Loading...
04/15/1986 - City Council RegularTENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL APRIL 15, 1986 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II: - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES O III. - TAX ABATEMENTS/DAKOTA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE S IV. 6:38 - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION V. 6:45 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS lS VI. 6:55 - CONSENT AGENDA .1� A. Personnel Items i� B. Contractors Licenses C. Establish Purchasing Limits Consistant with State Guidelines � D. Multi -Family Rental/Interest Rate Reductions, Housing Services Agreement E.Project 472, Receive Report/Order Public Hearing (Clearview Addition - Streets) �,�qO'F. Project 474, Receive Report/Order Public Hearing (Eagandale Lemay Lake 2nd Addition - Streets and Utilities) eB,;i,SG. Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Tractor/Loader for Parks and Recreation Department H. Vacate Drainage and Utility Easements, Receive Petition/Set Public Hearing, (Wescott Hills 4th Addition) Q9 I. Approve Grading Permit EX -14-036 (Greensboro Addition) fbl a'iJ. Approve Final Plat, Eagan Center Addition \ K. Approve/Change Order No. 1, Contract 85-22, Lone Oak Addition n3z L. Change Order No. 2, Contract 85-08 (Town Centre 70 1st Addition 34. Final Plat Approval, Sunset 7th Addition (Calvary Memorial Church) pr.oN. Water Quality Management Plan/Wetland Inventory - Consulting 1 V Services Agreement VII. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing for Project 469, Towerview Road (Streets) Cr. 'SS B. Public Hearing for Project 470, Greensboro Addition (Streets & 1U Utilities) \�-7qC. Public Hearing for Project 471, West Service Road (Storm Sewer) D. Public Hearing to Vacate Tot Lot Easement (Briar Hili -4th Addition E. Public Hearing to Vacate Trail Easement (Briar Hill 4th �Addition) F. Public Hearing to Vacate Utility Easement (Brittany 7th Addition) VIII. OLD BUSINESS e�b.q O A. Criteria for 1986 First -Time Homebuyers Program oB. Two -Foot Variance to 10 -Foot Sideyard Setback Requirement, Lot �5, Block 3, Sun Cliff Fourth Addition (Wesley Construction, Inc.) NW 1/4 of Sec.29 I%. NEW BUSINESS lo:zA. Conditional Use Permit (Cathy Sportelli) to Allow a Daycare Facility for 11 or More Children Located on Lot 4, Block 1, Drexel Heights Addition, SW 1/4 of Sec.15 D��t7lo B. Special Permit (Dawn Simpson) To Allow Temporary Parking of 1 Construction Trailers From April to October 1986, SW 1/4 of NW 1/4, Section 23 C. Special Permit (Living Word Lutheran Church) for a One -Year, Temporary Church to be Located in the Jerry Lewis Theater Located at Cedarvale Dr. and Beau de Rue Dr., NE 1/4 of Sec.19 •W5D. Variance (Diedrich Builders) For a 2.5 Sideyard and a 6' and 10' Front Yard Variance for Lot 6, Block 1, Safari Second Addition, Located West of Galaxie Ave. on Sky View Ct., SW 1/4 of Sec.32 1q E. Waiver of Plat (Donald Rosa) Containing Two, 2-1/2 Acre Lots �� OO Located South of Cliff Road, NW 1/4 of See.36 �1aS F. Preliminary Plat (Fairway Hills/Derrick Land Co.) Containing 145 Single -Family Lots on Approximately 60 Acres and a Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single -Family) Located Southeast Quadrant of Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road, NW 1/4 of See -34 ^, '41 G. Preliminary Plat (Bur Oak Hills/Harstad Co.) for 216 Single - Family Lots on Approximately 111 Acres Located in East of T.H. 149 & South of T.H. 55, SE 1/4 of Sec.12 1�O\H. Conditional Use Permit (Franchise Associates) To Allow a Drive - Through Arby's Restaurant and a 20' Pylon Sign Located on. Lot 2, 67 Block 1, Town Centre 70 3rd Addition, NW 1/4 of Sec.15 12 I. Preliminary Plat (Northview Meadows 2nd Addition/Sienna Corporation) Consisting of Approximately 38 Single -Family Lots on 15 Acres Located at County Road 30 & Wescott Hills Drive South, NE 1/4 of Sec.26 X. ADDITIONAL ITEMS '> Establish Establish Guidelines for Appointment of Waste Management Commission B. Contract 86-14, Approve Plans/Authorize Advertisement for Bids ' (Greensboro Addition - Streets & Utilities) 1>7 C. Tax Forfeited Properties 7.3�D. LAWCON/LCMR Application yAE. Review Draft of Development Escrow Agreement Q'a,�N5 F. Clerk Typist/Protective Inspections Department %I. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on the agenda) 2 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: APRIL 10, 1986 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION ADOPT AGENDA APPROVE,MINUTES After approval is given to the April 15, 1986, agenda and regular City Council meeting minutes for the April 1 meeting and Special City Council meeting minutes for the March 25 meeting, the following items are in order for consideration: I'M 149➢W.M419P)Lim WWMIIRW..1191 N&SM TAX ABATEMENTS Mr. Bill Peterson of the Dakota County Assessor's office has presented two (2) tax abatements for properties owned by Jeffrey and Penny Taylor and R. Sinikas. The Jeffrey and Penny Taylor property is described as #10-56701- 050-04. Upon review by the Assessor's office, it was found that there was an error made in measurement and calculation and therefore the estimate made at market should be reduced from $109,300 to $95,900. Regarding the R. Sinikas parcel defined as #10-21900- 400-01, there was not a physical inspection made on the property at the time the new construction was being done by the Assessor's office. The estimated market value should be reduced from $114,800 to $93,600. For a property reference of these to parcels, refer to a map that was prepared by the Engineering Department and is found on page(s) I ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny one or both of the tax abatements as presented by the Dakota County Assessor's office. 0 CITY OF EAGAN I iMii1IIlI i/17J W �>IIIY �kl����i�l _ /� ';�Irrrirrurrir�l�� a� RSP T i r W�IL'W - I� C-9 T �II�- R mow.. F1 �W NMI` I` APs �i11N�l�l% u fj��Y., � Y71711 9 1uj ��I- _ f _lLT1 LIM DYN :r�- 'B. II 'i�a1:� � V���' � � ^�• � ��h�u�l p�� - �I1t1'EtL111L.+w- 1 SHEET 1•`(✓/7 E �-,L,3.� 9 ,. ° y Y#°1—rmwl..dam DAKOTA COUNTY ' P/��'r ,'y eAcnlcawn rA+w +•Tf*�`. r �,� `\ \ \ `�k .....1 ." / F . 7 I .� �� n•.nT. -niNr. ,AAw _=�_.i assn .yx I: `..{f 1 I � � ' � . a. •(7 Q 1 APPLE VALLEY Nig E • SEC. 34,T _ ro7 w 1 asa f (� r 1 #A r•r/' 77 T 7� r- n7 J L 1.-T JLC..L_11 1 L.1r1'%LJ w 34 41 Ina w.•w••. 4Rm111T . ► w a us H11" "a r")`1 a0000 ..a 7 u•la-•-'%� S T R�.-- - t sa•aj�'CIFF"r, ROAD) 41, •0 1 Ia0 f0 .� 17030 1 •1 110.1 :W � 30 � 1 8 1 1 &A -a Ale all NP 17a���• •q���' �, j Q x �?d j' 1 a t � d •r� M�u��.� r7 y 9 �� f 0 T r •�'rr•.... MOT Ls } am1444 _ 9 • 1 v p a �"r`' •�,• .��r Y+�4• � � i�`'•p • o gam= 004110 24 aD l x» '° o. r r 4�• • aid' • !. 4 Q '..�a re It �n •araiw ,' = It ' �� �� � • ''fir j o r v� h w M W 1 R toile" • 30 s "D . iyob �� E • • °yi r • •td �.,$ 10 u s �� 1 = �# g • 3 • bra 10,6 � `P b 1. " � 3•. 1 + $ff asa r1�+ � �✓� ,p + •�, y � � • u, ft r {0 M •0 •` �x �Aa is na •r1 1141E _ '°I' O� v •9 j + PARKRIDGE 05. p7 p I-alr•(see YI .. 111 n aar••' s1,r ,. I,o •, lo. r . w 2 t a FIRST X DITION . �' � i..► w •unot • . - r .��....�,,.�.. Kwoo w�t � . � rrw+r•e _ 4 uo M �aLt1 - // .Mw wee nc M • M q lith v , z� �;•, 1 O'LEARY � ♦� tl� '� LAKE JI � � i •� r « � '.ice'' a\ :: �,s J � • J�. ee I • ♦ ` ted I • • �S A ES ilei.•. - •, oo, IN 'rnw" ♦� tear to La C• .iM� w r -r• -~•----- . + ■! • • t � « tl � to M M s • Y is 0 • M _ aam �IJCiKw00J`M Li111Nt •wraf•• Jil r' S.E.-1/4 .�_ '3'r.t$9 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Two TAX INCREMENT FINANCING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION At the January 21, 1986, City Council meeting action was taken to direct the Economic Development Commission to review the use of tax increment financing and report their findings, along with a recommendation to the City Council, once their study is.completed. This item was first presented to the Economic Development Commission at their February 26, 1986, meeting for review and comment. At that meeting a special meeting was designated for March 19, at which time the merits of TIF, as a business financing tool for the City of Eagan,would be reviewed and further, that someone with expertise in tax increment financing would be present to speak on the topic. That special meeting was held and a resolution was directed for review and consideration at the April 2, 1986, regular Economic Development Commission meeting. For a copy of minutes that have been approved by the Commission for both the Februar,- 26 and March 19 meetings, refer to pages _� through - For a copy of minutes that have not been approved by the Commission for the April 2 meeting, refer to pages AD through z - The Economic Development Commission is recommending a resolution in support of the use of tax increment financing to the City Council. he resolution, a copy is enclosed on pages /3 through, specifically addresses reasons for the consideration of tax increment financing, as. a business financing tool, on a case by case basis. Representatives of the Economic Development Commission will be present to answer any questions or provide additional comments for the City Council. To eliminate duplication please make reference to the minutes which reflect the Commission activity and fact finding that was directed by the City Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Economic Development Commission that a resolution be adopted that allows for the use of tax increment financing, as a business financing tool, on a case by case basis. If approval is given, action is in order to either direct the City staff or Economic Development Commission to consider specific criteria for the use of tax increment financing and further, to establish an educational program so that the public has an understanding of how tax increment financing is used. S MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Fagan, Minnesota February 26, 1986 A meeting of the City of Eagan's Economic Development Commission was held on Wednesday, February 26, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center Building. Present were Commission members Wenzel, Kraning, Lee, Stevenson, Kleimola and Hedges. New.Economic Development Commission members George Traynor, John King and' -gob Shields were introduced and recorded as present at the meeting. Also present were Chamber Director Escher, Chamber President Hauge and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein. - MINUTES The minutes of the January 8, 1986, Economic Development Commission meeting were reviewed and upon a motion by Lee, seconded by Stevenson, with all members voting in favor, the minutes were approved as presented. STAR CITY RECERTIFICATION City Administrator Hedges reported on the recertification meeting that was held with representatives of the Department of Energy and Economic Development on February 20. He stated that a summary of the development activity for One- and Five-year Action Plans was presented and further, that a preview of the revised Two -Year and Five -Year Action Plans were also given consideration. The City Administrator stated that Chairperson Wenzel and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein were present and the meeting was deemed successful by DEED representatives. Chairperson Wenzel asked that Commission members review the Two -Year Plan in detail stating that once a list of goals is adopted, the narrative explaining the activity purpose, time frame, strategy and projected results will be prepared by staff. After a detailed review, a motion was made by Commission member Lee, seconded by Commission member Shields, with all members voting in favor, that the Two -Year Plan consisting of fourteen items be adopted as presented. Chairperson Wenzel asked that a review of the Five -Year Plan be considered by the Commission. After review, the Five -Year Plan was expanded from nine to eleven items and in a motion by Commission member Kraning, seconded by Commission member Stevenson, with all members voting aye, the Five -Year Plan was adopted as -revised and the staff directed to prepare the narrative for each item. City Administrator Hedges stated that the narratives will be completed and presented as a handout at the next meeting. L SPERRY PROPOSAL City Administrator Hedges presented the Sperry Corporation proposal that was adopted by, the City Council and presented to Sperry as an effort to attract a 300,000 square -foot marketing and sales facility to the Sperry Campus. Chairperson Wenzel praised the City staff and City Council for their action and asked that the Commission consider a final acceptance to this Sperry proposal document. Commission member Stevenson stated that the Sperry proposal was given consideration by the Commission and further that he concurs with the proposal and action taken by the City, Council and therefore, and in R a motion, duly seconded by Commission member Kraning, with all members voting in favor, the Sperry proposal for the location of a 300,000 square -foot sales and marketing facility as approved by the City Council was given a strong endorsement and level of acceptance. TAX INCREKENT FINANCING City Administrator Hedges stated that a motion was passed at the January 21 City Council meeting directing the Economic Development Commission to review the use of tax increment financing and report their findings along with"a recommendation to the City Council once their study is completed. Commission members asked that information regarding tax increment financing be provided as a handout and further, that a special meeting be set to further discuss the direction of the City Council as to whether tax increment financing should be considered- as a business financing tool. It was also suggested that the City Administrator provide information that explains the mechanics and pros and cons for tax increment financing in advance of the meeting and that an expert in tax increment financing be invited to speak on the subject at a special meeting. After further discussion, a motion was made by Commission member Stevenson, seconded by Commission member King, with all members voting aye, that a special meeting be set for Wednesday, March 19, at 11:30 a.m. for the purpose of reviewing the merits of tax increment financing as a business financing tool for the City of Eagan and further that the City Administrator contact and invite someone who has expertise in tax increment financing to speak to the Commission. EAGAN FACT BOOK City Administrator Hedges reported that the Chamber of Commerce is in the process of preparing a fact book on the City of Eagan. He further stated that a fact book that was published by the City in 1984 is in need of updating for recertification purposes and community use and suggested that one fact book be prepared by either the Chamber or the City. City Administrator Hedges stated that he is more than happy to delegate the necessary manpower resources if the Chamber of Commerce is willing to publish the fact book through the sale of advertisement. After further discussion on the matter and in a motion by Commission member Wenzel, seconded by Commission member Stevenson, with all members voting aye, it was recommended that the community fact book be prepared by the Chamber of Commerce with staff assistance and the cost is to be funded by the sale of advertisement. a ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:30 p.m. Date Chairperson 7 Secretary TLH MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota March 19, 1986 A special meeting of the City of Eagan's Economic Development Commission was held on Wednesday, March 19, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center Building. The purpose of the special meeting was to study the use of tax increment financing as a business financing tool upon direction by the City Council. Present were Commission members Wenzel, Kraning, Lee, Stevens.on, Kleimola, Traynor, King, Shields and Hedges. There were no Commission members absent. Also present were Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Bill Escher, Chamber President Hauge and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING City Administrator Hedges introduced Ernie Clark, the City of Eagan's fiscal consultant with the firm Miller & Schroeder Financial Inc. He stated that Mr. Clark has significant background in tax increment financing (TIF) and was asked to provide background information on how TIF is used as a business tool for a community and the pros and cons as to whether TIF should be considered by the City of Eagan. Mr. Clark provided background on -how TIF's are structured. He gave examples of projects where TIF was used and the city has experienced good results and in other cases where results have not been favorable for the community. After approximately 20 minutes of background information on TIF, Mr. Clark provided the Commission with an understanding as to how the TIF bond issue is structured. There were several questions raised regarding how an applicant is reviewed to determine any potential risk to the City. Mr. Clark stated that pro formas as reviewed by the fiscal consultant while public policy regarding the merits is established and reviewed by the City Council. The main question addressed by Commission members concentrated on whether the City of Eagan should use any special financing -for new business or industry. This question was followed by discussion as to whether the City should concern itself with developing business financing guidelines for all economic development projects therefore determining that special financing is a viable tool given concurrence with minimum guidelines. After further discussion, it was the general concensus of the Commission that all business financing options be considered and reviewed by the Council on a case by case basis. Commission members expressed concerned that the door be left open to new business opportunities by allowing business financing tools to be considered by the City Council. Members of the Commission expressed an interest in developing a resolution and creating some rationale for TIF and other related business financing tools. After further discussion on the matter, and in a motion by Commission member Traynor, seconded by Commission igember Lee, with all members voting aye, the City Administrator was directed to prepare a resolution to the City Council that would allow for the consider- ation of all financing mechanisms, specifically TIF, to be considered on a case by case basis for the enhancement for economic development and further, that this resolution be considered at the next regular meeting with a recommendation made to the City Council once the study is completed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. TLH Date Chairperson Secretary SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA APRIL 2, 1986 A_ meeting of the City of Eagan's Economic Development Commi-s'sion was held on Wednesday, April 2, 1986 at the Eagan Muncipal Center building. Present were Commission members Wenzel, Kraning, Stevenson, Lee, King, Traynor and Hedges. Commission members Shields and Kleimola were absent. Also present were Mayor Blomquist, Chamber President Hauge, Chamber Director Bill Escher and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein. MINUTES The minutes of the February 26, 1986, regular Economic Development Commission meeting and minutes from the March 19, 1986, Special Commission meeting were reviewed and upon motion by Stevenson, seconded by Kraning, with all members voting in favor, the minutes were approved as presented. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING City Administrator Hedges stated that a resolution entitled "Tax Increment Financing" was prepared for review and comment as directed by the Commission at the March 19, 1986 meeting. Commission members stressed the importance of considering business financing alternatives such as tax increment financing on a case by case basis. Commission members expressed a further concern that if business financing tools are not allowed, such as tax increment financing, the wrong message may be given to the corporate community and as a result, certain companies will not consider locating in the City of Eagan. The merits of tax increment financing were further discussed and it was the position of the Commissioner that this type of business financing tool should be made available and be considered if there is a specific and direct benefit to the community, in areas such as employment, future tax base or other related economic development benefit. Commission members suggested that criteria be. established by the City Council that would be useable for the consideration of tax increment financing and other financing tool applications. There was also discussion regarding the necessity to properly educate the public on tax increment financing and how that method of financing can be of benefit to the community in certain cases. After further review and modification of the resolution as prepared, a motion was introduced by Traynor, seconded by Stevenson, with all members voting in favor, that a resolution recommending the use of tax increment financing, as prepared and modified, be approved and further, that said resolution be presented to the City Council at the April 15, 1986, City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m. /0 Economic Development Commission April 2, 1986 In support of the resolution, Commission members stressed the importance of establishing guidelines if tax increment financing is approved as a business tool and, further, that the proper educational process occur to present this program to the community. City Administrator Hedges stated that Commission member Kleimola contacted the City Hall and wanted the minutes to reflect' ,that he is in support of the Tax Increment Financing resolution. RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT City Administrator Hedges stated that a responsibility statement was prepared for consideration at the June 1985, Economic Development Commission meeting, however never acted upon or sent to the City Council for review. The statement was again given consideration and in a motion by Kraning with all members voting in favor, the responsibility statement as prepared during June 1985, was adopted as presented. City Administrator Hedges stated that Commission member Kleimola indicated his support of the responsibility statement. HOW TO DO IT WORKSHOP City Administrator Hedges stated that a letter was received from the Director of Economic Development from the city of Redwood Falls who is asking for cooperation from our community to help promote the "How To Do It Workshop" for inventors and small manufacturers. He stated that the conference is held in Redwood Falls on June 12 and 13, and suggested that strong consideration be given to the Dakota County Chamber of Commerce handling this item. Bill Escher, who was present at the meeting, agreed that the Chamber of Commerce could include reference in an upcoming newsletter about the workshop to the membership. In a motion by Lee, seconded by Kraning, with all members voting in favor, the request to promote the "How To Do It Workshop" for inventors and small manufacturers from the city of Redwood Falls was directed to the Dakota Chamber of Commerce. REAL ESTATE JOURNAL City Administrator Hedges stated that a from the Minnesota Real Estate Journal participation in an upcoming publication program. He stated that if the City H advertising in the Real Estate Journal, the cc $235 to $540 depending on the size of t letter was received asking for City on the Star City as interested in ,st would range from ie advertisement. Economic Development Commission April 2, 1986 Commission member King stated that having analyzed the distribution, the cost benefit to the City of Eagan is quite marginal. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that he received a call from Commission member Shields who was unable to attend the meeting, indicating that the Real Estate Journal reached, pealtors and other professional persons and may not be the best tool for reaching prospective companies who are looking to develop in the Eagan area. There was further discussion that if the City is to expend funds for promoting the City for economic development reasons, there are other options for advertising the community that will provide better results. Chairman Wenzel acknowledged the consensus of the group was not to proceed with the recommendation of the City Council to advertise in the Real Estate Journal. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:30 p.m. Dated Chairperson TLH '01 RESOLUTION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council did at a regular meeting on January 21, 1986, direct the Economic Development Commission to review the propriety of establishment of tax increment financing districts within the City and make its recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS,:the Commission has reviewed information concerning and including reports and studies by various committees and agencies relating to tax increment financing in general and has heard discussion from persons 'with intimate knowledge about tax increment financing; and WHEREAS, it is deemed that the charge to the Commission by the City Council was to review in some detail whether tax increment financing on either a short or long term basis may be a viable economic development tool for the City Council to utilize in certain cases where developers or owners apply to the City for TIF financing; and WHEREAS, the basic concept of tax increment financing is to utilize the new tax revenues generated by a completed development to pay for certain costs such as land acquisition and site developments, thereby allowing the City to stimulate private development which might not otherwise occur; and WHEREAS, an economic development project must be one that will result in increased or retained employment in the City and that will result in the preservation and enhancement of its tax base; and WHEREAS, it has been suggested that tax -increment financing is a valuable economic development tool, that it enhances the tax base where development might otherwise not occur, that it can generate employment opportunities directly and inairectly and that it can offset certain shortcomings of the state's business climate; and WHEREAS, contrary arguments have been made that accountability of tax - increment developments is lacking, that some businesses will lose when favored treatment is given to others, that potentially too much tax base may be captured, that revenuas of the county government and school district are committed without specific consent and the purposes for which the assistance is provided are too broad; and WHEREAS, the Commission holds that tax increment financing is only one of several financial incentive methods available for economic development enhancement; and WHEREAS, the Commission clearly states it has not made an exhaustive review of the TIF law or all arguments favoring or opposing such financing; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Economic Development Commission be on record finding and recommending to the City Council as follows: 13 Ii 1. The competition on the part of cities and states for the attraction and retention of quality business development has increased in recent years and the use of financial incentives including tax increment financing will become critical to the attraction or retention of such businesses in the future. 2 Should the City Council determine that tax increment financing ought to be allowed on a limited or broad basis, educational resources must be provided by which City Council members, Planning Commission members, City staff, the business community and the public are fully informed of all positive and negative aspects of tax increment financing within the City. 3. It is also deemed important, if the Council approves the concept of tax increment financing, that general guidelines be prepared that will allow prospective applicants direction as to the minimum criteria for approval to be required by the City. 4. The City Council should be given broad discretion to determine the appropriateness of approval of TIF and other financial incentives on a case -by case basis, which approval shall be based upon potential risks, the incentives deemed necessary and the long—term impact upon the City and the area. 5. It should be understood that the Commission does not take the position favoring TIF in every case, but that it does recommend that the City Council be on record favoring all financial incentive methods available, under condition that the use of any incentive shall be subject to specific criteria including those mentioned above. MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: THOSE IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: CITY OF EAGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Chairperson Secretary Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Three DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESSI There are no items to be considered under Department Head Business. Members of the staff will be present if any member of the City Council has a specific question. CONSENT AGENDA There are fourteen (14) 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 and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. 1�5 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Four PERSONNEL ITEMS A. PERSONNEL ITEMS There are two (2) items to be considered under Personnel Items. Item 1. Engineering Tech II --After screening the approximately 55 applications for this position, five applicants were invited to take a written test. Three applicants were then interviewed by Assistant City Engineer Hefti and Administrative Assistant Duffy. It is their recommendation that Bruce Allen be appointed to fill the vacant position. The appointment would be contingent upon successful completion of the City's physical examination requirement and would be effective May 1, 1986. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the appointment of Bruce Allen as Engineering Tech II, the appointment to be effective May 1, 1986, and contingent upon successful completian of the City's physical examination requirement. Item 2. Park Maintenance Workers (2) --After screening the over 350 applications for these two vacant positions, three applicants were invited to take a written test. From these applicants, eight were selected for an interview and an equipment test. The interviews were held by Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa, Park Superintendent VonDeLinde, Park Foreman McGuffee, and Admin- istrative Assistant Duffy. The interviews were held on Thursday, April 10. Recommendations for the filling of these two vacant positions will be included with the Administrative packet on Monday. The appointments would be contingent upon successful completion of the City's physical examination requirement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To of two (2) Park Maintenance Workers fo contingent upon successful completion examination requirement. /6 approve the appointments r the City of Eagan and of the City's physical Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Five CONTRACTOR LICENSE B:. Contractor License --Attached on page / is a list of con- tractors who are renewing or who have been selected and retained as the builder by a customer either living in or planning to reside within the City of Eagan. These contractors have references from other municipalities• or their client permit applications are awaiting City Council approval for a contractor license. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the list of contractor licenses as presented. /1 ��l CONTRACTORS' LICENSE APRIL 15, 1986 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1. CALVIN CONSTRUCTION, MARK 2. DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CO 3. ELDEEN CONST, GENE 4. FRANA & SONS 5. GUSTAFSON CONST 6. OWEN CONST, C.L. 7. ROBY REMODELING CO 8. STAHL CONSTRUCTION CO 9. TOLLEFSON BLDRS HEATING/VENTILATING 1. BURNSVILLE HTG & A/C 2. HARRIS MECHANICAL CONTR 3. SUBURBAN AIR COND CO 4. YALE INC PLUMING 1. ABC PLUMBING 2. GALAXY MECHANICAL 3. HARRIS MECHANICAL CONTRACTING MASONRY, CEMENT WORK 1. HEAT—N—GLO FIREPLACES 1. ORV BAKKE rol a Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Six PURCHASING LIMIT GUIDELINES C. Establish Purchasing Limits Consistant with State Guidelines— Several,,-years ago, purchasing guidelines were established as to when the City must require sealed bids as opposed to quotations. Any amount over $10,000 required a formal bidding process. This procedure was consistent with state law. In more recent years, the $10,000 amount was increased to $15,000 which allows for the City to solicit quotations -up .to that amount and -sealed bids in excess of the amount. The Director of Finance and City Administrator are suggesting that the City's policy be amended to reflect consistency with state regulations. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve an amendment to the City's purchasing policy that allows quotations to be received up to $15,000 and the advertisement for sealed bids beyond that amount. Iq Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Seven MULTIFAMILY RENTAL/SERVICE AGREEMENT D. Multifamily Rental/Interest Rate Reduction Housing Service Agreement --During 1985 the City Council approved an interest rate reduction program for the CanAmerican Project referenced as Cinnamon Ridge. It was agreed upon at that time that the City would request the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority to perform many of the multifamily rental .housing services for the City of Eagan. These services range from record keeping and monitoring of the 20% low and moderate income tenants, inspection of owners' books and records, notice of noncompliance enforcement, collection of owners' fees, and related items. It was determined by the City HRA at the time the interest rate reduction program was approved for CanAmerican that the Dakota County HRA would be better suited to handle these administrative functions. The City will agree 'to compensate the authority for any reasonable cost incurred by the authority in carrying out the provisions of the agreement including without limitation any attorney's fees. The Director of Finance and City Administrator have both reviewed the multifamily rental housing services agreement and find it to be in order for considera ion. A copy of the agreement is enclosed on pages `,7/ through 7, . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the agreement between the City of Eagan and Dakota County HRA as presented. MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING SERVICES AGREEMENT This Multifamily Rental Housing Services Agreement (this "Agreement"), dated as of , 1986, by and between the DAKOTA COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Authority"), and the CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, a political subdivision and city organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has issued and will continue to issue bonds (the "Bonds") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act") to finance certain multifamily rental housing developments (collectively, the "Projects") within the City; and WHEREAS, interest on the Bonds paid to the registered owners of the Bonds •• is exempt from federal income tax if the Bonds are issued in compliance with the terms of the Act and each Project continuously complies with Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and Treasury Regulations thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City and the owners of the Projects (the "Owners") have entered into or will enter into agreements whereby the Owners consent to be regulated by the City to assure compliance with the Act and Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code and Treasury Regulations thereunder ( all such agreements, regardless of their titles, are hereinafter referred to as the "Regulatory Agreements"); and WHEREAS, each Regulatory Agreement authorizes the City to appoint an agent to carry out its duties and obligations thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City desires the Authority to monitor the Owners' compliance with the Regulatory Agreements and to collect on behalf of the City the City's ongoing administrative fees charged to the Owner of each Project; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants hereinafter set forth, and of other valuable consideration, the City and the Authority agree as follows: 1. Determination of Compliance. The Authority agrees to continuously monitor the Owners' compliance with the applicable restrictions of the Act and Section 103(b)(4)(A) and Treasury Regulations as set forth in the Regulatory Agreements. In addition to any other duties required by this Agreement or the Regulatory Agreements, the Authority shall periodically determine for each Project whether: (a) At least twenty percent (20%) of the units in the Project are occupied (or treated as occupied as provided herein) by individuals or families of low or moderate income as determined under Section 103(b)(4)(A) 1 of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations ("Qualifying Tenants") and such units are of comparable quality and are a range of sizes and number of bedrooms comparable to those units which are available to other tenants; or (b) If the Project is, or subsequently becomes, a "targeted area project" (as defined in 26 CFR §1.103-8(v)(8)(iii)), and a lower number of Qualifying Tenants is permitted by the Act, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the units in the Project are occupied (or treated as occupied as provided herein) by Qualifying Tenants and such units are of comparable quality and are a range of sizes and number of bedrooms comparable to those units which are available to other tenants. For the purposes of the foregoing, the determination of whether an individual or family is of low or moderate income shall be made with reference to the time the tenancy commences. Any" unit occupied by an individual'or family who is a Qualifying Tenant at the commencement of occupancy shall continue to be treated as if occupied by a Qualifying Tenant during their tenancy in such unit even though such individual or family subsequently ceases to be of low or moderate income. Any completed unit vacated by a Qualifying Tenant shall be treated as being occupied by such prior Qualifying Tenant until reoccupied by another occupant, other than for a temporary period not to exceed 31 days. As required by .. ,. Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code and Treasury Regulations thereunder, not less than 20% (15% if the Project is, or subsequently becomes a "targeted area project" and a lower number of Qualifying Tenants is permitted by the Act) of the total number of units in the Project shall be made available by the Owner for occupancy on a priority basis by individuals or families whose adjusted gross income does not exceed 80 percent of median adjusted gross income for the area, as adjusted gross income may from time to time be determined pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. If the Project is financed by Bonds (not including refunding bonds) issued after December 319 1985, the percentage of median gross income that qualifies as low or moderate income shall be 80 percent of median adjusted gross income for the area with adjustments for smaller and larger families. The family -size adjustments shall be consistent with family -size adjustments pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. In addition to the foregoing; the Authority agrees to continuously monitor the Owner's compliance with the applicable restrictions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, subdivisions it to 13 in connection with any interest rate reduction programs established by the City. The Authority will work with the City to facilitate compliance with the terms of any interest rate reduction loan agreements entered into between the City and the Owners, and will assist the City in calculating the amounts payable under any such agreements and in filing any reports required to be made under any such agreements or under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, subdivisions 11 to 13. The foregoing shall be deemed amended to the extent necessary to comply with any subsequent regulations, rulings, judicial decisions, or laws which impose different, additional, or less restrictions under the Act or the Code, whether or not retroactively applicable. 2. Authorization to Inspect_ Owners' Books and Records. In order to make the determinations set forth in Section 1 hereof, the City authorizes the �y 2 Authority to inspect any books and records of the Owners regarding the Projects and with respect to the incomes of Qualifying Tenants which pertain to compliance with the Regulatory Agreements. In addition, the Authority is authorized to request from the Owners any other information, documents or certificates deemed necessary or beneficial by the Authority to substantiate the Owners' continuing compliance with the Regulatory Agreements. 3. Notice of Non -Com fiance; Enforcement. (a) The Authority covenants and agrees to perform the City's obligation under the Regulatory Agreements to inform any Owner of any violation of the Owner's obligations thereunder after first discovering such violation. The Authority shall also give written notice to the City of any violation of the Owner's obligations under the applicable Regulatory Agreement a reasonable period after first discovering such violation. (b) In its notice to any Owner as provided in (a) above, the Authority shall specify a period of time for the Owner to correct such violation. The period of time shall be at least thirty (30) days after the date any notice to the Owner is mailed, or such further time as the Authority determines is necessary to correct the violation without loss of tax exemption of interest on the applicable Bonds and without adversely affecting the validity of the Bonds, but not to exceed any limitations set by applicable regulations. If any such violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the Authority within the specified period of time, the Authority, as agent of the City, shall declare a default under the applicable Regulatory Agreement effective on the date of such declaration of default, and apply to any court, state or federal, for specific performance of the applicable Regulatory Agreement or an injunction against any violation of the applicable Regulatory Agreement, or any other remedies at law or, in equity, or any administrative remedies, or other actions as shall be necessary or desirable so as to correct non-compliance with the applicable Regulatory Agreement. 4. Collection of Owner Fees; Account. (a) The Authority, agrees to collect from the Owner of each Project any ongoing administrative fee charged to the Owner by the City. The Authority shall take whatever actions as are reasonably necessary to collect such fees, including, without limitation, the institution of legal action. Upon collection of the Owner fees owed the City, the Authority will forward the fees to the City. (b) The City hereby agrees to create a special account to be kept on its books and records designated as the "Housing Administrative Fee Account", the nature of which account will be agreed upon between the City and the Authority, to be used to finance such future housing related developments within the City as may be determined by the City. This account shall be kept separate from all other accounts of the City. Fees forwarded the City from the Authority as provided in Section 4(a) above shall be deposited in the Account. CZ'6 3 5. Compensation. The City agrees to compensate the Authority for any reasonable costs incurred by the Authority in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any attorneys' fees. 6. Term of Acreement. Unless terminated pursuant to Section 7 hereof, this Agreement shall remain in force as long as the occupancy restrictions in the Regulatory Agreement for any Project remain in force. 7. Termination. The City and the Authority may terminate this Agreement at any time upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other party. 8. Notice of Agency. As soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement, the Authority shall inform the Owner of each Project by written notice of its agency appointment hereunder and pursuant to the applicable Regulatory Agreement. 9. Incorporation. This Agreement shall automatically incorporate applicable changes in the Act and Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code") and the Treasury Regulations and any rulings, judicial decisions, and laws subsequently adopted, promulgated, or otherwise published with respect to the foregoing. ., 10. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable and if any of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or the Authority or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. 11. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 12. Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Agreement. 13. Interpretation. Any terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as terms defined in the Regulatory Agreement or in the Act or Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the Code and Treasury Regulations thereunder. 14. Notices. All notices to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. The initial addresses for notices and other communications are as follows: To the City: City of Eagan, Minnesota 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Attention: Thomas Hedges Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Eight PROJECT 472, RECEIVE REPORT/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING E. Project 472, Receive Report/Order Public Hearing (Clearview Addition - Streets) --At the March 19 Council meeting, the City Council iesponded to requests and concerns of the homeowners association of the Eden Addition by authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report to discuss the installation of streets within the Clearview Addition. This report has now been completed and is being presented to the City Council for their consideration of scheduling a formal public hearing for these proposed improve- ments. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Receive the feasibility report for Project 472 (Clearview Addition - Streets) and order the public hearing to be held May 6, 1986. PROJECT 474, RECEIVE REPORT/ORDER PUBLIC HEARING g, Project 474, Receive Report/Order Public Hearing (Eagandale Lemay Lake 2nd Addition - Streets and Utilities) --On April 1, the Council received a petition from the developers of the proposed Eagandale Lemay Lake 2nd Addition (Residence Inn) requesting the preparation of a feasibility report to install streets and utilities to service this proposed subdivision. Subsequently, the Council authorized the preparation of this feasibility report which has now been completed and is being presented to the Council for their review and consideration of scheduling a public hearing for formal discussion and action. The Council will be considering the preliminary plat approval for this development at the May 6 Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project 474 and schedule a public hearing for May 20, 1986. 02 A4 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Nine ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS/TRACTOR LOADER G. Authorize Advertisement for Bids Tractor/ Loader for Parks and Recreation Department --As a part of the 1986 budget approval a tractor/loader was authorized for the Parks and Recreation Department. This piece of equipment will be used for post hole digging, blading, installation of park playground equipment and - other related uses. The Parks and Recreation Department is giving consideration to a skid loader as opposed toa tractor/loader which is outlined with a suggestion in the memo attached on page(s) J- Z 1. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to prepare the final specifications and advertise for bids for a tractor/loader or skid loader as presented. a5 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL, TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 11, 1986 RE:. AUTHORIZATION, ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS - NEW EQUIPMENT Recommendation for Council Action Staff is recommending and seeking approval of the City Council to advertise for bids for a skid -steer loader. Background The 1986 Parks & Recreation Department budget provided $28,000 for the purchase of a new tractor loader. Over the last several months, Parks & Recreation Maintenance Staff, Parks Foreman, and the newly appointed Superintendent did an analysis of the work capabilities of the existing tractor units within the Department. This was compared against work requirements within the Department, as well as functions not currently addressed with existing equipment. The Department Staff then reviewed equipment demonstrations of the Ford 39109 John Deere, Melrose Bobcat, and Sperry -New Holland L-555. The intent of these comparisons were to determine which unit would be best suited as a basis for bid specifications, and would best meet current and future City needs. Following this analysis, and in consultation with the Street Superintendent and maintenance mechanic, it is Staff's recommendation to seek bids for a skid -steer loader equivalent to the Sperry -New Holland L-555. This recommendation is based on three factors: 1. The need for versatility. The machine which can do excavating, digging, grading, backfilling, augering, and nursery work is a primary importance. 2. To avoid duplication of use limitations of existing Unit 321 - Ford 440O. The purchase of a similar tractor would simply duplicate its limitations and provide less flexibility than a skid -loader. 3. The third area of comparison is in cost analysis. A basic skid -loader is estimated to cost $18,500 vs. a base price of $209500 for a tractor unit. Added to the base estimate would be such auxiliary pieces of equipment such as a heated cab for winter use, turf tires, utility buckets,. etc. Based on list price comparisons, it appears that to fully equip a tractor -loader comparably with a skid -loader, there would be a price difference of approximately $2,500 to $3,500. Further, the purchase of a tractor equipped to meet the needs of the Department could exceed the $28,000 budgeted. 1S Summation The 1986 Budget provided for $28,000 for the purchase of a tractor -loader as a workhorse.tractor within the Department. Maintenance Staff, Parks Foreman and Parks Superintendent, along with knowledgeable Public Works' employees, have reviewed the needs and capabilities of various pieces of equipment. The Department Staff is recommending that Council approve and authorize advertisement for bids for a skid -steer loader. The Director. of Parks & Recreation will be present at the April 15th City - Council meeting to answer any questions regarding this issue. KV:klh -77 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Ten VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS RECEIVE PETITIOIN/SET PUBLIC HEARING WESCOTT HILLS 4TH ADDITION H. Vacate `Drainage and Utility Easements, Receive Petition/Set Public Hearing, (Wescott Hills 4th Addition) --The staff has received a petition from John Houston requesting a vacation of several common lot line drainage and utility easements within the Wescott Hills 4th Addition to accommodate the development of the "Wescott Townhomes" which consist of five (5) complexes, each one consolidating two (2) existing lots of record. Because of the zero lot line concept that has previously been approved, it it necessary to vacate these common lot line drainage and utility easements over lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8 of Block 1 and lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 Wescott Hills 4th Addition. All application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for setting the public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the order the public hearing to vacate common lot line utility easements within Wescott Hills 4th Addition for MOO petition in drainage and May 6, 1986. Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Eleven APPROVE GRADING PERMIT/GREENSBORO ADDITION I. Approve Grading Permit EX14-036 (Greensboro Addition) --We have received an application for a grading permit within the first phase of the Greensboro Addition by Gabbert Development Inc. All permit application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Approve grading permit EX14-036 (Greensboro Addition) as submitted by Gabbert Development Inc. APPROVE FINAL PLAT/EAGAN CENTER ADDITION J. Approve Final Plat, Eagan Center Addition --We have received'an application for final plat approval for the Eagan Center Addition located east of Lexington Avenue and south of Diffley Road. Enclosed on page is a copy of the proposed final plat which conforms to the preliminary plat approved by Council action on May 7, 1985. All final plat application materials have been submitted, reviewed by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Approve the final plat for Eagan Center Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 0 L CA m m m A Alk tl � �1� � rr,H.fSal..wt4 •, t! AL— e A;ACtCZ; 4j ^_�.I a'�I 'Ltxcwt: •,r • ryy'oY ' 1 w - `� E –�`.. L[7;;Y•i-lii•i K J)+rA► �O IJ ;; 48 O w 8 I 1 � .{ t� r • x m �tOT Z, 1 0�17L0 ..+•� .�Y•. � � � ; 1 1 'v :M et�r • , �!plN� 1 �4'k F � I m ` ♦tq A.+. � w rp } � 1w rw i• •'� N -VA t4 Saxod 00 ..sway � eva •• �I S w�i�� C T tsl� ~ � h�• 1 `t • u P` TMi.i�. 11�:iI 1 'I 9a � � ,a ,' not I I i I. 61 asil� i�• `MH I a t i it •`.; R tic Ill it I ` I ' f 7l� 1 t ai ci?i .cft# "Nii=acp t 11 a HS i VII i . a'i� � i �.. 91 ii t 1 ii !rj ttI R[: Llt �a i = Mi !i � I i •_ •t �f � i � �I• �14�� i�iai•��` � �i 1 • ! -� .i 0 i I Ni s flit± .IIt mVIL t � ' ' li � if � � it s �• �iJ � �. �t`` x ;►j=f: �� i • � .# ' I i � � ! I i !� ,t� I �s 1� ai�t .li•�f i�) �t _ mow., :; .OUA i rr t i `L' %�': Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twelve APPROVE/CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, CONTRACT 85-22 K. Approve/Change Order No. 1, Contract 85-22, Lone Oak Addition Trunk Water Main --Contract 85-22 provided for the installation of a trunk water main along T. H, 149 from Yankee Doodle Road to T.H. 55. As this project was being bid and constructed, the staff and consulting -engineering firm further evaluated the water distribution network in this area and determined that an additional connection to the existing 8 inch water main stub on Chapel Lane at T.H. 149 would provide a beneficial loop to the Burr Oak Addition for both pressure and flows for service and. -safety purposes. To construct this additional 400 feet of 8 inch water main, the existing contractor has agreed to perform this work at the same unit prices as those quoted in the Contract 85-22. Therefore, the Public Works Director is strongly recommending Council approval of this change order in the amount of $7,116.56. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve change order No. I , Contract 85-22 in the amount of $7,116.56, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 31 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirteen CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, CONTRACT 85-08 L. Change Order No. 2, Contract 85-08 (Town Center 70 1st Addition Contract 85-08 provided for the installation of utilities to service Town Center 70th and 100th Additions. As a part of this contract, an internal fire protection water main loop was proposed in front " of the shopping center and supermarket store within the Town Center 70th Addition. Subsequent to the contract being awarded, the developer changed the configuration of the shopping center layout which results in a requirement to realign this fire protection water main loop. The estimated cost of $15,197.50 for this change order will be the responsibility of this develop- ment to be assessed in accordance with the feasibility report. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve change order No. 2 to Contract 85-08 in the amount of $15,175.50, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 3-Y Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Fourteen FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SUNSET 7TH ADDITION M. Final Plat Approval, Sunset 7th Addition (Calvary Memorial Church)7-We- have received an application for final plat approval for a two lot subdivision of the Sunset 7th Addition located north :of Yorktown Place and Agusta Lane. The proposed final plat enclosed on page 3��35 conforms with the the preliminary plat approval of May 7, 1985. All final plat application materials have been submitted, reviewed. .by staff and found to be in order for favorable Council action. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for the Sunset 7th Addition as submitted by Calvary Memorial Church and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 3 _--s' • 0 KVrA r rt!— ■ c po !p/ t/ tF V If10Mf OWNER w x e_ D Yy Y -4 f Y t A .' e • Y M ' z t MGACT rm s U)_ O m c Z Z m m ..,,I MSR IIEII N rr v a Xr, �. �• s i ..: 'f:.. : .:E 149.00— — s r � r 1� ti4 • f; Z 1 1 r00•aK.•S!•a I: NIr Nooror4�=w � O y�o OOP- p Illy. <7 Y? No z • .. •�' { � Sin s N II T L; AUGUSTA LANE ! z 14 3000• }_ — 209.00-- i $ N 00.01',3• W 3f5- V! m m D C v z Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Fifteen WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN N. Water Quality Management Plan/Wetland Inventory - Consulting Services ,,Agreement --As a part of the 1986 approved budget, the Council allocated funds necessary to prepare a comprehensive water quality management plan for the City of Eagan. Preparation of this plan was also a requirement of the Pollution Control Agency as a part of the City's stipulation agreement executed in February of this year. Part of this overall management plan preparation requires the compilation of an inventory of all existing lakes, ponds, drainage basins, and wetlands. The Director of Public Works has discussed this management plan preparation with the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation's District and solicited their assistance in preparing requests for proposals and other planned content informa- tion. Part of the services that this governmental agency provides is the availablilty of their personnel on a time and material basis to assist communities in water conservation and management plan preparations. Subsequently, an agreement has been drafted, whereby the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District would perform a comprehensive wetland inventory for the City of Eagan which would be used in the preparation of the overall water quality management plan. The estimated cost of this inventory is approximately $8,000, which is very economical considering the scope of this phase of the project. This service used to be provided free of charge to Dakota County communities, but recent budget constraints have required that various agencies charge a minimal hourly rate. A copy of theagreement is available through the City Administrator or Public Works Director's office if detailed review is desired. Enclosed on page is a copy of the data information sheet that will be complet,�d on each wetland. A comprehensive City map will also be prepared as a part of this contract. Representatives of the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District will be available at the Council meeting on April 15 if there are any additional questions. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the engineering services agreement with Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District for $7,880 for a wetland inventory of the water quality management program and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents. 0 7 WETLAND DATA SHEET 11 A. WETLAND N0. R. EXISTING USE: Sediment Retention ________ Nutrient Trap ________ Stormwater Storage Aesthetics C. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION: Class III Shallow Marsh Class IV Deep Marsh Class V Open Water "D. WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS: SECTION__________ ---------- -------- Aquifer Recharge Wildlife Habitat Recreation Class VI Shrub Swamp Class VII Wooded Swamp Other* Size ac. Open Water ------ ac. Landscape Position: ________ Headwaters Lakeside -------- Upland ________ Streamside Vegetation°---------------------------------------------------�� Soils: --------------------_ ------------------------------------- E. DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS: Direct Drainage Area ...... ac. Total Drainage Area ........ ac. Upstream Wetlands ---------- ac. ----------no. Inlet & Outlet Type: Channel ________Stormsewer(gravity) Culvert Groundwater Influence: F. G. -------- Regional Drainage is to: ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------Swale ________Stormsewer(fcrce) --------None Perched ----------------- ----------------- DIRECT DRAINAGE AREA CHARACTERISTICS: Glacial,Origin:---------------- --------------------------------------- Soil Texture: Slope:---------- ----------------------------__-.__-------------------- - ---------------------------- Land Use: (Existing)------------------------------------------------ (Proposed)------------------------------------------------ EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL WETLAND FUNCTIONS (H,M,L): -------- Sediment Retention ________ Aquifer Recharge Nutrient Trap Wildlife Habitat -------- Stormwater Storage Recreation -------- Aesthetics H. NOTES 37 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Sixteen PUBLIC HEARINGS PROJECT 469, TOWERVIEW ROAD (STREETS) A. Public Hearing for Project 469, Towerview Road (Streets) -- In response to a petition received from the developers of the proposed Lemay Lake Hills Addition (Martin Shields property), the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report which was presented to the Council on May 19, with, the public hearing being scheduled for April 15, to discuss the surfacing of Towerview Road from Qy Lane to Pilot Knob Road. Enclosed uar on pages `�9 through is a copy of the feasibility report for the CounTcii's reference and review during the public hearing. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assesed under this project. The Consulting Engineer and staff will be discussing this project, in detail, at the public hearing and will be available to answer any questions that may arise. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny Project 469 (Towerview Road - Streets) and, if approved, authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. E REPORT ON TOW ERVIEW ROAD (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO LEMAY'S LAKE STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 469 EAGAN, MINNESOTA • e s FILE No. 49385 Baae&&w,. Raiww,. 4m&&ii4 a te, Yam At pa" Miaft"a& 39 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 612.636.4600 April 3, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Engineers & Architects Re: Towerview Road (Pilot Knob Road to LeMay's Lake) Street Improvements Project No. 469 Our File No. 49385 Dear Mayor and Council: Otto O. Bonatroo. P.C. Ruben W. Rosen, P.E. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Bradford A. Lembert. P.E. Richard E. Turner. P.E. James C. Olson. P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Aeirh A. Gordon. Y.E. Thomas E. Noyes. P.E. Richard W. foster, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. Marvin L: Sarvele, P. E. Donald C. Bartardl. PAT. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. Mark A. Hanan. P.E. Ted K. Field. P.£. Michael T. Rautmamm. P.E. Robert R. P/rjjnlr. Y.6': David G. Laskuta. P.E. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Mnhae/ C. Lynch. P.E. Karen L. WWW. P.E. Jama R. Maland. P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson. P.E. Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Mark R. Rolls, P.E. Robert C. Amsek. A.I.A. Thomas E. Amus. P.E. Scott L. resat. P.E. Chocks A. ErkAsom Leo M. Pawrlsky Harian M. Oistm Same M. Ebe ha Enclosed is our report for Towerview Road (Pilot Knob Road to LeMay's Lake), Project No. 469. This report covers street improvements and includes a pre— liminary assessment roll. We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK S ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of thy• to of nnesota. / Mark A. Hanson Date: AZril 3, 1986 Reg. No. 14260 Approved by: partment of Public Works Date: 4261d 30 Year Anniversary SCOPE: This project provides for upgrading Towerview Road from Pilot Knob Road to Quarry Lane. An alternate is also included which provides for contin- uing the upgrading of Towerview Road east of Quarry Lane to approximately the east line of Parcel 010-31. Also included as part of the alternate is extend- ing water main east of the existing water main at Quarry Lane to the end of the proposed street surfacing. Towerview Road between Pilot Knob Road and Quarry Lane is abutted by 4 existing single family homes to the south and the proposed LeMay Lake Hills to the north. LeMay Lake Hills includes 6 single family residential lots abutting Towerview Road in addition to a proposed street access as shown on the attached drawing. Towerview Road east of Quarry Lane is abutted by the Holmes Addition to the north and I existing single family home to the south which fronts on Quarry Lane but accesss onto Tower - view Road. Holmes Addition to the north includes two platted lots. The east- erly lot has an existing residential home and the westerly lot is presently vacant. Three large unplatted parcels are located southeasterly of the street surfacing proposed as part of the alternate and obtain access through this portion of Towerview Road onto Pilot Knob Road. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENTATION: The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Master Street Plan for the City of Eagan. The project can best be carried out as one contract. PILOT KNOB ROAD TO QUARRY LANE Towerview Road between Pilot Knob Road and Quarry Lane is an existing gravel road approximately 30' wide which was constructed upon completing the utilities in 1973. It is proposed as part of this project to upgrade.Tower- view Road to a 32' wide bituminous street with concrete curb and gutter. It is assumed for purposes of this report the existing aggregate base is not of 4261d Page 1. 9 sufficient depth or cross section to be utilized in the upgrading of this street. Therefore, it is assumed common excavation will be required to con- struct the street to a proper elevation and cross section to match the exist- ing driveways to the south. Upon completing the required excavation a 6" thick Class 5 100% crushed aggregate base will be constructed, in conjunction with bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, manhole adjustment, and driveway and boulevard restoration. However, as part of the preparation of the plans and specifications a more detailed analysis through soil borings and cross sectional survey work will be done to better evaluate if the existing aggregate base can be utilized. In addition, it may be less costly to con- struct a thicker bituminous base course resulting in less excavation and ag- gregate base construction depending on the final design cross section of the road. It is also proposed as part of this project to construct an additional sanitary sewer and water service northerly to the proposed LeMay Lake Hills Addition. This service is required due to a different lot layout than was used when the service stubs were initially constructed to the north in 1973. ALTERNATE QUARRY LANE TO LE MAY LAKE Towerview Road between Quarry Lane and the east line of Parcel 010-31 is an existing paved surface with a hand -formed bituminous curb. This section of roadway was constructed as part of the street surfacing of Quarry Lane to primarily direct the street runoff to the storm sewer constructed as part of that project. Therefore, an alternate is proposed as part of this project to upgrade this section of Towerview Road to a 28' wide residential street sec- tion with concrete curb and gutter. In addition, it is proposed to extend a 6" D.I.P. water main from the existing water main in Towerview Road at Quarry Page 2. 4261d Lane to the easterly end of the street surfacing. The reason for including this alternate for consideration is because as part of the final plat approval for Holmes Addition, Council required that at the time Towerview Road is up- graded, the portion abutting Holmes Addition would also be upgraded to City standards. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-29 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-30 ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AREA Parcel 010-31 Parcel 032-31 LUNKA ADDITION HOLMES ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 COST ESTIMATE: A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix A located at the back of this report. A summary of these costs is as follows: PILOT KNOB ROAD TO QUARRY LANE Service $ 2,000 Street ALTERNATE: QUARRY LANE TO LE MAY'S LAKE Water Main Street TOTAL ............... Page 3. 4261d �� 55,350 $ 8,700 14,690 $80,740 The total estimated project cost which includes the alternate is $80,740 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are es- timated at 30% and include legal, engineering, administration and bond inter- est. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited propetty. A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix B located at the back of this report. All costs will be revised based on final costs. The assessments will be spread over a period of time as determined by the City Council at the Public Hearing. The interest rate will be based upon the lat- est bond sale at the time of the final assessment hearing. It is proposed to assess the cost of street on a front foot basis to the abutting property it serves. An assessment rate per front foot was determined for each portion (Pilot Knob to Quarry Lane and Quarry Lane to LeMay Lake) based on the cost of each improvement. A 75' corner lot credit was applied to Parcel 030-30 and Parcel 010-30 since they were assessed for their entire frontage for street improvements to Quarry Lane. Because of City assessment policy regarding County Road improvements, Parcel 010-30 was never assessed for street improvements along Pilot Knob Road. Therefore, it is proposed to be assessed as part of this project for its entire frontage along Towerview Road. Parcel 010-29 (LeMay Lake Hills) will also receive a 75' corner lot credit at Pilot Knob Road. The cost of service is proposed to be assessed entirely to Parcel 010-29. The Holmes Addition was previously assessed for lateral benefit from water main, therefore, it is proposed to assess only parcel 010-31 for lateral bene- fit from water main. However, a 150' corner lot credit was applied in accor- dance with Eagan Assessment Policy as it relates to assessments for utilities to corner lots. Parcel 010-31 was previously assessed for its entire frontage for the water main in Quarry Lane. Page 4. 4261d i/i% REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: $14,690 $14,690 — 0.- 81467 Assuming the alternate is constructed the estimated project deficit is $8,467. This deficit is entirely due to the water main construction. It should be noted, however, that at the time the assessment for lateral water main was levied to Holmes Addition, no costs for construction of water main were incurred by the City. Therefore, those assessments were levied in antic— ipation of future water main construction. Page 5. 4261d �� Cost Revenue Balance PILOT KNOB ROAD TO QUARRY LANE Service= $ 2,000 Service Assessment $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 — 0 — Street $55,350 Street Assessment $55,350 $55,350 $55,350 — 0 — ALTERNATE ' (QUARRY LANE TO LEMAY LAKE Water $ 8,700 Water Assessment $ 233 $ 8,700 $ 233 —$ 8,467 Street $14,690 Street Assessment $14,690 $14,690 $14,690 — 0.- 81467 Assuming the alternate is constructed the estimated project deficit is $8,467. This deficit is entirely due to the water main construction. It should be noted, however, that at the time the assessment for lateral water main was levied to Holmes Addition, no costs for construction of water main were incurred by the City. Therefore, those assessments were levied in antic— ipation of future water main construction. Page 5. 4261d �� PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report March 19, 1986 Public Hearing April 15, 1986 Approve Plans and Specifications May, 1986 Open $ids/Award Contract Junes 1986 Construction Completion Fall, 1986 Final Assessment Hearing Spring, 1987 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1988 Page 6. 4261d APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TOWERVIEW ROAD (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO LE MAY LAKE) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 469 I. PILOT KNOB ROAD TO UARRY LANE A) SERVICE 45 Lin.ft. 4" PVC Sanitary sewer service @ $10.00/lin.ft. a 55 Lin.ft. 1" Type "K" copper water service @ $10.00/lin.ft. 1 Each 1" Curb stop and box @ $80.00/each 1 Each 1" Corporation stop @ $30.00/each 1 Each Connect 4" PVC to existing 9" VCP @ $300.00/each 55 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total +5% Contingencies 4261d +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest TOTAL............................................ Page 7. X1 $ 450 550 '80 30 300 55 $ 1,465 75 $ 1,540 460 $ 2,000 B) STREET 900 Cu.yds. Common excavation @ $5.00%cu.yd. $ 4,500 250 Sq.yds. Remove bituminous pavement @ $3.00/sq.yd. 750 200 Cu.yds. Subgrade correction @ $5.00/cu.yd. 1,000 100 Cu.yds. Select granular borrow @ $8.00/cu.yd. 800 1,000' }Ton Class 5 100% crushed quarry rock @ $8.00/ton 8,000 220 Ton 2331 Bituminous base course @ $14.00/ton 3,080 220 Ton 2341 Bituminous wear course @ $15.00/tpn 3,300 26 Ton Bituminous material for mixture @ $200.00/ton 5,200 120 Gals. Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.50/gal. 180 1,300 Lin.ft. Surmountable concrete curb & gutter @ $5.00/lin.ft. 6,500 4 Each Driveway restoration @ $500.00/each 2,000 32 Lin.ft. 12" RCP storm sewer @ $20.00/lin.ft. 640 1 Each Catch basin w/casting @ $900.00/each 900 0.5 Acre Seed w/fertilizer and mulch @ $1,500.00/Ac. 750 5 Each Adjust MH & GV box @ $200.00/each 1,000 750 Sq.yds. Sod w/topsoil @ $2.60/sq.yd. 1,950 Total $40,550 +5% Contingencies 2,030 $42,580 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 12,770 TOTAL ........................................... $55,350 Page 8. 4261d M57 ALTERNATE II. QUARRY LANE TO LE MAY LAKE A) WATER MAIN 170 Lin.ft. 6" D.I.P. water main in pl. @ $20.00/lin.ft. 1 Each Hydrant in pl. @ $1,000.00/each 1 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve box @ $450.00/each 300 Lbs. Fittings in pl. @ $1.50/lb. 1 Each Connect 6" D.I.P. to existing D.I.P. @ $500.00/each 200 Sq.yds. Remove existing pavement @ $2.00/sq.yd. 170 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total +5% Contingencies +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest TOTAL............................................ Page 9. 4261d 9 $ 3,400 1,000 450 450 500 400 170 $ 6,370 320 $ 6,690 2,010 $ 8,700 B) STREET 350 Sq.yds. Remove bituminous pavement @ $3.00/sq.yd. $ 1,050 220 Ton Class 5 100% crushed quarry rock @ $8.00/ton 131760 50 Ton 2331 Bituminous base course @ $14.00/ton 700 50 "`Ton 2341 Bituminous wear course @ $15.00/ton 750 8 Ton Bituminous material for mixture @ $200.00/ton 1,600 30 Gals. Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.50/gal. 45 360 Lin.ft. Surmountable concrete curb & gutter @ $5.00/lin.ft. 1,800 3 Each Driveway restoration @ $500.00/each 1,500 600 Sq.yds. Sod w/topsoil @ $2.60/sq.yd. 1,560 Total $10,765 +5% Contingencies 535 $11,300 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 32390 TOTAL............................................ $14,690 Page 10. 4261d O' APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL TOWERVIEW ROAD (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO LE MAY LAKE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS r, PROJECT NO. 469 I. PILOT KNOB ROAD TO QUARRY LANE A. SERVICE Parcel Descrintion NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-29 B. STREET Parcel Descrintion LUNKA ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-29 Parcel 010-30 Parcel 030-30 No. of Total Services Cost/Service Assessment 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Assessable Total Footage Rate/F.F. Assessment 100 $52.60 $ 5,260 118.2 52.60 62,218 535.62(1) $52.60 $28,175 185.2 52.60 9,742 113.2(1) 52.60 5,955 1052.22 $55,350 (1) 75' Corner lot credit was applied. Page 11. 4261d �/ II. 2UARRY LANE TO LE MAY LAKE A) WATER MAIN Parcel Assessable Description. Footage NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-31 19.6(1) Rate/F.F. $ 11.88(2) Total $ 233 (1) 150' Corner lot credit was applied. (2) Lateral benefit assessment rate per Report on "Trunk Assessment Rates" 1986. B) STREET NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-31 94.6(1) $ 49.93 $ 4,724 HOLMES ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 90 $ 49.93 $ 4,494 Lot 2, Block 1 109.6 49.93 5,473 294.2 $14,690 (1) 75' Corner lot credit was applied. Page 12. 4261d ALTERNATE II. OUARRY LANE TO LE MAY LAKE Parcel PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL Total TOWERVIEW ROAD Water Main Street Assessment (PILOT KNOB ROAD TO LE MAY LAKE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS $ 233 $ 4,724 $ 4,957 PROJECT NO. 469 I. PILOT KNOB ROAD TO QUARRY LANE -- $ 4,494 Parcel Lot 2, Block 2 -- Total Description Service Street Assessment NW 1/4, SECTION 10 4261d o Parcel 010-29 $ 2,000 $28,175 $30,175 Parcel 010-30 -- 9,742 9,742 Parcel 030-30 -- 5,955 5,955 LUNKA ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 -- $ 5,260 $ 5,260 Lot 2, Block 1 -- 6,218 6,218 ALTERNATE II. OUARRY LANE TO LE MAY LAKE Parcel Total Description Water Main Street Assessment NW 1/4, SECTION 10 Parcel 010-31 $ 233 $ 4,724 $ 4,957 HOLMES ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1 -- $ 4,494 $ 4,494 Lot 2, Block 2 -- 5,473 5,473 Page 13. 4261d o 011-02 75' CREDIT (STREET) M 2 � Q vi U • • m 0 Q O m O Z Y PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS SURMOUNTABLE CONC. C. a G. 32' F- F 28' F -F LEMAY�S LAKE PROPOSED 6" WATER MAIN — 010-29 iHOLMES iSANITARY S WERE ADDITION -S WATER SE�RVIC� ID 2. LOWERV,IEW ! ! ROAD 75 CREDIT'' (STREET) 010-30 I 2 030-30 LUNKA ADDITION TOWERVIEW ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 469 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1509 CREDIT 75 CREDIT 010-31 ALTERNAT (WATER) (STREET) 032-31 0 200' 400' Graphic Scale in Feet BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MARCH, 1986 Comm. 49385 FIG. No. 1 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Seventeen PROJECT 470, GREENSBORO ADDITION (STREETS & UTILITIES B. Public Hearing for Project 470, Greensboro Addition (Streets and Utilities) --In response to a petition submitted by the developer for the proposed Greensboro Addition, the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report for the installation of streets and utilities within the Greensboro Addition. This report was completed, presented to the Council on March 19 and the e public hearing scheduled for April 15. Enclosed on pages through �_ is a copy of the feasibility report for the Council's reference and review during this public hearing. The staff and Consulting Engineer will be available to discuss this proposed improvement and answer any questions that may arise during this hearing process. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny Project 470 (Greensboro Addition - Streets and Utilities) and, if approved, authorize preparation of detailed plans and specifications. 6� 10 0 REPORT ON GREENSBORO ADDITION UTILIITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 470 EAGAN, MINNESOTA FILE No. 49386 ems empim"" st pa" M 0 & 4m, ---- - — Otto G. Bonesiroo, P.E. Ir CiG Rnhen W. Rosene, P.E. - — -- Jn,eph C. Anderlik, P.E. 2335 V. 36 lkadJord A. Lemberg, P.E. Richard L. Turner, P.E. Si. n,d. JN-...,.& 55,13 Jame, C. Ohnn. Y.E. 19". 612 - 636-4600 March 10, 1986 Honorable Mayor & Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Greensboro Addition Utility & Street Improvement Project No. 470 File No. 49386 Dear Mayor and Council: Glenn R. Cook, P.£. Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Robert G. Schunichr, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Donald C. Burgordr, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Mirhael T. Raurmann. P.E. Robert R. PJefferle, P.E. David O. Loskora, P.E. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Powelskv Harlan M. Olson Transmitted herewith is our report for Greensboro Addition, Project No. 470. This report covers sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer and street con- struction and includes a preliminary assessment roll. We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00,/ROSEEN/E, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of iyinnesota. 1� Mark A. Hanson /ji March 10, 1986 Reg. No. 14260 Approved By: Department of Publi ;Works Date: - 1 3829d s� SCOPE: This project provides for the construction of sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer and streets to serve Greensboro Addition. Greensboro Addi- tion is approximately 40 acres in size and is located on the north side of Wescott Road approximately 3/8 of a mile east of Lexington Avenue. The first phase includes 36 single family lots. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION: The project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Master Utility and Street Plan for the City of Eagan. This project is contingent on the construction of the trunk water main and trunk storm sewer for Project No. 450, Williams and Larue Addition, and the improvements associated with Wescott Road, Project No. 467. DISCUSSION: Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer proposed herein includes constructing an 8" diameter PVC sanitary sewer within the streets of Greensboro Addition as shown on the attached drawing. The sanitary sewer will be constructed at a proper elevation to provide gravity service to the abutting lots in this phase and future phases. It is also proposed to extend a lateral sanitary sewer along a lot line to serve Parcel 050-53 located west of Greensboro Addition. The san- itary sewer will connect to the sanitary sewer being constructed in Wescott Road as part Project No. 433, Lexington Square 2nd Addition and Project No. 467, Wescott Road. Water Main - Water main proposed herein includes constructing a 6" diameter DIP water main within the streets of Greensboro Addition as shown on the at- tached drawing. The proper number of valves, hydrants, and fittings are also included in addition to providing water main stubs to future phases. The 6" diameter water main will connect to the proposed 12" diameter trunk main to be Page 1. 3s29a �� constructed as part of Wescott Road, Project No. 467. Greensboro Addition is included in the intermediate pressure zone and will experience static and re- sidual (working) pressures of approximately 67 and 50 psi, respectively. Services - Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed to be constructed 15' beyond the street right-of-way line. Sewer service lines are 4" diameter and water service lines are 1" diameter. Storm Sewer - Storm sewer proposed herein includes constructing a lateral storm sewer system as shown on the attached drawing. The lateral storm sewer will comprise of 12", 15", 18", and 24" RCP. The storm sewer will discharge into Pond JP -32A located easterly of the cul-de-sac. Design considerations for Pond JP -32A are as follows: Storage NWL HWL (Ac. -Ft.) Outflow Pond JP -32A 878 879.6 . 2.3 2 cfs As indicated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan, the outlet for Pond JP -32 located in the northeast corner of Greensboro Addition is intended to flow north into Pond JP -41. However, an alternate alignment is presented which shows Pond JP -32 flowing south towards Wescott Road. It is recommended, when future phases are constructed in Greensboro Addition that the gravity outlet pipe for Pond JP -32 be constructed southerly to Pond JP -32A. The out- let pipe for Pond JP -32A is to be constructed as part of Wescott Road, Project No. 467. It is also recommended the low areas located within the unplatted parcel (050-53) west of Greensboro Addition be directed southwesterly to the proposed westerly storm sewer segment in Wescott: Road to be constructed as part of Project No. 467. Page 2. 3829d 6� STREET: Street construction proposed herein includes a 32' wide street con- structed to 7 ton residential design thickness. Bituminous surfacing, sur- mountable concrete curb and gutter and restoration of the boulevard areas is also included. It is anticipated some subgrade correction of the soils will be required. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: ASSESSMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AREA SW 1/4, SECTION 14 Parcel 010-51 (Greensboro Addition) EASEMENTS: No easements are required outside the proposed Greensboro Addi- tion. Therefore all easements within the plat will be acquired as part of the final plat approval process. COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A located at the back of this report and are summarized below: Sanitary Sewer $ 79,720 Water Main 75,620 Services 39,240 Storm Sewer 52,140 Street 145,640 TOTAL ....................... $392,360 The total estimated project cost is $392,360 which includes contingencies and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 30% and include legal, engineering, administration and bond interest. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re- port in Appendix B. All lateral costs will be revised based on final costs. These assessments will be spread over a period of time as determined by the • Page 3. 3829d �0 City Council at the Public Hearing. The interest rates will be based upon the latest bond sale at the time of the final assessment hearing. SANITARY SEWER: It is proposed to assess the total cost of sanitary sewer equally to each lot. Lateral benefit from the proposed trunk sanitary sewer in Wescott Road is to be assessed as part of Project No. 467, Wescott Road Utility and Street Improvements. Trunk area assessment for sanitary sewer is pending as part of Project No. 433, Lexington Square 2nd Addition Trunk Sani— tary Sewer/Storm Sewer Improvements, WATER MAIN: It is proposed to assess the total cost of water main equally to each lot. Lateral benefit from the proposed trunk water main in Wescott Road and trunk area assessment for water main are to be assessed as part of Project No. 467; Wescott Road. SERVICES: It is proposed to assess the total cost of sanitary sewer and water services equally to each lot. STORM SEWER: It is proposed to assess the total cost of storm sewer equally to each lot. Trunk area assessment for storm sewer for a portion of Parcel 010-51 which Greensboro is included is pending as part of Project No. 433, Lexington Square 2nd Addition. The pending assessment area for Parcel 010-51 included -in Project No. 433 is 19.4 acres. The approximate area of that por— tion of Greensboro being developed at this time is 16.6 acres. Therefore, it is recommended no trunk area assessments for storm sewer be levied at this time and that the remaining area to be assessed be done at the time future phases are developed. STREET: It is proposed to assess the total cost of street equally to each lot. An equivalent street assessment for the proposed upgrading of Wescott Road is to be assessed in accordance with Assessment Policy 86-3 as part of Project No. 467, Wescott Road. Page 4. 3829d REVENUE: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: Page 5. 3829d Project Cost Revenue Balance A. SANITARY SEWER Lateral $ 79,720 Lateral Assessment $ 79,720 $ 79,720 $ 79,720 — 0 — B. WATER MAIN Lateral $ 75,620 Lateral Assessment $ 75,620 $ 75,620 $ 75,620 — 0 — C. SERVICES Lateral $ 39,240 Lateral Assessment $ 39,240 $ 39,240 $ 39,240 — 0 — D. STORM SEWER Lateral $ 52,140 Lateral Assessment $ 52,140 $ 52,140 $ 52,140 — 0 — E. STREET Lateral $145,640 Lateral Assessment $145,640 $145,640 $145,640 — 0 — No funds will be required from the Major Utility or Street Funds. Page 5. 3829d PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Open Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion Final Assessment Hearing First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes Page 6. 3829d P March 19, 1986 April 15, 1986 May, 1986 June, 1986 Fall, 1986 Spring, 1987 May, 1988 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE GREENSBORO ADDITION PROJECT NO. 470 A. SANITARY SEWER 2,550. -Up.ft. 8" PVC Sanitary sewer @ $13.00/lin.ft. $ 33,150 13 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $950.00/each 12,350 60 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $70.00/lin.ft. 4,200 37 Each 8" x 4" PVC wye @ $50.00/each .1,850 12 Lin.ft. 8" DIP Outside drop section @ $150.00/lin.ft. 1,800 1 Each Connect 8" PVC to existing 8" PVC @ $500.00/each 500 200 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 2,000 2,550 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 2,550 Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total $ 58,400 Total +5y Contingencies 2„920 +5% Contingencies $ 61,320 2,770 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 18,400 TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ............................. $ 79,720 B. WATER MAIN 2,550 Lin.ft. 6” DIP Water main @ $13.00/lin.ft. $ 33,150 7 Each Hydrant @ $1,000.00/each 7,000 9 Each 6" Resilient wedge gate valve & box @ $400.00/each 3,600 5;000 Lbs. Fittings in place @ $1.50/lb. 7,500 1 Each Connect 6" DIP to existing 6" DIP @ $600.00/each 600 100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 1,000 2,550 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 2,550 Total $ 55,400 +5% Contingencies 2,770 $ 58,170 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 17,450 TOTAL WATER MAIN .................................. $ 75,620 Page 7. 3829d n C. SERVICES 1,650 Lin.ft. 4" PVC Sanitary sewer @ $6.00/lin.ft. $ 9,900 1,690 Lin.ft. 1" Type "K" copper water service @ $7.00/lin.ft. 11,830 36 Each 1" Corporation stop @ $40.00/each 1,440 36 Each 1" Curb stop & box @ $80.00/each 2,880 100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization @ $10.00/cu.yd. 1,000 1,690 ,Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 1,690 4 Each Total $ 28,740 3,800 +5% Contingencies 1,440 Std. CB w/cstg. @ $900.00/lin.ft. $ 30,180 1 Each +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 9,060 TOTAL SERVICES ..................................... $ 39,240 D. STORM SEWER 180 Lin.ft. 24" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft. $ 5,400 260 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $24.00/lin.ft. 6,240 300 Lin.ft. 15" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft. 6,600 270 Lin.ft. 12" RCP Storm sewer in pl. @ $20.00/lin.ft. 5,400 4 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $950.00/lin.ft. 3,800 7 Each Std. CB w/cstg. @ $900.00/lin.ft. 6,300 1 Each 24" RCP flared end @ $800.00/lin.ft. 800 8 Cu.yds. Rip rap @ $100.00/cu.yd. 800 200 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd. 2,000 860 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 860 Total $ 38,200 +5% Contingencies 11910 $ 40,110 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 12,030 TOTAL STORM SEWER ................................. $ 52,140 Page 8. 3829d ? 5 E. STREETS 750 Cu.yds. Subgrade correction @ $3.00/cu.yd. $ 2,250 500 Cu.yds. Select Granular borrow @ $6.00/cu.yd. 3,000 10,500 Sq.yds. Subgrade preparation @ $0.50/sq.yd. 5,250 3,820 Ton Cl. 5, Aggr. base, 100% crushed quarry rock @ $7.00/ton 26;740 800 Ton 2331 Bit. base course @ $11.00/ton 82,800 800 Ton 2341 Bit. wear course @ $13.00/ton 10,400 88 Ton Bit. Mat'l. for mixture @ $210.00/ton 18,480 450 Gals. Bit. Mat'l. for tack coat @ $1.50/gal. 675 5,100 Lin.ft. Surmountable conc. C & G @ $5.00/lin.ft. 25,500 1,000 Lin.ft. Reinforcing for conic. C & G @ $0.50/lin.ft. 500 2 Each Permanent barricade @ $300.00/each 600 3.0 Acres Seed w/3" topsoil, mulch & fertilizer @ $1,500.00/Ac. 4500 Total $106,695 +5% Contingencies 5,335 $112,030 +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest 33,610 TOTAL STREETS .................................... $145,640 3829d SUMMARY A. SANITARY SEWER $ 79,720 B. WATER MAIN 75,620 C. SERVICES 39,240 D. STORM SEWER 52,140 E. STREETS 145,640 TOTAL ............................ $392,360 Page 9. LO APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL GREENSBORO ADDITION PROJECT NO. 470 A. SANITARY SEWER Parcel No. of Total Description Lots Cost/Lot Assessment GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Block 1 9 $2,214 $ 19,930 Lots 1-13, Block 2 13 2,214 28,788 Lots 1-9, Block 3 9 2,214 19,930 Lots 1-5, Block 4 5 2,214 11,072 36 $ 79,720 B. WATER MAIN GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Block 1 9 $2,101 $ 18,905 Lots 1-13, Block 2 13 2,101 27,307 Lots 1-9, Block 3 9 2,101 18,905 Lots 1-5, Block 4 5 2,101 10,503 36 $ 75,620 C. SERVICES GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Block 1 9 $1,090 $ 9,810 Lots 1-13, Block 2 13 1,090 14,170 Lots 1-9, Block 3 9 1,090 9,810 Lots 1-5, Block 4 5 1,090 5,450 36 $ 39,240 Page 10. 3829d 4 D. STORM SEWER Parcel No. of Total Description Lots Cost/Lot Assessment GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Block 1 9 $1,448 $13,035 Lots 1-13, Block 2 13 1,448 18,828 Lo.ts,179, Block 3 9 1,448 13,035 Lots 1-5, Block 4 5 1,448 7,242 36 $52,140 E. STREETS GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Block 1 9 $4,046 $ 36,410 Lots 1-13, Block 2 13 4,046 52,592 Lots 1-9, Block 3 9 4,046 362410 Lots 1-5, Block 4 5 4,046 20,228 i 36 $145,640 Page 11. 3829d f, SUMMARY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL GREENSBORO ADDITION PROJECT NO. 470 Parcel Sanitary Water Storm Total Description Sewer Main Services Sewer Street Assessment GREENSBORO ADDITION Lots 1-10, Blk. 1 $2,214 $2,101 $1,090 $1,448 $4,046 $10,899 Lots 1-13, Blk. 2 $2,214 $2,101 $1,090 $1,448 $4,046 $10,899 Lots 1-9, Blk. 3 $2,214 $2,101 $1,090 $1,448 $4,046 $10,999 Lots 1-5, Blk. 4 $2,214 $2,101 $1,090 $1,448 $4,046 $10,899 Page 12. 3829d � ^ PLACE SOUTH PROPOSED 8°PVC SANITARY SEWERS 050-53 010-50 POND JP -32 l - MAY.L. 885J,� F1. .l. 888.1 IN el if t x -+---TCS LEjINGj0N rVErUE J LEXINGTON WESCOTT 88 P- 12" R.C.P. EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS .SOUARE GREENSBORO ADDITION SANITARY SEWER PROJECT No. 470 EAGAN, MINNESOTA o Iod 20d 3cd GraDnlc Scale in Feet 010-80 010-81 SONESTROO. RO.SENE, ANDERLIK Ili AS INC. Consulting, Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MARCH, 1986 COMM. 4 9 3 86 FICi. No. 1 010-50 4 010-80 i ; kwi.., 885.7 K%Y.L.888J � -O . pLACE PROPOSED 6" D.I.P. WATER MAIN 050-53 -�--Tib L.E*INGtON IAVEOUE A j I t JP -3 A I NAL -----I I ----- 8T 0 I I 8796I----- WESCOTT I ROAD ( II EXISTING 12" D.I.P. WATER MAIN SOVARE LEXINGTON GREENSBORO ADDITION WATER MAIN PROJECT No. 470 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 0 100 200 300 GraPAic Scale in Feel 010-81 SONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & AS INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MARCH, 1986 Comm. 49386 PIG. No. 2 010-50 POND JP -32 KY.L. 888J EXINOrO / r P4 ACE '� �% ♦ X. SOL JrH- ' \ V-1 PROPOSED r STORM SEWER t 15"R.C.P. I I 050-53 - ---- I I----- 24"R.C.P. PO D- ----- JP- ----JP-3 A I I 87 "D- I 18, RCP. KAL 879 6 -----) I----- WESCOTT ROAD I I —Tj LE ING ON VE UE SQUARE � LEXINGTON 0 100 200 300 Graphic Scale in feel GREENSBORO ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 470 EAGAN, MINNESOTA GJ1 010-80 010-81 SONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting, Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MARCH, 1986 COMM. 49386 FIG. NO. $ LEX1NGrON pLACE SDUrN PROPOSED STREETS 050-53 010-50 Y.L. 888.1, \ , , \ JP 3 2A ----- i i ------ WA L. -----I l----- 87 0 ! 8796 -----I l----- WESCOTT ROAD I ! ONVEyNUE f! "EXISTING STREET SOIIAR£ LEXINGTON 0 100 200 300' Graphic Scale in Feet GREENSBORO ADDITION STREETS PROJECT No. 470 EAGAN, MINNESOTA '3 010-80 010-81 SONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & AS INC. Consulting, Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Dat®: MARCH, 1986 Comm, 49386 FFI No. 4 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Eighteen PROJECT 471/WEST SERVICE ROAD (STORM SEWER) C. Project 471, West Service Road (Storm Sewer) --In response to a petition received from Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company,._the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report to discuss the installation of a lateral storm sewer along the West Service Road from Eagandale Boulevard toward I -35E. This feasibility report was completed and presented - to the Council on March 19 so the public hearing could be scheduled for April 16. Enclosed on pages�throughn_ is .a copy of the feasibility report for the Council's review and information during the public hearing. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners proposed to be assessed under this project. Due to the fact that the developer waived his right to the public hearing and guaranteed all costs to be incurred by the City, the Council had previously approved the preparation of plans and specifications which are presently out for solicitation of bids. If this project is not approved at the public hearing, this project can be deleted prior to formal contract award. The consulting engineer and staff will be available to dis- cuss the details of this project and answer any questions that may arise during this public hearing. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny Project 471 (West Service Road - Storm Sewer). 0 REPORT ¢ti ON WEST S-E.RVICE ROAD. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 471 FOR EAGAN, MINNESOTA FILE No. 49387 /.5 aae&hoa, Rase, 94 P"4 Mda",dala 7s 130 ' Pat, /�� /}�, �j�� Glenn R. Cook, P.E. /`J /lT/ 1Ll/ J � Keith A. Gordon, P.E. --- -- - - --- -- - --- ---------- -- 011u G. Bonestroo, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P. E. n Hnhrrr W. Hasene. P. E'. Richard W Faster, P.E. _ f P—ph Anderhk, AE. Robed G. Schunichl, P.E. 2335 36 ----- Hradlord A. Lemherg, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. /1itnhurd Li. Turner, P.E. Donald C. Burgardi. P.E. 55113 Jumrk C Oh(n, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. /)A—, 612 - 636-4600 Mark Hanson. P.E. Ted K. Field, P. E. Michael T. Ruulmann. P.E. March 6, 1986 Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. _ - David O. Loskota, P.E. - ' Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pawelsky Honorable Mayor and Council Harlan hf.Olson City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: West Service Road Storm Sewer Improvements Project No. 471 Our File No. 49387 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed is our report for West Service Road Storm Sewer, Project No. 471. This report covers storm sewer improvements and includes a preliminary assess— ment roll. We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas E. Angus TEA:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of'the Vate of Mi -rsota. Mark A. anson Date: March 6, 1986 Reg. No. 14260_ Approved by: AC.i"�� Department of P lic Works Date: 111 -C - - - 3798d 7)(:::p SCOPE: This project provides for the construction of storm sewer to serve an area of Eagandale Industrial Park. The area is located generally north of West Service Road and west of I -35E. This project is a further continuation of the storm sewer constructed as part of LeMay Lake 1st Addition, Project No. 424 and storm sewer proposed for Eagandale Industrial Park Storm Sewer Project No. 458. This storm sewer is required to provide the proper storm sewer capa- city to serve the Eagandale Industrial Park area based on its planned develop- ment density. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION: This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan for the City of Eagan. The project as outlined can best be carried out with the Eagandale Industrial Park Storm Sewer Project No. 458. DISCUSSION: The storm sewer that is proposed provides for the extension of storm sewer east along the north side of West Service Road from the intersec- tion of West Service Road and Center Court to Lot 18, Block 5. The extension as proposed would consist of an 18" to 27" storm sewer as indicated on Figure 1. The existing 21" storm sewer that extends east from Center Court will handle runoff from the land located south of the West Ser- vice Road while storm sewer proposed herein will handle runoff from the land located north of the West Service Road. EASEMENTS: The proposed construction will require acquisition of easements from two parcels. The estimated amount of permanent easement required from each parcel is listed below: PARCEL PERMANENT EASEMENT (ACS.) EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK Block 5: Lot 13 0.01 Lot 16 *77 0.05 Page 1. 3798d AREAS TO BE INCLUDED: The areas to be included for construction and assess— ment purposes are listed below: No construction will occur outside of those areas proposed to be assessed. CONSTRUCTION AREA ASSESSMENT AREA EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK Block 5 Block 5 Lots 13, 16, 17, 18 Lots 13, 14, 16-20 COST ESTIMATE: A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix A at the back of this report. The total estimated project cost is $41,200 which in— cludes contingencies and related overhead. Costs for easement acquisition are not included in this amount. Overhead costs are estimated at 30% and include legal, engineering, administration, and bond interest. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited properties. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re— port in Appendix B. All costs including overhead will be revised based on final costs. The assessments will spread over a period of time as determined by the City Council at the Public Hearing. The interest rate will be based upon the latest bond sale at the time of the final assessment hearing. The total project cost is proposed to be assessed on an area basis to the benefited property. Therefore, all uphill areas with storm water drainage flowing into the proposed storm sewer are to be assessed at an estimated rate of $0.044 per square foot. REVENUE SOURCES: All project costs will be assessed, therefore, revenue will be entirely from assessments. Page 2. 3798d N PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report March 18, 1986 Public Hearing April 15, 1986 Approve Plans and Specifications April 15, 1986 Open Bids and Award Contract May 1, 1986 Construction Completion Fall, 1986 Final Assessment Hearing Fall 1986 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May 1987 Page 3. 3798d ?^ APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE WEST SERVICE ROAD PROJECT NO. 471 150 Lin.ft. 27" RCP Storm sewer @ $40.00/lin.ft. 200 Lin.ft. 24" RCP Storm sewer @ $30.00/lin.ft. 400 Lin.ft. 21" RCP Storm sewer @ $24.00/lin.ft. 120 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer @ $20.00/lin.ft. 4 Each Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $950.00/each 1 Acre Seed w/fertilizer and mulch @ $1,500.00/ac. 870 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Subtotal +5y Contingencies +30% Legal, Engrng., Admin. & Bond Interest TOTAL.............................................. Page 4. 3798d $ 6,000 6,000 9,600 2,400 3,800 1,500 870 $30,170 1,509 $31,679 9,501 $41,180 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL WEST SERVICE ROAD PROJECT NO. 471 Page 5. 3798d Q' O Gross Area Net Assessment Cost/ Total (S.F.) Area (S.F.) S.F. Assessment EAGANDALE CENTER INDUSTRIAL PARK Block 5: Lot 13 275,740 275,740 $0.044 $12,193 Lot 14 348,480 174,240 0.044 7,704 Lot 16 223,200 179,030 0.044 7,91,6 Lot 17 84,070 84,070 0.044 3,717 Lot 18 88,430 88,430 0.044 3,910 Lot 19 87,120 87,120 0.044 3,852 Lot 20 85,380 42,690 0.044 1,888 TOTALS 1,192,420 931,320 $41,180 Page 5. 3798d Q' O 14 2 \� 15 .' 23 3. ° 22 .'� • Y•r• . j• , • 2 1 4. 13 20 4 ,'• ! 16 19 b •� ` 'SRV <� � f \� � 27 R.C.P. 18 � R.C.P. , 17 I 1� *P' 24 R.C.P. 21R.C.P. 5 12 6 11 3 2 'r PROPOSED o STORM SEWER i ' W s i I a 1 ... i { J Y I + I 1 O � p--�II •r :i. � I U i 5 �h a 9 (C.S.AH. Na26) o d A, o za7 aoo' �. IG,Gvn.c Scale CO 1oa ! A WEST SERVICE ROAD BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Consulting Engineers PROJECT No. 471St. Paul, Minn. FDa—te–:-MARCH 1986EAGAN, MINNESOTA $�mm. 49387 FIG. No. 1 LANE OAK ROAD C2 EAGANDALE Q� �t LEMAY Isf 020-26 Qp 4f,� ADDITION LATERAL ASSESSMENT AREA WEST SERVICE ROAD LATERAL ASSESSEMENT AREA PROJECT No. 471 EAGAN, MINNESOTA g BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Consulting Engineers St. Paul, Minn. Date: MARCH, 1986 Comm. 49387 FIG. No. 2 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Nineteen VACATE TOT LOT EASEMENT/BRIAR HILL 4TH ADDITION D. Vacate Tot Lot Easement (Briar Hill 4th Addition) --On March 4th, the Council received a petition requesting the vacation of a portion of an existing tot lot over Lot 15, Block 1, Briar Hill 4th Addition and schedul d the public hearing to be held on April 15. Enc�Yosed on page is a copy of the requested easement vacation. This vacation is necessary due to an existing encroach- ment of a portion of the existing townhouse unit. All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and reviewed by the Parks Department. As of -this date, no objections have been received pertaining to this proposed vacation. This tot lot easement is being replaced by a trailway easement through convey- ance of a separate document. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny the vacation of the tot lot easement over Lot 15, Block 1, Briar Hill 4th Addition and, if approved, authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents for recording at the County. FIA 0. 0 HC NORTM 2 C' OAK TA C uNTY CASTRON MON'T. C01kWC?t OF SEC. 20 EA;,.�1N-METF�t? CEC1'1'Ek �fiJU ADDITION! g THE NORTH LINE Or NW $4 Of SEG. 20, T. 21, FI. Y3. 589 59 Sof"E SILVER I BELL ROAD Sd9.59'S4"ESs9'a`4's4�T —� --! �+. -- -- - - 5 ZI ?moo {` i3� i+ f w w: - ►i os ± —. W! `Z° ORI 1.46[ ._. I I I O - - - - r.. w �... i 1 + •.�.w_ ' V 4 • U ! An -easement, Document No. 610413, as recorded with Dakota County, for Tot " A Lot purposes lying over and across the southeasterly fifty (50) feet ..of m � Lot 15, Block 1, BRIAR HILL 4TH ADDITION as measured at right angles from the southeasterly line of Lot 15. m I %n13 -4571 0�'• ! 74.00 '� In 136.11// ;F I r w v 11 711.7 �•••'•� CI - co 67 s7°3 9' vI •i 0 3 E Ao g o 1�% = 4 o ti 65 14 10 0 /00 .41 u. AF 6Q iAVf 61, -W PrP �'b �s `��. e� w�.� 61 64— �' I `�� ; '..' 13 \. ; s?' �h # stt »»• I 60 -3 Ill 14 ti s�•�,. 59':"tip •...-4 ' 58 00 o.�.. t c16 �, .� / .. f 57 / ; 56 1 v� R 4,. s' . _ -•r— -- �y � - ��� + 18 'r 19 \\ •�� \ oma. 55 s` O z g +� do, 53 /", • 26. 23 22 •`�- s . .a s �� oc ,y >: �.E"• + 51 '� W '.� 28 ` 52 g 30 25 49 C.- r' 29 � 27 � ,� ,�•� 47 ° + �'� x•50 . ` 10 ?� �•► �, `�11G�.J11�j "-%,. %j / pl �� y ryb .p� •• a\h7 ` `w ��•• `� ✓/ //�5`(I ��`' •�.• fig' 'y M �t j 17Do 27V ��w ?02-�•. ; �/ i 45 �� . •'`. /gyp �r = 34 Ver 8 .t .>1'`'i. 3 44 6 Ili s nv I� x x,0 �• 35 . 3 # — — — 231.00 — --� 36 .�. 37� �' �� � � ; Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty VACATE TRAIL EASEMENT (BRIAR HILL 4TH ADDITION) E. Vacate Trail Easement (Briar Hill 4th Addition) --We have received a petition to vacate a dedicated trail easement over the common lot lines of Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30, Block 1, of Briar Hilt- 4th Addition. This vacation is necessitated due to the fact that it is located through the middle of an existing 4 -unit townhouse. This trailway easement is being replaced by a new trailway dedication over the common lot line of Lots 29, 30, 31, and 32. It is anticipated that this conveyance will be completed by the time of the public hearing on April 15. If not, it is recommended that this public hearing be continued until such time that the new conveyance has been obtained by the City. A map showing the location of the easement is enclosed on page ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve/deny the vacation of a trailway easement over the common lot line of Lots 26, 27, 28, and 2.9, Block 1, Briar Hill 4th Addition. FOA El A 10 foot trailway easement described as 5.00 feet on each side of the common lot line of lots 29 alld 31 and the common lot line of Lots 30 and 32. all in Block 1. Briar Hill 4th Addition, Dak. Cty., PIN THE NOICTN M copwrit Of SEC. 20 EAGAN-METRO CF—N,rER 2ND ADDITION DAKOTA CCUwry CAST I1tONMION'T 1 — .—�-THE NORTLINE 01. NWi11 Of _SEC_20, T. 27, Pt Z'S -_�H g 589.44'5'1"E SILVER i BE ROADla I Sd9'S9'S4'E I Sb9'!9'S4" 1 1 .6 wTIuTv N G j I 1 E—••12 UTILITY CAS[MtwT y, pA Z 7100 I I I * I 7M n a+ s>• x la�.ta „�,y' b t 3 N � Z I 4 go_ 3 s g` •3c ---4i I" 11 1 72 0 _ r - 1� 110 VI _ I J1 1 -,tom h��. 1L', 1 IOb MI 9 !V'E • •PT OO I I � 1 7M 00''. N M~S•1f sy _ 62 d3 `n �/ ' 1 741.1 M !I !• •� .. t I 't M.•13f=... 1 -=•10t pNf YV YS•[ 70 2. — Cr i •S.Y� . 1'to • I 1 74.00 1 .11 y�/ 1 I 7127L�'k. 67 w....�R �� MM'i7'Y."C p.. _ Y,•j%� >IT 16 N� S,S� E r.}O^ / f L� Y� �'S7p !_ ~/ .% ,� R J Z ( n .I•Y3� I f�s9.g1 r ~ a `/x•�� � •+0 4pr7 -^' 26$ y , .01I '+ o 0 65 37. toy � g �. r 1 N 10jT4 63 M :.+ 2 , ` • w .+ • .,�• / / „' N ' 0:.27[35 / / 66 �. 6 i / ��� 46\ w / S r AYE - ? 12 1`�' 15 \ -I� fir. 60 ,�, , 1.62 \l�' �-t / g° ''� ''+c.'s' -• :j ri r . r ♦4�C 59;-Gy58 n}�b,~ �,ob4�� ' M �G I \ i J a 01•J z\ tP S o 16 •� 9. �� 57 as 56o 55 21 �• \ \ f -.�,c�.ts•1" .��`� a' 53 54 � 23 '>3 J cc oc ,V 71 w YI s ' 22 a �• I =~'E I- o� •\ f �� v t /-A- I of51 U W 1 52 ' 30 \ °�a 25 'y��r ,� �� \° 'lr 49 Y �7,. �0. In \ h ply y S. �S�%, / ':d'� �' ^ _ t W / 20 fh •iy/ : 27 ITT ctacnlrtmv29\ x �• / \ ��47 .• 150 G � r� •v / �,• ,. w 31.. ` , .9, / t�,'\ ,ti 45 Iz" i y j 4$ rt 34 33-43 e 4 ��� .46 � I �� �, 8 i t,s c N s7 �tCt 35', __Z31.0037 — r 41 •,, + �` �/ �,� S 81"511'Ob• W .47 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -One VACATE UTILITY EASEMENT (BRITTANY 7TH ADDITION) F. Vacate Utility Easement (Brittany 7th Addition) --On February 4, 1986, a public hearing was held to vacate a portion of the existing sanitary sewer easement located along the north lot line of Lot .5,,>=Block 2, Brittany 7th Addition. That vacation request was necessitated by the fact that the existing structure was built within a portion of that existing easement. At that time, the Council denied the vacation request due to a series of problems associated with the developer of that subdivision. Since that time, a stipulation agreement has been entered into which requires the developer to perform certain soil correction work prior to vacating this easement. In anticipation of the developer complying with the proposed schedule, the Council received a new petition to vacate this same easement and schedule the public hearing to be held on April 15. However, it is not anticipated that this soil correction work will be completed, inspected and accepted by the City of Eagan prior to April 15. Therefore, the staff recommehds that this public hearing be continued until May 6 for formal consideration. Enclosed on page is a copy of the location map. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Continue the public hearing to vacate a portion of a utility easement over Lot 5, Block 2, Brittany 7th Addition until May 6, 1986. IW, EJ rev PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION The west 34.00 feet of the east 65.80 feet of the south 4.00 feet of the drainage and utility easement adjacent to the north line of Lot 5, Block 2, Brittany 7th Addition, Dakota County, MN. I as -07 city of eagan - PUBLIC EIC ) WORKS 00 Cq DEPARTMENT pFtOr^.x:FD AP -EA To EE VACATED E) R I TTA NY 7 =v' ,ADD, aPProved : plate #d Lor S -e-LK7- I ► 30r `_---- — --- -- -- —J b( .. E 13-Z.00 0 No��.Tt-f ,4r ...CALF � `-?O _� � ; � ur.�' - J� N o � 0 I J 31 � i r/ -07 city of eagan - PUBLIC EIC ) WORKS 00 Cq DEPARTMENT pFtOr^.x:FD AP -EA To EE VACATED E) R I TTA NY 7 =v' ,ADD, aPProved : plate #d Lor S -e-LK7- Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Two OLD BUSINESS CRITERIA/FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM A. Criteria for 1986 First -Time Homebuyers Program --At the last regular City Council meeting, authorization was given to the use of residuals for the 1980 single-family housing program, as stated Yri`Fthe minutes and in a copy of a letter to Mr. Paul Ekholm of Mil er & Schroeder Financial Inc., which is referenced on page In addition there were some questions raised regarding other options that might be available to their use of residuals which Paul Ekholm has addressed. After reviewing further the first time homebuyers program, it was determined that the establishment of criteria which was used in the 1980 Eagan single-family housing program should be updated and reviewed for the 1986 project. Mr. Ekholm was directed to prepare the criteria based on the 1980 requirements and further, include information as discussed at the April 1 City Council meeting. A meeting was held with Mark Ulfers, Executive Director of the HRA, Paul Ekholm, Finance Director VanOverbeke and the City Administrator on Thursday, April 10, to discuss the various issues and questions that were raised at the last City Council meeting and also the criteria as recom- mended. Mr. Ekholm has addressed the questions and listed criteria in a letter which is attached for your review on pages y 7, -through Copies of the 1985 Single -Family Mortgage Ree enue Bond P gram document that was approved by the City Council. last fall when an application was approved and submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is enclosed without page number for your review. It appears after speaking with Mr. Ulfers and Mr. Ekholm that the City of Eagan will have approximately $12.5 million available for the first-time homebuyers program. Originally, the City submitted an application for $10 million and because it was selected third in the lottery, it was anticipated that the amount would be reduced to $7.5 million. Since that date, it appears the $10 million will be available and after our Executive Director has conferred with City officials in East Grand Forks, it appears that they will make $2.5 million available for the City of Eagan's program. It is anticipated that 100 to 130 mortgages can be offered under the first-time homebuyers program. Mr. Ekholm's letter does address an option if the City Council wishes to have the residuals repaid by the first time homebuyers. If it is the wish of the City Council to repay the use of. the residual sums, the appropriate action should be considered. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve criteria for the 1986 First -Time Homebuyers Program. Also formal action is required if the City wishes to repay the residual sums to reduce points offered to the homebuyers. IIItIL9 1 -1 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 April 3, 1986 PAUL EKHOLM, V PRES MILLER & SCHROEDER FIN INC NORTHWESTERN FIN CTR 7900 XERXES AVE S P O BOX 789 MPLS MN 55431 Re: First -Time Homebuyers Program/1986 Project Dear Paul: BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH VAC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk In official action that was taken. by the Eagan City Council at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, April 1, 1986, authorization was given to use residuals from the 1980 Eagan single-family program, up to $300,000, with the understanding that points to secure a mortgage will not be lowered below 1.5% of the new mortgage amount. Action is still required on the establishment of criteria for the program. There were questions raised such as establishing a regulation that no greater than 20% of the mortgages can be placed in any given subdivision. There may be other criteria that was considered during the 1980 housing program that should again be given consideration in this program. Please prepare a new letter that addresses in further detail the criteria that is proposed for this program. There was also a question raised as to whether a second mortgage could be offered to first-time homebuyers to pay the points if the City did not use residuals from the 1980 Eagan single-family program. Please answer that question and provide some additional review as to why the points cannot be lowered and the loan rate increased to maintain a favorable program. Your comments will be included as background information for the City Council as they review this item at the April 15, 1986, meeting.. Sincerely, Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/kf THE LONE OAK TREE ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY cc: Mark Ulfers. Executive Direc-tnr. E. J. VanOverbeke, Finance Director/City Clerk Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 - mer & Seeder ]Fffiancial, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center • 7900 Xerxes Avenue South ■ P.O. Box 789 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 (612) 831-1500 April 10, 1986 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 1986 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program Dear Tom: At the City Council meeting on April 1, 1986, during a discussion concerning the 1986 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond program, several questions were raised by members of the Council. The purpose of this letter is to provide answers to some of the questions raised last Tuesday and to provide certain additional information. It is our understanding that authorization was given to use residual sums available from the 1980 Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond program, to secure no more than $300,000 in 1986 Bonds, to reduce the points required on loans to be made under the 1986 Program to no less than 1.50%. The follow- ing are questions raised in discussing the authorization to secure such amounts through residuals: Is there a legal restriction or any other restriction on the use of residual income from the 19„80 Program? No. According to bond counsel,. Holmes & Graven, there are no legal restrictions on how such sums may be used once made available to the City. In addition, a review of the documents from the 1980 Program does not seem to indicate that any restrictions were imposed on such uses. It must be kept in mind that, except for use securing current issues of new debt instruments similar to the $300,000 in bonds proposed to be issued with respect to the 1986 Program, such sums will not unlocked from the trust estate established for the 1980 Program until all of the 1980 bonds have been paid in entirety, which is not expected until sometime between 1997 and 2005, depending on how 1980 mortgage loans pay or pre -pay early. It will be necessary for the City to approve and execute a pledge agreement pledging residual sums to the payment of the new civ Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Offices: Solana Beach, California • Santa Monica, California • Northbrook, Illinois a St. Paul, Minnesota • Tallahassee, Florida • Mihvaukee, Wisconsin Member of rhe &aurin,, Imesror Prounion Corporation Mr. Thomas L. Hedges April 10, 1986 Page 2 $300,000 bonds once such sums are available to the City. We are not asking the City to approve the pledge agreement at this time,. since the rating agencies have not completed a review of the draft document and the cash flow schedules prepared with respect to it. Can theCity use residual sums to reduce points of homebuyers on the 1986 Programs but ask for repayment of such amounts by homebuyers secured by a second mortgage? Yes, so long as the loan of such amounts is a zero (0%) interest loan. There are no legal reasons why such sums could not be treated as a loan by the City to homebuyers to reduce the points payable by homeowners. The City could also secure the obligation of such homebuyers to repay the loaned amounts by requiring homeowners to enter into a second mortgage on the residence financed by the program. The City could further make the obligation to repay the loan contingent upon appreciated value in the home. In other words, the City could require repayment of the loan at some fixed time in the future, or over time in increments or only upon resale of the home by the original owner to another person. Further, the City could provide that repayment would only be payable to the extent that equity has been built ._up in the home through inflation of value at the moment of resale. The reason that loans may not bear interest relates to the federal anti -arbitrage rules applicable to the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for single family mortgage revenue bond programs. Generally, the arbitrage rules provide that loans may not bear interest at a yield in excess of 1.125% higher than the yield on bonds issued to finance the program. In the current program, the loan yield is expected to be almost exactly 1.125% higher than the bond yield when the loan interest rate and up front points are factored into the loan yield. Should the City charge interest on the loans for points assistance, it is very likely that the yield calculations will not work, the bonds will be declared taxable, and the interest rate advantages sought by the program will be eliminated. We should also be aware that the second mortgage concept must still be presented to the rating agencies and to HUD and the Veterans Administration. While we have no reason to believe that there will be problems either with the rating agencies or with the FHA and VA mortgage insurance programs 93 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges April 10, 1986 Page 3 (where second mortgage financing is generally permitted), approval will only come after such persons have reviewed the proposed plan. The City should not expect that the second mortgage obligation will be insured either by FHA or the VA. Can the mortgage loan interestrat,e be increased and the points lowered to achieve the same results? No. At the time bonds are issued, certain up front costs involved in structuring and marketing the bonds sold to finance the program must be paid. Those costs include legal fees, rating agency fees, bond sale costs and fees, printing fees and cash flow related sums that must be advanced. The costs total 2.50 to 3.00%, with another .50% to .75% required to secure cash flows for a total of 3.60% up front. In addition, originating lenders usually require compensation for originating the loans, taking applications, verifying applicant incomes and verifying home sale data and so on. We are in the process of negotiating an origination fee of no more than .75%, creating total points up front to be split between homebuyers and sellers of 4.35%. Witn an expected loan rate of between 7.00% and 8.00%, the 1986 program proposed for the City of Eagan, (an FAH/VA, GNMA second single family mortgage loan pool), provides by far the lowest up front points and most favorable interest rates available for tax exempt programs today where the City does not otherwise provide additional assistance (money) to help lower 'points. If this were a conventional financing program, it might be possible to raise the loan rate and sell mortgages into the program at a premium to help pay the up front costs - which is the way the same fees are often paid on already existing conventional loan pools. Unfortunately, the bond rating agencies do not permit such mark-ups of the interest rate in yet -to -be originated pools of loans financed with tax-exempt bonds. Since this program will be viewed as a fixed, "closed loop" program and the only security for the payment of the bonds is payments received on the mortgage loans, it must be proved that loan payments will be sufficient to pay the bonds plus all costs. If some of the costs are to be paid from the rate on the loans, the rating agencies will ask how those costs will be paid if the loans pre -pay early. To prove that worst case assumption (which assumes all loans pre -pay within 3 years), the loan rate would have to be very high, (probably in excess of the yield restriction of 1.125%) or the loans subject Mr. Thomas L. Hedges April 10, 1986 Page 4 to prepayment penalties. Prepayment penalties on home loans are not permitted under Minnesota law. It is, therefore, very unlikely that converting the loans to higher rates will achieve the benefit of lower points - for both legal (arbitrage) reasons and because the rating agencies will not permit it. What are the criteria that have been established for the program? Is there a restriction on the amount of loans that can be made with respect to any one subdivision? It has always been the intent that the program will use the criteria established for the 1980 program, and the restrictions contained in the Housing Program adopted by the City in October of 1985 for the 1986 program were identical to the Housing Program 1980 program. A copy of the Housing Program setting forth the restrictions is attached to this letter, highlighted to show the restrictions. In neither the 1980 Housing Program nor in the 1986 Housing Program did any restrictions on the use of mortgage funds for any particular developer or subdivision exist. However, a restriction did exist in the documents for the 1980 program and also for the 1983 program, and was legally binding on all participants. A similar provision is currently part of the documents that are being drafted for the 1986 program. The provision in the 1980 program and to be included as part of the 1986 program reads as follows: -- No more than 25% of the moneys deposited in the Acquisition Fund may be used to acquire Mortgage Loans made to finance Newly Constructed Resi- dences sold or constructed by any one Builder. Such language can be modified for purposes of the 1986 program to provide further that the restriction shall also apply to loans for residences located within any one particular subdivision and further modified to'include any affiliates of any one developer. It would not be inappropriate either by motion or resolution to instruct that the 1986 program shall not be approved by the City unless such a restriction is contained in the financing documents should the Council wish to impose such restrictions. In addition, the Council may wish to recall certain of the other restrictions specifically required by the City in the 1986 Housing Program, which are summarized in part as follows: �j Mr. Thomas L. Hedges April 10, 1986 Page 5 -- Each Originator shall accept and process applica- tions for Mortgage Loans for the purchase of con- - struction of Housing Units on a nondiscriminatory "first-come, first-served" basis, subject to the other provisions of the Program, including any set asides and restrictions imposed by the Housing Program, and will not arbitrarily reject an application for a Mortgage Loan for a Housing Unit within a specified geographic area because of the location and/or age of the property, or, in the case of a proposed Mortgagor, arbitrarily vary the terms of a loan or the application procedures therefore because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability. -- For the first nine (9) months or such greater or lesser time as shall be specified after the Com- mencement date, no more than twenty percent (20%) of the amounts deposited in the Acquisition Fund may be used to acquire Mortgage Loans for Housing Units under townhouse ownership. -- For the first nine (9) months or such greater or lesser time as shall be specified after the Com- mencement date, no more than twenty percent (20%) of the amounts deposited in the Acquisition Fund may be used to acquire Mortgage Loans for Housing Units under condominium ownership. -- No amounts shall be set aside for specific developer commitments - only homeowners wishing to purchase homes with loan proceeds may apply for loans on a first-come, first-served basis. -- All homes financed and the program must be owner occupied. In addition, thereof federal and state limitations on income and sales prices established for the program are as follows: Mr. Thomas L. Hedges April 10, 1986 Page 6 -- For the first six (6) months there will be a max- imum adjusted gross income of $30,888; for the -=remainder of the program the limit will be 50% of the program at $38,610 and 50% at $31,590. -- Sale Price units: New Construction - $95,130 Existing Housing - $96,120 -- 100% of the program must be used by first-time homebuyers (which is defined as someone who has not had a principal interest in a single family residence in the last three 3 years). Please feel free to call me should you have questions + concerning any of the above. At a later time, expected to occur sometime in early May Council action on the pledge agreement will be required. In advance of that date but following review of the program by the rating agencies, we can give an update of the amount expected to be used (not in excess of $300,000) and a firm draft of the pledge agreement. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. PRE/smo 0279E Very truly yours, MILLER & SCHROEDER FINANCIAL, _ INC. Paul R. Ekholm Vice President Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Three VARIANCE FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 3, SUN CLIFF FOURTH ADDITION B. Two -Foot Variance to 10 -Foot Sideyard Setback Requirement, Lot 5, Block 3, Sun Cliff Fourth Addition --A variance application was submitted by Wesley Construction for a two -foot sideyard _variance for Lot 5, Block 3 in Sun Cliff Fourth Addition fronting on Eagle Crest Drive. A question was raised at the last City Council meeting as to whether_ action was taken by the City Council to disallow variances within .Sun Cliff Fourth Addition at the time of platting. The preliminary plat file and City Council action was researched and there is no record of excluding considera- tion of variances within Sun Cliff Fourth Ad i ion. A copy of the variance request in enclosed on pages through _0Z for review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a two - foot sideyard variance for Lot 5, Block 3 in the Sun Cliff Fourth Addition as requested by Wesley Construction. 1] � a 2 ,r, k=,- , CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: WESLEY CONSTRUCTION LOCATION: LOT 5, BLOCK 3, SUN CLIFF 4TH ADDN.,•NW,, SEC 21. •°'EXISTING ZONING: P.D. SINGLE FAMILY DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: APRIL 1, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 25, 1986 REPORTED BY: JIM STURM APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a 2' side yard variance for Lot 5, Block 3, in the Sun Cliff 4th Addition fronting on Eagle Crest Drive. COMMENTS. A 2' side yard variance is needed because a dwelling area is above the garage. The garage itself would have exceeded the code minimum setback of 5'. The proposed setback will be 8' from the northern property line. If the house was shifted to the south, that dwelling side would not meet the 10' side setback. There will be 20' between the proposed house and the existing one to the south and 18' to the house on the north. If approved, this variance shall be subject to all applicable ordinances. !►Z 88 Eck -5112 CreS4 Dt-iVe -N FOR:-WESLEY,CONSTRUCTION NOTE: 0 Denotes Wooden Stake Proposed Garage Floor El -r90,1 (91z.8 ) Denotes Proposed Finished Ground E1. —4 Denotes Direction Of Surface Drainage Vertical Datum - N.G.V.D. 1929 m C. R. WINDEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYORS Tot $44-3649 1351 EUSTIS $1, ST. PAULO MINN. 55106 Scale: 1'=30' e Denotes Iron Monument Bearings Are Assumed CK '^ Dro: �o9e �' Uii /i>y Easernerf O� IV 6 7' 30' z9" W I gl x �' ° v 125.00a C9�. 0 30 ej N to w 0 —�- o 12 0 ON { m ^� N 10 �, Z4 _ _ c L 117 I � �1 C� Z W �I CE I r�n �ti�9 Aa w Lot 5, Block 3, SUN CLIFF FOURTH ADDITIONr Dakota Countyr Minnesota. WE HEREIY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE " DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF All BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND All VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND Dot*J lAis rler of �r A.D. 19N. C' R. DEN a ASSOCIATES, INC. 4r - Surveyor, Minnesota Registration No 77r- Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Four CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DAYCARE FOR CATHY SPORTELLI A. Conditional Use Permit (Cathy Sportelli) to Allow a Daycare Facility for 11 or More Children Located on Lot 4, Block 1, Drexel Heights Addition --A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their last regular meeting held on March 25, 1986, to consider a conditional use permit application submitted by Cathy Sportelli, to allow a daycare facility for 11 or more children located on Lot 4, Block 1, Drexel Heights Addition. The APC is recommending approval of the conditional use permit, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. For a copy of the staff report, refer to pages /03 through ,�Q For a copy of the APC action on this item, refer to page('s)'a_ ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: conditional use permit to allow a Sportelli. 16-1,-- To approve or deny the daycare facility for Cathy SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: -EXISTING ZONING: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: REPORTED BY: CITY OF EAGAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CATHY SPORTELLI SW a, SECTION 15 R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) MARCH 25, 1986 MARCH 18, 1986 JIM STURM APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a conditional use permit to allow a day care facility for 11 or more children in a residential district. This home is located on Lot 4, Block 1, Drexel Heights Addition, fronting on Dresden Court and Dresden Way. COMMENTS_ The applicant currently is providing day care in this home. City Code requires a special permit for 7-10 children in a residential district and a conditional use permit for 11+ children. The applicant is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 10 children and the reason for the conditional use permit is to allow for some flexibility in the number of children. The yard is not fenced, however the applicant is willing to do so if necessary. If approved, the conditional use permit shall be subject to: 1) All State of Minnesota requirements. 2) Fencing if the children are allowed to be outside. 3) All other applicable ordinances. JS/j j 1P "DRESDEN- - COURT �•,�; bbq • ... _ .. !..: X3.0 < � _ ..•.. : g /79..52 Dr 21/70 e Utile t _ B84 2 - e se�ent 886.7 - 140.0 yi CT - 60 \ .4 ! a r 894.1 894.e y - 179.52 `','DESCRIPTION - Lot 4, Block 1 DREXEL HEYGHTS� ADDITION ::;.. Dakota County, Minn 8 95. 2 .=.go •.4- 890.0 894.0 Denotes iron MoRzIlnenf IL N - 1 /o 4o.0 89S? I0 110 b�D I' 06 ELA O� Q . .. ' 1 30 Denotes existing elevation Proposed garage floor elev. Provosed 1st floor elev. •hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a surve of the boundaries of the above described land. and of the location of an r*s thereon• and all visible encroachments. If any from or on s '` As surveyed by us this .-5— day of A0 ri /---Ig '¢ o` • L.S. ? =+ ++ i Minnesota License No -L4C90 . APC Minutes March 25, 1986 EAGANDALE LEMAY LAKE 2ND ADDITION - RESIDENCE INN The Chairperson then convened the continued public hearing regarding the application of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. and Opus Corporation for approval of the Eagandale LeMay Lake 2na Addition project, including rezoning, preliminary plat approval and Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment. Dale Runkle briefly reviewed the background of the application and noted that a public hearing -was held at the February 25, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson McCrea requested that the.. staff outline the procedures required for Metropolitan Council review of Comprehensive Guide amendments. There were no objections from -the audience. The question arose as to whether the project would constitute a minor amendment and it was recommended that the amendment apply only to the Residence Inn parcel. Paul Hauge, City Attorney, reviewed a proposed Resolution indicating that a public hearing had been held at the February 25, 1986 APC meeting, and suggested that the Planning Commission might act upon the amendment to the Comprehensive Guide to allow it to come before the City Council at its next regular meeting. There were strong concerns as to whether it was necessary to amend the Comprehensive Guide and whether the Metropolitan Council would require such amendment. Tom Davis of Northwestern Mutual, Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation, and representatives of Residence Inn were present. After extenaea discussion, Harrison moved, Wilkins seconded the motion that the Advisory Planning Commission be on record that it will not act upon the Comprehensive Guide amendment because of the uncertainty as to the procedure, including the involvement the Metropolitan Council may have in the amendment process. Those in favor were Wilkins, Harrison, Voracek and McCrea; Trygg voted no. CATHY SPORTELLI - DRESDEN COURT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The commission then convened the public hearing regarding the application of Cathy Sportelli for conditional use permit for day care facility for 11 or more children in a residential district, located on Lot 4, Block 1, Drexel Heights Addition. Dale Runkle indicated the City Code requires a special permit for 7 - 10 children in a residential district and a conditional use permit for 11 or more children. Cathy Sportelli was present and noted that she was licensed with the State of Minnesota, and the reason for the permit was to allow flexibility in the number of children. There were no objections and Harrison moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to the following conditions: tL 1. All State of Minnesota requirements shall be met. 2. Fencing shall"be provided if the children are allowed to be outside. 3. All other applicable ordinances shall be complied with. All voted affirmatively. 5 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Five SPECIAL PERMIT/DAWN SIMPSON FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS B. Special Permit (Dawn Simpson) To Allow Temporary Parking of Construction Trailers From April to October 1986 --An application for a special permit was received from Dawn Simpson, requesting consideration by the City Council to allow temporary parking of construction trailers from April to October 1986. A special permit was granted to the Simpsons in 1985 for the same purpose. For a copy of the action that was taken in 1985 and a staff report for the new special permit, refer to pages through ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a special permit to Dawn Simpson for the parking of construction trailers. Ll SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: - DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: REPORTED BY: CITY OF EAGAN SPECIAL PERMIT DAWN & MARK SIMPSON PART OF NE a SECTION 23 AG (AGRICULTURAL) APRIL 15, 1986 APRIL 9,1986 JIM STURM APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a special permit extention to allow 4 temporary trailer homes east of Lexington Avenue and south of the Northview Park entrance. These trailers house seasonal construction workers for Peoples Natural Gas Company and will be located near the northwestern portion of the site. Previous conditions for permit approval in 1985 were: 1. No more than 4 trailers and/or campers may occupy the site at any one time. 2. The trailers shall be removed by December 1, 1985. (Amend to 1986.) 3. The trailers shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any property line. /D7 CAN TIPAL TER L 'RRY TCN RK /o T -.- Ob z 2b IV Gim 10 NI ors 7 ku IV Gim 10 NI ors 7 Council Minutes May 7, 1985 PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE ADDITION - ARCHITECT The City Council directed the City Administrator to contact Jack Boarman and Associates and request a proposal for architectural services to complete a public works garage addition. Based upon Mr. Boarman's performance on the Municipal Center building, it was decided that bids not be requested and a proposal -was made by Mr. Boarman based upon an hourly rate not to exceed a 7% fee. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to resolve that Jack Boarman & Associates be engaged as the architect for the Eagan Public Works garage addition with the condition, however, that Mr. Boarman will review the heating and cooling system in the Municipal Center prior to the entry into the contract. All members voted yes. TEMPORARY TRAILERS - MARK & DAWN SIMPSON An application was received from Mark and Dawn Simpson requesting a special permit to locate four temporary trailer homes on their property on the east side of Lexington Avenue and south of Northview Park Road. The purpose was for seasonal construction workers on a gas main installation project in the area. Mark and Dawn Simpson appeared and explained the application. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than four trailers and/or campers may occupy the site at any one time. 2. The trailers shall be removed by December 1, 1985. 3. The trailers shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any property • line. All voted in favor except Blomquist who abstained. WESCOTT HILLS 4TH ADDITION - MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS A request has'been received from the developer of the Wescott Hills 4th _ Addition project requesting that a public hearing be scheduled for the purpose of issuing $2,100,000.00 in multi -family housing revenue bonds for 35 townhouse units. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to accept the Petition and schedule a hearing on the issuance of the bonds for June 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. All voted in favor. EAGANDALE LEMAY LAKE - CONTRACT #85-7 The bids have been received on the Eagandale Lemay Lake street and utility improvements under Contract #85-7 which were opened on April 30, 1985 at 10:30 a.m. The low bid was that of Lake Area Utility Co. in the sum of $507,384.60. Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to award Contract #85-7 to Lake Area Utility Co. in the amount mentioned above and to authorize the Mayor and City Council to execute all related documents. All Councilmembers voted yes. 1 ir �m 9w rl, , % kl' \\ %K f- -Z IL f) fVJP*#1 41 W OJo 0 IVI AV 7 Council Minutes May 7, 1985 i PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE ADDITION - ARCHITECT The City Council directed the City Administrator to contact Jack Boarman and Associates and request a proposal for architectural services to complete a public works garage addition. Based upon Mr. Boarman's performance on the Municipal Center building, it was decided that bids not be requested and a proposal.: -was made by Mr. Boarman based upon an hourly rate not to exceed a 7% fee. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to resolve that Jack Boarman & Associates be engaged as the architect for the Eagan Public Works garage addition with the condition, however, that Mr. Boarman will review the heating and cooling system in the Municipal Center prior to the entry into the contract. All members voted yes. TEMPORARY TRAILERS - MARK & DAWN SIMPSON An application was received from Mark and Dawn Simpson requesting a special permit to locate four temporary trailer homes on their property on the east side of Lexington Avenue and south of Northview Park Road. The purpose was for seasonal construction workers on a gas main installation project in the area. Mark and Dawn Simpson appeared and explained the application. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than four trailers and/or campers may occupy the site at any one time. 2. The trailers shall be removed by December 1, 1985. 3. The trailers shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any property • line. All voted in favor except Blomquist who abstained. WESCOTT HILLS 4TH ADDITION - MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS A request has'been received from the developer of the Wescott Hills 4th _ Addition project requesting that a public hearing be scheduled for the purpose of issuing $2,100,000.00 in multi -family housing revenue bonds for 35 townhouse units. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to accept the Petition and schedule a hearing on the issuance of the bonds for June 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. All voted in favor. EAGANDALE LEMAY LAKE - CONTRACT #85-7 The bids have been received on the Eagandale Lemay Lake street and utility improvements under Contract #85-7 which were opened on April 30, 1985 at 10:30 a.m. The low bid was that of Lake Area Utility Co. in the sum of $507,384.60. Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to award Contract #85-7 to Lake Area Utility Co. in the amount mentioned above and to authorize the Mayor and City Council to execute all related documents. All Councilmembers voted yes. /10 1',5 C/ Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Six SPECIAL PERMIT/TEMPORARY CHURCH AT JERRY LEWIS THEATER C. Special Permit (Living Word Church) for a One -Year, Temporary Church tq., be Located in the Jerry Lewis Theater --A special permit application was submitted by the Living Word Lutheran Church .requesting authorization to locate their church on a temporary basis for a period of one (1) year in the old Jerry Lewis Theater building at Cedarvale Drive and Beau de Rue Drive. If a church is to be given consideration outside of a public facility zoning classification, the action should be designated as temporary and for a specific period of time such as, one (1) year. Certainly a renewal could be considered, based on plans the church might have at the time of renewal. (See Planner's Report pages//Z - .) ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a special permit to allow a temporary church in the Jerry Lewis Theater for the Living Word Lutheran Church. 0 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DATE OF REPORT: REPORTED BY: CITY OF EAGAN SPECIAL PERMIT LIVING WORLD LUTHERAN CHURCH NE a SECTION 19 CSC COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER APRIL 15, 1986 APRIL 9, 1986 JIM STURM APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a special permit to allow Living World Lutheran Church temporary use of the vacated Jerry Lewis Theater. This building fronts on Cedarvale Drive and Beau De Rue Drive. COMMENTS: The applicant will be using the eastern one-half of the building. The other side will remain an audio-visual equipment sales and rental store. On-site parking for approximately 27 cars will be provided and the Kinder Kollege Daycare Center has agreed to allow overflow parking on Sundays for about 40 cars. The assembly area will consist of folding chairs and be accessed from the lobby area. An emergency exit is provided behind the alter area. Any proposed building structure changes will require approvals from the City Protective Inspections Department and Fire Marshall. If approved, the special permit shall be subject to all applicable ordinances. 11v 1%J ✓ A.• J I Fl. o o .. -�L/Vin/6 jd�� - ., , Y• V .•� a1.C.R. C.,a{Nlny Ya•.. - _ _ 203,02�� � ��J, Y�rrioeo � , • 16! F. C. JACKSON . L� .,+JD•O' - J 1. LAND euareTolt I I '! . tt0 YMOtw M,tt OI STATS W r wwttOTA _ \ \ �\ \.\ \ •\ ` .. .- .•1• aaiiwttD N OtNr.ra d GT W rlMwtAl•tLlt -• • l+ ' �, 3416 CAST Soto STRICT PA. LA461 =PARK/NG _ .. - .. ... . ,\ � -: •1 ' aDchtpor'� [rrHClmlt Sca%: /...'' t�.Q_. , ' 'n1 - • s rII N •,U • ..... -' TH/d ' 3yq•CP OP- a LDb: Tb aE. LEASED Te LSV/.✓6 '.-- .Q .� ll� x' \. 1' _ _ - - �.�-mat^- 9 ^,nom �� �• 6 - , ..... _ : _ _ - .- ' . :•r+. .. . \ A \, t' g. pts .i _✓ZOITE'•=f : ZSs' . _D4TE.-43;:86. Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Seven VARIANCE/DIEDRICH BUILDERS D. Variance (Diedrich Builders) For a 2.5 Sideyard and a 6' and 10' ,_front Yard Variance for Lot 6, Block 1, Safari Second Addition --A variance request was submitted by Diedrich Builders for a 2.5 sideyard and a 6' and 10' front yard variance for Lot 6, Block 1, Safari Second Adddition, located west of Galaxie Avenue on Skyview Court. For additional information and the reasons for requestin5 these- variance , refer to the staff report enclosed on pages ZZthrough . ACTION TO BE.CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the variance request from Diedrich Builders as presented. 115 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: DIEDRICH BUILDERS LOCATION: LOT 6, BLOCK 1, SAFARI 2ND ADDITION EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: APRIL 15, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: APRIL 10, 1986 REPORTED BY: JIM STURM, PLANNING ASSISTANT APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting side yard variances of 2.5', 6' and a front yard variance on Lot 6, Block 1, of the Safari 2nd Addition. COMMENTS: This house will have frontage along Sky View Court. The submitted site plan will require front yard variances of 6' on the dwelling unit and 10' on the garage. A 2.5' side yard variance will be needed along the southeastern property line. The 3 -car garage side yard setback does meet the 5' code requirement. The topography is flat along the street, but falls rapidly to a ponding area in the back yard, and there is no significant vegetation on this lot. There are no conditions in the Safari 2nd Addition Development Contract concerning variance applications. If approved, this variance shall be subject to all other Code requirements. JS/jj //6 A I Certificate for: ;'•. 13k: yb/`}1 Diedrich Builders 8856 134th Street I� Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 von(.P� DELMAR H. SCHWANZ U" supw..o..C. Nesklowd UMW Lam of "M 80ft Of UMMM8" 14750 SOUTH ROSERT TR" ROSnWUMT. MW NISOTA SSOU 612423.17*9 $UftV NORM CERWICATIE q 60 Z � b f o GAa N 6a ` Hcu fE n, Drainage Easement I I Drainage and Utility Easement / Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet a I �ti A 8f 0 Denotes iron monument 1,40 PT Denotes set wood -hub Denotes existing elevation � ( 1 n�.,ntoc nrr�nn�ari P1 F+��at-i n» Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Eight WAIVER OF PLAT/DONALD ROSA E. Waiver of Plat for Donald Rosa Containing Two (2).2.5Acre Lots Located South of Cliff Road --A public hearing was held at the March 25, 1986, Planning Commission meeting to consider a waiver of plat containing two (2) 2.5 acre lots located south of Cliff Road in Section 36. The APC is recommending approval of the waiver of plat application to the City Council. The APC recognized that the present parcel is a five acre agricultural lot and Mr. Rosa had lived on this property for some 18 years. He is wishing to split the property because of the maintenance and sell one 2.5 acre parcel. The APC did discuss the potential of assessments that would be levied against the waiver of plat and the same is addressed in the staff report. For additional information on this item, refer to the Planning and Engineering report, copies enclosed on pages 1Z0 through for youf review. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: At the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission meeting on April 3, the Commission recommended approval of the waiver of plat submitted by Donald Rosa, subject to a cash dedication for the newly created lot. Also enclosed is a copy of minutes of the APC meeting on page ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the waiver of plat as requested by Donald Rosa. ii9 0 F CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: WAIVER OF PLAT APPLICANT: RONALD & DONNA ROSA LOCATION: NW 4, SECTION 36 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL). DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 18, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a waiver of plat in order to split a 5 acre agricultural parcel into two separate 2.5 acre parcels. This site fronts on the west side of Dodd Road and is approximately 800' south of Cliff Road. Each parcel will have 157' of street frontage. COMMENTS: Agricultural parcels surround this site to the north, south and east of Dodd Road. The western property line abutts Lebanon Hills County Park. The topography falls slightly to a depression in the NW corner of the site. This depression drains into Schultz Lake in the park. The applicants have been living at this location for 18 years. Their children no longer live at home and, therefore, the existing 5 -bedroom home exceeds their needs. The proposed lot split will enable the Rosa's to build a house more suitable to their current needs. The proposal calls for 'a 185' common access drive from Dodd Road. An easement would be -desired to eliminate any potential problems. The existing house is approximately 140' from the front property line and the new house would have a similar setback. City policy has been to split parcels like this one time only. A preliminary platting process would be required if anymore lots were desired. The existing house is not served by sewer and water. RIGHT-OF-WAY: The existing right-of-way for Dodd Road is 33 ft. either side of center line. Because Dodd Road is classified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as a future collector street, it will require a 40 ft. right-of-way either side of center line. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate the additional 7 ft. of right-of-way over his parcel as a condition of waiver of plat approval. WAIVER OF PLAT - ROSA MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 2 ASSESSMENTS: In reviewing the assessment history of Parcel 020- 26, staff found that this area still needs to fulfill its obligation for trunk area assessments for water and storm sewer. The existing trunk water main is only built as far as the intersection of Dodd Road and Cliff Road. City policy requires all new developments, including waiver of plats, to be responsible for the unassessed trunk area at the rates in effect at the time of final platting, or approval of waiver of plat .as in this case. The following table summarizes these assessments and their amounts. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE Description Trunk Area Water Trunk Area Storm Sewer (1) Net Area Estimated 1986 Quantity Rate Amount 2.99 Ac (1) $1,190 $ 3,558 130,244 ft. 2 (1) $0.05/ft 2 6,512 TOTAL $10,070 The applicant may either pay the above assessments at the time of the waiver or he may execute a Waiver of Hearing form which will spread these assessments over 15 years at the interest rate based upon the latest City bond sales. CONDITIONS; 1) That no more lot splits be permitted on the site. 2) The applicant shall hook up with sewer and water, at the time of availability. 3) The applicant dedicate an additional 7' of land along Dodd Road. 4) An overall development shall be submitted and reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of any additional building permits. 5) The applicant is responsible for trunk area water and storm sewer assessments at the rate in effect at the time of waiver of plat approval. 1r. Son F-7) 4800 5000 Certificate for: Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets F Ronald Rosa 4665 Dodd Rd. Eagan, Mn. 55123 DELMAR H. SCHWANZ LAND SURVEYORS INC Rpq,alprpd Under Laura of The Slate [N Minnesota 14750 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068 PHONE 612 423.1769 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1118.52 NS9041r50°W �1 North line of N1/2 of NE. corner of N1/2 NW1/4 Sec. 36 of NW1/4 Sec. 36 to m, o_ °o l IN,_ � r.. � —' 1 �` ienterrlin of C-.p.A.H. � \ --- 0 � N 63 (Dod Blv�i3 33 0-0 o �/ / ��\j ) - N 8 3,,75 •.+ N 90°00 O W _ CD 0 dol / JS �i /N ° r / T 71L 75 / � / 90°00' O0 " E 3 33 SCALE IN FEET MINNESOTA REGISTRATION NO 8625 -APC Minutes March 25, 1986 RONALD AND DONNA ROSA - WAIVER OF PLAT - DODD ROAD The hearing regarding the application of Ronald and Donna Rosa for waiver of plat to split a five acre Agricultural parcel into two separate.2.5 acre parcels for residential purposes on the west side of Dodd Road was convened by the Chairperson. Dale Runkle indicated that each parcel would provide for 157 feet of street frontage and that the westerly property line abuts County Park. Mr.'Ros-a was present and stated that he was uncertain as to timing for construction of an additional residential home and that he may remove the garage on the northerly parcel. There were --no requests for utilities in the area at the present time and there are regulations regarding septic tank use with the regulations in effect at the time of the acquisition of the building permit which would govern. Member Wilkins recommended that a concept plan for future subdivision of the entire five acres be submitted. There were questions regarding the propriety .of assessments until improvements are installed. Mr. Hefti stated it is City policy to impose such assessments at the time of split of parcels by waiver of plat. R Doris Wilkins was opposed to the waiver because she recommended that a concept plan be submitted covering the entire five acres at the time of subdivision. Harrison moved, Trygg seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. No more lot splits shall be permitted on the site. 2. The applicant shall hook up with sewer and water at the time of availability. 3. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 7 feet of land along Dodd Road for street right-of-way for a total of forty feet half right-of-way. 4. An overall development shall be submitted and reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of any additional building permits. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for trunk area water and storm sewer assessments at the rate in effect at the time of waiver of plat approval. All voted in favor except Wilkins who voted no. DEERFIELD ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The application o'f Charles Henrich for preliminary plat approval for 324 rental apartments on the Eagan 40 planned development site south of County Road 30 and west of Thomas Lake Road came to the Planning Commission in the form of a public hearing. Dale Runkle commented on the application stating that the Eagan 40 planned development was scheduled to expire in January of 1986 after a 10 year period. The 39.6 acre parcel had been approved for 338 building units with 2.2 acres to the east which will be developed as an outlot 7 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Twenty -Nine PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING/FAIRWAY HILLS PROJECT F. Preliminary Plat (Fairway Hills/Derrick Land Co.) Containing 145 Single -Family Lots on Approximately 60 Acres and a Rezoning from A to R -1--A public hearing was held before the APC at their last regular meeting held on March 25, 1986, to consider two (2) applications. The first application is a rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family). The second application is requesting preliminary plat approval of 1.45 sitigle family lots. The APC is recommending denial for both the rezoning and preliminary plat. The APC reviewed circulation and access to the development, noting that one access was from Cliff Road and three were being proposed for Pilot Knob Road, on a temporary basis. The Commission also expressed concern regarding the right-of- way width for streets within the proposed development. There was also a concern expressed about the status of park dedication for the total area. Park issues have been reviewed by the APC at their April 3 meeting and are addressed in an attached memo. Since this application was received and processed for public hearing before the Planning Commission during the month of March; it is now the opinion of the City Administrator, City Planner and City Attorney that any development application that appears to request zoning that may differ from the Comprehensive Guide Plan designation should be given consideration as a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment. It has been the previous interpretation of the City Planning Department that a change represented a significant change, such as R-4 to R-1, for a residential property being developed commercial or the converse, Commercial/Industrial parcel being changed to residential. After further review with the Senior Planner of the Metropolitan Council, it has been determined that projects such as Fairway Hills where the applicant is requesting an R-l,when the Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates the site is R-2 and park, that a Comprehensive Guide Plan public hearing should be held before the City Council and a request for an amendment submitted to the Met Council for their considera- tion. Therefore, action was taken to set a public hearing to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for the Fairway Hills project at the April 22, Planning Commission meeting. The City Council may wish to continue this item until the May 6, City Council meeting to allow for the public hearing and action by the APC regarding the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment or the City Council can act on the project and any affirmative action would then be subject to the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment at the May 6 meeting. In the case of denial, there would be no reason for the APC to act on the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment at their April meeting. 176" Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty New Business - Fairway Hills cont'd: For a copy f the Planning and Engineering staff report, refer to pages. through -1,. Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission Action: At the April 3, 1986, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting action was taken regarding the Fairway Hills preliminary plat and the City's intention to acquire property from the Ohmann estate for park land development. A copy of the memo reporting this action is enclosed on page oz. For) a copy of the action that was taken by the APC, refer to page(s ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To either 1) continue the item until the May 6, 1986 meeting or 2) approve or deny the rezoning and preliminary plat, subject to the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment which will be further considered by the City Council at the May 6 meeting. 7, I MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JIM STURM, PLANNING ASSISTANT DATE: APRIL 10, 1986 SUBJECT: FAIRWAY HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT At the*,March 25, 1986, Advisory Planning Commission meeting, the Fairway Hills Preliminary Plat was denied for two main reasons. The first being concerns for the access onto Pilot Knob Road, and the other being the uncertainties of the parkland configuration in that general area. The access issue was addressed at the Dakota County Plat Commission meeting on March 25, and the responses of that commission and the Dakota County Highway Department have been included for your review. The Eagan Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this plat at the April 3 meeting, and a letter from the Director of PaKks and Recreation is attached detailing the status of the parkland acquisition. JS/jj CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: DERRICK LAND COMPANY - FAIRWAY HILLS LOCATION: NW a, SECTION 34 ,EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 17, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING APPLICATION: An application has been submitted for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the Fairway Hills subdivision. This plat consists of 145 single-family lots on approximately 60 acres south of Cliff Road and east of Pilot Knob Road. Currently, there are five landowners involved; all have signed agreements approving the development plans of what has been known as the George Ohmann Sr. Estate. ZONING & LAND USE: The Twin View Manor subdivision is directly across Pilot Knob Road. Well Site Park and a small R-3 parcel are across Cliff Road to the north. The entire eastern property line abuts Parkview Golf Course. An agricultural district is to the south. The City Park Department is interested in acquiring this area in part or in full. Should this occur, more street frontage would be desired. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site primarily R-2, with a small P (Park) area also. Generally, the topography falls toward the ravine on the northern portion of the site. This ravine and the -area around it, adjacent to Pilot Knob Road, are the most wooded portions of the site. Most of the trees will be destroyed. However, some of these trees would have been lost in the improving of Pilot Knob Road, which begins next year. The intersection of Pilot Knob Road/Cliff Road will be lowered approximately 10'. Just to the south and abutting the site it will be lowered as much as 18'. All lots meet or exceed the minimum 12,000 sq. ft. area required with an 85' frontage at the setback line. The 145 lots give this plat a density of 2.4 units per acre. These lots range in size from 12,000 to 38,350 sq. ft., with a 13,577 sq. ft. average. SITE PLANNING: Access to the site will be connected to Cliff Road, and three entries A service road similar to that of the near Cedar Pond Park will connect the two provided by one road from Pilot Knob Road. upgraded Diffley Road northern access points REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT - DERRICK LAND COMPANY - FAIRWAY HILLS MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE TWO along Pilot Knob Road. Northern Natural Gas has a 70' easement that bisects the site from the northwest to the southeast. The site development plan shows proposed housing pads and it appears that no variances will be necessary as a result of the easement. GRADING/DRAINAGE: The preliminary grading plan the applicant submitted dated February 14, 1986, is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The preliminary grading plan will require filling the extremely deep ravine located in the northwesterly portion of this proposed development up to 26 ft. Fills of this depth require careful placement and compaction to prevent substantial future settlement. The ravine is also quite heavily wooded and the grading operations will require much clearing and grubbing of this area. The remainder of the site is basically on a plateau and will not pose any significant grading problems. All grades and contours shown on the preliminary grading plan do conform with City Code requirements. This proposed development lies within the southeasterly most portion of Major Subdistrict B, as shown on Figure 1. The entire area drains in a northerly direction towards two well-defined ravines in the northwest corner of this site, with some drainage flowing to the northeast corner of this site in a well-defined basin which is Pond BP -34. As you can see from Figure 1, Pond BP -34 does have an existing gravity outlet, however, the outlet is not piped all the way downstream. Instead, it drains over land through the Well Site Park for a considerable distance before it is again picked up by storm sewer pipe. Drainage from the two northwesterly ravines flow under Cliff Road at the point marked B -p, as shown on Figure 1. 'Likewise, with the outlet from Pond BP -34, this is just a culvert under Cliff Road and discharges over land to be collected at point B-0 where it is then piped to Thomas Lake. The areas north of Cliff Road where these storm sewer outlets are located are subject to very heavy erosion due to the large volume of current runoff. Therefore, staff strongly recommends that the completion of the storm sewer pipe from point B- p to both Pond BP -34 and point B -p'; be a requirement if the Commission or Council gives favorable consideration for this preliminary plat. UTILITIES: Utilities of sufficient size, capacity and depth exist within the proximity of this site to provide service to it. Sanitary sewer is located at the northwest corner of this site just south of Cliff Road. Water main is located along the entire north boundary of this development just south of Cliff Road. / L9 REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT - FAIRWAY HILLS MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE THREE In reviewing the applicant's proposed preliminary utility layout, staff has the following recommendations. 1. The connections to the 24" line at Cliff Road and the 8" line at Hillcrest Lane be 8" connections. These 8" lines should then be extended to the first point where they then divide into _6" `lines. 2. The sanitary sewer located within the easterly portion of Block 2 be relocated within the existing right-of-way. - 3. Sanitary sewer and water main should be extended to the end of the stubbed street to Parkview Golf Course and also extended to Pilot Knob Road. 4. Storm sewer should -be extended southerly from the street intersection in the vicinity of Block 2, 3, 4, and 5. STREETS: Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road are existing County roadways that border this development. Both roadways are rural two-lane roadways under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Dakota County is planning on upgrading Pilot Knob Road in 1987 to a four -lane undivided urban roadway. With this construction, a portion of Cliff Road east of Pilot Knob Road will also be rebuilt to four -lane urban standards. The applicant indicated to staff that the County will allow the access as shown on Cliff Road, which is satisfactory to staff. While the applicant is showing three access points to Pilot Knob Road, the County will only allow two ultimately. The most northerly connection is a temporary access to Pilot Knob Road. Because of the Pilot Knob Road reconstruction, the grades for Pilot Knob Road will be drastically cut down. When this happens, the middle access point will be at the same grade as Pilot Knob Road and will become one of the two main accesses off of Pilot Knob Road to this development. The most northerly access will then be closed and residents will have to use the service road which will connect the north access point to the middle access point. The applicant also indicated the County will allow the most southerly access point as a permanent access. However, this access will have to line up with the Hilltop Lane access. In order to provide the proper alignment with Hilltop Lane, this south street will have to jog southerly then westerly at 90 degree angles. Staff recommends this be a more gradual S-shaped curve to provide the alignment with Hilltop Lane. This may result in the elimination of Lot 11, Block 8. However, staff feels the S-shaped alignment is far more desirable from a traffic safety standpoint than the 90 degree jog this development proposes. As for the internal streets, the only comment staff has is that we recommend the middle north -south street (between Block 4 and Block 5 and 6) not contain the radius to connect to the easterly - westerly street between Block 5 and 6. Staff would recommend this become a -"T-shaped" intersection. The "� ped" intersection will provide much safer traffic movement. �� REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT - FAIRWAY HILLS MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE FOUR RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS: The applicant is proposing to dedicate 75 ft. half right-of-ways for both County Road 32 (Cliff Road) and Pilot Knob Road (County Road 31) which staff feels is adequate. The applicant is also proposing 50 ft. wide right-of- ways for streets throughout this development. Staff does not feel that a 50 ft. wide right-of-way is adequate for many of these streets. The 50 ft. right-of-way does not provide adequate boulevard width for snow storage, private utility locations, sidewalks, driveway access site distance, and housing setbacks from street. Lack of snow storage with "a 5.0 ft. boulevard. is probably the largest problem with the 50 ft. right-of-ways. A standard 34 ft. City street leaves only an 8 ft. boulevard for 50 ft. right-of- way. Additional easements are not the answer for snow storage because they do not preclude the property owner from constructing structures such as fences, flag poles, retaining walls, etc., at the property line. These structures present problems for snow plowing because the wings on the snow plows are 8 ft. long and in, order to push the snow back to provide more snow storage for future snows presents quite a problem with the City potentially damaging the resident's structure. Although it would be the resident's responsibility to repair such a structure if it were located within the easement, it certainly does not provide good public relations for the City of Eagan when snow plowing operations damage any private structure. The 8 ft. boulevard also provides problems for the private utility companies. The gas company, electric company, telephone company and cable TV company all have underground lines they have to locate within public right-of-way. While telephone and electric do currently run joint trench, it still means that three trenches are required within an 8 ft. boulevard. This problem can partially be eliminated if the topography is such that the electric company can bury their cable within the 10 ft. public utility easement dedicated with all plats. An 8 ft. boulevard is definitely not adequate for the location of a sidewalk. A 5 ft. sidewalk would leave only a 3 ft. boulevard between the curb and the sidewalk. From a traffic safety standpoint, this width is too narrow. The driveway access and garage setback issues are somewhat related. The 8 ft. boulevard does not.really provide adequate site distance for people backing onto residential streets if there are obstructions such as fences or trees at the right-of- way line. The garage setback from the curb with a 50 ft. right- of-way is 38 ft. as opposed to 43 ft. with the 60 ft. right-of- way. Using the typical 20 ft. lengths for vehicle stacking distance, you can see that you cannot stack two vehicles in a driveway without some overhang onto the street with a 50 ft. right-of-way. Requiring an extra 5 ft. of setback is not necessarily the answer to this problem because it would be extremely difficult for the Inspection Department to keep track of which street has a 35 ft. setback or which has a regular 30 ft. setback. /61 REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT - FAIRWAY HILLS MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE FIVE In summary, staff does not recommend a 50 ft. right-of-way within developments. Staff feels the 50 ft. right-of-way should be used only if there are physical constraints whereby a 60 ft. right-of- way would not allow the developer to meet City Code for minimum areas, setbacks, etc. In this -particular instance, staff feels that a 50 ft. right-of- way would be allowable if it met the following criteria: 1. Estimated ADT less than 100. 2. Length of roadway less than 800 ft. PERMITS: The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and plan approvals from the following: 1. MPCA - Sanitary sewer extension permit. 2. MN Dept of Health - Water main plan approval. 3. Dakota County - Grading within County right-of-way permit and access permit. 4. Northern Natural Gas - Grading within easement permit. ASSESSMENTS: In researching the City's assessment records, this development will be responsible for deferred trunk area water assessments, lateral benefit from trunk area water, additional trunk area storm sewer, future street improvements, and future trailway improvements. The attached table summarizes these assessment obligations. The final rates will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of final platting. These rates may either be paid at the time of final platting or spread as an assessment with the execution of a Waiver of Hearing. The cost of all internal streets and utilities will be the sole responsibility of this proposed development. /3v Description Trunk Area Water 012-28 013-28 Lateral Benefit from Trunk Water 012-28 010-26 Trunk Area Storm 012-28 010-26 013-28 Street Improvements 012-28 010-26 Trailways 012-28 010-26 TOTAL Assessment Summary Table Estimated 1986 Quantity Rate Amount 45.0 ac(1) $1,190/ac $53,550 0.7 ac $1,190/ac $833 525 f.f. $11.88/f.f. $6,237 627 f.f. $11.88/f.f. $7,449 1,815,580 sq.ft. (2) $0.05 s ££ $90,779 2,605 ac (4) $1,467/ac() $3,822 "(3) 14,850 sq.ft. $0,05/sq.ft. $742 1,555 f.f. 627 f.f. 2,366 f.f. 627 f.f. $8.44/f.f. (5) $13,124 $8.44/f.f. (5 ) $5,292 $11.81/f.f. $27,942 $11.81/f.f. $7,405 $217,175 (1) Total area (59.7ac) - Parcel 010-26 (2.7ac) - Parcel 013-28 (0.7ac) - 20% R/W credit (2) 56.3 ac - 4.2 ac (previously assessed under 315R) - 20o R/W credit (3) $2.178/ac - $711/ac (previously assessed under 315R) (4) 31,350 sq.ft. - 16,500 sq.ft. (previously assessed under 315R) (5) 1/4 residential equivalent rate 133 CONDITIONS: FAIRWAY HILLS 1. All applicable standard engineering conditions shall apply to this development. 2. If this development is phased, then the phasing plan shall be approved by staff. 3. With the exception of the sanitary sewer line connecting to the, existing 12" trunk line, all sanitary sewer lines shall be within public right-of-way with sanitary sewer and water main being stubbed to the east, southeast, and southwest boundaries of this development. 4. The water main leads into this development shall be 8". 5. Council shall authorize the trunk storm sewer project to pipe storm water from Pond BP -34 in the northwest corner of this proposed development to the existing trunk storm sewer located within the Well Site Park prior to final plat approval. 6. The street alignment shall be modified slightly to correspond with Figure 3. 7. The internal road right-of-ways shall be 60 ft. with the exception of the service road and the street between Block 6 and 7. 8. This development shall dedicate the 75 ft. half right-of-way for Cliff Road and Pilot Knob Road as shown on their preliminary plat. 9. This development will be responsible for a trai Tway along Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road. 10. This development will be responsible for trunk area water main, lateral benefit from trunk water main, trunk area storm sewer, future street improvements for Cliff and Pilot Knob Road and future trai lways for Cliff and Pilot Knob Road assessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting. 11. This development shall dedicate 20 ft. utility easements over storm sewer lines not located within public right-of-way and 30 ft. easements over sanitary sewer lines not located within public right-of-way. 12. This development will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from MPCA, Mn Dept of Health, Dakota County Highway Department and Northern Natural Gas. 13. This development will be responsible for all costs of internal streets and utility installation. 135 A: i //l I z mi ; j g . it • � I Ll. An IJ J_ L, Q a i i i //l I z mi �?�'a.� � •, ••.�_ �_::_'.i`� *,::y•'"��� ; +� 1' ���' �•r. - f X11 .r: a •� `•'`ice. _i=� .'� Fli ; Cid •: ; � >. , ''• �� � �: � v 'o C % IN cc UZ LL. 33 j, WW I 1 •'�•�!,. W. *:. -..+ .::vT7.ar1 i r`, r `.-� r• I �.t.% \J 1 ¢ ZV 8 . l . Q , A- #) tA-o A- 895.2 I f -i 1 BP -3 889-9 905.2 �OaLE /:�'P - 35 905. 8 9 '.2 WAS 080 92 t BP -25 8742 f BP -4 924-0 BP 927.2 .589 a .. C2 126 1 _BP -24 -51 �7 918.0, '30 923.2 81 _39400 A B -d "910.//0 9 BP -23 ,11 r 931-3 a 9 1;4 932.3 P I !r- - QY3 AP- 12 911.3 ::1893.3= BP -6 BP 43 904.. 882.0 -16 -10 910.0 9 a 898901.1 1909.8 B -q LJILITY r '916 0 �'BF __ 2 .-a-e IFP -15 L.S.- 899.0 /1BP 20 901.1 9160 t Az - :v1T .Ft.920.0LARa 921.4 P-19 110-40'�_ a, , 70* Z4 AS6 912 1 .9150 9 1w_ SP 21 SAFAR CL- g1jo T E- SP -7 rll 98 4.5 SP -6.0 22 9 8. 92 - 9274-- - 8P-31• - __908.0 935.0(. .__jj 914.0 \BP -32- 2 , .933.9 �C 9376 E .4 - f 11.0 doop 6 L COUNTY PARLP-59.3 P - 59 893.3 .900-0A�f� LP -3 887C 89,5,.' n LP -1 1 40..- I city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS ng= DA 0 TME L -S.-20: .-1 LP 58 916.6 918. _7 , A Kr- 7A .L,r - 2 LP- 60 818.T 83C,.7 870-6 0 873.2 JP -35- JP- 7 [T tcj - 36 _8694 859.4:`u"CH' t2 872.4 8652 ZX 819.2 JP jP 8 C .0 JP -37 14; 8740 872 0 0. T,: 881 nP190_820 (875.0 874.5c=:r- •850.0 2 LP -63...- 855.0 6 7, 0 0 ;LP: -68 ". PARKVIEW GOLF CCVRSE LP- 20 3 915.4 917 LP-56 LP -13^'` 964.0 '-920.4 971.6 922.0 LP -12 921.2 925.0 L - DA KO I:, Y RARK 22.0 -- LP -10 � L LP -11 9662 . .9 6 LP -8 . .............. ............ SUBJECT PARCEL . .............. FAIRWAY HILLS STORMS WER MASTER PLAN FIG. -*1 . I standard- approve-ff. 1 plate #: JP -51 LP -4398. .976.0 -0.0 8538 I - T, 'PLACE 6 7, 0 0 ;LP: -68 ". PARKVIEW GOLF CCVRSE LP- 20 3 915.4 917 LP-56 LP -13^'` 964.0 '-920.4 971.6 922.0 LP -12 921.2 925.0 L - DA KO I:, Y RARK 22.0 -- LP -10 � L LP -11 9662 . .9 6 LP -8 . .............. ............ SUBJECT PARCEL . .............. FAIRWAY HILLS STORMS WER MASTER PLAN FIG. -*1 . I standard- approve-ff. 1 plate #: N.W. I/4 SEC. 34.,T 27, R J r.nnu� --...7 T7 -r.- -.-. --�-mmmmmlmmmmmm�mmr�lmmmmmmimmlmmmmlmitmmi�mlmmmmmmmnmm�nimnmmnmmmm�mmmmmlmmnmtu�lntmmmmm=. � — --- ------ Y •••••••••.•••• ua•••.......•s•.•... •••••........ aOCDIr .e .un NO I 010-28 3 1 10-27 I s• 013-28 pr'�PL r a • • rF: ob 021-2eeee eq • oz • t( Za LAT Il. AA: •" u� Wl� r�� . `= 012-28 rj . bro-2e- 010-2 -� 6u N =• 0 1 = • Vl H � W � . = TL.MA Z : a _ • • �,N `p In O t 4 ----------------------- i zi MEMO TO: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE FROM: ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER HEFTI DATE: APRIL 11, 1986 SUBJECT: PROPOSED FAIRWAY HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT/ PILOT KNOB ACCESSES As you know, the Advisory Planning Commission at their March 25, 1986, meeting recommended denial for this proposed preliminary plat. Their main reasons focussed on Pilot Knob Road accesses. I would like to attempt to clarify the City's Engineering Depa--t- ment's position on the proposed accesses onto Pilot .Knob Road which the County Highway Department has approved. The most northerly access point onto Pilot Knob Road will be temporary. The developer proposes to construct this access to the existing grade of Pilot Knob Road. When the County improves Pilot Knob Road in 1987, the grade at this location will be lowered several feet. This results from the proposed grade being much less than the existing steep and unsafe grade of Pilot Knob Road south of the Cliff Road intersection. The proposed grade will be in the range of 4%. This will be much better than the existing 60 or more grade that Pilot Knob Road is now. The new grade will provide for a much safer approach to the Cliff Road intersection. The middle access point the developer proposes will not be connected to Pilot Knob Road until Pilot Knob Road is upgraded because it will be graded to the proposed grade for Pilot Knob Road. At this point, the grade difference between the existing and proposed Pilot Knob Road is about 12 feet. This access lines up with Delores Lane. By the way, the County proposes to eliminate the current access for Eriks Boulevard, again because of the grade differential. The final permanent access this developer proposes is located near the southerly portion of this development directly across from Hillcrest Lane. The grades at this point will not be changing much from the existing grades thereby allowing this connection to be made without the upgrading of Pilot Knob Road being necessary. In summary, I believe the proposed 4% grade south of Cliff Road is essential to improving the safety of northbound vehicles approaching Cliff Road and also improve southbound traffic flow because vehicles will not have to climb such a steep, uphill grade. The Planning Commission did have concerns regarding approving the accesses onto Pilot Knob Road without the City approving the Pilot Knob Road plans. However, I feel that, from a grade standpoint at least, that there aren't any alternatives if everyone's first concern is improving safety over the section MEMO TO CITY PLANNER RUNKLE APRIL 11, 1986 PAGE TWO of roadway south of Cliff Road. I believe that the developer, Dakota County Highway Department, and the City Engineering Depart- ment can all work together to insure the developer's plan is compatible with Dakota County Highway Department plans so that the entire area works to the benefit of everyone. I will be at the April 15, 1986, City Council meeting to answer any questions that may arise regarding this memo. Assistant City EP ineer cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Dave Sellegren, Developer's Attorney Larry Figgins, Dakota County Highway Department RMH/kf /�v i4ttt � 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 April 10, 1986 _ Mr. Don Patton 7600 Parklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55435 RE: Fairway Hills - Parks Dedication Dear Don: BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk At the April 3rd Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, the.,,, Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Fairway Hills. The Advisory Commission recommended to the City Council that the plat be allowed to proceed for a phase development with a cash escrow account for all lots platted in the first phase, pending the resolution of a park within Parcel F. If the City is unsuccessful in obtaining Parcel F for either a community or neighborhood park, then this development shall be responsible for a park land dedication within the property owned by Derrick Land Company. I'm sure you are aware of this by now as both Dave Selegren and Bill Mauer were present at this Commission meeting. Of concern to the Advisory Commission is the issue of whether this site is best suited for athletic opportunities or a neighorhood park. At the close of the meeting, the Commission members asked Staff to continue to pursue revised layouts for an athletic site for presentation at its next Commission meeting. At the same time, the Commission asked Staff to do a further review and concept planning within the neighborhood park area in order that they can evaluate the neighborhood park concept and community park concept simultaneously. At the same time, the City is continuing to pursue the acquisition of Parcel F to a purchase agreement to allow the City and Derrick Land Company to conclude any remaining planning issues. Don, I will continue to keep you informed as things progress here in the Parks & Recreation Department.- I will also be present at the April 15th Council Meeting to speak to this issue. Sincerely../ Ken Vraa, Director of Parks & Recreation KV: klh cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY DAKOTA COUNTY BERNARD H. LARSON DAKOTA COUNTY SURVEYOR TELEPHONE (612) 437-0250 DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 City of Eagan 3838 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Att: Dale Runkle, City Planner Dear Mr. Runkle March 25, 1986 The Dakota County Plat Commission met on March 25, 1986, to consider the proposed plat of FAIRWAY HILLS. Said plat is adjacent to County Roads #31 and #32 and is, therefore, subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. After review of the plat, it was the concensus pf opinion that the following items must be satisfied in order for the Plat Commission to recommend approval. First, adjacent to the right- of-way lines of both county roads shall be a restricted access easement dedicated to the County of Dakota on the final plat. The widths of said right-of-ways have not been shown but must meet whatever current right-of-way standards are applicable in each case. The service road as shown adjacent to part of Pilot Knob Road must be continued northerly in order to provide ingress and egress to the exception at the most northwesterly corner of said property. The street lying between Lot 15, Block 2 and Lot 22, Block 5 is to have a temporary entrance onto County Road No. 31 until said road is rebuilt. At that time, said entrance will be closed and must follow then the service road southerly to the most southwesterly corner of said Block 5 and then exit out onto County Road #31. The substation as shown in the right-of-way of County Road #31 is to be moved over tb Lot 18, Block 5 and said lot shall be transferred to the County of Dakota. As these items are satisfied, the Plat Commission will consider approval to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. Until such time, however, any questions can be referred to this office and recommendation will be withheld until all said items have been resolved. Sincer ply ,§ours, rriei'rrn�2,4d H. Larson Dako County Surveyor cc: Bill Mauer. Probe EngineerinG DAKOTA COUNTY April 3, 1986 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER Mr. William J. Maurer Probe Engineering Co. Inc. 1000 E. 146th Street Burnsville, MN 55337 Dear Mr. Maurer: COUNTY =_tiG:NE_R TELEPHONE E12! a37 -M98 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 I have reviewed the proposed plat for Fairway Hills in Eagan marked Zxhibit "A" and the County Plat Commissioners response to the preliminary plat submittal dated March 25, 1986. Given the developers willingness to meet the proposed grade lines of future CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob), the single access to serve the City Park and Fairway Hills, the setting aside of "outlot A" for the relocation of the pipeline substation, 1170 feet to the first access point south on CSAH 31 and the second access opposite Rebecca Lane, the frontage road serving corner properties, the storm water storage pond on Cliff Road, and adequate road right-of-way, we find the plat addresses all of the counties concerns. We will issue a temporary access permit for the road located 527 feet south of CSAH 32 since the existing grade of Pilot Knob Road prohibits access at the 1170 foot point. We appreciate your thoroughness and willingness to work with the agencies involved in this project. Sincerely, Larry G. Figgins, P.E. Administrative Design Engineer LGF/mjh cc: Rick Hefti, Assistant City Engineer (� MEMO TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 8, 1986 RE: ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION C%21ISSION ACTION - FAIRWAY HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMISSION'RECOMMENDATION The Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission recommended to the City Council that the plat be allowed to proceed for a phased development with a cash/escrow account for lots platted in the first phase, pending a resolution of a park within Parcel F, which is south of this preliminary plat. If the City is unsuccessful in obtaining Parcel F for either a community or neighborhood park, than this development shall be responsible for a parkland dedication. BACKGROUND City has been under negotiation for Parcel F of the Ohmann estate, immediately to the south of this preliminary plat application. The Department Staff has had several meetings with the owner, Laverna Lehmann, and her sister Marcela Shindeldecker, owner of the parcel south and immediately adjacent to Parcel F. Most recently, alternative Parks Plans were prepared which were based on the theme of a neighborhood park of approximately eight (8) acres within Parcel F and the remainder to be sold for development purposes. A second alternative was for athletic field development. Meetings with the owner's of Parcels F and G, and the developer, resulted in revised layouts affecting the preliminary plat of Fairway Hills and Parcel F. These alternatives were presented to the Advisory Commission on April 3. The City does not own Parcel F, although the owner has expressed an interest in selling to the City. Due to the uncertainty of acquiring this parcel, and because the Commission was undecided as to whether the parcel (Parcel F) could be utilized for neighborhood parks' purposes versus an athletic site, the Commission and developers' representatives agreed: the first half of the plat could proceed. Under this arrangement, the developer will provide for a cash/escrow account for each lot developed for the first phase. Upon final determination of the parkland issue, the cash/escrow account would be returned in favor of the parkland dedication, or retained if cash dedication the ultimate outcome. This solution will allow the developer to proceed with his preliminary plat, while providing the City additional time to secure a purchase agreement and to make a decision regarding the neighborhood/or community park. The Parks and Recreation Staff will be present at the Council meeting on April 15, and will respond to questions relative to this issue. KV/bls /9 El APC Minutes March 25, 1986 Those in favor were Trygg, Voracek and McCrea; those against were Wilkins and Harrison, with members Wilkins objecting to the R-1 use adjacent to the proposed commercial development. FAIRWAY HILLS - REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Derrick Land Company for approval of Fairway Hills preliminary plat and rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family) was convened by the chair. Dale Runkle again explained the project and noted that there are five landowners involved, all of whom had signed an agreement approving the.. development plan of what was formerly the George Ohmann, Sr. estate. The Comprehensive Guide designates the site as R - II with a small park area also. All lots meet or exceed the minimum 12,000 square foot area requirement and 85 foot frontage at the setback line. 145 lots would provide a density of 2.4 units per acre and average lot size of 13,577. Mr. Runkle stated the Park Committee has not finalized its review and noted also that street widths were a concern of the staff. Dave Sellergren, attorney, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Member Harrison stated he objected to the three access locations to Pilot Knob Road and Mr. Sellergren noted that there has been an on-going discussion between the owner to the south and the City for park use. The northerly access, according to Mr. Sellergren, is temporary until Dakota County changes from a two-lane rural to four -lane urban section at which time the northerly access will be removed and reliance will be placed on the frontage road. In addition, Mr. Sellergren stated that the south access may be a common access with proposed park location and additional access to the park from the north could be provided. He recommended that the utilities be stubbed toward the Parkview Golf Course and preferred not to improve the stubbed street. There were several interested persons in the audience but no objections. There was considerable discussion about the internal street width and Mr. Hefti stated that the staff strongly recommends a 60 foot right-of-way for snow storage and boulevard purposes. He reviewed the revised recommendations in which the staff did not oppose the 50 foot right-of-way with five foot street easement plus 10 foot utility easement and a minimum 35 foot front yard setback. He noted that the exception from the 60 foot right-of-way generally, is where there are physical constraints that require the variance. Bill Maurer of Probe Engineering described the specific accesses to Pilot Kqob Road that will be determined at a later time but will never be more than two permanent access points. Member Wilkins stated that there is no certainty as to where the access locations to Pilot Knob Road would-be and therefore, it would appear approval, is premature until the County has completed its planning, and the grade of Pilot Knob Road has been determined. The grade may be reduced on Pilot Knob Road up to 18 feet in depth. 1�7 11 W, APC Minutes March 25, 1986 Harrison moved, Voracek seconded the motion to recommend denial of the application based upon the reasons described above, including the fact that the Dakota County Highway Department has not determined where accesses to Pilot Knob Road could be located specifically, the grade for the road has not been determined and the plans have not been completed, and also the fact that the Eagan Advisory Park & Recreation Commission is reviewing the area and has done so for many months, attempting to acquire adequate open space and active recreational area for park purposes, and it was recommended that the Park Committee be given an opportunity to make its determination as to park acquisition on the Ohmann property. All voted -in favor except Trygg who voted no., EAGANDALE LEMAY LAKE 2ND ADDITION Chairperson McCrea asked if any member of the prevailing party on the motion regarding the Comprehensive Guide issue relating to the Eagandale LeMay Lake 2nd Addition would consider making a motion to reconsider the earlier motion. There was no motion and no further action. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Harrison, seconded Wilkins, it was resolved that the meeting adjourn at 11:35 p.m. PHH Secretary - APC 12 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -One PRELIMINARY PLAT/BUR OAK HILLS G. Preliminary Plat (Bur Oak Hills/Harstad Co.) for 216 Single - Family Lots on Approximately 111 Acres --A public hearing was held by the Advisory Planning Commission at their January 28, 1986 meeting, to consider a preliminary plat entitled Bur Oak Hills, proposed for development by the Harstad Companies. The APC is recommending approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. Enclosed on pages through /(oZ is a copy of the staff report for this project. When the Bur Oak Hills preliminary plat was first platted as South Delaware Hills, the Park, Commission spent several meetings working out a suitable and preferable park land dedication that would serve the new plat and surrounding neighborhood. This agreement was reached when the subdivision was entitled South Delaware Hills. Because of the terrain, pond and other natural amenities, the parcel became difficult for the Parks and Recreation Commission to plan an active park. The preliminary plat submittpd by Harstad Companies and entitled Bur Oak Hills (formerly South Delaware Hills) considered several changes that were agreed to in the original park land dedication. The Park Commission reviewed these changes at the February -meeting and asked for some redesign considerations for the March meeting. The developer did not present any changes at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting in March and therefore, park land dedication requirements were again continued until the April meeting. As a result of the April meeting, Harstad Companies and the APRC agreed to several changes which are proposed in the support documents. One item that the APRC is requesting, that has not received agreement by the Harstad Company, is the elimination of two (2) lots that would provide better access for maintenance and public use within the park. For background information, refer to a memo that was prepared and dated February 11, 1986, which updates the first meeting the plat was presented to the APRC. There is also corresponden e and additional information enclosed on pages /6 ?/ through that provide information relative to the Pebruary, March and April APRC meetings and also the APRC recommendation for the Bur Oak Hills park land dedication. A petition was submitted by neighbors living adjacent to the Bur Oak preliminar plat. This petition is enclosed on pages 15 through 9' The City was notified on Wednesday, April 9, that a neighb rhood meeting was scheduled by the Harstad Companies for 7:30 p.m., April 10 at the library building. A copy of that neighborhood hearing notice, as solicited by Kenneth Briggs of Harstad Companies, is enclosed on page for 'your review. For additional information and action taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes found on pages through Z&*16 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the preliminary plat for the B(u�rr Oak Hills Addition as presented. �1 I C CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT: HARSTAD COMPANIES (BUR OAKS) LOCATION: NE4, SE4, SW4, SECTION 12 _.EXISTING ZONING: PD (SOUTH DELAWARE HILLS) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 28, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 23, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING APPLICATION SUBMITTED An application has been submitted requesting a preliminary plat for 204 single family lots in the South Delaware Hills Planned, Development in Section 12. ZONING & LAND USE This 111 acre site abuts Inver Grove Heights to the east, highway 149 to the west, agricultural parcels and Bur Oaks Park to the north with more PD land to the south. A preliminary plat for this site was approved on September 18, 1979. All of the lots are above the 12,000 s.f. minimum for an R-1 (single family) classification and meet the 85' width at the setback line. BACKGROUND/COMMENTS There has been an issue as to whether this PD agreement is still valid. The City Attorney's office has verified that it is and any deviation from the approved planned development preliminary plat of 1979 will require anotherpublic. hearing. Therefore, this plat will also require a rezoning to' R-1 (single family). The submitted preliminary plat shows extensive grading in areas that were dedicated parkland in the previously approved plat. As a result, the densly wooded hillside east of the ponding area will be graded substantially. The Parks and Recreation Dept has briefly reviewed this site and is opposed to it for several reasons: 1) The wooded hillside east of the ponding area will be destroyed by the proposed grading. 2) The area that includes the tennis courts has 3.1 slopes along the western property line where typically 5.1 is needed for practical use/maintenance. 3) The access into the park is only one lot wide fronting Rolling Hills Dr where the recommendations by the Parks Staff and Consultant was for a four lot/area. BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT JANUARY 28, 1985 PAGE 2 The Parks & Recreation Dept does not feel that there is suitable reason -to waiver from the previously submitted parkland dedication requirements. GRADING The grading proposed by the applicant is feasible from an engineer- ing standpoint. That is, it meets all City criteria for slopes and grades with the exception of maintaining a 20 grade at inter- sections. There are several intersections where this 2s grade is exceeded. However, the applicant can revise the grading plan to provide for the required 2% slopes for 100' at the intersections. Because of the rugged topography, there are several areas on the applicant's grading plan showing 2:1 slopes. While these slopes are within City Codes, they are very difficult to maintain once permanent vegetation is established. Until that time, these slopes are extremely susceptible to erosion. As a result,. the staff will recommend a detailed proposal from this applicant as to how he proposes to control erosion on this site. Also, staff recommends the applicant revise the grading plan at intersec- tions where he does not achieve ,a 2% slope for 100' past the intersection. Finally, because the applicant proposes to encroach on Williams Brothers Pipeline easement for grading his site, staff recommends the applicant obtain written authorization from Williams Brothers Pipeline allowing them to perform the necessary grading operations within Williams Brothers easement. DRAT NAGE. The proposed grading in this site will not change any of the existing drainage patterns. This site is located within major drainage district G as shown on Figure 1. All of this site eventually ends up into Pond GP -1 (Burr Oak Pond). A positive outlet is in place for this pond which outlets to downstream ponds that all have positive outlets to the Minnesota River valley. This development will be responsible for providing the necessary ponding area for GP -1 and also for the portion of Pond GP -8, located within this development. This development will require the extension of trunk storm sewer between Pond GP -8 and Pond GP -1. It also will require the extension of trunk storm sewer from GP -1 southerly to its southern boundary. If the applicant chooses to have this work performed under City contract, then the City Council must authorize such a project prior to final plat approval. If the developer chooses to install City trunk storm sewer privately, then it will be at his own expense because the City has no provisions to provide credits -for work performed privately., 6 1( BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT JANUARY 28, 1986 PAGE 3 _ SANITARY SEWER This proposed development is located within sanitary sewer subdis- trict N -EE, as shown.on Figure 2-. The master plan proposes extending a 12" sanitary sewer southerly through this development to pick up the southerly most portion of subdistrict N -EE. However, the U.P:S.--Addition (about. 40 acres in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 13) was diverted from sub- district N -EE to subdistrict N -AA. Because of this, staff re- evaluated the necessity of a 12" trunk sanitary sewer line. Staff's findings indicate that an 8" diameter sanitary sewer line would be adequate to provide service to subdistrict N -EE, thereby eliminating the necessity of any trunk sanitary sewer within this area. This development will be responsible for extending sanitary sewer to their eastern boundary at appropriate locations to provide service to the area of this subdistrict located within Inver Grove Heights. It also will be required to extend sanitary sewer to its south boundary at an appropriate location and also to the parcel just easterly of the panhandle adjacent Highway 55. WATER MAIN This development will be responsible for extending an 8" water main from Highway 149 through this development to loop into the water main within Chapel Lane. It also will be responsible to stub water lines to its easterly and southerly boundaries where appropriate. STREETS Trunk Highway 149 borders the westerly portion of this development. 77th Street abuts the easterly edge of this development. Trunk Highway 149 is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and is a rural two-lane highway. 77th Street West is a rural roadway section under the jurisdiction of Inver Grove Heights. With the exception of the two "bubbles" and the Rolling Hills Circle cul-de-sac, staff agrees with the applicant's street plans. Staff recommends not approving the bubbles for the following reasons: 1. There is no access hardship. The applicant is merely trying to obtain additional lots by using these bubbles. 2. The bubbles create a maintenance hardship and obstacle. l6�z BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT JANUARY 28, 1986 PAGE 4 3. The large paved areas within the bubbles create safety hazards as children tend to play .in them and they are located too close to the through streets. 4. Council has experienced problems in the past with developers using the bubble only to obtain the necessary lot width and requesting vacation of excess easement after the fact. S. The bubble on lot 11 should be eliminated and accessed up to the north for a future potential loop street through this parcel. This will. eventually connect to the Rolling Hills Drive located within the panhandle. Staff feels that the Rolling Hills Circle cul-de-sac should be eliminated because the only service it provides is for an additional lot or two. Lot 1, Block 5 appears to be rather small for a corner lot anyway. The applicant will be responsible for constructing the temporary turn around shown in Inver Grove Heights. Also, the applicant will be responsible for the costs of connecting 77th Street West in Inver Grove Heights to their proposed 77th Street West. RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate 60' right-of-ways for all streets with 120' diameter cul-de-sacs. The developer shall also be responsible for dedicat- ing the southerly half of Rolling Hills Drive not shown on the preliminary plat. This development shall dedicate a 30' utility easement over all water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer not located within city right-of-way. This development will also be responsible for obtaining easements through the park property, if required by the Park Department, for utilities. PERMITS This development will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits: 1) MPCA sewer extension. 2) Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension. 3) MN Dot Access Permit. Because this development will generate more than 50,000 gallons per day of wastewater, the MPCA will require the preparation of an EAW. This EAW preparation will be the responsibility of this developer. Staff recommends that no final plat approval be granted until the City receives all permits. )53 BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT JANUARY 28, 1986 PAGE 5 ASSESSMENTS In researching the City's assessment records, Staff has found that this development is still responsible for trunk area water main assessments, upgrading of trunk storm sewer area assessments because of large lot credit, and trunk area storm sewer assessments as indicated in the following summary table and as shown on Figure ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE Est'd 1986 Description Quantity Rate Amount Trunk Area Water 70 Ac $1,190/Ac $83,300 Main (010-54, 011-04,010-79, 010-75,010-76,013-80) Trunk Area Storm Sewer 165,530 (1) 0.05/S.F. 8,276 (013-80) Trunk Area Storm Sewer 4.2 Ac $1,353/Ac (2) 5,683 Upgrade (011-04) Total $97,259 (1) Includes 20% credit for streets (2) $2,178/Ac. - $825/Ac. (large lot credit already paid) The above assessments will be due at the time of final platting at the rates in effect at that time. CONDITIONS: 1) A revised detailed grading and erosion control plan must be approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 2) Written authorization from Williams Bros. Pipeline must be obtained allowing encroachment into and grading within their easement. 3) A a condition of approval, this development shall insure that the trunk storm sewer system be extended from pond GP -8 to pond GP -1 and the southern boundary for future extensions. 4) This development shall insure that sanitary sewer facilities are extended to their east and south boundaries to provide for future extensions for later developments. 1$� _BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT JANUARY 28, 1986 PAGE 6 5) This development shall insure that an 8" watermain is looped through this plat from T.H. 149 to the existing watermain within Chapel Ln. Extensions of water lateral to the east and south boundaries will also be required for future service extensions. 6) The final plat shall be revised to eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac (Rolling Hills Circle) in the SE corner, the half cul-de'=sac (Hillside Dr "bubble") in the SW corner & the half cul-de-sac (Hillcrest Dr "bubble") in the NE corner shall be eliminated and replaced by a "stub" street for future extension to the unplatted parcel south of T.H. 55. This development shall be responsi.ble for all costs associated with connecting 77th St west to the existing street in Inver Grove Heights. 7) The final plat shall provide for a permanent cul-de-sac in the extreme northerly extension of Rolling Hills Dr with platted right-of-way for a future westerly extension & ultimate connection to Chapel Ln. 8) All drainage and ponding easements required by the City of Eagan shall be dedicated on the final plat. A minimum 30' easement shall be dedicated for all utilities not located within public right-of-way. All other drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as required by staff as a part of the final plat. 9) All permits required by local, County, Regional & State Agencies shall be acquired prior to final plat approval. 10) This development shall be responsible for all the additional assessments required with this proposal as determined by the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. 11) If public improvements are to be installed under City contract, the appropriate improvements shall be ordered for installation by Council action prior to final plat approval. E HAUGE, FIDE & 11ELLE11, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER LORI M. BELLIN MICHAEL J. MAYER f • ; Rte..' . . - Mr. Dale Runkle Eagan City Planner 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 January 16, 1986 Re: South Delaware Hills Planned Development Dear Dale: AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE 454-4224 You have asked me to clarify the developer's rights under the South Delaware Hills Planned Development Agreement in regard to a preliminary plat being proposed which is different from the preliminary plat approved September 18, 1979. A Planned Development zone is not the equivalent of other zoning classifications with specific code criteria for land use, density, setbacks, parks, etc., other than as provided in the Planned Development Contract with its various exhibits. Under Eagan City Code, a Planned Development designation is a superimposed zoning designation (Section 11.20, Subd. 8) which requires the developer to provide specific information to allow a planned development which will better adapt itself to the physical and aesthetic settings of surrounding land than does existing zoning and yet be feasible for the owner and developer economically while benefiting the community at large to a greater degree than development of underlying zoning. Our files indicate that the Council has determined that the Planned Development Agreement commenced September 18, 1979, the same date as the approval of the preliminary plat for South Delaware Hills. The Planned Development Agreement in our files appears to contain an exhibit in conformance with that proposed plat. Therefore, it is our opinion that any substantial deviation from the planned development agreement and the preliminary plat exhibit attached thereto would require Council approval and trigger the public hearing process with the required mailed notices to adjacent land owners. Substantial alterations would include changes in land use, parks and extensive grading. Very truly yours, s HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. David G. Keller DGK:ras cc: Thomas Hedges a 1"5,7 .may IM; - .... ' • ,--.•...��� i• it 71 -17 �—� •.r,� 1 IA t til c- S � ; ��� •`,.•., � - ., a �. i{! • ( i� �t.•...111 �. 1,1)11,1 �.•. ; �-�•� .�. \�— _ �,o, '#-� _ �" _ is V! ,1--.... a ~... To �• �, •, .�' 'y •per <s.. —yi . .� d. to !u .` . ;,•_ .- - _ - •� :vrfl p 111 / �; � � o � •,. '��:�• :/����% 17 a 410 �I �IIlli Ilil� lii�i�iiliii;i III �E II ijlllllil!iiil jl! a 3 yl I it .;i IlIll q+;� ;.,,;;�,illl; '1!i! i!il111.1 !I I !iil 1 , .may IM; - .... ' • ,--.•...��� i• it 71 -17 �—� •.r,� 1 IA t til c- S � ; ��� •`,.•., � - ., a �. i{! • ( i� �t.•...111 �. 1,1)11,1 �.•. ; �-�•� .�. \�— _ �,o, '#-� _ �" _ is V! ,1--.... a ~... To �• �, •, .�' 'y •per <s.. —yi . .� d. to !u .` . ;,•_ .- - _ - •� :vrfl p 111 / �; � � o � •,. '��:�• :/����% 17 a 410 city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS -DEPARTME 8 FP -7 rG GP -f2: a 8;10 0 60.0 0 0 8$5.5 FP -9 �FP-13 88 qqi�Z go 1 89 70 z 6 1 12 4E 0.0 GP -11 i 858.0 411� 836.0 ' 1Z 864.4 840.0 AUDITOR'S�L GP -3 -07- 804.3 .816.0 _ A 6, _� bp- E3Pi 0 804.3 \\ivs A 16.0 A NO 38 ACHES. P' E-1 829.0 X, 056.0 \ : ate .rr:�V. GP -8 877.3 ...-NiX 886.0 �G - --Gp-w5 GQPKE.E4 EEIMIN. 844.0 85AJ USt lkt7j I- T,--GP-6 P 9 L j 1v 866.0 .879.3(//{ G8865 0 LbREP4 PLACE poop \K'S P JP -16 JP -171 X 5 T — ' JP -33 874.7 1 74 7 85, A 6-3.L 832.0 879.1 X 854.0 ................ SUBJECT PARCEL ............ ................ ................ ............... ............... STORM SEWER MASTER PLAN FIG. #1 appiroved, standard plate #: 1-41T.. IV 18" _LINTER' 21 \\ �K NO. N-0 9 LONE 0A, 12 \ N TEMPORARY A -J, IF N -DD J- pp.j- -- �-, 811 P 7 CE,ti'ER 15 7rfK 4,0 4 U im WESCOTT ij 9 Q N -T ' 93,7 9 g., --N-JJ "ER EAGA' 27 A A 5 N -EE X, N, ILASGE ri N-Z`A I GARDEN LOTS KI -V I city of eagan rFaPUBLIC WORKS ft DEPARTME F it 12- 1 95 -A d, A 96 91 N -AA SUBJECT PARCEL FIG. +2 approved: standard SANITARY SEWER plate #: M A S T/E'N/ PLAN .t MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL 1114 FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 11, 1986 BE: ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION ACTION - BUR OAK HILLS The Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission last reviewed the proposed Bur Oak Hills-,Harstad Company's - Preliminary Plat'at its April 3rd Commission Meeting. The April 3rd Commission Meeting was the third time the Advisory Commission had reviewed this particular plat. The central issue has focused upon the amount of road access to the park which the Staff and developer had been trying to negotiate. At one point in the planning of the park area, City Staff had recommended that four additional lots be provided as road frontage. The Staff recommendation was a result of reorientation of planned park facilities, the need for spacial separation of these facilities, and to provide greater separation between the residential lots, the park access, and the planned parking lot. The developer has been steadfast in his determination not to provide any," additional road frontage than originally proposed. He has, however, attempted to mitigate some of the park design concerns in recent weeks. (See April 1, 1986 memorandum to Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission.) - Despite these revisions and improvements,-"' mprovements;' the Advisory Commission recommended as a condition of approval that two additional lots be provided as road frontage for the purpose of "loosening" the park design by relocation of the parking lot closer to the roadway. Two additional lots would provide for this parking area. A 2lata roval recommendation was made by the Commission subject to Park and Recreation Staff's recommendations 1 through 6, as was stated in the developer's letter dated March 27, 1986, in addition to the two lots. For additional background information relative to parks and the proposed Bur Oak Hills Development, the following attachments are provided for the City Council: 1. Staff memorandum dated April 1, 1986 to the Advisory Commission. 2. Letter dated March 27, 1986 from Merila & Associates on behalf of Harstad Development. 3. March 6th Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. 4. February 4th memorandum to Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission. 5. February 6th Commission minutes. The Parks & Recreation Staff will be present at the April 15th City Council meeting to answer questions relative to this Park's recommendation. KV:klh /�y MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: 'APRIL 19 1986 RE: BUR OAK HILLS — HARSTAD DEVELOPMENT Since the last Advisory Commission, Staff has had two separate meetings with representatives of the Harstad Development Company concerning the Parks Plan and Layout. Staff received revisions to the Parks Plan dated March 27, 1986. (Reductions for inclusion into the packet were not available). Attached to this memorandum is a letter dated March 27, from Mr. Merila outlining Harstad Company's position and response to earlier staff concerns. . relative to the Park's layout. Also, attached is an updated memo from Engineering regarding grading, utilities, etc. PnAr Plana The plans submitted by Harstad Company has revised the Parks Plan addressing and mitigating some of the concerns previously expressed. The plan does not provide any additional road frontage from the plan previously presented. What has been accomplished is as follows: 1. Rolling Hills Drive has been shifted to the South some 30 feet and Lot depths reduced allowing reorientating of the facilities, and providing for a full size Soccer Facility. 2. In those areas where the trail was below the 820 contour, a combination of reduction in lot depths and fill provide for a trail above the 820 contour. 3. A shifting or a trail access on the east side of the Park of the entrance way provides for an elevation closer to an 8% grade. The developer also proposes to rough grade and restore the Park, grade in the proposed trailways around the lake above the 100 year flood elevation contour of 820, furnish and install a six foot high fence, with landscape screening materials for the four lots adjacent to the access road, for furnishing and installing a retaining wall in the tot lot area in order to facilitate a tennis court design. X-3 IE Alternatives It appears the Advisory Commission has two alternatives relative to this proposed preliminary plat. The first of these is rejection of the plat based on the following: 1. That a contract still exists between the City and the property. While the developer may wish to change the zoning, this does not necessary change the contract agreement which provides for different parks configuration. Therefore, the Advisory Commission would reject this plat based on the contract agreement. 2. The City's Parks Dedication Ordinance provides for a reasonable Parks Dedication, generally established is 10%. The ordinance does provide for credits for water area. However, it does not state the City must provide for these credits. Therefore, the City could reject the Parks Plan because the area provided above the 820 or 100 year flood elevation is less than the 10% land dedication. This area will be further reduced, with a rejection of areas with steeper slopes. The major area of the park providing for athletic play is subject to flooding, therefore, -does not* ­ constitute constitute the City's intent of acquision of suitable property for the development of neighborhood park facilities. Discussion i Other alternatives have not been explored for the 10% land dedication. There have been numerous revisions and adjustments to the park area being presented to the Commission, but all have focused on the same alternative. Other alternatives which provide for substantially improved park facilities, not subject to flooding, or not including any of the water for ponding could be reviewed as a possible alternative. There are a number of other concerns relative to the park being proposed. There is marginal space for transition and separation between facilities The proximity of the Tot Lot is a marginal location, because of it's close proximity to the softball field, and could be subject to foul balls. Home plate is approximately 65 feet from the rear lot line. This is much improved, but remains relatively close to the homes. Along the third base foul line there is a grade change of a five -to -one within ten to fifteen feet of the play area. This is a difficult transition, at best. With reference to the Tot Lot, it is noted the measurements are 38 X 55. Staff has typically used a 50 x 55 size dimension. While the developer is proposing to provide a 6 ft opaque screen and landscape material, the proximity of the parking lot remains at approximately 20 to 22 feet between the rear lot line, and the parking lot. Careful review of grading plans indicate that there is potential for ponding concentration of storm water run-off from the parking lot and trail access east to the pond. This presents for erosion, with a concentration of water now being channeled overland. It is possible for some of the concerns to be further reviewed. ��T Alternative 2 The Advisory Commission could recommend a�oval of this preliminary plat subject to certain conditions. These conditions would include the following: 1. A proposed sewer outlet from Rolling Hills Drive be relocated and extended directly to the pond. Currently, it appears that the storm water is emptied into the park. 2. That the fill material to be placed in the tennis court receive compaction with density test to be taken, and that only suitable, granular material is used. 3. A detailed landscaping plan be prepared and approved for the lots adjacent to the entrance way to the park to insure adequate screening. 4. The developer provide protection for trees from grading activities. 5. Suitable ground cover be established in those areas affected by grading. 6. The developer follow and enforce the most stringent adherence to erosion control measures. t 7. Other - �rs FOR COMMISSION ACTION The Commission should make a recommendation to approve/not approve the preliminary plat with/without conditions. KV/bls /i5- 10 .4 -. .41 1, MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. - - ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 7216 Boone Avenue North 0 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Telephone: (612) 533-7595 March 27, 1986 Mr, Ken Vraa Director of Parks City of Eagan. and Recreation 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Bur Oaks Hills/Bur Oak Park Dear Mr. Vraa: Thi -s letter is a followup of previous meetings and discussions regarding the Bur Oaks Park Plan for the proposed Bur Oak Hills Preliminary Plat. Since our last meeting, the proposed plat and park plan has been modified as follows:. 1. In. the area of the west summer activity park, Rolling Hills Drive has been shifted'southerly and the lot depths have been reduced to enable shifting the rear lot lines of the proposed lots adjacent to the softball infield southerly approximately 30 feet. This allows re -orienting the facilities and opening up the area by home plate. 2. The depth of lots have been reduced in the areas where the trai-1 previously was below the 820 contour so that the trail can be constructed above the 820 contour. 3. The 30 foot wide park entry from Oak Ridge Drive has been Shifted south one lot width to provide for the proposed trail to meet existing elevations closer with an eight percent grade. Attached are copies of the revised Park Plan, Grading Plan and Responses to the Park Department Staff Report comments dated 2/4/86. Based on the revised Park Plan, a summary of the proposed park land dedication is as follows:. .Area 1. Above the 100 year flood elevation of 820 10.45 Acres 2. Between elevation 817 and 820 3.50 3. Between elevation 809 and 817 7.58 4. Below elevation 809 (normal pond elevation) 4:52 Total Area 26.05 Acres Bur Oak Hills/Bur Oak Park March 27, 1986 Page 2 The above areas more than satisfy the required park dedication of 11.11 acres with 94% of the area being above the 100 year flood elevation of 820. Under the proposed park plan, the Harstad Companies proposes to do the following: �1. Rough grade and restore the park development area; 2. Grade in the proposed trailway around the lake above the 100 Year flood elevation contour of 820; 3. Furnish and install a 6' high opaque fence and evergreen landscape screening plantings on the side and rear lot lines of the two lots adjacent to the Rolling Hills Drive summer activity area on the west side of the park; 4. Furnish and install the small retaining wall in the tot lot area of the summer activity area; 5. Dredge out to enlarge the open water area in the ponding area. Under the proposed park plan, Harstad Companies do not propose doing the following: 1. Providing additional frontage beyond the proposed 90 feet along Rolling Hills Drive for entry into the summer activity area. 2. Constructing the proposed facilities within the proposed area beyond t the rough grading of the site. As you are aware, the park planning firm of Brauer & Associates, Ltd., who has been in the park design business for over 20 years, has been retained to assit in design of a concept plan for Bur Oaks parks. The concept plan has been prepared on the premise that Bur Oaks Park is a neighborhood park. In accordance with the City's Park System Plan Classification System, a neighborhood park is defined as follows: CHART H-3. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM COMPONENT USE SERVKE AREA SITE SITE Arritiu TES SITE LOCATION t tW orrho�ad Ana For local nosativol Opti al service 10 acre Phriareplry Acceswe to activlHe;; t a a 250' a area it usually mirrfereal sulted for Intended service Pork. Play-w�i — 250' open field gorse ores. within* 1/2 able It typically lnrene develop- area. MW paved hard cert, ponce Greg. radius. Service Iota 12 more. Soma active pals (city Ww halls. play, equipmonefor shmid net saterd eves 6A natural Grsai- reed Mner diction) pro-tehool and elemontsy beyond moor pay 6e as tin ore -de- access Is age children and a passive 6orriers to large as suable but not collector or natural area.tiarel oecess. 20 acres. wired streeN. focilitis any tnc role inn- 2.000 to S,000 r +"� •t Pro. 6ollflelds, soccer papulation isms 80' d fields, tennis carts. hockey served • haeege on e rirdo. skating fir" and I public shed PorRirq facilities. *The above is an excerpt from -Chart H-3 - Proposed Classification System on page H-7 of the City's Park System Plan. /17 Bur Oak Hills/Bur Oak Park March 27, 1986 Page 3 The proposed plan prepared by Brauer & Associates not only porvides for the basic and optional facilities for use of a neighborhood park, but also provides for skiing and sliding areas. The,proposed plan also satisfies all the characteristics which a neighborhood park site should possess to fulfill the use expectations as defined by the City's Park Classification System Chart H-3. Under the site attributes category of Chart H-3, the Park System Plan stipulates that the site "must have at least 80' of frontage on a public street". The proposed BUR OAK HILLS plat provides for a total of approximately 420 feet of frontage on public streets for Bur Oak Park in addition to the existing 455 linear feet of public street frontage along Chapel Lane on the north side of existing Bur Oaks Park. A summary of the proposed and existing street frontage to Bur Oak Park is as follows: 1. Proposed: a. Rolling Hills Drive (summer activity area) 90' ` b. Rolling Hills Drive (winter activity area) 260' c. Williams Pipe Line Entry 40' d. Oakridge Drive Entry 30' 420 Lin. Ft. 2. Existing: a. Chapel Lane (west end) 415' b. Chapel Lane (east end) 40' 455 Lin. Ft. Total Street Frontage 875 Lin. Ft. The above summary shows that the proposed plat for BUR OAKS HILLS provides 4.7 (420 ; 90) times the minimum required amount of frontage on a public street, while the entire Bur Oak Park (existing and proposed) would have 10.9 (875 = 90), the minimum required amount of frontage on a public street in accordance to*the City's Park System Plan. It is recognized that the City's Park System Plan contains a "model" neighborhood park, as illustrated in attached Figure H-1. On page H-9, the Park System Plan states as follows: "In actual application, the parcel shape, size, adjacent uses, topography and local input on site planning could change the facilities and layout. Conceptually, the graphic illustrates a good general relationship between activities and the spatial requirements for a neighborhood park".: //(,/ cl?/ Bur Oak Hills/Bur Oak Park March 27, 1986 Page 4 It is Harstad Companies contention that the "model" park.plan showing 1,500 linear feet of street frontage is not realistic and therefore unmeaningful as a criteria for street frontage requirements. It is our contention that shape, size and topography of this site and the city designated ponding area for drainage from 1,035 acres of offsite area create an undue hardship on the developer of this property. The fact that 15.6 acres or 14.0% of the entire site is being consumed for a storm -water ponding -area without any compensation does not permit the owner to provide any additional park land or street frontage. We would appreciate your endorsement of the proposed park, as we feel the proposed development would be an asset to both the neighborhood and the City of Eagan. If you have any questions relative to the above, please call me at 533-7595. Sincerely yours, MERILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' � n James R. Merila, P.E. JRM:.ml President ccs Ken Briggs, Harstad Companies Daniel A. Price, Attorney at Law �9 4 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PARK DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT COMMENTS DATED 2/4/86 RE: BUR OAK HILLS BY: Harstad Companies Merila & Associates, Inc. DATE: March 27, 1986 .1. The soccer and ball field are completely overlaid. The soccer field is improperly oriented, a portion of which extends onto the infield area; therefore, its usefulness is doubtful. Resr-onse: The new layout provides for the soccer field being -re -oriented to a north -south direction and lying outside of the infield area of the softball field. 2. The parking lot is located between two single family homes which just meets setback requirements. Staff is concerned with residential objections to park usage once these homes become occupied. Response: The parking lot is relocated further from the residential homes. Six foot opaque fencing and evergreen landscape screen plantings are proposed for providing a buffer between the adjacent residents and the park entry area. The revised layout also moves the proposed street, Rolling Hills Drive, southerly so that the rear line of the lots adjacent to the softball field are 30 feet southerly of the original proposed plan. 3. In an earlier parks plan, staff had concerns over the central park area which was to receive extensive grading west of the tennis courts. This resulted in a loss to a substantial number of significant size oak trees. In order to complete the necessary grading and contours, the developer proposes to build a series of retaining walls of approximately 300 feet in length and at places, up to six feet in height. This retaining wall psychologically separates the open space that is trying to be preserved from the park and relegates it to an unusable area. There is some doubt whether retaining walls will save the adjacent oak trees which could be eventually lost because of disturbance associated with grading. Response: The maximum height of the original retaining walls was four feet rather than six feet. However, the new layout provides for a shifting of the facilities easterly by pivoting around home plate in a clockwise direction. This enables the tennis courts to be shifted easterly approximately 35 feet and thereby eliminating the need of retaining walls on the west side of the tennis courts. Small retaining walls are being proposed in the northeast corner of the tennis courts for grade transition to the tot lot area. % �76) Page 2 March 27, 1986 �- Response to Park Dept. Report of 2/4/86 Bur Oak Hills 4. The proposed trailway around the lake falls below the normal high water elevation of 820 with 13 lot locations and is therefore, subject to flooding. Response': ''The new layout provides for a shifting of some rear property lines adjacent to the proposed park and a revised grading plan to provide for the proposed trailway to be benched in above the 100 year flood elevation contour of 820. 5. The proposed tennis courts on the northeast corner becomes a fill area and requires a retaining wall to facilitate it. Response: The construction of a portion of a tennis court in a fill area is normal construction for tennis courts in the same manner as constructing roadways and buildings in fill areas. The fill material is routinely placed and compacted to specified densities to control future settlement. Furthermore, the subgrade material for structures such as tennis courts, roads, and buildings required adequate compaction efforts in a cut section as well as in a fill section. A retaining wall with a 3' maximum height is still necessary here. 6. The proposed backstop for the ball field is approximately 50 feet from the rear lot line to the adjacent property. Commission has previously looked with disfavor with other parks plans that have shown this close of a proximity of infield to residential lots. Response: The revised layout shifts the rear lot lines of the lots adjacent to the infield areas southerly approximately 30 feet and thereby providing approximately 75 feet of distance from home plate to the closest rear lot line. /7/ Adv. Parks & Rea. Comm. March 6, 1986 Commission member Kubik thought the Planning Commission designated the outlot as open space as one condition of approval. He then suggested the developer consider putting a tot lot on one of the lots. He asked Director Vraa if the site would present maintenance problems if used for recreational space. Mr. Vraa said, the area would be somewhat difficult to maintain because of the uneven terrain, and most likely would be assigned a class "C" priority. He also noted that the Planning Commission had recommended trail dedication for Outlot B and this condition did not appear in the City Council minutes. Commission member Porter moved, seconded by Kubik, the recommendation for staff to review the council minutes for exact conditions of approval; review all actions on the outlots and to explore alternative solutions. The item will be on the April agenda. All -voted in favor. 4. UPDATE ON MARCH PLANNING ISSUES Planner Sturm previewed incoming proposals and noted there will be park dedication on several of the projects. The largest proposal is for 324 apartments on a 38 acre site. One hundred forty five single family homes are proposed for the Ohmann property. There are to be 38 more single family homes- . in Northview Meadows and a large office structure on Silver Bell Road. 1. BUR OAK -HILLS - HARSTAD COMPANY Chairman Martin noted that at the last Commission Meeting, �it was understood the developer's representatives were to have met with staff to consider alternate designs for the park. The meeting did not take place despite Mr. Vraa's contracts by phone and letter indicating that packet preparation would be Friday, the 28th. Chairman Martin said the item would not be considered at the March meeting because there was no new material to discuss. The developers delivered some information to Director Vraa at 4 pm. - three hours before the regular meeting was to start. He said, that because there were interested residents in the audience, the commission should hear their comments. The Director then recapped for the Commission and audience the history of the Bur Oaks project, emphasizing parks. Originally, there was to be relatively dense housing with over 400 units. The current proposal is for 204 single family homes on lots over 12,000 square feet in size. The original PUD provided for 28 acres of parkland but was never final platted. The Harstad proposal calls for 23 plus acres of park, most of which is under the high water elevation. He said, there will be less than 10 acres over the high water elevation, and much of that had steep slopes or was over the pipe line. Mr. Vraa expressed concern with the developers proposal for an 85' access to the park, the parking lot to be placed between two residential lots, grading and potential loss of trees, etc. Prior to the February meeting the City staff had discussed its concerns with Harstad representatives. Staff relocated the play fields to reduce the potential for flooding, increased the road access to provide for a parking lot and eliminate the need for retaining walls, and for a better separation of facilities. /7y Adv. Parks & Rec. Comm March 6, 1986 Commission member Kubik stated that the developer was given a month to get together with staff and he was disappointed that they did not follow through on their agreement to meet. He found it interesting that the developer found time to mail a letter to nearby residents to come to the parks meeting, but did not have time to meet with the staff. Commission member Caponi noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission is trying to safeguard residents from poorly conceived plans. He said, that developers come and go but leave problems they create with the residents. He voiced displeasure with the developer for bringing in material at such a late "hour. He also said, the developer should have had discussions with staff, who could then have included comments and recommendations with the regular commission packet. Chairman Martin stated that the Parks & Recreation Commission was very pleased with the lesser density of the project. He felt, however, that the park does not fare so well with the current proposal. He dislikes the trail located under the high water elevation mark. He expressed a need for a flat area for play fields and sufficient road frontage for access which definitely shows' that there is a park. Richard Heimkes, a 20 year Eagan resident, was supportive of the lesser density proposal. He felt the present Bur Oak park has been neglected and the residents deserve better. He hoped the City and developer would get together, because the residents need a good park. Mr. & Mrs Charles Diemer prefer the lower density proposal too. Mr. Diemer was sorry the developer did not come in to work with the City, but he hopes they will be able to work out a compromise. Mr. L. K. Jones, Hwy 55, has a large tract of land east of the proposed development upon which he has many young apple trees. He wanted a good park in the development, as he was afraid children might decide to use his property for a park and destroy many of the apple trees. Chairman Martin and Tony Caponi both said, the City wants a good park facility so the kids will use it and not trespass elsewhere. Vernon Schaff, Chapel Lane, was concerned with potential flooding of the pond and questioned what it would be. Director Vras said, that increased amounts of impervious surface will drive up the water level, but that there is a controlled elevation on the ponds. Mr. Schaaf also said, the City and developer should work out an agreeable solution so the project could move forward. Other residents and nearby Inver Grove Heights residents commented on the need for a better park and better play equipment. Ken Briggs, representing the Harstad Co., brought along a park concept plan to r. the meeting. He reiterated it was not feasible to have a 600' road frontage access, because it would cost the developer too much money. He said, the company had been extremely busy the past month and didn't have time to meet with the city staff. / 72 F Adv. Parks & Rea. Comm. March 6,1986 Chairman Martin reiterated that the Commission likes the proposed development. The Commission wants to get the best possible park. The City is not locked into a 600' access and want to get together with the developer to resolve the problem. Commission member Bertz agreed and encouraged members of the audience to let City officials know what they desire for a park. Ken Briggs asked if the City is willing to accept the 85' road frontage access. He also wanted to know what and where are the standards the Commission refers to for park access. He said, if the City wouldn't back off the 600' access the higher density project would be built. Chairman Martin said, the City wants the park, but questioned if any in the audience would just as soon forego park and take cash dedication? The consensus was for a park, which is consistent with other city parks. Commission member Masin recalled the neighborhood meeting prior to the park bond referendum. She said, that many residents expressed the need for a decent park and the Commission is trying to accomplish that. Commission member Ketcham asked if staff could review the status of the S., Delaware Hills preliminary plat to see if it still is a viable project. After additional discussion, Chairman Martin said, the developer and staff are to meet, review and come back to the April meeting. Later in the meeting when it was apparent a second March meeting would be necessary, there was discussion and consensus to invite the Harstad Co. to the meeting as a measure of good faith. Director Vraa was directed to contact Mr. Merila and follow up with a letter of invitation with copies to the City council. Staff was directed to compile a file of written documentation and history on the Bur Oaks proposal. Director Vraa will also see if Park Commission members can have some time at the March 11 special joint council - Planning Commission meeting. Adv. Parks & Ree. Comm. March 6, 1986 BUR OAKS When it Was apparent a second March meeting would be necessary, Commission member discussed inviting Harstad Company representatives to discuss their latest concept plan. The Commission felt such an invite would be a measure of good faith; that they do prefer the Harstad proposed density and feel the park issue can be resolved. Director Vraa was directed to contact Misters Briggs or Merila and ask them to come. He was to follow up with a formal letter of invitation with copies to go to the Council. Staff was also directed to compile a complete file on the S. Delaware Hills/Burr Oaks proposals including minutes, phone calls and letters. Chairman Martin said, he would contact the Mayor to seek inclusion on the special Council agenda, March 11, for Park & Recreation Commission members. MEMO MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ....,TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR.,, K.� FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1986 RE: ADVISORY PARKS & REC COMM ACTION - BUR OAK HILLS - HARSTAD CO At the regular meeting of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission on February 6, the Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for Burr Oak Hills by the Harstad Companies. The Advisory Commission spent considerable time reviewing the preliminary plat which was presented by representatives of the developer. A spokesman for the development firm indicated that it was the intent to provide for large lot, single family residential development. Thus, the P.U.D. zoning from the former South Delaware Hills was not essential. The parks dedication previously worked out within this P.U.D. was not valid. A new parks dedication proposal by the developer was presented to the Advisory Commission. Staff's analysis of the proposed parkland dedication by the developer provided for approximately 25 acres. The majority (12 acres) of the dedication would be below the 820' high water elevation for the pond. Staff also evaluated the amount of steep slopes, grading impacts, relationship of the parking lot and limited amount of open space being provided. The amount of street access to the main body of the park was a major issue of the Commission. Staff presented its recommendation for parkland dedication which expanded upon road access, provided for better separation of planned facilities, reduced the number of trees lost due to grading and eliminated the need for retaining walls. Representatives of the Harstad Companies objected to this proposal stating that roadway frontage was too costly to provide for parks purposes and not necessary. After a great deal of discussion, the Commission asked staff and developer to again meet in an attempt to provide for a larger active play area which would be less subject to flooding. The developer emphasized that he had the right to present his proposal to the City Council regardless of the Advisory Commission's recommendation- The Commission stated that it would expect the developer and staff to present other alternatives or a compromise at the March 6 meeting before the Commission would make its recommendation concerning this plat. NOTE: Please refer to the minutes of the Advisory Commission for more information regarding this plat. KV/js 1,,9 CC: James Merila - Merila & Assoc. IM) `MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1986 RE: HARSTAD DEVELOPMENT - BURR OAKS PARK - SOUTH DELAWARE HILLS BACKGROUND/ISSUE: Harstad Development is proposing to develop the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. (Burr Oaks Park area) into 204 single family residential lots. The South Delaware Hills P.U.D. previously proposed both single and twin family homes with a P.U.D. commitment to provide parkland dedication amounting to approximately 28 acres. This development proposes a change in the shape and amount of parkland to be dedicated. The Advisory Commission should determine if the proposed changes in the parks dedication are acceptable as presented or require revision. PARKS HISTORY - SOUTH DELAWARE HILLS P.U.D. The history of parks in the South Delaware Hills P.U.D. is very long. This report will highlight some of the more significant events as a means of tracing the history of parks proposal to the present. In December of 1976, the City first received an application for rezoning from agricultural to P.U.D. for the general area now known as South Delaware Hills. The original parcel was somewhat smaller than what is now considered within the P.U.D., but also considered development which was part of Inver Grove Heights. From its original application in 1976 until 1977, the Parks Commission was reviewing the possibility of receiving through dedication 25 acres of parkland in Eagan, primarily around the existing lake area and five acres in Inver Grove Heights. This five acres was flat and more suitable for active area development. - In October of 1977, Inver Grove Heights denied the rezoning of that area within its community after which there was little or no activity concerning the P.U.D. In August of 1979, the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission recommended, and was agreed to by the developer, to provide a parks dedication of approximately 20 some acres. Also recommended and agreed to was the provision for a trail from the main park area in Eagan to the eastern five acre park within Inver Grove Heights. Eagan was responsible for the development of the Inver Grove Heights parkland with the developer being responsible for the grading of the Eagan parkland. There were a series of public hearings before the Advisory Planning Commission and Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission; after considerable pressure by residents of Burr Oaks on the developer, the parks dedication in Eagan was increased to approximately 28 acres with the developer agreeing to provide three proposed lots as part of the parks dedication and to grade the area to City specifications. This was in order to accomodate the installation of a ball diamond/active play area. This then became the area negotiated under the P.U.D. /77 During 1980 and 181 the developer proposed several amendments to the P.U.D. which would have increased the number of multiple dwellings. Prior to one such revision in March of 19819 Mayor Blomquist and the Director of Parks & Recreation met with residents of the South Delaware Hills area regarding the parks dedication and their concerns over the property to be dedicated. It was noted that most of the area was wet and provided too small of an area for active recreational interest, as well as much of the soil was unstable and unsuitable for most uses. It was noted, however, that the City had already entered into an agreement and therefore, was committed to accepting the 28.5 acre parkland. PROPOSED PARKLAND - THIS DEVELOPMENT Staff met with Mr. James Merila regarding the proposed development of the South Delaware Hills property in the fall of 185. A letter was provided on December 10, 1985 (copy attached.) explaining the City's position regarding parks dedication within this P.U.D. Subsequently, the developer provided a preliminary plat dated 12/16/85 which then reduced parks dedication to approximately 14.07 gross acres. Staff.- found this totally unacceptable, but continued to work with the developer by'authorizing Parks Planning Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to work with the planners to provide a more suitable parks layout. Staff also presented a list of of criteria that the park should meet in order to be acceptable. . In January the developer presented staff with a preliminary plat and revised site plan. The Director of Parks & Recreation opposed the plat because it did not meet the previously submitted standards, was not site sensitive and did not provide adequate road frontage. NOTE: (The plat has changed as a result of better engineering and park concerns, i.e. cul -de -saes and roadway alignment. This has had minimal impact upon the parks.) The parks plan as presented by the developer does not necessarily represent the work of Mr. Erkkila.) However, the plat has proceeded forward and was presented to the Advisory Planning Commission. PARK ANALYSIS: The total park area provided within the developer's parks plan proposed is approximately 25.6 acres. Parkland dedication in the P.U.D. provided 28.5 acres. In assessing the proposed dedication, 10.3 acres is above the 820 contour which is the high water elevation for Burr Oaks pond. 3.24 acres is between the 817 and 820 contour and subject to flooding. 12.09 acres is below 817 and is therefore, water. A close look at the acreage above the 820 (water) indicates that by subtracting the area with grades in excess of 14% there is only six acres. This is in three separate areas. The first area is approximately 2.9 acres and is the area generally designated as the more active space including the parking lot, ball field, tennis courts, etc. The second area is to the south which provides access to Rolling Hills Drive. This area is approximately 1.8 acres in size. (However, this is further reduced by the computations associated with pipeline easements.) The other acreage is on the east side of the park adjacent to the protruding cul-de-sac which is equivalent to 1.3 acres. In summation, of the 10.3 acres above the high water line the largest is 2.9 acres in size and only six acres has slopes of less than 14%. 17� 2 It. �n reviewing the park concept provided with the preliminary plat, staff has the following comments: (See attachment "Developers Park Proposed"). 1) The soccer and ball fields are completely overlaid. The soccer field is improperly oriented, a portion of which extends onto the infield area; therefore, its usefulness is doubtful. 2) The parking lot is located between two single family homes which just meets setback requirements. Staff is concerned with residential objections to park usage once these homes become occupied. 3) In an- arlier parks plan, staff had concerns over the central park area which was to receive extensive grading west of the tennis courts. This resulted in a loss to a substantial number of significant size oak trees. In order to complete the necessary grading and contours, the developer proposes to build a series of retaining walls of approximately 300' in length and at places, up to --.6' in height. This retaining wall psychologically separates the open space that is trying to be preserved from the park and relegates it to an unusable area. There is some doubt whether retaining walls will save the adjacent oak trees which could be eventually lost because of disturbance associated with grading. 4) The proposed trailway around the lake falls below the normal high water elevation of 820 with 13 lot locations and is therefore, subject to- flooding. 5) The proposed tennis courts on the northeast corner becomes a fill area and requires a retaining wall to facilitate it. 6) The proposed backstop for the ball field is approximately 50' from the rear lot line to the adjacent property. Commission has previously looked with disfavor with other parks plans that have shown this close of a proximity of infield to residential lots. RECOMMENDATIONS: In response to the developer's parks plan and to meet the deficiencies just sited, staff has prepared a recommended park design (see staff park plan). This design eliminates the need for retaining walls in order to save the oak trees. The soccer field is reorientated and falls outside of the infield area of the softball field. The parking lot is removed further from residential homes. Spacial relationship is much more suitable in the overall layout. A safer transition from street to park is made. In order to accomplish this, this City would need to recapture part of its parkland commitment currently being shown with five residential lots. This is equivalent to approximately 1.5 acres. Other recommendations for consideration include: 1) The developer be responsible for grading and restoration of the area for parks development. 2) That the proposed trailway around the lake be fitted and benched in above the 820 contour. 3) The long fingerlike projection on the east side proposed for parks dedication (part of the William Bros. Pipeline) will not be accepted for parks dedication which is approximately .8 of an acre in size. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In order to accomplish this plat, the developer will require a storm sewer easement across existing parkland property immediately north of this development. The developer will require an easement from the City Parks & Recreation Department. Second, the developer is to submit erosion control plan and performance bond relative to the restoration of sloped areas where grading has extended into proposed parks dedication areas. ADDITIONAL -=DISCUSSION It would appear that the Advisory Planning Commission in its review on January 28 rezoned this site to R-1, single family. Thus, the P.U.D. and the proposed parkland dedication of 28 acres _would no longer be in effect. This would relegate the City to negotiate a newparkland dedication which would encompass 11.11 acres. (10% of the 111 acre development). Members will recall that the formula for parkland dedication provides that the City may provide credit for parks which are below or within flood plains where it is deemed to be part of the parks value provided that 70% of the overall dedication is usable above the flood plain. The Commission should consider whether the space being provided under the developer's proposal meets this criteria for parks dedication or if another area for parks dedication should be considered. FOR ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION To approve/disapprove of the preliminary plat for Burr Oak Hills, to revise as may be appropriate, to make a recommendation regarding parks dedication. Or to approve, subject to Commission recommendations. Or to table to March, pending further review and negotiation regarding staff's recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Director of Parks & Recreation KV/js M, a Adv. Parks & Rec. Comm. = t February 6, 1986 4 B. BUR OAK HILLS - HARSTAD CO. Jim Sturm noted that proposal is the former South Delaware Hills P.U.D. It consists of 111 acres bounded by Hwys. 149 and 55 and Inver Grove Heights. The current proposal is for 204 single family homes all on lots of greater than 12,000 sq. ft. He said that Harstad Co. wishes to abandon the P.U.D. concept and proceed with R-1 zoning. The Planning Commission approved the proposal subject to concerns of the Parks & Recreation Commission and amendment of the P.U.D. agreement. Planner Sturm said the Planning Commission approved the proposal after their concerns with cul-de-sacs and grading had been addressed. He noted that the park dedication has been sharply reduced from the original P.U.D. proposed dedication and that some of the proposed trail is lower than the high water elevation of 8201. , Mr. Jim Merila, Registered Engineer for the Harstad Companies, then presented a brief slide show of other Harstad development and various shots of the Eagan site. He said the main access to the development would be off Highway 149. There would be an interior looped street, thus reducing the number of cul-de- sacs originally proposed. Mr. Merila noted there are 25 1/? acres of park and pond area, most of which are under the high water elevation of 8201. He said the Company worked with Eagan Parks Consultant, Tim Erkkila, to provide a concept plan for the proposed activity site in the NW corner of the 25 acres. The developer is prepared to do some grading and build retaining walls by the tennis courts. Mr. Merila cited a cost of $200 per lineal foot of roadway which would prohibit giving up 400-600' for access purposes. He did say that the proposed ball field area is at the 820' level so it's conceivable that it could be under water some of the time. He did not think that this situation was unusual for ball fields in many communities. He noted the City has proposed to construct a pedestrian bridge along the south edge of Bur Oak pond which could connect to the trail in the development. Mr. Merila noted that the trail will be constructed at the 817' level even though that level is 3' under the 820' high water elevation. He noted that the pond itself is set at an . 809' control level. He concluded by saying that the difference between the original and present proposal was an exchange of park along the eastern edge of the pond for a piece in the north and one in the south. Mr. Ken Briggs, Development Director for Harstad Companies then spoke to the Commission. He noted there are 100 less units with this proposal than with the original P.U.D. He said the neighbors are supportive and the Planning Commission gave unanimous approval. He stated further that there will be no P.U.D. arrangment with the proposal. He said that to meet code requirements, the developer is to give a certain amount of parkland - period. Mr. Briggs stated that it would cost too much to provide a 6001, or even a 4001, access to the park as asked for by staff. He said the Harstad Companies is providing usable parkland of more than 10% and they have no further obligation. 01' � Agr/ 2 Adv. Parks & Ree. Comm. Feruary 6, 1986 Commission member Bertz noted that the developer picked up at least 12 lots with the.new park configuation and "gave" the City a small, steep parcel in exchange. She said the current proposal is not giving the City adequate usable parkland. The limited access does not allow for adequate parking. The proposed overlay of ball and soccer fields is dangerous. The developer gave pieces of land which are under water, have steep slopes or are on the pipeline. Mr. Briggs responded that the developer is meeting the required park dedication and how the City lays out the amenities is its responsibility, not the developer's. Chairman Martin addressed another --concern - that of the proposed trail set an an 817' level which is 3' less than "the "100 year" high water elevation of 8201. He noted there is already an unusable trail around a pond in Eagan and he didn't want to have another. Chairman Martin said pond outlets are getting plugged with all the additional sediment from so much construction and now those ponds are always at the high water elevation. After additional discussion, Director Vraa showed the development with an.. overlay of water and topo features which impact a potential park. Of the 25.6 .acres which the Harstad Companies proposes to dedicate, the pond area and area of greater than 14% slope amount to 19.6 acres. The remaining six acres are in three pieces of 2.9 acres, 1.8 acres and 1.3 acres. He reminded the Commission that water can be credited for 50% as long as 70% of it is above v.-'" the high water mark. He felt the 1.8 acre parcel was not useful to either the developer or the City. Mr. Vraa said the developer had followed the letter of the law, but not the intent. Mr. Vraa continued. Because the developer insists on abandoning the P.U.D, the Commission should determine if this (his) proposal meets the 10% parkland dedication requirement. If not, what should be done so it meets City standards? He also stated that Parks Planning Consultant, Tim Erkkila, had called and stated that he did assist the developer with a park concept; but ,the developer changed the plan and Mr. Erkkila made it clear he has no ownership in the present plan. Director Vraa reviewed the specific concerns with the play area of the park saying that the developer did propose to do some grading and lower the height of the retaining walls. He voiced concern, however with the proposed parking lot location and proximity of the adjacent homes. He was also concerned with the overlay of ball/soccer fields and the location of the ball field under the high water elevation. He then showed staff proposed a concept plan for the park which moved the amenities to provide better utility access and greater road frontage. Ken Briggs objected to the staff plan. He said the Eagan code does not spell out specifies of parks dedication. The developer is required to give 11 acres which is 10% of a 111 acre parcel. The developer objects to taking of street marts frontage of 600' for access because that is over and above what is required. He felt there was no need to have open access to the park because the park was ' for the neighborhood. "Outsiders" should not be invited in via open access. Mr. Briggs cited a San Francisco Parks Planner who advocates little or no access to a park. 3 Adv. Parks & Rec. Comm. February -6, 1986 Chairman Martin said the developer is telling the City what land it can have for park and the Commission does not find the proposal acceptable. Carolyn Thurston said that the Commission is charged to provide quality parks. She noted it was apparent the developer was hung up on the use of street frontage for park access. Ms. Thurston said the City is interested in usable land for parks and the developer has taken all of the usable land for lots. Three small pieces have been provided, none of which really address the need for active -:.parkland that has been demonstrated for that park service area. Mr. Brigs said Harstad Companies cannot develop the land and pay an additional one-half to three-fourths of a million dollars to accomodate road frontage for a.City park. He said that if the Commission could not accept the present proposal, then the property will revert back to the old P.U.D. with its greater housing density. Commission member Caponi said that the City cannot use land and trails which are under water. He felt if the City accepted the parkland and trail as proposed, then the City would be faced with water problems and the developer would be long gone. Mr. Caponi noted that a good park will increase the value of surrounding land. ` Mr. Briggs said the parcel would be worth much more without a park. He said, further, that most people who live by parks hate them. He said the developer CZ� intended to deepen the pond, thus enlarging the storage capacity subject to approval by the Department of Natural Resources. -� Commission member Kubik noted there is an excess of land that the City cannot use for a park. He asked if there were a better piece somewhere on the parcel. Ken Briggs said that the developer had to pay for 25 acres of water and cannot afford to provide the road frontage staff had proposed. The concept plan proposed by Mr. Erkkila was then reviewed. -Chairman Martin said that space is needed for active play and that he felt a larger road access than is being shown by the developer is necessary. He is apprehensive about the trail being placed at the 817' level in the first place. He thinks enlarging the pond's storage capacity might serve to raise the water level even more. Mr. Briggs said he would like to work with the Commission and if it's more space than they want for parks, the developer will provide it, but he won't provide it if he has to give up road frontage. GeorEe Kubik asked if it would be possible for staff to meet with the developer and see if there might be some alternatives which might be acceptable to the City and the developer and the Commission could look at. it in March. Mr. Briggs said he intended to be on the February 18 City Council agenda regardless of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission's =�* recommendation. 4 is 9 Adv. Parks & Ree. Comm. February 6, 1986 After further discussion, Commission member Caponi made a motion, seconded by Kubik, that staff meet with the developer to consider alternative designs to meet City needs. Staff should bring the following concerns to the discussion and return to the Commission in March: D. K. CHARLES DEVELOPMENT Planner Jim Sturm explained the proposal as 18,000 sq. ft. of strip shopping center with 13000 sq. ft. in retail and 5,000 sq. ft. in food stores. The center will be located near the intersection of Duckwood and Crestwood. The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plat. Commission member Alt made the motion, seconded by Bertz, to recommend cash dedication for the center and the landscape plan as shown be implemented. The motion carried. E. UPDATE - JIM STURM Planner Sturm stated that the Remick Addition by Highview Park had been approved while the Greensboro proposal was continued. Upcoming for the February Planning Commission agenda are: Lexington Third consisting of 10 lots; Park Knoll which is -a single family development and a 23 acre site owned by Opus Corporation which might feature a long term residential hotel, a gas station, fast food and restaurant facilities. OLD BUSINESS A. PARK/SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION - SECTION 14 ' Director Vraa explained the land survey completed for the site revealed that there is not as much land in the proposed site as originally thought. In order to make the site work, Mr. Vraa proposes the City and school district Jointly purchase Parcel A, an adjoining five acre piece. The purchase price for Parcel A is reportedly $45,000.�Sttep en Sullivan described various O 1. There is a need for active parkland in the area. 2. The trail. should not be below the 820' elevation. 3. There'-niust be adequate access to the park. 4. There should be adequate, internal parking in the park. 5. Safety must be foremost when locating recreational amenities. The motion was approved unanimously. Commission member Kubik requested staff to review bounceback of the pond area, the potential for flooding and other related engineering data. Chairman Martin added erosion control to the review list. These issues will be included in the March agenda with the Bur Oak proposal. C. ADVENT UNITED METHODIST CHURCH The church is to be constructed south of the Westbury Addition and the contractor wishes to drain the site into Patrick Eagan Park. Director Vraa said the staff will be meeting with church representatives to provide for temporary drainage until Lexington Avenue is upgraded. George Kubik moved, Masin seconded , to recommend there be no cash dedication unless the use 'S changes. Trail dedication is required, but would be postponded until Lexington is upgraded. The motion passed. D. K. CHARLES DEVELOPMENT Planner Jim Sturm explained the proposal as 18,000 sq. ft. of strip shopping center with 13000 sq. ft. in retail and 5,000 sq. ft. in food stores. The center will be located near the intersection of Duckwood and Crestwood. The Planning Commission has approved the preliminary plat. Commission member Alt made the motion, seconded by Bertz, to recommend cash dedication for the center and the landscape plan as shown be implemented. The motion carried. E. UPDATE - JIM STURM Planner Sturm stated that the Remick Addition by Highview Park had been approved while the Greensboro proposal was continued. Upcoming for the February Planning Commission agenda are: Lexington Third consisting of 10 lots; Park Knoll which is -a single family development and a 23 acre site owned by Opus Corporation which might feature a long term residential hotel, a gas station, fast food and restaurant facilities. OLD BUSINESS A. PARK/SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION - SECTION 14 ' Director Vraa explained the land survey completed for the site revealed that there is not as much land in the proposed site as originally thought. In order to make the site work, Mr. Vraa proposes the City and school district Jointly purchase Parcel A, an adjoining five acre piece. The purchase price for Parcel A is reportedly $45,000.�Sttep en Sullivan described various O Eagan City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122. Mayor Bea Blomquist, Eagan City Council and Planning Commission Members, Regarding: --"North West Quarter of Section 12 Block 38 Lot 5 and North East Quarter of Section 12 Block 3 Lot 1 March 10, 1986. {3- L, P, CKs The present zoning for these areas is R-4; however, the COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN presently indicates Single Family (R-1) designation. The`iandersigh d people of the neighborhood strongly believe it should be officially documented on all records as Single Family (R-1) because: 1. When we purchased our homes, between 13 and 25 years ago, the above named areas were designated R-1. 2. In the past few years many neighboring homeowners have made major capital property and home improvements, thereby increasing the resale value of their homes from $80,000 to approximately $110,000 on the current market. Continued R-1 designation would help to protect these investments. 3. R -1's would be more compatible with the existing single family detached housing in the adjacent area. Retaining the R-1 designation would avoid potential conflict between 'neighboring homeowners, the City of Eagan and future developers. 4. With the completion of the Northwest Airline Office Building and other office complex developments in the area (plus 'Hest Publishing Co. and U.P.S.) we feel it is safe to assume the employees' incomes would be in the upper middle levels and therefore adequate to purchase single family detached dwellings (R -1's). We feel it would be advanta- geous to make more of this kind of housing available close to their places of employment. 5. Sufficient (R-4) multi dwelling housing is already available: A. Dodd Hill Town Houses, 38 units, located on Hwy 149, 4 blocks from the above named sites. B. Lemay Lake Apartments, 282 units, located on 35E and Lone Oak Road, 3 miles away. C. Wescott Square, 160 units, on Yankee Doodle Road, 22 miles away. D. Carriage Hill Condominiums, 216 units, on Yankee Doodle Road, 3 miles away. E. Numerous other multi dwelling units within a 5 mile radius of the above mentioned property. page 2 cont. We want to thank you for your consideration in this matter and invite you to keep us informed on the progress of your meetings. Sincerely, NAME r- ADDRESS PHONE ';Sln� �ZA Zb-'4k`� L� Int av,,a 3 3 page 3 cont. NAME ADDRESS PHONE /8% 1,73 ( -7 yq.c 04S .Ii — l�c S17 G /8% 1,73 Harstad Companies April 8, 1986 Dear Neighbors: At the last Park Commissions Meeting on April 3, a number of people attending requested that a neighborhood meeting be held between Harstad Companies and adjacent neighbors, to -review Bur Oak Hills subdivision with concerned citizens. We have been able to schedule the Dakota County Library (Eagan Branch) at 134 Wescott Road in Eagan, from 7:30 to 8:30 on April 10, 1986. Our company feels your input is an integral part of the approval of this development. We, therefore, hope that you can attend this meeting and invite you to extend an invitation to anyone who you believe may have an interest in this development. Sincerely, Xenneth G. wig s! Director of La d Development Harstad Comp ies 2191 Silver Lake Road • New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 • Phone 636-3751 113 PEALIO MEMO TO: THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JIM STURM, PLANNING ASSISTANT DATE: APRIL 10, 1986 SUBJECT: BUR OAKS PRELIMINARY PLAT The Bur _Oaks Preliminary Plat consisting of 206 single-family lots on the South Delaware Hills P.D. site was approved by the Advisory Planning Commission on January 28, 1986, subject to the resolution of the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission (AP&RC) concerns. At the February AP&RC meeting, this item was continued to the March meeting so that these .park issues could be further addressed. This item was continued again since not all of the Parks Commission concerns had been resolved. At the April 3 AP&RC meeting, this plat received approval subject to a number of conditions. Other agencies have been involved with this plat and their findings are included, as is a memo from the Director of Parks & Recreation detailing the conditions/ agreements as expressed by the Parks Commission. JS/j j /9i r DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINNESOTA 1 qT& SOIL Arun WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS March 18, 1986 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55122 Dear City Officials: RE: Review of Preliminary Plat for Bur Oaks Residential Development. Farmington Professional Building 821 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (612)463.8626 The Dakota County SWCD has reviewed the above referenced plat and inspected portions of the proposed site on February 18, 1986. Evaluation of Soil Resources: Three major soil groups occur on this site and are as follows: Group 1: These soils have a seasonal high water table within 5 ft. of the existing ground surface (these areas are designated as blue on the attached soils map). #1816 Kennebec Variant silt loam. This soil has a "perched" seasonal high water table 1 ft. above to 2 ft. below the existing surface. Wetness may be a problem during construction, but because the water table is not part of the regional surficial aquifer, dewatering should be easily accomplished if necessary. #1824 Quam silt_ loam ponded and #344 Quam silt loam. The seasonal high water table is 2 ft. above to 1 ft. below the existing ground surface. These soils occupy the area designated as "Parks and Open Space", and includes the area identified for soccer and ball fields. It appears these fields are outside the boundary of the "Protected Waters". Wet conditions are likely to occur on both % O these playing fields during the spring and fall each year. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O Group 2; Soils with slopes greater than 18% (indicated as orange on the attached soils map). #454E Mahtomedi loamy sand, slopes range from 15-25%. #611F Hawick loam7 sand, slopes range from 25-500. #896F Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, slopes range from 25-40%. The potential for soil erosion in these areas is very high. The 896F and 611F soils are generally unsuitable for buildings or roadways because of steep slopes. If the existing ground cover is removed, severe erosion is likely to occur. Thus, the following areas within the development are of particular concern because of the severe erosion hazard: Block 4 - lots 7 to 16 Block 5 - lots 12 to 15 Block 6 - lots 9 to 12,15 Block 7 - lots 4-27 Block 8 - lots 11-15 Block 11 - lots 1-4 Group 3: Soils with few or no limitations. These include the following soils: #39B2 Wadena loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded. #155B Chetek sandy loam,, 3-8% slopes. #895B Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 3-8a slopes. #39C2 Wadena loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded. #454C Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3-8% slopes. #895C Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 8-15% slopes. #889C Wadena-Hawick complex, 6-12% slopes. #889D Wadena-Hawick complex, 12-18% slopes. These soils are generally suited to development, but erosion control practices are necessary to minimize soil soil losses from these areas. Identification of Water Resources "Protected Water" is located within the area identified as Park and Open Space and immediately north of the development. This area must be protected from all adverse impacts by using appropriate construction techniques and implementing appropriate erosion and sediment control practices. Our calculations for soil loss due to development at this site, without adequate erosion protection, range from 55-175 tons/acre/year (see Attachment 2). If this site were to be left bare for one full year, up to 175 ton of soil loss per acre could occur in some areas. If this site were left bare for only 3 months (June -August), 35-105 tons soil loss per acre could result. If either occurs, this sediment could be deposited within the "Protected Waters". We understand that the City of Eagan and its residents place a high priority on surface water quality. If this site is not properly graded and stabilized, significant degradation of water quality of Bur Oak Pond could occur. Thus, it is imperative that: 1. disturbed areas be kept as small as possible 2. disturbed areas are stabilized immediately after grading 3. grading be done to minimize slope lengths and gradients Further, the pond identified as GP -8 should also be adequately protected during construction from sedimentation. General Comments and Recommendations The preliminary plat identifies several -lots adjacent to the Open Space which we feel are unsuitable for residential lots. The unsuitable lots include the following: 1. Lots 9-13, Block 4: This area has a very rugged terrain. Approximately 175 ton/acre/year of soil loss could result if these lots were developed. On these lots, large amounts of fill will be necessary to prepare usable building sites since there appears to be a 30 to 40 foot drop between the front and backside of these lots. The resulting fill slope at the back of these lots is expected to be steep and difficult to stabilize. Assuming that a 2:1 fill slope at the backside of these lots was not adequately /77/ stabilized, approximately 345 ton/acre/year of soil loss could occur. This sediment might eventually be deposited in Bur Oak Pond. Further, without adequate stabilization, the integrity of these lots could be jeopardized. Thus, we recommend that these lots be left in their undisturbed condition. 2. Lots 17-22, Block 7: The area is similar to Block 4, Lots -9-13 in its topography. It is expected that a considerable amount of cutting and filling will be necessary to prepare usable building sites. It is likely, again, that 2:1 fill slopes or steeper would result. Excessive -erosion and sedimentation is likely to occur. Thus, the, integrity of these lots could be jeopardized because of the difficulty in stabilizing these slopes. We recommend that these lots also be left undisturbed. 3. Lots 12 and 14, Block 8: Steep slopes are again dominant on these lots. We recommend that, as Attachment 3 indicates, Oakridge Court cul-de-sac be "shortened up". The resulting lots could even be enlarged to include the red area identified as "unsuitable for development" as long as minimal ground disturbance occurs. In conjunction with the development of a site Grading Plan, a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should be developed for this site. We are available to assist in the development or review of these plans. Attachment 3 indicates some erosion and sediment control practices that should be implemented for this development. One of the foremost considerations in the development of these plans is to minimize the amount of area exposed and the duration of this exposure. We recommend that development occur in phases, and that as the grading for each phase is completed, that disturbed areas are immediately stabilized with adequate vegetative cover to minimize erosion and subsequent movement of sediment into Bur Oak Pond. The grading plan should reflect that slope lengths and gradients be kept to a minimum to keep stormwater runoff velocities low. On Attachment 3, the dark red areas are those lots which we feel are unsuitable for development. We recommend that a silt curtin be placed around the perimeter of open water in Bur Oak Pond, as indicated by a red line. Further, we recommend that native vegetation behind all lots surrounding the Park be left undisturbed (indicated by an orange line). The native vegetation will help to filter out sediments from runoff leaving the immediate construction area. Silt curtins may also be needed adjacent to storm water pond GP -1 to prevent the movement of sediments into this storm water basin. Silt curtins may also be necessary on Block 11 to prevent movement of sediment off-site. All silt curtins..should be properly installed and maintained as specified in-Eagan's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. The red'arrows on Attachment 3 indicate the direction lots should be graded to minimize slope lengths, gradients and to control stormwater runoff. For example, within Block 1, lots should be graded towards the cul-de-sac rather than towards the back of these lots. Runoff will then be directed to the street, rather than down the backslopds of these lots. Within Block 2, a diversion should be placed on the backside of lots 7-15 to intercept off-site runoff from two natural drainageways to the south. A drainage channel should also be placed immediately north of this diversion to convey runoff from lots 7-15 to a storm sewer inlet. Within Blocks 1, 5, 6 and 7, numerous lots should also be "benched or terraced", as the following sketch illustrates: BLOCK 5 lot 4 mot 5 existing lot 6 gradeof 7 lot 8 -ot 9 Benching of these lots will reduce slope lengths and thus, the velocity of stormwater runoff. Runoff could then be directed to either streets or grassed channels and safely conveyed to storm sewer inlets. We hope the enclosed documents will be helpful in the design of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for this development. We requested a copy of the Grading Plan from the architect on February 18, 1986. We will review this plan and provide comments upon receipt. If we can be of any further assistance or -if you have any questions regarding the enclosures, please feel free to contact me. This report is for general planning purposes only. Sincerely, Barbara J. McCarthy Urban Conservationist / Attachments cc: Harstad Companies S oiE.s Mat-' nater 342E QWP SaLS - H t 4H WATER - TN'SLZ G",p 2 Sous - SLOPES > IS */0 o Gxokp 3 SOILS - No Few L4t4rrA-nmls AITACS MENT 1 115C (Joins sheet 12 4 • �: � - i J � g"s . CL cn �g; Mx • lr; 'II'j ,rj�,I j'I; I i ',.i' _ :t•' •a W •i Z •'<-i`It ~•; S]S] J i! \ I �I �IIII I�,i� i�ll'���:��lil l ' J ,I,• < I•I''IN t •. I � W <i]�oi3 ��°C 5 . yy ,�' ti ',�� ,�• r:Lll..�' �t .. �+:. j mO .r � ��� ��a'��° ��.� � � A •\ \ ,. 1� II i��U ��il ii�Illt.11•I;�! ^ , .)'t :.r.:. d ,�, r j/i . .��' ' ��� ' • ... 61 'yZ a� :� 1 � ���i ,1�,— I! ''`- •~�f .._1"'-� i='-.i:�.}��!�Z-'.;+ ;_ �-['�,;��-s- � -lrh -•"' �{j' . f tli/. • }; 1 ,,,I "JIM s•+ J�p` C:IJ' �.[ '`L-(-:..;• _ _ '•�..� -�`A �•.. /A' I. �•' ••T- '�* �,-i�'�.t,•i �\�r,.7'�� •.i - � i •/r�.hP' �%` T+p\'.: -,`:� 'i` t`� -ta -a nt'...+ilo• R p 1.:�y;� L�„ft. ���• �tra9's.° ` -t t.� \ ;.` Y'1'-fir%� .�; s,,•��Z �� ?' n ���'�...1r� I I 1 • ��,�7,_�'=�: y /• „n`, ti a !1 [.-- r`:'•�t'., \ `,_...-I! p''�-' •.��7 �`1 '• y0ha suts'rtYT_ 1'I,%�J'; ''.�?'Y':Ir�7.\t�•^i'•R''�•"z IAN ig:J,;�.y' V ''•'. \�v' w',�'.--�. i' i��l`�i .t ,t •t I si`��.i� 1-��1 ��`'Y� ±7'.i'Y ".(�' -/I c'..-�i ^i �s�,q'�!• 7 �/ 'J /1 r' z rbL :�: / q. '- . • s :,}. _ _ s) ,�, �Y T���� , V �r '!�'.�'r r ' L l �i •.!' ' '1 }\,:,�.•I�J �• / �/ r I � .+`w\`,��' •ais dY� Ji�-r� AL o•! �r •� � � /� ` Jll OL ail .ti-.�--�. •r .�. :, 1 ,aw' •.�' o��.\ } ��:. .rttrta te�ln,o �`r�`y.� .'�riP �_ -- ��' ,� �' 'I:`.•�a�-'...•-. 1� .l'.�. ��1`� ��\;1 ` /+ � �� L� � 1-'�... �1���� .i,•.i't��.%;.�s �_ e,� ���o�._ -_,.i, i �����•Zf� �_ yam. � � � ��1' ..- ���:� �-% � �.'L.,'JyvJ i! •�'j � / f .,;r +�/l r �' - r , cY - --��-- � orf. �X`.�?3_n � -+-/d /• � ,I '/Y � til /�• •�._ ''• _ —.: ..,... •'e• ;) � u�� J 4i •I ` • i�^ '�/f �LL! '71:� `�'1` •! �S ' u-:ti`�.��_ �•' _� 'fie J F¢-� _ i "'1 '� ;," =4'. Y fes•! �\ Q Z `• 'S/ .Y J�!1`{0'---•.i�_•''1 nJ•� t' {!`•. J \(1 J tai !/��e�J _ "�•- I•.• to '' a f( ) Q / ."�f•Y ��T•'�'i� � .-,�/.l+ .. , I' M . r ' a/. '�•�,�• p�.. �` �,fI .�/,�r. iii «:` fl..ij'��•y:�.���}gyp• S �� �':� rl' � . l.�i�y:�.'. � Ax", It WZAQ (- ��� " �•'"��"�'�'( ..�� -�' r� �l � J_ ' � •` '�° ���r � �'• /� is Ij %•'i:.i:' - � I.I. ::• � ( i ,.�� X Ac If CZ 0 a ra Z !lj lu cc if MO CL .; -[dLMl spy! LZ C4 '34,10 192131 qjf �A pw I 21 Eli IQ A' t,;- -fill . 7 7�� viCL WL t 17" Ot N V. t7-4 1.4 APC Minutes January 28, 1986 - 3. A detailed grading an erosion n rol plan shall b, submitted for appr val by staff. 4. This development ha be re po sib/encea foot bituminous trailway long Lexington Ave. 5: Rig -of-way shall be dedicated as the engineering ' repor.t.. - 6. All utili and drainage easements shafl be dedicated as referenced in the engineering rep t. 7. The costs of al sanitary s we , w ter and storm sewer shall be the sole responsibility of th developer 8. County approval must �ob in`ert`"fo the entrance to Lexington Avenue prior to final plat approva 9. County approval or Pa l( Co fission approval must be obtained for the parking lot drainage prior t,final p t approval. 10. Minimum setbac 6 parking equirements shall be met prior to building permit issuanc . N 11. This develo ment shall s ad 'tional assessments as defined in the staff re ort based on rates effe t at the time of final plat approval. 12. This evelopment s al responsible to extend he sanitary sewer to the south b ndary for futu a development. 13. 11 standard plat conditions shall be adhered to. A voted in favor. BUR OAK HILLEJ- PRELL NARY PLAT ' #4 The public hearing for Bur Oak it s pral minary plat was next convened by Chairperson McCrea, consisting of a requ s for preliminary plat for 216 single family lots on approximately.11l acres located in part of the southeast quarter of Section 12, east of Trunk Highway #149 and south of Trunk Highway 455. City Planner Runkle presented the proposal with its history under an existing planned development agreement, which included a preliminary plat with duplex units and some commercial area. Re re entatives from Harstad Companies and First National Bank -of St. Paul er present to answer questions. Discussion centered around a amount of parkland and change in access thereto, as compa ed to the origina plat proposed under the planned development agreement. It was recommends that the developer work with the Park Department for access to the park and th t the cul-de-sacs be adjusted slightly to prevent unnecessary steep cu s to the rolling topography. Mr. Mike McAllistrum representing First National Bank, pointed out'to the Planning Commission that as owner of the property, First National Bank would not down - 6 z APC Minutes January 28, 1986 zone the property until.it badlreceived a oamitment from the proposed buyer. The buyer, Harstad ComparleA, is requeLLing preliminary approval prior to purchasing the property. H moved, McCr econded the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary la and sub t o the following conditions: _ 1. A revised detailed grade and rosion control plan must be approved by staff prior to final plat approval. 2. Written authorization from Williams Bros. Pipeline must be obtained allowing encroachment into and grading within their easement. 3. As a condition of , evelopment shall insure that the trunk storm sewer system be ex a ded r m pond GP -8 to Pond GP -1 and the southern boundary for futureextens' s. 4. This development s all i r� th sanitary sewer facilities are extended to the east, south th to y boundaries to provide for future extensions for later developments. 5. This development shall insure that an 8 inch watermain is looped through this plat from Trunk Highway #149 to the existing watermain within Chapel Lane. Extensions of er lateral to the east and south boundaries will also be required for f ture. ice extensions. 6. The final plat shalRntshall nberesponsible liminate the proposed cul-de-sac (Rolling Hills Circle) in r, the half cul-de-sac (Hillside Drive "bubble") in the southe half cul-de-sac (Hillcrest Drive "bubble") in the nort be eliminated and replaced by a "stub" street for future unplatted parcel south of Trunk Highway #55. This developm for all costs associated with connecting 77th Street west to the existing street in Inver Grove Heights. 7. The final plat shalmanent cul-de-sac in the extreme northerly extension of Rol ing Hills Drive with platted right-of-way for a future westerly extension and u timate connection to Chapel Lane. 8. All drainage and ponding ea m nts 7ecuired by the City of Eagan shall be deaicated on the final plat. A in mum 10 foot easement shall be dedicated for all utilities not located within publi ight-of-way. All other drainage and utility easements shall be_dedicated as required by staff as a part of the final plat. 9. A11 permits required by local, County, Regional and State agencies - shall be acquired prior to final plat approfla . 10. This developmen l nsible for all the additional assessments required with this proposal as etermined by the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. �i% 7 APC Minutes January 28, 1986 11. If public improvements arf to be ins a led under City contract, the appropriate improvements shal ordered forLinstallation by Council action prior to final plat approval. 12. The developer shall comp wi st et revisions presented by the Commission on January 28, 1986, inc n shortening of the cul-de-sac on the east side of the park property, (b) deleting the eyebrow on the originally proposed.. street conception, (c) deleting the small cul-de-sac in the southeasterly portion of the plat, (d) extending the street in the northeasterly corner of the plat, and (e) providing a through -street in the northwest corner of the plat. - 13. The developer shall comply "the ocess found necessary by the City of Eagan to properly rezone the pr rty t -1. All voted in favor. - K. CHARLES DEVELOPMENT CORP. - PRELIMINARY PLAT & CONDITIONAL USrF,r'"PERMIT + hairperson McCrea then convened the public hearing regarding the pre 'nary plat request and c itional use permit for a l ,620 square foot retail rip center with and in luai a 6,000 square//loot drive-through restauran and pylon sign located ' art he northwest quarter of Section 15, south Duckwood Drive dna east tw Lan Dale Dale Runkle explained that the pro osal met the City requi a ents. nny, architect for the project, was present to answer q e ns. equest for nine foot parking spaces for em oyees at the r of e.fbuilaing was requested. A representative o Krestwood C nd niums�^ xpressed concern about hours, lighting and traffi It was po nted out �'hiat the pylon sign must comply with code in relation to a previously permiD ed Hardees pylon sign. Trygg moved, Bohne seconded the mot n to recommender approval of the preliminary plat and - conditional use permit f4 a pylon sign and drive-through facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. This development shal_ a respons extending the existing storm sewer from Krestwood Lane t its ast lije2. This develo men shall be refi onle f r Orkin with the develo meat P g Pacross the street to ine up their respeve a c sses onto Krestwood Lane. 3. Only one a cess shall be allowed o o Krestwood Lane for the outlot. "T 4. Cross.e'asements shall be provided by the applicant so that both the developed I/ and future outlot can share one a ce s onto Krestwooa Lane. 5. his development shall d 3 foot half for D kwooa Drive and Krestwood Lane respectively ,/'6. This development shall. be responsib e for tr� ssessments at the rates in effect at the time fLfinal plat right-of-ways storm sewer area Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Two CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH AND PYLON SIGN ARBY'S RESTAURANT H. Conditional Use Permit (Franchise Associates) To Allow a Drive Through Arby's Restaurant and 20' Pylon Sign in the Town Centre 70 3rd Addition --A public hearing was held by the APC at their last regular meeting held on March 25, 1986, to consider 7 a conditional use permit to allow 1) a drive through Arby's restaurant and 2) a 20' pylon sign as requested ley Franchise Associates, Inc The APC is recommending approval of the con- ditional use permit for the drive through and a denial of the conditional use permit for the pylon sign. It was determined by the APC that since the Burger King restaurant has received approval for a pylon sign and that the proposed sign for the Arby's restaurant would be 160 feeteast of Burger King which violates the 300' spacing requirement. For additional information on this item, refer to the Planning Department report, a copy is enclosed on pages through Ze) For additional information regarding action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes found on page x) ?,06 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny 1) A conditional use permit for a drive through Arby's restaurant and 2) a 20' pylon sign. 11 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE APPLICANT: FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION—ARBY'S LOCATION: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TOWN CTR 70 3RD ADDN EXISTING ZONING: CSC COMMUNITY SHOPPING CTR DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 17, 1986 REPORTED BY: JIM STURM APPLICATION: An application has been submitted requesting a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through facility and pylon sign for an Arby's Restaurant on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed Town Centre 70 3rd Addition. The variance is required since there will not be 300' between this pylon sign and the Burger King sign to the east. COMMENTS: Federal Land Company is in the process of final platting this lot, the Burger King site abutting to the east and the outlot to the west. This site will become Lot 2, Block 1, Town Centre 70 3rd Addition. Access for Arby's will be provided by a 19' one-way loop drive with one entry -one exit. As with the Burger King Restaurant, the entry drive has been extended to 40' before the parking stalls begin. Thi.s will provide stacking for two cars should someone be exiting from the first two parking stalls. The drive-through facility will be on the west side of the building. The exit drive is 20' wide and will allow vehicular movement past cars waiting in line for the drive-through. Stacking for eight cars has been provided. City Code requires one parking stall per three seats based. upon the capacity of the restaurant. This 90 seat facility will require 30 stalls, and 48, 10' x 20' stalls are proposed. The trash area will be enclosed near the back of the building. A landscape plan has been submitted and approved by City staff. SIGNS: The proposed pylon sign will contain 110' of signage and Federal Land Company has set a 20' maximum height restriction on signage in the area. Code will require that this sign be kept 10' within the property line. The proposed location is on the northeast portion of the site. The distance to the Burger King sign will be approximately 1601. A .variance application has been submitted. y CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - FRANCHISE ASSN. - ARBY'S MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 2 An additional double-faced ground sign is shown 6' from the front property line. This sign will have to be moved to the north 4' to meet code compliance. The sign will contain 40' of signage area and measure 4' x 10' on a 2' berm. If approved, this conditional use permit and variance shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) No building permit be issued until the lots are final platted. 203 8.-311 10 41• ..... . . . . . . . . '51GH AREA 40 5Q• FF—= -7 OWN 8INCH CHANGE COPY I LETTERS 8.-311 10 41• ..... . . . . . . . . '51GH AREA 40 5Q• FF—= -7 �� au -m pan w•.nnr=T'^�..r.. .. o„o.«� ���•• u•i nu uw w nn•.r �T--�s.r- YlOS3NNIVVNYDY3 -----r �• �wr.a �� v+o• m /u•,• .,. •,•/ "•.:M ..www,,. .�„� ���. anti— .Nb"lif1V1S3a S•ASd Yn,. a. a.a N.MN,w, 4uwa ,o-wvl r•��••rw..�ti�i--�,�.�� l�N, AdVNIWll3dd 3 APC Minutes March 25, 1986 ARBY'S - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE - TOWN CENTRE 70 Chair McCrea convened the public hearing on the application of Franchise Associates/Arby's for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through facility and pylon sign for Arby's Restaurant for Lot 2, Block 1, proposed Town Centre 70 3rd Addition on Yankee Doodle Road, and variance for pylon sign distance from the Burger King sign on the east. Dale Runkle discussed the application with the Planning Commission members and stated that the City Council has requested a master sign plan be prepared for review and approval by the Council.' He also indicated that a proposed plan has been submitted by Federal Land Company and noted the fact that 300 foot spacing would not be possible between the Arby's and -Burger King signs. Doug Kennedy, the Vice President of Franchise Associates, the Arby's franchisee in the twin cities area, was present and stated that the applicant would agree to move the sign to the northwest corner of the lot, which would make it 295 feet from the Burger King sign. Charles Bartholdi of Federal Land Company was also present and noted that Federal Land has provided a tentative model sign proposal for the Town Centre area with the important elements being aesthetics and making sure that the signs do not interfere with the residential area. He recommended a total of 28 pylon signs with a maximum of 12 signs in the Town Centre 100 area and 16 signs in the Town Centre 70 area. In addition, the proposal would have three additional limitations including one sign per lot, no sign in excess of 20 feet in height and that all signs be at least 200 feet distant from one another. There were no objections from the public. The proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken sign would be in excess of 300 feet of the proposed Arby's sign. Member Wilkins recommended that the entire planned development sign issue be reviewed separately and that the Commission deal only with the Arby's `3 application at the current meeting. In addition, a small four foot monument sign will be requested and there was a question as to whether such a sign would be allowed under the Ordinance. Harrison moved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit application for the drive-through facility, subject to no building permit being issued until the lot has received final plat approval. Voracek seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Harrison then moved, Voracek seconded the motion to recommend denial of the conditional use permit and the variance for the pylon sign under the City Code noting that it does not conform with the distance provisions and in addition, there appeaYs to be a proliferation of signs in the general area which is counter to the intent of the Eagan Sign Ordinance. A11 members voted in favor. 6 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Three PRELIMINARY PLAT/NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION I. Preliminary Plat (Northview Meadows 2nd Addition/Sienna Corpora- tion) _Consisting of Approximately 38 Single -Family Lots on 15 Acres--A'-public hearing was held before the APC at their last regular meeting held on March 25, 1986, to consider a preliminary plat application submitted by the Sienna Corporation and entitled Northview Meadows 2nd Addition. The APC is recommending approval of the preliminary plat, subject to conditions- outlined in the staff report. Because this development is located within a PUD of record and is shown as an R-3 zoning and is indicated on the Comprehensive Guide Plan map as R -II, the City Attorney has been asked to review whether a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment will be required, in light of the PUD contract. This information will be available on Monday as a part of the Administrative Packet. For additional information on the proposed preliminary platting of Northview Meadows 2nd addition, refer to the Planning and Engineer- ing report, a copy is enclosed on pages7,,C)8' through Z/�, . Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The APRC met on April 3, and concluded upon review of the proposed Northview Addition plat that park land dedication requirements for this subdivision were satisfied as a part of the Lexington South PUD park land dedication. The Commission is recommending approval of the plat, subject to a trailway on County Road 30. For a copy of the action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes found on pages Z/ 7 through Z/':� ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To continue final approval of the Northview Meadows 2nd Addition preliminary plat until after the Comprehensive Guide public hearing. is held by the APC if required, or provide approval or denial to the Northview Meadows Addition preliminary plat subject to an acceptable Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from an R-2 to an R-1 use. 11 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADD APPLICANT: SIENNA CORPORATION (ROD HARDY) LOCATION: PART OF THE NEa,-SECTION 26 EXISTING ZONING: R -III UNDER THE LEXINGTON SOUTH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MARCH 25, 1986 DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 19, 1986 REPORTED BY: PLANNING & ENGINEERING DEPTS APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 22.3 acres & containing 38 single family lots. This deviates from the R-1 zoning standards. COMMENTS: Presently the subject parcel is south & west of the existing Northview Meadows 1st Addition which is a single family development where lot sizes deviate from the R-1 zoning standards. The property to the south & west is presently zoned commercial in the Lexington South Planned Development and the subject parcel was to be a buffer zone between the commercial property and the residential.. An R -III density (6 - 12 dwelling units per acre) was allotted for this property which would allow townhouse to low rise apartments to be the buffer between the single family and the commercial to the south and west. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant wishes to plat this 22.3 acre parcel of which 10.8 acres would be contained within a' single family development. A 4.5 acre outlot would remain in the NW portion and would either develop as a higher density residential or a limited commercial. This would then be the buffer between the residential development and the commercial. Along with the land use change, there is a physical geographical change from the proposed plat as to what could develop on Outlot A. There would be a physical separation between the northerly tier of lots and any development on Outlot A. The proposed development would consist of single family lots that would have a minumum.of 65' lot width x 125' lot depth for a minimum square footage of 8,125 S.F. These are larger than .the lots originally platted in the Northview Meadows lst Addition. Again, this is the minimum lot width and average lot size within the'Northview Meadows 2nd Add would be 12,880 S.F. The question arises as to where the City will allow a smaller lot subdivision versus requiring the regular R-1 zoning standards. It is Staff's understanding -that the City may consider a reduction bf single family lot size in areas wh.ere down -zoning would occur. PRELIMNINARY PLAT NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2nd ADD MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 2 The subject parcel is presently zoned R -III which would allow the developer to build a density of 6 - 12 dwelling per acre. Therefore, a substantial reduction in units would occur with this development proposal. Also, this development is adjacent to and could be part of an existing smaller lot subdivision known as Northview Meadows 1st Addition. It seems that if a small lot subdivision would be considered, this parcel would want the considerations for"such a request. With the platting of the Northview Meadows 2nd Addition, South Wescott Hills Dr would be extended from Northview Meadows 1st Addition to a T intersection with a street that would provide access to Diffley Rd (Co Rd 30). The plat would be accessed by a curvilinear loop street of which all lots would take access from this internal loop street. GRADING/DRAINAGE: The preliminary grading plan dated March 6, 1986, is feasible and meets all applicable City codes for grading. However, staff will require some minor revisions over Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1, to better suit the drainage. Basically, staff will require the grading to provide drainage towards the back lots in a northwesterly direction, rather than across the rear lots in a northeasterly direction. With the drainage across the rear lots in a northeasterly direction, it is too easy for a particular home builder to grade this site differently than what is proposed. Also, the grading plan should reflect small drainage swales down the lot lines where the applicant is proposing the emergency overflows from the street catch basins. This development is located within Major Drainage District J. Presently, a temporary detention pond exists in the vicinity of Lots 16 and 17, Block'l, of this proposed development. This handles runoff from a portion of the Northview. Meadows development. The applicant proposes to connect two existing storm water outlets from the Northview Meadows development into storm sewer and convey this storm water in a northwesterly direction to an existing culvert under Diffley Road. The drainage for this development is also proposed to flow northerly towards this existing culvert. The eventual destination of this storm water runoff will be Pond JP -34, as shown on Figure 1. There is no outlet for Pond JP -34 at this time nor is there any storm sewer pipe from Diffley Road to Pond JP -34 at this time. All flow is currently over land. Therefore, to reduce potential erosion problems north of Diffley Road and potential flooding problems upon JP -34, staff recommends the flow through the culvert to be limited as close as possible to the existing flow through this culvert based on nondeveloped conditions. There appears to be adequate storage volume in a lower area just south of Diffley Road and just north of this development. PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADD MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 3 Limiting the flow under Diffley Road through the existing culvert would be a temporary measure until the completion of the trunk storm sewer from Diffley Road to Pond JP -34. However, before the City can install this segment of storm sewer, the City will require the installation of the trunk storm sewer outlet from Pond JP -34 to the west. The time table for these trunk storm sewer extensions depends upon adjacent development. In summary, staff does not feel this development will require any trunk storm sewer extensions as long as the City limits the flow under Diffley Road through the existing culvert to the existing flow rate based on undeveloped drainage area. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all the necessary drainage calculations for staff review. UTILITIES: Water main and sanitary sewer are in place at the east end of the proposed South Wescott Hills Drive. These utilities are of sufficient size, capacity and depth to provide service to this development. The preliminary utility layout proposed by the applicant is feasible from an engineering standpoint. The applicant indicates that the installation of utilities under Curry Trail will be done under private contract along with the storm sewer. The applicant will petition for the installation of utilities within South Wescott Hills Drive. The Council must approve this project prior to the final plat approval for this development. STREETS: A small portion of this development abutts County Road 30 (Diffley Road). South Wescott Hills Drive is built to the southeasterly boundary of this proposed development. County Road 30 is presently a rural two-lane highway under the jurisdiction of Dakota County. Staff recommends no direct access be allowed onto County Road 30 from this development. South Wescott Hills Drive is under the jurisdiction of the City and classified as a collector street. The Northview Meadows development constructed the northeasterly half of South Wescott Hills Drive. Staff recommends the requirement of the completion of the southwesterly 22' of South Wescott Hills Drive, located within the Northview Meadows Addition. The applicant indicates that he will also petition the City for the installation of South Wescott Hills Drive from its termination point in the Northview Meadows Addition (including the widening) to connect to County Road 30. The feasibility report for the South Wescott Hills Drive street and utility improvements will address the point where this roadway connects to County Road 30. This tentative location is across from the future high school site. Therefore, in order to establish an early dialogue with the school district, a copy of this report is being sent to the school district. -Z-/0 PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADD MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 4 - PERMITS: The applicant will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and plan approvals from the following: 1) MPCA 2) Mn Dept of Health The cost for obtaining these approvals and permits will be the sole responsibility of the applicant. RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS: This development shall d-edicate the following right-of-ways as shown on their preliminary plat: 1) 65 ft. half right-of-way for County Road 30. 2) 60 ft. full right-of-way for Curry Trail. 3) 80 ft. full right-of-way for South Wescott Hills Drive and street "A". In addition to all standard easements that City Code requires, staff will require a 20 ft. utility and drainage easement over the two storm sewer lines proposed between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 14 and 15 of Block 1. Also, staff will require a ponding easement over the portion of Outlot A necessitated by the limiting of flow through the existing culvert under County Road 30. ASSESSMENTS: The City's assessment records indicate the area of this proposed development located within Parcels 012-01, 013-02 and 010-03 were never assessed for trunk area storm sewer. Staff cannot determine the estimated amount of trunk area storm sewer assessments due because none of the areas of this proposed development are related to each individual parcel. Staff will require the applicant to furnish this information prior to Council considering this preliminary plat. This development will be responsible for one-fourth of the residential rate for future County Road 30 street improvements. The footage shown on the preliminary plat amounts to 180 ft. across Lots 7 and 8 of Block 1. The 1986 rates are $33.75 per front foot for full residential street equivalent assessment. Similarily, this development will be responsible for the trailway along County Road 30. The applicant indicates he would prefer to fulfull his obligation for trailway by being responsible for the trailway rate of $11.81 per front foot over the 180 ft. of Lots 7 and 8, rather than physically constructing such a short piece of trailway. The respective assessment rates will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 2l� PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION MARCH 25, 1986 PAGE 5 CONDITIONS; NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION 1. The Planned Development shall be amended showing this plat as a single family development. No densities be transferred to any other portion of the Planned Development. 2. A detailed housing plan be provided showing that all houses can meet the setback requirement of the Planned Development. 3. A use be determined for Outlot A & all exhibits marketing the Northview Meadows 2nd Addition show the intended land use on Outlot A. 4. All lots take access to the internal street, Curry Trail. 5. All standard plat conditions shall be adhered to. 6. This development shall comply with all applicable standard engineering conditions. 7. This development shall be responsible for providing adequate storage for storm water runoff within Outlot A for all storm water runoff exceeding that which is naturally occurring. 8. The Council shall approve the street and utility improvements within South Wescott Hills Drive prior to final plat approval. 9. This development shall dedicate the following widths for right-of-way. a. 65 ft. half right-of-way for County Road 30. b. 60 ft. full right-of-way for Curry Trail. C. 80 ft. full right-of-way for South Wescott Hills Drive and street "A". 10. The South Wescott Hills Drive improvment project shall include the southwesterly half of South Wescott Hills Drive located within the Northview Meadows Addition. 11. This development shall be responsible for trunk area storm sewer, one-fourth residential rate for Diff ley Road upgrading, and the trailway rate for frontage abutting County Road 30, each at the rates in effect at the time of final p Latting. 12. All costs of internal streets and utilities shall be the sole responsibility of this development. 13. This development shall be responsible for getting permits and/or plan approvals from MPCA and the Mn Dept. of Health. 7,! ��^�,,•� •iss•'xw 'sno.. sxxiw sn• saws sena owsu o••- ax-wPm•c•c%s^�'7iw`°°-A-z—�'f1O� NOI1VU dki 3 VNN31S SHOJl3AHf1S / SH33N19N3 / S2l3NNVld ••• •^fit' 't,�7 1Vld JLHVNIW1l3Hd 14 � 'OOtl t7Nt SMOOtl3W M31AH1HON c I i I I s � II;I .III I El ' a- 7 r -_ ___TI ,,: • - G I ,�- i� �,! of h f 65t77773If w l•' ��''/ - I � of aa: a -J• 7� 4 I I s � II;I .III I El ' a- 7 r CITY HALL i IN? - P - 3 i 7JP-4V- 874.0 874.5C=p r t vi AZA -EAG. P; m -j- 9 30- JP -58Q � J L� 874.0 877.5 %1 882.0 JJ J-9 8822 JP -30 f i JP -5,. 873.0 879.4 171 SQuAREJID-20 4/ / !---J'P-54 8520 - Z 1%N 28" 1. 4? 1k JP -21 J-. 840 815.3 .0 2-4 NC ,Thi. w 4— R)( le j - r 34i J -s J884.0I PV JP -53 12Y2-1 891.9 8604.-0 4 82407 88 840.0 0 ALJ —P- 2—,,9 al S- 18 26 JP -29 926.0 945.0 rJ$960 0 6 -04 0 204 0 j i-ee AUDI TIF P-28 V DOLE ip E 956.0 969.4-68 0, JP -50 964.0 971.7 1884.3 -879.0 1-40 MID, "I'LNUT 1 >35 HILL i f, rD I FLP -4E ;:A WK— "9' 3 8_84.4"'.'Z LAKE� V?- ��8qj 6L -s -24 ell LP -38 8l; 5.0 8.5 KO TA COUNTY LP -21 PARK 902.5 -9nTn ................ . .............. .. ............. ............. SUBJECT PARCEL NORTHVIEW MEADOWS -2 nd. ADDITION city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS N DEPARTME m STORM SEWER MASTER PLAN �L P31 �99078 _ /0.0 .9174 -919.0 2� 6 '. 2 andard- st approved: plate #: I Ps it, : r,« I EXHIBIT Lexington South ' � a •_i/ .. ? • , O il`��.�., �• nlVlf .r.��-rrl,-gra -- - L`J.i.►..` 1978 198p i 2-2A 1980 1x03 • ��'',.' •'{ 1 > , \ • Lr� F-, i ObReRh 3 1%5' 1985 �� .. _ r.• '. (sem j(L •✓ • �' 4 19B7.19B9 R \�4, ............ 7. tTA., IIv f• I yt r y r i II R3'o rR Alf nq .� IY'E ire*L` j.^" ! I'wsi •_ _ fi. ^, rx'�. d.litlr E- _ `• -1 ��.+� i� �•• •.I y Jt"'"�. I'1�.1�*'r I :'- • 4: I r ti> 'i . a� . '1 1 • R 2 �, -. T�� . i .•l.,i : v (,SIS'�'rx"�"i`'{'.i:`i+5':.,25�r-- -�' �t �i.�Ft'�;'�ti++]�e�.vi '_ `,++. r�l ,• �� i �.•— •l: r jr �•;1�-'�.Yy;f 1T.rlrrs•i'' - �...Y ' F - ' TA ,-i,;�••,�I,C'���`��I �77:.,..� ' •h _ •:1 to 2 ?�`�,t + •�M, _ gib• -;j .ri+x p�.1 i I w Jr b • �:�• : ,:': im -r Land Use Plan '+ ' �. ►' '- 1 :'' ,.w;._ .ter- ` - • �yir.,I , �.. . Ti Al•�+-+R_:;..�1,• , F Ra mis.ns.(a-6urVsa= V'tv� 'S� 'y`��'•i. �,:�.'� �.•:,, �.,. R7 n.lt.r.s.(e•12un„y 1�-'(..•h/..• � �; •:•! `�_ :�jl�,�\�+,.��,•�. � �'1'r.;yj.1._, R4 nwNlple(t2►uwhal 1 :� .`Jy,�.i�'. -u+•f r ��' �.• i •�•r kK�"';�ic,:...' �'.j •1�S .•.• �� LO tld.Eus r + �1�* �(r i I\ f!, ��x_1:08 .;� gen.bue. :.t �,-}^, t tr 'a •\ •• x'14.+ ^•5•• ii.�.'• ,.. eonsmshpno.cmr, •t•Jf • r a ,.....5_. ..r(.... P—ho-open spm* •� hiking tell 8IHw'p_ tram tikes �. •:- '• 0. ' ,tri -1"14 • APC Minutes March 25, 1986 NORTHVIEW MEADOWS 2ND ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Sienna Corporation for preliminary plat approval of proposed Northview Meadows 2nd Addition consisting of 22.3 acres with 38 single family -lots came before the Planning Commission. According to Mr. Runkle, the parcel is southwesterly of the Northview Meadows 1st Addition where single family lot sizes deviate from the R-1 zoning standards. The proposed development would consist of single family lots with a ' minimum of 65 foot frontages -and 125 foot lot depths, with a minimum square footage of 8,125 square feet. Staff indicated that downzoning would occur, even though there would be a deviation in the R-1 zoning standards for the project. There were concerns about access to the north, including the line up with the school property. It was noted that the access road would be to the east of Northview School. Jim Hill appearea for the applicant as did Jim Curry and Rod Hardy. Mr. Hill stated that the planned development provides for R-3 density and therefore, it is a proper use and would act as a natural buffer to the proposed R-3 use on Outlot A to the west. The project would include 3 1/2 units per acre and the average size is larger than the lots in the 1st Addition. Mr. Curry stated that the developer is considering an office buffer to the south. A number of neighboring residents appeared, including Joe Kane, who argued that the existing pond would be filled under the proposal. Mr. Hill stated that there is a temporary low spot without an outlot and the ponding will be revised. There were also concerns from neighbors about the potential apartments on Outlot A and it was noted that the R-3 density was designated for that portion of the planned development. There was a question from a Planning Commission member regarding access to two streets and potential assessments on two sides of the lots. Rich Hefti indicated, however, that the proposal is to assess only one side and that the same developer owns all the property so that the developer is aware of the assessment issue. It was also suggested that the name, Wescott Hills Drive be changed and the staff has also recommended that this be done. Member Wilkins stated she was not satisfied with the 65 foot minimum lot widths and was also concerned about whether single family should buffer an adjoining commercial zone to the south. There was extensive discussion about the widths of the lots and the buffering. It was noted that there would'be no access from the R-1 lots to proposed Wescott Hills Drive. Member Trygg moved, Voracek seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer/owner shall notify each buyer of the residential lots at the time of the sale that there may be commercial development to the south across the proposed Wescott Hills Drive. 9 y APC Minutes March 25, 1986 Those in favor were Trygg, Voracek and McCrea; those against were Wilkins and Harrison, with members Wilkins objecting to the R-1 use adjacent to the proposed commercial development. FAIRWAY HILLS - REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Derrick Land Company for approv 1 of airway Hills preliminary plat and rezoning from A (Agricultural) t R-1 (Sin a Family) was convened by the chair. Dale Runkle again explairw'd the projec and noted that there are five landowners involved, all /12,000 o had signed a agreement approving the ,development plan of what warly the George Oh ann, Sr. estate. The Comprehensive Guide designates e as R - II with a s 11 park area also. All lots meet or exceed the m square foot ar a requirement and 85 foot frontage at the se ack line. 145 lots would pro ide a density of 2.4 units per acre and ay.6rage lot size of 13,577. Mr. Runk stated the Park Commi/-going not fina 'zed its review and noted also that str t widths were a conche staff Dave Sellergren, at rney, appeared lf f the applicant. Member Harrison stated he obje ed to the threl cations to Pilot Knob Road and Mr. Sellergren noted th there has b -going discussion between the owner to the south and a City fuse. The northerly access, according to Mr. Sellergren, temporaDakota County changes from a two-lane rural to four -lane urban sectionh time the northerly access will be removed and reliance will b place frontage road. In addition, Mr. Sellergren state hat the south access may be a common access with proposed park location nd ditional access to the park from the north could be provided. He recended t t the utilities be stubbed toward the Parkview Golf Course and p no to improve the stubbed street. There were severalinteres.07eferred persons in he audience but no objections. There was considerable discu sion about the int nal street width and Mr. Hefti stated that the sta strongly recommends a 60 foot right-of-way for snow storage and boulev d purposes. He reviewed t e revised recommendations in which the staff did of oppose the 50 foot right- f -way with five foot street easement plus 0 foot utility easement and a mini um 35 foot front yard setback. He noted hat the exception from the 60 foot ri t -of -way generally, is where there a physical constraints that require the va fiance. Bill Maur r of Probe Engineering described the specific ac ry Kgob R/appear d at will be determined at a later time but will neve two t access points. Member Wilkins stated that there is "`���,,, as tthe access locations to Pilot Knob Road would-be and woulapproval• is premature until the County has c p ,d the grade of Pilot Knob Road has been determined. b reduced on Pilot Knob Road up to 18 feet -in depth. 2�9 11 sses to Pilot e more than n certainty they ore, it omplet d its The gra may Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Four APPOINTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION A. Establish Guidelines for Appointment of Waste Management Commission -_-The City of Eagan is required to comply with a State and Metropolitan Council mandate to perform source separation of mixed municipal solid waste by 1988. The City staff, under the direction of the City Administrator and research and report preparation of Administrative Assistant Hohenstein, has prepared a detailed report that provides several alternatives that are available at this time for the consideration of source separation. One of the most important aspects at this time in preparing for a solid waste abatement program is the appointment of a Solid Waste Abatement Commission that can evaluate all the alternatives and advise the City Council on a solid waste abatement strategy and policy for the City. Enclosed on page is a copy of a suggested format for appoint- ments to the commission. The City Council has the option to either solicit names for the appointment such as the process used in the appointment of the Economic Development Commission, or publish in the local newspapers a notice for volunteers who are willing to serve as members of the Solid Waste Abatement Commission. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) establishment of a Solid Waste Abatement a method in which appointments are commission. -7,7,0 Give consideration to the Commission and 2) determine to be considered to that 0 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION The complexity of the waste abatement issue and its impacts suggests the need for a Solid Waste Abatement Commission for the City of Eagan. In the initial phase, the group could meet on an ad hoc basis as a fact finding body. Its end would be the generation of a recommended solid waste abatement strategy and policy for the City. Depending upon the nature of the recommendation, it may be necessary to make the Commission a standing"body for the oversight of program implementation. The membership of the Commission would be at the discretion of the City Council. Staff would recommend that the body be multi- disciplinary to address the issue from a broad perspective. Like the Economic Development Commission, appointments could be made in categories, as follows: Category Number 1. Private Citizens 3 2. Refuse Haulers 2 3. Small Business 1 4. Large Business 1 5. Local Government 1 6. Public Service Organization 1 A membership comprising these categories, or like categories at the discretion of the Council, will allow a consideration of alternatives with the expertise and insight from both service users and providers. This nine member body is not heavily weighted in any way except toward the private citizen. Because any program developed must be acceptable and convenient for our residents, adequate citizen input is essential. The resources made available to such a Commission could come through staff or consultant services. They may be charged to review actual proposals and presentations as appropriate. In any case, it would be worthwhile to place a deadline on Commission deliberations to expedite their study and bring about its completion. 22/ Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Five CONTRACT 86-14/GREENSBORO ADDITION (STREETS & UTILITIES) B. Contract 86-14, Approve Plans/Authorize Advertisement for Bids (Greensboro Addition - Streets & Utilities) --At the time the developer submitted the petition requesting the preparation of a feaEibility report, he also waived his rights to the public hearing, guaranteed all costs and requested that detailed plans and specifications be prepared simultaneously as the feasibility report. Earlier on the agenda, the public hearing is scheduled to discuss the installation- of these improvements within this subdivision. If this project is approved, it would be"appropriate for the Council to consider approval of the plans and specifica- tions in consideration of advertising for the solicitation of bids. The consulting engineer and the Assistant City Engineer will be available to discuss these plans in further detail as,requested by the Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Approve the plans and specifications for Contract 86-14 (Greensboro Addition - Streets and Utilities) and authorize the advertisement for bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 1986. �ZZ Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Five CONTRACT 86-14/GREENSBORO ADDITION (STREETS & UTILITIES) B. Contract 86-14, Approve Plans/Authorize Advertisement for Bids (Greensboro Addition - Streets & Utilities) --At the time the developer submitted the petition requesting the preparation of a feasibility report, he also waived his rights to the public hearing, guaranteed all costs and requested that detailed plans and specifications be prepared simultaneously as the feasibility report. Earlier on the agenda, the public hearing is scheduled to discuss the installation- of these improvements within this subdivision. If this project is approved, it would be'appropriate for the Council to consider approval of the plans and specifica- tions in consideration of advertising for the solicitation of bids. The consulting engineer and the Assistant City Engineer will be available to discuss these plans in further detail as requested by the Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Approve the plans and specifications for Contract 86-14 (Greensboro Addition - Streets and Utilities) and authorize the advertisement for bid opening to be held at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 1986. � �Z Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Six TAX FORFEITED PROPERTIES C. Tax Forfeited Properties --At the County Board meeting held on March 11,,.1986, there were six (6) parcels that have been forfeited for non-payment of taxes for the years 1979 and 1981 and were classified as non -conservation lands. The County is preparing for a sale that will eventually be held on these properties. If the City desires to retain any of this property as City property it is necessary to make a request to the Dakota County Auditors Office. City staff is reviewing all six (6) parcels and if there is interest in retaining any of the properties for puplic purpose this information will be shared as a part of the administrative agenda packet or at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide direction to Cif.y staff regarding retention of tax forfeited properties within the City. Special Note: Maps showing theZlo ations of these tax forfeited properties are enclosed on pages:Z`through-_M. -z-Z3 FORFEITED LANDS AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 386 li MEND07A HTS.. t -C �,. ��♦ — •�/ •teff Srua 6 T SN E -ir SHEET • — - — _ • ,e �/ w — •1 •._ -- '[ I P M[IR •Caie.l - Ue•ap �� lu • • �. • °L� !� _= �. � �•� '9611 1[MM�r 1� 4�� I I I � — LOx[ 0.` MaD� � • � [.�• t- •kms\�"��I raor '�� � �ii3� w • r r� • w� - i•-co.`s +r,' -J 1 4 I`f`-mll r r R ,r'' ��i� f' u u%i • I [e.yx i ' 7 ice' e.a.•+6.o>S, _ ` 1 =A,- r [ ,2`•_It I I �ii_ _ / S •Dia — � �<� ix� � � � i� I - _ fir, —• - - � ae. _ - 1 �- ��ar�. -- - SHEET 2R IUM euauc[ / I �• r�--rI/r(//� 10 t� i 1 19•.rrI ra.:'r + s� :�� ' -•,x /x[uSSAIA� r ro� ey ll !• � �-: 1 i Ti~- In°MM 1.0 r nfu [sw+r • � - �� [��{[[1�-`ci� � x I C fwk�jl � I T lrn.:�°;� ���lll' i�/ s..ror �.•- •s°�J,, � �� .00 w" '•K>iis, ��� �it.f�_ �f •n{ ° Iq � Imo. \�f �i �ImL�� � � I � � -.c •'.l� \• /j�y�n,+�'��+ju +3 �.__ 4ns+f n�°F1'-11P Illlli• ate. Cf .cs, neural P'414 `J,V)3r y � 'ir�`.gx� 1iS ", I , ;L --� i.�+t e. �c j�� '•gym ,� x,.ea FiTUTTI r4 ss t•n II /�/:m,_"/mL .^��i�l.�F iE [�[jj I.a.xn•y,r�/ '— - --w� D �,. �wr.�a '-� I �u WWW - } •"u �4cr �c, /�,� Cle� • ����c-4 �i SHEET 3 SHEET 4 I�II�IIj x.` 1-lhl�f (.ry ":-S I x'L. (( , u•onL• ?4a •>-Ma Itti�1� �l"•fJry it w � // ...�xl�l[ �k:�y. t. ��. -Rha•} L r'-'.'!. (ti�gy 1 4 999 pOr' Y wc�r: Lji++1• `r .f•. .� � a9a w ram, a i cllltl[' IuutID r... soD. ,, — 7 `.t. •. - � � i �i nl � +�`�' I ��:n,� ��1 hl• - r, W+r'ci�; f in h�r}kif � litfr .. .... +� If.s � �' �inL[a ao ���" �p � a :.} �r1s.�,n"d• •Sy QU1�CIDrn T � wa .ar'•it' �f'1 lrr-+ iY` f— jjjp�� JIC i A [ �.�H1u11 ,• ` L. �1,��; �`����YrA74"iR 1' a • - /�Jryl4.1Y � 11 � .• ., � � � y �, ' - c� �p�� '4 er.. (w.w_ ; ��Yjr!C;awEr i.it.+oj Is.c ��II :d - F'rh. 11 1+ �•• }fin �. sl,c - L -T= �atus I.Lki r ? SHEET 5 .� z°;r �I 1:?I1�,,� SHEET 6 I - . - fliNflA�?': r $+"-+haf � �c�l"r,?,• r_y,.Vlo-:__�U °,j°i� 4<.,." ' ',dl �F'IKi�`,`tC(• r/«ssw:Rlla. `cct •I•i r. I;i=' ur �� PARK ••x '.� ~r 111 1 `�� uearA. car,n ne• L`?,�zj1i', +'tptO �'r } tl�� -, \ \ } ,,.'-i �.�1 ',L'°• • '�ay r,ra..• ° �.,nr. -•Jan ►... �•ws[n �Tr It/r. n•r�. to.a .r x.4K� � _ I -To ,jn 00.1c►n gc�ACpr Margaret Strtese 'AL'I 10,4c. a �' 010-03 . 10 -04 Edwin e t o. 1 a?Ae. Z0Q D3Vern•,n H 10 nEW R J r 106 J6 3. 3c.�. 190 00 /t � S36 J6 ji gQ _ 1 / ft "0 4 4 30'E i• o , e'o' - IV Ak / ALEXANDER :o- LOT I ROAD i s� i'•' *•'bi RAGA \,• �, ��� -� INDU LOT 1 - P IS e� c ' P 0 b Z0Q D3Vern•,n H 10 nEW R J r 106 J6 3. 3c.�. 190 00 /t � S36 J6 ji gQ _ 1 / ft "0 4 4 30'E i• o , e'o' - IV Ak / ALEXANDER :o- LOT I ROAD i s� i'•' *•'bi RAGA \,• �, ��� -� INDU LOT 1 - P IS 2 S ECoBERNARD H L 23 COUNTY SURVEYC '"15 . 27, R,8 LAK 7TA COUNTY, M:.pCH, !978 2643 00 Mrs 1 k a '+..[sr — — 7)u+,p. Of1C Na 504 11 7>m •o, o on, -6A1 3CONDOMINIUM NO 21 ,_�� O II 5O I-� PPRT OF LOT I --.;.ax,.- �.•�Vs_-.,.�`,? 29 t3l CRESTRIDGE '�J ..''BrLff C K'g�Qr:. APARTMENTS' '— �,;' ;','' .� �:.,•—.:j II el ; :T':2�.. zs29 , CONDOMINIUM' ....�. BL7xq 2 : lloGa•`� {• %OTl ... -'--•y --OAKS — K.. —a �--- •i-- r_ r. =• A n^R1 243 �:r-- cocR s HIDDEN. I• GAI�.•_,�. . `. --„°,>----'---- - LANE- --- •'---'•__. -- - --' - .. - --•-------- — - �--- ' � - • . _.... � .. _ ! art .. 7' f .. .. • _ -. _ _ � _ _ '.. asw p41 'a.. .C•rsaf v:: r•. T! .'.I a ��. a J, T-. a ..� ♦ 'j , COT 1 ` -1M[B -� . r`i�sa� n9 "• 1E1C--'+J• :=2:::}�- _ •♦ fDpJc- =�a { a I - rV. •rya •[ r^ :+•f are..• � —Ya ..a a. ._• .-.... b•' ” 2 3 r �•:2� . TIMBERSHORE �•� LANE = vv~ r I 1 Val �•�^fi 90_- S. .. __D• -. d 1• __a.��i` 1 1 4 rl 243 lob'. 1� In.a.-.. v 3c 3 26 �' — Z �Y • 2� ! ; ; z :i • ] 2_ 13'- • j • 2 }w,] O }r a ^; I �, 6T ' $ Q 1.'r yr c2 +tea r2 ` 31 cr vv?g 4c 's: 070 a is }S!9'[• a• -31 a 080 -DI ,6 ° ! i a,sY �, I 439 • .r ;' 1 ] ''I .��)_7 �a9e_ y•9'_ y r'it r '� F1r ••-'!♦I7] r+i, t..'7 7f 9: '� ��+)- i �,rn.�i� °." `ill[ '•S. { _ s• z --•r�..r 4361-°- . ',,• , %".►�.�lr + O i .�_.I.."d yll 1 !•. 97ya 3 r�2 I-1�' 2S.' 6�:� G_ '•fl. .r w�,-iZi .may _ t V L `, zj ] r - 'i z'': * i, 2 r. " r9 •hz <a s �W a q �� �.;= ;. 3.' 1 : a y:'.1 �` 4,43',' >' :i//I��. I it • s'Q .-. •ra +�..•; •. :.,r-'° ••cr ,•r Kra .. fr'a• 'J as of ; -+2 3r 2 z::a •yS..: 2w': 3,4 O:•ai !•�C R. '[.•s.+s :.e-•` ?r :r - :r A ' `1 _♦:. I •',1�. :�" •tom- b4 _ s.ara.a•-c-_ .-,'' >?.. •.�' ]ti4�, 1 2, •� _ TIMBERSHORE'"� `���ss• .a .o r � � . .tea`- � 3 � 1 ;,: a e I � a .. - , ♦ ` � /`�' I -1 _ ' ov) a. �- L=>.<—"i - _ .�.T q• a N�.is.. a�`�..� fu�. '^ ;.'. AD2- 33r.c 2-Poh-00 •].fz �_� SNuO • 10.6k ): s -1I1. i SIYu !; - _ •I - %• 9Cb �ay�f i 010-00 ,,,9• a �* el • •%•IF• City Of Eagan i City of air �� H �• • • • - , - Ea an I �, • g•«�. • 020- c� Eagan f 00 I cit 0i 030-00 ,er i S I• �� 19 I• _ o , or 711 F Vs i 3 �� • ! �_ I t r'+ COURT i2 ref Q, City of Eo7,an i r �� 2-00 = `,; •, - 010 ,�. H TS-- ou •n • i 3 n I: =I% t• ,. I. T- t.,7 ..0a is:za ii .c« , f, a+ so r. ... oo co loo a -r. _.ate• - W � • • -' � : -f..A ^ "•,. iz < Ix � _ �•ia ,�` .1 ( .1. .s. as x S S T-1 q�DDLE HOfe RN ! LASSO ,.:.•+„ .I — -- 7o 000s I •of 1, f•-• r • y �I ii 1Q4 1 �r •� _ LAN_E �—�:•�a..- �-,.••f., r '---- - — }'t'n A43 1i rFl + , • .e , f••7 y 0 It • _ ,V I 'o •,Q. T ! ! � �^•Sii•9s •: i vs D 1-71 J IAV' �� { g D D I � I 0 +. I,.ros n�,• w+•+nj1 , I •,o •ee I ,o •on •'� ,1 •a so" ..,' QRIV "., xf .a-+. sr_ ✓' .,HACKMORE ef••s ORIVE ... i q43 sw..ft �n 8 t 0' C K 1 a ct ui _ oon 47 14 m HAEG FIRE ya f ',�(! _w� l 'r • /�y�� 0U7L OT • �1 n w {^ V n S i 0 is • , / + v 1 m ♦. ' 360 5 U I D ,+"f ♦ N ! 0: ir+ SVNS�.` — 2 OUTLOT A or 2 . .�. wr .r.•i. � 1 e s ;� ; � �, � •_°'' a i tie • { �I Is ` • ,... ` on X. 386390 QY_E_R ._ESTATES ,..•.•:. r - = •' z _•y_ :1 F� ��, u t - o ot . i �. . /It „ ,,=t irTw� 7C mI•E9m 9 T, Eq- L • _ - _ST 56 n•.• Ill 1, e - ' 061 l• 9 - - LU z { �w ,e9 � R 'T 2ee� � /1 � N B9°Sa'0! E R J, - Q I� (,t, I F�6 R M. W-54 01' E. tI Q 7t I H eq si of E // 2 � . 120.00 I { 11 J .A g w � r /8 -�•b YB �� ` �3'�oi• tw _- tih 7 g! I wg I •f i$ { `/ _ •�`. i tx. 2 o 21 �3:$I $i 626• r ! 20000 • s ;: i'9 zez 6+ Jl/� s3 os = 20 0o Iryffi 0p .•! N E 7,¢ N. e9' s• a' E. R �f 113.05 is I+2.00 0 It_$sor3601'■ I !� 23 f �• 1 . I: _ 3 to 0 I 20 4 >• } �. ' p' \ �s2 e Iy - e O 17 8 I s s s et• ss w w' o i 24 �I • _s SZ \ ye %8 b. •2e 12 b_ • Ib" S 9 = N 8 I I{t'•S 10' . I 12.00 $. •- • V X11.35 E O •, 3 e9• x OM1 w. ^I + Z- . . r _ ^� T4 `s 0• _� _ 426 tWx'oi w. ,� 8 w: f Mde O R�ua4 • y'. 11 ._e` i"*,'39•E'�� . 90.00 67.ao +3.15 +«! _ 01 R KTsa E. F. , S'geN �,Z •� E.: stet Il+.to - L ! +a +s �F S 20 .. �:Z._ .3 1p S ' y0 37 '005 Zo - _ •. "I� t i; _ X20 27 - - ,05 3.12 E n iSN awn 0wR 10 bl^ ! - .n 9 e Q' �i IL' I71 - . 3 - E. N 7Re - I rT31i•c } a:9• z 7 0 0.21 N.Ts �S O"i s 1 .n90 hoz e>>s'yY a.lp,, Z a.07 9000 30 Fp 9p B6.5- • I Is2 00 . 000111 9200 yp00 A.90 e=76^0000 2906! aro•+,. 16n + 1072a ,.+ .. !'•°9',tr. w 1 sag^%oi • z - 2357� y - I Q .,..9.. X2°3$ EAST BALSgM :' so •2 a e ! V R S y10 62 29 95 06 'Q' >>� 70 1 b n •1 1 $•lev, 4• w^ 2{9•.00 �gp0 dlr•12'+0' 9•OTT +'PIZ- :o> I 1 3 i 1+200 - al q ♦ -,d 9°00 h` S ^ s - S B9° 56 0+ ■ ` >•pt�s7.2��•e7•k.7385 70163. . 1 2le 3 0 2 „ - a$ ; �! 23 w.. f a A _ R. e9.�35" E. L� o = Z '^ L - R.OB• IE- 926- a0S �b • i' _ 1 y�+TaO f •= 92 W 93 M 2 96 96 I 83 10 419 ��' \ 7• y •a! >� !0 f aD x a' ' 12 E. � -'�� ' �I ,� ��� ,y6 �`•OI Ot 9,' I ser3sa AIJ '0 _� • ��`/8®$4 gj •+,1.1'>h 2 e �� 1 - 26�2�9+0•[. �- - S�„• v : $I io jA •sr +=Ir o0 oa. Sw1I1a' f .[ s -- -QII.3N -B'e9°s�5r5`;',•aYE r. j�.W` �' .\.I 1E''\ agan 3.Z 010-00 .e'.^�°-s�Ir f i = r _Y% r .oar {, = e�'I'g�\w.`9irev�J[,*••.11�R2^Y~- _T l �0�9 � 6 7r+ '=�rI ;% 2. . Ss•_ 7 _ 12 . n 4aPa to • 9e.� 0. E� S1e!gI°•xat2 2a6 + C ity ofEagan s tr goo i• CAF�LSON ' POND �' _ 0 �� > I` $7600 � Or35 37% 020'00 � I w S 2 u r I PER 1977 AERIAL PHOTO 1 R. e9. 35 WE I �[�77 1-, N 69°26.33-E "\ 'i N �3•' J9, la=k e+L3A31? _•,: , TRAIL - ' LAKE'31 - _ 8500 _ R- ` �. LANE �e�m73 ��-- PARK ` 85.00 1x2.1$ 30 « M 69915.77-E. J. 14200 3 { :. - w =$947.66' .1 City of Eagan ��� k8 Eagan 8 i 8 s :e9•zssYE. 70 30 21 090-06 s� E j^":$. 110-05 Y 8 Iz3.oz w e �¢ 3 • 6''S•+Iw - __ s� - •. . 6500 $300 8��.$ � '• - \ -='=-. - !, $ s s �. R e9°57.1 02$ E. Y .•r,� ¢. 4LT.t 'r'Ti� /// Mg6• .,•10 M ta• 7 ,; '> ,!•p ps9 •,ip J �'. r.�0 4' q a i T - a 30 13D X07 MAP 70 •6 J� 'e ? S�w,j- r _ .5 O • -\ I { •J .F�e :5'6 i6 at'��P '!t p+:.� � e}�"e_. s.,.e6"�• .E $ e6yT .[. • I. ! Z � 5 G 6 Jh C B 'i •_ = 1 •j I 11 B w1• { ' tir gp9 s 6$ - O'>w - 35 7•E. d Q' a'\� 8 rJ.le\s� w •°'�� id i ; I 2 3 { $ '.o g 8 �.. 0 { 7 k? 8.N 8 8 V a • Z F { 0 p8 = I f }}� $ „. _"- Nss•35ar f V J::s +T J �,' +'rn d= - _ N t9. 2 0 D.T..: 12.00 , t v S ts• s'+nu „i>' � = $ 1200 - °ry :3Gp g t9.OS' R•t d 8 2 77• f 1120.1 ' Rkr•1 $ jp I 7-0- Y- `Ips 62 6 [ •~ �+7�>~• r7 y •Y*g3•f' '. i ~ ' '_ + �'z0`'•e.•'; a 0R00.j• 7=s6•y' sr =bo�Y e•�6361 _ ^ ib N t35 3i39>91R nes:� ~4 LAKE W. j • 63•!6 a. le9'3ls�t. ■MSY so• • k le^ is �I• 11 8°r9 7z 07 » ao I•z a0 - 150 _� • 2+R _�+ a0 6aa1 . °r W d 701x1 853110 �� R •j1?,p;' 11 -�- 8 2 g wt9.3i30'E :Ia•71ot �� --f3 '.S ' - --._ ._.._ _ 9600 op t.. e 8 t ^ s = N Iwwl° rn. n6 i0 �� SI 7S $ le b 0§-,W 13 b t o=ff ,•s. -$ �i 2{ s za _If. >n k'- 2{ ��. 23 j•9 OC: v '3. - _ - e3h� J cJi wJll� Al I» wsn•20'=3iElg : •a'Yt tIY fE m ! $Js6,•3%Sv 7651`P`� . e9•]!'so `W q6M 33'50-[ _„ C Z �: .`{�. (� + 2 ti•w lr- - - •- R • t xw aG •20D YI-� •(�'r+ I ^y, i r°I 9)M ' S2M [ _ k'41 d : e•• rY!' a�.• "0 , a� 19 s 67°.0 >•-t `r + n _ �IN 1 1 �' 6z •s a l / E -la 9 rQ c It ,,fi�t e•6vxav�. jjj��- ViV// of P R t 0 I taar 11 b l0 17 * 20 ire 21 22 2 mot•• 2650.92 TO[$ I S r rn OUR :w i ECa 91's s 2 Al ,A/ 1 •�, •14•t N•22 2-1: 2244 220 ll-\ ` '0 - .eOW IOl Lo -.0 • i � ` .•O .f JO- SO 1' s qM1 + ,� k � 2[• It J ^., �/ 3 [\ fv l lI I — r., .. % °•'J'�•� a ytr �- i3 v �C � i t o ff= Y a\ .•`ra�'�S•6 4II.11 v.. -e- 13 01 vJ ,�� mp +_r�' ..3of1 OUP ,1 t 6 ' r7oe rftr • Q—_, c4 . poo a ' �•�X41 J ♦` i ,,, I0., .+�'r It .f s t a/ �b f, r Cyr � '° f• ,.rA. 3 e? x n ° ■ 11 :. • -- 1 of �`\r t`♦ 4 �.. ,tom v •�'��o' s11 it ,ds •i �e\� �o:°�• t : Do% •„f�i E. ,-0 ,�• Q �`1 _ 10 �1 -+►1; '7��� ty�o'� e - - t SCI , �,t •� : = a: ?, • � OO .��osf � � � 3 .�,!` . •lf'+ s �� I i,Y ^ � �••-- +'• � D � � 1`, 01, �RI�- ��1NY : s ad p ` �r� �� y i� '• !j '-�� t • 72My h i i ► • x ff : 4 ■■foa •a [\Iy�, �� aO�' 3 ,T•�di 8t� -Q• t g °+, • frta 7Ja�2T• ,2 N ° u, • solve 1 ,1 » dt w� $ ti• I pt.�(II M.oL R� a IS/ ,Jh •' A _ =R t{ .f(Y t fsr • 0. a�~ = ;',�• 3• 4� �Toodtd •Mrr.,cn, -" ' r: � - Ef��-,;0,. ' �,r•ab �` -T 2 ♦ a e b� �♦� • = 5 -yi t vii l a �" ! 2 •� (+ (^/� S � �• =, la Citi t ��,,i s, . ( 1 �^ /ir st ''.•.o :, V �9\� ' a , .�SS9' 1^d a� �• � s'brr. �` p/ '� 'i1 � -iv 2,,e i �„o� t1•s .01 'o.\•D ■`� 1 F J' k �• �z� R . t L j �7 F 3 ��. t�,�2 - � �f■;l '� ji •1.• ♦`��l�Slob •• ��� a I!i^o s.7`,91M1. I,^o0 •V. •- iC!•rISOi.•.1..-SIF. } ,. i, { t �t�� �• • .t, ��,% i 'a -i I I'JQ!•I iol I°I ICI i01 •!0 `�-b� _' ,: "�1 • J a' p nlnpIT 10ell N � �i� ti . ., �■ '�F-i. y •Ap/ 't'. �.+,` .�" ' i 'D ^!A a J-+1•LJS.1.I s a.e'. o ' a� �-• a .•5..' N . •�-.,� i = 2 1 �• °�� 222, 1 la I a �r 1 •1t� •mac .40 t•/'r `/ r••o OOO�• '� _ 3oai_ •. �� 3 e r. Jr .' . WAY o�slHall�. t+,jpz�nt 2[L .•a oo ,a SHERW000 � . • !a ,10 So 2 ��° „o goo .co ,� 1 "- �I =� ~'�■ _ — 013-76 City of Eagan 010-rr o,, 3� 's do City of Eogon City of Eagan +" c 010-00 -.\ :,' 010-00 LOT 11 ` r `e•. BLOCK 1 =\ RASMUSSEN ADDITIOP .6 77 + ,r ,-.r t ` ' - .s -. .�'.. q' _ =!-f SIP..• i, � �O� ftl � ..... �= yid •� e - _ ' ✓ , \' V Y .. �; = +.• c. •.. +T _ - 6 a'% •°• wYw 3:1 33 Ld 4 10 0 u 030-81 Q: LOT 2, BLOCK 1 R45aUS5EN 4001 TION + •, R1 � - Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Seven LAWCON/LCMR APPLICATION D. LAWCON/LCMR Application --The advisory Parks & Recreation Commis- sion had J,L; meeting held on April 3. It took action recommending the submittal of two grant applications for LAWCON/LCMR funds for fiscal year 1987. The recommendation to the City Council''for submission of applications involves the development of Thomas Lake Park and the lighting of field five at Northview Athletic Field. For additional background on"this information, refer to the report to the APRC and a memo from the Director of Parks & Recreation presenting the recommendation of that commission to the City Council, see pages 7_5g, -through �3 ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny submittal of a LAWCON/LCMR grant application for the development of Thomas Lake Park and the lighting of field five at Northview Athletic Field. lam/ MEMO TO: PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: REN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 2, 1986 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SUBMIT FY 187 LAWCON/LCMR APPLICATIONS The purpose -of this memorandum is threefold: 1. Provide you with a status report on our current- LAWCON/LCMR grants; 2. Discuss alternatives related to our FY 186 Blackhawk Park application; and 3. Request your approval to submit two (2) FY 187 applica- tions. Current Grant Projects The City of Eagan is presently administering three active LAWCON/LCMR grants. These grants have been made available to the City under the auspices of the Minnesota Dept. of Energy and Economic Development (DEED), Community Development Division. As a matter of background information, LAWCON (or Land and Water Conservation) grants are provided to the 50 states through the U.S. Department of Interior with funding primarily derived from offshore drilling royalties. On the state side the LCMR (or Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources) provides similar grant funding to DEED for distribution to local governments. LCMR funding is derived from a 2 cents per pack tax on cigarettes. Project grant funding is determined by DEED on an annual grants cycle basis. The three active grant projects in Eagan utilize a combination of these funding sources as outlined below: 1. Rahn Park - this grant project was approved by the state in July 1983. Funding for the project is a $79,750.00 LAWCON grant with a local matching share of $79,750.00; there is no state LCMR funding. Approved items included in the grant include baseball/softball fields, site improvement, landscaping, roads and parking lots, and design/engineering. On February 25, 1985 the City submitted a partial request for payment of LAWCON funds and subsequently received a reimbursement of about $45,000.00. Our department is planning to complete minor landscaping and signage this spring with final LAWCON reimbursement and closeout by the end of summer. 2. Fish Lake Park - this is a fiscal year 1984 grant approved in March 1984. Project funding includes a $31,175.00 LCMR grant with a local matching share of $31,175.00. The approved project scope calls for roads and parking, boat launch, trails, fishing dock, site preparation, landscaping, and design/engineering. This �3v ki project will also be completed in 1986. Remaining development includes a fishing dock, trails, and signage. Since LCMR funding is provided through advanced grants the City has already received its state assistance on this project. 3. Trapp Farm - the Trapp Farm (Schwann Lake) grant was approved by DEED in November 1984 utilizing FY 1985 funding. This grant project has a total cost of $221,000.00 with funding allocated as follows: $110,500 LAWCON, $55,250 LCMR, ;and $55,250 local match. The approved project scope includes site preparation, roads/parking, utilities, dock/canoe access, trails, landscaping, signage, and design/engineering. This grant project is essentially completed with the exception of landscaping and signage. Last month our department submitted a 90% partial, payment request to the state. We are now anticipating a LAWCON reimbursement of about $99,800 in the next few weeks. This project will be completed by summer's end with final LAWCON payment and closeout to follow. To summarize, staff fully expects to complete development and close-out procedures on all three of the department's active •• LAWCON/LCMR grant projects by the end of 1986. Fiscal Year 1986 Application In April 1985 the City of Eagan submitted a preliminary application to the State for FY 1986 LAWCON/LCMR funding for Blackhawk Lake parkland acquisition. In August 1985 DEED informed the City that our application had ranked fifth among the metropolitan area projects. We subsequently learned that the second ranked project withdrew, raising our application to number four and the possibility of receiving some funding. Under normal circumstances Eagan would have been informed of the disposition of our application by last November. Unfortunately, however, the State has not yet learned of the FY 186 federal LAWCON apportionment due to a Presidential rescission of funds under the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings bill. Based on discussions with John VonDeLinde, Parks Superintendent (formerly with LAWCON/LCMR), it is our understanding that Congressional action on the President's rescission will be made by mid-April. Based on the wisdom of the Congress two scenarios could develop: 1. Rescission upheld by Congress - this is the most unlikely scenario according to the most recent information from the State. If the rescisson is upheld, however, it is very probable that Eagan would not receive any 186 funding for Blackhawk Park. 2. Rescission struck down by Congress- it is most likely that Congress will override the President's rescission of funds. Congress has a 45 day period to take such action - deadline about April 15. Under this scenario, LCMR dollars now committed to top ranked projects would be freed up for additional projects. The City could then expect to receive -2-33 2 a FY 186 LCMR grant for Blackhawk Park. A very tentative estimate of funding is in the neighborhood of $30,000.00. By late April the City should have a final word on exact funding levels. At that point the City will have to decide whether or not to accept the limited financial assistance. The total projected acquisition cost under the application is $315,000.00. Impact of '86 Funding on 187 Applications Our decision. on FY 186 funding for Blackhawk Park will have a direct impact on the City's eligibility to receive FY 1987 LCMR funding. Under a new state law a local unit of government is eligible to receive on l one LCMR grant per biennium. (There is no limit on the number of LAWCON grants we may receive.) As a result of this new law the City must be very careful about its decisions related to FY 186 or 187 funding. Essentially there are four alternatives for the Commission to consider with respect to FY 187 preliminary grant applications. Alternative 1 - Presidential Rescission of LAWCON (unlikely) Under this alternative the City would not receive FY 186 LAWCON and/or LCMR funding for Blackhawk Park. In this case the City would be eligible for LCMR funding in 1987, as well as LAWCON. The City could conceivably apply for and receive two FY 187 grants - one in the traditional grants program (LAWCON only) and one in the athletic field program (LCMR only.) Alternative 2 - No rescission - deny funding Under this alternative the City could turn down a small LCMR-only grant for Blackhawk Park. On the one hand this would make the City eligible for LCMR in 1987 - perhaps the City would score higher on another application in 187 and receive more grant funding. On the other hand, LCMR funding in '87 could dry up under state budget cuts. Consequently, it may be more prudent to accept a small LCMR grant this year (alternatives 3 & 4) and hope for a LAWCON-only grant in '87. Alternative 3 - No rescission - accept funding, no change in project In this case the City would agree to accept the LCMR funding for Blackhawk Park. The City would proceed with the acquisition of the full 15 acres identified in the preliminary grant application at an estimated cost of $315,000.00. This would represent about a 10% grant, based upon the tentative funding estimate. The City would be eligible for only a LAWCON grant in 1987 (under the traditional program) if this alternative is selected. I's Alternative 4 - No rescission - accept funding, reduce project scope Again, under this alternative the City would agree to accept the LCMR funding for Blackhawk. However, the City would make a formal request to DEED to reduce the acreage to be acquired under the grant. This would have the effect of reducing the total project cost while increasing the state assistance percentage; e.g. the City could propose to acquire half the acreage at half the price - this would significantly reduce the City's match while doubling the State's funding percentage. Similar to #3, above, the City would only be able to pursue LAWCON funding in 1987 under the new state law. Obviously our decision in this matter will be affected somewhat by actions outside of our city - in Washington and in St. Paul. I did want to raise these scenarios and alternatives, though, for your consideration. As soon as a determination of FY '86 funding is made, the City will be asked to respond expeditiously on the Blackhawk Park funding. Staff recommendation: to proceed with Alternative 4 if that choice becomes available. Fiscal Year 1987 Applications Due to the convoluted and confused nature of FY '86 Funding it is staff suggestion that we proceed with application for 1987 funding immediately. (The application deadline is May 5th.) The City would then be in the most adventageous position to respond to any of the various FY 187 funding alternatives that may present themselves. Because of John VonDeLinde's insights on this program, staff feels the City has two possibilities for competitive applications this year. The first is Northview Park athletic field lighting. This application would fall under the LCMR's biennial program for athletic field development. It would propose the lighting of the fifth field at Northview. Since this is an existing field with good site quality and access it should compete fairly well. LCMR funding would be up to 50%. The second application would propose the development of passive - use, water oriented, facilities on the north shore of Thomas Lake. Possible facilities could include a boat access/launch, hard surface trails, fishing piers, picnic areas, wildlife observation decks, and a wading beach. A cursory review of '87 criteria indicates that this project would be very com ep titive under the traditional program. Funding of up to 50% LAWCON could be available under alternatives 3 or 4, above. Total grant related project costs would be about $250,000.00. 235 4 Summary As noted earlier, all of our current LAWCON/LCMR projects will be closed by the end of this year. If the Blackhawk Park grant is not approved it could mean the end of our involvement in the program temporarily. Consequently, it is important that we pursue the application for FY '87 dollars. Staff believes that the City should continue to strive for a close working relationship with the local recreation grants off"ice. in St. Paul. Eagan has utilized the LAWCON/LCMR program asa successful method for supplementing our acquisition and development program. Literally hundreds of thousands of dollars have been made available to the city through this funding source. For Commission Action: to recommend to the City Council that staff submit two preliminary grant applications; athletic field lighting (Nort­view Field 5) and Thomas Lake Park for fiscal � '87. / Director of Parrs & Recreat KV/hb on 7'3 JG W MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR -OF PARRS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 8, 1986 BE: COUNCIL APPROVAL: LAWCON/LCMR GRANT APPLICATION FISCAL YEAR 1987 -ISSUES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission at it's April 3rd meeting, recommended to the City Council that staff be directed to prepare and submit, two preliminary grant applications for Lawcon/LCMR funds for fiscal year 1987. One application is within the traditional Lawcon/LCMR program for the development of Thomas Lake Park, and the second application for the LCMR Athletic Field Development program for the lighting of field five (5) at Northview Athletic field. BACKGROUND Attached to this cover memorandum is a more detailed report presented to the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission on April 3rd. The report covers the current status of outstanding grants previously received, and reviewed recent developments regarding the possibility of the City's receiving funds for it's 1986 grant application. Council members know, the City did not receive any grant funds for fiscal year 1986 for it's proposed acquistion of property at Blackhawk Park. Orginally, this grant was ranked fifth, and not ranked for funding. However, it was recently learned that one of the applicants ranked higher than the City's application, has withdrawn. Therefore, it is possible that the City still may receive LCMR funds for Blackhawk Park. Staff has estimated that this amount might be $30,000. Should the City accept this amount from the LCMR fund, it would not be eligible for any additional LCMR funds for fiscal year 1987. The City would remain eligible for LAWCON funds, if Congress makes such an allocation. The Advisory Commission discussed the ramifications and alternatives open to the City. The Commission agreed that if official word is received that Blackhawk Park Grant application'is eligible for $30,000, we would accept this amount with the condition that a revised application be acceptable. Revisions to the original application would scale down the amount of property to be acquired by the City, reducing the City's share in the cost. Because of the uncertainty at this time, it was the Commission's consensus that Staff should proceed with submitting preliminary applications for fiscal year 1987. This could be withdrawn at a later date, if appropriate. These applications must be submitted by. May 5, 1986. FOR COUNCIL ACTION To approve/disapprove submission of preliminary grant applications for LAWCON/LCMR fiscal year 1987 for Thomas Lake Park and Northview Athletic field - Field 5 Lighting. KV/bls X37 Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Eight REVIEW DRAFT OF DEVELOPMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT E. Review Draft of Development Escrow Agreement --As requested by the Advisory Planning Commission and directed by the City Council, the City created a Developers Task Force to review all aspects of the recently implemented escrow requirements for development appli- cations' ppli- cations ._--2 s a result of this review, a proposed development escrow agreement was prepared with the intention that it would be executed with the original application for preliminary plat approval. Enclosed on pages AL3 through is a copy of the draft agreement as prepared the Task Force for Council's consideration. This agreement will be reviewed by the Advisory Planning Commission through a formal public hearing process at the May 27 Advisory Planning Commission meeting for formal ratification by the Council in June. Staff wanted to present this draft agreement to the Council at an early date to receive any comments which could then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration during the formal public hearing process for revision of this subdivision ordinance. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the draft develop- ment escrow agreement and approve/amend as necessary. Special Note: The exhibits to this draft agreement were not available for distribution and will be included with Additional Information on Monday. z3�' CITY OF EAGAN DEVELOPMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the day of , 19$_, by and between the CITY OF EAGAN, a municipality of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter called the CITY), and the Developer identified herein. A. The term "Developer" as used herein refers to: whose address is WHEREAS, the Developer has applied to the City for approval of the plat or subdivision known as located within the City; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the granting of said approval, the City is likely to incur certain costs including administrative and consulting costs involved in the processing of such application, and the City requires a guaranty that such costs will be paid by the Developer to avoid unnecessary billings to Developers; and WHEREAS, under authority granted to it, including Minnesota Statutes Chapters 412 and 462, the City will process the application on the condition that the Developer enter into this Development Escrow Agreement, which agreement defines certain duties and responsibilities of the Developer, as well as the City, and the Developer shall provide a bond, letter of credit, or collateral agreement in the amount and with conditions satisfactory to the City, providing for the securing to the City the ultimate payment of all such costs incurred by the City; and . WHEREAS, the City shall account to the Developer for the expenditure of the escrow funds on a periodic basis; Z� i NOW THEREFORE, the City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Preliminary Plat Application Escrow. It is understood that the City shall commence to process the preliminary plat application at such time as this Agreement is executed by all appropriate parties and the escrow required hereunder is posted in a form acceptable to the City. 2. Final Plat Application/Contract Management Escrow. If at the time of submission of the application for final plat approval, the developer has determined to install any public street or utility improvements privately, then the developer shall submit two separate escrows in amounts and with formats satisfactory to the City as follows: a. A final plat application escrow relating to processing final plat applications, review of required submittals and preparation of related agreements, payable at the time the final plat application is submitted to the city. b. A contract management escrow paid at the time of the execution and release of the final plat by the City covering inspection, agreement compliance, contract management, and other necessary costs for City approval and/or acceptance of privately installed City improvements, and other related development requirements. 3. Use of Escrow Funds. The City may draw upon the escrows to pay its costs necessarily related to the specific purpose for which the escrow was posted and the City shall determine all of its costs incurred, including both administrative and consulting services, at the rates normally charged by the City or its consultants, determined according to City standards. A copy of the current administrative and consulting rates is attached which rates are subject to change by the City Council without notice to the Developer. (See Exhibit "A"). W 2 4. Conditions of Escrow. The following conditions shall apply to the subdivision application escrow contemplated under. this Agreement: a. City Administrative hourly rates for processing applications shall be determined at two times the normal hourly rate including all benefits and overhead incurred by the City. (See paragraph 3) b. Payment shall be made to City consultants, including but not limited to engineering, legal and planning, in the amounts actually billed to the City, according to the customary consulting rates in effect at that time. (See paragraph 3). Such consulting services or costs shall reasonably and necessarily relate to the subject matter of the applications as determined by the City. c. The City shall determine which escrow accounts shall be billed in relation to each phase of the application process and any balances remaining in any particular escrow account may be transferred to escrows required for any other applications or projects being processed through the City by the same developer. d. The City shall not be responsible for paying any interest on the escrow accounts contemplated under this Agreement. e. In the event that there is an inadequate balance in the escrow account, the City will determine and require additional deposits to the escrow account to insure continued coverage of costs required for the completion of the processing of the application. 5. Balances in Escrows. In the event that there are any balances in the escrow accounts upon completion of the development process, or in the' event that an application is withdrawn by the developer, denied by the City or for any reason, is not completed within the time frame required by the City, then the balances shall be refunded as follows: �/ // 3 a. The City shall pay such balances to the applicant/developer unless written instructions are submitted to the City and signed by the developer and the proposed recipient of the funds, prior to repayment by the City. b. In the event that any developer desires to assign its interest in its escrow, then the developer shall notify the City in writing of the assignment of its interest. c. In the event that the City fails to refund any balance in an escrow account contemplated under this Agreement, then the developer may request payment from the City and the refund shall be made by the City within ninety (90) days of written notice to the City that the application has been terminated and only after all costs covering the application or project have been paid in full. 6. Escrow Amounts. The escrow amounts contemplated for each of the purposes described under this Agreement which may be revised by the City from time to time shall be as follows: a. Preliminary Plat Ap lication Escrow. A cash escrow at the time of submission of the preliminary plat application in amounts according to Exhibit "B". b. Final Plat Application Escrow. A cash final plat application escrow for privately financed improvements payable at the time of submission of the final plat application, in the amounts provided in Exhibit "B". C. Contract Management Escrow. The contract management escrow submitted prior to release of the final plat by the City in the amounts provided in Exhibit "B". At least one-third of such escrow shall be in cash with the remaining amounts in such form acceptable to the City. 74_y 4 7. Reduction of Non -Cash Contract Management Escrow. That portion of the non-cash contract management escrow contemplated herein may be reduced upon written request of the developer and upon consent of the City, prior to completion of all requirements contemplated under the preliminary plat escrow provisions of this Agreement. It is understood that all amounts contemplated under this Agreement shall be capable of being converted into cash, and recoverable on demand by the City, which determination shall be made solely within the discretion of the City. 8. Accounting. The City will provide an accounting of all expenses charged against each escrow account when requested by a developer but in no event more often than monthly and also such accounting will be provided when a request is made by the City to replenish the cash portion of any escrow. 9. Terms of Breach. In the event of breach of any terms of this Agreement by the developer, the City may at its option, terminate this Agreement and order the developer to cease any further development or progress under the terms of this Agreement. 10. Validity. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. 11. Binding Agreement. The parties mutually recognize and agree that all terms and conditions of this Agreement shall run with the land herein described and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, administrators and assigns of the developers referenced in this Agreement. 12. Amendments. The terms of this Agreement shall not be amended without the written consent of all parties hereto. 71- 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals. CITY OF EAGAN (Date: ) By: _ Its Mayor Attest: Its Clerk DEVELOPER: By: Approved as to Content: Its: Department of Public Works And: (Date: ) Its. THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Hauge, Eide & Keller, P. A. Attorneys for the City of Eagan 1200 Yankee Doodle Road Water View Office Tower, Suite 303 Eagan, MN 55122 (612) 454-4224 -Date Date Agenda Information Memo April 15, 1986, City Council Meeting Page Thirty -Nine CLERK-TYPIST/PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS F. Clerk-Typist/Protective Inspections Department -- Due to the continued rapid growth of the City of Eagan which in turn results in a greatly increased workload for staff members of the City, a backlog of work assignments and considerable overtime is being experienced by clerical members of the City staff. After analysis by the City Administrator to discover a solution to this problem, it is recommended that an additional clerk/typist be hired whose duties would primarily concern scheduling, coordinating and maintaining the records for building inspections (which is currently more than a full-time task due to the growth of Eagan -- and we have not even begun the actual busy season). This position would also include some assignments for the Parks & Recreation Department when another clerical worker was absent. With the establishment of this position, the secretary for the Protective Inspections/Parks Departments would again be able to perform actual secretarial tasks, which, in turn, will alleviate some of the workload and backlog experienced by both the clerk/typist in the Parks and Protective Inspections Departments (whose primary duty is typing) and by the typing pool. Then, with the increased aid, typing projects which have been delayed due to the clerical overload would also be able to be addressed. It is recommended by the City Administrator that this position be a permanent, full-time position with the City, as the need for the services of this position will only increase in the future. The financing for this position for 1986 will come from funds allocated to consulting inspectors and from funds allocated for clerical help in the park department (for that period before the full-time clerk typist was hired), requiring no additional budgetary request. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the creation of a full-time, permanent clerk -typist position for the Protective Inspections/Parks Departments whose primary duties would include scheduling, coordinating and maintaining records for building inspections. -2 Z15 Ll L MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: APRIL 11, 1986 SUBJECT: INFORMATIVE SENATOR 50SCHWITZ MEETING Mr. Craig Ruschmeyer, Field Director for Senator Boschwitz is planning to be available on Tuesday, April 15 at 11:30 a.m. at the Eagan City Hall to visit with members of the staff and City Council. If you can attend please mark your calendar and stop at City Hall, Attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Ruschmeyer, referenced as page Zj LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE The City Administrator has reserved five (5) rooms at the Radisson Hotel Duluth for the League of Minnesota Cities Conference. Since there is a City Council meeting on the night of June 17, the rooms are reserved for two nights, the 18th and 19th. If any member of the City Council would like- to attend the annual conference with or without spouse, please let me know so a registra- tion can be made at the earliest possible date. A schedule of the conference is outlined in your recent League of Minnesota Cities publication. EAGAN CLEAN-UP AND RECYCLING DAYS At a recent workshop session, it was determined by the City Council that two (2) days should be set aside for clean-up and recycling this spring. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein has coordinated the dates of April 26 and May 17 as Clean -Up and Recycling Days. Attached is a copy of a press release that was sent out to the local newspapers and has been distributed to churches for printing at least the first paragraph in their church bulletins. A copy is enclosed on pages -1_� through 7,61 . DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL PROJECT POLICY Enclosed is a copy of the Development and Special Project Policy as modified and adopted at the April 1, 1986, City Council meeting. The copy is enclosed on page 267--- M.G. 5?i M.G. ASTLEFORD CHECK The City Administrator was contacted by Ray Williams of M.G. Astleford on May 10 and arranged to deliver a check in the amount of $12,715.61, which was the full amount for recapturing all out of pocket expenses the City incurred with the Richard Anderson/ M.G. Astleford project, adjacent to I 35E. L� AMM BULLETIN Enclosed is a copy of an AMM Bulletin that was sent out to all membership communities. This bulletin, copies are on pages 263 through 24 0 , is a summary of the 1986 legislative acts that pertain to Metro municipalities. Mayor Blomquist and the City Administrator attended the Northern Dakota County Mayor Manager meeting on Friday, April 11, when Vern Peterson, the Executive Director of the MM was present, provided a verbal summary of the rece.nt=`legislation. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS At the last City Council meeting, concern was raised about construc- tion debris blowing all over the communtiy. Unbeknown to this office, Chief Building Inspector and Chief of Police were discussing methods to enforce the cleaning up of construction debris, and as a result, Chief Building Inspector Peterson has sent a letter to all builders asking for strict compliance regarding construction debris. Chief of Police Berthe has instructed his department to site builders who ignore the complaints and choose not to conform with the City's request. SCOPING MEETING/U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Enclosed on page Vo(— is a copy of a brief memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding his recent involvement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of his meeting was to identify and define issues that the public has concerning the managing of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges. NATION CITIES WEEKLY NEWSLETTER At the request of the City Council, the City Administrator made an inquiry to the League of Minnesota Cities to review the cost of each Councilmember receiving the Nation Cities newspaper. The yearly subscription rate is $80 per official. At the present time, the City receives two copies, one addressed to the Mayor and one to the City Administrator. If any member of the City Council would like to receive the Nation Cities Weekly, please notify this office and a subscription will be activated. CONSIDERATION OF STANDARDIZED TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS Enclosed on pages � through is a copy of a memo submit- ted to the Building Inspection Department regarding the City Council's consideration of a standardized temporary advertising sign. The Building Inspection Department is hoping to have a response to this directive during the month of May. RESOLUTION/CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Attached on pages 145 through 74 �o is a copy of a letter and resolution that was submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation by the City of Mendota Heights regarding an endorsment of the proposed acquisition of Republic Airlines by :7�1 Northwest Orient Airlines. If the City Council would like to further consider a similar resolution, a directive or action could be taken at the April 15 meeting or a later City Council meeting. DEERWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL On Wednesday, April 9, Mayor Blomquist, City Councilmember Wachter and City Administrator Hedges attended the Deerwood Elementary School graUnd breaking. In addition to meeting the new Superinten- dent of Schools for District 196, it was also learned from school board members present, that a workshop will be held on April 14 and more than likely a decision will be made as to whether the high school referendum question will be readdressed this coming fall. CABLE COMMISSION HEARING City Councilmember Smith and City Administrator Hedges attended the Cable Commission hearing that was held on Thursday, April 10. The meeting was more lengthy then anticipated, adjourning at approximately 10:30 p.m. At the request of Commission Chairman Bertz, a brief discussion was held after the meeting with Gus Hauser, proposed buyer of the Group W system. Mr. Hauser was present, and it gave an opportunity for City Councilmember Smith, Commission Chairman Bertz, Cable Administrator, City Administrator and representatives of Group W to be present and have a discussion regarding concerns both the cities of Burnsville and Eagan have regarding the honoring of the current franchise agreement if a sale is to be commenced. City Councilmember Smith and City Administrator Hedges will share more about this discussion at the City Council meeting on Tuesday. There is consideration being given to a joint meeting of the Burnsville and Eagan City Councils and Cable Commission members sometime later this month, in preparation of the May 8 public hearing. The public hearing was opened and a great deal of discussion given last .evening, with a final action that the public hearing will be continued until May 8. It is important that the City Councils be brought up to date on the action by the Cable Commission and the review of the proposed sale, due to the fact that a decision is required by the City Councils 30 days after the public hearing is closed. Therefore, it will be necessary for the City Councils of both Burnsville and Eagan to make decisions regarding the sale at the first meeting in June. A joint meeting would provide a framework in workshop_ setting advantageous to all City Council members and Commission members. Again, City Councilmember Smith and the City Administrator will comment further on the action of the Cable Commission and the need for a study session. /s/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator &Z V 'if PETE V. DOMENICI, NEW MEXICO, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM L ARMSTRONG. COLORADO LAWTON CHILES, FLORIDA NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM, KANSAS ERNEST F. HOLLINGS. SOUTH CAROLINA RUDY BOSCHWITZ, MINNESOTA J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, LOUISIANA ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH JIM SASSER. TENNESSEE MARK ANDREWS, NORTH DAKOTA GARY HART, COLORADO STEVEN D. SYMMS. IDAHO HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, OHIO CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.. MICHIGAN ROBERT W. KASTEN, WISCONSIN DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, NEW YORK DAN OUAYLE, INDIANA J. JAMES EXON, NEBRASKA SLADE GORTON, WASHINGTON FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, NEW JERSEY JOHN C. DANFORTH, MISSOURI STEPHEN BELL, STAFF DIRECTOR RICHARD N. BRANDON, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR Thomas Hedges Administrator City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Thomas: United �tates senate COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET WASHINGTON, DC 20510 April 9, 1986 Per your recent telephone conversation with Jan Haugen, this letter will confirm my plans to visit with you and any members of the staff or Council that may wish to talk to me on Tuesday, April 15 at 11:30 a.m. in your office. In order to avoid any confusion, I would like to make it clear that Senator Boschwitz will not be joining me, although he does hope to be able to visit your community in the future. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Jan at 612/221-0904 or (toll free) 800/652-9771. I look forward to meeting with you. RB/ch cc: Mayor Beatta Blomquist Sincerely, Craig C. Ruschmeyer Field Director W9 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jon Hohenstein, 454-8100 EAGAN CLEAN-UP AND RECYCLING DAYS ANNOUNCED The City of Eagan will sponsor two City Clean -Up and Recycling Days on April 26 and May 17 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the new City -Hall east parking lot. April 26 also will be the first Saturday that Eagan's permanent compost site is open, just south of City Hall. The Clean -Up and Recycling Days will give Eagan residents an excellent opportunity to dispose of the wide variety of recyclables listed below. Certain types of items will be accepted at no charge; other types will be accepted for a nominal fee. Recycling Day will go on - rain or shine - so be sure to take this opportunity to clean up your home and yard and dispose of your recyclables so they can be used again. Beerman Services and Goodwill Industries are participating in this event. Questions concerning the City of Eagan Recycling Days should be addressed to Jon Hohenstein at 454-8100. ITEMS ACCEPTED AT NO CHARGE - COMPOST SITE - Compostables Household Brush Leaves Household quantities (car, trailer Garden Wastes or pick-up loads) of brush, Grass Clippings limbs and wood products. Must be 4" in diameter or smaller and free of nails and metal. Larger wood products, see below. - CITY HALL LOT Separated Recvclables Cans and Metals Newspapers -Aluminum Unwaxes Carboard -Steel Office Papers -Bimetal Junk Mail Glass Sorted by Color Clean Rags Drain Oil Separated Recvclables Clothing Dishes Toys Housewares Furniture in Good Condition Working Televisions Small Electrical Appliances Clean Up Day contractors cannot accept toilets or unusable beds, mattresses and furnishings. They can accept large appliances or tires at a charge to the owner as outlined hPlnw_ Press Release Page 2 ITEMS ACCEPTED AT CHARGE TO OWNER - CITY HALL LOT - Tires _ - Car Tires - Truck Tires Appliances Large Wood Products (Over 4" in Diameter) $1.50 Per Tire $5.00 Per Tire $3.00-$10.00 $10.00 Per Car or Station Wagon $15.00 Per Pick -Up or Trailer (normal load) - No Ordinary Trash, Garbage or Twigs Please - - No Trucks Over One Ton Accepted - -30- April 9, 1986 POLICY #86 — 1 POLICY FOR PROCESSING NEW & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL PROJECTS I. PURPOSE The City of Eagan faces the task of managing a significant level of commercial and industrial development. -The scales of specific developments vary widely. The special needs and obligations present in such developments and projects, as well as more routine development requests are the focus of this policy. II. POLICY AND PROCEDURES It is the policy of the City of Eagan that all meetings held to review new and proposed developments or projects with an elected official or officials will not include any member of the City staff without prior approval of the City Council. All meetings between City staff and developers will be at City Hall during regular business hours, unless otherwise approved by the City Administrator. Proposed development or special projects are to be reviewed by the Economic Development Commission only upon specific direction of the City Council. III. RESPONSIBILITY This policy will operate at the direction of the City Council and through the designated responsibilities of the City Administrator. IV. AUTHORITY The Economic Development Policy for Processing New and Proposed Development and Special Projects was authorized by the City Council at its , 1986 meeting. APPROVED: Z -15Z DATE: M association of B U L L E T 1 N metropolitan municipalities April 4, 1986 TO: AMM Member Cities FROM: Jil � cheibel, President RE: Summary of Legislative Acts The 1986 Legislative Session was short in time, six weeks, but not in volume. A short special session was necessary to pass the final budget balancing bills. The following is a synopsis of some of the important legislation passed in the regular and special sessions of 1986 having impact on cities and other items that were part of the AMM program. The Legislative Act Summaries contained herein are: 1. Budget Balancing (SPECIAL SESSION LAWS 1986, HF1). 2. 1987 Local Government Aids (SPECIAL SESSION LAWS 1986, HF1). 3. Infrastructure Replacement Fund (LAWS 19869 CHAP. 465). 4. Assessment Hearing Notice (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 473) 5. Metropolitan Governance (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 460). 6. Bonding Allocation (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 465). 7. Tort Liability (LAWS 19861 CHAP. 455) 8. Economic Development Authority (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 400). 9. Optical Scan Voting Devices (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 381). 10. Interest Rates-Bond/Assessments (LAWS 1986, Chap. 465). 11. Comparable Worth (LAWS 1986, CHAP. 459). 12. What did not pass. Should you have any questions, please contact either Vern Peterson or Roger Peterson at the AMM Office (227-5600). This Bulletin is being sent to Mayors and Managers/Administrators and Designated Delegates. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 1. BUDGET BALANCING (SPECIAL SESSION LAWS 1986, HF1). The Special Session Budget Balancing bill included no cuts to local government- 1986 LGA or Homestead Credit payments. It did change payment dates from six equal payments to just two payments on July 15 and December 15 to help resolve State short term borrowing needs. The entire $450 million reserve fund is used and the prohibition against cutting -aids and credits lifted August 15 so that if August revenue projections are down the Governor may reduce these in the last quarter of this year to maintain a balanced state budget. Other provisions to balance the shortfall included $31 million revenue compliance and sales tax acceleration, $106 million reversal of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Transfer from the Highway Fund back to the General Fund. $36 million from Higher Education, $11.5 million secondary education aids, and ignoring $37 million of projected welfare overruns. These gains were somewhat offset by $16 million spending for farm initiatives, $10 million in miscellaneous spending increases, and by repealing the automatic suspension of income tax indexing. Thus state income tax brackets will be indexed according to inflation which will cost the state general fund $75 million. The bill also reduces the $.04 per gallon credit on gasohol and targets the remaining credit to Minnesota producers. Once passed, the budget bill left $110 million deficit for the Governor to unallot. The Department of Human Services was reduced $34.7 million, DEED $20 million, Housing Finance $8.2 million, Metropolitan Transit $4.1 million and the remainder spread throughout the other state departments budgets. 2. 1987 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIDS (SPECIAL SESSION LAWS 19869 HF1 The current local government aid formula was extended with some modification of the threshold numbers -for calculation but the general formula concept remains intact. The overall appropriation was increased by 4% with a maximum increase of 4% for cities over $200 per capita aid and a maximum increase of 5.8$ for cities receiving less than $200 per capital aid. Most Metropolitan Area suburbs will receive the maximum 5.8% increase. 3. INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT RESERVE SPECIAL LEVY (HF22879 LAWS 19 , _ CHAP . 5 Cities are allowed to make an annual special levy to build a reserve fund for the purpose of replacing streets, bridges, curbs, -z- gutters, and storm sewers. The city council must hold a public hearing on establishment of the Reserve Fund and pass an Ordinance or Resolution adopting it by a two thirds majority. The action is subject to a reverse referendum if a petition signed by eligible voters numbering 10% of those voting in the most recent general city election is received within 30 days. The Council may hold an election on the question at its own initiative. The funds may only be used for projects described above or if abolished -to pay other general debt of the city. 4. ASSESSMENT HEARING NOTICE (HF18869 LAWS 19869 CHAP. 473). Assessment hearing notice procedures have been modified to eliminate the necessity to print in the legal publicized notice the entire assessment role of individual parcels and assessments. However, additional information will be required in the various notices effective for assessments -prepared after the date of enactment, approximately April 1, 1986. The published notice in addition to indicating hearing time, date, place, overall project description, area to be assessed, and amount of total assessment must include a description of the appeal procedures and any local deferrment options. The individual mailed notice to property owners must include the published notice information- plus specific assessment amount for that parcel, the right and to whom prepayment may be made, whether partial payments are authorized, the time by which prepayment may be made without interest accrual, and the rate of interest to be accrued if prepayment is not made. No further notice is required after the hearing unless the assessing authority modifies the assessment amount or interest and then further notification is required only for those parcels which were affected by a change. (Effective day after enactment). 5. METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE REORGANIZATION (HF1860, LAWS 19869 HAPTER 0 For the first time since 1974, substantial changes were made to the structural arrangements of the Metropolitan Governance System. Improvements -to this system have long been a priority for AMM lobbying efforts and we -are generally pleased with the changes accomplished this session. APPOINTMENTS AND MEMBERSHIP ON THE METRO COUNCIL -In addition to notice of vacancies under the open appointments law, local governments must be notified in writing and the governor must create a seven -member Nominating Committee of whom three must be local elected officials to prepare a list of nominees for each Metropolitan Council vacancy. The Nominating Committee must conduct public meetings within or near the open or vacant district to consider candidates. -Members. must be persons knowledgeable about urban and metropolitan affairs and must be appointed to reflect fairy the various demographic, political and other interests in the metropolitan area. -The provision for appointments by the Met Council to the RTB, MWCC and MPOSC are standardized and are similar to the requirements for council—member appointments except the Met Council is the appointing authority. FINANCIAL REPORTING AND MANAGEMENT Establishes an interagency fi-nancial reporting and- management advisory committee consisting of the chairs of major metropolitan agencies. The advisor.y..committee...has-three new responsibilities: -To biennially publish a consolidated financial report that projects and analyzes revenues and expenditures for all metropolitan agencies; , -To develop uniform or consistent standards, formats and procedures for the budget and financial reports of all metropolitan agencies; -To report to the Legislature on the potential for joint or coordinated exercise of administrative functions by the metropolitan agencies acting together. PLANNING FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT AND TRANSIT -The present focus which is almost exclusively in the location and description of new capital facilities is replaced by a broader focus on strategic planning for services and related facility systems. -There is more emphasis on fiscal and financial planning. -There is more emphasis on setting goals and objectives and evaluating performance in meeting those goals and objectives. -The Council is empowered to require the agency to make revisions in the implementation plan to bring it into conformance with the Council's policy plan.. Existing law allows the council merely to approve or disapprove with comments. METROPOLITAN AGENCY BUDGETS The Met Council's power to review and approve the capital*budget of the agencies is terminated beginning in 1990. However, new -4 - 7-6ig requirements are added to assure that agency budgets must be consistent with and effectuate the agency implementation plan which must be approved by the Met Council. Also, other changes in the budgeting process enhance public access to the budgeting process and increase the focus on.changes in user fees. Effective date is August 1, 1986 for all sections of the bill except the changes to the planning process for -- wastewater treatment and transit are effective January 1, 1987. 6. BONDING ALLOCATION (HF2287, LAWS 1986, CHAP. 465). In response to Federal legislation, HR3838, an allocation system was necessary to meet pending requirements in HR3838 for Minnesota agencies to be able to issue various types of tax exempt bonds. The new system basically maintains the 1985 entitlement and pool scheme -at reduced levels and adds bonds that were previously not included in volume caps such as multifamily housing, hospital, and many tax increment issues. There are new procedures and strict time limits for receiving and utilizing an allocation from the competitive pool. Most general obligation bonds for traditional public purposes such as streets, storm sewers, public building; etc. are not subject to the volume cap and will not require an allocation. Most of the provisions within the bill are affective upon enactment. T. NOTE; Cities with pending projects or plans for new projects in the near future should consult with legal and financial professionals for detailed advice on the new complex requirements, process, and limitations. TORT LIABILITY (HF20789 LAWS 19869 CHAP. 455). The following summary of the Tort Liability and Insurance Reform bill focusses on provisions of particular interest to cities. A more detailed summary will appear in the May issue of the Minnesota Cities magazine. The definition of municipality for purposes of tort immunities is clarified to -include certain -joint powers boards or organization. Immunity is provided from any claim based on snow or ice conditions on any highway or public sidewalk that does not abut a publicly owned building or publicly owned parking lot, except when the negligent acts of the municipality cause the condition. Immunity is provided from any claim based upon the construction, operation, or maintenance of municipal property that is intended or permitted to be used as a park, as an open area for recreational purposes, or for providing recreational services; or from any claim based on the clearing of land, removal of refuse, and creation of trails or paths without artificial surfaces, if the claim arises from a loss incurred by a user of park and recreation property or services. -5- (Nothing in this subdivision limits the liability of a municipality for conduct that would entitle a trespasser to damages against a private person). All immunities granted the state in Chapter 3.736 are added for cities. The statute now states the current court rules regarding indemnification for punitive damages. State indemnification of municipalities in certain circumstances is provided. Sections are included to limit the applicability of the concept of full joint liability to situations where a municipality is found jointly liable and its fault is 35 percent or more. If joint liability is found and the fault of a municipality is less than 35 percent, the municipal responsibility is limited to an amount no greater than twice the allocated amount of fault. The most significant insurance reform is the creation of a state-run joint underwriting association (JUA). Although the bill schedules it to sunset on September 1, 1988, until that time the association _will be available., to_offer insurance. to day care providers, foster parents, group homes, and certain citizen participation groups. Every insurer with authority to write property and casualty insurance in this state must be a member of the association as a condition to obtaining and retaining a license to write insurance. The bill gives the commissioner of insurance the authority to review rates and the power to order rebates of premiums if they are found excessive under the statutes. Additionally, the bill restricts retroactive premium increases and mid-term cancellations. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) FOR REDEVELOPMENT TS—F1725, LAWS 1986, CHAP. 400. Two nearly identical bills passed giving all cities the power to create an Economic Development Authority TDA) for the purpose of establishing Economic Development Districts which must meet the definition of Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Districts in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73 subdivision 10. The EDA portion of Chap. 399 was repealed in the Special Session- so that EDA provisions in Chap. 400 prevail. The power of the authority is patterned after Port Authority legislation but is considerably reduced. The EDA may be established to replace or do the same types of projects now done under _special laws, Port Authorities, Development Districts, TIF Districts, HRAs, etc. -A city with Port Authority authorization may continue to utilize its Port Authority until and unless it establishes an EDA which then supersedes and negates further use of the Port Authority. The EDA is established by the city council and may be a separate body with council participation or the council itself. The authority -may be given the transfer or control and operation of projects defined and created through the HRA, a Port Authority, a Development District, a Rural Development District, or any other development statutes or special law. It may acquire or sell -6- Z�d property, enter into contracts, utilize eminent domain, lease property, apply for Foreign Trade Zone status, issue general obligation bonds subject to Chapter 475, issue Revenue Bonds, do various economic need studies, carry out P.R., improve land, etc. A city may levy .75 mills for the authority, or a greater amount subject to a reverse referendum. With some -significant exceptions an EDA can do what most all of the other development acts have provided over the years and was intended -to give all cities equal authority or the ability to compete equally without requesting special legislation. However, -the latter may not be achieved since unlike Port Authorities an EDA cannot 1) Issue general obligation bonds without a referendum, 2) Build structures on land owned by the authority, and 3) Must meet the TIF redevelopment standards to create a district. 9. OPTICAL SCAN VOTING DEVICES (SF2245 LAWS 1986, CHAP. 381). This statute adds to the list of permissable voting methods and devices Optical Scan Voting Machines which are the latest 'state of the art' in voting devices. Several cities have expressed interest in utilizing these for the upcoming election. Permission must be obtained from the Secretary of States Office and the particular machine used must be approved by that office. Optical Scan Voting Machines retain the best of previous voting methods in that people mark material similar to paper ballots in individual booths and then insert the ballot into a single device which electronically tallies the votes. Thus, the totalled results are available immediately upon closing the polls as they are with the mechanical lever machines. 10. INTEREST RATES-BONDS/ASSESSMENTS (HF22879 LAWS 19869 CHAP. s Interest rate maximums for Bonds, which have been keyed to the Bond Buyers Index for the month of authorization by Resolution or Month of sale or 10%, have been eliminated for Bonds sold April 1, 1986 to July 1, 1987. This no limit period is basically a trial because of the anticipation of variable rate issues some of which may become taxable. for income tax purposes. The legislature anticipates reviewing the issue in 1987. Interest rates charged on special assessments are still keyed off the Bond Buyers Index plus one percent or an estimated assumed maximum rate. For details on application of rates and limits, professional financial consultants should be utilized. 11. COMPARABLE WORTH (HF4189 LAWS 19869 CHAP. 459). In the last days of the session, Rep. Dempsey and Sen. Merriam lifted their Comparable Worth bill from the table and conducted a roving conference committee (ie. they never met publicly) without notice to anyone. The bill was then quickly passed. Instead of arbitors.being mandated to follow comparable worth study standards the bill indicates they shall consider the results and standards as well as employee objections. In essence this appears to make the study and study results arbitable. 12. WHAT DID NOT PASS House Research under the direction of Representative Bill Schreiber, spent a great deal of time making computer runs of various alternatives to the Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities formula. Through the efforts of the AMM and its individual member cities, no changes were made this year. Major elements of the final bill included a variable contribution rate; a 100% equalized contribution rate, phased in inclusion of the 1971 base year value, phased in inclusion of the pre 1979 TIF value, and elimination of the minimum distribution provisions. The AMM is committed to a thorough review of the F.D. formula and the key provisions suggested by Rep. Schreiber for the 1987 legislative session since a bill of some magnitude will almost certainly 09 pushed.- This effort will commence soon. Other than a provision affecting excess value for the Minneapolis School District, no major changes occurred to Tax Increment - Financing, although a form of volume cap for captured assessed- value and significant curtailment of pre 1979 districts was included up to the last hours of the session. TIF will, also, probably become a major 1987 issue pursued by Rep. Schreiber. The LMC will continue its efforts through its special task force to work on this legislation. The bill (HF2015 - SF1963) sponsored by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission which would have established a single, uniform rate structure for wastewater treatment in the Metropolitan area did not pass. It was on general orders in the House when that body adjourned. The bill had resulted from a six -months study by a special task force, appointed by the MWCC to look at the commissioner's rate structure Indications are that this issue will be studied during the interim by"#.*he House Local and Urban Affairs Committee. Many less significant but troublesome mandates and issues arising in 1985 were either defeated or not heard in the short 1986 session. A few, which may return in 1987, were plumbing inspections by licensed plumbers only., sale of city owned land by competitive bid only, allowing extra long trucks on certain state highways, and sales of strong beer and wine in grocery stores. These and other issues will be discussed by AMM policy committees and membership later this year in preparation for the 1987-1988 biennium. -8- Z(OO MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS !•FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: APRIL 89 1986 RE: SCOPING MEETING — U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Following the Council meeting on April 1, I attended the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Scoping meeting. The purpose of the scoping meeting was to identify and define issues that the public has concerning the managing of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuges. These issues will be reviewed and analyzed as the_U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepares an environmental impact statement on these various management techniques. In the past, members of the City Council have occasionally raised questions regarding the Minnesota Valley National Wild Life Refuge. If members of the Council have any questions, or concerns relative to Minnesota Valley, now would be an appropriate time to bring those questions up. If all issues of concern will be directed to me by May 1, I can respond with a letter by the submission deadline of May 10. Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me. KV/bls 4 MEMO TO: CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR PETERSON FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: APRIL 4, 1986 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER CITY -OWNED/ STANDARDIZED TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS In official action that was taken by the City Council at their April 1, 1986, meeting, a concept was given consideration whereby the City would construct and install uniform, temporary advertising signs throughout approved locations within the City. These signs would be designed to accommodate several identification signs that would meet a specific specification and design standard. Please make reference to the example that was prepared by City Council - member Ellison and is attached for your reference. The City Council is concerned about the number of temporary advertising signs that -are located at busy intersections throughout the community. I would like you to give consideration to this new concept that was proposed by the City Council and determine the feasibility of the project. Please take into consideration the following: 1. Locations: It would be necessary to determine the loca- tions that are suitable for installing a City -owned stan- dardized sign. 2. Size: Please prepare a set of specifications that would standardize the sign and each reader board/identification sign. 3. Cost: Please estimate the cost for construction and installation of these signs. Also determine which each of the individual reader board/identifications would cost to construct and, further, what is fair in terms of rental charges by the City. 4. Priority: Please determine a method in which the reader board/identification signs would be rented considering priority of space on the City sign and, further, the duration of time that those identification signs would be allowed. 5. Number of Signs: Please determine how many signs could be placed on one of the overall signs and, further, whether more than one size of sign should be given consideration. Please see #2 above. 6. Locations: Currently, a development is allowed two (2) temporary advertising signs in addition to any signs that are allowed on the subject development parcel. It would be 'necessary to determine the procedure for allowing a location and consideration for the two additional signs a developer might request. 7. Other Criteria: Please give consideration to any other criteria that might be appropriate in considering this project. It appears that the City Council would like to proceed with this concept for controlling and providing a beautification to temporary advertising signs throughout the community. It would be necessary to provide some type of transition such as, requiring developers to remove their temporary advertising signs and possibly provide a free or reduced rent for the first year to off -set expenses that they have incurred in the construction of their temporary adver- tising sign. Again, please give this priority consideration. If you need further assistance due to your departmental schedule, please con- tact my office and I will provide some administrative assistance either through our new intern or one of my Administrative Assis- tants. q�\j 11 W 17N L�& City Administrator cc: Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers TLH/kf Z� v3 -e �Z , eA 4 SA F/A K OAKS HILLT OPPERS OMt'ti �LMPSM 7-A ;1dill inis(nifive Of(iccx CITY OF NIE'NDOTA HEIGHTS A1)ri.1 3, 1.986 Docket 43754, Docket Section U.S. Department of Transportation Room 4107, Documentary Services Division Office of the General Council 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir/Madam: The City of Mendota Heights is located under one of the predominant flight. paths of Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Consequently, we exper- ience a significant noise impact, and have seen that impact increase dramatically since airline deregulation took effect a few years ago. Much of the increased traffic, and resultant noise.problem, is due to Twin Cities based carriers North- west Orient and Republic providing duplicative flights to the same destinations at approximately the same times. By the attached resolution, our City Council has voted to endorse the proposed acquisition of Republic airlines by Northwest Orient Airlines. We feel that the merger would result in a much more efficient use of airline resources, by reducing the number of half empty flights, and of course, should greatLy help our noise situation. We are also impressed by the fact that Northwest Orient has been recognized industry -wide as the leader in trying to reduce negative noise impacts on communities surrounding the airports it serves. We hope that the U.S. Department of Transportation will approve the proposed acquisition. enc• KDF:mad1.r cc: U.S. Department of Justice Congre>:siaan Bruce Vertu Congressman BiLl Frenzel Con,ressm:in Martin Sabo Se-nator 1):i,,,c Durenberger S,21LatOr Rudy Boschwitz N'orthwe'st , Republic Airlines Sincerely, Kevin 1) . Fra:',e 1 1. City Administrator Sandra Cardebri_ng, Chair -Met. Council Ray Glumack, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Exec., Dir. 750 South ('I.v.1 Drive • NICn(101,1 Hei-1,llts, 1Minneso to 5_5120 152-1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 86-27• RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MERGER OF NORTHWEST ORIENT AND REPUBLIC AIRLINES WHEREAS-, Mendota Heights is located under one of the major flight paths for arrivals and departures at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS, although the number of airport operations has increased dramatically since deregulation in 1978, the number of passengers has remained relatively constant; and WHEREAS, much of this increased traffic, which is having a very negative noise impact on the.community, is due to Twin Cities based Northwest and Republic providing duplicative flights to the same destinations; and WHEREAS, Northwest Orient Airline is the recognized industry leader in dealing with the noise problem. NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights supports the proposed acquisition of Republic Airlines by Northwest Orient Airlines. The Council believes this merger would reduce noise impacts by reducing the volume of unnecessary, duplicative flights, and by placing a majority of Twin Cities airport operations under control of an operator with a proven record in noise reduction efforts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights urges the U.S. Department of Transportation to approve the proposed merger. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this First day of April, 1986. ATTEST: K thleen M. Swanson ity Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By I►C't-Zj!J. of L�X�-UL-C� Robert G. Lockwood Mayor