11/29/1990 - City Council RegularMEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1990
SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR NOVEMBER 29, 1990 CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
kir
After approval is given to the December 4, 1990 City Council agenda and regular meeting
minutes for November 20, 1990, the following items are in order for consideration:
NIGHT BATTALION FIRE CHIEF-ICRAIG JENSEN
A. Official Recognition of Craig Jensen as Night Batallion Fire Chief --Enclosed on page
,::2,, you will find a memorandum from Fire Chief Southorn relative to the above -captioned
matter. Craig Jensen has been elected as Night Battalion Chief and will assume office on
December 1, 1990. It will be appropriate at Tuesday's meeting to recognize Mr. Jensen's
appointment and have him be sworn in at that time. It will also be appropriate to recognize
Dick Schindeldecker, the out -going Battalion Chief, for his nine years of service in
management capacities with the department. Following recognition of Mr. Jensen's
appointment, Fire Chief Southorn will coordinate the swearing in.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) To officially recognize the election
of Craig Jensen as Night Battalion Fire Chief of the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department and
2) to officially recug--nize Dick Schindeldecker for his nine years of service as a District and
Battalion Chief for the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department.
pea i oft
Eagan Fire Department
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Southorn, Fire Chief 4"""
DATE: November 26, 1990
RE: December 4, 1990 Council Agenda Items
1. Craig Jensen was elected as the Night Battalion Chief by
the membership last month. He assumed the office as of
12/01/90. The council action is to ratify Craig Jensen's
appointment.
It would be appropriate to conduct a "swearing in"
ceremony during Department Head business. I
anticipate a significant number of fire fighters and
family members to be in attendance.
2. I believe we should publicly recognize Dick Schindeldecker
for his nine (9) years of service as a District and
Battalion Chief.
Dick has played a significant role in the growth of
the Department. A heart felt thank you from the
Department, Council, and City Staff is in order.
KS/kmk
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990, City Council Meeting
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Item 1. Fairway Hills Drainage Concerns (Lots 8-11, Block 1) --At the November 20
Council meeting, three residents of the Fairway Hills development adjacent to the
Parkview Golf Course presented their concerns regarding backyard drainage to the City
Council. Recognizing that the City staff and Mayor have been working with this group
over the past several months, the Council directed staff to prepare a summary report
regarding this issue for reconsideration by the Council at t December 4 eting. The
memo with background attachments enclosed on pages t through;Wwill provide
the necessary background information adequate to address this issue. Additional
information and comments can be provided by the Public Works Director at the meeting
as necessary.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review the drainage concerns of
Lots 8-12, Block 1, Fairway Hills Addition and provide appropriate direction.
3
MEMO TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMAS L HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1990
SUBJECT: LOTS 8-11, BLOCK 1, FAIRWAY HILLS ADDITION
DRAINAGE CONCERNS
The following information and attachments should provide adequate background regarding
the concerns expressed by the following property owners:
Lot 8
Greg & Sue Nesheim
4656 Fairway Hills Drive
Lot 10
Mark & Diane Selby
4672 Fairway Hills Drive
ISSUES
Lot 9
JoAnne Goodland
4664 Fairway Hills Drive
Lot 11
Dennis & Cheryl Lewis
4680 Fairway Hills Drive
The following are the two major issues of concern:
1. Lack of adequate backyard cross drainage from Lot 11 to the storm
sewer inlet on the north line of Lot 8.
2. The volume of water directed to the catch basin on the north line of Lot
8 creating temporary flooding problems in the backyard areas as well as
lower level flooding of Lots 8 and 9.
BACKGROUND
On July 28, a high intensity rainfall event occurred resulting in a significant amount of
water draining into and across the lots in question. Lot 8 had concerns regarding the
erosion around the storm sewer inlet facility as well as flooding of their lower level. Lot
9 was not yet completed for occupancy. However, it also experienced water in the lower
level. Lot 10 expressed concerns with the volume of water temporarily ponded in the
backyard area. Lot 11 expressed similar concerns regarding the volume of water.
However, it had a further concern regarding the inability of its yard to drain dry upon
subsidence of the storm.
Page 2
In response to Lot 11's lack of complete drainage, staff determined that the final
landscaping and grading of Lot 10 was left too high thereby inhibiting the free-flow
drainage from Lot 11 to the north.
During the review of these drainage concerns, staff was also involved in litigation
discussion with the Parkview Golf Course regarding its drainage concerns resulting from
the superstorm of July 24, 1987. One of the areas of the golf course drainage concerns
was in the vicinity of the 16th green adjacent to the backyard area of the lots in question.
Another area of the golf course drainage concerns related to the vicinity of the 13th green
further to the south.
In investigating possible solutions and alternatives to the golf course litigation, it was
identified that a significant portion of the upstream drainage basin (17.8 of 25.2 acres)
near the 13th green could be diverted through a drainage swale into the recently
constructed pond within Ohmann Park in the southern portion of Fairway Hills. This
diversion of approximately 70% of the drainage area would significantly reduce the volume
of water and related flooding concerns of Lots 8-11. A potential alternative to the
drainage problems in the vicinity of the 16th green adjacent to the backyard areas would
have involved the regrading of the homeowners' backyards to provide drainage to the
existing catch basin.
The lawsuit with the Parkview Golf Course involved the City of Eagan and five other
defendants including the developer, Derrick Land Company, and his private engineer,
Probe Engineering Company. From August to the present, all six defendants have been
actively involved in pursuing a settlement to the golf course litigation. The homeowners
were kept apprised of this process due to the potential of one of the alternatives being
able to address the backyard cross drainage issue (#1), as well as the volume and flooding
issue (#2).
PRESENT SITUATION
Due to the inability of all the defendants to reach a collective settlement offer with the
golf course in a time frame that would have allowed corrective work to occur yet this fall,
the property owners were informed that they should not rely on a potential alternative to
address their backyard cross drainage issue, and they should work collectively to perform
the corrective work as a private concern. They were informed that the City would
continue to actively pursue the diversion of a portion of the upstream drainage basin prior
to the beginning of the rainy season in 1991.
As a result of a neighborhood meeting with all property owners concerned, the property
owners proceeded with regrading the backyard areas through their own forces to an
elevation deemed adequate by the City and agreed upon by the affected property owners.
s
Page 3
However, as evidenced by their presentation on November 20, several property owners are
unhappy with the location and configuration of their recently completed drainage swale.
City staff has informed these property owners that the location and configuration of final
lot grading, drainage swales and landscaping is at the discretion of the property owner, but
that the City would provide assistance through detailed surveying to help ensure that there
is an adequate drop in elevation to provide satisfactory cross drainage.
While the settlement with the golf course lawsuit is conceptually agreed to and is being
technically processed, it does not provide for or involve any regrading in the vicinity of the
16th green and/or across the backyard areas. However, it does include the diversion of
the upstream drainage basin adjacent to the 13th green into Ohmann Park as previously
described. This diversionary grading work has a slim chance of being performed yet this
year. If not, it will definitely be performed as soon as weather permits next spring.
SUMMARY
The City staff has informed the affected homeowners that the final grading of their
backyard areas is their responsibility to ensure adequate cross drainage. The configuration
and location of any required drainage swale is at their discretion as it best meets their
personal preferences.
With the number of property owners involved in the complexity of the golf course
litigation, it is very difficult to summarize this issue adequately addressing everyone's
concerns. Hopefully, the attached correspondence/communication records will help
provide additional insight into this matter. Please let me know if I can provide additional
information or clarification regarding this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
Attachments
M
d,
LL, �z �I
I> Q
OW�Z \
aZ Oi m
¢vii �f o o
11
I�
m�
V
\�GZ
ral l
C,- W
v l l
;3c_
3 I
\L
�Q
+
U I
\Ix13
/
61
1
W \ `-
W �W
!V jr ZI
\ 1
W 1 I$ Z
Z W
W LL
>/
0 1 13No I
LL
+ W z W
O�ZU.
d,
LL, �z �I
I> Q
OW�Z \
aZ Oi m
¢vii �f o o
11
I�
m�
V
cu
U.
\ I ,
�wA '
•
1` ui-
R Y- - --. -
W G
10co
CY
,� I
II 1 f
\�GZ
ral l
C,- W
v l l
;3c_
3 I
11•
�Q
+
U I
cu
U.
\ I ,
�wA '
•
1` ui-
R Y- - --. -
W G
10co
CY
,� I
II 1 f
7Q3(1 MI07 KNOB ROAD
E^GA11. MIUNE5CIA 551,22-18W
r4tbijF (612) 454 8100
IAX {61^),54 8363
oFczagan
November 6, 1990
THOMASEGAN
Abya
DAVID K GUS1AFS0N
PAMELA &tCREA
TIM RAWLENTY
W*ODORE WACHTER
CpjnCd MemFjprc
THOMAS HEDGES
City A&nnstreb+
EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE
Re: Lots 8-12, Block 1, Fairway Hills Addition cryCler�
Rearymrd Drainage Correction
Dear Property Owner:
On Monday, November 5, at 4:30 p.m., a neighborhood meeting was
held at Eagan City Hall to review the current drainage problems and
to arrive at the best alternative for solving those problems as
soon as -possible.
Clarification was provided regarding the two distinct drainage
concerns in this general area. The first relates to the volume of
water that collects in this drainage basin from approximately 26
acres of the upstream drainage basin. It was explained that the
resolution to this "volume" concern needed the cooperation and
consent of the Parkview Golf Course in order to divert and redirect
approximately 17.4 acres of this upstream drainage basin into a
ponding area within Ohmann Park located in the southern portion of
Fairway Hills. The resolution of this appears to be directly tied
to the settlement of the current litigation that the City and
developer are involved in with the golf course. Due to the
complexity of this litigation, it is not anticipated that this
modification to the drainage basin could be accomplished before
late spring at the earliest, if at all. Nonetheless, the City
indicated that it will diligently pursue this remedy with the golf
course short of compromising our defense of the current litigation.
The second concern pertains to providing gravity drainage flow
across all backyards to the catch basin located on the north line
of Lot 8 (Nesheim). The City has provided survey stakes that would
show the extent of the cut both in depth and width based on a 4:1
side slope. . As a result of this surveying, there was concern
expressed regarding the impact and aesthetics that would result
from the creation of this 1% drainage Swale. While 1.0% is the
minimum recommended by the City for overland backyard drainage, it
was recognized that a lesser slope of 0.5% could function if it
were installed with proper care and attention. To that end, the
City committed that it will provide construction survey staking to
assist the contractor/homeowners in the construction of this
drainage swale by checking elevations during the progress of
construction as well as upon completion.
THE LONE OAK TREE. THE SYMBOL NGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equol Opportunity/Affitmotive Action Employer
Page 2
It was agreed that the start of this 0.5% grade would begin at the
southeast corner of Lot 11 (Lewis) and generally proceed along the
existing drainage swale. By starting at the southeast corner of
Lot 11, it will further minimize the depth necessary across Lots
10 and 9, respectively. Due to the fact that Lot it has already
regraded its backyard drainage swale to the City recommended 1.0%,
it was agreed that some combination of Lots 8, 9 and 10 would agree
to assume the responsibility for regrading and restoring the
drainage swale in Lot 11 to a 0.5% grade. Also, the emergency
overland drainage swale along the north lot line of Lot 8 should
be lowered approximately 8" to protect any flooding from backing
into the window elevation of Lot 9 (Goodland).
The City will dispatch its survey crews to restake the elevations
in the backyard areas to show the finished elevations associated
with a 0.5% drainage grade as well as side slopes at a 6:1 (6'
horizontal to 1' vertical cut). It is anticipated that this new
construction staking will be completed by the end of this week.
Once the staking has been completed, each of the affected
homeowners will then contact their builder to discuss a cooperative
schedule for this work to begin. Because the present construction
season is quickly drawing to a close, it is recommended that this
work begin on Monday, November 12, or as soon thereafter as
possible. Once all the homeowners have reached concurrence, the
City will assist in providing construction staking and technical
assistance during the regrading operations to help ensure the
compatibility of all backyards in this area.
While we all realize that there have been tense moments during our
involvement in this drainage issue, you should all be commended for
your collective cooperation and willingness to pursue a
satisfactory solution to this problem. It is hoped that once it
is completed, that all of you will be able to enjoy your backyards
in a neighborly manner. Please let me know if I can provide any
additional information or assistance as we continue toward this
solution.
Sincerel ,
00gd4---
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
cc: Tom Egan, Mayor
Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Jim Gollembeck, City's Defense Attorney
Todd Wind, Developer's Attorney
MEMO TO: MAYOR TOM EGAN i CITY ADMINISTRATOR TOM HEDGES
FROM: THOMAS A COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1990
SUBJECT: LOTS 8-11, BLOCK 1, FAIRWAY HILLS (DRAINAGE PROBLEM)
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - 4:30 P.M., XONDAY, 11-5-90
It is my understanding that a neighborhood meeting has been
scheduled for 4:30 p.m., Monday, November 5, at City Hall to allow
the neighbors to meet with all appropriate City personnel to
further discuss their backyard drainage problems.
I am forwarding to you copies of all correspondence to help give
you a feel for the level of involvement by the City with these
homeowners. In addition to these letters, there have been numerous
telephone conversations with all of the property owners over the
past three months.
I will be more than happy to provide any additional background
information either prior to or during the meeting as necessary to
help facilitate a resolution to their problem. I have also
informed Mr. Jim Golembeck of this meeting on Monday. Jim is the
attorney representing the insurance company on behalf of the City
of Eagan in the current lawsuit with the Parkview Golf Course.
.' t'1.ti
a&��
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
Attachments
I C)
r�—
I� �i! ,
EO
n
The Honorable Mayor Tom Egan Octob
3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan City Hall
Eagan, Minnesota, 55121
Re: Surface Nater Runoff along the western Property line of the Parkview Golf
Coarse.
Dear Mayor Egan:
Improper surface water drainage onto and through the residential properties
located at 4680, 4672, 4664, and 4656 Fairway Hills Drive in Eagan, has resulted
in the urgent need for you, as the elected mayor of the city of Eagan, tc
resolve this surface water drainage problem before mid-November, 1990. These
properties face the• real possibility of flooding during the late winter and
early spring months of 1991.
Based upon an October 22, 1990 meeting between the residential homeowners and
the Parkview Golf Course owner, Mr. Don Larson, the following items where
explained and discussed:
* Mr. Don Larson and city officials have agreed to an existing engineered
solution to the surface water runoff problem.
* Mr. Larson has given city officials authorization to access the golf
course property to undertake and complete the required earth work tc
solve this problem.
* City officials will not undertake this agreed upon work effort due tc
the projects expense and the inability of the other concerned parties tc
agree to their share of the expense.
* Based on the above, any flooding damage to the residential properties
and the golf course property during the late winter and early spring
months of 1991 would be the sole responsibility of the city and the city
will be liable for the resulting damages, since a solution does exist.
The residential homeowners and the golf course owner request a meeting on or
before Friday, November 2, 1990, and any additional city staff which you
consider necessary, to:
* Review and.approve the existing engineered solution to the surface water
runoff problem.
* Specify a construction schedule which will allow for project completion
prior to November 10, 1990.
It 'is the Cities' responsibility to provide and assure citizens with proper
surface water drainage in the streets and parks and between adjacent properties
(ie:, the residential properties and the golf course property). As an elected
official your mandate is to resolve this problem.
We look forward to hearing from you and working together to solve this problem.
Please contact the homeowners and Mr. Don Larson to schedule the November 2nd
meeting, at you earliest convenience. Time is of the essences
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Sincerely;
All
,aC c 1(""K - -J .
0
cc: Mr. Tom Hedges/City Administrator
Eagan City Council
Mr. Tom Colbert/Public Works Director
Mr. Roger Derrick/Derrick Land, Co.
Mr. Don Larson/Parkview Golf Course
�a
Addresses:
Dennis & Cheryl Lewis
4680 Fairway Hills Drive
Eagan, MN. 55123
Mark & Diane Selby
4672 Fairway Hills Drive
Eagan, MN. 55123
Dick & Joan Good
4664 Fairway Hills Drive
Eagan, MN. 55123
Gregory & Susan Nesheim
4656 Fairway Hills Drive
Eagan, MN. 55123
Mr. Tom Egan
Mayor of Eagan
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota, 55121
Eagan City Council
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota, 55121
Mr. Tom Hedges
City Administrator
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota, 55121
Mr. Tom Colbert
Public Works Director
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota, 55121
Mr. Roger Derrick
Derrick Land, Co.
2460 South Hwy 100
Minneapolis MN. 55416
Mr. Don Larson
Parkview Golf Course
1310 Cliff Road
Eagan MN. 55123
Mr. Marion Liezt
8900 Penn Avenue, Suite 307
Bloomington, MN 55431
l3
3830 Pilot Knob Rood
Eagan, MN 55122-1897
itV of czagan (612) 454-8100 • Fax. 454-8363
PG,'s• & #- I
RECORD OF Ilii CONVERSATION
DATE: /D"ZZ
TIME: &KA - - -
TALKED WITH: _ - �&!tlm is t e
REPRESENTING:
PHONE NO.: LY
SUBJECT/PROJECT/CONTRACT : 48 r ! I . Alit I. F4 r66 �,
ITEMS DISCUSSED: [u A- LL&mt+•+ 2 -+.-*i= [ Lt� y*�•�c �►ZLA" AL:
• - � - - �- � - � - � �+�� ' - - - - '� - - - - .. ,n�-fit'% � - - --�r- .-�
FA
cc:
C Y TAFF
THE LONE OAK TREE . THE SYMBOL OT—RXQ&NGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122-1897
of eacci(612) 454-8100 i Fax. 454-8363
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
DATE
TIME: • / _
TALKED WITH: MA ce!-4K S"
REPRESENTING ' L
PHONE NO.: 7Z2_2- & SDp
SUBJECT/PROJECT/CONTRACT :
ITEMS DISCUSSED: f i;c� �� Ak
r
cc :
C STA
THE LONE OAK TREE. . THE SYMBOL�� AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESC'A 55122.1897
PHONE (612)454-8100
FAX: (612; 454.8363
October 17, 1990
Re: Lots 9-12, Block 11 Fairway Hills Addition
Rear7ard Drainage Correction
Dear Property Owner and/or Builder:
On October 15, the City of Eagan met with the other
pertaining to the litigation of the Parkview Golf
concerns. As I indicated in my previous status
hoped that on October 15, all parties would come
and achieve a negotiated settlement to this ongoii
the hopes that the resolution would also help reso
drainage problems that are currently affecting al:
THOMAS EGAN
Mayor
DAVID K GUSTAFSON
PAME-, A McCREA
TIM PAWLEN"Y
THEODORE WACH EER
Council Ment vs
THOMAS HEDGES
Cry Administrator
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
City Cter1
five defendants
Course drainage
update, it was
together to try
I:g litigation in
lve the backyard
of your lots.
Any resolution required 100% cooperation and participation from all
six defendants. Unfortunately, this total concurrence was not
achieved at the October 15 meeting. However, there still continues
to be an effort made to achieve a resolution in the near future.
In the interim, it does not appear apparent that the City will be
able to negotiate a resolution that would provide a positive
solution to your immediate backyard drainage problems yet this
fall. Therefore, you as a neighborhood group, should work together
to determine how best the suggested resolution can be accomplished.
Please be assured that the City of Eagan will be willing to assist
in establishing the proper elevations for any corrective work to
ensure that it ultimately addresses each property owner's drainage
needs. If there is any final resolution to the Parkview Golf
Course litigation, I will contact you and bring you up to date
accordingly. In the meantime, you may wish to pursue your concerns
with your builder and/or developer in soliciting their help to
solve your current problems.
I appreciate the cooperative attitude that you have shown to date.
Sincerely,
?4-
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/ jj
b
THE LONE OAK TREE. .THE SYMBOL OF $4 D GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity;Affirmative Action Employer
IN vF cagan
3$30 PILOT KNOB ROAD TROMPS EGAN
AbyC
EAGAN, MINNE50TA
PHONE (612; 454-6'00 DAVID K GmcCRE. ON
FAX. (6'2;45A-6363 PTimPA LENTY
TIM DAWLENTY
October 2, 1990 THEODORE WACHTER
Counul Membe•s
THWAS HEDGES
Cry ACmm6trato,
EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE
Re: Lots 8-121 Bloct i, pairway Hills addition C*yCer.
Rsaryard Drainage Correction
Dear Property Owner and/or Builder:
On Monday, October 1, I met with all the attorneys involved in the
Parkview Golf Course lawsuit regarding their drainage problems.
As I discussed with you at our meeting on September 24, one of the
options reviewed was the reconstruction of an overland drainage
swale across the backyards of Lots 8-11 in lieu of installing the
storm sewer from the existing catch basin in the rear yard of Lot
8 southerly to the common lot line -of Lots 10 and 11. After
further review, it is felt that maybe this overland drainage could
be handled at the same elevations necessary to correct the backyard
drainage problems only.
You will recall that there were two elevations for this proposed
drainage swale previously discussed. One was what would be
necessary to ensure proper drainage for your backyard areas. The
other drainage swale was originally proposed to be approximately
1' lower to accommodate the low point on the golf course. However,
in order to construct the drainage swale to solve the backyard
drainage problems, there will be excess material which must be
removed. It is felt that the removal of this material could be
disposed on the golf course property raising their low point
thereby not requiring the lower elevations for the second
alternate.
I discussed this proposal as a part of the overall golf course
litigation resolution. There seemed to be a general concurrence
that this might be a positive solution resolving both issues at the
same time. If this were the case, it would be proposed that the
regrading of your backyard areas would be performed as a part of
the settlement to the golf course litigation. If that is the case,
it could be performed at little or no expense to you property
owners.
OTHTHE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OFND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Page 2
October 2, 1990
However, there are six defendants in this case. While I met with
all of the attorneys, they indicated they would have to review this
proposal with their clients after cost estimates have been
determined. I have scheduled another meeting between the affected
parties for October 15. It is hoped that at that time, we will be
able to determine whether we have concurrence and can proceed with
the work yet this fall, or whether further negotiations are
necessary which would delay any improvements until next spring.
I wanted to keep you informed of the progress of our discussion
with the golf course due to the fact that an early successful
resolution may save all of you effort and expense. However, if it
cannot be resolved, you still have the option of pursuing the
corrective work collectively on your own.
I will continue to keep you informed as additional information
becomes available. Please feel free to call me if you have any
questions or concerns regarding this progress.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
0
of eagan._
1HOMASEGAN
-Jrn�) Pit 01 Kr 10B ROAD [ "GAr1, MII IIJESOIA 55122 1807 Mayor
PI ZONE (612) 454 8100 DAVID K GUSTAf50N
W A> (F 17) 4r-1 83" TIM
MdREA
September 2 4 19 9 0 TIM PAWLENTY
THEODORE W'ACHTER
Council Wmtr,s
THOMAS HEDGES
Re: Lots 8-12, Block 11 Fairway Hills Addition 0yAdminidralo,
Rear Yard Drainage Correction EUGENECky
C lerk OVFRREKE
Dear Property Owner and/or Builder:
At 8:00 a.m., on Monday, September 24, I met with you to discuss
the drainage problem experienced by Lot 11 (4680 Fairway Hills
Drive) and the various alternatives to solve this problem. I also
reviewed with you the status of the lawsuit between the Parkview
Golf Course, developer of Fairway Hills and the City of Eagan that
could possibly involve regrading of your rear yard areas.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you all collectively in
the area of the problem to explain the issues and alternatives.
As a result of this meeting, it is my understanding that the
neighbors agreed to proceed with the resolution on their own as
necessary to address the present drainage problem of the homeowners
only. I indicated that the City of Eagan will be happy to provide
the necessary surveying, inspection and final certification of this
work to ensure compatibility between all property owners. I will
also be keeping you informed of the progression of the lawsuit with
the Parkview Golf Course drainage issue in regards to how it may
affect any of you individually.
Each of you should be commended for your willingness to work
collectively to address this problem and helping each other to
ensure that back yard drainage is handled properly without
adversely affecting any individual. This type of cooperation is
what helps to make for good neighbors.
While I will attempt to keep you informed of the progression of
related issues, I will also wait to hear from your group when you
would like the City to become involved.
Sincere y, ,Q
omas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/ jj
cc: Craig Knudsen, Engineering Tech
Enclosure ftRE
THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF TH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
o F ca
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122.1897
PHONE. (612) 454.8100
FAX: (612) 454.8363
September 18, 1990
n
THOMAS EGAN
Maya
DAVID K GJSTArSON
PAMELA McCREA
TIM PAWLEI "Y
THEODORE WACHTER
Councr wm-cers
THOMAS HEDGES
Cry Adm n6;rato•
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
Re: Lots 9-12, Block i, Fairway Sills Addition CrtyCtrk
Rear Yard Drainage Problems
Neighborhood Meeting, 8:00 a.m., Monday, September 24
Dear Property owner & Builder:
The City of Eagan has been made aware of a drainage problem
experienced by Lot 11 (4680 Fairway Hills Drive). In reviewing
this drainage problem, it appears that the various solutions
available for this problem could involve your particular property.
Therefore, while there have been separate discussions with
individual property owners, it appears that it would be appropriate
to get all property owners and their builders to review the
problems and determine if there is a mutually satisfactory solution
so that all property owners can be assured of proper drainage
without adversely affecting any individual property owner's
backyard. Recently, the City of Eagan has performed some survey
work in this backyard area to determine the existing elevations and
areas where proposed revisions would help resolve this drainage
concern. We would like to review this information with you at a
meeting scheduled for 8:00 a.m.. Monday, September 24, in the rear
yard area of 4672 Fairway Hills Drive. In case of inclement
weather, the property owner, Mark & Diane Selby, have agreed to
offer their house for a meeting place.
We would hope that you would be able to attend this meeting. We
feel confident that with all of us working together, the problem
can be resolved. I look forward to meeting with you at the
referenced date and time.
Sincere
70 omas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/ii
cc: Craig Knudsen, Engineering Tech
ao
THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
ItV of aagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD
EAGAN, MINNESOTA. 55122.1897
PHONE (612) 454.8100
FAX (612) 454-8363
September 10, 1990
MR MARK SELBY
4672 FAIRWAY HILLS DR
EAGAN MN 55123
Re: Lot 10, Block 1, Fairway Hills Addition
Final Lot Grading/Landscaping Drainage Problems
Dear Mr. Selby:
THOMAS ELAN
Mayor
DAVID K GLSTArSON
PAMELA MCCREA
TIM PAWLEMY
THEODORE WACHITEI
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Adm nstrator
EJGENE VAN OVERBEKE
Cmy Clerk
As you are aware, there are some drainage problems being
experienced by property owners upstream from your lot to the extent
that your final lot grading and landscaping does not allow their
overland drainage to continue north in accordance with the overall
development plan for the Fairway Hills Addition or the Certificate
of Survey submitted with your building permit.
It appears that the final grading in your rear yard area has
inhibited the drainage from Lot 11 on your south side across your
property towards the storm sewer inlet two houses to the north.
It is my understanding that this concern was addressed to the
people who were performing your final landscaping and sodding.
Representatives of the City specifically told them to ensure that
the finished elevation was low enough to allow water to continue
flowing across your lot.
As a result -of recent rainstorms, it is apparent that the final
landscaping and grading of your rear yard area is too high and
subsequently inhibits this free flow of cross drainage.
Preliminary surveys taken of this area indicate that the drainage
swale through your rear yard area should be lowered approximately
1.0' - 1.2' from its existing elevation.
The City is presently involved in discussions with the Parkview
Golf Course regarding their drainage concerns through this area
also. Although an alternative to address the golf course's concern
would involve either storm sewer or regrading of a drainage swale
adjacent to or through your rear yard area, the final design
solution has not yet been mutually agreed to. In the interim, you
Q`
THE LONE OAK TREE—THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Page 2
should be aware that your final grading and landscaping
improvements have created drainage problems in the area and should
be corrected as soon as possible.
Please feel free to contact the Engineering Division for technical
assistance in providing proper elevations to ensure compatible
drainage for you and your neighbors.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Colbe
Director of Public Works
TAC/jj
cc: Dennis Lewis, 4680 Fairway Hills Drive
Enclosure
�'w
rj. •.• - / — r
L�.
MV of cza
3630 PILOT KNOB ROAD
THOMAS EGAN
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897
Amyor
PHONE: (612) 454.8100
DAVID K. GUSTAFSON
FAX: (612) 454-6363
PAMELA hk-aEA
TIN PAWLENTY
THEODORE WACI-ITER
Council Wnib¢r5
August 6, 1990
CTHOMAS Hity �rDGES
atot
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
Cry Clerk
MARK SELBY
4672 FAIRWAY HILLS DRIVE
EAGAN, MN. 55123
Dear Mr. Selby:
This letter is to acknowledge that I stopped out to the houses on
Lots 8-11, Block 1, Fairway Hills Addition on July 31, 1990
following the very heavy rains of July 28th.
I brought along and left with Mrs. Selby a copy of the development
grading plan for Fairway Hills Addition. The grading plan shows
how the drainage for the area along your back lot lines was
proposed to drain to the north. Without taking elevations across
these lots, I would be unable to make any accurate determination
of how effective the runoff is through these yards. In any case,
I understand the City of Eagan would consider any drainage problems
of this nature a matter to be resolved by the affected property
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Allen
Engineering Technician
BA/jf
U
0— e
THE LONE OAK TREE. -THE SYMBOL OF ST NGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Tom Colbert
Director of Public Works
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN. 55121
Dear Mr. Colbert:
RECE,1vt kUu 7 1990
August 3, 1990
On Saturday July 28, 1990 our neighborSood experienced a heavy thunderstorm
which resulted in the flooding of several yards and basements along Fairway
Hills Drive. A drain located partially on our property at 4656 Fairway Hills
Drive was apparently draining properly, however was under five feet of water.
It became obvious that this drain could not handle the runoff directed to it.
This resulted in water backing up in our yard to a level of higher than our
basement windows and water seeping in around the windows into our basement.
We have two concerns regarding this drain.
The first is the apparent inadequacy of the drain to handle runoff in a heavy
thunderstorm as described above.
The second regards the maintenance of the area around the drain. It is
apparent that at sometime a retaining wall was built and the area immediately
around the drain was covered with landscaping plastic and rock with an edging
around it. When we move in three weeks ago erosion had lifted the edging out
of the ground, most of the rock was washed away and the area was covered with
weeds and loose black plastic. Our questions for this concern are:
1) Whose responsibility is it to clean up this area?
2) Whose responsibility is it to maintain the area once it is fixed?
3) What type of landscaping should,be done around the drain? It seems
apparent the rock will again wash away and loose plastic has
potential for covering the drain and blocking it in a storm.
We will be awaiting your response to these concerns and can be reachalat the
address and phone numbers below.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely:
Sn, �
Gregory N. Nesheim
Susan L. Nesheim
4656 Fairway Hills Drive
Eagan MN. 55123
Home Phone: (612) 456-0411
Work Phone: (612) 687-3052
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan. Minnesota 55122
Phone: (612) 454 3900
FAX: (612) 4540718
November 27, 1990
TO: PAT GEAGAN, CHIEF OF POLICE
FROM: BILL WHITE, OFFICER
police department
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY LEAVE
PATRICK J. GEAGAN
Cn'.! a! P, l M.
KENNETH D.ASZMANN
oovr ions Cw!u!!
THOMASEGAN
M.y o -
DAVID K GUSTAFSON
PAMELA McCREA
TIM PAWLENTY
THEODORE WACHTER
THOMASHEDGES
EUGENE VAN OVEREEKE
G!v C-1
This letter is to inform you that effective December 2, 1990, I
have been mobilized to active duty. At this time, I have been
informed that this active duty period will last from six months to
one year.
I am requesting a Military Leave of Absence for the period of six
months to one year effective December 3, 1990.
Enclosed is a copy of my orders.
Bill White
Of f icer
BW: lb
Enclosure
a�
THE LONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Emplover
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA.
There are six (6) items on the agenda referred to as consent items requiring one 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.
PERSONNEL ITEMS
A. PERSONNEL ITEMS:
Item 1. Investigator/Police Department --On Tuesday, November 20, 1990, oral boards were
held for the vacant position of Investigator at the City of Eagan. Three current officers with
.' e Police Department were interviewed by Lieutenants Meszaros and Swanson and
:'%.ssistant to the City Administrator Duffy. It is their unanimous recommendation that Brian
Gunderson be appointed Investigator in the Eagan Police Department. Chief of Police
Geagan concurs with this recommendation.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the appointment of Brian
Gunderson as an Investigator in the Eagan Police Department.
Item 2. Seasonal Winter Recreation Leaders --After interviews, it is the recommendation
of Recreation Supervisor Oyanagi that the following persons be hired as seasonal winter
recreation leaders: Theresa Bland, Brad Czudernat, Rob DeRosier, Ian Dozier, Chris Fitch,
Michael Geere, Timothy Gill, Aaron Godleski, Andy Halverson, Chare Johnson, Wayne
Leseman, Cory Lynch, Mike Mattson, Tim McElligot, Michael Malville, Ray Sperl and Brent
Tait. Additional names for seasonal winter recreation leader positions will be presented to
the Council at the next City Council meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the hiring of Theresa Bland,
Brad Czudernat, Rob DeRosier, Ian Dozier, Chris Fitch, Michael Geere, Timothy Gill,
Aaron Godleski, Andy Halverson, Chare Johnson, Wayne Leseman, Cory Lynch, Mike
Mattson, Tim McElligot, Michael Malville, Ray Sperl and Brent Tait as seasonal winter
recreation leaders.
Item 3. Police Officer/Military Leave of Absence --Officer William White was notified that
his Army Reserve Unit is being activated effective Sunday, December 2, 1990. Enclosed on
pages a copy of Officer White's letter requesting a military leave of absence for six
rn o n ti s to one year.
ACTION° TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve an unpaid military leave of
absence for six months to one year for Officer William White.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
DELINQUENT SAC CHARGESIMERMAID CAR WASH
B. Schedule Public Hearing to Assess Delinquent SAC Charges, Mermaid Car Wash --
Enclosed on page5.2-A-Vis a chronology relative to the collection of SAC fees from the
Mermaid Car Wash. As you will note, information supplied to the MWCC by the applicant
at the time of building permit issuance resulted in charges for fourteen SAC units which
were paid with the building permit fee. The initial assignment of SAC units is subject to
subsequent review by the MWCC based on actual usage. Based on this review, the MWCC
has identified an additional 28 SAC units to be charges to this property.
The property owner and City Finance staff have discussed a potential payment schedule to
cover the cost of these additional units. To date, a proposed agreement in this regard has
not been executed and no payments have been received. The Finance Department also
indicates that the subject property is delinquent on its monthly utility bills and that a shut-off
notice has been sent with respect to that concern. In addition, a balance of $3,088.08 is due
on the developer escrow account relative to Town Centre 70 10th Addition, the site of
Mermaid Car Wash. Because efforts to collect additional SAC unit charges have been
unsuccessful, the City may assess them on the subject property. It is necessary to schedule
a public hearing to consider this action.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To schedule a public hearing for
January 15, 1991 to assess delinquent SAC charges for Mermaid Car Wash.
a'1
MEMO TO: JIM SHELDON
FROM: KEN DAMLO
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1990
SUBJECT: MERMAID CAR WASH - COLLECTION OF ADDITIONAL SAC FEES
I am providing the following background information regarding the
additional SAC fees that the City is trying to collect for the Mermaid Car Wash,
1355 Town Centre Dr, Eagan.
Attachment Date
#1 10/10/88 As part of building permit issuance, the MWCC indicated
the assignment of 14 SAC units for the car wash. This
determination would have been made based on the MWCC
review of data supplied by the applicant directly to M',;CC
relating to estimated daily discharge. The assignment
of SAC units is subject to later M'a'CC review to determine
if the number assessed was proper. The fees for these
14 SAC units were paid with the building permit fee.
#2 1/16/90 MWCC notified the City that upon their review of actual
flow, the car wash should be charged an additional 28
SAC units.
#3 1/22/90 A letter and invoice from the City was sent to Ray Berg,
owner of Mermaid Car Wash, requesting payment of the
additional SAC fees. Based on 1989 rates if paid by
3/31/90, this amount was:
SAC $16,100
City Sewer Conn. Fee 2,800
City Water Treatment Plant Fee 6.384
Total $25,284
*F4 5/14/90 Letter sent to Ray Berg re -invoicing the amount due based
on 1990 rates:
SAC $16,800
City Sewer Conn. Fee 2,800
City Water Treatment Plant Fee 7.056
Total $26,656
This is the amount we are now attempting to collect.
#5 5/21/90 Ray Berg contacted me by telephone to request a payment
plan regarding the amount due. This was followed by a
written request received 6-5-90.
#6 6/11/90 I sent a letter to Ray Berg providing for monthly
payments over a one year period. He was to sign the
agreement and return it with the first monthly payment
by 7/1/90. At the present time, we have not received
a signed copy or any payments.
MERMAID CAR WASH.
PAGE 2
Attachment Date
7/11/90
#7 7/23/90
Telephone conversation with Ray Berg. He stated he had
received my letter, that the one year payment arrangement
was acceptable, and that he would be sending payment.
Telephone conversation with Jim Sheldon regarding
appropriate collection effort. Received summary memo
from Jim.
8/8/90 Telephone conversation with Ray Berg. He cited cash flow
problems, but promised to send payment at the end of
August to bring him current with the proposed payment
schedule.
9/12/90 Telephone conversation with Jim Sheldon regarding
collection efforts through City Attorney's office.
In addition, there is a balance due of $3,088.08 relating to the developer
escrow account for Town Center 70 10th, which is the parcel for the Mermaid Car
Wash. Copies of the account detail, consultant bills, and the 1-12-90 invoice
to Esberg Ltd Ptsp II for this amount are attached.
This brings the total amount the City is attempting to collect in this
matter to $29,744.08. At this time, the request is being made of your office
to initiate the appropriate action in an effort to collect this amount.
Please contact me if additional information is needed. Thank you.
�'r`N metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
612 222-8923
October 10, 1988
Mr. Joe Merchak
Construction Analyst
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mr. Merchak:
This letter is to inform you that the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission has made a SAC determination for the Mermaid Car Wash to
be located at Town Centre within the City of Eagan.
It has been determined that 14 SAC Units should be assigned to this
building. This determination was made as follows:
Charges:
Car Wash
200 cars x 19.5 gallons/car
@ 274 gallons/SAC Unit
If you have any questions, please call.
ince�;ely,
Donald S. Bluhn
Staff Engineer
DSB:RWJ
cc: S. Selby, MWCC
Carolyn Krech, Finance Department, Eagan
Pete Aspinwall, Mermaid Car Wash
SAC Units
14.23 or 14
',Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 222-8423
January 16, 1990
Mr. Joe Merchak
Construction Analyst
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mr. Merchak:
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission reviewed SAC for the
Mermaid Car Wash located within the City of Eagan.
This project should be charged 28 additional SAC Units. The original
assignment of 14 SAC Units (October 10, 1989) was based on the
understanding that water conservative equipment would be used in this
facility. As a result of the water conservative equipment the
potential flow would be reduced. Actual flow values 9 months after
operation start-up indicate that the water conservative equipment was
not effective in reducing the potential flow. Therefore, an
additional 28 SAC Units are now due on this project, determined as
follows:
SAC Units
Charges:
Car Wash (1989 Third Quarter Water Use)
1,030,000 gallons @ 90 days/quarter @ 274 gallons/SAC 41.77
Credits:
Paid (October 10, 1989) 14.00
Net charge: 27.77 or 28
The 28 additional SAC Units should be charged at the 1989 rate of
$575.00/SAC Unit for a total of $16,100.00 if paid by March 31, 1990.
After March 31, 1990 the 28 additional SAC Units should be charged at
the 1990 Rate of $600.00/SAC Unit for a total of $16,800.00. If you
have any questions, call Roger Janzig at 229-2119.
S'ncerely,
S-
onald S. Bluhm
Staff Engineer
DSB:RWJ:jle
900104S9
cc: S. Selby, MWCC
Carolyn Krech, Finance Department, Eagan
Raymond Berg, ESBERG Corp.
Equal opportunity/Allirmative Action Employer
31 �=;
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
C. Final Plat, Wescott Square -.Documents concerning the Wescott Square Addition final
plat are currently being processed by the Community Development Department. If all items
are completed and executed in time for next Tuesday's meeting, the application will be in
order for approval. If not, a recommendation will be made to continue this item at the
beginning of the meeting. A co f the final plat as it appears for filing at Dakota County
is enclosed on pages and, for your review.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the final plat for Wescott
Square Addition.
5 a
lot
F-
m
x
LU
a
LLI
cra
CY
w
t
It
ir
Pf
t
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990, City Council Meeting
CHANGE ORDER - RAHN ROAD
E. Contract 90-04 (Rahn Road), Approve Change Order #5 (Country Home Heights -
Storm Sewer) --At the November 20 Council meeting, the public hearing was held for
Project 605 to consider the installation of streets and storm sewer within the Country
Home Heights development. As a result of that public hearing, the project was denied
but the Council directed staff to investigate the underlying drainage concerns of this
development and to recommend alternative action plans.
Storm sewer improvements for this development were originally proposed under Project
351 in February of 1982 and again under Project 595 in August of 1990. Under both of
these proposals, the installation of storm sewer facilities to handle the drainage of Country
Home Heights Park was part of an overall storm sewer system for this development.
Under those previous projects, the storm sewer facility was considered a lateral with the
cost spread over various properties depending upon the assessment philosophy of each
report. At those public hearings, there was similar objections from the neighborhood
regarding the assessments associated with this proposed drainage improvement.
Under Project 605 as presented at the public hearing on November 20, 1990, a portion
of this storm sewer system was identified as a trunk system to be financed by the City's
Trunk Storm Sewer Fund. This change in financing was a result of the recently
completed and updated Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan approved by
Council action on September 18, 1990. It was recommended and recognized that Country
Home Heights .Park has to be designated as a major ponding area in the City's overall
comprehensive plan thereby justifying the Trunk Storm Sewer Fund's financing of the
outlet for this trunk ponding area.
With the majority of the drainage concerns relating to the intermittent flooding of the
park property which presently does not have any storm sewer outlet, it is felt that this
modified storm sewer improvement will resolve the majority of the concerns in this area.
In order for this facility to accommodate the predicted 1991 spring runoff, it is
recommended that it be constructed through a change order to an existing City contract.
Hence, this proposal is being submitted to the Council for their consideration under the
current Rahn Road contract. The Change Order estimate for this work is $32,528.50.
Discussions have been held with the single affected property owner, Mr. Joe Christensen,
regarding the acquisition of rights -of -entry and utility easements at no cost as necessary
to accommodate this construction schedule yet this fall.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990, Cite Council Meeting
CHANGE ORDER -CLIFF ROAD WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
D. Contract 89-13 (Cliff Road Water Treatment Facility), Approve Change Order #5 -
Miscellaneous Items --This Change Order consists of three parts described as follows:
Part 1: The Cliff Road Water Treatment Facility is being constructed on a site
previously occupied by a single family residence with a private well
supply system. Subsequently, the lump sum bid for the contract
included estimated quantities for the abandonment of this well. Based
on actual quantities of work incurred, the final costs were less than
estimated in the contract. (Deduct $3,297.50).
Part 2: In a continuing effort to identify areas of possible contract dollar
reductions, it was determined that the 2 million gallon reservoir
overflow storm sewer system could be deleted and modified to provide
for overland drainage which could adequately handle the remote
possibility of this event occurring. (Deduct $6,413).
Part 3: A previously unknown layer of compressible material was discovered
under the foundation of the proposed 2 million gallon clear well
reservoir. It has been determined that the most efficient method of
handling this unacceptable material would be to "surcharge" it with a
temporary stockpile of material which will accelerate any anticipated
compression and consolidation of this material prior to the actual
construction of the clear well. This work provides for the temporary
construction and removal dirt handling. (Add $2,357).
The net result of all three change orders is a deduct of $7,353.50. The details associated
with this Change Order have been reviewed by the Director of Public Works and
Superintendent of Utilities/Buildings and is being recommended for favorable Council
action.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Change Order #5 to
Contract 89-13 (Cliff Road Water Treatment Facility) and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute all related documents.
2J �
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990, City Council Meeting
ACKNOWLEDGE COMPLETION/AUTHORIZE PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE
EAGAN ROYALE
F. Contract 87 -CCC, Acknowledge Completion/Authorize Perpetual Maintenance (Eagan
Royale - Streets & Utilities) --The City has received a request from the developer to
assume the perpetual maintenance responsibilities associated with the installation of streets
and utilities within the Eagan Royale Addition west of Safari Pass. All final inspections
have been performed by City personnel and it has been determined that these public
infrastructure improvements have been installed in accordance with City approved plans
and specifications and are ready for favorable Council action regarding perpetual City
maintenance.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To acknowledge completion of
Contract 87 -CCC (Eagan Royale - Streets & Utilities) and authorize the initiation of City
maintenance subject to appropriate warranty provisions.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990, City- Council Meeting
If this concept is approved and the Change Order authorized, the staff will distribute a
general letter of information to all property owners in Country Home Heights informing
them of this modified corrective work to be financed by City funds.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Change Order #5
(Country Home Heights - Storm Sewer) to Contract 90-04 (Rahn Road) and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
A. 1991 Property Tax Levy and General Fund and Public Utility Fund Budgets --Current
Truth in Taxation laws require the City to hold a formal public hearing at which time the
1991 property tax levy must be approved for certification to the County Auditor for
collection. The law also requires that tble. General Fund Budget be adopted at the same
public hearing. On pages and �_ are copies of Vis
ummary of Revenues and
Summary of Expenditures for he General Fund. On page a copy of the resolution
certifying the 1991 property tax levy. The public hearing has been noticed with the direct
mailing from the County. Notices have also been placed in the Dakota County Tribune, the
This Week and the Chronicle newspapers. The legal requirement is publication in a
newspaper of general circulation within the taxing authority. Except for the more extensive
notice including the mailing this is essentially the same process the City has followed in
previous years.
If the City Council decides not to take action at this public hearing, the continuation date
of December 11, 1990, along with time and place of the hearing must be announced.
The Citv Administrator will have handouts prepared as well as a presentation which can be
tailored as necessary. • to the interest shown by citizens attending the hearing.
The City has received approximately a dozel calls resulting primarily from confusion
generated by the mailed notice. On pages cthrough are copies of three (3)
written responses received by the City.
Also proposed for final approval is the 1991 Public Utilities Fund Budget which consists of
the Water, Sanitary Sewer, Street Lighting and Storm Drainage Divisio . Summary pages
for those revenues and expenses are enclosed on pages and .
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM; To approve the 1991 Property Tax Levy
and the 1991 General Fund Budget or continue consideration to December 11, 1990; and
to approve or deny the 1991 Public Utilities Fund Budget as presented.
3
�
91PFVSUM
GENERAL FUND
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES
l0
J
Adorn Request
Actual
Actual
Budget
Admn Request
% Increase
DeacriCri-,,,
--------------.. I ....
1988
............
1989
............
1990
------------
1991
............
over 1990
...........
General Property Tri -^c
S 4,456,200
S 5,325,337
S 6,559,700
S 6,931,810
5.673%
Licenses
62,846
69,564
78,140
75,020
-3.993%
Permits
964,991
1,127,208
816,700
753,120
-7.785Y
lnrergoverY^�,,)?°i r^ ^ ue
1,374,216
2,221,935
1,468,890
1,408,800
-4.091%
Charges for S�-,' -
588,667
628,179
606,150
603,400
-0.454%
Recreation
109,340
137,707
146,840
149,550
1.846%
Ffnes 8 fnrfei.r
177,468
203,147
190,000
240,000
26.316%
Other Revenue
203,019
238,960
131,600
154,100
17.097%
Prograrr Revere.-
788,557
780,180
719,110
699,910
-2.670:
Transfers
41,970
51,679
50,000
93,450
86.900%
TOTAL GENFrri ri'ND
------------
S 8,767,274
------------
510,783,896
------------
$10,767,130
------------
511,109,160
-----....-
3.177%
l0
J
otw'DEXP GENERAL FUND
CnMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
Admn Request
Actual
Actual
Budget
Dept Request
Adm Request
% Increase
1988
------------
1989
--........--
1990
------------
1991
------------
1991
------------
over 1990
-----------
rrNFPAL
GOVERNMENT
n1
Mayor b Council
S 54,586
S 51,482
S 71,010
S 75,180
S 75,180
5.872%
n7
Administration
354,066
401,864
420,210
493,540
460,580
9.607%.
n;
Data Processina
190,473
325,182
268,760
289,144
282,570
5.138%
n:
Finance/City Clea
557,782
642,279
680,210
718,700
710,850
4.504%
nA
legal
306,031
404,369
390,000
390,000
370,000
-5.128%
07
Community Develor--t
1,101,152
1,484,178
1,255,110
1,348,230
1,309,230
4.312••%
1n
Cable TV
148,660
48,741
49,340
114,360
------------
54,360
............
10.174%
............
S 2,712,753
------------
------------
S 3,358,095
............
............
S 3,134,640
............
S 3,429,154
............
S 3,262,770
............
r!!Q! IC
SAFETY
pt
P,)H ce
S 2,628,868
S 3,048,351
S 3,348,590
S 3,565,370
S 3,507,160
4.735%
t,
Fire
478,6-?nf
713,608
708,240
760,365
736,385
------------
3.974%
------------
S 3,107,567
•-----------
------------
S 3,761,959
............
------------
S 4,056,830
------------
------------
S 4,325,735
------------
3 4,243,545
...... -- -
V'M! 1C
WORKS
Pt
Public Wcrks Fneii- ring
f 632,458
S 701,583
S 677,900
S 701,440
S 700,690
3.362%
^
Streets $ h^g
96 ,995
956,619
946,670
926,880
863,590
-8.776%
Central Ser.icr- 11. itananC?
250,583
324,965
317,040
354,420
------------
330,450
------------
4.230%
............
S 1,848,03E
............
S 1,983,167
............
$ 1.941,610
S 1,982,740
S 1,894,730
rnnvc
$ RECREATION
71
Parks $ Recrest�--
E 1,290,368
S 1,409,005
S 1,470,810
S 1,620,860
S 1,571,780
6.865%
x7
Forestry
70,155
88,,359
97,750
114,,950
104,280
6.680%
S 1,360,523
------------
S 1,497,364
------------
S 1,568,560
............
S 1,735,810
------------
S 1,676,060
............
nnrFP
/.1
Contingency
-
S 65,490
$ 0
S 32,055
-51.054%
------------
s
-----------
............
S -
------------
............
S 65,490
------------
............
5 0
............
............
S 32,055
.........
...........
intAl
GENERAL FUND EXrFNt1111tRES
1 9,028,876
!10,600,585
$10,767,130
$11,473,439
311,109,160
3.177%
RESOLUTION
CITY OF EAGAN
1991 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, was held on December 4,
1990 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center, all members being
present except , and
WHEREAS, upon motion by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby is on recorded
approving and certifying the final levy of 1991 Real Estate Taxes
for Eagan, Minnesota, which taxes are payable in 1991 as follows:
General Levy (Levy Limit):
General Fund
Road & Bridge Fund
Equipment Revolving Fund
Special Levies:
Dated:
TOTAL GENERAL LEVY
Debt Service
TOTAL SPECIAL LEVIES
GRAND TOTAL LEVY
$8,131,810
460,239
272,820
$1,310,000
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
By:
Attest:
CERTIFICATION
$8,864,869
1,310,000
$10,174,869
I, E.J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota
County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof
assembled this 4th day of December, 1990.
E.J. VanOverbeke, City Clerk
City of Eagan
413
G.F. (Greg) Dobbins
AMOCO ort Company
6132 Brie Ridge Rd.
Eagan, MN 55123
E. 'T VA!;�DVERBEKE
CITY CLERK
EAGAN CITY HALL
3830 PILOT KNOB RD.
EAGAN. MN. 55122
CC: COUNTY OF DAKOTA
SCHOOL DISTRICT 197
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
REGARDING THE PROPOSED TAX HIKES FOR 1991, I AM CONCERNED
WITH THE CONTINUED ESCALATION OF PROPERTY TAX IN THE AREA.
IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT WE ARE BEING LEVIED ADDITIONAL
TAXES IN AN UNWISE AND UNFAIR MANNER.
FIRST. MY TAXES HAVE ROSE BECAUSE MY ASSESSED PROPERTY VALVE
HAS RISEN, EVEN AFTER APPEALING TO A VALUE HIGHER THAN IT'S
RESALE WORTH. YES I DO AGREE THE OVERALL VALUE IN EAGAN HAS
RISEN, BUT BECAUSE OF MY LOCATION AND THE INCREASED AIR
TRAFFIC IN THE CORRIDOR WE HAVE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE TREND.
SECONDLY, NOW WE ARE FACED WITH ADDITIONAL INCREASES WITHOUT
ANY IMPROVEMENT'S TO MY CITY OR COUNTY SERVICES. NO'. THE AIR
TRAFFIC ISSUE IS NOT IMPROVING, NO! WE ARE NOT HONORED WITH
OFPORTUNITY OF ATTENDING THE ILLUSTRIOUS NEW SCHOOL (DISTRICT
197) OUR STREETS HAVE NO LIGHTS, SIDEWALKS AND REPAIRS WERE
ONLY DONE AFTER CALLING TO COMPLAIN WHEN THE POTHOLES BEGAN
TO CONSUME CARS AND TRUCKS WHOLE.
AS THE ECONOMIC CONDITION, STATE. COUNTRY AND WORLD WIDE
CONTINUES TO GROW WORST, IT SHOULD REMIND US THAT FINANCIAL
RESTRAINT IS REQUIRED, GAS AND ENERGY PRICES CONTINUE TO RISE
AND SIGNS ARE NOT LOOKING IMPROVED. I THINK IT IS A GOOD TIME
TO STOP AND REASSESS OUR NEEDS NOT ONLY PERSONALLY BUT AS A
WHOLE. HAVE OUR BUDGETS GROWN FAT AND WILL THEY REFLECT
POTENTIAL HARDSHIPS AHEAD? NOW IS THE TIME FOR DECISIONS NOT
AFTER IT IS TO LATE!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
S� �-RELY.
STEVE TSCHIDA
-L
1034 KENNETH ST.
EAGAN. MN. 5,5121
4
CHICAGO TUBES IRON
/E.J. Vanoverbeke
City Clerk
Eagan City Hall
Eagan, MN 55121
Dakota County Administrator
1590 W. Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Business Manager
School District #197
West St. Paul, MN 55188
November 13, 1990
Dear Collection -of -Comments -on -Higher -Taxes:
It is truly an interesting phenomenon to receive
ice of Proposed Property Tax for 1991" three (3) days
the general election. Purely coincidental I am sure!
As an officer of a company paying property tax in
County but having to compete with business in a world
these limited boundries I am absolutely opposed to our
increasing taxation.
a "Not-
af ter
Dakota
outside
ever
With cities such as Eagan pushing Dakota County into a
fast growth mode "property values" have grown steadily. This,
of course, has been a major source of tax revenue. However,
what might pass as a benefit to a private home owner in hav-
ing his/her home value increase does not apply to most busi-
nesses; to the contrary - it acts as a detriment in many cases.
To say a Chicago Tube & Iron or a Coco Cola Bottling Co.
is more valuable (or beter off) because the land it sits on
is now higher priced is a falacy. Company properties such
as ours are single use buildings. Higher property value, at
the expense of drastically higher property taxes, becomes a
detriment to profitability and eventually to increased job
creation; job creation being the true value of the presence
of corporations in a community.
01
2940 EAGANDALE BLVD. P.D. BOX 21-1 7 ST. PAUL, VIN 55121 612/454 -Bebe
FAX 612/456-5547
CHICAGO INDIANAPOLIS • MILAN • MILWAUKEE ST. PAUL
Stop the deterioration of our fiscal health. Stabilize
property taxes now.
RBO:kae
ctfully,
Obert B. Ochtrup
Vice President
General Manager
REVSUM20 UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUE
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
BUDGET
BUDGET
1988
1989
1990
1991
SERVICE FEES:
--------
--------
--------
--------
WATER
2,107,459
1,974,418
2,020,000
2,395,000
SEWER
2,193,197
2,323,097
2,650,000
2,870,000
STREET LIGHTS
61,095
80,454
67,000
112,000
STORM DRAINAGE
0
0
0
440,000
CONNECTION PERMITS
17,325
18,880
13,000
21,000
PENALTIES
52,710
56,251
48,000
52,000
OTHER OPERATING REVENUE
24,502
29,263
18,500
37,500
SALE OF METERS
84,723
109,919
150,000
129,000
INTEREST ON INVESTMENT
935,529
1,185,765
900,000
1,400,000
INTEREST -OTHER
39,664
76,157
62,000
64,200
CONNECTION CHARGES:
WATER SUPPLY & STORAGE
857,215
776,830
377,000
375,000
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
284,914
309,778
148,200
165,600
WATER QUALITY DEDICATION
0
0
0
93,000
----------
TOTAL REVENUE
----------
6,658,333
----------
6,940,812
----------
6,453,700
8,154,300
DEDICATED REVENUE
2,593,241
2,675,130
1,864,600
3,105,750
REVENUE AVAILABLE
----------
----------
----------
----------
FOR OPERATIONS
4,065,092
4,265,682
4,589,100
5,048,550
BUDEXP20 UTILITY FUND
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
1988 1989 1990 1991
-------- -------- -------- --------
OPERATIONS
WATER
4,648
0
0
0
PERSONAL SERVICES
256,846
297,287
427,010
332,160
PARTS & SUPPLIES
75,560
94,422
134,900
218,110
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
663,712
695,807
789,090
812,265
SEWER
*
*
281,750
224,045
PERSONAL SERVICES
120,284
147,924
150,620
285,910
PARTS & SUPPLIES
18,790
19,935
25,820
26,525
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
159,070
177,028
195,840
214,640
MWCC SERVICE CHARGE
1,6=6,542
1,697,177
2,254,000
2,135,000
STREET LIGHT
----------
----------
----------
----------
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
60,520
67,532
67,000
112,000
STORM DRAINAGE
3,479,541
3,686,550
5,367,880
6,444,345
PERSONAL SERVICES
0
0
0
61,070
PARTS & SUPPLIES
0
0
0
74,720
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
0
----------
27,731
0
168,080
TOTAL OPERATING EXPEND.
----------
----------
----------
BEFORE DEPRECIATION
3,001,324
3,224,843
4,044,280
4,440,480
NON -OPERATIONS
MWCC INTEREST
4,648
0
0
0
CAPITAL OUTLAY &
INTER -FUND TRANSFERS
WATER (INCL METERS)
*
*
449,750
324,350
SEWER
*
*
281,750
224,045
STORM DRAINAGE
0
0
0
75,350
BOND PAYMENT
PRINCIPAL
0
0
150,000
250,000
INTEREST
473,569
461,707
442,100
1,130,120
TOTAL OPERATING &
----------
----------
----------
----------
NON-OPERATING EXPEND.
BEFORE DEPRECIATION
3,479,541
3,686,550
5,367,880
6,444,345
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
884,338
----------
1,006,796
----------
1,000,000
----------
1,200,000
----------
TOTAL INCL. DEPRECIATION
4,363,879
4,693,346
6,367,880
7,644,345
*EXPENDITURES RECORDED IN FIXED ASSETS AT YEAR END
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
SENECA MEDIATION RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Consider Seneca Mediation Recommendations --Enclosed on pages :0 through 52 is
a copy of the Seneca Mediation Recommendations developed through the mediation process
under Judge Reha. Also enclosed on pages Ca ( througha copy of correspondence
from the City Attorney's office relative to these recommen ations. As the correspondence
indicates, it appears that the recommendations have been consented to by all parties with
the exception of John Westley. Judge Reha appears to believe that there was substantial
understanding among all other parties to the mediation and that it would be appropriate to
move forward with the recommendations at this time.
In his correspondence, Assistant City Attorney Dougherty encourages the Council to give
special attention to Issue 3. Maintenance. Paragraph 6 and Issue 4. Dewatering. Paragraph
2. Please see his letter for a brief expansion on these two items.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To adopt the Seneca Mediation
Recommendations and commit to implementation of those portions of the recommendations
which designate actions on the part of the City of Eagan.
DRAFT 14/10/90
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
SENECA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MEDIATION ROUNDTABLE
The undersigned members of the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant Mediation Roundtable
("Roundtable") agree to the following:
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1989, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") issued
an amendment to Temporary Water Appropriation Permit No. 89-6092 which authorizes the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission ("MWCC") to temporarily appropriate ground water for
construction at the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Seneca"); and
WIIEREAS, on September 6, 1989, the City of Eagan, Minnesota ("City"), requested that the DNR
hold a contested case hearing on the amendment to Temporary Water Appropriation Permit No. 89-
6092; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 1990, the Honorable Allan W. Klein, Office of Administrative Hearings
held a prehearing conference to determine how to proceed with the amended permit and the City's
request for a contested case hearing; and
WIIEREAS, on February 6, 1990, Judge Klein recommended that the Commissioner of the DNR
issue a Notice of and Order for Hearing, setting this matter on for a contested case hearing to begin
on or about March 19, 1990, but that the Commissioner of the DNR attempt to settle this matter
without a hearing by means of alternative dispute resolution; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 1990, Steven G. Thorne, Deputy Commissioner of the DNR, issued an
order directing the DNR's Division of Waters to enlist the services of a mediator to initiate
negotiations among the public entities and citizen groups represented at the prehearing conference
held by Judge Klein and postponed setting a hearing date; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 1990, the MWCC applied for a permanent water appropriation permit for
the existing portion of Seneca and a permanent water appropriation permit for the expanded portion
of Seneca in accordance with the DNR's determination that two permits were required by the DNR's
regulations; and .
WHEREAS, during March and April 1990, meetings were held by the Honorable Phyllis Reba, Office
of Administrative Hearings, to explore the use of mediator -assisted negotiations to try to resolve the
dispute over the amendment to the Temporary Water Appropriation Permit for Seneca and the
decision was made by the members involved that the mediation should proceed following the
identification of numerous issues related to Seneca which should be mediated; and
WHEREAS, on April 30, 1990, the Roundtable began involving members of the staffs of the MWCC,
the VNR Division of Waters, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("PCA"), the Igetropolitan
Council ("Council"), the Erakota County Public Health Department ("County"), the 'City, and
representa�tives from the '1;agan Chamber of Commerce, the %Puthering Heights Neighborhood
Group, Litizens Against Seneca Capacity Expansion, and the' 4innesota River Valley Chapter of the
National Audubon Society ("Audubon Society"); and
WHEREAS, the Roundtable members agreed that the focus of the mediation would be limited to
issues which the Roundtable members identified concerning the permanent water appropriation
permits for Seneca; and
WHEREAS, the Roundtable members used the following criteria for evaluating the proposed
recommendations:
1. The recommendations should be realistic and feasible.
2. The recommendations should not duplicate existing efforts or measures already being
taken by a Roundtable organization.
3. The recommendations should be within the scope of the issues as identified by the
roundtable.
4. The recommendations should assist rather than impede a resolution of the identified
issues.
5. The recommendations should be effective in resolving the problem.
6. The recommendations should be cost effective.
7. The recommendations should identify who is to effectuate the recommendations.
8. The recommendations should be specific with respect to time and responsibility; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1990, the Roundtable concluded its discussion of the issues identified for
mediation and has proposed various recommendations in response to those issues.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, the Roundtable members agree to make the following recommendations to
their respective organizations regarding the dewatering at Seneca:
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The terms identified below which are used in this document shall have the following
definitions:
a. "Governmental unit" shall mean the MWCC, the DNR, the City, the PCA, the
Council, and the County.
b. "Governmental agency" shall mean the MWCC, the DNR, the PCA and the Council.
C. "Roundtable organization [s]" shall mean the MWCC, the DNR Division of Waters,
the PCA, the Council, the County, the City, the Eagan Chamber of Commerce, the
Wuthering Heights Neighborhood Group, Citizens Against Seneca Capacity
Expansion, and the Audubon Society.
d. "Roundtable members" or "members" shall mean the individual signatories to this
document.
e. "Fen" shall mean the Nicols Meadow Fen.
f. "Dewatering" shall mean the appropriation of water undertaken by the MWCC
pursuant to the permanent water appropriation permits for Seneca to be issued by the
DNR, unless noted otherwise.
SI
g. "Contamination site" shall mean the Highway 13 and Cedar Avenue Groundwater
Contamination Site as identified by the PCA pursuant to the Minnesota
Environmental Response and Liability Act.
h. "PCA permit" shall mean National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State
Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit No. MN 0059137 issued by the PCA.
2. Each recommendation detailed below is directed exclusively to the specific Roundtable
organization identified in the specific recommendation and not any Roundtable organization
not identified in the recommendation.
3. Implementation of Recommendations.
a. The recommendations and proposed actions included in this document constitute
recommendations from the Roundtable members to the governmental unit or units
identified in the specific recommendation. The use of the words "will" or "shall" in
any particular recommendation is not intended to imply anything more than a
recommendation.
b. Each Roundtable member agrees to present those recommendations applicable to the
governmental unit with which he/she is associated for its consideration.
Implementation may be in a form appropriate to that unit including a
resolution, order, permit, or letter referring to specific recommendations to be adopted
by the governing body or responsible individual of each unit. The recommendations
are not binding upon a governmental unit unless the governmental unit formally
agrees to be bound by a particular recommendation.
C. Execution of this document, and/or issuance of an implementing resolution, order,
permit, or letter, will not constitute a contractual agreement among or between the
Roundtable members and/or the organizations they represent.
4. The individual members of the Roundtable shall not be liable in any way for any action taken
or inaction with respect to any recommendation, whether adopted or not, or for the failure
of any governmental unit to adopt any recommendation.
5. The procedure outlined in the section following Issue VII: Structurin Future Roundtable
Relationships, shall constitute an administrative remedy for resolving disputes related to the
recommendations adopted by the particular governmental unit. This remedy must be
exhausted prior to the commencement of other administrative or judicial remedies.
6. Notices to or communications with Roundtable organizations, as provided for in this
document, shall be made to the Roundtable members identified in this document or to their
successors as designated by the Roundtable organization.
7. By participating in the Roundtable, none of the Roundtable organizations waive the right to
challenge the standing of another Roundtable organization to participate as a party to any
contested case proceeding arising out of any of the permits addressed by the Roundtable
members.
—3—
s-�
-
8. By participating in the Roundtable, none of the Roundtable organizations waive any defenses,
interpretations, or claims that the Roundtable organization may have under state law.
9. The Roundtable members recognize that the MWCC must operate Seneca to meet the
wastewater treatment needs of the service area within the requirements of applicable
environmental laws, permits, stipulation agreements, and court orders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUE I: CONTAMINATION
•GENERAL STATEMENT: Ground water contamination is a serious problem which requires
immediate action.
To accomplish this goal, Roundtable members recommend the following:
1. That each member support the efforts of the County in its steps to evaluate the
contamination site and encourage the County's continued efforts in testing and research.
2. The County will distribute all relevant factual information to Roundtable organizations
regarding site inspection and analysis of contamination.
3. In conjunction with the efforts of the PCA, the County will notify Roundtable organizations
of the thirty day comment period on the preliminary scoring report, which report is being
done pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (Minnesota
Superfund Law).
4. The PCA will place the names of all the Roundtable organizations on a public notice list for
PCA Board and public committee meetings which have Seneca plant or contamination site
items on their agendas.
5. The PCA will hold a public meeting in the City following completion of the scoring report
and will make available to all the Roundtable organizations a copy of the report prior to the
public meeting in the City or any other meeting of the PCA Board to take action on the
report.
6. ' The City will notify the non-governmental agency Roundtable organizations of the availability
of any reports received by the City and will further confirm the scheduling of any public
meeting held by the City concerning the contamination issue.
7. The City will provide public notice through the local newspaper, as well as posting notice at
City Hall, of any public meeting held by the City regarding issues concerning groundwater
contamination at the contamination site and/or the groundwater recharge well system being
installed by the MWCC.
8. The PCA permit for the groundwater recharge well system requires that the MWCC test the
observation/monitoring wells for water quality (38 parameters of organic and/or inorganic
compounds) on a monthly basis for the first six months of the operation of the recharge well
-4-
5�3
system and quarterly thereafter, for the duration of the recharge system. The MWCC will
test for the 38 parameters specified in the PCA permit at no less than quarterly intervals,
whether or not water is being injected, until the expiration of the PCA permit on December
31, 1992. The MWCC may conduct additional testing for pollutants or at its option, the
MWCC may contract with an outside approved lab to conduct this testing.
9. All written results of the testing being conducted under the PCA permit or otherwise shall
be provided by the MWCC to the PCA, the County and the City.
10. The City will notify and make available to the Roundtable organizations the results of the
quarterly testing required under the PCA permit.
11. Prior to the reissuance or extension of the PCA permit, the PCA will hold a public meeting
and invite comment from Roundtable organizations. Issues that may be addressed in the
permit process shall include, but shall not be limited to, whether it is appropriate to require
continued monitoring of both the dewatering wells and the injection observation wells and
also, whether the list of the contaminants currently being tested should be changed.
12. No Roundtable organization waives its right to conduct an independent study of the
contamination site to determine the source of groundwater contamination or to determine
whether the dewatering by the MWCC at Seneca is in any way contributing to the movement
of groundwater contamination.
13. The Roundtable members take no position with respect to efforts by individuals or
subgroupings of the Roundtable members to lobby for special legislation or increase funding
to deal with groundwater contamination issues specifically as they relate to the contamination
site. By signing this document, no member waives his/her rights to lobby in these regards.
ISSUE II: NICOLS MEADOW FEN AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS
*GENERAL STATEMENT: Fen protection should be optimized during dewatering, including
temporary construction dewatering, of Seneca without duplication of effort.
To accomplish this goal, Roundtable members recommend the'following:
1. The DNR purchase the Nicols Meadow Fen and associated wetland area, available for sale
from Joe Kennealy, for inclusion within Fort Snelling State Park.
2. The MWCC shall be responsible for the day to day operation of the groundwater recharge
well system as required by DNR permit conditions. The MWCC Regulatory Compliance
Manager, or his/her designee, shall be the contact person as to the overall operation of the
systems. The DNR in consultation the MWCC will establish permit conditions regarding the
operation of the recharge well system (e.g. when the system will be put into use). The DNR
Hydrogeologist Supervisor, Division of Waters, or his/her designee, will be the designated
contact person for the DNR. The PCA will establish the water quality testing parameters in
the PCA permit and will review the results of all permit related testing being conducted at
Seneca. The PCA Municipal Enforcement Supervisor, or his/her designee, will be the contact
person for the PCA.
574
3. The MWCC shall prepare status reports on the recharge well system on a monthly basis until
the groundwater flow reversal occurs; thereafter, reports on the recharge well system will be
prepared on a quarterly basis. The MWCC shall distribute these reports to all the
Roundtable organizations. The contents of the status reports will provide the most current
available information to include but not be limited to the following:
a. which of the wells are in and how they 'are geographically distributed;
b. are the wells working and what is the working capacity of each of the installed wells;
C. what additional time frame is anticipated for the installation of remaining wells;
d. what is the achieved radius of influence of the installed wells;
e. what is the level of the water in fen wells 1 through 4;
f. what is the status of the aerial sprinkling of the fen (e.g., how much, when);
g. what is the condition and viability of the unique fen vegetation (this information will
be obtained from the DNR pursuant to paragraph 4 below); and
h. what is the water quality in the fen with regard to dissolved oxygen, calcium content
and other chemicals relevant to the fen (this information will be obtained from the
DNR pursuant to paragraph 4 below).
4. The DNR will be responsible for baseline data to establish the conditions of a normal fen.
The DNR will provide information regarding water quality in the fen and the condition of the
vegetation in the fen to the MWCC for inclusion in the MWCC's status report at critical
times in the natural cycle of unique fen vegetation, which information shall be provided at
least twice a year. The DNR may also issue separate reports of the fen vegetation to the
Roundtable organizations if no current MWCC status report is anticipated to be issued.
S. The status reports being prepared by the MWCC shall continue through December 31, 1992
at which time the Roundtable organizations will review the status report requirement as part
of the 1993 PCA permit review process.
6. Any remedial action which may be required to correct groundwater contamination in the
contamination site shall not impact the fen to the extent possible.
7. That the DNR support legislation that would amend the present state law to provide greater
protection to fens throughout the State of Minnesota.
8. That each member in this Roundtable support the proposed Minnesota State Park Natural
and Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment, Part II(D). (LCMR proposal.)
9. The Roundtable members recognize that the MWCC has taken steps to alleviate impacts on
the fen and encourage the MWCC to continue their efforts to alleviate any further or future
impact on the fen.
—6— 1--,"
10. The PCA will provide copies of the MWCC's proposed contingency plan, to all the
Roundtable organizations prior to the PCA approval of the contingency plan.
11. Any comments submitted by the Roundtable members to the PCA with regard to the contents
of the MWCC's proposed contingency plan must be received by the PCA within two weeks
of the date the proposed plan was made available to the Roundtable members.
12. Except in a bona fide emergency situation as reasonably determined by the DNR, PCA and
MWCC, the MWCC shall provide written notice to all Roundtable organizations, of at least
five days, prior to the implementation of any alternative to the groundwater recharge well
system. In the case of emergency, notice of any action taken by the MWCC shall be provided
to all Roundtable organizations as soon as possible.
13. The DNR will consult with the County and the City before taking any action to determine
the appropriate fen mitigation measures or requiring replacement of the fen by any person
or entity.
ISSUE III: MAINTENANCE
• GENERAL STATEMENT: The operation and maintenance of Seneca will be conducted to
optimize operational efficiency and protection of the environment around Seneca.
To accomplish this goal, Roundtable members recommend the following:
1. The MWCC Seneca operations and maintenance manual shall include a statement promoting
protection and conservation of groundwater, wetlands, creeks, and the fen surrounding Seneca
for future generations.
2. The PCA will review and comment on the first and final draft of the Seneca operations and
maintenance manual to insure a reasonable balance between optimal operational efficiency
and protection of the environment around Seneca.
3. Following Seneca's first full year of operation, the PCA will review the Seneca operations and
maintenance manual and may recommend modifications to insure a reasonable balance
between optimal operational efficiency and protection of the environment around Seneca.
The MWCC will revise the manual if necessary.
4. The MWCC Operation and Maintenance Director will insure that MWCC staff will annually
conduct a review of Seneca's operations and maintenance processes to insure a reasonable
balance between optimal operational efficiency and protection of the environment around
Seneca.
5. MWCC will submit to the City proof that MWCC has done the annual Seneca operations and
maintenance review.
6. If the City receives a complaint concerning Seneca, the City, upon request to the MWCC, will
be permitted reasonable access to Seneca to inspect Seneca for violations of the City's
ordinances and/or permits.
—7—
G
7. MWCC shall conduct an in-house training program for new and existing Seneca employees
outlining the requirements of DNR's permanent water appropriation permits and the PCA's
NPDES/SDS permit for the reinjection well system and Roundtable recommendations. The
MWCC will invite the Audubon Society, the Wuthering Heights Neighborhood Group,
Citizens Against Seneca Capacity Expansion, PCA, DNR, and the City to provide input into
this training program.
8. MWCC shall include a maintenance schedule in the Seneca operations and maintenance
manual developed to minimize the impact of dewatering on the fen. At a minimum, the
maintenance schedule shall consider the following:
a. adjusting the maintenance schedule with regard to seasonal conditions in order to
optimize fen protection;
b. the sequencing of dewatering activities;
C. adjusting the rates of dewatering;
d. adequate staffing and replacement parts; and
e. other options to minimize the impact of dewatering on the fen.
ISSUE IV: DEWATERING
*GENERAL STATEMENT: Roundtable members' interests regarding dewatering at Seneca include
encouraging water conservation, encouraging better maintenance, encouraging better operations, and
protecting the environment.
To accomplish these goals, Roundtable members recommend the following:
1. Current state law provides that consumptive water appropriations exceeding 2 millions gallons
per day average, within a 30 day period, require legislative approval. It is the intent of the
MWCC to use all reasonable efforts to maintain permanent dewatering at Seneca at less than
the statutory figure. if the MWCC determines there is a need to exceed the statutory figure,
it is agreed that the MWCC and/or DNR will go to the legislature for approval of the excess.
Prior to submission of the request to the legislature, the MWCC will notify and meet with
representatives of Roundtable organizations and present factual evidence of why the statutory
figure will be exceeded. The MWCC presentation will include consideration of the impact
exceeding the statutory figure will have on the fen, critical water levels, and water
conservation.
2. The two permanent water appropriation permits for Seneca shall provide in aggregate for
water appropriation of up to 2.1 million gallons per day, daily average on a yearly basis.
3. The DNR will provide annual water use data to the City indicating the amounts dewatered
under the water appropriation permits for Seneca. The DNR will notify all Roundtable
organizations that copies of the data are available to any Roundtable organization.
s7
4. The DNR will annually review the rates and volume of dewatering at Seneca. This review
may include a public information meeting during which relevant public comments will be
solicited. All Roundtable organizations will be notified of this meeting by the City.
ISSUE V: WATER CONSERVATION
*GENERAL STATEMENT: The Roundtable members consider conservation of water resources
a vital element to reducing the cost of wastewater treatment, the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities, minimize effects on the environment, and to insure adequate future water
supplies.
Roundtable members recommend the following:
1. The Roundtable members encourage each individual member to support and encourage such
groups as the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
to further the following water conservation goals:
a. Adoption of statewide building codes that require all new construction to install water
conservation plumbing fixtures;
b. Require municipalities to adopt water and sewage rate structures that encourage
water conservation; and
C. Appropriate governmental entities develop a coordinated program to educate the
public with regard to the importance of water conservation.
2. The MWCC provide educational information to all the municipalities in its service area which
would encourage water conservation and sewer intake (sewerage flow) reduction.
ISSUE VI: BEST USE OF APPROPRIATED WATER
*GENERAL STATEMENT: The Roundtable members support a public policy of requiring that the
appropriated water be used to benefit the citizens, aquifer, and communities from which the water
was appropriated.
To accomplish this goal, Roundtable members recommend the following:
The DNR, the MWCC, and the City will continue to investigate potential uses of the appropriated
water as alternatives to the continued discharge of the water into the Minnesota River.
ISSUE VII: STRUCTURING FUTURE ROUNDTABLE RELATIONSHIPS
Roundtable members recommend the following processes to structure future relationships between
the Roundtable organizations:
1. Any Roundtable organization may reconvene this Roundtable at any time for a special
meeting on any issue within the scope of this Roundtable with the agreement of at least three
other Roundtable organizations, provided that the agreement to reconvene is in writing and
one of the three organizations is a governmental agency. The subject matter of a special
meeting will be limited to issues concerning recommendations adopted by the Roundtable
organizations.
The four organizations wishing to reconvene this Roundtable must submit a letter to the
remaining organizations at least ten (10) days in advance of the special meeting, stating the
issue(s) to be discussed, their position(s) on the issue(s), and the name of the organizations
(plus contact person and phone number) that concur in reconvening the Roundtable. In
addition, the four organizations must make arrangements for a meeting location and schedule
a meeting time convenient to all organizations wishing to attend.
The City will chair these specially reconvened meetings.
2. Until the current construction at Seneca is complete, an annual meeting of the Roundtable
organizations will be held in the City during March or April of each year. The City will send
out notice of the meeting and the proposed agenda to all Roundtable organizations at least
twenty (20) days prior to the meeting. .
3. The Council will notify 'all Roundtable organizations of any future policy plan amendments
which would require expansion of Seneca. The Roundtable may be reconvened to discuss the
proposal pursuant to the process set forth in the first paragraph of this section.
4. The Roundtable may be reconvened if requested by the City and/or MWCC to discuss issues
concerning Seneca which are outside the scope of these recommendations.
5. Each Roundtable organization will be responsible for appointing a replacement member
representing the same interests should the present member be unable to continue active
participation in the Roundtable and will be responsible for notifying the remaining
Roundtable organizations of the replacement.
6. Roundtable organizations need not participate in any meeting held pursuant to this section
which the organization determines does not involve issues related to the interests of the
Roundtable organization.
7. The Roundtable members recommend that following execution of this document by the
Roundtable members, the City withdraw its demand for a hearing regarding the amendment
to Temporary Water Appropriation Permit No. 89-6092.
8. If the provisions set forth in Issue IV, paragraph 2, are incorporated into the permanent water
appropriation permits and the permits are issued in substantial conformance with the draft
permits included with this document as Exhibit A, the Roundtable members recommend that
neither the City, nor any other Roundtable organization with standing, request a hearing on
the permanent water appropriation permits.
Kent Lokkesmoe
Date
—10—
51
John Stine
Date
Rebecca Flood
Date
Loren Voigt
Date
Michael G. Dougherty
Date
Betty Bassett
Date
Bea Blomquist
Date
Marcel Jouseau
Date
David Swenson
Date
Dick Reynolds
Date
—11—
(,Q�D
Steve Wareham
Date
Donald Smith
Date
Dale Runkle
Date
Al Arends
Date
John Griggs
Date
Brian Ohm
Date
John Westley
Date
SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A.
LARRYS.SEVERSON*
JAMES F. SHELDON
J. PATRICK WILCOX*
MICHAEL G. DOUGHERTY
MICHAEL E. MOLENDA"
'ALSO LICENSED IN IOWA
-ALSO LICENSED IN WISCONSIN
... ALSO LICENSED IN NEBRASKA
November 26, 1990
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
P.O. Box 21199
Eagan, MN 55121
Attention: Tom Hedges
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
7300 WEST 1477H STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 65124
(612) 432-3136
TELEFAX NUMBER 432.3780
RE: Seneca Mediation Recommendations
Our File No. 206-7756
Dear Tom:
KENNETH R. HALL
'SCOTT D. JOHNSTON
JOSEPH R EARLEY
LOREN M.SOLFEST
CHRISTINE M. SCOTILLO
ANNETTE M. MARGARIT
DANIEL M. SHERIDAN
OFOOL'NSEL:
JOHN E. VUELICH
By letter of November 15, 1990, the City of Eagan has been advised by
Brian Ohm, the attorney for the Metropolitan Council, that Judge Reha
has recommended that the process to have each organization implement
the recommendations should move forward as soon as practical. Judge
Reha's determination to proceed was made necessary due to the fact
that John Westley has indicated that he can not sign the agreement.
Apparently, Judge Reha believes that there is a substantial basis and
understanding among all the other parties to the mediation, and she
hopes, as do all of us who are involved in the process, that we do
not risk the loss of all our time and the effort because of one
individual and/or his circumstances.
Thus, the mediation recommendation should be reviewed by the Eagan
City Council at their regular scheduled meeting of December 4, 1990.
I would suggest that this item be placed on the Agenda as Old
Business and that the Wuthering Heights residents be notified of this
being an agenda item. A few residents have expressed an interest in
attending the Council meeting and I suggested to them that an effort
would be made to so notify them.
Due to the nature of the agreement, it would be appropriate for the
Eagan City Council to adopt the Seneca Mediation Recommendations and
to agree to implement those portions of the recommendations which
designate certain actions to be taken by the City of Eagan. A single
resolution would be all that is necessary to accomplish this.
Tom Hedges
November 26, 1990
Page Two
The majority of responsibility to be borne by the City of Eagan is in
providing appropriate notice of meetings and information, providing a
public forum in certain instances and leading the discussion on the
annual review as set forth in the recommendations. Two items which
also deserve mention are:
a) Issue 3. Maintenance. Paragraph 6; and
b) Issue 4. Dewatering. Paragraph 2.
The first recommendation provides a vehicle for the City to inspect
the operations of the waste water treatment plant, be it by the City
personnel for Code violations or by the County of Dakota for health
violations, etc. Finally, the second item is a compromise between the
MWCC's "ability" to appropriate an average of 4,000,000 gallons of
water per day on a 30 -day average and the desire by the City and
residents to limit the water appropriation to 2,000,000 gallons of.
water per day on a 30 -day average. I firmly believe that the
compromise is a very strong benefit to the City and residents and
hopefully will be acknowledged as such by the City Council.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the material,
please feel free to be in contact with me.
Sincerely,
SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A.
Michael G. Dougherty'
MGD/djk ✓
cc: Kristy Marnin
Jim Sheldon
(0a
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
AGREEMENT/TRANBY 1ST ADDITION
B. Agreement for Final Plat, Tranby 1st Addition --Following approval and recording of the
above -referenced plat and execution of the development contract during the summer of
1990, City staff was informed by the applicant, Ole Tranby, that he did not intend to pursue
development of his plat at this time and requested that improvements indicated as a
condition of plat and the development agreement not be undertaken.
Because of concerns raised about having an unimproved plat of record, a series of
alternatives were discussed by City staff and the applicant. These included proceeding with
the development, court action to vacate the plat and a recordable instrument to permit the
plat to stand as recorded but guarantee installation of utilities and improvements as a
condition of sale or prior to development of the plat. Community Development Director
Runkle and the City Attorney's office have developed a recordable agreement to facilitate
the last option.
Enclosed on pages 04 through, you will find a memorandum from Community
Development Director Runkle and a copy of the agreement drafted by the City Attorney's
office to insure the appropriate improvements prior to construction or further development
of the plat.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) To approve the recordable agreement
relative to improvements for the Tranby 1st Addition as presented or 2) to provide
alternative staff direction in this regard.
(03
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DALE RUNKLE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 1990
RE: TRANBY 1ST ADDITION - FINAL PLAT
In processing of the Final Plat for Tranby 1st Addition, the City
staff has required a number of utilities to be provided in order to
allow proper construction. In review of the feasibility report and
public improvement projects, Mr. Tranby has indicated that these
costs are excessive and he cannot afford to move forward with his
project. This decision was made after Mr. Tranby had received
Final Plat approval.
Because the project is now requested to be withdrawn, staff has
worked with Mr. Tranby to allow some of the documents and mechanics
of platting to remain, but to guarantee the City that prior to
construction of any building, the proper improvements would be made
to the property. Staff has asked the City Attorney's Office to
draft an agreement that Mr. Tranby would then record against the
property to be binding on himself or any successor who may purchase
or develop the property. In review of this agreement, the City is
insured proper installation of utilities prior to construction of
any buildings. This agreement has been reviewed by the City
Administrator's office and discussed with Assistant City Engineer,
Mike Foertsch, to insure his concerns have been addressed.
Staff would like to submit this procedure and agreement to the City
Council for approval to allow the Final Plat to remain as is.
If you would like further information or have questions regarding
this process, please advise.
Community De elopment Director
DR/ j s
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, JOSEPH OLE TRANBY, ("Tranby") is the owner of property
located within the City of Eagan and legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Tranby 1st Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Property");
and
WHEREAS, upon request by Tranby to the City of Eagan in
connection with the plat and potential development of the Property,
the City did undertake the preparation of a feasibility report to
provide storm sewer and sanitary sewer improvements to the Tranby
Property under Public Improvement Project No. 591; and
WHEREAS, tie plat was approved subject to the execution by Tranby
of a Development Contract requiring the installation of the sanitary
and storm sewer improvements under Public Improvement Project No.
591, which Development Contract was signed on June 19, 1990; and
WHEREAS, prior to the City of Eagan finalizing the preparation of
the -plans and specifications for Public Improvement Project No. 591,
Tranby requested that the City cease work on the public improvement
project as it was his desire to discontinue developing his Property;
and
WHEREAS, the request to discontinue the public improvement
project was made subsequent to the filing by Tranby of the plat for
Tranby 1st Addition.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, the undersigned
does hereby agree as follows:
1. No development or improvements of any kind whatsoever shall
take place by Tranby, his heirs, successors in interest and/or
assigns, without the prior authorization by Resolution of the Eagan
City Council.
2. This agreement is being made to assure the proper installation
of sanitary and storm sewer services to the Property.
3. This agreement shall be recorded with the Dakota County
Recorder's office to serve as notification to all interested parties,
that further consent by the Eagan City Council shall be required
prior to the development and/or improvement of the property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands this
day of November_, 1990.
Witness:
JOSEPH OLE TRANBY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of - —F 1990, by JOSEPH OLE TRANBY, a single person.
Notary Public
WV
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
9
City Attorney's Office
Dated: ' I -
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Public Works Department
Dated:
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
SEVERSON, WILCOX & SHELDON, P.A.
600 Midway National Bank Bldg.
7300 West 147th Street
Apple Valley, MN 55124
(612) 432-3136
MGD
(01
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
1991 COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE
A. Adopt 1991 Comprehensive Fee Schedule --Enclosed on pages through �s a copy
of the proposed 1991 Comprehensive Fee Schedule for the City o Eagan. Director of
Finance VanOverbeke has coordinated input from the responsible departments identifying
necessary changes as a consequence of cost adjustments or policy decisions.
It has been the practice of the City to adopt a comprehensive fee schedule at the time of
budget preparation each year to insure that budget revenue assumptions are based on
appropriate unit fees.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To adopt the 1991 Comprehensive Fee
Schedule as presented.
PROPOSED.
CITY OF EAGAN
PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 1991
City Council Action December 4, 1990
LIQUOR FEES
FEE TYPE
BEER, LIQUOR AND WINE
Beer
Application and
Investigation
Off -Sale License
On -Sale License
Temporary License
Liquor
Application and
Investigation
Off -Sale License
On -Sale License
Sunday License
On -Sale Club License
Less than 200
201-500
501-1,000
1,001-2,000
2,001-4,000
4,001-6,000
Over 6,000
Temporary (Up to Three Days)
Wine
Application and
Investigation
On -Sale License
Sunday License
Consumption and Display
Daily Sports or Convention
Duplicate License
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
(Changed Previously)
$350.00(1)
49.99 75.00
975. 350.00
25.00
300. 00(2)
200.00
3,509. 4,000.00
200.00
300.00
500.00
650.00
800.00
1,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
150.00
299: 350.00
299-. 400.00
100.00
25.00
50.00
2.99 5.00 (Proposed)
("when Wine and Beer are applied for by the same applicant, the total
maximum investigation fee is $350.90. $400.00
(2)Also requires an escrow deposit of $1,000.00 for five persons
requiring investigation and $200 for each additional if the
investigation is conducted within Minnesota, or $2,000.00 for five
persons requiring investigation and $400.00 for each additional if the
investigation is conducted outside of Minnesota.
2
qo
FEE TYPE
Rubbish Hauler
Commercial, Residential
or Recycling Only
1st Truck
Each Additional
Commercial/Residential
Combination
1st Truck
Each Additional
Service Station
Solicitors (Non -Profit)
Solicitors (For Profit)
License Fee
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
$50.00
25.00
75.00
25.00
59.09 100.00
25.00
50.00 Investigation
25.00 up to 3 solicitors
5.00 each additional over 3
Trailer Permit 25.99 50.00
Dog License
Male or Female
6-.99 10.00
Neutered or Spayed
3-99 5.00
Late Fee
2.00
Duplicate Dog Tag (Also covers
dogs 3.99 2.00
licensed in
another city)
Kennel Permit
Initial
69.00 100.00
Renewal
25.00 50.00
Photocopies
.50/page
Fee Schedule
2.00
Animal Pick Up
15.00
Animal Impound
4.00/day over amount billed
the City by animal pound
Pet Shop License
100.00 (New)
Permit Reissuance Fee
25.99 20.00
Returned Check Fee
3el9e 15.00
False Alarm
Commercial
75.00 Per False Alarm
After 6 (City Code)
Residential
50.00 Per False Alarm
After 6 (City Code)
Radio Communications Lease
Previously Negotiated Rate New + 5%
3
nl
=FEE TYPE
Alarm Panel
Parade Permit Fee
Shows (circus, carnival, etc.) License
Massage Therapy Establishment License
Massage Therapist License
Police/Fire Reports:
a .. den
z
Ineident (Pelle and irej
=r
Police/Fire Reports:
Accident
Incident
Arrest (weekly)
Photos:
Tapes:
Audio
Video
Gambling Investigation
Cigarette License
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
8.00/month
25.00
25.00
50.00 Investigation
300.00 (includes 1 massage
therapist license)
300.00 Investigation
(includes lmassage
therapist)
50.00
200.00 Investigation
4.00
4.00 first 2 pages
.25/ea. add'1 page
20.00/week (New)
10.00/first print
.50/print after first
25.00 each (New)
35.00 each (New)
250.00
25.00
Mechanical Amusement
1-3 Machines 25.00/Machine
4-15 Machines 200.00 Total
15+ Machines 400.00 Total
Contractors Licenses
Plumbing MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond &
Certificate of Insurance
Sewer and Water MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond &
Certificate of Insurance
lc'�
FEE TYPE
Well Driller
Topographic Maps
Mailing Labels
Notary Seal
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
MN Master License No. & $2,000 Bond &
Certificate of Insurance
6.30/Acre
LOGIS Cost + $10.00
1.00 Each for first 5
.50 each for all additional
Voter Certification
Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy
Golf Driving Range License
Data Processing Reports
j3
1.00
5.00
50.00
LOGIS Charge + 10% (New)
FEE TYPE
Final Plat
Preliminary Plat
Rezoning
Planned Dev.
PD -Annual Review
SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
$100.00 Require Escrow
+$3/lot Deposits Per
Development
Escrow Policy
300.00
150.00
250.00
25.00
Conditional Use Permit Initial 150.00
Renewal - CUP 25.00
Variance 75.00
Waiver of Plat Duplex Lot Splits 50.00
Others (Except Single 150.00 Requires escrow per
Family Zoned Property) development escrow
policy.
Single Family Zoned Property 300.00 (No Escrow)
Special Permit 50.00
Interim Use Permit 75.00
Grading/Excavation Permits
If Preliminarily Platted 250.00
Not Preliminarily Platted 325.GQ 0-5 Acres $150.00
Each Acre Over 5 Acres
$50.00/Acre
($550 Maximum)
Renewal
Utility Permits
Utility Companies
Permit For Construction
in City Right -of -Way
Assessment Search
Vacation Proceedings
Industrial Revenue Bond and
Multifamily Housing Bond
Processing Fee
Market Analysis Study
7`4
150.00
iG.GG 25.00
20:G9 50.00
10.00
300.00
500.00
50,.00
PROPOSED 1991
FEE TYPE FEE
Zoning Map 5.00
Zoning Regulations (City Code -
Chapter 11) 10.00
Liquor Regulations (City Code -
Chapter 5) 10.00
Subdivision Regulations (City Code -
Chapter 13) 10.00
Traffic Regulations (City Code -
Chapter 8) 3.00
Parking Regulations (City Code -
Chapter 9) 3.00
Sign Regulations 2.50
City Code Each Chapter (All
Chapters Except 5,8,9,11,13)
Code Book 60.00
Code Book with Binder 75.00
City Code Updates 10.00
Street Name Change Application 100.00
Comp. Plan Amendment 300.00
Water
Quality Management Plan
50.00
(New)
Water
Quality Classification Map
5.00
(New)
Comprehensive Storm Water Mgmt. Plan
50.00
(New)
Trunk
Storm Sewer Drainage Map
2.50
(New)
Comp.
Water Supply/Distribution Plan
50.00
(New)
Trunk
Water System Map
2.50
(New)
Comp
Sanitary Sewer Policy/Plan
50.00
(New)
Trunk
Sanitary System Map
2.50
(New)
Plans
and Specifications
50.00
(New)
-1S
5.00
INSPECTION FEES
FEE TYPE
Building Permit
Building Permits for Selected Work at
Existing Residences:
Basement Remodel/Finish
Deck
Fireplace/Fireplace Stove
Demolition Permit
Disposal Permit
Electrical Permit
Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning
Moving Permit
Plumbing and Gas Fitting
Process Piping
Sign Permit
Wind Energy, Radio and
Television Tower Permit
Plan Check (Valuation
over $10,000)
Foundation Permit
Replacement Building Permit
Field Card
Lot Transfer Fee (Bldg. Permit)
Processing Fee on Cancelled Permits
Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy
Reinspection Fee
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
Based on Value - See Attached
Building Permit Fee Schedule
35.00 (New)
25.00 (New)
25.00 (New)
15.00
10.00
See Attached Electrical
Inspection Fee Schedule
See Attached Mechanical
Permit Fee Schedule
15.00 -39.09 Plus Cost of
Repairs and Escrow
See Attached Plumbing
Permit Fee Schedule
See Attached Mechanical
Permit Fee Schedule
2.50 per square foot
Based on Value - See
Attached Building Permit
Fee
65% of Building Permit Fee
Based on Value - See Attached
Building Permit Fee Schedule
5.00
50.00
35.99 One half of Plan
Review Fee
5.00 (New)
30.00 (New)
FEE TYPE
Reprocess Fee (End of the Month Permits)
Underground Storage Tank
Installation/Removal
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
20.00
See Attached Mechanical
Permit Fee Schedule
BUILDING PERMITS
CITY OF EAGAN
PROPOSED 1991 PERMIT FEES & LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
PERMIT FEES - RESIDENTIAL - Fees based on UBC Fee Schedule 65% Plan
Review Charge on all permits over $10,000. Was 50%
Permits are issued to specific lots - any lot change after issuance of
permit $50.00 transfer fee.
Utility Charges - collected with permit fee
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) - $;GG.GG $750.00
Water Availability Charge (WAC) - $629 $660.00
Water Meter (5/811) - $ 90.00
Road Unit Charge - $355.G9 $370.00
Treatment Plant Charge - $252.99 $276.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------
$1.00 - $500.00 -- Ne Permit Reqfdir $15.00 (New)
$501.00 - $2,000.00 -- $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for
each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $2,000.00.
$2,001.00 - $25,000.00 -- $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $25,000.00.
$25,001.00 - $50,000.00 -- $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus
6.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00.
$50,001.00 - $100,000.00-- $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus
$4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof to and including
$100,000.00.
$100,001.00-$500,000.00 -- $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$3.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
$500,001.00 - $1,000,000-- $2,039.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus
$3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000.00.
$1,000,001.00 and Up -- $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00
plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof.
All permit fees are rounded to the nearest dollar amount.
FEES FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS ONE COMMON ENTRANCE & ONE LAUNDRY
FACILITY)
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) -80% of $79$ $750 x number of units
Water Availability Charge (WAC) -80% of 442-5 $660 x number of units
Road Unit -80% of 43.56 $370 x number of units
Treatment Plant Charge -80% of 444 $276 x number of units
Accessory buildings in apartment complexes will not pay MWCC SAC (Per
MWCC policy). City SAC, WAC, Road Unit and Water Treatment will be
charged at 80% of full value.
STATE SURCHARGE ON ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Value Based Permits
Valuation of Structure
Addition or Alteration
$1,000,000 or Less
$1,000,001 to $2,000,000
$2,000,001 to $3,000,000
$3,000,001 to $4,000,000
$4,000,001 to $5,000,000
$5,000,001 and Up
Fixed Fee Permits
Surcharge
Commutation
.0005
x
Valuation
$ 500
+
.0004 x
(Value -
$1,000,000)
$ 900
+
.0003 x
(Value -
$2,000,000)
$1,200
+
.0002 x
(Value -
$3,000,000)
$1,400
+
.0001 x
(Value -
$4,000,000)
$1,500
+
.00005 x
(Value
- $5,000,000)
$.50 per $1,000, or fraction thereof, of permit fee (not contract
price) .
1990 CITY OF EAGAN PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF FIXTURE TYPE OF FIXTURE
Water Closet @ $3.00 Each
Bath Tub @ $3.00 Each
Lavatory @ $3.00 Each
Shower (Per Head)
@ $3.00 Each
Sink @ $3.00 Each
Urinal @ $3.00 Each
Bidet @ $3.00 Each
Laundry Tub @ $3.00 Ea.
Janitor Sink or Receptor @ $3.00 Ea.
Water Heater @ $3.00 Each
Floor Drain @ $1.50 Each
Water Stand Pipe @ $1.50 Each
Gas Pipe Outlets @ $1.50 Each
Rough Openings -No Openings @$1.50 Ea
Fixtures on Rough Openings @$1.50 Ea
COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES: 1% of Contract Fee With a Minimum
Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is
$.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the
Contract Cost).
$12.00 Minimum Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1990 CITY OF EAGAN MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
RESIDENTIAL HEATING
(Includes Cooling for New
Construction)
RESIDENTIAL COOLING
(Add on)
MODIFICATIONS/ALTERATIONS
COMMERCIAL PERMIT FEES
01-100,000 BTU's
Additional 50,000
Fraction - $6.00
$12.00
$12.00 Minimum
- $24.00, Each
BTU's or
1% of Contract Fee with a Minimum
Fee of $20.00. State Surcharge is
$.50 Per Each $1,000 of Fee (Not the
Contract Cost)
See Attached page for Revision to Format and Proposed Rate Changes
PROPOSED
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES - 1991
* RESIDENTIAL U & 2 FAMILY DWELLINGS. TOWNHOMES, CONDOMINIUMS)
Minimum Fee
Add-on, modification or alteration
Plumbing fixture
Water softener
Water heater
Fuel/gas piping system
Fixture rough -in
Lawn sprinkler system
Private sewage disposal system
$15.00 Was $12.00
15.00
3.00
each
5.00
3.00
3.00
per outlet
1.50
each
3.00
each
15.00
* COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/APARTMENT BUILDINGS
1% of contract price with a minimum fee of $25 Was $20.00
* Verify with Inspections Department which classification of multiple
residential dwellings your building fits in and what type of permit
is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES - 1991
* RESIDENTIAL (1 & 2 FAMILY DWELLINGS,, TOWNHOMES, CONDOMINIUMS)
Minimum fee
Add-on, modification, or alteration
HVAC - 1 - 100,000 BTU/H's
additional 50,000 BTU/H's
(or fraction thereof)
Fuel/gas piping system
$15.00 Was $12.00
15.00
* COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL/APARTMENT BUILDING
Minimum fee
16TW=Te3
24.00
6.00
3.00 per outlet
$25.00 Was $20.00
1% of contract price
Process piping systems $25.00
* Verify with Inspection Department which classification of multiple
residential dwellings your building fits in and what type of permit
is required.
11
X
CITY OF EAGAN
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES
NOTE: MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EACH INSPECTION - $15.00
ALL PERMITS REOVIRE 55.50 STATE SURCRARGE
1. Payment of fees - All electrical inspection fees are due and
payable to the City of Eagan at or before commencement of the
installation and shall be forwarded to the City of Eagan.
2. The fees for signs shall be computed in accordance with State
schedule with a minimum fee of $15.00 per sign.
3. Swimming pool ground fees shall be computed separately at $40.00
per pool.
4. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation,
replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only -
$15.00.
5. Services, change of services, temporary services, additions,
alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services
shall be computed separately.
1 to 100 ampere capacity ......................$15.00
101 to and including 200 ampere
capacity or fraction thereof ................$18.00
For each addition of 100 amperes
or fraction thereof .........................$ 5.00
6. Circuit, installations or additions, alterations or repairs of
each circuit or subfeeder shall be computed separately including
circuits fed from subfeeders and including the equipment service.
Circuits of 250 volts or less.
0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ..........$ 4.00
31 to and including 100 ampere capacity ........$ 7.00
For each additional 100 ampere capacity or
fraction thereof .............................$ 6.00
For circuits over 250 volts, double the fee
for 250 volts or less.
7. In addition to the above fees:
a. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each street lighting
standard.
b. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each traffic signal
head. Circuits originating within the standard will not
be used when computing the fee.
S. In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for
lights, heat and power shall be computed separately at $2.00 per
unit plus $.10 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA, 101 KVA and
over at $.05 per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or
generator in this category is $20.00.
Si
9. In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and
outline lighting shall be computed at $3.00 for the first 500 VA or
fraction thereof per unit, plus $.25 for each additional 100 VA or
fraction thereof.
10. In addition to the above fees (unless included in the maximum fee
filed by the initial installer). remote controls, signal circuits,
fire warning and security circuits of less than 50 volts shall be
computed at $15.00 per first ten openings or devices of each system
plus $1.00 for each additional opening.
11. For the review of plans and specifications of proposed
installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and
including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of 1% on any
amount in excess of $30,000 to ,be paid by persons or firms
requesting the review.
12. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe
conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not the
subject of an appeal pending before the Board or any court, a
reinspection fee of not to exceed the original unit fee, or $15.00,
whichever is less, may be assessed in writing by the inspector.
13. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special
inspections or services, the fee shall be $25.00 per man hour,
including travel time, plus $.20 per mile traveled, plus the
reasonable cost of equipment of material consumed.
This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and
such other jobs as determined by the inspector.
14. For inspections of transient project including, but not limited to,
carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as
follows:
a. Power supply units - According to Item 4(b) (2) of fee
schedule - a like fee will be required on power supply
units at each engagement during the season, except that
a fee of $25.00 per hour will be charged for additional
time spent by the inspector if the power supply is not
ready for inspection at the time and date specified on
the request for inspection as required by law.
b. Rides, devices or concessions - Shall be inspected at
their first appearance of the season and the inspection
fee shall be $15.00 per unit.
15. Fees double - When any person, co -partnership or corporation begin
work of any kind such as hereinbefore set forth, or for which a
permit from the electrical inspector is required by ordinance,
without having secured the necessary permit therefore from the
inspector of buildings either previous to or during the day of the
commencement of any such work, or on the next succeeding day where
such work is commenced on a Saturday or on a Sunday or a holiday,
he shall when subsequently securing such permit, be required to
pay double the fees herein- before provided for such permit, and
shall be subject to all penal provisions of this ordinance.
23is
16. Additional Fees and/or Fee shortage - Additional fees and/or fee
shortages must be received by the City within 14 days of written
notice. If additional fees and/or fee shortages are not received
within 14 days of notice, permits for electrical installations will
not be accepted by the City until such time as the additional fees
and/or shortages are received. Additional fees and/or fee
shortages that are not received within 14 days of notice are
subject to a 10% per day penalty.
ASSESSMENT FEES
FEE TYPE
Trunk Assessment/Connection Charge
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Oversize
Unplatted
Platted Residential
Trunk Water Main
Oversize
Unplatted and Platted
Comm. & Ind.
Platted Residential
Water Supply & Storage (WAC)
Comm. & Ind.
Trunk Storm Sewer Oversize
Single Family
Multi -Family
Comm. & Ind.
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
$1,465/Ac.
69t 705/Lot
, 59j "= 1, 536/Ac.
5LLe 735/Lot
Lateral Benefit Assessment/Connection Charge
Lateral Benefit from
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Lateral Benefit from
Trunk Water Main
Single Family
Multi -Family and
Comm. & Ind.
Lateral Benefit from
Trunk Storm Sewer
12" Storm Sewer
15" Storm Sewer
18" Storm Sewer
21" Storm Sewer
24" Storm Sewer
. 2,420/Ac.
. .068/S.F.
.085/S.F.
.102/S.F.
33.80 339/Centerline Foot
30.00 24-r4S/Centerline Foot
49.50 4-6iT7/Centerline Foot
38.30 *a4-r6/Centerline Foot
39.80 *39-r"/Centerline Foot
42.50 A-44-r"/Centerline Foot
45.70 A44-r:;�5/Centerline Foot
52.40 *4-1z3.5/Centerline Foot
*Rate is based on a pipe at 15 foot depth, cost for additional depth
will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
8�
Street Assessments
PROPOSED 1991 FEE
Residential Nultiple comm./Ind.
321 Wide 441 Wide 521 Wide
Rate/F.F. Rate/F.F. RateIF.F.
Street Surfacing
$26.69 $27.60 $48.49
$50.20 X63-.99
$66.30
W'9t9F SeWer
Street Surfacing
39.29 33.40 56:85
63.85 7?.25
87.85
w/Grading
Street Surfacing
3:7.90 39.12 62.55
64.65 89.65
83.40
w/Storm Sewer
Street Surfacing
41.�59 44.92 71.98
78.30 94-.9
104.95
w/Grading &
Storm Sewer
Trails
Concrete (51 vide) $15.00/F.F.
Bituminous Trail (8' wide) 11.80 �-3A/F.F.
Plus $2.95/F.F. for
Sod and Grading
Plus $2.95/F.F. for
Sod and Grading
14491)40wo,) 4*__MlJbm44*3
PROPOSED 1991
FEE TYPE FEE
Sanitary Sewer
Single Family, Townhouse MN $15.45/Qtr. for 10,000
and Similar Residential Gal. $1.35/1000 Gal. for
All Usage Over 10,000
Gal. Based on Winter
Quarter Meter Reading
Apartment, Institutional MN $15.45/Qtr. for 10,000
Commercial & Industrial Gal. $1.35/1000 Gal. for
all Usage over 10,000 Gal
Sewer only (Sewer with no Flat Rate - $28.95/Qtr.
water connection/meter to
measure flow)
Water Works
All users MN $15.50 44-4-r§9/Qtr for 10,000
Gal. & $.90 4-r&9/1000 Gal. for
All Usage Over 10,000 Gal
Water Account Deposit $15.00/Residential Account
Sewer Account Deposit $15.00/Residential Account
Street Light Energy
Single Family/Twin Homes
(R-1, R-2) $2.80 $2.-65 Per Qtr Per Lot
Townhouses (R-3) $2.25 $2.19 Per Qtr Per Unit
Multiple Residential $29.30 $18.49 Per Qtr Per Billing Acct.
C/I non -continuous $3.45/Qtr./Ac.
C/I continuous .12/L.F./Qtr.
continuous 18.00/Ac./Qtr.
Individual Lights
100 WHPS
150 WHPS
250 WHPS
Road Unit Charge
Residential Except Apartments $370
Apartments (80%) 296
Comm. & Ind. 1,110
$19.55/Light/Qtr.
29.00/Light/Qtr.
40.00/Light/Qtr.
$355/unit (1.0 RUC)
Q4+/unit (0.8 RUC)
3 865/acre (3.0 RUC)
FEE TYPE
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC)
Single Family (R1 and R2)
Other
Treatment Plant Charge
Water Supply & Storage (WAC)
Single Family
Apartments
Comm. & Ind.
Shut-off Charge
Delivery of Shut-off Notice
Late Fee
Sewer Permit
Water Permit
Temporary Construction Meter Permit
(6 month maximum)
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
4$9 $750
MWCC
-,�0 276
t
599 /un t
25.00
10.00
660/Lot
528/Unit
2,420/Ac.
10% of Balance
$15.00
15.00
10.00 (6199 $200 Escrow Dep.)
After Hours Work A. Call Out - Labor Rate 2.5 Hr.
Minimum + 10% Administrative
B. Extended Day Labor + 10% Admin.
Water Meter Removal 30.00
Water Meter Replacement 30.00
Sewer Tap
100.00
Water Tap
100.00
Water Meters
5/8" x 3/4" meter*
90.00
3/4 water meter*
120.00
1" water meter
125.00
14" water meter
325.00
2" water meter
455.00
2" compound
970.00
3" compound
1,205.00
4" compound
1,900.00
6" compound
3,620.00
2" turbo meter
475.00
3" turbo meter
639.85
4" turbo meter
1,075.00
6" turbo meter
2,220.00
#2 copperhorn w/swivel
16.00
Remote wire (over 351)
0.06/Ft
Outside Remote Read Out Meter
16.00 (New)
Outside Remote "Touch Pad" Meter
12.00 (New)
FEE TYPE
Meter Strainers:
211
311
411
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
160.00
207.00
312.00
Meter Testing (Charged only if meter tests correct):
5/8" through -2-K 1" 50.00
1 1/4" through 2" 80.00
All other sizes Contract Cost (Mpls)+ 10%
Meter Box Cover 31.00 New related to
development
Lid to Meter Box Cover 15.00 New related to
development
Deposit to turn on water before
all work is satisfactorily completed 200.00
(City retains $30 as administrative fee) - (New)
* Includes Copperhorn
g21
PAGE TO BE REVIEWED BY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AT THE DECEMBER
6 MEETING AND PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 18
PARKS AND RECREATION
FEE TYPE
Parkland Dedication
Single Family
Duplex
Townhouse/Quad
Apartments/Multiple
Commercial and Industrial
after
Park Fees
Picnic Kit
Trapp Farm and Thomas Lake
Pavilions(1)
Enclosed Shelter Buildings(1)
Open Shelters
Extra Picnic Tables (maximum of six)
Athletic Facilities/Shelters(1)
Fields
Lights (If Required) -Tournaments
Building Cleaning
Restrooms/Bases/Field Chalking
Maintenance Fee - Travel Baseball
Concession Permit (maximum of 3)
Community Rooms
Events
Profit and Fund Raising
Chuckwagon Grill
Canopy
(1) Requires Damage Report
0(2o
1990
FEE
$685.00
600.00
535.00
540.00
.05/S. F.
by
3.00/5.00
(To be recommended
Park Commission
12-7-89 meeting)
50.00
Per
Day
35.00
1/2
Day
50.00
Per
Day
35.00
1/2
Day
15.00
15.00
35.00 Per Field Per Day
20.00 Per Field Per Hr
30.00 Per Day
15.00 per reservation
50.00 Youth/Team
200.00 Adult/Team
200.00
35.00
50.00
25.00
50.00/Day
100.00
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL
FEE TYPE
Maintenance Person
Foreman
Pick-up truck
1 Ton dump truck
Single axle dump truck
Tandem axle dump truck
Tractor
Backhoe/loader
Front end loader
Road grader
Street sweeper
Roller
Paver
Air Compressor
50 KW Generator
Sewer Jetter
Sewer Rodder
Sewer Vacuum - Trailer
Sewer Vacuum - Truck
Groundsmaster Mower
Pump 6'•
Pump 8"
Skid Loader
Chipper
ENGINEERING STAFF RATES (NEW)
Director of Public Works
Assistant City Engineer
Design/Development Engineer
Senior Technician
Technician
Aide
Intern
Survey Crew
2 person
3 person
PLANNING STAFF RATES (NEW)
Director of Community Development
City Planner
Planner I
Project Planner
R�
PROPOSED 1991
FEE
$20.00/hr.
30.00/hr.
24.00/hr.
22.00/hr.
23.00/hr.
30.00/hr.
3'5.00/hr.
15.00/hr.
35.00/hr.
56.00/hr.
56.00/hr.
41.00/hr.
20.00/hr.
35.00/hr.
66.00/hr.
33.00/hr.
33.00/hr.
70.00/hr.
22.00/hr.
25.00/hr.
28.00/hr.
35.00/hr.
15.00/hr.
$80.00/hr.
60.00/hr.
55.00/hr.
45.00/hr.
40.00/hr.
30.00/hr.
20.00/hr.
70.00/hr.
90.00/hr.
$80.00/hr.
60.00/hr.
50.00/hr.
40.00/hr.
(Regular)
(Overtime)
20.00/hr.
15.00/hr.
Billing rates to the railroad for fires caused by them:
Manpower
Pumper
Tanker
Chief's Vehicle
Rescue, Grass Rigs
Command Vehicle, Aerial
(Minimum 1 hour charge)
$ 9.00/hr.
200.00/hr.
150.00/hr.
500.00/hr.
EXHIBIT 'IBII
(Developer's Escrow Agreement)
Preliminary Plat Application Escrow (1)
Conditional Use Permit Escrow New
Rezoning Escrow New
Waiver of Platting Escrow New
$150 per acre
$1,500 Minimum Was $750
$4,800 Maximum Was 2,400
Final Plat Application Escrow (1)
$4,000
Contract Management Escrow (1)
Estimated Construction Costs (2)
$ 0 - $150,000
$150,001 - $500,000
$500,001 +
Was $500
Escrow
Were
8% ($1,000 Minimum) 4% 500
6% ($12,000 Minimum) 3% 6,000
5% ($30,000 Minimum) 2.5% 15,000
("These are escrow deposits with minimums/maximums, they are not
intended to be actual charges.
(2)Costs will be verified by City staff and adjusted as necessary to be
comparable to City Projects, thereby insuring armslength transaction
costs.
q324
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION
S'S MARTHA & MARY EPISC_Q_PAL CHURCH
B. Extension Preliminary Plat or Ss. Martha & Mary Episcopal Church, Lexington &
Diffley--Enclosed on page Cj�s a request which has been received of Bill Balsam on
behalf of Ss. Martha & Mary Episcopal Church for an extension of preliminary plat for their
property located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Lexington and Diffley
Roads. Mr. Balsam indicates an intention to complete financing and begin construction in
June of 1991. Also enclosed on pages through �,is a memo and attachments
from City Planner Sturm regarding this item.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny an extension of
preliminary plat for Ss. Martha & Mary Episcopal Church as presented.
a `�
5807 125th St W
Apple Valley, MN 55124
November 6, 1990
Mr. Dale Runkle
Community Development Director
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Re: Ss. Martha & Mary Episcopal Church re -zoning permit
issued November, 1988
Dear Mr. Runkle:
We have been actively progressing toward the construction of
our new building at the corner of Lexington and Diffley.
Financing has moved a little slower than we expected, so we
were unable to break -ground this Fall. We plan to have all
the financing in place, so that we can begin construction
around June, 1991.
As we discussed this afternoon, there were various steps we
had taken with the city of Eagan, such as re -zoning. We
would like to make certain that these permits will not lapse
prior to our 1991 construction.
Please look into this matter. If there is anything we need
to do, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely yours,
BUILDING AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE
J11'Pa-
Bill E.G. Balsam Business hrs 451-4537
Chairman
ECEitirc ^ , .
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1990
RE: STS. MARTHA & MARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH ADDITION
On December 20, 1988, the City approved a Preliminary Plat for the
Sts. Martha & Mary Episcopal Church Addition at the NE intersection
of Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. In December 1989, the
Preliminary Plat was extended for another year. The applicants are
again requesting a one-year extension. The church has been working
towards increasing their membership and acquiring the necessary
financing to begin construction. They hope to break ground next
summer. This item was reviewed at the staff development meeting
and no additional changes to the original conditions are being
proposed by staff. However, we would like to note that Diffley
Road will be reconstructed in 1991 and additional right-of-way will
be necessary. This is covered in the Standard Conditions of Plat
approval. Attached is a copy of the site plan and conditions of
approval from December 1988 that were not changed with last year's
extension.
If you would like additional information, please advise.
City Planner
JS/js
cc: Dale Runkle, Community Development Director
q5A
Page 12/EAGAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
December 20,, 1988
BPI#% '', PAL CBUR1M:.:ADDITION
Community Development .1%.:..... 1'e Runkle introduced the site
plan to the Council. ormed the Council he was
available for questions. 4
Wachter moved, Gustafson seconded, the motion to approve the
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment frQ1A.P-III to Public Facilities
for the Episcopal Church A& .... ***" ..... '
in favor.
Egan moved, Gustafson secoA:;'i4*d,, motion to approve a rezoning
from R-4 to Public Facilities f" the *p4scoW Church Addition. All
voted in favor.
Egan moved, Wachter ie"I"c"O""haed,
:i '*'* motion to approve a
preliminary plat entitled Episcopal Church Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The standard conditions of Plat approval as adopted by
Council action on Septembez....15., 19871 shall be complied with: A -I,,
B-21 B-3, C-1, C-2? P-1 and G-1.
2. The parking stalls shall ...ub feet wide.
3. The detailed landscapl'.5 ..... place emphasis on
screening the parking area&-:1f0i0-:-'t . h . e public streets and the
apartments to the north.
4. The City shall inspect the single family home to insure all
building codes are being satisfied.
5. The access onto Lexi:aqt-, 11 be finalized with all
concerned parties. The propa at
.. ........... ::*4 rance to be constructed to
a width of 30 feet. ...
6. All signage shall confork'.jio Coo requirements.
7. The proposed development is subje:Ct to additional
requirements pertaining to grading, drainage and fire hydrant
coverage with the final plat phase of development.
8. The finished floor elevation f e worship center shall be
at least 984 feet.
All voted in favor.
Councilmember McCrea noted that qual:ity control should be
considered.
q_rz
�OM'91031JHOUV u►ddmdM/NOSIHHow
I � """'., �"••�,�,':::"rod +�aw7 ��ys.a� ..w �
qSC_
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
PETITION FOR PARK STUDYf VIOLET LANE & FEDERAL DRIVE
C. Petition to Study Request for Park in Violet Lane & Federal Drive Neighborhood,
Northeast Quarter of Section 16 --Issues were raised during the City's Multi -Family
Residential Land Study concerning the character of the neighborhoods developing around
Federal Drive and Violet Lane. The area in question lies in Park Service District #16
served by Skyhill Park located at Ashbury and Blue. Cross Roads. Correspondence and a
petition have been received of approximately 87 residents of the area for additional study
of the park service district needs and whether they are met adequately by Skyhill Park.
A copy of the neighbors' correspondence and petition is enclosed on pages _R I through
for your review. Also enclosed on pages -t I through are memoranda from
Parks & Recreation Director Vraa providing additional background ih this matter. To date,
the Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission has not taken additional action in this matter
pending direction from the City Council to consider this request.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a request for a
study of park service needs in Park Service District #16 relative to a petition received of
residents in the Violet Lane and Federal Drive neighborhood.
UNO
November J
Dear Mayor Egan and City Council Members,
It is our understanding from Mr. Vraa that the first step to
take towards possibly establishing a neighborhood park is for the
City Council to initiate a study of the neighborhood's need for a
park. We are asking, along with the 87 people who signed the
enclosed petition, that the Council give the Parks and Recreation
Department the directive to conduct such a study.
The need of our children for a safe play area is not met by
the existing parks. As noted in our letter of October 9, the
comprehensive park plan developed in 1982 did not take into
account the number of single family homes in this area since more
have been built here than originally planned. As a result, the
plan developed does not meet the recreational needs of our
children. Blackhawk Park is not only too distant (the developed
area is on the other side of the lake) but is also a passive park
which is not the appropriate type of park for the large number of
small children in our neighborhood. Skyline Park is a fair
distance, is located at the crossroads of two roads which are
heavily trafficked, and is often occupied by sports teams.
Quarry Park is located across Yankee Doodle Road from our
neighborhood, which as you know is too major a thoroughfare for
children to cross on their way to a park.
A formal study would provide the means for an unbiased
person to determine not only whether our area needs a
neighborhood park, but also what should go into the park. Our
children would be much better served by the decisions being based
91
on the study than on our whims or the whims of a developer.
Thank you for your consideration. Please keep us informed
of the process. We will contact you if we do not hear anything
soon.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Davitt
1572 Pacific Ave.
Eagan, MN 55122
688-6269
CCI Ken Vraa
It
Martha M. Franke
1584 Pacific Ave.
Eagan, MN 55122
452-1360
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.1.D.s 10-01600-010-061 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our chiIdren.
# of
Name Address Phone Children
4--32 - Ito,
.n L (f t.UE
,
Y -at "0 �
1
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
* of
Name Address Phone Children
r�
-°,\Z'
t/
q S�
90,9
r
�z -66 O CO
I,' 9JAPtom—
MRS
In "Ap
`OD
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located West
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children Whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground.as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
K of
s Phone Childr
4
M
IS `-► 41 pe
�Z�y5(o-5 1 �
i600 �4yq—D�3O Z
b00 f L�c:r r� �
C• 115 q - 013O �r
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
N of
Name Address Phone Children
A- f -� 4-) L-41� P- 6 ,
/f7,7—
c k —1.57(o T� ec rrc Ove
d4
3,T
'1% W-samr, i I I FA
Z7 [='4
4�,-V�-' i
�o �
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-412-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
* of
Name Address Phone Children
1�d C . �& 35(.5 Co�vwnmj 45a - 5-0 �C)
YII . „ l -.11 d T 'PS _ - GS Z
3
a,V-dbi 62E I-4ggS D Cidoc�
X03
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
# of
Name Address Phone Children
�. Cctx
/ X35 Zai V 1 �A' s--? -�Oq C)
1415 �Jew C4
C.- I r' ( < - e- i ---,) CJ T`
zz —61y&-
ILA
0
516
D
C.- I r' ( < - e- i ---,) CJ T`
zz —61y&-
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
# of
Name Address Phone Children
��1��V _ ��11 r, `�Ti� ca V �4 • \,r�r.`i"4 LZ_ • y�y� ' L 4•.'h \ � 1
Oc'^//h% (-(/) Ilk 411CSV CGRt'F 7 <•, - CA <,
,� � ACL G�,�•`'`�i j �Sl� L c��� ����� ��<<ti�- ���- �� S� �
rA
To the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Eagan:
We the undersigned hereby request that a playground be
established on the properties, or a portion thereof, located west
of Federal Drive, both north and south of Violet Lane, in the NE
1/4 Section 16, P.I.D.s 10-01600-010-06, 10-01600-010-05, 10-
01600-01600-012-07, Dakota County, Minnesota, T -27N, R -23W.
The adjacent neighborhoods have a large number of children whose
need for a safe play area is not currently being met. We view
the establishment of said playground as a necessity for the well-
being of our children.
# of
Name Address Phone Children
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1990
RE: MARTHA FRANKE/PARK STUDY REQUEST
You had asked that I prepare a review of the letter from Martha Franke regarding a park
in their neighborhood.
This issue first came about with the R-4 land study being conducted by Community
Development for Study Area "I". At the Planning Commission meeting, when the issue
of rezoning came up, residents presented a petition requesting that needs for a park be
met within a portion of the area being considered for rezoning. This petition was
forwarded to me and I responded to the Community Development Department (See
Attached Memo) that Sky -Hill Park was the designated neighborhood park for this service
area. However, recognizing the numerous changes in land use that had occurred, it is
indeed possible that the resident's request for a park/play area might be justified.
However, a study of the area would be required to determine if a need for a park existed.
To undertake such a study would require the direction and approval of the City Council.
It is my understanding that this issue was brought to the attention of the City Council
members, however, the Council did not provide direction to undertake a study or review.
It would seem the Council has the following options:
1. Reaffirm that Sky Hill Park is the neighborhood park facility for this service area.
2. Provide direction to staff to do a study to determine if a need exists and present
the findings to the Council for determining if a park or play area is justified.
I don't believe that a 'Wait and see attitude" or postponing the issue until such time as
development is proposed for the property would be appropriate. This is typically too late
for the City to analyze and assess the need, as well as too late for the developer to alter
his plans to provide for a park.
I trust this help you.
KV/bls
Attachment
l C)'J
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION
DATE: JULY 6, 1990
RE: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND STUDY/STUDY AREA I;
RESIDENT PETITION
BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission meeting on June 26, 1990, the Planning Commission received
a petition from residents adjoining study Area I, the petition requested that a playground
be established on the property, or a portion of the property, which was being reviewed for
zoning to single family.
STAFF RESPONSE
The property in question, is within Park Service District #16, which is serviced.by Sky Hill
Park on Blue Cross and Blackhawk Roads. (See Map Attached).
Blackhawk Community Park is to the south, and will soon be under design development.
Access to this park is planned for in the future, but it is unlikely to meet neighborhood
needs typical in most neighborhood parks.
The 1982 Park Systems Plan did not anticipate any additional neighborhood park
acquisition in Park Service District #16, as it was anticipated that neighborhood needs
would be met by Sky Hill Park.
If the Council desires, a thorough review by Park & Recreation Department Commission,
and Staff, of this service area can be done to confirm the 1982 Park Systems Plan, or
determine that development of the area has changed from what was anticipated. Direction
from the Council, as well as an elaboration of what the neighborhood considers its needs
for a park, would be necessary.
We will await your direction on this issue.
KV/bls
lo
�
October 9, 1990
Dear Mayor Egan,
This is in regard to the land located west of Federal Drive
and north and south of Violet Lane. Many people in the adjacent
neighborhoods are concerned about the lack of adequate play area
available for the large number of children, and have signed a
Petition requesting that a park or p14yground be established on
this property.
There are more single family homes in this area than was
anticipated by the comprehensive park plan developed in 1982. As
Mr. Vras noted in a recent conversation, more children live in
single family home neighborhoods. Therefore, the plan did not
foresee the abundance of children in our neighborhoods and the
existing parks are not safely accessible for our children. This
need was brought to your attention at the September 18th council
meeting by Joe Davitt, one of the petitioners.
Mr. Davitt, representing the neighbors, asked and encouraged
the council to initiate a study of the neighborhoods' need for a
park. He had brought up the aforementioned concerns and your
response was that you had spoken to the developer about a park.
We still have alot of questions about the city's intention for
meeting the need of our children and want to see the study
conducted.
We will be calling you shortly to discuss this. further.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Davitt Martha M. Franke
cc: D. Gustafson, P. McCrea, T. Pawlenty, T. Wachter,
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
VARIANCE/KRAFT/AMERICAN FOODS
D. Variance, Kraft/American, of 5% to Lot Coverage Requirements in LI Zoning District
of 35%, Located at 2864 Eagandale Blvd. in South Half of Section 3 --An application has
been received of Kraft/American Foods for a variance of 5% to the building lot coverage
maximum of 35% in an industrial zoning district. The variance is requested to permit
construction of an addition of approximately 16,000, feet in size. The configuration being
anticipated utilizes the current configuration of the Kraft/American property. Additional
property is available adjacent to the subject parcel, but owners of these lots prefer not to
subdivide them further, potentially limiting their remaining value for sale. Acquisition of
entire lots along the west service road could modify the percentage of lot coverage, but the
applicant maintains that the configuration of the additional lots would not be logical or
useful for their expansion plans.
For additional information relating to this application, please refer to the Community
Development Department's staff report which is enclosed on pages J -U through for
your review.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a variance of 5%
to the lot coverage requirements in an industrial zoning district of 35% for Kraft/American
Foods located at 2864 Eagandale Blvd. in the south half of Section 3 as presented.
�Z)
SUBJECT: VARIANCE
APPLICANT: BRUCE HORNER
KRAFT/AMERICAN
LOCATION: 2864 EAGANDALE BOULEVARD
(SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 3)
EXISTING ZONING: L -I (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBER 4, 1990
DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 17, 1990
COMPILED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Variance of
5% to the building lot coverage maximum in the Industrial zoning district of 35%.
BACKGROUND: American Fruit and Produce Company was founded in 1932 in
Minneapolis. In March 1971, the company and its 91 employees moved to a 137,000 sq. ft.
facility at its current location in Eagan. The facility expanded by 52,000 sq. ft. in 1975. In
February 1987, American Fruit was purchased by Kraft Foods. In 1989, Kraft Foods was
purchased by Phillip Morris who combined General Foods and Kraft Foods to create the
company Kraft General Foods. The company has grown and developed into the largest food
service distributor in Minnesota and currently employs 343 people at the Eagan facility.
COMMENTS: The applicant currently has a building footprint of 181,785 sq. ft. on 19.57
acres which is a lot coverage of approximately 21%. The applicant has acquired additional
land in recent years that has resulted in the existing low lot coverage. Prior to this land
acquisition of approximately seven acres, the lot coverage at the site was 34%.
The Eagan facility is at capacity and increased competition by two major food service
distributors has necessitated Kraft/American to increase its office/warehouse capacity to
approximately 363,000 sq. ft. The proposed expansion will result in a building footprint of
341,000 sq. ft. which results in a lot coverage of 40%. The applicant has investigated further
land acquisition of property, however adjacent land owners do not wish to sell only a portion
of available lots due to concerns that the remainder would not constitute a buildable/saleable
lot. Acquiring more land would mean purchasing an entire adjacent lot that would leave
Kraft/American with much more land than needed.
The applicant believes that its inability to purchase additional land in a logical fashion, due
to its relationship to adjacent streets and land constitutes a unique hardship for expansion
at this site within the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement.
The proposed expansion will result in more space as well as replacement of some obsolete
equipment and will be done in two phases. Phase I will occur over the next 2-1/2 years and
will include the construction of a new cooler and freezer east of the existing facility. Once
completed, the existing freezer will be removed and internal remodeling and additions to the
north end of the existing facility and parking lot reconstruction will occur. Phase II will
consist of additions to the new cooler and freezer in five to eight years.
The proposed building expansion and subsequent parking layout will meet, or exceed, all lot
area, width, yards, and height requirements. The plans calls for 120 truck parking spaces
and 277 automobile parking stalls. Kraft/American will have a maximum of 200 employees
per shift. The evening and day shifts do not overlap. When completed, the applicant
estimates 400 employees at the facility.
If approved, this Variance shall be subject to the following:
1. Applicant and staff shall finalize an overall landscape plan which will include
underground irrigation.
2. No rooftop mechanical equipment shall be visible from the street.
3. Trash and recycling containers shall be kept inside the building or in an enclosure
attached to the building and constructed of similar building materials.
4. All other applicable Ordinances.
/,,Von 0 404
t �3
O
;V; RI ;911 iii
mm
m
r
A
I
UJ
UJI
I Y
LIX3
OP
os
31
Am
IDA,
(14
X000 M;4
Uj
ui
N
tP
t,1,
31
Am
IDA,
(14
X000 M;4
Uj
ui
N
Lj
E........ ...... ------ Z,
!II
Ul IU
alts s i:a assail ! Q l�
L
ft
j rr
OF.I 1XI MSW
w , , � jLR �, i it I i i �-�--- - �! ---�_ '•_ _.
q
o f I I, a- j aaou Iv,�I�
lu
Iii ..v�J,'�' .� �• �! • _LLJ'
CL
4 Us
ul
IL1� f
oil
N �r
•� t
z C
Z
11 �
Q l �i
Q
Y W E
tl
r
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT f ANNA CHUNG'S RESTAURANTIMNE & BEER
E. Conditional Use Permit, Anna Chung's Restaurant, to Allow On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Beer
in a CSC (Community Shopping Center) District on Lot 2, Block 1, Cliff Lake Center
Addition Located Along Cliff Lake Road in the Southwest Quarter of Section 29 --At its
meeting of November 27, 1990, the Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider a conditional use permit for the sale of wine and 3.2 beer at Anna Chung's
Restaurant in Cliff Lake Center. The APC is recommending approval of the application.
The Community Development Department's staff report in t 's regard is enclosed on pages
AZ through jWfor your review. Also enclosed on paged 4e,4 thf000 is a copy of
the APC minutes regarding this item.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the conditional use
permit for Anna Chung's Restaurant to allow on -sale wine and 3.2 beer sales in a CSC
(Community Shopping Center) district at Cliff Lake Center as presented.
1 l �
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: CHUNG'S INC
LOCATION: 1960 CLIFF LAKE RD, SUITE 116
10-17780-020-01
EXISTING ZONING: PD (PLANNED -DEVELOPMENT)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 27, 1990
DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 9, 1990
COMPII,ED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the sale of wine and 3.2 beer in conjunction with the Anna Chung's
restaurant at Cliff Lake Center.
C'OA1AIENTS: The restaurant opened on August 31, 1990 and has a seating capacity of
52. Due to customer requests for beer or wine with their meals, the restaurant has
submitted this application.
If approved, this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the following conditions
1. The necessary permits are approved by the City police department.
2. All other applicable ordinances are adhered to.
(lO'k
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION - 29 -CU -19-10-90 Lot 2, Block 1, Clio' Lake Centre
Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed
for the property, the following charges are proposed: The charges are computed using the
City's existing fee schedule and connections proposed to be made to the City's utility system
based on the submitted plans.
Improvement
None
Project Use Rate
��i
Quantity Amount
CLIFF LAKE CENTRE
u �,-
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
g0,
\S)
HOPS
TAAG.E�
0
CUB FOODS
CLIFF ROAD
. . . . . . .........
k--�
rm"6=wr7
a log, mgo' see'
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1990
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ANNA CHUNG'S RESTAURANT
At the November 27, 1990 Advisory Planning Commission meeting, the
Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale wine and 3.2 beer in a
Community Shopping Center district was approved unanimously by the
Commission subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
There was no public comment on this item.
If you would like additional information, please advise.
City Planner
JS/js
CC: Dale Runkle, Community Development Director
� a�
EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 27, 1990
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - ANNA CHUNG'S RESTAURANT
Chairman Graves opened the first public hearing for the evening
regarding a conditional use permit to allow on -sale wine and 3.2 beer
in a CSC (Community Shopping Center) district on Lot 2, Block 1,
Cliff Lake Center Addition located along Cliff Road in the southwest
quarter of Section 29.
City Planner Jim Sturm presented an 'overview of the staff report
and a brief application summary.
Anna Chung (Applicant), 1960 Cliff Lake Road, stated she was
available for questions.
Miller moved, Staehli seconded, the motion to approve a
conditional use permit to allow on -sale wine and 3.2 beer in a CSC
(Community Shopping Center) district on Lot 2, Block 1, Cliff Lake
Center Addition located along Cliff Road in the southwest quarter of
Section 29, subject to the following conditions:
1. The necessary permits are approved by the City Police
Department.
2. All other applicable ordinances are adhered to.
All voted in favor.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
WINE AND BEER LICENSE jANNA CHUNG'S RESTAURANT
F. License, Anna Chung's Restaurant, Wine and 3.2 Beer, Lot 2, Block 1, Cliff Lake Center
Addition --An application has been received of Chung's Inc. requesting a license for wine and
3.2 beer sales at the above -referenced location at Cliff Lake Center. Enclosed in your
packets without page number is a copy of the application and Police Department
investigation in this regard.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the license for
Anna Chung's Restaurant for the sale of wine and 3.2 beer at Lot 2, Block 1, Cliff Lake
Center Addition.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MARGARET PHILLIPSIHAIR SALON
G. Conditional Use Permit, Margaret O. Phillips, to Allow a Hair Salon in an R-1 (Single
Family) District on Lot 34, Block 3, Engstrom's Deerwood Addition Located in the SE 1/4
of Section 21 --At its regular meeting of November 27, 1990, the Advisory Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit for Margaret O.
Phillips to operate a hair salon in an R-1 zoning district at 4055 Deerwood Place. The
Advisory Planning Commission is recommending approval of the application.
For additional information regarding this application,4through
a refer to the Community
Development Department staff report enclos d on pages � for your review.
Also enclosed on pages � through � are copiecorrespondence from Robert
Engstrom Companies concerning neighborhood participation in any decision related to this
application. Enclosed on pages I acl through J31 is a copy of correspondence received
of residents of the Deerwqpd neighborhood incl ding a petition in opposition to this
application. On page Q;ow- is separate correspondence received of David
and Noel Lukeson regarding this application. Finally, enclosed on Pages through
for your review is a copy of the Advisory Planning Commission minutes in this regard.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the conditional use
permit for Margaret O. Phillips to allow a hair salon in an R-1 single family district on Lot
34, Block 3, Engstrom's Deerwood Addition.
I Q,5
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: MARGARET O. PHILLIPS
LOCATION: 4055 DEERWOOD PLACE
LOT 34, BLOCK 3, ENGSTROM'S DEERWOOD ADD.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 27, 1990
DATE OF REPORT: JULY 16, 1990
COMPILED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUMMARY: An application has been submitted requesting a Conditional
Use Permit to allow a hair salon in an R-1 zoning district.
CONINIENTS: The City Code allows beauty parlors in R-1 districts as a Conditional Use
subject to the following:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 8:30 P.M. only.
2. Only household occupants can be employees.
3. Parking shall be on-site and limited to two customer vehicles.
4. No signs advertising the business are allowed.
5. No over-the-counter sale of merchandise is allowed.
If approved, this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to all of the conditions listed
lbove.
61arg:
rad
om"=
saw
!0 2/
2f
CUTLOT A
'
4143
4141
3
! 4001
I i»
27
100/
4142
41332
•
�
7
400•
�
1002
1017 4017
24 jy
112 4
0
1021
4004
1101
26
402/
4010
�
4014
»
4 t!6 2y
a0T•
4011 1
1124
/
402•
a0!•
!1
4033
2 4031
t i!2
1121
4030!3
3
24
10
4
4032
20
1114 4117
4037
4034
30
i
4031
Is
14036
it
13H
4114 4110
1041
•041
401T
a
31
i0
If
a
4040
4110 4109
4045
/0/• 7
2t
17
044
4104 4106
13
•
>0
404/
4054
H .101
�
1066
4053
4036
t/
14
/
1i 047
11
40"17
1!
t6
.err
15
.064
1f
is
1057
407 0
407
1416 1411
17
1071
1433
1407
141•15
11�
4046 1416 6M 10
C1T0p
MMRT GO
10•f
1403
PAN
1425
t.tt • 10•/ 4073
1
.077'
2 1.12
1f
•
1408 1404
142•
1432 1434
1430
7
4 f
t0 11 12 13
14
1 1
4
61arg:
rad
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1990
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
MARGARET O. PHILLIPS
At the November 27, 1990 Advisory Planning Commission meeting, the
Conditional Use Permit to allow a hair salon in a Single Family
district was approved unanimously. The original public hearing was
scheduled to be held in July; however at the applicant's request,
it was continued due to neighborhood opposition. The application
has not changed since that original submission.
Attached for your review is a large petition submitted to the
staff, as well as a letter dated June 12, 1990 from Robert Engstrom
Companies stating their opinion at the time of the Conditional Use
Permit application.
After a lengthy discussion, the item was approved subject to the
five conditions listed in the staff report. The major concerns by
the neighbors were: the potential increased traffic, the possible
increased security problems, loss of privacy, and the precedence of
businesses in Single Family districts in Eagan.
Chairman Graves was very responsive to the neighbors and throughout
the public hearing, opened it to discussion by both sides. After
the action was taken, an individual expressed concern that they
were not given ample time to state their opposition to the
application. Staff would like to assure the Council that all
proper legal notices were sent regarding this item.
If you would like additional information, please advise.
CitJr Planner
JS/j s
CC: Dale Runkle, Community Development Director
�a�
ROBERT INGSTROM COMPANIES Ora
June 12, 1990
Mr. Harold Mackenthun
Mittelstaedt Brothers Construction, Inc.
785 Sunset Drive .
Eagali, Minnesota 5512,3
Re: Lot 34, Block 3, Engstroms Deerwood Addition
The Robert Engstrom Companies, as a Class B Member of the
Deerwood Homeowners Association, and as project developer
approves of the operation of a one -chair salon at the above named
location, provided the following conditions are met:
1. No outside signs or advertising.
2. That the operation is done with full knowledge and approval
of The City of Eagan officials.
Sincerely,
ROBERT ENGSTROM COMPANIES
H ward R. Kyllo -
HRK/ejo
... LAN SPEC ALISTS ...
4801 West 81st Street - Suite 101 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 - (6121) 893-1001
July 24, 1990
Planning Commission
City of Eagan
Dear Commission;
Regarding the application for a beauty salon in the home at .Lot 34,
Block 3. Engstrom's Deerwood Addition, these items need to be
stated;
1) I personally talked to Tim Phillips and told hien the
proposed use was unacceptable to the Deerwood
Homeowners Association, unless the proposed use
was discussed and approved by the neighboring
homeowners.
2) Subsequently, Tim contacted Howard Kyllo who told
him the same and sent him a list of property owners
and their addresses.
3) Later, Harold Mackenthun of Mittelstaedt Brothers
Construction, Inc, requested a letter from Howard
stating that Robert Engstrom Companies did not
object to the proposed home business. Howard
assumed that by now the neighbors had been
contacted. Secondly, an assumption was made that
the required public hearing will provide a forum for
the neighbors.
4) At the present time, we understand that the
adjoining homeowners have not been contacted and
that there is opposition to the proposal. Therefore,
the position of the Deerwood Homeowners
Association is unchanged, Namely, that the
proposed use is not approved unless there is
support from the adjoining homeowners,
Kind regards,
DEERWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
c•
ffli-
Robert E, Engstrom
President
REE/jea
November 23, 1990
City of Eagan City Council
Re: Conditional Use Permit for 4055 Deerv000d Place
Dear Council Members:
This letter will serve as our request that you deny the application for a special
use permit for a hair salon to be located at 4055 Deexwood Place, We feel a
business such as this does not benefit, and in fact, diminishw the value and
safety of our neighborhood.
We have attached copies of two sections of our Hcm9owners Associations
Covenants. Although they are not binding on the Council, they do highlight
restrictions included and a reasons why many of us moved into this development.
We do not feel, as Section 7 states, that this business is coupatible with the
neighborhood. The majority voting rights of the association still remain with
the developer who has stated that the "proposed use is not approved unless there
is support from the adjoining hers" (see attached letter). No contact has
been made from the homeowner regarding this subject. The hcammmers in the
development are opposed to the establishment of this business. Contact has been
made with all current homeowners, excepting the applicant, and all but one have
signed the petition opposing the establishment of this business (see attached
petition).
The Deetwood develc�.nt has only one entrance and the property in question is
located on a cul-de-sac. This limited access creates limited traffic which is
very appealing to its residents, especially those who purchased the cul-de-sac
lots. A business such as this would create more traffic than the general
residential traffic anticipated by its residents. Approval of this application
may also create a precedence for other people considering such business ventures.
Based on the overwhelming negative response of the hameamers of the development
and the other reasons stated, we request and encourage you to deny this
application.
k a �
I
Owner to remodel the interior of his or her residence or to paint
the interior of his or her residence any color desired.
Section 5. Procedure. If the ACC fails to approve or
disapprove plans and specifications within thirty (30) days after
the submission of the same to it, approval will be deemed to have
been granted. In the event of disapproval by the ACC, the
requesting Owner may give written notice that the Owner wishes to
appeal the ACC decision and request a hearing by the Association's
Board of Directors. Such notice must be furnished to the ACC
within ten (10) days of its decision. The hearing shall be at a
special meeting of the Board of Directors to be held within thirty
(30) days of the receipt of the Owner's notice of'appeal.
Section -6. Removal and Abatement. The ACC or the Association
shall have the right to order an Owner to remove or alter any
structure on any Lot erected in violation of the terms of this
Declaration, and to employ appropriate judicial proceedings to
compel the alteration or demolition of any nonconforming construc-
tion or other violation. Any cost incurred by the ACC shall be
levied as an Individual Lot Maintenance Assessment as provided in
Article V.
Section 7. Variances. Reasonable variances to the covenants,
conditions and restrictions may be granted by the ACC after review,
in order to overcome practical difficulties or to prevent
unnecessary hardship. A variance may only be granted if it is
not detrimental to other property and shall not defeat the purpose
of this Declaration.
ARTICLE VII
PROHIBITED USES
Section 1. Use. No Lot shall be used excer>t for residential
purposes• no Living Unit shall be erected, altered, placed or
permitted to remain on any Lot other than one single family
dwelling, not to exceed two (2) stories in height, and an attached
garage for at least two (2) cars and on-site parking spaces to
accommodate at least two (2) cars. No garages shall be erected
on any site except attached garages and no attached garage for
more than three (3) cars shall be permitted without the express
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Section 2. Subdivision. No Lot shall be subdivided or split
by any means whatsoever into any greater number of residential
Lots, nor into any residential plots of smaller size without the
express written consent of the City of Eagan.
Section 3. Standards. All uses of the Lots shall, as a
minimum, comply with the zoning and.other applicable ordinances
and regulations of the City of Eagan. The standards herein
contained shall be considered as requirements in addition to said
zoning and other applicable ordinances and regulations.
V3�
Section 4. Minimum Square Footage and Set Back Provisions.
The Architectural Control Committee shall have the right to
restrict set backs.
Section S. Signag-e. No sign shall be placed on any Lot or
within the Property without the express written consent of the
Architectural Control Committee, except that one "for sale" sign
may be placed on a Lot by an Owner or the Developer without
Committee approval.
Section 6. No Pets and Animals. No birds, animals or
insects shall be kept on any Lot except dogs, cats and other
common household pets, provided that they are not kept, bred or
maintained for any commercial purposes.
Section 7. Home Occupation. No profession or home industry
shall be conducted in any Living Unit or on any Lot without the
specific written approval of the Developer as long as it has
Class "B" votes as hereinbefore defined or by the Architectural
Control Committee thereafter. The Developer or the Committee,
whichever has authority at the time in question, in its discretion,
upon consideration of the circumstances in each case, and
particularly the effect on surrounding property, may permit a Lot
to be used in whole or in part for the conduct of a profession or
home industry. No such profession or home industry shall be
permitted, however, unless it is considered by the Developer or
by the Architectural Control Committee, whichever then has
authority, to be compatible with the residential*neighborhood.
Section S. Nuisances. No clothes line or drying yards or
pet control lines shall be permitted unless concealed by hedges
or screening acceptable to the Committee. No weeds, or other
unsightly growths shall be permitted to grow or remain upon the
premises. No refuse pile or unsightly objects shall be allowed
to be placed or suffered to remain any where thereon. Firewood
shall be stored only to the rear of the residence and shall be
concealed by screening acceptable to the Committee. In the event
that an Owner of any Lot shall fail or refuse to keep such
premises free from weeds, or refuse piles or other unsightly
growths or objects, then the Developer or the Committee may enter
upon such lands and remove the same at the expense of the Owner
and such entry shall not be deemed as trespass and in the event
of such a removal, a lien shall arise and be created in favor of
the Association and against such Lot for the full amount chargeable
to such Lot and such amount shall be due and payable within thirty
days after the Owner is billed therefor. No Lot shall be used in
whole or in part for the storage of rubbish of any character
whatsoever, nor for the storage of any property or thing that
will cause such Lot to appear in an unclean or untidy condition
or that will be obnoxious to the eye; nor shall any.substance,
thing, or material be kept upon any Lot that will emit foul or
obnoxious odors, or that will cause any noise that will or might
disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, or serenity of the occupants
8
\:3
'fie Qr wIb n d. a.\o wn4v�y- 5�ron� l� b Q Qost
eSbC, shwvtv`-� o f a lnat r s I ti a (oma ; n \osc
Lorna. CL �l 0 5 5 pa c. r w ooa p c c eu av\ O n c`.
part t; ►�.
Vls,c perrv��� -�c 'r Ings
Purpose- &ut overr�Jln�lnni�lq
rd.\ C"Cbf oma aQpos, t; on .
Na Phonar
j �(Ol j Oerr�o�A �iq 1 6gir - 037
� 2 i Din c,.k9� T�2 6 88 -• 67 �
�,Ir�/S Uezrwaocl �r• ysa - y/Dd
L-1 o i i u� - ►—e . c�s8 - ��o
.•��..� f�/a 6 �,Aa,��.r�co Tit, Sib a - d'.� dpi
t/U33 415q -6,C,67
n 65-7 1, S
�3a
Vele. 144%t- 4%t- as r cs', d ants o f
Dterwoad. dcv��oPw�cv�t ���rra�gl� o�POs `�h�
.5 �o io �1r1 vn trn� O ci �1a► r ,S j:b \*k A -SA \O^
n 1r�arYvc 0.'i '� dS S 7 tc r "opt Q \a.C-4- )
ever ar, a. Par t -ti,v kC- bass . wC- 'C C04s+
khat � C• � o � E a�. a,,� d�v�� i 06
ssuahcc.,
O�- a. CtA&% TAOAcX\ Sq- 4r4M6 40C tl'�tS
Q ver �os� du.� i -o avcY whc� rr���q �c�.'�ghboc t�ooc�
NA rn r- hang-
' O73
43y ,oee�- to kt M y Sa -gam
l'{jro O-Ur'w(r d pk4i-\
VO4(7��t
sTL
1
yQ (� L.Je4l- e w cko
G�� y� S / vis ,2 ✓�o � T.tr, � yTa - y�'y v
�,fvr Juckrc 040,*6{/ go46 -D�-towao d r� G8/- 0 V3-
,IlZq -.8,4x,,Z� +OV -p Aft4O�A. -?ao
JAk ` le. d dk (loic> OwL000d. Tr.) A45a-5sqd;Z
\3,3
X12 i IL .t o f -i- ka-
lrmrw. o JOSS
G-, parM.4- bas'%s W L Y' *%L
GA � oA- Eca c e\ C\Ah-\ i ss Lkahc, QGhS%3t;onal
use. Per N,; Ac --o,r tv:%s -\.tb
by it ��•bor inoA� b PQ nS'� dun -
1\kv tiu A�c.ss
C'D�A7sy /S'iAOFL- 1403 Dc-V"AobI C31• G� - ZGo�
4el
J14 P
r Yo y A",z C, 8'8 —76 76
�• � L � ts����7�r,� '�- l'`� l 1 ���c�_a C -t �1r.� "L- ZL: `� lv
CJ
c Ll 0�b 1� per w co - (ZA, `
We., +1%L 1Lv\jLWZ%5V-\`4 � as ras'l acK s -0f
\ 5rra n51 � p Q f flSe.. ' �
f*llt e.%
� \0,C-4. �4�a WN
b n a_ ck r4t- -16YY\JL 1pctis %s . WL r uv4s+ `Yet *--Q.
an ��. ss, -LQ v\ CA- o�CA-c�+��'� � Act
�SA r \.S � L v ebSf- u� 27 V-wc1t
N�v�nc rc.ss
Mcz rs{ cc r �ioo �0 4 e e- o o d Tr4.'l
Ce r �Y VA*j- 'a ,(,A eP yGv �¢ o.Y r oov �r
Hca, \ �Do 1 �Xivcod� �vv�7
C 1p -'J q1.3Y l�
�3S
Q ono ra�
ysa- 6 Ir F/
�5q - `z,7
SY -- 7 3 S�
�sy- (o «s
�4 67W
�N e � AA-�-L \..tv4L re t ebvt d, ) as r e� k c1�v is 0 f *k4-
�eerword d.0\ielbp"ue,-6 %'Ahr0&5�� o�Pts0- -tom
Aq sal o n ► n ` 1e1
!'10rout a� N0 55
part t\VV.JL V.�C0.Sl s . Vit- Y &4�x s+ 'QVC -A-
.
... Cb�, � � O nq� V►5� par �M� t -� t Z1n� 5 p u� r Q OS � �_
13�
L\i,►v
14sq-���d
yTy-
683 -ebP8
�� �6
e r cvoc�oj Tle.
aJ
L1C,\ Y
7),
13�
L\i,►v
14sq-���d
yTy-
683 -ebP8
ADDRESS MAP FOR
ENGSTROMS DEERWOOD ADDITION
4
amK
X31
30 2f
8f
1
4146
ounoT �
.141
4137
3
4001
37
6 4
4133 2
40064112
i
4001
4009
34
7
4013
Zi
4119 �
4017
•006
f
4021
�
4134
•010
4028
4128
4014
27
4164
1029
4031 1
4024
9
4020
3
11
4112
4111
4033
4031
Z•
24
4030
1011
t0
4
3
4110
4117
4037
4034
39
23
i
4034
14030 Is
1,
4114 4113
11
4041
4042
36 4047
t9
11
.11,
6
30
4040
4110 1109
13
4045
4040 7.
� 40fi
>1
17
r
`
4044
4106 1106
4061
4046
20
ti
0
4049
4064
is 4101
33
32
4096
to
4063
40681
4097
t•
15
10 3
14
4090
17
13
18
11 1
4060 n •
40"
tf
to
1! 4057
4070
4076
1416
1411
4074
1407
1433
17
19
1419�
4046
1414 �NTi.000
1403
4066
ocMa
00
1a3S
4069
4073
4077
1041
2 1111
18
PAIN
TI3? 6
1408
1404
f
1436
1436
1434
1430
7
8
1
f0 11 12 13
14
1
Z 1
4
,
X31
November 25, 1990 David & Noel Lukeson
and sons David Jr.,
Nathan & James
To: Mayor Thowas-6gan 4021 Deerwood Trail
Councilperson David Gustafson Eagan, MN 55122
Councilperson Pamela McCrea 612-688-6740
Councilperson Tim Pawlenty
Councilperson Theodore Wachter
Re: Conditional Use Permit; Mrs. Margaret 0. Phillips
Dear Egan Municipal Government Representatives:
My family and I are writing to express our opposition to the Conditional
Use Permit applied for by Mrs. Margaret 0. Phillips in her residence at
Lot 34, Block 3, of Engstrom's Deerwood Addition located in the SE% of
Section 21, in Eagan.
When we moved to Minnesota one year ago, we spent several weeks searching
for the "right" neighborhood in which to relocate our family. When we
began our search, we did so with excitement because we planned to build
our hou=e instead of buying one previously occupied. This was our third
move, ar.d we were finally able to build a house to our exact liking.
Our exciterent peaked when we were shown the lots in the Deerwood
development for a number of reasons:
a A all, neighborhood development build around a single
entrance and served by a circular road plan through the
develop
a neascnai�le privacy from throughway automobile traffic
• Manageable population density with only 84 residential lots
a Ar. overall sense of security provided by the small size of
the development, the single access non -throughway road plan
and the "tucked -away" nature of the neighborhood
Havir:g live; in urban, environments in Pennsylvania and Virginia for 20
years, r;;y far:;ily and I really looked forward to our new home in such a
cozy neig}.b-rhood... away from all of the traffic and population density
we had grown: to dislike. We examined the covenants of the neighborhood
carefully to insure that the reasons we liked the neighborhood could not
be adversely affected by things like commercial vehicle parking, property
fencing and residentially based businesses. Our investigation was very
thorough because we wanted make certain that the house we were finally
able to build was going to be in the neighborhood of our exact liking.
Here we are, just one short year later... and we find our dreams
threatened by the nuisance of a nearby residential business. Believe me,
had we known then what we fear now... we definitely would not have
relocated to Eagan. We firmly oppose the application to o erste a
business within our neighborhood and hope that you will sunoort our cause
by denying the vermit. Rest assured though, should the permit be
granted, my family is in complete agreement to commence relocating to
Eden Frairie... the neighborhood that was our second choice a year ago.
Sincerely, 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MARGARET O. PHILLIPS
Chairman Graves opened the next public hearing for the evening
regarding a conditional use permit to•allow a hair salon in an R-1
(Single Family) district on Lot 34, Block 3, Engstroms Deerwood
Addition located in the southeast quarter of Section 21.
City Planner Jim Sturm summarized the application and presented
the staff report to the Planning Commission.
Margaret and Tim Phillips (applicants), 4055 Deerwood, stated
they were available for questions.
Chairman Graves asked for a spokesperson to summarize the
neighbors' concerns.
Lou Lundberg, 4039 Deerwood Place, stated the neighbors were
concerned with increased traffic flow due to the home occupation. He
pointed out that the development had only one entrance and exit and
that there were many children in the neighborhood. The neighbors were
concerned that customers unfamiliar with the neighborhood would pose
a safety concern to the 14 kids in the cul-de-sac area and other
children in the subdivision. The neighbors were also concerned with a
increased security risk and loss of privacy. They also felt that this
would set a precedent for other businesses in the Deerwood Addition.
Mr. Lundberg pointed out that 61 of the 63 neighbors were opposed to
the permit. Mr. Lundberg referenced the packet of materials
distributed to the Planning Commission by the neighbors including a
copy of the restrictive covenants which he said prohibited this type
of use without neighbor approval.
Mr. Lundberg informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Engstrom
had said the applicants had signed the covenants. Mr. Lundberg
further pointed out that the Phillips had not contacted their
neighbors about this proposal. He thanked the Planning Commission for
their attention and asked that they factor the environmental impact
and analyze the costs versus the benefit of this proposal. He further
asked that the Planning Commission look beyond strict adherence to
City Code and deny the permit for the home occupation.
Page 3/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 27, 1990
Cindy Weingard, 4044 Deerwood Place, requested that the Planning
Commission drive through the neighborhood and observe the obstruction
hazards including the center island in the cul-de-sac.
Chairman Graves stated that it was the Planning Commission's job
to look at the issues in conformance with the City Code.
Commissionmember Miller requested a legal opinion of the
conditional use permit process and standards. City Attorney Mike
Dougherty stated that the City Code set out the conditions needed for
the permit and that it was the Planning Commission's determination as
to whether or not such a use was proper at this specific location.
Member Miller reiterated that it was the Planning Commission's duty
to evaluate the appropriateness of the use in this neighborhood.
Commissionmember Staehli noted that the Code allowed only two
vehicles at one time and asked where the vehicles would park. City
Planner Sturm stated that off-street parking would be required for
the two vehicles. Member Staehli did not feel there would be a great
deal of traffic with only two vehicles allowed at one time.
Member Miller stated he was sensitive to the neighbors'
opposition. He felt many residents of the City operate some type of
home occupation without coming to the City for a permit. He asked the
applicants if the business was currently operating in any other
location and what they anticipated their volume to be.
Ms. Phillips stated that she was not currently operating in any
location and she only wanted to work two to three days a week. She
further said that she had no current customers and there would be no
employees other than herself. She anticipated the maximum volume to
be five customers per day.
Chairman Graves asked if the
for this purpose. Ms. Phillips
required to meet state standards.
Member Voracek asked if the
covenants.
home had been specifically designed
stated that it had and that it was
applicants had signed the private
Mr. Phillips responded that they had lived in Eagan ten years and
that they did not sign the covenants but had received a copy of them.
He further explained that they had specifically looked for a location
where they could utilize their home for a salon. They presented a
copy of a letter from Robert Engstrom Companies signed by Howard
��p
Page 4/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 27, 1990
Ryllo and dated June 12, 1990 which approved the operation of the one
chair salon provided there were no outside signs or advertising and
that the City approved the use. Mr. Phillips further stated that the
traffic in the neighborhood would be limited by the nature of the
salon business. Member Voracek asked if the applicants had contacted
the neighbors prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Phillips
stated that they had not and they felt this hearing was the chance
for the neighbors' input.
Chairman Graves read the Engstrom letter granting permission for
the salon into the record.
Mr. Lundberg referenced the letter in the packet provided to the
Commission by the neighbors from Mr. Engstrom which was dated July
24, 1990 and required neighbor approval prior to the use being
allowed.
Member Miller stated that approval was apparently given and that
there may be some type of civil remedy available apart from the
Planning Commission action. Member Miller was disappointed that the
applicant had not made an attempt to reconcile the use with the
neighbors and asked that they make a reasonable attempt to meet and
talk with the neighbors about this use. Chairman Graves stated that
this contact should work both ways.
Commissionmember Hoeft asked when the home was started and
completed. Mr. Phillips stated that the home was begun on June 24 and
finished some time in August. Member Hoeft asked how many homes were
present at that time. The applicant stated three.
Commissionmember Voracek stated that the Phillips had searched
for the home for the salon use and that the developer had given an
approval letter and therefore the Phillips were acting in good faith.
Member Voracek anticipated 8 to 10 customers per day driving through
the cul-de-sac which he felt was somewhat of a concern. He was more
concerned with the island located in the cul-de-sac and relayed an
experience he had while viewing the site with a child being obscured
by this island.
Commissionmember Miller stated he would like to see the applicant
meet with the neighbors. Member Gorman also felt that would be
helpful. Chairman Graves agreed but also felt that this use would be
allowed under the Code.
David Lukeson of 4021 Deerwood Trail stated that he felt people
should talk to their neighbors.
14�
Page 5/EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 27, 1990
Member Voracek asked how the on-site parking would be enforced.
City Planner Sturm stated that violations of the conditions would be
grounds for revocation of the permit. Member Voracek stated that the
applicant should ensure that the customers park on site. Member
Miller stated that he would be more comfortable if the applicant
voluntarily continued this item in order to meet with the neighbors.
Voracek moved, Hoeft seconded, the motion to approve a
conditional use permit to allow a hair salon in an R-1 (Single
Family) district on Lot 34, Block 3, Engstroms Deerwood Addition,
located in the southeast quarter of Section 21, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. only.
2. Only household occupants can be employees.
3. Parking shall be on-site and limited to two customer vehicles.
4. No signs advertising the business are allowed.
5. No over-the-counter sale of merchandise is allowed.
All voted in favor.
Richard Goldsworthy, 4098 Deerwood Trail, stated he felt the
neighbor input had been limited and wished to let the Council know
that the neighbors would want more of an opportunity to have input
and rebut at the Council meeting.
Agenda Information Memo
December 4, 1990 City Council Meeting
-COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING
PRELIMINARY PLAT/HOEFT ADDITION
H. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Hoeft Addition/Lowell Bahrke, Changing the
Land Use Designation from D-3 (Mixed Residential, 6-12 Units Per Acre) to D -I (Single
Family, 0-3 Units Per Acre) a REZONING of Approximately 2.1 R4 (Multiple) Acres to an
R-1 (Single Family) District and a Preliminary Plat Consisting of Four Lots Located Along
the South Side of Highway 55 in the North 1/2 of Section 12 --At its meeting of November
27, 1990, the Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above
referenced applications. The subject parcel is a rectangular piece of land adjacent to the
Harvey, Selmark and Burrview Acres Additions. The property also abuts property identified
as multi -family residential land study area V which is currently the subject of a pending
application entitled Burrview Ponds Addition. The effect of this comprehensive guide plan
amendment, rezoning and platting would be to attach previously unplatted property to four
existing lots for purposes of buffering the applicant's property from adjacent uses.
For additional information in this regard, please refer e Co unity Development
Department staff report whic is enclosed on pages through for your review.
Also enclosed on pages through Z4 is a memorandum from City Planner Sturm
relative to the APC action o this application and a request on the part of the applicant to
waive certain costs due to the fact that this application will plat an otherwise unplatted
property within the City and it anticipates no additional building requiring City services.
Finally, enclosed on pagefy r^uis a copy of the Advisory Planning
Commission action in this regard.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny 1) the
comprehensive guide plan amendment from D -III to D -I, 2) rezoning of approximately 2.1
R-4 acres to a R-1 district and 3) a preliminary plat consisting of four lots located along the
south side of Highway 55 in the north half of section 12 and referred to as the Hoeft
addition as presented and to provide staff direction with respect to the waiver of certain fees
relative to this application.
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,
REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT
(HOEFT ADDITION)
APPLICANT: LOWELL BAHRKE, ET AL
LOCATION: NW 1/4 OF SECTION 12
P.I.D. #10-03800-010-05
EXISTING ZONING: R4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 27, 1990
DATE OF REPORT: NOVEMBER 14, 1990
COMPILED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Separate applications have been submitted requesting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment of approximately 2.1 acres from D -III (Mixed Residential,
6-12 units per acre) to D-1 (Single Family Residential, 0-3 units per acre), a Rezoning of
approximately 2.1 acres from R-4 (Multiple Family Residential) to R-1 (Single Family
Residential) and a Preliminary Plat consisting of four lots on approximately 3.4 acres.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Hoeft property slopes down to Highway 55 on the north
and gently slopes upward to a high point in the middle of the property before falling off to
the south and east. Except for the northern portion of the site maintained by Lois Hoeft,
the remaining property is in a natural state including some trees and assorted vegetation.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject site is designated D -III (Mixed Residential, 6-12
units per acre) in the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. Although no new development
is proposed with this application, the proposed plat creates four lots, each with an existing
single family unit, at a density in the range of 0-3 units per acre. As such, an inconsistency
exists between the uses on the subject property and the land use designation. To alleviate
this inconsistency, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation
from D -III to D -I (Single Family Residential, 0-3 units per acre) is necessary.
BACKGROUND: The 2.1 acres of R-4 zoned property is owned by Lois Hoeft. Three
property owners who abut her property wish to purchase portions of the 2.1 acres to add to
their existing Single Family lots. The dimensions of the Hoeft property are approximately
770' x 130'. A total of nine lots in the Harvey and Selmark Additions abut the west and
south property line while the east side of the property abuts unplatted R-4 zoned property
and the north boundary is Highway 55.
/V
COMMENTS: The proposed platting will create one lot with an existing home at the north
end of the property with the remaining property being split up and attached to three existing
lots that include Lot 5, Block 1, Harvey Addition and Lots 4 and 7, Block 3, Selmark
Addition. As proposed, all lots will meet all R-1 minimum area, setback and lot area
requirements.
The entire area under consideration falls in the Metropolitan Council's fourth noise contour
in regard to airport noise. Since no new development is proposed with this application, the
impact from the airport (which some people may consider excessive) is included in this
report as an informational item.
The applicants have agreed to purchase portions of the Hoeft property so they can attach
it to their existing lots by platting. The intention of all involved is to acquire the land and
maintain a nice green space buffer from the property to the east.
PARKS & RECREATION: The proposal will be subject to both a cash trails and parks
dedication obligation. The primary reasons for the requirement is that the properties are
being platted and they have not previously contributed to either dedication obligation.
l��
GRADINGrDRAINAGEIEROSION CONTROL: No site grading will be performed in
conjunction with platting of this property.
The drainage of the site will continue to be from the backyards of the lots which are high
to the front yard.
WATERQUALITY: The proposed development is located in the drainage district tributary
to Pond GP -2. Pond GP -2 is a designated ponding area in the City's Comprehensive
Storm Water Management Plan and has a classification of Nutrient Trap in the City's
Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan. This development will not be
responsible for a cash contribution to the Water Quality Improvement Program at this
time since no development is prposed with the plat. Additional requirements may be
imposed at a future date if and when development intensity is increased.
UTILI'T'IES: Sanitary sewer and water main service is available to all four lots and each
lot is connected to the City's sanitary sewer and water system.
STRMSIACCESS/CIRCULATION: Each lot has access to a dedicated public street.
This development will not increase the traffic to the public streets in this area.
EASEMENTS IGHT-OF-WAY,PERMITS: No additional right-of-way requirements and
permits are anticipated with this devlopment.
This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility easements centered over all
common lot lines and adjacent to private property or public right-of-way.
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION - HOEFT ADDITION
Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed
for the property, the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the
City's existing fee schedule and connections proposed to be made to the City's utility system
based on the submitted plans.
Improvement Project Use Rate Qmntity Amount
Storm Sewer ISO S.F. .056/sf '66,067sf S
Trunk
The above financial obligation was computed because certain parcels involved in the plat were
assessed storm sewer trunk using the large lot method. When there is a division or splitting
of a parcel that had been assessed using the large lot method, a financial obligation equal to
the unassessed area is computed. In this particular case, the newly created parcels would be
eligible for the large lot assessment.
PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS FOR HOEFT ADDITION
1. These standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by Council action on July
10, 1990 shall be complied with:
Al, B1, F1, and H1.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
A. Financial Obligations
1. This development shall accept its additional financial
obligations as defined in the staff's report in
accordance with the final plat dimensions and the rates
in effect at the time of final plat approval.
B. Easements and Rights -of -Way
1. This development shall dedicate 10' drainage and utility
easements centered over all common lot lines and adjacent
to private property or public right-of-way.
2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially
guarantee the acquisition costs of additional drainage,
ponding, and utility easements as required by the
alignment, depth, and storage capacity of all required
public utilities and streets located beyond the
boundaries of this plat or outside of dedicated public
right-of-way as necessary to service this development or
accommodate it.
3. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way
and temporary slope easements for ultimate development
of adjacent roadways as required by the appropriate
jurisdictional agency.
4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and
ponding easements to incorporate the required high water
elevation necessitated by City storm water storage volume
requirements..
C. Plans and Specifications
1. All public streets and utilities necessary to provide
service to this development shall be designed by a
registered professional engineer in accordance with City
codes, engineering standards, guidelines and policies.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment
control plan must be prepared in accordance with current
City standards prior to final plat approval.
3. This development shall insure that all temporary dead end
public streets shall have a cul-de-sac constructed in
accordance with City engineering standards.
L 61
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
PAGE TWO
4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted on the
proposed grading plan. The financial guarantee shall be
included in the Development Contract and not be released
until one year after the date of installation.
5. All internal public and private streets shall be
constructed within the required right-of-way in
accordance with City Code and engineering standards.
D. public I:gprovjMents
I. If any public improvements are to be installed under a
City contract, the appropriate project must be approved
at a formal public hearing by Council action prior to
final plat approval.
E. Fermits
I. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition
of all regulatory agency permits in the time frame
required by the affected agency.
F. Parks and Trails Dedication
1. This development shall fulfill its parks dedication
requirements as recommended by the Advisory Parks and
Recreation Commission and approved by Council action.
G. water Duality Dedication
1. This development shall be responsible for providing a
cash dedication in addition to/in lieu of ponding
requirements in accordance with the criteria identified
in the City's water Quality Management Plan.
H. Other
1. All standard platting and zoning conditions shall be
adhered to unless specifically granted a variance by
Council action.
Advisory Planning Commission
!Approved: August 25, 1987
Revised:
plat aprv.con
LTS *2
City Council
September 15, 1987
July 10, 1990
1
j�.
r
SE' i ea 5 (O"e SW c? SE
904*
//.e,
re 26 1
I �
ail I
NW N E
c
1714CT
ar
\.•`1 `� �� •' �� S j a r' R o l
tA
pi gg I
1
4LpRIN a I
I
SE SW i
x 7S
�I
c I • ��
vl-- KOST _ " 4040---__ Q
1
�J zI
z
--
z.:::NE :_------- - NW I V`�V NE
CEDAR I STREET
J
EECKER R0.
cc
ts C) 4, AT tow
S.TH
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
a�� ur r, r s moat r wren
UM SOLRN ROOIERT TRAIL ROWWOLMT, NWWWTA YOM se/4I& 1700
EURVETOR'S CERTIFICATE
I-
N
SCAR: 1 ME . 100 FEET
PRELIMIKh" PLL?s
55 HOEFT ADDITION
OIbOMORS
__ /�/•9B 1. Lois Hoeft
n ` 3325 Highway 55 Presently Owns:
II Began, RII Lot 4 and that part of Lot 5,
`n� t AUDITOR'S SUB. NO. 38, EGAN,
7 I lying north of bot 7, Block 3,
SELILARK according to the recorded
plat thereof.
\
2. Jerry Grath
642 Rita Court Presently Owns:
ii� I v Began, NR I.ot 5, Block 1, HARVEY ADDITION.
3. Lowell Bahrke
I 616 Sally Circle Presently Ams:
2 / 6 ^� I Began, MR Lot 4, Block 3, SEIXARK.
� 4. Millin IClotrbach
tih /bci� R— /A0•00 — 603 Chapel Lane Presently Owns:
� Began. IMI Lot 7, Block 3, SELMARK.
� . � I Q.3+,.l�!>F �� ufic. sy (rlsm s .
Ownership After Platting: Area In Square Feet
Hoeft Lot 1, Block 1 36,610
Groth Lot 2, Block 1 47,101
r_ 1i II o Bahrke Lot 3, Block 1 32,739
Klotzbach Lot 4, Block 1 32,520
IIY Present Zoning -
Hoe f t
oning:Hoeft R-4 Rezone to R-1
- Grath R-1
Bahrke R-1
,tcb-—/do.m Klotzbach R-1
u- I�-e notes:
a `0 1. There is presently a single fammily residence on
each property.
O 2. Each residence is presently connected to City
V8 I I I sanitary serer and rater systema.
-
I.� 3. No site grading will be done in conjunction with
r I J platting this property.
S l 1 4. Each property has access to a dedicated public
1 14 street.
(- CZ
° —
N
6 �~ Prepared By
Delmar B. Schwartz Land Surveyors Inc.
$
��\ 14750 South Robert Trail
v, • Rosemount, MN 55068
C�KCLE u I V / 423-1769
42 I 13
I herby aw ity Iha1 the move►. eon. a neral we
pmps,ed by as a, order"dwom supw Wkw and
Mal I mon m duly MWwend Lmnd Swmya andw 9
she Immo a the sun oe'Umnen
11-16-90 -- � (\� Oaaww M.Mohwane
Omsed MNUwaaaa Na. MLti
r
s.r.N
55
M�
11
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION
SIV4�OR
C+wr[ a raw OAK uaw
tar
f
153
SALLY
01 Mw
nIL i r
CIRCLE '
at
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JIM STURM, CITY PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1990
RE: HOEFT ADDITION
At the November 27, 1990 Advisory Planning Commission meeting, the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat
were approved unanimously. There was no public comment and very
little discussion by the Commission. The applicant submitted a
letter to the City earlier this year requesting that City fees be
waived since there is no development occurring as a result of this
platting process. The City required platting since this would
clean up the legal descriptions of the property and it is also
necessary since the County would not combine the tax numbers from
platted and unplatted properties or from two separate plats.
At a staff management meeting, it was suggested that all City fees
except for the initial applications for the Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and the $1,500 escrow
be waived by the City. The applicants also noted at the APC
meeting that they felt this should include the storm sewer trunk
obligation of $3,700. Attached is a copy of the original letter to
the City regarding the proposed development costs.
If you would like additional information, please advise.
City Planner
JS/j s
CC: Dale Runkle, Community Development Director
LS
V
September 11, 1990
Dale Runkle
Members of the Eagan City City Council
Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Ki,:ob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: The property adjacent to the east border of lots 5, 6, and)of
Harvey Addition, and Selmark Addition lots 3, 4, 5, and 6;Gi,(cJ
The north lot line of Selmark Addition lot 7. (Part of Lot
5, AUD. SUB. NC. 38)
With the Council's approval, we, the undersigned, wish to subdivide
the above property thru a purchase agreem,:-tnt with the present
owner, Lois Hoeft. The intent is that Mrs. Hoeft would retain
a small portion of the property for herself and the rest of us
would each purchase the portion of property immediately adjacent
to their existing property. Our intentions for land use are:
1. To increase the size of our existing yards.
2. To gain an additional 130 feet of buffer between our homes
and future development of Lot 3, AU::-ITOR'S SUB. 38.
3. To retain the property in it's natural state with additional
plantings of trees, shrubs, and wild flowers.
This land parcel will not be developed for purposes other than the
the owners own hom-::steaded personal property usage.
We e;:pected the approval of our intentions and the actual purchase
of the droperty to b: a rather simple process. However, we were
suite surprised to find the whole procedure very complicated and
costly. The City of Eagan proposed schedule is as follows:
$ 250.00 Rezoning/P.D. Amendm:�nt Application
300.00 Preliminary Plat Application fie -Escrow
1500.00 Waiver of Plat Escrow Fee
4000.00 Final Plat Application Escrow
$6050.00 Total
Since the property in question is not going to be developed but
kept in it's natural state, we find the fees to be excessive and
somewhat unnecessary. For example, we see no need for a Principal
Engineer, a Registered Engineer, an Intern Engineer, a Graduate
Engineer, Field Supervisor, and various Draftsmen, Architects, and
Technicians to be involved. Nothing is really going to change so we
see no need to involve the Police Captain or the Director of
Public Works. There is no need for land use studies, drainage,
/55
P. 2
erosion, and sediment control studies, sewer, water and utilities
concerns. We do not even see a need to rezone the land.
In short, we wish to stress that we do not intend to develope the
land.
We are asking the City of Eagan to waive the $4000.00 Final Plat
Application Escrow Fee and to reduce the $1500.00 Waiver of Plat
Escrow Fee. We hope the Rezoning/P.D. Amendment Application fee`
of $250.00 and the Preliminary Plot Application fee of $300.00 would
be sufficient for this simple transaction.
Respectfully,
Lois Hoeft/ f ,¢
r G r o t h
William Klotzbach
i
44)xe11 Bahrke
�o
V
HOEFT ADDITION - LOWELL BAHRKE
Chairman Graves opened the next public hearing regarding a
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment changing the land use designation
from Mixed Residential to Single Family together with a rezoning of
approximately 2.1 Multiple acres to Single Family and a preliminary
plat consisting of four lots located along the south side of Highway
55 in the north one-half of Section 12.
City Planner Jim Sturm presented an overview of the staff report
and stated that no development was occurring and that the plat was
for the purpose of land transfer. He further referenced that the
applicants were requesting the City to eliminate certain fees and
that this was an issue for the Council to decide.
Lowell Bahrke stated he was one of the purchasers of the land and
that the fees referenced in the staff report were high.
Jerry Groth, 642 Rita Court, was also a purchaser and questioned
the water and trunk storm sewer charges. He asked for an abatement.
City Planner Sturm stated that he would prepare a memo to the Council
on the neighbor's request.
Commissionmember Hoeft stated he was not related to the applicant
and that this seemed an excellent solution to the problem in the
area.
Member Voracek asked if there were easements along the presently
existing property lines and if so, would these be vacated upon
platting. Assistant City Engineer Mike Foertsch stated that any
vacation would need to be petitioned for and a public hearing held.
Miller moved, Voracek seconded, the motion to approve a
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment changing the land use designation
from D -III (Mixed Residential - 6-12 units per acre) to D -I (S4 ---
Family - 0-3 units per acre) for that property located along the
south side of Highway 55 in the north one-'-_:�li of Section 12..All
voted in favor.
Miller moved, Voracek seconded, the motion to approve a rezoning
of approximately 2.1 R-4 (Multiple) acres to an R-1 (Single Family)
district located along the south side of Highway 55 in the north
one-half of Section 12. All voted in favor.
Miller moved, Voracek seconded, the motion to approve a
preliminary plat consisting of four lots located along the south side
of Highway 55 in the north one-half of Section 12, subject to the
following conditions:
1. These standard conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on July 10, 1990 shall be complied with: Al, Bi, F1 and Hi.
All voted in favor.
(s
�