05/07/1981 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission•
•
•
AGENDA
ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY HALL
MAY 7, 1981
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ADOPT AGENDA AND APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 1981
3. MINNESOTA VALLEY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE -
PRESENTATION
4. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
a) Winkler/Jackson
b) Orrin Thompson - U.S. Homes
5. OLD BUSINESS
a) Eagan Trails Plan
b) John Voss; Dakota County Commissioner
c) Gifts - Matching Grants
d) Park Names
6. NEW BUSINESS
a) Ridge Cliffe Park - Concept Plan Review
b) Garden Plots
c) Community Brochure
7. OTHER BUSINESS/REPORTS
a) Rahn Park - Grant Submission
b) Tree Planting
c) South Oaks
d) Softball Program
e) June - Advisory Meeting Date
8. ADJOURNMENT
•
•
•
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RE: MAY 7th ADVISORY MEETING
May 1981
After the opening of the May 7th Advisory meeting, representative from
the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge will be making a presentation/up -
date on the plans for the refuge. Enclosed is material for your review
which has been submitted by the refuge.
Two development proposals - Winkler /Jackson (see separate cover memo)
and U.S. Homes - Orrin Thompson are in for committee review. Members
of the sub - committee have had an opportunity to see both land parcels.
Following action on the draft Bicycle Trails Plan, Dakota County
Commissioner, John Voss is to appear before the committee to discuss
the Dakota County Bicycle Trails Plan and recent action taken by the
board as it relates to trails funding. Mr. Voss will also comment on
the new library for Eagan.
On the agenda under old business are two additional items requested at
the May meeting. Enclosed is a former memo concerning the gift policy,
dated December 1980.
Ridge Cliffe Park, concept plan review is the first item under new
business. Included in the packet is the material from the park planner.
The Director of Parks and Recreation will present the material, back-
ground, design constraints, etc. Action by the committee to recommend
one of the plans, and modification if necessary, should be made. With
Council approval, the recommended plan will then be given to the developer
for Phase II of the master plan development.
Separate cover memo's concerning the two remaining items under new business
are in the packet.
If members have any questions concerning agenda items, please contact
the office.
• CONCEPTS
•
•
SUMMARY OF CONCEPT PLANS
Minnesota
Valley
� 1
December 17, 1980
MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, RECREATION AREA, AND STATE TRAIL
The 1976 federal legislation authorizing the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge and Recreation Area mandated that a multi- agency effort be made to
protect the Minnesota Valley's wildlife resources while also providing the
opportunity for wildlife- oriented recreation and environmental education in the
metropolitan area. Accordingly, the Fish and Wildlife Service-and the
Department of Natural Resources have coordinated an effort during the past year
and a half to develop a comprehensive land use plan for the legislatively -
designated refuge and recreation units and to also determine the best location
for the state corridor trail previously authorized in 1969. During this year,
the planning team has also sought continued feedback from local communities,
organizations, and individuals interested in these plans for the Minnesota
Valley. This week's public meetings offer another opportunity for public
participation in the planning process.
The three concepts that are presented here for public review all attempt to
balance the sometimes - conflicting needs for protection of the valley's wildlife
resources and development of its recreational opportunities. A11 plans first
address the need to preserve and protect the resource. They then vary with
respect to the intensity of public use and resource management provided.
Common to all plans is the establishment of the state corridor trail and the
provision by some neighboring communities of support facilities for that
corridor.
Concept A represents a policy of minimum management and public use: simple
preservation of the resource is the primary goal of this alternative. This
plan thus calls first for the acquisition of the land and then for preservation
of it just as it is. Wildlife management practices would be limited as would
recreational activities. The corridor trail would be the primary trail
developed according to this plan and other recreational activities (such as
environmental education, hunting, and bird - watching) would be restricted.
Unlike Concept A, Concepts B & C include provisions for more extensive resource
management for wildlife and recreation. Plan B includes the introduction both
of more recreational activities and of more refuge management practices than
Plan A while Plan C provides for even more intensive management and use than
Plan B. Plan C, in fact, suggests what may be the maximum amount of wildlife
management and recreation that could be sustained by the refuge and recreation
area without harm to the resource.
Specifically, Plans B and C designate more trail access points and trail heads
than are found in Plan A. These two plans also include designs for special -
use loop trails that would connect to the corridor trail, thus providing
additional recreational interest for different kinds of trail users. Canoe
campsites and trail campsites would also be maintained in designated spots
according to these plans. In terms of refuge management, Plans B and C
propose the restoration and construction of water control structures that
would help stabilize some of the floodplain lakes. Also, vegetation
management (e.g. selective cutting and burning) would be practiced more
extensively in order to enhance a diversity of wildlife habitats in the
valley. Agricultural lands might, for example, be converted to specific
vegetative community types (needed for certain kinds of wildlife) or used
for the demonstration of biological farming practices.
As mentioned, Plan C goes further than Plan B in its management of the refuge
and recreation areas. Plan C, for example, shows the greatest number of loop
trails, access points and trail heads of the three plans. Additionally, Plan
C would have some interpretive trails and a more extensive environmental
education program. It might also include more interpretation and use of
historic sites in the valley (such as those in the Louisville Swamp area).
This plan also calls for the establishment of a Fish and Wildlife Service
administration headquarters in the vicinity of Rice Lake. In terms of
resource management, it includes plans for wetland restoration (at Nyssens
Lake) and for more extensive use of water control structures and vegetation
management techniques.
None of these three conceptual plans is preferred over another by the planning
team at this time. Together, Plans A, B, and C define a continuum showing
three possible levels of development and management within the Minnesota Valley
Refuge and Recreation Area. We encourage you to examine closely the attached
maps illustrating these alternatives and to then offer any suggestions you have
regarding them to the planning team. As you do so, please keep in mind the
primary purposes of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation
Area, as defined by Public Law 94 -466. The law states that the refuge/
recreation area was established to:
1. Preserve, protect, and manage the resource so that habitat
for migratory waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife species
will not be lost.
2. Provide opportunities for the study and enjoyment of wildlife
in its natural habitat through the establishment of a wildlife
interpretation and education center.
3. Provide opportunities for wildlife- oriented recreation.
Thank you.
•
•
•
May 1981
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RE: WINKLER- JACKSON ADDITION
Background: On the "development" agenda for May 7th is the
Winkler- Jackson addition (see attachment). This proposed
addition is in park service area 31 W. The City comprehensive
plan indicates there are no proposed park facilities in the
service area because of the isolated location, the limited
size, and the very rugged terrain characteristics. Furthermore,
the comprehensive plan indicates that a cooperative agreement
be reached with the City of Burnsville to utilize Burnsville's
park facilities, as well as to define a pedestrian system to
inter - connect the neighborhoods. Population projections for
this section were estimated at 275 by 1990 by the comp plan.
Review: Several members of the Advisory Committee and the
Director reviewed the parcel in question in order to familiarize
themselves with the topography and to inspect the area's
general suitability for a park.
The members of the Advisory Committee found the site to be very
rugged with severe grades, dense vegetation, and ponding.
Consequently, there would be some limitation on the possible
development of active park space, which would be expensive for
development.
Since the proposal contains approximately 61 acres of residential,
approximately 6 acres of land would be dedicated under current
land dedication requirements. This acreage is below the 10 -15
acres sought for a neighborhood park. The total park size could
be increased should future developments to the south provide
park land adjoining this dedication, if the committee felt this
to be desirable.
At this time, the applicant has not submitted the number of
housing units anticipated, therefore, the possible population
to be served is not available.
Excluding Burnsville's Park, Eagan's nearest park facilities
are Rahn, River Hills 9. Vienna Woods, and the athletic fields
at Metcalf Jr. High. Although these facilities are relatively
nearby, they are somewhat difficult to reach because of the
isolated nature of this parcel.
•
•
WINKLER - JACKSON ADDITION - Memo
Page 2
Alternatives /Comments:
Although there was limited information concerning the proposed
developments at the time members reviewed the parcel, several
alternatives were discussed.
I. Require Parks Dedication:
Because of the potential for a large population in an
isolated area.
Comments:
1. Small size of park.
2. Development would be expensive due to topography
and vegetation.
3. Active space may be limited due to topography
and vegetation.
II. No Land Dedication:
1. Numerous parks within the area.
2. Due to topographic constraints, it would appear
that carefully planned developments would provide
passive amenities (i.e. open space, trails, park
space)
3. Possibility of acquiring land further to the
south at a later date, if needed.
Comments:
1. Provision for some active space, play area would
not be met.
2. Area to the south has greater slopes and large pond -
generally more severe park limitations than on the
Winkler /Jackson parcel.
III. Developer Provide Facilities:
Within development, developer may be required to provide
some active, as well as passive space under juris-
diction of neighborhood association, if such association
is proposed.
Comments:
1. Size, quality, and location of such open space
may be affected by developer's plan.
2. Control of space to a neighborhood association is
of some concern. Residents from other neighborhoods
could be excluded by the homeowner association.
•
WINKLER- JACKSON ADDITION - Memo
Page 3
IV. Combination Land /Cash Dedication:
• Require some land to provide at least a limited park area.
(2 -3 acres) with either cash or credit for the developer
to assist in the financing of the potentially high
development cost.
Comments:
1. Isolated neighborhood, with potentially numerous
residents.
2. Major ball field facilities within 1 mile - Rahn
and Metcalf - therefore smaller park should be
able to provide sufficient "informal play" space.
3. Potentially high development costs for small park
area.
Mr. Winkler has been asked to attend the May 7th meeting
to answer questions concerning the development.
Residents from the neighborhood - Slater's Acres - will
also be attending the meeting seeking a neighborhood park
for this section of the community. A Ms Zempel has contacted
the park office and indicated that Mr. Fred Drexler will
be speaking for the neighborhood, concerning the need for
a park.
• Should members have any questions in regards to this matter,
please contact the office prior to the meeting.
•
•
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORTED BY:
APPLICATION SUBMITTED :
LAND USE
CITY OF EACAN
SUBJECT: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINKLER/JACKSON
ADDITION
AP PL I CANT : RICHARD WINKLER DEVELOPMENT CO.
PART OF THE NWT OF SECTION 31
A (AGRICULTURAL)
APRIL 28, 1981
APRIL 22, 1981
DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 92 acres
fran A (Agricultural) to Planned Development District. The proposed planned
development district would include commercial on the north, townhouse and
multiple development in the middle and duplex development an the south.
The second application submitted is a request for preliminary plat, Winkler/
Jackson Addition which would be the first phase of the planned development
which will consist of 7 commercial lots and 10 duplex lots.
Presently the entire 92 acres is zoned A (Agricultural). The Eagan Land Use
Guide proposes the subject parcel to be divided into 3 different land use
categories. There is approximately 15 acres designated as LB (Limited Business
District), 23 acres designated as R -4 (Multiple Development) with a density
range of 12+ units per acre and approximately 54 aces of R -2 (Mixed Residen-
tial)with a density range of 3 -6 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to a PD (Planned Develop-
ment District) which would contain 7.74 acres of neighborhood business, 17.61
acres of limited business for a total of 25.35 acres of commercial develop-
ment. The second category the developer is requesting is 44.77 acres of
R -3 (Residential Townhouse District) not to exceed 7.26 dwelling units per
acre. The third category the applicant is requesting is 14.62 acres +/- of
R -4 (Residential Multiple) which the density would be determined in accor-
dance with the Eagan Zoning Ordinance, and lastly, a parcel which will con-
tain 1.95 acres of R -2 (Residential Duplex) which would contain 5 duplex
buildings, or 10 duplex units. The proposed request is a deviation from the
proposed land use guide. However, the developer believes that with the
• topographic restraints of the property and the location of the property to
Cliff Road and Cedar Avenue, that the proposed development scheme which has
been submitted is feasible and good uses proposed for the site.
CITY OF EAGAN
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINKLER/JACKSON ADDITION
APRIL 28, 1981
PAGE TWO
COMMENTS
At the present time, the applicant does not have detailed plans for exactly
how this area will be developed. He is hoping that he can receive parameters
through the PD (Planned Development) process, and once the parameters and land
uses have been designated, then detailed planning for each of the parcels will
then go through the detailed planning and platting phases for each phase of
development.
According to Ordinance 52.07, Subdivision 6, the submissions for preliminary
approval for a planned development include, 1) a sketch plan, 2) staging plan,
3) park and pedestrian circulation plan, 4) land use plan. When these exhibits
have been approved, the developer will then start the detailed planning and
platting according to the second phase of the planned development process.
The subject parcel is somewhat of an isolated parcel in the City of Eagan.
The parcel is located south of Cliff Road, west of new Cedar Avenue alignment, and
east of the Eagan/Burnsville boundary line. The area to the south is rela-
tively undeveloped at this time. The only development in Eagan is approxi-
mately 16 hares in the Slater's Acres development. The reason the applicant
is requesting to develop the property at this time is that with the construc-
tion of new Cedar Avenue, the access to existing Slater's Acres had been
severed. A joint project between the City of Eagan and the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation, Slater's Road was constructed through this undeveloped
property to provide access to Slater's Acres. The road which has been con-
structed is a 44' collector street with an 80' right -of -way. Since the road
has been constructed, assessments for the road have been levied against un-
developed property. Mr. Winkler has submitted a letter regarding the assess-
ments for this road which he will have to begin paying.
FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT
In addition to the application to rezone to planned development, the appli-
cant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the first phase of development.
Unlike other planned developments, the applicant is proposing to develop the
commercial portion of the planned development in the first phase of develop-
ment rather than having the commercial be in the last phase of the develop-
ment.
The preliminary plat will consist of approximately 27.3 acres and contain
7 commercial lots and 10 duplex lots. The commercial lots are proposed to
have direct access to Slater's Road.
The 10 duplex lots proposed are presently restricted in the depth because of
the existing road which has been constructed to provide access to Slater's
Acres. However, the duplex lots shall contain 15,000 square feet, or 7,500
square feet per unit.
•
•
CITY OF EAGAN
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINKLER/JACKSON ADDITION
APRIL 28, 1981
PAGE THREE
At the present time, the developer does not have exact plans for the commer-
cial area. Therefore, building plans, or site plans for the commercial area
are not available at this time.
OVERALL AREA
As mentioned above, the subject parcel is somewhat isolated in the City of
Eagan. There has been an access road constructed in the property off of
Cliff Road. This is the only access to the property at this time. All of
the streets in the City of Burnsville have been cul- de- saced, or looped, so
there will be no access from the west fran the City of Burnsville. In the
future, the access road which has been constructed will tie in to the City
of Burnsville. This access road has been terminated just south of the sub-
ject parcel. In the future, this road will continue and loop into the City
of Burnsville. However, the exact location has not been determined at this
time. Both Eagan and Burnsville show this connection in their Comprehensive
Plans.
Another factor regarding this site is that there is much
ro topographic relief
throughout this
property. There is also an abundance of vegetation and trees
throughout this entire area. The applicant is requesting the planned develop-
ment proposal for this parcel in order to cluster buildings and densities in
areas which can be developed and save as many of the amenity features which
are the trees and vegetation, and disturb as little of the topography as
possible. If approved, the planned development should be subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. A planned development agreement shall be drafted and executed between
the City of Eagan and the developer prior to the construction of any
phase of the planned development.
2 The planned development shall be subject to Minnesota Department of
Transportation and Dakota County Plat Commission's review and comments.
3. The planned development shall be limited to a 5 -year time period.
4. The park dedication requirement for the residential area shall be deter-
mined by the recommendation of the Eagan Advisory Park Committee.
5. An architectural design shall be established for the commercial area,
and all of the commercial buildings shall follow this architectural theme.
DCR/jac
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS - WINKLER/JACKSON ADDITION
TAC /jac
•
1. Sufficient right- of-way must be dedicated adjacent to Cliff Road pro-
viding for a 75' half right -of -way.
2. A ponding and drainage easement must be dedicated to incorporate the
924.0 elevation around Pond AP -10.
3. Standard 10' drainage and utility easements must be dedicated adjacent
to all public right-of -way.
4. Additional drainage and utility easements for Slater's Road storm sewer
and Pond AP -10 lift station force main outlet must be dedicated at the
time of final plat.
5. An 8' bituminous trailway must be constructed along the south side of
Cliff Road to the Cedar Avenue Bridge.
6. A 6' trail /sidewalk must be constructed along the east side of Slater's
Road.
7. Additional trunk storm sewer assessments must be paid or levied at the
time of rezoning approval to provide for the difference in assessment
rates from R -1 ( Residential) to Multiple and/or Commercial.
SUITE'S
Slater's Road and James Street have been constructed by MrDOT during 1980
to City - approved standards providing access to this proposed plat.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 23, 1981
RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINELEP/JACKSON ADDITION (RICHARD WINKLER)
The Public Works Department has the following its to be considered
during the review of the proposed preliminary plat:
UTILITIES
Watermain of sufficient capacity and pressure has been installed along the
west side of Slater's Road under Project 275 during 1980. Sanitary sewer
of sufficient size and depth to handle this proposed development has been
installed along James St. to the intersection with Slater's Road under
Project 275 during 1980. This sanitary sewer will have to be extended to
provide lateral service as a part of the development of this plat.
This proposed plat incorporates some severe topography and heavily - wooded
land. With the improvement of S1atPr's Road by MnDOT during 1980, adequate
storm sewer facilities were installed which discharged to ponding areas
adjacent to Slater's Road. Continuation of this drainage to the major pond
(AP -10) located on the west side of Slater's Road will have to be provided
for during the development of this plat. This major pond (AP -10) is a part
of the master storm water system for the City of Eagan with a proposed nor-
mal elevation of 919.7, and an estimated high water elevation of 924.0.
This pond presently does not have a positive storm sewer outlet. It will
require the installation of a lift station which will discharge to the MnDOT
pond located in the southeast corner of this plat and through the State
right- of-way drainage system installed as a part of the new Cedar Avenue
Freeway. This lift station installation will be the responsibility of the
City under the major trunk storm sewer fund.
EASEMENTS /RIGHTS -OF -WAY
Adequate and sufficient right -of -way for James Street and Slater's Road
has been acquired by MnDO'r. If necessary, additional right - of-way will
have to be dedicated adjacent to Cliff Road to provide for a minimum 75'
half right -of -way. Standard drainage and utility easements adjacent to
all public right- of-way will be required.
Drainage /ponding easements incorporating the 924.0 elevation will have to
be dedicated for Pond AP -10 on the west side of Slater's Road. All other
internal drainage and utility easements required for the extension of
S1atr Road drainage and/or the proposed future lift station force
main outlet will be required with the final plat.
•
•
•
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WINKLER/JACKSON ADDITION - ENGINEERING REPORT
PAGE TWO
SITE PLAN
The developer has been cooperative in eliminating 2 cul -de -sacs from their
initial proposal in the southwest corner of this plat. However, due to
the topography of the property, the proposed cul- de-sac on the west side
of Pond AP -11 is necessitated due to the topography and tree cover.
An 8' bituminous walkway must be constructed along the south side of
Cliff Road providing pedestrian access to the sidewalk on Cliff Road
Bridge over Cedar Avenue Freeway. In addition, a 6' sidewalk /trailway
should be constructed along the east side of Slater's Road.
ASSESSMENTS
This proposed plat was assessed for trunk storm sewer area under Project
186 at a residential rate. With the proposed rezoning to multiple and
commercial zoning, this will result in an additional $35,669.36 in trunk
storm sewer assessments which will be required to be paid or assessed at
the time of rezoning approval (25.35 acres commercial, 61.34 acres multi-
ple). All other trunk area assessments for utilities and collector
streets have been assessed previously.
I will be available to answer any questions pertaining to this plat at
the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC /jac
•
•
April 15, 1981
Planning Commission Members and City Staff:
I have requested that Mr. Runkle attach this letter to my plans in order
to give you some background on the subject property.
Slater's Road was built jointly by the State Highway Department and the
City of Eagan to serve the people living in Slater's Acres when they had their
access to Cedar Avenue cut off. This 44 foot collector street was constructed
through my (subject) property to get to Slater's Acres.
My (subject) property has been assessed for these improvements which were
installed in 1980. The assessment on the property totals $377,321.30. The
real estate taxes payable in 1981 are $70,108.66, of which $60,668.18
represents this years special assessments. The sanitary sewer still must be
installed in Slater's Road and this will create more special assessments.
With these kinds of specials levied and interest running, it becomes very
important to have the property developed.
We have very carefully taken into consideration the following characteristics
of the property to arrive at our land uses:
1. Existing proximity to Cedar Freeway and Cliff Road.
2. Existing alignment of Slater's Road.
3. Existing open areas, the heavily treed areas and the topography.
4. Existing pond and the natural slope barriers created by it for
different land uses.
6. With all these existing features to theland, we feel it is a one of
kind piece of property and difficult to compare to other developments.
We look forward to our meeting with the planning commission and hope that
together we can designate land uses and densities so the property can be
developed soon.
Thank you.
2 de "
Ric . Winkler
RWW /kjm
Winkler Development Co. 14801 GLAZIER AVENUE. APPLE VALLEY. MN 55124 (612) 432 -7101
5. Existing church and four acres of blacktop abutting the property on the
west.
5
•
•
4 7-
�I J
•
•
KEY
MAJOIC Mk= NWAIriGs
DEPRESSIONS
12% SLOPGS
outimw
•
•
•
■
.k
•
•
To be presented Thursday, May 7, 1981, City hall /by Slaters Acres Residents
7:00 p.m. (Park Commission /Winkhr Dev)
We, as residents of Slaters Acres, meet here with reference
to the proposed rezoning of NW4 Section 31. We feel the area
just north of James Street that Winkler /Jackson Development
has requested to be zoned R4 would be an ideal location for
a mini park, and a desirable location this side of 35E and the
new Cedar Freeway for possible consideration of a tennis court
site, for use by old, and proposed new residents of Eagan.
Along the north side of James Street are gentle slopes free
from pedestrians and traffic to provide for safe sliding,
sleding, or tobaganning, that end in a flat area where sleds
can come to a safe halt. The area is large enough to permit
a side path to be marked on which children can safely walk
their sleds or tobagans back to the top. The area is free of
tree stumps or large rocks.
There is a small pond for winter hockey skating and other winter
skating activities. In the spring and summer months the new
duck families use these small ponds to live on. To the wild-
life, this is the environment they are now accustomed to.
There are trails already cut in here for our winter cross
country skiers from Eagan, Slaters Acres, and Burnsville. The
landscaping for cross - country skiing is ideal.
There is a wide buffer of trees between this area and the new
Cedar Highway.
•
-2-
Our children thoroughly enjoy taking tents and camping out
"in the woods ", so to speak, and in this area they are close
to home yet feel far away. On an overnight excursion they
can experience the enjoyment of nature, yet be safe.
A backboard could be positioned on a grassy spot for tossing
a basketball. Sometimes young people need to just "get away",
and the perfect place would be one we have chosen for them.
To be alone, to think, or for a form of neighborhood playful
activity.
A park is a tract of land for public use in or near a city.
In Slaters Acres we seem to cause a dilemna as we are termed
isolated. With the rezoning, and progressive growth of the
communities around us, and now the question about our own
growth, we will no longer be isolated. That is why we can
see the need for a designated park area. We have none within
a safe distance for our children to play at, or get to. Mr. Hilla
who owns the Southern section of land behind Slaters Acres stated
at the April 28 meeting his area "will be developed shortly
down the road ". Now is the time a park becomes a timely issue,
before this land has been developed to a point where no land
can any longer be designated for park use.
The abundance or scarcity of a population may fluctuate widely,
but there are definite upper and lower limits to its density.
We chose to live in a more primitive society in harmony with
the natural world. Not in a community where each back yard
-3-
becomes the other person's front yard. All environmental
mistakes have a common foundation in man's efforts to
rearrange nature to suit his immediate ends. This is known
as ecological simplification. Interruption over and over
again of the totality or pattern of relations between
organisms and their environment. To make simpler, and simpler,
and simpler - to diminish in scope.
We are proud to still be a particularly rewarding place for
the study of population species but this is only because of
the relative simplicity of our "natural" community. We need
nature paths. We need space for wild -life. We need trees for
owls, and need not disrupt the home of the now present red eagle
family. We have some deer, and we have delightful children
grown, and growing, who because of this natural surrounding
enjoy chipmunks scampering around their yards, mallard ducks
pecking worms off the driveways after the rain, making sure
baby ducks all get into the ponds when something frightens them
and they have run from their mother. Eagan can be a city
like all other cities
sprinkling housing projects, spouting
commercialism, etc., or it can become a community valued and
respected by all as we feel about it now. With more consideration
more concern for it's youth, some parks and wooded areas left
for children and natural animals, birds, etc, Eagan will be
richer then money will ever seem.
We do not feel we should be victims of a population explosion.
I think it is time we take a lead, instead of being followers,
and stick to some of the established goals and beliefs being
printed in our papers. Against commercialism, and with respect
•
-4-
for what our city will reflect in this nation 50 to 100 years
from now. People are leaving the Big Cities. Why? Just
ask that question, why? Because they want to live like we
do now! In a natural, peaceful, more primitive, not over-
crowded environment - with a place for children to play. In
the country as they speak. We can still survive as a city
without being subjected to the reasons why people are moving
out here. That's the bottom line. What do we want in the
future? What will we have to deal with looking at - escalated
traffic conditions, the problem that presents, over - crowding
our school system, splitting districts because they are over
their limits, over - populated areas and no land reserved for
park areas to accommodate the density.
Somewhere there has to be a norm - a place to slow down -
a limit to over -dense areas and provision for children to play.
All these are reasons we are here, we want to live, and chose
in NWT, Section 31
to live in Eagan, and why we feel a park /is indeed a good
investment in the future for Eagan, and its' children.
•
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - LEXINGTON PLACE
APPLICANT: U. S. HOMES CORPORATION
LOCATION: W1/2 of the W1, SECTION 14
EXISTING ZONING: R -4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE DISTRICT)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: APRIL 28, 1981
DATE OF REPORT: APRIL 21, 1981
REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKIE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMIi n u :
The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 59.03
acres from R -• (Residential Multiple District) to R -3 (Residential Townhouse
District).
The second application is a request for preliminary plat approval, Lexington
Place, which consists of approximately 84.62 acres and will contain 260 con-
dominium units and 25 acres of R -4 (Residential Multiple District) zoning.
LAND USE
Presently the entire 84 acres is zoned R -4 (Residential Multiple District)
and would only allow multiple dwellings within this area. The density for
the multiple district ranges from 11 -24 dwelling units per acre based on the
number of stories and the number of bedrooms per unit.
The Eagan Land Use Guide shows the proposed parcel as two different land uses.
The north 1 is proposed for R -3 (Mixed Residential) with a density of 6 -12
dwelling units per acre. The south - of the property is shown as R -2 (Mixed
Residential) with a density range of 3 -6 dwelling units per acre. A copy of
the Land Use Plan is enclosed for your review.
COMMENTS
The R -3 zoning district would contain 59.03 gross acres. The gross density
for this area is 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The net acreage after streets
and rights- of-way have been deducted is 49.05 net acres and would have a net
density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre. Ordinance 52.07, S»h9ivision 4 allows
a maximum density of 6,000 square feet per unit, or 7.26 dwelling units per
acre.
The applicant is proposing to construct 49 buildings, or 169 dwelling units
of the Model 81, 82 and 83 type units. The applicant is also proposing to
construct 8 buildings, or 84 dwelling units of the Model 88 type unit. Total
•
CITY OF EAGAN
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - LEXINGTON PLACE
APRIL 28, 1981
PAGE TWO
number of quadriminium units in the R -3 zoning district would be 260 dwelling
units.
The Model 81 style unit contains 700 square feet plus a garage. Model 82
contains 1,092 square feet plus a garage. Model 83 contains 1,312 square feet
plus a garage. Model 88 contains 1,012 square feet on a upper level plus a
garage. There is an expansion area of 482 square feet in the Model 88 for
a total square footage of 1,496 square feet. NOTE: The Model 83 is the new
style of quadriminium, which is a 3- bedroom unit built on a slab. NOTE: The
Model 88 is the traditional quadriminium which has a total square footage of
1,496 square feet, which is noted above.
The lot coverage on the townhouse development is 12.5 %, which is under the
20% maximum lot coverage for a residential development.
The proposed townhouse units meet all the setbacks from exterior property lines.
The interior streets, or private street setback varies from 24' to 26' setback
from the back of the curb. All dwelling units meet the 30' spacing requirement.
The private drives vary in width depending on the amount of buildings on a
private street. If they are only one building deep, the right - of-way for the
private street is a 20' width with a 16' roadway. If there are more than one
building behind each other, the right-of-way is 30' with a 26' roadway width.
There are two buildings that would have access provided by a 16' private drive
off of a 26' private drive. The maximum length of the private drives shown on
the proposed plan are approximately 400 -440 feet in length.
R -4 ZONING DISTRICT
The portion of the site which is proposed to remain R -4 (Residential Multiple
District) is 5.92 acres on the northend of the site and 19.67 acres on the
southern portion of the site for a total gross area of 25.59 acres. The loca-
tion of the R -4 (Residential Multiple District) are proposed on Lot 1, Block 66
and Trot 1, Block 67. Presently the zoning ordinance allows one building per
lot, so when this area develops, the area could possibly have to be replatted
when the condominium, or apartments are constructed.
The density for the R -4 development would be approximately 12 dwelling units
per acre. The net density for the R -4 dwelling units could be approximately
300 dwelling units. At the present time, the preliminary plat is not showing
the location of the condominium apartments. A detailed site plan for the
condominium apartment should be provided to staff and reviewed by the City
prior to the construction of the unit. Therefore, staff is not commenting on
the condominium units at this time.
OVERALL PLAT
The access to Lexington Place will be from Duckwood Drive, which is a collector
which will be continued from the existing Duckwood on the westside of Lexing-
ton Avenue. Duckwood is proposed to be a collector and will be stubbed to the
property line to the east. Presently to the east of this site is the Carriage
Hills Golf Course and if the golf course is ever converted to a residential
development, access will be provided by Duckwood Drive. There is also a
CITY OF EAGAN
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - LEXINGTON PLACE
• APRIL 28, 1981
PAGE THREE
•
•
looped street proposed to run north of Duckwood Drive, and a street running
fran Duckwood Drive south to Lexington Avenue to provide circulation for the
overall plat.
The Park Commission has informally looked at Lexington Place. It is a
preliminary indication that the Park Committee will take a cash dedication
per unit versus a land dedication. The proposed park for Neighborhood 14
is located on the southeast corner of the Carriage Hills Golf Course. The
Park Committee has looked at the sidewalk being provided on the northside
of Duckwood Drive, and a trail to be constructed from Duckwood to the south
of the plat. They have also indicated a possibility that 2 tot lots should
be created for this development. The formal Park recommendation will be made
at the May 7, 1981 Park Committee Meeting. If the plat is approved, it
should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed by the Dakota County Plat
Commission and subject to the Dakota County Plat Commission's recommen-
dations and comments.
2. A 55' right -of -way should be dedicated for Lexington Avenue.
3. A trail shall be constructed from Duckwood Drive to the southern
border of the plat. This trail shall be constructed by the
developer at his cost. The applicant shall submit a landscape
plan which shall be approved by the City, and a landscape bond
which is adequate to cover the landscape requirement.
4. If a model home site is to be provided within the plat, the model
hone site shall be designated at this time.
5. The applicant shall be required to submit plans for tot lots in
each of the two areas designated. This plan shall be approved by
the Eagan Park Director.
6. The applicant shall be required to submit by -laws for the Home-
owner's Association so that the City can review these by -laws
prior to the approval of the final plat.
7. A sidewalk shall be constructed on the northside of Duckwood
Drive.
8. The developer shall submit detailed plans for the condominium
apartment complex for City approval prior to the construction
of any of the R -4 sites.
9. The developer shall install fire hydrants at the entrances to the
private streets which have a 30' right -of -way.
10. All other applicable ordinances shall be met.
DCR/jac
•
•
•
CITY OF EAGAN
REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - LEXINGTON PLACE
APRIL 28, 1981
PACE THREE
looped street proposed to run north of Duckwood Drive, and a street running
from Duckwood Drive south to Lexington Avenue to provide circulation for the
overall plat.
The Park Commission has informally looked at Lexington Place. It is a
preliminary indication that the Park Committee will take a cash dedication
per unit versus a land dedication. The proposed park for Neighborhood 14
is located on the southeast corner of the Carriage Hills Golf Course. The
Park Committee has looked at the sidewalk being provided on the northside
of Duckwood Drive, and a trail to be constructed from Duckwood to the south
of the plat. They have also indicated a possibility that 2 tot lots should
be created for this development. The formal Park recommendation will be made
at the May 7, 1981 Park Committee Meeting. If the plat is approved, it
should be subject to the following conditions:
1. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed by the Dakota County Plat
Commission and subject to the Dakota County Plat Commission's recommen-
dations and comments.
2. A 55' right-of -way should be dedicated for Lexington Avenue.
3. A trail shall be constructed flue Duckwood Drive to the southern
border of the plat. This trail shall be constructed by the
developer at his cost. The applicant shall submit a landscape
plan which shall be approved by the City, and a landscape bond
which is adequate to cover the landscape requirement.
4. If a model hone site is to be provided within the plat, the model
hone site shall be designated at this time.
5. The applicant shall be required to submit plans for tot lots in
each of the two areas designated. This plan shall be approved by
the Eagan Park Director.
6. The applicant shall be required to submit by -laws for the Home-
owner's Association so that the City can review these by -laws
prior to the approval of the final plat.
7. A sidewalk shall be constructed on the northside of Duckwood
Drive.
8. The developer shall submit detailed plans for the condominium
apartment complex for City approval prior to the construction
of any of the R -4 sites.
9. The developer shall install fire hydrants at the entrances to the
private streets which have a 30' right - - way.
10. All other applicable ordinances shall be met.
DCR/jac
a
Ind
OAKC rA
' JUN
MA R
1b 1 (1,
‘-!------ 2(-, Li • (?)
c_•-;:ROSEMOIJNI"
1 • . „,...
H
CITY OF EAGAN
DENNIS McCARTNY
DUCK VA)00
TRAIL
1
z
p00
":PROPER,fr RESgARON
RALPH
Prefimmary P/W
_ ..
Of :
LEXINGTON PLACE
--...._. -1,- ._------- " —
`T U.S Home Corporation
T --.
,
:ir..`-%zi.\.__- _ /i / ,I '
? `;--
._
\ ,,.. 7
11 ---------..-- '' ---..-".-..'"...... -.•••••.' ,;.•;. 3
1 ' - 1 2:::-7.- 1 '--- : ::- : ;:, :; " : ■ zlz
••••■ ' - --■,_ (
' • ; !
e ,
. !
•.!:
—_,___, • ••...,,_„......__. :4! -
> -. 4 ."1.--.7! , SC•LE I' t00
! --- 4 6 — ' r z s■,.._,, " . '-, 4 ). ----'" , _,
, ,, , /, '. :; % - r ---
7 i - ,-;__', ,./ ; / i\-.; 7 , 1 .,.' ,,.,- :;, ,Ti-_ _ . i ,
,,
4.4 :nit• ACr, . . . •
74 IX__ I
"I -
r 12
1 r tne 7T
. . ,
. —
— .
(■ ;
f!.
•
•
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RE: BICYCLE TRAILS PLAN
May 1981
Background: Following the joint Council /Committee meeting
of March 19, 1981; direction was given to the
staff to prepare a "Trails Priority" for inclusion
into the plan; and a statement that would call
for a "bench" to provide for future bikeway
construction should sufficient money not be
available at the time of street construction.
Issue: Attached are two pages for review by the Advisory
Committee which address the concerns that were
raised at the joint meeting. The Advisory
Committee should review these two pages for any
modifications or changes required.
Action to be Considered:
Motion to approve, disapprove or to modify the
two attached pages for inclusion into the Bicycle
Trail Plan draft. A motion to recommend adoption
to the City Council of the draft plan is then
in order for consideration.
•
•
The opportunities presented for trail construction depend heavily upon the
incorporation of trails development in conjunction with road improvement
projects.
Funding restraints often dictate that trail construction cannot always
proceed contemporaneously with road improvement projects. However, road
improvement projects provide an excellent opportunity for the construction
of benches for future trail construction and in certain circumstances an
opportunity to secure necessary rights - of-way and/or easements.
Listed below are the highest priorities for bicycle trail development ir-
regardless of the timing of planned road improvement projects. Complet-
tion of these priority routes would provide the City with a framework of
major bicycle trails connecting major destination points throughout the
City. Notably, most of the proposed priority routes follow routes pro-
posed by the County Trails Plan for trails construction. The County has
proposed construction of a trail along one side of each roadway route with
the City wholly responsible for trail construction along an additional
side of the roadway if desired. The five trail segments listed below are
the highest priority for the use of available trail construction funds.
TOP FIVE EAGAN TRAIL PRIORITIES
ROADWAY SEGMENT
A. Wilderness In Road (High Line Trail) Capricorn Court to Old Dodd Road
B. Pilot Knob Road I -494 to Cliff Road
C. Cliff Road Nicols Road to Pilot Knob Road
D. Nicols Road
Beau D' Rue Drive
Silver Bell Road
Beau D' Rue Drive to Cliff Road
Nicols Road to Silver Bell Road
Beau D' Rue Drive to Highway 13
E. Yankee Doodle Road Highway 13 to Pilot Knob Road
•
•
MINOR CITY COLLEC OPS
Current Policy: 5 -foot concrete sidewalk on one side of the
roadway.
Proposed Policy: 8 -foot bituminous trail on one side of the
roadway
RESIDENTIAL, STREET
Current Policy: No trails or sidewalks required.
Proposed Policy: Same as current policy.
16. Insure timely and opportunistic development of the Eagan Bicycle Trail
System by:
- reviewing and updating the Bicycle Trails Plan annually and es-
tablishing additional five -year trail priorities every five
years.
- establishing a trails development fund to be used to finance
future trails construction.
- constructing bikeways in accordance with the five -year priority
program of the Eagan Bicycle Trails Plan, using established
criteria to determine priorities for construction.
- providing a bench for future bikeway construction as part of the
road construction project in the event funds for the construction
of bikeways are unavailable at the time of road construction.
- acquiring sufficient rights -of -way and easements necessary for
Class 1 bikeway construction along routes proposed in the Eagan
Bicycle Trails Plan when acquisition opportunities present them-
selves during the platting of land or during the development of
road rights -of -way.
Page forty -nine
A December 1980
MU.O TO: ADVISORY PARK COMMITTEE
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECIEATION
RE: PRELIMINARY DRAFT - MATCHING GIFTS
Background: At the time the Advisory Committee discussed the South Oaks soccer
kick board, (October 1980) the Advisory Committee questioned if it should not
develop some type of policy guidelines, when approached to "match" neighborhood
requests for parks development /equipment. Staff was asked to review this
possibility.
Issues to be Considered: Generally, the City will want to be sensitive to the
desire of a neighborhood group in planning and developing a park. This is also
true of "special interest groups," who may desire some type of special equipment
to enhance a program. When a group proposes to pay for a portion of the develop-
ment /purchase costs, the City should review both the positive and negative impli-
cations.
First, it shows genuine interest by the group by its willingness to fund the develop-
ment. This interest will have a positive impact on how the park /equipment is cared
for. The feeling of ownership generally translates into one of care. Two, it
allows the City to accomplish park development with less tax dollars. Three, it
encourages local groups to take pride in their parks while providing a service
to the community.
There is some negative implication of "cost matching" for parks development:
1. Matching may lead to "possession" attitude towards the park to the
extent that the park or fixture is not a City or neighborhood facility/
fixture but for the exclusive use of the few who may have helped finance
the gift.
2. The "gift" may be used as leverage in obtaining future park /City
considerations by the use of the argument "after all we paid for this
we want - - - -"
3. In some situations a gift may cause future development problems in the
park. "You can't take that (piece of equipment) from the park, our
neighborhood paid for that 15 years ago."
4. "Lower priority" items may be developed in one park prior to a higher
priority item in a distant park. This may lead to the feeling that one
neighborhood group is being favored over another.
For these reasons, the following ideas for guidelines are proposed for consideration.
1. Each matching request should be reviewed on its merits. The development
should be consistent with the established park development plan or C.I.P.
2. Matching money should be provided so as not to take away from committements
to other parks or developments.
3. An understanding or policy that the match is seen as being something that
may have to be changed, removed, modified, etc., as future park develop-
ment occurs or as the equipment ceases to provide the type of use
originally intended.
4. The "gift" is consistent with the City wide systems priority for develop-
ment.
5. A limit on the dollar amount the City would be willing to match for any
one group /park area.
•
6
•
Action: The Committee may wish to discuss the implications of a matching program
and possible guidelines to determine if an adopted review procedure is necessary.
•
April 30, 1981
City of Eagan
Parks Department
3501 Coachman Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
RE: Preliminary Report
Ridgecliffe Neighborhood Park
This document is a status report which represents the
completion of the Phase I Preliminary Report for Ridgecliffe
Neighborhood Park. Attached are the following:
1. Existing conditions /general concept plate.
2. Facilities list with ranking.
3. Three sketch plan alternatives.
4. April 29, 1981 Neighborhood meeting summary.
5. Approach or design process graphic.
6. Round -table materials.
First and foremost, Ridgecliffe is a neighborhood park
intended to provide year -round informal recreational oppor-
tunities for neighborhood residents within easy walking
distance. Carried to an extreme, such park would require
no parking. Being realistic, not everyone will walk to
Ridgecliffe.
Based on existing conditions (neighborhood relationships and
intrinsic suitability), the 16.61 acre Ridgecliffe
Neighborhood Park site can be broken down into three broad
functional use zones. Because of its relationship to the
neighborhood and a preference for vehicular and p- :'2strian
access to Covington Lane, this north facing is intrinsically
best suited to serve as an Image /Entry Zone to the park.
Its primary function is to accommodate passive recreational
activities, while establishing an inviting image through
which entry to the park is encouraged by design.
The Active Recreation Zone is best able to accommodate
requisite athletic facilities. It is somewhat more remote
from existing and future residences which back to the park
site and this area has already been substantially altered by
_onstruction.
The Conservation Zone is narrow, remote and it is
topographically difficult to adapt it to active recreational
uses. It is really more closely related to the Lebanon
Hi 11 s County Park than to Ridgecliffe and it is best suited
fg,! passive recreational use. For these reasons, this area
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660
•
•
•
City of Eagan
-2- April 30, 1981
should be left pretty much in its present state with the
addition of a trail system. It is within this conceptual
framework that the Consultant applied the neighborhood park
program established by the APRC.
The original facilities list was developed by the Consultant
with input from City Staff (see round -table attachments).
The list was reviewed and added to by the APRC on April 14,
1981 and facilities were scored to identify priorities. The
alternative sketch plans, then, were developed around those
facilities scored highest by the APRC. The exceptions are
found in Alternative 2 where the hockey rink was dropped and
Alternative 3 where the combination football /soccer field
was dropped. These departures from the facilities list were
done to better fulfill the general concept.
What is a sketch plan? A sketch plan is simply a concept
(without much detail), that establishes facility rela-
tionships and linkages. Several such plans can be generated
relatively quickly to allow for the comparative evaluation
of alternatives. In essence, the sketch plan gets into
enough detail to establish that all facilities are physi-
cally able to be constructed without a strong commitment to
detail. The sketch plan selected by the City will be
detailed by the Consultant in Phase II.
One major concern needing discussion is the connection of
existing trail easements between lots in adjacent sub-
divisions to the park trail spine. We have shown connec-
tions in each plan alternative under the assumption that the
City wants those easements used for pedestrian access. We
do not feel that they are needed, given existing
circumstances, and we know from experience that they can be
a real source of conflict for homeowners on either side of
such pedestrian ways. This will be further compounded if a
trail connection is made between Rilgecliffe and the County
park. On the other hand, we feel that it would be very
desirable to provide such a trail linkage into the County
park to provide convenient resident access for archery,
hiking, cross- country skiing and snow - shoeing activities.
Whichever plan (and variations thereof) is selected by the
City for further detailing in Phase II, that plan should be
viewed as one to be constructed in phases as money is made
available. Phasing of construction, beginning with site
grading and seeding, will be addressed in Phase II.
Also attached for review is a summary of comments received
at the April 29, 1981 neighborhood meeting. These will be
helpful to the City Council and the APRC in the screening of
al ternatives.
•
•
•
City of Eagan
We will look forward to moving ahead with the Phase II design.
If you have questions or need clarification during the
selection process, simply give me a call.
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC.
Fred L. Hoisingto
Principal -In- Charge
mt
Enclosures
-3- April 30, 1981
•
•
CVO U 30011:1 3NY3 ANNHOr
c Ik o u -
cr. C <
< z a
3 a
c
ik 0
c
1.1.
10z
v.
w
Z 2
0 ft
N 4
ci.
z 7-
2 IC
4 CC co
0
z t . .-, < a. ci- 0
. la rz.
i LE f % ILI tit a
5, u j ,„, z
o 0
5 Z Z w (-)
i w 0 CD w
fr
E c7)
ii..
•
•
•
APRC ROUND TABLE SUMMARY April 14, 1981
Ridgecliffe Neighborhood Park
Each table was asked to score facilities as shown and scores
were simply summed:
Total Table Scoring
Score 1 2 Rank Order
8 4 4 . Ball diamonds (baseball and softball)
8 4 4 . Pleasure skating rink /warming house/
shelter /lighting
8 4 4 . Bike racks
8 4 4 . Tennis courts (2)
8 4 4 . Park Sign
4 = ABSOLUTELY MUST BE ACCOMODATED
3 = very desirable
2 = desirable but expendable
1 = expendable
0 = ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY
7.5 4 3.5 . Trailways connecting to peripheral
trail & walkway systems
7 4 3 . Combination football /soccer field
7 3 4 . Play apparatus for pre -teens
6.5 4 2.5 . Conservation zone (west end)
6 3 3 . Sliding hill
6 3 3 . Restrooms /utilities
6 3 3 . Limited picnic facilities along trail
6 3 3 . Off- street parking (limited)
6 3 3 . Informal area for lawn games (frisbee,
etc.)
6 2 4 . An outdoor neighborhood social focus
with benches, walkways & landscaping
6 2 4 . Hockey Rink /Lighting
5 3 2 . Volleyball
4 2 2 . Horseshoes
4 2 2 . Picnic Shelter
3 2 1 . Hard surface basketball court
2 0 2 . A natural amphitheater for cultural
events
2 2 0 . Tennis Practice Court
0V08 3Jala 'r 6" 3NV3 co ANNHOP
[ --
A � • Il N
° ..� Z -
' NNHO
0
1—
U J
W <
O • W
U0
J N
• 3
cc
F W
e l /to CA/ - C /to
• � 6. IS Vcr+ aovwrt
't 625 —/9000—
WA,
fA 16 K'11a/1016 Y;•^5 fY3 3) 00'6'
3006 +Y3 10 1l 006 Of) .01 6, x OAP'
a
N
of
If
.10 ol tn.
.d
0
N
�34 91— f l9
Z
wwo
61i oar,
,04•X w � 6
7 n
NNW
w 0-1
NNHOP
ANNHCr
Chd
„WO 0 WAY
NOVVV
— /.PDX
r /01 Y1 . G 4 J LO Il
.** r ASV
1
411 J1 , ..
39918 '11,1 3NX,3
"
1111 N.cc w
,
z
0
CC
IQ a.
z
Z
0 I'
0 Z
•70
CC
8
P.
•
•
39018 3>1113 ANNHOr
woe 00a6 X"
5 3#
e4
302 6
23 .46 3 , 3
'• 54 • — /_52 X —
" "
•e
C.1
0
1-
0
0
cc
1-
' '
WOL -
• • , \
4-5 • ,
\ • ... .,
• 9,, r -..".."
b) Z
:*, * cc' v %T ;• d; „ ?3 . ''''`
t 4 .: , , •-/* - .„1 ^ 4P 2 v _ , . ,
, -"L .t .- i 43: .--"- A •
e .". , „, • /3 r ' :
5 lir
9
4 , - •
\ ■?; -L OD
Cr
5 5t,
96 ?,
am
w
0
N
0
•
•
•
COMMENTS RECEIVED AND QUESTIONS ASKED AT THE APRIL 29, 1981
RIDGECLIFFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK MEETING:
1. In light of the fact that alternative three does not have
a full size combination football /soccer field, can pick-
up games still be accomodated with that alternative?
Yes. The informal play area will be sufficient in size to
serve that purpose.
2. A concern was expressed over the lighting level for
hockey as perhaps inconsistent with the neighborhood park
concept.
3. A concern was also expressed regarding the noise asso-
ciated with hockey.
4. In response to the above concerns, Roger Martin explained
that the hockey rink lights are turned off at 9:00 p.m.
5. Will any restrictions be imposed on the use of the hockey
rink for league play? Since the facility will not be
constructed for some time, no immediate answer could be
offered.
6. One resident expressed the opinion that Alternative 2
seemed to be more appealing and consistent with the
neighborhood park concept.
7. Another stated that the park should remain as natural as
possible.
8. A suggestion was offered to fence the hockey rink for
neighborhood use only. It was explained that this kind
of limitation could not be imposed.
9. A question was asked regarding the possibility of a hard
surface basketball court perhaps at the end of a tennis
court. Roger Martin explained that such facilities are
usually not used to a degree warranting their construc-
tion and that that was the reason for the APRC having
scored basketball relatively low.
10. Is there any possibility that a hockey rink could be
added to the park at a later date in the area now
designated for general skating? Ken Vraa explained that
that is a possibility but that it is preferable to
establish a plan which includes everything now rather
than to have to reconstruct the park site at a later date.
11. How can the neighborhood decide on one of the three
alternatives? Ken Vraa explained that the Council will
make the ultimate decision and will base that decision in
part on the comments received at the neighborhood meeting.
•
•
•
12. A major concern was expressed about noise and traffic on
Covington Lane. The questioner asked whether traffic
could be slowed on Covington in the vicinity of the park?
I t was explained that warning signs may be able to be
used as a deterrent to fast traffic.
13. A question was asked about the size of the buffer area at
the edges of the park and George Watson of Brauer &
Associates explained that higher noise areas should be
landscaped to minimize impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood. No specific dimension has been developed
as of this time.
14. A question was asked about phasing and it was explained
that phasing will be established in Phase II.
15. A question was asked if there would be additional
meetings and if the neighbors could be informed of said
meetings? Yes.
16. Ken Vraa was asked whether the staff would recommend one
of the concepts to the City Council on May 5, 1981. He
explained that the staff would not make a recommendation
at that time.
17. One neighbor asked about the possibility of adding a
wading pool. It was explained that one could be added
but that these entail high construction and maintenance
costs.
18. A concern was stated for the crossing of Johnny Cake
Ridge Road by children seeking access to the park.
19. Another comment was made about keeping the park as
natural as possible and not having it transformed into
hard surfaces and fencing.
Generally, the nine or so attendees were pleased with the
concepts presented.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS $ RECREATION COMMITTEE
FROM: MICHELLE CORDS, PRACTICUM STUDENT
KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS $ RECREATION
•
•
HISTORY:
RE: GARDEN PLOT RESEARCH
April 1981
At the April 2nd meeting of the Advisory Parks E Recreation Committee, a question
was raised about issuing permits to residents in the City of Eagan for garden
plot space in Eagan's Park lands. The committee then requested the depart-
ment to look into the matter.
The origin of such garden plot policies is unclear, but research through committee
meeting minutes alludes to the existence of such policies. On file, the depart-
ment was also able to find correspondence and a permit form for issuing garden
plots.
Requests made to the department were for plot space on undeveloped park land
adjacent to the requesting property owners in the Thomas Lake and River Hills
9th neighborhoods.
The following conditions were established by the department:
1 - Plots would be issued by permit.
2 - Requests must be made to the Parks and Recreation Department.
3 - Must agree to establish adequate ground cover in the garden area
when use is discontinued.
4 - Use will be permitted as long as it does not interfere w /park development.
5 - Permits are to be renewed on an annual basis.
6 - No fee involved.
OTHER PROGRAMS:
Due to the vast development of duplexes, townhouses, and condominiums, and also
due to the loss of some corporate garden space, it is anticipated more demand
for garden space will be placed on the Parks and Recreation Department. Conse-
quently, the department made contacts w/a number of Parks f Recreation Depart-
ments and other related agencies within the Metropolitan area, to gain some
insight as to how other municipalities are handling garden space requests.
Following is a listing of those municipalities contacted:
Entity: Yes /None: Comments:
Anoka
None
Bloomington
None
NSP does on their easements
Apple Valley
None
Burnsville
None
Eden Prairie *
Yes
See appendix
Edina
None
Golden Valley
None
Northwestern Bell does for special pop.
Hopkins- Minnetonka *
Yes
See appendix
Minneapolis
None
Through self - reliance
N. St. Paul
None
Rosemount
None
Roseville *
Yes
See appendix. Work with Ramsey Co.
St. Paul
None
S. St. Paul *
Yes
See appendix
Brooklyn Park
No longer
Due to vandalism & vegetable stealing
Ramsey County *
Yes
See appendix
Self- Reliance *
Yes
See appendix
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
• 15.
16.
17.
•
Contacts made on garden plots:
Page 2
It can be seen the majority of the Parks & Recreation Departments do not allow
garden plots on park lands. Of those who do have garden plots, all agreed the
program has been a huge success.
Eden Prairie, Hopkins- Minnetonka, Roseville, South St. Paul, Ramsey County, and
a non - profit organization known as Self - Reliance in Minneapolis, have well
established garden programs. All operate in much the same manner, and range
in size from 110 plots to 1344 plots.
Following, is a brief description applying to all the programs:
1. Tracts have been staked out on a suitable tract of land.
2. Plots are organized by a numbering and /or numerical code.
3. Site preparation by the department includes fall plowing and spring
tilling.
4. Average plot sizes: 15' x 20', 20'x 20', 15' x 25', 20' x 30'.
5. Space is provided for walk ways.
6. Gardeners are issued permits on a first come, first served basis.
7. There is a fee of $5.00 - $6.00. Senior citizens have special rates.
8. Parking, trash receptacles, picnic tables are provided.
9. A water source is available- wells, taps, or creek water.
10. Department is not responsible for policing the sites.
11. All seeds, weeding, & harvesting is gardeners' responsibility.
12. Corn & sunflowers must be planted in center of plot.
13. Agriculture extension service literature is distributed to gardeners.
14. No herbicides allowed, only mulch F compost.
It can be seen the various programs have identified and addressed similar
• policies, thus indicating the elements of their success.
•
•
Garden plot research Page 3
One municipality which has not met similar success is Brooklyn Park, who
discontinued the program 4 years ago. Reasons cited were primarily due
to vandalism & vegetable stealing among gardeners.
Staff will bring additional information on specific programs in operation
in neighboring municipalities to the May 7 meeting. If you have further
questions or would like to see the additional information prior to the
meeting, please contact the Parks and Recreation office.
MC /bp
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS $ RECREATION
RE: COMMUNITY BROCHURE
Background: Until the Eagan City Newsletter became a reality for the City,
the Parks and Recreation Department would often advertise its program
offerings through either a separate flyer issued through the department
to local schools for distribution or /and use of Community Education
brochures. Community Education brochures for Districts 191 and 197 are
issued 4 times a year coinciding with the four seasons. School District
196 currently mails the brochure three times a year; spring, fall and
winter. The cost for the department to put information into these
brochures is approximately $100.00 per page, per time. This is compared
to a cost of between $250.00 - $300.00 for a separate brochure put out
by the Department of Parks and Recreation as was done in the winter of
1980 -81. This brochure is distributed through the elementary schools
to all school children. Therefore it has the disadvantage of not being
distributed into those homes that do not have children of elementary
age. Staff also utilizes the Eagan Chronicle and the Dakota County Tribune
for publication of information pertaining to programs. The department also
utilizes the regular City Council Newsletter which is distributed period-
ically.
Issue: Since the fall of 1980 the department has discontinued the use of
the Community Education brochures. The reason for this discontinuation
has been several fold. One, the time line for preparing of the brochures
often makes it difficult for staff to organize programs that meets the
Community Education's time frame. Second, the cost involved in utilizing
these brochures. Three, the actual date of distribution of the brochures
does not meet program requirements. Example: the winter brochures for
all three school districts are not distributed until after January 1 of
each year. Consequently, information in regards to skating rink schedules,
skiing lessons, and winter program activities would be late and not re-
ceived by residents in a timely and effective manner.
The various directors from the Community Education Departments have
continuously solicited the support of the Eagan Parks $ Recreation Depart-
ment in their respective brochures on a continuing basis. In the opinion
of staff, a continuing agreement for utilization of the Community Education's
brochures is neither cost effective nor in the best interest of the Parks
and Recreation Departments program offerings. Rather, staff of the
department would prefer to utilize the brochures offered by the Community
Education Departments on a selective basis. That is, when brochure time
lines and issuances of the brochure into the homes meet time lines and
needs of the Parks and Recreation Department they would be utilized for
advertisement of programs. Otherwise, the department would continue to
offer its programs through the City wide newsletter or through its own
brochures and newspaper announcements.
With three Community Education Departments within Eagan it makes it difficult
to justify the promotion of programs in only one brochure, and not the
others unless there is support and an understanding for doing this amongst
the Advisory Committee,
At some future date the department would hope to issue a complete brochure,
•
•
•
Community Brochure - Memo
Page 2
distributed separately from other publications to include all programs
and park information. However, this appears to be in the distant future
and does not appear to be a probability in the up coming year.
The Park and Recreation staff is placing this on the Advisory Committee's
agenda for discussion purpose to obtain your input as if you feel the
department is pursuing the advertisement of its programs in the most
effective manner, should seek to be selective in the placement of its
program offering, or