The URL can be used to link to this page

07/06/1982 - City Council RegularSPECIAL NOTE Due to the fact that Monday, July 5, is a legal .holiday and City offices will be closed, there will be no Administrative Agenda for the July 6, 1982 City Council meeting.. F.T011AZI1 EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JULY 6, 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 P % A. Fire Department e14C. Park Department A, B. Police Department Q'$ D. Public Works Department IV. 6:55 — CONSENT ITEMS (One Motion Approves All Items) yJA A. Temporary Non—Intoxicating Liquor License for CedarvaLe Lanes Softball Tournament for August 14 & 15 .XA> B. Maintenance Agreement/Dakota County—City of Eagan to Maintain County Bike Trails p1.\A C. 1982 Gambling License Renewals ` yq D. Project #360, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Towerview Road) Ti E. Project #362, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tomark Second Addition) SOF. Project #363, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing P (Hilltop Plaza) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. I. R. Financing for Federal Land Company for Office Building, Yankee Square Center, in the Amount of $1,537,000 P.39 B. Project #264A, Reassessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Utilities (Continued from the 5-18-82 meeting) ?.$9 C. Project #264B, Assessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Streets (Continued form the 5-18-82 meeting) D. Project 357, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition Streets & Utilities e.59 E. Vacation Hearing for a Portion of Denmark Avenue Of; 61 F. Project 359, Park Cliff 1st Addition Storm Sewer VI. OLD BUSINESS (19 A. Special Use Permit for St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch Newspaper Vending Machines Eagan City Council Agenda July 6, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS p 16A. Dakota County to amend the PD (Planned Development) & for a 1 Preliminary Plat, Dakota County Plat #1, in the Mission Hills Planned Development, Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE'k of Section 31, Consisting of Approximately 12 Acres e-11B. Federal Land Company for Rezoning from R-4 (Residential Multiple), LB (Limited Business) & CSC (Community Shopping Center) to PD (Planned Development) located in the N� of the NEk of Section 15 & Part of the E' of the NE'y of the NW'y of Section 15, Consisting of Approximately 100 Acres 1� C. Amcon Corporation, Patrick M. Gannon, for Rezoning from A Q' (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex Located in Part of the NE'g of the NE'y of Section 4, South of Proposed I-494 Right -of -Way & West of Pilot Knob Comsery #1 Final Plat VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 1IN A. Cable Television Commission Update 1JA B. City Hall Expansion Update/Citizen Committee Update 6C. Contract 82-3, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Oster Addition & Q Storland Road Utilities) D. Contract 82-5, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Comsery No. 1 Streets & Utilities) j%0E. Kraus Anderson Request for Amendment to the Off -Sale Liquor f License Policy to Allow Issuance of More than One License in the North Central Part of the City IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 2, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the June 15 regular City Council minutes and the July 6, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: !'DEPARTMENTHEAD' BUSINES'& FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- Enclosed on pages o1 through 3 is a copy of the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department request forE—ee 'first half of the year compensation payment. There is no action required by the City Council due to the fact the compensation was budgeted for 1982 and is handled in the same manner as all other compensation for City employees. There are no other items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. 4 2nga I �iXB MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR, FINANCIAL DIRECTOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: R. L. CHILDERS, FIRE CHIEF DATE: JUNE 23, 1982 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SECOND HALF OFFICERS PAY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT. Request for sees:►d.half Officers pay for 1982 for officers of Fire Department, from Account No. 01 4130 131 12. The pay will be dispersed as listed below. Chief R. L. Zhilders 6 mo. x $60.00 = $ 360.00 Chief District 1 J. Adam 6 mo. x $40.00 240.00 Chief District 2 R. Schindeldecker 6 mo. x $40.00 = 240.00 Capt. Co. 1 R. Giles 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 2 J. Godin 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 3 M. Klang 6 mo. x $20.00 120.00 Capt. Co. 4 W. Lindblade 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 5 L. Perron 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 6 C. Larsen 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 7 J. Thomas 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 8 E. Burlingame 6 mo. x $20.00 120.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 1 K. Southorn 6 mo. x $ 5.00 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 2 J. Bauer 6 mo, x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 3 D. Craven 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 5 R. Heimkes 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 8 R. Kugel 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Engineer J. O'Brien 6 mo. x $25.00 = 150.00 Asst. Engineer R. Trichel 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer B. Weston 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer N. Rolfzen 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer M. Adam 6 mo. x S 5.00 = 30.00 Truck Capt. M. Klang 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Station Capt. R. Brustle 6 mo. x $2.00 = 120.00 Asst. Station Capt. R. Gastfield 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Station Capt. D. Wegleitner 6 mo. x $ 5.00 30.00 3940 Rahn Road • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 THE LONE OAK TREE - THE :SYMBOL OF STRENGTH & GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 0 MEMO PACF .. E Traii.ins Of'.i--r D. Schulze 6 mc. x $25.JO = :0.00 Asst. "raining Officer R. Kugel 6 mo. x $'5.00 = 30.00 asst. -raining Officer W. Lindblade 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Training Officer L. Bahrke 5 mo. x $•5.00 = 30.00 Asst. "-aining Officer D. Gaudette 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Fire Prevention Officer P. Rennberg 6 mo. x $10.00 60.00 Ad Officer J. Flood 6 mo. x $10.00 60.00 freasurer M. Carll. 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Systems Officer R. Lorisner 6 mo. x $10.00 = 60.00 Asst. Sys.Officer R. Murphy 5 mo. x $ 5.00 30..00 Asst. Sys.Officer W. Kolsar 5 mo. x $ S.00 = 30.00 Asst. Sys.Officer R. HOhland 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Sys.Officer J. Mueller 6 mo. x S 5.00 30.00 Rescue Capt. M- Carll 6 mo. x $20.30 120.00 Asst _•escue Capt. D. Smith 6 mo. x $ 5.O0 30.00 Ass'::. Rescue Capt. J. Mueller 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Rescue Lapt. D. Wegleitner 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Rescue Trair:ng P. Lemier 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 IOTA'.: $3,270.00 'espec:.`--_111 submitted, 14 ?.. 1 Ih9.lders, Chief Eagan Voluntee-r _ire Depar. .---c It RLC/ph 3 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- Enclosed on pages 5� through 7 is an informational memo from .the Director oF--Parks & Recreation. There is no action required on this item. 0 MEND TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS $ RECREATION DATE: JIVE 30, 1982 RE: PARK ITEMS The purpose of this memo is to inform you of several items of interest. I trust you will share this with the City Council. Playgrounds: Playground registration has increased dramatically this summer. Oak Chase has nearly doubled from last year with nearly 180 youths signed up. Other parks have also shown significant increases in registration and in attendance from last year. Much of this growth may well be attributed to the fact that there is no summer school. However, I would like to believe it's also the attraction of the program, good leaders and a quality program. It's interest- ing to note (see attachment) that Apple Valley and Lakeville are showing de- creases in their programs this year. Apparently, the result of increased fees and charges. The playwagon - Eagan's "Wagonful 0' Fun" is also showing positive atten- dance increases. You may recall that this year the playwagon has been assigned to two new areas - Coachman and Blackhawk Parks which have not previously had a program. Acceptance to the playwagon has been well received by residents in this area. While attendance is limited, it's expected to grow as the word gets passed on. The City has received its ranking for its L.A.W.C.O.N. Grant application - Rahn Park. The City has been awarded 7th this year compared to 10th last year. Because limited funds, it's not likely that the grant will be funded.. Again, as last year, several of the grants that were ranked ahead of Eagan were for water based development or acquisition. Park Improvements: Maintenance staff, besides the general work that this title implies, have been involved with numerous improvement projects to City parks. Highview Park, ball fields at Carnelian and Woodhaven; the play areas at Woodhaven and Northview Athletic Fields, major clean ups at Fish Lake, Burr Oaks, Carlson and Highview Parks, sand hauled into play areas at several of the parks, just to mention a few of the projects completed. Improvements yet scheduled are to the ball fields at Rahn and Lexington Parks; painting of play equipment and work on the wood retaining walks at Burr Oaks, Highview and Lexington; numerous other projects are also planned at other parks. Most of these projects go beyond the normal "day-to-day" maintenance of parks and are seen as improvements or enhancements. As previously mentioned several feet of hockey boards were stolen from Well Site Park. It's believed that the theft was done, not by youths, but by adults for the wood planking. These boards were in excellent to good condition and were probably used for someones construction project. The theft occured sometime during the night of June 23. Cost to replace, paint and restore the rink is primarily estimated at S Park Items - Memo • • June 30, 1982 Page 2 $450.00 to $500.00 in material costs. The Parks and Recreation Department's "Evening in the Park" services begins on July 7th, 7:00 P.M. at Cedar Pond Park. The 3rd event will feature a performance by a jazz quartet. This quartet is being partially funded by the City, but with a major share of the cost coming from the Twin Cities Musician's Union - Local 30-73. The department staff has been working for several months in trying to secure such an agreement with the Musician's Union. Teen Program: The "Teen Program" has completed two weeks of work and is seemly going well. The youths worked at Northview Tree nurseries the first week and at Rahn Park in week two. The youths are programmed for work at Ridge Cliffe, Burr Oaks, and Highview Parks during the up -coming weeks. Sufficient contributions were received to carry out the program. Monies were received from the Eagan Lions Club, Paul Hauge and Associates, Women's Auxiliary of the Fire Depart- ment and a contribution from a local industry which wishes to remain anony- mous. Cub Scout Gift: Cub Scouts from the Wilderness Run Road and Carlson Lake areas have recently recently made a $30.00 contribution to the City for "parks in their area." They raised the money by collecting aluminum cans. J I mad in the ves1b1 le, an one u Y lust the box number at one corn their local postmasters program would be scr r" , K - mon address, ` tirely because of lack ' .� •,P J • ,•[ K ret f.t� Sk' \ry r `_i'lr* (7w, v -. •� 2 v `� - lilt 8 program was h: •� rKl..,411 -J►1 f _t'Y ,r.>.J a,P 7it`�' >fr"Y. •,:", rv. a., ` 1 +�,-:�, r+` �^r.`thf 17) 4�j1. .�j>79� ('•. i..W .!4i out durlllg, the. eRtiLln' Pla�yg,round participation l �, » aiuethesa The city had two Opti KhR',w.,• . y ,,+ +. r rye- , time the shade tree pec ' , ..-•r. `.. i - �., - -.t_,, s,.ui tt r, ing special levies, or • " r r ` JP „ the program altogether takes 5 0% drop e n AV, r i ` T 1 vti budget had Included a ' sidy of nearly 57 000 t •� , . , y '�' - ; <r -'• - , r ,. ment the city's Y $1ners •+' � �'� tion. Property owners By NANCY ADAMS n °. ' 4eS1.. ad the park and recreation available to non playground par Pected to spend another Staff Writer i y R budget about 'the playground ticipants at a slightly increased B� Ilince, general ?� program being a "baby-sitting cost include excursions, contests superintendent, saic APPLE VALLEY -The Apple tool '.' .' and special activities in which the because the state has Valley. parks and recreation "'' - ` children are bussed to one central the Dutctrelm program department's summer play- Schultz said the charge per location for the day.., to see Farmington gi\ ground program is hurting• child works out to 75 cents an = too.,, Registration is down by 50% from hour if the child attended all ac- None of the events have been Council member L last year, according to Terry tivities. A baby-sitter, Kelly canceled yet because of poor at- agreed. "I'm not sugge: Schultz, program supervisor..... observed last winter, gets more tendance, but Schultz said, as we throw it out, but he Apple Valley isn't alone. than a dollar an hour. To registration comes in low, he will Pay for it?" he said. A Lakeville also has felt a sharp., Savanick said at that time, end up laying off the staff. That is members agreed that th decrease in registration' as it rais '� is a great deal. They'll pay particularly painful this year for ty owner's financial b ed its the extra." .:;,:e; • y?'; 5; ,rF is `i Schultz who noted that there is a remove diseased trees Program charges. Apple r, -,_.• staff of and if no Valle person for a six-week chargedear al playground pet 7" The problem is, people aren't le aders, min�cluding several s�cltool lie were offered byt e program; this year the cost is $15., PaYrng the extra $10 for' the teachers. ,:.:: ::. trees would not be remo shorter program: Schultz . ;; aa -:,;_;:;,,.;•. per. person for a four-week pro.:' speculated, "Perlia it's a signHince reported over gamy*a;=I haven't had to close any elms in the city now. Tbe+'dty. councd, in a move to o[[ fhetimes. Parents are maktng sites yet, and don't plan to do there will be over 100 of ! make Ilia' playground program their kids pick one activity rather that " he said., "We weren't real year," he said. A large than letting them do four or five sure what would ha when we Cage of Farmington'smore self-sufficient,' raises the peen sh fees at budget time. "The deci- _Wings during the summer '. ,,,.: - the re the fees.Now we're seeing are elms. e sion to raise the fees was made the results..'.' by ' Schultz was disappointed,. he . Mayor Robert Stegma e council,• but therewerere tsaid here are ause the think It's a good One The �Y�Wd Program con - pressures, E35136 to removeits its ! frois m. they budget to tinuously accepts registrations, elms and. make.,an a make it. , that - Y— rn e ofeeptiie noted advan Schultz said. The program is be- $3,000 available 'for Im."It had to come eventually the ing offered.with a;3.75 reduction is owners. A ts owwnn weigground ht," said Schultrogram has toz hours emeets tue days de l waeeffketsorr three for each week missed. There are to be paid in adbout dition by Council members Dianne Kelly ram of . day; special. , two session m the program of -June ownersmaking the an and Barbara Savanick both corna gram cost slightly mc gram Y P fered this summer, from Jun Y mented, when the council review- Thw*e events which are also 14 -July 9, and from July 12 Aug. $27,000. The additional $: (( f _..._... -:�, ...:.' - k..:Vrzii..4.w:�„41'Nei::In.:LF.i+,i;Gk� .a�..•lsdl'n C '-F�}'..rl. \ E�.� n.. ..'`. 1! 1 .1 �.:... _.a s . .A4 fix+ S, c:f. irk H� i 7 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Three 1] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SPECIAL NOTE: Since time will probably not permit the consideration of all of the Public Works Department business between 6:35 and 6:55, please be informed that all items except the James Horne assessment item and the RES grading permit ours o operation item can a continue unti ater in t e meeting under Additional tems. Mr. Horne is expected to be present at 6:30 for considera- tion of his item as are residents from the area affected by the RES grading permit. D. Public Works Department Item #1: RES GradingPermit/Hours of Operation -- The City has received a request rpm Jo nson brotriers Corporation to allow ex- tended hours of operations for their previously approved grading permit which allows the placement of fill excavated from the I - 494/I -35E interchange on the RES property around the O'Neil pond. Presently, their hours are restricted from 7:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. The contractor has indicated that, because of the amount of work to be performed, he will not be able to complete all this work during the 1982 construction season. If the hours were extended to allow operation from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., the contractor indicates that he will be completed by October 1, 1982. On May 28, a letter was sent out to all affected residents along Blue Gentian Road informing them of the potential for longer working hours to insure completion of this project in the shortest time frame (1982 season). In response to that letter, the City has received only one complaint regarding the longer working hours and approximately three (3) residents have indicated that they would have no objection to the longer hours in consideration for quicker completion of the project. There was no response from the other eight property owners. Since the date of that letter, the contractor has begun his grading operations and the City has not received any complaints regarding noise associated with this project due to the distance it is removed from the single family houses. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the exten- sion of hours of operation for the HES grading permit from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Foo Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Four Item #2: Tomark Second Addition/Park Fee Deferment Request -- nE c odd on page ]_ is a copy ot a letter that sta received from Tomark Development Corporation requesting consideration for deferment of the payment of park dedication fees until the issuance of the building permit for the 78 unit structure to be located on the Tomark Second Addition plat. Staff can appreciate the finan- cial burdens placed on the developers through the requirement of payment of the park dedication fees at the time of final platting. However, there have been recent cases where other developers through a similar request have subsequently "forgotten" to pay the park fee at the time of building permit. Subsequently, it has been difficult for the City to collect the park fee after the fact. The building permit issuance procedure has to assume that all con- ditions of the plat have been satisfactorily resolved once the plat is recorded. However, the City has had good working relation- ships with the Tomark Development Company during the platting of their first addition. This issue must be resolved so that staff knows whether to require this payment before processing a final plat application for formal Council approval at a later date. The park fee dedication amount is $19,565. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the developer's request to defer the payment of the park fee until the date of building permit issuance for the Tomark Second Addition. Z • JUN i 81982 . , TOMARK DEVELOPMENT CO. , 7322 OHMS LANE EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE (612) 831.8555 June 24, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges -..:.. City Administrator ' City of Eagan - Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Tom, 'Confirming our conversation regarding final plat approval foe Tomark 2nd Addition,'this action will be on the City Council Agenda ;for one . of the July meetings, preferrably July 6. At that time, the: -Council will also consider our request to defer the payment of park dedication " fees until issuance of the building permit. As you are well aware, the precarious economic conditions present in I' ` the home building industry today make most new undertakings extremely difficult at best. A look at the facts of the situation indicate that we will be in a position to pay all park fees when construction commences -- the;..time at:which our construction loan will be initially funded. We are in no way trying to shirk our responsibility`in this matter, quite the contrary; please rest assured that we hereby acknow- ledge that the park fees will be paid by Tomark at the time the building i Permit is issued. I understand the city has had problems with other developers with regard to payment of park fees in the past., Based on our dealings with the city on this and other issues, however, and more y� importantly our desire to maintain the smooth working relationship . which exists between us, I would hope that the city could act favorably on this request. Thank you for your help in this matter. 0ober tryyot I/. Rub " Vice President RNR:sww - 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Five Item #3: Special Assessment Committee Recommendations /June 14, TTn—a.un the above reference ate, the Special Assessment ommit- tee met at City Hall to review requests for consideration from two individuals and formal action on five (5) staff initiated special assessment policies. The Council all received copies of the Special Assessment Committee packet which provided the back- ground for discussion on these policies. Enclosed on pages 1'I. through�(�--- is a copy of the special assessment policies as recommended for approval by the Special Assessment Committee. Several of these policies were necessary in the preparation of the final assessment roll for trunk storm sewer under Project #297 (Blackhawk Lake Outlet). The final assessment roll was prepared based on the recommendation of the Special Assessment Committee, but there is still time to revise it if the Council chooses to modify any of the policies as presented. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny Special Assessment Policies 82-1 through 82-5. 0 0 11, SPEC'IA4 ASSESSMENT POLICY # 82-1 REZONING/DEVEf.OPNENT VS ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS SUBJECT: Additional assessments associated with a subsequent upgrading of the land use or rezoning as it relates to the land use and/ or zoning that was in effect at the time the original assess- ment was levied. POLICY: When a parcel of land is rezoned and/or developed to a higher use after a trunk area and/or lateral benefit assessment has been previously levied, then that parcel shall assume the addi- tional assessment as determined by calculating the difference in special assessment unit rates in effect at the tine of re- zoning and/or development. OBJJ7CPIVE: The purpose of this policy is to receive the total assessment revenue relating to the benefit received from public improve- ments based on the intended final use of the land in question. JUSTIFICATION: Many times when zoning/land use related assessments (trunk area, lateral benefit, etc.) are levied subsequent to a public improvement process, the benefited land is not developed and/ or zoned to its highest and best use as defined in the Compre- hensive Guide Plan. However, the public improvements were planned, designed and constructed in anticipation of future development at its highest and best use. Subsequently, be- cause assessments cannot exceed the benefit received by an existing zoned use at the time of the hearing, it would only be appropriate to collect the additional assessment revenue relating to the ultimate benefit received at the time of any change in land use and/or zoning. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved Date Denied Date 12 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT C("1I=E: x Approved 6-14-82Date Denied Date 0 0 11SPECIAL, 'ASS ESSMENT POLICY # 82-2 EXISTIIVG LAND USE VS ZONING SUBJECT: Assessments against land whose present use is different fmn the current underlying zoning. POLICY: Where the existing land use is different (less than the high- est and best use permitted by current zoning) than the current underlying zoning, all trunk area and/or lateral benefit assess- ments against the property in question shall be levied in ac- cordance with the current underlying zoning and not in accor- dance with the current land use unless the attached standard agreement is notorized and executed by all persons holding in- terest in the title to the property. Future rates would be cal- culated in accordance with Policy 82-1. OBJECPIVE: The purpose of this policy is to provide a method by which pro- perty owners whose land is developed at a use that is less than permitted by the current zoning, may receive consideration for assessments being levied in accordance with the property's pre- sent use and defer the additional assessments until the current use is upgraded to a use permitted by the underlying zoning. JUSTIFICATION: While trunk utilities are planned, designed and constructed based on the highest and best use of all property in the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and/or current zoning, their benefit is not fully realized by land that is presently developed at a use less than allowed by the current zoning. Further, if the property is presently developed at a different use, it is assumed that it would not change in the foreseeable future. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved _ Date Denied Date 13 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE: X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY # 82-3 PONDING EASEMENTS - AREA CREDITS SUBJECT: Calculation of ponding area credits when levying trunk area assessments. POLICY: When calculating net assessable area in determining trunk area assessments, all land that lies below the controlled normal water elevation of a designated Camprehensive Storm Sewer Pond/ Lake shall be deleted frau area calculations for trunk area assessments. Furthermore, for parcels that have basins with no current storm sewer outlet to maintain an existing control- led water elevation as approved by a DNR permit, no area deduc- tion, credit and/or refund would be allowed without the dedica- tion of a ponding easement. All other dedicated ponding ease- ments of record would be deducated from area calculations for trunk area assessments. OBJECTIVE: To recognize the minimum benefit from trunk area utilities to land that lies below a permanent controlled elevation of a de- signated storm water ponding area. To also recognize the po- tential elimination of basins that do not have restrictive easements nor controlled storm sewer facilities which there- fore receive benefit from potential future development. JUSTIFICATION: Land below a controlled normal water elevation is not develop- able and subsequently does not benefit from trunk utilitv in- stallations. However, undeveloped basins are subject to change and/or elimination without the protective ponding easement being dedicated. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved _ Date Denied Date 14 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONVITTEE: X Approved Denied 6-14-82 Date Date I1 SPEGIAL'ASS POLICY # 82-4 STORM SEWER - "LARGE LCC" QUALIFICATION SUBJECT: Determination of qualifying criteria for "large lot" classifi- cations on Trunk Area Storm Sewer Assessments. POLICY: For existing parcelsconsisting of 5 acres or less, the proper- ty must have a liveable gelling unit located on the premises and used as residential to qualify for the standard "large lot" policy. 03=IVE: To recognize the existing residential use of large lots (5 acres or less) and its limited potential of future subdivision into smaller parcels with subsequent higher percentage of developed surface area. JUSTIFICATION: If an existing residential dwelling unit is maintained and used in that category, it is unlikely that the existing use would change in the foreseeable future. However, if the parcel is un- developed or in a deteriorated unliveable state, it is more like- ly that it would develop into something other than a "large lot" residential use. It would then benefit equally to other exist- ing undeveloped parcels. See Policy 82-1 for future development of these parcels. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved Date Denied Date /S SPECIAL ASSEMENT CCMM4i =: X Approved 6-14 Denied Date ?'SPEC'lAL �ASSESSMENTPOLICY # 82-5 STREET ASSESSMENT - STATE AND COUNTY ROAD CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Determination of zoning equivalent street assessments for property adjacent to State and/or County -funded roadway construction. POLICY: Properties adjacent to roadway improvements that incorporate cost participation by the City in combination with Federal, State and/or County funds should be assessed an amount equal to the benefit received as determined by the predetermined equivalent front foot assessment rate for the appropriate zoning classification of the benefited property irregardless of the ratio of financial contribution by any outside funding source involved. OBJECTIVE: To insure that all property located within the City of Eagan ultimately pays its fair share for benefit received from new and/or upgraded roadway improvements adjacent to that proper- ty. Due to the fact that there are different levels of service and classifications for streets within the City of Eagan, there are respective different construction costs associated with providing street thoroughfares to their different con- struction design criteria standards. Therefore, it is felt that a specific property should not have to be responsible for any oversizing costs above and beyond that which would normally be required to service that specific zoned parcel of land to current City standards. All oversizing costs are then absorbed and become the responsibility of the City's Major Street Construction Fund. Because the City's Major Street Construction Fund has several sources of revenue (i.e. MSAS funds, major road mill levy, road unit charge surcharge, grants, etc.), it is determined that an unequal advantage would be realized by a specific parcel of land whose adjacent street could potentially qualify for some specific outside funding source. Therefore, because the benefit received from the improved roadway remains the same irregardless of the source of funds, the assessment should be based on the bene- fit received as determined by the annual zoning classifica- tion equivalent rate and should not take into consideration any financial contribution towards the construction from an outside source and/or agency. Reviewed and acted upon by: CI'T'Y COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CU41ITTEE: Approved Date X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date 16 _ Denied Date 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Six b. Floyd Dickens/Assessment Deferment (Financial Hardship) At the request of the applicant, this issue will be discussed before the Council at the July 20 Council meeting. At that time, the staff hopes to have put together a financial hardship qualifying criteria policy for consideration. No action is necessary at this time. C. James & Arvella Horne/Payment of Lateral Benefit from Trunk Utilities -- Much of the background information regarding this complicated issue was forwarded to the Council with the Special Assessment Committee packet along with minutes of the committee meeting on June 14. While staff feels that there is no doubt that the entire Kingswood Addetion received at least 675 feet of lateral benefit from the approximate 1,300 feet of trunk water main instal- led adjacent to and within this subdivision, Mr. Horne refuses to acknowledge the benefit to the entire subdivision and chooses to discuss the particular individual lot in relation to the amount of footage the staff is proposing to assess against that lot. The staff would have no objection as to how these assessments would be split against the lots within the Kingswood Addition. Staff prepared what they thought would be a fair and equitable division of these lateral benefit assessments. However, if the developer would like to have these assessments spread in another fashion than that recommended by staff, appropriate agreements would be prepared accordingly. In any event, staff still feels that the Kingswood Addition received a minimum benefit equal to $10,122.90 based on 1982 rates for lateral benefit trunk water main. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or revise the Special Assessment Committee's recommendation for the determination of lateral benefit from trunk water main for the Kingswood Addition and require the developer to accept this financial responsibility as a condition of obtaining a water connection permit for 3850 Coronation Road. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages 14 through 2 2. is a copy of the Special Assessment Committee minutes. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or revise the Special Assessment Committee minutes of June 14, 1982. 17 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA. JUNE 14, 1982 A meeting of the Eagan Assessment Committee was held on Monday, June 14, 1982 at 4:30 p.m. at the City Hall. Those present were Chairman Don Knight, Members Art Rahn, Dale Vogt, Mayor Bea Blomquist, Councilman Tom Egan. Planning Commissioner Bohne was absent. Also present were Public Works Director Colbert, City Administrator Hedges and City Attorney Hauge. FLOYD DICKENS - SILVER BELL ROAD Tom Colbert first introduced Floyd Dickens who has requested a deferrment of assessments for Projects #274 and #285 consisting of Silver Bell Road streets and Wuthering Heights Road utility improvements. Mr. Dickens was present and indicated that he was unable, due to financial hardships, in- cluding the fact that his wife has recently had a work-related accident, to pay a total of $388.19 per month for assessments and taxes with an increase from $141.78 per month. Mr. Colbert indicated there is no policy providing for deferrment of special assessments due to financial hardships other than the senior citizen provision. There was discussion concerning need for a policy in the event that others request such deferrments, noting that with the current recession there may be many others that may potentially request such def errments. After discussion, Egan moved, Rahn seconded the motion to defer action on the request of Mr. Dickens and requested the staff to prepare proposed guidelines for such requests and recommended the Council review the JAMES AND ARVELLA HORNE - PROJECTS #131 & #24 - KINGSHOOD ADDITION Mr. and Mrs. James Horne appeared relative to their request that a por- tion of the assessments proposed by the staff for Kingswood Addition be re- scinded as recommended by the staff. Tom Colbert reviewed the proposal and indicated that Kingswood Addition was platted providing for Lots 1 through 11, and Outlots 1, 2, and 3 in 1963. Mr. Horne installed a private well and internal 6 inch water lateral system in Kingswood Road north to Outlot 2, in approximately 1964. In the Fall of 1973, Lot 11 requested water service from the City rather than the developer's private water supply, Lot 11 being the only lot with an additional homestead, other than the Hornes. Under Project 11131, approximately 335 feet of 10 inch water main was constructed within Kingswood Road connecting to the existing 16 inch trunk water main on Pilot Knob Road which was constructed under Project 1124 in 1968. As a part of Project 11131`, Lot 11 was assessed 120 linear feet in accordance with the Feasibility Report. On approximately March 17, 1982 the well located within Outlot 2, providing water service to Lots 3 through 10 was no longer operable and one existing house located in Lot 7, owned by Mr. Horne was in need of water service. He requested the City open the gate valve at the north end of Coronation Road to allow access to the City water supply. 1 19 �J Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 Although all lots in Kingswood Addition have been assessed for trunk sanitary sewer and water area assessments, they have not been assessed for the lateral benefit to receive the 16 inch water trunk main installed under Pro- ject 1124 in Pilot Knob Road or for the 10 inch water trunk main installed under Project #131 located within Kingswood Road. The staff therefore recom- mends that a spread of assessments covering the benefit to Lots 1 and 2, from Pilot Knob Road and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on a shared assessment based upon benefits received therefrom and Outlot 3 being assessed for 240 feet of linear feet assessment along Pilot Knob Road. It was noted that Lot 11 had been assessed under Project 11131. Mr. Horne stated that he felt that the City should not be assessing Outlot 3, both along Pilot Knob Road and Kingswood Drive. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessment is not on Outlot 3, on Kingswood Drive, but rather the benefits received for the other lots on Coronation Road. The staff recommended that of the 933 feet frontage on Pilot Knob Road, only 440 feet be asssesed. Mr. Horne objected to the assessment of Lots 1 and 2 on Pilot Knob Road, indicating that eventually he expected a lateral running westerly from the Coronation Road lateral. He further stated there was a verbal agreement in 1973 with the Council that the 240 feet on Pilot Knob Road, that no assessments along Pilot Knob Road would be asessed against Outlot 3. The staff researched the issue and could find no evidence of such an agreement. Mr. Colbert indicated that the credit on Pilot Knob Road against Outlot 3 should be 150 feet with 165 foot rather than 240 foot assessment. After considerable discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the Council approval of the staff recommendation on the basis of the current policy and noting that there appeared to be sufficient benefit against the Lots proposed to be assessed and further, that there did not appear to be an agreement as alleged by Mr. Horne, in 1973. All voted in favor except Vogt who voted no. EXISTING LAND USE VS. ZONING POLICY There are several areas where special assessments are dependent upon the zoning classification of the property benefited. It was noted that there are presently two specific situations relating to assessments: 1. Rezoning of land and its relation to past levied assessments. 2. Assessments against land whose present use is different from the underlying zoning. 1. Many times assessments are levied against property that is either undeveloped or is not currently zoned in accordance with the approved Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. In such cases, assessments are levied in accordance with the zoning in effect at the time of the final assessment hearing. In the event of rezoning, there are several ways of calculating the additional assessments. Assessments associated with the upgrading of the land consist of approximately three choices. Staff recommended that the calcula- tion for the additional assessment be determined by the difference in unit rates in effect for the change in zoning at the time of the rezoning and/or development. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to approve the proposed recommendation. All voted in favor. 2 19 0 0 Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 2. It was noted there was several instances in the City where the present use of the property is different from the official zoning, such as the Kollofski Addition, where the property is zoned I-1 and used for R-1. It was recommended that a standard agreement be prepared whereby the property owner would sign indicating his knowledge of the current zoning and agreement to accept all additional assessments associated with upgrading the land use in accordance with its allowed zoning. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Blomquist, it was resolved that the foregoing recommendation be approved. All voted yes. PONDING EASEMENT - TRUNK AREA Mr. Colbert requested clarification from the Council as to whether to include the area in the 100 -year high water ponding easement dedication within trunk area assessments noting that there are two specific instances: a. Land adjacent to lakes and ponds that presently have controlled storm sewer outlets which maintain stable water elevations. b. Designated ponds and lakes that are part of the Master Storm Sewer Plan but do not have any storm sewer drainage facilities presently constructed within its boundary. Several alternates were discussed, including: a-1. Deleting any area of land that lies beneath the control water elevation. a-2. Include the land area between the controlled water elevation and the anticipated 100 -year high water elevation in the area to be assessed with the understanding that a dedication of the appropriate ponding easement would result in a refund with interest at the rate of 8% per year being provided in consideration of accepting the dedicated ponding easement. b-1. On parcels where there is no existing storm sewer outlet to main- tain the control water elevation as approved by DNR permit, no area deduction would be allowed without dedication of a ponding easement. It was recommended that a combination of a-1 and b-1 be used by deleting the area of the land beneath the controlled water elevation. Blomqu.ist moved, Art Rahn seconded the motion to recommend approval of the combination of the. a-1 and b-1 recommendations above. All voted yes. . 3 20 0 9 Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 LARGE LOT STORK SEWER TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT POLICY Presently the City has been incorporating the large -lot policies that pertains to the levying of trunk storm sewer assessments against existing developed parcels. The present policy applies only to those parcels less than 5 acres in size where the square foot unit rate is levied against the first 16,500 square feet of each acre contained within that parcel. The idea is to recognize several homesteaded 5 acre or less parcels that are generally owner - occupied and considered to be highly unlikely to be developed into several smaller parcels. By assessing the first 16,500 square feet takes into con- sideration the additional run-off generated by the dwelling unit and its driveway. Blomquist moved, Rahn seconded the motion to recommend that there be no change in the policy, noting that there must be a dwelling unit in- cluded, but it does not need to be owner -occupied. All voted yes. LATERAL STREET ASSESSMENTS FOR COUNTY & STATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION The City has four sources of financing major road construction including City collector and arterial streets, county roads and MnDOT frontage roads, including the zoning equivalent assessment front foot rate, municipal state aid street funding, contribution from MnDOT through cost participation agree- ments and major street trunk funds (Surcharge on Building Permits). Mr. Colbert noted that there have been objections along such roads as Slaters Road, Nicols Road, Kings Road connection, future Blue Gentian Road relocation, etc. where MnDOT provides for construction to a 32 foot bituminous surface and gravel shouldered roadway. The City has been assessing for the entire cost of the streets, even though the City has not paid for the entire cost of the improvement. An example is in the proposed Robins Addition where the devel- oper has agreed to donate the right of way for the revised location of Blue Gentian Road, but would request that only the cost incurred by the City above the MnDOT participation cost be assessed to the property. It was noted that there are very few examples where property owners in such situations will donate right of way without receiving a condemnation award. Noting the special circumstances of that subdivision and that time is of the essence, further that the developer has been very cooperative in agreeing to dedicate a portion of the adjacent pond and the road right of way, it was recommended that the request of the developer be agreed upon. Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend approval of the request of the developer of Robins Addition, that the assessment be based upon the difference between the actual cost and what MnDOT contributes under the cost participation agreement with the understanding that no policy change take place concerning the assessment of the entire cost on comparable streets, particularly where the property owner has received a condemnation damage award. All voted in favor. 4 Z.l Assessment Minutes,. June N, i982 ADJOUMMT ,. Upon motion 'Ehe,'meet ng adjourned. at, 7::00' •.pm. PHH 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Seven Item #4: Safari Estates Water Reservoir 0 isition -- Several times previously, the staft has discussea the probTeems associated with the acquisition of the 1.5 acres of land necessary for the 4.0 M.G. water reservoir adjacent to Safari Estates. City staff offered the Siegs approximately $9,000 for the acquisition of perma- nent and temporary easements for the water reservoir site which was rejected. Mr. Byron Watchske has attempted to purchase the entire Sieg site for future development which would allow his dedi- cation of this land to the City. However, that has failed to be realized. The attorney representing the Siegs has placed a value of $32,000 per acre for their land in this vicinity. Due to this high price of land, before the City sets a precedence and negotiates acquisition guaranteed by the $50,000 letter of credit posted by Mr. Watchske, the Public Works Director and City Attorney recommend that the City Council authorize the following course of action: Preparation of a formal certificate of survey for the perma- nent and temporary easements in question. Authorize the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a land value appraisal of both permanent and temporary easements proposed to be acquired. Authorize the staff to initiate condemnation proceedings necessary for the acquisition of the parcel if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached. Mr. Watchske has continued to be kept informed of the City's inten- tions and progress in the acquisition of this reservoir site. This reservoir is becoming -more of a necessity as time goes on and it would be staff's intention to have this reservoir in opera- tion by late 1983 if at all possible. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize City staff to: Prepare a formal certificate of suvey for the permanent and temporary easements in question. Authorize the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a land value appraisal of both permanent and temporary easements proposed to be acquired. Authorize the staff to initiate condemnation proceedings necessary for the acquisition of the parcel if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached. 23 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eight There are six (6) items on the agenda referred to as Consent Items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the consent agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. 3.2 TEMPORARY BEER - CEDARVALE LANES A. Temporary Non -Intoxicating Liquor License for Cedarvale Lanes Softball Tournament August 14 & 15 -- Mr. Randy Spring who resides at 4347 Limestone Drive has made application representing the firm name of Cedarvale Lanes for a 3.2 non -intoxicating beer license for sale of beer at a softball tournament scheduled on August 14 and 15 at Univac fields. The application has been reviewed by the Eagan Police Department and found to be acceptable for consi- deration by the City Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 3.2 beer non -intoxicating malt liquor license for Randy Spring in the name of Cedarvale Lanes for August 14 & 15. BIKE PATH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT B. Maintenance Agreement/Dakota County - City of Eagan to Maintain County Bike Paths -- The City Council previously approved a main- tenance agreement between the County of Dakota and City of Eagan for all County bike paths located within the City. This agreement was then submitted to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners for final ratification. The agreement as submitted to the County Board and approved by the City of Eagan as well as other municipali- ties in Dakota County was changed, specifically as it relates to Item 6 whereas the agreement has original wording to "self-distruct in ten (10) years." The Dakota County Board was concerned that the pathways are constructed by the County and the life of the pathway should be much greater than ten years and, therefore, the maintenance of the agreement should be in effect for the life of the bikeway facility. Therefore, Item 6 was changed to read as follows, "This agreement shall be in force and effect for the life of the bikeway facilities, provided that its provisions may be reviewed after fifteen (15) years to determine if any changes are necessary." This change in the agreement as explained by the Assistant Director, Barb Schmidt, of the Dakota County Parks & Recreation Department is acceptable to the City staff. Enclosed on pages 2 S through ST is a copy of the revised maintenance agreementsseparated-Tounty bike paths between the County of Dakota and City of Eagan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the revised main- tenance agreement as stated. P_U 0 0 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SEPARATED COUNTY BIKE PATHS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND . THE CITY OF THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of •I 19 by and between the County of Dakota, hereinafter .referred to as the "County", and the City of hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into an Agreement relating to the maintenance of County bike paths located within the corporate limits of the City and constructed in accordance with the Trails Policy Plan for Dakota County as adopted by the County Board of Commissioners on June 8, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Trails Policy Plan) and as may be amended from time to time by the County upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The County may construct or permit the City to construct separated County bike paths within the corporate limits of the City along County roads or City streets in accordance with the Trails Policy Plan. 2. Following construction, the City will maintain such separated County bike paths located within the corporate limits of . the City in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In regard to County built bike paths, the County will - provide the City with a Notice of Completion and a set of plans of '-,-•-..•-.- _ ._.,.-.. each of the above County bike path segments, upon receipt of which the City's maintenance responsibilities hereunder shall commence. In regard to County bike paths constructed by the City, the City's .- .. maintenance responsibilities hereunder will commence upon completion of such construction. 3. The maintenance to be performed by the City on the aforesaid separated bike paths is: A. Surface Patching, edge repairs and cleaning of the bike path as necessary to provide a smooth, safe and usuable surface. Page 1 of 4 0 0 B. Seal coating as necessary to prevent premature structural deterioration. An alternative method may be used if approved by the County Highway Department. C. Maintaining visible pavement markings and i .. signs. D. Furnishing all labor, materials, supplies, tools and other items necessary for the performance of all and any of the work provided for in this Agreement. 4. All materials used by the City in the performance of the work under this Agreement shall conform to the requirements of MN/DOT specifications. 5. The County Engineer together with the City may agree as to the scope and time schedule of maintenance work that needs to be done to insure the safe condition of the bike path. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable time, the County Engineer may cause the work to be done. All costs of maintenance, whether performed by the City or by the County, upon failure of the City, shall be the responsibility of the City. If the County Engineer does such work, the City agrees to reimburse the County for all amounts required and expended in the' completion of such work provided, however, that this paragraph shall not be construed to relinquish any rights or causes of action which may accrue on behalf of the County as against the City for any breach of this Agreement._ 6. This Agreement shall be in force and effect for the life of the bikeway facilities, provided that its provisions may be reviewed after fifteen (15) years to determine if any changes are necessary. " 7. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the County. Any and all agents, servants or employees of the City or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required to be performed by the City under the terms of this Agreemnt, shall not be considered employees of the County and Page 2 of a 0 any and all claims that may or might arise on behalf of the City, its agents, servants or employees as a consequence or any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants, employees or other persons shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 8. The City further agrees to defend and save the County harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants or employees in the performance of or with relation to any of the work or services provided to be performed or furnished by the City under the terms of this Agreement. 9. The County agrees to defend and save the City harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of any act or omission on the part of the County or its agents, servants or employees in the performance of or with relation to the County's design and construction of the bike paths or to any other work or services performed by the County under the terms of this Agreement. 10. Any alteration, variation, modification or waiver of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and signed by both parties. 11. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. Approved as to form: COUNTY OF DAKOTA Assistant County Attorney Date Approved as to execution: Assistant County Attorney/Date Approved by Dakota County Board Resolution No. This instrument drafted by: JCB 27 ti By Gene Atkins, Chairman Board of Commissioners Date of Signature Attest Carl D. Onischuk, Auditor Date of Signature Pace 3 of 4 0 0 Dakota County Attorney's Office CITY OF Dakota County Government Center Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Telephone: (612) 437-043e By Mayor Date of signature By City Manager/Administrator Date of Signature By Clerk Date of Signature i C-81-200 Page 4 of 4 tm/m 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Nine GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWALS C. Gambling License Annual Renewals for Lost Spur Country Club and Eagan Lion & Lioness Club -- The 1982 gambling license renewals for the Eagan Lions and Lioness Club and Lost Spur Country Club are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 1982 gambling license renewals as described. PROJECT 360 D. Project #360, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tower View Road) -- The City has received a request along with a guarantee of payment for the preparation of a feasibility report, detailed plans and specifications and ultimate construction of the upgrading of Towerview Road to Pilot Knob Road from both the developer of the Lone Oak Heights Addition (Orrin Aune) and Sperry Univac Semi -Conductor facility (Ed Michaud). Subsequent to this request, the City staff has prepared the feasibility report which is being presented to the Council for their consideration with a public hearing to be scheduled for August 3. It is Sperry Uni- vac's request that this roadway be constructed and completed during the 1982 construction season. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #360 (Towerview Road) and order the public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. PROJECT 362 E. Project #362, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tomark Second Addition) -- Upon receipt of a petition from the developer of the Tomark Second Addition requesting the preparation of a feasibility report and detailed plans and specifications at the June 5 Council meeting, the staff was directed to prepare the report for consideration and it is herewith presented. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #362 (Tomark Second Addition) and authorize a public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. RE 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Ten PROJECT 363 F. Project #363, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Hilltop Plaza) -- On June 15, the City Council received a petition requesting the preparation of a feasibility report and detailed plans and specifications for utilities within the Hilltop Plaza (James Refrigeration). This feasibility report has now been com- pleted and is being presented to the City Council for their review with intentions of holding the public hearing on August 3. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #363 (Hilltop Plaza) and order the public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. 30 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eleven 1. PUBLIC. HEARINGSi 0 I.R. FINANCING - FEDERAL LAND CO. A. I. R. Financing for Federal Land Company, Office Building at Yankee Square Center, in the Amount of $1,537,000 -- An application was submitted by Federal Land Company, a partnership, requesting industrial revenue financing in the amount of $1,537,000. The total project cost is $1,837,000. An amount of $300,000 is shown as land equity on the application. A copy of the application is enclosed on pages _34- through 3 S for your review. This project for industrial revenue financing__ZFo_es vary slightly from previous applications for industrial revenue financing as submitted by Federal Land Company. There are two (2) office buildings combined into one (1) project application. The office buildings are 24,300 square feet and 5,000 square feet and do include installation of equipment, the type of equipment approved in previous applications. If the two (2) office buildings were to be handled as separate industrial revenue bond issues, the amount for the 5,000 square foot office building would more than likely fall below the $500,000 minimum required in the I.R. procedural manual. It was the request of Federal Land Company that the two buildings be combined into one (1) application due to the fact that all five (5) office buildings that have been constructed were approved as a total office park under a planned unit development agreement between Federal Land Company and the City of Eagan. Because both of the buildings considered under this industrial revenue financing request are a part of the overall office park complex, it seemed appropriate to the applicant to include the two (2) office buildings into one application, therefore reducing duplication of expense for two separate projects and at the same time complying with the office park layout as approved by the City. The City Administrator raised the issue as to whether two separate structures can be included in one industrial revenue financing application and it was the opinion of Mike Jeronimous of Briggs and Morgan in a letter from Jurran and Moody, Inc., that Yankee Square IV can be structured as one issue including two separate office buildings, Yankee Square IV and Yankee Square V. The City has previously approved the pre- liminary plats and all other related zoning and land use require- ments for these office buildings. Enclosed without a page number are the financial statements for Federal Land Company and the two (2) partners. The financial statements have been reviewed by Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., and enclosed on page 3 G is a copy of their review. 3) • .• Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twelve At the time the public hearing for this industrial revenue financing issue was set by the City Council, Federal Land Company had in- dicated that they might request consideration by the City Council to allow a public offering if a letter of credit was secured for the entire amount of the industrial revenue financing. After fur- ther discussion with Martin Colon at the time he submitted the application, it was decided that a letter of credit would not be pursued and that this issue would be considered as a private place- ment. Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., have also discussed the potential use of a letter of credit with a sophisticated developer and therefore letters of credit as they relate to industrial revenue financing or tax exempt revenue financing as it is often referred to was considered briefly by the Finance Com- mittee. Because the economy has not improved and many sophisticated lenders have filled their portfolios with municipal bonds, it is becoming more apparent that public offerings will be necessary in order for a developer to secure a favorable interest rate to proceed with the project. It has been a strong and consistent opinion of the City Council that public offerings not be allowed. The reason public offerings are not allowed is due to the fact the City has not wanted its name on bonds and coupons offered pub- lically for projects that are not owned and operated by the City of Eagan. Even though the City of Eagan would more than likely not be liable for any default incurred by a project that was issued industrial revenue bonds that suffered bankruptcy or some other financial misfortune, it still was a risk and public policy that the City of Eagan did not care to become involved with. There is a method that the local fiscal consultants have addressed that might provide for a public offering and thus eliminate any risk to the City. This is method where letters of credit are used as a credit enhancement device in conjunction with tax exempt revenue financing. Enclosed on page -5-7 is a memorandum from Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., a rig the possible use of letters of credit. Since Juran & Moody would like the City Council to consider a public offering secured by a letter of credit, I re- quested a detailed letter of request to the City for consideration. Enclosed on page 3,9 is a copy of the letter which was received. I explained to a representative of `furan & Moody that, since the request and consideration for a letter of credit was a new approach for tax exempt revenue financing and would require some modification of the procedural manual, it might be requested by the City Council that the Finance Committee take a more in depth look at the request. On the other hand, if adequate information is provided by Juran & Moody and Miller & Schroder Municipals, Inc., and the City Council feels the letter of credit is a good alternative to the traditional private placement, the application could be considered at the July 6 meeting. One other alternative is to act on the implication and, if favorable action, provide authorization with a private placement, and any modification of that financing would then be considered by the Finance Committee and acted on at a later date. 301, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Thirteen ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny, with or without the modification and special conditions, I.R. financing for Federal Land Company in the amount of $1,537,000. SPECIAL NOTE: If the City Council does not desire to include the smaller building as a part of the overall project, the total tax exempt financing would be reduced proportionately and approval only given to the 24,000 foot building. Drawings will be present showing the entire office park at the meeting on July 6. 33 CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE FINANCING REVIEW BUSINESS LOCATION: NAME: Federal Land Company MINIMUM SIZE $500,000 LAND: 30 ,0 0 Equity 3460 Washington Driva Fagan BUSINESS FORM: Partnership BUILDING: $ 1,270,000 REPRESENTATIVE: Martin F. Colon EQUIPMENT: $ - 0 - PHONE: 452-3303 OTHER: $ 237,000 NATURE OF BUSINESS: Real Estate Development TOTAL: 1,837,000 $15,000 8,000 Date: Interest During Construction -"-DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN: Land Acquisition & Site Development A $ 225,000 Land B 7715,000 (Equity) Construction Contracts $ 9 'SS Prep. 2ES,S0pS Equipment Acquisitign & Installation$ - 0 - - 0 - Architectural & Engineering Fees $25,000 10,000 Legal Fees $15,000 8,000 Interest During Construction $100,000 25,000 Initial Bond Reserve $ - 0 - - 0 - Contingencies $20,000 5,000 Bond Discount $22,000 7,000 Other $ Total Project less land costs - $1,537,000 HISTORY OF APPLICANT 1. Have you ever been in bankruptcy? No 2. Have you ever defaulted on any bond or mortgage commitment? No 3. Have you applied for conventional financing? Yes - no success 4. What are your future plans? This Project will complete the P D Agreement with the City of Eagan as to the office qpacp allntated 5. List financial references: a. Northwestern National Bank - Minneapolis Mn - Vallate Butler, V.2.— b- American National Bank St Paul Raymond nprp nrgin V R 6. When will the construction period begin? Start: July 1982 Finish: July, 1983 7. Other comments: Land will be treated as an equity contribution to the Project and no funding will be sought for the acquisition of land INFORMATION CONCERNING APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 1. PROPOSED LOCATION (ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION) Bicentennial 7th and 8th Additions - Lot 2 2. NEW FACILITY OR EXPANSION? New facili 3. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/RETAIL? Commercial - General Office 4. ESTIMATE NUMBER OF NEW JOBS 81 ESTIMATED PAYROLL $1,620,000 5. IS THIS SITE PROPERTY ZONED & ARE UTILITIES AVAILABLE? Yes 6. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL SALES Office 7. POTENTIAL OTHER USES OF FACILITY 8. WILL THERE BE MORE THAN ONE PHASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT? Yes - Two 9. EXPLAIN HOW THIS FACILITY WILL NOT COMPETE WITH OTHER LOCAL COMPANIES This proposed Project is the final phase of office space allocated under the Planned Agreement with the City of Eagan in 1975. 10. WHAT WILL FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS BE; WILL THE FACILITY BE A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP? Bonds will be sold to sophisticated private investors Facility will not be a Limited Partnership. Date: Signed: (Title): 3s Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 June 14, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Post Office Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Federal Land Company (Industrial Revenue Financing Request) Dear Tom: Our financial Vice President, Ed Hentges, and myself have reviewed this application. Their financial statement is strong, we see nothing that would ad- versely affect the payment of debt service for this financing. Sincerely yours, MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. Ernest L. Clar Vice President ELC/jms 36 Headquarters: Minneapolis. Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach. California • Northbrook, Illinois • St. Paul, Minnesota • Naples. Florida Member of the Securities Irnemor Protection Corporalion Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other Stales (800) 328-6122 f� 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 May 26, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Subject: Letters of Credit Dear Tom: Letters of Credit are used as a credit enhancement device in connection with Tax -Exempt Revenue financing. The credit risk to the purchaser is reduced by the existence of a third -party liability. Also, the possibility of a default for all practical purposes disappears. Under the Letter of Credit, a bank will be obligated to pay in the event the firm involved does not make its payments when required. This can result in a substantial reduction in the interest rate on the bonds and therefore a reduction in the interest expense to the firm. The Letters of Credit should be "clean", "irrevocable", "standby" letters. It will be a secondary obligation which will be drawn upon only in the event of a failure to make payments when required. The term "clean" means that the only condition to drawing upon the letter is the failure of the company to pay. No other conditions need to be met and no other documentation pro- duced. The letter is irrevocable regardless of any changes in circumstances which may occur later. Today, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make private place- ments. Therefore, this method and structure of using Letters of Credit in connection with an otherwise typical tax-exempt revenue bond financing is being used. If you have any questions, unanswered by this short summary, please call and we can set up a meeting to go into more details. Very truly yours, MILLER 6 SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. Ernest L. Clark Vice President ELC/jms 37 Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach, California • Northbrook. Illinois • St. Paul. Minnesota • Naples. Florida Member of the Securitles Investor Protection Corporetion 0 0 JURAN & MOODY, INC. MUNICIPAL BONDS EXCLUSIVELY 114 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE 612/290-1500 June 29, 1982 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have recently been retained by the Federal Land Company to finance, on a tax-exempt basis, their Yankee Square IV & V Project. This bond issue will be secured in total by a Letter of Credit from a major bank. In essence, this means that the trustee representing the bondholders is obligated to draft under the Letter of Credit documents if there is ever a problem in payments. Consequently the bondholder is ultimately looking to the financial strength of the bank rather than the borrower. The bondholder has a highly secured bond and Juran & Moody, Inc. feels quite comfortable issuing these bonds to institutions as well as individuals. In the past few years, as we all know, interest rates have increased dramatically and long-term money has become harder to find. The traditional source of tax-exempt money, institutional lenders, have become less and less important because of their desire not to invest on a long-term basis, as well as the fact that in many instances they just do not need tax-exempt bonds. Conversely, the individual has become the major source for tax-exempt financing. In Minnesota there are numerous transactions which have been secured by Letters of Credit and issued to individuals. It is my understanding that on July 6 the City of Eagan will have a public hearing on the Yankee Square IV & V Project. We respectfully request that the City of Eagan take under consideration the possibility of issuing this Letter of Credit transaction to individuals. LAC/mr W., Sincerely yours, JURAN & MOODY, INC. Leonard A. hamper 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Fourteen PROJECT #264A 0 B. Project #264A, Reassessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Utilities -- On May 19, 1982, the City Council opened the public final assess- ment hearing for the reassessments regarding the Twin View Manor utilities for those property owners who formally appealed their assessments. That hearing was continued until July 6 to allow the City staff adequate time to have the properties in question appraised to determine benefit in response to the assessment appeal. Since that time, the attorney representing the property owners has agreed to limit their legal objection only to the percentage of interest issue. Subsequently, staff will not have to proceed with the appraisals of the properties in question, will not incur the additional previously anticipated expense associated with it and will not have to preceed with the reassessment hearing at a higher amount. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the final reassess- ment hearing for project #264A, reaffirm the original assessments as levied on September 15, 1981 and authorize the City staff to certify the September 15, 1981 final assessments to the County Auditor for collection as originally approved. PROJECT #264B C. Project #264B, Final Assessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Streets -- On May 18, 1982, the final assessment hearing was opened per- taining to costs associated with the installation of streets in the Twin View Manor Addition. Because of the previous appeal sub- mitted with the assessments associated with the installation of utilities in the subdivision, the City Council closed the public hearing and ordered in the assessments for those property owners who did not object to their assessments and continued the public hearing until July 6 for those property owners who submitted written objections pertaining to their street assessments. Similar to the action discussed for the utility assessment appeal, the attorney representing the objecting property owners has agreed to limit their objections to only the amount of interest issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council close the final assessment hearing for those objecting property owners and approve their assessments for collection with the issue of the interest to be resolved at a separate time without impacting certification of the final assessments as originally presented on May 18. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the final assessment hearing for Project #264B, approve the final assessment roll as originally submitted on May 18, 1982, and authorize the staff to certify the assessments to the County Auditor for collection. 3`I Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Fifteen PROJECT #357 D. Project #357, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition (Streets & Utilities) -- On June 1, a feasibility report for the above referenced project was presented to the City Council for their review. A copy of this report is included on pages through for the Coun- cil's information for this public hearing. This feasibility report has been reviewed in detail with the developer in question and no objections have been received to date. All legal notices have been published in the paper and sent to the affected property owners. Assessments associated with this project will be contained within the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #357 for the installation of streets and utilities in the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. is I I 0 10 1335 V. 1," 36 & P—J. 55173 Pro... 6f2-636-4600 May 26, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition Project No. 357 Our File No. 49254 Dear Mayor and Council: Gun G tlnnnvun. P. E. Rnhar It Rorrrv. P E. Jnvph r . An,Wh . P E. lhmlln..1 A. Lrm hnS. 1t4. Rn hula I:. Ibmrr. P, 1; Jmnr, r - l/lam. P lL Gh nn R. C .... A. PC A'rrlh 1. Gurdon. P L Th..., F. Nurn, Y.E. Rrhmd H'. hwer. P1 Ruhrn G. .Srhenh h, P E. slur vin L..Snnnlu. P.E Ih �nurd C. Rureurdr. P1,. lrrry .4. tlnwdnn, P L. hlnrA A. /lemon. P E. Jrd K rnld. P li W,, hM T. RuurnNnn. AV rnorlc. 1 b�rAv,n Lrn?f. Po.,M, IMdun .H. 96nn u,,,d h, un,.r. Transmitted herewith is our report for Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition, Project No. 357. This report covers utility installation and public street construction within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. The work outlined herein is in conformance with the design concepts presented in the Report for Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addition, Project 346, with minor revisions required by preliminary design changes pro- posed for the 3rd Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very' truly, BONESTR0O, ROSE E ANDERLIK b ASSOCIATES, INC. James C. Olson JCO: k f Approved by: Date: 9898a I hereb certif that this Report was pre - Y Y pared by me or under my direct superviaion and that 1 am a duly Reeeatered Profession- al Engineer under the/laws of the State of Minnesota. .� James C. Olson J i Date: May 26, 1982 Reg: No. 8956 Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works 41 0 0 CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION SCOPE: This project provides for the installation of sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer utilities within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition and the com- pletion of street improvements for Cinnamon Ridge Trail and Stater Drive with- in the Third Addition. Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition consists of the follow- ing units: Single Family - 5 units on Slater Drive Single Family Cluster - 28 units on 4 private cul-de-sacs Twin Homes - 18 units on Slater Drive Twin Home Cluster - 36 units on private street In addition, utility and street improvements on Cinnamon Ridge Trail will provide benefit for a future 72 unit proposed condominium area east of Cinna- mon Ridge Trail. This area will be platted as an outlet on the Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition plat. Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition is located in the SW% of Sec- tion 30. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility and Street Plans for the City of Eagan. The Lproject as outlined herein can best be carried out as two contracts. Contract I provides for construction of all utilities and the placement of an aggregate Ibase on a properly prepared subgrade. Contract II provides for construction of the remaining portion of the ag- gregate base, and a bituminous surface in conjunction with the concrete curb and gutter. 0 Page 1. 9898a 41, southwesterly on Slater Drive to the end of the 3rd Addition as indicated on Figure No. 1 at the back of this report. At the point where Cinnamon Ridge Trail intersects Slater DRive at the Northern Natural Gas easement, the original development concept plans antici- pated a street elevation that would place fill over the inplace gas main. Re- cent conversations between the Developer and the Gas Company now indicates that the amount of fill that will be allowed over the gas main is less than previously anticipated. Therefore, the street grade must be lowered and it will be necessary to move the sanitary sewer from the intersection to a side lot easement location where the inplace gas main is lower in elevation. The final design street grades for the private cul-de-sacs have been checked to ensure that there is adequate cover over the sanitary sewer, which is very shallow in this area. B. WATER MAIN: A six inch water main is proposed within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition as is shown on Figure No. 2. This proposed main will complete a loop through the plat by connecting to water mains installed within the 1st Addi- tion. Valves, fittings and hydrants are included with the proposed main. Page 2. 9898a 45 I DISCUSSION: CONTRACT I A. SANITARY SEWER: A 10 inch sanitary sewer was installed within Cinnamon Ridge First Addition which terminates at the intersection of Cinnamon Ridge Trail and the north line of the 1st Addition. It is proposed to extend an 8 i' inch PVC lateral line northerly in Cinnamon Ridge Trail to Slater Drive and southwesterly on Slater Drive to the end of the 3rd Addition as indicated on Figure No. 1 at the back of this report. At the point where Cinnamon Ridge Trail intersects Slater DRive at the Northern Natural Gas easement, the original development concept plans antici- pated a street elevation that would place fill over the inplace gas main. Re- cent conversations between the Developer and the Gas Company now indicates that the amount of fill that will be allowed over the gas main is less than previously anticipated. Therefore, the street grade must be lowered and it will be necessary to move the sanitary sewer from the intersection to a side lot easement location where the inplace gas main is lower in elevation. The final design street grades for the private cul-de-sacs have been checked to ensure that there is adequate cover over the sanitary sewer, which is very shallow in this area. B. WATER MAIN: A six inch water main is proposed within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition as is shown on Figure No. 2. This proposed main will complete a loop through the plat by connecting to water mains installed within the 1st Addi- tion. Valves, fittings and hydrants are included with the proposed main. Page 2. 9898a 45 0 0 C. SERVICES: Service connections proposed herein connect to 4 inch PVC sewer services and one inch type K copper water services placed in a common trench for each dwelling unit. It is proposed to install the service lines within 15 feet of each unit. D. STORM SEWER: The storm sewer proposed in this report consists of three separate systems and is shown on Figure No. 3. A 27" and 30" line will be in- stalled on Slater Drive to complete the storm sewer installed in the 1st Addi- tion. This line will discharge storm water into Pond AP -21a. A second storm sewer system will be installed on Cinnamon Ridge Trail and consists of 18 inch through 27 inch pipes. This storm sewer is also located along a side lot easement, as was the sanitary sewer, because of the conflict with the gas main at the intersection of Slater Drive -Cinnamon Ridge Trail. The third storm sewer system consists of a 12 inch outfall line which will discharge storm water from Pond AP -21a into Pond AP -21. This line will re- strict the discharge to 5 cubic feet per second and will drain Pond AP -21a dry after a storm. The preliminary design for Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addition had anticipated a 100 year flood elevation for Pond AP -21a of 910.0. The area around the pond will have to be regraded to provide a storage capacity of 10 acre-feet of volume below elevation 910, with a berm around the pond at elevation 912.0. The bottom elevation will be in the vicinity of 902. The Developer's site grading plans will have to be carefully reviewed to insure adequate storage capacity in this area. 9898a Page 3. IF4 I if F.� 0 0 E. STREET (GRADING/GRAVEL BASE): It is anticipated that the Developer will rough grade Cinnamon Ridge Trail and Slater Drive prior to installation of utility lines. The construction proposed herein consists of providing the proper shaping of the subgrade after installation of utilities and the place- ment of a 4 inch aggregate base. The private streets and cul-de-sacs are not included with this work. The proposed work is shown on Figure No. 4. CONTRACT II F. STREET (SURFACING): This construction provides for the placement of the remaining portion of the aggregate base and the 32 foot wide bituminous sur- face in conjunction with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. It is antici- pated that this work will be completed one year after installation of utility lines under Contract I to minimize damage from trench settlements. The pri- vate streets and cul-de-sacs are not included with this work. The proposed work is shown on Figure No. 4. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Construction Area Outlot A, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot A, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot B, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot B, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A at the I.. back of this report. A summary of these costs are as follows: CONTRACT I: Sanitary Sewer $ 88,600.00 Water Main 73,610.00 Services 44,060.00 l Storm Sewer 136,200.00 l Street (Grading/Gravel Base) 18,720.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - CONTRACT I $361,190.00 i CONTRACT II: Street (Surfacing) $ 83,010.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST -CONTRACT I 6 II $444,200.00 Page 4. 9898a • The above cost estimate includes construction, contingencies and all re- lated overhead costs. Overhead costs are estimated to be 27% and include le- gal, engineering, administration and bond interest costs. The storm sewer costs are disportionately high for the 3rd Addition because some of the storm sewer benefits both the 1st Addition and future additions. EASEMENTS: Easements are required along side lot lines for sanitary sewer in- stallation and within open space areas for storm sewer lines. A ponding ease- ment is required for Pond AP -21a. It is anticipated that these easements will be acquired through final plat approval at no additional cost. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited Iproperty located within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. This includes the Outlot H, east of Cinnamon Ridge Trail. The proposed lots and units will be assessed for lateral sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer and streets. Lateral storm sewer is considered to be storm sewer pipe 24 inch in diameter and less. Trunk storm sewer larger than 24 inch will be assessed a 24 inch equiv- alent rate. Trunk area charges for sanitary sewer and water main have been previously �. assessed as part of Project 254. Trunk area charge for storm sewer has been assessed under Project 186. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this report as Appendix B. The outlot east of Cinnamon Ridge Trail is anticipated to be de- veloped in the future with 72 condominium units. For the purposes of this re- port, one-half or 36 units were used to allocate benefit from the adjacent im- provements on Cinnamon Ridge Trail because there will be additional future im- provement costs within the outlot when it is replatted and developed. t Page 5. 9898a 4(� The storm sewer assessment rates are higher than normal because some of the storm sewer costs benefit areas outside of Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as Follows: $ 73,610 SANITARY SEWER: $ 73,610 $ 73,610 - 0 - SERVICES: Project Cost Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Lateral $ 88,600 Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Service Stubs Lateral Assessment $ 88,600 $ 88,600 $ 88,600 - 0 - WATER MAIN: Lateral $ 73,610 Lateral Assessment $ 73,610 $ 73,610 $ 73,610 - 0 - SERVICES: Project Cost Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Service Stubs $ 44,060 Service Assessment $ 44,060 $ 44,060 $ 44,060 STORM SEWER: Lateral $130,760 Lateral Assessment $130,760 Trunk 5,440 Trunk Assessment - 0 - $136,200 $130,760 - $ 5,440 Page 6. 9898a 4-7 STREET: Grading/Gravel Base $ 18,720 Surfacing 83,010 Street Assessment $101,730 $101,730 $101,730 — 0 — TOTAL $444,200 $438,760 — $ 5,440 The trunk fund balance for storm sewer is $5,440. This balance is proposed to be drawn from City Trunk Storm Sewer Funds. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids Award Contract Construction Completion Assessment Hearing First Payment due with Real Estate Taxes Page 7. 9898a June 1, 1982 July 6, 1982 July 20, 1982 August 11, 1982 August 17, 1982 Spring, 1983 Summer, 1983 May, 1984 P PART A. SANITARY SEWER 1,065 Lin.ft 1,870 Lin.ft 365 Lin. ft 4 20 Each C_ 34 Lin. ft 6 Lin.ft 85 Each 1 Each 200 Tons 0.3 Acres 3,300 Lin.ft PART B WATER MAIN 0 APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATE CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION PROJECT 357 rnumnenm r 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer 0'-8' deep @ $10.00/lin.ft. 8" Sanitary Sewer 8'-10' deep @ $12.00/lin.ft. 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer 10'-18' deep @ $16.00 Standard Manholes w/castings @ $800.00/ea. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 70.00/lin.ft 8" DIP Outside drop for manhole @ $80.00/lin.ft. 8" x 4" PVC wye branches @ $40.00/ea. Cut into existing manhole @ $300.00/ea. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton Seed w/topsoil @ $1,500.00/acre Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency +27% Legal, P.ngrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL SANITARY SEWER 3,600 Lin.ft. 6" DIP Water Main @ $10.00/lin.ft. 9 Each Hydrants in place @ $800.00/ea. 8 Each Gate Valve and box @ $350.00/ea. 4,400 Lbs. Cast Iron fittings @ 1.00/lb. 2 Each Connect to existing 6"DIP @ $300.00/ea. 100 Ton Rock Stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 3,600 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench Compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL WATER MAIN Page 8. 9898a . _ 14C q $10,650.00 22,440.00 5,840.00 16,000.00 2,380.00 480.00 3,400.00 300.00 1,200.00 450.00 3,300.00 $66,440.00 3,320.00 $69,760.00 18,840.00 �W $36,000.00 7,200.00 2,800.00 4,400.00 600.00 600.00 3,600.00 $55,200.00 2,760.00 $57,960.00 15,650.00 $73,610.00 P 0 PART C - SERVICES 2,375 Lin.ft. 4" PVC Sanitary Sewer Service @ $5.00/lin.ft. I1,780 Lin.ft. 1" Type K Copper Water Service @ $5.50/lin.ft 85 Each 1" Compaction Stop @ $30.00/ea. 85 Each 1" Curb Stop 6 Box @ $60.00/ea. x 1,950 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench Compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency I +27% Legal, Engrng.Admin. 5 Bond Int TOTAL SERVICES PART D STORM SEWER 215 Lin.ft. 30" RCP Storm Sewer @ $35.00/lin.ft. 785 Lin.ft. 27" RCP Storm Sewer @ $30.00/lin.ft. 715 Lin.ft. 24" RCP Storm Sewer @ $27.00/lin.ft. 215 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm Sewer @ $21.00/lin.ft. 475 Lin.ft. 15" RCP Storm Sewer @ $18.00/lin.ft. 650 Lin.ft. 12" RCP Storm Sewer @ $16.00/lin.ft. 10 Each Standard manholes w/casting @ $900.00/each X13 Each Standard catchbasin w/castings @ $600.00 6 Each 30" RCP 7 1/20 Long Radius Bends @ $250.00/each 4 Each 24" RCP 7 1/2o Long Radius Bends @ $200.00/each 1 Each 12" RCP Flared -End Section @ $600.00/ea. 4 Cu.yds. Grouted rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd. 300 Tons Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 2 Acres Seed with topsoil and mulch @ 1,500.00/acre 3,100 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 1 Each Seepage Collar on outlet pipe @ $500.00/ea. Total Estimated Construction 5% Contingency +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL STORM SEWER Page 9. r9898a SO $12,650.00 9,790.00 2,550.00 5,100.00 1,950.00 $33,040.00 1,650.00 $34,690.00 9,370.00 $44,060.00 $ 7,525.00 23,550.00 19,305.00 4,515.00 8,550.00 10,400.00 9,000.00 7,800.00 1,500.00 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,800.00 3,000.00 3,100.00 500.00 $102,145.00 5,105.00 $107,250.00 28.950.00 $136,200.00 Page 10. 9898a PART E STREETS (Grading/Gravel Base) 350 Cu.yds. Subgrade correction @ $3.00/cu.yd. $ 1,050.00 7,300 Sq.yds. Subgrade preparation @ $0.30 2,190.00 1,800 Tons Class 2 100% crushed aggregate base @ $6.00 10,800.00 Total Estimated Construction $14,040.00 +5% Contingency 700.00 $14,740.00 +27% Legal, Engrng.,Admin. & Bond Int. 3,980.00 TOTAL STREETS (Grading/Gravel Base) $18,720.00 CONTRACT I Part A - Sanitary Sewer $ 88,600.00 Part B - Water Main 73,610.00 ( Part C - Services 44,060.00 Part D - Storm Sewer 165,190.00 Part E - Streets (Grading/Gravel Base) 18,720.00 TOTAL CONTRACT I $390,180.00 CONTRACT II PART F STREETS (Surfacing) �.: 6,100 Sq.yds. Base preparation @ $0.30/sq.yd. $ 1,830.00 700 Tons Class 5 Aggregate Base @ $6.00/ton 4,200.00 I550 Tons 2341 Bituminous binder course mixture @ $12.00/ton 6,600.00 550 Tons 2341 Bituminous wear course mixture @ $14.00/ton 7,700.00 60 Tons AC -1 Bituminous material for mixture @ $200.00/ton 12,000.00 L 350 Gals. Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.20/gal. 420.00 3,640 Lin.ft. Surmountable conc. c & g @ $5.00/lin.ft. 18,200.00 8 Each Adjust gate valve box casting @ $100.00/ea. 800.00 55 Each Adjust MN and CB castings @ $150.00/ea. 8,250.00 I, 1-1/2 Acres Seeding with topsoil and mulch @ $1,500.00/acre 2,250.00 Total Estimated Construction $62,250.00 +5% Contingency 3,110.00 $65,360.00 +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. & Bond Int. 17,650.00 TOTAL STREETS (Surfacing) $83,010.00 Page 10. 9898a 0 0 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION PROJECT 357 LATERAL ASSESSMENT Cost Breakdown Method 1 Single Family Cluster Unit = 0.7 Single Family Unit 1 Twin Home Unit = 0.6 Single Family Unit 1 Twin Home Cluster Unit 0.4 Single Family Unit 1 Condominium Unit - 0.35 Single Family Unit Number of Single Family Units Lots 1-5, Block 1 5 x 1= 5 Number of Single Family Cluster Units Lots 1-28, Block 2 28 x.7 - 19.6 Number of Twin Home Units Lots 1-9, Block 3 18 x.6 = 10.8 Number of Twin Home Cluster Units Lots 1-13, Block 4 36 x.4 = 14.4 Number of Condominiums Outlot H 36* x.35 =12.6 62.4 *1/2 of estimated future condos, for Outlot H, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addn., which will be assessed as a single tract for this project. A. Sanitary Sewer Single Family - Block 1 (5) Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) Twin Home - Block 3 (18) Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 6 5 (36) Outlot H TOTAL B. Water Main Single Family - Block 1 (5) Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) Twin Home - Block 3 (18) Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 6 5 (36) Outlot H nono_ TOTAL PA"P 11. Total Cost $ 7,099.00 27,830.00 15,335.00 20,446.00 17,890.00 $88,600.00 S 5,898.00 23,121.00 12,740.00 16,987.00 14,864.00 $73,610.00 Cost/Unit $1,420.00 994.00 852.00 568.00 N.A. $1,180.00 826.00 708.00 472.00 N. A. 1 C. Services Total Cost Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 3,530.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 13,839.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 7,626.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 10,168.00 Outlot H 8,897.00 TOTAL $ 44,060.00 ( D. Storm Sewer Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 10,478.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 41,072.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 22,632.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 30,175.00 Outlot H 26,403.00 ( l TOTAL $130,760.00 E. Street (Grading/Gravel Base) Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 1,500.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 5,880.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 3,240.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 4,320.00 Outlot H 3,780.00 TOTAL $18,720.00 F. Street (Surfacing) Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 6,651.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 26,074.00 I; Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 14,367.00 I: Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 19,156.00 Outlot H 16,762.00 I TOTAL $83,010.00 Page 12. 9898a L 53 Cost/Unit $706.00 494.00 424.00 282.00 N.A. $2,096.00 1,467.00 1,257.00 838.00 N. A. $300.00 210.00 180.00 120.00 N. A. $1,330.00 931.00 798.00 532.00 N. A. Item San. Sewer Water Services Storm Sewer Street (Base) Street (Surfacing) TOTAL LATERAL ASSESSMENT 0 Block 1 L. 1-5 Single Family /Unit $1,420 1,180 706 2,096 300 1,330 IJ LATERAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Block 1 Block 3 Blk. 4 5 5 L. 1-28 L. 1-9 L.1-13,1-5 Sin.Fam. Twin Twin Home Cluster Home Cluster /Unit /Unit /Unit Outlot H $ 994 $ 852 $ 568 $17,890 826 708 472 14,864 494 424 282 8,897 1,467 1,257 838 26,403 210 180 120 3,780 931 798 532 16,762 $7,324 $5,126 $4,395 $2,929 $88,596 *Estimated amounts for Outlot H are for this project and are independent of future number of units to be developed. Page 13. 9898a TRUNK _ EXIST.10" _ ,SANITARY: SEWER OUTLOT H 2 w„� Ci N NA MdN C!ly x Scale I° = 200' .p1113rM AOSFI&, NOMA A ASSOCr M6. COMM?” Utmem ak P.I. er.a oyeo• HIGHWAY No. 77 PHASE 5 SLATER DR. M r 7O 5 4 O F PHASE 4 L AO SED EXISTING NIIARY 4 I SANITARY SEWER SEWER ^U \ ID 9 8 O 6 5 4 3 2 I �1 r 7 �0 10`��< E TRAI ✓L�a—<� f> Dakota v C:3O In 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Elec. OI © of Substation £o on Of BurnsW//e CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION SANITARY SEWER PROJECT No. 357 >t tnt <i to t y r >t � <i to t y r J U FIGURE No.l TRUNK HIGHWAY OUTLOT HgT 7 'r CINNAI7K5N r _ 0 z; n FT _ r x�� Scale I° = 200' BM93TIM ROSH umnna i R3SK. /IG tvwL FNA`aom 49254 ;. O PROPOSED 6" WATER MAIN 4 No. PHASE 5 PHASE 4 EXISTING WATER MAIN 9 8 O 6 5 4 3 E 7 / TRHAIL �QO' 70ec. IO 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 I �O O J of £o on V City of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION WATER MAIN PROJECT No. 357 77 FIGURE No. 2 •7I�777III�� L � fY Itis �; � )� Pf- TRUNK HIGHWAY C OUTLO-J T H r 55 1 Pons �/ � t.� \ �7 O --w- CINNANI(5'fJ •::. r - 4 18 O •c+i LI �, � 24 �p City Scale I° = 200' swas,lloc, qua a Asso W- I~ No. PHASE 5 77 v© y O ® ofd o p PHASE -4 PROPO4 ED EXIST. STORMS EWER 4 12 STORM SEWER J O* Q 10 9 B O 6 5 4 3 2 I p G' O TRAIL FEI 10 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 1O of Eo on Of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 357 U- U - J FIGURE No. �-r za'. LLI 27" J -j O]J' LL s - O N 1i Pone AP -21a City Scale I° = 200' swas,lloc, qua a Asso W- I~ No. PHASE 5 77 v© y O ® ofd o p PHASE -4 PROPO4 ED EXIST. STORMS EWER 4 12 STORM SEWER J O* Q 10 9 B O 6 5 4 3 2 I p G' O TRAIL FEI 10 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 1O of Eo on Of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 357 U- U - J FIGURE No. TRUNK HIGHWAY <l OUTLOT H _ 92 ` CINNAIVIdN x Scale I" a 200' \ PROPOSED STREET !1 IMPROVEM l.' 91111EM q 10SM MCMU a Assoc. W- ` I ud. 49254 U O No. PHASE 5 PHASE 4 EXISTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS 77 ©"m a0k01a /qT\ C%pO 1019ITNEdoo'n4 J�j2 2 I S"Calallaa of C/Iy of BurnSN//B CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STREETS PROJECT No. 357 LL LL J V FIGURE No.4 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Sixteen 0 VACATION OF PORTION OF DENMARK AVENUE E. Street Vacation/Denmark Avenue -- The City has received a writ- ten petition from the owners of the two lots in the northeast corner of Denmark Avenue and Wescott Road requesting that a portion of the old alignment of Denmark Avenue be vacated and reincorporated into their front yard area. A copy of this requested vacation is enclosed on page 6 for your information. This excessive right-of-way was origins y platted with the Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition prior to the construction of Wescott Road. Sub- sequently, Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition was replatted to the fifth addition after the alignment and construction of Wescott Road took place. This realignment of the intersection created a triangular excessive right-of-way originally dedicated under the Pilot Knob Fourth Addition. The staff no longer has any need for this public right-of-way and has not received any objections to this vacation. However, the staff would recommend that a ten foot drainage and utility easement be retained over this vacated portion adjacent to the new revised easterly right-of-way line of Denmark Avenue. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the vaca- tion of public right-of-way for Denmark Avenue north of Wescott Road and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pilot Knob Heights Fifth Addition and, if approved, that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be retained over the westerly portion of this vacated right-of-way. sq N 8`1144 E n 336,'0 10 'y5 Y 4) r! 93'44 E.�B1.57 V��. 46:24 111 96 I I O 74 ° Do1S1 6 ;Ic 5 z cj i M1� a",0� S a7 2y -,•1v' f I � G:�a3 a.\'l0� _O 0 9 E Q1 ° I ` •�° `2, 0' e V°`. �\ _ V�geO 00 00' 9g o ul 13 12 R•2p1..� X20 8.2 45.....- _ W rn N. 7go5�, Q Oj_ ''c'°J O.a` �;��`�-� -{N !A 00 ro' O 00,Q :12.0 12.45 W ''6' 95' 2 01-2 60 �.� `35.35 .00 6 92 y 56 N g500 N 74E yflo 'p.0. Z 3 9 y\2r., 0 0 6�, ,!L "sU �,mo N opENM 9a 00 so �ys� r�0 2 - 7135 Z yS 9 £ _ 2 o 25 co z 66 L2 to 0.1 30 >ra D`'s' 24f Gr9 Vy 0�.�'j- n3 0B ' 23 a1. o,Z( % I GQ/ G� 4160 250 43 E c 1C m 4 N 67 90 1 0 i O' •¢ N. 0 .O X19 O C m 90 oln 12316 9139 sg, \ s. N 21.55 1 qy. �W W� s\' o N.B4 00 E �1 \ N 'o+>` j p��A�S\ I 3071 30 m y. 22 m w`\' 1 PILO R r0atr�� s 0 "'IY No 4'39 Ea�O. 1 ��25a ?> N -,0 0) O�. D0 j 3 760 04 39 E. °0- t4 00 J6 NW v N 840 00 E. I 7, p- o' bo II/2 HE/G.�,I,T F � zI 8 35 6\ 3A31416 0 3 "5.6e 21 FIFTH 3030 0 � - 55,1I D D. Lj 20 p In N I I 64 10 �o NIO to n N P6N 89042 25 F � m On PQ -- .' - — 334 68 N 9'•, y0 Ota n o Nlm v,w 0�0 0¢ 0.H 6?�°�.`° r f. N. 89042-25" E. - 745.78 — — .. _. .1 x90 •Z 1 =1 lv^o� 144^^ 0(/ � °' 209 36 Y 177 25 xo4 .J T i' - '26 99 -• ACREAGE S.W. 1/4 N W S W I N E S E 3990 1 3994 3398 3991 • Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Seventeen PROJECT #359 C, F. Project #359, Park Cliff 1st Addition (Storm Sewer Extension) -- On May 18, the City Council received a petition of the Park Cliff Addition requesting the City to extend the storm sewer con- structed under the first addition to minimize and eliminate the extensive erosion occurring as a result of the second addition not proceeding on its previously anticipated time schedule. Sub- sequently, on June 1, the City Council approved a change order authorizing this work to be performed under Contract 81-13. This work proceeded based on the developer's petition wherein he waived his right to the public hearing and agreed to accept all costs associated with it. The purpose of this public hearing, then, is to meet the procedural requirements for the City to sell bonds to finance the project and to allow it to assess the property in question in accordance with the feasibility report. Enclosed on pagesz through 68 is a copy of the feasibility report for the CouA ?r -'s information. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Project #359 for the extension of storm sewer facilities for Park Cliff 1st Addition. L7 0 REPORT PARKCLIFF ADDITIONAL ON 1st ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 359 FOR EAGAN , MINNESOTA 1982 49233 �o�cedfiroo, i�oseire, lQnc&ii" & lq"aa�f .90w. zz Pam M&W"OAa 61 C] Rte, 4. & 4, 9,.c. 2333 V. 9+..A .Y:yi.,.y 36 SJ. Pd. hf"..1.& 35113 PA...., 612.636.3600 June 2, 1982 <(Q1956 — t/L — 1981; Honorable Mayor and Counc ; j nniversary' P, City of Eagan �Q 3795 Pilot Knob Road �Ub Eagan, Mo. 55122 Re: Park Cliff 1st Addition Additional Storm Sewer Project No. 359 - File No. 49233 Dear Mayor and Council: • DNa G. Nnm.uae. P.E. Rahrrr 11'. R.arrv. P.E. Iarph ('..lnderhk. P.E. Rradlard A. Lrmhrrs. P.E. Htrhard E. Turner. 1'.E. Iaern C. 011on. P.E. G n. R. C.A. P.E. Kroh A. Gordon. P.E. 'ha.., E. Nnyu. P.E. Rlrhard 11'. rall". P.E. Rohm G. Srha.lrhr. P.E. Mani. L. Sorrala, P.E. Donald C. Bwj.,dl. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. hlark A. Haruo.. P.E. So- rrn h/. 04r.11y Chane, A. Erlrino,, U. M. PawNlky Harlan M. 06on Darld E. 01,.n Transmitted herewith is our report on the additional storm sewer required in Park Cliff 1st Addition. This storm sewer is required to correct a serious erosion problem and to protect this property from further erosion until the 2nd Addition and the total storm sewer system are completed. It is anticipated that this work will be constructed as a change order to Con- tract No. 81-13. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to review this report. Respectfully submitted, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert W. Rosene RWR:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Robert W. Rosene Date: June 2, 1982 Reg. No. 3488 Approved By: Tfromas A. Colbert Public Works Director Date: , _ 7 9938a ' G3 0 0 PARK CLIFF IST ADDITION ADDITIONAL STORM SEWER SCOPE: This project provides an additional temporary 12" diameter storm sewer to eliminate a serious erosion problem created by storm water drainage from the Park Cliff 1st Addition. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The project is feasible and is in accordance with storm water planning for the City of Eagan. This additional work can best be carried out by use of a change order to an existing construction con- tract. DISCUSSION: The storm sewer installed in the Park Cliff 1st Addition was temporarily terminated with an outlet into a natural draw on property sched- uled to be developed with the 2nd Addition. Heavy storm water flows from this pipe together with the easily erodable characteristics of the soil in this area have combined to create a serious erosion problem. As a result, the end of the existing paved street is being undermined and a dangerous hole has been created. Also, existing gas main and buried telephone lines could be damaged if the condition is not corrected. The permanent solution to this problem would be the continuance of Park Cliff Drive in the 2nd Addition and the installation of the permanent storm sewer for that addition. However, this cannot be accomplished at this time due to the lack of activity in the single family housing market. A temporary solution can be provided utilizing a 12" diameter temporary storm sewer with an energy dissipator at the lower end outletting into the natural low lands of the 2nd Addition. The area that has been eroded will be 9938a Page 1. 64 0 0 backfilled with natural earth taken from another part of the development there- by eliminating the dangerous hole and minimizing the possibility of further erosion. This project has been discussed with the developer and he has re- quested that the work be carried out with costs assessed against his remaining property. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Parcels 010-02 and 011-03 in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 34, T27, R23 Construction Area Parcels 010-02 and 011-03 in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 34, T27, R23 COST ESTIMATE: A detailed cost estimate is presented at the back of this re- port. A summary of the costs is as follows: Temporary Storm Sewer Improvements $13,220 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ............. $13,220 The total estimated cost including contingencies and all related overhead costs is $13,220. Overhead costs are estimated at $27% and include legal, en- gineering, administration and the bond interest. ASSESSMENTS: The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed against the remaining undeveloped land owned by the developer in this quarter section. No costs are proposed to be assessed on any of the existing lots in the Park Cliff 1st Addition or on parcel 011-02 in this quarter section. EASEMENTS: An easement is required on a portion of Parcels 011-03 and 010-02 where the temporary sCorm sewer is placed. This easement can be vacated when the permanent storm sewer is installed with the development of the proposed Park Cliff 2nd Addition. No easement is required on Parcel 011-02. 9938a Page 2. 6S'_ 0 0 REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: Project Cost Revenue Balance Storm Sewer Lateral $ 13,220 Lateral Assessment $ 13,220 TOTAL ........... $ 13,220 $ 13,220 - 0 - No revenues are required from City trunk funds to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report June 15, 1982 Public Hearing July 6, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications and Change Order July 6, 1982 Construction Completion August, 1982 Assessment Hearing September, 1982 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1983 COST ESTIMATE 12" P.V.C. 200 Lin.ft. @ $17.00 $ 3,400.00 Manhole with casting 1 Each @ $1,170.00 1,130.00 Common Borrow 1,200 Cu.yds. @ $3.00 3,600.00 Seed 0.30 Ac. @ $4,800.00 1,440.00 12" Energy Dissipator 1 Each @ $400.00 400.00 Grouted Rip Rap 4 Cu.yds. @ $60.00 240.00 Connect existing 18" RCP to MH 1 Each @ $200.00 200.00 $10,410.00 +27% Legal, Engrng, Admin. 2,810.00 TOTAL .................. $13,220.00 Page 3. 9938a 6 6 9938a 0 0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 359 ADDITIONAL STORM SEWER FOR PARK CLIFF 1ST ADDITION Parcel No. Assessment 011-03 $ 3,305 010-02 9,915 Page 4. 67 $13,220 Total CQ/FF PARKCLIFF 1st ADDITION ADDITIONAL STORK! SEWER PROJECT No. 359 TO BE ASSESSED Scale: f = 200 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOC� INC. 49233 0 i Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eighteen OLD- BUSIN,ES!S VENDING MACHINES - ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS A. Special Use Permit for St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch News- paper Vending Machines -- At the last regular meeting of the Eagan City Council held on June 15, 1982, representatives of the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch appeared before the City Council to discuss whether a special use permit applied to the placement of newspaper vending machines on public property throughout the City of Eagan. It was the position of the City Council during 1981 and was again stated by the present City Council that a special use permit is required for the placement of vending machines for the purpose of selling newspapers on public property throughout the City of Eagan. The St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch was re- quested to submit an application for a special use permit if they intend to keep the newspaper vending machines on public property throughout the City and submit the same for consideration and review by the City Council at the July 6 meeting. The City staff was directed to review all vending machine locations upon receiving the application and recommend only locations that are consistent with the health, safety and welfare and public property image desired by the City of Eagan. City staff has met with representa- tives of the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch and enclosed is a copy of a staff report and map showing locations of the vending machines that appear to be in keeping with standards being con- sidered by the City of Eagan for newspaper vending machines. This information is enclosed on pages -70 through 7-3 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the special use permit with or without modification as presented by the St. Paul Pioneer Press .& Dispatch subject to conditions set forth by the City staff. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages -7+ through 7S7' is a copy of a letter which was received by t_ee _ty Administrator concerning this item. TO: THCMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JULY 1, 1982 RE: ST PAUL DISPATCH VENDING MACHINE UPDATE As directed by the City Council on June 15, 1982, staff has had a chance to review the locations of all the vending machines located in the City of Fagan. This review was done by Martin Des Lauriers, Police Chief, Tom Colbert, Public Works Director and me. In the review of the locations of the newspaper vend- ing machines, staff has identified 11 locations which could be defined as hazardous or interfere with the public safety in regard to vehicular movement. These 11 locations are as follows: 1. The intersection of County Road 30 (Diffley Road) and Rahn Road. 2. Beau d Rue and Rahn Road. 3. Silver Bell Road and Beau d Rue 4. Silver Bell Road adjacent to Easy Street Apartments 5. Yankee Doodle Road and Donald Avenue 6. High Site Drive adjacent to the driveway to Highsite.Apartments 7. Eagan Industrial Road and West Service Road 8. Lexington Avenue - Lone Oak Road 9. Ione Oak Circle - Lone Oak Road 10. Gemini and Armstrong Blvd. 11. Crestridge and Pilot Knob Road Staff has reviewed the 44 vending machines in the City. Out of the 44 machines, staff has determined 11 vending machines are considered hazardous to the pub- lic safety of vehicular movement. In the staff's review, the only comments made during that review were the 11 machines stated above should be removed. However, if the machines were relocated further from intersections, some of the machines could be considerably safer at the new location vs. where thev are presently existing. After staff had reviewed the 44 locations, staff had also met with representa- tives of the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press regarding the findings of this review. In this discussion, both City staff and representatives of the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press concluded that 4 out of the 11 vending machines are considered hazardous and would be removed completely. The other 7 vending machines could be relocated to safer locations. The 4 vending ma- chines which were agreed upon by City staff and St. Paul Dispatch's represen- tatives are listed as follows: 70 0 • St. Paul Dispatch Vending Machine Update July 1, 1982 Page two Beau d Rue Drive and Rahn Road Yankee Doodle Road and Donald Avenue Lone Oak Circle and Lone Oak Road Crestridge and Pilot Knob Road Attached to this memmoranduan is a map of the locations which staff has indica- ted above as hazardous locations. The locations with the double circle are the vending machines which the St. Paul Dispatch will ranove completely and not relocate. The last part of the directive was that the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press submit an application for a special permit in order to allow the vending machines in the City of Eagan. It is staff's understanding, at this time, that the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press received the minutes of the June 15, 1982 City Council meeting on June 30, 1982. They are in the process of hav- ing their legal staff review the minutes in regard to the directive requesting the St. Paul Dispatch to submit a special permit application. It is my under- standing that the St. Paul Dispatch may not be able to have their legal counsel review the directive in the minutes and advise the representatives from St. Paul Dispatch to the legal ramifications of submitting a special permit for the vending machines in tine for the City Council meeting of July 6th. The representatives from the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press may request a 2 -week continuance in order for them to receive an opinion from their legal counsel in regard to submitting the application for the special permit. It is my understanding that the representatives from the paper will be contact- ing the City Administrator the day of July 6th to discuss the alternative of a continuance of two weeks, or, if the City Council wants to review the vend- ing machines at that particular meeting. It is staff's understanding of the directive to review the locations of the vending machines and report back to the City Council and suggest that the St. Paul Dispatch submit an application for a special permit. Staff cannot pro- cess this special permit until the St. Paul Dispatch submits this particular application. DCR/jach cc - Tan Foster, St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press Martin Des Lauriers, Chief of Polioe Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works 7/ jaid /J? 13 Fh 24 Rip off P -l" nd CITY OF EAGAN i be - 0 1/2 'mile e RcmoaG AwcL l ece I 0 Steve Fisher 13626 Everton Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 612/456-6467 days 612/432-1807 eves 18 June 1982 Mr. Tan Hedges, City Administrator City of Fagan Fagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: It is my understanding that there is a proposal before the city council or other municipal body to either license or permit the St. Paul Pioneer Press to continue to sell their newspapers from vending machines along public throughfares. These orange machines, when indiscriminately located along public pathways shared by motor vehicles, represent a deadly threat to anyone in the vicinity of these boxes. Although I do not live in Eagan, I work at Sperry Univac at the Corporate Square facility, shop at Cedarvale, bank at First Bank Eagan Office and in general, use the facilities offerred by your city while contributing to its cam. I resent having to wait behind any driver who leaves his unattended car out in the roadway in order to purchase one of these papers. I further vehemently object to the unnecessary threat of negotiating the traffic hazards created by those who do not wish to wait and have decided to pass these few newspaper patrons. I have spent 15 years working in systems engineering observing and understanding how man and machine relate in areas concerning Teleco uiunications, Bio -Medicine, Defense Systems , Site Planning and Traffic Engineering. It is a simple rule of traffic safety that Nat< Ne x Pa or that the number of accidents between vehicles at a location is proportional to the number of traffic encounters created by the site configuration at that location and the probability that these encounters will lead to an accident. "Pa" depends on such things as'driver condition, awareness, attitute and operating ability, road conditions, traffic density, vehicle performance and condition, etc. There is not much a traffic'engineer can do about Pa. His whole mission is to reduce Ne by proper road configuration, appropriate use of traffic controls(including sign- ing, signals, speed limits and barriers) as well as limiting access both onto and off from the road in question. In a matter of the few minutes it took those responsible, to indiscriminately locate these boxes along the streets of Fagan, they undermined any site planning and traffic engineering previously done for these locations, all for the purpose of making a "buck". When I first approached the Eagan Police regarding this threat, they were quick to respond to remove the two boxes located midway between the Lexington Avenue intersections of Yankee Doodle and Lone Oak. It was clear to them that a vehicle suddenly stopping from a speed of 50 mph to purchase a paper would be a problemo It was less obvious to then that those boxes located at intersections would present a similar threat and permitted then to stay based on legal arguments of vendors' rights. One can also argue for the public right of Traffic Safety and I implore 74 StevWsher - page two those individuals, such as yourself, who are responsible for protecting the welfare of all those who work and live in Eagan, to consider those points I have raised. Before closing, I want to mention that, if requested, I would be happy to advise Eagan of the suitability of specific proposed vending sites. However, it is my opinion that the vendor should be held responsible for demonstrating to the city that their sites chosen would have a minimal environmental impact. Additionally, they should be forced to post a large enough bond which would serve to protect Eagan from expensive lawsuits resulting from the sanctioning of these machines. Furthermore, the vendors should defray the cost of those expert Site Planners and consulting engineers„ hired by the city for the purpose of assurring that all decisions were not made out of ignorance. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.......... Sincerely yours, / Steve 7 7S Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Nineteen NEW71BUSINES81' MISSION HILLS PD & PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Dakota County to Amend the PD and for a Preliminary Plat, Dakota County Plat #1, in the Mission Hills Planned Development -- Although this item was originally scheduled and published to be on the July 6, 1982 agenda, the City has received a request to continue this item until the July 20, 1982 City Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To continue the Dakota County Plat #1 and request to amend the planned development until the July 20, 1982 City Council meeting. 76 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty REZONING - FEDERAL LAND CO. B. Federal Land Company for Rezoning from R-4, LB & CSC to PD -- A public hearing was held before the APC at the May 25, 1982 regular meeting, and due to a lengthy discussion and request for information, the public hearing was continued until the June 22, 1982 APC meeting. The public hearing was held to consider a re- zoning request, an application submitted by Federal Land Company to rezone approximately a 100 acre area from Community Shopping Center, Limited Business, General Business and Multiple Residential to Planned Development. The Advisory Planning Commission is recom- mending approval of the rezoning application to the City Council. For additional information on this item, refer to the original report prepared by the Planning Consultant, John Voss, found on pages 7$ through Jpg . For an amendment to that report con- taining additional in ormation, refer to the City Planner's report found on pages/p through J-�- For a memorandum regarding consideration for t e park dedication that would be omitted, refer to page 115' For a copy of the minutes of the APC action, refer to pages�� In each packet without a page number is a large drawing- roperty which also includes adjacent property to provide a better description of the property for City Council view. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to approve a rezoning for the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park project. 77 L CITY OF EAGAN E SUBJECT REZONING FOR EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK APPLICANT: FEDERAL LAND COMPANY LOCATION: SW QUADRANT OF YANKEE DOODLE ROAD & LEXINGTON AVE SECTION 15 EXISTING ZONING: COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER, LIMITED BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS AND MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-4 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MAY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: MAY 20, 1982 REPORTED BY: JOHN S. VOSS, PLANNING CONSULTANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED: The application submitted is for the rezoning of an approximate 100 acre area to Planned Development for a commercial development titled "Eagan Heights Commercial Park". This property is presently zoned Community Shopping Center, Limited Business, General Business and Multiple Residential (R-4). It is proposed that the base zoning would remain unchanged and that the entire 100 acre area would have an overlying Planned Development zoning. The property is located south of Yankee Doodle Road between Lexington Avenue on the east and the future extension of Delaware Avenue on the west. On the south, the property is bordered by the "Duckwood" area which consists of single family homes, an undeveloped city park area and a developing apartment complex. The exhibits that have been submitted as a part of the application are as follows: --- A sketch Plan was submitted illustrating, 'in a general manner, how each area is expected to be developed. --- An artist's sketch was submitted illustrating in greater detail the potential development. --- A map was submitted illustrating the existing zoning. --- A map was submitted illustrating how the property could be developed under current zoning. --- A preliminary grading and drainage plan was submitted. --- A preliminary utility plan was submitted. -1- 79 CITY OF EAGAN • N HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Page 2 Way20, 1982 --- An artist's sketch of potential high-rise buildings that could be developed on the site was submitted. --- A traffic engineering study, prepared by a traffic engineer, with corresponding exhibits illustrating both average daily trips and peak hour trips from each potential development was submitted. The traffic engineering study also illustrates the number of trips that could be generated under existing zoning. A staging plan is also required under the city's Zoning Ordinance #52 and this has not been submitted. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN The City of Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan proposes Limited Business use and Multiple Dwelling (R -III) for this 100 acre site. The Multiple development as illustrated on the "Land Use Guide Plan Map" would be located at the southwest quadrant of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue, encompassing approximately 25 acres. The remainder of the property is guided for Limited Business develop- ment. Therefore, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan over the approximate 75 acres which has been guided for Limited Business ' use. The proposed Planned Development, however, is inconsistent in that the area which is guided for Multiple Dwelling development is proposed under the Planned Development for General Business and Limited Business uses. If the City intends to rezone this property as proposed by the Developer, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metropolitan Council. In all Melihood, this would be considered a minor revision by the Metropoli- tan Council and the "turn -around" time for approval would be very short. PLANNER'S COMMENTS From a Planner's perspective, it is desirable that this large development, which falls within natural boundaries, is being submitted at one time. This allows for better overall analysis of utility service, traffic generation, land use compatibility and general development guidelines such as architecture, pedes- trian circulation and landscaping. The Planned Development approach also af- fords the City more control over development. One of the primary concerns in this area is the relationship that any development would have to the residential development to the south and in particular, to the single family homes. The alternatives posed before the City are to retain the Multiple (R -IV) zoning which abuts the single family area to or allow the office - type use which is proposed under this Planned Development. The height of these buildings also is a consideration and that is dealt with in another paragraph in this report. It would appear that either the office use or the Multiple use could be compatible with the single family residential area dependent upon the type of development -2- 77 CITY OF EAGA! • EAGAWIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK. Page 3 May 20, 1982 and performance standards. Building coverage, parking lot coverage and landscaping would tend to be quite similar. The office use appears to have one advantage in its relationship to the single family in that office activities generally occur during the daytime working hours and therefore do not conflict with the single family activities which are greater during non -working hours. The reverse of this is true with apartments in that apartment activity coincides with single family residential activity. The "office" use, however, carries the connotation of commercial devel- opment,'which in the mind of some,is less compatible with single family residential use than multiple residential use. In the final analysis, compatibility relates primarily to architecture and performance standards of either a multiple or Limited Business use. Planned Development does afford the City an opportunity of substan- tial control as development ensues. Another consideration is the amount of multiple residential use that is developing in this area of the community. A very substantial amount of apartment development is occurring both south of the subject site in the Duckwood area and east of the subject site, along Lexington Avenue. It may be desirable to approve this Planned Development for predominately office type use and some general business type use; therein decreasing the ultimate number of apartments in this area. The projected number of apartments on the subject site under current zoning is estimated to be 220 dwelling units. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION The proposed Planned Development appears to be well-designed'in terms of the internal street network and the proposed intersections with Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and future Delaware Avenue. The petitioner has prepared a detailed traffic engineering study which compares traffic volumes which could occur under existing zoning with those projected under proposed zoning. It is estimated that the daily trip generation would be increased by about 5% under the proposed zoning and peak hour trips would only be increased by about 3% over what could occur under the existing zoning on this property. This traffic engineering information should be analyzed by the Dakota County Highway Department for its potential impact on Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road. In terms of the actual number of trips, under current zoning it is estimated that the property would generate 21,440 aver- age trips and under the proposed Planned Development, this would be increased to an estimated 22,530. HIGHRISE BUILDINGS The petitioner has indicated that highrise office buildings are proposed at certain locations within this development. An artist's sketch has also been submitted illus- trating these structures. It is felt that under the Planned Development, if approved at this time, these can only exist as conceptual plans. The approval of any highrise structures can only occur on a "phased" basis when specific development plans are brought forth under the provisions of the "Final Development Plan" provided for in a Planned De- velopment under Ordinance #52. At that time, a conditional use permit also would be considered by the City before highrise buildings could be approved. The con- sideration of highrise structures would not only relate to internal development of this property but there would be concern about the impact of these structures -3- -go CITY OF EAGAN • EAG N HEIGHTS Page 4 Ma 0, 1982 COMMERCIAL PARK on the surrounding land uses and in particular, upon residential uses such as the Duckwood area. Again, these considerations would have to be made in the future when a specific development plan is brought forth to be considered under a conditional use permit application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAVI) The petitioner is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet which should be reviewed by the City prior to approval of this Planned Development. SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION For a development of this scale, sidewalks should be required along both sides of the internal public streets. As individual development plans are brought forth for each property, consideration should also be given to tying sidewalks from these public streets to the entrances of the individual buildings. Consistent with adjacent development, an 8 foot wide asphalt path should also be required along Lexington Avenue. In addition, a sidewalk should be required along Delaware Avenue and an 8 foot wide asphalt path should be provided by this develop- ment along Yankee Doodle Road for any phase which precedes the eventual improvement of Yankee Doodle Road; wherein a path may be provided by the County as a part of the County road improvement. SUMMARY COMMENTS The Land Use Plan accompanying the Planned Development has only been submitted as a "sketch plan" at this time. It appears, however, that the developer is cogni- zant of City ordinances related to such matters as setbacks, parking, percent of building coverage and similar considerations. These matters, of course, would be dealt with on a "staged" basis as more detailed development plans are brought forth for approval. In general, the plan appears to be well-designed and conceived. It is also worth noting that the City has dealt with this developer (Federal Land Company) before in the development of Yankee Square. That also was a Planned Development wherein there was substantial compliance with the original concept plan submitted as a part of the rezoning for a Planned Development. Concerns that still exist related to this proposal are; 1. A Staging Plan shall be submitted 2. Prior to final approval of Planned Development zoning by the City Council, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metro Council. 3. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be approved by the City prior to the rezoning of this property. 4. An analysis of the traffic generation information should be obtained from the -4- 81- CITY Of EAGAN • EAGA.H IWHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Page 5 May 20, 1982 Dakota County Highway Department prior to the rezoning. 5. A Planned Development Agreement shall be executed as provided by City Ordinance #52 prior to the final rezoning of this property. The de- veloper has proposed that this Planned Development would exist for a period of 10 years. In addition, the Planned Development Agreement, which has been standarized by the City, would provide for such matters as street dedication, development of sidewalks and trails and similar considerations and would also include the exhibits as submitted which would become a part thereof. 6. Developer shall be required to dedicate an easement to the City, as illustrated on the "Sketch Plan",for a trail connection between the Duckwood single family area and the City's Deboer Park Area. This shall be detailed in the Planned Development Agreement. ID 17171• •7 •. 1171 •� •. N' 1 Y 1) County Road 28 (Yankee Doodle Road) and County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue) must be scheduled for upgrading to their ultimate design section prior to approval of phase 4. 2) Portions of Denmark Avenue must be installed coincidental with Phase 1 and/or Phase 4 respectively. 3) A 60'-75' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 28 and County Road 43 as determined by Dakota County Highway Department. 4) A 75'-80' internal right-of-way will be required for the looped collector street. All other internal streets will require a 60' right-of-way dedica- tion. 5) This development will be responsible for the acquisition/dedication of the full right-of-way necessary to install Denmark Avenue when required by this development. 6) A ponding easement incorporating the 885.0 elevation will be required ad- jacent to O'Leary Lake. Also, a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation will be required for the internal ponding area (D -y). 7) All other required drainage and utility easements must be dedicated as de- termined by the staff. 8) A ponding easement for Pond DP -5 shall have been acquired prior to the de- velopment of the second or subsequent phases. 9) An 8' bituuninous trailway shall be constructed along the north and east boundaries adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue. -5- S? Z 0 CITY OF EAGAN Page 6 0 EAGAN HEIGHTS CONAL PARK May 20, 1982 10) A 5' concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west boundary of Denmark Avenue and adjacent to the internal looped collector street. 11) A trailway shall be constructed adjacent to O'Leary Lake in accordance with the recamv-ndations of the Park and Recreation committee. 12) This development shall assume its assessment responsibility associated with the installation of trunk utilities in accordance with the zoning and rates in effect at the time of final platting. 13) This development shall assume its assessment responsibilities associa- ted with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road (county Road 28), Lexing- ton Avenue (County Road 43) and/or Denmark Avenue as necessitated by the phased development of this PUD. 14) Internal driveway entrances onto the internal looped collector street shall be at locations as approved by staff. TAC/jack 0 0 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING Ca�,MSSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRDCiCR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 20, 1982 RE: PD - FAGAN HEIGHTS CGMMERCIAL PARK (FEDERAL LAND COMPANY) The Public Works Department has the following caments to offer in consideration of the proposed Planned Development: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water main of sufficient size and capacity are available to provide service to this site fran Yankee Doodle Road, Lexington Avenue and/or the existing internal trunk sanitary sewer line. Internal lateral extensions from these trunk facilities would have to be installed in accordance with the proposed phasing schedule to provide service to all newly created lots as plat- ted through the PD process. The general direction of the surface drainage of the existing land is towards the internal lac -lying drainage basin which is proposed to be developed into an internal storm water detention pond referenced as D -y on the City's Comprehen- sive Storm Sewer Plan. This pond is proposed to have a gravity storm sewer out- let providing surface drainage to the existing drainage basin located -in the northwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue (DP -5). This would ultimately require the installation of a lift station and force main to provide the storm water outlet from DP -5 to LeMay lake which presently has a gravity out- let to the Minnesota River Valley. The City presently has not acquired the pond- ing rights to DP -5. It is anticipated that this would be necessary prior to the second or third phase development of this proposed PD. The internal detention pond (D -y) would be sufficient to handle the first phased development. A small portion along the southern boundary of this property drains directly in- to LeMay Lake with a controlled overflow elevation presently under construction. However, extensive erosion control measures would have to be implemented to pro- tect the integrity of this lake during the construction of Phase 4. The proposed layout of the development scheme for this 100 acres provides for a major internal street looping southerly from Yankee Doodle Road with secondary connections to Lexington Avenue on the east and the future Denmark Avenue on the west. This layout provides good access to all portions of this proposed develop- ment and provides for the adequate dispersion of anticipated traffic volumes to minimize the impact on any adjacent road. The staff concurs with the traffic volume analysis performed by the Consulting Engineering firm of Strgar-Roscoe, Inc. The staff concurs that the internal main loop roadway within this proposed PUD should be planned and developed to a minimum 48'width to provide four lanes of traffic to handle the anticipated traffic volume generated by saturation de- velopment of this proposal. It is anticipated that the proposed phasing schedule M 0 • EAC" HEIGHTS CONPi WIAL PARK - ENGINEERING REPORT MAY 20, 1982 PA(M TWO of this development will be coincidental with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road necessitated by the interchange of 35-E with Yankee Doodle Road in approximately 1985-1986. The northerly section of Denmark Avenue should be constructed as a part of the first phase development in addition to the required internal roadways neo- essary to provide service to this first phase. The southerly extension of Denmark Avenue would then be required when the westerly portion of Phase 4 would develop. Upon the initiation of the fourth phase of this development, it would require the upgrading of both Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road to their ultinate 4 -lane design section to handle the anticipated traffic volumes generated from this pro- posed development. As each phase is platted, it will be necessary to dedicate the necessary right-of- way to provide for a 60' half right-of-way for Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue with the exception that 500' west and south of the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road will require a 75' half right-of-way dedication to accommodate the anticipated upgrading of these County roads. An 80' right-of-way would have to be dedicated to provide for the construction of Denmark Avenue ad- jacent to the west boundary of this proposed development. It is anticipated that a 40' half right-of-way would be dedicated with the platting of the appropriate phase construction with the westerly 40' half right-of-.qay being the aaTuisition responsibility of this development if it has not already been dedicated by develop- ment of the adjacent property to the west. A 75'-80' right-of-way will be necessary for the internal looped collector street. A ponding easement would have to be dedicated to incorporate the 885.0 elevation ad- jacent to O'Leary Lake along the southerly property line of this development. The internal ponding area (D -y) would require a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation. In addition, all other internal public rights-of-way and utility easements would be necessary depending upon the design and location of the internal streets and utilities to service any particular phase of this proposed development as it is platted. As mentioned previously, a ponding easement for Pond DP -5 in the northwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue would.have to be obtained prior to development of the second or subsequent phases. TRAILS/WALKWAYS An 8' bituminous trailway will have to be constructed along the north and east boundaries of this proposed development adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lex- ington Avenue respectively. Their construction would be coincidental with the appropriate phased development/platting. In addition; a 5' concrete sidewalk would be required to be constructed along the west boundary (Denmark Avenue) and adjacent to the internal major collector roadways. In addition, the construction of an internal trailway system connecting the var- ious lots and phased developments should be performed. Also, a park trailway system should be constructed in accordance with the Park and Recreation Committee's 0 • EAGAN HEIMM CCMMERCIAL PARK - ENGINEERING REPORT MAY 20, 1982 PAGE THREE recommendations within the DeBoer Park adjacent to O'Leary Lake along the southern boundary of this proposed development. ASSESSMENTS/CONNECTION 'TS/CONNECTION FEES While this property has received benefit from the installation of trunk sanitary sewer and water main facilities installed.along Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and internally through this proposed development, it has not paid its fair share of the assessments associated with these trunk utilities. Therefore, these fees would be required to be paid in consideration of allowing connection to them for development of any respective phase of this proposal. A detailed research of these future assessment -related liabilities was performed in December of 1981. They were performed in relationship to the existing zoning of the property and rates in effect at that time. Those calculations are being incorporated as a part of this report for future reference to be updated in consideration of any zoning changes and/or rate increases that may be in effect at the time of final plat approval. Based on the existing zoning and the rates in effect in 1981, the estimated assessed -related liabilities associated with this 100 acres is approx- imately $329,000. In addition to this, this development would be responsible for all costs associated with the installation of internal streets and utilities and its share of costs associated with the upgrading of Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and/or Denmark Avenue. OVERALL SITE PLAN It is recommended that as each phase development occurs, that individual driveway access onto the internal collector street system be coordinated to minindze the staggering offset intersections of these driveways with the internal roadway sys- tem. Major driveway entrances should be located opposite each other to provide major intersection entrances to its adjacent development. I will be available to discuss in further detail any question the Planning Com- mission may have at its meeting on May 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ,� � � A&Z Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jade M MR MARTIN COLON FEDERAL LAND cawaY 750 S PLAZA DR MEA- A HEIGHTS 55120 0 CITY_ OF EAGAN 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD P.O. Box 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 551]5 PHONE 454-9100 %.sem---• Re: Paroel;�10-01500=010=63 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 Proposed Ea an Heights Commercial Park 'Addition Dear Mr. Colon: THOMAS HEDGES CITY AOLUNISIRATO9 EUGENE VAN OVERSEKI CIT'I CLERK I have performed and wt»pleted the analysis as you requested pertaining to potential future assessment related liabilities for the above -referenced parcels that are pro- posed to be combined under the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park Addition. These potential future assessment liabilities, while they are not officially listed as an outstanding levied or pending assessment, will be a requirement should any development of this property be proposed due to its required connection to the ex- isting sanitary sewer, watermain and/or storm sewer systems. Please keep in mind that the rates used to compute these amounts are 1981 rates. If these rates are adjusted in the future, the total liabilities for each parcel will have to revised accordingly. If you have any questions pertaining to the information contained in this analysis, please feel free to contact me or Ann Goers, our Special Assessment Clerk. Sincere y, 14&� Thorms A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack enc. V THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. BEA BLOMOUIST MAYOR THOMASEGAN MARK PARRANTO JAMES A, SMITH THEODORE WACHTER COUNCIL MEMBERS December 17, 1981 MR MARTIN COLON FEDERAL LAND cawaY 750 S PLAZA DR MEA- A HEIGHTS 55120 0 CITY_ OF EAGAN 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD P.O. Box 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 551]5 PHONE 454-9100 %.sem---• Re: Paroel;�10-01500=010=63 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 Proposed Ea an Heights Commercial Park 'Addition Dear Mr. Colon: THOMAS HEDGES CITY AOLUNISIRATO9 EUGENE VAN OVERSEKI CIT'I CLERK I have performed and wt»pleted the analysis as you requested pertaining to potential future assessment related liabilities for the above -referenced parcels that are pro- posed to be combined under the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park Addition. These potential future assessment liabilities, while they are not officially listed as an outstanding levied or pending assessment, will be a requirement should any development of this property be proposed due to its required connection to the ex- isting sanitary sewer, watermain and/or storm sewer systems. Please keep in mind that the rates used to compute these amounts are 1981 rates. If these rates are adjusted in the future, the total liabilities for each parcel will have to revised accordingly. If you have any questions pertaining to the information contained in this analysis, please feel free to contact me or Ann Goers, our Special Assessment Clerk. Sincere y, 14&� Thorms A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack enc. V THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. As of 12-16-81 PARCEL 10-01500-010-01 A. Contains the following area breakdown: (Eagan Heights Commercial Park Proposal) Parcel 01 (L.B.) 7.29 acres Parcel #2 (C.S.C.) 27.68 acres Parcel #3 (R-4) 37.17 acres Parcel #4 (G.B.) 2.07 acres IM Cnty. Rd. #28 3.79 acres MI Cnty. Rd. #43 1.87 acres 79.87 acres B. Future Assessment Liabilities 1. Lateral Benefit from trunk watenmain (Cnty. Rd. #28 & 442) 3661.19*LF @ $14.35/LF _ $ 52,538.0E 2. Lateral Benefit from trunk sanitary sewer (Cnty. Rd. #28 and internal) (2 x 1268.53 LF + 1095.64*LF) @ $14.30/LF = $ 51,947.61 *150 LF corner credit allowance applied 3. Trunk area storm sewer (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 5.83 acres @ $2,443.72/acre b. Parcel #2 22.14 acres @ $2,443.72/acre c. Parcel #3 29.74 acres @ $2,038.61/acre d. Parcel #4 1.66 acres @ $2,443.72/acre 4. Trunk area sanitary sewer no additional trunk area assessments required 5. Trunk area water (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 5.83 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $8,657.55 less previous assessrnnt -2,856.70 NET FUTURE b. Parcel 12 22.14 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $32,877.90 less previous assessment -10,848.60 NET FUTURE c. Parcel #3 No additional trunk area assessments required d. Parcel #4 1.67 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $2,479.95 less previous assessment -1,014.30 NET FUTURE Mr,M ADDITIO.IIAL ASSESSMENT LIABILITY PAPCEL 10-01500-010-01 _ $ 14,246.89 _ $ 54,103.9E _ $ 60,628.2E _ $ 4,056.58 _ $ 5,800.85 _ $ 22,029.30 -0- _ $ 1,465.65 $266,817.18 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 A. Contains the following area breakdown: Parcel #1 (L.B.) Parcel #2 (C.S.C.) RON Cnty. Rd. #28 0 as of 12-16-8 (Eagan Heights Camlercial Park Proposal) 14.15 acres 4.96 acres 0.91 acres 20.02 acres B. Future Assessment Liabilities 1. Lateral Benefit from trunk watermin (Cnty. Rd. #28) 660.16 IF @ 14.35/LF 2. Lateral Benefit from trunk sanitary None adjacent to parcel 3. Trunk area storm sewer (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 11.32 acres @ $2,443.72/acres b. Parcel #2 3.97 acres @ $2,443.72/acres 4. Trunk area sanitary sewer No additional assessments required 5. Trunk area water (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 11.32 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $16,810.20 less previous assessment - 5,546.80 b. Parcel #2 3.97 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $ 5,895.45 less previous assessment - 1,945.30 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ASSESSPENT LIABILITY PARCEL 10-01500-010-25 _ $ 9,473.30 S7M _ $ 27,662.91 _ $ 9,701.57 M� _ $ 11,263.40 _ $ 3,950.15 $ 62,051.33 ,.',,GUN CLU31�:` /I.vasr rv0 f _ LANE ., �1, 1/S 4; VA7-�.Ei�� GNI IV1EW�11!,,I �\`�//`.� `.:� ..._ .IIT +,��Ji/i - y� /\N-•'-NRN ACRES _IICOU fT \\ •_i ARK .`/ /�/Ire R ^ J - �ll///.., / SS Ij"JAI --_ r - wr• /\ !J� ' \_•-itl' "T • A. _'br ��I �� HAll H_ - B88.D •01P-16 EAG 8593 - - / Tom' TEHNDER II aL' 8660 I / 10%79'/ t -A71 �I•�6_ ; �_�P 12-1. . _ /. 4 2•-; SCHOOL _ - �. r / I iv .A'�@i' \Qp.. z• 1 nE' EAD6 ' fl �• i L7/,�'T/ CI / PDP°.-17 \� / /0-m CP 9 ' a • ��/�'-- Vis , 8 40 \ �• 12• - - 698.0 _ 'MEADO'Li 700.0 '- '-Y' 'l• B7 .O: A1i5 i wo• ` �-DP14 : ,/ LL SERV DP -19 8600 III / CP=B / i/ 'F / 884.0 / ? // 870.0 _ �co 4-•�•� ✓ [/� 890.0 j.•.�5: E Tv AVNA ,. I ✓h I� 82]] a\��1 • I PARK 6400" / / 7 C. 01 OP /•, /� DP -61 OP -13 '• ` /� r • + CP 857.3' 82.0 %60 '� B4I0 Ci'9 �7LT�.�/� 1 Ii Dw / a.. 840.cp=0 7 i •�; LS -6 nPLS fox Cd / . - RIDGE - ''�� A. 88 7.0 ,' 868.0 L.S.-7 M1 •CP -1 / YANKEJ BFO QLE P4A0 nnl,: I�DDr i763,0 / - 1IN, JO O • h 769.0 / f •z' /2t / SUPREY S. Er+ V>•L 1M,I 93"0 " 2L 47H ACO ni U 10 -- B25_O_C '`� �CHE�]6 `'I'•; •+� a� - (((QQQ��.O RK5 ` I ;r Ju.Wi DO 822: 0 . 2ND ,I'-.' /% 'i•:F7!1:7? -IIL-- V 1 B7B0--- // JJ O GAAv P=tl � ',t1`.��jjyv.+ N• W _ 1••�-T it y II �Ard�'}'. II ii 971.0 •�--'.�-� i/.•r-rif J! II �..\^, �y DP -7 P�4y � 839p :� ./'aa91t0- JP -II 61502 \A 036 Y=It L Ley �.I BLACKHAWK F., 08.0 PANK NT . -�. 1 JP-�d _ IN�In/l I z IBP -2 \ 823o�j rl a} 1 '54 T92,0 _ ��W}p-I be // 17Y4.0o \z6.G.' - I ezoa° } 9 34-...' ♦ vN - l.f-1 / ;• :sK�L'+A�I.E / B17.B f r, !_na�/•7�'BP•28 �•`yB6035.-I2rr �:a} - /�-AP=2:.::� �� \ 808.0 i 862.0 - / VVV I L3 -Il e586.., _ n B/9.0 f 1" 8660 y--�� ^I P B -P Lr I I JP_g -- ...... �.l / r' IB S�-1 �xOVOILE BI7o w., ° TY A' -n_:. 11 9 71, 2Y. . / �I�-�- tl110' - ` �I'11l��f�. A•� l L j-�- / rJP-36 ' 166 � � Uw - illy i 1 I' l� 8706 $20 +ma+kk >- - / [i/// I, JP -]S BSOO _N ]FI{•RO•{[" '/I�IY..' _ i '1 / L.. / �B7J1 869.4 A J -Ed •'ll .li.�l�•-��.- •� I / SP-] / 4x' I{nl ,i J• _� -r- -2.: p�1.. �l -`I-II 6950 '.� BP _ B'ALE. +�T•^ • : J ; -iz \•'•I =7 ;'��ar0 _PI-�'1Y / ` J/ B860 :I / aP8820 -23S7 e14OpB_/B• ,, gJ 90' 'aa earyA __:(/ : ^I ` B/7,1. d7`�,z. tl6a0, 8172 .86,QAIP-3 ./ BP -4 \ ,I -�`.O- 8100 .4/ JP -29 BB65 I "///� l8+ 9JO0' 8700 �:. "�: �� -/�` 8900.5 �i. �/zq 1-� 'i/ BBOO ._ LP63 [`T_��"�; '/LL\•': ....Q�':R, 1 ese°o Al '__ ,\1 ,99,ioo / ITT SP -24 918 0 •r ' i , _ 91L0 1 BP=S' r. _ L_LnLP-44 1AP-28 b�.6'�'�`-YrcO_B4lB iw.Itq LP -43 9097 \ „ / 100 q/ I ...z��:� I--� B5J0 L�IL�O_• 9750 11 / AP -T• / .I! ,,,I fa \ LL. t ;; = j$IivlY :.' I I 685.8 / 4313 23 a 7/YIU gB, I j/f�BP.0 -(: ...rLBP]-42-- A9I.0 ; / 9A : BB80--Be90�•"'4 `•� .° BP -6 i`-' I r "11 :'i I:C--i.�_ ....•. LS 2T L��_� ` �i i Pin\ Ils�`:I::, e'I iAIY'-'{•A^I - `J�'.L1T1'E!$r'`��` I� ,l.csc uees 13h _ H uu• Iruuuo.uu ._ ♦�cn wnc vefa�� (a -y fnu.nruL KAWIF) f —huuu.r wn.a.,� .. u.rw.a uuaw.u) _.FROM ISE D_13KETCH--PI,AN.___ EAGAN_.HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK _^ !! PI-ANNER.,VNIT.136 VELOPMENT __,... . fly ,.TIIE.—__ FEDERAL_LAND COMPANY - .f;. t' ¢DqD NQ 2B)� ItlYii �iYO04 fr tl� ■' rj•OENERAL VYI NESE u oc ac• ■ 'uora:uo.u. ru s.r...0 iu.o. 61f Tm. rm.n w•u• ,_. . �.sw�a a EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPMENTPOTENTIAL EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK and C--��. � •--�� cmnawi �..n cemraur � � 1'AA EE m U-.• �r.nr.t rnn•.r) . DOODLE ROAD .. (COu)jry ttttlttttttllttttttttttttttttlttttttttltttllttltt ttttttttttttttltttttttttttttttttttt • i uuu 1111111111tuutm •� C$C �' :1 EXISTING ZONING EAGAN HEIGHTS 'COMMERCIAL PARK ROAD 110 20) - tttt111tltt - . - GB R-4 0 101 44 -ARTIST'S.--- SKETCH__ C�r 1EA T EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK T NTIAL- Hiis"-Risi 0FFlCE�-.--bulCDINGS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT By the FEDERAL LAND COMPANY L Located In EAGAN . MINNESOTA, ... ...... ...... ... .. 0 oe "\I Hvt A �arr..rc 6o..oiwr Prow... -ARTISTS SKETCH . LONLepT Foft; POTENTIAL SITE DEV6L0PMEN7' I (C' hu I'1¢)a• EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT By the FEDERAL LAND COMPANY Located In EAGAN , MINNESOTA' ;o-71) y 7OOD % rid( 6 as U jb— % ;- ,� � Off_ ; ��,, �, c ! �� =_= :�., _ �; N 660. .6 82635.04 L Ll —7-7-7 -.--1 cu) EFROS( ENGIN(fRIN0 n-EF L4_4 f-0 F�A'f'%Ay /V\Ai- r"4' &t4 PEIC-WTb COMIA COMPANY, INC. ��..::__��%'%'� � ��j � .{ � .III ;o-71) y 7OOD % rid( 6 as U jb— % ;- ,� � Off_ ; ��,, �, c ! �� =_= :�., _ �; N 660. .6 82635.04 L Ll —7-7-7 -.--1 cu) EFROS( ENGIN(fRIN0 n-EF L4_4 f-0 F�A'f'%Ay /V\Ai- r"4' &t4 PEIC-WTb COMIA COMPANY, INC. r. ivr•i• ........... n 5 _ :I ___ _ ' rNB9•IS'09'E YANKEE ..DOODLE,.-ROAD—NB9s:,3eE: COUNTY ` ROAD : NO. 2B t::= {h- !P �'I} I II �, PHA IE MCI Q-1 ��PHASE r J �•` I' I 1•I' I ' of G A 6,, ---� j 660.46 2539,'04' PHA3E IM (20 59997'09'W - SB99703'W 1. , PC' - mnuuue uo.o on r. ♦o:.�-.,%w':7:� ..,f� �h��' ��•' n..n: I -_- _• . ••: •��--� -•..•-'_ ___--�_ '•_•_•�—•_`�Il II -- PRELIMINARY - L'•,_- . APED FOR : flOUE ......... uu..wanPHASING PLAN FOR UTILFEDERAL EE ENGINEERING -COMPONV• INC. STREET CONSTRULAND COMP ANY _ 961.7" 5 1' E '18'04*E '702 - -.: NO 2B) YANKEE POODLE,_ROA (COUNTY ROAD . . . . . . �CE - - CID V QEl" G79. ,` - � . .�_�, 0 If: - ---------- % Q • L L fit 2 04 .17'09'W 03,w PRELIMINARY RODE UTI ENGIN eenmri r UTILITY PLANS P compnNy. INC. L ... PREPARED FOR: FEDERAL IIII�IIiI I' II LAND COMPANY ItY\ i.yp • ... YYsi \.110 Y r' i —N B9.,&•01E ' QODLE R04 NB9. 7'71• — —� , -D +` a• N � _- •` —,YANKEE � � '� . , R �,— — — �. `�\ _ - s COUNTY R9A 0. 281. .. :.� Af 660. 46 '•• " - 26n.01 1� none GIN n\:iw ''I'll: .o ir\nmu \" __ __— _. _ _. --PRELIMINARY PREPARED FOR: ENGINEERING -17Y.'•`...... 5• _ aaJ �1• GRADING AND DR Y I' - FELA ComrnNY mc. \��7. ' i ; I AINAGE PLAN IIII ;,;`, _ ._ LA !_ L .e. r..r .... r Yn, w.m.a. •..neY unl .. .Ir loo\ Gi ^ • eY .". - - L ' � COMPANY 111 . PLAT OF .SURVEY, FOR EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK h I 1 .. DrscrWnm, J The Nrm It alb l{vthosf is of Seam S• bvruhpn &w23, DAM Canty Y"sata P 1• ' Nlast4dfne lhfheasfNMOaAsvlhxrslbd5tttun5,bA'nslrp2T,,4anpeZ3, Datwafanfy.M.rurwla •�-••---� 'e a �� . N89118047 `. I .. i N� ?BE - 1 \ -- '' ,.-- --660/6 -- `-•-�\ r.-- '�I' '-- -- __ --- -r--- YANXEf ---?" DOODLE "-- r ROAD—(COUNTY ROAD Na 1B7 ' -� /r— I i T\\.� �. -.Ir �.. I4m.•w.r•r.wjl..r�o..`.f°v I, r.....ra.�«w�ew -r°� �} mm�i � �I I - v.r,°e I .-NmI J.�t rtr.�m.•mrraw '` t \, R IVlo �1 .77 � e 1 1 Il` ,IIIH . 1. d_.� Illi1 1..1cs Am. fISS A/W IORMATIWG vn� _.400091_ ES _ .�� T l� 11 I . is � • \ Y3_ S�;�i =� I i 1 . `' �� 1 •' Iii �=-,_ � �1;. ',� w:: •. FI. It 66046-- 539'17'09w1! '�,'-,•-.= .. °. .� _"" I \SS9'/703-W ./ ESTATES--- - ,, ",.. ' .. � � -. \ -' tucawoao rax � >' .7TOTAL ARG AU EYSAVGAW RMWEAAY _+'1lR11� �3�SZSOET �£�AERl3 -_ / I 1 - .r1LL}�11 A, •1 I .. �. .. .. .. `.' GVn .n.u�snFO..Mm.er1 •"// A.•:—' 1 /! 1 1, /in J3ar, G. a.amll/. J..n erJb4 ®8 (612) 4750010 PTRGAR-ROSCOP, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7 LAND SURVEYORS 630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 553911485 Refer To File: 0820332 May 17, 1982 Mr. Carl Dale, Principal,Planner DESIGN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. 7165 Windgate Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 re: EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Mr. Dale: As you requested, we have completed a preliminary traffic study of the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park. The study is based upon the information available at the Concept Plan stage. The study relates the traffic implications if the site develops according to the current zoning to the traffic implications if the site develops according to the proposed PUD. ANALYSIS Based on data which you provided, the development assumptions used in the traffic analysis are presented in Figure 1. Using these development projections, the gross trip generation was de- termined for each portion of the development by applying typical trip generation rates from the "Trip Generation Manual", pub- lished by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The gross trip generation forecasts were adjusted to account for factors such as multi-purpose trips, internal trips and car pooling, which reduce the net number of new vehicle trips added to the roadway system off the site. Attachment 1 provides specific back- ground on the adjustment factors applied in this case. The resul- tant forecast of net new development trips added to the roadway system are shown in Figure 1 for a daily basis (ADT) and for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. in Mr. Carl Dale -2- May 17, 1982 The percentage of the site traffic and the corresponding ADT for site traffic are shown for each basic direction of approach in Figure 2. The p.m. peak hour turning movements for each inter- section adjacent to the site and the p.m. peak hour volumes on the internal roadway are also presented for both development assumptions. CONCLUSIONS Based on a review of the preceding information, the following conclusions have been drawn regarding potential traffic implica- tions of the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park: • The proposed PUD would generate only a slight increase in traffic compared with development per existing zon- ing on a daily basis and for the p.m. peak hour. The daily trip generation would be increased by approxi- mately 5 percent. The p.m. peak hour traffic, which generally occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. and which the analysis shows would provide the largest hourly volumes, would be increased by only 3 percent. • The a.m. peak hour traffic generated by the proposed PUD would be nearly 30 percent greater than that gen- erated by development per existing zoning. However, the a.m. peak hour volumes are less than the p.m. peak hour volumes. Also, the majority of the a.m. peak hour traffic will approach the site from the west, with a simple right turn maneuver to enter the site. • The comprehensive plan for the City of Eagan indicates a need for upgrading Yankee Doodle Road along the fron- tage of this development site. The traffic projections documented in this letter support this planned upgrading and indicate that Yankee Doodle Road ultimately should provide two lanes in each direction.between Lexington Avenue and the future I -35E interchange with turn lanes possibly needed at major intersections. 10.L Mr. Carl Dale -3- May 17, 1982 • The traffic forecasts indicate that a four lane width may be needed for the main loop roadway with- in the site in order to meet local access needs and to provide for smooth traffic flow. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments concerning this traffic analysis. Sincerely, STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. James A. Benshoof, P.E. Principal / /tel• - /4a=sM. rani cc: Martin olon, Federal Land Company Attachments JAB/JMK/sh 105 0 a Attachment TRAFFIC REDUCTION FACTORS The traffic generated by the site must be adjusted to account for factors which will reduce its impact on adjacent roadways. The factors include the following: Multi-purpose trips - trips including stops at two or more parcels in the development, e.g. home to office to store to home Transit trips - trips that would be made via public bus ser- vice, van pools or car pools Internal trips - trips between parcels wholly within the development Intercepted trips - trips that presently utilize the adjacent roadway system and would be diverted into the site Spreading of peak period - recent experiences indicate that increasingly more motorists arrive and -depart either early or late in order to avoid the peak traffic period. For example, at the 3M Company headquarters in St. Paul, the percentage of employees arriving during the p.m. peak hour declined from 87 percent to 78 percent during the period of 1970 to 1974. The amount of impact of each of these factors depends upon the land uses developed on the site. Therefore, the reduction fac- tors differ somewhat for the site depending upon development as zoned or as proposed for the PUD. The reduction factors are as follows: As Zoned Proposed PUD Multi-purpose trips 5% 2% Transit trips 2% 3% Internal trips 8% 2% Intercepted trips 5% 5% Spreading of peak period 5% 80 TOTAL REDUCTION 25% 20% W 'VANaEE OLVLLOPNLRT IISUNPLIONS Mf burenl IION/I! Pef lfuronH /IKO/1/ lernre 3b/mr S,OA/N Mr�ren Bwl ♦1M0/P b•.e-n Bat IOSOh! e9N G£MLAI tiOM ADf SAy M O jAla= AM~. !W ' BO IM ISO P[Ok f)0 IBD • M a DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 1Pn-IC �+ D/O[e b1,OMIN Office 074"ft, DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS TRIP GENERA 710M TRIP GENERATION s•rP vI_orouP Enn.OL AOI ;BSO I,IyO •L[q ANPpI JR, Sm • IM PN Peel !30 !r0 • IW DOODLE ROAD (COVr✓TV .-- ROAD TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED A412 � Li SL AMT r{IID r;AO 1.070 ANPek L)IO rrb • !N PM Peci {]SO ;SLD • )O 7 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 2 3 APC//menla DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS TRIP GENERATION lu=Si_ 104are I../rorof[O AMPN, SMPPOj Cenfer A"fg Able/ i00 SIP'"CIMe/ 7AAW(ff off, re 1l0 ISO •41IO O/Nee r{O[G/N 3"v,,"f /OO,o00N! sr'u'c 3rrxre S/P { TRIP GENERATION TRIP GENERATION 1AVYPW ql Iv 1w 1.PMAO 2 AOI la AIX A. AO) .1.-, AMAeCk IN m 0 AM$Wk IN SIO • 110 IMT I,"" 30 4//O i7")lo 4 PNPNk w to •130 PNgwk AS, LV -ISO TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED A412 � Li SL AMT r{IID r;AO 1.070 ANPek L)IO rrb • !N PM Peci {]SO ;SLD • )O 7 �Mmllp DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS awls off. "coot"[ Office Ba"n! APC//menla 110.111 V TRIP GENERATION ADT JELNDPSEA r FED4330 S"SO AMPN, (/0 I70 • /N P/n* 1l0 ISO •41IO �Mmllp DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. n AParfinenh MIIP Ippf!_ coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! V AND TRIP GENERATION ~'IAMAh //a Mary ((cxrPl Bua•n[af IgWO/N AOT R ANPeei N 1,000 h/ PMHPk /l0 NO SBO sr'u'c 3rrxre S/P { TRIP GENERA TRI 2 l,�nslp IMT I,"" 30 4//O i7")lo 4 IMP[Pk Ice/Lo JJ • PN R110oi /10 !IO f I30 t DEVELOPMENT G .V5UMPTION5 PInB[enh. Lx{b.RAriC 3 TRIP GENERATION IMT S,wo ;NO -XO ANPOSA W W O P"Ah,A 300 rp -IM DEVELOPM£Nr A55U/ (PTIONS STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. I EAGAN HEIGHTS AParfinenh rrOunJh Of/'re N{OOON/ coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! TRIPGENERATION AND TRIP GENERATION .e.re •lA±olr3 [nnnar AOT Oro ;330 •I,630 ANPeei TS 110 • l80 PMHPk /l0 NO SBO • 1 FIGURE I D STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. I EAGAN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! COMMERCIAL PARK AND TRIP GENERATION LAND SURVEYOR! FEDERAL LAND COYIANI TOTE I L S ZONED PROPOSED IUD a- ADT 11,800//2,/00 1 8 I ADT p 2, 100/2,200 AOT DOODLE ROgp � ••-,�,�r•• 3 4 5 " • /I 0 0 n h O F ADT x /,300//,500 No I if TRAFFIC VOLUMES -AS ZONED/PROPOSED PUD FIGURE 2 p STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. EAGAN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC cor,suLTiNc [NciN[[wR COMMERCIAL PARK PH PEAR MOOR TURNING YOVEYENlS AMC AOT APPROACH VOLUMES LANG SURVEYORS POTENTIAL AS ZONED r[ PROPOSED PYO FEDERAL (ANO COMPANY • MENDOTA HIS. ---------- it Rr-, -Wiv B L GB h P Ind. C<XF In, R-1 . R -I,:. —Ind ..LB Ind.--. R -n -E*G .... 1 7 _R-rV RI Ind R&D R. p 70; Ind P .JNA R -H R -19 pGOLF LO . ........ R -I R -I R -I H Ind R -I R -H HS R R -I B lk R II E R-1 R.' RAI R- LB A LB R 0 111 N "r N PRII.lji�'4M RRIII RAW R'llf URIII GB/ R, FRI RI all. ,RI �ROSEMOUN�' APPLE VALLEY 0 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING C0MMISSI0N FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JUNE 16, 1982 RE: At the May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Cacmission meeting, the Advisory Planning Commission requested continuance of the Eagan Heights Camercial Park Planned Development because of several concerns. These concerns are: 1. The applicant was proposing alternate uses as permitted uses on the plan- ned development. 2. The underlying zoning of the planned development be looked at in regard to what would develop if the planned development would lapse. 3. More time is needed to discuss the planned development with the surround- ing property owners in regard to use and landscaping. 4. The applicant submit a staging plan as to how and when they would develop the property. The applicant has met with the City staff in regard to the underlying zoning and proposed uses within the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Planned Develogmnt. The applicants have submitted a sketch plan indicating the proposed use and what the underlying zoning would consist of. The following is a breakdown of the individual parcels: PARCEL •••••7•• USE UNDERLYIM• EXISTING ZONING 1 CSC (Commmity Shop.Center) 2 CSC 3 CSC 4 CSC 5 GB (General Business) 6 R-4 7 LB 8 LB and GB CSC CSC CSC LB; CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC GB R-4, GB LB (Limited Bus) R-4 LB R-4 IB LB Note: The applicant has indicated that parcel 2 also includes a high-rise motel. Staff is suggesting before a hotel is a permitted use, a conditional use permit be approved by the City Council for height and use for a motel in accordance with Ordinance 52. This can be dealt with the detailed phase of parcel 2. Parcel 3 - the applicant has indicated an office tower. Staff is also suggest- ing that nothing more than 3 stories be allowed at this time until a conditional use has been approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance 52. 709 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN EAGAN HEIGHTS CQMERCIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JUNE 22, 1982 PAGE TWO Parcel 5 - the applicant is proposing to leave 16.6 acres as R-4 (Residential Multiple) for a 5 -year period. If the R-4 or multiple does not develop in this five years, the parcel will revert to a Limited Business or office use. Parce 8 - the applicant is proposing Limited Business and General Business use adjacent to the internal street. Staff is suggesting that the entire parcel be set up as LB (Limited Business). in accordance with the sketch plan of the Plan- ned Development. If the developer wishes a more intense use in the future that an amendment be made to the Planned Development with the detailed phase of this parcel and the City will look at the feasibility and design of the more intense use at a later time. The applicant has also met with the surrounding property owners in regard to landscaping and input in regard to the overall development plan. It is the staff's understanding that the residents are not opposed to the overall use of the Eagan Heights Ccstmercial Park Planned Development. They do have some de- tailed questions which they would like clarification and possibly more informa- tion in regard to the landscaping along the north lots of Duckwood Estates. It is staff's understanding that the residents will be providing these additional comments at the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission meeting. Staff has also met with other surrounding property owners - Zollie Baratz of Duckwood Trails, Mr. Ken Applebaum of the parcel immediately west of Duckwood Estates and east of the proposed Denmark Avenue, Mr. Ron Krank who is develop- ing the shopping center north of Durwood Drive, and staff has contacted Hill- crest Development who owns the ccmimity shopping center portico north of the proposed shopping center. It is staff's understanding that these people are not opposed to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Planned Development, however, they felt that in order to get an overall picture of what could develop within this area, they have requested that the staff provide a composite of all of the parcels in the north Half of Section 15 indicating the overall development with- in this section. Staff has included a composite as to how the developers see the north.half of Section 15 developing. Granted, these parcels will have to receive plat approval by the City Council, however, most of the zoning is in place to allow the type of development shown on this composite. The applicant has also provided a staging plan as to how they foresee this 100 - acre parcel developing. Enclosed is a phasing plan showing which areas the developer would develop first, second, third and fourth. There has not been a time sequence placed on this phasing plan but could be tied in to the proposed 10 -year planned development agreement. Hopefully, this additional infommtion provided will update the Advisory Planning Commission in what has transpired during the last month to provide additional information for the Advisory Planning Commission meeting. If anyone has any questions regarding the information submitted in this memorandum or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me at the Fagan City Hall. - Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle, City Planner 110 RECEIVED'lUP1 9 i 1982 Federal Land Company Yankee Square Office III • 3460 Washington Drive • Suite 202 • Eagan. Minnesoto 55122 • Tel. 612.452-3303 June 16, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 RE: Eagan Heights Commercial Park - PD Application Dear Mr. Runkle, As requested by the City of Eagan, I mailed letters to the following persons who owned property south of and adjacent to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park realty: Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Appelbaum; Duckwood Trails; John J. Klein; Mr. & Mrs. Roger Sjobeck; Mr. & Mrs. Albert Franklin; and Mr. & Mrs. Curtis E. Peterson The letters were mailed out on June 7, 1982, inviting the property owners to view and discuss plans and drawings pertaining to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Project. A meeting was held with three of the property owners at the offices of Eagan Heights Commercial Park on Tuesday, June 15, 1982. Sincerely yours, Char es R. Bartholdi Attorney for Eagan Heights Commercial Park CRB/ap E Ya�l(FE _ DOODLE eoaD ([ouury Pofo N4 zsJ� I© 2 98 7LIM11EeRIBIN BB .r i'i . w.aal on 1 r ` 1 _. PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT.DEVELOPMENT BY THE. FEDERAL _.. LAND __ COMPANY ._ LOCATEP. LN _ _ _- -9: ROAN,_,M I NNESOTA_. - ILiLY. ■a®oaaoase®®o®m�e®aoe Wq:.11i inu•. il. Mu. W �• I 6 LOBO UBEB U 2,cac_UePyB.. ®�� Oq kc—Ua Ea_ ,'� a �j,OENERAL BUSINESS r w�.iw \i• q Iiu._.e.uo �.� ry. M.N °e [I ..... .1 • 0 Yo.l.) Ga taoo0nvs0vaoo�S 4�. __• �. y ��u..a..✓..V °� 6 :�rae6 a �/ mill B4O - - _ •i. 1' D p 2, it 0 p a 1u .+uuuouaFaovy .::...Z5- 10 p _ .�a 4. a IB .B p Qooa®ac�r a�rr Y� i R.I IMIToD BLBIw � p . i° Itiff a man al a ( � �` PGwFI 6164T4 Qi1Vfi � 2 98 7LIM11EeRIBIN BB .r i'i . w.aal on 1 r ` 1 _. PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT.DEVELOPMENT BY THE. FEDERAL _.. LAND __ COMPANY ._ LOCATEP. LN _ _ _- -9: ROAN,_,M I NNESOTA_. - ILiLY. ■a®oaaoase®®o®m�e®aoe Wq:.11i inu•. il. Mu. W �• I :1 �/ , ' UNIVAC GO 1 [L /y. YANKEE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT m NORTH SCALE 1* -200' -J PROPOSED EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK CSC II ,If vILO} L K JiIa CENTER] -.4 PROP i � C L Aj CR Cn L1 I IAL Af !C74L SINGLE , fl� LAKE ML ROV MULTIPLE 1> I Apowvrl, Lx T DUCKWOOD.- 0 J.. t. AP".Ov. O'I.CL ,O,OUSES (EXIST.) .. ..... I:,., EHIJ . APPROVED MULTIPLE IN , CREkTpjodE F,-'S'mXISn I ,UAll;'] QUADS. COMPOSITE MAP OF OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES LYING IN SECTION 15, T-27, R.23, EAGAN, MINI P R 0 1 (4? f 7:�7 MULTIPLE -vj AIMPROVED P V V, ED UL Ll MUL " PILE , It I I APPROVED FAMILY.' MULTIPLE a N691ea'c—"YANKEE.DO . ODLE ._ RO COUNTY ROAD NO 26Yd- IL PHA II II PHASE OLD W I 660.46 263504 569.17'09*W �"� , 969.17.05'10 -.STAGI NG OF ROAD CON5TRUCTI.0N ouuuue .wu:n .. ' ,r• rl�.�r, _... _.......��1 —` PRELIMINMt MiP0.1�0 FOR: s ROD! n...m .. • ••rmn :.:: ::. :_ ... ..... ----- I I PHASING PLAN FOR UTILITY AND Lod !•� ENGINEERING •� •T- -_ L • FEDERAL '• •� y�.. STREET CONSTRUCTION LAND .... COM PRNY, INC. •\\ � �� — .. _ e•• 1u, .... .,y.,. ...u�..m��•:'r'...(_ �.. ... ... ......... ( COMPANY 11 1 a N691ea'c—"YANKEE.DO . ODLE ._ RO COUNTY ROAD NO 26Yd- IL PHA II II PHASE OLD W I 660.46 263504 569.17'09*W �"� , 969.17.05'10 -.STAGI NG OF ROAD CON5TRUCTI.0N ouuuue .wu:n .. ' ,r• rl�.�r, _... _.......��1 —` PRELIMINMt MiP0.1�0 FOR: s ROD! n...m .. • ••rmn :.:: ::. :_ ... ..... ----- I I PHASING PLAN FOR UTILITY AND Lod !•� ENGINEERING •� •T- -_ L • FEDERAL '• •� y�.. STREET CONSTRUCTION LAND .... COM PRNY, INC. •\\ � �� — .. _ e•• 1u, .... .,y.,. ...u�..m��•:'r'...(_ �.. ... ... ......... ( COMPANY 11 • • June 9, 1982 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION - EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK On Thursday, June 3, 1982 the Advisory Parks and Recreation.Committee reviewed the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park. At time of the re- view, the proposed P.E. was still subject to change and modification regarding the amount of residential - R-4 - area within the plat. Be- cause of this and other factors, including the topography of the adjacent Deboer Park, and the potential need for trails dedication, the Advisory Committee took no action but deferred this item until its next committee meeting pending a visual review of the park. cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works ))S 0 OBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 22, 1982 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 1.982 at the Eagan City Hall commencing at 7:00 p.m. Those present at the meeting were Chairman Hall, Members McCrea, Krob, Turnham, Wold and Wilkins. Absent were member Bohne and alternate Mulrooney. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, Public Works Director Colbert, City Planner Runkle, and City Attorney Paul H. Hauge. AGENDA Upon motion by Hall, seconded Krob, it was resolved that the Agenda be approved as prepared. All voted yes. Upon motion by Hall, seconded McCrea, the Minutes of the regular APC meeting of May 25, 1982 were approved with the exception on page 9, that those in favor of the motion relating to Cinnamon Ridge 4th Addition were Bohne, Hall and Mulrooney, and those against were McCrea, Krob and Turnham. All voted in favor. FEDERAL LAND COMPANY - EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Chairman Hall then convened the continued hearing regarding the applica- tion of Federal Land Company for rezoning of Eagan Heights Commercial Park consisting of approximately 100 acres to Planned Development for commercial development purposes. The property is presently zoned CSC, LB, GB and R-4. Charles Bartholdi and Martin Colon appeared for the applicants. Mr. Bartholdi reviewed the sketch plan and staging of the road construction which were new submittals to the Commission. The applicant had requested a continuance in order for additional study at the last meeting to consider alternate uses and also to receive comments from surrounding property owners. Mr. Bartholdi stated there was a substantial reduction in the density to about 60% of the R- 4 area. He stated that there was a proposal for a motel but that the appli- cant wanted to retain its option for CSC uses in these areas. He also re- quested the sketch plan be a part of the Development Agreement with the information included on the plan. Representatives of surrounding property owners were present and were asked for comments. Scott Bader appeared for Barr-ett Construction Company and indicated that 310 units were approved for the Duckwood Trails project to the south and 148 are remaining to be constructed. He stated that the proposed application will result in a change in the nature of its development because townhouses would not be compatible with the commercial to the north. He proposed eliminating the townhouses and that the City allow the construction of three buildings with 252 units which would be 104 units above the 310 authorized. He re- quested the application be continued until the Duckwood developers could submit an application for amendment of the Duckwood PD. 1 Wa 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 Neighboring residents were represented by Mr. Sjobeck who presented a Petition signed by 56 persons in Duckwood Estates and St. Francis Woods. They had a number of recommended changes included on their Petition and he reviewed them in detail with the Planning Commission. He stated that there was some strong opposition from some neighboring property owners to certain types of zoning, including motel use. Kenneth Applebaum, a neighboring property owner to the south, indicated he had no problem with the plan, but was concerned about the Lake on the North side of the Applebaum property, which property has been approved for multiple - residential use. He also suggested that the one acre parcel to the northwest be used for office building rather than commercial retail. Ron Krank, repre- senting the proposed Pilot Knob Shopping Center developer, indicated that the City had not allowed an extension of CSC and stated that if the present applicant is allowed an extension of CSC, that the Pilot Knob Shopping Center developers should also be given the same consideration. There was no appear- ance on behalf of Hillcrest Development owning the CSC property to the West, nor were any comments received in writing from Hillcrest. There was a ques- tion as to the affect on the park along the north side of Duckwood Estates and Mr. Runkle indicated there would be no change in the park proposal. Martin Colon responded to 6 requests of the neighboring single family owners and indicated that virtually all would be agreeable except that he would not agree to change the zoning of area 3 to LB to conform with the developers' stated intentions for development of office tower of corporate headquarters. He also stated that the motel was currently proposed to be included in the plan and requested that it be retained. He also indicated that the present intention is to retain the larger pond but retention of the smaller pond is uncertain at the present time. It was noted that an EAW has been completed but that it has not been circulated to the required agencies for comments. Mr. Colon also stated that in the event the R-4 proposed is not developed as multiple residential within 5 years, that they would then request Limited Business covering these 16 acres. Mr. Sjobeck stated that he gener- ally had no objections to the development beyond the recommendations of the neighboring owners but objected to the commercial in area 3. Mr. Colon re- quested that the Planned Development Agreement cover a 10 year period. It was noted there is heavy foliage to the north of the single family area but Mr. Colon stated that he agreed with the 100 -foot buffer north of the R-1 only. Mr. Hall suggested that the adjacent owners all give input to the Council and suggested that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the Council that it consider all of the surrounding uses. Member Wilkins recommended Area 6 should have R-4 underlying because it was understood so by the Duckwood Trails developer. Krob moved, Turnham seconded the motion to recommend ap- proval of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Council consider the uses of all surrounding property in its determination concerning the application. 0 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 2. It is also understood that the sketch plan would not be acceptable with the specific comments about the inclusion of high-rise buildings noting that a conditional use permit is required. 3. A .Staging Plan shall be submitted. 4. Prior to final approval of Planned Development zoning by the City Council, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metro Council. 5. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be approved by the City and applicable agencies prior to the rezoning of this property. 6. An analysis of the traffic generation information should be obtained from the Dakota County Highway Department prior to the rezoning. 7. A Planned Development Agreement shall be executed as provided by City Ordinance No. 52 prior to the final rezoning of this property. The developer has proposed that this Planned Development would exist for a period of 10 years. In addition, the Planned Development Agreement, which has been standardized by the City, would provide for such matters as street dedication, development of sidewalks and trails and similar considerations and would also include the exhibits as submitted which would become a part thereof. 8. Developer shall be required to dedicate an easement to the City, as illustrated on the "Sketch Plan", for a trail connection between the Duckwood single family area and the City's Deboer Park area. This shall be detailed in the Planned Development Agreement. 9. County Road 28 (Yankee Doodle Road) and County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue) shall be scheduled for upgrading to their ultimate design section prior to approval of Phase 4. 10. Portion of Denmark Avenue shall be installed coincidental with Phase 1 and/or Phase 4 respectively. 11. A 60 to 70 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for County Road 28 and County Road 43 as determined by Dakota County Highway Department. 12. A 75 to 80 foot internal right-of-way shall be required for the looped collector street. All other internal streets will require a 60 foot right-of-way dedication. 13. This development will be responsible for the acquisition/dedication of the full right-of-way necessary to install Denmark Avenue when required by this development. 14. A ponding easement incorporating the 885.0 elevation will be re- quired adjacent to O'Leary Lake. Also, a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation will be required for the internal ponding area (D -y). 3 �� 0 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 15. All other required drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as determined by the staff. 16. A ponding easement for Pond DP -5 shall be dedicated to the City prior to the development of the second or subsequent phases. 17. An 8 foot bituminous trailway shall be constructed along the north and east boundaries adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue. 18. A 5 foot concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west boundary of Denmark Avenue and adjacent to the internal looped collector street. 19. A trailway shall be constructed adjacent to O'Leary Lake in accor- dance with the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Committee. 20. This development shall assume its assessment responsibility as determined by the City assessment procedures associated with the installation of trunk utilities in accordance with the zoning and rates in effect at the time of final platting. 21. This development shall assume its assessment responsibilities asso- ciated with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28), Lexington Avenue (County Road 43) and/or Denmark Avenue as necessitated by the phased development of this PUD. 22. Internal driveway entrances onto the internal looped collector street shall be at locations as approved by staff. 23. Adjacent to the R-1 zoning privide: a. 100 foot minimum setback for buildings and parking. b. Herming for visual separation of building and parking. C. Evergreen planting in the above described buffer zone by the end of the second phase of the development plan. 24. Any buildings over 3 stories in height shall be permitted only by application and compliance with Ordinance No. 52. 25. Preserve all existing ponds with the understanding that the small pond to the southwest will be considered in the detailed grading plan for that phase of development. 26. Lighting design shall ensure compatibility with residential neigh- borhood. Mr. Colon objected to the recommendation that the developer acquire all of the right-of-way for Denmark Avenue noting that the property owner on the west should dedicate the west half of the right-of-way. All voted in favor except Wold who voted no. 119 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -One REZONING FOR AMCON CORPORATION C. Amcon Corporation, Patrick M. Gannon, for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex -- A public hearing was held May 25, 1982 by the APC to consider a rezoning application from A to PD to allow an office hotel complex on approximately 19.1 acres located adjacent to the proposed I-494 right-of-way and west of Pilot Knob Road. The public hearing was continued until the June 22, 1982 meeting to consider additional information as requested by the APC which was specifically related to comments of MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The Advisory Planning Commission had six (6) members present and the vote was a three to three tie on a motion to deny the rezoning request. Therefore, action of the Advisory Planning Commission provides no recommenda- tion to the City Council by result of the inaction with the motion. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's original report found on pages 122 q through )3 9t and additional information prepared for the —June 22 meeting—mound on pages 13S through iS-& . For action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes found on pages IS 7 — 1j g • Enclosed on page 151 is a memo from the City Attorney's office which corro- borates He ction taken by the APC. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the request of AMCON for rezoning. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages 160 through 171 is a memo containing additional information as prepared by the—City Planner. /1® 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING - RAVINE PLAZA APPLICANT: AMCON CORPORATION - PATRICK CANNON LOCATION: PART OF THE NFik OF THE NE3k OF SECTICN 4 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MAY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: MAY 20, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKL.E, CITY PLANNER APPLICATICN SUBMITTED: An application has been resubmitted requesting a rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to allow an office, hotel complex on approximately 19.1 acres located in the NE, of the NFh of Section 4. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural District). The land use plan desig- nates the parcel as RB (Roadside Business District) which would allow businesses which serve the transient population attracted by Interstate 494. The Roadside Business District allows a hotel -motel as a permitted use but does not allow an office facility as a permitted use in an RB zoning district. Instead of rezoning to an RB (Roadside Business District) the applicant has requested to rezone to a PD (Planned Development District). which would allow a joint use of an office -hotel and office complex on this proposed site. As you may recall, Amcon Corporation began processing an application for this same facility in July and August of 1981. The APC recorrended denial and the City Coun- cil denied the application in March, 1982. The City Council stated that the appli- cant did not have to wait the designated time in order to resubmit the application. Enclosed is a copy of the March 2, 1982 City Council minutes for your review. Ac- cording to these minutes, the items of concern related to the height of the struc- tures of the office facilities, secondly, the proposed safety zoning ordinance drafted by MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation). At the present time, the City of Eagan has adopted a new ordinance in regard to height limitations in commercial, industrial and planned development districts. The height which exceeds 3 stories are subject to a conditional use permit which will be required with the second phase, or the detailed phase of the planned development. Then the City can look at each individual building and determine the height of each structure. The item which has not been resolved at this time is the proposed safety zone or- dinance drafted by YkE(T. Since the March meeting when the City Council denied the application submitted by Amcor Corporation, MAC (Metropolitan Airports Ccmnis- sion) , MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) and the Metropolitan Council 110 9 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE TNA had not proceeded with establishing the joint zoning board for the Wold -Chamberlain Airport. Therefore, the item regarding the safety zone has not progressed any fur- ther than what it was at the beginning of March, 1982. City staff has contacted the three agencies above and two acknowledged there is still not any time frame set up by MAC in regard to the starting up of the Joint Airport Zoning Board. Therefore, the safety zone problem is still the same problem as it was in March, 1982. The owner of the property has obtained his own attorney to review, or to get an opin- ion, of the status of safety zone issue. Enclosed is a copy of the opinion which has been submitted by the owner of the property. Staff, at this time, would like to make a special note that this is the property owner/developer's opinion, and it is not the City's opinion inregardto the safety zone issue. As stated above, staff has contacted the three agencies involved in regard to the airport safety zones. It is staff's understanding that they will be commenting in writing or be present at the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting in regard to the current status or stand that the agencies are taking in regard to the Ravine Plaza Planned Development. SITE PIAN REVIEW Staff would like to point out at this time that the applicant has only submitted an application requesting a Planned Development, or concept plan. If the concept is approved, then the applicant will submit detailed plans for the preliminary plat and the conditional use application in order to exceed the 3 -story limitation which is still an ordinance requirement until the application for the conditional use has been processed. Therefore, the plan submitted at this time is the concept plan for the planned development. Once the concept has been approved, the developer will work the detailed plans in regard to platting, grading, drainage, erosion control, traf- fic and all other exhibits that would be required with the detailed phase of the planned development. The developer has made minor changes from the original plan submitted in 1981 to the plan submitted in 1982. The biggest change occurs in the amount of open space, or green area, proposed on this site plan. The applicant has proposed slightly lar- ger raTrping facilities and has reduced the parking due to the joint facility to pro- vide more green area on the overall site plan. The developer is requesting that the parking spaces be based on 1 space per 200 square feet vs. the required 1 space per 150 square feet in order to provide additional green area. The other reason for in- creasing the square footage requirement is that the applicant is proposing to use joint parking between the office and motel therefore requiring less parking. At the present tine, the developer is proposing to have 53% of the site either covered by buildings or parking and 47% of the site as open space. The overall site plan would include approximately 186,912 net square feet of office and approximately 225 hotel units plus a restaurant and meeting facilities for a total of approximately 119,400 square feet. Once the detailed plans are worked out, these numbers regarding square footage may change slightly in order to meet the setback and ordinance requirements. If the rezoning request to the planned development is approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: ray 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE M 1. A planned development agreement be prepared in accordance with the concept plan. 2. The rezoning application shall be reviewed by MnDOT in regard to abutting I-494 corridor. 3. The rezoning application shall be reviewed by Dakota County because it abuts Pilot Knob Road right-of-way. 4. The planned development shall only allow 3 story buildings at this time until the conditional use permit has been processed and approved by the City of Eagan. 5. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans and site plan be submitted for a detailed review when the preliminary plat is submitted. 6. An EAW shall be prepared for the overall project and approved by all agencies. 7. 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. 8. All other ordinance requirements shall be enforced. 9. Permission from M -70C must be obtained allowing connection to their trunk in- terceptor line providing sanitary sewer service to this proposed development. 10. The extension of the trunk water main must be ordered in by Council action prior to final plat approval. U. An internal traffic circulation pattern must be approved by staff providing for a looped connection between the two office complexes across the ravine and also to provide for an extension and connection to the property located adjacent to and south of this parcel. 12. The frontage road must be upgraded to a minimum 36' wide 9 -ton design road- way. 13. This development will be responsible for its prorated share of the costs associated with.the installation of a traffic control system at the inter- section of Pilot Knob Road and Eagan Industrial Blvd. 14. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated as required by staff to provide adequate access to this site via the frontage road. 15. Drainage and utility easements as required by staff shall be dedicated at the time of final platting. 16. This development shall be responsible for the costs associated with install- ing an adequate storm sewer system to handle the drainage generated by this development to the Minnesota River valley. 1 12 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE 17. This development shall fulfill its obligation pertaining to trunk area storm sewer assessments. TAC/jack I 13 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING CON1MISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 20, 1982 RE: PD - RAVINE PLAZA (AMCON CORPORATION) The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer in consideration of the above -proposed development: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity to handle this proposed develop- ment is available and adjacent to the north and west property line of this pro- posed development. However, this is an MCC trunk interceptor line not under the jurisdiction of the City of Eagan. Therefore, a specific connection permit will be required to obtain service from this Line. Water main service to this proposed develcpment will have to be obtained through an extension of the trunk water main at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Blvd. and Pilot Knob Road. With the upgrading of I-494 by MnDOT and Pilot Knob Road by Dakota County, all major roads providing access to this development will have been upgraded to their ultimate design section to handle the anticipated traffic volumes generated by this proposal. However, with the right-of-way acquisitions for I-494 by MnDOT, access has been restricted along the north and east property lines of this devel- opment. Subsequently, MnDOT is constructing a minor 16' frontage road from this property to the intersection of Eagan Industrial Boulevard with Pilot Knob Road. This frontage road will have to be upgraded to a minimum 36' 9 -ton roadway to provide adequate access. Because of this restricted access acquired by MnDOT combined with the rugged topography of this property on the west side, this is the only available access to this development. In reviewing the site plan, the staff has recommnded that the internal roadway system provide for a future ex- tension and connection in the southwest corner to the property located adjacent to and south of this proposed development. In addition, the staff has recommnd- ed that an internal street be constructed providing circulation across the exist- ing ravine between the two office complexes. This circulation has been reviewed with both the Fire Marshall and the Police Chief and found to be the best alter- native taking into consideration the restrictions placed on this property by top- ography and interstates. With the anticipated traffic volumes generated by this development and its singu- lar access onto Pilot Knob Road at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Blvd., there is anticipation that a future signal systen would be required at this in- tersection. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY All necessary right-of-way has previously been acquired by Mn00'P and/or Dakota County. However, if additional right-of-way is required to provide for the up- grading of the frontage road providing adequate access, this additional right- ►a/-� 0 0 CTPY OF EAGAN - ENGINEERIM REPORT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE TWO of -way dedication shall be the responsibility of this development. Easements nec- essary eo-essary for internal distribution of utilities should be dedicated as a part of the final plat. n • � �.. .n The general direction of the drainage of this property is to the west by way of the extreme ravine that nuts through the middle of this property up to Pilot Knob Road. Because of the intensity of the development proposed under this PUD com- bined with the fact that there is no storm sewer in the near vicinity, drainage facilities to handle this development will be extensive. It is anticipated that a dike through the middle of the ravine (providing loop traffic circulation) would also provide for a temporary pond within the natural ravine prior to its outlet - ting into a required storm sewer system which would extend westerly dawn into Minnesota Valley. Approval for this storm sewer system would have to be obtained from MnDOT and/or the DNR depending upon its alignment and connection to existing or proposed required sedimentation basins within the Ft. Snelling State Park. ASSESSMENTS This property hasalready been assessed for its trunk area sanitary sewer and water. However, trunk area storm sewer would be required with any proposed development. In addition, this development would be responsible for the costs associated with upgrading the frontage road to provide adequate access fran Pilot Knob Road. In addition, consideration should be given to potential cost participation from this development towards the installation of a signal system at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Road with Pilot Knob Road due to its anticipated traffic volume generated by its development and singular access. This development should be responsible for all costs associated with the installa- tion of a storm sewer system adequate to handle the drainage generated frcn its development. All aspects of this report should be researched and expanded in further detail as this PUD proceeds through the platting process. The ccmTents contained in this re- port are based on the conceptual development plans submitted with the PUD applica- tion. They may have to be modified and/or revised based on future more definitive information associated with the platting process. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this report at the Planning Commission meeting of May 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, 4homas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack 115 0 Council Minutes March 2, 1982 ANCON CORPORATION - RAVINE PLAZA PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow two office buildings and hotel complex, for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza and for variance to exceed height limitations in a commercial district was then considered by the council. The rezoning would cover approximately 19 acres to include two office buildings and a hotel -restaurant facility and a preliminary plat would cover three lots. The Planning Commission first considered the application on October 27, 1981 and recommended denial at its November 24, 1981 meeting. It was noted the Height Limitation Committee has now met and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council and has been acted upon by the City Council. Pat Gannon appeared for the applicant and indicated that his application was for concept approval rather than for preliminary plat approval. He discussed the comments from various agencies and noted that there were letters from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The MnDOT ordinance is a model ordinance only, controlling traffic from the Minneapo- lis/St. Paul International Airport. Councilmembers indicated that noise com- patability is one issue in the A and B zones which has been proposed by MnDOT for adoption by the joint zoning board or by individual cities. There was also discussion concerning a proposed Hold Harmless Agreement and its long term effect, and in addition, legal restrictions on the height and also the density under the proposed MnDOT model ordinance. Pilot Knob Road is at approximately 900 feet and the top of the office building would be 930 feet. Egan moved that 'the application for zoning be denied on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission including reasons stated in its motion of November 24, 1981; further, that at the present time, the Airport Joint Zoning Board has not made a recommendation as to zoning in the vicinity of the airport and it would be advisable to get such a recommenda- tion; further, that conditional use permit will also be required including a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission before a determination to exceed height limitation would be granted; that there appeared to be too much uncertainty as to the restrictions and development both by the City and other agencies; that the City has not reviewed the proposed MnDOT Airport Safety Ordinance and there were questions about the proposed safety zones and the need to examine the potential liability of the City in the event of the grant of the uses as proposed. It was further understood that the application for rezoning could be sumbitted to the City if there are substantially changed conditions according to Ordinance No. 52. Smith seconded the motion. All voted in favor. SEE PLAT FILE BUDGET ADJU=4ENTS FOR 1982 City Administrator Hedges reviewed a proposed revision in the reduction of the general fund of $52,300.00 noting that State Aid Reductions for 1982 are estimated at $52,130.00. The Council reviewed the proposals at a special workshop meeting on February 25, 1982 after submission of recommended reduc- tions by department heads. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the reduction of $52,300.00 according to the proposed outline by the City Administrator noting that the reductions are necessary and should cause the least disruption in the City program. All voted yea. D 82-6 3 126 0 0 LAW OFFICEs LTJT.=R M. STALLAND SUITE 910, NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 1900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNENOTA 60•93l H. PETER STALLAND April 22, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Manager City of Eagan Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Conditional Use Permit Application to the City of Eagan Dear Mr. Hedges: AREA CODE. 012 PHONE 835-551 You have suggested that our opinion would be welcome with regard to the potential legal liability of the City of Eagan in the event that Eagan grants a conditional use permit to Amcon, Inc, for the building of a hotel and office building complex on land situated at the intersection of 494 and Pilot Knob Road. Eagan apparently contemplates the possibility of a third party suit as a result of injuries suffered from an aircraft accident caused by the height or size features of the Amcon complex, since it is partially located in the Zone B runway approach to the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport runway. The question of liability concerns Eagan because the proposed Amcon project, if completed, may violate the proposed Zone B regulations which the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Aeronautical Division, has promulgated with regard to airport zoning standards pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 360.063 et seq. Note that this Statute, however, allows that in this case the Joint Airport Zoning Board (composed of the Metropolitan Airport Commission and certain appointees of Eagan) once formed has the option of requesting that Eagan adopt an ordinance incorporating these Zone B regulations. Until the request to the City Council and subsequent adoption of the ordinance occurs, the Zone B requirements have no legal binding effect with regard to zoning in Eagan, and particularly to Amcon's application. At this time there is clearly no potential liability to Eagan if it were to grant Amcon's requested permit because the act -of the City in granting that permit is not prohibited by any law. M.S.A. 360.063 subd. 3 states that "the municipality owning or controlling the airport may request any county or municipality in which an airport hazard area is located: (a) To adopt and enforce airport zoning regulations for the area in question that conform to the minimum standards prescribed by the commissioner." (underline added) Therefore by statute the controlling authority for the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport is the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) which has an option to require Eagan to adopt an appropriate resolution to include the Zone B regulations. To date no Joint Zoning Board has formally convened nor has it requested Eagan to adopt these Zone B requirements. In fact, it is very possible that the Joint Airport Zoning Board might take no action at all or might recommend much more lenient restrictions than the Zone B requirements. 19-7 E Mr. Thomas Hedges April 22, 1982 Page Two E In the event of an aircraft crash on the Amcon site, in itself extremely unlikely, any potential claimant would have the insurmountable task of proving that the Eagan City Council was negligent in granting a conditional use permit at such time when it was perfectly legal and reasonable for it to grant such a permit. Even if the Zone B regulations were subsequently adopted by the City of Eagan after it had granted the Amcon permit, such law would not have retro- active effect on the City Council's decision. M.S.A. 645.21 states that "no law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature." Since there is no clear intent by the legislature in M.S.A. 360.063 et seq. that this Statute shall have retroactive effect, this negligence argument would fail. Finally, there is no possibility of tort liability because the City is immune from suit when the subject of the lawsuit involves a discretionary act of the City or its employees. M.S.A. 466.02 provides that every municipality is sub- ject to liability for its torts and those of its officers and employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, M.S.A. 466.03 subd. 6 provides an exception to that statutory rule and declares that there is no liability where it involves "Any claim based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the dis- cretion is abused." Case law also provides this same immunity pursuant to this statute: See DePalmma v Rosen (1972) 294 -Minn. 11, 199 NW 2d 517 where individ- ual members of a city council could not be held responsible for damages.in exercise of any discretionary acts. More specifically, case law has clearly held that the act of a city issuing a building permit in a doubtful case involved the exercise of discretion, so that as a result the plaintiff could not sue because the city had immunity pursuant to M.S.A. 466.03. See Anderson v City of Minneapolis (1972) 87 Minn. 287, 178 NW 2nd 215. In summary, Eagan's fears of potential liability resulting from granting the Amcon permit are groundless. First, it is highly unlikely a lawsuit would ever occur based upon an aircraft crash on the Amcon site. Second, even if such a crash occurred the City is protected because of its sovereign immunity status and the fact that its actions were reasonable and in accordance with the law at the time such permit was granted (since the Zone B requireme shad not been adopted at that time). Consequently, there is no need for app icant/owner/ developer to enter into any hold harmless agreement�, with the ity and, in my opinion, would only invite third party litigation ilk avo su�g remote situation. LMS/jj cc: Al Stephani, President Amcon Corporation 011ie Ulvilden, President 0-J Sporting Goods Company 119 ( S' TRAIL. FBJ 12'%g' RC2 Ni ,A® SCAl6: / �a /00 RAVItr �_ /�- PLAIA SV Q 7— PA (Lr-C- -PA(Lr- L E sa FBI RIPRAP CLASS A F. B 1. 24'% 132CM.P+2 APAQs' (L 6' TRAIL Sim +6p rt S.E. LOOP 3'Rp 03 I \ ; II 3'R +To=� BI 2 is 2 mss y + R1 _ —e 4 + FBI 12'%43' RCP € S.E. RAMP Sim N N GB.64 l 1 FBI. 12'%72' RR.C.P.j �i 8624 G 8 G. Cl, JOLFBI 27'% 211' R.CP. MR 42 (ADJUST C.B.) 4-811 CURB +22 _- WP EAGANOAIP WQISTRIA( 6�v 0 V "YOMWT .........._. NM7 .., . "' _ • - - • .._ ... _ _. X31dW00 301ddO AWOV3 1-77-1 4:"" ?N sYU31r] I L i i / IIIA00 _ , ii:i u .. te .-r --- - : � •°, i 44 CFO ° 8° e § 8 g .� 8 g9r2 R I • � E IT --- o` w- ' �8• '�'I'; •'I'll '°tlH 9 p .� n {� 111� ELLL.Jl._11Y 11 4 y, mr•:h,, _ C• S a •'V�iL'i�r It — Nv C n , 011 ' iii 00+0+ 01 z R p p ww p y,• Y Vulii l r cog. -' R o0 m 'J °o R si ° u oo »•° i / IIIA00 _ .. te .-r --- - T) i 44 CFO OF c I � � MAL ao , rA ' '�'I'; •'I'll '°tlH 9 p .� n {� 111� ELLL.Jl._11Y 11 4 y, mr•:h,, _ C• S a •'V�iL'i�r It — Nv n'IN.I R cog. -' 'd I61le I �� o° i .! iC •S.l�.'` i."-�� f r p'1��jjjj /i'\. tr Olpis t � �� 4 � 10�JiN �•��y�CC•]� � ��J11 O �� 11I {�{)��I of bYl�� C.ry ',r�u-01 T J ---- ------ - IT— Ye Wj 1-494 7i— o, % RAM P A a OFFICE' A Z7, —W f' ; -E ,' /' 3— MOTEL je- ESTA . A FFICE 6 toll', 1, 'I i RAMP B k r . .. ... ........ .......... ..... o'o ... .... .... ...... . .... . fzqu T J 16" Ye T J WI .N. MMS ,s r .c.°rY-''vw�r�'•�r-:v-a"-r �'r� �r ��'i'� y �� n. 5� r re - EAST -WEST SECTION NORTH -SOUTH SECTION WI;Wt- ^" EAGAN OFFICE COMPLEX �- EMMiARprrtiClS EAGAA MINNESOTA SUBJECT MENDOTA 'HTS. \`•. .. -- - Jif.• l �_ _ ----' _. .. -.... Z,.,\ v RB " _ •-•rr n.:v I� �s •wL� u,l.•'7/. Ind J -.i •.` -! • ;a� :. - ' - COMMERCIAL '..: - . PLANNED DEVELOPMENT V • - .R-1 ;-. Ind. . _ /�� : �r:•'.'e_ ! it A RI RIII .. If__�,q.._._.�'::.:--_ _- ... �� — - __ R R•I�' Ind. . •. , z GB I ... e Ra .....,...� RI Ind R -IV .. RI P Ind mom -Ind _:... R-II6. - - _ ---. , RIII NB'iy: :. RR -111 R -III _ LBf R-11 ;f RR=11,.. IT CSC P c` R Ind. R-11 _ R I GOLF y��^ r r-....r•� I : i.l i. � "' ...:. full 'i Ind. W RIII `'� r/ `� u-: R-11 �R+� J i R -II P moo.. R -I W 3•III: �r.e- ..�{`+ '^` CITY R-11 II a. R I _ R_II R -U N _ S .,._..:all '7"' PO R -IL R 1I`R-11 -III LIB <:rF: RB RIII ' 1 R 11r. Jr RIII ..CSC/GB R-111 R 1 r Qv RI �.. SRI + w cSC f�IIuh tl a''.�: P R -I 5: P ,n� U,N • P.. Gtx cow.. i R -II Pj r R -II r,nn R-11 . . RJ J R-Iy R-11 • 4 '�f / r R -II L6 `� �. 13 . N f tLLEY : R^•, I T115114 ROSEMOUNI- ? A!' i : 0 0 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING COnIISSION FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JUNE 17, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RAVINE PLAZA At the May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Cartnission meeting, the Advisory Plan- ning Cmmission requested that this item be continued until the June 22, 1982 meeting in order that the Advisory Planning Ccnmiission can receive informa- tion regarding updating comnents from MAC, MnDOT and Metropolitan Council. Also, the City Attorney provide an opinion in regard to the safety issues regarding the safety zone and the City's liability if they ignore the pro- posed safety zone ordinance. The Advisory Planning Cm -mission also wanted a clarification in regard to the conditional use, or the height, in the proposed development plan if in fact the City would have to honor the height at a later point in time. Staff has contacted the Metropolitan Airport's Commission, Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council requesting that they sub- mit updated responses in regard to the Ravine Plaza development proposal. En- closed is a letter sent out by City staff requesting this response. Also en- closed are the responses that the City has received as of June 17, 1982. If there is not a response from a respective agency, the City did not receive any written response in regard to the subject matter. Staff has also included the responses which were submitted in August and September of 1981 which staff has received from MAC, MnDc7f and Metropolitan Council. Be sure to review dates on the letters in regard to being an old response or a new response for the current development proposal. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter submitted by Paul Hauge outlining the City Attorney's opinion in regard to the safety issues which the Advisory Planning Commission was concerned about at the May 25, 1982 meeting. Staff has discussed the conditional use permit with the City Attorney in re- gard to the height of the proposed structure. It is staff's opinion that the development proceed as submitted and that only action be taken on the zoning to the planned development at this time. It has been indicated all . the way through the staff report that even though the developer is proposing buildings which exceed the 3 -story height limitation according to Ordinance 52, that that is all that is granted with this planned development. When a conditional use permit is submitted with a preliminary plat, the detailed plans and exact square footage and height be determined on its individual merits of that particular development proposal. Staff feels that there are enough safeguards in only allowing the 3 -story building at this time that the City is not obligated to grant a blanket conditional use in the future because the developer has indicated multiple stories in the future. I be- lieve the City Attorney has addressed this item in his memrandun. The last item submitted with this memorandum is the developer requesting Dakota County to do a tax estimate on the proposed development which Amcon Development Co. is submitting. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Donald E. Holm, Chief Deputy Assessor, Dakota County, regarding taxes generated from this development proposal. Hopefully, this additional information will 135' 11 CITY OF EAGAN AMCON CORPORATION JUNE 22, 1982 PAGE TWO C� address the concerns that the Advisory Planning Commission had at the May 25 meeting. If additional information is needed or clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me at the City Hall. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner 136 EN 0 0 HAUGE, SMITII, EIDE & HELLF.R. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H- HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Charles Hall, Chairman EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 June 17, 1982 RE: METROPOLITAN AIRPORT CORRIDOR - AMCON APPLICATION Dear Chairman Hall: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 454-4224 At the last Advisory Planning Commission meeting I was asked to prepare a summary of some of the issues that relate to the application being submitted by Amcon Corpora- tion to the City for the approval of rezoning of 19.1 acres of land at the southwest intersection of proposed I-494 and Pilot Knob Road from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development. Several issues surfaced relating to the application: 1. Whether there are any regulations that control the development and construc- tion of buildings within the flight path from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Air- port through the proposed Amcon Development property. 2. Because the sketch plans of the applicant provide for a proposal for build- ings exceeding the normal 3 -story height limitation, whether if the Planning Commis- sion and Council approve the application, the City is then committed to allow building heights in excess of the normal limitation. 3. Given the current state of the regulations regarding such development and the law as applied thereto, does it appear that the City has any exposure for damages in the event that it should deny the application, either in whole or in part, or in any way approve the application allowing for e.g, a less dense development, building heights within certain limitations, etc.? 4. What exposure if any does the City have in the event the Council approves an application allowing heights in the air traffic corridor in excess of normal height limitations and an air traffic accident results at some tLme in the future with poten- tial negligence on behalf of the City alleging safety measures were not properly com- plied with? When the City staff first received the application from Amcon Corporation to develop the approximate 19 acre site in about May of 1981, contacts were made with MM/Dot Division of Aeronautics, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airport Commis- sion's staffs to determine whether any one or more of those agencies may have regu- lations which would in any way control the nature of the development, height of build - 137 Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 2. ings, density, etc. The developer also made similar inquiries and the consensus of those agencies was that none of them had specific regulations that would control, but generally opposed the scale of the development proposed by Amcon, including height of buildings and density within the parcel. Some of the regulations that have been proposed or adopted that bear upon the issue include the following: 1. Minnesota Code of Agencies Rules, Department of Transportation, Aeronautical Division, 1.3006-1.3016. Although MSA3360.063 authorizes municipalities to adopt under its police powers airport zoning regulations controlling airport hazard areas including dividing areas into zones, the City of Eagan has not done so. It's Zoning Ordinance No. 52 requires conditional use permits for buildings or structures in ex- cess of the maximum height limitations permitted under Section 52.07, Subd. 14a, and indicates that the City may regulate heights within air traffic corridors. The City also requires a multi -story building agreement and compliance with all conditions of Ordinance No. 52. 2. The MN/Dot Division of Aeronautics has proposed regulations 14 MCAR 1.3010 et seq. At least a portion of the subject property lies within Safety Zone B as defined under those rules, including some highly restrictive provisions including each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres and that each use shall not have a density exceeding 15 persons per acre. These regulations have neither been adopted by the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Joint Zoning Board nor by the City of Eagan and, therefore, do not appear to control deci- sion making by the City unless adopted by the Joint Zoning Board or City Council. It is my understanding that although the Joint Zoning Board has been organized under MSA 360.061 et seq., it has not begun to formally act on zoning issues. 3. FAA regulations 14 CFR No. 77.1 et seq. Although it requires interpretation of the section of the FAA regulations, it is my understanding that the proposals of the applicant would comply with the.restrictions included in the FAA regulations. As to question No. 2, it would appear that the City is not required to grant build- ing permits beyond the limitation, even though an applicant submits sketch plans, drawings and indicates in his application that its expected development would in- clude high-rise buildings. The reasons for this include the fact that the amendment to Ordinance No. 52.07 adopted by the Eagan City Council in early 1982 regarding height limitations clearly indicates that certain restrictions will be imposed upon any applicant which submits an application for a building in excess of the normal height limitation allowed under Ordinance No. 52. These include a separate agree- ment which could attach conditions to such approval and also clear wording in the Zoning amendment that specifically states that conditions and restrictions may be imposed on the approval of any buildings exceeding such limits. I would recommend, though, that in the event that the Planning Commission recommends approval and the Council approves the application for rezoning, that the conditions clearly indicate that the approval is subject to subsequent application and approval of any buildings that exceed the normal restriction levels. In addition, such application for build- ing permit requires a conditional use permit. 13� Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 3. There has not been a great deal of precedent in the State of Minnesota or as far as that goes, around the country, that would allow for a precise answer to either questions 3 or 4 asked by the Commission. If the presumption is made that in the event the City does either restrict the density or heights of the buildings to an extent that the developer/owner feels it is arbitrary and unreasonable, it is assumed that the developer/owner will then bring an action against the City for damages on the theory of inverse condemnation. There are many issues that relate to this specific parcel of property, including the fact that the land is zoned Agricultural at the present time implying that the City does have a degree of control, the fact that the City has adopted the height limitation ordinance provision, whether noise factors should be considered, whether the City should adopt the model zoning ordinance or some revision there- to, whether the City should include a provision in the event of approval of the application that the developer/owner will hold the City harmless in the event of any action brought against it, either on the basis of property owners, any agencies or any person in any agency attempting to restrain the injured party that may be caused from an airline accident on the site where the construction is proposed to occur. Sovereign immunity is often used as a defense in negligence actions against a city. This theory has been substantially eroded in recent years and, therefore, liability insurance is a must for municipalities. Zoning is normally a discretionary power of the city in which the landowner has.no vested rights. However, in the McShane case (McShane vs. The City of Faribault, 292 NW 2d 253, 1980) the Court pointed out that there was a distinction between "arbitration" and "enterprise" regulations. That case involved an action by a neighboring owner to force the city to initiate condemnation proceedings due to zoning restrictions on land adjacent to the Fari- bault airport. "Arbitration" regulations are ordinances designed to affect a com- prehensive plan while "enterprise" regulations are for the sole benefit of govern- mental enterprise. It held in McShane that where land use regulations are designed to benefit a specific public enterprise there must be compensation to landowners whose property suffers a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations. (City of Mankato vs. Hilgers, Finance and Commerce, December 31, 1981.) It may be argued that in both the McShane and Hilgers cases, the airports in ques- tion were city airports and, therefore, there might be some doubt as to the City of Eagan's liability where the specific public enterprise is not one with which Eagan is necessarily directly involved. Secondly, the burden is on the developer to show a "substantial and measurable decline in the market value of the property" where alternate developments could be proposed. However, the McShane court clearly stated at pages 258 and 259 that "We hold that where land use regulations, such as the airport zoning ordinance here, are designed to benefit a specific public or governmental enterprise, there must be compensation to landowners whose property has suffered a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations." Therefore, if it is determined that 139 0 0 Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 4. a specific public enterprise is being benefitted and a substantial and measurable decline in the market value of the affected land results, it would appear that damages would be awarded. (See 26 Am. Jur 2d Eminent Domain #157 also). It can be argued that aircraft accidents are very infrequent within flight patterns. Caution, however, is vitally important however. If the City takes all reasonable precautionary steps including those mentioned above, liability of the City is some- what unlikely. Ordinarily a City Council's decision on a discretionary matter, if not arbitrary, will be upheld. Although commencement of actions against the City by aircraft passengers cannot be avoided, clearly negligence must be shown and it appears that reasonable steps should absolve the City from future exposure. PHH:me W Very_uily yours, UGE,/SMITH, EIDE_& K LER, P.A. ul H. Hauge BEA BLOMOUIST • MAYOR 0 THOMAS ELAN CITY O F EAGAN JAMES A. SMITH 1 JERRY THOMAS P. I.) 1 THEODORE WACHTER hl.))95 PILOT KNOB ROAD " COUNCIL MEMBERS ," P.O. BOX )II" EAGAN, MINNESOTA.A'�. 551111 June 8, 1982 „ �' PHONE 4i4-8100 ' NIGEL D FINNEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENGINEERING METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COWISSION '?.' P O BOX 1700:' TWIN CITY AIRPORT NIDI 55111 JIM FORTMAN AERONAUTICS DIVISION MIIINNESOTA DEPAR'IlvIENT O -u TRANSPORT4ITION TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL NIDI 55155 MARK RYAN METROPOLITAN COUNCIL STAFF 300 METRO SQ BLDG 77H & ROBERT ST Sr PAUL M 55101 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Gentlemen: THOMASHEOGES CITY AOMINISIRAIOR EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CITY CLERK As you may recall, Ravine Plaza submitted mmitted an application approximately one year ago and was denied by the City Council in March of 1982. Since this time, Amcon Corpora- tion had submitted a new application to be processed by the Advisory Planning Cammis- sion and City Council. The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 1982. At this public hearing, the Advisory Planning Commission reviewed the appli- cation and conditions why the City Council denied the application in March of 1982. Time reasons for denial were the height limitations in regard to the Eagan Zoning Ordi- nanoe; secondly, the proposed safety zone ordinance which has not been adopted by any agency was cited. In the Advisory Planning Commission review, they had noted that the height limitation had been resolved with amendments to the Eagan Zoning Ordinance which allows heights greater than three stories through the granting of a conditional use permit. In review of the status of the safety zone ordinance, it was noted that the ordinance has not proceeded any further than what it was a year ago. The Advisory Plan- ning Commission continued the item until June 22 in order that staff can contact Metro- politan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Council and the Aeronautics Division of MnDC71' to get updated formal responses in regard to the new application. I have enclosed a copy of the revised site plan for your review and request that the agencies above make formal camients on this development proposal no later than June 17, 1982. The Advi- sory Planning Camuission also requested that staff invite you to attend the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM and this item should be heard relatively early on the agenda because it is old business. If you have any questions regarding the requests of the Planning Commission or regard- ing the Advisory Planning Cartnission mee ' , please feel free to contact me at the Eagan City Hall. / n Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle, City Planner J/ �Y� J� DCR/jack THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. cc - TtE as L. Hedges, City Administrator ,pt%NESor4 20 A Q Fyr yQ° OF TVk 0 0 Nlinnesota DeparvEfl ? "+° tment of Transportatior.?ECEiJL'31 9 Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 June 16, 1982 Dale C. Runkle Eagan City Planner 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: Subject: Ravine Plaza Planned Development l'lionc 296-7R9q_ We have reviewed the information submitted with your June 8, 1982, letter. The modifications to the original proposal are insignificant with respect to Airport Safety Zoning. Therefore, our comments to you in letters dated August 4, 1981, and September 17, 1981, remain essentially unchanged. We note that the City Council's denial of the original proposal was based on many factors and that only the building height limitations and green space have been resolved to date. The Council was also concerned about the uncertainty of airport zoning restrictions and the potential liability of the City, and rightly so. We sincerely appreciate the City's efforts to obtain input on this matter from the various governmental units. We can also appreciate the City's desire to resolve the airport zoning and get on with the development of the City. In that regard, we would recommend that the City of Eagan re- quest the MAC to convene the Joint Airport Zoning Board. The adoption of an airport zoning ordinance is the only way to remove the "cloud of doubt" that hangs over your considerations. That same "cloud" may bother the proponent, knowing that at some point, the land will be rezoned again. We will also approach the MAC on the matter of convening the Joint Air- port Zoning Board. We are sure that all the municipalities around the airport would like to see the zoning issues resolved as soon as possible. Sincprely, L. J es Fortman, P.E. Director, Airport Development Section Aeronautics Division Room 417 /+L An Equal Opportunity Employer -C- 1q_ OU Ll June 17, 1982 City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MPI 55122 puut"Oke • Sam Pau, %I! ET'sOPOLITAN 'AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . PHONE (612) 726-5770 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1982, regarding the submittal of the Ravine Plaza Planned Unit Development rezoning application. The Metropolitan Airports Com¢nission appreciates the opportunity to review this development proposal; it is been addressed from the perspective of Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Height Limitations, the potential relationship to A and B Zones as promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the impact of Metropolitan Council land use guidelines, and the potential for noise impacts at the site. The Federal Aviation Administration has promulgated FAR Part 77, which is intended to provide review of the height of structures adjacent to airports. This regulation applies a series of surfaces to the areas adjacent to the airport; any penetrations of these surfaces are typically considered to be hazards to air navigation. The regulation establishes a notification procedure and provides the FAA an opportunity to formally co161ent on development proposals. The proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This runway is one of the primary runways at the airport, an integral part of the preferential runway system, and the primary runway for use under instrument weather conditions. The appropriate height limitations in the area of the development are based on an inclined plane sloping upward from a point 200' from the end - of the runway at a ratio of 50:1. Based on an elevation of 813' MSL for runway end 29L, the allowable height at the northwestern boundary of the proposed development would be approximately 993' MSL. Based upon the diagrams submitted with your letter of June 8, 1982, showing a top elevation of 935' MSL for the hotel, it would appear that there is no violation or penetration of the approach surfaces established under FAR Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration also establishes clear zones located off the end of each runway at an airport. For the category of runways in use at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, these are quadrilaterally shaped areas extending out- ward from the end of the runway 2,700 feet. Within these areas the airport operator is expected to have control of development such that there will be no penetrations of the FAR Part 77 approach surfaces; preferably the areas will be owned and cleared of any structures. The proposed development is OFFICE LOCATION -6040 26th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA -MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 143 jQ-� GV�U i qQ4 puut"Oke • Sam Pau, %I! ET'sOPOLITAN 'AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . PHONE (612) 726-5770 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1982, regarding the submittal of the Ravine Plaza Planned Unit Development rezoning application. The Metropolitan Airports Com¢nission appreciates the opportunity to review this development proposal; it is been addressed from the perspective of Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Height Limitations, the potential relationship to A and B Zones as promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the impact of Metropolitan Council land use guidelines, and the potential for noise impacts at the site. The Federal Aviation Administration has promulgated FAR Part 77, which is intended to provide review of the height of structures adjacent to airports. This regulation applies a series of surfaces to the areas adjacent to the airport; any penetrations of these surfaces are typically considered to be hazards to air navigation. The regulation establishes a notification procedure and provides the FAA an opportunity to formally co161ent on development proposals. The proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This runway is one of the primary runways at the airport, an integral part of the preferential runway system, and the primary runway for use under instrument weather conditions. The appropriate height limitations in the area of the development are based on an inclined plane sloping upward from a point 200' from the end - of the runway at a ratio of 50:1. Based on an elevation of 813' MSL for runway end 29L, the allowable height at the northwestern boundary of the proposed development would be approximately 993' MSL. Based upon the diagrams submitted with your letter of June 8, 1982, showing a top elevation of 935' MSL for the hotel, it would appear that there is no violation or penetration of the approach surfaces established under FAR Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration also establishes clear zones located off the end of each runway at an airport. For the category of runways in use at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, these are quadrilaterally shaped areas extending out- ward from the end of the runway 2,700 feet. Within these areas the airport operator is expected to have control of development such that there will be no penetrations of the FAR Part 77 approach surfaces; preferably the areas will be owned and cleared of any structures. The proposed development is OFFICE LOCATION -6040 26th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA -MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 143 0 0 City of Fagan Pg. 2 6/17/82 significantly beyond the end of the clear zone associated with Runway 29L. As previously indicated, FAR Part 77 establishes a procedure whereby the Federal Aviation Administration must be notified of any development meeting certain criteria in areas adjacent to the airport. This procedure requires the filing of formal notification which provides specific information regarding the development location and characteristics of the development proposal. We would urge the City of Eagan and the developer to contact the Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office in Minneapolis regarding the necessary procedures for review of this development. The Minnesota Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics has adopted regulations containing minimun zoning standards pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 360.061 to 360.074. The Minimum Zoning Standards establish areas off the ends of runways at airports identified as Zones A and B. The proposed Ravine Plaza Development would lie within Zone B based upon the application of the Minimum Standards to Runway 11R/29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The attached diagram identifies Zones A and B in relationship to the proposed property, based upon a straight -forward application of the minimum standards. Development within Zone B as established by these minumun standards is impacted in a number of ways: 1) there is a minimum lot size of three acres, 2) there is a maximum site population based on a ratio of 15 persons per acre, 3) there are minimum ratios for development with regard to total site area, and 4) there are certain land uses which are specifically prohibited from Zone B. Hotels and motels are specifically prohibited in Zone B according to the Minimum Standards, and the maximum allowable population for a site of approximately 19.1 acres would be approxi- mately 280-290 persons. It should be kept in mind that the zones shown on the attached drawing are an MAC interpretation of the Mn/DOT Minimum Standards. The procedure for adoption of these regulations is through a Joint Airport Zoning Board, consisting of two representatives from each community adjacent to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and two representatives from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Representatives have been appointed to this board from each community and from the MAC, however the Joint Airport Zoning Board has not yet started its meetings with regard to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. It is the Joint Airport Zoning Board which will actually establish these zones and the land use limitations therein, and therefore will define the specific impact of the zoning regulations on this particular property. The zoning regulations as adopted by the Board are then subject to review and approval by Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics for conformance with their adopted minimum standards before they can be implemented. The statute and regulations also establish a Board of Adjustment, which is Empowered to grant variances from the adopted zoning ordinance under certain conditions. These variances must also be reviewed and approved by Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics prior to being effective. The Metropolitan Council is also involved in the issue of land use adjacent to airports consistent with its responsibilities under the Land Planning Act and preparation of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Council is currently reviewing a series of proposals which define compatible and incom- patible land uses in airport environs; the outcome of this review is expected to be an amendment to the Metropolitan Development Guide which will then enter into and work through the Land Planning Act process, requiring camnuuities 14 °t 0 0 City of Eagan Pg. 3 6/17/82 to modify couprehensive plans and implementation ordinances in order to be consistent with these quidelines. As we have previously indicated, the proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. With this runway being an integral part of the preferential runway system, the proposed develognent will lie under a primary arrival track to Runway 29L, and a primary departure track for Runway 11R. The frequency of use of this runway and the proximity of the proposed development to the runway end would indicate that the development should be carefully evaluated from the perspective of potential noise impact. Since the area will be subject to regular overflights, we would strongly urge that consideration be given to attenuation of exterior sound levels to reasonable interior levels consistent with the proposed use of the property. Both site design and building construc- tion techniques can be utilized to achieve the desired level of attenuation, and we would urge their consideration and use in this development proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Feel free to contact this office should you have any questions. Sincerely yours Raymond G. G umack Executive Director NDF/jr attach. cc: Jim Fortman - Mn/DOT Mark Ryan - Metro Council Commissioner Jack Jorgensen CcMuissioner Robert Stassen los I- FT - PARK: � ... _ •}Ii Irl / I� ' I_Y .41 iL . J I PROP. r-494-- i'�T'��_ ®� 0 8f isi � lall >0 a �p a m �► � 7? ' •.f'S ' r S'�'3i ^T �� `;''^';-r'��::'`::'1•;..p11.��7^a:�ri:1�:. %•):�. ��^7;-r•�...: r�1 _ � tj v ` •PARK .tea! ie jri�';�'.'''+�:.� !-:i.." V3 � •� z' RES. d`�NNESO)4 v� 20 a Minnesota Department of Transportation 3 0� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 "OF TRP a4 September 17, 1981 Advisory Planning Commission City of Eagan E. J. VanOverbecke, City Clerk 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Commission Members: Phone 296-8046 Subject: September 22, 1981, Public Hearing (7:00 P.M.) Rezoning from A to PD and Preliminary Plat Consideration Part of NEh of the NE;4 of Section 4, T27N, R2311 - South -of Pro- posed I-494 Right of Way and West of Pilot Knob Road This is to advise you that the above referenced property lies within safety zone E as defined by Minnesota Code of Agency Rules 4 1.3016 (Airport Zoning Standards). A copy of the rule is enclosed for your information. The rule was promulgated pursuant to the direction and authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 360.061 to 360.074. It defines the Min- imum Zoning Standards, consistant with public safety, for areas ad- jacent to airports. The responsibility for enacting a zoning ordinance meeting these standards rests with the airport owner. Regardless of that fact, it is.our opinion that the city could put itself in an unfavorable lia- bility position if it allowed non -conforming land uses in the safety zones and an accident subsequently occurred. We have previously ad- vised the city of the aspects of the proposal that do not conform to airport zoning standards. A copy of that letter is also enclosed. We recommend that if the rezoning is allowed, it should be a modified PD. The modifications should incorporate the provisions of the en- closed airport zoning standards. We recommend further that in considering the preliminary plat, the safety of the public enjoying the proposed facilities be carefully considered. Sincerely, ichard S. Keinz +✓ Assistant Commission Aeronautics. Division 147 An Equal Opportunity Employer _4119Y® ,,,uru ;o� •� •� J J MlllIli •til)lil a Of I V10, � '�' `'- I )1 •I ,rlftlll<•Itl 1>I 'I'r;ulr.I,1,rI;I;if,Il ,,�.^. c 'Ir;ulr.I,l,rtaltil,Il I:Ililclill;_; �..•��) ��' tit. I';tlll, \liluu•�I,I;I ..:;L..', AU lust 4, 19:;1 I•Inn,r "�'' , r Ml D'Jll• C. .:::Ilk l I- ': i •r:i! PIt,r.u•-r, Ci Ly of Kagan P.O. Box 21199 . K:nlan, Minnesota 6511: Re: Minneapolis - St. Paul, Int-Qrnattional Airport Development proposal Dr:a r Mr. Runkle: 11(: have reviewed the ProPosod Onvolopmant located south of Interstate 494 and West of Pilot -Knob Road. The proposed development will. be Located in Zone B of our model zoning ordinance. The rndinance will impact the proposed development in the following way: .1.) Building P!oL area to site plot area, 2.) population dcnnity pr•r ac:fol 3.) ilAUt limitations ,,nl' 4.) land uso. I will take each in order and the impact- to tha sublot.s. ?. Bui.ldinn ,lot arra to sit: L i- SUbIOt h: on site Plots of 4 to 6 acres, the model zoning ordinanr_r• 11tows f -f A Kite ;clot area r._:tio to buildi.ny arca of 10:1. since Lw packing ramp is consid red a buildinj, the builcl,:lu.ratio of this oubl t is only 6:1. If the ramp tiori: chanrled kb a surface parking .lot, the ratio would he .in uunformanct:• at .15:1. Sublot Il: The allowable buildin(1 ratio tc,r a Site plot of s acr„n is 8:1. Thr c,lmp .!nil niijcr buil:lincl ar•, yrcaLr•l than 8:1 and t':••t ••!;.t nl n : .. •.vi t h 4h, m W, I ord i nuu •• . Thr: allr:r:IrL li::•vclr,;,!ln nt for C in at 9.6: ! . 2. PoODulat_ic_n_drrns_itv Tho maximum ;1Opu l al ion doh. MY!i 1 .1 x7111<; urdinantar ij 15 ;,.wn,,n:: !,• t .: t, It::i ON is the:tundar, It a;,pVnra tna% Ji ,lwill voccoodl the all::wable M,xi,wm ;uf;!tl,. 1• :ir.::: it l`I0 Ae.1•:yuuf (ll yr. •rlueJy EmpL,yer M • I. J .i I : L • t'�. 1 • • AUI)Il.�t �), l9f:l 1':Ir)r' 7 3. 1If, ir;hl. ),i;:•;I :tion 'I'lli' huildi;a.i height:i as proposed will not: r_zcrrr.ci t-hrn Ilc:•ight- zuuing limits. 4. Land 1Jfe Office buildings as proposed for sublet A and D, are coropatilA.e with the model zoni.ngordinanuc! 11oarever, MoLe.ls arc, cp(3cificall.y excluded in the ordinance and therefore ar.r, not a compatible land uc:c for sublet- C. Than; you for the Opportunity to review the proposed develop- ment-. If. you have any questions, feel free to call or write. Sincerely, Gerald J. Rohrbach P.E. Regional Airport Engineer Roo; 417 )41 0 July 14, 1991 V. 0kp • Sau& PRS 7 moi. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Dale C. Runkle City Planner, City of Fagan P.O. Box 21199 Fagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: PHONE (612) 726-5770 Thank you for forwarding the sketch plan of the development proposal located south of Interstate 494 and West Pilot Knob Road. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. The proposed development will lie within Zone B as applied to Runway 11R/29L at Wold -Chamberlain Field, as shown on the attached drawing. It should be kept in mind that Zone B as shown on this drawing is a MAC interpretation of Mn/DOT Rules and Regulations as adopted 'in 14 MCAR 1.3010, and has not yet been reviewed and/or acted upon by a Joint Airport Zoning Board. Development within Zone B is restricted in a number of ways: 1) there is a minimum lot size, 2) there is a maximum site population, 3) there are minimum ratios for development with respect to total site area, and 4) there are certain uses which are specifically prohibited from Zone B. It would seen that the primary problems with this particular development in regard to these regulations would be the site area. population and the fact that hotels and motels are prohibited in Zone B. A second element of the proposed airport zoning regulations deals with height limitations adjacent to the airport. A review of the proposed location in regard to the airport indicates that the height restriction over the site would be approximately 960 feet; -the elevation submitted by your office indicates that the proposed development should be in the vicinity of 900 feet, therefore it should be compatible with these limitations. Due to its location on the extended centerline of Runway 29L, this proposal has been coordinated with our noise abatement personnel. They have expressed the - opinion that the proposed development seems compatible with aircraft and airport operations, however they would urge the developer to take into account in site layout and building design that the location is approximately 10,000 feet from the end of a major runway at an International airport and that the extended runway centerline will run almost directly over office building A and the motel/ restaurant. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Nigel Finney Director of Planning & EngineerirT�J OFFICE LOCATION -6040 261h AVE SO.—WEST TERMINAL AREA—MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT cc: Dick Theisen - Mn/DDT Chauncey Case - Metro Council • � I .11 tiltt 66,E 4p J v Y c `I I I I }--- . • �JYJ.^'.��;�`T I�.J`vI✓�::Y\ •. ;,•i1'.� •'. JJJ _�� ♦ I I I Jit �- "•'ivy/ e�rLi � 'y �'�•`YK:•'� iJ � IL j�. • r. __ PROP. I-494 ama�mc•a®caammas®ra� SIX=. m Z= rX IMI XM 2=4Z= - �•-Lit>:) -': •^�'� �Y i �l:�h�;> �•1•i .��7�,7.,j �„�\ • .i-�� .•_•,��fn•y %I��-\ _ i 19 7r7 ® IP PARK J4 AGR �.I•J l•! {41 :+ RES. a � � � .•tom �• y - • .. � ISS • . -� _ ovi$ah X04 71VIN CVV"\,r RECEIVED J U L 3 1 1989 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 July 29, 1981 Mr. Dale Runkle, Planner City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed I-494 Hotel/ Office development at such an early date in the process. As I indicated in an earlier letter and again at the July 1st meeting at your offices, the Council is concerned that any development on the property in question be compatible with the city comprehensive plan and the metro aviation system. From an overall planning perspective, the transition of this property from a prior agricultural use to a commercial use area is addressed in the city compreh nsive'plan and appears to be consistent with Council policy for the metro urban service area; however, based upon -the Aviation guide, the NOISEMAP study, and recent deliberations of the MC/MAC committee,' there are several Aviation related issues that need to be addressed. Because of its proximity to International Airport, the proposed project is affected by land use, airspace, and aircraft noise considerations. The project is entirely within land use safety zone (B) for runway 29L and as such, has a potentially significant effect upon the airport. Since the Council references 'In/DOT rules concerning safety zone (B) in its metro systems statement to Eagan, the project should be evaluated in light of the applicable Mn/DOT criteria for that zone, and zone (C). In the absence of such an evaluation, the project would in most likelihood be reviewed under the Metro Significance procedure. Continued .' L5;L- An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County o Dakota County o Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County -2 - It does not appear that the project is affected by height hazard zoning, but any development on this site is affected by aircraft arrival and departure noise and,.therefore, must take acoustic design of structures into account. For specific comments on areas and levels of noise impact, please refer to my May 12, 1981, letter and maps. If you have questions regarding any of this information, please call our offices. CC/nr cc: Nigel D. Finney - MAC Dick Theisen - Mn/DOT 153 Sincerely, Chauncey C. C. Case Transportation Planner OANESOr4 Pn a 97 FtiT 5Q OF TRPS Minnesotan Department of Transportation ?=,r1�1�!�s!i�a Transporta lion Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 296-8203 August 4, 1981 Mr. Dale C. Runkle City Planner, City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55112 Re: Minneapolis - St. Paul, International Airport - Development proposal Dear Mr. Runkle: We have reviewed the proposed development located South of Interstate 494 and West of Pilot Knob Road. The proposed development will be located in Zone B of our model zoning ordinance. The ordinance will impact the proposed development in the following way: 1.) Building plot area to site plot area, 2.) population density per acre, 3.) Height limitations and 4.) land use. I will take each in order and the impact to the sublots. 1. Building plot area to site plot area Sublot A: on site plots of 4 to 6 acres, the model zoning ordinance allows for a site plot area ratio to building area of 1Q:1. Since the parking ramp is considered a building, the building ratio of this sublot is only 6:1. If the ramp were changed to a surface parking lot, the ratio wou18 be in conformance ai: 15:1. Sublot B: The allowable building ratio for a site plot of 8 acres is 8:1. The ramp and office building are greater than 8:1 and therefore conforms with the model ordinance. Sublot C: The allowable ratio is 10:1 and proposed development for C is at 9.6:1. 2. Population density The maximum population density per the model zoning ordinance is 15 persons per acre. Using this as the standard, it appears that all three sublots will exceed the allowable maximum population density. /J t An Equal Opportunity Employer -RgD-J 0 Mr. Cale C. Runkle August 4, 1981 Page 2 3. Height Limitation The building heights as proposed will not exceed the height zoning limits. 4. Land Use Office buildings as proposed for sublot A and B, are compatible with the model zoning ordinance However, Motels are specifically excluded in the ordinance and therefore are not a compatible land use for sublot C. Thank you for tha opportunity to review the proposed develop- ment. If you have any questions, feel free to call or write. Si= erely, Gerald J. Rohrbach P.E. Regional Airport Engineer Room 417 155- • RSC .::� .i;iN j ? '1932 SEYMOUR B, OLSON ASSESSOR DAKOTA -DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 ST. PAUL ■PEa& June 16, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle Eagan City Planner 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: AMCON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Dear Dale: Mr. Peter Stalland has asked me to send you some tax information on the proposed hotel/office complex at Highway 494 and Pilot Knob Road, For -lack of better data, I must base my tax estimate on the anticipated cost of the project. This type of estimate has limited accuracy, but may be sufficient for your purposes. Based on a projected cost of 28 million dollars, and using the current level of assessment and mill rate, I estimate the tax on the completed project would be $1,045,000 annually. Keep in mind that cost estimates generally run somewhat high, so this would probably set the upper range of tax revenues from the project. cc: Peter Stalland DH/ghp Sincerely, Donald E. Holm Chief Deputy Assessor 1$(::2 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER TELEPHONE. 1,12 4370200 0 0 RAVINE PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Chairman Hall next convened the public hearing regarding the application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning 19.1 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow office/hotel complex on the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and I-494. Peter Stalland attorney, appeared for the land owner and described in detail the proposal, noting the Advisory Planning Comission had continued the application to request input from applicable state and metro agencies and also to acquire an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the liability issues relating to the application. He stated that in his opinion that there are no safety issues, that the application complies with FAA regulations and the current Eagan zoning Ordinance No. 52 and that the applicant is ready and willing to comply with the city requirements, and further, that the MnDOT regulations have not been adopted and that there are no other regulations that the proposal will conflict with. He noted, however, that certain provisions of the proposed MnDOT regulations regarding safety zoned construction adjacent to the Metropolitan Airport would not be complied with under the proposed proposal, but that those regulations are unduly re- strictive in some respects. There were no objections to the application. Member McCrea was concerned about densities and height differential of 600 feet above the building heights which she stated were somewhat minimal. She also noted the MnDOT and MAC letters in the packet recommending adoption of the MnDOT regulations and also stated that MAC opposes a motel on the site. Member Krob stated that MAC did not commit itself, although it said that if the application was granted that building construction and design should be compatible with appropriate safety issues. James Fortman of the MnDOT, Divi- sion of Aeronautics was present and stated that the minimal safety standard rules were prepared following the 1973 Legislature and that the MnDOT does not adopt regulations but only proposes them. He stated that the zoning boards of 94 of 141 municipally owned airports have adopted regulations throughout the state. Nigel Finney, representing the Metropolitan Airports Commission was present and answered questions of the Planning Commission members and others present. He stated that the building permits granted in Bloomington which appeared to conflict with the regulations proposed within safety zones that MAC had no contact with Bloomington when the buildings were constructed, but noted that at least one motel had been built since 1973 within the safety zones. Mr. Krob stated that he had concerns about health, safety and welfare but noted that the Planning Commission could act on the zoning application. There was discussion also about the Cray Research Plant approved in Mendota Heights. Elizabeth Witt, an Fagan City Intern and member of the Mendota Heights City Council was present and stated that the Mendota Heights City Council was fully aware of the impact of the safety zone but felt that it would not cause an obstruction in that location. Al Drenckhahn, aj neighboring owner, appeared and indicated that he had no objection to the proposal. The land to the south was zoned for motel -office use about 1968 to 1970. 1E APC Minutes June 22, 1982 After lengthy discussion, McCrea moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend denial of the application for reasons including the following: 1. Zoning Boards adjacent to 41 municipally owned airports throughout the State of Minnesota have adopted the MnDOT safety regulations and recom- mended that the City Council seriously consider the adoption of those regula- tions. 2. The Metropolitan Airport Zoning Board has not considered the issue in this case and it is suggested that the Zoning Board prepare appropriate regulations regarding the safety zones surrounding the Twin Cities Metropoli- tan Airport. 3. It was also noted that the Hotel complex density and the height of the proposed hotel could cause safety issues and that the state metropolitan agencies contacted regarding the proposal generally spoke in opposition to the proposal not meeting the provisions of the regulations proposed by MnDOT. 4. Further, more specifically subject to the Findings of Fact, Conclu- sions and the Recommendations, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes. The Cray Research Plant immediately north of Mendota Heights appears to be in a position that it does not create comparable obstruction. Mr. Stalland then stated that the out -state cities that have adopted the MnDOT regs are essentially rural in nature and further, he indicated that the runway affected by this safety zone is the longest runway and therefore has the longest safety zone. Those in favor were Wold, McCrea and Wilkins. Those against were Hall, Krob and Turnham. Chairman Hall indicated that all issues were covered by the Planning Commission and that the application will be sent to the Council without specific recommendation. NATIONAL BANK - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chairman Hall then convened the public hearing regarding the application of Northwestern National Bank for conditional use permit to allow a drive -up bank machine in the Cedarvale Shopping Center. Mr. Klutz was present on behalf of the applicant to explain the proposal. He noted that 3,500 units are proposed to be placed in approximately a 5 state area. There was discus- sion concerning vandalism and he indicated that the machines could be van- dalized, but there are alarms attached and they are also well lighted. There were no objections. Kroh moved, McCrea seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. -A detailed landscape plan as submitted by the applicant shall be approved and a landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. All voted yes. 6 is 9 •tiaUGi';. SMITE. L''IDE ATTORNEYS AT cI R>;L•. P. A. LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 PAUL H. HAUG EA DAN (ST. PAUL', MEMORA°U' MINNIAL HIGHWAY BRADLEY SMITH ESOTq 53122 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER July 1, 1982 AREA CODE 612 TELEPHORE 494.4224 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Tie Vote - Amcon Corporation Dear Tom: You have been asked to by the AdvisorAmcoy kedPlanning hav me Prepare rt mentis The'orPoration for approval of°p on Juneo22 reg rdinum concerning the vote to deny the application planning CO rezonin g thcule application in fact a recommendation and r quest ionmmission atfthatAgriingural to voted Planned of top_ 1 a reco Your meetin Develop tion to the Council, relates to whether 3-3 °D a 1. Must the Several this tie motion AlthSorl ou statute Plannin ion questions vote is, gh the Commiss seem to appear: Planning commissions dealing t,,ith make a reco must Planning, p,,s Imoendation to no control over the review and A. 462, indico the Council? final vote Consider applications es that e no sense in sendin advisor exceptare a is tfie Advisory Planning Commib°iOusly there . Persons g tfactsporcttion to er the Advisor There would six new back commissionis 2. What Present at tfie meeting hon June 22e are w Persons rY Planning Co n votin The nmlissio is the relevance of «._ APC had only which is a _ final `ne Counci�j L -Decause the stat "Uvisor Plannin Council decision. ' its vote atute provide Commission case included the Under °f course, does s that commission Robert's Rules of not have the APC only vote of the chairman b Drder bearing upon the Council can can only be looked at b ecause the a tie vote view it Y the Council aschairman which in this °r It but as a recommendatio is a member of the Rules X743 indicates an even n but without a plit tie vote. ndicates th „ number of specific The adoption is lost at °Q a tie votemembers for and againstotion favoring vote of the since a tie - then governing bod not a ma motion requiring a maj. Robe is a appear that 3orit for is sufficient to a ma.�°tit or City Council. to ado A• 462.357 approve Y vote of those pt a motion to requires ' a would a motion. Present at rezone. It would a Planning Commission meeting Very truly yours, skk Paul` 11- L' `Citi Hau$e 0 0 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOOR FROM: DALE C. RUNYLE, CITY PLANNER QN�V DATE: JULY 1. 1982 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR RAVINE PLAZA PLANNED Since the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting there were some questions brought up which staff has tried to resolve or provide answers to prior to the City Council Meeting of July 6, 1982. Hopefully, this additional information will give the City Council some insight as to the way the City of St. Paul is looking at the safety ordinances. At the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 1982, Nigel Finney of Metropolitan Airports Commission had stated that the Joint Zoning Board has not yet met for Wold Chamberlain Airport, but has been initiated for the Downtown St. Paul Airport. Staff has followed up by contacting the Planning Department for St. Paul to find out what the status is of the Joint Zoning Board in regard the Downtown St. Paul Airport. It is staff's understanding that the Joint Zoning Board initiated approximately two years ago to study the Safety Zoning Ordinance and on June 4, 1981 a resolution was adopted by the St. Paul City Council in regard to three alternatives and how the City of St. Paul could amend the proposed Safety Ordinance and by a workable document within the City of St. Paul. Alternative One was to increase the density and heighth of buildings in the B Zone in order that the City of St. Paul can develop the property in accordance to their overall plan. Alternative Two was to reduce the size of the B Zone in order to develop in accor- dance with the City's overall plan. Alternative Three is to eliminate the B Zone altogether because of certain circumstances and therefore the B Zone would not effect the development proposed in the City of St. Paul. It is staff's understanding that Alternatives One & Two have been informally rejected by Minnesota Department of Transportation and there has yet to be any official or unofficial comments in -regard to Alternative Three. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution and alternatives which the City of St. Paul is trying to proceed with in regard to developing the area which would be encom- passed in the proposed B Zone of the Dowtown St. Paul Airport. Staff would like to point out that the Joint Zoning Board has been in process for Approximately two years and that there has not been any adoption of any safety zones at the present time. If the City of Eagan is just beginning to formalize the Joint Zoning Board for Wold Chamberlain Airport, it could be another two years from the initiation of this zoning board to the time any formal ordinances are adopted by the surrounding communities. The last item staff would like to point out is that the City of St. Paul is having problems with the restrictions of the proposed Safety Ordinance in regard to practi- cality and development in the City of St. Paul. The City of Eagan would probably run in to the same situation in regard to the enforcement of the Safety Zone Ordinance as it pertains to development within the City of Eagan. /60 0 0 Page 2 Since the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting the City has received a resolution by the Dakota County Chamber of Commerce. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution for your review. It is staff's understanding that there are other comments coming in from the business community in the City of Fagan. At this time the City has not received these letters, but if they are received prior to the July 6 meeting, they will be passed on to you at the July 6, 1982 City Council Meeting. 161 st•n lcJ (iy Referred To eg,asr'l _Resohitio pzool!D1- Committee: Dole — Out of Committee By_ Date WHEREAS, Holman Field is an airport under the control and jurisdiction of the -Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC); and WHEREAS, MAC is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.063, subd. 3(5), to create a joint airport zoning board for each airport operated under its authority for the purpose of adopting zoning regulations fpr the "airport hazard area"; and WHEREAS, MAC has appointed a joint airport zoning board for Holman Field consisting of representatives from St. Paul, West St. Paul and MAC, which board has requested that each member -city propose airport hazard zoning regulations and building height limits for its respective city limits; and WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Planning Commission has studied the Minnesota Department of Transportation airport hazard area zoning guidelines as they impact on the area surrounding and adjacent to the Holman Field, and has recommended zoning regulations which are an alternative to the Department's guidelines, and has recom- mended that the City Council forward these 'recommendations to the joint zoning board, the MAC and the Department of Transportation; now, -therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Saint Paul City Council does hereby concur in the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission as contained in the document entitled "Holman Field: Airport Develop- ment Controls Alternatives Report", and the subsequent report of the Chairman of the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1981, and these recommendations shall lie forwarded to the joint zoning board, MAC and the Department of Transportation for their consideration and implementation. COUNCILMEN us Nays T Hunt t..vin. In Favor Maddon s,,`M°iwver cy Against Teoetco Wilton pled by Council: Date JUN 4 19R1 uhod P/oxspd by Counci�crctjrL `UN 5 by Havor: De( ._ Requeslgd by Department of: M Form Approved By Approved by /6 7. By — — i• rot Submission to Council ^ j • C1 1"Y FLANNING CUlvavuz).alu,r Thomas P. FitzGibbon. Jr.. Chairman 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Mfnne+ota 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612.298•41'.1 MAYOR April 10, 1981 REPORT TO: Mayor Latimer Council President Maddox Members of the City Council; 4 FROM: Thomas P. FitzGibbon, Jr. VtRig— Chairman, St. Paul Planning Commission SUBJECT: Airport Development Controls for Downtown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) As you are aware, the City Planning Commission, through its Economic Development Committee, has been wrestling with a.means of controlling development in the vicinity of Holman Field for safety purposes. It has not been an easy task, given the airport's proximity to so many areas of the city.where we have been encouraging development and trying to increase populations. After months of diligent work and discussions with airport users, with state and federal agencies concerned with airport operations and safety, with doe+ntown and neighborhood development interests and with other interested citizens, the Commission is recommending that the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board consider the following series of development controls. The Commission has studied the requirements for Safety Zones recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and has concluded that they will- be difficult to implement. Holman Field is unique by virtue of its location in the region and city and its function in,the regional airport system. Consequently, it requires careful study and unique applications of safety zones. The Planning Commission has attempted to do just this by analyzing affected areas of the city and determining where and how the development potential of these areas can be maximized. The Commission is recommending that development be encouraged in the affected areas, but only at densities and heights that will not impair the safe and efficient operations of Holman Field. The Commission believes that these are the most practical and realistic means of adequately meeting the safety requirement of the airport without inhibiting the development and improvement potentials of downtown., the hest Side and Dayton's Bluff: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS The Commission suggests modifying the safety zones to fit current and future developner as well as raising the height limitations. Informal comments from MnDOT and MAC indicate -that this may be acceptable to them. The recommended modifications are as follows. Please refer to the report entitled Holman Field: Airport Development Controls Alternatives Report to clarify discussion. 1. A NEW LAND USE SAFETY ZONE ALTERNATIVE, B -4(a) (page 14) Redefine the boundaries of the safety zones to allow for expected development at .identified sites. This alternative is essentially that described in AlternativE 0-4 on page 14, but the configuration of the Zones (mapped on page 15) would be changed thusly: /63 • -2- • A. Runway 14 (proposed): A zone to extend from the runway to the Third Street bridge, recommended by MnDOT. This would establish a "clear zone" across the river to the Third Street Bridge. No permanent structures nor large assemblages of people would be permitted. This recommendation does not call for a B Zone beyond the Third Street Bridge. As suggested by the Commission, development.north of the bridge would be unrestricted. B. Runway 8: A zone to extend from the runway to the wast property line ' at State Street. This would shorten the recommended clear zone from 2,433 feet to 2,000 feet... B Zone to extend from the west property line at State Street. to the line recommended by MnDOT, except for a portion of Concord Te -race, which should be classified as'an "Established Residential Neighborhood in Built Up Areas", per MnDOT standards. ;. This would convert about 7, acres of Port Authority property from an A Zone to a B Zone to allow for controlled development of a prime Port Authority parcel and would allow for easy rehabilitation and infill development. in Concord Terrace. C. Remaining Runways:. A and B Zones to remain intacf, as recommended by tMOT. The C Zones in the city would also remain intact. It.is further recommended that whatever existing structures within the proposed A Zones be allotied to pursue expansion or improvement potentials.: These would be exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. Areas affected by this recommendation include isolated property in the Runway 12 (NW) A Zone; and parts of Barge Terminal #1"that lie in the A Zones for Runways 26 (E) and 30 (SE). 2. ALTERNATIVE C.1 (page 16) - 20:1 -APPROACH SLOPE TO RUNWAYS 12 AND 14 (proposed) This recommendation would define a steeper runway approach to the two northerly* runways. The steeper approach would allow for somewhat higher development in the Lowertown area and Space Center complex. Lowertotin is the part of the city most severely impacted by the MnDOT safety zones. Under the MnDOT recommendations, little could be built over four stories.. The Commissionis recommending a sliding scale of heights; lower closer to the river (and runway), with increased height closer to I-94. The range would be approximately 4-6 stories at the Union Depot to 19-20 stories at the Farmer's Market site. 3. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (b) (page 16) - DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO 40' ABOVE THE GROUND FAA regulations refer to hest Side, Dayton's Bluff and Highwood neighborhoods as "nonconforming" to safety standards because the.bluff heights alone violate the clear air zones recommended by FAA. As such, all housing or public improvements in these areas would require FAA variances to take place. The Committee felt. that was silly, and recommends that the FAA redefine its standards at these locations to avoid the administrative headaches they would create. /.4 a ANNA t rl r � 1 • % DOWNTOWN AIRPORT .. i ALTERNATIVE B.4(a): REDEFINE BOUNDARIES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ZONE A -NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE B -LIMITED DEVELOPMENT �657 /////. ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ``,� The recommendation would allow for unhindered.housing rehabilitation and develop mei plus other contemplated public improvements to a height of 40.feet above the ground. This is more than adequate to deal with existing residential uses. Building taller than 40 feet could be subject to variance. 4. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (c) (page 19):' CREATE DOWNTOWN HEIGHT Z014ES BASED ON EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS This alternative'is that described in Alternative C.2 (c) on page 19, but the configuration of the zones (mapped on page 18) would be changed to those on the attached map. Under the Commission's proposal, the 1st National Bank Tower becomes the effective ceiling for downtaa6 heights, except in areas of downtown between the bank and the airport. In.these areas, height limits are defined by the height of the Post Office, or the Minnesota Mutual Building. The many discussions the Commission has had regarding this issue have exposed a number of concerns about the•airport, previous planning that has been done for it, and the process and rules by which the State Legislature is requiring that safety zones be established. The Commission feels it is imperative to pass on its observatic and reservations for your information and consideration. 1. THE AIRPORT ITSELF - While the Holman Field site doesn't easily fit the needs of a busy urban airport, the Commission doesn't believe that it is realistic or advisable to recommend closing or moving the airport. Although it is difficull to document, we think that having the airport here is probably "worth it". It's already here; it's not going away and we have, therefore, focused on living with it while mitigating its adverse impacts. In doing so, we want.to point out the extraordinary lengths.to which citizens and businesses of the city must go to accommodate the. facility. 2. AIRPORT PLANNING - The Commission has numerous reservations about the development program at the airport. It appears that the new alignment of runways was establi! with little understanding of the economic impact of lost development in the safety zones. It is evident that the proposed new longer runway in a north - south orientation is needed and advisable from the perspective of aircraft operations and noise. However, the total new runway layout leaves the northwast- southeast runway open and allows planes to take off and land directly over do,:,ntm It seems that safety and noise considerations would dictate that such downto,:rn approaches be abandoned. With the northwest -southeast runway open, the city has little option in securing safety but to impose unwanted development restrictic If the safety of downtown buildings is paramount, it should be easier and more effective to insure that planes don't have to fly over the dowmtowrn. Unfortunate' past planning for the airport did not account for this point. 3. STATE PROCESSES AND RULES - According to almost all parties involved, the state standards against which our proposal for safety areas will be measured are unusually strict for areas such as St. Paul. For Holman Field they require 1� safety zones of little or no development that are ten times larger than those required by the federal government. Federal standards for runway approach zones -0* would allow most buildings to be up to 50% higher than the state standards. The s y state standards are also the strictest (and, therefore, also provide the most safety) of any state in the nation. It is evident that they are intended for X66 I YANNAPOQS-TST.— --FF 1 I ALTERNATIVE C.2.c.: DO4INTOWN HEIGHT ZONES BASED ON EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS 350 HEIGHT LI141T (FEET ABOVE AIRPORT) DOWNTOWN AI R PQRT Clf • -6- new airports in undeveloped areas. Given existing topography and development around Holman Field, it is impossible to meet all the standards recommended for safety zones by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Even if we could meet all the standards, the potential for lost development in extremely large safety zones is compelling. Not all federal standards are acceptable. In fact, they also put severe developmen• constraints on downtown. Nor is the safety of the flying public and airport neighbors an inconsequential concern in controlling development around the airport. It obviously is the most important consideration in decision-making.' However, the many discussions of this issue has led the Planning Counission.to the follow -Ing conclusions: A. The MnDOT standards for safety zones around state airports are overly.conservat• especially when applied to Holman Field. 'There is no reason to believe that this airport is presently unsafe, despite the many "violations" of state and federal standards that exist. B. The city should recognize that maximum intensities of development cannot take place right up to the end of the runways, and that public safety demands that development in the vicinity of..the airport be somewhat less than would normally be desired. C. It is possible and advisable to strike a compromise: Allow for development in areas where realistic development potential exists; at the same time, .prohibit or limit— development in areas to meet federal standards and in areas where development should not be expected. This -would establish safety zon-as that are broader and more comprehensive than the federal zones and somewhat less than what MnDOT requires. Such an approach would result .in a downtown airport whose safety zones would extend farther than most, but not so far to unreasonably restrict development. This is the theory behind the Planning Commission recommendations; creating flexible development controls that ,are tailored to the specifics of surrounding environment and aircraft operations at this particular. airport. D. Airport safety is a more subjective topic than a technical one. It is very difficult to build adequate safety into an airport by simply moving lines . around on a map. The Commission thinks MnDOT and the FAA should re-evaluate their standards and spend more time working with effected communities to deal with issues at specific airports and sites. The current'practices of establish' and then attempting to enforce unworkable standards lead only to frustrat'')n and acrimony of both sides of the table. It certainly does not get us anv closer to the system of safe, efficient airports that we all desire. The Planning Commission has studied the state requirements and recommended development controls for Holman Field that respond to specific restrictions and concerns. Our solution to the issue will work. /68 city of saint Paul planning commission resolution Tile number 81-11 date Anri1 1n. 1981 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.061 through 360 surrounding Downtown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) be of airport hazards; and 0 .074 requires that the property regulated to prevent creation WHEREAS. the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has requested that St. Paul join with it and other affected municipalities in the creation of a.joint Airport Zoning Board for purposes of establishing airport development controls for Holman Field; and WHEREAS, the St. Paul City Council has resolved to participate in the Holman Field 'Joint Airport Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the Joint Zoning Board has asked the City of St. Paul to recommend to it a development ordinance that would control appropriate lands in St. Paul; and WHEREAS, .the St. Paul Planning Commission, working with; h1AC, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, airport users, and airport neighbors, has studied alternative options For airport area development controls, based on statewide standards established by the Mn DOT; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing for purposes of determining the most appropriate development controls to be recommended to the Joint Zoning Board; a r.� WHEREAS, many members of the Planning Commission and the public have expressed concern with the State processes and standards that are reconmiended for consideration in establishing development controls; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Paul its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and Holman Field: Airport Development Controls Altern Of April 10, 1981. City Planning Commission reports City Council in the attached document atives Report and subsequent report BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission express its reservations about the state process and standards regarding this issue to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration in transmitting the city's recommendation to the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board. moved by McDonel l 6 seconded by Kadri e 0 0 June 30, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle, City Planner City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Amcon Application for Rezoning for Hotel and Building Complex Dear Mr. Runkle: Please find enclosed a resolution adopted by the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, and signed by the Executive Director, Catherine L. DeCourcy. Your prompt consideration of this matter, and the consideration of the City Council of the city of Eagan will be sincerely appreciated. Yours' truly_, Catherine L. DeCourcy, Executive Director NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE C L D : n r 170 33 E. Wentworth Ave. • Suite 101 • West St. Paul. Minnesota 55118 • 4574921 EAGAN • LILYDALE 0 MENDOTA • MENDOTA HEIGHTS 9 WEST ST. PAUL NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS it has come to the attention of the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce that Amcon, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, has made application to the Eagan City Council for a rezoning of agricultural to plan development for that certain piece of property located approximately at the corner of the new proposed 494 Interstate Freeway and Pilot Knob Road; and WHEREAS said application for rezoning is for the purpose of constructing a 225 (approximately) room hotel and two office buildings; and WHEREAS based on the projected total cost of the project of $28,000,000, said hotel would favorably support the tax base in Dakota County and generate substantial monies for Minnesota School District 197; and WHEREAS said hotel project would benefit and enhance Dakota County busi- nesses and employment opportunities; and WHEREAS that although the projected hotel site is beneath the direct path of aircraft approaches to a Wold -Chamberlain Airport runway, it does not violate any existing aeronautical state or federal law. NOW THEREFORE be it hereby RESOLVED, that the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce does hereby recommend to the Eagan City Council to approve Amcon, Inc.'s application for rezoning from agricultural to plan development and further to approve all subse- quent conditional use and building permits for said hotel and office building project. Dated thisJ-L day of,u.l, 1982. Approved By: J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty-two FINAL PLAT FOR COMSERV #1 D. Comsery #1 Final Plat -- All items necessary for the approval of the Comsery #1 Addition final plat have been submitted, reviewed and approved by City staff and all conditions placed on the pre- liminary plat have been complied with. However, recent discussions with the developer indicate that a technical legal description on the Torrence property must be redescribed through district court action prior to allowing the recording of this plat. With the developer trying to move as fast as he can through the court system, it would be appropriate for the Council to approve the final plat at this date to allow it to be recorded as soon as the title problem is satisfactorily resolved. In order to allow the City to proceed with the award of the contract for the installation of streets and utilities, the developer will be granting a blanket easement and a right of entry to allow the City to proceed with this work. This easement will expire upon the official recording of the plat. Enclosed on page j"7'j is a copy of the final plat for your con- sideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat for Comsery #1 Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents. 171 ,.,; ,.•:..::,�::Y::,:i,:::�� ,.:n .::;..e...............m..,::.,�.,�,..Y.,.Y,\.. COMSERV , m u,.. ;.. 1 u 1, Y ADDITION ' 1:u eI /,: 1 ••`I , eI :° , w •a! • s 1,u n u; . ua p °^ a/,.. Y 1 » ',...........Ir. /v// •wn; Wln, il,°iO°u •'/u ul:l�un4.'u •Ilul v1.:. w.. ••e. /IY� / if W,\, •011• .\0: ; ,°!1. 0 1•i°i°u ,,LPJ ,•L:........ ,... i;c : ;ice - .:,:• �� / iYr.e �1+5 � r'`,'\ �t„p\q\[ ��/ e w ;:uw u'•::y • w.. w , •�ryu W;O .IJ .n. mu uw e. ..ia°r: bn .a �Y::r W a : p:;:. //` de �'� Tly �Ip�J T�• ` wa,e`•;a emw .0 ::.,.°r. w Ye./. i:i::..m u. /ruai,.•:M , unr °.....e.° °, .n.°. s • .. /VIJY / , P �� bw =r u. w:... an.•`• r —.. iuY` .. W»........... .... W ............... a ..., W/, /'a/-______\,_ ....�.�wr .� I ,''� 's,, /"�J'Y:°..`J°,w.�`•°::m Y.. :v[:i. °i:.aa.wl,. .> :id.•: f == i' •,,; .. :: a : ,:�:,:...:\... .,. L,....,::, tl ...L..W a :°:: c':W ......... OUR= � ! •Im `I '1• ; I _ S \1' O .°.pp.e../ al. Y •1 f e. pu , Cwnr. / J ai J • w.i.u^ ..+wr �n (s./r .rw..wuesvli % � m •....an or... om.w`..r.na uwe.f / w 'e .YW / BL. RINi M Ii9.9 •f % ow e.. m u..Wa ..urm RON K.PU6664 AND AtSSC.0/ATHS LAND 6URVASVuaa um.....Y. i Y L Y:1.`• � _ . X01 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Three ADDLTIONALB, LTEMSb CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION UPDATE A. Cable Television Commission Update -- The last regular meeting of the Burnsville/Eagan Joint Cable Commission was held on June 14 and a report was given at the June 15 City Council meeting. Since there has not been any action taken by the joint commission and the next meeting is scheduled for July 8, 1982, there more than likely will not be an update. CITY HALL EXPANSION UPDATE B. City Hall Expansion Update/Citizen Committee Update -- Jack Boarman of Boarman Architects is planning to be present to make a brief review of the City Hall expansion progress. It is antici- pated that some plans will be available for review. If there is not adequate time to review the plans in as much detail as the City Council desires, they can be reviewed as a part of a special meeting in the next week or two. The first meeting of the Citizens' Advisory Committee was held at the Eagan Police Department on June 22, 1982. There was excellent attendance at the meeting with 19 of the 21 persons in attendance. Mayor Blomquist received a request from Paul Uselmann to serve on the committee and she has asked that his name be included. There are now 22 names on the advisory committee. A copy is enclosed on page 1-75' for your reference. The only two persons absent at the first meeting, both of whom had previous commitments, were Sannee Klein and Lois Van Dyke. A history was given by the City Administrator and additional infor- mation about the current plans and development of a referendum was provided by the architect. There were excellent questions asked by the committee members, requiring some additional background which will be provided at their next regular meeting. The committee is planning to meet at 8:00 p.m. to tour the offices with the archi- tect the night of the water treatment hearing on July 13, 1982. There is no apparent action required on this item at this time, unless so requested by the architect. 1 �4 CITY OF EAGAN CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY HALL & FIRE STATION EXPANSION David G. Ashfeld Sannee Klein 1813 Turquoise Trail 4070 Dodd Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55123 454-3898 454-1611 Karen Flood Thomas R. Kniefel 1518 Lone Oak Road 1769 Hickory Hill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55122 454-2631 454-1048 Roger W. Fredlund Marilyn Lancette 3650 Knoll Ridge Drive 1720 Crestridge Lane Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 454-1194 452-2678 Paul Gooding Charlotte McPherson 1312 Wilderness Run Drive 4344 Sandstone Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55122 452-2546 454-1772 John Gustin William J. Rydrych 3061 Woodlark Lane 1330 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55123 452-7865 454-4490 Arlene Hoffmann Gordon E. Schramm 1813 Cinnabar Court 4171 Rahn Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 454-3151 454-3726 Howard Johnson Win K. Scott Tires Plus 1664 Hickory Hill Drive New Cedar at Diffley Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 452-4061 454-8174 Gerry Chapdelaine 575 Chapel Lane Eagan, MN 55121 454-2533 Paul Uselmann 3021 Woodlark Ln Eagan, MN 55121 Loren Spande Bernie Joyce 4515 Oak Chase Road 1167 Timbershore Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55123 454-6948 454-1457 Lois Van Dyke Elaine Karel 1300 Kolstad Lane 1929 Jade Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55122 452-2386 454-1501 Fran Winkel Vincent J. Kennedy 1575 McCarthy Road 1415 Lone Oak Road Eagan, iNIN 55121 Eagan, MN 55121 454-1771 454-4545 I -7S Gerry Chapdelaine 575 Chapel Lane Eagan, MN 55121 454-2533 Paul Uselmann 3021 Woodlark Ln Eagan, MN 55121 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Four CONTRACT 82-3 C. Contract 82-3, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Oster Addition & Storland Road utilities) -- At 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, the City staff officially opened bids for Contract 82-3. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed on page 1-17 for the Council's information. The bid tabulation references the bids received in relationship to the estimated construction costs con- tained in the original feasibility report presented at the public hearing for the referenced projects. The alternate bid provided for the construction of "B 6-18 Concrete Curb & Gutter (Vertical Curb)" in lieu of the surmountable curb and gutter along Skyline Drive. The reason surmountable concrete curb and gutter is instal- led in this subdivision is due to the fact that future driveway openings cannot be anticipated. The vertical curb (B 6-18) is desirable from a drainage containment standpoint, traffic control and snowplow maintenance. With the properties along Skyline Drive being developed and permanent driveways located, it would be feasi- ble to install this vertical type curbing along Skyline Drive for future extension to the west. This would result in an additional $950 (0.9%) to the contract amount. Due to the excellent bids received for this project, the cost would still be less that what was estimated in the feasibility report at the time of public hearing. Subsequently, staff is recommending that B 6-18 concrete curb and gutter (vertical curb) be installed along Skyline Drive and that the contract be awarded with the alternate bid. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To Encon utilities, Inc., in the amount of $110,018 and authorize the Mayor and City contract agreements. !76 award Contract 82-3 to the alternate bid of Clerk to execute the OSTER NICOLS CONTRACTORS u [TION PROJECT SND ROAD - PR( nAn - PTMP nA 0 Our File No. 49244 50 - UTILITY & STREET IMP 7CT 350 WATER MAIN IMPROVE DRIVE - PRESSURE REDUCING ONTRACT NO. 82-3 1. Encon Utilities Inc. 2. Richard Knutson Inc. 3. Nodland Associates Inc. 4. Erwin Montgomery Construction 5. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 6. Alexander Construction Co. 7. Austin P. Keller Construction B. Hardrives Inc. 9. McNamara Vivant Contracting 10. Valley Paving Inc. 11. Bituminous Roadways BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ TOTAL BASE BID Without Alternate With Alternate $109,068.00 $110,018.00 109,284.10 110,234.10 114,535.00 115,010.00 117,647.50 118,597.50 118,953.63 119,903.63 . . 69,380 NO BID $13,500 NO BID . . 68,061 NO BID 21,160 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ $101,300 Project 350 Project 352 Nicols Rd Feasibility Report . . . . . . . . . $85,640 $18,840 - Engineer's Estimate . . . . . . . . 69,380 18,440 $13,500 Low Bid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,061 19,847 21,160 (Alternate) . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 % (+) over or (-) under . . . . . . -19% +5.35% N A 1-77 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Five CONTRACT 82-5 D. Contract 82-5, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Comsery #1 Streets & Utilities) -- At 10:45 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, the City staff officially opened bids for Contract 82-5. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed on page 179 for the Council's informa- tion. The low bid was submitted by Rauenhorst Corporation in the amount of $496,803.00. This amount is under the engineer's estimate of $546,800. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To award Contract 82-5 to Rauenhorst Corporation in the amount of $496,803.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract agreements. 171 0 FeasibilityReport Engineer's Estimate 546,830 Our File No. 49252 Low Bid 496,803 a + over or - under -11.46 COMSERV NO. I UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 356 CITY CONTRACT NO. 82-5 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BID TIME: 10:45 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID 1. Rauenhorst Corporation $496,803.00 2. Richard Knutson Inc. 518,545.00 3. Enebak Construction 519,054.00 4. Buesing Bros. Inc. 529,319.50 5. Brown & Cris Inc. 553,511.00 6. Engin Montganery Construction 556,729.00 7. Orfei & Sons Inc. 596,033.47 8. Alexander Construction NO BID 9. Barbarossa & Sons Inc. NO BID 10. Enoon Utilities Inc. NO BID 11. Hardrives Inc. NO BID 12. Austin P. Keller Construction NO BID 13. McNamara Vivant Contracting -Co. NO BID 14. Nodland Associates Inc NO BID 15. Northdale Construction NO BID 16. Park Construction NO BID 17. Lametti & Sons Inc. NO BID 18. Bituminous _Roadways Inc NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ $546.800 »9 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Six AMENDMENT FOR OFF SALE LIQUOR LICENSE POLICY E. Kraus Anderson Request for Amendment to the Off Sale Liquor License Policy to Allow Issuance of More than One License in the North Central Part of the City -- The City has received a request from Rod McKenzie, Director of Leasing for Kraus Anderson Realty, as to whether the City Council would give any consideration to an amendment to the liquor license policy to allow issuance of more than one license in the north central part of the City. Enclosed on page pg is is a copy of the Kraus Anderson letter. Also enclosed on pages Ig% through Ig is a copy of the liquor license policy. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny any amend- ment to the liquor license policy to allow an expansion of the number of licenses in one or more geographic areas. s/Thomas L. Hedges ity ministrator 110 0 0 KRAUS-ANDERSON REAliriff COMPANY DEVELOPMENT* LEASING• MANAGEMENT June 11, 1982 Mayor Blomquist 6 City Council Members City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: PILOT KNOB SHOPPING CENTER Dear Mayor Blomquist 6 City Council Members: We are presently working on obtaining the major tenants of the proposed Pilot Knob Shopping Center, located on Pilot Knob Road and Duckwood Drive. In working with M.G.M. Liquor, we find there could be some problems in obtaining a liquor license for this location. M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse would be one of the anchor tenants of the center with 12,000 square feet. The center will have three major tenants, as a center of this size requires three majors to give the support of customer traffic for the smaller stores. This type of a tenant generates a customer that frequently visits the center and soon establishes a buying habit with all the tenants within the center, in turn, making the center a strong and viable asset to the community. We would appreciate any consideration the City of Eagan can give to us whereby enabling us to obtain M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse as a major tenant. Sincerely, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY Rod McKenzie Senior Director of Leasing RM/ Imt cc: Burton F. Dahlberg, Executive Vice President 181 523 SOUL Ei; hLh SLreei • YlinneapuIis, '%Iinnesota 55404 • (612)332-1391 0 0 C CITY OF EACAN LIQUOR LICENSE POLICIES Adopted February 22, 1973 Amended September 21, 1976, December 19, 1979, January 3, 1980, March 4, 1980 and February 3, 1981. OFF—SALE LIQUOR 1) Pour off—sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time in the City of Eagan. The City reserves the right to space liquor licenses in geographic commercial areas and not concentrate licenses in a single area. The following locations describe the geographic considerations: a) Two licenses shall be allowed in the general western area of the City (near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13). b) One license shall be allowed in the general northeastern area of the City. c) One license shall be allowed in the general_ south—central area of the City. 2) Off—sale licenses shall be limited to property zoned Commercial. ON—SALE LIQUOR 1) Number a) A total of twelve (12) on—sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time. 2) Value (Note 1) a) No on—sale liquor license shall be allowed for any establishment unless the investment in the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license is equal to or greater than $200,000. In the event the on—sale liquor establishment is part of a larger building containing other uses, the value shall be arrived at by prorating the value of the total building on a square footage basis. Value is to be determined on items considered by the County Assessor to be "real property", as differentiated from fixtures. 0 0 3) Food Service (Note 1) a) All establishments which hold an "on -sale" liquor license must maintain a ratio of food sales to liquor sales of at least 40-60%. Such establishments shall file with the City at the end of each quarter a verified statement as to the food to liquor sales ratio. Failure to maintain the minimum ratio for any quarter is grounds for the City Council to determine that the license is in violation of the Eagan Liquor Ordinance No. 42 and also is grounds for revocation of the license. b) Food service must consist of a "reasonable" choice of full meals, and shall not be limited to "quick service" items such as pizza, sand- wiches, hamburgers, etc. 4) Location (Note 1) a) On -sale liquor licenses shall be limited to commercially or industrially zoned property, under a conditional use permit. 5) Exceptions a) Where the license requests are made for establishments which are an integral part of a motel or hotel of over 60 rooms, or in which the value of the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license exceeds $500,000, special exemption from the ,limit ;• of twelve (12) total on -sale liquor licenses may be granted. General These policies shall be reviewed on a yearly basis. Note 1: On -sale establishments existing at the date of incorporation of Eagan as a Village are exempt from these requirements. I$3 9 0 CITY OF EACAN LIQUOR LICENSE POLICIES Adopted February 22, 1973 Amended September 21, 1976, December 19, 1979, January 3, 1980, March 4, 1980 and February 3, 1981. OFF -SALE LIQUOR 1) Four off -sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time in the City off. The City reserves the right to space liquor licenses it geographic commercial areas and not concentrate licenses in a single area. The following locations describe the geographic considerations: a) Two licenses shall be allowed in the ,general western area of the City (near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13). b) One license shall be allowed in the general northeastern area of the City. c) One license shall be allowed in the general south-central area of the City. 2) Off -sale licenses shall be limited to property zoned Commercial. ON -SALE LIQUOR 1) Number a) A total of twelve (12) on -sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time. 2) Value (Note 1) a) No on -sale liquor license shall be allowed for any establishment unless the investment in the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license is equal to or greater than $200,000. In the event the on -sale liquor establishment is part of a larger building containing other uses, the value shall be arrived at by prorating the value of the total building on a square footage basis. Value is to be determined on items considered by the County Assessor to be "real property", as differentiated from fixtures. IIL 0 0 ]) Food Service (Note 1) a) All establishments which hold an "on—sale" liquor license must maintain a ratio of food sales to liquor sales of at least 40-60%. Such establishments shall file with the City at the end of each quarter a verified statement as to the food to liquor sales ratio. Failure to maintain the minimum ratio for any quarter is grounds for the City Council to determine that the license is in violation of the Eagan Liquor Ordinance No. 42 and also is grounds for revocation of the license. , b) Food service must consist of a "reasonable" choice of full meals, and shall not be limited to "quick service" items such as pizza, sand— wiches, hamburgers, etc. 4) Location (Note 1) a) On—sale liquor licenses shall be limited to commercially or industrially zoned property, under a conditional use permit. 5) Exceptions a) Where the license requests are made for establishments which are an integral part of a motel or hotel of over 60 rooms, or in which the value of the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license exceeds $500,000, special exemption from the .limit of twelve (12) total on—sale liquor licenses may be granted. General These policies shall be reviewed on a yearly basis. Note 1: On—sale establishments existing at the date of incorporation of Eagan as a Village are exempt from these requirements. 1%3 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 2, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL Water Treatment Plant Public Hear The City Administrator and Director of Public Works, with the assistance of the interns, have prepared a press release which appeared in the last issue of the Eagan Chronicle advertising the proposed water treatment plant hearing scheduled for July 13, 1982. There is additional information which will be printed in the Eagan Chronicle during the next two issues to fully inform the public as to the hearing date and also the fact that a hearing is scheduled. The hearing is scheduled for the City Hall, realising that at both the public hearing and the date upon which the City Council had proposed to take action on the water treatment plant the City Council chambers would have had adequate space for the persons attending these meetings. If the City staff or City Council is aware of a large delegation planning to be present for the pro- posed hearing, efforts would be made to change the location. En- closed on pages 115 through -I-0- is a copy of the revised report. The City Administrator did inform the City Council at the special meeting held on June 21 that the original action of March 16, 1982 did include a condition that a survey would be sent out to the public and a newsletter that was sent out this spring did indicate the same condition. However, it was the feeling of the City Council that since a survey had been sent out and a public hearing had been held and not many facts were changing for this newly scheduled public hearing, it would not be necessary to send out another survey. The Director of Public Works and City Administrator will make every effort to provide the information that would have gone out in a newsletter through press releases in the Eagan Chronicle and Dakota County Tribune. Vandalism It was reported to the City Administrator on June 24 by the Director of Parks & Recreation that apparently forty to fifty feet of hockey rink boards at the Well Site Hockey Rink were stolen on the night of June 23, 1982. The report has been given to the Police Depart- ment and an investigation is underway. I V4 • Informational Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two Street Rod Association National Rall Mayor Blomquist has been asked to address a local chapter of the Street Rod Association in the City of Eagan at 4:00 p.m. on July 13, 1982. The Street Rod Association National Rally is scheduled to begin at that time and there are expected to be several thousand cars in the metropolitan area for several days and the following weekend. Green Acres Enclosed on page 21' is a memo from the City Attorney's office regarding the Gree—n--Wcres property tax that helps to address part of the question raised by the City Council at a recent meeting. Also enclosed on page is a list of Green Acre qualifications as received from the Dakota County Auditor's office. A report listing all property in the City currently having green acres status first by property owner and second by location is enclosed on pages �1q through WI for your information. There is a total of approximately 1;674 acres on the list. A 1981 study showed 21,546 acres of land in the City, although a more meaningful relationship would be between the green acred amount and assessed acres rather than total acres. Cedar Elementary School Enclosed on pages�g through $ 5 is a copy of a letter the City Administrator and Mayor received from Independent School District #191 as to the letter of intent to rent the building. Since the City Council has been so close to this issue, it seemed appropriate to provide a copy of the letter for your review. MTC Enclosed on page _ S� is a letter of response regarding Route #57 to the Minnesota Zoological Gardens as requested by the City Council at a recent City Council meeting. Loan to Lender Program Mayor Blomquist and the City Administrator met with the mayors and administrators of Apple Valley and Burnsville to review the Loan to Lender Program with Carol Schultz, Executive Director of the HRA, at a breakfast meeting on June 24, 1982. The Cities of Burnsville and Eagan are less than enthusiastic about the program while the City of Apple Valley is lukewarm to encouraged by the prospects of the program. The City Administrator will prepare a brief report outlining additional facts that have been reviewed since the joint City Council meeting in Apple Valley and also the discussion at the mayors' breakfast. This report will be sent out sometime after the July 6 meeting, and if desired, some addi- tional time can be given to this subject at a special meeting in the future. aIS-- 0 • Informational Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two Paratransit Study The final report for the paratransit demonstration study was pre- sented to the staff at a June 23 meeting held in the Eagan City Hall and then that same evening at the Apple Valley Pool and Racquet Club to the Joint Paratransit Committee. The Joint Paratransit Committee has taken action to receive the report, however, is plan- ning to meet on July 7, 1982 to formulate some recommendations as to what they plan to present to the various cities located in the paratransit demonstration study. The mayors and administrators did discuss the study briefly at the mayors' breakfast on June 24. There will be more to come on this item after the Joint Para - transit Committee meeting is held on July 7. a to RAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & HELLE11, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN 1ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan,MN 55122 Re: Green Acres Property Tax Dear Tom: June 21, 1982 AREA C00% 612 TELEPHONE 464.4224 We have been requested to provide some information regarding green acres property taxation -due to a concern about apparent increases in the number of parcels obtaining such preferred tax treatment in the City of Eagan. The relevant Minnesota Statute is Section 273.111 which has been revised and somewhat liberalized in recent years. The general requirements are that: 1. The parcel consist of at least 10 acres exclusively devoted to agricultural use; 2. In general that it be the homestead of the owner or of a surviving spouse, child or sibling of the owner. For the first condition, agricultural use is defined as the use that provides at least 33-1/3% of the total family income of the owner or provides a total production income including rental of the property in an amount of $300 plus $10 per tillable acre; and, the property must be devoted to almost any type of activity approaching farming including wasteland and woodland management. In conclusion, if there is an increase in the number of green acres parcels in the City of Eagan, the problem may relate directly back to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.111 and its liberal wording. skk Very truly yours, 6 David G. Keller a1% 0 9 GREEN ACRE QUALIFICATIONS 1. 10 Acres or more - activly and exclusively devoted to agriculture: 2. Gross income not less than one third of tral family income for year preceding the date for which application is made, or total $300.00 plus $10.00 per tillable acre. 3. Homestead of the owner of record, or became homestead of a surviving spouse, child or sibling of said owner, or is real estate which is farmed with real estate which contains the homestead property. 4. Property has been in possession of the affiant, his spouse, parents, or sibling, or any combination thereof, for a period of at least seven years prior. to application for benefits under provisions of this act. 5. Must file by May 1st to receive benefit for the next tax year. 6. As of March 23, 1982, if the purchaser of a Green Acre Parcel qualifies for Green Acre deferrement, within 30 days of purchase, no deferred tax or Specials are collected. 7. Special Assessments are deferred the first tax year after qualification. 8. If person purchasing Green Acre Property does not qualify to continue Green Acre Deferrment, we collect deferred tax and special assessments. On the Tax we collect deferred for current year and 2 years back. On the Special Assessments if they have been deferred since 1969, we collect for 1969 thru 1982, if sale occurs in 1982. 9A GREEN ACRES Cole Enterprises, Inc./William Cole $ 9,255.70 E. G. Wilkinson 9,588.00 Eagan Realty Co./Gopher Smelting 152,994.19 Martin Shields 11,882.01 Robert O'Neil 38,811.46 Albert & Mary Perron 16,320.52 C.W. & Anne M. Michael 53,041.46 The Lance Company 18,672.65 Eileen Fournier 7,143.48 Eli E. Fournier 6,041.70 Leroy & Virginia Fox 2,980.80 Helen R. Domler 23,349.60 Sandra Wilkinson & S. Broden 18,048.00 Douglas & H. Lagerstadt/Fee William & Kim Abel 15,063.70 Lillian M Reuger 43,472.04 Francis C. Franz 34,863.06 Leo & Ardelle Murphy 20,915.20 J. T. & Helen Hoffman 55,552.26 Dennis McCarthy et al 77,080.55 Bieter Company 29,292.96 Lawrence & Doneene Wenzel 62,764.19 Terrence . & S. Sommer/Fee Milton Chatterton 8,755.16 Rosemary Sterns et al 13,243.12 Heide Schiela 13,195.71 Anthony & Yolanda Caponi 24,038.84 Richard Kennealy 32,269.85 Alex A. Burow 29,768.92 Ida Caroline Sieg 76,524.23 Helen King Hellick-12/31/81 - Fortune Realty -+/82 25,275.60 Charles Tatsuda 81,412.50 John & Marian Brown 67,157.53 Wendell E. & L.M. Widstrom 2,995.20 a►I OWNERS PARCELS Cole Enterprises Inc. 10 00900 010 02 Cole Enterprises Inc. 011 75 William Cole 014 75 aw DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $4,115.52 29.47 2,593.14 40.00 2,547.04 30.00 • SECTION 1 E GENTUjN ROA A SUED R mc SC PD 74-0 RSC 385.0 Lamas - R -4 I10 LA t25.8 Al I I OF 3 II A �PD 74-0 RSC R-1 • G-P-eem AcRem R.. 0 OWNERS C W & Anna M Michael Albert & Mary Perron Martin Shields & Wife PARCELS 10 00900 Z2Z 0 DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 021 31 $53,041.46 8.00 010 79 16,320.52 24.49 011 02 7,864.50 15 Approx. SECTION C. 0 0 �a4 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACNES Robert J O'Neil 10 01000 010 76 $ 5,448.96 20.00 Robert J O'Neil 010 77 26,367.43 76.75 Martin & Mrytle Shields 010 29 4,017.51 13.45 Eli E Fournier 010 54 6,041.70 18.13 Approx. Robert J O'Neil 010 56 6,995.07 25.67 Elieen Fournier 010 55 7,143.48 13.33 The Lance Company 010 57 18,672.65 55.25 Approx. �a4 • SECTION 10 • R+4 I ! I 1I!.o 126.8 A,, cli I I 22 A V I . GR GB I I N3 A 0 3 Co . .... R 56.0 Ol . R-4 R 3 3.5 29 1912 k L I 60.0 U S P 0 S -54 L:, SERVICF 5.0 r R:3. L I 10.8. 558 w ADDITION i2f0; 6 NB P, GB 16-74 3 8.- Sb zK�A' 80 -��"-`010-77 A.R. G 1.4 YA �LF ROAD ass e OWNERS PARCELS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 10 01100 010 76 -:I2G DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $1,440.62 13.33 SECTION 11 152.0 LI 8.0 'L'�l s 5 . Q EA e 154.5 JI L I' i I j 123.7 L { 160.0- - -1 23.0 U.NTER j ACWTRIAL PARK LI R aa -7 L' 0 0 OWNERS PARCELS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 10 01200 010 51 Leroy J & Virginia F Fox 820 77 a as DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $3,094.56 26.66 2,980.80 10.00 0 0 SECTION 12 a ani G L 0 0 OWNERS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting it 11 If If of n it It It of to It to it 11 tl 11 11 11 11 11 It Gopher Smelting & Refining Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 11 II 11 11 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 01300 010 25 $11,132.44 020 25 9,670.64 030 25 3,434.20 040 25 919.66 010 27 10,873.44 010 28 9,406.76 011 01 14,434.50 010 02 8,725.94 010 26 24,683.60 014 29 55,167.83 a50 8.60 4.46 15.00 Approx. 4.00 Approx. 45.00 Approx. 24.66 70.00 Approx. 24.08 40.00 Approx. 113.15 0 • SECTION 13 DL3 i • 0 a3a-- DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Sondra Wilkinson & S. Broden 10 01400 010 75 $18,048.00 45.00 E. G. Wilkinson et al 010 76 9,024.00 20.00 Helen R Damler 010 77 7,557.60 16.75 E G Wilkinson Jr et al 010 78 564.00 1.25 Helen R. Domler 010 81 15,792.00 35.03 Douglas & H Lagenstedt/W & K Abel 010 28 15,063.70 4.85 Wendell E & L M Widstrom 10 83700 030 04 2,995.20 10.00 a3a-- J I D wo R-1 19.4 I =I 0 SECTION 14 • R - 2 R-217.9 L2.7, 1.31 LB- -4' ' S 01 -94HI Q WESCOTT 1 CARRIAGE 35.0 HILLS -4 .GOLF COURSE GARDEN LOT S PF%12Fo" A 120.0 IX - e010 -7s I n -A 50.0, ol a35 10-79 OWNERS Lillian M Rueger DEFERRED PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES 10 01900 011 it $43,472.04 10.43 a3i- • SECTION 19 • a3T- CI OWNERS J T & Helen Hoffman Leo & Ardelle Murphy Francis C Franz Dennis McCarthy et al Bieter Company Lawrence & Doneene Wenzel 0 DEFERRED PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES 10 02100 010 78 $55,552.26 37.00 012 28 20,915.20 40.00 010 50 34,863.06 66.67 010 75 77,080.55 40.00 011 51 29,292.96 93.33 011 80 62,764.19 40.00 0136 0 SECTION 21 • �6 t:4k 9.8 -'PA P c PK Z- �- 77-, 70.8 70.0 A A 45.4 79.4 egg" Zy� & Ax 010 - to 16 160.0 A ck R B :P A 011 - -1so CA RB 0 0 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Terrance G & S Summer/Milton Chatterton 10 02200 010 52 $ 8,755.16 14.83 Anthony & Yolanda Caponi 010 80 5,320.00 10.00 10 SECTION 22 • A i. 78.7 60.0 PF A 40.0 AD 15.6 'IC 2 24.4 1 - 80.0. U- R- ;-Jm 4E 20.1 lQ5 57.9 PF 0.2 oto- 2. A K R-3 PF 6.4 35.3 A R-3 13.3 4A - 30.3 0 OWNERS PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES Rosemary Sterns et al 10 02500 021 30 $13,243.62 59.34 Heide V Schiela 010 52 13,195.71 10.56 240 0 3 6.7 9 6.0 \ 57.4 SECTION 25 AUDITOR'S SUBD NO o2 DDLE ... .�r.,.�„w.o. .-77 i 1524.,, a testi �W _- ?c , 27.3 9.2 g 0f0 -S 5 .I r - _ !.TAT 0115 65.7 _ P �- 87.4 --67.3 r I. A ;GAS_ 1 a4 � C C OWNERS Anthony & Yoland Caponi PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 02700 010 02 $18,718.84 43.00 0 0 0 SECTION 27 a A- 3 OWNERS Richard Kennealy Alex A Burow 0 0 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 03000 011 27 $32,269.85 011 76 29,768.92 .,44 8.96 23.50 Approx. SECTION30 a4S 0 0 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Ida Caroline Sieg 10 03100 011 77 $76,524.23 67.97 Helen King Hollick (Fortune Realty) 011 76 25,275.60 26.78 SECTION 31 147 C OWNERS 0 0 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES Charles Tatsuda et al 10 03200 010 26 $81,412.50 80.00 an 0 SECTION 32 0 AM C C OWNERS PARCELS John & Marian Brown John & Marian Brown DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 03300 040 03 $62,207.20 80.00 011 76 4,950.33 10.07 :)so 0 SECTION 33 0 1 C .... ... R -F1 '37.6 YDRfWY to LZ "00 t. _35.8 1 , 80.0 00'03 76.6 PK F34 A I ''/r 011 TA . 76.4 65 A 8 7.3 80.1 I Fil M C L- R"Iffill • L BURN SVILLE* EAGAN•SAVAGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 9 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CENTER June 22, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administrator Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: Enclosed is a letter that has been sent to prospective renters of Cedar Elementary School. We have also published our intent to rent the building in local newspapers so that all members of our community will be aware of the opportunity to use this building. 1. We will keep you informed as we move toward utilization of Cedar School during 1982-83. Please let us know if you have any con- cerns or thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Carter A. Christie Business Manager CAC/bh Enc: (1) cc: T. W. Foot, Supt. of Schools a51 100 RIVER RIDGE COURT . BURNSVILLE. MINNESOTA 33137 . (613)881.1000 An Equal OOportumly Employer BURN SVILLE•EAGANoSAVAGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 9 1 AnMaISTRATIVE SRRVIITis CEN'1'EA June 22, 1982 Dear Thank you for your inquiry with respect to possible rental of spaces at Cedar Elementary School. The Board of Education has directed the administration to proceed with utilization of the building for the 1982-83 school year; therefore, we are solic- iting proposals from all interested parties so that a utilization plan can be developed. If you have continued interest in this facility, we would like to know by July 8, 1982. Although we will need a formal proposal as soon as possible, a letter of continuing interest would be suf- ficient pending the submission of your formal proposal. In analyzing the proposals the Board will be concerned about how well the proposals meet pre -established criteria and needs of the District. Some of these factors are listed below and should be addressed in your proposal. 1. Duration of Agreement The lease period is not to extend beyond July 1, 1983. Although extensions may be possible, the District does not want to make any commitments until enrollment for the fall of 1983 is known. Please also indicate the date at which you would like to move into the building. 2. Space Required It is likely that the building will house several tenants; therefore, we will need to know your exact space require- ments so that the various leases can be organized to provide full utilization of the building. 3. Rental tee Rental earnings are a major concern of the District. All other things being equal, the District is interested in maximizing the return on its investment. You may assume ,a S-2> 100 RIVER RIDGE COURT . 011 N N S V I L I. E. MINNESOTA 11367 . (61])601-1100 A. Elj..r 011,11.1,11 F:mOlu wr 0 0 that the District will provide heat, lights, water, maintenance, site care and custodial service to the common areas. The tenant will be responsible for cleaning areas occupied solely by the tenant. If you like, you may suggest deviations to this plan; however, your proposal should clearly indicate how much you are willing to pay for the space and services required of your organi- zation. S. Building Alterations Any building alterations will be the responsibility of the tenant with approval of the School Board. Unless other arrangements are made, the building shall be returned to its original condition at the termination of the lease. 5. Manageability of the Lease The ease_ kith which the lease can he managed will be of interest to the School District and will be a part of the ultimate decision in utilization of the building. If the building is leased to sev- eral tenants, it may be necessary for a District employee to be on site at all times that the building is occupied to assure effective control of the building. 6. Preservation of Facility The housing or conducting of activities that may have a deleterious effect on the facility will not be allowed. The amount and type of use proposed will impact the District's rental decision. 7. Service to Community The District has an interest in using the facility in a manner that serves the best interests of the community. The service provided to the community by your organization may be a determining factor in a lease decision. 8. Zoning The building is zoned -as a public facility. It is the responsi- bility of the prospective tenant to ensure that its use of the building is consistent with the zoning requirements of the City of Eagan and any other applicable county, state or federal laws or regulations. 9. Neighborhood Interests The proposed use of the facility should be harmonious with the immediate neighborhood in which Cedar School is located. 10. Insurance The tenant must provide insurance protecting itself and tha School District from any claim or liability arising out of the use or occupation of the facility. asp 11. Lease Agreement I Rental of the facility or any portion thereof -will be governed by a lease agreement written by the Sohool District. 12. Reservation of Rights The School. Board reserves the right to Lease or not to lease the building to any party or parties as determined by the Board to be in the best interests of the School District. A1.1 lease arrangements will be subject to the approval of the School Board. I hope that this letter provides adequate guidance to allow you to subm: a proposal for the use of Cedar Elementary School. If you have any add: tional questions, please contact Dan Mehleis, our Director of Purchasing and Properties, 887-7244. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Carter A. Christie Business Manager CAC/bh FA p�s June 9, 1982 METROPOLITAN TRRN'SIT COMMISSION 3116 NICOLi ii.'-;XVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55408-612-827-4071 Mayor Bea Blomquist 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. O. Box 21199 Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Dear Mayor Blomquist: Thank you for your interest in Route #57 to the Minnesota Zoological Gardens. It is encouraging to hear from cities such as Eagan that are concerned with our service. The Zoological Gardens opened in May of 1978. At that time, two routes were added to serve this facility. One originated in downtown Minneapolis and the other in downtown St. Paul. The St. Paul route was discontinued due to a lack of riders. The Minneapolis route has not fared much better and was scheduled to be cut this year. However, it was decided to con- tinue the Minneapolis service for an additional season with the possibil- ity that ridership would increase. I hope this explanation has been helpful to you. questions, please contact me. Sincerely, / ✓John R. Farrell Assistant Chief Administrator Transit Operations JRF/dmk as(0 If you have any further MESO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR BLON9QlR5T FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES 41 DATE: JULY 6, 1982 SUBJECT: JULY 6, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING & OTHER INFORMATION OLD BUSINESS A. St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch Newspaper Vending Machines -- I did some research, Bea, and apparently the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch has not submitted their special use permit appli- cation. Apparently, representatives from the newspaper were seeking legal counsel as to whether an application should be made to the City. There is nothing the City staff can do to make them submit an application; however,\ it does not seem appropriate that the City Council take action without an application. This would not be consistent with how the City deals with other special use permit applications. I did speak with the City Planner, Dale Runkle, about the vending machine that is located on Senaca and it was his opinion and that of others that reviewed the location of the vending machine that it was set back far enough and with the wide street it did not present a traffic problem. The location on Silver Bell Road will be moved and was one of the locations that was in question by City staff. NEW BUSINESS B. Federal Land Company for Pilot Knob Heights -- You asked about the progress of the EAW, a draft was prepared and is being circula- ted among staff for review and comment. There are no apparent problems with the EAW and it will be submitted to the state for final review and consideration. Regarding your question between Carson Pirie Scott and the McKee Addition, I was able to research a memorandum prepared regarding the building permit application from the building inspector to my office dated June 14, 1979 for the Carson Pirie Scott building. The information is as follows: 105 feet from McKee Addition, R-1 Residential District; 180 feet from Lexington Avenue; 130 feet from the south property line and 397 feet from the east property line. We were unable to find any information about the buffer in Country Home Heights as it relates to Eagandale Industrial Park. If this item should be continued at this meeting, we will further research these two issues. C. Amcon Corporation -- Attached is a copy of City Council minutes of March 2, 1982 and I have highlighted the motion which includes the conditions about which you were asking. Page Two Other Items Prooertv Located at 4070 Amethvst The property I was referencing this morning is 4010 Mica which is located on the intersection of Mica and Amethyst. So the pro- perty that the Russells are complaining about is a different pro- perty and I have referred this complaint to Chief of Police Des- Lauriers and he will have an officer investigate accordingly. The matter is to be kept confidential as I am protecting the inte- grity of the Russells who requested the same of yourself. Street Lighting List The Director of Public Works was requested to be prepared to comment on the street lighting list at your request. Cliff Road As a reminder, you wanted to bring up the Cliff Road bridge issue as it was addressed by Commissioner Voss. I believe it was your intention to discuss it with the City Council and hopefully have them direct the City Administrator to prepare a letter of response or intent to Commissioner Voss. Hopefully, that concludes the research and facts on the questions you had this morning regarding tonight's meeting and other items. s/Thomas L. Hedges �ity�t c�ministrator Council Minutes March 2, 1982 ANCON CORPORATION - RAVINE PLAZA PRELDUNARY PLAT The application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow two office buildings and hotel complex, for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza and for variance to exceed height limitations in a commercial district was then considered by the council. The rezoning would cover approximately 19 acres to include two office buildings and a hotel -restaurant facility and a preliminary plat would cover three lots. The Planning Commission first considered the application on October 27, 1981 and recommended denial at its November 24, 1981 meeting. It was noted the Height Limitation Committee has now met and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council and has been acted upon by the City Council. Pat Gannon appeared for the applicant and indicated that his application was for concept approval rather than for preliminary plat approval. He discussed the comments from various agencies and noted that \ there were letters from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The MnDOT ordinance is a model ordinance only, controlling traffic from the Minneapo- lis/St. Paul International Airport. Councilmembers indicated that noise com- patability is one issue in the A and B zones which has been proposed by MnDOT for adoption by the joint zoning board or by individual cities. There was also discussion concerning a proposed Hold Harmless Agreement and its long term effect, and in addition, legal restrictions on the height and also the density under the proposed MnDOT model ordinance. Pilot Knob Road is at approximately 900 feet and the top of the office building would be 930 feet. Egan moved that the application for zoning be denied on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission including reasons stated in its motion of November 24, 1981; further, that at the present time, the Airport Joint Zoning Board has not made a recommendation as to zoning in the vicinity of the airport and it would be advisable to get such a recommenda- tion; further, that conditional use permit will also be required including a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission before a determination to exceed height limitation would be granted; that there appeared to be too much uncertainty as to the restrictions and development both by the City and other agencies; that the City has not reviewed the proposed MnDOT Airport Safety Ordinance and there were questions about the proposed safety zones and the need to examine the potential liability of the City in the event of the grant of the uses as proposed. It was further understood that the application for rezoning could be sumbitted to the City if there are substantially changed conditions according to Ordinance No. 52. Smith seconded the motion. All voted in favor. SEE PLAT FILE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR 1982 City Administrator Hedges reviewed a proposed revision in the reduction of the general fund of $52,300.00 noting that State Aid Reductions for 1982 are estimated at $52,130.00. The Council reviewed the proposals at a special workshop meeting on February 25, 1982 after submission of recommended reduc- tions by department heads. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the reduction of $52,300.00 according to the proposed outline by the City Administrator noting that the reductions are necessary and should cause the least disruption in the City program. All voted yea. D 82-6 3 SPECIAL NOTE Due to the fact that Monday, July 5, is a legal .holiday and City offices will be closed, there will be no Administrative Agenda for the July 6, 1982 City Council meeting.. F.T011AZI1 EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL JULY 6, 1982 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 — ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 — ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 — DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS P % A. Fire Department e14C. Park Department A, B. Police Department Q'$ D. Public Works Department IV. 6:55 — CONSENT ITEMS (One Motion Approves All Items) yJA A. Temporary Non—Intoxicating Liquor License for CedarvaLe Lanes Softball Tournament for August 14 & 15 .XA> B. Maintenance Agreement/Dakota County—City of Eagan to Maintain County Bike Trails p1.\A C. 1982 Gambling License Renewals ` yq D. Project #360, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Towerview Road) Ti E. Project #362, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tomark Second Addition) SOF. Project #363, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing P (Hilltop Plaza) V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. I. R. Financing for Federal Land Company for Office Building, Yankee Square Center, in the Amount of $1,537,000 P.39 B. Project #264A, Reassessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Utilities (Continued from the 5-18-82 meeting) ?.$9 C. Project #264B, Assessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Streets (Continued form the 5-18-82 meeting) D. Project 357, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition Streets & Utilities e.59 E. Vacation Hearing for a Portion of Denmark Avenue Of; 61 F. Project 359, Park Cliff 1st Addition Storm Sewer VI. OLD BUSINESS (19 A. Special Use Permit for St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch Newspaper Vending Machines Eagan City Council Agenda July 6, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS p 16A. Dakota County to amend the PD (Planned Development) & for a 1 Preliminary Plat, Dakota County Plat #1, in the Mission Hills Planned Development, Located in Part of the NE'y of the NE'k of Section 31, Consisting of Approximately 12 Acres e-11B. Federal Land Company for Rezoning from R-4 (Residential Multiple), LB (Limited Business) & CSC (Community Shopping Center) to PD (Planned Development) located in the N� of the NEk of Section 15 & Part of the E' of the NE'y of the NW'y of Section 15, Consisting of Approximately 100 Acres 1� C. Amcon Corporation, Patrick M. Gannon, for Rezoning from A Q' (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex Located in Part of the NE'g of the NE'y of Section 4, South of Proposed I-494 Right -of -Way & West of Pilot Knob Comsery #1 Final Plat VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 1IN A. Cable Television Commission Update 1JA B. City Hall Expansion Update/Citizen Committee Update 6C. Contract 82-3, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Oster Addition & Q Storland Road Utilities) D. Contract 82-5, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Comsery No. 1 Streets & Utilities) j%0E. Kraus Anderson Request for Amendment to the Off -Sale Liquor f License Policy to Allow Issuance of More than One License in the North Central Part of the City IX. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda) X. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 2, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the June 15 regular City Council minutes and the July 6, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: !'DEPARTMENTHEAD' BUSINES'& FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- Enclosed on pages o1 through 3 is a copy of the Eagan Volunteer Fire Department request forE—ee 'first half of the year compensation payment. There is no action required by the City Council due to the fact the compensation was budgeted for 1982 and is handled in the same manner as all other compensation for City employees. There are no other items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. 4 2nga I �iXB MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR, FINANCIAL DIRECTOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: R. L. CHILDERS, FIRE CHIEF DATE: JUNE 23, 1982 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SECOND HALF OFFICERS PAY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT. Request for sees:►d.half Officers pay for 1982 for officers of Fire Department, from Account No. 01 4130 131 12. The pay will be dispersed as listed below. Chief R. L. Zhilders 6 mo. x $60.00 = $ 360.00 Chief District 1 J. Adam 6 mo. x $40.00 240.00 Chief District 2 R. Schindeldecker 6 mo. x $40.00 = 240.00 Capt. Co. 1 R. Giles 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 2 J. Godin 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 3 M. Klang 6 mo. x $20.00 120.00 Capt. Co. 4 W. Lindblade 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 5 L. Perron 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 6 C. Larsen 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 7 J. Thomas 6 mo. x $20.00 = 120.00 Capt. Co. 8 E. Burlingame 6 mo. x $20.00 120.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 1 K. Southorn 6 mo. x $ 5.00 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 2 J. Bauer 6 mo, x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 3 D. Craven 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 5 R. Heimkes 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Capt. Co. 8 R. Kugel 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Engineer J. O'Brien 6 mo. x $25.00 = 150.00 Asst. Engineer R. Trichel 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer B. Weston 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer N. Rolfzen 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Engineer M. Adam 6 mo. x S 5.00 = 30.00 Truck Capt. M. Klang 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Station Capt. R. Brustle 6 mo. x $2.00 = 120.00 Asst. Station Capt. R. Gastfield 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Station Capt. D. Wegleitner 6 mo. x $ 5.00 30.00 3940 Rahn Road • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 THE LONE OAK TREE - THE :SYMBOL OF STRENGTH & GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY 0 MEMO PACF .. E Traii.ins Of'.i--r D. Schulze 6 mc. x $25.JO = :0.00 Asst. "raining Officer R. Kugel 6 mo. x $'5.00 = 30.00 asst. -raining Officer W. Lindblade 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Training Officer L. Bahrke 5 mo. x $•5.00 = 30.00 Asst. "-aining Officer D. Gaudette 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Fire Prevention Officer P. Rennberg 6 mo. x $10.00 60.00 Ad Officer J. Flood 6 mo. x $10.00 60.00 freasurer M. Carll. 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Systems Officer R. Lorisner 6 mo. x $10.00 = 60.00 Asst. Sys.Officer R. Murphy 5 mo. x $ 5.00 30..00 Asst. Sys.Officer W. Kolsar 5 mo. x $ S.00 = 30.00 Asst. Sys.Officer R. HOhland 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Sys.Officer J. Mueller 6 mo. x S 5.00 30.00 Rescue Capt. M- Carll 6 mo. x $20.30 120.00 Asst _•escue Capt. D. Smith 6 mo. x $ 5.O0 30.00 Ass'::. Rescue Capt. J. Mueller 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Asst. Rescue Lapt. D. Wegleitner 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 Rescue Trair:ng P. Lemier 6 mo. x $ 5.00 = 30.00 IOTA'.: $3,270.00 'espec:.`--_111 submitted, 14 ?.. 1 Ih9.lders, Chief Eagan Voluntee-r _ire Depar. .---c It RLC/ph 3 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- Enclosed on pages 5� through 7 is an informational memo from .the Director oF--Parks & Recreation. There is no action required on this item. 0 MEND TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS $ RECREATION DATE: JIVE 30, 1982 RE: PARK ITEMS The purpose of this memo is to inform you of several items of interest. I trust you will share this with the City Council. Playgrounds: Playground registration has increased dramatically this summer. Oak Chase has nearly doubled from last year with nearly 180 youths signed up. Other parks have also shown significant increases in registration and in attendance from last year. Much of this growth may well be attributed to the fact that there is no summer school. However, I would like to believe it's also the attraction of the program, good leaders and a quality program. It's interest- ing to note (see attachment) that Apple Valley and Lakeville are showing de- creases in their programs this year. Apparently, the result of increased fees and charges. The playwagon - Eagan's "Wagonful 0' Fun" is also showing positive atten- dance increases. You may recall that this year the playwagon has been assigned to two new areas - Coachman and Blackhawk Parks which have not previously had a program. Acceptance to the playwagon has been well received by residents in this area. While attendance is limited, it's expected to grow as the word gets passed on. The City has received its ranking for its L.A.W.C.O.N. Grant application - Rahn Park. The City has been awarded 7th this year compared to 10th last year. Because limited funds, it's not likely that the grant will be funded.. Again, as last year, several of the grants that were ranked ahead of Eagan were for water based development or acquisition. Park Improvements: Maintenance staff, besides the general work that this title implies, have been involved with numerous improvement projects to City parks. Highview Park, ball fields at Carnelian and Woodhaven; the play areas at Woodhaven and Northview Athletic Fields, major clean ups at Fish Lake, Burr Oaks, Carlson and Highview Parks, sand hauled into play areas at several of the parks, just to mention a few of the projects completed. Improvements yet scheduled are to the ball fields at Rahn and Lexington Parks; painting of play equipment and work on the wood retaining walks at Burr Oaks, Highview and Lexington; numerous other projects are also planned at other parks. Most of these projects go beyond the normal "day-to-day" maintenance of parks and are seen as improvements or enhancements. As previously mentioned several feet of hockey boards were stolen from Well Site Park. It's believed that the theft was done, not by youths, but by adults for the wood planking. These boards were in excellent to good condition and were probably used for someones construction project. The theft occured sometime during the night of June 23. Cost to replace, paint and restore the rink is primarily estimated at S Park Items - Memo • • June 30, 1982 Page 2 $450.00 to $500.00 in material costs. The Parks and Recreation Department's "Evening in the Park" services begins on July 7th, 7:00 P.M. at Cedar Pond Park. The 3rd event will feature a performance by a jazz quartet. This quartet is being partially funded by the City, but with a major share of the cost coming from the Twin Cities Musician's Union - Local 30-73. The department staff has been working for several months in trying to secure such an agreement with the Musician's Union. Teen Program: The "Teen Program" has completed two weeks of work and is seemly going well. The youths worked at Northview Tree nurseries the first week and at Rahn Park in week two. The youths are programmed for work at Ridge Cliffe, Burr Oaks, and Highview Parks during the up -coming weeks. Sufficient contributions were received to carry out the program. Monies were received from the Eagan Lions Club, Paul Hauge and Associates, Women's Auxiliary of the Fire Depart- ment and a contribution from a local industry which wishes to remain anony- mous. Cub Scout Gift: Cub Scouts from the Wilderness Run Road and Carlson Lake areas have recently recently made a $30.00 contribution to the City for "parks in their area." They raised the money by collecting aluminum cans. J I mad in the ves1b1 le, an one u Y lust the box number at one corn their local postmasters program would be scr r" , K - mon address, ` tirely because of lack ' .� •,P J • ,•[ K ret f.t� Sk' \ry r `_i'lr* (7w, v -. •� 2 v `� - lilt 8 program was h: •� rKl..,411 -J►1 f _t'Y ,r.>.J a,P 7it`�' >fr"Y. •,:", rv. a., ` 1 +�,-:�, r+` �^r.`thf 17) 4�j1. .�j>79� ('•. i..W .!4i out durlllg, the. eRtiLln' Pla�yg,round participation l �, » aiuethesa The city had two Opti KhR',w.,• . y ,,+ +. r rye- , time the shade tree pec ' , ..-•r. `.. i - �., - -.t_,, s,.ui tt r, ing special levies, or • " r r ` JP „ the program altogether takes 5 0% drop e n AV, r i ` T 1 vti budget had Included a ' sidy of nearly 57 000 t •� , . , y '�' - ; <r -'• - , r ,. ment the city's Y $1ners •+' � �'� tion. Property owners By NANCY ADAMS n °. ' 4eS1.. ad the park and recreation available to non playground par Pected to spend another Staff Writer i y R budget about 'the playground ticipants at a slightly increased B� Ilince, general ?� program being a "baby-sitting cost include excursions, contests superintendent, saic APPLE VALLEY -The Apple tool '.' .' and special activities in which the because the state has Valley. parks and recreation "'' - ` children are bussed to one central the Dutctrelm program department's summer play- Schultz said the charge per location for the day.., to see Farmington gi\ ground program is hurting• child works out to 75 cents an = too.,, Registration is down by 50% from hour if the child attended all ac- None of the events have been Council member L last year, according to Terry tivities. A baby-sitter, Kelly canceled yet because of poor at- agreed. "I'm not sugge: Schultz, program supervisor..... observed last winter, gets more tendance, but Schultz said, as we throw it out, but he Apple Valley isn't alone. than a dollar an hour. To registration comes in low, he will Pay for it?" he said. A Lakeville also has felt a sharp., Savanick said at that time, end up laying off the staff. That is members agreed that th decrease in registration' as it rais '� is a great deal. They'll pay particularly painful this year for ty owner's financial b ed its the extra." .:;,:e; • y?'; 5; ,rF is `i Schultz who noted that there is a remove diseased trees Program charges. Apple r, -,_.• staff of and if no Valle person for a six-week chargedear al playground pet 7" The problem is, people aren't le aders, min�cluding several s�cltool lie were offered byt e program; this year the cost is $15., PaYrng the extra $10 for' the teachers. ,:.:: ::. trees would not be remo shorter program: Schultz . ;; aa -:,;_;:;,,.;•. per. person for a four-week pro.:' speculated, "Perlia it's a signHince reported over gamy*a;=I haven't had to close any elms in the city now. Tbe+'dty. councd, in a move to o[[ fhetimes. Parents are maktng sites yet, and don't plan to do there will be over 100 of ! make Ilia' playground program their kids pick one activity rather that " he said., "We weren't real year," he said. A large than letting them do four or five sure what would ha when we Cage of Farmington'smore self-sufficient,' raises the peen sh fees at budget time. "The deci- _Wings during the summer '. ,,,.: - the re the fees.Now we're seeing are elms. e sion to raise the fees was made the results..'.' by ' Schultz was disappointed,. he . Mayor Robert Stegma e council,• but therewerere tsaid here are ause the think It's a good One The �Y�Wd Program con - pressures, E35136 to removeits its ! frois m. they budget to tinuously accepts registrations, elms and. make.,an a make it. , that - Y— rn e ofeeptiie noted advan Schultz said. The program is be- $3,000 available 'for Im."It had to come eventually the ing offered.with a;3.75 reduction is owners. A ts owwnn weigground ht," said Schultrogram has toz hours emeets tue days de l waeeffketsorr three for each week missed. There are to be paid in adbout dition by Council members Dianne Kelly ram of . day; special. , two session m the program of -June ownersmaking the an and Barbara Savanick both corna gram cost slightly mc gram Y P fered this summer, from Jun Y mented, when the council review- Thw*e events which are also 14 -July 9, and from July 12 Aug. $27,000. The additional $: (( f _..._... -:�, ...:.' - k..:Vrzii..4.w:�„41'Nei::In.:LF.i+,i;Gk� .a�..•lsdl'n C '-F�}'..rl. \ E�.� n.. ..'`. 1! 1 .1 �.:... _.a s . .A4 fix+ S, c:f. irk H� i 7 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Three 1] PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SPECIAL NOTE: Since time will probably not permit the consideration of all of the Public Works Department business between 6:35 and 6:55, please be informed that all items except the James Horne assessment item and the RES grading permit ours o operation item can a continue unti ater in t e meeting under Additional tems. Mr. Horne is expected to be present at 6:30 for considera- tion of his item as are residents from the area affected by the RES grading permit. D. Public Works Department Item #1: RES GradingPermit/Hours of Operation -- The City has received a request rpm Jo nson brotriers Corporation to allow ex- tended hours of operations for their previously approved grading permit which allows the placement of fill excavated from the I - 494/I -35E interchange on the RES property around the O'Neil pond. Presently, their hours are restricted from 7:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. The contractor has indicated that, because of the amount of work to be performed, he will not be able to complete all this work during the 1982 construction season. If the hours were extended to allow operation from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., the contractor indicates that he will be completed by October 1, 1982. On May 28, a letter was sent out to all affected residents along Blue Gentian Road informing them of the potential for longer working hours to insure completion of this project in the shortest time frame (1982 season). In response to that letter, the City has received only one complaint regarding the longer working hours and approximately three (3) residents have indicated that they would have no objection to the longer hours in consideration for quicker completion of the project. There was no response from the other eight property owners. Since the date of that letter, the contractor has begun his grading operations and the City has not received any complaints regarding noise associated with this project due to the distance it is removed from the single family houses. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the exten- sion of hours of operation for the HES grading permit from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Foo Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Four Item #2: Tomark Second Addition/Park Fee Deferment Request -- nE c odd on page ]_ is a copy ot a letter that sta received from Tomark Development Corporation requesting consideration for deferment of the payment of park dedication fees until the issuance of the building permit for the 78 unit structure to be located on the Tomark Second Addition plat. Staff can appreciate the finan- cial burdens placed on the developers through the requirement of payment of the park dedication fees at the time of final platting. However, there have been recent cases where other developers through a similar request have subsequently "forgotten" to pay the park fee at the time of building permit. Subsequently, it has been difficult for the City to collect the park fee after the fact. The building permit issuance procedure has to assume that all con- ditions of the plat have been satisfactorily resolved once the plat is recorded. However, the City has had good working relation- ships with the Tomark Development Company during the platting of their first addition. This issue must be resolved so that staff knows whether to require this payment before processing a final plat application for formal Council approval at a later date. The park fee dedication amount is $19,565. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the developer's request to defer the payment of the park fee until the date of building permit issuance for the Tomark Second Addition. Z • JUN i 81982 . , TOMARK DEVELOPMENT CO. , 7322 OHMS LANE EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE (612) 831.8555 June 24, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges -..:.. City Administrator ' City of Eagan - Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Tom, 'Confirming our conversation regarding final plat approval foe Tomark 2nd Addition,'this action will be on the City Council Agenda ;for one . of the July meetings, preferrably July 6. At that time, the: -Council will also consider our request to defer the payment of park dedication " fees until issuance of the building permit. As you are well aware, the precarious economic conditions present in I' ` the home building industry today make most new undertakings extremely difficult at best. A look at the facts of the situation indicate that we will be in a position to pay all park fees when construction commences -- the;..time at:which our construction loan will be initially funded. We are in no way trying to shirk our responsibility`in this matter, quite the contrary; please rest assured that we hereby acknow- ledge that the park fees will be paid by Tomark at the time the building i Permit is issued. I understand the city has had problems with other developers with regard to payment of park fees in the past., Based on our dealings with the city on this and other issues, however, and more y� importantly our desire to maintain the smooth working relationship . which exists between us, I would hope that the city could act favorably on this request. Thank you for your help in this matter. 0ober tryyot I/. Rub " Vice President RNR:sww - 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Five Item #3: Special Assessment Committee Recommendations /June 14, TTn—a.un the above reference ate, the Special Assessment ommit- tee met at City Hall to review requests for consideration from two individuals and formal action on five (5) staff initiated special assessment policies. The Council all received copies of the Special Assessment Committee packet which provided the back- ground for discussion on these policies. Enclosed on pages 1'I. through�(�--- is a copy of the special assessment policies as recommended for approval by the Special Assessment Committee. Several of these policies were necessary in the preparation of the final assessment roll for trunk storm sewer under Project #297 (Blackhawk Lake Outlet). The final assessment roll was prepared based on the recommendation of the Special Assessment Committee, but there is still time to revise it if the Council chooses to modify any of the policies as presented. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny Special Assessment Policies 82-1 through 82-5. 0 0 11, SPEC'IA4 ASSESSMENT POLICY # 82-1 REZONING/DEVEf.OPNENT VS ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS SUBJECT: Additional assessments associated with a subsequent upgrading of the land use or rezoning as it relates to the land use and/ or zoning that was in effect at the time the original assess- ment was levied. POLICY: When a parcel of land is rezoned and/or developed to a higher use after a trunk area and/or lateral benefit assessment has been previously levied, then that parcel shall assume the addi- tional assessment as determined by calculating the difference in special assessment unit rates in effect at the tine of re- zoning and/or development. OBJJ7CPIVE: The purpose of this policy is to receive the total assessment revenue relating to the benefit received from public improve- ments based on the intended final use of the land in question. JUSTIFICATION: Many times when zoning/land use related assessments (trunk area, lateral benefit, etc.) are levied subsequent to a public improvement process, the benefited land is not developed and/ or zoned to its highest and best use as defined in the Compre- hensive Guide Plan. However, the public improvements were planned, designed and constructed in anticipation of future development at its highest and best use. Subsequently, be- cause assessments cannot exceed the benefit received by an existing zoned use at the time of the hearing, it would only be appropriate to collect the additional assessment revenue relating to the ultimate benefit received at the time of any change in land use and/or zoning. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved Date Denied Date 12 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT C("1I=E: x Approved 6-14-82Date Denied Date 0 0 11SPECIAL, 'ASS ESSMENT POLICY # 82-2 EXISTIIVG LAND USE VS ZONING SUBJECT: Assessments against land whose present use is different fmn the current underlying zoning. POLICY: Where the existing land use is different (less than the high- est and best use permitted by current zoning) than the current underlying zoning, all trunk area and/or lateral benefit assess- ments against the property in question shall be levied in ac- cordance with the current underlying zoning and not in accor- dance with the current land use unless the attached standard agreement is notorized and executed by all persons holding in- terest in the title to the property. Future rates would be cal- culated in accordance with Policy 82-1. OBJECPIVE: The purpose of this policy is to provide a method by which pro- perty owners whose land is developed at a use that is less than permitted by the current zoning, may receive consideration for assessments being levied in accordance with the property's pre- sent use and defer the additional assessments until the current use is upgraded to a use permitted by the underlying zoning. JUSTIFICATION: While trunk utilities are planned, designed and constructed based on the highest and best use of all property in the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and/or current zoning, their benefit is not fully realized by land that is presently developed at a use less than allowed by the current zoning. Further, if the property is presently developed at a different use, it is assumed that it would not change in the foreseeable future. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved _ Date Denied Date 13 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE: X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY # 82-3 PONDING EASEMENTS - AREA CREDITS SUBJECT: Calculation of ponding area credits when levying trunk area assessments. POLICY: When calculating net assessable area in determining trunk area assessments, all land that lies below the controlled normal water elevation of a designated Camprehensive Storm Sewer Pond/ Lake shall be deleted frau area calculations for trunk area assessments. Furthermore, for parcels that have basins with no current storm sewer outlet to maintain an existing control- led water elevation as approved by a DNR permit, no area deduc- tion, credit and/or refund would be allowed without the dedica- tion of a ponding easement. All other dedicated ponding ease- ments of record would be deducated from area calculations for trunk area assessments. OBJECTIVE: To recognize the minimum benefit from trunk area utilities to land that lies below a permanent controlled elevation of a de- signated storm water ponding area. To also recognize the po- tential elimination of basins that do not have restrictive easements nor controlled storm sewer facilities which there- fore receive benefit from potential future development. JUSTIFICATION: Land below a controlled normal water elevation is not develop- able and subsequently does not benefit from trunk utilitv in- stallations. However, undeveloped basins are subject to change and/or elimination without the protective ponding easement being dedicated. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved _ Date Denied Date 14 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONVITTEE: X Approved Denied 6-14-82 Date Date I1 SPEGIAL'ASS POLICY # 82-4 STORM SEWER - "LARGE LCC" QUALIFICATION SUBJECT: Determination of qualifying criteria for "large lot" classifi- cations on Trunk Area Storm Sewer Assessments. POLICY: For existing parcelsconsisting of 5 acres or less, the proper- ty must have a liveable gelling unit located on the premises and used as residential to qualify for the standard "large lot" policy. 03=IVE: To recognize the existing residential use of large lots (5 acres or less) and its limited potential of future subdivision into smaller parcels with subsequent higher percentage of developed surface area. JUSTIFICATION: If an existing residential dwelling unit is maintained and used in that category, it is unlikely that the existing use would change in the foreseeable future. However, if the parcel is un- developed or in a deteriorated unliveable state, it is more like- ly that it would develop into something other than a "large lot" residential use. It would then benefit equally to other exist- ing undeveloped parcels. See Policy 82-1 for future development of these parcels. Reviewed and acted upon by: CITY COUNCIL: Approved Date Denied Date /S SPECIAL ASSEMENT CCMM4i =: X Approved 6-14 Denied Date ?'SPEC'lAL �ASSESSMENTPOLICY # 82-5 STREET ASSESSMENT - STATE AND COUNTY ROAD CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Determination of zoning equivalent street assessments for property adjacent to State and/or County -funded roadway construction. POLICY: Properties adjacent to roadway improvements that incorporate cost participation by the City in combination with Federal, State and/or County funds should be assessed an amount equal to the benefit received as determined by the predetermined equivalent front foot assessment rate for the appropriate zoning classification of the benefited property irregardless of the ratio of financial contribution by any outside funding source involved. OBJECTIVE: To insure that all property located within the City of Eagan ultimately pays its fair share for benefit received from new and/or upgraded roadway improvements adjacent to that proper- ty. Due to the fact that there are different levels of service and classifications for streets within the City of Eagan, there are respective different construction costs associated with providing street thoroughfares to their different con- struction design criteria standards. Therefore, it is felt that a specific property should not have to be responsible for any oversizing costs above and beyond that which would normally be required to service that specific zoned parcel of land to current City standards. All oversizing costs are then absorbed and become the responsibility of the City's Major Street Construction Fund. Because the City's Major Street Construction Fund has several sources of revenue (i.e. MSAS funds, major road mill levy, road unit charge surcharge, grants, etc.), it is determined that an unequal advantage would be realized by a specific parcel of land whose adjacent street could potentially qualify for some specific outside funding source. Therefore, because the benefit received from the improved roadway remains the same irregardless of the source of funds, the assessment should be based on the bene- fit received as determined by the annual zoning classifica- tion equivalent rate and should not take into consideration any financial contribution towards the construction from an outside source and/or agency. Reviewed and acted upon by: CI'T'Y COUNCIL: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CU41ITTEE: Approved Date X Approved 6-14-82 Date Denied Date 16 _ Denied Date 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Six b. Floyd Dickens/Assessment Deferment (Financial Hardship) At the request of the applicant, this issue will be discussed before the Council at the July 20 Council meeting. At that time, the staff hopes to have put together a financial hardship qualifying criteria policy for consideration. No action is necessary at this time. C. James & Arvella Horne/Payment of Lateral Benefit from Trunk Utilities -- Much of the background information regarding this complicated issue was forwarded to the Council with the Special Assessment Committee packet along with minutes of the committee meeting on June 14. While staff feels that there is no doubt that the entire Kingswood Addetion received at least 675 feet of lateral benefit from the approximate 1,300 feet of trunk water main instal- led adjacent to and within this subdivision, Mr. Horne refuses to acknowledge the benefit to the entire subdivision and chooses to discuss the particular individual lot in relation to the amount of footage the staff is proposing to assess against that lot. The staff would have no objection as to how these assessments would be split against the lots within the Kingswood Addition. Staff prepared what they thought would be a fair and equitable division of these lateral benefit assessments. However, if the developer would like to have these assessments spread in another fashion than that recommended by staff, appropriate agreements would be prepared accordingly. In any event, staff still feels that the Kingswood Addition received a minimum benefit equal to $10,122.90 based on 1982 rates for lateral benefit trunk water main. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or revise the Special Assessment Committee's recommendation for the determination of lateral benefit from trunk water main for the Kingswood Addition and require the developer to accept this financial responsibility as a condition of obtaining a water connection permit for 3850 Coronation Road. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages 14 through 2 2. is a copy of the Special Assessment Committee minutes. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or revise the Special Assessment Committee minutes of June 14, 1982. 17 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE EAGAN ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA. JUNE 14, 1982 A meeting of the Eagan Assessment Committee was held on Monday, June 14, 1982 at 4:30 p.m. at the City Hall. Those present were Chairman Don Knight, Members Art Rahn, Dale Vogt, Mayor Bea Blomquist, Councilman Tom Egan. Planning Commissioner Bohne was absent. Also present were Public Works Director Colbert, City Administrator Hedges and City Attorney Hauge. FLOYD DICKENS - SILVER BELL ROAD Tom Colbert first introduced Floyd Dickens who has requested a deferrment of assessments for Projects #274 and #285 consisting of Silver Bell Road streets and Wuthering Heights Road utility improvements. Mr. Dickens was present and indicated that he was unable, due to financial hardships, in- cluding the fact that his wife has recently had a work-related accident, to pay a total of $388.19 per month for assessments and taxes with an increase from $141.78 per month. Mr. Colbert indicated there is no policy providing for deferrment of special assessments due to financial hardships other than the senior citizen provision. There was discussion concerning need for a policy in the event that others request such deferrments, noting that with the current recession there may be many others that may potentially request such def errments. After discussion, Egan moved, Rahn seconded the motion to defer action on the request of Mr. Dickens and requested the staff to prepare proposed guidelines for such requests and recommended the Council review the JAMES AND ARVELLA HORNE - PROJECTS #131 & #24 - KINGSHOOD ADDITION Mr. and Mrs. James Horne appeared relative to their request that a por- tion of the assessments proposed by the staff for Kingswood Addition be re- scinded as recommended by the staff. Tom Colbert reviewed the proposal and indicated that Kingswood Addition was platted providing for Lots 1 through 11, and Outlots 1, 2, and 3 in 1963. Mr. Horne installed a private well and internal 6 inch water lateral system in Kingswood Road north to Outlot 2, in approximately 1964. In the Fall of 1973, Lot 11 requested water service from the City rather than the developer's private water supply, Lot 11 being the only lot with an additional homestead, other than the Hornes. Under Project 11131, approximately 335 feet of 10 inch water main was constructed within Kingswood Road connecting to the existing 16 inch trunk water main on Pilot Knob Road which was constructed under Project 1124 in 1968. As a part of Project 11131`, Lot 11 was assessed 120 linear feet in accordance with the Feasibility Report. On approximately March 17, 1982 the well located within Outlot 2, providing water service to Lots 3 through 10 was no longer operable and one existing house located in Lot 7, owned by Mr. Horne was in need of water service. He requested the City open the gate valve at the north end of Coronation Road to allow access to the City water supply. 1 19 �J Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 Although all lots in Kingswood Addition have been assessed for trunk sanitary sewer and water area assessments, they have not been assessed for the lateral benefit to receive the 16 inch water trunk main installed under Pro- ject 1124 in Pilot Knob Road or for the 10 inch water trunk main installed under Project #131 located within Kingswood Road. The staff therefore recom- mends that a spread of assessments covering the benefit to Lots 1 and 2, from Pilot Knob Road and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on a shared assessment based upon benefits received therefrom and Outlot 3 being assessed for 240 feet of linear feet assessment along Pilot Knob Road. It was noted that Lot 11 had been assessed under Project 11131. Mr. Horne stated that he felt that the City should not be assessing Outlot 3, both along Pilot Knob Road and Kingswood Drive. Mr. Colbert indicated that the assessment is not on Outlot 3, on Kingswood Drive, but rather the benefits received for the other lots on Coronation Road. The staff recommended that of the 933 feet frontage on Pilot Knob Road, only 440 feet be asssesed. Mr. Horne objected to the assessment of Lots 1 and 2 on Pilot Knob Road, indicating that eventually he expected a lateral running westerly from the Coronation Road lateral. He further stated there was a verbal agreement in 1973 with the Council that the 240 feet on Pilot Knob Road, that no assessments along Pilot Knob Road would be asessed against Outlot 3. The staff researched the issue and could find no evidence of such an agreement. Mr. Colbert indicated that the credit on Pilot Knob Road against Outlot 3 should be 150 feet with 165 foot rather than 240 foot assessment. After considerable discussion, Egan moved, Blomquist seconded the motion to recommend to the Council approval of the staff recommendation on the basis of the current policy and noting that there appeared to be sufficient benefit against the Lots proposed to be assessed and further, that there did not appear to be an agreement as alleged by Mr. Horne, in 1973. All voted in favor except Vogt who voted no. EXISTING LAND USE VS. ZONING POLICY There are several areas where special assessments are dependent upon the zoning classification of the property benefited. It was noted that there are presently two specific situations relating to assessments: 1. Rezoning of land and its relation to past levied assessments. 2. Assessments against land whose present use is different from the underlying zoning. 1. Many times assessments are levied against property that is either undeveloped or is not currently zoned in accordance with the approved Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. In such cases, assessments are levied in accordance with the zoning in effect at the time of the final assessment hearing. In the event of rezoning, there are several ways of calculating the additional assessments. Assessments associated with the upgrading of the land consist of approximately three choices. Staff recommended that the calcula- tion for the additional assessment be determined by the difference in unit rates in effect for the change in zoning at the time of the rezoning and/or development. Egan moved, Vogt seconded the motion to approve the proposed recommendation. All voted in favor. 2 19 0 0 Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 2. It was noted there was several instances in the City where the present use of the property is different from the official zoning, such as the Kollofski Addition, where the property is zoned I-1 and used for R-1. It was recommended that a standard agreement be prepared whereby the property owner would sign indicating his knowledge of the current zoning and agreement to accept all additional assessments associated with upgrading the land use in accordance with its allowed zoning. Upon motion by Egan, seconded Blomquist, it was resolved that the foregoing recommendation be approved. All voted yes. PONDING EASEMENT - TRUNK AREA Mr. Colbert requested clarification from the Council as to whether to include the area in the 100 -year high water ponding easement dedication within trunk area assessments noting that there are two specific instances: a. Land adjacent to lakes and ponds that presently have controlled storm sewer outlets which maintain stable water elevations. b. Designated ponds and lakes that are part of the Master Storm Sewer Plan but do not have any storm sewer drainage facilities presently constructed within its boundary. Several alternates were discussed, including: a-1. Deleting any area of land that lies beneath the control water elevation. a-2. Include the land area between the controlled water elevation and the anticipated 100 -year high water elevation in the area to be assessed with the understanding that a dedication of the appropriate ponding easement would result in a refund with interest at the rate of 8% per year being provided in consideration of accepting the dedicated ponding easement. b-1. On parcels where there is no existing storm sewer outlet to main- tain the control water elevation as approved by DNR permit, no area deduction would be allowed without dedication of a ponding easement. It was recommended that a combination of a-1 and b-1 be used by deleting the area of the land beneath the controlled water elevation. Blomqu.ist moved, Art Rahn seconded the motion to recommend approval of the combination of the. a-1 and b-1 recommendations above. All voted yes. . 3 20 0 9 Assessment Minutes June 14, 1982 LARGE LOT STORK SEWER TRUNK AREA ASSESSMENT POLICY Presently the City has been incorporating the large -lot policies that pertains to the levying of trunk storm sewer assessments against existing developed parcels. The present policy applies only to those parcels less than 5 acres in size where the square foot unit rate is levied against the first 16,500 square feet of each acre contained within that parcel. The idea is to recognize several homesteaded 5 acre or less parcels that are generally owner - occupied and considered to be highly unlikely to be developed into several smaller parcels. By assessing the first 16,500 square feet takes into con- sideration the additional run-off generated by the dwelling unit and its driveway. Blomquist moved, Rahn seconded the motion to recommend that there be no change in the policy, noting that there must be a dwelling unit in- cluded, but it does not need to be owner -occupied. All voted yes. LATERAL STREET ASSESSMENTS FOR COUNTY & STATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION The City has four sources of financing major road construction including City collector and arterial streets, county roads and MnDOT frontage roads, including the zoning equivalent assessment front foot rate, municipal state aid street funding, contribution from MnDOT through cost participation agree- ments and major street trunk funds (Surcharge on Building Permits). Mr. Colbert noted that there have been objections along such roads as Slaters Road, Nicols Road, Kings Road connection, future Blue Gentian Road relocation, etc. where MnDOT provides for construction to a 32 foot bituminous surface and gravel shouldered roadway. The City has been assessing for the entire cost of the streets, even though the City has not paid for the entire cost of the improvement. An example is in the proposed Robins Addition where the devel- oper has agreed to donate the right of way for the revised location of Blue Gentian Road, but would request that only the cost incurred by the City above the MnDOT participation cost be assessed to the property. It was noted that there are very few examples where property owners in such situations will donate right of way without receiving a condemnation award. Noting the special circumstances of that subdivision and that time is of the essence, further that the developer has been very cooperative in agreeing to dedicate a portion of the adjacent pond and the road right of way, it was recommended that the request of the developer be agreed upon. Blomquist moved, Vogt seconded the motion to recommend approval of the request of the developer of Robins Addition, that the assessment be based upon the difference between the actual cost and what MnDOT contributes under the cost participation agreement with the understanding that no policy change take place concerning the assessment of the entire cost on comparable streets, particularly where the property owner has received a condemnation damage award. All voted in favor. 4 Z.l Assessment Minutes,. June N, i982 ADJOUMMT ,. Upon motion 'Ehe,'meet ng adjourned. at, 7::00' •.pm. PHH 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Seven Item #4: Safari Estates Water Reservoir 0 isition -- Several times previously, the staft has discussea the probTeems associated with the acquisition of the 1.5 acres of land necessary for the 4.0 M.G. water reservoir adjacent to Safari Estates. City staff offered the Siegs approximately $9,000 for the acquisition of perma- nent and temporary easements for the water reservoir site which was rejected. Mr. Byron Watchske has attempted to purchase the entire Sieg site for future development which would allow his dedi- cation of this land to the City. However, that has failed to be realized. The attorney representing the Siegs has placed a value of $32,000 per acre for their land in this vicinity. Due to this high price of land, before the City sets a precedence and negotiates acquisition guaranteed by the $50,000 letter of credit posted by Mr. Watchske, the Public Works Director and City Attorney recommend that the City Council authorize the following course of action: Preparation of a formal certificate of survey for the perma- nent and temporary easements in question. Authorize the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a land value appraisal of both permanent and temporary easements proposed to be acquired. Authorize the staff to initiate condemnation proceedings necessary for the acquisition of the parcel if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached. Mr. Watchske has continued to be kept informed of the City's inten- tions and progress in the acquisition of this reservoir site. This reservoir is becoming -more of a necessity as time goes on and it would be staff's intention to have this reservoir in opera- tion by late 1983 if at all possible. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize City staff to: Prepare a formal certificate of suvey for the permanent and temporary easements in question. Authorize the hiring of an appraiser to prepare a land value appraisal of both permanent and temporary easements proposed to be acquired. Authorize the staff to initiate condemnation proceedings necessary for the acquisition of the parcel if a negotiated agreement cannot be reached. 23 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eight There are six (6) items on the agenda referred to as Consent Items requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed from the consent agenda and placed under Additional Items unless the discussion required is brief. 3.2 TEMPORARY BEER - CEDARVALE LANES A. Temporary Non -Intoxicating Liquor License for Cedarvale Lanes Softball Tournament August 14 & 15 -- Mr. Randy Spring who resides at 4347 Limestone Drive has made application representing the firm name of Cedarvale Lanes for a 3.2 non -intoxicating beer license for sale of beer at a softball tournament scheduled on August 14 and 15 at Univac fields. The application has been reviewed by the Eagan Police Department and found to be acceptable for consi- deration by the City Council. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 3.2 beer non -intoxicating malt liquor license for Randy Spring in the name of Cedarvale Lanes for August 14 & 15. BIKE PATH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT B. Maintenance Agreement/Dakota County - City of Eagan to Maintain County Bike Paths -- The City Council previously approved a main- tenance agreement between the County of Dakota and City of Eagan for all County bike paths located within the City. This agreement was then submitted to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners for final ratification. The agreement as submitted to the County Board and approved by the City of Eagan as well as other municipali- ties in Dakota County was changed, specifically as it relates to Item 6 whereas the agreement has original wording to "self-distruct in ten (10) years." The Dakota County Board was concerned that the pathways are constructed by the County and the life of the pathway should be much greater than ten years and, therefore, the maintenance of the agreement should be in effect for the life of the bikeway facility. Therefore, Item 6 was changed to read as follows, "This agreement shall be in force and effect for the life of the bikeway facilities, provided that its provisions may be reviewed after fifteen (15) years to determine if any changes are necessary." This change in the agreement as explained by the Assistant Director, Barb Schmidt, of the Dakota County Parks & Recreation Department is acceptable to the City staff. Enclosed on pages 2 S through ST is a copy of the revised maintenance agreementsseparated-Tounty bike paths between the County of Dakota and City of Eagan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the revised main- tenance agreement as stated. P_U 0 0 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SEPARATED COUNTY BIKE PATHS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND . THE CITY OF THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of •I 19 by and between the County of Dakota, hereinafter .referred to as the "County", and the City of hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into an Agreement relating to the maintenance of County bike paths located within the corporate limits of the City and constructed in accordance with the Trails Policy Plan for Dakota County as adopted by the County Board of Commissioners on June 8, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Trails Policy Plan) and as may be amended from time to time by the County upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The County may construct or permit the City to construct separated County bike paths within the corporate limits of the City along County roads or City streets in accordance with the Trails Policy Plan. 2. Following construction, the City will maintain such separated County bike paths located within the corporate limits of . the City in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In regard to County built bike paths, the County will - provide the City with a Notice of Completion and a set of plans of '-,-•-..•-.- _ ._.,.-.. each of the above County bike path segments, upon receipt of which the City's maintenance responsibilities hereunder shall commence. In regard to County bike paths constructed by the City, the City's .- .. maintenance responsibilities hereunder will commence upon completion of such construction. 3. The maintenance to be performed by the City on the aforesaid separated bike paths is: A. Surface Patching, edge repairs and cleaning of the bike path as necessary to provide a smooth, safe and usuable surface. Page 1 of 4 0 0 B. Seal coating as necessary to prevent premature structural deterioration. An alternative method may be used if approved by the County Highway Department. C. Maintaining visible pavement markings and i .. signs. D. Furnishing all labor, materials, supplies, tools and other items necessary for the performance of all and any of the work provided for in this Agreement. 4. All materials used by the City in the performance of the work under this Agreement shall conform to the requirements of MN/DOT specifications. 5. The County Engineer together with the City may agree as to the scope and time schedule of maintenance work that needs to be done to insure the safe condition of the bike path. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable time, the County Engineer may cause the work to be done. All costs of maintenance, whether performed by the City or by the County, upon failure of the City, shall be the responsibility of the City. If the County Engineer does such work, the City agrees to reimburse the County for all amounts required and expended in the' completion of such work provided, however, that this paragraph shall not be construed to relinquish any rights or causes of action which may accrue on behalf of the County as against the City for any breach of this Agreement._ 6. This Agreement shall be in force and effect for the life of the bikeway facilities, provided that its provisions may be reviewed after fifteen (15) years to determine if any changes are necessary. " 7. For the purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to be an independent contractor and not an employee of the County. Any and all agents, servants or employees of the City or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required to be performed by the City under the terms of this Agreemnt, shall not be considered employees of the County and Page 2 of a 0 any and all claims that may or might arise on behalf of the City, its agents, servants or employees as a consequence or any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants, employees or other persons shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 8. The City further agrees to defend and save the County harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of any act or omission on the part of the City or its agents, servants or employees in the performance of or with relation to any of the work or services provided to be performed or furnished by the City under the terms of this Agreement. 9. The County agrees to defend and save the City harmless from any claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of any act or omission on the part of the County or its agents, servants or employees in the performance of or with relation to the County's design and construction of the bike paths or to any other work or services performed by the County under the terms of this Agreement. 10. Any alteration, variation, modification or waiver of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and signed by both parties. 11. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. Approved as to form: COUNTY OF DAKOTA Assistant County Attorney Date Approved as to execution: Assistant County Attorney/Date Approved by Dakota County Board Resolution No. This instrument drafted by: JCB 27 ti By Gene Atkins, Chairman Board of Commissioners Date of Signature Attest Carl D. Onischuk, Auditor Date of Signature Pace 3 of 4 0 0 Dakota County Attorney's Office CITY OF Dakota County Government Center Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Telephone: (612) 437-043e By Mayor Date of signature By City Manager/Administrator Date of Signature By Clerk Date of Signature i C-81-200 Page 4 of 4 tm/m 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Nine GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWALS C. Gambling License Annual Renewals for Lost Spur Country Club and Eagan Lion & Lioness Club -- The 1982 gambling license renewals for the Eagan Lions and Lioness Club and Lost Spur Country Club are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the 1982 gambling license renewals as described. PROJECT 360 D. Project #360, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tower View Road) -- The City has received a request along with a guarantee of payment for the preparation of a feasibility report, detailed plans and specifications and ultimate construction of the upgrading of Towerview Road to Pilot Knob Road from both the developer of the Lone Oak Heights Addition (Orrin Aune) and Sperry Univac Semi -Conductor facility (Ed Michaud). Subsequent to this request, the City staff has prepared the feasibility report which is being presented to the Council for their consideration with a public hearing to be scheduled for August 3. It is Sperry Uni- vac's request that this roadway be constructed and completed during the 1982 construction season. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #360 (Towerview Road) and order the public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. PROJECT 362 E. Project #362, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Tomark Second Addition) -- Upon receipt of a petition from the developer of the Tomark Second Addition requesting the preparation of a feasibility report and detailed plans and specifications at the June 5 Council meeting, the staff was directed to prepare the report for consideration and it is herewith presented. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #362 (Tomark Second Addition) and authorize a public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. RE 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Ten PROJECT 363 F. Project #363, Present Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing (Hilltop Plaza) -- On June 15, the City Council received a petition requesting the preparation of a feasibility report and detailed plans and specifications for utilities within the Hilltop Plaza (James Refrigeration). This feasibility report has now been com- pleted and is being presented to the City Council for their review with intentions of holding the public hearing on August 3. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the feasibility report for Project #363 (Hilltop Plaza) and order the public hearing to be held on August 3, 1982. 30 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eleven 1. PUBLIC. HEARINGSi 0 I.R. FINANCING - FEDERAL LAND CO. A. I. R. Financing for Federal Land Company, Office Building at Yankee Square Center, in the Amount of $1,537,000 -- An application was submitted by Federal Land Company, a partnership, requesting industrial revenue financing in the amount of $1,537,000. The total project cost is $1,837,000. An amount of $300,000 is shown as land equity on the application. A copy of the application is enclosed on pages _34- through 3 S for your review. This project for industrial revenue financing__ZFo_es vary slightly from previous applications for industrial revenue financing as submitted by Federal Land Company. There are two (2) office buildings combined into one (1) project application. The office buildings are 24,300 square feet and 5,000 square feet and do include installation of equipment, the type of equipment approved in previous applications. If the two (2) office buildings were to be handled as separate industrial revenue bond issues, the amount for the 5,000 square foot office building would more than likely fall below the $500,000 minimum required in the I.R. procedural manual. It was the request of Federal Land Company that the two buildings be combined into one (1) application due to the fact that all five (5) office buildings that have been constructed were approved as a total office park under a planned unit development agreement between Federal Land Company and the City of Eagan. Because both of the buildings considered under this industrial revenue financing request are a part of the overall office park complex, it seemed appropriate to the applicant to include the two (2) office buildings into one application, therefore reducing duplication of expense for two separate projects and at the same time complying with the office park layout as approved by the City. The City Administrator raised the issue as to whether two separate structures can be included in one industrial revenue financing application and it was the opinion of Mike Jeronimous of Briggs and Morgan in a letter from Jurran and Moody, Inc., that Yankee Square IV can be structured as one issue including two separate office buildings, Yankee Square IV and Yankee Square V. The City has previously approved the pre- liminary plats and all other related zoning and land use require- ments for these office buildings. Enclosed without a page number are the financial statements for Federal Land Company and the two (2) partners. The financial statements have been reviewed by Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., and enclosed on page 3 G is a copy of their review. 3) • .• Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twelve At the time the public hearing for this industrial revenue financing issue was set by the City Council, Federal Land Company had in- dicated that they might request consideration by the City Council to allow a public offering if a letter of credit was secured for the entire amount of the industrial revenue financing. After fur- ther discussion with Martin Colon at the time he submitted the application, it was decided that a letter of credit would not be pursued and that this issue would be considered as a private place- ment. Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., have also discussed the potential use of a letter of credit with a sophisticated developer and therefore letters of credit as they relate to industrial revenue financing or tax exempt revenue financing as it is often referred to was considered briefly by the Finance Com- mittee. Because the economy has not improved and many sophisticated lenders have filled their portfolios with municipal bonds, it is becoming more apparent that public offerings will be necessary in order for a developer to secure a favorable interest rate to proceed with the project. It has been a strong and consistent opinion of the City Council that public offerings not be allowed. The reason public offerings are not allowed is due to the fact the City has not wanted its name on bonds and coupons offered pub- lically for projects that are not owned and operated by the City of Eagan. Even though the City of Eagan would more than likely not be liable for any default incurred by a project that was issued industrial revenue bonds that suffered bankruptcy or some other financial misfortune, it still was a risk and public policy that the City of Eagan did not care to become involved with. There is a method that the local fiscal consultants have addressed that might provide for a public offering and thus eliminate any risk to the City. This is method where letters of credit are used as a credit enhancement device in conjunction with tax exempt revenue financing. Enclosed on page -5-7 is a memorandum from Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., a rig the possible use of letters of credit. Since Juran & Moody would like the City Council to consider a public offering secured by a letter of credit, I re- quested a detailed letter of request to the City for consideration. Enclosed on page 3,9 is a copy of the letter which was received. I explained to a representative of `furan & Moody that, since the request and consideration for a letter of credit was a new approach for tax exempt revenue financing and would require some modification of the procedural manual, it might be requested by the City Council that the Finance Committee take a more in depth look at the request. On the other hand, if adequate information is provided by Juran & Moody and Miller & Schroder Municipals, Inc., and the City Council feels the letter of credit is a good alternative to the traditional private placement, the application could be considered at the July 6 meeting. One other alternative is to act on the implication and, if favorable action, provide authorization with a private placement, and any modification of that financing would then be considered by the Finance Committee and acted on at a later date. 301, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Thirteen ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny, with or without the modification and special conditions, I.R. financing for Federal Land Company in the amount of $1,537,000. SPECIAL NOTE: If the City Council does not desire to include the smaller building as a part of the overall project, the total tax exempt financing would be reduced proportionately and approval only given to the 24,000 foot building. Drawings will be present showing the entire office park at the meeting on July 6. 33 CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE FINANCING REVIEW BUSINESS LOCATION: NAME: Federal Land Company MINIMUM SIZE $500,000 LAND: 30 ,0 0 Equity 3460 Washington Driva Fagan BUSINESS FORM: Partnership BUILDING: $ 1,270,000 REPRESENTATIVE: Martin F. Colon EQUIPMENT: $ - 0 - PHONE: 452-3303 OTHER: $ 237,000 NATURE OF BUSINESS: Real Estate Development TOTAL: 1,837,000 $15,000 8,000 Date: Interest During Construction -"-DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN: Land Acquisition & Site Development A $ 225,000 Land B 7715,000 (Equity) Construction Contracts $ 9 'SS Prep. 2ES,S0pS Equipment Acquisitign & Installation$ - 0 - - 0 - Architectural & Engineering Fees $25,000 10,000 Legal Fees $15,000 8,000 Interest During Construction $100,000 25,000 Initial Bond Reserve $ - 0 - - 0 - Contingencies $20,000 5,000 Bond Discount $22,000 7,000 Other $ Total Project less land costs - $1,537,000 HISTORY OF APPLICANT 1. Have you ever been in bankruptcy? No 2. Have you ever defaulted on any bond or mortgage commitment? No 3. Have you applied for conventional financing? Yes - no success 4. What are your future plans? This Project will complete the P D Agreement with the City of Eagan as to the office qpacp allntated 5. List financial references: a. Northwestern National Bank - Minneapolis Mn - Vallate Butler, V.2.— b- American National Bank St Paul Raymond nprp nrgin V R 6. When will the construction period begin? Start: July 1982 Finish: July, 1983 7. Other comments: Land will be treated as an equity contribution to the Project and no funding will be sought for the acquisition of land INFORMATION CONCERNING APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 1. PROPOSED LOCATION (ADDRESS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION) Bicentennial 7th and 8th Additions - Lot 2 2. NEW FACILITY OR EXPANSION? New facili 3. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/RETAIL? Commercial - General Office 4. ESTIMATE NUMBER OF NEW JOBS 81 ESTIMATED PAYROLL $1,620,000 5. IS THIS SITE PROPERTY ZONED & ARE UTILITIES AVAILABLE? Yes 6. ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL SALES Office 7. POTENTIAL OTHER USES OF FACILITY 8. WILL THERE BE MORE THAN ONE PHASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT? Yes - Two 9. EXPLAIN HOW THIS FACILITY WILL NOT COMPETE WITH OTHER LOCAL COMPANIES This proposed Project is the final phase of office space allocated under the Planned Agreement with the City of Eagan in 1975. 10. WHAT WILL FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS BE; WILL THE FACILITY BE A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP? Bonds will be sold to sophisticated private investors Facility will not be a Limited Partnership. Date: Signed: (Title): 3s Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 June 14, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Post Office Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: Federal Land Company (Industrial Revenue Financing Request) Dear Tom: Our financial Vice President, Ed Hentges, and myself have reviewed this application. Their financial statement is strong, we see nothing that would ad- versely affect the payment of debt service for this financing. Sincerely yours, MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. Ernest L. Clar Vice President ELC/jms 36 Headquarters: Minneapolis. Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach. California • Northbrook, Illinois • St. Paul, Minnesota • Naples. Florida Member of the Securities Irnemor Protection Corporalion Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 • Toll Free Other Stales (800) 328-6122 f� 0 Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Northwestern Financial Center, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 831-1500 May 26, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Subject: Letters of Credit Dear Tom: Letters of Credit are used as a credit enhancement device in connection with Tax -Exempt Revenue financing. The credit risk to the purchaser is reduced by the existence of a third -party liability. Also, the possibility of a default for all practical purposes disappears. Under the Letter of Credit, a bank will be obligated to pay in the event the firm involved does not make its payments when required. This can result in a substantial reduction in the interest rate on the bonds and therefore a reduction in the interest expense to the firm. The Letters of Credit should be "clean", "irrevocable", "standby" letters. It will be a secondary obligation which will be drawn upon only in the event of a failure to make payments when required. The term "clean" means that the only condition to drawing upon the letter is the failure of the company to pay. No other conditions need to be met and no other documentation pro- duced. The letter is irrevocable regardless of any changes in circumstances which may occur later. Today, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make private place- ments. Therefore, this method and structure of using Letters of Credit in connection with an otherwise typical tax-exempt revenue bond financing is being used. If you have any questions, unanswered by this short summary, please call and we can set up a meeting to go into more details. Very truly yours, MILLER 6 SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. Ernest L. Clark Vice President ELC/jms 37 Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Offices: Downtown Minneapolis • Solana Beach, California • Northbrook. Illinois • St. Paul. Minnesota • Naples. Florida Member of the Securitles Investor Protection Corporetion 0 0 JURAN & MOODY, INC. MUNICIPAL BONDS EXCLUSIVELY 114 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE 612/290-1500 June 29, 1982 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: We have recently been retained by the Federal Land Company to finance, on a tax-exempt basis, their Yankee Square IV & V Project. This bond issue will be secured in total by a Letter of Credit from a major bank. In essence, this means that the trustee representing the bondholders is obligated to draft under the Letter of Credit documents if there is ever a problem in payments. Consequently the bondholder is ultimately looking to the financial strength of the bank rather than the borrower. The bondholder has a highly secured bond and Juran & Moody, Inc. feels quite comfortable issuing these bonds to institutions as well as individuals. In the past few years, as we all know, interest rates have increased dramatically and long-term money has become harder to find. The traditional source of tax-exempt money, institutional lenders, have become less and less important because of their desire not to invest on a long-term basis, as well as the fact that in many instances they just do not need tax-exempt bonds. Conversely, the individual has become the major source for tax-exempt financing. In Minnesota there are numerous transactions which have been secured by Letters of Credit and issued to individuals. It is my understanding that on July 6 the City of Eagan will have a public hearing on the Yankee Square IV & V Project. We respectfully request that the City of Eagan take under consideration the possibility of issuing this Letter of Credit transaction to individuals. LAC/mr W., Sincerely yours, JURAN & MOODY, INC. Leonard A. hamper 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Fourteen PROJECT #264A 0 B. Project #264A, Reassessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Utilities -- On May 19, 1982, the City Council opened the public final assess- ment hearing for the reassessments regarding the Twin View Manor utilities for those property owners who formally appealed their assessments. That hearing was continued until July 6 to allow the City staff adequate time to have the properties in question appraised to determine benefit in response to the assessment appeal. Since that time, the attorney representing the property owners has agreed to limit their legal objection only to the percentage of interest issue. Subsequently, staff will not have to proceed with the appraisals of the properties in question, will not incur the additional previously anticipated expense associated with it and will not have to preceed with the reassessment hearing at a higher amount. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the final reassess- ment hearing for project #264A, reaffirm the original assessments as levied on September 15, 1981 and authorize the City staff to certify the September 15, 1981 final assessments to the County Auditor for collection as originally approved. PROJECT #264B C. Project #264B, Final Assessment Hearing, Twin View Manor Streets -- On May 18, 1982, the final assessment hearing was opened per- taining to costs associated with the installation of streets in the Twin View Manor Addition. Because of the previous appeal sub- mitted with the assessments associated with the installation of utilities in the subdivision, the City Council closed the public hearing and ordered in the assessments for those property owners who did not object to their assessments and continued the public hearing until July 6 for those property owners who submitted written objections pertaining to their street assessments. Similar to the action discussed for the utility assessment appeal, the attorney representing the objecting property owners has agreed to limit their objections to only the amount of interest issue. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council close the final assessment hearing for those objecting property owners and approve their assessments for collection with the issue of the interest to be resolved at a separate time without impacting certification of the final assessments as originally presented on May 18. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the final assessment hearing for Project #264B, approve the final assessment roll as originally submitted on May 18, 1982, and authorize the staff to certify the assessments to the County Auditor for collection. 3`I Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Fifteen PROJECT #357 D. Project #357, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition (Streets & Utilities) -- On June 1, a feasibility report for the above referenced project was presented to the City Council for their review. A copy of this report is included on pages through for the Coun- cil's information for this public hearing. This feasibility report has been reviewed in detail with the developer in question and no objections have been received to date. All legal notices have been published in the paper and sent to the affected property owners. Assessments associated with this project will be contained within the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing and approve or deny Project #357 for the installation of streets and utilities in the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. is I I 0 10 1335 V. 1," 36 & P—J. 55173 Pro... 6f2-636-4600 May 26, 1982 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Re: Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition Project No. 357 Our File No. 49254 Dear Mayor and Council: Gun G tlnnnvun. P. E. Rnhar It Rorrrv. P E. Jnvph r . An,Wh . P E. lhmlln..1 A. Lrm hnS. 1t4. Rn hula I:. Ibmrr. P, 1; Jmnr, r - l/lam. P lL Gh nn R. C .... A. PC A'rrlh 1. Gurdon. P L Th..., F. Nurn, Y.E. Rrhmd H'. hwer. P1 Ruhrn G. .Srhenh h, P E. slur vin L..Snnnlu. P.E Ih �nurd C. Rureurdr. P1,. lrrry .4. tlnwdnn, P L. hlnrA A. /lemon. P E. Jrd K rnld. P li W,, hM T. RuurnNnn. AV rnorlc. 1 b�rAv,n Lrn?f. Po.,M, IMdun .H. 96nn u,,,d h, un,.r. Transmitted herewith is our report for Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition, Project No. 357. This report covers utility installation and public street construction within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. The work outlined herein is in conformance with the design concepts presented in the Report for Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addition, Project 346, with minor revisions required by preliminary design changes pro- posed for the 3rd Addition. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very' truly, BONESTR0O, ROSE E ANDERLIK b ASSOCIATES, INC. James C. Olson JCO: k f Approved by: Date: 9898a I hereb certif that this Report was pre - Y Y pared by me or under my direct superviaion and that 1 am a duly Reeeatered Profession- al Engineer under the/laws of the State of Minnesota. .� James C. Olson J i Date: May 26, 1982 Reg: No. 8956 Thomas A. Colbert Director of Public Works 41 0 0 CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION SCOPE: This project provides for the installation of sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer utilities within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition and the com- pletion of street improvements for Cinnamon Ridge Trail and Stater Drive with- in the Third Addition. Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition consists of the follow- ing units: Single Family - 5 units on Slater Drive Single Family Cluster - 28 units on 4 private cul-de-sacs Twin Homes - 18 units on Slater Drive Twin Home Cluster - 36 units on private street In addition, utility and street improvements on Cinnamon Ridge Trail will provide benefit for a future 72 unit proposed condominium area east of Cinna- mon Ridge Trail. This area will be platted as an outlet on the Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition plat. Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition is located in the SW% of Sec- tion 30. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible and is in accor- dance with the Master Utility and Street Plans for the City of Eagan. The Lproject as outlined herein can best be carried out as two contracts. Contract I provides for construction of all utilities and the placement of an aggregate Ibase on a properly prepared subgrade. Contract II provides for construction of the remaining portion of the ag- gregate base, and a bituminous surface in conjunction with the concrete curb and gutter. 0 Page 1. 9898a 41, southwesterly on Slater Drive to the end of the 3rd Addition as indicated on Figure No. 1 at the back of this report. At the point where Cinnamon Ridge Trail intersects Slater DRive at the Northern Natural Gas easement, the original development concept plans antici- pated a street elevation that would place fill over the inplace gas main. Re- cent conversations between the Developer and the Gas Company now indicates that the amount of fill that will be allowed over the gas main is less than previously anticipated. Therefore, the street grade must be lowered and it will be necessary to move the sanitary sewer from the intersection to a side lot easement location where the inplace gas main is lower in elevation. The final design street grades for the private cul-de-sacs have been checked to ensure that there is adequate cover over the sanitary sewer, which is very shallow in this area. B. WATER MAIN: A six inch water main is proposed within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition as is shown on Figure No. 2. This proposed main will complete a loop through the plat by connecting to water mains installed within the 1st Addi- tion. Valves, fittings and hydrants are included with the proposed main. Page 2. 9898a 45 I DISCUSSION: CONTRACT I A. SANITARY SEWER: A 10 inch sanitary sewer was installed within Cinnamon Ridge First Addition which terminates at the intersection of Cinnamon Ridge Trail and the north line of the 1st Addition. It is proposed to extend an 8 i' inch PVC lateral line northerly in Cinnamon Ridge Trail to Slater Drive and southwesterly on Slater Drive to the end of the 3rd Addition as indicated on Figure No. 1 at the back of this report. At the point where Cinnamon Ridge Trail intersects Slater DRive at the Northern Natural Gas easement, the original development concept plans antici- pated a street elevation that would place fill over the inplace gas main. Re- cent conversations between the Developer and the Gas Company now indicates that the amount of fill that will be allowed over the gas main is less than previously anticipated. Therefore, the street grade must be lowered and it will be necessary to move the sanitary sewer from the intersection to a side lot easement location where the inplace gas main is lower in elevation. The final design street grades for the private cul-de-sacs have been checked to ensure that there is adequate cover over the sanitary sewer, which is very shallow in this area. B. WATER MAIN: A six inch water main is proposed within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition as is shown on Figure No. 2. This proposed main will complete a loop through the plat by connecting to water mains installed within the 1st Addi- tion. Valves, fittings and hydrants are included with the proposed main. Page 2. 9898a 45 0 0 C. SERVICES: Service connections proposed herein connect to 4 inch PVC sewer services and one inch type K copper water services placed in a common trench for each dwelling unit. It is proposed to install the service lines within 15 feet of each unit. D. STORM SEWER: The storm sewer proposed in this report consists of three separate systems and is shown on Figure No. 3. A 27" and 30" line will be in- stalled on Slater Drive to complete the storm sewer installed in the 1st Addi- tion. This line will discharge storm water into Pond AP -21a. A second storm sewer system will be installed on Cinnamon Ridge Trail and consists of 18 inch through 27 inch pipes. This storm sewer is also located along a side lot easement, as was the sanitary sewer, because of the conflict with the gas main at the intersection of Slater Drive -Cinnamon Ridge Trail. The third storm sewer system consists of a 12 inch outfall line which will discharge storm water from Pond AP -21a into Pond AP -21. This line will re- strict the discharge to 5 cubic feet per second and will drain Pond AP -21a dry after a storm. The preliminary design for Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addition had anticipated a 100 year flood elevation for Pond AP -21a of 910.0. The area around the pond will have to be regraded to provide a storage capacity of 10 acre-feet of volume below elevation 910, with a berm around the pond at elevation 912.0. The bottom elevation will be in the vicinity of 902. The Developer's site grading plans will have to be carefully reviewed to insure adequate storage capacity in this area. 9898a Page 3. IF4 I if F.� 0 0 E. STREET (GRADING/GRAVEL BASE): It is anticipated that the Developer will rough grade Cinnamon Ridge Trail and Slater Drive prior to installation of utility lines. The construction proposed herein consists of providing the proper shaping of the subgrade after installation of utilities and the place- ment of a 4 inch aggregate base. The private streets and cul-de-sacs are not included with this work. The proposed work is shown on Figure No. 4. CONTRACT II F. STREET (SURFACING): This construction provides for the placement of the remaining portion of the aggregate base and the 32 foot wide bituminous sur- face in conjunction with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. It is antici- pated that this work will be completed one year after installation of utility lines under Contract I to minimize damage from trench settlements. The pri- vate streets and cul-de-sacs are not included with this work. The proposed work is shown on Figure No. 4. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Construction Area Outlot A, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot A, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot B, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. Outlot B, Cinnamon Ridge 1st Addn. COST ESTIMATE: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A at the I.. back of this report. A summary of these costs are as follows: CONTRACT I: Sanitary Sewer $ 88,600.00 Water Main 73,610.00 Services 44,060.00 l Storm Sewer 136,200.00 l Street (Grading/Gravel Base) 18,720.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - CONTRACT I $361,190.00 i CONTRACT II: Street (Surfacing) $ 83,010.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST -CONTRACT I 6 II $444,200.00 Page 4. 9898a • The above cost estimate includes construction, contingencies and all re- lated overhead costs. Overhead costs are estimated to be 27% and include le- gal, engineering, administration and bond interest costs. The storm sewer costs are disportionately high for the 3rd Addition because some of the storm sewer benefits both the 1st Addition and future additions. EASEMENTS: Easements are required along side lot lines for sanitary sewer in- stallation and within open space areas for storm sewer lines. A ponding ease- ment is required for Pond AP -21a. It is anticipated that these easements will be acquired through final plat approval at no additional cost. ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited Iproperty located within Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. This includes the Outlot H, east of Cinnamon Ridge Trail. The proposed lots and units will be assessed for lateral sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer and streets. Lateral storm sewer is considered to be storm sewer pipe 24 inch in diameter and less. Trunk storm sewer larger than 24 inch will be assessed a 24 inch equiv- alent rate. Trunk area charges for sanitary sewer and water main have been previously �. assessed as part of Project 254. Trunk area charge for storm sewer has been assessed under Project 186. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this report as Appendix B. The outlot east of Cinnamon Ridge Trail is anticipated to be de- veloped in the future with 72 condominium units. For the purposes of this re- port, one-half or 36 units were used to allocate benefit from the adjacent im- provements on Cinnamon Ridge Trail because there will be additional future im- provement costs within the outlot when it is replatted and developed. t Page 5. 9898a 4(� The storm sewer assessment rates are higher than normal because some of the storm sewer costs benefit areas outside of Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addition. REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as Follows: $ 73,610 SANITARY SEWER: $ 73,610 $ 73,610 - 0 - SERVICES: Project Cost Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Lateral $ 88,600 Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Service Stubs Lateral Assessment $ 88,600 $ 88,600 $ 88,600 - 0 - WATER MAIN: Lateral $ 73,610 Lateral Assessment $ 73,610 $ 73,610 $ 73,610 - 0 - SERVICES: Project Cost Revenue Trunk Fund Bal. Service Stubs $ 44,060 Service Assessment $ 44,060 $ 44,060 $ 44,060 STORM SEWER: Lateral $130,760 Lateral Assessment $130,760 Trunk 5,440 Trunk Assessment - 0 - $136,200 $130,760 - $ 5,440 Page 6. 9898a 4-7 STREET: Grading/Gravel Base $ 18,720 Surfacing 83,010 Street Assessment $101,730 $101,730 $101,730 — 0 — TOTAL $444,200 $438,760 — $ 5,440 The trunk fund balance for storm sewer is $5,440. This balance is proposed to be drawn from City Trunk Storm Sewer Funds. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Public Hearing Approve Plans and Specifications Open Bids Award Contract Construction Completion Assessment Hearing First Payment due with Real Estate Taxes Page 7. 9898a June 1, 1982 July 6, 1982 July 20, 1982 August 11, 1982 August 17, 1982 Spring, 1983 Summer, 1983 May, 1984 P PART A. SANITARY SEWER 1,065 Lin.ft 1,870 Lin.ft 365 Lin. ft 4 20 Each C_ 34 Lin. ft 6 Lin.ft 85 Each 1 Each 200 Tons 0.3 Acres 3,300 Lin.ft PART B WATER MAIN 0 APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATE CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION PROJECT 357 rnumnenm r 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer 0'-8' deep @ $10.00/lin.ft. 8" Sanitary Sewer 8'-10' deep @ $12.00/lin.ft. 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer 10'-18' deep @ $16.00 Standard Manholes w/castings @ $800.00/ea. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 70.00/lin.ft 8" DIP Outside drop for manhole @ $80.00/lin.ft. 8" x 4" PVC wye branches @ $40.00/ea. Cut into existing manhole @ $300.00/ea. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton Seed w/topsoil @ $1,500.00/acre Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency +27% Legal, P.ngrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL SANITARY SEWER 3,600 Lin.ft. 6" DIP Water Main @ $10.00/lin.ft. 9 Each Hydrants in place @ $800.00/ea. 8 Each Gate Valve and box @ $350.00/ea. 4,400 Lbs. Cast Iron fittings @ 1.00/lb. 2 Each Connect to existing 6"DIP @ $300.00/ea. 100 Ton Rock Stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 3,600 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench Compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL WATER MAIN Page 8. 9898a . _ 14C q $10,650.00 22,440.00 5,840.00 16,000.00 2,380.00 480.00 3,400.00 300.00 1,200.00 450.00 3,300.00 $66,440.00 3,320.00 $69,760.00 18,840.00 �W $36,000.00 7,200.00 2,800.00 4,400.00 600.00 600.00 3,600.00 $55,200.00 2,760.00 $57,960.00 15,650.00 $73,610.00 P 0 PART C - SERVICES 2,375 Lin.ft. 4" PVC Sanitary Sewer Service @ $5.00/lin.ft. I1,780 Lin.ft. 1" Type K Copper Water Service @ $5.50/lin.ft 85 Each 1" Compaction Stop @ $30.00/ea. 85 Each 1" Curb Stop 6 Box @ $60.00/ea. x 1,950 Lin.ft. Mechanical Trench Compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. Total Estimated Construction +5% Contingency I +27% Legal, Engrng.Admin. 5 Bond Int TOTAL SERVICES PART D STORM SEWER 215 Lin.ft. 30" RCP Storm Sewer @ $35.00/lin.ft. 785 Lin.ft. 27" RCP Storm Sewer @ $30.00/lin.ft. 715 Lin.ft. 24" RCP Storm Sewer @ $27.00/lin.ft. 215 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm Sewer @ $21.00/lin.ft. 475 Lin.ft. 15" RCP Storm Sewer @ $18.00/lin.ft. 650 Lin.ft. 12" RCP Storm Sewer @ $16.00/lin.ft. 10 Each Standard manholes w/casting @ $900.00/each X13 Each Standard catchbasin w/castings @ $600.00 6 Each 30" RCP 7 1/20 Long Radius Bends @ $250.00/each 4 Each 24" RCP 7 1/2o Long Radius Bends @ $200.00/each 1 Each 12" RCP Flared -End Section @ $600.00/ea. 4 Cu.yds. Grouted rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd. 300 Tons Rock stabilization below pipe @ $6.00/ton 2 Acres Seed with topsoil and mulch @ 1,500.00/acre 3,100 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft. 1 Each Seepage Collar on outlet pipe @ $500.00/ea. Total Estimated Construction 5% Contingency +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. 6 Bond Int TOTAL STORM SEWER Page 9. r9898a SO $12,650.00 9,790.00 2,550.00 5,100.00 1,950.00 $33,040.00 1,650.00 $34,690.00 9,370.00 $44,060.00 $ 7,525.00 23,550.00 19,305.00 4,515.00 8,550.00 10,400.00 9,000.00 7,800.00 1,500.00 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,800.00 3,000.00 3,100.00 500.00 $102,145.00 5,105.00 $107,250.00 28.950.00 $136,200.00 Page 10. 9898a PART E STREETS (Grading/Gravel Base) 350 Cu.yds. Subgrade correction @ $3.00/cu.yd. $ 1,050.00 7,300 Sq.yds. Subgrade preparation @ $0.30 2,190.00 1,800 Tons Class 2 100% crushed aggregate base @ $6.00 10,800.00 Total Estimated Construction $14,040.00 +5% Contingency 700.00 $14,740.00 +27% Legal, Engrng.,Admin. & Bond Int. 3,980.00 TOTAL STREETS (Grading/Gravel Base) $18,720.00 CONTRACT I Part A - Sanitary Sewer $ 88,600.00 Part B - Water Main 73,610.00 ( Part C - Services 44,060.00 Part D - Storm Sewer 165,190.00 Part E - Streets (Grading/Gravel Base) 18,720.00 TOTAL CONTRACT I $390,180.00 CONTRACT II PART F STREETS (Surfacing) �.: 6,100 Sq.yds. Base preparation @ $0.30/sq.yd. $ 1,830.00 700 Tons Class 5 Aggregate Base @ $6.00/ton 4,200.00 I550 Tons 2341 Bituminous binder course mixture @ $12.00/ton 6,600.00 550 Tons 2341 Bituminous wear course mixture @ $14.00/ton 7,700.00 60 Tons AC -1 Bituminous material for mixture @ $200.00/ton 12,000.00 L 350 Gals. Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.20/gal. 420.00 3,640 Lin.ft. Surmountable conc. c & g @ $5.00/lin.ft. 18,200.00 8 Each Adjust gate valve box casting @ $100.00/ea. 800.00 55 Each Adjust MN and CB castings @ $150.00/ea. 8,250.00 I, 1-1/2 Acres Seeding with topsoil and mulch @ $1,500.00/acre 2,250.00 Total Estimated Construction $62,250.00 +5% Contingency 3,110.00 $65,360.00 +27% Legal,Engrng, Admin. & Bond Int. 17,650.00 TOTAL STREETS (Surfacing) $83,010.00 Page 10. 9898a 0 0 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL CINNAMON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION PROJECT 357 LATERAL ASSESSMENT Cost Breakdown Method 1 Single Family Cluster Unit = 0.7 Single Family Unit 1 Twin Home Unit = 0.6 Single Family Unit 1 Twin Home Cluster Unit 0.4 Single Family Unit 1 Condominium Unit - 0.35 Single Family Unit Number of Single Family Units Lots 1-5, Block 1 5 x 1= 5 Number of Single Family Cluster Units Lots 1-28, Block 2 28 x.7 - 19.6 Number of Twin Home Units Lots 1-9, Block 3 18 x.6 = 10.8 Number of Twin Home Cluster Units Lots 1-13, Block 4 36 x.4 = 14.4 Number of Condominiums Outlot H 36* x.35 =12.6 62.4 *1/2 of estimated future condos, for Outlot H, Cinnamon Ridge 3rd Addn., which will be assessed as a single tract for this project. A. Sanitary Sewer Single Family - Block 1 (5) Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) Twin Home - Block 3 (18) Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 6 5 (36) Outlot H TOTAL B. Water Main Single Family - Block 1 (5) Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) Twin Home - Block 3 (18) Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 6 5 (36) Outlot H nono_ TOTAL PA"P 11. Total Cost $ 7,099.00 27,830.00 15,335.00 20,446.00 17,890.00 $88,600.00 S 5,898.00 23,121.00 12,740.00 16,987.00 14,864.00 $73,610.00 Cost/Unit $1,420.00 994.00 852.00 568.00 N.A. $1,180.00 826.00 708.00 472.00 N. A. 1 C. Services Total Cost Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 3,530.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 13,839.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 7,626.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 10,168.00 Outlot H 8,897.00 TOTAL $ 44,060.00 ( D. Storm Sewer Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 10,478.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 41,072.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 22,632.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 30,175.00 Outlot H 26,403.00 ( l TOTAL $130,760.00 E. Street (Grading/Gravel Base) Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 1,500.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 5,880.00 Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 3,240.00 Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 4,320.00 Outlot H 3,780.00 TOTAL $18,720.00 F. Street (Surfacing) Single Family - Block 1 (5) $ 6,651.00 Single Family Cluster - Block 2 (28) 26,074.00 I; Twin Home - Block 3 (18) 14,367.00 I: Twin Home Cluster - Blocks 4 & 5 (36) 19,156.00 Outlot H 16,762.00 I TOTAL $83,010.00 Page 12. 9898a L 53 Cost/Unit $706.00 494.00 424.00 282.00 N.A. $2,096.00 1,467.00 1,257.00 838.00 N. A. $300.00 210.00 180.00 120.00 N. A. $1,330.00 931.00 798.00 532.00 N. A. Item San. Sewer Water Services Storm Sewer Street (Base) Street (Surfacing) TOTAL LATERAL ASSESSMENT 0 Block 1 L. 1-5 Single Family /Unit $1,420 1,180 706 2,096 300 1,330 IJ LATERAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Block 1 Block 3 Blk. 4 5 5 L. 1-28 L. 1-9 L.1-13,1-5 Sin.Fam. Twin Twin Home Cluster Home Cluster /Unit /Unit /Unit Outlot H $ 994 $ 852 $ 568 $17,890 826 708 472 14,864 494 424 282 8,897 1,467 1,257 838 26,403 210 180 120 3,780 931 798 532 16,762 $7,324 $5,126 $4,395 $2,929 $88,596 *Estimated amounts for Outlot H are for this project and are independent of future number of units to be developed. Page 13. 9898a TRUNK _ EXIST.10" _ ,SANITARY: SEWER OUTLOT H 2 w„� Ci N NA MdN C!ly x Scale I° = 200' .p1113rM AOSFI&, NOMA A ASSOCr M6. COMM?” Utmem ak P.I. er.a oyeo• HIGHWAY No. 77 PHASE 5 SLATER DR. M r 7O 5 4 O F PHASE 4 L AO SED EXISTING NIIARY 4 I SANITARY SEWER SEWER ^U \ ID 9 8 O 6 5 4 3 2 I �1 r 7 �0 10`��< E TRAI ✓L�a—<� f> Dakota v C:3O In 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Elec. OI © of Substation £o on Of BurnsW//e CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION SANITARY SEWER PROJECT No. 357 >t tnt <i to t y r >t � <i to t y r J U FIGURE No.l TRUNK HIGHWAY OUTLOT HgT 7 'r CINNAI7K5N r _ 0 z; n FT _ r x�� Scale I° = 200' BM93TIM ROSH umnna i R3SK. /IG tvwL FNA`aom 49254 ;. O PROPOSED 6" WATER MAIN 4 No. PHASE 5 PHASE 4 EXISTING WATER MAIN 9 8 O 6 5 4 3 E 7 / TRHAIL �QO' 70ec. IO 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 I �O O J of £o on V City of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION WATER MAIN PROJECT No. 357 77 FIGURE No. 2 •7I�777III�� L � fY Itis �; � )� Pf- TRUNK HIGHWAY C OUTLO-J T H r 55 1 Pons �/ � t.� \ �7 O --w- CINNANI(5'fJ •::. r - 4 18 O •c+i LI �, � 24 �p City Scale I° = 200' swas,lloc, qua a Asso W- I~ No. PHASE 5 77 v© y O ® ofd o p PHASE -4 PROPO4 ED EXIST. STORMS EWER 4 12 STORM SEWER J O* Q 10 9 B O 6 5 4 3 2 I p G' O TRAIL FEI 10 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 1O of Eo on Of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 357 U- U - J FIGURE No. �-r za'. LLI 27" J -j O]J' LL s - O N 1i Pone AP -21a City Scale I° = 200' swas,lloc, qua a Asso W- I~ No. PHASE 5 77 v© y O ® ofd o p PHASE -4 PROPO4 ED EXIST. STORMS EWER 4 12 STORM SEWER J O* Q 10 9 B O 6 5 4 3 2 I p G' O TRAIL FEI 10 9 8 7 6 5 •4 3 2 1O of Eo on Of Burnsville CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 357 U- U - J FIGURE No. TRUNK HIGHWAY <l OUTLOT H _ 92 ` CINNAIVIdN x Scale I" a 200' \ PROPOSED STREET !1 IMPROVEM l.' 91111EM q 10SM MCMU a Assoc. W- ` I ud. 49254 U O No. PHASE 5 PHASE 4 EXISTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS 77 ©"m a0k01a /qT\ C%pO 1019ITNEdoo'n4 J�j2 2 I S"Calallaa of C/Iy of BurnSN//B CINNAMON RIDGE 3rd ADDITION STREETS PROJECT No. 357 LL LL J V FIGURE No.4 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Sixteen 0 VACATION OF PORTION OF DENMARK AVENUE E. Street Vacation/Denmark Avenue -- The City has received a writ- ten petition from the owners of the two lots in the northeast corner of Denmark Avenue and Wescott Road requesting that a portion of the old alignment of Denmark Avenue be vacated and reincorporated into their front yard area. A copy of this requested vacation is enclosed on page 6 for your information. This excessive right-of-way was origins y platted with the Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition prior to the construction of Wescott Road. Sub- sequently, Pilot Knob Heights Fourth Addition was replatted to the fifth addition after the alignment and construction of Wescott Road took place. This realignment of the intersection created a triangular excessive right-of-way originally dedicated under the Pilot Knob Fourth Addition. The staff no longer has any need for this public right-of-way and has not received any objections to this vacation. However, the staff would recommend that a ten foot drainage and utility easement be retained over this vacated portion adjacent to the new revised easterly right-of-way line of Denmark Avenue. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the vaca- tion of public right-of-way for Denmark Avenue north of Wescott Road and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pilot Knob Heights Fifth Addition and, if approved, that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be retained over the westerly portion of this vacated right-of-way. sq N 8`1144 E n 336,'0 10 'y5 Y 4) r! 93'44 E.�B1.57 V��. 46:24 111 96 I I O 74 ° Do1S1 6 ;Ic 5 z cj i M1� a",0� S a7 2y -,•1v' f I � G:�a3 a.\'l0� _O 0 9 E Q1 ° I ` •�° `2, 0' e V°`. �\ _ V�geO 00 00' 9g o ul 13 12 R•2p1..� X20 8.2 45.....- _ W rn N. 7go5�, Q Oj_ ''c'°J O.a` �;��`�-� -{N !A 00 ro' O 00,Q :12.0 12.45 W ''6' 95' 2 01-2 60 �.� `35.35 .00 6 92 y 56 N g500 N 74E yflo 'p.0. Z 3 9 y\2r., 0 0 6�, ,!L "sU �,mo N opENM 9a 00 so �ys� r�0 2 - 7135 Z yS 9 £ _ 2 o 25 co z 66 L2 to 0.1 30 >ra D`'s' 24f Gr9 Vy 0�.�'j- n3 0B ' 23 a1. o,Z( % I GQ/ G� 4160 250 43 E c 1C m 4 N 67 90 1 0 i O' •¢ N. 0 .O X19 O C m 90 oln 12316 9139 sg, \ s. N 21.55 1 qy. �W W� s\' o N.B4 00 E �1 \ N 'o+>` j p��A�S\ I 3071 30 m y. 22 m w`\' 1 PILO R r0atr�� s 0 "'IY No 4'39 Ea�O. 1 ��25a ?> N -,0 0) O�. D0 j 3 760 04 39 E. °0- t4 00 J6 NW v N 840 00 E. I 7, p- o' bo II/2 HE/G.�,I,T F � zI 8 35 6\ 3A31416 0 3 "5.6e 21 FIFTH 3030 0 � - 55,1I D D. Lj 20 p In N I I 64 10 �o NIO to n N P6N 89042 25 F � m On PQ -- .' - — 334 68 N 9'•, y0 Ota n o Nlm v,w 0�0 0¢ 0.H 6?�°�.`° r f. N. 89042-25" E. - 745.78 — — .. _. .1 x90 •Z 1 =1 lv^o� 144^^ 0(/ � °' 209 36 Y 177 25 xo4 .J T i' - '26 99 -• ACREAGE S.W. 1/4 N W S W I N E S E 3990 1 3994 3398 3991 • Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Seventeen PROJECT #359 C, F. Project #359, Park Cliff 1st Addition (Storm Sewer Extension) -- On May 18, the City Council received a petition of the Park Cliff Addition requesting the City to extend the storm sewer con- structed under the first addition to minimize and eliminate the extensive erosion occurring as a result of the second addition not proceeding on its previously anticipated time schedule. Sub- sequently, on June 1, the City Council approved a change order authorizing this work to be performed under Contract 81-13. This work proceeded based on the developer's petition wherein he waived his right to the public hearing and agreed to accept all costs associated with it. The purpose of this public hearing, then, is to meet the procedural requirements for the City to sell bonds to finance the project and to allow it to assess the property in question in accordance with the feasibility report. Enclosed on pagesz through 68 is a copy of the feasibility report for the CouA ?r -'s information. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve Project #359 for the extension of storm sewer facilities for Park Cliff 1st Addition. L7 0 REPORT PARKCLIFF ADDITIONAL ON 1st ADDITION STORM SEWER PROJECT No. 359 FOR EAGAN , MINNESOTA 1982 49233 �o�cedfiroo, i�oseire, lQnc&ii" & lq"aa�f .90w. zz Pam M&W"OAa 61 C] Rte, 4. & 4, 9,.c. 2333 V. 9+..A .Y:yi.,.y 36 SJ. Pd. hf"..1.& 35113 PA...., 612.636.3600 June 2, 1982 <(Q1956 — t/L — 1981; Honorable Mayor and Counc ; j nniversary' P, City of Eagan �Q 3795 Pilot Knob Road �Ub Eagan, Mo. 55122 Re: Park Cliff 1st Addition Additional Storm Sewer Project No. 359 - File No. 49233 Dear Mayor and Council: • DNa G. Nnm.uae. P.E. Rahrrr 11'. R.arrv. P.E. Iarph ('..lnderhk. P.E. Rradlard A. Lrmhrrs. P.E. Htrhard E. Turner. 1'.E. Iaern C. 011on. P.E. G n. R. C.A. P.E. Kroh A. Gordon. P.E. 'ha.., E. Nnyu. P.E. Rlrhard 11'. rall". P.E. Rohm G. Srha.lrhr. P.E. Mani. L. Sorrala, P.E. Donald C. Bwj.,dl. P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E. hlark A. Haruo.. P.E. So- rrn h/. 04r.11y Chane, A. Erlrino,, U. M. PawNlky Harlan M. 06on Darld E. 01,.n Transmitted herewith is our report on the additional storm sewer required in Park Cliff 1st Addition. This storm sewer is required to correct a serious erosion problem and to protect this property from further erosion until the 2nd Addition and the total storm sewer system are completed. It is anticipated that this work will be constructed as a change order to Con- tract No. 81-13. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to review this report. Respectfully submitted, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert W. Rosene RWR:li I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Robert W. Rosene Date: June 2, 1982 Reg. No. 3488 Approved By: Tfromas A. Colbert Public Works Director Date: , _ 7 9938a ' G3 0 0 PARK CLIFF IST ADDITION ADDITIONAL STORM SEWER SCOPE: This project provides an additional temporary 12" diameter storm sewer to eliminate a serious erosion problem created by storm water drainage from the Park Cliff 1st Addition. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The project is feasible and is in accordance with storm water planning for the City of Eagan. This additional work can best be carried out by use of a change order to an existing construction con- tract. DISCUSSION: The storm sewer installed in the Park Cliff 1st Addition was temporarily terminated with an outlet into a natural draw on property sched- uled to be developed with the 2nd Addition. Heavy storm water flows from this pipe together with the easily erodable characteristics of the soil in this area have combined to create a serious erosion problem. As a result, the end of the existing paved street is being undermined and a dangerous hole has been created. Also, existing gas main and buried telephone lines could be damaged if the condition is not corrected. The permanent solution to this problem would be the continuance of Park Cliff Drive in the 2nd Addition and the installation of the permanent storm sewer for that addition. However, this cannot be accomplished at this time due to the lack of activity in the single family housing market. A temporary solution can be provided utilizing a 12" diameter temporary storm sewer with an energy dissipator at the lower end outletting into the natural low lands of the 2nd Addition. The area that has been eroded will be 9938a Page 1. 64 0 0 backfilled with natural earth taken from another part of the development there- by eliminating the dangerous hole and minimizing the possibility of further erosion. This project has been discussed with the developer and he has re- quested that the work be carried out with costs assessed against his remaining property. AREA TO BE INCLUDED: Assessment Area Parcels 010-02 and 011-03 in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 34, T27, R23 Construction Area Parcels 010-02 and 011-03 in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 34, T27, R23 COST ESTIMATE: A detailed cost estimate is presented at the back of this re- port. A summary of the costs is as follows: Temporary Storm Sewer Improvements $13,220 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ............. $13,220 The total estimated cost including contingencies and all related overhead costs is $13,220. Overhead costs are estimated at $27% and include legal, en- gineering, administration and the bond interest. ASSESSMENTS: The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed against the remaining undeveloped land owned by the developer in this quarter section. No costs are proposed to be assessed on any of the existing lots in the Park Cliff 1st Addition or on parcel 011-02 in this quarter section. EASEMENTS: An easement is required on a portion of Parcels 011-03 and 010-02 where the temporary sCorm sewer is placed. This easement can be vacated when the permanent storm sewer is installed with the development of the proposed Park Cliff 2nd Addition. No easement is required on Parcel 011-02. 9938a Page 2. 6S'_ 0 0 REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as follows: Project Cost Revenue Balance Storm Sewer Lateral $ 13,220 Lateral Assessment $ 13,220 TOTAL ........... $ 13,220 $ 13,220 - 0 - No revenues are required from City trunk funds to finance this project. PROJECT SCHEDULE Present Feasibility Report June 15, 1982 Public Hearing July 6, 1982 Approve Plans and Specifications and Change Order July 6, 1982 Construction Completion August, 1982 Assessment Hearing September, 1982 First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May, 1983 COST ESTIMATE 12" P.V.C. 200 Lin.ft. @ $17.00 $ 3,400.00 Manhole with casting 1 Each @ $1,170.00 1,130.00 Common Borrow 1,200 Cu.yds. @ $3.00 3,600.00 Seed 0.30 Ac. @ $4,800.00 1,440.00 12" Energy Dissipator 1 Each @ $400.00 400.00 Grouted Rip Rap 4 Cu.yds. @ $60.00 240.00 Connect existing 18" RCP to MH 1 Each @ $200.00 200.00 $10,410.00 +27% Legal, Engrng, Admin. 2,810.00 TOTAL .................. $13,220.00 Page 3. 9938a 6 6 9938a 0 0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PROJECT NO. 359 ADDITIONAL STORM SEWER FOR PARK CLIFF 1ST ADDITION Parcel No. Assessment 011-03 $ 3,305 010-02 9,915 Page 4. 67 $13,220 Total CQ/FF PARKCLIFF 1st ADDITION ADDITIONAL STORK! SEWER PROJECT No. 359 TO BE ASSESSED Scale: f = 200 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOC� INC. 49233 0 i Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Eighteen OLD- BUSIN,ES!S VENDING MACHINES - ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS A. Special Use Permit for St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch News- paper Vending Machines -- At the last regular meeting of the Eagan City Council held on June 15, 1982, representatives of the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch appeared before the City Council to discuss whether a special use permit applied to the placement of newspaper vending machines on public property throughout the City of Eagan. It was the position of the City Council during 1981 and was again stated by the present City Council that a special use permit is required for the placement of vending machines for the purpose of selling newspapers on public property throughout the City of Eagan. The St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch was re- quested to submit an application for a special use permit if they intend to keep the newspaper vending machines on public property throughout the City and submit the same for consideration and review by the City Council at the July 6 meeting. The City staff was directed to review all vending machine locations upon receiving the application and recommend only locations that are consistent with the health, safety and welfare and public property image desired by the City of Eagan. City staff has met with representa- tives of the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch and enclosed is a copy of a staff report and map showing locations of the vending machines that appear to be in keeping with standards being con- sidered by the City of Eagan for newspaper vending machines. This information is enclosed on pages -70 through 7-3 . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the special use permit with or without modification as presented by the St. Paul Pioneer Press .& Dispatch subject to conditions set forth by the City staff. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages -7+ through 7S7' is a copy of a letter which was received by t_ee _ty Administrator concerning this item. TO: THCMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JULY 1, 1982 RE: ST PAUL DISPATCH VENDING MACHINE UPDATE As directed by the City Council on June 15, 1982, staff has had a chance to review the locations of all the vending machines located in the City of Fagan. This review was done by Martin Des Lauriers, Police Chief, Tom Colbert, Public Works Director and me. In the review of the locations of the newspaper vend- ing machines, staff has identified 11 locations which could be defined as hazardous or interfere with the public safety in regard to vehicular movement. These 11 locations are as follows: 1. The intersection of County Road 30 (Diffley Road) and Rahn Road. 2. Beau d Rue and Rahn Road. 3. Silver Bell Road and Beau d Rue 4. Silver Bell Road adjacent to Easy Street Apartments 5. Yankee Doodle Road and Donald Avenue 6. High Site Drive adjacent to the driveway to Highsite.Apartments 7. Eagan Industrial Road and West Service Road 8. Lexington Avenue - Lone Oak Road 9. Ione Oak Circle - Lone Oak Road 10. Gemini and Armstrong Blvd. 11. Crestridge and Pilot Knob Road Staff has reviewed the 44 vending machines in the City. Out of the 44 machines, staff has determined 11 vending machines are considered hazardous to the pub- lic safety of vehicular movement. In the staff's review, the only comments made during that review were the 11 machines stated above should be removed. However, if the machines were relocated further from intersections, some of the machines could be considerably safer at the new location vs. where thev are presently existing. After staff had reviewed the 44 locations, staff had also met with representa- tives of the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press regarding the findings of this review. In this discussion, both City staff and representatives of the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press concluded that 4 out of the 11 vending machines are considered hazardous and would be removed completely. The other 7 vending machines could be relocated to safer locations. The 4 vending ma- chines which were agreed upon by City staff and St. Paul Dispatch's represen- tatives are listed as follows: 70 0 • St. Paul Dispatch Vending Machine Update July 1, 1982 Page two Beau d Rue Drive and Rahn Road Yankee Doodle Road and Donald Avenue Lone Oak Circle and Lone Oak Road Crestridge and Pilot Knob Road Attached to this memmoranduan is a map of the locations which staff has indica- ted above as hazardous locations. The locations with the double circle are the vending machines which the St. Paul Dispatch will ranove completely and not relocate. The last part of the directive was that the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press submit an application for a special permit in order to allow the vending machines in the City of Eagan. It is staff's understanding, at this time, that the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press received the minutes of the June 15, 1982 City Council meeting on June 30, 1982. They are in the process of hav- ing their legal staff review the minutes in regard to the directive requesting the St. Paul Dispatch to submit a special permit application. It is my under- standing that the St. Paul Dispatch may not be able to have their legal counsel review the directive in the minutes and advise the representatives from St. Paul Dispatch to the legal ramifications of submitting a special permit for the vending machines in tine for the City Council meeting of July 6th. The representatives from the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press may request a 2 -week continuance in order for them to receive an opinion from their legal counsel in regard to submitting the application for the special permit. It is my understanding that the representatives from the paper will be contact- ing the City Administrator the day of July 6th to discuss the alternative of a continuance of two weeks, or, if the City Council wants to review the vend- ing machines at that particular meeting. It is staff's understanding of the directive to review the locations of the vending machines and report back to the City Council and suggest that the St. Paul Dispatch submit an application for a special permit. Staff cannot pro- cess this special permit until the St. Paul Dispatch submits this particular application. DCR/jach cc - Tan Foster, St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press Martin Des Lauriers, Chief of Polioe Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works 7/ jaid /J? 13 Fh 24 Rip off P -l" nd CITY OF EAGAN i be - 0 1/2 'mile e RcmoaG AwcL l ece I 0 Steve Fisher 13626 Everton Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 612/456-6467 days 612/432-1807 eves 18 June 1982 Mr. Tan Hedges, City Administrator City of Fagan Fagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: It is my understanding that there is a proposal before the city council or other municipal body to either license or permit the St. Paul Pioneer Press to continue to sell their newspapers from vending machines along public throughfares. These orange machines, when indiscriminately located along public pathways shared by motor vehicles, represent a deadly threat to anyone in the vicinity of these boxes. Although I do not live in Eagan, I work at Sperry Univac at the Corporate Square facility, shop at Cedarvale, bank at First Bank Eagan Office and in general, use the facilities offerred by your city while contributing to its cam. I resent having to wait behind any driver who leaves his unattended car out in the roadway in order to purchase one of these papers. I further vehemently object to the unnecessary threat of negotiating the traffic hazards created by those who do not wish to wait and have decided to pass these few newspaper patrons. I have spent 15 years working in systems engineering observing and understanding how man and machine relate in areas concerning Teleco uiunications, Bio -Medicine, Defense Systems , Site Planning and Traffic Engineering. It is a simple rule of traffic safety that Nat< Ne x Pa or that the number of accidents between vehicles at a location is proportional to the number of traffic encounters created by the site configuration at that location and the probability that these encounters will lead to an accident. "Pa" depends on such things as'driver condition, awareness, attitute and operating ability, road conditions, traffic density, vehicle performance and condition, etc. There is not much a traffic'engineer can do about Pa. His whole mission is to reduce Ne by proper road configuration, appropriate use of traffic controls(including sign- ing, signals, speed limits and barriers) as well as limiting access both onto and off from the road in question. In a matter of the few minutes it took those responsible, to indiscriminately locate these boxes along the streets of Fagan, they undermined any site planning and traffic engineering previously done for these locations, all for the purpose of making a "buck". When I first approached the Eagan Police regarding this threat, they were quick to respond to remove the two boxes located midway between the Lexington Avenue intersections of Yankee Doodle and Lone Oak. It was clear to them that a vehicle suddenly stopping from a speed of 50 mph to purchase a paper would be a problemo It was less obvious to then that those boxes located at intersections would present a similar threat and permitted then to stay based on legal arguments of vendors' rights. One can also argue for the public right of Traffic Safety and I implore 74 StevWsher - page two those individuals, such as yourself, who are responsible for protecting the welfare of all those who work and live in Eagan, to consider those points I have raised. Before closing, I want to mention that, if requested, I would be happy to advise Eagan of the suitability of specific proposed vending sites. However, it is my opinion that the vendor should be held responsible for demonstrating to the city that their sites chosen would have a minimal environmental impact. Additionally, they should be forced to post a large enough bond which would serve to protect Eagan from expensive lawsuits resulting from the sanctioning of these machines. Furthermore, the vendors should defray the cost of those expert Site Planners and consulting engineers„ hired by the city for the purpose of assurring that all decisions were not made out of ignorance. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.......... Sincerely yours, / Steve 7 7S Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Nineteen NEW71BUSINES81' MISSION HILLS PD & PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Dakota County to Amend the PD and for a Preliminary Plat, Dakota County Plat #1, in the Mission Hills Planned Development -- Although this item was originally scheduled and published to be on the July 6, 1982 agenda, the City has received a request to continue this item until the July 20, 1982 City Council meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To continue the Dakota County Plat #1 and request to amend the planned development until the July 20, 1982 City Council meeting. 76 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty REZONING - FEDERAL LAND CO. B. Federal Land Company for Rezoning from R-4, LB & CSC to PD -- A public hearing was held before the APC at the May 25, 1982 regular meeting, and due to a lengthy discussion and request for information, the public hearing was continued until the June 22, 1982 APC meeting. The public hearing was held to consider a re- zoning request, an application submitted by Federal Land Company to rezone approximately a 100 acre area from Community Shopping Center, Limited Business, General Business and Multiple Residential to Planned Development. The Advisory Planning Commission is recom- mending approval of the rezoning application to the City Council. For additional information on this item, refer to the original report prepared by the Planning Consultant, John Voss, found on pages 7$ through Jpg . For an amendment to that report con- taining additional in ormation, refer to the City Planner's report found on pages/p through J-�- For a memorandum regarding consideration for t e park dedication that would be omitted, refer to page 115' For a copy of the minutes of the APC action, refer to pages�� In each packet without a page number is a large drawing- roperty which also includes adjacent property to provide a better description of the property for City Council view. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the recom- mendation of the APC to approve a rezoning for the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park project. 77 L CITY OF EAGAN E SUBJECT REZONING FOR EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK APPLICANT: FEDERAL LAND COMPANY LOCATION: SW QUADRANT OF YANKEE DOODLE ROAD & LEXINGTON AVE SECTION 15 EXISTING ZONING: COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER, LIMITED BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS AND MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-4 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MAY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: MAY 20, 1982 REPORTED BY: JOHN S. VOSS, PLANNING CONSULTANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED: The application submitted is for the rezoning of an approximate 100 acre area to Planned Development for a commercial development titled "Eagan Heights Commercial Park". This property is presently zoned Community Shopping Center, Limited Business, General Business and Multiple Residential (R-4). It is proposed that the base zoning would remain unchanged and that the entire 100 acre area would have an overlying Planned Development zoning. The property is located south of Yankee Doodle Road between Lexington Avenue on the east and the future extension of Delaware Avenue on the west. On the south, the property is bordered by the "Duckwood" area which consists of single family homes, an undeveloped city park area and a developing apartment complex. The exhibits that have been submitted as a part of the application are as follows: --- A sketch Plan was submitted illustrating, 'in a general manner, how each area is expected to be developed. --- An artist's sketch was submitted illustrating in greater detail the potential development. --- A map was submitted illustrating the existing zoning. --- A map was submitted illustrating how the property could be developed under current zoning. --- A preliminary grading and drainage plan was submitted. --- A preliminary utility plan was submitted. -1- 79 CITY OF EAGAN • N HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Page 2 Way20, 1982 --- An artist's sketch of potential high-rise buildings that could be developed on the site was submitted. --- A traffic engineering study, prepared by a traffic engineer, with corresponding exhibits illustrating both average daily trips and peak hour trips from each potential development was submitted. The traffic engineering study also illustrates the number of trips that could be generated under existing zoning. A staging plan is also required under the city's Zoning Ordinance #52 and this has not been submitted. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN The City of Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan proposes Limited Business use and Multiple Dwelling (R -III) for this 100 acre site. The Multiple development as illustrated on the "Land Use Guide Plan Map" would be located at the southwest quadrant of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue, encompassing approximately 25 acres. The remainder of the property is guided for Limited Business develop- ment. Therefore, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan over the approximate 75 acres which has been guided for Limited Business ' use. The proposed Planned Development, however, is inconsistent in that the area which is guided for Multiple Dwelling development is proposed under the Planned Development for General Business and Limited Business uses. If the City intends to rezone this property as proposed by the Developer, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metropolitan Council. In all Melihood, this would be considered a minor revision by the Metropoli- tan Council and the "turn -around" time for approval would be very short. PLANNER'S COMMENTS From a Planner's perspective, it is desirable that this large development, which falls within natural boundaries, is being submitted at one time. This allows for better overall analysis of utility service, traffic generation, land use compatibility and general development guidelines such as architecture, pedes- trian circulation and landscaping. The Planned Development approach also af- fords the City more control over development. One of the primary concerns in this area is the relationship that any development would have to the residential development to the south and in particular, to the single family homes. The alternatives posed before the City are to retain the Multiple (R -IV) zoning which abuts the single family area to or allow the office - type use which is proposed under this Planned Development. The height of these buildings also is a consideration and that is dealt with in another paragraph in this report. It would appear that either the office use or the Multiple use could be compatible with the single family residential area dependent upon the type of development -2- 77 CITY OF EAGA! • EAGAWIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK. Page 3 May 20, 1982 and performance standards. Building coverage, parking lot coverage and landscaping would tend to be quite similar. The office use appears to have one advantage in its relationship to the single family in that office activities generally occur during the daytime working hours and therefore do not conflict with the single family activities which are greater during non -working hours. The reverse of this is true with apartments in that apartment activity coincides with single family residential activity. The "office" use, however, carries the connotation of commercial devel- opment,'which in the mind of some,is less compatible with single family residential use than multiple residential use. In the final analysis, compatibility relates primarily to architecture and performance standards of either a multiple or Limited Business use. Planned Development does afford the City an opportunity of substan- tial control as development ensues. Another consideration is the amount of multiple residential use that is developing in this area of the community. A very substantial amount of apartment development is occurring both south of the subject site in the Duckwood area and east of the subject site, along Lexington Avenue. It may be desirable to approve this Planned Development for predominately office type use and some general business type use; therein decreasing the ultimate number of apartments in this area. The projected number of apartments on the subject site under current zoning is estimated to be 220 dwelling units. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION The proposed Planned Development appears to be well-designed'in terms of the internal street network and the proposed intersections with Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and future Delaware Avenue. The petitioner has prepared a detailed traffic engineering study which compares traffic volumes which could occur under existing zoning with those projected under proposed zoning. It is estimated that the daily trip generation would be increased by about 5% under the proposed zoning and peak hour trips would only be increased by about 3% over what could occur under the existing zoning on this property. This traffic engineering information should be analyzed by the Dakota County Highway Department for its potential impact on Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road. In terms of the actual number of trips, under current zoning it is estimated that the property would generate 21,440 aver- age trips and under the proposed Planned Development, this would be increased to an estimated 22,530. HIGHRISE BUILDINGS The petitioner has indicated that highrise office buildings are proposed at certain locations within this development. An artist's sketch has also been submitted illus- trating these structures. It is felt that under the Planned Development, if approved at this time, these can only exist as conceptual plans. The approval of any highrise structures can only occur on a "phased" basis when specific development plans are brought forth under the provisions of the "Final Development Plan" provided for in a Planned De- velopment under Ordinance #52. At that time, a conditional use permit also would be considered by the City before highrise buildings could be approved. The con- sideration of highrise structures would not only relate to internal development of this property but there would be concern about the impact of these structures -3- -go CITY OF EAGAN • EAG N HEIGHTS Page 4 Ma 0, 1982 COMMERCIAL PARK on the surrounding land uses and in particular, upon residential uses such as the Duckwood area. Again, these considerations would have to be made in the future when a specific development plan is brought forth to be considered under a conditional use permit application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAVI) The petitioner is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet which should be reviewed by the City prior to approval of this Planned Development. SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION For a development of this scale, sidewalks should be required along both sides of the internal public streets. As individual development plans are brought forth for each property, consideration should also be given to tying sidewalks from these public streets to the entrances of the individual buildings. Consistent with adjacent development, an 8 foot wide asphalt path should also be required along Lexington Avenue. In addition, a sidewalk should be required along Delaware Avenue and an 8 foot wide asphalt path should be provided by this develop- ment along Yankee Doodle Road for any phase which precedes the eventual improvement of Yankee Doodle Road; wherein a path may be provided by the County as a part of the County road improvement. SUMMARY COMMENTS The Land Use Plan accompanying the Planned Development has only been submitted as a "sketch plan" at this time. It appears, however, that the developer is cogni- zant of City ordinances related to such matters as setbacks, parking, percent of building coverage and similar considerations. These matters, of course, would be dealt with on a "staged" basis as more detailed development plans are brought forth for approval. In general, the plan appears to be well-designed and conceived. It is also worth noting that the City has dealt with this developer (Federal Land Company) before in the development of Yankee Square. That also was a Planned Development wherein there was substantial compliance with the original concept plan submitted as a part of the rezoning for a Planned Development. Concerns that still exist related to this proposal are; 1. A Staging Plan shall be submitted 2. Prior to final approval of Planned Development zoning by the City Council, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metro Council. 3. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be approved by the City prior to the rezoning of this property. 4. An analysis of the traffic generation information should be obtained from the -4- 81- CITY Of EAGAN • EAGA.H IWHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Page 5 May 20, 1982 Dakota County Highway Department prior to the rezoning. 5. A Planned Development Agreement shall be executed as provided by City Ordinance #52 prior to the final rezoning of this property. The de- veloper has proposed that this Planned Development would exist for a period of 10 years. In addition, the Planned Development Agreement, which has been standarized by the City, would provide for such matters as street dedication, development of sidewalks and trails and similar considerations and would also include the exhibits as submitted which would become a part thereof. 6. Developer shall be required to dedicate an easement to the City, as illustrated on the "Sketch Plan",for a trail connection between the Duckwood single family area and the City's Deboer Park Area. This shall be detailed in the Planned Development Agreement. ID 17171• •7 •. 1171 •� •. N' 1 Y 1) County Road 28 (Yankee Doodle Road) and County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue) must be scheduled for upgrading to their ultimate design section prior to approval of phase 4. 2) Portions of Denmark Avenue must be installed coincidental with Phase 1 and/or Phase 4 respectively. 3) A 60'-75' half right-of-way must be dedicated for County Road 28 and County Road 43 as determined by Dakota County Highway Department. 4) A 75'-80' internal right-of-way will be required for the looped collector street. All other internal streets will require a 60' right-of-way dedica- tion. 5) This development will be responsible for the acquisition/dedication of the full right-of-way necessary to install Denmark Avenue when required by this development. 6) A ponding easement incorporating the 885.0 elevation will be required ad- jacent to O'Leary Lake. Also, a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation will be required for the internal ponding area (D -y). 7) All other required drainage and utility easements must be dedicated as de- termined by the staff. 8) A ponding easement for Pond DP -5 shall have been acquired prior to the de- velopment of the second or subsequent phases. 9) An 8' bituuninous trailway shall be constructed along the north and east boundaries adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue. -5- S? Z 0 CITY OF EAGAN Page 6 0 EAGAN HEIGHTS CONAL PARK May 20, 1982 10) A 5' concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west boundary of Denmark Avenue and adjacent to the internal looped collector street. 11) A trailway shall be constructed adjacent to O'Leary Lake in accordance with the recamv-ndations of the Park and Recreation committee. 12) This development shall assume its assessment responsibility associated with the installation of trunk utilities in accordance with the zoning and rates in effect at the time of final platting. 13) This development shall assume its assessment responsibilities associa- ted with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road (county Road 28), Lexing- ton Avenue (County Road 43) and/or Denmark Avenue as necessitated by the phased development of this PUD. 14) Internal driveway entrances onto the internal looped collector street shall be at locations as approved by staff. TAC/jack 0 0 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING Ca�,MSSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRDCiCR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 20, 1982 RE: PD - FAGAN HEIGHTS CGMMERCIAL PARK (FEDERAL LAND COMPANY) The Public Works Department has the following caments to offer in consideration of the proposed Planned Development: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water main of sufficient size and capacity are available to provide service to this site fran Yankee Doodle Road, Lexington Avenue and/or the existing internal trunk sanitary sewer line. Internal lateral extensions from these trunk facilities would have to be installed in accordance with the proposed phasing schedule to provide service to all newly created lots as plat- ted through the PD process. The general direction of the surface drainage of the existing land is towards the internal lac -lying drainage basin which is proposed to be developed into an internal storm water detention pond referenced as D -y on the City's Comprehen- sive Storm Sewer Plan. This pond is proposed to have a gravity storm sewer out- let providing surface drainage to the existing drainage basin located -in the northwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue (DP -5). This would ultimately require the installation of a lift station and force main to provide the storm water outlet from DP -5 to LeMay lake which presently has a gravity out- let to the Minnesota River Valley. The City presently has not acquired the pond- ing rights to DP -5. It is anticipated that this would be necessary prior to the second or third phase development of this proposed PD. The internal detention pond (D -y) would be sufficient to handle the first phased development. A small portion along the southern boundary of this property drains directly in- to LeMay Lake with a controlled overflow elevation presently under construction. However, extensive erosion control measures would have to be implemented to pro- tect the integrity of this lake during the construction of Phase 4. The proposed layout of the development scheme for this 100 acres provides for a major internal street looping southerly from Yankee Doodle Road with secondary connections to Lexington Avenue on the east and the future Denmark Avenue on the west. This layout provides good access to all portions of this proposed develop- ment and provides for the adequate dispersion of anticipated traffic volumes to minimize the impact on any adjacent road. The staff concurs with the traffic volume analysis performed by the Consulting Engineering firm of Strgar-Roscoe, Inc. The staff concurs that the internal main loop roadway within this proposed PUD should be planned and developed to a minimum 48'width to provide four lanes of traffic to handle the anticipated traffic volume generated by saturation de- velopment of this proposal. It is anticipated that the proposed phasing schedule M 0 • EAC" HEIGHTS CONPi WIAL PARK - ENGINEERING REPORT MAY 20, 1982 PA(M TWO of this development will be coincidental with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road necessitated by the interchange of 35-E with Yankee Doodle Road in approximately 1985-1986. The northerly section of Denmark Avenue should be constructed as a part of the first phase development in addition to the required internal roadways neo- essary to provide service to this first phase. The southerly extension of Denmark Avenue would then be required when the westerly portion of Phase 4 would develop. Upon the initiation of the fourth phase of this development, it would require the upgrading of both Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road to their ultinate 4 -lane design section to handle the anticipated traffic volumes generated from this pro- posed development. As each phase is platted, it will be necessary to dedicate the necessary right-of- way to provide for a 60' half right-of-way for Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue with the exception that 500' west and south of the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Yankee Doodle Road will require a 75' half right-of-way dedication to accommodate the anticipated upgrading of these County roads. An 80' right-of-way would have to be dedicated to provide for the construction of Denmark Avenue ad- jacent to the west boundary of this proposed development. It is anticipated that a 40' half right-of-way would be dedicated with the platting of the appropriate phase construction with the westerly 40' half right-of-.qay being the aaTuisition responsibility of this development if it has not already been dedicated by develop- ment of the adjacent property to the west. A 75'-80' right-of-way will be necessary for the internal looped collector street. A ponding easement would have to be dedicated to incorporate the 885.0 elevation ad- jacent to O'Leary Lake along the southerly property line of this development. The internal ponding area (D -y) would require a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation. In addition, all other internal public rights-of-way and utility easements would be necessary depending upon the design and location of the internal streets and utilities to service any particular phase of this proposed development as it is platted. As mentioned previously, a ponding easement for Pond DP -5 in the northwest corner of Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue would.have to be obtained prior to development of the second or subsequent phases. TRAILS/WALKWAYS An 8' bituminous trailway will have to be constructed along the north and east boundaries of this proposed development adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lex- ington Avenue respectively. Their construction would be coincidental with the appropriate phased development/platting. In addition; a 5' concrete sidewalk would be required to be constructed along the west boundary (Denmark Avenue) and adjacent to the internal major collector roadways. In addition, the construction of an internal trailway system connecting the var- ious lots and phased developments should be performed. Also, a park trailway system should be constructed in accordance with the Park and Recreation Committee's 0 • EAGAN HEIMM CCMMERCIAL PARK - ENGINEERING REPORT MAY 20, 1982 PAGE THREE recommendations within the DeBoer Park adjacent to O'Leary Lake along the southern boundary of this proposed development. ASSESSMENTS/CONNECTION 'TS/CONNECTION FEES While this property has received benefit from the installation of trunk sanitary sewer and water main facilities installed.along Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and internally through this proposed development, it has not paid its fair share of the assessments associated with these trunk utilities. Therefore, these fees would be required to be paid in consideration of allowing connection to them for development of any respective phase of this proposal. A detailed research of these future assessment -related liabilities was performed in December of 1981. They were performed in relationship to the existing zoning of the property and rates in effect at that time. Those calculations are being incorporated as a part of this report for future reference to be updated in consideration of any zoning changes and/or rate increases that may be in effect at the time of final plat approval. Based on the existing zoning and the rates in effect in 1981, the estimated assessed -related liabilities associated with this 100 acres is approx- imately $329,000. In addition to this, this development would be responsible for all costs associated with the installation of internal streets and utilities and its share of costs associated with the upgrading of Lexington Avenue, Yankee Doodle Road and/or Denmark Avenue. OVERALL SITE PLAN It is recommended that as each phase development occurs, that individual driveway access onto the internal collector street system be coordinated to minindze the staggering offset intersections of these driveways with the internal roadway sys- tem. Major driveway entrances should be located opposite each other to provide major intersection entrances to its adjacent development. I will be available to discuss in further detail any question the Planning Com- mission may have at its meeting on May 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ,� � � A&Z Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jade M MR MARTIN COLON FEDERAL LAND cawaY 750 S PLAZA DR MEA- A HEIGHTS 55120 0 CITY_ OF EAGAN 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD P.O. Box 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 551]5 PHONE 454-9100 %.sem---• Re: Paroel;�10-01500=010=63 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 Proposed Ea an Heights Commercial Park 'Addition Dear Mr. Colon: THOMAS HEDGES CITY AOLUNISIRATO9 EUGENE VAN OVERSEKI CIT'I CLERK I have performed and wt»pleted the analysis as you requested pertaining to potential future assessment related liabilities for the above -referenced parcels that are pro- posed to be combined under the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park Addition. These potential future assessment liabilities, while they are not officially listed as an outstanding levied or pending assessment, will be a requirement should any development of this property be proposed due to its required connection to the ex- isting sanitary sewer, watermain and/or storm sewer systems. Please keep in mind that the rates used to compute these amounts are 1981 rates. If these rates are adjusted in the future, the total liabilities for each parcel will have to revised accordingly. If you have any questions pertaining to the information contained in this analysis, please feel free to contact me or Ann Goers, our Special Assessment Clerk. Sincere y, 14&� Thorms A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack enc. V THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. BEA BLOMOUIST MAYOR THOMASEGAN MARK PARRANTO JAMES A, SMITH THEODORE WACHTER COUNCIL MEMBERS December 17, 1981 MR MARTIN COLON FEDERAL LAND cawaY 750 S PLAZA DR MEA- A HEIGHTS 55120 0 CITY_ OF EAGAN 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD P.O. Box 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 551]5 PHONE 454-9100 %.sem---• Re: Paroel;�10-01500=010=63 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 Proposed Ea an Heights Commercial Park 'Addition Dear Mr. Colon: THOMAS HEDGES CITY AOLUNISIRATO9 EUGENE VAN OVERSEKI CIT'I CLERK I have performed and wt»pleted the analysis as you requested pertaining to potential future assessment related liabilities for the above -referenced parcels that are pro- posed to be combined under the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park Addition. These potential future assessment liabilities, while they are not officially listed as an outstanding levied or pending assessment, will be a requirement should any development of this property be proposed due to its required connection to the ex- isting sanitary sewer, watermain and/or storm sewer systems. Please keep in mind that the rates used to compute these amounts are 1981 rates. If these rates are adjusted in the future, the total liabilities for each parcel will have to revised accordingly. If you have any questions pertaining to the information contained in this analysis, please feel free to contact me or Ann Goers, our Special Assessment Clerk. Sincere y, 14&� Thorms A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack enc. V THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. As of 12-16-81 PARCEL 10-01500-010-01 A. Contains the following area breakdown: (Eagan Heights Commercial Park Proposal) Parcel 01 (L.B.) 7.29 acres Parcel #2 (C.S.C.) 27.68 acres Parcel #3 (R-4) 37.17 acres Parcel #4 (G.B.) 2.07 acres IM Cnty. Rd. #28 3.79 acres MI Cnty. Rd. #43 1.87 acres 79.87 acres B. Future Assessment Liabilities 1. Lateral Benefit from trunk watenmain (Cnty. Rd. #28 & 442) 3661.19*LF @ $14.35/LF _ $ 52,538.0E 2. Lateral Benefit from trunk sanitary sewer (Cnty. Rd. #28 and internal) (2 x 1268.53 LF + 1095.64*LF) @ $14.30/LF = $ 51,947.61 *150 LF corner credit allowance applied 3. Trunk area storm sewer (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 5.83 acres @ $2,443.72/acre b. Parcel #2 22.14 acres @ $2,443.72/acre c. Parcel #3 29.74 acres @ $2,038.61/acre d. Parcel #4 1.66 acres @ $2,443.72/acre 4. Trunk area sanitary sewer no additional trunk area assessments required 5. Trunk area water (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 5.83 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $8,657.55 less previous assessrnnt -2,856.70 NET FUTURE b. Parcel 12 22.14 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $32,877.90 less previous assessment -10,848.60 NET FUTURE c. Parcel #3 No additional trunk area assessments required d. Parcel #4 1.67 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $2,479.95 less previous assessment -1,014.30 NET FUTURE Mr,M ADDITIO.IIAL ASSESSMENT LIABILITY PAPCEL 10-01500-010-01 _ $ 14,246.89 _ $ 54,103.9E _ $ 60,628.2E _ $ 4,056.58 _ $ 5,800.85 _ $ 22,029.30 -0- _ $ 1,465.65 $266,817.18 Parcel 10-01500-010-25 A. Contains the following area breakdown: Parcel #1 (L.B.) Parcel #2 (C.S.C.) RON Cnty. Rd. #28 0 as of 12-16-8 (Eagan Heights Camlercial Park Proposal) 14.15 acres 4.96 acres 0.91 acres 20.02 acres B. Future Assessment Liabilities 1. Lateral Benefit from trunk watermin (Cnty. Rd. #28) 660.16 IF @ 14.35/LF 2. Lateral Benefit from trunk sanitary None adjacent to parcel 3. Trunk area storm sewer (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 11.32 acres @ $2,443.72/acres b. Parcel #2 3.97 acres @ $2,443.72/acres 4. Trunk area sanitary sewer No additional assessments required 5. Trunk area water (20% area credit applied) a. Parcel #1 11.32 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $16,810.20 less previous assessment - 5,546.80 b. Parcel #2 3.97 acres @ $1,485.00/acre = $ 5,895.45 less previous assessment - 1,945.30 TOTAL ADDITIONAL ASSESSPENT LIABILITY PARCEL 10-01500-010-25 _ $ 9,473.30 S7M _ $ 27,662.91 _ $ 9,701.57 M� _ $ 11,263.40 _ $ 3,950.15 $ 62,051.33 ,.',,GUN CLU31�:` /I.vasr rv0 f _ LANE ., �1, 1/S 4; VA7-�.Ei�� GNI IV1EW�11!,,I �\`�//`.� `.:� ..._ .IIT +,��Ji/i - y� /\N-•'-NRN ACRES _IICOU fT \\ •_i ARK .`/ /�/Ire R ^ J - �ll///.., / SS Ij"JAI --_ r - wr• /\ !J� ' \_•-itl' "T • A. _'br ��I �� HAll H_ - B88.D •01P-16 EAG 8593 - - / Tom' TEHNDER II aL' 8660 I / 10%79'/ t -A71 �I•�6_ ; �_�P 12-1. . _ /. 4 2•-; SCHOOL _ - �. r / I iv .A'�@i' \Qp.. z• 1 nE' EAD6 ' fl �• i L7/,�'T/ CI / PDP°.-17 \� / /0-m CP 9 ' a • ��/�'-- Vis , 8 40 \ �• 12• - - 698.0 _ 'MEADO'Li 700.0 '- '-Y' 'l• B7 .O: A1i5 i wo• ` �-DP14 : ,/ LL SERV DP -19 8600 III / CP=B / i/ 'F / 884.0 / ? // 870.0 _ �co 4-•�•� ✓ [/� 890.0 j.•.�5: E Tv AVNA ,. I ✓h I� 82]] a\��1 • I PARK 6400" / / 7 C. 01 OP /•, /� DP -61 OP -13 '• ` /� r • + CP 857.3' 82.0 %60 '� B4I0 Ci'9 �7LT�.�/� 1 Ii Dw / a.. 840.cp=0 7 i •�; LS -6 nPLS fox Cd / . - RIDGE - ''�� A. 88 7.0 ,' 868.0 L.S.-7 M1 •CP -1 / YANKEJ BFO QLE P4A0 nnl,: I�DDr i763,0 / - 1IN, JO O • h 769.0 / f •z' /2t / SUPREY S. Er+ V>•L 1M,I 93"0 " 2L 47H ACO ni U 10 -- B25_O_C '`� �CHE�]6 `'I'•; •+� a� - (((QQQ��.O RK5 ` I ;r Ju.Wi DO 822: 0 . 2ND ,I'-.' /% 'i•:F7!1:7? -IIL-- V 1 B7B0--- // JJ O GAAv P=tl � ',t1`.��jjyv.+ N• W _ 1••�-T it y II �Ard�'}'. II ii 971.0 •�--'.�-� i/.•r-rif J! II �..\^, �y DP -7 P�4y � 839p :� ./'aa91t0- JP -II 61502 \A 036 Y=It L Ley �.I BLACKHAWK F., 08.0 PANK NT . -�. 1 JP-�d _ IN�In/l I z IBP -2 \ 823o�j rl a} 1 '54 T92,0 _ ��W}p-I be // 17Y4.0o \z6.G.' - I ezoa° } 9 34-...' ♦ vN - l.f-1 / ;• :sK�L'+A�I.E / B17.B f r, !_na�/•7�'BP•28 �•`yB6035.-I2rr �:a} - /�-AP=2:.::� �� \ 808.0 i 862.0 - / VVV I L3 -Il e586.., _ n B/9.0 f 1" 8660 y--�� ^I P B -P Lr I I JP_g -- ...... �.l / r' IB S�-1 �xOVOILE BI7o w., ° TY A' -n_:. 11 9 71, 2Y. . / �I�-�- tl110' - ` �I'11l��f�. A•� l L j-�- / rJP-36 ' 166 � � Uw - illy i 1 I' l� 8706 $20 +ma+kk >- - / [i/// I, JP -]S BSOO _N ]FI{•RO•{[" '/I�IY..' _ i '1 / L.. / �B7J1 869.4 A J -Ed •'ll .li.�l�•-��.- •� I / SP-] / 4x' I{nl ,i J• _� -r- -2.: p�1.. �l -`I-II 6950 '.� BP _ B'ALE. +�T•^ • : J ; -iz \•'•I =7 ;'��ar0 _PI-�'1Y / ` J/ B860 :I / aP8820 -23S7 e14OpB_/B• ,, gJ 90' 'aa earyA __:(/ : ^I ` B/7,1. d7`�,z. tl6a0, 8172 .86,QAIP-3 ./ BP -4 \ ,I -�`.O- 8100 .4/ JP -29 BB65 I "///� l8+ 9JO0' 8700 �:. "�: �� -/�` 8900.5 �i. �/zq 1-� 'i/ BBOO ._ LP63 [`T_��"�; '/LL\•': ....Q�':R, 1 ese°o Al '__ ,\1 ,99,ioo / ITT SP -24 918 0 •r ' i , _ 91L0 1 BP=S' r. _ L_LnLP-44 1AP-28 b�.6'�'�`-YrcO_B4lB iw.Itq LP -43 9097 \ „ / 100 q/ I ...z��:� I--� B5J0 L�IL�O_• 9750 11 / AP -T• / .I! ,,,I fa \ LL. t ;; = j$IivlY :.' I I 685.8 / 4313 23 a 7/YIU gB, I j/f�BP.0 -(: ...rLBP]-42-- A9I.0 ; / 9A : BB80--Be90�•"'4 `•� .° BP -6 i`-' I r "11 :'i I:C--i.�_ ....•. LS 2T L��_� ` �i i Pin\ Ils�`:I::, e'I iAIY'-'{•A^I - `J�'.L1T1'E!$r'`��` I� ,l.csc uees 13h _ H uu• Iruuuo.uu ._ ♦�cn wnc vefa�� (a -y fnu.nruL KAWIF) f —huuu.r wn.a.,� .. u.rw.a uuaw.u) _.FROM ISE D_13KETCH--PI,AN.___ EAGAN_.HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK _^ !! PI-ANNER.,VNIT.136 VELOPMENT __,... . fly ,.TIIE.—__ FEDERAL_LAND COMPANY - .f;. t' ¢DqD NQ 2B)� ItlYii �iYO04 fr tl� ■' rj•OENERAL VYI NESE u oc ac• ■ 'uora:uo.u. ru s.r...0 iu.o. 61f Tm. rm.n w•u• ,_. . �.sw�a a EXISTING ZONING DEVELOPMENTPOTENTIAL EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK and C--��. � •--�� cmnawi �..n cemraur � � 1'AA EE m U-.• �r.nr.t rnn•.r) . DOODLE ROAD .. (COu)jry ttttlttttttllttttttttttttttttlttttttttltttllttltt ttttttttttttttltttttttttttttttttttt • i uuu 1111111111tuutm •� C$C �' :1 EXISTING ZONING EAGAN HEIGHTS 'COMMERCIAL PARK ROAD 110 20) - tttt111tltt - . - GB R-4 0 101 44 -ARTIST'S.--- SKETCH__ C�r 1EA T EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK T NTIAL- Hiis"-Risi 0FFlCE�-.--bulCDINGS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT By the FEDERAL LAND COMPANY L Located In EAGAN . MINNESOTA, ... ...... ...... ... .. 0 oe "\I Hvt A �arr..rc 6o..oiwr Prow... -ARTISTS SKETCH . LONLepT Foft; POTENTIAL SITE DEV6L0PMEN7' I (C' hu I'1¢)a• EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT By the FEDERAL LAND COMPANY Located In EAGAN , MINNESOTA' ;o-71) y 7OOD % rid( 6 as U jb— % ;- ,� � Off_ ; ��,, �, c ! �� =_= :�., _ �; N 660. .6 82635.04 L Ll —7-7-7 -.--1 cu) EFROS( ENGIN(fRIN0 n-EF L4_4 f-0 F�A'f'%Ay /V\Ai- r"4' &t4 PEIC-WTb COMIA COMPANY, INC. ��..::__��%'%'� � ��j � .{ � .III ;o-71) y 7OOD % rid( 6 as U jb— % ;- ,� � Off_ ; ��,, �, c ! �� =_= :�., _ �; N 660. .6 82635.04 L Ll —7-7-7 -.--1 cu) EFROS( ENGIN(fRIN0 n-EF L4_4 f-0 F�A'f'%Ay /V\Ai- r"4' &t4 PEIC-WTb COMIA COMPANY, INC. r. ivr•i• ........... n 5 _ :I ___ _ ' rNB9•IS'09'E YANKEE ..DOODLE,.-ROAD—NB9s:,3eE: COUNTY ` ROAD : NO. 2B t::= {h- !P �'I} I II �, PHA IE MCI Q-1 ��PHASE r J �•` I' I 1•I' I ' of G A 6,, ---� j 660.46 2539,'04' PHA3E IM (20 59997'09'W - SB99703'W 1. , PC' - mnuuue uo.o on r. ♦o:.�-.,%w':7:� ..,f� �h��' ��•' n..n: I -_- _• . ••: •��--� -•..•-'_ ___--�_ '•_•_•�—•_`�Il II -- PRELIMINARY - L'•,_- . APED FOR : flOUE ......... uu..wanPHASING PLAN FOR UTILFEDERAL EE ENGINEERING -COMPONV• INC. STREET CONSTRULAND COMP ANY _ 961.7" 5 1' E '18'04*E '702 - -.: NO 2B) YANKEE POODLE,_ROA (COUNTY ROAD . . . . . . �CE - - CID V QEl" G79. ,` - � . .�_�, 0 If: - ---------- % Q • L L fit 2 04 .17'09'W 03,w PRELIMINARY RODE UTI ENGIN eenmri r UTILITY PLANS P compnNy. INC. L ... PREPARED FOR: FEDERAL IIII�IIiI I' II LAND COMPANY ItY\ i.yp • ... YYsi \.110 Y r' i —N B9.,&•01E ' QODLE R04 NB9. 7'71• — —� , -D +` a• N � _- •` —,YANKEE � � '� . , R �,— — — �. `�\ _ - s COUNTY R9A 0. 281. .. :.� Af 660. 46 '•• " - 26n.01 1� none GIN n\:iw ''I'll: .o ir\nmu \" __ __— _. _ _. --PRELIMINARY PREPARED FOR: ENGINEERING -17Y.'•`...... 5• _ aaJ �1• GRADING AND DR Y I' - FELA ComrnNY mc. \��7. ' i ; I AINAGE PLAN IIII ;,;`, _ ._ LA !_ L .e. r..r .... r Yn, w.m.a. •..neY unl .. .Ir loo\ Gi ^ • eY .". - - L ' � COMPANY 111 . PLAT OF .SURVEY, FOR EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK h I 1 .. DrscrWnm, J The Nrm It alb l{vthosf is of Seam S• bvruhpn &w23, DAM Canty Y"sata P 1• ' Nlast4dfne lhfheasfNMOaAsvlhxrslbd5tttun5,bA'nslrp2T,,4anpeZ3, Datwafanfy.M.rurwla •�-••---� 'e a �� . N89118047 `. I .. i N� ?BE - 1 \ -- '' ,.-- --660/6 -- `-•-�\ r.-- '�I' '-- -- __ --- -r--- YANXEf ---?" DOODLE "-- r ROAD—(COUNTY ROAD Na 1B7 ' -� /r— I i T\\.� �. -.Ir �.. I4m.•w.r•r.wjl..r�o..`.f°v I, r.....ra.�«w�ew -r°� �} mm�i � �I I - v.r,°e I .-NmI J.�t rtr.�m.•mrraw '` t \, R IVlo �1 .77 � e 1 1 Il` ,IIIH . 1. d_.� Illi1 1..1cs Am. fISS A/W IORMATIWG vn� _.400091_ ES _ .�� T l� 11 I . is � • \ Y3_ S�;�i =� I i 1 . `' �� 1 •' Iii �=-,_ � �1;. ',� w:: •. FI. It 66046-- 539'17'09w1! '�,'-,•-.= .. °. .� _"" I \SS9'/703-W ./ ESTATES--- - ,, ",.. ' .. � � -. \ -' tucawoao rax � >' .7TOTAL ARG AU EYSAVGAW RMWEAAY _+'1lR11� �3�SZSOET �£�AERl3 -_ / I 1 - .r1LL}�11 A, •1 I .. �. .. .. .. `.' GVn .n.u�snFO..Mm.er1 •"// A.•:—' 1 /! 1 1, /in J3ar, G. a.amll/. J..n erJb4 ®8 (612) 4750010 PTRGAR-ROSCOP, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7 LAND SURVEYORS 630 Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 553911485 Refer To File: 0820332 May 17, 1982 Mr. Carl Dale, Principal,Planner DESIGN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. 7165 Windgate Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 re: EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Mr. Dale: As you requested, we have completed a preliminary traffic study of the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park. The study is based upon the information available at the Concept Plan stage. The study relates the traffic implications if the site develops according to the current zoning to the traffic implications if the site develops according to the proposed PUD. ANALYSIS Based on data which you provided, the development assumptions used in the traffic analysis are presented in Figure 1. Using these development projections, the gross trip generation was de- termined for each portion of the development by applying typical trip generation rates from the "Trip Generation Manual", pub- lished by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The gross trip generation forecasts were adjusted to account for factors such as multi-purpose trips, internal trips and car pooling, which reduce the net number of new vehicle trips added to the roadway system off the site. Attachment 1 provides specific back- ground on the adjustment factors applied in this case. The resul- tant forecast of net new development trips added to the roadway system are shown in Figure 1 for a daily basis (ADT) and for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. in Mr. Carl Dale -2- May 17, 1982 The percentage of the site traffic and the corresponding ADT for site traffic are shown for each basic direction of approach in Figure 2. The p.m. peak hour turning movements for each inter- section adjacent to the site and the p.m. peak hour volumes on the internal roadway are also presented for both development assumptions. CONCLUSIONS Based on a review of the preceding information, the following conclusions have been drawn regarding potential traffic implica- tions of the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park: • The proposed PUD would generate only a slight increase in traffic compared with development per existing zon- ing on a daily basis and for the p.m. peak hour. The daily trip generation would be increased by approxi- mately 5 percent. The p.m. peak hour traffic, which generally occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. and which the analysis shows would provide the largest hourly volumes, would be increased by only 3 percent. • The a.m. peak hour traffic generated by the proposed PUD would be nearly 30 percent greater than that gen- erated by development per existing zoning. However, the a.m. peak hour volumes are less than the p.m. peak hour volumes. Also, the majority of the a.m. peak hour traffic will approach the site from the west, with a simple right turn maneuver to enter the site. • The comprehensive plan for the City of Eagan indicates a need for upgrading Yankee Doodle Road along the fron- tage of this development site. The traffic projections documented in this letter support this planned upgrading and indicate that Yankee Doodle Road ultimately should provide two lanes in each direction.between Lexington Avenue and the future I -35E interchange with turn lanes possibly needed at major intersections. 10.L Mr. Carl Dale -3- May 17, 1982 • The traffic forecasts indicate that a four lane width may be needed for the main loop roadway with- in the site in order to meet local access needs and to provide for smooth traffic flow. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments concerning this traffic analysis. Sincerely, STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. James A. Benshoof, P.E. Principal / /tel• - /4a=sM. rani cc: Martin olon, Federal Land Company Attachments JAB/JMK/sh 105 0 a Attachment TRAFFIC REDUCTION FACTORS The traffic generated by the site must be adjusted to account for factors which will reduce its impact on adjacent roadways. The factors include the following: Multi-purpose trips - trips including stops at two or more parcels in the development, e.g. home to office to store to home Transit trips - trips that would be made via public bus ser- vice, van pools or car pools Internal trips - trips between parcels wholly within the development Intercepted trips - trips that presently utilize the adjacent roadway system and would be diverted into the site Spreading of peak period - recent experiences indicate that increasingly more motorists arrive and -depart either early or late in order to avoid the peak traffic period. For example, at the 3M Company headquarters in St. Paul, the percentage of employees arriving during the p.m. peak hour declined from 87 percent to 78 percent during the period of 1970 to 1974. The amount of impact of each of these factors depends upon the land uses developed on the site. Therefore, the reduction fac- tors differ somewhat for the site depending upon development as zoned or as proposed for the PUD. The reduction factors are as follows: As Zoned Proposed PUD Multi-purpose trips 5% 2% Transit trips 2% 3% Internal trips 8% 2% Intercepted trips 5% 5% Spreading of peak period 5% 80 TOTAL REDUCTION 25% 20% W 'VANaEE OLVLLOPNLRT IISUNPLIONS Mf burenl IION/I! Pef lfuronH /IKO/1/ lernre 3b/mr S,OA/N Mr�ren Bwl ♦1M0/P b•.e-n Bat IOSOh! e9N G£MLAI tiOM ADf SAy M O jAla= AM~. !W ' BO IM ISO P[Ok f)0 IBD • M a DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 1Pn-IC �+ D/O[e b1,OMIN Office 074"ft, DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS TRIP GENERA 710M TRIP GENERATION s•rP vI_orouP Enn.OL AOI ;BSO I,IyO •L[q ANPpI JR, Sm • IM PN Peel !30 !r0 • IW DOODLE ROAD (COVr✓TV .-- ROAD TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED A412 � Li SL AMT r{IID r;AO 1.070 ANPek L)IO rrb • !N PM Peci {]SO ;SLD • )O 7 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 2 3 APC//menla DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS TRIP GENERATION lu=Si_ 104are I../rorof[O AMPN, SMPPOj Cenfer A"fg Able/ i00 SIP'"CIMe/ 7AAW(ff off, re 1l0 ISO •41IO O/Nee r{O[G/N 3"v,,"f /OO,o00N! sr'u'c 3rrxre S/P { TRIP GENERATION TRIP GENERATION 1AVYPW ql Iv 1w 1.PMAO 2 AOI la AIX A. AO) .1.-, AMAeCk IN m 0 AM$Wk IN SIO • 110 IMT I,"" 30 4//O i7")lo 4 PNPNk w to •130 PNgwk AS, LV -ISO TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED A412 � Li SL AMT r{IID r;AO 1.070 ANPek L)IO rrb • !N PM Peci {]SO ;SLD • )O 7 �Mmllp DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS awls off. "coot"[ Office Ba"n! APC//menla 110.111 V TRIP GENERATION ADT JELNDPSEA r FED4330 S"SO AMPN, (/0 I70 • /N P/n* 1l0 ISO •41IO �Mmllp DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. n AParfinenh MIIP Ippf!_ coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! V AND TRIP GENERATION ~'IAMAh //a Mary ((cxrPl Bua•n[af IgWO/N AOT R ANPeei N 1,000 h/ PMHPk /l0 NO SBO sr'u'c 3rrxre S/P { TRIP GENERA TRI 2 l,�nslp IMT I,"" 30 4//O i7")lo 4 IMP[Pk Ice/Lo JJ • PN R110oi /10 !IO f I30 t DEVELOPMENT G .V5UMPTION5 PInB[enh. Lx{b.RAriC 3 TRIP GENERATION IMT S,wo ;NO -XO ANPOSA W W O P"Ah,A 300 rp -IM DEVELOPM£Nr A55U/ (PTIONS STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. I EAGAN HEIGHTS AParfinenh rrOunJh Of/'re N{OOON/ coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! TRIPGENERATION AND TRIP GENERATION .e.re •lA±olr3 [nnnar AOT Oro ;330 •I,630 ANPeei TS 110 • l80 PMHPk /l0 NO SBO • 1 FIGURE I D STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. I EAGAN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS coxsuvixc ENcm£LR! COMMERCIAL PARK AND TRIP GENERATION LAND SURVEYOR! FEDERAL LAND COYIANI TOTE I L S ZONED PROPOSED IUD a- ADT 11,800//2,/00 1 8 I ADT p 2, 100/2,200 AOT DOODLE ROgp � ••-,�,�r•• 3 4 5 " • /I 0 0 n h O F ADT x /,300//,500 No I if TRAFFIC VOLUMES -AS ZONED/PROPOSED PUD FIGURE 2 p STRGAR-ROSCOE, INC. EAGAN HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC cor,suLTiNc [NciN[[wR COMMERCIAL PARK PH PEAR MOOR TURNING YOVEYENlS AMC AOT APPROACH VOLUMES LANG SURVEYORS POTENTIAL AS ZONED r[ PROPOSED PYO FEDERAL (ANO COMPANY • MENDOTA HIS. ---------- it Rr-, -Wiv B L GB h P Ind. C<XF In, R-1 . R -I,:. —Ind ..LB Ind.--. R -n -E*G .... 1 7 _R-rV RI Ind R&D R. p 70; Ind P .JNA R -H R -19 pGOLF LO . ........ R -I R -I R -I H Ind R -I R -H HS R R -I B lk R II E R-1 R.' RAI R- LB A LB R 0 111 N "r N PRII.lji�'4M RRIII RAW R'llf URIII GB/ R, FRI RI all. ,RI �ROSEMOUN�' APPLE VALLEY 0 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING C0MMISSI0N FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JUNE 16, 1982 RE: At the May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Cacmission meeting, the Advisory Planning Commission requested continuance of the Eagan Heights Camercial Park Planned Development because of several concerns. These concerns are: 1. The applicant was proposing alternate uses as permitted uses on the plan- ned development. 2. The underlying zoning of the planned development be looked at in regard to what would develop if the planned development would lapse. 3. More time is needed to discuss the planned development with the surround- ing property owners in regard to use and landscaping. 4. The applicant submit a staging plan as to how and when they would develop the property. The applicant has met with the City staff in regard to the underlying zoning and proposed uses within the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Planned Develogmnt. The applicants have submitted a sketch plan indicating the proposed use and what the underlying zoning would consist of. The following is a breakdown of the individual parcels: PARCEL •••••7•• USE UNDERLYIM• EXISTING ZONING 1 CSC (Commmity Shop.Center) 2 CSC 3 CSC 4 CSC 5 GB (General Business) 6 R-4 7 LB 8 LB and GB CSC CSC CSC LB; CSC CSC CSC CSC CSC GB R-4, GB LB (Limited Bus) R-4 LB R-4 IB LB Note: The applicant has indicated that parcel 2 also includes a high-rise motel. Staff is suggesting before a hotel is a permitted use, a conditional use permit be approved by the City Council for height and use for a motel in accordance with Ordinance 52. This can be dealt with the detailed phase of parcel 2. Parcel 3 - the applicant has indicated an office tower. Staff is also suggest- ing that nothing more than 3 stories be allowed at this time until a conditional use has been approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance 52. 709 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN EAGAN HEIGHTS CQMERCIAL PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT JUNE 22, 1982 PAGE TWO Parcel 5 - the applicant is proposing to leave 16.6 acres as R-4 (Residential Multiple) for a 5 -year period. If the R-4 or multiple does not develop in this five years, the parcel will revert to a Limited Business or office use. Parce 8 - the applicant is proposing Limited Business and General Business use adjacent to the internal street. Staff is suggesting that the entire parcel be set up as LB (Limited Business). in accordance with the sketch plan of the Plan- ned Development. If the developer wishes a more intense use in the future that an amendment be made to the Planned Development with the detailed phase of this parcel and the City will look at the feasibility and design of the more intense use at a later time. The applicant has also met with the surrounding property owners in regard to landscaping and input in regard to the overall development plan. It is the staff's understanding that the residents are not opposed to the overall use of the Eagan Heights Ccstmercial Park Planned Development. They do have some de- tailed questions which they would like clarification and possibly more informa- tion in regard to the landscaping along the north lots of Duckwood Estates. It is staff's understanding that the residents will be providing these additional comments at the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission meeting. Staff has also met with other surrounding property owners - Zollie Baratz of Duckwood Trails, Mr. Ken Applebaum of the parcel immediately west of Duckwood Estates and east of the proposed Denmark Avenue, Mr. Ron Krank who is develop- ing the shopping center north of Durwood Drive, and staff has contacted Hill- crest Development who owns the ccmimity shopping center portico north of the proposed shopping center. It is staff's understanding that these people are not opposed to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Planned Development, however, they felt that in order to get an overall picture of what could develop within this area, they have requested that the staff provide a composite of all of the parcels in the north Half of Section 15 indicating the overall development with- in this section. Staff has included a composite as to how the developers see the north.half of Section 15 developing. Granted, these parcels will have to receive plat approval by the City Council, however, most of the zoning is in place to allow the type of development shown on this composite. The applicant has also provided a staging plan as to how they foresee this 100 - acre parcel developing. Enclosed is a phasing plan showing which areas the developer would develop first, second, third and fourth. There has not been a time sequence placed on this phasing plan but could be tied in to the proposed 10 -year planned development agreement. Hopefully, this additional infommtion provided will update the Advisory Planning Commission in what has transpired during the last month to provide additional information for the Advisory Planning Commission meeting. If anyone has any questions regarding the information submitted in this memorandum or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me at the Fagan City Hall. - Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle, City Planner 110 RECEIVED'lUP1 9 i 1982 Federal Land Company Yankee Square Office III • 3460 Washington Drive • Suite 202 • Eagan. Minnesoto 55122 • Tel. 612.452-3303 June 16, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Mn. 55122 RE: Eagan Heights Commercial Park - PD Application Dear Mr. Runkle, As requested by the City of Eagan, I mailed letters to the following persons who owned property south of and adjacent to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park realty: Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Appelbaum; Duckwood Trails; John J. Klein; Mr. & Mrs. Roger Sjobeck; Mr. & Mrs. Albert Franklin; and Mr. & Mrs. Curtis E. Peterson The letters were mailed out on June 7, 1982, inviting the property owners to view and discuss plans and drawings pertaining to the Eagan Heights Commercial Park Project. A meeting was held with three of the property owners at the offices of Eagan Heights Commercial Park on Tuesday, June 15, 1982. Sincerely yours, Char es R. Bartholdi Attorney for Eagan Heights Commercial Park CRB/ap E Ya�l(FE _ DOODLE eoaD ([ouury Pofo N4 zsJ� I© 2 98 7LIM11EeRIBIN BB .r i'i . w.aal on 1 r ` 1 _. PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT.DEVELOPMENT BY THE. FEDERAL _.. LAND __ COMPANY ._ LOCATEP. LN _ _ _- -9: ROAN,_,M I NNESOTA_. - ILiLY. ■a®oaaoase®®o®m�e®aoe Wq:.11i inu•. il. Mu. W �• I 6 LOBO UBEB U 2,cac_UePyB.. ®�� Oq kc—Ua Ea_ ,'� a �j,OENERAL BUSINESS r w�.iw \i• q Iiu._.e.uo �.� ry. M.N °e [I ..... .1 • 0 Yo.l.) Ga taoo0nvs0vaoo�S 4�. __• �. y ��u..a..✓..V °� 6 :�rae6 a �/ mill B4O - - _ •i. 1' D p 2, it 0 p a 1u .+uuuouaFaovy .::...Z5- 10 p _ .�a 4. a IB .B p Qooa®ac�r a�rr Y� i R.I IMIToD BLBIw � p . i° Itiff a man al a ( � �` PGwFI 6164T4 Qi1Vfi � 2 98 7LIM11EeRIBIN BB .r i'i . w.aal on 1 r ` 1 _. PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK A PLANNED UNIT.DEVELOPMENT BY THE. FEDERAL _.. LAND __ COMPANY ._ LOCATEP. LN _ _ _- -9: ROAN,_,M I NNESOTA_. - ILiLY. ■a®oaaoase®®o®m�e®aoe Wq:.11i inu•. il. Mu. W �• I :1 �/ , ' UNIVAC GO 1 [L /y. YANKEE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT m NORTH SCALE 1* -200' -J PROPOSED EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK CSC II ,If vILO} L K JiIa CENTER] -.4 PROP i � C L Aj CR Cn L1 I IAL Af !C74L SINGLE , fl� LAKE ML ROV MULTIPLE 1> I Apowvrl, Lx T DUCKWOOD.- 0 J.. t. AP".Ov. O'I.CL ,O,OUSES (EXIST.) .. ..... I:,., EHIJ . APPROVED MULTIPLE IN , CREkTpjodE F,-'S'mXISn I ,UAll;'] QUADS. COMPOSITE MAP OF OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES LYING IN SECTION 15, T-27, R.23, EAGAN, MINI P R 0 1 (4? f 7:�7 MULTIPLE -vj AIMPROVED P V V, ED UL Ll MUL " PILE , It I I APPROVED FAMILY.' MULTIPLE a N691ea'c—"YANKEE.DO . ODLE ._ RO COUNTY ROAD NO 26Yd- IL PHA II II PHASE OLD W I 660.46 263504 569.17'09*W �"� , 969.17.05'10 -.STAGI NG OF ROAD CON5TRUCTI.0N ouuuue .wu:n .. ' ,r• rl�.�r, _... _.......��1 —` PRELIMINMt MiP0.1�0 FOR: s ROD! n...m .. • ••rmn :.:: ::. :_ ... ..... ----- I I PHASING PLAN FOR UTILITY AND Lod !•� ENGINEERING •� •T- -_ L • FEDERAL '• •� y�.. STREET CONSTRUCTION LAND .... COM PRNY, INC. •\\ � �� — .. _ e•• 1u, .... .,y.,. ...u�..m��•:'r'...(_ �.. ... ... ......... ( COMPANY 11 1 a N691ea'c—"YANKEE.DO . ODLE ._ RO COUNTY ROAD NO 26Yd- IL PHA II II PHASE OLD W I 660.46 263504 569.17'09*W �"� , 969.17.05'10 -.STAGI NG OF ROAD CON5TRUCTI.0N ouuuue .wu:n .. ' ,r• rl�.�r, _... _.......��1 —` PRELIMINMt MiP0.1�0 FOR: s ROD! n...m .. • ••rmn :.:: ::. :_ ... ..... ----- I I PHASING PLAN FOR UTILITY AND Lod !•� ENGINEERING •� •T- -_ L • FEDERAL '• •� y�.. STREET CONSTRUCTION LAND .... COM PRNY, INC. •\\ � �� — .. _ e•• 1u, .... .,y.,. ...u�..m��•:'r'...(_ �.. ... ... ......... ( COMPANY 11 • • June 9, 1982 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION - EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK On Thursday, June 3, 1982 the Advisory Parks and Recreation.Committee reviewed the proposed Eagan Heights Commercial Park. At time of the re- view, the proposed P.E. was still subject to change and modification regarding the amount of residential - R-4 - area within the plat. Be- cause of this and other factors, including the topography of the adjacent Deboer Park, and the potential need for trails dedication, the Advisory Committee took no action but deferred this item until its next committee meeting pending a visual review of the park. cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works ))S 0 OBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 22, 1982 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 1.982 at the Eagan City Hall commencing at 7:00 p.m. Those present at the meeting were Chairman Hall, Members McCrea, Krob, Turnham, Wold and Wilkins. Absent were member Bohne and alternate Mulrooney. Also present were City Administrator Hedges, Public Works Director Colbert, City Planner Runkle, and City Attorney Paul H. Hauge. AGENDA Upon motion by Hall, seconded Krob, it was resolved that the Agenda be approved as prepared. All voted yes. Upon motion by Hall, seconded McCrea, the Minutes of the regular APC meeting of May 25, 1982 were approved with the exception on page 9, that those in favor of the motion relating to Cinnamon Ridge 4th Addition were Bohne, Hall and Mulrooney, and those against were McCrea, Krob and Turnham. All voted in favor. FEDERAL LAND COMPANY - EAGAN HEIGHTS COMMERCIAL PARK Chairman Hall then convened the continued hearing regarding the applica- tion of Federal Land Company for rezoning of Eagan Heights Commercial Park consisting of approximately 100 acres to Planned Development for commercial development purposes. The property is presently zoned CSC, LB, GB and R-4. Charles Bartholdi and Martin Colon appeared for the applicants. Mr. Bartholdi reviewed the sketch plan and staging of the road construction which were new submittals to the Commission. The applicant had requested a continuance in order for additional study at the last meeting to consider alternate uses and also to receive comments from surrounding property owners. Mr. Bartholdi stated there was a substantial reduction in the density to about 60% of the R- 4 area. He stated that there was a proposal for a motel but that the appli- cant wanted to retain its option for CSC uses in these areas. He also re- quested the sketch plan be a part of the Development Agreement with the information included on the plan. Representatives of surrounding property owners were present and were asked for comments. Scott Bader appeared for Barr-ett Construction Company and indicated that 310 units were approved for the Duckwood Trails project to the south and 148 are remaining to be constructed. He stated that the proposed application will result in a change in the nature of its development because townhouses would not be compatible with the commercial to the north. He proposed eliminating the townhouses and that the City allow the construction of three buildings with 252 units which would be 104 units above the 310 authorized. He re- quested the application be continued until the Duckwood developers could submit an application for amendment of the Duckwood PD. 1 Wa 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 Neighboring residents were represented by Mr. Sjobeck who presented a Petition signed by 56 persons in Duckwood Estates and St. Francis Woods. They had a number of recommended changes included on their Petition and he reviewed them in detail with the Planning Commission. He stated that there was some strong opposition from some neighboring property owners to certain types of zoning, including motel use. Kenneth Applebaum, a neighboring property owner to the south, indicated he had no problem with the plan, but was concerned about the Lake on the North side of the Applebaum property, which property has been approved for multiple - residential use. He also suggested that the one acre parcel to the northwest be used for office building rather than commercial retail. Ron Krank, repre- senting the proposed Pilot Knob Shopping Center developer, indicated that the City had not allowed an extension of CSC and stated that if the present applicant is allowed an extension of CSC, that the Pilot Knob Shopping Center developers should also be given the same consideration. There was no appear- ance on behalf of Hillcrest Development owning the CSC property to the West, nor were any comments received in writing from Hillcrest. There was a ques- tion as to the affect on the park along the north side of Duckwood Estates and Mr. Runkle indicated there would be no change in the park proposal. Martin Colon responded to 6 requests of the neighboring single family owners and indicated that virtually all would be agreeable except that he would not agree to change the zoning of area 3 to LB to conform with the developers' stated intentions for development of office tower of corporate headquarters. He also stated that the motel was currently proposed to be included in the plan and requested that it be retained. He also indicated that the present intention is to retain the larger pond but retention of the smaller pond is uncertain at the present time. It was noted that an EAW has been completed but that it has not been circulated to the required agencies for comments. Mr. Colon also stated that in the event the R-4 proposed is not developed as multiple residential within 5 years, that they would then request Limited Business covering these 16 acres. Mr. Sjobeck stated that he gener- ally had no objections to the development beyond the recommendations of the neighboring owners but objected to the commercial in area 3. Mr. Colon re- quested that the Planned Development Agreement cover a 10 year period. It was noted there is heavy foliage to the north of the single family area but Mr. Colon stated that he agreed with the 100 -foot buffer north of the R-1 only. Mr. Hall suggested that the adjacent owners all give input to the Council and suggested that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the Council that it consider all of the surrounding uses. Member Wilkins recommended Area 6 should have R-4 underlying because it was understood so by the Duckwood Trails developer. Krob moved, Turnham seconded the motion to recommend ap- proval of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Council consider the uses of all surrounding property in its determination concerning the application. 0 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 2. It is also understood that the sketch plan would not be acceptable with the specific comments about the inclusion of high-rise buildings noting that a conditional use permit is required. 3. A .Staging Plan shall be submitted. 4. Prior to final approval of Planned Development zoning by the City Council, a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be obtained from the Metro Council. 5. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet should be approved by the City and applicable agencies prior to the rezoning of this property. 6. An analysis of the traffic generation information should be obtained from the Dakota County Highway Department prior to the rezoning. 7. A Planned Development Agreement shall be executed as provided by City Ordinance No. 52 prior to the final rezoning of this property. The developer has proposed that this Planned Development would exist for a period of 10 years. In addition, the Planned Development Agreement, which has been standardized by the City, would provide for such matters as street dedication, development of sidewalks and trails and similar considerations and would also include the exhibits as submitted which would become a part thereof. 8. Developer shall be required to dedicate an easement to the City, as illustrated on the "Sketch Plan", for a trail connection between the Duckwood single family area and the City's Deboer Park area. This shall be detailed in the Planned Development Agreement. 9. County Road 28 (Yankee Doodle Road) and County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue) shall be scheduled for upgrading to their ultimate design section prior to approval of Phase 4. 10. Portion of Denmark Avenue shall be installed coincidental with Phase 1 and/or Phase 4 respectively. 11. A 60 to 70 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for County Road 28 and County Road 43 as determined by Dakota County Highway Department. 12. A 75 to 80 foot internal right-of-way shall be required for the looped collector street. All other internal streets will require a 60 foot right-of-way dedication. 13. This development will be responsible for the acquisition/dedication of the full right-of-way necessary to install Denmark Avenue when required by this development. 14. A ponding easement incorporating the 885.0 elevation will be re- quired adjacent to O'Leary Lake. Also, a ponding easement incorporating the 906.0 elevation will be required for the internal ponding area (D -y). 3 �� 0 0 APC Minutes June 22, 1982 15. All other required drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as determined by the staff. 16. A ponding easement for Pond DP -5 shall be dedicated to the City prior to the development of the second or subsequent phases. 17. An 8 foot bituminous trailway shall be constructed along the north and east boundaries adjacent to Yankee Doodle Road and Lexington Avenue. 18. A 5 foot concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the west boundary of Denmark Avenue and adjacent to the internal looped collector street. 19. A trailway shall be constructed adjacent to O'Leary Lake in accor- dance with the recommendations of the Park and Recreation Committee. 20. This development shall assume its assessment responsibility as determined by the City assessment procedures associated with the installation of trunk utilities in accordance with the zoning and rates in effect at the time of final platting. 21. This development shall assume its assessment responsibilities asso- ciated with the upgrading of Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28), Lexington Avenue (County Road 43) and/or Denmark Avenue as necessitated by the phased development of this PUD. 22. Internal driveway entrances onto the internal looped collector street shall be at locations as approved by staff. 23. Adjacent to the R-1 zoning privide: a. 100 foot minimum setback for buildings and parking. b. Herming for visual separation of building and parking. C. Evergreen planting in the above described buffer zone by the end of the second phase of the development plan. 24. Any buildings over 3 stories in height shall be permitted only by application and compliance with Ordinance No. 52. 25. Preserve all existing ponds with the understanding that the small pond to the southwest will be considered in the detailed grading plan for that phase of development. 26. Lighting design shall ensure compatibility with residential neigh- borhood. Mr. Colon objected to the recommendation that the developer acquire all of the right-of-way for Denmark Avenue noting that the property owner on the west should dedicate the west half of the right-of-way. All voted in favor except Wold who voted no. 119 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -One REZONING FOR AMCON CORPORATION C. Amcon Corporation, Patrick M. Gannon, for Rezoning from A to PD to Allow 2 Office Buildings & Hotel Complex -- A public hearing was held May 25, 1982 by the APC to consider a rezoning application from A to PD to allow an office hotel complex on approximately 19.1 acres located adjacent to the proposed I-494 right-of-way and west of Pilot Knob Road. The public hearing was continued until the June 22, 1982 meeting to consider additional information as requested by the APC which was specifically related to comments of MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The Advisory Planning Commission had six (6) members present and the vote was a three to three tie on a motion to deny the rezoning request. Therefore, action of the Advisory Planning Commission provides no recommenda- tion to the City Council by result of the inaction with the motion. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's original report found on pages 122 q through )3 9t and additional information prepared for the —June 22 meeting—mound on pages 13S through iS-& . For action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes found on pages IS 7 — 1j g • Enclosed on page 151 is a memo from the City Attorney's office which corro- borates He ction taken by the APC. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the request of AMCON for rezoning. SPECIAL NOTE: Enclosed on pages 160 through 171 is a memo containing additional information as prepared by the—City Planner. /1® 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: REZONING - RAVINE PLAZA APPLICANT: AMCON CORPORATION - PATRICK CANNON LOCATION: PART OF THE NFik OF THE NE3k OF SECTICN 4 EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: MAY 25, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: MAY 20, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKL.E, CITY PLANNER APPLICATICN SUBMITTED: An application has been resubmitted requesting a rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development District) to allow an office, hotel complex on approximately 19.1 acres located in the NE, of the NFh of Section 4. ZONING AND LAND USE Presently, the parcel is zoned A (Agricultural District). The land use plan desig- nates the parcel as RB (Roadside Business District) which would allow businesses which serve the transient population attracted by Interstate 494. The Roadside Business District allows a hotel -motel as a permitted use but does not allow an office facility as a permitted use in an RB zoning district. Instead of rezoning to an RB (Roadside Business District) the applicant has requested to rezone to a PD (Planned Development District). which would allow a joint use of an office -hotel and office complex on this proposed site. As you may recall, Amcon Corporation began processing an application for this same facility in July and August of 1981. The APC recorrended denial and the City Coun- cil denied the application in March, 1982. The City Council stated that the appli- cant did not have to wait the designated time in order to resubmit the application. Enclosed is a copy of the March 2, 1982 City Council minutes for your review. Ac- cording to these minutes, the items of concern related to the height of the struc- tures of the office facilities, secondly, the proposed safety zoning ordinance drafted by MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation). At the present time, the City of Eagan has adopted a new ordinance in regard to height limitations in commercial, industrial and planned development districts. The height which exceeds 3 stories are subject to a conditional use permit which will be required with the second phase, or the detailed phase of the planned development. Then the City can look at each individual building and determine the height of each structure. The item which has not been resolved at this time is the proposed safety zone or- dinance drafted by YkE(T. Since the March meeting when the City Council denied the application submitted by Amcor Corporation, MAC (Metropolitan Airports Ccmnis- sion) , MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) and the Metropolitan Council 110 9 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE TNA had not proceeded with establishing the joint zoning board for the Wold -Chamberlain Airport. Therefore, the item regarding the safety zone has not progressed any fur- ther than what it was at the beginning of March, 1982. City staff has contacted the three agencies above and two acknowledged there is still not any time frame set up by MAC in regard to the starting up of the Joint Airport Zoning Board. Therefore, the safety zone problem is still the same problem as it was in March, 1982. The owner of the property has obtained his own attorney to review, or to get an opin- ion, of the status of safety zone issue. Enclosed is a copy of the opinion which has been submitted by the owner of the property. Staff, at this time, would like to make a special note that this is the property owner/developer's opinion, and it is not the City's opinion inregardto the safety zone issue. As stated above, staff has contacted the three agencies involved in regard to the airport safety zones. It is staff's understanding that they will be commenting in writing or be present at the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting in regard to the current status or stand that the agencies are taking in regard to the Ravine Plaza Planned Development. SITE PIAN REVIEW Staff would like to point out at this time that the applicant has only submitted an application requesting a Planned Development, or concept plan. If the concept is approved, then the applicant will submit detailed plans for the preliminary plat and the conditional use application in order to exceed the 3 -story limitation which is still an ordinance requirement until the application for the conditional use has been processed. Therefore, the plan submitted at this time is the concept plan for the planned development. Once the concept has been approved, the developer will work the detailed plans in regard to platting, grading, drainage, erosion control, traf- fic and all other exhibits that would be required with the detailed phase of the planned development. The developer has made minor changes from the original plan submitted in 1981 to the plan submitted in 1982. The biggest change occurs in the amount of open space, or green area, proposed on this site plan. The applicant has proposed slightly lar- ger raTrping facilities and has reduced the parking due to the joint facility to pro- vide more green area on the overall site plan. The developer is requesting that the parking spaces be based on 1 space per 200 square feet vs. the required 1 space per 150 square feet in order to provide additional green area. The other reason for in- creasing the square footage requirement is that the applicant is proposing to use joint parking between the office and motel therefore requiring less parking. At the present tine, the developer is proposing to have 53% of the site either covered by buildings or parking and 47% of the site as open space. The overall site plan would include approximately 186,912 net square feet of office and approximately 225 hotel units plus a restaurant and meeting facilities for a total of approximately 119,400 square feet. Once the detailed plans are worked out, these numbers regarding square footage may change slightly in order to meet the setback and ordinance requirements. If the rezoning request to the planned development is approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: ray 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE M 1. A planned development agreement be prepared in accordance with the concept plan. 2. The rezoning application shall be reviewed by MnDOT in regard to abutting I-494 corridor. 3. The rezoning application shall be reviewed by Dakota County because it abuts Pilot Knob Road right-of-way. 4. The planned development shall only allow 3 story buildings at this time until the conditional use permit has been processed and approved by the City of Eagan. 5. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans and site plan be submitted for a detailed review when the preliminary plat is submitted. 6. An EAW shall be prepared for the overall project and approved by all agencies. 7. 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. 8. All other ordinance requirements shall be enforced. 9. Permission from M -70C must be obtained allowing connection to their trunk in- terceptor line providing sanitary sewer service to this proposed development. 10. The extension of the trunk water main must be ordered in by Council action prior to final plat approval. U. An internal traffic circulation pattern must be approved by staff providing for a looped connection between the two office complexes across the ravine and also to provide for an extension and connection to the property located adjacent to and south of this parcel. 12. The frontage road must be upgraded to a minimum 36' wide 9 -ton design road- way. 13. This development will be responsible for its prorated share of the costs associated with.the installation of a traffic control system at the inter- section of Pilot Knob Road and Eagan Industrial Blvd. 14. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated as required by staff to provide adequate access to this site via the frontage road. 15. Drainage and utility easements as required by staff shall be dedicated at the time of final platting. 16. This development shall be responsible for the costs associated with install- ing an adequate storm sewer system to handle the drainage generated by this development to the Minnesota River valley. 1 12 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN REZCNING - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE THREE 17. This development shall fulfill its obligation pertaining to trunk area storm sewer assessments. TAC/jack I 13 TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING CON1MISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 20, 1982 RE: PD - RAVINE PLAZA (AMCON CORPORATION) The Public Works Department has the following comments to offer in consideration of the above -proposed development: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity to handle this proposed develop- ment is available and adjacent to the north and west property line of this pro- posed development. However, this is an MCC trunk interceptor line not under the jurisdiction of the City of Eagan. Therefore, a specific connection permit will be required to obtain service from this Line. Water main service to this proposed develcpment will have to be obtained through an extension of the trunk water main at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Blvd. and Pilot Knob Road. With the upgrading of I-494 by MnDOT and Pilot Knob Road by Dakota County, all major roads providing access to this development will have been upgraded to their ultimate design section to handle the anticipated traffic volumes generated by this proposal. However, with the right-of-way acquisitions for I-494 by MnDOT, access has been restricted along the north and east property lines of this devel- opment. Subsequently, MnDOT is constructing a minor 16' frontage road from this property to the intersection of Eagan Industrial Boulevard with Pilot Knob Road. This frontage road will have to be upgraded to a minimum 36' 9 -ton roadway to provide adequate access. Because of this restricted access acquired by MnDOT combined with the rugged topography of this property on the west side, this is the only available access to this development. In reviewing the site plan, the staff has recommnded that the internal roadway system provide for a future ex- tension and connection in the southwest corner to the property located adjacent to and south of this proposed development. In addition, the staff has recommnd- ed that an internal street be constructed providing circulation across the exist- ing ravine between the two office complexes. This circulation has been reviewed with both the Fire Marshall and the Police Chief and found to be the best alter- native taking into consideration the restrictions placed on this property by top- ography and interstates. With the anticipated traffic volumes generated by this development and its singu- lar access onto Pilot Knob Road at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Blvd., there is anticipation that a future signal systen would be required at this in- tersection. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY All necessary right-of-way has previously been acquired by Mn00'P and/or Dakota County. However, if additional right-of-way is required to provide for the up- grading of the frontage road providing adequate access, this additional right- ►a/-� 0 0 CTPY OF EAGAN - ENGINEERIM REPORT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RAVINE PLAZA MAY 25, 1982 PAGE TWO of -way dedication shall be the responsibility of this development. Easements nec- essary eo-essary for internal distribution of utilities should be dedicated as a part of the final plat. n • � �.. .n The general direction of the drainage of this property is to the west by way of the extreme ravine that nuts through the middle of this property up to Pilot Knob Road. Because of the intensity of the development proposed under this PUD com- bined with the fact that there is no storm sewer in the near vicinity, drainage facilities to handle this development will be extensive. It is anticipated that a dike through the middle of the ravine (providing loop traffic circulation) would also provide for a temporary pond within the natural ravine prior to its outlet - ting into a required storm sewer system which would extend westerly dawn into Minnesota Valley. Approval for this storm sewer system would have to be obtained from MnDOT and/or the DNR depending upon its alignment and connection to existing or proposed required sedimentation basins within the Ft. Snelling State Park. ASSESSMENTS This property hasalready been assessed for its trunk area sanitary sewer and water. However, trunk area storm sewer would be required with any proposed development. In addition, this development would be responsible for the costs associated with upgrading the frontage road to provide adequate access fran Pilot Knob Road. In addition, consideration should be given to potential cost participation from this development towards the installation of a signal system at the intersection of Eagan Industrial Road with Pilot Knob Road due to its anticipated traffic volume generated by its development and singular access. This development should be responsible for all costs associated with the installa- tion of a storm sewer system adequate to handle the drainage generated frcn its development. All aspects of this report should be researched and expanded in further detail as this PUD proceeds through the platting process. The ccmTents contained in this re- port are based on the conceptual development plans submitted with the PUD applica- tion. They may have to be modified and/or revised based on future more definitive information associated with the platting process. I will be available to discuss in further detail any aspect of this report at the Planning Commission meeting of May 25, 1982. Respectfully submitted, 4homas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works TAC/jack 115 0 Council Minutes March 2, 1982 ANCON CORPORATION - RAVINE PLAZA PRELIMINARY PLAT The application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow two office buildings and hotel complex, for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza and for variance to exceed height limitations in a commercial district was then considered by the council. The rezoning would cover approximately 19 acres to include two office buildings and a hotel -restaurant facility and a preliminary plat would cover three lots. The Planning Commission first considered the application on October 27, 1981 and recommended denial at its November 24, 1981 meeting. It was noted the Height Limitation Committee has now met and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council and has been acted upon by the City Council. Pat Gannon appeared for the applicant and indicated that his application was for concept approval rather than for preliminary plat approval. He discussed the comments from various agencies and noted that there were letters from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The MnDOT ordinance is a model ordinance only, controlling traffic from the Minneapo- lis/St. Paul International Airport. Councilmembers indicated that noise com- patability is one issue in the A and B zones which has been proposed by MnDOT for adoption by the joint zoning board or by individual cities. There was also discussion concerning a proposed Hold Harmless Agreement and its long term effect, and in addition, legal restrictions on the height and also the density under the proposed MnDOT model ordinance. Pilot Knob Road is at approximately 900 feet and the top of the office building would be 930 feet. Egan moved that 'the application for zoning be denied on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission including reasons stated in its motion of November 24, 1981; further, that at the present time, the Airport Joint Zoning Board has not made a recommendation as to zoning in the vicinity of the airport and it would be advisable to get such a recommenda- tion; further, that conditional use permit will also be required including a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission before a determination to exceed height limitation would be granted; that there appeared to be too much uncertainty as to the restrictions and development both by the City and other agencies; that the City has not reviewed the proposed MnDOT Airport Safety Ordinance and there were questions about the proposed safety zones and the need to examine the potential liability of the City in the event of the grant of the uses as proposed. It was further understood that the application for rezoning could be sumbitted to the City if there are substantially changed conditions according to Ordinance No. 52. Smith seconded the motion. All voted in favor. SEE PLAT FILE BUDGET ADJU=4ENTS FOR 1982 City Administrator Hedges reviewed a proposed revision in the reduction of the general fund of $52,300.00 noting that State Aid Reductions for 1982 are estimated at $52,130.00. The Council reviewed the proposals at a special workshop meeting on February 25, 1982 after submission of recommended reduc- tions by department heads. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the reduction of $52,300.00 according to the proposed outline by the City Administrator noting that the reductions are necessary and should cause the least disruption in the City program. All voted yea. D 82-6 3 126 0 0 LAW OFFICEs LTJT.=R M. STALLAND SUITE 910, NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 1900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNENOTA 60•93l H. PETER STALLAND April 22, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Manager City of Eagan Eagan, MN 55121 Re: Conditional Use Permit Application to the City of Eagan Dear Mr. Hedges: AREA CODE. 012 PHONE 835-551 You have suggested that our opinion would be welcome with regard to the potential legal liability of the City of Eagan in the event that Eagan grants a conditional use permit to Amcon, Inc, for the building of a hotel and office building complex on land situated at the intersection of 494 and Pilot Knob Road. Eagan apparently contemplates the possibility of a third party suit as a result of injuries suffered from an aircraft accident caused by the height or size features of the Amcon complex, since it is partially located in the Zone B runway approach to the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport runway. The question of liability concerns Eagan because the proposed Amcon project, if completed, may violate the proposed Zone B regulations which the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Aeronautical Division, has promulgated with regard to airport zoning standards pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 360.063 et seq. Note that this Statute, however, allows that in this case the Joint Airport Zoning Board (composed of the Metropolitan Airport Commission and certain appointees of Eagan) once formed has the option of requesting that Eagan adopt an ordinance incorporating these Zone B regulations. Until the request to the City Council and subsequent adoption of the ordinance occurs, the Zone B requirements have no legal binding effect with regard to zoning in Eagan, and particularly to Amcon's application. At this time there is clearly no potential liability to Eagan if it were to grant Amcon's requested permit because the act -of the City in granting that permit is not prohibited by any law. M.S.A. 360.063 subd. 3 states that "the municipality owning or controlling the airport may request any county or municipality in which an airport hazard area is located: (a) To adopt and enforce airport zoning regulations for the area in question that conform to the minimum standards prescribed by the commissioner." (underline added) Therefore by statute the controlling authority for the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport is the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) which has an option to require Eagan to adopt an appropriate resolution to include the Zone B regulations. To date no Joint Zoning Board has formally convened nor has it requested Eagan to adopt these Zone B requirements. In fact, it is very possible that the Joint Airport Zoning Board might take no action at all or might recommend much more lenient restrictions than the Zone B requirements. 19-7 E Mr. Thomas Hedges April 22, 1982 Page Two E In the event of an aircraft crash on the Amcon site, in itself extremely unlikely, any potential claimant would have the insurmountable task of proving that the Eagan City Council was negligent in granting a conditional use permit at such time when it was perfectly legal and reasonable for it to grant such a permit. Even if the Zone B regulations were subsequently adopted by the City of Eagan after it had granted the Amcon permit, such law would not have retro- active effect on the City Council's decision. M.S.A. 645.21 states that "no law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the legislature." Since there is no clear intent by the legislature in M.S.A. 360.063 et seq. that this Statute shall have retroactive effect, this negligence argument would fail. Finally, there is no possibility of tort liability because the City is immune from suit when the subject of the lawsuit involves a discretionary act of the City or its employees. M.S.A. 466.02 provides that every municipality is sub- ject to liability for its torts and those of its officers and employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, M.S.A. 466.03 subd. 6 provides an exception to that statutory rule and declares that there is no liability where it involves "Any claim based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the dis- cretion is abused." Case law also provides this same immunity pursuant to this statute: See DePalmma v Rosen (1972) 294 -Minn. 11, 199 NW 2d 517 where individ- ual members of a city council could not be held responsible for damages.in exercise of any discretionary acts. More specifically, case law has clearly held that the act of a city issuing a building permit in a doubtful case involved the exercise of discretion, so that as a result the plaintiff could not sue because the city had immunity pursuant to M.S.A. 466.03. See Anderson v City of Minneapolis (1972) 87 Minn. 287, 178 NW 2nd 215. In summary, Eagan's fears of potential liability resulting from granting the Amcon permit are groundless. First, it is highly unlikely a lawsuit would ever occur based upon an aircraft crash on the Amcon site. Second, even if such a crash occurred the City is protected because of its sovereign immunity status and the fact that its actions were reasonable and in accordance with the law at the time such permit was granted (since the Zone B requireme shad not been adopted at that time). Consequently, there is no need for app icant/owner/ developer to enter into any hold harmless agreement�, with the ity and, in my opinion, would only invite third party litigation ilk avo su�g remote situation. LMS/jj cc: Al Stephani, President Amcon Corporation 011ie Ulvilden, President 0-J Sporting Goods Company 119 ( S' TRAIL. FBJ 12'%g' RC2 Ni ,A® SCAl6: / �a /00 RAVItr �_ /�- PLAIA SV Q 7— PA (Lr-C- -PA(Lr- L E sa FBI RIPRAP CLASS A F. B 1. 24'% 132CM.P+2 APAQs' (L 6' TRAIL Sim +6p rt S.E. LOOP 3'Rp 03 I \ ; II 3'R +To=� BI 2 is 2 mss y + R1 _ —e 4 + FBI 12'%43' RCP € S.E. RAMP Sim N N GB.64 l 1 FBI. 12'%72' RR.C.P.j �i 8624 G 8 G. Cl, JOLFBI 27'% 211' R.CP. MR 42 (ADJUST C.B.) 4-811 CURB +22 _- WP EAGANOAIP WQISTRIA( 6�v 0 V "YOMWT .........._. NM7 .., . "' _ • - - • .._ ... _ _. X31dW00 301ddO AWOV3 1-77-1 4:"" ?N sYU31r] I L i i / IIIA00 _ , ii:i u .. te .-r --- - : � •°, i 44 CFO ° 8° e § 8 g .� 8 g9r2 R I • � E IT --- o` w- ' �8• '�'I'; •'I'll '°tlH 9 p .� n {� 111� ELLL.Jl._11Y 11 4 y, mr•:h,, _ C• S a •'V�iL'i�r It — Nv C n , 011 ' iii 00+0+ 01 z R p p ww p y,• Y Vulii l r cog. -' R o0 m 'J °o R si ° u oo »•° i / IIIA00 _ .. te .-r --- - T) i 44 CFO OF c I � � MAL ao , rA ' '�'I'; •'I'll '°tlH 9 p .� n {� 111� ELLL.Jl._11Y 11 4 y, mr•:h,, _ C• S a •'V�iL'i�r It — Nv n'IN.I R cog. -' 'd I61le I �� o° i .! iC •S.l�.'` i."-�� f r p'1��jjjj /i'\. tr Olpis t � �� 4 � 10�JiN �•��y�CC•]� � ��J11 O �� 11I {�{)��I of bYl�� C.ry ',r�u-01 T J ---- ------ - IT— Ye Wj 1-494 7i— o, % RAM P A a OFFICE' A Z7, —W f' ; -E ,' /' 3— MOTEL je- ESTA . A FFICE 6 toll', 1, 'I i RAMP B k r . .. ... ........ .......... ..... o'o ... .... .... ...... . .... . fzqu T J 16" Ye T J WI .N. MMS ,s r .c.°rY-''vw�r�'•�r-:v-a"-r �'r� �r ��'i'� y �� n. 5� r re - EAST -WEST SECTION NORTH -SOUTH SECTION WI;Wt- ^" EAGAN OFFICE COMPLEX �- EMMiARprrtiClS EAGAA MINNESOTA SUBJECT MENDOTA 'HTS. \`•. .. -- - Jif.• l �_ _ ----' _. .. -.... Z,.,\ v RB " _ •-•rr n.:v I� �s •wL� u,l.•'7/. Ind J -.i •.` -! • ;a� :. - ' - COMMERCIAL '..: - . PLANNED DEVELOPMENT V • - .R-1 ;-. Ind. . _ /�� : �r:•'.'e_ ! it A RI RIII .. If__�,q.._._.�'::.:--_ _- ... �� — - __ R R•I�' Ind. . •. , z GB I ... e Ra .....,...� RI Ind R -IV .. RI P Ind mom -Ind _:... R-II6. - - _ ---. , RIII NB'iy: :. RR -111 R -III _ LBf R-11 ;f RR=11,.. IT CSC P c` R Ind. R-11 _ R I GOLF y��^ r r-....r•� I : i.l i. � "' ...:. full 'i Ind. W RIII `'� r/ `� u-: R-11 �R+� J i R -II P moo.. R -I W 3•III: �r.e- ..�{`+ '^` CITY R-11 II a. R I _ R_II R -U N _ S .,._..:all '7"' PO R -IL R 1I`R-11 -III LIB <:rF: RB RIII ' 1 R 11r. Jr RIII ..CSC/GB R-111 R 1 r Qv RI �.. SRI + w cSC f�IIuh tl a''.�: P R -I 5: P ,n� U,N • P.. Gtx cow.. i R -II Pj r R -II r,nn R-11 . . RJ J R-Iy R-11 • 4 '�f / r R -II L6 `� �. 13 . N f tLLEY : R^•, I T115114 ROSEMOUNI- ? A!' i : 0 0 TO: CHARLES HALL, CHAIRPERSON AND THE ADVISORY PLANNING COnIISSION FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: JUNE 17, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RAVINE PLAZA At the May 25, 1982 Advisory Planning Cartnission meeting, the Advisory Plan- ning Cmmission requested that this item be continued until the June 22, 1982 meeting in order that the Advisory Planning Ccnmiission can receive informa- tion regarding updating comnents from MAC, MnDOT and Metropolitan Council. Also, the City Attorney provide an opinion in regard to the safety issues regarding the safety zone and the City's liability if they ignore the pro- posed safety zone ordinance. The Advisory Planning Cm -mission also wanted a clarification in regard to the conditional use, or the height, in the proposed development plan if in fact the City would have to honor the height at a later point in time. Staff has contacted the Metropolitan Airport's Commission, Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council requesting that they sub- mit updated responses in regard to the Ravine Plaza development proposal. En- closed is a letter sent out by City staff requesting this response. Also en- closed are the responses that the City has received as of June 17, 1982. If there is not a response from a respective agency, the City did not receive any written response in regard to the subject matter. Staff has also included the responses which were submitted in August and September of 1981 which staff has received from MAC, MnDc7f and Metropolitan Council. Be sure to review dates on the letters in regard to being an old response or a new response for the current development proposal. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter submitted by Paul Hauge outlining the City Attorney's opinion in regard to the safety issues which the Advisory Planning Commission was concerned about at the May 25, 1982 meeting. Staff has discussed the conditional use permit with the City Attorney in re- gard to the height of the proposed structure. It is staff's opinion that the development proceed as submitted and that only action be taken on the zoning to the planned development at this time. It has been indicated all . the way through the staff report that even though the developer is proposing buildings which exceed the 3 -story height limitation according to Ordinance 52, that that is all that is granted with this planned development. When a conditional use permit is submitted with a preliminary plat, the detailed plans and exact square footage and height be determined on its individual merits of that particular development proposal. Staff feels that there are enough safeguards in only allowing the 3 -story building at this time that the City is not obligated to grant a blanket conditional use in the future because the developer has indicated multiple stories in the future. I be- lieve the City Attorney has addressed this item in his memrandun. The last item submitted with this memorandum is the developer requesting Dakota County to do a tax estimate on the proposed development which Amcon Development Co. is submitting. Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Donald E. Holm, Chief Deputy Assessor, Dakota County, regarding taxes generated from this development proposal. Hopefully, this additional information will 135' 11 CITY OF EAGAN AMCON CORPORATION JUNE 22, 1982 PAGE TWO C� address the concerns that the Advisory Planning Commission had at the May 25 meeting. If additional information is needed or clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me at the City Hall. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner 136 EN 0 0 HAUGE, SMITII, EIDE & HELLF.R. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL), MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H- HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Charles Hall, Chairman EAGAN ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 June 17, 1982 RE: METROPOLITAN AIRPORT CORRIDOR - AMCON APPLICATION Dear Chairman Hall: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 454-4224 At the last Advisory Planning Commission meeting I was asked to prepare a summary of some of the issues that relate to the application being submitted by Amcon Corpora- tion to the City for the approval of rezoning of 19.1 acres of land at the southwest intersection of proposed I-494 and Pilot Knob Road from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development. Several issues surfaced relating to the application: 1. Whether there are any regulations that control the development and construc- tion of buildings within the flight path from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Air- port through the proposed Amcon Development property. 2. Because the sketch plans of the applicant provide for a proposal for build- ings exceeding the normal 3 -story height limitation, whether if the Planning Commis- sion and Council approve the application, the City is then committed to allow building heights in excess of the normal limitation. 3. Given the current state of the regulations regarding such development and the law as applied thereto, does it appear that the City has any exposure for damages in the event that it should deny the application, either in whole or in part, or in any way approve the application allowing for e.g, a less dense development, building heights within certain limitations, etc.? 4. What exposure if any does the City have in the event the Council approves an application allowing heights in the air traffic corridor in excess of normal height limitations and an air traffic accident results at some tLme in the future with poten- tial negligence on behalf of the City alleging safety measures were not properly com- plied with? When the City staff first received the application from Amcon Corporation to develop the approximate 19 acre site in about May of 1981, contacts were made with MM/Dot Division of Aeronautics, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airport Commis- sion's staffs to determine whether any one or more of those agencies may have regu- lations which would in any way control the nature of the development, height of build - 137 Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 2. ings, density, etc. The developer also made similar inquiries and the consensus of those agencies was that none of them had specific regulations that would control, but generally opposed the scale of the development proposed by Amcon, including height of buildings and density within the parcel. Some of the regulations that have been proposed or adopted that bear upon the issue include the following: 1. Minnesota Code of Agencies Rules, Department of Transportation, Aeronautical Division, 1.3006-1.3016. Although MSA3360.063 authorizes municipalities to adopt under its police powers airport zoning regulations controlling airport hazard areas including dividing areas into zones, the City of Eagan has not done so. It's Zoning Ordinance No. 52 requires conditional use permits for buildings or structures in ex- cess of the maximum height limitations permitted under Section 52.07, Subd. 14a, and indicates that the City may regulate heights within air traffic corridors. The City also requires a multi -story building agreement and compliance with all conditions of Ordinance No. 52. 2. The MN/Dot Division of Aeronautics has proposed regulations 14 MCAR 1.3010 et seq. At least a portion of the subject property lies within Safety Zone B as defined under those rules, including some highly restrictive provisions including each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than three acres and that each use shall not have a density exceeding 15 persons per acre. These regulations have neither been adopted by the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Joint Zoning Board nor by the City of Eagan and, therefore, do not appear to control deci- sion making by the City unless adopted by the Joint Zoning Board or City Council. It is my understanding that although the Joint Zoning Board has been organized under MSA 360.061 et seq., it has not begun to formally act on zoning issues. 3. FAA regulations 14 CFR No. 77.1 et seq. Although it requires interpretation of the section of the FAA regulations, it is my understanding that the proposals of the applicant would comply with the.restrictions included in the FAA regulations. As to question No. 2, it would appear that the City is not required to grant build- ing permits beyond the limitation, even though an applicant submits sketch plans, drawings and indicates in his application that its expected development would in- clude high-rise buildings. The reasons for this include the fact that the amendment to Ordinance No. 52.07 adopted by the Eagan City Council in early 1982 regarding height limitations clearly indicates that certain restrictions will be imposed upon any applicant which submits an application for a building in excess of the normal height limitation allowed under Ordinance No. 52. These include a separate agree- ment which could attach conditions to such approval and also clear wording in the Zoning amendment that specifically states that conditions and restrictions may be imposed on the approval of any buildings exceeding such limits. I would recommend, though, that in the event that the Planning Commission recommends approval and the Council approves the application for rezoning, that the conditions clearly indicate that the approval is subject to subsequent application and approval of any buildings that exceed the normal restriction levels. In addition, such application for build- ing permit requires a conditional use permit. 13� Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 3. There has not been a great deal of precedent in the State of Minnesota or as far as that goes, around the country, that would allow for a precise answer to either questions 3 or 4 asked by the Commission. If the presumption is made that in the event the City does either restrict the density or heights of the buildings to an extent that the developer/owner feels it is arbitrary and unreasonable, it is assumed that the developer/owner will then bring an action against the City for damages on the theory of inverse condemnation. There are many issues that relate to this specific parcel of property, including the fact that the land is zoned Agricultural at the present time implying that the City does have a degree of control, the fact that the City has adopted the height limitation ordinance provision, whether noise factors should be considered, whether the City should adopt the model zoning ordinance or some revision there- to, whether the City should include a provision in the event of approval of the application that the developer/owner will hold the City harmless in the event of any action brought against it, either on the basis of property owners, any agencies or any person in any agency attempting to restrain the injured party that may be caused from an airline accident on the site where the construction is proposed to occur. Sovereign immunity is often used as a defense in negligence actions against a city. This theory has been substantially eroded in recent years and, therefore, liability insurance is a must for municipalities. Zoning is normally a discretionary power of the city in which the landowner has.no vested rights. However, in the McShane case (McShane vs. The City of Faribault, 292 NW 2d 253, 1980) the Court pointed out that there was a distinction between "arbitration" and "enterprise" regulations. That case involved an action by a neighboring owner to force the city to initiate condemnation proceedings due to zoning restrictions on land adjacent to the Fari- bault airport. "Arbitration" regulations are ordinances designed to affect a com- prehensive plan while "enterprise" regulations are for the sole benefit of govern- mental enterprise. It held in McShane that where land use regulations are designed to benefit a specific public enterprise there must be compensation to landowners whose property suffers a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations. (City of Mankato vs. Hilgers, Finance and Commerce, December 31, 1981.) It may be argued that in both the McShane and Hilgers cases, the airports in ques- tion were city airports and, therefore, there might be some doubt as to the City of Eagan's liability where the specific public enterprise is not one with which Eagan is necessarily directly involved. Secondly, the burden is on the developer to show a "substantial and measurable decline in the market value of the property" where alternate developments could be proposed. However, the McShane court clearly stated at pages 258 and 259 that "We hold that where land use regulations, such as the airport zoning ordinance here, are designed to benefit a specific public or governmental enterprise, there must be compensation to landowners whose property has suffered a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations." Therefore, if it is determined that 139 0 0 Mr. Charles Hall June 17, 1982 Page 4. a specific public enterprise is being benefitted and a substantial and measurable decline in the market value of the affected land results, it would appear that damages would be awarded. (See 26 Am. Jur 2d Eminent Domain #157 also). It can be argued that aircraft accidents are very infrequent within flight patterns. Caution, however, is vitally important however. If the City takes all reasonable precautionary steps including those mentioned above, liability of the City is some- what unlikely. Ordinarily a City Council's decision on a discretionary matter, if not arbitrary, will be upheld. Although commencement of actions against the City by aircraft passengers cannot be avoided, clearly negligence must be shown and it appears that reasonable steps should absolve the City from future exposure. PHH:me W Very_uily yours, UGE,/SMITH, EIDE_& K LER, P.A. ul H. Hauge BEA BLOMOUIST • MAYOR 0 THOMAS ELAN CITY O F EAGAN JAMES A. SMITH 1 JERRY THOMAS P. I.) 1 THEODORE WACHTER hl.))95 PILOT KNOB ROAD " COUNCIL MEMBERS ," P.O. BOX )II" EAGAN, MINNESOTA.A'�. 551111 June 8, 1982 „ �' PHONE 4i4-8100 ' NIGEL D FINNEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENGINEERING METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COWISSION '?.' P O BOX 1700:' TWIN CITY AIRPORT NIDI 55111 JIM FORTMAN AERONAUTICS DIVISION MIIINNESOTA DEPAR'IlvIENT O -u TRANSPORT4ITION TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL NIDI 55155 MARK RYAN METROPOLITAN COUNCIL STAFF 300 METRO SQ BLDG 77H & ROBERT ST Sr PAUL M 55101 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Gentlemen: THOMASHEOGES CITY AOMINISIRAIOR EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CITY CLERK As you may recall, Ravine Plaza submitted mmitted an application approximately one year ago and was denied by the City Council in March of 1982. Since this time, Amcon Corpora- tion had submitted a new application to be processed by the Advisory Planning Cammis- sion and City Council. The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 1982. At this public hearing, the Advisory Planning Commission reviewed the appli- cation and conditions why the City Council denied the application in March of 1982. Time reasons for denial were the height limitations in regard to the Eagan Zoning Ordi- nanoe; secondly, the proposed safety zone ordinance which has not been adopted by any agency was cited. In the Advisory Planning Commission review, they had noted that the height limitation had been resolved with amendments to the Eagan Zoning Ordinance which allows heights greater than three stories through the granting of a conditional use permit. In review of the status of the safety zone ordinance, it was noted that the ordinance has not proceeded any further than what it was a year ago. The Advisory Plan- ning Commission continued the item until June 22 in order that staff can contact Metro- politan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Council and the Aeronautics Division of MnDC71' to get updated formal responses in regard to the new application. I have enclosed a copy of the revised site plan for your review and request that the agencies above make formal camients on this development proposal no later than June 17, 1982. The Advi- sory Planning Camuission also requested that staff invite you to attend the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM and this item should be heard relatively early on the agenda because it is old business. If you have any questions regarding the requests of the Planning Commission or regard- ing the Advisory Planning Cartnission mee ' , please feel free to contact me at the Eagan City Hall. / n Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle, City Planner J/ �Y� J� DCR/jack THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. cc - TtE as L. Hedges, City Administrator ,pt%NESor4 20 A Q Fyr yQ° OF TVk 0 0 Nlinnesota DeparvEfl ? "+° tment of Transportatior.?ECEiJL'31 9 Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 June 16, 1982 Dale C. Runkle Eagan City Planner 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: Subject: Ravine Plaza Planned Development l'lionc 296-7R9q_ We have reviewed the information submitted with your June 8, 1982, letter. The modifications to the original proposal are insignificant with respect to Airport Safety Zoning. Therefore, our comments to you in letters dated August 4, 1981, and September 17, 1981, remain essentially unchanged. We note that the City Council's denial of the original proposal was based on many factors and that only the building height limitations and green space have been resolved to date. The Council was also concerned about the uncertainty of airport zoning restrictions and the potential liability of the City, and rightly so. We sincerely appreciate the City's efforts to obtain input on this matter from the various governmental units. We can also appreciate the City's desire to resolve the airport zoning and get on with the development of the City. In that regard, we would recommend that the City of Eagan re- quest the MAC to convene the Joint Airport Zoning Board. The adoption of an airport zoning ordinance is the only way to remove the "cloud of doubt" that hangs over your considerations. That same "cloud" may bother the proponent, knowing that at some point, the land will be rezoned again. We will also approach the MAC on the matter of convening the Joint Air- port Zoning Board. We are sure that all the municipalities around the airport would like to see the zoning issues resolved as soon as possible. Sincprely, L. J es Fortman, P.E. Director, Airport Development Section Aeronautics Division Room 417 /+L An Equal Opportunity Employer -C- 1q_ OU Ll June 17, 1982 City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MPI 55122 puut"Oke • Sam Pau, %I! ET'sOPOLITAN 'AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . PHONE (612) 726-5770 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1982, regarding the submittal of the Ravine Plaza Planned Unit Development rezoning application. The Metropolitan Airports Com¢nission appreciates the opportunity to review this development proposal; it is been addressed from the perspective of Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Height Limitations, the potential relationship to A and B Zones as promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the impact of Metropolitan Council land use guidelines, and the potential for noise impacts at the site. The Federal Aviation Administration has promulgated FAR Part 77, which is intended to provide review of the height of structures adjacent to airports. This regulation applies a series of surfaces to the areas adjacent to the airport; any penetrations of these surfaces are typically considered to be hazards to air navigation. The regulation establishes a notification procedure and provides the FAA an opportunity to formally co161ent on development proposals. The proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This runway is one of the primary runways at the airport, an integral part of the preferential runway system, and the primary runway for use under instrument weather conditions. The appropriate height limitations in the area of the development are based on an inclined plane sloping upward from a point 200' from the end - of the runway at a ratio of 50:1. Based on an elevation of 813' MSL for runway end 29L, the allowable height at the northwestern boundary of the proposed development would be approximately 993' MSL. Based upon the diagrams submitted with your letter of June 8, 1982, showing a top elevation of 935' MSL for the hotel, it would appear that there is no violation or penetration of the approach surfaces established under FAR Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration also establishes clear zones located off the end of each runway at an airport. For the category of runways in use at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, these are quadrilaterally shaped areas extending out- ward from the end of the runway 2,700 feet. Within these areas the airport operator is expected to have control of development such that there will be no penetrations of the FAR Part 77 approach surfaces; preferably the areas will be owned and cleared of any structures. The proposed development is OFFICE LOCATION -6040 26th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA -MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 143 jQ-� GV�U i qQ4 puut"Oke • Sam Pau, %I! ET'sOPOLITAN 'AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . PHONE (612) 726-5770 RE: Ravine Plaza Planned Development Thank you for your letter of June 8, 1982, regarding the submittal of the Ravine Plaza Planned Unit Development rezoning application. The Metropolitan Airports Com¢nission appreciates the opportunity to review this development proposal; it is been addressed from the perspective of Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Height Limitations, the potential relationship to A and B Zones as promulgated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the impact of Metropolitan Council land use guidelines, and the potential for noise impacts at the site. The Federal Aviation Administration has promulgated FAR Part 77, which is intended to provide review of the height of structures adjacent to airports. This regulation applies a series of surfaces to the areas adjacent to the airport; any penetrations of these surfaces are typically considered to be hazards to air navigation. The regulation establishes a notification procedure and provides the FAA an opportunity to formally co161ent on development proposals. The proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This runway is one of the primary runways at the airport, an integral part of the preferential runway system, and the primary runway for use under instrument weather conditions. The appropriate height limitations in the area of the development are based on an inclined plane sloping upward from a point 200' from the end - of the runway at a ratio of 50:1. Based on an elevation of 813' MSL for runway end 29L, the allowable height at the northwestern boundary of the proposed development would be approximately 993' MSL. Based upon the diagrams submitted with your letter of June 8, 1982, showing a top elevation of 935' MSL for the hotel, it would appear that there is no violation or penetration of the approach surfaces established under FAR Part 77. The Federal Aviation Administration also establishes clear zones located off the end of each runway at an airport. For the category of runways in use at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, these are quadrilaterally shaped areas extending out- ward from the end of the runway 2,700 feet. Within these areas the airport operator is expected to have control of development such that there will be no penetrations of the FAR Part 77 approach surfaces; preferably the areas will be owned and cleared of any structures. The proposed development is OFFICE LOCATION -6040 26th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA -MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 143 0 0 City of Fagan Pg. 2 6/17/82 significantly beyond the end of the clear zone associated with Runway 29L. As previously indicated, FAR Part 77 establishes a procedure whereby the Federal Aviation Administration must be notified of any development meeting certain criteria in areas adjacent to the airport. This procedure requires the filing of formal notification which provides specific information regarding the development location and characteristics of the development proposal. We would urge the City of Eagan and the developer to contact the Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office in Minneapolis regarding the necessary procedures for review of this development. The Minnesota Department of Transportation - Division of Aeronautics has adopted regulations containing minimun zoning standards pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 360.061 to 360.074. The Minimum Zoning Standards establish areas off the ends of runways at airports identified as Zones A and B. The proposed Ravine Plaza Development would lie within Zone B based upon the application of the Minimum Standards to Runway 11R/29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The attached diagram identifies Zones A and B in relationship to the proposed property, based upon a straight -forward application of the minimum standards. Development within Zone B as established by these minumun standards is impacted in a number of ways: 1) there is a minimum lot size of three acres, 2) there is a maximum site population based on a ratio of 15 persons per acre, 3) there are minimum ratios for development with regard to total site area, and 4) there are certain land uses which are specifically prohibited from Zone B. Hotels and motels are specifically prohibited in Zone B according to the Minimum Standards, and the maximum allowable population for a site of approximately 19.1 acres would be approxi- mately 280-290 persons. It should be kept in mind that the zones shown on the attached drawing are an MAC interpretation of the Mn/DOT Minimum Standards. The procedure for adoption of these regulations is through a Joint Airport Zoning Board, consisting of two representatives from each community adjacent to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and two representatives from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Representatives have been appointed to this board from each community and from the MAC, however the Joint Airport Zoning Board has not yet started its meetings with regard to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. It is the Joint Airport Zoning Board which will actually establish these zones and the land use limitations therein, and therefore will define the specific impact of the zoning regulations on this particular property. The zoning regulations as adopted by the Board are then subject to review and approval by Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics for conformance with their adopted minimum standards before they can be implemented. The statute and regulations also establish a Board of Adjustment, which is Empowered to grant variances from the adopted zoning ordinance under certain conditions. These variances must also be reviewed and approved by Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics prior to being effective. The Metropolitan Council is also involved in the issue of land use adjacent to airports consistent with its responsibilities under the Land Planning Act and preparation of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Council is currently reviewing a series of proposals which define compatible and incom- patible land uses in airport environs; the outcome of this review is expected to be an amendment to the Metropolitan Development Guide which will then enter into and work through the Land Planning Act process, requiring camnuuities 14 °t 0 0 City of Eagan Pg. 3 6/17/82 to modify couprehensive plans and implementation ordinances in order to be consistent with these quidelines. As we have previously indicated, the proposed development lies on the extended centerline of Runway 29L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. With this runway being an integral part of the preferential runway system, the proposed develognent will lie under a primary arrival track to Runway 29L, and a primary departure track for Runway 11R. The frequency of use of this runway and the proximity of the proposed development to the runway end would indicate that the development should be carefully evaluated from the perspective of potential noise impact. Since the area will be subject to regular overflights, we would strongly urge that consideration be given to attenuation of exterior sound levels to reasonable interior levels consistent with the proposed use of the property. Both site design and building construc- tion techniques can be utilized to achieve the desired level of attenuation, and we would urge their consideration and use in this development proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Feel free to contact this office should you have any questions. Sincerely yours Raymond G. G umack Executive Director NDF/jr attach. cc: Jim Fortman - Mn/DOT Mark Ryan - Metro Council Commissioner Jack Jorgensen CcMuissioner Robert Stassen los I- FT - PARK: � ... _ •}Ii Irl / I� ' I_Y .41 iL . J I PROP. r-494-- i'�T'��_ ®� 0 8f isi � lall >0 a �p a m �► � 7? ' •.f'S ' r S'�'3i ^T �� `;''^';-r'��::'`::'1•;..p11.��7^a:�ri:1�:. %•):�. ��^7;-r•�...: r�1 _ � tj v ` •PARK .tea! ie jri�';�'.'''+�:.� !-:i.." V3 � •� z' RES. d`�NNESO)4 v� 20 a Minnesota Department of Transportation 3 0� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 "OF TRP a4 September 17, 1981 Advisory Planning Commission City of Eagan E. J. VanOverbecke, City Clerk 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Commission Members: Phone 296-8046 Subject: September 22, 1981, Public Hearing (7:00 P.M.) Rezoning from A to PD and Preliminary Plat Consideration Part of NEh of the NE;4 of Section 4, T27N, R2311 - South -of Pro- posed I-494 Right of Way and West of Pilot Knob Road This is to advise you that the above referenced property lies within safety zone E as defined by Minnesota Code of Agency Rules 4 1.3016 (Airport Zoning Standards). A copy of the rule is enclosed for your information. The rule was promulgated pursuant to the direction and authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 360.061 to 360.074. It defines the Min- imum Zoning Standards, consistant with public safety, for areas ad- jacent to airports. The responsibility for enacting a zoning ordinance meeting these standards rests with the airport owner. Regardless of that fact, it is.our opinion that the city could put itself in an unfavorable lia- bility position if it allowed non -conforming land uses in the safety zones and an accident subsequently occurred. We have previously ad- vised the city of the aspects of the proposal that do not conform to airport zoning standards. A copy of that letter is also enclosed. We recommend that if the rezoning is allowed, it should be a modified PD. The modifications should incorporate the provisions of the en- closed airport zoning standards. We recommend further that in considering the preliminary plat, the safety of the public enjoying the proposed facilities be carefully considered. Sincerely, ichard S. Keinz +✓ Assistant Commission Aeronautics. Division 147 An Equal Opportunity Employer _4119Y® ,,,uru ;o� •� •� J J MlllIli •til)lil a Of I V10, � '�' `'- I )1 •I ,rlftlll<•Itl 1>I 'I'r;ulr.I,1,rI;I;if,Il ,,�.^. c 'Ir;ulr.I,l,rtaltil,Il I:Ililclill;_; �..•��) ��' tit. I';tlll, \liluu•�I,I;I ..:;L..', AU lust 4, 19:;1 I•Inn,r "�'' , r Ml D'Jll• C. .:::Ilk l I- ': i •r:i! PIt,r.u•-r, Ci Ly of Kagan P.O. Box 21199 . K:nlan, Minnesota 6511: Re: Minneapolis - St. Paul, Int-Qrnattional Airport Development proposal Dr:a r Mr. Runkle: 11(: have reviewed the ProPosod Onvolopmant located south of Interstate 494 and West of Pilot -Knob Road. The proposed development will. be Located in Zone B of our model zoning ordinance. The rndinance will impact the proposed development in the following way: .1.) Building P!oL area to site plot area, 2.) population dcnnity pr•r ac:fol 3.) ilAUt limitations ,,nl' 4.) land uso. I will take each in order and the impact- to tha sublot.s. ?. Bui.ldinn ,lot arra to sit: L i- SUbIOt h: on site Plots of 4 to 6 acres, the model zoning ordinanr_r• 11tows f -f A Kite ;clot area r._:tio to buildi.ny arca of 10:1. since Lw packing ramp is consid red a buildinj, the builcl,:lu.ratio of this oubl t is only 6:1. If the ramp tiori: chanrled kb a surface parking .lot, the ratio would he .in uunformanct:• at .15:1. Sublot Il: The allowable buildin(1 ratio tc,r a Site plot of s acr„n is 8:1. Thr c,lmp .!nil niijcr buil:lincl ar•, yrcaLr•l than 8:1 and t':••t ••!;.t nl n : .. •.vi t h 4h, m W, I ord i nuu •• . Thr: allr:r:IrL li::•vclr,;,!ln nt for C in at 9.6: ! . 2. PoODulat_ic_n_drrns_itv Tho maximum ;1Opu l al ion doh. MY!i 1 .1 x7111<; urdinantar ij 15 ;,.wn,,n:: !,• t .: t, It::i ON is the:tundar, It a;,pVnra tna% Ji ,lwill voccoodl the all::wable M,xi,wm ;uf;!tl,. 1• :ir.::: it l`I0 Ae.1•:yuuf (ll yr. •rlueJy EmpL,yer M • I. J .i I : L • t'�. 1 • • AUI)Il.�t �), l9f:l 1':Ir)r' 7 3. 1If, ir;hl. ),i;:•;I :tion 'I'lli' huildi;a.i height:i as proposed will not: r_zcrrr.ci t-hrn Ilc:•ight- zuuing limits. 4. Land 1Jfe Office buildings as proposed for sublet A and D, are coropatilA.e with the model zoni.ngordinanuc! 11oarever, MoLe.ls arc, cp(3cificall.y excluded in the ordinance and therefore ar.r, not a compatible land uc:c for sublet- C. Than; you for the Opportunity to review the proposed develop- ment-. If. you have any questions, feel free to call or write. Sincerely, Gerald J. Rohrbach P.E. Regional Airport Engineer Roo; 417 )41 0 July 14, 1991 V. 0kp • Sau& PRS 7 moi. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 1700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Dale C. Runkle City Planner, City of Fagan P.O. Box 21199 Fagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: PHONE (612) 726-5770 Thank you for forwarding the sketch plan of the development proposal located south of Interstate 494 and West Pilot Knob Road. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. The proposed development will lie within Zone B as applied to Runway 11R/29L at Wold -Chamberlain Field, as shown on the attached drawing. It should be kept in mind that Zone B as shown on this drawing is a MAC interpretation of Mn/DOT Rules and Regulations as adopted 'in 14 MCAR 1.3010, and has not yet been reviewed and/or acted upon by a Joint Airport Zoning Board. Development within Zone B is restricted in a number of ways: 1) there is a minimum lot size, 2) there is a maximum site population, 3) there are minimum ratios for development with respect to total site area, and 4) there are certain uses which are specifically prohibited from Zone B. It would seen that the primary problems with this particular development in regard to these regulations would be the site area. population and the fact that hotels and motels are prohibited in Zone B. A second element of the proposed airport zoning regulations deals with height limitations adjacent to the airport. A review of the proposed location in regard to the airport indicates that the height restriction over the site would be approximately 960 feet; -the elevation submitted by your office indicates that the proposed development should be in the vicinity of 900 feet, therefore it should be compatible with these limitations. Due to its location on the extended centerline of Runway 29L, this proposal has been coordinated with our noise abatement personnel. They have expressed the - opinion that the proposed development seems compatible with aircraft and airport operations, however they would urge the developer to take into account in site layout and building design that the location is approximately 10,000 feet from the end of a major runway at an International airport and that the extended runway centerline will run almost directly over office building A and the motel/ restaurant. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions regarding these comments feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Nigel Finney Director of Planning & EngineerirT�J OFFICE LOCATION -6040 261h AVE SO.—WEST TERMINAL AREA—MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT cc: Dick Theisen - Mn/DDT Chauncey Case - Metro Council • � I .11 tiltt 66,E 4p J v Y c `I I I I }--- . • �JYJ.^'.��;�`T I�.J`vI✓�::Y\ •. ;,•i1'.� •'. JJJ _�� ♦ I I I Jit �- "•'ivy/ e�rLi � 'y �'�•`YK:•'� iJ � IL j�. • r. __ PROP. I-494 ama�mc•a®caammas®ra� SIX=. m Z= rX IMI XM 2=4Z= - �•-Lit>:) -': •^�'� �Y i �l:�h�;> �•1•i .��7�,7.,j �„�\ • .i-�� .•_•,��fn•y %I��-\ _ i 19 7r7 ® IP PARK J4 AGR �.I•J l•! {41 :+ RES. a � � � .•tom �• y - • .. � ISS • . -� _ ovi$ah X04 71VIN CVV"\,r RECEIVED J U L 3 1 1989 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 July 29, 1981 Mr. Dale Runkle, Planner City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Runkle: We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed I-494 Hotel/ Office development at such an early date in the process. As I indicated in an earlier letter and again at the July 1st meeting at your offices, the Council is concerned that any development on the property in question be compatible with the city comprehensive plan and the metro aviation system. From an overall planning perspective, the transition of this property from a prior agricultural use to a commercial use area is addressed in the city compreh nsive'plan and appears to be consistent with Council policy for the metro urban service area; however, based upon -the Aviation guide, the NOISEMAP study, and recent deliberations of the MC/MAC committee,' there are several Aviation related issues that need to be addressed. Because of its proximity to International Airport, the proposed project is affected by land use, airspace, and aircraft noise considerations. The project is entirely within land use safety zone (B) for runway 29L and as such, has a potentially significant effect upon the airport. Since the Council references 'In/DOT rules concerning safety zone (B) in its metro systems statement to Eagan, the project should be evaluated in light of the applicable Mn/DOT criteria for that zone, and zone (C). In the absence of such an evaluation, the project would in most likelihood be reviewed under the Metro Significance procedure. Continued .' L5;L- An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County o Dakota County o Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County -2 - It does not appear that the project is affected by height hazard zoning, but any development on this site is affected by aircraft arrival and departure noise and,.therefore, must take acoustic design of structures into account. For specific comments on areas and levels of noise impact, please refer to my May 12, 1981, letter and maps. If you have questions regarding any of this information, please call our offices. CC/nr cc: Nigel D. Finney - MAC Dick Theisen - Mn/DOT 153 Sincerely, Chauncey C. C. Case Transportation Planner OANESOr4 Pn a 97 FtiT 5Q OF TRPS Minnesotan Department of Transportation ?=,r1�1�!�s!i�a Transporta lion Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 296-8203 August 4, 1981 Mr. Dale C. Runkle City Planner, City of Eagan P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55112 Re: Minneapolis - St. Paul, International Airport - Development proposal Dear Mr. Runkle: We have reviewed the proposed development located South of Interstate 494 and West of Pilot Knob Road. The proposed development will be located in Zone B of our model zoning ordinance. The ordinance will impact the proposed development in the following way: 1.) Building plot area to site plot area, 2.) population density per acre, 3.) Height limitations and 4.) land use. I will take each in order and the impact to the sublots. 1. Building plot area to site plot area Sublot A: on site plots of 4 to 6 acres, the model zoning ordinance allows for a site plot area ratio to building area of 1Q:1. Since the parking ramp is considered a building, the building ratio of this sublot is only 6:1. If the ramp were changed to a surface parking lot, the ratio wou18 be in conformance ai: 15:1. Sublot B: The allowable building ratio for a site plot of 8 acres is 8:1. The ramp and office building are greater than 8:1 and therefore conforms with the model ordinance. Sublot C: The allowable ratio is 10:1 and proposed development for C is at 9.6:1. 2. Population density The maximum population density per the model zoning ordinance is 15 persons per acre. Using this as the standard, it appears that all three sublots will exceed the allowable maximum population density. /J t An Equal Opportunity Employer -RgD-J 0 Mr. Cale C. Runkle August 4, 1981 Page 2 3. Height Limitation The building heights as proposed will not exceed the height zoning limits. 4. Land Use Office buildings as proposed for sublot A and B, are compatible with the model zoning ordinance However, Motels are specifically excluded in the ordinance and therefore are not a compatible land use for sublot C. Thank you for tha opportunity to review the proposed develop- ment. If you have any questions, feel free to call or write. Si= erely, Gerald J. Rohrbach P.E. Regional Airport Engineer Room 417 155- • RSC .::� .i;iN j ? '1932 SEYMOUR B, OLSON ASSESSOR DAKOTA -DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 ST. PAUL ■PEa& June 16, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle Eagan City Planner 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 RE: AMCON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Dear Dale: Mr. Peter Stalland has asked me to send you some tax information on the proposed hotel/office complex at Highway 494 and Pilot Knob Road, For -lack of better data, I must base my tax estimate on the anticipated cost of the project. This type of estimate has limited accuracy, but may be sufficient for your purposes. Based on a projected cost of 28 million dollars, and using the current level of assessment and mill rate, I estimate the tax on the completed project would be $1,045,000 annually. Keep in mind that cost estimates generally run somewhat high, so this would probably set the upper range of tax revenues from the project. cc: Peter Stalland DH/ghp Sincerely, Donald E. Holm Chief Deputy Assessor 1$(::2 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER TELEPHONE. 1,12 4370200 0 0 RAVINE PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Chairman Hall next convened the public hearing regarding the application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning 19.1 acres from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow office/hotel complex on the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and I-494. Peter Stalland attorney, appeared for the land owner and described in detail the proposal, noting the Advisory Planning Comission had continued the application to request input from applicable state and metro agencies and also to acquire an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the liability issues relating to the application. He stated that in his opinion that there are no safety issues, that the application complies with FAA regulations and the current Eagan zoning Ordinance No. 52 and that the applicant is ready and willing to comply with the city requirements, and further, that the MnDOT regulations have not been adopted and that there are no other regulations that the proposal will conflict with. He noted, however, that certain provisions of the proposed MnDOT regulations regarding safety zoned construction adjacent to the Metropolitan Airport would not be complied with under the proposed proposal, but that those regulations are unduly re- strictive in some respects. There were no objections to the application. Member McCrea was concerned about densities and height differential of 600 feet above the building heights which she stated were somewhat minimal. She also noted the MnDOT and MAC letters in the packet recommending adoption of the MnDOT regulations and also stated that MAC opposes a motel on the site. Member Krob stated that MAC did not commit itself, although it said that if the application was granted that building construction and design should be compatible with appropriate safety issues. James Fortman of the MnDOT, Divi- sion of Aeronautics was present and stated that the minimal safety standard rules were prepared following the 1973 Legislature and that the MnDOT does not adopt regulations but only proposes them. He stated that the zoning boards of 94 of 141 municipally owned airports have adopted regulations throughout the state. Nigel Finney, representing the Metropolitan Airports Commission was present and answered questions of the Planning Commission members and others present. He stated that the building permits granted in Bloomington which appeared to conflict with the regulations proposed within safety zones that MAC had no contact with Bloomington when the buildings were constructed, but noted that at least one motel had been built since 1973 within the safety zones. Mr. Krob stated that he had concerns about health, safety and welfare but noted that the Planning Commission could act on the zoning application. There was discussion also about the Cray Research Plant approved in Mendota Heights. Elizabeth Witt, an Fagan City Intern and member of the Mendota Heights City Council was present and stated that the Mendota Heights City Council was fully aware of the impact of the safety zone but felt that it would not cause an obstruction in that location. Al Drenckhahn, aj neighboring owner, appeared and indicated that he had no objection to the proposal. The land to the south was zoned for motel -office use about 1968 to 1970. 1E APC Minutes June 22, 1982 After lengthy discussion, McCrea moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend denial of the application for reasons including the following: 1. Zoning Boards adjacent to 41 municipally owned airports throughout the State of Minnesota have adopted the MnDOT safety regulations and recom- mended that the City Council seriously consider the adoption of those regula- tions. 2. The Metropolitan Airport Zoning Board has not considered the issue in this case and it is suggested that the Zoning Board prepare appropriate regulations regarding the safety zones surrounding the Twin Cities Metropoli- tan Airport. 3. It was also noted that the Hotel complex density and the height of the proposed hotel could cause safety issues and that the state metropolitan agencies contacted regarding the proposal generally spoke in opposition to the proposal not meeting the provisions of the regulations proposed by MnDOT. 4. Further, more specifically subject to the Findings of Fact, Conclu- sions and the Recommendations, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes. The Cray Research Plant immediately north of Mendota Heights appears to be in a position that it does not create comparable obstruction. Mr. Stalland then stated that the out -state cities that have adopted the MnDOT regs are essentially rural in nature and further, he indicated that the runway affected by this safety zone is the longest runway and therefore has the longest safety zone. Those in favor were Wold, McCrea and Wilkins. Those against were Hall, Krob and Turnham. Chairman Hall indicated that all issues were covered by the Planning Commission and that the application will be sent to the Council without specific recommendation. NATIONAL BANK - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chairman Hall then convened the public hearing regarding the application of Northwestern National Bank for conditional use permit to allow a drive -up bank machine in the Cedarvale Shopping Center. Mr. Klutz was present on behalf of the applicant to explain the proposal. He noted that 3,500 units are proposed to be placed in approximately a 5 state area. There was discus- sion concerning vandalism and he indicated that the machines could be van- dalized, but there are alarms attached and they are also well lighted. There were no objections. Kroh moved, McCrea seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. -A detailed landscape plan as submitted by the applicant shall be approved and a landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. All voted yes. 6 is 9 •tiaUGi';. SMITE. L''IDE ATTORNEYS AT cI R>;L•. P. A. LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 PAUL H. HAUG EA DAN (ST. PAUL', MEMORA°U' MINNIAL HIGHWAY BRADLEY SMITH ESOTq 53122 KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER July 1, 1982 AREA CODE 612 TELEPHORE 494.4224 Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Tie Vote - Amcon Corporation Dear Tom: You have been asked to by the AdvisorAmcoy kedPlanning hav me Prepare rt mentis The'orPoration for approval of°p on Juneo22 reg rdinum concerning the vote to deny the application planning CO rezonin g thcule application in fact a recommendation and r quest ionmmission atfthatAgriingural to voted Planned of top_ 1 a reco Your meetin Develop tion to the Council, relates to whether 3-3 °D a 1. Must the Several this tie motion AlthSorl ou statute Plannin ion questions vote is, gh the Commiss seem to appear: Planning commissions dealing t,,ith make a reco must Planning, p,,s Imoendation to no control over the review and A. 462, indico the Council? final vote Consider applications es that e no sense in sendin advisor exceptare a is tfie Advisory Planning Commib°iOusly there . Persons g tfactsporcttion to er the Advisor There would six new back commissionis 2. What Present at tfie meeting hon June 22e are w Persons rY Planning Co n votin The nmlissio is the relevance of «._ APC had only which is a _ final `ne Counci�j L -Decause the stat "Uvisor Plannin Council decision. ' its vote atute provide Commission case included the Under °f course, does s that commission Robert's Rules of not have the APC only vote of the chairman b Drder bearing upon the Council can can only be looked at b ecause the a tie vote view it Y the Council aschairman which in this °r It but as a recommendatio is a member of the Rules X743 indicates an even n but without a plit tie vote. ndicates th „ number of specific The adoption is lost at °Q a tie votemembers for and againstotion favoring vote of the since a tie - then governing bod not a ma motion requiring a maj. Robe is a appear that 3orit for is sufficient to a ma.�°tit or City Council. to ado A• 462.357 approve Y vote of those pt a motion to requires ' a would a motion. Present at rezone. It would a Planning Commission meeting Very truly yours, skk Paul` 11- L' `Citi Hau$e 0 0 MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOOR FROM: DALE C. RUNYLE, CITY PLANNER QN�V DATE: JULY 1. 1982 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR RAVINE PLAZA PLANNED Since the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting there were some questions brought up which staff has tried to resolve or provide answers to prior to the City Council Meeting of July 6, 1982. Hopefully, this additional information will give the City Council some insight as to the way the City of St. Paul is looking at the safety ordinances. At the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 1982, Nigel Finney of Metropolitan Airports Commission had stated that the Joint Zoning Board has not yet met for Wold Chamberlain Airport, but has been initiated for the Downtown St. Paul Airport. Staff has followed up by contacting the Planning Department for St. Paul to find out what the status is of the Joint Zoning Board in regard the Downtown St. Paul Airport. It is staff's understanding that the Joint Zoning Board initiated approximately two years ago to study the Safety Zoning Ordinance and on June 4, 1981 a resolution was adopted by the St. Paul City Council in regard to three alternatives and how the City of St. Paul could amend the proposed Safety Ordinance and by a workable document within the City of St. Paul. Alternative One was to increase the density and heighth of buildings in the B Zone in order that the City of St. Paul can develop the property in accordance to their overall plan. Alternative Two was to reduce the size of the B Zone in order to develop in accor- dance with the City's overall plan. Alternative Three is to eliminate the B Zone altogether because of certain circumstances and therefore the B Zone would not effect the development proposed in the City of St. Paul. It is staff's understanding that Alternatives One & Two have been informally rejected by Minnesota Department of Transportation and there has yet to be any official or unofficial comments in -regard to Alternative Three. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution and alternatives which the City of St. Paul is trying to proceed with in regard to developing the area which would be encom- passed in the proposed B Zone of the Dowtown St. Paul Airport. Staff would like to point out that the Joint Zoning Board has been in process for Approximately two years and that there has not been any adoption of any safety zones at the present time. If the City of Eagan is just beginning to formalize the Joint Zoning Board for Wold Chamberlain Airport, it could be another two years from the initiation of this zoning board to the time any formal ordinances are adopted by the surrounding communities. The last item staff would like to point out is that the City of St. Paul is having problems with the restrictions of the proposed Safety Ordinance in regard to practi- cality and development in the City of St. Paul. The City of Eagan would probably run in to the same situation in regard to the enforcement of the Safety Zone Ordinance as it pertains to development within the City of Eagan. /60 0 0 Page 2 Since the June 22, 1982 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting the City has received a resolution by the Dakota County Chamber of Commerce. Enclosed is a copy of the resolution for your review. It is staff's understanding that there are other comments coming in from the business community in the City of Fagan. At this time the City has not received these letters, but if they are received prior to the July 6 meeting, they will be passed on to you at the July 6, 1982 City Council Meeting. 161 st•n lcJ (iy Referred To eg,asr'l _Resohitio pzool!D1- Committee: Dole — Out of Committee By_ Date WHEREAS, Holman Field is an airport under the control and jurisdiction of the -Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC); and WHEREAS, MAC is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.063, subd. 3(5), to create a joint airport zoning board for each airport operated under its authority for the purpose of adopting zoning regulations fpr the "airport hazard area"; and WHEREAS, MAC has appointed a joint airport zoning board for Holman Field consisting of representatives from St. Paul, West St. Paul and MAC, which board has requested that each member -city propose airport hazard zoning regulations and building height limits for its respective city limits; and WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Planning Commission has studied the Minnesota Department of Transportation airport hazard area zoning guidelines as they impact on the area surrounding and adjacent to the Holman Field, and has recommended zoning regulations which are an alternative to the Department's guidelines, and has recom- mended that the City Council forward these 'recommendations to the joint zoning board, the MAC and the Department of Transportation; now, -therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Saint Paul City Council does hereby concur in the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission as contained in the document entitled "Holman Field: Airport Develop- ment Controls Alternatives Report", and the subsequent report of the Chairman of the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1981, and these recommendations shall lie forwarded to the joint zoning board, MAC and the Department of Transportation for their consideration and implementation. COUNCILMEN us Nays T Hunt t..vin. In Favor Maddon s,,`M°iwver cy Against Teoetco Wilton pled by Council: Date JUN 4 19R1 uhod P/oxspd by Counci�crctjrL `UN 5 by Havor: De( ._ Requeslgd by Department of: M Form Approved By Approved by /6 7. By — — i• rot Submission to Council ^ j • C1 1"Y FLANNING CUlvavuz).alu,r Thomas P. FitzGibbon. Jr.. Chairman 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Mfnne+ota 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612.298•41'.1 MAYOR April 10, 1981 REPORT TO: Mayor Latimer Council President Maddox Members of the City Council; 4 FROM: Thomas P. FitzGibbon, Jr. VtRig— Chairman, St. Paul Planning Commission SUBJECT: Airport Development Controls for Downtown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) As you are aware, the City Planning Commission, through its Economic Development Committee, has been wrestling with a.means of controlling development in the vicinity of Holman Field for safety purposes. It has not been an easy task, given the airport's proximity to so many areas of the city.where we have been encouraging development and trying to increase populations. After months of diligent work and discussions with airport users, with state and federal agencies concerned with airport operations and safety, with doe+ntown and neighborhood development interests and with other interested citizens, the Commission is recommending that the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board consider the following series of development controls. The Commission has studied the requirements for Safety Zones recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and has concluded that they will- be difficult to implement. Holman Field is unique by virtue of its location in the region and city and its function in,the regional airport system. Consequently, it requires careful study and unique applications of safety zones. The Planning Commission has attempted to do just this by analyzing affected areas of the city and determining where and how the development potential of these areas can be maximized. The Commission is recommending that development be encouraged in the affected areas, but only at densities and heights that will not impair the safe and efficient operations of Holman Field. The Commission believes that these are the most practical and realistic means of adequately meeting the safety requirement of the airport without inhibiting the development and improvement potentials of downtown., the hest Side and Dayton's Bluff: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS The Commission suggests modifying the safety zones to fit current and future developner as well as raising the height limitations. Informal comments from MnDOT and MAC indicate -that this may be acceptable to them. The recommended modifications are as follows. Please refer to the report entitled Holman Field: Airport Development Controls Alternatives Report to clarify discussion. 1. A NEW LAND USE SAFETY ZONE ALTERNATIVE, B -4(a) (page 14) Redefine the boundaries of the safety zones to allow for expected development at .identified sites. This alternative is essentially that described in AlternativE 0-4 on page 14, but the configuration of the Zones (mapped on page 15) would be changed thusly: /63 • -2- • A. Runway 14 (proposed): A zone to extend from the runway to the Third Street bridge, recommended by MnDOT. This would establish a "clear zone" across the river to the Third Street Bridge. No permanent structures nor large assemblages of people would be permitted. This recommendation does not call for a B Zone beyond the Third Street Bridge. As suggested by the Commission, development.north of the bridge would be unrestricted. B. Runway 8: A zone to extend from the runway to the wast property line ' at State Street. This would shorten the recommended clear zone from 2,433 feet to 2,000 feet... B Zone to extend from the west property line at State Street. to the line recommended by MnDOT, except for a portion of Concord Te -race, which should be classified as'an "Established Residential Neighborhood in Built Up Areas", per MnDOT standards. ;. This would convert about 7, acres of Port Authority property from an A Zone to a B Zone to allow for controlled development of a prime Port Authority parcel and would allow for easy rehabilitation and infill development. in Concord Terrace. C. Remaining Runways:. A and B Zones to remain intacf, as recommended by tMOT. The C Zones in the city would also remain intact. It.is further recommended that whatever existing structures within the proposed A Zones be allotied to pursue expansion or improvement potentials.: These would be exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. Areas affected by this recommendation include isolated property in the Runway 12 (NW) A Zone; and parts of Barge Terminal #1"that lie in the A Zones for Runways 26 (E) and 30 (SE). 2. ALTERNATIVE C.1 (page 16) - 20:1 -APPROACH SLOPE TO RUNWAYS 12 AND 14 (proposed) This recommendation would define a steeper runway approach to the two northerly* runways. The steeper approach would allow for somewhat higher development in the Lowertown area and Space Center complex. Lowertotin is the part of the city most severely impacted by the MnDOT safety zones. Under the MnDOT recommendations, little could be built over four stories.. The Commissionis recommending a sliding scale of heights; lower closer to the river (and runway), with increased height closer to I-94. The range would be approximately 4-6 stories at the Union Depot to 19-20 stories at the Farmer's Market site. 3. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (b) (page 16) - DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO 40' ABOVE THE GROUND FAA regulations refer to hest Side, Dayton's Bluff and Highwood neighborhoods as "nonconforming" to safety standards because the.bluff heights alone violate the clear air zones recommended by FAA. As such, all housing or public improvements in these areas would require FAA variances to take place. The Committee felt. that was silly, and recommends that the FAA redefine its standards at these locations to avoid the administrative headaches they would create. /.4 a ANNA t rl r � 1 • % DOWNTOWN AIRPORT .. i ALTERNATIVE B.4(a): REDEFINE BOUNDARIES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ZONE A -NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE B -LIMITED DEVELOPMENT �657 /////. ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ``,� The recommendation would allow for unhindered.housing rehabilitation and develop mei plus other contemplated public improvements to a height of 40.feet above the ground. This is more than adequate to deal with existing residential uses. Building taller than 40 feet could be subject to variance. 4. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (c) (page 19):' CREATE DOWNTOWN HEIGHT Z014ES BASED ON EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS This alternative'is that described in Alternative C.2 (c) on page 19, but the configuration of the zones (mapped on page 18) would be changed to those on the attached map. Under the Commission's proposal, the 1st National Bank Tower becomes the effective ceiling for downtaa6 heights, except in areas of downtown between the bank and the airport. In.these areas, height limits are defined by the height of the Post Office, or the Minnesota Mutual Building. The many discussions the Commission has had regarding this issue have exposed a number of concerns about the•airport, previous planning that has been done for it, and the process and rules by which the State Legislature is requiring that safety zones be established. The Commission feels it is imperative to pass on its observatic and reservations for your information and consideration. 1. THE AIRPORT ITSELF - While the Holman Field site doesn't easily fit the needs of a busy urban airport, the Commission doesn't believe that it is realistic or advisable to recommend closing or moving the airport. Although it is difficull to document, we think that having the airport here is probably "worth it". It's already here; it's not going away and we have, therefore, focused on living with it while mitigating its adverse impacts. In doing so, we want.to point out the extraordinary lengths.to which citizens and businesses of the city must go to accommodate the. facility. 2. AIRPORT PLANNING - The Commission has numerous reservations about the development program at the airport. It appears that the new alignment of runways was establi! with little understanding of the economic impact of lost development in the safety zones. It is evident that the proposed new longer runway in a north - south orientation is needed and advisable from the perspective of aircraft operations and noise. However, the total new runway layout leaves the northwast- southeast runway open and allows planes to take off and land directly over do,:,ntm It seems that safety and noise considerations would dictate that such downto,:rn approaches be abandoned. With the northwest -southeast runway open, the city has little option in securing safety but to impose unwanted development restrictic If the safety of downtown buildings is paramount, it should be easier and more effective to insure that planes don't have to fly over the dowmtowrn. Unfortunate' past planning for the airport did not account for this point. 3. STATE PROCESSES AND RULES - According to almost all parties involved, the state standards against which our proposal for safety areas will be measured are unusually strict for areas such as St. Paul. For Holman Field they require 1� safety zones of little or no development that are ten times larger than those required by the federal government. Federal standards for runway approach zones -0* would allow most buildings to be up to 50% higher than the state standards. The s y state standards are also the strictest (and, therefore, also provide the most safety) of any state in the nation. It is evident that they are intended for X66 I YANNAPOQS-TST.— --FF 1 I ALTERNATIVE C.2.c.: DO4INTOWN HEIGHT ZONES BASED ON EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS 350 HEIGHT LI141T (FEET ABOVE AIRPORT) DOWNTOWN AI R PQRT Clf • -6- new airports in undeveloped areas. Given existing topography and development around Holman Field, it is impossible to meet all the standards recommended for safety zones by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Even if we could meet all the standards, the potential for lost development in extremely large safety zones is compelling. Not all federal standards are acceptable. In fact, they also put severe developmen• constraints on downtown. Nor is the safety of the flying public and airport neighbors an inconsequential concern in controlling development around the airport. It obviously is the most important consideration in decision-making.' However, the many discussions of this issue has led the Planning Counission.to the follow -Ing conclusions: A. The MnDOT standards for safety zones around state airports are overly.conservat• especially when applied to Holman Field. 'There is no reason to believe that this airport is presently unsafe, despite the many "violations" of state and federal standards that exist. B. The city should recognize that maximum intensities of development cannot take place right up to the end of the runways, and that public safety demands that development in the vicinity of..the airport be somewhat less than would normally be desired. C. It is possible and advisable to strike a compromise: Allow for development in areas where realistic development potential exists; at the same time, .prohibit or limit— development in areas to meet federal standards and in areas where development should not be expected. This -would establish safety zon-as that are broader and more comprehensive than the federal zones and somewhat less than what MnDOT requires. Such an approach would result .in a downtown airport whose safety zones would extend farther than most, but not so far to unreasonably restrict development. This is the theory behind the Planning Commission recommendations; creating flexible development controls that ,are tailored to the specifics of surrounding environment and aircraft operations at this particular. airport. D. Airport safety is a more subjective topic than a technical one. It is very difficult to build adequate safety into an airport by simply moving lines . around on a map. The Commission thinks MnDOT and the FAA should re-evaluate their standards and spend more time working with effected communities to deal with issues at specific airports and sites. The current'practices of establish' and then attempting to enforce unworkable standards lead only to frustrat'')n and acrimony of both sides of the table. It certainly does not get us anv closer to the system of safe, efficient airports that we all desire. The Planning Commission has studied the state requirements and recommended development controls for Holman Field that respond to specific restrictions and concerns. Our solution to the issue will work. /68 city of saint Paul planning commission resolution Tile number 81-11 date Anri1 1n. 1981 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.061 through 360 surrounding Downtown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) be of airport hazards; and 0 .074 requires that the property regulated to prevent creation WHEREAS. the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has requested that St. Paul join with it and other affected municipalities in the creation of a.joint Airport Zoning Board for purposes of establishing airport development controls for Holman Field; and WHEREAS, the St. Paul City Council has resolved to participate in the Holman Field 'Joint Airport Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the Joint Zoning Board has asked the City of St. Paul to recommend to it a development ordinance that would control appropriate lands in St. Paul; and WHEREAS, .the St. Paul Planning Commission, working with; h1AC, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, airport users, and airport neighbors, has studied alternative options For airport area development controls, based on statewide standards established by the Mn DOT; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing for purposes of determining the most appropriate development controls to be recommended to the Joint Zoning Board; a r.� WHEREAS, many members of the Planning Commission and the public have expressed concern with the State processes and standards that are reconmiended for consideration in establishing development controls; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Paul its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and Holman Field: Airport Development Controls Altern Of April 10, 1981. City Planning Commission reports City Council in the attached document atives Report and subsequent report BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission express its reservations about the state process and standards regarding this issue to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration in transmitting the city's recommendation to the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board. moved by McDonel l 6 seconded by Kadri e 0 0 June 30, 1982 Mr. Dale Runkle, City Planner City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Amcon Application for Rezoning for Hotel and Building Complex Dear Mr. Runkle: Please find enclosed a resolution adopted by the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce, and signed by the Executive Director, Catherine L. DeCourcy. Your prompt consideration of this matter, and the consideration of the City Council of the city of Eagan will be sincerely appreciated. Yours' truly_, Catherine L. DeCourcy, Executive Director NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE C L D : n r 170 33 E. Wentworth Ave. • Suite 101 • West St. Paul. Minnesota 55118 • 4574921 EAGAN • LILYDALE 0 MENDOTA • MENDOTA HEIGHTS 9 WEST ST. PAUL NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS it has come to the attention of the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce that Amcon, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, has made application to the Eagan City Council for a rezoning of agricultural to plan development for that certain piece of property located approximately at the corner of the new proposed 494 Interstate Freeway and Pilot Knob Road; and WHEREAS said application for rezoning is for the purpose of constructing a 225 (approximately) room hotel and two office buildings; and WHEREAS based on the projected total cost of the project of $28,000,000, said hotel would favorably support the tax base in Dakota County and generate substantial monies for Minnesota School District 197; and WHEREAS said hotel project would benefit and enhance Dakota County busi- nesses and employment opportunities; and WHEREAS that although the projected hotel site is beneath the direct path of aircraft approaches to a Wold -Chamberlain Airport runway, it does not violate any existing aeronautical state or federal law. NOW THEREFORE be it hereby RESOLVED, that the Northern Dakota County Chamber of Commerce does hereby recommend to the Eagan City Council to approve Amcon, Inc.'s application for rezoning from agricultural to plan development and further to approve all subse- quent conditional use and building permits for said hotel and office building project. Dated thisJ-L day of,u.l, 1982. Approved By: J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty-two FINAL PLAT FOR COMSERV #1 D. Comsery #1 Final Plat -- All items necessary for the approval of the Comsery #1 Addition final plat have been submitted, reviewed and approved by City staff and all conditions placed on the pre- liminary plat have been complied with. However, recent discussions with the developer indicate that a technical legal description on the Torrence property must be redescribed through district court action prior to allowing the recording of this plat. With the developer trying to move as fast as he can through the court system, it would be appropriate for the Council to approve the final plat at this date to allow it to be recorded as soon as the title problem is satisfactorily resolved. In order to allow the City to proceed with the award of the contract for the installation of streets and utilities, the developer will be granting a blanket easement and a right of entry to allow the City to proceed with this work. This easement will expire upon the official recording of the plat. Enclosed on page j"7'j is a copy of the final plat for your con- sideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the final plat for Comsery #1 Addition and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents. 171 ,.,; ,.•:..::,�::Y::,:i,:::�� ,.:n .::;..e...............m..,::.,�.,�,..Y.,.Y,\.. COMSERV , m u,.. ;.. 1 u 1, Y ADDITION ' 1:u eI /,: 1 ••`I , eI :° , w •a! • s 1,u n u; . ua p °^ a/,.. Y 1 » ',...........Ir. /v// •wn; Wln, il,°iO°u •'/u ul:l�un4.'u •Ilul v1.:. w.. ••e. /IY� / if W,\, •011• .\0: ; ,°!1. 0 1•i°i°u ,,LPJ ,•L:........ ,... i;c : ;ice - .:,:• �� / iYr.e �1+5 � r'`,'\ �t„p\q\[ ��/ e w ;:uw u'•::y • w.. w , •�ryu W;O .IJ .n. mu uw e. ..ia°r: bn .a �Y::r W a : p:;:. //` de �'� Tly �Ip�J T�• ` wa,e`•;a emw .0 ::.,.°r. w Ye./. i:i::..m u. /ruai,.•:M , unr °.....e.° °, .n.°. s • .. /VIJY / , P �� bw =r u. w:... an.•`• r —.. iuY` .. W»........... .... W ............... a ..., W/, /'a/-______\,_ ....�.�wr .� I ,''� 's,, /"�J'Y:°..`J°,w.�`•°::m Y.. :v[:i. °i:.aa.wl,. .> :id.•: f == i' •,,; .. :: a : ,:�:,:...:\... .,. L,....,::, tl ...L..W a :°:: c':W ......... OUR= � ! •Im `I '1• ; I _ S \1' O .°.pp.e../ al. Y •1 f e. pu , Cwnr. / J ai J • w.i.u^ ..+wr �n (s./r .rw..wuesvli % � m •....an or... om.w`..r.na uwe.f / w 'e .YW / BL. RINi M Ii9.9 •f % ow e.. m u..Wa ..urm RON K.PU6664 AND AtSSC.0/ATHS LAND 6URVASVuaa um.....Y. i Y L Y:1.`• � _ . X01 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Three ADDLTIONALB, LTEMSb CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION UPDATE A. Cable Television Commission Update -- The last regular meeting of the Burnsville/Eagan Joint Cable Commission was held on June 14 and a report was given at the June 15 City Council meeting. Since there has not been any action taken by the joint commission and the next meeting is scheduled for July 8, 1982, there more than likely will not be an update. CITY HALL EXPANSION UPDATE B. City Hall Expansion Update/Citizen Committee Update -- Jack Boarman of Boarman Architects is planning to be present to make a brief review of the City Hall expansion progress. It is antici- pated that some plans will be available for review. If there is not adequate time to review the plans in as much detail as the City Council desires, they can be reviewed as a part of a special meeting in the next week or two. The first meeting of the Citizens' Advisory Committee was held at the Eagan Police Department on June 22, 1982. There was excellent attendance at the meeting with 19 of the 21 persons in attendance. Mayor Blomquist received a request from Paul Uselmann to serve on the committee and she has asked that his name be included. There are now 22 names on the advisory committee. A copy is enclosed on page 1-75' for your reference. The only two persons absent at the first meeting, both of whom had previous commitments, were Sannee Klein and Lois Van Dyke. A history was given by the City Administrator and additional infor- mation about the current plans and development of a referendum was provided by the architect. There were excellent questions asked by the committee members, requiring some additional background which will be provided at their next regular meeting. The committee is planning to meet at 8:00 p.m. to tour the offices with the archi- tect the night of the water treatment hearing on July 13, 1982. There is no apparent action required on this item at this time, unless so requested by the architect. 1 �4 CITY OF EAGAN CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY HALL & FIRE STATION EXPANSION David G. Ashfeld Sannee Klein 1813 Turquoise Trail 4070 Dodd Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55123 454-3898 454-1611 Karen Flood Thomas R. Kniefel 1518 Lone Oak Road 1769 Hickory Hill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55122 454-2631 454-1048 Roger W. Fredlund Marilyn Lancette 3650 Knoll Ridge Drive 1720 Crestridge Lane Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 454-1194 452-2678 Paul Gooding Charlotte McPherson 1312 Wilderness Run Drive 4344 Sandstone Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55122 452-2546 454-1772 John Gustin William J. Rydrych 3061 Woodlark Lane 1330 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Eagan, MN 55123 452-7865 454-4490 Arlene Hoffmann Gordon E. Schramm 1813 Cinnabar Court 4171 Rahn Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 454-3151 454-3726 Howard Johnson Win K. Scott Tires Plus 1664 Hickory Hill Drive New Cedar at Diffley Road Eagan, MN 55122 Eagan, MN 55122 452-4061 454-8174 Gerry Chapdelaine 575 Chapel Lane Eagan, MN 55121 454-2533 Paul Uselmann 3021 Woodlark Ln Eagan, MN 55121 Loren Spande Bernie Joyce 4515 Oak Chase Road 1167 Timbershore Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55123 454-6948 454-1457 Lois Van Dyke Elaine Karel 1300 Kolstad Lane 1929 Jade Lane Eagan, MN 55123 Eagan, MN 55122 452-2386 454-1501 Fran Winkel Vincent J. Kennedy 1575 McCarthy Road 1415 Lone Oak Road Eagan, iNIN 55121 Eagan, MN 55121 454-1771 454-4545 I -7S Gerry Chapdelaine 575 Chapel Lane Eagan, MN 55121 454-2533 Paul Uselmann 3021 Woodlark Ln Eagan, MN 55121 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Four CONTRACT 82-3 C. Contract 82-3, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Oster Addition & Storland Road utilities) -- At 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, the City staff officially opened bids for Contract 82-3. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed on page 1-17 for the Council's information. The bid tabulation references the bids received in relationship to the estimated construction costs con- tained in the original feasibility report presented at the public hearing for the referenced projects. The alternate bid provided for the construction of "B 6-18 Concrete Curb & Gutter (Vertical Curb)" in lieu of the surmountable curb and gutter along Skyline Drive. The reason surmountable concrete curb and gutter is instal- led in this subdivision is due to the fact that future driveway openings cannot be anticipated. The vertical curb (B 6-18) is desirable from a drainage containment standpoint, traffic control and snowplow maintenance. With the properties along Skyline Drive being developed and permanent driveways located, it would be feasi- ble to install this vertical type curbing along Skyline Drive for future extension to the west. This would result in an additional $950 (0.9%) to the contract amount. Due to the excellent bids received for this project, the cost would still be less that what was estimated in the feasibility report at the time of public hearing. Subsequently, staff is recommending that B 6-18 concrete curb and gutter (vertical curb) be installed along Skyline Drive and that the contract be awarded with the alternate bid. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To Encon utilities, Inc., in the amount of $110,018 and authorize the Mayor and City contract agreements. !76 award Contract 82-3 to the alternate bid of Clerk to execute the OSTER NICOLS CONTRACTORS u [TION PROJECT SND ROAD - PR( nAn - PTMP nA 0 Our File No. 49244 50 - UTILITY & STREET IMP 7CT 350 WATER MAIN IMPROVE DRIVE - PRESSURE REDUCING ONTRACT NO. 82-3 1. Encon Utilities Inc. 2. Richard Knutson Inc. 3. Nodland Associates Inc. 4. Erwin Montgomery Construction 5. Orfei & Sons, Inc. 6. Alexander Construction Co. 7. Austin P. Keller Construction B. Hardrives Inc. 9. McNamara Vivant Contracting 10. Valley Paving Inc. 11. Bituminous Roadways BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ TOTAL BASE BID Without Alternate With Alternate $109,068.00 $110,018.00 109,284.10 110,234.10 114,535.00 115,010.00 117,647.50 118,597.50 118,953.63 119,903.63 . . 69,380 NO BID $13,500 NO BID . . 68,061 NO BID 21,160 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ $101,300 Project 350 Project 352 Nicols Rd Feasibility Report . . . . . . . . . $85,640 $18,840 - Engineer's Estimate . . . . . . . . 69,380 18,440 $13,500 Low Bid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,061 19,847 21,160 (Alternate) . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 % (+) over or (-) under . . . . . . -19% +5.35% N A 1-77 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Five CONTRACT 82-5 D. Contract 82-5, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Comsery #1 Streets & Utilities) -- At 10:45 a.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1982, the City staff officially opened bids for Contract 82-5. A copy of the bid tabulation is enclosed on page 179 for the Council's informa- tion. The low bid was submitted by Rauenhorst Corporation in the amount of $496,803.00. This amount is under the engineer's estimate of $546,800. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To award Contract 82-5 to Rauenhorst Corporation in the amount of $496,803.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract agreements. 171 0 FeasibilityReport Engineer's Estimate 546,830 Our File No. 49252 Low Bid 496,803 a + over or - under -11.46 COMSERV NO. I UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 356 CITY CONTRACT NO. 82-5 EAGAN, MINNESOTA BID TIME: 10:45 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID 1. Rauenhorst Corporation $496,803.00 2. Richard Knutson Inc. 518,545.00 3. Enebak Construction 519,054.00 4. Buesing Bros. Inc. 529,319.50 5. Brown & Cris Inc. 553,511.00 6. Engin Montganery Construction 556,729.00 7. Orfei & Sons Inc. 596,033.47 8. Alexander Construction NO BID 9. Barbarossa & Sons Inc. NO BID 10. Enoon Utilities Inc. NO BID 11. Hardrives Inc. NO BID 12. Austin P. Keller Construction NO BID 13. McNamara Vivant Contracting -Co. NO BID 14. Nodland Associates Inc NO BID 15. Northdale Construction NO BID 16. Park Construction NO BID 17. Lametti & Sons Inc. NO BID 18. Bituminous _Roadways Inc NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE------------ $546.800 »9 0 0 Agenda Information Memo July 2, 1982 Page Twenty -Six AMENDMENT FOR OFF SALE LIQUOR LICENSE POLICY E. Kraus Anderson Request for Amendment to the Off Sale Liquor License Policy to Allow Issuance of More than One License in the North Central Part of the City -- The City has received a request from Rod McKenzie, Director of Leasing for Kraus Anderson Realty, as to whether the City Council would give any consideration to an amendment to the liquor license policy to allow issuance of more than one license in the north central part of the City. Enclosed on page pg is is a copy of the Kraus Anderson letter. Also enclosed on pages Ig% through Ig is a copy of the liquor license policy. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny any amend- ment to the liquor license policy to allow an expansion of the number of licenses in one or more geographic areas. s/Thomas L. Hedges ity ministrator 110 0 0 KRAUS-ANDERSON REAliriff COMPANY DEVELOPMENT* LEASING• MANAGEMENT June 11, 1982 Mayor Blomquist 6 City Council Members City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 RE: PILOT KNOB SHOPPING CENTER Dear Mayor Blomquist 6 City Council Members: We are presently working on obtaining the major tenants of the proposed Pilot Knob Shopping Center, located on Pilot Knob Road and Duckwood Drive. In working with M.G.M. Liquor, we find there could be some problems in obtaining a liquor license for this location. M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse would be one of the anchor tenants of the center with 12,000 square feet. The center will have three major tenants, as a center of this size requires three majors to give the support of customer traffic for the smaller stores. This type of a tenant generates a customer that frequently visits the center and soon establishes a buying habit with all the tenants within the center, in turn, making the center a strong and viable asset to the community. We would appreciate any consideration the City of Eagan can give to us whereby enabling us to obtain M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse as a major tenant. Sincerely, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY Rod McKenzie Senior Director of Leasing RM/ Imt cc: Burton F. Dahlberg, Executive Vice President 181 523 SOUL Ei; hLh SLreei • YlinneapuIis, '%Iinnesota 55404 • (612)332-1391 0 0 C CITY OF EACAN LIQUOR LICENSE POLICIES Adopted February 22, 1973 Amended September 21, 1976, December 19, 1979, January 3, 1980, March 4, 1980 and February 3, 1981. OFF—SALE LIQUOR 1) Pour off—sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time in the City of Eagan. The City reserves the right to space liquor licenses in geographic commercial areas and not concentrate licenses in a single area. The following locations describe the geographic considerations: a) Two licenses shall be allowed in the general western area of the City (near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13). b) One license shall be allowed in the general northeastern area of the City. c) One license shall be allowed in the general_ south—central area of the City. 2) Off—sale licenses shall be limited to property zoned Commercial. ON—SALE LIQUOR 1) Number a) A total of twelve (12) on—sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time. 2) Value (Note 1) a) No on—sale liquor license shall be allowed for any establishment unless the investment in the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license is equal to or greater than $200,000. In the event the on—sale liquor establishment is part of a larger building containing other uses, the value shall be arrived at by prorating the value of the total building on a square footage basis. Value is to be determined on items considered by the County Assessor to be "real property", as differentiated from fixtures. 0 0 3) Food Service (Note 1) a) All establishments which hold an "on -sale" liquor license must maintain a ratio of food sales to liquor sales of at least 40-60%. Such establishments shall file with the City at the end of each quarter a verified statement as to the food to liquor sales ratio. Failure to maintain the minimum ratio for any quarter is grounds for the City Council to determine that the license is in violation of the Eagan Liquor Ordinance No. 42 and also is grounds for revocation of the license. b) Food service must consist of a "reasonable" choice of full meals, and shall not be limited to "quick service" items such as pizza, sand- wiches, hamburgers, etc. 4) Location (Note 1) a) On -sale liquor licenses shall be limited to commercially or industrially zoned property, under a conditional use permit. 5) Exceptions a) Where the license requests are made for establishments which are an integral part of a motel or hotel of over 60 rooms, or in which the value of the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license exceeds $500,000, special exemption from the ,limit ;• of twelve (12) total on -sale liquor licenses may be granted. General These policies shall be reviewed on a yearly basis. Note 1: On -sale establishments existing at the date of incorporation of Eagan as a Village are exempt from these requirements. I$3 9 0 CITY OF EACAN LIQUOR LICENSE POLICIES Adopted February 22, 1973 Amended September 21, 1976, December 19, 1979, January 3, 1980, March 4, 1980 and February 3, 1981. OFF -SALE LIQUOR 1) Four off -sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time in the City off. The City reserves the right to space liquor licenses it geographic commercial areas and not concentrate licenses in a single area. The following locations describe the geographic considerations: a) Two licenses shall be allowed in the ,general western area of the City (near Cedar Avenue and Highway 13). b) One license shall be allowed in the general northeastern area of the City. c) One license shall be allowed in the general south-central area of the City. 2) Off -sale licenses shall be limited to property zoned Commercial. ON -SALE LIQUOR 1) Number a) A total of twelve (12) on -sale liquor licenses shall be allowed at the present time. 2) Value (Note 1) a) No on -sale liquor license shall be allowed for any establishment unless the investment in the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license is equal to or greater than $200,000. In the event the on -sale liquor establishment is part of a larger building containing other uses, the value shall be arrived at by prorating the value of the total building on a square footage basis. Value is to be determined on items considered by the County Assessor to be "real property", as differentiated from fixtures. IIL 0 0 ]) Food Service (Note 1) a) All establishments which hold an "on—sale" liquor license must maintain a ratio of food sales to liquor sales of at least 40-60%. Such establishments shall file with the City at the end of each quarter a verified statement as to the food to liquor sales ratio. Failure to maintain the minimum ratio for any quarter is grounds for the City Council to determine that the license is in violation of the Eagan Liquor Ordinance No. 42 and also is grounds for revocation of the license. , b) Food service must consist of a "reasonable" choice of full meals, and shall not be limited to "quick service" items such as pizza, sand— wiches, hamburgers, etc. 4) Location (Note 1) a) On—sale liquor licenses shall be limited to commercially or industrially zoned property, under a conditional use permit. 5) Exceptions a) Where the license requests are made for establishments which are an integral part of a motel or hotel of over 60 rooms, or in which the value of the building or portion of the building associated with the liquor license exceeds $500,000, special exemption from the .limit of twelve (12) total on—sale liquor licenses may be granted. General These policies shall be reviewed on a yearly basis. Note 1: On—sale establishments existing at the date of incorporation of Eagan as a Village are exempt from these requirements. 1%3 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 2, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL Water Treatment Plant Public Hear The City Administrator and Director of Public Works, with the assistance of the interns, have prepared a press release which appeared in the last issue of the Eagan Chronicle advertising the proposed water treatment plant hearing scheduled for July 13, 1982. There is additional information which will be printed in the Eagan Chronicle during the next two issues to fully inform the public as to the hearing date and also the fact that a hearing is scheduled. The hearing is scheduled for the City Hall, realising that at both the public hearing and the date upon which the City Council had proposed to take action on the water treatment plant the City Council chambers would have had adequate space for the persons attending these meetings. If the City staff or City Council is aware of a large delegation planning to be present for the pro- posed hearing, efforts would be made to change the location. En- closed on pages 115 through -I-0- is a copy of the revised report. The City Administrator did inform the City Council at the special meeting held on June 21 that the original action of March 16, 1982 did include a condition that a survey would be sent out to the public and a newsletter that was sent out this spring did indicate the same condition. However, it was the feeling of the City Council that since a survey had been sent out and a public hearing had been held and not many facts were changing for this newly scheduled public hearing, it would not be necessary to send out another survey. The Director of Public Works and City Administrator will make every effort to provide the information that would have gone out in a newsletter through press releases in the Eagan Chronicle and Dakota County Tribune. Vandalism It was reported to the City Administrator on June 24 by the Director of Parks & Recreation that apparently forty to fifty feet of hockey rink boards at the Well Site Hockey Rink were stolen on the night of June 23, 1982. The report has been given to the Police Depart- ment and an investigation is underway. I V4 • Informational Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two Street Rod Association National Rall Mayor Blomquist has been asked to address a local chapter of the Street Rod Association in the City of Eagan at 4:00 p.m. on July 13, 1982. The Street Rod Association National Rally is scheduled to begin at that time and there are expected to be several thousand cars in the metropolitan area for several days and the following weekend. Green Acres Enclosed on page 21' is a memo from the City Attorney's office regarding the Gree—n--Wcres property tax that helps to address part of the question raised by the City Council at a recent meeting. Also enclosed on page is a list of Green Acre qualifications as received from the Dakota County Auditor's office. A report listing all property in the City currently having green acres status first by property owner and second by location is enclosed on pages �1q through WI for your information. There is a total of approximately 1;674 acres on the list. A 1981 study showed 21,546 acres of land in the City, although a more meaningful relationship would be between the green acred amount and assessed acres rather than total acres. Cedar Elementary School Enclosed on pages�g through $ 5 is a copy of a letter the City Administrator and Mayor received from Independent School District #191 as to the letter of intent to rent the building. Since the City Council has been so close to this issue, it seemed appropriate to provide a copy of the letter for your review. MTC Enclosed on page _ S� is a letter of response regarding Route #57 to the Minnesota Zoological Gardens as requested by the City Council at a recent City Council meeting. Loan to Lender Program Mayor Blomquist and the City Administrator met with the mayors and administrators of Apple Valley and Burnsville to review the Loan to Lender Program with Carol Schultz, Executive Director of the HRA, at a breakfast meeting on June 24, 1982. The Cities of Burnsville and Eagan are less than enthusiastic about the program while the City of Apple Valley is lukewarm to encouraged by the prospects of the program. The City Administrator will prepare a brief report outlining additional facts that have been reviewed since the joint City Council meeting in Apple Valley and also the discussion at the mayors' breakfast. This report will be sent out sometime after the July 6 meeting, and if desired, some addi- tional time can be given to this subject at a special meeting in the future. aIS-- 0 • Informational Memo July 2, 1982 Page Two Paratransit Study The final report for the paratransit demonstration study was pre- sented to the staff at a June 23 meeting held in the Eagan City Hall and then that same evening at the Apple Valley Pool and Racquet Club to the Joint Paratransit Committee. The Joint Paratransit Committee has taken action to receive the report, however, is plan- ning to meet on July 7, 1982 to formulate some recommendations as to what they plan to present to the various cities located in the paratransit demonstration study. The mayors and administrators did discuss the study briefly at the mayors' breakfast on June 24. There will be more to come on this item after the Joint Para - transit Committee meeting is held on July 7. a to RAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & HELLE11, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVILLE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN 1ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan,MN 55122 Re: Green Acres Property Tax Dear Tom: June 21, 1982 AREA C00% 612 TELEPHONE 464.4224 We have been requested to provide some information regarding green acres property taxation -due to a concern about apparent increases in the number of parcels obtaining such preferred tax treatment in the City of Eagan. The relevant Minnesota Statute is Section 273.111 which has been revised and somewhat liberalized in recent years. The general requirements are that: 1. The parcel consist of at least 10 acres exclusively devoted to agricultural use; 2. In general that it be the homestead of the owner or of a surviving spouse, child or sibling of the owner. For the first condition, agricultural use is defined as the use that provides at least 33-1/3% of the total family income of the owner or provides a total production income including rental of the property in an amount of $300 plus $10 per tillable acre; and, the property must be devoted to almost any type of activity approaching farming including wasteland and woodland management. In conclusion, if there is an increase in the number of green acres parcels in the City of Eagan, the problem may relate directly back to Minnesota Statutes Section 273.111 and its liberal wording. skk Very truly yours, 6 David G. Keller a1% 0 9 GREEN ACRE QUALIFICATIONS 1. 10 Acres or more - activly and exclusively devoted to agriculture: 2. Gross income not less than one third of tral family income for year preceding the date for which application is made, or total $300.00 plus $10.00 per tillable acre. 3. Homestead of the owner of record, or became homestead of a surviving spouse, child or sibling of said owner, or is real estate which is farmed with real estate which contains the homestead property. 4. Property has been in possession of the affiant, his spouse, parents, or sibling, or any combination thereof, for a period of at least seven years prior. to application for benefits under provisions of this act. 5. Must file by May 1st to receive benefit for the next tax year. 6. As of March 23, 1982, if the purchaser of a Green Acre Parcel qualifies for Green Acre deferrement, within 30 days of purchase, no deferred tax or Specials are collected. 7. Special Assessments are deferred the first tax year after qualification. 8. If person purchasing Green Acre Property does not qualify to continue Green Acre Deferrment, we collect deferred tax and special assessments. On the Tax we collect deferred for current year and 2 years back. On the Special Assessments if they have been deferred since 1969, we collect for 1969 thru 1982, if sale occurs in 1982. 9A GREEN ACRES Cole Enterprises, Inc./William Cole $ 9,255.70 E. G. Wilkinson 9,588.00 Eagan Realty Co./Gopher Smelting 152,994.19 Martin Shields 11,882.01 Robert O'Neil 38,811.46 Albert & Mary Perron 16,320.52 C.W. & Anne M. Michael 53,041.46 The Lance Company 18,672.65 Eileen Fournier 7,143.48 Eli E. Fournier 6,041.70 Leroy & Virginia Fox 2,980.80 Helen R. Domler 23,349.60 Sandra Wilkinson & S. Broden 18,048.00 Douglas & H. Lagerstadt/Fee William & Kim Abel 15,063.70 Lillian M Reuger 43,472.04 Francis C. Franz 34,863.06 Leo & Ardelle Murphy 20,915.20 J. T. & Helen Hoffman 55,552.26 Dennis McCarthy et al 77,080.55 Bieter Company 29,292.96 Lawrence & Doneene Wenzel 62,764.19 Terrence . & S. Sommer/Fee Milton Chatterton 8,755.16 Rosemary Sterns et al 13,243.12 Heide Schiela 13,195.71 Anthony & Yolanda Caponi 24,038.84 Richard Kennealy 32,269.85 Alex A. Burow 29,768.92 Ida Caroline Sieg 76,524.23 Helen King Hellick-12/31/81 - Fortune Realty -+/82 25,275.60 Charles Tatsuda 81,412.50 John & Marian Brown 67,157.53 Wendell E. & L.M. Widstrom 2,995.20 a►I OWNERS PARCELS Cole Enterprises Inc. 10 00900 010 02 Cole Enterprises Inc. 011 75 William Cole 014 75 aw DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $4,115.52 29.47 2,593.14 40.00 2,547.04 30.00 • SECTION 1 E GENTUjN ROA A SUED R mc SC PD 74-0 RSC 385.0 Lamas - R -4 I10 LA t25.8 Al I I OF 3 II A �PD 74-0 RSC R-1 • G-P-eem AcRem R.. 0 OWNERS C W & Anna M Michael Albert & Mary Perron Martin Shields & Wife PARCELS 10 00900 Z2Z 0 DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 021 31 $53,041.46 8.00 010 79 16,320.52 24.49 011 02 7,864.50 15 Approx. SECTION C. 0 0 �a4 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACNES Robert J O'Neil 10 01000 010 76 $ 5,448.96 20.00 Robert J O'Neil 010 77 26,367.43 76.75 Martin & Mrytle Shields 010 29 4,017.51 13.45 Eli E Fournier 010 54 6,041.70 18.13 Approx. Robert J O'Neil 010 56 6,995.07 25.67 Elieen Fournier 010 55 7,143.48 13.33 The Lance Company 010 57 18,672.65 55.25 Approx. �a4 • SECTION 10 • R+4 I ! I 1I!.o 126.8 A,, cli I I 22 A V I . GR GB I I N3 A 0 3 Co . .... R 56.0 Ol . R-4 R 3 3.5 29 1912 k L I 60.0 U S P 0 S -54 L:, SERVICF 5.0 r R:3. L I 10.8. 558 w ADDITION i2f0; 6 NB P, GB 16-74 3 8.- Sb zK�A' 80 -��"-`010-77 A.R. G 1.4 YA �LF ROAD ass e OWNERS PARCELS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 10 01100 010 76 -:I2G DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $1,440.62 13.33 SECTION 11 152.0 LI 8.0 'L'�l s 5 . Q EA e 154.5 JI L I' i I j 123.7 L { 160.0- - -1 23.0 U.NTER j ACWTRIAL PARK LI R aa -7 L' 0 0 OWNERS PARCELS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 10 01200 010 51 Leroy J & Virginia F Fox 820 77 a as DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES $3,094.56 26.66 2,980.80 10.00 0 0 SECTION 12 a ani G L 0 0 OWNERS Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting it 11 If If of n it It It of to It to it 11 tl 11 11 11 11 11 It Gopher Smelting & Refining Eagan Realty/Gopher Smelting 11 II 11 11 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 01300 010 25 $11,132.44 020 25 9,670.64 030 25 3,434.20 040 25 919.66 010 27 10,873.44 010 28 9,406.76 011 01 14,434.50 010 02 8,725.94 010 26 24,683.60 014 29 55,167.83 a50 8.60 4.46 15.00 Approx. 4.00 Approx. 45.00 Approx. 24.66 70.00 Approx. 24.08 40.00 Approx. 113.15 0 • SECTION 13 DL3 i • 0 a3a-- DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Sondra Wilkinson & S. Broden 10 01400 010 75 $18,048.00 45.00 E. G. Wilkinson et al 010 76 9,024.00 20.00 Helen R Damler 010 77 7,557.60 16.75 E G Wilkinson Jr et al 010 78 564.00 1.25 Helen R. Domler 010 81 15,792.00 35.03 Douglas & H Lagenstedt/W & K Abel 010 28 15,063.70 4.85 Wendell E & L M Widstrom 10 83700 030 04 2,995.20 10.00 a3a-- J I D wo R-1 19.4 I =I 0 SECTION 14 • R - 2 R-217.9 L2.7, 1.31 LB- -4' ' S 01 -94HI Q WESCOTT 1 CARRIAGE 35.0 HILLS -4 .GOLF COURSE GARDEN LOT S PF%12Fo" A 120.0 IX - e010 -7s I n -A 50.0, ol a35 10-79 OWNERS Lillian M Rueger DEFERRED PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES 10 01900 011 it $43,472.04 10.43 a3i- • SECTION 19 • a3T- CI OWNERS J T & Helen Hoffman Leo & Ardelle Murphy Francis C Franz Dennis McCarthy et al Bieter Company Lawrence & Doneene Wenzel 0 DEFERRED PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES 10 02100 010 78 $55,552.26 37.00 012 28 20,915.20 40.00 010 50 34,863.06 66.67 010 75 77,080.55 40.00 011 51 29,292.96 93.33 011 80 62,764.19 40.00 0136 0 SECTION 21 • �6 t:4k 9.8 -'PA P c PK Z- �- 77-, 70.8 70.0 A A 45.4 79.4 egg" Zy� & Ax 010 - to 16 160.0 A ck R B :P A 011 - -1so CA RB 0 0 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Terrance G & S Summer/Milton Chatterton 10 02200 010 52 $ 8,755.16 14.83 Anthony & Yolanda Caponi 010 80 5,320.00 10.00 10 SECTION 22 • A i. 78.7 60.0 PF A 40.0 AD 15.6 'IC 2 24.4 1 - 80.0. U- R- ;-Jm 4E 20.1 lQ5 57.9 PF 0.2 oto- 2. A K R-3 PF 6.4 35.3 A R-3 13.3 4A - 30.3 0 OWNERS PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES Rosemary Sterns et al 10 02500 021 30 $13,243.62 59.34 Heide V Schiela 010 52 13,195.71 10.56 240 0 3 6.7 9 6.0 \ 57.4 SECTION 25 AUDITOR'S SUBD NO o2 DDLE ... .�r.,.�„w.o. .-77 i 1524.,, a testi �W _- ?c , 27.3 9.2 g 0f0 -S 5 .I r - _ !.TAT 0115 65.7 _ P �- 87.4 --67.3 r I. A ;GAS_ 1 a4 � C C OWNERS Anthony & Yoland Caponi PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 02700 010 02 $18,718.84 43.00 0 0 0 SECTION 27 a A- 3 OWNERS Richard Kennealy Alex A Burow 0 0 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 03000 011 27 $32,269.85 011 76 29,768.92 .,44 8.96 23.50 Approx. SECTION30 a4S 0 0 DEFERRED OWNERS PARCELS AMOUNTS ACRES Ida Caroline Sieg 10 03100 011 77 $76,524.23 67.97 Helen King Hollick (Fortune Realty) 011 76 25,275.60 26.78 SECTION 31 147 C OWNERS 0 0 PARCELS DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES Charles Tatsuda et al 10 03200 010 26 $81,412.50 80.00 an 0 SECTION 32 0 AM C C OWNERS PARCELS John & Marian Brown John & Marian Brown DEFERRED AMOUNTS ACRES 10 03300 040 03 $62,207.20 80.00 011 76 4,950.33 10.07 :)so 0 SECTION 33 0 1 C .... ... R -F1 '37.6 YDRfWY to LZ "00 t. _35.8 1 , 80.0 00'03 76.6 PK F34 A I ''/r 011 TA . 76.4 65 A 8 7.3 80.1 I Fil M C L- R"Iffill • L BURN SVILLE* EAGAN•SAVAGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 9 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CENTER June 22, 1982 Mr. Tom Hedges City Administrator Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Hedges: Enclosed is a letter that has been sent to prospective renters of Cedar Elementary School. We have also published our intent to rent the building in local newspapers so that all members of our community will be aware of the opportunity to use this building. 1. We will keep you informed as we move toward utilization of Cedar School during 1982-83. Please let us know if you have any con- cerns or thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Carter A. Christie Business Manager CAC/bh Enc: (1) cc: T. W. Foot, Supt. of Schools a51 100 RIVER RIDGE COURT . BURNSVILLE. MINNESOTA 33137 . (613)881.1000 An Equal OOportumly Employer BURN SVILLE•EAGANoSAVAGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 9 1 AnMaISTRATIVE SRRVIITis CEN'1'EA June 22, 1982 Dear Thank you for your inquiry with respect to possible rental of spaces at Cedar Elementary School. The Board of Education has directed the administration to proceed with utilization of the building for the 1982-83 school year; therefore, we are solic- iting proposals from all interested parties so that a utilization plan can be developed. If you have continued interest in this facility, we would like to know by July 8, 1982. Although we will need a formal proposal as soon as possible, a letter of continuing interest would be suf- ficient pending the submission of your formal proposal. In analyzing the proposals the Board will be concerned about how well the proposals meet pre -established criteria and needs of the District. Some of these factors are listed below and should be addressed in your proposal. 1. Duration of Agreement The lease period is not to extend beyond July 1, 1983. Although extensions may be possible, the District does not want to make any commitments until enrollment for the fall of 1983 is known. Please also indicate the date at which you would like to move into the building. 2. Space Required It is likely that the building will house several tenants; therefore, we will need to know your exact space require- ments so that the various leases can be organized to provide full utilization of the building. 3. Rental tee Rental earnings are a major concern of the District. All other things being equal, the District is interested in maximizing the return on its investment. You may assume ,a S-2> 100 RIVER RIDGE COURT . 011 N N S V I L I. E. MINNESOTA 11367 . (61])601-1100 A. Elj..r 011,11.1,11 F:mOlu wr 0 0 that the District will provide heat, lights, water, maintenance, site care and custodial service to the common areas. The tenant will be responsible for cleaning areas occupied solely by the tenant. If you like, you may suggest deviations to this plan; however, your proposal should clearly indicate how much you are willing to pay for the space and services required of your organi- zation. S. Building Alterations Any building alterations will be the responsibility of the tenant with approval of the School Board. Unless other arrangements are made, the building shall be returned to its original condition at the termination of the lease. 5. Manageability of the Lease The ease_ kith which the lease can he managed will be of interest to the School District and will be a part of the ultimate decision in utilization of the building. If the building is leased to sev- eral tenants, it may be necessary for a District employee to be on site at all times that the building is occupied to assure effective control of the building. 6. Preservation of Facility The housing or conducting of activities that may have a deleterious effect on the facility will not be allowed. The amount and type of use proposed will impact the District's rental decision. 7. Service to Community The District has an interest in using the facility in a manner that serves the best interests of the community. The service provided to the community by your organization may be a determining factor in a lease decision. 8. Zoning The building is zoned -as a public facility. It is the responsi- bility of the prospective tenant to ensure that its use of the building is consistent with the zoning requirements of the City of Eagan and any other applicable county, state or federal laws or regulations. 9. Neighborhood Interests The proposed use of the facility should be harmonious with the immediate neighborhood in which Cedar School is located. 10. Insurance The tenant must provide insurance protecting itself and tha School District from any claim or liability arising out of the use or occupation of the facility. asp 11. Lease Agreement I Rental of the facility or any portion thereof -will be governed by a lease agreement written by the Sohool District. 12. Reservation of Rights The School. Board reserves the right to Lease or not to lease the building to any party or parties as determined by the Board to be in the best interests of the School District. A1.1 lease arrangements will be subject to the approval of the School Board. I hope that this letter provides adequate guidance to allow you to subm: a proposal for the use of Cedar Elementary School. If you have any add: tional questions, please contact Dan Mehleis, our Director of Purchasing and Properties, 887-7244. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Carter A. Christie Business Manager CAC/bh FA p�s June 9, 1982 METROPOLITAN TRRN'SIT COMMISSION 3116 NICOLi ii.'-;XVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55408-612-827-4071 Mayor Bea Blomquist 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. O. Box 21199 Eagan,- Minnesota 55122 Dear Mayor Blomquist: Thank you for your interest in Route #57 to the Minnesota Zoological Gardens. It is encouraging to hear from cities such as Eagan that are concerned with our service. The Zoological Gardens opened in May of 1978. At that time, two routes were added to serve this facility. One originated in downtown Minneapolis and the other in downtown St. Paul. The St. Paul route was discontinued due to a lack of riders. The Minneapolis route has not fared much better and was scheduled to be cut this year. However, it was decided to con- tinue the Minneapolis service for an additional season with the possibil- ity that ridership would increase. I hope this explanation has been helpful to you. questions, please contact me. Sincerely, / ✓John R. Farrell Assistant Chief Administrator Transit Operations JRF/dmk as(0 If you have any further MESO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR BLON9QlR5T FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES 41 DATE: JULY 6, 1982 SUBJECT: JULY 6, 1982 CITY COUNCIL MEETING & OTHER INFORMATION OLD BUSINESS A. St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch Newspaper Vending Machines -- I did some research, Bea, and apparently the St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch has not submitted their special use permit appli- cation. Apparently, representatives from the newspaper were seeking legal counsel as to whether an application should be made to the City. There is nothing the City staff can do to make them submit an application; however,\ it does not seem appropriate that the City Council take action without an application. This would not be consistent with how the City deals with other special use permit applications. I did speak with the City Planner, Dale Runkle, about the vending machine that is located on Senaca and it was his opinion and that of others that reviewed the location of the vending machine that it was set back far enough and with the wide street it did not present a traffic problem. The location on Silver Bell Road will be moved and was one of the locations that was in question by City staff. NEW BUSINESS B. Federal Land Company for Pilot Knob Heights -- You asked about the progress of the EAW, a draft was prepared and is being circula- ted among staff for review and comment. There are no apparent problems with the EAW and it will be submitted to the state for final review and consideration. Regarding your question between Carson Pirie Scott and the McKee Addition, I was able to research a memorandum prepared regarding the building permit application from the building inspector to my office dated June 14, 1979 for the Carson Pirie Scott building. The information is as follows: 105 feet from McKee Addition, R-1 Residential District; 180 feet from Lexington Avenue; 130 feet from the south property line and 397 feet from the east property line. We were unable to find any information about the buffer in Country Home Heights as it relates to Eagandale Industrial Park. If this item should be continued at this meeting, we will further research these two issues. C. Amcon Corporation -- Attached is a copy of City Council minutes of March 2, 1982 and I have highlighted the motion which includes the conditions about which you were asking. Page Two Other Items Prooertv Located at 4070 Amethvst The property I was referencing this morning is 4010 Mica which is located on the intersection of Mica and Amethyst. So the pro- perty that the Russells are complaining about is a different pro- perty and I have referred this complaint to Chief of Police Des- Lauriers and he will have an officer investigate accordingly. The matter is to be kept confidential as I am protecting the inte- grity of the Russells who requested the same of yourself. Street Lighting List The Director of Public Works was requested to be prepared to comment on the street lighting list at your request. Cliff Road As a reminder, you wanted to bring up the Cliff Road bridge issue as it was addressed by Commissioner Voss. I believe it was your intention to discuss it with the City Council and hopefully have them direct the City Administrator to prepare a letter of response or intent to Commissioner Voss. Hopefully, that concludes the research and facts on the questions you had this morning regarding tonight's meeting and other items. s/Thomas L. Hedges �ity�t c�ministrator Council Minutes March 2, 1982 ANCON CORPORATION - RAVINE PLAZA PRELDUNARY PLAT The application of Amcon Corporation for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PD (Planned Development) to allow two office buildings and hotel complex, for preliminary plat approval of Ravine Plaza and for variance to exceed height limitations in a commercial district was then considered by the council. The rezoning would cover approximately 19 acres to include two office buildings and a hotel -restaurant facility and a preliminary plat would cover three lots. The Planning Commission first considered the application on October 27, 1981 and recommended denial at its November 24, 1981 meeting. It was noted the Height Limitation Committee has now met and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council and has been acted upon by the City Council. Pat Gannon appeared for the applicant and indicated that his application was for concept approval rather than for preliminary plat approval. He discussed the comments from various agencies and noted that \ there were letters from MAC, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council. The MnDOT ordinance is a model ordinance only, controlling traffic from the Minneapo- lis/St. Paul International Airport. Councilmembers indicated that noise com- patability is one issue in the A and B zones which has been proposed by MnDOT for adoption by the joint zoning board or by individual cities. There was also discussion concerning a proposed Hold Harmless Agreement and its long term effect, and in addition, legal restrictions on the height and also the density under the proposed MnDOT model ordinance. Pilot Knob Road is at approximately 900 feet and the top of the office building would be 930 feet. Egan moved that the application for zoning be denied on the basis of the recommendation of the Advisory Planning Commission including reasons stated in its motion of November 24, 1981; further, that at the present time, the Airport Joint Zoning Board has not made a recommendation as to zoning in the vicinity of the airport and it would be advisable to get such a recommenda- tion; further, that conditional use permit will also be required including a public hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission before a determination to exceed height limitation would be granted; that there appeared to be too much uncertainty as to the restrictions and development both by the City and other agencies; that the City has not reviewed the proposed MnDOT Airport Safety Ordinance and there were questions about the proposed safety zones and the need to examine the potential liability of the City in the event of the grant of the uses as proposed. It was further understood that the application for rezoning could be sumbitted to the City if there are substantially changed conditions according to Ordinance No. 52. Smith seconded the motion. All voted in favor. SEE PLAT FILE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR 1982 City Administrator Hedges reviewed a proposed revision in the reduction of the general fund of $52,300.00 noting that State Aid Reductions for 1982 are estimated at $52,130.00. The Council reviewed the proposals at a special workshop meeting on February 25, 1982 after submission of recommended reduc- tions by department heads. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the reduction of $52,300.00 according to the proposed outline by the City Administrator noting that the reductions are necessary and should cause the least disruption in the City program. All voted yea. D 82-6 3