02/11/2014 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
FEBRUARY 11, 2014
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM — EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
cq III. OLD TOWN HALL CONSIDERATIONS
10 IV. SPERRY WATER TOWER DISCUSSION
V. LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
VI. FINDINGS OF THE CABLE NEEDS ASSESSMENT & NEXT STEPS
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Information Memo
February 11, 2014 Special City Council Meeting
III. OLD TOWN HALL CONSIDERATIONS
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction on next steps and /or additional
information needed to make a decision on how best to move forward with the future of Old Town
Hall.
Background
• Old Town Hall was constructed in 1914. It served as Eagan's meeting space until 1965.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the structure was refurbished. Since that time, it has
served as a museum and storage facility maintained by the City and run primarily by the
Eagan Historical Society.
• On September 8, 2013, an arsonist set fire to the Old Town Hall building, causing
substantial damage to the structure and contents. The roof trusses, south and west
walls, flooring and contents were heavily damaged. The entire interior of the building
suffered smoke and water damage.
• Per the direction of the Council, the structure has been winterized (i.e. "shrink wrapped ")
to preserve the structure through the winter.
• The building and contents are insured by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT) for $85,915. This is the total coverage available to restore the building
and its contents. To date, approximately $10,000 of that coverage has been spent to
restore the building contents and winterize the structure. Thus, approximately $76,000
remains in unspent coverage for the building and contents.
• The City has a $25,000 per occurrence deductible. If the Council chooses to rebuild the
structure in some fashion, the City must first incur $25,000 in costs before the LMCIT
pays up to $85,915 for the remainder of the rebuilding costs. If the City decides not to
rebuild the structure, the LMCIT would pay the City $85,915 for its loss.
Finance Committee Recommendations
• The Council's Finance Committee reviewed several options at a meeting on October 28,
2013. Per the committee recommendation, and the Council's concurrence, the following
recommendations have been explored further:
Add an addition to City Hall or the Eagan Community Center to create new historical
display and storage space.
a. Consider a compartmentalized addition /renovation to serve as a history
museum (space to have historic feel, but take advantage of modern
amenities such as parking, bathrooms, HVAC, etc.).
b. Consider using the existing front fapade of Old Town Hall in the new space.
2. Build a new, similarly sized structure somewhere on the municipal campus.
c��
a. The consensus was new materials would be used, perhaps incorporating
some salvaged materials from Old Town Hall into the new structure.
3. Move history display /storage to space within an existing City building (City Hall or
ECC), without any modifications to the building footprint.
4. Explore broader partnerships for creation of new historical display space.
a. Communicate with Dakota County about the use of the library for such space.
b. Inquire with Dakota County Historical Society about their current space needs
analysis and whether they have interest in historical display space in Eagan
that could incorporate the history of Eagan and the County as a whole.
c. Consider partnerships with local businesses to focus new space not only on
City history, but the history of local businesses as well (e.g. Thomson
Reuters, Delta, Lockheed Martin, BCBS, etc.)
Cost Estimates
• An estimate to rebuild the structure using only new materials is $131,000, which is
higher than the LMCIT coverage limit. Any efforts to reuse salvageable parts of the
structure would be an additional cost, as would any site work or upgrades to meet
building code (e.g. sprinklers, restrooms, etc.).
• Rebuilding the structure with materials of the same vintage as the Old Town Hall is
estimated to be two to three times higher than the $130,000 estimate.
The cost to renovate an existing space within a City building will vary depending on the
scope of the renovation. Because Old Town Hall also functioned as a storage space, this
option would necessitate carving out a storage area for the Historical Society in a City
facility. Costs would be incurred to retrofit an area with storage and workspace
equipment. Additionally, as a point of comparison, the history wall and mounted
photographs installed at the Fire Safety Center cost approximately $25,000. The
historical display area was created in -house with materials already owned by the City.
Follow Up Research and Efforts
• In following Council's direction that input from the Eagan Historical Society is of utmost
importance, the Historical Society responded by providing their priorities in how best to
replace Old Town Hall. Those detailed priorities are enclosed. Some members of the
Historical Society may be present on the 11th to observe the Council's discussion.
In follow up to the Finance Committee's recommendations, the following meetings have
occurred:
• Staff met with Lynn Gruber, Executive Director of the Dakota County Historical
Society, who expressed interest in the County's Historical Society having a
greater presence in Eagan, albeit no decision has been made as to how that
presence could be increased.
• A meeting was held with Bob Herskovitz and David Grabitske of the Minnesota
Historical Society, who will be present at the February 11 Council meeting. Their
recommendations and observations are enclosed.
• Discussions are continuing with Dakota County Library about potential, future
partnership opportunities.
3
o Staff met with several architects who live in the City of Eagan to gain their insight
on options the Council could consider in rebuilding Old Town Hall. The three
architects present all expressed the importance of Old Town Hall to the
community and suggested rebuilding the structure in some capacity and
relocating it onto the municipal center campus to improve security and ensure the
new structure is prominently displayed and accessible to the public. They
recommended the City seek feedback from the community in the form of a
community charrette.
• Based on feedback from the Eagan Historical Society, partner groups, and the
architects, there seems to be consensus that relocating Old Town Hall to the Community
Center campus would not be recommended. Rather, feedback has been offered that the
municipal center campus would be best suited as a location for Old Town Hall to be
rebuilt.
The Council is asked to discuss the appropriate next steps with regard to Old Town Hall.
Should there be a desire for formal community input, the Council may wish to consider
seeking proposals from trained architects who could: 1.) Assist the City in developing
several options along a continuum of feasibility /scale for consideration; 2.) Prepare
preliminary sketches and costs for the various options; and, 3.) Coordinate a community
charrette to vet ideas and seek feedback from stakeholders within the community.
Attachments:
• The meeting notes of the October 28, 2013 Finance Committee are enclosed on pages
6 to
• The recommendations of the Eagan Historical Society are enclosed on page 9
• The recommendations and observations of the MN Historical Society are enclosed on
pages 5 and Ot
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013
12:40 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM
Committee Members Present: Mayor Maguire and Councilmember Bakken
Staff Present: City Administrator Osberg, Assistant City Administrator Miller, Communications
Director Garrison, Finance Director Pepper, City Clerk/Admin Services Coordinator Scipioni,
and Communications Coordinator Foote.
REVIEW POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR FIRE- DAMAGED OLD TOWN HALL
In addition to recommending that Old Town Hall be winterized (shrink wrapped), the committee
recommended staff further explore the following options:
1. Add an addition to City Hall or the Eagan Community Center to create new historical
display and storage space.
a. Consider a compartmentalized addition/renovation to serve as a history museum
(space to have historic feel, but take advantage of modern amenities such as
parking, bathrooms, HVAC, etc.).
b. Consider using the existing front fagade of Old Town Hall in the new space.
2. Build a new, similarly sized structure somewhere on the municipal campus.
a. The consensus was new materials would be used, perhaps incorporating some
salvaged materials from Old Town Hall into the new structure.
3. Move history display /storage to space within an existing City building (City Hall or
ECC), without any modifications to the building footprint.
4. Explore broader partnerships for creation of new historical display space.
a. Communicate with Dakota County about the use of the library for such space.
b. Inquire with Dakota County Historical Society about their current space needs
analysis and whether they have interest in historical display space in Eagan that
could incorporate the history of Eagan and the County as a whole.
c. Consider partnerships with local businesses to focus new space not only on City
history, but the history of local businesses as well (e.g. Thomson Reuters, Delta,
Lockheed Martin, BCBS, etc.)
The Committee agreed that an update would be provided to the Council to ensure they agree with
the committee's recommended next steps. Pending Council concurrence, staff is to further
research the options recommended by the committee and bring a summary of the options to a
5
future Council workshop. The Committee requested Communications Coordinator Foote seek
input from the Historical Society on their priorities, goals, etc. for the new space being
envisioned. The committee asked staff to report back on the discussion of the Historical Society
at the future workshop. It was also requested that a historian (e.g. MN Historical Society staff)
attend the Council workshop. Lastly, it was suggested that one or two local architects be
contacted to seek their feedback and suggestions on options the City may wish to consider when
rebuilding a new historical display space.
0
Friday, December 6, 2013 Meeting
Eagan Historical Society Priorities for Discussions Regarding 1914 Town Hall Museum
The Eagan Historical Society members have a strong desire to preserve as much of the 1914 Town Hall
fagade, and salvageable items within, as is feasible. They greatly value the building AS history, but fairly
quickly focused on the benefits another site would afford that the present site likely cannot.
In envisioning a new location, they have outlined priorities which focus on a plan they deem most
serviceable and feasible for the functions that have been lost, and which incorporate existing functions
currently scattered at several sites. They have envisioned a space with high visibility, similar to the
current museum location, but with better access for the community and a destination of regular activity.
They also hope to create a space with better workflow and functionality than was allowed at the 1914
Town Hall and City Hall basement office (and random presentation spaces).
They have attempted to focus on near to mid -range sustainable needs, which will not require full -time
staffing, and a plan that will not be deemed over - reaching.
Priorities Include:
➢ Highly Visible Location Central to Ongoing Community Activity
Preferred due to staffing access
• Municipal Center Campus
• Community Center /Central Park
Alternate location for consideration
• Cedar Grove /Outlet Center area
➢ Secure Location with blend of History and modern facilities
• Fagade or facsimile of 1914 Town Hall utilized as entry or internal feature display
• Secure location and materials /Security system
• HVAC and Humidity /Climate control
• Fire suppression system appropriate for historic materials
• Restroom facilities
• Minimum 25/30 parking spaces (shared or dedicated depending on chosen site)
• Connected to internet service
➢ Single Site for Historical Society Functions that Incorporates the
1914 Town Hall Facade & Features
• Configurable display area
■ If fagade /features becomes entryway, approximately 2,000 s.f. display area
■ If fagade /features are placed internal to display area, approximately 2,500 s.f.
• Lockable Modern Office /Workroom Space (separate from display area)
• Meeting /Reference /Class room
• Storage and file space
■J
MN Historical Society Observations and Recommendations — February 4, 2014
Disaster Response and Recovery
• Swift action following the arson fire has resulted in preserving evidence of Eagan's amazing
story for future generations. Time is always of the essence following a disaster, and Eagan's
response is truly noteworthy and greatly appreciated.
• Eagan's collective response seems to be among the more thoughtful, deliberative, and
intentional that MNHS has observed in 20 years. Well done, and please stay the course.
• The expressed desire to engage the public is outstanding. The public should be at the center
of decisions about facilities to preserve and make accessible history. A Charrette process is a
good format to involve the public and garner quality feedback.
• The collaboration between Eagan Historical Society and City and between the Eagan
Historical Society and Dakota County Historical Society is commendable and appropriate.
Well done.
Purpose of history organizations
• Future oriented: Minnesota Historical Society was created about 230 days following the
creation of the territory. Local history organizations established since share that future
orientation: we preserve today for tomorrow.
• Use the Power of History to Transform Lives: many history organizations were created in the
1920s and 1930s to help veterans access military service benefits. In 2010, Wadena County
Historical Society used an oral history project to help residents heal from trauma sustained
when an EF -5 tornado damaged a quarter of the City of Wadena. History organizations are to
use history and their history skills to improve lives.
• This approach has been validated by the American Association for State and Local History,
which has given 10% of all national awards to organizations in Minnesota for their history
work.
History Museum Facilities
• A tool to preserve history. Facilities are not the sum total of what a history organization is.
Organizations are defined by how well they live the above purpose.
• Reused facility. Buildings are built for a purpose. Not all facilities are appropriate to use as
museums. Better, a reused facility might better be a historic site. Historic sites and museums
have different functions.
• Purpose built facility. This is the ideal for preserving history as the facility can best control
for deterioration from light, water, pests, etc. Please see, Building Museums: a handbook for
small and midsize organizations (MNHS Press, 2012).
Grants from the Minnesota Historical Society
• City and 501 c3 organizations are eligible.
I
• Strongest consideration given to buildings listed in the NRHP. Please seek the counsel of
Denis Gardner, National Register Historian.
• History is best when it is left where you found it.
• Buildings not on the NRHP still eligible for museum environments: HVAC, security,
lighting, ADA restrooms, storage, etc.
• The possibility of obtaining grants may be enhanced through efforts that involve public input
and formal planning processes.
• Grant funding is not available for all types of projects and may be limited or unavailable
based on MNHS funding cycles.
Recommendations:
• Eagan has installed a series of historical markers and will continue this work, separately from
the 1914 Town Hall discussion. Continue work on Eagan historic sites system with 1914
Town Hall and Holz Farm as two locations within a broader plan.
• Consider a facility for the Eagan Historical Society that can be a tool to better preserve 2014
and succeeding years. Minnesota Historical Society for example is in a purpose built museum
facility and yet operates historic sites across the state (31 of them).
• Consider creating a 501c3 for the Eagan Historical Society as a fundraising arm to offset City
expenses. This is very normal across the state. Of the 120 cities that contribute money to a
history organization, the average appropriation is $5,700. The average budget of city history
organizations is just over $50,000 — as you can see fundraising and earned revenue play a
large role in the success of such organizations.
• Be sure to apply for scholarships to send two Eagan Historical Society and /or city
employees to the AASLH conference while it is here September 17 -20, 2014 in St. Paul. See
the grants guidelines for more details.
• As long as AASLH is in town, be sure to seek out Stevan Layne, the nation's foremost expert
in museum security, to come visit your history facilities while he is in town for AASLH in
September. He has reviewed all of the MNHS facilities and has been greatly helpful to us.
Manaaer, Outreach Services 1651-259-3460
Minnesota Historical Society; 3.15 Kellogg Blvd W., Saint Paul, MN 55102
Minnesota Local History on Faceboolc
Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Grants on Facebook
Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Grants Guidelines
0
Agenda Information Memo
February 11, 2014 Special City Council Workshop
IV. SPERRY TOWER RESERVOIR
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Upon review of public input, provide direction to
Staff for advancing the disposition of the Sperry Tower Reservoir and accommodation of
existing and future telecommunications facilities /antennas.
FACTS:
• On May 14, 2013, after reviewing options for the disposition of the Sperry Tower Reservoir,
the City Council requested that staff look into additional alternative uses of the tower and
provide an update at a future Council meeting. The Council also suggested getting public
input or feedback.
• On June 4, 2013, the City Council adopted the 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for
Public Works Infrastructure, Part III (2014 -2018) and authorized the initiation of the public
improvement process for the 2014 programmed improvements. The resolution of the Sperry
Tower was scheduled for 2014 as part of this CIP.
• The Sperry Tower Reservoir located at 1420 Towerview Road is a 500,000 gallon hydro
pillar tank that was built in 1967. It was the first reservoir built by the City. The reservoir
has not been connected to the water system since September 2009 due to a lack of need.
• The most recent update of the Water Supply and Distribution Plan (July 2008) indicated only
a marginal need for the Sperry Tower for future water supply or pressure requirements. The
small size of the tank and its close proximity to the North Water Treatment Plant does not
provide any significant advantage to its service area.
• The tower was last rehabilitated in 1987. The current coating is 26 years old and has
exceeded its expected life. A typical coating life is 20 to 25 years. The cost estimate for the
needed painting is $510,000. In addition to removal of the current surface coating and
repainting, some structural repair and modifications are required to comply with current
regulations and standards. The cost of the containment of hazardous paint and additional
structural repairs or modifications would be an additional $100,000. Work needs to be
performed in the next 3 to 5 years to maintain the tower's structural integrity.
• The water tower structure is 146 feet tall and acts as an antenna base, generating revenue for
the City. The following entities have antennas on the Sperry Tower. Lease tenants: T-
Mobile, Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, Clearwire, TTM, CellNet. Dakota County (DCC 800 MHz
radio communication) and City of Eagan (Public Works 2 -way UHF radio communication
and VHF Fire paging system) do not pay rent. Annual antenna revenue: $138,498 (2012),
$146,805 (2013), $155,613 (Estimated 2014).
• When water towers are refurbished, additional costs are involved for cell phone carriers to
remove equipment and temporarily place it on a temporary tower or Cell On Wheels (COW).
Once the work has been completed the carriers have to reinstall their equipment and the
tower is re- inspected, adding costs to the cell phone carriers.
• World -class communications, such as broadband, are central to Eagan's economic
development and quality of life. As more residential and business location decisions are
being made based on availability of quality telecommunications, it is important to be
proactive in maintaining and expanding this essential infrastructure.
• City staff has received communication about the future of the water tower from Dakota
County and the Technology Working Group. Both parties strongly support the enhancement
of the current telecommunications capabilities at the site of the existing tower.
10
Agenda Information Memo
February 11, 2014 Special City Council Workshop
IV. SPERRY TOWER RESERVOIR
(continued)
• City staff created an on -line survey to solicit public input. Survey results in January and
February, 2014, indicated strong support from respondents for replacing the water tower with
an attractive communications tower. 76% of survey respondents indicated keeping the water
tower was not important to somewhat not important (59% said not important). Nearly 100%
said maintaining or improving cell phone coverage was important. A large majority of the
responses suggested making a replacement tower as attractive as possible and have it blend
into the background.
• Public Works Director Matthys can address specifics related to the various options outlined
below and Communications Director Garrison will provide an overview of the public
feedback gained from an online survey regarding the tower's future.
CONSIDERATIONS (STRUCTURE OPTIONS):
• Keep the existing structure as is
➢ Rehabilitation Cost — $510,000 to $610,000 (depending on new standards & use)
➢ Annual Cost — $34,000 maintenance per year
➢ Site continues to generate antenna revenue for the City
➢ Reservoir stays "off- line" (no purpose for the water distribution system)
Refurbish the existing structure as a pumped hydro battery
➢ Rehabilitation Cost — $610,000 + hydroelectric power generation equipment costs
➢ Annual Costs — $34,000 tower maintenance + pump operation + electrical
equipment maintenance
➢ Minimal revenue generation from electricity sales
➢ Site continues to generate antenna revenue for the City
Reservoir stays "off- line" (no purpose for the water distribution system)
Refurbish the existing structure as a residential dwelling
➢ Rehabilitation Cost — $610,000 + $500,000 (elevator) + $150,000+ (depending on
interior design)
➢ Annual Costs — $34,000 tower maintenance + utilities /HVAC + insurance
➢ Site continues to generate antenna revenue for the City
Replace the existing structure
➢ Demolition — cost $40,000 to $60,000
➢ Build anew communications structure —estimated cost of $100,000 to $300,000
depending on aesthetics
➢ Annual maintenance — cost $0 to indeterminate (depending on use)
➢ Financing option through cell phone carriers
➢ Site continues to generate antenna revenue for the City
Permanently remove the existing structure
➢ Demolition — cost $40,000 to $60,000
➢ Eliminate a source of revenue
➢ Available City property (to use or sell)
ATTACHMENTS:
• Sperry Tower Decommissioning Memo, page
• Dakota County Letter, pages 2) and .
• Presentation Slides, pages t,5 through.
0
0
Engineering ■ Planning ■ Environmental ■ Construction
Memorandum
To: Jon Eaton
Superintendent of Utilities
Department of Public Works
3419 Coachman Point
Eagan, MN 55122
From: Nancy Zeigler, PE
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: January 11, 2012
Re: Sperry Tower Decommissioning
City of Eagan, MN
WSB Project No. 1809 -020
BACKGROUND
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 - 541 -4800
Fax: 763 - 541 -1700
Historically, Sperry Tower has shown fewer than expected fluctuations in water level which has
influenced the City of Eagan to remove the tower from service. The City of Eagan has requested that
WSB update and utilize the city's WaterCAD Model to confirm adequate performance exists in the
distribution system during peak hour demands with the Sperry Tower permanently decommissioned.
EVALUATION
The City's water model was updated and used to evaluate the system's ability to provide water at
adequate domestic pressures and fire flow rates. Adequate pressure standards are based on Department of
Health (MDH) and 10 -State Standards water system domestic pressure standards. Fire flow standards are
based on International Building Code (IBC) standards and Minnesota State Building Code, which are
1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for residential areas and 3,000 gpm for iron- residential areas.
Modeling results indicated the following:
• The model indicated that the removal of Sperry Tower was acceptable in terms of pressure and
available fire flow.
• The resulting available fire flow to the region surrounding Sperry Tower ranged from
approximately 1,350 to over 5,000 gpm.
• Upon removal of Sperry Tower, the model indicated a maximum change in pressure of 3 psi and
maximum change in available fire flow of 120 gpm.
Based on our modeling results, the water distribution system is expected to perform adequately under
peak hour demands with the Sperry Tower out of service. The results with and without the Sperry Tower
are essentially the same given a relatively minimal change of 3 psi and 120 gpm. Therefore, we
recommend that the City either continue operations with the tower off line or permanently decommission
the tower.
K: 101809- 010bIr1nri,,OoceNfGdO -JE 170N- 010913-Sperry 7b-r Decwnmis I-Mgd-
,
C O U N T Y
August 29, 2013
Risk Management
And Homeland Security Jon Eaton
Dakota County up Su erintendent of Utilities
Administration Center S
1590 Hwy; 55 y of Eagan
Hastings, MN 55033- 3419 Coachman Point
2327 - Eagan, MN 55122
651.438.4532
Fax: 651.438.8455 Dear Mr. Eaton:
www.co.dakota,mn.us I am following up on our phone conversation from several weeks ago
regarding the pending decision by the Eagan; City Council to repair or
replace the "Sperry" water tank. As you are aware, the water tank is one
of ten sites used by Dakota County for the operation of the 800 MHz
public safety radio system and fire service paging.
These-public safety communications systems are much more dependent
on each location in order to provide the expected level of coverage for the
first responder community. The loss, for example, of the Sperry site has
a much greater impact when compared to the impact on a cellular carrier
when one flower is down given the denser installation of cell towers
across the county. Dakota County would like work with the City of Eagan
to the extent practical to minimize the impact to the systems users during
any maintenance of,the water tank or its replacement. The centralized,
location of the Sperry site in the'City of Eagan will result in primary
impacts to public safety communications within your city. The downtime
could be as little as two to three days to as much as two to three weeks
depending on the approach that can be implemented for migration of the
equipment.
If the City proceeds.with the replacement of the water tank with a
communications tower there are three factors which will be of primary
importance. The first is the location of the new tower within a footprint
that allows for the maintenance of the microwave path that connects the
existing radio site with the rest of the Dakota County system. I have
attached a drawing that was prepared by the "County's radio consultant
that shows the general footprint for anew tower (see page 2) that would
be needed to maintain microwave path connectivity, The second factor is
the final height of the communications tower. Maintaining at least the
current height for the installation of the radio system equipment is
necessary to assure that the pattern of radio coverage is maintained. In
fact, if possible an additional 20 -25 feet of height for installation of the
County equipment could- enhance the coverage provided from this
location. The County would be interested in working with the City to
determine if this would be possible in order to optimize the coverage
provided across your community.
N
Lastly, the cost impacts of the potential move from the tank to a new
communications tower are not inconsequential. The County's radio
consultant has estimated the costs at this point to be between $50,000
and $200,000: These numbers will be able to be refined once the actual
scope of the project is.better defined. The funding for capital costs for.th�
operation of the radio system are derived from property revenues so any
decisions that can be made to minimize this impact are greatly
appreciated.
Please contact me if you have any questions at 651- 438 -4532. 1 would
be happy to discuss them with you and would make myself available for
any City meetings or workshops where the County's input would be
valuable in your decision making process.
B.J. Battig -
Dakota County
Risk and Homeland'Security Manager
- Atta'r_.hment;S►?2rt- Site-'Plan
CC: Russ Matthys, City of Eagan
Dave Osberg, City of Eagan
Brandt Richardson, Dakota County
Jeff Nelson, PSC Alliance
I�,
d
Cl)
L
d
3
0
L.
i
2:%
L
N
CL
Cl)
t6
qqt
VIM
0
N
r
CCi
LL
9.0
w
0
V
A
�A
cd
Ga
4--{
O
cn
(/)
C6 �
O
QL
O C/)
N p :�_+ O
H o .0 O
I U �- C:
CO U to O O
O O a) E L-
0 N 0
a) C: •� N O c: O L- — c: O
o a cn 0- E O co
Oo- �c.Eco 0:3
U N — 0 A-' to -� O
U) O V a) C �% }, � Q,
� CCS O ` N L- O
.� cnd- �,O .>'O �L'
L O O cn •� O •— o
O .0 o � 'U N
C'7 N O .�
��I O
�(D
z
Q ._
i >1
W � r •-
•a 0. o r.
ma E -�e =
o •-
o��
ova
LIMO
�,._�E
L �
Qi Q r
Q • W . •�±
CO 1. 0.0
mo
fi
a
G�
0
C-
CU
cu
0
E
�
ca
If
Q
c ,
0
0
c
a)
>
-t cu
E
N
0
(n
0
z
0
z
■
0
0
.i
CL
� V
0
L i
0 �
L L
0
V
� Q
W
s�
c�•
c�
a�
13
0
�F— CL
QA
ca
cd
F�a
O
N
L.
N Q
O
< z
w
7E7)
(M)
O
Ana
O■
.M r
O�
O�
AW W
� L
O>
CL 0
V
.- 0
i
Q
O=
o
a
19
c
0
0
d;
0
0
a
c
. If
V�
cA
CPO
W-Wa
C
O
Q
,
cc
E
N
Q
_
c6
(6
O
CU
E
O
Q
�e
'U
Q
_
N
E
Q
E
4,
U)
Z
0
Z
. If
V�
CII--
s
s O
N
V CZ
r
O -
L �
� O
�s
v �
L
� L
m r.
OO
r
W
z
E
w
c
4a ''�
o
.o (j) r
V,m,
y ^O^
M • iii..
tai r E
UU •_
M
�E-�e�
o •—
'm
30��
C. L
E�
.a
0 v M
L m
X5 . 0
CL
E
moo °'=
M -W ?. •—
as
Cl) S. 0.0
a� � as
�m
�:CL o
0
= 3 O
Q.
n. °' E
i O .�
N O
d' m >
O
r
0\
O
YIE
QA
a
0
t
O
CL
c
N L
O
c
= O
010
CL
L L
c
ca
O
E
C:
cu
if
0
Q
cu
cu
V-
E
c
a)
_
a
>
-t cu
QL
E
o
a)
>
cn
0
z
0
z
N
M
d'
■
0\
O
YIE
QA
a
0
t
O
CL
c
N L
O
c
= O
010
CL
L L
a�
O
s
■
O
rig
u
s
I
m
O
■
O
■
CL p
(DO
■U
■ O
CL
O
■E
7V
cn
m
cn
L.1..
N
O N
o �
o �
aE
1.1.
L
r•1
da°
�A
Ga
u
0
i
i
d,6
M
QA
CL
aw
a)
N
" N
�
O
a) °
�c
0
>
>,
U
>;
0
U
cu
.n
cu
o
-c
U a)
_(U
U `0
°
�
°
(n
U -1_'
W
0)
CL
C.4)
co _.
= a)
4
> o
U co
°
c6
-v
a)
°—�
U
°
+
s
/�, ^L/
O�
O
2
O
O
,�
4J '
s
Q
O
.=
-E
D-
N
W
L
°
O m
A
Q
O
a)
�
U
°
C a)
a) 2
0
a)
E°
a)
c
O
�,
Y
O
o
o
- ��
cn
0
co
° ,�
0
U
N
E
W
a)
QV
- C
�
"OJ
v
O
0 ''' U
F—
E
-�
a)
-
Ca
� Crj
L-
1
•
(n
-i--i cu
S2
U
-�-
�
L
c6
W
�
•_
a) �
O (6 Q
4-
N
�
cn
■
�
(D
E
'E
0
,C
E
"D
O���o
0
CU
W
(n
>-
N
O
°
U
i
—
c6
U
N
L,
.,
c6
O
rML
O
O •
i
in
m
O
0
U
��
O
�C
i>—'-O
O
0 :z
.�.r
� E
ca
a,
(u
Q-
E
u)
O
CD
0
O) O
N =3
a)
±�
cu
4,
�
O
C))
E ,
O
a)
U)
N
(A
O
O
O
cn c6
a)
N
a)
L-
°
=
a)
a
ate)
d,6
� L"
M
cl)
O 3 O
CL 0
0
0 00.0
CLNO°
mw
0
Oto.-
-
0-00 U
a) 0 =
O .
Y O :a
E L F+
QO he
0 u
� >+ cofl s
Ea 0
0 =OC)
v.00
H 0 Efl �
a)
(6
�
(Q
U
N
N =
N
O
N N
0
N
'a
N
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
Z
O
-C
O O
U)
N
0
CIX I
Gd
Q
C
N
O
N
N
U
O
M
O1
C
O
O
Q.
N
N
Y
.Y
L
cu
cu
c6
O
1"
a)
cd
C
C O
O
E
N
O +�
O
N
L
O
N
_
E
+ C
E
>
N
'a
•
Q.
CD Cn
L O N
U
cu
W`
_ I O
C�� � �F�
C
cu
C
/
>
=3
-C
L
c
=
0
cu
cl)
i
O
a) L
W
s
>
N
-�-�
C
N
L
O
O
U�
'
Q
N ,-E
O
C
L y
•+ O
L, Uo
W �` Cl)
L
4�
�
a�
cu
/O�••••��
CL
-C
LU) O
N
O
c
O_0
N
o
:3CU 0c
sCfl
CD
N
v •� C C
Z cif 5
E
O
Q.
Y
Q -a N v
N
70 4) 0 =
V
�i
N
>
0 •a L
L
O
>
p
(�
4-
U
N
A
O
S
cu L
A
N
N
O
L .�..1
L
�
O Y w
'''
O(
�°
cu
O
'~
N
O
U
O
cu C
O
C
N
.Q
G� v``
> � cn
-�
.r
ca
�
^O •
L I
p
:n
N
L
L
w s
-O a)
L
O
N
�-
N
L
cu
E
E O
N
C
X
(U
'L
v
= O
o c6
-1-1
O
4-
O
cu
•�
Q � S
p
to
_�
N
cu
^v
Lo
i- (D b9� �O 111 1
Z v 2 N
N
O
N
N
U
O
M
O1
C
O
O
Q.
N
N
Y
.Y
L
cu
cu
c6
O
1"
a)
cd
C
Ana
t�
A=
/O vi+
V/ W
Ls
a�
00
,C m ,r-
O'
- 0 o /E///��
V/
^� ,0
O L
—
0 N i C*-.
i �O V
O '—
O E�
CL
CL v L
V Z O ,V)
O O O O O O O O
� r r
QNI
L-
a)
O
c
r Q�w
m c��
cu
L
tiS M O
o
U ._
cu �, -0
O
N Y
O Q N
O N N
.a) Q
(0 cn
(6
C O)
cu c
a) 0
o u c
Q U � N
c
O
E
N E o
cu
a a�
O U
CIO
C+
V
,
a
(B (a
� O N
N -
-•LM.9
0 E U
co
4-
CU N
O c
U O
N
O _
O Q �_
CU :
2 (n (6
CL
.s
a)
O
O
(n
N
�U
O
U)
U
■
dq
O
O
0)
O
O
O
O
c
N
co
N
a
N
N
U)
C
(6
U
N
Q
N
a O
CU
W
c
0
o
cu
a
O
Y cn
O
N m
N
N N
L >
CU
f-+
N
N N
4- Z L-
o E
O
M
U N
N O
4= O 0
a
O
L
QQO0
N
U
?+ >
O O (n
U O O >'
N a :
N N
N O) 'a (0
m c O fn
CU N
E O O
O
CU cn
E o cLa V
.Q = 2
co -a
Jcu
,�
4-
O
C
I— N
O (n
a O
as
O 0)
C O
cn 'C
'E >
> 'a
-0 O
CU
N (6
�
O (D
N }'
00
Q N
PrIom
"Al
N
O N '
O
U
c
O
4� 4-
a) a
•C O
Xa N N
C N
a)
Q p O
O O
U � ,
N =_
L'
O o
N >+ N
c � �
Q
cc
C
O �
ai
•�
O C
O
c to
n
O
V)
a) =3
cu
E O
Q
o
.O
OZ
CD
(D
(D
M
Y
,Q
0 N
Q
Q
�
Y
E
t/1
o
O
iE
3
E C
O (6
0
cu
.F.r
o
0 W
_
...
O
V
"1,-'
(D
U U
C
Q
C�
o
0
:3O
O
..
O
�
C
(n
AW
4m
r
CU
O N
��
AW
V
Qi
U >+
N-�
O (6
_�
co
co
.i
L
N '=
Q
O
L
" N
v
O
—
G��
>,
> E
V
�+O.N
Po
a
(B (a
� O N
N -
-•LM.9
0 E U
co
4-
CU N
O c
U O
N
O _
O Q �_
CU :
2 (n (6
CL
.s
a)
O
O
(n
N
�U
O
U)
U
■
dq
O
O
0)
O
O
O
O
c
N
co
N
a
N
N
U)
C
(6
U
N
Q
N
a O
CU
W
c
0
o
cu
a
O
Y cn
O
N m
N
N N
L >
CU
f-+
N
N N
4- Z L-
o E
O
M
U N
N O
4= O 0
a
O
L
QQO0
N
U
?+ >
O O (n
U O O >'
N a :
N N
N O) 'a (0
m c O fn
CU N
E O O
O
CU cn
E o cLa V
.Q = 2
co -a
Jcu
,�
4-
O
C
I— N
O (n
a O
as
O 0)
C O
cn 'C
'E >
> 'a
-0 O
CU
N (6
�
O (D
N }'
00
Q N
PrIom
"Al
N
O N '
O
U
c
O
4� 4-
a) a
•C O
Xa N N
C N
a)
Q p O
O O
U � ,
N =_
L'
O o
N >+ N
c � �
Q
cc
RS �
i�
L
O u)
L
O p
.a
CD (1) _
O '-
_O Y
E
>%O tq
vo�o
�°as
0
(D°4m r
v •-
o •- L
=•v4-
•— Q LM
sE
CL 0L�
v .°3 0 .N
J
c�
;s
O�
N
N
O
4-wi
d
o
,co
Z
.�
Q�
,�
N
co
N
O
C/)
W
ftftft
CL
Co
p
U
J
c�
;s
O�
N
N
O
4-wi
d
L
O t/�
O p
Y � �
O '-
_O Y
. E
>%O ■�
O
CD
0 0 r
_ 0 ■■
r i
0.0
Q
O .N
_ N
O
0.1
co sZ o
V
0
c�A
1
L
0
U
E
o ,
U
O
c
.N
ai
0
z
s�
Low
o cn
i
Aw
00
`D CD CD
.lc .0 , —
o •-
O�
� O �
0 ,(n
0
RN _p
r. ■ .1
O i
a 0 `-�
0 r
�*mJ4= v
V •-
O •- i
=•v40
i
Q.
moEm%-
QOi:3
V O .�
N O
O 4z
cis
a�
O
i
O
s
C�
.cQ :�
N
Uice) /��o
V ` V
L�
U
i
CO
N
uj
X,
O
� � N
�•I0
CQ
O
�A
O
50
3i
o "
U
j °
N O "a
L � O C
a) U U-a
2
o
� o
ai a�ia)�
_n Co
U ti3 -O
N i 7 i
O cu O
E >+ U)
T d +�
M -C
a) 'O N
(6 Q C
p > U
L
1
ca
cu
a) 4-
a) a)
1-+ c
ca Q LE
4- x Qi
a) c 0
~ a)
Y rt-+ 1
Co
Q
°? � a)
C: o
3 Y
o c o
a)
a)
N V Y
()
L a) 41
C O
O ?�
ca
Y O a)
O ` M C
� a)
m �
O a)
42 L
a)
O O O
Q
4- 4�
c c
cu
c
a)
Q .CU
0)
cu
CO
�
Q.
■�
ca
(6
co >+
C O Q
N
U
N
_
C
p
O (a
p
U
a)
~ v7
YO (� a)
X
O
L
O
:> r
O O
E m
Y
M
m C
y
LQ C
iN+
-
Q-
'p
O
"O
O
'O M
D
m
a)
O
c
a—
a)
L
O
c
ca
� +�
o
O C
LLI
U
U
`
U (a >
E o 0
a-•
C (6
O ca
L
°ai
a) N
co L-0L
W
a)a)
't a)
4- :Ll O
cn ,>
Q.
=n
L
O_ O (0
a)
C
(B 0
c
C Q.
L to
cu
W
a) a) a)
� L
O
O
p
O c CL �
J
a)
a) Y
L
O (6
a)
O) U 0 a)
� O
(0 E
U
L
a) O U C
>
a) ►-•
>
la)
(A
C
0-0
O
■
(0
O
N +-
>
a OU .E
3i
o "
U
j °
N O "a
L � O C
a) U U-a
2
o
� o
ai a�ia)�
_n Co
U ti3 -O
N i 7 i
O cu O
E >+ U)
T d +�
M -C
a) 'O N
(6 Q C
p > U
L
1
ca
cu
a) 4-
a) a)
1-+ c
ca Q LE
4- x Qi
a) c 0
~ a)
Y rt-+ 1
Co
Q
°? � a)
C: o
3 Y
o c o
a)
a)
N V Y
()
L a) 41
C O
O ?�
ca
Y O a)
O ` M C
� a)
m �
W
O
c
,O
nL,
W
U)
ii
C/)
O
0
c
O
QL
C/)
O
O
m `.M)
Cl) 0
W
-C
�-j
O
c
O
W -I--r
0
cn
W
U �
CCS O
0
.E C�
E
0 -cn
C: C:
� O
O -0
O O
0
cn cn
W
�C:
0
3
O
L
O
4-j >
c: 42
._
Ca
O =
> N
L- cn
O O
i 4—
O
N
E
O
(n C:
(n CIO
c
O
o
co
c W
W C: ch
O
O 0-
N
a� co
EW
Q
->
O t U
l' )
^i`
M
O
cn
42 -0 (�
a) =
� O
� � O
O c: U)
O O
•-
O
.— O cu 0- U
CU (n W
O .�+ E cn E
N O
L.L � O
0
O
U
CC5
O
O
-1-j
C:
4--.
c�
1
j..
0
a
cd
pm:4
YO
Agenda Memo
City Council Workshop
February 11, 2014
V. LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to staff, City Attorney and EEAC
regarding the establishment of standards to permit Low Maintenance Landscaping on Residential
Lots.
FACTS:
• The Energy and Environment Advisory Commission (EEAC) Landscaping Ordinance
Committee consists of Amir Nadav, Jon Drucker, and Mike Wisniewski. The Committee has
performed research and has participated in meetings with City Staff and the City Attorney
regarding the potential to expand the type and extent of vegetation other than turf grass may be
allowed in residential yards in addition to what is currently permitted in the City Code.
• At its meeting on October 8, 2013, the EEAC reviewed the Subcommittee findings and made a
recommendation to the City Council regarding low maintenance yards. A copy of the
recommendation, along with supporting information, is included the attachments.
At the Council's direction to present Commission recommendations in a high level and succinct
way, staff has worked with the Commission to define some overarching questions for
consideration by the Council. Those are included in the Commission recommendation and in
the Issues section below.
• In the context of the questions, staff has prepared comments on the policy questions that are also
included in the attachments.
POLICY ISSUES:
• What are the city of Eagan's goals with respect to landscaping and maintenance of vegetation in
residential areas and on the adjacent public right -of -way?
• To what extent should Eagan residents be allowed to plant vegetation or establish ground cover
other than turf grass on their yards?
Percentage of Area of Non -Turf Plantings - The City Code currently limits the percentage
of a yard that can be made up of non -turf grass plantings to 50% of a yard. Is the Council
open to other types of plantings and ground covers to make up more than 50% of a yard or
all of a yard? Is the Council open to other types of plantings and ground covers to make up
a greater percentage of the front yard? (Note: Public rights of way are discussed separately
below.)
• Plant Material Heights — The City Code currently requires grass over 8" in height to be
mowed as part of the maintenance of a yard. By definition, many of the plants that in lower
maintenance yards naturally grow higher than that. Ts the City Council open to plant heights
N
greater than 8" for certain yard materials, provided they are properly maintained and do not
interfere with sight lines or create other nuisances?
• Materials Permitted at Property Boundaries — The City Code currently provides for
maintenance of three feet of turf grass along property boundaries to preserve a "transition
zone" between plant communities. Is the Council open to permitting other materials such as
stone, woodchips or other mulch within this three foot transition zone?
• Code Amendment Construction — The City Council and staff typically defers to the City
Attorney in terms of Code construction and the internal consistency of various sections and
subsections of the Code when Ordinance amendments are drafted. Does the Council want to
follow the practice of deferring to the City Attorney matters of Code construction and
consistency in this case?
• To what extent should permitting processes be applied to landscaping projects? Are
clarifications or modifications to existing permitting processes appropriate?
• Small Garden Fences /Garden Edging —Does the Council want staff to create a list of
improvements that may or may not require a zoning permit or use the current system in which
staff reviews proposed improvements to determine whether permit requirements apply?
Raised Beds — Does the City Council want to exclude raised beds from the zoning permit
process?
Public Rights of Way — Does the City Council want to permit additional types of plant
materials and ground covers in the public right of way? Does the City Council want to continue
to use the right of way permit process to manage materials and improvements placed in the right
of way?
ATTACHMENTS:
EEAC recommended policy questions and findings on pages D through_
EEAC examples of yards landscaped with materials other than turf grass on pages 41
through 50
Staff memo regarding policy questions on pages 51 through 5b
Eagan Energy & Environment Advisory Commission
Landscaping Ordinance Committee
Recommendations for October 8, 2013 Meeting
Proposed overarching questions for discussion with the City Council:
1.. What are the city of Eagan's goals with respect to landscaping and maintenance of
vegetation in residential areas and on the adjacent public right -of -way?
2. To what extent should Eagan residents be allowed to plant vegetation or establish ground
cover other than turf grass on their yards?
3. To what extent should permitting processes be applied to landscaping projects? Are
clarifications or modifications to existing permitting processes appropriate?
W
1. What are the city of Eagan's goals with respect to landscaping and maintenance of
vegetation in residential areas and on the adjacent public right -of -way?
EEAC Findings:
a) The 2011 - 2012 City Council Goals included the following:
i. Maintain a broad -based and comprehensive commitment to energy efficiency and
environmental sustainability by adopting conservation and alternative energy strategies
pursuing the use of local, non - polluting, renewable, and recycled resources, while
encouraging residents and businesses to do likewise.
b) The purpose section of Code 10.21 "Planting and maintenance of trees and grass on
private property" states:
i. The regulations set forth in this section are for the purposes of protecting and promoting
the public health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city by regulating the
planting and maintenance of trees in order to protect trees and to prevent and abate
hazardous and nuisance conditions within the city.
2. To what extent should Eagan residents be allowed to plant vegetation or establish ground
cover other than turf grass on their yards?
EEAC Findings:
a) Current city code addresses meadows, woodland, turf grass, and noxious weeds. It is
mostly silent on edible vegetation, native grasses and forbs, ornamental plants, rain
gardens, and ground covers such mulch, gravel, or ornamental rocks.
b) According to University of Minnesota Extension, traditional turf lawns require 1 to 1.5
inches or water per week during the summer months. [1] For a 4,000 sq. ft. lawn, that
could amount to 44,000 gallons of water per summer. A quarter of an acre is equivalent
to 10,890 square feet.
c) A DNR test well shows that the average water level of Eagan's aquifer has declined
approximately 35ft over a 35 year period. [2] The Metropolitan Council predicts a20-40
foot drawdown of aquifer levels under the city of Eagan by 2030 under business as usual
conditions. [3]
d) In 2011, Eagan's average daily water use was 13.2 million gallons of water per day in the
summer months and 5.8 million gallons of water per day in the winter months. [4]
e) Compared to traditional turf grass, native vegetation requires less moisture, fertilizers,
and pesticides and places less stress on the public's water resources. [5]
f) Landscaping such as rain gardens filter and infiltrate stormwater, thereby protecting
surface water from polluted runoff and recharging groundwater resources. [5]
31
g) Gas powered garden tools emit 5% of the nation's air pollution. Forty million
lawnmowers consume 200 million gallons of gasoline per year. One gas - powered
lawnmower emits 11 times the air pollution of a new car for each hour of operation, [6]
h) Minnesota is at risk of non - attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
particulates and ozone. Estimated cost of compliance with federal regulations for
nonattainment ranges from $140 - $260 million. [7]
3. To what extent should permitting processes be applied to landscaping projects, particularly
the items listed below? Are clarifications or modifications to existing permitting processes
appropriate?
• Fencing
• Raised beds
• Landscaping within the Right -of -Way (ROW)
EEAC Findings
a) ROW and Zoning permits provide educational opportunities to help property owners
comply with codes and standards in their initial investments.
b) City staff members estimate that as many as 10 -15 % of zoning permit applications
submitted include structures or improvements that would have been in violation of
setbacks or other regulations if they had been installed as originally proposed.
Fences
a) A zoning permit is required for residential fences.
b) Communication with city staff has indicated that the permit may not be required for small
garden fences, although this is not stated on the permit form.
Raised Beds
• A zoning permit is required for retaining walls less than 4 feet in height.
• The permit requires submittal of
o Two copies of plans showing how the wall will be constructed, including plan
view, cross section and elevation drawings.
o Two copies of a site survey drawn to scale indicating the location of the wall on
the property, structures on the site, and all easements.
• Benefits of raised beds include: [8]
• Handicap - accessible gardening
• Better drainage than in- ground beds
• Longer growing seasons due to warmer soil temperature
• Protection of soil and plants from foot traffic compaction
• Enabling gardening in challenging areas (e.g. above buried utilities, uneven slope,
contaminated soil.)
Right -of -Way
a) According to the Eagan Citizens Support Center:
i, Approximately 12 -13 feet behind the curb is designated City Right -of -Way
MTO
MAI
ii. The Right -of -Way is intended for underground utility installations and winter snow
storage and should be kept clear of any item that may be damaged.
iii. The City is not responsible for damage to sprinkler systems or other items located in the
Right -of -Way,
b) A permit is required for planting of trees, shrubs, or installation of landscaping or
irrigation systems within the city ROW.
c) City code requires the owner of the abutting property to maintain turfgrass or other
shrubs and landscaping within the ROW.
d) Landscaping within the ROW is fairly common in residential areas in Eagan. City staff
estimate that the majority of landscaping within the ROW was established without a
permit.
e) State law governing excavations that require utility locates does not apply to gardening
unless it disturbs the soil to a depth of 12 inches or more; trees or shrubs unless
disturbing to a depth of 18 inches or more (Statute 216D.01),
f) Examples of materials that other cities allow in the ROW and setbacks:
i. Eden Prairie city code states that the right -of -way boulevard is composed of regularly
mowed turfgrass, trees, shrubs, wood chips, rock, and /or gravel. It also permits garden
beds, in addition to the aforementioned items, in setback areas
ii. Edina city code states that the setback areas from streets, side and rear yards, shall be
composed of pavement, rock, gravel, wood chips, regularly mowed turfgassses, trees or
shrubs.
iii. St. Paul city code allows property owners to plant and maintain gardens and flowers in
boulevard areas adjacent to their properties. Vegetation is limited to 36" in height or 18"
in certain areas.
iv. Minneapolis city code states that flowers under 36" (or 18" in certain areas), grass, and
certain trees are allowed in the boulevard without a permit.
Endnotes
[1] "Watering Lawns and other turf," UMN Extension. http: / /wwwl.extension.umn.edu /garden /�ard-
garden/lawns/watering-lawns/
[2] Data from DNR Observation well 19030
http: / /climate.uii,in.edu /ground water level /fetch well. php ?obwell =19030 and Metropolitan Council presentation,
slide 10
littR:// wwdwr .cleati.energyresoui,ceteams.or srtc5 /default /files /W �ie�C'o�lsezvati.<la�Iool{?oY MetCouncil I.,all�IRoss
GreenSte Cities 21 Mav20 l3.pdf
[3] "Graphic: A future of water shortages ?" Star Tribune. Feb. 23, 2013.
littp://,A,ww,star-ti-ibune.com/iiewsgrapliics/ 192537651.htm1
[4] City of Eagan 2011 Public Works Annual Report
frttp / /wvti�c.citwlcitgal7.c inn /nYrgc s /PGt17l�cWtlzks /1 1xg,.Aldt A pelf
[5] GreenSteps Landscaping & Maintenance of Vegetation model ordinance
flap,; / /www, cr t lining com /„ ,ordiiiai ordiiiaiices/i.at.i.d,,,capii&pdf.'
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Landscaping
flap; : / /dv vti��.,e a.- y/ on erc s /nati„yeplarrls /fac;tslzt, htm1,
[7] Minnesota's Clean Air Dialogue (2013)
Itt f� :Hdocs.google.com/file, /d/OB71xtkzrVP13MFM5ciF9 I c,1 NBY3M /edit- ?rrsi_ shari_n
[8] UMN Horticulture litt ://www. extension .urrrti.edu %distribLition /Horticulture /M125-,[_17tiiii and Gardening Matters
littL�: / /wwrwr. Tardeningtnzttters.org/ sitesldefau. It / Ides/ G% 27M %20Raised %,2OBed %20I_Rc,tslieet %320'rin %Zo2012. df
1
Subject to Approval
A regular meeting of the Eagan Energy and Environment Advisory Commission was held on
Tuesday October 8, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.. Those present were Member
Nadav, Member LeClair, Member Bintner, Member Drucker, and Member Wisniewski, Member Ische
was absent. Staff present was Amy Grannes, Office Supervisor.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair LeClair stated there are no changes to the agenda. Member Bintner moved to approve
the agenda as presented, Member Wisniewski seconded with all present members voting in favor.
............__ ........ ................... .
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Member Bintner moved, Member Wisniewski seconded, with all present members voting in favor
to approve the minutes of April 9, 2013, as presented.
Member Bintner moved, Member Nadav seconded, with all present members voting in favor to
approve the minutes of May 14, 2013, as presented.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors to be heard.
OLD - BUSINESS
Member Nadav gave a brief overview of the landscaping ordinance committee's
recommendations and questions for the City Council. Member Wisniewski presented photos to the
Commission showing examples low maintenance landscaping at various locations in the metro area.
After a brief discussion with the Commission, Member Nadav stated the below are the proposed
overarching questions for discussion with the City Council:
1. What are the city of Eagan's goals with respect to landscaping and maintenance of
vegetation in residential areas and on the adjacent public right -of -way?
2. To what extent should Eagan residents be allowed to plant vegetation or establish ground
cover other than turf grass on their yards?
3. To what extent should permitting processes be applied to landscaping projects? Are
clarifications or modifications to existing permitting processes appropriate?
After further discussion with Commission Members, Member Bintner moved to forward the
subcommittees recommendations as presented, Member Drucker seconded, with all present
members voting in favor.
40
��
f
�,�,
���.��.
F �
L $
, vi
NP
c
�a
i
\r,
a
fie. S
ax. s
e.. f
x a.
'\ V
`zx
y#
7t
V
f('z
�5q 3
d'
4t
O
O
CL
C�0
.Q
U
N
i
J
U
Q
w
w
4
O
O
C-
4A
ca
U
N
C6
J
U
Q
w
w
z
l0
O
O
4.
tv0
C
c�
U
fB
J
U
Q
w
w
49
O
O
C-
0-
W
-a
m
U
N
fB
J
U
Q
w
w
00
4*
O
O
C-
tZ0
.Q
ca
U
N
F6
_I
U
Q
w
w
LAI�
®1
u
O
O
CL
CC1,0
.Q
m
U
N
fa
J
U
Q
w
w
0
0
0
a
a,o
.Q
m
U
N
i
f6
J
U
Q
w
w
City of E I
TO: MAYOR MAGUIRE AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR OSBERG
PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR JOHNSON
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MIKE RIDLEY, CITY PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2014
SUBJECT: EEAC LOW MAINTENANCE TURF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff appreciates the work the EEAC and its Landscaping Ordinance Committee
have done to outline their findings, recommendations and policy questions for the
Council's consideration. The following are some additional comments and
information for consideration in determining answers to those questions and
direction in follow up to the answers.
1. What are the city of Eagan's goals with respect to landscaping and maintenance of
vegetation in residential areas and on the adjacent public right -of -way?
The EEAC findings note that the purpose of the City Code section related to plantings on
private property is to promote health, safety and welfare and to prevent and abate
hazardous and nuisance conditions in the City. One of the focuses of the ordinance
relative to residential yards and public rights of way is to insure that plant material is in
place to stabilize soils and prevent erosion onto other private property and onto public
property. In the past, the typical yard planting that was used to accomplish that was turf
grass, either by sodding or seeding.
The City Code permits other plant materials to be planted to some degree for the same
purpose, including trees, shrubs, ornamentals and garden plants, but as is typical in
suburban communities, mowed turf grass has been the most common plant material in
most yards. Increasingly, discussions of purposes other than erosion control have
become more common. Specifically, water conservation (better retention of soil water
and reduced needs for irrigation) and the reduction of the use of gas powered garden tools
are reasons for considering options to mown turf grass where property owners wish to
manage their yards in other ways.
An important point is that all approaches to planting and plant materials require some
level of maintenance to prevent weed or erosion problems. Some require lower levels or
different types of maintenance and those may be less polluting or require less water, but
all need to be maintained in ways appropriate to their health and function. The
5�
Commission's recommendations include photos of well installed and well maintained
non -turf plantings and ground covers. It appears that all but one or two would conform to
the current City Code.
The Commission's recommendations are to expand the types of plant materials that may
be permitted in residential yards, in addition to turf grass, and to clarify the means by
which that is accomplished through the City Code. It is a policy issue for the City
Council to determine the extent to which they want to do that.
Provided the addition of other plant materials to yards does not create nuisance
conditions or other challenges, City staff sees value in the availability of options. That
said, we understand from experience that different property owners have different
perspectives as to what is attractive within a neighborhood and what constitutes
appropriate maintenance. Broadening the options for yard maintenance from what has
been typical in suburban communities (yards that are predominantly mown turf) to a
wider variety of options will elicit a range of responses.
Several pictures are attached at the end of this memo that represent properties whose
location, installation and maintenance of non -turf yards have resulted in complaints from
neighbors and required enforcement actions by staff. Modifying the standards for yard
materials and maintenance is a policy matter for the City Council, but it is a change of
expectations that will be perceived by property owners in different ways.
For these reasons, it is important to consider options from the perspective of the City
Council's expectations about the community and the proper means of translating those
expectations to Code standards.
The Council's answers to the EEAC's questions will frame the direction to City staff and
the City Attorney for implementation of City Code amendments as may be necessary.
2. To what extent should Eagan residents be allowed to plant vegetation or establish
ground cover other than turf grass on their yards?
The Commission recommends that plant materials and ground covers in addition to turf
grass be specifically identified in the City Code as permitted means of establishing and
maintaining a residential yard. Item a) of the Commission's findings note the City Code
addresses meadow, woodlands, turf grass and noxious weeds, but it is mostly silent on
edible vegetation, native grasses and forbs (flowering plants), ornamental plants, rain
gardens and ground covers such as mulch, gravel or ornamental rocks.
As a matter of Code construction, this observation is correct because many of the
regulations in the past have focused on preventing and abating nuisances (erosion control,
noxious weed removal, etc.), understanding other plant materials are permitted, provided
they don't create such nuisances.
Gardens and planting areas composed of edible and decorative plants, foundation
plantings and landscaped areas made up of shrubs and ornamental plants and ground
1Jc),
covers and rain gardens are permitted and in place throughout the community. The City
has education and promotion resources available for rain gardens and has permitted
prairie restoration in a number of locations, at one end of the low maintenance landscape
spectrum.
To the extent the City Council wants to permit plant materials and ground covers in
addition to turf, it is reasonable and consistent with the City's goal for sustainability and
conservation. That basic question raises certain additional questions that are noted
below. At the expense of getting in the weeds, some of these questions are at a closer
level of detail, but they are included because their answers will facilitate the City
Attorney's efforts to draft an ordinance amendment in this regard, if it is directed:
The City Code currently limits the percentage of a yard that can be made up of
non -turf grass plantings to 50% of a yard. Is the Council open to other types of
plantings and ground covers to make up more than 50% of a yard or all of a
yard? Is the Council open to other types of plantings and ground covers to
make up a greater percentage of the front yard? (Note: Public rights of way
are discussed separately below.)
The City Code currently requires grass over 8" in height to be mowed as part of
the maintenance of a yard. By definition, many of the plants that in lower
maintenance yards naturally grow higher than that. Is the City Council open to
plant heights greater than 8" for certain yard materials, provided they are
properly maintained and do not interfere with sight lines or create other
nuisances?
The City Code currently provides for maintenance of three feet of turf grass along
property boundaries to preserve a "transition zone" between plant communities
(i.e. between a turf yard and a yard made up of other plant materials. These areas
are also frequently drainage and utility easements, such that the City may need to
enter them for maintenance or repairs. Is the Council open to permitting other
materials such as stone, woodchips or other mulch within this three foot
transition zone?
• City staff typically defers to the City Attorney in terms of Code construction and
the internal consistency of various sections and subsections of the Code when
Ordinance amendments are drafted. In the work to date on a draft ordinance that
has highlighted the questions above, the City Attorney has advised that certain
suggestions by the Commission be addressed in particular ways for this purpose.
Does the Council want to follow the practice of deferring to the City Attorney
matters of Code construction and consistency in this case?
3. To what extent should permitting processes be applied to landscaping projects? Are
clarifications or modifications to existing permitting processes appropriate?
Fay
The City currently facilitates the installation of built structures in a yard through zoning
permits and it regulates the installation of structures and plantings other than turf grass, mail
boxes and irrigation systems in the public rights of way through right of way permits.
The use of zoning permits has served as much as an education process as a regulatory one,
but experience indicates that 10 -15% of the improvements done through the zoning permit
process would have been installed in violation of the City Code and could have required a
compliance action had the review and approval not occurred. Despite the best efforts of the
City's Code Enforcement staff to work with property owners to provide adequate timelines
and options for correcting a violation, bringing an in- place, non - compliant improvement into
compliance involves cost and effort on the part of the owner and the inconvenience of doing
the improvement over in a compliant fashion.
The right of way permit process is also an educational one, but there are additional
restrictions and limitations because the right of way is also used for public snow storage,
placement of public utilities and related infrastructure, access to fire hydrants and the like.
At curves and intersections, management of the right of way is important to prevent
interference with sight lines and, depending upon the slope behind the curb, management of
the right of way helps prevent erosion.
The Commission recommends that broader latitude be permitted for certain improvements in
residential yards and certain plantings and improvements in public rights of way, particularly
in the areas of:
Small Garden Fences /Garden Edging — Depending on a fence's height, location,
construction and material, it may or may not constitute an improvement that should
be reviewed through a permit, but even a small fence of a certain material,
constructed near a property boundary, in a particular way may require one. Since the
zoning permit is an educational tool, property owners are encouraged to share a
photo of the type of improvement and /or prepare a sketch plan of their proposed
improvements and review it with staff. This allows a conversation to determine
whether a permit applies or the plans need to be modified. Does the Council want
staff to create a list of improvements that may not require a zoning permit or
use the current system in which staff reviews proposed improvements to
determine whether permit requirements apply?
Raised Beds — This type of improvement uses one or more tiers of retaining walls to
create planting spaces above ground level. It offers all of the benefits outlined in the
EEAC findings. Raised beds are a permitted improvement in residential yards
provided they meet setbacks, avoid drainage and utility easements and retain existing
drainage patterns, but even a single tier wall installed in a drainage way can change
drainage patterns around the owner's home or divert drainage onto other properties.
These requirements are easily determined through a zoning permit review.
Excluding them from the zoning permit requirement increases the likelihood of a
non - compliant installation and the need to pursue compliance through an
enforcement action. Does the City Council want to exclude raised beds from the
zoning permit process?
54
Public Rights of Way — The Commission is recommending the expansion of the
types of plant materials and ground covers that may be permitted in public rights of
way. Specifically, these include plant materials that grow to less than 30" in height
or other height approved by the City and rock/stone, wood chips or other mulch.
Staff is open to the possibility of expanding the materials that may be permitted
within public rights of way, provided the right of way permit remains the means of
reviewing and approving those installations so: 1) a safe sight line height is
established for plants over 8" in height, 2) ground covers and mulch are placed in
locations and ways that they remain stable and are not likely to be washed out of a
yard and into the City's storm water system and 3) to prevent other conditions that
may create environmental degradation to the storm water system or other public
safety issues. Does the City Council want to permit additional types of plant
materials and ground covers in the public right of way? Does the City Council
want to continue to use the right of way permit process to manage materials and
improvements placed in the right of way?
Generally speaking staff understands the value and purpose of City Code modifications
regarding the types of plant materials or ground cover that may be permitted in residential
yards, but knowing the potential for well - meaning property owners to interpret regulations
differently, we would strongly encourage the continued application of the zoning and right of
way permitting processes to improve the likelihood an improvement is done correctly the
first time and to prevent hazards or nuisances within rights of way.
It will also be important to help property owners who are applying yard management
approaches different from traditional ones to implement them in ways that will meet their
interests, while minimizing negative perceptions of others who apply the traditional
approaches.
\T?
r r*kp\
I
(��������-12
Al.
50
V.
F z
i t wt-�•. : t 1 5
`, r'' yet f t ' t•. _..r' 3.Jr s�. ,1� r
y�,., + - if -,
Ae?i
ZE
vj
�r
f •_ �' t� t�YF bP �'\ T hP
i
i
i
i f
7 a _
f6�;1 ._ 1 1.:4 +:
I r 7
�
r tS �v Yj3+a yJ j:_�'rt t
�Z �IN-4t �M• -- } /�' tl1V �) f{. SFr
� f j
-
< a
s
� Y
f
w �
y,J t i.•l li. �/ t Ih
�.
�I • y
�" ~�
, ,�
I.
tt
A
i *A f
-p'
/i
�/s •• [:
4� f�
-fib
i
i
i
i f
7 a _
f6�;1 ._ 1 1.:4 +:
I r 7
�
r tS �v Yj3+a yJ j:_�'rt t
�Z �IN-4t �M• -- } /�' tl1V �) f{. SFr
.Ni
'n. �'a
ic
low
V, N; i.
fl RVI
Qi- .3kic-l— Al
RM
44.,
1.3
7�x
Tic
, WA
Ng,-V;
SO,
MI-11 I Mr
Zl�i , G
, .0-
Special Counsel Workshop
Agenda Memo
February 11, 2014
VI. FINDINGS OF THE CABLE NEEDS ASSESSMENT & NEXT STEPS
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION: The presentation is for informational purposes
regarding the recent Community Cable Needs Assessment and to update the Council
on next steps in the cable franchise renewal process No formal action is required at this
time.
FACTS:
• On March 13, 2012, Communications Director Garrison and Mr. Brian Grogan,
Eagan's cable franchise attorney, briefed the City Council on kind of a "101"
regarding the typically three -year process for cable franchise agreements and
renewal.
• Ad part of the run up to actual negotiations, cities generally review the financial
and technical performance of the cable company under the existing franchise
and, as mandated by law, conduct a community needs assessment with the
public to determine what the community expects from a provider in any new
franchise.
• Sue Buske of the Buske Group was retained to conduct a series of six
community focus group discussions held November 12 -14, 2013 and to analyze
the results from a subsequent online and paper survey of community members
conducted in the immediate 30 days following the focus group meetings.
• Some 115 individuals attended the focus groups, and a record 1,156
respondents from 101 different organizations and institutions in the Eagan area
participated.
• Ms. Buske will present an overview of the significant preliminary findings and
answer any questions.
• This will be followed by Director Garrison and Attorney Grogan providing an
update of the renewal process since Council was last briefed and discussing the
next steps to expect in the renewal process. They, too, will respond to any
questions, concerns or discussion the Council wishes to have, with the caution
that particular negotiation strategies should be avoided.
• Eagan's cable franchise expires in January of 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Copies of Buske Group presentation will be distributed to the City Council on
Tuesday night.
59