The URL can be used to link to this page

10/20/1992 - City Council Regular AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING OCTOBER 20, 1992 6:30 P.H. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (BLUE) II. 6:35 '- ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES (BLUE) III. 6:45 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS (BLUE) A. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. Consider ISTEA Trailway Grant Application ® t • IV. 6:55 - CONSENT AGENDA (PINK) ( INR) 10. 12-A. PERSONNEL ITEMS b.(2.713. LICENSES, Plumbers / C. AGREEMENT, Joint Powers & Grant for Special Assistance/Community Landfill Abatement t.2,3D. ADJUSTMENTS, 1992 General Fund Budget 2(E. FINAL PLAT, Poppler Homestead No. 2 f�7 F. CONTRACT 91-01, Authorize Final Payment/Acceptance (T.H. 149 & Opperman Drive) SI G. APPROVE Agreement/Adopt Resolution Request MnDOT Tuition Reimbursement for Engineering Technician Certification �•Z q H. CONTRACT 91-09, Approve Change Order No. 2 (Well #16) le" I. CONTRACT 91-09, Authorize Final Payment/Acceptance (Well ##16) 0,0J. VACATE Drainage & Utility Easement, Receive Petition/Schedule Public Hearing (Outlots A, Town Centre 70 - 10th and 12th Additions) 3° K. CONTRACT 92-13, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Aldrin Drive - Streets & Utilities) a v 3yL. PROJECT 634, Receive Final Assessment Roll/Order Public Hearing (Cedar Grove 7th i Addition & Lakeside Estates Addition - Streetlights) f,37VM. Project 601R, Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Lone Oak Road Reconstruction - I-35E to T.H. 55/149) 32N. Project 600, Receive Final Assessment Roll/Order Public Hearing (T.H. 149 and Opperman Drive - Intersection Improvement) 33 0 . VACATE Drainage & Utility Easement, Receive Petition/Schedule Public Hearing (Lots 9 I . & 10, Block 1, Chatterton Ponds Addition V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (SALMON) P34 A. PROJECT 589R, Elrene Road & Trails End Road - Streets & Utilities VI. OLD BUSINESS (ORCHID) AA. RESOLVE Financial Obligations & Park Dedication Requirements, Meghans Addition B. CONTRACT 92-12, Receive Bids/Award Contract, Poppler Addition, Streets & Storm Sewer p.1 ... C. CONTRACT 92-12, Approve Change Order #1, Poppler Addition - Streets & Storm Sewer 1 1 VII. NEW BUSINESS (TAN) p.? ( A. ACCEPTANCE of Phase I Study for Schwanz Lake/Authorization to Proceed with Phase II Application it//,, AUTHORIZATION to Submit Phase I Application for Fish Lake f . EXTENSION, Preliminary Plat, Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition f i n 1!/D/D. VARIANCE, Dart Transit, of 50' to the Required 50' Setback, Located at 800 Lone Oak el Road P,�tE. PRELIMINARY PLAT, Town Centre 70 - 14th Addition/Eagan Tower Office Building Partnership, Consisting of One Lot on Approximately 3 Previously-Zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) Acres, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, for a Drive-Thru Facility, and a Pylon Sign Located Along the East Side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Sec 15 (la/ F. AMENDMENT of Ordinance, Chapter 10, Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses, Section 10.12, Keeping & Harboring Carrier Pigeons VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (GOLD) IX. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE (GREY) /1 /23A. AMM Legislative Policy Program/1993 j�� .B. Dakota County Legislative Programs/1993 V X. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA (GREEN) XI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda) XII. ADJOURNMENT The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1992 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR THE OCTOBER 20, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADOPT AGENDAMPPROVE MINUTES After approval is given to the October 20, 1992 City Council agenda, the regular meeting minutes for the October 8, 1992 meeting and special City Council minutes for September 28, 1992, the following items are in order for consideration. DEPARTMENT HEAD<BUSINESS A. PARKS DEPARTMENT Item 1. Consider ISTEA Trailway Grant Application--The Metropolitan Council is responsible for administering grant funds for the development of bikeway and walkway projects under the Intermodel Service Transportation Efficiency Act. City staff has reviewed potentially eligible projects and has identified four within the City of Eagan which would provide critical trail links within the existing trailway system. These projects together with additional background with respect to this grant program are included in a staff memorandum enclosed on pages through for your review. Also enclosed without page number are highlighted copies of the exhibits representing each of the trailway alternatives. The funding program provides for 80% federal cost sharing and a 20% local match of eligible costs. If all four projects were to be approved, the total cost to the grant program would be $344,560 and the City cost would be $98,140 which is proposed to be paid from the Parks Site Fund and the Trails Dedication Account. It should be noted that the Council may choose to authorize one of the projects, some of the projects, all of the projects or none of the projects and the associated costs would be adjusted appropriately. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the ISTEA Trailway Grant application and identify which of the four proposed trail projects should be included in the grant. MEMO TO: EAGAN CITY COUNCIL TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TOM COLBERT, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION JOHN VONDELINDE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1992 SUBJECT: ISTEA GRANT FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL TRAILS EXPANSION The purpose of this memorandum is to request council authorization to submit an application to the Metropolitan Council, to secure matching federal funds for the expansion of City walkway and biking trails. Additionally, this memorandum requests minor modifications to the City's Trails System Guide Plan to ensure grant eligibility for all of the new trail segments proposed. BACKGROUND . In 1991, the United States Congress passed the Federal Intermodel Transportation Efficiency Act, also known as "ISTEA". Under this act, Federal Surface Transportation Funds are being made available to local units of government for bikeway and walkway development projects. The Metropolitan Council has been assigned responsibility for administrating ISTEA grant funds in the seven-county metro area. A total of $1.5 million is currently available to local units of government. Facilities eligible to receive matching funds include bicycle "lanes", paths for bicyclists or pedestrians, traffic control devices, shelters and parking facilities for bicycles. All funded facilities must be of a permanent nature and maintained in perpetuity by the grant applicant. Costs not eligible for grant funding include right-of-way acquisition costs, engineering and design services, drainage projects, fences and landscaping. Ordinary sidewalk construction is also not eligible. Under the program ranking criteria, projects which address the following needs will be assigned a priority ranking: • Provide access to activity centers (shopping center, education complex, etc.) • Implement a locally adopted bike or pedestrian plan • Correct known or potential safety hazards • Provide an interface with other transportation modes • Form a continuous system of similar trails 1 • Remove or eliminate natural or manmade barriers to biking or walking • Provide a travel alternative on or parallel to congested roads or highways The ISTEA program offers a very favorable, 80% federal cost share against a 20% local match for all eligible costs under the project. The only other financial requirement is that the total project cost must exceed $25,000, but be less than $500,000 to be eligible. Applications must be received by the Metropolitan Council no later than November 2, 1992; construction contracts must be awarded no later than December 31, 1993. GRANT PROJECT PROPOSAL Staff is proposing that the City's ISTEA application be broken into four major components. Each of these components addresses individual pedestrian transportation needs within different geographical locations of the community. 1) Fort Snelling State Park Trail Access The City was recently informed that the Department of Natural Resources will be installing a permanent multi-purpose trail corridor along the Minnesota River (on the Eagan side) beginning in 1993. This will be part of the State/Federal Trail which will extend from Fort Snelling and southerly along the Minnesota River Valley. Under the ISTEA program, the City proposes to provide a pedestrian link between the City's trails system and the DNR's new park trail corridor. As the Council knows, this is a project which the City has envisioned for many years. It would provide a unique opportunity for the recreating public to gain direct access to the pristine Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and State trail. The project would also provide "missing" trail segments within several neighborhood areas providing residents with convenient trails access into the Minnesota Valley (see Exhibit A). The total estimated cost of developing this component of the grant project is $140,000. Steep side slopes in certain areas may also require the installation of retaining walls prior to the construction of a trail along Beau-D-Rue Drive. In addition, the City may need to acquire additional trail easement along sections of Beau-D-Rue and Nichols Roads. The anticipated costs of acquiring these easements is in the range of $7,000. 2) Town Centre Area Access This component of the project proposes the installation of a hard surface trail along Town Centre Drive between Duckwood Drive and Lexington Avenue. This new trail would provide a safe and convenient pedestrian access route for employees within the Town Centre area as well as residents from surrounding neighborhoods. The addition of a trail along the south side of Duckwood Drive between Denmark Avenue and Lexington Avenue would also enhance accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians from the Lexington Place, St. Francis Woods and Duckwood Trail developments. (See Exhibit B) 2 3 The total costs for implementing this component of the project is estimated at $118,500. This represents a somewhat higher than the average trail construction cost due to the probable need for easements, retaining wall construction, grading and installation of curb cuts along the Town Centre Drive segment. Retaining walls are considered an eligible facility, however, and could be cost-shared on an 80/20 basis. 3) Highway 149/YMCA Access This component proposes the installation of a trailway on the west side of State Highway 149 between Westcott Road and Oppenheimer Drive and on the east side of 149 between the Burr Oak Hills development and Oppenheimer Drive. In addition, short segments of trail would be added to the north and south sides of Westcott Road between Dodd Road and Highway 149 - completing the existing trailway system along Westcott Road. The primary goal in adding these trail segments would be to provide direct pedestrian access to the proposed YMCA facility, enhance leisure recreation opportunities for employees of local businesses, and to expand trail opportunities for the general public (Exhibit C). The construction of a trail along Highway 149 would require a long-term lease or right-of-way agreement from the Minnesota Department of Transportation with on- going trails maintenance costs to be assumed by the City. With regard to a trails link between Yankee Doodle Road and the 149 trail, it is assumed that Dakota County will be letting bids for the improvement of Yankee Doodle Road beginning in 1994. That construction will likely include the installation of trailways on both sides of the County Highway and, for that reason, would not be included under the City's ISTEA Grants Proposal. The total cost for completing this component is estimated at $122,000. At this point, it does not appear that any significant grading or retaining wall work would be necessary to complete these trails. 4) Walnut Hill to Trapp Farm Park Trails Connection This component of the grant would request funding for the installation of a bituminous trails connection between Walnut Hill Park and Trapp Farm Park. This trails link has long been identified in the comprehensive park system's guide plan and would essentially complete the development of a hard surface trail under the NSP Highline Corridor between Rahn Park and Dodd Road. The trail would serve to enhance usership between these two popular City parks, as well as providing direct pedestrian links into the Lexington Square neighborhood (Exhibit D). Total construction costs are estimated at $45,200. Since the City already owns a 200- foot wide corridor through this area no additional easements would be required. 3 PROJECT FINANCING A preliminary cost estimate for the ISTEA Grant Proposal is included in attached Exhibit E. A breakout of costs is provided for each of the components included within the project. As noted under the cost summary, the total trails expansion costs is estimated at $442,700. Of this, $430,700 is eligible for federal ISTEA cost sharing. Taking this into account, the City's share of grant eligible costs would be $86,140. In addition, the City would need to assume costs for associated trails easements which are roughly estimated at $12,000. The City's financial obligation for the entire project would be in the range of $100,000. In other words, for every $1 invested by the City, approximately $3.4 would be returned in the form of federal grant funds. In terms of generating the City's matching portion, approximately $9,000 would be taken from the Park Site Fund - for financing the Highline Trail improvements. The balance of the City's cost sharing - about $89,000 - would be generated through the City's Trails Dedication Account. In both cases, the opportunity exists to reduce the City's "cash" obligation by using City forces in the construction or installation of the trails and/or retaining walls. Conceivably, City equipment and maintenance personnel could assist with placement and compaction of the aggregate base, paving operations and site restoration. Other work crews, such as the County's Sentencing to Service Program or Twin Cities Tree Trust could also be a viable source for constructing concrete or wood retaining wall systems. Therefore, the City's actual out-of-pocket expense could be considerably less than the $100,000 matching portion. TRAILS PLAN AMENDMENT As noted earlier, in order to be eligible for funding, any trails identified within the City's grant proposal must be included on an overall trails systems guide plan. As a result, it would be necessary to add those trail sections along State Highway 149 and Town Centre Drive to the existing Trail Systems Plan. All of the other trail segments included within the grant proposal are already identified on the existing systems plan. FOR COUNCIL ACTION Staff is requesting that the City Council approve, deny or modify an application to the Metropolitan Council for Federal cost sharing of trail expansion under the ISTEA Program and that approval be given to modify the existing Trail Systems Plan to include the development of trails along State Highway 149 and Town Centre Drive as identified in this report. JKV/sb Attachments 30wp:iarea?88 4 (Exhibit E) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR "ISTEA" GRANT PROPOSAL 1992 1. Minnesota River Valley Access A. Nichols Rd. Trail (Rahn Park) • 600 lin. ft. @ $15.00 = $ 9,000 Sub-total = $ 9,000 B. Beau-d-Rue Drive Trail • 3,900 lin. ft. @ $15.00 = 58,500 • Retaining Walls/Grading = 20,000 • Trail Easements = 5.000 Sub-total = $ 83,500 C. Nichols Rd. Trail (DNR link) • 3,500 lin. ft. @ $15.00 = 52,500 • Trail Easements 2.000 Sub-total = $ 54,500 Total Costs = $1477000 2. Town Centre Trails Access A. Town Centre Drive (Duckwood to Denmark) • 2,500 tin. ft. @ $15.00 = $ 37,500 • Retaining Walls/Grading = 30,000 • Trail Easements = 5.000 Sub-total = $ 72,500 B. Town Centre Drive (Yankee Doodle to Lexington Ave.) • 3,000 lin. ft. @ $12.00 = $ 36,000 • Retaining Walls/Grading = 10.000 Sub-total = $ 46,000 Total Costs = $118300 (1 (P 3. State Highway 149 Trail A. S.H. 149 Trail (Wescott Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr.) • 8,100 lin. ft. @ $15.00 = $121,500 • Trails easement (agreement w/State) = N/C Sub-total = $121,500 B. Wescott Rd. Trails (Dodd Rd. to 149) • 700 lin. ft. @ $15.00 = $ 10.500 Sub-total = $ 10,500 Total Costs = $122.000 4. Highline Trail Connection A. Walnut Hill Park to trapp Farm Park • 2,100 lin. ft. @ $12.00 = $ 25,200 • Retaining walls/grading = 20.000 Total Costs = $ 45.200 Costs Summary Total Trails Expansion Costs = $442,700 Grant Eligible Costs = 430,700 • Federal ISTEA Cost Sharing @ 80% = 344,560 • City Share @ 20% = 86,140 Non-eligible Costs (City assumes) = 12,000 Total City Expenses = 98,140 City Share Financing Park Site Fund (Highline Trail) = 9,040 Trails Dedication Account (All others) = 89.100 Total City Cost Sharing = $ 98.140 30wp:e&zibite 2 , ,,,, ...k . . 4, . • 1 NE /-. / . NW .4 lik,„, , _ ..,- -010.11 tt A aw / i.. Aiikel' 1 ./11:Y tr .. i `M• • G VP' -• PROP° - • • TRAIL , ' , .�''�� c.Ts• 6 sw •• sE sw - i'l, HA .t5• - /ca ' .) • x.41! R. _ BED. ® I , 016 _ r ; . :'hi lc,__Voliiii*N:...., ii.... 74 1 AI ft iiiiiiker..). •::,4 flik■*# 404 ‘i;.•„41: ::. ..•.4. a :.,- , 7 r .,, 1 `7 •ODHAVEN 5L •i a C J PARK RAIL `• • /- STA. A if Na / =`• 4, t•, \:. _, ,,- 4. ...4 A_. ,1 - . _-liftr*I114, ., . � IFT -1".s " J ` CMMELIAq (�1 T 1 l � \ 1a_1*. p 1 I..iii" . .49E4.4, ill •' 0 I' �I .n._--mss. 1 t- ) ! ._ . ect , •. _ _- ;,,,,, lam•��.... --i�4,•` '- L_- �' , ,, = - 1 r;-- ,t iti 9 . vrrisirt, 4, ,-.. _ .4-0001 -,„„ •::,. 9 Ifr y : . 4 _ ' • �� T .;� �a �Y R/VE1P N IV ♦.� ,. � � r I S �. e:i . 16 RIDGE CIR.' � . .t ' wY. iirr_ii.iiiii. ....4.......t__norm e :...—_ :',d, .41 • y - A/EADO�'L • j.4 . ./ I I l a M E CIR. '1 s\ "Ammo f 0 IDG (.0 _,, a VIE w ANN 1V .. , C/r fg >••••m•mmm••••••I••• u, . r . , ia u • //'? FXHIBITB . ...,, B i i . _. b 4 Q .11,1 9 _ 1 / I - TAM A*AC ! MACH FT. `w • . r If:, ! - 1S lMMEY PT. r *r 4- FOREST RIOOE N. -, • d - IRONWOOD LN. 1 S . , 4- REOW000 PT. ' !! , ; 1 - SPRUCE PT. -i i I ..a s.-�- -, ■ ,1 - I :'.' ) .. ..,0.: i i 711 0 --;.• i, • I. 1)- \46 . "r- As s I : e,(0 . ,-... 8 1 P '':OROGEORW - 4 . • �w A ; • •• - , 4,....t1„,,„,,:. ,_ __,:,I j. SLUE 7, • i _,,ie 411. I Ill , ■ al • losolliiriall 4.4firdil r•4 ft:Ale ;AMC - - : la 5 ItC: .1 L u --T--- _ 1111t11711 17' 2”.1 L- 1 . , .. k , L , . is... ... , y . _ i 6 i. t.. tal _ __,I .. , ,r±,.... _... . 1 . :, t 4 '. ._ . -'1 .._ - ' - .. iii4/ leilre#41111111- 4 K's• Oa -‘• . fit.4• • ire 'II ( 1 440- ‘1A--401 . gm(\* I _ . rilik 0 4 -Wi:)9 4 ___ a III . .1 .%1 Ilk i Isp._ 4.*Nt. w . • MARK ■111 .00.0.001111111111111111111/11111 - I' ! I .r w-- fir- -41,-........ • ___l__ --- ` �" - I Jim-Or - -#w"a- �� : '1 � • -- - t 1 7- ilk 04---. . , Ct . 1 I . OPAL mg A . i :9 if,.44- -- -,;.. % _ . (i' .- � ` '' R % 1a= :'.• J V lillit Y 0 1 I 111 ilk SW • SE - 4 s` . . W � L -r H. N EJR. : HIBIT \ ToFF � CT. - • RD. imi� —.a/ , -- 3i \-Si PROPOSED i It RbaD I 1 • TRAIL • . --------- NE STREET • • \ •- • BECK,ER R0. a _. .rte s \ 4M. ■•■■•••■ —` • '-. it v ) ‘--.S,,,,, • ' -. I, . •- a m • .::..1.- 0 . . (3. r.... . -,-.-_- ., .. 'mai' ' Z• V ,,,,, , ,:, • .• •• ,., .. 4.1 s Q 1 J N ` I i T . - ANOEii1W8 ' - K • _: - i ' 't' Ai . F.,`, • Tli ' -.7"."-, oy 41:91i. .,,-, ,- o L L 7 1 • ctllo - f -454-41/ . _ • i•-•r ,11:11V 4 ., .� ' '� � •r �� C::i�. LEX1N6Tk I Lrn Ce L • :I:I 1. 41_0, SI.) .,„..: a 4740t, I . . f,%4 -.'m 15 vi .....______,...0------ •1 , . i �n (, M m 1 • F-4 1E R • rr = t I .• rialliD°. t . . .IF. ( 5 i • . -41: ip. ,. - 13 ON t } O , , . ii LAKc.f■ Oa / • 1 / l..• /i I iii, ( , *0 • . .• 0 4.p . i. .. , A 1 .. g, L,E . HIL L . •R 0 I . do_ V! . 1 M MI . It ' _ 4111,.,a..... . •v. i + -I) f;i ,..-_,____ ' : 43 ,-,• .6-`, .-. •-7.11.2 .i...&.; . pi � �� 0444401". � • 1 • •I • iv 1 t ■ W.► �zz YORK-, . 1- .�� ' �► le.,7- '• • Alp f 1 _.v.?* '...d, -./ 4. );,-, - •' �-' �•` • '-• ,'. v Tvi 1 • •� y y� AUGUST A. C T.of OOR MI ( TIRRUP S T. -15 J ' = q°� 4) 11 . s . D SV �� 'OA .' tin) A t ►• •XI I i g 4)0 •;1 i.: �Al rii �� Ilk te c 17) * ,..ON ►''al . i ■ii .• Ili ' . go 0.? • 4‹, A....„ 44 - (4•4 1 , _ 4. . • Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting CONSENT........................................................AGENDA ............................................................... .............................................................. There are sixteen (16) items on the agenda referred to as consent items requiring 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 an d placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. PERSONNEL ITEMS A. PERSONNEL ITEMS There are no Personnel Items to be considered at this time. PLUMBERS LICENSES B. Licenses, Plumbers--The City Code requires that plumbing contractors oper ting within the City of Eagan be licensed on at least an annual basis. Enclosed on page ( is a list of the contractors whose plumbing license applications are in order for consideration by the City Council at this time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the list of plumbers licenses as presented. OCTOBER PLUMBERS FOR APPROVAL OCTOBER 20 1. A-ABLE PLUMBING 2. BREDAHL PLUMBING 3 . DOLDER PLUMBING & HEATING 4. GOPHER MECHANICAL 5. HOPKINS PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 6. ' JOYCE PLUMBING INC. 7. PLUMBING SERVICES INC. 8 . SCHNAPP PLUMBING & HEATING INC 9. SIEGFRIED PLUMBING 10. SOUTHTOWN PLUMBING INC. 11. STEINKRAUS PLUMBING INC. 12 . SUMMIT PLUMBING & HEATING CO. 13. SWANSON & SCHIAGER PLUMBING � 3 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting DAKOTA COUNTY LANDFILL ABATEMENT GRANT JPA C. Agreement, Joint Powers an rant for Special Assistance/Community Landfill Abatement--Enclosed on pages 1 through a2/ is a memorandum from Recycling Intern Moga covering the community andfill a atement assistance joint powers and grant agreement. This agreement is consistent with the grant application approved by the City Council at its September 17, 1992 meeting. It establishes the joint relationship for county funding and City recycling operations and administration costs. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the Dakota County community landfill abatement special assistance joint powers and grant agreement as presented. l(( TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: RECYCLING INTERN MOGA DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1992 SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSISTANCE JOINT POWERS AND GRANT AGREEMENT Attached is the Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Joint Powers and Grant Agreement. The agreement requires approval by the City Council. The original County Special Assistance Grant Application was approved by the City Council at the January 21, 1992 meeting. To obtain the funds the agreement needs final approval and the necessary signatures. / � COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSISTANCE JOINT POWERS AND GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement is between Dakota County (hereinafter "County") and the City of Eagan (hereinafter "Municipality") , through their Board and Council, respectively. WHEREAS, on May 19, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-400, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted its 1992/1993 Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grant Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the County Recycling Policies adopted in Resolution No. 88-650 and revised by Resolution No. 91-482 include a requirement that all cities and townships within the County participate in recycling activities; and WHEREAS, the County desires to provide a portion of the costs incurred by cities and townships to implement and operate local comprehensive landfill abatement programs through December 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Municipality has implemented and operates a local comprehensive landfill abatement program within its jurisdiction and desires to receive such County funding support as may be available; and WHEREAS, any local governmental unit may act together with any county under a joint powers agreement to accomplish landfill abatement pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 473.811, subd. 7; and C WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners has allocated certain funds expected to be received from surcharge collections pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 115A.919 for landfill abatement activities. NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the Municipality agree to the following Joint Powers and Grant Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. SS 471.59 and 473.811, subd. 7: 1. purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the County and the Municipality to implement and operate a local comprehensive landfill abatement program in accordance with the Municipality's Special Assistance Grant Funding application attached and incorporated herein by reference. 2 . Term. This Agreement shall be in effect from the date of execution by all parties and shall continue in effect until December 31, 1994, or until terminated in accordance with the provisions herein, whichever is earlier. 3 . Program. The Municipality shall implement and operate a local comprehensive landfill abatement program that substantially complies with the current program guidelines for Community Landfill Abatement Special Assistance and as approved by Board Resolution No. 92-400. The Municipality shall implement the activities substantially as set forth in its Application, attached as Exhibit 1, as approved by the County. The Dakota County Physical Development Director or his designee shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Municipality's program and funding as requested by the Municipality, however the amount payable under this Agreement may not exceed the amount approved by the County Board and the proposed modifications must be consistent with the County's guidelines. 4. Payment Schedule and Reports. Contingent upon receipt and approval of any required reports as prescribed by the County, the County will pay the Municipality the grant amount approved by the County Board in two (2) equal installments on the following dates: 1. Upon execution of this Agreement. 2 . Upon approval by the County of the total expenditures and final evaluation report. By December 20, 1994, the Municipality shall submit its Final Report in the form prescribed by the County. The County shall evaluate the Municipality's performance pursuant to this Agreement. The amount payable by the County shall not exceed Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($11,500.00) . Page 2 of 6 17 5. Eligibility. Only those activities which are included within an approved Application shall be eligible for funding under this Agreement. Activities included within the approved Application to the extent reimbursed by a source other than as provided for in this Agreement, are not eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. Any revenues received by the Municipality from activities funded in whole or part by this Agreement shall be applied to the costs of such activities. 6. Documentation. To receive funding from the County pursuant to this Agreement, the Municipality shall submit quarterly reports if the project will continue for more than six months. The Municipality shall submit a final expenditures/project evaluation report irregardless of the project length. The Municipality agrees to furnish the County with additional reports in the form and at the frequencies requested by the County for financial evaluation and program management purposes. 7. Failure to Complete Program. If the Municipality fails to complete its approved program before the date this agreement terminates, all County funds not expended by the Municipality by that date shall be returned or repaid to the County. Additionally, monies received under this Agreement or assets acquired with funds provided under this Agreement which are not used for or do not continue in use for a County-approved landfill abatement project shall be repaid or returned to the County. 8. Subsequent Grants. The County will pay the Municipality subsequent grants according to such policies as may be adopted by the County for such later grant rounds, if any. The Municipality understands that the County's allocation to the Municipality under this Agreement for subsequent grant rounds will be dependent upon availability to the County of surcharge collections pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 115A.919 and other sources available for landfill abatement activities. In no event shall County funds for Landfill Abatement Special Assistance Grants be available after December 31, 1994. 9. Access to Records/Audits. The County shall have full access to all records relating to the performance of this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to maintain records relating to the terms of this Agreement, and shall retain all such documentation for three years following the last date in which payment was received from the County under the terms of this Agreement or following the termination of this Agreement, whichever is later. Such records shall be made available for audit or inspection at any time upon request of the County or its authorized representative. The Municipality agrees to provide access to the project site(s) , if any, at reasonable hours. The Municipality shall maintain records Page 3 of 6 /t sufficient to show that all funds received under this Agreement were expended for Landfill Abatement Purposes in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 115A.919 and this Agreement. The Municipality agrees to provide any information that is not readily available within a reasonable period of time. All expenses incurred by the examining authority shall remain a cost of such authority. 10. Property Distribution. Assets acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Paragraph 19 herein, assets acquired in whole or in part with funds provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the Municipality so long as said assets are used by the Municipality for the purposes of landfill abatement. 11. Acknowledgment of County Financial Assistance. The Municipality shall provide the following acknowledgment on all promotional materials, reports and publications relating to the activities described in its Funding Application. This activity, program, publication funded in part by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners' Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. 12. Hold Harmless. The Municipality and the County agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of any act or omission on the part of their respective commissioners, officers, agents, servants or employees associated with activities pursued under the terms of this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers, employees and agents. Liability of the County or other Minnesota political subdivisions shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and other applicable laws. 13 . Assignment/Subcontracting. The Municipality shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontracts and shall ensure that all subcontractors perform fully the terms of the subcontract. Any agreement between the Municipality and any subcontractor shall obligate the subcontractor to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 14. Compliance With Requirements of the Law. The Municipality agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws or ordinances, and all applicable rules, regulations, and standards established by any agency of such governmental units, which are now or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to the Municipality's activities under this Agreement. Page 4 of 6 / 15. Equal Employment Opportunity. For all activities related to the terms of this Agreement, the Municipality agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability or age. 16. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts which are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. The parties further agree, if reasonable, to substitute for the invalid provisions a valid provision that most closely approximates the economic effect and intent of the invalid provision. 17. Entire Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 18 . Amendments. Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by the parties. 19 . Termination. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 1994 . The County or the Municipality may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at an earlier date by giving written notice to the County Administrator for the County and to the Chairperson of the official governing body of the Municipality, at least 60 days before the effective date of termination. The County and the Municipality also may terminate this Agreement on other terms by mutual written agreement. 20. Effect of Termination. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Nor shall termination discharge any obligation which by its nature would survive after the date of termination, including by way of illustration only and not limitation, the obligation of the Municipality to reimburse the County for funds under paragraph 7. Page 5 of 6 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. Approved as to form: COUNTY OF DAKOTA 411 /0 5frL By . s 7w'stant County Attorney/Date Louis J. Breimhurst Physical Development Director Approved as to execution: Date of Signature Assistant County Attorney/Date Attest Norma Marsh, Auditor • Approved by Dakota County Date of Signature Board Resolution No. 92-595 Dakota County Attorney's Office Dakota County Judicial Center CITY OF EAGAN 1560 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 By Telephone: (612) 438-4438 Date of Signature Attest , City Clerk Date of Signature C/K-92-89 Page 6 of 6 al Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS D. 1992 General Fund Budget Adjustments--To simplify both the budgeting and accounting processes the City currently makes no attempt to estimate for budgeting purposes donations, transfers from the Police Forfeiture Fund or related expenditures. The uncertainty and fluctuation in receipts and eligible projects make projections very difficult.As an alternative staff has instituted a process whereby the budget is formally amended by the City Council when revenues are known and related expenditures are made. The memo on pages and explains four of these types of adjustments. One affects both the PoliLre and Parks and Recreation Departments, two affect the Police Department and the final one affects the Fire Department. These adjustments increase the General Fund Budget by $7,900 to $11,565,090. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the adjustments to the 1992 General Fund Budget. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 5, 1992 TO: Finance Director VanOverbeke FROM: Asst. Finance Director Peppe -' SUBJECT: 1992 General Fund Budget Adjustments The following line item adjustments to the 1992 budget should be considered for approval by the City Council: Current Increase Amended Budget (Decrease) Budget 1) 01-3850-000-00 Contributions/Donations $ 2,200.00 $ 3,360.00 $ 5,560.00 01-4220-161-11 Operating Supplies -0- 3,220.00 3,220.00 01-4414-161-11 Dues & Subscriptions -0- 100.00 100.00 01-4337-161-11 Personal Auto/Parking -0- 40.00 40.00 This adjustment relates to the Police D.A.R.E. program and reflects expenditures for January through July, 1992. The amount will be deducted from Lion's Club D.A.R.E. donations that have been recorded in a deferred revenue account. The new balance in the D.A.R.E. deferred revenue account will be $ 4,328.87. 2) 01-3850-000-00 Contributions/Donations 5,560.00 1,850.00 7,410.00 01-4570-175-12 Other Equipment 500.00 1,400.00 1,900.00 01-4215-181-12 Reference Materials 620.00 450.00 1,070.00 This adjustment relates to funds donated to the Fire Department by the Lion's Club for purchase of a pressure washer and a fire prevention video program for senior citizens. 3) 01-3850-000-00 Contributions/Donations 7,410.00 570.00 7,980.00 01-3562-000-00 Camp Registrations 5,000.00 1,620.00 6,620.00 01-4220-164-11 Operating Supplies -0- 750.00 750.00 01-4330-164-11 Postage -0- 280.00 280.00 01-4340-164-11 General Advertising -0- 170.00 170.00 01-4130-000-31 Salaries & Wages--Temp. 237,580.00 670.00 238,250.00 01-4227-000-31 Recreation Supplies 38,700.00 320.00 39,020.00 This adjustment relates to registration fees and miscellaneous donations for the Youth Safety Camp. ‹;;)-- 3 October 5, 1992 1992 General Fund Budget Adjustments Page 2 Current Increase Amended Budget (Decrease) Budget 4) 01-3850-000-00 Contributions/Donations 7,980.00 500.00 8,480.00 01-4378-163-11 Special Events -0- 500.00 500.00 This adjustment relates to donations received for the Police Canoe Outreach Program. * * * * * * * These four adjustments will increase the amended 1992 General Fund expenditure budget by $ 7,900.00 to $ 11,565,090.00. budadj 2 a (I( Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting POPPLER HOMESTEAD NO. 2/FINAL PLAT E. Final Plat, Poppler Homestead No.2--The applicant and City staff are in the process of finalizing the documents associated with this final plat. If all items are completed and executed in time for Tuesday evening's meeting, this matter is in order for approval by the Council. If not, it will be recommended for continuance at the time of agenda adoption. A copy of the final plat as it appears for recording at Dakota County is enclosed on page ckf, for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for the Poppler Homestead No. 2 as presented. EXHIBIT BA" A. POPPLER HOMESTEADS NO. 2 • �� .1404 /--- \ 44 Al s _z:_1 - Rare rlPt lore A oso A0,..�-'',fit&-,• I 't , I e • ZI . a'TLOT A,MUD'S. and Lots I. 1. 1. A, S. and 6. Peppier Neae- late.rN.fi•i' \ \ 1 3 �` ti •reads, according to the recorded Plat thereof en file in the office \\ �,� e` II iI 1; of the County Recorder. Dakota County. Mlmleaet•. • \ 4 Z AM �t:l ) : c �� i 1 I R Total Area of rear Aa 723 Sq. Pt. 5.303 AC.4.\ Tet•1 Ana of Lot{ 61.769 59• R. I.A07 AC. f1.as. M er �. . Area above pond high water level 72.611 Sq. Pt. 0.6175 AC. ♦ \\.Aa' \ ;,`\ 7 I Total Area of Lot 7 106.226 Sq. PS. 2.475 AC. } Z \ ;i ..1 T1 Area above pond high water level 33.232 Sq. Pt. 0.770 AC.% 1 \ \ \\ RI Total Ana of Lot$ 50,747 Sq. rt. 2.0117 AC. 1 jt I y Area•hew lake high water level A6.1113 Sq.Vt. 1.177 AC. • 7f4' 1.•1 Total Area of Lot• 25.2111 h• re. 0.677 AC. \\ 7t � e,? Area oboes peed high water level 26.71*S5. Pt. 0.560 AC. \ tV"' ■1\ ft R I 1 $,Trent Zanies( ��\\ \ j •1, I a..u.M r �; Underlying Lot* 1 thr.egh{•wad oPTLOT 11 of hq►ler NleteaM- \r. N. C d a.ldenti.i. (5.l). 7 -t A 1,\ g 1 i ♦(.-1 - Und•rl,inl OA.Or A.f ra551.1 llsoe.t.ad1•yr2t0ltor.l, aeehing to Iy 'rO`{ \VVV omen*to n./dentlAl, (S-1). !/.•..,MI A10.H .Ir1 s i `, I € i1, \,..i. 4. tt‘s ' 1 �e; h i t. I \ V ,L IP 3 i t4 :: i V I `._ ` aim 1' t •• , 1 ----4......./ i /Se IS :i 0.67 Units pee acre .J - 1[`71 r - �l J}/��- 1! • 1 `Y .' [I.II. .0 A l eL{F, 4 L.C. 50552.0 ,/ X • '� 30AS heeler Lane ! ....I - i 4 gaa.n, Mlnnr.eta S6I71 Phone;4$4-1525 ' 1 ` tL. M AIM�Y L , , ' I - -I ;;;:r"........ ./.r 0 I! 1.'to.P. ee/rl.,• _�f,! 110.In,r O t.ar..l b I L C,: _ -r -- `�—M_1CI=i ✓ r1e..n. nn. .4 No —77.d"—_./At- i /e.,. ••••tan 3 2 i. 1 .• - t.eiA� I ; .� it u..ee...P. "MI.,NI ` 1n 1.rcry.ler lame t a.• , J 1 I ■r aI ).+� rirr. .a 0171 Lb/ ; ♦ "Pen NA•; Lb MAW : r2 t Paul A.WWI..A See ", If a•t ! + -I 211 Meets Ave. t -Ir- I Met St. Paul. M 551111 e t rl' I r {•:. Phwrl 6)7-245•A St -� N y• / ° J. _■ I Se m,*Moo r4 I • /AI•MAY tale me ea a ti _ 1f �► I � 1�-`'. I 6 A 1 ` i Si• I< 1 4t I Sc I • t ` ~ •1" 0 I. Sipco a v/»'a. .�a...• It. I •0 . . /Sf w NM I ! ATM, VAN all Ite !ANlf re .rl.' ----- 02( RECEIVE ; J 2 1989 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT (T.H. 149 & OPPERMAN DR.) F. Contract #91-01, Authorize Final Payment/Acceptance (T.H. 149 & Opperman Drive)--The City has received a request for final payment from the contractor along with the certification from the consultant that the improvements were constructed in accordance with City plans, specifications and standards. The improvements have been inspected by representatives of the Public Works Department and found to be in order for formal acceptance for perpetual maintenance. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 6th and final payment for Contract 91-01 (T.H. 149 and Opperman Drive - Intersection Improvements) to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $17,137.22 and accept the improvements for perpetual maintenance subject to appropriate warranty provisions. APPROVE AGREEMENT/ADOPT RESOLUTION MNDOT TUITION REIMBURSEMENT G. Approve Agreement/Adopt Resolution Requesting MnDot Tuition Reimbursement for Engineering Technician Certification--MnDot's Division of State Aid for local transportation is providing a program whereby all local municipalities can receive tuition reimbursement for City personnel who complete the State's official technical certification program for inspection services. In order to receive Municipal State Aid reimbursement for future construction, it will be required that certified technicians be used on all State Aid work beginning January 1, 1994. As such, MnDot will provide up to $5,000 of tuition reimbursement for successful completion of courses taken before July 31, 1995. In order to qualify for this program, the City must adopt the resolution enclosed on page .� authorizing the City to enter into the appropriate transportation agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor, City Engineer and City Clerk to execute Transportation Agreement #70089 for MnDot Tuition Reimbursement for Technical Certification of Engineering Personnel. CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION NO. MNDOT TUITION REIMBURSEMENT TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION MNDOT AGREEMENT 70089 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation Division of State Aid for Local Transportation requires that certified technicians be used on all State Aid work effective January 1, 1994, and; WHEREAS,completion of educational courses are necessary to achieve certification, and; WHEREAS,the certification of technicians will ensure consistent inspection for high quality roads and bridges, and; WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has provided a program to reimburse local units of government for tuition costs associated with this certification process; WHEREAS, to be eligible for this reimbursement, the City must enter into a formal agreement with MnDot. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Eagan hereby approves MnDot Agreement#70089 authorizing reimbursement of City incurred tuition expenses and authorizes the Mayor, City Engineer and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Motion made by: CITY OF EAGAN Seconded by: CITY COUNCIL Those in favor: • Those against: By: Dated: October 20, 1992 Attest: CITY ENGINEER By: CERTIFICATION I, E.J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution as duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota ota Coun , Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled County, � g this 20th day of October, 1992. E.J. VanOverbeke ..;2g Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #2 (WELL #16) H. Contract 91-09,Approve Change Order#2 (Well#16)--This Change Order provides for additional compensation to the contractor to install temporary electrical service to convert from the portable diesel to electric pumps for noise control and to allow around-the- clock 24 hour test pumping as necessary to develop a sand free well. The amount of this Change Order is an additional $2,495 and will be financed through the City's Water Source/Supply Enterprise Fund. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Change Order #2 to Contract 91-09 (Well #16) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT/ ACCEPTANCE (WELL #16) I. Contract 91-09, Authorize Final Payment/ Acceptance (Well #16)--The City has received a request for final payment from the contractor along with a certification from the consulting engineer of satisfactory compliance with City authorized plans, specifications and standards. All final inspections have been performed by representatives of the Public Works Department and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 10th and final payment for Contract 91-09 (Well #16) to Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of$10,727.05 and accept the improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to appropriate warranty provisions. VACATION/OUTLOTS A.TOWN CENTRE 70 - 10TH & 12TH ADDITIONS J. Vacate Drainage and Utility Easement, Receive Petition/Schedule Public Hearing (Outlots A, Town Centre 70 - 10th & 12th Additions)--The staff has received a petition requesting the vacation of a common lot line drainage and utility easement as necessary to allow the replatting of Town Centre 70-13th Addition. With all application materials being reviewed by staff and found to be in order, it would be appropriate for the Council to schedule a public hearing to formally discuss this petition. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive a petition to vacate a common lot line drainage and utility easement over Outlots A, Town Centre 70 - 10th and 12th Additions and schedule a public hearing to be held on November 17, 1992. Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting RECEIVE BIDS/AWARD CONTRACT (ALDRIN DRIVE) K. Contract 92-13,Receive Bids/Award Contract (Aldrin Drive-Streets and Utilities)-- At 10:30 a.m. on October 16, 1992, formal bids were received for the installation of public improvements under the above-referenced contract. Enclosed on page is a tabulation of the bids received with a comparison of the low bid to the estimate contained in the feasibility,report presented at the public hearing held on September 17, 1992. All bids will be reviewed for their accuracy and compliance with bid specifications and any irregularities will be discussed as a part of consideration of this item. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for Contract 92-13 (Aldrin Drive - Streets and Utilities), award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 30 ALDRIN DRIVE PROJECT#639 CARLSON LAKE LANE PROJECT#91-RAS-4 CHATTERTON POND PROJECT#92-RAS-4 CHES MAR EAST 1ST ADDN. PROJECT#91-RAS-3 CONTRACT#92-13 EAGAN, MN. 1992 BID DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1992 BID TIME: 10:30 A.M. CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID PROJ. 639 PROJ 91-RAS-4 PROJ 92-RAS-4 PROJ 91-RAS-3 1. RYAN CONT. $ 100,977.50 $ 60,107.50 $ 19,859.00 $ 8,830.00 $ 12,181.00 2. NORTHDALE 121,703.50 65,726.10 26,631.50 11,909.50 17,436.50 3. PALDA & SONS 122,335.30 77,043.30 26,110.50 7,710.00 11,471.50 4. FORD CONST. 122,568.00 72,948.00 29,590.00 5,940.00 14,090.00 5. MCNAMARA 134,955.85 90,103.35 22,361.00 8,257.00 14,234.50 LOW BID $ 100,977.50 60,107.50 19,859.00 8,830.00 12,181.00 Feasibility Report 93,394.00 Estimate % Over (+) Under (-) -35.64% Engineer's Est. $ 101,000.00 65,035.00 21,271.00 4,760.00 9,934.00 % Over (+) Under (-) - 0.02% - 7.58% - 6.69% + 85.5% +22.61% ) 1 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting RECEIVE FINAL ASSMT ROLL/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING (CEDAR GROVE 7TH & LAKESIDE ESTATES ADDNS) L. Project 634,Receive Final Assessment Roll/Order Public Hearing (Cedar Grove 7th &Lakeside Estates Additions-Streetlights)--The City has tabulated all costs associated with the installation of streetlights in the above-referenced subdivisions and has prepared the final assessment roll which is now being presented to the City Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing to formally present the final assessable costs. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the final assessment roll for Project 634 (Cedar Grove 7th & Lakeside Estates Additions - Streetlights) and order a public hearing to be held on November 17, 1992. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING (LONE OAK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION) M. Project 601R, Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Lone Oak Road Reconstruction - 35E to TH 55/149)--This project proposes reconstruction of Lone Oak Road (County Road 26) from 35E through its intersection with TH 55/149 and the reconstruction and signalization of its intersection with Lexington Avenue(County Road 43). The feasibility report has now been completed and is being presented to the City Council under separate cover for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing to be held on November 17 to formally present and discuss these proposed improvements. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project 601R (Lone Oak Road Reconstruction - 35E to TH 55/149) and order a public hearing to be held on November 17, 1992. RECEIVE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING (TH 149 & OPPERMAN DRIVE) N. Project 600, Receive Final Assessment Roll/Order Public Hearing (TH 149 & Opperman Drive - Intersection Improvements)—All costs associated with this improvement have been tabulated and the final assessment roll is being presented to the City Council for their consideration of scheduling a public hearing to formally present and discuss the final assessable costs associated with this improvement. A series of neighborhood meetings will be scheduled to review the final assessable costs with affected property owners prior to the public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the final assessment roll for Project 600 (11-1 149& Opperman Drive-Intersection Improvements)and schedule a public hearing to be held on November 17, 1992. Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting VACATION/LOTS 9 & 10. BLOCK 1, CHATTERTON PONDS ADDN O. Vacate Drainage&Utility Easement,Receive Petition/Schedule Public Hearing(Lots 9 & 10, Block 1, Chatterton Ponds Addition)--Staff has received a petition requesting the vacation of a common lot line drainage and utility easement over the above-referenced properties. All application submittals have been reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition to vacate drainage and utility easements over Lots 9 & 10, Block 1, Chatterton Ponds Addition, and schedule a public hearing to be held on November 17, 1992. 33 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting I'VELIC HEARINGS FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (JLRENE & TRAILS END ROAD) A. Project 589R, Final Assessment Hearing (Elrene & Trails End Road - Streets & Utilities)-.On September 15, the final assessment roll for the above-referenced project was presented to the Cif+ Council with a public hearing being scheduled for October 20. Enclosed on page 3s is a summary tabulation of the final assessment rates as compared to those estimated in the feasibility report presented at the public hearing held on May 23, 1991. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this public hearing. As of this date, the staff has not received any objections to the proposed assessments. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve the final assessment roll for Project 589R (Elrene & Trails End Road - Streets & Utilities) and authorize its certification to Dakota County. • 3t( FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROJECT NUMBER: 589R ASSESSMENT HEARING DATE: ELRENE AND TRAILS SUBDIVISION/AREA: END ROAD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1992 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED: F.B. s Feasibility Report FINAL F.R. FINAL F.R. SANITARY SEWER RATES RATES MLA= RATES RATES ❑Trunk © Trunk $.102/sf $.102/sf © Laterals $32.02/ff $46.57/ff © Laterals x.08 /sf .123/sf .F .084/sf _123/sf MI .068/sf .099/sf S.F. © Service $5316.62/sery_ $4255/corv_ ❑ Lat. Benefit/ Trunk (plat. Benefit/ Trunk WATER STREETS ❑Trunk Overlay ® rilI$A*e $7.01/ff $6.54/ff $63.48/ff 71.05/ff ®Laterals $25.38/ff $33.02/ff ❑ Surfacing 76.54/ff 63.87/ff $6443.22/serv. $7210/serv. C/I ©Service 6272.35/serv. 7210/serv. S.F. ❑ Res. Equiv. ❑Let. Benefit/ ❑ Multi Equiv. Trunk ❑WAC ❑ C/I Equiv. ❑ Trail FERVICES STREET LIGHTS GIWater & San. Sewer $9457.93/L.S. $11230/L.S. ❑ Installation 4 pair Great Oaks ❑ Energy Charge 1 pair $5, 927.35 $ —0- CONTRACT * OF INTEREST AMOUNT CITY A O•_ PARCELS TERMS RATE !ASSESSED FINANCED 91-03 76 10 Yrs• 6.5 % $ 868,203.25 $ 317,648.52 $1,n35 Sn7 r u $23:.433 8.ii•. ANTS• 3 ) Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS & P ' DEDICATION /MEGHANS ADDITION A. Resolve Financial Obligations&Park Dedication Requirements,Meghans Addition--At the September 17 City Council meeting,upon approval of the preliminary plat for Meghans Addition by Council action, the developer, Pulsar Inc., referenced previous objections requesting further consideration by the City Council prior to final plat application being processed for that development. He stated that the objection pertains to a requirement for trunk storm sewer in the amount of $34,836 indicating that the amount was inappropriate due to the water quality and storm water ponding being provided on his property which fulfills the trunk storm sewer obligations and also its conflict with the land dedication requirement for the pond in addition to park dedication fees. According to the developer, policies were conflicting and overlapping as a burden to the project. The Director of Public Works was directed by the City Council to provide a response to k, , developg's concerns regarding the financial obligations which is enclosed on pages through 7-: That enclosed document includes a letter from Mr. Parranto, representing Pulsar Inc., dated July 3, 1992. The developer responded, in a letter dated October 5, to statements and information that were provided in the Director of Public Work's memo that w eferenced in the previous paragraph. This letter is enclosed on gh 5 pages 53 through for Council review. For g additional clarification, the Director of Public Works has provided a brief memo that reviews the develo er's obje n to the financial obligations. For a copy of that memo, refer to pages . through Another issue that was raised by the developer pertains to park dedication. For a copy of the Advisory Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission's review and recommendations on park dedication requirements and the understanding the Director of Parks & Recreation has had with the dev Loper, refer to a memo and appropriate attachments found on pages through £ The developer is anxious to proceed with the project, having received preliminary plat approval and a grading and excavation permit. It is the intention of the developer to satisfy all the requirements necessary for installation of utilities prior to final plat to meet a deadline of November 10 so building pads and construction of dwelling units can begin to occur at that time. It is also the developers goal to have the final plat application submitted and ready for consideration by City Council at the November 5 City Council meeting. These timeframes are much tighter than a normal review process for a final plat and in order to meet this schedule, the financial obligations and park dedication issues will need a resolution at the October 20 meeting in order to prepare the final language in the development agreement for Meghans Addition. 3co. Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) To approve a proper resolution to the financial obligations and 2) provide a final agreement on the park dedication requirements for Meghans Addition. 3 • MEMO TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL • % THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS . DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 • SUBJECT: MEGHAN'S ADDITION DEVELOPER'S OBJECTION TO FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS On July 3, Mr. Mark Parranto of Pulsar, Inc., the developer of the Meghan's Addition, submitted a letter to the Mayor stating several objections to the proposed connection fees for water and storm sewer along with the cash dedication for parks for the proposed Meghan's Addition. The Finance Director and Park's Director each met with Mr. Parranto to review his objections. The following is a summary of the original staff report, Mr. Parranto's request and staff's response: Developer's Staff's Item Staff Report Request Response Lateral Benefit - Water $17,981 -0- $17,981 Lateral Benefit - Storm Sewer 13,922 -0- -0- Storm Sewer - Trunk 34,836 -0- 34,836 Park's Cash Dedication 49,192 -0- 30,000 Total $115,931 -0- $82,817 A copy of Mr. Parranto's July 3 letter is attached which provides.his objections and related rationale. Also enclosed is a response from the Director of Finance dated July 30 addressing the utiltity's portion and either providing additional justification for this financial obligation or reasons for concurring with the developer's position. The Director-of Parks & Recreation has reached a verbal agreement with Mr. Parranto regarding the parks dedication. Also attached is a letter from the developer's attorney further presenting their position to waive the trunk storm sewer fee. At the September 17 Council meeting, upon approval of the preliminary plat for the Meghan's Addition by Council action, the developer again referenced his previous objections requesting further consideration by the City Council prior to the final plat application being processed. His remaining objection pertains to the continued requirement for trunk storm sewer in the amount of $34,836. He indicated that he felt it was inappropriate due to the water quality and storm water ponding being provided on his property fulfilling his trunk storm sewer obligations and Its conflict with the land dedication requirement for this pond in addition to the park dedication fees. He felt these policies were conflicting and overlapping on their burden to the developer. The pond that is being provided in the northeast corner of this development is specifically for water quality purposes to detain and treat the increased nutrient loadings associated with runoff from this proposed development in Ercordance with Section 2 of the Ordinance Amendment adopted by Council action on May 17, 1990, (copy enclosed). 3 6 This water discharges directly into Cedar Pond wihich Is classified as a recreational waterbody and will directly benefit from the water quality treatment provided by this pond. Any storm water storage beyond the water quality needs is only what is necessary to handle the increased rate of runoff for a 5-year storm beyond what the existing storm sewer lateral in Diffley Road can provide. There is no trunk storm sewer ponding required with this development beyond the typical 5-year design. However,additional ponding will Inherently be provided through the elevation differential from the proposed controlled normal water elevation and its overflow onto Diffley Road. This incremental storage volume will be able to handle storm events greater than the 5-year volume. However,this Is at the developer's option and not a requirement of the City. The storm sewer trunk obligation relates to this development's use of the existing storm sewer system to convey the 'increased" volume of runoff from this development to the Minnesota River through the City's trunk storm sewer system. The trunk storm sewer rate was calculated in accordance with City policy by taking into account the cost to construct the trunk storm sewer system throughout the entire community with all properties participating equally based on similar zoning classifications. This community-wide rate is in lieu of potentially many different rates for each individual subdrainage district (200+) based on the subdrainage district's individual cost to construct its trunk storm sewer system plus its proportionate share of other downstream district's oversizing. Subsequently, the City has required all developments to participate In financing their proportionate share of this City-wide trunk storm sewer system If they had not previously done so. If the City were to change its policy and determine trunk storm sewer financial obligations based on individual drainage districts,this amount could be waived based on the fact that the trunk system for the Meghan's drainage district was constructed at no cost to the City. However, this policy revision will have significant ramifications for all remaining undeveloped property within the community. Another alternative would be a waiver for this development only based on criteria that should be enumerated. SUMMARY • Due to the fact that this developer's request requires a policy decision by the City Council, it should be formally addressed. Mr. Parranto has indicated that he will comply with whatever determination the City Council makes. Staff will need to know what the final disposition is so that the appropriate development agreements can be processed in a timely manner to allow this development to proceed as soon as possible. Respe submitted birector of Public Works TAC/jj Attachment: Memos Dated July 3 & July 30, Letter Dated August 31 & City Code cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Finance Ken Vraa, Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Parranto, Developer • Mike Ridley, Project Planner • Jim Sheldon, City Attorney • RECEIVED JUL - 6 1992 PULSAR, INC. 3914 Cedarva/e Drive,Eagan,MN 55122 (612)454-1600 FAX(612)454-8943 July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan, Mayor City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Meghans Addition Dear Mayor Egan: According to the staff report for Meghans Addition, the staff is proposing that the subdivision of this platted property pay additional water and storm sewer benefits as outlined below. Lateral Benefit-Water $17,981 Lateral Benefit-Storm Sewer 13,922 Storm Sewer-Trunk 34,836 We have several objections to the basis upon which they proposed assessments have been determined. )cater Lateral The assessment is based upon the frontage of the property on Nicols Road. Your attention is called to the diagram which is attached to this letter. The diagram was constructed by the City staff. This is the original subdivision proposal . You will note that the frontage of the property is proposed to be assessed for lateral benefit from water as shown on this diagram. The property has 712.1 feet of frontage on Nicols Road. The Project 460 was assessed against the property in 1980. This project is for the upgrade and improvement of Nicols Road. The property was, therefore, assessed for all improvements made at that time. A public hearing was held, and apparently, no assessment was levied against the property for water lateral since no benefit was received. Under Project 33, which was assessed in 1971, the property was assessed for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The Project was the acquisition of • . , July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan Page 2 utilities from the Cedar Grove Utilities Company which originally owned and developed the Cedar Grove neighborhood of which this property is a part. Cedar Grove Construction Company originally constructed all of the land improvements in this entire neighborhood and at one time, owned all of the sanitary sewer and water facilities. Later they were acquired by the City of Eagan. These assessments levied in 1971 are for the acquisition of those utilities. Therefore, the property has already been assessed for water services. Lateral benefit from water implies that connection to serve individual buildings will be made directly to the main. This project is proposed to connect to the main and build its own internal lateral water mains. Therefore, by definition, there is no lateral benefit to the property. Storm Sewer Laterals Storm Sewer laterals are proposed to be assessed against the property for its frontage on Nicols Road. The frontage is the same as its proposed to be assessed under water discussed above. The property was assessed under Project 460 in 1987 for the improvements of Nicols Road. At the time, the improvements were made, the storm sewer invert that supposedly serves the property was constructed. Therefore, it already has been included within the assessments levied against the property. The invert, which was to serve the property, has an elevation of 871.6 feet. The highest invert with the project is 868 feet. This is 3.5 feet below the level of the Nicols Road storm sewer pipe. Therefore, the property cannot access the storm sewer which is proposed to be assessed. Storm sewer laterals were assessed against the property under Project 306. The public hearing for this assessment occurred in October of 1985. Storm sewer laterals are specifically itemized within public hearing records. All of the drainage for the property will flow to the northeast. It enters a pond located on the property, and from there, it empties into a storm sewer pipe in Diffley Road and then proceeds northerly to Cedar Pond through the storm sewer system. Drainage water does not affect Nicols Road. July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan • Page 3 Storm Sewer Trunk The property is proposed to be assessed for storm sewer trunk. It has always been my understanding that his item is the oversizing of the storm sewer pipes. The property is currently a platted lot and block. As such, all appropriate assessments have been levied. Under Project 33 in 1971, the City acquired all of the utilities constructed by Cedar Grove Construction Company. Cedar Grove Construction Company installed all storm sewer improvements in the area including those which serve the subject property. The acquisition of these utilities has been assessed the property. As noted above, the storm sewer area charges are for oversizing of pipes. We are now required by the City to pond all of the water coming off of the development. Water will be held in a pond located on the property in its northeastern corner. The pond will contain all of the storm water on the property and release it at a rate similar to the rate of runoff from the property in its undeveloped state. Therefore, there is no additional burden placed on the storm sewer system as a result of the development due to the requirement by the City for storm water ponding on site. There are no trunk or lateral improvements for water or storm sewer being installed by the City in connection with this subdivision proposal . Therefore, there is no basis under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 for the imposition of additional water and storm sewer assessments against the proposed project. It appears that the City staff views the imposition of assessments as a profit center. At the very least, the staff views the use of assessments as a single edged sword cutting only in favor of the City. The proposal is to levy additional assessments against the property because the property is now being replatted. Public hearings in 1987, which were held because of the reconstruction of Nicols Road, did not levy lateral benefits nor area charges although that would have been the appropriate forum for such assessments. When inquiry was made with the City staff regarding the abatement of previously assessed charges, we were informed that absolutely no consideration would be given to such a request. • . July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan Page 4 The property has been assessed previously for commercial rates for all utilities and street improvements including the improvements of Diffley and Nicols Roads. The principal amount of assessments levied against the property previously for utilities actually installed amount to $85,1.72. No rebate will be given on this amount even though it was assessed for commercial rates. Park Fees This property is a platted lot which is part of Cedar Grove No. 2. Cedar Grove No. 1 and No. 2 were platted within six weeks of each other in 1959. We have attached a diagram of the plat which was obtained from the county records showing that Cedar Grove Park was dedicated at this time. We have contacted Mr. Jack Dielentheis, the general manager of Jandric Homes and Cedar Grove Construction Company, who developed and built the area. Mr. Dielentheis confirms that the park dedication for the subdivisions is Cedar Pond Park. The Parks' Commission is recommending an additional assessment for parks of $559 per unit for $49,192 for the 88 unit development proposed. The general guidelines laid down by the courts indicate that approximately ten percent of the land value is acceptable as a dedication rate for public purposes. The actual contract price for the parcel is $300,000. $85,000 of that is the payment by the seller of the assessments. The land value, therefore, is approximately $215,000. A ten percent guideline would indicate approximately a $21,500 dedication for parks. We believe that the park dedication for this property has already been satisfied. However, should the City Council feel that is not the case, we have at least shown that the proposed required cash dedication is far in excess of the normal dedication required. privewav Access - Diffley Road As you are aware, the Plat Commission, which consists of staff members of the county highway and engineering departments, has preliminarily denied access of the property to Diffley Road. We have been assessed by the City for this street. It is our contention that access to the street cannot be denied by the county. We have proposed a right-turn-in/right-turn-out only access on Diffley Road. We request that the City condition its approval of the rezoning and the preliminary plat on obtaining limited right-turn-in and right-turn-out access to Diffley Road. If that turning movement is 3 . July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan Page 5 denied, we request that the City rescind any rezoning and plat approval . The development project is contingent upon being able to obtain such access. The development will not go forward if access is successfully denied by the county. We believe that in that event, it will be beneficial to both the City and the property owner to revert to the original condition. The property will then remain neighborhood business and will require rezoning for a different use. Additionally, since it will not be zoned R-4, it would not be available for development under the full potential of the zoning classification. Therefore, the property would not be able to be developed as a high-rise apartment, for instance. We respectfully request that the City Council eliminate the proposed changes for utilities shown in the staff report. We request that the Council elimiante the additional park fees proposed by the staff or greatly reduce the requirements to bring them into conformance with the court guidelines. Your time and attention is this matter and that of the City Council members is appreciated. We will be available at the Council Meeting Tuesday, July 7 to answer any further questions regarding these matters that the Council may have. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, • Mark Par nto MSP/sah • / . _-__ ,.1•• •.3 Immo/..6 6.68111 OW 4144444S6ia • • ...•.,..._._ :. w Of7JIf1 �11i -i ;�T` r•;. .1..•i is . �Ww••p Mb 111116616 11011100101r0»1 n Li ! ii • 1� I1 i : i'1ii1111si =131 E 1 iss',, ¢1 i • F r l II le •i ii)II Pit a0 � 46117 o . . tza : f sl;fl ;'• ii a! J i il- 1111 10 A a — -- -- - k 3z t, ` / 1 = _' i / / .• .1 111 I ""q 1 t. : 5:' . '.:::::4. X.'. 7...:. . ,1 ... , .4% i ;F' . .W 4 / `. •...:. ... H iii / / 7n l' !• cc 2 g.Y '/' •• 4'.• :r::: 090586865656t s00000a - ,S ( is a i .• �y, ,'ray': 744sar SWIM • .I: : A • LLI W Q' /' '' :i:• is 1'x1 W e. .....•4% •:` ''.:%+:i•• ;ilj.4.•. ry'SRS < , I T•. ..1 0 ...... .4* .!-qucg-4, .:. ....x....:.:-:.:*. :::::::::g.:::::::..:. .i.::::::::::::x Ili i .,f....i..:.:4„,,,, ....,.. ...,..... ,. , ... ..,... :.,..: 1 Z. :i:.s . ;: ' :�:.:: fit:; : ..' O 1 1 -- 6 r." C 4211W.RAICWAARWAN 1. j ~•# « 3� J I WI I Pj•_ 'I ' I .#2' :; n .h 111 I lb• I •:t'' ' ' ••: 111 ' 11...• .— .tia •'fix• .arvaevai+►iir ..— s• .11 . fi:.. 1 I-----.—•—.....O-V-O-•3----•—i•-3=}-al--i•.-•li-----•--o»aeete»►- -. c.:s::a-.. _S •L 1 . ------t•1 I rr -- -- gi ; i-r t I i1 ! ias ---� T--- 1 I 1 V ' _.LI •z • Z ! - ti. r o . • «« E . ..: :5 1 . ,,:g • - •. • i V �..• •r -•Y V L : .ID• •Q ti• s1.N• Mf meet• Na�' I.Z.111 _ . ; 1t,1 61 s V o o 61 olti L. '_' : I ., . ie cr. ..,;(07.4..e • . la a:,• t§r-4: ! 1 I t • ' i• . . e 4,1*. a MN 6 seas r -rill lit, . . . . . _ • . .. . • • . . • -.••,..._ „ - -.• • v. . eh • .".".__, i I .V 4 :• - ^ s•• tom ; ; ... . .1..,"It.i...".-.. .,..i. no.. ; it*: • ili:%..goi.. ,:-.411...... .1j, 4:•,;7,gi.....-1 a !LA -in, i i ,./ V..,11 .-41...."..;. ..... . . P...."2/ 9 "I:CI '-': .11-617111'. I ' . ..: ..., . 8 t . ..-•/4 ../.3/4/ ,./.02,1 w ( , . • iS AD $tF 11- - •Im = : i . :=:.‘ - r :- i , ,J,at. sit ,i,c ;, 4,... ...- . .. . .—/ -•1..L..4p...ej 1 '• - . •e••.?.. 7...• fr. '• a i .. I 11 1 • 1�` it/ •�41. : •f ' /'0•' . 41/ /• .0 •• �• • 4 &it • .1 .,;,17 4'„ !• `w!'f/ • i. 7' j - `a 1 , �►1 tit `S •• J• �,'^� �! •,, J ...i.,....r.. • - i j& • : • -•. ��` + _ ` J _ .. - IL,1 Fes'••t ,:v `..•:.,.• - • , �� # ti w, w • 1 - ' f 1 - •• ! �"• C PS • - - I I . - - Er U. j ... . �. �C 1 ! •�• �.• - . Artin••. - I ••• bt e'\ . At: • :.•.:...•'. - .t. .15 V r•i il - . -----= 1_2'1 R ir• i IP .. . . 1 vos•G•1 ice• - . . • • . • . :... r 31 7 i 1® � i(Fw s ., ,f..-�•••. •• • „mil:- .e ;J, r�-Z.4.— r_%�. 1717 _ 7.ra ;_ - W ,1 ...• • • t MI fM i• ••.• M RA V .p. ' ...4.......4.......111.... a I s' r• . Joel.. . 's b 1 =� �'©. ' r r” irit, • ,_•.•s....:7, i• 1 f; -• 4(42 • •. • • . :6. , A� • si _city of as 4 an •MUNICIPAL CENTER MAINTENANCE FACILITY THOMAS EGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD 3501 COACHMAN POINT Mayor EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122.1897 EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE:(612)681-4600 PHONE:(612)681.4300 PATRICIA AWADA FAX:(612)681-4612 FAX:(612)681.4360 PAMELA MCCREA July 30, 1992 TIM PAWLENTY . THEODORE WACHTER Councl Members MARK S. PARRANTO PULSAR, INC. THOMAS HEDGES 3 914 CEDARVALE DR CIN Admhkulrator EAGAN MN 55122 EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk Re: **ghouls Addition Dear Mark: As we discussed in our meeting of July 16, 1992, staff has net to review your objections to proposed financial obligations identified with the proposed development of Meghan's Addition. The objections were originally outlined in your letter to Mayor Egan dated July 3, 1992, and explained in more detail at our July 16 meeting. The staff report identified the following financial obligations to which you enumerated several objections: Lateral Benefit - Water $17,981 Lateral Benefit - Storm Sewer 13,922 Storm Sewer - Trunk 34,836 • Water Lateral The lateral benefit from water is calculated based on the frontage on Nicols Road of 712.1 feet. There was no water lateral installed with Project 460, consequently, there were no assessments for water lateral levied in 1980. The acquisition of utilities in Cedar Grove which was assessed in 1971, did not include utilities on the Nicols Road side of the property. Lateral benefit does not require that individual service connections for buildings are made directly to the main. Lateral benefit from a trunk means that portion of a trunk facility that provides direct lateral service to abutting parcels. Your development will be connecting to this trunk main providing service to the entire parcel. The proposed development clearly meets this definition and is therefore subject to the connection/availability charge being f proposed and as provided for in Section 3.06 of the City Code. • THE LONE OAK TREE . ..THE$YMIOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportuntty/AffirrnAlve Action Employer Lt' MARK PARRANTO JULY 30, 1992 . PAGE 2 J Storm Sewer Laterals Again, the property was not assessed in 1987 under Project 460. However, since no connection is being made to the storm trunk system in Nicols Road and that trunk was installed to serve a different drainage district, the lateral benefit from storm sewer trunk obligation should be removed. storm Sewer Trunk • Trunk storm sewer means ponds, pipes, equipment and related appurtenances that are designed to accommodate the surface water runoff from specific drainage districts (as identified in the City's adopted Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan) . It also includes all pipes which serve as connectors between ponds as well as outlet systems from designated pond areas as identified in said Comprehensive Plan. The property in question has not been previously assessed for these trunk area charges. The development is therefore subject to the connection/availability charge being proposed and as provided for in Section 3.07 of the City Code. The volume of water coming off a particular piece of property in either its undeveloped or developed state does not change the fact that the water needs to be conveyed to the Minnesota River through the City's Comprehensive 31 Trunk Storm Sewer System which is financed through trunk area assessments or connection/availability charges to every parcel within the City using the system. In summary, it is the conclusion of the staff that the following financial obligations remain a condition of this development approval and will be recommended to the City Council: Later Benefit - Water $17,981 Storm Sewer - Trunk 34,836 Please note that the City staff does not view the imposition of either assessments or connection/availability charges as a profit center. Staff is implementing City policy which attempts to pay for infrastructure in a fair and equitable manner for residents, property owners and developers within the City. Sincerely, E.J. VanOverbeke Finance Director/City Clerk cc: City Administrator Hedges Director of Public Works Colbert City Attorney Sheldon Financial Consultant Wobschall Project Planner Ridley EJV/j.h (..(;? '"""ii"lAR`IN LARKIN. HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDOREN. LTD. • 117///f; SOStIT 1.MO►►MAw* AK*•OAvr "IAIIL•NIl DOW TT O.IKwwctM 1N100RCw ATTORN CY$ AT LAW Maw l kKSOw fj *till M.Rk1E0t1L RATMAL&. •wtWMAN it ALLAN t MY►110AN MItMAtI•ItSARON • COMM C..RICKION •SAN?A L.C tvt•O • WSWA It J.0114C061. Rr A.M►b Cltvt• OEM[N.IMAMS 1000 NORMRST►INANCIAI CiNT[N IMAM.I. SOwLCt IfNN a II/llMtR TOGO M.vIATkOrICN fOftRt t OOrlc 1000*[Rasta ANtNUt$OYTM TkrOTMT J.MCMANYi LOSER wRVtr TIMOTMr OMARId f.MOOtaL OLO0NINOTON,MINNESOTA$5401 MICNA I Ki 4 ' S eAs.NIA J.elttttN - M1CMAt►W.OCNItr• 01 S R.flATtl5 T[Lt�•ONL/Olt)0i0•ii00 snCwtl A.eOStarteeN �` &MIA N NKNE* LIMA DRAT .' T ealAt"/to*NAV BAR 10111 000.3333 A R[wwCkt .IS N g 0 JAC11MAw k.NOCAYONIDOI dais t own 1Mt0"wtR d MARRISTMAI AIN S SWIIRACWSKI t• • TM0MAS J."ITNN 4551511/C SRIRRITM.JR. dAMII•OYINN J.STIRRtwMAOEN $000 I.me... Kl W.x000 I W R.SEEK OMAN A.fYRIK �RpM dOMw IL MILI ,ItROMI N.RAMNItt .diARw1U k.MARTIN • NKRAKI R OMAN 0ICN*J OirAIOUA • SCNAL*L SICK MKMAtI J.SMITN dD11N S.LVNOOYIIT . ,`R•1C1 ktK wWOCR 11t 5.?i.t♦/ N CILIUMTe• . M•CNAC L MCKIM '�' AARfT 0•MARTIN 1.1..4. 4011$A COTTER• / 'flCt A.fOtMWL1LtR • AT, MtNSC•L R ANOCRCOM �yii AICMMIO a seaport August 31, 1992 INnIe.« it 0 Mayor Thomas Egan • Members of the City Council City of Eagan F. 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Meghan's Addition Dear Mayor Egan and Council Members: - ' This letter is written on behalf of Pulsar, Inc. , developers of lteghan's Addition. Pulsar has been in ongoing negotiations with City staff regarding the various dedication fees, charges, etc. , that will i be imposed by the City before the 88 units of housing approved City Council for this property can be develo d. by the z are down to a single issues the reasonableness ofTthe proposedions $34,836 storm water drainage connection and availability charge. i i. State law and the City Code of Ordinances just and equitable and authorize the City Council toa make cadjuutmmeents� : where applicable. We believe that this is a situation where the history of the property and the design of the project make it unjust t and inequitable to impose this charge, and request that the charge be . ii waived. g z The property on which Meghan•s Addition will be developed (the !. Property) has been connected to and using the existing storm,sewer t system since the Property was originally developed and the System installed. The Meghan•s Addition project approved by the City Council includes a storm sewer pond which will be constructed by Pulsar and dedicated to the .City. This pond will retain storm water on-sit, and It release it at the same rate that runoff. has been released from. the Property into the storm sever system since construction of the system. There will be no new connection to the storm sewer system, no increase 1 .(,C . • r • _ mayor Thomas Egan• members of the City Council August 31, 1992 page 2 #Ti in use of the storm sewer system, and no City storm sewer improvements 4 required. 1 : The Property will have paid for storm water management three times by the time Meghan's Addition is developed: once when the Property was originally developed and Cedar Grove Construction Company installed the storm sewer improvements which serve the Property; a second time •• • in 1971 when the City acquired all of the Cedar Grove utilities, including the storm sewer lines and assessed that cost against the Property served; and a third tim,e when Meghan's Addition is developed with a storm water management pond which will be constructed by Pulsar and dedicated to the City. The Property has paid twice for the storm sewers it will use and the Meghan's Addition development will bear the : 0 cost of post-development drainage needs by dedicating land for the drainage pond and constructing and maintaining the pond. Under these circumstances, we do not believe it would be just and equitable to burden the future homeowners in Meghan's Addition with an additional $35,000 charge to pay for storm sewer facilities which will serve other properties in the City. We therefore request that the storm sewer trunk charge be waived. All 1.4 other charges and fees will be paid, as agreed with staff, and this project will proceed. yo s, • i Peter R. Beck, for 's LARRIN, ROFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. • -I kw • cc: Mark Parranto i= John Parranto ti • • >a. PREaHM1s cab ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CITY OF EAGAN AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 13 ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING) " BY AMENDING SECTION 13.20 REGARDING PUBLIC USES AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DEDICATION AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 13.99. - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 13.20 is hereby amended by adding Subdivision 6.K. to read as follows: 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 in the Office of 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 same available to the public. Section 2. Section 13.20 is hereby amended by changing Subdivision 8.A.4 to read as follows: 4. Dedication of Ponding Areas. a. Pending areas, needed as a part of the overall City Storm Drainage Plan, shall be dedicated in fee or easement at the option of the City and in a form acceptable to the City. However, no credit shall be given for park dedication unless said area meets the criteria for public parks as stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Park Dedication Resolution and is approved as such by the Council. Said dedication of land or easement shall be in a form approved by the Council. t • b. As a prerequisite to plat approval and/or a waiver of plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate ponding areas required under the City Water Quality Management Plan and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's Water Quality Management Fund at the City's option. Ponding area dedication shall be in an amount as determined by the Council as reasonably necessary to comply with . the City's Water Quality Management Plan. The cash contribution shall be based on a rate schedule established by resolution of the Council from time to time. Section 3. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation' " and Section 13.99 entitled "Violation, a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety be reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CI 0- EAGAN By: T . VanOverbeke E' =y: Thomas A. Egan Its: lerk Its: Mayor • Date Ordinance Adopted: May 17, 1990 Date Ordinance Published in Legal Newspaper: May 24, 1990 • • OCT 6I ;; PULSAR, INC. ` 3902 Cedarvale Drive,Eagan,MN 55122 (612)454-1600 FAX(612)454-8943 October 5, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Meghans Addition Storm Sewer Trunk Dear Mayor Egan and City Council Members: This letter is written in response to the memorandum dated September 30, 1992 to the Mayor and City Council from Thomas Colbert, Director of Public Works. In that letter, there are several statements which we believe should be dealt with on a factual basis. The first paragraph on page 2 of the memorandum indicates that Cedar Pond is a recreational waterbody. The implication of this statement is that Cedar Pond is used for either direct or indirect contact recreational purposes. This would be either swimming, canoeing or fishing. Cedar Pond is, in fact, classified as a Class III Scenic Recreation Wetland according to the Water Quality Management Plan dated February, 1990 as contained in my files. A scenic recreation wetland is one in which public accessibility is available, wetland or aquatic vegetation is present and is conducive to education/interpretation in nature appreciation. This is a far cry from "recreation" use, espoused by Mr. Colbert. The next sentence of the memo appears to indicate that water storage, over and above that required for water quality purposes, is necessary because the existing storm sewer lateral in Diffley Road cannot handle the increased runoff that would exist if a 5-year storm took place. In 1986, the property was assessed under Project 306 for the installation of city storm sewer laterals. The property was assessed based upon a commercial 53 October 5, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan, Mayor/Members of the City Council Page 2 rate. At that time, the property was zoned Neighborhood Business. The city's minimum design requirements for a storm sewer pipe require that it will handle a 5-year storm. Apparently, the city's trunk storm sewer system does not meet these requirements. The City requires under its water quality ordinances that the property will pond a surface area of .38 acres. Additionally, the wet storage volume capacity is required to be approximately 1.0 acre feet. The final design of the pond is .52 acres of surface area and 1.2 acre feet of storage capacity. The actual pond design is slightly in excess of the city's minimum standards. The 100-year design elevation of the pond is 867.5 feet. In order to overflow into Diffley Road, the pond would be required to reach an elevation of 868.7 feet or 1.2 feet greater than the anticipated volume of a 100-year event. There can be no question that the pond handles all of the storm water generated by the site. Mr. Colbert states in his memo that the storm sewer trunk obligation relates to the increased runoff from this development. However, there will be no increased runoff. In the before-condition as undeveloped land, the subject site, in a 5-year storm event, would have a runoff generating 7 cfs. All of this runoff must be handled by the existing city storm sewer system. In the after- condition, the drainage leaving the site will be 4 cfs for a normal rainstorm event. If the pond becomes deeper due to a 100-year storm event, the outflow from the pond will reach 7 cfs, the same amount that is currently drained from the site during a normal rainfall event. Clearly, then, the engineering calculations show that the site will not put more water in the city's storm system after development. The City of Eagan Special Assessment Policy adopted February 19, 1991 defines trunk as "...facilities and related equipment and appurtenances where utility mains are greater than minimum standard requirements for laterals." There is no requirement created by this development for the city storm sewer system to handle surface runoff in excess of the 5-year storm event. A 5-year event is the minimum standard required capacity for a storm sewer lateral . 54 October 5, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan, Mayor/Members of the City Council Page 3 The property has been assessed for and paid for the storm sewer facilities it presently uses. Since there will be no increased use and no new facilities required, there is no basis for charging a storm sewer trunk assessment. The City's Ordinance 13.20, Section 8 requires dedications for public uses. Ponds, trailways, recreation areas, ponding areas and other uses are all covered under this section. The enabling legislation, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Sub 2(b) clearly links all public uses together specifically including parks and storm water holding ponds. Many court cases have held that a 10 percent dedication is reasonable, yet no credit is given any development for the new requirements to pond water for water quality. Staff takes the position that this development must provide storm water ponding for water quality and that it must also pay a park's fee. The cash dedication being required is 10 percent of the value of the land. The holding pond has the same effect as removing one building site from the subdivision - an additional 8.3 percent dedication requirement. Enclosed is a copy of a letter we found in the Meghans Addition parcel file. The City attorney indicates that the platting is not even required nor can the City do anything about a condominium plat that would be filed. This confirms the statement I had made to the Council previously. Filing a plat is a reasonable procedure as it will make things cleaner for everyone. But the staff position is to use the opportunity to soak the development for an additional $82,817 in fees and get a storm pond at the same time. The City's position is inequitable. Every development must pay a park dedication fee or dedicated park land. Under the same enabling legislation, the City exacts a water quality ponding area, yet no credit is given a development for the land used or the water retained on site. The city policy requires the development to pay an additional trunk storm sewer fee for storm drainage that is not going to be diverted to the city system. The policies are at cross-purposes. The developers of land in Eagan are being forced to pay unjustifiable additional fees because the staff takes the position that they must. We ask that the City Council waive the proposed park dedication fee and storm trunk fee on the basis that they are duplicative and unreasonable. October 5, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan, Mayor/Members of the City Council Page 4 Further, the plat is being filed as a convenience to both parties and not as a requirement of law. You will be setting a precedent only for properly zoned and platted parcels being developed as a condominium which requires no further actions before being legally allowed to commence construction. Respectfully Mar S. Parra to MSP/sah Encl . j(4P MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1992 SUBJECT: MEGHANS ADDITION DEVELOPER'S OBJECTION TO FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS On September 30, in response to the Council's direction, I prepared a memo briefly summarizing the issues, concerns, meetings and understandings/agreements reached with the developer pertaining to his objections regarding various financial obligations identified with the staff report for the Meghans Addition. I have been provided with a copy of Mr. Parranto's response dated October 5 wherein he takes umbrage with my memo and implies that various items are less than factual. I feel a response is necessary to address these allegations. (A copy of the referenced correspondence is attached.) His second paragraph of the first page objects to my reference of Cedar Pond as a recreational waterbody. There are two major classification of waterbodies in the recently adopted Water Quality Management Plan; recreational and treatment. Within each major classification there are three - four subcategories further defining the type of recreational or treatment waterbody. He states that my lack of using the subclassification Type 3, Scenic Recreational Wetland, description was meant to imply that it is a Class I or II type recreational waterbody. The assumption of this"implication"by Mr. Parranto is unfounded and not factual. It was identified to support the need of the water quality dedication requirements. The last sentence of the first partial paragraph of page 2 makes an assumption that "the City's trunk storm sewer system does not meet" 5-year storm requirements. I'm not sure how Mr. Parranto arrived at this "factual" conclusion. It appears to be an assumption by him that is not substantiated by nor implied in my previous memo. In the third paragraph of page 2, Mr. Parranto states that "there will be no increased runoff"from this development. It is hard to imagine how Mr. Parranto can "factually" state that an 88-unit development with streets, driveways and roof tops will not increase the volume of runoff from its present undeveloped condition. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph, page 2, states that "engineering calculations show that the site will not put more water in the City's storm sewer system after development". To the contrary, calculations will in fact show there is a definite increase in runoff volume. Page 2 The first sentence of the first paragraph, page 3, states that "the property has been assessed for and paid for the storm sewer facilities it presently uses". The research performed by the financial consultant could only verify the storm sewer lateral assessment for Diffley Road with no contribution toward the City's trunk facilities. Second paragraph, page 3, refers to court cases indicating a 10% land dedication as reasonable. However, I am not aware that this has been set as a maximum or that another amount would be unreasonable. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph tends to imply that City staff is arbitrarily requesting significant dollars when in fact it is merely applying current City policy. Paragraph 5 states that storm drainage from this development is not going to be diverted to the City system. His development plan providing for an outlet from his pond contradicts this statement. He also indicates that developers are forced to pay unjustifiable fees because staff says so. Again, staff is only applying City policy until directed either generally or specifically to the contrary by Council action. The last paragraph of page 3 requests the Council to waive the proposed park dedication fee. It is my understanding that Mr. Parranto and the Director of Parks & Recreation reached an agreement of $30,000 regarding a parks cash dedication. Either I've been misinformed or Mr. Parranto no longer wishes to abide by that verbal agreement. This response is not meant to create a "quid-pro-quo" exchange with the developer. However, due to the complexity of these issues, it is easy to be confused by these misleading and erroneous statements. 77 . , _} /i/(p4pe_____ / G 2'-t Dirtrctor of Public Works TAC/jj MEMORANDUM TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1992 RE: PARKS DEDICATION - MEGHAN ADDITION JSSUE What should be the park dedication for the proposed Meghan's residential addition? BACKGROUND At the July 7th City Council meeting, the Council asked that the issue relating to the proposed Meghan's Addition be refined or resolved prior to the Preliminary Plat approval. One such issue pertained to parks dedication. Staff had thought an agreement had been made on the Parks Dedication issue prior to preliminary plat approval, but apparently the developer has changed his mind. HISTORY Attached is a brief cover memorandum dated March 2, 1992, to the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission concerning the park dedication requirements for Meghan's Addition and the minutes of the Commission meeting when this preliminary plat was reviewed. Also attached is that portion of the letter from Mr. Parranto dated July 3, 1992, stating his original concerns in regards to park dedication for this preliminary plat. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Cedar Grove Additions were first platted in approximately 1959:About two years after these additions, Cedar Pond Park was acquired by the City. The relationship of the acquisition of Cedar Pond Park from Cedar Grove Addition may not be significant;considering the City did not have a dedication ordinance until 1973. In other words, there was no park dedication at the time the City received the Cedar Pond Park or at the time the Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Additions were platted. if Cedar Pond Park was a dedication for the Cedar Grove Additions, it could be considered 5.-C1 approximately 7.7 acres in size, which only supports a 77 acre development. Cedar Grove Additions 1st through 6th, are clearly in excess of this amount. (This assumes a 10% dedication.) Another explanation or rational for the Cedar Pond Park acquisition might be that at the time of the initial development of the Cedar Grove area, it was intended to make this new residential development attractive to home buyers by including Cedar Pond Park as an amenity for new residents and as part of an overall plan for residential, commercial and park use. During the late 1950's and 1960's, this was not an uncommon occurrence in the development community to have a "private" park. History has shown that these private parks came to the community eventually. Another example of this is in Apple Valley, in which Orrin Thompson developed the "Redwood Community Center/Pool" as a park and private development. Later, the facility was sold to the City for about $10,000. The courts have upheld park dedication ordinances that are "reasonable" and in a Bloomington court case several years ago, the courts said that 10% of land value was a "reasonable amount". Mr. Parranto suggested that 10% of land value for the Meghan Addition would amount to $21,500. This figure was calculated based on a $300,000 sale price,less assessments. Dakota County had placed a market value of$420,000 on the two parcels which make up the proposed Meghan's Additions. The county's valuation of $420,000.00 has recently been appealed by the owner, and in an out of court agreement, the value has been reduced to $300,000.00. As a point of interest and information, if, as a platted parcel, this property were to have proceed as a commercial development, the dedication would have amounted to $11,500. This is based on current commercial dedication requirements. It would appear that an argument of some type could be made for one of several scenarios for parks dedication. Although, some arguments could be considered weak. 1. No dedication - dedication requirements have been met with the Cedar Pond Park. 2. $11,500 - this was intended to be developed as commercial property and that is what the City should receive. 3. $21,500 - that's the figure the owners have determined the value of the land is, less any assessments. This meets the 10% requirement. 4. $30,000 - that's 10% of the value of the property, as mentioned, excluding assessments, and, also now represents the value of land in the out of court agreement. 5. $42,000 - that's 10% of the value of the land previously determined by Dakota County. 6. $49,192 - that consists of 88 units x dedication requirements of $559 per unit. Mr. Parranto met with staff to review the draft of this memo and to explore a possible solution. He explained that a dedication of $49,192.00 could not be supported by the economics of the project and the lands development value. He suggested a compromise at a figure of $25,000.00, which is closer to the value of the parcel less assessments and takes into consideration that Cedar Pond Park, came to the City from the first two Additions, of which this is a part. (2 0 DISCUSSION/COMPROMISE There appeared to be room - and perhaps justification- to reach a compromise by both the developer and the City in regards to Parks dedication. As a previously platted parcel, and with the uncertainty that Cedar Pond Park was a contribution, gift, or dedication, a compromise seemed reasonable. Both the developer and City could take a hard position and argue their points, or attempt to reach a compromise. The developer has previously suggested a figure of$25,000.00;staff suggested $30,000.00;which the developer had agreed to, but as you're now aware, has changed his position on. FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION It would be appropriate for the City Council to make a determination as to the parks dedication requirements, keeping in mind the recommendations of the Advisory Commission, the concerns of the developer, the reasonableness of any dedication requirement within the context of the land use; as well as the previously proposed compromise. KV/dj DIMEGHANAD.MEM ADVISORY PARKS RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1992 PAGE 4 • Lee Markel)asked if retaining walls could be used in other areas on the site to help preserve some of the vegetation. Mr. Unnear stated that they are looking at the option of installing a retaining wall on the west side of the west playing field to preserve trees. Steve Sullivan added that additional trees can be saved by retaining walls, however the question is what would be the dollar expenditure needed to preserve them. There also is a three foot high maximum size that can be used for retaining walls when planned in an area where there will be so many children. After further discussion,Ted Billy moved, Lee Marked seconded the motion with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council regarding Independent School District 196 -Elementary School #17. 1. The proposal be subject to a cash trails dedication. 2. The School District evaluate and submit to the City, prior to Final Plat, tree specific preservation revisions. 3. The proponent submit a tree protection plan to the City prior to Final Plat. 4. The development be subject to a cash dedication of $14,510 to satisfy water quality requirements. MEGHANS ADDITION-PULSAR INC. Project Planner Mike Ridley introduced this item as a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Business to D-Ill (Mixed Residential, 6-12 units/acre), a Rezoning from Neighborhood Business to R-4 (Multiple Family),and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 13 townhouse lots on 10.6 acres.The site is located at the SE intersection of Diffley Road and Nicols Road. Rich Brasch addressed the water quality issues for this development explaining that this proposed multi-family residential development lies in the lower reach of drainage basin A. He continued that approximately 8.6 acres of the site will discharge to a storm sewer along Nicols Road with the remaining 2 acres discharging stormwater to the northeast to the existing storm sewer system on Diff ley Road. This will eventually drain to Pond AP-39 which is located in between the railroad tracks and the Minnesota River along Nicols Road and is classified as a sedimentation basin. Mr. Brasch continued that on-site ponding is feasible for that portion of the development that will discharge to the storm sewer along Nicols Road and in order to provide adequate treatment the pond would need to provide a minimum wet volume of.81 acre/feet,minimum surface area of.31 acres and a minimum average depth of 2.6 feet. Since on-site ponding would not be feasible for the remainder of the site, Rich suggested the Commission consider a cash dedication of$2,260 for the remaining 2 acres. Relative to the parks dedication issue, Director Vraa explained that the development was zoned neighborhood business sometime prior to the 1970's when the Cedar Grove Addition was platted and developed. After reviewing all available files, staff has found no indication that parks dedication was ever fulfilled at the time this parcel was platted. Ken continued that the developer has expressed some concerns over how the rate for parks dedication would be calculated,asking specifically If the rate would be$559 per unit as is represented in the 1992 fees. The developer has expressed the opinion that$559 per unit exceeds the general guideline of 10-12%for parks dedication based on the current value of their property. Mr. Dave Seilergren, representing Pulsar Inc.,addressed the Commission by reviewing the general guidelines for parks dedication policies. He stated that the Statute allows the City to have the option of requesting either cash or land dedication from a developer. He continued that most cities say that 10% is a reasonable dedication amount but the option remains open for negotiation between the city and the developer. • • ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1992 PAGE 5 -- As history, Mr. Sellergren stated that the land was platted years ago and that Cedar Pond Park was dedicated as part of Cedar Grove 1st and 2nd Addition. He argued that.this parcel is being re-platted and the question the Commission needs to answer is whether or not the platting requirements were met when this parcel was originally platted for neighborhood business. It was noted that the developer, since appearing before the Advisory Planning Commission, had reduced the number of units from 104 to 88 to help mitigate some of the concerns shared by neighboring residents. Relative to the parks and trails dedication fees, Mr. Sellergren stated that the combined amount of $669 per unit times the 88 units planned equals$58,872, or approximately 19%of the$300,000 land value. The developer is of the opinion that this percentage far exceeds the general guideline of 10-12%. The developer also felt that the dedication, or deeding, of Cedar Pond Park should be considered the parks dedication for this site since it was given at the time of the original platting of this property. Mr. Sellergren asked that the Commission consider all of these circumstances before deciding what the appropriate dedication would be or if a parks dedication would be necessary. Ted Billy asked what the developer felt was a reasonable solution. Mr. Sellergren stated that the developer has already taken sixteen units out of the project and they would like to see the Commission consider Cedar Pond Park as the park dedication and not ask for further dedication dollars. Jonathan Widem asked what type of units were projected. Mr.Sellergren responded that these were two bedroom units and it is anticipated that there will be less than two people per unit since this type of housing is typically occupied by singles. Dan Mooradian asked if the density exceed what was originally planned. Ken Vraa responded that this site has always been zoned neighborhood business and if that zoning stayed the same the parks dedication impact would be less than the density proposed in the Meghans Addition plat. Ted Billy stated that Neighborhood Business zoning has little impact on parks, whereas changing the zoning to multiple family will have a much larger impact on the existing park system. Deborah Johnson asked for a clarification of the general guideline of the 10-12% park dedication range referenced by Mr. Sellergren. Mr.Vraa responded that this range varies by community but has been a very good gauge. However, not only is this percentage taken into account when determining perk dedication but the density of a property is also considered. Ken added that as the density of a parcel increases so does the fee scale. Ms. Johnson then asked what percentage the park dedication fee represented. Mr.Vraa responded approximately 13%. Ms.Johnson continued that she was not persuaded that 13%had a precedent setting impact nor was it much out of the range of the general percentages. Mr. Sellergren added that the 19%figure he was using included both the park dedication fee of$559 per unit and the$100 per unit trail dedication fee. Jonathan Widem asked what the dollar value of Cedar Pond Park was and how big it was. Ken Vraa responded that the park was approximately 10 acres and was deeded,to the City in the 1950's but the City did not have a dedication policy until the 1970's. As a point of clarification, Mr. Sellergren stated that the deed to Cedar Pond Park was given to Eagan two years after the Cedar Grove Addition was platted. Ted Billy suggested that even if the City does not require a parfdand dedication,the zoning change of this parcel will most definitely impact the existing Cedar Pond Park. Deborah Johnson asked why the zoning was changed from Neighborhood Business to Multiple Family. Mr. Sellergren explained that the current market for neighborhood business in the community is poor,the volume of traffic at this intersection has changed but the volumes have not grown to the capacity as was once projected when originally platted,the multiple fam*y product would be a better'neighbor to the existing residential,and the high demand for the product being planned would benefit both the developer and the community. 1l . ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION . MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1992 MEETING PAGE 6 Ken Vraa noted that there were two entire buildings being deleted from the plan. Mr. Seilergren confirmed that information stating that the buildings will then move away from the existing residential area. Ted Billy clarified that the $559 per unit park dedication and $100 per unit trails dedication fee remained the same as the 1991 fees. • Jonathan Widem noted that in order to justify a credit for park dedication fees a development would need to show that they would not impact existing recreational facilities and asked the developer what facilities were being planned in this development to lessen the impact on surrounding parks. Mr.Sellergren stated that the developers felt that there would not be an impact to the surrounding facilities since the bulk of the residents are being projected as single women therefore the need for additional facilities, I.e.tot lots, etc. are not necessary. Ted Billy reiterated his concern for setting a precedent, adding that the Commission may find themselves in a position to negotiate with each developer/development if the park dedication fees are changed or waived. Mr. Sellergren stated he appreciated the Commission's concern however he reminded them that the guidelines were set for that reason; as a guideline, but should allow for the flexibility of negotiation. Dan Mooradian stated he did not see enough substantiation to change the parks dedication/trails dedication standards in this case. Both Lee Markell and Kevin Knight concurred. Deborah Johnson stated that being a single woman, the proposed target range for this development, she felt the provision for park facilities should definitely be provided for or be considered with a development of this density. Mr. Sellergren reminded the Commission that the developer is asking them to consider whether a 19% dedication fee is reasonable based on the value of the land. The developer feels that 19% is excessive and not representative of the burden this development would place on the existing park system. Mr. Mooradian stated that the amount of parldand/trails dedication represents the density of the development, not a percentage of the value of the land. He continued that if the density were lower the dedication fees would be lower. The dollar amount reflected as parks/trails dedication reflects the developers desire to change the zoning and density of their property. • After further discussion, Deborah Johnson moved, Dan Mooradian seconded the motion with all members voting in favor to make the following recommendations to the City Council regarding Meghans Addition. 1. The development be responsible for parks dedication fees at a rate of$559 per unit. 2. The development be subject to a combination of on-site ponding requirement to treat the 8.6 acres of the site that drains to Nicols Road and a cash dedication for the remainder of the site. The pond should be constructed according to National Urban Runoff Program design standards and should provide a minimum wet volume of .81 acre/feet, minimum surface area of .31 acres and a minimum acreage depth of 2.6 feet. In addition, a cash dedication of $2,260 should be required to meet the water quality requirements for the remainder of the site. 3. The development be responsible for trails dedication fees of $100 per unit only if, after investigation and confirmation by staff, it is determined that trails/sidewalk assessments have not been levied and paid for this development. (,)4 • MEMORANDUM TO: ADVISORY PARK, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: MARCH 2, 1992 RE: MEGHAN'S ADDITION BACKGROUND A preliminary plat application has been received for the Meghan's Addition which proposes - _ the re-zoning from neighborhood business to multiple family and 104 units on 10.6 acres of property. (See attached information compiled by the Community Development Department). PARKS DEDICATION This property, currently zoned neighborhood business, was platted sometime prior to the 1970's when the Cedar Grove Addition was platted and developed. Staff has reviewed all available files and has found no indication that parks dedication was ever fulfilled when this parcel was platted. If the parcel were to be developed for neighborhood business as is zoned, the cash dedication for parks would be the equivalent to 2.75 cents per square foot; which is the rate for any commercial parcel platted prior to 1983,when the City enacted the Parks Dedication Policy for Commercial/Industrial property. Commercial property platted today, would be at the rate of 53 cents per square foot. The developer has expressed concerns over "how" the rate for parks dedication would be calculated, and what the actual amount would be. Would the rate be based on current zoning or, given the change in land use to multiple family; would the rate be $559 a unit, as is the 1992 rate? The developer has also previously expressed a concern that the rate of$559 a unit, exceeds the general guideline of 10 - 12% for parks dedication given the current value of this property. (As the Commission will recall, parks dedication is based bath on land value, and the potential residents which would impact the park system) FOR COMMISSION ACTION To review the proposed Meghan's Addition and make a recommendation for the park dedication requirement. KV/bls Attachment /. J July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan Page 4 The property has been assessed previously for commercial rates for all utilities and street improvements including the improvements of Diffley and Nicols Roads. The principal amount of assessments levied against the property previously for utilities actually installed amount to $85,172. No rebate will be given on this amount even though it was assessed for commercial rates. Park Fees This property is a platted lot which is part of Cedar Grove No. 2. Cedar Grove No. 1 and No. 2 were platted within six weeks of each other in 1959. We have attached a diagram of the plat which was obtained from the county records showing that Cedar Grove Park was dedicated at this time. We have contacted Mr. Jack Dielentheis, the general manager of Jandric Homes and Cedar Grove Construction Company, Who developed and built the area. Mr. Dielentheis confirms that the park dedication for the subdivisions is Cedar Pond Park. The Parks' Commission is recommending an additional assessment for parks of $559 per unit for $49,192 for the 88 unit development proposed. The general guidelines laid down by the courts indicate that approximately ten percent of the land value is acceptable as a dedication rate for public purposes. The actual contract price for the parcel is $300,000. $85,000 of that is the payment by the seller of the assessments. The land value, therefore, is approximately $215,000. A ten percent guideline would indicate approximately a $21,500 dedication for parks. • We believe that the park dedication for this property has already been satisfied. However, should the City Council feel that is not the case, we have at least shown that the proposed required cash dedication is far in excess of the normal dedication required. Driveway Access - Diffley Road As you are aware, the Plat Commission, which consists of staff members of the county highway and engineering departments, has preliminarily denied access of the property to Diffley Road. We have been assessed by the City for this street. It is our contention that access to the street cannot be denied by the county. We have proposed a right-turn-in/right-turn-out only access on Diffley Road. We request that the City condition its approval of the rezoning and the preliminary plat on obtaining limited right-turn-in and right-turn-out access to Diffley Road. If that turning movement is \ CAP July 3, 1992 The Honorable Thomas Egan Page 3 Storm Sewer Trunk The property is proposed to be assessed for storm sewer trunk. It has always been my understanding that his item is the oversizing of the storm sewer pipes. The property is currently a platted lot and block. As such, all appropriate assessments have been levied. Under Project 33 in 1971, the City acquired all of the utilities constructed by Cedar Grove Construction Company. Cedar Grove Construction Company installed all storm sewer improvements in the area including those which serve the subject property. The acquisition of these utilities has been assessed the property. As noted above, the storm sewer area charges are for oversizing of pipes. We are now required by the City to pond all of the water coming off of the development. Water will be held in a pond located on the property in its northeastern corner. The pond will contain all of the storm water on the property and release it at a rate similar to the rate of runoff from the property in its undeveloped state. Therefore, there is no additional burden placed on the storm sewer system as a result of the development due to the requirement by the City for storm water ponding on site. There are no trunk or lateral improvements for water or storm sewer being installed by the City in connection with this subdivision proposal . Therefore, there is no basis under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 for the imposition of additional water and storm sewer assessments against the proposed project. It appears that the City staff views the imposition of assessments as a profit center. At the very least, the staff views the use of assessments as a single edged sword cutting only in favor of the City. The proposal is to levy additional assessments against the property because the property is now being replatted. Public hearings in 1987, which were held because of the reconstruction of Nicols Road, did not levy lateral benefits nor area charges although that would have been the appropriate forum for such assessments. When inquiry was made with the City staff regarding the abatement of previously assessed charges, we were informed that absolutely no consideration would be given to such a request. r w�lY Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting RECEIVE BIDS/AWARD CONTRACT (POPPLER ADDITION) B. Contract 92-12, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Poppler Addition - Streets & Utilities)-.On September 15, formal bids were received for the installation of streets and utilities to service the Poppler Addition under the above-referenced contract. Enclosed on page is a tabulation of the bids with a comparison of the low bid to the engineer's and feasib lity report's estimate. These bids were presented to the Council for their consideration of contract award on September 17. However, due to the fact that the development was not in order for final plat approval at that meeting, the consideration of contract award had to be continued to the October 8 Council meeting. At the October 8 Council meeting, the final plat was still not in order for formal approval by Council action. Subsequently, the bids for Contract 92-12 were again continued until the October 20 Council meeting which is the last formal Council meeting scheduled prior to the expiration of the bid documents (October 30). Therefore, if the final plat is not in order for formal approval on October 20, the bids will have to be rejected and the contract canceled or consideration will have to be continued to a Special Council meeting which must be before October 30. Also, staff has been informed that there is a survey and title dispute between Lot 6 (Ekblad) and the remainder of the Poppler Addition plat which could affect the location of the dedicated public right-of-way where these public improvements are to be installed. Therefore, if the final plat is approved and the contract awarded, it is recommended that the Permit To Proceed not be issued until such time as the plat has been recorded at Dakota County which should provide the final determination for the location of public right- of-way. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for Contract 92-12 (Poppler Addition Streets & Utilities) and, if the final plat has been approved by Council action, award the contract to the low bidder subject to the plat being recorded at Dakota County prior to the issuance of the Permit To Proceed. (.1291 POPPLER HOMESTEAD NO. 2 PROJECT#636 CONTRACT#92-12 STREET & STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT EAGAN, MN. 1992 BID DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 BID TIME: 10:30 A.M. CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID STREET SERVICES ALT. BID 1. McNamara Cont. $56,208.00 $49,696.00 $ 6,512.00 $57,708.00 2. Bituminous Rdwys 59,713.10 52,053.10 7,660.00 59,713.10 3. Pine Bend Paving 60,473.50 49,087.00 11,386.50 59,973.50 4. Valley Paving 64,171.65 57,124.65 7,047.00 67,171.65 5. Ryan Contracting 100,579.00 87,009.00 13,570.00 100,079.00 LOW BID $ 56,208.00 $ 57,708.00 Feasibility Report Est. $ 54,670.00 54,670.00 %Over(+) Under (-) + 2.81% +5.56% Engineer's Estimate $ 52,800.00 52,800.00 %Over (+) Under (-) + 6.45% +9.30% nO Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992, City Council Meeting APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1 (POPPLER ADDITION) C• Contract 92-12,Approve Change Order#1 (Poppler Addition - Streets& Utilities)-- When the bids were reviewed for the above-referenced contract, it was discovered that there was an error in the estimated quantity of concrete curb and gutter resulting in an additional 1350' of curb to be paid for. This change order revises the quantity of concrete curb and gutter and reduces the unit price from $9.50 to $6.50 per foot. (Add $7,845). In addition, during the initial negotiations with the property owner, the street width was reduced to minimize the impact on the existing mature spruce trees located adjacent to the existing roadway. In addition, a timber retaining wall was bid to further minimize the impact to these trees at an estimated cost of$800. The contract also included a bid price for sod and topsoil restoration along the entire length of the roadway improvements. The developer has requested that the retaining wall ($1,800) and 1500 square yards of sod ($3,000) be deleted and the restoration be performed through a seed, mulch, fertilizer and top soil specification at a unit cost of $800 per acre. (Add $475). All modifications under this change order result in a net add of$3,520 to the contract cost. All costs associated with this change order will be fully assessed against the benefitted properties. In addition, due to the 4-week delay in awarding the contract, the original completion date may have to be extended based on available working days before the end of this construction season. The bid documents provided an alternative bid of an additional $1,500 if the work ends up being performed in the spring of 1993. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: If Contract 92-12 is awarded by Council action, approve Change Order #1 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting ACCEPTANCE/AUTHORIZATION SCHWANZ LAKE CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT A. Acceptance of Phase I Study for Schwanz Lake/Authorization to Proceed with Phase II Application--It has been the practice of the City to leverage appropriate grant funds for various City purposes. In particular, the City has made extensive use of grant proceeds for park and water quality improvements. The City has completed its diagnostic review under Phase I of this program and has prepared an application to proceed with Phase II upon approval by the City Council. For additional information with respect to this item, please /r fer to the memorandum from Water Resources Coordinator Brasch enclosed on pages Ythrough -23 for your revi w. This gogiorandum includes attachments including the executive summary on pages 71 through /7 which overviews the results of the diagnostic study and outlines the implementation plan elements. To qualify for these grant proceeds, it is necessary to submit the Phase II application by October 29. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To accept Phase I of the study for Schwanz Lake and approve or deny an authorization to proceed with the Phase II application as presented. MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: RICH BRASCH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1992 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP PROJECT- SCHWANZ LAKE; APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDS. Background In February 1989, the City received a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to help finance a technical investigation aimed at determining the causes of poor water quality in Schwanz Lake in Trapp Farm Park and devising a plan to restore water quality in the lake to acceptable standards. In addition to being a potentially important aesthetic and recreational asset to a park that already receives over 20,000 visitors per year, Schwanz Lake is also one of only three lakes in Eagan managed as a fishery by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Schwanz Lake is identified as among the top four priorities for water quality enhancement in the Eagan Water Quality Management Plan, adopted by the Council in April, 1990. Between October 1990 and July 1992, City staff worked to develop a technically, financially, and socially acceptable plan to meet this objective. After several reviews by both the public and the Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, that draft plan was submitted to the PCA for approval on July 13, 1992. Approval of the plan by the PCA is expected by the end of October. An Executive Summary of the document (Exhibit 1) is attached which outlines the study findings and identifies the elements of the proposed restoration strategy over the 4 year project implementation period. Project Implementation Grant In addition to providing grants for development of a strategy to improve lake water quality, PCA's Clean Water Partnership Program also provides grants to defray up to 50% of the cost of implementing the approved recommendations in plan. City staff propose to submit a Clean Water Partnership grant application to help cover the cost of the proposed elements. A proposed budget for the implementation phase (Exhibit 2) is attached. The estimated total project cost is $207,790. The City would request a grant of $103,895. Over 65% of the City's $108,895 matching obligation would be met as in-kind services with existing staff resources and the use of available equipment. The University Extension Service will also provide some in-kind service for educational activities. Finally, the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization will contribute $2,000 in cash toward one of the Page 1 of 2 proposed capital improvements. The remaining cash obligation of$33,123 over the four- year project period would be met through the use of the water quality developer dedication fund and/or the stormwater utility fee account. The City must submit this grant application by October 29, 1992. PCA will make a decision on whether to fund the proposed project by February 1, 1993. If funding is approved, project activities will proceed as shown in attached Exhibit 3. The Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission passed a resolution at its October meeting recommending that the Council accept the Schwanz Lake Diagnostic/Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan and authorize staff to pursue grant funding for the implementation phase of the project. Council Action Requested Staff is requesting that the Council take the following action: 1. Officially adopt and approve the Schwanz Lake Diagnostic/Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan. 2. Approve the attached resolution (Exhibit 4) identifying a project representative and authorizing the grant application for the implementation phase of the Schwanz Lake Clean Water Partnership project. I am requesting that this item be placed on the Council agenda (New Business) for their October 20 meeting and that the Council hear public comment on the proposal. Please let me know if you need more information. Thanks. Rich Brasch Water Resources Coordinator cc: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works John VonDeLinde, Superintendent of Parks 29wp:hedges.283 Page 2,of 2 Exhibit 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the result and recommended implementation plan for the Diagnostic/Feasibility Study on Schwanz Lake. The project was funded by the City of Eagan, the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Diagnostic Study The Diagnostic Study included a 12-month water quality monitoring program and subsequent data and land use assessments which characterized the sources of water quality problems in the lake. The Feasibility Study, which followed, evaluated the various alternatives for water quality improvement, and developed an Implementation Plan for the project. Schwanz Lake is important both as a recreational facility, and in the overall management of storm water runoff in the southeast corner of Eagan. A majority of Schwanz Lake is bordered by Trapp Farm Park, a City park that received over 20,000 visits from area residents in 1991. Trapp Farm Park provides considerable public access to the lake. The current watershed to Schwanz Lake is approximately 360 acres. This area is primarily composed of open/developed/parkland and single family residential land uses. At ultimate development, the watershed is expected to expand to just under 900 acres with undeveloped land developed as single family residential. Ultimate development will probably be reached in 10-15 years and is expected to include almost 600 acres in Eagan and 300 acres in Inver Grove Heights. Schwanz Lake covers 11.6 acres with a mean depth of 6.5 feet and maximum depth of just over 12 feet. The lake currently receives storm water runoff from six storm sewer outfalls,and discharges through a pump station located at the southeast end of the lake. Four of the storm sewers drain only areas discharging directly to Schwanz Lake. This area is collectively referred to as the direct drainage area. The other two storm sewers drain a combination of direct drainage area and upstream ponds. One drains Hay Lake and the other pond, LP-32.1 Water quality sampling was completed both in-lake and at three of the six storm sewer outfalls. The total area of the watershed monitored by the three storm sewer sites was 312 acres, or about 85 percent of the total watershed area. (-4 Results of the monitoring showed that Schwanz Lake was in the "worst" 75 percent of the lakes in the Central Hardwoods Region in terms of both the mean chlorophyll-g and Secchi disk transparency. Schwanz Lake was in the"worst"90 percent of lakes in the region for total phosphorus(TP)concentration. Monitoring also suggested that 80 to 90 percent of phosphorus and suspended solids loadings were contributed by the direct drainage area. The lake currently does not meet the MPCA or City of Eagan criteria for direct contact recreation. Problems which limit use of the lake are primarily due to excessive algal blooms. Monitoring data suggests that primary productivity (i.e., plant and algal growth) is limited by the availability of phosphorus. Thus, a reduction of the phosphorus load was determined as the necessary action for reducing algal blooms. Currently,the average growing season TP concentration for Schwanz lake is 80 micrograms per liter(ug/I). A TP reduction goal to a level of 55 ug/I was established for the lake . This goal was set as a long-term management objective. The goal is sufficient to restore the lake to the MPCA classification of partially supporting swimming, improving general aesthetics, and reducing the severity of algal blooms. As part of the Diagnostic Study, water quality modeling was completed. Models were calibrated based on existing conditions and then modified to predict phosphorus loading and concentration. Additional models were completed for average year hydrologic conditions, and future conditions under full development. The future conditions model predicted an improvement in the quality of Schwanz Lake without any new remedial activities. This predicted improvement was due to a diversion of storm sewer runoff which was completed between the monitoring period and report preparation,as well as the future increase in watershed area. The future expanded watershed contains numerous wet ponds. In addition, the expanded portion of the watershed drains to Hay Lake before reaching Schwanz Lake. The model predicts that Hay Lake and the ponds have high phosphorus removal efficiencies. The net effect of the increased drainage area and ponds is an increase in both the hydrologic and phosphorus loading. However, the hydrologic load is expected to increase substantially more than the phosphorus load and will mitigate, by dilution and flushing, the phosphorus load. This future conditions model was utilized to evaluate the potential remedial activities in the Feasibility Study. Feasibility Study In the Feasibility Study,a number of alternatives were evaluated to reach the phosphorus concentration goal. These alternatives ranged from administrative alternatives such as fertilizer management education programs, to structural alternatives such as treatment pond construction. Each of the options were evaluated for their benefit in improving water quality, their estimated initial and long-term (operation and maintenance) costs, their technical feasibility, and social acceptability. Special consideration was given to alternatives which address problems and reduce pollutant loading at their source. The final plan includes the following elements: • A public information/education program which will focus on informing, enlisting support, and improving nonpoint source pollution prevention practices by residents. • Street sweeping to reduce the sediment and phosphorus loads from single family areas in the direct drainage area. • Conversion of the wet-dry detention basin LP-32.1 on Rogers Court to a wet pond. • Creation of a sedimentation basin in the south bay of the lake. • Extension of the storm sewer outfall from Hay Lake past the proposed sedimentation basin. • Construction of a new wet pond (NURP basin) on park property near the park beach. • Hypolimnetic withdrawal to reduce the pool of soluble phosphorus in the deeper portions of the lake. • Continued monitoring to determine project effectiveness. Estimated costs over the 4-year project duration are $207,790. 30wp:schwanz1.283 Exhibit 2 f PART V-PROJECT WORK PLAN AND BUDGET Please complete the following table indicating cash and in-kind services to be provided by the Local Project Sponsor and by Contributing Sponsors. Contributions Provided by Cash In•Kind Total Project Contribution Contribution Local Project Sponsor and to Project to Project Support Contributing Sponsors (2) (3) (2&3) Local Project Sponsor a b c City of Eagan 33, 123 I 68, 117 I 101 , 240 Contributing Sponsors 1 1-2 1-3 1-4 Dakota County Extension 655 655 2 2-2 2-3 2-4 Gun Club Lake WHO 2 , 000 2 , 000 3 3.2 3.3 3-4 4 4-2 4-3 4-4 5 5-2 5-3 5-4 6 6.2 6.3 6-4 7 7-2 7-3 7-4 8 8-2 8.3 8-4 9 9-2 9-3 9-4 Totals from Additional Sheet SUBTOTAL: Local Project Sponsor d + Contributing Sponsors 35 , 123 I 68, 772 l• 103, 895 - Clean Water Partnership Grant Assis- 103, 895 103, 895 tance TOTAL 139 , 018 68 , 772 I 207 , 790 -9- 7/1992 I.) Exhibit 3 TABLE 54 SCHWANZ LAKE PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE Event Anticipated Date Begin Education Program 1193 Project Newsletter Number One 3/93 Street Sweeping 3/93-9/93 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 3/93 Engineering 3/93-9/93 Water Quality Seminar Number One 4/93 Acquisition of Permits 6/93-12/93 LP32.1 Basin Improvements 6/93-9/93 Progress Report 6/93 Project Newsletter Number Two 7/93 Water Quality Seminar Number Two 8/93 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 9/93 Bid Specifications and Construction Contracts, 1994 Projections 9/93-3/94 Progress Report 1/94 Project Newsletter Number Three 3/94 Street Sweeping 3/94-9/94 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 3/94 LP32.1 Monitoring 3/94-9/94 Lake Monitoring 5/94-9/94 Progress Report 6/94 South Basin Construction 6/94-9/94 Hay Lake Inlet Extension Construction 6/94-9/94 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 9/94 Engineering, Park Beach Basin and Hypolimnetic Withdrawal 9/94-2/95 Progress Report 1/95 Project Newsletter Number Four 3/95 Street Sweeping 3/95-9/95 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 3/95 Park Beach Basin Construction 5/95-9/95 Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Construction 5/95-9/95 Progress Report 6/95 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 9/95 Progress Report 1/96 Project Newsletter Number Five 3/96 Street Sweeping 3/96 Progress Report and Reimbursement Request 3/96 Lake Monitoring 5/96-9/96 Progress Report 6/96 Public Education Questionnaire 7/96-8/96 Final Report Preparation 9/96-12/96 Final Report and Reimbursement Request 12/96 5-11 g Exhibit 4 RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE AND AUTHORIZING A PHASE II APPLICATION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council, that it hereby designates Rich Brasch, Water Resources Coordinator, as the Project Representative for the proposed Schwanz Lake Clean Water Partnership Phase II - Project Implementation Grant. The Project Representative shall have the authority to represent the City of Eagan in all matters that do not specifically require action by the Eagan City Council. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) shall direct Clean Water Partnership Application correspondence to the Project Representative and shall consider correspondence from and actions taken by the Project Representative to be that of the Eagan City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council, that the Project Representative designated above is hereby authorized to submit to the MPCA a Clean Water Partnership Phase II - Project Implementation Grant Application for Schwanz Lake. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council, that the total project cost of the Schwanz Lake project is expected to be $207,790 of which not less than $103,895 shall be provided by the City of Eagan with the assistance from contributing sponsors as detailed in Part V of the application. RESOLUTION INTRODUCED BY: RESOLUTION SECONDED BY: VOTE ON RESOLUTION: WHEREUPON the above resolution was adopted at the (date of meeting) Meeting of the (name of Local Project Sponsor Governing Board). (Authorized Signature) (Date) (Title) (Attested to By) (Date) (Title) 30wp:schwanz1.283 C7\ Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting CLEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP GRANT/FISH LAKE B. Authorization to Submit Phase I Application for Fish Lake--Similar to the action above, staff has prepared a Phase I clean water partnership grant application to prepare a diagnostic study and implementation plan for that water body. For additional information with respect to this item, please refer to the sta report by Water Resources Coordinator Brasch which is enclosed on pages . through k3, for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny authorization to submit Phase I clean water partnership grant application for Fish Lake as presented. MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: RICH BRASCH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1992 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR PHASE I CLEANWATER PARTNERSHIP GRANT APPLICATION FOR FISH LAKE Background The Clean Water Partnership Program (CWP) is a grant program administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) that provides financial assistance to local units of government for improvement of water quality. The grant process is a competitive one and will depend on the outcome of a ranking process by PCA program administrators and an advisory council. Grants are for up to 50% of the eligible cost of a project. The City applied last year for funding of a diagnostic/feasibility study for Fish and Blackhawk Lakes but was unsuccessful in obtaining funding. Only two of thirteen applications were funded last year through the program. Grant Proposal for Fish Lake Fish Lake is designated as a Class I-Direct Contact Recreation lake in the Eagan Water Quality Management Plan and is perhaps the most heavily used of Eagan's lakes. It is the only lake with a developed boat ramp, supports a popular fishing pier, is part of the City park system, and is one of only three lakes in the City managed as a sport fishery by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Monitoring data indicate that the water quality in Fish Lake no longer meets several key water quality standards. Problems with algae blooms and excessive weed growth have been evident over the last several years, and there are concerns about the ability of the lake to sustain a healthy recreational fishery as well. Fish lake is identified as among the three highest priorities for long-term lake enhancement efforts identified in the Eagan Water Quality Management Plan, adopted by the Council in April, 1990. While the competition for CWP grant funds will again be keen this year, staff are proposing to try this source of funding once more to support an investigation of Fish Lake. With very little additional work, I have revised last year's Fish Lake/Blackhawk Lake application to focus only on Fish Lake and have reduced the total project budget accordingly. Like the Schwanz Lake Phase I study just completed by the City, this project would involve intensive in-lake and run-off sampling, an assessment of the watershed, and computer modeling to determine the causes of poor water quality in Fish Lake. The study would conclude in the development of a customized, site-specific strategy for improving the suitability of the lake for the desired uses. Most importantly, the project would provide the extensive information and analysis needed to allow the City to apply for additional grant funds within the next two years to defray construction and other costs associated with actual GRANT APPLICATION FOR FISH LAKE October 13, 1992 Page Two in-lake and watershed improvements. For obvious reasons, the implementation phase is generally more expensive than the feasibility and plan development phase, so grant funding is even more desirable at that stage in the project. Estimated Project Budget The estimated total project cost is $99,700. The City will request a grant of$49,850. About 80%of the non-grant matching obligation of$49,850 will be achieved through a combination of City staff resources ($30,500), an in-kind contribution by the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization ($8,000), and an in-kind contribution by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ($1,000). The remainder of the non-grant obligation (approximately $10,400) would be a cash expenditure by the City of Eagan. The City would use revenue from the storm water utility fund and/or the developer water quality dedication account to meet this cash obligation. Council Action Requested Staff is requesting that the Council approve the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizing the application for Clean Water Partnership grant funds for a Phase 1 diagnostic/feasibility study and development of an implementation plan for Fish Lake. The Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission passed a resolution at its October 1st meeting recommending that the Council authorize the requested action. I am requesting that this item be placed on the Council agenda for their October 20th meeting. Please let me know if you need more information. Thanks. Rich Brasch Water Resources Coordinator cc: Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation Tom Colbert, Public Works Director John VonDeLinde, Superintendent of Parks rb:fshl Exhibit 1 RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION BE IT RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council, that it hereby designates Rich Brasch, Water Resources Coordinator, as the Project Representative for the proposed Fish Lake Restoration Strategy- Clean Water Partnership Phase I - Resource Investigation Grant. The Project Representative shall have the authority to represent the City of Eagan in all matters that do not specifically require action by the Eagan City Council. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) shall direct Clean Water Partnership Application correspondence to the Project Representative and shall consider correspondence from and actions taken by the Project Representative to be that of the Eagan City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council,that the Project Representative designated above is hereby authorized to submit to the MPCA a Clean Water Partnership Phase I - Resource Investigation Grant Application for the Fish Lake Restoration Strategy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council, that the total project cost of the Fish Lake Restoration Strategy is expected to be$99,700, of which not less than$49,850 shall be provided by the City of Eagan with the assistance from contributing sponsors as detailed in Part III of the application. RESOLUTION INTRODUCED BY: RESOLUTION SECONDED BY: VOTE ON RESOLUTION: WHEREUPON the above resolution was adopted at the (date of meeting) Meeting of the (name of Local Project Sponsor Governing Board). (Authorized Signature) (Date) (Title) (Attested to By) (Date) (Title) 30wp:fishlk.287 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION BLACKHAWK ACRES 3RD ADDITION C. Extension, Preliminary Plat, Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition--A request has been received of Lou Leasure for an extension of the Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition prminary plat. Please refer to the staff memorandum from City Planner Sturm on pages through Rfor additional information relative to this item. Please note that the extension does ide a cash water quality dedication and updated financial obligations. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny an extension of preliminary plat for Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition as presented. (.r/ MEMORANDUM TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DALE RUNKLE, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1992 RE: BLACKHAWK ACRES 3RD ADDITION The Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition consisting of 13 townhouse units along Robin Lane was approved in January 1990 and received an extension in March 1991. The minutes of that meeting do not reflect any time limit; however, they typically are for a year. The original partnership has been dissolved and one of the partners wishes to complete the project on his own. We already have received a Development Deposit Agreement from the new applicant. With the first extension an additional condition was added calling for a cash water quality dedication. This item has been reviewed by all departments and no new conditions are requested; however updated financial obligations will be required. Attached are: a copy of the plat, revised financial obligations, and the minutes from the March 1991 extension. If you would like additional information, please advise. /f:L., City Planner JS/js attach. EAf,AN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 19, 1991 PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION/BLACRHAWR ACRES 3RD ADDITION Paul:my moved, Wachter seconded a motion to approve the extension of the preliminary plat for Blackhawk Acres 3rd Addition subject to the conditions outlined on the following page: 1. These standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council action on September 15, 1087 shall be complied with: Al, B1, Cl, C2, C4, C5, D1, El, Fl and G1. 2. Easements will be required on the water and sewer lines which serve the development. 3. The development is required to submit detailed plans and specifications for the proposed retaining wall for City staff review and comment prior to final plat. , 4. The development is required to provide limited visibility fencing. 5. The development is required to provide a suitable barrier along the edge of the border for safety reasons due to the retaining wall as required by staff. 6. The development is required to provide a cash dedication for fulfillment of water quality requirements as identified in the City's comprehensive water quality management plan(S2,652). Aye: 4 Nay: 0 e._`.„ IiM 9 ee t 177149 ^, VIIII 111131/411,1111 I °"'"'"""' "' """'"" N011laoll O8 S3a0d NMVH)IOl1B :1 p'I d.1i ...s..:.::`:.a.::.:`.; 1. Pia IL.YIW10N4 • I..e_...I...y;.100.11✓... I..�.q Irt•— 110!Ilse..L t 1 • l I I ILI I • li I .. I 4 I . 1• NO1Cy ^l' �3L:D Mt7H:1yiP ` 1 :„.1-"e"......5<1 I� - ! s{{i .:.•••4 E _ i / Ii(� fg i - 1 = . ' - , -...04 s‹...' ' , 2irii."-'-'- &•... ' -- ,--- / _' ..., - . - • 2 4-- /////yilis e 4 / / ( ; / l J ,,,, \ .1/4 (...-,\-\ ,, ,,tit io.. / If ,iso, _ , I --N i I-s� � t� 11 I/ + w �#.1 � 1 4` ' ?C_OI I ; \i \"i .i` t Ie // / ../ t- 44.----- --li.--.2,- . I I tEle: To . . 1 ././1:.,"...// , /,••••• 1 ,....................... A \ iii7 I\ \ \ �� - -.;;rll:r�-: _ ��'�, -- i it i"•\ -.4.................0.••-•:.2/ -----.'\-',:4': "'Is ,) I. W \ S�I "' %IE 1 1.>'4,-1 --'• i' 1.0' ' VII 4 • IN • 1 I f It � � } ■ !i 0 1 .. ; S? 1 . . FINANCIAL OBLIGATION - BLACKHAWK ACRES 3RD Based on the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the proposed uses for the property, the following financial obligation is proposed. This obligation is computed using the 1992 adopted rates. Improvement 1Rate y Sanitary Sewer Trunk 4 $720/lot 11 Lots $7,920 Water Trunk 49 $750/lot 11 Lots 8,250 Lateral Benefit Water Trunk 49 $9.95/ff 413.71 ff 4,116 Lateral Benefit Storm 297 $19.55/ff 413.71 ff 8.088 Financial Obligation $28,374 1' •111113 --^ -,-•• 11-11-771., . . .:::: .C.1.:-.:.:.=:. •-•_,..„.....,,***...---„.1-.. dx.............. - • -r-)u ¶1 NO111(1UV tiUL: baLl...)V sitiA`di i•1"\I Ii4 ... .............,-1.......... Iime o•.0.1 4.4..44.4•41..4.1.0 0 VIMICILi ......•.......1...... . . ... ..... . .... - :a.. v•.44..„1 a A•,.....°a.......... l...a -....-----.-... _......._.,,..._____,. . ;..... , .“ .:: ....4 ....., ...44%4.0.4•..44•..../ ...4..s.44.D.....4 1 el (r4 Z 0 i "1 l'. . ill < I b4 (.9 z = . —1 CC 1-* . 'r CD ce c&I 0 Ca2 hL S C.) I v2 Z •IC 3 —.1 = P.• CC c.4 T •I:C CC I- < 6- w ic x 3 — .1 . &t.i . (..) z < . v Sc Z 0 at — I -I Z 1 :a i it .Ill 1,,•..a -- ..i . •,. A % Li- 1 ..(•— - r / 11 1 1 , , r4..11.1.;v .:11::: ...P. .:v )1,:t.ii+...v.ii: - ' -, .1.• • .. I -i .41. , \ 1 ,./ r, _i--e),..i;e :0,.-I• . • '', t .• :,,it - . le; ., \ , :,- , ,,-. .,-,...3.--: . '..'r . ;• i ! 1 is j I; , 'Zii; ' ti ..t.T..., • _ ' _ •• ..- ' ' ,1? •- ;.,;.,>..„-v . I• . :f I:re""" ••• .."... ....C..".421••••". ...311". ''' e./.1111:"i ' ----.-- ' • ' -.f ' • - , - ‘ 1' i -:. - Pi/ e..- . . . 4 4.., ' =-16-, ,i l i.j..,,.; . . ,..• .._, , ia,, ,k, ,,, ,.•/, '0 .,.,.•: ,• ,--..-ei'e 0 '‘,0.. C. .1'7.0.••''...' / ,...i. _NI , /r(/:, e :s• my : , 1,.......,.,,•,........ ;111/:. :?: .• ,1 .1 , ....\-‘• ..... --, pe: /. ., ...:A. ,, , 1 ::::_...:: -.:,,, .. -I - k --- -. :•---••••-• .•• :4'4A - •:.,, I z- ,,..Y.-' ' " ' • - • :' "4:3::• f:: Fir. / + - \ .\i 11,1 , ....., - ,:.: .• .. ,. .. 5,-,..:4' • • / :-.^: 1 1 ..1.: . • •.t • . '.•;... :i1,:•. :,A4'‘,.' . 4(.,' IF,':'...;:f,:.:' ,•;• 1 . . • . % I • . •; • ...' i t: t•• ... ' •"1 i ii • a *.•.• . -, .., i I - ••./ 1.' t s•• •" .....;', e <', , 1 ti r r ::).t. :: . 1 i ... . .% ; ., .. •. ■ r - , " 1 , I , ::::. .. • .- 4 4 • 1 1 1 . ■ • --' 4\\ '\'-' ,•_:..V - , , 1 , ' i 1 •:.% :. .- ‘ 1 / -.-•- "e \ : i s='.. --;'' -•--:. _ -- 1 1 t I 1: :;.'-' ' , .. ,. . Is. kyr -.• 7 %.‘":': i • • • '' ••.- ::.,' .„.. ' k : --.:;:.7 NI ..., - • ... ' % ::,?.; : : • • i 1 . ' % .•, ,%'.0 '''' •• .,. • ••••• •r,• • it ' -• • , 1/...ililf w• ‘ s• 'Ail..\•r- :. :,,atboV • '44ILLI"i. 1.• 1:: • ' 1111 ,•• ,' - , :,, ; / A . l• . .. , . . .... - r I , .1 . S. - - - 5. I. :.' .,....L ,... .... ,._..—=...•.:... - 1 1 1 I•I I' 1i Ii • • / rw..___ Oa 111111 . 1 1 ., 7%7: . "L4'..,,. . rip, ,1 , s „ i i 1 % :,' 1 , 11114.. :•••\ I II" k 11. .■0=' a I 1 •'al . -. .14;' I 7 I'''.• ', 1'..! 'i?.. : • \$k Ill' . li I ' • ‘..k,• sl i'. • G , '• I \•'‘ 4 ; .,, . ?1.- ..6.w .tom uM, .'.y IiM S i, I 17)MS V.q igDlnY•q OMMiwY„• ,w.�r•�..;�, i , ,� NOIIICIUV QUF. SBUJV sAti\ U.:JV lU VMCId 4..._Iw ,. _Ir,:. :1,1 p11101,y r 4 na1r, • ,,,, 1.. ;aa ... 1..l1 ..a,. ,r ....... , 1.,� ,a.l ..,, ...q. GO he a z V o N cc he Tr C1 Z y H 0 a a ,I t- g j iii Q In 3 i 1 E 1 r+ ■•-∎ V ...i z z Z m CO csa 0 a - . 3 a d i St F F s Q . I Y U --I Z I , s I 1 U. i ',. // I 1 1 Isl. 1 1 s �.._ ,� ;.,° iii,/,./r""fi'4EJ,. -3/- .. yN. C. /. i r./ �/Ct 1 L. ,,4 IP: : '../ i" //0,4, t, i id /;Ai / r' ...'1 i` 1 , • : �' i ';(,%;,..- ' j .%i's'7/, ter' ' _ 47. 1 . r/ 14-;- , // ' ;;. , \ 1 \!_.r , i i • l, r is ,..1`'I!- ' _ �` • '—_-.= ,_? ---:••=-:••:-..__ - I.' .,11• i j' •)' .' �>41 ::,,:� I t 1�. 1� >1) pi N \ ,� 470' •T .1\Sk ri Iritid i A-.....-3 grim: : U Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting SETBACK VARIANCE/DART TRANSIT D. Variance, Dart Transit, of 50 feet to the Required 50 Foot Setback Located at 800 Lone Oak Road--An appliction has been received of Dart Transit Company for a 50 foot variance to the 50 foot building setback from state highway right-of-way for a semi-tractor repair shop as part of the company's headquarters site at the intersection of State Highway 55 and Lone Oak Road. For additional information with respect to this application, please refer to the CQ unity Development Department staff report which is enclosed on pages 2--through ffor your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a 50 foot variance to the 50 foot building setback from state highway right-of-way for Dart Transit located at 800 Lone Oak Road as present. SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: DART TRANSIT LOCATION: NW 1/4 SECTION 12 EXISTING ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: OCTOBER 20, 1992 DATE OF REPORT: OCTOBER 14, 1992 COMPILED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Variance to waive the 50'building setback from state highway right-of-way for a new 6-bay tractor repair shop at Dart Transit Company headquarters located at 800 Lone Oak Road on Lot 1, Block 1, Eagandale Center Industrial Park #3. BACKGROUND: Dart Transit Company was established in 1934 and is the largest owner/operated trucking company in Minnesota. In 1989 Dart Transit built their national headquarters on 23 acres in Eagan. Currently Dart Transit employs 420 people nationwide of which 250 work out of Eagan. The company presently has 60,000 sq. ft. of building on- site. COMMENTS: The proposed repair shop has been part of Dart's expansion plan since coming to Eagan. The 6,300 sq. ft. repair shop will employ an additional 18 people and is proposed to be located along the east edge of the site near the intersection of State Highway 149 and State Highway 55. According to the applicant, excess state right-of-way to accommodate a frontage road planned in the future results in the applicant's eastern property line at this point lying over 250'from any highway road surface. The applicant also states the proposed expansion location benefits drainage of this area to the existing on-site pond. This proposed site and frontage road location will require substantial fill which could affect the depth of the City's existing 20" watermain which is located 20' into the Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way. This Variance request is subject to final site plan approval by the City. If this expansion requires any work in the highway right-of-way, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining MnDot approval. If approved, this Variance shall be subject to the following: 1. Final site plan approval by the City. 2. MnDot approval for any work within the right-of-way. 3. All applicable City Codes. I._ I Gcv.. •.l +pia .... ..... - �{Ol�nNH?r+y� + i— •+••�'�+++s 9ut1�77Nt�iJ3 L : �� .,i�la �,I��r. y�rw� : 213I IDSI3 - ----- t ,..„),(::..4....... , ,,,,,iihi, .....:,, -- U cs.___________._._„..."' s /- Iffi•-k ' o ,/..' :/ . - 7.,,_ . ..,../77 V „.....A.,,,,i /, « . .1 ,,i, - .7.E vi ",„-. A • 4 4,7 , .,,;11 0..0 ._ 1 za ..• _ .e. _ x .w� •` ' ire • ;r .0 J ::� I turd _ t :1_ _ G .=1 ••i ■ li 41 i 1 MI! .'"..... .. lti 1 4 /_ ., ■ 1 I i( / I, ,ill . , ji. .--! j 1‘11, III n I I .7 ' f..1 cz, • % i_... I j v 40./z II ,- 11 V., i i ii [i • . S � j' 4.100 I I , I I i z Iii \ \;\ z.,",Zzz i1 • ii I V I q• ) .. DART TRANSIT COMPANY 800 Lone Oak Road,Eagan,MN 55121 •Mailing Address:P.O.Box 64110,St.Paul,MN 55164-0110•Office 612-688-2000•800-366-9000 October 8, 1992 Eagan City Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: DART TRANSIT COMPANY REQUESTED VARIANCE Dear Council Member: We respectfully request a variance to waive the setback for our proposed new facility. We have met with the City Planning Department and completed our variance request application. The reason we need the variance is so that when we expand in the future, we can fully utilize our existing space in Eagan. Though you know times have been tough for trucking companies, since 1989 when we built our national headquarters in Eagan, we have been able to grow dramatically, both financially and in jobs. We are fast reaching the point when we will have to make the building expansion which has been an integral part of our future plans since we first chose to come to Eagan. The planned future economic development will utilize all the space we have on our property in Eagan, so using the opportunity we have to waive the setback is very important to our future development plans in Eagan. Another reason for the variance is to better fit in with and aid in the proper drainage of that part of our property which drains toward the existing pond . on our property. Affilietetl Witt,4.61112/1111.a.. Eagan City Council October 8, 1992 Page 2 of 2 It is also very important to point out, as you can see from the drawing, that there is a large amount of excess right of way at the point of our facility and that a frontage road has been planned for this area by the city, county, and state. This will then act as a side yard setback for our facility. As you know, we are very proud of our national headquarters in Eagan. We have received many kind compliments from people in Eagan and elsewhere. At the variance meeting we will further detail our building plans which will fit into the major commitment we have made to quality development and growth in Eagan. We are looking forward to meeting with you regarding our requested variance. Thank you. Very truly yours, DART TRANSIT COMPANY cm41)_,62 Donald G. Oren President EAGAN.GH Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting PRELIMINARY PLAT/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TOWN CENTRE 70 - 14TH ADDITION E. Preliminary Plat, Town Centre 70 - 14th Addition/Eagan Tower Office Building Partnership, Consisting of One Lot on Approximately Three Previously Zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) Acres, Conditional Use Permits for a Drive-Thru Facility and a Pylon Sign Located Along the East Side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Sec 15--At its meeting of September 22, 1992,the Advisory Planning Commission considered the r above referenced applications. For additional information with respect to this item, please 7 to the Community Development Department staff report which is enclos,d on pages through// 2—for your review. Also enclosed on pages //3 through 0 is a copy of the Advisory Planning Commission minutes relative to these items. The APC is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the drive- thru. The conditional use permit for the pylon sign was withdrawn prior to the APC meeting and, to staf s knowledge, it is not to be considered as a part of this action. Also enclosed on page f 14, is a memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Department covering the dedication requirements outlined by the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission relative to this plat. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny 1) a preliminary plat for Town Centre 70 - 14th Addition/Eagan Tower Office Building Partnership, consisting of one lot on approximately three previously zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) acres and 2) a conditional use permit for a drive-thru facility as presented. SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TOWN CENTRE 70 14TH ADDITION) APPLICANT: EAGAN TOWER OFFICE BUILDING PARTNERSHIP LOCATION: NW 1/4 SECTION 15 OUTLOT A, TOWN CENTRE 70 2ND ADDITION EXISTING ZONING: COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER (CSC) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 DATE OF REPORT: SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 COMPILED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION SUMMARY: Applications have been submitted requesting a Preliminary Plat for approximately three acres zoned Community Shopping Center and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru on Lot 1, Block 1, Town Centre 70 14th Addition. LOCATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS: Currently, the 3.02 acre site is vacant. It is located within the Eagan Town Centre development west of the existing strip shopping mall, east along Town Centre Drive, and across from Applebee's Restaurant north of Outlot A, Town Centre 70 11th Addition. The entire area surrounding the parcel is zoned Community Shopping Center (CSC). COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN MAP & ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this area CSC and the proposal is consistent with that plan. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the Town Centre 70th Addition (June 1986) analyzed approximately 530,000 sq. ft. of miscellaneous retail commercial/other commercial uses. Approximately 327,186 sq. ft. have been built to date. The proposed 13,600 sq. ft. retail strip center brings the total developed square footage for Town Centre 70 to approximately 340,786 sq. ft. As such, the proposed development is within the allotted square footage analyzed in the EAW. ISP #86-11 (September 1988) for Town Centre 70 allows 3,485 parking spaces. Approximately 1,230 parking spaces have been developed to date. The proposed 82 spaces would bring total parking spaces for Town Centre 70 to 1,312 spaces. As such,the proposed number of parking spaces is within the allowed limit of the ISP. l � COMMENTS: It is the intention of the developer to relocate the existing strip mall tenants - into this satellite strip mall designed for 1,000 sq. ft.businesses and encourage perhaps only two large tenants to fill the existing strip mall space. It has been represented that Outlot A will be developed as parking for the second phase of WalMart which is shown with one access drive along the southern property line and one along Town Centre Drive. SITE PLAN: The site plan shows a retail strip shopping mall of 13,600 sq.ft. As proposed, the mall contains ten potential store sites ranging in size from 1,000 - 2,500 sq. ft. The building is front entrance doors will face east toward the existing retail shopping center and the back of the building will face Town Centre Drive. The building design is a single-story grey brick and light grey rock face block with a metal panel sign band to match the existing retail center. One of the proposed 1,000 sq. ft. retailers in the SW corner of the building will have entrance doors on the west side and a 20' x 30' (approx.) patio outside the entrance. Also located in the rear of the building is the 144 sq. ft. maintenance and 14,438 sq. ft. trash area. This trash area shall be large enough to include recycling receptacles for the entire mall. The northernmost space in the center (2,500 sq. ft.) is the largest and has a drive-thru lane facing Town Centre Drive. A Conditional Use Permit has been applied for to allow the drive-thru. It is not known at this time who the tenant is, however the Conditional Use . Permit, if approved, shall run with the land. Drive-thru stacking requirements are 100'. As depicted on the site plan, this would potentially block six parking spaces. Due to the drive- thru, a one-way circulation pattern around the north end of the building is being proposed. Two-way traffic is proposed from the Town Centre Drive access south around the building to the northernmost access on the east side of the building. Appropriate one-way signs should be located on site to encourage proper vehicular circulation. Access to this site is gained from three proposed ingress/egress points; the first along the east property line within the existing internal drive; the second from the proposed Outlot A which is also from the north/south internal drive; and third from Town Centre Drive on the west. As proposed, the access is slightly offset approximately 15' north of the existing Applebee's access point. The proposed access point should be aligned with Applebee's for obvious safety reasons. Eight two-customer parking spaces have been provided (including two handicap stalls) to serve the site. Code requires 91 parking spaces. The originally submitted site plan shows a pylon sign which would not have been consistent with the overall Town Centre Pylon Sign Agreement entered into in September 1986. The developer has withdrawn his request for the pylon sign and with staffs consent, may be re- evaluating the current sign agreement and possibly revising it. qf The landscape plan shows a mixture of plant material, however because the back of the building will be facing Town Centre Drive,a continuous 3'berm will be required. Additional overstory trees shall be required along the southern and eastern property lines. PARKS & RECREATION: Staff's preliminary recommendations for the proposed plat are a cash parks and cash trails dedication. • GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL: The site is a grassy area with a wetland • of 0.3 acres in the middle of the site. The grassy area around the wetland has been mowed and the wetland area contains cattails and some small trees. To prepare this site for the building and parking lot, the area will need approximately 4 feet of fill. The developer shall p rovide 3 foot berms along Town Centre Drive to provide screening from the parking lots. The drainage from this site will be conveyed by a privately maintained storm sewer system to the existing storm sewer in Town Centre Drive. The existing storm sewer in Town Centre Drive drains in a northeasterly direction to Pond DP-4 which is a designated ponding area in the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. The development will be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Erosion/Sediment Control Manual standards. WATER QUALITY AND WETLANDS PROTECTION: This proposed development is located in Drainage Basin D. Runoff from the site will discharge to a series of ponds classified as nutrient traps which lie just north of Yankee Doodle Road. Eventually, the runoff from this site will reach LeMay Lake, a Class I lake designated to have water quality high enough to support direct contact recreation. A cash dedication in lieu of on-site ponding for this development will be recommended to satisfy water quality mitigation requirements. The amount of the cash dedication is estimated at $16,680 and covers only the obligation for Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed development. Outlot A will be charged when it is replatted for development at a future date. A 0.3 acre inland shallow fresh marsh has been identified near the center of the proposed development. The developer is currently putting together documentation to show that the marsh may be exempt from regulation under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). If the City finds the wetland is exempt, the developer will be able to fill or drain the wetland without being subject to regulation under the WCA. If it does not fall under an exemption, the developer will need to avoid or minimize impacts to the wetland and/or replace impacted areas of the wetland, which in turn could affect the way the parcel can be developed. A report on these issues from the developer is due to the City on September 16. These recommendations are subject to approval by the Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. UTILITIES: Sanitary sewer service of sufficient depth,size and capacity is readily available to serve this lot from an existing 8"line on Town Centre Drive. An existing 6"sewer service has been stubbed to the middle of this lot from Town Centre Drive. The preliminary utility layout plan shows extending the sewer service to the proposed building: The City will require that a manhole be added on the sewer service at the edge of the easement to allow City Maintenance crews to inspect the sewer service. 100 Water main of sufficient pressure, size and capacity is readily available to serve this site from an existing 8"water main in Town Centre Drive. The preliminary utility plan shows connecting to the existing 8"water main in the street and constructing a 6"DIP water service to the proposed building. The proposed 6"water main would provide adequate pressure to feed the sprinkler system in the building. The existing one and one half inch copper water service that was provided to this lot in 1985 shall be removed and the corporation stop turned off at the 8" main. The existing hydrants located northwest of the lot and in the southeast corner of the lot will provide adequate fire protection to this site. STREETS/ACCESS/CIRCULATION: Street access for the proposed development will be provided from Town Centre Drive which is a 48 foot face-to-face road with two lanes of traffic in each direction. Access will also be provided to this site from a private through street that runs along the east property line of the lot. The preliminary site plan shows one access to the west onto Town Centre Drive, and two accesses to the east off of the private through street. All the driveway openings shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide. The centerline of the driveway on Town Centre Drive shall match the centerline of the south driveway to the proposed Applebee's restaurant. The centerline of the driveway in the southeast corner of the site shall match the driveway in front of Dougherty's restaurant. As shown on the preliminary site plan,the proposed driveway in the southeast corner of the site will be constructed in Outlot A and will be a shared driveway that will accommodate future development of Outlot A. The proposed driveway on Town Centre Drive shall contain a concrete valley gutter and concrete apron as per City of Eagan Detail Plates #440 and #445. RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS/PERMITS: This development shall dedicate a 10 foot drainage and utility easement around the outside of Lot 1. 66 feet of right-of-way is currently dedicated over Town Centre Drive and no additional right-of-way is needed for the existing street. The private through streets on the north and east edge of the development will not require any right-of-way, but private cross easements will need to be provided to allow access for this lot to be used on those private streets. This development shall be responsible for ensuring that all regulatory agency permits (MPCA, MWCC, MnDept. of Health, etc.) are acquired prior to final plat approval. FINANCIAL OBLIGATION - Town Centre 70 Fourteenth Addition Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and connections proposed to be made to the City's utility system based on the submitted plans. Improvement Use Rate Quantity Amount None gi / 69 / • CONDITIONS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR TOWN CENTRE 70 14TH ADDITION 1. These standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council action on July 10, 1990 shall be complied with: Al, B1, Cl, C2, C4, El, Fl, Gl, and Hl 2. The site shall be irrigated. 3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view at each property line. 4. A large enough space shall be made available for all trash and recycling containers. 5. Continuous berming is required along Town Centre Drive. 6. Additional overstory trees shall be provided along the south and east property lines. 7. The brick building material shall be required on all four sides of the building. 8. A Variance of nine parking stalls to the required 91 shall be approved. 9. If the existing 11/2" water service that has been provided to this lot is not utilized, then it shall be removed and the corporation stop turned off at the existing 8" water main in Town Centre Drive. 10. All three of the proposed driveway openings shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide. 11. The centerline of the proposed driveway in Town Centre Drive shall match the centerline of the south driveway to the proposed Applebee's Restaurant on Town Centre 70-12th Addition. 12. The proposed driveway in Town Centre Drive shall be constructed with a concrete valley gutter and concrete apron. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS FOR DRIVE-THRU 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County with the Final Plat with documentation to the City. • STANDARD CONDITIONS O? PLAT APPROVAL A. Financial Obliaations 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 Riabts-of-Way • 1. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way. 2. This development shall dedicate, provide,. or financially guarantee the acquisition costs of additional drainage, ponding, and utility easements as required by the alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond the boundaries of this plat or outside of dedicated public right-of-way as necessary to service this development or accommodate it. 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 pending easements to incorporate the required high water elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume • requirements. • C. plans and Specifications 1. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City codes, engineering standards, guidelines and policies. 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 insure that all temporary dead end public streets shall have a cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards. • (v3 • 1 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL • PAGE TWO 4 . A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be included in the Development Contract and not be released until one year after the date of installation. 5. All internal public and private streets shall be constructed within the required right-of-way in accordance with City Code and engineering standards. D. public Improvements 1 . If any public improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the appropriate project must be approved at a formal public hearing by Council action prior to final plat approval. E. permits 1 . This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame required by the affected agency.. F. parks and Trails Dedication 1 . This development shall fulfill its parks dedication requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by Council action. G. Water ouality Dedication 1 . This development shall be responsible for providing a cash dedication in addition to/in lieu of pending requirements in accordance with the criteria identified • in the City's Water •Quality Management Plan. N. Other • 1. All standard platting and zoning conditions shall be adhered to unless specifically granted a variance by Council action. Advisory Planning Commission City Conseil Approved: August 25, 1987 September 15, 1987 Revised: July 10, 1990 plataprv.con - LTS *2 t-°( Town Centre 70 14th Addition ay,IF- 4-FOREST RII Tu'CY IS-IRONWOOD 1 T ,d-REDWOOD I 7-SPRUCE PT YANI STREET MAP r S,T, tj a;- - ...p E.4 F 0. �,_—! @ el CENT rog 4-4.4 ';NE W ' OLEARY P.•�O W i i 13 .•I > ,Y �1•II 1, 3 ,. 3 I v• g ,RIVE li* i .- Wit' a LANE T I f . W •F I'� Y $TRID_GE LTUM C 1 I&,. ENGLEFIT r ic- .. R t1IN 1 E • • J --,13.4,. AN *its ' t' ��O ' / •{ Iry' _ jam) ZONING MAP R1.E;yI �.��_';I r�(iJ ok 144 0'4 — � cIRC1iE 3 a 1 P .,' {r fi 3 ? , :r s.. 4 it I , .1 ul, l\\\1 r� I 1 ,. II II i'it /l • 7( / r j R t - ,Iti' :l 'I • l� ,f OP iri COMP GUIDE PLAN MAP o- r—i■ ,, r _ ip .f. ,m, . . .1 10 c LB g L: D-111 :wr1 D-11 D-1 .r 0 .4•-•••- `_ Town Centre 70 14th Additior. ; ' ;Si: ''-i , Qo ,II O i' sir • /17 i j .; `) V% ,.fit,— � 41. V e � �• C;') TOWN we'4i '*• ►•+*► .,.'e N . CNTR. 170 '' aE. ,► .9th ADD. .c N..s ,_. ,� • . �;: TOWN r► Air • A, 1.`r'I I. y� i . •► ic tS 7 P_ . tEW'rR -../ ,elP q:::.,:;:;:w:::::::...:::;. t«pe�4 Ay ... .. r O/` ,C, +.. , �• r / ! , Q Q' 1° Q TyK 4.FTH� gi& 4.4 •-(4.• ; / 0.- - : • .:::........................x.x.x.:.:.:.....x... ADD. o r='/ ,y� A P p:T:0 N/ si.' 4' '..:.:.ii::::::::::::::::::::::44:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::;:::::: �— --� - •'. ). ,,. _‘#) cz-- W, / , _ ‘,. . `. .�/ 4,, ,~:TOWN o ,TLet A ENTRE ft• 46' • cs /' .\ ' • • off , /w kb• �s F , I� L Q T 1. •�rE. • no b. -1 ELEVENTH T I 1::: t 1 i \ • A., at' it '1 \ • • ( 0 6 . _ • a ` E• 2 $ g f Stir }i 1 : ; I . f• . I • g d _ E • E F : i Illi itE Fit -s , r • • sql i. t =� �s $ EI ill � t , E • WIfi� 1 a` Z_• �a • . !Ili lf S ! — C Iasi€• . _ i E d soi 38 `c. X €� `oa u [ I u .. f,S, 1' ::: 'Ij} •r{.r.i 1 Sr F• e /! ∎.� prix!t �� L��L-• i a`n: • ___ • ,f t �-T7Tr ems• �g°dam = /.0 E \\ ..... ..oar �_ , � •• `' ,+�/ / \\ • '` a `—.__ i {a D. �t '+a/ /I r.• _\\ ■ .a� : • >'t ' 'li•' .. NN ...i \ (..) \ .1.0-:. . ,„ I s i,t a I. '►s '4/ .p l4 I ,..'• I•I 1 f� � 4 li • S i :ors' . ti.MO1�, _ ,t, \\ � • X07 CC a 9 9 9 X11 1 , I II I" • Z < W z t -57 1 gt `. u D W W t f i • r. i 11 t I.. z 1# - o-_ . s- W .� tj_a I e s . 0H Q H 3 a i t ;i . c_ - t { 1 t ox< - F.wW lij + I i- 4E1 • 3Sc t - s "7--•\s • M�i o I \ I /// N,.._„...........e W . / e ' / , ft ft 1 i 1 -a • k , r•••J 0 1 v' / « e:d • g oft* WV ~ ` , M / �� =W+ � • . a _e : g;; -1,:iir; b 4 1' n�a h, • 41 1St: �1$ / / VI q • 7I ■ !_ Oh 11.011 iio C .. 4Lii• ■-migmommemniammommumomm •-• is / e - /.''' '...........-. ............... -------"■-., V / . • / . (7" '''' ./ . : / . I -..- ..... LL.I CC cr ■-• I i , • — $ ; 5 1—• C. z 2 2 : i H '1,4 - • i : , : 1 li . , .., ini-:- - , - LU Z . a. t t 1 E: i • -. :. . - Z 0 4., ,,... f Z<■1 z. 5 5 ;.i :7'i' en 5 2 2 (Or:1 i; =4•.;: (,,i— a a 5 V a qv .4 i, i 2, -. .1 ' ' ' • - - ... 0 ,...‘ < it .1. ! I ' : .i 2 _ i' 1 t d q ..7. I i 12 I '1'1 i . , tl ■ 4 •': I • t:1 0 1 I :, / \ ,t . !!/ i th i 1 g PI i■4 i • / I Z \ , i if 11':!! I 0 1.i ...!?i I if:i•if:r / / • 1 ' I ; ii ;it':• . '.4. II! :- :144:.; AuiL" g \ . 1 - , , . , I::: , 14-r■ ,, i \ ' i gI 0 E, - , r'.. .. ,%4.tp -,A -7.•", = r 1 , /ii miona-% \ .-- '— ' 4.■ ; '-'- •-rr,--._,.__ '' i '\ 4tat,o.: - ..7,7.-....,-,<,„j•- f. -,,•. :• 5 i / • r-..... ---..4.A" •1 . .-i \ . • i, / /' • ., , . ' (.1,-) .----.....„ 7 , • % .C1';-/ rY I . i , ‘,... ,:i 11.0"2-, ...7 . ‘ i . ■ 1 • . - I i • / / 1 ,', ;1,1Arip - i smss122111: ! /,' // 1/4/A / r V .. , 1 2 '••• .. • ; .: , ' W;f4; '.:. /4 • i' ; : '.: 0 i :: i • a a ,....„.......z..... t .: ,l; . • ....:.... A . i F. .4*.%•`*Z"`' iN, r 4- 2 P ,.:' / :;. / / . -.a 7 - . 2:t•-,,25. .2 .:: - t. i .....:_•.:. -I • i / -. / / i; . . . ., ,...,„ - . ; / , ....._ i , . . , ; _ _.. , . ., . ,..., : 7 .,..,.,,,..„...., !! /I / 1 ' ,: / , ..... - L . / / / -41 ' c"-=-. 4-- ill ' w ' i. • 1/1!1:- / , ion. it; 7 1 it '/ / .' ..ta:-. •-.3 t. 2/ e / i . • : Yin!! !2i 1 i!: F 1 ' / ,/ " / -4,-. 124.* .- I f , • ,,, • a • 4.,*:r __ i 1 , -- :g 2::611g1 0: - :i ii I I' 114,:4 1: ' I -4: : :.. , . • I : 14 ie4i:g. ,.4' 1 1-' .' - ., - v •, QE...S.; '" .4.22:1.1 . : : ' 45.) SF. • sik--,...,.,,,,,,e.. 6:. c., , 1 , ::1 0 , .2. , ... ._ . 2': Ell" i:i - i ' / 4' / . .... " 6 . • 4:2• / ■ _ /.,' WO* - • .. 6:/. - .. , v—•., / 2 ..4,.. , ,0/ t . / / if., r'7; '•••„ , . , a ,- • , 1 , I / 1 .... / / tr -4M-ea* -• • ..- / , . ., ... .,,,,./ / JN • 2 ..., . •-,-,--- / ., . •::' • .; 1-- / Af..° / ..;:,' / , ' • I. •• • .7,-, ! ---"-; / / /c—•• / i .1\21.". .. i $ ' ... 1--- • / / -./ '" • . /!.. '''' : r''''-- ...-: . 1 : • ... ..- 11 ■ /( ' , , ' e • 0 'V .'..21 8 ..? c! — "' 1 , . / ,/ • • 4„, ___ _. / ' / / ,-• - •es . _. 8 _i 1"- / // t ' cv,0 el-•/ ,' ...._ _ _ .. _ • i 7'74 ''',, . 0"- 11. • ( / // .... ,' f • . i ' , / / .....r., , , ‘• 1 0 1! ... I • ! / / , ■ ,y ..„...... .....,..,, . : ! ° . ••/"Th / . 'i ' sr- • . / j\,.., . .. 111/11/• . /7,■- • , • . . —.... —.. . . .. -- . .1 ,\ 1011 A/IVJa0) . - I I ANVVVIOD NO111.30V HI CI 31111430 NMOI •....... ONV1 . 11 , 01i1))100.-1) 1 1 1Vb1303 • • " 01101,1 ..,.. _ tVld Aill.lin s. DI:IOW:JD MeV,#01#13o#1 . .., • .4. ' ' , , ... 1 . ..'. : .. I .• . , / e , ...• A : ' N / \ e, 1 / ... ,t , .•.. • ,.• , . .,.,...„ , , ,,„. .. . ,. .. •/ • /, N I • ... •t,,,i,,, t . ,., • ,,, • ,, 1' `Ncs,;i:. 4 a ,"' •• , ..... . . ..:. ' li ..1 ,' •• i 1 / / / .. , .. ' // / 1 4/ i / / :I i / : , / ...: .: / , . . .. . • ..0 , . fi. : / 4 /t: / t ,•• I •.- 1 Fit :/ ,/ /,' ,, • ve 'S• in, / j, / ,/,.• . / • - • , Z 7 4' ' ; fi , .i I , . 1 h* ... • t i . - I a k•-' j --- ft , • i 1 •. - .. / kl # O •• , o 1 t'■,c' /*/ .0. ' 4.-4: /- \ / I ../ ' • I = . / ! .1 : ' I. i I. # I I / r t..s........,,:r.s....,j ...• J ,....• I , • i i . ., „.., / / / 4 ., ,/..„ ,,.. . ., _, . .,, ,_ . , . , imal • ' • i / 4., / / / • ",,,,,-"' 'Oe c «...•:,' ii . !I • F i • / / AZ .: . - • I . •/ / / '' ii/. / ......., -1—...,__ i J i / ill . = / ,' / c' F,'.• i .6•:•• !/, _, .,, • m — ''' V ' /: io .: ,-- • 1/ z 3(:(0 M1...,)1' \./4/-7,/../..Z,/A:/7 l'/•'1),.;'1/ / A9/9. i •/. ..,..,...•, '•.. -a • i' el.:.' '.t_',-•.,o':,1_1'.-.'.-.2 1:! , 1 .1 1! / ■ 7/ l / 1 I ; ' • / ,il c. 1 : . .. 1 • -...‹..-..--- 0 r• / / i• if ' ... .-..... , i 1 ; ...W=.....■.. / / I ..... ' . ■ / ***. '7111111111111111116......... . •*•••••••...a...."..••••••■•••.. i i i I : i / ( / . i i ; ........■•••••- -. . . . , i /1 / 4 . X r". • •• /... ,/ . . . .... M i•! /f( ., . ••• ............• A • : I. 1 ..... ...., ... . .... i ■ A / - . •: I i! ■., ---_ • • i• --. ••• . - ---- -- ' I'4, L ; ---•... ...I , .. •., _. ,:. I I, 0 ) _,.._____ ...._:,_....,L_ _ __.. . . < LL I.- i Li • , 1 . ;I Z i'- LU m cf) VI I 1E1.1 Ili, I I i T I 1: 1 . et P., 1 2 6. - 00 0 4 Z '; I t-A ! e ' i 1, . Z Z P < 2111, A I I. 1 . z• ...... •_ . .._ i ;i:i iiii: 1— --% w .._ lilt L I ti I ■ I . . . . . ii • .,' • = :pima.. ei n 1 ti. • . ...._. — 41110• 1 i i 1 1.1 r: --1 1 ; LIII t -.. --i fildi All -'1 C4 ,1110 mg —76 pi.. —,-. p:INI ..,_ bi • III .iji IN J • ! !:11111 •-•,• .•.,--•o iM •-_....--__. 7: ii •,..;!.- j 1 n on . U. — w Eta no I • I' it_,r1 !r :•44 P il J r t "" i i - 111 I i•• iii..- .1 •■ III - T,. "..... °I- 1r: 47.1...... A: IN . ta ell . . • *-4 IE iii . 1 mall 7 BPI - iii : 1 PIMI ; -47:,A111 11111 --sj . , ni , ....:1 • Nil — It 1 MI 1 ti. ni = na . mai --...-.1_ fl • 1 WI WI i mu as ..:•-z.,_ e 6 IN .... , _ .. NM i•I z . ..... --...,-,., ;?..-; mai tH, ••■• § -.1",`■ ri.--s •,,le urn .r' ..,...":a ' ,.." • i -.4 -;•-:-. . d s t I5.....! •-- ----- Li 1, ,ama. • . MN : • <.> • SM. FIN --MI ;- N: 1 -t 1-- 4 ,,,, V ' , u,• , we ' U ,„,.... ...... , , • _ . it DEL nih u_ .r AC'ii" C�J T Y ��P�K e Id I F'ARh'. 42 - 1 I- 1-* AZN. 89.5 / t. ,I i I \ /-/ 1S� r TER ,C),..;, A9 1t1�n �(1 , iii i1t4p0I / f llii��7- 1/4•1` �_ TrT 1B I:,�j� _ . . ... �� a�, Sr+12A�. =41a,� L!1-ir \ I a+sir- . .r �� - o= .Fa*l'" .,-6.' ANOA -- EC9 ` 4;?jHf-►I • - -Ir +�4.0 F i..j... li t . 1 4.097A7 • 1 .LA ( E-171 -1...)V r I -5,T'; EP.t, � .3 8.p s► B `a 1--3 v :S j . `24• Flu 4� 2 I omr.r •I. tei:6 C r d! 1' F • - 1 I I ..,8a-17 ltN. �) ��r 9C}O t. • -. ""I,¶' ' r 80.0 dp r N PARYB9/.9_ 8'7fi.0 \� r- r rra�s LS-30 + �.�- =o 67 1 \\4...-------c‘ ' EA IDAU: trocr E -II r=Il h ,lJ r \ f, %V - Y L5�NP - Q,S� O [ALAN rn843.0 J;. \ ' 1TJ! n �� 884.p- 85 -..846.c ..s:.. ,^. r t ,,�" , t . 890.v.S. PF ul.,_, iron,,, r• 1<,.',. ..;,.‘,/s.( 8 PL 5.0 �' / 873.6 1 , � ' to \ C4 ' t, 842.6 11.1,: .z'B7B.0 F'. 5590-'_. -j DP-13 fFTRF.. Iq' nooITlor / I8 6.0 DP-6 g/8�:.5 - DP- 1 k" 557.3 a 856Q a - L--E73'3/ / / 866.5 '-�' l l / DP=II P-3y le 838.3 1876.3 7 , bF 26 ae,, IDP-4 L Bsa.4 '/ 877.2 I \ /� / p �Y e ��(..�78_3 .,•r LJ�'2Qd8.17/i. AO14- 1°n 3'� D-s CO. R 2A r f c b -ib 1 i I JJJ DP-2[j h ! oP- PryINT1-,-, / - ( CT•15'HEr 2NL 8 Z8, 858.3 I 1►a#�• T.^ ,,; ��.�„� \ ' 904. 1 too t ADD. d0 .. 862.8 --.J• ' a - r r:,y .irwN t 0c1 2 _'6-P=T��- 2�n� 4117 . _.-� p/ ,r,o�: 89 0 I _,T. EAR r 4-.--1 fr=7 sTU?uFic g3•; ff o>�.� `... r r;Tt+ , ,r,�-r , 8976 884.2 Ano.D-w C� �GE {� 8. 8ó5. °0" �j 4(F./ { m(\ rr7..t I PP'22 1 ` ■ 1 y".. Dpiq�se t' c! /�- �I_JP 66' e .0 � ` SI 041 w1Dr 873.0 y �71:(7-141",I 9 I 1,Opa-t --- L � 882.0 1 I--8710 'f,.:N' „rl n .i:1cp2I -d.-arozi444.: �I 1 sO `\ 1'l!i. \�Pl 11411"1 � .1. 'i;!'Fil'2,t�71• ti r '"1 i.0..11 SITE FIGURE No. 17 STORM SEWER LAYOUT MAP CITY OF EAGAN ( Page 11/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 TOWN CENTER 70 14TH ADDITION EAGAN TOWER OFFICE BUILDING PARTNERSHIP Chairman Voracek opened the next public hearing of the evening regarding a Preliminary Plat consisting of one lot on approximately 3 previously-zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) acres, Conditional Use Permits for a drive-thru facility, and a pylon sign located along the east side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Section 15. • City Planner Sturm stated that this piece of land is open grassland with some marshy areas. The proposed building will have an exterior of brick and rock. As proposed, all parking and setback requirements are met. He further stated that a Conditional Use Permit is requested with this application for a drive-thru. City staff does have a concern that there is not enough stacking distance. Mr. Sturm mentioned that the applicant has withdrawn his request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pylon sign. Vern Colon, representative of Federal Land Company, stated that their intent is to remove their existing strip mall tenants to this proposed satellite facility. They hope to fill the existing strip mall space with two large tenants. Member Merkley asked for the status of the wetland on site. Mr. Colon replied that they are anticipating they will be exempt from regulation under the Wetland Conservation Act. City Planner Sturm mentioned that this item will go before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission in the near future. Chairman Voracek was concerned with the stacking problem in the drive-thru. He questioned whether the applicant had a proposed tenant for the drive-thru area. Michael Colon, representative of Federal Land Company, stated that there are three interested parties at this point and that none of them are heavy traffic uses. He stated that more and more businesses are utilizing drive-thru windows. Examples include photography stores, video stores, donut shops, etc. He stated that these were the types of businesses interested in the proposed application. Member Miller stated that the application looks good and he was • happy to see development in this area. City Attorney Dougherty requested that a condition be added to require the applicant to provide ingress and egress easements to the City Attorney for review. ( � 3 • Page 12/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 Chairman Voracek requested that condition #`11 be amended to include that the centerline of the proposed driveway on the north of the development match the centerline of the driveway with Dougherty's restaurant. Miller moved, Hoeft seconded, the motion to approve a Preliminary Plat consisting of one lot on approximately 3 previously-zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) acres located along the east side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 1. These standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council action on July 10, 1990 shall be complied with: Al, B1, Cl, C2, C4, El, Fl, G1 and H1 2. The site shall be irrigated. 3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view at each property line. 4. A large enough space shall be made available for all trash and recycling containers. 5. Continuous berming is required along Town Centre Drive. 6. Additional overstory trees shall be provided along the south and east property lines. 7. The brick building material shall be required on all four sides of the building. 8. A Variance of nine parking stalls to the required 91 shall be approved. 9. If the existing 1 1/2" water service that has been provided to this lot is not utilized, then it shall be removed and the corporation stop turned off at the existing 8" water main in Town Centre Drive. 10. All three of the proposed driveway openings shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide. 11. The centerline of the proposed driveway in Town Centre Drive shall match the centerline of the south driveway to the proposed Applebee's Restaurant on Town Centre 70-12th Addition. The centerline of the proposed driveway to the north of the development shall match the centerline to Dougherty's restaurant driveway. Page 13/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 12. The proposed driveway in Town Centre Drive shall be constructed with a concrete valley gutter and concrete apron. 13. Ingress and egress cross easements shall be provided to the City Attorney for review. All present voted in favor. Miller moved, Hoeft seconded, the motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru facility located along the east side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County with the Final Plat with documentation to the City. All present voted in favor, except Merkley who opposed. Approved 6-1. Member Merkley stated that he could not approve this Conditional Use Permit because of the potential traffic flow problems. ( �J MEMORANDUM TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1992 RE: TOWN CTR 70 14TH ADD. - EAGAN TOWER OFFICE BLDG. PTRNSHP. The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed the above referenced proposal at their October 1, 1992 meeting and make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1 . The proposal be subject to a cash parks dedication. 2. The proposal be subject to a cash trails dedication. 3. That portion of the proposed development contained within Lot 1 ,Block 1 should be subject to a cash dedication requirement to meet water quality standards. The cash dedication associated with Outlot A will be charged when it is replatted for development at a future date. In addition, filling or draining of the existing wetland on-site should be exempt from regulation under the Wetlands Conservation Act. KV:cm cc: Marilyn Wucherpfennig, Planning Aide Ed Kirscht, Engineering Technician ((° Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting CITY CODE AMENDMENT/CARRIER PIGEONS F. Amendment of Ordinance, Chapter 10, Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses, City Code Section 10.12, Keeping and Harboring Carrier Pigeons--As a result of nuisance complaints raised in the past concerning certain impacts associated with people keeping homing or racing pigeons in residential areas, staff was directed by the City Council to develop an ordinance regulating this practice. Enclosed on pages) through J is the proposed City Code amendment relative to this item. This amendment has beep prepared by the City Attorney's office and has been reviewed by all departments and is order for Council consideration at this time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny an ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Eagan City Code regarding public protection, crimes and offenses, Section 10.12, Keeping and Harboring Carrier Pigeons. ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER TEN ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY AMENDING SECTION 10. 12 REGARDING KEEPING AND HARBORING CARRIER PIGEONS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain: Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by changing Section 10. 12 , subd. 2, to read as follows: Subd. 2. Keeping. It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any animal, not in transient, except (1) farm animals kept in that portion of the City zoned agricultural and containing not less than five acres, or, (2) animals kept as part of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (3) animals used in a parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (4) animals kept in a laboratory for scientific or experimental purposes, or, (5) animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a licensed veterinarian, or, (6) animals kept in a pet shop licensed under the City Code— . or (7) as otherwise provided in this Section. Section 2 . Eagan City Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10. 12 , subd. 7, to read as follows: Subd. 7. Harboring Carrier Piaeons. A. Definitions. As used in this Subdivision, the following definition shall apply:. 1. "Carrier piaeon" means any homing or racing Pigeon which has the name of the owner stamped upon the wina or tail, or is banded upon the lea with the name or initials of the owner or with an identification or registration number stamped on the band. 2 . "Homing piaeon" and "racing piaeon" mean a piaeon reaistered with a national pigeon racing organization and used as a same and competitive bird. Homina and racina pigeons shall not constitute "fowl" as otherwise used in this Section unless such miaeons are raised for food or for similar commercial purposes. 3 . "Loft" means one or more structures in which carrier pigeons are housed. A, "P'aeon" means a member of the family Columbidae. Carrier Pigeon Permit Reauired. No person shall keep. harbor. maintain, possess. or otherwise control any carrier pigeon without first obtaining a permit therefor from the City. The fees for a permit hereunder shall be established by the City Council. by resolution. from time to time. Each permit hereunder shall be issued for a period of one (1) year from its date of issuance. C. Permit Application. An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the City Clerk upon an application form furnished by the City. The application shall include. but not limited to. the following: The name and addresses of the following persons: (a) The applicant signed thereto: and b The owner or owners of the premises on L1 p which carrier pigeons are sought to be kept for which the application is submitted. 3 The location and legal description of the premises on which carrier pigeons are sought to be kept; 3 The number of carrier Pigeons kept and harbored on the premises: A Verification of identification marks stamped on each carrier pigeon or each carrier pigeon is banded upon the lea with the name or initial of the owner or an identification registration number stamped on the band: L. A sketch plan of the premises on which carrier pigeons are sought to be kept. including the location, dimensions and design of the loft: and k Any other and further information as the City_ deems necessary., A permit hereunder may not be renewed unless an application is filed Pursuant to this subdivision and the Animal Control Officer inspects the premises and lofts thereon. All applications for permit renewal shall be filed within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the present operating permit. D. Grantina or Denvina IRomance of Permit. The City Council may. as provided in this subdivision. arant or refuse to grant a permit hereunder. The City Council may refuse to grant a _permit hereunder for any of the following reasons: The application is incomplete and contains false. fraudulent or deceptive statements. 3 The applicant has not complied with one or. more of the provisions hereunder. 3 . The premises or loft thereon for which the permit is souaht is not in compliance with all provisions of this Subdivision or state or local laws relating to zoning. health, fire. building or safety regulations. 4 . The applicant. or owner of the premises or, carrier pigeons harbored or kept thereon has been convicted of a violation under this Subdivision. E. Conditions of Permit. A permit granted by the City Council hereunder shall be subiect to the following conditions and to such other conditions as the Council may deem necessary and expedient for the protection of health, safety and general welfare of the City:. Inspection. The Premises and loft(s). thereon for which a permit is issued shall at all times be open to inspection by the Animal, Control Officer or any other city official to determine compliance with this Subdivision and all other state or local laws relating to zonina. health, fire. building or safety_ regulations. /aLC) 2 . Transferability of Permit. Any _permit issued hereunder shall be non-transferable except upon Application to and with the consent of the City Council. An application for the transfer shall be made as an application for issuance of the initial Permit and shall conform in all respects with the provisions of Paragraph B herein governing the filing of the original, application. The application for transfer is, to be accompanied by a transfer fee as to be determined by the City Council. 3 . Specifications. The construction and location of the loft shall be in compliance with the building and zoning regulations of the City and the following requirements: No more than two lofts of which each shall not be greater in size than 24 feet x 12 feet x 14 feet shall be on the premises. h No more than 100 pigeons over three months of age, shall be kept or harbored on the premises for which the permit applies. c. Rio loft shall be within 25 feet of any inhabited dwelling. d. Each loft shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and kept in good repair. including the removal and disposal of all pigeon waste weekly or jnore often as required to keep the loft in a sanitary and odor-free condition. g_ Each loft shall have at least two square feet of floor space for each mature carrier pigeon kept therein. d All carrier pigeons shall be fed within the confines of the loft and all feed for the carrier pigeons shall be stored in such containers as to protect against infestation of rodents and other vermin. c All pigeons shall be confined to the loft. except for limited periods necessary for exercise training and /at:4- ( competition; provided no carrier pigeon, shall be released for flying within eight (8) hours of its feeding., h No pigeon shall perch or linger on the buildings or property of others. Revocation of Permit. Any violation of anv provision of this Subdivision. or any conditions of the permit issued hereunder. or any misdemeanor, or petty misdemeanor conviction of the permitholder under this Subdivision. shall constitute grounds for revocation of a permit, issued hereunder. Section 2 . Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation, " and Section 10.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN City Council By: E. J. VanOverbeke By: Thomas A. Egan Its: Clerk Its: Mayor Date Ordinance Adopted: Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting LEGISIATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTALAFFAMVPDATE AMM LEGISLATIVE POLICY PROGRAM FOR 1993 A. AMM Legislative Policy Program/1993--The City Administrator received correspondence from the president of the AMM, suggesting that a letter be sent to all legislative candidates seeking an elected office to the Senate or House of Representatives that would respond to certain position statements the AMM has coordinated on behalf of its membership for the next legislative session. Mayor Egan asked that a letter be sent to each candidate and for a copy of the AMM correspopdence, their issues and a sample letter sent to the seven candidates, refer to pages 0 through /3/ . Also enclosed without page number is a copy of the proposed AMM policy for the 1993 legislative session as recommended by the policy committees and the board of directors. This year's policy adoption meeting will be held Thursday, November 5 at the Decathlon Club which again conflicts with our regularly scheduled council meeting. It would be helpful if the City Council reviews the policy and if there are any issues with the policies as presented, this should be conveyed to Vern Peterson, the executive director, as soon as possible. Also, after reviewing the legislative proposals, the AMM is seeking a prioritization by each of its member cities. The prioritization should take place at the October 20 meeting so it can be submitted to the AMM in advance of their legislative adoption meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide appropriate direction to the City Administrator regarding this item. a3 . <I k.':1/4' 17:4.r.74- If---7r-ir-: ;Iiti‘ 0 r v---OCit_iiinn of 1 c1'? roj )OIiton I I It ! 1st::!vilifier; September 25, 1992 • TO: Mayors, Managers And Legislative Contacts FROM: Karen Anderson, President ihry/L, During this year's round of July breakfasts, we discussed ways of getting more involvement from legislative candidates on some very important city issues. We hope to educate the candidates and thereby achieve more understanding by them of these important issues as well as garner their support once elected. To that end, AMM staff has developed position papers on the Local Government Trust Fund dedicated two cent sales tax, Local Government Aid (LGA) and Homestead Credit Aid (HACA) , Transportation Funding, and Metropolitan Governance. Each position discussion is followed by a couple of generic questions. The AMM would like you to use these papers within your community to educate and elicit responses from your legislative candidates. You are encouraged to use your own questions based on your own circumstances as impacted by the issues or use those provided. But please attempt to get your candidates on record supporting the AMM position, if possible. Finally, if you do get responses, either written or verbal from various candidates, the AMM staff would appreciate having that information for their records, even if it is of a non-supportive nature. Please contact Nicole, Roger or Vern at 490-3301 if you have any questions. To pass on results of your efforts we would appreciate hard copy by mail or Fax at 490-0072 . Thank you. 31'•0 !, , -∎ , . .. .. II,,,t 1, -•I .. , - ,i., r ''. it 1 i 14+1! 1 r()1 CC —city of aagan MUNICIPAL CENTER MAINTENANCE FACILITY THOMAS EGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD 3501 COACHMAN POINT Mayor EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE:(612)681-4600 PHONE:(612)681-4300 PATRICIA AWADA FAX:(612)681-4612 FAX:(612)681-4360 PAMELA McCREA TIM PAWLENTY THEODORE WACHTER October 13, 1992 Council Members THOMAS HEDGES REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG City Admininstrator 393 STATE OFFICE BUILDING EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ST PAUL MN 55155 City Clerk Dear Representative Seaberg: As a member of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the City of Eagan is interested in the positions of State candidates on several issues which affect local governments. While the City itself is not engaged in political activity for or against individual candidates, it is important for the AMM and us to know the positions of the people who may be representing our mutual constituents. This type of interaction also permits us to answer any questions you may have about local government activities and our relationship with the State and its agencies. Enclosed you will find four position statements prepared by the AMM, each of which is followed by two questions concerning your view in their regard. We would appreciate your taking some time to review these positions and respond to the questions in writing. This will permit the AMM and the City to more effectively interact with you in these key areas of concern. Again, let me assure you that the City maintains a distance from elective politics for the purpose of effectively working with whichever candidate is elected. Therefore, it is our hope that you will engage in this discussion with us and, if you are elected, that this will be the first in a series of effective and productive exchanges between you and the City in the interests of our constituents. If you have any questions concerning this request, please let me know. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, cc..ebv. s4 Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Enclosures TLH/vmd THE LONE OAK TREE . . .THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmativeon Employer tz) A. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRUST FUND For the past 3 or 4 years, Local Government Aid (LGA) has been under fire by either the Legislature or the Governor. Cities up to this year have lost a significant amount of LGA plus some Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) in those cities not receiving LGA. Current LGA is $279 million, down from around $400 million 1989. The total of all aids for cities in 1992 including LGA, equalization aid, disparity reduction aid and HACA is $486. 2 million or about 45% of the 1992 city revenue base (ie, general operating budget plus bonded debt) . Minnesota is one of the few states that does not allow cities the option of a second source of tax revenue to augment property tax for local services. Minnesota has chosen to restrict cities to about 16% of the overall property tax revenue plus state aid derived from sales tax. Analysis of Federal census bureau and Minnesota state auditor data shows cities in Minnesota as a group spend at about the national average per capita rate. This suggests that Minnesota cities as part of the snow belt are fairly frugal and have at hand, counting levy plus aid, about the right amount of total revenue resources. The Governor, in the April 29, 1992, Fargo Forum was quoted as saying that Minnesota cities should not receive state aid and that he will continue his fight to eliminate those aids. However, he did not indicate a replacement source but implied that spending should be reduced. LGA equals 30% of all city spending. Finally, it appears that the administration and many legislators either do not understand the importance of services provided by cities or do not care. It is hard to compare education or needy single parent families to pot holes but cities are much more than pot holes . Cities provide first line public safety; police , fire, ambulance, and emergency medical assistance. Cities repair streets and plow snow. Cities provide water and sewer. Cities provide parks, recreation, and open space. Although not essential , these services are very important in a state that supports one of the largest per capita state parks system in the nation. Without good city services, the other governmental agencies might have difficulty operating. The Local Government Trust Fund (LGTF) initiated in 1991 and supported in 1992 provided a strong framework to protect the 2 cents sales tax, 1.5 levied by the state and .5 levied by local government, for city/county property tax relief. Although revenue dedication is disliked by most legislators, the fact that part of the LGTF was locally initiated and that raiding the trust fund would be looked at as breaking a promise for property tax relief, helped enormously to keep LGA from being cut in 1992 and 1993 . Therefore: THE AMM STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CONTINUATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT -1- TRUST FUND AS A DEDICATED CITY/COUNTY PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM FUNDED BY TWO CENTS OF THE SALES TAX. IF DEDICATION CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED STATUTORILY THEN THE AMM WOULD SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. QUESTION 1: DO YOU SUPPORT THE DEDICATION OF 1.5 PLUS .5 CENTS SALES TAX TO THE LGTF FOR CITY/COUNTY PROPERTY TAX RELIEF? QUESTION 2: WOULD YOU SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GUARANTEE THIS RELIEF FOR THE PEOPLE? B. LGA/HACA - SALES TAX Included within the LGTF are the two major city property tax relief programs of HACA and LGA. As a replacement for Homestead Credit the HACA money was off limits this last session politically since no one, governor nor legislators, wanted to be branded as `doing away' with Homestead Credit. However, except for the LGTF connection, LGA has no such protection. HACA basically provides property tax relief across the board to local units to compensate for lower class rates on primarily homestead property. LGA on the other hand has traditionally been used to correct inequities in tax rates , overburden needs , lack of property wealth, etc . Although the overall distribution of HACA and LGA can be argued as to appropriatness and/or equality the need for this or an equal amount of revenue to augment the property tax is essential. THE AMM STRONGLY SUPPORTS A CONTINUED PROGRAM WITH GROWTH OF HACA AND LGA TO AUGMENT THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR CITY SERVICES AND TO HELP PROVIDE A BASIC LEVEL FOR BASIC SERVICES WHERE NEEDED. USE OF SALES TAX REVENUE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INITIATION OF SALES TAX AND LGA PROGRAMS IN THE LATE 1960`S. QUESTION 3: DO YOU SUPPORT CONTINUATION OF THE HACA AND LGA PROGRAMS WITH REASONABLE GROWTH FOR CITIES? QUESTION 4: DO YOU SUPPORT USE OF SALES TAX DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CITIES TO HELP AUGMENT THE PROPERTY TAX? -2- �- I C. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) released a five year (1992-1996) highways building program that is estimated to cost $400. 0 million annually. In addition to the highway program, MNDOT, through the state general fund provides $40 . 0 million annually in transit subsidies. Both highway and transit funding levels are well below recommended levels . The Transportation Study Board suggested a $800. 0 million annual highway construction program while annual needs for the transit subsidy exceed $50.0 million. The existing transit subsidy program does not address total transit needs. The current program is for operating subsidies and there are little or no funds for transit development, construction or expansion. The use of the highway user fund proceeds is governed by the state constitution which limits expenditures to highways . Transit cannot be assisted with highway user fund proceeds. The primary state funding source for transit has been the general fund and the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) . In recent years the MVET, however, has been used primarily for the state general fund. To continue the highway program and meet the growing transit needs, additional funding is required. In 1992, the Senate passed legislation that included a $.05 gasoline tax ($22 . 0 million/. 01 cent) and a sales tax on auto repair services. The gas tax would raise $110. 0 million annually and will be used for highways while the services tax will generate $60 . 0 million and be used for transit. The Governor also proposed a highway-transit package. His package would raise $66. 0 million for highways ( .03 gas tax) and $54 . 0 million for transit. The transit funds would be obtained from a 2% sales tax on gasoline. The House, however, did not pass a transportation funding program. Transportation funding will be a major 1993 legislative issue. MNDOT is in the process of preparing a 1993 funding recommendation that not only continues the construction program but also supports transit and provides the local match for the federal highway demonstration project. Interest groups such as the Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) are also developing proposals. The MTA is advocating the continued use of MVET for transportation while a similar position is supported by the Association of Minnesota Counties. For the 1993 Session, several funding options will be reviewed. Among them are: 1. broadening the highway user fund to permit transit funding and or to alter current funding distributions. The highway user fund currently distributes 62% of available funds to the state highway system, 29% to county highways and 9% to city highways. -3- All cities having a population of 5, 000 or more receive funds for their municipal state aid (MSA) streets . Approximately 70% of the city MSA funds are distributed to metropolitan cities whereas less than 20% of the county CSA funds go to metro counties. An option would be to reduce the distribution to one or more of the recipients and dedicate the available portion to transit. Other possible options are to broaden the eligible use of the user fund to transit but only fund transit from a portion of the proceeds of any new tax adopted in 1993 and subsequent years. 2. constitutionally dedicate the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) for highways and transit. 3. implement new revenue resources not governed by the highway user fund for transit. Such taxes include but are not limited to a sales tax on gasoline or a tax on motor vehicle repairs (service tax) . THE AMM SUPPORTS A COMBINED STRATEGY OF GAS TAX INCREASES TO KEEP PACE WITH HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION NEEDS AND A DEDICATED MVET OR OTHER TAX SOURCE FOR TRANSIT FUNDING EXPANSION. IF THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT ASSURE STATUTORY DEDICATION OF SOME FUNDING MECHANISM, THEN A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. IN ADDITION THE AMM WOULD SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL PAYROLL, SALES, OR TRANSPORTATION RELATED TAX IN THE METRO AREA FOR UNIQUE AND ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. QUESTION 5: DO YOU SUPPORT A STATEWIDE INCREASED TAX OR USE OF MVET FOR TRANSIT? QUESTION 6: WOULD YOU SUPPORT PERMANENT DEDICATION, EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL DEDICATION TO ENSURE ITS AVAILABILITY? -4- D. METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE The Metropolitan Council is at a crossroads after 25 years of providing planning and development guidance to the seven-county region. Some critics say the Council is too intrusive in the affairs of local units of government, others that it is too aloof in its handling of regional affairs. The diversity and political fragmentation in the metropolitan area result in the need for a regional service delivery system to provide spe ci fic services or portions of services in the most efficient and effective way possible to meet the needs of the residents. This diversity also means planning on a metropolitan basis must be done in cooperation with local government. The primary purpose of a metropolitan system of governance -- such as the Metropolitan Council and its Agencies -- should be to facilitate the coordinated planning and development of the , metropolitan area. Such a system also should provide region wide services when they are beyond the capabilities of local units of ' government to provide either singly or jointly, as long as the service isn't duplicated by a local unit of government. Finally, metropolitan governance should provide region wide planning as necessary, with the cooperation of affected local government units and to fulfill other specific responsibilities as delegated by federal or state governments. The Metropolitan Council was formed to address specific problems, but it had a broader focus . Its mission was to serve the metropolitan area. Over time it became involved in a variety of issues that helped the Twin Cities metro area grow and expand in an orderly fashion. Over the years, however, the Council has become perceived as being more politicized . It has become an enforcer of rules and regulations , backing off from its role of envisioning opportunities or challenges that face the region, and responding to those opportunities or challenges. As the Twin Cities area moves toward the 21st Century, it will face situations where a number of choices is possible . The Metropolitan Council must be able to take a leadership role in shepherding the area through those choices. It also must be able to promote the area as one entity, not separate communities, on matters of truly regional concern. THE AMM IS CONSIDERING THESE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE ISSUES AND BELIEVES THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MAY NEED ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE SOME OF THESE TASKS. ONE WAY TO GIVE THE COUNCIL THE NEEDED AUTHORITY AND CREDIBILITY WOULD BE TO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. QUESTION 7: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF DIRECT -5- lc— ) (1) ELECTION (ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE) FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS? QUESTION 8: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT, WHAT ALTERNATIVE WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO MAKE THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE REGION AND MORE RESPONSIBLE TO ITS AUDIENCE, THAT IS, RESIDENTS OF THE REGION AND LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT? • -6- \'3 Agenda Information Memo October 20, 1992 City Council Meeting DAKOTA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR 1993 B. Dakota County Legislative Program/1993--City Administrator Hedges is presently the chair person of the Dakota County City Manager/Administrator group that meets on a monthly basis to essentially network and consider ways in which cities can share, collaborate, work on legislative issues and enhance public service by working together. This group along with the Dakota County superintendent of schools group is now attempting to meet on a once or twice a year basis to further share ideas that may lead to some joint powers and other collaborative measures. Each year this group prepares a legislative agenda, holds a breakfast at which time local elected officials present the legislative platform to the Dakota County legislative delegation. There is interest by the ma ager/administrator group to change that process and enclosed on pages l/)through/j in a memo prepared by Administrator Hedges, a new legislative program has been outlined. Now that all managers/administrators have had an opportunity PP Y to review the memo, they have been asked to take the concept to their local officials. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide appropriate direction to the City Administrator regarding this item. _city of eagan ** MEMO TO: DAKOTA COUNTY CITY MANAGERS/ADMINISTRATORS FROM: TOM HEDGES, EAGAN CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1992 SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM A special committee comprised of Steve Jilk, Tom Melena, Doug Reeder and I met on Friday, October 2, 1992 to consider a revised format for developing a legislative agenda for 1993. Historically, the City Managers/Administrators have met in the fall and prepared a legislative agenda that is then presented by local elected officials to the Dakota County Legislative Delegation at a breakfast in January or February prior to the session. The presentation has been well documented and generally, each legislative position is presented by a local elected official. Unfortunately, these breakfast meetings have not always received a strong attendance by local and state elected officials and the follow-up of monitoring legislation during the session has been all but absent in recent years. At the direction of the Dakota County Managers/Administrators group, our committee evaluated the process and results of recent years and is suggesting a new format somewhat modeled after the League of Minnesota Cities legislative resource committee. The committee's recommendation is to establish a group that would consist of local and state elected officials, no later than mid-November, to work on a legislative platform for 1993. The group would attempt to limit the number of issues to approximately three, but certainly the by-play regarding other issues is a significant part of the process. As an example, a couple of issues that were suggested were D.A.R.E. funding and the transportation utility bill. It is the feeling of the committee that involving all legislators, both Senate and House, from Dakota County or selecting a few from the Dakota County Legislative Delegation on this committee will provide both accountability and ownership as the legislative platform is developed for 1993. Again, the committee would consist of the entire Legislative Delegation or a select few, local elected officials and some City Managers/Administrators. The committee will meet in November, December and January to adopt a legislative platform. C � 3 On behalf of our committee, we would like each of you to review our recommendation with your Mayor and City Council. If you like the format and one of your elected officials would like to serve on the committee, please respond with a name and any suggested topics you would like considered. Please remember that it is our recommendation that this committee would screen the topics to approximately three that were of interest to all Dakota County communities. I would appreciate a response back by our next Dakota County Managers/Administrators mer ng held : Thursday, October 29 at 10:00 a.m. (74c City Administrator I TLH/vmd ( -5 V Page 11/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 TOWN CENTER 70 14TH ADDITION EAGAN TOWER 077ICE BUILDING PARTNERSHIP Chairman Voracek opened the next public hearing of the evening regarding a Preliminary Plat consisting of one lot on approximately 3 previously-zoned CSC (Community Shopping Center) acres, Conditional Use Permits for a drive-thru facility, and a pylon sign located along the east side of Town Centre Drive in the NW 1/4 of Section 15. City Planner Sturm stated that this piece of land is open • grassland with some marshy areas. The proposed building will have an exterior of brick and rock. As proposed, all parking and setback requirements are met. He further stated that a Conditional Use Permit is requested with this application for a drive-thru. City staff does have a concern that there is not enough stacking distance. Mr. Sturm mentioned that the applicant has withdrawn his request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a pylon sign. Vern Colon, representative of Federal Land Company, stated that their intent is to remove their existing strip mall tenants to this proposed satellite facility. They hope to fill the existing strip mall space with two large tenants. Member Merkley asked for the status of the wetland on site. Mr. Colon replied that they are anticipating they will be exempt from regulation under the Wetland Conservation Act. City Planner Sturm mentioned that this item will go before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission in the near future. Chairman Voracek was concerned with the stacking problem in the drive-thru. He questioned whether the applicant had a proposed tenant for the drive-thru area. Michael Colon, representative of Federal Land Company, stated that there are three interested parties at this point and that none of them are heavy traffic uses. He stated that more and more businesses are utilizing drive-thru windows. Examples include photography stores, video stores, donut shops, etc. He stated that these were the types of businesses interested in the proposed application. Member Miller stated that the application looks good and he was happy to see development in this area. City Attorney Dougherty requested that a condition be added to require the applicant to provide ingress and egress easements to the City Attorney for review. l3 MINUTES OF'A IA Ilil£E`#ti OF THE EAGAN'CITY COUNCB;::: Mond y4 September 284:4992 A special meeting of the Eagan G` itif was held on Monday, September 28, 1992,at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Egan and Counciimembers Wachter,Awada,McCrea and Pawlenty. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, Finance Director VanOverbeke, Public Works Director Colbert,Community Development Director Runkle,Parks and Recreation Director Vraa,Police Chief Geagan,Fire Chief Southom,Assistant to the CityAcministrator Duffy and Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. ••••••••.•::•: Mayor Egan opened the meeting an I ity Admaitetrator Hedges explained that the meeting was being held at 7:00 a.m., in order to comply with:cettain deadlines of the Dakota County Auditors Office relative to the first business item. He stated that.all::Interested: des had been informed of the time of the meeting and that the press and members:a0iii.:Oililliii*er.O.itireaent. STATUTORY PLAN B FORM OF GOVERNMENT City Administrator Hedges introduced the item and reviewed the Council discussion and process relative to this Item over a period of several years. In particular, he stated that the issue had been discussed at the Council's staff retreat and:at:city Council meetings and workshops since the spring of 1992. He indicated that action was taken on the: tf the September 17, 1992 City Council meeting, to permit • the City to give the statutory 45 day notice to'the'Ctehty.:A•uditor's Office for inclusion on the November ballot. The Council then discussed issues.pertlnenttiithe authority of the Council and the authority of a manager under Statutory Plan B. Councilmember McCrea discussed the continuing necessity for requests for proposal for the City Attorney:nd•consulting services even though the manager would be free to hire that position. Councilmember Pawlenty stated that he felt greater accountability exists with the City Manager form of government because both the authority and the responsibility for decisions are vested in the position. He stated that for a city of Eagan's size, it is increasingly impractical for elected officials to be involved in the day to day management of the organization. He stated that it also helps to keep politics out of actions associated with day to day decialops,.:.He:.stated.that.the Plan B form of government raised the accountability for the manager, particulatiy:iii.:( onn¢:.i tter.. Councilmember Awada asked whell addition s! benefits could be achieved by forming a city charter as opposed to one of the statutory forms:r t government. It was indicated that most powers and authorities typically associated with councils and imagers Mier the Plan B form of government were present in the statute. It is only where unique and speciat::cdtcumstances require unique and special authorities that charter cities exist. A question was raised as to whether the public could be adequately informed concerning the referendum question in the time remaining before the general election. It was also asked what other cities had changed from the administrator to manager for** government. That information was not available at the time of the meeting. Councilmember McCrea:expressed her position that the public could be adequately informed regarding the referendum: stiprr.,oncerning Statutory Plan B because it largely ratifies the administrator's authorities as t y ate: e[1.{i.i •City of Eagan at this time She stated that the only real difference between the administrator's position as•it currently exists and a city manager would be the power to hire and fire. • Councilmember Wachter stated that it would be necessary to explain the small changes associated with Statutory Plan B. He suggested that the City develop an information program in this regard L SCC MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 PAGE 2 which would include a special newsletter, article,, to commission members and council candidates, meetings with City employetiiii6ji:ififitiiiiiittion at the reception desk. Legislative candidate Unda Rother expressed concern about the short time frame available to inform the public prior to the election. She stated that there are a significant number of changes being absorbed by the voters in this year's genergl..pIpction including new legislative districts, new county commission districts and a large number***::040fieiti:.000iAtes. She stated that the addition of a technical question on a long ballot could 6a6i6 b6iikijiiiiiiiiibikfthe voters. She suggested that It was necessary to have more discussion concerning the PfnB form:Oliovernment before placing it on a ballot and suggested that the City wait until the next general:plection.k)::two years and continue with the current administrator position with most of the manager autholities Council candidate Ray thafiiihie frame to inform the public regarding this issue was too short. He stated that public debate should occur prior to placing the issue on the ballot. Councilmember Pawlenty stated that this question is largely a ratification of the way the City does business at the present time and that it should not be a contentious Issue. He stated, however,that he did not want a simple, good government change to become a political football in the election campaigns. For that reason, he stated that the Council may neeci:;o.reconsider its original action and withdraw the item from the November election to avoid the issue beiritit0Ipolzed. He stated that the issue is a positive step for the community and that it should be removed from any with election politics. • Councilmember McCrea agreed and stets:01**s should not be a political issue and that It is largely a ratification of the existing form of:ijoyprigOiiii*:iiii is currently practiced. She stated that because concerns had been raised and there.:*::ktiiifehtial for misunderstanding and misinformation,the question should be removed from the balIck::::Mi0i:Egan agreed that the item should be removed from the ballot and stated that it appeared to be the consensus of the Council to direct the City Administrator to inform the County Auditor's Office of this decision. He stated that the action to remove the Plan B form of government question from the ballot should be ratified at the October 8, 1992 regular City Council meeting. • Councilmember McCrea sgtect.ttig.Sh9.444”...c.11PPointed in the direction this matter had taken since it would clearly benefit the co0.1.600064::**40100;the Council's work She stated that she strongly supports Tom Hedges as the current City Astràtor and feels that he has demonstrated that the position of City Manager would be an asset to thckmmunItj. She indicated that the parties opposed to placing the item on the ballot had gotten their waV.:)*cause:fli.0 Council was unwilling to make the Plan B question a referendum on current staff and exposOktaff to u*unded criticism in the election arena. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM • City Administrator Hedges provided background to the Council on the process leading up to the CIP's approval in 1991. He stated that the CIP would be reviewed on an annual basis and updated as a part of the ordinary budget process. Councilmember Awada sugggstr4 •:44t:the:AurOs earmarked for the ice arena and pool project be moved from 1993 to 1996 or 19147:****4600 the referendum defeat Councilmember McCrea stated that it may be appropriate to maintain ihe alloóätion In 1993, in the event that alternative means of raising the difference could be identified by ice arei*and pool advocates. • John Freeman appeared and spoke in favor of pursuing ice arena alternatives. He stated that the City of Eagan is among the few cities of its size that does not have an ice arena. He expressed SCC MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 PAGE 3 concern that the City would consider building 'ar ; i>stii of the Maintenance Facility, a cold storage building and other facilities expenditures before constructing an ice arena. He stated that it was his belief that kids are not important to the City and that vehicles,vehicle storage,water treatment and other facilities seemed more important to the City Council than the City's children. City Councilmembers stated that the City Council had supported a bond referer dum•ooncerning an.ice arena and recreational facility on behalf of the residents and children of the commurfity !l�r:ctri. •:oc; i§iis�fiad that it had been defeated by the voters both times. Councilmember Awada stated.ttiat k 1s'l it i f tQ:pij ce improvements of the scale of the ice arena and swimming pool before the voters for their approval aridat the City needs to respect the position of the community as expressed in the referendum. stated that he did:.:**i e1 tha€ilea tefendum defeat was in opposition to an ice arena but rather to an increase in taxes. Helptdposed theftioricfs be sold to construct an ice arena secured by facility revenues,contributions and a$100 impact fee charged against future building permits. He stated that this would not raise taxes on existing residents and instead would tax people who did not live in the City yet. The Council reiterated that it has been extremely supportive of the ice arena/swimming pool concept and supportive in the long run. Freeman stated that it was necessary to keep the project moving along at the present time. Councilmember McCrea then'siiggi :that the ice arena/pool be moved to a 1994 time frame, and that the Municipal Center site preparation:116:included in 1993 with the law enforcement/ municipal center expansion. The Council then considered:other'i i ects of the CIP. Councilmembers Wachter and McCrea asked questions concerning equiprrient.in the 1993 portion of the CIP. Councilmember McCrea asked if it was possible to subcontract or lease certain types of equipment and asked what the costs and benefits to the City were for subcontracting. Councilmember Awada asked what types of things could be privatized in terms of service delivery and what impact they would cause on the City services. She stated a concern regarding the regular upgrade of City equipment and asked whether all purchases, especially in the area of MIS, were justified on the basis.9iU.0eir:P9.,%:ar0:be1.1efit. City Administrator Hedges stated that:the department heads had been asked to meet the challenge of analyzing capital spending to insure tti$:fowest pible cost for the equipment and services requested. Councilmember McCrea stated that it iiv necessity to provide support with respect to the analysis of the costs and benefits of operations and•:i,apitai it..ii,'.. City Administrator Hedges stated that departments would provide cost-benefit information relative totiese items at a future Council workshop. Questions were raised with respect to the municipal office space alternatives. Councilmember McCrea asked whether the City had considered the purchase of vacant buildings as an alternative to leasing or construction. Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein stated that purchase options were considered for all facilities large enough to meet:(fie City's needs. Councilmember McCrea asked for additional information in that regard. Councilmembe'r:Awada requested a copy of the BRW space needs study since that was the basis for..i.;atysia sQr.apace options. City Administrator Hedges stated that the fundamental issue in the analysis of space needs alternatives was the need for City services to be centralized in Th :same location to provide efficiency among departments and one stop shopping for residents and constittaents. SCC MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 ••••••••• PAGE 4 ::•:.:•:•: CITY ADMINISTRAioitiERMRMANCE REVIEW Councilmember McCrea speaking on behalf of the Personnel Committee of the City Council stated that she had developed a performance review process for the City Administrator. She explained that a comprehensive job analysis had been perJorRIA90.-10.#1,, peqs of the City Administrator's performance would be analyzed by the Council and kei::00:****400:p*till responses would be kept confidential. She stated that it was also important to compare the City responsibilities with those of other administrators and managers in the metropolitan aniito be coitiiin that the compensation for the position was appropriate. She stated that she would be atter:Ong a depeqment head meeting in the near future to distribute and discuss this information. '.*• ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 9:45 a.m. • TLH • • Date City Clerk .•.•.•.• ...•.•.• .-:•:•: •:•:•:.: •:•:•:•:. • HOUSING&*rtitVELOPMENT:40:trHORITY -IN AND FOR TIIE CITY Or:EAGAN,MINNFALOTA ••:::::::::•••• • A meeting of the Eagan Housing and Redevelopment Authority was convened in the Eagan City Council Chambers at approximately 7:20 p.m. on Ostplzer...k.1992. Those present were Chairman Egan, Authority members Awada, McCrea and Pawlenty, and Elve Thr4or Hedges ''••' ••:•:•:•: Chairman Egan introduced the business before:iiii IIRA iiiiresolution providing for the subordination of a mortgage securing interest rate reduction loan for Oie.:Cinnamap:Ridge project. Executive Director Hedges explained that because the original action involving Alie.:0Pnamoiiiiidge housing project was as an HRA,any subsequent changes to the bond issue must#50:1*;:iiiidii4:-.Kii:fIRA. Jim Dinerstein from Dain Bosworth, and representing the applicant,was present to answer aniiiiiiifions. A copy of the resolution is attached. McCrea moved,Awada seconded, a motion to approve a resolution relating to the refinancing by the City of Eagan of the Cinnamon Ridge Housing Project, including the subordination of the HRA's mortgage securing its interest rate reduction loan to other financing documents. Aye: 3 Nay: 1 (Pawlenty) KF .•.........•.•...•••••••••• ::•EAGAN:HOUSING&REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY • •••• L. Hedges Executive Director ••••• :•••••••••• .••••••• :•:•:::: • • THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO: WHEREAS: A. The City Council of the City of Eagan pursuant to a notice published in advance as required by state and federal law, conducted a public hearing held on October 8, 1992 on the proposal to refinance its $11,350,000 Multifamily Housing Redevelopment Bonds (Cinnamon Ridge Project) Series 1985 (the "Prior Bonds") and by a resolution adopted on October 8, 1992 approved the issuance by the City of its: (a) Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Cinnamon Ridge Project) , Series 1992 in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,000,000 (the "Bonds") , and (b) Multifamily Housing Revenue Second Mortgage Refunding Note of 1992 (Cinnamon Ridge Project) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $3, 245, 000 (the "Note") , and B. In connection with the issuance of the Series 1985 Bonds, The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eagan, Minnesota (the "Authority") passed a Resolution dated June 18, 1985, establishing a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78, and approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Cinnamon Ridge Housing Project and undertook an interest reduction program pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462 .445, Subdivisions 10 through 13 to reduce the effective rate of interest on a Mortgage Loan made to the Developer; and C. The Developer entered into an Interest Rate Reduction Loan Agreement for the purpose of providing for the terms and conditions of the interest rate reduction tax increment assistance to be provided to the Cinnamon Ridge Housing Project (the "Development") in connection with the financing of the construction of the Development. Two mortgages were executed by Cinnamon Ridge Limited Partnership (the "Developer") in connection with the financing of the Development. The first mortgage (the "First Mortgage") was entered into by the Developer in favor of the Trustee for the Prior Bonds and Mellon Bank, N.A. (the issuer of the letter of credit which secured the Prior Bonds) , jointly, and the second mortgage (the "Second Mortgage") was entered into by the Developer in favor of the Authority securing the payment by the Developer of its obligations pursuant to the Interest Rate Reduction Loan Agreement; and D. The Developer now proposes to refinance the Development through the issuance of the Bonds and the Note, as well as through certain additional debt incurred by the Developer to Mellon Bank, N.A. and in connection therewith has requested the Authority to subordinate its interests under the Second Mortgage to the liens and security interests securing the Bonds, the Note and Mellon Bank; and E. The Second Mortgage, and the obligation of the Developer to pay the First Note and the Second Note (as defined in the Interest Rate Reduction Loan Agreement) shall be subordinate to: i) The Mortgage, Fixture Financing Statement and Security Agreement entered into by the Developer in favor of First Trust National Association, as trustee for the Bonds, and Mellon Bank, N.A. (as issuer of the letter of credit securing the Bonds) , jointly, relating to the Bonds and secured by the Bonds; ii) The Mortgage and Security Agreement entered into by the Developer in favor of Mellon Bank, N.A. to secure the Note; and iii) The Mortgage and Security Agreement entered into by the Developer in favor of Mellon Bank, N.A. to secure a promissory note to be dated on or about October 29, 1992 and to be made by the Developer to Mellon Bank, N.A. in the approximate principal amount of $1, 000, 000 (the "Taxable Note") . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eagan, Minnesota: 1. The Authority hereby agrees to subordinate the liens and security interests in its favor under the Second Mortgage to the liens and security interests in favor of First Trust National Association, as trustee for the Bonds, and Mellon Bank, N.A. , as the holder of the Note and the Taxable Note and as issuer of the letter of credit securing the Bonds. The subordination approved hereby shall extend to all liens, encumbrances and security interests in favor of the Authority against or related to the Development, whether encumbrances on real property and improvements, or security interests in equipment, fixtures, leases and rents (or proceeds thereof) or intangibles. The subordination approved hereby shall extend only to the liens, encumbrances and security interests securing the debt evidenced by the Bonds, the Note and the Taxable Note, and to no other debt of the Developer whatsoever. 2 . The Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute and deliver on behalf of the Authority such agreements or other instruments as may be necessary or desirable for the purpose of effectuating the intent of the resolution, upon approval of the form of such agreements or instruments by legal counsel to the Authority. The Chairman, the Executive Director, or other authorized officer of the Authority are hereby further authorized and directed to provide to the Developer, First Trust National Association, Mellon Bank, 2 N.A. and the title insurance company providing insurance with respect to the mortgages in favor of them a certified copy of this resolution and such other evidence as may be reasonably requested of the action taken hereby and the authority of the officers and Executive Director of the Authority to carry out this resolution. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eagan, Minnesota on October 8, 1992. • c:\docs\rhm\eagan\hra.res 3 AIM I t MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETWP OF THE E/i4AN,CITY COUNCIL:: lagan,Minnesota . 11144w,October 84:02. A regular meeting of the Eagan City COiiiiii: 4:61;:i on Thursday, October 8, 1992, at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Egan and Councilmembers Awada,McCrea,and Pawlenty. Absent was Councilmember Wachter. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, Community Development Director Dale Runkle, Director of Public Works Tom Colbert, and Assistant City Attorney Annette Margarit. - -. • ::::::•:• City Administrator Hedges noted that because:'Ot.the expaiii:d public testimony regarding Department Head Business, Public Works Item 1, Petition for Chen at Pkyi:Sign - Fairway Hills Drive, the issue was continued until after Public Hearings. Also, Gon,K;A:4endafriii P, Final Plat, Poppler Homestead, was continued to the October 20, 1992,regular C*ioodi Item S,Rescind Action Placing Statutory Plan B Form of Government on November Ralf&was addtit::.*** Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a motion to approve the agenda for the October 8,1992,regular City Council meeting as amended. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 41$01141 Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a niiiiiiiii:***ore.the minutes of the September 17,1992,regular • • City Council meeting as presented. Aye: 4 Nar::.:0 FPX:MEWAttgligligtOftifit POLICE DEPARTMENT/IlUIVTING PERMIT McCrea moved, Pawlenty seconded,a motion to approve a special hunting permit for Kevin McGrath for the bow hunting of deer on property located at 3335 Sibley Memorial Highway as presented. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 Councilmember Awada asked that Item A,Hi:Ciag of Sea Dog Obedience Instructor,be looked at next year as a service that should be provided by the ii.ikiate sectOi: A. Personnel Items Item 1. Seasonal Dog Obedience Instructor--It was recommended that Jann Matuseski be hired as a seasonal Dog Obedience Instructor. •:•:•:•:: B. Xicense. Cigarette/Walgreens.Cliff& Rahn Road It was recommended that a cigarett010:04:04::*y*Fe•pns Drug Store at Cliff and Rahn Roads be approved. ,....•.• • C. Election Judges for the November 3. 1992. GeneralVection It was recommended that the list of election judges for the November 3, 1992, General Election be approved as presented (Exhibit A). • Page 2/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES': October 8, 1992 D. Removal of Special Assessment/Do aEd:, 4 cj Hearn It was recommended that a resolution removing a special assessment from parcel#10-58501-060-00 for Donald and Mary O'Hearn be approved as presented. E. Adoption of Revised Gun Club Lai%Wags.hed?4 nagempnt Organization Joint Powers Agreement It was recommended that the revised Gun ¢h Lake Watershed Management Organization Joint Powers Agreement be approved as presented. • • • F. Approval.1993 MAC Part 150 mod;3Jsee CoWpatibjl :=Eagan Participants It was recommended that the Eagan participants for:tlie 1993 MAC Part 150 Land Use Compatibility program be approved as presented. G. Contract 92-07.Acknowledge Completion/Authorize Final Payment (1992 Seal Coating), It was recommended that the secoad.:and final payment for Contract 92-07 (1992 Sealcoating) be approved for Allied Blacktop Company in the anroittit.Qf.$10,800.34 and the improvement accepted for perpetual • maintenance subject to appropriate warranty H. Project 619.Acknowledge Completion::(Saddl�)ip n clition- Streetlights). It was recommended that the comple0n':.of'4'roject 619 (Saddlehorn Addition - Streetlights) be acknowledged. I. Maintenance Improvement. Acknowledge Completion/Authorize Final Payment (Yankee Doodle Reservoir - Emergency Repair It was recommended that the completipp:54:YaOtee.Dcitodie Reservoir emergency repair contract be acknowledged and the second and final payment::aat(bgi zCd tQ :Ryan Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $6,08735. J. Contract 92-06.Acknowledge CompletionJAuthorize Viaal Payment (Johnny Cake Ridge Road & Cedar Industrial Park - Street Rehabilitation It was recommended that the second and final payment of$91,277.01 to McNamara Construction for Contract 92-06 (Cedar Industrial Park &Johnny Cake Ridge Road - Street Rehabilitation) be approved and perpetual maintenance authorized subject to appropriate warranties. K Contract 91-06.Acknowledge Completion/Authorii Emal Payment (Eagandale Center Industrial Park 3rd &4th Addition - Street Rehabilitation It was recommended that the to McNamara Construction for Contract 91-06(Eagandale Center Industrial Park 3rd&4th Addition-Street Rehabilitation)be approved and perpetual maintenance authorized subject to appropriate warraipfes. 4 Page 3/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL hINU $ October 8, 1992 L. Contract 88-YY.Acknowledge Comp l 4 or`i4•'City Maintenance(Suncrest Addition-Streets & Utilities) ' '• It was recommended that the completion of Contract 88-YY,(Suncrest Addition-Streets&Utilities) be acknowledged and the improvements accepted for perpetual maintenance subject to appropriate warranty provisions. M. Project 622.Receive Final Assessment R ltf bi'derPiif3dic Hearing(Cedar Industrial Park-Street Rehabilitation It was recommended that the final assessaipt::roll for Project 622 (Cedar Industrial Park - Street Rehabilitation) be received and a public he ig dulod;4o-be.held on November 5, 1992. N. Project 608.Receive Final Assessment Roll/Order Public Hearing(Eagandale Center Industrial Park 3rd & 4th Addition) It was recommended that the final assessment roll for Project 608 (Eagandale Center Industrial Park 3rd & 4th Addition - Street Rehabilitation•:and a public hearing scheduled to be held on November 5,1992. • O. Vacate Drainage & Utility Easement::R ye•:P;ition/Order Public Hearing (Lot 10. Block 7, Zehnder Acres It was recommended that the petition for the:r t*:era`drainage and utility easement(Lot 10,Block 7,Zehnder Acres) be received and a public.:be'.aretg.iredided to be held November 5, 1992. P. Final Plat. Poppler Homestead No.2 It was recommended that the final plat for the Poppler Homestead No.2 be continued to the October 20, 1992, regular City Council meeting. Q. Final Plat. Deerwood School:Sii laticjigiEi: ::::::::: :• It was recommended that the final plat for theDeerwoid::School Second Addition be approved.•R. Resolution Giving Host Approval to the.. of Iealih Care Revenue Bonds. Series 1992 Group Health Plan. Inc.. Project It was recommended that the resolution giving host approval to the issuance of health care revenue bonds, Series 1992(Group Health, Inc., Project)be approved as presented. S. Rescind Action Placing Statutory Plan B Form ofvernment on November Ballot It was recommended that City Cot dl:At :?pf September 17,1992,placing the Statutory Plan B form of government on the November ballot, Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded, a motion to appro?e:the Consent Agenda of the October 8, 1992, regular City Council meeting as amended. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 • R Page 4/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:'•'•' " October 8, 1992 • • CITY ADMINISTRATORIBL; •k ELEBRITY CLASSIC Mayor Egan introduced the item and City Administrator Hedges provided the background. Councilmember McCrea said the additional information had clarified the issue and was assured that the event would not interfere with any scheduled ft :. 1Lr s keittal:CifyAdministrator Hedges noted that a major tournament is traditionally held at Northview Park'on that: Gweken4biiit Rahn Athletic Field would be available. Awada moved, Pawlenty seconded, a mote liii::approvc: :reequest by Matt Blair Celebrity Classic to utilize Rahn Athletic Field for a Celebrity C au*c.t t:7tirii;: : 9 ;with the proceeds of the Celebrity Classic benefitting Cities and Schools, Inc. (CIS). '4 Nay: CITY ADMINISTRATOR/DNR GRANT AWARD Mayor Egan introduced this item as a grant award to implement landscaping/buffer planting at the Eagan Municipal Center Building. After ackang a number of questions about funding, it appears the City will receive a good return on its investment. Ma)***:;•ecommended that plantings be carefully installed to avoid disruption with any future expansion of the Muiiie :Cent r, ..., • McCrea moved, Pawlenty seconded, a nitition to apptov ::A grant agreement for community forestry assistance in the City of Eagan for a$5,000 grant fpi::fiscyoar:1993'fiom the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Aye: 4 Nay 0 CITY ADMINISTRATOR/LETTER OF SUPPORT Mayor Egan introduced this item as a request for a letter of support/Community Grant. City Administrator Hedges described the service project Sheryl Casey and the Girl Scouts Fagan West Service Unit is coordinating to discourage smoking amon:minora.:•:•:•:.:.:.:.:. McCrea moved, Pawlenty seconded, a motion:to approve•a letter of support for a Dakota County Community Grant as requested by Sheryl Casey. Aye;:::4 Nay CITY ADMINISTRATORt/PRO(I MATION Mayor Egan introduced this item as a proclamation for Dr.Polly Reikowski Day. Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a motion to proclaim Friday,October 9,1992,as Dr.Polly Reikowski Day in the City of Eagan. Aye: 4 Nay 0 HEARINGS FINAL ASSESSMENT': OpE NT WEED NOTICES Mayor Egan introduced this item as the final assessmei :hearing for delinquent weed notices. There was no one in the audience who wished to address this issue. Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a motion to close the public hearing and approve the final assessment roll for delinquent weed notices and authorized its certification to the County for collection. Aye: 4 Nay. 0 Page 5/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 8, 1992 FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING/OAKS OF 11.146. EWATER 2ND ADDITION Mayor Egan introduced this item as Projett: (1:$i #' Ssessment hearing for the Oaks of Bridgewater 2nd Addition - Streets & Utilities. Director of Public Works Colbert said the assessments had been reviewed with the developer and all notices published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners. He said staff had not received any objection to the roll. No one was in the audience who wished to address this item. McCrea moved, Pawlenty seconded •'a'•'m•'tioi*::to- do'::ihe public hearing and approve the final assessment roll for Project 610 (Oaks of Bridgewater:0.A Addititiji);and authorized its certification to Dakota County. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 FINAL ASSESSMEIMIE0 .4.0kOOK ADDITION Mayor Egan introduced this item as Project 613,final assessment hearing for the Willbrook Addition- Streets & Utilities. Director of Public Works Colbert said the assessments had been reviewed with the developer and all notices published in the legal newspaper and sent to all affected property owners. He said staff had not received any objection to the roll. No one was in the audience who wished to address this item. McCrea moved, Pawlenty second :ii:::nwtion to close the public hearing and approve the final assessment roll for Project 613 (Willbrook Adt#i icsiii::r::Streets & Utilities) and authorized its certification to Dakota County. Aye: 4 Nay. 0 REFUNDING/CINNtl &OKRDGE PROJECT Mayor Egan introduced this item a : icoprsal to issue refunding bonds or notes to prepay and redeem the City's $11,350,000 multi-family housing revenue bonds (Cinnamon Ridge Project) Series 1985. City Administrator Hedges explained the background of the bond issue and introduced Jim Dinnerstein of Dain Bosworth. Mr. Dinnerstein, representing the applicant,was available to answer any questions. Awada moved,McCrea seconded,.a.%90.99_.49 approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of multi- family housing revenue refunding bonds foi':te: gn L :Project. Aye: 3 Nay 1 (Pawlenty) Awada moved,McCrea seconded,a motion to:a prove t:**olution entitled"Final Note Resolution"for multi-family housing revenue mortgage refunding note::2f 1992. ;Aye: 3 Nay 1 (Pawlenty) RECESS At approximately 7:20 p.m. the regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was recessed in order to convene a meeting of the Eagan Housing and Redevelopment Authority. RECONVENE At approximately 7:25 p.m. the reou*::Teptips4t4: 4.4gan City Council was reconvened. PUBLIC WORKS/PET; 'JON Mayor Egan introduced this item as a petition for Children at Play signs on Fairway Hills Drive. Page 6/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 8, 1992 -:•:•:. Director of Public Works Colbert prciii44.a brief histo4iii(fhis request and the City's policy regarding installation of Children at Play signs. Mr.Colbert request does not meet the criteria for sign installation, the petition is then forwarded to the tlitij)0iiiiiittOi their review. Mark Selby, 4672 Fairway Hills Drive, emphasized the increased traffic on Fairway Hills Drive. Mr. Selby said the neighborhood's original thought was that Children at Play signs would be the most appropriate; however, signs directing park traffic away from the neighborhood may also alleviate the problem. Councilmember McCrea asked DireiiiiiiiitPtit*Wiiikg:NRiert what the warrants were for installing Children at Play signs. Mr.Colbert said City policy hi:lie:en to initAt signs wherever children are not expected and to make drivers aware of unusual conditions. Mr..Colbert note4 that because there are children in every neighborhood,signs would have to be posted on every t. SuckWoverabundence of signs would negate their benefit. Mark Hager,4648 Fairway Hills Drive,said that because Fairway Hills Drive runs straight for about four blocks without interruption,it provides an oppportunity for drivers to pick up speed. He asked that the City be proactive in addressing this problem instead of being reactive. Director of Public Works Colbert reported that the Police Department had performed a traffic sampling and their study had shown that approximatelY.* 4s of drivers were over the speed limit and traffic increased significantly when there were activities in the'park After additional discussion, the Council'iiited that ria*:there are no sidewalks on Fairway Hills Drive and because it is being used as a major entif4ceyk:Ge*e:01iman Park, an exception could be made to policy regarding Watch for Children signs. city**fiiiiiiitor Hedges said the suggestion would also be made to the Eagan Athletic Association that parefsnottise this entrance on game days. McCrea moved, Awada seconded, a motion to approve the petition for Watch for Children signs on Fairway Hills Drive at both its intersections with St.Andrews Boulevard. Mayor Egan said he believed the wa rrants.for.thi..s.sioyve were present;however,if in the future there are requests that were found not to be City may consider installing the signs with the benefitting parties paying the costs. •••••••• .:•:•::: Aye: 4 Nay: 0 OLD H •••• .:•:.::: ASSESSMENT RATE AGREEMENT/LAKEVIEW TRAILS ADDITION Mayor Egan introduced this item as Project 635,Assessment Rate Agreement,Lakeview Trails Addition -Streets&Utilities. Assistant City Attorney Annette Margarit sad the City Attorney's office had met with the affected property owners in an attempt to negotiate an agreem4firegarding the assessments for Project 635. She said that after meeting, it appears tAle.rq::*:s.t::#141.7cf.FP_:.....4.:0Pinion as to Council's direction. Staff's understanding is that the Council expectect*:***040:p#:Oaid in full,with half paid now and half paid at the time of connection to the system. She said the lionietiiViiers, however, expect to pay only half of the assessments,with one-fourth now, and the other fourth at the(ii of connection. ::::.:•:. The Council agreed that while there was sympathy for the property owners' situation, they had not agreed to a 50%reduction in the amount of the assessments. City Attorney Margarit stated that she would take this information back to the property owners,and if it was not acceptable,the residents had the right to appeal. Page 7/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUT ... October 8, 1992 • Director of Public Works Colbert noted that itipOgement is not*Oiled,no further action need be taken until the final assessment hearing. CITY CODE AMENDMENT/SPECIAL VEHICLE USE Mayor Egan introduced this item as an ordinance amendment to the Eagan City Code, Chapter 8, Traffic Regulations,special vehicle use by handicapped. City Administrator Hedges advised the Council that this item would be continued for further study. 5b4thd hole rVaWtcntji:asked that staff check to see if the word, "handicapped,"is outdated. • Awada moved,Egan seconded,a motion to continue indefinitely an ordinance amendment to Eagan City Code Chapter 8,Traffic Regulations, Special Vehicle:U's'o.by Hipped. Aye: 4 Nay. 0 PUBLIC RIGHTd3046 SETIWON VESCAVAGE Mayor Egan introduced this item as a variance for Ron Vescavage of 15'to the 30'required setback from public right of way, located at Lot 8, Block 2, Ridgecliffe First Addition. Director of Community Developmept.Runkle provided background on the item and noted that staff was directed to work with the applicant which fia$:resit in a revised plan with a request for a 12' versus a 15' •variance. In response to a question as to hardship,trio applicant said:*has run out of room and needs additional space for his work. Mr. Vescavage said he had ch nged;.tlis is and was extending the existing garage and driveway in response to Council's concerns about ab9.004efielied garage with its own access onto another street. Awada moved, Egan seconded, a motion to approve a variance for Ron Vescavage of 12 feet to the 30 foot required setback from public right-of-way located at Lot 8,Block 2,Ridgecliffe First Addition and subject to the following conditions: 1. No additional accessory structures.shall. e..geti tted. 2. No access from Bamble Circle shall tie permitted:'''''''' 3. No other variances shall be approved. 4. All applicable City Codes. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 LEXINGTON ADDITION/LAND::0E STUDY Mayor Egan introduced this item as;Jqa.Adcjitiotr,(RTC Property,Land Use Study. Director of Community Development Runkle said that;asi;: 1ySU:, c1: .:performed on this property and staff was requesting a public hearing be held to consider a Compietienaive Guide Plan Amendment and rezoning for the subject property. Mr. Runkle advised that the analysis had brii*t an additional five acres of adjacent AG zoned property to light which should also be included in the puWie:hearing. Councilmember McCrea asked if the property was subject to airport noise. Mr. Runkle advised that technically,it was out of the noise contour. He went on to say that notices had been sent to adjacent property .•.-...• Page 8/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTE. . • October 8, 1992 owners and the proposed changes will be discussed with theak.0*:.to the public hearing. There was no one in the audience who wished to address the issue • Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded, a motion to accept the land use study and direct that it be placed on the October 27, 1992, Advisory Planning Commission agenda for a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment and rezoning of the RTC property,Lexington Addition. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 RECEIVE BIDS/AWARD eoSi:g4t-(P0105..ER ADDITION) Mayor Egan introduced this item as Contract 92.;2,Rec Bids/Award Contract(Popp ler Addition- Streets&Storm Sewer). Because the final plat for Plitipi Ot Homiid No 2 was continued,action on this item was also continued. • McCrea moved,Awada seconded, a motion to continue award of Contract 92-12(Popp ler Addition - Street & Storm Sewer) to the October 20, 1992, regular City Council meeting. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 APPROVE CHANGE ORDER#1 (POPPLER ADDITION) :::::.... Mayor Egan introduced this item ii.:4;001:a.ct:.92-12,Approve Change Order #1, Poppler Addition - Streets&Storm Sewer. Because the final plat fOiNiiiii0.1f.om.e.stead No 2 was continued,action on this item was also continued. • McCrea moved,Pawlenty seconded,a motipo:t4C0a0iiiiabsideration of Change Order#1 to Contract 92-12(Poppler Addition-Streets&Storm Sewer)to.the October 20, 1992,regular City Council meeting. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 CANCEL PROJECT Mayor Egan introduced this item as cancellation of Project 642,Crestridge Drive. Director of Public Works Colbert indicated that the public imprTst :pFoT4i..T.I.ill.*cancelled with the developer proceeding privately with the improvements. Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a motion 4i:Cancel Pfpktt 642,Crestridge Drive. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 LIQUOR LICENSE/CHILI'S Mayor Egan introduced this item as a license for on-sale liquor, Chili's Southwest Bar & Grill, Duckwood Crossings. City Administrator Hedges stated that thc.application had been reviewed and the City's Police Department found no reason to deny the license. McCrea moved,Awada seconded,:i!i:000:wgiptpyg:Wapplication for an on-sale liquor license for Chili's Restaurant located at Lot 2,Block tahiaiiiiiaite .Aye: 4 Nay: 0 • SPECIAL USE PERMIT/BOY SCOW TROOP#510 Mayor Egan introduced this item as Special Use Permit,Wendy Porter,d.b.a.Boy Scout Troop#510, for the temporary sale of Christmas trees on Outlot A,Town Centre 70- 11th Addition, located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15. - , Page 9/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES"'•" October 8, 1992 • McCrea moved,Pawlenty seconded,a aion to approve a special use permit for Wendy Porter,d.b.a. Boy Scout Troop#510,for the temporary sale of Chitmas ron Outlot A,Town Centre 70- 11th Addition and subject to the following conditions: • L This permit is temporary and shall expire January 1, 1993. 2. All applicable City Code requirement .Aye: 4 Nay: 0 • ••• •:•:•:•:. SPECIAL USE PERMIT/NY SCOUT TROOP#345 Mayor Egan introduced this item 44....$0e4id'i4i1.::regiiiiii:tor Valerie Tinker, d.b.a. Boy Scout Troop #345,for the Temporary Sale of Christmas:Trees Center Addition, Located in the SW 1/4 of Section 30. McCrea moved,Pawlenty seconded,a motion to approve a special use permit for Valerie Tinker,d.b.a. Boy Scout Troop#345,for the temporary sale of Christmas trees on Outlot D,Park Center Addition and subject to the following conditions: L This permit is temporary and shall e Ianuay 1, 1993. ..........•.•...•.•.• 2. All applicable City Code requirements • Aye: 4 Nay 0 • SPECIAL USE PERMIT/KEY DESIGN Mayor Egan introduced this item as a special use permit for Key Design, for a temporary advertising sign for St.Thomas Becket Church on Parcel #10-02500-010-75,located in the SE 1/4 of Section 25. Director of Community Development Runkle descritoed.the:applicOpg,........... Pawlenty moved, Awada seconded, toe special use permit for Key Design for a temporary advertising sign for St. Thomas Becket Church on parcel #10-02500-010-75 and subject to the following conditions: ::-:•:•• 1. The sign shall be placed at least 10 feet from all pr lines. 2. The sign shall be subject to the one-time sign fee of$2.50 per square foot. 3. The sign shall be removed upon completion of Phase.Iehurch construction. ••••• Aye: 4 Nay: 0 ,.-:.:•:•:•••••••••• VARIANt****W:111401.-. ETBACIC Mayor Egan introduced this item as a variance for Ge**tudt, of 5' to the required 5' sideyard pool setback on Lot 10, Block 1, Chatterton Ponds,Located in the SW:1/4 of Section 22. Director of Community Development Runkle said that a request had been received from the applicant to continue this item. Page 10/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTE$'•'•':;•:;:::::• . October 8, 1992 . Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a iiititiion to continucln efinitely a variance for Gene Studt of 5'to the required 5' side yard pool setback on Lot 10,to 3.,: ittetjon Pond. Aye: 4 Nay. 0 VARIANCE/EAGAN ROYALE Mayor Egan introduced this item as a variance for Mentor Development, of 25' to the required 50' setback from interstate right-of-way for Let 19,..4.19# 2, Eagan Royale, located in the SE 1/4 of Section 31. Director of Community Development Runk;:;reported:;4hIt:the topography and shape of the parcel had prompted the request for a variance. Larry Vossen of Mentor Development stated.tbat a"regi "shaped house will not fit on this lot and the buyer wants to design the house to fit the lot. He:.sail :that no:tomes will be harmed because of the variance and all adjacent lot owners have been notifiek:*;;Viiikiii.004tfiat a variance was granted to the owner of the lot across the street from this property. WItet'i'asked wl•y:tlelot was designed in this manner to begin with, Mr. Vossen stated that the angle of the freeway had dictated the layout of the lot. Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded, a motion to approve a variance for Mentor development of 25'to the required 50' setback from interstate right-of-way for Lot 19, Block 2, Eagan Royale, and subject to the following condition: • 1. All applicable City Codes. • Aye: 4 Nay 0 WAIVR:;Qt::*0 EO MOGOL Mayor Egan introduced this item as a waiver of plat for Leo Mogol,in order to split Parcel 040-12 for individual ownership located on the southeast side of Beau D'Rue Drive in the NE 1/4 of Section 19. Director of Community Development Runkle stated that the waiver is being requested in order to split the property for individual ownership. He said that the residential land use is not consistent with the existing commercial zoning or the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan;and.dividing;t 1.q.14.operty may or may not help in its development. Mr. Runkle explained that a waiver was being:i 4t e$od ta00.A.n a rezoning as staff does not believe this to be the final solution for this property. Mark Parranto, representing the owner of the property,:provided a brief history of the property and noted that nothing is changing except the individual oi! rship. Awada moved,Pawlenty seconded,a motion to approve a waiver of plat for Leo Mogol in order to split Parcel 040-12 for individual ownership located on the southeast side of Beau D'Rue Drive. Mr.Parranto asked for clarification of whether or not water.quality requirements would have to be met. After discussion of the zoning of the property,it was recommendeo:tliat Condition#5 be deferred to a later date and the earlier motion was changed to read: McCrea moved,Awada seconded,a: a:t Q:: :t +e r of plat for Leo Mogol in order to split parcel 040-12 for individual ownership located on the southeast side of Beau D'Rue Drive subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording within 60 days of Council action and documentation provided to the City. 4 Page 11/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES•: . October 8, 1992 2. This development shall dedicate 1()':iilx ciaage and utftiOlisements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right=cif?': 3. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide service to this development shall be designed by a registered professional engineer in accordance with City codes,engineering standards,guidelines and policies. 4. This development shall be responsiblalm•the acquisition of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame required by the affected agency. 5. The cash dedication fees in addition to/iii::lieu of poading requirements in accordance with the criteria identified in the City's Water Quality Manageppent Plan were deferred until such time as the property is subsequently developed or formally platted.. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT/TOBY STEVENS Mayor Egan introduced this item as a preliminary plat for Toby Stevens, consisting of one lot on approximately one acre of previously-zoned•'R>i.{Single Family)land located on the southeast side of Wuthering Heights Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 18.::0y Administrator Hedges advised the Council that the applicant • had requested this item be withdrawn. McCrea moved, Awada seconded, a ni2tion ac 4p ledg ng the withdrawal of a preliminary plat application for Toby Stevens consisting of one lot 4ia.appr:i matiely One acre previously zoned R-1(single family) land located on the southeast side of WuthpFi**.i.glits•Road. Aye: 4 Nay 0 • CITY ADMINISTRATOR/RETIREE INSURANCE Mayor Egan introduced this item as:.r ea: insurances,g.9Yee Association. As a point of clarification, it was noted that the provision of retiree ins aitd t d t.the State with the only question being how much of its cost is paid by the City and for how long...;City Administrator Hedges explained that some police officers are eligible for retirement at age 55,however,cannot affo d.to retire because of the insurance obligation. He said discussions had been held regarding setting upi*fund wi'iuein the difference in salaries would go into a fund to pay for the retiree's insurance. The differeiiiii in salai'i*s:was defined as the difference between the retiring officer's salary and the officer's replacement as well as th.salary saved between the date of retirement • and the date of replacement. Discussion continued as to the long-term costs to the City with the conclusion being that additional information is needed before a decision can be made. Counciln4 mber Pawlenty suggested that other cities' approaches be included with the information. Awada moved,McCrea seconded;. :tb.rope.9 the October 20, 1992,regular City Council meeting,further consideration of a proposidiirifii:Paiiiikiiiiiiiitkn regarding retiree insurance coverage with the understanding that the Personnel Committee will meet in an attempt to formulate a resolution. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 PUBLIC WORKS/VACATE UTIIaTTY EASEMENT Mayor Egan introduced this item as vacate utility easement,receive petition/order public hearing(Lot 4,Block 1, Hawthorne Woods 1st Addition). • Page 12/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUti*; •• October 8, 1992 Pawlenty moved, Awada seconded, ti-iOtion to receiy*':*::petition to vacate all drainage and utility easements over Lot 4, Block 1, Hawthorne Weiiii0i:IgAt**iiiid schedule a public hearing to be held on November 5, 1992. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 • PUBLIC WORKS/PROJECT 590 Mayor Egan introduced this item as.ftoject...A90,.re.c.eiyefinal assessment roll/schedule public hearing (South Pilot Knob Road - Streets& Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded,a motion tii4r:..ceive thg:Tilial assessment roll for Project 590(South Pilot Knob Road- streets&utilities) and schedule a pOlic hearipgifp be held on November 5, 1992. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 NO PARKING RESOLUT10140iiiiGTON AVENUE Director of Public Works Colbert advised the City Council that Dakota County had requested that the City take formal action regarding a small portion of Lexington Avenue which does not have a formal resolution addressing on-street parking. A copy of the proposed resolution is attached (Exhibit B). McCrea moved,Awada seconded,a•*44).ii:apfir.oving a resolution banning the parking of motor vehicles • on the east and west side of County Road 43 (Liiiiig(*.:A.vpmie-MSA 111) from Diffley Road to CSAH 32 (Cliff Road) at all times. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 DEER CON'TOW.Mtict:P6LLOCK City Administrator Hedges advisedatthe September 17,1992,regular City Council meeting action was taken to conditionally approve the use of propane cannons to control deer on Eagan property leased by Mike Pollack, 1785 East 96th Street,Inver Grove Heights,Minnesota 55077. He stated that the condition of approval was that no noise complaints be received from neighboring property owners. Mr. Hedges reported that approximately 18 complaints had been received in a 24 hour period and a letter asking Mr.Pollack to shut down effective October 8, 1992,was sent by mesqsgRs.49.:W::1:.!9.1004:44me. DRIVING RANGE/MIKEPNG :.:•:•:. City Administrator Hedges informed the Coii*0 that Mike King had asked that he present a letter to the City Council regarding a proposal for an enclosed g drivi4i*e. Mr.King had intended to address the Council but was unable to attend the meeting. After discussion:if:iippears that Mr. King's request is a zoning • issue and it was recommended that Mr. King work with staff and follow the process. CHANGE ORDER#1/CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS in After the Council voiced concerns that the work perfc0:04 m this change order should have been provided in the design phase,Pawlenty moved,Awada seconded4:inotion approving Change Order#1 for up to 5400 for recessing the monitors on the !....**K;**:0;*;:gity.::c.ouncil dais. Aye: 4 Nay. 0 PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING Awada moved,McCrea seconded, a motion to scheduki:Personnel Committee meeting for October 20, 1992, at 5:30 p.m. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 ••••••''••'•• Page 13/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTiiS October 8, 1992 Egan moved, Pawlenty seconded, a motion to approve the checklist dated September 30, 1992, in the amount of$1,852,051.87 and the checklist dated October 6, 1992, in the amount of$924,977.20. Aye: 4 Nay: 0 OONMNT .•....... ....... • • • •• The regular meeting of the Eagan City Counal4as adjotOlied......... at 8:52 p.m. KF E.J.VanOverbeke City Clerk .••... • • T:XF{I�1 1 k OF JUDGES FOR APPROVAL t•• SHARON SCHOELLER MARIE OVERBY MINK • JEAN HARMON -VELYN COTA VIRGINIA ZEITZ BARB Ep RTON NJ EUA PETERSON PLOTT ELAINE JONES AOSSWIR LYNN PRAZAK �ARON BRUCE SARA TIDRICK :;. _-.' SS CAROL RICHTER PAT IVIEDER JUUANN KELLER ::: D HARTLEBEN MARY JANE LAROCK FB.EN KENNEDY JACK LATTEN •••.•'ALJREL A POPPLER ROSEMARY TEAFORD WILLIAM GUELCHER STELLA WNDOUIST ELEANOR ICEMAN KARON FACTOR BARBARA SHIELDS HELEN OLSON BOB VOGEL ROBERT MILLER LEO AMUNDSON ROBERTA SMITH TRACY JONES JEANNE KOEHLER MARY KELLNER MARGARET PELLERIN MARLLYN LEGLER PHYLUS MANTIEY fENE WACHTLER VMAN DATE ::::JUDY:HAWLEY CJ�yHyUyCJ�K. LANONICKEL RUTH TWOMEY ARHTUR PAULSON :::KAREF4:FI;000 XIYCE LANGNICICEL DONN IGRCHGATTER GLORIA PAULSON : I ENE ISOIDEBV3 RICHARD ERERT ORLEAN GARNESS KAY GRABNER JUNE I iI H M TRUDY AWN GARY DODGE CLARENCE WWSON CROLVENIA RICHARDSON • MARY HIAGBERG PHYLUS NECHMLLE FLORENCE HANSON LORRN E$UMER ZELLA MACK•ROBERT DMMERMAN MARTIE RUDCKA • :::MIIEiK>j,71;$ON NANCY SEVERSON ELIZABETH BASSETT JOHN GLYNN :::::::::::".:::;::::' *:::410$1,1INE THOMPSON LESLIE STANAWAY al KENNEDY EVELYN OTTERNESS GRMMER BEWLE MARY HALL JEREMY YARWOOD ANN THOMAS JIM DECH DONALD SEKTNAN ARLENE LEIBEL MICHELLE DICK BONNIE TRANBY DONALD LUND JAY SAIMA WALTER LAWRENCE SHARON ASTLERORD GLADYS BYRNES MARIE LANE EMILY RODICH ETHOL GROFF PATTI BENJAMIN CLWER MCCULLOCH VIRGINIA NICOLAY SHIRLEY KLANG HELEN GERTEN STEPHEN OLSON JUDY HANSEN SANDRA NELSON MICHELLE SK INDELIEN KAY DODGE MARY FLEMING . LYLE SEVERSON NANCY HAMMEL JANET SCHUETZE PENNY JOHNSON .:......J/3AN BOHUG ADEUNE BUEHLER LNDA BUCHANAN CAROL DILLS •":•:::E JE;ALSON BARB UNERT - TERRY MESTNIK ELAINE FISCHER •MARILYN SORTER BARB NUTTALL• NILE SULLIVAN PAT LARSON _..•.JEAN:1 R CATHY BROST ELEANOR GRIMMER ANNEUSE HOLM ::::::::-LEANOR BRUCE EMILY MEDIN CAROLEE JONES .'.'..PALJLINE LEGENDRE • NANCY JAR VI VILA SHAY B NITA SWAN EWN USS . AGE FLYNN LEA EDSON MARY HANSEN • BARBARA SCHREINER KAY URTZ DIA NN ENGLE LCBAINE RIEGER LAURA BASBALLE • JANICE PARKER CAROL SUE CRUZ LUCY THOMPSON CHERYL OSCARSON JACK SWAN MARTI ANN GIETZLAFF • PHYLUS UGMAN SUSAN ICRETZMANN •.-.•.•.4AMCE 8ELNEAU NORMA WADE LUCIA JOHNSON :::JOIIJIN: ORGE SONYA LARSON YVONNE KRISNIK :: I R CAROL VBIOVDE ALYCE BOLKE GLORA•CZYCALLA SHARON UNDHOLM DICK BEATTY NONA CIAYIS PALL YOUNGNER MAUREEN PREBEUCH TOM PEERSON DON HANSEN JAN GIEFER MARGIR: KCOBS WILLIAM SKAR B ERNADINE GOESS • • JENNY:$A#ER TERRY LARSON PRANK HAMERNIK BRIAN STANAWAY JAMES KLASEUS 111192011 ERIC LOCCHART JAM DRISCOLL CATHERINE BUCHANAN DOROTHY PETERSON MICKE NEHIOW B EATRICE COOPER NAY NUKE 1RALABE ANDERSON PAMELA HOCHHALTER BRAWN FINELY HELEN ARM • ICIOSTIN4PAREN MARILYN HOLM LAURA IEISELL WREN DARE :: BALDUS ::. II JUDY MUNDAHL ,m-- CHARLOTTE O'DONNELL .CAME NATFELD VICAV JABBRA . KARRI:M61NOW . CAROLYN THURSTON MANDY:$ANKERBON JUNE NELSON HJE�J�A�THEl1•MALL MARIE DESLAURIER JJLE SINEKS EDITH DRAKE BETH BECHER KAREN RAINFORD - KEN PETRASHEK •N COFFEY MICHELLE UNSON •Y-' PETERSON ERIC C RNEY • MARY TESKE ERN HALASH LOIS AGRIMSON EKE HOEY ON RAY FAITH ZBINNIAN • FLORENCE MULLEN HEIDE EDMONSON BEVERLY ZAINE MICHELLE RUMMER • EXHIBIT B ;:;'CITY OF EAGAN;::::::: NO''MARRING RESOLUfiiiiN - C tG .:.y Street Pro#w From Diffley Road 607 Blueberry Lane TH 3 (CSAH 30) Lexington Avenue (County Rd. 43 - MSA 111) E:A7... Diffley Cliff Road THIS RESOLUTION, passed the 8th flay of Oeiaber, 1992, by the City of Eagan in Dakota County, Minnesota. The Muff •cipal •.epzporation shall hereinafter be called the "City". WHEREAS, these improvements•'do,not'provide adequate width for parking on both sides of County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue - MSA 111) ; approval of the proposed construction as a State Aid Street Project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions, and WHEREAS, the extent of::::these restrictions that would be a necessary prerequisite to the approval of:::: 1Qnstruction as a State Aid project in the • "City" has been determined. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY SOLVEp.•th the "City" shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on the east and west j;de*':County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue - MSA 111) from Diffley Road to C R::3 ::::( Tiff Road), at all times. Motion made by: Pam McCrea CITY OF EAGAN Seconded by: Pat Awada CITY COUNCIL Those in favor: 4 ;�. Those against: 0 ,' " Dated: October 8, 1992 :•:.: :;By, (77 4- 4• ..Attest CERTI :CATI01R:.:;:. I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City ot'Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution as duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 8th day of October, 1992. (;!. ::: (104411.1. ::£::::.. :en0verbeke, City Clerk •