The URL can be used to link to this page

04/16/2013 - City Council RegularAGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING APRIL 16, 2013 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3 11. ADOPT AGENDA III. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 4 A. SWEARING -IN of Officers Daniel Spiess and Bryan Johnson IV. CONSENT AGENDA (Consent items are acted on with one motion unless a request is made for an item to be pulled for discussion) �J A. APPROVE MINUTES IN B. PERSONNEL ITEMS =C. APPROVE Check Registers ,�d D. APPROVE Dakota County Joint Powers Agreement for Cost Sharing of the Aerial Photography for 2013 �1 E. APPROVE Temporary On -Sale Liquor License for People of Praise MN, Inc.'s Community Social on June 22, 2013 aci F. APPROVE Resolution declaring intent to consider suspension or revocation of the Massage Therapy Establishment License issued to Heavenly Asian Massage, 4215 Nicols Road, and the Massage Therapist License issued to Yang Yu �(0 G. APPROVE Action to not waive the monetary limits on Municipal Tort Liability ,�9 H. APPROVE Plans and Specifications for Contract 13 -12 (Cedar Grove Parkway — Trail & Lighting Improvements) and Authorize Ad for Bid May 30, 2013 ag I. APPROVE Resolution Designating No Parking on Advantage Lane (North side) 30 J. ACKNOWLEDGE Completion and Authorize City Maintenance of Various City Projects 31 K. VACATE Public Easements — Lots 5 -8, Block 5, Eagandale Center Industrial Park (continued from March 19, 2013 Public Hearing) L. RECEIVE Petition to Vacate Public Easements — Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Safari at Eagan 3rd Addition, and Schedule Public Hearing for May 21, 2013 3� M. RECEIVE Petition to Vacate Public Easements — Outlot D, Stonehaven 5t" Addition, and Schedule Public Hearing for May 21, 2013 LAD N. RECEIVE Petition to Vacate Public Easement— Lot 1, Block 1, Bob Martin Addition, and Schedule Public Hearing for May 21, 2013 q3 O. APPROVE Amendment to MnDOT JPA, Project 923 &1011, TH 149, TH 55 to 1 -494 �1 P. APPROVE Resolution to accept a donation to the Police Department of $50 from a citizen 149 Q. APPROVE the new lease agreements between the City of Eagan and St. Croix Harley Davidson for two 2013 Harley Davidson motorcycles 5a R. APPROVE a contract with Northland Business Systems for the procurement and support of a dictation system S. AUTHORIZE the Extension of AccessEagan Fiber in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment area and approve the issuance of a Request for Quote (RFQ) for the extension of the fiber T. APPROVE AccessEagan Terms and Conditions — Tiered Service Agreement and Terms and Conditions Colocation Agreement 93 U. APPROVE Final Plat - CTI Addition =V. APPROVE Resolution Recognizing Service of DCR Chamber of Commerce President Ruthe Batulis APPROVE a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Eagan and Dakota County to allow C� the City of Eagan to operate the concessions at the Wescott Library for a trial period -13 X. APPROVE a Resolution to accept a grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council in the amount of $5,000 for a Community Arts Grant and authorize the necessary budget adjustment �J Y. AUTHORIZE application of a grant for $22,000 from the Minnesota State Arts Board for an Arts Learning Grant V. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vi. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS q�P A. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW), COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT and a PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - Dakota Path — A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from PR, Private Recreation to LD, Low Density residential, a Rezoning of approximately 80 acres from P, Park to PD, Planned Development, a Preliminary Planned Development of approximately 80 acres for 177 single - family dwelling units and a Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 80 acres to create 178 lots and 9 outlots located at 1290 & 1310 Cliff Road. VIII. . LEGISLATIVE / INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE IX. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - (No EDA Items at this time) X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA A. City Attorney B. City Council Comments C. City Administrator D. Director of Public Works E. Director of Community Development Xl. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on the agenda) XII. CLOSED SESSION XIII. ADJOURNMENT a 7PF'City of Evan demo TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR OSBERG DATE: APRIL 12, 2013 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR APRIL 16, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDA After approval is given to the April 16, 2013 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration. Consent Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Swearing -in of Officers Daniel Spiess and Bryan Johnson FACTS: Police Chief McDonald will introduce new Police Officers Daniel Spiess and Bryan Johnson to the Council and community. After a brief introduction, they will be administered the oath of office by the Chief. Both officers began their employment on January 7, 2013. Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is brief. A. APPROVE MINUTES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: • To approve the minutes of the April 2, 2013, Regular City Council meeting and April 9, 2013 Special City Council meeting as presented or modified. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes of April 2, 2013Regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages fp_through 1D. • Minutes of April 9, 2013 Special City Council meeting are enclosed on page �3 I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota APRIL 2, 2013 A Listening Session was held at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular City Council meeting. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Bakken, Fields, Hansen and Tilley. A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Bakken, Fields, Hansen, and Tilley. Also present were City Administrator Osberg, Assistant City Administrator Miller, Director of Finance Pepper, Communications Director Garrison, Director of Community Development Hohenstein, City Planner Ridley, Director of Public Works Matthys, Director of Parks and Recreation Johnson, Police Chief McDonald, Fire Chief Scott, and Executive Assistant Stevenson. AGENDA City Administrator Osberg noted the addition of Item U. Approve Right of Entry Agreement with CSM Eagan LLC on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aye: 5 Nay:0 RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATION Mayor Maguire administered the Oath of Office to City Administrator Dave Osberg. Mayor Maguire introduced Collin Westgard noting Collin was to be highlighted in his State of the City speech, but was unable to be present that morning. Mayor Maguire noted Collin was an Eagle Scout and was being highlighted for giving back to the community; Collin repairs old computers and gives them to people who don't have one. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 A. It was recommended to approve the minutes of March 19, 2013. B. Personnel Items: 1. It was recommend to approve the hiring of Seasonal Employees in Parks & Recreation. C. It was recommended to approve check registers dated March 1 and 8, 2013. D. It was recommended to set interest rate on special assessment levied in 2013 at 3.5 %. E. It was recommended to designate Anchor Bank as the City's depository. F. Item removed G. It was recommended to approve Reallocation of CDBG Funds to Assist with Costs related to the Riverview Ridge Workforce Housing Project. H. Item removed I. It was recommended to award City Contract No. 13 -01 (Cedar Grove Boulevard Phase II— Street & Utility Improvements). J. It was recommended to award City Contract No. 13 -03 (Neighborhood Street Revitalization). I City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 2 page K. It was recommended to award City Contract No. 13 -04 (Neighborhood Street Revitalization). L. It was recommended to award City Contract No. 13 -10 (Citywide Sanitary Sewer Lining Improvements). M. It was recommended to award City Contract No. 13 -11 (Citywide Water Quality Storm Sewer Improvements). N. It was recommended to approve an Agreement with MN Department of Health for Source Water Protection Grant. 0. It was recommended to approve an Agreement with Dakota County Transportation Department, County Project No. 30 -24, Diffley Road Street Improvements. P. It was recommended to approve a Resolution to accept donations for Market Fest 2013 from Rasmussen College, Eagan55 Plus /Seniors, Dakota County Library, Minnesota Pork, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Health Partners. Q. It was recommended to approve Plans & Specifications, City Contract 13 -13 (Municipal Well Sealing Improvements). R. It was recommended to approve Final Payment, City Contract 13 -09, Utilities Administration Area Modifications. S. It was recommended to vacate Public Easements — Stonehaven 4th Addition (continued from March 5, 2013 Public Hearing). T. It was recommended to approve Final Subdivision and Final Plan Development of Stonehaven 5th Addition. U. It was recommended to approve Right of Entry Agreement with CSM Eagan, LLC. Mayor Maguire noted Item U. a Right of Entry Agreement with CSM Eagan, LLC. Police Chief McDonald gave a brief summary of the request. Councilmember Bakken commented on Item T. Noting at a previous Council meeting the question was raised whether or not this item could lock in public use of the trail system in the Stonehaven development. After further analysis it was found that the public use of the trail system will not lapse. There were no items for discussion. There were no items for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — 3769 DENMARK TRAIL WEST / KRISTEN MILLER City Administrator Osberg introduced the item noting a Conditional Use Permit request has been received by Kristen Miller. A public hearing was held on March 26, 2013 and the Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. The applicant Kristen Miller was available for questions. Mayor Maguire asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 3 page Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Bakken seconded a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 25% impervious surface coverage in a Shoreland Overlay District on a residential lot located at 3769 Denmark Trail West, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council with the following exhibit: • Site Plan dated February 17, 2013 2. The impervious surface of this lot shall not exceed 34.7% per the Site Plan dated February 17, 2013. 3. Prior to the release of the Conditional Use Permit for recording, the applicant shall provide a $500 escrow deposit for inspection of the raingarden(s) installation. 4. The proposed rain gardens /infiltration basins shall be designed and constructed to accommodate 100% of the runoff from the excess impervious surfaces from a 100 -year, 24 -hour, 6.0" rainfall event. 5. Infiltration basins shall be constructed so that temporary ponded runoff has infiltrated below the surface within 48 hours after the end of a rain event. 6. Mitigative designs and installations shall be approved by the City Engineering Division and the installation shall be overseen and inspected by City staff at the time of installation. 7. As -built drawings and capture volume measurements shall be provided to the City that verify minimum storage volume requirement is being met. 8. The applicant shall enter into a long -term stormwater facility inspection and maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to be filed in the property records with Dakota County Recorder's Office, at the applicant's expense. 9. The applicant shall discharge water from the pool in a form and manner acceptable to the Water Resources Manager. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT — REPRISE DESIGN, INC. City Administrator Osberg introduced the item noting the Advisory Planning Commission is recommending approval of a Planned Development Amendment to allow changes to the building exterior and modifications to the site plan and signage for McDonald's restaurant located at 3045 Holiday Lane. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Property owner Tom Butler was available for questions. Mayor Maguire asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve a Planned Development Amendment to allow changes to the building exterior and modifications to the site plan and signage for a McDonald's restaurant upon property located at 3045 Holiday Lane, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. An Amendment to the Planned Development Agreement shall be executed and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's office within 90 days of approval. Proof of recording shall be provided to the City. The PD Amendment Agreement shall include the following exhibits: o Site Plan o Building Elevations City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 4 page • Signage Plan • Landscape Plan 2. The parapet shall be extended along the rear (north) elevation to provide screening of mechanical equipment. 3. All signage shall be subject to compliance with City Code standards and a Sign Permit is required prior to installation of any new signs. 4. Building address numbers shall be installed and displayed in accordance with the provisions in Section 2.78 of the City Code. 5. Existing site landscaping shall be evaluated in the summer, and any dead or diseased plants shall be replaced in accordance with the City Code. INTERIM USE PERMIT— MAX STEININGER INC. City Administrator Osberg introduced the items noting a request from Max Steininger, Inc. for an Interim Use Permit to allow a contractor's storage yard and to allow a concrete recycling process and stockpiling facility located at 3089 Neil Armstrong was received. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. Council discussed the request. Mayor Maguire asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow a contractor's storage yard located at 3089 Neil Armstrong Blvd, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. The Interim Use Permit (IUP) shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. 2. The permit shall terminate upon the earlier of either cease of use or four years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The IUP shall be subject to an annual administrative review. The purpose of such review shall be to determine that the conditions of the permit are within compliance. The interim use permit may be revoked for failure to comply with any condition of the permit following notice of the noncompliance and a hearing by the City Council with all interested parties being given an opportunity to be heard. 4. The location and items to be stored shall be consistent with the Site Plan received February 20, 2013. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in accordance with City engineering standards. The development is also subject to the City's codified land disturbance and erosion control regulations. 6. All parking and storage areas shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. 7. The existing recycled asphalt aggregate surface used for the storage /work areas will be subject to continued periodic review by city staff for adequacy of the material to control dust and drainage. If the material is determined to be inadequate, the City will require that it be replaced with bituminous asphalt. N City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 5 page Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow a concrete recycling processing and stockpiling facility located at 3089 Neil Armstrong, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. The Interim Use Permit (IUP) shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council, and proof of recording submitted to the City. 2. The permit shall terminate upon the earlier of either cease of use or four years from the date of City Council approval. 3. The IUP shall be subject to an annual administrative review. The purpose of such review shall be to determine that the conditions of the permit are within compliance. The interim use permit may be revoked for failure to comply with any condition of the permit following notice of the noncompliance and a hearing by the City Council with all interested parties being given an opportunity to be heard. 4. Site operations shall occur as identified on the Site /Grading Plan received February 20, 2013. 5. Dust control procedures shall be utilized. 6. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 7. The operation shall be in compliance with all applicable State and local regulations. 8. In the event that the permit is terminated or not renewed, all materials and equipment shall be removed from the site within 90 days of termination. 9. No mining shall be allowed on the property. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in accordance with City engineering standards. The development is also subject to the City's codified land disturbance and erosion control regulations. 11. All parking and storage areas shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. 12. The existing recycled asphalt aggregate surface used for the storage /work areas will be subject to continued periodic review by city staff for adequacy of the material to control dust and drainage. If the material is determined to be inadequate, the City will require that it be replaced with bituminous asphalt. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — DAVIS EQUIPMENT City Administrator Osberg introduced the item noting the Advisory Planning Commission is recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow outside storage of golf, turf and fertilizer equipment for property located at 1710 Alexander Road. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. The applicant from Davis Equipment was available for questions. Mayor Maguire asked the applicant to respond to the request to remove the proposed landscaping and association irrigation around the outdoor storage area. Joe Funkhouser, President of Davis Equipment addressed the Council noting the trees along Highway 13 behind the berm would be removed, not the trees along Terminal Drive. City Planner Ridley highlighted the aerial photograph that showed the trees that exist in the area, noted the width of the MnDOT right -of -way for future expansion of Highway 13 and stated that the added trees will not likely provide full screening but that they would soften the view of the outdoor storage from off of the site. Mayor Maguire asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment. There being no public comment, he turned discussion back to the Council. �0 City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 6 page Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow outside storage of golf, turf and fertilizer equipment for property located at 1710 Alexander Road, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 5 Nay: 0 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City Council. 2. This Conditional Use Permit shall replace the existing and all former Conditional Use Permits for the property, most recently approved on November 8, 2001. 3. All trash shall be stored in receptacles and be kept either inside the building or within an enclosure constructed according to City Code standards. A revised Site Plan shall show the trash enclosure if one is to be constructed. 4. The Landscape Plan shall be revised so that coniferous trees are a minimum of six feet in height at time of planting. 5. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit from the City prior to the construction of the proposed outdoor storage and parking areas. Detailed plans for this grading work must be prepared and signed by a registered professional engineer. 7. Recycled asphalt aggregate shall be used for the portions of the outdoor storage areas. If recycled bituminous aggregate is used for the outdoor storage areas, the site will be subject to periodic review by city staff for adequacy of the material to control dust and drainage. The first review will occur two years following approval of this permit. If the material is determined to be inadequate, the City will require that it be replaced with bituminous asphalt and subsequent review will occur every two years thereafter. 8. The perimeter of the proposed outdoor storage areas shall be constructed with bituminous curb and gutter. If bituminous curb and gutter is used for the perimeter of the storage area, the site will be subject to periodic review by city staff for adequacy of drainage and containment purposes. The first review will occur two years following approval of this permit. If the material is determined to be inadequate, the City will require that it be replaced with concrete curb and gutter and subsequent review will occur every two years thereafter. 9. All storage areas shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. 10. Prior to receiving a permit, the applicant's proposal shall meet all City stormwater requirements (including Runoff Rate Control, TP /TSS Control and %Z" Volume Control). 11. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the City with soil - boring logs (minimum of 2 samples, extending 10' min. below bottom of over - excavation) within the location of the proposed stormwater management feature, to evaluate and ensure suitability for infiltration. 12. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a long -term stormwater facility monitoring and maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 13. All gates shall have lock boxes installed with keys to allow emergency vehicle access 14. The landscaping shall be removed and the hydrant large discharge rotated to face Alexander Road and permits obtained, if any. 15. Illumination shall be indirect and diffused or shielded. Lighting shall not be directed upon public rights -of -way or adjacent properties and the source of light shall not be visible from off the property. LEGISLATIVE/ INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items for discussion. City Council Meeting Minutes April 2, 2013 7 page There were no items for discussion. There were no visitors to be heard. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA VISITORS TO BE HEARD ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Mayor Clerk � ar MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 9, 2013 5:30 P.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER City Councilmembers present: Mayor Maguire, Councilmembers Bakken, Fields, Hansen and Tilley. City staff present: City Administrator Osberg. INTERVIEW ADVISORY COMMISSION APPLICANTS The City Council interviewed 21 applicants for the various openings on the Advisory Planning Commission, Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, Airport Relations Commission, Energy and Environment Advisory Commission, and the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 Date Mayor Clerk 2) Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting B. PERSONNEL ITEMS Item. 1 Official Designation of Deputy City Clerk ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To officially designate City Administrator Dave Osberg as a Deputy City Clerk. FACTS: • In keeping with past practice, it is appropriate to designate City Administrator Osberg as a Deputy City Clerk. • The responsibility of the Deputy City Clerk is primarily to sign documents or act in the capacity of the City Clerk when required by law in her absence. Item. 2 Official Temporary Designation of Deputy City Clerks ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To officially designate Finance Director Tom Pepper and Executive Secretary Cheryl Stevenson as Deputy City Clerks until October 1, 2013. FACTS: • To ensure continuity of operations while City Clerk Christina Scipioni and Assistant City Administrator Dianne Miller are on a leave of absence this summer, it is appropriate to designate additional employees as Deputy City Clerks. • The designation of Finance Director Pepper and Executive Secretary Stevenson as Deputy City Clerks would be effective through October 1, 2013, when Scipioni and Miller will be back from their leaves. Item 3. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the revisions to the Donated Vacation Leave Policy FACTS: • The current policy contains language that was directly related to the previous provisions of the City's Long Term Disability policy. The City's Long Term Disability Plan Document was revised effective January 2012. The new provisions allow for an employee receiving Long Term Disability benefits to supplement their "LTD" benefit level (50% of their gross wages) by utilizing accrued sick, vacation and other leave time to essentially "buy up" to their previous income level prior to being out on a leave of absence. Human Resources staff proposes removing policy language so that an employee who has exhausted their own leave balances may receive donated (vacation leave only) to exercise the provision as described above. • The current policy capitates donated vacation leave at 160 hours. This cap was in correlation to the 30 day waiting period associated with receiving Long Term Disability benefits. (This is equivalent to 20 work days X 8 hours per day). • Human Resources staff proposes changing the cap to 320 hours, which continues to address the 30 day waiting period to receive the LTD benefit and includes a provision to allow for the affected employee to receive an additional 160 hours of donated leave over an additional 60 calendar days, to coincide with the 90 days of leave allowed for under the Family Medical Leave Act. The Finance Director has reviewed this proposal and indicates there is no additional cost to the City. ATTACHMENTS: Donated Vacation Leave Police on pages 11 and tB Item 4. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the hiring of Seasonal Employees in Parks & Recreation: Name Division Job Title Ray Vogtman Forestry Tree Inspector Jeff Kells Parks Landscape Crew Laborer Brady Weldon Parks Park Laborer Robert Edwards Parks Park Laborer Robert Rausch Parks Park Laborer L1 Conlan Chastain Parks & Rec Concessions Jules Anderson Parks & Rec Concessions Mitch Marella Parks & Rec Concessions Michelle Collette Parks & Rec Program Assistant Claire Opsahl Parks & Rec T -Ball Assistant Jenna Casura Parks & Rec Tennis Assistant �b DONATED VACATION LEAVE POLICY 36.1 With the express written approval of the City Administrator, City employees having accrued vacation leave time will be allowed to donate a portion of such accrued leave to fellow employees experiencing a serious health condition suffered by the employee, their spouse, or minor children. A serious health condition is defined as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility or continuing treatment by a health care provider or any other condition covered under the Family Medical Leave Act. 36.2 A donation of leave from one employee to another shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: a. An employee is only eligible to receive donated leave for time lost from work, due to a serious health condition as described above. equal to the number a houfs of time ., -hie>1 the employee w „1.1 lose from his or her Job due to the serious 1. ea4t1, eondition. b. An employee will be eligible to receive donated leave only after the employee's accrued sick leave, floating holidays, employee recognition day (if applicable), compensatory time, and vacation have been used by the employee. An employee is not eligible for the leave donation program if also eligible for Workers' Compensation, reeeiving Long Term Disability paymepAs though City's or judged to be disabled to the extent that the employee will not be returning to work. c. No employee will be allowed to receive more than 440 320 hours of donated leave for any single serious health condition. d. Employees will not accrue leave time benefits while using donated leave. e. A written request to receive leave must be made to the Director of Human Resources on forms designated by the City for that purpose. The Director of Human Resources may require that a leave request be supported by a certification issued by the health care provider of the employee or of the employee's qualified relative. The Director of Human Resources will forward the request form(s) to the City Administrator for approval /denial. f. The City Administrator shall have the right to deny use of donated leave or limit its use as shall be determined necessary and in the best interest of the City of Eagan. g. Upon approval of the City Administrator, the Director of Human Resources will inform City employees that an employee has requested donated vacation leave. The name of the employee requesting donations will only be revealed with the M permission of the employee. Only the Director of Human Resources or the City Administrator may post a notice on bulletin boards and /or electronically regarding the donation of leave. h. Participation in the donation of vacation leave program will be completely voluntary and confidential. No City employee shall pressure or otherwise attempt to influence another City employee to surrender vacation leave. The City will not inform the recipient of the names of those surrendering hours or the number of hours surrendered. i. A prospective donor will indicate the amount of hours he /she wishes to donate on forms designated by the City for that purpose and submit the form to the Director of Human Resources. j. Donations must be on an hour- for -hour basis. For every one (1) hour of vacation leave donated by the donor, the recipient will be credited with one (1) hour of vacation leave. The pay levels of the two employees shall not affect the transaction. k. Once surrendered leave hours have been processed, neither party may revoke the transaction, even if it has not yet been paid. 1. The donated hours are taxable income to the recipient. m. If the recipient separates from City employment before using all of the donated leave time, the remaining donated time may not be converted to severance pay. n. Any unused portion of donated vacation leave shall be returned to the donor(s). The manner of stteb. return shall l be determined by the Dire, ter- of L7,,,,-, a the Dire n c �� 59zcrcc�- airc�rrc�rrcEt9i�iizrst�ati�F�7cr `v'-iEES 11 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To ratify the check registers dated March 29, 2013 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: • Check registers dated March 29, 2013 are enclosed without page number Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: D. APPROVE DAKOTA COUNTY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR 2013 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve Dakota County Joint Powers Agreement for Cost Sharing of the aerial photography for 2013. FACTS: This is similar to previous agreements that we have had in place since 2005 with the County. Our shared cost as budgeted for 2013 will be $2,131. This year, we are acquiring orthophotography, infrared image bands, stereo images and a county -wide MrSID or ECW image library. It will also be available through the Dakota County Interactive Map (DCGIS), as well as through web mapping services on the county website for use in city GIS applications. ATTACHMENTS: • Due to the length of the JPA document, a hard copy of the JPA is available upon request of the City Administrator. Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting E. APPROVE TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR PEOPLE OF PRAISE MN, INC.'S COMMUNITY SOCIAL ON JUNE 22, 2013 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve the temporary on -sale liquor license fee for People of Praise MN, Inc.'s Community Social on June 22, 2013. FACTS: ➢ People of Praise MN, Inc. has requested a temporary on -sale liquor license be issued to them for a Community Social planned for June 22, 2013. The event will be held inside the school building, located at 601 River Ridge Parkway. ➢ The application form has been submitted and deemed in order by staff. Following Council approval, the application will be forwarded to the Department of Public Safety /Liquor Control Division for final approval. ATTACHMENTS (0): (The complete application is available from the Office of the City Clerk.) W Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting F. APPROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO CONSIDER SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE ISSUED TO HEAVENLY ASIAN MASSAGE, 4215 NICOLS ROAD, AND THE MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE ISSUED TO YANG YU ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a resolution declaring the City Council's intent to consider suspension or revocation of the Massage Therapy Establishment License issued to Heavenly Asian Massage, 4215 Nicols Road, and the Massage Therapist License issued to Yang Yu. FACTS: ➢ After receiving complaints about possible ordinance violations at Heavenly Asian Massage, 4215 Nicols Road, the Police Department conducted an investigation of the establishment. Officers discovered evidence indicating therapists are practicing massage therapy at the business without a Massage Therapist License from the City. City Code requires all massage therapists to obtain a license. ➢ Per City Code, massage therapy ordinance violations are brought to the City Council for consideration of license revocation. In this case, there are two license revocations to consider: 1. Revocation of the Massage Therapy Establishment License issued to Heavenly Asian Massage (owned by Julio Alaniz) on the basis that the establishment violated City Ordinance by allowing unlicensed therapists to practice massage therapy at the establishment. 2. Revocation of the Massage Therapist License issued to Yang Yu, the on- premise manager of Heavenly Asian Massage. Under City Code, on- premise managers assume responsibility for the activities within the establishment. City Code also states that licenses shall not be issued to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation related to the business activity for which the license is sought. ➢ Before the license revocations are considered, the licensees have a right to a hearing. The proposed resolution directs the hearing be held by an administrative hearing officer who is not an employee of the City. WE ➢ The hearing officer will issue findings of fact to the Council regarding the revocations. At a future meeting, the Council will be asked to consider the findings and take final action on the revocation. The Council could also choose to suspend the licenses. ➢ If the resolution is approved by the City Council, the City Clerk will then notify the licensees of the administrative hearing. It is anticipated the administrative hearing would be held in early May. ATTACHMENTS (1): The resolution declaring the City Council's intent to consider license suspension or revocation is attached on page aL�- . ■ RESOLUTION NO. _ CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF EAGAN'S INTENT TO CONSIDER SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE ISSUED TO HEAVENLY ASIAN MASSAGE AND THE MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE ISSUED TO YANG YU WHEREAS, the City of Eagan issued a Massage Therapy Establishment License to Heavenly Asian Massage, 4215 Nicols Road, and a Massage Therapist License to Yang Yu, who is the on- premise manager of Heavenly Asian Massage; and WHERAS, in response to complaints about the operations of Heavenly Asian Massage, the Eagan Police Department conducted an investigation of the establishment and discovered evidence of massage therapists working at Heavenly Asian Massage without massage therapist licenses from the City of Eagan; and WHEREAS, Eagan City Code Chapter 6.39 requires all massage therapists to obtain a Massage Therapy License from the City and places responsibility for a massage therapy establishment's operations on the licensee and the on- premise manager; and WHEREAS, Eagan City Code Chapter 6.03 states no license shall be issued to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation as related to the business or activity for which the license /permit is sought. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, declares its intent to consider suspension or revocation of the Massage Therapy Establishment License issued to Heavenly Asian Massage, 4215 Nicols Road, and the Massage Therapist License issued to Yang Yu; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota directs the City Clerk to issue a Notice of License Violation and Hearing to Heavenly Asian Massage and Yang Yu; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer who is not an employee of the City of Eagan. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: It's Mayor Attest: It's Clerk X Motion by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Date: April 16, 2013 CERTIFICATION I, Christina M. Scipioni, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 16th day of April, 2013. City Clerk 06 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting G. APPROVE ACTION TO NOT WAIVE THE MONETARY LIMITS ON MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve action to not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability. FACTS: ➢ Each year at the time of renewal of the City's property /casualty insurance policies, the City Council is asked by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ( LMCIT) to take formal action to "waive" or "not waive" the statutory tort limits to the extent of the insurance coverage being purchased. ➢ Minnesota Statutes provide the maximum liability of any municipality on any claim to be $500,000 when the claim is for death by wrongful act or omission and $500,000 to any claimant in any other case and $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. These limits do not cover MN Statutory Liquor and Federal Laws (Civil Rights and Disabilities). ➢ In addition, the City is annually provided an option to purchase excess liability coverage, in effect raising the statutory limits. However, because the statutory limits have been upheld in numerous court cases and because of the relatively high premium costs, Eagan has chosen over the past number of years not to purchase any excess liability coverage. ➢ Choosing not to waive the statutory tort limits means that an individual claimant could potentially recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total that all claimants could potentially recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. If a city chooses to waive the tort limits, the LMCIT adds 3.5% to the liability premium. That additional premium amounts to approximately $6,000 annually for Eagan. ➢ Staff has not done a survey, but in discussing the issue with the City's insurance agent there does not appear to be a consistent conclusion reached by the various cities insured by the LMCIT as to either purchase excess liability coverage and /or to waive or not waive the tort limits. Individual City philosophies and financial situations are most important in informing the decision. While staff has not requested a complete legal analysis of the issue, the City Attorney sees the decision to waive or not waive the tort limits as a matter of public policy for the City Council to decide. ATTACHMENTS: (None) a(0 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting H. CONTRACT 13 -12, CEDAR GROVE PARKWAY TRAIL & LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the plans and specifications for Contract 13 -12 (Cedar Grove Parkway - Trail & Lighting Improvements) and authorize the advertisement for a bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 30, 2013. FACTS: • Contract 13 -12 provides for the trail and boulevard lighting improvements on the south side of Cedar Grove Parkway (Nicols Road to Rahn Road) within the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area in northwest Eagan (City Project No. 888). • On June 7, 2011, the City Council approved the 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan (2012- 2016), and authorized the preparation of detailed plans and specifications for these improvements and construction in 2012. • The installation of these improvements were delayed to the 2013 construction season to coincide with other infrastructure and development in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area, specifically the relocation of existing overhead electrical power lines and appurtenances. • The plans and specifications have been completed jointly by the City's consulting engineering firm, Bolton & Menk' and City Engineering staff, and are being presented to the City Council for their approval and authorization for the advertisement of bids. • Minnesota state law allows local agencies to choose a procurement system, termed Best Value Contracting (BVC) for construction projects, as an alternative to the standard low -bid contracting system. The law was advocated by a coalition of labor organizations and requires two factors to be considered during the BVC procurement process: price and performance. • BVC uses the relationship between performance and price to achieve the best overall value and lowest long -term cost for government construction projects. • On March 18, 2008, the City Council adopted, as practice, the Best Value Contracting alternative for the procurement system for the public improvement projects for the City. The BVC method of procurement has been successfully used by the City on numerous project contracts since 2008. • The BVC method of procurement will be used for this contract, and will be advertised in the solicitation of these bids. All bids will be evaluated in an open and competitive manner. • All easements needed for the construction of the improvements have been acquired. aq Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting I. ADVANTAGE LANE NO PARKING ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a resolution to prohibit parking on the north side of Advantage Lane (TH 149 to the railroad crossing) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Over the past several months, on- street parking has existed daily on both sides of Advantage Lane blocking fire hydrants and emergency access points for properties on the north side of Advantage Lane. • The Fire Department has communicated with all of the surrounding properties tenants /owners expressing the need to keep the hydrant and emergency access areas clear at all times. Little change in parking behavior was noted from this proactive measure. • The Police Department then began enforcing the existing State Statutes and City Ordinances prohibiting the problematic parking behavior. Again, little change in parking behavior was noted from this reactive measure. • Subsequently, the Fire Department approached the adjacent property owners and tenants suggesting that parking restrictions may be enacted to prohibit parking on the north side of Advantage Lane. None of the property owners or tenants expressed objections to the potential parking restrictions. • Additional signage will be installed on the south side of Advantage Lane to clarify the application of winter parking regulations in this area as indicated in the attached location map. • If the Council approves the parking restrictions, signs would be installed when weather permits to inform motorists of the restrictions. In the interim, the Fire Department would inform adjacent property owners and tenants of the pending restrictions. ATTACHMENT: • Location Map, page c,�J . G2 L �c9 011 s� s I No Parking No Parking Odd days Nov 15 - April 15 6AM -6PM NORTH City of Eapn Advantage Lane - Recommended 4 -11 -2013 Engineering Department Parking Schedule & Signage ( Odd Days) Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting J. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS FINAL ACCEPTANCE ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Acknowledge the completion and authorize perpetual City maintenance, subject to warranty provisions, of the following City Projects: 06 -F (Yankee Square Addition), 06 -N (Oak Hills Church), 06 -S (Town Centre 100 20th Addition), 07 -E (Blue Ridge 7th Addition), 07 -J (Dodd Parkside Addition), 10 -F (Nicols Ridge 4th Addition). FACTS: These developments required the installation of public sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer, which was all performed privately by the developer under the terms and conditions of the development contract agreement. The improvements have been completed, inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department and found to be in order for favorable Council action for acceptance for perpetual maintenance subject to warranty provisions. Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA K. LOTS 5 -8, BLOCK 5, EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the vacation of public drainage and utility easements located on Lots 5 -8, Block 5, Eagandale Center Industrial Park. FACTS: • On February 8, 2013, City staff received a petition from Mr. Mike DiNanno, representing Chicago Tube & Iron Co. (2940 Eagandale Boulevard), requesting the vacation of public drainage and utility easements on the current Chicago Tube & Iron site (Lots 5 -8, Block 5 Eagandale Center Industrial Park). • The purpose of the request is to allow the recording of a final plat that would combine the four existing lots to allow for an addition to the existing building. • The request would vacate existing perimeter drainage and utility easements on the Chicago Tube & Iron property. The vacation of the easements would clean up the proposed plat by avoiding any underlying recorded dedications. • The final plat of CTI Addition will combine all four lots into one lot and will dedicate the necessary public drainage and utility easements that will adequately address public drainage and utility purposes. • On March 19, 2013, the public hearing was held considering the vacating of the public easements, with formal action delayed to coincide with Council consideration of the final plat for the CTI Addition. • The final plat for CTI Addition is also scheduled for Council consideration on the Consent Agenda at the April 16 meeting. • All notices were published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected private utility owners informing them of the public hearing on March 19. No objections were received. ATTACHMENTS: • Legal Description, graphic, pages • Location Map, page ?13 . app Al'Y:ktiY Ctl(' 3X17 AHVI 311(T'IAIi � t1f 2W1 AtNi T l rn fq adOH NVO ]NOS I LNo! 'OANl o:9Y „Illy •Cy 3 L a I ------ - - - - Ii v a) a) Ln (, (6 L- M.SI,Li,tY: 4- s () a) (031VOVA °o - 0� O �OV021 30 1A1N_:7S 1S3M \ ' yJ 4,+ ro J31N3.: 3 i v v'v'l -9 O S O °;o c Z U n U to v @ Ln 4--� O O O U W (, cu ++1 Y 0 O � W J N N +� s �6u Q o 3 O O Z ~ o L N 4- a) Z) D Q a C a-, @ < w v Z O 3 — 3 > v U U N > (� 'I- C pZ u m W `J O O a) m -0 U v .� O > � C CC co � ) E a) Q co v co -p O �a Z O v f% M w ` ` O L U O m O _ -o E Y F- t v v O C M O Q m N to (j 0 0 O �34 c Ln o v ,Y lu 4- E vUi a) O N v� a) 4- a) E '0 O " O > 00 N T cft 3C{kYs 1 N = 0 ,I�M,�,9C.6B5 1 -•, � ,G O E ro `n .;��Jy�s s •� � fD aj T 0-0 v 4v- >- a) 0 L O O L W ado 0 C Q' J N M � D 2 CD b0 � f O O w app Al'Y:ktiY Ctl(' 3X17 AHVI 311(T'IAIi � t1f 2W1 AtNi T l rn fq adOH NVO ]NOS I LNo! 'OANl o:9Y „Illy •Cy 3 L a I ------ - - - - Ii v a) a) Ln (, (6 L- M.SI,Li,tY: 4- s () a) (031VOVA °o - 0� O �OV021 30 1A1N_:7S 1S3M \ ' � 4,+ ro J31N3.: 3 i v v'v'l -9 O S O °;o c n U to v @ Ln 4--� O O O U cu ++1 Y 0 O � V 0 4- Q O N N +� s �6u Q o 3 O 0 t ~ L N 4- a) Z) D Ln vi p M C a-, @ Z O 3 — 3 > v U U N 'I- C pZ U fL0 O Q'N �aZ U v .� Cc Lu J E C C CC co � ) E a) Q co v co -p O �a Z O w O Q) Q v V) O L v v Q a) m W to _ -o E Y F- t v v O C M O Q m N to (j O v O 0 cv Z v ,Y lu vUi a) O W m a) 4- a) E '0 O " O > 00 OM ice+ +' '0 = 0 Ol : E ro `n O U aj T 0-0 v 4v- >- a) 0 L O O L W ado 0 N M � lJ_ LIJ LIJ L LIJ CJ <C An <f A m --t OO Off M.SI,Li,tY: F 0 m (031VOVA n v� 0� 'ON '000 83d 1N3N13SV3 alll n �OV021 30 1A1N_:7S 1S3M \ ' XYXV / J31N3.: 3 i v v'v'l -9 aLd .2z >` Lo 0 _J I <C W W _ a � IJ� z w w t � - .j -- FZ1� 'dQ 0 a W J T� Q I'p Q az w Q Q w m N O z w w Q — w 1 g fO 9 u) o 1310,1� (031VOVA n 38 01) £ZOZ91 0� 'ON '000 83d 1N3N13SV3 alll n 1 g fO 9 `k- -. oo'wr asv�mm I�� M7[L A3 r mxr, I l? A 007L v v vcy .7:/u i�-ia� � rnl 3�L ,Y0,0s Wit& .M SI,SJ;V A4& Y o lilt— - 00"r .i91,SS,69N t' ° / 9 101 d0 3NIl N �OV021 30 1A1N_:7S 1S3M \ ' XYXV / J31N3.: 3 i v v'v'l -9 .t �c E Gj R1 J m W J C] V w t,,j Cj �S I C' U I � C �� CJ W: o `iRut i� g a � •c li) 0 Lo L U c W J Q U a 3 d N O O L N N V) r� vi N tr n N H a I 0 q m q N O N EASEMENT 494 VACATION jWENDOZA HEIGHTS LOCATION LONE OAK RD. h s zs — YANKEE DOODLE RD. 2 IV � m t} 10 Z O DIFFLEY� RD.'—" 30 w 43 CITY OF EAGAN Fig. 1 Proposed Easement Vacation Location Map Wyflapa Lots 5 -8, 131k.5, Eagandale Center Industrial Park 3/28/2011 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting L. LOTS 2, 3, 4 and 5. BLOCK 1, SAFARI AT EAGAN 3RD ADDITION EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the petition to vacate public drainage and utility easements located on Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Safari at Eagan 3rd Addition and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 21, 2013. FACTS: • On March 20, 2013, City staff received a petition from Ryan McCabe, President, RMTS2 Investments, LLC, requesting the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements on Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Safari at Eagan 3rd Addition (1575 -1590 Thomas Center Drive). The parcels are located north of Cliff Road and west of Thomas Lake Road in southwest Eagan. • The purpose of the request is to allow the recording of a final plat of the property as the proposed Safari at Eagan 4th Addition. • The request would vacate all of the perimeter drainage and utility easements on the existing property. The vacation of the easements would clean up the proposed plat by avoiding any underlying recorded dedications. • The new final plat, Safari at Eagan 4th Addition, will dedicate perimeter public drainage and utility easements that will adequately address public drainage and utility purposes. The new plat is scheduled for Council consideration on May 21, 2013. • Notices for a public hearing will be published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected and /or interested parties for comment prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Legal Description, graphic, page 3J • Location Map, page 'j4 . M F FW-- Q O EXCEPTION I � <ORY 4 wow I wad 'E 2 I ti I woo I V)ZU° I jyyWW� I 34i ya I 3 I I 5 I I I INY -DRAINAGE &UTILITY EASEMENT DRAINAGE & UTIL I I I BLOCK 1 I G OA 13 I I 1 1 ' I ' I \_GRAINAGE & / UTILITY EASEMENT C.S.A.H. NO. 32 (CLIFF ROAD 1 F� �ss 2 O,L � N Pr BG G BG 120 SCALE IN FEET ry °I w Description of easements to be vacated: z All drainage and utility easements deicated to the public lying W within lots 2,3,4 & 5, Block 1, SAFARI AT EAGAN 3RD ADDITION, U according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County [n Q o® Easements to be Vacated L ?013 Proposed Drainage and Utility Easements Vacation City of Eap Lots 2,3,4 &5 Block 1, Safari at Eagan 3rd Add. Fig. 2 Engineering Department S Proposed Easemant Vacation Location Map Fig. 1 Safari at Eagan 3rd Cityof Eap L:User /Engineer /Easement Vacation Graphic/ Safari at Eagan 3rd 4/3/2013 3(0 5 Ll f7. 1 J� EASEMENT VACATION 1 LOCATION DIFFLEY RD. -r 30 - 30 fC Z M Y O CLIFF., ROAD APPLE VALLEY Proposed Easemant Vacation Location Map Fig. 1 Safari at Eagan 3rd Cityof Eap L:User /Engineer /Easement Vacation Graphic/ Safari at Eagan 3rd 4/3/2013 3(0 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting M. OUTLOT D, STONEHAVEN 5TH ADDITION EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the petition to vacate a public drainage and utility easement located on Outlot D, Stonehaven 5th Addition and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 21, 2013. FACTS: • On April 8, 2013, City staff received a petition from Ms. Carole Toohey, US Home Corporation, requesting the vacation of an existing drainage and utility easement on Outlot D of Stonehaven 5th Addition. The property is located in northeast Eagan near the City of Eagan's Fire Safety Center. • Said easement was dedicated to temporarily provide for storm drainage from Station Trail in conjunction with the construction of the street and utility improvements for the Fire Safety Center. The construction of the street and utility improvements by the developer as part of the Stonehaven 6t1' Addition development will address the permanent drainage needs upon connection to the existing Station Trail storm sewer. • The purpose of the request is to allow the recording of a final plat of the outlot for the proposed Stonehaven 6th Addition as a residential development. • The request would vacate the existing drainage and utility easement on the property. The vacation of the easement would clean up the proposed plat by avoiding any underlying recorded dedications. • Said easement will no longer be needed upon the construction of the Stonehaven 6th Addition street and utility improvements. The final plat of Stonehaven 6th Addition will address and incorporate all necessary public drainage and utility easements on this property. • The approval of the plat for the Stonehaven 6th Addition is also scheduled for Council consideration on May 21, 2013. • Notices for a public hearing will be published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected and /or interested parties for comment prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Legal Description, graphic, page • Location Map, page ?-�9 . 31 NO SCALE YANKEE DOODLE RD EASEMENT #2727133 1 TO BE VACATED - - nehaVen nth Add. Sto W TLOT 0 PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS A 20.00 foot permanent drainage and utility easement per document number 2727133, the centerline 1s described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of lot 1, Block 1, EAGAN FIRE STATION NO. 2, thence North 52 degrees 13 minutes 48 seconds West, o distance of 23.73 feet, thence North 79 degrees / 20 minutes 46 seconds West, o distance of 163.50 feel and there terminating. • THIS SKETCH DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENTS FROM OR ONTO THE HEREON DESCRIBED 1LAND, .EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH AFFECT SAID LAND OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID LAND. Cad File: VESMTSKETCH Description Sketch for: Felder#: LENNAR CORPORATION Drawn by: ni mdp dp j Ewa rioncer nngmcenng 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 1 STATION TRAIL (� 3 2 Z I III MONARCH TRAIL I III 0111L0T E ❑ I I L .�0+ III II III 0 _ III 1 5 3 4 5 III LU _ lit I11 III I I I I PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS A 20.00 foot permanent drainage and utility easement per document number 2727133, the centerline 1s described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of lot 1, Block 1, EAGAN FIRE STATION NO. 2, thence North 52 degrees 13 minutes 48 seconds West, o distance of 23.73 feet, thence North 79 degrees / 20 minutes 46 seconds West, o distance of 163.50 feel and there terminating. • THIS SKETCH DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENTS FROM OR ONTO THE HEREON DESCRIBED 1LAND, .EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH AFFECT SAID LAND OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID LAND. Cad File: VESMTSKETCH Description Sketch for: Felder#: LENNAR CORPORATION Drawn by: ni mdp dp j Ewa rioncer nngmcenng 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 1 — 3 2 1 2 1 MONARCH TRAIL 2 3 I I L 1 1LOT C 1 5 3 4 5 2 1 21 2 3� 2 II ?? 1 4 3 II 3 \ W1L0T B 4 I 5 6 4 5 II 6 7 1I B II II WTLOT A I I { I I II II PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS A 20.00 foot permanent drainage and utility easement per document number 2727133, the centerline 1s described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of lot 1, Block 1, EAGAN FIRE STATION NO. 2, thence North 52 degrees 13 minutes 48 seconds West, o distance of 23.73 feet, thence North 79 degrees / 20 minutes 46 seconds West, o distance of 163.50 feel and there terminating. • THIS SKETCH DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENTS FROM OR ONTO THE HEREON DESCRIBED 1LAND, .EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH AFFECT SAID LAND OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID LAND. Cad File: VESMTSKETCH Description Sketch for: Felder#: LENNAR CORPORATION Drawn by: ni mdp dp j Ewa rioncer nngmcenng -/0 i - I Awl, MENDOTA HEIGHTS I ' YANKEE DOODLE R046 DUCKWOOD DRIVE -W D z w z 0 F- z EASEMENT VACATION LOCATION � f�lmfil,441@ CITY OF EAGAN Fig. 1 + Proposed Easemant Vacation Location Map City of Stonehaven 5th Addition 04-08-2013 69 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting N. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BOB MARTIN ADDITION EASEMENT VACATION ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the petition to vacate public drainage and utility easement located on Lot 1, Block 1, Bob Martin Addition and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 21, 2013. FACTS: • On April 4, 2013, City staff received a petition from Brad Crooks, AMEC, requesting the vacation of a portion of an existing drainage and utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Bob Martin Addition (2965 Lone Oak Circle). The property is located north of Lone Oak Road in northeast Eagan. • The purpose of the request is to allow the current business, Catallia Mexican Foods, to construct an addition near the south east corner of the existing building. The addition will house two silos initially with space for a third future silo. The silos will be used to store liquid soybean shortening. • The request would vacate a 5' wide by 50' long portion of an existing perimeter drainage and utility easement along the south property line of the parcel to avoid the encroachment of the building addition within said easement. • The vacation of the 5' wide portion of the easement would accommodate the proposed building expansion within an area that is without public utilities or drainage impacts. • Catallia Mexican Foods has been successful in this location since they started in April, 2006. They have about 125 employees in a plant that runs 24 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. They produce over 2 million tortillas each day. • Notices for a public hearing will be published in the legal newspaper and sent to all potentially affected and /or interested parties for comment prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Legal Description, graphic, page • Location Map, page-4—a-. sm 1' I I I I I I I I I L T 1 CATALLINA MEXICAN FOODS LLC I I I PID 10-14600 -01 -010 I I 2965 LONR OAK CIRCLE - ' I I I I � 1 I f$ -------- - - - - - ------ 199.50- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - ..... . , ..4 PROPOSED BLDG, ADDITION _ - N- 10 FT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ° Ui ° EASDEMENT PER PLAT OF BOB MARTIN ADDITION DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE VACATED: The North 5,00 feet of the the South 10.00 feet of the West 50.00 feet of the East 199.50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, BOB MARTIN ADDITION UA I N NOT TO SCALE r i 494 N DIFFLEY RD." EASEMENT VACATION LOCATION 0 Z 0 I0 LON14AK RD. -- �J Y44/ W -- p YANKEE DOODLE RD. LL CITY OF EAGAN Proposed Easement Vacation Location Map Cityo[�a�an Lots 1, Blk.1, Bob Martin Addition a ME Fig. 1 4/8/2013 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting O. PROJECTS 923 & 1011, TH 149, TH 55 TO I -494 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve Amendment Number 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement for Projects 923 (Trunk Highway 149 — Street and Trail Improvements) and 1011(Trunk Highways 55/149 — Street and Trail Improvements) with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. FACTS: • Project 923 consists of an upgrade to the segment of Highway 149 from the north intersection of TH 55 to the I -494 north ramp intersection from the existing four -lane divided roadway to a five -lane facility (3 lanes in the northbound direction and 2 lanes in the southbound direction). The proposed improvements also include a bituminous trail on the west side of TH 149. • Project 1011 consists of upgrades to the common segment of Highways 55 and 149 from their south intersection to their north intersection from the existing four -lane divided roadway to a six -lane section (3 lanes in each direction). The proposed improvements also include a bituminous trail on the south side of this segment of state highway. • On January 15, 2013, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Eagan and MnDOT for professional /technical services needed to complete preliminary engineering design efforts for Projects 923 and 1011. The agreement provides for a 50150 cost share for the professional services. The initial value of the JPA was $122,915 with the City of Eagan's share equal to $61,457.50. • Additional environmental documentation, not in the original work scope, was required by MnDOT and FHWA since the JPA was approved. The value of this work is approximately $12,338 with the City of Eagan's share equal to $6,169. • Public Works staff have reviewed this amendment and found it to be similar to other cost participation and cooperative construction agreements and in order for favorable Council action. 43 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA P. Adopt a resolution accepting a $50.00 donation from an Eagan Citizen ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Adopt a Resolution accepting a $50.00 donation from John and Dorothy Childs. FACTS: • Mr. and Mrs. Childs sent a kind note along with a $50.00 donation to the police department on March 29, 2013. • The correspondence sent outlines their appreciation for the police department's help on numerous occasions. • The donation is to be used to fund an undesignated program. • Chief McDonald sent a thank you letter to Mr. and Mrs. Childs. ATTACHMENTS: Thank you letter and resolution on pages u5 and 4 . 4q J City of Eapn POLICE DEPARTMENT April 8, 2013 JAMES MCDONALD Chief of Police John and Dorothy Childs JEFFREYJOHNSON 4130 Ruby Lane Deputy Chief of Police Eagan, Minnesota 55122 MIKE FINERAN ROGER NEW DUANE PIKE Dear Mr. and Mrs. Childs, Lieutenants My name is James (Jim) McDonald and I am the Chief of Police with the Eagan Police Department. I am writing to acknowledge your kind note and generous donation which recognizes the work of our staff on several occasions. 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1897 N 55122 -1 All of us with knowledge of your kind act are humbled. You should know your hard Phone: 6 e: 6515 75.5 earned tax dollars are what is used to ensure police personnel are able to provide the Fax: 51.675.5707 TTY: service you experienced on numerous occasions. Nonetheless, your kind words and www.cityofeagan.com charity is deeply appreciated. Thank you, and if we can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us. MIKE MAGUIRE Sincer y Mayor c' PAUL BAKKEN L. J es S. McDonald CYNDEE FIELDS Chief of Police GARY HANSEN Eagan Police Department MEG TILLEY Council Members C/ Eagan Mayor and City Council Dave Osberg, Eagan City Administrator DAVE OSBERG File City Administrator THE LONE OAK TREE The symbol of strength and growth in our community CE OFpfc G inl OLICE 45 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION TO THE CITY OF EAGAN John and Dorothy Childs WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eagan encourages public donations to help defray the costs to the general public of providing services in Eagan; and WHEREAS, John and Dorothy Childs have presented the Police Department with a donation in the amount of $50.00. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §465.03 requires that all gifts and donations of real or personal property be accepted only with the adoption of a resolution approved by two - thirds of the members of the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, that the donation is hereby accepted for use by the City; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City sincerely thanks John and Dorothy Childs for the gracious and generous donation. ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2013. Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor: Those Against: Date: 40 CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: It's Mayor Attest: It's Clerk Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA Q. Approve the new Lease Agreements between the City of Eagan and St. Croix Harley Davidson for two 2013 Harley Davidson motorcycles ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: The action is to approve two new lease agreements between the City of Eagan and St. Croix Harley Davidson. The approval of these leases will enable the police department to lease two motorcycles for one year. The dealership will lease both motorcycles to the city at a cost of $1 each. FACTS: • Since 2003, the Eagan Police Department has used motorcycles for traffic enforcement and other outreach programs to promote traffic safety throughout Eagan. • A prior lease agreement was reviewed by the Eagan City Attorney and suggested changes to the document were made at that time. There were no substantive changes to the 2013 documents. • The previously leased motorcycles were returned to the dealership last fall. By approving the new lease agreements, the police department will receive two new 2013 models. • The original start-up fees for the Traffic Enforcement Unit were paid through grants from the Eagan Citizen's Crime Prevention Association in 2003. ATTACHMENTS A copy of the lease agreements are attached as pages Hb through 5 �9 2013 HARLEY- DAVIDSON FLHTP LEASE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 8th day of April, 2013 by and between St. Croix Harley- Davidson, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (hereinafter the "Lessor ") and the City of Eagan a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the "Lessee "), for the purpose of lending to the Lessee Harley - Davidson Motorcycles. RECITALS WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into by the City of Eagan under the authority of Minn. Stat. § §412.211 and 412.221. WHEREAS, the City of Eagan is desirous of leasing motorcycles for the Eagan Police Departments use in patrol and law enforcement duties and the Lessor or desirous of leasing certain motorcycles to the City of Eagan for a reasonable cost. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Eagan and its residents for it to lease the motorcycles from the Lessor under the terms and condition of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Equipment. 2013 Harley- Davidson FLHTP Police Motorcycle, BLACK, VIN 1HDIFMMlODB656074 (hereinafter the "Motorcycles "). 2. Agreement Terms. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution for a period of twelve (12) months. Motorcycles leased under this Agreement are to be used for police and related activities only. No more than one person shall be on a Motorcycle leased under this Agreement and the person operating the Motorcycle shall be authorized by law and Eagan Police Department policy to operate the Motorcycle. 3. Payment Period. Lessee shall pay one yearly lease payment of One Dollar ($1.00) per Motorcycle. Payment does not include the cost of optional or additional equipment not otherwise included in the specifications of the Motorcycles leased hereunder as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, full maintenance or insurance costs. 4. Insurance. At its own expense, the Lessee shall carry casualty insurance, public liability insurance and property damage insurance sufficient to protect the full value of the Motorcycles, and to protect the Lessor from liability in all events. The Lessee shall carry workman's compensation insurance covering all of its employees working on or about the Motorcycles. Upon request, Lessee shall furnish to Lessor certificates or other satisfactory evidence of all insurance coverage described above as required terms and conditions of the Agreement. 5. Hold Harmless Indemnification Between Parties. The Lessee hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Lessors up to the limits of the Lip municipal immunity as provided by state statute from and against any and all losses, penalties, damages, settlements, costs, charges or other expenses or liabilities arising out of the negligence of the Lessee or its employees in the use or operation of the Motorcycles leased hereunder, but not for and loss, claim, damage, action or the like arising out of negligence acts of the Lessor. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any rights, privileges, immunities, or tort damage limitations available to the City under federal or state law, in the event any person or party brings claim against the City as a result of the use or operation of a Motorcycle leased under this Agreement. 6. Liens. The Lessee shall not directly or indirectly create, incur, assume, or suffer to exist and mortgage, pledge, lien, charge, encumbrance or claims on or with respect to the Motorcycles, except with respective rights of the Lessor as herein provided. Lessee shall promptly, at its own expense, take such action as charge, encumbrance or claim not expected above if the same shall arise at any time due to Lessee's action or inaction. 7. Terms and Fees. The Lessee shall pay all appropriate taxes or fees, or similar charges imposed by virtue of the Lessee's ownership, possession or use of the Motorcycles during the term of this Agreement. 8. Care and Use of Equipment. The Lessor agrees to maintain the Motorcycles pursuant to the manufacturer's standard and preventive maintenance procedures and recommendations. All repairs and maintenance shall be made at St. Croix Harley - Davidson, Inc., 2060 Highway 65, New Richmond, Wisconsin 54017, The Lessee, at its own cost and expense, shall ensure delivery of the Motorcycles to the above address at regular maintenance intervals set up by Lessor in accordance with the service schedule as provided in the owner's manual. The Lessee shall protect the Motorcycles from deterioration other than normal wear and tear. The Lessee shall use the Motorcycles for police related activities only, without abuse, and shall not make modifications, alterations or additions to the Motorcycles (other than normal operation accessories or controls) without the written consent of the Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Lessor shall have the right, after notifying the Lessee, and during regular business hours to enter upon the premises where the Motorcycles are located in order to inspect, observe or otherwise protect the Lessor's interest, and the Lessee shall afford them the reasonable opportunity to do so. 9. Damage or Deterioration of Motorcycles. In the event the Motorcycles are partially damaged or destroyed due to the negligent action of the Lessee or its employees prior to the end of the term of this Agreement, the Lessee will promptly have the Motorcycles repaired and restored to their original condition and working order at their expense. In the case of theft or total loss of any of the Motorcycles, the replacement value of each Motorcycle shall be Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Five and No /100 Dollars ($17,995.00). 10. Rider Responsibility and Privileges. The Lessee shall be responsible for keeping the Motorcycles clean and for reporting and repairs needed to the Lessor. The q� Lessee may allow riders to use the Motorcycles to travel to and from work, provided that the Motorcycles are fully insured by the Lessee and that the distance to and from work is no more than thirty (30) miles each way. 11. Events of Default and Remedies. Lessee shall be deemed to be in default of this Agreement upon the happening of any of the following events of default: (A) Lessee fails to make payment of the lease or other payments required hereunder; or (B) Lessee fails to comply with any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. Upon the occurrence of any event of default as specified above, should Lessee fail to remedy such event or default with all reasonable dispatch within a period of thirty (30) days, Lessor shall have the right, after written notice to the Lessee, to pursue any of the following remedies: (1) Repossession of the Motorcycles, including the right to sell or lease the Motorcycle for the account of the Lessee, and hold Lessee liable for all payments up to the effective date of such sale or lease. Lessor may hold Lessee liable for the difference of payments, which would be due under the Agreement and the amount received by the Lessor for the sale or lease of the Motorcycles upon default. (2) Any action at law or in equity may appear necessary to collect the payments then due and thereafter to become due, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement or covenant of Lessee under the Agreement. Lessor shall be deemed to be in default under this Agreement upon failure to comply with term, covenant or condition herein. ID U LESSEE: City of Eagan, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation By: Date: Its: By: Date: Its: LESSOR: ST, CROIX IIARLEY- DAVIDSON, INC., a Wisconsin corporation By: Stefanie Simacek Date: Its: Finance Manager 6� Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA R. Approve a contract with Northland Business Systems for the procurement and support of a dictation system. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a contract with Northland Business Systems which would enable them to supply and support a new digital dictation system for the police department. FACTS: • The current contract with the provider supporting the digital dictation system utilized by the police department expires May, 2013. • Staff has identified Northland Business System's "Winscribe" product as a replacement for the current system. • Northland Business Systems offers a Support Agreement as part of the purchase of the Winscribe software. • The cost of the product is $15,120.00. In addition, there will be an annual maintenance fee of $2,370.00. • This agreement was reviewed by City Attorney's Office. ATTACHMENTS A copy of the agreement is attached on pages 53 to 669 . GC)- Northland Business Systems voice & video recording solutions NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS Dated this 23rd day of April, 2013 BETWEEN Northland Business Systems AND Eagan Police Department, hereinafter "Customer" THE PARTIES AGREE: 1. IN consideration of payment by the Customer of the annual support fee as set out in Schedule One, Northland Business Systems agrees to provide corrective maintenance and support services in respect of and to systems supplied by Northland Business Systems as outlined in Schedule Two of this agreement, to the Customer for the location set out in Schedule Three of this agreement. 2. ON receipt of a request for support during the hours of service as outlined in Schedule Four of this agreement, Northland Business Systems will respond to the request and undertake to solve the problem via its remote help desk facility and commence the appropriate corrective action, or where necessary, dispatch a service engineer to the location specified in this agreement at the earliest available opportunity but not to exceed 4 hours. 3. THIS agreement does not cover the re- configuration of software requested by the Customer required due to: • Request to add -on, move, or change the current software configuration • New services or facilities Such re- configuration will be chargeable at the rates of $160.00 per hour. 4. SUBSEQUENT to receipt of notification from the Customer that the system is malfunctioning, Northland Business Systems Technicians shall during the hours of service outlined in Schedule Four of this agreement, make such repairs and adjustments and replace such parts of the equipment as may be necessary to restore the system to its normal operating condition. 5. SHOULD there be a requirement to restore the system and the system is not able to be restored from backup due to the failure of the Customer to maintain adequate backup procedures the restore will be chargeable at the rate of $160.00 per hour. Page 1 of 4 5S Northland Business Systems voice & video recording solutions 6. THIS agreement shall continue on an annual basis from April 23, 2012 upon payment of the annual maintenance fee. Northland Business Systems shall notify the Customer at least 120 days prior to the anniversary date of this agreement of the annual maintenance fee due. Either party may terminate this agreement at any time by providing the other party with one hundred and twenty (120) days written notice. The annual maintenance and support payment shall be prorated monthly through the date of termination and the unused amount shall be refunded to Customer. 7. THE Customer shall be responsible for the supervision, management and control of the use of the equipment and software including without limitation to the generality thereof, ensuring proper machine configuration, program installation and operating methods, establishing adequate backup procedures, implementing sufficient procedures and check points to satisfy the Customer's requirements for security and accuracy of input and output as well as restart and recovery in the event of a malfunction. 8. Northland Business Systems reserves the right to at its own expense have sub- contractors perform the services agreed to be provided hereunder or any part of such services without in any way detracting from Northland Business System's primary obligation to supply the services specified in this agreement. Northland Business Systems shall inform the Customer of all sub- contractors used. 9. THE Customer will not allow any persons other than Northland Business Systems authorized personnel and /or the City of Eagan's Information Technology staff the ability to make adjustments, repair or maintain the system hardware without written consent from Northland Business Systems. 10. THIS agreement and any action related thereto shall be governed, controlled, interpreted and defined by and under the laws of the State of Minnesota, without regard to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof. Any dispute arising under this agreement shall be brought in the Dakota County District Court. 11. THIS agreement is not transferable or assignable by the Customer or Northland Business Systems except with the express written permission of the other party. DEFINITIONS Force Maieure includes acts of God, strikes, lockouts, riots, acts of war, epidemics, Governmental action after the date of this Agreement, fire, communication line failures, Power failures or surges, earthquakes or other disasters. Respond shall be defined as: Northland Business Systems will acknowledge the fault as logged with the Northland Business Systems Helpdesk within four hours of a fault being logged. Critical faults (system down) will receive priority. Repair time is on a best efforts basis. Software services shall be defined as: fault investigation /resolution and general consultation. Corrective maintenance shall be defined as replacement or repair of any faulty hardware component. Li Northland Business .systems 'voice & video recording solutions SCHEDULES Schedule One — Support Fees: $2370.00 Schedule Two - Description of System: Winscribe 4.1 Framework 4 -Port Telephony License 5- Typist Licenses Winscribe Author Playback Winscribe Reports & Manager Winscribe Download Stations Schedule Three - Location of premises in which equipment is situated: Eagan Police Department 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Schedule Four - Hours Of Service: 8.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday except on Public Holidays. Page 3 of 4 Northland Business systems voice & video recording solutions I, the undersigned, have read and accept the terms and conditions of the Hardware and Software Support Agreement presented in this document. Accepted By: City of Eagan Signature: Title: Date: Accepted By: Northland Business Systems Signature: Title: Date: Northland Business Systems voice & video recording solutions 1606 Cliff Road East • Burnsville, MN 55337 Scott Wosje Direct: 952 -428 -7208 Fax; 952 -894 -7903 swosje @northiandsys.com Page 4 of 4 15-0 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: S. AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF ACCESSEAGAN FIBER IN THE CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE FIBER ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Authorize the extension of AccessEagan fiber in the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area and approve the issuance of a Request for Quote (RFQ) for the extension of the fiber. FACTS: • On September 4, 2012 Council approved a change order to eliminate the approximately .5 mile portion of the AccessEagan fiber route that ran along Cedar Grove Parkway between Rahn and Nichols Road. This fiber route was postponed until the actual street alignment and re- development layout was further along so the City would not incurred expensive relocating costs to move the fiber if roads and utilities were rerouted. With new Paragon plans in place for the development of Cedar Grove Parkway, staff has evaluated the extension of AccessEagan fiber into this redesigned development area. With nearly 100 new tenants planning to bring on new internet services, staff feels this is a good opportunity to provide high -speed AccessEagan bandwidth and lower overall costs to Eagan businesses. City staff has already had discussions with Paragon staff to partner on bringing AccessEagan fiber into their network closets, making it more attractive for mall tenants to access high -speed connections with optional AccessEagan service providers. • Consultants Design Nine and Elert & Associates are recommending the extension of this fiber into the redesigned development area. ATTACHMENTS: See Enclosed Access Eagan Fiber Map.pdf on page 511 L LL LU N ,W V a W 0 c N O (Ti .Q U O O u N U O (0 E r > N � .Q (0 O (6 M O 2� a) L Z — E c� LL C Im a� 6 c c ui ca _ 0 0 N O U U C C U Q 0 0 I ' I� 11 00 oP (V of CIL N_ > O N L M a) 00 ! f � j i I j r,. All _. f L. J_ 0 c N O (Ti .Q U O O u N U O (0 E r > N � .Q (0 O (6 M O 2� a) L Z — E c� LL C Im a� 6 c c ui ca _ 0 0 N O U U C C U Q 0 0 I ' I� 11 00 oP (V of CIL N_ > O N L M a) 00 Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013 Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: T. APPROVE ACCESSEAGAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS — TIERED SERVICES AGREEMENT AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS COLOCATION AGREEMENT. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve AccessEagan Terms and Conditions — Tiered Services Agreement and Terms and Conditions Colocation Agreement. FACTS: • These documents establish Terms and Conditions for Tiered Services that will be offered by AccessEagan to the Service Providers that utilize the network. • In addition, if Service Providers are placing equipment in the AccessEagan Data Center, they will need to sign a Terms and Conditions Colocation Agreement. AccessEagan currently has a Data Room at the Eagan Fire Station 2 campus. It has the ability to house a minimal amount of Service Provider equipment for use on the AccessEagan network. In the future, AccessEagan will be looking at moving into a larger Data Center and this agreement will become more applicable. • The Service Provider can also elect to cross connect to our switch located in the Data Room from the nearest hand hole within the AccessEagan network. In this situation, their equipment would be managed off -site. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach but ultimately this is a case -by -case Service Provider decision on where they would like to house their equipment. • The City Attorney has reviewed and accepted both agreements as written. ATTACHMENTS: (2) • Enclosed on pages and (OS are the proposed AccessEagan Terms and Conditions Tiered Services Agreement Enclosed on pages ( G and U is the proposed AccessEagan Terms and Conditions Colocation Agreement 59 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR TIERED SERVICES The City of Eagan, Minnesota (herein called "City" or "AccessEagan ") is committed to providing Fiber Optic Services to LEGAL NAME OF SERVICE PROVIDER (herein called "Service Provider ") with superior service and support through AccessEagan's advanced communications network ( "Network "). These Terms and Conditions for Fiber Optic Services (herein called "Terms ") provide guarantees to the Service Provider concerning security, quality, support, uptime and performance of Network. SECTION 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE 1. Ethernet Transport Services SECTION 2. FEES 1. Fees are set in accordance with Exhibit "A" Tier (X) Rate Sheet SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS: 1. "Demarcation Point:" means the input of Service Provider's router located in the AccessEagan's colocation facility 2. "Service Provider Provider's Circuit:" means the routed connection over Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet 3. "Network Availability Status:" means the status when the Network is functioning in accordance with any performance standards set forth in this Service Level Agreement, and is available to use by the Service Provider and /or the Service Provider's end -user subscribers, subject to limitations due to network congestion, and subject to any rights and remedies available to AccessEagan and /or Network Operator as described in Section 4 of these Terms. 4. "Network Operator:" means either the City, or a third party under contract with the City, acting as Network Operator, to manage and maintain the Network. Upon entering into these Terms, AccessEagan will provide the Service Provider with the appropriate contacts for the Network Operator. The Service Provider will confer with the City or the Network Operator Page 1 of 6 n during the service setup, service changes, and outages. If AccessEagan enters into a separate contract with a third party Network Operator, the Service Provider will be provided notification of that contract within thirty (30) days. SECTION 4. QUALITY — SERVICE AVAILABILITY GUARANTEE 1. Scope: Excluding Force Majeure events, as defined in the Open Network Access Agreement at Section , The Network Operator shall ensure that the AccessEagan Network remains available 99.99 % of the time, for the Ethernet Transport Services described in Section 1 of these Terms. A 15 day "shakedown" period after initial installation of a fiber client is not covered by the Service Availability Guarantee to allow time for proper service adjustments and troubleshooting. 2. Maintenance: For purposes of notification, maintenance will be designated as one of two types either scheduled Maintenance or Emergency Maintenance. (1) Scheduled Maintenance is any maintenance at an AccessEagan demarcation point to which the Service Provider's circuit is connected that is performed and scheduled according to Service Provider's or Network Operator's request and mutually agreed upon by both Parties. Service Provider will receive at least 48 hours advance notice of service - impacting Scheduled Maintenance. (2) Emergency Maintenance is performed in order to promptly respond and resolve emergency issues associated with service - affecting conditions. When feasible, Network Operator will notify Service Provider in advance of service - impacting Emergency Maintenance and coordinate any service- impacting the timing of maintenance or repairs. Otherwise, Service Provider will be contacted when service - impacting Emergency Maintenance has been performed. 3. Network Unavailability: AccessEagan Network shall be deemed unavailable ( "Network Unavailability ") when a AccessEagan Network service was not available to the Service Provider or when a variation in such Network service from normal performance characteristics and levels results in a significant degradation in the ability of an end user customer of Provider to establish and maintain a channel of communications, provided that such unavailability is attributable to a cause on AccessEagan's side of the demarcation point. For the purpose of this agreement, significant degradation shall mean, without limitation, a sample five minute time where transit latency exceeding 30 milliseconds (ms), packet loss exceeding 0.5 %, packet delay variation exceeding 35 ms, and /or availability less than 99.99% averaged over a calendar month for any individual end user service location. The term Network Unavailability includes, without limitation, unavailability associated with any maintenance performed at the AccessEagan demarcation point to which the Service Provider's circuit is connected, other than Scheduled Maintenance. This term shall not include unavailability attributable to failures of the Service Provider's circuit, Scheduled Maintenance or any unavailability resulting from failure of a circuit used by Service Provider to connect to AccessEagan Network, Service Provider applications or equipment, Service Provider initiated maintenance, acts or omissions of Service Provider, or other events of Force Majeure. Outages will be counted as Network Unavailability only if the Service Provider opens a trouble ticket with the Network Operator within five days of the outage. Page 2of6 E 4. Force Majeure: In no event shall Service Provider be entitled to credit, monetary payment or compensation of any kind from the Network Operator for any costs or damages incurred as a result of any Force Majeure events. SECTION 5. OUTAGE REPORTING OF NETWORK UNAVAILABILITY. 1. Service Provider shall be responsible to monitor its own equipment to ensure that it is functioning properly, and that Provider's network connections are available. As a courtesy, the Network Operator shall endeavor to notify the Provider upon the Network Operator's determination that the Provider's connections are unavailable or significantly degraded. The Network Operator's standard procedure is to periodically probe the Provider's Premise Equipment (SPE), if any. SPE, if any, must be set up by Provider to respond to probe or no outage notification shall be sent. If the Provider's network interface does not respond to periodic pings, Network Operator will deem service unavailable and will contact the Provider's designated point of contact. 2. Network Operator shall utilize best efforts to report Network Unavailability to Provider: however, neither Network Operator nor AccessEagan shall be liable in any way for a failure in Provider's equipment, if any, or for AccessEagan's failure to notify Provider of any such failure. 3. Network Unavailability caused by bandwidth saturation, packet saturation, or security events (i.e.: abnormal denial of service attacks, abnormal distributed denial of service attacks, or abnormal virus activity) will not be subject to remedies under Section 4.4, above. In addition, for the purposes of this agreement, the following situations will not be considered events of Network Availability: limitations on or delays in Network Operator's or Access Eagan's provision of is a partial listing of services these Terms do not include: desktop workstation support to the Service Provider; issues arising from the failure of the Service Provider to notify the Network Operator in a timely manner of connectivity issues or of changes to the authorized Service Provider contact information; issues arising from the Service Provider failing to grant the Network Operator timely access to Network equipment located on the Service Provider's Premises as requested by the Network Operator for addressing service requirements; and connectivity issues attributable to or involving Service Provider- initiated maintenance and /or the Service Provider's cabling, hub, router, and /or server infrastructure. SECTION 6. MEAN TIME REPAIR (MTTR) 1. Process: At Service Provider's request, Network Operator will calculate the mean time that was taken by Network Operator to make repairs relating to the trouble tickets opened by Service Provider within a calendar month. MTTR is calculated as the monthly average time taken to repair all such trouble tickets required to return Service to a Network Availability status. The length of each Network Unavailability instance on a specific service is totaled at the end of each billing month and divided by the corresponding number of Network Unavailability instances for the Service for that month. Page 3 of 6 M 2. Remedy: For Tier 1 services, for each cumulative full hour of Network Unavailability in any calendar month, at Service Provider's request, Service Provider's account will be credited an amount equal to the daily pro -rated rata charges share of the monthly fees for the Service with respect to which the Service Availability Guarantee has not been met. The maximum of one month's credit will be given for all combined remedies for any given calendar month. No credit shall be available for Network Unavailability occurring within the initial 15 days after installation. Partial outages of the Network which affect some but not all of Provider's end user customers shall not constitute Network Unavailability, but shall be subject to the Mean Time to Repair guarantees contained herein, provided, however, that a partial outage which materially affects the character of the Network and materially affects the provision of Services by Provider by resulting in a significant degradation in the ability of all end user customers of Provider to establish and maintain a channel of communications shall constitute Network Unavailability for the purposes of this Section. 3. Limits on Scope of Support: The support defined by these Terms cannot cover all platforms, software, and services. There may be requirements for which the common infrastructure is not suited. Given the goals and services covered, there must also be some limits on the scope of support. Conditions caused by bandwidth or packet saturation, or security events (i.e.: denial of service attacks, distributed denial of service attacks, virus activity, or capacity consumption) are not considered network failures. Following is a partial listing of services these Terms do not include: desktop workstation support; issues arising from the failure of the Service Provider to notify the Network Operator in a timely manner of connectivity issues or of changes to authorized the Service Provider contact information; issues arising from the Service Provider failing to grant the Network Operator timely access to network equipment located on the Service Provider's Premises as requested by the Network Operator for addressing service requirements; and connectivity issues attributable to or involving Service Provider - initiated maintenance and /or the Service Provider's cabling, hub, router, and /or server infrastructure. SECTION 7. SERVICE PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITIES 1. The Service Provider, as part of these Terms, shall carry certain responsibilities including the following: provide input to AccessEagan on the quality and timeliness of support by the Network Operator; provide initial and expected operational capacity estimates for bandwidth and drive space; identify authorized Service Provider contacts and report changes to the Service Provider contact information for purposes of coordination in problem resolution; provide accurate information for the Service Provider account information; accept the minimum security requirements specified by AccessEagan; and report all observed service problems to the Network Operator. Service Provider shall not be entitled to reimbursement under Articles 4 and 6, above, when such network unavailability or failure to meet repair time guarantees cited therein were attributable in whole or in part to a failure of the Service Provider to meet its obligations under this Article 7, or under Articles 4 and 6 above. 2. The Service Provider shall not create derivative works based on any portion of AccessEagan Network nor authorize or permit others to do so. Page 4 of 6 SECTION 8. EMERGENCY INTERVENTION 1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Network Operator reserves the right to intervene and limit or restrict the Service Provider's network connection or users' network connections to prevent the Network from becoming saturated if a customer's or Service Provider's connection is consuming more than its allocated amount of Network bandwidth due to an unexplained event such as a computer virus, code with malicious intent, broadcast storms, or other activity which would interfere with the management of Network traffic or impede other users' or other service provider's traffic. Accepted and agreed to: CUSTOMER: By: Title: W� Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" Access Eagan Tier 1 Rate Sheet (As may be amended in writing from time to time) Fiber Transport Service Fee (Replace with final draft of provider pricing table) Bandwidth I One Time Connection Monthly Transport Fee Service Fee Page 6 of 6 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COLOCATION SERVICES The City of Eagan (hereinafter "City" or "AccessEagan ") is engaged in the business of providing wholesale communications transport services in connection with the AccessEagan Initiative, ( "Project"). In connection with the Project, the City manages a telecommunications closet capable of colocation, hosting and managed services, and other similar services (collectively, the Services, as further defined herein). The Services enable the Customer to monitor and manage its assets (i.e. servers, routers, IT devices, non -IT devices and /or other networkable assets of Customer) located at AccessEagan's data centers, to manage third party services, and to access reliable Internet colocation and hosting services, Customer hereby engages AccessEagan to perform the Services as fully described in one or more Statements of Work and in accordance with this Agreement. The Customer agrees to the following terms and conditions: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Services. a. Summary of Services. AccessEagan will provide the Services to Customer as described below and in the applicable Statements of Work ( "SOWs "). The Services may include one or more of the following: i. Colocation and Hosting Services. Hosting services for Internet -based services and applications, remote storage, and other hosted services and applications, including facilities, "ping, power and pipe" and other customary hosting facilities and services. ii. Cross - Connect Services. Interconnection of Customer's colocated equipment with other data center customers. iii. Monitoring and Management. The Customer is responsible for infrastructure, services, and tools that monitor and manage certain "managed assets" identified in an applicable SOW. The applicable SOW will include further descriptions of the Services as required by Customer. AccessEagan will monitor and managed connections from the Customer Premise b. Other Services. AccessEagan may provide other services to Customer if and as such other services are described in a SOW. AccessEagan's network services and pricing therefore listed at http: / /www.accesseaaan.com /product - catalog, which service and pricing may be amended from time to time by AccessEagan by amending the AccessEagan web site. Page 1 of 7 E Statements of Work. From time to time, the Parties may enter into one or more Statements of Work ( "SOWs" or "SOW "). To be binding on the Parties, a SOW must be in writing and signed by Customer and an authorized representative of the City. Each SOW will be tied to this Agreement. Any mutually acceptable terms and conditions, other than those set forth in this Agreement, may be included by the Parties in the SOW. Each SOW will be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict, precedence shall first be given to the terms of the applicable SOW, then to this Agreement. d. Resources. "Resources shall mean the hardware, software, policies, and other resources, if any, identified in the applicable SOW. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the SOW, all Resources provided by AccessEagan are and shall continue to be owned by AccessEagan, and all Resources provided by Customer are and shall continue to be owned by Customer. In the case of Resources in the form of software licenses, ownership by AccessEagan means that AccessEagan holds and controls the license granted by the software licensor. If the SOW indicates that certain Resources are to be provided by Customer, then Customer shall provide such Resources to AccessEagan for purposes of the Services. AccessEagan shall be responsible for maintenance of all Resources owned or controlled by AccessEagan. Unless otherwise stated in the SOW, Customer shall be responsible for maintenance of all Resources not owned or controlled by AccessEagan. AccessEagan's Resources are not dedicated exclusively to the Services or to Customer, unless expressly indicated in the SOW. Subject to AccessEagan's obligation to provide the Services set forth in this Agreement and any applicable SOWs, the Parties acknowledge and agree that AccessEagan retains title to all Resources provided by AccessEagan and that Customer may not pledge or grant any security interest in the Resources, or otherwise use the Resources as collateral with respect to any lease, land, or other financial relationship. AccessEagan expressly acknowledges and agrees that Customer retains title to all Resources provided by Customer and that AccessEagan may not pledge or grant any security interest in the Resources, or otherwise use the Resources as collateral with respect to any lease, land or other financial relationship. The level of Services is based on the assumptions and estimates stated in each SOW. If actual loads, traffic, demands or other circumstances are not within such assumptions and estimates, then additional or changed Resources may be required and an amended SOW may be required. e. Responsibilities. If and to the extent that the SOW attributes or assigns any responsibility, task, deliverable or obligation to Customer or a third party, then Customer, or the third party shall be responsible for such responsibility, task, deliverable or obligation, not AccessEagan. AccessEagan's obligations are expressly conditioned upon the performance and delivery of such responsibility, task, deliverable or obligation. £ SOW Amendments. The Parties may only amend a SOW in writing, signed by both Customer and an authorized representative of the City. The Parties will use commercially reasonable efforts to respond to requests for SOW amendments within five (5) business days of any such request. g. Nature of Agreement. The Customer expressly acknowledges and agrees that this is a services agreement, not a lease of any real or personal property. 2. Third Party Software. Third party software may be operated and used by AccessEagan to enable and facilitate the performance of the Services. Any such use will be governed by the terms of the applicable third party software license agreement. 3. Maintenance. AccessEagan shall be responsible for maintenance of its facilities and infrastructure, and Customer shall reasonably cooperate therewith. All decisions concerning maintenance window notifications shall be made in reasonable coordination with Customer, except in emergency circumstances. 4. Support. Any support by AccessEagan of Customer shall be described in the applicable SOW and shall be considered Services. Page 2 of 7 n 5. Payments. a. Fees. In consideration of the Services, Customer shall pay to AccessEagan the fees and other charges set forth in the applicable SOW. All payments are due within thirty (30) days of the date of AccessEagan's invoice to Customer. b. Expenses. In addition to the fees and other charges set forth in the applicable SOW, Customer shall reimburse AccessEagan for reasonable and necessary costs and expenses (including, without limitation, any travel, lodging and meals) incurred by AccessEagan in its performance of the Services at Customer's request. Any such expenses must be reasonable and approved by Customer in advance in writing. C. Taxes. Customer will be solely responsible for payment of any sales, use and other taxes or governmental assessments or duties applicable to the Services. d. Late Payments. Any payments made by Customer after the due date shall be subject to a finance charge of 1.5% per month, or such other amount allowed by applicable law, whichever is greater, until paid in full. 6. Unauthorized Access and Non - Solicitation. a. Unauthorized Access and Improper Use. Customer shall comply with AccessEagan's "Acceptable Use Policy," which may be amended from time to time by AccessEagan, in its sole and reasonable discretion. The "Acceptable Use Policy" is posted on the AccessEagan web site at http://www.accesseagan.comacceptable-use-policy. b. Non - Solicitation. During the term of this Agreement, and for a period of one (1) year after termination or expiration of this Agreement, Customer shall not solicit the employment of any employee of the City, or its subcontractors engaged in providing the Services hereunder, or knowingly induce any employee or subcontractor to terminate or breach an employment, contractual or other relationship with the City. This Section does not prohibit any general solicitation or employment or services not specifically direct at the City's employees. 7. Warranty, Disclaimer, Limitations. a. Warranty. Customer represents and warrants that it is free to enter into this Agreement and is under no disability, restriction or prohibition that will interfere in any manner with its compliance with and performance under this Agreement. b. DISCLAIMER. THE CITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES, REPRESENTATIONS OR PROMISES NOT EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT. THE CITY DISCLAIMS AND EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. c. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY (REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION OR THE CLAIM, I.E. CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT, MALPRACTICE, AND /OR OTHERWISE) FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY LOSS OF REVENUE, PROFITS, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, LOSS OF DATA, OR FOR ANY FAILURE TO REALIZE SAVINGS OR OTHER BENEFITS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE FOREGOING. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CITY'S LIABILITY TO CUSTOMER HEREUNDER EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FEES ACTUALLY PAID BY CUSTOMER TO THE CITY UNDER THE APPLICABLE SOW DURING THE THREE MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO A CLAIM. THE Page 3 of 7 LOU CITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OF USE OF ANY WEBSITE, INTERNET ACCESS, HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE, LOSS OF DATA, COSTS OF RE- CREATING LOST DATA, THE COST OF ANY SUBSTITUTE PERFORMANCE, EQUIPMENT OR PROGRAM, OR CLAIMS BY ANY PARTY OTHER THAN CUSTOMER, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF. THIS AGREEMENT, AND THIS SECTION IN PARTICULAR, DEFINE A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON ALLOCATION OF RISK AND THE FEES AND OTHER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN SET TO REFLECT SUCH ALLOCATION. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY TORT LIABILITY OF EITHER PARTY BASED ON NEGLIGENCE OF WILLFUL MISCONDUCT RESULTING IN PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO TANGIBLE PROPERTY OR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH. THIS LIMITATION, IF PROHIBITED BY APPLICABLE LAW, SHALL NOT APPLY, 8. Term and Termination. a. Term. The term and termination of each SOW shall be as stated therein. These terms and conditions will remain in full force and effect during the term of any existing SOW. If no SOW exists, these terms and conditions shall automatically convert to a month -to- month -term unless and until a new SOW is entered into by the Customer and an authorized representative of the City. b. Customer Equipment. Upon termination, Customer shall remove its equipment, if any, from AccessEagan's data center and return the space occupied by Customer to AccessEagan in the same condition it was provided on the original date of installation, normal wear and tear excepted, pursuant to a mutually acceptable time schedule, or, of no schedule is agreed upon, within ten (10) business days of the termination or expiration date. Customer may not remove any of its equipment or retrieve any stored data unless payment of all fees and other amounts due to AccessEagan are current and not in default. If Customer holds over at AccessEagan's data center after the termination or expiration of this Agreement, or any applicable SOW, Customer will pay AccessEagan monthly fees equal to 150% of the monthly fees in effect immediately prior to the holdover. If Customer fails to remove its equipment from AccessEagan's data center as required by this Section, the City may remove the equipment to City property or a third party storage facility, at Customer's sole expense. The City will not be liable for any loss or damage caused to Customer or its equipment resulting from the removal of Customer's equipment from AccessEagan's data center and storage as provided in this Section. If Customer fails to pay all fees and other payments due to the City, including the cost of removal and storage, within sixty (60) days following the termination or expiration of this Agreement or any applicable SOW, the City may sell Customer's equipment at public or private auction, and apply the proceeds or any such sale to Customer's unpaid account. Customer will remain liable for any remaining balance. 9. Insurance. a. Coverage Required. Customer shall maintain, at its own expense, insurance coverage with limits of no less than the following, which limits shall not be deemed to be a limit of liability on Customer's obligations: i. Commercial General Liability including contractual liability, providing coverage against liability for bodily injury, death, and third party property damages in the minimum amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per occurrence and no less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. ii. Umbrella/Excess Liability providing excess liability coverage in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). b. Certificates of Insurance. Customer shall deliver to the City certificates of insurance issued by the insurer or an agent of the insurer. Such certificates shall indicate that policies providing coverage and limits of insurance are in full force and effect. Customer will have the name the City and its Affiliates listed as additional insured on the general liability and any excess /umbrella liability policies through the Customer's insurer issuing an additional insured endorsement and provide a copy of this additional insured endorsement with the certificate of Page 4 of 7 (0q insurance. The general liability policy will provide a waiver of subrogation against the City and its affiliates. Each certificate shall provide that no less than 30 Days' written notice will be given in writing to the City prior to cancellation, termination, or material alteration of any one of the policies. 10. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable or transferable by Customer without the City's prior written consent. b. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota, without regard to conflict of law principles. Any disputes hereunder shall be brought exclusively in the courts located in Dakota, and the parties irrevocably and unconditionally consent to such jurisdiction, and waive all objections that such forum is inconvenient. C. Force Maieure. Neither Party shall be deemed in breach of this Agreement for any failure to perform an obligation where such failure is caused by an Act of God, labor disputes or shortages beyond the reasonable control of that Party, Internet and utility outages, weather incidents, and other similar uncontrollable events; provided, however, that the Party affected by a force majeure event shall promptly notify the other party in writing and take all reasonable efforts to cure the failure caused by such force majeure event. d. Waiver. Any waiver under this Agreement must be in writing and any waiver of one event shall not be construed as a waiver of subsequent events. e. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation or dispute between the Parties relative to this Agreement or any applicable SOW, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover from the other Party all reasonable attorneys' fees and other reasonable costs incurred. f. Relationship. Neither the City nor the Customer is the partner, joint venture, agent or representative of the other Party. Each Party is an independent contractor. There is no employment relationship between the Parties. Neither the City nor the Customer has the authority to make any representations or warranties or incur any obligations or liabilities on behalf of the other Party. g. Subcontractors. The City may subcontract Services or responsibilities to subcontractors. h. Entire Agreement. These terms and conditions are complete and (which includes each applicable SOW), supersedes all prior agreements, understands and representations, whether written or verbal, and may only be amended by a writing signed by the Customer and an authorized representative of the City. 1. Notices. All notices required hereunder shall be delivered to the other party at the address set forth below, or such other address provided by a Party to the other Party in writing. Page 5 of 7 q0 Customer: City of Eagan Address: Attn: Dan Cook 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Phone: (651) 675 -5093 Fax: (651) 675 -5093 Email: dcook @cityofeagan.com Agreed to by the Customer as of the Effective Date first written above. CUSTOMER: By: Title: Page 6 of 7 STATEMENT OF WORK NO. BETWEEN AccessEagan Network AND This Statement of Work No. is entered into by and between the City of Eagan ( "AccessEagan "), and _ ( "Customer ") as of this day of 2012 ( "SOW No. _ Effective Date "), pursuant to that certain Master Services Agreement between the Parties. 1. Term: 2. Services: 3. Resources: 4. Payment: 5. Service Level Agreements (if any): 6. Special Provisions (if any): ENTERED INTO as of the SOW No. Effective Date first written above. CUSTOMER: By: Title: Page 7 of 7 9a Agenda Information Memo April 19, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting U. FINAL PLAT (CTI ADDITION) — CHICAGO TUBE & IRON INC ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Final Plat (CTI Addition), to create one lot upon approximately 7.9 acres located at 2940 Eagandale Boulevard. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Councilmembers present. FACTS: ➢ The site consists of multiple parcels totaling 9.6 acres and an existing 96,000 sf building. ➢ The original building was constructed in 1970 and has been expanded three times since then; 1973, 1979 and 1995. ➢ Chicago Tube and Iron currently has plans for a 42,000 sf addition. ➢ The Plat dedicates right -of -way for Lone Oak Road (Co. Rd. 26) to the south, cleans up remnant parcels by dedicating right -of -way as West Service Road and provides required drainage and utility easements. ➢ In total, right -of -way dedication will equal 13 acres. The Dakota County Plat Commission has reviewed the plat preliminarily and has scheduled approval of the Final Plat for their April 22, 2013 Plat Commission meeting. ISSUES: None 60 -DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: N/A ATTACHMENTS: (3) Location Map, page, r1q Final Plat, page J5 March 15, 2013, Dakota County Plat Commission comments, page 93 Location IViap 3 P� C ftP. CENT. Oft. CORPORATE RIAL ROAD }� Lona Oak Rd Yankee D, e.Rd RATE CE V J J r Rd {! HIGHVIEW AVE ON CIIR Rd e Map Area Extent ;V r gy�a A Highv�ew Park .� Country Home Park; a 14 ra ,[- p._; Q _+ S ` Subject Site A M NO: 6- -4 - 8AB) G-8-A+14 a I -'s TO` W N k'f _ WE R - y N -� a"* ti0 CLUSVIEW OR a Pilot Knob Park. - ROAD. QUARRY - - ,. ' 90P. Park 00, 4 i q B - Central Park Park OAK STREE `�� r Q-�APLE STRE NO 00 PKWY ti r Feet Project Name: Chicago Tube & Iron Inc. o 500 1,000 2,000 Request: Final Plat Case No: 03- FP- 01 -02 -13 Legend Parcels Buildings Parks City of Ea�a� 16 City Boundary N a q = O:pN 3,:612/35 1153.:1 ' s 6 e B I 66'L8 1 abvm<vx'nr°xxi�a 8 C� c to q = O:pN 3,:612/35 1153.:1 ' \5�35'i� ' i b B I 66'L8 1 abvm<vx'nr°xxi�a \ ¢ tl C� rm4 `M" ZZeyb,v sT\O. �� s-, � s rLt ' „�v`T! <r \ee � a ° 8 s � 3 � � a :3 G Ld � A' I� I _I I :. I zIg 0 8 TB yti C I I I q L J I I m I i15 d b3e � F a �+ $ jg R ( T2 a B y E E 6 C C ' �5 I <C a I I I I g$ I I I S� J_.1 I I s9 I q I ` _ 4 Cj � 3p 6s Y a Sj _ cs 3 11 p, a 8f 5`lb g MOM 31Sl199.68N ft1 NO /Id3,7X3 s 'crrird IA \� J s6 `,\ Oovz C. CJ 3":S °b3S $P'S3;1 ' a ^d - $o 1I I � 3sr %ass_ -6: cN ;; ✓N i,HCcm' & ! aa'aLF M.S/ SS B8S I .2 - '•y .� •_ � 6 5= ' a -'- I I a7'aLY' 3,8/,SS.6BN '„ %��a ` ` b� S y�3� "� 9B B� � s "ol ao / ➢6 {y{ ,fir � J✓ , ti's � / a N1 € s 4. B j I flu 111 a p= B N No �,ss $ � :lCl!lCCV CNS 3XYl .(Y):Ii .T.YCi.M1CY3 N �a ivve. _�.. 4v 'f �r� 5�5 s i n 9S -6.' "vh :: ;d ..'."J IGG ✓Y,' o well n xew R Eg R_____�fe ,OabFF M,SY,Li.68S veoiw�n s_ \ -wx orMil alm/ .'� yla a o rnn Md xix a vas's - -7 mo I roue• 4n /ei°z: M YIol gS_ Ox nNnA M •e e= - Q � I �5 E3 o I o L I d _ A_ I I ri iS= f fee soa Y :yy�6�5 b 6yg y655 R s ay ad�ia � ng FaSe_ s � L O:pN 3,:612/35 1153.:1 ' \5�35'i� ' i b I 66'L8 1 abvm<vx'nr°xxi�a \ ¢ tl C� rm4 `M" ZZeyb,v sT\O. �� s-, 't3J8Vd i rLt ' „�v`T! <r \ee yy ,) Ld � A' I� I _I I :. I zIg L 15- PLAT J s m Q W Rf v w 0� I I I I I I I � G� I I I 01 I ,) Ld UJ C I I I L J I I m I i15 C C ' �5 I <C a I I I I g$ I I I S� J_.1 I I s9 I q I ` IT l(�n �a 41 g5 I C3 Cj I I i. 3 I _ cs g MOM 31Sl199.68N ft1 NO /Id3,7X3 s 'crrird IA \� J c C� `,\ Oovz C. CJ 3":S °b3S $P'S3;1 ' a ^d I ri I � 3sr %ass_ -6: cN ;; ✓N i,HCcm' & ! aa'aLF M.S/ SS B8S I .2 - '•y .� \ v� fl5il�° - 34/.SS.68N -'- I I a7'aLY' 3,8/,SS.6BN '„ %��a ` ` t b �xlao. -&-GVOY 3.91A83S 1S3hf %ow.o\� s "ol ao / 15- PLAT J s m Q W Rf v w 0� r i Dakota County Surveyor's Office Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxle Avenue suite N 335 • Apple Valley, MN 55124 952- 891 -7087 - Fax 952-891-7127 , www.dakotacounty.us March 15, 2013 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Rd Eagan, MN 55122 Re: CHICAGO TUBE AND IRON The Dakota County Plat Commission met on March 11, 2013, to consider the concept plan of the above referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to CSAH 26, and is therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. The preliminary plat is located along Eagandale Boulevard and CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Road). The plat includes an existing building site with a proposal for a 40,000 square foot addition, which combines Lots 5 -8, Block 5 EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK. Access to the site is off of Eagandale Boulevard. Access restriction should be shown along all of CSAH 26. The existing right of way along CSAH 26 is 60 feet of half right of way. The right -of -way needs are 100 feet of half right of way. The Plat Commission understands some of the challenges with future expansion of CSAH 26 in this area (additional lanes, turn lanes, etc.), including being located in a transition area from a six -lane need to a four - lane need in the future, therefore, 100 feet of half right of way will likely not be needed. It was noted that there are not any current reconstruction plans for this area or no proposed alignments /designs for this area. The Plat Commission discussed the future right -of -way needs and is recommending a half right of way of 90 feet instead of 100 feet. The plat therefore needs to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right -of -way to meet the needs. In addition, as discussed, the construction of a retaining wall needs to be outside of the dedicated right of way area. The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary plat provided that the described conditions are met. The Ordinance requires submittal of a final plat for review by the Plat Commission before a recommendation is made to the County Board of Commissioners. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder's Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. The Plat Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the permitting process that reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, medians, etc. Please contact Gordon McConnell regarding permitting questions at (952) 891 -7115 or Todd Tollefson regarding Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891 -7070. Sincerely, Todd B. Tollefson Secretary, Plat Commission cc: Derek Bentson; CTI Jeff Mertens; Opus Bruce Torgerson; CTI Bob Harville; CTI 9 � DAKOTA CO LETTER Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting CONSENT AGENDA: V. APPROVE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING SERVICE OF DCR CHAMBER PRESIDENT RUTHE BATULIS FACTS: ➢ Ruthe Batulis announced in January that she was stepping down in April as President of the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce ➢ In recognition of her 9 years of distinguished service to Eagan and Dakota County's business community, and in thanks for her many hours of involvement locally, the Eagan City Council directed in March that a resolution honoring Ms. Batulis be prepared and brought back for approval at a regular City Council meeting in April prior to her departure. ➢ The resolution will be read at her goodbye party on April 23. ATTACHMENTS: • The resolution is on pages 99 and 1°l of the packet. �9 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION NUMBER 2013- RECOGNIZING SERVICE OF RUTHE BATULIS, DCR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESIDENT WHEREAS, Ruthe Batulis is departing the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce, based in Eagan, after more than nine years of loyal service; WHEREAS, Ruthe has never been the "retiring" sort, but rather is resetting her life balance to operate out of her lake house in the vacation capitol of Spooner, Wisconsin; and WHEREAS, Ruthe has been an unparalleled bundle of energy representing business and community interests in Dakota County and should not be allowed to leave Eagan until she shares with us her unique 24 -hour energy drink formula; and WHEREAS, Ruthe is a founding member of the Eagan Technology Working Group, and the DCR Chamber leads the state in its understanding of broadband issues; and WHEREAS, Ruthe was lucky not to have repetitive stress injuries from carrying the Chamber's "Big Scissors" to grand opening events, but did carry them to nearly 200 ribbon cuttings for businesses in Dakota County; and WHEREAS, she will have to come back in the role of shopper to the 2014 grand opening of the Paragon premium outlets stores because by that time her Wisconsin clothes will be hopelessly outdated and she will be in need of something new and brightly colored; and WHEREAS, it will be difficult to find a more tireless Chamber representative who could on a single day, hold a committee meeting in the morning, host a blood drive, put in face time with the newest chamber member and attend a Council meeting that night while still having time for people; and WHEREAS, she has been an instrumental member of so many boards and committees including the planning group to properly celebrate Eagan's 150th anniversary; and WHEREAS, Ruthe has been a forceful advocate and mentor for women, for youth, for workforce development and to prepare future leaders and recognize innovative businesses and sustainable environmental practices; and WHEREAS, Ruthe has rallied the business voice and presented clear and convincing testimony to government leaders from Eagan to Washington, D.C.; and WHEREAS, Ruthe's community experience hosting a public access television show on E -TV, organizing and offering candidate forums, and being a goodwill ambassador for the communities she serves will make her an asset to anywhere she goes from here, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Eagan in Dakota County, Minnesota does hereby commend Ruthe Batulis for her distinguished service and wishes her well in all her future endeavors. M� ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2013. Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor Those Against: Date: CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: It's Mayor Attest: City Clerk CERTIFICATION: I, Christina Scipioni, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 16th day of April, 2013 Christina Scipioni City Clerk VA l Agenda Memo April 16, 2013 City Council Meeting W. APPROVE a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Eagan and Dakota County to allow the City of Eagan to operate the concessions at the Wescott Library for a trial period. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: APPROVE a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Eagan and Dakota County to allow the City of Eagan to operate the concessions at the Wescott Library for a trial period. FACTS: • In 2009 the City of Eagan and Dakota County were engaged in discussions in which the City would operate a new coffee shop addition proposed to be constructed within the Wescott Library in partnership with the Friends of the Library. Further plans were discontinued due to the City's budget constraints at that time. • In early 2011 a private operation was launched in the Wescott Library, again supported by the Friends of the Library. • In January 2012 Wescott Library staff began discussions with City staff to determine if there was an interest by the City to manage the concessions /coffee operation if the current management chose to discontinue service. • At the request of the Wescott Library the City Council was asked at their February 5 listening session if City staff should pursue conversations with the Wescott Library to see if this partnership could be rekindled. The Council approved further conversation with the library with the caveat that if the City was to manage this operation that there would be no loss to the City. • After further discussion between Wescott Library, Friends of the Library and City staff a general understanding was reached about how this operation could be managed by the City. • As a result of those discussion the Dakota County Attorney and City Attorney have reviewed the proposed Joint Powers Agreement. • At their April 9 meeting the Joint Powers Agreement was approved by the Commissioners acting as the County Administration, Finance and Policy (AF &P) Committee. The AF &P approval came as part of their consent agenda and it is expected that full County Commission approval will also be part of their consent agenda on April 23. ATTACHMENTS: • Joint Powers Agreement on pagesg�-9a. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF EAGAN FOR CONCESSION SERVICE AT WESCOTT LIBRARY This agreement is between the County of Dakota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "County ") and the City of Eagan, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City "), referred to as the "Parties." The Parties are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the County is in need of products and services to manage a concession service at the Wescott Library; and WHEREAS, the City desires to and is capable of providing the necessary products and services according to the terms and conditions stated herein; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to define the rights and responsibilities that each Party agrees to assume for the operation of such concession service; and WHEREAS, the Scope of Services, Exhibit A, is attached hereto and incorporated herein and is subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose The Parties hereby enter into this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59 to enable the City to operate a coffee and concession service at the Dakota County Wescott Library in Eagan, Minnesota, as more fully described in a separate Scope of Concession Services attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The responsibilities and duties as set forth in Exhibit A may be amended fiom time to time by the Parties, following standard City and County contracting policy, if reduced to writing, dated and signed by the duly authorized representative of each Party. 2. Term of Agreement The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, which is the date on which all of the Parties have signed this Agreement and shall remain in full force and effect through December 31, 2016. The Parties agree to meet on or before September 30, 2013, to assess the effectiveness of service operations and determine if any changes are needed to the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. Parties Responsibilities for Costs 3.1 Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, each Party will bear its own costs for installation and management of the concession service and related equipment that it owns. 3.2 The County agrees to provide the Premises at the Wescott Library, Eagan, Minnesota, as described in Exhibit A, for City to provide a concession service of good quality coffee and beverages and healthy food at a reasonable cost. City shall retain moneys received by it for the sale of such concessions and shall obtain and maintain the necessary equipment and pay LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 1 of 7 1�k for the obligations and costs of its concession service operation as provided for herein and as further agreed to in writing by the parties from time to time pursuant to the Scope of Concession Services, Exhibit A. For the initial term of this Contract City shall pay to County one half of all non -book sale proceeds from the operation of the concession service after City's operating expenses are removed. Payments will be made at the end of each quarter of operations, with accounting for the first quarter beginning on May 1, 2013. 4. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 4.1 Assignment. No Party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior consent of the other Party and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by authorized representatives of the Parties. 4.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by all of the Parties. 4.3 Waiver. If any Party fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 4.4 Complete Agreement. This Agreement, which includes Exhibit A, contains all agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind any party. 5. Liability and Insurance 5.1 Each Party to this Agreement is liable for its own acts or omissions and those of its officers, employees and agents and shall indemnify the other Party for any claims, damages or costs incurred due to the negligent or willful acts of the indemnifing Party's employees, officers or agents. It is understood and agreed that liability and damages arising from the Parties' acts and omissions are governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, and other applicable laws. Each Party warrants that it is able to comply with the aforementioned liability and insurance requirements through an insurance or self - insurance program and that each has minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits contained in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and if insured through purchased policies, will maintain such coverages throughout the term of this Agreement. This agreement shall not be construed as and does not constitute a waiver by either Party of any conditions, exclusions or limitations on the Party's liability provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies that either Party may have for the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 5.2 Waiver of Subrogation. To the extent permitted by law and without affecting the coverage provided by insurance required to be maintained hereunder, County and City each waive any right to recover against the other on account of any and all claims County or City may have LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 2 of 7 Z against the other with respect to any risk insured against by insurance actually carried, or required to be carried hereunder to the extent of valid and collectible insurance. Each insurance policy carried by County or City hereunder, or which either may obtain with respect to the Premises independent of obligations hereunder, shall provide that the insurer waives all rights of recovery by way of subrogation against County or City in connection with all matters included within the scope of the waiver of recovery. 5.3. Workers' Compensation. Any and all employees of the City or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services required or permitted by the City under this Agreement will not be considered employees of the County. Any and all claims that may arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, will in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. The City will require proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance from any contractor and sub - contractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of agents, partners, joint venturers, associates, or employer and employee between the County and City. 6. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, each Party's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State and /or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Agreement. 7. Government Data Practices The Parties shall comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by each Party under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by any Party under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by any Party. 8. Venue Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement or its breach, shall be in state district court, Dakota County, Minnesota. 9. Termination and Ownership 9.1 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party, with or without cause, at any time upon 60 days written notice of intent to terminate provided to the other Party. 9.2 Termination for Insufficient Funding. Either Party may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies or other funding source to perfonn the work contemplated by this Agreement; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services provided. Termination must be by written notice to the other Party. A Party is not obligated to pay for any services provided after notice and effective date of termination. A Party will not be assessed any penalty or damages if the Agreement is terminated due to lack of funding. A LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 3 of 7 Party must provide notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of determining that there are insufficient funds to meet the Party's obligations under this Agreement. 9.3 Ownership. At the end of the term of this Agreement or upon its termination, the Parties will continue to own all equipment that they presently own or install pursuant to this Agreement. 10. Damage or Theft of Personal Property. All personal property brought onto the Premises by City shall be at the risk of the City only and County shall not be liable for theft of or any damage to City's personal property unless caused by the negligent or willful act of the County, its employees or agents. 11. Premises. 11.1. Destruction. If destruction of the Premises occurs during the Term of this Agreement from any cause, County, at its option, may repair the Premises, provided that such repairs can be reasonably made within 60 days. Such destruction shall not terminate this Agreement, except that City shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent while such repairs are being made, based upon the extent to which the destruction and making of such repairs interferes with the City's ability to use the Premises. If the repairs cannot be made within 60 days, or County elects not to make repairs, and the Parties are unable to reach agreement upon an alternative method or location to provide concession services while the repairs to the Premises are completed, this Agreement may be terminated at the option of either party by giving written notice to the other party. 11.2. County Approval. Alterations to fixed equipment, such as shelves or cabinetry, infrastructure, such as wiring and plumbing, additional furnishings and equipment, displays, artwork, sound systems, illuminated signs and other like additions or changes to the Premises occupied by City are subject to approval by County, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parties shall agree on a procedure to propose and review such items for approval. 11.3. Standards. County shall ensure compliance of the Premises with applicable building codes and health standards. City shall comply with such requirements and shall ensure that food, supplies and perishable items shall be stored in locked storage areas and in a manner that prevents waste, minimizes odors and protects the items from bugs and vermin. No hazardous materials or wastes shall be stored, disposed of, or allowed to remain at the Premises at any time, excluding janitorial supplies and materials commonly used in an office or public facility. City shall be solely responsible for any and all corrosion or other damage in any way associated with the use, storage and /or disposal of materials that are banned by this section. 12. Security. 12.1. Background Investigation. In order to maintain security and confidentiality of information found throughout County buildings and to ensure that individuals who may pose a security risk do not gain access to County buildings City shall obtain from each employee who will LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 PagQe4of7 O� have access to any non - public areas of County buildings as designated by County, criminal history and background data for that employee. 12.2. Identification Badge. While working at the concession service each employee of City is required to possess on their person a valid County issued identification badge in order for that employee to have access to any non - public areas of County buildings as designated by County. After approval of the background check by City, the City's employees will be provided an identification and building access card. City's employees will be required to display their County issued identification badges when present in the Library in the same manner as County employees. City shall immediately notify County, as soon as City has knowledge, of any felony conviction of an employee of City who the City is requesting be issued a County issued identification badge or who already possesses a County issued identification badge. City shall immediately return such employee's County issued identification badge to County and shall deny such employee access to non - public areas of County buildings pending further direction from the County. 13. City to Surrender Premises in Good Condition. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement City shall remove City's goods and effects and those of all persons claiming under City and shall quit and deliver the Premises, and all thereof, to County, peaceably and quietly, in as good order and condition as the same were in on the date the Contract commenced or were thereafter placed in by County or City, reasonable wear and tear and casualty loss excepted. Any property left in the Premises shall, at County's option, be deemed to have been abandoned and the property of County to dispose of as county deems expedient. City hereby consents to County's removal of all property of City not so removed from the Premises upon termination of this Scope of Services and to cause its transportation and storage for City's benefit, all at the sole cost and risk of City, and County shall. not be liable for damage, theft, misappropriation or loss thereof, nor shall County be liable in any manner in respect thereto. All modifications, improvements, alterations, additions and fixtures, other than City's trade fixtures and equipment, which have been made or installed by either County or City upon the Premises, shall remain the property of County and shall be surrendered with the Premises as a part thereof. City shall promptly surrender all keys and identification badges for the Premises to County. 14. Miscellaneous Provisions 14.1 Amendment. Subject to Section 7.2, this Agreement may be amended by written consent of each Party. The addition of a new Party to this Agreement shall require a written amendment approved by each Party. 14.2 Provisions are Severable. Should any provision of this Agreement be found unlawful, the other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect if by doing so the purposes of this Agreement, taken as a whole, can be made operative. Should any such provision or article be found unlawful, representatives of the Parties shall meet for the purpose of arriving at an agreement on a lawful provision to replace the unlawful provision or article. The newly agreed upon provision or amendment must be approved by the governing body of each Party. LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 5 of 7 O� 14.3 License. County hereby grants to City a continuing license for access to Wescott Library property as reasonably needed from time to time for the installation, maintenance and management of the concession service provided for in the Scope of Services, Exhibit A, which license shall remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement. County safety and security policies and procedures shall be followed by the City and the City's employees or agents being granted access. 14.4 The Parties shall abide by all Federal, State and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereinafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement and to the facilities, programs and staff for which each Party is responsible. 15. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which counterparts when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which counterparts when taken together shall constitute one Agreement. 16. LIAISONS To assist the Parties in the day -to -day performance and for giving notice as provided in this Agreement and the Scope of Services, Exhibit A, liaisons shall be designated by the Parties. The Parties shall inform the others, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement the following persons are the designated liaisons: The County's Liaison is: Ken Behringer, Director Dakota County Library Wescott Library 1340 Wescott Road Eagan MN 55123 -1029 651.450.2930 ken.behringer@co.dakota.mn.us The City's Liaison is: Juli Seydell Johnson Director of Parks and Recreation City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 651- 675 -5506 jsjohnson@cityofeagan.com LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 6 of 7 "IRCp IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers. DAKOTA COUNTY By: Title: Date: CITY OF EAGAN By: Mike Maguire, Mayor Date: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney /Date K/KS13 -99 Library concession service JPA with Eagan 4- 1- 13.docx LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE JPA 4 -1 -13 Page 7 of 7 9 '1 Approved by Dakota County Board Resolution #: Approved as to form: Assistant County Attorney /Date Christina M. Scipioni, City Clerk Date: Approved by Eagan City Council Resolution #: EXHIBIT A TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF EAGAN FOR CONCESSION SERVICE AT WESCOTT LIBRARY SCOPE OF CONCESSION SERVICES The following Scope of Concession Services applies to a concession service that the City of Eagan, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") will operate for the County of Dakota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "County "), referred to as the "Parties ", pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Parties dated . The concession services will be located at the Dakota County Wescott Library in Eagan, Minnesota (the Premises), and will be operated under a name to be determined mutually by the Parties. The concession service will be available for the public. See the Wescott Library Floor Plan on page 5 below, prepared by Dakota County Capital Planning Project Management staff, which depicts the premises that the concession service will occupy in the Wescott Library. 1. COUNTY PROVIDED SERVICES A. The County will provide: ❑ The existing space located in the main floor level of the Wescott Library. ❑ The existing equipment owned by the Friends of Wescott Library that is named in the Equipment List on page 4 below. ❑ Water, Electricity, Gas, Heat, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. ❑ Periodic carpet shampooing, window washing, light fixture and ventilation diffuser cleaning. ❑ Furniture repair and maintenance of County owned furniture. ❑ Trash disposal and recycling service. B. County Intranet The Library has an internal Website that provides employees with access to information on a wide variety of County Departments, policies and services. The daily menu shall be posted on this site and be readily available for employees to see. Library staff will provide assistance for the setup of this feature. Options may be explored for staff to order "on- line ", both as individuals and for group meetings and events. 2. CITY SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. Food City shall provide the coffee and food and beverages necessary for their operation. The Dakota County Library has the right to approve all menu items. B. Operating Hours The concession service shall be open for hours consistent with Wescott Library (Library) operating hours that provide the best services to the public. Concession staff may have access LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE SCOPE OF SERVICE 4 -1 -13 to the Library building outside normal operating hours. Access will be arranged by mutual agreement of the Parties. Current Library hours are: Monday- Thursday: 10:00 a.m. — 8:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday: 10:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Sunday: 1:00 - 5:00 p.m. (The Library is closed Sundays between Memorial Day and Labor Day) C. Holidays The concession service shall not be open on Library holidays. The current Library holidays are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, observed Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve and Christmas day. All holidays falling on Saturday will be observed on Saturday and those falling on Sunday will be observed on the following Monday. D. Equipment, small appliances, pots, pans, dishes, utensils, etc. 1. Subject to County approval, City is responsible for supplying portable equipment and appliances necessary for their operation, and the cleaning, maintenance, and repair of such items. City is responsible to supply all serving and consumption utensils and equipment not listed on page 4 below. 2. The Friends of Wescott Library may agree to provide, repair, or replace equipment requested by City. Equipment requests to the Friends of Wescott Library shall be made by the Wescott Library Manager on behalf of City. E. Cleaning City is responsible for the daily cleaning of all spaces and equipment used by City for the operation of the Concession service, including County owned equipment. Cleaning shall include all food preparation, serving and storage areas that are used by City, cleaning of all equipment, tables and chairs in the public seating areas in the Concession area, vacuuming of carpeted areas and cleaning and maintenance of hard finished flooring in the Concession area. F. Safety City shall conduct its operations so as to not obstruct safe public access to the existing building entrances. Walks, driveways, loading dock, entrances and hallways to be used by the County and the public shall be kept free and clear of City equipment, materials and debris. G. Storage City's operations and storage of materials shall be confined to the areas agreed upon. Fire lanes and parking areas must be kept clear of City equipment and materials at all times. City personnel will comply with all County- parking regulations. H. Waste City shall at all times keep the premises free from accumulation of waste materials or rubbish caused by its operation by moving all such items to the building disposal collection area. City will deposit all waste from their operations in the County provided trash containers at frequent intervals to prevent hazards, unsightly or unhealthy conditions LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE SCOPE OF SERVICE 4 -1 -13 Page 2 of 5 99 I. Recycling Requirements City agrees to comply with the Dakota County waste reduction program by using recycled, recyclable or reusable materials for preparation, serving and sale of food and vending products whenever possible. City and staff will aggressively pursue recycling of materials through separation of recyclable cans, plastics, glass and Styrofoam. The County will provide City detailed information about existing recycling programs. J. Modifications to Space City cannot modify any portion of the Concession area or adjacent County space without written approval by the County. K. Enerav And Conservation Measures City will conserve energy and water usage to the greatest extent possible. City is authorized to use the building lighting, power water and sewer in the Concession area and immediate service area around the Concession area, but the County is not responsible for damages resulting from the interruption to these services, including food spoilage in the event of a major or sustained power outage. All lighting is to be kept turned "off' unless occupied by City staff during the periods of operation noted. The City is responsible for informing its employees of this contract requirement. Further energy conservation measures may be required and enacted by the County. L. Product Delivery, Storage And Handling City shall not have product or materials delivered to a County site when City personnel are not present. No City materials are to be direct shipped to a County facility unless the City dispatches its personnel to the site for receipt, unloading and storage of such items. County Staff cannot accept delivery for City materials. M. Book Sales City shall accept payments for sales of used books that are on display in the concession area from time to time, keep a separate account of such used book sale proceeds and forward all of such used book proceeds to the Dakota County Library Director or his designee at the same time as the City's quarterly payment to County of one/half of the non -book sale proceeds. K/KS13 -99 Library Exhibit A SCOPE OF SERVICES for Eagan JPA 4- 1- 13.docx LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE SCOPE OF SERVICE 4 -1 -13 Page 3of5 q0 EQUIPMENT LIST Soda fridge Bakery case Cash drawer Air pots (3) Scale Cold press toddy Landline phone Espresso machine Miscellaneous utensils, cups, pitchers, prep equipment Rolling office cabinet Stationery /office supplies Brewer 2 coffee grinders 2 under counter fridges 1 coffee grinder (Back counter) Ice Machine Bench Cabinet (At end of front counter) 3 Basin Sink (Now bolted to the wall) Large Steel Shelf Small Steel Shelf Rolling Cart Water Cooler Garbage Cans Cash Register LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE SCOPE OF SERVICE 4 -1 -13 Page 4 of 5 Wescott Library Floor Plan LIBRARY -EAGAN CONCESSION SERVICE SCOPE OF SERVICE 4 -1 -13 Page 5 of 5 Agenda Memo April 16, 2013 City Council Meeting X. APPROVE a Resolution to accept a grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council in the amount of $5,000 for a Community Arts Grant and authorize the necessary budget adjustment. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To approve a Resolution to accept a Community Arts Grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council (MRAC) in the amount of $5,000 and authorize the necessary budget adjustment. FACTS: • At their December 18, 2012 meeting the City Council approved the submission of an application for a Community Arts Grant to fund various arts programming throughout the community. The City of Eagan was notified that they were awarded a grant of $5,000, which will be matched with 25% in cash. • The grant request included a focus on creative discovery and participants will have the opportunity to discover creativity through, but not limited to the following activities: : • Continuation of Teen Artist Gatherings on the first Thursday and First Saturday of each month. • Guest artist series to give participants learning opportunities in new art forms or from new teaching artists. • Sampler Saturdays, giving participants a chance to try out art making with all supplies included. • Harvest of Art event. Activities to include public Raku firing, Harvest of Art exhibit, hands on art activities, and entertainment. • Continued branding and marketing efforts of the "Art... Be a Part" campaign. By accepting this grant the 2013 Recreation budget would receive a corresponding budget adjustment of: ■ $5,000 to budget line item 3098 -4140 ATTACHMENT: I • Resolution on Page �ml M, CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL WHEREAS, Eagan Parks and Recreation offers several community wide art programs and events during the year; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan applied for and received a $5,000 grant from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council for summer arts programs; and WHEREAS, those 2013 programs include the Harvest of Art event that includes public Raku firing, Harvest of Art exhibit, hands on art activities and entertainment; continuation of Teen Artist Gatherings on the first Thursday and first Saturday of each month; Guest artist series to give participants learning opportunities in new art forms or form new teaching artists, Sampler Saturdays, giving participants a chance to try out art making with all supplies included, and continued branding and marketing efforts of the "Art ... Be a Part" campaign; and WHEREAS, the grant requires a 25% cash match by the City of Eagan totaling $1,250; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Eagan City Council does hereby accept a grant of $5,000 from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council for summer arts programs including Harvest of Art event, teen open studios, guest artist series and the continuation of marketing efforts of the "Art..Be a Part" campaign. Motion made by: Seconded by: Those in favor: Those against: Dated: CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Mayor Attest: City Clerk CERTIFICATION I, Christina M. Scipioni, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 16 "` day of April, 2013. City Clerk G'� Agenda Memo April 16, 2013 City Council Meeting Y. AUTHORIZE application of a grant from the Minnesota State Arts Board for an Arts Learning Grant. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Authorize the submission of a grant application from the Minnesota State Arts Board for an Arts Learning Grant. FACTS: The Minnesota State Arts Board has grants for up to $150,000 available for Arts Learning projects. Grants do not require a cash match. • Parks & Recreation will submit a grant for $22,000 for arts programming from November 2013 to October 2014 to include: • The Eagan Art House will work with internationally recognized photographer, Wing Young Huie in collaboration with Dakota Hills Middle School and Glacier Hills Elementary School of Arts and Science. • The grant will include artist in residence activities, after school activities and on- site activities at the Eagan Art House. • The project will begin with a Community Kick off event, "How Do Photographs Form Us ?" which speaks to perceptions of our changing cultural landscape. • Project will include Chalk Talk activities with all three collaborator groups. This will include conversations around open ended questions and photographs of the process. • Coordination of student mentor opportunities between the middle school, elementary school and Eagan Art House community members. • Community Art Exhibit of photographs of the project. • All activities will have specific learning outcomes and include an intention for community engagement. • The grant submission deadline is April 26, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: • None q,E� Agenda Information Memo April 16, 2013, Eagan City Council Meeting VII. NEW BUSINESS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW), COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (DAKOTA PATH) — HUNTER EMERSON ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To adopt a Resolution stating the City's findings for a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the approximately 79 acre Parkview site located at 1290 and 1310 Cliff Road. To approve (or direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Preliminary Planned Development for 177 single - family dwelling units upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, subject to the attached conditions. To implement (or direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment changing the land use designation from PR, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density residential, upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road. To approve (or direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Rezoning from P, Park, to PD, Planned Development upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road. To approve (or direct preparation of Findings of Fact for Denial) a Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 178 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located at 1301 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, subject to the attached conditions. REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Resolution re: Negative Declaration on need for EIS — Majority of Council members present Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning - At least four votes Preliminary Planned Development — At least three votes Preliminary Subdivision — Majority of Council members present FACTS: ➢ Hunter Emerson is proposing to redevelop this approximately 79 -acre site for residential use. The specific development proposal is for 177 single - family lots of varying sizes, one lot to retain the existing monopole, and 9 outlots intended as open space around and throughout the proposed development. �7 Consideration of EAW ➢ An EAW was prepared and published for public comment on November 12, 2012. An Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study Addendum were published for public comment on February 18, 2013. ➢ The Findings of Fact state and respond to the four factors to be considered under Minnesota Rules to determine the adequacy of an EAW /need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Based on all available information, City staff and the City's consultant, SRF, believe an EIS is not warranted. ➢ The full Findings of Fact and all appendices are on file with the City of Eagan Community Development Department. Preliminary Planned Development In October 2012, the applicant submitted the initial applications for Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision. ➢ Revised plans were submitted in January 2013. The January 2013 Preliminary PD proposes 177 single- family dwelling units on lots of varying sizes, retains the monopole, relocates the access to Cliff Road based on feedback from the Dakota County Plat Commission, and provides for 0.9 acres park land dedication adjacent to George Ohmann Park. ➢ Proposed amenities include a swimming pool, tot lot, pergola /gathering area, and trails. ➢ A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission on January 22, 2013. The APC recommended denial of the Preliminary PD on a 4 -2 vote. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment ➢ In 2012, the City considered an amendment to the land use designation from PR, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density, to allow redevelopment of the site with residential uses. ➢ A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission on May 22, 2012. ➢ On June 19, 2012, the City Council directed staff to send the land use amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review. ➢ On October 10, 2012, the Metropolitan Council gave approval for the City to implement the land use change, and the City received notice of this action on October 15, 2012. ➢ Final City Council action on the proposed land use amendment has been withheld to be considered simultaneously with a specific development plan for the property. Rezoning and Preliminary Subdivision ➢ In October 2012, the applicant submitted the initial applications for Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision. ➢ An EAW was prepared, and the proposal was reviewed by the APrC and the Dakota County Plat Commission. On January 7, 2013, the applicant resubmitted the development plans which had been revised in response to feedback received, particularly access considerations coming from the Dakota County Plat Commission. ➢ The plans were again reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission, and the EAW was updated to reflect a revised traffic analysis as a result of the Plat Commission's recommendation with regard to access. q� A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission on January 22, 2013. The APC recommended denial of the Rezoning on a 4 -2 vote, and denial of the Preliminary Subdivision on a 6 -0 vote. ISSUES: ➢ A Preliminary Planned Development Agreement has been drafted with conditions of approval that address the following: • Retain the monopole with the conditions from prior Conditional Use Permits • Require four acres of park land dedication. ➢ The Advisory Planning Commission gave the following comments in support of denial of the Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision: • Insufficient park dedication • Incompatibility of monopole with residential development and failure to satisfy 300' monopole setback • Insufficient buffer from proposed homes to Lebanon Hills Regional Park 60 -DAY AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: Waived ATTACHMENTS: (16) A. Location Map, page B 1. April 12, 2013 City Attorney Memo, page 9� 0- B2. April 11, 2013 City Attorney Process Memo, pages (00 through C. List of allowed use in the Park Zoning District, pages lda through 103 D. Resolution for Support for Passage of Parkview Redevelopment Findings of Fact and Conclusion, pages VA through \ Q G E. Findings of Fact (EAW), pages Oo through 13 F. Summary of EAW Public Comments and Responses regarding the need for an EIS, pages fly through ��)q G. Draft Preliminary Planned Development Agreement, pages through lsl H. Draft Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Subdivision, pages 15a through 61 I. January 22, 2013 APC Minutes, pages 15b through V1 d J. June 19, 2012 City Council Minutes, page, 1`13 K. May 22, 2012 APC Minutes, pages 11q through Vl'� L. Met Council letter of approval re: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, page �bo M. Planning Report, pages �Bl through a$1 N. June 12, 2012 City Attorney Memo, pages a.$ 2) through ab''f O. Summary of the Mendota Par 3 and Carriage Hills cases, pages a� S through ,)V� P. Correspondence, attached without page number • r ATTACHMENT "A" Location M t F Capons BALSAM SHEET t • � I L.- 0. Rd > 1 CLEONIE LANE '� a„y• '/ Yn 0 DOUdle.Rd � oNDEROS - COS .Carlson Lake Park COSMOS LANE COSMOS LANE 3 4 v WALFRID ST I s' AbWRYLLI N� DlRloy Rd w I e t - E p Y A CIIHRd c. I > z � Vl -S 'WILDERNESS RUN ROAD wn awx.xx o..xa:».au vaxax xx.aaxx•�wx Oak ' w � , Map Area Extent j U Wo RN S5 &U Thbinas. Lake Park ! — WILDERNESS N U ., l Thomas Cake East Park Q Ravine Park Park 0 P p O tt .t O Clearwater Park - Park - Wald Heights Park M N - Q rc , Z ' a i I D -L ORES LANE 6 m O 2 w ❑ y 5 .m 0 Subject Site U m0�j C t 4 Lebanon Hills Regional Park N'George Ohmann Pa W IN CRAIS OR O tt O Z Y O Feet Project Name: Dakota Path 0 500 1,000 2,000 Requests: Rezoning, Prelim PD, Prelim Subd. Legend Case Nos. :34- RZ- 08- 10 -12, 34- PD- 04- 10 -12, 34- PS- 05 -10 -12 Parcels Buildings Parks City of Eap ,o,,. City IfollZ Boundary N ATTACHMENT "B1" D Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer RA. OUGHERTY MOLENDA r('s: £. Attorneys I Advisors MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Osberg, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: April 12, 2013 RE: Dakota Path / Evaluation of Information Our File No. 206 -33127 7300 West 147th Street Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 432 -3136 Phone (952) 432 -3780 Fax www.dmslib.com In anticipation of Tuesday night's meeting, we discussed how the Council should react to information that may be offered to it in evaluating whether a golf course remains an economically viable use, including whether a prospective buyer has expressed an interest in the property. Additionally, we discussed what leeway the Council has to obtain additional information. The Council can ask for any information that a Council member may deem relevant. However, the Council cannot compel any person, property owner, developer, resident or potential buyer to produce any specific information for the Council. Anyone may voluntarily offer information to the Council and each Council member will need to determine if the information is relevant and how much weight should be given to it. With respect to the issue of the viability of the existing land uses, the developer /owner has provided the Council with information that suggests that the existing golf course is losing money, that the golf market does not support a continued use of the property as a golf course and that alternative uses permitted for the property are not viable. The Council may ask for additional information, but cannot compel its production. Any resident or potential buyer may produce information for the Council's review, including testimony about efforts to buy the property. The Council may ask that information be produced to substantiate any such testimony. As noted above, the Council cannot compel the prospective buyer to produce information. Ultimately, the Council's decision must be supported by the record. Whether the Council believes the record is sufficient to support its decision will be the judgment of the Council. If the Council believes it does not have the information it needs to approve any application, it should note so in its denial. Nevertheless, if the Council's decision is challenged, a review of the record will include Whether there was a reasonable basis for the Council to conclude that it lacked sufficient information. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to be in contact with me. MGD /j It in Attorneys j Advisors Ap(95 )4323136 rio 4 (952) 432 -3780 Fax www.dmshb:com MEMORANDUM TO: David M. Osberg, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: April 11, 2013 RE: Dakota Path Our File No. 206 -33127 With respect to the April 16 City Council meeting, we believe it is in the best interest of the City to act on the various applications regarding Dakota Path in the order described below. In doing so, the Council would be assured of how the site would be developed, if the Council approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 1. The first action the Council should act upon is whether there is a need for the preparation of an environmental impact statement. This decision is only tangentially related to the land use and zoning applications since those decisions would not result in the physical manipulation of the land. State statute requires that the Council's decision be made within thirty (30) days of the close of the 30 -day comment period (March 20, 2013). Action of the Council to approve the findings requires a majority of the members present at the meeting. 2. The second application to be acted upon by the Council should be the proposed preliminary planned development. The preliminary planned development identifies the site plan and intensity of the development of the site and memorializes the developer's and the City's intention. The proposed preliminary planned development contains a condition noting that it is not effective unless and until such time as the Council has approved the comprehensive guide plan amendment and rezoning to allow for the use as noted in the agreement. Action of the Council to approve the agreement requires a majority of the members present at the meeting. 3. The next item to be acted upon should be the amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Approval of the amendment by the Council would allow for a residential density on the site consistent with the planned development agreement. �C)o April 11, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Action to amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan requires approval by at least four members of the City Council. 4. The next item to be acted upon is the rezoning of the property. Should the Council amend the Comprehensive Guide Plan, a rezoning of the property is necessary to make the zoning consistent with the Plan. Action by the Council to rezone the property requires approval by at least three members of the City Council. 5. The last item to be acted upon is the subdivision application. Approval of the preliminary subdivision establishes the layout for the platting of the property into lots and blocks. Following preliminary approval, no amendment to the comprehensive plan or zoning shall apply to affect the use, density, lot size, lot layout, dedication or platting for a period of one year. Action by the City Council to approve the preliminary subdivision requires a simple majority of the members present at the meeting. If a motion to approve one or more of the applications fails to obtain the required vote for approval, those members not voting in favor should articulate the reason(s) for not voting in favor. Thereafter, the Council should direct the preparation of findings of fact for denial, consistent with the reasons stated in the record. If the Council fails to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Council's action assumes that there remain viable uses for the property consistent with the existing Plan. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Council review and further analyze the perinitted and conditional uses under the current land use designation for the property. If you have any questions, please be in contact with me. MGD /jlt ko l Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. www.dmshb.com OUGHERTY MOLENDA 19 PMJ- Attorneys I Advisors ATTACHMENT "C" § 11.60 EAGAN CODE Subd. 19. P Park District. A. Purpose, The Park District is intended for public and private park uses and related facilities. B. Permitted uses. 1. Camping grounds. 2, Freestanding satellite dishes, subject to the regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter, 3. Golf courses. 4. Parks. 5. Playgrounds. 6. Public structures, 7, Swimming pools. 8. Tennis courts. C. Conditional uses. 1. Freestanding towers. 2. On -sale beer associated with golf course clubhouses. 3. Temporary on -sale beer. 4. Gun clubs. 5. Nursery, day. 6. Nursery, landscape, 7. Church. 8. School: public, private, vocational or technical. 9. Single- family dwelling. 10. Private recreational facilities and fields, 11. Conditional uses number 4 through number 10 shall meet the following stan- dards: i a. A minimum lot size of four acres; b. Streets are to be public and meet all city design standards; C. Water and sanitary sewer facilities are required to be connected to city water and city sanitary sewer; d. Ponds, water bodies and wetlands are to be preserved on site and mitigated as necessary on site; e. Impervious surface on any lot may not exceed five percent of the area of the lot; f, Parking must be proximate to the use; Supp. No, 13 CD11 :72 IVa LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING) § 11,60 g, Single- family dwellings shall not be within the 60 DNL area from the Minneapolis /St, Paul International airport. h. Structures are to be clustered to minimize impervious surfaces. i. Ponds, water bodies, wetlands and slopes greater than four to one (4:1) shall be preserved and not disturbed. D. Permitted accessory uses. 1. Temporary outdoor events, subject to regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter. Subd. 20, PF Public Facilities District, A. Purpose. The purpose of this district is for city, state, and federal government buildings, public and private schools and hospitals. B. Permitted uses. 1. Antennae on a city water reservoir tank or tower and public utility tower antennae, subject to regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter, 2. Building mounted antennae, subject to regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter, 3. Churches, 4, Freestanding satellite dishes, subject to the regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter. 6. Governmental buildings. 6. Hospitals, 7. Public utility structures and equipment. 8. Satellite dishes, subject to regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter, 9. Schools, B,[1], Conditional uses. 1. Daycare facilities associated with churches. 2. Electrical substations and other public utility facilities. 3. Freestanding tower and wind energy conversion systems, subject to regulations thereof elsewhere in this chapter. Supp, No, 13 CD11 :72.1 X03 ATTACHMENT "D" RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR PASSAGE OF THE PARKVIEW aka DAKOTA PATH REDEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Whereas, the Dakota Path Project ( "the Project ") will redevelop the Parkview Golf Club site located at 1290 and 1310 Cliff Road into a single family detached housing development; Whereas, the Project proposer prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under EQB rule 4410; Whereas, the proposed action was described and analyzed in an EAW that was circulated to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list via a "Notice of Availability" in the EQB Monitor on November 12, 2012, for a public comment period ending December 12, 2012; and an Amended EAW was circulated to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list via a "Notice of Availability" in the EQB Monitor on February 18, 2013, for a public comment period ending March 20, 2013; Whereas, as the Responsible Governmental Unit for this project, the City of Eagan has undertaken a thorough analysis of the project and its impacts, based on EQB rule 4410.1700, Subp. 7, Criteria: A) type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B) cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C) the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D) the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the CITY OF EAGAN finds that, based on the associated Environmental Assessment Worksheet and EQB rules, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary. Page 1/2 � CN RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR PASSAGE OF PARKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT aka DAKOTA PATH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eagan this 16th day of April, 2013. CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL By: Its: Mayor Attest: Its: City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Those in Favor: Those Against: Date: April 16, 2013 CERTIFICATION I, Christina Scipioni, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this Sixteenth day of April, 2013. Christina Scipioni, City Clerk Page 2/2 to ATTACHMENT "E" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS DAKOTA PATH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Prepared for City of Eagan, Minnesota April 2013 to(D TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND .................... ..............................3 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................... ..............................4 III. DECESION REGARDING NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.................................................. ..............................4 a. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts............. ............................... 4 b. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects ........... 6 c. Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority............................. ............................... 6 d. Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies................. ............................... 7 IV. CONCLUSIONS .............................................. ..............................8 1.0 Comments Received November 12 — December 12, 2012 and responses to comments 2.0 Comments Received February 18 — March 20, 2013 and responses to comments DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 l,01 2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS DAKOTA PATH FIRST ADDITION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT WORKSHEET ( Parkview Redevelopment Project) EAGAN DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA I. ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND The City of Eagan is the Responsible Governmental Unit for this project and Hunter Emerson is the project proposer. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and subsequent Amended Environmental Assessment Worksheet have been prepared for this project in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW and Amended EAW were developed to assess the potential impacts of the project and other circumstances to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed. The EAW and Amended EAW were filed with the Minnesota EQB and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A "Notice of Availability" for the initial EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 12, 2012 and on February 18, 2013 for the Amended EAW. A Notice of Availability was also published in the Sun ThisWeek Burnsville /Eagan newspaper and on the City of Eagan website. These notices provided a brief description of the project and information on where copies of the EAW and Amended EAW were available, and invited the public to provide comments that would be used in determining the need for an EIS for the proposed project. The EAW and Amended EAW were made available for public review at Eagan City Hall, the City of Eagan website, the Dakota County Library Wescott Branch in Eagan. All comments received during the EAW and Amended EAW comment periods were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments received during the initial Comment Period, and responses to those comments can be found in Section 1.0; and comments received during the Amended EAW Comment Period, and responses to those comments can be found in Section 2.0. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes redevelopment of the existing Parkview Golf Course into a master planned, single - family residential neighborhood. The Dakota Path Concept Plan includes 177 single - family units, community amenities, open spaces and trails that connect the proposed development DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 We to adjacent parks including Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP) and George Olimann Park. The site is approximately 79- acres, and is generally located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road. Primary access to the development is proposed from Cliff Road. The rear property line and southeast property line abuts LHRP; the north, northeast and west property boundaries are primarily adjacent to existing low density residential neighborhoods. The southwest corner of the site is also adjacent to George Ohmami Park which serves as an active park with soccer and baseball fields. Corrections to the EAW and Amended EAW since the EAW was Published Traffic Additional studies were requested by Dakota County to assess the availability of "gaps" in the Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road traffic streams during peak hours to facilitate side street turns. This analysis is attached to the Response to Comments in Section 1.0. This "gap analysis" reveals slightly better conditions for side street intersections on Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road than previously demonstrated in the traffic impact study (TIS) report dated November 2, 2012. The data in both the TIS and additional gap studies were collected during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The "gap analysis" reveals that there are adequate gaps along Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road to accommodate the expected traffic. Permits The table in Item 8 should be amended to include a Sanitary Sewer Extension permit to be acquired from the Metropolitan Council, Surface Water Runoff Item 17 should be corrected to state that all surface water runoff leaving the site will discharge to the northwest, and no surface water runoff will enter LHRP. Wells Item 13 should be amended to include and identify that there are three wells onsite, and that all wells will be properly capped and sealed in compliance with the standards and procedures of the state. III. DECISION REGARDING NEED FOR ENVIRONEMNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT a. Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts The City of Eagan finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and Amended EAW is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental impacts. The EAW and Amended EAW described the type and extent of impacts anticipated to result from the proposed project. This document provides clarifications and summarizes the dominant and recurring issues within the EAW and Amended EAW. Following are the findings regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and the design features included to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts: DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 �Dq Land Use: The project proposes redevelopment of Parkview Golf Course for single - family residential uses, This change requires a comprehensive plan amendment, which must ultimately be approved by the City of Eagan. Additionally, the Metropolitan Council was required to provide authorization to the City that the amendment to the adopted Comprehensive Plan would be acceptable to regional systems. The Metropolitan Council provided that authorization in August, concluding that the City must make a determination as to whether re- guiding the property is consistent with adjacent land uses. The proposed land use is consistent with approximately 50- percent of adjacent single - family, low- density uses. The project will require approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City Council with a super majority. Surface Water Runoff With the redevelopment of the golf course, approximately 13.69 acres of additional impervious surface will be added to the site. As a part of the proposed redevelopment, the project will incorporate a stormwater management plan designed to meet the permitting requirements of the City of Eagan (the administrator for the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization, or GCLWMO) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES permit.) This management plan along with the construction erosion and sediment control plan discussed below constitute the stormwater pollution prevention plan as required by the NPDES permit. The permanent stormwater management plan includes surface water management ponds and infiltration basins throughout the site. The plan proposes surface water management to be handled in compliance with the City's ordinance, and for all discharge to be handled flowing northwest, and eliminating all discharge into Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The Stormwater Management Plan will be finalized prior to Final Subdivision Approval by the City Council. Final project approvals will not be granted until a satisfactory Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted to the City. It is expected that the water quality and water quantity leaving the site will be improved over the existing condition. Tra ffli c: In the initial EAW, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared to evaluate the proposed project. Subsequent to the original comment period closing, a change to the Concept Plan was proposed which required additional traffic study. As a result, an Addendum to the TIS was prepared to evaluate potential impacts based on modifications of access on Cliff Road. This document was published with the Amended EAW. The initial TIS concluded that the number of trips generated by the additional dwelling units will have minimal impacts on the surrounding roadway system. The TIS Addendum, addressing the modified access to Cliff Road, concluded that, on an overall basis, the proposed development will have minimal impacts on operations of the surrounding roadway system. While some level of service issues occur under existing conditions and are expected to continue into the future, the proposed development does not cause any movement to fall to LOS F. DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 Further, the Addendum concluded that at the Cliff Road intersections, the traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the level of service. By 2030, the eastbound and westbound through movements on Cliff Road are large enough that left turns onto Cliff Road become difficult during the p.m. peak hour. This is common for left turns onto major roadways from a stop controlled approach. While not desirable, this poor level of service only impacts a small number of vehicles during the peal-, hours. Further, while the installation of the medians on Cliff Road will affect the traffic movements within existing neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed project, the medians will help improve access spacing along Cliff Road, and will bring the corridor into greater compliance with County access spacing standards. Nearby Resources: The proposed project is adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP) which is identified as a regional resource. The proximity of this resource to the proposed development raised concerns about visual impacts to the park, and potential opposition to expansion of recreational facilities within the park by future residents. The proposed project addresses these potential impacts by including a 20 -foot Impact Buffer which will run adjacent to LHRP and includes a densely vegetated buffer. The vegetation would provide approximately 80- percent screen at- grade, and will provide a physical delineation between the park and private properties. The project proposer will be required to continue to work towards an agreement with the City and /or County as to the proper tools to protect the Park Impact Buffer and vegetation into perpetuity. Wotlanda Two wetlands on the property will be filled by the development. The City as the Regulatory Governmental Unit under the state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) has determined these wetlands to be incidental and therefore not subject to regulation under WCA. Since the draft EAW was published, the developer has received a formal determination from the Army Corps of Engineers that the wetlands onsite are not under their jurisdiction. b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects The Amended EAW and TIS Addendum were performed to evaluate the potential cumulative impact related to traffic and access along Cliff Road. The proposed project is located in an area that is fully developed and there are no known substantial redevelopment activities in the area planned or anticipated by the City. Therefore, there is little /no potential for significant cumulative effects that cannot be mitigated from the proposed project and other foreseeable future actions. c. Extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by on -going public regulatory authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with the applicable regulatory agency. All mitigation efforts will be subject to the plan approval and DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 permitting process. Permits and approvals that have been obtained, or those that are required prior to project construction are identified on Table 1. Table 1: Permits and Approvals Permit Agency . ................... . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action Required National Pollutant Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . ... . . ........................................ Minnesota Pollution Control . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ Permit Eliminate System (NPDES) ................. ................................................................................................................................................. ...............:............... Agency (MPCA) Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit MPCA .............................. ................................................................ ...................... , Permit ....... ....................... ... .................... ......... ... ............................................ ............. .................. ........................ .............. Sanitary Sewer /Watermain .............. ........... ........................... ............... ............ ........ ........................................... .... ............................ Minnesota Department of Health ;............ ............................................................................ ............................; Permit Construction . .......... . . . . . . : ..................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I EAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Eagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... :Approval ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... EIS Decision .............................................................. ......................................... ... ....................................................................... ............................... City of Eagan ;.......................................................................................................... ........ ................................................ ...:............... ......................... ............................ ............................... Approval ROW Permit ' City of Eagan ............................ ........................................................................................ Permit ....................................... ............................... Grading and Excavation Permit ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... City of Eagan ............................... Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... . . ................ . .................................... . . ..................... Sewer and Water Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Eagan . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Permit ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Permit ............................... City of Eagan ................. ............................... Permit .......... .............. ..................... ....... ........... ... .......................................... ......................................................... ............. Development Review ..... .......... ..... ... ....... ........... ....... ............................ .............. ...... ....................... .................. ....... .............. City of Eagan ................................................................ ........... ......................................... : Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment . ..................................................... .... .................................................... ............ ....... ............................................... City of Eagan . . : . ................................ . ............. . .............. ........................... . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . . ...... i Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The City of Eagan and other regulatory agencies have extensive experience with development of low density residential neighborhoods of this scale. Many projects of this size and scope have been completed within the City with similar environmental concerns. The City of Eagan finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of environmental review and experience on similar projects. DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 \\ IV. CONCULSIONS 1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2. The EAW and Amended EAW, and the development processes related to the project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified have included proper mitigative responses to be included within the final design of the project. Mitigation will be required to be provided where impacts are expected to result from project construction, operation or maintenance. Mitigative measures are incorporated into project design, and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed Dakota Path residential subdivision development project. For the City of Eagan: Michael J. Ridley, AICP City Planner City of Eagan DAKOTA PATH EAW Findings of Fact and Conclusions I April 2013 Date ATTACHMENT "F" 1.0 DAKOTA PATH EAW — RESPONSE PACKAGE: November 12 —December 12, 2012 The following response package responds to comments received during the original public review period which occurred between November 12, 2012 and December 12, 2012. After the original public comment period was closed, a change to the Concept Plan was proposed which required additional traffic study. As a result, an Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study Addendum were prepared and a second public comment period was initiated. In the following comments, the Amended EAW is referenced where relevant, and additional responses can be found in Section 2.0 related to the Amended EAW. 1.1 Comment Letters are numbered as the following: 1 — Metropolitan Council (MC) 2 — Dakota County 3 — Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 4 — Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 5 — Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) 6 — Mark Skweres, 4616 Fairway Hills Drive 7 — Gary and Mary Jo Flicek, 4643 Parkridge Drive Table 1.1: Comment Topic 8 — Christie Soderling, 4657 Parkcliff Dr. 9 — Larry Poppler, 4608 Fairway Hills Drive 10 — Eric Jensen, 4614 Parkridge Drive 11 — Patrick Campbell, 4716 Pebble Beach Way 12 — Susan Bradley, 4675 Fairway Hills Drive 13 — Bill Cutter, 4680 Fairway Hills Drive The following table summarizes the commenter's concerns by topic area. The full comment letters are attached as Attachment A, to this document. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.1.1 Permits 1.1.6 ............................... . Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff 1 -MC 2- Dakota County 5 -MDH 5 -MDH 8- Soderling 9- Poppler ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... ........... 13-Cutter 1.1.2 Land Use /Compatibility 1.1.7 Solid waste, hazardous waste 2- Dakota County 2- Dakota County 6- Skweres i 8- Soderling ..... ............................... .... ....................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1.1.3 Ecologically Sensitive Resources 1.1.8 Traffic 3- DNR 2- Dakota County 6- Skweres 6- Skweres 13- Cutter 7- Flicek 8- Soderling 9- Poppler 10- Jensen 11- Campbell 12- Bradley ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13- Cutter 1.1.4 Water Resources ............................... 1.1.9 ...... Nearby Resources 4 -MPCA 1 -MC 2- Dakota County 6- Skweres € ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7- Flicek ............................... ... �1 1 . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . ........... . . . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . .. . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8- Soderling 1.1.5 Water Use 1.1.10 Visual Impacts 2- Dakota County 2- Dakota County 9- Po 8- Soderling ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1.1.1 PERMITS — EAW Item #8 Comment: MC — "...at the time the City makes application to the MPCA for a permit to construct each segment of sanitary sewer for the proposed project, a copy of the plans, design data, and a location map of the project will also need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council." Response: The table identified in Item 8 of the EAW should be amended to include the following under the Metropolitan Council section, "Type of Application; Sanitary Sewer Extension " with a status of "To be submitted. " 1.1.2 LAND USE /COMPATABILITY — EAW Items #9 and #27 Comment: Dakota County: "Private recreational land use at Parkview Golf Course has been very compatible with the public land use in the City's adjacent Ohmann Park and the County's adjacent Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP). As the site transitions to residential housing, we remain concerned about the houses of Dakota Path being visible to users of the County's Park and vice versa — more so as increased park use and future development will bring additional park users and activities closer to the Dakota Path neighborhood." Response: The existing land use is compatible with LHRP; however, the proposed low density residential land use is also compatible with LHRP and is similar to many other neighborhoods that share a border with the park. The developers of Dakota Path understand that the park has plans for further development near the southern boundary of the proposed project. Significant landscaping is proposed in the 20 foot Impact Buffer bordering all park land and provides an 80 percent screen at- grade. Future residents and /or buyers of the lots bordering the park will be informed of the park's future plans, and also will be subject to the restrictions of the impact buffer to ensure that the vegetative screening is protected. Comment: Skweres: "...The Comprehensive Guide goes to great length to emphasize the importance of land use diversity for the health and welfare of its citizens, and this 28% reduction of this unique designation cripples the city's overall balance. Furthermore, the EAW fails to note this property is the last remaining 18 -hole golf course in the City, and the high entry cost of developing such a facility on any of the remaining private or publicly owned properties city effectively bans such facilities from Eagan's future." Response: The existing land use of Private Recreation was established in the City of Eagan to delineate publicly owned parks, recreational areas and open space from those similarly used lands that were in private ownership. The purpose of this designation was to identify lands that are not publicly owned, and to communicate to adjacent land owners that while this land may be operated and managed as open space or for recreational opportunities today, the land is not protected into perpetuity due to private ownership. Therefore, the City's Parks and Open Space needs, and land use diversity must be accomplished through publicly owned lands. Providing adequate parks and open space within the community is an important objective to maintain land use diversity. The EAW response states that there are 4,062 acres of land guided for Park (P) within the community that are publicly managed. Considering Private Recreation and Park land uses comprehensively, there are 4,343 acres; development of the Parkview golf course would reduce that acreage by approximately 79 acres or 1.82% of the overall parks and open space within the City.. Alternative golffacilities are available in or near the City of Eagan a 9 -hole golf course within the city, and an 18 -hole golf course within 1.5 miles south of the project site. Comment: Skweres: "The EAW incorrectly implies the majority of adjacent land uses are Low Density residential... the majority of the perimeter abuts open space uses with Lebanon Hills and Ohmann Park. A more precise calculation of the total perimeter of the property (7920 feet) shows it has less than 36.6% (2900 feet) of Low Density properties to the east and west. The EAW should state that the predominant land use of adjacent uses is Park, not Low Density residential and therefore the proposed change is inconsistent with surrounding area's uses." Response: The EAW discussion reflects consideration of land use area as well as perimeter analysis. If considering the entire perimeter (7, 762 feet) which includes the northern property boundary, approximately 3, 907 feet or 50.34% of the land abutting the proposed project (excluding road ROW) is in Low Density Residential uses. Based upon an area calculation, using a half -mile radius from the center of the subject property, over 60% of the acres (excluding the existing golf course) are residentially guided properties. Although these analyses can be conducted in a variety of ways, it is not inaccurate to state that the majority of land adjacent to the subject property is low density residential; however, the park designation also plays a substantial role in the character of the area. Comment: Skweres: "...The EAW fails to report that the Eagan Planning Commission recommended in a 5 to 1 vote to deny this land use change via Comprehensive Guide Amendment. Commission members cited the incompatibility of the applicant's proposal with the long term goals of the City, noting the lack of need for Low Density housing in Eagan. They also stated opposition due to the site's proximity to Lebanon Hills Regional Park and the Development's incompatibility with the Dakota County Greenway projects and the park's long term Comprehensive Plan. Response: o The Advisory Planning Commission recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 5-1. The rationale for the denial shared by advisory commission members included loss of open space (one member) and the preference for higher density housing (three members). Subsequently, City policy makers considered the request and directed staff to submit the CPA to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. Comment: Cutter: "...and this is not an appropriate location for senior housing." Response: Due to concerns and comments received, the age - restricted multi family building has been eliminated. 1.1.3 ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES - EAW Item 11 Comment: DNR: "Graded areas shall be vegetated with native grasses and forbs" please clarify. The EAW includes a discussion on using these spaces and the proposed ponding areas to serve as buffers from adjacent users' however, these areas are also proposed to be used as amenities, please clarify. Response: The proposal includes weaving open spaces, and integrating the stormwater management system, includingponds and infiltration basins into the overall developmentplan. It is the intent that the open spaces and vegetated areas on site will be amenities from the perspective ofproviding visual open spaces to adjacent neighborhoods and Dakota Path residents; while birds and other small animals will likely utilize these areas as well. In item 11 b the response refers specifically to the approach pertaining to ecological resources as defined in the DNR letter. Comment: Skweres: "The EAW makes no mention of plans to examine the existing wetlands and surrounding areas prior to grading or other activities that would destroy the turtles and their native habitat." The discussion focuses mainly on post - construction activities rather than pre - construction activities for protection of the presence of potential ecologically significant resources. Response: The developer shall ensure proper procedures are taken both preconstruction, during construction and post construction in compliance with the DNR standards for protection of the Blanding's Turtle. Prior to construction, the developer will note all contractors of the potential presence of the Blanding's Turtle onsite, and will be required to check all wetland areas, culverts and other potential habitat areas prior to performing grading activities. The wetlands onsite are not of high quality and, due to the golf course use, have been significantly impacted. 1.1.4 WATER RESOURCES — EAW Item #12 0 I Comment: DNR: "Buffers will be provided around wetlands which remain on site, and around created surface water management areas." Response: The city has extensive design guidelines for ponding areas to ensure proper infiltration at surface water management areas. As clarification, formal buffer areas around the stormwater ponding areas are not proposed. However pond design includes an infiltration shelf which generally has low or no water depending on if the season has been particularly wet or dry, and is generally vegetated with wetland species with deep root structures. These areas surround all ponding areas, and are apart of the City of Eagan's standards for stormwater management. Comment: MPCA: Under circumstances when wetlands are determined to be "non-jurisdictional" by the US Army Corps of Engineers and "incidental" under the Wetland Conservation Act, the MPCA maintains regulatory authority regarding physical alteration of the wetlands. ...Project would be required to comply with the MPCA's Water Quality Standards ... as they pertain to wetlands, including compensatory mitigation for all wetland impacts. Response: Since the draft EAW was published, the developer has received a formal determination from the Army Corps of Engineers that the wetlands onsite are not under theirjurisdiction, and the City as the RGUfor WCA has determined the wetlands on site incidental. Therefore, the two existing wetlands onsite will not remain in the proposed development. Comment: Skweres: "Buffers will be provided around wetlands which remain on site..." Response: The two existing wetlands on -site were determined to be incidental and will not remain in the proposed development. As clarification regarding the buffer description in the EAW response, formal buffer areas around the stormwater ponding areas are not proposed. However pond design includes an infiltration shelf which generally has low or no water depending on if the season has been particularly wet or dry, and is generally vegetated with wetland species with deep root structures. These areas surround all ponding areas, and area part of the City of Eagan's standards for stormwater management. 1.1.5 WATER USE — EAW Item #13 Comment: Dakota County: The EAW needs to be revised to reflect the third well, including plans to cap and close. Response: Item 13 in the EAW should reflect the third well. All wells will be properly capped and sealed in compliance with the standards and procedures of the State of Minnesota. o1 Comment: Poppler: Minnesota Rules and State Statute govern wellhead protection and isolation distances between wells and contamination sources, and should be reviewed for this project. Response: The EAWstates that "The proposed project is within the City ofEagan's wellhead protection area identified as the South Wellhead Management Zone. This area was established in an effort to ensure proper mitigative measures, including appropriate BMPs, are implemented to protect the groundwater supply, and ultimately the drinking water supply in the City. " The developer is working collaboratively with the City to develop plans that include tailored BMPs that address the issues as established within the Wellhead Management Zone that are specific to this area. These plans will be in compliance with the City's standards, as well as those of the State. 1.1.6 WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF — EAW Item #17 Comment: Dakota County: The EAW needs to be revised to reflect that no stormwater will be discharged from the proposed development to the Park, consistent with the City of Eagan Stormwater Management Plan and Lebanon Hills Regional Park Stormwater Management Plan. Response: Item 17a states that all stormwater will be managed in compliance with the City of Eagan and Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization standards. All waters leaving the site will discharge to the northwest. Furthermore the requirements require no- net - increase of the existing conditions total phosphorus and total suspended solids load to meet quality standards, thereby ensuring the protection of Thomas Lake. Item 17b should be corrected to state that all drainage routes will discharge to the northwest, leading ultimately to Thomas Lake. Since the draft of this EAW was prepared and published for review, the full stormwater calculations have been submitted to the City for review, and the proposed development is in compliance with the City and Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization's (GCLWMO) standards for rate, quantity and quality control. No water will exit the site to the south. Comment: MDH: The stormwater management plan has not yet been submitted... Because infiltration of stormwater in a high vulnerability setting has the potential to affect drinking water duality, please consider the enclosure "Source Water Protection Issues Related to Stormwater" as you finalize your plans. Response: Since the draft of this EAW was prepared and published for review, the full stormwater calculations have been submitted to the City for review, and the proposed development is in compliance with the City and GCLWMO's standards for rate, quantity and quality control. No water will exit the site to the south. Comment: -w1 Soderling: The EAW suggests that the runoff issues would not exceed specs for developments; however, it completely ignores the fact that runoff from a development vastly exceeds runoff from a golf course in quality and quantity... Putting in a development would set back this progress on the clean water front substantially, moving backwards instead of forward in water quality. Response: Since the draft of this EAW was prepared and published for review, the frill stormwater calculations have been submitted to the City for review, and the proposed development is in compliance with the City and GCLWMO's standards for rate, quantity and quality control. The water leaving the site will be cleaner that under existing conditions, as the golf course utilized phosphorous and other chemicals to maintain the course that will not be permitted within a single family residential development. Comment: Poppler: ... Considering the benefits to the environment and because this site has been historically guided and planned as private recreation with lower densities and more open space, pre - settlement standards should be considered. If this project moves forward, this will help preserve the hydrologic cycle and minimize impacts downstream including Thomas Lake and Lebanon Hills Park. Response: The City and GCLWMO's standards require a developer to ensure post development conditions do not exceed pre - development conditions. Therefore the developer did not consider pre - settlement conditions. Comment: Cutter: The city has been trying to get a handle on Thomas Lake and the water quality issues for years. This additional runoff will set back the city's efforts and more than likely create more issues and associated cost to improve conditions at Thomas Lake. Response: Since the draft of this EAW was prepared and published for review, the full stormwater calculations have been submitted to the City for review, and the proposed development is in compliance with the City and Gun Club's standards for rate, quantity and quality control. The stormwater calculations anticipate improved water quality entering Thomas Lake due to the reduction in phosphorous and other chemicals commonly used to maintain golf courses that will no longer be used in a residential development. 1.1.7 SOLID WASTEMAZARDOUS WASTE - EAW Item #20 Comment: Dakota County: "...Dakota County records indicate the land was used for agricultural purposes at least through the mid- 1960s. However, the developer's contractors should be watchful for evidence of any fuel /oil spills from golf course maintenance vehicles, and chemicals related to lawn care, and if found, they will need to be removed ... If any solids or hazardous wastes are tao uncovered during construction, Dakota County Ordinance #110 requires that Dakota County staff be notified so appropriate cleanup is done." Response: As indicated in the EAW the developer is aware that the property was in agricultural production prior to the establishment of the golf course. At this time there is no evidence to suggest that there are any solids or hazardous wastes on site. However, if any solids or potentially hazardous wastes are encountered during construction activities the Developer, and its Contractors, shall follow proper process and procedures as identified within Dakota County Ordinance #110. 1.1.8 TRAFFIC — EAW Item #21 Comment: Dakota County: There were comments related to Operations, Access Spacing, Connectivity and Trip Generation. The following bullets are provided related to the recommendations for each topic area: Operations: Study whether to widen local streets that access CSAH 32 (Cliff Rd) and CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob) to accommodate drivers making both left turns and right turns side -by -side at several local intersections (listed in full comment letter). Amend the study to include analysis, at each location, that takes into account two -lane approaches. In addition, a gap analysis should be conducted for these intersections. Response: The additional studies and data as requested from Dakota County have been completed and are attached to this response to comments. The gap data reveals slightly better conditions on Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road than previously demonstrated in the traffic impact study (TIS) report dated November 2, 2012. The data in both the TIS and additional gap studies were collected during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The data collected reveals that there are adequate gaps along Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road to accommodate the expected traffic. Access Spacing: Develop a plan for the Dakota Path entrance at Cliff Road that takes into account access locations with adjacent neighborhood streets, including consideration for restricting left -turn movements at Dakota Path or neighboring streets using a median or 3/ intersection design. Response: An Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Addendum addressing this issue were published for public comment on February 18, 2013. Please refer to the Amended EAW and TISAddendum. Connectivity: The City should consider improving street connectivity to the west to provide options for drivers both existing residents of Fairway Hills and future residents of Dakota Path to use the most efficient routes and avoid delays when traveling out of neighborhoods. Response: After considering the concerns of adjacent neighborhoods regarding increased traffic, the developer has maintained the proposed road layout which provides a meandering i route through the neighborhood. The intent of the road layout was to discourage the use of adjacent neighborhood's local roads as alternative routes. Trip Generation: The trip generation rates used for senior housing at this location should be closely reviewed and the traffic impacts revised as necessary. Response: An Amended EAW has been prepared, which includes a revised Concept plan which removes the senior housing from the plan. Please refer to the Amended EA W, TIS Addendum and revised Concept Plan for additional information. Comment: Skweres: The traffic analysis should be performed based on maximum build -out of the 316 units, rather than the 173 used in the calculations. Response: The preparation of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was not mandated per the thresholds as established within the EA Wguidelines, and the TIS is provided as supplemental information to the response stated in Item 21. Therefore the TIS was prepared based upon a specific project and does not consider the full build -out. As previously stated, and Amended EAW has been prepared and TIS Addendum prepared to respond to the revised concept plan. Comment: Flieek: Most developments in Eagan include a major thoroughfare, while Dakota Path does not. The number of accesses, egress /ingress points does not seem adequate. There seems to be some locations that do not have adequate sight distances. Response: An Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Addendum addressing this issue were published for public comment on February 18, 2013. Please refer to the Amended EAWand TIS Addendum. Comment: Soderling: The calculations in the traffic study do not accurately reflect conditions. A development of this size with only 2 outlets does not seem adequate. Reconfiguring Cliff Road to accommodate the development does not seem fair to existing neighborhoods. Response: An Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Addendum addressing this issue were published for public comment on February 18, 2013. Please refer to the Amended EAWand TIS Addendum. Comment: Po ler: Existing residents are fearful of potential changes to their roadway accesses to CSAH 31 and CSAH 32. These possible changes need to be studied properly and communicated to existing residents as soon as possible. Response: An Amended EAW and Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Addendum addressing this issue were published for public comment on February 18, 2013. Please refer to the Amended EAWand TIS Addendum. Comment: Jensen: One of the solutions recommended on the traffic assessment is to add a left turn lane at east bound Cliff Road and Parkcliff Drive.....with the development, this solution to the traffic issues will make it more difficult to exit from Parkcliff Drive to west bound Cliff Road. Response: An Amended EAWand Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Addendum addressing this issue were published for public comment on February 18, 2013, . Please refer to the Amended EAWand TIS Addendum. Comment: Campbell: There are incredible traffic jams on the resident's street (Pebble Beach Way), and is extremely concerned about the addition of 245 vehicles per day down Pebble Beach. Response: The existing daily traffic volume on Pebble Beach Way immediately east of Pilot Knob Road is 670 vehicles per day. No traffic operations issues were observed on Pebble Beach Way during the data collection period. The daily volume on Pebble Beach Way is projected to increase by 245 vehicles per day, resulting in a daily volume of 915 vehicles per day. Observations of traffic operations on Pebble Beach Way indicate capacity is available to accommodate the future volume without significant delays occurring. Comment: Bradley: Overall concern regarding the level of traffic that could come through Fairway Hills and onto surrounding streets if 174 single - family and 100 senior units are built. Making left turns from existing roads is extremely difficult already. Also, the traffic study did not address the traffic from Ohmann Park which has a great deal of traffic. Response: The methodology for the collecting traffic data is consistent and focuses on the weekday a.m. and p.m. hours. All trips generated by adjacent uses are included in the collected traffic volume data. Trips generated by George Ohmann Park during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours are included in the traffic data, as were all other types of trips, including commuter traffic. As presented in the Amended EAW and TISAddendum, one of the primary objectives of the Dakota Path concept plan was to design the internal road network in a way which promotes the primary access as Dakota Path for new residents, rather than through the Fairway Hills neighborhood. While there will be some new residents that will likely use the Interlachen and Pebble Beach Way accesses, the intent is to have the majority of Dakota Path traffic stay within the neighborhood and utilize the Dakota Path entrance. The TISAddendum identifies that approximately 26 trips are expected to use Interlachen from the Dakota Path subdivision during 10 ,?-� peak a. m. hour, and 38 trips are expected duringpeakp.m. hour. The primary purpose of a traffic study is to evaluate conditions during typical peak traffic period, and determine how an intersection or roadway will function under typical conditions. There may be times where different traffic conditions occur such as when a tournament coincides with peak traffic periods. Comment: Cutter: The traffic study was conducted in the middle of summer. Whomever did the study claimed and assumed that there would be no impact on Fairway Hills Dr. traffic counts... Considering issues on Cliff Rd regarding exit to only the east available, considerable traffic would choose both Interlachen to Pilot Knob, or Fairway hills to Cliff Road west as their primary exits. Response: The methodology for the collecting traffic data is consistent and focuses on the weekday a.m. and p.m. hours. All trips generated by adjacent uses are included in the collected traffic volume data. Trips generated by George Ohmann Park during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours are included in the traffic data, as were all other types of trips, including commuter traffic. As presented in the Amended EAW and TIS Addendum, one of the primary objectives of the Dakota Path concept plan was to design the internal road network in a way which promotes the primary access as Dakota Path for new residents, rather than through the Fairway Hills neighborhood. While there will be some new residents that will likely use the Interlachen and Pebble Beach Way accesses, the intent is to have the majority of Dakota Path traffic stay within the neighborhood and utilize the Dakota Path entrance. The TIS Addendum identifies that approximately 26 trips are expected to use Interlachen from the Dakota Path subdivision during peak a. m. hour, and 38 trips are expected during peak p. m. hour. The primary purpose of a traffic study is to evaluate conditions during typical peak traffic period, and determine how an intersection or roadway will function under typical conditions. There may be times where different traffic conditions occur such as when a tournament coincides with peak traffic periods. 1.1.9 NEARBY RESOURCES — EAW Item #25 Comment: MC: Council staff recommends that the City work with the developer to ensure that the developer provides screening along the perimeter of the development site adjacent to the regional park as stated in the CPA that the Council reviewed and allowed the City to put into effect. Response: As noted in Section 2. 0, the detailed landscape plan included with the revised Concept Plan in the Amended EAW was developed in consultation with Dakota County. Dakota County documented their acceptance of this buffer in their response letter dated March 19, 2013 and provided in Attachment 2A. Comment: 11 6 - Dakota County: Dakota County staff urges the developer to uphold the commitment to create a natural buffer, such as constriction a berm and /or planting conifers, along the south Park boundary. A natural buffer would help screen residences from users of the recreational trail, and would help discourage trespassing on private property by park users. Buffers also provide a visual demarcation showing the line between the homeowner properties and the park boundary, which could be an effective tool for preventing encroachment into the Park..." Response: The Impact Buffer on the south and southeast border ofLHRP is 20 feet wide, and is proposed to be heavily landscaped with evergreens (conifers), deciduous trees, and preservation of the existing trees. (see attached landscape plan in Attachment 1. C). The attached landscape plan shows 100 evergreens (conifers) trees planted on the south perimeter bordering LHRP, and 92 evergreens (conifers) bordering the southeast border ofLHRP. In addition there are deciduous trees mixed in, as well as preservation of existing trees along each border. The proposed border of conifers and deciduous trees will provide an 80 percent opacity screen at- grade. Via the developer's agreement with the city, the Impact Buffer will be held in perpetuity with the following suggested restrictions (See Impact Buffer Diagram in Attachment 1. C): Zone A: Will be 10 feet wide and this area will address height restrictions. This area would restrict heights to no greater than 10 feet, and would not allow for the removal of any of the trees identified on the landscape plan. This restriction would include flagpoles, antennas and lightpoles. Zone B; Is the 10 feet that directly abuts park land, this portion of the impact buffer would be a no -build area. Tree removal will be prohibited in this area, Zone A and Zone B together make up the total 20foot Impact. Buffer. Ally modifications to the landscape plan within Zone A and Zone B would need to.follow proper process and procedures as identified and agreed to with the City. The existing conditions ofLHRP today do not have any trails or other activities near the southern border of the subject property. However, as identified in the comment letter, there are considerations by Dakota County to introduce more park activities in this area adjacent to the proposed project's southern boundary. The developer will work with the City to develop performance standards for the homes bordering the park in this area that would reduce the visual impact on park users. For example, limiting the types of lighting permitted on the rear fagade of structures could be integrated into the developer's agreement, therefore helping reduce the visibility of homes to park users particularly during evening hours. Additionally, the developer shall inform all future homeowners of the intent and planning efforts that continue for the LHRP to establish additional park uses near the southern boundary of the site. Comment: Skweres: ... hi response to Question 25, the EAW incorrectly represents Outlot D as a "...buffer area is approximately 100 -feet wide, with an area of 4.4 acres. The area will provide additional screening to park users by planting additional vegetation including a tree mix." However that outlot is on the northeast quarter of the property between the site and the Parkcliff residential 12 �� F area, and is not near any Lebanon Hills Park boundaries or trails. The plat shows a minimal buffer area of only 10 -feet on the southeast and southern boundaries adjacent to the Park. Response: To fitrther describe the buffer area, as well as the potential visual impact, supplemental graphics have been provided in this response (See Attachment 1. C which contains —Landscape Plan, and Impact Buffer Diagram). The concept plan provided with the draft EAW (Figure]) demonstrates an interconnected system of open spaces around the entire perimeter of the site, at various widths. The purpose of varying the open space buffer is to create a more natural perimeter, which was designed to respond to the topography of the area. The reference to Outlot D, and Outlot H in the EAW was to demonstrate the connection to the Impact Buffer, which is a 20 foot buffer area identified around the perimeter of the south and southeast side of the property bordering Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP). For example, if standing in the park on the eastern boundary looping north, homes adjacent to Outlot D will be setback, rather than forming a solid row of homes with the adjacent Park Cliff neighborhood. This was meant to be considered in addition to the Impact Buffer, not as the primary mitigative measure related to the buffering ofLHRP to adjacent homes. Comment: Flicek: ... the proposed buffer area identified as Outlot D is approximately 100' wide; with an area of 4.4 acres....The developers are planning on using 55' of our property as part of the buffer. Response: To further describe the buffer area, as well as the potential visual impact, supplemental graphics have been provided in this response (See Attachment 1. C which contains — Landscape Plan, and Impact Buffer Diagram). The concept plan provided with the draft EAW (Figure 1) demonstrates an interconnected system of open spaces around the entire perimeter of the site, at various widths. The purpose of varying the open space buffer is to create a more natural perimeter, which was designed to respond to the topography of the area. The reference to Outlot D, and Outlot H in the EAW was to demonstrate the connection to the Impact Buffer, which is a 20 foot buffer area identified around the perimeter of the south and southeast side of the property bordering Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP). For example, if standing in the park on the eastern boundary looking north, homes adjacent to Outlot D will be setback, rather than forming a solid row of homes with the adjacent Park Cliff neighborhood. This was meant to be considered in addition to the Impact Buffer, not as the primary mitigative measure related to the buffering ofLHRP to adjacent homes. Comment: Soderling: The photographs in the EAW are not representative of the issues at hand, and are quite dishonest. In reality, there are between 150 and 500 feet of open field belonging to Lebanon Hills surrounding the entire parcel- Lebanon Hills border. In addition, the plat shows a mere 10 -20 feet of border area at the back of the houses planned to abut the park... The County has plans to re- configure the trail system in an area that includes this area adjacent to the golf course. Response: Photography included within the EAW was meant to suggest how trail users from existing trails would perceive a proposed development, as all images were taken from interior to the park with 13 VJ fl similar proximity and elevation changes that may occur on the southeast border of the site. As demonstrated in the following description, the viewshed will be different, as the proposed development includes a heavy border of conifers, which will be visible from any proposed trails within LHRP on the south border. The Impact Buffer on the south and southeast border ofLHRP is 20 feet wide, and is proposed to be heavily landscaped with conifers and other vegetation including deciduous trees and preservation of existing trees. (see Attachment 1. C - Landscape Plan). The attached landscape plan shows 100 conifer trees planted on the south perimeter bordering LHRP, and 92 conifers bordering the southeast border ofLHRP. In addition there are deciduous trees mixed in, as well as preservation of existing trees along each border. The proposed border of conifer and deciduous trees will provide an 80 percent opacity screen at- grade. 1.1.10 VISUAL IMPACTS — EAW Item #26 Comment: Dakota County: Dakota Path homeowners might incorrectly expect that their view of the park today will remain unchanged in the future. The County is updating their LHRP Master Plan is considering additional uses in the area that borders the southern boundary of the proposed project. Additionally, approximately 10 acres adjacent to the southern boundary is in the process of being restored to natural prairie, which requires biannual burning of the surface brush which will create a noticeable volume of smoke. Response: As identified in response (I) the developer has provided a more detailed plan for the Impact Buffer for lots along the south and southeast boundary. The developer will provide a 20 foot impact buffer that is proposed to be heavily planted with an 80 percent vegetated screen, and a 10 foot no -build buffer around the perimeter of the site bordering the park. Additionally, the developer has agreed to work with the City and County to establish performance standards for the homes bordering the park to include such considerations as exterior lighting. Further, while the County is in the process of updating their master plan, there are no trails or active areas currently in the area adjacent to the proposed project. The proposed vegetation will visually demark the boundary between the private lots and the public park land. The developer will also communicate to all future residents that the park has plans to introduce additional uses to the area bordering the southern boundary of the site. Comment: Soderling: ... the plat shows a 10 -20 foot border area at the back of the houses planned to abut the park. This is not even enough to plant a double row of spruce or other species that would effectively protect park users from the visual impact... Response: The Impact Buffer on the south and southeast border ofLHRP is 20 feet wide, and is proposed to be heavily landscaped with conifers and other vegetation including deciduous trees and preservation of existing trees. (See Attachment 1. C Landscape Plan). The attached landscape plan shows 100 conifer trees planted on the south perimeter bordering LHRP, and 92 evergreens 14 I0 bordering the southeast border ofLHRP. In addition there are conifers mixed in, as well as preservation of existing trees along each border. The proposed border of conifer and deciduous will provide an 80 percent opacity screen at- grade. 15 2.0 DAKOTA PATH EAW — RESPONSE PACKAGE: FEBRUARY 18 —MARCH 20, 2013 The following response package responds to comments received during the public review period which occurred between February 18, 2013 and March 20, 2013. This public review period was initiated to provide an opportunity to the public to review an Amended EAW which included an addendum to the Traffic Impact Study. In cases where the comments received reiterate concerns expressed during the initial review period, a reference to Section 1.0 is provided. 2.1 Comment Letters are numbered as the following: 1 — Metropolitan Council (MC) 6 — Larry Poppler, 4608 Fairway Hills Drive 2 — Dakota County 7 —Tom Lucas, 4601 Fairway Hills Drive 3 — Mark Skweres, 4616 Fairway Hills Drive 8 — Joe Miller, 4640 Fairway Hills Drive 4 —Gary and Mary Jo Flicek, 4643 Parkridge Drive 9 — Dwight Palmi, 4750 Cypress Pt. 5 — Christie Soderling, 4657 Parkcliff Dr. 10 — Julie Sieben, 1370 St. Andrew Blvd Table 2.1: Comment Topic The following table summarizes the commenter's concerns by topic area. The full comment letters are attached as Attachment 2A, to this document. 2.1.1 Water Use 1 -MC 2.1.2 Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff 3- Skweres 6- Poppler 2.1.3 Nearby Resources 1 -MC ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Cumulative Potential Impacts 3- Skweres 2.1.1 WATER USE — EAW Item #13 Comment: 2.1.5 Traffic 2- Dakota County 3- Skweres 4- Flicek 5- Soderling 7 -Lucas 8- Miller 9 -Palmi 10- Sieben MC — "...Any actions that result in the adoption of water - efficient appliances and building design, including landscapes that minimize the need for irrigation are supported. Infiltration of good - quality stormwater is also encouraged, as long as it complies with MDH guidance regarding stormwater infiltration in vulnerable wellhead protection areas. Response: The stormwater management plan includes several infiltration basins that comply with the City's and MDHstandards for stormwater infiltration. 2.1.2 WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF — EAW Items #17 Comment: Skweres: "The amended EAW fails to note that by moving the entrance further east the development plan significantly modified the size and locations of the holding ponds used to retain stormwater runoff on the property ... To date, no such compliant plan has been submitted to the City, so to simply predict its completion is misleading..." Response: While the Amended Concept plan modified the location and size of some of the stormwater management ponds on the site, the EAW finds that the modification does not significantly alter the feasibility of developing a stormwater management plan that would comply with City standards and other regulatory permitting authority standards. A stormwater management plan that complies with the regulatory standards must be submitted prior to final City approvals. Comment: Po ler: "...the layout for stormwater management on the site plan appears inadequate. The design of stormwater features appear incomplete and do not appear to follow `Stormwater Best Management Practices'. Has the City reviewed and approved a Stormwater Management Plan? Why wasn't the Stormwater Management Plan a part of the EAW so that citizens could have reviewed the document ?" Response: The purpose of an EAW is to review a concept plan for a proposed use, and therefore a stormwater management plan which evaluates a specific project is not required within an EAW. The EAWfinds that, based upon the proposed low - density residential land use, it would be possible to design the site to meet all necessary stormwater design standards, including the integration of BMP's as required by the City. A stormwater management plan that complies with the regulatory standards must be submitted prior to final city approvals. 2.1.3 NEARBY RESOURCES - EAW Item #25 Comment: MC: "Council staff recommends that the City work with the developer to ensure that the developer provides screening along the perimeter of the development site adjacent to the regional park as stated in the CPA that the Metropolitan Council review and allowed the City to put into effect." Response: Please see the detailed response to Dakota County included within Section 1.1.9 related to EAW Item #25. The detailed landscape plan included with the revised Concept Plan in the Amended EAW was developed in consultation with Dakota County. Dakota County documented their acceptance of this buffer in their response letter dated March 19, 2013 and provided in Attachment 2A. 2.1.4 CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL IMPACTS — EAW Item #29 Comment: Skweres: "The amended text erroneously states that the installation of medians will `..bring the corridor into greater compliance with the County standards'. This statement is wrong both wrong k and misleading. The degradation of levels of service and the likelihood of traffic incidents can only increase with the addition of over 2000 vehicle trips per day from the new development. While the amended solution may minimize the degree of new safety issues, no one can honestly conclude that this will make Cliff Road and the surrounding area safer or `more compliant' than if the development were never allowed." Response: The installation of medians along Cliff Road will bring the corridor into greater compliance with the Dakota County spacing guidelines for full access intersections. (Access spacing Guidelines can be found in the Dakota County Transportation Plan at: h yp: Ilwww. co. dakota. mn. us /Transportation /PlanningPrograms /Documents /2030TransportationP lan. d The existing conditions today along the corridor do not meet the County's spacing standards, and by modifying the accesses along the corridor they will be brought into greater compliance than existing conditions. Further detail regarding increase of traffic counts, and Levels of Service (LOS) can be found in Section 2.1.5 of the Amended EAW and the Traffic Impact Study Addendum dated February 14, 2013. 2.1.5 TRAFFIC — EAW Item #21 Comment: Dakota County: "...Dakota County staff suggests inclusion of a more descriptive narrative of the proposed changes, including roadway changes and rationale, to provide a full picture of the process and current proposal for development." Response: The primary change in the Amended EAW was to shift the primary access to the proposed subdivision further to the east than indicated on the initial concept plan. A detailed description of this change can be found in the overall introduction to the Amended EAW. Included within the Amended EAW were a revised concept plan and a concept plan detail of the Cliff Road corridor and associated modifications that would result from shifting the access. Comment: Dakota County: "...The detailed gap analysis should be included in the revised EAW to better demonstrate the expected operation with the additional trips on the roadway system. Based on this operational analysis, Dakota County staff has also recommended the addition of a second lane of approach for both Pebble Beach Way and Interlachen Drive at their intersections with Pilot Knob Road. Those improvements are not reflected in the revised EAW." Response: The gap analysis that was prepared for the Dakota County review process is included as Attachment I.B. The City will consider the addition of a second lane of approach for both Pebble Beach Way and Interlachen Drive. Comment: Skweres: a. The Northbound Left turns in both Fairway Hills and Parkridge Drive already have Level F service, which forces anxious drivers to take unnecessary risks. The restrictions will double the number of vehicles in these situations at the remaining intersections. Addition to those numbers can only result in even more accidents and safety issues. Response: As indicated within the TISAddendum, and shown on Figure A -2, there are no modifications proposed to the Fairway Hills intersection and traffic will function in the same way as it does under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, the northbound left turn movements at both Fairway Hills Drive and Parkridge Drive operate at level of service D or better during the a.m. andp.m. peak hours. Traffic volumes are expected to increase on Cliff Road overtime due to development within the City. As volumes grow, left turns onto Cliff Road become more difficult, especially during the p.m. peak hour. This occurs both without and with the proposed access changes on Cliff Road. With respect to delay concerns for the side streets, the actual operation of the side streets for multi -lane roadways (such as Cliff Road) is difficult to ascertain through modeling. Very small side street traffic volumes can result in LOSE or F when in reality traffic would receive gaps in traffic and be able to complete maneuvers with less delay than reported. For this reason, a gap assessment was requested by the County to assess intersections along both Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road to determine operation today and potential additional capacity for handling the proposed development trips and rerouted trips. A gap study was conducted by the development team. This information assists in understanding the expected traffic demands and availability of gaps for this traffic to exit the area. The gap assessment indicates that the available gaps for all intersecting side streets can accommodate considerably more vehicles than exist today and that are projected for the future. The actual delay experienced by residents turning to or from the neighborhood will be a function of when they arrive compared to traffic flow on Cliff Road. While increasing traffic volumes on Cliff Road will reduce available gaps over time, comparison of the gap results to forecasted traffic volumes to and from the neighborhoods shows the intersections can accommodate the facture traffic demands. Access spacing guidelines are developed and implemented in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the overall roadway system. A significant number of access points along a roadway will degrade the mobility and safety of the roadway, resulting in operational issues. Due to additional traffic being added to the County roadway system as growth in the area continues, access modifications along Cliff Road are needed. For an area such as Cliff Road, interconnected neighborhood streets and filll access points at least ' /a mile apart are preferred for safely managing traffic mobility and neighborhood accessibility. The proposed access plan for Cliff Road reduces the number of fill access points, resulting in improved safety for the overall corridor. Skweres: b. The assessment completely ignores the increased number of U -turns on an ever increasingly busy County Road... Tripling the number of intersections blocking left turns will only increase the number of U -turns and the dangerous consequences of these maneuvers. Response: 4 C Ja The proposed design is based upon the recommendations of Dakota County which has jurisdiction over Cliff Road (CLIFF ROAD). The County conditioned their approval based upon the integration of the medians and the subsequent modifications of the accesses along this portion of the corridor. Divided four lane roadways such as Cliff Road are wide enough to allow for passenger vehicles to safely complete a -turn maneuvers. The a -turn maneuver occur from a left turn lane, which allow the vehicle to safely leave the through traffic stream. When an adequate gap occurs, the vehicle can turn and enter the opposing traffic stream. Skweres: c. The study provides no information about the impact of these restrictions upon the response times of Emergency Vehicles to existing neighborhoods. Response: The modifications to the accesses along the Cliff Road corridor were considered carefully to ensure that every neighborhood along the corridor had access to a full access intersection to ensure emergency vehicles could travel in the direction needed. While emergency vehicles may experience a slightly more circuitous route, and as a result a slightly longer travel time, all neighborhoods will have a full and direct access to ensure emergency vehicles can run as efficiently as possible. Comment: Flieek: Concern about the time of year (season) in which the data was collected. Concern regarding re- routing of access within the Park Cliff neighborhood, specifically related: safety of U- turning movements; large trucks and buses utilizing U- turns; adequate sight distances; shifting left - turning movement from Parkcliff Drive to Parkridge Drive; and increased delays caused from additional right turning traffic from Dakota Path and Parkcliff. Response: The traffic data was collected in conjunction with the timeline for preparation of the EA W. Traffic data was collected on typical weekdays with normal traffic operations. In general, traffic impact studies do not address the "worst case " scenario, but rather focus on the typical weekday peak hour conditions, which occur most often and therefore impact the most people. The initial information was collected in July, and the supplemental information collected in January, which represents two distinct seasons. The proposed design for the Dunberry Lane median illustrated in Figure A -2 is proposed based on the recommendation and conditions of Dakota County which has jurisdiction over Cliff Road. The County's recommendation considered safety of U- turning movements, access for trucks and school busses and adequate sight distances for all intersections. Based upon those criteria, the County made the recommendation to mods the access at Parkcliff Drive. While buses, trucks and other large vehicles may not be able to make the U -turns comfortably, cars and other passenger vehicles would have adequate space to perform the maneuver. Based upon the data collected in the TIS Addendum, gap analysis included in AttachmentLB, and the projected traffic increase from the Dakota Path subdivision, the analysis demonstrates that there will be adequate gaps in the traffic patterns to allow for safe left - turning movements from Parkridge Drive even with the additional right hand turns from Parkcliff and Dakota Path. Dakota County also C33 concluded that there was adequate sight distance and sight lines to perform safe movements at all intersections based upon the proposed modifications. Comment: Soderling: Concern that the Amended EAW does not adequately analyze the impact within the neighborhood, specifically related to: re- routing of traffic related to the Parkcliff Drive median closing (safety concerns); re- routing of traffic related to Dunberry Lane median closing; and significantly increasing the traffic volume in the Fairway Hills neighborhood. Response: The proposed design for the eastern -most median affecting Parkcliff Drive and Oak Chase Drive described on figure A -2 is proposed based on the recommendation and conditions of Dakota County which hasjurisdiction over Cliff Road. The County's recommendation considered safety of U- turning movements, access for trucks and school busses and adequate sight distances for all intersections along the corridor. Based upon those criteria, the County made the recommendation to modem the access at Parkcliff Drive. The purpose of the Amended EAW was to study the impact of traffic diversion due to median closures at Dunberry and Parkcliff Drive, and additional traffic in the Fairway Hills neighborhood was addressed in the original EA W. As presented in the Amended EAW and TIS Addendum, one of the primary objectives of the Dakota Path concept plan was to design the internal road network in a way which promotes the primary access as Dakota Path, rather than through the Fairway Hills neighborhood. The TIS Addendum identifies that approximately 26 trips are expected to use Interlachen from the Dakota Path subdivision duringpeak a.m, hour, and 38 trips are expected duringpeakp.m. hour. While there will be some impact to the Pilot Knob Road /Interlachen Drive intersection, there are solutions available to help mitigate this impact including the recommendation of the County that the City include a side street turn lane on Interlachen Drive and Pebble Beach Way at CSAH 31 to help alleviate congestion within the neighborhood. Comment: Lucas: Proposed changes will force more traffic and longer delays onto our street as drivers from the new development seek to make left hand turns onto Cliff Road... While the wait can be inconvenient and cause anxiety, I am even more concerned about the increased levels of traffic on Fairway Hills Drive and Interlachen Drive .... Even the idea that increasing the number of U -turns on Cliff Road is acceptable as a means for mitigating the loss of left turn access strikes me as dangerous..." Response: With respect to delay concerns for the side streets, the actual operation of the side streets for multi -lane roadways (such as Cliff Road) is difficult to ascertain through modeling. Very small side street traffic volumes can result in LOSE or F when in reality traffic would receive gaps in traffic and be able to complete maneuvers with less delay than reported. For this reason, a gap assessment was requested by the County to assess intersections along both Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road to determine operation today and potential additional capacity for handling the proposed development trips and rerouted trips. A gap study was conducted by the development �3 team. This information assists in understanding the expected traffic demands and availability of gaps for this traffic to exit the area. The gap assessment indicates that the available gaps for all intersecting side streets can accommodate considerably more vehicles than exist today and that are projected for the future. The actual delay experienced by residents turning to or from the neighborhood will be a function of when they arrive compared to traffic flow on Cliff Road. While increasing traffic volumes on Cliff Road will reduce available gaps over time, comparison of the gap results to forecasted traffic volumes to and from the neighborhoods shows the intersections can accommodate the future traffic demands. The proposed design, including the introduction of medians along the Cliff Road corridor are proposed based upon the recommendations and conditions of Dakota County, which has the regulatory authority over Cliff Road. As presented within the TIS Addendum, and shown on Figure A -2, there are no modifications proposed to the Fairway Hills intersection and traffic will function in the same way as it does under existing conditions. Access spacing guidelines are developed and implemented in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the overall roadway system. A significant number of access points along a roadway will degrade the mobility and safety of the roadway, resulting in operational issues. Due to additional traffic being added to the County roadway system as growth in the area continues, access modifications along Cliff Road are needed. For an area such as Cliff Road, interconnected neighborhood streets and fill access points at least ' /a mile apart are preferred for safely managing traffic mobility and neighborhood accessibility. The proposed access plan for Cliff Road reduces the number of full access points, resulting in improved safety for the overall corridor. Divided four lane roadways such as Cliff Road are wide enough to allow for passenger vehicles to safely complete u -turn maneuvers. The u -turn maneuver occur from a left turn lane, which allow the vehicle to safely leave the through traffic stream. When an adequate gap occurs, the vehicle can turn and enter the opposing traffic stream. As presented in the Amended EAW and TIS Addendum, one of the primary objectives of the Dakota Path concept plan was to design the internal road network in a way which promotes the primary access as Dakota Path, rather than through the Fairway Hills neighborhood. The TIS Addendum identifies that approximately 26 trips are expected to use Interlachen from the Dakota Path subdivision during peak a.m. hour, and 38 trips are expected duringpeakp.m. hour. While there will be some impact to the Pilot Knob Road /Interlachen Drive intersection, there are solutions available to help mitigate this impact including the recommendation of the County that the City include a side street turn lane on Interlachen Drive and Pebble Beach Way at CSAH 31 to help alleviate congestion within the neighborhood. Comment: Miller: According to the Traffic Studies the trips for the proposed development were distributed using a percentage break down for each ingress /egress point. However, when you calculate the trip breakdown based upon the percentages, there is a 222 trip discrepancy, please explain the methodology. Concern regarding the trips generated as a result of use at George Ohmann Park. Question regarding the accuracy of using 9.6 trips per day used to generate the estimates, when Fairway Hills used 14.4 trips per day, and Parkcliff used 11.5 trips per day. Also, concerned that the revised traffic study did not include actual traffic volumes for Ches Mar Drive, Dunberry Lane, Parkcliff Drive and Parkridge Drive like the original traffic study. Response: The trip distribution percentages presented in the TIS represent the ultimate destination and origin of trips generated by the proposed development. Depending on the destination or origin of a trip, the trip was assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on travel time, ease of access, intersection control, and roadway type. This resulted in 330 vehicles per day on Interlachen Drive and 210 vehicles per day on Pebble Beach Way. The remainder of the daily trip generation will use the new development access on Cliff Road. As stated in the TIS, the expected development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This publication is the industry standard for trip generation data used in traffic impact studies. The trip generation rate for single family homes is 9.57 trips per dwelling unit, which is based on traffic data from across the country. This rate was used estimate the trips generated by the proposed development, which were then assigned to the surrounding roadways using the trip distribution percentages presented in the TIS. The TIS Addendum included traffic data collected at the intersections analyzed in that document. The methodology for the collecting traffic data is consistent and focuses on the weekday a.m. and p.m. hours. All trips generated by adjacent uses are included in the collected traffic volume data. Trips generated by George Ohmann Park during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours are included in the traffic data, as were all other types of trips, including commuter traffic. Comment: Palmi: The EAW does not consider the high base -line of non - neighborhood traffic already existing in the Fairway Hills (due to soccer activity); and the traffic study does not reflect soccer traffic. Concern about safety related to the increase in traffic within the neighborhood, or livability and all the additional traffic will impact the Fairway Hills neighborhood. Response: The methodology for the collecting traffic data is consistent and focuses on the weekday a.m. and p.m. hours. All trips generated by adjacent uses are included in the collected traffic volume data. Trips generated by George Ohmann Park during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are included in the traffic data, as were all other types of trips, including commuter traffic. As presented in the Amended EAWand TIS Addendum, one of the primary objectives of the Dakota Path concept plan was to design the internal road network in a way which promotes the primary access as Dakota Path for new residents, rather than through the Fairway Hills neighborhood. While there will be some new residents that will likely use the Interlachen and � 30 Pebble Beach Way accesses, the intent is to have the majority of Dakota Path traffic stay within the neighborhood and utilize the Dakota Path entrance. The TISAddendum identifies that approximately 26 trips are expected to use Interlachen from the Dakota Path subdivision during peak a. m, hour, and 38 trips are expected duringpeakp.m. hour. Comment: Sieben: Did not see any additional traffic study, clarification regarding what supplemental data was provided. Concern regarding the number of trips utilizing the Interlachen access, since this will be secondary access to Dakota Path and there are already problems at this intersection. Response: As explained on page I of the Amended EA W, the purpose of this document and the Traffic Impact Study Addendum was to evaluate ofpotential impacts of access modifications on Cliff Road and resulting traffic volumes impacts on related streets. As Interlachen Drive traffic volumes are not affected by the access modifications evaluated in the Amended EA W, additional information on Interlachen Drive was not provided. Please refer to information provided in the EAW as originally published for information regarding Interlachen Drive. Additionally gap data was collected related to Interlachen and Pebble Beach Way and is provided in Attachment I.B. This information was collected in response to comments received from Dakota County during the original EAW comment period. The gap study determined that there were adequate gaps to accommodate the increase in trips generated by the Dakota Path subdivision. �'�q DRAFT ATTACHMENT "G" PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into as of this day of , 2013, by and between the City of Eagan (hereinafter the "City "), a Minnesota municipal corporation; Parkview Golf Associates, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, (hereinafter the "Owner "), and Hunter /Emerson, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter the "Developer "). The "City," "Owner" and the "Developer" are hereinafter collectively known as the "Parties." WHEREAS, the Developer has made application for a Preliminary Planned Development for property containing approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E '' /z of NW 1/4 of Section 34, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club (hereinafter the "Property ") for development of 170 single - family dwelling units upon the Property. Developer submitted a preliminary development plan (the "Preliminary Conceptual Development Plan ") attached hereto as Exhibits A — G; and WHEREAS, the Developer's application will be considered by the City Council, subject to conditions set forth on Exhibit B and the Developer entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the uses and conditions which will govern the development of the Property; and WHEREAS, except as specifically set forth herein, this Agreement does not address and is not intended to address issues of property subdivision, public improvements, assessments, or other matters that may be related to development of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants which follow, the Parties agree that: 1. AGREEMENTS 1.1 Agreements by Owner and Developer. The Owner and Developer hereby agree that they will develop the Property in compliance with the Eagan City Code, the Preliminary Development Plan and the terms and conditions contained herein. To the extent of any inconsistency between this Agreement and City Code, this Agreement shall control. This Agreement replaces any and all prior development agreements covering the Property. The Owner and Developer further agree to apply for and secure all permits or licenses required by federal, state, or local law for development of the Property. l� C, 1.2 Agreements by City. The City hereby approves the Preliminary Development Plan subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. Further, the City hereby agrees to approve any site plan(s), final development plan(s), preliminary and final plat(s), and any grading, building, occupancy or other permits and to take whatever action as may be, or may become, necessary to implement this Agreement or the Preliminary Development Plan; provided, however, that the City reserves the right to object to any particular element of such plan(s), plat(s), permits or action which it reasonably determines is contrary to the law, the Preliminary Development Plan or this Agreement. 2. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY The Property shall be developed according to the following general conditions, in addition to those specified in Exhibit A: 2.1 Buildings. Development of the Property shall be limited to development of 177 single - family dwelling units upon the Property. 2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be seven (7) years. 2.3 Maintenance. The Owner and Developer agree that all lighting, signage, landscaping, building, and paved surfaces constructed on the Property shall be maintained in good repair. 2.4 Severability. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Owner and Developer shall be bound to the obligations of this Agreement as to the parcels) owned by them; however, subsequent to the recording of this Agreement, the Owner and Developer shall have no liability or responsibility with regard to a breach of this Agreement by any successor in interest to each parcel. The Owner and Developer and their successors and assigns, shall have the right to amend this Agreement, or to enforce the obligations of the City under this Agreement. 3. DEFAULT As used herein, "Default" shall mean any one or more of the following events: (a) Failure by the Owner or Developer to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement contained in this Agreement or in the Eagan City Code within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice of such failure. (b) Failure by the Owner or Developer to complete development, which shall mean the issuance of certificates of occupancy for each building within seven (7) years of the date of this Agreement. 4. REMEDIES 4.1 City's Remedies. Upon default by the Owner or Developer, or their successors in interest, the City may take whatever action at law or in equity as may appear necessary or desirable by the City to enforce performance and compliance with any obligation, agreement or covenant contained within this Agreement. Further, upon default by the Owner or Developer, the City may take one or more of the following actions with respect to the portion(s) or parcel(s) of the Property involved in the default (the "Default Property "): (a) Initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Default Property; (b) Initiate rezoning of the Default Property to a zoning classification consistent with the amended land use designation; (c) Declare null and void any building and site plan approvals or development contracts for the Default Property; (d) Refuse building or other permits for the Default Property; (e) Stop work on the Default Property, through the issuance of stop work orders; or (f) Sue for specific performance or an injunction. 4.2 Owner's and Developer's Remedies. Upon default by the City, the Owner or Developer may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable by the Owner or Developer to enforce performance and compliance with any obligation, agreement, or covenant contained within this Agreement. 5. OWNER'S AND DEVELOPER'S WARRANTIES The Owner and Developer hereby represent and warrant to the City that they do and will have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform hereunder. They further represent and warrant to the City that such entry and performance does not and will not violate any right of any third party or create any liability to any third party. 6. NOTICES Notices, demands, requests or other communications under this Agreement shall be sufficient and deemed delivered if either (i) personally delivered (including delivery by Federal Express or other overnight courier service) to the addresses set forth below, in which case they shall be deemed delivered on the date of delivery to said offices, or (ii) sent by U.S. Mail, to the addresses set forth below, in which case they shall be deemed delivered on the date shown on the receipt unless delivery is refused or delayed by the addressee, in which event they shall be deemed delivered on the third (3rd) business day following deposit in the U.S. Mail. Parties may change to whom notice �q,0 shall be given by giving notice thereof in accordance with this paragraph 6, provided that no party may require notice to be sent to more than two (2) addresses. In the case of the City, notices shall be mailed to: City of Eagan Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest Hills & Bauer P.A. 3830 Pilot Knob Road 7300 West 147t" Street, Suite 600 F.O. Box 21199 Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Attn: Robert B. Bauer Attn: Jon Hohenstein In the case of the Owner, notices shall be mailed to: Parkview Golf Associates, LLC Attn: In the case of the Developer, notices shall be mailed to: Hunter /Emerson, LLC Attn: 7. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may not be amended, altered, modified, supplemented, or waived in whole or in part except in a writing executed by both Parties. Furthermore, the Preliminary Development Plan may be amended upon application by the Owner and Developer and approval of the City pursuant to Eagan City Code. Amendments to the Preliminary Development Plan once approved, shall become Exhibits hereto and shall be fully binding upon the Parties as if fully set forth herein. 8. EXHIBITS The following Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of hereof as if fully set forth herein: (A full -size copy of these Exhibits shall be on file with the City of Eagan Community Development Department.) Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Preliminary Conceptual Development Plan Development Conditions Preliminary Building Elevations dated Preliminary Landscaping dated Preliminary Site Lighting dated Preliminary Signage Plan dated Preliminary Utility Plan dated 0 �1�1 9. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 10. RECORDING This Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be recorded in the Office of the Dakota County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 11. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12. GENERAL PROVISIONS Should any provision of this Agreement be held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal by a court, the validity and the enforceability of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby. Failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not act as a waiver by the non - defaulting party. The headings and captions contained in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not constitute a part hereof. 13. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Prior to the development and construction of any improvement on the Property or any portion thereof other than grading in accordance with the plans which are part of this Agreement, a Final Planned Development Agreement between the Owner and Developer and the City must be executed and recorded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. [SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW] 5 �L�'A Preliminary Planned Development Agreement Signature Page for the City CITY OF EAGAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Mike Maguire Its: Mayor By: Christina M. Scipioni Its: Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: By: City Planner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney On this day of 2013 before me a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared Mike Maguire and Christina M. Scipioni to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Eagan, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. Notary Public 0 63 Preliminary Planned Development Agreement Signature Page for the Owner PARKVIEW GOLF ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: _ Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2013, by day of the of Parkview Golf Associates, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public 7 qq Preliminary Planned Development Agreement Signature Page for the Developer HUNTER/EMERSON, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: _ Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2013, by day of the of Hunter /Emerson, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. 7300 West 147t" Street, Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 953 -8840 (RBB) Notary Public 145 ILA (,P EXHIBIT B 1. This Agreement is not effective unless and until the City Council has approved the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment and rezoning of the Property to allow for this development. 2. The property shall be platted. 3. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. 4. A homeowner's association shall be established for this development. All common property and open space should be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots should be deeded to the homeowner's association. S. Ownership and maintenance of the swimming pool, tot lot, and any community buildings shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 6. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection shall be provided through covenants or an open space plan in the form acceptable to City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 7. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to permit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood 8. The applicant should give consideration to utilizing universal design for the homes to help attract and retain a more balance mix of households into the future by creating buildings that are accessible and functional to accommodate residents of many ages, heights and physical abilities. 9. This Preliminary Planned Development shall have a term of seven (7) years. 10. The Owner and Developer should give consideration to architectural design such as all sides of the buildings having an equally attractive or the same finish, use of a variety of home exterior finishes and appearance to minimize duplication of exterior architecture, materials and colors. 11. The existing Conditional Use Permits pertaining to the monopole shall be terminated. 12. A. ,,,.,,-. The opelo a,-,.1 related equipment sh ll be removed from the site. or I 1q B-.-The monopole and related equipment may remain on the site as existing at the time of Preliminary Planned Development. a) Prior to Final Subdivision, the applicant shall have obtained approval for a land use amendment to Quasi - Public for proposed Lot 1, Block 4. b) The Final Planned Development shall show the parcel containing the monopole and related equipment as a Public Facilities use. c) The following conditions shall apply to the monopole: i. A 110 -foot communication monopole and related equipment shelters and cabinets are permitted as existing at the time of Planned Development approval. ii. The monopole and all communication equipment shall be maintained. iii. Collocation opportunities for other wireless service providers shall be made available, if technologically feasible. iv. A detail landscaped plan for the equipment and monopole should be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. v. The monopole shall be subject to the performance standards in Section 11. 70, Subd. 26, of the City Code. 13. Lots meeting the R -1 minimum dimensional standards of 85' width and 12,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1 zoning standards. Those lots meeting the R -1S minimum standards of 65' width and 8,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1S zoning standards. 14. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 15. Prior to Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision, the applicant shall verify that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 16. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no -net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. ME .� Ola 13. Lots meeting the R -1 minimum dimensional standards of 85' width and 12,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1 zoning standards. Those lots meeting the R -1S minimum standards of 65' width and 8,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1S zoning standards. 14. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 15. Prior to Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision, the applicant shall verify that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 16. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no -net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. ME c, Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour storm; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour storm; 3) 1 %, 24 -hour storm. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds /basins, and inlets and outlets. v. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 17. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 18. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. 19. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 20. The Final Landscape Plan shall provide a greater vegetation buffer to the residences and yards along Dakota Path. 21. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 101 22. A financial guarantee for the landscaping shall be provided at the tie of Final Subdivision. The guarantee shall cover two calendar years following satisfactory completion. 23. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve- hundred forty (1,261) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 24. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. 25. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 26. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre- construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 27. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot /common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 28. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Ohmann Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Owner and Developer. The exact configuration to be determined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a full cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25% credit towards the dedication. G 29. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi - purpose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dakota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate permits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail connection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. �5l ATTACHMENT "H" DAKOTA PATH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (APRIL 11, 2013) 1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2,1993: Al, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, Dl, E1 2. The property shall be platted. 3. Outlot C shall be platted as a lot at the time of final subdivision. 4. Prior to Final Subdivision approval, the City Council must make a determination on the EAW as to whether an EIS is necessary. 5. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. 6. A homeowner's association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be established for this development. All common property and open space shall be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots shall be deeded to the homeowner's association. 7. Ownership and maintenance of the swimming pool, tot lot, and any community buildings, if included, shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 8. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection should be provided through covenants or an open space maintenance plan, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 9. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to permit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood. 10. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 11. Prior to Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development, the applicant shall provide verification to the City Engineer that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 12. This development shall comply with the current Water Quality and Wetland Management Plan (2007), along with the City Code storm water management regulations ( §4.33) and wetland protection and management regulations (§ 11.67). 13. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no- net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. c. Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour storm; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour storm; 3) 1%, 24 -hour storm. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds /basins, and inlets and outlets. v. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 14. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 15. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. 16. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 17. All erosion/ sediment control plans submitted for development and grading permits shall be prepared by a designer who has received current Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) training, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer in designing stormwater pollution prevention plans. 18. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City code and engineering standards. All personnel responsible for the construction and management of erosion / sediment control devices, and the establishment of vegetation for the development, shall have received Erosion/Sediment Control site management certification through the University of Minnesota, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with a soil- boring log below each infiltration area, with data to a minimum of 6' below the lowest excavated elevation. If the soil- boring log indicates incompatibility of soil permeability with the submitted and reviewed design plans, the applicant shall revise the design and /or construction plans to ensure 4.33 requirements for volume control are met. 20. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed infiltration areas for City review and approval (cross- section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing /volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure infiltration areas are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 21. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed stormwater basins for City review and approval (cross- section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing /volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure stormwater basins are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 22. The applicant shall provide adequate pre- treatment (street -side catch -basin sumps and /or forebays) to provide for capture and easily- accessible cleanout of fine -sand sized particles for all basins and infiltration areas that receive direct impervious runoff. 23. The applicant shall provide the City as -built plans, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, that demonstrate constructed stormwater facilities conform to design and /or construction plans, as approved by the City. As -built volumes of retention & detention shall be provided for all stormwater facilities. 115q 24. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) on all basins, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10;1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all basin inlets and outlets with typical excavation equipment. 25. Developed conditions (grading, private utilities, landscaping, etc.) must allow a minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed equipment access path, from street -edge to all stormwater facilities, at a maximum slope of 15 %. The unobstructed equipment access path shall be capable of supporting typical maintenance / excavation equipment, for access to all basins and infiltration areas, including unobstructed maintenance equipment access to inlet and outlet areas. 26. All construction traffic associated with this development shall access and exit the site only via the Cliff Road access. 27. Dakota Path shall be signed `no parking.' 28. The concrete sidewalk proposed within public right -of -way shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. 29. The property owner shall grant the City easements, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, providing unobstructed City access to stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. 30. This development shall dedicate drainage & utility easements over the stormwater basins and infiltration areas to three feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (I% event) of those stormwater facilities, or two feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1% event) where emergency overland flow is provided in accordance with City Engineering standards. 31. This development shall dedicate public drainage & utility easement over all public sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer pipes at a minimum width of 20 feet. 32. This development shall be responsible for abandonment of all well systems in accordance with City and County requirements. 33. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 34. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve - hundred forty (1,240) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 16,5 35. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. 36. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 37. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre- construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 38. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot /common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 39. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Ohmann Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Owner and Developer. The exact configuration to be determined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a full cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25% credit towards the dedication. G VD- (D 911 W i wl G VD- (D 40. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi - purpose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dakota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate permits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail connection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1,200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. �Sq Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 ATTACHMENT I" Page 3 of 17 B. Dakota Path Applicant Name: Hunter Emerson Location: 1290 & 1310 Cliff Rd; Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Course, E 1/2 OF NW 1/4 EX N 361.60 FT OF W 760.00 FT THEREOF Application: Rezoning A Rezoning of approximately 80 acres from P, Park to PD, Planned Development. File Number: 34- RZ- 08 -10 -12 Application: Preliminary Planned Development A Preliminary Planned Development of approximately 80 acres for 177 single - family dwelling units. File Number: 34- PD- 04 -10 -12 Application: Preliminary Subdivision A Preliminary Subdivision of approximately 80 acres to create 178 lots and 9 outlots. File Number: 34- PS- 05 -10 -12 [Member Dugan returned to the meeting at 6:38. Member Vanderpoel arrived at 7:00 p.m.] Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated January 17, 2013. The applicant, Scott Carlston, identified himself as the owner of the developer, Hunter Emerson, Mr. Carlston introduced his design development team consisting of Kurt Manley, Project Manager; Rob Zakheim, the property owner, and Dan Schmidt the designer and civil engineer; Jennifer Haskamp, who prepared the EAW, and Ed Terhaar, traffic engineer. Mr. Manley discussed the history of the development project and features of the proposal, including different housing types and lots sizes, street layouts, and park amenities. Mr. Schmidt discussed the tree removal and mitigation and storm water requirements. Ms. Haskamp and Mr. Terhaar spoke concerning the EAW and traffic study. Member Supina questioned the applicant as to the modifications that may have been done in the initial design following input from the neighbors. The applicant explained that various amenities were modified to address neighbors' concerns. Member Piper inquired as to whether there will be a senior housing proposal with the development. The applicant explained that although it was identified in a previous submission, senior housing is not part of the current proposal as the site and surrounding area did not appear to be well- suited to a multiple residential senior housing building. Member Piper asked for an explanation of the diversity of housing types proposed. Mr. Manley explained that one -level homes on smaller lots with less maintenance and also homes designed to be handicapped accessible. He indicated the 65' lots appeal to different markets including empty nesters as well as first time home buyers. Member Supina questioned why the proposed park impact buffer is not an outlot like the buffers to existing residential. Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 4 of 17 Mr. Manley indicated it didn't make sense to buffer the open space of the regional park with open space on the development site, and they wanted to provide more buffer for existing neighborhoods. Chair Heaney opened the public hearing. Christie Soderling, 4657 Parkwood Drive, commented on traffic concerns for the Parkcliff neighborhood's access to Cliff Road, and safety concerns with the proposal to add 177 single - family units. She also questioned whether the ponding is workable in the northeast section of the site. Susan Bradley, 4675 Fairway Hills Drive, expressed concern about the timing of the traffic study since it appeared to be done during the summer in July when school was not in session and no park activities were scheduled. She also stated that the increased traffic will make left turns on to Pilot Knob Road more difficult and waits longer, and access to Cliff Road will be worse. Judy Miller, 4640 Fairway Hills Drive, expressed concerns about additional recreational fields in this location, added traffic and safety for pedestrians in the area. She stated that City park facilities should not be used by other communities. Bill Cutter, 4680 Fairway Hills Drive, had concerns about the cell tower and whether the application was complete in light of the requirement for a comprehensive guide change to allow the cell tower. Mr. Cutter was also concerned about the small lots and potential for diminished property values. He also expressed concern about the amount of park dedication and requested that the APC and Council consider requiring that the developer satisfy a full 10% land dedication. Mr. Cutter stated he preferred a larger park impact buffer than the 20' proposed by the developer, and expressed concerns about removal of mature trees. Finally, he stated and that his development had recently been assessed for street reconstruction which will now benefitthe new development. Mark Skweres, 4616 Fairway Hills Drive. Mr. Skweres expressed concerns about the amount of buffer between the homes and Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Mr. Skweres stated that he believes the traffic study is incomplete. He also believes that the traffic numbers were not correct because the location of the traffic markers /counters were at a location that did not count traffic using the frontage road He stated that contrary to staff's opinion, this development will have a regional impact. He further suggested that the APC needs additional time to consider the application and requests that they defer taking action. Steve Sullivan, Director of Parks for Dakota County, discussed the quality and recreation needs for Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP) and residents that use the park. Mr. Sullivan believes that the development could have an adverse impact on the park and the users it serves. The County had studied three specific areas. The first was whether there was sufficient surface water management; the second was the trail connections within the park; and the third was related to the visual analysis. Mr. Sullivan believed that the surface water management was being handled sufficiently and that the trail connection, with modifications, would be sufficient. However, Mr. Sullivan testified that additional buffer would be needed so that the quality of experience for recreational users of the park would not be impacted by the close proximity of residential homes and the onus of such a buffer should be on the developer. Pat Campbell, 4716 Pebble Beach Way, commented on the increased traffic and stated he believed the quality of life for two neighborhoods would be negatively impacted by the LI k59 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 5 of 17 development. There being no further public comment, Chair Heaney closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. City Attorney Bauer responded to the need for the comprehensive guide plan change for the cell tower and indicated that the decision must first be made as to whether, as a policy matter, the City officials believe the cell tower should remain. If that answer is yes, then a separate application would be necessary. City Engineer Gorder discussed the traffic and storm water needs. Mr. Gorder confirmed that the roads and intersections were designed and had the capacity to accommodate the added traffic of the proposed development. In addition, he indicated the traffic study had been revised to include a gap analysis requested by Dakota County. City Planner Ridley addressed the status of the EAW. Member Supina suggested the buffer to LHRP be the same as the buffer provided to the adjacent neighbors. Member Dugan asked for clarification about the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment and commented whether there was sufficient information available if the streets would need to be revised to accommodate any concerns from Dakota County Plat Commission. City Attorney Bauer explained that the City Council directed the amendment be sent to the Metropolitan Council for action and it had been approved for implementation; however, the City Council has not taken action on that application as of this time. City Planner Ridley clarified that the revised access point may cause other modifications to Cliff Road but those changes would be considered by the City Council but they would not affect the 80 acre site layout being considered by the APC. Member Vanderpoel questioned whether there was sufficient buffering between the residents adjacent to the park. The applicant responded that tree preservation would have trees serve as a buffer between the residents and the park. Member Piper was concerned that the applicant had not responded to the park land dedication recommendation by the APrC for four acres. He asked about the process should the City Council require the four acre dedication. Ridley stated that said action may require the subdivision application to come back before the APC. Member Supina also commented that the park dedication was insufficient. He further questioned the compatibility of having the existing cell tower monopole remain on the property as part of the residential development. He also asked about infiltration and access to ponding areas. City Engineer Gorder stated infiltration issues will be addressed and that adequate maintenance access is being provided to the ponding areas. Member Piper asked about the 300' monopole setback requirement. Ridley stated that the intent of the ordinance was to provide a buffer to existing homes from new monopole installations. 5 I(-QQ Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 6 of 17 Member Piper stated he was not concerned with the existing monopole remaining. City Planner Ridley explained that the monopole satisfies a 140 -foot setback to new lots, which is more than the tower height of 110', as opposed to the 300 -foot setback required by the City Code. Rezoning from P, Park to PD, Planned Development. Member Filipi moved, Member Piper seconded, a motion to recommend approval of a Rezoning from P, Park, to PD, Planned Development upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/2 of NW %4 of Section 43, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club: Member Piper stated he was struggling with the lack of Council action on the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Member Supina stated the three actions before the Commission go together as a package, and if not in favor of one, he won't recommend approval of the others. Member Dugan stated agreement with Supina, he also indicated the plan has some merit and the developer has done good work, but inappropriate to pass at this time. Bauer explained the application before the APC is complete. A vote was taken. Motion failed 2 to 4 (Members Filipi and Chair Heaney -yay /Members Supina, Vanderpoel, Dugan and Piper -nay). Member Supina Moved, Member Piper seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Rezoning from P, Park to PD, Planned Development upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/2 of NW % of Section 43, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. A vote was taken. Motion passed 4 to 2. (Members Supina, Vanderpoel, Dugan and Piper - yay /Members Filipi and Chair Haney -nay) Preliminary Planned Development. Member Piper requested clarification of condition #2 regarding the value of the outlots being apportioned to the adjacent lots. City Attorney Bauer explained that there is a concern that outlots may go tax forfeit and that they have no value to the City. To prevent that, the City has the County Assessor take the value of the outlots and apportion it to the abutting lots. Member Filipi moved (selecting Option 11 B), Member Supina seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary Planned Development for 177 single - family dwelling units upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1h of NW % of Section 34, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. Approval subject to the following conditions: rel \Ut Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 7 of 17 1. The property shall be platted. 2. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. 3. A homeowner's association shall be established for this development. All common property and open space should be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots should be deeded to the homeowner's association. 4. Ownership and maintenance of the swimming pool, tot lot, and any community buildings shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 5. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection shall be provided through covenants or an open space plan in the form acceptable to City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 6. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to permit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood 7. The applicant should give consideration to utilizing universal design for the homes to help attract and retain a more balance mix of households into the future by creating buildings that are accessible and functional to accommodate residents of many ages, heights and physical abilities. 8. This Preliminary Planned Development shall have a term of seven (7) years. 9. The developer should give consideration to architectural design such as all sides of the buildings having an equally attractive or the same finish, use of a variety of home exterior finishes and appearance to minimize duplication of exterior architecture, materials and colors. 10. The existing Conditional Use Permits pertaining to the monopole shall be terminated. 11. A. The monopole and related equipment 6hall be removed fmm the site. GF B. The monopole and related equipment may remain on the site as existing at the time of Preliminary Planned Development. a) prior to Final Subdivision, the applicant shall have obtained approval for a land use amendment to Quasi - Public for proposed Lot 1, Block 4. b) The Final Planned Development shall show the parcel containing the monopole and related equipment as a Public Facilities use. c) The following conditions shall apply to the monopole: i. A 110 -foot communication monopole and related equipment shelters and cabinets are permitted as existing at the time of Planned Development approval. ii. The monopole and all communication equipment shall be maintained. 7 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 8 of 17 iii. Collocation opportunities for other wireless service providers shall be made available, if technologically feasible. iv. A detail landscaped plan for the equipment and monopole should be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. v. The monopole shall be subject to the performance standards in Section 11.70, Subd. 26, of the City Code. of ■- .. 12. Lots meeting the R -1 minimum dimensional standards of 85' width and 12,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1 zoning standards. Those lots meeting the R -1S minimum standards of 65' width and 8,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1 S zoning standards. 13. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, 'landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 14. Prior to Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision, the applicant shall verify that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 15. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no -net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. c. Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour storm; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour storm; 3) 1%, 24 -hour storm. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. � U3 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 9 of 17 iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds /basins, and inlets and outlets. v. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 16. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 17. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. 18. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 19. The Final Landscape Plan shall provide a greater vegetation buffer to the residences and yards along Dakota Path. 20. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 21. A financial guarantee for the landscaping shall be provided at the tie of Final Subdivision. The guarantee shall cover two calendar years following satisfactory completion. 22. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve- hundred forty (1,261) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 23. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. 24. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 25. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre- construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 9 ��Oq Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 10 of 17 26. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot/common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 27. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Ohmann Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Developer. The exact configuration to be determined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a full cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved. plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25% credit towards the dedication. 28. If the Council requires the dedication of 4 acres, the applicant shall submit a revised plan, which plan shall be submitted to the APC for a new public hearing and subsequent consideration by the City Council. 29. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi- purpose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dakota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate permits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail connection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. Member Piper asked if the wording of conditions #4 and #5 should be more affirmative rather than suggestive. City Attorney Bauer responded that the suggested easements are not public as the City might typically see. The buffers and community buildings are amenities proposed by the developer as part of the marketing of the lots. Member Supina suggested the word "if' leaves the condition ambiguous. He suggested wording stating "the outlots shall be a conservation area and such protection shall be provided . ..." The proposal has been made by the applicant that they want the outlots to be a conservation area. City Attorney Bauer indicated that as long as the conservation easements are not public, it is acceptable. The buffers will be outlots, so they will not be built upon. So it is what the applicant is proposing as part of the open space plan. Because they are outlots, there is nothing to be 10 4(0 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 11 of 17 constructed them, so the issue has been addressed, but if there are changes to the conditions, then that is the APC's recommendation. Member Supina suggested the word "if' leaves the condition ambiguous. Member Piper and the seconder agreed to the rewording of conditions #4 and #5 relative to ownership and maintenance site amenities and how to legally preserve the open space and buffer areas. Member Supina suggested condition #28 be reworded to omit the specific reference to 4 acres of park dedication, and just reference "if the City Council adopts condition #27," which includes the APrC's recommendation of the 4 acre land dedication. Member Filipi questioned staff as to the reasoning for separate conditions. City Planner Ridley explained that condition #28 will alter the site plan, and if that happens, then the proposal should come back before the APC because it would affect the site layout. Member Filipi declined to accept the proposed amendment to the motion. Member Supina requested that a new condition #30 be added requiring that the proposed buffer within the lots be modified to be a separate outlot between the homes that are adjacent to the LHRP and that the developer submit a revised plans for consideration by the APC. Member Supina further suggested a new condition #31 such that if the Council required a separate outlot for a buffer between the lots and LHRP, that the revised plan come back to the APC for a new public hearing. Member Piper clarified whether Member Supina's concern was for the size and shape of the buffer, or the ownership and maintenance of the buffer area. Member Supina responded he is concerned about both. Member Filipi declined to accept the proposed amendment to the motion. Member Piper asked for clarification about the number of mitigation trees required. City Planner Ridley indicated that the accurate number should be the same as shown on the mitigation plan, 1,261 trees. A vote was taken. Motion failed, 2 — 4 (Heaney and Filipi, yay; Supina, Dugan, Vanderpoel and Piper, nay). Member Supina moved, Member Piper seconded to recommend denial of a Preliminary Planned Development for 177 single - family dwelling units upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/z of NW %4 of Section 34, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. Member Supina stated his reasons for denial were that he was concerned there was insufficient buffer from the proposed residential homes adjacent to LHRP. He believed that similar buffer as proposed to existing adjacent neighborhoods should also apply adjacent to the park. Member Supina also questioned the compatibility of having the cell tower monopole remain on site, and the failure of the developer to satisfy the 300 -foot monopole setback. Finally, Member 11 (� (0 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 12 of 17 Supina was not satisfied with the amount of park dedication shown on the proposal and believed that the developer should have, at a minimum, adopted the recommendation from the APrC. Member Piper expressed similar concerns with regard to the buffer to Lebanon Hills Regional Park, and also with regard to the failure to satisfy the park land dedication as recommended by the APrC. A vote was taken. Motion passed 4 to 2 (Members Supina, Vanderpoel, Dugan and Piper, yay, Members Filipi and Chair Haney, nay). Member Piper did indicate that if the Council were to approve the proposal, he was in favor of the proposed housing diversity, that the developer did propose a park impact buffer, and trail connectivity to the LHRP. Member Dugan agreed with the observations of Member Piper. He additionally stated he supports what the developer has done — the streets have capacity, diversity of housing, perhaps an expansion of the park which has pros and cons. He stated he is not opposed to the monopole remaining as future home buyers would be aware of its presence and could determine if they want to buy in the development. Preliminary Subdivision. Member Supina moved, Member Piper seconded, a motion to approve a Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 178 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/z of NW % of Section 34, except the north 361.60 feet of the west 760.00 feet thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club, subject to the following conditions: Motion failed 0 -6. 1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2, 1993: Al, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, D1, E1 2. The property shall be platted. 3. Outlot C shall be platted as a lot at the time of final subdivision. 4. Prior to Final Subdivision, the City Council will need to make a determination on the EAW as to whether an EIS is necessary. That question will likely go the City Council concurrently with this development proposal. 5. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. 6. A homeowner's association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be established for this development. All common property and open space shall be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots shall be deeded to the homeowner's association. 7. Ownership and maintenance of the swimming pool, tot lot, and any community buildings, if included, shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 12 (.Oq Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 13 of 17 8. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection should be provided through covenants or an open space maintenance plan, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 9. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to permit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood. 10. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 11. Prior to Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development, the applicant shall verify that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 12. This development shall comply with the current Water Quality and Wetland Management Plan (2007), along with the City Code storm water management regulations ( §4.33) and wetland protection and management regulations ( §11.67). 13. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no- net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. c. Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour storm; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour storm; 3) 1%, 24 -hour storm. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds /basins, and inlets and outlets. v. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 13 I (V-� Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 14 of 17 14. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 15. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. 16. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 17. All erosion/ sediment control plans submitted for development and grading permits shall be prepared by a designer who has received current Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) training, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer in designing stormwater pollution prevention plans. 18. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City code and engineering standards. All personnel responsible for the construction and management of erosion/ sediment control devices, and the establishment of vegetation for the development, shall have received Erosion /Sediment Control site management certification through the University of Minnesota, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with a soil- boring log below each infiltration area, with data to a minimum of 6' below the lowest excavated elevation. If the soil- boring log indicates incompatibility of soil permeability with the submitted and reviewed design plans, the applicant shall revise the design and /or construction plans to ensure 4.33 requirements for volume control are met. 20. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed infiltration areas for City review and approval (cross- section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing /volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure infiltration areas are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 21. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed stormwater basins for City review and approval (cross- section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing /volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure stormwater basins are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 22. The applicant shall provide adequate pre- treatment (street -side catch -basin sumps and /or forebays) to provide for capture and easily - accessible cleanout of fine -sand sized particles for all basins and infiltration areas that receive direct impervious runoff. 23. The applicant shall provide the City as -built plans, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, that demonstrate constructed stormwater facilities conform to design and /or construction plans, as approved by the City. As -built volumes of retention & detention shall be provided for all stormwater facilities. 14 [(A Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 15 of 17 24. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) on all basins, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all basin inlets and outlets with typical excavation equipment. 25. Developed conditions (grading, private utilities, landscaping, etc.) must allow a minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed equipment access path, from street -edge to all stormwater facilities, at a maximum slope of 15 %. The unobstructed equipment access path shall be capable of supporting typical maintenance / excavation equipment, for access to all basins and infiltration areas, including unobstructed maintenance equipment access to inlet and outlet areas. 26. All construction traffic associated with this development shall access and exit the site only via the Cliff Road access. 27. Dakota Path shall be signed 'no parking.' (PER FIRE MARSHAL'S DIRECTION) 28. The concrete sidewalk proposed within public right -of -way shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. 29. The property owner shall grant the City easements, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, providing unobstructed City access to stormwater facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. 30. This development shall dedicate drainage & utility easements over the stormwater basins and infiltration areas to three feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1 % event) of those stormwater facilities, or two feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1 % event) where emergency overland flow is provided in accordance with City Engineering standards. 31. This development shall dedicate public drainage & utility easement over all public sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer pipes at a minimum width of 20 feet. 32. This development shall be responsible for abandonment of all well systems in accordance with City and County requirements. 33. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 34. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve- hundred forty (1,261) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 35. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. 36. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored 15 �qlo Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 16 of 17 silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 37. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre- construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 38. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot/common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 39. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Ohmann Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Developer. The exact configuration to be determined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a full cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25% credit towards the dedication. 40. If the Council requires the dedication of 4 acres, the applicant shall submit a revised plan, which plan shall be submitted to the APC for a new public hearing and subsequent consideration by the City Council. 41. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi - purpose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dakota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate permits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail connection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. Member Piper asked why Outlot C should be platted as a lot versus an outlot. Planner Dudziak responded that the swimming pool requires a building permit, and such structural improvements are not permitted on outlots. Member Piper commented on the wording of condition #4 and suggested additional wording be added to the effect that if necessary, an EIS shall be completed prior to final subdivision. �91 Advisory Planning Commission January 22, 2013 Page 17 of 17 City Planner Ridley responded that the condition #4 is complete as worded in that the purpose of an EAW is to determine if an EIS is needed. A vote was taken. All voted against, motion failed 0 to 6. Member Supina moved, Member Piper seconded to recommend denial of a Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 178 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/2 of NW % of Section 34, except the north 361.60 feet of the west 760.00 feet thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. A vote was taken. All voted in favor, motion passed 6 to 0. Member Filipi indicated that he voted against the Preliminary Subdivision because without a recommendation of approval for the Rezoning and Preliminary Planned Development, a yes vote for the Preliminary Subdivision would be inconsistent. Member Supina stated his reasons for recommending denial are the same as he stated for the Preliminary Planned Development. V. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (FOR THOSE NOT ON AGENDA) There were no visitors to be heard for items not on the agenda. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Member Filipi moved, Member Piper seconded, a motion to recommend approval of the following meeting dates for 2013: February 26th, March 26th, April 23rd, May 28th, June 25th, July 23'd, August 27th, September 24th, October 22nd , November 26th, *Thurs, December 19th January 28th, 2014. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried 6 -0. VII. ADJOURNMENT Member Filipi moved, Member Vanderpoel seconded a motion to adjourn the Advisory Planning Commission meeting at 8:56 p.m. A vote was taken. All voted in favor. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully Submitted by: Dan Piper APC Secretary 17 �q0-V City Council Meeting Minutes ATTACHMENT "J" June 19, 2012 3 page NEW BUSINESS COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT - PARKVIEW GOLF COURSE / HUNTER EMERSON Mayor Maguire introduced the item and provided an overview of the procedures and expectations for dialogue between the Council, developers, audience members and staff. Administrator Hedges noted the action to be considered is to direct staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment from Private Recreation to Low Density, upon approximately 80 acres located to 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road. Hedges added that at least four votes from City Council are required for approval. Hedges noted that a public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission on May 22, 2012, and the APC did recommend denial on a 5 -1 vote. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report. City Attorney Dougherty addressed questions surrounding the application by Hunter Emerson, LLC and Parkview Golf Associates, LLC to change the land use designation. Rob Zakheim, representing the property owners of Parkview Golf Club, provided some context and the history of Parkview Golf Club along with a PowerPoint presentation. Developer Kurt Manley and additional associates gave a summary of the history of the project and features of the proposed development. Michael Abee, of Paradigm Golf Group, gave a presentation on the history and current state of the golf course industry and noted the saturation of the golf market in the Twin Cities. Mayor Maguire opened the meeting for public comment. The following Eagan residents addressed the Council with questions and /or concerns about the change in the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan: Pat Campbell, 4716 Pebble Beach Way, Mark Skweres, 4616 Fairway Hills Drive, Carmel Nadav, 1441 Rocky Lane, Bill Cutter, 4680 Fairway Hills Drive, Ed Erickson, 1520 Thomas Lake Point Road, Mike Bernstein, 1361 Grace Drive, Steve Retzlaff, 4647 Parkridge Drive, Mark Wanous, 2268 Wall Street, Lynn Romberg, 4688 Fairway Hills Drive, Jeff Baillif, 4623 Parkridge Drive, Reyne Bra ndschaud- Linsk,1260 Dunberry Lane and Amy Cutter. Keith Hittner, 4705 Hittner Pointe, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. Mayor Maguire asked staff to respond to all questions and concerns presented by the residents. City Administrator Hedges and City staff responded to all of the questions raised by residents during the public testimony. The Council discussed the feedback from residents and raised additional questions of staff. Mayor Maguire and councilmembers noted the fundamental disparity of expecting a private property owner to solely carry the burden for providing a benefit to the public and the uncertainty from a "if not this, what ?" standpoint. The Council also discussed the process and that any proposed development on the site would need to come back for separate public consideration and scrutiny. Councilmember Hansen moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to direct staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council a Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment from Private Recreation to Low Density, upon approximately 80 acres located to 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 LEGISLATIVE /INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items for discussion. X113 Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 3 of 13 IV. PUBLIC HEARING New Business ATTACHMENT "K" A. Parkview Golf Course 2012 Applicant Name: Hunter/ Emerson, LLC Location: 1290 & 1310 Cliff Road; E1/2 of NW1 /4 except N 361.60ft of W 760.0 ft thereof and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club Application: Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from REC, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density residential. File Number: 34- CG- 01 -04 -12 Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report dated May 16, 2012. She noted the background and history. Member Piper asked for confirmation that the current Zoning and Guide Plan designation would allow residential development at a density of one unit per four acres. Member Supina asked about other uses permitted with the current Zoning. Developer Kurt Manley stated they have worked with City staff and neighbors of the project to address as many concerns as possible. He discussed the history of the project and features of the proposed development that include connectivity between Fairway Hills and Lebanon Hills Regional Park and a 1.5 acre park with bike trails. He discussed other amenities such as a community center, fire pit, pool and fountains. He discussed the designated land use and changes in the golf industry as well as demographics and housing needs in Eagan. He discussed the schools in the area and the additional funding of $163,000 created by this development. He stated the City would see an increase in tax base of $1.1 million. He discussed features of the development that include single level living and state of the art telecommunication equipment to help people work from home. He stated 22% of the land area would be designated for open space and park dedication. He discussed the sustainability of providing energy efficient homes, reducing water use and conserving energy. He stated the unsightly driving range and cell tower would be removed and development would result in a large reduction in the amount of chemicals currently being used on the land to maintain the turf for golfing purposes. Robert Zakheim, representing the property owner, provided some context and the history of Parkview Golf Club and discussed significant investments the ownership group have made including the driving range, golf cart fleet, sand traps, driving range net, well and drainage repairs, equipment, paving upgrades, landscaping, and winter driving ranges. He stated well over $1 million was invested in staff and programs. Programs, the pro shop, membership programs and the website have all been expanded. He stated the course is a par 63 executive 18 -hole golf course that sits on just under 80 acres, which is less than industry standards. He discussed the decline in golf rounds and increase in operating costs particularly following September 11, 2001. Member Piper asked if the golf course is losing money. Mr. Zakheim responded that the golf course is losing money and has been for many years. Chair Heaney opened the public hearing. �9 4 Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Pat Campbell, an 18 -year Eagan resident, spoke representing a large number of neighboring residents. He discussed the Comprehensive Guide Plan and concerns related to each goal therein. He stated concerns relative to traffic, land values and housing, aging population, and other potential uses for the property. He questioned whether this development is the best use of the property. He presented a petition with 400 -500 signatures requesting further discussion on alternative uses for the property. Bill Cutter, 4680 Fairway Hills Drive, discussed the "Parks and recreation are key component of quality of life" of the Goals and Policies 20/20 Guiding Principles of the City. He discussed importance of Health and Well- being, Community Equity and Balance, Open and Green Space, Demographic Equity, and Resource Optimization. He stated the golf course is a good place for bridging young and older generations. Mark Skweres, 4616 Fairway Hills Dr., discussed concerns with protecting the natural resources including the drainage to Thomas Lake, increase in storm water runoff, and the need for an environmental study. Mike Bernstein, 1361 Grace Drive, stated concern for economic development and limited long- term jobs that would result from this proposal. He stated the residential development would undermine the goals of economic development, and exacerbate the existing oversupply of housing. He stated that while the golf course is private, it serves a public purpose. He asked that the community be given an opportunity to raise awareness of the matter at hand. Mark Rasmusson, 1378 Camelback Drive, discussed the City's recent passage of the Healthy Eating Active Living resolution which includes support of active living through recreational amenities. He argued that if Parkview Golf Course leaves, Eagan will be moving away from its goals. Nancy Dagel, 11508 22nd Avenue, Burnsville, discussed her desires for her children to continue to benefit from the game of golf and the Parkview Golf Course, which she stated is a family - friendly place and the staff great. She stated children need to get outside and be active and engaged, and golf helps with that for individual sport. Eric Dominiack, 4696 Fairway Hills Drive discussed the benefit of the recreational land and stated it is the reason he bought his property. Additional options should be explored and the affects to the neighborhood and city should be considered since there is only one other, smaller golf course in Eagan. He stated concern for property and home values, and concern for living next to a construction site for several years. He said growth should make the community better not just bigger. Ed Erickson, 1520 Thomas Lake Road, stated he moved to Eagan to be near the golf course. He stated the executive golf course is a good fit for older players and an aging community, and that many senior golf leagues come to golf at Parkview. He further stated people need lifetime sports like golf and tennis that they can continue to engage in as they age. Keith Henk, 1385 Interlachen Drive, discussed his investment in his home and property, and concern that it will reduce in value with this development. He stated City officials should consider the impact to property outside of the golf course a change in land use would have. \111S Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Steve Retzlaff, 4647 Parkridge Drive, discussed concerns with other housing developments not being completely finished, and the city having to take on the burden of completing developments. Larry Poppler, 4608 Fairway Hills Drive, City Engineer for the City of Prior Lake, discussed developments in Prior Lake where Manley, a representative of this applicant, had left developments incomplete. He discussed potential traffic increases and stated the golf course is a good neighbor. He stated Eagan is 95% developed and stated the City should be very thoughtful about the development of the last 5 %.. Mr. Manley objected to Mr. Poppler's statement. He stated Manley Development fulfilled its responsibilities in Prior Lake; and it was Lakeland Construction Financing that defaulted on the letters of credit. Jim Philbrick, 3552 Widgeon Way, stated the City should exercise its right to eminent domain and purchase the property. Sheldon Peterson, 3663 Parkridge Drive, stated he moved to the neighborhood for the golf course which provided years of quality golfing for him and his children, one of whom became a State Champion. He said golf provided a good social activity for his children and provided interaction between younger and older generations on the golf course. Kathleen Browne, 1386 Camelback Drive, discussed concerns with the application and her belief that the applicant does not have standing. She stated there are two animals on the endangered species list that are present on the site. John St. Peter, 1384 Interlachen Drive, stated the community benefits from the golf course and it should remain as a recreational opportunity in Eagan. He also stated concerns for the level of activity at Ohmann Park, indicating that parking for events there overflows into the nearby neighborhood streets. Mark Wanous, 2268 Wall Street, Eastview Boys Golf Coach, discussed the Parkview Golf facility and what it has given to young golfers in the area. He stated Parkview is home to three State Champions and he wondered where 400 -500 junior golfers will go without Parkview. He said the course benefits everyone in, the community. Jeff Varela, 1365 Interlachen Drive stated without Parkview Golf Course — Eagan will be the only city its size in the state without an 18 -hole golf course. He suggested it be sold to someone who would like to keep it as a golf course. Jeff Baillif, 4623 Parkridge Drive, stated if Apple Valley and Inver Grove Heights can find a way to keep a golf course, the City of Eagan should be able to do the same. He stated concern that once the golf course is gone, it is gone for good. He asked that the city take its time to determine the best use for all residents in the long term. There being no further public comment, Chair Heaney closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to the Commission. Member Filipi stated some of the questions (i.e. traffic, runoff, and environmental evaluation) are premature because the current request is for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change land use designation only, not a specific development plan, and most of the issues \9(0 Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 6 of 13 raised during the public hearing would be more appropriately dealt with at the time of subdivision and rezoning. City Attorney Bob Bauer stated the application is a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. The plan shown is simply a concept plan; no application for subdivision is before the APC. The question is a policy question of whether the land use designation for the subject property should be changed to Low Density which would allow 0 -4 units per acre. Member Filipi asked for clarification as to when such issues would be addressed and if that would be at the time of subdivision /plat. City Attorney Bob Bauer stated that is correct. There is no specific development plan at this time, only a concept plan, and the land use issue must be addressed first. Member Supina discussed the property tax revenue estimated at $1.1 million ($6,500 per home) per year displayed by Mr. Manley. He stated regardless of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, there is no guarantee a golf course will remain in operation on the property. There was discussion on procedural issues, standing and time between applications. Mr. Bauer stated the application should be signed by the property owner and there is no reason to believe it is not, however, staff can verify that. Member Piper stated the Advisory Planning Commission does not consider eminent domain. Member Jansma stated he will vote against the proposal because with the surrounding County parks, he is not prepared to change Comprehensive Plan. Member Heaney stated that while Parkview may be a valuable `jewel' it but may not be profitable. He also stated there is time to explore other options. Member Filipi stated the purpose of the Advisory Planning Commission and stated the profits of the land owner is not a concern of the Advisory Planning Commission. Chair Heaney asked to clarify process and timing of subsequent applications if a development were to move forward. City Planner Ridley summarized the process if the proposal were to move forward, including Metropolitan Council review of the land use amendment, rezoning and subdivision applications. Chair Heaney clarified that it is the City Council that has the authority for eminent domain and to purchase property, that is not a question before the Advisory Planning Commission as an alternative. City Planner Ridley stated that is correct. Member Filipi asked if the 60 -day agency action time frame applies to Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. City Planner Ridley stated the 60 -day agency action deadline is not in effect for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. � 1-« Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 7 of 13 Member Piper referenced other questions raised by the public regarding procedural issues, and whether an additional 60 -90 days can be taken to review this proposal. City Attorney Bauer indicated the typical timeline on applications is to get through the processing 60 days. He indicated that since the 60 -day time frame does not apply to Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, the question for the APC is whether they have enough information to take an action on the proposed land use amendment at this meeting. Member Piper asked for clarification of the public notice process and whether protocol had been followed for this request. Planner Dudziak responded that notices are mailed out to property owners within 350' of the site two weeks prior to the date of public hearing. The applicant provides a mailing list certified by a title or abstract company that is used for that mailing. Member Piper asked about the question raised by one speaker as to whether the applicant had standing. City Attorney Bauer stated the application has to be signed by the property owner, and staff would verify that. Member Piper asked whether the Advisory Planning Commission can consider the potential for the City to purchase the property and use eminent to do so. Chair Heaney reiterated his prior inquiry and responded the responsibility of the Advisory Planning Commission is land use; any question of a purchase of the land is a matter for the City Council. Member Jansma stated he will be voting no on the proposal out of concern for the Dakota County Lebanon Hills Regional Park to the south, that it is the start of the Rosemount and Vermillion gateway master plans. He further stated that while the APC is not reviewing engineering and environmental effects at this time, he is not prepared to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan and possibly allow that to happen. Chair Heaney summarized the application request and provided an overview of comments and discussion to this point. Member Filipi commented that the Advisory Planning Commission's responsibility to review the question of land use. He stated that whether the current use of the property is profitable is not an element of consideration for Advisory Planning Commission. The question is whether the most appropriate use of the property is as golf course or is it appropriate as Low Density. Whether or not the owner is making a profitable way of it, it is the prerogative of the land owner to make an application for a different land use. Member Filipi moved, Member Heaney seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from REC, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density residential, upon approximately 80 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road. � rl's Advisory Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Member Supina stated he will vote against the proposal. He stated the owner should not be shackled to the golf course but he is concerned with city's housing goals. He stated his evaluation is based on whether the proposal is in the best long -range interests of the city and whether it promotes the general health, safety and welfare. If the city amends the plan to add housing — it should meet housing goals expressed in the comprehensive plan; particularly, the gaps in senior housing and entry level housing should be addressed, and in this case, with only a concept plan there is no assurance that would be the case. A vote was taken. Aye: Chair Heaney Nay: Vice Chair Filipi, Secretary Piper, Members Jansma, Supina and Vanderpoel. Motion failed 1 -5. Member Piper moved, Member Filipi seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from REC, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density residential, upon approximately 80 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road. Member Piper stated he has concerns. It is important to recognize the city's historical commitment to keeping open recreation and open space in City of Eagan. He stated concerns with traffic and environmental issues, which he understands will be addressed later. He stated fear of a similar legal situation as the Carriage Hills case. He stated that on a pure land use perspective and whether the land use should be amended, he will vote yes for denial. Member Filipi stated he will vote yes for denial due not because he is in particularly interested in it remaining a golf course, but rather because he is more opposed to it being Low Density, in agreement with Member Supina. He stated that the Low Density designation is more likely to result in large lot single - family residential which is not something he sees as filling Eagan's housing needs. Member Vanderpoel stated she will vote yes for denial, in agreement with Member Filipi. She stated a golf course is a hard business; however, the Low Density designation is not in the best interest of the City. She stated the references made to changing demographics and the aging of the City's population and that while aging residents do need recreational opportunities, a much more important factor is that seniors in Eagan also need a place to live. Chair Heaney stated he will vote against the motion to keep the proposal moving forward to the City Council for discussion. A vote was taken. Aye: Vice Chair Filipi, Secretary Piper, Members Jansma, Supina and Vanderpoel. Nay: Chair Heaney Motion carried 5 -1. The Advisory Planning Commission took a 10 minute break and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. n ATTACHMENT "L Metropolitan Council e October 11, 2012 Pam Dudziak 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 ' RE: City of Eagan Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Post Council Action Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20606 -7 Metropolitan Council Districts 15, 16 Dear Ms. Dudziak: The Metropolitan Council reviewed the City of Eagan's Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its meeting on October 10, 2012. The Council based its review on the staff's report and analysis (attached). The CPA proposes to amend the local comprehensive plan to reflect changes on 80 acres from "Private Recreational (PR)" to "Low Density Residential (LD)" south of Cliff Road and' /4 mile east of Pilot Knob Road. The Council found that the CPA meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements; conforms to the regional system plans including transportation, aviation, water resources management, and parks; is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, the City may place the CPA into effect. In addition to the Advisory Comments and Review Record, the Council adopted the following recommendations. 1. Adopt the attached review record and allow the City of Eagan to put the Hunter /Emerson Parkview comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) into effect. 2. Find that the proposed CPA changes the City's forecasts by adding 175 households. The Council will append the amendment, submission form and supplemental information to the City's plan in the Council's files. Please feel free to contact Patrick Boylan (651- 602 -1438) if you have any follow up questions. Sincerely, LisaBeth Barajas, Manager Local Planning Assistance cc: Steven Chavez, District 15 Wendy Wulff, District 16 Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator N: ICommDevILPAICommunitieslEaganILetterslEagan 2012 CPA Parkview Golf Course —20606-7—Post Council Action. docx www.metrocouncii.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer [W ATTACHMENT "M" PLANNING REPORT CITY OF EAGAN REPORT DATE: January 17, 2013 (revised January 23, 2013) APPLICANT: Hunter Emerson PROPERTY OWNER: Parkview Golf Associates, LLC CASE: 3 4- RZ- 08- 10 -12; 34- PD- 04- 10 -12; 34- PS- 05 -10 -12 HEARING DATE: January 22, 2013 APPLICATION DATE: January 7, 2013 (revised; initially submitted Nov. 27, 2012) REQUEST: Rezoning, Preliminary Planned PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak Development, Prelim. Subdivision LOCATION: 1290 && 1310 Cliff Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PR, Private Recreation ZONING: P, Park SUMMARY OF REQUEST Hunter Emerson is proposing a Rezoning from P, Park, to PD, Planned Development and Preliminary Planned Development to create 177 single - family dwelling units upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road between Pilot Knob Road and Lexington Avenue. The property is legally described as the E %2 of NW '/ of Section 34, except the north 361.60 feet of the west 760.00 feet thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. The proposal includes a request for Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 177 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road between Pilot Knob Road and Lexington Avenue, legally described as the E %2 of NW '/ of Section 34, except the north 361.60 feet of the west 760.00 feet thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW Rezoning: City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subd. 5 states in part, �12 Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 2 1. The provisions of this chapter maybe amended by the majority vote of the council, except that amendments changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an affirmative vote of two - thirds of all members of the council. 2. The City Council shall not rezone any land or area in any zoning district or make any other proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance without first having referred it to the planning commission for its consideration and recommendation. Planned Development: City Code Chapter 11.60, Subd. 18, A., states the intent of the Planned Development zoning district as follows: 1. Providing greater flexibility in environmental design and relaxation of strict application of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater creativity and environmental sensitivity. 2. Recognizing the economic and cultural advantages that will accrue to the residents of a plamied community. Encouraging a more creative and efficient approach to the use of the land. 4. Encouraging the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, natural features, and open space. Encouraging a development pattern that is consistent with land use density, transportation facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision: City Code Section 13.20 Subd. 6 states that "In the case of platting, the Planning Commission and the Council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or establishing conditions related thereto: A. That the proposed subdivision does comply with applicable City Code provisions and the Comprehensive Guide Plan. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision complies with applicable plans of Dakota County, State of Minnesota, or the Metropolitan Council. C. That the physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage and retention are such that the site is suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. D. That the site physically is suitable for the proposed density of development. MI Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Pate 3 E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause enviromriental damage. F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause health problems. G. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or with easements established by judgment of court. H. That completion of the proposed development of the subdivision can be completed in a timely manner so as not to cause an economic burden upon the City for maintenance, repayment of bonds, or similar burden. L That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to City Handbook on Solar Access). J. That the design of public improvements for the subdivision is compatible and consistent with the platting or approved preliminary plat on adjacent lands. K. That the subdivision is in compliance with those standards set forth in that certain document entitled "City of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan for the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization" which document is properly approved and filed with the office of the City Clerk hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality Management Plan ". Said document and all of the notations, references and other information contained therein shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down herein and is hereby made a part of this Chapter by reference and incorporated herein as fully as if set forth herein at length. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to maintain the Water Quality Management Plan and make the same available to the public." BACKGROUND /HISTORY Parkview golf course was established on this site in early 1970s. A five -acre parcel was platted for construction of the existing clubhouse in 1998. Also in 1998, a Conditional Use Permit was approved for •a 100 -foot tall monopole located in the northeast corner of the site. In 2009, a Conditional Use Permit allowing a 10' height extension to the existing monopole was approved. The property is identified as Agriculture on the earliest zoning maps which date back to the 1960s. In 1973, the property shows as Public Facilities, which remained the zoning designation until 2000. On the 2000 zoning map, it is identified as Public Facility /Institutional and in 2002, the zoning is identified as Park, which it has remained to date. Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Paae 4 The city's first comprehensive land use guide plan and map were prepared in 1974, after the golf course had been established on this site. That plan designated the property "Golf' and the map legend identified it as quasi- public. The golf course use of the property has remained. The land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan has changed over time to include designations of Public Facilities (PF), Parks and Recreation Open Space (P), and most recently, Private Recreation (PR), which was established in 2010 with the adoption of a City -wide Comp Plan Update. In 2012, the City considered an amendment to the land use designation from PR, Private Recreation, to LD, Low Density, to allow redevelopment of the site with residential uses. On June 19, 2012, the City Council directed staff to send the land use amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review. On October 10, 2012, the Metropolitan Council gave approval for the City to implement the land use change, and the City received notice of this action on October 15, 2012. Final City Council action on the proposed land use amendment has been withheld to be considered simultaneously with a specific development plan for the property. In October 2012, the applicant submitted applications for Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision. An EAW was prepared, and the proposal was reviewed by the APrC and the Dakota County Plat Commission. It was scheduled for public hearing with the Advisory Planning Commission, and was twice postponed. On January 7, 2013, the applicant resubmitted the development plans which had been revised in response to the feedback received thus far, particularly access considerations coining from the Dakota County Plat Commission. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is a developed golf course with driving range. Access to the property is provided from a single driveway directly to Cliff Road. The subject site consists of two parcels, a 5 -acre platted parcel containing the clubhouse and parking lot, and an approximately 75 -acre unplatted parcel containing the golf course and driving range. A 110 -foot communications monopole is an existing use on the northeast corner of the property. The tower is proposed to remain on the site (Lot 1, Block 4). SURROUNDING USES The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the subject property: Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation North City utility buildings, PF, Public Facilities; QP, Quasi - Public; Twinhomes R -2, Two - family Resid. MD, Medium Density Resid. East Single - Family Resid.; R -1, Single - Family; LD, Low Density Resid. Lebanon Hills Regional Park P, Park P, Parks, Open Space & Recreation South Lebanon Hills Regional Park P, Park P, Parks, Open Space & Recreation Plaraiirig Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 5 West Single- Family Resid.; R -1, Single - Family; LD, Low Density Resid. George Ohmann Park P, Park P, Parks, Open Space & Recreation EVALUATION OF REQUEST Description of Proposal — The applicant's narrative describes the vision of Dakota Path is "to create a diverse neighborhood offering the full life -cycle of housing to meet current and future demands of Eagan residents." The proposed "PD zoning will allow for diversity in lot sizes and product types and uses within the neighborhood . ..." Further, the proposed development provides a network of open space buffers and trail connections, and establishes ponding areas within the site. The proposed development consists 177 single - family residential lots of varying sizes, one lot to retain the existing monopole, and 9 outlots intended as open space around and throughout the proposed development. Proposed amenities include a swimming pool and tot lot ( Outlot C), a centrally located pergola /gathering area ( Outlot F), and trail connections to George Ohrnann Park, to the existing trail along Cliff Road, and along the gas pipeline easement for potential future extension into Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The applicant's narrative indicates it is their intent that the trails would be available for public use. Since Outlot C includes improvements that will require Building Pennits, Outlot C should be platted as a lot at the time of Final Subdivision, and ownership conveyed to the Homeowners' Association. Outlot I is proposed as park land dedication (the proposed tennis courts are concept only; any park amenity is to be determined by the City at a later date); Outlots A, B, D, E and F are proposed to be open space with conservation easements; Outlots G and H also will be open space over the existing gas pipeline easement. The developer is proposing to establish conservation easements over the open space. The City does not desire to have public conservation easements on this site. Because the homeowners' association cannot have easements in its favor upon property it owns, if the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection should be provided through covenants, declarations or an open space maintenance plan, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such documents should be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. The developer is also proposing a Park Border hnpact Buffer where the development abuts both the City's George Ohmann Park and Dakota County's Lebanon Hills Regional Park. This would be accomplished via conservation easements over the 20' closest to park property designating restricted uses including limitations on structure height, prohibition of certain uses and structures, and establislunent of minimum structure setbacks that may exceed what is required by City Code. Should the developer choose to implement such a buffer, the restrictive provisions should be incorporated into the declarations and covenants. Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Pate 6 Public Benefit - The applicant's narrative describes the following public benefits: enhanced diversity of housing types, variety of lot and house sizes and values, improved trail connections, enhancements to Ohmanl Park including additional parking, improved surface water management within the site and for neighboring Fairway Hills residents, establislunent of a buffer around the perimeter of the site. Environmental Review — An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed and was published for the required 30 -day public comment period on November 12, 2012. The EAW public comment period closed December 12, 2012. City staff and the developer are currently preparing responses to the public comments received. The City Council will need to make a determination on the EAW as to whether an EIS is necessary. That question will likely go the City Council concurrently with this development proposal, which at present is anticipated to be on February 5, 2013. Homeowners Association — A homeowner's association should be established for this development. All common property and open space, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities, should be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association. Compatibility ibility with Surrounding_ Area — The proposed single - family residential development is similar to adjacent development to the east and west, which is also single- family residential. While some of the lots are smaller than in the neighboring developments, the proposed development also includes common space open areas which factor into the overall density of the project and provide spaces for buffers to be established between the existing and proposed developments. Opportunity Cities — In evaluating this development proposal, City officials may wish to consider how well this development aligns with future housing needs. During 2010 -2011, through a grant provided by the Urban Land Institute of Minnesota, the City engaged with the Opportunity Cities team to evaluate housing trends to better anticipate and prepare for the community's future housing needs. That process identified an aging demographic, aging housing stock, declining turnover due primarily to increased aging in place, and increased foreclosures. Through these trends, housing availability may be reduced which results in fewer opportunities to attract and retain a more balanced mix of households. The City Council has expressed interest in further exploring possible sites for additional senior housing, opportunities and programs for housing rehabilitation, and possibilities for allowing accessory dwelling units. The applicant's narrative indicates that the proposed development intends to create "an inclusive neighborhood that would provide opportunities to residents of all ages from young professionals, to families, to seniors." This is accomplished through a variety of lot sizes and diverse unit types to appealing to different income levels and different age cohorts. �qb . Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Pafze 7 Telecommunications — The City of Eagan created the Eagan Technology Task Force in February 2004. This group was charged with researching and providing recommendations relative to broadband and fiber optic telecommunications networks within the community. The Task Force created a report that was presented to the Eagan City Council in December 2004. Part of the Policy Framework states: The City should establish and maintain an environment to encourage and provide state of the art and diverse telecommunications infrastructures to assist in the recruitment and retention of residents, organizations and businesses of all sizes. Recognizing that telecommunications is central to economic development and quality of life, the City needs to maintain an ongoing effort to ensure that Eagan stays competitive in this important area. Due to the size and scope of the proposed development, the developer has an opportunity to create a world -class telecommunication neighborhood and should introduce these technologies in its development plans so that it is consistent with the Policy Framework statement above. Universal Design — In recognition of demographic trends and the impacts to housing availability identified through the Opportunity Cities work, the applicant should give consideration to utilizing universal design for the homes themselves to help create opportunities to attract and retain a more balanced mix of households into the future. This would go beyond minimum building code requirements to create buildings that are accessible and functional to meet the needs of all people, young and old, abled and disabled. This might include incorporating features to accommodate residents of many ages, heights and physical abilities such as lever door handles, accessible light switches and outlets, no step entrances, wider doorways and corridors to accommodate wheelchair use, varying counter heights to accommodate standing, seating and a range of different tasks, etc. Term of Planned Development — Staff suggests that this planned development have a term of seven (7) years. Density - Density is calculated based on the gross site area. Therefore, the outlots proposed as open space and containing site amenities as well as proposed public rights -of -way, are included in the total site area of 79 acres. Only Lot 1 Block 4, which is proposed to retain the existing cell tower, may be omitted from the site area for density calculations, and reduces the site area to 78.5 acres. The proposed 177 single - family dwelling units upon 78.5 acres results in a gross density of 2.25 units per acre. This is consistent with the proposed LD, Low Density residential land use designation which permits residential densities up to 4 units per acre. %g Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 8 Lots — The proposed residential lots vary in size and width. Larger lots meeting the City's R -1 zoning standards are located in the southern 1/3 of the site within Blocks 9 -12. Smaller lots meeting the City's R -IS standards comprise the northern two - thirds of the development within Blocks 1 -3 and 5 -8. Lot 1, Block 4, is proposed to contain the existing monopole tower and associated equipment. The outlots are proposed to be in common space and provide buffers, storm drainage and amenities. Below is a summary of the outlots and their proposed use: Outlot A 3.5 acres Two stormwater basins; two infiltration areas Outlot B 1.3 acres One stormwater basin Outlot C 1.2 acres Tot lot, picnic area, swimming pool and pool house with parking lot Outlot D 3.4 acres One stormwater basin; one infiltration area; buffer along east side Outlot E 0.4 acres One infiltration area Outlot F 0.7 acres One infiltration area; gathering space with pergola Outlots G & H 1.2 & 0.3 acres Common space of homeowners' association over gas line easement and proposed trail Outlot I 0.9 acres Proposed park land dedication 46 of the single - family lots are designed to meet or exceed the City's R -1 dimensional zoning standards. These lots are concentrated on the southern 1/3 of the site (south of the gas line easement). 131 of the lots are designed to meet or exceed the City's R -1S zoning standards. These lots are located on the northern 2/3 of the site (north of the gas line easement). Below is a summary of minimum lot zoning standards for these two zoning districts: Setbacks — Minimum structure setbacks for the residential lots are proposed to be consistent with R -1 standards for the larger lots in Blocks 9 -12, and R -1 S standards for the smaller lots in Blocks 1 -3 and 5 -8. In the R -1 district, minimum side yard setbacks are 5' for a garage and 10' for the house. In R -1 S, minimum side yard setbacks are 5' for the garage and 6' for the house. The minimum structure setback from Cliff Road is 50 feet. While the proposed right -of -way for Dakota Path is 80' in width, the width accommodates the proposed landscape median and the street has a local street rather than a minor collector designation. Therefore a 30' structure setback from Dakota Path applies. These setbacks are reflected on the Site Plan and outlined in M R -1 R -1S Single-Family Single—Family Single-Fandly Small Lot Minimum Lot Size 12,000 s.f 8,000 s.f. Minimum Lot Width (at front setback line) 85' 65' Setbacks — Minimum structure setbacks for the residential lots are proposed to be consistent with R -1 standards for the larger lots in Blocks 9 -12, and R -1 S standards for the smaller lots in Blocks 1 -3 and 5 -8. In the R -1 district, minimum side yard setbacks are 5' for a garage and 10' for the house. In R -1 S, minimum side yard setbacks are 5' for the garage and 6' for the house. The minimum structure setback from Cliff Road is 50 feet. While the proposed right -of -way for Dakota Path is 80' in width, the width accommodates the proposed landscape median and the street has a local street rather than a minor collector designation. Therefore a 30' structure setback from Dakota Path applies. These setbacks are reflected on the Site Plan and outlined in M Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 9 the project narrative. h1 addition, City Code would limit building coverage to 20 % of R -1 compliant lots, and 25% of R -1 S compliant lots. Minimum Required Setbacks R -1 Single - Family R -1S Single - Family Small Lot Front Yard (and along street frontage of corner lots) 30' 30' Front Yard (along Cliff Rd.) 50' 50' Rear Yard 15' 15' Side Yard (house) 10' 6' Side Yard (garage) 5' 5' Building Coverage (max) 20% 25% Corner lots are subject to front yard setbacks along the two street frontages, which can restrict the buildable area of the lot. The plat provides for additional width on corner lots to compensate for the larger setbacks. City Code typically permits a 5' rear yard setback for accessory structures, however, along the boundary with park property, the proposed Park Impact Buffer would require a 10' rear yard setback accessory structures. The Park Impact Buffer also would limit structure height to a maximum of 10' within 20' of the rear lot lines abutting the regional park. These additional restrictions would be established through private covenants, easements or deed restrictions. Monopole Tower At is a policy matter for City officials to determine how to approach the proposal in regard to the monopole. The following provides an analysis of possible approaches for the consideration. Background and City Code Requirements - Commercial use communications towers are not typically allowed in residential zoning districts. In addition, City Code requires a minimum setback for monopoles "from any property line of a parcel or lot within a residential use district shall be equal to two times the height of the tower or 300 feet, whichever is greater." The cell tower is 110 feet tall, so in this case, the 300' applies. The cell tower is an existing use for which a CUP was granted, and which was in compliance with City Codes at the time of its construction. Proposal - The applicant has a pending request for LD, Low Density, land use designation upon this site, and the proposed PD, Planned Development, zoning is for single - family residential use. The applicant is now proposing also to retain the existing monopole within the site. ��9 Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 10 Alternatives for consideration — 1) The retention of the monopole within the development is not consistent with the proposed residential LD land use designation. To maintain compliance with City Code, City officials may require that the monopole be removed from the site. 2) If City officials determine it is acceptable for the monopole to remain, then: a) The monopole should be located on a separate parcel (which is proposed), and that parcel should be guided QP, Quasi - Public rather than LD, Low Density and within the Planned Development the use should be designated PF, Public Facilities. Thus, a new Comp Plan Amendment to guide the parcel Quasi - Public would be necessary for the monopole parcel. b) The proposed setback of the tower from new lots within the development is approximately 140', and does not meet the 300' setback. This reduced setback is a deviation from the Code requirements, the acceptability of which is a policy matter for City officials. The reduced setback can be accommodated through the Planned Development zoning, or City officials may require that the cell tower maintain a 300' setback from new residential lots within the development site, as well as existing residential lots adjacent to the site. The existing Code section requiring the 300' setback was written with the intention to buffer a new cell tower being placed in proximity to an established neighborhood, and fixture residents of the proposed development will be aware of the existing cell tower. Based on the proposed site layout, maintaining the 300' setback would potentially result in the loss of 8 lots (L5- 7 B3, Ll -3 B5, Ll B2 and L1 131). The existing Conditional Use Pen-nits for the monopole should be tenninated. If the monopole remains, relevant on- going conditions from those CUPS below should be incorporated into the Planned Development reiterated and the monopole should continue to be subject to performance standards in the City Code: a) A 110 -foot communication monopole and related equipment shelters and cabinets are permitted as existing at the time of Planned Development approval. b) The monopole and all communications equipment shall be maintained. c) Colocation opportunities for other wireless service providers shall made available, if technologically feasible. d) A detail landscaped plan for the equipment and monopole should be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. e) The monopole shall be subject to the performance standards in Section 11.70, Subd. 26 of the City Code. Building Heights — City Code limits building height for all residential uses to 35 feet. � Oo Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 11 Parking — The Zoning Code requires at least two enclosed parking spaces per unit for single - family dwellings. This requires that each dwelling unit provide at least a two -stall garage. Architectural Controls —The City's zoning ordinance does not contain specific architectural requirements for single family residential uses and the applicant has not submitted building elevations for the housing products proposed for this development. However, the developer should consider that all sides of each building have an equally attractive or the same finish (four -sided architecture); that variety in home exterior finishes and appearance be provided and duplication minimized through prohibiting use of the same architectural features or the same materials and colors on two buildings within a specified distance of each other. Entrance Monument - An entrance monument is proposed upon Outlot B. An architectural perspective of the monument was provided, however, it is not shown on the Site Plan. The proposed monument consists of 8' tall decorative stone support pillars and 6' high decorative iron fence sections with a stone monument containing the development name sign in the center. This will provide an attractive focal point at the development entrance, and serve also to screen the base of the tower and its ground equipment. Such monument signs cannot be placed within public right -of -way or public drainage and utility easements, and must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from all property and dividing lines. Any neighborhood monument signs should be consistent in design throughout the development, and should be shown on the Final Site Plan at the time of Final Planned Development. Landscaping — The City Code has few landscape requirements for single - family residential development. Typically, residential development is not required to provide a landscape buffer to adjacent similar uses or to park uses. City Code would typically require landscaping around communal amenities like the swimming pool and parking lots. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool and Outlot I, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses should be provided. The submitted Subdivision Landscape Plan provides for deciduous shade trees along the north - south street of Dakota Path and around Outlot C, which contains the community swimming pool and pool building. The rest of the proposed landscaping is intended to fulfill tree mitigation requirements. Placement of mitigation trees is within front yards of the single - family lots, and as a buffer along the border with LHRP. Additional plantings are proposed within the outlots along the perimeter of the site. Proposed trees shall not be located within the 15' unobstructed access to the stormwater basins and infiltration areas. Additional landscaping should be provided to enhance screening of the parking lot on Outlot C from the public right -of -way and adjacent residential lots. Dakota Path will carry more traffic than the other public streets within the development, and has no direct driveway access. The Final Landscape Plan should provide a greater vegetative buffer to the residences and yards along that street. Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Paae 12 Prior to Final Planned Development, the applicant shall verify that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities. At the time of Final Subdivision, the developer should enter into a maintenance agreement for landscaping within the median of Dakota Path, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. In accordance with Section 11.70, Subd. 12 -13-3 of the City Code, a financial guarantee for the landscaping should be submitted with the Final Subdivision. The guarantee should cover two calendar years following satisfactory completion and shall be released only upon inspection and written notice of conformance by the city. For any landscaping that is unacceptable, the applicant should replace the material to the satisfaction of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the city, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the perfonnance guarantee to accomplish perforinance. Mechanical Equipment Went — Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool should be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment should be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. Site Lighting — Street lighting will be installed along the public streets per typical Engineering and electric company standards. Other illumination of the site will be provided by exterior lights on individual dwelling units. No additional lighting along the trails or within the open space is proposed. Lighting should be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. Topography /Grading — The site is generally open, with areas of mature trees, and generally slopes from south to north with elevations ranging from 1070 to 1010. The preliminary grading plan is acceptable with modifications. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan should be prepared in accordance with current City standards and codes prior to final subdivision approval. All erosion/sediment control plans submitted for development and grading permits should be prepared by a designer who has received current Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) training, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer in designing stormwater pollution prevention plans. Also, all personnel responsible for the construction and management of erosion/sediment control devices, and the establishment of vegetation for the development, should have received Erosion/Sediment Control site management certification through the University of Minnesota, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer. Erosion control measures should be installed and maintained in accordance with City code and engineering standards. Wetlands — On September 4, 2012, the City of Eagan determined the two wetland areas on the parcel are "incidental wetlands." According to Minn. Rules Ch. 8420.0105, incidental wetlands "were created in nonwetland areas solely by actions, the purpose of which was not to create the wetland" and include "excavations constructed in nonwetlands solely for the purpose of effluent � � d", Plamiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 13 treatment, containment of waste material, storm water retention or detention ...." Thus, also according to Minn. Rules Ch. 8420.0105, impacts to incidental wetlands are not subject to wetland replacement requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. Further, Eagan's Wetland Protection and Management Regulations (City Code §11.67) are not applicable to this development. Water Quality /Storinwater Drainage — The site lies within Drainage District B (as designated in the City Storinwater Management Plan — 2007), generally draining northward toward Cliff Road and specifically discharging offsite into the storm sewer system that drains northwesterly to Thomas Lake. The development of this site will be subject to Eagan's Post Construction Requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management (i.e., pollutant, rate, and volume control) and surface water quality. As proposed, the development plan meets City requirements for stormwater pollutant and rate control. The City finds acceptable the developer's P8 modeling that indicates discharges from the site of both total phosphorus and total suspended solids are equivalent to or less than existing conditions. The City also finds acceptable the developer's Hydrocad modeling that indicates runoff rates from the site are less than existing conditions. The proposed development plan does not meet the requirement for volume control, however. Although the plans show the infiltration areas exceed slightly the total capacity needed for the required 1/2" retention of runoff from the site's impervious surfaces, only 6.4% of the site's total impervious area would actually flow to one of the five infiltration areas. Thus, the plan falls far short of meeting the intent of the 1/2" volume requirement, which is applied to actual %2" retention of impervious surface runoff. o Storinwater infiltration areas are proposed throughout the development site for volume and pollutant control. The applicant should provide the City with a soil - boring log below each infiltration area, with data to a minimum of 6' below the lowest excavated elevation. If the soil- boring log indicates incompatibility of soil permeability with the submitted and reviewed design plans, the applicant should revise the design and /or construction plans to ensure City requirements for volume control are met. The applicant should provide construction details of proposed infiltration areas for City review (cross- section, constructioii/protection /sequencing notes, sizing/volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure infiltration areas are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during and after construction, to function as intended. The applicant should provide adequate pre - treatment (street -side catch -basin sumps and /or forebays) to provide for capture and easily- accessible cleanout of fine -sand sized particles for all basins and infiltration areas that receive direct impervious surface runoff. o Storinwater basins with standing water are proposed in six locations throughout the development. The applicant should provide construction details of proposed stormwater basins for City review (cross - section, construction /protection/sequencing notes, sizing/volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure stormwater basins are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during/after constriction, to function L� Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 14 as intended. The applicant should provide the City as -built plans that demonstrate constructed stormwater facilities conforin to design and /or construction plans, as approved by the City. As -built volumes of retention and detention should be provided for all stormwater facilities. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the Structural Control Elevation (SCE, also termed "Normal Water Level ") in all basins, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), should be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all basin inlets and outlets with typical excavation equipment. o Four of the stormwater basins are shown to be constructed within backyard areas of the development. The location of public storrnwater basins in residential backyards present difficulties to the City for the long -term maintenance of the pipe inlets /outlets and basin volumes. To provide for future City maintenance access, developed conditions (grading, private utilities, landscaping, etc.) should allow a minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed equipment access path, from street -edge to all stormwater facilities, at a maximum slope of 15 %. The unobstructed equipment access path should be capable of supporting typical maintenance /excavation equipment, for access to all stormwater basins and infiltration areas, including unobstructed maintenance equipment access to inlet and outlet areas. The development shall grant the City easements providing unobstructed City access to the storrnwater facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. o This development proposes to raise the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) of Pond BP- 34 (labeled on the preliminary plans as Pond 1) approximately 8 feet. The developer should be responsible for removing all significant vegetation below the new SCE elevation of Pond BP -34. Sanitary Sewer/ Water Main — The preliminary utility plan is acceptable. Lateral sanitary sewers of sufficient size, depth, and capacity are available to the west and north for connection by redevelopment of this site. Sanitary Sewer District C (as designated in the City's Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan) serves the entire site. The sanitary sewer lines stubbed to the edge of the site in the northwest and north edge of the site have sufficient capacity to handle the average and peak flows from this site generated by the proposed residential development. Water main of sufficient size and capacity to serve this development has been stubbed from the north (Cliff Road) and west (Interlachen Drive) and is available for extension throughout the development. Existing private wells that served the golf course will no longer be needed with development of the site. This development should be responsible for abandonment of all well systems in accordance with City and County requirements. Plaruiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 15 Streets/ Access/ Transportation - Cliff Road (Dakota County State Aid Highway 32), along the north edge of the site, is a four -lane divided roadway with a raised center median. Full access with a center median opening is currently provided at the golf course entrance onto Cliff Road, directly across from Dunberry Lane. Because the property is adjacent to a County road, the plat is subject to Dakota County ordinance regarding right -of -way dedication and County Road access. The Dakota County Plat Commission reviewed the initial Dakota Path preliminary plat, and provided three Cliff Road options and configuration for the development's public street access to Cliff Road, in order to meet the County's access spacing guidelines. In accordance with one of the options provided by the Plat Commission, the proposed development shows construction of a public street (Dakota Path) approximately 400 feet east of the existing access, with full vehicle turning movements. Dakota County has indicated that this access configuration would also involve the closing of the center medians on Cliff Road at both Dunberry Lane and Parkcliff Drive, limiting those intersections to right -in/ right -out vehicle turning movements. Both single - family neighborhoods impacted by this turning movement restriction have full public street access at other locations, Dunberry Lane (43 homes) to Ches Mar Drive and Parkcliff (73 homes) to Parkridge Drive. The developer should be responsible for obtaining a Dakota County permit for the proposed access construction, and is responsible for County permit requirements, including the closing of the center medians on Cliff Road at Dunbeny Lane and Parkcliff Drive. Public street access for development of the site is also available to Interlachen Drive (within Fairway Hills Addition) to the west. A traffic impact study was completed for the project. The traffic study examined the impacts of the proposed development at the following nearby intersections: • Cliff Road (CSAH 32) /Pilot Kob Road (CSAH 31) • Cliff Road /Fairway Hills Drive • Cliff Road / Dunberry Lane /proposed access • Pilot Knob Road /Interlachen Drive • Pilot Knob Road /Pebble Beach Way Based on the preliminary site plan submitted by the applicant, the fiill development would generate a total of approximately 1,700 trips during a typical weekday, with 133 trips (33 entering and 100 exiting) during the a.m. peak hour, 179 trips (113 entering and 66 exiting) during the p.m. peak hour. With the traffic distribution identified in the traffic impact study, approximately 55 percent (930 daily trips) of this traffic will be directed to /from the north via Cliff Road/ "Dakota Path" intersection, and approximately 45 percent (770 daily trips) west via Interlachen Drive and the existing public street intersections at Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road (Fairway Hills). With traffic from the proposed development, nearby intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. Vrz-:-) Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 16 All construction traffic associated with this development should access and exit the site only via the Cliff Road/ Dakota Path access to this development. Dakota Path shall be signed `no parking.' The developer has proposed to close the street connection to the existing Interlachen Drive until the development is substantially complete, however, limiting access in this way for existing and new residents could be problematic for emergency response and traffic circulation generally. Directing construction traffic to access the site via Cliff Road would keep the heavy constriction vehicles out of existing neighborhoods. The preliminary site plan indicates trail and sidewalk segments adjacent to streets and in open space areas to provide pedestrian access throughout the site and to the City trail system. The concrete sidewalk proposed within public right -of -way should be a minimum of 6 feet in width. Easements/ Right -of -Way — To provide protection of structures in accordance with City policy, this development should dedicate drainage & utility easements over the storm water basins and infiltration areas to three feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1% event) of those storin water facilities, or to two feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1% event) where emergency overland flow is provided in accordance with City Engineering standards. This development should dedicate public drainage & utility easement over all public sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer pipes at a minimum width of 20 feet. An existing Northern Natural Gas easement covering a gas pipe line extends through the southern half of the property. Development of this parcel is subject to terms of that private easement. Development of this property will be required to dedicate 75 feet of public right -of -way from the centerline of Cliff Road for future upgrade needs of the roadway. This development will also be required to dedicate restricted access on the final plat along Cliff Road, except in the area of the Dakota Path public street access, as determined by Dakota County. The preliminary landscape and tree mitigation plans show landscaping within the center island medians of the main north -south street (Dakota Path). This development should be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of this landscaping by the homeowners association. Financial Obligation — At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcels proposed for platting. Based upon a study by City staff of the financial obligations collected in the past and proposed use for the property, the following estimated charges will be collected at time of final subdivision or connection to the City's utility system. The final charges will be computed using the rates in effect at time of connection or subdivision. The estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions and land uses contained in the final subdivision or plat, with due allowances for easements and right -of -way required with the plat: � %O Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 17 Improvement Use Rate Quantity Amount Sanitary Sewer Trunlc R1 $1,390/ lot 178 lots $247,400 Water Trunk R1 $1,450/ lot 178 lots $258,100 Storm Sewer Trunk R1 $0.128/ sf 2,787,840 sf $356,800 Total $862,300 Tree Preservation - The applicant has submitted tree inventory, tree preservation, and tree mitigation plans which identify tree removal and provide for required mitigation. Tree Inventory - A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are eight hundred twenty (820) significant trees existing at this site. This includes the tree resource within the Phase 2 portion, (see paragraph below). This individual tree resource is comprised of a large variety of both deciduous (oak, maple, ash, elm, hackberry, boxelder, cottonwood, and others), and coniferous trees (spruce, pine, fir, and cedar). Tree diameters range from 6 inches to over 50 inches for deciduous trees and 20 -45 feet in height for conifers. Proposed Tree Removal vs. Allowable Removal - According to the Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan submitted, significant tree impacts will result in the removal of six hundred forty (654) significant trees (79.8% of the total). Per the City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance allowable tree removal for this type of development proposal (single- phase, multiple -lot, residential) is set at 40% of the total significant tree resource. Tree Mitigation - Because the proposed significant tree removal is more than the allowable significant tree removal there is a required tree mitigation which calculates to one - thousand two - hundred forty (1,240) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees). The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan (LA1 To LA13, titled on the preliminary submittal "Preliminary Landscape Plan ", which should be correctly titled as "Preliminary Tree Mitigation Plan ") that includes the installation of one - thousand two - hundred sixty -one (1,261) equivalent Category B trees (actual number of trees proposed to be installed is 226 Category A trees, 801 Category B trees, and 16 Category C trees, for a total of 849 trees). Therefore, the application as proposed is twenty -nine (21) equivalent Category B trees long of the required amount. Potential Additional Tree Removal - Staff review of the submitted Preliminary Tree Removal Plan has shown that eight (8) significant trees intended to be preserved may be required to be removed as a result of grading operations for utility installation and /or trail installation. Trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, and 230 are located in areas to be graded for the installation of underground utilities. Tree number 433 is located in an area M Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 18 where the proposed bituminous path through Outlot E is to be installed. Staff is recommending that the applicant review these potential tree preservation conflicts and adjust tree removal and mitigation calculations accordingly. Tree Mitigation Documentation - With large developments such as this application, documenting the fulfillment of required tree mitigation (planting of trees on many lots over several years) is difficult and time consuming. 'Staff is recommending that the applicant acquire the services of a qualified landscape architect /certified arborist to document tree mitigation as it occurs on each lot, then provide an annual progress report to the Supervisor of Forestry which will include, in both map form and tabular detail, the date of tree installation, size and quantity of mitigation tree installed, and the specific location of tree installation. Also, per City of Eagan Tree Preservation Ordinance, the mitigation tree warranty period of one year shall be monitored and documented in a similar report. Mitigation trees not alive or healthy as determined by the City shall be replaced. Parks and Recreation - As a subdivision, the development is responsible for park dedication. Parks Background - The City has recognized that the preservation of land for parks, the provision of recreational amenities and the retention of open space is essential to maintaining a healthful and desirable environment for all citizens of the City. The City also recognizes that development is necessary to provide commercial, industrial and residential opportunities in the City. T o this end the City had adopted a policy and procedures for detennining what portion of a development shall be dedicated for parks and open space and /or the means available to satisfy the dedication requirement through the provision of recreational amenities or a cash payment in lieu of. Based upon a gross area of 79 acres and a proposed density of 2.20 to 3.46 per acre the development would be responsible for a land dedication of 10% of the gross area equating to 7.9 acres, or, a combination of land and /or a cash payment. Several meetings were held with the Developer prior to the submission of the development plans to outline the City's dedication requests. The dedication requests remain consistent. Developer Proposal for Dedication - The Developer has proposed that the Park Dedication be met through the dedication of approximately 11.8 acres of land and the provision of recreational amenities for the residents of the development. The acreage consists of a 0.9 acres expansion of Olunamz Park and 10.9 acres of property designated as "Outlots ". The proposed amenities consist of a playground, gazebo, pool and gathering spaces. The proposed park area is depicted as having play courts and a parking area with a capacity of 32 vehicles. Vehicular access to the parking lot and courts would be via the proposed hnterlachen Avenue within the development. A connection into the park would be made with a paved trail. �1�9 Plaraiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 19 Outlots are pieces of property not platted as buildable lots often for the purpose of creating a common ownership. In this instance ownership of the proposed outlots would reside with a proposed Homeowners Association. The outlots as depicted provide buffer between the new development and existing homes as well as buffering the adjoining Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Staff Response to Proposal - The proposal falls short of fulfilling the park dedication requirements in the manner recommended by staff during the preliminary planning process. The property proposed for the expansion of Olunann Park is not of a size sufficient to develop an amenity for which there is a demand or need that would have community benefit (refer to Park Dedication Recommendation below). The outlots have minimal value as publicly accessible park or open space and are best owned and maintained by the proposed Homeowners Association. Their value is as a buffer between what exists and what is proposed, not as a public park. The configuration of the development places the outlots in narrow swaths between homes and along the edges of the development. Because of the site's use as a golf course, the natural resources within the areas that comprise the outlots have for the most part been altered over time to accommodate golf. Park Dedication Recommendation — The Park Dedication for the development is proposed to be satisfied through a combination of a land dedication, cash dedication and credit for the provision of recreational amenities as part of the development. The proposed land dedication would consist of an area approximately 4 acres in size immediately adjacent to and contiguous with George Ohrnann City Park. In the 1994 Park Systems Plan Ohrnann Park was designated as a "Community Athletic Field/Neighborhood Park ". The plan goes on to define the designation: Community Athletic Field Use: Provide active athletic facilities to the Community Service Area: Community wide The dual designation as Neighborhood Park implies that the park also provide "recreation and open space to residential areas." Ohrnann Park currently provides turf space equivalent to 3 regulation soccer fields, a youth softball field, playground, shelter building and horse shoe courts. A fourth soccer field can be created as an overlay of the softball field, though dual use is thereby limited. It is one of three "A" level soccer /turf facilities maintained by the City. Current user groups include the Eagan Athletic Association (in -house and traveling), Eagan High Oq Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 20 School, Burnsville and Apple Valley soccer clubs, and various soccer camps and schools. The season as determined by field conditions generally extends from early May to Mid - October. The heaviest use occurs Monday through Thursday evenings with occasional weekend tournaments and events. The priority for scheduling is given to resident user groups. All users are charged a facility rental fee with nonresident groups paying a higher rate. The single park entrance is located approximately 3 blocks east of Pilot Knob Road on Pebble Beach Way. There are 120 on -site parking stalls. To date there have been very few complaints regarding on street over -flow parking adjacent to the park. With the advent and popularity of additional youth and adult sports such as Lacrosse and Rugby that require a large rectangular field, in combination with the growth of soccer, the City has been compelled to use nontraditional, lower quality sites and do multi -sport field overlays to accommodate the demand. Indications are that the high level of demand will continue and be accelerated by the infusion of new residents. The addition of land to Olunann Park is seen as the last best opportunity to meet the increasing demand for flexible field space and open turf areas. The final reconfiguration of the expanded park and the timing of the implementation of any improvements would be determined through the established City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning and review process. The Park Dedication Policy allows for a credit of up to 25% towards the final dedication for the provision of recreational amenities that will reduce the demand for public recreational facilities made by the residents of a new development. The proposed development includes a centrally located playground structure, gazebo, pool and gathering space appropriate for the intended user groups. The equipment and grounds would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The balance of the park dedication would be satisfied with a cash dedication equivalent to 25% of a full cash dedication. Park Dedication Summary - The park dedication would be satisfied as follows: 50% As a land dedication of approximately 4 acres for the expansion of George Ohmann Park in an effort to meet the current and future community need for flexible open space. 25% As credit for the development of recreational amenities in the development including a playground, gazebo and gathering spaces as depicted on the plan. 25% As a cash dedication equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a Rill cash dedication for the development. 0-00 Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Paae 21 Trails Dedication — As a subdivision, this development is responsible for trail dedication. Trails Background - The City has recognized that the provision of a City wide, non - motorized trail system has health, safety and transportation benefits for residents. The trail system is intended to provide links to commercial districts, schools, recreational facilities and points of interest throughout the City. Opportunities to link with the regionalized trail system are also developed when feasible. To this end the City has adopted a policy and procedures for collecting a Trail Dedication fee, or an equivalent area of land intended for a trail in lieu of a fee, during the development process. The current cash trails dedication fee has been set at $250 per residential unit. This applies to both multi -unit and single family developments. The current development plan includes 177 single family units. Developer Proposal for Dedication - The Developer has proposed a series of internal trails and sidewalks though out the development. Links are proposed with the existing George Olunann Park, the City trail system via a connection with an existing trail on Cliff Road and also Lebanon Hills Regional Park. A portion of the proposed trail system is located within an existing pipeline easement. Staff Response to Proposal - As part of the Trail Dedication policy, the City will consider providing credit towards a cash dedication for the provision of trails that meet specific criteria including: • The trail provides a benefit to the community by linking with the existing City wide trail system or filling a gap in the system (or) • The trail provides benefit to the community by accessing or creating a unique recreational opportunity that is readily available to all residents • The trail is constructed to the City standards for boulevard trails: minimum of 8' wide, appropriate for multi - purpose, non - motorized use (traditional "sidewalks" are not included) The amount of credit is determined through the use of a per foot cost multiplier that accounts for the average costs associated with the development of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail built to City standards. The current rate is $15 per lineal foot. The total credit cannot exceed 100% of the dedication due for the development. The development proposes the inclusion of an 8 foot wide trail along the central connector road, Dakota Path that provides a link with the City wide trail system on Cliff Road. This section would meet the general criteria for a credit towards the total dedication. The development also proposes the inclusion of an 8 foot wide paved trail within an existing east /west gas pipe line easement that could provide connection into Lebanon Hills Park and thereby meet the general criteria for credit. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all pen-nits and approvals for the development of said trail from the parties involved. Upon the provision to the City of the appropriate permits and �C) 1 Planning Report — Dakota Path Januaiy 22, 2013 Page 22 documents specific to an approval for trail development within the easement and access into the park at the location shown, trail credit would be granted. The balances of the trail and walks, while having purpose for the development, have limited benefit to the community and are not constructed to accommodate multiple uses. Trail Dedication Recommendation — The proposed central trail located along the new Dakota Path roadway appears to have public value and would thereby merit consideration for credit towards a cash trail dedication. The value being the connectivity with the City wide trail system. The approximate length of said trail segment being 1,500 feet. Upon the provision of the appropriate permits and documentation from the other parties involved, the 1,200 foot trail segment within the easement area connecting with Lebanon Hills Park would also be eligible for credit. Trail Dedication Summary — The trail dedication would be satisfied as follows. Total Trail dedication due per existing plan (not including the proposed multi -unit building) Based upon 177 residential units @ $250 = $44,250 Credit for public value trail Central Trail: 1500' @ $15 = $22,500 (Easement Trail /pending: 1200' @ $15 = $18,000) Balance Due as Cash Payment ($44,250 less credits) With approved trails = $21,750 (With inclusion of pending easement trail = $3,750) ( *) If the unit account or alignment should change the amounts would be adjusted proportionately SUMMARY /CONCLUSION Hunter Emerson is proposing a Rezoning from P, Park, to PD, Planned Development, a Preliminary Planned Development to create 177 single- family dwelling units, and a Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 178 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, south of Cliff Road between Pilot Knob Road and Lexington Avenue. The proposed development consists of 177 single- family lots of varying sizes, one lot for the existing cell tower, and several outlots . intended as open space around and throughout the development. The proposed residential density of 2.25 units per acre is consistent with the pending application for LD, Low Density, land use designation. Proposed amenities include a ao�) Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 23 swimming pool and tot lot play area, a centrally located gathering space with pergola, and trails. Outlot I adjacent to Ohmann Park is proposed for park dedication, and trails are proposed to connect to Ohmann Park and to Cliff Road, as well as a trail designed for possible future extension into Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The intent of the Planned Development Zoning is to encourage more creative and efficient use of land that benefits both the developer and the public. The developer has identified the public benefits to include increased diversity of lot sizes and unit types as well as values, additional trails, enhancements to Ohmann Park, and establishment of a buffer around the perimeter of the site. In addition, the developer suggests that this proposal also provides for common open space, communal amenities and a variety of lot sizes which are accommodated through Planned Development zoning. It is a policy matter for City officials to determine the acceptability of the monopole remaining on the development site. Conditions regarding the monopole should be identified accordingly (items #11A -11C). If it remains, the monopole parcel will require a Quasi - Public land use designation rather than the proposed Low Density, and should be designated for Public Facilities use within the Planned Development. The proposed LD land use designation remains pending after review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. The City Council will consider the proposed land use amendment concurrently with the present proposal for rezoning and subdivision. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was completed and the public comment has ended. This revised proposal appears to respond to the Dalcota County Plat Commission's comments regarding access to Cliff Road, and has been sent to the County Plat Commission for review again. The Plat Commission is scheduled to meet January 28, 2013, prior to the anticipated City Council meeting. ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED To recommend approval of a Rezoning from P, Park, to PD, Planned Development upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E %2 of NW '/ of Section 34, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. To recommend approval of a Preliminary Planned Development for 177 single - family dwelling units upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road, at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E 1/2 of NW '/ of Section 34, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. If approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. The property shall be platted. 2. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. Ex) s Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 24 3. A homeowner's association shall be established for this development. All common property and open space shall be conveyed to and - maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots shall be deeded to the homeowner's association. 4. Ownership and maintenance of the swimuning pool, tot lot, and any community buildings, if included, shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 5. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection shall be provided through covenants or an open space maintenance plan, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 6. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to pen-nit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood 7. The applicant should give consideration to utilizing universal design for the homes to help attract and retain a more balance mix of households into the future by creating buildings that are accessible and functional to accommodate residents of many ages, heights and physical abilities. 8. This Preliminary Planned Development shall have a teen of seven (7) years. 9. The developer should give consideration to architectural design such as all sides of the buildings having an equally attractive or the same finish, use of a variety of home exterior finishes and appearance to minimize duplication of exterior architecture, materials and colors. 10. The existing Conditional Use Permits pertaining to the monopole shall be terminated. 1 IA. The monopole and related equipment shall be removed from the site. = 1113. The monopole and related equipment may remain on the site as existing at the time of Preliminary Planned Development. a) Prior to Final Subdivision, the applicant shall have obtained approval for a land use amendment to Quasi - Public for proposed Lot 1, Block 4. b) The Final Planned Development shall show the parcel containing the monopole and related equipment as a Public Facilities use. c) The following conditions shall apply to the monopole: a CH Plamiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Pap-e 25 i. A 110 -foot communication monopole and related equipment shelters and cabinets are permitted as existing at the time of Planned Development approval. ii. The monopole and all communications equipment shall be maintained. iii. Collocation opportunities for other wireless service providers shall be made available, if technologically feasible. iv. A detail landscaped plan for the equipment and monopole should be provided at the time of Final Planried Development. V. The monopole shall be subject to the performance standards in Section 11.70, Subd. 26 of the City Code. IIC. The monopole shall maintain a 300' setback from all residential lots, both existing and proposed. The Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development shall exclude residential lots within 300' of the tower. 12. Lots meeting the R -1 minimum dimensional standards of 85' width and 12,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R -1 zoning standards. Those lots meeting the R -1S minimum standards of 65' width and 8,000 s.f. area shall be subject to R- IS zoning standards. 13. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 14. Prior to Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision, the applicant shall provide verification to the City Engineer that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. 15. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no- net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. c. Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour storm; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour storm; 3) 1%, 24 -hour storm. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation ao Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 26 (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds/basins, and inlets and outlets. V. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 16. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 17. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. 18. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the community swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 19. The Final Landscape Plan shall provide a greater vegetative buffer to the residences and yards along Dakota Path. 20. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 21. A financial guarantee for the landscaping shall be provided at the time of Final Subdivision. The guarantee shall cover two calendar years following satisfactory completion. 22. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve - hundred forty (1,240) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fiilfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 23. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. Plamiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 27 24. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 25. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre - construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 26. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot /common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 27. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Olunarm Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Developer. The exact configuration to be determined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a frill cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25% credit towards the dedication. 28. If the Council requires the dedication of 4 acres, the applicant shall submit a revised plan, which plan shall be submitted to the APC for a new public hearing and subsequent consideration by the City Council. 29. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi- purpose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dakota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate permits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail connection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. ao Q Plaraiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 28 To approve a Preliminary Subdivision (Dakota Path) to create 178 lots and 9 outlots upon approximately 79 acres located south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road at 1310 and 1290 Cliff Road, legally described as the E %2 of NW r/ of Section 34 except the north 361.60 feet of the west 760.00 feet thereof, and Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Golf Club. If approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council on February 2,1993: A1, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, D1, E1 2. The property shall be platted. 3. Outlot C shall be platted as a lot at the time of final subdivision. 4. Prior to Final Subdivision approval, the City Council must make a detennination on the EAW as to whether an EIS is necessary. 5. The value of the outlots shall be apportioned to the adjacent lots throughout the development. 6. A homeowner's association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be established for this development. All common property and open space shall be conveyed to and maintained by the homeowner's association, as well as any monument signs or other common amenities. All common lots shall be deeded to the homeowner's association. 7. Ownership and maintenance of the swimming pool, tot lot, and any community buildings, if included, shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 8. If the applicant desires the outlots to be a conservation area, such protection should be provided through covenants or an open space maintenance plan, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Such documents shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision. 9. The applicant shall submit a proposal /infrastructure plan to be approved by staff to provide telecommunications fiber to the home (FTTH) or conduit to all homesites to permit third party providers to install FTTH within the neighborhood. 10. Where parking lots exist, such as for the swimming pool, landscape buffers to public streets and to adjacent houses shall be provided in accordance with City Code standards. 11. Prior to Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development, the applicant shall provide verification to the City Engineer that the placement of landscaping does not interfere or conflict with utilities and stormwater facilities. an Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 29 12. This development shall comply with the current Water Quality and Wetland Management Plan (2007), along with the City Code stone water management regulations ( §4.33) and wetland protection and management regulations (§ 11.67). 13. This development is subject to the City's post construction requirements (City Code §4.33) for stormwater management and surface water quality. The following Development Conditions shall apply to Water Quality: a. Volume Control: The first one -half inch of stormwater runoff from any rainfall event shall be infiltrated or retained entirely on the site. b. Total phosphorus (TP) & Total suspended solids (TSS) Control: There shall be no- net increase, compared to existing conditions, in the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) leaving the site. c. Runoff Rate Control: This development's stormwater facilities must maintain predevelopment runoff rates for the 1) 50 %, 24 -hour stone; 2) 10 %, 24 -hour stone; 3) 1 %, 24 -hour stone. d. Pond Design Requirements: All pond design specifications shall conform to the current National Urban Runoff Program standards. In addition, the following are required: i. There shall be a forebay area in each pond to provide fine -sand sized particles to settle, unless the City determines this requirement is not feasible on a site by site basis. ii. Side slopes shall not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) and there shall exist a ten -foot wide bench starting at the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) with side slopes no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1) for safety considerations. iii. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the SCE, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all pond inlets and outlets. iv. A minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed access path capable of supporting inspection and maintenance equipment, for access to all ponds/basins, and inlets and outlets. v. The property owner shall grant the City an easement providing unobstructed City access to the stormwater facility for inspection and maintenance purposes. 14. Any mechanical equipment for the community swimming pool shall be enclosed within a building and for any equipment that cannot be located within a building, such equipment shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential lots and the public right -of -way. 15. Any monument or neighborhood identification signs shall be subject to City Sign Code standards. Any such signs shall be consistent in design throughout the development, and sign plans shall be provided at the time of Final Planned Development. M Plaraiing Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 30 16. Lighting shall be provided per City Code standards at the comununity swimming pool as necessary to provide for security, safety and traffic circulation. 17. All erosion/ sediment control plans submitted for development and grading permits shall be prepared by a designer who has received current Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) training, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer in designing stormwater pollution prevention plans. 18. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City code and engineering standards. All personnel responsible for the construction and management of erosion/ sediment control devices, and the establishment of vegetation for the development, shall have received Erosion/Sediment Control site management certification through the University of Minnesota, or approved equal training as determined by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with a soil- boring log below each infiltration area, with data to a minimum of 6' below the lowest excavated elevation. If the soil - boring log indicates incompatibility of soil permeability with the submitted and reviewed design plans, the applicant shall revise the design and /or construction plans to ensure 4.33 requirements for volume control are met. 20. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed infiltration areas for City review and approval (cross- section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing/volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure infiltration areas are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 21. The applicant shall provide construction details of proposed stormwater basins for City review and approval (cross - section, construction / protection / sequencing notes, sizing/volume tables, planting details, etc.), to ensure stormwater basins are properly designed and constructed, and adequately protected during / after construction, to function as intended. These details shall be included in applicable plan sheet(s). 22. The applicant shall provide adequate pre - treatment (street -side catch -basin sumps and /or forebays) to provide for capture and easily - accessible cleanout of fine -sand sized particles for all basins and infiltration areas that receive direct impervious ninof£ 23. The applicant shall provide the City as -built plans, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, that demonstrate constructed stormwater facilities conform to design and /or construction plans, as approved by the City. As -built volumes of retention & detention shall be provided for all stormwater facilities. O Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 31 24. A ten -foot wide maintenance bench above the Structural Control Elevation (SCE) on all basins, with a slope no steeper than ten feet horizontal to one foot vertical (10:1), shall be provided as directed by the City and shall be sufficient to access all basin inlets and outlets with typical excavation equipment. 25. Developed conditions (grading, private utilities, landscaping, etc.) must allow a minimum of 15- foot -wide unobstructed equipment access path, from street -edge to all stonnwater facilities, at a maximum slope of 15 %. The unobstructed equipment access path shall be capable of supporting typical maintenance / excavation equipment, for access to all basins and infiltration areas, including unobstructed maintenance equipment access to inlet and outlet areas. 26. All construction traffic associated with this development shall access and exit the site only via the Cliff Road access. 27. Dakota Path shall be signed `no parking.' 28. The concrete sidewalk proposed within public right -of -way shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. 29. The property owner shall grant the City easements, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, providing unobstructed City access to stonnwater facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. 30. This development shall dedicate drainage & utility easements over the stormwater basins and infiltration areas to three feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1% event) of those stormwater facilities, or two feet in elevation above the calculated high water level (1% event) where emergency overland flow is provided in accordance with City Engineering standards. 31. This development shall dedicate public drainage & utility easement over all public sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer pipes at a minimum width of 20 feet. 32. This development shall be responsible for abandomnent of all well systems in accordance with City and County requirements. 33. This development shall be subject to an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the homeowners association and the City providing for the perpetual maintenance of any landscaping within the right -of -way center island median by the homeowners association. 34. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of twelve - hundred forty (1,240) Category B trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. DOS Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Page 32 35. The applicant shall work with the City Forester to review potential tree preservation versus utility /trail installation conflicts for trees numbered 29, 30, 31, 34, 228, 229, 230, and 433 and adjust tree removal and tree mitigation calculations accordingly. 36. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees /woodlands to be preserved on -site. 37. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre- construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 38. The applicant shall submit an annual Tree Mitigation Compliance Report detailing the tree mitigation progress. Said report shall include maps and lists of all required tree mitigation (quantity, size, species, and location) installed per each lot /common area. Annual reports shall be prepared by a consultant that has a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist knowledgeable with trees and tree health. A follow -up report shall be submitted one -year after tree mitigation installation documenting the condition of all mitigation trees planted in that cycle. Any mitigation tree that is not alive and viable one year after planting shall be replaced with a comparable tree. 39. The Development shall satisfy the Park Dedication as follows: a. Dedicate approximately 4 acres of property contiguous to George Olunann Park for the purpose of expanding community recreational opportunities consistent with the concept plan provided to the Developer. The exact configuration to be deterrnined in consultation with the City. b. Cash payment equivalent to 25% of what would otherwise be a full cash dedication for the development. c. The provision of recreational amenities within the Development consistent with the approved plan. In recognition, the City shall grant a 25 % credit towards the dedication. 40. If the Council requires the dedication of 4 acres, the applicant shall submit a revised plan, which plan shall be submitted to the APC for a new public hearing and subsequent consideration by the City Council. D ka Planning Report — Dakota Path January 22, 2013 Paj4e 33 41. The Development shall satisfy the Trail Dedication as follows: a. Construct a multi- puipose trail built to City standards along the proposed Dalcota Path (approximately 1500 feet). In recognition, the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. b. Secure the appropriate pen-nits and approvals for the construction of a paved trail comlection to Lebanon Hills Park within an existing pipeline easement (approximately 1,200 feet). In recognition the City would grant a credit equivalent to $15 per lineal foot. c. The balance of the Trail Dedication due would be satisfied with a cash payment. a\3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL A. Financial Obligations 1. This development shall accept its additional financial obligations as defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. B. Easements and Rights -of -Way 1. This development shall dedicate 10 -foot drainage and utility easements centered overall lot lines and, 10 -foot drainage and utility easements adjacent to all public rights -of -way where necessary to accommodate existing or proposed utilities for drainage ways within the plat. The development shall dedicate easements of sufficient width and location as determined necessary by engineering standards. 2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the acquisition costs of drainage, ponding, and utility easements in addition to public street rights -of -way as required by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this development. 3. This development shall dedicate all public right -of -way and temporary slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. 4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements, in accordance with requirements set forth in the latest version of the City's Stormwater Management Plan. C. Plans and Specifications 1. All public and private streets, drainage systems, and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes, engineering standards, guidelines, and policies prior to application for final plat approval. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall ensure that all dead -end public streets shall have a permanent cul -de -sac, or temporary cul -de -sac to be removed upon further extension (on stub streets), constructed in accordance with City H engineering standards. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the acquisition costs of street easements or public street rights -of -way as required by the alignment of the cul -de -sacs located within or beyond the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this development. 4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall be submitted overlaid on the proposed grading and utility plan. The financial guarantee for such plan shall be included in the Development Contract and shall not be released until one year after the date of City certified compliance. D. Public Improvements 1. If any improvements are to be installed under a City Contract, the appropriate public improvement project and associated contract must be awarded by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. Permits 1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits required by the affected agency prior to final plat approval. F. Parks and Trails Dedications 1. This development shall fulfill its park and trail dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and as awarded by the action of the City Council, G. Tree Preservation and Mitil4ation 1. This development shall be responsible for preparing a tree preservation plan and mitigating for any removal in excess of the allowable limits. Mitigation shall be in the form of replacement trees, cash equivalent, or a combination thereof in accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Parks Commission and as awarded by the action of the City Council, H. Stormwater Management and Water Quality Protection 1. This development shall manage stormwater and protect water quality by meeting requirements for design standards, minimizing impervious surface area and maximizing infiltration and retention, and providing acceptable complementary stormwater treatments, stormwater treatment ponds, regional ponds, and maintenance of private stormwater facilities in accordance with the current City post construction regulations and as recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and awarded by Council action. D- 6 I. Wetlands Protection and Management 1. This development shall protect and manage wetlands by meeting requirements for wetland delineations and assessments, sequencing and replacement, and wetland buffers and setbacks in accordance with the current wetland protection and management regulations and as recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and awarded by Council action. J. Airport Noise Attenuation 1. This development shall be responsible for meeting all appropriate noise attenuation conditions if the property is located within the Metropolitan Council Noise Exposure and /or Buffer Zone. K. Other 1. All subdivision, zoning, and other ordinances affecting this development shall be adhered to, unless specifically granted a Variance by Council action. Advisory Planning Commission Approved: August 25, 1987 •. City Council September 15, 1987 Revised:_ July 10, 1990 Revised: February 2, 1993 Revised: July 7, 2009 an ►�see� ■1� � �ti�toi� ,t �� ■•sue �q■ ■■ ■�� -. �� t`►/ r�� ■ei `�■■■ :�, f 1I■ VA ■111 ■ ■r�� /�! ■�� • .i®„i■-::: ■ 11111. .—►' ;� ■� sod; �I�III�e= ■`��■ ■ �■ ■t " ■■ ®fliii�► � ��■ milli Thiqm�atakd Park MO � ■i a�,��ra an A01b. dam Iw' City of Eagan zoning Current Zoning and Land Use Map Application: Dakota Path Types: Rezoning; Prelim PD; Prelim Subd. Case Nos.: 34-RZ-08-10-12; 34-PD-04-10-12; 34-PS-05,-10-12 P Park & ReG Open Space Land Use Plan REC Park & Rec Open Space N 0 300 600 1,200 Feet t= R P) P E. Cliff Road R'I R I 'R P R I Subject R-I M �T } t � � � ' ;fix ♦ r � �� l L r f � Y� f m $ s r v I� C. S. A. H. !d 0. 32 „� (CUFF ROAD) "mpg I I I LP LK ��; �o� � I � � �•, re l is �'. _ II''��_ Av IN ig D Q' ;m � (n_ i - e f R2 aw A -c x t xEBA {21�1�NtE RE�Zi t�1 ISRA }C W GCn -' a s °> s" p =L�eE EEFEEFE 9°3rg.F a °gym p�� Z;5 � � � n> Y FmR�oo '3a'di oo" z 9 +'- 'i a• s e -m-{ C --c-- ''gx us up p '9 -i ° z 9 a 8 cuo'a y x e� i� °..� n�a e; sP& �� N z _ 6 , a � Z a --Vf N° g "R Q,'Z S ` m Z S m ' s $ a - X °ail E° : V'F ro W �z ° NORTH C)cO PRELIM. DEVELOPMENT PLAN noomox GK---------------- ------------- --------------- M.�, , 1 11 L---- '--- 11 - ------------- ---------------- las.A.H. N Nl (CUFF ROAD) 1, W I LLLI WIRMLf L - L[L UMMUP HHHH, r9 Hol-2 V�nzflg Ir------- NMI, 90 ------- a I J-- ------------ it oss ;u K-w z m z > m Q (/) > OZ co 0 0 CZ Z > Z 0 0 0 > 0 Dip 2�L < Z M Q) < -u EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH HxmMx GK---------------- ------------- --------------- M.�, , 1 11 L---- '--- 11 - ------------- ---------------- las.A.H. N Nl (CUFF ROAD) 1, W I LLLI WIRMLf L - L[L UMMUP HHHH, r9 Hol-2 V�nzflg Ir------- NMI, 90 ------- a I J-- ------------ it oss ;u K-w z m z > m Q (/) > OZ co 0 0 CZ Z > Z 0 0 0 > 0 Dip 2�L < Z M Q) < -u EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH HxmMx G v �I I �- / o, J I ICI •.a'— Y I I GGGGG G< 9om \ v - - fnam��m >y� HOW `C amp, la S CO r- o � >m ° \_ o o I z g N I co W 2 � I D Z o o s_.. -� �- =_"�i ❑ II i=- --5_ —' III = r g \ o j v(0 ° A �' =7 mxw� x s CO cm- Nl" � �� 0 Mm � z rq IN t®R . \ . \ A \ \ � \ \ `^ \ � � S � m�o |`. \ k \ . ` ` \° ^ T C! > 2 Zs cn rp CD m ;u cn z m z > m 0 w > Oz X cu 0 C: Z > Z G) ;r 0 0 0 > 0 Z :c :CO < Z M U) -u S; \z II ---------- X cu 0 C: Z > Z G) ;r 0 0 0 > 0 Z :c :CO < Z M U) -u S; \z II n ps 91. wmn Is Am q 11 ; ztli --------- ----- - -----------I ------------ N., " 35-E A I R 4. ------------- _ -.`\ --- 2-4, oW. b h4 2624.67 7j —2'4BV - ----- ------ - ---------- -------- IZI lu I I31 PRELIM. PLAT OR•4 1 L; In ;t1 m ED � �gp44:5VN SZ7.40•p el'Z6 A OL'50V 59,��' Nii °5p. Og'69V M:E946.96N C \99� 3q ^E VO'PL Mg0b0,ZVN fir, 3'9� r---- �91ar��u4.r Nf 9 F M9099 OON r 1 p �gJ l _J L_ -_J 1- U'S9 -'� -.GY Z L-- - - - - -J '!'�y5 ml 4 V \ \\ �.'�a' ` �'�' d•�wd' //, ` '-�''� I Ir i 1 m 1 I I I % / / `��'4e Ja'G'� a� i pv U 1 �a _I L J oss y'h / �` �:J ) L�oto� 4i \ \� ♦ \� .io ____-1 \\ S NO 1 1� \ - -1J9. I ti• ro / Nn y�yoz� yv a \ � w J �- ----- I � \ �, 1. 1.__ I LEGENDS C_T. 1 s W. \ T- 25 Its. 7, .1 /^ o / I m m ul 1 v � m u z G Iw i ✓, 42E.C� a y i I a I, al " W I >^ JLR___J o .00-12- '-E -155 DAKOTA PATH 443.29 .01 28741 ee V 25 25 r'________ 1 r -_33_m __, sl L___tata___J c___J?ta x� U _ ______ m ____ Im l r- w � r - -- � I'a � � Ell' v .9 �• ° r- g 1x21 s <! 'i 19 s CrJm r---- - - - - -- •�., T A �' L______J CC tale 'lat.z SOT b� O w m a x ro @ 4k F Rog uC Im I I -1 oj I C. -wa �v � W I� � W I D ul___'_E'6t1___J b' 0 1� a g o i� a x i� IL- � o � o =Y -- --- - -- --I I 'at I '1- �ta6fi 14 }.11 °•.,°.Ir I I I \ a =W r_____ m _, r_________T � m z m P' \�� = I I III �•- - '"'•'4-- -1:6"€__J L".0'S�J L 65.1 J I_Za4 -� ctc� 1 _ -�_ -__ -- 191 - - -'\ ' OQ105��- 1Z'S_$L 4P56YLo1�5 1\ o I A CK W OLF $ p a w1 `l M /,4jlo iZ'>19.5_L3_ 631 r 639 r§ 9"-111 1111 11 11 11 I mN- �O 1 I 11p xW I' 1.I1 II I1 11 11 m 11 II mW I eiu IL I m etr j 1 1 "da 1 S7 d ll II L1 11 - -° 1G1x nlCx I x IPA In �y` x1.23 _�cE�l' .Y / I � Ilm x Ilia II'� 11 11 II I >lyr �6 r' - \) 11 x I 1 1 t 1 1 - 11 Ul 11 I I 11 I I I 'p NOR1N a l" 11 1 1 l 1 1 1 I J L_ 59 J 1-'059 J ru / I 1 I 1` e ze_J 1 -_e�_J l_e vs_J L osv 61.33 II IN x ° I I i SO'SlS NORTH fi 9e.s -- so1 86,85 L4 ZB bVN N04.14 -51 "E 1,M9V£5° lr vi In 2 .i1 m 00 m A c y Z (7 w � b / 5 S00'12'S3 "W tzfj m '�Zr ,y �yRV``s55 177.74 l� 17].59 SW12'. -W \�L A PATH" � / n W � /•_��§ 12).0 c r________3 V.J I -- _- °I I L uaz J v'+� k1 L___J L_7s.o- -.�' -_ JI '�_ L__ J L__ \ \ SS'• Ysa— rre-- vo.r -- - -ior.o- -- '.woo-' d•' 841.75 N00'32'48 "E i ,7a� 3 „49,t,O.tOS 08'£11 N\£299��N \ \;__s'ul'__ S 1 \ v �, /y � •/ h h Z Z v'+� k1 L___J L_7s.o- -.�' -_ JI '�_ L__ J L__ \ \ SS'• Ysa— rre-- vo.r -- - -ior.o- -- '.woo-' d•' 841.75 N00'32'48 "E i ,7a� •Fzyna x%'4 E i N 1 2 �1 m m soo•51'35"w zl�z fifi.o sx.a 1096.59 �_____ __ __________ 2J10 91— 910 I l r - -- - -� r- - - - - -i zzza E.______� r______, p �� ° ^.%'4b/ � Nit• far -- J L - -'J /y �/ �h�``�fg.g��`` a 0p9 \y�Dy _— "_ —__'1 r —, _ —a•E r�� -- j �00ti I �� y �� I I �l /y. i15.1 3 �• LL 6A� _ '_ �zs Qll"-- --- o_zsi__ —� I �aze.� - - -J I �I � -• ` I •V o° � % \�a 9\ / as � ate/ Q \\'xa'•� In � — nii —_ —,1 py x7 � o j ig I 1 NOS'24'IJ =- 161.85 'C ° ` al g N 1 � ul 1 1 1 \ \\ ♦ / �' oL 11 \ \\ v ♦ �'°1 L Al m � � ♦ . p / / o\d v� / / §;rq�ti O b�c'o� I i i/° i i •�� I 350.67 o N00'3248 "E Y ti - 1�` � - k # +k"x'3� ��} ,�..q-- •-5��, t t s`,� �4�'�'i- k,�✓'sif —!�. �� e .. , e,6 VW_ ..�' IQ' � � _ x �i ' 2 ;: 4 >:G4 ZA +x s z r { f : t�. •. ti s s f M i A, i r, c `.+ - + 7 .; r g �t jil .P# y, M ,rp� ti��,�ty ` f i ' . - ' t �# i'S F Sx: < t r� i :• +.- .(y '� - .q -1i t tq - i A , f _'; t`+'' s - a $ i ♦ i<•: 4- Cam. a� Lt.. �r � S t� � A .�. t` r i� 4 z f z • , t r t� f• - - -. c ��/ � %" � - >i" :--xa 7,c a �� i i i } r -` , f i r S• � y fi �' �� r� 3 ��gG � � /�H j� }2 . 5 � Ff� 4r " t l� Irk tA/ �Sih+• .F W ' t i �( ? �:�'v �.) ;Z—.� ' i,�t- ��.�� ✓9� f` + �� j �rl � � T4 E i _� - 4 , i.k Jm.Jt,'ti�t T 'i F is 1 r ti_ t v IA - � t ,� r ��+ � �7tjy� t ��'.'•� { � s.,r � s."�'f) -tYt` E +: ,.y C. S. A. N. N O. 31 ,»,;:; (CLIFF .ROAD) 1 — � RN V % � Z A a [ WROIA ow /r I, ' jai I auto `NORTH°—g 4 7 �(( , I I °08� � I i A I K ♦y' 's"§ s gol `;v a €A « j r rp 'm Iy eD I ny• j j z a z� � LE m � I o O z D & b e 3 5 - s r I `\ o T o D � - - r m� h r0 � m a E s m (n i a PRELIM. SITE PLAN ---I I j I I I I i i 1 1 I I '�� 2 291 _ Ifl _.ol H a 11 c 4S6 .__ 7.6 a S'LZ \ 1 �iJ 9'LE _. 0'S9_ _ 059 \)6 `L¢r h" W zLV 65.1 � ° �h` •. v \ .. 5! Utz o i� 1 4 � Utz L.L4 \ - •'"L \8\ v l jS m � p 1 ♦ \/3// Al /'A ♦ \lg 1 I - I 1. -__9_- ago 059 0'99 e.Eq G'L5_ s4"•,d \ ., \\ \ W 1 \ \ L I 'I W, a rs,N$° \ \ \\ ✓) _ > I P.•'TL_.�39 104.9 yw O EZ ti DSC T tla aI� e9 m 90 m �1'1z 109.4 A n .�.'i: . �V -�'ir •i.!2 -c;.. _ 130.7 131.3 C ``IY_ r _ J " -.• ... FS '12 .2 1239 I x I.. _ 1312 - .. it I _ I � �a�Td � ��y7Np2 .. � SS �� q, t - • 69.3 i3l CAD N > °> m 59.3 • ]].3 m V� b I N I I � I j Ve p \j1 �� - a< \ �O.. a +� ° CD 1 1 1 \ a �- - -_�J - - - -- -69 -- - - -� - -I CTI, 2096 N 1'66 0'99 65.1 Z 09 Z9 1 e - -017 1 9 45.2 20.1 5'46 \ 16 m 6'Z9 _ = =.e� - I 1= _ \\ - - - - - - - - - - U Q) D n - - 11 1_ \ \\ O Z LII pl I I I I' l 1 q I Iw 1 Im 1 I ml \ `q 11- -___JI \_____ r___ -0 I I 'i L- -J L_ -tik -J L_Z99 -J m p r - A C Ivfl!<a�, A O> °O day D � (q r :o� m985. P CA O 0 a J m a �j III I I f= I I :o� m985. P CA O 0 a J m a �j III I I f= I I GGGGGG< I I I I I - I II I I P w w I l9 I W'51'35" E 2563.95 olio v I 2227 Y-- -- -- _ -- —.� ~ I I I I I I I �gz t It qsL u�iomio 7o �o @oczi 51.1 mr5obp9g. �; y ° i ,.y\ \ \ \\ /f v a S6G 1 I t 'h t8 c �%_� / / t I BVZLL \ p b I1\ W3zy oa 45 0 co No "� S / `ja'• } a� y - -J �bW /rJ t ,3s` r .A i .?S? o >m"�' w3mwm < v ti 4 �./ Q _z 1 1119J'3 ' b,-"- 7 ', r-F � a�i mr E.J. •v `ter ",�! D'�� sz o) II i i a, \fit T•y", \ 3 ,y a �npo - N�o mL ; j3 � 1 i•Y \�v' �. Po5 Y > 793 131.0 1 / 1529 a l4 v� oL__ ND I -_ 132.1 it II I b I '.L - .1 _ 131.9 r— — W ` �',/ •'_ I __"_'F�i �`21 I� I IIe �I of cup L- 1319 - - -1 59.3 ' '-I •� r - I II '!.NI ' 1305 I II s I r 1., _ -. -, O m O _ -63.2 z Z3B 1 ' -_.L 7328 _ - - -�= X01.1 4 ' " •7 1 I i ` I �OJ 2.3 9.5 71.3 45.0 9..69 3 N gg �•_ ` r W/ $6a I ____ s � +_ t• �i �,,, J..7pJ r of 1 ^i .Y __ei __� 1__ ,T�J m .o' 852_'35 1 D X75.6 -06.6 1tL ___fb'-`+ �8'lb� O 00.7 107.0 30.6 C SO'32'48 "W 2624.67 I \� 8' IH NONVH -l� " - W .p �o C 6 uuu 217.2 88.0 924 232.0 92+0 92.0 r-------------------- I F --------- q I 1 — — — — — — — - It it 0 it 9'96.3. 4, RHEUM plHUHN Z) 8 72.6 If - -- - - - I 7 J MA I v 0 7 7 10� 26 0 .2N Ci IZ50 I co - — ------- - zg (DO b m C. cn cn: e" z m z > > U) m G) 0 z 05L1 -7- c� iL r_____________! - - - - - - - 75.6 mic F N 9 2 Nam 6 N7€ 13 m.0 oil e cf) m= o <m W ;m '.p V e 1 n $Z � O D = D e A m r D Z 0 D G) D O = Z D Z ^o•o-o o > a to > a P W v•o � o N - VAi P oNO N - eS OOo ,�1 b 000'5 O A to x - It, O Z O � O p 4 ✓ f .o-ja � '` rC[ A + 7l� it 1' �� Z;3 J a D N w O W to U U N p O D o � m a � w 0 NORTH g f] �o C. S. ♦L H. NO 32 5} (CLIFF HOADJ Im - It, -- p 4 ✓ f .o-ja � '` rC[ A + 7l� it 1' �� _ ..q�, 0 a s t o 71 Cf) fmil W o O O. T- 7 2 LU �1 :. $ f� [ � i �� ` ,mil •, qi, �� f9�� ,-_. 5° a -�`"� r n I f � c�i jam, �'• � ' �s-i - / �,! NORTH g f] �o L� u PRELIM. GRADING PLAN Im 0 a s o Cf) fmil W o O O. '= 7 2 fry: 5° a r n p z f e 9 as s ell D i I I o v $ 9 f i4 'i �-,7 V U6, MAA Yx 99x 9 ex.o F 2° n 5+ q° x x. ax '4l S= m m8 mod °i R e8i nY SS -fg ., �mc g, O 16. 2.YW� '. 4 „� q q r N 88 � —I �m n y m.: mi 4� E px4 4Y qp I $s ° A P RUN 4 � - �m s. yF m T `s m a_so 8 O x a�H $ g V to L� u PRELIM. GRADING PLAN NAME LAW < <,/ �— =° I iq q CA 0 GGGGG GK __ i• ', ` '��r I��Y I "abm�tt. � / � t'� � o ° g o L �°'�°p° / ,i *.r�' i / m� ° Y`°„'{II 1- of �1 i �: i � r� ✓r � -r �� . � 1 8 $ P � N �•\ \ \ \ \\ I° / �'�r o I i o ,rr i� �'I 1� i ' L l - -� �.`51 � � =li.. 1 s S� 199 jr / �i s � j am` -1✓) "�� r \' \" I �y� i I }{ Iii m m "R�n °��z. / $I''n• � /i.�v/ —�� .� 1 1 I(, r e/ _�. -.y'r I Y _i 'I Ysg/ it mp CO cn HER 11*11 .%a\ F r_ I `� ,Cy!r +• I'�*+TT - i ° � �F / i _ � — I, 1 1 - � n fj % ; W,� � � � - �• is j c GI N T ! _ c "rc��'�� J •° o Z D � D Q OZ D T .0 M r 3 D Z �D O� D O = Z Z o b 2 LL� 6 2 14 140-51-35"E 2563.95 0 NO 30 I Is 22 H�p U g 51 j q!Nj�i "', -1 /1" co" Rg Pim zjjf 0 Al lq� ..... ..... I 11 tl� J, IvTi 11 VT �11 r ,ate TTig z M Z > Cfi F M G) 0) > T M —z TV? SO'32'48"W 262447—"' IH NO loj NVOA,� o k r `< g o K � I r 1 O CCi I m 1 r I- i O VMS �-__ O '. �4PPPP uGtiNGG \ -� —- 9 I I} � li- - - ° - -- I �'- - - - - -• I I, ON 0 §mo Rimini m AMA 'l �- rn y .F ! oil u y I \_. ; I � j •., \� �� . � >s � it � , �' / r ;4 omum I O'f /��y /A` I w� a� I t � r - 'x ..� fir•._ [. �I,'. E �I ` `� � YL � $t/ fit. � � S � — � � • /sYY /, ,�� i 7 1(.Y� �, ��., ; "IS Fn fit / sighs '� `�a° \�. ' -' ~ "°".I� �O�\ b- ' -- i I �-� I, r �. 13 , e� ° n'o \ z a m G7 I a / •..+° +I 1 / . , f ; °^D5 �a Yi / � i lov✓ r , � k ', I V'/ o z `•$� l . � ', �I�1.� ice. i 7 ,.-�4t ;/� S \I � 1\� �i _i�i�. � p�`.i / I it r I'dI —'Z 4lpnmv 00z°nm3AN.•n _ F _ an °9mc�"d$mNm OH n °n oa Fc{ Dy if m za � T prA�on� ao A�3 pnm g o P. m � Z m ' .�•. >. 4p oy °a0m nF a o _ O °a m r3 "m zo nice. .r O N y p v °a. - i3TFmm04��111mD 29p 0 zi Cln t' �y. mm1110- �OAL1y0�<�D 3m9 is m Om2=p1 �Omp�lil 90mr�0'pm. �O p> 1 -ID�Zy DOy nprtl•OA2 z3j y N�OZm.Am A3mmm OmmT. �l A.0 f9/1� Q '" °zmn 3noy NjrND by -xOz a 000D pPo D Z =NZ Z pZV pp xm aypim n�0zc°0 OApZ ZFOOmmy ZOr 00, p OZ {a_.'„ �i 3mm3i' z,-IMyOF]M,T Sm0 dim ZY-I �'J� Om.nyA Or= r'Z= n -� �3�vv m`emy ZZDInzpO Nye L' y 90 In 0 0'>,-,MM p m C_pD VFm *� aR1��F =Z pp @@@ Z ➢��rtip D m p / zrpD Opm Fim _ �m PppF pZ zD Fy Nm p0 3 ' min O<DD - ~vD F p D p m.'� =z M. mA,°Z 1nz o Z m X � cO O O W O me o om zo g si m m F -i3 p OD D0 3 _O Gpl O H �� O Z y FZ Z N O D f• j ZZ m AO 00 N n;p Hm z A z p �:Pf {/ rti ... y Z D m O ,n y Oir �x py m °Nn m� v� ° = HMO vO>Oy 0p$ m C qmm�y� r 81 } , rvFmN -u ° � oo gS� Qo=` ~ ON mZ mO00 g� 341E ^° ^ Ill w i °zA aF ~F rA m ,(:• "i 9� °Nx z5F min 9P, f N N D ° =off =oz aa° °D9a m 2 p� zm p nr sam _•. o.0 = --.') m 9_ N3a A =- < m m oyn gay =�Pm op > sus $ m pa- goon i _ � om Fay 9�F XJ• _ a 3 m c O Z-8 c} % A ➢0 yNA i M. ° - 'M °o m> o m o € m cn D i m i, 'i -• O Z oomo Soxm m m -om o s O z S a M. O n p__ °omx O Z{ Z °m R x gLY r 7J §6 Oyi ; x1 1 ,> 1-1.1, ..v v O y .1 95 ° � 2ol _ ___. ___._ _ ,77)? � m�� C m$ n x my m F om H1NON a HIT -u gS� Qo=` mo $A3 Z 1. g� 341E ^° ^ Ill w i ,77)? � GGGGG G< 4�vW - n�000 HO x90 fan, c a (CUFF R_oa.- m MN "lt o sLLz MAN ee zAa _L t_ am __ a�s : . i a NORTH 9 3N Imam.- paiaami m�pm 5,- g o ri m� . � •� � ii �.. ;m i o - jm P _ � o _u giv. 2A o m[ �$ � "m - - m 6m5 R � �o£D g � H H Asa F ��r �og $ � �e 1 i — "6 s� .r ">� �� . _ --- �_~ _ ' g a ll,i • •li"•ba'(>-1 e•` E1 - - --- H I ��i ��D � V vGNM �- � ia 9— ; ini � D zao� _ ?�� p [W [ [w u ° / I, sm�o � ocn u 'ti ' � 7;J ift � l,� �/I - - �� py g " � s � V v 7 � = m • sz 9 1 '[ m GI " 'w S n � 12 r � 4 t> sr . �a3 J 1 g „ Z , .•�i� i � C ir% m �oms,D n ey ; w p5 � ZZ 9 r_ lmO i D E z bi�i - / D e.� _ Ai A m r_ O � D Z -� C D m D c -2 r 'mm z Z PRELIM. UTILITY PLAN a o a� r — — RIJwa m� sLSL DRIVE — p--- q---- p--- q---- /--- \-- - -� —�� x #9P• q, A. m � A. q§ � F % t® !! ;` ) \ \� m ; \ ) } j \ { \g / Z� 5) cl) : � � il/ Z. ` 7 o § (\ � ,. )\ \9 „ ° 2 2 § \ m I I A jEKJOW-a� m ; \ ) } j \ { \g / Z� 5) cl) : � � il/ 0 oz o W'51'35"E 2�3.95 2 LO Mk- 9 -a 31 T o. om on, ql 41�1 WHN1�ot H., C, -i H p Ch ?k, z gg 21 00 To Houv. Ian'Ssg``F 7 I / ¢�`\d�0� � �'...� 9 - �"y�n� —_ y�l�� ut 10 C. Rig! Ct) z • 20 tie rdz m 9 AH ne z > m G) U) , om _u m om z te tv LO F8. 0 0 _< C: 2. N z IH NONVG�Il 50'32'48"W 2624.67 CC, ",F R P, e,� � V WW� a ° O�a� swvrm z To �Pp�oAO� 1 r F I O �ga o$� r � � I O I o 80 Sm�gg� iooygo� " 0�8 P deg ra °O' ° 3 loll 49 DN3� °m omp� W5 °��w � m N � o m m .q .92 GgG ° St o � IB � A- rocs sm W SCI �` 1 �oae o; u i °s n z m m is eg G)i Q 'w O z D IAJ ofie: Ni A m r O ; D - -i r x z - 1 D r 1 r F I O r � � I O I o O x c A 3- o0,�� A00 rsa 'o - im' 1� 'e �— o�M,ol10 ' 3z &ae`JxVYE e+ P a A ��r w`'r W v , eoe oP wIA' a o; � y x .% 7n LY � �° 4 O� Ys�n ie •9/ Co Hog os "om� u'eJ ,Woo ern O ee Fg T � •\ �roiso _ � car �Y >, ox � z — I �P(N) - -9 LO a L,Os,o e LO e o rf DLO' zw, R= xn mss ,{" eo rasa CUaLO. � G� O AF o / ° nF 4 Y w w �!/nlrlICl -1 \I C- -1711 1 gz,)|g2S \ \ § $ / \ § $ /) „ 4`1 � \\ \7 \( \\ \j �\ \f ) > ) z 4 \ / } M / 0 A ( z � ) j § M g \ 2 G & A PRELIM. TREE REMOVAL PLAN � { i � I :�- �$'° _q_, _.. {_•___-- ____"� � — - °�±; �.."' ' s aN% /. � 'Y� s it _ _ ( I I� ��- _ =5��' �i �. -R� �Z'�'�S�k -r -1 -�� •° `- �� y `�/7 j� � iI I ' I Epp, p Ely �knum pm=m W�¢ MID s� a NIL Ng ,n v � a � � � / � ��fi y_ - xtJ ! - -� �. � � \ .• I � 1,11 , _ _ HI � �g �r I e I %eI v "g\ fia'Y �$ sl'' ;,4e 111HRI /* r r I (:' `� r ohs _.�"y -tyf ,/` g� t _•I �II I I II r I Vol o- i- i 15 yz ��4J• S /- j \ - s /nli I x �, tll ly Evz it '�I • - I �\ �� .�,�G,%iix �;.� '�I � ,�zl I _ I I I gi P1 ccf) /_ r RIX- t% - -` i�, `.y�- -�� _0.4ti `„ -�1 _� ^.��4�i._�•�'Cti\ i '7r III ii x v M, t \ 00, �1 1_ AV- TO R 10, { -� r o I � t f � ee fn lIt - u� ; MAE INS lg + � �R � ° w s1 D r e o mm 110-r' 35" -)5 -,ez 'j:A R IR M W4? Ig V A "I"T'nn me-6 1A HN xl 6- F j"I j K� 00 AP IT, 9 u g 92, P !—N 10 M I'M M WE A A �-r Al A PATI1. tt 4 Ct) z j Ou N ij m A pi Z m z > 7r m G) P, 0 z + �z, :T79 T x, — 1-4L 9F m Im m -u T 20' PARK IMPACT BUFFER z "{--- - - - - -- A - - - -J ee ,ill 1/ -�_ -3 p X14G �. I�� I ' - __ L _I �i o I 21. 5 a � � Ill LT1 °' jj� Ll lid =- III YAP v, m MOD paw lip At � A °�z'"C�O �. 11 In. 3 1 /l " �' %aa"�.'P X �7 �'�+' /n� V %•� �j�%% � �/ /r ' Nm 1I�., G / a�. 5. 'jam - ,/ r i'•'�'s /ka /`\� ✓ / �.� )/I { m= i I : -- _ � � r'i a � ..;•�� j / .�� \ \��JJ4�I✓✓� /� J�i ,...`r // T%��9' _.6�� i�y!��Jy�� /�� / /�� A i /lZ{� —...& it AT qA oz moo ; � 6- •�I� ��'� 7S �/r / // } / r r ,r� r/ _ � /J .� Z' �\�\ h'i�. �o —f A �/ yFy ffi x Jr � � $lI E x �a, t a . I I REi NO w APA s ,n ®0� Y—A i+ -5'-s- x,. / /x z m Wn r, Z I�r a _ ( 3s g�. •.� x _ D m M ( T v z - = 20 PARK IMPACT BUFFER v ( 1) 1-k -6 .RAM Gi OR WIMP . . . A T T go o . . M 6 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - W 0 . . --- - --------------------------------------- . . .. . . . . . --------------- ---- ttldlhalll �6 f2. A 1� IT - P M ae� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9�*M'ffik`&80 El P, F .Xg T T ----------------- H A 3.� -- ------------ -h-I'll, f w m Hp MNg A 6 tH ; t -III-11111 C5 Y.Y a Cn 03 M ;u G) .,o z m z > m G) (/) > OZ 0 m m ;u m O ( 1) 1-k -6 HIVH M2 mg�a0 dg's �E sso .. f a mz W ;m s� �p -1 3 ZD (Y) D OZ D � m m z D { O D m m TA m _ 0 0 D "O Z xr xa'C8aYBa38 ®898xE 9.0yaYbaY.Y:.aaYaa ®9Sd PaWaBa #tlxaYtla °x bR LBGL �4= 6xaa'aa Y.a dakaaVaIXYtlWMaumawG: aa= 'omm.mu.u.,_fq' _$ YYYY N YY.YYY YY YYNY YYYY:YYYNXXYYYYYYYY Y. YYY YYYYY..YXYYYY.YY.YY.YN.YYNNXa Bi$8i$$8$$.8i$$i $ i8i3T$.ia S SSSSS$SSSSBSSSS3SSSSS ?SSSSSS SS SSS S.SSS S'S SS S.SSS.S SS SSS SS SS.SSSSST.S SSS S.S SSSSSS 94¢ss9z44a99_4i44sYRiE YiY 4E Y¢4iiz4iii i499eAisizis44949izsiii4Y ¢Y ZO AZ Z44 dd 3.3 %3aa .�.3 dgg �.d'8gga.•3e3d3gggg 8....3 &e..8&&8 S .d3& li�� a 3B3 �3n 3$Cp`3'g8a mm INN In -1A 1e��m� a IMMMIM�I�mmm�FmeA � WRIMINIM l��IeOWN � MR AA AA A111 I SN � � N D I�� v � 5N'#tla5tl °. a 5ffi!!tSGtlmtliasa �A�BSe�e��eeeee�ee��Ae�e�e�ee�eeeeS�e��B�e��es��e� � � �I�IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIII�I�II�II��II�I�IIIIIIIII��I��I�I��III - °Li�uui V4 .. aaaaa a as ;:.aaaa r,a "YYYLYYYYYYYYY YY YYCY:Y �"a'Y D $ D n 8 o F3.SS.3SSSiS3 ?zzazzzzaz6zzziz :: :: : ::: : 1111 111 MINIPUMP ��I�I��11��N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111 1 IIIIIAISAl1111S1A1111611511111111111111111111111111111111AASllllllllasllINN IIIIw loll 11III 11111111s11111111111A111111111111111UNIOAl1A111111111sS1111A1 llllsllle 1111I11111111s xa'C8aYBa38 ®898xE 9.0yaYbaY.Y:.aaYaa ®9Sd PaWaBa #tlxaYtla °x bR LBGL �4= 6xaa'aa Y.a dakaaVaIXYtlWMaumawG: aa= 'omm.mu.u.,_fq' _$ YYYY N YY.YYY YY YYNY YYYY:YYYNXXYYYYYYYY Y. YYY YYYYY..YXYYYY.YY.YY.YN.YYNNXa Bi$8i$$8$$.8i$$i $ i8i3T$.ia S SSSSS$SSSSBSSSS3SSSSS ?SSSSSS SS SSS S.SSS S'S SS S.SSS.S SS SSS SS SS.SSSSST.S SSS S.S SSSSSS 94¢ss9z44a99_4i44sYRiE YiY 4E Y¢4iiz4iii i499eAisizis44949izsiii4Y ¢Y ZO AZ Z44 dd 3.3 %3aa .�.3 dgg �.d'8gga.•3e3d3gggg 8....3 &e..8&&8 S .d3& ®36�$6Y9b T®$ ®�a9Ye�_B2ii�.�Y:,']p'9d B ®3.�PE9d ° ®�pCCgY��5t48 d C�GT Pa= 6.tltl:Nap AU ?KAItltl�P'Y Eiq yGmmGmu.Gu- 668SA�88G 96�s 3 '3333�8$�33333 is 33333333 3 33YYYYYYYYYYYYY YYY'YK..YYYXYYYYY YK'lY YY YYY.YYY NY YY YkYXYY X.K YYY YY Y YYYY g_ g€ jg( g��g��g��g�g�e�� ,��g €g$azzzazzzzzzz zzzze zzzzzzxzzz�zzzzatzzzzzczezzazzzzzzzszzzzzzszzzSz yy y Yyyyyy yyy y yyyyyyyyy gggggggg ggggRa9Ygg9 gg9 gga 9gg¢949'gg4 4.¢3399 p'9994gg4 gg4 paagg¢gg4 E9949gg4 g9 9 gg9 ggea¢9ggR49ggR Ra¢gg¢g9 3d33d?d 37( ?iid3id3$ii?d 3 ??d?ddi3iii33d9d3 �3g33 ? ?iid i3?79 ?iid as aaeaaaxxxeeaa aaa aanaaaaaa..e enxaaa' 8 g gAx d ,iFRaaa 33 $ 4 �3A pi a �.ii �.��3 4i i 333 li�� a 3B3 �3n 3$Cp`3'g8a S 1 � MR I SN � � N D I�� v � 5N'#tla5tl °. a 5ffi!!tSGtlmtliasa �A�BSe�e��eeeee�ee��Ae�e�e�ee�eeeeS�e��B�e��es��e� - °Li�uui V4 .. aaaaa a as ;:.aaaa r,a "YYYLYYYYYYYYY YY YYCY:Y �"a'Y D $ D n 8 o F3.SS.3SSSiS3 ?zzazzzzaz6zzziz INA 1 IIIIIAISAl1111S1A1111611511111111111111111111111111111111AASllllllllasllINN ®36�$6Y9b T®$ ®�a9Ye�_B2ii�.�Y:,']p'9d B ®3.�PE9d ° ®�pCCgY��5t48 d C�GT Pa= 6.tltl:Nap AU ?KAItltl�P'Y Eiq yGmmGmu.Gu- 668SA�88G 96�s 3 '3333�8$�33333 is 33333333 3 33YYYYYYYYYYYYY YYY'YK..YYYXYYYYY YK'lY YY YYY.YYY NY YY YkYXYY X.K YYY YY Y YYYY g_ g€ jg( g��g��g��g�g�e�� ,��g €g$azzzazzzzzzz zzzze zzzzzzxzzz�zzzzatzzzzzczezzazzzzzzzszzzzzzszzzSz yy y Yyyyyy yyy y yyyyyyyyy gggggggg ggggRa9Ygg9 gg9 gga 9gg¢949'gg4 4.¢3399 p'9994gg4 gg4 paagg¢gg4 E9949gg4 g9 9 gg9 ggea¢9ggR49ggR Ra¢gg¢g9 3d33d?d 37( ?iid3id3$ii?d 3 ??d?ddi3iii33d9d3 �3g33 ? ?iid i3?79 ?iid as aaeaaaxxxeeaa aaa aanaaaaaa..e enxaaa' 8 g gAx d ,iFRaaa 33 $ 4 �3A pi a �.ii �.��3 4i i 333 tltltl9tl.Ttltl. tla tltl¢4tlitltltltl3.tl tltl "aTtl tltl tltl9atltlTtlag atltl tltl tl @7tltltla.Y aT.0 Tea= itltltltltl�tltltl dtltltltltlatltl5tlmmye "G Taayotltl Stltl?tltl�.�g`` aga ff53@ Y53533€58¢3¢8aS Y85F8¢8588¢8:5P 5�yAB p B.5e 5 §38g$a "az'Y z :z'YiYz.6'd z Yz.Y z '3Y6z:zY z z .zYz:zYzYz�S�Sz- �:6349- zdz- �- : -iilit z�g � 6 8¢8.1853553'.13 11l8 g5 HIM! 3735.8 3 5.68i 3�4 5 5 -FS 8 ¢R i 53 i .£S S [3 i ¢3i8 � $3Ya 58S�8�858S6a S Y8 C p3S�i5i5�i ¢8 i�q3�$ 91��;ayasssyY yy_ y yy r yyyy x3 asxaeaaeaaaanaauaaaaaaaeeaaaxaaexaaxaaaeaaased i$8338668633a86� 3338'36. 8383�$a3assx 3 3 YYYYY Y..Y Y. YN" Y.YY NY Y.Y. YYYYYYYY333.] $$$.$$6.88.8 33393 1'!x.336363 ?g3i e637 ?366 p9e.aao 3366333636733 336666 d736 ?6733636lil�ly lgq$�,3¢g�id;.;:,a „I.i 11 a 3B3 �3n 3$Cp`3'g8a A��AAAeeee� SN � � N D I�� v � 5N'#tla5tl °. a 5ffi!!tSGtlmtliasa �A�BSe�e��eeeee�ee��Ae�e�e�ee�eeeeS�e��B�e��es��e� - °Li�uui V4 .. aaaaa a as ;:.aaaa r,a "YYYLYYYYYYYYY YY YYCY:Y �"a'Y D $ D n 8 o F3.SS.3SSSiS3 ?zzazzzzaz6zzziz INA IIIIIAISAl1111S1A1111611511111111111111111111111111111111AASllllllllasllINN llllsllle 1111I11111111s tltltl9tl.Ttltl. tla tltl¢4tlitltltltl3.tl tltl "aTtl tltl tltl9atltlTtlag atltl tltl tl @7tltltla.Y aT.0 Tea= itltltltltl�tltltl dtltltltltlatltl5tlmmye "G Taayotltl Stltl?tltl�.�g`` aga ff53@ Y53533€58¢3¢8aS Y85F8¢8588¢8:5P 5�yAB p B.5e 5 §38g$a "az'Y z :z'YiYz.6'd z Yz.Y z '3Y6z:zY z z .zYz:zYzYz�S�Sz- �:6349- zdz- �- : -iilit z�g � 6 8¢8.1853553'.13 11l8 g5 HIM! 3735.8 3 5.68i 3�4 5 5 -FS 8 ¢R i 53 i .£S S [3 i ¢3i8 � $3Ya 58S�8�858S6a S Y8 C p3S�i5i5�i ¢8 i�q3�$ 91��;ayasssyY yy_ y yy r yyyy x3 asxaeaaeaaaanaauaaaaaaaeeaaaxaaexaaxaaaeaaased i$8338668633a86� 3338'36. 8383�$a3assx 3 3 YYYYY Y..Y Y. YN" Y.YY NY Y.Y. YYYYYYYY333.] $$$.$$6.88.8 33393 1'!x.336363 ?g3i e637 ?366 p9e.aao 3366333636733 336666 d736 ?6733636lil�ly lgq$�,3¢g�id;.;:,a „I.i 11 �~ l U ao.�.�oo Ip u = a c a 3B3 �3n 3$Cp`3'g8a Y � � N D I�� v � 5N'#tla5tl °. a 5ffi!!tSGtlmtliasa - °Li�uui V4 .. aaaaa a as ;:.aaaa r,a "YYYLYYYYYYYYY YY YYCY:Y �"a'Y D $ D n 8 o F3.SS.3SSSiS3 ?zzazzzzaz6zzziz INA �~ l U ao.�.�oo Ip u = a c Ro 9 3 °� an S Q Se P - :!s_8 2 R c aR 8 a zm NORTH c' as is 56 IF offp T aaaaa $ p�oq °m �Am3�po5 mm � mm ��.g �a - m �� z�oo m git a os? I�8��`d 3Wsgas. �. ag �` � �a r.<� e S 5pD z 1 Hu of �iZ q h (n sa s W cg y�i� £ 4 �x G) as cc 8 s a U5 e ¢ Q) > i OZ D A m r A ` e ' a ajN e g ism m= g €* !22, ' > ?a' p- a ^� $a$ Hgin ° " Fa d ss'€ sx u ' a �a =a z oD a < : 9 9 0 en g; ^ a�a ;off :a = �on� =$' ao` m�a =m °ism P$ s °o �a= €'^ ?� dug a s g A. nn 8 ]A €S & mggy a m'n ^ «R 3� A. F °F4 VCo H- a 4p a^ a °$ �' ^a5 Wig, �7m. o NroP 8mm &�� aH- of Rom yg�� e$e a ? g 3� � 34° a �R7 O AT f � yaao a-U %; °.`sm a o 9� °� a =': S. A 'P �_ $sue °m In = o m s oa o 'gy m ^,° 7aRm 3�nz ea, es� ��m 2 a; °�.i; _ F a " ga =2= 9 S m s a oK.gs "gQ og' o °�s ag Fme a a° ^u§ a �o 9 g[ s s° a .Q ^a s =mss ^N mo R3P ,g ~ €gip �a^ A H, yap no la xn a$pF ^A 9.n cS,=,^ s r = s ° o ag R'" t °aa4g.a VP i� f<A ��' ��` � m$ '� P zs s 22 6 _q a °sa " km $ r` F °' m Aga a«;? °aRo ao I'd °� as lo � �,:� PRELIM. MITIGATION PLAN a 1 _ P �d Ro 9 3 °� an S Q Se P - :!s_8 2 R c aR 8 a zm NORTH c' as is 56 IF offp T aaaaa $ p�oq °m �Am3�po5 mm � mm ��.g �a - m �� z�oo m git a os? I�8��`d 3Wsgas. �. ag �` � �a r.<� e S 5pD z 1 Hu of �iZ q h (n sa s W cg y�i� £ 4 �x G) as cc 8 s a U5 e ¢ Q) > i OZ D A m r A ` e ' a ajN e g ism m= g €* !22, ' > ?a' p- a ^� $a$ Hgin ° " Fa d ss'€ sx u ' a �a =a z oD a < : 9 9 0 en g; ^ a�a ;off :a = �on� =$' ao` m�a =m °ism P$ s °o �a= €'^ ?� dug a s g A. nn 8 ]A €S & mggy a m'n ^ «R 3� A. F °F4 VCo H- a 4p a^ a °$ �' ^a5 Wig, �7m. o NroP 8mm &�� aH- of Rom yg�� e$e a ? g 3� � 34° a �R7 O AT f � yaao a-U %; °.`sm a o 9� °� a =': S. A 'P �_ $sue °m In = o m s oa o 'gy m ^,° 7aRm 3�nz ea, es� ��m 2 a; °�.i; _ F a " ga =2= 9 S m s a oK.gs "gQ og' o °�s ag Fme a a° ^u§ a �o 9 g[ s s° a .Q ^a s =mss ^N mo R3P ,g ~ €gip �a^ A H, yap no la xn a$pF ^A 9.n cS,=,^ s r = s ° o ag R'" t °aa4g.a VP i� f<A ��' ��` � m$ '� P zs s 22 6 _q a °sa " km $ r` F °' m Aga a«;? °aRo ao I'd °� as lo � �,:� PRELIM. MITIGATION PLAN Qj ins' V $ u cj • a , v � y �K § Q^e � i SVa I �_ � \V � >� T �� ,• L 1. ,� -'y I,y'.g ;; 3 �., I� I fj Ml- :~ a y ' COE t ( N� p _ INFICTgATI� � l < 1 4 / � (: #€ p a1 C ' yes �� 11 :�+ •jam t =F r mx I Hg ta ^�^ s¢val _ISV[911 ' \ - 1` \ flJ. �3P Q I � • \�3 \ l ` 1 0 2 �. CO O Z `� � j � S u pM W ne -y �O - �• Z apL��114� �+ g. _ � N .lsl D ° oy D> D - - ti "s s a=t e n - ,yam >^-�•_„_ -n - x D r a W ___ r -_� � ` -- 7 ' I -- •.- - Imo_ - ____ - ___._ � zn 5i)c,yi p o H�g` - -" �� °7P i/ _ ��) y9 gyp'` � _h l �' f✓3! ;� I( +V, %s `!' •� % +' mm � �• \: I \ � e \_t �glpl FF t` 4 s niw c .Gen F6 «� � m � w / r� � � � -� o° N / - r = / w o�A - e.% � ro" ' ��`�. ,� �'�, .• E n5�o� -01 pw PATH Aw (nA }� � / �� '✓ ¢r t� �? £� � � 1 y . I � jia' a ';Ip`q� �f �p @`° I I � z m WT r r _— ol �5 -- y9 r = m -_w jr z (n �t�.e-,yy�- ,,�arS4??' ��€- `e�.tls_,. a�.v >� 'A��}q�y, (A fr£ dd�'�AG•�Q= b4 y.}g -=p.- > ,� E �e j F ai x{23 3 J'o L.'* -L�' N: -IIH NONWHAl Wiz}-- - � Woo:© W �o g3� � � I I I 1 -- ig —r {rgq � III I L -° 6 �♦ .p . I I I I w yJ \x� 3 HUHHH. + F off._ - � �'— as ` I I J ICA 'p r Q 7 ; pA'F ?g. L '� - 0 °- `may J, , �'� ,� , , % a _ AD ° �i3z90 I x' :0� F ? \C t\ i. -,� S/- 3.D / ^ _ ?s f w - I�.r a •x / yn A: I '_ I�+I vI ° lot �u .t jo is8 L ( c° .o I .i�. �m 1� �� IV mo -tom 8 o � vt. i ," G` , a z7 t i ly S f W co m D Ml O m O sm,#`'A� - D w q i�'' rid i` R2 D R�r � I + x €o -•a 5 3=Sn Bx E 3c s a "p;o�'om Ra a.�3 ME w U� nof' 3 REg9C R C in�y G 8 � Ag o 3339 11 rR zi 3 ° f�N��v SSa °aR E S� I ag- 6 Vg- =s x�xx�inw�xY r��wF m� �CO X jm ;m �p n C _ (n n Z fl1 = �Y I< D Z - A �m 3 AD K D c � jx m 0 < Z N Q DoD 2 o m n co m 00 Z r w 4': ° 8 ,rij a 0 A 9 $ NORTH o k e m a Ir T C p - $:.` - ` -q ug-i "' "' p__> ° - ;� > as , ; o n£o A' ; p g es ^ €^- ". „;s = a� ° $z ;r = „g c, m a F U n V a '�a v - -n �u , € Rx a P °° 0 >4 sus 7 e z ° [ JR � o3 ..tai � >3 a� gal =gdN � m w�N��n 8K £= o�� gym” °'_._� 48 "°9' � =^A"^ 468 :g - �m ^F F � ^2 Z�i ' '� A. f�Tl 3 N Ala ;g m° ` a�sg" °�, 'r° z m �ma E$g =' ^` =geg �°$ _ Fg g �� a 9 o x 9� mix �;o a.,. F q�zo,a m;o ^s °a n m° � sF Nth e x ` m =3 `gF qt J> yrRs 3a .. .. z <. E"g X832 C' _< _^ m b� �. ' �@ a = 2n mm4 Y; kga $ ig. ,°> a. o = a a "a� h9 a ass a�n= a= z m€ e n a� z m :a _§ a Ej Go a= F £ a a�g ° asp? 2 =�m �z � „a ,�' £mho °�= is ?[ � o 2g i viy �� ^� ^ =o aoo; Ro mD; Zo z ao :� "?s !y ^a 7 o F 9' u �3�a sag hasp; -� `° PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN cu IN, `� % � '-,.dam• —`: + I r l I NORTH o k e m a Ir T C p - $:.` - ` -q ug-i "' "' p__> ° - ;� > as , ; o n£o A' ; p g es ^ €^- ". „;s = a� ° $z ;r = „g c, m a F U n V a '�a v - -n �u , € Rx a P °° 0 >4 sus 7 e z ° [ JR � o3 ..tai � >3 a� gal =gdN � m w�N��n 8K £= o�� gym” °'_._� 48 "°9' � =^A"^ 468 :g - �m ^F F � ^2 Z�i ' '� A. f�Tl 3 N Ala ;g m° ` a�sg" °�, 'r° z m �ma E$g =' ^` =geg �°$ _ Fg g �� a 9 o x 9� mix �;o a.,. F q�zo,a m;o ^s °a n m° � sF Nth e x ` m =3 `gF qt J> yrRs 3a .. .. z <. E"g X832 C' _< _^ m b� �. ' �@ a = 2n mm4 Y; kga $ ig. ,°> a. o = a a "a� h9 a ass a�n= a= z m€ e n a� z m :a _§ a Ej Go a= F £ a a�g ° asp? 2 =�m �z � „a ,�' £mho °�= is ?[ � o 2g i viy �� ^� ^ =o aoo; Ro mD; Zo z ao :� "?s !y ^a 7 o F 9' u �3�a sag hasp; -� `° PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 s a / P18,099 v VP eel /. \.r g,�y 1 ' �- Ch go ov '� T �� 4 F\ — moo: � -� r � � -! X1'•1 �f 1 co Em W "� N —12 \ 1W \ I 1 -. '-,� f 1 a _ onM o I i, x 1 S m W CJ �. 6 a'lvil Iniasl to ,S— --Pr am n - ' m _ ° m z n - r 3 rm W o �e w �a r a.j°• 02ANNS 9 Ag�gy� s i= / iAl i IIJ / SA I ki 0 €S I t r 1/ a CIZ v"i r - ZV �3v� I� I r� Ao m� �•sq C. / / � (/ t` � "�� YS r.i" I � q• gig -�-� � �` - -t•• ,� F.T • ��.� `Y v = ,. I / v rro /_r "sr- / I p >na ,;� r fl i 't� �/ i �4 ^fpq •ti r x°' � .� �g5 s I. � I � @ dr I 1 ,. / � / p • � 4�� :� �j`r � i��o- � —� ' / .�o�; �i C'•� - .L I -I � I I 7jl i i,� $ mi�� ! t/� 1 I 0. I Dial, I N t 11 I 1 _ I �' a � / to y� � �• / 1�',-fi f I ur $� I '_ an z cn D / .c� "..r �i'a.+°`' oz Z -- - _�--' ca Ljll r�\ -I z 'DD cp - I waa s_oi �, �. _ �r ' _ �•. / J� co ZL Z >i{i{ n: "1IH N0NH8-� -- -— W �e �z l w. # SA I ki 0 €S I t r 1/ a CIZ v"i r - ZV �3v� I� I r� Ao m� �•sq C. / / � (/ t` � "�� YS r.i" I � q• gig -�-� � �` - -t•• ,� F.T • ��.� `Y v = ,. I / v rro /_r "sr- / I p >na ,;� r fl i 't� �/ i �4 ^fpq •ti r x°' � .� �g5 s I. � I � @ dr I 1 ,. / � / p • � 4�� :� �j`r � i��o- � —� ' / .�o�; �i C'•� - .L I -I � I I 7jl i i,� $ mi�� ! t/� 1 I 0. I Dial, I N t 11 I 1 _ I �' a � / to y� � �• / 1�',-fi f I ur $� I '_ an z cn D / .c� "..r �i'a.+°`' oz Z -- - _�--' ca Ljll r�\ -I z 'DD cp - I waa s_oi �, �. _ �r ' _ �•. / J� co ZL Z >i{i{ n: "1IH N0NH8-� -- -— W �e � t I I I I E ° 1 1 6 I \ I 14r s� I ill �`i � IMF �`�ii �. msr,+�A �� ' 1 Ii•_ � 11 T. d U"o8Mas j �� <'� }5� a�';�i` \�� •' " /d> / 740;;, / / s -/, ' °� ° °r�pS RAI w a \ G �� ` ice, '`> =J-- -� �pl k ' �• gE .•w �, R o�>$.v i° yi �. �$`� o� IfI _�` 1` 1 dP $ /�.s�- : °'ii� 1 id iL • � ' _Z aOay �+'" 1 II o•e 5oe I .<r w � 5// � _� l re � �: +/ p sg /.Pw /��( ' DIN . L� `b rf3�C $. %° i/ r,_• ��4 W 11 it s;. � ( � � / o� � II no fv ��- .•�� G- rSR � /, � 1 fTl Ii __ ' i' `s"-i w� QO ;II w 4t i� Z ITI 1 1 , -/ O ♦\ Ob fl�o s 1 I V : �\ r7 -.I T �F� .y" m G7 I I '�"' n D 1 - o' 1° � � r,_� m W - o LLB_,_. �.L ��••4...,r °jIL __J —_'ta_ ' \ �- 1, __ w -..a.. �s _l� zD o r ' I — 1\4NI —j -i I c� 5ti3 rHLLIIM. PLANTING PLAN (COMBINED) 0,58 Mb I --------------------- i H ung rMT mamwm . 1VOR2111 Ulu 1HI.-I-M 11 H _21 N_AK 1"Hw — ... o HERB M S1 in, M Hm Him ins .......... Hol 9 RA MTV Am M ET sm Cn . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 jz Z > 1; 16 IN of N! is! 1pf; w1i IN - I � � *18 out -1 fill wdi 1 MPH% MR. his P2 Wd 04 No 51 Up! 12 0 . Z jj ED c W MT co q— - 1 0 M US 0 gx -A p VON E F NO I ON P0 in, il 16 �. g 1 1 oil KX:% SE iq Q IS MH cm T 1 N U 1 Ins M 01 hi Sh U1 Eli M 2 i pool W BM ig !9 1 1.9 110 or it H g w TV Mb I --------------------- i H ung rMT mamwm . 1VOR2111 Ulu 1HI.-I-M 11 H _21 N_AK 1"Hw — ... o HERB M S1 in, M Hm Him ins .......... Hol 9 RA MTV Am M ET sm Cn . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 0 jz Z > 1; 16 IN of N! is! 1pf; w1i IN - I � � *18 out -1 fill wdi 1 MPH% MR. his P2 Wd 04 No 51 Up! 12 0 . Z jj ED c W MT co q— - 1 0 M US 0 gx -A p VON E F NO I ON P0 in, il 16 �. g 1 1 oil KX:% SE iq Q IS MH cm T 1 N U 1 Ins M 01 hi Sh U1 Eli M 2 i pool W BM ig !9 1 1.9 110 or it H g w TV r4 Oa I I —40 72 —47 F" J!'. ml NR A 011 o 03 H rp 15 (7) C) z m z > m G) (n > 0 z -W mm �Xn EA m IL -Yz mom- o co IF, w -u M cn g P 3�s , ° °_ °e °-- o qz H prHOW 'Ile P! P9,9929 �..,:, /� ,w ft: r. -,��' ti I 11 Sbgl / y•' $� s �r _ J .• 11 gg 7P r -k 1 f`o -tom` a @ . I I ro + 41 s z i• E - � -� ruaiy r / to / /! Pl- - `� /1 / � & i 1 i4 I w I I =• \!u % 4 t I \ 4� 5 z } / <. -Coll AD �� $ I I £a g- o 'aimt o@ I ice' 4 e zu9' Ai rp m £ r{ s / ii agwI�i Its L� it3 j y II' h,u�oy r /A.� MW 7 lip ZW ki zm b0 // •L r§ i W Iy I I �1 �._ -� 1.. T m ja 7k HPI ca z wB f�(yfl y C m o U�IH NONIh8A - -- m vh- o ANN m � i S m� m S / o F nm , ,0 a � 1 C i z 5 I i Z D Z mD i OZ � D I1tI r D D m j Ooz D S � � � O n D ='m C W C D o s 1 W [moo En a JS RVA ° 1€ x° 1 10 w' i i` i 1 1c: ° I— sir Jll g e � f � A bha "o& 11 pit '.m i / J"r4ID >. -_' �0j r. ,)r i;• Wr,� i.\ to I men W_ / / ' It s..O CID t c/ <n� � €'� Sul �\ �,.� �� .� �i l•, c `� r �+ -�� I N /� �S � IL � _ � " " I ,1 �0.. , I _ UP ' g 1 I y 0 S I I e" ,I 0 \ 1\ I\-/ I __1 \4 \ I n I C) - -I 1 1!20 UP A- Z, M MR-K, HN Z5- 92- A 9J"HH, O CD 0 PT A -qF PU I 0 -0 0 1 E�l In N TfT K T MIi A ias .1 9 .-� 0 fy A0 12' C/) Na „= 0 0 9 co Q m ;u m zi o Mffi Z> rn z (n m G) > OZ 0 T X m 0 y > Z C) _Gm >1 J(OL--)- oaia$p^ mmo��o a��oo�g �3 m�E P t �D m= om m ;m p u� �z �n Z fl cn D ^ OZ u D o ;rl D O X D� 'D Z ,o �g NORTH -- r - -• -- I X I I i r ____ _ rah I__ 3 c •I _ I I I ,s �• I f i' � � , 16 I 5 C L- - - - -- 8 ae - I u a m r, I I rLrLLSrJJJ�' ---- --------- II I 1 ED `0' 11 I � - 1z 10 \ rs ' A gg°E° ° °• r °°oa �0000� o xgo�s -iz �yo �yA^n D � cz°r .Pi in �oD u nol'�� PRELIM. PARK & OPEN SPACE PLAN WPM- il cr) 2 r--( (Z) lu 11 k W! . ............. \ ` \ �� ('o 1-1 ) \ \/ ,!L P3.1 l!ulcjns NARRATIVE MZ �g to LU I- Lo ce DAK,OTA O&S rAT H \�\ \ \ \\ 0 'q- Is" \\ \ \ \�\\ O&S rAT H DAK,OTA FATH D(D (,a r. 615 lk tr 4,4 ci 5j Yj Pj yj rl —s" cS ic. D(D (,a C- t 4 E -- 1E U rr a ve DAK,OTA A V3 'g: g; C- t 4 E -- 1E U rr a ve DAK,OTA ;j E�j A r� 41 U ti tZ tz; FATH O Ip C� p t4 D(0 9 V3 'g: g; ;j E�j A r� 41 U ti tZ tz; FATH O Ip C� p t4 D(0 9 O GJ ri O �u ,j\ 61 r r (1 1) 0 DAI�OTA PATH 0(-02 to 7E, E Ig 6' 7- F5 tp bp 15 I.-i 2 0 0 F- 4" P C S- j < 0 2 d u 0(-02 to IN' 61 rra/ I P C DAKOTA rATH 5, HA F5� A � T: 451 G c C. 0. '71 tn' TV 5Z S- Is- D(D� R Ag cd WJ U 0 Ko ci V Project 6- Site Detail DAKOTA IN O ro CIO 0 LR 12 I In Ln In t -2 1 1� �jj u I, Er. Project 6- Site Detail DAKOTA IN O ro CIO 0 C). q, fD 4 I• ., u I e.,a rr1 ;8 2 jp —ur nU V, CC t u I, Er. -2 -2 a Tr C). q, fD 4 I• ., u I e.,a rr1 ;8 2 jp —ur nU V, CC Project & Site Detail DAKOTA PATH D-q 1 -El 0 A41 6 J,5 n A T IS P t tj p 0 -S �5 E 9 7 P Ell Y u 7 15 0 U- S 7vj u Lp 71 P, P pj 'n '2 P-4 D-q 1 Hunter Emerson has carefully evaluated the owners' challenges, costs and effort to acquire the necessary city permits, in addition to their commitment to this tower's placement within the network. After further discussions, we have determined the importance of this location with respect to public benefit and all affected parties. We offer the following sound reasoning to support the tower remaining at its current location. ➢ The current tower owner, AT &T, and the providers leasing at this cell site have requested to remain at the existing location. They consider this a priority site essential to meet the demand for area coverage requirements without network interruption. ➢ To relocate the tower would be extremely difficult considering the vast majority of the immediate area is zoned for residential uses. Current tower setbacks, from residential property, eliminate possible sites with the same attributes; i.e. site elevation, topography. Furthermore, the time, effort and costs incurred with relocating the existing tower would be excessive. ➢ The 2003 subdivision on Grace Drive allowed for the Chapel Hill Church cell tower site CT-Mobile). The homes and tower do not meet the 300' ft. setback - the existing tower is located approximately165 ft, from the nearest residential property line. ➢ Cellular towers have become essential infrastructure necessary to provide the highest level of service for residents, businesses, and government services to meet basic daily needs to emergency circumstances. Homeland Security recognizes cell towers as critical communication infrastructure. ➢ In recentyears, a growing number of homes and businesses rely solely on cellular communication devices for phone, internet, and cable television. Hunter Emerson has so noted comments made by residents concerning their coverage needs and losing this "critical communication device ". ➢ For the past 15years, this tower has been situated amidst an active outdoor use ofgolf (37,000 rounds annually) with golfers using the immediate area around the tower. Hunter Emerson has created a site plan providing for a greater level of separation between daily activities, in addition to cell site enhancements to improve the tower's present setting. ➢ The city has allowed several types of towers and monopoles to remain in place as development continues to build closer to them. i.e. water towers, electrical transformers, street lighting and signage poles. There are several examples throughout the community where residential subdivisions have homes located in close proximity to all types of towers. ➢ The decommissioned of the 100 ft, water tower on Towerview Road, now being used solely for cellular services is located closer to homes than current cell tower setbacks. Although the tower has exhausted its use for water needs, the city of Eagan has decided to continue to maintain this tower for leasing to cellular providers to meet the demand. ➢ As noted in the 1998 and 2010 staff reports, this tower was approved with single family homes to the east and west as surrounding uses. The two uses have existed without incident for the past 15 years. Long term provisions regarding the cell site area as part of Dakota Path: Hunter Emerson will remain the fee owner of Block 4, Lot 1 and will include all necessary language within the HOA bylaws and documentation that will designate ownership rights and responsibilities of Block 4 to meet the city of Eagan's expectations. C>/ 3NI71J.?J3d0?Jd z w V- > N w O = U V w O N 0 r z 3 S b b a 0 a 0 (L o Z � n li Y �� PARK IMPACT BUFFER CONCEPT W _ o w N o O N O 3NI71J.?J3d0?Jd z w V- > N w O = U V w O N 0 r z 3 S b b a 0 a 0 (L o Z � n li Y �� PARK IMPACT BUFFER CONCEPT 311-[ I- a. w U z O U I- z w z O w U z z w z O N CD z Q IL O 0 z _O w (!7 z w z O 2 w U z z w z O 0 m s Q Q O Q D ENTRANCE MONUMENT CONCEPT Z January 24, 2012 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 RE: Dakota Path s In response to any confusion and public comments taken at the public hearing held on January 22, 2012, Hunter Emerson would like to provide the following additional information regarding the impact buffer: The impact buffer was added to the site design voluntarily and includes a variety of trees and vegetation to provide a visual buffer for both Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP)and Ohmann Park. The tree mix is dominated by conifer trees, and will achieve an 80- percent screening from adjacent park users at- grade. The City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum 15-foot rear yard setback in R -1 zoning, and the site design far exceeds the standard, providing an average of an 85 foot rear yard setback between the proposed homes and park border. Additionally, the site plan considered proposed trail uses within the LHRP Master Plan, and the average separation between the proposed trails and the proposed homes provides an average of a 250 foot separation. When compared to other subdivisions neighboring LHRP, this voluntary setback provides a very respectful distance between the homes, park border and trails within the park. Through home ownership stewarding the generous setbacks, an impact buffer, in addition to HOA bylaws restricting intrusive yard uses, the site plan promotes park users and Dakota Path residents as compatible neighbors. Please contact me if you need any additional information. Respectfully, Kurt Manley Development Director Wi J' (I) NEARBY RESOURCES — EAW Item #25 Comment: Dakota County: Dakota County staff urges the developer to uphold the commitment to create a natural buffer, such as construction a berm and /or planting conifers, along the south Park boundary. A natural buffer would help screen residences from users of the recreational trail, and would help discourage trespassing on private property by park users. Buffers also provide a visual demarcation showing the line between the homeowner properties and the park boundary, which could be an effective tool for preventing encroachment into the Park..." Response: The Impact Btcffer on the south and southeast border ofLHRP is 20 -feet wide, and is proposed to be heavily landscaped with evergreens (conifers), deciduous trees, and preservation of the existing trees. (see attached landscape plan - Figure 7). The attached landscape plan shows 100 evergreens (conifers) trees planted on the south perimeter bordering LHRP, and 92 evergreens (conifers) bordering the southeast border ofLHRP. In addition there are deciduous trees mixed in, as well as preservation of existing trees along each border. The proposed border of conifers and deciduous trees will provide an 80 percent opacity screen at- grade. Via the developer's agreement with the city, the Impact Buffer will be held in perpetuity with the following suggested restrictions (See Impact Bt ffer °Diagram Figure 8): Zone A. Will be l0 -feet wide and this area will address height restrictions. This area would restrict heights to no greater than 10 -feet, and tivoirld not allow for the removal of any of the trees identified on the landscape plan. This restriction would include flagpoles, antennas and light poles. Zone B: Is the 10 -feet that directly abcns park lured, this portion of the impact btffer- i•vould be a no- build area. Tree removal will be prohibited in this area, Zone A and Zone B together make up the total 20 -1oot Irtipact Buffer. Anv inodifica lions to the landscape plan within Zone A and Zone B ivould need to follow proper process and procedures cis identified and agreed to with the City. The existing conditions ofLHRP today do not have any trails or other activities near the southern border of the subject property. However, as identified in the comment letter, there are considerations by Dakota County to introduce more park activities in this area adjacent to the proposed project's southern boundary. The developer will work with the City to develop performance standards for the homes bordering the park in this area that would reduce the visual impact on park users. For example, limiting the types of lighting permitted on the rear° fagade of structures could be integrated into the developer's agreement, therefore helping reduce the visibility of homes to park users particularly during evening hours. Additionally, the developer shall inform all ficttcre homeowners of the intent and planning efforts that continue.for the LHRP to establish additional park uses near the southern boundary of the site. (.I) VISUAL IMPACTS — EAW Item #26 0-1 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2013 Comment: Dakota County: Dakota Path homeowners might incorrectly expect that their view of the park today will remain unchanged in the future. The County is updating their LHRP Master Plan is considering additional uses in the area that borders the southern boundary of the proposed project. Additionally, approximately 10 acres adjacent to the southern boundary is in the process of being restored to natural prairie, which requires biannual burning of the surface brush which will create a noticeable volume of smoke. Response: As identified in response (I) the developer has provided a more detailed plan for the Impact Buffer for lots along the south and southeast boundary. The developer will provide a 20 foot impact buffer that is proposed to be heavily planted with an 80 percent vegetated screen, and a 10 foot no -build buffer around the perimeter of the site bordering the park. Additionally, the developer has agreed to work with the City and County to establish performance standards for the homes bordering the park to include such considerations as exterior lighting. Further, while the County is in the process of updating their master plan, there are no trails or active areas currently in the area adjacent to the proposed project. The proposed vegetation will visually demark the boundary between the private lots and the public park land The developer will also communicate to all future residents that the park has plans to introduce additional uses to the area bordering the southern boundary of the site. yV �n (zNj a W-al Mi. P-1.) I I . rom =01 2 0,-1q 0 0 U rl, 6j) 0 :4 1-4 0 P� �n z 0 "A U- tL- n z 0 T, RECEIVED JAN 2 5 MIS ci L ♦ I co J10 i 11 L V CIZ 14 -)( c Z ME W :E • (L (Y • i 16H 5wi az HIMH �10 - H H C:) LLJ L.) LLJ ATTACHMENT "N" D Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. O UGHERTYMOLENDA �i M ® M IM Attorneys I Advisors MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney DATE: June 12, 2012 RE: Application Regarding Parkview Golf Course / Amendment to Comprehensive Guide Plan Our File No. 206 -32528 7300 West 147th Street Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 432 -3136 Phone (952) 432 -3730 Fax www.dmslib.com In response to your request, this memo addresses several questions surrounding the application by Hunter /Emerson, LLC and Parkview Golf Associates, LLC to change the land use designation of 80 acres of land from PR (Private Recreation) to LD (Low Density Residential). 1. What is the legal standard used in reviewing the Council's decision on the application? The standard of review is whether there exists a rational basis. A review is made of the record of the material and proceedings of the meetings of the City Council to determine whether the facts and stated reasons for the decision promote the general health, safety and welfare of the City. 2. Can the City forward the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review prior to its decision on the application? Yes, amendments to the Comprehensive Plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council before final approval is given by the City. 3. Can the City deny a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan following the review and approval by the Met Council? Yes, so long as the City has a rational basis for its decision, such decision can be made before or after review by the Metropolitan Council. 4. Does approving the proposed amendment to Low Density guarantee that the property will be developed in accordance with plans presently submitted by the applicant? No. Following a decision by the city council to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the City is required by statute to amend its official controls (zoning) within nine (9) months following amendment, so as not to conflict with the Low Density designation. Subsequent to a rezoning, the owner may submit any plan for approval that is consistent with the zoning. Page 2 of 3 What is the maximum residential density that could occur if the City were to approve the proposed amendment to Low Density? The actual number of residential units that could be built on the property is dependent upon the zoning classification that the City adopts. However, the maximum number for the site under the Low Density classification would be 320 residential units. 6. Can the developer submit plans that exceed the current proposal if the City rezones the property to allow for the creation of more units? Yes, as noted earlier, the developer could submit a project that complies with the zoning for the property and which does not exceed the maximum density of 320 single - family residential units. However, a project that consists of more than 250 unattached single - family dwellings requires the completion of an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) prior to the approval of such a project. 7. Can the City approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to the completion of an EAW? Yes, however, the City is prohibited from approving a project (e.g. a permit that would allow development to occur) if the mandatory threshold for an EAW is met or exceeded. Can the City require an EAW prior to approving a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment? Yes. Minnesota Rules provide the City with the discretionary authority to have an EAW prepared. Such discretion may be exercised when the nature or location of the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. While the applicant has not submitted a proposed project, approving the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would allow for the creation of a project that mandates the preparation of an EAW. 9. Do the recent lawsuits involving a proposed development of golf courses in Mendota Heights and Eagan have any bearing on the council's decision? Yes, the Supreme Court in Mendota Golf adopted the standard for reviewing a council's decision — rational basis; and in Wensmann set forth the standard to be used in a "takings claim" when the decision is made to maintain an existing Comprehensive Plan designation. Attached are summaries of both cases. 10. Are the facts in Mendota Golf consistent with the present facts? No, though the zoning of Mendota Golf's property permitted residential use, the City of Mendota Heights took the position that the designation of "Golf' under its Comprehensive Plan would not allow residential even though the zoning allowed it. In Eagan, the zoning of A (Agricultural) or P (Park) allows for residential uses under the PR (Park Recreation) Comprehensive Plan designation. Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Wills &Bauer P.A. www.dms[ib.com OUGHERTY MOLENDA Q M Q M M Attorneys I Advisors Page 3 of 3 11. Can the City maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan designation but allow for an increase of residential use of the property? Yes, the council may direct an amendment to a zoning ordinance (consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan) to provide for an increase of housing units per acre. 12. Under the existing land use designation and zoning, can the owner build twenty dwelling units on less than 80 acres and have another use on the remaining acreage? The P -Parks zoning requires each dwelling to have a minimum lot area of four acres; therefore, under the present zoning, any proposal of twenty dwelling units would need to use the full 80 acres. Under a PD (Planned Development) zoning, twenty dwellings could be placed on less than the full 80 acres, but no other use would be available for the remaining acreage. 13. In answer to a public policy question raised by some residents, does the City have the power of eminent domain to acquire the property for park purposes? Yes. Acquisition of property for park land is a recognized public purpose for the use of condemnation. Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Wills & Bauer P.A. www.dmshb.com DOUGHERTY MOLENDA Q IM 0 M [a Attorneys I Advisors ATTACHMENT "C)" Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights (January 2006) FACTS 1960 Property used as a par 3 golf course 1979 City adopts Comp Plan designating land as Golf Course 1995 Mendota Golf purchases golf course (zoning is residential (R -1)) 2002 Comp Plan remains "Golf Course:" Corresponding zoning districts are R -1, R -lA and R- 2 residential districts. In zoning districts, golf courses are conditional uses. 2003 City denies application to amend Comp Plan from "Golf Course" to "Low Density Residential" Mendota Golf sued to command an approval of the amendment. District Court concluded the denial was arbitrary and capricious. City appealed and Court of Appeals affirmed. DECISION First, the Supreme Court noted that the City acknowledged that a residential use of the property would conflict with the Comp Plan. The use allowed by the Comp Plan (golf) may be allowed as an exception (conditional use) under the zoning ordinance, however, the primary use allowed by the zoning ordinance (residential) was prohibited by the Comp Plan. The Court found that there existed a conflict between the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance, which the city was required to resolve under Minn. Stat. § 473.858. The Court then addressed whether the city abused its discretion by denying the proposed amendment. The standard of review was stated by the Court as: "We uphold a city's land use decision unless the party challenging the decision establishes that the decision is "unsupported by any rational basis relating to promoting the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." The Court found that the City had a legitimate interest in protecting open and recreational space, as well as reaffirming the historical land use designations of the property. Legitimate objectives supporting the denial were found in the Comp Plan and cited by the council. Note: The Supreme Court did not foreclose the possibility of a claim for "regulatory taking." The parties settled their dispute. Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan (July 2007) FACTS 1960's Property used as a privately -owned 18 -hole golf course Early 1990's City denied a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to permit residential development of the property 1996 Original owner of the golf course sold the property to Rahn 2001 Comprehensive Plan is updated and the property is designated as P (Parks, Open Space and Recreation). Parks, trails, open space, natural areas, athletic complexes, ice arenas and golf courses are allowed uses in the P category. The City's Comp Plan recognized Carriage Hills as a component of the City's parks and recreation system, which is described as a "public- private" partnership. 2001 The City rezones the property to P (Park); uses include camping grounds, golf courses, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and tennis courts. 2003 Rahn agrees to sell the property to Wensmann contingent upon the City reclassifying or rezoning the property to permit residential development. August 2004 City denies amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to permit residential development Wensmann and Rahn sued seeking a declaration that the City's action was arbitrary and capricious and it unreasonably affects a taking of the property without just compensation. The District Court concluded that the City's reasons for denying the Comprehensive Plan amendment were legally insufficient and ordered the City to immediately amend the Comprehensive Plan or to commence condemnation proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the City had a rational basis for denying the plan and finding the property owner had no basis for a "taking claim." DECISION The Supreme Court concluded that the property owner failed to establish that the City lacked a rational basis for its decision: finding that the City articulated several reasons for declining the amendment to the Plan, including preservation of open and recreational space, and reaffirmation of the historical land use designations; and that a disruption of surrounding neighborhoods was possible due to increased traffic (impact at Lexington and Yankee Doodle) and school overcrowding, causing a burden upon the school system. The Supreme Court then addressed the "takings claim," first noting that the purpose of the takings clause "is to ensure that the government does not require some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole." The Court analyzed whether a taking had occurred by using a Supreme Court case known as Penn Central. The analysis under Penn Central contains four components, which the Court addressed as follows: 1. Economic impact. The most appropriate method where the government chooses to maintain an existing plan designation is to determine whether the city's decision leaves any reasonable, economically viable use of the property. A land use regulation that leaves no reasonable use of the property has an unduly severe impact on the legitimate interests of the property owner (The Court could not determine on the record whether the City's denial left any reasonable use of the property.) 2. Investment - backed expectations. In examining a property owner's investment - backed expectations, the existing and permitted uses of the property when the land was acquired generally constitute the "primary expectation" of the landowner regarding the property. (The Court concluded that the investment - backed expectations favored the City. Rahn had no expectation of using the property at the time of purchase for anything other than a golf course and any losses that Rahn incurred subsequent to the purchase were the result of the general market conditions.) 3. Character of the government action. This focus is on whether the regulation is general in application or whether the burden of the application falls disproportionately on relatively few property owners. (The Court concluded the character factor favored the property owner, noting that the land use designation as extremely restrictive and aimed at things that have been considered governmental functions." The benefits of the open space provided by the golf course are widely shared throughout the community, but the costs are focused solely on the property owner. ") 4. Balancing of Factors. The final step of the takings analysis involves balancing the prior factors. (The Court concluded that the determinative factor was whether the denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment leaves the property owner with any reasonable use of the property. If a golf course is no longer an economically viable use of the property and denial of the amendment leaves no other reasonable use of the property, the City's refusal to change the designation places a substantial uncompensated burden on a single property owner.) The matter in this case was remanded to the District Court to determine whether continued use of the property as a golf course was reasonable and whether holding or selling the property for investment purposes was a reasonable use. The parties settled their issues. Eagan Mayor and City Council Sept. 12,2013 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, Mn 55122 Dear Council Members, Please find enclosed a few pictures you are obviously proud of. I am sure they are good enough to post on your wall. Your vote on the Parkview Golf comprehensive land use guide change will be yoke around your neck for the rest of your political careers (forget about any thought of State Senator, Mayor Maguire). I unfortunately agree with council member Bakken that letting the developer sue the city would have at least forced them to give up more detailed financials. The reason I say unfortunately is that I rarely agree with council member Bakken. If you thought the development was inevitable you could have easily put in a few restrictions, like say 60% of the housing under $200,000.1 do not mean townhouses, I mean single family houses. That would have satisfied the Met Council that was on the City's butt a few years ago. This would have satisfied the need for young families to move into Eagan. The construction could happen only from Sam to 4pm. The trees torn out would be replaced with tree at least 20 feet tall with the guarantee that the developer would replace any dying tree for a period of 5 years. Have the city engineers looked at the impact to the water shed? Surely you all remember the flooding in the Jade Lane area in 2000 because of the additional housing without the requisite improvement in neighboring infrastructure. Finally, the chips from the oak trees should have been offered to the citizens of Eagan. These are but a few of the restrictions the city could have put in place to make this property less attractive to develop. I read in an article that this development will have a swimming pool, tot -lot, pavilion, basket ball court, and trails. The article implies that the public is welcome to all except the pool. Sounds to me like . the city approved a development that is close to a gated community. I have read many times that you are proud of having the lowest taxes in the south metro. I frankly don't see the point if you are willing to give up your principals to get it. Thank you, Rick Johnson 4601 Manor Dr. 55123 R i� _ . � Twll- Aff � Air' --« .' „` ' �,� ".'�.� �+`- ,, •-sit' � �� 5 �• tz !klk Pam Dudziak A I I AUHM'ENT From: Mark Skweres - Comcast [mailto :mskweres@comcast net] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7 :21 AM To: APC Subject: Parkview / Dakota Path application hearing and EAW Commissioner Haney and members of the Advisory Planning Commission: It is completely inappropriate and premature for the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) to review the Parkview /Dakota Path application on November 27th before the full 30 day public review and comment period for the associated EAW is completed. The APC would have only partial and potentially flawed information in its review. Agencies and the general public are allowed until December 12, 2012 to make their concerns known, so the EAW will be revised as needed. The APC as well as the general public, deserve the FULL story, and holding this hearing PRIOR to that time,is arbitrary, capricious and a denial of due process. We can cite several areas where the EAW is inconsistent and draws conclusions based on inappropriate assumptions. We intend to make use of the full 30 day review period to contact authorities to ask the document be revised based on those violations. For that reason, the application for Parkview /Dakota Path development is incomplete, lacking the full, vetted information of the EAW. To those who would say the EAW is not mandatory for this application must remember that we provided the necessary 100 signatures on a petition for EAW in June, 2012. If the Mayor hadn't prompted the developer to agree to the EAW "voluntarily" this petition makes the EAW mandatory via the EQB statute (Minn Laws, Chapter 107, Section 87). The EAW process in its entirety, is a necessary and crucial element of this application review , and I respectfully urge the Advisory Planning Commission to postpone this agenda item until the December meeting. Given the high profile and controversial nature of the proposed development, a December postponement is quite reasonable and will certainly promote much needed "transparency" in this process. Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mark Skweres Parkview Coalition Chair 4616 Fairway Hills Drive Eagan, MN 55123 CORRESPONDENCE November 21, 2012 Michael Ridley ` City Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Ridley, I will not be available to attend the Planning Commission meeting on November 271h due to a work meeting. Please share the comments below with the Planning Commission and the City Council related to the Preliminary Plat for the Dakota Path project, 1. Process - The process for the review of the preliminary plat is out of order considering the land use decision has not been made and that the EAW is not yet finalized , The EAW states that the Stormwater Management Plan has also not yet been submitted, Stormwater Management is an Important component of any preliminary plat as It can directly affect lot configuration and usable area. The EAW comment period has not yet been completed and comments May help inform City Officials on potential conditions for this plat and PUD. I have not yet reviewed the entire EAW, but I have already generated a number of comments that may affect the plat, It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the preliminary plat until these Important steps have been completed. 2, Senior Housing —The preliminary plat shows a senior housing complex near Cliff Road. I do not feel that the senior housing component to this development is appropriate for this project for the following reasons: a. Senior housing or any type of apartment is not consistent with existing nearby land use. You do not see another apartment building anywhere near this location, b. It Is my belief that senior housing be located closer to commercial or town center areas where seniors can walk for coffee or have a short drive to shops and restaurants, c. Adding 100 units to the area will exacerbate traffic impacts on Cliff Road and Pilot Knob. d, While I do not believe this senior housing complex is appropriate, if senior housing is approved, I believe this complex should be located adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park to provide seniors the opportunity for vistas overlooking this regional amenity, It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission and the City Council require the removal of the Senior Housing component to this project should this project move forward. 3, Lot Size —The preliminary plat identifies many 65 foot lots. I have seen small lots like this in other Cities and it promotes smaller lower quality homes. I do not believe that these smaller lots are appropriate considering the lot sizes for the homes in the adjacent neighborhoods are - 85 to 90 foot wide, This is a significant issue for these adjacent neighborhoods as smaller lot sizes increase the probability of lower value homes. This has the potential to reduce the existing property values in the area, it is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission and the City Council require minimum lot sizes of 75 to 80 feet should this project move forward, 4, BUfferink —The preliminary plat does a fairly decent job in providing a land and tree buffer to the existing neighborhoods, however the buffer distance is not consistent between properties and I believe that more of the existing trees should be kept even if they are non- significant trees. Lots 9 -11 and lots 16 -18 of Block 1 and lots 23 -24 of block 3 are of the greatest concern as the distance to the existing neighbors is less at these locations than any other areas of the plat, Existing trees are located in these areas and could be saved as a result. It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council require the developer to review the plan and provide additional land and tree buffering to the existing neighborhoods should this project move forward, S. PUD Criteria The Planned Unit Development process provides the City with the opportunity to receive additional benefits in exchange for flexibility in setbacks, lot sizes, etc. I do not believe this PUD provides enough benefit for this project, By allowing smaller lot sizes, children within the plat will require other open space In which to run and play. It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council require additional benefit to the City for this development Including additional buffering, open space, park amenities, or other land dedication, 6. Outlots— Outlots are shown throughout the plat. Many of these outiots provide buffering to the surrounding neighborhoods, It is unclear who would own these outiots, It is recommended that the City own these outiots so that residents can be sure that plantings, stormwater management features, and trails are properly maintained, 7. Ponding - In reviewing the grading plan at Hunter Emerson's Open House, It was not clear whether a safety bench was provided for all the ponds, 8, Sanitary Sewer Connection - The sanitary sewer connection for this development is provided within an easement In my yard, An approximately 50 year old oak tree in my yard is in line with the sanitary sewer extension to the plat, Considering the doss of trees within the plat itself doubly painful to lose a 40 foot tall tree within my yard that could help provide plat moves forward it is understandable that this sanitary sewer line used erin for it is e the g. If the development. However, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider requiring the use of trenchless technology to avoid the removal or Impact to this large oak should this project move forward, Thank you for considering my suggestions. Again please make this correspondence a part of the public record and provide It to the Planning Commission and City Council, Thank you', Larry Poppler 4608 Fairway Hills Drive Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview golf course From: mhagerCabvisi.com [mailto:mhaaer@visi.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:36 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview golf course Dear Mayor Maguire, Council Members Bakken, Fields, Hansen, Tilley: I am writing you to express my concern that the City Council and Mayor are not properly representing the citizens of Eagan, or acting in the city's best interest, in connection with the potential rezoning and sale of Parkview golf course. I have spoken to a number of other Eagan residents in this regard and they also share my concerns. As you know, the citizens of Eagan have clearly indicated that they do not want to change the zoning of the golf course. This position came across loud and clear at the public meetings held on this issue. In fact, after speaking to numerous Eagan citizens over the past several months, I have not encountered a single person who believes that rezoning the golf course and allowing it to be sold for development is the best course of action. However, notwithstanding the clear message from the people of Eagan, the City Council and Mayor continue down the rezoning /sale path. Unfortunately, the driving force behind this movement appears to be the City Council's and Mayor's fear that the city could be subjected to a lawsuit filed by the golf course owners. However, this is not a sound basis for the direction they've taken, nor is it the way to run a city, and Eagan's citizens expect more than this. Our elected officials should not let the threat of a possible lawsuit intimidate them and dictate their actions — we deserve better. The citizens of Eagan elected you to properly represent us in city matters. Your campaign for the Mayor /City Council positions was premised, at least in part, on your strong leadership skills. While soliciting support, you indicated that, if elected, you would be a strong leader and serve the citizens of Eagan in building a stronger community. The-Parkview matter provides just such an opportunity. The proper disposition of this issue requires strong leadership. As you know, strong leadership requires making difficult decisions under challenging circumstances. Strong leadership is rarely required when decisions are easy or the circumstances aren't challenging, and sometimes that strong Leadership is displayed by simply doing the right thing.— which, in this instance, is voting against the rezoning. Up to this point, I don't believe the City Council and Mayor have provided the leadership the citizens of Eagan expect of them and for which they were elected. The citizens of Eagan don't want the City Council and Mayor to take the easy way out on this issue —we want them to act in the best interest of the community and in accordance with the community's wishes. In this regard, I would like to propose the following steps, which I believe would demonstrate that the City Council and Mayor are performing and completing the proper due diligence in this matter: 1. The Parkview golf course owners have stated publicly that the golf course is unable to generate a profit. However, given the potential impact of this issue on the city and its citizens, this statement should not be taken at face value; instead, it should be properly verified. I recommend that the 2009 -2012 financial statements (balance sheet and income statement) for the golf course be reviewed for accuracy by an independent certified public accountant. As you know, figures can be manipulated in a number of ways, and the involvement of a neutral third party should eliminate this issue. In order to preserve the privacy of the golf course owners, access to the auditor's report should be limited to the City Council, Mayor, and owners. Upon completion of the review, the City Council and /or Mayor would communicate the findings, at a high level, to the public — i.e., the golf course is either profitable or it's not. While the owners may be reluctant to share their financial records with the city, given their request for rezoning and the impact of such rezoning on Eagan's citizens, who clearly are not in" favor of this action, and the City of Eagan, this is a reasonable and legitimate request by the City Council. Further, production of such records by the owners would show their good faith and cooperation in this process. On the other hand, if the owners choose not to share the golf course's financial statements with the City Council and Mayor, the City of Eagan is justified in not considering the rezoning request. The Parkview golf course owners should have to demonstrate that they have made a serious, good faith effort to sell the golf course to a buyer who would continue to maintain /operate the property as a golf course. Once again, they have stated publicly that they have made such efforts, but without success. Evidence of these efforts should be provided to the City Council and Mayor for the same reasons set forth in 41 above. For example, the owners could furnish a list of actions that were taken in this regard, together with supporting documentation such as business broker records, real estate agent records, public advertising records, etc. 3. The City Council and Mayor should put this issue to the citizens of Eagan in a public referendum. It's my understanding that a referendum was held in connection with the sale of Carriage Hills golf course, and the issue is all the more important here since Parkview is the last golf course remaining in the City of Eagan. This is a very practical and transparent way for the City Council and Mayor to demonstrate to the citizens of Eagan that they are allowing the citizens to have a say in this decision. It also takes the burden off of the City Council and Mayor. As you are undoubtedly aware, the City of Eagan's Mission Statement provides that: "The City of Eagan exists to serve the needs and interests of its oresent and future citizens " Similarly, the City of Eagan's View of Constituents states as follows: "The City of Eagan considers everyone with whom it interacts.as a constituent and as a customer. First and foremost among' these customers is its citizens.' I hope these are not empty platitudes and really mean something in Eagan, and hope the City Council and Mayor have the courage to uphold these beliefs. The City of Eagan has a great reputation that I don't want to see tarnished by this issue. The City Council and Mayor need to do the right thing here —for the citizens of Eagan today and in the future. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with you further. In the meantime, if you have any questions about this, please contact me. Respectfully, Mike Hager 4648 Fairway Hills Drive Eagan, MN 55123 651 - 686 -0853 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:00 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid Subject: FW: From: Eric Jensen [mailto:ericjensen59C&gmail com] Sent: Wednesday;:, December 12, 2012 11 :45 AM To: APC _. Subject: My name is Eric Jensen and I live at 4614 Parkridge Drive. I have lived there for 28 years. I wanted to express my concerns regarding the proposed housing development for Parkview Golf Course. As have watched this process unfold I have been somewhat troubled by the position that the city is taking relative to their unwillingness to hold firm in their overall long range planning process in spite of the planning commission's earlier overwhelming recommendation to deny the land use policy change. I have been very impressed over these many years how the city has managed their fiscal responsibility and have maintained one of the most desirable cities to live in providing excellent parks, police and fire protection. It seems like the city is now operating more out of fear of legal action vs the role that the city officials should be playing in coming to a conclusion that is the best overall for the effected citizens. I have been watching the city council during their assessment of the situation and the best path forward. During the council meeting in June of this year, the council worked really hard to justify for the current owner why he is doing poorly with his business. I don't think that is the council's role. I would encourage the planning commission to review this recommended zoning change from the perspective of what is best for the effected citizens in Eagan not what is best for the property owner. Lets allow the legal system to determine if the city is wrong should it go down that road . I think with Eagan's well done land use policy and consistent long term planning process they will have a very defendable position. Thank you for taking the time to serve on the planning commission and I would just ask that this is given the appropriate amount of due diligence prior to making any decisions. December 14, 2012 TO: Eagan Advisory Planning Commission FROM: Gary and Mary Jo Flicek, 4643 Parkridge Drive RE: Traffic issues within Dakota Path and surrounding developments 1) In all current Eagan neighborhoods, except for the Dakota Path proposal, there are major thoroughfares that go through the developments; there are egress points on all sides, or multiple points of easy access to city streets or county roads. 2) The former Carriage Hills site, where Duckwood Drive crosses Lexington with a light and continues through the center of the development, meeting up seamlessly with Westcott Woodlands and out to Yankee Doodle Road, allows for right and left turns which are accessible at Lexington and Yankee Doodle Road. 3) The Fairway Hills development has 138 homes with 3 exits to country roads. 4.) The Park Cliff development has 73 homes with 2 exits to Cliff Road. 5) The Dakota Path development has 173 planned homes with 1 exit to Cliff Road + encroachment on Fairway Hills at lnterlachen and Fairway Hills Drive. 6) Will people be forced to do more travel through our neighborhood (Park Cliff) in order to have a decent shot at westbound Cliff Road? 7) The EAW suggests a U -turn at Park Cliff for westbound - exiting traffic that is forced to turn east out of Dakota Path. This is too ridiculous and dangerous to consider. 8) Traffic from the west cannot be seen clearly from the proposed Dakota Path entrance. At Park Cliff, we can see traffic well before both our upper and lower entrances for making left -hand turns. 9) The weekday turning- movement counts in the EAW were recorded on July 10 -12 2012 during the not -so- rushed -hours in the middle of summer. 10)On page 14 -15 of the EAW, the proposed buffer area identified as Outlot D is approximately 100' wide, with an area of 4.4. acres. Kurt Manley confirmed that it is actually 105' from the back of our house to the back of the house at the Crooked Stick Court cul -de -sac in the preliminary site plan with a mere 25' buffer. The developers are planning on using 55' of of l, )roperty as part of the buffer! 1 Gary and Mary Jo Flicek, 4643 Parkridge Drive Proposed Dakota Path Development A golf course is exactly the right thing for this land because the traffic needs of the users are much different than for a housing development, and for the way the area fits into the surrounding communities. Much has been made of the fact that there isn't money enough for the owners; however, with 10 -12 owners, it would be difficult to please each of them regardless of their income levels. Unfortunately, the length of their ownership also takes away their ability to write -off their losses. A new business plan likely will not be forthcoming from the same ownership group. A "white knight" developer with a grand plan to provide big money for each of these owners has come into the picture. High density housing will be needed more than low density by 2030. This tract of land does not conform to the needs of high density housing because of its situation in the center of 2 developments and parkland. Using the land only for high density, 4 units per acre, will severely strain the available access to Cliff Road — even more than with the proposed173 units (not including the Senior - housing). Using the Fairway Hills development as access is not logical because of restrictions of the terrain and the number of homes already in that location. Further, cars are needed in order to live here. There is no public transportation available within two miles, A car park is available for commuters near the Cliff Road access to Hwy 35E. The closest grocery and pharmacy are at Diffley and Lexington, a mile from Park Cliff. The closet restaurants and fast -food are at least a mile away as well. High density housing is not appropriate for this land. If the front two - thirds of the Dakota Path. plan were to be built first, as planned, and the entrance from Interlachen will not be opened and utilized until later, would there be enough people who are willing purchase a premium lot that doesn't give them easy access to a main road except through a full development each way? Each development would be past their optimal egress capabilities, if the rest of Eagan serves as an example. In this last scenario, houses in the front 2/3 will not only be close together but also too close to the neighboring communities, with a big undeveloped playground full of dirt. in the back of the ill - advised Dakota Path. Considering all of the issues that face us should a development be built, the big losers are those of us who built homes in a very nice area of one of the loveliest: cities in the United States, and have enjoyed i; for decades. 2 Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:49 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview Development From: tom.diskinPthomsonreuters com [ mailto :tom.diskinPthomsonreuters com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:43 AM To: Juli Johnson Subject: Parkview Development Eagan Parks and Rec Advisory: I am writing to let you know that I am extremely concerned with the development of the Parkview Golf Course, I live on the Parkview Golf Course and have been a avid golfer using the Parkview facilities. I am concerned with the impact of traffic, water quality /run -off, overall impact on the wildlife in the area and the negative impact on our neighborhood. strongly disagree with the development of this green space. This is the last 18 hole golf course Eagan has, which is a benefit to living in Eagan. I ask that you deny the development of this wonderful golf course, which is used by many people of all ages. It would be a terrible loss for this community if this property is developed. Regards, Tom Diskin Tom Diskin Manager - Finance, GRC Thornson neuters Phone: 651- 687 -1732 tom.diskin(cDthomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:00 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein; Julie Strid Subject: FW: From: katiembrowne [mailto: katiembrowne@comcast. net] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 9:19 PM To: APC Subject: Dear Advisory Planning Commission Members: We object to the current proposal for the proposed housing development in the existing Parkview Golf Course, I. We think that adding two more soccer fields will increase traffic on Fairway Hills and Interlachen and that there should be an access point to the park and soccer field through the new development and Cliff Road 2. We think that 170+ houses is too many in too small of an area 3. This plan will impact the Thomas Lake and Vermillion Watershed areas 4. We are concerned with the housing developments impact on Lebanon Hills Park and the wildlife, plants, etc. in the park 5. We think Eagan needs a youth golf facility such as a putting green and chipping facility and it should be near George Ohmann park 6. We think that the buffers between the Fairway Hills neighborhood and the golf course should be greater. Otherwise, the property values along Fairway Hills will decrease and this development will be akin to a taking, 7. Finally, we would like no final actions or preliminary actions be taken until February. People are very busy this time of year with the holidays. The plan has changed substantially since the developer first showed it to the neighbors. The citizens of Eagan want, need, and deserve time to study the platt and be able to give constructive feedback. As once City Council person said at the meeting in June, "It is much harder to unring the bell than to ring it ". Alan and Kathleen Browne 1386 Camelback Drive Eagan, MN 55123 651- 399 -6436 info @kathleenbrowne.com www.kaihleenbrowne.com Minnesota and Montana -20 years Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:06 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein; Julie Strid Subject: FW: DO NOT MAKE INTERLACHEN A THROUGH -FARE. From: Errin Stevens [mailto :errinstevensGyahoo corn] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53 PM To: APC Cc: )effandTerri Subject: DO NOT MAKE INTERLACHEN A THROUGH -FARE I live at the comer of Interlachen and Pebble Beach Way, and I DO NOT want increased traffic on the street in front of my home. This neighborhood contains streets meant for light traffic; we have no sidewalks; and young children are constantly dunning, biking or on scooters along these roads. What you're proposing is not safe. It will further depress the value of our homes, when everyone in the area has already taken hit after economic hit. It is WAY overdue for the people supposedly supporting the public's interest to do what they were elected to, which is stand up for the existing neighborhoods, not just the people concerned with profit - making. If you must move forward with plans for the new development, do not throw everyone along Interlachen - or any other street in Fairway Hills, for that matter -under the bus; mandate a different entry point that does not compromise the safety of our families and our kids. Thank you for taking this issue seriously. Errin Stevens 4705 Pebble Beach Way 651- 686 -6811 Pam Dudziak To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Comments on the Parkview Golf Course proposed development From: Juli Johnson Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:12 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Comments on the Parkview Golf Course proposed development E -mail received for Parks Commission. Juli From: Christine Soderling [mailto:csoderlingC&TNC.ORG] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:55 PM To: Juli Johnson Subject: Comments on the Parkview Golf Course proposed development The plans to develop Parkview Golf Course if the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan amendment is upheld are a disservice to Eagan and its residents. It stands the very concept of green space and the guidelines the City Council put in place to protect our open spaces and residents' sense of belonging to a natural world on its head. It puts the financial benefit of a very few, which is by no means owed to these individuals, ahead of the 63,000 plus residents of Eagan who have placed their trust in city, county, and regional government to make wise choices to benefit all of us. I am very troubled by several parts of the EAW report concerning the proposed development of Parkview Golf Course. 1. Traffic The EAW concludes that traffic on the streets with access to Cliff Rd. and Pilot Knob Rd. would not be excessive. Realtime data and the guidelines set up by the Met Council say otherwise. Taking the last first, the Met Council has said that a daily load of 1000 cars is the max that local streets should experience (see chart below for local urban street guidelines). Built out, Dakota Path could easily see 1200 trips a day on each outlet — one to Cliff Rd. and the other into the Fairway Hills neighborhood which already has traffic loads in excess of 650 per outlet. Not only would this exceed the Met Council's guidelines for local street use on the outlet to Cliff Rd., but it would bump the load onto Fairway Hills' streets to nearly 2000 — double the recommended maximum. And this number does not include the Ohmann Park playing fields traffic which is already stressing the capacity of the Fairway Hills streets, but has not been counted in these calculations. Clearly, the traffic loads for both the Dakota Path residents and those of Fairway Hills are far in excess of the guidelines have set up for safety and enjoyment of life. A development of this size with only 2 outlets, one through an existing neighborhood that already has high traffic levels, and the other onto a busy county road with poor visibility as it sits at the crown of a hill, can only be a recipe for traffic misery for all. The endless figures in the EAW grossly miscalculate and mislead as to the true amount of traffic and the impact on existing residents. Traffic issues alone should also take any consideration of adding playing fields connected with Ohmann Park completely off the table. Routing that level of traffic through local residential neighborhood streets is inappropriate and unsafe in its current configuration — added fields would only worsen the problems experienced in Fairway Hills and potentially also in the proposed neighborhood. An additional issue is the potential for the County to restructure Cliff Rd. and change the intersections for the Park Cliff neighborhood, which were set when Cliff Rd. was upgraded several years ago to 4 lanes. Closing full access for either of those two entrances would have a major negative impact on the neighborhood traffic patterns, safety, and quality of life, a concept to which the County agreed when the rebuild was done. To summarize, the traffic issues alone should cause the denial of approval for a development of this size on the Parkview property that lacks adequate access. Yalta (}Y: flJ7ns7Epnal tiaaaafl�jrycvl �atara Chatattarlatitatpr Cdleciara a#>,j local $traafa t ao-�rs, Aa;a AaxraaJnlAanbo t n., t;.n :..,•,,,,,..,,, s.,. ; >� C}; LhaiA�.� €ii4G Sm- .- ... --.-. r',°Pra�ni�i:` Ji,"';.��.- .•..,., . -. 1a41i s - -.. I.mxnt.Vr .. s�}rlrxyxalx aex+,t Utfpttx72'#JZl w„}t$+x?}wxpsmeci aani �'xt�%'Arxt b�krg aev.§.. "bartz{54£xYl•M15k� }�Xf��'N'd[cs�.k �k�arvrinat SJipja'n1 aa+.xrt tueAa 5t>,a.5v7?'4"kvtl�..id• Aiaxvea �crin:3#d's - Grp �41'A.. ._axe: A650+: #,tm w laCt%KiKiik �itv:a;7 UFS.Yi'7 jrXAl �Cdt teJft3'3ald1#l'AS SIXTe #raT2Sf1Yi. iMIM%�bl Ya Xl Y+ ttQtiaQ �a K1iv.UM1 Fvnna �Ik'1tY'.ti7 #h`S6_'tFN} 15xafaxxQ. SnAnik,7i2i'�4iri1+'K`,l 1'trR�1[ij;7XYR{ttik'MY l.d�Tl..ltij i'EivvR.gp.}s KY:dBy i`ki.'t#A+y.H fX'rx4/Sj' �>variKa IzptiiX'M,�nzcL`Sx'N}' ftt+lrsi3ld }3 r>€e4atttY F�£YfFYfk`1$.'S R}i Mal2Ka. 6a(• C�JaC1fii�AryT#kYyt. NA.VH,Yr.(n trinW.3. GNP - �aC?i:'��trtflll�XNx1 a iGECikaIAA'.I�PJfx3 p }1yy.iYlYi�,'tf. - '4 GArtki} irxil {i tti}t5.'vA ? h "3aXA aau. ivn t.Db) 1 axz Ynn tow �4tLN !n✓a1N!^.,F'A.aYl6i*ik# t"'�j.'btS,WYf i}��? -�±? _ �$aSrt{AI t� #ll taN. � 7CtJ XiA +tJi:b7tfAi 3tzrN(a8fl�tf�1 - ��dp7n1 ,fs>,lSktfl �Tt#afl.4it4irinxlRB�'s +aka &•s�ii eri Y,t +��R ld�.t.r xnr ilL{jiiS WFd. _ V.!s tttl #ItSVPr_im tA<h`m. �fyc Li, +sa?d a� as....,.,_.... ...._...,,_.,,._,,._.,,,.,...._ 2. Visual buffer for Lebanon Hills Regional Park The photos and text in the EAW suggests that there is an adequate buffer protecting Lebanon Hills from the visual impact of Dakota Path. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The photographs in the EAW are not representative of the issues at hand, and are quite dishonest. In reality, there are between 150 and 500 (!) feet of open field belonging to Lebanon Hills surrounding the entire parcel- Lebanon Hills border. In addition, the plat shows a mere 10 -20 feet of border area at the back of the houses planned to abut the park. This is not even enough to plant a double row of spruce or other species that would effectively protect park users from the visual impact — and loss of open space feeling — of the planned development. The County has plans to re- configure the trail system in an area that includes this area adjacent to the golf course. Their plan should not be impacted by construction at this location, with so much open space. As others have articulated more elegantly than I, part of the value of a largely undeveloped_ park like Lebanon Hills is the sense of being a place apart. Right now, the golf course complements the park. Having housing in that parcel would be extremely disruptive of the park users' experience, and limit park enjoyment. 3. Water quality — runoff The EAW suggests that if (and that's big IF given realities) the development proceeds entirely according to plan, the runoff issues would not exceed specs for developments. However, that completely ignores the fact that runoff from a development vastly exceed runoff from a golf course. Eagan and the County have spent years in figuring out how to best minimize and mitigate the runoff from the golf course to have the least impact on lakes within Lebanon Hills and also Thomas Lake. Putting in a development would set back this progress on the clean water front substantially, moving backwards instead of forwards in water quality. 3. Need for housing It is unfair to Parkview's many neighbors to take the developer's rosy scenario for build out at face value. Yes, building may have picked up somewhat in the last months. But much of that is in locations far more distant from the cities. Carriage Hills is way behind schedule, and still only partly built out after many years. It doesn't make sense to try to add 273 units to an already saturated market. This would make life for the neighbors miserable for many years. That's not reasonable or fair to those who have already invested in their homes. 5. Senior housing lousy location I find it absurd that anyone could consider senior housing at this location. Senior housing implies certain specific needs, including transportation and access to basic amenities. Parkview sits at the top of a big hill, and is miles away from the centers of shopping at Cliff Lake and the Promenade area that city planners have so carefully crafted, and 2 miles from the closest grocery store. In addition, there is virtually no public transportation to this area. Nor is the addition of 100 senior units likely to attract public transportation to this area. If the goal of "senior housing" in this plan is to make it a nice place for active seniors to live, it may not be far off the mark. But the intention is not to reach that crowd. As a location for seniors with substantive livability needs, it would be a disaster, and would not roll out Eagan's welcome mat for that population — which I believe is the target of "senior housing ". In addition to the EAW findings I object to, there are other issues I would bring to your attention that speak to the impropriety of granting the amendment request for the Parkview property. 6. Offset option The developer has suggested that he would like to use the offset option regarding parks, and pay for the development of a park or open space elsewhere in Eagan so that he doesn't have to give up any more space he would like to use for housing on the property in question. When one considers that he is proposing to eliminate a huge area zoned for parks /open space /very low density housing that is currently a golf course, and he doesn't think there is room for a mandated minimum park area in this development, it becomes immediately apparent that there is nothing about this proposal that is intended to benefit Eagan or its citizens. Quite the opposite. Under the Comprehensive Plan, Eagan will not be a better place with Dakota Path allowed to go forward with its current plan. Location matters (as they say over and over in real estate), and the idea of trading open space like the golf course for a small park far from this location is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan or just plain common sense. One other facet of this item is that the Parkcliff neighborhood does not have a readily accessible neighborhood park. While access to Lebanon Hills is a huge benefit and attraction, I have come to realize that it does not meet the needs of small children the way a playground and communal open space do. To have two neighborhoods without an adequate version of this amenity would be a disservice to the residents and all the younger children who currently live in Parkcliff at the very least. Christie Soderling 4657 Parkcliff Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 651- 688 -6597 December 17, 2012 To: The Planning Committee City of Eagan, MN From: Bill Tierney 1377 Interlachen Dr. Fairway Hill's sub - division Eagan, MN Members of the Planning Committee, I wish to add for the record my "two cents" regarding the development of Parkview Golf Course into a large number of new homes. The elimination of a large recreational green space in a the very developed city of Eagan aside; I feel the development of a large number of homes at Parkview Golf Course will result in so many traffic issues within Fairway Hills should the development go forward, frankly I'm astonished you would consider it. I live on Interlachen Drive. My understanding is that Interachen will be a westbound egress route for the proposed development. My neighbors and I who use Interlachen Dr. to go to work or school between 6 -9am know gaining access to Pilot Knob at this time of morning is a very difficult maneuver. Car Traffic from Apple Valley and Lakeville arrive at the top of "Pilot Knob" hill on Pilot Knob Road in the morning doing anywhere from 50 -60 MPH. Check your records and note the speed violations logged by Eagan police. Currently you can wait up to 4 -5 minutes to gain access to this road at the morning hours. If there are plans to widen Interlachen you need to just stand at the end of my driveway, which is at a very steep elevation already, and consider how I will get my car up and into my garage. South of Interlachen Dr. on Pilot Knob Rd. the next access point to Fairway Hill's subdivision is Pebble Beach Way. The elevation at Pebble Beach Way is slightly better for access to Pilot Knob Rd. and has better visibility than Interlachen Dr. which is just below the crest of the hill. However, Pebble Beach Way is just a street; I would call it a curvy Lane. Numerous people at the Dec. 3rd council meeting indicated the issues they have with traffic on Pebble Beach Way and the access to the soccer fields at George Ohmann Park. They indicated the spring /summer /fall traffic moving through our neighborhood bound for the park traveling at excessive speeds, and this is not only on Pebble Beach, but I've witnessed it on Interlachen, as do my neighbors on Fairway Hill's Dr. with traffic to George Ohmann Park off of Cliff Rd. I am discouraged that the City of Eagan is considering the proposal to develop more homes on the site of Parkview Golf Course. While most progressive cities are paying attention to maintaining Green Space, you are contemplating the elimination of a large tract here on the site of Parkview. I'm sure the investors who bought the golf course a few years back will appreciate the return on their investment. I'm not sure they have been poorly served by maintaining Parkview as a golf course. The number of rounds played there annually is a staggering number. I feel the responsibility before your committee is to maintain the quality of life for your taxpaying citizens here in Fairway Hills and that of our surrounding sub divisions. I am glad that people from all over the South Metro use our neighborhood park and bring their children here for activities. We can work with the traffic at George Ohmann Park and develop a "Slow it Down campaign" to address the traffic issues. What my neighbors and I cannot accept or envision is what this neighborhood will be like with your proposed development at Parkview. Please vote against this motion to develop and add all these new homes on the site of Parkview Golf Course. Sincerely, Bill Tierney Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 20128:15 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course Development Plan Comments From: paimi @q.com [mailto:paimi @q.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11 :24 PM To: APC Cc: saveparkview.org; katiembrowne Subject: Parkview Golf Course Development Plan Comments Dear Advisory Planning Committee (APC) Members, I am writing to you in regard to the development plan for the 80 acres that makeup the current Parkview Golf Course. I unfortunately will be unable to attend the meeting this upcoming Thursday where you will be reviewing and.voting on the plan; I am hoping that you will take my written comments into consideration as you do your review. As background, being a resident of Fairway Hills (FH) I've been abreast of all the issues and concerns expressed related to the development. In addition, I attended both the Dakota County Plat Commission meeting on Monday, December 17th and the Eagan Park and Rec Commission Meeting also on December 17t". These are my comments: 1. At the Plat Commission Meeting one of the major topics of discussion was the Access Configuration Options. The Plat Commission clearly favored the 3'd option which provided for full access spacing of 1200', 1200' and 1300' along Cliff road. I as a Fairview Hills resident along with others I've spoken to strongly favor option 3 as well because it lessens the impact of the development on FH and FH is being significantly impacted by the development independent of Access options. In the meeting, the developers expressed concern that the third Access Option could further delay breaking ground and on that basis the implication was that they would prefer one of the other options. I am hopeful that the APC committee will act in the long -term best interests of the residents of Eagan and not bow to the pressure of the developers. I understand the concerns of the developers — time is money, but they will be here today and gone tomorrow. The Access option decision must be made in the long -term best interests of Eagan residents. 2. My second comment relates to the Eagan Park and Rec Committee Meeting. One of the main issues being considered at the meeting was the disposition of the required 10% of land being developed that the city requires to be set aside for park land. Ten percent in the case of Parkview amounts to 8 acres. The Park and Rec Committee voted to take 4 acres for a use yet to be determined, give the developer credit for 2 acres related to creation of a tot play area and take cash in lieu of the final 2 acres. My concern here relates to the 2 acres that were given up for cash. I wonder about the adequacy of an additional 4 acres for expansion of the George Ohman Park area especially if one of the contemplated uses is additional soccer fields. If soccer fields ends up being the preferred use, I wonder if they have considered the additional parking needs that this would require. Clearly, the current parking would be inadequate. If parking hasn't been considered I'd strongly recommend the option to take 6 acres and not the 4 acres. 3. Independent of my previous comment, I think the addition of tennis courts, a skating rink and some parking would be a good use of the additional park land. More soccer fields will cause more traffic and saftey concerns and greater disruption of the neighborhoods. 4. 172 additional houses along with the senior housing is in my view way to many for this area given it's impact on traffic, safety and the Lebanon Hills Park. At the very least there should be a significant buffer between the Park and the development, probably 150' or so. Respectfully submitted, Dwight Palmi 4750 Cypress Point Fairway Hills Neighborhood 651454-8458 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:38 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Parkview Development _ __...._...__... __ ............ ....___.___..- _.,_._ _...__,. .......- --------- -------- ._...._.._.._ _...._.__ -_.. From: Julie Sieben [mailto:jsieben88@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:00 PM To: APC Subject: Parkview Development Good afternoon, I am unable to attend the meeting this Thursday, and I understand there might be a delay to January. But I wanted to put in my opinion. Julie Sieben 1370 St Andrew Blvd Fairway Hills Eagan married with 3 children (all school age) Here's where I'm at — I technically am still on the fence about the whole development. Someone wanted to sell and someone wants to buy - I don't feel it is my place to interfere with someone wanting to sell their land. HOWEVER, I am saddened at the proposed loss of the golf course for 2 reasons - the green space (including traffic concerns) and a great youth golf facility. My kids are now at an age that they can take summer lessons over there - been waiting for them to be old enough and now that they are the golf course is closing. Frustrating that this new cycle of young kids in the Fairway Hills neighborhood don't get to experience what the 1st generation had. SO. I don't know if there is anything I can say or do to change that. BUT I do have a strong opinion about traffic control. Again, I live on the south side of St Andrew Blvd. 90% of the time, I use the Interlachen entrance and immediately go on the frontage road and around to the right to my home. Two things: 1. Whoever did the traffic study - put the cable across Interlachen PAST the frontage road. So all the times I left and came back were not counted. 2. For whatever reason, Pilot Knob is twice as busy - it can take several minutes to enter Pilot (either north or south bound) at busy times of the day. I have waited to get on Pilot even in' the middle of a week day. My kids have dance on wed night - we leave at 5:00 - to go south on Pilot. Because it is nearly impossible to get out of the neighborhood (and go southbound) at that time of evening — we go AROUND the whole neighborhood and go out onto Cliff - so I can take a left onto Pilot from a stoplight. Geez how ridiculous is thatl? Now you want to add a development with a proposed 173 homes and have the entrance be Interlachen. Seriously. There already is too much traffic - not necessarily into or out of our neighborhood. But on Pilot Knob. I haven't yet mentioned the speeds at which these cars are going when they come over the hill (heading north), it is not safe. And it will be even worse if there is more traffic coming out of the neighborhood /entering the busy Pilot Knob. There has been a police presence (sitting on the frontage road with radar) but I haven't seen anyone for a long time and it seems the speeds are amped up again. The other comment I have - and it is based on hearsay - no idea if it is in the current development plans or even if you have any jurisdiction on the matter. The idea of senior homes. Don't we have enough? I know the baby boom population is getting / reaching retirement, maybe want out of their big homes and something more manageable. But look at what we already have: Steeplechase ( ?) townhomes, Cedar Grove ?, and Gramercy Parks everywhere. My grandmother lives in the one in Inver Grove. 15 years ago, when it was built, there was a waiting list. And now more senior apts and homes have popped up - there are apartments at my grandmother's building that have been vacant for months. There is getting to be an abundance of options and now there are openings that can't get filled. Do we really need more? Lastly, I urge you to consider leaving some green space. I urge the developer to thing beyond the pocket book and make something that Eagan can be proud of and the neighbors can live with. WE all want the golf course to stay, but if we can't have that, there must be a compromise somewhere. Consider green space, abundant green space around the perimeter; consider what this will do to current traffic on Pilot Knob and Cliff road; look at how many accidents are at the stoplight at Cliff and Pilot Knob - what will happen when there is twice the amount of people entering & exiting onto Pilot and Cliff; and lastly consider some shared community space - and think beyond soccer fields - small putting green or chip and putt. Not sure if the community pool is still on the table - but allowing Fairway to use that would be a nice olive branch. Again not sure what your jurisdiction is - traffic is my main concern - but can't hurt to ask/suggest the other items as well. Hot topic - wish you good luck in considering all these opinions, thanks for your time, julie sieben jsieben88Qgmail.com Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:39 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Parkview development From: Aaron Huston [ mailto:ahuston(c�bchrealty.com1 Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:32 PM To: APC Subject: Parkview development Hello, I am a resident of the Parkcliff neighborhood and I just wanted to voice my concerns over the potential development. I feel that this land in it's current plan is being over developed. This land is a natural extension of the Lebanon Hills Park and wildlife habitat. In the morning there are deer running the course, in the afternoon there are turkeys, and at night you can hear the coyotes rounding up the geese and cackling. I feel that trying to squeeze in all of these homes will destroy these natural habitats and damage the environment. We are so lucky to have these natural resources in this area and I believe it would be a huge mistake to harm them. Please consider this surrounding land when determining the amount of developing that will be allowed. Thanks, Aaron Huston 4635 Parkridge Dr Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 8:18 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein; John Gorder Subject: FW: Cliff Road Access From: Eric Jensen [ mailto :ericiensen59Ca?gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:30 PM To: APC Subject: Cliff Road Access My name is Eric Jensen and I live at 4614 Parkridge Drive and have lived there for 28 years. I have now noticed that the county is recommending moving the access to the new development for Parkview Golf Course 385 feet to the east and removing one of the exit /entrances to the Parkcliff neighborhood by making it a right turn exit and right turn entrance only. At the time that Cliff Road was widened those many years ago the city council agreed that the Parkcliff neighborhood needed full access from both entrances as these are the only way in and out of our neighborhood. Now this direction from the county would change that and I find this totallty unacceptable. We need to be consistent in our decision making expecially as it impacts the citizens of Eagan. I would appreciate a response to this letter thanks Eric Jensen January 3, 2012 Emilio Fedeli 1357 Lakeside Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Re; Proposed Development — Parkview Golf Course i live 2 blocks north from the intersection of Pilot Knob & Cliff Road. I have been a resident of Eagan for 24 years. I have witnessed one fatal and numerous serious accidents, at this Intersection, I have experienced the continuous increase of traffic at this intersection during both morning and evening rush hours. Both roads, in an east -west and north- south direction have become major "feeders" for commuters as well as commercial traffic, which have made traversing this Intersection, during the 2 rush hours, a current scenario for "Russian - Roulette" — with cars. Cars that exceed the posted speed limit, cars driven by commuters with little regard for traffic laws, operated by individuals preoccupied with "texting" or talking on their cell- phones. Attempting to enter Pilot Knob or Cliff Road, during rush hours, now takes excessive extra time. Additional proposed development for the existing Parkview golf - course, will only exacerbate an already "oversaturated" Intersection. We local residents don't need the additional 200 to 300 cars daily, added to traffic at this intersection, Further development, can be OK in some respects, but not in this instance and - is not - in the best Interest of any residents living within one half -mile, in either direction, of this intersection, Please consider with due diligence, any proposals, for any - future developments, whatever they maybe -near this already congested Intersection. We don't need the additional traffic, the proposed development will bring. Thank you, Emilio Fedeli Dakota County Government Center Attn: Nancy Shouweiler— CommisslonerDist -4 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:26 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein; Russ Matthys Subject: FW: Input for upcoming planning commission meeting From: e- jensen @mmm.com [mailto:e- jensenCa.)mmm.com] Sent: Friday )a- nuary 04, 2013 910 AM To: APC -- Subject: Input for upcoming planning commission meeting My name is Eric Jensen and I live at 4614 Parkridge Drive, Eagan . I have lived there for 28 years. I wanted to express my concerns about the proposed changes to Cliff Road Access out of the Parkcliff neighborhood. Some of the documents that I have seen indicate that in order to accommodate the increased traffic in and out of the new proposed housing development at Parkview Golf course the entrance to the development onto and off of Cliff Road will be moved about 100 yards to the east from it's current location. The west entrance from the Park Cliff neighborhood that is currently full access will be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. That will give us in the Parkcliff neighborhood only one full access entrance /exit. When the city council was debating the number of full access points into our neighborhood when Cliff Road was widened a few years ago the point was made that the Parkcliff neighborhood needed to have more than one full access and that is what is currently the situation. Making this change to accommodate a new housing development is totally unacceptable. The Planning Commission and the City Council needs to be consistent in their decisions and keep us long term neighborhoods in mind when making changes like this. Only having one full access entrance would be very difficult to deal with and I find very disturbing as an answer to accommodate a new development. Thank you for listening to my concerns and I would hope that these are taken seriously when debating this subject. If I can provide any further perspective or information let me know . Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:37 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Proposed Housing development From: Thompson Kaye [ mailto:thompsonscoutCcbmsn.com] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:08 PM To: APC Subject: Proposed Housing development As a resident of south Eagan I am very concerned about the proposed housing development planned for the site of Parkview Golf Course. My concerns are as follows: Traffic - Access into the new development from Pilot Knob I believe could be very dangerous. Presently the left turn into Fairway Hills is challenging and with more cars turning, people will take greater risks to make the turn, drivers will become frustrated with backup traffic and the likely hood of accidents increases greatly. - Leaving the neighborhood to go south on Pilot Knob is very difficult, and as the traffic on Pilot Knob continues to increase with more traffic it becomes more and more unsafe. Green Space The proposed green space is very minimal and the buffer to Lebanon Hills is so small the effect on the Park can only be detrimental. - You would think with Eagan being an environmental supportive city, more requirements to have low impact on the environment would have been required. - New communities should have increased not decreased green space and it is the perfect opportunity to build in features such as community gardens, open space large enough to encourage children to be physically active, sideways /trails to encourage non vehicular traffic within the community and perhaps even a wild flower garden or tree garden to encourage birds, butterflies and other creatures. Density - The density of this proposed development is unreasonable. Fairway Hills, the neighboring community has approximately 135 units and this proposal has over 170 homes and and a 100 unit senior complex. It does not fit in with the overall surrounding community density of this level has the potential for unusually high environmental impact. - The number of cars added to the area will be very significant and concerns over road wear, parking for the senior complex and visitors does not appear to be thoroughly addressed. - A new water pressure system was recently installed for Fairway Hills at the initiative of the City of Eagan to provide adequate pressure. It appears the second or perhaps real reason was for this new neighborhood. How will tripling the number of homes now effect the water pressure? - A senior housing unit seems misplaced with no shopping, public transportation, or amenities available near by. Eagan has always been a desirable city to live in. As things change cities change, I hope the Planning Committee and the City Council take a more reasonable approach to this proposed development and maintain the integrity and long term foresight for the city. Linda Kaye Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:39 AM To: Pam Dudziak; Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Parkview Development and traffic From: Katie M Browne [ mailto :katiembrowne @comcast.netj Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:20 PM To: APC Subject: RE: Parkview Development and traffic (Please use this email my original email said a left turn onto Pilot Knob from Fairway Hills (I meant Cliff) Dear Advisory Planning Commission: I live in Fairway Hills and am very concerned about the additional traffic that building 170+ houses will have on the area. I work in downtown Minneapolis. The most dangerous part of my commute is trying to get onto Pilot Knob Road from Interlachen between 6:50 and 7:30 am. Likewise, just as dangerous is attempting a left turn onto Cliff from Fairway Hills that time of day. The second most dangerous part of my commute is trying to turn into the neighborhood when I return home from work. In addition to the traffic issues entering and leaving the neighborhood, I am concerned about the additional traffic within the neighborhood. Under the latest proposal, Interlachen Drive will connect to the new development in a few years. This will be a nightmare for young parents with children biking, strollering and walking to George Ohmann Park (not to mention dog walkers, joggers, etc.) Please consider not making Interlachen a through way or insisting that the developer bear the cost of putting in traffic calming measures, such as speed pumps and sidewalks, throughout Fairway Hills. Kathleen M. Browne 1386 Camelback Drive Eagan, MN 55123 To the Advisory Planning Commission: The development plans proposed for Parkview Golf Course should not be approved. This density (really, most any density.beyond what is currently allowed) is unneeded in Eagan, and is wholly inappropriate for this landlocked site. The most urgent issue is traffic. There is simply no place for cars from 177 homes to go that won't have an unacceptably negative effect on the area. A large portion of the proposed development would send traffic into Fairway Hills. This neighborhood is already severely overburdened with traffic from the playing fields at Ohmann Park.- Surely the addition of all that extra traffic trying to get to Pilot Knob or Cliff Road would be unsafe. It would also violoate the Met Council's recommended traffic parameters (see their 2030 Transportation Policy Plan). Pilot Knob is already very difficult to access during rush hours, and Fairway Hills residents would be competing with new traffic to get out to work and school. These neighbors deserve to have safe traffic levels in their neighborhood. A further insult to adjacent neighborhoods would be the County's plan to close full access at Parkcliff Drive. This neighborhood has two full entrances because a number of years ago, they convinced the County, with support from the City of Eagan, that closing either one would compromise safety and livability for this neighborhood. Nothing has changed since then. The options left for residents heading west, as almost all traffic does, would be to either go to Parkridge, where traffic volume would become a serious problem for those neighbors, or exit east and make the U turn at Parkridge. What is not apparent on the map, but is very real, is the complete lack of visibility of oncoming traffic for those turning left into Parkridge when there is a vehicle in the U -turn lane at that intersection. It is an accident waiting to happen, and will be severely worsened by the increase in U turn traffic if Parkcliff is closed to full access. This neighborhood is also deserving of safe streets and of sensible access, too, just as much as any other in Eagan. We find the "park dedication" in the proposed plan to be insulting. To be taking away 80+ acres of current open space, and dedicating only 4 acres in the plan is a disservice to the whole concept of access to parks that this requirement protects. The developer should be required to provide the whole park dedication at a bare minimum. In addition, while city parks may technically be accessible from the Parkcliff neighborhood within regulated distances, for most practical purposes, it is without park access for the many families who live in the neighborhood. In planning park location(s) in the proposed development, I suggest that any park planned be easily accessible from the Parkcliff neighborhood as well as the new residents, as this is a rule that is supposed to benefit all residents of Eagan. That means the park area(s) should be on the east side, either near Cliff or within easy access from Lebanon Hills. The plan as proposed does not meet the needs of the greater community. The addition, the tennis courts plan in such a relatively inaccessible site, and more parking that would be expected to be needed also makes little sense. Again, if tennis courts are desirable (and we don't have a beef with that), they should be much more accessible without increasing traffic volumes on already overburdened streets. RECEIVED JAN 222013 While the plan has added space between the proposed new homes and current homes in adjacent neighborhoods, it has not done that across the board. I can't imagine why all the homes on the east side of the proposal don't have a similarly wide barrier to protect at least part of the viewscape the current homeowners purchased. This proposal is simply wrong for the location. It will cause harin to the surrounding community. It will not serve the proposed residents well either. The housing that is currently allowed under the Comprehensive Plan could be appropriate, as it complements the area and the whole community. This plan should not be approved. Steve and Christie Soderling 4657 Parkcliff Dr. Eagan Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:46 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Dakota Path development concerns From: Karin Desrocher [ mailto :Kdesrocher(a)comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11 :54 AM To: APC Subject: Dakota Path development concerns Dear APC Members, Thank you for volunteering your time and energies for this commission. It is only through thoughtful, careful planning that a city such as Eagan can remain true to its visions, and flourish as a desirable, safe place to live and work. We are writing to ask you to vote against the current plat for the proposed Dakota Path neighborhood. Our two main concerns are the number of units and the impact on traffic levels. The current proposal seems to have a very large number of units for this parkland. It decreases the amount of space available for a good buffer between the development and Lebanon Hills Park. The park is a wonderful asset to this area, and it would be disappointing to see houses, hear cars, lawnmowers, etc, while enjoying the trails of Lebanon Hills. Plus, the years of construction noise will certainly affect the serene nature, and be disruptive to the wildlife. The large number of units also allows for less space for a desired buffer between current houses and the developed land. The increase in traffic that will occur is a huge concern. Not just a concern in the increase in noise, but a true safety concern for the residents. George Ohmann Park is heavily used by sports teams for practices, games and tournaments, that already draw in a large amount of traffic along Fairway Hills Drive and Interlachen Drive. The current plat drawings call for more fields to be added, which will further increase the number of cars and people along these neighborhood streets. And to be truthful, most of these cars are traveling quite fast, as we imagine they are late to a practice, or anxious to get somewhere afterward. The Park and Rec Summer In the Park Program is very popular at the George Ohmann site. The are many children that get dropped off and picked up daily in the summer. However, another concern is for the many children that walk, bike, roller blade everyday to and from the park for the program. There are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. The increase in traffic, especially on Interlachen Drive, as theses families and kids make there why to the park, for a program, or just to enjoy it, is very concerning to us. Please take these into consideration as you vote on the current layout for this land. The city of Eagan can be both, open to new development opportunities, and remain true to its visions, in this case, by being prudent in protecting the natural state of Lebanon Park as much as possible and helping to keep families safe. Thank you Pete and Karin Desrocher 4704 Fairway Hills Drive Eagan, MN 651 -686 -9383 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:15 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: upcoming discussion on the Parkview Golf course proposed development From: e- iensen @mmm.com [mailto:e- Jensen @mmm.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:53 AM To: APC Subject: upcoming discussion on the Parkview Golf course proposed development Dear City Advisory Planning Commission members. , My name is Eric Jensen and I live at 4614 Parkridge Drive and have done so for the past 28 years. I am writing again to ask that you carefully consider your decisions regarding . the upcoming Parkview Golf Course development request that is before you. As this process has unfolded a number of key issues have surfaced that concern me greatly. I would like to itemize each of these and list my concerns . One of the changes that the developer has proposed is to include a number of smaller Lots in the development that originally thought. He is trying to include a number of 65 foot lots with nearby neighborhoods averaging 90 feet. This move will bring smaller homes and thus lower property values than originally intended and advertised during initial discussions. This is a bit misleading to and raises very large concerns about how this project will proceed and its impact on existing home property values. Another concern that I have expressed before is removing one of the full access turns into our neighborhood. At the time when Cliff Road was widened we had a lot of debate regarding the number of full access turns that our neighborhood would have. As we only have two entrances the council decided that we needed to have two full access entrances to our neighborhood. The current proposal as I understand it will eliminate one of the full access entrances to allow for a full service entrance for this new development. This is because the entrance currently into the golf course is too close to the entrance immediately to the west according to county standards. If you do that the new development will have 4 full access entrances and we will only have one which is totally contrary to the last decision that the council made regarding this question relative to the home owners in the Parkcliff Development. This would be totally unacceptable to me as long -time home owner in Eagan. Being consistent in your decisions is important. Another change that the developer is trying include is a 100 unit senior high rise. This will increase traffic into and out of this development and we need to be aware of this and not look at it too cavalierly as part of the normal progression of new developments. Also adding more soccer fields to the area will increase the amount of traffic in and out and it already is very heavy as we have noticed as we take our evening walk into Fairway Hills. I would ask that you take the citizens concerns into account as you deliberate this decision. Development is always part of the process in a well run city like Eagan but lets make sure that you take all of the concerns of your current citizens into account and not just run them over to move ahead in an area that will do no good. Sincerely Eric Jensen 4614 Parkridge Drive Eagan, Minnesota N Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:37 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Regarding developement plan for Park View Golf Course From: jdmetzler @comcast.net [mailto:jdmetzler @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:57 PM To: APC Subject: Regarding developement plan for Park View Golf Course Please do not approve any plans for the development of the Park View Golf course. It would destroy a good course, impose on natural landscape and turn our neighborhood into a crowded development, if houses were built. Jim Metzler Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:03 PM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course /Dakota Path From: Thomas Diskin [mailto:sadtfd @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:54 PM To: APC; joe @saveparkview.org Subject: Parkview Golf Course /Dakota Path Planning Council: I am writing you to voice my concerns /displeasure with the proposed development of the Parkview Golf Course /Dakota Path. Based on the proposals pending I am concerned with the number of units (273) being proposed. This increase in housing would put a terrible burden on the current residents with the increase in traffic and have a negative impact on our environment. We already face difficult times with the flow /amount of traffic that is incurred when there are events held at George Ohmann Park. It is very difficult to pull out from a driveway with all the traffic that comes with these events. If the housing is increased this will permanently increase the volume of traffic to our neighborhood. Not only will the increase in housing cause additional unwanted traffic but any increase to the soccer fields at George Ohmann Park as proposed will unfairly increase the traffic in the neighborhood. I protest the application to decrease the sizing of the lots to be 65 foot lots. This would detract from the beauty of the neighborhood and allow for less privacy for which was a reason we we purchased our homes in this area. This type of sizing would decrease the pricing of the homes to be sold and would negatively impact the values of the surrounding homes. I vehemently oppose the building of a senior high rise on this property. This type of structure would have a negative impact on the neighborhood as this type of building wouldn't fit into the current housing that our neighborhood was built on. Our neighborhood is made up of single family homes and has no place for a high rise building. This would negatively impact the value of the existing homes which we all can ill afford. We purchased our homes to be part of a neighborhood and this type of structure would take away from the appeal of the neighborhood. The turn restrictions being proposed to Parkcliff Drive and Dunberry Lane would be of great inconvenience to our daily drives. This would cause residents to go out of their way to get to where they want to go. I feel these type of changes are not what this neighborhood needs or should be subject to. Based on the city's vision statement below I strongly feel you are not serving the needs and interests of the current citizens as to personal and property protection, a healthy environment, a sense of community and ethical representation. If you allow these proposal to go forward you will have failed in your obligations to fairly represents us. This type of development would not help the stable tax base as it would decrease the value of the existing homes and possibly decrease the tax base of the hundreds of homes that already exist. VIEW OF MISSION "The City of Eagan exists to serve the needs and interests of its present and future citizens by providing quality public services, personal and property protection, a healthy environment, a stable tax base, attractive amenities, a sense of community and ethical representation. The City will endeavor to reflect community values in an effective, responsible, efficient and visionary manner." I ask you to think about how these types of changes to our lovely neighborhood will impact us and I would ask for you to put yourself in our place. Would you want these types of changes in your neighborhood? I think not. As part of the commission it is your responsibility to think about how this will impact the current residents that purchased their homes in good faith. When we purchased our homes it was the largest investment most of us would make in our lifetime and to have the city we have put our trust in to give into these demands would be very disheartening. We purchased homes in Eagan based on a certain quality of life and the changes that are being proposed will very have an extremely negative impact on our quality of life as well as a negative impact to the investments we have all made. In your mission statement you reference "environmental integrity, recreational variety, attractive neighborhoods and community pride" which by allowing these proposals would in fact go against you own mission statement. All of the above items mentioned in your mission statement would be lost for our neighborhood. I implore the commission to take into account all of the views of the existing Eagan citizens and think about your role to support those that live here before approving these proposals. Sincerely a very concerned resident, Thomas Diskin 4600 Fairway Hills Drive, Eagan, MN 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:36 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Dakota Path EAW Attachments: PlanningCom5- 17- 12.doc From: Susan Bradley [ma i Ito: susa n brad ley(cbcomcast. net] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:42 AM To: Mike Ridley; APC Subject: Fwd: Dakota Path EAW Dear Mr. Ridley and APC: In reviewing the APC agenda and accompanying materials for the January 22 meeting, I see that my December 12 e -mail was not included. Perhaps you only published selected comments. I just wanted to re -send this to be sure my voice is added to the others who expressed concerns about neighborhood traffic levels and safe access to Cliff and Pilot Knob Roads. The density level of the proposed development is simply too high to be supported by existing roads. Sincerely, Susan Bradley 4675 Fairway Hills Drive Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Bradley <susanbradley().comcast.net> Date: December 12, 2012 1:42:03 PM CST To: mridley(a)cityofeagan.com, APC(a)cityofeagan.com Cc: leadership(osaveparkview.org Subject: Dakota Path EAW Dear Mr. Ridley and Advisory Planning Commission, My husband and I are 21 -year residents of the Fairway Hills neighborhood. In May, I sent the APC a letter addressing my concerns about the traffic impact of the proposed Dakota Path Development. So as not to be redundant, I will not repeat those specific concerns here, but I ain attaching that letter should you wish to review it. Suffice it to say that I remain very concerned about the level of traffic that could come through Fairway Hills and onto surrounding streets if 174 single- family homes and 100 senior units are built. I realize much of the traffic will enter and exit on Cliff (a problem in its own right), but I am mainly concerned about adding an intolerable amount of traffic to existing residential streets. In specific, I was alarmed to read this in the EAW: The volume on Interlachen Drive is expected to increase by 390 vehicles per day, while the volume on Pebble Beach Way is expected to increase by 245 vehicles per day. Does anyone really think it is OK to add 635 more car trips a day to two residential streets where children are at play? Has anyone planning or voting on this development tried to make a left turn from Interlachen or Pebble Beach Way at 7:15 in the morning or 5:30 in the afternoon? I can only imagine the bottlenecks and long waits that will result if this many cars are added. As I understand it, the traffic study did not assess street traffic when George Ohmann Park was in full use with soccer games, so that is another factor that should be considered, particularly if additional fields (and thus more cars) are added. I ask you to seriously consider the impact that this high level of traffic could have on local traffic flow and on the safety of Fairway Hills residents and visitors. Sincerely, Susan Bradley 4675 Fairway Hills Drive Eagan, MN 55123 To: Eagan Advisory Planning Commission From: Susan Bradley, susanbradley@comcast.net, 651- 683 -0967, 4675 Fairway Hills Drive Date: May 17, 2012 Dear Members of the Advisory Planning Commission: My husband and I are 21 -year residents of the Fairway Hills neighborhood. We have loved raising our family here and have felt fortunate to live in such a safe, quiet, and friendly neighborhood. We really couldn't have asked for a nicer place to live. I am writing with concerns about the proposed development of Parkview Golf Course. Naturally, I join my neighbors in being worried about what such a development could mean for home values, local traffic, and eradication of the peaceful, quiet environment we have come to enjoy. I also join with them in grieving the potential loss of Eagan's last golf course, which has provided an affordable option for playing golf for so many Eagan residents. ( Parkview also has the rare distinction of having produced a high school state golf champion, our neighbor who grew up playing there!) As someone who supports free enterprise, I find myself loathe to try and dictate to business owners what they can and can't do with their property. I affirm the right of private business . owners to make whatever financial arrangements are advantageous to them within the bounds of the law and morality. I will leave it to others to fight the legal battles to oppose development in any form. Having said that, I wanted to express my significant concerns about the initial plan I have seen for a densely - packed housing development. The drawing I saw shows that at least half of the 175 homes would likely use Interlachen Drive to come in and out of their neighborhood. It is already incredibly difficult to make a left -hand turn onto Pilot Knob during the morning and evening rush hours. For example, it can easily take one car three minutes to make that turn at 7:00 am. If one or two drivers from even 80 of the new homes are added to the queue, the wait will be interminable. This is a special concern since many who would be making that turn on weekday mornings are inexperienced high school drivers headed to Eastview. While it is slightly easier for us at present to turn left onto Cliff Road from Fairway Hills Drive than it is to turn left onto Pilot Knob, that turn would also become more difficult as more traffic would be leaving the Parkview development and heading west, and more would be coming from the west as those residents return home. The traffic moves very fast in both directions, and it would really be a challenge to get onto Cliff if the number of cars increases so significantly. Inconvenience aside, I have great concerns for my neighbors who live on Interlachen and would see their quiet street turned into a freeway as the new neighbors cut over to Pilot Knob. There are many children along that street, and it is simply not designed to be a major thoroughfare. I also have concerns for my own street, as I can envision many would use Fairway Hills Drive as a shortcut into the southern end of the new neighborhood. We have lived through many years of harried soccer parents using our street like it's a racetrack to Ohmann Park, and I can only imagine how much worse that would get as many in the new neighborhood would be racing off to work or home again. In sum, I ask you to please consider the needs and safety of Eagan's current residents before you vote to add a dense housing development where open space exists now. It is not our fault that insufficient road access exists to serve such a large number of homes, but it would certainly be our problem if all this traffic is dumped onto our streets. Also, please consider that once this beautiful property would be turned over for development, that green space would be lost forever. One thing we have greatly enjoyed about Eagan is the city's commitment to preserving open land rather than developing everything in sight. I ask you to consider carefully before you approve rezoning, or at least define parameters so that fewer houses will be built in this landlocked space. Thank you for your consideration. Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 8:08 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid; Jon Hohenstein Subject: FW: Dakota Path Development Concerns From: tomnancyjamie0comcast. net [ma i Ito: tom nancyjamieCQ-comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:53 PM To: APC ;Subject: Dakota Path Development Concerns Dear APC members - We are unable to attend the meeting tonight. Please do not interpret our lack of attendance as being in favor of the proposed Dakota Path development. We have concerns that this plat is not designed appropriately for the good of the citizens of Eagan and for the users of the Lebanon 'Hills Regional park. We believe traffic load and traffic management plans have not been properly assessed. An additional 635 cars per day and the impact to ALL surrounding streets and neighborhoods has not been appropriately planned for. Finally, we believe there is not enough of a buffer zone to protect the Lebanon Hills Regional Park. We recommend you do not approve the current plat plan. Tom and Nancy Lucas 4601 Fairway Hills Dr Eagan MN 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:50 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview From: jdmetzler(?bcomcast.net [mailto:jdmetzler @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 3:12 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview To all who have a say in this issue of the Parkview proposal: We do not need -177 houses and 2 more soccer fields -we don't want 65 foot lots to deteriorate your property value -we don't need 600 more cars a day in our neighborhood -and we want Lebanon Hills Park protected Another flop of a housing development is not needed in Eagan. Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:50 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley; Tom Hedges Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course From: Joel Mich [mailto:jmich(@Cretex.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:39 AM To: City Council Cc: Cathi Mich (cathimichl9(a)yahoo.com) Subject: Parkview Golf Course As a resident of the Fairway Hills neighborhood, I've been silent throughout the process as I weigh a landowner's rights vs. a community. I respect the quandary the City Council is in on this issue. Fundamentally, in my opinion, a landowner should be allowed to use land at his /her will, and has no obligation for example to provide "green /park space for his neighbors ", and said neighbors should not be able to demand this. On the flip side however, the land owner (Parkview Golf) can not impose a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhood. By linking a proposed Parkview Golf neighborhood to the Fairway Hills neighborhood (accomplished by extending Interlachen ), this will greatly affect Fairway Hills with increased traffic, and cause safety concerns, quality of life, and ultimately, will vastly and negatively affect Fairway Hills residents. Simply stated, this proposal should not proceed based on this reason. As I see the many "Save Parkview" Signs, I tend to believe it should be "Save Fairway Hills Neighborhood" A City Council exists to protect and represent the rights of its citizens. The Eagan City Council needs to fulfill this charge to protect /represent its existing residents (Fairway Hills), rather than future un -named potential residents. Joel, Cathi, William, Virginia, Edward Mich 1367 St Andrew Blvd Eagan, MN 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:31 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course From: Wally Vavrosky [mailto:dandw(&q.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:10 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course Please consider KEEPING Parkview as an operating golf course. We have been using that course for over 20 years, paying our fees, and also visiting stations and stores in Eagan while driving to and from the course. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Wally Vavrosky (Richfield) Pam Dudziak To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview Development From: Errin Stevens [ mailto :errinstevens(cbyahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:30 AM To: Mike Ridley; 'Mark Skweres'; 'billandamy @comcast.net'; 'larry poppler'; 'eperickson @comcast.net'; 'mrsmagoo @usfamily.net'; 'pjcampbeIls @com cast. net'; 'vaijackson @q.com'; 'palmi @q.com'; 'Bill Tierney'; 'katiembrowne'; '. Flicek' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak Subject: Re: Parkview Development Dear Mr. Ridley: Thank you for sharing this information and for being proactive with your communications effort to the neighbors. I respectfully ask that any traffic analysis please also assess the risks associated with the current plan as it relates to foot traffic in Fairway Hills. If we had sidewalks, this scenario might well be different, but as we do not,-our roadways are used by children, bikers and dog walkers because they have no alternative, and I worry about the safety of increased car traffic, particularly at the levels the commission estimates, for the new development. Thank you, En in Stevens Resident, Fairway Hills 4705 Pebble Beach Way Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:03 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: FW: Park view Develpment - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bill [mailto:tierneysalesPaol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:06 PM To: City Council Subject: Park view Develpment Members of the Eagan City Council, Earlier I wrote the planning Commission about my concerns regarding the proposed Parkview development and now I wish to express these concerns to the City Council. Prior to doing that I appreciate that the planning commission has taken a very balanced look at this issue and has voted not to recommend for approval as the proposal currently stands. I built a home in 1989 on Interlachen Dr. In Fairway Hills Subdivision.It is my street that is proposed as an egress for the the new subdivision. There are no side walks so the increased traffic will mix with pedestrians and bicyclists and our existing traffic. Please come out and stand at the end of my driveway. The grade of my driveway is already so steep that I have difficulty getting up it and into my garage during winter weather. If you have any notion to widen Interlachen Dr. To accommodate the new development it will be impossible for me to get into my garage without a car lift. Regarding the removal of Eagan's last Golf Course to enhance the finances of investors and a developer, I find that to be a terrible idea. When I think of the public golf facilities that other metro cities have access to It really feels like as a city and a community that we will get, excuse the pun, the "golf shaft ". It has been stated Eagan has a lot of green space already. If you take Lebanon Hills and the power line linear park away, do we? There a many small parks, small lakes with parks and ball fields etc, but nothing with the acreage that you could ever contemplate making into a golf course later on. 60,000 rounds of golf annually at Parkview on a parcel zoned private recreational, lets keep it recreational and send a message to our 60,00 citizens that the interests of our community and citizens will be paramount to those who wish to rezone Parkview for personal profit. Thank you Bill Tierney 1377 Interlachen Dr. Eagan, MN 55123 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:05 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Golf Course From: Edward W. Scholten [mailto:mredscholten(&msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:02 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course I've lived in Bloomington for over 40 years and the last 6 years in Farmington and I have golfed at Parkview Golf many, many times. My grandson (15) and his family live within 2 miles of this golf course. My Grandson needs your golf course and Eagan needs your golf course. I drive so I can go anyplace, but the young people and your citizens need your golf course and a large no of students from Eagan and other suburbs. WHY SEND THEM TO ANOTHER CITY TO SPEND THEIR MONEY AT A GOLF COURSE and other places while they are there. I'm 75 so my years of golf are uncertain, but Parkview is a good golf course and I like it, as long as it stays open, I'll be golfing at Parkview and getting beat by a 15 year old who doesn't forget every time he beats his grandpa. YOUNG GOLFERS ARE NOT TROUBLE MAKERS AT HOME OR ON THE STREET. Keep Parkview Golf Course open. Ed Scholten 612- 816 -7129 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:06 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: The rezoning of Parkview golf course - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Monique Daley [mailto:moniquedaley(@gmail.co Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:33 PM To: City Council Subject: The rezoning of Parkview golf course Dear Eagan City Council, I'm emailing to express my concern over the rezoning of Parkview golf course. I don't golf, nor do I see a problem with that land being developed - if done well. 177 houses just seems like too many for that little bit of land however. I cringe to think of the additional traffic from that many houses being redirected through the Fairway Hills neighborhood in following years. There are many families with young children that like to walk and bike around the Fairway Hills neighborhood and with the proposed increase in traffic from the Parkview development, I worry that the Fairway Hills neighborhood won't be a safe place for kids and families to do that. We are counting on the city council to make a good decision for both the existing residents and any future residents in this part of the city. Sincerely, Monique and Adrian Daley 1386 Saint Andrew Blvd. 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:54 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: FW: Proposed development - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Stephanie Bergh [ mailto :stephbergh(@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:30 PM To: City Council Subject: Proposed development Dear city council, The density of the proposed development for Dakota Path represents a density plan that disregards commitment to Eagan's priority to preserve and celebrate green space. Insist this proposal respects the natural gem of Lebanon Park and surrounding neighborhoods. This density is beyond what is needed for the development to profit and the city of Eagan to benefit from a new tax base. Do this right Eagan. Sent from my iPhone 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:48 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Golf course From: Mary Nelson [mailto:dennymary@q.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 3:38 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf course To the Eagan City Council I have lived in Eagan since 1974 and have played a lot of golf at Parkview. I sorry to see it being developed for more housing. Eagan needs an 18 hole course to complete it as a viable city. I've noticed in traveling that even smaller towns have their own golf course. Dennis Nelson 4445 Vildmark Court Eagan Mn. 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:24 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon'Hohenstein; Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: Approve the sale of Parkview Golf Course From: Nate Cardin [mailto:golfguy510a yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:07 PM To: City Council Subject: Approve the sale of Parkview Golf Course City of Eagan, I am writing this e -mail today to strongly urge.you to approve the change in zoning of Parkview so the course may be sold. The golf industry currently has a serious issue with the overpopulation of golf courses. If we continue to Jet struggling golf courses stay open we are just taking the life blood away from the other 4 -5 courses that are also suffering from declining participation. The city needs to take the emotion out of the decision and do what is best for the overall economy and the future of golf. If courses like this continue to operate it will only lead to more course closures in the future. The opposition of the closure is a small group who did not do their part to support the golf course in the first place. With the declining participation in the state of Minnesota we are simply asking for more courses to close and sit idle if we do not let this sale run it's course. If we want the city and the game of golf itself to grow we need to act on what is right and not out of emotion. Ultimately it is not right to try and stop a land owner from selling his property to another. This is what drives our economy and our growth as a community. I would like to thank you for your time and consideration. Golf advocate and community member Pam Dudziak From: Pam Dudziak Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:41 PM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: EAW Parkview Golf Course From: Nate Cardin [mailto:golfguy5100)yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:45 PM To: Mike Ridley Subject: EAW Parkview Golf Course Michael, I would Like to take the opportunity today to voice the importance of approving the Land Use Change of Parkview Golf Course. For years now golf has been suffering from discounted pricing structures and overpopulation. The City of Eagan now has the opportunity to offer security to the Local golf industry and promote economic growth. Recent reports form the National Golf Foundation show that the number of golfers have increased 16% since 1990. However, they report that the number of golf facilities has increased over 24 %. This imbalance has contributed to "the dilution of demand across the supply of golf facilities ". Rounds of golf per 18 holes are down about 20% over this same time period. As a result, local golf courses have lost nearly 8,000 rounds over the last 20 plus years. The current low price structure that Parkview has in place lowers the expectations of the customers who frequent there. This forces other courses with similar operating expenses to set rates competitively which can hinder growth and quality. A boost in rounds for neighboring courses could offset those costs and still allow courses to offer quality golf at lower rates. The City of Eagan has now been empowered with the opportunity to start a path of sustainability for golf industry. Parkview ownership has reported financial loss for years with the current structure they have in place. Forcing them to remain open as a golf course would only continue to strain other local courses and continue to dilute the market. Please take this opportunity to spark economic growth and secure the future of the game at our local golf courses. The future of golf in this area relies on it. On behalf of all golf enthusiasts and course owners /operators I would like to thank you for your time. I know how important this decision is and how much time and effort you have put into it. I would be happy to supply you with more detailed information regarding the state of the game of golf and its financial instability. I would also be willing to share more about how passing the Land Use Change can improve the growth of the game. Please feel free to contact me via email for more information. Thanks again! 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:48 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Dianne Miller; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Proposed Traffic Control Change on Cliff Road From: Eric Jensen [ rnailto :ericjensen59 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:07 PM To: City Council Subject: Proposed Traffic Control Change on Cliff Road Dear Eagan City Council Members, My name is Erin Jensen and I live at 4614 Parkridge Drive and have done so since 1984. I am writing in reference to the proposed zoning change request for the Parkview Golf Course coming before the council sometime in the near future. First of all I want to compliment all of you on the way that you have been running the city of Eagan. Your fiscal responsibility and thoughtful management of issues during my many years here have been very impressive. That is one of the things that makes Eagan such a great place to live. Regarding the proposed development I fully understand that change is a normal part of city life and growth. But having watched this process for the development of the golf course over the past many years I am a bit concerned regarding the review of the justif ication for the change requested by the current owner. This is a bit of mute point at this time as the land use policy was changed late last year without a full disclosure of the financial picture of the owner. When the council requested a picture of the current operating situation the owner refused to reveal his debt status which to me is a critical part of the analysis that could be done. If an owner has taken risk on the debt side and now would like the city to make a zoning change to help "bail " him out it seems to me that a total review of the f inances would be in order to make sure that the decisions you are making do not benefit this owner at the expense of the many home owners around him. Again that point is probably a bit of water over the dam and less of an issue. It just seems to me having been in business for many years that when making these types of decisions a full analysis and disclosure is required. Based on the current situation and status of this request for rezoning my concerns now *Move to the area of traffic flow and access from my neighborhood to Cl if f Road. I know when Cliff Road was widened a number of years ago the council had a debate regarding full access to the Parkcliff Development and concluded that as we are landlocked by Lebanon Hills Park on 2 sides we needed to have 2 f ulI access points into and out of our development. The homes in Parkcliff would be negatively impacted by only having one f ull access. Now to benef it the proposed new development they are asking to close one of our full access entrances to allow them to have the required access onto Cliff Road. In looking at the traff is assessment completed by Wenck f or the developer I have a couple of major concerns. The report def ines the Level of service in degrees of congestion shown below Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop- and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. On page 16 table 5 of the of the EAW it states that the level of service f rom North bound traffic on Parkridge Drive will be a D level by 2017 without this project going forward and will be level E (definition shown above) by 2017 with this project going forward. Then by 2030 the level of service will beat level F see def inition above ) at the north bound traffic on Parkridge Drive without the project and with the project . Based on the information I copied from the report (page 18) shown below the decision to move ahead with this project causes the traffic volume at Parkridge Drive by 2030 to be at level F without the project due to normal traff is increase and stay at Level F with the project. If 535 vehicles per day is at Service level F then 930 vehicles per day will be a signif icant issue going forward. Leaving both entrances as full access to the Parkcliff neighborhood is the only way to have any hope of keeping the traffic level at a anywhere near manageable level coming in and out of our neighborhood The existing daily volume on Parkridge Drive is estimated at 375 vehicles per day. This volume was developed using a typical eight percent during the a.m. peak hour and 10 percent during the 2 p.m. peak hour, which is consistent with the volumes along Cliff Road today. The 2017 No- Build daily volume is estimated at 415 vehicles per day, the 2017 Build at 715 vehicles per day, the 2030 No -Build at 535 vehicles per day, and the 2030 Build at 930 vehicles per day. It seems like the situation has come down to the fact that the proposed development needs to put a certain number of homes into a property they want to purchase and develop to ensure they get a return on their investment. Unfortunately this 80 acres or so has only 2 access points (one on the west side and one on the north side) making it very dif f icult to justify the increased traffic on these access points and the impact to the surrounding community caused by the large number of proposed home sites. . I would ask that you seriously consider this issue for those of us living in the Parkcliff neighborhood and also take into consideration the decisions that you have made in the past relative to full access to our neighborhood. It seems Like you are going down the road of making a decision that will impact many homeowners on many f routs to the benef it of a few. I would expect the city council to ensure that the views and needs of the many would not be overrun by the needs and views of a few. I know the flip side of this issue as to whether or not a few are being unduly burdened at the benef it of many is what the courts may decide but you the city council need to make sure that you are representing the current homeowners and citizens of Eagan. Respectfully Eric Jensen 4614 Parkridge Drive Eagan, Minnesota 3 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:09 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc:. Julie Strid Subject: FW: Proposed development on Parkview Golf Course From: Jeff Cousins [ma i Ito: jeffcousins comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:07 AM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Proposed development on Parkview Golf Course Mr. Ridley, I request that the City Council not approve the planned development for the Parkview Golf Course site on Cliff Road. As a resident of the Park Cliff neighborhood, the increased traffic and proposed re- routing of traffic for our neighborhood will cause safety issues within the neighborhood, and for the safety and utility vehicles that must serve the neighborhood. I realize that the site is privately owned, and that the owners have a right to sell their property, but there is no need to cover every green space in Eagan with housing, especially as we recover from a horrible housing market crash. I am also concerned that these changes, along with the increased traffic volume will devalue my property. Simply stated, Eagan does not need this development. There's no shortage of housing available in Eagan today and adding this development simply devalues the quality of life for other Eagan residents. Please do not approve this development. Thank you, Jeff Cousins 651 -276 -4462 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:37 AM To: Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course From: Renee Iwen [mailto:renee.iwen @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:08 AM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Golf Course Mr. Ridley, I have played in the women's Tuesday night league for the last 7 years mainly for location and cost. Other league are further away and cost on average $200 more. After our round of golf we hit a local restaurant for dinner. So double hit for the area. It's also a great place to go and hit a bucket of balls after work, you hit off glass not a fabricated mat (a plus for avid golfers). It's so close that it doesn't take up an entire evening to drive somewhere to practice. It would be a sad day in Eagan if the course closed. Renee Iwen 1939 No. Ruby Court Eagan, MN 55122 Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:07 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid Subject: FW: Additional traffic threat, posed by the development of 177 HOMES !! From: epfedeliCc@comcast.net [ma ilto:epfedeli@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 8 :41 PM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Additional traffic threat, posed by the development of 177 HOMES !! Mr. Ridely, I understand theirs a proposal to develop the existing Parkview golf course into 177 HOMES. The additional traffic created by these new residents, and the additional congestion and traffic "back -up" on Cliff and Pilot Knob roads, will force existing AM and PM - rush hour commuters to find "short- cuts" to avoid this intersection. That means finding alternate routes, to avoid the intersection, using our currently quiet neighborhood streets. The current safety of our streets will be compromised. Their are on average 2 -4 school buses using these quiet streets in the AM, loading students, with frequent stops in front of their homes. On Wednesday's, 4 -6 trash haulers use our streets in the early AM - again compounding the safety issue. Additionally, their are numerous neighbors who jog, walk their dogs at all times during any day. experienced this "traffic havoc" when living in Bloomington when the 494 "ring- route" and American Blvd. was developed, which forced commuter traffic onto 84th street, Stanly Ave. and 9 Mile Creek Pkwy, where I lived previous to moving to Eagan. You must reconsider any decision to develop Parkview and keep the land as is designated in the current "Eagan Comprehensive Plan" as "private recreational property ". Let -alone the loss of a busy, profitable, well maintained golf course. Neighbors of mine are also aware and very concerned of the possibility of increased traffic. Your consideration and "common sense" approach, is appreciated in reviewing any action, concerning Parkview. Thank you, Emil Fedeli 1357 Lakeside Drive Eagan Pam Dudzialk From: Mike Ridley Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:08 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid Subject: FW: Parkview Development From: Joyce Tollerud [mailtoJatollerud(&yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:34 AM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Development This is to express my disappointment with the road access for the proposed Parkview Golfcouse development. We live on Dunberry Lane, and the proposal closes off our ability to turn left from Dunberry Lane onto Cliff Road. The proposal will produce a significant waste of gasoline and extra traffic on Dunberry. If we all shared equally it would be one thing, but it seems almost ironic that the new people in the development would get to turn both directions. I know the new development would only have one way out, but that suggests that they NEED A SECOND EXIT from the new development. I also know your concern is safety, but that same concern must apply for the cars turning left from the new development. Sincerely, Joyce Tollerud 1281 Dunberry Lane Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:08 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid Subject: FW: Cliff Road Median Modifications From: dkrathke0baol.com [mailto:dkrathkePaol.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:45 PM To: Mike Ridley; Kristi .Sebastian @co.dakota.mn.us; John Gorder Subject: Cliff Road Median Modifications My name is Dale Rathke and my family live at 1270 Dunberry Lane and we are HIGHLY AGAINST this Median Proposal The majority of drivers entering Dunberry lane do so by making a Left onto Dunberry. This modification would greatly increase the amount of traffic in front of our house. Also, during the winter season (on snowy days), even the snow plows have trouble going up the STEEP hill part of Dunberry lane (where our house is located). This very steep road is not plowed nowhere near frequent enough to allow drivers to be safe going up and down this road more often as this road change would do. I am returning from a flight from AZ on April 1 st and will be unable to attend the meeting, so I wish to voice my definite NO to this Proposed Development and Road Modifications. Thank You, Dale, Katy, Jacob (8), and Heather (4) Rathke Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Proposed Dakota Path Development Comments From: palmi ftcom [mailto:palmi00q com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5 :03 PM To: Mike Ridley; City Council Subject: Proposed Dakota Path Development Comments Dwight Palmi 4750 Cypress Pt. Eagan, MN 55123 paimi @q.com I am a resident of Fairway Hills and have concerns about the impact of the proposed Dakota Path development on our neighborhood. I also believe that there is an error and an important omission in the EAW that could impact the Council's decision about the proposed development. Please consider the following points: Potential Error The Fairway Hills neighborhood already has more nonresident traffic through the heart of the neighborhood than most other neighborhoods in the city due to soccer activity. The EAW analysis only considers the additional traffic added by the Dakota Path development and not the high base -line of non - neighborhood traffic already existing in Fairway Hills. • I don't believe the volumes in the EAW traffic study for existing traffic of 780 at Fairway Hills Drive, 540 at Interlachen and 670 at Pebble Beach Way reflect soccer traffic. If that is correct my rough estimate of daily soccer traffic is approximately 200 trips. The City may have better estimates but I think 200 is reasonable - 6 teams per night, 18 kids per team and one trip to the field and another away from the field. Omission The impact of the increased traffic through Fairway Hills on livability is not addressed. The section of the EAW document sub - headed 'Local Street Impacts' only discusses capacity - i.e. 'a two lane roadway without turn lanes can accommodate 3,000 vehicles per day while maintaining acceptable levels of service'. It does not consider the development's impact on quality of life in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods are about people being safe in their neighborhoods, playing, interacting with others, biking, walking, etc. Neighborhoods are not about streets that can accommodate certain levels of traffic. Traffic has a big impact on these aspects of neighborhood livability and the EAW doesn't address this. • The traffic analysis section of the EAW exhaustively analyzes access into and out of Dakota Path onto either Cliff or Pilot Knob, but spends no time on discussing the impact of the additional traffic on the livability of the Fairway Hills neighborhood. Again the focus is on vehicles, not on people living in their neighborhood. There are hundreds of references on the internet related to the efforts of communities as they develop to limit the negative effects of traffic on neighborhoods - to maintain an environment where residents can interact socially without distraction or threats, have the ability to experience a sense of community and where conditions are safe and pleasant for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents. I would hope that the City Council for Eagan would likewise consider the impact of the proposed development on Fairway Hills even though it is not part of the EAW. I trust that the Council will give the impact fair weight as it deliberates the Dakota Path development. Conclusion The impact on traffic through neighborhoods will be entirely born by Fairway Hills residents. Dakota Path will experience. Kittle or no non - neighborhood traffic and the same is true of Parkcliff. Fairway Hills, on the other hand, will experience an additional 633 non - neighborhood traffic trips through the neighborhood (390 - Interlachen, 245 Pebble Beach Way) in addition to the 200+ non - neighborhood trips due to soccer. The 200+ soccer trips doesn't include weekends and tournaments when there are many more non- neighborhood trips through Fairway Hills. • The Dakota Path development should not include access through Fairway Hills. Fairway Hills is already doing enough for the City by enduring the heavy level of soccer traffic. It's residents should not be asked to bear the burden of the traffic needs of another development. Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Proposed development of Parkview Golf Course From: Angela Laskowski, CRM Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:44 AM To: 'm rid ley @cityofeagan.com' Cc: 'citycounsil @cityofeagan.com' Subject: Proposed development of Parkview Golf Course To all it may concern, I reside in the Parkcliff neighborhood and live with my husband and three children who are 2 1/2 years old,, 18 months, and 18 months. (Yes, twins!) We moved to the neighborhood in August of 2011 because we felt it was a great location for our children to grow up and a safe neighborhood where the kids can play and walk to the park when they are older. I am very concerned about the traffic changes that would accompany the proposed development at the Parkview Golf Course property. These changes would completely hinder the safety on our streets and drastically increase traffic. The impact would be detrimental to us and to our neighborhood residents. I have studied this issue and agree with others that the EAW glosses over the true nature of the impact that would flow from 177 homes squeezed into an area with limited access. These changes would affect surrounding neighborhoods and everyone who travels on Cliff and Pilot Knob Roads by making our roads and streets more congested, our neighborhoods less safe, and our trips longer. The conclusions of the EAW are an inadequate measure of the proposed changes at Parkview. I ask that you take into account these traffic concerns before approving the development. Please vote "no" to this proposal. While I am in the Housing industry professionally, and support the concept of new development, I strongly believe this proposed development location would not be suitable for the community as a whole. Please vote "No" to the Development at Parkview Golf Course. Thank you for your consideration, Angela Laskowski 4640 Parkcliff Drive Eagan, MN 55102 ALaskowski(o)stuartco.com Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Proposed development of Parkview Golf Course From: Laskowski, Jason [ mailto:ilaskowski @netsuite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 201312 :52 PM To: City Council Subject: Proposed development of Parkview Golf Course To Whom It May Concern: I have resided in the Parkcliff neighborhood since August of 2011, and live here with my wife and three daughters; twins 18 month olds and a 2 % year old. I work from home, but drop off and pick up my daughters from daycare every day; utilizing the Parcliff Dr exit to head West on Cliff Road. There is never an issue with traffic, regardless of the time of day. All of the major business and commercial properties are West of the Parkcliff Dr exit. I completely disagree with the assessment that the exit needs to be right turn only, and have seen no valid reason for its change. It was only a few years ago the council deemed this exit necessary and vital for the neighborhood when Cliff RD was widened. Not only does the proposal not make sense because of traffic flow, but I do not want traffic racing by my house and three young children, because the city /county is forcing traffic out the back side of our neighborhood. In addition, I am proponent of proper land development, but have hesitation over the currently developer. Kurt Manly used to run a prominent development company (Manly Brothers) prior to the real estate bubble. I do not have knowledge of his prior business ethics or affairs. However, I do know he currently has millions of dollars in, judgments against him and his former company. The council needs to investigate this: (http: / /pa.courts.state.mn.us click on "Judgments Search "). This is a massive plot of park land which the council would change forever. Do you trust this developer to keep their promises and be a steward for this potential former green space? Jason T askowskl Account Executive 651 -756 -7076 (W) 612 - 432 -4445 (M) I jlaskowskinnetsuite.com NetSuite: Where Business is Going NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential and proprietary information of NetSuite Inc. and is for the sole use of the intended recipient for the stated purpose. Any improper use or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender; do not review, copy or distribute; and promptly delete or destroy all transmitted information. Please note that all communications and information transmitted through this email system may be monitored by NetSuite or its agents and that all incoming email is automatically scanned by a third party spatn and filtering service. Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:15 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Julie Strid Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course From: Kendall Halvorson [ mailto :underpinkstars(&gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:33 PM To: Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Golf Course Hello, I was completely frustrated and angry to hear about the proposed development of new housing where Parkview Golf Course is. Pretty soon, so many of the landmarks that make Eagan a family - friendly community will be gone. The thought of not being able to make a left -hand turn onto my street to get home after work each day is very frustrating, and there is already a TON of traffic near those streets and the intersection of Cliff and Pilot Knob. We DO NOT need an increase in traffic because of this proposed development. Leave the golf course alone! Kendall Halvorson Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:41 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: 'Mike Maguire'; Pam Dudziak Subject: Lebanon Hills - Parkview From: Deane Biermeier [mailto :dbiermeier@gmail,com] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 8:32 PM To: City Council Subject: Lebanon Hills To the Mayor and the City Council: I am concerned about the loss of green space, _recreational opportunities for our youth and seniors, and the impact on Lebanon Hills Regional Park. I strongly urge you to uphold the Eagan Comprehensive Plan and the designation of the Parkview Golf Course property as Private Recreational. This action will best complement the surrounding area, support Eagan residents, and protect our natural resources. Sincerely, Deane Biermeier 2222 water Lilly In Eagan mn 55122 612 -432 -1792 Pam Dudziak From: Mark.Skweres [mailto:mskweres(a)comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 7:39 AM To: Kristi .Sebastian(Oco.dakota.mn.us Cc: Schouweiler, Nancy; thomas.egan@co.dakota.mn.us; Tollefson, Todd; John Gorder; Mike Ridley; City Council Subject: Parkview / Cliff Road modifications Ms. Sebastian, I was unable to attend the meeting at Black Hawk Middle School regarding the proposed changes to Cliff Road near the site of the Parkview golf course. But I have been attending various Dakota County Plat Commission meetings, Eagan Advisory Planning Commission meetings and examined the EAW materials including the Traffic Studies regarding this proposal. As a person who uses Cliff Road several times per day I am very dismayed at the possibility of adding the traffic from 177 potential homes in that one small area and closing off turn lanes which neighbors have been using for decades. It is became very clear that none of the traffic configurations proposed would meet the County's standard requirements for intersection intervals on a County road as busy and important as Cliff Road. The modifications to the medians, restricting left turns at certain intersections and allowing it at others, will have a significant effect upon the amount, direction and behavior of the traffic on this major thoroughfare and the side streets in this area. I It must be stated clearly in your findings: ADDING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH 177 HOMES WILL CREATE TRAFFIC WHICH IS LESS SAFE THAN TODAY, REGARDLESS OF THE CONFIGURATION. This should be the first, and most important, point highlighted in the County's report to the Eagan City Council for their April 16th decision about this proposal. Specifically, the following are scenarios which are not acceptable: • Emergency vehicles will be impeded from the shortest, most straight- forward route to reach homes in the Parkcliff/ Parkridge and Dunberry lane neighborhoods. • Larger vehicles, such as school buses, senior buses, delivery trucks and garbage haulers will either a) be driving further distances on local streets, putting more children and pedestrians at risk, or b) making U -turns on Cliff Road to reverse direction due to impediments to making left turns at current intersections. • Parkridge Drive is already a very busy intersection, and left turns on and off Cliff are risky maneuvers today. The proposal will force Parkcliff Drive traffic turning left onto Parkridge and nearly TRIPLE the number of left turns! Service levels are already projected to be LOS F for that flow, and tripling the number of vehicles will only make it worse. In general, the entire tone of both the original and amended Traffic Studies sounds like it was written by the marketing department of the developer. It minimizes the known additional risk and safety concerns with misleading statements like "has minimal impact" or "... does not cause any movement to fall to LOS F ". The latter fails to point out that under several scenarios the service levels are ALREADY at LOS F and cannot fall further because there is no level worse than F! As a final note, I ask the County and City to consider the consequences if one child or one parent is injured in these new configurations. Ask yourself, would you want to explain why you allowed this change to the family of that individual? PLEASE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. Tell the City Council, the County Board, AND THE PUBLIC the truth: This development will make our roads and neighborhoods less safe than they are today. Sincerely, Mark Skweres 4616 Fairway Hills Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Cliff Road - Dakota Path - Open House From: Frank Cossetta [mailto:fcossetta @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 9:17 PM To: kristi .sebastian(a)co.dakota.mn.us; John Gorder Cc: frank.cossetta @bestbuy.com; Vanessa; Mike Ridley; jctcs @comcast.net Subject: Cliff Road - Dakota Path - Open House Kristi and John - Thank you for your time this evening at the Cliff Road - Dakota Path - Open House at Blackhawk Middle School. I appreciate the candid conversation regarding the development and its impact specifically to Parkridge Drive. You both provided some great factual information to help the residents understand the impacts of the proposed traffic changes. For further context, my wife Vanessa, and our two young children, Frankie and Sofia, reside at 4691 Parkridge Drive. We have enjoyed this home for nearly 6 years and find Eagan to be a great place to raise a family. With this being said and as we discussed, I have several concerns with Option 3 (the recommended option): 1. Impact to outbound traffic from Parkridge Drive to Cliff Road could experience approximately a 50% increase in daily traffic. As we discussed, there are 75 homes in the existing Parkridge /Parkview Development. Per our discussion, on average, each residents makes 5 inbound and 5 outbound trips per day. In total, this amounts to 375 inbound and 375 outbound trips per day for the neighborhood. Assuming half of the residents use Park Cliff and half use Parkridge Drive to access Cliff Road, eliminating the leftbound turn from Park Cliff could increase outbound traffic from Parkridge Drive up to 50 %. This increase is concerning. 2. Given the grade and straightaway on Parkridge Drive, the additional traffic will represent additional risk to the residents along Parkridge Drive as drivers will most likely continue to speed down Parkridge Drive to reach Cliff Road. 3. I am having a tough time justifying why Parkridge Drive would be directly impacted by the Dakota Hills Development. Parkridge Drive is not connected to the new development, currently handles the designed (engineered) amount of outbound Parkridge Development neighborhood traffic, and has never been posted with signage indicating impacts to it due to future developments. Option 1 appears to be a better fit as it does not impact outbound Parkridge Drive traffic; the developments impact is limited to the new Dakota Hills neighborhood and Interlachen Drive (which has been posted as a future through street for several years). If there is no other option but to route all drivers wishing to travel west on Cliff onto Parkridge, I would suggest, at minimum, adding speed bumps to Parkridge Drive to slow down traffic. The speed bumps could be permanent, or could be removable (removed during plowing season). Hopefully this recommendation could be considered and executed if there is no other option but to increase the outbound traffic on Parkridge Drive through the Proposed Traffic Change at Parkcliff. We truly enjoy Eagan and appreciate the level of diligence the city and county are performing in conjunction with the development Thank you for your time and best of luck reaching a resolution. Frank Cossetta 4691 Parkridge Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:33 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Pam Dudziak; Mike Ridley Subject: Sr. Mixed Golf League at Parkview From: barbara palmersheim [mailto:batinkle @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:41 AM To: City Council Subject: FW: Sr. Mixed Golf League at Parkview We are all very disappointed with the city council for allowing this wonderful course to be sold off for housing development. We seniors have lived in Eagan and watched this wonderful town become nothing more than a housing developement instead of the in the country it used to be. Good for you,city council !!!! We will not be voting for any of you in the future and will convince all of our friends and neighbors to not vote for you either. Hello, All! First ... apologies for not communicating sooner. Guess we were still wishing & hoping for good news concerning the fate of Parkview. Rumor is that Parkview will open for golf this spring. Disappointing news (but reality) is that they may not be open for the full season. More meetings are scheduled for later this month. Sadly, the fact is that Parkview most likely will not be able to support/sustain leagues. We researched some other venues over the winter, and, frankly, none really met the requirements our league would have for commuting distance, challenge for our players without undue difficulty, the availability of power carts, while still allowing those, who wish, the ability to walk the course. It has been a wonderful two years helping with the mixed league. The timing was right, the people were great, and, most of all, it was FUN! However, we will be stepping down from coordinating the league. We will take time off to play different courses and travel a little this summer. There is a minimal amount of remaining 'seed' money in the account we opened for the league that was reserved for beginning the new season. If someone comes forward and wishes to continue the league, we will close the current account and transfer the money to those wishing to go forward. We would also be available to offer any assistance /spreadsheets /etc. if wanted. Otherwise, the 'seed' money can be given to a charity. We want to thank Jesse & Ted for all they did for our league. They really made it easy and fun!!! Thanks to all of you in the league for your participation, help and good times! We hope to see you on a course and share some rounds with all of you this summer! Sincerely, John & Alicia Prondzinski Pam Dudzialk Subject: FW: Dakota County - Traffic Study for the "PROPOSED" development - Parkview Golf Course From: epfedelKbcomcast. net [mailto :epfedeli @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:17 PM To: Mike Ridley; Mike Maguire; Paul Bakken Subject: Dakota County - Traffic Study for the "PROPOSED" development - Parkview Golf Course Gentlemen, I attended the Dakota County Traffic Dept's. "open- house" last night at the middle school in Eagan. I spoke with several representatives, those who were involved with determining, how adjustments to existing traffic conditions, could be made for the "PROPOSED" development of Park -view Golf Course. I was surprised to see the developer (who ever it was) had set up his own presentation, apparently attempting to sell the "PROPOSED" development to those of us who have concerns about all the negative issues associated with the "PROPOSED" development. Who invited the developer? Why was he there? Or - is it already a for -gone conclusion that the golf- course will be developed - no matter what your constituents think. I thought his presence was highly inappropriate, because of the sen_ sitiv_ ity of this issue. Might make for some interesting "campaign fodder" come next election time. Respectfully, E Fedeli Eagan, MN Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:29 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Save Parkview Golf Course From: Richard Lawler [ mailto :rlawler321C5centuryl ink. net] Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2013 4:03 PM To: City Council Subject: Save Parkview Golf Course I would appeal to each member of the Eagan City Council to "vote against" the proposed zoning change for the Parkview Golf course. With the demise of the Carriage Hills course in 2004, this would leave Eagan will no 18 hole golf courses. Looking at the other cities within our area, it appears that they put great value on the golfing community than Eagan. Please consider the needs of the citizens of Eagan instead of the profits of developers. I might also point out that the addition of another housing development would mean an increase need for police and fire protection as well as an increased demand on the limited water resources in Eagan. Its interesting to note that prior the official decision by the council, the Eagan City website no longer lists any golf courses in the adult sports section of the page. That might lead one to feel that the decision has already been made by the city. Lets hope that the city of Eagan is better than that. Richard Lawler 1041 Wedgewood Ln S Eagan, MN 55123 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:26 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Rezoning change related to the Parkview Golf Coarse From: Lawrence, Matthew [LFSUS] [mailto:MLawrencCabits.jnj.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:21 PM To: City Council Subject: Rezoning change related to the Parkview Golf Coarse City Council, am writing to let you know that my wife and I oppose the land use amendment rezoning change related to the Parkview Golf Coarse. I am asking that you reject the request to allow a 177 unit housing development Matt Lawrence Office: 651- 688 -9655 1 Mobile: 612- 860 -5853 1 mlawrenc @its.inl.com Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:29 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview Golf From: Sue Tupy [mailto:satupyl(abyahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:03 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Dear Eagan City Council Members: I wish to put my vote against the closing of this course. I do this for a couple of reasons. 1. Increased traffic flow through the neighborhood due the building of the homes. 2. We need green spaces in the city that do not just sit there like parks but are used for a specific purpose. Thanks please vote NO against this proposal. Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:32 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview Golf Course Development From: spencejm @comcast.net [mailto:spencejm @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:13 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course Development Dear City Councilors - I'm writing to you today to ask that you REJECT the proposal to add 177 housing units to the Parkview Golf Course site. As a resident of Eagan for the past 7 years I have come to appreciate the natural settings and open recreation space that Eagan has to offer. While I typically support housing developments as I understand the need for the city to increase our tax base, I do take issue with redeveloping a useful "green space" to cram in a bunch of additional housing. I see a number of underdeveloped commercial and retail sites that I'd want to see rezoned before impacting this site. Besides the use of the site for housing I have concerns with the impact of these additional units on property values in Eagan. I fear the number of lots and the small size of some of these lots will negatively impact the property values in the area. In my personal situation the property I own was appraised $50,000 under what I purchased for it 7 years ago. I don't see this development plan helping the current residents and their property value concerns. This is a major concern. Finally, as a user of Lebanon Hills Park I have concerns over the proximity of the new housing units to the Park as well as the impact of the additional traffic and construction. Thank you for considering these concerns before making a decision on this proposal. Jeffrey Spence 4465 Oak Chase Way Eagan, MN Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:34 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: parkview.......... - - - -- Original Message---- - From: joetoon@iuno.com [mailto:-ioetoon(@iuno.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:37 PM To: City Council Subject: parkview.......... IF you decide to comdenm Parkview and oopen it up to 177 new homes, you'd get tax revenue from the homes and lose it from Parkview ........ and open our limited resources for more utility use and increased lowering of the water table......... why not just tax Parkview the anticipated revenue from the houses ? ?..........keep it green, keep available resourses longer ......... they are NOT infinite !. keep the zoning the way it is ...............Parkview will make it or not ............ if not, then you can have your way with the land......( I'm not a golfer ) or heres a thought.... if you condemn it, open it for 10 or 20 houses of 5 acres each........ think of the prestige houses !...and coresponding tax revenue .... woo woo !-- EAGAN, HOME OF MILLIONARES 1! ........... oh wait, that's Edina ........... maybe we could have some job creating, revenue producing car dealerships ? ?.........Pilot Knob ? ?..........Yankee Doodle ?......(Not at presnet Parkview !!!!) How to Sleep Like a Rock Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night. http:// thirdpartyoffers.- iuno. com/ TGL3141 /5163630967fcc630902fbst0lvuc 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 10:34 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Save Parkview - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patricia [ mailto:sparrie.shoop@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:55 PM To: City Council Subject: Save Parkview I oppose the proposed land use amendment. Please save Parkview, and stop selling our resources for money. We need green spaces. Stop developing every inch of land!!!!!! Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:40 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview Golf course From: mueller4 @q.com [mailto:mueller4@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:16 AM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf course I am emai ing to voice my opinion of KEEPING EAGAN GREEN. 1VIy family lives along Dunberry Lane so we will be affected by the road access changes restricting intersections at Dunberry Lane. I would really hate to see our golf course go away. I see the lot everyday and during the golf season it seemed to be busy and being used by all ages of people. We enjoyed just going across the street to play golf. My reasons are simple but we love the course and I would hate to see it destroyed. We need to keep our green and have recreational areas for families! ! ! Please vote NO on the new development. Thank you, Gayle Mueller Eagan Resident. Pam Dudziak From: Mike Ridley Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:12 AM To: Pam Dudziak Cc: Jon Hohenstein; Cheryl Stevenson Subject: FW: Parkview Golf Course From: I Tatera [mailto:mntateraCQ@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:50 AM To: City Council Cc: Mike Ridley Subject: Parkview Golf Course To Eagan City Council Members, I strongly urge you to uphold changes to the rezoning of Parkview Golf Course. Eagan needs to retain green areas and a variety of recreational opportunities. With the closing and redevelopment of Carriage Hills Golf Course, Parkview is the only course left in Eagan. I would even have to guess that the current owners purchased the course with the change in mind. Only to look for a capital gain for themselves. Not only would Eagan lose the only golf course it would have a negative impact on Lebanon Hills. Please save the green recreational area and the beauty of the City of Eagan. Thank you, Jane Tatera 1143 Tiffany Cr. N 26 year resident of Eagan. Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:50 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview golf course From: Rick Johnson [mailto:ramjets@)comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:48 AM To: City Council Subject: Parkview golf course Please do not approve the plan to develop Parkview golf course. I have been a resident of Eagan for 20 years and have seen much improvement and development. I think this plan would over develop the area around Lebanon Hills Park and cause more congestive traffic in the area. Eagan has long been a champion of green space and nature areas. We are losing them everywhere at a rapid pace. My family and I stand opposed to the development plan and hope that you do not approve it. We would like to participate in any effort to make Parkview sustainable. Thank you Rick Johnson Chief Pilot CSM Corporation 1 500 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 3000 'I Minneapolis, MN 55415 Direct: 651.343.49971 Main: 612.395.7000 1 Fax: 651.848.0210 Email: rjohnson @csmcorp.net I www.csmcorr).net 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:29 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Please keep Parkviewa Golf Course From: Robyn Fay- Ortman [ mailto :robynfayortmanCcbhotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:15 PM To: City Council Subject: Please keep Parkview a Golf Course Dear City Council Memebers, I would like to add in my support to save Parkview Golf Course. My name is Robyn Fay - Ortman and I live in Northern Apple Valley and work in Eagan at Thomson Reuters. I am so disappointed that Parkview may no longe exist as a golf course, as I have two young sons who finally this year can participate in the wonderful kid's golf program that Parkview sponsored. For years we have watched as our neighbors drove their kids to Parkview and the joy it brought to their families. It also has helped keep those kids out of trouble in the summer! Our family also enjoys using the park system of Lebanon Hills and we will re -think what parts of the park we use if there are houses as close to the trails as is being proposed. Thank you for listening and I hope that you choose to keep the green space in Eagan. Parkview Golf Course is a gem. Robyn Fay - Ortman Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:30 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Save Parkview From: Cords, Matt [mailto:mcords(�DWILD.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3 :14 PM To: City Council Subject: Save Parkview I am writing this note as just one person of many that would like to see the City of Eagan save the one and only golf course left in the city. My parents were the 2 °1 house in the Park Cliff neighborhood in 1980. 1 grew up on hole 4 and Parkview is where I learned to play. Many of the friends I still have today were a result of the great junior golf program I was in starting at age 10. I now bring my son and daughter there regularly is there isn't a better course in the south metro for a kid to begin playing golf. It would be a very sad day for the community of Eagan and surrounding suburbs to lose Parkview. Regards, Matt Cords I Director, Ticket Sales Minnesota Wild Hockey Club 1317 Washington Street I Saint Paul, MN 55102 T: 651 - 312 - 3407 E mcords @wild.com Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:31 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview Golf Course From: christi .lee(cbthomsonreuters.com [ma i Ito: christi .lee0othomsonreuters.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:51 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course Eagan City Council Members, I know you have a difficult job trying to balance the needs of the community, but I would just like to be sure that you have input on the Parkview Golf Course. I have been a member of the Parkview Women's golf league for over 5 years, and have taken colleagues to the course when visiting Eagan. Parkview is a community course that is kid friendly, family friendly and just a nice affordable recreational center for Eagan and surrounding communities. Please find a way to preserve this course if you can. We would love to be golfing there again this year. Sincerely, Christi Lee Christi .Gee Director, Card, Expense & Travel Operations Thomson Reuters, 610 Opperman Drive, D1 -S233, Eagan MN 55123 2651.687.6789 (office) 1 p 651,246.4702 (mobile) I ti i christi.lee @thomsonreuters.com Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson on behalf of City Council Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:51 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: As a 25 year resident of Eagan I am emailing you to ask you to vote "NO" on the land use change and proposed development of what is now the Parkview Golf Course. I think the benefit our recreation space outweighs any benefits of the additional homes b From: minawilll (a)gmail.com [mailto:minawilllOgmail.com] On Behalf Of Mina Will Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:47 PM To: City Council Subject: As a 25 year resident of Eagan I am emailing you to ask you to vote "NO" on the land use change and proposed development of what is now the Parkview Golf Course. I think the benefit our recreation space outweighs any benefits of the additional homes bu... Mina Will Will Graphic Design & Marketing 4111 Cashell Glen Eagan, MN 55122 612- 791 -6480 direct Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:43 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: 'Mike Maguire'; Pam Dudziak Subject: Save Parkview - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert Will [mailto:willobitstream.net] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:28 AM To: City Council Subject: Save Parkview Dear Sirs— I am writing to request that you vote "NO" to both the lane use change and the proposed development of Parkview Golf Course. Eagan will better benefit from the open space and recreational use in the future, and the encroachment towards the Lebanon Regional Park is unacceptable. THank you. Rob Will 4111 Cashell Glen Eagan 1 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday; April 11, 2013 8:48 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields';'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Sorry to not have Parkview Golf for our children From: Julie N [mailto:jmn967@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:38 PM To: City Council Cc: leadership saveparkview.org Subject: Sorry to not have Parkview Golf for our children Hi, I'm a Mom in Apple Valley who is trying to come up with activities to keep my son busy this summer. He spent a lot of hours last summer at Parkview, learning and playing golf. He grew to love the sport and wants to continue. For this summer, I'm having a difficult time finding reasonably priced alternatives. In addition, it always felt safe to drop him off with a friend at Parkview, as the people there got to know him well. It's sad that our children will not have the opportunity to play at Parkview this year, a great neighborhood place for Apple Valley, Eagan, and surrounding areas. Julie Ness Apple Valley Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:50 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview Golf Course From: James Rowan [mailtoJ- rowa @umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10 :35 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course Hello, I'm not sure who will read this email, but I wanted to tell you a little bit about my thoughts on Parkview Golf Course. I grew up in St Paul, and my dad and I would come out to Parkview frequently. He liked the length of the course and that it was affordable, and I liked playing golf with my dad. I probably played it a hundred times and knew it well. My dad died and I stopped playing golf. Little did I know that fate would take me to a home in Eagan MN right on the border of Parkview. I live in a home (4649 Parkridge Dr) that borders right up to Parkview. My family and I can look out the back windows and see nature. We see beauty all around us here in Eagan. I also sometimes collect golf balls that land in my back yard. As things stand, I can't imagine a more beautiful place to raise my children (3 and 5), and we certainly enjoy all the green space we see out our backyard. Just a couple nights ago a herd of deer were romping in the area with spring fever. My kids and I watched for a half hour as the deer chased each other over the border of Lebanon Hills and Parkview. If Parkview turns in to a development, we will be looking at the backs of houses instead of green space. That is an esthetic problem that is probably of little concerns to others. But, it will change our lives. Far more importantly, I am concerned about the safety of our children with the drastic increase to traffic in the area and the dangerous situations we will face trying to come out of our neighborhood to Cliff Road. I would hate to leave Eagan. I love what it has to offer. However, if this development happens, we will have to consider our options. Please, figure out a way to prevent this new housing development to happen. I would be willing to pay more taxes if the city could figure out a way to keep this golf course open. Thank you for reading my email. Jim Rowan Graduate Admissions University of Minnesota 612 - 626 -7454 Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:51 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Save Parkview Golf Course From: Jeff Ortman [mailtoJeff ortman(ftahooxoml Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:31 PM To: City Council Subject: Save Parkview Golf Course Dear City Council Members, I have been upset to hear about the proposed sale of Parkview Golf Course to a land developer. My name is Jeff Ortman and I live in Apple Valley. I have enjoyed playing Parkview golf course over the last 10 years. My kids are just getting to the age that they could start participating in the Parkview summer programs. Many of our neighbor's kids have learned to play golf at Parkview and have participated in the summer programs. We were looking forward to our kids learning to play golf at Parkview and playing golf with theirs. We don't need another housing development in the southern suburbs. Recreational space and green space is a great asset to our community; we can't afford to lose any more. Thank you for your time. Please vote to save Parkview. Sincerely, Jeff Ortman Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:52 AM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: Parkview development From: Amrite5 @aol.com [mailto:Amrite5 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:25 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview development I am asking that you uphold the comprehensive plan for Parkview golf course as an asset to this community. With 34,000 rounds of golf played on this course showing a profit could be attained if it were not for 12 individuals trying to make money. The only option they ever had in mind was a development as is proven by never attempting to sell it as a golf course. The additional traffic that will be brought on to this area of Cliff Road will be a danger to that area. Maintain Parkview Golf Course as a recreational facility for this community. As we see today, it could be utilized for cross country skiing during the winter months. David Wright 4671 Parkview Dr Eagan MN 55123 April 10, 2013 Dear Mayor Maguire, Mr. Bakken, Mr. Hansen, Ms. Fields, and Ms.Tilley: I am writing to ask you to stand by your Comprehensive Plan vote and no on the request to amend it at Parkview Golf Course. The Parkview Golf Course parcel is an extremely inappropriate piece of property to fill up with housing. In its current configuration, it beautifully complements Lebanon Hills Park, enhances the economic and cultural value of the surrounding neighborhoods and greater community, and provides a well -loved and successful recreational facility for our city. The development of homes on 4 acre lots at the site, which is currently allowed, would not erode the value of this parcel to the community. 177 homes would completely alter the whole area for the worse. Approving this amendment would be a permanent loss for Eagan and the entire community. I believe it is simply unfair to create a windfall for Hunter Emerson and the owners of Parkview at the expense of current residents and the greater good of the community. This greater good was wisely expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Nothing has changed in Eagan that should cause anyone to doubt the wisdom of that vision. It often seems that the default response to the amendment request is to ask "why not" when the real question should be "how will it improve our city ?" The courts made it clear that the city does have a right to uphold its guide plans for development. Parkview is not fallow farmland, but a vibrant and valued part of the community for a lot of reasons. It should be incumbent on the requesting party to make a compelling case for change, which they have not done. The reasons it should not be changed are many. 1. Lebanon Hills Regional Park would be adversely affected by this development. Park visitors have consistently expressed their strong preference for a natural viewscape, hence "Forever Wild." It is this continuum of viewscape which includes the golf course that is what makes Parkview an excellent complement to Lebanon Hills. The park has woods bordering most of the developed areas on its perimeter. However, adjacent to Parkview, there are fields up to 500 feet wide, not woods. It is unrealistic to think that planting a few trees along the perimeter of the proposed development could hide the houses that are planned, or protect the viewscape that visitors value so highly. Lebanon is a regional amenity highly valued by 500,000 visitors every year, which was created nearly 40 years ago. It would be wise to protect this incredible asset, and to acknowledge that it has a lengthy and valued history in the region. 2. Allowing the proposed development at Parkview would impose a real burden on current residents due to the major changes in traffic patterns that the county has mandated. The site is landlocked for all practical purposes, and the plans are for significantly more dense housing than surrounding neighborhoods. In order to squeeze it in, the street design has been adjusted to benefit solely the potential new residents at the expense of current residents. I live in Parkcliff, and our neighborhood is unanimous in its opposition to any plan that would cause us to lose full east and west access to Cliff Road at Parkcliff Dr. Mr. Bakken was on the City Council a number of years ago when the county wanted to close one of our entrances. As is the case now, the neighborhood spoke clearly against that closure, and the City Council supported us in our successful drive to keep both entrances open. The reasons then are the same as they are now — the safety of our family- friendly neighborhood that is full of children is at stake. Diverting traffic to the long straight -away of Parkridge Drive will concentrate traffic. Every large vehicle will be required to take a longer route through the neighborhood — garbage and delivery trucks, school buses, and so on. Alternatively, those with smaller cars who choose a U -turn at Parkridge. will block visibility for every driver turning into the neighborhood from the east that they encounter — an accident waiting to happen. The response time for emergency vehicles will be lengthened. And in addition to these cogent reasons, there is the basic matter of convenience of the residents of our 73 homes. Trips to and from the west are easily the most common, and that mandates a permanent detour. I would point out that the city has ordinances that limit home businesses, in large part because of the extra traffic they can generate. And yet, allowing this development would re -route and concentrate traffic within the neighborhood, creating the same problem on an even larger scale. Traffic levels on Parkridge would be expected to approach the upper limit for local streets. Forcing this sort of change on our neighborhood to benefit inappropriate development is simply unfair and unnecessary. The earlier support from the City Council should be repeated. Similar issues face the residents on Dunberry Lane who would lose their full access intersection. Traffic problems would also be felt in spades in the Fairway Hills neighborhood, where fully 1/3 of the traffic from the planned development could be expected to flow through on the Interlachen access point out to Cliff and Pilot Knob Roads. The neighborhood already has to suffer with the excess traffic that is generated by every soccer league game played at Ohmann Park. Levels would be expected to exceed the Met Council's recommendations for local streets on a regular basis. I would also like to point out, regarding the traffic problems, that the EAW completely ignored the very real burdens that will be imposed on current residents. It uses "minimal over and over in its description of the effects of the planned changes if the development goes through. Please do not think that they were in any way reporting a realistic impact. 3. The owners of Parkview may be experiencing losses, but not because of golf course economics. The course itself is a self - supporting business. It is also a highly valued component of the recreational opportunities in the area. It serves youth through leagues and employment and high school home courses. These are the golfers who will go on to use Parkview as adults, or to play at other, more challenging courses — a rising tide that raises all of the golf community. Golfers also contribute to the economy of the greater community, shopping and eating in nearby locations. This is a course that deserves a chance to continue. 4. Runoff issues have not been adequately addressed. Water quality would be seriously impaired by the addition of 177 homes, the associated streets, and the pollution from the additional vehicles traversing the area every day. The city has made good progress improving water quality at Thomas Lake. This development would be a step in the wrong direction. 5. It is incredible to me that a proposal would be approved that would remove 80 acres of prime, highly valued open space without even giving back the bare minimum of 10% for parks that the city asks of new neighborhoods. And in this instance it really should be far more to compensate for this huge loss. The homeowner's association, witk�is private recreational 2 facilities, feels like an insult. It would have been good to plan park space that was readily accessible to Parlccliff families who do not have facilities close by. All this is a clear indication that the proposal does not have the best interests of the city at heart. 6. The proposed development would turn the entire area into a dustbowl, sitting atop the highest hill as it does, and catching every breeze. It only takes a quick look at Carriage Hills to see that the rosy scenario for build -out within 4 years is completely unrealistic. In addition, there is nothing growing on the empty sites at Carriage Hills. This proposal would mean intensive grading throughout the 80 acres at Parkview, with dirt and weeds covering everything. Between the intensive grading, the economy which is still in recovery mode, local experience (Parlccliff took 10 years to complete 73 homes), and no plans to build in phases, this development would be a dirty eyesore imposed on everyone who comes near it for many years. 7. I was amazed at the audacity of the developers regarding the monopole. They said, in so many words, that it should be OK to build homes within the safety radius set by city code, because anyone who bought one of those homes could see what they were buying. This is "buyer beware" taken to extremes, and shows a complete lack of respect for city codes and citizen safety. It's yet another instance of how little the developers care about the quality of life of Eagan's residents (or future residents). 8. It is simply wrong to ask the homeowners whose property abuts the golf course to take a real hit on their home values and their legally protected enjoyment of their property. The Comprehensive Plan continues a long history of the Parkview parcel as open space, whatever the specific name of the designation. These homeowners have a right to rely on the Comprehensive Plan when they make purchases that often represent the largest portion of their personal worth. The development proposal further adds insult to injury by platting their streets with the most narrow buffer adjacent to the homes with the shortest lot sizes. Please —just say "no" and preserve the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, Steve and Christie Soderling 4657 Parkcliff Dr. Eagan Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:29 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: Parkview From: Bunkydj @comcast.net [mailto:bunkydj @ comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:35 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this to show my support in saving Parkview and to keep Eagan Green. I oppose the proposed land use amendment! I live just down the road from Parkview. To lose this course to more "housing" would be a detriment to Eagan!! Keep Eagan Green! Thanks, Deb Johnson Pam Dudziak From: Cheryl Stevenson Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 4:30 PM To: 'Cyndee Fields'; 'Gary Hansen'; 'Meg Tilley'; 'Mike Maguire'; 'Paul Bakken' Cc: Mike Ridley; Pam Dudziak Subject: FW: do the right thing - Vote NO on Parkview From: Pat Cummens [mailto :pcummens(&esri.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:44 PM To: City Council Subject: do the right thing - Vote NO on Parkview Dear City Council Members, I am writing to encourage you to do the right thing for the City of Eagan and vote to uphold the zoning on the Parkview Golf Course. I have a degree in Landscape Architecture with a focus in regional planning and appreciate the many values a diversity of open space brings to a community. I also appreciate the need to apply long term thinking to such a decision, going with the answer that seems easiest at the moment is not the right way and not what the people of Eagan elected you to do. I have been a resident of Eagan for 13 years and have served on the Lebanon Hills Stakeholder advisory committee. It is not by accident that my family lives in Eagan, we selected it because of its quality schools, quality open space and perceived commitment to preserve the quality of life we desired to raise a family. I firmly believe the reasons to vote no and uphold the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan outweigh the push by the developer to change. I don't have time to go into all of them but will highlight a few. Of course we all know once open space of any sort is gone, it cannot be recovered. This seems obvious but people have a hard time envisioning what this change would actually mean to Eagan. Some suggest that the city will have to make this change because they did for Carriage Hills, I believe the opposite is true. Because the city lost that golf course and open space it is more important to preserve Parkview. As I am sure you are aware and even brag about, in Money Magazine's 2013 Best Places to Live (small cities) Eagan was rated 14th . this is a great accomplishment and we are all proud of that, however we also know that does not happen without smart planning. Part of the evaluation criteria includes leisure opportunities and amenities, including golf courses. If Eagan is to maintain its high ranking, which in turn attracts residents and business you must make smart choices. ( reference - How we picked the Best Places to Live http: // money .cnn.com /magazines /moneymag /best - places /2012 /faq /) The golf course is a compatible neighbor to Lebanon Hills, new houses looming over that section of the park will have serious negative impacts on a regional asset utilized and relied upon by a broad array of visitors, to retreat and rejuvenate. Eagan has been a responsible custodian/ neighbor to Lebanon Hills thus far, please don't ruin that. Our society is fighting a health and obesity crisis, the best way to fight that is encourage healthy life styles, include exercise and recreation. Some people will hike or bike in the park other play ball or golf. As our population ages, golf becomes a more appealing option and most effective when its close to where you live. I don't have time to go in to more; the economic value golf courses can bring to the community, the detrimental impacts this proposed density development would have on the surrounding neighborhoods, the 1 increased) traffic or even the questionable background of the developers. I ask that you do the right thing and vote no. ilt is your job to keep Eagan the kind of community many of us sought out and want to live in. ,Sincerely, Patricia Cummens 4675 Parkridge Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Cell 612 860 9359 From: Pat Cummens [mailto:pcummensC)esri.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:44 PM To: City Council Subject: do the right thing - Vote NO on Parkview Dear City Council Members, I am writing to encourage you to do the right thing for the City of Eagan and vote to uphold the zoning on the Parkview Golf Course. I have a degree in Landscape Architecture with a focus in regional planning and appreciate the many values a diversity of open space brings to a community. I also appreciate the need to apply long term thinking to such a decision, going with the answer that seems easiest at the moment is not the right way and not what the people of Eagan elected you to do. I have been a resident of Eagan for 13 years and have served on the Lebanon Hills Stakeholder advisory committee. It is not by accident that my family lives in Eagan, we selected it because of its quality schools, quality open space and perceived commitment to preserve the quality of life we desired to raise a family. I firmly believe the reasons to vote no and uphold the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan outweigh the push by the developer to change. I don't have time to go into all of them but will highlight a few. Of course we all know once open space of any sort is gone, it cannot be recovered. This seems obvious but people have a hard time envisioning what this change would actually mean to Eagan. Some suggest that the city will have to make this change because they did for Carriage Hills, I believe the opposite is true. Because the city lost that golf course and open space it is more important to preserve Parkview. As I am sure you are aware and even brag about, in Money Magazine's 2013 Best Places to Live (small cities) Eagan was rated 14th . this is a great accomplishment and we are all proud of that, however we also know that does not happen without smart planning. Part of the evaluation criteria includes leisure opportunities and amenities, including golf courses. If Eagan is to maintain its high ranking, which in turn attracts residents and business you must make smart choices. ( reference - How we picked the Best Places to Live http:// money .cnn.com /magazines /moneymag /best - places /2012 /fag /) The golf course is a compatible neighbor to Lebanon Hills, new houses looming over that section of the park will have serious negative impacts on a regional asset utilized and relied upon by a broad array of visitors, to retreat and rejuvenate. Eagan has been a responsible custodian/ neighbor to Lebanon Hills thus far, please don't ruin that. Our society is fighting a health and obesity crisis, the best way to fight that is encourage healthy life styles, include exercise and recreation. Some people will hike or bike in the park other play ball or golf. As our population ages, golf becomes a more appealing option and most effective when its close to where you live. I don't have time to go in to more; the economic value golf courses can bring to the community, the detrimental impacts this proposed density development would have on the surrounding neighborhoods, the increased traffic or even the questionable background of the i developers. I ask that you do the right thing and vote no. It is your job to keep Eagan the kind 6f community many of us sought out and want to live in. Sincerely, Patricia Cummens 4675 Parkridge Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Cell 612 860 9359 Cheryl Stevenson From: mueller4 @q.com Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:00 PM To: City Council Subject: Parkview Golf Course I am emailing to voice my opinion of KEEPING EAGAN GREEN. Parkview Golf Course is a vital part of our community. I drive past it every Summer and it's packed most of the time. It serves a great purpose for the casual golfer, youth golfers just starting, lessons etc. I realize that this is a business and if the ownership group doesn't believe this is a profitable venture then changes have to be made. What I am against is re- zoning green space. We don't need and I'd be willing to bet that most resident's do not want another new housing development! First Carriage Hills now Parkview. The owners knew they purchased commercial property in the beginning. If they are going to sell it should be to a group willing to preserve the green space. Tom Mueller