Loading...
07/12/1984 - Advisory Parks & Recreation CommissionEAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 7:00 P.M. JULY 12, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES OF JUNE 7 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 14. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS: a. Eugene Haeg b. Sunset 6th Addition c. Blackhawk Oaks /Blackhawk Lake Addition 4. OLD BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Winkler /Jackson Concept Plan Review b. Metropolitan Parks Open Space: Development Guide /Policy Plan. 6. PARK BONDS a. Update on hiring. b. Project status Rahn, Capricorn, etc.. c. Discussion: 1 Processing 2. Design standards 7. OTHER BUSINESS AND REPORTS a. Parks Maintenance Report b. River Hills Park Neighborhood Contribution Play Equipment c. Kehne House Update d. Dist. 196 School /Program usage e. Erosion Control Manual Synopsis 8. OTHER AGENDA ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION DATE: JULY 10, 1984 RE: COMMISSION MEETING JULY 12, 1984 The City Council has recently made an appointment to fill the vacancy created by Doug McNeely. Mr. Mike Fedde has been reappointed to the Advisory Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. McNeely. The reappointment of Mike to the Commission, I am sure, is welcomed by all and will an advantage because of his past experience and knowledge of the Commission's operations and the Parks System Plan. Members will immediately note that the July agenda has relatively few items for the Commission to deal with and, therefore, I apologize for not getting the agenda to the Commission in the normal time frame, but press of Parks Department activities has limited the amount of time for packet and agenda preparation. The first item under "Development Proposals" is the preliminary plat by Eugene Haeg for single family residences. The proposal is to subdivide a five acre parcel into eight single family lots. Staff has reviewed this plat and is recommending that a cash dedication requirement be a condition of plat approval. The second item under "Development Proposals" is Sunset 6th Addition. This addition is within the Lexington South P.U.D. and, therefore, its parks contribution will be fulfilled within the Planned Unit Development Agreement. The third "Development Proposal" is the Blackhawk Oaks /Blackhawk Lake Addition. Members will recall the initial review and subsequent visit to the park site during its two June meetings. Based on the comments at the Parks Commission meeting in June, Mr. Stalland has submitted an alternate "B" which moves the access road off of park property to location to the north. This roadway location is within the one rod easement formerly available to Mr. Stalland. Staff will attempt to complete an initial review and study of this area for submission to the Parks Commission on Thursday evening. There are no items under "Old Business with the first item under "New Business" being review of the concept plans of Winkler /Jackson Park. Members will recall that this concept plan review was deferred from the June 7 meeting. Jim Sturm will present the planned alternatives regarding this park. Members should be aware that grading of this park will be done within the next two years under the P.U.D. Agreement or will receive an equivalent amount in cash as part of the P.U.D. Agreement. (Please note that Mr. Sturm's last date with the City is slated for July 16 and it would be appropriate for the Commission to extend its thanks for his efforts on behalf of the City during his six months tenure). The Metropolitan Parks Open Space Commission (the responsible agency for coordin- ating the regional park system) is conducting a series of public meetings relative to the Council Development Guide /Policy Plan for recreation open space. While this is a regional issue, Eagan is impacted by the Open Space Commission's actions as it may affect the Lebanon Hills Regional Park. With this potential impact, staff felt it appropriate that the Advisory Commission be able to review the current purpose and goal statements of the Commission for possible recommended changes. Please find enclosed the Open Space Development Guide /Policy Plan issues paper recently received by the department. A series of public meetings to hear comments from the public is scheduled, the closest of which will be at Burnsville City Hall on July 26. PARKS BOND: This department's staff will update the Commission on the hiring of a landscape /parks planner for the expenditure of the parks bond funds. At the time of this writing, the City has received 18 applications for the position. Initial review has begun with some interviews anticipated for Thursday, July 12, and Tuesday, the 17th. It is anticipated that the successful applicant will be chosen after the 17th for immediate placement into the position. Staff will provide additional information regarding the applicants at the meeting on July 12. Staff will also report on the status of several of the parks which were selected for initial development. An item for discussion and action under the "Parks Bond" heading at this time is the processing of the development work. Some of these items are profunctory in nature, i.e., announcing advertisement of bids, bid acceptance, however, the Council and Commission should address the line of authority and responsibility for other issues. For example, who should be responsible for authorizing change orders or costs which exceed referendum budget? These issues should be addressed by both the Parks Commission and the City Council so an understanding is achieved and a guideline developed by which staff can operate. The Advisory Parks Recreation Commission is asked to begin this discussion and suggest to the City Council which items it feels capable and willing to undertake. The Director of Parks and Recreation would also like to be in a discussion of design standards for later use in the parks development program. While much of this will come from the Landscape Architect and Design Team, it will be appropriate for the Commission to become involved and establish design standards from which the Design Team can work. Often design standards are set by "industry standards," however, the Commission should discuss its standards (criteria) for other park aspects. An example of this is, "should play equipment have a play perimeter The Commission has previously determined that all play equipment will be within play perimeters. The design standards might involve a choice of building material for shelters, drinking fountains and the like. Staff would anticipate that this will be a topic of discussion for the Commission at a future Parks Commission Meeting, but would attempt to broach the subject as way of introducing the topic to the Parks Commission at this time. Under "Other Business Reports the Director of Parks Recreation will update the Commission on the past two months parks maintenance activities. The maintenance staff has been extremely busy during the months of May and June, with a record number of acres mowed and maintained for each of the past two months. The department has been involved in other maintenance and improvement projects throughout the system, but it is still behind in many of the activities which were planned for early June. Item B under "Other Business Reports" is recognition of a neighborhood contribution of $1,500 from the River Hills Park East Association. This contribution has been secured by the Director of Parks Recreation and will be used to supplement and provide for additional play equipment to this neighborhood park. Mr. Roger Sjobeck of the Adkins Associates has indicated he would have a preliminary report available to the Parks Commission concerning his study on the Kehne House. Director of Parks Recreation has had frequent conversations with Mr. Sjobeck relative to this issue, but has not yet received this report study. Therefore, this item has been placed on the agenda as "Other Business Reports and should it be made available, will be distributed to the Commission for discussion at its August meeting. An alternative is the Special Issues Committee to meet and discuss the report prior to the full Commission meeting in August. Also enclosed with this agenda is a letter addressed to JoAnne Ellison, Director of Community Education for District 196. The issue is relative to the City's request for space utilization in District 196 schools. The City has not previously conducted, nor has it been able to obtain space, at the school locations in the past. However, in response to citizens request and recent policy adoptions by the Parks Recreation Departments of Rosemount and Apple Valley, this department has initiated a strongly worded request for gym space at the Rosemount and Scott Highlands Middle Schools. The resolution of the space request has not yet been achieved. Enclosed with this packet is a synopsis of the "Erosion Control Manual" recently assembled by the Public Works Department. I have enclosed this synopsis of the much larger control manual because of the Commission's displayed interest in erosion control measures which are considered with development. This synopsis centers upon the basic principles and practices in erosion control. If there are no other items of business or reports to discuss, adjournment would then be in order for the Advisory Commission. Respectfully iubiitted, Direc KV /js Encl. Parks Recreation Eagan Parks Commission re: Joe Murphy House in Patrick Eagan Park The Eagan Athletic Association asked Ken Vraa if he had any space available to store our equipment and hold various Association activities (see attached sheet). Presently we store our equipment in the basement of Cedarvale Shopping Center in space they have donated in the past 12 plus years. However, due to remodeling and expansion of the center, our space has grown smaller while our membership has increased dramatically. This means that, due to the remodeling now being made, our space must be vacated very soon. We have to store equipment for approximately 29 baseball teams, 10 basketball teams, 18 softball teams and 6 football teams along with other equipment involved with youth sports. After our conversation with Mr. Vraa, we took a long look at the Murphy House and have had to to answer some questions among ourselves such as: will it be big enough for our requirements, will it be a liability to our organization, what about the location, and what would it cost to repair the house in question? We already had a group out to clear the brush away from the house so we could get an electrical contractor to give us a bid on a new main electrical service. We feel we can do most of the other work with a cadre of volunteers. While we do not expect the Park Commission or the City of Eagan to get involved in the rebuilding of this house, we would like to have some things done such as: plowing to be done around the house, that mowers would continue from Northview onto the lawn around the house, City of Eagan pay the electric bill. Any donations would be gratefully accepted. Here are some of the repairs that should be made to the house: Electricity, Plumbing, Painting, Security reflooring and insulation for the second floor. Electricity I had the Hilite Electric Company survey the total electric situation but at this point in time have not received a written reply from them. (Hilite Electric Company is an Eagan based firm). Their verbal recommendation was that a totally new underground service to the house would be needed. We would work with them to use surface wiring in the house (conductance) as this would be for non residental use. Plumbing The plumbing has been vandalized. All the copper and brass is gone. That might not present a big problem as more than likely all we will use are the restroom facilities. The original septic tank would either be converted or replaced by a holding tank. The well would be put back into service and the water tested. If a negative report came back, water would be used in the restroom only. For our limited number of events we could plan on having water brought in. Heat The heating system in the house is an oil fired boiler for hot water heat. Needless to say, where the copper plumbing for this has gone is a mystery. The only parts of the house we would heat in the winter would be a meeting room and restrooms when in use. Thermal electric baseboards and the addition of U. L. approved free standing fire place would be used. Fire Safety The emergency exit plan is better than average. There are four direct routes to the outside (two in the area we would use for the meeting room): one front, one rear, one from the restroom area and one from the main equipment room adjacent to the meeting area. All would be kept in service. Insurance We are insured with the St. Paul Companies and this includes everything we deal with which are: coaches, players and volunteer workers. At this time we have not discussed insuring the house but our insurance broker will survey our need once approval is given to us to occupy the premises. The House would be a major responsiblity and undertaking for the Eagan Athletic Association (EAA) board members. It will require volunteer help from all of our members as well as other adults and youths. The location would be beautiful as it is where our population is expanding the most. The importance of this project is this one thought "KIDS ARE SOMETHING SPECIAL" and this task becomes a very rewarding project. OUR NEEDS FOR THE MCCARTHY HOUSE 1. Storage for athletic equipment. 2. Meeting place for the Board of Directors, Coaches and Teams. 3. Training area, such as the cross country ski trail for running (Soccer and Football). 4. Rough Country Marathons (Summer, Ski Trail). 5. Winter activities may include: a. Youth snow shoe racing at the upper level located northeast of the house. b. Beginners' cross country skiing on the ski trial. 6. Possible use for fund raising activities. 7. Picnic area for members to be used for team parties, coaches parties, and board activities. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 7, 1984 AGENDA MINUTES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL A regular meeting of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7 :30 P.M.. The formal meeting was preceded by a tour of parks and potential park sites. Members present were Martin, Masin, Carroll, Bertz, Ketcham, Alt and Kubik. Absent was Jackson; McNeely resigned. Also present were Ken Vraa, Director of Parks Recreation, Liz Witt, Administrative Assistant; and Jim Sturm, Parks and Recreation Intern. Developers and residents were in attendance to speak on specific items on the agenda. Richard Carroll moved, Thurston seconded, that the agenda be approved as presented. The motion carried. Sandra Masin moved, Kubik seconded, that the minutes of May 3, 1984 be approved as presented. A. Pheasant Knoll, Blackhawk P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Parks and Recreation Director Vraa reviewed concerns of the Commission from the May meeting; size and location of the road to serve the units; the closeness of the project to Heine Pond; the extension of trailways, etc.. Director Vraa then presented a revised plan for Pheasant Knoll. The road would be located approximately 30' to the west and would be of standard size. Its location and the movement of the park's parking lot would create more green space. A private road and cul -de -sac reduced in size would access the public road for a short distance to reach County Road 30. Director Vraa also noted the pond was found to be approximately 2' higher than the accepted high water mark. John Bossardt, speaking from Dunn Realty, added that a right turn lane from County Road 30 to the park road will increase the safety factor at the intersection. The housing units will be placed further to the west providing more grass space and less blacktop. The total park dedication will be 9.44 acres. The Envirofence will be part of the contract document and there storm water run off goes directly in an existing storm sewer. A new resident on Clemson Court was concerned with preserving the evergreen trees and having an erosion free slope. Rick Thole, a resident living on Heine Strasse, was afraid that many trees would be removed and also wondered who would pay for the street. He wondered why the City wanted to develop a park at all because there are already many cars parking on streets and using the lake. He commented that if access and a park is provided, there will be even more people. He felt the access off Highway 30 at that location is hazardous. A right turn lane would help, but access to County Road 30 would be a problem, particularly in the wintertime. Ron Williams, Clemson Court resident, wanted a review of the proposed changes which would prevent erosion. He was also concerned with the algae and weed growth in Heine Pond. Mr. Bossardt commented that most of the trees would be preserved. He said the County was planning to reduce the slope on County Road 30 and install stop lights at Thomas Lake Road in the future. The Envirofence and grass plantings will effectively control erosion. Director Vraa added there are no plans to control weed growth in Heine Pond as it will be used primarily for fishing. As for traffic on /or near the site, he related the facts determined in the Systems Plan Study that by limiting parking space, people would be discouraged from using the park in large numbers. Prohibiting parking on County Road 30 will further limit excess usage. He concluded by saying the public road would be a City project, while the private road would be the responsibility of the developer. Chairman Martin felt the new proposal was an improvement. He did question where the high water mark will be. Director Vraa said that it might be lowered from the 874.5' where it is right now. In response to Chairman Martin's question about a trailway in the area, Director Vraa noted there is a 2 :1 slope in the area of a proposed trail. Commission Member Carroll stated that this much of a slope would not be workable for a trail. Commission members liked the narrowing of the private roadway, but had expressed concerns about erosion control. They recognized there would be one half acre less park than the P.U.D. called for, but felt the deficiency shall be made up as part of the Blackhawk P.U.D.. On a motion by Chairman Martin, seconded by Carroll, the Commission unanimously approved the recommendations to: 1. Accept the proposal as presented June 7, 1984. 2. Erosion control must be closely monitored. 3. Provisions for a trailway between the park road and Thomas part of the proposal. 4. The Homeowners Association must maintain the park road provides access to their road in the wintertime. 5. Any deficiency in park dedication would be made up in the dedication within the P.D.. B. Pilot Pointe Lake Road be a segment which Blackhawk Park A preliminary plan for 22 residential units along a cul -de -sac off Pilot Knob Road was briefly described by Director Vraa. He stated that a trailway should be provided along Pilot Knob Road and a cash dedication. Tom Ketcham moved, Alt seconded, to recommend acceptance of cash dedication for Pilot Pointe and provision for a trail on Pilot Knob. The motion carried unanimously. C. Draenckhahn Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Director Vraa said the .68 acre plat is in for a rezoning and preliminary plat. The developer wishes to provide for a roadside business on the side. After discussion Carroll moved, Bertz seconded, that commercial cash dedication be a condition of plat approval for the parcel. The motion was unanimously approved. D. Blackhawk Oaks /Blackhawk Lakes Addition: The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that this item had not been before the Planning Commission, and therefore, no planning packet was available. He then briefly reviewed the past history of the Blackhawk Oaks Addition and the issues relative to Blackhawk Park. He stated that the City has received information relative to a proposed change in the Blackhawk Oak plat and the development of Blackhawk Lake Addition immediately north of Blackhawk Park. Mr. Peter Stalland, representing the development of Blackhawk Oaks /Blackhawk Lake, and Mr. Bill Moyer of Probe Engineering, presented the two development proposals to the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission. They stated they had spent considerable time trying to find good access to the northerly part of Blackhawk Park and the Blackhawk Lake Addition. It was indicated they could not come up with a suitable roadway because of topography and the extreme cost encountered with providing a public road. He continued to say he did not believe that suitable access to Blackhawk Park could be provided which would not meet with difficult grades within the park itself. Mr. Stalland explained that a revision of the Blackhawk Oaks Addition will provide a private roadway to the Blackhawk Lake Addition. This proposal would provide a private roadway to four large single family lots. The roadway would have to cross a portion of Blackhawk Park, affecting some 2,000 square feet. In return for this crossing of Blackhawk Park, developer would exchange Outlot "D" of approximately 9,000 square feet. There was additional discussion regarding the development, roadway and temporary construction easement. Chairman Martin indicated he still wanted to see, and try to provide for, access to the park other than through a residential street as is currently the case. He questioned why a park road, which would not have to meet public road standards, could not be accomodated. Commission member Carroll recalled that the grades were extremely steep and difficult in the area described. In response to a question as to why the private roadway could not be shifted north off of park property, Mr. Stalland said roadway could not be moved because the current landowner was not interested in any development. Commission member Bertz asked if the access to Blackhawk Park had to be at the northern most point of the park. She questioned why the roadway couldn't be constructed at a relatively level area along the west property line within the gereral north area. Bill Moyer, Probe Engineering, stated that a roadway could be developed into the park at the northern most section, but access from this point to other areas of the park would still encounter steep and difficult slopes. There was a prolonged discussion by members of the Commission and developer relative as to grades and road access areas. Director of Parks Recreation commented that the area of disagreement was reflected of the fact that Mr. Stalland had previously been before the Commission indicating that a road could be developed which would be access to the park, but that he was now saying such a roadway was not feasible. Mr. Stalland responded by saying that at the time he did not have the expertise of an engineering firm who has now indicated that such a roadway was not possible. There was a general consensus that a tour should be taken of the site before making the decision. Commission member Bertz suggested that the Commission could consider taking an easement over the private road which could be returned if not utilized. The City could then develop its plan for the park. Mr. Stalland responded that he was not prepared to consider such a proposal until he had a further chance to study it. He asked that the Commission give consideration to the land swap at this time so the developer could include it in their proposal to the Planning Commission. Chairman Martin responded that he-did not believe the Commission was prepared to make such a recommendation at this time. George Kubik then moved, Mason seconded, to delay a recommendation on Blackhawk Oaks until after a tour of the area has been made. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Martin requested that staff set up a tour of the park site requesting that Systems Consultant, Tim Erkkila, be present to review the site with the Commission. E. THOMAS LAKE APARTMENTS INFORMAL REVIEW: Jack Safar, representing Dominium Group, informed the Commission of a high quality rental apartment complex they propose to construct just south of Thomas Lake School. They are seeking a change in the proposed park boundaries in the P.U.D. to accomodate the apartment buildings. Perry Bolland of HGH Architectural Firm, said there is a 60' grade change on the parcel and Thomas Lake is 20' below Thomas Lake Road. The developers would preserve the shoreline, provide trail connections and put in amenities such as tennis courts. He suggested the 950' contour line as the new park boundary, resulting in approximately two acres less park which the developers would make up for by providing the amenities. Commission members were very concerned with parkland acreage and felt a full review of park dedication from the Blackhawk P.U.D. was in order. The Commission noted there are no development plans immediately available for Thomas Lake Park, but possibilities need to be considered before a decision could be made for this proposal. Commission members also wanted the point on Thomas Lake preserved for parkland and wanted to keep development as far away as possible from there. Carolyn Thurston requested a detailed listing of this park acreage proposal vs. the original proposal plus a list of the amenities and their location. It was suggested that this area was prime land and any deficiency would have to be made up in Blackhawk Park. Chairman Martin felt the Commission needed to conduct an on—site inspection before making a recommendation. He said the proposal would be placed on the July agenda. Staff was asked to do a further review. NEW BUSINESS A. LEASE REQUEST /CHESMAR PARK NORTHWESTERN BELL: Ray Nelson, representing N.W. Bell Company, spoke to the necessity of locating a small equipment building in the area of ChesMar Park and the difficulty of finding a site that meets all criteria. The building would be 17' square and be screened by plantings. Road access would be necessary. N.W. Bell proposes a maximum of a 30 year lease for the site, payable in annual installments or one lump sum. Mr. Nelson responded to numerous questions regarding alternative locations, size of parcel, purchase of building, etc.. George Kubik commented that recent proposals before the Commission have asked for a taking of parkland. As all parkland is so hard to come by, all such requests should be closely monitored. Thurston noted that N.W. Bell obviously lacked foresight. She commented that she was concerned about setting a precedent for others, recounting the Fire Department's request for parkland some years ago. After discussion, Chairman Martin moved, Ketcham seconded, to authorize staff to work with Ray Nelson taking into consideration: 1. Minimal impact on trees. 2. Taking of as small a space as possible. 3. Elimination of the turn around. 4. Determine the value of trees and land being taken. 5. Impact on trailways system. 6. Notification of nearby residents of the proposed structure. The motion carried unanimously. The item is to be brought back to the Commission for a second review. WINKLER /JACKSON CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW: This item was deferred to the July meeting due to the long agenda and late hour. PARKS BOND PARAGRAPH B The Director of Parks Recreation commented that he hoped to have an informal discussion with the Commission at this time relative to the implementation of the development and acquisition of the parks bond. He went on to outline the basic assumptions which he felt were directions from the Commission and the City Council through past meetings. These included that the City will want to provide a quality park system while keeping in mind maintenance cost and work load. He went on to discuss these elements of the project coordination concluding by saying it was also his assumption the City would act as a general contractor for the various development aspects. Several members raised questions as to the advantages of the City acting as a general contractor and the impact on the various priorities and projects slated. Director Vraa responded by saying that project coordination could be viewed upon a horizontal access versus taking a particular park project from the first step of grading to the last step of seeding. After additional discussion, Director outlined three basic alternatives for the development final designs, specifications and project coordination. Three alternatives involve the hiring of professional architect /engineering firms to prepare the projects for biding. The second alternative would be to retain a landscape architect /planner as part of the City's staff to do much of the same work. The third alternative would be to hire a project management team to oversee the development project. The Director and Commission members then discussed the various advantages and disadvantages of each of the three alternatives. Member Kubik commented he was concerned that one landscape architect in —house would not be able to handle such a large project. Member Bertz questioned the design team structure and cost for the three alternatives. Director of Parks Recreation responded that a project management proposal had been received which would charge 2 1/2% of the referendum's gross amount. He went on to say that this, however, did not provide any professional consulting services which would be an additional cost. Member Kubik stated he felt that the fee of 2 1/2% was quite reasonable, but members should be aware this was not the only cost to be incurred. In further explaining the hiring of consulting services through a larger firm, Director explained that he was aware the City of Burnsville was paying approximately 6% plus hourly fees for inspections and follow —up for its parks projects currently under way. Numerous questions were raised by Commission members relative to current staffing levels in the department, fees and charges, time frame for activities to begin and the utilization of in —house design team. Member Thurston questioned what are some of the immediate activities and projects which could be started now. Director Vraa responded he has begun to work on a proposal for the installation of lights at Northview Park and the installation of playground equipment in those park sites in which grading is not a factor. Member Thurston asked that the acqusition of the North Athletic Field receive immediate attention. A lengthy discussion followed after which it was decided that a full Commission meeting would be held on Thursday, July 14, to address staffing needs. Member Martin asked Mr. Kubik, because of his background and experience with such large projets, to chair this meeting. OTHER BUSINESS The Director of Parks Recreation reviewed items under "Other Business" stating that Commission member McNeely has resigned due to other job commitments. The City of Eagan, along with Apple Valley, Burnsville, Lakeville and Rosemount, joined forces to sponsor a Minnesota Symphony Concert at the Minnesota Zoo. Members of the Advisory Commissions and City Councils of the various communities will have a short reception at the Moose Lodge prior to the July 14 performance. Director Vraa said the bicycle trails brochure has been distributed to various outlets and will be made available to the general public within the next several weeks. The Director indicated that because of the lateness of the hour, he would defer his maintenance report to the July meeting. He stated, however, that Commission's input regarding the 1985 budget would be desirable over the next several weeks. Preparation of the budget is now beginning and input from the Commision should be directed to staff as quickly as possible. The Director asked that the Recreation Committee and the Special Issues Committee meet in the very near future. After discussion by the Commission relative to priorities at this time, it was decided neither of the subcommittee groups would meet until after the July Commission meeting. It was noted that the next regular scheduled meeting of the Commission was for July 5, immediately following the July 4 holiday. After discussion, Commission members selected July 12 at 7 :15 P.M. as their next regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Martin indicated that because the Commission was getting together on June 14 to discuss precedings of development issues with the parks bond, the meeting could be preceded by tours of Blackhawk and Thomas Lake Park. It was then determined members would meet at 6:30 P.M. at the entrance of Blackhawk Park, Riverton access location, and then proceed to Thomas Lake and the regularly scheduled meeting. ADJOURNMENT There be no further business for the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission, on a motion by Bertz, seconded by Kubik, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 P.M.. Dated: Advisory Parks Recreation Secretary BLACKHAWK PARK: MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 14, 1984 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL A special meeting of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7 :45 P.M.. Members present were Bertz, Masin, Carroll, Thurston, Kubik, Martin, Ketcham and Alt. Absent was member Jackson. Also present was the Director of Parks Recreation, Ken Vraa. Prior to the 7:45 Call To Order, the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission made an on —site visit to Blackhawk Park and Thomas Lake Park. The purpose of the tour to Blackhawk Park was to review the proposed preliminary plats for Blackhawk Lake Addition and Blackhawk Oaks Addition. Chairman Martin asked Commission members to comment on Blackhawk Park and the two proposed preliminary plats now that the Commission has had a chance to make an on —site visit. Commission member Kubik indicated it was clear the proposed roadway would be an obvious detriment to the park and he saw no value to the City and the Parks System relative to these two proposed plats. Chair— man Martin agreed that the on —site visit confirmed to him there would be a great deal more disruption to the site than what seemed to be the case when one was just looking at the plans. He continued saying that although there was no concept plan for Blackhawk Park, the City should still try to maintain an option of gaining access to the north as was proposed under the original Blackhawk Oaks Addition. He indicated that he thought the grades in the park could be worked to accomplish a park road. Commission member Alt questioned whether the City would ever need the park road at all or the access to the north. Commission member Martin stated that that may be the case, but with a 60 acre park with such diversity and natural resources, some type of a park road seemed likely with its major access to the south. A secondary access on the north may be vital to the park. He went on to say that obviously a park concept plan needed to be developed to answer these questions. Members discussed possible realignments of the roadway through the Blackhawk Oaks Addition, suggesting that the best alternative appeared to be for the private road to go through the property to the north rather than the park property. Members commented that this appeared to be the least disruptive to the overall site. Member Kubik commented he was concerned that all of the alternatives have not been researched and reviewed. He has seen only the one and felt there should be more than just one alternative to consider. Commission member Carroll commented his agreement and that the present plan would be totally disruptive to this area of the park. In response to a question, Director of Parks Recreation responded that this item would be appearing on the Planning Commission's agenda in June. Member Kubik suggested it would be a good idea for the Commission to address a memorandum to the Planning Commission stating its concerns for this roadway and the negative loss and impact to the Parks System. Members agreed with Chairman Martin adding that he would suggest the Advisory Planning Commission take an on —site view to understand the impact better. Members commented that the proposal solved lots of problems for the developer, while at the expense of the parks, what is the obligation of the parks to make this project work? After further discussion, on a motion by Kubik, seconded by Bertz, with all members voting in favor, the Director of Parks Recreation was directed to write a letter to the Advisory Planning Commission indicating that the Parks Recreation Commission had grave concerns relative to the two proposed preliminary plats which would create a significant loss of mature oaks (white oaks), disruption to the site in general, subsequent erosion problems, and the non benefit to the City of Eagan. Motion carried. Chairman Martin stated that the developer should be required to look at all other alternatives rather than providing this road through park property as is being requested. THOMAS LAKE PARK: Chairman Martin asked Commission members to comment on the Thomas Lake Park tour relative to the informal proposal received the week previously. There were general comments by the Commission relative to the beauty and uniqueness of the site and the proposed locations of the apartment complex. Member reiterated they felt the easterly most building must be moved back further from the shoreline than that which was first proposed. Chairman Martin suggested that the tennis courts that were first proposed were probably not located where he had originally thought, but still was concerned about whether the need for the courts was valid. There was further discussion by the Commission relative to the proposed plan and park site with no action being taken. PARKS BOND /DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Director of Parks Recreation briefly reviewed an update with the Commission relative to the three alternatives under discussion. Commission member Kubik stated that he preferred to see an internal landscape architect, but such an individual will be difficult to find. He went on to state that the projects in the park will involve not only design detail, but a certain degree of civil engineering as well. Director of Parks Recreation responded this was indeed the case ad it would be essential to hire an experienced individual versus someone who has been in the field only a short time. Member Martin commented that it appeared the landscape architect position would be the least expensive of the alternatives. Member Alt questioned the need for a professional management team whose cost would be an addition to any design services. Member Martin stated he was in agreement that this was an added cost to the project. Members then reviewed the management project proposal as submitted with the consensus that this was the least preferred method: Kubik indicated that their fees of 2 1/2% plus expenses was, in fact, very reasonable as far as project management firms go, but he felt staff at the City would still have to do much of the coordination and interface with the firm if it were used. There were additional questions relative to the position description for the landscape architect, advantages and disadvantages of an outside consulting firm, and some of the concerns relative to both. In response to a question, the Director of Parks Recreation responded he has had previous experience under both types of alternatives. He indicated he had a preference for the internal landscape architect position because he felt it offered the best control of the project and that it could be most flexible and responsive to park needs and individual parks problems. He went on to say that the concern was, as Mr. Kubik had previously indicated, in finding the right individual and making the assumption that this one person could complete the entire task. Commission Member Carroll said it was his understanding we would indeed have to have additional services and assistance within the department to accomplish this. Members Kubik and Martin agreed, stating that we will need the flexibility of bringing in additional help or expertise as the case may be called for. Member Martin stated that it was his understanding that cost for this individual would come from the Bond Referendum money and as long as the cost for a landscape architect plus any additional outside fees remained below the 6% outside consulting firm cost, this would be acceptable. There was general discussion relative to the types of services that would be necessary, concluding in agreement with Mr. Martin's statement. Member Kubik stated, however, that he felt the design and management load on staff has still not been adequately addressed. He stated it was already obvious that not only was the department understaffed now in areas of recreation and in the Director's time, but this project of parks development was going to consume at least half of the Director's time in overall management and decision making. He stated that the mere fact the project is underway means that the department is already short 1/2 person and the Commission needs to insure that the project doesn't fail or that other issues in the department are not addressed because of insufficient staff time. Member Thurston inquired as to the workload and status of help available to the department. Director of Parks Recreation briefly reviewed the current status of authorized employees and positions. Commission member Alt stated that with the successful referendum, now is the appropriate time to review departmental priorities for staffing. She stated she recognized the need for maintenance personnel, but suggested that the authorized maintenance position could be used for other priorities. Commission member Kubik agreed, saying that the special committee on recreation was also concluding that additional help would be necessary in the very near future, if not now, for the growing recreational programs. There was general discussion by the Commission relative to the various priorities and needs of the department and the development projects. Member Kubik suggested that there be a need for general assistance in the overall operation of the department and parks development combined with recreational programming. He continued saying he suggested that the City hire a full —time assistant specialist for Parks Recreation, rather than the maintenance position. Member Thurston questioned if this wasn't something that should be addressed in the 1985 budget. Martin agreed that that would be the normal procedure of things, but when the budget was prepared a year ago no one knew that we would be sitting twelve months later with the problems of staffing as the result of a successful parks bond referendum. Members stated their agreement that the referendum has brought about a whole new set of circumstances and priorities and would dictate a change at this time, rather than waiting an additional six months when we are well into project development. Kubik continued saying it is important that everyone recognize the impact the referendum will have and the need to react quickly. After further discussion, there was a motion by Dick Carroll, seconded by George Kubik, to recommend to the City Council that a landscape architect be hired for the duration of the parks development program to be funded through the parks bond referendum money; further, that staff be authorized to utilize additional consulting or outside services as may be necessary, including the utilization of the City's Parks Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to begin the development project. Further, that the Council review the need for an additional full time staff person to assist in the department. Motion carried. Chairman Martin asked that the minutes reflect the Commission has taken this action because of the urgency of the action to meet the fall time frame for project development, that this is cost effective and maximimizes the dollars spent on project cost, that it is the most responsive course of action for meeting development project priorities and departmental operations. Commission Member Kubik questioned if the landscape architect is approved and hired and he were to be utilized on other projects outside of the development program, would that be chargeable to another account? Director of Parks Recreation explained there are certain fundings within the normal operational budget for parks consulting services which could be charged against on an hourly basis for work done outside the scope of the referendum. NORTHWESTERN BELL UTILITY BUILDING: Director of Parks Recreation asked the Commission to provide further direction relative to the request from Northwestern Bell for a utility building on City park property. He indicated that several members have gone out to the recently staked building location. He stated this new location, with minor adjustments, would have the least impact upon the park. Member Thurston inquired if other issues raised at the previous Commission meeting had been met. Director of Parks Recreation responded that Northwestern Bell was in agreement with the new building location and had recently contacted him and agreed to the elimination of a turn around. However, he said the 10' wide driveway would have to be increased to 12' in width for safety reasons. He also indicated that Bell was willing to change the composition of the building to meet aesthetic concerns of the Commission and would be seeking direction from the Commission relative to this. There were additional concerns and questions relative to the length of lease, liability, contract termination and concern for disruption to the site during construction. Member Thurston reiterated her concern for precedent setting and the lack of Northwestern Bell to plan adequately. Commission member Carroll agreed, stating that he hated to see disruption to the park site. He questioned whether there would be sufficient room for a trailway in the future. Director of Parks Recreation responded that such a trail would still be to the north of this building. In response to a question, the Director responded that Northwestern Bell would be responsible for contacting the three residents who are closest to the building to inform them of this issue. Commission member Kubik stated he felt that the lease agreement should include a clause which would terminate the lease should Bell try to use the facility for some other purpose than is being approved at this time. He stated that technology is changing swiftly and he hated to see the facility being used for storage or other purpose than its intended use at this time. Members of the Commission agreed and asked the Director of Parks Recreation to insure this was included in the lease agreement. Members agreed that the lease should provide for the cash payment up front, with funds to be deposited in the park site acquisition and development fund. Members expressed concern for landscaping of the site. Director responded that Northwestern Bell has agreed to provide the landscaping that may be appropriate. After further discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by Bertz, with members voting their approval to recommend Northwestern Bell proceed with a site survey for this location for further staff review. Further, should there not be a need for further adjustments, I would approve the recommendation to the City Council for this facility. Director of Parks Recreation was directed to relate to Northwestern Bell that the facility should be changed in appearance to meet the aesthetics of the park, that a 15 year lease with five year option shall be negotiated, that Northwestern Bell will be responsible for any liability associated with the building and its construction, should the use change from that which is being requested at this time, the lease shall be terminated; that construction limits be established to insure there is no disruption to nearby vegation, and for staff to report back at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Member Carroll expressed concern relative to construction of the facility and possible disruption to roots from nearby trees. He requested that staff be involved with identifying construction limits and exact location of the building to minimize this possible disruption. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Advisory Commission, this movement seconded to adjourn at 9:45 P.M.. Dated: Advisory Parks Recreation Secretary DATE EXISTI The pa per 5 as R -1 0 3 COMMEN The pa of Sad parcel access requir per ac The ap first applic If app conditi 1) Th pa 2) A th 3) Al 4) Al SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: F PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: REPORTED BY: CITY OF EAGAN S cel is located north and east of lehorn Addition. The applicant into 8 lots, 4 having accessl off off Dodd Road. The lots exceed ments for a R -1 District. The e under this proposal. REZONING &'PRELIMINARY PLAT FIRST ADDITION EUGENE HAEG NWT, SECTION 25, SW of HACKMORE DRX AND DODD ROAD A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT JUNE 26, 1984 'UNE -14 1984 GREG INGRAHAM, ASSISTANT PLANNER APPLICAITION SUBMITTED: An applictation has been submitted re a rezo ing of 5 acres of land from A (Agricultural Distric tc R -1 (R sidential District). In conjunction with the rezoning, a Prelimi Plat application has been filed for 8 single family lots on the 5 acre parcel. ZONING AND LAND USE cel is currently zoned Agricultural and would allow one acres. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the p a (Residential Single /District) and would allow a density o dwelling units per acre. Overview Estates an is proposing to div Hackmore Drive and 4," bavii i the minimum size and w d density would be 1.6 u' licant plans to schedule the development in 2 phases. hase would consist of the 4 lots along Hackmore Drive, nts home now occupies the proposed lot 1 of the second p oved, the Preliminary Plat should be subject to the fo ons: plat shall be subject to the Park Commission `'s k dedication. development agreement shall be entered' into and applicant prior to Final Plat application. setback and lot size requirements be adhered to. other applicable ordinancesbe adhered to. i 77,eevf' 0L/E,Qv/ k1 Es T� 0 w S7, 4 r PHASE 2 9, _J i 0 PH.4S9 1 1 0 ,7f449" o 3 /6. 8 3o i '490 5LH•13H 3A089 33ANI bassi am 11 4141 1 111111, 111111 19/1/ %16kaaossollar& .1•ev••.1.•? PD 74-1 4 ..t;) '!4; jyjito a 1/4 4 t 44.4 s tip tk& A Jlo 4 SA A JSitc 4r /4 1.0 A 1 &me 'two GNP 44C 460 48 R II 2NG w x MEMO TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: ED KIRSCHT, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN DATE: JUNE 21, 1984 SUBJECT: HAEG 1ST ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED JUNE 1, 1984 This letter is to confirm that the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat dated June 1, 1984, and has the following comments regarding this proposed development for consideration by the Advisory Plan- ning Commission and the City Council. DRAINAGE /TOPOGRAPHY This proposed development is located directly West of Dodd Road and South of Hackmore Drive and is located in the S.E. a of the Northwest 4 of Section 25. This property is partially wooded with several farm buildings and a house on it with slopes of 2 9 percent generally sloping to the Southwest. The North 2 of this proposed development is within the J Major Drainage District and the South of this proposed development is located within the L Major Drainage District as defined by the Master Storm Sewer Plan (see figure 1 attatched). WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER Watermain, and sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity exist in Hackmore Drive and Dodd Road to provide service to it. Presently there is one 8" sanitary sewer service to service the proposed four lots along Hackmore. Subsequently staff recommends that Hackmore Drive be open cut in two (2) places at the common lot line of 3 and 4 and common lot line of 1 and 2 for new water and sewer services. The City will require a plan be submitted for an eight inch sanitary sewer service with a junction manhole in Hackmore Drive and terminate with a manhole at the South line of Phase I construction for future sanitary sewer service for Phase II. The City will also require a plan indicating the pro- posed sanitary location across lots 1,2, and 3 to lot 4 of Phase II and a 20' utility easement shall be dedicated for said sanitary sewer. Staff recommends that the storm drainage from this proposed property be allowed to drain over land by existing drainage ease- ments along lot lines in the overview estates replat to existing storm sewer in Stirrup Street. The existing storm catch basins in Stirrup. Street are located near the common lot line of lots 4 and 5 of Block 2 of the Overview Estates replat. The City will require a petition to construct the necessary utilities or; if utilities are installed under private contract, then the plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Registered Engineer and submitted to the City for approval. STREETS /DRIVEWAYS This proposed development abuts Dodd Road and Hackmore Drive. The City will require that the driveway entrances of Phase II be constructed so that lots 1 and 2 have a common driveway and lot 3 and 4 have a common driveway to Dodd Road. The drive en- trances of the lots in Phase one (1) shall be constructed off of Hackmore Drive. EASEMENTS /RIGHT OF WAY The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. The City will require utility easements a minimum of fifteen feet (15') in width for all public utilities. This item will be reviewed again when the utility plans for this subdivision have been submitted along with the final plat. EROSION CONTROL AND GRADING PLAN The developer shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City for review and approval. The developer shall submit a grading plan, indicating the existing contours and the proposed finish contours with drainage arrows indicating the drainage flow for review and approval. ASSESSMENTS In reviewing the assessments levied over the proposed development which consists of Parcel 010 -31 of the Southeast 4 of the Northwest 4 of Section 25, it was found that the watermain and sanitary sewer trunk assessments have been levied. As a condition of final platting this development shall be responsible for trunk area storm sewer assessments. Listed below is the current proposed trunk storm sewer assessments which will be the responsibility of the developer in accordance with the net areas as final platted. Trunk Area storm sewer 217,800 sq. ft. x 0.045 per square ft. $9801.00. All future costs for public improvements shall be the sole respon- sibility of this proposed development. The final assessment rates will be determined using the rates in effect at final platting. Respectfully submitted, Edward "Kirscht Engineering Technician cc: Rich Hefti Enclosure EJK /sl ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS HAEG 1st ADDITION 1. Submit a detailed grading and erosion and sediment control plan to the City in accordance with City policy for review and approval. 2. Utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated as refer- enced in this report. 3. Staff recommends that the driveway entrances of Phase II be constructed so that lots 1 and 2 have a common driveway and lot 3 and 4 have a common driveway to Dodd Road. 4. This development shall be responsible for the trunk storm sewer area assessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting. /7/ J 34 J 37 J -35 \‘c V r ICJ -33 31 v J-3624( r ,k-- --.-i 1 k i r 1 \J46\ J-491 (---4` Subject Parcel FIGURE J- LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: COMMENTS CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUNSET SIXTH ADDITION APPLICANT: SWE -DUN (BRAD SWENSON) NW)* OF SECTION 25, SOUTH OF COQ R 2 UNDER THE LEXINGTON SOUTH PD MENT JUNE 26, 1984 JUNE; 20 1984 REPORTED BY: GREG INGRAHAM, ASSISTANT 'PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been received requesting Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset 6th Addition. The 'proposal contains 29 single family lots on 9.6 acres. The plat would be located between Diffley Road (County Road #30) and Yorktown Place, 1200 feet west of Dodd Road. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned PD (Planned Development Di,ettiOt) in the Lexington South Planned Development. The proposed land, use designated for this parcel is R -II (Mixed Residential) with a density of 3 6 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this parcel as R -I and. R -II with the easterly portion being R -I (Single Family Residential) with a density of 0 3 dwelling units per acre; the westerly portion of the plat is designated R -II (Mixed Residential) with a density of' 3 -,6 dwelling units per acre. The overall plat density contains 3.0 dwelling units per acre, thue conforming with the R -I proposed land use of.the Comprehensive Guide Plan. This development proposal would contain 29 small lot single family homes on 9.6 acres. The average lot is 10,920 square feet with the smallest lot being 7,800 square feet. The minimum lot Width at the setback line is 65' with the average lot width being 7U' In an R -1 district the City Code requires a minimum loth size of 12,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 85' at the, building setback line. The underlying PD zoning would provide some bility to these standards. Access to the lots would be from a looped road off of Yorkto The proposed plat is bordered by Sunset 4th Addition on th and west and unplatted PD land to the east. County Road'30 Road) forms the northern boundary of the site. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUNSET SIXTH ADDITION JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE 2. 3) No variances be allowed except for topographic or vegetation reasons. If approved the plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The plat be subject to a review by the Dakota County Plat Commission since it abuts a county road. 2) No access be allowed off of County Road 30, all driveway's must must be off of Yorktown Drive. 4) All other City ordinances shall be adhered to. 5) A Development Agreement be signed prior to the application for a final plat. a ac W 0 a cni Q� 1 H. Z. P D w F- 74 z1 A M lam/ n A T1_, n_ 1 L;1 LI rr �P 11! a _giopfs!„,„419 O 1 0 d iro.00 0.0 CO 70.00 70.00 70.00 O 70.00 70.00 70.00 0 70.00 0 O O 1 ci /So. 00 CO 70.00 0 4 70.00 /3 5 o 80 1\1 SET 6th ADDITION' SUNSET Y" 4QD UNPLATTED 70 s ys. 0 S 3o.00 70.00 co ).00 7000 70.00 70 00 7 YORKTOWI DR 0 0 P 0 /8 l4O 110.4% j -d 1%0. 4 1.1 co a w 0 0 0 A O O 0 80.00 80.00 70.00 YORKTOWN DR co 70.00 70.00 0 0 UNPLATTED CURRY S's.eo 70.00 170 Yq co 0 O 0' V O O sr- R-II ALACK. 0 0 v t. 7 1. ft JOH GB Memo to: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION C/O DALE RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER From: RICHARD M. HEFTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER Date: JUNE 21, 1984 Subject: SUNSET 6TH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has the following comments regarding this proposed development for consider- ation by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. TOPOGRAPHY /DRAINAGE /GRADING This proposed development is located in the NW quarter of the NW quarter of Section 25, south of County Road 30, east of the North view Meadows Addition and immediately north of the Sunset 4th Addition. The existing topography over this parcel consists predom- inately of a side hill. The top of the hill is located at Lot 10, Block 1 with the land sloping away from it in all directions. The slope is steepest to the NE and approaches 15% in the extreme NE corner of this proposed development. In addition, the NE quarter of this development is quite heavily wooded with the remainder of the site being open grassland. The existing drainage is for the most part to the NE. The extreme SW corner of this proposed development drains to the SW. Most of the grading over this development will result in cutting the hill as previously mentioned approximately 7 feet and filling in the NE corner of this proposal to accomodate house pads. The proposed grading will continue the drainage in its present pattern with the exception that the small amount of runoff mentioned pre- viously going to the SW will now be drained to the NE. This is not anticipated to cause any problems since this area is relatively minor. Drainage over this proposed development will collect in a low point near Lot 5, Block 2 and transmitted to the east via a storm sewer into a low area of which a drainage and ponding easement has previously been dedicated to the City. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of this proposed development with the major drainage district J, revealing that pond JP -27 will be the eventual outlet for runoff from this area. Presently this pond does not have a gravity outflow from it. However, this is not anticipated to be a problem at this time and will probably be required to be con- structed upon development of the area to the north of County Road 30. UTILITIES Utilites of sufficient size, capacity and depth to provide service to this proposed development are presently being constructed with the Sunset 4th Addition, under private contract. The public im- provements for this proposed development will connect to the utilities within Yorktown Place. The watermain is recommended to be looped. Plans and specifications for these public improvements shall be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to the SUNSET 6TH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT ENGINEERING REPORT JUNE 21, 1984 PAGE 2. Engineering Department for approval, unless this development peti- tions the City to provide these public improvements through City contract. STREETS At this time, existing streets adjacent to this proposed development consist only of County Road 30 (Diffley Road). Since this road is under the County's jurisdiction, no access is recommended onto it by this development by either driveway or street access. Access to this proposed development will be from Yorktown Place by means of a U- shaped public street. This public street shall be con- structed to City standards for residential 7 ton streets either under private contract or by petitioning the City for installation under City Contract. The Staff recommends that this development be responsible for an 8 foot bituminous trailway along its common border with County Road 30. RIGHT OF WAY /EASEMENTS This development is proposing to dedicate a 65 foot half right -of- way for County Road 30. Staff has checked with the County and found that for four lane undivided highways they require a right -of -way of 120 feet or a half right -of -way of 60 feet. Subsequently, Staff would recommend the half right -of -way for County Road 30 be 60 feet rather than the 65 feet as shown. This development is proposing a 50 foot right -of -way for the inter- nal street. This is the minimum width allowed under City Code and Staff feels is adequate for this subdivision. A 10 foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to all publically dedicated right -of -way with a 5 foot drainage and utility easement dedicated adjacent to all interior and exterior lot lines. In addition, a 15 foot drainage and utility eaement will be required between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 2 for storm sewer. Also, the 15 foot easement required between either Lots 15 and 16 or 14 and 15 of Block 2 for sanitary sewer service to the Joo's property located west of this proposed development. ASSESSMENTS In researching our assessment records, it has been discovered that only trunk area storm sewer assessments have yet to be levied. Subsequently, this development shall accept its responsibility for trunk area storm sewer at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. At today's rates, the amount of this assessment would be $14,251.00 (316,681 square feet x $0.045 per square foot). SUNSET 6TH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT ENGINEERING REPORT JUNE 21, 1984 PAGE 3. In addition, this development will be responsible for all costs associated with the installation of the necessary public improve- ments. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report in detail with the Advisory Planning Commission at the June 26, 1984 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hefti, P.E. Assistant City Engineer RMH:jbd ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS SUNSET 6TH If installed privately, plans and specifications for public improvements shall be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 2) Sanitary sewer shall be stubbed to parcel 050 -26 (Joos's property). 3) Watermain shall be looped. 4) This development shall be responsible for an 8 foot bituminous trailway along County Road 30. 5) A 60 foot half right -of -way shall be dedicated for County Road 30. 6) Easements shall be dedicated as required by Staff and referenced in this report. 7) This development shall be responsible for the trunk area storm sewer assessment at the rate in effect at the time of final platting. 8) All costs associated with providing public improvements to this proposed development will be the sole responsibility of this development. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING AND BLACKHAWK LAKE AWN PRELIMINARY PLAT /VARIANCE APPLICANT: NORSE DEVELOPMENT (PETER STALLAND) LOCATION: PART OF THE NW's OF SECTION PART OF THE SW1 OF SECTION 16. BLACKHAWK LAKE AND EAST OF BLACKHA EXISTING ZONING: PD UNDER BLACKHAWK OAKS PD AGREEMENT AN R -1 FOR BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 26, 1984 DATE OF REPORT: JUNE 20, 1984 REPORTED BY: GREG INGRAHAM, ASSISTANT "CITY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED This report covers four applications., The first request is for rezoning of approximately 13.2 acres from P.D. (Planned Development District) to R -1 (Residential Single Family District). In conjunction with the rezoning, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval.,for 27 single family lots (Blackhawk Oaks Addition). The third application if for preliminary plat approval for Blackhawk Lakes= Addition which which consists of 6.0 acres and four single family ibts, the Blackhawk Lake Addition parcel is currently zoned R -1. A, variance has been requested to allow a 12% slope on the private access drive proposed for Blackhawk Lake Addition. Zoning and Land Use: The area under consideration for the Blackhawk Oaks Addition was zoned PD on October 5, 1982. The PD Agreement was for townhouse and single family uses. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the area as R -1 (Residential Single-District) with a density range of 0 -3 units per acre. The applicant is a change from the existing PD to a R-1 designation. The proposal for Blackhawk Lake Addition is in an area currently zoned R -1. This area is also listed as R -1 in the. Land Use Guide Plan. Comments: Blackhawk Oaks Addition Initially,` ,this`,_, parcel was approved as a Planned Development with 12 townhouses and 10 single family units having a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. The current application is a request to rezone this parcel to a R -1 designation. The plat would contain 27 single family lots having a gross density of 2.0 units per acre. The average lot size would be 17,727 square feet with the smallest lot being 12,155 square feet. All of the lots meet or exceed the 85' minimum lot width requirement. In the original PD the road access came as an extention of Silver Bell Road across the north property line of the site. This proposal shifts the access to the central portion of the parcel. The road would come off of Blackhawk Road and connect with Riverton Avenue to the south. A private drive would come off of this road to provide access to the proposed Blackhawk Lake Addition. The existing home would occupy Lot 7, Block 1, of the subdivision. Blackhawk Lake Addition The applicant is proposing to plat 4 lots on 6 acres of R -1 land located on the southwest shore of Blackhawk Lake. The average lot size is 1.35 acres, the average lot width is 120' at the setback line. The density would be 0.67 units per acre. Access to the proposed plat would be by a private drive off Riverton Avenue in the proposed Blackhawk Oaks Addition. The access drive would cross an area of Blackhawk Park for which the developer is proposing to exchange land along the park border. The Park Committee has done an initial review of this issue. For more information, see the attached memo from the Parks Director. A variance is being requested to construct the private drive at a slope of 12 City code allows a maximum of 10% on a private road. CONDITIONS: If approved, the plats should be subject to the following condi- tions: 1. The plats shall be subject to review by the Park Committee and resolution of the access issue into Blackhawk Lake Addition. 2. A development agreement be executed prior approval. 3. The private drive slope variance shall be subject to review by the City Engineering Department. 4. A minimum setback of 75' shall be maintained from the high water level of Blackhawk Lake for any building. 5. All other City ordinances shall be adhered to. final plat SILVER *ELL 1 r i 3 is aj se as SD 1 1 •,I1. u. 2 3 .11 u pees .,1. •I w.. 111./ .1 w 26 •t1• r �1 Y1.0 4 w .11..11.12 1.1 l0 w 1 411. J 1 4.a6 w.. •N tea W1 e IN. 61 w a. N. e IJI.• N1. 11 1 .1 1 wl, *oat 1 1 w r •ww 1 5 1 61 1 Nate. r •1 .111...1 .6 1 I 1eF 1 ,w1 J re J Se 1 Ma... e••; 1.11 IMO 5501 ►I15M1al 261 U50 OSY5V011 ROBE E NGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1000 1q4 NN MM. M54WIa L1. 5145[104• 5577) 4 1\.26 u. SECYl.N 17 T. 2? N, 5 23 W. RIVERTON AVENUE 2 -1 i. la.?.. i LEGAL DESCRIPTION �.r 141.44 1 e w... .t, 4.0. 1141•1 41, N. ,M w 1 of w 526261. 1 I 11 a .16. 1 INN.. 1 111 .w 4 N N N we11•. 1• N 1 "1 .1 yy .11• •1 w 1. 11 wua 1 •e .111 1 r r a 4 le.. NI •1 4.. 1•x 4 N4 .1. 11 Y •r •1 .41 11, 4 14.111.1.4 wa 1a .I• N. 1. :..11 1 •N'.1 J ..1111 1.. 44 1.w 111 1. 266.26264 ww. wwl,. w t....... 4 1 1.' 4 1.11 IIL .26101 11, 11, 14126. 11.1... 11.1... •r JY 1• N 1 114 •16•12 1.114 U •1•*••• 126 w..0 1 .4 Iw1, a•••• NI •I w 1..a.. w.. IN J 261 .1 1 •1 1. 1• 4 a are• .6.11 Nat 1••• 26 •I 1,261.1 1.1 a IN 2•161 •I •11•■• 1.<f1M 11 w.. 111 .111111 11 26..4 r, 11•411 11, 1 N. 4 1 J e I. 1. e .f M.MN w ,NI. MI. 1 11. w 1 J 11• 4e.1, 4 1 .11.1 1 Y jaw .11 .1126) .101•IWe 1. Wet 11 101. 1..1. 4.ewm 11••••• M rel M�r.�r S .110 eif w ..1 N 1.1 5 .1. N .4 P/1 -,050 OM. ..p J 1 BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION M.Ii...I 7 5 ./14,11'411 1000 7 8 aaf 4,411 i.I. 9 RIVERTON AVENUE 9 1a .M U CEDAR 7 IN .N. II 44,426 s/. 12 12 10.. ...1 uflCIVL' N:1 I t I 1 PRELIMINARY FLAT OF BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION 4 •r P a 1 al V if 1 40 I 261.. N I'• So' SC1:rKIW !S Y 271 .J, A O� OUTLOT C OUTLOT D SI T :QN 21, 1..7 N, 23 W 4 N SCALE I 50 GENERAL INFORMATION u.•..o wlta 4- 11 N J• rwte 1.q as. ••.•1.• I 1.. 6.1.26.. 4 1 1.111. 1•. •1 1 4 4 2. N! I4' W. 11 Nell •.1 ..NN 1J .1 •,MIL •6. II. NON 1 1.•141 1.1 11• 41rt f •,ter .l. 11. .w N 000000 .w .1 6. 12,111 II .N.1 .1111• Ir11r .1 1111• 11,111 N. It. 51 11411 ..YI• 1.111 41 64• 11.111 64, 11. No 411 p.a. Imalp N. sem 11,56 Y 11. 1.. 11 11n• PREPARED FOR: NORSE DEVELOPMENT CO. moo 101 IluING04010, moodSols SSW 407.1000 4,44 BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION TtviLKINS --�o�����~~ GRADING in �ACKHAVVKDAKSAO0lOON ;�so. EAGAN ar NORSE PREPARED pon: i|�l ROBE E NGINEERING COMPANY INC. NORTH SCALE 1 50 CONNIVING 111I01 I LONG 311111/111/0113 OV n 1I ..1 1400 (IF 141 8114.11•1 1.14. 31i10■CSO. $1001 IN 400•I000 133,II3_.33• au, 14.1 Hay r r ...r.w N BLACKHAWK LAKE BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION 11.,1111 BLOCK 1 OUTLOT C n ns. 01101 •I OUTLOT.' O t7 r pK N J V• e`rCKNP 0 r 11r LEGAL DESCRIPTION Isa Pas, II Y r I •r 110.•••1. III), 110.•••1. Tors/ memos III)), Ill) all ra.. IY as •1 a r Y I •••1. r 111• r tar 1 •1 1111 oar r a ••Y Yal• ••l•• 1 11,1 aaaa HI Ht. 111x. a Ya Ill. bola es r la i• r •I rl• I n 1 r a I r• II/ Hu Is...,. •a.•. j 01 lll b T...a• situ O11. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION Y10 Haw. 860 1 50 I. If GENERAL INFORMATION PREPARED FOR: NORSE DEVELOPMENT CO. vlowo Rata.-r 12 5 LoPE 4.e P N ...es. ..t CONSULTING IINGINCSIIS 04.6.41. ill• I. IR ROBE KANI14111 sal MD SUAVVIOUS ENGINEERING N COMPANY, INC. t N.,, 4 L.., t■■.. /1: COI SINUS, SuluoviLLIE, loNNISOlc 31111/ Po, 032-11000 BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION s P•c% I I I -7_ PRELIMINARY GRADING AND arwi. Mts.& DRAINAGE PLAN OF 6,•.1 BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION SCALE I SO' PREPARED FOR NORSE DEVELOPMENT co 2 47 11111 1111 '.a,.:1115:�.� I ∎r rr ..a ■Ili A■ l 1 ■i� ■m.:� l �ssom���■ /iii/' /iii ri.■uri ■►.m uirio i■ R f �it .!i so o 11iZ Vim/ dna ma is. iri ..r1�; ��l�y 1111111 E;1 suisuna up sgrr-1, XGAN 4 ME I' HILLA■IDALE PD 8 1- 1 o IS DG. C r111 r��� R -4 A a 0 w Z H P II PILOT I' 'CSC CENT PF PF 7 w U� n i n(\ IQ( R -I I 1r .I1 l R -I (c 7r1 MEMO TO: REASON: At the regular meeting of the Parks Recreation Advisory Commis- sion on June 7, the Commission reviewed the two proposed prelimi- nary plats near Blackhawk Park. Mr. Peter Stalland presented the two plats requesting permission from the Parks Recreation Commis- sion to develop a private road across a section of the park. There were a number of concerns and issues raised by the Advisory Commission at that meeting. I've included the minutes of the June 7th Commission meeting for your review. You will note from the minutes that one of the concerns discussed was access to Blackhawk Park at the northwest corner. You may recall that in the original Blackhawk Oaks Addition presented some months ago, an access had been provided to the park as an extension of Silverbell Road. Commission members were concerned that the new development plan would not provide such an access. The Commission visited Blackhawk Park on Thursday, June 14th in hopes of trying to resolve their concerns relative to the topog- raphy and possible disruption to the site. After the site visit, members convened to discuss the proposal. Minutes of the June 14th meeting have been included, which I believe reflect the discussion of the Commission. Basically, the issues and concerns relative to these two plats involve the determination and need for better park access near the northwest corner of Blackhawk Park. Second, the concern is relative to the significant amount of disruption and loss of mature Oaks and vegetation. Finally, the Commission was concerned that the devel- oper has yet to look at all available alternatives rather than just looking to provide this road through park property. In further action, the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission has asked that staff work with its parks consultant to further review the topographic features of the park and the feasibility (as well as the desirability) of an access through the Blackhawk Oaks Addition. Members felt there was insufficient information and review of alternatives to make its determination at this time. Should you need further clarification of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commissions actions and their intent concerning these two plats, please feel free to contact me. KV /sl FROM: Enclosure DALE RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER C/O ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION BLACKHAWK LAKE AND BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITIONS C c BLACKHAWK PARK: Chairman Martin asked Commission members to comment on Blackhawk Park and the two proposed preliminary plats now that the Commission has had a chance to make an on —site visit. Commission member Kubik indicated it was clear the proposed roadway would be an obvious detriment to the park and he saw no value to the City and the Parks System relative to these two proposed plats. Chair— man Martin agreed that the on —site visit confirmed to him there would be a great deal more disruption to the site than what seemed to be the case when one was just looking at the plans. He continued saying that although there was no concept plan for Blackhawk Park, the City should still try to maintain an option of gaining access to the north as was proposed under the original Blackhawk Oaks Addition. He indicated that he thought the grades in the park could be worked to accomplish a park road. Commission member Alt questioned whether the City would ever need the park road at all or the access to the north. Commission member Martin stated that that may be the case, but with a 60 acre park with such diversity and natural resources, some type of a park road seemed likely with its major access to the south. A secondary access on the north may be vital to the park. He went on to say that obviously a park concept plan needed to be developed to answer these questions. Members discussed possible realignments of the roadway through the Blackhawk Oaks Addition, suggesting that the best alternative appeared to be for the private road to go through the property to the north rather than the park property. Members commented that this appeared to be the least disruptive to the overall site. Member Kubik commented he was concerned that all of the alternatives have not been researched and reviewed. He has seen only the one and felt there should be more than just one alternative to consider. Commission member Carroll commented his agreement and that the present plan would be totally disruptive to this area of the park. In response to a question, Director of Parks Recreation responded that this item would be appearing on the Planning Commission's agenda in June. Member Kubik suggested it would be a good idea for the Commission to address a memorandum to the Planning Commission stating its concerns for this roadway and the negative loss and impact to the Parks System. Members agreed with Chairman Martin adding that he would suggest the Advisory Planning Commission take an on —site view to understand the impact better. Members commented that the proposal solved lots of problems for the developer, while at the expense of the parks, what is the obligation of the parks to make this project work? After further discussion, on a motion by Kubik, seconded by Bertz, with all members voting in favor, the Director of Parks Recreation was directed to write a letter to the Advisory Planning Commission indicating that the Parks Recreation Commission had grave concerns relative to the two proposed preliminary plats which would create a significant loss of mature oaks (white oaks), disruption to the site in general, subsequent erosion problems, and the non benefit to the City of Eagan. Motion carried. Chairman Martin stated that the developer should be required to look at all other alternatives rather than providing this road through park property as is being requested, The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that this item had not been before the Planning Commission, and therefore, no planning packet was available. He then briefly reviewed the past history of the Blackhawk Oaks Addition and the issues relative to Blackhawk Park. He stated that the City has received information relative to a proposed change in the Blackhawk Oak plat and the development of Blackhawk Lake Addition immediately north of Blackhawk Park. Mr. Peter Stalland, representing the development of Blackhawk Oaks /Blackhawk Lake, and Mr. Bill Moyer of Probe Engineering, presented the two development proposals to the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission. They stated they had spent considerable time trying to find good access to the northerly part of Blackhawk Park and the Blackhawk Lake Addition. It was indicated they could not come up with a suitable roadway because of topography and the extreme cost encountered with providing a public road. He continued to say he did not believe that suitable access to Blackhawk Park could be provided which would not meet with difficult grades within the park itself. Mr. Stalland explained that a revision of the Blackhawk Oaks Addition will provide a private roadway to the Blackhawk Lake Addition. This proposal would provide a private roadway to four large single family lots. The roadway would have to cross a portion of Blackhawk Park, affecting some 2,000 square feet. In return for this crossing of Blackhawk Park, developer would exchange Outlot "D" of approximately 9,000 square feet. There was additional discussion regarding the development, roadway and temporary construction easement. Chairman Martin indicated he still wanted to see, and try to provide for, access to the park other than through a residential street as is currently the case. He questioned why a park road, which would not have to meet public road standards, could not be accomodated. Commission member Carroll recalled that the grades were extremely steep and difficult in the area described. In response to a question as to why the private roadway could not be shifted north off of park property, Mr. Stalland said roadway could not be moved because the current landowner was not interested in any development. Commission member Bertz asked if the access to Blackhawk Park had to be at the northern most point of the park. She questioned why the roadway couldn't be constructed at a relatively level area along the west property line within the gereral north area. Bill Moyer, Probe Engineering, stated that a roadway could be developed into the park at the northern most section, but access from this point to other areas of the park would still encounter steep and difficult slopes. There was a prolonged discussion by members of the Commission and developer relative as to grades and road access areas. Director of Parks Recreation commented that the area of disagreement was reflected of the fact that Mr. Stalland had previously been before the Commission indicating that a road could be developed which would be access to the park, but that he was now saying such a roadway was not feasible. Mr. Stalland responded by saying that at the time he did not have the expertise of an engineering firm who has now indicated that such a roadway was not possible. There was a general consensus that a tour should be taken of the site before making the decision. Commission member Bertz suggested that the Commission could consider taking an easement over the private road which could be returned if not utilized. The City could then develop its plan for the park. Mr. Stalland responded that he was not prepared to consider such a proposal until he had a further chance to study it. He asked that the Commission give consideration to the land swap at this time so the developer could include it in their proposal to the Planning Commission. Chairman Martin responded that he did not believe the Commission was prepared to make such a recommendation at this time. George Kubik then moved, Mason seconded, to delay a recommendation on Blackhawk Oaks until after a tour of the area has been made. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Martin requested that staff set up a tour of the park site requesting that Systems Consultant, Tim Erkkila, be present to review the site with the Commission. MEMO TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION C/O DALE C. RUNKLE FROM: ED KIRSCHT, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN DATE: JUNE 19, 1984 SUBJECT: BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT DATED 6 -1 -84 The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has the following comments regarding the proposed development for consider- ation by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council. DRAINAGE /TOPOGRAPHY This proposed development is located directly East of Blackhawk Road and directly North of Cedar Grove No. 10 plat. The existing topo- graphy consists of rolling hills with the Westerly h of this de- velopment (which is non wooded) sloping generally to the North. The easterly of this proposed plat is wooded with some very large oak trees and steeply slopes to the north with slopes approaching 16 percent, except for a small strip of this development abutting Blackhawk Park whichslopes steeply towards Blackhawk Park with slopes approaching 25 percent. Figure 1 illustrates the relation- ship of this proposed development being located within the B Major Drainage District as defined by the Master Storm Plan (see figure 1 attached). WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER Existing watermain and sanitary sewer is of sufficient size and capacity existing within the proximity of this proposed development to provide service to it. A6" watermain is proposed to be looped from an existing 8" watermain stub at the intersection of Silver Bell Road and Blackhawk through the plat, to existing Riverton Ave. in Cedar Grove. The developer will be responsible for the cost of the construction of approximately 175 Lin. ft. of sanitary sewer which will be required to be installed in Silver Bell Road. This said 175 Lin. ft. shall be constructed prior to the commence- ment of the Silver Bell Street improvement project. The City will require the necessary storm sewer with catch basins at the intersec- tion of Blackhawk Road and proposed Riverton Ave. to pick up all the surface drainage from this proposed plat, because Blackhawk Road is a state aid road and the existing surface drainage to Blackhawk Road is already at its maximum. The City will require a petition to construct the necessary utilities or; if utilities are installed under private contract, then the plans and specifications shall be prepared by a registered engineer and submitted to the City for approval. STREETS Access to this proposed plat is by Blackhawk Road from the West and Riverton Ave. to the Southeast. The City will require that Blackhawk Oaks Addition June 19, 1984 Page 2 concrete curb and gutter be constructed along the East side of Blackhawk Road abutting this plat with the face of curb 22' from centerline of Blackhawk Road. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer shall submit a grading plan to the City indicating existing contours and proposed contours along with drainage arrows indicating the direction of the drainage flow. The developer shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City for review and approval. EASEMENTS /RIGHT OF WAY The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all public right -of -way and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. The City will require utility easements a minimum of fifteen feet (15') in width for all public utilities not constructed within the street right -of -way. A 15' utility and drainage easement will be required for storm sewer constructed across the Black Lake Addition. This item will be reviewed again when the utility plans for this subdivision have been submitted along with the final plat. ASSESSMENTS In reviewing the assessments levied over this proposed development which consists of Parcel 010 -01 and 010 -02 of the NEa of Section 20, it was found that all trunk related assessments have been levied. Subsequently, all future costs for public improvements shall be the sole responsibility of this proposed development. Respectfully submitted, Edward J. Kirscht Engineering Aide cc: Rich Hefti EJK /sl Enclosure ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS BLACKHAWK OAKS ADDITION 1) Submit a detailed erosion and sediment and grading plan in accordance with City policy for review and approval. 2) If the proposed development is approved, the developer shall submit a petition to the City to construct the utilities and streets. 3) Utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated as referenced in this report. 4) The construction of concrete curb and gutter along the East side of Blackhawk Road abutting this development. 5) Construct storm sewer with catch basins at the intersection of Blackhawk Road and proposed Riverton Ave. to pick up the surface drainage from this proposed plat. Subject Parce L r "r" all a I .i1 l■■■■■■■l■rw u ?ell I 1 4:-. 1114111 1 4 1 11 1 111 i t .4114 11111110O re It a LARNE HI •_ANDAL mi 1m 4iiui r BLACKHAVVK PARK B C n' \S DG. FIGURE 1 C -6 VI L E I MEMO TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE CITY PLANNER FROM: ED KIRSCHT, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN DATE: JUNE 20, 1984 SUBJECT: BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT This letter is to confirm that the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plat of Blackhawk Lake Addition dated 6 -1 -84 and has the following comments regarding this proposed development for consideration by the Advisory Plan- ning Commission and the City Council. Drainage /Topography This proposed development is located directly north of Blackhawk Park and directly northeast of the proposed Blackhawk Oaks Addition with its north boundry being Blackhawk Lake, and is located in the southwest o of the southwest a of Section 16. This property is heavily wooded and is on a very steep hill with the natural drainage sloping toward Blackhawk Lake with slopes from 12 to 25% towards the north. Figure one (1) illustrates the relationship of this proposed plat being located within the B major drainage district as defined by the Master Storm Sewer Plan. This proposed plat should not be considered for approval unless the Blackhawk Oaks proposed plat is approved and developed. Water Main The City will require that this plat be serviced with a 6" water main. The water main service shall be connected to the proposed 6" water main in proposed Riverton Avenue and shall be extended across a utility easement across Outlots A, B and C and shall terminate at the east end of Outlot C with a fire hydrant. The City will require a petition to construct the necessary utilities or, if utilities are installed under private contract, then the plans and specifications shall be prepared by a Registered Engineer and submitted to the City for approval. Sanitary Sewer There presently is not sanitary sewer service available to this proposed development by gravity flow. The existing sanitary sewer invert elevation in Silver Bell Road is 865.41. The elevation of lot 4 is below the 840 elevation, therefore, staff indicates in this situation that these 4 lots should be considered to be serviced by private septic systems. The cost of a lift station for the 4 lots would be very costly. If the City approves this plat and does not require sanitary sewer service and accepts private septic systems, the septic system shall be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulation WPC-40. These 4 lots are over the required minimum one (1) acre size and may be serviced by an approved septic system. MEMO TO ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 1984 PAGE 2 Streets Access to this proposed development is by a proposed 20' wide private road which is proposed to be constructed between Lot 12 of Block 1, and Lot 1 of Block 3 of the proposed Blackhawk Oaks Addition connecting to Riverton Avenue. The proposed street grade of the private street is approximately 12 which is consider- ed by staff as excessive, and I am sure that during the icy winter season the standard automobile will have a problem with that 12% steep grade. Easements /Right -of -Way The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. The City will require utility easements a minimum of fifteen feet (15') in width for all public utilities. This item will be reviewed again when the utility plans for this subdivision have been submitted along with the final plat. Erosion Control and Grading Plan The developer shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City for review and approval. The developer shall submit a grading plan, indicating the existing contours and the proposed finish contours with drainage arrows indicating the drainage flow for review and approval. Contact the Department of Natural Resources for the necessary permits to work near Blackhawk Lake. Assessments In reviewing the assessments levied over this proposed development which consists of Parcel 010 -51 of the SA of Section 16, it was found that all trunk related assessments have been levied. Subsequently, all future costs for public improvements shall be the sole responsibility of this proposed development. Respectfully Submitted, Edward J. Kirscht Engineering Technician cc: Rich Hefti Enclosure EJK /jj Engineering Recommendations BLACKHAWK LAKE ADDITION 1. Submit a detailed grading and erosion and sediment control plan to the City in accordance with City policy for review and approval. 2. Utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated as refer- enced in this report. 3. The sanitary sewer septic system shall be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regulation WPC -40. Subject Parcel B ACKHAWK PARK ma Ism 19■ ,1��1!!1 P 1 Irk■ B 2 m i 19 ,.1111111111111111•011111 F4!pj1jj s l HIiia vis wo 2 ma LI pL war? HI LANDALE a Z C -6 RECREATION OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE /POLICY PLAN ISSUES PAPER 5.30.84 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council is reviewing its Policy Plan for Regional Recreation Open Space and will adopt a revised plan by early 1985. The Council seeks com- ments about the strengths and weaknesses of the current plan and also seeks new issues which people believe should be considered in the revision. This issue paper is the first part of that public process. It has been prepared by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission to prompt discussion at a series of public meetings in July and August, 1984. The goals from the 1980 plan, with some questions, are listed as a first issue, followed by a series of specific issues received from individuals and agencies. Issues were selected to provoke public reaction as well as to list what the commission and Council hope to hear about. The commission is confident that other issues exist and hopes they will come forward during the meetings. The meetings will also give the public a chance to speak for or against any specific or general topics they believe should be considered about the regional recreation open space system. Following the meeting, a revised draft policy plan will be developed and circulated fora public hearing, currently scheduled for November of 1984. After the hearing, a final revised policy plan will be reviewed and adopted. BACKGROUND In 1974, following extended discussion, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks Act. The law makes the Metropolitan Council, with the advice of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, responsible for preparing and adopting a policy plan for a regional recreation open space system. The parks act requires periodic Council review of this policy plan. The first policy plan was adopted as a chapter for regional recreation open space in the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide in 1974. Following extensive discussion, the plan was revised and adopted again in 1980. The regional recreation open space system is implemented by 10 agencies- counties, municipalities and special park districts. Implementing agencies are eligible to receive grants from the Council for acquisition and development of regional parks in accord with master plans which the agencies prepare. The Metropolitan Council reviews master plans for consistency with the regional recreation open space system policy plan and then approves them. The imple- menting agencies own and operate the regional parks. Questions: 2 ISSUE 1: Are the Purpose and Goals Statements in the 1980 plan appropriate? PURPOSE AND GOALS (from the 1980 plan) The purpose of the regional system is to provide recreation open space that will meet the outdoor recreational needs of the people of the Metropolitan Area. Consistent with this purpose, the Council has eight goals for the regional system to be accomplished in conjunction with the implementing agencies: 1. Plan and provide regional facilities within the framework of the larger metropolitan recreation open space system and facilities provided by the private sector. 2. Acquire park reserves to protect and manage at least one representative example of each of the eight major landscape types found in the Metro- politan Area and develop recreational facilities consistent with natural resource protection. 3. Acquire and develop regional parks, park reserves and regional trail cor- ridors sufficient to meet facility needs for the variety of experiences possible for swimming, picnicking, fishing, boating, camping, trail activ- ities, and nature study and appreciation. 4. Provide regional special recreation use areas within regional parks and park reserves to meet identified regional needs when consistent with the overall purpose of the facility. 5. Improve public awareness and accessibility to the regional system through improved public information, expanded non -auto access (that is, transit and bike) and accommodations for handicapped people. 6. Provide equitable levels of recreational service throughout the Metropoli- tan Area, finance the capital and operating costs of the regional system and secure a continuing funding authority. 7. Provide ongoing opportunity for citizen participation throughout the plan- ning and operation of the regional recreation open space system. 8. Support general Metropolitan Council goals for development of the Metro- politan Area by locating and scheduling park acquisition and development in coordination with schedules for other metropolitan services. This system plan is aimed at meeting regional recreational needs to the year 2000. 1. Are the goals stated for the regional recreation open space system appropriate? What do you think the goals should be? Should there be more priority given to certain goals? Which ones; and in what order would you arrange them? 2. Is the need for a "balanced" system an appropriate goal? If so, is it adequately stated in the plan? 3 3. The regional system lies within a larger metropolitan system, all the pub- licly available open space in the Metropolitan Area, regardless of owner- ship. The plan calls for a regional system which provides approximately equal access to parks, in distance or time traveled, for everyone in the region. It also calls for equity of service, that is, everyone should be able to find parks which provide about the same kind of service, across the region. Should the equity apply to the entire metropolitan system, to the regional recreation open space system, to the municipal or local system, or to some combination of the above. Where is the greater problem? Where is change needed most? 4. Research shows that certain sub- populations in the region visit regional parks less than might be expected, especially elderly, minority, low income and teens. What are the barriers to their use? Must the plan call for identification and removal of barriers to use more, or differently, than it does? Are there other things the plan should call for to remedy the apparent problem? 5. Is the year 2000 target for a completed system plan reasonable? Appropriate? Feasible? 6. A major Council task has been obtaining adequate funds for the system. Should that task become a formal goal of the Council? What is the appro- priate task, exactly? 7. Should the Council adopt a goal calling for a more active (pro active) posture to park and recreation issues in the region? In what areas might stronger leadership or activity applied earlier be of benefit to the regional system? 8. Minnesota has stressed the importance of tourism and economic development in public projects including parks. Should the Council's goals add this directive to the regional system goals? Clearly, regional parks can and do function in this area. 9. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is in revision and a similar national plan review (ORRC II) may begin soon. Should the plan outline an increased role for the regional and metropolitan system in a state and national framework? What concerns need to be met? ISSUE 2. Is the system acquiringg the right parks in the right places at the right times and is it providing the right facilities within them? This question is one which is asked, appropriately, every time a policy plan/ system plan for any public service is opened for discussion. Subquestions follow rather predictably: Has acquisition proceeded at an appropriate rate, too fast, or too slowly? Is the planned completed system too large, too small, incorrectly guided in the places being acquired, or correct? 4 Has development proceeded at an appropriate rate, too fast, or too slowly? Are developments being placed in the right areas? Are the right kinds of developments being built and are the priorities appropriate? The system has given priority to acquisition over development. Is that still a correct point of view, or should development receive higher priority than it now has? What measurements should the Council use in addressing questions about rate of development? What are the important questions to answer? ISSUE 3. How should priorities be set for the recreation open space capital improvement program? As part of its task in establishing a CIP for regional recreation open space, the Council has established a priority list. Six categories, which correspond to demands identified in the Council's recreation resource program, are as follows: A Region -wide functions necessary for continuing the system. B Acquisition of parcels critical to completion of the planned system. C Development of certain facilities including: o Deteriorated high use facilities; o Essential components of'a high priority project; o Projects in areas with gross service deficiencies; and o Public access to high quality resources. D Specifically designated (by Metropolitan Council) regional trails and special uses. E Support facilities which provide no direct service to users. F Lower priority acquisitions and developments. The list is used to assign priority but is not absolute in itself. Experience has shown that (1) all the high priority projects in the CIP cannot be accom- plished in a single biennium, and (2) not all projects in any category are immediately ready. Some can only be accomplished in the more distant future. Hence, some category "D" projects, ready immediately, may be funded despite the fact that there are unfinished category "B" projects. Projects receive prior- ity both by the category to which they are assigned and by the biennium to which they are allocated. A separate priority process is used for projects after the Council finds out what funds are available for a specific biennium. At that time, an implementa- tion plan shows, as specifically as possible, when each project is to be funded in the time period according to anticipated revenues. The implementation plan is adopted by the Council yearly to reflect available capital. Revisions to both the CIP and implementation plan are made following consulta- tion by the commission and the Council with implementing agencies and other interested persons, preparation of a draft for hearing, a public hearing, preparation of responses to comments at the hearing, and preparation of a final draft which is considered and adopted by the Council following commission and Council recommendations. 5 Related Questions: 1. In your opinion, what are the greatest needs for the regional system? Where are problems the greatest? Are the categories for priority the most appropriate statements the Council can make to direct the acquisition of land and development of facilities for regional recreation open space? 3. Do the categories and the goal and objective statements of the Council match? Do both direct the system to the same point and will it meet regional needs for recreation open space? 4. Is the process by which priorities are decided adequate and appropriate? How might it be improved? ISSUE 4. Should there be a change in the scope of the regional system or the Council s role in implementing the system? The regional recreation open space system emphasizes natural resource based recreation opportunities (picnicking, swimming, boating, fishing, trail uses, camping and nature interpretation). A few existing special uses include a zoo, a conservatory and a floral display garden. Regional system components now are: o Park Reserves large, open, natural areas. o Regional Park moderately large, open spaces with good recreation resources such as lakes. o Regional Trail Corridors linear parkland for trail activities. o Regional Historic Parks areas of regional historic importance. o Regional Special Recreation Use Areas areas which support unique recreation uses for the region. Related Questions: 1. Should the system incorporate more special recreation uses? If so, what kind? 2. Would providing some special attractions in certain parks encourage use or redistribute use to new parks? Would that be desirable? 3. Does the region have a responsibility for unique or unusually large rec- reation facilities now provided by municipalities? What would the benefits or drawbacks be of bringing these into a regional plan? 4. Are there some traditionally municipal facilities that are not being ade- quately provided or might be discontinued? What are they? Is there a regional responsibility for these? 5. Are the current classifications and definitions of regional system com- ponents appropriate? Should some be deleted or others added? Should some be modified? 6 ISSUE 5. What's needed for regional operation and maintenance funding policies? In 1984, the Council adopted a position statement on regional 0 M funding for parks and declared an intent to seek legislation in 1985 which would authorize a program of supplementary 0 M grants to implementing agencies and provide state funding, therefore the discussion on pages 31 -34 of the 1980 Policy Plan is no longer current. Policy 22 reads: The regional recreation open space system should be analyzed and recom- mendations formulated to achieve equitable outdoor recreation opportunities and consistent operating policies throughout the Metropolitan Area financed by an adequate, stable and equitable revenue source. By adopting its position, the Council responded to several 1980 policy questions including: The Council determined that there is a need and that a solution lies in a supplementary program of regional 0 M funding. The goals of the proposed program include: o Facilitating system plan implementation. o Meeting acceptable levels of service system wide (a definition is provided). o Reducing undesirable differences in costs and needs for 0 M in the system. The Council has suggested a stable source of state funds for the program which it believes will be adequate and fair. Related Questions: 1. Do you agree with the Council's position on 0 M funding? What do you recommend? 2. What policies are needed to guide a regional 0 M funding program? 3. How should 0 M in regional parks be measured? How can one tell what services and /or levels of service are appropriate? 4. What safeguards are necessary to a regional 0 M funding program? How should they be provided? ISSUE 6. Is it appropriate and fair to charge fees in regional parks? The current policy plan does not mention fees charged regional park users by implementing agencies. Fees charged are primarily one of two types. The first is fees for special recreational services, product sales, or revenue from con- cessions for special services or sales. These have not been questioned except in the appropriateness of the kind or level of activity for some single enter- prise. Basically, there seems to be agreement that special services should be paid for by users. The second type, fees charged for entry, for parking, or other fees which have the effect of admission fees, have received more attention. Most of the imple- menting agencies do not charge such fees. Of those which do, some charge only for certain sites, others charge for all vehicles entering all parks. Some collect by parking meters, some by daily and annual stickers. Related Questions: 1. Are general fees for regional parks appropriate, or should basic entry be free for all users? 2. Are fees which have the effect of general admissions discriminatory against user groups such as low income, minorities, physically handicapped, and peo- ple who do not live nearby, as opponents say, or, are they basically fair in that they are paid by those who use the parks most, as proponents say? 3. If it is reasonable to charge a general fee, would it make sense to apply a uniform entrance fee to all regional parks? Should it be the same as the state park fee? Should it be an actual statewide park sticker with revenues shared by state parks and regional parks? What is a reasonable mechanism to charge a regional park user fee (if one is desirable)? Could it be a license rather than a parking sticker? Would something like the Winter Carnival and Aquatennial badge system work? Any other ideas? ISSUE 7. Is there a need for a comprehensive marketing plan for the regional open space system? What s the Council s appropriate role in facilitating public use of the regional recreation open space system? Offering a balanced system, with equitable recreation opportunity across the Region, may not be enough. A low level of awareness could be a problem. Some times, a problem is in what people perceive to be limits on their use. The 1980 policy plan accurately states that there is no general public image of a comprehensive regional park system. Policy 23. The Council will coordinate, with the implementing agencies, a public information program to make the public more aware of the regional recreation open space system. Public information efforts of the implementing agencies are mostly localized- dealing only with parks and programs in their jurisdiction and usually aimed specifically at their constituents. The Council coordinates a limited infor- mation program about the regional system, in concert with the implementing agencies" programs, to make the public more broadly aware. Simple dissemina- tion of information probably does not meet the public's need. One increasingly frequent suggestion is for the Council to coordinate a system marketing plan with the implementing agencies which sets regional objectives including deter- mining potential audiences, informing potential users and evaluating program response, all throughout the regional system. A sample objective might be greater public identity for the regional recreation open space system. The Council is selecting a logo for regional recreation open space. The logo could become an identifier, universal in the regional system, clearly marking all opportunities in all regional facilities. Related Questions: 1. Should there be an effort to: identify programming being offered in regional recreation open space? identify potential users for programs being offered? match users and programs by alerting potential users? evaluate user response to programs and recommend ways to make them more compatible with expressed needs, plus suggest new programs to meet unmet needs? In other words, should there be a coordinated, system -wide, regional marketing program for recreation open space? 2. What role in a coordinated marketing program is Council? For the implementing agencies? 3. Is it appropriate for public agencies to "sell" recreation facilities? appropriate for the users on tax provided 4. Specifically, would it be a good idea for the Council to require that all regional parks and facilities be identified by a conspicuous, well publicized logo? ISSUE 8. Should there be a program for long -term capital maintenance in regional parks? In regional parks which pre -date the regional system, especially in Minneapolis and St. Paul, facilities constructed in WPA days have reached the end of their life. They're important in the regional system; 50 years use by people across the region, and from outside, has established a tradition. Rebuilding these facilities will take place over the next 10 years, using regional funds. No major issue is anticipated as long as regional development funds are adequate. What is not established is how future redevelopment in the regional system is to be funded. Structures, roads, and bridges built with regional funds will require attention starting about the year 2010. Given that the regional sys- tem, from 1974 to 1983, spent approximately $34 million regional dollars for development, and from 1984 -2000 anticipates spending $100 million more, the required funds will be significant. As a specific example from the past, a recent estimate set the 1940 investment at Como Park, including zoo and conservatory, at $662,000. Using a conserva- tive inflation value, the 1940 facilities would cost approximately $7.5 million in 1983 dollars to build today. More zoo and park additions will bring the total anticipated expenditure at Como Park, Zoo Conservatory, by 1990, to approximately $20 million. The current CIP anticipates a total investment, regional and other sources, of approximately $175 million to completely develop (and /or redevelop) regional recreation open space by year 2000. If a 50 -year life span is assumed for all development, what will be needed in the years 2025 -2050? It has been said that our present generation has mortgaged America, to the detriment of the genera- tion which follows, who must retire the mortgage. Can regional parks be an exception to that problem? Related Questions: 1. Should the Council seek an answer now to this problem of the future, or must the future take care of itself? 2. Is the problem one which could be met by an investment or set -aside program begun now? Is there a useful model of a "public trust" which could be adapted? 3. Should the Council and the commission take a pro- active role, working with other levels of government to find a solution? ISSUE 9. Is there a need for guidelines for service levels for development and for operation and maintenance in regional parks? Metropolitan Council staff, working with staff from implementing agencies, have developed draft guidelines for service levels (GSL) for both development and for 0 M. The GSL delineate both the quantity and quality of service which facilities in regional parks will provide (development), and the quantity and quality of service which they can sustain through the maintenance they receive (0 M). The documents are working drafts, to be tried and adjusted in use. Ultimately, proponents feel that GSL offer a way to measure and predict the quality as well as quantity of service returned from investment in regional recreation open space. Opponents say the measures may be so imprecise at the outset as to be meaningless, therefore, misleading to persons attempting to use them. Some view GSL as undue infringement on implementing agency prerogatives, feeling that, as owners and operators, the implementing agencies alone should set service levels in the regional parks for which they are responsible. A draft suggests the definition of appropriate level of service as follows: A level of service which meets all health and safety needs, provides an aesthetically pleasing environment, maintains the quality of both natural and built resources, and permits a satisfactory recreation experience up to the facility's designed capacity and lifetime. Both Policy 22 and the 1980 text get to "levels of service" in the areas of development and 0 M. However, the current plan has no definition nor are any levels set. Related Questions: 1. Is it important that the regional system meet minimum acceptable service levels throughout? Who (and how) decides what they are? Is the suggested definition (above) appropriate? Adequate? 2. Is the difficulty of developing usable service level guidelines such that they are worth pursuing or not? 3. If usable GSL can be written, should they become part of the policy plan? (The Council has other separate guidelines which are not part of policy plans.) me ropo 10 ISSUE 10. What's the status of local or municipal recreation o•en space in the an sys em. a s ou e ounci s invo vemen •e in Working from municipal comprehensive plans, the Council has assembled data, and will report on the condition of local recreation open space in terms of what acreage is provided, in what categories, by planning areas (MDF zones). The report will help to identify municipal recreation open space needs in the region and should help in priority development for grant reviews. The report will not be adequate to complete a comprehensive regional plan for local or municipal recreation needs. Much of what local recreation provides is in the form of facilities, that is, built resources, necessary for active recreation. That part of recreation demand in the Region will require continuing Council study to complete future reports. Related Questions: 1. Is it appropriate and important for the Council to analyze and coordinate local efforts in the metropolitan recreation system? Would it be helpful to the region? 2. Would Council- offered technical assistance help communities do more effective long -range planning for recreation services? 3. Related to issue 11 as well as issue 10; should there be rewards to those communities which grant consent to regional park acquisition and develop- ment within their jurisdiction and, conversely, should there be penalities to those which do not? 4. Is it correct to state that municipalities more often need active recrea- tion facilities rather than the recreation open space which the regional plan tends emphasize? How strongly is this true? How might the Council "s recreation open space plan change to help with problems? 5. Would it be helpful to local recreation agencies and their users if a program were developed which coordinated the needs of local agencies with programs available in the regional recreation open space system? ISSUE 11. What is an appropriate level of municipal participation and control in the developing regional regional recreation open space stem? The 1974 parks act says that: ...(the implementing agency)...shall prepare, after consultation with all affected municipalities, and submit...a master plan. The policy plan uses similar language in policy 9: Each implementing agency is responsible for preparing a master plan for each regional system unit assigned to it by this policy plan. An imple- menting agency shall present the master plan to affected local units of government and addresss their concerns prior to submission to the Council. 11 The intent seems plain. Some municipalities have stated that their access to master plans has come only after the agency has adopted the plan, making subs- tantive change to meet their concerns improbable. If this has happened, it is not consistent with policy. From another point of view, some implementing agencies cite cases in which municipalities have delayed plan approval unduly in some cases insisting upon conditions which work against the agency or the regional interest. Some imple- menting agencies have been prevented from installing needed improvements, even developments for which the municipalities had given earlier concept approval. There are differences in the laws which control implementing agencies from one jurisdiction to another and some of these have, on occasion, blocked an implementing agency from going ahead with regional projects. One major effect some municipalities have exerted upon regional open space has been special assessments levied against parks. The Council, the commission and some of the implementing agencies have stated increasing concern over the pro- cess by which municipalities have made special assessments against regional parkland, questioning if they were based upon actual benefits to the park. Other concerns are about how assessments should be paid and when they should be set. One remedy suggested is that the municipality and the implementing agency could agree to treat the master plan as a conditional use permit, possibly meeting at once concerns on the part of the municipalities, the implementing agency and the Council about the current planning process. Related Questions: 1. How much control over regional park development should municipalities have? What happens if more than one municipality is involved? 2. Are the problems real and large enough to be worth bothering about? 3. If an implementing agency and municipality agreed to treat a regional park master plan for development as a conditional use permit, would it help resolve the problems cited? 4. Is there a simpler and, therefore, better way to deal with the concerns? 5. What are the "pluses and minuses" to a municipality from a regional park located within or adjacent to its boundaries? ISSUE 12. How much leadership does or should the Council's recreation open space program provide in the area of affirmative action and minority business enterprises? Currently, the policy plan for recreation open space does not address this issue. In its recent contracts, the Council (May 1983) has inserted language as follows: The Council shall not discriminate...on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, affectional or sexual preference, age, political affiliate, marital status, or status with regard to public Related Questions: 12 assistance or disability. The Council shall act affirmatively, through its minority business enterprise program, and otherwise, to promote and enter into contracts with minority business enterprises (MBEs), and firms having effective, implemented affirmative action programs. The clause in the Council's regional and open space acquisition and development grant contracts, since 1974, is as follows: g. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable laws relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action and public purchase, involvement and use. In particular, Grantee agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, reli- gion, sex or national origin and to take affirmative action to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, lay -off, termination, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training. In 1984, the 1975 clause appears less than adequate. Related Questions: 1. Does the Council's current recreation open space program provide adequate leadership in Affirmative Action and Minority Business Enterprise (AA /MBE) questions? 2. Would any of the following alternatives better the status quo? Insert an AA /MBE clause in the policy plan as an added objective? Require an AA /MBE statement from the responsible implementing agency as a content element of each master plan? Requ re proof of an a3equuoatse Affirmative Action and Minority Business Enterprise program as a contract element for all subsequent regional recreation open space grants? Ali of the awe? None of the above? Another way? ISSUE 13. Now much environmental information should be required in regional park master plans? In recent years, some park master plans have been challenged over the adequacy of their review for environmental impacts from the proposed development. The challenge often has come from local resident groups. The plans have generally withstood the challenges. In at least one case, review of the planning process showed that preparation of the master plan had gathered the equivalent of the information needed to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under Minnesota environmental laws. 1. In your opinion, does,the current regional master planning process ade- quately address environmental concerns about park development? 13 2. Should master plan preparation, as a matter of course, incorporate preparation of an,EAW? 3. If yes, should it be prepared and circulated separately or should it be required as part of a master plan, the contents of which are spelled out in the policy plan? ISSUE 14. To what extent should revenues from non- recreation use of regional parklands be controlled? Some implementing agencies have realized revenues from non- recreation activity on land purchased for regional parks. Most comes from continuing existing uses. Agencies have collected agricultural land rent or crop shares. Some have rented or leased buildings. A lesser amount has come from sale of build- ings and equipment. Its important to remember that the implementing agencies are the owners and operators of the regional park. According to the 1980 policy plan, the implementing agencies are restricted to using such revenue for costs which are grant eligible. Policy 20 states: Grants to implementing agencies will be made for acquisition and development as follows: o Acquisition grants will include land costs, relocation assistance, land stewardship, utility assessments and fees for services performed by other than agency staff. o Revenue from interim land uses will be used by the agency for grant- eligible costs. o Grants for development will include improvements within the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors of recreational facilities, utilities, landscaping, roads and parking, building construction, and maintenance facilities to serve the particular unit; as well as natural resource rehabilitation within park reserves. o System -wide improvements are grant eligible. When such eligible system -wide facilities are also used for other than regional park purposes, the regional funding will be on a negotiated prorated basis. Barring plan change, if 0 M grants become part of the regional program, interim revenues could presumably support 0 M. The 1980 plan does not allow revenues from interim uses to be applied to 0 M. Certain of the implementing agencies suggest that the plan mistakenly assumed all regional parks were purchased undeveloped and that no recreation use could occur until regional development grants are made. Interim management of parks is confined to stewardship because no operation is believed to be feasible in the undeveloped parks. In fact, several regional parks have been put into service in the interim between acquisition and development, creating operating costs which policy says cannot be supported by interim revenues. The agencies feel they should be permitted to use interim revenues to support interim 0 M costs. SA2082- PHOPN1 5.30.84 1 14 Two arguments against-freeing up interim revenue use are: Policy should not endorse management which is aimed at generating maximum revenue over a prolonged period. That is not the purpose for which the land was acquired. Interim uses could be viewed by surrounding municipalities as a source of tax revenues. Land put into recreation open space has been removed from tax rolls for a public use. If it is used as a revenue generator by other use for some extended time, the municipality from which the land was removed might feel it has a supportable claim. Related Questions: 1. What limits, if any, are appropriate to place on generation and expendi- tures of revenues earned from non- recreation activity in regional recrea- tion open space? 2. Is generation of revenue a reasonable use of part of a regional park if it supports recreation services elsewhere? MEMO TO: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: EDWARD MEISTER DATE: JUNE 20, 1984 REGARDING: SYNOPSIS OF EAGAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FIELD MANUAL PURPOSE The purpose of this manual is to provide individuals with precise practices that, when implemented, abate the problems of accelerated erosion resulting from human construction activities. This manual is provided for by Chanter_ 13.30, Subdivision 13, of the Eagan City Codes. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EROSION CONTROL There are nine essential principles of erosion and sediment control upon which all of the conservation practices are based, as follows: (1) The disturbed area and the duration of exposure to erosion elements should be minimized. (2) Stabalize disturbed areas immediately. (3) Keep storm water runoff velocities low. (4) Protect disturbed and steep areas from storm water runoff. (5) Control, reduce, and delay storm water runoff. (6) Retain sediment. (7) Fit the activity to the topography and soils. (8) Do not encroach upon watercourses. (9) Implement a thorough maintenance and follow -up program. CONSERVATION PRACTICES The manual is primarily composed of conservation or soil erosion abatement practices to be employed for specific land disturbing activities. The major divisions of the practices are as follows: (A) ROAD STABILIZATION (B) SEDIMENT BARRIERS MEMO TO: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS DATE: JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE TWO (C) DIKES and DIVERSIONS (D) SEDIMENT TRAPS and BASINS (E) FLUMES (F) WATERWAYS and OUTLET PROTECTION (G) DRAINAGE PROTECTION (H) PLANT ESTABLISHMENT (I) MULCHES (J) TREES Each practices, 26 in all, gives a practice description, const- ruction specifications, conditions where practice applies, and a maintenance section of the implemented practice. Some practices, for example 7.2 SUBSURFACE DRAIN, include planning considerations and design criteria that are fully illustrated. ENFORCEMENT The process of implementing the manual will be facilitated by the standardized forms on pages 178 -186 that have been developed. These are as follows: SCREENING FORM, APPLICATION FOR LAND DISTURB- ING PERMIT, INSPECTION REPORT, NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT, AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A SUBDIVISION. A construction project is subject to inspection at any time. The inspector should notify the owner or his representative before conducting an official inspection. If the inspection determines that there is a violation on the site, it is his job to secure compliance. At first a verbal warning or an inspector report is used as an initial notification that there is problems. If the problem persists, the inspector will issue a Notice to Comply which outlines the corrective measures which must be taken and the deadline for compliance. The next stage of enforcement actions could involve permit revocation, governing performance guarantee on the project to implement the conservation plan. Final stage of enforcement would be bringing criminal charges against the owner since a violation of the manual is a misdemeanor. use of manual The manual will operate as the City's official erosion control policy and procedure document. The management practices will be useful for the conservation plans submitted for each development project. The conservation plan is an independant document, narrative and site plan, that deals soley with the control of erosion and sedimentation. The Eagan Manual will facilitate a standardization of conservation practices that is often missing from the conservation plans. MEMO TO: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS DATE: JUNE 20, 1984 PAGE THREE Each management practice has its own code number, coded letter symbol, and drawn symbol indicator for use on site plans and conservation plans. GOOD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Good construction management requires an understanding of three basic principles; 1. Erosion contol is the first line of defense. 2. Sediment control is the second line of defense. 3. Coordination of erosion and sediment controls will maximize effectiveness. EAM /mam EDWARD MEISTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 June 26, 1984 JOANN ELLISON DIR OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION INDigtgoot DIST In 14445 bIAMOND PATH ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 Dear JoAnn: city of aagan Recently the staff and Directors of Parks Recreation in District 196 communities were able to meet and discuss school utilization by our communities recreation programs. You will recall that this meeting was prompted by our joint discussion on May 30 and Eagan's request for gym space in school district facilities. I wish I could report that the meeting concluded with the resolution of the space needs problem. Unfortunately, I can not. The meeting can best be characterized as one that was open, frank and serious in its attempts to resolve the issue. However, not unlike many issues, there are complexities and sub issues to consider and resolve. At this time, each of us is evaluating and attempting to come to some decision on these sub issues. One area in which agreement was reached is in the need to know what space will be made available by the school district. Is the space formerly used by the Cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount the only hours /space available or is there additional space beyond last year's use? Can Community Education improve upon its overall space utilization and room assignments which would create additional gym space for allocation to our community recreation programs? I believe answers to these questions would help us immensely, at least in the short run, in allocating space to each of the various programs /cit- ies. We, Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan, are looking for some policy direction in space allocation by Community Ed. Our long range program planning efforts will need to be guided by some overall district policy /priority if we are to effectively address program needs within individual communities as well as collectively. You have our assurance of participation in the development of the policy, but we believe the initial work must come from Community Education. THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk We now believe the next step is for Community Education to first address the space availability question and the policy guidelines. We recognize that with fall and winter programming planning already in progress, we will have to be ready to act quickly and decisively to achieve our overall goal of fair and equitable space allocation. As soon as you are able to define available space, we would like to meet to review. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in expediting the "space available" issue. We will look forward to hearing and meeting with you con.erning this. On B= J /alf/ /Of The Communities, Ken Vraa Director of Parks Recreation Eagan KV /js CC: Jon Gurban, Apple Valley Dave Bechtold Rosemount Greg Konat Burnsville Steve Michaud Lakeville Tom Hedges City Administrator Advisory Parks Rec Comm City Council MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: JIM STURM DATE: JULY 6, 1984 SUBJECT: HEINE STRASSE BICYCLE CONNECTION On Wednesday, June 20, I met with Mr. Keith Olson (Lot 9, 4272 Heine Strasse) to discuss the layout of the bicycle trail connection from Heine Strasse to Clemson Court. City staff's intent was to keep the path's visual impact to a minimum and still provide a safe, uninterrupted flow of bicycle movement. The path was to be relatively flat (street level) to the back of the Olson residence, thus eliminating a long gradual "runway" effect from the cul -de -sac. The bituminous surface has to be as close to Lot 8 as possible for two reasons: 1) The Olson residence is close to the easement and the extra two feet would be desirable for Lot 9, and 2) Lot 9 and the house are quite low; the two extra feet would allow a more gradual "feathering in" to the existing conditions. The Parks Department did the rough grading and layed the base course material. At that point the Road Department took over and did the finishing grading, eliminating any cross pitch and bumps. At the turning point, an area approximately ten feet long was leveled out providing a safer turning radius. The City's 8' tailgate paver was used to lay the bituminous material. The turning point was hand formed to the desired radius and the entire trail was then rolled to a very smooth finish. There has been concern expressed by Mr. Olson for the possible need of timbers along his property line. He has plans to make a timber planter wall in the corner of his lot and along the easement. The Parks Director has offered to provide the timbers for the easement side but no labor as black dirt and sod would be sufficient for the requirements of the Park Department. 74:n4 N et TitiN 10 OEN 411■1 111111U111111111M11M111 11111111P1M1111111111111,4 r MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RE7CREATION COMMISSION 1 FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION DATE: JUNE 11, 1984 RE: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION JUNE 14 The special meeting of the Advisory Parks Recreation Commission is called for June 14 beginning at 6:30 P.M.. Members will meet at the entrance to Blackhawk Park at Riverton and Palisade Way. Tim Erkkila will be available at that 6:30 meeting. After the on -site tour of Blackhawk Park, members will proceed to Thomas Lake Park for a view of the general area along Thomas Lake Road and Highline Trail to the east. Following the tour and discussion of these two items deferred from the regular Commission meeting, we will proceed back to City Hall for further discussions regarding staffing levels and alternatives for parks develop- ment. Item 3 for the agenda is a continuation of the discussion regarding the strategy /staffing up for the Parks Development Program. As was discussed at the regular meeting, there are three basic alternatives for carrying out the development program. To recap, the first alternative constitutes the contracting out of all design services. Design services would include the further development and refinement of the basic site plans, specification development, bid letting and projects inspections. The second alternative is the exact opposite of "contracting out This would be the hiring of a landscape architect experienced in design and detail work including bid specifications to be an internal City representative. The third alternative is the utilizations of a project management team which would monitor and guide the development program. Management ser- vices, however, would not provide design and engineering skills. Rather their chief function is to oversee the project. As mentioned, and en- closed for your review, is a proposal from Boshardt Christenson Corpora- tion for providing management services. Members will find it interesting to read this proposal, not only from the standpoint that it is an alter- native but to also understand the work that will need to be accomplished, whether it be done by City staff or outside consultants. Also attached is a chart which depicts the three alternatives, some advantages and disadvantages of each as well as estimated cost. In response to several questions that were raised at the Commission meeting, I provided the following information and restatement to assist in your understanding. STAFFING: Relative to current staffing, the department is authorized a parks fore- man and six maintenance positions, one of which is the City forester. As of March 1, 1984, the department was also authorized for one additional full time maintenance position. This position is still vacant pending discussion. The department also has authorized seasonal positions for summer and winter. Accumulatively this amounts to approximately 3200 hours of labor. Secretarial services are provided by one secretary shared with the Build- ing Inspections Department. This is the equivalent of one -half secretary for the Parks Recreation Department. Recreational services are the responsibility of a recreational programmer who is assisted in the summer and winter by "assistants" (seasonal employees who help). Under the M.E.E.D. Program, the department has also been able to utilize the services of Jim Sturm. Jim has been providing basic landscape archi- tectural services to the department over the last five months. His last day is scheduled to be July 16. During this six months period, Jim has performed a variety of tasks. These tasks have included developing base maps for parks, graphic illustrations, landscaping plans, etc.. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Response to the question of what a landscape architect /parks planner would do beyond design /specifications /inspections in the referendum program, I have attached a draft job description for this position. The title "landscape architect" infers that the individual is involved strictly with design activities. In fact, experienced landscape archi- tects are involved in a variety of tasks essential to an expanding com- munity. DESIGN TEAM: The "design team" that is being proposed will be headed by the Director of Parks Recreation. Other members of the design team would include the designated landscape architect for the project development. Other members of the design team would fluctuate with the project. For example at times the design team might include the chief building inspector or members of the Inspection Department when dealing with building issues. The electrical inspector would be involved with those items dealing with lighting. City personnel from the Engineering Department consulted with engineering questions and review of alternatives. Finally, under the internal design program outside expertise could be brought in as needed from contact resources. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: The question was raised as to what additional consulting services would have to be contracted out if an internal landscape architect /planner is chosen. Specific tasks have not yet been identified and are, in a large measure, the direct connection with how fast projects are intended to move. It would be expected, however, that the two most obvious items would be survey work and work dealing with utilities (water, sewer). COSTS: Relative to cost, I believe the attached chart reflects general cost for each of the three alternatives. Clearly, the in -house staffing of design services will be the least expensive. It will also probably be the least expedient. TIME FRAME: A fall construction time frame will require a decision by the Commission and City Council within the next two weeks. Whichever alternative is chosen, it will be essential that the chosen alternative will allow the design team to be in place no later than the 10th of July. This is an extremely tight time frame, but will have to be met if fall construction is anticipated. The rationale for this timetable is as follows: Assuming that we would dormant seed any fall project by November 10, initial grading would have to begin at least five weeks in advance. This would allow for all stripping and stockpiling of topsoils, rough grading, fine grading, inspections and preparation of soils for seeding. This would mean that a contractor would have to be on site by October 1. Allowing for only one week to finalize an approved bid and three weeks for bid advertisement, this will bring the project to September 1. This will only allow between July 15 and this September 1 deadline to do all detail design, planning, bid specification, preliminary cost estimating, public reviews and approvals by both Commission and Council. Clearly this is an extremely tight time frame and can only be achieved if there are no delays in the process. I hope you will find this information useful and informative to the discussion process. KV /js Attach. MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECREATION .00 DATE: JUNE 14, 1984 RE: NORTHWESTERN BELL UTILITY BUILDING At the last Advisory Parks Recreation Commission meeting, Commission entertained the request from Northwestern Bell Telephone for a utility building on park prop- erty. The utility building was to be placed on ChesMar Park immediately off of Lexington Avenue. On Wednesday, June 13, City staff members met with Mr. Ray Nelson and Mr. John Gerbozy, Real Estate Marketing Supervisor for Northwestern Bell. At that meeting, staff presented the Commission's concerns relative to the placement of this util- ity building on park property. The first concern was to minimize the impact on the site by placing the facility closer to the roadway and property lot lines. The second concern was relative to the turn around driveway access and third, the coloration of the building. These issues were addressed with Northwestern Bell. A new location was tentatively staked which, we believe, significantly reduces the impact upon existing vegetation. Further, Northwestern Bell has agreed to a straight drive -in provided it can be 12' in width. Apparently, they believe this width is necessary for proper servicing and vehicle access. Staff believes this width is available and could be granted. Relative to the building proper, Northwestern Bell is in agreement to change the building materials to meet our request and has, in fact, consented to a wood frame building should this be a desirable alternative. A question was also raised relative to the cost for easements or land acquisition in the City. This building and site will consume approximately 900 sq. ft.. Assuming a $10,000 initial cash payment for this area, the City will be receiving in excess of $10 per square foot which is well above the going market rate for even commercial or industrial property. There appears to be no other alternatives for Northwestern Bell for the location of this utility building. However, staff is concerned, as the Parks Commission is concerned, about setting precedent for the location of this or any other facility, i.e. fire stations, pump houses and the like, on park property. Unfortunately this precedent has already been set with a number of other facilities on park property. It will be incumbant upon the Commission and City, as it has done here, to act firmly in insuring that such needs are well documented and are the least disruptive to the site as conceivably possible. COMMISSION ACTIONS: Because of the urgency of Northwestern Bell and this particular facility, staff is seeking direction of whether it should proceed with the understanding that Northwestern Bell will be able to lease the site or if the recommendation is for rejection. KV /js ALTERNATIVE "Outside" Consulting Firm "Internal" Landscape Architect In -house design detail, bid spec- ifications and site inspection may require using outside help for survey work and utilities. Project Manager(s) COSTS SERVICE Provide design detail, engineering, bid specification and, if desired, site inspections. Provides and monitors schedule for development advance alternatives aids in decision making process. Estimates are between 5.5 and 6.5% of total construction budget plus hourly fee for staff service ranging from $55.00 to $35.00 per hour roughly 6% of $4,000,000 $240,000 One person at $30,000 (max) plus 1/3 for fringe labor costs $40,000 times four years $160,000 One estimate is 2.5% of construction /design costs. 2.5 x 4.5 $112,500 plus direct expense and design fees -(See above). ADVANTAGES (1) Expedite (2) Generally staff to provide a broad range of service from survey work to design to specifi- cations. (1) Best control of project(s) detail, therefore, lends itself to concept of City as general con- tractor. (2) Least expensive of three (3) Most flexible to park needs (1) Keeps projects on track (2) Provides management experience DISADVANTAGES (1) Loss of design control on project particularly the "details" (2) Some loss of continuity project can become "lost" in large firm (3) Will still require staff involvement Finding the "right" individual with a good mix of skills and knowledge. Will still require some outside services. Parks may not progress as fast More work for existing staff. (1) Adds to cost, service does not provide for engineering or design detail. (2) Will reduce staff time for "maintenance items" but not for involvement in project details. 1. "OUTSIDE" CONSULTING FIRM: 2. "INTERNAL" LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 3. PROJECT MANAGER(S): COMMENTS This is the "traditional" method of parks development. My experience with this (on over a half dozen development and redevelopment projects) has been very good, largely because the right firm was obtained and the City design team had built in a number of "decision thresholds" to retain control (at an added monetary expense). The biggest single deterrent in my mind is the loss of contact with details and the review and selection of alternatives. To avoid this pitfall requires a great deal of staff involvement which is nearly impossible to achieve when the design work is done at a separate location. It also becomes a duplication of effort. Again, I've experienced this on a number of projects in the past both large and small favored because it allows better "detail" control; it too involves a great deal of staff time in review and decision making. I believe a "superior product" will be the end result if a capable, experienced individual(s) can be found to fill the role. Cost effective, but often slower than the above, people may get upset because they don't see immediate parks development will place great stress and strain on staff and Commission, concern that one person may not be enough. Project Managers can take a lot of the "administration detail" away from staff allowing efforts to be concentrated on significant design issues. The cost of this at 2.5% for one project manager is reasonable. However, this cost does not include design and engineering another cost additive. For the cost of this "managerial service,"a lot of lesser paid staff assistants could be employed to be part of the design team. ROUGH DRAFT CITY OF EAGAN POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION TITLE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT /PARK PLANNER DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND RECREATION POSITION ACCOUNTABLE TO: DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION NATURE OF WORK: The responsibility of the Landscape Architect /Park Planner shall involve two basic functions. 1. The analysis and long -term planning relating to the City Park System. 2. Provide detailed park plans, specifications, con- struction documents and field inspection of con- tracted work. MAJOR AREAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY: 1. Performs environmental inventory and site analysis of areas proposed for parks. A. Prepares an analysis of a proposed plat development relative to the park area. B. Analyzes and evaluates the potential use of the park within the Master Park Plan. C. Recommends changes which may enhance the park area and proposed residential development. 2. Does planning and design of park areas. A. Prepares site and program analysis. B. Does site plan, construction drawings, cost estimating and writing of specifications. C. Prepares advertisements and receives bids for development and construction. PAGE TWO. D. Does field verification. E. Reviews contractor claims for payment. F. Process contract documents, change orders, etc.. 3. Inspects the installation of plant material, parks equipment or other construction projects to insure that construction is consistent with the design specifica- tion or special provisions. 4. Reviews all subdivision and development plans to insure landscaping is in compliance with the City Ordiance. 5. Performs specialized design functions for development and construction of sidewalks, park and play equipment, trails, street lighting, irrigation, signage, and other related park or City projects. 6. Prepares charts, renderings, plan view and other graphics used in design plans and various reports or studies by the department. 7. Provides illustrations and other work in connection with programs and brochures of the department and the City. 8. Keeps the Director of Parks and Recreation informed as to significant matters on projects assigned that you will need to know to coordinate responsibilities of others. 9. Performs other duties and assumes other responsibilities as a parent or as delegated. EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: 1. The ability to express oneself in writing in a clear and precise manner. 2. Able to oral express oneself clearly and concisely in large group settings including neighborhood park meetings. Page Three. 3. Ability to perform field inspections, maintain field records and notes in an accurate, complete and timely manner to be able to provide necessary project informa- tion. 4. Knowledge and details of construction drawing as well as structural knowledge is necessary. 5. Ability to draft and design work which is neat, complete, creative, accurate and readily understood. 6. A good working knowledge of plant materials, aerial topography, civil engineering, agrimony, botany and biology. 7. An understanding of the bidding procedures and process in developing specifications, working drawings and contract documents. 8. Maintain good working relationship with other City employees, property owners, developers, contractors so work can proceed in an orderly and businesslike manner. 9. Sensitive to landscaping design, form, selection of materials, seasonal variation, maintenance and costs. DESIRABLE KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: 1. Complete knowledge in details of parks planning, designs, construction, grading and drainage. 2. Knowledge of plant materials, soils, hydrology, botany, agronomy and ecology. 3. Knowledge of cost estimating, writing specifications, bid contract documents and procedure of field inspections. 4. Knowledge of construction practice, parks maintenance practices, design criteria. PAGE FOUR. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: Graduation from university with a Bachelor's Degree in landscape architecture. Two -four years experience in analysis and park planning. Able to obtain registration within one year.