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