The URL can be used to link to this page

02/16/1982 - City Council Regularr ► EAGAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL FEBRUARY 16, 1982 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS A. Fire Department e C. Park Department e B. Police Department a D. Public Works Department QQ' IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One Motion Approves All Items) $ A. Thomas Gits for Temporary Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License & Temporary Combination Gambling License for February 27, 1982 for the Annual Casino Night at St. John Neumann Church S B. Contract 81-7, Final Payment/Acceptance (Coachman Land Co. First Q Addition Utilties) (� C. Contract 81-9. Final Payment/Acceptance (Tomark 1st Addition Utilities) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Projects 246 & 257, Thomas Lake Storm Sewer, Reassessment Hearing (Continued) p,7,1B. Project 247, Alexander Road, Reassessment Hearing (Continued) VI. OLD BUSINESS Q 3o A. Steven J. Flanagan for Preliminary Plat Approval, Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition, Located in the SW'k of the SE'k of Section 30 B. Resolution/Lone Oak Heights Preliminary Plat Application VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Mid -Continent Builders, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Country e' Glenn Condominiums) Which Consists of Approximately 13 Acres and Contains 192 Dwelling Units Located on Lots 3-4, Block 2, Fox - ridge Addition in Section 9 VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS �A. Contract 81-1, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Galaxie Avenue) Qy IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the February 2, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the February 16, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEP--ARTMENT HEAD,BUS'INESS: FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- James Plantenberg Re uest for Easement -- The Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee is recommen ing to the City Council that an access easement across park property consisting of approximately 300 feet be granted to Mr. James Plantenberg to allow him to construct a home on an improved and platted building lot adjacent to the park land. The advisory committee has discussed and studied this matter for approximately three (3) months due to the committee's concern regarding the effect an access road would have on the park and also to insure no future precedents if such a request is to be allowed. Mr. Plantenberg will be present at the meeting to answer any questions and provide any additional information regarding this issue. Enclosed on pages Z through 3 is a copy of a memo and attachment from the Director of Parks a�ffecreation regarding this agenda item. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny granting an access easement across park property as requested by James Plan- tenberg and recommended for approval by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee. ME T0: FROM: RE: 0 TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR Wruary 9, 1982 KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION REQUEST FOR EASEMENT - JAMES PLANTENBERG On February 4, 1982 the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee again reviewed the request from James Plantenberg for a road easement across a segment of Oak Chase Park. This item had originally appeared on the November 1981 Advisory Committee agenda and had been deferred for further review and study by the Advisory Committee. Mr. Plantenberg had requested a triangular portion of park land which is approximately 20' x 30' x 40' which is an area of approxi- mately 300 square feet to allow for a driveway into his parcel of land, located south of Oak Chase Park. The Advisory Committee made a thorough review of alternatives which would not require a roadway easement across park property. However, because of topography, trees and the hardship of the situation the Advisory Committee on a motion by Thurston recommended to the City Council that they grant an access easement across park property as previously described to consist of approximately 300 feet. And, that all survey costs and associated legal costs be the responsibility of Mr. Plantenberg. Motion was seconded by McNeely with all members voting in favor except Chairman Martin who abstained. The Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee wanted to make clear that this was not to be a precedent setting situation, but the unusual extra- ordinary circumstances surrounding this request prompted the Advisory Committee to act in favor of it. cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney Z MA 1.2 �1t� N 64 i a &4�Tj /V Ll Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Two PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Public Works Maintenance, Snow Blower Attachment -- At the January 19th Council meeting, the City ounceaut prized the Public Works Director to investigate the availability and cost of possible acquisition of a multi -stage snowblower attachment to be used in conjunction with the maintenance department's front end loader. The basis for the request was the potential availability of a used MnDOT snowblower that was being made available through a trade in. It was anticipated that this would become available for approximately $2,000 to $2,500. However, after receiving authorization, the dealer indicated that the unit had already been sold for $7,400 due to the high demand for this piece of equipment. The Public Works Department then investigated a portable unit available through Dependable Well Drilling Company in Bloomington for approximately $2,500. The Public Works Director and Superintendent of Streets/Equipment investigated this available piece of equipment to determine that it was a ten horse power single stage Wisconsin air cooled engine with a maximum cutting width of five and one-half feet and height of 30 inches. This piece of equipment was too small to handle the City's maintenance needs for this type of equipment. -Subsequently, no other possibility is known for acquiring a used snow blower for the maintenance division at this time. The Public Works Department will be con- tinuing further investigations for inclusion and consideration during the 1983 budget process. Therefore, there is no action required by the Council at this time. 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Three co ITEMS; There are a total of three (3) items on the agenda referred to as Consent Items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any item in further detail, that item should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. NON -INTOXICATING & COMBINATION GAMBLING LICENSE - ST. JOHN NEUMANN A. Thomas Gits for Temporary Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License & Temporary Combination Gambling License for 2-27-82 for the Annual Casino Night at St. John Neumann Church -- The City has received an application from Thomas Gits for a temporary non -intoxicating malt liquor license and temporary combination gambling license for February 27, 1982 for the annual Casino Night at St. John Neu- mann Church. The applications are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the temporary non -intoxicating malt liquor license and temporary com- bination gambling license for St. John Neumann Church. CONTRACT 81-7 B. Contract 81-7, Final Payment/Acceptance (Coachman Land Company First Addition - Utilities) -- The City has received a request for the fifth and final payment to Lametti and Sons, Inc., along with a verification from the consulting engineering firm that all City approved plans and specifications were adhered to. This project has been inspected by the Public Works maintenance personnel and is recommended for acceptance and perpetual maintenance by the City. The final contract amount is approximately $6,800 over the estimated construction cost on the feasibility report (5.070) which was a result of the extension of sewer and water services further into the lot line at the written request of the developer. The developer has agreed to accept the additional costs associated with this construction. All other phases of the project substantially underran the feasibility report. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve the fifth and final payment of $500 for Contract 81-7 to Lametti and Sons, Inc., and accept the utilities for perpetual maintenance. Ur E Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Four CONTRACT 81-9 0 C. Contract 81-9, Final Payment/Acceptance (Tomark First Addition - Utilities) --The City received a request for the third and final payment to Richard Knutson, Inc., for the installation of utilities in Tomark First Addition along with a varification from the consul- ting engineering firm that all plans and specifications were adhered to. This work has been reviewed and inspected by the Public Works maintenance division and is being recommended for formal acceptance and perpetual maintenance. The final construction cost associated with this work was approximately 6.5% ($6,000) under the estimated construction costs contained in the feasibility report. All costs associated with this project will be assessed against the benefited properties. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve the final payment of $5,259.89 for Contract 81-9 to Richard Inc., and accept the utilities for perpetual maintenance. q third and Knutson, 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Five PUBLIC HEARINGS, PROJECTS 246 & 257 A. Projects 246 & 257, Carlson Lake/Thomas Lake Trunk Storm Sewer, (Reassessment Hearing) -- As a result of an appeal by 87 property owners processed through the district court, Judge Mansur ordered the City to redo the final assessments for the 87 appellants in accordance with the technical procedures of Chapter 429 relating to special assessments. Subsequently, the City retained the ser- vices of Mr. Robert Hutchinson as an appraiser to evaluate the assessments relating to the above referenced projects as they per- tain to potential increase in market value to the 87 appellants' properties in question. Subsequently, on December 1, 1981, a reas- sessment hearing was held following the proper procedures dictated by the district court and the assessment rates were increased to include the cost of the appraiser (approximately $4,350). At the December 1st final assessment hearing, approximately fifty (50) of the 87 appellants submitted written objections to the re- vised assessment roll. The City Council then closed the public hearing and adopted the final reassessment roll with the exception of those fifty property owners who submitted written objections. The public hearing for those fifty continuing objectors was then continued until January 12, 1982. At the continued hearing on January 12th, the City Council and staff reviewed each individual parcel for which a written objection had been submitted on December 1st. The City Attorney, appraiser, Public Works Director, Consulting Engineer and individual property owner all had an opportunity to discuss the facts for each indi- vidual parcel. Two (2) property owners were not able to attend the January 12th meeting and requested that the public hearing be continued for them until February 2, 1982. For the remaining 48 objectioning property owners, the public hearing was then closed and the record was left open for a period of twenty (20) days until February 1, 1982 to allow the submission of additional written documentation for Council review and consideration. At the February 2nd Council meeting, neither of the two continued property owners appeared in person to further present their objections. Subsequently, the public hearing for these two re- maining appellants was then closed with a final determination to be made at the February 16, 1982 Council meeting. 7 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Six During the twenty day period after the January 12th public hearing, eleven (11) property owners submitted additional written information pertaining to their properties and continuing their objections to the final assessment. Copies of these written objections are enclosed on pages /Q throughJq and are forwarded for the Council's additiona information in individual lot assessment valua- tion. In addition, during this period, the staff discovered a lot area calculation error for Lot 5 (2), Block 2, Oak Chase Third Addition under the ownership of Kenneth and Sharon Peters. This resulted in a portion of their lot being split off and transfered to the City of Eagan for park purposes. Subsequently, their net area was reduced to under one acre which qualifies them for the maximum $430 original assessment to which should be added the $40.96 reas- sessment figure for appraisals. After the $24 credit was applied for the developer's previous improvements, their net assessment should be $446.96 as compared to $527.03 which was presented at the public hearing on January 12th. The staff recommends that the Council take this area recalculation into consideration and reduce the assessment to $446.96 for this lot (Lot 5-2, Block 2, Oak Chase Third Addition). Due to the fact that the cost of the appraisal was considered a cost of the overall project, combined with the fact that the assess- ments were spread on a per square foot basis, the staff pro rated the $4,350 additional cost on an area basis. This resulted in an additional assessment cost per lot ranging from $28.65 (11,592 sq. ft.) to $682.52 (7.34 acres). If this additional $4,350 cost were spread on a per lot basis equally, it would have resulted in approximately $50 per lot. At the January 12th public hearing, two property owners objected to having to pay a much higher cost for the appraisal cost addition when the appraiser spent an equal amount of time and effort on their large lot as with the smallest lot of those who had objected. Therefore, if the Council wanted to take this fact into consideration and reduce the additional assessment accordingly to provide for only the average $50 per lot to be added on, the following reduction for the referenced large lot could be considered: H. 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Seven LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNER Section 28, Richard & Dolores Smith 010-82 Section 28, James & Barbara Barker. 010-83 MAY 1980 DEC. 1981 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT REASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT $ 1,801.70 $ 1,97.2.96 $ 1,851.70 (Credit $121.26) 2,111.30 2,311.99 2,161.30 (Credit $150.69) Section 28, Richard & Lorraine Scherer 7,180.43 7,862.95 7,230.43 011-84 (Credit $632.521 If these credits are allowed, it would result in a total credit of $904.47 being allowed of the original approximate $4,350 (20.8%) that was expended for the additional appraisal and legal fees asso- ciated with this reassessment hearing. The staff did receive one written objection from David Sundberg. This objection was not forwarded to the Council's attention due to the fact he was not one of the original 87 appellants and, sub- sequently, does not warrant further consideration at this time. The City Attorney and Public Works Director will be available to discuss in further detail any questions the Council may have per- taining to the objections presented by the remaining fifty property owners of the original assessment roll. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To Projects 246 and 257 as it pertains to the owners who submitted written objections with the Council may deem appropriate and order county for collection. u adopt the roll for fifty (50) property any adjustments that certification to the AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA RECEIVED JAN 2 8 1982 Kenneth P. Ketcham„„ being first duly sworn on oath states and alleges as follows: He is the co-owner of Lot 9, Block 2, Oak Chase Second Addition. He has been assessed for a storm sewer trunk project which has been designated as Project 257. Affiant lives on a hill overlooking Oak Chase Lane in Eagan. The project which affiant was assessed for includes a lift station which pumps water from "Oak Chase Ponds" to Carlson Lake. The 1973 level of the pond is 79.2 feet below the height of my garage floor slab, the lowest level in my house or garage. I am approximately 1225 feet (1/4 mile) from Oak Chase pond as the crow flies and 1422 feet as the course of water backing up from the pond.The soil composition of my lot is primarily sand and gravel with a drive way that curves away from the house. My own analysis of the law as set forth by Mr. Hutchinson and an in depth analysis of my property (it is 1n a natural state except for the house, the driveway, and a sodded boulevard), results in "excess" water run-off of 23,020 gallons per year. This is not unreasonable per my analysis and results in harm to no one. The cost of acquiring an easement of an additional 10 feet (200 year rain high level) of vertical height on Carlson Lake would be .04 per square foot (the rate for the permanent easement calculation) would be at most $1,753.36. The cost of the Peterson residence (the house which was adversely affected) would be $80,000.00. The total cost to cure would be $81,753.36. The number of acres assessed was 411.16 acres. The cost to cure by allowing the Lake to rise ten feet (200 year rain level) would be $198.83 per acre. The cost over the watershed involved would be a cost of $14.19 per acre. The City's appraisal, if my lot is taken as typical, would be $8,553.23 (cost to cure) per acre. This last few sentences 1s for discussion purposes only and does not take into account that my property has not received any increase in market value due to this improvement. Afflant asked at the hearing why this was not a viable solution for the problem. The response as shown in the Transcript of Ketcham (Rosene) testimony was that this solution was piecemeal and not in the best interests of the whole city (master plan). Affiant after reviewing the transcript and testimony from the City .regarding their Trunk Sewer Policy is convinced that this was not a local improvement that is eligible for special assessment financing. Affiant further states that he has talked to a number of appraisers (a minimum of 4 in two firms) and they state the same conclusion that Hr. Hutchinson arrived at, to -wit: the Ewert formula is impossible to use in an improvement project like this instant case. In talking to a number of local real estate agents, it was there unanimous Opinion that this system did not increase the market value at all, nor was Oak Chase Addition ever determined to be a water problem area. ' Affiant further states that Oak Chase Subdivision is one of the three prestige subdivisions In Eagan. It is zoned Estate which has greater restrictions for density, minimum house size, etc. than the R-1 zoning. The house next to mine is presently on the market listed at $125,000.00. We have never been deemed having any water drain -off problems. I am of the opinion that the real estate agents are correct and I would not pay any additional amount of money to purchase a house that had storm trunk sewer as is reflected in this fact situation. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to be fore me this /Sev day of January, 1982. '"' Notary P11c ,i. =u:_,.•r ; n• ' fS • • 2 -ice January 31, 1982•�' F PFC60 1 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot FY.uob Rd. p` Eagan, MN 55122 6 To the City of Eagan: We are writing this letter to voice aur objections to the special assessment. Since we were unable to stay late at the Jan. 12 hearing, we did not speak in front of the City Council. Our property on 4320 Garden Trail has received no benefit whatsoever from the Carlson Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet (Project 246) or the Thomas Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet (Project 257). Storm sewers were in and paid for when we had our home built in 1974 and it has handled excess rain and water runoff from our property adequately. It was stated at the hearing by the appraiser hired by the City that it was impossible to prove the increase in benefit to our property. Enclosed is a letter from our realtor, Marge Jara, stating that on appraising our property she found no increase in value to our property because of these lift stations. Therefore there is no benefit and we object to being taxed under the Slpecial Assessment"Statute. We feel our assessment, if there.has to be one, should be 90. We also object to being charged appraiser's fees. Judge Martin _Mansur ruled that "the City failed to make the re- quired findings as to the.amount of the increased value." Therefore, the City has made a mistake and we feel they should be responsible to pay for correcting their mistake. We feel the City's planning and development made a tni.stake in allowing a home to be built at 1300 Balsam Trail E. Because this home on Carlson Lake was built on property much lower than the other properties on the lake, it was flooded and we (all the surrounding residents) are expected to pay for correcting this error. This is unfair and we object to the special assessment on these grounds also. What we don't object to is the experience of attending City Council meetings and observing how our Government operates. After each meeting we became more and more disillusioned with our City officials. They would not admit a mistake was made; they claimed they "just missed a step." We call that a mistakel The Mayor and some members of the Council were rudd childish and disgusting. They did not appear to be responsible Govern- ment officials. 13 City of Eagan -2- January 31, 1982 The old adage "You cannot fight City Hall" is not taue. We did it and, win or lose, it sure was worth it. Hopefully, the City of Eagan will no longer "miss a step." Sincerely, IJe'tft*nTtrry Gerken 4320 Garden Tr. Enc. M➢ J Eberhardt Better Fox-Herffurth titter s Real Estate I i .u: _ and Gardens. 7530 West 149th Street, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Telephone (612) 432-6444 January 28, 1982 To the City of Fagan: In regards to the special assessments put on the property at 4320 Garden Trail, As a Realtor for Eberhardt, I had this house listed several tmnths ago and when doing the appraisal no consideration was given as to the increased value of this property because of the special assess- ment, . In my professional estimation, a pump in the lake 1 1/2 blocks from this home does nothing to increase value. Sincerely, ..� Marge Jara 15 18 B. Richard Vogen Judith C. Vogen 1271 Vildmark Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55123 February 1, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Sirs: Re: Storm Sewer Trunk Assessment Lot 18, Block 1, Wilderness Run 3rd Addn. The contention that our property value has increased by an amount equal to the cost of hauling the runoff water away coul only be a valid arguement if the alternative would result in some other action or problem. The fact is that water running off our lot would cause no problem. No hauling would be necessary. On the other hand, the pumping of water has caused a problem. Our lot is no longer on the pond. Area previously occupied by higher water now resembles a swamp. The area is overgrown with weeds. Trash from all over the pond collects in this shallow area. It is a substantial eyesore, the result of which has left our property less appealing and thus less valuable. I am confident that upon your review of this case you will amend your valuation estimate. Sincerely, e ' B. Richard Vo en 8139b Ib eN=i �F�F7Vr Ffg I ]J0 2 B. Richard Vogen • • Judith C. Vogen 1271 Vlldmark Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 8, 1982 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Thomas Lake and Carlson Lake Storm Sewer Assessment Parcel .10-84352-180-01 Dear Mr. Clobert: We are out of town and thus unable to present testimony in our own behalf. Mr. Paul Gooding has agreed to present this letter in our behalf. The value of our property has been reduced rather than Increased by the storm sewer Installation. Our praperty sits high above the west part of Oak Chase pond. Prior to the installation of the pump, our propeaty adjoined and included the pond. Since the storm sewer Installation, our property is well away from the pond. It Is clear that the city, through the installation bf the storm sewer and pump, has -reduced the value of our property. Assessments are only legal when the value of ones property can be shown to have been increased by by the expenditure. We ask, therefore, that 'the assessment against our property be set aside. Thank you. ^Sin re y, �J B. Richarly Vo n, and lu-tel Z)�-r-� Judith C. Vogen 17 i • PROJECT 257 STM SEW TRK TO: Eagan City Clerk January 31, 1982 REFERENCE: 4444 Vildmark Court Lot 9, Block 1, Wilderness Run 3rd Addition We protest what we feel is an unfair assessment to our property for these reasons: 1. We live at least 1/4 mile from all lakes affected by lift stations. 2. We have little added landscaping. Most of our property has been left undisturbed, thus less runoff. 3. This potential problem should have been determined when the land was developed and the cost born by the developer. It is unfair for us to pay for the mistake of engineers and developers. (Especially considering all the "scientific" knowledge the engineers have available to them.) A grave mistake has been made and should be admitted. 4. The council failed to show that our property has been improved in any way. No assessor could determine value to that fine a point. 5. When we bought, it was with the understanding that the storm sewer was in and paid for. , ._... ... 6. If anything, the value of our property has been depressed because our sewer does not handle run-off in a responsible manner. When it rains, run-off from other sewer lines backs up into our sewer and regularly floods our yard. as well as three of our neighbors. And any property that "gains the reputation of inadequate control creates a loss of value". (quote from paid assessor) We request the city correct our inadequate sewer so the water is handled responsibly. No additional assessment on our part will be considered until that is complete. Also, we will not pay the $40.96 for a property appraisal we did not request. Therefore, we ask that our assessment receive absolutely no benefit. Mary E. 2opehn 1 be dropped to $0 since we Q G Phillip F .'opeh • RECEIVED.Jr1N" 3 9982 Games & Karol David 1349 Cosmos bane Eagan, Mn 55123 January 23, 1982 RE: Storm Sewer Assessment Council members, I am writing this letter to further express my complaint in the matter of the storm sewer assessment in addition to our complaint at the January 12, 1982 hearing. 1. We were never notified of the initial meeting to begin with. We purchased our house on Aug. 4, 1978. No letter was sent to this address concering any assessment. If youuare going to -say go to the former homeowners to complain or press charges, that would be impossible, as the United States government can't even find them. The first time we ever even heard of the .assessment w s when we received our bill. Even our letter from the lawyers, checking the abstract, stated there was no pending state.federal-ol,..ciyyaatitmnms. (see gxample #1) 2. When we received our bill, we immediatly paid the full amount of $340.00 on June 3, 1980. Our bill was marked paid in full. Can you legally charge us for more than that amount? As per the Jan. 12, 1982 meeting, you informed us that you would be returning the $340.00 to us, plus interest. The interest would be•sent to Mr. Ketcham. I only think it's fair that the interest should be the same amount you are charging for late payments, as you.have.had the use of our money for almost 2 years. Otherwise, it should be the same amount paid by savings institutions. Ithink anything less than that would be absured. /one 3. A widely heard complaint is no ever wants to get involved. People are apathetic when it comes to rape, murder, burgleries, etc., Mostly due to the fact it's easier anddyou won't get hurt. This whole case concerning our protest can attest to that theory. Granted it would have been easier just to pay the assessed amount and forget it like most people, then we wouldn't have gotten hurt. I'm speaking of the addit- ional charge for the:iassessor, because you didn't do things right to begin with. Why do we have to pay for your mistakes? I dont beleive the additional assessors fee is even calculated right. He did not spend an hour on assessing our property, but yet the charge applied reflects exactly what he charges per hour. If ours is an overcharge, I think some of the others in the hundreds, because of your percentage, is absolutly ridiculous. There is some discreptency here as to his charges. If'eel there is also some sort of "We'll show you" vendeta here. Just a few assessments to prove his theory, would have been sufficient and you all know it. It was a waste of money just for vengence. His theory is even wrong. Hauling a tanker in to empty oar ponds or the lake, Come on! In his stupid theory, he calculates this type of removal'on a yearly basis, and this gave him balculations for added value to our property. Did anyone consider the fact that during the winter (over half the year) the lake or our backyard ponds would be frozen, and there is no hazards of water runoff. I felt this whole theory is all wet, and does'nt hold water.19 • Tames & Karol David Page 2 Ifter the January•12th meeting I now understand the water runoff problem. I wish we could have been so informed from the beginning. When so many people rejected to the plan, it leaves me with the thought, that even if we were informed of what was going on (which we wern't), maybe this wouldn't have created such a contrAversy. I don't think it would have done any good to go to the public hearings:.as you have apparently handlied the whole thing wrong from the beginning.(Note paragragh #1) Due to your tacky handleing of the situation and all the mistakes you made, I don't think we should be punished for questioning yox actions. Protestingly, Karol David James M. David 1349 Cosmos Lane Eagan, Mn 55123 Dist. 10, Plat 84353 Parcel No 070 01 1 Wilderness #4 L7 Bk1 2x) WY t.TRE•ISE.N M & K AD.' �?,; � . t I W . Y IT • j7r6vmvrs ArlAw IJ 4 A T %Y', 43 -.14r. and Mrs. �rames'David 4i! P a re' 2 6. "The application 'Of' the 'local zoning ordin' Eies an . . - a d any �me . ih�ereto A. ne, application Ication of the municipal, county and state bull in code -i..;t;,;regU ations. -!As p the there is ger trunk ass .abstract, h s �ei�er t trunk act, per SMS 8:11 G I istanding on this'proverty. t L U. AL We further call'iour' itte'nit'ion' to the following items: V. 1. That as of May 24, 1978, there are no outstanding judgments', federal tax liens, state inheritance tax liens, state income tax liens on file in the (,county recorder's office and that there are no federal tax liens on file in the.. office of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Third Divi--- i sion, nor are there any judgments docketed in the office of the clerk of court of Dakota County against anyone who has had an interest in the property in the last ten years. 2. At this point in time I have not been retained for the closing of this piece of property, but I would advise that checks bed M a e by 'the closer of this property prior to or on the date of closing to make sure that the water bill is paid up to the date of closing. 67 Inasmuch as we were not furnished with a survey of the abov'i'described pr6perty, this letter gives no opinion as to whether the improvements on. the properiy,'if any, stand entirely within the boundary lines of said proiq;rty:_.1Ve further call your attention that a survey may disclose r encroachments s or unrecorded "roadwa -"uses that do not now, appear of reco'rd. - y .3. ROUMSTAD, THEISE�%q KEN, EDY Joel oel A. Theisen JAT/ks I W 4 e L .'I a V DAKOTA COUNTY MINNESOTA RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS'' C•: 00.53. - .60" ----- .0 1,,,:.RECEIPT NO. -ZO DATE U lw� 0, E SCjjipTj, ON;. e' -;a fl.tJNICIPALITY PARCEL NO. 0 A - 1,3: Be ification, "Cell' 4i ' Prepayment �,l Iii, 51 :'5 Paid'in Full K -TAS Pillar lose Coil %paltial Pala: -x;178. 2)% .;%-P(1CPARED OY-CAAL 0.. ONISCHUK. COUNTY AUDITOR ;4:6BY: p VIIEPANED:t)V LIUIJICIPALITY OF! ?By: Jj7 -4. o -;v +•t•;: . PC ym.''ili is mode by"I;ceck,this is no! a vul id 1 ur.cip, until check is paid. m .... �.i%INAIdEI:•':'tiPOSTED BY: et- "CDATE 3 D -P AUD 114 1. 1, Rom 70 ORIGINAL AMOUNT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAID a e V. 137-401 list -601 Be ification, "Cell' 4i ' Prepayment �,l Iii, 51 :'5 Paid'in Full K -TAS Pillar lose Coil %paltial Pala: -x;178. 2)% .;%-P(1CPARED OY-CAAL 0.. ONISCHUK. COUNTY AUDITOR ;4:6BY: p VIIEPANED:t)V LIUIJICIPALITY OF! ?By: Jj7 -4. o -;v +•t•;: . PC ym.''ili is mode by"I;ceck,this is no! a vul id 1 ur.cip, until check is paid. m .... �.i%INAIdEI:•':'tiPOSTED BY: et- "CDATE 3 John C. Sater 4473 Oak Chase Lane Eagan, MN. 55123 •January 28, 1982 • Parcel 10-53501-010-02 Re: Project 257, Thomas Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet City of Eagan Mr. Eugene Van Overbeke City Clerk Eagan, MN. 55122 Dear Mr. Van Overbeke: The purpose of this letter is to delineate specific errors that I believe were made by the appraiser in calculating the supposed benefit to my property because of the referenced storm sewer. I denote these errors only to point out the continuing carelessness with which this entire issue has been conducted. I still maintain, as I stated for the record at the public hearing on January 12, 1982, that my property provides no unreasonable runoff for the following reasons: 1., The large size of the lot absorbs the runoff from the dwelling, 2. The natural state in which more than 85% of the lot has been maintained provides no further runoff, 3. The presence of part of the natural ponding area covering a portion of my lot retains any other potential runoff. For the aforementioned reasons, I maintain that no improvement was necessary nor realized in my property due to the subject storm sewer, therefore no special benefit accrued to it. As a consequence, I believe no assessment was warranted nor is it valid. The public hearing that I attended on January 12, 1982 did nothing to change my opinion. While I recognize that the errors that I believe were made in the runoff calculations may not affect your calculation of my assessment, i nevertheless point them out as perhaps symptomatic of the overall error. For example: 1. My DRIVEWAY was considered an impervious surface in the runoff calculations, yet it is in fact composed of crushed rock and gravel, not concrete as was assumed. 2. The GRASS AND LANDSCAPE area for my lot was calculated at 85,054 square feet, when in actuality it is approximately 2000 square feet or less. The vast majority of the lot is undisturbed and is in its natural state, as can be determined somewhat by the appraiser's picture of the property. 23 - 2- 3. A portion of my property lies under the pond, yet I was given no credit for a NON-CONTRIBUTING AREA in the runoff calculations. 4. Finally, I question the use of the 28 ft. width for the BOULEVARD calculation, since I have a chart prepared for me by a Surveyor, (Mr. Delmar Schwanz, Minnesota Registra- tion No. 8625) which shows that width at 13 feet. I have not attempted to calculate the effect of correcting these errors in the runoff calculations because 1) I still do not under- stand the appraiser's methods, and 2) I believe it would be futile because the City of Eagan is determined to collect its money in some fashion and would not permit the calculated "benefit" to fall below the desired assessment. I realize these are strong words, but I have a great deal of diffi- culty understanding how projects can be advertized at a public hear- ing at one cost, then have that cost escalate significantly for what- ever reasons and expect the public to swallow the whole thing without questioning it. Perhaps the city may want to investigate contracting concepts such as Fixed Price, etc., such as are used in private industry to control costs somewhat better. I urge the Mayor and City Council to reconsider my assessment based on the facts presented, and more than that, to develop and implement better methods for planning, organizing, executing, and controlling public service projects in the future. Thank You! GIiGC'ti C. Sater JCS/v 24 0 January 19, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administration City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have opposed the assessments for projects 246 and 257 from the beginning because we did not feel this was the solution for the . problem the City was trying to solve. ' I We were happy that the District Court decided as it did and were very anxious to see how the City of Eagan would attempt to comply with the Court's ruling. After listening to the City and its witnesses at the special hearing on January 12, we do not feel that the City has met its responsibility as set forth by the Court and therefore we continue to object to the assessment. The theories and statements presented by the appraiser hired by the City were at best confusing. We have attempted to verify them with another appraiser and cannot. Our suspicion is that this appraiser hired by the City may have as difficult3time under further cross examination as he did at the special hearing. We, as citizens of Eagan have a responsibility to pay our fare share for our government and its projects but special assessments in this case do not achieve this result. relY, 6 Z Paul Go Eng Nancy Gooding /3f,Z P-,- 114. ✓Al. • • RECEiVEU1" 2 , , 4396 Svensk Lane Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 25, 1982 Re: Project 246, Carlson Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet City Of Eagan Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.,Director of Public Works 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Sir: I attended your Council Meeting on January 12, 1982 at which time the City Council went through proposed assessments for all who had submitted formal objections at the December 1, 1981 meeting. I did not get to speak as I was at the end of the list and the time got so late that I had to leave. My objection to the assessment is very simple -I didn't have any problem without the storm sewer outlet. The storm sewer outlet.hasn't enhanced the property value one single dollar. I live in the very first house on Svensk Lane, off Wilderness Run Road, on top of the hill and not at any time did we have water sitting on our property since we moved in year of 1975. To be honest I will agree that alot of the property owners did benefit from the storm sewer outlet as the water levels rose on their property and they should be the ones who should be assessed if their individuaA contracts with the builder does not stipulate otherwise. I can only speak for my own property but I know that there are a few others besides myself that are unduly assessed. If I didn't feel very strongly to what I have written here I certainly would have never objected to the assessment in the first place. I do hope that you understand my thinking and views on this matter. I hope that this matter can be brought to a rightful conclusion— for the benefit of all property owners -lets get on with other pressing matters! Thank you very much. Yours truly, Lowell D. & Sandra M Aske 24 0 0 4470 Oak Chase Way Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 24, 1982 Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Project 257, Thomas Lake and Oak Chase Pond Drainage Basin Storm Outlet. Lot 4 Block 2 Oak Chase 3rd Addition Dear Sir: Because I will be on extended mili.rary duly CXt:_ng the next two meerings of the city council, I will present my dissent to the above assessment by this letter. 1) My house is 36 feet above the water level of the pond behind my residence. Whether the pond level is raised or lowered during rainy periods is of little consequence and of no value to my resi- dence and property. 2) For the past three years the quality of the water in the pond has steadily declined. Originally one could see children swimming, as'wefi As waterfowl and fish utilizing the pond. Now the pond is basically dead with no waterfowl observed, no fish seen, and a heavy, green scum aboudaog,: during the summer. I originally bought my lot because of the quality of water -in the pond. The value of my house and property has declined because of the use of this pond as a storm sewer holding pond. Thank you. a7 Sincerely, John 0. Ahnert jr INSURANCE TECHNICIANS ASSOC., INC. 5850 Beau D' Rue Drive, Eagan. Mn. 55122 4526222 January 18, 1982 Re: Thomas lake and Carlson Lake Storm Sewer Assessment Kenneth A. and Mary Lou Pirkl 4368 Garden Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Parcel 10-84351-060-03 Current Residence: 4260 North Malmo Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Coucil Members: Due to lack of time at the January 12, 1982 meeting, I was granted permission to place my objections in writing. Regardless of the credentials of the appraiser, Mr. Bob Hutchinson, in my opinion, the question is whether or not the assessed property owners derived any economic benefit from the storm sewers. Clearly,'those people living on the lake enjoyed an immense direct benefit. Further, I believe, as far away from these lakes as I was located, that I did received some economic benefit. Even more so, I believe the entire city population received some of this benefit. I base this on the fact that this shows current and future residents of our city, that the city is trying to make Eagan a quality place to live. The city is trying to provide, through proper planning, good land development. Therefore, taking this viewpoint, I am willing to concede that I owe some dollar amount, for this project, in order to maintain a progressive city and attract more people and industry to Eagan. I conclude that my fair share of the assessment should be $127.82, and, request the city to adjust it accordingly. Sincerely, r, - Kenneth A. Pirkl TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIT ERG, C/O THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 6r�. DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 RE: FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING, PROJECT 246 and 257 - ADDITIONAL INFOR- MATION The City Attorney's office forwarded to my attention additional support information pertaining to three additional appellants that were not for- warded to the Council as a part of the regular agenda packet. This addi- tional support information should be reviewed and given the same consi- deration as the subsequent written comments similar to the 11 property owners discussed as a part of the regular agenda packet. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this final assessment hear- ing with the Council if they so desire at any time. . TAC/jach i NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED January 12, 1982 To: E. J. Van Overbeke Mayor Bea Blomquist Reference to: Proposed Assessment for Storm Sewer Improvements Project 246 and/or 257. On May;31, 1978, the said owners Paul E. and Mary M.'Kottke purchased Lot 13, Block 2, Wilderness Run 4th addition, address of 4395 Svensk Lane, Eagan, Mn. 55123, for $82,500. This property was purchased at this time with the knowledge that all assessments were in and paid for on said property. Home improvements were made on this property between July, 1978, and July, 1979, in the form of a walk -out deck, fencing, and completion of some rooms in the home. This home is situated approximately seven tenths of a mile from the Project of 257 and 246 Storm Sewer Trunk located on Carlson Lake Lane and is on a hillof a corner lot of Svensk Lane and Wilderness Runn Rd. Carlson Lake cannot be seen from this home and being on a hill and a corner lot, coupled with the fact that in the purchase agreement when the home was purchased it stated that all assessments were in and paid for and this home has no benefit of a water view and does not have any problems with flooding on ingress or eqress. Consequently this property has no added value by being assessed an additional $380.96, in special assessments, and it is our opinion because of the assessment that the value of the home will be depreciated because of future maintenance of the Storm Trunk Sewer Project that can be assessed to this property. It is also our opinion that the only persons who would benefit from said project are the residents located on Carlson Lake because the purpose of this Storm Sewer Trunk Sub -pump is to keep the water from rising into flood- ing conditions in'Carlson Lake for the residents pumping them into another facility. Therefore, in conclusion, it is our opinion that this property does not in any way derive a direct or indirect MA SHIRLEY MARTINEK, Broker, 623 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104, (612) 291.7327 • viii• NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED page 2. benefit, nor, increase 'the market value of this property from this project because of the fore mentioned reasons,. and most important this project and assessment would depreciate the value of this property because of main- tenance on said project in future years. Sincerely, a� SHIRLEY MARTINEK, Broker, 623 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104, (612) 291-7327 g. Na, aly..lA 4rnean Mang Cm1usL _ Wlt T fie[ Capt e Coln W 9uNi� PINI:—Wont'[ CeqaPq " PURCHASE AGREEMENT A. • - 6.k3gl Minn,_ 19_Zg PJXMVM OF ... P(�I,L..G.a..:...Ko.fake_.....n.(.d.......M.c�Y..y..nI......... .c+fk ........... the Iu n of ........:- ......:.h. ,, e �i..........................................:........... i:..: .:.'. sof uz<t .......... C, kL,C.k..,,,,,,,.„_........................... ....... _u earnest money and in put payment for the purchase of property as H...i9 ...S.vensk....�dne ........ ...................................... ..... sim cad In the County of.- .D.A-k o.4. -L ,,, .t , , „ , Sum of Minn cro, slid legally described as fagots, to•vir. 1 (D+ 13 131ock2/ W�(derne�S I�oh a/fS AtKlr+eehd aeeorUA:t7 to*k6DUK eks, lam 00�(I/L avtA si rec.o rd ly, ago-F-Glti 04 i4* IZey ISjPw—o,t Ofteds clan 1ti dNd C dor rani.. - Including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and Nees, JI swim ash, swim dabs, detachable vesabdq scraeu, ssnings, window Aides, blinds (including venreian blinds), crinin once, reverse rods, drapery tads. lighting (amtsa and bulhe, plumbing fiamua, ha vers ranks and Mating plant (virh any burners, ranks, stokers and ether equipment used in cumeenon then_ virh). vmer moisture endGauid-_�--d--T-_�'•�if the property of sega)r-reln:slotrntreno� Hiders. _ nee, built-in duhvmhm, garbage dirpaW, ovens, cork top, Nave and normal air conditioning equipment. it any, used end formed on aid premiss and including also the following apical proper dreapes d+d cvm, ivAs f rd(.l jt� (z '54rafar/ Wl�rf imic4ryer c(.w Y a ; 11sJ' :.. drYsyr Iwclud.fdjr aR of which propeery the ladenl f o i5. ........ o_SlHw.k which the agrees in pay in t Earn benin paid $ .2O! $✓ 0-700 VVLCI SA'ju Oro;Ind.1 6i PJ Igo. pate u..Ndar. Subjeec m Berl bo the buyer d . (w be mored In by mocm, if any) ec 1.) Scalding and seri., Imre• ordim • ' 'b) Rarrnim sabu., m rte or ret I has dais dy odd on the buys for the sum ad $.:i 5'00) DOs! Awe, ' • e dare of dosing... KLf 70 `di Su'f!S'Fd'c%'ti 14 /, /A 7r✓d ataf`i11Zn$✓rdKC-e d��dpy /•lr t etLq%_ 918fA¢ wkt�l� G,:.a` buyer Wt'Ilr^-I a a. addtite � A�( -to- tic e- 1 a � V?7r.:7✓yar.r 4; r 1 )>�: b+y.jt� .le•w,cv cvirlp(5'r i'�Aalt,l.ry.<Ili+1+ Si+tal-a t naeci to amnm end re, • . f%i 4+4 b Lar-Cpunnn Dad rnmonmbN title an raid id pmmn whim mil 1, w he lallecina necpims: oe .rad fahreliuof w mmoff of piac. wndm shwenaire lorleiwrt promising. (d) Utility ad drawee eoremen s acheh do . incorrect, cost, present impro.ernnu. (e) Richt. cltamer am follows: (unlet ,ossific. Wer mu Is no min) The buyer shelf pay she real cum. son due in she par 10 ,r od any .."to w Jlmems'pf special mamurcnn pmnble shen.hh seodd ,hernlpppaiaiairrrrr(�� 41yyr, wnmma ,No Lean rt m e fn she year 11 i Y II be 0.1 ge . homncnJ Nwioc:m Vhpm bLy'ivy=n Go, ming �uye`�i: , I full, pori or nm.hnmapd-inn wh4hI rr Nm31M sM miler nor she .11 ... ... no make in, mP:[mnusim or ..rump chnwnes numirminp the m onto no ml mm rue, rabieh shall be omud again,, he pwpmy aubraouem m she doe of purth me. Sella wvm.nu ,he, buildings, If one. mai morels chin eche b nd., lines of to, pmpry.d nmm in rtmwe all mewl normo The miler further aum. to Jell. conviction mA O t, thus G 10Is I a%9 "nowi sol N. .11 omJiu.m eel chin .,.art h..e been wmpl4J wi,h. Unlet .,.art mpacifid this ale shall beef un or beton 60 day. loam rhe Jan hawu. In ON evens whir owners, is desmed ur suhuntlellp dunned by fine or ray usher num before nM minion due. this .Prmvm shall burger ..If and void, or the purthorei s splen, and all money mid herturder shell be rtfundd m him.. The basic, and sell[, dm unnmally .,rte these nn :,of" a dimtm nn rd•rt n, mann, huunme and wiry wmr. eml. in de use or lormm pomny, wens mmmamn t µsome" .hell be mWa m eel G IDSI .... ....•...:. - The miler mhdl, ritM1tn • reasonable rim[ cher, npprovel of chis a,rteminto choose furnish an chamof tide or a Re,burd Pmmny Abumt sensors w date w include proper mn[hea waerinR Nnkruptiea, and More and federal iumnu Th Ja.eel hecn. e W. dull be dle.rtJ 10 dry, miner mein, chnwl for imamimrion of acid title and the nation eel any obimlon. rlerecn...J nhierlinm m he made I. scenic, ear de<md no h -aimed. If ant ohicNlow m to male the seller rhdl he dlo-cd 110 don to male inch tide morkmble. Peeling wNces. el title the payments hetwde, neulyd shall be pmnpmted, but rpm wounion of once rad wither 10 Jay, after veno an she buyer, she main shall ,to. this moment .e,*Win, to in emu. If sad ,iris t. raw nnrtmbly and it nn made n chi In 120 dm. Imm the Arco of scrim's abint[ion, theme as mhnv, provided, An ,.no .hall U ..If and mid, .t ,gnien of the butts, and Moshe, principal dull be liable for damages henuder ms elm most principal All moncyrhroculnrt min oy rhe hu. wall be rmi,ujel. G eche 0m ria mW nwmry iso focus marketable or k an made .isni. ora owe, and said Interaction dolaula in any of the nmmen„ and [anew[ in default lar a A'rfnd of 10 dan, then and in the cram the calls, ern termimn Chia contract auJ un wash avmin,lim ell the prymen,m mule ups Chir -nun .hall be noticed be told mfit, and amid moos. as their t ipecc m internis may appe.r. am IiaasiJa d damm,4 lion Ming d the earrnn harpal. This peovidut nhdl n,a .,Tuve came maty of the richt of "fussing the tpniht "Antrune of his contain pnoridol mdl wmnm, ,hall Mas be msminud N alnreuil. ad psorsd anion an enlists coach mpmifis prtormame dull 1.m nmm and rithin is mnwh, she, much richt of mem shall mom. In it mJeruend and ..-I chat this .al[ n made s.hjese o, eche appmvul M eche.,-err of said pmmtme in wd,in. and the rhe under. timed scam is in w manner Wide or rntmnuble m acnwnt ul chi. aereamrns, nap w mum sar mount In, the c aneu moray Nd umr, she omunn' Iona mrrnovco av acrenmem..ue[r.nou et, eC."wo st Tie Jebces, el dl pawn anJnmim�e(s shall k ready ."Iv nn6te nC 1, the u mbutimed, owner of the ahem lad, de he.* alspre.e 6,.1m..ernw[an and IN acle cursor made. l......... ............................ .. ......,.../ . (BALI `_-....'.(SEAL) So) er TOM IS A Ir(-.AL1.Y R1NnIN11. LnNTRACT.' BY ' . Ass A. the brio and w W emdaiopa .... ...........(SIAL) - �h. `.7h ...............: ............... __... (SyAL) ')T TTNDFRCTn6n: Si R% rnatnrrrVa Anvyre ICIPTIM S�,vsk LIQ N/S•7:17'[ - ,�rr•,.a d=w EXCEPTION nm nm mw ww - 44 f P0110 - r = `t'AVL E. �4MARY • i w.w a m wm;� . C R 0 M E ew••i u•1 :.: - .. - .. - � I 8 z re - gR . •Om WATER ELEVATXXI N11T, 1913 • I 1 ! US.B.S. 1921 ADJ. wm w • rt22;..LANE- -Ion- •_ ae r 8 •:r•n•E A • '.•r•r•ia- -�� PARR eo 9'c-Taman•—tolw•t 1 - -wm .ww- om- -wr•- a�'p g .¢ •w•n!'t I , x i .. .T • ± k 8 ! d _'_ [ t �Ij. `�� 8 g �^ ajlte° x o'w•ti u. - I • I w I j7E. •, •• a �� .aMW .. 1 •!'! wa: 1 3 r.em / : •L'..�t. 7.8. ' ry °.+� ww ••r 3 ra.w / 10 ZR 1 I r • n.�� •w•e 'M•• ♦� :) 4 a 1 �. •.rti� 'If�r 'r ww / _ A ' M.• 7 I ,� 1 .IF*ti •f`f•'R ••,.t.!P�� gh :�,-t �y a r g e I' 8 e x m �� / • >. d' Jb/•,• '^;``, • O �9b C b y'r �m.u.d ��. `jr A I ' 1 e u O /. '^� i h 1, Yi • ` n a •?>jr1 r : ' m ? i "1 r•'� .•`f ..j r� "•'Pt{• +i bhp a.7 q��f,7 -R ' m • • t x r , ''; } . �'':.: '.•r4 a g'. 1 1 t ] 8 1 / • • x al I 'a u• • o :�?� 4�n. .:4+� r $ d<�'�'or.. � e� Q k _ 91 O C K F I V Er.em 1 rum : r2 / r Ly A •.rrY' ¢ • _ w4eYa 1 ..Wna,'. IF • T b ..1. 'ro, •xr. a s Irr•oY w+e -- rr .Ttt t' t•�. .w,. •v na 2 r •n 1 `. = J •e. •e gtll Y•. . ,. .R tt_ e, -b +°�Cli a- A -nm--wm_ -wm- je' ] T 6:•. c.•n ' q + gt• 1 3' •'vy d •, .0 or.r'�!`_ 9°A° '°m _LAK um- -n.m--ora_ _ i a a o.. u:. �_ • >t a tit [. f .4 •'t-.31...--; .. • '� Rt•"'M I" — [ -.•r-� f' •.ra •r1 r/ I."3 ram TR41 'PPP 11 c::, ii__grri rn te—I' m1'� •w••• I 1 ••rnm • e -G.1 a 8 A•u•r•e: O /-•O - - '- - _ - ` j_ in8 :•r 8.9 d A.6 to ��- t� q ei8 J. • • e7 - _ p+-,� - ;de.n .rrnm[ 1: a•rnmg ru 1/-' 1071 4S to y e: .A .: 1 •.•w.�%orr . 7i( ul m ei F+r .am r �•X ¢•� ..• W. r etL 70 X _ L = 3 , g . a:t : ? � e 1 ••ww•sa I� I ••►+f•e•a :b / g?^ort•``6i. 1] Q o -.••••.u. G k 4'•t L. S i $ • ' 1 t/ 8 9 tl _ 0 >y ` 27 A d z c . r le jY•3 r„ ° n.•, o u • o 'O'; i 4, •'� Id r••m I I is 9i-, fern 4t , ,}• t •• •1.1• n .r•itSs "t' / rLL1;!• • .T• Iw•m'O'r •T•/r'a .•r4i Y'I ••I•M Y'. ' r I 7 C n` o• �' v+ -V� l,an• Ionid tr E [ • ^ a 214 •„ it 1 ` I • lOq d 1[ - p d.�s�b .w p\ d f 1• _ � N K 1 _ 2! G ' e•da ei ' 7 . rrwl ••wm L 0_ . • '1.! r.•et.f t0 ' [I •" t2 Ya r•ww t••pO . w 10 6m•'aad• B r i a.1L.ZOG 1 ' 102./1+ m ',•OUT!.OT• i c g7 Y~�,{ " T.eer•. 0d. - •2 CX.•2i.a2 7/r7Yt�`r —a::ep w 1e .mm w.r A••-+ L •/ 4. A �i.nu ��nan .1'20; t1t R•/7 Od • r .rr •t t•SpL t A•1� �� _I SE. OVWEM S11 MW V. •• �. •-1100,10-. '.ms- .. �e2.1T •Apr•r'Ir ' I uc n, T2TM, RiSr [ .rzrlrzi lulK haY{ r• fq.r••wr F':N - 11.05• i �mo w FIRST is ?E >r`17 r Arnold and Joan Anton 1366 Wilderness Run Dr. i0—&YZ5'0-035!-01 . 0— 1sr Ea anMn. Lcr- 3 LK 1 cv11.pG72,r�zs 2,,,v �sr- phone: 454-706223 B Re: Assessment on Pumnin>r System We moved here in 1972. We built our home with conscientious con- cern for water level as it would affect our property. I Status c•f property before pumping system: 1. Basement level o.ke according to Mr. Herbert Wensmann, Contractor, and Mr. Arnie Carlson, developer. Mr. Carlson stated water level had never been higher than it was at the time we were planning our home. He stated it would go lower in dry seasons, but only temproarily. 2. We had live oak trees in back facing the lake which took many years to reach their state of maturity which would verify Mr. Carlson's statement, knowing oak trees cannot tolerate water over their base or they die. 3. Winter play for our own family or strangers were safe when temperatures were cold enough to fascilitate thick ice. 4- Water level went down but never came dangerously high to our back banks. 5. Occasional algie and stirred up water with strong winds but clear between times --which was most of the time. II Status of property after pumping system: 1. Water level became dangerously close (one foot) to the top of our bank in back of our home. 29 Water level covered two of our oak tree bases. 3. In time, one of the oaks previously covered with water at its base after pumping was initiated died; one looks as though it is in the process of dying. 4. Our lawn was destroyed where planted by the lake where water covered it above previous levels. 59 Sand we hauled in at considerable cost to landscape our back shore was washed away by the higher water, being replaced by mud and growth of weeds and much algie. Anton property/ Nomping Systeme cont. • ` _ 6. Water is constantly murky from constant churning from pumping which stirs up the base of the lake. 7. Sce is always feared as unsafe:ao matter how cold or how thick ice should be according to temperature and normal ice thickness for cold time of the year. Water is seen seeping through the ice and snow in places in the coldest time of the.:.:.. wear after water was churned by PUMPS* 8. Police have informed us they cannot guarantee safety of ice. in winter with pumping going on. Safety of our children and others are jeopardized. Summary• We have appreciated no benefit from the pumping system. We have, howevert found the sys�e-m- etrimental to the value of our property and to our and others' safety. We moved here in 1972 with conscientious planning in regard to water level as it would affect our building structure and our lot in general. Whatever problems we have had up to the present are directly a result of the pumping system that was initiated. We have a signed state= ment by Mr. Arnie Carlson that we would not have any more assess- mentsv that they were all in and paid for. Arnold Anton t1&I "tozz av Joan Anton 0118- IF- Apple Vrl" OMlee: 15001 DIMiet Are. Apple Vail". MN 55121 (012)132.2535 Blerrninglon omee: 1600 Penn A,. So, Bloomington. MN 551]1 (6121 5"'Sxn sloemingten $..Ih Olde: 1N Wel Stan street Bloolhingldn. MN S5920 012) Same)() Shadily. Cenlet olllcc 6500 Brooklyn BNG. Minneepo0e. MN 55,28 (612) 551-e60l) s W Ne9le odkr- 201 W. Burnarille Parker" Bunnak. MN 5m? 16121 1910,6120 Caen Rapids Oma: 2061 Nonhdals Blvd, Coon Rapids. MN 55131 (51211552900 Ownlwn OMB: =0Sk,vr"y 625 M.g..t. Ave. Minneapolis. MN 55102 (612)2 5555 1". Odlean law yank" Doodle Rd. Eager. MN 55121 (012145z3400 teen held. Omw: 6110 Eden Road Eden Pallid MN SSS" (612) "1-6200 Blank oma: 5510 Weal Men Sl. Etan., MN 55121 (612) 822-7045 "clasm van" Office: 6000 Wei Blvd. DWd.h Valley, MN 55"2 (512) 5"-8100 plaplwlroe Odle: 5035 While Beat Ave, S1. P.W. MN SSIN (612) "1500 MmneapetN Omer. 6109 Lyndete Ave. So. MInMkWis, MN 5W9 4612) 521.6321 Methadone. Omer - IBM Mlnelonks. Blvd. Deephaven. MN 555(61 (612)12>2555 h prighen Odle: 221 Silver Lake Road N. Slight.. MN 55112 (612) 5261510 Adair Leas Otiose: 16102 Mein Ave. BE Prior Lake. MN 55112 (612) 441.6050 Neurrre DNNMn: 5910 W. Stan in Ed.... MN SU24 10121922-7043 Ret"eaden geMeea Dis, no sk,.., US M.N.W. Ave lihmnihi MN 55102 (812) 3181200 Cwlraal ter Dead lm, me.: 2010 West WN St Ed.... MN, SUN 1612) 922-7045 pMrrtlal 6enNea DNMen: UN henna Ave So kllnnkppin. MN, S ,g 18121UP-3321 Cwwwdel.twrg" DNYNrI »10 West Stan SI Eine. MN.B 2e (6121922-7043 else, elder. DNYbn: 6800 Bleeryn 6.0. Nmneapetn. MN,'aSaM (6121 681-"00 Minneapolis Office January 8, 1982 Mr. Jeffrey L. Hagman 1310 Wilderness Run Drive Lor 3 pLK Eagan, MN Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hagman: I am responding to your request of January 8, 1982, for a market evaluation of your residential property at the above location. Information received from you indicated the questionability of the increase of market value to your property. Several pumps were in- stalled to lower the water level in Carlson Lake into Thomas Lake. This lake is closely adjacent to your property.. My opinion of your property's market value would not be an increase in value, but because of water pumped from Carlson to Thomas would have a certain amount of contamination from area drainage of fertilizer to Carlson from surrounding properties. This water pumped to Thomas Lake would certainly cause the "murky" condition of which you advised me, Carlson Lake, because of its distance fromryour residence and its accessibility in relation to accessibility to your property, would indicate to a prospective buyer that "murky" water condition caused to Thomas Lake would make it less desirable than a clear lake. This would result in a lower market value rather than an increase as in- dicated by your tax assessment for improvement because of pumps installed in Carlson Lake. My observation and opinion indicates that a faulty decision was made at the time permission.was granted by issuing a building permit for con- struction of residential property. This was certain to be affected by a rise in water level of Carlson Lake. The storm sewer drainage can certainly be determined. This should have been indicated by the building permits issued and provision made as to type and elevations permitted on the lake front properties. 113 REAL'O[J" Page 2: Mr. Jeffrey L. Hagman My, real estate experience over the past-26, years indicates to me that your market value has not been increased by the pumps installed on Carlson Lake. Yours truly:,. -'Dor/'Peterson ,FMALTOR. DP::e£ 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Eight PROJECT 247 0 B. Project 247, Alexander Road Reassessment Hearing -- This reas- sessment hearing has been continued from the past several meetings to allow a negotiated agreement to be worked out between the City and the affected properties. This agreement has been verbally agreed to by R. L. Johnson and it is anticipated that the executed agreement will be available at the Council meeting of .February 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To close the public hearing for final reassessments for Project 247, approve the roll and authorize certification to the County for collection. 29 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Nine OLD.BUSINESS.. CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL ADDITION A. Steven J. Flanagan for Preliminary Plat Approval, Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition -- The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing at their October 27, 1981 regular meeting to consider an application submitted by the developer, Mr. Steve Flanagan, for a preliminary plat of "Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition" consisting of 15.8 acres and containing sixteen (16) commercial lots in the Cedar Cliff Planned Development. The APC recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. At the Novem- ber 17, 1981 City Council meeting, the preliminary plat was con- sidered and continued until City staff could review alternatives alignments to a proposed road through the subdivision. At the December 1, 1981 City Council meeting, proposals by the City staff concerning the road alignment were considered. Please refer to pages 47 through 49 of the 2-2-82 City Council packet for a copy of the memorandum that pertains to the City staff's consideration of alternative road alignments. The City Council, after reviewing alternative road alignments, asked the City staff to prepare a letter to the Dakota County Plat Commission, requesting their com- ments and indication of approval for the road alignment planned for the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition as favored by the City Council. The City Planner discussed this matter with a member of the County Plat Commission who responded in a letter dated Decem- ber 9, 1981 to the land owner of the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition, Mr. Joe Ryan. A copy of this letter was enclosed on page 50 of that City Council packet. Also enclosed on pages 51 through 53 were some additional comments from the City Planner regarding clari- fication of the County's view regarding the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition pertaining to the aforementioned letter. At the January 5, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Administrator was asked by the City Council to draft a letter to the Dakota County Plat Commission and take a firm position on behalf of the City as to which street and road alignment the City Council preferred if the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition was to be further considered. A copy of that letter was also enclosed in the 2-2-82 packet found on pages 54 through 55. The City Administrator specifically re- quested a response by the February 2, 1982 meeting. Since the letter was not received, this item was continued until the February 16, 1982 City Council meeting. A letter was received by the City of Eagan from Mr. Bernard H. Larson addressing the request of the City Council and a copy is enclosed on page 3"For additional information on this item, refer to a copy of the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 56 through 67 in the 2-2-82 packet, and for a copy of the APC minutes of the October 27, 1981 meeting, refer to page 68 of that same packet. 30 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Ten 0 The letter submitted by Mr. Larson does, in fact, support the City's position on the revised preliminary plat for Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition. One concern expressed by the City staff is to make sure that the developer and future tenants realize that a left turn could be eliminated from Cliff Road if that roadway is upgraded in the future. Possibly, a letter could be made a record of file and/or the developer be required to indicate the potential of the left turn being eliminated in correspondence to each future tenant. In any event, the City should take some precaution to avoid a problem for the City and County in the future if that road is to be upgraded. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the preliminary plat as revised by the City Council at the December 1, 1981 City Council meeting. 731 )'�) • BERNARD H. L.ARSON DAKOTA IAKOTA V `/� ® U T Y COUNTY SURVEYOR TELEPHONE: *DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 612.437.0250 1560 HWY. 55 -HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 February 2, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Rd. P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Attn: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Dear Mr. Hedges: The Dakota County Plat Commission met on February 2, 1982, to reconsider the proposed plat of CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL ADDITION. Said plat is adjacent to County Road 32 and County Road 23 and is -therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Said plat was reviewed September, 1981. At that time the Plat Commission felt that said plat was a well conceived design for commercial development of this area. The Plat Commission's comments were enclosed in a letter of September 22, 1981. Subsequently, the City apparently has required a different design concept for this area. Said design would require two additional entrances onto the county roads. After review of said plat, the additional two entrances at their present location will be acceptable to the County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. In addition, thereto, there shall be adjacent to all the lots abutting both county roads a restricted access easement dedicated to the County of Dakota, except at those locations wherein accesses designated according to this proposed plat. One word of caution ought cul-de-sac coming out onto reduced to a right turn in County Road is upgraded to have any further questions Since yours, Bernard H. Larson Dakota County Surveyor BHL/ej c: COMMISSIONERS — to be passed along and that is the County Road will eventually be and right turn out only when the four lane divided highway. If you please let us know. C. R. Winden 3o1 IST DISTRICT 2NO DISTRICT 3Ro DISTRICT ATH DISTRICT 5TH DISTRICT JOSEPH A. HARRIS GERALD E. HOLLENKAMP JOHN S. VOSS GENE ATKINS RUSSELL STREEFLAND HASTINGS SOUTH ST. PAUL BURNSVILLE INVER GROVE HEIGHTS BURNSVILLE 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Eleven RESOLUTION/LONE OAK HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT B. Resolution/Lone Oak Heights Preliminary Plat Application -- City Attorney Hauge informed the City Council and audience after a motion was introduced regarding the Lone Oak Heights plat applica- tion at the January 19, 1982 City Council meeting that a formal fact finding should be prepared and considered for adoption at a later City Council meeting in the form of a resolution. City Attorney Hauge has prepared a resolution regarding the City Coun- cil's action of January 19, 1982 concerning the Lone Oak Heights preliminary 1 application. A copy of this resolution is enclosed on pages l b through ,j � ,for your reference. City Attorney Hauge wil a available for review and comment at the City Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the resolution with or without modification for the Lone Oak Heights plat application. 33 R E S O L U T I O N CITY OF EAGAN LONE OAK HEIGHTS PLAT APPLICATION Eagan City Council, Jan. 19, 1982 WHEREAS, Midwestern Associates/Orrin Aune submitted an application for pre- liminary plat approval and variance to exceed lot coverage for approximately 14.09 acres of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 27, Range 23, more generally located at the Southwest intersection of Lone Oak Road and Pilot Knob Road (County Road 31) in the City of Eagan; and WHEREAS, the application covering land owned by Martin and Myrtle Shields at that location was one for preliminary plat approval of Lone Oak Heights pro- posed to contain 145 dwelling units consisting of 84 condominium and 61 town- house units and an application for variance for lot coverage noting the pro- posed number of dwelling units exceeded the maximum number allowed for the Eagan Ordinance No. 52; and WHEREAS, an application had been submitted for preliminary plat for an 80 unit apartment complex and 62 unit townhouse development for Lone Oak Heights by Thomas Prokasky and Martin Shields which application was heard by the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on September 11, 1979, and subsequently by the Eagan City Council on October 16, 1979; and WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council on October 16, 1979 approved said appli- cation for preliminary plat approval subject to certain conditions, including those imposed by the Advisory Planning Commission, at which time there were strong concerns amongst Councilmembers and other persons present regarding access from the proposed Lone Oak Heights Addition to County Road 1131 (Pilot Knob Road); and 3�} 0 0 WHEREAS, the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on September 22, 1981 held a public hearing concerning the application of Midwestern Associates and Orrin Aune for rezoning and variance to exceed lot coverage, at which time an extended hearing took place resulting in a resolution of the Advisory Planning Commission recommending approval of the application with numerous conditions; and WHEREAS, it was noted that a number of variances would be required under the proposal, including reducing the number of units in both the condominium and townhouse areas, the setbacks along Pilot Knob Road, and the total square foot- age with the mix being proposed; and WHEREAS, a large number of neighboring property owners appeared in objec- tion to certain aspects of the application and the Advisory Planning Commission recommended a neighborhood meeting with the developer and the interested neigh- boring residents to discuss the proposal; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1981, the application was submitted to the City Council at which time the applicant submitted revised plans for the project; the Council continued consideration of the application until November 17, 1981, and authorized the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a brief report as to the probable cost incurred by the City in the event that the City Council should de- termine that a portion of the property should be down -zoned from R-4 to R-3 and further, to determine the additional cost of rezoning to R-1 with some R-2 buffer areas; further, to allow the staff to continue to study the project in - eluding the density determination and whether to include the private street in determining density for the project; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1981, the Eagan City Council held a continued hearing regarding the application at which time the petition was received from the Timberline Association area residents, including other neighboring residents, expressing objections to the project and requesting the Council schedule a public hearing to consider the down -zoning of the subject property; further, a report was submitted by Dan Dwyer, appraiser, concerning the proposed down - 3S 2 0 0 zoning of the property; the Council then adopted a motion to continue the appli- cation for additional study and to acquire answers to some of the legal questions raised during the course of the hearing, to further study the variances and the density issue, the proposed public street and whether damages would be incurred in the event that the Council were to adopt a resolution down -zoning the proper- ty; and WHEREAS, the Council again considered the application on January 19, 1982, at which time the applicant presented a somewhat revised plan and the Council considered in detail the proposal of the developer, the objections of neighbor- ing property owners and the report from the Eagan City Attorney concerning, the Council's questions at its December 15 meeting, and the updated report of the Eagan City Planner; and WHEREAS, it was noted that an underground gas line crosses the property which could if adjusted and relocated improve the layout of the development substantially. NOW, THEREFORE, upon motion by Councilmember Egan, seconded by Mayor Blomquist, it was RESOLVED that the City Council deny the application for pre- liminary plat approval of Lone Oak Heights Addition for reasons included in the minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission and the minutes of the various meet- ings of the Eagan City Council, including the following: 1. It was noted that there were changes in the proposed preliminary plat that had not been reviewed by the Advisory Planning Commission and had been submitted by the developer to the City Council at its October 20, 1981, meet- ing; and further revisions submitted to the City Council and considered at its January 19, 1982 meeting. 2. The location of the proposed north/south road running through the subdivision is, in the opinion of the City Council, too close to Pilot Knob School running along the westerly boundary of the plat or parcel which can potentially cause traffic and safety problems. 36 3 3. That the proposed north/south road should be a through street with access to Pilot Knob Road and Towerview Road, but that it should be relocated within the proposed plat in order to allow for access on both sides of the road and also to move it away from the proximity to the school. 4. The lot coverage according to Ordinance No. 52 is being exceeded in the R-4 condominium development and it appears that the R-3 portion of the development is at a maximum of 20% lot coverage, noting the R-4 condominium development is proposed at 20.9% lot coverage. 5. Further, that the proposal for parking for the overall development exceeds the 2.5 parking spaces per unit requirement under the applicable City ordinance. 6. Further, that the general area of Section 9 has created certain den- sity objections and problems for the City in that it already is one of the most dense sections of the City and to allow density in excess of that per- mitted under the ordinance would create an additional adverse impact on the area, including traffic, safety, potential overburdening of the utility systems and schools, etc. Those in favor were: Blomquist, Wachter, Smith, Egan and Martin. Those against: None. ATTEST: By E. J. Van Overbeke, City Clerk 37 4 CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF EAGAN By Beatta Blomquist, Mayor 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Twelve NEW irBUSSNESS PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLEN CONDOMINIUMS A. Mid -Continent Builders, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat for Country Glen Condominiums -- The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application submitted by Mid -Continent Builders requesting a preliminary plat entitled Country Glen Condo- miniums located on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition. The preliminary plat consists of approximately 13 acres and contains 192 condominium units. The Advisory Planning Commission is recom- mending approval of the application. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report enclosed on pages C _3% through �jL. For a copy of the Advisory Planning Commission minutes, refer to pages $O through S .1, . For a copy of the Advisor Parks & Recreation ommittee recommendations, refer to page . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat entitled Country Glen Condominiums. Nz•J CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN COND IINIUMS APPLICANT: MID-CONTINENT BUILDERS - JACK HAYES LOCATION: LOTS 3 AND 4, BLACK 2, FOXRIDGE ADDITION EXISTING ZONING: I-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 26, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 19, 1982 REPORTED BY: .DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting a preliminary plat, Country Glenn Condominiums located on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition. The prelimi- nary plat consists of approximately 13 acres and contains 192 condominium units. LAND USE AND ZONING Presently the site is zoned R-4 (Residential Multiple District). The existing zoning would only allow multiple dwellings on the proposed site. The proposed site plan is consistent with the existing zoning. The land use for the proposed site also indicates an R-4 (Residential Multiple District) with a density of 12+ dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the plan is also consistent with the pro- posed land use guide plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW ; The subject parcel consists of 13.09 acres and the developer is proposing to con- struct four 42 -unit condominiums buildings and one 24 -unit condominium building for a total of 192 dwelling units. The site density for this proposed project is 14.6 dwelling units per net acre. The subject parcel is bordered on the east by Coacku.lan Road and to the north by Letendre Street. These streets are presently constructed and the site is proposing to take direct access onto Coachman Road. To the south of this subject parcel is bordered by an existing apartment complex and to the west by an existing town- house oorplex. The proposed site plan indicates 3 -story buildings and is proposing to have a mix of 84 1 -bedroom units and 108 2 -bedroom units. As stated by the plat, the devel- oper is proposing to construct the project as owner -occupancy for each unit from the beginning. Therefore, this will not be a rental project but caner -occupied from the beginning. In calculating the density for the one and two-bedroom units for a 3 -story build- ing, the required square footage of land for the 192 dwelling units would be 578,400 square feet. The total site of the 13.09 acres contains 570,395 square 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PIAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINILRIS JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE TWO feet. Therefore, the applicant is approximately 2-3 dwelling units over the re- quired site density. The 8,000 square feet would be approximately 2-3 dwelling units in excess according to the square footage reauirements. However, looking at the overall site plan, the applicant is proposing 42 -unit buildings and 24 - unit buildings, and therefore would be impractical to construct a 39 -unit build- ing. The applicant has indicated that he would not sell two to three units in the project and keep them for storage vs. trying to redesign a building to make 39 units. Therefore, either a variance would be required for the additional 3 units, or a restriction that the developer would not sell three of the units within the project to meet the overall site density. The parking requirement for the project according to Ordinance 52 would require the developer to provide one garage space and 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for a total of 480 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct one garage space per unit and 243 outside parking spaces for a total of 335 park- ing spaces. The 335 parking spaces equals 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit. If the City would require 2 parking spaces per unit, the parking space require- ment would be 384 spaces. Again, staff would like to point out that in conver- sations with other communities, 2.5 parking spaces seems to be in excess of the parking needs for condominium units, and most comm=ties have 2 parking spaces per unit as a standard requirement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to reduce the number of parking spaces to 1.75 which has been a study they had con- ducted in Apple Valley to be an adequate amount of parking spaces for condcmin- ium units. In reviewing the lot coverage of the building and covered parking, the applicant is proposing to cover 112,193 square feet for a total of 19.6% lot coverage. This is under the 208 lot coverage for residential dwelling. In reviewing the site plan, the applicant has met all the setback requirements for the buildings on the lots. The applicant is also proposing to provide a recreational area in the center of the complex which would consist of a pool and 2 volleyball courts plus open space. The applicant should incorporate a tot lot facility in order to provide the needs of the preschoolers within this neighborhood. The access to this site is proposed to be taken off of Coachman Road. Each ac- cess would serve approximately 96 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed 24' access and 24' drive aisles throughout the parking area. Therefore, it should be adequate to provide circulation in each of the parking areas. If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. That a variance should be granted to allow 3 extra dwelling units, or a stipulation should be required that the developer does not sell 3 of the units in order to came into compliance with the square footage requirement. 2. The outside parking spaces shall be a 10'x 20'dimensicn and the parking area shall be surfaced with concrete curbing around the perimeter of the parking area. 3. Hcue caner association by-laws shall be submitted and reviewed for the .s il CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINIUMS JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE THREE development prior to the final platting of the first stage. 4. A detailed landscaping plan shall be sUmdtted and approved by the City and a landscape bond shall be required for an adequate amount and not re- leased until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 5. The subject plan shall be reviewed by the Eagan Park Committee. At the present time, the staff would be looking at a cash dedication per unit. This, however, is subject to the Park Committee's review and recommenda- tion. 6. The applicant is proposing 335 parking spaces which is 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A variance would have to be granted from the strict regiire- ment of 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, or somewhere in between. 7. The applicant shall dedicate all easements as required by City staff. 8. All other ordinance requirements shall be met. I 7 _« M4 D ! &-02 & a I k; r 9. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be approved prior to final plat. 10. Coachman Road should be ordered for upgrading under a City contract prior to final plat. 11. A storm sewer outlet must be provided for the proposed ponding area, or, if the ponding is eliminated, storm sewer must be constructed from Letendre Road to the Foxridge Addition. 12. This development shall accept the deferred assessment for the lateral bene- fit from trunk water main along Coachman Road. The amount shall be deter- mined based on the rates in effect at the time of final plat. 13. The developer shall assume the deferred assessments for lateral benefit frau sanitary sewer along the south and north property lines. The rates used to determine this lateral benefit amount shall be those in effect at the tine of final plat. 14. This development shall provide for the installation of a 5' sidewalk along the west right-of-way line of Coachman Road adjacent to this development. TAC/jack 0 0 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 21, 1982 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONMIINIUMS (Mid -Continent Bldrs.) The Public Works Department has the following comrents to offer in con- sideration of the above -referenced proposed plat: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water main of sufficient size and capacity to handle this proposed development is available immediately adjacent to this pro- posed plat. Internal lateral extensions and/or service lines will have to be installed to provide service to the individual buildings. STREETS Access to this proposed, development will be provided by way of two indi- vidual driveway entrances from Coachman Road. Coachman Road is classi- fied as a collector street with an ultimate design of 44' width with concrete curb and gutter. Coacimian Road has been constructed to a first stage 24' bituminous surface, gravel shoulders with rural ditch section Linder Project 81 in 1973. With the existing Foxridge Apartments to the south, Coachman Oaks Apartment complex and the recently approved Coachman Land Ccmpany 1st Addition at -the intersection of Four Oaks Road and Coachman, we will generate additional traffic volumes that will require the upgrading of Coachman Road to its ultimate design section as a collect- or road. Present City policy requires multiple density zoning to be re- sponsible for upgrading to City standards collector streets adjacent to their property. In addition, collector streets have a 5' concrete sidewalk, or 8' bituftr- inous trail constructed on one side of the roadway. This development should also be responsible for the construction of the sidewalk along the west side of Coachman Road when Coachman Road is upgraded. Presently, the entire site' drains into an existing long ravine located adjacent to the west property line of this proposed development. All surface drainage from this development presently drains into this law basin. In addition, storm sewer outlets from the Foxridge Apartments to the south and the Rivergate Townhouses to the west presently dis- charge into this low area which presently does not have a storm sewer outlet provided. This low drainage basin is the upper end of a long ravine that was isolated when Ietendre Road was constructed. Letendre Road presently acts as a dike restricting a natural outflow from this .42- 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN I ' PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE TWO low drainage basin. The developer proposes to construct a long, narrow ponding area adjacent to the east property line incorporating this ex- isting dead end drainage basin. A storm sewer overflow would have to be provided at the northern end connecting into the existing trunk storm sewer within the Letendre Road which has a positive outlet down to the Minnesota River. The proposed grading, plan would create a pond approx- imately 750' long by 85' wide and 9' deep. However, because of the existing subgrade material, water presently does not pond in this area due to the percolation capabilities of the soil. This would provide a tenporary sedimentation basin for the runoff from the paved surface areas of Foxridge, Rivergate and the proposed Country Glenn parking lots. If this temporary ponding area is found to be undesirable, approximately 1,000 feet of storm sewer would have to be constructed within this area to intercept the proposed storm sewer discharges from this development in addition to connecting to the existing storm sewer outlets from River - gate and Foxridge. ASSESSMENTS This property has been previously assessed for its trunk area sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer assessments. There has been a deferred assessment for lateral benefit frau trunk water main along Coachman Road which was installed under Project 61 until the time of development and/ or connection. This lateral benefit from trunk water main assessment will be the responsibility of this development if it should occur. Based on 1981 rates, its approximate frontage of 765' (corner lot credit applied) would result in approximately $11,000. This property has not been assessed for sanitary sewer which is avail- able adjacent to thesouth,west and north property lines. These sewers were installed under Projects 8, 29-3 and 61. Based on benefit received and anticipated points of sanitary sewer connection at the north and south end of this development, results in approximately 1,194 feet of lateral benefit which, if levied at the 1981 rates, would result in ap- proximately $15,650.00. In accordance with existing City policy, this development would be re- sponsible for its share of the cost of upgrading Coachman Road to the ultimate design standards for a collector street necessitated by this proposed and other existing developments adjacent to Coachman Road. Future costs associated with this upgrading and trailway construction would be delineated in a future feasibility report yet to be prepared. In addition, all costs associated with itary sewer, storm sewer and water main to the individual buildings will be the proposed development. DIN the installation of internal san- facilities to provide service entire responsibility of this 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN ••71 1 1 • N 11 •' ••. 11 JANL1ARY P4GE 4 T ate EASEMaM AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY Sufficient half right-of-way for Coachman Road and Letendre Street has been previously dedicated. No additional right-of-way for streets are anticipa- ted as a result of this development. Sufficient easements incorporating existing utilities and proposed future public utilities must be dedicated as a part of the final plat. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this report at the Planning Coinnission Meeting of January 26, 1982. Respectfully sutnnitted, 'hams A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public [+forks TAC/jach 4`. 1 Arnb a•nY, Ibl G9 ..nn, pl.n n •.Im .. pn.•.J 6r Y ..I� , S C:. E. OAIIjj LGREN d ASSDI /7?7 RANOOLPN AI f PAUL m,NNEJL ./.NM Ifal MIO CONTINENT QUILL 30 E. PLATO BLVD, JT. PI COUNTA'Y GLENN CONDOMINIUMS R.2a •/•.. 1 •• ' a ex c n• ar:,�� LC rcMOae tracer• Nef•re•�9•< .. ri /7 L — O V 9 x 8. L-�=�—_ 'o.� — LEGAL OESCR/PT/ON --/°p ]CAL! /N /r<T 1'•. Nea• ]e'MY LOTS 3 AND 11 2, FOX. RIDGE ICK ° p 9 ADDITION DAKOTA COUNTY M/MNG SOTA I LOT 6 / ••d 1 8�L__ s X _ _ --]ILOO ,—wS=. I K6o hn l + ^ Zy BLOCK .I. ....' .. .4! 1:J• r YY9••J •M•! 1� •i •° N ______ 4 Op ' __• _ e0 lOi m.00'MO y ........ ..... ° __r y ' N IYf.K M•! . ta00./•I`.. M �n�i°�'M•< 8 '....�••. °aka � Z AREA • ,. r' wn•]•Hy•. •1 1 S70,J9S./I S /7.091.1 AGAESES _ • LOT 4 $ L ! V •• 1 � I,OI I ,p 1 Arnb a•nY, Ibl G9 ..nn, pl.n n •.Im .. pn.•.J 6r Y ..I� , S C:. E. OAIIjj LGREN d ASSDI /7?7 RANOOLPN AI f PAUL m,NNEJL ./.NM Ifal MIO CONTINENT QUILL 30 E. PLATO BLVD, JT. PI •rr 1 Vlel • 9.i�a,9 :, nY15 YnYIYIE . �r ..m•rop -f MI. Lu•M ;1Lr1ll Nl11nINaWIe). 0. 1 ''0' •1••• veld •IIS ........... I MI. Lu•M I 1 II � 2iIII' I I I I I •• s i... _ .... �,�, • • r • mr ••`r•SWnaNNiOp 7NNa+s AWANnga LiI /avid iQ ju 3 M,MN34 39vmvV 9N10VN `"tom' V ..a �j V1ey �— neaw 1 14 V�Y�J ;l'ff Val SnM1V4 . "'Wr Na0•avii 1 - K IaASay •1 :Sllnn NnlmlW. 7 r • :J _s;X0 i A ;tlr, ......... .. ............ . . . . . . . GB ? x RB d GOLF COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P, R-1 . ....... R"l Ind ---------- R-11 Pi URN R . ..... I r ;'I R-1 4 Ind. 04 R-111 R1. Ind. Ind . FNB) R-111 cqc ncl' H-li l R P R R-111 R- I 'R -)V R-1 R. R-11 R R-1 -11 7 LB R-111 RB R-111 R-11, R-Ilf R-111 P R-11 f�II R-11 p csc nrc P - -P-3 VALLEY (C_ R-11 Ind R 141 R-0 IN R 11' , " 7HS V— P P R 11 n RI IS 7/1 " - VA EY H� - UGH VIEW h. V IE _ ;pis jl�'� I PARK ... A :Ll ij N� FJQR-IF? r R-IR-1TREFFLE ACRES T rYEHNDB9-1 A S I 'R-1 y R - 6E R 4 A I noPp 1N A G OME ; 1 / PQ T -3 �tf. pF Y L I L 7y L� i PFj TT R-4 I R-3 , r RD _-- R ONB ADDITIONR-4 O PK \ G RIDGE r A NBA -4 GIS N B 3 kC =4 � F= 5B RBB P, FLB �CSC ' " I "- 75-3 R-4 A R T14 _� CSC APC Minutes • • January 26, 1982 access southerly to Nicols Road. The applicants are proposing one covered parking space for each dwelling unit and 1.5 spaces open parking per unit. It was noted the terrain was extremely rugged and also a pathway had been pro- posed north -south along the existing easement. A number of neighboring property owners were present with questions and were concerned about the proximity to the single family homes, the need for the pathway and submitted a written statement objecting to certain aspects of the project. They suggested limiting access to Berry Ridge Road, that each unit have additional covered garages and that there be reforestation and landscaping on the parcel. It was noted that set back for proposed right of way for Diffley Road had been provided for. Member McCrea was concerned about potential erosion along Diffley Road and also the steep internal topography. Mr. Novak stated that the differential in east -west grade preclude an internal looped street. Further, that a cul de sac at the north end of Outlot B would not be appro- priate because of the need for access from Hilltop Estates to Hilltop Commercial Center. There was also concern about the cul de sac potential becoming City -maintained and there was considerable discussion about addi- tional covered parking. The developer will install a landscape berm along the single family property but neighbors were also concerned about the esthetics of the proposal. Remoteness of the open parking was an issue, especially the parking to the north. It was suggested that building No. 2 may be too close to the pond and single family, and redesign may be necessary. There was discussion about possibly reducing the 2.5 parking units per acre proposal and the need to review the plan with the Park Committee. Rrob moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to continue the application until the next regular meeting for additional study concerning the items that were mentioned by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Bohne who abstained. COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINIUM - PREL32 NARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Mid -Continent Builders for preliminary plat approval of Country Glenn Condominiums on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition, at the southwest intersection of LeTendre Road and Coachman Road, was convened by Chairman Hall. The preliminary, plat which contains 13 acres and has a proposal of 192 condominium units. The property is zoned R-4 and the proposal indicates four 42 -unit condominium buildings and one 24 -unit condominium building. Site density would be 14.6 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a mix of 84 one -bedroom units and 108 two-bedroom units, all owner occupied from the beginning. The application indicates two to three dwelling units over the allowed site density. Mr. Jack Hayes was present and indicated that the density could be reduced. The appli- cant also requested reduction in the number of parking spaces to 1.75 parking spaces per unit with 100 garage space units and 243 outside parking spaces. Mr. Hayes stated that additional covered parking would be prohibitive econom- ically for the price range proposed, but stated there is sufficient space for 2.5 spaces per unit. He also requested reducing the spaces from 10 foot to 9 - foot widths. Mr. Mulrooney asked whether there would be additional police and fire demands in such intense development, noting the high density of Section 9, and the answer is generally yes. Section 9 includes 130 acres of R-1, all developed, including platted, 7.1 acres of R-2, all platted and developed, 23.9 acres of R-3 with 18.4 acres developed and 120.6 acres of R-4, with 70.5 acres developed. 4 so APC Minutes January 26, 1982 It was noted at the time of the Comprehensive Plan stage that there was no new R -A land use proposed in the City. There were concerns by the Planning Commission about the heavy density in the Section and general area. Mr. Hayes agreed to install the sidewalk and there was considerable discussion about whether there ought to be a storm sewer outlet or the construction of a pond for storm water retention. Generally, the Planning Commission members favored the pond as more realistic for the area. Wilkins moved, Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application subject to the following, noting that the Planning Commission is concerned about the heavy density in the Section, that it does not make any specific recommendation as to action, but does recommend review by the Council: 1. That the number of units in the development be reduced to bring the development within the ordinance density requirements. 2. The outside parking spaces shall be a 10' x 20' dimension and the parking area shall be surfaced with concrete curbing around the perimeter of the parking area. 3. Homeowner Association Articles and By-laws for the development shall be, submitted and reviewed prior to the final platting of the first stage. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the City and a landscape bond shall be required for an adequate amount and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed.' 5. The subject plan shall be reviewed by the Eagan Park Committee. At the present time, the staff would be looking at a cash dedication per unit. This, however, is subject to the Park Committee's review and recommendation. 6. That the developer install two parking spaces per dwelling unit and that in the event the City determines at any time in the future that there is insufficient parking, that the then owner will increase the parking within ordinance requirements as requested by the City. 7. The applicant shall dedicate all easements as required by City staff. 8.• All other ordinance requirements shall be met. 9. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be approved prior to final plat. 10. Coachman Road should be ordered for upgrading under a City contract prior to final plat. 11. A storm sewer outlet shall be provided for the proposed ponding area at the sole cost of the developer as well as construction of the storm sewer holding pond. S) 5 APC Minutes January 26, 1982 12. This development shall accept the deferred assessment for the lateral benefit from trunk water main along Coachman Road. The amount shall be determined based on the rates in effect at the time of final plat. 13. The developer shall assume the deferred assessments for lateral benefit from sanitary sewer along the south and north property lines. The rates used to determine this lateral benefit amount shall be those in effect at the time of final plat. 14. This development shall provide and pay for the installation of a 5 foot sidewalk along the west right-of-way line of Coachman Road adjacent to this development. 15. A Tot Lot and recreation area as approved by the City should be installed in the development by the developer. All voted in favor. JOBB HENRY FOSTER VARIANCE - EAGANDALE CEIMM PARK #3 The hearing regarding the application of John Henry Foster for an 8 foot variance from the 40 -foot set back requirement for public street in Light Industrial District was next convened by the Chairman. Jim Donicht from Balco Construction Company was present, which is the general contractor for the building now under construction on the site located on Lot 3, Block 4, Eagan - dale Center Industrial Park #3. It was noted that construction has started and that the footings had been constructed in accordance with the required 40 foot set back from property line, without knowledge that additional street easement was required to incorporate the alignment of Mike Collins Drive. Noting the hardship and the fact there is no fault by the developer, McCrea moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application. All voted in favor. RETIRING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Wilkins moved, Krob seconded the motion that Joe Harrison, Tom Gits and Dale Vogt, all retiring Advisory Planning Commission members be commended by the City for their service on the Planning Commission and further, that former Chairman, Joe Harrison be presented with a key to the City of Eagan. All voted yes. ANNUAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT OF 1981 The report submitted by Dale Runkle covering the Final Plats, Preliminary Plat Applications, Zoning Applications, Waivers of Plat, Variances, Conditional Uses, Plan Approvals and Special Permits was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Commission members commended the staff on the pre- paration of the very complete and informative report. 6 -5' - • •February 9, 1982 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - COUNTRY GLEN CONDOMINIUMS It was the recommendation of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee that the parks dedication requirements for Country Glen condominiums be fulfilled through a cash dedication unit charge based on the appropriate charges at the time of final plat; And that a single tot -lot be installed, and that a asphalt trail on the west side of Coachman Road be installed. It was also the understanding of the Advisory Committee that the develop- ment will provide for a swimming pool and volley ball court facility as shown in the development proposal. cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Judy Chaffee, Planning Secretary 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Thirteen 11 ADDITIONAL') LTEMS', CONTRACT 81-1 A. Contract 81-19 Receive Bids/Award Contract (Galaxie Avenue) At 2:00 p.m. on February 11, 19823 after formal notices were placed in the legal newspapers, bids were received and opened at Eagan City Hall by representatives of the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, MnDOT and the City of Eagan. Because this project involves federal funding, MnDOT must review all bids and will be making a recommendation as to the award of the contract. A tabulation of the bids received is enclosed on page ,SS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To receive the bids for City Contract 81-1, MnDOT Contract S.P.1982-81(T.H.35E=390) and award the contract to the apparent low bidder, Austin P. Keller Construction Company, in the amount of $663,685.96, subject to review and approval by MnDOT. 7& . ,;n, ��- lty m1nlStrat0 0 0 GALAXIE AVE BID OPENING FEB 11, 1982 2;00 P.M. CST S.P. 1982-81 (TH 35E=390) MSAS 195-103 -02 (GALAXIE AVE) EAGAN CONTRACT 81-1 (#311) Estimate: 871,510 Sj<"� BIDDERS BID ' I. Austin P. Keller Constr. Co. — — - ...$663,685.96 2. Richard Knutson, Inc. 733,827.36 3• Orfei & Sons, Inc. 736,939.60 4• Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 739,599.60 5• McNamara -Vivant 749,352.70 6• Northdale Construction Co., Inc. 751,532.48 7. _Raue-Imrst Corporation 760,073.56 8. Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 768,085.36 9• Nodland Associates,.inc. 776,370.50 10•: Husting and Engstran 790,484.50 11. M. G. Astleford Co., Inc. 799,395.00 12: Erwin Montganery.Construction Co. 799,892.80 13. Widmer Bros., Inc.. 810,891.16 14. Julian M. Johnson 838,531.50 15. Progressive Contractors Inc. 863,884.45 16. Shaffer Contracting Co., Inc. 995,807.24 Estimate: 871,510 Sj<"� 6 MEMO TO: HONORABLE & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL 0 1981 Unaudited/Draft Financial Position for General Fund The Director of Finance has run the 1981 year end expenditure and revenue reports for that calendar year. The City Administrator was so surprised with the outcome on the expenditure report, not counting expenses accrued, that the appropriation in actual numbers had to be shared with the City Council. The actual amount appropri- ated for the 1981 budget in the general fund for expenditures was $2,679,740. The expenditure report for all departments in the general fund indicated an actual expense of $2,678,073.44. The expenditure report shows a variance of $1,666.56. I thought the City Council would be interested in seeing how close the actual expenditure report was for all departments. The City operates with a modified accrual accounting as opposed to a cash basis accounting. Therefore, there are expenses that should be reflected in the 1981 statement. After all bills and expenses are paid in early 1982, reported for 1981, the 1981 actual expenditures will be $2,776,146. Therefore, actual expenditures will be $96,406 over the 1981 budget guideline. The revenues for 1981 were also budgeted at $2,679,740. The revenues, including the State Aid Payment to be received and accrued for 1981 will be $2,929,837. The revenues are approximately $250,097 over the estimated 1981 budget. Therefore, by budgeting conservatively on the revenue side, the City will realize approximately $150,000 of additional revenue for 1981 which is certainly needed for the fund balance and as working capital in 1982 and for future years. The City Administrator is extremely proud of the financial controls that have been implemented by the Director of Finance. The change from cash to modified accrual basis accounting has come a long ways with the assistance of the LOGIS system and the City is now in a position for the first time to have a rough unaudited financial report for the previous calendar year in late January, early Febru- ary. The auditors' final field work will begin on February 22 and we are hopeful the auditors' report can be completed within the month of April. The year end information as provided for in the LOGIS printouts will save manpower hours and research on the part of the auditors which should lessen that bill this year and in the future. Also, in analysing the various departments, it is apparent that our financial controls through the budgeting process are working very well and that each department head is recognizing the guidelines they were given to work with by the City Council and have stayed very close to the bottom line figure budgeted for their respective departments. Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Two Durning's Restaurant Expansion Durning's Restaurant has applied for a building permit to add an 80 seat lounge area complete with a bar and food service. The food service is designed for lunches for those persons in a hurry. The City Planner and Chief Building Inspector reviewed the proposed plans and the Council minutes of April 3, 1979 and the intent as presented in the plans by Mr. Durning are in accordance with the City Council action. Since the land is platted, the permit can be issued by the City staff. This data is provided as information to the City Council for your awareness. Kathleen Schwanz/Beauty Shop Kathleen Schwanz, 4283 Stirrup Street, received permission from the City Council and Advisory Planning Commission to operate a beauty shop in her home under a conditional use permit. City Coun- cilmember Wachter raised the issue at that City Council meeting as to whether a home occupation serving the public would require an entry door to accommodate a handicapped person. Chief Building Inspector Peterson has researched the building code and visited with the State Building Code Division and it is their opinion that handicapped facilities are not required for premises that are con- sidered single family even with a conditional use permit for a home occupation. Tax Exempt Mortgage Housing Bond Phylis Slattery of Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc., sent a copy of an article from the Wall Street Journal which was head- lined, "Five Men Are Indicted for Theft of Securities of Over $2.7 Million". The article was rather long and therefore was not copied, but one paragraph reads as follows, "The stolen securities include $2 million in Federal National Mortgage Association discount notes, $575,000 in Maryland Community Development Administration Single Family Program Bonds, $105,000 in County of Pinella, Florida, revenue bonds and $55,000 in City of Eagan, County of Dakota, Minne- sota single family mortgage bonds." Phylis provided a comment on her brief memo sheet attached to the article that read as follows "Tom -- Your bonds are so good they even steal them!" MTC Passenger Waiting Shelter Program Again, the City of Eagan has received a letter from the Metropolitan Transit Commission regarding 1982 passenger waiting shelter requests for site recommendations. Enclosed on pageso through 6 Z is a letter to Mayor Blomquist and a list oshelter si es requested for consideration as well as the one shelter to be instal- led this year. The Director of Public Works and City Administrator would appreciate any input the City Council might have regarding shelter sites. If there are no comments, the City staff will pro- s� • 0 Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Three ceed as they have in the past and the Director of Public Works will analyze the MTC routes and need for transportation waiting shelters and present a recommendation to the City Council during the month of March which is in accordance with the MTC receiving any recommendations by March 31, 1982. Proposed County HRA Multi -Family Housing Rental Program The cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan have received a letter from the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority regarding an innovative program that addresses multi -family rental housing in Dakota County. The City Administrator has met with Jim Holmes, Dick Lincoln, as well as representatives of the HRA to discuss the program. More recently, the mayors and administra- tors of the three aforementioned cities met in a breakfast meeting to further discuss the proposed concept. It was the feeling of the mayors that it would be well for Mr. Holmes and the HRA to prepare the enabling ordinance and a more concise letter of program description for review by the City Councils of all three cities. Following the review of this information, a meeting could be held where all three communities could jointly review with the HRA and professional staff the program in further detail. Enclosed on pages G- through (07 is the first letter received from the HRA regarding the' proposeTconcept. There will be more to come in the near future and, more than likely, a meeting date at which time this program can be reviewed to determine its value to the community. The actual jargon for the program is entitled, "Loan to Lenders" program. Lone Oak Heights Purchase Agreement City Attorney Hauge has prepared a memorandum and copied a purchase agreement dated February 18, 1975 between the City of Eagan and Martin Shields whereby certain property was purchased for park land. This information is provided for your information and review. The letter and purchase agreement are found on pages 648_ through _1' Surface Water Management The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities of which Mayor Blom- quist is a member of the Board of Directors has taken a position to oppose the Metropolitan Council's proposed plan and both of the legislative bills in current form regarding surface water management. QA Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Four Height Limitations - City of Eagan At the last regular City Council meeting, members of the City Coun- cil wished to be kept appraised of the special subcommittee's work on height limitations so the information is not new when the City Council is required to meet and discuss the issue for ordinance revision. Therefore, a copy of the data prepared by members of the City staff regarding height limitations for a meeting of that subcommittee next Thursday, February 18, 1982, at 4:00 p.m. in the office of the City Administrator is enclosed on pages 7 Z. through for your review. It is expected that the sub- committee will ma e a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Com- mission at that meeting. The APC will review the data at their Tuesday, February 23, 1982 meeting with a recommendation to the City Council which will be heard at the March 2, 1982 City Council meeting. Future Meeting Schedule It will be necessary for the City Council to determine a meeting date at which ti:_:ie revisions to the 1982 budget can be considered. As you recall, -budget reductions for the 1982 budget guideline are to be considered at the March 2, 1982 City Council meeting. Therefore, a meeting date should be scheduled prior to that meeting date at which time the City Council can review departmental con- siderations. It is recommended that an evening during the week of February 22 through 26 should be set aside for that purpose. The City Administrator will also include an update and require some further direction by the City Council regarding plans for the City Hall addition. The personnel committee met on Thursday, February 11, 1982, to discuss: (1) Compensatory Time, (2) Vacation Schedules, and (3) Request for Additional Firefighters, as well as the firefighters' reserve program. Personnel Committee members Tom Egan and Ted Wachter, as well as the City Administrator, would like to discuss the findings of their committee with the City Coun- cil at that special meeting as well. s/Thomas L. Hedges y�i dministrator M7 0 0 Metropolitan Transit Commission 801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221-0939 February 2, 1982 Mayor Bea Blomquist City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55122 RE: 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program Request for Site Recommendations Dear Mayor Blomquist: During the past nine years, the Metropolitan Transit Commission has installed approximately 600 passengers waiting shelters throughout the metropolitan area. Many of these shelter sites were identified and recommended by the cities in which they are located. The input from the cities has been valuable in assisting the MTC to locate the shelters where they would best serve the needs of the cities and their residents. At this time, the MTC is initiating work on a passenger waiting shelter program that will result in the installation of 48 shelters in 1983. Because of the lengthy site review and approval process, we are now requesting that each city provide a list of up to three shelter locations to be considered in this project. We are also requesting that your shelter recommendations be prioritized so that the MTC staff may initiate work on the highest priority site first. Should this site not receive the necessary approvals, the MTC staff would then initiate work on the second and third priority sites. Enclosed are two lists of shelter sites within your city: The first identifies those scheduled to be installed in the Spring of 1982 and the second identifies additional requested shelter sites the MTC has begun investigating. These lists may assist you in establishing your priority list. Along with the location and direction of travel served, the requested shelter sites list indicates the passenger count. For a shelter to be considered in those instances where the count is less than 40, the MTC's guidelines require the city to agree 1) to participate in the cost of the shelter's construction and 2) to assume responsibility for routine maintenance. The required participation is met by either paying 108 of the cost of the shelter installation (not to exceed $600) or supplying the necessary concrete base (as per the MTC's specifications). Routine maintenance is defined as window cleaning, snow and litter removal, etc. The MTC retains responsibility for structural maigt artce. /510 V7� FEB t3 1�E2 0 -2- • If possible, please provide us with your shelter site recommendations by March 31, 1982. We will promptly respond with passenger counts for any shelter sites you recommend that are not on the requested shelter site list, so you will be able to consider the matter of city participation. Should you wish to discuss further the MTC's 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program and potential shelter sites within your city, please feel free to call. Sincerely, David C. Palmquiat Assistant Civil Engineer enclosure cc: Tom Hedges, Administrator Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Gayle M. Kincannon 6i Ili EAGAN I. Shelters To Be Installed Spring 1982 Site # Location C-1355-3 Rahn Rd. & Turquoise Tr. CR. 0 II. Requested Shelter Sites Passenger Site # Location Count C-976 C. R. 30 & Rahn Rd. CR. 1 18 C-991 1939 Silver Bell Rd. CR. 0 10 C-1323 Blackhawk Rd. & Silver Bell Rd. CR. 6 6 6� 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF DAKOTA COUNTY January 27, 1982 Thomas L. Hedges, City Manager City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: 2805 DODD ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 612.452.7255 As you are aware, the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "County HRA") is authorized by statute to act as the housing and redevelopment authority for the City of Eagan (the "City"). The County HRA, like the City, is concerned about the shortage of multifamily rental housing in Dakota County, and within the Cities of Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Mendota Heights, in particular. The County HRA has been researching ways to alleviate the rental housing shortage, and is now proposing that the City participate in the following program. The County HRA will issue tax exempt revenue bonds to finance multifamily rental housing as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Municipal Housing Finance Act"). The proceeds of the bonds will be loaned to developers of approved multifamily rental housing projects, for construction and permanent financing of such projects. The traditional model would have the developer's loan repayments applied directly to payment of principal and interest on the bonds, however, the program we are proposing would deviate from the traditional model in this regard. In order to market the bonds at the most favorable interest rate, resulting in a lower interest rate on the developer loans and, ultimately, lower unit rents, it is intended that the program will be structured as a "loan to lenders" program, where a conventional lender will secure the bond issue with its own collateral, consisting of existing single-family or commer- cial mortgages having proven repayment ability and lower loan -to -value ratios (due to property appreciation). The developer's repayment of the loan, and any risk involved therein, will belong to the lender. Because the lender is actually the party assuming the development risk, the lender will clearly wish to impose certain underwriting standards. In addition, the County HRA and the City will have the opportunity to include developer requirements and loan terms at various stages in the bond issuance process, to be discussed later. A significant requirement imposed by federal tax law (applicable if the bonds are to be tax exempt) is that each multi -family project financed out of bond proceeds must, for twenty years following initial occu- pancy, provide 20% of its units at rentals that are affordable by low and 63 "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" 0 -2- • moderate income persons and families, within the meaning of the Section 8 program, which is having incomes, adjusted for family size, equal to 80% of area -wide median income. If occupied, a unit must be occupied by an income - qualified family. Under Minnesota law, the remaining units will have no income restrictions if they are intended primarily for occupancy by elderly or handicapped tenants, or if they are located in certain qualifying redevelopment areas or tax increment districts. In other rental housing projects located in Minnesota, a portion (55%) of the units are subject to certain moderate- or middle-income tenant limitations imposed by state law and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. This limit is generally sixty-six times an apartment's gross monthly rent. Thus an apartment renting for $500 per month would fall into this "middle-income" category if rented to a tenant whose income was less than $33,000 ($500 x 66 = $33,000). A tenant's projected adjusted gross income for the next 12 -month period is typi- cally used to determine income compliance. This information is to be obtained during the tenant application process. It is not necessary to recertify tenant income following original occupancy. As long as a tenant occupies a unit in the project, the tenant/unit will be treated as continuing to meet the project's income restrictions, regardless of later increases in the tenant's income.' In addition, the "status" of a tenant remains the same as when he/she first became a tenant (i.e., a single person who later marries or has additional children continues to benefit from the original qualification). The 20% occupancy test can be met where units are offered at rentals which do not exceed 30% of maximum income limits, as adjusted for family size based on unit size. This is likely to result in a cash flow deficit for the developer, and therefore, as a further part of this program, the County HRA proposes to subsidize such rentals out of tax increment. The County HRA would request that the City consider creating one or more tax increment financing district consisting solely of program -financed multifamily rental projects within its boundaries. The increment generated by such district would be paid to the City and HRA and used to lease 20% of the units within the rental project which units would be sub -leased to income qualified tenants at qualifying rentals. It is anticipated that tax increment would be sufficient to carry the deficit between low-income rentals and market rate rentals thus enabling the developer to comply with the federal requirements without rendering the project unworkable for him. The following procedures apply to issuance of the bonds: (1) The city council of the City enacts an ordiance delegating its Municipal Housing Finance Act powers to the County HRA for the purpose of financing the project and subject to such conditions of review and approval as it wishes to impose; 6.1- • -3- • (2) The Municipal Housing Finance Act requires preparation of a "Housing Program" by the issuer which may be a part of the Housing Plan or a separate document. The Housing Program contains specific financing data and would be largely prepared by the Underwriter of the bonds. It would be adopted, after public hearing held upon at least 30 days published notice, by either the County HRA or the city council, depending upon the breadth of the delegation ordinance; (3) The Housing Program must be submitted to the MHFA for review and appro- val pursuant to Section 462C.04, Subd. 2 of the Municipal Housing Finance Act. The MHFA must, within 30 days, decide whether: (a) the Program furthers state housing policies; (b) the projects will adversely effect MHFA programs; (c) administrative and bond issuance costs are reasonable; and (d) the Program generally complies with the Municipal Housing Finance Act. Final approval of bond documents could be made by the City in addition to the County HRA, once again subject to the terms of the delegating ordinance. The following steps will be required of the City in connection with the tax increment subsidy: (1) After adoption of a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan by the County HRA, the city council must hold a public hearing on both the redevelopment project and the proposed tax increment financing district prior to giving its approval. Advertising requirements for said hearings are the same including publication of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten (10) days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Therefore, the hearing to approve the redevelopment project and the hearing concerning formation of the tax increment financing district may be held simultaneously. (2) At the public hearing, the City Council must make specific findings by resolution. Prior to approval of the redevelopment project, the City Council must find that: (a) The land in the project area would not be made available for rede- velopment without the financial aid to be sought; (b) The redevelopment plan for the redevelopment area in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private enterprise; (c) The redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the redeve- lopment of the locality as a whole. 65- 0 -4- 0 The findings to be made concerning the approval of the tax increment district are the following: 1. The district is either a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 10, a housing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 11, or an economic development district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 12, and the basis for said determination; 2. The proposed redevelopment would not occur in the reasonably fore- seeable future solely through private investment, and, accordingly, tax increment financing is necessary; 3. The tax increment plan conforms to the general plan of redevelop- ment for the municipality as a whole; 4. The tax increment plan will with the needs of the municipality as district by private enterprise; afford maximum opportunity, consistent a whole for redevelopment of the 5. The municipality elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Section 273.76, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if desired. (3) The City Council must approve or disapprove the tax increment financing plan within sixty (60) days of its submission by the County HRA or it will be deemed approved. The resolution of the City Council approving the tax increment financing district again shall be conculsive of the findings therein and of the need for public financing. When the redevelopment project and the tax increment financing plan have been approved, the County HRA will request the County Auditor to certify the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district as defined in the tax increment plan. The City will also have to adopt a resolution with respect to the County HRA's undertaking of the leased housing project. Prior to acquiring a leasehold interest in 20% of the units, and using these units for low -rent housing, the County HRA must adopt a resolution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subd. 1(6) and 462.465. This resolution must include the following findings: 1. That there is in this city a serious shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for person of low and moderate income and their families. 2. That private enterprise is unable to alleviate such shortage and to provide a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing without government subsidy at prices or rents within the financial means of persons and families of such incomes. 3. That this shortage is inimical to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the residents of this city and to the sound growth and develop- ment of this city. 64 • -5- 0 4. That there is a need for such low rent housing which cannot be met by private enterprise. 5. That a gap of at least 20% has been left between the upper shelter rental limits for admission to the proposed low rent housing and the lowest shelter rents at which private enterprise.is providing (through new construction and existing structures) a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing. The City's resolution will have to affirm items 4 and 5 above. In undertaking this housing program, the County HRA intends to work with the following development team: County HRA Staff: Underwriter: Bond Counsel: Project Mortgage Underwriter: Carol Schultz Mark Ulfers Miller & Schroeder Dick Lincoln Holmes & Graven James S. Holmes Stefanie Galey Northland Mortgage Company Lyn Burton F. W. "Nick" Nichols, Jr. Members of the development team will be meeting with you on Monday, February 1, 1982 at 1:00 p.m., and will be happy to answer any questions you have with respect to this program at that time, or by phone, at your convenience. A brief agenda for that meeting is enclosed. CS:lz Enclosure Sincerely, 4 Carol Schultz Executive Director 6Z PAUL H. HAUGE & ASSOCIATICS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 February 11, 1982 Re: Lone Oak Heights -- Martin Shields Dear Tom: AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE 454.4224 I was asked to send a copy of the Purchase Agreement that was entered into between the City and Martin and Myrtle Shields dated February 18, 1975 covering the park land now known as Pilot Knob Park, a copy of which I am enclosing. You will note in the agreement that there is a provision that states that the Shields would submit an application to rezone their property to Planned Development with townhome and multiple family units. If the City, through its Planning Commission and City Council, had turned down the application, the Shields then had the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement. A hearing was held before the Advisory Planning Commission in January, 1975, recommending approval of the application. In addition, a special meeting was held with Timberline residents on November 25, 1974, at which time there was discussion concerning the application for the rezoning and the park contribu- tion and dedication. Four acres under the Purchase Agreement were to be dedi- cated to the Shields to fulfill their park dedication requirements, both for the property they owned east of Pilot Knob Road and also west of Pilot Knob Road. In addition, six acres were to be sold to the City of Eagan for $6,416 per acre. The provisions of the Purchase Agreement were fulfilled and it would be my opinion that even though there has been some threat to attempt to force the City to give back and sell back the park land in the event that the Council downzones the property, it would not appear that this would be the result of a court action to force the City to do so. There is little precedent to my knowledge for this type of action, so that the exact outcome is not certain. Mr. Hedges February 11, 1982 Page Two The attorney for Orrin Aune has been in touch with me several times in the past week and has asked for a copy of the transcript of the hearing that was held before the City Council on January 19, 1982, concerning the Lone Oak Heights application. A copy is being sent to the attorney and I also under- stand that there is a new application that has been or will be submitted to the City, including a revised plan for the condominium/townhouse project by Mr. Aune. There is no provision under the Eagan ordinance or the Minnesota Statutes for submission of a new application for preliminary plat approval similar to the restrictions under the zoning ordinance where no new zoning application can be submitted for the same purpose within one year after the denial of the City Council. There has been some concern that the City include such a provi- sion in the new subdivision ordinance that is now being drafted, whereby there be a restriction that no application can be submitted for, e.g., six months after the denial of the Council of an application to plat the same parcel. If there are other questions, please let me know. skk enclosure go Yy yours, Hauge ".PT4, CHASE .AGREEMEK RECEIVED OF Th,.,CLt7 of-usam ... .......... ........... : ......................... Our sum ...... check - ... - ... :�'� ....... so camot Macy and in vollent' JEtie k.cculc el,row-ane. which, put paysin the coxicar.. �Couxc� of .... .. ....... Saint of Wituresci6i, diad ....................... ..................... C part Of this worcb2"t QuIllarter of : pursuant to Exhibit "e attincibeed. i0chudivii garden bulba�plucts, shrubs and tree, all stormsash,myrindoursdeatchableo . �bal shades, Me (including venerian blinds), carraily gods, eneverm tods, drapery rods, lighting f fietrares, hor water ranks and hearing plant (with my levarens, mks, stokers and other equipecre with). water softener and liquid gas =it and controls (if the property of wiler). sump poorly, s may, built-in dishwasher, garbage disposal, men% cook cap slaves and central sit cordittioning located an aid premises and includingalsothe following personal property: % f,'f 1,n -i'll of ;vittkil property he 4demigiced �os' this day 'Gold iso the buycqc� slim of; 01 ;which the buyer agrees on pay in the following rammer: I. ..!�il, Eaymeaznmuyb - cyclic paid E 280 00..... and I)8i303.40 ...... osborcW.Ul!W&:Ap.rU Sell• �a) b) (c) 4, fit byth. buyer the or . at forfeiture provision. E....... ...... DOLLARS . ..... t � I— u of ny at trusted �.ia he laeeos,awnmgtwlodow ''-y .6 and bulbs, plemobirall Wel in connection them- emision antermg inciner. ipmente if any, used and rye t 1e r MeAlt..). DOLLARS, e,., dhl due of closing. 2 to ............ ....... Wessell, new farm: of no as follows: Cruckay.pecified. ce,mbJect v 'in .1 cluse, own dftiathe year l90!WV!Wr.%m'id instelbum, of payable drecenuilic (a) Roll: buyer 31011 PY the and be .. her. Seller wermems ted am mems due to he year 19 ..1] . . be Mian I W lead da. i Say, ja (full. Partial ., mo-houreonced! —mento which) Seller ovemnn ,het buildings, if soy, em emioly within the 6ouodrry Ilne of [he property and ager m .wove dl penorld property - . _j I N umg 1".' 1� included hernia end .11 d6d. 11. the premiere print to dale. Seller warrants .11 appliances. becting. I, conditioning. ce . ...... .ad plumbing and and located on laid puralues, am in Propel working end., at due ofdonin,, r The -11-1 1 --hr, almly W deliver semolina me leer rhea all fmyr[he date lural. In the e,nmr this propcM is den eyed or substantially damaged by fire or an, hureembf. leedoctingdue, diiagromecashall becture, mdl and mid, a the purchaser's option, and all marine paid hereunder shedi be to b!" Mm buyer and culle, also ricumall, s,eve her pro .o ditmineat of I and city mur. and, in he of TMZT mucter"' a P -P -M. amen, opened" neproses, A.11 be code es of .... data., 0EX The entire sbell. whir. . ..able time of .,,.I of rho agreement, fmchic abum of dd,. R,i,,.d P r Abomet unified to dam to inelude proper snuChra covorm barikee,urin, and Soon and roleml jd ents ad linen. The b ch"T, be U --.d 10 days at., mecip, thereat far evaninel.i.. of sailide and the reakis, of my bjectime"Crtur. said biletwas WT.e& I. writing . deemed to be waived. if my objections are to made the seller shall be .11me" 120 days to make such title cal'"bi cocreatim of We the rgrms hereunder retained hell be putpoland. be, .,n commim of ill. gul within 10 days all W the Imply, the smile It perform this ..let maedi., a its unces. 11 .;= I If laid title is a. coulmuble and it a. made a within 120 day. 1em rhe date of written object. thmem as 4ove pm,idd.hit shelf be null end eoid. and neither prioniped shill be liable for dearege, hereunder to the cher principal. All .7 licemudue LY the Im", that be ulmded. If he cid, or laid propertymarkablebe found markble or be so made within mid time, and md buyer heit d 'ed Vult in any of the summurce, and continue in default for a period of 10 days. then and in char um the .11.r am, lemninste thh ouncere and an ... It verminum. all rhe former" made me,his caturact chat be ecumed b, laid sell, and said earn,. . their uspecti.e iru'reme may pPear'.. H'.iJe-d durce,.dme being .!,he ruerre hereof. Th:' P.'ui.n 'h.11 .'e drpdve tMn Wihc peff... of his comeact provided mch corumor hall .., b mc. lih, .1 crufmcin, he mmn..,,d us f.ramid, and pcmlian� 'h to cut.. .,h 'ecifi, 'r uns f .. shelf he mournmed within me month, f,.r inch right of action bell arise. Me 7 It is ..d,,u..d and named chin IN, rale is ..de mi,jen to the epp.mt b, the owner of laid Intent. to writing ad our the and.,. r signed agent Is in an manner liable or responsible on amount of this mguement. elm,t to return or smaller for the earms, amM yid under this contract. The delivery of dl supern and reorcift theft be rrnA; at the elfin oh......................._.................................................,........,...- �flugLIM),r., P.A. Fj ww'On;.. ZIZ A .......... ...... 14 ............. 4 ....... - ............... ........ .1. the undersigned. owner Of the them, land, do hereby approve By . ........... .................... 11.1 ......... ............... .... -1 . .......... 1-1-Agety, I den .1mm nnanenr and the teak,b..by made. I hereby esme to purchase the mid Pmr.myr for the prim and yet te upon the.rms above mentioncedmd subject to all conditions ;4e A-21.. 44v -c Sell— L Q )KI forfeiture provision. E....... ...... DOLLARS . ..... t � I— u of ny at trusted �.ia he laeeos,awnmgtwlodow ''-y .6 and bulbs, plemobirall Wel in connection them- emision antermg inciner. ipmente if any, used and rye t 1e r MeAlt..). DOLLARS, e,., dhl due of closing. 2 to ............ ....... Wessell, new farm: of no as follows: Cruckay.pecified. ce,mbJect v 'in .1 cluse, own dftiathe year l90!WV!Wr.%m'id instelbum, of payable drecenuilic (a) Roll: buyer 31011 PY the and be .. her. Seller wermems ted am mems due to he year 19 ..1] . . be Mian I W lead da. i Say, ja (full. Partial ., mo-houreonced! —mento which) Seller ovemnn ,het buildings, if soy, em emioly within the 6ouodrry Ilne of [he property and ager m .wove dl penorld property - . _j I N umg 1".' 1� included hernia end .11 d6d. 11. the premiere print to dale. Seller warrants .11 appliances. becting. I, conditioning. ce . ...... .ad plumbing and and located on laid puralues, am in Propel working end., at due ofdonin,, r The -11-1 1 --hr, almly W deliver semolina me leer rhea all fmyr[he date lural. In the e,nmr this propcM is den eyed or substantially damaged by fire or an, hureembf. leedoctingdue, diiagromecashall becture, mdl and mid, a the purchaser's option, and all marine paid hereunder shedi be to b!" Mm buyer and culle, also ricumall, s,eve her pro .o ditmineat of I and city mur. and, in he of TMZT mucter"' a P -P -M. amen, opened" neproses, A.11 be code es of .... data., 0EX The entire sbell. whir. . ..able time of .,,.I of rho agreement, fmchic abum of dd,. R,i,,.d P r Abomet unified to dam to inelude proper snuChra covorm barikee,urin, and Soon and roleml jd ents ad linen. The b ch"T, be U --.d 10 days at., mecip, thereat far evaninel.i.. of sailide and the reakis, of my bjectime"Crtur. said biletwas WT.e& I. writing . deemed to be waived. if my objections are to made the seller shall be .11me" 120 days to make such title cal'"bi cocreatim of We the rgrms hereunder retained hell be putpoland. be, .,n commim of ill. gul within 10 days all W the Imply, the smile It perform this ..let maedi., a its unces. 11 .;= I If laid title is a. coulmuble and it a. made a within 120 day. 1em rhe date of written object. thmem as 4ove pm,idd.hit shelf be null end eoid. and neither prioniped shill be liable for dearege, hereunder to the cher principal. All .7 licemudue LY the Im", that be ulmded. If he cid, or laid propertymarkablebe found markble or be so made within mid time, and md buyer heit d 'ed Vult in any of the summurce, and continue in default for a period of 10 days. then and in char um the .11.r am, lemninste thh ouncere and an ... It verminum. all rhe former" made me,his caturact chat be ecumed b, laid sell, and said earn,. . their uspecti.e iru'reme may pPear'.. H'.iJe-d durce,.dme being .!,he ruerre hereof. Th:' P.'ui.n 'h.11 .'e drpdve tMn Wihc peff... of his comeact provided mch corumor hall .., b mc. lih, .1 crufmcin, he mmn..,,d us f.ramid, and pcmlian� 'h to cut.. .,h 'ecifi, 'r uns f .. shelf he mournmed within me month, f,.r inch right of action bell arise. Me 7 It is ..d,,u..d and named chin IN, rale is ..de mi,jen to the epp.mt b, the owner of laid Intent. to writing ad our the and.,. r signed agent Is in an manner liable or responsible on amount of this mguement. elm,t to return or smaller for the earms, amM yid under this contract. The delivery of dl supern and reorcift theft be rrnA; at the elfin oh......................._.................................................,........,...- �flugLIM),r., P.A. Fj ww'On;.. ZIZ A .......... ...... 14 ............. 4 ....... - ............... ........ .1. the undersigned. owner Of the them, land, do hereby approve By . ........... .................... 11.1 ......... ............... .... -1 . .......... 1-1-Agety, I den .1mm nnanenr and the teak,b..by made. I hereby esme to purchase the mid Pmr.myr for the prim and yet te upon the.rms above mentioncedmd subject to all conditions ;4e A-21.. 44v -c Sell— Hagan shall pay the aellere the atm of paemsooaop foL.:�.,: 'six (6) acres of the ten (10) acre parcel described above. V Seller further agrees to pay all real estate taxea covering said ten (10) acre parcel and in addition pending and levied special assessments including green acre taxes and assessments. It is understood that the property intended to be covered by this purchase agreement is described by a plat of survey dated August 6, 1973, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit "E". It is further agreed that the sellers will proceed with the rezoning Of the balance of approximately seventeen (17) acres awned by the sellers at the Southwest intersection of County Road #31 and Lone Oak Road with ' 'PUD zoning providing for an underlying zoning to permit Townhouses of a . density of not to exceed seven (7) unite per scre.on the Southerly 10 acres Of the property and R-6, Multiple family residential on the Northerly ... 7 acres. It is understood that such zoning shall be completed within sixty (60) days of execution of this agreement and in the event that such revised zoning is not completed within such time, then sellers may revoke this Agreement and all earnest money shall be returned to buyers. -- It is understood, that sellers shall at the time of closing herein dedicate four (4) acres of the property described on Exhibit "R" without coat to Sagan with the understanding that said four (4) acres shall constitute the entire amount of -acreage required to be dedicated for park purposes by.the sellers for land awnedthe'sellers at the Southwest ?';_<-s --�.•-:...api intersection of Lone Oak Road and County Road #31 consisting of about twenty-seven (27) acres and also that land owned by sellers at the Southeast intersection of Lone Oak Road and County Road #31 consisting of "'Ii �i` '�`;""�'"�'"-"' ^"��'•<'.=i;'�:1 about fourteen (14) acres. In the event that all provisions of this agreement are fully carried out, then the developers or owners of the above described parcels shall not be required to dedicate additional land or cash at such time as development of those parcels takes place. - . J]Y eT.r'}e..•s,'x�:_:i-..:dY._..", {L.: vM,ji,,"•:Y ::: i. Exhibit "A" d yTMame a .pY ar we .yau....e .... _.___ ._ .... J, n1,ud oo rvd rctmim,ion all the mymemr wde upon rhb antr.i, .hall be r.r.ined'by rdd relief and feta year, u weir rca,."ve miff[... C k rr . ^ .ID.I sPPf.�fn 1, U, dmmae, tine heinr of the nrence hereof. Thi, provhun shell nm depnrc either perry of the, fish. of enfouiy fhe t , .Pecifc pfefofour.a of Chu �.nn provided arh awns shall ... be rctaina,ed u .lareaid .td p avded .eien m eaforte nth ,paigc f pedoaunor. .hdl be amaenad ed ie tv enifid,'dw, 1.6 right of .iffon shall nue. b h uodi,ond and a fad .hu ,hie .sln b .tale rubjev. ro rhe.pproveil by ,h. owner d..id premien in wrhiy sod the the under- - N _ :d4ned gram b�nipy,mvanyf Fable or tnpamlblp ore eaum of thb .grcemenr. maps to return or eatmte, for the armt aamy mid uadn i;ThedeR.eyddl mpen sad mpnw rhJl be made urhedha of: ......................... P.A.Altoraays-at-Las I . _ lain .lUi��tl�. atlabla .............. .................................. ............................................... rd rhe.bave I.M. do leats.pptme Idye......_......._�..._...........:. _i.. °.:__:::.:....:_...._:..:..;.....Agent .If rhrcby m.dp. a hereby ,refs ro purthfee the feid p tq for ,he Pa. ad i upon th rcrve above .fed wb-lav to W aoddiew (fiF.AI.) C '1[f�omeon jry'i' sen`• lY ti v Beller ir/ SSBAL! }1(.� iSeiln .��,.. .. •. ��h'�-�. .C�,..Ymlee�. tY"' Y .+•�.. (SBdl). . r TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE CITY OF EAGAN At the last Height Subcommittee -meeting, the Committee addressed the health and safety aspects in regard to buildings over 3 stories in height. As a result of this meeting, the City Council has authorized the City to set up a Health Safety Committee which will review major development pro- posals within the City of Eagan. This Subcommittee has been established and is now in the review process for development proposals. As indicated on one of the exhibits, the Health Safety Canmittee has been put into the review process so that development proposals are reviewed by this Committee prior to public hearing held by the Advisory Planning Commission and appro- val of the City Council. The Building Department has prepared a memorandum in regard to what the State Building Code requirements are for high-rise construction. High- rise construction is considered as 75' above fire department access, or possibly somewhere between the 7th and 8th story of a building. I also believe these items which have been listed in this memorandum can be ap- plied as conditions if the City elects to allow buildings over 3 stories in height as a conditional use or in an agreement for P.D. zoning. The Subcommittee directed staff to prepare two models of how the process for heights of structures could be used in a conditional use permit and a planned development zoning district. Instead of preparing an individual model, staff has prepared an overall process showing the steps of how each one of the items, the conditional use and planned development zoning, could work to allow conditions and a process for buildings which exceed a 3 -story height, or the 35' requirement. Attached is an exhibit which lists the steps for the conditional use per- mit and a planned development zoning. As you can see, the steps are iden- tical all the way through the process if a conditional use permit were used, or if a planned development zoning contract would be used. There- fore, buildings which exceed the 3 stories could conceivably be used by both processes. As you can see, there will be a formal public hearing, staff reviews and City Council approval for both conditions. If the Coun- cil elects to approve a building which exceeds the 3 -story height, then the approval would be conditioned on the agreement which outlines the performance standards, or building code requirements, along with other pertinent conditions for each application. Therefore, the contract or agreement which the Subcommittee was looking at could be applied to both the conditional use permit and the planned development zoning. The last item staff would like to address is if the City elects to lift the height limitations on a building in a commercial and industrial zoned district, one other requirement would be looked at in this process. Instead of the developer intensifying the site with more useable square footage and giving the City nothing in return, the City would require additional green area on heights of structures over 3 stories in height. Presently, n Additional Information on Height Limitations in the City of Eagan February 11, 1982 Page two the zoning ordinance allows 3 story buildings and the setback requirements from the parking area are 20' from a public street, 5' from side and rear lot lines. If,in fact,the building would increase above the 3 story height requirement, the staff is suggesting that buildings of greater than 3 stor- ies be allowed only through the granting of a conditional use permit, or planned development districts with the following conditions: NO LIMIT SHALL BE PLA® ON THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN THE COVVERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OR THE INDUSTRIAL ZONED DISTRICTS. NOR SHALL ANY MIN= FLOOR AREA RATIO BE iMxxMM:/ k'WFL,WTQWW.IM,100cr.Y • Y.� 1■ • q .W _�U : �1N- Y:h_�MY.��)7■ statement is that the City allows the developer to build additional square . footage. However, in the return, the City is getting more green space per development as the builder increases the stories. This also provides the incentive for less area to be taken up in parking spaces and could possibly force the ramping of the parking within the development. The developer does have the option to provide the additional green space, but provide adequate land for ground parking, or if he is intensifying the site, would be able to ramp the parking for the development proposal. Presently, the zoning ordinance requires only a 20' green area along a public street, and a 5' green area along the side and rear lot lines. As the buildings would in- crease in height, the green area would substantially increase on all sides of the parcel instead of the constant standard that we presently have within the zoning ordinance. Enclosed is a matrix which shows a 40,000 square foot lot which would allow an 8,000 square foot for lot coverage, and what the present setback is according to Ordinance #52 and haw the set- backs would increase proportionately for a 5 -story building and a 7 -story building. Staff will be able to go through this matrix with the Subcommittee on the 18th to provide additional information. Inusing the conditional use approach in all zoning districts to allow height above the 3 -story building, a policy statement may be included that no building shall exceed 3 stories unless there is a 300' spacing between single family residence and the location where the building is proposed to exceed the 3 -story height which would be allowed under normal circimistan- ces. The contract, or agreement, which has been drafted in rough form by the City Attorney, attempts to provide all of the building code, or health, safety aspects into the construction and design of the building, and this additional language for providing additional green area for heights of structures should be the main items for consideration if the City elects to lift the height limitation in commercial and industrial zoned parcels. If anyone has any questions in regard to the information provided, please feel free to contact we for additional information. DCR/jach X3 E CMITIMAL USE PEWIT Application form submitted Advertise legal notice & agenda Scheduled for staff meeting Scheduled for Health & Safety Com. Public Hearing held by APC Approved or denied by City Council I Subject to agreement and pertinent conditions 0 0 P.D. ZCNING Application form submitted Advertise legal notice & agenda Scheduled for staff meeting Scheduled for Health & Safety Comm. Public Hearing held by APC Approved or denied by City Council Subject to agreement and pertinent conditions F -i- J m • derry Alien oJew s,{ ,.k A 7. MEMO TO: DALE RONnE, CITY PLzem FROM: DALE PETERSON, Bunni C; OFFICIAL DATF: JANIZARY 21, 1982 SUBJECP: SYNOPSIS OF PUIIDIM CODES THAT RMATE TO MULTISTORY BUIIDDrZ The Building Code deals basically with two types of construction; combustible and non-combustible. There are subtypes to each, such as one to four hour fire resistive and no fire resistive requirements. Al! buildings are then . limited to both area and height depending on the occupancy class and the type of construction. However, combustible construction is always limited to a maxinmm of three stories. Four story buildings must always have exterior non-combustible walls. In some cases, protected combustible interior walls would he allowed. - In all cases, a building of more than four stories must be of non-combustible construction throughout. The Building Code defines a high-rise building as one that has a floor Rare than 75 feet above the lowest level of Fire Department access. Normally, an eight story building would be a high-rise that would he beyond the reach of the Fire Department's longest ladder. The Code requirements to build a hotel, apartment or office building become more stringent as they increase in height. The most important extra requirements are: _ -1 ' 1. One of the required stair towers must be smokeproof. 2. Must have an automatic aprinkler system. 3. Must have Fire Department standpipes to supply water for fire hoses. 4. An elaborate smoke detector system. 5. An elaborate alarm and communication system. a. This is a voice alarm and public address system. 6. A Fire Department com uni'cation system. 7. A central control station for public safety use to direct rescue, fire suppression and operate emergency systems. 8. Pxtensive smoke control and ventilation systems. 9. Elevators that are controlled by smoke detectors and will not open doors at smoke filled floor unless done manually by Fire Department personnel. 10. Must have standby power, light and emergency systems. 11. Must be decorated with low flame spread and low smoke producing wall and ceiling coverings. 12. Must have hard surfaced fire lane within twenty feet of the building. There are alternatives to the fire sprinkler system throughout, but other ommrnni- ties discretely mandate sprinkling rather than the use of the alternative. A high-rise building does have many extra safety factors built into it, but when it cones to fire suppression or rescue it is an extremely hack-hreaking job for Fire and Police personnel. Sadly enough, the little shed out back would be safe if it were not for people. 76 A G R E E M E N T CITY OF EAGAN MULTI -STORY BUILDING THIS AGREEMENT, dated this _ day of 19_1 by and between the CITY OF EAGAN, called Eagan, and +'- - - called Developer, and called Owner; WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an application for a building permit for a multi -storied building under applicable Eagan Ordinance for the purpose described and located on the following described property: ,. WHEREAS, the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on 19_, recommended to the City Council that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council, at its meeting on 19_, considered said application and the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission and approved the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Advisory Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into an agreement subject to compliance with all applicable building code and ordinance requirements and certain further conditions to assure the safety of the occupants at all times, recog- N - -*� nizing that there are certain safety considerations in a multi -story building requiring special conditions; R,M - NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City of Eagan shall approve the application for building permit for the building described above subject to compliance with all necessary City ordinandes and conditions imposed by the City. 2. Additional conditions to be approved by the City shall be as follows: a) One of the required stair towers shall be spoke proof. b) The proposed building shall include an approved automatic sprinkler system. c) The building shall include Fire Department standpipes to supply water for fire hoses. 0 0 d) A smoke detector system shall be installed according to City specifications. e) An alarm and communications system, including voice alarm and public address system, shall be installed in the building according to City specifications. system. f) The building shall include a Fire Department communications g) The building shall include a central control station for public safety use and direct rescue, fire suppression and operate emergency systema. h) The building shall include smoke control and ventilation systems according to City standards. i) Elevators shall be controlled by smoke detectors which will not allow doors to be opened on a smoke filled floor unless done manually by Fire Department personnel. J) Standby power, light, and emergency systems. k) Decorated with low flame spread and low smoke producing wall and ceiling coverings. 1) A complete automatic fire detection system with zone markers in main lobby and alarm at Eagan central dispatch center. m) Fully enclosed stairwells at each end of the building including the following: 1. Fully enclosed fire rated walls and doorways on each floor. 2. Standpipe connections on each floor. 3. Outside access on the ground level. 4. Penthouse with door on roof. 5. Automatic plus manual shutoff exhause from of penthouse. n) Firelanes shall be provided on three sides of the building and each lane must be at least 10 feet from building and 15 feet wide. o) Fire Department Key controlled elevations. p) An intercom system covering the entire building with a microphone in a alarm control box for fire department use. q) If a residential building, it must require a telephone control security system and a special code to open doors must be installed for fire and police use. 71 _2_ 3. Other conditions: 4. It is understood that occupancy of the buildings shell not be per- mitted until all necessary City requirements have been fulfilled to the City's satisfaction. 5. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. - This Agreement has been signed by the parties hereto on the date above written. CITY OF EAGAN By Developer Its Mayor Owner APPROVED: City Public Works Director Inspector M ATTEST: Its Clerk SEAL yin Owner APPROVED: City Public Works Director Inspector M ATTEST: Its Clerk SEAL r ► EAGAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL FEBRUARY 16, 1982 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS A. Fire Department e C. Park Department e B. Police Department a D. Public Works Department QQ' IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One Motion Approves All Items) $ A. Thomas Gits for Temporary Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License & Temporary Combination Gambling License for February 27, 1982 for the Annual Casino Night at St. John Neumann Church S B. Contract 81-7, Final Payment/Acceptance (Coachman Land Co. First Q Addition Utilties) (� C. Contract 81-9. Final Payment/Acceptance (Tomark 1st Addition Utilities) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Projects 246 & 257, Thomas Lake Storm Sewer, Reassessment Hearing (Continued) p,7,1B. Project 247, Alexander Road, Reassessment Hearing (Continued) VI. OLD BUSINESS Q 3o A. Steven J. Flanagan for Preliminary Plat Approval, Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition, Located in the SW'k of the SE'k of Section 30 B. Resolution/Lone Oak Heights Preliminary Plat Application VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Mid -Continent Builders, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Country e' Glenn Condominiums) Which Consists of Approximately 13 Acres and Contains 192 Dwelling Units Located on Lots 3-4, Block 2, Fox - ridge Addition in Section 9 VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS �A. Contract 81-1, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Galaxie Avenue) Qy IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the February 2, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the February 16, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEP--ARTMENT HEAD,BUS'INESS: FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- James Plantenberg Re uest for Easement -- The Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee is recommen ing to the City Council that an access easement across park property consisting of approximately 300 feet be granted to Mr. James Plantenberg to allow him to construct a home on an improved and platted building lot adjacent to the park land. The advisory committee has discussed and studied this matter for approximately three (3) months due to the committee's concern regarding the effect an access road would have on the park and also to insure no future precedents if such a request is to be allowed. Mr. Plantenberg will be present at the meeting to answer any questions and provide any additional information regarding this issue. Enclosed on pages Z through 3 is a copy of a memo and attachment from the Director of Parks a�ffecreation regarding this agenda item. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny granting an access easement across park property as requested by James Plan- tenberg and recommended for approval by the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee. ME T0: FROM: RE: 0 TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR Wruary 9, 1982 KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION REQUEST FOR EASEMENT - JAMES PLANTENBERG On February 4, 1982 the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee again reviewed the request from James Plantenberg for a road easement across a segment of Oak Chase Park. This item had originally appeared on the November 1981 Advisory Committee agenda and had been deferred for further review and study by the Advisory Committee. Mr. Plantenberg had requested a triangular portion of park land which is approximately 20' x 30' x 40' which is an area of approxi- mately 300 square feet to allow for a driveway into his parcel of land, located south of Oak Chase Park. The Advisory Committee made a thorough review of alternatives which would not require a roadway easement across park property. However, because of topography, trees and the hardship of the situation the Advisory Committee on a motion by Thurston recommended to the City Council that they grant an access easement across park property as previously described to consist of approximately 300 feet. And, that all survey costs and associated legal costs be the responsibility of Mr. Plantenberg. Motion was seconded by McNeely with all members voting in favor except Chairman Martin who abstained. The Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee wanted to make clear that this was not to be a precedent setting situation, but the unusual extra- ordinary circumstances surrounding this request prompted the Advisory Committee to act in favor of it. cc: Paul Hauge, City Attorney Z MA 1.2 �1t� N 64 i a &4�Tj /V Ll Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Two PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Public Works Maintenance, Snow Blower Attachment -- At the January 19th Council meeting, the City ounceaut prized the Public Works Director to investigate the availability and cost of possible acquisition of a multi -stage snowblower attachment to be used in conjunction with the maintenance department's front end loader. The basis for the request was the potential availability of a used MnDOT snowblower that was being made available through a trade in. It was anticipated that this would become available for approximately $2,000 to $2,500. However, after receiving authorization, the dealer indicated that the unit had already been sold for $7,400 due to the high demand for this piece of equipment. The Public Works Department then investigated a portable unit available through Dependable Well Drilling Company in Bloomington for approximately $2,500. The Public Works Director and Superintendent of Streets/Equipment investigated this available piece of equipment to determine that it was a ten horse power single stage Wisconsin air cooled engine with a maximum cutting width of five and one-half feet and height of 30 inches. This piece of equipment was too small to handle the City's maintenance needs for this type of equipment. -Subsequently, no other possibility is known for acquiring a used snow blower for the maintenance division at this time. The Public Works Department will be con- tinuing further investigations for inclusion and consideration during the 1983 budget process. Therefore, there is no action required by the Council at this time. 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Three co ITEMS; There are a total of three (3) items on the agenda referred to as Consent Items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council wishes to discuss any item in further detail, that item should be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. NON -INTOXICATING & COMBINATION GAMBLING LICENSE - ST. JOHN NEUMANN A. Thomas Gits for Temporary Non -Intoxicating Malt Liquor License & Temporary Combination Gambling License for 2-27-82 for the Annual Casino Night at St. John Neumann Church -- The City has received an application from Thomas Gits for a temporary non -intoxicating malt liquor license and temporary combination gambling license for February 27, 1982 for the annual Casino Night at St. John Neu- mann Church. The applications are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the temporary non -intoxicating malt liquor license and temporary com- bination gambling license for St. John Neumann Church. CONTRACT 81-7 B. Contract 81-7, Final Payment/Acceptance (Coachman Land Company First Addition - Utilities) -- The City has received a request for the fifth and final payment to Lametti and Sons, Inc., along with a verification from the consulting engineering firm that all City approved plans and specifications were adhered to. This project has been inspected by the Public Works maintenance personnel and is recommended for acceptance and perpetual maintenance by the City. The final contract amount is approximately $6,800 over the estimated construction cost on the feasibility report (5.070) which was a result of the extension of sewer and water services further into the lot line at the written request of the developer. The developer has agreed to accept the additional costs associated with this construction. All other phases of the project substantially underran the feasibility report. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve the fifth and final payment of $500 for Contract 81-7 to Lametti and Sons, Inc., and accept the utilities for perpetual maintenance. Ur E Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Four CONTRACT 81-9 0 C. Contract 81-9, Final Payment/Acceptance (Tomark First Addition - Utilities) --The City received a request for the third and final payment to Richard Knutson, Inc., for the installation of utilities in Tomark First Addition along with a varification from the consul- ting engineering firm that all plans and specifications were adhered to. This work has been reviewed and inspected by the Public Works maintenance division and is being recommended for formal acceptance and perpetual maintenance. The final construction cost associated with this work was approximately 6.5% ($6,000) under the estimated construction costs contained in the feasibility report. All costs associated with this project will be assessed against the benefited properties. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve the final payment of $5,259.89 for Contract 81-9 to Richard Inc., and accept the utilities for perpetual maintenance. q third and Knutson, 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Five PUBLIC HEARINGS, PROJECTS 246 & 257 A. Projects 246 & 257, Carlson Lake/Thomas Lake Trunk Storm Sewer, (Reassessment Hearing) -- As a result of an appeal by 87 property owners processed through the district court, Judge Mansur ordered the City to redo the final assessments for the 87 appellants in accordance with the technical procedures of Chapter 429 relating to special assessments. Subsequently, the City retained the ser- vices of Mr. Robert Hutchinson as an appraiser to evaluate the assessments relating to the above referenced projects as they per- tain to potential increase in market value to the 87 appellants' properties in question. Subsequently, on December 1, 1981, a reas- sessment hearing was held following the proper procedures dictated by the district court and the assessment rates were increased to include the cost of the appraiser (approximately $4,350). At the December 1st final assessment hearing, approximately fifty (50) of the 87 appellants submitted written objections to the re- vised assessment roll. The City Council then closed the public hearing and adopted the final reassessment roll with the exception of those fifty property owners who submitted written objections. The public hearing for those fifty continuing objectors was then continued until January 12, 1982. At the continued hearing on January 12th, the City Council and staff reviewed each individual parcel for which a written objection had been submitted on December 1st. The City Attorney, appraiser, Public Works Director, Consulting Engineer and individual property owner all had an opportunity to discuss the facts for each indi- vidual parcel. Two (2) property owners were not able to attend the January 12th meeting and requested that the public hearing be continued for them until February 2, 1982. For the remaining 48 objectioning property owners, the public hearing was then closed and the record was left open for a period of twenty (20) days until February 1, 1982 to allow the submission of additional written documentation for Council review and consideration. At the February 2nd Council meeting, neither of the two continued property owners appeared in person to further present their objections. Subsequently, the public hearing for these two re- maining appellants was then closed with a final determination to be made at the February 16, 1982 Council meeting. 7 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Six During the twenty day period after the January 12th public hearing, eleven (11) property owners submitted additional written information pertaining to their properties and continuing their objections to the final assessment. Copies of these written objections are enclosed on pages /Q throughJq and are forwarded for the Council's additiona information in individual lot assessment valua- tion. In addition, during this period, the staff discovered a lot area calculation error for Lot 5 (2), Block 2, Oak Chase Third Addition under the ownership of Kenneth and Sharon Peters. This resulted in a portion of their lot being split off and transfered to the City of Eagan for park purposes. Subsequently, their net area was reduced to under one acre which qualifies them for the maximum $430 original assessment to which should be added the $40.96 reas- sessment figure for appraisals. After the $24 credit was applied for the developer's previous improvements, their net assessment should be $446.96 as compared to $527.03 which was presented at the public hearing on January 12th. The staff recommends that the Council take this area recalculation into consideration and reduce the assessment to $446.96 for this lot (Lot 5-2, Block 2, Oak Chase Third Addition). Due to the fact that the cost of the appraisal was considered a cost of the overall project, combined with the fact that the assess- ments were spread on a per square foot basis, the staff pro rated the $4,350 additional cost on an area basis. This resulted in an additional assessment cost per lot ranging from $28.65 (11,592 sq. ft.) to $682.52 (7.34 acres). If this additional $4,350 cost were spread on a per lot basis equally, it would have resulted in approximately $50 per lot. At the January 12th public hearing, two property owners objected to having to pay a much higher cost for the appraisal cost addition when the appraiser spent an equal amount of time and effort on their large lot as with the smallest lot of those who had objected. Therefore, if the Council wanted to take this fact into consideration and reduce the additional assessment accordingly to provide for only the average $50 per lot to be added on, the following reduction for the referenced large lot could be considered: H. 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Seven LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNER Section 28, Richard & Dolores Smith 010-82 Section 28, James & Barbara Barker. 010-83 MAY 1980 DEC. 1981 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT REASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT $ 1,801.70 $ 1,97.2.96 $ 1,851.70 (Credit $121.26) 2,111.30 2,311.99 2,161.30 (Credit $150.69) Section 28, Richard & Lorraine Scherer 7,180.43 7,862.95 7,230.43 011-84 (Credit $632.521 If these credits are allowed, it would result in a total credit of $904.47 being allowed of the original approximate $4,350 (20.8%) that was expended for the additional appraisal and legal fees asso- ciated with this reassessment hearing. The staff did receive one written objection from David Sundberg. This objection was not forwarded to the Council's attention due to the fact he was not one of the original 87 appellants and, sub- sequently, does not warrant further consideration at this time. The City Attorney and Public Works Director will be available to discuss in further detail any questions the Council may have per- taining to the objections presented by the remaining fifty property owners of the original assessment roll. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To Projects 246 and 257 as it pertains to the owners who submitted written objections with the Council may deem appropriate and order county for collection. u adopt the roll for fifty (50) property any adjustments that certification to the AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA RECEIVED JAN 2 8 1982 Kenneth P. Ketcham„„ being first duly sworn on oath states and alleges as follows: He is the co-owner of Lot 9, Block 2, Oak Chase Second Addition. He has been assessed for a storm sewer trunk project which has been designated as Project 257. Affiant lives on a hill overlooking Oak Chase Lane in Eagan. The project which affiant was assessed for includes a lift station which pumps water from "Oak Chase Ponds" to Carlson Lake. The 1973 level of the pond is 79.2 feet below the height of my garage floor slab, the lowest level in my house or garage. I am approximately 1225 feet (1/4 mile) from Oak Chase pond as the crow flies and 1422 feet as the course of water backing up from the pond.The soil composition of my lot is primarily sand and gravel with a drive way that curves away from the house. My own analysis of the law as set forth by Mr. Hutchinson and an in depth analysis of my property (it is 1n a natural state except for the house, the driveway, and a sodded boulevard), results in "excess" water run-off of 23,020 gallons per year. This is not unreasonable per my analysis and results in harm to no one. The cost of acquiring an easement of an additional 10 feet (200 year rain high level) of vertical height on Carlson Lake would be .04 per square foot (the rate for the permanent easement calculation) would be at most $1,753.36. The cost of the Peterson residence (the house which was adversely affected) would be $80,000.00. The total cost to cure would be $81,753.36. The number of acres assessed was 411.16 acres. The cost to cure by allowing the Lake to rise ten feet (200 year rain level) would be $198.83 per acre. The cost over the watershed involved would be a cost of $14.19 per acre. The City's appraisal, if my lot is taken as typical, would be $8,553.23 (cost to cure) per acre. This last few sentences 1s for discussion purposes only and does not take into account that my property has not received any increase in market value due to this improvement. Afflant asked at the hearing why this was not a viable solution for the problem. The response as shown in the Transcript of Ketcham (Rosene) testimony was that this solution was piecemeal and not in the best interests of the whole city (master plan). Affiant after reviewing the transcript and testimony from the City .regarding their Trunk Sewer Policy is convinced that this was not a local improvement that is eligible for special assessment financing. Affiant further states that he has talked to a number of appraisers (a minimum of 4 in two firms) and they state the same conclusion that Hr. Hutchinson arrived at, to -wit: the Ewert formula is impossible to use in an improvement project like this instant case. In talking to a number of local real estate agents, it was there unanimous Opinion that this system did not increase the market value at all, nor was Oak Chase Addition ever determined to be a water problem area. ' Affiant further states that Oak Chase Subdivision is one of the three prestige subdivisions In Eagan. It is zoned Estate which has greater restrictions for density, minimum house size, etc. than the R-1 zoning. The house next to mine is presently on the market listed at $125,000.00. We have never been deemed having any water drain -off problems. I am of the opinion that the real estate agents are correct and I would not pay any additional amount of money to purchase a house that had storm trunk sewer as is reflected in this fact situation. Further affiant sayeth not. Subscribed and sworn to be fore me this /Sev day of January, 1982. '"' Notary P11c ,i. =u:_,.•r ; n• ' fS • • 2 -ice January 31, 1982•�' F PFC60 1 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot FY.uob Rd. p` Eagan, MN 55122 6 To the City of Eagan: We are writing this letter to voice aur objections to the special assessment. Since we were unable to stay late at the Jan. 12 hearing, we did not speak in front of the City Council. Our property on 4320 Garden Trail has received no benefit whatsoever from the Carlson Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet (Project 246) or the Thomas Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet (Project 257). Storm sewers were in and paid for when we had our home built in 1974 and it has handled excess rain and water runoff from our property adequately. It was stated at the hearing by the appraiser hired by the City that it was impossible to prove the increase in benefit to our property. Enclosed is a letter from our realtor, Marge Jara, stating that on appraising our property she found no increase in value to our property because of these lift stations. Therefore there is no benefit and we object to being taxed under the Slpecial Assessment"Statute. We feel our assessment, if there.has to be one, should be 90. We also object to being charged appraiser's fees. Judge Martin _Mansur ruled that "the City failed to make the re- quired findings as to the.amount of the increased value." Therefore, the City has made a mistake and we feel they should be responsible to pay for correcting their mistake. We feel the City's planning and development made a tni.stake in allowing a home to be built at 1300 Balsam Trail E. Because this home on Carlson Lake was built on property much lower than the other properties on the lake, it was flooded and we (all the surrounding residents) are expected to pay for correcting this error. This is unfair and we object to the special assessment on these grounds also. What we don't object to is the experience of attending City Council meetings and observing how our Government operates. After each meeting we became more and more disillusioned with our City officials. They would not admit a mistake was made; they claimed they "just missed a step." We call that a mistakel The Mayor and some members of the Council were rudd childish and disgusting. They did not appear to be responsible Govern- ment officials. 13 City of Eagan -2- January 31, 1982 The old adage "You cannot fight City Hall" is not taue. We did it and, win or lose, it sure was worth it. Hopefully, the City of Eagan will no longer "miss a step." Sincerely, IJe'tft*nTtrry Gerken 4320 Garden Tr. Enc. M➢ J Eberhardt Better Fox-Herffurth titter s Real Estate I i .u: _ and Gardens. 7530 West 149th Street, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Telephone (612) 432-6444 January 28, 1982 To the City of Fagan: In regards to the special assessments put on the property at 4320 Garden Trail, As a Realtor for Eberhardt, I had this house listed several tmnths ago and when doing the appraisal no consideration was given as to the increased value of this property because of the special assess- ment, . In my professional estimation, a pump in the lake 1 1/2 blocks from this home does nothing to increase value. Sincerely, ..� Marge Jara 15 18 B. Richard Vogen Judith C. Vogen 1271 Vildmark Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55123 February 1, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Sirs: Re: Storm Sewer Trunk Assessment Lot 18, Block 1, Wilderness Run 3rd Addn. The contention that our property value has increased by an amount equal to the cost of hauling the runoff water away coul only be a valid arguement if the alternative would result in some other action or problem. The fact is that water running off our lot would cause no problem. No hauling would be necessary. On the other hand, the pumping of water has caused a problem. Our lot is no longer on the pond. Area previously occupied by higher water now resembles a swamp. The area is overgrown with weeds. Trash from all over the pond collects in this shallow area. It is a substantial eyesore, the result of which has left our property less appealing and thus less valuable. I am confident that upon your review of this case you will amend your valuation estimate. Sincerely, e ' B. Richard Vo en 8139b Ib eN=i �F�F7Vr Ffg I ]J0 2 B. Richard Vogen • • Judith C. Vogen 1271 Vlldmark Drive Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 8, 1982 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Thomas Lake and Carlson Lake Storm Sewer Assessment Parcel .10-84352-180-01 Dear Mr. Clobert: We are out of town and thus unable to present testimony in our own behalf. Mr. Paul Gooding has agreed to present this letter in our behalf. The value of our property has been reduced rather than Increased by the storm sewer Installation. Our praperty sits high above the west part of Oak Chase pond. Prior to the installation of the pump, our propeaty adjoined and included the pond. Since the storm sewer Installation, our property is well away from the pond. It Is clear that the city, through the installation bf the storm sewer and pump, has -reduced the value of our property. Assessments are only legal when the value of ones property can be shown to have been increased by by the expenditure. We ask, therefore, that 'the assessment against our property be set aside. Thank you. ^Sin re y, �J B. Richarly Vo n, and lu-tel Z)�-r-� Judith C. Vogen 17 i • PROJECT 257 STM SEW TRK TO: Eagan City Clerk January 31, 1982 REFERENCE: 4444 Vildmark Court Lot 9, Block 1, Wilderness Run 3rd Addition We protest what we feel is an unfair assessment to our property for these reasons: 1. We live at least 1/4 mile from all lakes affected by lift stations. 2. We have little added landscaping. Most of our property has been left undisturbed, thus less runoff. 3. This potential problem should have been determined when the land was developed and the cost born by the developer. It is unfair for us to pay for the mistake of engineers and developers. (Especially considering all the "scientific" knowledge the engineers have available to them.) A grave mistake has been made and should be admitted. 4. The council failed to show that our property has been improved in any way. No assessor could determine value to that fine a point. 5. When we bought, it was with the understanding that the storm sewer was in and paid for. , ._... ... 6. If anything, the value of our property has been depressed because our sewer does not handle run-off in a responsible manner. When it rains, run-off from other sewer lines backs up into our sewer and regularly floods our yard. as well as three of our neighbors. And any property that "gains the reputation of inadequate control creates a loss of value". (quote from paid assessor) We request the city correct our inadequate sewer so the water is handled responsibly. No additional assessment on our part will be considered until that is complete. Also, we will not pay the $40.96 for a property appraisal we did not request. Therefore, we ask that our assessment receive absolutely no benefit. Mary E. 2opehn 1 be dropped to $0 since we Q G Phillip F .'opeh • RECEIVED.Jr1N" 3 9982 Games & Karol David 1349 Cosmos bane Eagan, Mn 55123 January 23, 1982 RE: Storm Sewer Assessment Council members, I am writing this letter to further express my complaint in the matter of the storm sewer assessment in addition to our complaint at the January 12, 1982 hearing. 1. We were never notified of the initial meeting to begin with. We purchased our house on Aug. 4, 1978. No letter was sent to this address concering any assessment. If youuare going to -say go to the former homeowners to complain or press charges, that would be impossible, as the United States government can't even find them. The first time we ever even heard of the .assessment w s when we received our bill. Even our letter from the lawyers, checking the abstract, stated there was no pending state.federal-ol,..ciyyaatitmnms. (see gxample #1) 2. When we received our bill, we immediatly paid the full amount of $340.00 on June 3, 1980. Our bill was marked paid in full. Can you legally charge us for more than that amount? As per the Jan. 12, 1982 meeting, you informed us that you would be returning the $340.00 to us, plus interest. The interest would be•sent to Mr. Ketcham. I only think it's fair that the interest should be the same amount you are charging for late payments, as you.have.had the use of our money for almost 2 years. Otherwise, it should be the same amount paid by savings institutions. Ithink anything less than that would be absured. /one 3. A widely heard complaint is no ever wants to get involved. People are apathetic when it comes to rape, murder, burgleries, etc., Mostly due to the fact it's easier anddyou won't get hurt. This whole case concerning our protest can attest to that theory. Granted it would have been easier just to pay the assessed amount and forget it like most people, then we wouldn't have gotten hurt. I'm speaking of the addit- ional charge for the:iassessor, because you didn't do things right to begin with. Why do we have to pay for your mistakes? I dont beleive the additional assessors fee is even calculated right. He did not spend an hour on assessing our property, but yet the charge applied reflects exactly what he charges per hour. If ours is an overcharge, I think some of the others in the hundreds, because of your percentage, is absolutly ridiculous. There is some discreptency here as to his charges. If'eel there is also some sort of "We'll show you" vendeta here. Just a few assessments to prove his theory, would have been sufficient and you all know it. It was a waste of money just for vengence. His theory is even wrong. Hauling a tanker in to empty oar ponds or the lake, Come on! In his stupid theory, he calculates this type of removal'on a yearly basis, and this gave him balculations for added value to our property. Did anyone consider the fact that during the winter (over half the year) the lake or our backyard ponds would be frozen, and there is no hazards of water runoff. I felt this whole theory is all wet, and does'nt hold water.19 • Tames & Karol David Page 2 Ifter the January•12th meeting I now understand the water runoff problem. I wish we could have been so informed from the beginning. When so many people rejected to the plan, it leaves me with the thought, that even if we were informed of what was going on (which we wern't), maybe this wouldn't have created such a contrAversy. I don't think it would have done any good to go to the public hearings:.as you have apparently handlied the whole thing wrong from the beginning.(Note paragragh #1) Due to your tacky handleing of the situation and all the mistakes you made, I don't think we should be punished for questioning yox actions. Protestingly, Karol David James M. David 1349 Cosmos Lane Eagan, Mn 55123 Dist. 10, Plat 84353 Parcel No 070 01 1 Wilderness #4 L7 Bk1 2x) WY t.TRE•ISE.N M & K AD.' �?,; � . t I W . Y IT • j7r6vmvrs ArlAw IJ 4 A T %Y', 43 -.14r. and Mrs. �rames'David 4i! P a re' 2 6. "The application 'Of' the 'local zoning ordin' Eies an . . - a d any �me . ih�ereto A. ne, application Ication of the municipal, county and state bull in code -i..;t;,;regU ations. -!As p the there is ger trunk ass .abstract, h s �ei�er t trunk act, per SMS 8:11 G I istanding on this'proverty. t L U. AL We further call'iour' itte'nit'ion' to the following items: V. 1. That as of May 24, 1978, there are no outstanding judgments', federal tax liens, state inheritance tax liens, state income tax liens on file in the (,county recorder's office and that there are no federal tax liens on file in the.. office of the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Third Divi--- i sion, nor are there any judgments docketed in the office of the clerk of court of Dakota County against anyone who has had an interest in the property in the last ten years. 2. At this point in time I have not been retained for the closing of this piece of property, but I would advise that checks bed M a e by 'the closer of this property prior to or on the date of closing to make sure that the water bill is paid up to the date of closing. 67 Inasmuch as we were not furnished with a survey of the abov'i'described pr6perty, this letter gives no opinion as to whether the improvements on. the properiy,'if any, stand entirely within the boundary lines of said proiq;rty:_.1Ve further call your attention that a survey may disclose r encroachments s or unrecorded "roadwa -"uses that do not now, appear of reco'rd. - y .3. ROUMSTAD, THEISE�%q KEN, EDY Joel oel A. Theisen JAT/ks I W 4 e L .'I a V DAKOTA COUNTY MINNESOTA RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS'' C•: 00.53. - .60" ----- .0 1,,,:.RECEIPT NO. -ZO DATE U lw� 0, E SCjjipTj, ON;. e' -;a fl.tJNICIPALITY PARCEL NO. 0 A - 1,3: Be ification, "Cell' 4i ' Prepayment �,l Iii, 51 :'5 Paid'in Full K -TAS Pillar lose Coil %paltial Pala: -x;178. 2)% .;%-P(1CPARED OY-CAAL 0.. ONISCHUK. COUNTY AUDITOR ;4:6BY: p VIIEPANED:t)V LIUIJICIPALITY OF! ?By: Jj7 -4. o -;v +•t•;: . PC ym.''ili is mode by"I;ceck,this is no! a vul id 1 ur.cip, until check is paid. m .... �.i%INAIdEI:•':'tiPOSTED BY: et- "CDATE 3 D -P AUD 114 1. 1, Rom 70 ORIGINAL AMOUNT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PAID a e V. 137-401 list -601 Be ification, "Cell' 4i ' Prepayment �,l Iii, 51 :'5 Paid'in Full K -TAS Pillar lose Coil %paltial Pala: -x;178. 2)% .;%-P(1CPARED OY-CAAL 0.. ONISCHUK. COUNTY AUDITOR ;4:6BY: p VIIEPANED:t)V LIUIJICIPALITY OF! ?By: Jj7 -4. o -;v +•t•;: . PC ym.''ili is mode by"I;ceck,this is no! a vul id 1 ur.cip, until check is paid. m .... �.i%INAIdEI:•':'tiPOSTED BY: et- "CDATE 3 John C. Sater 4473 Oak Chase Lane Eagan, MN. 55123 •January 28, 1982 • Parcel 10-53501-010-02 Re: Project 257, Thomas Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet City of Eagan Mr. Eugene Van Overbeke City Clerk Eagan, MN. 55122 Dear Mr. Van Overbeke: The purpose of this letter is to delineate specific errors that I believe were made by the appraiser in calculating the supposed benefit to my property because of the referenced storm sewer. I denote these errors only to point out the continuing carelessness with which this entire issue has been conducted. I still maintain, as I stated for the record at the public hearing on January 12, 1982, that my property provides no unreasonable runoff for the following reasons: 1., The large size of the lot absorbs the runoff from the dwelling, 2. The natural state in which more than 85% of the lot has been maintained provides no further runoff, 3. The presence of part of the natural ponding area covering a portion of my lot retains any other potential runoff. For the aforementioned reasons, I maintain that no improvement was necessary nor realized in my property due to the subject storm sewer, therefore no special benefit accrued to it. As a consequence, I believe no assessment was warranted nor is it valid. The public hearing that I attended on January 12, 1982 did nothing to change my opinion. While I recognize that the errors that I believe were made in the runoff calculations may not affect your calculation of my assessment, i nevertheless point them out as perhaps symptomatic of the overall error. For example: 1. My DRIVEWAY was considered an impervious surface in the runoff calculations, yet it is in fact composed of crushed rock and gravel, not concrete as was assumed. 2. The GRASS AND LANDSCAPE area for my lot was calculated at 85,054 square feet, when in actuality it is approximately 2000 square feet or less. The vast majority of the lot is undisturbed and is in its natural state, as can be determined somewhat by the appraiser's picture of the property. 23 - 2- 3. A portion of my property lies under the pond, yet I was given no credit for a NON-CONTRIBUTING AREA in the runoff calculations. 4. Finally, I question the use of the 28 ft. width for the BOULEVARD calculation, since I have a chart prepared for me by a Surveyor, (Mr. Delmar Schwanz, Minnesota Registra- tion No. 8625) which shows that width at 13 feet. I have not attempted to calculate the effect of correcting these errors in the runoff calculations because 1) I still do not under- stand the appraiser's methods, and 2) I believe it would be futile because the City of Eagan is determined to collect its money in some fashion and would not permit the calculated "benefit" to fall below the desired assessment. I realize these are strong words, but I have a great deal of diffi- culty understanding how projects can be advertized at a public hear- ing at one cost, then have that cost escalate significantly for what- ever reasons and expect the public to swallow the whole thing without questioning it. Perhaps the city may want to investigate contracting concepts such as Fixed Price, etc., such as are used in private industry to control costs somewhat better. I urge the Mayor and City Council to reconsider my assessment based on the facts presented, and more than that, to develop and implement better methods for planning, organizing, executing, and controlling public service projects in the future. Thank You! GIiGC'ti C. Sater JCS/v 24 0 January 19, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administration City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have opposed the assessments for projects 246 and 257 from the beginning because we did not feel this was the solution for the . problem the City was trying to solve. ' I We were happy that the District Court decided as it did and were very anxious to see how the City of Eagan would attempt to comply with the Court's ruling. After listening to the City and its witnesses at the special hearing on January 12, we do not feel that the City has met its responsibility as set forth by the Court and therefore we continue to object to the assessment. The theories and statements presented by the appraiser hired by the City were at best confusing. We have attempted to verify them with another appraiser and cannot. Our suspicion is that this appraiser hired by the City may have as difficult3time under further cross examination as he did at the special hearing. We, as citizens of Eagan have a responsibility to pay our fare share for our government and its projects but special assessments in this case do not achieve this result. relY, 6 Z Paul Go Eng Nancy Gooding /3f,Z P-,- 114. ✓Al. • • RECEiVEU1" 2 , , 4396 Svensk Lane Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 25, 1982 Re: Project 246, Carlson Lake Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Outlet City Of Eagan Thomas A. Colbert, P.E.,Director of Public Works 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Sir: I attended your Council Meeting on January 12, 1982 at which time the City Council went through proposed assessments for all who had submitted formal objections at the December 1, 1981 meeting. I did not get to speak as I was at the end of the list and the time got so late that I had to leave. My objection to the assessment is very simple -I didn't have any problem without the storm sewer outlet. The storm sewer outlet.hasn't enhanced the property value one single dollar. I live in the very first house on Svensk Lane, off Wilderness Run Road, on top of the hill and not at any time did we have water sitting on our property since we moved in year of 1975. To be honest I will agree that alot of the property owners did benefit from the storm sewer outlet as the water levels rose on their property and they should be the ones who should be assessed if their individuaA contracts with the builder does not stipulate otherwise. I can only speak for my own property but I know that there are a few others besides myself that are unduly assessed. If I didn't feel very strongly to what I have written here I certainly would have never objected to the assessment in the first place. I do hope that you understand my thinking and views on this matter. I hope that this matter can be brought to a rightful conclusion— for the benefit of all property owners -lets get on with other pressing matters! Thank you very much. Yours truly, Lowell D. & Sandra M Aske 24 0 0 4470 Oak Chase Way Eagan, Minnesota 55123 January 24, 1982 Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Project 257, Thomas Lake and Oak Chase Pond Drainage Basin Storm Outlet. Lot 4 Block 2 Oak Chase 3rd Addition Dear Sir: Because I will be on extended mili.rary duly CXt:_ng the next two meerings of the city council, I will present my dissent to the above assessment by this letter. 1) My house is 36 feet above the water level of the pond behind my residence. Whether the pond level is raised or lowered during rainy periods is of little consequence and of no value to my resi- dence and property. 2) For the past three years the quality of the water in the pond has steadily declined. Originally one could see children swimming, as'wefi As waterfowl and fish utilizing the pond. Now the pond is basically dead with no waterfowl observed, no fish seen, and a heavy, green scum aboudaog,: during the summer. I originally bought my lot because of the quality of water -in the pond. The value of my house and property has declined because of the use of this pond as a storm sewer holding pond. Thank you. a7 Sincerely, John 0. Ahnert jr INSURANCE TECHNICIANS ASSOC., INC. 5850 Beau D' Rue Drive, Eagan. Mn. 55122 4526222 January 18, 1982 Re: Thomas lake and Carlson Lake Storm Sewer Assessment Kenneth A. and Mary Lou Pirkl 4368 Garden Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Parcel 10-84351-060-03 Current Residence: 4260 North Malmo Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Coucil Members: Due to lack of time at the January 12, 1982 meeting, I was granted permission to place my objections in writing. Regardless of the credentials of the appraiser, Mr. Bob Hutchinson, in my opinion, the question is whether or not the assessed property owners derived any economic benefit from the storm sewers. Clearly,'those people living on the lake enjoyed an immense direct benefit. Further, I believe, as far away from these lakes as I was located, that I did received some economic benefit. Even more so, I believe the entire city population received some of this benefit. I base this on the fact that this shows current and future residents of our city, that the city is trying to make Eagan a quality place to live. The city is trying to provide, through proper planning, good land development. Therefore, taking this viewpoint, I am willing to concede that I owe some dollar amount, for this project, in order to maintain a progressive city and attract more people and industry to Eagan. I conclude that my fair share of the assessment should be $127.82, and, request the city to adjust it accordingly. Sincerely, r, - Kenneth A. Pirkl TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIT ERG, C/O THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 6r�. DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 RE: FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING, PROJECT 246 and 257 - ADDITIONAL INFOR- MATION The City Attorney's office forwarded to my attention additional support information pertaining to three additional appellants that were not for- warded to the Council as a part of the regular agenda packet. This addi- tional support information should be reviewed and given the same consi- deration as the subsequent written comments similar to the 11 property owners discussed as a part of the regular agenda packet. I will be available to discuss any aspect of this final assessment hear- ing with the Council if they so desire at any time. . TAC/jach i NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED January 12, 1982 To: E. J. Van Overbeke Mayor Bea Blomquist Reference to: Proposed Assessment for Storm Sewer Improvements Project 246 and/or 257. On May;31, 1978, the said owners Paul E. and Mary M.'Kottke purchased Lot 13, Block 2, Wilderness Run 4th addition, address of 4395 Svensk Lane, Eagan, Mn. 55123, for $82,500. This property was purchased at this time with the knowledge that all assessments were in and paid for on said property. Home improvements were made on this property between July, 1978, and July, 1979, in the form of a walk -out deck, fencing, and completion of some rooms in the home. This home is situated approximately seven tenths of a mile from the Project of 257 and 246 Storm Sewer Trunk located on Carlson Lake Lane and is on a hillof a corner lot of Svensk Lane and Wilderness Runn Rd. Carlson Lake cannot be seen from this home and being on a hill and a corner lot, coupled with the fact that in the purchase agreement when the home was purchased it stated that all assessments were in and paid for and this home has no benefit of a water view and does not have any problems with flooding on ingress or eqress. Consequently this property has no added value by being assessed an additional $380.96, in special assessments, and it is our opinion because of the assessment that the value of the home will be depreciated because of future maintenance of the Storm Trunk Sewer Project that can be assessed to this property. It is also our opinion that the only persons who would benefit from said project are the residents located on Carlson Lake because the purpose of this Storm Sewer Trunk Sub -pump is to keep the water from rising into flood- ing conditions in'Carlson Lake for the residents pumping them into another facility. Therefore, in conclusion, it is our opinion that this property does not in any way derive a direct or indirect MA SHIRLEY MARTINEK, Broker, 623 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104, (612) 291.7327 • viii• NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED page 2. benefit, nor, increase 'the market value of this property from this project because of the fore mentioned reasons,. and most important this project and assessment would depreciate the value of this property because of main- tenance on said project in future years. Sincerely, a� SHIRLEY MARTINEK, Broker, 623 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55104, (612) 291-7327 g. Na, aly..lA 4rnean Mang Cm1usL _ Wlt T fie[ Capt e Coln W 9uNi� PINI:—Wont'[ CeqaPq " PURCHASE AGREEMENT A. • - 6.k3gl Minn,_ 19_Zg PJXMVM OF ... P(�I,L..G.a..:...Ko.fake_.....n.(.d.......M.c�Y..y..nI......... .c+fk ........... the Iu n of ........:- ......:.h. ,, e �i..........................................:........... i:..: .:.'. sof uz<t .......... C, kL,C.k..,,,,,,,.„_........................... ....... _u earnest money and in put payment for the purchase of property as H...i9 ...S.vensk....�dne ........ ...................................... ..... sim cad In the County of.- .D.A-k o.4. -L ,,, .t , , „ , Sum of Minn cro, slid legally described as fagots, to•vir. 1 (D+ 13 131ock2/ W�(derne�S I�oh a/fS AtKlr+eehd aeeorUA:t7 to*k6DUK eks, lam 00�(I/L avtA si rec.o rd ly, ago-F-Glti 04 i4* IZey ISjPw—o,t Ofteds clan 1ti dNd C dor rani.. - Including all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and Nees, JI swim ash, swim dabs, detachable vesabdq scraeu, ssnings, window Aides, blinds (including venreian blinds), crinin once, reverse rods, drapery tads. lighting (amtsa and bulhe, plumbing fiamua, ha vers ranks and Mating plant (virh any burners, ranks, stokers and ether equipment used in cumeenon then_ virh). vmer moisture endGauid-_�--d--T-_�'•�if the property of sega)r-reln:slotrntreno� Hiders. _ nee, built-in duhvmhm, garbage dirpaW, ovens, cork top, Nave and normal air conditioning equipment. it any, used end formed on aid premiss and including also the following apical proper dreapes d+d cvm, ivAs f rd(.l jt� (z '54rafar/ Wl�rf imic4ryer c(.w Y a ; 11sJ' :.. drYsyr Iwclud.fdjr aR of which propeery the ladenl f o i5. ........ o_SlHw.k which the agrees in pay in t Earn benin paid $ .2O! $✓ 0-700 VVLCI SA'ju Oro;Ind.1 6i PJ Igo. pate u..Ndar. Subjeec m Berl bo the buyer d . (w be mored In by mocm, if any) ec 1.) Scalding and seri., Imre• ordim • ' 'b) Rarrnim sabu., m rte or ret I has dais dy odd on the buys for the sum ad $.:i 5'00) DOs! Awe, ' • e dare of dosing... KLf 70 `di Su'f!S'Fd'c%'ti 14 /, /A 7r✓d ataf`i11Zn$✓rdKC-e d��dpy /•lr t etLq%_ 918fA¢ wkt�l� G,:.a` buyer Wt'Ilr^-I a a. addtite � A�( -to- tic e- 1 a � V?7r.:7✓yar.r 4; r 1 )>�: b+y.jt� .le•w,cv cvirlp(5'r i'�Aalt,l.ry.<Ili+1+ Si+tal-a t naeci to amnm end re, • . f%i 4+4 b Lar-Cpunnn Dad rnmonmbN title an raid id pmmn whim mil 1, w he lallecina necpims: oe .rad fahreliuof w mmoff of piac. wndm shwenaire lorleiwrt promising. (d) Utility ad drawee eoremen s acheh do . incorrect, cost, present impro.ernnu. (e) Richt. cltamer am follows: (unlet ,ossific. Wer mu Is no min) The buyer shelf pay she real cum. son due in she par 10 ,r od any .."to w Jlmems'pf special mamurcnn pmnble shen.hh seodd ,hernlpppaiaiairrrrr(�� 41yyr, wnmma ,No Lean rt m e fn she year 11 i Y II be 0.1 ge . homncnJ Nwioc:m Vhpm bLy'ivy=n Go, ming �uye`�i: , I full, pori or nm.hnmapd-inn wh4hI rr Nm31M sM miler nor she .11 ... ... no make in, mP:[mnusim or ..rump chnwnes numirminp the m onto no ml mm rue, rabieh shall be omud again,, he pwpmy aubraouem m she doe of purth me. Sella wvm.nu ,he, buildings, If one. mai morels chin eche b nd., lines of to, pmpry.d nmm in rtmwe all mewl normo The miler further aum. to Jell. conviction mA O t, thus G 10Is I a%9 "nowi sol N. .11 omJiu.m eel chin .,.art h..e been wmpl4J wi,h. Unlet .,.art mpacifid this ale shall beef un or beton 60 day. loam rhe Jan hawu. In ON evens whir owners, is desmed ur suhuntlellp dunned by fine or ray usher num before nM minion due. this .Prmvm shall burger ..If and void, or the purthorei s splen, and all money mid herturder shell be rtfundd m him.. The basic, and sell[, dm unnmally .,rte these nn :,of" a dimtm nn rd•rt n, mann, huunme and wiry wmr. eml. in de use or lormm pomny, wens mmmamn t µsome" .hell be mWa m eel G IDSI .... ....•...:. - The miler mhdl, ritM1tn • reasonable rim[ cher, npprovel of chis a,rteminto choose furnish an chamof tide or a Re,burd Pmmny Abumt sensors w date w include proper mn[hea waerinR Nnkruptiea, and More and federal iumnu Th Ja.eel hecn. e W. dull be dle.rtJ 10 dry, miner mein, chnwl for imamimrion of acid title and the nation eel any obimlon. rlerecn...J nhierlinm m he made I. scenic, ear de<md no h -aimed. If ant ohicNlow m to male the seller rhdl he dlo-cd 110 don to male inch tide morkmble. Peeling wNces. el title the payments hetwde, neulyd shall be pmnpmted, but rpm wounion of once rad wither 10 Jay, after veno an she buyer, she main shall ,to. this moment .e,*Win, to in emu. If sad ,iris t. raw nnrtmbly and it nn made n chi In 120 dm. Imm the Arco of scrim's abint[ion, theme as mhnv, provided, An ,.no .hall U ..If and mid, .t ,gnien of the butts, and Moshe, principal dull be liable for damages henuder ms elm most principal All moncyrhroculnrt min oy rhe hu. wall be rmi,ujel. G eche 0m ria mW nwmry iso focus marketable or k an made .isni. ora owe, and said Interaction dolaula in any of the nmmen„ and [anew[ in default lar a A'rfnd of 10 dan, then and in the cram the calls, ern termimn Chia contract auJ un wash avmin,lim ell the prymen,m mule ups Chir -nun .hall be noticed be told mfit, and amid moos. as their t ipecc m internis may appe.r. am IiaasiJa d damm,4 lion Ming d the earrnn harpal. This peovidut nhdl n,a .,Tuve came maty of the richt of "fussing the tpniht "Antrune of his contain pnoridol mdl wmnm, ,hall Mas be msminud N alnreuil. ad psorsd anion an enlists coach mpmifis prtormame dull 1.m nmm and rithin is mnwh, she, much richt of mem shall mom. In it mJeruend and ..-I chat this .al[ n made s.hjese o, eche appmvul M eche.,-err of said pmmtme in wd,in. and the rhe under. timed scam is in w manner Wide or rntmnuble m acnwnt ul chi. aereamrns, nap w mum sar mount In, the c aneu moray Nd umr, she omunn' Iona mrrnovco av acrenmem..ue[r.nou et, eC."wo st Tie Jebces, el dl pawn anJnmim�e(s shall k ready ."Iv nn6te nC 1, the u mbutimed, owner of the ahem lad, de he.* alspre.e 6,.1m..ernw[an and IN acle cursor made. l......... ............................ .. ......,.../ . (BALI `_-....'.(SEAL) So) er TOM IS A Ir(-.AL1.Y R1NnIN11. LnNTRACT.' BY ' . Ass A. the brio and w W emdaiopa .... ...........(SIAL) - �h. `.7h ...............: ............... __... (SyAL) ')T TTNDFRCTn6n: Si R% rnatnrrrVa Anvyre ICIPTIM S�,vsk LIQ N/S•7:17'[ - ,�rr•,.a d=w EXCEPTION nm nm mw ww - 44 f P0110 - r = `t'AVL E. �4MARY • i w.w a m wm;� . C R 0 M E ew••i u•1 :.: - .. - .. - � I 8 z re - gR . •Om WATER ELEVATXXI N11T, 1913 • I 1 ! US.B.S. 1921 ADJ. wm w • rt22;..LANE- -Ion- •_ ae r 8 •:r•n•E A • '.•r•r•ia- -�� PARR eo 9'c-Taman•—tolw•t 1 - -wm .ww- om- -wr•- a�'p g .¢ •w•n!'t I , x i .. .T • ± k 8 ! d _'_ [ t �Ij. `�� 8 g �^ ajlte° x o'w•ti u. - I • I w I j7E. •, •• a �� .aMW .. 1 •!'! wa: 1 3 r.em / : •L'..�t. 7.8. ' ry °.+� ww ••r 3 ra.w / 10 ZR 1 I r • n.�� •w•e 'M•• ♦� :) 4 a 1 �. •.rti� 'If�r 'r ww / _ A ' M.• 7 I ,� 1 .IF*ti •f`f•'R ••,.t.!P�� gh :�,-t �y a r g e I' 8 e x m �� / • >. d' Jb/•,• '^;``, • O �9b C b y'r �m.u.d ��. `jr A I ' 1 e u O /. '^� i h 1, Yi • ` n a •?>jr1 r : ' m ? i "1 r•'� .•`f ..j r� "•'Pt{• +i bhp a.7 q��f,7 -R ' m • • t x r , ''; } . �'':.: '.•r4 a g'. 1 1 t ] 8 1 / • • x al I 'a u• • o :�?� 4�n. .:4+� r $ d<�'�'or.. � e� Q k _ 91 O C K F I V Er.em 1 rum : r2 / r Ly A •.rrY' ¢ • _ w4eYa 1 ..Wna,'. IF • T b ..1. 'ro, •xr. a s Irr•oY w+e -- rr .Ttt t' t•�. .w,. •v na 2 r •n 1 `. = J •e. •e gtll Y•. . ,. .R tt_ e, -b +°�Cli a- A -nm--wm_ -wm- je' ] T 6:•. c.•n ' q + gt• 1 3' •'vy d •, .0 or.r'�!`_ 9°A° '°m _LAK um- -n.m--ora_ _ i a a o.. u:. �_ • >t a tit [. f .4 •'t-.31...--; .. • '� Rt•"'M I" — [ -.•r-� f' •.ra •r1 r/ I."3 ram TR41 'PPP 11 c::, ii__grri rn te—I' m1'� •w••• I 1 ••rnm • e -G.1 a 8 A•u•r•e: O /-•O - - '- - _ - ` j_ in8 :•r 8.9 d A.6 to ��- t� q ei8 J. • • e7 - _ p+-,� - ;de.n .rrnm[ 1: a•rnmg ru 1/-' 1071 4S to y e: .A .: 1 •.•w.�%orr . 7i( ul m ei F+r .am r �•X ¢•� ..• W. r etL 70 X _ L = 3 , g . a:t : ? � e 1 ••ww•sa I� I ••►+f•e•a :b / g?^ort•``6i. 1] Q o -.••••.u. G k 4'•t L. S i $ • ' 1 t/ 8 9 tl _ 0 >y ` 27 A d z c . r le jY•3 r„ ° n.•, o u • o 'O'; i 4, •'� Id r••m I I is 9i-, fern 4t , ,}• t •• •1.1• n .r•itSs "t' / rLL1;!• • .T• Iw•m'O'r •T•/r'a .•r4i Y'I ••I•M Y'. ' r I 7 C n` o• �' v+ -V� l,an• Ionid tr E [ • ^ a 214 •„ it 1 ` I • lOq d 1[ - p d.�s�b .w p\ d f 1• _ � N K 1 _ 2! G ' e•da ei ' 7 . rrwl ••wm L 0_ . • '1.! r.•et.f t0 ' [I •" t2 Ya r•ww t••pO . w 10 6m•'aad• B r i a.1L.ZOG 1 ' 102./1+ m ',•OUT!.OT• i c g7 Y~�,{ " T.eer•. 0d. - •2 CX.•2i.a2 7/r7Yt�`r —a::ep w 1e .mm w.r A••-+ L •/ 4. A �i.nu ��nan .1'20; t1t R•/7 Od • r .rr •t t•SpL t A•1� �� _I SE. OVWEM S11 MW V. •• �. •-1100,10-. '.ms- .. �e2.1T •Apr•r'Ir ' I uc n, T2TM, RiSr [ .rzrlrzi lulK haY{ r• fq.r••wr F':N - 11.05• i �mo w FIRST is ?E >r`17 r Arnold and Joan Anton 1366 Wilderness Run Dr. i0—&YZ5'0-035!-01 . 0— 1sr Ea anMn. Lcr- 3 LK 1 cv11.pG72,r�zs 2,,,v �sr- phone: 454-706223 B Re: Assessment on Pumnin>r System We moved here in 1972. We built our home with conscientious con- cern for water level as it would affect our property. I Status c•f property before pumping system: 1. Basement level o.ke according to Mr. Herbert Wensmann, Contractor, and Mr. Arnie Carlson, developer. Mr. Carlson stated water level had never been higher than it was at the time we were planning our home. He stated it would go lower in dry seasons, but only temproarily. 2. We had live oak trees in back facing the lake which took many years to reach their state of maturity which would verify Mr. Carlson's statement, knowing oak trees cannot tolerate water over their base or they die. 3. Winter play for our own family or strangers were safe when temperatures were cold enough to fascilitate thick ice. 4- Water level went down but never came dangerously high to our back banks. 5. Occasional algie and stirred up water with strong winds but clear between times --which was most of the time. II Status of property after pumping system: 1. Water level became dangerously close (one foot) to the top of our bank in back of our home. 29 Water level covered two of our oak tree bases. 3. In time, one of the oaks previously covered with water at its base after pumping was initiated died; one looks as though it is in the process of dying. 4. Our lawn was destroyed where planted by the lake where water covered it above previous levels. 59 Sand we hauled in at considerable cost to landscape our back shore was washed away by the higher water, being replaced by mud and growth of weeds and much algie. Anton property/ Nomping Systeme cont. • ` _ 6. Water is constantly murky from constant churning from pumping which stirs up the base of the lake. 7. Sce is always feared as unsafe:ao matter how cold or how thick ice should be according to temperature and normal ice thickness for cold time of the year. Water is seen seeping through the ice and snow in places in the coldest time of the.:.:.. wear after water was churned by PUMPS* 8. Police have informed us they cannot guarantee safety of ice. in winter with pumping going on. Safety of our children and others are jeopardized. Summary• We have appreciated no benefit from the pumping system. We have, howevert found the sys�e-m- etrimental to the value of our property and to our and others' safety. We moved here in 1972 with conscientious planning in regard to water level as it would affect our building structure and our lot in general. Whatever problems we have had up to the present are directly a result of the pumping system that was initiated. We have a signed state= ment by Mr. Arnie Carlson that we would not have any more assess- mentsv that they were all in and paid for. Arnold Anton t1&I "tozz av Joan Anton 0118- IF- Apple Vrl" OMlee: 15001 DIMiet Are. Apple Vail". MN 55121 (012)132.2535 Blerrninglon omee: 1600 Penn A,. So, Bloomington. MN 551]1 (6121 5"'Sxn sloemingten $..Ih Olde: 1N Wel Stan street Bloolhingldn. MN S5920 012) Same)() Shadily. Cenlet olllcc 6500 Brooklyn BNG. Minneepo0e. MN 55,28 (612) 551-e60l) s W Ne9le odkr- 201 W. Burnarille Parker" Bunnak. MN 5m? 16121 1910,6120 Caen Rapids Oma: 2061 Nonhdals Blvd, Coon Rapids. MN 55131 (51211552900 Ownlwn OMB: =0Sk,vr"y 625 M.g..t. Ave. Minneapolis. MN 55102 (612)2 5555 1". Odlean law yank" Doodle Rd. Eager. MN 55121 (012145z3400 teen held. Omw: 6110 Eden Road Eden Pallid MN SSS" (612) "1-6200 Blank oma: 5510 Weal Men Sl. Etan., MN 55121 (612) 822-7045 "clasm van" Office: 6000 Wei Blvd. DWd.h Valley, MN 55"2 (512) 5"-8100 plaplwlroe Odle: 5035 While Beat Ave, S1. P.W. MN SSIN (612) "1500 MmneapetN Omer. 6109 Lyndete Ave. So. MInMkWis, MN 5W9 4612) 521.6321 Methadone. Omer - IBM Mlnelonks. Blvd. Deephaven. MN 555(61 (612)12>2555 h prighen Odle: 221 Silver Lake Road N. Slight.. MN 55112 (612) 5261510 Adair Leas Otiose: 16102 Mein Ave. BE Prior Lake. MN 55112 (612) 441.6050 Neurrre DNNMn: 5910 W. Stan in Ed.... MN SU24 10121922-7043 Ret"eaden geMeea Dis, no sk,.., US M.N.W. Ave lihmnihi MN 55102 (812) 3181200 Cwlraal ter Dead lm, me.: 2010 West WN St Ed.... MN, SUN 1612) 922-7045 pMrrtlal 6enNea DNMen: UN henna Ave So kllnnkppin. MN, S ,g 18121UP-3321 Cwwwdel.twrg" DNYNrI »10 West Stan SI Eine. MN.B 2e (6121922-7043 else, elder. DNYbn: 6800 Bleeryn 6.0. Nmneapetn. MN,'aSaM (6121 681-"00 Minneapolis Office January 8, 1982 Mr. Jeffrey L. Hagman 1310 Wilderness Run Drive Lor 3 pLK Eagan, MN Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hagman: I am responding to your request of January 8, 1982, for a market evaluation of your residential property at the above location. Information received from you indicated the questionability of the increase of market value to your property. Several pumps were in- stalled to lower the water level in Carlson Lake into Thomas Lake. This lake is closely adjacent to your property.. My opinion of your property's market value would not be an increase in value, but because of water pumped from Carlson to Thomas would have a certain amount of contamination from area drainage of fertilizer to Carlson from surrounding properties. This water pumped to Thomas Lake would certainly cause the "murky" condition of which you advised me, Carlson Lake, because of its distance fromryour residence and its accessibility in relation to accessibility to your property, would indicate to a prospective buyer that "murky" water condition caused to Thomas Lake would make it less desirable than a clear lake. This would result in a lower market value rather than an increase as in- dicated by your tax assessment for improvement because of pumps installed in Carlson Lake. My observation and opinion indicates that a faulty decision was made at the time permission.was granted by issuing a building permit for con- struction of residential property. This was certain to be affected by a rise in water level of Carlson Lake. The storm sewer drainage can certainly be determined. This should have been indicated by the building permits issued and provision made as to type and elevations permitted on the lake front properties. 113 REAL'O[J" Page 2: Mr. Jeffrey L. Hagman My, real estate experience over the past-26, years indicates to me that your market value has not been increased by the pumps installed on Carlson Lake. Yours truly:,. -'Dor/'Peterson ,FMALTOR. DP::e£ 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Eight PROJECT 247 0 B. Project 247, Alexander Road Reassessment Hearing -- This reas- sessment hearing has been continued from the past several meetings to allow a negotiated agreement to be worked out between the City and the affected properties. This agreement has been verbally agreed to by R. L. Johnson and it is anticipated that the executed agreement will be available at the Council meeting of .February 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To close the public hearing for final reassessments for Project 247, approve the roll and authorize certification to the County for collection. 29 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Nine OLD.BUSINESS.. CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL ADDITION A. Steven J. Flanagan for Preliminary Plat Approval, Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition -- The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing at their October 27, 1981 regular meeting to consider an application submitted by the developer, Mr. Steve Flanagan, for a preliminary plat of "Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition" consisting of 15.8 acres and containing sixteen (16) commercial lots in the Cedar Cliff Planned Development. The APC recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. At the Novem- ber 17, 1981 City Council meeting, the preliminary plat was con- sidered and continued until City staff could review alternatives alignments to a proposed road through the subdivision. At the December 1, 1981 City Council meeting, proposals by the City staff concerning the road alignment were considered. Please refer to pages 47 through 49 of the 2-2-82 City Council packet for a copy of the memorandum that pertains to the City staff's consideration of alternative road alignments. The City Council, after reviewing alternative road alignments, asked the City staff to prepare a letter to the Dakota County Plat Commission, requesting their com- ments and indication of approval for the road alignment planned for the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition as favored by the City Council. The City Planner discussed this matter with a member of the County Plat Commission who responded in a letter dated Decem- ber 9, 1981 to the land owner of the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition, Mr. Joe Ryan. A copy of this letter was enclosed on page 50 of that City Council packet. Also enclosed on pages 51 through 53 were some additional comments from the City Planner regarding clari- fication of the County's view regarding the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition pertaining to the aforementioned letter. At the January 5, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Administrator was asked by the City Council to draft a letter to the Dakota County Plat Commission and take a firm position on behalf of the City as to which street and road alignment the City Council preferred if the Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition was to be further considered. A copy of that letter was also enclosed in the 2-2-82 packet found on pages 54 through 55. The City Administrator specifically re- quested a response by the February 2, 1982 meeting. Since the letter was not received, this item was continued until the February 16, 1982 City Council meeting. A letter was received by the City of Eagan from Mr. Bernard H. Larson addressing the request of the City Council and a copy is enclosed on page 3"For additional information on this item, refer to a copy of the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 56 through 67 in the 2-2-82 packet, and for a copy of the APC minutes of the October 27, 1981 meeting, refer to page 68 of that same packet. 30 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Ten 0 The letter submitted by Mr. Larson does, in fact, support the City's position on the revised preliminary plat for Cedar Cliff Commercial Addition. One concern expressed by the City staff is to make sure that the developer and future tenants realize that a left turn could be eliminated from Cliff Road if that roadway is upgraded in the future. Possibly, a letter could be made a record of file and/or the developer be required to indicate the potential of the left turn being eliminated in correspondence to each future tenant. In any event, the City should take some precaution to avoid a problem for the City and County in the future if that road is to be upgraded. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the preliminary plat as revised by the City Council at the December 1, 1981 City Council meeting. 731 )'�) • BERNARD H. L.ARSON DAKOTA IAKOTA V `/� ® U T Y COUNTY SURVEYOR TELEPHONE: *DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 612.437.0250 1560 HWY. 55 -HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 February 2, 1982 City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Rd. P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Attn: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Dear Mr. Hedges: The Dakota County Plat Commission met on February 2, 1982, to reconsider the proposed plat of CEDAR CLIFF COMMERCIAL ADDITION. Said plat is adjacent to County Road 32 and County Road 23 and is -therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Said plat was reviewed September, 1981. At that time the Plat Commission felt that said plat was a well conceived design for commercial development of this area. The Plat Commission's comments were enclosed in a letter of September 22, 1981. Subsequently, the City apparently has required a different design concept for this area. Said design would require two additional entrances onto the county roads. After review of said plat, the additional two entrances at their present location will be acceptable to the County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. In addition, thereto, there shall be adjacent to all the lots abutting both county roads a restricted access easement dedicated to the County of Dakota, except at those locations wherein accesses designated according to this proposed plat. One word of caution ought cul-de-sac coming out onto reduced to a right turn in County Road is upgraded to have any further questions Since yours, Bernard H. Larson Dakota County Surveyor BHL/ej c: COMMISSIONERS — to be passed along and that is the County Road will eventually be and right turn out only when the four lane divided highway. If you please let us know. C. R. Winden 3o1 IST DISTRICT 2NO DISTRICT 3Ro DISTRICT ATH DISTRICT 5TH DISTRICT JOSEPH A. HARRIS GERALD E. HOLLENKAMP JOHN S. VOSS GENE ATKINS RUSSELL STREEFLAND HASTINGS SOUTH ST. PAUL BURNSVILLE INVER GROVE HEIGHTS BURNSVILLE 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Eleven RESOLUTION/LONE OAK HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT B. Resolution/Lone Oak Heights Preliminary Plat Application -- City Attorney Hauge informed the City Council and audience after a motion was introduced regarding the Lone Oak Heights plat applica- tion at the January 19, 1982 City Council meeting that a formal fact finding should be prepared and considered for adoption at a later City Council meeting in the form of a resolution. City Attorney Hauge has prepared a resolution regarding the City Coun- cil's action of January 19, 1982 concerning the Lone Oak Heights preliminary 1 application. A copy of this resolution is enclosed on pages l b through ,j � ,for your reference. City Attorney Hauge wil a available for review and comment at the City Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the resolution with or without modification for the Lone Oak Heights plat application. 33 R E S O L U T I O N CITY OF EAGAN LONE OAK HEIGHTS PLAT APPLICATION Eagan City Council, Jan. 19, 1982 WHEREAS, Midwestern Associates/Orrin Aune submitted an application for pre- liminary plat approval and variance to exceed lot coverage for approximately 14.09 acres of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 27, Range 23, more generally located at the Southwest intersection of Lone Oak Road and Pilot Knob Road (County Road 31) in the City of Eagan; and WHEREAS, the application covering land owned by Martin and Myrtle Shields at that location was one for preliminary plat approval of Lone Oak Heights pro- posed to contain 145 dwelling units consisting of 84 condominium and 61 town- house units and an application for variance for lot coverage noting the pro- posed number of dwelling units exceeded the maximum number allowed for the Eagan Ordinance No. 52; and WHEREAS, an application had been submitted for preliminary plat for an 80 unit apartment complex and 62 unit townhouse development for Lone Oak Heights by Thomas Prokasky and Martin Shields which application was heard by the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on September 11, 1979, and subsequently by the Eagan City Council on October 16, 1979; and WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council on October 16, 1979 approved said appli- cation for preliminary plat approval subject to certain conditions, including those imposed by the Advisory Planning Commission, at which time there were strong concerns amongst Councilmembers and other persons present regarding access from the proposed Lone Oak Heights Addition to County Road 1131 (Pilot Knob Road); and 3�} 0 0 WHEREAS, the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on September 22, 1981 held a public hearing concerning the application of Midwestern Associates and Orrin Aune for rezoning and variance to exceed lot coverage, at which time an extended hearing took place resulting in a resolution of the Advisory Planning Commission recommending approval of the application with numerous conditions; and WHEREAS, it was noted that a number of variances would be required under the proposal, including reducing the number of units in both the condominium and townhouse areas, the setbacks along Pilot Knob Road, and the total square foot- age with the mix being proposed; and WHEREAS, a large number of neighboring property owners appeared in objec- tion to certain aspects of the application and the Advisory Planning Commission recommended a neighborhood meeting with the developer and the interested neigh- boring residents to discuss the proposal; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1981, the application was submitted to the City Council at which time the applicant submitted revised plans for the project; the Council continued consideration of the application until November 17, 1981, and authorized the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a brief report as to the probable cost incurred by the City in the event that the City Council should de- termine that a portion of the property should be down -zoned from R-4 to R-3 and further, to determine the additional cost of rezoning to R-1 with some R-2 buffer areas; further, to allow the staff to continue to study the project in - eluding the density determination and whether to include the private street in determining density for the project; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1981, the Eagan City Council held a continued hearing regarding the application at which time the petition was received from the Timberline Association area residents, including other neighboring residents, expressing objections to the project and requesting the Council schedule a public hearing to consider the down -zoning of the subject property; further, a report was submitted by Dan Dwyer, appraiser, concerning the proposed down - 3S 2 0 0 zoning of the property; the Council then adopted a motion to continue the appli- cation for additional study and to acquire answers to some of the legal questions raised during the course of the hearing, to further study the variances and the density issue, the proposed public street and whether damages would be incurred in the event that the Council were to adopt a resolution down -zoning the proper- ty; and WHEREAS, the Council again considered the application on January 19, 1982, at which time the applicant presented a somewhat revised plan and the Council considered in detail the proposal of the developer, the objections of neighbor- ing property owners and the report from the Eagan City Attorney concerning, the Council's questions at its December 15 meeting, and the updated report of the Eagan City Planner; and WHEREAS, it was noted that an underground gas line crosses the property which could if adjusted and relocated improve the layout of the development substantially. NOW, THEREFORE, upon motion by Councilmember Egan, seconded by Mayor Blomquist, it was RESOLVED that the City Council deny the application for pre- liminary plat approval of Lone Oak Heights Addition for reasons included in the minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission and the minutes of the various meet- ings of the Eagan City Council, including the following: 1. It was noted that there were changes in the proposed preliminary plat that had not been reviewed by the Advisory Planning Commission and had been submitted by the developer to the City Council at its October 20, 1981, meet- ing; and further revisions submitted to the City Council and considered at its January 19, 1982 meeting. 2. The location of the proposed north/south road running through the subdivision is, in the opinion of the City Council, too close to Pilot Knob School running along the westerly boundary of the plat or parcel which can potentially cause traffic and safety problems. 36 3 3. That the proposed north/south road should be a through street with access to Pilot Knob Road and Towerview Road, but that it should be relocated within the proposed plat in order to allow for access on both sides of the road and also to move it away from the proximity to the school. 4. The lot coverage according to Ordinance No. 52 is being exceeded in the R-4 condominium development and it appears that the R-3 portion of the development is at a maximum of 20% lot coverage, noting the R-4 condominium development is proposed at 20.9% lot coverage. 5. Further, that the proposal for parking for the overall development exceeds the 2.5 parking spaces per unit requirement under the applicable City ordinance. 6. Further, that the general area of Section 9 has created certain den- sity objections and problems for the City in that it already is one of the most dense sections of the City and to allow density in excess of that per- mitted under the ordinance would create an additional adverse impact on the area, including traffic, safety, potential overburdening of the utility systems and schools, etc. Those in favor were: Blomquist, Wachter, Smith, Egan and Martin. Those against: None. ATTEST: By E. J. Van Overbeke, City Clerk 37 4 CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF EAGAN By Beatta Blomquist, Mayor 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Twelve NEW irBUSSNESS PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLEN CONDOMINIUMS A. Mid -Continent Builders, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat for Country Glen Condominiums -- The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application submitted by Mid -Continent Builders requesting a preliminary plat entitled Country Glen Condo- miniums located on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition. The preliminary plat consists of approximately 13 acres and contains 192 condominium units. The Advisory Planning Commission is recom- mending approval of the application. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report enclosed on pages C _3% through �jL. For a copy of the Advisory Planning Commission minutes, refer to pages $O through S .1, . For a copy of the Advisor Parks & Recreation ommittee recommendations, refer to page . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat entitled Country Glen Condominiums. Nz•J CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN COND IINIUMS APPLICANT: MID-CONTINENT BUILDERS - JACK HAYES LOCATION: LOTS 3 AND 4, BLACK 2, FOXRIDGE ADDITION EXISTING ZONING: I-4 (RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 26, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 19, 1982 REPORTED BY: .DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting a preliminary plat, Country Glenn Condominiums located on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition. The prelimi- nary plat consists of approximately 13 acres and contains 192 condominium units. LAND USE AND ZONING Presently the site is zoned R-4 (Residential Multiple District). The existing zoning would only allow multiple dwellings on the proposed site. The proposed site plan is consistent with the existing zoning. The land use for the proposed site also indicates an R-4 (Residential Multiple District) with a density of 12+ dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the plan is also consistent with the pro- posed land use guide plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW ; The subject parcel consists of 13.09 acres and the developer is proposing to con- struct four 42 -unit condominiums buildings and one 24 -unit condominium building for a total of 192 dwelling units. The site density for this proposed project is 14.6 dwelling units per net acre. The subject parcel is bordered on the east by Coacku.lan Road and to the north by Letendre Street. These streets are presently constructed and the site is proposing to take direct access onto Coachman Road. To the south of this subject parcel is bordered by an existing apartment complex and to the west by an existing town- house oorplex. The proposed site plan indicates 3 -story buildings and is proposing to have a mix of 84 1 -bedroom units and 108 2 -bedroom units. As stated by the plat, the devel- oper is proposing to construct the project as owner -occupancy for each unit from the beginning. Therefore, this will not be a rental project but caner -occupied from the beginning. In calculating the density for the one and two-bedroom units for a 3 -story build- ing, the required square footage of land for the 192 dwelling units would be 578,400 square feet. The total site of the 13.09 acres contains 570,395 square 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PIAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINILRIS JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE TWO feet. Therefore, the applicant is approximately 2-3 dwelling units over the re- quired site density. The 8,000 square feet would be approximately 2-3 dwelling units in excess according to the square footage reauirements. However, looking at the overall site plan, the applicant is proposing 42 -unit buildings and 24 - unit buildings, and therefore would be impractical to construct a 39 -unit build- ing. The applicant has indicated that he would not sell two to three units in the project and keep them for storage vs. trying to redesign a building to make 39 units. Therefore, either a variance would be required for the additional 3 units, or a restriction that the developer would not sell three of the units within the project to meet the overall site density. The parking requirement for the project according to Ordinance 52 would require the developer to provide one garage space and 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for a total of 480 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct one garage space per unit and 243 outside parking spaces for a total of 335 park- ing spaces. The 335 parking spaces equals 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit. If the City would require 2 parking spaces per unit, the parking space require- ment would be 384 spaces. Again, staff would like to point out that in conver- sations with other communities, 2.5 parking spaces seems to be in excess of the parking needs for condominium units, and most comm=ties have 2 parking spaces per unit as a standard requirement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to reduce the number of parking spaces to 1.75 which has been a study they had con- ducted in Apple Valley to be an adequate amount of parking spaces for condcmin- ium units. In reviewing the lot coverage of the building and covered parking, the applicant is proposing to cover 112,193 square feet for a total of 19.6% lot coverage. This is under the 208 lot coverage for residential dwelling. In reviewing the site plan, the applicant has met all the setback requirements for the buildings on the lots. The applicant is also proposing to provide a recreational area in the center of the complex which would consist of a pool and 2 volleyball courts plus open space. The applicant should incorporate a tot lot facility in order to provide the needs of the preschoolers within this neighborhood. The access to this site is proposed to be taken off of Coachman Road. Each ac- cess would serve approximately 96 dwelling units. The applicant has proposed 24' access and 24' drive aisles throughout the parking area. Therefore, it should be adequate to provide circulation in each of the parking areas. If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. That a variance should be granted to allow 3 extra dwelling units, or a stipulation should be required that the developer does not sell 3 of the units in order to came into compliance with the square footage requirement. 2. The outside parking spaces shall be a 10'x 20'dimensicn and the parking area shall be surfaced with concrete curbing around the perimeter of the parking area. 3. Hcue caner association by-laws shall be submitted and reviewed for the .s il CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINIUMS JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE THREE development prior to the final platting of the first stage. 4. A detailed landscaping plan shall be sUmdtted and approved by the City and a landscape bond shall be required for an adequate amount and not re- leased until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 5. The subject plan shall be reviewed by the Eagan Park Committee. At the present time, the staff would be looking at a cash dedication per unit. This, however, is subject to the Park Committee's review and recommenda- tion. 6. The applicant is proposing 335 parking spaces which is 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A variance would have to be granted from the strict regiire- ment of 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, or somewhere in between. 7. The applicant shall dedicate all easements as required by City staff. 8. All other ordinance requirements shall be met. I 7 _« M4 D ! &-02 & a I k; r 9. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be approved prior to final plat. 10. Coachman Road should be ordered for upgrading under a City contract prior to final plat. 11. A storm sewer outlet must be provided for the proposed ponding area, or, if the ponding is eliminated, storm sewer must be constructed from Letendre Road to the Foxridge Addition. 12. This development shall accept the deferred assessment for the lateral bene- fit from trunk water main along Coachman Road. The amount shall be deter- mined based on the rates in effect at the time of final plat. 13. The developer shall assume the deferred assessments for lateral benefit frau sanitary sewer along the south and north property lines. The rates used to determine this lateral benefit amount shall be those in effect at the tine of final plat. 14. This development shall provide for the installation of a 5' sidewalk along the west right-of-way line of Coachman Road adjacent to this development. TAC/jack 0 0 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JANUARY 21, 1982 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN CONMIINIUMS (Mid -Continent Bldrs.) The Public Works Department has the following comrents to offer in con- sideration of the above -referenced proposed plat: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water main of sufficient size and capacity to handle this proposed development is available immediately adjacent to this pro- posed plat. Internal lateral extensions and/or service lines will have to be installed to provide service to the individual buildings. STREETS Access to this proposed, development will be provided by way of two indi- vidual driveway entrances from Coachman Road. Coachman Road is classi- fied as a collector street with an ultimate design of 44' width with concrete curb and gutter. Coacimian Road has been constructed to a first stage 24' bituminous surface, gravel shoulders with rural ditch section Linder Project 81 in 1973. With the existing Foxridge Apartments to the south, Coachman Oaks Apartment complex and the recently approved Coachman Land Ccmpany 1st Addition at -the intersection of Four Oaks Road and Coachman, we will generate additional traffic volumes that will require the upgrading of Coachman Road to its ultimate design section as a collect- or road. Present City policy requires multiple density zoning to be re- sponsible for upgrading to City standards collector streets adjacent to their property. In addition, collector streets have a 5' concrete sidewalk, or 8' bituftr- inous trail constructed on one side of the roadway. This development should also be responsible for the construction of the sidewalk along the west side of Coachman Road when Coachman Road is upgraded. Presently, the entire site' drains into an existing long ravine located adjacent to the west property line of this proposed development. All surface drainage from this development presently drains into this law basin. In addition, storm sewer outlets from the Foxridge Apartments to the south and the Rivergate Townhouses to the west presently dis- charge into this low area which presently does not have a storm sewer outlet provided. This low drainage basin is the upper end of a long ravine that was isolated when Ietendre Road was constructed. Letendre Road presently acts as a dike restricting a natural outflow from this .42- 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN I ' PRELIMINARY PLAT - COUNTRY GLENN JANUARY 26, 1982 PAGE TWO low drainage basin. The developer proposes to construct a long, narrow ponding area adjacent to the east property line incorporating this ex- isting dead end drainage basin. A storm sewer overflow would have to be provided at the northern end connecting into the existing trunk storm sewer within the Letendre Road which has a positive outlet down to the Minnesota River. The proposed grading, plan would create a pond approx- imately 750' long by 85' wide and 9' deep. However, because of the existing subgrade material, water presently does not pond in this area due to the percolation capabilities of the soil. This would provide a tenporary sedimentation basin for the runoff from the paved surface areas of Foxridge, Rivergate and the proposed Country Glenn parking lots. If this temporary ponding area is found to be undesirable, approximately 1,000 feet of storm sewer would have to be constructed within this area to intercept the proposed storm sewer discharges from this development in addition to connecting to the existing storm sewer outlets from River - gate and Foxridge. ASSESSMENTS This property has been previously assessed for its trunk area sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer assessments. There has been a deferred assessment for lateral benefit frau trunk water main along Coachman Road which was installed under Project 61 until the time of development and/ or connection. This lateral benefit from trunk water main assessment will be the responsibility of this development if it should occur. Based on 1981 rates, its approximate frontage of 765' (corner lot credit applied) would result in approximately $11,000. This property has not been assessed for sanitary sewer which is avail- able adjacent to thesouth,west and north property lines. These sewers were installed under Projects 8, 29-3 and 61. Based on benefit received and anticipated points of sanitary sewer connection at the north and south end of this development, results in approximately 1,194 feet of lateral benefit which, if levied at the 1981 rates, would result in ap- proximately $15,650.00. In accordance with existing City policy, this development would be re- sponsible for its share of the cost of upgrading Coachman Road to the ultimate design standards for a collector street necessitated by this proposed and other existing developments adjacent to Coachman Road. Future costs associated with this upgrading and trailway construction would be delineated in a future feasibility report yet to be prepared. In addition, all costs associated with itary sewer, storm sewer and water main to the individual buildings will be the proposed development. DIN the installation of internal san- facilities to provide service entire responsibility of this 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN ••71 1 1 • N 11 •' ••. 11 JANL1ARY P4GE 4 T ate EASEMaM AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY Sufficient half right-of-way for Coachman Road and Letendre Street has been previously dedicated. No additional right-of-way for streets are anticipa- ted as a result of this development. Sufficient easements incorporating existing utilities and proposed future public utilities must be dedicated as a part of the final plat. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this report at the Planning Coinnission Meeting of January 26, 1982. Respectfully sutnnitted, 'hams A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public [+forks TAC/jach 4`. 1 Arnb a•nY, Ibl G9 ..nn, pl.n n •.Im .. pn.•.J 6r Y ..I� , S C:. E. OAIIjj LGREN d ASSDI /7?7 RANOOLPN AI f PAUL m,NNEJL ./.NM Ifal MIO CONTINENT QUILL 30 E. PLATO BLVD, JT. PI COUNTA'Y GLENN CONDOMINIUMS R.2a •/•.. 1 •• ' a ex c n• ar:,�� LC rcMOae tracer• Nef•re•�9•< .. ri /7 L — O V 9 x 8. L-�=�—_ 'o.� — LEGAL OESCR/PT/ON --/°p ]CAL! /N /r<T 1'•. Nea• ]e'MY LOTS 3 AND 11 2, FOX. RIDGE ICK ° p 9 ADDITION DAKOTA COUNTY M/MNG SOTA I LOT 6 / ••d 1 8�L__ s X _ _ --]ILOO ,—wS=. I K6o hn l + ^ Zy BLOCK .I. ....' .. .4! 1:J• r YY9••J •M•! 1� •i •° N ______ 4 Op ' __• _ e0 lOi m.00'MO y ........ ..... ° __r y ' N IYf.K M•! . ta00./•I`.. M �n�i°�'M•< 8 '....�••. °aka � Z AREA • ,. r' wn•]•Hy•. •1 1 S70,J9S./I S /7.091.1 AGAESES _ • LOT 4 $ L ! V •• 1 � I,OI I ,p 1 Arnb a•nY, Ibl G9 ..nn, pl.n n •.Im .. pn.•.J 6r Y ..I� , S C:. E. OAIIjj LGREN d ASSDI /7?7 RANOOLPN AI f PAUL m,NNEJL ./.NM Ifal MIO CONTINENT QUILL 30 E. PLATO BLVD, JT. PI •rr 1 Vlel • 9.i�a,9 :, nY15 YnYIYIE . �r ..m•rop -f MI. Lu•M ;1Lr1ll Nl11nINaWIe). 0. 1 ''0' •1••• veld •IIS ........... I MI. Lu•M I 1 II � 2iIII' I I I I I •• s i... _ .... �,�, • • r • mr ••`r•SWnaNNiOp 7NNa+s AWANnga LiI /avid iQ ju 3 M,MN34 39vmvV 9N10VN `"tom' V ..a �j V1ey �— neaw 1 14 V�Y�J ;l'ff Val SnM1V4 . "'Wr Na0•avii 1 - K IaASay •1 :Sllnn NnlmlW. 7 r • :J _s;X0 i A ;tlr, ......... .. ............ . . . . . . . GB ? x RB d GOLF COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT P, R-1 . ....... R"l Ind ---------- R-11 Pi URN R . ..... I r ;'I R-1 4 Ind. 04 R-111 R1. Ind. Ind . FNB) R-111 cqc ncl' H-li l R P R R-111 R- I 'R -)V R-1 R. R-11 R R-1 -11 7 LB R-111 RB R-111 R-11, R-Ilf R-111 P R-11 f�II R-11 p csc nrc P - -P-3 VALLEY (C_ R-11 Ind R 141 R-0 IN R 11' , " 7HS V— P P R 11 n RI IS 7/1 " - VA EY H� - UGH VIEW h. V IE _ ;pis jl�'� I PARK ... A :Ll ij N� FJQR-IF? r R-IR-1TREFFLE ACRES T rYEHNDB9-1 A S I 'R-1 y R - 6E R 4 A I noPp 1N A G OME ; 1 / PQ T -3 �tf. pF Y L I L 7y L� i PFj TT R-4 I R-3 , r RD _-- R ONB ADDITIONR-4 O PK \ G RIDGE r A NBA -4 GIS N B 3 kC =4 � F= 5B RBB P, FLB �CSC ' " I "- 75-3 R-4 A R T14 _� CSC APC Minutes • • January 26, 1982 access southerly to Nicols Road. The applicants are proposing one covered parking space for each dwelling unit and 1.5 spaces open parking per unit. It was noted the terrain was extremely rugged and also a pathway had been pro- posed north -south along the existing easement. A number of neighboring property owners were present with questions and were concerned about the proximity to the single family homes, the need for the pathway and submitted a written statement objecting to certain aspects of the project. They suggested limiting access to Berry Ridge Road, that each unit have additional covered garages and that there be reforestation and landscaping on the parcel. It was noted that set back for proposed right of way for Diffley Road had been provided for. Member McCrea was concerned about potential erosion along Diffley Road and also the steep internal topography. Mr. Novak stated that the differential in east -west grade preclude an internal looped street. Further, that a cul de sac at the north end of Outlot B would not be appro- priate because of the need for access from Hilltop Estates to Hilltop Commercial Center. There was also concern about the cul de sac potential becoming City -maintained and there was considerable discussion about addi- tional covered parking. The developer will install a landscape berm along the single family property but neighbors were also concerned about the esthetics of the proposal. Remoteness of the open parking was an issue, especially the parking to the north. It was suggested that building No. 2 may be too close to the pond and single family, and redesign may be necessary. There was discussion about possibly reducing the 2.5 parking units per acre proposal and the need to review the plan with the Park Committee. Rrob moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to continue the application until the next regular meeting for additional study concerning the items that were mentioned by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Bohne who abstained. COUNTRY GLENN CONDOMINIUM - PREL32 NARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of Mid -Continent Builders for preliminary plat approval of Country Glenn Condominiums on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Foxridge Addition, at the southwest intersection of LeTendre Road and Coachman Road, was convened by Chairman Hall. The preliminary, plat which contains 13 acres and has a proposal of 192 condominium units. The property is zoned R-4 and the proposal indicates four 42 -unit condominium buildings and one 24 -unit condominium building. Site density would be 14.6 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a mix of 84 one -bedroom units and 108 two-bedroom units, all owner occupied from the beginning. The application indicates two to three dwelling units over the allowed site density. Mr. Jack Hayes was present and indicated that the density could be reduced. The appli- cant also requested reduction in the number of parking spaces to 1.75 parking spaces per unit with 100 garage space units and 243 outside parking spaces. Mr. Hayes stated that additional covered parking would be prohibitive econom- ically for the price range proposed, but stated there is sufficient space for 2.5 spaces per unit. He also requested reducing the spaces from 10 foot to 9 - foot widths. Mr. Mulrooney asked whether there would be additional police and fire demands in such intense development, noting the high density of Section 9, and the answer is generally yes. Section 9 includes 130 acres of R-1, all developed, including platted, 7.1 acres of R-2, all platted and developed, 23.9 acres of R-3 with 18.4 acres developed and 120.6 acres of R-4, with 70.5 acres developed. 4 so APC Minutes January 26, 1982 It was noted at the time of the Comprehensive Plan stage that there was no new R -A land use proposed in the City. There were concerns by the Planning Commission about the heavy density in the Section and general area. Mr. Hayes agreed to install the sidewalk and there was considerable discussion about whether there ought to be a storm sewer outlet or the construction of a pond for storm water retention. Generally, the Planning Commission members favored the pond as more realistic for the area. Wilkins moved, Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application subject to the following, noting that the Planning Commission is concerned about the heavy density in the Section, that it does not make any specific recommendation as to action, but does recommend review by the Council: 1. That the number of units in the development be reduced to bring the development within the ordinance density requirements. 2. The outside parking spaces shall be a 10' x 20' dimension and the parking area shall be surfaced with concrete curbing around the perimeter of the parking area. 3. Homeowner Association Articles and By-laws for the development shall be, submitted and reviewed prior to the final platting of the first stage. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the City and a landscape bond shall be required for an adequate amount and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed.' 5. The subject plan shall be reviewed by the Eagan Park Committee. At the present time, the staff would be looking at a cash dedication per unit. This, however, is subject to the Park Committee's review and recommendation. 6. That the developer install two parking spaces per dwelling unit and that in the event the City determines at any time in the future that there is insufficient parking, that the then owner will increase the parking within ordinance requirements as requested by the City. 7. The applicant shall dedicate all easements as required by City staff. 8.• All other ordinance requirements shall be met. 9. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be approved prior to final plat. 10. Coachman Road should be ordered for upgrading under a City contract prior to final plat. 11. A storm sewer outlet shall be provided for the proposed ponding area at the sole cost of the developer as well as construction of the storm sewer holding pond. S) 5 APC Minutes January 26, 1982 12. This development shall accept the deferred assessment for the lateral benefit from trunk water main along Coachman Road. The amount shall be determined based on the rates in effect at the time of final plat. 13. The developer shall assume the deferred assessments for lateral benefit from sanitary sewer along the south and north property lines. The rates used to determine this lateral benefit amount shall be those in effect at the time of final plat. 14. This development shall provide and pay for the installation of a 5 foot sidewalk along the west right-of-way line of Coachman Road adjacent to this development. 15. A Tot Lot and recreation area as approved by the City should be installed in the development by the developer. All voted in favor. JOBB HENRY FOSTER VARIANCE - EAGANDALE CEIMM PARK #3 The hearing regarding the application of John Henry Foster for an 8 foot variance from the 40 -foot set back requirement for public street in Light Industrial District was next convened by the Chairman. Jim Donicht from Balco Construction Company was present, which is the general contractor for the building now under construction on the site located on Lot 3, Block 4, Eagan - dale Center Industrial Park #3. It was noted that construction has started and that the footings had been constructed in accordance with the required 40 foot set back from property line, without knowledge that additional street easement was required to incorporate the alignment of Mike Collins Drive. Noting the hardship and the fact there is no fault by the developer, McCrea moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application. All voted in favor. RETIRING ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Wilkins moved, Krob seconded the motion that Joe Harrison, Tom Gits and Dale Vogt, all retiring Advisory Planning Commission members be commended by the City for their service on the Planning Commission and further, that former Chairman, Joe Harrison be presented with a key to the City of Eagan. All voted yes. ANNUAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT OF 1981 The report submitted by Dale Runkle covering the Final Plats, Preliminary Plat Applications, Zoning Applications, Waivers of Plat, Variances, Conditional Uses, Plan Approvals and Special Permits was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Commission members commended the staff on the pre- paration of the very complete and informative report. 6 -5' - • •February 9, 1982 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - COUNTRY GLEN CONDOMINIUMS It was the recommendation of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee that the parks dedication requirements for Country Glen condominiums be fulfilled through a cash dedication unit charge based on the appropriate charges at the time of final plat; And that a single tot -lot be installed, and that a asphalt trail on the west side of Coachman Road be installed. It was also the understanding of the Advisory Committee that the develop- ment will provide for a swimming pool and volley ball court facility as shown in the development proposal. cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Judy Chaffee, Planning Secretary 0 0 Agenda Information Memo February 12, 1982 Page Thirteen 11 ADDITIONAL') LTEMS', CONTRACT 81-1 A. Contract 81-19 Receive Bids/Award Contract (Galaxie Avenue) At 2:00 p.m. on February 11, 19823 after formal notices were placed in the legal newspapers, bids were received and opened at Eagan City Hall by representatives of the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, MnDOT and the City of Eagan. Because this project involves federal funding, MnDOT must review all bids and will be making a recommendation as to the award of the contract. A tabulation of the bids received is enclosed on page ,SS ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS MATTER: To receive the bids for City Contract 81-1, MnDOT Contract S.P.1982-81(T.H.35E=390) and award the contract to the apparent low bidder, Austin P. Keller Construction Company, in the amount of $663,685.96, subject to review and approval by MnDOT. 7& . ,;n, ��- lty m1nlStrat0 0 0 GALAXIE AVE BID OPENING FEB 11, 1982 2;00 P.M. CST S.P. 1982-81 (TH 35E=390) MSAS 195-103 -02 (GALAXIE AVE) EAGAN CONTRACT 81-1 (#311) Estimate: 871,510 Sj<"� BIDDERS BID ' I. Austin P. Keller Constr. Co. — — - ...$663,685.96 2. Richard Knutson, Inc. 733,827.36 3• Orfei & Sons, Inc. 736,939.60 4• Barbarossa and Sons, Inc. 739,599.60 5• McNamara -Vivant 749,352.70 6• Northdale Construction Co., Inc. 751,532.48 7. _Raue-Imrst Corporation 760,073.56 8. Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 768,085.36 9• Nodland Associates,.inc. 776,370.50 10•: Husting and Engstran 790,484.50 11. M. G. Astleford Co., Inc. 799,395.00 12: Erwin Montganery.Construction Co. 799,892.80 13. Widmer Bros., Inc.. 810,891.16 14. Julian M. Johnson 838,531.50 15. Progressive Contractors Inc. 863,884.45 16. Shaffer Contracting Co., Inc. 995,807.24 Estimate: 871,510 Sj<"� 6 MEMO TO: HONORABLE & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL 0 1981 Unaudited/Draft Financial Position for General Fund The Director of Finance has run the 1981 year end expenditure and revenue reports for that calendar year. The City Administrator was so surprised with the outcome on the expenditure report, not counting expenses accrued, that the appropriation in actual numbers had to be shared with the City Council. The actual amount appropri- ated for the 1981 budget in the general fund for expenditures was $2,679,740. The expenditure report for all departments in the general fund indicated an actual expense of $2,678,073.44. The expenditure report shows a variance of $1,666.56. I thought the City Council would be interested in seeing how close the actual expenditure report was for all departments. The City operates with a modified accrual accounting as opposed to a cash basis accounting. Therefore, there are expenses that should be reflected in the 1981 statement. After all bills and expenses are paid in early 1982, reported for 1981, the 1981 actual expenditures will be $2,776,146. Therefore, actual expenditures will be $96,406 over the 1981 budget guideline. The revenues for 1981 were also budgeted at $2,679,740. The revenues, including the State Aid Payment to be received and accrued for 1981 will be $2,929,837. The revenues are approximately $250,097 over the estimated 1981 budget. Therefore, by budgeting conservatively on the revenue side, the City will realize approximately $150,000 of additional revenue for 1981 which is certainly needed for the fund balance and as working capital in 1982 and for future years. The City Administrator is extremely proud of the financial controls that have been implemented by the Director of Finance. The change from cash to modified accrual basis accounting has come a long ways with the assistance of the LOGIS system and the City is now in a position for the first time to have a rough unaudited financial report for the previous calendar year in late January, early Febru- ary. The auditors' final field work will begin on February 22 and we are hopeful the auditors' report can be completed within the month of April. The year end information as provided for in the LOGIS printouts will save manpower hours and research on the part of the auditors which should lessen that bill this year and in the future. Also, in analysing the various departments, it is apparent that our financial controls through the budgeting process are working very well and that each department head is recognizing the guidelines they were given to work with by the City Council and have stayed very close to the bottom line figure budgeted for their respective departments. Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Two Durning's Restaurant Expansion Durning's Restaurant has applied for a building permit to add an 80 seat lounge area complete with a bar and food service. The food service is designed for lunches for those persons in a hurry. The City Planner and Chief Building Inspector reviewed the proposed plans and the Council minutes of April 3, 1979 and the intent as presented in the plans by Mr. Durning are in accordance with the City Council action. Since the land is platted, the permit can be issued by the City staff. This data is provided as information to the City Council for your awareness. Kathleen Schwanz/Beauty Shop Kathleen Schwanz, 4283 Stirrup Street, received permission from the City Council and Advisory Planning Commission to operate a beauty shop in her home under a conditional use permit. City Coun- cilmember Wachter raised the issue at that City Council meeting as to whether a home occupation serving the public would require an entry door to accommodate a handicapped person. Chief Building Inspector Peterson has researched the building code and visited with the State Building Code Division and it is their opinion that handicapped facilities are not required for premises that are con- sidered single family even with a conditional use permit for a home occupation. Tax Exempt Mortgage Housing Bond Phylis Slattery of Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc., sent a copy of an article from the Wall Street Journal which was head- lined, "Five Men Are Indicted for Theft of Securities of Over $2.7 Million". The article was rather long and therefore was not copied, but one paragraph reads as follows, "The stolen securities include $2 million in Federal National Mortgage Association discount notes, $575,000 in Maryland Community Development Administration Single Family Program Bonds, $105,000 in County of Pinella, Florida, revenue bonds and $55,000 in City of Eagan, County of Dakota, Minne- sota single family mortgage bonds." Phylis provided a comment on her brief memo sheet attached to the article that read as follows "Tom -- Your bonds are so good they even steal them!" MTC Passenger Waiting Shelter Program Again, the City of Eagan has received a letter from the Metropolitan Transit Commission regarding 1982 passenger waiting shelter requests for site recommendations. Enclosed on pageso through 6 Z is a letter to Mayor Blomquist and a list oshelter si es requested for consideration as well as the one shelter to be instal- led this year. The Director of Public Works and City Administrator would appreciate any input the City Council might have regarding shelter sites. If there are no comments, the City staff will pro- s� • 0 Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Three ceed as they have in the past and the Director of Public Works will analyze the MTC routes and need for transportation waiting shelters and present a recommendation to the City Council during the month of March which is in accordance with the MTC receiving any recommendations by March 31, 1982. Proposed County HRA Multi -Family Housing Rental Program The cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan have received a letter from the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority regarding an innovative program that addresses multi -family rental housing in Dakota County. The City Administrator has met with Jim Holmes, Dick Lincoln, as well as representatives of the HRA to discuss the program. More recently, the mayors and administra- tors of the three aforementioned cities met in a breakfast meeting to further discuss the proposed concept. It was the feeling of the mayors that it would be well for Mr. Holmes and the HRA to prepare the enabling ordinance and a more concise letter of program description for review by the City Councils of all three cities. Following the review of this information, a meeting could be held where all three communities could jointly review with the HRA and professional staff the program in further detail. Enclosed on pages G- through (07 is the first letter received from the HRA regarding the' proposeTconcept. There will be more to come in the near future and, more than likely, a meeting date at which time this program can be reviewed to determine its value to the community. The actual jargon for the program is entitled, "Loan to Lenders" program. Lone Oak Heights Purchase Agreement City Attorney Hauge has prepared a memorandum and copied a purchase agreement dated February 18, 1975 between the City of Eagan and Martin Shields whereby certain property was purchased for park land. This information is provided for your information and review. The letter and purchase agreement are found on pages 648_ through _1' Surface Water Management The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities of which Mayor Blom- quist is a member of the Board of Directors has taken a position to oppose the Metropolitan Council's proposed plan and both of the legislative bills in current form regarding surface water management. QA Informational Memo February 12, 1982 Page Four Height Limitations - City of Eagan At the last regular City Council meeting, members of the City Coun- cil wished to be kept appraised of the special subcommittee's work on height limitations so the information is not new when the City Council is required to meet and discuss the issue for ordinance revision. Therefore, a copy of the data prepared by members of the City staff regarding height limitations for a meeting of that subcommittee next Thursday, February 18, 1982, at 4:00 p.m. in the office of the City Administrator is enclosed on pages 7 Z. through for your review. It is expected that the sub- committee will ma e a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Com- mission at that meeting. The APC will review the data at their Tuesday, February 23, 1982 meeting with a recommendation to the City Council which will be heard at the March 2, 1982 City Council meeting. Future Meeting Schedule It will be necessary for the City Council to determine a meeting date at which ti:_:ie revisions to the 1982 budget can be considered. As you recall, -budget reductions for the 1982 budget guideline are to be considered at the March 2, 1982 City Council meeting. Therefore, a meeting date should be scheduled prior to that meeting date at which time the City Council can review departmental con- siderations. It is recommended that an evening during the week of February 22 through 26 should be set aside for that purpose. The City Administrator will also include an update and require some further direction by the City Council regarding plans for the City Hall addition. The personnel committee met on Thursday, February 11, 1982, to discuss: (1) Compensatory Time, (2) Vacation Schedules, and (3) Request for Additional Firefighters, as well as the firefighters' reserve program. Personnel Committee members Tom Egan and Ted Wachter, as well as the City Administrator, would like to discuss the findings of their committee with the City Coun- cil at that special meeting as well. s/Thomas L. Hedges y�i dministrator M7 0 0 Metropolitan Transit Commission 801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221-0939 February 2, 1982 Mayor Bea Blomquist City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55122 RE: 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program Request for Site Recommendations Dear Mayor Blomquist: During the past nine years, the Metropolitan Transit Commission has installed approximately 600 passengers waiting shelters throughout the metropolitan area. Many of these shelter sites were identified and recommended by the cities in which they are located. The input from the cities has been valuable in assisting the MTC to locate the shelters where they would best serve the needs of the cities and their residents. At this time, the MTC is initiating work on a passenger waiting shelter program that will result in the installation of 48 shelters in 1983. Because of the lengthy site review and approval process, we are now requesting that each city provide a list of up to three shelter locations to be considered in this project. We are also requesting that your shelter recommendations be prioritized so that the MTC staff may initiate work on the highest priority site first. Should this site not receive the necessary approvals, the MTC staff would then initiate work on the second and third priority sites. Enclosed are two lists of shelter sites within your city: The first identifies those scheduled to be installed in the Spring of 1982 and the second identifies additional requested shelter sites the MTC has begun investigating. These lists may assist you in establishing your priority list. Along with the location and direction of travel served, the requested shelter sites list indicates the passenger count. For a shelter to be considered in those instances where the count is less than 40, the MTC's guidelines require the city to agree 1) to participate in the cost of the shelter's construction and 2) to assume responsibility for routine maintenance. The required participation is met by either paying 108 of the cost of the shelter installation (not to exceed $600) or supplying the necessary concrete base (as per the MTC's specifications). Routine maintenance is defined as window cleaning, snow and litter removal, etc. The MTC retains responsibility for structural maigt artce. /510 V7� FEB t3 1�E2 0 -2- • If possible, please provide us with your shelter site recommendations by March 31, 1982. We will promptly respond with passenger counts for any shelter sites you recommend that are not on the requested shelter site list, so you will be able to consider the matter of city participation. Should you wish to discuss further the MTC's 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program and potential shelter sites within your city, please feel free to call. Sincerely, David C. Palmquiat Assistant Civil Engineer enclosure cc: Tom Hedges, Administrator Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works Gayle M. Kincannon 6i Ili EAGAN I. Shelters To Be Installed Spring 1982 Site # Location C-1355-3 Rahn Rd. & Turquoise Tr. CR. 0 II. Requested Shelter Sites Passenger Site # Location Count C-976 C. R. 30 & Rahn Rd. CR. 1 18 C-991 1939 Silver Bell Rd. CR. 0 10 C-1323 Blackhawk Rd. & Silver Bell Rd. CR. 6 6 6� 0 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF DAKOTA COUNTY January 27, 1982 Thomas L. Hedges, City Manager City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: 2805 DODD ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 612.452.7255 As you are aware, the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "County HRA") is authorized by statute to act as the housing and redevelopment authority for the City of Eagan (the "City"). The County HRA, like the City, is concerned about the shortage of multifamily rental housing in Dakota County, and within the Cities of Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Mendota Heights, in particular. The County HRA has been researching ways to alleviate the rental housing shortage, and is now proposing that the City participate in the following program. The County HRA will issue tax exempt revenue bonds to finance multifamily rental housing as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Municipal Housing Finance Act"). The proceeds of the bonds will be loaned to developers of approved multifamily rental housing projects, for construction and permanent financing of such projects. The traditional model would have the developer's loan repayments applied directly to payment of principal and interest on the bonds, however, the program we are proposing would deviate from the traditional model in this regard. In order to market the bonds at the most favorable interest rate, resulting in a lower interest rate on the developer loans and, ultimately, lower unit rents, it is intended that the program will be structured as a "loan to lenders" program, where a conventional lender will secure the bond issue with its own collateral, consisting of existing single-family or commer- cial mortgages having proven repayment ability and lower loan -to -value ratios (due to property appreciation). The developer's repayment of the loan, and any risk involved therein, will belong to the lender. Because the lender is actually the party assuming the development risk, the lender will clearly wish to impose certain underwriting standards. In addition, the County HRA and the City will have the opportunity to include developer requirements and loan terms at various stages in the bond issuance process, to be discussed later. A significant requirement imposed by federal tax law (applicable if the bonds are to be tax exempt) is that each multi -family project financed out of bond proceeds must, for twenty years following initial occu- pancy, provide 20% of its units at rentals that are affordable by low and 63 "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" 0 -2- • moderate income persons and families, within the meaning of the Section 8 program, which is having incomes, adjusted for family size, equal to 80% of area -wide median income. If occupied, a unit must be occupied by an income - qualified family. Under Minnesota law, the remaining units will have no income restrictions if they are intended primarily for occupancy by elderly or handicapped tenants, or if they are located in certain qualifying redevelopment areas or tax increment districts. In other rental housing projects located in Minnesota, a portion (55%) of the units are subject to certain moderate- or middle-income tenant limitations imposed by state law and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. This limit is generally sixty-six times an apartment's gross monthly rent. Thus an apartment renting for $500 per month would fall into this "middle-income" category if rented to a tenant whose income was less than $33,000 ($500 x 66 = $33,000). A tenant's projected adjusted gross income for the next 12 -month period is typi- cally used to determine income compliance. This information is to be obtained during the tenant application process. It is not necessary to recertify tenant income following original occupancy. As long as a tenant occupies a unit in the project, the tenant/unit will be treated as continuing to meet the project's income restrictions, regardless of later increases in the tenant's income.' In addition, the "status" of a tenant remains the same as when he/she first became a tenant (i.e., a single person who later marries or has additional children continues to benefit from the original qualification). The 20% occupancy test can be met where units are offered at rentals which do not exceed 30% of maximum income limits, as adjusted for family size based on unit size. This is likely to result in a cash flow deficit for the developer, and therefore, as a further part of this program, the County HRA proposes to subsidize such rentals out of tax increment. The County HRA would request that the City consider creating one or more tax increment financing district consisting solely of program -financed multifamily rental projects within its boundaries. The increment generated by such district would be paid to the City and HRA and used to lease 20% of the units within the rental project which units would be sub -leased to income qualified tenants at qualifying rentals. It is anticipated that tax increment would be sufficient to carry the deficit between low-income rentals and market rate rentals thus enabling the developer to comply with the federal requirements without rendering the project unworkable for him. The following procedures apply to issuance of the bonds: (1) The city council of the City enacts an ordiance delegating its Municipal Housing Finance Act powers to the County HRA for the purpose of financing the project and subject to such conditions of review and approval as it wishes to impose; 6.1- • -3- • (2) The Municipal Housing Finance Act requires preparation of a "Housing Program" by the issuer which may be a part of the Housing Plan or a separate document. The Housing Program contains specific financing data and would be largely prepared by the Underwriter of the bonds. It would be adopted, after public hearing held upon at least 30 days published notice, by either the County HRA or the city council, depending upon the breadth of the delegation ordinance; (3) The Housing Program must be submitted to the MHFA for review and appro- val pursuant to Section 462C.04, Subd. 2 of the Municipal Housing Finance Act. The MHFA must, within 30 days, decide whether: (a) the Program furthers state housing policies; (b) the projects will adversely effect MHFA programs; (c) administrative and bond issuance costs are reasonable; and (d) the Program generally complies with the Municipal Housing Finance Act. Final approval of bond documents could be made by the City in addition to the County HRA, once again subject to the terms of the delegating ordinance. The following steps will be required of the City in connection with the tax increment subsidy: (1) After adoption of a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan by the County HRA, the city council must hold a public hearing on both the redevelopment project and the proposed tax increment financing district prior to giving its approval. Advertising requirements for said hearings are the same including publication of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten (10) days or more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Therefore, the hearing to approve the redevelopment project and the hearing concerning formation of the tax increment financing district may be held simultaneously. (2) At the public hearing, the City Council must make specific findings by resolution. Prior to approval of the redevelopment project, the City Council must find that: (a) The land in the project area would not be made available for rede- velopment without the financial aid to be sought; (b) The redevelopment plan for the redevelopment area in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private enterprise; (c) The redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the redeve- lopment of the locality as a whole. 65- 0 -4- 0 The findings to be made concerning the approval of the tax increment district are the following: 1. The district is either a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 10, a housing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 11, or an economic development district as defined in Minnesota Statutes 273.73, subd. 12, and the basis for said determination; 2. The proposed redevelopment would not occur in the reasonably fore- seeable future solely through private investment, and, accordingly, tax increment financing is necessary; 3. The tax increment plan conforms to the general plan of redevelop- ment for the municipality as a whole; 4. The tax increment plan will with the needs of the municipality as district by private enterprise; afford maximum opportunity, consistent a whole for redevelopment of the 5. The municipality elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Section 273.76, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if desired. (3) The City Council must approve or disapprove the tax increment financing plan within sixty (60) days of its submission by the County HRA or it will be deemed approved. The resolution of the City Council approving the tax increment financing district again shall be conculsive of the findings therein and of the need for public financing. When the redevelopment project and the tax increment financing plan have been approved, the County HRA will request the County Auditor to certify the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district as defined in the tax increment plan. The City will also have to adopt a resolution with respect to the County HRA's undertaking of the leased housing project. Prior to acquiring a leasehold interest in 20% of the units, and using these units for low -rent housing, the County HRA must adopt a resolution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subd. 1(6) and 462.465. This resolution must include the following findings: 1. That there is in this city a serious shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for person of low and moderate income and their families. 2. That private enterprise is unable to alleviate such shortage and to provide a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing without government subsidy at prices or rents within the financial means of persons and families of such incomes. 3. That this shortage is inimical to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the residents of this city and to the sound growth and develop- ment of this city. 64 • -5- 0 4. That there is a need for such low rent housing which cannot be met by private enterprise. 5. That a gap of at least 20% has been left between the upper shelter rental limits for admission to the proposed low rent housing and the lowest shelter rents at which private enterprise.is providing (through new construction and existing structures) a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing. The City's resolution will have to affirm items 4 and 5 above. In undertaking this housing program, the County HRA intends to work with the following development team: County HRA Staff: Underwriter: Bond Counsel: Project Mortgage Underwriter: Carol Schultz Mark Ulfers Miller & Schroeder Dick Lincoln Holmes & Graven James S. Holmes Stefanie Galey Northland Mortgage Company Lyn Burton F. W. "Nick" Nichols, Jr. Members of the development team will be meeting with you on Monday, February 1, 1982 at 1:00 p.m., and will be happy to answer any questions you have with respect to this program at that time, or by phone, at your convenience. A brief agenda for that meeting is enclosed. CS:lz Enclosure Sincerely, 4 Carol Schultz Executive Director 6Z PAUL H. HAUGE & ASSOCIATICS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 February 11, 1982 Re: Lone Oak Heights -- Martin Shields Dear Tom: AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE 454.4224 I was asked to send a copy of the Purchase Agreement that was entered into between the City and Martin and Myrtle Shields dated February 18, 1975 covering the park land now known as Pilot Knob Park, a copy of which I am enclosing. You will note in the agreement that there is a provision that states that the Shields would submit an application to rezone their property to Planned Development with townhome and multiple family units. If the City, through its Planning Commission and City Council, had turned down the application, the Shields then had the right to terminate the Purchase Agreement. A hearing was held before the Advisory Planning Commission in January, 1975, recommending approval of the application. In addition, a special meeting was held with Timberline residents on November 25, 1974, at which time there was discussion concerning the application for the rezoning and the park contribu- tion and dedication. Four acres under the Purchase Agreement were to be dedi- cated to the Shields to fulfill their park dedication requirements, both for the property they owned east of Pilot Knob Road and also west of Pilot Knob Road. In addition, six acres were to be sold to the City of Eagan for $6,416 per acre. The provisions of the Purchase Agreement were fulfilled and it would be my opinion that even though there has been some threat to attempt to force the City to give back and sell back the park land in the event that the Council downzones the property, it would not appear that this would be the result of a court action to force the City to do so. There is little precedent to my knowledge for this type of action, so that the exact outcome is not certain. Mr. Hedges February 11, 1982 Page Two The attorney for Orrin Aune has been in touch with me several times in the past week and has asked for a copy of the transcript of the hearing that was held before the City Council on January 19, 1982, concerning the Lone Oak Heights application. A copy is being sent to the attorney and I also under- stand that there is a new application that has been or will be submitted to the City, including a revised plan for the condominium/townhouse project by Mr. Aune. There is no provision under the Eagan ordinance or the Minnesota Statutes for submission of a new application for preliminary plat approval similar to the restrictions under the zoning ordinance where no new zoning application can be submitted for the same purpose within one year after the denial of the City Council. There has been some concern that the City include such a provi- sion in the new subdivision ordinance that is now being drafted, whereby there be a restriction that no application can be submitted for, e.g., six months after the denial of the Council of an application to plat the same parcel. If there are other questions, please let me know. skk enclosure go Yy yours, Hauge ".PT4, CHASE .AGREEMEK RECEIVED OF Th,.,CLt7 of-usam ... .......... ........... : ......................... Our sum ...... check - ... - ... :�'� ....... so camot Macy and in vollent' JEtie k.cculc el,row-ane. which, put paysin the coxicar.. �Couxc� of .... .. ....... Saint of Wituresci6i, diad ....................... ..................... C part Of this worcb2"t QuIllarter of : pursuant to Exhibit "e attincibeed. i0chudivii garden bulba�plucts, shrubs and tree, all stormsash,myrindoursdeatchableo . �bal shades, Me (including venerian blinds), carraily gods, eneverm tods, drapery rods, lighting f fietrares, hor water ranks and hearing plant (with my levarens, mks, stokers and other equipecre with). water softener and liquid gas =it and controls (if the property of wiler). sump poorly, s may, built-in dishwasher, garbage disposal, men% cook cap slaves and central sit cordittioning located an aid premises and includingalsothe following personal property: % f,'f 1,n -i'll of ;vittkil property he 4demigiced �os' this day 'Gold iso the buycqc� slim of; 01 ;which the buyer agrees on pay in the following rammer: I. ..!�il, Eaymeaznmuyb - cyclic paid E 280 00..... and I)8i303.40 ...... osborcW.Ul!W&:Ap.rU Sell• �a) b) (c) 4, fit byth. buyer the or . at forfeiture provision. E....... ...... DOLLARS . ..... t � I— u of ny at trusted �.ia he laeeos,awnmgtwlodow ''-y .6 and bulbs, plemobirall Wel in connection them- emision antermg inciner. ipmente if any, used and rye t 1e r MeAlt..). DOLLARS, e,., dhl due of closing. 2 to ............ ....... Wessell, new farm: of no as follows: Cruckay.pecified. ce,mbJect v 'in .1 cluse, own dftiathe year l90!WV!Wr.%m'id instelbum, of payable drecenuilic (a) Roll: buyer 31011 PY the and be .. her. Seller wermems ted am mems due to he year 19 ..1] . . be Mian I W lead da. i Say, ja (full. Partial ., mo-houreonced! —mento which) Seller ovemnn ,het buildings, if soy, em emioly within the 6ouodrry Ilne of [he property and ager m .wove dl penorld property - . _j I N umg 1".' 1� included hernia end .11 d6d. 11. the premiere print to dale. Seller warrants .11 appliances. becting. I, conditioning. ce . ...... .ad plumbing and and located on laid puralues, am in Propel working end., at due ofdonin,, r The -11-1 1 --hr, almly W deliver semolina me leer rhea all fmyr[he date lural. In the e,nmr this propcM is den eyed or substantially damaged by fire or an, hureembf. leedoctingdue, diiagromecashall becture, mdl and mid, a the purchaser's option, and all marine paid hereunder shedi be to b!" Mm buyer and culle, also ricumall, s,eve her pro .o ditmineat of I and city mur. and, in he of TMZT mucter"' a P -P -M. amen, opened" neproses, A.11 be code es of .... data., 0EX The entire sbell. whir. . ..able time of .,,.I of rho agreement, fmchic abum of dd,. R,i,,.d P r Abomet unified to dam to inelude proper snuChra covorm barikee,urin, and Soon and roleml jd ents ad linen. The b ch"T, be U --.d 10 days at., mecip, thereat far evaninel.i.. of sailide and the reakis, of my bjectime"Crtur. said biletwas WT.e& I. writing . deemed to be waived. if my objections are to made the seller shall be .11me" 120 days to make such title cal'"bi cocreatim of We the rgrms hereunder retained hell be putpoland. be, .,n commim of ill. gul within 10 days all W the Imply, the smile It perform this ..let maedi., a its unces. 11 .;= I If laid title is a. coulmuble and it a. made a within 120 day. 1em rhe date of written object. thmem as 4ove pm,idd.hit shelf be null end eoid. and neither prioniped shill be liable for dearege, hereunder to the cher principal. All .7 licemudue LY the Im", that be ulmded. If he cid, or laid propertymarkablebe found markble or be so made within mid time, and md buyer heit d 'ed Vult in any of the summurce, and continue in default for a period of 10 days. then and in char um the .11.r am, lemninste thh ouncere and an ... It verminum. all rhe former" made me,his caturact chat be ecumed b, laid sell, and said earn,. . their uspecti.e iru'reme may pPear'.. H'.iJe-d durce,.dme being .!,he ruerre hereof. Th:' P.'ui.n 'h.11 .'e drpdve tMn Wihc peff... of his comeact provided mch corumor hall .., b mc. lih, .1 crufmcin, he mmn..,,d us f.ramid, and pcmlian� 'h to cut.. .,h 'ecifi, 'r uns f .. shelf he mournmed within me month, f,.r inch right of action bell arise. Me 7 It is ..d,,u..d and named chin IN, rale is ..de mi,jen to the epp.mt b, the owner of laid Intent. to writing ad our the and.,. r signed agent Is in an manner liable or responsible on amount of this mguement. elm,t to return or smaller for the earms, amM yid under this contract. The delivery of dl supern and reorcift theft be rrnA; at the elfin oh......................._.................................................,........,...- �flugLIM),r., P.A. Fj ww'On;.. ZIZ A .......... ...... 14 ............. 4 ....... - ............... ........ .1. the undersigned. owner Of the them, land, do hereby approve By . ........... .................... 11.1 ......... ............... .... -1 . .......... 1-1-Agety, I den .1mm nnanenr and the teak,b..by made. I hereby esme to purchase the mid Pmr.myr for the prim and yet te upon the.rms above mentioncedmd subject to all conditions ;4e A-21.. 44v -c Sell— L Q )KI forfeiture provision. E....... ...... DOLLARS . ..... t � I— u of ny at trusted �.ia he laeeos,awnmgtwlodow ''-y .6 and bulbs, plemobirall Wel in connection them- emision antermg inciner. ipmente if any, used and rye t 1e r MeAlt..). DOLLARS, e,., dhl due of closing. 2 to ............ ....... Wessell, new farm: of no as follows: Cruckay.pecified. ce,mbJect v 'in .1 cluse, own dftiathe year l90!WV!Wr.%m'id instelbum, of payable drecenuilic (a) Roll: buyer 31011 PY the and be .. her. Seller wermems ted am mems due to he year 19 ..1] . . be Mian I W lead da. i Say, ja (full. Partial ., mo-houreonced! —mento which) Seller ovemnn ,het buildings, if soy, em emioly within the 6ouodrry Ilne of [he property and ager m .wove dl penorld property - . _j I N umg 1".' 1� included hernia end .11 d6d. 11. the premiere print to dale. Seller warrants .11 appliances. becting. I, conditioning. ce . ...... .ad plumbing and and located on laid puralues, am in Propel working end., at due ofdonin,, r The -11-1 1 --hr, almly W deliver semolina me leer rhea all fmyr[he date lural. In the e,nmr this propcM is den eyed or substantially damaged by fire or an, hureembf. leedoctingdue, diiagromecashall becture, mdl and mid, a the purchaser's option, and all marine paid hereunder shedi be to b!" Mm buyer and culle, also ricumall, s,eve her pro .o ditmineat of I and city mur. and, in he of TMZT mucter"' a P -P -M. amen, opened" neproses, A.11 be code es of .... data., 0EX The entire sbell. whir. . ..able time of .,,.I of rho agreement, fmchic abum of dd,. R,i,,.d P r Abomet unified to dam to inelude proper snuChra covorm barikee,urin, and Soon and roleml jd ents ad linen. The b ch"T, be U --.d 10 days at., mecip, thereat far evaninel.i.. of sailide and the reakis, of my bjectime"Crtur. said biletwas WT.e& I. writing . deemed to be waived. if my objections are to made the seller shall be .11me" 120 days to make such title cal'"bi cocreatim of We the rgrms hereunder retained hell be putpoland. be, .,n commim of ill. gul within 10 days all W the Imply, the smile It perform this ..let maedi., a its unces. 11 .;= I If laid title is a. coulmuble and it a. made a within 120 day. 1em rhe date of written object. thmem as 4ove pm,idd.hit shelf be null end eoid. and neither prioniped shill be liable for dearege, hereunder to the cher principal. All .7 licemudue LY the Im", that be ulmded. If he cid, or laid propertymarkablebe found markble or be so made within mid time, and md buyer heit d 'ed Vult in any of the summurce, and continue in default for a period of 10 days. then and in char um the .11.r am, lemninste thh ouncere and an ... It verminum. all rhe former" made me,his caturact chat be ecumed b, laid sell, and said earn,. . their uspecti.e iru'reme may pPear'.. H'.iJe-d durce,.dme being .!,he ruerre hereof. Th:' P.'ui.n 'h.11 .'e drpdve tMn Wihc peff... of his comeact provided mch corumor hall .., b mc. lih, .1 crufmcin, he mmn..,,d us f.ramid, and pcmlian� 'h to cut.. .,h 'ecifi, 'r uns f .. shelf he mournmed within me month, f,.r inch right of action bell arise. Me 7 It is ..d,,u..d and named chin IN, rale is ..de mi,jen to the epp.mt b, the owner of laid Intent. to writing ad our the and.,. r signed agent Is in an manner liable or responsible on amount of this mguement. elm,t to return or smaller for the earms, amM yid under this contract. The delivery of dl supern and reorcift theft be rrnA; at the elfin oh......................._.................................................,........,...- �flugLIM),r., P.A. Fj ww'On;.. ZIZ A .......... ...... 14 ............. 4 ....... - ............... ........ .1. the undersigned. owner Of the them, land, do hereby approve By . ........... .................... 11.1 ......... ............... .... -1 . .......... 1-1-Agety, I den .1mm nnanenr and the teak,b..by made. I hereby esme to purchase the mid Pmr.myr for the prim and yet te upon the.rms above mentioncedmd subject to all conditions ;4e A-21.. 44v -c Sell— Hagan shall pay the aellere the atm of paemsooaop foL.:�.,: 'six (6) acres of the ten (10) acre parcel described above. V Seller further agrees to pay all real estate taxea covering said ten (10) acre parcel and in addition pending and levied special assessments including green acre taxes and assessments. It is understood that the property intended to be covered by this purchase agreement is described by a plat of survey dated August 6, 1973, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit "E". It is further agreed that the sellers will proceed with the rezoning Of the balance of approximately seventeen (17) acres awned by the sellers at the Southwest intersection of County Road #31 and Lone Oak Road with ' 'PUD zoning providing for an underlying zoning to permit Townhouses of a . density of not to exceed seven (7) unite per scre.on the Southerly 10 acres Of the property and R-6, Multiple family residential on the Northerly ... 7 acres. It is understood that such zoning shall be completed within sixty (60) days of execution of this agreement and in the event that such revised zoning is not completed within such time, then sellers may revoke this Agreement and all earnest money shall be returned to buyers. -- It is understood, that sellers shall at the time of closing herein dedicate four (4) acres of the property described on Exhibit "R" without coat to Sagan with the understanding that said four (4) acres shall constitute the entire amount of -acreage required to be dedicated for park purposes by.the sellers for land awnedthe'sellers at the Southwest ?';_<-s --�.•-:...api intersection of Lone Oak Road and County Road #31 consisting of about twenty-seven (27) acres and also that land owned by sellers at the Southeast intersection of Lone Oak Road and County Road #31 consisting of "'Ii �i` '�`;""�'"�'"-"' ^"��'•<'.=i;'�:1 about fourteen (14) acres. In the event that all provisions of this agreement are fully carried out, then the developers or owners of the above described parcels shall not be required to dedicate additional land or cash at such time as development of those parcels takes place. - . J]Y eT.r'}e..•s,'x�:_:i-..:dY._..", {L.: vM,ji,,"•:Y ::: i. Exhibit "A" d yTMame a .pY ar we .yau....e .... _.___ ._ .... J, n1,ud oo rvd rctmim,ion all the mymemr wde upon rhb antr.i, .hall be r.r.ined'by rdd relief and feta year, u weir rca,."ve miff[... C k rr . ^ .ID.I sPPf.�fn 1, U, dmmae, tine heinr of the nrence hereof. Thi, provhun shell nm depnrc either perry of the, fish. of enfouiy fhe t , .Pecifc pfefofour.a of Chu �.nn provided arh awns shall ... be rctaina,ed u .lareaid .td p avded .eien m eaforte nth ,paigc f pedoaunor. .hdl be amaenad ed ie tv enifid,'dw, 1.6 right of .iffon shall nue. b h uodi,ond and a fad .hu ,hie .sln b .tale rubjev. ro rhe.pproveil by ,h. owner d..id premien in wrhiy sod the the under- - N _ :d4ned gram b�nipy,mvanyf Fable or tnpamlblp ore eaum of thb .grcemenr. maps to return or eatmte, for the armt aamy mid uadn i;ThedeR.eyddl mpen sad mpnw rhJl be made urhedha of: ......................... P.A.Altoraays-at-Las I . _ lain .lUi��tl�. atlabla .............. .................................. ............................................... rd rhe.bave I.M. do leats.pptme Idye......_......._�..._...........:. _i.. °.:__:::.:....:_...._:..:..;.....Agent .If rhrcby m.dp. a hereby ,refs ro purthfee the feid p tq for ,he Pa. ad i upon th rcrve above .fed wb-lav to W aoddiew (fiF.AI.) C '1[f�omeon jry'i' sen`• lY ti v Beller ir/ SSBAL! }1(.� iSeiln .��,.. .. •. ��h'�-�. .C�,..Ymlee�. tY"' Y .+•�.. (SBdl). . r TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE CITY OF EAGAN At the last Height Subcommittee -meeting, the Committee addressed the health and safety aspects in regard to buildings over 3 stories in height. As a result of this meeting, the City Council has authorized the City to set up a Health Safety Committee which will review major development pro- posals within the City of Eagan. This Subcommittee has been established and is now in the review process for development proposals. As indicated on one of the exhibits, the Health Safety Canmittee has been put into the review process so that development proposals are reviewed by this Committee prior to public hearing held by the Advisory Planning Commission and appro- val of the City Council. The Building Department has prepared a memorandum in regard to what the State Building Code requirements are for high-rise construction. High- rise construction is considered as 75' above fire department access, or possibly somewhere between the 7th and 8th story of a building. I also believe these items which have been listed in this memorandum can be ap- plied as conditions if the City elects to allow buildings over 3 stories in height as a conditional use or in an agreement for P.D. zoning. The Subcommittee directed staff to prepare two models of how the process for heights of structures could be used in a conditional use permit and a planned development zoning district. Instead of preparing an individual model, staff has prepared an overall process showing the steps of how each one of the items, the conditional use and planned development zoning, could work to allow conditions and a process for buildings which exceed a 3 -story height, or the 35' requirement. Attached is an exhibit which lists the steps for the conditional use per- mit and a planned development zoning. As you can see, the steps are iden- tical all the way through the process if a conditional use permit were used, or if a planned development zoning contract would be used. There- fore, buildings which exceed the 3 stories could conceivably be used by both processes. As you can see, there will be a formal public hearing, staff reviews and City Council approval for both conditions. If the Coun- cil elects to approve a building which exceeds the 3 -story height, then the approval would be conditioned on the agreement which outlines the performance standards, or building code requirements, along with other pertinent conditions for each application. Therefore, the contract or agreement which the Subcommittee was looking at could be applied to both the conditional use permit and the planned development zoning. The last item staff would like to address is if the City elects to lift the height limitations on a building in a commercial and industrial zoned district, one other requirement would be looked at in this process. Instead of the developer intensifying the site with more useable square footage and giving the City nothing in return, the City would require additional green area on heights of structures over 3 stories in height. Presently, n Additional Information on Height Limitations in the City of Eagan February 11, 1982 Page two the zoning ordinance allows 3 story buildings and the setback requirements from the parking area are 20' from a public street, 5' from side and rear lot lines. If,in fact,the building would increase above the 3 story height requirement, the staff is suggesting that buildings of greater than 3 stor- ies be allowed only through the granting of a conditional use permit, or planned development districts with the following conditions: NO LIMIT SHALL BE PLA® ON THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN THE COVVERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OR THE INDUSTRIAL ZONED DISTRICTS. NOR SHALL ANY MIN= FLOOR AREA RATIO BE iMxxMM:/ k'WFL,WTQWW.IM,100cr.Y • Y.� 1■ • q .W _�U : �1N- Y:h_�MY.��)7■ statement is that the City allows the developer to build additional square . footage. However, in the return, the City is getting more green space per development as the builder increases the stories. This also provides the incentive for less area to be taken up in parking spaces and could possibly force the ramping of the parking within the development. The developer does have the option to provide the additional green space, but provide adequate land for ground parking, or if he is intensifying the site, would be able to ramp the parking for the development proposal. Presently, the zoning ordinance requires only a 20' green area along a public street, and a 5' green area along the side and rear lot lines. As the buildings would in- crease in height, the green area would substantially increase on all sides of the parcel instead of the constant standard that we presently have within the zoning ordinance. Enclosed is a matrix which shows a 40,000 square foot lot which would allow an 8,000 square foot for lot coverage, and what the present setback is according to Ordinance #52 and haw the set- backs would increase proportionately for a 5 -story building and a 7 -story building. Staff will be able to go through this matrix with the Subcommittee on the 18th to provide additional information. Inusing the conditional use approach in all zoning districts to allow height above the 3 -story building, a policy statement may be included that no building shall exceed 3 stories unless there is a 300' spacing between single family residence and the location where the building is proposed to exceed the 3 -story height which would be allowed under normal circimistan- ces. The contract, or agreement, which has been drafted in rough form by the City Attorney, attempts to provide all of the building code, or health, safety aspects into the construction and design of the building, and this additional language for providing additional green area for heights of structures should be the main items for consideration if the City elects to lift the height limitation in commercial and industrial zoned parcels. If anyone has any questions in regard to the information provided, please feel free to contact we for additional information. DCR/jach X3 E CMITIMAL USE PEWIT Application form submitted Advertise legal notice & agenda Scheduled for staff meeting Scheduled for Health & Safety Com. Public Hearing held by APC Approved or denied by City Council I Subject to agreement and pertinent conditions 0 0 P.D. ZCNING Application form submitted Advertise legal notice & agenda Scheduled for staff meeting Scheduled for Health & Safety Comm. Public Hearing held by APC Approved or denied by City Council Subject to agreement and pertinent conditions F -i- J m • derry Alien oJew s,{ ,.k A 7. MEMO TO: DALE RONnE, CITY PLzem FROM: DALE PETERSON, Bunni C; OFFICIAL DATF: JANIZARY 21, 1982 SUBJECP: SYNOPSIS OF PUIIDIM CODES THAT RMATE TO MULTISTORY BUIIDDrZ The Building Code deals basically with two types of construction; combustible and non-combustible. There are subtypes to each, such as one to four hour fire resistive and no fire resistive requirements. Al! buildings are then . limited to both area and height depending on the occupancy class and the type of construction. However, combustible construction is always limited to a maxinmm of three stories. Four story buildings must always have exterior non-combustible walls. In some cases, protected combustible interior walls would he allowed. - In all cases, a building of more than four stories must be of non-combustible construction throughout. The Building Code defines a high-rise building as one that has a floor Rare than 75 feet above the lowest level of Fire Department access. Normally, an eight story building would be a high-rise that would he beyond the reach of the Fire Department's longest ladder. The Code requirements to build a hotel, apartment or office building become more stringent as they increase in height. The most important extra requirements are: _ -1 ' 1. One of the required stair towers must be smokeproof. 2. Must have an automatic aprinkler system. 3. Must have Fire Department standpipes to supply water for fire hoses. 4. An elaborate smoke detector system. 5. An elaborate alarm and communication system. a. This is a voice alarm and public address system. 6. A Fire Department com uni'cation system. 7. A central control station for public safety use to direct rescue, fire suppression and operate emergency systems. 8. Pxtensive smoke control and ventilation systems. 9. Elevators that are controlled by smoke detectors and will not open doors at smoke filled floor unless done manually by Fire Department personnel. 10. Must have standby power, light and emergency systems. 11. Must be decorated with low flame spread and low smoke producing wall and ceiling coverings. 12. Must have hard surfaced fire lane within twenty feet of the building. There are alternatives to the fire sprinkler system throughout, but other ommrnni- ties discretely mandate sprinkling rather than the use of the alternative. A high-rise building does have many extra safety factors built into it, but when it cones to fire suppression or rescue it is an extremely hack-hreaking job for Fire and Police personnel. Sadly enough, the little shed out back would be safe if it were not for people. 76 A G R E E M E N T CITY OF EAGAN MULTI -STORY BUILDING THIS AGREEMENT, dated this _ day of 19_1 by and between the CITY OF EAGAN, called Eagan, and +'- - - called Developer, and called Owner; WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an application for a building permit for a multi -storied building under applicable Eagan Ordinance for the purpose described and located on the following described property: ,. WHEREAS, the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission on 19_, recommended to the City Council that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: WHEREAS, the Eagan City Council, at its meeting on 19_, considered said application and the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission and approved the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Advisory Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into an agreement subject to compliance with all applicable building code and ordinance requirements and certain further conditions to assure the safety of the occupants at all times, recog- N - -*� nizing that there are certain safety considerations in a multi -story building requiring special conditions; R,M - NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City of Eagan shall approve the application for building permit for the building described above subject to compliance with all necessary City ordinandes and conditions imposed by the City. 2. Additional conditions to be approved by the City shall be as follows: a) One of the required stair towers shall be spoke proof. b) The proposed building shall include an approved automatic sprinkler system. c) The building shall include Fire Department standpipes to supply water for fire hoses. 0 0 d) A smoke detector system shall be installed according to City specifications. e) An alarm and communications system, including voice alarm and public address system, shall be installed in the building according to City specifications. system. f) The building shall include a Fire Department communications g) The building shall include a central control station for public safety use and direct rescue, fire suppression and operate emergency systema. h) The building shall include smoke control and ventilation systems according to City standards. i) Elevators shall be controlled by smoke detectors which will not allow doors to be opened on a smoke filled floor unless done manually by Fire Department personnel. J) Standby power, light, and emergency systems. k) Decorated with low flame spread and low smoke producing wall and ceiling coverings. 1) A complete automatic fire detection system with zone markers in main lobby and alarm at Eagan central dispatch center. m) Fully enclosed stairwells at each end of the building including the following: 1. Fully enclosed fire rated walls and doorways on each floor. 2. Standpipe connections on each floor. 3. Outside access on the ground level. 4. Penthouse with door on roof. 5. Automatic plus manual shutoff exhause from of penthouse. n) Firelanes shall be provided on three sides of the building and each lane must be at least 10 feet from building and 15 feet wide. o) Fire Department Key controlled elevations. p) An intercom system covering the entire building with a microphone in a alarm control box for fire department use. q) If a residential building, it must require a telephone control security system and a special code to open doors must be installed for fire and police use. 71 _2_ 3. Other conditions: 4. It is understood that occupancy of the buildings shell not be per- mitted until all necessary City requirements have been fulfilled to the City's satisfaction. 5. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. - This Agreement has been signed by the parties hereto on the date above written. CITY OF EAGAN By Developer Its Mayor Owner APPROVED: City Public Works Director Inspector M ATTEST: Its Clerk SEAL yin Owner APPROVED: City Public Works Director Inspector M ATTEST: Its Clerk SEAL