The URL can be used to link to this page

03/02/1982 - City Council RegularAGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL,« REGULAR MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL MARCH 2, 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 IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) // A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) >O B. Approve Grading/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) /.Z C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addition Trunk Water Main) D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T.H.55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. OLD BUSINESS jo /,3 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (#52) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations /` B. Amcon Corporation (Patrick M. Gannon) for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District; Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE' of Section 4 P S� C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions VII. NEW BUSINESS .o a9,4 A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ A. Fire Department #a/ C. Park Department B. Police Department p / D. Public Works Department IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) // A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) >O B. Approve Grading/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) /.Z C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addition Trunk Water Main) D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T.H.55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. OLD BUSINESS jo /,3 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (#52) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations /` B. Amcon Corporation (Patrick M. Gannon) for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District; Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE' of Section 4 P S� C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions VII. NEW BUSINESS .o a9,4 A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ City of Burnsville B. Developers Construction, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Hilltop Condominiums), Approximately 10 Acres & Containing 52 Dwelling Units, Located on Lot 33, Block 5 and OutLot B, Hilltop Estates Pdj; C. in Section 22 Winkler Development Company for Rezoning from GB (General Business) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow an Office Complex - Hotel -Motel -High Rise, & for a Preliminary Plat (Bluffview) of Approximately 17 Acres, Located in Part of the SW'y of the SW'y D. of Section 19 Comserve Corporation for a Preliminary Plat (Comserve No. 1) Consisting of Approximately 63.77 Acres and Containing One (1) Building Located on All of Government Lots 5-6 in Section 8 and f O E. All that Part of Government Lots 1-2, Section 17 Temporary Advertising Sign for Rosewood Corporation Eagan City Council Agenda March 2, 1982 Page Two VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS "o / p Z A. Dakota County Proposed Maintenance Agreement for Trails P 9 �J B. Approve MnDOT Plans & Specifications for the Upgrading of e T.H. 55 & 149 (Eagan Project #353) J 9s C. Contract 82-2, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertisement for Bids (Briar Hill 4th Addition Streets & Utilities) IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT 0 1• MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the February 16, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the March 2, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: 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 -- There are no items to be considered for the Park Department at this time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department - Item #1: 1982 Sanitary Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan Update ging 1951, t e ity commis- sione t e consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander- lik and Associates to update the 1976 sanitary sewer and water comprehensive plans to incorporate the recently completed compre- hensive guide plan, development and population growth during the past six years and to re-evaluate, in detail, present day con- struction costs and the resulting impact on the calculation of trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk utility assessment rates which are standard rates that have been adjusted every year since 1976 based on the consumer price index (CPI) to try and accurately reflect any current year's cost of construction. Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Two What these comprehensive reports have accomplished is to completely re-evaluate the future needs of the City pertaining to trunk utility installation and to evaluate the number of acres of property within the City which have not yet been assessed their trunk area assess- ments. Taking into consideration a specific percentage of antici- pated lateral benefit from trunk utility assessments, the resulting figure then determines the per acre trunk area assessment rate. This proposed fee schedule as derived through the preparation of these 1982 comprehensive plans is summarized on pages J through - These pages were originally included as a part of the sewer and - water user rate study which was presented to the Council on January 5, 1982. In addition, enclosed on pages 7 through /Q are a summary, review and update of recommended ees 'pertainingg to the major street trunk fund. With the anticipated development expected to occur during 1982, the staff feels that it is imperative that these rates be adjusted as soon as possible to avoid any significant deficit in these trunk funds. The Director of Public Works will be available to discuss in detail any aspect of the reports and final recommendations at the Council meeting of March 2, 1982. Copies of the "Water Supply and Distribution Plan" and the "Compre- hensive Sewer Policy Plan" are enclosed in your packets without page numbers. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1982 sanitary sewer and water comprehensive plans and the respective trunk area and lateral benefit assessment rates and road unit charges to be effective March 1, 1982. 2 A t❑ IL 0 0 AREA AND LATERAL BENEFIT CHARGES This part of the report provides the background information necessary to arrive at equitable rates for the trunk sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main levied on an area basis and the lateral benefit charges levied on a front foot basis whenever a trunk sanitary sewer or trunk water main is used as a lateral. It has been the policy of the City of Eagan to assess the cost of all of the oversize of sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8" of dia- meter to the benefited property on an area basis. In commercial and industrial areas, water main lines in excess of 12 inches in diameter are assessed on an area basis. Trunk storm sewer oversize is based on the excess cost of lines over 24" in diameter and also is assessed on an area basis. The cost of wells and water reservoirs is recovered by charging a connection charge on each building permit. On approximately 5 year intervals, the entire trunk system of water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer is re -analyzed and new costs computed for completing the system for saturation development. New rates are computed based on the land yet available for trunk area assessments. In each of the intervening years, the rates are adjusted based upon the expected cost of construction for each of the utilities involved. A comprehensive review of the entire trunk sanitary sewer and water system in 1981 has resulted in new rates for trunk charges. The rates proposed for 1982 are substantially greater than the current rates. E-7615a --13- - 24 - 0 0 Significant changes in overhead and construction costs as well as changes in policy that affect trunk system costs have occurred since the last comprehensive review of trunk sanitary sewer and water system in 1976. Overhead costs have increased approximately 10 percent since 1976 due to costs for additional construction inspection, administration and bond interest. Construction costs have increased an average of 8 - 10 percent per year over the past few years due to inflation for materials cost and labor costs. Through a change in City policy, the total estimated amount of revenue generated from lateral benefit from future trunk lines was reduced and results in an increase in trunk oversizing costs. The City currently charges commercial and industrial (C/I) land at a rate equivalent to 2.1 lots per acre. This City policy was evaluated based on design criteria for average, maximum -day and fire demands for the Eagan water supply and distribution system as well as policies in other metropolitan communities. As a result of this evaluation, it is recommended that the City base the connection charge for C/I land at a rate equivalent to approximately 4.0 lots per acre in order to more closely relate use connection charges to cost of construction facilities to serve C/I areas. The residential connection charge includes a 10 percent additive factor for financing of the facilities between time of installation and actual connection. Since the C/I connection charge is assessed at the same time the water main is, it is not necessary to include a 10 percent financing charge on the C/I connection charge. Based on 1981 costs, the C/I should be $2,510. However, in order to avoid an unreasonable increase in the connection charge, it is recom- E-7615a 0 0 mended that the rate increase be phased over a three year period. This rate, as proposed for 1982 on the following page, should be increased by 25 percent at the end of 1982 and 1983 to complete the phased increase. The proposed 25 percent increase includes an estimated 10 percent rate increase for construction cost inflation. Based on the new estimated trunk system costs from the comprehensive review and the remaining areas to be assessed, the rates on the following page are recommended for adoption for 1982. Future study should be given in the summer of 1982 to determine if the rate of inflation is such that the rates should be adjusted on a 6 month interval rather than on a 12 month interval. It is further recommended that future rate adjustments be programmed to take effect on January 1 of each year and, if 6 month adjustments are deemed necessary, on January 1 and July 1 of each year. E -7615a 1 I` — 26 — 9 0 * Lots which are platted at the time trunk facilities are ordered in ** Multifamily unit cost is approximately 0.8 of the cost of a single family lot —49- - 27 - E -7615a -^49 -27- E -7615a 1982 Current 1981 Rate Proposed Rates Trunk Sanitary Unplatted $770/Ac. $995/Ac. Sewer Oversize Platted Residential * $370/lot $475/lot (@ 2.1 lots/Ac.) Trunk Water Main Agricultural or $770/Ac. $995/Ac. Oversize Residential * $370/lot $475/lot Water Supply 6 Single Family $335/lot $420/lot Storage Multi -Family ** $270/Unit $335/Unit Water Supply & Storage d Main Over - sizing Comm. 6 Ind. $1,485/Ac. $1,945/Ac. Trunk Storm Sewer Single Family .0374/sq.ft. $0.0400/s.f. Oversize Multi -Family .0468/sq.ft. $0.0500/s.f. Comm. 6 Ind. .0561/sq.ft. $0.0600/s.f Lateral Service from Trunk San. Sewer 14.30/Front ft. $16.00/f.f. Lateral Service Single Family 12.00/Front ft. $15.00/f.f. from Trunk Water Main Multi -Family 14.35/Front ft. $18.00/f.f. Comm. 6 Ind. * Lots which are platted at the time trunk facilities are ordered in ** Multifamily unit cost is approximately 0.8 of the cost of a single family lot —49- - 27 - E -7615a -^49 -27- E -7615a the cost of a normal residential street 32' wide were paid for from county road turnback funds and, in some cases, general obligation funds. Amore detailed policy was developed in 1977 to provide more positive financing from development directly benefiting from the major street sys- tem. Because of inequities which result from using only assessments against the directly abutting lots or additions, the policy included a benefit charge to be levied with each building permit. Each new building benefits from the Major Street System. Commercial and Industrial build- ings were charged proportionately larger benefit charges based on use and size of building. The benefit charge was to supplement other sources of funds available for the Major Street construction to provide the required cash flow. In 1977, the Major Street construction financing plan was adopted which established the Major Street benefit charge of S75 per residential road unit to be levied with the issuance of each building permit. Be- cause of the rapid inflation of road construction costa since 1977, it was recommended that the road unit charge be adjusted to $220 in 1981 in order to maintain the cash flow necessary for the continued construction of Major Streets. E-7615a MAJOR STREET BENEFIT CHARGE Early in the development of Eagan Township, a Major Street Plan was adopted which provided major collector streets, principally county roads, designed with 52' wide paving and minor collector streets designated with from 36' to 44' wide paving. The oversize costs for these streets above the cost of a normal residential street 32' wide were paid for from county road turnback funds and, in some cases, general obligation funds. Amore detailed policy was developed in 1977 to provide more positive financing from development directly benefiting from the major street sys- tem. Because of inequities which result from using only assessments against the directly abutting lots or additions, the policy included a benefit charge to be levied with each building permit. Each new building benefits from the Major Street System. Commercial and Industrial build- ings were charged proportionately larger benefit charges based on use and size of building. The benefit charge was to supplement other sources of funds available for the Major Street construction to provide the required cash flow. In 1977, the Major Street construction financing plan was adopted which established the Major Street benefit charge of S75 per residential road unit to be levied with the issuance of each building permit. Be- cause of the rapid inflation of road construction costa since 1977, it was recommended that the road unit charge be adjusted to $220 in 1981 in order to maintain the cash flow necessary for the continued construction of Major Streets. E-7615a 0 0 The following table shows the projected costs to complete the system by the year 2,005 as calculated in 1977 and as recalculated at the present time. The present calculations include streets constructed since 1977.as well as costs to complete the system. TABLE 1 MAJOR STREET COSTS Item County Roads (45% of total cost) City Streets Total Eagan's Cost ........... 1977 Cost Projections S 4,410,000 .9,370,000 513,780,000 Present Cost Projections S 8,380,000 14,020,000 $22,400,000 The current Major Street Policy states that all Major Collector Streets (52' wide undivided streets) should be constructed with a bitu- minous pathway on one boulevard and a concrete sidewalk on the other boulevard, and that Minor Collector Streets (44' wide undivided streets) should be constructed with a concrete sidewalk on one boulevard only. These walkways as well as the rapid inflation of the past few years have combined ,to cause the large increase in cost projections reflected in Table 1. - 29 - E -7615a 0 The funding sources for the costs described in Table 1 will include Minnesota Gas Tax (M.S.A.) funds, major stree levy funds, commercial - industrial and residential equivalent assessments and the major street benefit charge to be levied with the issuance of building permits. Each year the City receives an allotment of money acquired by the State of Minnesota through gasoline taxes to be used in the construction of Major Streets. Income from these Municipal State Aid Funds was pro- jected through the year 2005 since it is anticipated that the Eagan Major Street System will be basically completed by that time. Another annual allotment received by the City of Eaganfor major street construction is the major street levy. The major street levy is formerly known as County Turnback Funds. The amount of funds obtained from this tax levy must increase each year to reflect the population growth of the City as well as the rate of inflation in order to obtain the required funds for completing the Major Street System for Eagan by the year 2005. A substantial income is expected to be obtained from assessing resi- dential equivalents where unrestricted driveway access is to be allowed, such as on Minor Collector streets, and from assessing multi -family and commercial -industrial property on all Major Streets where access will be allowed. Since these equivalent assessments are based on construction costs, they will naturally be adjusted to the inflation rate with each project. -9- - 30 - E -7615a 9- -30- E -7615a • 0. A summary of estimated funds available for Major Street construction through the year 2,000 is presented below: TABLE 2 Item M.S.A. Funds Major Street Levy Estimated Assessments Road Unit Charges FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MAJOR STREETS 1977 Projection $ 6,270,000 4,420,000 1,980,000 1,100,000 $13,780,000 Present Projection $ 7,465,000 3,336,000 8,510,000 3,089,000 $22,400,000 In 1981, the 1980 Road Unit Charge of $185 per road unit was re- tained. It is recommended that this be raised to $240 for 1982 which is a 30% increase for the two year period from 1980 to 1982. ROAD UNIT EQUIVALENCY TABLE ZONING R-1, $2, R3 R4 Comm./Ind. New Comm./Ind. Bldg. Additions ROAD UNITS 1.0/residential unit 0.8/residential unit 3.0/ac. 3.0/Ac. with acreage as determined by building inspector. * Comm./Ind. includes all zonings other than residential —/0- - 31 - E -7615a 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Three Ll There are a total of four (4) 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. CONTRACT 81-10 A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) -- During the construction of the streets within the Tomark Addi- tion, the developer did not restrict his construction traffic from public right-of-way during the City's contract construction process. Subsequently, the developer's contractors damaged the subgrade and aggregate base. This combined with a request by the developer to delay the final surfacing of Golfview Drive until the spring of 1982 resulted in additional costs to Contract 81-10. The developer has indicated in writing his concurrence to accept all additional costs associated with the correction of the damage and the increase in prices resulting from this requested delay of street surfacing. All costs associated with this change order will be assessed to the developer. The net effect of this change order results in an add of $6,704. . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Change Order #1 to Contract 81-10 in the amount of $6,704. GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT (COMSERVE FIRST ADDITION) B. Approve Granding/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) -- Comserve, Inc., originally had intended to request a grading/ excavation permit from the City to allow them to proceed with their grading operation prior to receiving final plat approval. However, at this time, they have requested a foundation permit through the Building Inspection Department. Subsequently, a formal grading permit will not have to be issued since this grading operation will be covered under the foundation building permit through the Protective Inspections Department. Therefore, there is no action required by the Council pertaining to this item. • Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Four CONTRACT 81-13 C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addi- tion Trunk Water Main) -- At the February 2, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized the staff to prepare a change order to Contract 81-13 to allow Erickson Construction Company to install the City's trunk water main loop from the Cedar Avenue Freeway to Slaters Road. This change order has now been prepared resulting in a net add of $14,721 to Contract 81-13. All costs associated with this change order will be paid for through the trunk utility fund. It should be noted that the City is making use of approximately 320 feet of existing 12" DIP water main pipe presently in storage at the City garage which was salvaged from a previous trunk water main relocation project associated with the Cedar Avenue Freeway. This results in an approximate savings of $4,000. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Change Order #1 to Contact 81-13 in the amount of add $14,721. MnDOT COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT/T.H. 55/149 UPGRADING D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T. H. 55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) -- On January 19, 1982, the feasibility report for Project 353 was presented to the Council for their review and information. This project provides for the relocation of existing trunk water main located within the T. H. 55 right-of- way that requires relocation due to MnDOT's pending upgrading of the section of highway. In addition, it provides for the extension of trunk storm sewer and trunk sanitary sewer to Section 1 to avoid additional costs associated with potential jacking in the future. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve MnDOT Cost Parti- cipation Agreement #60740 and a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. —/.V — Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Five There are no public hearings meeting. 0 scheduled for the REVISIONS/HEIGHT LIMITATIONS March 2, 1982 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance 452) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations -- A special subcommittee was appointed by the City Council to examine a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #52 to consider a revision to height limitations with commercial and industrial zoned districts. The subcommittee was active in providing research and analyzing various considerations for changing height limitations since late fall 1981. Their final recommenda- tions were presented and considered by the Advisory Planning Com- mission at their regular meeting held on February 23, 1982. A report was sent out to each member of the City Council approximately one week ago that provided a drawing and additional recommendations for consideration of height limitations. This report was considered by the Planning Commission along with modifications as prepared by the City Planner. A copy of recommendations, considering modifi- cations, as prepared by the City Planner, are enclosed on pages /4/ through I- for your review. This memo, as revised by t�i�ity Planner, was adopted by the Advisory Planning Commission as a recommendation for approval to the City Council with revisions. The revisions are being reviewed by the City Attorney and will be distributed with the Administrative Packet on Monday. If any member of the City Council has misplaced the original report by the City Planner and would like an additional copy, feel free to contact the City Administrator's office and a copy will be provided with the Administrative Packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny, with or without revision, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance #52 re- garding a revision to height limitations in commercial and indus- trial zoned districts. - /3 /TO-. THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RLWUE, CITY PIANNER DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1982 RE: RECOMMMMTICNS FROM THE SUBCCMMr= ON HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES IN rrMIOF:RrTAT. AM TNr)TI.g7PTAT. 7.frJM MCTRTr�M The recommendations for heights of structures in conmercial and industrial zoned districts are as follows: 1) No Limit shall be placed on the height of buildings in the cc mmer- cial zoning districts or the industrial zoned districts, nor shall any floor area ratio be required. However, buildings over 35' in height in the cmn ercial district and 40' in height in industrial districts shall have a setback of not less than 3/4 of the height of the building and side and rear setbacks of not less than 1/2 of the height of the building. 2) The maxirman green area for buildings over 3 stories shall be 60' on the front and 25' for side and rear. The green area shall be increased from the present green area requirements in ccuu ercial and industrial zoning categories by 5' on the front, side and rear yards per story until the maximum green area has been ob- tained. 3) No employee parking shall be allowed on the front side of the building. Guest parking will be allowed and -the number of park- ing spaces will be determined by the City Council. 4) No parking shall be allowed adjacent to any side of a building in excess of 35' in commercially zoned districts and 40' in industrially zoned districts in order to provide fire lanes and adequate fire protection for the building. 5) The front yard shall be deteanined by the applicant or developer. The front yard shall' consist of parallel lines running from the building to the lot line for the side designated as the front yard. 6) Increasing the height above three stories for a commercial or industrial building shall not be allowed if the structure is within 300' of a single family residential dwelling. This mea- surement shall be measured from building to building. 7) Any structure over 35' in height in a commercial. district and 40' in height in an industrial district shall be subject to the pertinent conditions in regard to health and safety as stated in Eagan's multistory building agreement. Thomas L. Hedges Heights of Structures February 23, 1982 Page two If these conditions are approved by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council, staff is suggesting that these draft conditions be given to the City Attorney to draft the amendments to Ordinance #52 in the condi- tional use categories in the Commercial and Industrial sections of Ordi- nance 52, and also include by condition in the Planned Development Dis- trict category of Ordinance 52. Once the City Attorney has drafted the amendments, the amendments will have to be published in the official news- paper and proper hearings held before this amendment, or ordinance change, would go into effect. _/S__ 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Six AMCON CORPORATION/PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RAVINE PLAZA B. Amcon Corporation for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow Two Office Buildings and Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District -- Three (3) applications were received from Patrick Gannon representing Amcon Corporation for consideration at an Advisory Planning Commission meeting held on September 22, 1981. The applications consisted of the following: Rezoning of approximately 19 acres from A to PD to include two office buildings and a hotel/restaurant facility. 2. Preliminary plat of Ravine Plaza, consisting of approxi- mately 19 acres and -three lots. 3. Variance in order to exceed the height limitation for a commercial building. The applicants did not appear at the September 22 APC meeting and therefore the item was continued until the October 27, 1981 meeting. At the October 27 meeting of the APC, there was considerable dis- cussion reg— a� the two office buildings and hotel proposal. The APC reviewed the site plan and had a number of questions re- garding the location of this facility and Wold Chamberlain Airport. The APC requested that the rezoning and preliminary plat be tabled until the November 24, 1981 meeting in order that representatives from MnDOT, MAC an the Metropolitan Council could be present to give input to the APC. The APC also requested the City Council to give input in regard to height limitations. At the November 243 1981 APC meeting, the APC met with representatives from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council regarding the proposal. This meeting was taped and information could be made available at the request of the City Council. For a copy of the minutes from the APC meeting of November 24 regarding this item, please refer to pages I through /J The APC is recommending denial of the rezoning and preliminary plat as presented. This item has not been considered by the City Council due to the study being performed by a special subcommittee examining height limitations. For addi- tional information, refer to a copy of the City Planner's report and other attachments regarding the Amcon proposal found on pages 9 through 3 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the APC to deny the preliminary plat and rezoning as requested by Amcon. _14 - 0 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE \ EAGAN, NOVEMffi 0 EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINNESOTA ER 249 1981 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Present were Chairman Harrison and APC Members Krob, Gits, Wilkins, Bohne, Turnham and Vogt. Absent was Charles Hall. Also present were City Planner Runkle, Public Works Director Colbert, Assistant Planner Dave Osberg, City Engineer Rosene and City Attorney Hauge. AGENDA The Agenda was approved as distributed. MINUTES Upon motion by Krob, seconded Wilkins, it was resolved that the Minutes of the October 27, 1981 regular meeting be approved with the exception on page 4 concerning RES Investment Company that the proper density computation should be 95%. All voted yes. AMCON CORPORATION REZONING - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Chairman Harrison then convened the public hearing regarding the applica- tion of Amcon Corporation to rezone 19 acres from (A) Agricultural to (PD) Planned Development in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 4 at the Southwest intersection of 494 and Pilot Knob Road, an application for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza containing 3 lots and a variance to exceed the height limitation for commercial building up to six stories. Mr. Patrick M. Gannon was present. A tape recording was made of the proceedings. Also present at the request of the City were Nagel Finney from The Metropolitan Airports Commission, James Partman of MnDOT Aviation Section, and Chauncey Case of The Metropolitan Council. Mr. Gannon stated the development was intended to coincide with the opening of the highway system in the area with the first stage being an office building with motel likely the third stage. The proposal was for variance to allow two six -story office buildings with a three story motel complex. Each of the representatives from the agencies explained the view of his respective agency concerning the application and indicated that although there are no strict controls over the permits requested, MnDOT has adopted an ordinance covering airport zoning standards. This would provide 15 persons per acre maximum within the airport safety zones, although it was indicated that the noise issue is not a problem. Safety however, is an issue, according to Mr. Finney and he indicated that the Airport Joint Zoning Board, which has been formed for Wold Chamberlain Field, is expected to commence deliberations concerning zoning around Wold Chamberlain Field in the next month or more. Mr. Finney stated that the MAC would prefer that the motel not be in the centerline of the runway path and there was considerable discussion concerning the proposed Metropolitan Significance Statement. The MAC would not likely issue such a statement and MAC has no power to stop development at this point. Mr. Harrison had strong concerns about the potential hazard of a building of 6 stories in height in the location which is within the airport 1 APC Minutes November 24, 1981 safety zone of runway 29, left of Wold Chamberlain Field. A Hold -Harmless IAgreement was suggested on behalf of the staff from the developer and owner. It was further noted that the City Council has scheduled December 3, 1981 as a meeting date of the sub -committee concerning subdivision ordinance and for possible review of height limitations for buildings. Mr. Partman stated that their proposal would constitute some hazard for people on the ground. He further stated that the ground level is at 880 to 900 feet and he expects air traffic elevations of about 1,500 feet in the location of the proposed development. The proposal is for about 2,000 people for the office buildings plus motel patrons. Mr. Case stated that the Metropolitan Council has not stated that it will do a Metropolitan Significance Review but expressed con- cerns about the development in the main runway location. He stated that Eagan's Comprehensive Plan has not been completely reviewed by the Metropoli- tan Council and further, it was noted that the proposal does not comply with MnDOT's standards under its airport zoning standard rules. The options that could be followed are to grant or deny the applications, to study the proposal for an additional period of time including height limitation revisions and/or to allow the joint zoning board to review zoning in the general area of Wold Chamberlain Field. After considerable discussion, Harrison moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend denial of each of the applications for reasons including those stated above, because of the potential air traffic hazard for a 6 story bulding in the flight path within Zone H; that the application for the height limitations does not comply with the Eagan Ordinances; that there is inadequate planning and that a proposal for some partial underground construction should be considered; that the City has at the present time, not provided for exceptions from the height limitations for commercial buildings; that the proposed height limitations and the density proposed do not comply with MnDOT's airport zoning standards and it appears to be premature to be considering a proposal in excess of the height limitation standards currently allowed under the Eagan Ordinance. Member Krob suggested more study of the proposal. Those in favor were Harrison, Willkins, Bohne, Turnham and Vogt, those against were Gits and Krob. BURNET REALTY - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIGN The public hearing regarding the application of Burnet Realty and Leonard MacKinnon for conditional use permit for pylon sign at the Burnet Realty office at 4655 Nicols Road was next convened. There was no appearance by the applicant. Harrison moved, Gits seconded the motion to continue the applica- tion to the next regular meeting. All voted yes. DAVID FURLONG - AMUSEMENT DEVICE PERMIT The hearing regarding the application of David Furlong for conditional use permit for more than three amusement devices in a neighborhood business district at 4215 Nicols Road was next opened by Chairman Harrison. Mr. Furlong was present and indicated that he is proposing amusement devices and the sale of wearing apparel at 4215 Nicols Road, south of Diffley Road. He explained the hours including 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, and 11:00 J a.m. to 10:00 p.m, on Friday and Saturday, and 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m, on 1 Sunday, Planning Commission member Krob explained his reasons for opposition to the proposal including the following: 2 I 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REzcNiNG, PRELIIsIT]ARY PLAT AND VARIANCE - RAVINE PLAZA APPLICANT: AMCCN CORPORATION - PATRICK GANNON LOCATION: PART OF THE NEE' OF THE NF'r, OF SECTION 4 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY APPLICATIM SUBDnTI'ED SEPTE1MBER 22, 1981 SEPTSviBER 16, 1981 DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PD (Planned Development District) to include two office buildings and a hotel restaurant facility located in the NE; of the NEQ of Section 4. The second application submitted is a request for a preliminary plat, Ravine Plaza, which will consists of approximately 19 acres and contain 3 lots. The third application submitted is a request for a variance in order to exceed the height limitation for a commercial building. ZONINC AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural District). The Comprehensive land Use Guide designates the parcel as RB (Roadside Business District) which allows hotels, restaurants and any other use that is allowed in any other ccsr mercial district. Therefore, the proposed development plan is consistent with Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan. AoLir"�Iu ak For the past several months, staff has been working with the applicant in or- der to try to work out some problems related to this site prior to the appli- cant submitting the formal application to the City. As you may be aware, the parcel is located in the SPI quadrant of Interstate 494 and Pilot Knob Road. Along with this unique location adjacent to an interstate highway, the subject parcel is also within the B safety zone of Runway 29 left Wold -Chamberlain Airport. Being in the B safety zone, there are many problems associated with this site than any other parcel in the City. The B safety zone is an approach for a runway. The airport zoning standards have been established by MnDOT to regulate the airspace, land use safety and noise sensitivity in regard to air traffic for airports. Mr. Paul Hauge has been involved with meetings with the developer and different agencies and has prepared a letter explaining some of the concerns which shall address the major issues in regard to development in 0 CITY Or EAGAN RAVINE PLAZA SEPMSER 22, 1981 PAGE TM safety zones surrounding major airports Hauge. Enclosed is this letter from Mr. Paul In meetings that the City staff has had with the developer, there are three dif- ferent governmental agencies which have also been involved in the planning pro- cess. These agencies are MAC (Metropolitan Airport's Commission), MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) and the Metropolitan Council. In explaining each of the roles of the different agencies, MAC controls the air- port operation in regard to air traffic. They also control Wold-Chanherlain Air- port site. MAC also is involved in providing safety for air traffic within this metropolitan area. MnDOT, as stated in Paul Hauge's letter, had been granted the authority to draft legislation in regard to airport zoning in the State of Minn- esota. The Metropolitan Council has established a MC/MAC Committee, which is a joint committee between the Metropolitan Airport and the Metropolitan Council. This cmmni.ttee, for the past two years, has been studying problems in regard to airport noise and how to control airport noise to keep airports within the met- ropolitan area viable and to provide good air transportation to the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council also has the authority to issue a Metropolitan Significance Statemant which would allow the Metropolitan Council to study the subject parcel up to one year prior to allowing any development to caimence. Therefore, if the Metropolitan Council is assured by MAC or MnDOT that the devel- opment proposal will not be detrimental to Wold -Chamberlain Airport, no Metro- politan Significance Statement will be issued. Staff has been working closely with MAC in the development of this subject par- cel. It is staff's understanding, since there are no ordinances adopted at this time, and the joint zoning board has not yet been established, MAC is not able to en- force the airport zoning which has been adopted. In reviewing the site plan, it appears that the major problem that MAC had with the development proposal was the location of the motel. Staff has looked at al- ternate layouts with 14AC in order to develop the property the best and safest way in regard to airport traffic. It had been determined that shifting the motel to other locations did not provide any safer locations than what is proposed on this plan. It is also worthy to note that developments in Bloomington have motels closer to the airport than what is being proposed in Eagan. Therefore, MAC did not see any major problem with the motel in this location. The proposed location of this site is approximately 10,000' from the end of the runway, and MAC did not have as much of a problem with the location of this site vs. if the site would be much closer to the end of the runway. In regard to site density and height of the proposed facility, MAC also did not have problems in regard to the development of this site for the proposed use. It is the staff's understanding that MAC will not object to the proposed development of this site. In reviewing the application, staff has suggested to the applicant to rezone the property to Planned Development instead of a strict zoning classification. The Planned Development would enable the developer to develop the site plan, and it will also allow the City to impose additional restrictions and conditions over - ao- CITY OF EAGM RAVINE PLAZA SEPTE,1BER 22, 1981 PAGE THREE and above the strict zoning classification. Some of these conditions would re- late to noise sensitivity or insulation within the building to provide noise abatement and also to control the materials in construction of the facility so it will not be a hazard for aircraft landinTSor takeoffs. The other item staff is looking at to incorporate into the Planned Development. agreement is a "hold harmless" clause which would not make the City liable in the future if any catastrophe would happen on the subject parcel. The Planned Development would also allow only this development to develop as proposed on this site plan. If the developer were to change the plan to different uses, it would require additional review by the City. SITE PLAN REVIEW The total site consists of 19.1 acres and will contain 3 lots. The applicant is proposing to construct two office buildings and a motel restaurant complex. At the present time, the applicant has submitted preliminary drawings, or con- cept plan,of the development proposal. Prior to preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall submit detailed drawings for grading, drainage, utilities and erosion control to fulfill the ordinance requirements. Lot A - Lot A contains 5.3 acres. The -proposed office building and parking rarrp contain 39,200 square feet for a lot coverage of 16.9%. The office build- ing which is being proposed will contain 6 stories for a total of 91,200 square feet. The parking requirements for this complex are 608 parking spaces. Lot B - Lot B contains 8.3 acres. The proposed office building and parking ramp contain 43,800 square feet for a total lot coverage of 12%. Again, the proposed office building which is being'proposed contains 6 stories for a total of 118,800 square feet. The parking for the office complex would require 792 parking spaces. Lot C - Int C contains 5.5 acres. The developer is proposing a 20,000 square foot motel and a 5,000 square foot restaurant. The lot coverage for Lot C is 10.4%. The proposed motel is a 3 -story complex for a total of 60,000 square feet. The parking requirements for the motel would be 225 parking spaces. The parking for the restaurant is based on 1 parking space per every 3 seats based on capa- city of the restaurant. The capacity has not yet been determined at this time. It appears that the concept plans meet lot requirements for camercial areas. Detailed plans for parking will have to be submitted if the concept is allowed at this location. Once the concept is allowed, the developer can proceed with the detailed plans for each phase. Another item which will have to be discussed is height limitations in ccr r- cial or industrial zones. Presently, the height limitation in a eQmercial district is 35'. -rhe height limitation in an industrial district is 40'. As you can see, the proposed office complex is a 6 -story facility which will ex- ceed the 35' height limitation. This is the first request the City of Eagan 07/ — rI L CITY OF EP.(',AN RAVINE PLAZA SEPTET h -R 22, 1981 PAGE FOUR has had in regard to any building exceeding the height requirements. Therefore, if this proposed facility is approved, a revision to the zoning ordinance, or variance,would have to be approved to allow this structure. If approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans shall be approved prior to the approval of the preliminary plat. 2. An adequate landscape bond shall be required for each phase of the devel- opment and not released until one year after the landscaping has been cmpleted. 3. The preliminary plat shall be subject to MnDc7P and Dakota County Plat Caimission's revie=w and comTents because the plat abuts State and County rights-of-way. 4. A "hold harmless" clause shall be added to the Planned Development Agree- imnt so the City is not held liable in the future if any catastrophe hap- pens to the site because of air traffic. 5. An EAW shall be prepared for the overall project and approved by all agencies. 6. Each phase of the development shall be reviewed by the City prior to the construction of each phase. 7. Cross easements for parking shall be required prior to the final plat. 8. A variance from the height limitation, or an ordinance revision for height limitation in amu ercial and industrial areas, shall be approved prior to the construction of the first phase. 9. All necessary permits and easements shall be obtained as requested by the City staff. 10. Noise abatement measures shall be required in each of the buildings. These noise abatement levels shall be agreed to by both the developer and City staff. 11. All other ordinance requirements shall be enforced. - aa- CITY OF EAGAN LONE OAK HEIGHTS ADDITION SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE FIVE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 12. Storm water surface drainage shall be handled by an internal storm sewer system and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. Erosion protection must be provided during construction and provided for future heavy storms in the gully and for adjacent property west of this development. 13.Traffic volume estimates shall be provided and adequate access designed in- to the street and driveway system. 14.Sanitary sewer connections to MWCC Interceptor line must be approved by MWCC. 15.Water.system looping through the development shall be provided with ade- quate capacity for fire and sprinkler system protection. RWR:1i -C�3- TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: ROBERT W. ROSENE, CONSULTING CITY ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 RE: PRELIMINARY LAYOUT - OFFICE AND MOTEL COMPLEX AT I-494 AND CO.RD. 31 (Amcon) The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer for consideration of the above referenced preliminary layout. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service can be provided from the existing trunk sanitary sewer along the north and part of the west boundary of this development. This trunk sewer is now owned by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and permission to con- nect to the line must be obtained from them. This line has sufficient capacity and is at proper elevation to serve this proposed development. Lateral sanitary sewer lines will be required within the development. Consideration should be given to the extension of these laterals to serve the property to the south. Water service will be provided from the existing 12" trunk water main on Pilot Knob Road at Eagan Industrial Road. It is anticipated that an oversized lateral line will be required to be looped through this property and the property zoned commer- cial south of this property in order to provide the proper fire and/or sprinkler system protection in this area. Additional information will be necessary from the developer before the size of lines can be determined. All costs of oversizing the lateral water lines should be borne by the development. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A preliminary grading plan indicates that most of the drainage from this area will be directed toward the existing gully extending through the central portion of the property from east to west. This is a major natural drainageway. The large areas of surfaced parking lot and building within the proposed development will require the installation of an extensive storm sewer system for this surface drainage. The storm sewer will need to be extended at least to T.H. 13 and possibly be connected to the trunk storm sewer being installed in I-494. It appears that this storm sewer system will serve only the proposed development. Therefore, it is expected that all costs associated with the storm sewer will be borne by the development. STREETS The preliminary layout indicates only one access point to this development near the southeast corner. This access point is proposed to be provided by Mn/DOT as a part of their reconstruction work on County Road 31 at the interchange with I-494. Mn/DOT proposes to provide an intersection at Eagan Industrial Road for a standard 34' wide residential street which is then narrowed down to a 20' wide rural cross section access driveway to this property. This access is across the property south of the proposed development. Traffic flow information from this development must be provided so that the size and capacity of access road can be evaluated. It may be necessary to provide an access road wider than the proposed 34' wide minimum street at Eagan Industrial Road. It is anticipated that traffic signals would be installed at Eagan Industrial Road when traffic warrants are met. I will be available to discuss in further detail any portion of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 22, 1981. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. A C.�i-c�-eM� w 4 Robert W. Rosene Consulting City Engineer ..�.[ _ RWR:li 7 6274a 0 0 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER RICHARD J. KRAMBEER Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 PAUL H. 11AUGE & ASSOCIATES. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 37122 July 15, 1981 Re: Airport Zoning Restrictions - I-494 Dear Tom: ARKA COOK 812 TELEPHONE 474.4224 Several staff members met with a representative from the MAC, from MN/Dot and from the Metropolitan Council on July 1st and discussed existing regulations and pro- posed regulations regarding a proposed development along I-494 at the Southwest interesection of I-494 and Pilot Knob Road. Dale Runkle suggested a comprehen- sive review by the agencies that have some interest and may have some regulatory powers over the development within the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport corridor. Probably the most glaring issue is that there are few formal regulations that have been adopted at the present time to control development in that location. M.S.A. 360.061 is the Airport's Zoning Board statute which provides for the es- tablishment of an airport zoning board covering zoning regulations adjacent to each airport in the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Airport Zoning Board has been established, but has not met apparently because of problems that have developed adjacent to several other airports in the metropolitan area where the zoning issues have not been resolved. Councilmember Tom Egan and Dale Runkle have been appointed by the Eagan City Council to the MAC Joint Zoning Board, but no meeting has been held as.yet. It is anticipated that this board may get started during the current calendar year. I Regulations have been adopted by the Division of Aeronautics of the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation 14, MCAR #1.3010, pursuant to MSA 360.061 regarding develop- ment particularly within the corridors of the flight patterns from airports, but these regulations do not have binding effect upon the decisions of municipalities as to the rezoning of land for development purposes. In addition, an airport zoning model ordiance has been adopted through the State Hearing Examiner's Office and it too has no binding effect until adopted by one of several bodies: 1) a local municipality, 2) the Joint Zoning Board, 3) MN/Dot. Some of the questions that are raised concerning the proposed development include the following: 9 0 Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 2 July 15, 1981 1) Should the City of Eagan adopt the model zoning ordinance for Minnesota airports prepared by the Division of Aeronautics of MN/Dot? That ordinance is fairly detailed and includes zones covering distances from the airport along run- ways with the parcel in question under proposed Zone B. The City Council must decide whether it would want to proceed to adopt an airport zoning ordinance and thus preempt a Joint Zoning Board from adopting an ordinance that may be somewhat more restrictive than the City's ordinance. 2) If the Zone B category is implemented and the restrictions proposed both under the MN/Dot regulations 14 MCAR and the proposed model zoning ordinance, the restrictions would be as follows: a) The 19 acre parcel would include a ratio of 6 to 1 - land to building, with 15 persons per acre and in addition, hotels and motels would be speci- fically prohibited in Zone B. In addition, there are certain height re- strictions, but it is our understanding that the proposed buildings would not conflict with either federal regulations or, the 200 foot maximum height of the two office buildings in the proposal would not conflict with the pro- posed regulations for the model ordinance. The top of the building would be about 900 feet above sea level with the end of the runway at 813. 3) Should the City Planning Commission and Council amend its zoning ordinance to permit height limitations above those already permitted under Ordiance 52, which now provides for a maximum 35 foot elevation for commercial and 40 foot for indus- trial buildings. Involved in this consideration is the possibility of restricting height limitations within the runway patterns. 4) Noise factors should also be considered and from the information we have received, the proposed use is compatible with noise limitations, but this should be researched to a greater extent. 5) Variances - The model ordinanceprovides for variances which may be handled by a Board of Adjustments set up under the ordinance by the City or by the Joint Zoning Board, whichever is applicable. 6) Adverse Condemnation - Another issue that should be taken into account is the possibility of either acquiring easements from property owners for air rights or becoming involved in adverse condemnation by restricting the use of specific pzr- cels. This becomes an issue where the City may authorize property to be rezoned, although the parcel in question is currently zoned Agricultural and, therefore, the City still has a certain deqree of. control. However, the parcel to the South is zoned for commercial purposes and,if restrictions are placed upon the use that are more highly restrictive than the currently zoned categories, the City may subject itself to a claim for damages on the basis of adverse condemnation. Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 3 July 15, 1981 A recent Supreme Court case, McShane v. City of Faribault,292 NW 2d 253 , Minn. 1980, was an action by a property owner adjacent to the Faribault airport claiming diminution in value because the airport zoning board set up zones identical tp those under 14 MCAR 1.3010 which greatly restricted the use of the land. The Court required adverse condemnation by the City and zoning board to determine the loss in value. 7) It was suggested that one condition that could be placed upon the approval of rezoning might be for the City to require that interested agencies, including the MAC, MN/Dot Division of Aeronautics, the Metropolitan Council, and PCA review the application and make comments that each feels is applicable. The EQB would have authority only if it fits the guidelines for EIS or EAW requirements and that can be determined by a review of the guidelines by the City Planner after the application has been submitted. 8) Planned Unit Development - Perhaps the most desirable method of approach- ing the issue is to require that the zoning be considered only upon the submission of an application for Planned Unit Development approval to provide for conditions to be placed in an agreement covering the use of the property. Restrictions could in- clude phasing, noise levels and barriers, density, etc. 9) Applicable Statutes and Regulations - MSA 360.061 et seq. This section provides that each municipality with an airport hazard area within its territorial limits may adopt airport zoning regulations and may divide the area into .zones, specify the land use as permitted,and regulate and restrict the height of structures. However, where a Joint Airport Zoning Board is established, it may adopt zoning regulations if the municipality is within the area where an airport hazard exists. Eagan appears to fit within this specific provision, although the Council has de- cided to join the Joint Airport Zoning Board which, of course, has not become operational. (See MSA 360.063, subdivision 3(2)). a) Under MSA 360.067, there is a provision for variance from the Board of Adjustment which must be provided under all airport zoning regulations and they should be allowed where strict enforcement of regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and would not be contrary to the public interest, but may be subject to conditions. The Board of Adjust- ment is provided for under MSA 360.071. 10) 14 MCAR 1.3010 et seq. - Airport Zoning standards. The Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division has adopted airport zoning standard regulations which follow generally the proposed model ordinance, but it appears that municipal zoning may override these regulations. MN/Dot has been given certain regulatory authority, but there is some question as to enforceability of these regulations. a7- Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 4 July 15, 1981 12) MSA 473.215 - Metropolitan Council Airport Zoning. This statute appears to cover only the selection by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission of a site for a new major commercial airport and it was originally adopted in 1969. This letter is not an indepth review of the subject and after further consultation with the applicant and other reviewing bodies, specific issues can be checked further. ery truly yours, alau1%H. -Hauge PHH:kl - 49' 0 MEMO TO: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN OSBERG DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1981 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCES 0 Information on the zoning ordinances of Edina, Bloomington and Burnsville has been collected. The height restrictions, parking ratios and setback requirements for office buildings in each of the communities is as follows: Edina The City of Edina has divided the office building district into subdistrict 1 and subdistrict 2. For those office buildings in subdistrict 1, the maxi- mum height is four stories. There is no height restriction for those office buildings in subdistrict 2. The parking ratio. for all office buildings in Edina is one (1) space for each 200 square feet of floor space. The minimum office building front setback in subdistrict 1 is 35 feet or the average height of the building, whichever is greater. In subdistrict 2, any office building 5 or 6 stories in height shall be no closer to any R- 1 District properties than two times the average height of the building. For a 7 or 8 story office building, the setback cannot be less than three times the building height. Any office building 9 or more stories in height must not have a front setback of less than four times the height of the building. In subdistricts 11 and 2, the minimum building front and rear setback cannot be less than 20 feet (25 feet if abutting a public street). Bloomington For all office buildings in Bloomington, there are no height restrictions. However, there are some restrictions on building heights related to the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport. The parking ratio for all office buildings in Bloomington is one (1) space for each 200 square feet of floor space. For the larger offices in Bloomington, the front setback is 60 feet, the side setback is 60 feet and 25 feet for the rear setback. For the smaller ofices, the front setback is 35 feet, the side setback is 10 feet and 25 feet for the rear setback. Burnsville No office building in the City of Burnsville may exceed 25 feet. For office buildings and professional buildings having less than 6,000 square feet of floor area, there must be a parking space for each 150 square feet of floor area. For office buildings and professional buildings having 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, e.g., banks and savings institutions, there must be 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Office buildings and professional buildings in Burnsville must have a front setback of 30 feet and a rear setback of 20 feet or I!-- times the height of the building, whichever is more. For a side yard adjacent to a non- residential lot, the setback must be 10 feet. The side setback must be 20 feet if it is adjacent to a residential lot or a street. _ay, --.:___:: � � __ -I X�•1d4YOO 3O1-IdO 1.VOV3 it sit n bJM1e4' rG4)37 I � �- jI1M''J•fr:c'r /• 1 �f d Y. I ' '• Y. TA ok I'fri e`� i 1]i :• :, .'fi ', v:'l, <t::' .,� L.Y. `°i�I 'f IrLall 1'1 \ ''`'• '. � / e i \ `.) toll-_ EEE ^� ''I' � 'M� �( •`��' _1'• i �i'��{/ i��,i' �'. 'Y ' g ,011 Y .IX Fu'f i = t\ Ili ,A1 r.(;. /, ,1 • ,,, �.`,4+;,.,, y},,.,5:�, I-. •�� /' / .I I 1 \ � ._ yr I • � _ J_ 161 - X3ldW00 301:1d0 NVOV3 le, WWRIA Mama � - ' ori �-�--�_i i-1, Tf •tl\' ,' '' I � - -- _ � _ = .. _. �.�_•__ •�� It t ...... {i�,�. \1 1, �•� _ '' � 'Y,; y ! jy I"•III, i '. TZE 2A If LN .i.'... LJr:J:� -✓' .:J..Ii I(:,i•:I:a,,,rdNSJlav 1: ' L I rr _ I In \_.. - GOLF 3 Ind' ... ��',,, � �• R•I -Ind:. R• L Ind -",ti PER21 RIG _ m - /� • ( . •-•R-II RII .. Ind. .: ., ... - ....-.. RG ..r...-.. ,x. _ In R&D R.IV --.. R•III R' O -- -. Y .. Ind. PNB .. CSC L6 — RGI LB R-il R -II RIG y- s QR -II `— a R� GOLF R.I. - __ P R -JI • LB •III R -III "ii,- .,.R -I• R- R -1 R -IV -- CSEI IL MENDOF 1 N MM 808 - 2 y++ TENrA71VE. 5 T H AA Gg .. *LOST SPUR'V40.4 T T "T COUNTRY 1 "•'AGAr:,FD 4 1 CLUB _:� RB �W P F L B---r,--_-r �-- NO 3 q I i D t /� EY HIGH VIEW R � ARtS CA TRY PARK/ PLA A L i N Q I R_1 non+ .: R-1 I TKEFFLE ACRES I T ZEHNDER -1 RA . R-1 AGE ! R;4 q PD =� R-4 1 R-3 A q�3' PF' PFS lMa' L __� R-4 J R_4 ti - zg ; R-3 RD R-4 0 0 Agenda Items -. February 28, 1982 Page Seven 1982 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions -- The City Council met in a special meeting that was held on February 25, 1982 to consider budgetary adjustments to offset state aid reductions that were recommended by the City Administrator. The state aid reductions for 1982 are estimated at 52,130. The amount of the reduction recommended for the general fund is $52,300 as proposed by the City Administrator. The reductions, in many cases, as proposed by the City Administrator were recommended by the respective department heads. Enclosed on page g is a copy of the recommended budgetary adjustments. A copy o t es e budgetary adjustments appears on the front cover of the 1982 Budget document which is also enclosed as a part of your packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the 1982 budgetary adjustments as reviewed and tentatively approved at a special City Council meeting on February 25, 1982. - 3 �I- MEMO TO: 1982 CITY OF EAGAN BUDGET USERS PACE CHANGE NUMBER DESCRI ON fu FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES 25 Personal Services 140,700 139,700 25 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 8,250 7,910 DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 25 Other Charges & Services 92,310 89,810 25 Total 241,760 237,920 SUBJECT: 1982 OPERATING BUDGET REDUCTIONS 25 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 4,000 3,000 In official City Council action at a special meeting held February 25 25 Subtotal 140,700 139,700 25, 1982, the following adjustments were made to the 1982 general 25 Printed Material Subtotal 2,400 8,250 2,060 7,910 fund budget. These adjustments amount to a $52,300 reductionto 25 Electronic Data Processing 22,000 21,000 1982 operations. The reductions were adopted based on the recoto 25 Other Contractual Services 9,800 8,300 mendation of the City Administrator after department head review 25 Subtotal 92,310 89,810 of individual deparmental budgets and necessitated by a reduction 25 Tot 241,760 237,920 in intergovernmental revenue from the State of Minnesota. 29 Other Charges 8 Services 17,740 16,340 Please note the following changes in your copy of the budget: 29 29 Total Professional Services -Planning 70,690 13,000 69,290 11,600 29 Subtotal 17,740 16,340 PACE CHANCE 29 Total 70,690 69,290 NUMBER DESCRIPTION -rKum 31 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,750 1,650 31 Other Charges & Services 12,690 12,110 30 Intergovernmental Revenue 829,460 777,160 31 31 Total Building Repair Supplies 33,680 800 33,000 700 SO Total General Fund 3,287,130 3,234,830 31 Subtotal 1,750 1,650 12 Local Government Aid 356,380 317,070 31 Electricity 4,500 4,200 12 Homestead Credit 380,520 372,530 31 Buildings Repair 2,000 1,800 12 Shade Tree Disease Program 8 5,000 _O_ 31 Miscellaneous 300 220 12 13 Total General Fund 829,460 3,287,130 777,160 3,234,830 31 31 Subtotal 12,690 12,110 14 Administration 107,290 105,690 Total 33,680 33,000 14 Finance/Clerk/Elections 241,760 237,920 134 Personal Services 983,040 976,510 14 Planning & Zoning 70,690 69,290 134 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 72,230 70,960 14 General Governmental Buildings 33,680 33,000X34 Other Charges & Services 89,630 84,060 14 541,570 534,050 34 Capital Outlay 53,340 47,340 14 Police 1,198,240 1,178,870 34 Total 1,198,240 1,178,870 14 Fire 212,960 208,700 34 Salaries & Wages -Regular 772,480 776,150 14 Protective Inspections 155,090 152,990 34 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 42,180 40,980 14 Animal Control 23,380 22,880 34 Subtotal 983,040 976,510 14 1,654,640 1,628,410 34 Operating Supplies -General 7,050 5,780 14 Public Works/Engineering 203,830 193,480 34 Subtotal ' 72,230 70,960 14 Streets & Highways 423,610 421,410 34 Teleprocessing Equipment 3,570 0 14 627,440 614,890 34 Other Equipment Repair 6,520 5,720 14 Parks & Recreation 385,300 381,300 35 Miscellaneous 2,600 2,000 14 Tree Conservation 44,680 42,680 35 Conferences & Schools 7,190 6,590 14 429,980 423,980 35 Subtotal 89,630 84,060 14 Total General Fund Expenditures 3,287,130 3,234,830 35 Office Furnishings & Equipment 2,000 1,000 15 02 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,000 800 35 Other Equipment 5,000 0 15 02 -Ocher Charges & Services 22,510 21,110 35 Subtotal 53,340 47,340 15 02 -Total 107,290 105,690 35 Total 1,198,240 1,178,870 15 05 -Personal Services 140,700 139,700 37 Other Charges & Services 40,500 36,240 15 05 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 8,250 7,910 37 Total 212,960 208,700 15 05 -Other Charges & Services 92,310 89,810 37 General Printing & Binding 600 540 15 05 -Total 241,760 237,920 37 Waste Removal 4,000 0 16 08 -Other Charges & Services 17,740 16,340 37 Machinery & Equipment Rental 200 0 16 08 -Total 70,690 69,290 37 Subtotal 40,500 36,240 16 09 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,750 1,650 37 Total 212,960 208,700 16 09-CapitaL Outlay 12,690 12,110 39 Other Charges & Services 43,050 40,950 16 09 -Total 33,680 33,000 39 Total 155,090 152,990 16 Total General Government 541,570 534,050 39 Electrical Inspections 26,000 24,000 16 11 -Personal Services 983,040 976,510 39 39 Reference Materials Subtotal 300 43,050 200 40,950 16 11 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 72,230 70,960 39 Total 155,090 152,990 16 11 -Other Charges & Services 89,630 84,060 41 Capital Outlay 1,800 1,300 16 I1 -Capital Outlay 53,340 47,340 41 Total 23,380 22,880 16 16 11 -Total 12 -Other Charges & Services 1,198,240 40,500 1,178,870 36,240 41 Mobile Equipment 1,800 1,300 16 12 -Total 212,960 208,700 41 41 Subtotal Subtotal 1,800 23,380 1,300 22,880 17 13 -Other Charges & Services 43,050 40,950 48 Personal Services 176,380 166,030 17 13 -Total 155,090 152,990 48 Total 203,830 193,480 17 17 14 -Capital Outlay 14 -Total 1,800 23,380 1,300 22,880 48 Salaries & Wages -Regular 147,340 138,670 17 Total Public Safety 1,654,640 1,628,410 48 48 Accrued Retirement Benefits Accrued Insurance Benefits 1,570 111,470 16,530 10,830 17 21 -Personal Services 176,380 166,030 48 Subtotal 176,380 166,030 17 21 -Total 203,830 193,480 48 Total 203,830 193,480 18 18 22 -Personal Services 22 -Other Charges & Services 204,160 125,030 203,160 123,830 50 Personal Services 204,160 203,160 18 22 -Total 423,610 421,410 50 Other Charges & Services 125,030 123,830 18 Total Public Works 627,440 614,890 50 50 Total Salaries & Wages -Temporary 423,610 2,600 421,410 1,600 18 31 -Personal Services 272,350 268,350 50 Subtotal 204,160 203,160 18 18 31 -Total 32 -Capital Outlay 385,300 10,650 381,300 8,650 51 Other Equipment Repair 7,500 6,500 18 32 -Total 44,680 42,680 51 Other Contractual Services 1,000 800 18 Total Parks & Recreation 429,980 423,980 51 51 Subtotal Total 125,030 423,610 123,830 421,410 18 Total General Fund 3,287,130 3,234,830 53 Personal Services 272,350 268,350 22 Su lies, Repair & Maintenance 1,000 21,110 800 53 Total 385,300 381,300 22 22 Other Charges & Services Total 22,510 107,290 105,690 53 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 49,090 45,090 22 Office Supplies 600 400 53 Subtotal 272,350 268,350 22 Subtotal 1,000 800, 54 Total 385,300 381,300 22 Postage 2,800 2,300 56 Capital Outlay 10,650 8,650 22 General Printing & Binding 3,500 2,600 56 56 Total Other Improvements 44,680 10,000 42,680 8,000 22 22 Subtotal Total 22,510 107,290 21,110 105,690 56 Subtotal 10,650 8,650 56 Total 44,680 42,680 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Eight JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/CABLE TELEVISION A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ City of Burnsville -- At a joint cable television advisory committee meeting sponsored by the City of Eagan and held in the Eagan City Council Chambers on Thursday, February 11, the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan tentatively agreed to proceed with the drafting and adoption of a joint powers agreement and resolution so both cities can proceed together in the development of an RFP and further action leading up to the development of a cable television system. The City Manager of Burnsville and City Administrator of Eagan met with the City of Eagan's cable counsel, Tom Creighton, on Monday, February 22, 1982, to review a draft Burnsville/Eagan Joint Coopera- tive Agreement. There were a number of changes recommended by both administrators which have been incorporated into a final draft agreement. As you will note on the copy of the final draft agree- ment, there are some additional penciled changes which are the result of the City Attorney's comments, critiquing the final draft. The City of Burnsville will be considering the joint powers agree- ment at their regular City Council meeting on March 1, 1982. The City Administrator will report nn their action on Tuesday. Enclosed on pages %3 7 through 53 is a copy of a letter from Mr. Tom Creighton, a copy of the ,joint powers agreement and a draft reso- lution. The resolution can be approved subject to final appointment of the cable television advisory commission representatives from the City of Eagan at the March 16, 1982 meeting. This will allow the City Council to hold what may be the last Cable Television Advisory Committee meeting on March 11, 1982 and discuss their appointments at that time or as a City Council at the March 16 meeting. The City of Burnsville may or may not make their commis- sion appointments at the meeting March 1, 1982. If any member of the City Council has comments regarding the agreement that may substantially change any of the language, please contact this office on Monday so the concerns can be shared with the Burnsville City Manager prior to their regular City Council meeting. Mr. Tom Creighton, cable counsel, will be present at the meeting on Tuesday to explain in further detail the joint powers agreement and answer any questions the City Council may have. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the joint powers agreement as prepared by Tom Creighton, cable legal consultant for the City of Eagan. -.39' JAY L. BENNETT WILLIAM M. OUNKLEY THOMAS 0. CREIBHTON /Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Mr. Jim Spore City Manager City of Burnsville 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 February 24, 1982 Re: Proposed Joint Powers Agreement and Resolution Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Draft No. 2 of the proposed Joint and Cooperative Agreement for establishing a cable communica- tions commission for Burnsville and Eagan. Also enclosed is a sample Resolution which can be used by your cities in the adoption of the Joint Powers Agreement. Draft No. 2 has been substantially amended pursuant to our meeting on Monday morning, February 22, 1982, at which time we discussed in detail Draft No. 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement. I trust the Draft No. 2 fairly reflects your input from both of your cities. If there are any additional corrections which need be made, please contact me as soon as possible. As per your request the name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission. The listing of the names in alphabetical order seems to be the most efficient naming procedure. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan are the only eligible members of the Commission. There is a provision for additional municipalities to be added to the Commission with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. However, if either the Burnsville or Eagan City Council votes within sixty (60) days to object to the admission of additional municipalities, the additional municipalities shall not be -3�_ : DUNKLEY AND BENNETT �f FL$ LAW OFFICES 1760 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST PILLSBURY CENTER 700 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEMOLIB. MINNESOTA SS402 TII.LPNGN[: (612) 339-1290 - JAY L. BENNETT WILLIAM M. OUNKLEY THOMAS 0. CREIBHTON /Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Mr. Jim Spore City Manager City of Burnsville 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 February 24, 1982 Re: Proposed Joint Powers Agreement and Resolution Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Draft No. 2 of the proposed Joint and Cooperative Agreement for establishing a cable communica- tions commission for Burnsville and Eagan. Also enclosed is a sample Resolution which can be used by your cities in the adoption of the Joint Powers Agreement. Draft No. 2 has been substantially amended pursuant to our meeting on Monday morning, February 22, 1982, at which time we discussed in detail Draft No. 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement. I trust the Draft No. 2 fairly reflects your input from both of your cities. If there are any additional corrections which need be made, please contact me as soon as possible. As per your request the name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission. The listing of the names in alphabetical order seems to be the most efficient naming procedure. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan are the only eligible members of the Commission. There is a provision for additional municipalities to be added to the Commission with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. However, if either the Burnsville or Eagan City Council votes within sixty (60) days to object to the admission of additional municipalities, the additional municipalities shall not be -3�_ Mr. Thomas L. Hedges Mr. Jim Spore February 24, 1982 Page 2 admitted. Each of the cities is entitled to four directors plus the chief administrative officer or his designee serving as an ex -officio, non-voting member of the Commission. Each city will have complete authority over their directors and may remove directors at any time in their discretion. Additionally, should any vacancy in the office of director exist, the city alone will have the authority to appoint a new director. The Joint Agreement also requires one alternate to be appointed who will attend all meetings of the Commission so that the alternates may fill in for any absent director with knowledge of the proceedings thus far in the Commission. Any official action of the Commission must be authorized by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present and voting, provided at least two directors from each member have voted in the affirmative. This section is added to en- sure that all of the directors from one city could not out vote the directors of another city on any particular item if all of the directors from the other city did not happen to be present. The financial contributions of both cities shall be equal. While the budget process is outlined in detail in the Agreement, it should be noted that the Commission may not enter into any contracts which would require the expenditure of funds in ex- cess of those authorized by the member cities. There is provision for the appointment of officers. There would be a chair, a vice -chair and a secretary -treasurer. The by-laws may provide for the rotation of the chair between the directors from Burnsville and Eagan annually. The vice -chair shall not represent the same municipality as the chair. The Commission will continue until the number of members shall become less than two or until the cable communications franchise is granted by both cities. Upon dissolution, the assets of the Commission will be divided equally between Burns- ville and Eagan. Should the cities decide that they do not want to administer the franchise themselves but would like it jointly administered by a commission, it would be necessary to establish a new Joint Powers Commission since this Commission will dissolve at the award of the franchise. —3cf— DUNKLEY AND BENNETT LAW OFFICES 0 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges Mr. Jim Spore February 24, 1982 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding this Agreement, please feel free to contact me at any time. TDC:cam Enclosures merely, Sincerely, D. 4Creight DUNKLEY AND BENNEW LAW OFFICES 0 0 BURNSVILLE/EAGAN JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION I. PARTIES The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended. II. GENERAL PURPOSE Communities in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area, including the parties to this agreement, are being requested to franchise the operation of cable television systems. It is of the utmost importance for communities to attempt to deal with the franchising process and with subsequent regulation of cable television in a manner best serving the public interest. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization which can coordinate for the parties to this agree- ment an approach to the franchising and regulatory process. By joint and cooperative action the parties can share in the ex- pense of such study, and can develop a uniform approach to the matter of franchising. III. NAME The name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission (BECC). .�o - 0 0 IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this Article shall have the meanings given them. Section 2. "Commission" means the Board of Directors created pursuant to this agreement. Section 3. "Council" means the governing body of a member. Section 4. "Grantee" means the person to whom a franchise has been granted by a member. Section 5. "Member" means a municipality which enters into this agreement. V. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota are eligible to be members of the Commission. Section 2. Any municipality desiring to become a member shall execute a copy of this agreement and conform to all re- quirements herein. Section 3. The initial members shall be those.members who become members on or before April 1, 1982. Section 4. Any other municipalities desiring to become members after April 1, 1982, may be admitted by an affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the voting members of the Com- mission. The Commission may by resolution impose conditions upon -2- 0 0 the admission of additional members. The admission of any municipality to the Commission shall not become effective for sixty (60) days following the three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. During said sixty (60) day period any municipality then a member to this agreement, may by a majority vote of its council, object to the admission of the additional municipality, in which case, the additional municipality shall not be admitted. VI. DIRECTORS; VOTING Section 1. Each member shall be entitled to four directors to represent it on the Commission. Each director shall have one vote. Section 2. The Council of each member shall appoint by resolution its four directors, at least one of whom shall be a member of the Council, and the other three shall be residents of the member. A director shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Commission. The chief administrative officer of each member or his designee shall be an ex -officio, non-voting member of the Commission. Section 3. The Council of each member shall appoint one alternate to the Commission who will be responsible to attend Commission meetings and shall represent the member in the absence of a director. The Gemmisfats mh-- � ravi i lona s—aa e -3- 0 0 Section 4. A vacancy in the office of director will exist for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statute Section 351.02, or upon a revocation of a director's appointment by the Council of a member duly filed with the Commission. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term of director by the Council of the member whose position on the Commission is vacant. Section 5. There shall be no voting by proxy, but each vote must be cast by a director or its alternate at a Commission meeting. Section 6. A majority of the directors of the Commission made up of at least two directors from each member shall consti- tute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. The ex -officio members shall not be counted for the pur- pose of establishing a quorum. Any official action of the Com- mission must be authorized by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present and voting, provided at least two directors from each member have voted in the affirmative. Section 7. Directors shall not be eligible to vote on be- half of the directors' municipality during the time that it is in default on any financial contribution or payment to the Com- mission. 4Q_istence-o€-such-dafad�.��t��---�F ;nember_shallb -A ,t be.-eeur*ted-fns the_.purpose= Qt t.h"_aglree ". — 1,�. - -4- 7 0 0 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE; MF.ETINGS;.ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section 1. A municipality shall enter into this agreement by resolution of its Council and the duly authorized execution of a copy of this agreement by its proper officers. Thereupon, the clerk or other appropriate officer of the municipality shall file a duly executed copy of this agreement, together with a certified copy of the authorizing resolution, with the City clerks of both Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. The resolution authorizing the execution of this agreement shall also designate the first directors for the municipality on the Commission, along with the directors' addresses and phone numbers. Section 2. This agreement is effective on the date when executed agreements and authorizing resolutions of both of the municipalities named in Article V, Section 1 have been filed as provided in this Article. Section 3. Within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this agreement, the Mayors of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota shall call the first meeting of the Commission which shall be held no later than thirty (30) days after such call. Section 4. The first meeting of the Commission shall be its organizational meeting. At the organizational meeting, the Commission shall select from among the directors a chair, a vice -chair, and a secretary -treasurer. -5- 0 0 Section 5. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the Commission shall adopt by-laws governing its procedures including the time, place, notice for and frequency of its regular meetings, pro- cedure for calling speci-a} meetings, and such other matters as are x -e �tthi's agreement. The Commission may amend the by-laws from time to time. IX. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Section 1. The powers and duties of the Commission shall include the powers set forth in this Article. Section 2. The Commission may make such contracts and take such other action as it deems necessary and appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the organization. The Commission may not contract for the expenditure of funds in ex- cess of those funds authorized by the member municipalities. Section 3. The Commission shall undertake to identify matters of common concern to the members and shall recommend a course of action to be pursued by the members in the granting and enforcement of cable television franchises. In that con- nection it shall consider and make recommendations on whether the members should have uniform ordinances, whether they should undertake to grant a franchise to the same party and whether they should establish a continuing organization to administer and enforce any franchises which are granted by the members. 0 0 Section 4. The Commission may preoare and recommend suitable documents for use in the grantinq of franchises by the members. In the event that the members determine to pur- sue a common or a joint course of action in the granting of franchises the Commission may assist in the carrying out of such joint or common course of action. Section 5. The Commission may accept grants, apply for and use grants, enter into agreements required in connection therewith and hold, use and dispose of money or property received as a grant in accordance with the terms thereof. Section 6. The Commission shall make an annual financial accounting and report in writing to the members. Its books and records shall be available for and open to examination by the members at all reasonable times. The Commission shall establish its annual budget as provided in this agreement. Section 7. The Commission may delegate authority to its officers. Such delegation of authority shall be by resolution of the Commission and may be conditioned in such manner as the Commission may determine. Section 8. The Commission may exercise any other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of its responsi- bilities and duties as delegated by the members to this agree- ment. 0 0 Section 9. The Commission may conduct such reserach and investigation and take such action as it deems necessary, in- cluding participation and appearance in proceedings of State and Federal regulatory, legislative or administrative bodies, on any matter related to or affecting cable communication's levels of service, rates or franchises. X. OFFICERS Section 1. The officers of the Commission shall consist of a chair, a vice -chair and a secretary -treasurer, each of whom shall serve for a one year term, or until replaced by action of the Commission. The by -laws -may provide for the alternation annually of the chair between directors from Burns- ville and Eagan. Additionally, the vice -chair shall not repre- sent the same municipality as the chair. Section 2. A vacancy in the office of chair, vice -chair, or secretary -treasurer shall occur for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of a director shall occur. Vacancies in these offices shall be filled by the Commission for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 3. The chairshallpreside at all meetings of the Commission. The vice -chair shall act as chair in the absence of the chair. Section 4. The secretary -treasurer shall be responsible for keeping a record of all of the proceedings of the Commission, ME 0 0 for custody of all funds, for the keeping of all financial re- cords of the Commission and for such other matters as shall be delegated by the Commission. The Commission may require the secretary -treasurer to post a fidelity bond or other insurance against loss of Commission funds in an amount approved by the Commission, at the expense of the Commission. If required by the Commission, said fidelity bond or other insurance shall cover all persons authorized to handle funds of the Commission. Section 5. The Commission mayappoint such other officers a✓;�b e -n G.w .it -a aJ ,t , •Ey,,. Q y L o,-w-j*1 . as it deems necessary!` All such officers shall be appointed from the membership of the Commission. XI. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. The fiscal year of the Commission is the calendar year. Section 2. Commission funds may be expended by the Com- mission in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by Minnesota statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts must be signed by any two of the officers. Other legal instruments shall be executed with authority of the Commission, by the chair and secretary - treasurer. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in accordance with the procedures established by law for Minnesota Statutory Cities. 7C 0 0 Section 3. The financial contributions of the members in support of the Commission shall be equal. The initial expenses of the Commission for the remainder of 1982 shall be paid equally by each member. Member contributions for subse- quent budget years shall be established as hereinafter provided. Section 9. A proposed budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be formulated by the Commission and submitted to the members on or before August 1 of each year. Member councils shall have the right to review said budget and shall report to the Commission on or before September 1 of each year any changes in the budget said municipality would request. The Commission shall consider such requested changes on or before September 10 of each year and report a final proposed budget to each member on or before September 15 of each year. Said budget shall be deemed approved by a member unless, prior to October lst pre- ceding the effective date of the proposed budget, the member gives notice in writing to the Commission that it is withdrawing from the Commission. Final action adopting a budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be taken by the Commission on or before November 1 of each year. The total contribution from members provided for in the final budget shall be divided and assessed equally to each member. Member contributions shall be made one-half on or before February 1 of each year and one-half on or before August 1 of each year. Section 5. Upon dissolution of the Commission, any funds remaining shall be returned to the members in proportion to -10- 0 0 their financial contributions to the Commission. Section 6. Any member may inspect and copy the Commission books and records at any and all reasonable times. All books and records shall be kept in accordance with normal and accepted accounting procedures and principles used by Minnesota Statutory Cities. Any member shall have the right to audit the books and. records of the Commission. XII. DURATION Section 1. The Commission shall continue until the adoption of a cable communications franchise by all municipalities then members of the Commission or until the number of members shall be- come less than two. The Commission may also be terminated by mutual agreement of all of the members at any time. Section 2. A member may withdraw from the Commission at any time by filing a written notice with the secretary -treasurer. Membership shall continue until the effective date of the with- drawal. A notice of withdrawal may be rescinded at anv time by a member. Section 3. In the event of withdrawal of a member or dissolution of the Commission, the Commission shall determine the measures necessary to affect the dissolution and shall pro- vide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement. Upon with- drawal of a member or dissolution of the Commission all remaining -11- 0 0 assets of the Commission, after payment of obligations, shall be distributed among the then existing members in proportion to their financial contributions to the Commission and in accordance with procedures established by the Commission. The Commission shall continue to exist after dissolution for such period, no longer than six months, as is necessary to complete its affairs but for no other purpose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned municipality has caused this agreement to be signed on its behalf this day of , 1982. WITNESSED BY: By: Its By: Its Filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of this day of , 1982. —5-1- -12- 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended, authorizes municipalities to delegate to a joint Dowers cable commission their power to perform all tasks incident to the award of a cable communications franchise while retaining in the municipality the franchise ordinance granting authority; and WHEREAS, it is of the utmost importance for communities to attempt to deal with the franchising process and with sub- sequent regulation of cable television in a manner best serving the public interest; and WHEREAS, by joint and cooperative action with another city, the City of Eagan can share in the expense of the study of the franchising and regulatory process and can develop a uniform approach to the matter of franchising; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan deems it proper and in the public interest to enter into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for such purposes with the City of Burnsville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of. Eagan as follows: 1. That the City of Eagan participate in the Burnsville/ Eagan Cable Commission. 2. That the appropriate official execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement and file it with the City Clerks of the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. 3. That the City of Eagan appoint as its Directors to re- present it on the Joint Commission, a. who resides at phone b. who resides at phone C. who resides at phone d• who resides at phone -.sa - 0 9 4. That the City of Eagan appoint as an alternate Director, who resides at Adopted thisday of 1982, by the governing body of the City of Eagan. ATTEST: (SEAL) By: is By: --,5-3 _ -2- 9 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Nine 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS B. Developers Construction, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Hilltop Condominiums), Approximately 10 Acres & Containing 52 Dwelling Units -- An application was submitted by Developers Construction Inc. for preliminary plat approval of Hilltop Condominums which consists of approximately 10.32 acres and contains 52 dwelling units. The APC raised several questions at the first public hearing and, as a result, continued any action until the February 25, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Action was taken at that meeting to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the conditions outlined in the planning report. The Advisory Planning Commission is recommending. approval of the two parking spaces per dwelling unit. For additional information on this item, refer to the Plan- ning Assistant's report found on pages 5',r through an update of that report by the Planning Assistant is fou n on papages 3 through (6,�. A copy of the minutes of the APC meeting wi e include3 in [Fie Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat for Hilltop Condominiums. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIlMSIARY PIAT - HILLTOP CONDMUNIUMS APPLICANT: DEVELOPERS INC LOCATION: SW; OF THE SNP, OF SECTION 22 EXISTING ZONING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING R-3 (RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE) JANUARY 26, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 18, 1982 REPORTED BY: DAVE OSBEr,, PLANNING ASSISTANT APPLICATIM SUBMITTED: The first application submitted is for preliminary plat approval of Hilltop Condominiums which consists of approximately 10.23 acres and contains 52 dwelling units. ZCNING AND LAND USE• Presently the parcel is zoned R -3 -(Residential Townhouse District). The land use guide designates this parcel as R-1. However, the Hilltop Estates final plat was approved with the understanding that this parcel would have R-3 zoning. CY14SWR The applicant is proposing to develop the parcel with four townhouses and three coach homes. All four of the townhouses and two of the coach homes will have eight dwellings per building and one of the mach homes will have four dwelling units. As stated earlier, the total number of dwelling units on the 10.23 acre parcel will be 52. The R-3 zoning of the parcel allows for 6-12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development would consist of 5.08 dwelling units per acre. The total lot coverage of the seven buildings is approximately 51,376 square feet. Excluding the proposed outlot, the total area of the parcel is 397,263 square feet. The maximum lot coverage requirement of 20% sets the allowable lot coverage for this parcel at 79,452 square feet. Therefore, the preliminary plat is under the allowable lot coverage requirement by 28,076 square feet. Each of the buildings are also under the 6,000 square feet per unit lot area requirement. A 48,609 square foot outlot on the parcel will become a public street for access into the development site. The applicants are also negotiating with Dakota County for a private road access onto County road 30. The zoning ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one of those parking spaces being covered. The applicant is proposing one covered park- ing space for each dwelling unit. There are 78 open parking spaces on the site, which is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, meaning the preliminary plat meets all parking requirements. CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - HIILTOP JANUARY 26, 1982 Page two If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be subject to all easements as required by City staff. 2. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be approved by City staff. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by City staff and an adequate landscape bond shall be submitted with the final plat and not released until one year after the landscaping has been Meted. 4. The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the homeowners' asso- ciation by-laws for review. 5. All other City ordinances shall be applicable to the overall development. DCR/jack ENGINEERING RECCE492 DAMONS 6. An 8" water main lateral must be constructed through this proposed devel- opment to'the James Refrigeration site for future connection and looping towards Pilot Knob Road. 7. Internal storm sewer drainage facilities must be located and properly sized in conformance with City requirements. 8. This proposed development must receive approval fran the Dakota County Plat's Commission and/or Highway Department. 9. Outlot B must be dedicated as public right-of-way in its entirety. 10. A public street designed to City standards must be -constructed within Out - lot B from Berry Ridge Road to County Road 30. 11. A minimum 60' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 30 with additional land reserved for future acquisition at the time of up- grading and relocation of County Road 30. 12. A ponding easement must be dedicated incorporating the 859.0 elevation for Pond IP -63. 13. The developer shall agree to assume the deferred assessments associated with Project 88II for lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer. All assessments associated with the extension of water laterals shall be the responsibility of this plat. 14. All costs associated with the upgrading and installation of the street within Outlot B shall be the responsibility of Hilltop Condominiums and/or James Refrigeration only. 15. The developer shall install a pathway in accordance with the reownm- dation of the Advisory Park Committee. TAC/j adz 11 TO: THE ADVISORY PUNNING CDMIISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FRCM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 0 DATE: JANUARY 21, 1982 RE: PFEL12MIARY PLAT - HILLTOP CONDO-UNIUFS (LOREN SPANDE) The Public Works Department has the following cammts to offer in consi- deration of the above -referenced proposed plat: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer of sufficient size.and depth to handle this proposed devel- ogrent is available. The sanitary sewer is located east -westerly through the middle of this proposed plat and also along the easterly line. There is presently an 8" water main located within Berry Ridge Road with a lateral stubbed to the south into Outlot B for future extension. This water main lateral will have to be extended to the south throughout Lot B for future connection and looping through the James Refrigeration proper- ty located to the west of Outlot B. The location of this proposed development is on the side of the hill with an approximate 80' differential topography sloping to the east into the existing drainage basin located within Hilltop Estates. There presently exists a 15" storm sewer from Outlot B to this drainage basin on the eas- tern side of this proposed plat. This storm sewer was installed to pro- vide drainage for the James Refrigeration plat. The proposed grading plan requires the installation of internal storm sewer system to provide posi- tive drainage for parking lot areas into this easterly drainage basin. Part of the developer's proposed site plan for storm sewer along the sou- therly boundary of this plat incorporates a section of rural ditch drain- age. This storm sewer drainage system should not incorporate the use of a ditch and should be relocated to the proposed future northerly right- of-way of the relocated County Road 30. Positive gravity storm sewer should be provided all the way to the water elevation of the drainage basins on the easterly edge of this plat. The developer has indicated that he plans to perform minimum excavation in the development of this facility due to the steep topography of this property. The proposed grading plan is feasible and the developer should be urged to confine his grading operations to a minimum to preserve the maximum number of trees and minimize the potential for erosion during con- struction on this steep side slope. Extensive erosion control measures will have to be maintained throughout construction around the perimeter of the pond around the eastern edge of -.5"7 C� CITY OF EAGAN HILLTOP CONDOM IN JANUARY 21, 1982 PAGE TWO this proposed plat. • The developer proposes to take access into this proposed plat from Berry Ridge Road, County Road 30 and the future construction of a public street within Outlot B. The private driveway access from County Road 30 must re- ceive approval from Dakota County Highway Department. At this time, the City has not received a response pertaining to this proposed connection. The intersection of County Road 30 with Pilot Knob Road is proposed to be relocated approximately 155' to the north from its present location. Sub- sequently, this relocation will affect a portion of the southerly bound- ary of this proposed plat. Elevations of future road construction within Outlot B and the private driveway accesses should take into consideration the future elevation of County Road 30 to eliminate extensive reconstruc- tion in the future when County Road 30 is upgraded. Outlot B was reserve0 of sufficient width to meet the required City stan- dards for dedication of public right-of-way to incorporate a standard public street section. Subsequently, a minimum 32' 7 -ton residential street will have to be constructed within Outlot B connecting Berry Ridge Road with County Road 30. The southerly portion of this future public street should be widened to a minimum 40' width to provide proper turn lanes anticipated by the ultimate development of the James Refrigeration site combined with this multiple density proposal. Specific design de- tails will be reviewed by staff prior to final plat approval. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY Adequate easements have been dedicated incorporating the existing utili- ties presently within this proposed plat. Additional easements will be necessary to incorporate future public utilities (sanitary and water) to service this proposed subdivision. Outlot B must be dedicated as a public right-of-way to allow the construc- tion of the required street. In addition, a minimum 60' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 30 with a provision made for future ac- quisition of right-of-way necessitated by the relocation of County Road 30. This plat must provide for the dedication of a ponding easement incorpor- ating the 859.0 elevation for the existing pond on the eastern edge of this proposed plat referenced as�Pond LP -63 on the master co:prehensive storm sewer plan. This pond presently has a positive storm sewer outlet to Carlson Lake. ASSESSMENTS Lot 33, Block 5, Hilltop Estates has previously been assessed for sani- tary sewer lateral under Project 217 which provided for the installation of sanitary sewer in Berry Ridge Road within Hilltop Estates. It was also 0 CITY OF EAGAN HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS - PREIJMINARY PIAT - DIREC1OR OF PUBLIC WORKS MDU JANUARY 21, 1982 ff4 Y:y: 5 assessed for sanitary sewer lateral under Project 300 for the installation of sanitary sewer through this property to service James Refrigeration. However, this proposed development will now be responsible for a lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer associated with a 27" trunk sanitary sewer along the eastern edge of this proposed plat which was installed as a part of Project 88II in 1972. Assessments associated with this proposed trunk against the undeveloped property at that time was deferred until de- velopment occurred with subsequent connection into this trunk. There is approximately 645 lineal feet of lateral benefit from this trunk sanitary sewer. This will be assessed at lateral benefit from trunk rate in effect at the time of final plat. Based on the 1981 rates, it is estimated at $9,610.00. Any extension of water main facilities to service this plat, or installa- tion of storm sewer facilities to handle internal drainage should be the entire responsibility of this development. The upgrading of the public street within Outlot B should be shared between the James Refrigeration development and this proposed Hilltop Condominiums in a method to be de- termined at a later date. It is felt that the Beautiful Savior Church located by the northwest corner of this proposed plat would not benefit by the installation or construction of public utilities or streets within Outlot B due to the fact that this property is adequately serviced by streets and utilities within Berry Ridge Road and/or Pilot Knob Road. All other trunk area assessments have been levied and no future assessments are anticipated for trunk area benefits. At the time of the development of the Hilltop Estates plat, the developer entered into an agreement providing for the construction of a trailway around the westerly edge of the proposed ponding area on the east side of this proposed plat. The Advisory Park Committee will be reviewing if this is still a feasible location, or if it should be relocated to the west side of the proposed future street within Outlot B to provide adequate pedestrian access to the James Refrigeration oo rercial development adjacent to the west edge of this plat. I will be available to discuss in further detail any questions the Planning Commission may have pertaining to this proposed subdivision at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 26, 1982. MIA I / M_r omas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack ly i RB ern• owl l l l l j GB Ind .•"� .r �_. -- . Pili I )� .az'. 46. � :-. •-•• � � Ind ,=.., COMMERCIAL ..-op ,i n r • G ' PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Jlnd Ind .....,.�, R-0 Rill 4r1nd ' .W6R.11• .� JL 9 / ! R IV RG \ _ FF �'' Ind.rF-� F R-17. V "A:.- R 1 P ;1 % - \ ` Ind. I Lo Ind. 1 pNB LBJ— RIII R -III . R -III R-IIII R41 , R -L .'nl^d. • ' R=11 ,l� CSC- -.'a P • '-C GOLF I e., , i/ / ' _� R•II -- _ Q- c �I .iy.• °-�T LB RIII. .�_..... n R_I x to q J s' RII' Ind_ w R -III .:,:;.; sn,� -=- 'a _ r.. R- .. R-1II g -III P.fir CRY R -IIA. HALL R -I RII ! R.II N ....r� rr - Y_i � L' •'� � f ..I t c Qr p r r, n1,{I P ;D IR -* R-11. R -II '- R-IIIJNB -1 ! ,i R -III I RB R -Illi R -III R'lll R I ,7.1' tf' I G\ R-III E p+R'-1Lrq • r'.!--rJ 2* `R-11' R -II'., c •T, R -II R -II �.•� RI f../��i CSC RI,��. .:L+ .,, r1•. „<: - `.. LOB j P - b I P R -II P' R 1 G•F t w "" Ra R-1 R•II -. _ R-1' ' R -II fps ' R -II 1.3 vnLLEv I ''��%/jj/ .,,�` it I ROSEMOUN�� / // 7. :-1:7 '3l 3sanp 3109 M31A)iHVd j dww M • 11 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING COWUSSION FROM: DAVE OSBERG, PLANNING ASSISTANT DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1982 • •• • ••, a ••� � � r•• At the last meeting of the Advisory Planning Comnission, there were several concerns regarding the Hilltop Condominiums preliminary plat. Since the last Planning Ccmnission meeting, staff has net with the developers to review the concerns and problems expressed by the Plan- ning Cammission. One of the problems addressed by the Planning Commission was the parking plan for the development. The original plan showed 1 covered parking space per dwelling unit and 1.5 open parking spaces per dwell- ing unit. The parking plan is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. However, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of reducing the 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and perhaps covering more than 1 parking space per dwelling unit. At this time, the developer does not feel that it is feasible to cover rmre than 1 parking space per dwelling unit. The cost of covering more parking spaces would be. too high to make it economically feasible. The developer would also like to leave the site intact as much as possible with limited damage to the trees and surrounding area. The developer would also like to avoid having too many buildings on the site thus keeping the site as aesthetically pleasing as,possible. Staff would like to point out again that the zoning ordinance requites only 1 covered parking space per dwelling unit. The developers are proposing a total of 2.5 park- ing spaces per dwelling unit. However, the developers have a second plan which would allow for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit should the Planning Commission make the recommendation that such a plan is acceptable. Staff sees no problems with the 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit if such a plan is recommended by the Planning Cmr.mssiau. The Planning Commission and neighboring residents were also concerned with the location of the coach home in the northeast corner of the development. The developer has considered relocation of the coach hone, but because of the topography and layout of the development, the coach home cannot be moved or redesigned. To co pensate for the loca- tion of the coach hone so close to the single family homes, the de- velopers are proposing a landscape buffer around the coach home and also along the southern edge of Berry Ridge Road. The developer will be using sore of the trees already on the site as a part of the land- scape buffer. The Park Committee is reeoTrending construction of the trail on the west side of the proposed public road. The trail is to be construc- ted within one foot of the right-of-way. Parks Director Vraa is rec- anTending that no tot lot needs to be located in the development. DMO/jack — 45 - A, A 41m, TO• I I ....... ILI )41 VO.M , 111 \ \I�; �-� ..\\ i1�i. ,f1.'�:•i. •I(, •i'iM1;'.',.•1'' 1t• I.•'. " _ •'f�•��1�•- .,'•1 t ,.11�' I '\ � - •I•Ck �•• •• r' tr - I Ij I ,/�,. /.';;'"�::, \:' S' j:f,: , M1"•;;f;..-'„•' / •,- I' '1. 'i li •:�•' li.: 00 IF ji .I.)•II111jf /"/. //;. .' 1 �, -1 'r I r I'.• pl .,': /. II \ I � r�/' rr r I,�i�'i i'''i-'��•' ill I ,.. 'y�•_ .1 ;L \ \� i 1, �`�ippl' �� (^��:ar r:_•.. _-r �y �'•I'. •, I_'�" n�, �. .,,i •y, 9j II 1 I •. , ,',, \�� `\ \�'\ YA� \ 1 • C 11 :ftij.�/// % / { �.. v,, -w ice_ ��.. .,. •1. , •' y OI :r � �'`�� I I,�\ �\ l.. .111 \~� ��' i ,,,rte• r�� +-�-•p\ '•��• !1 ,'��• �i�', �• '� ��1�~��I I It �• \ '111 1 I L , = I I'l�lj/•',•v \ f.� ' 1. •,'•' : •'. , 11111 '.. / r `••. �I - ! . � �')�-, \ \ 111 1 ! I'-1 / `/ \ �� ', / / / n 1 �•'r ' •�' ir'�_ti..\\1' ,'_.,•;; "4. :.` "'1��,: F;1 /'.� '�..,•. Zr. , ' � - < < \ , �� 1 I II II I '/'fir 7/ %/ // it Ili ori •, r 1 1 •1,•' LJ 111` 11I 1 I / ~��• 11 III\` 1� �II (/ _ I f , � - \ 1 \_\ 1\, `I \ . 1 ry ,III l/. `,” )• .. •,• 'll ' ..`'1. .). : �. '� � ��1 -�� a It ' It I:, �� `� �,\t . I l III 11 1 •'"+ ' - I I .. '.: ' �1 \\\\, ��.` �\\�` ��\`�\• , 1�`'\III - /'. \ ,� ' � � ', � � I � \ \ \ .\. 1\ \1 \ \ `\ 1 111• .�."I, 1r I� �•,! ,+' , • I = �\ I 1 1 II I� 11 '':� 11 1 I,\ 1 III \I .1111 I, I I I. I J•/ 1��j1I' 1 I �', 1 1\ la 1\` .\`` 1 •. / /�ii / j.,,,!� .!��... \ ' • ... ` � � . , : '.. I... / �. /.-' � : / I 1 1' 111 � 0 UnIN It 1 .•.i:. .,� �I�/fry = _ `��_�� i //i/l 1�(.�r.,'..i' I ! �!F. 1 I\\' � ..t,..•,.:;.��.-.1 .. ,� . el '' I /�-�' r �� -_ ,i.ii /%� _ I .I' �f�' \ l\\ . `�`�_e ' .,r ,r• III• `11 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Ten WINKLER DEVELOPMENT - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFVIEW C. Winkler Development Company for Rezoning from GB (General Busi- ness) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow an Office Complex -Hotel - Motel -High Rise and a Preliminary Plat for Bluffview of Approxi- mately 17 Acres -- A public hearing was held by the APC at the January 26, 1982 meeting to consider two (2) applications submitted to the City by Winkler Development Company which are as follows: 1. A request to rezone approximately 17 acres from GB to PD to include model -hotel -office -high rise complex and uses which are permitted in the GB zoning category. A request for preliminary plat for Bluffview Planned Development consisting of approximately 17 acres. The APC continued action on this item until the February 23, 1982 meeting, pending a recommendation by the subcommittee studying height limitations. The APC did take action at the February 25, 1982 meeting to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development zoning, however, felt there was not enough detail in the preliminary plat and continued any action on the preliminary plat for Bluffview until a detailed preliminary plat outlining the first phase of development is presented to the APC. There would be a new public hearing held regarding that preliminary plat application sometime in the future. For a copy of the City Planner's report, refer to pages I- through A copy of minutes from the APC meeting will -be included n e. Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve a rezoning from GB to PD of approximately 17 acres proposed for development by the Winkler Development Company. -Z6 - 0 • li CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - BLUFFVIEW PLANNED DEVELME 1T APPLICANT: WINKLER DEVELOPMENT CO., RICHARD WINKLER LOCATION: PART OF THE SW'a OF THE SW'k OF SECTION 19 EXISTING ZONING: GB (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 26, 1982 CCNTTNUED TO FEBRUARY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 16, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMIIITED The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 17 acres from GB (General Business District) to PD (Planned Development District) to include motel -hotel, office high-rise complex and uses which are permitted in the GB (Gen- eral Business) zoning categories. The second application submitted is a request for a preliminary plat, Bluffview Planned Development, consisting of approximately 17 acres. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the site is zoned GB (General Business District) and would allow heavy business uses, or businesses which serve other businesses. The General Business District is to be insulated frau residential uses which the site presently is. The proposed land use also indicates that the parcel should develop as LB (Limited Bus- iness District) and GB (General Business District) which could include everything from general offices to wholesale offices and showrooms. to convention halls, etc. The only item which is not indicated in the zoning classification that the appli- cant is proposing to develop is the hotel couplex. In reviewing the application proposal, there is no place in the City's ordinance which allows a hotel -motel and offices as permitted use within the same zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a zoning change to allow the hotel -motel office corplex as a permitted use through a planned develorznent dis- trict. The applicant is also requesting that the underlying zoning remain r,B (General Business) so that he could also provide the General Business uses with- in this overall planned development. The second item the applicant is requesting is in regard to maximum height of structures. As stated in the application, the applicant has requested to develop a motel -hotel high-rise codex which presently would exceed the 35' height re- quirement in a General Business District. The City Council has established a Height Subconnittee which consists of two members of the City Council and two 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN FEBIUARY 25., 1982 PAGE TWO members of the Advisory Planning Commission to look at the issue regarding height in commercial and industrial districts. Staff has prepared a number of items in regard to height limitations which is presently being reviewed by this Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is scheduled to meet February 18, 1982 and has a recomTendation which will be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission on February 23, 1982 and to the City Council on March 2, 1982. Therefore, staff will prepare a mamr- anduam in regard to height as recmu ended by the Subcommittee prior to the February 23, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission meeting. The proposed site is west of T.H. 77, or new Cedar Avenue, and north of County Road 30. Presently, there is a diamond interchange at the east corner of the site with T.H. 77 and County Road 30. To the west of the site is the new Superamerica gas station and T.H. 13. To the south of the site is Metcalf Jr. High School and to the north is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District) and contains storage facili- ties for natural gas and propane. Therefore, the site does have good access for the proposed use and is well insulated frim any residential development. At the present time, the developer has only a concept of what he is proposing to construct for this site. It is difficult for a developer to attract or negotiate with a major tenant, or client, prior to having uses or zoning approved for each site. Therefore, the applicant has only proposed a concept plan at this time and if the planned development is approved indicating the uses that have been proposed for the concept, then the developer can proceed to obtain a major tenant, or cor- poration, and start the detailed planning for the overall site. The present con- cept plan attempts to show the uses which are proposed for the 17 acres and an overall traffic circulation for the site. The applicant has also provided a pre- liminary plat which shows how the concept would tie together on a parcel by parcel basis and how public access would be obtained to each parcel. When T.H. 77 was constructed by the State, the State also restricted access to a majority of the parcel along County Road 30. The State has provided one access into the property which is shown by the dashed line on the concept. The developer has modified this access slightly on the interior of the site which hakes for a better circulation plan than the State originally provided. The developer will be discussing this at the February 23rd Advisory Planning Commission meeting. If the planned development is approved, it should be subject to the following con- ditions: 1) That a planned development agreement be entered into by the developer and the City. The planned development agreement shall be for a 5 -year time period. 2) Prior to any construction on the site, the developer shall review the de- tailed building plans for the planned developrrent with the Advisory Plan- ning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of any building permit. 3) The platting of the property shall occur with the first phase of the de- velopment proposal. 4) The planned development agreement shall be subject to the height reoanren- dations which should be made by the Eagan City Council on March 2, 1982. CITY OF EAGAN REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - BUTMEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE 5) An architectural theme shall be carried out throughout the entire project. 6) The rezoning shall be reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Ccrmission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation because the subject parcel abuts State and County rights-of-way. DCR/jach ,/9— I I a .1 0 0 C� MENDOTA ..HTS. .. -. .� I i R 1— GB B Ind GOLF r 6 ar' a a I -, ^ / A��'• .. �H.r'.' )L has _ .,• if 1. ,Ind ...,-......• - . -OoF - •./; '�- ,. '_.Rfr{, PP R .�" .�.'. •� ..R.1I Ind.--' v.• I i - • '. ', _ '. •p,; . wo 11--,_ i L. Ind _"• �w,,. I! i RBD, " �-f..�..� - �r� / r `, v—,'•`T�� v © _ IFI .._ I. Ind. 1 ,.7� - � RAI d • _,. LB RII ?\J i••-'• NB �. LB_ ..RII- d �C J R -II. CSC P RI Rfl � � Ma ' F" ,.�� RII •.+!''�.s � - • R-9 R III • :v -... :/�. ' .CRY -II R -II M RI' - - R-1 �./ 1♦�`�r� �uiI7I111 C.r{h, - R -II k ti R.1 - }p R-' R 11 R - II —a yN� ; . M ' 4, Roll. �. LB LB EI p II 4m !% i _ _ r N �t - .Y RB L.� R -III -,- > c {�}}{{��}}..�� Ft Il R III 1 Q .%,,f r r„� f{t .; r I i 1r R -III l f. 1.1 .. CSC/GB/ \ .-• (� 1�� .r R 0' R -IIF' _ R 11 — Ea. RII Z' v ®� � R•11: ..,'�. •-R-II•' \ `.,,.E `„'*,�Rll RII '"iae i�NF'o't'� ; I . `•:` �s f RII NB RI ,:.,_ _ �_ LB R -III LB -.•, � RI ;'% �....; CSC .R-Itlfx. - � Y l4i ", I � D LB � R_I P !I a. R 1 1.�, l� u i jlrX' 1I 4 tr N i R_I . P t,Qpph.4 „y - 9 R -I_ J R -II Pi R -II R -II n .a /77 R -I"-, , R -Il p f r R II R -II amr feonrt \ - r _ - � Q P Q e..cu• p62 `• ,`�"' _:<_.a+ueF-.r+l .x 1.- �� •� .•e 'I �•}J .5 t� 3 ! L-=_ROSEMOUNT APPLE VALLEY •' -: A R-4 ' Ll /-� Ll IL LI / 1 .. LI t� In, � SILL /,� LlADD H Cf LB CSC yo �P `_ F CSC PF �. A R-4 suis L �n� e1y OAR ; {,• ��' �0 Ll R-IC G BEEN GB ' - PF _ JUN10r? Q. PF o QNB NB,: HIGH 5B ^ 'a B-2 adv r � SCHOOL A o� I p r• � I 41 C C'_', A; 4 I AR- rr PK x PF MARI n_ i CSC 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Eleven CONSERV CORPORATION - CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS D. Comsery Corporation for a Preliminary Plat of Comsery No. 1 Addition Consisting of Approximately 63.77 Acres and Containing One Building -- An application for a preliminary plat entitled Comsery No. 1 consisting of approximately 63 acres and containing one lot of approximately 41.09 acres for a corporate headquarters and one outlot of 21 acres for future use by Comsery Corporation was considered at a public hearing held by the APC on February 25, 1982. The Advisory Planning Commission is recommending approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. The Advisory Planning Commission was agreeable to the recommendation by Comsery to reduce the parking; however, the space requirement of a 10' x 20' parking stall was retained. The action recommending approval to the City Council was also conditional upon Comsery satisfying the intent of the height limitations proposed for amendment to the zoning ordinance by the APC. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages through ? for your reference. A copy of the minutes wi a enclosed witn the Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the preliminary plat for Comsery Corporation as recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission. 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN • ar � n r• • �!u�S� � • APPLICANT: OCMSERV LOCATION: GOVEl2,1= LOTS 5 & 6 IN SECTION 8 AND PART OF GDv- ERR'ENT LOTS 1 & 2, SECTICN 17 EXISTING ZONING: I-1 (LIGiT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY s •k Lu!M9pl FEBRUARY 17, 1982 DALE C. MME, CITY PLANNER An application has been submitted for a preliminary plat, Comsery No. 1, which will consist of approximately 63 acres and contain 1 lot of approximately 41.09 acres for a corporate headquarters and one outlot of 21 acres for future use by Consery Corporation. TONING AND LAND USE Presently, the site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District) and allows an office building as a permitted use within this district. The proposed land use also designates the parcel as Industrial. 'Therefore, the proposed development is in conformance with both the current zoning and the Ccm- prehensive Land Use Guide. COMMENTS The proposed site for Comsery Corporation's corporate headquarters is Lot 1, Block 1, Comsery No. 1. The lot contains 41.09 acres and the proposed office building would contain approximately 179,529 square feet for the first phase. The proposed building will be between 3-4 stories depending on the ground elevation along the building. The applicant has also indicated that there will be two future expansions, one on each end of the building. They have been dashed in on the site plan for your review. The projected employment for Ccrosery presently is 359 employees with an expected em- ployee population in 1983 of 490. Ccrosery is looking at a potential for this facil- ity with all phases between 1,000 and 1,100 employees for their future growth. SITE PIAN REVIEW Presently, Lot 1, Block 1, contains 41.09 acres. The building floor area is approx- imately 47,537 square feet and a lot coverage of approximately 2.6%. The rem ired Parking for the first phase of this facility is 1,017 spaces. The applicant has indicated that this requirement is in excess of what Catisery is proposing and thev are proposing to provide 862 parking spaces which they feel will be adequate for their needs. The applicant is also shaving proposed parking for the second and 76 - 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PIAT - COMSEW NO. 1 FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE TWO third phase totaling approximately 1,550 spaces for their overall development. The parking spaces designated have been shown as a 9 x 20 parking space. Eagan requires a 10 x 20 parking space. At the present time, since there is adequate land for ex- pansion of the parking, staff would go along with the 862 parking spaces because if there is a greater need for parking with the first phase, that additional parking could easily be provided. Even if parking is not adequate for the overall facility, these is an additional 20 acres which Canssery has in reserve where parking could' be provided if required. The applicant has done a very good job in the aesthetics and layout of the parcel. The parking area is separated into 3 categories. one of these is the general em- ploynmt parking which is the largest lot; the second is the school, or guest park- ing and the third area is the drop off, or short term parking and Comsery is pro- viding 27 indoor parking spaces for their executives. The parking has been broken up very nicely with 20' aisles that will be landscaped to breakup the large as- phalt surface. The landscaping in the parking lotPalong with the'landscaping in front of the building which will be two reflective pools and a very nice green area,will provide an amenity to the corporate headquarters. They have also pro- vided a 30' setback for green area around the entire area of the parking lots. As stated earlier, the proposed building will be between 3 and 4 stories depending on what ground elevation you are looking at the building. The applicant is propos- ing to have a 4 -story atrium, a cafeteria located on the first level, score class- room space, offices and scare warehousing. The entire building will be a very high technological building with reflective glass and aluminum construction. The pro- posed facility will be between 3 and 4 stories. The City has presently establish- ed a Height Subcommittee which has been meeting for the past several months to look at height limitations in commercial and industrial areas in the City. The Committee should have a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Cannission on Feb- ruary 23 and the Council will hopefully make a recmuendation March 2nd. There- fore the height issue should not be a problem for this facility. The access to this facility will be off of Yankee Doodle Road. Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13 will provide access to Comserv's corporate headquarters. Presently, there is a signalized intersection at T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road, so traffic movements should not be a problem at this location. Comsery is also proposing to bisect their site and provide a looped street from Yankee Doodle Road to T.H. 13 approximately 600' northwest of T.H. 13 paralleling 13. Therefore, there will be a secondary access on the southern side of the site with the first phase of con- struction. With these two accesses, there should be no problem with traffic cir- culation for Comsery Corporation. The applicant is meeting with the Building Inspector and Fire Marshall on Febru- ary 22, 1982 to work out all of the health, safety requirements which will be provided in the building. This will consist of hydrant locations, exiting, sprink- lers and all of the building code requirements which the Eagan Building Department will be requesting. Therefore, this recommendation should be worked out prior to the February 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Comanission Meeting. CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - COMSERV NO. 1 FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE It is staff's understanding that Consery presently is renting 5 or 6 office build- ings throughout the Metropolitan area. Their intent is to get this building con- structed as quickly as possible and if the preliminary plat is approved, they will be requesting a building permit in order to start this facility as early as.possi- ble. It is staff's understanding that Conserv will be trying to get this facility constructed by December or January of 1982 or early 1983. If approved, the plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The final plat and development agreement shall be approved by the City prior to occupancy of the building. 2) The applicant shall provide 862, parking spaces with 10'x 204 dimensions with the first phase of construction. If the parking is not adequate, Consery will provide additional spaces at the City's request. 3) The preliminary plat and building shall be subject to the reconmendations of the City Council on height requirements for the building. 4) Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City staff prior to final plat approval. 5) A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the City staff and the land- scape bond shall be required and not released until one year after the land- scaping has been oampleted. 6) The plat should be subject to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and comments because the plat abuts Stag right-of-way. 7) The parking areas shall be surfaced and concrete curbing shall be provided around the access drive and parking areas. DCR/jack ENGINE=G RECOMMENDATIONS 8) Approval fran the Metropolitan Waste Water Control Cormission (M[a'CC) allow- ing a connection to their facility must be received prior to final plat ap- proval. 9) An 8" water main shall be constructed providing a connection of Kennebec Dr. to Yankee Doodle Road. 10) An adequate ponding easement shall be dedicated for the internal ponding area (CP -7) providing for 13.0 acre feet of storage based on a controlled elevation of 765.0. 11) A 60' right-of-way shall be dedicated and an internal 44' wide, 9 -ton cock- mercial/industrial road shall be constructed providing a connection between Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13 at the south property line. 0 0 CITY CF EAGAN FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE FOUR 12) A 10' drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to all pub- lic right-of-way and adjacent private property. 13) Trunk area storm sewer assessments in addition to lateral benefit frau ex- isting trunk utilities shall be paid or assumed by this development as a condition of final plat approval if not covered as a pending assessment un- der a future City -approved project. 14) An internal storm sewer system shall be installed to provide for the drain- age frau the property to the southwest of this proposed plat. TAC/jach _7y_ 11 TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1982 RE: PRELIlKII M PLAT - CCMSERV NO. 1 (CO1SERV CORPORATION) The Public Works Department has the following comments eats pertaining to consideration of the above -referenced preliminary plat: i ■ ■s. Sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity is available to provide service to this proposed development by way of the existing Metropoli- tan Waste Water Control Commission (bIIM trunk interceptor line along the northwest boundary of this proposed development. Authorization for connection to this trunk interceptor line will have to be obtained di- rectly frau MWCC. Sanitary sewer to service the future development of Outlot A can be obtained from the existing trunk sanitary sewer on Yan- kee Doodle Road in the northeast corner or extension of the existing lateral sanitary sewer within the Kennebec Drive right-of-way to the southwest. An extension of the existing 8" water main within the Kennebec Drive right-of-way will have to be extended northeasterly to provide for con- nection to the existing 12" trunk water main in Yankee Doodle Road to provide proper looping for fire protection and adequate water service for this development. This will provide adequate pressure and capa- city to service this development. Ca:e■i�, eco ■auae+ The property generally consists of rolling topography located on the bluff of the Minnesota River with internal drainage being directed to an internal ponding area (CP -7) adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road which presently has adequate gravity storm sever outlet down to the Minnesota River. In addition to the internal storm sewer required to handle sur- face runoff fran the parking lot area, a drainage outlet will have to be extended to the southwest to provide for continued storm sewer drain- age of the adjacent property (L.aHass Corporation and M"UC). The inter- nal pond will have to provide for a storage capacity of 13 acre feet based on anticipated runoff from this development. Primary access to this property will be obtained by way of Yankee Doo- dle Road which is an existing 44' wide, 9 -ton industrial road with a traffic signal at the intersection of T.H. 13. The overall master plan for streets anticipated that Kennebec Drive would continue from the Cedar Industrial Park and connect with Termi- nal Drive at its intersection with Yankee Doodle Road within the Sib- ley Terminal Industrial Park to the northeast. The Public Works De- partnent has evaluated the existing and proposed future land uses of WM 0 0 Thomas A. Colbert February 25, 1982 Conserv No. 1 Page two the property owned by the MVJCC and LaHass Corporation combined with the proposed development of the Camsery property and have determined that this industrial road connection is no longer necessary. However, staff feels that due to the traffic generated by this proposed development, that an internal access road connecting Yankee Doodle Road with T.H. 13 to the south should be constructed as a part of this first phase devel- opment. This will provide a primary access along Yankee Doodle Road with a secondary "safety valve" access to T.H. 13 at the southern cor- ner oriner of Outlot A. Contact with MnDOT has indicated that street access at this location is allowed and permissible. As with all other streets constructed within COmiercial/industrial areas, this internal road should be a 9 -ton, 44' wide street. Sufficient right-of-way has previously been acquired for the existing Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13. A 60' right-of-way will have to be dedicated to provide for this internal public street previously dis- cussed. A 10' drainage and utility easement should be dedicated ad- jacent to all existing and future public right-of-way. A 30' half right-of-way will have to be acquired from the LaHass Corporation for the internal road connection to T.H. 13. Mr. Frank Hasselman has ver- bally erbally agreed to this required dedication. Ponding easement should be dedicated to incorporate 769.0 elevation of the proposed internal pond (CP -7). TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS No trails or sidewalks are proposed within this commercial/industrial Trunk sanitary sewer and water area assessments were levied under Pro- jects 10, 15 and/or 49. However, trunk storm sewer has not been assess- ed over this property and should be a requirement of final plat approval. Based on estimated 1982 rates of 6C per square foot for commercial/in- dustrial property, the estimated trunk storm sewer assessment will be approximately $138,000. In addition, all assessments associated with internal utilities will be the responsibility_ of this development. Assessments associated with the construction of the required internal street will be assessed against the benefited properties fronting on this proposed road's location. In addition, this development should be responsible for approximately 1,200 feet of lateral benefit from trunk watermain along Yankee Doodle Road resulting in an estimated $21,600 based on anticipated 1982 rates. In addition, this develogrent should be responsible for approximately �81, 0 0 Thomas A. Colbert February 25, 1982 Cortsery No. 1 Page three 1,450 feet of lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer along the north- west property line. Based on estimated 1982 rates, this would result in approximately $23,200. No sanitary sewer or water lateral assessments have ever been levied against this property thereby necessitating their collection as a condition of final plat approval. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this re- port at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, C�, ad Thus A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works ?T.CC/j ach I—, /Lllc ZN1 p- 57a 859 3 8660 ZE 10 0-1 698.0 O b 14 z-_ RX AGOTiOf b 876.0 FOX RLOG Evs 9 ATH IGHTS R DG \16 Age SLACKHAWK PARK 792.0 8820 r jp-'7 JP -48 AN LE 8930 BP -27 886:0 877J. 1 4.8C Bp -agaO 856.0 894.0 AP SP -16 073,0 im 9140,4g, I P441 4906.0 P4 -9 89poil 859 3 8660 ZE 10 0-1 698.0 O b 14 z-_ RX AGOTiOf b 876.0 FOX RLOG Evs 9 ATH IGHTS R DG \16 Age SLACKHAWK PARK 792.0 8820 r jp-'7 JP -48 AN LE 8930 BP -27 886:0 877J. 1 4.8C Bp -agaO 856.0 894.0 AP SP -16 073,0 im 9140,4g, I P441 4906.0 P4 -9 89poil I I i !------- III i i ) ✓'� - II Q I 1111111 � scn w: To er��iecareo , _ ..I I 1 � i l ,\—� rYANK� , � .7sa �fAY ... _�` -B�OL6 — .a.1 • `� � e -Oat I � �" �` I T as I la�ll ` ,' ..a' - � '/ / •. a-a•wa �.� ��' - : r.e+1• \ 1 /� / VA ..... - d, 1 ; ir• II 1,�• ;'�, �j �i _ ' 1 Vii. '''1 I' :` .I% :Y 1,.It ark,',! ` `J,J�`.n,,ga:ur<.x/ esrars B} �etH4ese4Rr. It t 49 �Q� G ► ,, � �I11 I �� - I !4 i �� !II I I I J I' �1. (�� - \ \I I a :` I . 12 I • ,�; In ,v ,11;1;.1::1.1 I ,4x.;', !; •,.-„' � � �' � � .1 �� ': //,. ,,I `,�,,)•,; � 1 (' I � I'll -� , _; 1- � i �,` - , LLL IV\ COMBBRV NO. 1 ' 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT 3 Q RON KRUE 6 ABBOCI=138. INC. xl , . 0 S • . v E . g,ii e;;e Cit rte.. r 4 nm v...... >n a r,.v.w r r.... w.vn..•a an, • i,1,1 1 1 11 II (, i7i1l:: 41 L 111/}. � i'; --_ -- _- -___-_ �'� I fa 1 1 1 1 11 ill l 1 A ` I I ;; 11 • ' '' e i Ili ' I �I� Ir I, ' I•�'\ I ' a I � c`i •� . �•• ..._..,_ rev....�.�a ....--..... ._. y..,,.av� ro......�,. e.y.. c�,.o �i�,...�.o.�nnmeeom va..... me...m....�.w..�..tiw>i.w an.awo ..a.. ...�ti ... s..... .a............-....,• IL ---------- --- - - - - 4TO #AWN J,5 q C3, WIS. PLM MOVE" "kill p I 3k MIN /'Co MOVE" "kill p I MOVE" "kill i MEND OTA 5 • :'fit 1 c RB GB Ind -. j -� � - ev. �" ..� . !•:� Ind' � . ' -- • - - a •'_- '-a- - -Ind Ind _-t•I• - - -LB R•1 AIV �' � „.•..Y••... RI � '.. ".`.,ti `jam- Ind _RBDj R•IV .. RIII \'i •r,,.� vim. �- ♦ •� I " •'� �, ` riga •..� �! � =1 v:' ® � _�� -_1 RIII NB R -III air Po C R-11 Ral. ,� Lg— R-11 •." .. \m I ; LB " ` CSC C — 56 wini�i'; ,': ,�. ,:/ ,/�„jrp.\.• - RI R-1 Y s.AiL”- IOv.,� R_I • `' ,Y — \Il- RIII ;"' ... `� _ �' _ i �I . - _ L Y RAI tQ R-Ial .. p HALL "�'- % Ind c •I s"` ,'B' y,.^ _ „ _i- .. R-0 B" ° R IV r.. ! n.••S ate, Y _ 'Il��f�� uisli�i�c�nh R -II � �-�� I{� ' { S • �� R-1 � � : I P R -II R II R -III �'• . LB ti LB _ C E• P R' RIII TI RB R -IR' RIII' i •i °•' �,I.., R -III CSC/GB/ C R•4�f- t - ...- �,� \�� R 111: y u+• -s• l • I_ ` � yR.l . �r ---`--- �' Z, 'f it (+ ;r P Ral. C R i R-11 w� LB R -III Ngg �I! ••.,. ' CSC r,R�� r .Ri , .1 I ,�:.r- t Q� LB:r.�. D LB c% R -I P 4S : hf�N' R R -I R -I -J R-11RIIGOI`F ` I APPLE vaLLEY 4^-:., i �.., ROSEMOUN �_ �� .. ME TrL1 R-3 J Ise 'R-4 AX R_4 B. _.. SI -fY T MINA r� INpU4T IA I BARK o R -I `-- A R_ ..R-4 pp ZZ O F N O 1'¢ o n w /'R-4 B: ou �fLl CE L I ie INDUS IAL A ��`� �, A , R -I. ,IDG V.1 �.. TAr 7 1 9LiZCK ADDITION R-4 ` �_4 A R- JCROFT ' : *A KFi� ACRES � L I c - I , rglLis l _ F"L R-4 R•4�� - - �B l G FGN ME O CENTER �� R-2 -I AH�^ — ` A C_ R-1 , f P 9 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Twelve 4 ADVERTISING SIGN/ROSEWOOD CORPORATION E. Temporary Advertising, -'Sign for Rosewood Corporation -- An appli- cation for a temporary advertising sign for Rosewood Corporation' was submitted to the City for consideration. The application was reviewed by the Administrative Intern, Dave Osberg, and a copy of a report and drawings as submitted by Rosewood Corporation are enclosed on pages 9I, through 9.9 for your reference. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny a temporary advertising sign for Rosewood Corporation. — /j 0 0 TO: CITY ADNDNISTRATOR HEDI S FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTEM OSBERG DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1982 RE: TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS FOR ROSEMOD CORPORATION In reviewing Ordinance #16, the sign ordinance, tenporary advertising signs are allowed on property zoned agricultural, ccmrercial or indus- trial zoned Property. Temporary advertising signs are allowed in res- idential areas if the sign is related directly to the use of the prem ises upon which the sign is located and the sign is used for identifi- cation for major aparbnent amplexes. In reviewing the spacing requirement, temporary advertising signs do not have to meet the 1,000 lineal feet spacing requirement for signs on the sane side of the street, or the 300 lineal feet requirement for signs on the opposite side of the street. This spacing requirement may be waived for tegorary advertising signs advertising new residen- tial develogrents. Rosewood Corporation has submitted an application for three temporary signs advertising the Coachman Oaks Condaninium project. Sign No. 1 is proposed to be located on the east side of Coachman Road directly across frau the entrance to 3155 Coachman Road. The proposed sign will contain approximately 64 square feet and the total height of the sign would depend on the grading, but at all tines would be less than 27 feet. Sign No. 2 is proposed to be located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Coachman Road and Yankee Doodle Road. The proposed sign will contain approximately 55 square feet, and the total height of the sign would depend on the grading, but at all times would be less than 27 feet. Sign No. 3 is proposed to be identical to sign no. 2 and would be lo- cated on the northeast comer of the intersection of Four Oaks Road and State Highway #13. At their September -15, 1981 meeting, the City Council approved a tear Porary advertising sign for the Rosewood Corporation's Four Oaks Apart- ment complex. This advertising sign is located on the northeast cor- ner of Yankee Doodle Road and CoadmIan Road which is the same location of proposed sign no. 2. If approved, the sign should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The signage shall be no more than 125 square feet for each sign. -9/- 7hanas L. Hedges Temporary Advertising Signs for Rosewood Corporation February 25, 1982 Page two 2) The sign shall be located no closer than 10' to the property line on the parcel. 3) The temporary advertising sign shall be approved for the first year and renewed for the seoond vear. rM/jack -9oz— Rosewood Corporation teal Estate Development, Investment Building, Property Management, and Warehousing Services LOCATION MAP - 3 TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS - Sign #3 Four Oaks Road M .a V ro 0 &— Sign #1 b+ � 4J fa � ro x � N U 0 o 4 U to Sign #2 Yankee Doodle Road 2432 Prior Avenue North, P.O. Box 8307, Roseville, MN 55113, (612) 636-8050 TWX: 9105761729 9.3 - VUD CCMOM'--�- lb � parm co)al)o 0 •0. zilk mcr ,L-0(0 ng Nin- MIM CO)MI-130 �f Rosewood__-.. `llIL 0 0 FP.. ZEHNDER'I A. LI EADOL) R_3c asrpaaalt�. PFS . R 3 , f. J R _4 A^r R-4 ;. SI EY T MINA ti 1 �... NPU $IA I FARK m R -I ( — _ _ R-'4 3I;6w i h ,A a , LI_ R-4 w gar p ..r "o cc a� RFoj TK 4p,A A Tr -t RIDGE R-4 N B NB A j 3RC.!R-4 ,`\O,r � � NE1l`irtl'it .. % L: L I R_, %L ARK ,�� , A q R_I �. R_(TA�KA 0 -'p ACRES• l eLTuK�, 1 ADD TION l5 R-4 ON R-3 CROFT / . *ACKH7t, _ — -- _ ACRES ILLS .. In Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Fourteen 0 0 CONTRACT 82-2 C. Contract 82-2, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertise- ment for Bids (Briar Hill 4th Addition Streets & Utilities) -- On December 1, 1981, the City Council held a public hearing and subsequently ordered in the installation of streets and utilities within the Briar Hill 4th Addition (Phase 2). Detailed plans and specifications providing for the installation of these improvements have now been completed by the consulting engineering firm and are being presented to the Council for their review and approval. All right of way necessary for the installation of these utilities has been provided through dedication of public right of way under previous Briar Hill Addition plats. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON fications for Contract 82-2 advertisement for bids to March 25, 1982. s/Thomas L. Hedges iC'ty Adm nistrator THE MATTER: To approve plans and speci- (Briar Hill 4th Addition) and authorize be received at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, - 900/ - Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Thirteen 0 0 ADD,ITiIONAL'r ITEMS PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - DAKOTA COUNTY TRAILS A. Dakota County Proposed Maintenance Agreement for Trails - The City Administrator is working on the final details of the trail agreement. This maintenance agreement affects all cities in Dakota County and the City Administrators have held two meetings to cri- tique the proposed agreement as drafted by Dakota County. It is planned that all revisions will be completed on Monday; however, if the cities are not in agreement with the language, this item will be recommended for continuance. Therefore, the final draft of the maintenance agreement will be presented with the Administra- tive Packet on Monday or with the City Council packet for March 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve, deny or continue consideration of the Dakota County proposed maintenance agreement for trails. T.H. 55 & 149 UPGRADING PLANS & SPECS B. Approve MnDOT Plans & Specifications for Upgrading of T.H. 55/149 (Eagan Project 353) -- The City has received detailed plans and specifications for the previously referenced upgrading of T.H. 55/149 from Lawrence Avenue to the Skelly Station. These plans and specifications have been reviewed in detail by the City staff and consulting engineering firm and it has been determined that they accurately incorporate all requestedimprovements by the City of Eagan pertaining to utility revisions and or extensions of trunk utilities. Therefore, the staff is recommending that these plans be approved so that MnDOT may proceed with the bid letting scheduled for March 12, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To authorize a resolution approving MnDOT Plans S.P.1909-55, 56 (55=116) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said resolution. -97 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL Bulletproof Vests Enclosed on page 100 is an informative memo regarding a question raised by City Counc1 member Smith as to whether bulletproof vests are provided for police officers. Discussion regarding bullet proof vests should not be public to assure and respect the security of the police officers. Therefore, this item is informative, and if any member of the City Council has comments, they should be shared with the City Administrator in private. Tax Exempt Mortgage Finance Issue Update Enclosed on pages 10( through (02 is a copy of the most recent update of the tax exempt mortgage ming issue. Fire Department Monthly Report Enclosed on pages 1021, through are monthly reports for December 1981 concerning the Eagan volunteer Fire Department. Civil Defense Warning Siren Informational Meeting For those members of the City Council who wish to attend an informa- tional meeting regarding the location of civil defense warning sirens, refer to page 10 45' for a copy of a letter that was sent out to residents in the general area that will be affected by the four (4) civil defense warning sirens if installed. Licensing of General Trade Contractors At the last City Council meeting, City Councilmember Wachter discus- sed proposed legislation to license general trade contractors as provided to him by the City Administrator. Enclosed is a copy of a resolution that was passed by the City of Mendota Heights which opposes the licensing of general trade contractors (page /06). If there is similar interest on the part of the City Coun- cil to oppose this proposed legislation, action could be taken to enact a resolution similar to that of the City of Mendota Heights. sm 0 0 Informational Memo February 26, 1981 Page Two Drexel Heights Street Assessment Appeal Enclosed on pages 10-7 through 1019 is an update on a recent order concerning the appeal of speciar—assessments taken by Pilot Knob Properties covering street improvements in Drexel Heights Addition. Board of Equalization A board of review/equalization meeting is scheduled for May 3, 1982 which is a Monday evening. If there is any conflict with this date, please notice. Robert Rosene For your information, Bob Rosene will not be at the City Council meeting on Tuesday evening to discuss the water and sewer and water distribution plan reports as originally planned by Public Works Director Colbert. Bob is entering Midway Hospital for a gall blad- dar operation early Wednesday, March 3, 1982. s/Thomas L. Hedges MityACinistaator ffm Egan Police Mepart4lent c Martin Deslauriers �- -[ 3830 Pilot Knob Road Ckief of Police. -3 i Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Jay M. Berthe y(,- M Assistant Chief of Police : `1-4 16 February 1982 TO: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Assistant Chief of Police SUBJECT: Bulletproof Vests Our present, unwritten, policy regarding the purchasing and wearing of bulletproof vests is as follows: Officers wear them at their own discretion. Nearly all officers have a bulletproof vest which was purchased by them or by a loved one for them. Also, some purchased the vest by using their clothing allowance if there was enough balance in the clothing account so as to not inter- fere with the expenses of normal uniform upkeep. There are approximately ten or twelve manufacturers of bulletproof vests. Prices range from $175 to $225 per vest. Also, there have been studies made on the various vests as to the stopping power on different calibre bullets. The issue of mandating the wearing of bulletproof vests while on duty has been addressed in police journals and I tend to agree with this. However, the main issue, which appears to be universal, is that officers say the vests are very uncomfortable in hot weather. A survey of our department indicates that approximately 50% of -.our officers wear them in hot weather and 50% do not. One of our officers -breaks out in a rash so he can't wear one. If we mandated our officers to wear vests, we would then have to enforce this policy with a suspension or other disci- plinary action; most of the articles I have read indicate that this tends to create a morale problem. I recommend that we continue to permit oicers to wear them at their own discretion. In regard to the funding, I would also like to see it remain as we are presently doing JMB/vk /60 '1 Jay/ rte B e r t h e THE LONE OAK TREE — THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH & GROWTH 1N OUR COMMUNITY I DATE: February 1282 CITY OF EwAN C, J Statisticai Dat -:r- lvrcnunt of Program $16,940,000 Total Pmount of Pre-CarQnitted mans $ 16,629,925 Percentage of Loans Pre-Cannitted -98—.- Total. Number of Loans Average Mortgage Amount Average Sale Price Average Appraisal Value Average Adjusted Gross Income Average Gross Income Type of Loan; Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional FNA VA Graduated Pledge Average loan to value Ratio: Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional Number of New Construction loans Number of Existing Loans Type of Dwelling: Single Family Townhouse Condcminium Mobile Hanes Average Previous Residents Number of Renters Number of Owners Average Age Sex: Male Female Average Family Size Average Number of Children MLirital Status: Married Single Joint Divorced FUNDING: Collar Amount of Loans Funcled Number of Loans inr, inccxno II<isic Inaxnc _.._.__ 155__ 74% _ $ 52,893 — — - r $ _ 61.365,----- 59,329 66,770 59,794 67,859 20,213 _- _ 24,978 21,511_.... _ — 26,647 — — 7 19 --� 7 46 69 29 39 65 5 88% 908 718 74% _ 121 105 34 34 79 94 _ 23- 53 i6 — 0 0 --- —111---- —.__ 1Q0- --- - 44 39 30.3 _ 29.6 _ 106 _ 128 49 11 1.8 2.4 -..- 4.. .7 67 93 _--79 26 5 14 --- ---4 6 .5 16,444,750 289 -- - _ 101 i DATE: February 12, 1982 CITY OF EAGAN 416,940,000 --Amount of Program Dollar Amount of Funds Remaining 43,275 + PLEASE NOTE: This amount can be utilized in any of the following categories: Single Family, Townhouse, Condo, Mobile Home; Low or Basic Incomes; or any Conventional Loans, including Conventional 95't;. This does not include the Graduated Pledge Account. At this time, there are no Graduated Pledge Funds available. Total Pre -Commitment Amount 5 16,629,925 Total Reserved (Yet to be Pre -Committed) $ 266,800 $ 16,940,000 l0Z EAGAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT OR MONTH OF N WORK PERFORMED TYPE MAN HOURS Fire Calls730 Rescue Calls Training [us Truck b Equipment Maintenance__iii.— Station Maintenance Fire Prevention 12 Administrative'' " 206 TOTAL 2226 MANPOWER STATION #1 STATION #2 STATION 63 Available Days 1G ' .. Available Nights 19. " 13_ Available Rotating 7 4 2 TOTAL 37 23 18 FIRE CALLS TYPE NUMBER LOSS Structure 7 $81.550.00 Grass 7' 0.00 Vehicle . 650.00 False .... 3 0.00 Other 7 150.00 TOTAL 26 $82,350.00 RESCUE CALLS TYPE NUMBER Vehicle Accident0 Medical 12 Industrial 1 Miscellaneous 0 TOTAL 13 LARGE DOLLAR LOSSES DATE NAME LOCATION OCCUPANCY "LASS 11-6-81 2910 Burnside Residence $80,000.00 11-9-91 4260 Sandstone Car 500.00 11-23-81 1477 Woodview Ct. Residence 1,500.00 po`S LAGAN vuLulvaLLll r1LL LLrAKl'MENT MONTHLY REPORT �R MONTH OF December. 1981 WORK PERFORMED v vL -TYPE MAN HOURS Fire Calls 380 Rescue Calls 125 Training ...........538 Truck S Equipment Maintenance " 74 Station Maintenance 137 Fire Prevention "' 20 Administrative 259 TOTAL 1533 MANPOWER STATION til STATION U2 STATION 43 Available Days i4 q Available Nights ik' ii is Available Rotating 7 .G TOTAL 47 71 is FIRE CALLS TYPE NUMBER LOSS Structure 4 55.800.00 Grass 0 ... ...0.00 Vehicle " '2 .. '2.500.00 False 2 .... 0.00 Other 7 0.00 TOTAL 15 $8.300.00 RESCUE CALLS TYPE NUMBER Vehicle Accident 0 Medical .. '14 Industrial ..'' 2 1 Miscellaneous 1 TOTAL 17 LARGE DOLLAR LOSSES DATE NAME LOCATION OCCUPANCY LOSS 12-10-81 990 Apollo Road Warehouse $5,000.00 12-18-81 3932 Beau D'Rue Dr. Car b Van $2,000.00 16t 1. February 19, 1982 T Re: Location of Civil Defense Warning Sirens Dear Property Owner: THOMAS HEDGES CITY ADMINISTRATOR EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE CITY CLERK The City of Eagan installed four (4) civil defense warning sirens throughout the City during 1981. The City Council, in the fall of 1981, decided to include in the 1982 budget funding to allow the installation of four (4) additional warning sirens to be located in the City. The City of Eagan is approximately 34 square miles, and, therefore, a minimum of eight (8) warning sirens are required to adequately cover residential, commercial and industrial buildings located throughout the community. The City of Eagan may be required to purchase additional warning sirens in the City as the community continues to grow in the future. Due to the fact, one (1) of the warning sirens is proposed to be located in an area close to your property, we felt you should be noticed of an informational meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at the Eagan City Hall starting at 7:00 p.m. to learn more about the warning siren and the exact location. The Eagan City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed warning siren location at the March 16, 1982 regular meeting. If you have neighbors who were not sent a letter, please advise them of the informational meeting and invite them to attend if they wish to learn more about the City's plans for locating a civil defense warning siren in your neighborhood. Sincerely, t4 -t\ o Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/hnd 10 THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. BEA BLOMOU15T MAYOR � THOMASEGAN CITY OF. PAGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS ' THEODORE WACHTER 329S PILOT KNOB ROAD COUNCIL MEMBERS .. J 4.. P,O. BOX 21199 " EAGAN, MINNESOTA 53123 PHONE 454-8188 1. February 19, 1982 T Re: Location of Civil Defense Warning Sirens Dear Property Owner: THOMAS HEDGES CITY ADMINISTRATOR EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE CITY CLERK The City of Eagan installed four (4) civil defense warning sirens throughout the City during 1981. The City Council, in the fall of 1981, decided to include in the 1982 budget funding to allow the installation of four (4) additional warning sirens to be located in the City. The City of Eagan is approximately 34 square miles, and, therefore, a minimum of eight (8) warning sirens are required to adequately cover residential, commercial and industrial buildings located throughout the community. The City of Eagan may be required to purchase additional warning sirens in the City as the community continues to grow in the future. Due to the fact, one (1) of the warning sirens is proposed to be located in an area close to your property, we felt you should be noticed of an informational meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at the Eagan City Hall starting at 7:00 p.m. to learn more about the warning siren and the exact location. The Eagan City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed warning siren location at the March 16, 1982 regular meeting. If you have neighbors who were not sent a letter, please advise them of the informational meeting and invite them to attend if they wish to learn more about the City's plans for locating a civil defense warning siren in your neighborhood. Sincerely, t4 -t\ o Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/hnd 10 THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-14 RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE LICENSING OF GENERAL TRADE CONTRACTORS WHEREAS, proposed legislation identified as SF 1594 (companion bill HF 1570) being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee would establish state licensing of general trade contractors; and WHEREAS, two classes would be established to require state licensing of not only general contractors (Class A) but also subcontractors and those trades separate from building construction involving concrete work, siding installation, swimming pool installation and other services (Class B); and WHEREAS, under the proposed legislation, one-third of all such fees would be retained by the State and two-thirds would be pro -rated to all municipalities based on the number of permits issued by each municipality in the preceding calendar year; and WHEREAS, it is highly questionable whether the state's share of said revenues would finance the staff necessary to process said licenses; and WHEREAS, local governments would, by the very nature of the licensing procedures, be placed in the position of enforcing the proposed statutory provisions; and WHEREAS, those municipalities which issue large volumes of trade permits annually and do not currently require licensing could benefit from said legislation; and WHEREAS, severe financial impact would be imposed on those municipalities which currently require, administer and police their own licensing regulations; and WHEREAS, an additional financial restraint imposed through state mandates is unconscionable; and WHEREAS, said legislation would eliminate the rights, responsibilities and discretion for governmental control more properly retained at the local level, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights strenuously opposes SF 1594 (HF 1570); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby directs that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the League of Minnesota Cities, members of the Senate Commerce Committee, Representative Carolyn Rodriguez and Senator Howard Knutson and all northern Dakota County communities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights strongly urges its legislators, League of Minnesota Cities and local governmental officials to express their opposition to SF 1594 (HF 1570). 'Lim 0 HAIIGE, SM=, EIDE & HELT n, R A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS SBOB SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID D. KELLER Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 February 23, 1982 AR CooE 012 TELEPHONE 404.4224 RE: Pilot Knob Properties vs. City of Eagan - Drexel Heights Street Assessment Appeal Dear Tom: We have recently received the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order concerning the appeal of special assessments taken by Pilot Knob Properties, covering the street improvements in Drexel Heights Addition. By way of background, the first assessment roll was adopted by the City Council on September 24, 1980 and upon recommendation of the staff, a revised roll was adopted by December 16, 1980 reducing the assessments against the Harvey and Henry Braun property and increasing the assessment against the remaining 24 lots of Drexel Heights Addition. Both assessment rolls were appealed from and on November 5, 1981, we had a full day of trial before Judge Bruenig. The case was heard over 3 days on November 5, 6, November 19, 1981. I am enclosing a copy of the Findings and Order and you will note that Judge Bruenig has ruled against the City, again on a procedural basis, claiming that the Council did not consider special benefits or make findings concerning such benefits. Our witnesses had to testify that the City Council did not go through the detailed benefit procedure comparing market values before and after the project. And therefore, Judge Bruenig vacated the assessments and ordered the property to be reassessed following the benefit approach. He also stated that if the Braun property did benefit, that it should bear an assessment equal to the lots assessed in Drexel Heights by determining how many lot equivalents are included in the Braun pro- perty. The Council assessed three lots for Henry Braun on the south, and two equivalent lots for Harvey Braun on the north, based on the very steep access to a portion of the Harvey Braun property. It appears now that the Council has several choices. 1. It could appeal the decision of Judge Bruenig, but based on the current state of the law, this would be fruitless. 2. A new reassessment hearing should be scheduled covering the entire project in the near future. 107 Mr. Thomas Hedges Eagan, Mn. 55122 February 23, 1982 Page 2 0 I would suggest that we attempt to work a settlement with the developer of the Drexel Heights Addition, if possible, although at the present time, the difference is fairly substantial. The original assessment was $3,833.20 per lot, the original assessment in September 1980 was approximately $38,000.00 per lot, and the final assessment in December 1980 was $4,467.58. Because of confusion, up until about 2 days before the assessment hearing, the figure of $3,000.00 per lot was continued to be used in giving information to the developer, and therefore the developer was insistent that that was all that he was obligated to pay. I would guess that the developer would agree to pay $3,400.00 to $3,500.00 per lot over 24 lots, but the City would also have to consider increasing the assessments on the Rahn property. I would ask that you forward this letter to the City Council and if they have specific direction, that this should be followed in this case. If the City cannot reach an agreement with the developer, I would then suggest that a reassessment hearing be scheduled and that our appraiser who is Bob Hutchinson, in this case, be requested to review his appraisal and the Council again schedule a hearing on an appropriate night to hear the testimony. This may take several hours, although I am uncertain about how long the hearing wowactually take. PHH:ras cc: Tom Colbert 10`6 Very 5fuly yours, H. AGENDA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL,« REGULAR MEETING EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL MARCH 2, 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 IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) // A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) >O B. Approve Grading/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) /.Z C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addition Trunk Water Main) D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T.H.55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. OLD BUSINESS jo /,3 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (#52) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations /` B. Amcon Corporation (Patrick M. Gannon) for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District; Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE' of Section 4 P S� C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions VII. NEW BUSINESS .o a9,4 A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ A. Fire Department #a/ C. Park Department B. Police Department p / D. Public Works Department IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) // A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) >O B. Approve Grading/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) /.Z C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addition Trunk Water Main) D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T.H.55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. OLD BUSINESS jo /,3 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (#52) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations /` B. Amcon Corporation (Patrick M. Gannon) for Rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District; Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE' of Section 4 P S� C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions VII. NEW BUSINESS .o a9,4 A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ City of Burnsville B. Developers Construction, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Hilltop Condominiums), Approximately 10 Acres & Containing 52 Dwelling Units, Located on Lot 33, Block 5 and OutLot B, Hilltop Estates Pdj; C. in Section 22 Winkler Development Company for Rezoning from GB (General Business) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow an Office Complex - Hotel -Motel -High Rise, & for a Preliminary Plat (Bluffview) of Approximately 17 Acres, Located in Part of the SW'y of the SW'y D. of Section 19 Comserve Corporation for a Preliminary Plat (Comserve No. 1) Consisting of Approximately 63.77 Acres and Containing One (1) Building Located on All of Government Lots 5-6 in Section 8 and f O E. All that Part of Government Lots 1-2, Section 17 Temporary Advertising Sign for Rosewood Corporation Eagan City Council Agenda March 2, 1982 Page Two VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS "o / p Z A. Dakota County Proposed Maintenance Agreement for Trails P 9 �J B. Approve MnDOT Plans & Specifications for the Upgrading of e T.H. 55 & 149 (Eagan Project #353) J 9s C. Contract 82-2, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertisement for Bids (Briar Hill 4th Addition Streets & Utilities) IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT 0 1• MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the February 16, 1982 regular City Council minutes and the March 2, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: 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 -- There are no items to be considered for the Park Department at this time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department - Item #1: 1982 Sanitary Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan Update ging 1951, t e ity commis- sione t e consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander- lik and Associates to update the 1976 sanitary sewer and water comprehensive plans to incorporate the recently completed compre- hensive guide plan, development and population growth during the past six years and to re-evaluate, in detail, present day con- struction costs and the resulting impact on the calculation of trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk utility assessment rates which are standard rates that have been adjusted every year since 1976 based on the consumer price index (CPI) to try and accurately reflect any current year's cost of construction. Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Two What these comprehensive reports have accomplished is to completely re-evaluate the future needs of the City pertaining to trunk utility installation and to evaluate the number of acres of property within the City which have not yet been assessed their trunk area assess- ments. Taking into consideration a specific percentage of antici- pated lateral benefit from trunk utility assessments, the resulting figure then determines the per acre trunk area assessment rate. This proposed fee schedule as derived through the preparation of these 1982 comprehensive plans is summarized on pages J through - These pages were originally included as a part of the sewer and - water user rate study which was presented to the Council on January 5, 1982. In addition, enclosed on pages 7 through /Q are a summary, review and update of recommended ees 'pertainingg to the major street trunk fund. With the anticipated development expected to occur during 1982, the staff feels that it is imperative that these rates be adjusted as soon as possible to avoid any significant deficit in these trunk funds. The Director of Public Works will be available to discuss in detail any aspect of the reports and final recommendations at the Council meeting of March 2, 1982. Copies of the "Water Supply and Distribution Plan" and the "Compre- hensive Sewer Policy Plan" are enclosed in your packets without page numbers. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1982 sanitary sewer and water comprehensive plans and the respective trunk area and lateral benefit assessment rates and road unit charges to be effective March 1, 1982. 2 A t❑ IL 0 0 AREA AND LATERAL BENEFIT CHARGES This part of the report provides the background information necessary to arrive at equitable rates for the trunk sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main levied on an area basis and the lateral benefit charges levied on a front foot basis whenever a trunk sanitary sewer or trunk water main is used as a lateral. It has been the policy of the City of Eagan to assess the cost of all of the oversize of sanitary sewer and water lines in excess of 8" of dia- meter to the benefited property on an area basis. In commercial and industrial areas, water main lines in excess of 12 inches in diameter are assessed on an area basis. Trunk storm sewer oversize is based on the excess cost of lines over 24" in diameter and also is assessed on an area basis. The cost of wells and water reservoirs is recovered by charging a connection charge on each building permit. On approximately 5 year intervals, the entire trunk system of water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer is re -analyzed and new costs computed for completing the system for saturation development. New rates are computed based on the land yet available for trunk area assessments. In each of the intervening years, the rates are adjusted based upon the expected cost of construction for each of the utilities involved. A comprehensive review of the entire trunk sanitary sewer and water system in 1981 has resulted in new rates for trunk charges. The rates proposed for 1982 are substantially greater than the current rates. E-7615a --13- - 24 - 0 0 Significant changes in overhead and construction costs as well as changes in policy that affect trunk system costs have occurred since the last comprehensive review of trunk sanitary sewer and water system in 1976. Overhead costs have increased approximately 10 percent since 1976 due to costs for additional construction inspection, administration and bond interest. Construction costs have increased an average of 8 - 10 percent per year over the past few years due to inflation for materials cost and labor costs. Through a change in City policy, the total estimated amount of revenue generated from lateral benefit from future trunk lines was reduced and results in an increase in trunk oversizing costs. The City currently charges commercial and industrial (C/I) land at a rate equivalent to 2.1 lots per acre. This City policy was evaluated based on design criteria for average, maximum -day and fire demands for the Eagan water supply and distribution system as well as policies in other metropolitan communities. As a result of this evaluation, it is recommended that the City base the connection charge for C/I land at a rate equivalent to approximately 4.0 lots per acre in order to more closely relate use connection charges to cost of construction facilities to serve C/I areas. The residential connection charge includes a 10 percent additive factor for financing of the facilities between time of installation and actual connection. Since the C/I connection charge is assessed at the same time the water main is, it is not necessary to include a 10 percent financing charge on the C/I connection charge. Based on 1981 costs, the C/I should be $2,510. However, in order to avoid an unreasonable increase in the connection charge, it is recom- E-7615a 0 0 mended that the rate increase be phased over a three year period. This rate, as proposed for 1982 on the following page, should be increased by 25 percent at the end of 1982 and 1983 to complete the phased increase. The proposed 25 percent increase includes an estimated 10 percent rate increase for construction cost inflation. Based on the new estimated trunk system costs from the comprehensive review and the remaining areas to be assessed, the rates on the following page are recommended for adoption for 1982. Future study should be given in the summer of 1982 to determine if the rate of inflation is such that the rates should be adjusted on a 6 month interval rather than on a 12 month interval. It is further recommended that future rate adjustments be programmed to take effect on January 1 of each year and, if 6 month adjustments are deemed necessary, on January 1 and July 1 of each year. E -7615a 1 I` — 26 — 9 0 * Lots which are platted at the time trunk facilities are ordered in ** Multifamily unit cost is approximately 0.8 of the cost of a single family lot —49- - 27 - E -7615a -^49 -27- E -7615a 1982 Current 1981 Rate Proposed Rates Trunk Sanitary Unplatted $770/Ac. $995/Ac. Sewer Oversize Platted Residential * $370/lot $475/lot (@ 2.1 lots/Ac.) Trunk Water Main Agricultural or $770/Ac. $995/Ac. Oversize Residential * $370/lot $475/lot Water Supply 6 Single Family $335/lot $420/lot Storage Multi -Family ** $270/Unit $335/Unit Water Supply & Storage d Main Over - sizing Comm. 6 Ind. $1,485/Ac. $1,945/Ac. Trunk Storm Sewer Single Family .0374/sq.ft. $0.0400/s.f. Oversize Multi -Family .0468/sq.ft. $0.0500/s.f. Comm. 6 Ind. .0561/sq.ft. $0.0600/s.f Lateral Service from Trunk San. Sewer 14.30/Front ft. $16.00/f.f. Lateral Service Single Family 12.00/Front ft. $15.00/f.f. from Trunk Water Main Multi -Family 14.35/Front ft. $18.00/f.f. Comm. 6 Ind. * Lots which are platted at the time trunk facilities are ordered in ** Multifamily unit cost is approximately 0.8 of the cost of a single family lot —49- - 27 - E -7615a -^49 -27- E -7615a the cost of a normal residential street 32' wide were paid for from county road turnback funds and, in some cases, general obligation funds. Amore detailed policy was developed in 1977 to provide more positive financing from development directly benefiting from the major street sys- tem. Because of inequities which result from using only assessments against the directly abutting lots or additions, the policy included a benefit charge to be levied with each building permit. Each new building benefits from the Major Street System. Commercial and Industrial build- ings were charged proportionately larger benefit charges based on use and size of building. The benefit charge was to supplement other sources of funds available for the Major Street construction to provide the required cash flow. In 1977, the Major Street construction financing plan was adopted which established the Major Street benefit charge of S75 per residential road unit to be levied with the issuance of each building permit. Be- cause of the rapid inflation of road construction costa since 1977, it was recommended that the road unit charge be adjusted to $220 in 1981 in order to maintain the cash flow necessary for the continued construction of Major Streets. E-7615a MAJOR STREET BENEFIT CHARGE Early in the development of Eagan Township, a Major Street Plan was adopted which provided major collector streets, principally county roads, designed with 52' wide paving and minor collector streets designated with from 36' to 44' wide paving. The oversize costs for these streets above the cost of a normal residential street 32' wide were paid for from county road turnback funds and, in some cases, general obligation funds. Amore detailed policy was developed in 1977 to provide more positive financing from development directly benefiting from the major street sys- tem. Because of inequities which result from using only assessments against the directly abutting lots or additions, the policy included a benefit charge to be levied with each building permit. Each new building benefits from the Major Street System. Commercial and Industrial build- ings were charged proportionately larger benefit charges based on use and size of building. The benefit charge was to supplement other sources of funds available for the Major Street construction to provide the required cash flow. In 1977, the Major Street construction financing plan was adopted which established the Major Street benefit charge of S75 per residential road unit to be levied with the issuance of each building permit. Be- cause of the rapid inflation of road construction costa since 1977, it was recommended that the road unit charge be adjusted to $220 in 1981 in order to maintain the cash flow necessary for the continued construction of Major Streets. E-7615a 0 0 The following table shows the projected costs to complete the system by the year 2,005 as calculated in 1977 and as recalculated at the present time. The present calculations include streets constructed since 1977.as well as costs to complete the system. TABLE 1 MAJOR STREET COSTS Item County Roads (45% of total cost) City Streets Total Eagan's Cost ........... 1977 Cost Projections S 4,410,000 .9,370,000 513,780,000 Present Cost Projections S 8,380,000 14,020,000 $22,400,000 The current Major Street Policy states that all Major Collector Streets (52' wide undivided streets) should be constructed with a bitu- minous pathway on one boulevard and a concrete sidewalk on the other boulevard, and that Minor Collector Streets (44' wide undivided streets) should be constructed with a concrete sidewalk on one boulevard only. These walkways as well as the rapid inflation of the past few years have combined ,to cause the large increase in cost projections reflected in Table 1. - 29 - E -7615a 0 The funding sources for the costs described in Table 1 will include Minnesota Gas Tax (M.S.A.) funds, major stree levy funds, commercial - industrial and residential equivalent assessments and the major street benefit charge to be levied with the issuance of building permits. Each year the City receives an allotment of money acquired by the State of Minnesota through gasoline taxes to be used in the construction of Major Streets. Income from these Municipal State Aid Funds was pro- jected through the year 2005 since it is anticipated that the Eagan Major Street System will be basically completed by that time. Another annual allotment received by the City of Eaganfor major street construction is the major street levy. The major street levy is formerly known as County Turnback Funds. The amount of funds obtained from this tax levy must increase each year to reflect the population growth of the City as well as the rate of inflation in order to obtain the required funds for completing the Major Street System for Eagan by the year 2005. A substantial income is expected to be obtained from assessing resi- dential equivalents where unrestricted driveway access is to be allowed, such as on Minor Collector streets, and from assessing multi -family and commercial -industrial property on all Major Streets where access will be allowed. Since these equivalent assessments are based on construction costs, they will naturally be adjusted to the inflation rate with each project. -9- - 30 - E -7615a 9- -30- E -7615a • 0. A summary of estimated funds available for Major Street construction through the year 2,000 is presented below: TABLE 2 Item M.S.A. Funds Major Street Levy Estimated Assessments Road Unit Charges FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR MAJOR STREETS 1977 Projection $ 6,270,000 4,420,000 1,980,000 1,100,000 $13,780,000 Present Projection $ 7,465,000 3,336,000 8,510,000 3,089,000 $22,400,000 In 1981, the 1980 Road Unit Charge of $185 per road unit was re- tained. It is recommended that this be raised to $240 for 1982 which is a 30% increase for the two year period from 1980 to 1982. ROAD UNIT EQUIVALENCY TABLE ZONING R-1, $2, R3 R4 Comm./Ind. New Comm./Ind. Bldg. Additions ROAD UNITS 1.0/residential unit 0.8/residential unit 3.0/ac. 3.0/Ac. with acreage as determined by building inspector. * Comm./Ind. includes all zonings other than residential —/0- - 31 - E -7615a 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Three Ll There are a total of four (4) 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. CONTRACT 81-10 A. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-10 (Tomark First Addition) -- During the construction of the streets within the Tomark Addi- tion, the developer did not restrict his construction traffic from public right-of-way during the City's contract construction process. Subsequently, the developer's contractors damaged the subgrade and aggregate base. This combined with a request by the developer to delay the final surfacing of Golfview Drive until the spring of 1982 resulted in additional costs to Contract 81-10. The developer has indicated in writing his concurrence to accept all additional costs associated with the correction of the damage and the increase in prices resulting from this requested delay of street surfacing. All costs associated with this change order will be assessed to the developer. The net effect of this change order results in an add of $6,704. . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Change Order #1 to Contract 81-10 in the amount of $6,704. GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT (COMSERVE FIRST ADDITION) B. Approve Granding/Excavation Permit (Comserve First Addition) -- Comserve, Inc., originally had intended to request a grading/ excavation permit from the City to allow them to proceed with their grading operation prior to receiving final plat approval. However, at this time, they have requested a foundation permit through the Building Inspection Department. Subsequently, a formal grading permit will not have to be issued since this grading operation will be covered under the foundation building permit through the Protective Inspections Department. Therefore, there is no action required by the Council pertaining to this item. • Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Four CONTRACT 81-13 C. Approve Change Order #1, Contract 81-13 (Winkler/Jackson Addi- tion Trunk Water Main) -- At the February 2, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized the staff to prepare a change order to Contract 81-13 to allow Erickson Construction Company to install the City's trunk water main loop from the Cedar Avenue Freeway to Slaters Road. This change order has now been prepared resulting in a net add of $14,721 to Contract 81-13. All costs associated with this change order will be paid for through the trunk utility fund. It should be noted that the City is making use of approximately 320 feet of existing 12" DIP water main pipe presently in storage at the City garage which was salvaged from a previous trunk water main relocation project associated with the Cedar Avenue Freeway. This results in an approximate savings of $4,000. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Change Order #1 to Contact 81-13 in the amount of add $14,721. MnDOT COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT/T.H. 55/149 UPGRADING D. Approve MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement #60740 (T. H. 55/149 Upgrading - Project 353) -- On January 19, 1982, the feasibility report for Project 353 was presented to the Council for their review and information. This project provides for the relocation of existing trunk water main located within the T. H. 55 right-of- way that requires relocation due to MnDOT's pending upgrading of the section of highway. In addition, it provides for the extension of trunk storm sewer and trunk sanitary sewer to Section 1 to avoid additional costs associated with potential jacking in the future. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve MnDOT Cost Parti- cipation Agreement #60740 and a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. —/.V — Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Five There are no public hearings meeting. 0 scheduled for the REVISIONS/HEIGHT LIMITATIONS March 2, 1982 A. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance 452) to Consider Revision to Height Limitations -- A special subcommittee was appointed by the City Council to examine a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #52 to consider a revision to height limitations with commercial and industrial zoned districts. The subcommittee was active in providing research and analyzing various considerations for changing height limitations since late fall 1981. Their final recommenda- tions were presented and considered by the Advisory Planning Com- mission at their regular meeting held on February 23, 1982. A report was sent out to each member of the City Council approximately one week ago that provided a drawing and additional recommendations for consideration of height limitations. This report was considered by the Planning Commission along with modifications as prepared by the City Planner. A copy of recommendations, considering modifi- cations, as prepared by the City Planner, are enclosed on pages /4/ through I- for your review. This memo, as revised by t�i�ity Planner, was adopted by the Advisory Planning Commission as a recommendation for approval to the City Council with revisions. The revisions are being reviewed by the City Attorney and will be distributed with the Administrative Packet on Monday. If any member of the City Council has misplaced the original report by the City Planner and would like an additional copy, feel free to contact the City Administrator's office and a copy will be provided with the Administrative Packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny, with or without revision, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance #52 re- garding a revision to height limitations in commercial and indus- trial zoned districts. - /3 /TO-. THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RLWUE, CITY PIANNER DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1982 RE: RECOMMMMTICNS FROM THE SUBCCMMr= ON HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES IN rrMIOF:RrTAT. AM TNr)TI.g7PTAT. 7.frJM MCTRTr�M The recommendations for heights of structures in conmercial and industrial zoned districts are as follows: 1) No Limit shall be placed on the height of buildings in the cc mmer- cial zoning districts or the industrial zoned districts, nor shall any floor area ratio be required. However, buildings over 35' in height in the cmn ercial district and 40' in height in industrial districts shall have a setback of not less than 3/4 of the height of the building and side and rear setbacks of not less than 1/2 of the height of the building. 2) The maxirman green area for buildings over 3 stories shall be 60' on the front and 25' for side and rear. The green area shall be increased from the present green area requirements in ccuu ercial and industrial zoning categories by 5' on the front, side and rear yards per story until the maximum green area has been ob- tained. 3) No employee parking shall be allowed on the front side of the building. Guest parking will be allowed and -the number of park- ing spaces will be determined by the City Council. 4) No parking shall be allowed adjacent to any side of a building in excess of 35' in commercially zoned districts and 40' in industrially zoned districts in order to provide fire lanes and adequate fire protection for the building. 5) The front yard shall be deteanined by the applicant or developer. The front yard shall' consist of parallel lines running from the building to the lot line for the side designated as the front yard. 6) Increasing the height above three stories for a commercial or industrial building shall not be allowed if the structure is within 300' of a single family residential dwelling. This mea- surement shall be measured from building to building. 7) Any structure over 35' in height in a commercial. district and 40' in height in an industrial district shall be subject to the pertinent conditions in regard to health and safety as stated in Eagan's multistory building agreement. Thomas L. Hedges Heights of Structures February 23, 1982 Page two If these conditions are approved by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council, staff is suggesting that these draft conditions be given to the City Attorney to draft the amendments to Ordinance #52 in the condi- tional use categories in the Commercial and Industrial sections of Ordi- nance 52, and also include by condition in the Planned Development Dis- trict category of Ordinance 52. Once the City Attorney has drafted the amendments, the amendments will have to be published in the official news- paper and proper hearings held before this amendment, or ordinance change, would go into effect. _/S__ 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Six AMCON CORPORATION/PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RAVINE PLAZA B. Amcon Corporation for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow Two Office Buildings and Hotel Complex; for the Preliminary Plat of Ravine Plaza; and for a Variance to Exceed the Height Limitation in a Commercial District -- Three (3) applications were received from Patrick Gannon representing Amcon Corporation for consideration at an Advisory Planning Commission meeting held on September 22, 1981. The applications consisted of the following: Rezoning of approximately 19 acres from A to PD to include two office buildings and a hotel/restaurant facility. 2. Preliminary plat of Ravine Plaza, consisting of approxi- mately 19 acres and -three lots. 3. Variance in order to exceed the height limitation for a commercial building. The applicants did not appear at the September 22 APC meeting and therefore the item was continued until the October 27, 1981 meeting. At the October 27 meeting of the APC, there was considerable dis- cussion reg— a� the two office buildings and hotel proposal. The APC reviewed the site plan and had a number of questions re- garding the location of this facility and Wold Chamberlain Airport. The APC requested that the rezoning and preliminary plat be tabled until the November 24, 1981 meeting in order that representatives from MnDOT, MAC an the Metropolitan Council could be present to give input to the APC. The APC also requested the City Council to give input in regard to height limitations. At the November 243 1981 APC meeting, the APC met with representatives from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council regarding the proposal. This meeting was taped and information could be made available at the request of the City Council. For a copy of the minutes from the APC meeting of November 24 regarding this item, please refer to pages I through /J The APC is recommending denial of the rezoning and preliminary plat as presented. This item has not been considered by the City Council due to the study being performed by a special subcommittee examining height limitations. For addi- tional information, refer to a copy of the City Planner's report and other attachments regarding the Amcon proposal found on pages 9 through 3 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the APC to deny the preliminary plat and rezoning as requested by Amcon. _14 - 0 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE \ EAGAN, NOVEMffi 0 EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINNESOTA ER 249 1981 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan City Hall. Present were Chairman Harrison and APC Members Krob, Gits, Wilkins, Bohne, Turnham and Vogt. Absent was Charles Hall. Also present were City Planner Runkle, Public Works Director Colbert, Assistant Planner Dave Osberg, City Engineer Rosene and City Attorney Hauge. AGENDA The Agenda was approved as distributed. MINUTES Upon motion by Krob, seconded Wilkins, it was resolved that the Minutes of the October 27, 1981 regular meeting be approved with the exception on page 4 concerning RES Investment Company that the proper density computation should be 95%. All voted yes. AMCON CORPORATION REZONING - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE Chairman Harrison then convened the public hearing regarding the applica- tion of Amcon Corporation to rezone 19 acres from (A) Agricultural to (PD) Planned Development in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 4 at the Southwest intersection of 494 and Pilot Knob Road, an application for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza containing 3 lots and a variance to exceed the height limitation for commercial building up to six stories. Mr. Patrick M. Gannon was present. A tape recording was made of the proceedings. Also present at the request of the City were Nagel Finney from The Metropolitan Airports Commission, James Partman of MnDOT Aviation Section, and Chauncey Case of The Metropolitan Council. Mr. Gannon stated the development was intended to coincide with the opening of the highway system in the area with the first stage being an office building with motel likely the third stage. The proposal was for variance to allow two six -story office buildings with a three story motel complex. Each of the representatives from the agencies explained the view of his respective agency concerning the application and indicated that although there are no strict controls over the permits requested, MnDOT has adopted an ordinance covering airport zoning standards. This would provide 15 persons per acre maximum within the airport safety zones, although it was indicated that the noise issue is not a problem. Safety however, is an issue, according to Mr. Finney and he indicated that the Airport Joint Zoning Board, which has been formed for Wold Chamberlain Field, is expected to commence deliberations concerning zoning around Wold Chamberlain Field in the next month or more. Mr. Finney stated that the MAC would prefer that the motel not be in the centerline of the runway path and there was considerable discussion concerning the proposed Metropolitan Significance Statement. The MAC would not likely issue such a statement and MAC has no power to stop development at this point. Mr. Harrison had strong concerns about the potential hazard of a building of 6 stories in height in the location which is within the airport 1 APC Minutes November 24, 1981 safety zone of runway 29, left of Wold Chamberlain Field. A Hold -Harmless IAgreement was suggested on behalf of the staff from the developer and owner. It was further noted that the City Council has scheduled December 3, 1981 as a meeting date of the sub -committee concerning subdivision ordinance and for possible review of height limitations for buildings. Mr. Partman stated that their proposal would constitute some hazard for people on the ground. He further stated that the ground level is at 880 to 900 feet and he expects air traffic elevations of about 1,500 feet in the location of the proposed development. The proposal is for about 2,000 people for the office buildings plus motel patrons. Mr. Case stated that the Metropolitan Council has not stated that it will do a Metropolitan Significance Review but expressed con- cerns about the development in the main runway location. He stated that Eagan's Comprehensive Plan has not been completely reviewed by the Metropoli- tan Council and further, it was noted that the proposal does not comply with MnDOT's standards under its airport zoning standard rules. The options that could be followed are to grant or deny the applications, to study the proposal for an additional period of time including height limitation revisions and/or to allow the joint zoning board to review zoning in the general area of Wold Chamberlain Field. After considerable discussion, Harrison moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend denial of each of the applications for reasons including those stated above, because of the potential air traffic hazard for a 6 story bulding in the flight path within Zone H; that the application for the height limitations does not comply with the Eagan Ordinances; that there is inadequate planning and that a proposal for some partial underground construction should be considered; that the City has at the present time, not provided for exceptions from the height limitations for commercial buildings; that the proposed height limitations and the density proposed do not comply with MnDOT's airport zoning standards and it appears to be premature to be considering a proposal in excess of the height limitation standards currently allowed under the Eagan Ordinance. Member Krob suggested more study of the proposal. Those in favor were Harrison, Willkins, Bohne, Turnham and Vogt, those against were Gits and Krob. BURNET REALTY - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIGN The public hearing regarding the application of Burnet Realty and Leonard MacKinnon for conditional use permit for pylon sign at the Burnet Realty office at 4655 Nicols Road was next convened. There was no appearance by the applicant. Harrison moved, Gits seconded the motion to continue the applica- tion to the next regular meeting. All voted yes. DAVID FURLONG - AMUSEMENT DEVICE PERMIT The hearing regarding the application of David Furlong for conditional use permit for more than three amusement devices in a neighborhood business district at 4215 Nicols Road was next opened by Chairman Harrison. Mr. Furlong was present and indicated that he is proposing amusement devices and the sale of wearing apparel at 4215 Nicols Road, south of Diffley Road. He explained the hours including 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, and 11:00 J a.m. to 10:00 p.m, on Friday and Saturday, and 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m, on 1 Sunday, Planning Commission member Krob explained his reasons for opposition to the proposal including the following: 2 I 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REzcNiNG, PRELIIsIT]ARY PLAT AND VARIANCE - RAVINE PLAZA APPLICANT: AMCCN CORPORATION - PATRICK GANNON LOCATION: PART OF THE NEE' OF THE NF'r, OF SECTION 4 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY APPLICATIM SUBDnTI'ED SEPTE1MBER 22, 1981 SEPTSviBER 16, 1981 DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 19 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PD (Planned Development District) to include two office buildings and a hotel restaurant facility located in the NE; of the NEQ of Section 4. The second application submitted is a request for a preliminary plat, Ravine Plaza, which will consists of approximately 19 acres and contain 3 lots. The third application submitted is a request for a variance in order to exceed the height limitation for a commercial building. ZONINC AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural District). The Comprehensive land Use Guide designates the parcel as RB (Roadside Business District) which allows hotels, restaurants and any other use that is allowed in any other ccsr mercial district. Therefore, the proposed development plan is consistent with Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan. AoLir"�Iu ak For the past several months, staff has been working with the applicant in or- der to try to work out some problems related to this site prior to the appli- cant submitting the formal application to the City. As you may be aware, the parcel is located in the SPI quadrant of Interstate 494 and Pilot Knob Road. Along with this unique location adjacent to an interstate highway, the subject parcel is also within the B safety zone of Runway 29 left Wold -Chamberlain Airport. Being in the B safety zone, there are many problems associated with this site than any other parcel in the City. The B safety zone is an approach for a runway. The airport zoning standards have been established by MnDOT to regulate the airspace, land use safety and noise sensitivity in regard to air traffic for airports. Mr. Paul Hauge has been involved with meetings with the developer and different agencies and has prepared a letter explaining some of the concerns which shall address the major issues in regard to development in 0 CITY Or EAGAN RAVINE PLAZA SEPMSER 22, 1981 PAGE TM safety zones surrounding major airports Hauge. Enclosed is this letter from Mr. Paul In meetings that the City staff has had with the developer, there are three dif- ferent governmental agencies which have also been involved in the planning pro- cess. These agencies are MAC (Metropolitan Airport's Commission), MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) and the Metropolitan Council. In explaining each of the roles of the different agencies, MAC controls the air- port operation in regard to air traffic. They also control Wold-Chanherlain Air- port site. MAC also is involved in providing safety for air traffic within this metropolitan area. MnDOT, as stated in Paul Hauge's letter, had been granted the authority to draft legislation in regard to airport zoning in the State of Minn- esota. The Metropolitan Council has established a MC/MAC Committee, which is a joint committee between the Metropolitan Airport and the Metropolitan Council. This cmmni.ttee, for the past two years, has been studying problems in regard to airport noise and how to control airport noise to keep airports within the met- ropolitan area viable and to provide good air transportation to the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council also has the authority to issue a Metropolitan Significance Statemant which would allow the Metropolitan Council to study the subject parcel up to one year prior to allowing any development to caimence. Therefore, if the Metropolitan Council is assured by MAC or MnDOT that the devel- opment proposal will not be detrimental to Wold -Chamberlain Airport, no Metro- politan Significance Statement will be issued. Staff has been working closely with MAC in the development of this subject par- cel. It is staff's understanding, since there are no ordinances adopted at this time, and the joint zoning board has not yet been established, MAC is not able to en- force the airport zoning which has been adopted. In reviewing the site plan, it appears that the major problem that MAC had with the development proposal was the location of the motel. Staff has looked at al- ternate layouts with 14AC in order to develop the property the best and safest way in regard to airport traffic. It had been determined that shifting the motel to other locations did not provide any safer locations than what is proposed on this plan. It is also worthy to note that developments in Bloomington have motels closer to the airport than what is being proposed in Eagan. Therefore, MAC did not see any major problem with the motel in this location. The proposed location of this site is approximately 10,000' from the end of the runway, and MAC did not have as much of a problem with the location of this site vs. if the site would be much closer to the end of the runway. In regard to site density and height of the proposed facility, MAC also did not have problems in regard to the development of this site for the proposed use. It is the staff's understanding that MAC will not object to the proposed development of this site. In reviewing the application, staff has suggested to the applicant to rezone the property to Planned Development instead of a strict zoning classification. The Planned Development would enable the developer to develop the site plan, and it will also allow the City to impose additional restrictions and conditions over - ao- CITY OF EAGM RAVINE PLAZA SEPTE,1BER 22, 1981 PAGE THREE and above the strict zoning classification. Some of these conditions would re- late to noise sensitivity or insulation within the building to provide noise abatement and also to control the materials in construction of the facility so it will not be a hazard for aircraft landinTSor takeoffs. The other item staff is looking at to incorporate into the Planned Development. agreement is a "hold harmless" clause which would not make the City liable in the future if any catastrophe would happen on the subject parcel. The Planned Development would also allow only this development to develop as proposed on this site plan. If the developer were to change the plan to different uses, it would require additional review by the City. SITE PLAN REVIEW The total site consists of 19.1 acres and will contain 3 lots. The applicant is proposing to construct two office buildings and a motel restaurant complex. At the present time, the applicant has submitted preliminary drawings, or con- cept plan,of the development proposal. Prior to preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall submit detailed drawings for grading, drainage, utilities and erosion control to fulfill the ordinance requirements. Lot A - Lot A contains 5.3 acres. The -proposed office building and parking rarrp contain 39,200 square feet for a lot coverage of 16.9%. The office build- ing which is being proposed will contain 6 stories for a total of 91,200 square feet. The parking requirements for this complex are 608 parking spaces. Lot B - Lot B contains 8.3 acres. The proposed office building and parking ramp contain 43,800 square feet for a total lot coverage of 12%. Again, the proposed office building which is being'proposed contains 6 stories for a total of 118,800 square feet. The parking for the office complex would require 792 parking spaces. Lot C - Int C contains 5.5 acres. The developer is proposing a 20,000 square foot motel and a 5,000 square foot restaurant. The lot coverage for Lot C is 10.4%. The proposed motel is a 3 -story complex for a total of 60,000 square feet. The parking requirements for the motel would be 225 parking spaces. The parking for the restaurant is based on 1 parking space per every 3 seats based on capa- city of the restaurant. The capacity has not yet been determined at this time. It appears that the concept plans meet lot requirements for camercial areas. Detailed plans for parking will have to be submitted if the concept is allowed at this location. Once the concept is allowed, the developer can proceed with the detailed plans for each phase. Another item which will have to be discussed is height limitations in ccr r- cial or industrial zones. Presently, the height limitation in a eQmercial district is 35'. -rhe height limitation in an industrial district is 40'. As you can see, the proposed office complex is a 6 -story facility which will ex- ceed the 35' height limitation. This is the first request the City of Eagan 07/ — rI L CITY OF EP.(',AN RAVINE PLAZA SEPTET h -R 22, 1981 PAGE FOUR has had in regard to any building exceeding the height requirements. Therefore, if this proposed facility is approved, a revision to the zoning ordinance, or variance,would have to be approved to allow this structure. If approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans shall be approved prior to the approval of the preliminary plat. 2. An adequate landscape bond shall be required for each phase of the devel- opment and not released until one year after the landscaping has been cmpleted. 3. The preliminary plat shall be subject to MnDc7P and Dakota County Plat Caimission's revie=w and comTents because the plat abuts State and County rights-of-way. 4. A "hold harmless" clause shall be added to the Planned Development Agree- imnt so the City is not held liable in the future if any catastrophe hap- pens to the site because of air traffic. 5. An EAW shall be prepared for the overall project and approved by all agencies. 6. Each phase of the development shall be reviewed by the City prior to the construction of each phase. 7. Cross easements for parking shall be required prior to the final plat. 8. A variance from the height limitation, or an ordinance revision for height limitation in amu ercial and industrial areas, shall be approved prior to the construction of the first phase. 9. All necessary permits and easements shall be obtained as requested by the City staff. 10. Noise abatement measures shall be required in each of the buildings. These noise abatement levels shall be agreed to by both the developer and City staff. 11. All other ordinance requirements shall be enforced. - aa- CITY OF EAGAN LONE OAK HEIGHTS ADDITION SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 PAGE FIVE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 12. Storm water surface drainage shall be handled by an internal storm sewer system and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. Erosion protection must be provided during construction and provided for future heavy storms in the gully and for adjacent property west of this development. 13.Traffic volume estimates shall be provided and adequate access designed in- to the street and driveway system. 14.Sanitary sewer connections to MWCC Interceptor line must be approved by MWCC. 15.Water.system looping through the development shall be provided with ade- quate capacity for fire and sprinkler system protection. RWR:1i -C�3- TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: ROBERT W. ROSENE, CONSULTING CITY ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 RE: PRELIMINARY LAYOUT - OFFICE AND MOTEL COMPLEX AT I-494 AND CO.RD. 31 (Amcon) The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer for consideration of the above referenced preliminary layout. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service can be provided from the existing trunk sanitary sewer along the north and part of the west boundary of this development. This trunk sewer is now owned by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and permission to con- nect to the line must be obtained from them. This line has sufficient capacity and is at proper elevation to serve this proposed development. Lateral sanitary sewer lines will be required within the development. Consideration should be given to the extension of these laterals to serve the property to the south. Water service will be provided from the existing 12" trunk water main on Pilot Knob Road at Eagan Industrial Road. It is anticipated that an oversized lateral line will be required to be looped through this property and the property zoned commer- cial south of this property in order to provide the proper fire and/or sprinkler system protection in this area. Additional information will be necessary from the developer before the size of lines can be determined. All costs of oversizing the lateral water lines should be borne by the development. GRADING AND DRAINAGE A preliminary grading plan indicates that most of the drainage from this area will be directed toward the existing gully extending through the central portion of the property from east to west. This is a major natural drainageway. The large areas of surfaced parking lot and building within the proposed development will require the installation of an extensive storm sewer system for this surface drainage. The storm sewer will need to be extended at least to T.H. 13 and possibly be connected to the trunk storm sewer being installed in I-494. It appears that this storm sewer system will serve only the proposed development. Therefore, it is expected that all costs associated with the storm sewer will be borne by the development. STREETS The preliminary layout indicates only one access point to this development near the southeast corner. This access point is proposed to be provided by Mn/DOT as a part of their reconstruction work on County Road 31 at the interchange with I-494. Mn/DOT proposes to provide an intersection at Eagan Industrial Road for a standard 34' wide residential street which is then narrowed down to a 20' wide rural cross section access driveway to this property. This access is across the property south of the proposed development. Traffic flow information from this development must be provided so that the size and capacity of access road can be evaluated. It may be necessary to provide an access road wider than the proposed 34' wide minimum street at Eagan Industrial Road. It is anticipated that traffic signals would be installed at Eagan Industrial Road when traffic warrants are met. I will be available to discuss in further detail any portion of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on September 22, 1981. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. A C.�i-c�-eM� w 4 Robert W. Rosene Consulting City Engineer ..�.[ _ RWR:li 7 6274a 0 0 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER RICHARD J. KRAMBEER Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator CITY OF EAGAN 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 PAUL H. 11AUGE & ASSOCIATES. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 37122 July 15, 1981 Re: Airport Zoning Restrictions - I-494 Dear Tom: ARKA COOK 812 TELEPHONE 474.4224 Several staff members met with a representative from the MAC, from MN/Dot and from the Metropolitan Council on July 1st and discussed existing regulations and pro- posed regulations regarding a proposed development along I-494 at the Southwest interesection of I-494 and Pilot Knob Road. Dale Runkle suggested a comprehen- sive review by the agencies that have some interest and may have some regulatory powers over the development within the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport corridor. Probably the most glaring issue is that there are few formal regulations that have been adopted at the present time to control development in that location. M.S.A. 360.061 is the Airport's Zoning Board statute which provides for the es- tablishment of an airport zoning board covering zoning regulations adjacent to each airport in the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Airport Zoning Board has been established, but has not met apparently because of problems that have developed adjacent to several other airports in the metropolitan area where the zoning issues have not been resolved. Councilmember Tom Egan and Dale Runkle have been appointed by the Eagan City Council to the MAC Joint Zoning Board, but no meeting has been held as.yet. It is anticipated that this board may get started during the current calendar year. I Regulations have been adopted by the Division of Aeronautics of the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation 14, MCAR #1.3010, pursuant to MSA 360.061 regarding develop- ment particularly within the corridors of the flight patterns from airports, but these regulations do not have binding effect upon the decisions of municipalities as to the rezoning of land for development purposes. In addition, an airport zoning model ordiance has been adopted through the State Hearing Examiner's Office and it too has no binding effect until adopted by one of several bodies: 1) a local municipality, 2) the Joint Zoning Board, 3) MN/Dot. Some of the questions that are raised concerning the proposed development include the following: 9 0 Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 2 July 15, 1981 1) Should the City of Eagan adopt the model zoning ordinance for Minnesota airports prepared by the Division of Aeronautics of MN/Dot? That ordinance is fairly detailed and includes zones covering distances from the airport along run- ways with the parcel in question under proposed Zone B. The City Council must decide whether it would want to proceed to adopt an airport zoning ordinance and thus preempt a Joint Zoning Board from adopting an ordinance that may be somewhat more restrictive than the City's ordinance. 2) If the Zone B category is implemented and the restrictions proposed both under the MN/Dot regulations 14 MCAR and the proposed model zoning ordinance, the restrictions would be as follows: a) The 19 acre parcel would include a ratio of 6 to 1 - land to building, with 15 persons per acre and in addition, hotels and motels would be speci- fically prohibited in Zone B. In addition, there are certain height re- strictions, but it is our understanding that the proposed buildings would not conflict with either federal regulations or, the 200 foot maximum height of the two office buildings in the proposal would not conflict with the pro- posed regulations for the model ordinance. The top of the building would be about 900 feet above sea level with the end of the runway at 813. 3) Should the City Planning Commission and Council amend its zoning ordinance to permit height limitations above those already permitted under Ordiance 52, which now provides for a maximum 35 foot elevation for commercial and 40 foot for indus- trial buildings. Involved in this consideration is the possibility of restricting height limitations within the runway patterns. 4) Noise factors should also be considered and from the information we have received, the proposed use is compatible with noise limitations, but this should be researched to a greater extent. 5) Variances - The model ordinanceprovides for variances which may be handled by a Board of Adjustments set up under the ordinance by the City or by the Joint Zoning Board, whichever is applicable. 6) Adverse Condemnation - Another issue that should be taken into account is the possibility of either acquiring easements from property owners for air rights or becoming involved in adverse condemnation by restricting the use of specific pzr- cels. This becomes an issue where the City may authorize property to be rezoned, although the parcel in question is currently zoned Agricultural and, therefore, the City still has a certain deqree of. control. However, the parcel to the South is zoned for commercial purposes and,if restrictions are placed upon the use that are more highly restrictive than the currently zoned categories, the City may subject itself to a claim for damages on the basis of adverse condemnation. Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 3 July 15, 1981 A recent Supreme Court case, McShane v. City of Faribault,292 NW 2d 253 , Minn. 1980, was an action by a property owner adjacent to the Faribault airport claiming diminution in value because the airport zoning board set up zones identical tp those under 14 MCAR 1.3010 which greatly restricted the use of the land. The Court required adverse condemnation by the City and zoning board to determine the loss in value. 7) It was suggested that one condition that could be placed upon the approval of rezoning might be for the City to require that interested agencies, including the MAC, MN/Dot Division of Aeronautics, the Metropolitan Council, and PCA review the application and make comments that each feels is applicable. The EQB would have authority only if it fits the guidelines for EIS or EAW requirements and that can be determined by a review of the guidelines by the City Planner after the application has been submitted. 8) Planned Unit Development - Perhaps the most desirable method of approach- ing the issue is to require that the zoning be considered only upon the submission of an application for Planned Unit Development approval to provide for conditions to be placed in an agreement covering the use of the property. Restrictions could in- clude phasing, noise levels and barriers, density, etc. 9) Applicable Statutes and Regulations - MSA 360.061 et seq. This section provides that each municipality with an airport hazard area within its territorial limits may adopt airport zoning regulations and may divide the area into .zones, specify the land use as permitted,and regulate and restrict the height of structures. However, where a Joint Airport Zoning Board is established, it may adopt zoning regulations if the municipality is within the area where an airport hazard exists. Eagan appears to fit within this specific provision, although the Council has de- cided to join the Joint Airport Zoning Board which, of course, has not become operational. (See MSA 360.063, subdivision 3(2)). a) Under MSA 360.067, there is a provision for variance from the Board of Adjustment which must be provided under all airport zoning regulations and they should be allowed where strict enforcement of regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and would not be contrary to the public interest, but may be subject to conditions. The Board of Adjust- ment is provided for under MSA 360.071. 10) 14 MCAR 1.3010 et seq. - Airport Zoning standards. The Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division has adopted airport zoning standard regulations which follow generally the proposed model ordinance, but it appears that municipal zoning may override these regulations. MN/Dot has been given certain regulatory authority, but there is some question as to enforceability of these regulations. a7- Mr. Thomas Hedges Page 4 July 15, 1981 12) MSA 473.215 - Metropolitan Council Airport Zoning. This statute appears to cover only the selection by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission of a site for a new major commercial airport and it was originally adopted in 1969. This letter is not an indepth review of the subject and after further consultation with the applicant and other reviewing bodies, specific issues can be checked further. ery truly yours, alau1%H. -Hauge PHH:kl - 49' 0 MEMO TO: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN OSBERG DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1981 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCES 0 Information on the zoning ordinances of Edina, Bloomington and Burnsville has been collected. The height restrictions, parking ratios and setback requirements for office buildings in each of the communities is as follows: Edina The City of Edina has divided the office building district into subdistrict 1 and subdistrict 2. For those office buildings in subdistrict 1, the maxi- mum height is four stories. There is no height restriction for those office buildings in subdistrict 2. The parking ratio. for all office buildings in Edina is one (1) space for each 200 square feet of floor space. The minimum office building front setback in subdistrict 1 is 35 feet or the average height of the building, whichever is greater. In subdistrict 2, any office building 5 or 6 stories in height shall be no closer to any R- 1 District properties than two times the average height of the building. For a 7 or 8 story office building, the setback cannot be less than three times the building height. Any office building 9 or more stories in height must not have a front setback of less than four times the height of the building. In subdistricts 11 and 2, the minimum building front and rear setback cannot be less than 20 feet (25 feet if abutting a public street). Bloomington For all office buildings in Bloomington, there are no height restrictions. However, there are some restrictions on building heights related to the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport. The parking ratio for all office buildings in Bloomington is one (1) space for each 200 square feet of floor space. For the larger offices in Bloomington, the front setback is 60 feet, the side setback is 60 feet and 25 feet for the rear setback. For the smaller ofices, the front setback is 35 feet, the side setback is 10 feet and 25 feet for the rear setback. Burnsville No office building in the City of Burnsville may exceed 25 feet. For office buildings and professional buildings having less than 6,000 square feet of floor area, there must be a parking space for each 150 square feet of floor area. For office buildings and professional buildings having 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, e.g., banks and savings institutions, there must be 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. Office buildings and professional buildings in Burnsville must have a front setback of 30 feet and a rear setback of 20 feet or I!-- times the height of the building, whichever is more. For a side yard adjacent to a non- residential lot, the setback must be 10 feet. The side setback must be 20 feet if it is adjacent to a residential lot or a street. _ay, --.:___:: � � __ -I X�•1d4YOO 3O1-IdO 1.VOV3 it sit n bJM1e4' rG4)37 I � �- jI1M''J•fr:c'r /• 1 �f d Y. I ' '• Y. TA ok I'fri e`� i 1]i :• :, .'fi ', v:'l, <t::' .,� L.Y. `°i�I 'f IrLall 1'1 \ ''`'• '. � / e i \ `.) toll-_ EEE ^� ''I' � 'M� �( •`��' _1'• i �i'��{/ i��,i' �'. 'Y ' g ,011 Y .IX Fu'f i = t\ Ili ,A1 r.(;. /, ,1 • ,,, �.`,4+;,.,, y},,.,5:�, I-. •�� /' / .I I 1 \ � ._ yr I • � _ J_ 161 - X3ldW00 301:1d0 NVOV3 le, WWRIA Mama � - ' ori �-�--�_i i-1, Tf •tl\' ,' '' I � - -- _ � _ = .. _. �.�_•__ •�� It t ...... {i�,�. \1 1, �•� _ '' � 'Y,; y ! jy I"•III, i '. TZE 2A If LN .i.'... LJr:J:� -✓' .:J..Ii I(:,i•:I:a,,,rdNSJlav 1: ' L I rr _ I In \_.. - GOLF 3 Ind' ... ��',,, � �• R•I -Ind:. R• L Ind -",ti PER21 RIG _ m - /� • ( . •-•R-II RII .. Ind. .: ., ... - ....-.. RG ..r...-.. ,x. _ In R&D R.IV --.. R•III R' O -- -. Y .. Ind. PNB .. CSC L6 — RGI LB R-il R -II RIG y- s QR -II `— a R� GOLF R.I. - __ P R -JI • LB •III R -III "ii,- .,.R -I• R- R -1 R -IV -- CSEI IL MENDOF 1 N MM 808 - 2 y++ TENrA71VE. 5 T H AA Gg .. *LOST SPUR'V40.4 T T "T COUNTRY 1 "•'AGAr:,FD 4 1 CLUB _:� RB �W P F L B---r,--_-r �-- NO 3 q I i D t /� EY HIGH VIEW R � ARtS CA TRY PARK/ PLA A L i N Q I R_1 non+ .: R-1 I TKEFFLE ACRES I T ZEHNDER -1 RA . R-1 AGE ! R;4 q PD =� R-4 1 R-3 A q�3' PF' PFS lMa' L __� R-4 J R_4 ti - zg ; R-3 RD R-4 0 0 Agenda Items -. February 28, 1982 Page Seven 1982 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS C. 1982 Budgetary Adjustments/State Aid Reductions -- The City Council met in a special meeting that was held on February 25, 1982 to consider budgetary adjustments to offset state aid reductions that were recommended by the City Administrator. The state aid reductions for 1982 are estimated at 52,130. The amount of the reduction recommended for the general fund is $52,300 as proposed by the City Administrator. The reductions, in many cases, as proposed by the City Administrator were recommended by the respective department heads. Enclosed on page g is a copy of the recommended budgetary adjustments. A copy o t es e budgetary adjustments appears on the front cover of the 1982 Budget document which is also enclosed as a part of your packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the 1982 budgetary adjustments as reviewed and tentatively approved at a special City Council meeting on February 25, 1982. - 3 �I- MEMO TO: 1982 CITY OF EAGAN BUDGET USERS PACE CHANGE NUMBER DESCRI ON fu FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES 25 Personal Services 140,700 139,700 25 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 8,250 7,910 DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 25 Other Charges & Services 92,310 89,810 25 Total 241,760 237,920 SUBJECT: 1982 OPERATING BUDGET REDUCTIONS 25 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 4,000 3,000 In official City Council action at a special meeting held February 25 25 Subtotal 140,700 139,700 25, 1982, the following adjustments were made to the 1982 general 25 Printed Material Subtotal 2,400 8,250 2,060 7,910 fund budget. These adjustments amount to a $52,300 reductionto 25 Electronic Data Processing 22,000 21,000 1982 operations. The reductions were adopted based on the recoto 25 Other Contractual Services 9,800 8,300 mendation of the City Administrator after department head review 25 Subtotal 92,310 89,810 of individual deparmental budgets and necessitated by a reduction 25 Tot 241,760 237,920 in intergovernmental revenue from the State of Minnesota. 29 Other Charges 8 Services 17,740 16,340 Please note the following changes in your copy of the budget: 29 29 Total Professional Services -Planning 70,690 13,000 69,290 11,600 29 Subtotal 17,740 16,340 PACE CHANCE 29 Total 70,690 69,290 NUMBER DESCRIPTION -rKum 31 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,750 1,650 31 Other Charges & Services 12,690 12,110 30 Intergovernmental Revenue 829,460 777,160 31 31 Total Building Repair Supplies 33,680 800 33,000 700 SO Total General Fund 3,287,130 3,234,830 31 Subtotal 1,750 1,650 12 Local Government Aid 356,380 317,070 31 Electricity 4,500 4,200 12 Homestead Credit 380,520 372,530 31 Buildings Repair 2,000 1,800 12 Shade Tree Disease Program 8 5,000 _O_ 31 Miscellaneous 300 220 12 13 Total General Fund 829,460 3,287,130 777,160 3,234,830 31 31 Subtotal 12,690 12,110 14 Administration 107,290 105,690 Total 33,680 33,000 14 Finance/Clerk/Elections 241,760 237,920 134 Personal Services 983,040 976,510 14 Planning & Zoning 70,690 69,290 134 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 72,230 70,960 14 General Governmental Buildings 33,680 33,000X34 Other Charges & Services 89,630 84,060 14 541,570 534,050 34 Capital Outlay 53,340 47,340 14 Police 1,198,240 1,178,870 34 Total 1,198,240 1,178,870 14 Fire 212,960 208,700 34 Salaries & Wages -Regular 772,480 776,150 14 Protective Inspections 155,090 152,990 34 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 42,180 40,980 14 Animal Control 23,380 22,880 34 Subtotal 983,040 976,510 14 1,654,640 1,628,410 34 Operating Supplies -General 7,050 5,780 14 Public Works/Engineering 203,830 193,480 34 Subtotal ' 72,230 70,960 14 Streets & Highways 423,610 421,410 34 Teleprocessing Equipment 3,570 0 14 627,440 614,890 34 Other Equipment Repair 6,520 5,720 14 Parks & Recreation 385,300 381,300 35 Miscellaneous 2,600 2,000 14 Tree Conservation 44,680 42,680 35 Conferences & Schools 7,190 6,590 14 429,980 423,980 35 Subtotal 89,630 84,060 14 Total General Fund Expenditures 3,287,130 3,234,830 35 Office Furnishings & Equipment 2,000 1,000 15 02 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,000 800 35 Other Equipment 5,000 0 15 02 -Ocher Charges & Services 22,510 21,110 35 Subtotal 53,340 47,340 15 02 -Total 107,290 105,690 35 Total 1,198,240 1,178,870 15 05 -Personal Services 140,700 139,700 37 Other Charges & Services 40,500 36,240 15 05 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 8,250 7,910 37 Total 212,960 208,700 15 05 -Other Charges & Services 92,310 89,810 37 General Printing & Binding 600 540 15 05 -Total 241,760 237,920 37 Waste Removal 4,000 0 16 08 -Other Charges & Services 17,740 16,340 37 Machinery & Equipment Rental 200 0 16 08 -Total 70,690 69,290 37 Subtotal 40,500 36,240 16 09 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,750 1,650 37 Total 212,960 208,700 16 09-CapitaL Outlay 12,690 12,110 39 Other Charges & Services 43,050 40,950 16 09 -Total 33,680 33,000 39 Total 155,090 152,990 16 Total General Government 541,570 534,050 39 Electrical Inspections 26,000 24,000 16 11 -Personal Services 983,040 976,510 39 39 Reference Materials Subtotal 300 43,050 200 40,950 16 11 -Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 72,230 70,960 39 Total 155,090 152,990 16 11 -Other Charges & Services 89,630 84,060 41 Capital Outlay 1,800 1,300 16 I1 -Capital Outlay 53,340 47,340 41 Total 23,380 22,880 16 16 11 -Total 12 -Other Charges & Services 1,198,240 40,500 1,178,870 36,240 41 Mobile Equipment 1,800 1,300 16 12 -Total 212,960 208,700 41 41 Subtotal Subtotal 1,800 23,380 1,300 22,880 17 13 -Other Charges & Services 43,050 40,950 48 Personal Services 176,380 166,030 17 13 -Total 155,090 152,990 48 Total 203,830 193,480 17 17 14 -Capital Outlay 14 -Total 1,800 23,380 1,300 22,880 48 Salaries & Wages -Regular 147,340 138,670 17 Total Public Safety 1,654,640 1,628,410 48 48 Accrued Retirement Benefits Accrued Insurance Benefits 1,570 111,470 16,530 10,830 17 21 -Personal Services 176,380 166,030 48 Subtotal 176,380 166,030 17 21 -Total 203,830 193,480 48 Total 203,830 193,480 18 18 22 -Personal Services 22 -Other Charges & Services 204,160 125,030 203,160 123,830 50 Personal Services 204,160 203,160 18 22 -Total 423,610 421,410 50 Other Charges & Services 125,030 123,830 18 Total Public Works 627,440 614,890 50 50 Total Salaries & Wages -Temporary 423,610 2,600 421,410 1,600 18 31 -Personal Services 272,350 268,350 50 Subtotal 204,160 203,160 18 18 31 -Total 32 -Capital Outlay 385,300 10,650 381,300 8,650 51 Other Equipment Repair 7,500 6,500 18 32 -Total 44,680 42,680 51 Other Contractual Services 1,000 800 18 Total Parks & Recreation 429,980 423,980 51 51 Subtotal Total 125,030 423,610 123,830 421,410 18 Total General Fund 3,287,130 3,234,830 53 Personal Services 272,350 268,350 22 Su lies, Repair & Maintenance 1,000 21,110 800 53 Total 385,300 381,300 22 22 Other Charges & Services Total 22,510 107,290 105,690 53 Salaries & Wages -Temporary 49,090 45,090 22 Office Supplies 600 400 53 Subtotal 272,350 268,350 22 Subtotal 1,000 800, 54 Total 385,300 381,300 22 Postage 2,800 2,300 56 Capital Outlay 10,650 8,650 22 General Printing & Binding 3,500 2,600 56 56 Total Other Improvements 44,680 10,000 42,680 8,000 22 22 Subtotal Total 22,510 107,290 21,110 105,690 56 Subtotal 10,650 8,650 56 Total 44,680 42,680 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Eight JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/CABLE TELEVISION A. Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement for Cable Television/ City of Burnsville -- At a joint cable television advisory committee meeting sponsored by the City of Eagan and held in the Eagan City Council Chambers on Thursday, February 11, the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan tentatively agreed to proceed with the drafting and adoption of a joint powers agreement and resolution so both cities can proceed together in the development of an RFP and further action leading up to the development of a cable television system. The City Manager of Burnsville and City Administrator of Eagan met with the City of Eagan's cable counsel, Tom Creighton, on Monday, February 22, 1982, to review a draft Burnsville/Eagan Joint Coopera- tive Agreement. There were a number of changes recommended by both administrators which have been incorporated into a final draft agreement. As you will note on the copy of the final draft agree- ment, there are some additional penciled changes which are the result of the City Attorney's comments, critiquing the final draft. The City of Burnsville will be considering the joint powers agree- ment at their regular City Council meeting on March 1, 1982. The City Administrator will report nn their action on Tuesday. Enclosed on pages %3 7 through 53 is a copy of a letter from Mr. Tom Creighton, a copy of the ,joint powers agreement and a draft reso- lution. The resolution can be approved subject to final appointment of the cable television advisory commission representatives from the City of Eagan at the March 16, 1982 meeting. This will allow the City Council to hold what may be the last Cable Television Advisory Committee meeting on March 11, 1982 and discuss their appointments at that time or as a City Council at the March 16 meeting. The City of Burnsville may or may not make their commis- sion appointments at the meeting March 1, 1982. If any member of the City Council has comments regarding the agreement that may substantially change any of the language, please contact this office on Monday so the concerns can be shared with the Burnsville City Manager prior to their regular City Council meeting. Mr. Tom Creighton, cable counsel, will be present at the meeting on Tuesday to explain in further detail the joint powers agreement and answer any questions the City Council may have. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the joint powers agreement as prepared by Tom Creighton, cable legal consultant for the City of Eagan. -.39' JAY L. BENNETT WILLIAM M. OUNKLEY THOMAS 0. CREIBHTON /Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Mr. Jim Spore City Manager City of Burnsville 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 February 24, 1982 Re: Proposed Joint Powers Agreement and Resolution Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Draft No. 2 of the proposed Joint and Cooperative Agreement for establishing a cable communica- tions commission for Burnsville and Eagan. Also enclosed is a sample Resolution which can be used by your cities in the adoption of the Joint Powers Agreement. Draft No. 2 has been substantially amended pursuant to our meeting on Monday morning, February 22, 1982, at which time we discussed in detail Draft No. 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement. I trust the Draft No. 2 fairly reflects your input from both of your cities. If there are any additional corrections which need be made, please contact me as soon as possible. As per your request the name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission. The listing of the names in alphabetical order seems to be the most efficient naming procedure. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan are the only eligible members of the Commission. There is a provision for additional municipalities to be added to the Commission with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. However, if either the Burnsville or Eagan City Council votes within sixty (60) days to object to the admission of additional municipalities, the additional municipalities shall not be -3�_ : DUNKLEY AND BENNETT �f FL$ LAW OFFICES 1760 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST PILLSBURY CENTER 700 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEMOLIB. MINNESOTA SS402 TII.LPNGN[: (612) 339-1290 - JAY L. BENNETT WILLIAM M. OUNKLEY THOMAS 0. CREIBHTON /Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Mr. Jim Spore City Manager City of Burnsville 1313 East Highway 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 February 24, 1982 Re: Proposed Joint Powers Agreement and Resolution Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Draft No. 2 of the proposed Joint and Cooperative Agreement for establishing a cable communica- tions commission for Burnsville and Eagan. Also enclosed is a sample Resolution which can be used by your cities in the adoption of the Joint Powers Agreement. Draft No. 2 has been substantially amended pursuant to our meeting on Monday morning, February 22, 1982, at which time we discussed in detail Draft No. 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement. I trust the Draft No. 2 fairly reflects your input from both of your cities. If there are any additional corrections which need be made, please contact me as soon as possible. As per your request the name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission. The listing of the names in alphabetical order seems to be the most efficient naming procedure. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan are the only eligible members of the Commission. There is a provision for additional municipalities to be added to the Commission with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. However, if either the Burnsville or Eagan City Council votes within sixty (60) days to object to the admission of additional municipalities, the additional municipalities shall not be -3�_ Mr. Thomas L. Hedges Mr. Jim Spore February 24, 1982 Page 2 admitted. Each of the cities is entitled to four directors plus the chief administrative officer or his designee serving as an ex -officio, non-voting member of the Commission. Each city will have complete authority over their directors and may remove directors at any time in their discretion. Additionally, should any vacancy in the office of director exist, the city alone will have the authority to appoint a new director. The Joint Agreement also requires one alternate to be appointed who will attend all meetings of the Commission so that the alternates may fill in for any absent director with knowledge of the proceedings thus far in the Commission. Any official action of the Commission must be authorized by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present and voting, provided at least two directors from each member have voted in the affirmative. This section is added to en- sure that all of the directors from one city could not out vote the directors of another city on any particular item if all of the directors from the other city did not happen to be present. The financial contributions of both cities shall be equal. While the budget process is outlined in detail in the Agreement, it should be noted that the Commission may not enter into any contracts which would require the expenditure of funds in ex- cess of those authorized by the member cities. There is provision for the appointment of officers. There would be a chair, a vice -chair and a secretary -treasurer. The by-laws may provide for the rotation of the chair between the directors from Burnsville and Eagan annually. The vice -chair shall not represent the same municipality as the chair. The Commission will continue until the number of members shall become less than two or until the cable communications franchise is granted by both cities. Upon dissolution, the assets of the Commission will be divided equally between Burns- ville and Eagan. Should the cities decide that they do not want to administer the franchise themselves but would like it jointly administered by a commission, it would be necessary to establish a new Joint Powers Commission since this Commission will dissolve at the award of the franchise. —3cf— DUNKLEY AND BENNETT LAW OFFICES 0 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges Mr. Jim Spore February 24, 1982 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding this Agreement, please feel free to contact me at any time. TDC:cam Enclosures merely, Sincerely, D. 4Creight DUNKLEY AND BENNEW LAW OFFICES 0 0 BURNSVILLE/EAGAN JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION I. PARTIES The parties to this agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended. II. GENERAL PURPOSE Communities in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area, including the parties to this agreement, are being requested to franchise the operation of cable television systems. It is of the utmost importance for communities to attempt to deal with the franchising process and with subsequent regulation of cable television in a manner best serving the public interest. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization which can coordinate for the parties to this agree- ment an approach to the franchising and regulatory process. By joint and cooperative action the parties can share in the ex- pense of such study, and can develop a uniform approach to the matter of franchising. III. NAME The name of the organization is the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission (BECC). .�o - 0 0 IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS Section 1. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this Article shall have the meanings given them. Section 2. "Commission" means the Board of Directors created pursuant to this agreement. Section 3. "Council" means the governing body of a member. Section 4. "Grantee" means the person to whom a franchise has been granted by a member. Section 5. "Member" means a municipality which enters into this agreement. V. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. The municipalities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota are eligible to be members of the Commission. Section 2. Any municipality desiring to become a member shall execute a copy of this agreement and conform to all re- quirements herein. Section 3. The initial members shall be those.members who become members on or before April 1, 1982. Section 4. Any other municipalities desiring to become members after April 1, 1982, may be admitted by an affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the voting members of the Com- mission. The Commission may by resolution impose conditions upon -2- 0 0 the admission of additional members. The admission of any municipality to the Commission shall not become effective for sixty (60) days following the three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Commission. During said sixty (60) day period any municipality then a member to this agreement, may by a majority vote of its council, object to the admission of the additional municipality, in which case, the additional municipality shall not be admitted. VI. DIRECTORS; VOTING Section 1. Each member shall be entitled to four directors to represent it on the Commission. Each director shall have one vote. Section 2. The Council of each member shall appoint by resolution its four directors, at least one of whom shall be a member of the Council, and the other three shall be residents of the member. A director shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualifies. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Commission. The chief administrative officer of each member or his designee shall be an ex -officio, non-voting member of the Commission. Section 3. The Council of each member shall appoint one alternate to the Commission who will be responsible to attend Commission meetings and shall represent the member in the absence of a director. The Gemmisfats mh-- � ravi i lona s—aa e -3- 0 0 Section 4. A vacancy in the office of director will exist for any of the reasons set forth in Minnesota Statute Section 351.02, or upon a revocation of a director's appointment by the Council of a member duly filed with the Commission. Vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term of director by the Council of the member whose position on the Commission is vacant. Section 5. There shall be no voting by proxy, but each vote must be cast by a director or its alternate at a Commission meeting. Section 6. A majority of the directors of the Commission made up of at least two directors from each member shall consti- tute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time. The ex -officio members shall not be counted for the pur- pose of establishing a quorum. Any official action of the Com- mission must be authorized by an affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present and voting, provided at least two directors from each member have voted in the affirmative. Section 7. Directors shall not be eligible to vote on be- half of the directors' municipality during the time that it is in default on any financial contribution or payment to the Com- mission. 4Q_istence-o€-such-dafad�.��t��---�F ;nember_shallb -A ,t be.-eeur*ted-fns the_.purpose= Qt t.h"_aglree ". — 1,�. - -4- 7 0 0 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE; MF.ETINGS;.ELECTION OF OFFICERS Section 1. A municipality shall enter into this agreement by resolution of its Council and the duly authorized execution of a copy of this agreement by its proper officers. Thereupon, the clerk or other appropriate officer of the municipality shall file a duly executed copy of this agreement, together with a certified copy of the authorizing resolution, with the City clerks of both Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. The resolution authorizing the execution of this agreement shall also designate the first directors for the municipality on the Commission, along with the directors' addresses and phone numbers. Section 2. This agreement is effective on the date when executed agreements and authorizing resolutions of both of the municipalities named in Article V, Section 1 have been filed as provided in this Article. Section 3. Within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this agreement, the Mayors of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota shall call the first meeting of the Commission which shall be held no later than thirty (30) days after such call. Section 4. The first meeting of the Commission shall be its organizational meeting. At the organizational meeting, the Commission shall select from among the directors a chair, a vice -chair, and a secretary -treasurer. -5- 0 0 Section 5. At the organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as it may reasonably be done, the Commission shall adopt by-laws governing its procedures including the time, place, notice for and frequency of its regular meetings, pro- cedure for calling speci-a} meetings, and such other matters as are x -e �tthi's agreement. The Commission may amend the by-laws from time to time. IX. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Section 1. The powers and duties of the Commission shall include the powers set forth in this Article. Section 2. The Commission may make such contracts and take such other action as it deems necessary and appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the organization. The Commission may not contract for the expenditure of funds in ex- cess of those funds authorized by the member municipalities. Section 3. The Commission shall undertake to identify matters of common concern to the members and shall recommend a course of action to be pursued by the members in the granting and enforcement of cable television franchises. In that con- nection it shall consider and make recommendations on whether the members should have uniform ordinances, whether they should undertake to grant a franchise to the same party and whether they should establish a continuing organization to administer and enforce any franchises which are granted by the members. 0 0 Section 4. The Commission may preoare and recommend suitable documents for use in the grantinq of franchises by the members. In the event that the members determine to pur- sue a common or a joint course of action in the granting of franchises the Commission may assist in the carrying out of such joint or common course of action. Section 5. The Commission may accept grants, apply for and use grants, enter into agreements required in connection therewith and hold, use and dispose of money or property received as a grant in accordance with the terms thereof. Section 6. The Commission shall make an annual financial accounting and report in writing to the members. Its books and records shall be available for and open to examination by the members at all reasonable times. The Commission shall establish its annual budget as provided in this agreement. Section 7. The Commission may delegate authority to its officers. Such delegation of authority shall be by resolution of the Commission and may be conditioned in such manner as the Commission may determine. Section 8. The Commission may exercise any other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of its responsi- bilities and duties as delegated by the members to this agree- ment. 0 0 Section 9. The Commission may conduct such reserach and investigation and take such action as it deems necessary, in- cluding participation and appearance in proceedings of State and Federal regulatory, legislative or administrative bodies, on any matter related to or affecting cable communication's levels of service, rates or franchises. X. OFFICERS Section 1. The officers of the Commission shall consist of a chair, a vice -chair and a secretary -treasurer, each of whom shall serve for a one year term, or until replaced by action of the Commission. The by -laws -may provide for the alternation annually of the chair between directors from Burns- ville and Eagan. Additionally, the vice -chair shall not repre- sent the same municipality as the chair. Section 2. A vacancy in the office of chair, vice -chair, or secretary -treasurer shall occur for any of the reasons for which a vacancy in the office of a director shall occur. Vacancies in these offices shall be filled by the Commission for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 3. The chairshallpreside at all meetings of the Commission. The vice -chair shall act as chair in the absence of the chair. Section 4. The secretary -treasurer shall be responsible for keeping a record of all of the proceedings of the Commission, ME 0 0 for custody of all funds, for the keeping of all financial re- cords of the Commission and for such other matters as shall be delegated by the Commission. The Commission may require the secretary -treasurer to post a fidelity bond or other insurance against loss of Commission funds in an amount approved by the Commission, at the expense of the Commission. If required by the Commission, said fidelity bond or other insurance shall cover all persons authorized to handle funds of the Commission. Section 5. The Commission mayappoint such other officers a✓;�b e -n G.w .it -a aJ ,t , •Ey,,. Q y L o,-w-j*1 . as it deems necessary!` All such officers shall be appointed from the membership of the Commission. XI. FINANCIAL MATTERS Section 1. The fiscal year of the Commission is the calendar year. Section 2. Commission funds may be expended by the Com- mission in accordance with the procedures established by law for the expenditure of funds by Minnesota statutory cities. Orders, checks and drafts must be signed by any two of the officers. Other legal instruments shall be executed with authority of the Commission, by the chair and secretary - treasurer. Contracts shall be let and purchases made in accordance with the procedures established by law for Minnesota Statutory Cities. 7C 0 0 Section 3. The financial contributions of the members in support of the Commission shall be equal. The initial expenses of the Commission for the remainder of 1982 shall be paid equally by each member. Member contributions for subse- quent budget years shall be established as hereinafter provided. Section 9. A proposed budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be formulated by the Commission and submitted to the members on or before August 1 of each year. Member councils shall have the right to review said budget and shall report to the Commission on or before September 1 of each year any changes in the budget said municipality would request. The Commission shall consider such requested changes on or before September 10 of each year and report a final proposed budget to each member on or before September 15 of each year. Said budget shall be deemed approved by a member unless, prior to October lst pre- ceding the effective date of the proposed budget, the member gives notice in writing to the Commission that it is withdrawing from the Commission. Final action adopting a budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be taken by the Commission on or before November 1 of each year. The total contribution from members provided for in the final budget shall be divided and assessed equally to each member. Member contributions shall be made one-half on or before February 1 of each year and one-half on or before August 1 of each year. Section 5. Upon dissolution of the Commission, any funds remaining shall be returned to the members in proportion to -10- 0 0 their financial contributions to the Commission. Section 6. Any member may inspect and copy the Commission books and records at any and all reasonable times. All books and records shall be kept in accordance with normal and accepted accounting procedures and principles used by Minnesota Statutory Cities. Any member shall have the right to audit the books and. records of the Commission. XII. DURATION Section 1. The Commission shall continue until the adoption of a cable communications franchise by all municipalities then members of the Commission or until the number of members shall be- come less than two. The Commission may also be terminated by mutual agreement of all of the members at any time. Section 2. A member may withdraw from the Commission at any time by filing a written notice with the secretary -treasurer. Membership shall continue until the effective date of the with- drawal. A notice of withdrawal may be rescinded at anv time by a member. Section 3. In the event of withdrawal of a member or dissolution of the Commission, the Commission shall determine the measures necessary to affect the dissolution and shall pro- vide for the taking of such measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement. Upon with- drawal of a member or dissolution of the Commission all remaining -11- 0 0 assets of the Commission, after payment of obligations, shall be distributed among the then existing members in proportion to their financial contributions to the Commission and in accordance with procedures established by the Commission. The Commission shall continue to exist after dissolution for such period, no longer than six months, as is necessary to complete its affairs but for no other purpose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned municipality has caused this agreement to be signed on its behalf this day of , 1982. WITNESSED BY: By: Its By: Its Filed in the office of the City Clerk of the City of this day of , 1982. —5-1- -12- 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSION WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, as amended, authorizes municipalities to delegate to a joint Dowers cable commission their power to perform all tasks incident to the award of a cable communications franchise while retaining in the municipality the franchise ordinance granting authority; and WHEREAS, it is of the utmost importance for communities to attempt to deal with the franchising process and with sub- sequent regulation of cable television in a manner best serving the public interest; and WHEREAS, by joint and cooperative action with another city, the City of Eagan can share in the expense of the study of the franchising and regulatory process and can develop a uniform approach to the matter of franchising; and WHEREAS, the City of Eagan deems it proper and in the public interest to enter into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for such purposes with the City of Burnsville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of. Eagan as follows: 1. That the City of Eagan participate in the Burnsville/ Eagan Cable Commission. 2. That the appropriate official execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement and file it with the City Clerks of the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota. 3. That the City of Eagan appoint as its Directors to re- present it on the Joint Commission, a. who resides at phone b. who resides at phone C. who resides at phone d• who resides at phone -.sa - 0 9 4. That the City of Eagan appoint as an alternate Director, who resides at Adopted thisday of 1982, by the governing body of the City of Eagan. ATTEST: (SEAL) By: is By: --,5-3 _ -2- 9 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Nine 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS B. Developers Construction, Inc., for a Preliminary Plat (Hilltop Condominiums), Approximately 10 Acres & Containing 52 Dwelling Units -- An application was submitted by Developers Construction Inc. for preliminary plat approval of Hilltop Condominums which consists of approximately 10.32 acres and contains 52 dwelling units. The APC raised several questions at the first public hearing and, as a result, continued any action until the February 25, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Action was taken at that meeting to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the conditions outlined in the planning report. The Advisory Planning Commission is recommending. approval of the two parking spaces per dwelling unit. For additional information on this item, refer to the Plan- ning Assistant's report found on pages 5',r through an update of that report by the Planning Assistant is fou n on papages 3 through (6,�. A copy of the minutes of the APC meeting wi e include3 in [Fie Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat for Hilltop Condominiums. CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIlMSIARY PIAT - HILLTOP CONDMUNIUMS APPLICANT: DEVELOPERS INC LOCATION: SW; OF THE SNP, OF SECTION 22 EXISTING ZONING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING R-3 (RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE) JANUARY 26, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 18, 1982 REPORTED BY: DAVE OSBEr,, PLANNING ASSISTANT APPLICATIM SUBMITTED: The first application submitted is for preliminary plat approval of Hilltop Condominiums which consists of approximately 10.23 acres and contains 52 dwelling units. ZCNING AND LAND USE• Presently the parcel is zoned R -3 -(Residential Townhouse District). The land use guide designates this parcel as R-1. However, the Hilltop Estates final plat was approved with the understanding that this parcel would have R-3 zoning. CY14SWR The applicant is proposing to develop the parcel with four townhouses and three coach homes. All four of the townhouses and two of the coach homes will have eight dwellings per building and one of the mach homes will have four dwelling units. As stated earlier, the total number of dwelling units on the 10.23 acre parcel will be 52. The R-3 zoning of the parcel allows for 6-12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development would consist of 5.08 dwelling units per acre. The total lot coverage of the seven buildings is approximately 51,376 square feet. Excluding the proposed outlot, the total area of the parcel is 397,263 square feet. The maximum lot coverage requirement of 20% sets the allowable lot coverage for this parcel at 79,452 square feet. Therefore, the preliminary plat is under the allowable lot coverage requirement by 28,076 square feet. Each of the buildings are also under the 6,000 square feet per unit lot area requirement. A 48,609 square foot outlot on the parcel will become a public street for access into the development site. The applicants are also negotiating with Dakota County for a private road access onto County road 30. The zoning ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit with one of those parking spaces being covered. The applicant is proposing one covered park- ing space for each dwelling unit. There are 78 open parking spaces on the site, which is 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, meaning the preliminary plat meets all parking requirements. CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - HIILTOP JANUARY 26, 1982 Page two If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be subject to all easements as required by City staff. 2. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be approved by City staff. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by City staff and an adequate landscape bond shall be submitted with the final plat and not released until one year after the landscaping has been Meted. 4. The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the homeowners' asso- ciation by-laws for review. 5. All other City ordinances shall be applicable to the overall development. DCR/jack ENGINEERING RECCE492 DAMONS 6. An 8" water main lateral must be constructed through this proposed devel- opment to'the James Refrigeration site for future connection and looping towards Pilot Knob Road. 7. Internal storm sewer drainage facilities must be located and properly sized in conformance with City requirements. 8. This proposed development must receive approval fran the Dakota County Plat's Commission and/or Highway Department. 9. Outlot B must be dedicated as public right-of-way in its entirety. 10. A public street designed to City standards must be -constructed within Out - lot B from Berry Ridge Road to County Road 30. 11. A minimum 60' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 30 with additional land reserved for future acquisition at the time of up- grading and relocation of County Road 30. 12. A ponding easement must be dedicated incorporating the 859.0 elevation for Pond IP -63. 13. The developer shall agree to assume the deferred assessments associated with Project 88II for lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer. All assessments associated with the extension of water laterals shall be the responsibility of this plat. 14. All costs associated with the upgrading and installation of the street within Outlot B shall be the responsibility of Hilltop Condominiums and/or James Refrigeration only. 15. The developer shall install a pathway in accordance with the reownm- dation of the Advisory Park Committee. TAC/j adz 11 TO: THE ADVISORY PUNNING CDMIISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FRCM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 0 DATE: JANUARY 21, 1982 RE: PFEL12MIARY PLAT - HILLTOP CONDO-UNIUFS (LOREN SPANDE) The Public Works Department has the following cammts to offer in consi- deration of the above -referenced proposed plat: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer of sufficient size.and depth to handle this proposed devel- ogrent is available. The sanitary sewer is located east -westerly through the middle of this proposed plat and also along the easterly line. There is presently an 8" water main located within Berry Ridge Road with a lateral stubbed to the south into Outlot B for future extension. This water main lateral will have to be extended to the south throughout Lot B for future connection and looping through the James Refrigeration proper- ty located to the west of Outlot B. The location of this proposed development is on the side of the hill with an approximate 80' differential topography sloping to the east into the existing drainage basin located within Hilltop Estates. There presently exists a 15" storm sewer from Outlot B to this drainage basin on the eas- tern side of this proposed plat. This storm sewer was installed to pro- vide drainage for the James Refrigeration plat. The proposed grading plan requires the installation of internal storm sewer system to provide posi- tive drainage for parking lot areas into this easterly drainage basin. Part of the developer's proposed site plan for storm sewer along the sou- therly boundary of this plat incorporates a section of rural ditch drain- age. This storm sewer drainage system should not incorporate the use of a ditch and should be relocated to the proposed future northerly right- of-way of the relocated County Road 30. Positive gravity storm sewer should be provided all the way to the water elevation of the drainage basins on the easterly edge of this plat. The developer has indicated that he plans to perform minimum excavation in the development of this facility due to the steep topography of this property. The proposed grading plan is feasible and the developer should be urged to confine his grading operations to a minimum to preserve the maximum number of trees and minimize the potential for erosion during con- struction on this steep side slope. Extensive erosion control measures will have to be maintained throughout construction around the perimeter of the pond around the eastern edge of -.5"7 C� CITY OF EAGAN HILLTOP CONDOM IN JANUARY 21, 1982 PAGE TWO this proposed plat. • The developer proposes to take access into this proposed plat from Berry Ridge Road, County Road 30 and the future construction of a public street within Outlot B. The private driveway access from County Road 30 must re- ceive approval from Dakota County Highway Department. At this time, the City has not received a response pertaining to this proposed connection. The intersection of County Road 30 with Pilot Knob Road is proposed to be relocated approximately 155' to the north from its present location. Sub- sequently, this relocation will affect a portion of the southerly bound- ary of this proposed plat. Elevations of future road construction within Outlot B and the private driveway accesses should take into consideration the future elevation of County Road 30 to eliminate extensive reconstruc- tion in the future when County Road 30 is upgraded. Outlot B was reserve0 of sufficient width to meet the required City stan- dards for dedication of public right-of-way to incorporate a standard public street section. Subsequently, a minimum 32' 7 -ton residential street will have to be constructed within Outlot B connecting Berry Ridge Road with County Road 30. The southerly portion of this future public street should be widened to a minimum 40' width to provide proper turn lanes anticipated by the ultimate development of the James Refrigeration site combined with this multiple density proposal. Specific design de- tails will be reviewed by staff prior to final plat approval. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY Adequate easements have been dedicated incorporating the existing utili- ties presently within this proposed plat. Additional easements will be necessary to incorporate future public utilities (sanitary and water) to service this proposed subdivision. Outlot B must be dedicated as a public right-of-way to allow the construc- tion of the required street. In addition, a minimum 60' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 30 with a provision made for future ac- quisition of right-of-way necessitated by the relocation of County Road 30. This plat must provide for the dedication of a ponding easement incorpor- ating the 859.0 elevation for the existing pond on the eastern edge of this proposed plat referenced as�Pond LP -63 on the master co:prehensive storm sewer plan. This pond presently has a positive storm sewer outlet to Carlson Lake. ASSESSMENTS Lot 33, Block 5, Hilltop Estates has previously been assessed for sani- tary sewer lateral under Project 217 which provided for the installation of sanitary sewer in Berry Ridge Road within Hilltop Estates. It was also 0 CITY OF EAGAN HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS - PREIJMINARY PIAT - DIREC1OR OF PUBLIC WORKS MDU JANUARY 21, 1982 ff4 Y:y: 5 assessed for sanitary sewer lateral under Project 300 for the installation of sanitary sewer through this property to service James Refrigeration. However, this proposed development will now be responsible for a lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer associated with a 27" trunk sanitary sewer along the eastern edge of this proposed plat which was installed as a part of Project 88II in 1972. Assessments associated with this proposed trunk against the undeveloped property at that time was deferred until de- velopment occurred with subsequent connection into this trunk. There is approximately 645 lineal feet of lateral benefit from this trunk sanitary sewer. This will be assessed at lateral benefit from trunk rate in effect at the time of final plat. Based on the 1981 rates, it is estimated at $9,610.00. Any extension of water main facilities to service this plat, or installa- tion of storm sewer facilities to handle internal drainage should be the entire responsibility of this development. The upgrading of the public street within Outlot B should be shared between the James Refrigeration development and this proposed Hilltop Condominiums in a method to be de- termined at a later date. It is felt that the Beautiful Savior Church located by the northwest corner of this proposed plat would not benefit by the installation or construction of public utilities or streets within Outlot B due to the fact that this property is adequately serviced by streets and utilities within Berry Ridge Road and/or Pilot Knob Road. All other trunk area assessments have been levied and no future assessments are anticipated for trunk area benefits. At the time of the development of the Hilltop Estates plat, the developer entered into an agreement providing for the construction of a trailway around the westerly edge of the proposed ponding area on the east side of this proposed plat. The Advisory Park Committee will be reviewing if this is still a feasible location, or if it should be relocated to the west side of the proposed future street within Outlot B to provide adequate pedestrian access to the James Refrigeration oo rercial development adjacent to the west edge of this plat. I will be available to discuss in further detail any questions the Planning Commission may have pertaining to this proposed subdivision at the Planning Commission Meeting of January 26, 1982. MIA I / M_r omas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack ly i RB ern• owl l l l l j GB Ind .•"� .r �_. -- . Pili I )� .az'. 46. � :-. •-•• � � Ind ,=.., COMMERCIAL ..-op ,i n r • G ' PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Jlnd Ind .....,.�, R-0 Rill 4r1nd ' .W6R.11• .� JL 9 / ! R IV RG \ _ FF �'' Ind.rF-� F R-17. V "A:.- R 1 P ;1 % - \ ` Ind. I Lo Ind. 1 pNB LBJ— RIII R -III . R -III R-IIII R41 , R -L .'nl^d. • ' R=11 ,l� CSC- -.'a P • '-C GOLF I e., , i/ / ' _� R•II -- _ Q- c �I .iy.• °-�T LB RIII. .�_..... n R_I x to q J s' RII' Ind_ w R -III .:,:;.; sn,� -=- 'a _ r.. R- .. R-1II g -III P.fir CRY R -IIA. HALL R -I RII ! R.II N ....r� rr - Y_i � L' •'� � f ..I t c Qr p r r, n1,{I P ;D IR -* R-11. R -II '- R-IIIJNB -1 ! ,i R -III I RB R -Illi R -III R'lll R I ,7.1' tf' I G\ R-III E p+R'-1Lrq • r'.!--rJ 2* `R-11' R -II'., c •T, R -II R -II �.•� RI f../��i CSC RI,��. .:L+ .,, r1•. „<: - `.. LOB j P - b I P R -II P' R 1 G•F t w "" Ra R-1 R•II -. _ R-1' ' R -II fps ' R -II 1.3 vnLLEv I ''��%/jj/ .,,�` it I ROSEMOUN�� / // 7. :-1:7 '3l 3sanp 3109 M31A)iHVd j dww M • 11 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING COWUSSION FROM: DAVE OSBERG, PLANNING ASSISTANT DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1982 • •• • ••, a ••� � � r•• At the last meeting of the Advisory Planning Comnission, there were several concerns regarding the Hilltop Condominiums preliminary plat. Since the last Planning Ccmnission meeting, staff has net with the developers to review the concerns and problems expressed by the Plan- ning Cammission. One of the problems addressed by the Planning Commission was the parking plan for the development. The original plan showed 1 covered parking space per dwelling unit and 1.5 open parking spaces per dwell- ing unit. The parking plan is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. However, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of reducing the 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, and perhaps covering more than 1 parking space per dwelling unit. At this time, the developer does not feel that it is feasible to cover rmre than 1 parking space per dwelling unit. The cost of covering more parking spaces would be. too high to make it economically feasible. The developer would also like to leave the site intact as much as possible with limited damage to the trees and surrounding area. The developer would also like to avoid having too many buildings on the site thus keeping the site as aesthetically pleasing as,possible. Staff would like to point out again that the zoning ordinance requites only 1 covered parking space per dwelling unit. The developers are proposing a total of 2.5 park- ing spaces per dwelling unit. However, the developers have a second plan which would allow for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit should the Planning Commission make the recommendation that such a plan is acceptable. Staff sees no problems with the 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit if such a plan is recommended by the Planning Cmr.mssiau. The Planning Commission and neighboring residents were also concerned with the location of the coach home in the northeast corner of the development. The developer has considered relocation of the coach hone, but because of the topography and layout of the development, the coach home cannot be moved or redesigned. To co pensate for the loca- tion of the coach hone so close to the single family homes, the de- velopers are proposing a landscape buffer around the coach home and also along the southern edge of Berry Ridge Road. The developer will be using sore of the trees already on the site as a part of the land- scape buffer. The Park Committee is reeoTrending construction of the trail on the west side of the proposed public road. The trail is to be construc- ted within one foot of the right-of-way. Parks Director Vraa is rec- anTending that no tot lot needs to be located in the development. DMO/jack — 45 - A, A 41m, TO• I I ....... ILI )41 VO.M , 111 \ \I�; �-� ..\\ i1�i. ,f1.'�:•i. •I(, •i'iM1;'.',.•1'' 1t• I.•'. " _ •'f�•��1�•- .,'•1 t ,.11�' I '\ � - •I•Ck �•• •• r' tr - I Ij I ,/�,. /.';;'"�::, \:' S' j:f,: , M1"•;;f;..-'„•' / •,- I' '1. 'i li •:�•' li.: 00 IF ji .I.)•II111jf /"/. //;. .' 1 �, -1 'r I r I'.• pl .,': /. II \ I � r�/' rr r I,�i�'i i'''i-'��•' ill I ,.. 'y�•_ .1 ;L \ \� i 1, �`�ippl' �� (^��:ar r:_•.. _-r �y �'•I'. •, I_'�" n�, �. .,,i •y, 9j II 1 I •. , ,',, \�� `\ \�'\ YA� \ 1 • C 11 :ftij.�/// % / { �.. v,, -w ice_ ��.. .,. •1. , •' y OI :r � �'`�� I I,�\ �\ l.. .111 \~� ��' i ,,,rte• r�� +-�-•p\ '•��• !1 ,'��• �i�', �• '� ��1�~��I I It �• \ '111 1 I L , = I I'l�lj/•',•v \ f.� ' 1. •,'•' : •'. , 11111 '.. / r `••. �I - ! . � �')�-, \ \ 111 1 ! I'-1 / `/ \ �� ', / / / n 1 �•'r ' •�' ir'�_ti..\\1' ,'_.,•;; "4. :.` "'1��,: F;1 /'.� '�..,•. Zr. , ' � - < < \ , �� 1 I II II I '/'fir 7/ %/ // it Ili ori •, r 1 1 •1,•' LJ 111` 11I 1 I / ~��• 11 III\` 1� �II (/ _ I f , � - \ 1 \_\ 1\, `I \ . 1 ry ,III l/. `,” )• .. •,• 'll ' ..`'1. .). : �. '� � ��1 -�� a It ' It I:, �� `� �,\t . I l III 11 1 •'"+ ' - I I .. '.: ' �1 \\\\, ��.` �\\�` ��\`�\• , 1�`'\III - /'. \ ,� ' � � ', � � I � \ \ \ .\. 1\ \1 \ \ `\ 1 111• .�."I, 1r I� �•,! ,+' , • I = �\ I 1 1 II I� 11 '':� 11 1 I,\ 1 III \I .1111 I, I I I. I J•/ 1��j1I' 1 I �', 1 1\ la 1\` .\`` 1 •. / /�ii / j.,,,!� .!��... \ ' • ... ` � � . , : '.. I... / �. /.-' � : / I 1 1' 111 � 0 UnIN It 1 .•.i:. .,� �I�/fry = _ `��_�� i //i/l 1�(.�r.,'..i' I ! �!F. 1 I\\' � ..t,..•,.:;.��.-.1 .. ,� . el '' I /�-�' r �� -_ ,i.ii /%� _ I .I' �f�' \ l\\ . `�`�_e ' .,r ,r• III• `11 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Ten WINKLER DEVELOPMENT - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFFVIEW C. Winkler Development Company for Rezoning from GB (General Busi- ness) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow an Office Complex -Hotel - Motel -High Rise and a Preliminary Plat for Bluffview of Approxi- mately 17 Acres -- A public hearing was held by the APC at the January 26, 1982 meeting to consider two (2) applications submitted to the City by Winkler Development Company which are as follows: 1. A request to rezone approximately 17 acres from GB to PD to include model -hotel -office -high rise complex and uses which are permitted in the GB zoning category. A request for preliminary plat for Bluffview Planned Development consisting of approximately 17 acres. The APC continued action on this item until the February 23, 1982 meeting, pending a recommendation by the subcommittee studying height limitations. The APC did take action at the February 25, 1982 meeting to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development zoning, however, felt there was not enough detail in the preliminary plat and continued any action on the preliminary plat for Bluffview until a detailed preliminary plat outlining the first phase of development is presented to the APC. There would be a new public hearing held regarding that preliminary plat application sometime in the future. For a copy of the City Planner's report, refer to pages I- through A copy of minutes from the APC meeting will -be included n e. Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission to approve a rezoning from GB to PD of approximately 17 acres proposed for development by the Winkler Development Company. -Z6 - 0 • li CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - BLUFFVIEW PLANNED DEVELME 1T APPLICANT: WINKLER DEVELOPMENT CO., RICHARD WINKLER LOCATION: PART OF THE SW'a OF THE SW'k OF SECTION 19 EXISTING ZONING: GB (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 26, 1982 CCNTTNUED TO FEBRUARY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 16, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMIIITED The first application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 17 acres from GB (General Business District) to PD (Planned Development District) to include motel -hotel, office high-rise complex and uses which are permitted in the GB (Gen- eral Business) zoning categories. The second application submitted is a request for a preliminary plat, Bluffview Planned Development, consisting of approximately 17 acres. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the site is zoned GB (General Business District) and would allow heavy business uses, or businesses which serve other businesses. The General Business District is to be insulated frau residential uses which the site presently is. The proposed land use also indicates that the parcel should develop as LB (Limited Bus- iness District) and GB (General Business District) which could include everything from general offices to wholesale offices and showrooms. to convention halls, etc. The only item which is not indicated in the zoning classification that the appli- cant is proposing to develop is the hotel couplex. In reviewing the application proposal, there is no place in the City's ordinance which allows a hotel -motel and offices as permitted use within the same zoning district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a zoning change to allow the hotel -motel office corplex as a permitted use through a planned develorznent dis- trict. The applicant is also requesting that the underlying zoning remain r,B (General Business) so that he could also provide the General Business uses with- in this overall planned development. The second item the applicant is requesting is in regard to maximum height of structures. As stated in the application, the applicant has requested to develop a motel -hotel high-rise codex which presently would exceed the 35' height re- quirement in a General Business District. The City Council has established a Height Subconnittee which consists of two members of the City Council and two 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN FEBIUARY 25., 1982 PAGE TWO members of the Advisory Planning Commission to look at the issue regarding height in commercial and industrial districts. Staff has prepared a number of items in regard to height limitations which is presently being reviewed by this Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is scheduled to meet February 18, 1982 and has a recomTendation which will be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission on February 23, 1982 and to the City Council on March 2, 1982. Therefore, staff will prepare a mamr- anduam in regard to height as recmu ended by the Subcommittee prior to the February 23, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission meeting. The proposed site is west of T.H. 77, or new Cedar Avenue, and north of County Road 30. Presently, there is a diamond interchange at the east corner of the site with T.H. 77 and County Road 30. To the west of the site is the new Superamerica gas station and T.H. 13. To the south of the site is Metcalf Jr. High School and to the north is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District) and contains storage facili- ties for natural gas and propane. Therefore, the site does have good access for the proposed use and is well insulated frim any residential development. At the present time, the developer has only a concept of what he is proposing to construct for this site. It is difficult for a developer to attract or negotiate with a major tenant, or client, prior to having uses or zoning approved for each site. Therefore, the applicant has only proposed a concept plan at this time and if the planned development is approved indicating the uses that have been proposed for the concept, then the developer can proceed to obtain a major tenant, or cor- poration, and start the detailed planning for the overall site. The present con- cept plan attempts to show the uses which are proposed for the 17 acres and an overall traffic circulation for the site. The applicant has also provided a pre- liminary plat which shows how the concept would tie together on a parcel by parcel basis and how public access would be obtained to each parcel. When T.H. 77 was constructed by the State, the State also restricted access to a majority of the parcel along County Road 30. The State has provided one access into the property which is shown by the dashed line on the concept. The developer has modified this access slightly on the interior of the site which hakes for a better circulation plan than the State originally provided. The developer will be discussing this at the February 23rd Advisory Planning Commission meeting. If the planned development is approved, it should be subject to the following con- ditions: 1) That a planned development agreement be entered into by the developer and the City. The planned development agreement shall be for a 5 -year time period. 2) Prior to any construction on the site, the developer shall review the de- tailed building plans for the planned developrrent with the Advisory Plan- ning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of any building permit. 3) The platting of the property shall occur with the first phase of the de- velopment proposal. 4) The planned development agreement shall be subject to the height reoanren- dations which should be made by the Eagan City Council on March 2, 1982. CITY OF EAGAN REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - BUTMEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE 5) An architectural theme shall be carried out throughout the entire project. 6) The rezoning shall be reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Ccrmission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation because the subject parcel abuts State and County rights-of-way. DCR/jach ,/9— I I a .1 0 0 C� MENDOTA ..HTS. .. -. .� I i R 1— GB B Ind GOLF r 6 ar' a a I -, ^ / A��'• .. �H.r'.' )L has _ .,• if 1. ,Ind ...,-......• - . -OoF - •./; '�- ,. '_.Rfr{, PP R .�" .�.'. •� ..R.1I Ind.--' v.• I i - • '. ', _ '. •p,; . wo 11--,_ i L. Ind _"• �w,,. I! i RBD, " �-f..�..� - �r� / r `, v—,'•`T�� v © _ IFI .._ I. Ind. 1 ,.7� - � RAI d • _,. LB RII ?\J i••-'• NB �. LB_ ..RII- d �C J R -II. CSC P RI Rfl � � Ma ' F" ,.�� RII •.+!''�.s � - • R-9 R III • :v -... :/�. ' .CRY -II R -II M RI' - - R-1 �./ 1♦�`�r� �uiI7I111 C.r{h, - R -II k ti R.1 - }p R-' R 11 R - II —a yN� ; . M ' 4, Roll. �. LB LB EI p II 4m !% i _ _ r N �t - .Y RB L.� R -III -,- > c {�}}{{��}}..�� Ft Il R III 1 Q .%,,f r r„� f{t .; r I i 1r R -III l f. 1.1 .. CSC/GB/ \ .-• (� 1�� .r R 0' R -IIF' _ R 11 — Ea. RII Z' v ®� � R•11: ..,'�. •-R-II•' \ `.,,.E `„'*,�Rll RII '"iae i�NF'o't'� ; I . `•:` �s f RII NB RI ,:.,_ _ �_ LB R -III LB -.•, � RI ;'% �....; CSC .R-Itlfx. - � Y l4i ", I � D LB � R_I P !I a. R 1 1.�, l� u i jlrX' 1I 4 tr N i R_I . P t,Qpph.4 „y - 9 R -I_ J R -II Pi R -II R -II n .a /77 R -I"-, , R -Il p f r R II R -II amr feonrt \ - r _ - � Q P Q e..cu• p62 `• ,`�"' _:<_.a+ueF-.r+l .x 1.- �� •� .•e 'I �•}J .5 t� 3 ! L-=_ROSEMOUNT APPLE VALLEY •' -: A R-4 ' Ll /-� Ll IL LI / 1 .. LI t� In, � SILL /,� LlADD H Cf LB CSC yo �P `_ F CSC PF �. A R-4 suis L �n� e1y OAR ; {,• ��' �0 Ll R-IC G BEEN GB ' - PF _ JUN10r? Q. PF o QNB NB,: HIGH 5B ^ 'a B-2 adv r � SCHOOL A o� I p r• � I 41 C C'_', A; 4 I AR- rr PK x PF MARI n_ i CSC 0 0 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Eleven CONSERV CORPORATION - CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS D. Comsery Corporation for a Preliminary Plat of Comsery No. 1 Addition Consisting of Approximately 63.77 Acres and Containing One Building -- An application for a preliminary plat entitled Comsery No. 1 consisting of approximately 63 acres and containing one lot of approximately 41.09 acres for a corporate headquarters and one outlot of 21 acres for future use by Comsery Corporation was considered at a public hearing held by the APC on February 25, 1982. The Advisory Planning Commission is recommending approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. The Advisory Planning Commission was agreeable to the recommendation by Comsery to reduce the parking; however, the space requirement of a 10' x 20' parking stall was retained. The action recommending approval to the City Council was also conditional upon Comsery satisfying the intent of the height limitations proposed for amendment to the zoning ordinance by the APC. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages through ? for your reference. A copy of the minutes wi a enclosed witn the Administrative Packet on Monday. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the preliminary plat for Comsery Corporation as recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission. 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN • ar � n r• • �!u�S� � • APPLICANT: OCMSERV LOCATION: GOVEl2,1= LOTS 5 & 6 IN SECTION 8 AND PART OF GDv- ERR'ENT LOTS 1 & 2, SECTICN 17 EXISTING ZONING: I-1 (LIGiT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY s •k Lu!M9pl FEBRUARY 17, 1982 DALE C. MME, CITY PLANNER An application has been submitted for a preliminary plat, Comsery No. 1, which will consist of approximately 63 acres and contain 1 lot of approximately 41.09 acres for a corporate headquarters and one outlot of 21 acres for future use by Consery Corporation. TONING AND LAND USE Presently, the site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District) and allows an office building as a permitted use within this district. The proposed land use also designates the parcel as Industrial. 'Therefore, the proposed development is in conformance with both the current zoning and the Ccm- prehensive Land Use Guide. COMMENTS The proposed site for Comsery Corporation's corporate headquarters is Lot 1, Block 1, Comsery No. 1. The lot contains 41.09 acres and the proposed office building would contain approximately 179,529 square feet for the first phase. The proposed building will be between 3-4 stories depending on the ground elevation along the building. The applicant has also indicated that there will be two future expansions, one on each end of the building. They have been dashed in on the site plan for your review. The projected employment for Ccrosery presently is 359 employees with an expected em- ployee population in 1983 of 490. Ccrosery is looking at a potential for this facil- ity with all phases between 1,000 and 1,100 employees for their future growth. SITE PIAN REVIEW Presently, Lot 1, Block 1, contains 41.09 acres. The building floor area is approx- imately 47,537 square feet and a lot coverage of approximately 2.6%. The rem ired Parking for the first phase of this facility is 1,017 spaces. The applicant has indicated that this requirement is in excess of what Catisery is proposing and thev are proposing to provide 862 parking spaces which they feel will be adequate for their needs. The applicant is also shaving proposed parking for the second and 76 - 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PIAT - COMSEW NO. 1 FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE TWO third phase totaling approximately 1,550 spaces for their overall development. The parking spaces designated have been shown as a 9 x 20 parking space. Eagan requires a 10 x 20 parking space. At the present time, since there is adequate land for ex- pansion of the parking, staff would go along with the 862 parking spaces because if there is a greater need for parking with the first phase, that additional parking could easily be provided. Even if parking is not adequate for the overall facility, these is an additional 20 acres which Canssery has in reserve where parking could' be provided if required. The applicant has done a very good job in the aesthetics and layout of the parcel. The parking area is separated into 3 categories. one of these is the general em- ploynmt parking which is the largest lot; the second is the school, or guest park- ing and the third area is the drop off, or short term parking and Comsery is pro- viding 27 indoor parking spaces for their executives. The parking has been broken up very nicely with 20' aisles that will be landscaped to breakup the large as- phalt surface. The landscaping in the parking lotPalong with the'landscaping in front of the building which will be two reflective pools and a very nice green area,will provide an amenity to the corporate headquarters. They have also pro- vided a 30' setback for green area around the entire area of the parking lots. As stated earlier, the proposed building will be between 3 and 4 stories depending on what ground elevation you are looking at the building. The applicant is propos- ing to have a 4 -story atrium, a cafeteria located on the first level, score class- room space, offices and scare warehousing. The entire building will be a very high technological building with reflective glass and aluminum construction. The pro- posed facility will be between 3 and 4 stories. The City has presently establish- ed a Height Subcommittee which has been meeting for the past several months to look at height limitations in commercial and industrial areas in the City. The Committee should have a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Cannission on Feb- ruary 23 and the Council will hopefully make a recmuendation March 2nd. There- fore the height issue should not be a problem for this facility. The access to this facility will be off of Yankee Doodle Road. Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13 will provide access to Comserv's corporate headquarters. Presently, there is a signalized intersection at T.H. 13 and Yankee Doodle Road, so traffic movements should not be a problem at this location. Comsery is also proposing to bisect their site and provide a looped street from Yankee Doodle Road to T.H. 13 approximately 600' northwest of T.H. 13 paralleling 13. Therefore, there will be a secondary access on the southern side of the site with the first phase of con- struction. With these two accesses, there should be no problem with traffic cir- culation for Comsery Corporation. The applicant is meeting with the Building Inspector and Fire Marshall on Febru- ary 22, 1982 to work out all of the health, safety requirements which will be provided in the building. This will consist of hydrant locations, exiting, sprink- lers and all of the building code requirements which the Eagan Building Department will be requesting. Therefore, this recommendation should be worked out prior to the February 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Comanission Meeting. CITY OF EAGAN PRELIMINARY PLAT - COMSERV NO. 1 FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE It is staff's understanding that Consery presently is renting 5 or 6 office build- ings throughout the Metropolitan area. Their intent is to get this building con- structed as quickly as possible and if the preliminary plat is approved, they will be requesting a building permit in order to start this facility as early as.possi- ble. It is staff's understanding that Conserv will be trying to get this facility constructed by December or January of 1982 or early 1983. If approved, the plat should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The final plat and development agreement shall be approved by the City prior to occupancy of the building. 2) The applicant shall provide 862, parking spaces with 10'x 204 dimensions with the first phase of construction. If the parking is not adequate, Consery will provide additional spaces at the City's request. 3) The preliminary plat and building shall be subject to the reconmendations of the City Council on height requirements for the building. 4) Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City staff prior to final plat approval. 5) A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the City staff and the land- scape bond shall be required and not released until one year after the land- scaping has been oampleted. 6) The plat should be subject to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and comments because the plat abuts Stag right-of-way. 7) The parking areas shall be surfaced and concrete curbing shall be provided around the access drive and parking areas. DCR/jack ENGINE=G RECOMMENDATIONS 8) Approval fran the Metropolitan Waste Water Control Cormission (M[a'CC) allow- ing a connection to their facility must be received prior to final plat ap- proval. 9) An 8" water main shall be constructed providing a connection of Kennebec Dr. to Yankee Doodle Road. 10) An adequate ponding easement shall be dedicated for the internal ponding area (CP -7) providing for 13.0 acre feet of storage based on a controlled elevation of 765.0. 11) A 60' right-of-way shall be dedicated and an internal 44' wide, 9 -ton cock- mercial/industrial road shall be constructed providing a connection between Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13 at the south property line. 0 0 CITY CF EAGAN FEBRUARY 25, 1982 PAGE FOUR 12) A 10' drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to all pub- lic right-of-way and adjacent private property. 13) Trunk area storm sewer assessments in addition to lateral benefit frau ex- isting trunk utilities shall be paid or assumed by this development as a condition of final plat approval if not covered as a pending assessment un- der a future City -approved project. 14) An internal storm sewer system shall be installed to provide for the drain- age frau the property to the southwest of this proposed plat. TAC/jach _7y_ 11 TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1982 RE: PRELIlKII M PLAT - CCMSERV NO. 1 (CO1SERV CORPORATION) The Public Works Department has the following comments eats pertaining to consideration of the above -referenced preliminary plat: i ■ ■s. Sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity is available to provide service to this proposed development by way of the existing Metropoli- tan Waste Water Control Commission (bIIM trunk interceptor line along the northwest boundary of this proposed development. Authorization for connection to this trunk interceptor line will have to be obtained di- rectly frau MWCC. Sanitary sewer to service the future development of Outlot A can be obtained from the existing trunk sanitary sewer on Yan- kee Doodle Road in the northeast corner or extension of the existing lateral sanitary sewer within the Kennebec Drive right-of-way to the southwest. An extension of the existing 8" water main within the Kennebec Drive right-of-way will have to be extended northeasterly to provide for con- nection to the existing 12" trunk water main in Yankee Doodle Road to provide proper looping for fire protection and adequate water service for this development. This will provide adequate pressure and capa- city to service this development. Ca:e■i�, eco ■auae+ The property generally consists of rolling topography located on the bluff of the Minnesota River with internal drainage being directed to an internal ponding area (CP -7) adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road which presently has adequate gravity storm sever outlet down to the Minnesota River. In addition to the internal storm sewer required to handle sur- face runoff fran the parking lot area, a drainage outlet will have to be extended to the southwest to provide for continued storm sewer drain- age of the adjacent property (L.aHass Corporation and M"UC). The inter- nal pond will have to provide for a storage capacity of 13 acre feet based on anticipated runoff from this development. Primary access to this property will be obtained by way of Yankee Doo- dle Road which is an existing 44' wide, 9 -ton industrial road with a traffic signal at the intersection of T.H. 13. The overall master plan for streets anticipated that Kennebec Drive would continue from the Cedar Industrial Park and connect with Termi- nal Drive at its intersection with Yankee Doodle Road within the Sib- ley Terminal Industrial Park to the northeast. The Public Works De- partnent has evaluated the existing and proposed future land uses of WM 0 0 Thomas A. Colbert February 25, 1982 Conserv No. 1 Page two the property owned by the MVJCC and LaHass Corporation combined with the proposed development of the Camsery property and have determined that this industrial road connection is no longer necessary. However, staff feels that due to the traffic generated by this proposed development, that an internal access road connecting Yankee Doodle Road with T.H. 13 to the south should be constructed as a part of this first phase devel- opment. This will provide a primary access along Yankee Doodle Road with a secondary "safety valve" access to T.H. 13 at the southern cor- ner oriner of Outlot A. Contact with MnDOT has indicated that street access at this location is allowed and permissible. As with all other streets constructed within COmiercial/industrial areas, this internal road should be a 9 -ton, 44' wide street. Sufficient right-of-way has previously been acquired for the existing Yankee Doodle Road and T.H. 13. A 60' right-of-way will have to be dedicated to provide for this internal public street previously dis- cussed. A 10' drainage and utility easement should be dedicated ad- jacent to all existing and future public right-of-way. A 30' half right-of-way will have to be acquired from the LaHass Corporation for the internal road connection to T.H. 13. Mr. Frank Hasselman has ver- bally erbally agreed to this required dedication. Ponding easement should be dedicated to incorporate 769.0 elevation of the proposed internal pond (CP -7). TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS No trails or sidewalks are proposed within this commercial/industrial Trunk sanitary sewer and water area assessments were levied under Pro- jects 10, 15 and/or 49. However, trunk storm sewer has not been assess- ed over this property and should be a requirement of final plat approval. Based on estimated 1982 rates of 6C per square foot for commercial/in- dustrial property, the estimated trunk storm sewer assessment will be approximately $138,000. In addition, all assessments associated with internal utilities will be the responsibility_ of this development. Assessments associated with the construction of the required internal street will be assessed against the benefited properties fronting on this proposed road's location. In addition, this development should be responsible for approximately 1,200 feet of lateral benefit from trunk watermain along Yankee Doodle Road resulting in an estimated $21,600 based on anticipated 1982 rates. In addition, this develogrent should be responsible for approximately �81, 0 0 Thomas A. Colbert February 25, 1982 Cortsery No. 1 Page three 1,450 feet of lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer along the north- west property line. Based on estimated 1982 rates, this would result in approximately $23,200. No sanitary sewer or water lateral assessments have ever been levied against this property thereby necessitating their collection as a condition of final plat approval. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this re- port at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, C�, ad Thus A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works ?T.CC/j ach I—, /Lllc ZN1 p- 57a 859 3 8660 ZE 10 0-1 698.0 O b 14 z-_ RX AGOTiOf b 876.0 FOX RLOG Evs 9 ATH IGHTS R DG \16 Age SLACKHAWK PARK 792.0 8820 r jp-'7 JP -48 AN LE 8930 BP -27 886:0 877J. 1 4.8C Bp -agaO 856.0 894.0 AP SP -16 073,0 im 9140,4g, I P441 4906.0 P4 -9 89poil 859 3 8660 ZE 10 0-1 698.0 O b 14 z-_ RX AGOTiOf b 876.0 FOX RLOG Evs 9 ATH IGHTS R DG \16 Age SLACKHAWK PARK 792.0 8820 r jp-'7 JP -48 AN LE 8930 BP -27 886:0 877J. 1 4.8C Bp -agaO 856.0 894.0 AP SP -16 073,0 im 9140,4g, I P441 4906.0 P4 -9 89poil i !------- III i ) ✓'� II Q I 1111111 � scn w: To er��iecareo , _ ..I I 1 � i l ,\-� rYANK� , � .7sa �fAY ... _�` -B�OL6 — .a.1 • `� � e -Oat I � �" �` I T as I la�ll ` ,' ..a' - � '/ / •. a-a•wa �.� ��' - : r.e+1• \ 1 /� / _ ..... - d, 1 ; '•:.� ir• II 1, �,• ;'�, �j �i _ ' 1,� Vii. '' �'1 I-'�,:` I LTLOT /NI v: J y�t `iip �l 0 / �o etH4ese4Rr. a Ji ii. �l j `�`'11 -':f.. �::.: _ Q \ ,�I II Ali y6GI ,. :I I :I S::L` ..•.. r , I !4 i � �� !II � I I I J � I' �1. - (�� --,\ \I I a . :` .I. 12 I ,� � • ,�; In ,v ,11;1;.1::1.1 I ,4x.;', !; •,.-„' � � �' � � .1 �� 10 ': //,. ,,I `,�,,)•,; � 1 (' I � I'll -� , _; 1- � i �,` - , COMBBRV NO. 1 ' aO / Q. d PRELIMINARY PLAT 3 Q RON Kg 80Eq 6 ABBOC YTEB. INC. xl , . 0 S • . v E . g,ii e;;e Cit rte.. r 4 nm v...... >n a r,.v.w r r.... w.vn..•a an, • i,1,1 1 1 11 II (, i7i1l:: 41 L 111/}. � i'; --_ -- _- -___-_ �'� I fa 1 1 1 1 11 ill l 1 A ` I I ;; 11 • ' '' e i Ili ' I �I� Ir I, ' I•�'\ I ' a I � c`i •� . �•• ..._..,_ rev....�.�a ....--..... ._. y..,,.av� ro......�,. e.y.. c�,.o �i�,...�.o.�nnmeeom va..... me...m....�.w..�..tiw>i.w an.awo ..a.. ...�ti ... s..... .a............-....,• IL ---------- --- - - - - 4TO #AWN J,5 q C3, WIS. PLM MOVE" "kill p I 3k MIN /'Co MOVE" "kill p I MOVE" "kill i MEND OTA 5 • :'fit 1 c RB GB Ind -. j -� � - ev. �" ..� . !•:� Ind' � . ' -- • - - a •'_- '-a- - -Ind Ind _-t•I• - - -LB R•1 AIV �' � „.•..Y••... RI � '.. ".`.,ti `jam- Ind _RBDj R•IV .. RIII \'i •r,,.� vim. �- ♦ •� I " •'� �, ` riga •..� �! � =1 v:' ® � _�� -_1 RIII NB R -III air Po C R-11 Ral. ,� Lg— R-11 •." .. \m I ; LB " ` CSC C — 56 wini�i'; ,': ,�. ,:/ ,/�„jrp.\.• - RI R-1 Y s.AiL”- IOv.,� R_I • `' ,Y — \Il- RIII ;"' ... `� _ �' _ i �I . - _ L Y RAI tQ R-Ial .. p HALL "�'- % Ind c •I s"` ,'B' y,.^ _ „ _i- .. R-0 B" ° R IV r.. ! n.••S ate, Y _ 'Il��f�� uisli�i�c�nh R -II � �-�� I{� ' { S • �� R-1 � � : I P R -II R II R -III �'• . LB ti LB _ C E• P R' RIII TI RB R -IR' RIII' i •i °•' �,I.., R -III CSC/GB/ C R•4�f- t - ...- �,� \�� R 111: y u+• -s• l • I_ ` � yR.l . �r ---`--- �' Z, 'f it (+ ;r P Ral. C R i R-11 w� LB R -III Ngg �I! ••.,. ' CSC r,R�� r .Ri , .1 I ,�:.r- t Q� LB:r.�. D LB c% R -I P 4S : hf�N' R R -I R -I -J R-11RIIGOI`F ` I APPLE vaLLEY 4^-:., i �.., ROSEMOUN �_ �� .. ME TrL1 R-3 J Ise 'R-4 AX R_4 B. _.. SI -fY T MINA r� INpU4T IA I BARK o R -I `-- A R_ ..R-4 pp ZZ O F N O 1'¢ o n w /'R-4 B: ou �fLl CE L I ie INDUS IAL A ��`� �, A , R -I. ,IDG V.1 �.. TAr 7 1 9LiZCK ADDITION R-4 ` �_4 A R- JCROFT ' : *A KFi� ACRES � L I c - I , rglLis l _ F"L R-4 R•4�� - - �B l G FGN ME O CENTER �� R-2 -I AH�^ — ` A C_ R-1 , f P 9 Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Twelve 4 ADVERTISING SIGN/ROSEWOOD CORPORATION E. Temporary Advertising, -'Sign for Rosewood Corporation -- An appli- cation for a temporary advertising sign for Rosewood Corporation' was submitted to the City for consideration. The application was reviewed by the Administrative Intern, Dave Osberg, and a copy of a report and drawings as submitted by Rosewood Corporation are enclosed on pages 9I, through 9.9 for your reference. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny a temporary advertising sign for Rosewood Corporation. — /j 0 0 TO: CITY ADNDNISTRATOR HEDI S FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTEM OSBERG DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1982 RE: TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS FOR ROSEMOD CORPORATION In reviewing Ordinance #16, the sign ordinance, tenporary advertising signs are allowed on property zoned agricultural, ccmrercial or indus- trial zoned Property. Temporary advertising signs are allowed in res- idential areas if the sign is related directly to the use of the prem ises upon which the sign is located and the sign is used for identifi- cation for major aparbnent amplexes. In reviewing the spacing requirement, temporary advertising signs do not have to meet the 1,000 lineal feet spacing requirement for signs on the sane side of the street, or the 300 lineal feet requirement for signs on the opposite side of the street. This spacing requirement may be waived for tegorary advertising signs advertising new residen- tial develogrents. Rosewood Corporation has submitted an application for three temporary signs advertising the Coachman Oaks Condaninium project. Sign No. 1 is proposed to be located on the east side of Coachman Road directly across frau the entrance to 3155 Coachman Road. The proposed sign will contain approximately 64 square feet and the total height of the sign would depend on the grading, but at all tines would be less than 27 feet. Sign No. 2 is proposed to be located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Coachman Road and Yankee Doodle Road. The proposed sign will contain approximately 55 square feet, and the total height of the sign would depend on the grading, but at all times would be less than 27 feet. Sign No. 3 is proposed to be identical to sign no. 2 and would be lo- cated on the northeast comer of the intersection of Four Oaks Road and State Highway #13. At their September -15, 1981 meeting, the City Council approved a tear Porary advertising sign for the Rosewood Corporation's Four Oaks Apart- ment complex. This advertising sign is located on the northeast cor- ner of Yankee Doodle Road and CoadmIan Road which is the same location of proposed sign no. 2. If approved, the sign should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The signage shall be no more than 125 square feet for each sign. -9/- 7hanas L. Hedges Temporary Advertising Signs for Rosewood Corporation February 25, 1982 Page two 2) The sign shall be located no closer than 10' to the property line on the parcel. 3) The temporary advertising sign shall be approved for the first year and renewed for the seoond vear. rM/jack -9oz— Rosewood Corporation teal Estate Development, Investment Building, Property Management, and Warehousing Services LOCATION MAP - 3 TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGNS - Sign #3 Four Oaks Road M .a V ro 0 &— Sign #1 b+ � 4J fa � ro x � N U 0 o 4 U to Sign #2 Yankee Doodle Road 2432 Prior Avenue North, P.O. Box 8307, Roseville, MN 55113, (612) 636-8050 TWX: 9105761729 9.3 - VUD CCMOM'--�- lb � parm co)al)o 0 •0. zilk mcr ,L-0(0 ng Nin- MIM CO)MI-130 �f Rosewood__-.. `llIL 0 0 FP.. ZEHNDER'I A. LI EADOL) R_3c asrpaaalt�. PFS . R 3 , f. J R _4 A^r R-4 ;. SI EY T MINA ti 1 �... NPU $IA I FARK m R -I ( — _ _ R-'4 3I;6w i h ,A a , LI_ R-4 w gar p ..r "o cc a� RFoj TK 4p,A A Tr -t RIDGE R-4 N B NB A j 3RC.!R-4 ,`\O,r � � NE1l`irtl'it .. % L: L I R_, %L ARK ,�� , A q R_I �. R_(TA�KA 0 -'p ACRES• l eLTuK�, 1 ADD TION l5 R-4 ON R-3 CROFT / . *ACKH7t, _ — -- _ ACRES ILLS .. In Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Fourteen 0 0 CONTRACT 82-2 C. Contract 82-2, Approve Plans & Specifications/Order Advertise- ment for Bids (Briar Hill 4th Addition Streets & Utilities) -- On December 1, 1981, the City Council held a public hearing and subsequently ordered in the installation of streets and utilities within the Briar Hill 4th Addition (Phase 2). Detailed plans and specifications providing for the installation of these improvements have now been completed by the consulting engineering firm and are being presented to the Council for their review and approval. All right of way necessary for the installation of these utilities has been provided through dedication of public right of way under previous Briar Hill Addition plats. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON fications for Contract 82-2 advertisement for bids to March 25, 1982. s/Thomas L. Hedges iC'ty Adm nistrator THE MATTER: To approve plans and speci- (Briar Hill 4th Addition) and authorize be received at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, - 900/ - Agenda Items February 28, 1982 Page Thirteen 0 0 ADD,ITiIONAL'r ITEMS PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - DAKOTA COUNTY TRAILS A. Dakota County Proposed Maintenance Agreement for Trails - The City Administrator is working on the final details of the trail agreement. This maintenance agreement affects all cities in Dakota County and the City Administrators have held two meetings to cri- tique the proposed agreement as drafted by Dakota County. It is planned that all revisions will be completed on Monday; however, if the cities are not in agreement with the language, this item will be recommended for continuance. Therefore, the final draft of the maintenance agreement will be presented with the Administra- tive Packet on Monday or with the City Council packet for March 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve, deny or continue consideration of the Dakota County proposed maintenance agreement for trails. T.H. 55 & 149 UPGRADING PLANS & SPECS B. Approve MnDOT Plans & Specifications for Upgrading of T.H. 55/149 (Eagan Project 353) -- The City has received detailed plans and specifications for the previously referenced upgrading of T.H. 55/149 from Lawrence Avenue to the Skelly Station. These plans and specifications have been reviewed in detail by the City staff and consulting engineering firm and it has been determined that they accurately incorporate all requestedimprovements by the City of Eagan pertaining to utility revisions and or extensions of trunk utilities. Therefore, the staff is recommending that these plans be approved so that MnDOT may proceed with the bid letting scheduled for March 12, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To authorize a resolution approving MnDOT Plans S.P.1909-55, 56 (55=116) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said resolution. -97 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL Bulletproof Vests Enclosed on page 100 is an informative memo regarding a question raised by City Counc1 member Smith as to whether bulletproof vests are provided for police officers. Discussion regarding bullet proof vests should not be public to assure and respect the security of the police officers. Therefore, this item is informative, and if any member of the City Council has comments, they should be shared with the City Administrator in private. Tax Exempt Mortgage Finance Issue Update Enclosed on pages 10( through (02 is a copy of the most recent update of the tax exempt mortgage ming issue. Fire Department Monthly Report Enclosed on pages 1021, through are monthly reports for December 1981 concerning the Eagan volunteer Fire Department. Civil Defense Warning Siren Informational Meeting For those members of the City Council who wish to attend an informa- tional meeting regarding the location of civil defense warning sirens, refer to page 10 45' for a copy of a letter that was sent out to residents in the general area that will be affected by the four (4) civil defense warning sirens if installed. Licensing of General Trade Contractors At the last City Council meeting, City Councilmember Wachter discus- sed proposed legislation to license general trade contractors as provided to him by the City Administrator. Enclosed is a copy of a resolution that was passed by the City of Mendota Heights which opposes the licensing of general trade contractors (page /06). If there is similar interest on the part of the City Coun- cil to oppose this proposed legislation, action could be taken to enact a resolution similar to that of the City of Mendota Heights. sm 0 0 Informational Memo February 26, 1981 Page Two Drexel Heights Street Assessment Appeal Enclosed on pages 10-7 through 1019 is an update on a recent order concerning the appeal of speciar—assessments taken by Pilot Knob Properties covering street improvements in Drexel Heights Addition. Board of Equalization A board of review/equalization meeting is scheduled for May 3, 1982 which is a Monday evening. If there is any conflict with this date, please notice. Robert Rosene For your information, Bob Rosene will not be at the City Council meeting on Tuesday evening to discuss the water and sewer and water distribution plan reports as originally planned by Public Works Director Colbert. Bob is entering Midway Hospital for a gall blad- dar operation early Wednesday, March 3, 1982. s/Thomas L. Hedges MityACinistaator ffm Egan Police Mepart4lent c Martin Deslauriers �- -[ 3830 Pilot Knob Road Ckief of Police. -3 i Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Jay M. Berthe y(,- M Assistant Chief of Police : `1-4 16 February 1982 TO: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator FROM: Assistant Chief of Police SUBJECT: Bulletproof Vests Our present, unwritten, policy regarding the purchasing and wearing of bulletproof vests is as follows: Officers wear them at their own discretion. Nearly all officers have a bulletproof vest which was purchased by them or by a loved one for them. Also, some purchased the vest by using their clothing allowance if there was enough balance in the clothing account so as to not inter- fere with the expenses of normal uniform upkeep. There are approximately ten or twelve manufacturers of bulletproof vests. Prices range from $175 to $225 per vest. Also, there have been studies made on the various vests as to the stopping power on different calibre bullets. The issue of mandating the wearing of bulletproof vests while on duty has been addressed in police journals and I tend to agree with this. However, the main issue, which appears to be universal, is that officers say the vests are very uncomfortable in hot weather. A survey of our department indicates that approximately 50% of -.our officers wear them in hot weather and 50% do not. One of our officers -breaks out in a rash so he can't wear one. If we mandated our officers to wear vests, we would then have to enforce this policy with a suspension or other disci- plinary action; most of the articles I have read indicate that this tends to create a morale problem. I recommend that we continue to permit oicers to wear them at their own discretion. In regard to the funding, I would also like to see it remain as we are presently doing JMB/vk /60 '1 Jay/ rte B e r t h e THE LONE OAK TREE — THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH & GROWTH 1N OUR COMMUNITY I DATE: February 1282 CITY OF EwAN C, J Statisticai Dat -:r- lvrcnunt of Program $16,940,000 Total Pmount of Pre-CarQnitted mans $ 16,629,925 Percentage of Loans Pre-Cannitted -98—.- Total. Number of Loans Average Mortgage Amount Average Sale Price Average Appraisal Value Average Adjusted Gross Income Average Gross Income Type of Loan; Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional FNA VA Graduated Pledge Average loan to value Ratio: Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional Number of New Construction loans Number of Existing Loans Type of Dwelling: Single Family Townhouse Condcminium Mobile Hanes Average Previous Residents Number of Renters Number of Owners Average Age Sex: Male Female Average Family Size Average Number of Children MLirital Status: Married Single Joint Divorced FUNDING: Collar Amount of Loans Funcled Number of Loans inr, inccxno II<isic Inaxnc _.._.__ 155__ 74% _ $ 52,893 — — - r $ _ 61.365,----- 59,329 66,770 59,794 67,859 20,213 _- _ 24,978 21,511_.... _ — 26,647 — — 7 19 --� 7 46 69 29 39 65 5 88% 908 718 74% _ 121 105 34 34 79 94 _ 23- 53 i6 — 0 0 --- —111---- —.__ 1Q0- --- - 44 39 30.3 _ 29.6 _ 106 _ 128 49 11 1.8 2.4 -..- 4.. .7 67 93 _--79 26 5 14 --- ---4 6 .5 16,444,750 289 -- - _ 101 i DATE: February 12, 1982 CITY OF EAGAN 416,940,000 --Amount of Program Dollar Amount of Funds Remaining 43,275 + PLEASE NOTE: This amount can be utilized in any of the following categories: Single Family, Townhouse, Condo, Mobile Home; Low or Basic Incomes; or any Conventional Loans, including Conventional 95't;. This does not include the Graduated Pledge Account. At this time, there are no Graduated Pledge Funds available. Total Pre -Commitment Amount 5 16,629,925 Total Reserved (Yet to be Pre -Committed) $ 266,800 $ 16,940,000 l0Z EAGAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT OR MONTH OF N WORK PERFORMED TYPE MAN HOURS Fire Calls730 Rescue Calls Training [us Truck b Equipment Maintenance__iii.— Station Maintenance Fire Prevention 12 Administrative'' " 206 TOTAL 2226 MANPOWER STATION #1 STATION #2 STATION 63 Available Days 1G ' .. Available Nights 19. " 13_ Available Rotating 7 4 2 TOTAL 37 23 18 FIRE CALLS TYPE NUMBER LOSS Structure 7 $81.550.00 Grass 7' 0.00 Vehicle . 650.00 False .... 3 0.00 Other 7 150.00 TOTAL 26 $82,350.00 RESCUE CALLS TYPE NUMBER Vehicle Accident0 Medical 12 Industrial 1 Miscellaneous 0 TOTAL 13 LARGE DOLLAR LOSSES DATE NAME LOCATION OCCUPANCY "LASS 11-6-81 2910 Burnside Residence $80,000.00 11-9-91 4260 Sandstone Car 500.00 11-23-81 1477 Woodview Ct. Residence 1,500.00 po`S LAGAN vuLulvaLLll r1LL LLrAKl'MENT MONTHLY REPORT �R MONTH OF December. 1981 WORK PERFORMED v vL -TYPE MAN HOURS Fire Calls 380 Rescue Calls 125 Training ...........538 Truck S Equipment Maintenance " 74 Station Maintenance 137 Fire Prevention "' 20 Administrative 259 TOTAL 1533 MANPOWER STATION til STATION U2 STATION 43 Available Days i4 q Available Nights ik' ii is Available Rotating 7 .G TOTAL 47 71 is FIRE CALLS TYPE NUMBER LOSS Structure 4 55.800.00 Grass 0 ... ...0.00 Vehicle " '2 .. '2.500.00 False 2 .... 0.00 Other 7 0.00 TOTAL 15 $8.300.00 RESCUE CALLS TYPE NUMBER Vehicle Accident 0 Medical .. '14 Industrial ..'' 2 1 Miscellaneous 1 TOTAL 17 LARGE DOLLAR LOSSES DATE NAME LOCATION OCCUPANCY LOSS 12-10-81 990 Apollo Road Warehouse $5,000.00 12-18-81 3932 Beau D'Rue Dr. Car b Van $2,000.00 16t 1. February 19, 1982 T Re: Location of Civil Defense Warning Sirens Dear Property Owner: THOMAS HEDGES CITY ADMINISTRATOR EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE CITY CLERK The City of Eagan installed four (4) civil defense warning sirens throughout the City during 1981. The City Council, in the fall of 1981, decided to include in the 1982 budget funding to allow the installation of four (4) additional warning sirens to be located in the City. The City of Eagan is approximately 34 square miles, and, therefore, a minimum of eight (8) warning sirens are required to adequately cover residential, commercial and industrial buildings located throughout the community. The City of Eagan may be required to purchase additional warning sirens in the City as the community continues to grow in the future. Due to the fact, one (1) of the warning sirens is proposed to be located in an area close to your property, we felt you should be noticed of an informational meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at the Eagan City Hall starting at 7:00 p.m. to learn more about the warning siren and the exact location. The Eagan City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed warning siren location at the March 16, 1982 regular meeting. If you have neighbors who were not sent a letter, please advise them of the informational meeting and invite them to attend if they wish to learn more about the City's plans for locating a civil defense warning siren in your neighborhood. Sincerely, t4 -t\ o Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/hnd 10 THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. BEA BLOMOU15T MAYOR � THOMASEGAN CITY OF. PAGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS ' THEODORE WACHTER 329S PILOT KNOB ROAD COUNCIL MEMBERS .. J 4.. P,O. BOX 21199 " EAGAN, MINNESOTA 53123 PHONE 454-8188 1. February 19, 1982 T Re: Location of Civil Defense Warning Sirens Dear Property Owner: THOMAS HEDGES CITY ADMINISTRATOR EUGENE VAN OVERSEKE CITY CLERK The City of Eagan installed four (4) civil defense warning sirens throughout the City during 1981. The City Council, in the fall of 1981, decided to include in the 1982 budget funding to allow the installation of four (4) additional warning sirens to be located in the City. The City of Eagan is approximately 34 square miles, and, therefore, a minimum of eight (8) warning sirens are required to adequately cover residential, commercial and industrial buildings located throughout the community. The City of Eagan may be required to purchase additional warning sirens in the City as the community continues to grow in the future. Due to the fact, one (1) of the warning sirens is proposed to be located in an area close to your property, we felt you should be noticed of an informational meeting that is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 1982, at the Eagan City Hall starting at 7:00 p.m. to learn more about the warning siren and the exact location. The Eagan City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed warning siren location at the March 16, 1982 regular meeting. If you have neighbors who were not sent a letter, please advise them of the informational meeting and invite them to attend if they wish to learn more about the City's plans for locating a civil defense warning siren in your neighborhood. Sincerely, t4 -t\ o Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH/hnd 10 THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 82-14 RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE LICENSING OF GENERAL TRADE CONTRACTORS WHEREAS, proposed legislation identified as SF 1594 (companion bill HF 1570) being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee would establish state licensing of general trade contractors; and WHEREAS, two classes would be established to require state licensing of not only general contractors (Class A) but also subcontractors and those trades separate from building construction involving concrete work, siding installation, swimming pool installation and other services (Class B); and WHEREAS, under the proposed legislation, one-third of all such fees would be retained by the State and two-thirds would be pro -rated to all municipalities based on the number of permits issued by each municipality in the preceding calendar year; and WHEREAS, it is highly questionable whether the state's share of said revenues would finance the staff necessary to process said licenses; and WHEREAS, local governments would, by the very nature of the licensing procedures, be placed in the position of enforcing the proposed statutory provisions; and WHEREAS, those municipalities which issue large volumes of trade permits annually and do not currently require licensing could benefit from said legislation; and WHEREAS, severe financial impact would be imposed on those municipalities which currently require, administer and police their own licensing regulations; and WHEREAS, an additional financial restraint imposed through state mandates is unconscionable; and WHEREAS, said legislation would eliminate the rights, responsibilities and discretion for governmental control more properly retained at the local level, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights strenuously opposes SF 1594 (HF 1570); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby directs that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the League of Minnesota Cities, members of the Senate Commerce Committee, Representative Carolyn Rodriguez and Senator Howard Knutson and all northern Dakota County communities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights strongly urges its legislators, League of Minnesota Cities and local governmental officials to express their opposition to SF 1594 (HF 1570). 'Lim 0 HAIIGE, SM=, EIDE & HELT n, R A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS SBOB SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 00122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID D. KELLER Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 February 23, 1982 AR CooE 012 TELEPHONE 404.4224 RE: Pilot Knob Properties vs. City of Eagan - Drexel Heights Street Assessment Appeal Dear Tom: We have recently received the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order concerning the appeal of special assessments taken by Pilot Knob Properties, covering the street improvements in Drexel Heights Addition. By way of background, the first assessment roll was adopted by the City Council on September 24, 1980 and upon recommendation of the staff, a revised roll was adopted by December 16, 1980 reducing the assessments against the Harvey and Henry Braun property and increasing the assessment against the remaining 24 lots of Drexel Heights Addition. Both assessment rolls were appealed from and on November 5, 1981, we had a full day of trial before Judge Bruenig. The case was heard over 3 days on November 5, 6, November 19, 1981. I am enclosing a copy of the Findings and Order and you will note that Judge Bruenig has ruled against the City, again on a procedural basis, claiming that the Council did not consider special benefits or make findings concerning such benefits. Our witnesses had to testify that the City Council did not go through the detailed benefit procedure comparing market values before and after the project. And therefore, Judge Bruenig vacated the assessments and ordered the property to be reassessed following the benefit approach. He also stated that if the Braun property did benefit, that it should bear an assessment equal to the lots assessed in Drexel Heights by determining how many lot equivalents are included in the Braun pro- perty. The Council assessed three lots for Henry Braun on the south, and two equivalent lots for Harvey Braun on the north, based on the very steep access to a portion of the Harvey Braun property. It appears now that the Council has several choices. 1. It could appeal the decision of Judge Bruenig, but based on the current state of the law, this would be fruitless. 2. A new reassessment hearing should be scheduled covering the entire project in the near future. 107 Mr. Thomas Hedges Eagan, Mn. 55122 February 23, 1982 Page 2 0 I would suggest that we attempt to work a settlement with the developer of the Drexel Heights Addition, if possible, although at the present time, the difference is fairly substantial. The original assessment was $3,833.20 per lot, the original assessment in September 1980 was approximately $38,000.00 per lot, and the final assessment in December 1980 was $4,467.58. Because of confusion, up until about 2 days before the assessment hearing, the figure of $3,000.00 per lot was continued to be used in giving information to the developer, and therefore the developer was insistent that that was all that he was obligated to pay. I would guess that the developer would agree to pay $3,400.00 to $3,500.00 per lot over 24 lots, but the City would also have to consider increasing the assessments on the Rahn property. I would ask that you forward this letter to the City Council and if they have specific direction, that this should be followed in this case. If the City cannot reach an agreement with the developer, I would then suggest that a reassessment hearing be scheduled and that our appraiser who is Bob Hutchinson, in this case, be requested to review his appraisal and the Council again schedule a hearing on an appropriate night to hear the testimony. This may take several hours, although I am uncertain about how long the hearing wowactually take. PHH:ras cc: Tom Colbert 10`6 Very 5fuly yours, H.