands in the plan area based on: (1) an inventory of wetlands in the plan area; (2) an assessment of the wetland functions listed in part 8420.0103, using a methodology chosen by the technical evaluation panel from one of the methodologies established or approved by the board; and (3) the resulting public values; B. vary application of the sequencing standards in part 8420.0520, for projects based on the classification and criteria set forth in the plan; C. vary the replacement standards of part 8420.0540, based on the classification and criteria set forth in the plan, for specific wetland impacts provided there is no net loss of public values within the area subject to the plan, and so long as: (1) in a 50 to 80 percent area, a minimum acreage requirement of one acre of replaced wetland for each acre of drained or filled wetland requiring replacement is met within the area subject to the plan; and (2) in a less than 50 percent area, a minimum acreage requirement of two acres of replaced wetland for each acre of drained or filled wetland requiring replacement is met within the area subject to the plan, except that replacement for the amount above a 1:1 ratio can be accomplished as described in part 8420.0540, subpart 2; D. in a greater than 80 percent area, allow replacement credit, based on the classification and criteria set forth in the plan, for any project that increases the public value of wetlands, including activities on adjacent upland acres; E. in a greater than 80 percent area, based on the classification and criteria set forth in the plan, expand the application of the exemptions in part 8420.0122, subpart 1, item D, to also include nonagricultural land, provided there is no net loss of wetland values; F. prescribe standards for size and location of replacement wetlands by establishing type requirements, size/ratio requirements, functional quality requirements, location requirements, and wetland mitigation fee in lieu of direct replacement criteria. Requirements for replacement must have a direct relationship with wetland classification as defined in the plan and must result in no net loss of wetland quantity, quality, and biological diversity over the life of the plan which cannot exceed ten years; G. allow exemptions based on ordinance standards, eligibility criteria, and processes that are not less restrictive than the requirements in parts 8420.0115, 8420.0122, and 8420.0210 based on wetland classifications as defined in the plan; and H. define and establish high priority wetland areas pursuant to parts 8420.0350 and 8420.0400. Subp. 2a. Project notice and appeal under local ordinance. A. The local government unit shall submit to the commissioner of natural resources, the watershed district if there is one, local government units, members of the technical evaluation panel, and local citizens who request it, a copy of the application and provide at least 15 days' notice for comments and a schedule for a hearing if one is to be held. A copy of all decisions shall be forwarded to those mentioned above within ten days of the action. B. Appeals of ordinance decisions. Persons may appeal replacement plan, no-loss and exemption determinations made pursuant to an approved wetland ordinance according to the procedures defined in part 8420.0250. Subp. 3. Board review and approval; mediation; judicial review. A. The plan is deemed approved 60 days after the local government unit submits the final plan to the board, unless the board disagrees with the plan as provided in item D. B. The board may not disapprove a plan if the board determines the plan meets the requirements of this part. C. In its review of a plan, the board shall advise the local government unit of those elements of the plan that are more restrictive than state law and rules. D. If the board disagrees with the plan or any elements of the plan, the board shall, in writing, notify the local government unit of the plan deficiencies and suggested changes. The board shall include in the response to the local government unit the scientific justification, if applicable, for the board's concerns with the plan. upon receipt of the board's concerns with the plan, the local government unit has 60 days to revise the plan and resubmit the plan to the board for reconsideration, or the local government unit may request a hearing before the board. The board shall hold a hearing within the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the local government within 60 days of the request for hearing. After the hearing, the board shall, within 60 days, prepare a report of its decision and inform the local government unit. E. If, after the hearing, the board and local government unit disagree on the plan, the board shall, within 60 days, initiate mediation through a neutral party. If the board and local government unit agree in writing not to use mediation or the mediation does not result in a resolution of the differences between the parties, then the board may commence a declaratory judgment action in the district court of the county where the local government unit is located. If the board does not commence a declaratory judgment action within the applicable 60-day period, the plan is deemed approved. F. The declaratory judgment action must be commenced within 60 days after the date of the written agreement not to use mediation or 60 days after conclusion of the mediation. If the board commences a declaratory judgment action, the district court shall review the board's record of decision and the record of decision of the local government unit. The district court shall affirm the plan if it meets the requirements of this part. G. The comprehensive wetland protection and management plan may be developed as part of, or in conjunction with, a local water plan. Except as otherwise provided for in this part, all other requirements relating to development of the plan must be consistent with the local water plan processes under Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.231, 103B.311, or 103D.401. Subp. 4. Effective date and amendments. A. The plan becomes effective as provided in subpart 3 and after adoption of the plan into the official controls of the local government unit. B. All amendments to the adopted plan and ordinance must be approved by the board. C. After the effective date of the plan, a local government unit shall make replacement, exemption, no-loss, and other determinations consistent with the plan. Subp. 5. Repealed, 27 SR 135 Subp. 6. Repealed, 27 SR 135 Subp. 7. Local program capacity requirements. Any local government unit opting to pursue incorporating this chapter into local ordinance must provide documentation to the board demonstrating local capacity to implement the program consistent with requirements prescribed in part 8420.0200, subpart 2, item A. Subp. 8. Reporting and oversight. An annual activity report must be provided to the board which documents compliance with plan standards as required in subpart 2. The annual report shall include such items as the number and type of permits and exemptions issued, including documentation of the area of wetlands impacted and replaced, complaints received, plan and ordinance violations including number of cease and desist orders, projects constructed, variances granted, and local appeal proceedings. STAT AUTH: MS s 1038.101; 103B.3355; 103G.2242 HIST: 22 SR 1877; 25 SR 152; 27 SR 135 } 7~ OA '9 54 1. Local Government Unit (LGU): 2. Date notice of CoWProMP process was made to agencies and public? 20 3. Does the Plan provide for classification of wetlands in the plan area based on: a) an inventory of wetlands in the plan area? ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain inventory methodology) b) an assessment of the wetland functions listed in 8420.0103, using a methodology chosen by the TEP from one of the methodologies established or approved by the board? ?Yes ? No (if yes, list methodology used and explain how it was used) c) the resulting public values? ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain how public values were determined) 4. Does the Plan vary the application of sequencing standards in 8420.0520? Yes ? No (if yes, explain) 5. Does the Plan vary the application of replacement standards in 8420.0540? ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain) 6. [For > 80% areas only] Does the Plan allow replacement credit for any project that increases the public value of wetlands, including activities on adjacent upland acres? ? Yes ? No ? NA (if yes, explain) 7. [For > 80% areas only] Does the Plan expand the application of exemptions in part 8420.0122, Subpart 1, item D to also include non-agricultural land? ? Yes ? No ? NA (if yes, explain) 8. Does the Plan prescribe standards for size and location of replacement wetlands by establishing any of the following: (check those that apply) ? type requirements ? size/ratio requirements ? functional quality requirements ? location requirements ?wetland mitigation fee in lieu of direct replacement criteria ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain) 9. Does the Plan allow additional exemption requirements based on ordinance standards, eligibility criteria, and processes? (Note: exemptions cannot be made less restrictive than WCA) ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain) 10. Does the Plan define and establish high priority wetland areas in accordance with 8420.0350 and 8420.0400? ? Yes ? No (if yes, explain) 11. Has the LGU submitted documentation to the BWSR demonstrating local capacity to implement the program consistent with requirements prescribed in 8420.0200, subpart 2, item A? ? Yes ?No 12. Date final CoWProMP was submitted to the BWSR for review? 20 Page I of I B W5R_Form_WCA_Co WProMP_I (Summary).doc (April 2003) 't *e a i yy f mm 3~~r I~J Local Government Unit Additional Local Controls More Restrictive than WCA Program List Restrictions Ordinance Describe how restrictions vary from Feature (8420.0650, Subp. 3, Item C) Section WCA Additional Standards for Size and Location of Replacement Wetlands Replacement Revised Replacement Standard Ordinance Rational for Additional Standard* (8420.0650, Subp. 2, Item F) Section Replacement Wetland Standard(s) * Type, size/ratio, functional quality, location, fee in lieu Additional Exem tion Requirements Additional Exemption Exemption Requirement(s) Ordinance Rational for Additional Exemption Number (8420.0650, Subp. 2, Item G) Section Requirement(s) Page 1 of 1 B W SR_Form_WCA_Co WPrOMP_2(.Add_Requir).doc (April 2003) Date: February 14, 2005 Agenda Item: I-3; 2005 CIF Action X Information City of Eagan MEMO Parks and Recreation Attachments x 1. Summary of 2005 C1P AGENDA IT : 1-3; 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) TO: ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION PREPARED BY: PAUL OLSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS ITEM OVERVIEW: Review, and consider for approval, the proposed 2005 Park and Recreation Department Capital Improvement Plan BACKGROUND/HISTORY: One of the primary responsibilities of the APrC is the annual preparation and updating of the Departmental Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP serves as a blueprint and planning guide for park projects. Projects included in the CIP must be either a park development or improvement project. Projects construed as being maintenance are not eligible. Funding for the CIP comes from the Park Site Fund (PSF), which is primarily money collected from developments at the time of platting in lieu of a dedication of land. ANALYSIS: Historically the APrC has submitted to the City Council a CIP that consists of the current or "active" year , generally the year at hand, and projections for the next five years. During the review process, the active/current year of the CIP is finalized and anew "fifth" year is added. To allow sufficient time for implementation, the current year of the CIF is generally considered to be final while all other years are subject to change as part of future reviews. The structure of the CIP has generally been driven by the projected ongoing balance of the PSF. To provide a better view of the future, recent versions of the CIP have opened the "window" further by including all potential projects though, they may not be funded for years to come. There has also been considerable discussion regarding the identification of alternative funding sources for the CIP. The current CIP process is somewhat unique because of the over lap with the on-going development of a new Park Systems Plan (funded by the PSF). The Systems Plan will identify a process and suggested means by which the Department can facilitate the changing needs and demographics of the community for the next 15 years. Because of the ongoing planning process, staff, in consultation with the APrC, has suggested that the focus of the current CIP process would be only 2005 and current year projects. The plan for 2005 would be considered as a "custodial", meaning it represented primarily a continuation of on-going projects and initiatives that are time sensitive or made necessary by conditions. No new initiatives or programs would be undertaken until the recommendations of the new Systems Plan had been reviewed and ratified. 8 DISCUSSION/ EVALUATION: With one exception, all projects in the proposed 2005 CIP represent the continuation of ongoing programs and initiatives. Examples include the replacement of aged playgrounds and the implementation of the second phase of the approved master plan for Holz Farm. The sole exception being the construction of a shelter at Wescott Commons, which was "held-over" in 2004 by the Council, pending further study and a possible private partnership. The CIP includes two line item allocations that are renewed on an annual basis as needed. These are the land acquisition "opportunity" fund which would be used to help acquire priority open space should it become available and the "small projects" fund which is used to complete smaller, unanticipated, capital projects or to help leverage additional financial assistance from an association or alternative funding source. The column "Potential for Partnership" was added at the request of the APrC. It identifies those projects having good potential for partnering that could include funding or other assistance. A workshop with the City Council will be scheduled in the upcoming weeks to allow the APrC to present the CIP to the Council consideration and possible approval. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION COMMENDATION: The APrC reviewed the proposed 2005 CIP in a workshop held on January 15. The attached CIP outline represents the consensus of those in attendance ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: 1. Recommend, to the City Council, approval of the 2005 CIP as presented 2. Recommend approval pending changes 3. Table the issue for further discussion 9 Item: I-3J ?tea . s PROPOSED Attachment # 1 PARKS AND RECREATION 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION PROJECT POTENTIAL DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST FOR Est. 1/05 Balance = $1,911,700 PARTNERSHIP PART I - IMPROVEMENTS Sub-Total Net Goat Hill Park Playground Replacement $40,000 Ridgecliff Park Playground Equipment $35,000 Fish Lake Park Playground Equipment $25,000 Lakeside Park Playground Equipment $15,000 $115,000 Pilot Knob Park Tennis Court Renovation $45,000 $45,000 Bridle Ridge Park Hockey Rink Renovation $27,500 (if one) Skyhill Park Hockey Rink Renovation $27,500 (if one) $55,000 Holz Farm Phase II of Master Plan -Renovation of Grannary $16,000 -House windows/paint $20,000 $36,000 YES Central Park Implementation of Master Plan • Bandshell PA/lights $25,000 • Playground $35,000 • Signage/Site lighting $25,000 $85,000 Wescot Square (held in 2004 Per CC) Picnic/Program Shelter $40,00 $40,000 YES To be determined Small Projects As apparent/necessary $20,000 $20,000 YES PART I PROPOSED TOTAL OF PROJECTS PART II - ACQUISITION Sub-Total Net Undetermined Acquisition Opportunity as $500,000 A arent/necessary $500,000 YES _pp PART 11 PROPOS D `I'O [As 3S,O ~POR 1 1 0O ft00 - ESTIMATED POTENTIAL 1F LXPENIATL 1 : 2004 Carryover (included in 1/05 Balance) • Caponi Acquisition $720,000 - In progress • Holz Master Plan/Phase I $ 50,000 - In progress • Park Systems Plan $ 85,000- In ro esss G:\parks05\2005 capital improvement Subject to approval ADVISORY PARKS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2005 A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on January 13, 2005 with the following Commission Members present: Joe Bari, Margo Danner, Terry Davis, Duane Hansen, Muhammad Lodhi, and Dorothy Peterson. Members Perry, Belfiori, Filipi, and Pletcher were not present. Staff present included Paul Olson, Supervisor of Parks; Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator, and Cherryl Mesko, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Bari moved, Member Danner seconded with all present members voting in favor to accept the agenda as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2004 Superintendent Olson noted a clarification in the minutes requested by City Forester Hove. Hove asks that on page 3, the minutes reflect that he passed around a log that had been a breeding ground for European Bark beetles rather than Asian Long-Homed beetles. He also asked that the last paragraph reflect the accurate methodology for managing buckthorn, cutting it down and applying a systematic herbicide, or leaving larger stemmed plants stand and applying a basal application of liquid chemicals to kill the plant standing. Chair Davis moved to approve the minutes as amended, Member Danner seconded with all present members voting to approve. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard for the month of January. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE AND DEPARTMENT HAPPENINGS Superintendent Olson highlighted December and early January activities of both the Recreation and Parks divisions of the Parks and Recreation Department: • Planning for the Fun Run has begun. • Spring basketball and volleyball leagues will be offered at the Community Center. Information will be available in February. • Information has been mailed regarding summer softball. • Preparations have been made for the Family Skating Extravaganza on January 30tH • ECC hosted the Timberwolves Basketball Clinic, 75 youth attended. • Snow Daze will be held February 5th at Trapp Farm. • Most skating rinks have been opened for use, • The ECC skating pond is open for use. • The City has renewed its contract with Lifeworks for the 14th year. • Dakota County and the City have entered into a contract for the grooming of the Trapp Farm tubing hill. • Staff attended the Minnesota Green Industries Expo at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Park Supervisors Paul Graham and Steve Taylor participated in a panel discussion. • A new Parks Maintenance position, working under the Forestry division, was approved and is expected to be advertised soon for an early April start. • Orders have begun for equipment approved in the 2005 Equipment Fund. Member Danner asked if the ice was frozen on area lakes. Olson noted there has been fishing on Fish Lake and Heine Pond. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA There were no items for the APrC to review under the Consent Agenda. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS There were no items for the APrC to review under Development Proposals. OLD BUSINESS There were no items for the APrC to review under Old Business NEW BUSINESS There were no items for the APrC to review under New Business. WATER RESOURCES UPDATE Water Resources Coordinator Eric Macbeth presented activities and occurrences of the Water Resources Division: • There is a good deal of ice on local lakes. • Fertilizers containing phosphorus are now banned in Minnesota, a state-wide restriction, with specific limitations based on the condition of sale. • A lawsuit is in progress in Wisconsin, challenging a City's right to ban the use of phosphorus- based fertilizers. The argument is that animal/wildlife waste puts more phosphorus into waters than fertilizers. • Staff has been analyzing data gathered over the past 10 years for seven Class I water bodies. APrC feedback is requested on how to best communicate information yielded from the analysis to the public. Chair Davis said Communications Coordinator Tom Garrison should be contacted prior to the February meeting to discuss ideas. • Water Resources Division has been discussing the possibility of developing a formal Wetlands Protection Management Plan which would be equal to or better than that existing state mandates but would allow local governance. It was suggested that further information be provided to the APrC to see if this might be a viable consideration to suggest to the City Council. Coordinator Macbeth described other cities, included Rosemount, who have implemented similar plans, noting they generally take 1 - 1 1/2 years to complete. Member Peterson suggested this matter become an agenda item and be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Chair Davis suggested that the Natural Resources Subcommittee review this issue in more detail before making a recommendation to the City Council. • Macbeth described the Stormwater Pollution SWPPP Preservation Plan, noting the City needs to re-submit the new plan by August of 2006. He noted that since this is a federal mandate it absolutely needs to be done. Chair Davis asked if this is an enforcement issue. Macbeth said that it is prevention planning, stormwater runoff, and erosion protection. He noted the City has had a good program with lots of strategies already in place. The Plan is based on legal action with the State of Minnesota and as a result cities now need to respond to State changes. Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004 Page 3 Member Peterson suggested it is time to set a Natural Resources Subcommittee meeting. Member Lodhi suggested the first week of February. Macbeth said he would contact the subcommittee about dates. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS 20/20 VISION UPDATE Chair Davis stated the 20/20 Vision Plan process began in November with 30 members of the community participating. He noted the good attendance by APrC members and reviewed the items discussed with stakeholder groups. He said the first public forum was held on January 6 with a modest attendance but good exchange of information, Member Peterson noted the need to focus on how to solicit input from the public and how to get the word out that input is needed. She reviewed the timeline for the process. Member Peterson shared the consultant's findings that all the parks they've inventoried in Eagan have been graded as a "l," a first for the consultants. Chair Davis said it is a great opportunity for Eagan to revisit the Plan and be proactive in looking forward. Member Danner said perhaps there is a need to get the word out as much as possible. Chair Davis said the group is working closely with Director of Communications Tom Garrison and the consultants to generate ideas for increased community input. Superintendent Olson said the City has been surveying other comparable communities as well, having received 15 responses out of the original 17 that had been distributed. CAPON! ART PARK UPDATE Superintendent Olson noted that the Trust for Public Land (TPL) is seeking to subdivide the Caponi property, and shared the proposed subdivision. He said the entire site will be protected by a conservation casement. He said the City Council has signed a purchase agreement for 30 acres, using City, County, and State funds, and anticipate a March closing. There will be stipulated conditions attached to the purchase. Chair Davis said he hopes there can be some closure soon. STEEPLECHASE EAW UPDATE Superintendent Olson said the City Council has reviewed the proposal, and that no EIS is necessary for the property. The developer is expected to provide a modified plan on February 1, 2005. ROUND TABLE Member Danner noted that July 4`h planning has begun, and that the committee could use some help, particularly with the fundraising portion. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, Member Peterson moved, Member Danner seconded with all members voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Secretary Date Minutes transcribed by: Beth A. Wielde Part-Time Research and Special Projects