Loading...
06/25/1996 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JUNE 25, 1996 5:00 P.M. MUNICIPAL CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. CENTRAL PARK CONCEPT IV. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN V. COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY/DAKOTA COUNTY VI. OTHER BUSINESS 7:30 VII. OPEN ISSUES FORUM/COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, LEGISLATION & MET COUNCIL VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JUNE 20, 1996 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 25 A special City Council meeting workshop was scheduled for Tuesday, June 25, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting will be divided into two pans: 1) Council direction regarding • Central Park Concept • Water Quality Management Plan • Comprehensive Transportation Policy for Dakota County 2) At 7:30 p.m., representatives from Dakota County, the school districts, legislature, Met Council, etc., will join us for an open issues forum. A light dinner will be served. CENTRAL PARK CONCEPT Several locations have been discussed for design of a central park that would serve the community for community -wide events. The concept of a central park theme was discussed at length during the central task force meetings that were held to review the promenade proposal. One of the alternate proposals to the promenade site has been the 80 acre Unisys parcel, now owned by Joe Miller under the corporate name Scenic Enterprises, Inc. They have submitted an application for a comprehensive guide plan amendment to change the 80 acres of property from major office to a mix of uses including residential, commercial and park. For additional information o this matter, r fer to a memo prepared by Julie Farnham, Planner which is enclosed on pages , through. The purpose for discussing this item is to determine whether the Scenic Enterprises site should be given further consideration for a central park/community center. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT_ PLAN The Water Quality Management Plan, adopted in April 1990, has a provision that the program will be reviewed by the City Council after the first five years of implementation. The program was reviewed at a joint meeting of the City Council and APRNRC on November 28, 1995. The only major directive issued by the City Council at that meeting was that a draft lawn chemical control ordinance be indefinitely postponed for adoption and the APRNRC should proceed with drafting a wetland buffer ordinance. As a result of that meeting and on behalf of the APRNRC Subcommittee, there are several recommendations and policies that require concurrence by the City Council. For a copy of that information, refer to a memo prepared by the Water Resources Coordinator and Director of Parks and Recreation enclosed on pages q through �_. There is no formal action required at this meeting, the policies and recommendations would be presented as a consent item at a future City Council meeting based on Council direction at the workshop. COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY/DAKOTA COUNTY Dakota County has prepared a draft Transportation Policy Plan and has submitted it for preliminary review by all cities and townships within the County. The Public Works Directors, City Engineers, and Planners have met periodically with Dakota County staff to provide input into this draft plan. In addition, the Dakota County area City Managers have also had a brief review of these proposed policies. The staff would like to present this draft proposal to the City Council in hopes of preparing a formal preliminary response by the City of Eagan so that it can be taken into consideration in the preparation of the final document. Also, it will provide an opportunity for other Dakota County cities to determine areas of mutual concern so that a joint position can be taken in forwarding formal comments and positions to the Dakota County Board of Commissioner. Enclosed on pages � through of is a summary memo prepared by the Director of Public Works highlighting specific areas of the policy plan where Council should direct their attention. Also enclosed without page number is a copy of the draft plan for Council's reference and further in-depth detailed review if desired. The Public Works Director and City Administrator will also provide further insights into various issues as discussion warrants during the workshop. OTHER BUSINESS There are no Other Business items at this time. OPEN ISSUES FORUM Attached on page is a separate agenda for the "collaborative meeting" that Councilmember Masin has coordinated with the assistance of the City Administrator and Administrative Intern. The purpose of the meeting is to collaborate with local elected and appointed officials in an effort to discuss topics and issues that relate to a "healthier community." City Councilmember Masin plans to comment in her opening remarks that this is a first time effort to meet on a collaborative basis and in that regard the format and meeting is an experiment. After some presentation and discussion and during the wrap up those in attendance will be asked to make suggestions that lead to future topics and meetings that enhance greater communications between all elected officials.4ryd appointed of cials that are serving our community. Attached and referenced as pages through is a copy of the letter that was personalized to each elected official, inviting them to the meeting on Tuesday. Attached to that letter is the official mailing list. There is a conflict with a special meeting Independent School District #197 set for the same evening, however, they are hoping to send someone to participate in the meeting. The City Administrator's office has invited the Ministerium Association to the meeting. I City Administrator TLH/j eh Wor MEMO DATE: JUNE 20, 1996 TO: THOMAS HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: JULIE FARNHAM, PLANNER RE: CENTRAL AREA PARK/COMMUNITY CENTER BACKGROUND Scenic Enterprises, Inc. submitted an application for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to change the Central Area (CA) land use plan to redesignate approximately 80 acres of property located north of Yankee Doodle, west of Pilot Knob, from major office to a mix of uses including residential, commercial and park. )X%ile no detailed development plan is proposed at this time, Scenic Enterprises has presented a proposed mix of land use that would include 49.5 acres of residential at 3.5 units/acre, 4.5 acres of neighborhood business, 2.5 acres for a motel, 2.0 acres for multiple family (assisted housing) and 21.5 acres for a community park. Initially, Scenic Enterprises requested redesignation of the entire 80 acres to D -II residential. It is the City's policy to consider comprehensive guide plan amendments prior to review of detailed development proposals (e.g. subdivisions, planned developments, etc.). As such, the Advisory Planning Commission began their review of the initial comprehensive guide plan amendment request (CA to D -II) at a public hearing on May 16, 1996. No action was taken and the public hearing was continued. The APC requested input and direction from the City Council regarding development of a central park/community center. This 80 -acre site was one of several sites identified for the potential development of a central park/community center. Several Commission members indicated that the question of whether this site would be used for a central park or not is essential to their decision on the requested comprehensive guide plan amendment because a park would impact, and be impacted by,. surrounding land uses. The APC will review Scenic Enterprises' revised request at their July 23, 1996 meeting. The idea of developing a central park grew out of the Council's direction and the work of the Central Area Task Force. Initially, a park and community building were intended to be part of the Eagan Promenade. However, that site made available by Opus for the park proved unsuitable for the type of activities desired. Last summer the City began looking for other sites within or near the Central Area that would be appropriate for a central park. The 200 -acre site previously owned by Northwestern Mutual Life and this 80 -acre site previously owned by Unisys were both considered potential park sites due to their central locations and attractive natural features. They are also some of the only remaining large undeveloped parcels in the Central Area vicinity. Further investigation of these, or other potential park sites, was put on hold while the City considered the Carriage Hills land use amendment request. To date, no decision has been made as to whether a central park facility or a community center should be developed in the Central Area and, if so, what facilities should this park provide and where, specifically, should it be located. 3 Memo - Central Park/Scenic Enterprises Special City Council Meeting - June 25, 1996 Page 2 KEY QUESTIONS The APC, in requesting input and direction from the City Council regarding development of a central park asked for the Council's response to two questions: 1. Is the City still interested in developing a central park? 2. If so, does the City want to consider this site for such a park? The first question raises two other basic questions: 1) what facilities or features should this park provide?; and 2) what sites are available with the desired characteristics to meet the program needs? Identifying the desired park facilities or features is necessary to define the spatial and physical site requirements. A survey conducted as part of the Central Area Task Force study ranked several features for a potential park. The results suggest that there is support for a central park to function as a place to host community -wide events such as "Eagan Days", 4th of July celebrations, and Christmas displays. The survey also identified a wide range of desired facilities such as pedestrian/bike paths, community center, amphitheater, tot lot and various active recreation facilities (e.g. tennis, soccer). Natural features such as trees, water, and gardens were also highly ranked. The amount of space needed and its physical characteristics (e.g. size, topography) will depend on what specific facilities the park is intended to provide. Parking and access must also be considered. How much parking will be needed and whether the parking must all be provided on-site or if there is off-site parking available must be determined. If the park is intended for broad community use, it will be important to have good access from major transportation corridors, including good pedestrian access. Once the desired features and facilities are defined, specific spatial requirements and natural characteristics can be determined. This information can be used to identify sites of adequate size which have the desired natural characteristics (e.g. trees, wetlands, hills, level ground). Following is a list of sites within the City of Eagan that might work for a central park/community center. (NOTE: This is a cursory list. Staff has not done any analysis of these sites to determine their appropriateness or availability) : - Property at NW intersection of Lexington and Wescott (Pat McCarthy, owner) (approximately 39 acres) - Dart property (formerly NWML) at Lexington and Yankee Doodle (200 acres) - Leo and Kevin Murphy property adjacent to Blackhawk Park (33 acres) - Ostenson property north of Eagan Promenade (57 acres) - Scenic Enterprises (formerly Unisys) (80 acres) Again, the appropriateness of any of these sites will depend on the desired program of activities and facilities to be provided by a central park/community center. It is also possible that no single r Memo - Central Park/Scenic Enterprises Special City Council Meeting - June 25, 1996 Page 3 site will adequately accommodate all the desired activities and facilities. Some activities might work better in one location than another. In addition, the availability of the property may be a key consideration. Some properties may not be readily available or may be cost prohibitive to acquire and develop. SUMMARY The question of whether a central park and/or community center is worth pursuing raises questions about what facilities or features such a park should provide. Until those questions are answered, it is very difficult to determine what sites are available with the desired characteristics. It is clear, however, that sites with sufficient size (i.e. 20+ acres) for a community park are becoming more scarce as the City reaches full development. The sites that are available may become increasingly expensive or they may contain natural features that make them more difficult to develop. The Scenic Enterprises site was one of several sites considered for a central area park last summer after the Opus site was determined to be unsuitable. It's attributes include attractive physical features (wetlands, oak woodlands, rolling topography), close proximity to the center of the City, and good access off major roadways (Yankee Doodle, Pilot Knob, and future ring road), Whether it is the best site for a central park and/or community center depends on the specific program of facilities and activities desired. In addition, the availability and cost of the land is not entirely clear. While Scenic Enterprises' proposed land use mix indicates 21.5 acres for community park (of which a portion is wetland), the area that would constitute required parkland dedication and the cost of purchasing the additional acreage has not been determined yet. According to City policy, 8 acres (10%) would be required for parkland dedication. However, 70% of that (5.6 acres) must be dry, usable land. Water areas only qualify for half credit, therefore, .assuming 2.4 of the 8 acres is water, the corresponding dedication requirement for the water area is 4.8 acres. Therefore the total minimum park dedication would be 10.4 acres (5.6 4.8). Additional land dedication might also be necessary to achieve 70% usable land area due to steep slopes or woodlands. ACTION REQUESTED The APC is looking for input and direction from the City Council regarding whether the Scenic Enterprise's site should be considered for a central park/community center. While it may not be feasible to make all the decisions relative to developing a park at this time, the APC would like to know if they should consider this site as a candidate for a possible central park as they review the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment requested by Scenic Enterprises. POTENTIAL SITES *M T.� o 9- PARK x ' I'I a�DCEVE'.►I� 31 •+IGNY vlE+w� 1 COUNTRY 4 PaRK r1 xl �� IOME �'i i F. LEXNGTp �V "f >, / ,�• > U�..v . SEA+IIA�C '�u 9i - PARK i \ iyt yry I` rQ r.� �f•�. .. "'•.. e r !r FYI i \ S. POST /{,t F E �/ #w' _ - / 1 �-�' 94? rte. :a�I .ONE O 29 / {d - �,� II 1'�I"`R 2c ol� EEJf V V L�114L"' yappw ytw_ RDl f —.w�A- -OwERVEw 40 V \S S SCENIC ENTERPRISES `A PAR - OSTENSON SII !•— ` � dam. ' ! r✓-�� ��L I .Ij DART -AwAC °- QUARRY O i � °• '• <� 27 PARK S Ftp wOaDROM Rowooc -4 ,� i1a17 SPRUCE cT �.., -.NCEE ao.o �'AN{EE DODOtFROAD _ 5 1Z EATMENTS .41 d' ; ' TR"ES, „1:^- FACLITY CITYs a' I �' i:' TEARY MARK � i� .i - C JT_ I'aF 1 «M�� gFi� II ! i 9 �f _` ��;,0'C£A?xr -• ,'"r J.r sA y� `////�;�,./T.��\,' (■ �� � >; ate' K�l� I y FAl w. , I y c iN �iyK_`^" Jam- _ROAD`-� AfOC� ✓ MC CARTHY Ba w w < C - /MIC ���Eli �^_ IL MURPHYµ J / � n Cal 0. 31 � 311" .IAN JEEmtflpp�_ C� OATRICK rj�y rglt yEw 1Q s a1xw� n �.. • �/ 4, J EAGAN �- PARK <! V� EXNGTON•Of E. ��►`ILE'.IC FAC4TYWL t ir :C^ ROAD - - — `—vm; r � CAC s � I MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS HEDGES, ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RICH BRASCH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW, ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS DATE: JUNE 19, 1996 Upon adoption of the Eagan Water Quality Management Plan in April 1990, the City Council included a provision to carry out a review of the program after the first five years of implementation. To fulfill that requirement, the Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission through its Natural Resources Subcommittee began a review of the program in July 1995. The results of the program review were presented to the City Council for comment at a joint meeting of the City Council and the APRNRC on November 28, 1995. That presentation included an overview of the revenues and expenditures for that portion of the program funded through the storm water utility fund, a summary of data on water quality for key high priority lakes identified in the plan, and a summary of recommendations for changes in program policies and priorities in several different areas. The only major directive issued by the City Council at that meeting was that a draft lawn chemical control ordinance be indefinitely post-poned for consideration for adoption and that the APRNRC should proceed with drafting of a wetland buffer ordinance. Recommendations Recommendations for changes in the water quality management program as a result of the programmatic review are summarized below: Recommendation 1: The following water bodies should be re-classified: • Carlson Lake from Class 11 indirect contact recreation to Class I direct contact recreation Pond EP -2 from Class V nutrient trap to Class II indirect contact recreation pending transfer of title to the City for the adjacent Borchert Ingersoll property • Pond JP -47 from Class IV wildlife habitat to a Class VII storm water basin • Pond JP -15 from Class II indirect contact recreation to Class VI sediment basin • Pond CP -9 from Class V nutrient trap to Class II indirect contact recreation • Pond JP -23 from Class V nutrient trap to Class IV wildlife habitat, pending establishment of un - maintained natural vegetative buffers by all residents as directed by the APRNRC. Recommendation 2: A criterion for "Rehabilitation Potential' should be included in the ranking system to establish long-term lake enhancement priorities and the revised list of priorities shown in Attachment 7 I adopted. Recommendation 3: The need for an ordinance to address regulation of lawn chemical use should be reviewed periodically. A wetland buffer ordinance should be drafted for consideration by the Cite Council. Recommendation 4: The attached list of policy statements (Attachment 2) should be adopted. Unless the City Council directs otherwise, this will conclude the review for the program and this item will appear on the consent agenda for the July 2 City Council meeting. Please let us know if you need any additional information. '4 - z Ken Vraa, Director Parks and Recreation Dept. Rich Brasch. Water Resources Coordinator Parks and Recreation Dept. �N r v O CO �.1� C1D 0 r N ch r r r rV� N N C fQ CIWDNm0)tocoQlf�f�tc�rCaovl0v cDLOUI)O W M MMNN scO a c oo00o0 00000000000 ,p rNr.e-�y rN r rr rr w a0a etti00 ICY Oif� OT OrNcf) l0 it vNc'70)co0 m co I- co R�' c7 t1 U7LS c l c+0? Nrr L 1 O O r JJ O XL l Y_i C C to N Y o —`�+ a° E Y ,c N F J ay O a,ow CC %0 0a 'i mu -to CO N -S 'UC 0 U. mU- cn w £ � ac ca .CIO �' o 0 C p J c0 ����p Li �am,,Y E.0 m c� ' a M6 c z, -j r V ,� o �c �,c 3 c� m.� - p p r 0 o s eo � o�N.��•c �: roc°U� �. ~-j ML6W-j 0022.00 2 Wm � L C J2 N IL Z ~ t' et c? N to N q^ N M M 0 CO N 3 mm��om V WJa. �J��Ua��� ■1..1 O m � oL tQ L � LN � a LU �N r v O CO �.1� C1D 0 r N ch r r r rV� N N C fQ CIWDNm0)tocoQlf�f�tc�rCaovl0v cDLOUI)O W M MMNN scO a c oo00o0 00000000000 ,p rNr.e-�y rN r rr rr w a0a etti00 ICY Oif� OT OrNcf) l0 it vNc'70)co0 m co I- co R�' c7 t1 U7LS c l c+0? Nrr L 1 O O r JJ O XL l Y_i C C to N Y o —`�+ a° E Y ,c N F J ay O a,ow CC %0 0a 'i mu -to CO N -S 'UC 0 U. mU- cn w £ � ac ca .CIO �' o 0 C p J c0 ����p Li �am,,Y E.0 m c� ' a M6 c z, -j r V ,� o �c �,c 3 c� m.� - p p r 0 o s eo � o�N.��•c �: roc°U� �. ~-j ML6W-j 0022.00 2 Wm � L C J2 N IL Z ~ t' et c? N to N q^ N M M 0 CO N 3 mm��om V WJa. �J��Ua��� � � � .•- N N N N N N N N M !r1 C7 try _NN NNNNNNNNCr) N N N N N - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N LO 0 f- 0 0 0 r N cry er 0 �rq- qIT'TrNNNNNNNNN c'' �NNNNNNNLO NNNNNNNN c c c C m m O J -j CO CO J O m �G t O a d m O O O O Q m H � y O O tt p p p Y'� O a UF U5 -0j � �rNCII �N�r����� Mrq aaa'aaa 'aa ' i Q Q Q� Q m m�� m Q J J 0 Q to CEJ Attachment 2 Recommendations for New Program Policies A. Issue: Handling of resident -initiated requests to re-classify water bodies. Policy: All requests for re-classification of water bodies identified in the Ragan water quality management plan should be submitted in the form of a petition to the City's parks and recreation department director and/or water resources coordinator. Water resources staff will prepare a report for the Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission which will assess the technical merits of the petition and determine which, if any, recreational water body classification criteria are met. The Advisory Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission will review the information and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding what change, if any, should be made to the classification for the subject water body. If the water body is re-classified to recreational status, the Commission will also determine where the water body fits with respect to the City's long-term lake enhancement priorities as per the method outlined in Chapter 7 "Prioritization System" in the WQMP. This information will be used to determine the appropriate level of City resources that will be devoted to improving the condition of the water body. Rationale: There should be available a forum that residents can use to request re-evaluation of the management classification of a particular water body. The APRNRC is the most appropriate advisory body to review those requests and make recommendations to the City Council. The evaluation of these requests must take into account both the management classification and placement in the list of long-term lake enhancement priorities to guide allocation of City resources in the management of these water bodies. B. Issue: Management of aquatic weeds, especially exotics. Policy: The City recognizes the benefits of native submergent and emergent aquatic plant communities and will manage recreational water bodies in a way which favors the establishment and perpetuation of a balanced, native rooted aquatic plant community. As resources allow, the City will also work to reduce the incidence of non-native aquatic weeds through the use of such methods as cutting, mechanical removal, water level drawdown, aquatic herbicides, and public education. Rationale for Policyi The City recognizes that successful efforts to increase water clarity in recreational water bodies will increase the incidence of rooted aquatic macrophytes and/or aquatic emergent plants due to improved light penetration through the water column. Rooted aquatic macrophytes and emergents provide a wide range of ecological, recreational, and other benefits, including maintaining water clarity, providing habitat and food sources for fish and wildlife, and stabilizing shorelines and water body bottoms. Extensive growths of non-native macrophytes-particularly curly leaf pond weed -have severe adverse impacts on the ecology and water quality of lakes and ponds. These adverse impacts include internal loading of the lake/pond system with phosphorus during recreational season die -offs which can decrease water clarity below the goals established in the City's Water Quality Management Plan. It is therefore important to reduce the incidence of these exotics as much as practicable. C. AAue: Neighborhood requests for assistance in improving water quality in ponds with no public access. Policy: The City should provide assistance to residents who request help from the City in protecting and improving the quality of specific lakes and ponds. The assistance provided by the City will emphasize education of water body residents in reducing source pollutant loadings to the water body and resource monitoring. It is generally recognized that since shoreline residents have the most to gain from improvement of the resource, they should take the lead in implementing these efforts. Rationale: With over 380 lakes and ponds in the storm sewer system -all of which have been highly altered by urban development -City staff and financial resources must be targeted at the highest priority based on public benefit. At the same time, there are resources in the City to which the public does not have access that are also degraded. The City recognizes the importance of assisting residents in decreasing pollutant loading to these resources. In general, the City role should be one of support and guidance of resident -led, on -the -ground efforts. Costly capital improvements and in -lake management measures will not be undertaken with the City as a participant in cost-sharing unless the effort is part of a high priority, current City effort aimed at rehabilitating/protecting water bodies on the list of long-term enhancement priorities in the Eagan WQMP. l� _city of eagan TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL C/O THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TOM COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 219 1996 SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION POLICY/SYSTEMS PLAN TOPIC MEMO Dakota County is in the process of preparing a Comprehensive Transportation Policy/Systems Plan. It is expected that it will be adopted within the next 6-9 months. The "Systems" portion of the plan will provide a review of existing demographics and travel conditions, forecast the future travel demand, identification of needed transportation improvements and an implementation schedule for a 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A draft of the Transportation Plan "Policies" has been printed and distributed to the cities and townships within the County for review and comment. There are 15 sections of policies categorized as follows: 1. Finance/Funding 2. Energy/Environment 3. Design/Construction 4. Right-of-way Acquisition 5. Functional Classification 6. Access/Mobility 7. Jurisdictional Classification 8. Intermodalism 9. Railroads/Trucks & Navigation 14. Transit 11. Bikeways & Pedestrians 12. Planning./Cooperation 13. Land Use 14. Public Participation 15. Operation/Maintenance Proposed policies which are new or are major revisions of existing County policies are in shaded text for easy identification. /3 BACKGROUND The current transportation plan was prepared in 1982. Beginning in 1990, the County began the initial efforts to update this plan with spot policy revisions by County Board resolution. Those efforts were renewed in the Fall of 1994 and will culminate with formal County Board adoption in early 1997. The attached timeline shows the process steps leading up to formal adoption. ISSUES Because the draft policy plan is such a lengthy document combining both the present policy and proposed revisions, I will attempt to identify and highlight specific issues that Council should be aware of and will indicate with a "+" or ` -" in front of the policy number whether this is deemed a positive or a negative modification from our City staffs perspective. 1. Finance/Fundin [+] FF.1.C. Participation in storm sewer construction will increase from a maximum $6,000 per mile to 55% of the total cost based on participating flows of County right-of-way. [+] FF.1.I. The County will now participate 55% in the cost of low maintenance landscape plantings within County right-of-way subject to protection of safety clear zones and sight lines. [+/-] FF.1.J. New policy will provide for County participation based on their contributing flows towards water quality improvements to sedimentation basins and storm water detention ponds (+). However, they exclude cleaning of sump catch basins within the County roads which can intercept much of the sediment before it reaches the ponds (-), [-] FF.2.B. The County will participate in streetlight installation only at signalized intersections. The lighting of all intersecting streets to a County road are deemed a safety issue to provide advanced identification of an exit point from a County road. The County should participation 500/6 for both installation and O/M costs. [-] FF.2.B. & C. The participating "portion" of MnDOT and/or Federal funds should be clarified and stated as "actual participation" to avoid future disputes similar to the 35E/Yankee Doodle Road signal revision where MnDOT will not participate and the County says they will not cover MnDOT's "portion". [-] FF.4. The County Board, at their workshop, deleted the County staff recommendation that the County participate up to 55% of the costs for noise abatement required for County road construction. The County Board feels this should be a 100% City responsibility. 1V [+] FF.5 This allows both the City and the County to advance funding to each other to allow a County Road project to proceed prior to the other agencies funding program. [-] FF.7 City staff agrees that Federal or State funds should be subtracted before the 45/55 cost split is determined. However, "other special funds" should be clarified or deleted. [-] FF -8 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) should be reserved as a City's method of financing its share of County road projects rather than being applied first before the City/County 45/55 split is determined. There could be times when the sheer size of the TIF district and revenue generated would exceed the cost of the proposed County improvement resulting in 100% City cost. [+] FF. 11.1 & 2. This policy provides for constructing bikeways on both sides of all County roads and sharing all bikeway costs 45/55 versus the County funding 100% of bikeways only on the County bikeway system. The old policy excluded participation in any trailways on Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue. [-] FF. 11.4. The County will participate 55% in the cost of overlays and reconstruction of County bikeways. However, this policy should be expanded to include sealcoats. if the County will not participate in life extending preventative maintenance sealcoats, they should fund 100% of the overlay costs. 2. Eneray/Environment [+] EEA. This policy should be expanded to incorporate the creation of wetland banking for County projects. 3. Design/Construction [-] D/C. 5.2. This policy preventing manholes to be placed within the road surface is not practical in urban areas. This should be modified to allow their location anywhere except within a driving lane. This would allow placement on centerline, painted medians, safety lanes, etc. 4. Right -of -Way [+] RW.2. This proposed policy provides for right-of-way acquisition (through condemnation if necessary) to be consistent with plat dedication requirements. It has been difficult to justify plat dedication of right-of-way that was often times greater than the actual right-of-way acquired in conjunction with a County road project. The alternative would be to reduce the dedication requirements for new plats. l� [+] RW.5 This policy proposes a County -wide map identifying long-term system needs and related right-of-way requirements. Different functional classifications and traffic volumes require different right-of-way needs. This support justification will greatly assist right-of-way dedication with new development. [+] RW.7 The County proposes to adopt an official mapping ordinance formally identifying corridors for future County road extensions (i.e. Yankee Doodle Road to IGH) to prevent/deter development resulting in greater future land acquisition costs. If cities help to protect and preserve these corridors through land use regulations, the County will then participate in acquisition costs up to 55%. (See FF. 3. 1.) 5. Functional Classification [-] FC.3. The new access spacing guidelines does not take into consideration traffic volumes for large private industrial/commercial users. It forces the dedication of public streets to accommodate access to County roads. Also, access spacing guidelines must take into consideration greater access needs in high density urban areas of the County rather than just looking at its pure cross -county mobility function. [-] FC.6. This policy opens the door for the County's Plat Commission (comprised of staff members) to review/approve internal local road and development layouts. [-] FC.7 Promotes more traffic on local roads with greater conflicts (access driveways, residential homes, pedestrians, etc.) to relieve traffic on County roads. 6. Access/Mobility [+] A/M.1. Promotes interconnection of neighborhoods especially between communities. However, due to limited County jurisdiction, they will only be able to promote and facilitate cross -community coordination and cooperation. [-] A/M. 2. This more specifically adopts the access spacing guidelines (Appendix 6 to plan). As previously stated, the guidelines do not properly recognize high density urban development requiring greater accessibility which often times is necessary for economic development and viability within the County. 7. Jurisdictional Classification (Turnbacksl [+] JC. 1. The early identification of potential jurisdictional tumbacks will assist all cities in helping to better plan long-term financial and maintenance obligations. [-] JC.3. This policy looks to the City to relinquish Municipal State Aid designation on County roads if the County road is eligible for County State Aid funding. The loss of Municipal State 'l� Aid designation will result in reduced funding to local cities and transfer that funding to the County. [-] JC.x. The County staff is reluctant to specify criteria regarding the condition a County road must be in prior to turning it back to the local city's jurisdiction for perpetual maintenance. They prefer to leave it up to the County Engineer's discretion as to what physical improvements would be necessary. This policy (or lack thereof) exposes the City to considerable financial liability at the County Engineer's discretion. S. Intermodal [+] IM.2. Promotes evaluation of franchise (occupancy permit) fees for use of public right-of- way for private transportation corridors (i.e. fiber optics, pipelines, telecommunications, etc.). Also promotes evaluation and coordination of specialty corridors/conduit construction to accommodate future needs with County road re/construction. Also promotes transit corridors and advanced planning of compatible adjacent land uses for efficient services (park & rides, bus pull-outs, etc.). 9. Rails, Trucks & Navization [+] R/T.2. This policy provides for a comprehensive inventory of all railroad crossings and early applications for State and Federal funding. [+] R/T.3. Since most County roads are designed to a 9-ton/axel standard, this policy would designate corridors for 10 -ton routes linking commercial users to the State trunk highway system. This policy would also include locating trunk terminals and heavy industrial users on the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) to help identify segments requiring 10 -ton upgrades. 10. Transit [+/-] T/R.1-10. Incorporation of a transit element in the transportation plan is commendable. However, all policy statements only "encourage, promote, consider, etc." other agencies to address transit issues. It does not seem to take the proactive forward-looking role of helping to provide good transit ser6ce throughout northern Dakota County. 11 Bikeways & Pedestrians [+] BP.1. This policy creates a County -wide bikeway and regional trail system. [-] BP.x.. The proposed policy plan does not address pedestrian crosswalks on County roads. City staff recommends the County incorporate basic elements of the City's recently adopted Crosswalk Policy to provide for the safe interaction of pedestrians and County road traffic. /7 12. Plan ninp-/Cooperation [-] PC.1. Provides for a "periodic" review and update of the transportation policy plan. Should specifically state a minimum of 5 years for our fast growing County since the last update was prepared in 1982. [+] PC.9. Identifies the coordination efforts with the MCTO, MVTA., and DARTS agencies to develop strategies for transit service within the County, 13. Land Use [-] LU.2.4. This proposes to expand the Contiguous Plat Ordinance to require local municipalities to demonstrate noise mitigation measures on new developments when warranted. This will bring the County into local land use planning. [+] LUA. Creates a stronger partnership between the City and the County in responding to adjacent land use concerns for proposed County road improvements. 14. Public Participation [+] PP.1 & 2. Early communications and neighborhood meetings with adjacent property owners is very beneficial to achieving a successful project. The County should be commended for past efforts and this proposed future policy. Also, the ongoing communication, solicitation of comments and review with local municipalities of the proposed Comprehensive Transportation Policy Plan is very beneficial to achieving a true partnership. 15. Operation/Maintenance [-] O/N4.4 & 10. Streetlights should not be excluded from maintenance, [+] O.M.6. The County is proposing to maintain all existing and new emergency vehicle signal preemption systems. This provides greater efficiencies and use of technical resources. [+] MO. The policy statement supports expanding signal preemption operation from public safety vehicles only to include transit vehicles as well. [ ] O/M.11. Same as FF 2.B. Lighting of intersections with County roads provides a benefit (safety, efficiency, etc.) to County road users and should not only be financed but operated and maintained either by the County or with a 50/50 participation on O & M. [+] O/M. 19. Promotes coordination for local city review prior to issuing special permits affecting County roads to avoid conflicts. [+] O/M. 25. Adopts the Minnesota Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices for the installation of all signs. This provides continuity and compatibility with current City policy. [+] O/M. 26. This is another positive partnership policy allowing the joint purchase and use of equipment or other resources between agencies whenever beneficial. This has occurred on an informal basis in the past. [-] O/M. 33. The mowing of medians and boulevards is programmed for only once per month. With City maintenance programs of a higher frequency, this will result in different maintenance standards along a County road or require the City to take over this maintenance responsibility. Presently, the City mows all urban boulevards on County roads where an offstreet trail exists with no County assistance and/or reimbursement. [-] O/M. 34. Current policy provides for County road sweeping "each Spring". This policy statement should have a completion goal of May 15 similar to local municipalities. This policy should also incorporate a strategy for private contractual services when necessary (system growth, late Spring, etc.) [+] O/M 38, 39 & 40. The integration of asbuilt record plans of completed County road improvements and local utilities on the GIS system will be very beneficial for both design and maintenance. SUMMARY This has been a very long and involved process for Dakota County. However, it will result in a very comprehensive transportation plan which will be very beneficial to all communities. It is strongly recommended that all communities that share mutual concerns regarding this plan collectively present those concerns to the County Board at the appropriate time. There may be other issues and proposed policies that the Council will want to discuss. This memo was not meant to be restrictive of discussion, but merely to highlight issues that have been discussed during past reviews. If additional information or background would be helpful, please let me know, and I'll be happy to respond. Respectfully submitted, Director of Public Works TAC/, Attachment: Draft Transportation Policy Plan Process Timeline cc: Mike Foertsch, Assistant City Engineer (W/O Attach.) Arnie Erhart, Superintendent of Streets/Equipment (W/O Attach.) C0UNCILMTGS'96/q=nA&696.jj FT POUCY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Highway and Planning stall` have design a process for developing policies for the Transportation Plan. The new policies would respond to city concerns, township concerns, incorporate new environmental regulations, address the impacts of projeded development in the County, and the funding crisis. TIMELINE September 1995 Highway and Planning staff form Policy Subcommittee to design process for Policy Development for Transportation Plan November 1995 Met with city Public Works and Planning staff to discuss revisions to existing County policy and to identify issues to be addressed in the Transportation Plan. February 1996 Met with the Township Officers to identify issues to be addressed in the Transportation Plan and revisions to existing County policy. December 1995 - County Highway and Planning staff formed 15 policy development teams to revise current County policy and develop new policies. The Policy Development Teams convened from December through March to revise existing County policy and develop new policies. March 1996 Highway and Planning staff requested a workshop with the County Board. The purpose of this workshop is to present the proposed policies developed by the Policy Development Teams and to obtain direction from the County Board on critical issues for the County (e.g., oost-share, noise abatement, growth scenarios, an official mapping ordinance). April 1996 County Board workshop on transportation policies Highway and Planning staff will revise the proposed policies according to Board comments. The proposed policies including the County Board comments will be presented to the County Board at the Physical Development Committee of the Whole on April 23,1996. May 1996 Meet with the city Public Works and Planning staff on May 2, 1996, to receive their comments on the proposed policy document. Meet with Township Officers for comment on proposed policy document May 1996 After meeting with the cities and the townships, County staff will meet with the Metropolitan Council to discuss the proposed policy document June- Dec. 1996 Transportation policies are incorporated in the text of the Draft Transportation Policy/Systems Plan. DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PLAN DOCUMENT Writing the text of the Transportation Plan will require extensive research and review. TIMELINE July 1996 Policy Development Completed and Drafting of Plan begins August 1996 Draft of Existing Conditions Chapter & general layout presented to PLANC Draft of Existing Conditions Chapter & general layout present to PDC October 1996 Draft Finalized for PDC review November 1996 Draft Man Presented to PDC for review & comment Comments from PDC incorporated into Draft Transportation Plan December 1996 Revised Draft Transportation Plan presented to County Board FORMAL PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS Atter the Transportation Plan is drafted and reviewed intemally it must be released for review by the Metropolitan Council and the public through a formai public review process. Assuming County staff has implemented the public input process discussed above and has involved the appropriate state, regional, and local agencies (e.g., MnDOT, Metropolitan Council, MCTO, MVrA, DARTS, adjacent counties, cities, townships) this format review process should proceed smoothly. TIMELINE November 1996 Draft Transportation Plan presented to PDC December 1996 Draft Transportation Plan presented to County Board County Board accepts final draft Submission of Transportation Plan to Metropolitan Council January 1997 Metropolitan Council conducts 90 -day Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment formal review process February 1997 Dakota County conducts public hearing on Transportation Policy/Systems Plan March 1997 Metropolitan Council 90 -day Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Apnl/May 1997 Dakota County staff incorporate corrmentstecornmendations from the formal review period into final document June 1997 Dakota County Board adopts Transportation Plan c O �J W = O mom CL N E H low, to .� L r O V ti M -V A COLLABORATIVE MEETING Tuesday June 25, 1996 7:30 p.m. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER COMMUNITY ROOM L WELCOME - Mayor Tom Egan II. INTRODUCTION - City Councilmember Sandra Masin III. COLLABORATION/COOPERATION "A Community Strategy" - Shari Prest - ISD Board Member IV. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Patrice Bataglia - Dakota County V. OUR YOUTH • The Wescott Square Townhome Youth Coordinator Experience - Dorothy Peterson / K iak +1i .vlr•••� • Gangs in Suburbia - Police Chief Pat Geagan VI. OTHER TOPICS • Transportation • Property Taxes • How do we help people who need help" VII. WRAP UP - City Councilmember Sandra Masin • Future Meeting • Future Topics VIII. ADJOURNMENT THANKS FOR COMING! a3 r CRR of cC gan June 17, 1996 Mrs. Linda Kjerland 1338 Cherokee Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118 Dear Mrs. Kjerland: THOMAS EGAN Mayor PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER Councii Membe's THOMAS HEDGES CIN Administrator E. J. VAN OVERSEKE City Clerk You're invited to join us for a special evening of sharing and discussion with the Eagan City Council on various legislative topics. The meeting will be held in the Community Room at the Eagan Municipal Center, 2nd floor, on Tuesday, June 25 at 7:30 p.m. It is our intention to make the evening enlightening and pleasurable. Discussion will be general and cover topics ranging from transportation and property taxes to issues regarding our youth. Please feel free to address other topics at the meeting. Inviting our legislative delegation, county commissioners, school board members, Metropolitan Council representative and others will help us focus on how our community can remain a "healthy city." Please R.S.V.P. to Maria Karels in our Administration Office at 681-4613. Sincerely, Tom Egan Mayor TE:mlk MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122.1897 PHONE: (612) 681-4600 FAX: (612) 681.4612 TDD: (612) 454-8535 THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity/Affirmativ Action Employer a� MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 681.4300 FAX: (612) 681.4360 TDD: (612) 454.8535 List of Officials Invited to the Open Issues Forum on June 25, 1996 State Representative Tim Commers 217 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 State Representative Tim Pawlenty 231 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 State Senator Deanna Wiener 303 Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr, Kevin Howe Metropolitan Council Representative 1763 Lansford Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dakota County Commissioner Patrice Bataglia Dakota County Government Center 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Dakota County Commissioner James Mueller Dakota County Government Center 1590 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Ms. Linda Nelson President - Eagan Chamber of Commerce First Bank 3629 Crestwood Eagan, MN 55123 Ms. Jennifer Hearon President - Northern Dak. Co. Chamber of Commerce 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 116 Eagan, MIN 55121 Congressman Bill Luther 1811 Weir Drive, Suite 150 Woodbury, MN 55125 Superintendent John T. Haro Independent School District #196 14445 Diamond Path Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Kevin Sampers 849 Curry Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Ms. Judy Lindsay 4041 154th Court West Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Bruce Endler 13828 Currant Circle Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Mike Roseen 879 Redwood Drive Apple Valley, MN 55124 Ms. Mary Hamann -Roland 1069 Baldwin Circle Apple Valley, MN 55124 Ms. Jackie Magnuson 3472 131st Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Mr. Gene VanOverbeke 4295 Lodgepole Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Superintendent Robert Monson Independent School District #197 1897 Delaware Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118 Mrs. Janice Chasman 723 Evergreen Knolls Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mrs. Barbara Tani 19 Salem Lane Sunfish Lake, MN 55118 Mr. Gary Hagstrom 2449 Pond Circle West Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Mr. David Jackson 279 Betty Lane West St. Paul, MN 55118 Mrs. Linda Kjerland 1338 Cherokee Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118 Mr. Thomas Weisbecker 1862 Walsh Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Mr. Steven Anderson 1328 Mac Arthur West St. Paul, MN 55118 Superintendent Dr. James Rickabaugh Independent School District #191 100 River Ridge Court Burnsville, MN 55337 Shari Prest 2305 W. Burnsville Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 Vicki Roy 12736 Portland Cr. Burnsville, MN 55337 Frances Potts 900 Thoreau Drive Burnsville, MN 55337 Bruce Copp 12816 Welcome Lane Burnsville, MN 55337 John Coskran 11316 Raleigh Ct. Burnsville, MN 55337 37 Jevne Kloeber 8735 Highwood Way Apple Valley, MN 55124 Debra Pitton 3400 W. 134th Street Burnsville, MN 55337 Charles Erickson 2804 Brookview Drive Burnsville, MN 55337