No preview available
 /
     
12/21/1982 - City Council RegularAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL DECEMBER 24 1982 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS A. Fire Department Q•1 C. Park Department 1 B. Police Department 7,7 D. Public Works Department e• e• IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) 3 A. 1982 Kennel License Renewals 33 B. Approve Dakota County Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement egri C. Approve Resolution Requesting MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement (I-35E/Cliff Road - Storm Sewer) P'5l D. Approve MnDOT Agency Agreement 31E. 1983 Conditional Use Permit Renewals for January Q V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS p.3z A. Project 297-R, Final Reassessment Hearing (Continued) -- i (Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer) B. 1983 Budget & Proposed Federal Revenue Sharing Budget VI. OLD BUSINESS ss A. Reconsideration of Naegle Outdoor Advertising Sign - Cedar Freeway Area Eagan City Council Agenda December 21, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS VII VIII. i pp b7 A. Diamond Lake for Final Resolution for Industrial Revenue Financing C f.5 B. Tollefson Builders, Inc., Carl Tollefson, for a 10' Front Setback Variance Located on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition ,JO C. Banco Properties, Thomas HaLlbauer, for Rezoning Approximately Q' 4.4 Acres of the 6.46 Acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business District); for Preliminary Plat, Norwest 1st Addition, Consisting of Approximately 6.4 Acres and Containing 2 Commercial Lots; and for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Drive -Up Teller ` in Conjunction with the Proposed Bank Facility p q D. Harold Awe Company for Amusement Device License for One (1) ` q1 Amusement Device Located at Piccolo's Pizzeria, 4162 Pilot Knob Road (� E. Resolution in Support of Changes in Local Government Aid Formula ` y3 F. Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising for an Advertising Sign to be e' Located in the Cedar Freeway/Highway 13 Area ICA) G• Final Plat Application - Tomark 2nd Addition (Landtech Development) P' ADDITIONAL ITEMS 162A. Contract 83-2, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Northview Meadows PTrunk Utilities) 16tB. Receive Petition for Speed Limit Reduction - Dodd Road South of P Cliff (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Dept.) 10% C. Review Grading Permit Application, NWk, Section 2 (T.H. 55 - �' McLean Property) (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Dept. Business) VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the Agenda) IX. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the December 7, 1982 regular City Council minutes and special City Council minutes for the December 8 and December 14 meetings and the December 21, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEPARTMENT:HEADiBUSINE'SS'' FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- The Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee is recommending that the City Council consider a commercial/indus- trial parks dedication. The Parks & Recreation Committee has met on several occasions to discuss the feasibility, goals and objec- tives and purpose of a commercial/industrial parks dedication. After significant discussion by committee members and research by the Director of Parks & Recreation, it is the recommendation of the committee that the City Council adopt a commercial and in- dustrial parks dedication. Enclosed on pages ,2 through is a copy of minutes of. a December 2, 198 r� meeting o t e Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee that share much of the discussion that transpired at that meeting as it related to commercial and industrial parks dedication. Since there was a great deal of discussion and a number of questions have been raised regarding a number of aspects on the proposed commercial and indus- trial parks dedication formula, a report was prepared by the Director of Parks & Recreation that addresses many of the questions raised by Parks & Recreation Committee members. A copy of this report is enclosed on pages 17 through Also enclosed on page LS is a copy of t e computation tAommercial and in- dustrial par s dedication as proposed. Enclosed on pages 6 through is a copy of the motion and support information recommending a par s dedication fee for commercial and industrial property. With the apparent loss of state grants, federal grants, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Two and many other sources of funding that appear to be evaporating, parks dedication fees for commercial and industrial land could provide a significant source of funding if park development and acquisition is to occur according to the park master plan. The only sources of funding that are currently available to the City for park land acquisition and development are either residential cash donation and dedication or a property tax referendum. A com- mercial and industrial park land dedication fee will generate a significant amount of revenue as development occurs throughout the community in years to come. Advisory Parks & Recreation Com- mittee chairman Roger Martin and committee member Dick Carroll are planning to be present with the Director of Parks & Recreation to further explain the commercial and industrial park land dedica- tion proposal. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the park land dedication for commercial and industrial development as recommended for approval by the Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee. An alternate could recommend a continuance if additional information is required or time does not allow the amount of discussion desired at the City Council meeting. IR 11 0 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 2, 1982 The regular meeting of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee was held on December 2, 1982 at the Eagan City Hall. Those members present were Martin, Thurston, Kubik, McNeely, Schumaker, Carroll and Masin. Absent were Fedde and Gustafson. Also present was the Director of Parks and Recreation. AGENDA Adoption of agenda, motion Carroll, seconded by Kubik, with all members in favor, the agenda for the December meeting was approved with the addition of a report by the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding proposed legislative changes in parks dedication at the State level. MINI TTES On a motion by Masin, seconded by McNeely, with all members voting in favor, the minutes from the November 4, 1982 regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee were approved. OLD BUSINESS ANNUAL REVIEW: PARKS DEDICATION Chairman Martin asked if all members had an opportunity to review the informa- tion as provided in their packet in regards to the parks dedication issue. And, the memo that was prepared by Mr. Erkkila. He asked the director what the limits were in regards to a time frame for action by the City Council enacting any changes in the dedication ordinance? The Director of Parks and Recreation responded saying that the council would be meeting the 18th of January to discuss any changes in "fees and charges" and this may be acted upon at that time, or at such time as you would like to get it to them. At this time committee member Carroll distributed a draft of a motion to the Advisory Committee indicating that he felt that some preparatory work for the committee would help to clarify issues in regards to parks dedication and speed the work of the committee. He continued saying there are some rough areas within the draft motion and hoped the committee would review thoroughly. Chairman Martin asked the committee members to take a few moments to carefully read the motion before beginning discussion on it. Committee member Masin commented that from reading the materials presented in the packet, that this motion, seemed well thought out. She was in favor of a commercial and industrial parks dedication but had some concerns about the percentages of dedication to be charged. Committee member Thurston questioned the current range of residential dedication in Eagan compared to other communities shown by Mr. Erkkila, stating that several other communities were equal to or had higher rates than Eagan. The committee then reviewed each communities residential parks dedication in relationship to Eagan and after additional discussion and deliberation, a consensus agreement that existing parks dedication in Eagan for 1983 should remain unchanged from 1982. Members based this on the fact that there was little change in market value of residential property during 1982. �14 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 2 Committee member Carroll, in response to the chairman, continued to review the motion for the committee. fie indicated that past research and review by the committee along with the materials as presented from Mr. Erkkila, and information provided by the Director of Parks and Recreation; that he felt the timing for commercial and industrial parks dedication seemed appropriate. He continued saying that Eagan appears to be set for continuous and steady commercial and industrial growth because of the Cedar Avenue, 494 and I 35-E. After additional discussion by the Advisory Committee, committee member Carroll commented that he believed they needed some additional backup materials for presentation to the council. He suggested developing a chart for the proposed commercial and industrial dedication, because it would help explain the impact of that dedication. Committee member Thurston commented that objections in the past to commercial and industrial dedication has been that it would discourage such growth in the community. Committee member Carroll responded that information gathered from other communities says that this objection is not necessarily a valid argument, indicating that several communities have stated that quality firms have continued to move into their communities despite a strong parks dedication requirements. Committee member Thurston indicated that she and others have long believed that a dedication ordinance on commercial and industrial should have been in effect, and that it would not have had a negative affect on commercial and/or industrial growth. Committee member Kubik questioned the definition of what assessable land is? His thought was that there could be wide variance between parcels in rezoned or changed to commercial and industrial. This change could affect the computa- tion of the cash and industrial dedication. Committee member Martin suggested it may have to be changed to reflect an average value on commercial and industrial property, as is done in the residential dedication formula. In re- sponse to a question from the committee, committee member Thurston stated she thought current values of commercial and industrial property in Eagan were per- haps in the range of up to $20,000 per acre and higher. Members were in agreement that this value should be researched further by staff so an average value could be determined. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Committee concerning the financial obligation for community parks and facilities. The committee was in consensus agreement with the feeling that, as had been pointed out in the comprehensive guide plan and in the current systems study, that neighborhood parks should be adequately addressed through the residential parks dedication ordinance. They continued indicating that community facilities however, would need an additional source of funding beyond limitations of any potential bond issue. Committee member Thurston said that while she was in support of the commercial and industrial dedication and sees a need for it her concern is that many others may not share this concern and view of the need. Committee members McNeely, Masin and Kubik expressed their recognition of the need for parks dedication. In response to a concern, it was reasoned that the community has not had a parks dedication in the past because of the history for concern of the broadening of the tax base in Fagan. Their was the attractiveness for commercial and industrial growth to stabilize the community. However, this is now turned around and other factors are more significant for the continuation of this growth and development. Mr. Carroll went on saying that the Advisory Committee has been 3 • 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1932 Page 3 charged with the responsibility of reviewing park needs by the City Council, and the Advisory Committee has the responsibility to fulfill that role as best it could. He suggested that in the best interest of E-agan's future the committee needs to carefully consider and pass on to the City Council its recommendations in regards to commercial and industrial dedication'. Chairman Martin reminded the Advisory Committee it needed to again clarify the assessed valuation terminology and proceed on. After discussion several attempts at rephrasing the term, "assessed valuation", the Advisory Committee reached an agreement that the motion should be changed to reflect, "average value as determined by the City Council reflecting the average assessed valua- tion of undeveloped properties in Eagan." The committee members then proceeded to review in detail each segment of the draft motion for discussion and modifi- cation. Committee member Martin stated that percentages of parks dedication, in relationship to an entire project, would be extremely small. Committee member Kubik commented that in his position he see's a number of industries promote the quality of life in Minnesota and the green space for parks. He stated that many high tech companies use this to attract capable individuals. These companies are willing to participate in insuring that the quality of fife and green space is maintained. After further discussion by the Advisory Committee in regards to the proposed motion, and modifications had been completed, a second to the motion was offered by Mr. Martin. All members voted in favor of the revised motion, with appropriate backup materials be sent to the City Council for consideration of a commercial/industrial parks dedication. Chairman Martin stated on behalf of he and the rest of the members of the committee, their appreciation for the forethought and work that Mr. Carroll had done; complimenting him on the excellent job in preparing the draft motion. I BRAINSTOnUNG The Director of Parks and Recreation gave the committee a few minutes to write down on a separate sheet of paper significant concerns and objectives as it related to recreational needs within the community. He further explained the process of the brainstorming technique. Members of the committee set about the task and then divided into two separate groups and shared their ideas collectively, then prioritized those comments. After approximately one hour of individual and group discussions,,the two groups shared their ideas collectively. Mr. Carroll commented that in the process there appeared that both groups had similar ideas in many instances. The director commented that being the case, apparently the need for such a program appears to be quite strong and as both groups rate them high in priority. He continued saying that it was his intent to take these suggestions and begin to do some initial investigation and review to see which of these programs the department might be able to offer in the near future. Other suggestions may be forwarded to other communities agencies for their implementation. POND AND LAKE STUDIES The Director of Parks and Recreation said he would like to take a few minutes to review the matrix which was included in the packet concerning the ponds and lakes. Chairman Martin said he would like to proceed column by column to ascertain if there were any problems or questions and provide as much direction to Mr. Erkkila at this time so at least some work could proceed. 0 0 _ 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 4 In regards to use of ponds for swimming, members stated no objection to the proposed recommendations by Mr. Erkkila. However, after a great deal of discussion by the Advisory members concerning liability factors, posting or not posting certain ponds for "no swimming," Chariman Martin asked the Director of Parks and Recreation to review this issue with the City Attorney to obtain an opinion before the committee makes a final determination. Mr. Kubik commented that it was his opinion that none of the lakes were of suitable size and water quality that the City should maintain or develop a suitable swimming area and that future swimming opportunities would have to lie elsewhere. Committee member Carroll stated that as it relates to fishing, that he would suggest the Advisory Committee and the City adopt a stance which would provide wherever possible or where there is an opportunity to provide fishing, the City do so. Mr. Kubik commented that he agreed with this and concurred with the recommendations made by Mr. Erkkila. There was additional discussion on each of the lakes recommended for the utilization of fishing ponds, and a question regarding the terminology of intensive management. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that from his meetings with Barr Engineering and Mr. Erkkila it was the intent of the terminology that intensive management was to cover such needs as aerification of certain ponds and lake areas to ensure there would be no freeze out'of the fish population. He also suggested that this would mean any special effort that may be required for lake clean- up, shore line management, upstream management, etc. The director also commented that this terminology was felt appropriate in that some fishing ponds could be utilized now with no effort other than building a suitable ramp or access point. The second group of lakes would require some additional effort by the City to insure that they could be utilized in such a manner, thus intensive management. The members were in agreement regarding the fishing were the opportunities for doing so were appropriate. The committee asked that the term "intensive management" be made clear within the final plans. As it related to boat ramps, the committee had no objections to the recommenda- tions at this time. Committee member Thurston questioned what a developed boat ramp may be like? It was suggested that such a ramp for boating could or would be different at each location depending upon the type of facility that may be appropriate.' The director commented that in case.of canoeing it may simply mean a designated landing area which has been kept free from weeds while in other situations it may include more sophisticated ramp access up to and possibly including a surfaced area or one constructed of timber materials. The committee then discussed the policy or practice of the City as it related to the size of these facilities. Committee member Carroll and Kubik questioned the size of the proposed parking at Thomas Lake. The director responded that he too was somewhat surprised at that number and related how a formula was developed which provided these numbers in the recommendation. He suggested thatthis would need further review and was dependent upon land forms. At this time this had not been referenced. The director suggested that the committee needed to address itself to the question of limiting park- ing to a number which could be safely handled by the lake or whether to provide and expand these parking facilities to its maximum. The committee was in unanimous agreement that the City should adopt a practice whereby boating facilities should be developed but which would limit the number of parking S Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 5 spaces and hence protect the overuse of the lake, as opposed to a development to the maximum based on the lake surface formula. The director was also asked to review, in future concept plans and in greater detail, the appropriate- ness of parking as it relates to the park. The committee then moved on to the discussion of the boats and motors. Committee member Martin stated that at the special meeting he had voiced his objection to use of gas motors above 6 H.P. on City lakes. He reiterated this explaining that he was also now in objection to the use of any gas motors at all on these lakes sharing his concern for disruption to lake bodies, safety factors, relationship of motors to size of boats and administration of the 6 H.P. limit. Committee member Kubik stated that he too was in agreement, the City should not allow gas powered motors on lakes. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Committee concerning this as they reviewed various lake sizes, boating safety, uses of the motors by boat users and several other factors. Following this discussion members of the Advisory Committee were in agreement that boats and motors over 6 H.P. should be eliminated from City lakes, and, there was general agreement that gas motors as a total should be eliminated. Committee member Thurston questioned the status and implications concerning electric motors. Committee member Kubik commented that previously electric motors were quite small and used strictly for trolling purposes, however, they are now becoming larger in size. There were several questions regarding the thrust- ing power of the electric motors, potential speed, and other uses. Committee member Thurston questioned the purposes other than trolling that motors might be used for on City lakes. She felt that they might only be used for fishing and/or just general to and from movement. The Director of Parks and Recreation responded that administratively it would be very difficult as it was discussed with the use of gas motors of less than 6 H.P., to determine that H.P. rating from the shoreline for a boat out in the lake. He suggested that some further research and review could be done concerning the size of electric motors, potential speed and thrust for presentation at the next committee meeting. Members were in agreement and asked the director to proceed with this work. The committee then reviewed proposed shore facilities. The Director of Parks and Recreation commented that this was a general category which to try to show the implications of providing the previously mentioned items. He suggested that each of these would be reviewed and have to be finalized by the Advisory Committee at the time of implementation and development. He suggested this would be refined by the consultant and the Advisory Committee before final adoption. Chairman Martin questioned what the impact of any ordinance would have regulating the use of ponds not owned or without access to it by the City? The Director of Parks and Recreation responded that as he understood the question, the City has the authority to control by ordinance where there is a concern for the general health and safety of the community. Committee member Thurston commented that she was also concerned for other types of motorized activities on City lakes referring to one person powered skis, and large balloon tired vehicles. The director responded that he gathered from the inferences of the committee previously that these items would also be restricted from use on City ponds and lakes. After additional discussion concerning the implementation and implications of the ponds and lake studies the committee agreed to postpone additional discussion and other policy issues regarding winter lake/pond usage to the January Advisory Committee. I Minutes December 2, 1.952 • • Page 6 SNOWMOBILE REOUEST The Director of Parks and Recreation presented to the Advisory Committee a request from the local snowmobile organization for the use of the highline corridor trail from Nicols Road to Pilot Knob Road and from the highline south on Johnny Cake Ridge Road to the Eagan -Apple Valley border. The director said that there were several concerns regarding this and he elaborated on. He stated that I 35-E Blackhawk and highline construction problem, the intensification of traffic along Johnny Cake Ridge Road and Cliff Road as the result of the closing of Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley, and in the conflict between Apple Valley and Eagan ordinances relating to vehicles on boulevards along Johnny Cake. Committee member Kubik asked for an explanation of the current ordinance used for snowmobiles within the community? Committee member Thurston questioned what the success of the trail was last year? The director responded that generally speaking it was successful, although there were certain problems encountered which is typical of any type of recreational function. He stated that this was generally the abuse of some people of the privilege to use these snowmobile trails. The director was asked to elaborate on these problem areas, he summarized as going off the designated trail, the Jack of safety crossing roads and the like. Committee member Martin expressed his concern for the use of snowmobiles in the Thomas Lake area because of the sensitivity of the native prairie. He commented that he had noted that last year there were numerous snowmobile marks and trails through the area and across Thomas Lake which he considered to be disruptive and dangerous. There was general discussion concerning the problem of traffic.and crossing of Johnny Cake Road prior to gaining access to Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The director -then ieviewed with the Advisory Committee in some detail the factors and facets of the request. Committee member McNeely commented that perhaps because of the liability factors involved and the amount of traffic on the two roads mentioned, that the recommendation might be just simply to allow.the use of the highline trail from Nicols Road to Rahn Road. Members expressed concern where the trail ended without the provision for a safe crossing of roads. After further discussion, there was a motion by McNeely, seconded by Kubik to recommend that the council allow the use of the highline trail for a period of one year with all other conditions as applied last year. That the trail extend from Rahn Road to Pilot Knob Road. .Further, because of the intensity of traffic along Johnny Cake Ridge Road and Cliff Road, that this not be a recommended portion for the trail. All members agreed. OTHER BUSINESS The director responded that he would be brief because of the lateness of the hour and related that all the winter program activities were ready to go with the completion of hiring warming house attendants. He briefly reviewed other aspects for the committee's attention. The director stated the City would be utilizing the services of a volunteer in the office. This volunteer is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and would be working approximately 20 to 25 hours per week for the City. This individuals name is Michelle Meyers and is a resident of Apple Valley. The director commented that a proposal, apparently from planners from Bloomington, to the next legislative session, would be to allow the.use of cash parks dedica- tion to be used for low income housing. The director explained the potential impact. Chairman Martin asked that this item appear on the next committee's agenda for discussion or at such time as there is a specific proposal. 7 0 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no other business for the Advisory Committee to conduct the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Dated: M K.L.V. Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee Secretary Every Thing You Wanted To Know .About Commercial and Industrial Parks Dedication and Would Probably Ask. 1. IVLIAT IS THE C0WFRCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PARKS DEDICATION? The Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee is asking the City Council to implement a requirement, similar in nature to the City's residential narks dedication requirements which would be applied to all commercial and industrial property which has not been issued a building permit. 2. UNDER 1%LAT AUTHORITY CAN THE CITY DO THIS? AND, WHAT ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES DOING? Under the same Minnesota statutes which allows communities to enact a parks dedication ordinance on residential property, many communities have enacted a dedication ordinance on commercial and industrial property. In fact, out of twelve communities recently surveyed ten have some form of cash commercial and industrial dedication requirements ranging from five percent to ten percent. 3. MIAT DO YOU ATAN BY A 5% OR 10% DEDICATION? Like a residential dedication, communities require a cash dedication on commercial and industrial property. The percentage charged is generally applied against "market value" or "assessed valuation." Generally, communities have adopted a formula for the market or assessed valuation which is typically an averaged value. This average value can then be adjusted annually or when the value of the land increases significantly. Other communities do not adopt an "average value" and apply the percentage of parks dedication against the actual market or assessed valuation of that particular parcel. I 4 E i 0 WAT ARE OTHER COl•I-MITIES CASH DEDICATION REOUIREMENTS THEN? Each community is very different. But as an example, the City of Chanhassen's formula yields $1,035.00 per net developable acre. Plymouth recently raised their dedication requirements to approxi- mately $2,200.00 per acre; Lakeville Q600.00 and Eden Prairie $1,400.00. These communities have a developed formula for an average value. Other communities have no such formula and rely upon the application of a required percentage on each parcel. DOESN'T THIS COMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENT DIP.VE AWAY THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? Conversations with representatives of comparable growth communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area indicates this is not happening. In fact, just the opposite might be true. As an example, the Tenant Company - a manufacturer of industrial cleaning equipment - has recently purchased land in Plymouth and are now in the process of plann- ing the development of this site. Their parks dedication will amount to something in the area of $300,000.00. Plymouth has had the commercial and industrial dedication since 1976, and like Eagan, is show- ing significant growth in its commercial and industrial base. Eden Prairie recently reported several new and large firms moving into their community. One firm, a relatively large contracting firm with offices in other parts of the 11nited States has located their head- quarters building in Eden Prairie. This firm met the 10% dedication requirement with a land dedication; plus the equivalency of. 39' more than the requirement in additional land. This firm reported to the City that it chose Eden Prairie for its headquarters because 'we are sold on the quality of life in Minnesota and want to be a part of the community that is concerned about this.' Attached is a copy of an article from Houston. A publication of the Houston Chamber of Commerce. This article reports the following: 'Parks are not only a vital necessity for the psychological well being of a people, but also for the City's economy. Part of what these large corporations consider when they locate is the livability of the City. They're not just bringing in scientists, corporate presidents and analysts. They're bringing in spouses and children who look past a forty hour work week.' 6. WHY NOW? Several reasons; the necessity of acquisition and development of community parks and community athletic fields, community trails, as well as special use facilities will require significant funding. Grants from Federal and State sources no longer seem probable. If the City is to have these types of facilities to keep up with its growth, this source of funding must seriously be considered. Other growth communities have found this approach to be fair and reasonable. The community is in an enviable position for commercial and industrial growth. The completion of 494, I 35-E and the Cedar Avenue bridge plus many other factors have contributed to make Eagan a growth community. The growth in commercial and industrial land is sure to increase very rapidly. If more time lapses before a commercial and industrial dedication requirement is implemented, other tracts of commercial and industrial property will have avoided paying their fair share, increasing the inequity between those who paid and those who have not paid. 7. WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT HAVEN'T HAD TO PAY THE COMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEDICATION SO FAP,? Those parcels which have been developed upon would not be subject to the 3 11 new dedication requirement. However, the committee's recommendation would be to collect the new cash dedication at the time of development, payable with the building permit. This would mean that parcels that have been platted but not yet built upon would be subject to the new dedication requirements. The Advisory Committee is recommending the dedication be placed upon parcels at the time the building permit is issued so as not to create a hardship on the developers at the time of platting. If applied at time of platting it would require the developer to carry this financial obligation until such time as the parcel is sold or developed. From the acreage numbers previously compiled by the planning staff; nearly 700 of the commercial and industrial zoned land in Eagan has not yet been platted; much of the land that has been platted is still not developed, and therefore would still be subject to the dedication requirements. Although several commercial and industrial parcels have been developed upon the majority of land in this zoning classification would be subject to the dedication requirements. 8. WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION? The committee is recommending a 7.5% commercial and industrial dedication requirement, based upon a formula for raw land cost; as established by the City Council upon recommendation by the Advisory Committee. The committee is recommending a 4¢ per square foot dedication. 4a would be applicable to net developable acres. This is the same as saying raw land has a value of approximately fifty-five cents per square foot. 9. WHAT IS THE- COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND IN EACAN AND ELSEWHERE VALUED AT? Raw land costs are extremely variable. However, some of the unplatted I� -4- • land in Eagandale Center is reportedly to be marketed for up to $1.00 per square foot. (Some of the platted parcels with streets and utilities in, are in excess of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot) It has also been reported that land in the Lexington P.U.D. along Lexington and County Road 30 is being marketed for $2.50 per square foot. Land further away from County Road 30 is being marketed for "about $1.00." This is an asking price and terms of a purchase agree- ment would affect the final sale price. It's fair to say that the land might actually be sold at a 25% to 30% discount. This as a result of terms of sale. However, there are undoubtedly many parcels in Eagan which are valued less than $1.00 per square foot. The Advisory Committee is recommending an "average value" at approximately .55� a square foot. 10. HOW DOES THIS 4¢ FOR COILVERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPARE TO THE CITY'S CURRENT RESIDENTIAL DEDICATION? As an example, if you were to have ten acres of land zoned R-3; this could be developed into 7.8 units per net acre, and would result in a cash dedication requirement of $24,236.00. Compared to ten gross acres of commercial and industrial property, (assuming 90% as not developable) would produce a dedication requirement of $16,400.00. 11. WHAT DOES .04 COME TO ON A PER ACRE BASIS AND IS TRIS A SIGNIFICANT COST? 04 comes to $1,822.40 on gross acres; however, the committee is recommend- ing net acres. Thus, the actual dedication would be less than $1,822.40 per gross acre. If you are to assume that this raw land is ultimately sold for 53.00 per square foot, parks dedication would ultimately represent about 1.3% of the total of that parcel to a builder/purchaser. i3 -s- E 12. WHAT ABOUT CORPORATIONS WHO PROVIDE, SUCH AS SPERRY-UNIVAC, FOR RECREATIONAL AMENITIES WITHIN THEIR SITE? The Advisory Committee has recommended that certain credits be applied in instances in which significant on site amenities are available for the community. Further, the Advisory Committee is recommending a cash dedication credit for those developers who porvide on site ponding for storm water which would have a significant impact on identified water based recreational resources. December 15, 1982 /+ -6- 0 • COMPUTATION FOR COT!PiFRCIAL $ INDUSTRIAL PARKS DEDICATION Raw Land Cost 7.So 10% Yield of 7.5% Yield of 10a Per Square Foot Dedication Per Ded. Per Per Gross Acre Per Cross Acre Square Foot Sq. Ft. .40 .03 .04 $1,366.80 $1,822.40 .50 .0375 .05 $1,708.50 $2,278.00 .55 .04125 .055 51,879.35 42,505.80 .60 .045 .06 $2,050.20 42,733.60 .70 .0525 .07 $2,391.90 $3,189.20 /S / • • December 14, 1982 MOTION: As a result of the annual review of the City parks dedication fee the following recommendations are made: a. That no change be made in the residential development dedication fee currently in effect. This is based on a limited number of applicable land sales which reflect little or no change in pricing from last year. b. That a commercial and industrial dedication fee be established. It is suggested that the following fee schedule be made effective January 1, 1983. 1. Commercial: 7.5% net land or .04 per square ft. net land. 2. Industrial: 7.S% net land or .04 per sq. ft. net land. 3. Dedication credits: a. Up to 75% of derived fee for significant on site recreation facilities which are available for community use on a long term contract or commitment. b. Up to 25% of derived fee for on site storm water ponding and settling basins provided such improvementbenefits identifiable park and recreation water resources. 4. Determination of cash or acreage dedication and application of credits is determined by the City Council. Dedication is applicable at time of obtaining building permit. This recommendation is based on the following factors'; a. The need for acquisition of park land and the development of existing parks is shown in the City Comprehensive Guide Plan on parks and in the current systems study of the parks and recreation program. The study further shows the greatest need in the northern area of the City. b. The current parks dedication on residential development has only provided for acquisition of local neighborhood parks with minimal improvements. lie acquisition of community parks and purchase of athletic facilities /G parks de*opment, trails and special us*cilities will have to be financed from other sources. c. The Federal/State grants program for the period of 1977 to 1982 provided funds for Northview, Coachman, Patrick Eagan, trails, tennis courts, Rahn acquisition, and Rahn development. (pending final approval and funding of $80,000) Total funding for this period was $S69,000, or an annual average of .$94,833. This program is rapidly eroding toweard non- existence, therefore we cannot plan to use this program as a resource. Further,the current and forecasted future of our economy is not conducive to optimism in consideration of the extensive funding requirements being obtained through a voter referendum for a parks bond issue. d. The proposed commercial/industrial dedication fee appears equitable because these firms and their employees (both resident and non-resident) benefit from the quality of life as provided by City services and its community parks system. This proposal is also commensurate with parks dedication fees of similar suburban cities(see attachedletter dated November 26, 1982 from Erkkila and Associates with enclosed list of fee schedules) Contacts with staff personnel of these cities confirm that they have a continuing business growth. e. We are aware of the need for a City in its inceptive stage to offer inducements to commercial and industrial firms to locate within its bounds. With approximately one third of the total commercially zoned land already developed and Highway ; 494 and 35-E progressing through our City it appears we have passed this initial stage. In fact, any delay in establishment of a commercial and industrial dedication fee would appear to increase the scope of unfairness to the future developers. f. Contacts with land developers who have commercially zoned land next to freeway interchanges and at other sites in the City reveal a pricing range from $1.00 to $4.50 per square foot. Again, our proposed cash dedication fee of .04 cents ner square foot appears reasonable. 17 0 In summary we,believe this request is fair and equitable and that it is in the best interest of the'Gity,.• 0 -3- n U Q a t November 26, 1982 Suite 100 2611 Central Ave. N.E. Minneapolis, Mn. 55418 781-6696 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • DESIGN Park Committee Members and Staff Eagan, Minnesota RE: Park Dedication Requirements/Implementation Strategies In materials distributed earlier, a comparison of park dedica- tion formulas was provided. In that comparison (also found on pages C-5 through C-7 in the new Park System Plan notebook) Eagan was compared to several other metropolitan communities. Two observations are immediately apparent. 1. The residential dedication formula for Eagan is apparently at the upper end of the observed range. It can also be noted that most of the rapidly developing communities are also the ones with the highest cash contributions. It may be fair to say it hasn't inhibited development activity to any noticeable level. 2. The commercial and industrial requirements of Eagan are clearly at the low end of the observed range. In examining the relationship between high commercial and industrial dedications and development interest, the correlation is less clear than the similar comparison for residential development and dedication. The need for funds for park development in Eagan is acute. While it is uncommon for metropolitan communities to totally develop their park system on the basis of park dedication funds alone, there seems to be little or no advantage for communities to "undercharge" developments because their park dedication ordinance is not continually updated to the prevailing rate. For that reason, we do recommend that Eagan consider requiring a dedication from commercial and industrial development in addition to the existing residential requirements. 0 0 0 0 Park Dedication Requirements/Implementarion Strategies November 26, 1982 - page 2 Rather than indicate a singular approach, w- shall propose a range of formula options to Eagan. Both tk= high and low recommendations have firmly based precedent+ set elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Most commL.ctiee which require dedications from the commercial -ar 1ndua:.-ral project, do use either a 5% or 10% dedication. - "Low" Dedication formula for Commercial/Industrial Land 5% of the land or 5% of the assessed value of the undeveloped land with either a maximum or nominal fee of say $800 per acres. "High" Dedication Formula for Commercial/Industrial Land 10% of the land or 10% of the assessed value of the undeveloped land with either a maximum or nominal fee of say $2,200 per acre. In either situation, we recommend several further conditions be applied. 1. The City Council (not the developer) decides if land money or a combination is taken. 2. Trails, if any, shall be on easements through the property. No dedication credit should be given for easements but credit can be given for trail construction costs. 3. A credit can be given to projects which meet city park goals in some other fashion. For example, if on site stormwater ponding is pro- vided which improves the water quality in an .adjacent lake being managed for fishing, a dedication credit would seem appropriate. Another example would be if the development provided it's own recreational facilities and these were shared with the general public, a dedication credit here would also be appropriate. The size of the credit should be proportionate to the cost or land area involved and be at the discretion of the City Council. In establishing a nominal or maximum charge per acre, some thought should be given to what the reasonable land value is on commercial or industrial land in Eagan. The $2,200 per acre charge (used in Plymouth) is equivalent to saying the land is worth 50c per square foot, $22,000 per acre if it is figured on a 10; dedication. .1d 0 0 Park Dediation Requirements/Implementaiton Strategies November 26, 1982 - page 3 The $800.per acre charge is equivalent to .•aying the land is worth $16,000 per acre when a 5% dedicatic•i is used. Sincerely, C�M NJ -it Tim Erkkila, ASLA ERKKILA & ASSOCIATES TWE/sg al • 0 PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULES FOR SELECT SUBURBAN CHART C-1 COMMUNITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Cammuni Eagan Burnsville Type of Use Lard Dedication Residential: 10% of gross lard area Cash Contribution $400.00 per unit - single Family/ two family $772.00 per unit - townhouse/ quadrominium 5252.00 per unit - condominium/ apartment Utility easements must dedicate 50% of gross land area when located along a proposed trail. Commercial: None, except in areas that are needed for the trails as Industrial: designated in the municipal trail plan. Residential: 10% of gross lard area 10`Yo of Assessar's market value Commercial: 51'e of gross lard area 5% of Assessor's marker value Irdustrial: 5% of gross lard area 5% of Assessor's marker value 2% credit can be granted if anyite recreational amenities are provided. The credit is given at the discretion of the City Council. Eden Prairie, Residentiol: • $725.00 per unit -single family detached 5250.00 per unit - all other residential Commercial • 51400.00 per acre Industrial: ' 51400.00 per acre 'Lord dedication is only accepted if the area is designated in the Park Guide Plan. The City will not accept any lard under power lines, flood plains or on steep slopes. Trails: If the developer provides an easement and builds a trail, no dedication credit is permitted. Trails along streets shall be graded into the sneer right-of-way and he City shall build the trail. No dedication credit is permitted. Inver Grove Heights Residential: 5168.00 per unit on lots with sewer and water S 84.00 per unit an Ian without sewer and water Commercial: None "Irdustrial: Name Lakeville Residential: 1 acre of land per 75 people in the subdivision based on the following demities: Single family - 7.5 people 5700.00 per unit Two family - 6.0 people $700.00 per unit Apartments, condominiums, townhouses - I person per bedroom $150.00 per unit plus 575.00 per bedroom above the first bedroom Commercial: 5600.00 ser acre Industrial: 5600.00 oats acre When o c.mbinaua,, of land and cash ore prodded, the fair market value of the IoM is deducted from the cash contribution. a'ra, C 9 • Community Type of Use Lard Dedication Cash Connibutian Maple Grove Residential: Park dedication is based on density: Gras Demity/Acre Lord Area Appraised Cash Value 0-3 units 5.0% 5.096 4-5 units 7.5% 7.5% 6-8 ..its 10.0% 10.0°0 9*units 10%+1%far each 10%•1%far each ..it unit over 8 unite ever 8 unity Commemiol: 5.0% 5.0% Industrial: 5.0% 5.0% Maplewood Residential: Pork dedication is based an density of the subdivision: Type of Unit People/Unit Cash Contribution/Unit Single tinily 4.1 5326.00 Two family 4.1 326.00 Mobile home 2.5 199.00 Apanments and - cordominiuna Efficiency 1.1 87.00 1 bedroom 1.4 111.00 2 bedroom 2.5 199.00 3 bedroom 3.3 262.00 4 bedroom 4.0 318.00 Tovnhorse 1 bedroom 2.0 159.00 2 6edroam 3.3 262.00 3 6edroont 4.0 318.00 4 bedroom 4.2 334.00 Land dedicated to the City must have an equal appraised cash value as the required cash contribution. Commercial: 5% of gross lard area 5% of appraised morket value Industrial 5% of gross land area 50% of appraised market value Oakdale Residential: Dedication based on density: 1 unit/acre 596 5275.00 1.1 - 3.0 10% 275.00 3.1 -4.0 11% 250.00 4.1 - 5.0 12% 250.00 5.1 -6.0 13% 250.00 6.1 - 7,0 14% 220.00 7.1 -8.0 15% 220.00 8.1 -9.0 16% 220.00 9.1 - 10.0 17% 220.00 Over 10.0 Add 0.5% per unit 220.00 Commercial: 1096 of lard area or Cash value equivalent Industrial: 10% of lard area a Cash value equivalent a3 C-6 • 9 Communi Type of Use Lard Dedication Cash Contribution Plymouth Residential None 5390.00 per unit On large lob the minimum fee is 5390 with no less than 2 units per acre. Om large lot with dereity less than 2 units per acre park dedication is required far possible future subdivision of the praoerty (1.e., a two acre lot cWnb as 4 unit, resulting in 51,560.00). Commercial: 10% of gross lard area 10% of Assesses's estimated land value of undeveloped lard. Maximum fee is 52,200 per acre. Trails: No dedication credit is given for the trail easement or grading. A credit is given for the actual documented cot of trail paving. Rosemount Residential: 4%x the number of units 4%x the number of units per per acre of gross lard acre of the raw lard value of area (example: 4% x 5 the land in the development. units per acre =20% lard dedication) - Commercial: None Industrial: None Roseville Residential: 10% of gross lard area fm 10% of appraised cash value Commercial: any subdivision of 5 acres far any subdivision of 5 acres Industrial: and greater and greater Shoreview Residential: Park dedication based on density Fair Market Value at Demity/Acre Gros Lard Area Time of Final Plat 0 - 2 3% 3% 2.1 -3 4% 4% 3.1 -4 5% 596 4.1 -5 6% 6% 5.1 and greater 10% 10% Commercial: 100% 10% Industrial: 10% 10% Dedication Credin. 5% credit if develmment has an -site owenwater drainage and pending that does not ;.roan the rate of runoff from the site. 296 credit if the development exceeds the minimum landscape requirements. White Bear Lake: Residential 10% of gross lard area 5150.00 per unit Commercial: 5% of gross lard area 5150.00 per each 4,C00 Industrial: square Feer of floor area 24 Ca 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Three PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Cinnamon Ridge Third Addi- tion, Final Plat Amendment-- ns c Tosed on page 2.1 is a copy ot the final plat tor t e Cinnamon Ridge Third A_d inn. As the Council may recall, Outlots A, B, C and D are private cul-de-sac streets servicing the "cluster home" concept of development as proposed by Zachman Homes, Inc. As a normal procedure of final plat approval in the City, a development agreement was prepared and excuted by Zachman Homes, Inc., which stipulated several respon- sibilities of the developer pertaining to grading and site prepara- tion of the subdivision prior to the City proceeding with the in- stallation of streets and utilities to service the newly created lots within the subdivision. This final plat was approved by the Council on July 20, 1982. Subsequently, the developer has indicated that, due to the present economic situation, he is unable to com- plete the grading in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plans submitted for this subdivision. In response to a petition by the developer, the City awarded Contract #82-7 which provided for the installation of streets and utilities within the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. Installation of these utilities was based on satisfactory compliance of the developer to complete the grading to the approved grading plans submitted with the final plat. Because the developer is unable to complete the grading, the City had to process a change order on October 5 deleting the installation of utilities within Outlots B, C and D due to inade- quate support and cover not being available due to the developer's inaction. The end result of all this action means that Lots 8 through 28 of Block 2 do not have any provisions for installation of streets and utilities as required by the subdivision ordinance for all newly platted streets. Because they are originally scheduled to be provided through public contract, the developer was not required to bond for their installation. Since these improvements have been deleted from the contract by change order, there are now newly created lots without provisions for public streets or utilities. Three options to this problem are as follows: U'nplat Lots 8 through 28 of Block 2 and Outlots B, C and D into one large outlot to be replatted at some time in the future when the developer wishes to proceed with his development. Require the developer to submit an additional performance bond/letter of credit in the amount of 60% of the estimated cost to provide streets and utilities to Lots 8 through 28. as 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Four 3. Put a hold on all building permits for Lots 8 through 28 until all grading, streets and utilities have been completed, installed and accepted by the City. With these options being presented to the developer, he has in- dicated his preference to resolve the situation through the third alternative (hold on building permits). This adds an additional administrative burden to the City staff and puts the City in a difficult position with a potential third party purchaser of a particular lot that does not have streets and/or utilities available which is required through existing City ordinances. The developer's second preference is to provide an additional letter of credit/per- formance surety in the amount of 60% of the estimated cost of the improvements to guarantee that they will be installed privately by the developer within a time frame to be delineated in an amend- ment to the existing development contract for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. This would be an acceptable alternative for the City staff. The developer's least desirable alternative is to unplat the existing lots of record and to then replat them into a subsequent future subdivision. This information is being brought to the City Council's attention because, in any event, it will require formal Council approval through an amendment to the existing contract development agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve alternate # for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition as it pertains to proving streets and utilities to Lots 8 through 28, Block 2, of the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. 26 W .1i,VLk . �3EARli-JG OF SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54 M11NUTP- 14 SECOND'S EAST. • E OUT LOT 19 23 14 25 20 26 1216 22 27 21 13 28 10 d0 15 14 9 5 8 9 E" 7 to 0 %, �-\, ,41? 12 5 5 < < 4 5 LLJ 4 27 X z it: ItI. c 0 j 2 .-- I , f 1, - " ' '� A, "'. - -- - ------- - -q OUTLOT,—, G < zz 6 z Z, LOT % F 5 to 7 ff soomer [Jr L.rEI: 94A,e •-01Ull1 0 En 1., "r C-I)vm*molJ Ai)u cm- VIC111MV MAP-- a 7 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Five Item #2: Drexel Heights, Street Assessments for Project 240 -- The 0irector o Pu is or s and City Attorney are ma ing attempts to determine a fair and equitable assessment for the installation of streets that have previously been levied to the Drexel Heights Subdivision under Project 240. The Director of Public Works would like consideration by the City Council and/or terminate further legal action to recover costs incurred by the City as a result of the developer's inaction. The Director of Public Works has prepared a memorandum to the City Administrator that outlines the history of the final assessments that were levied under Project 240. For further review and information, refer to a copy of that memo enclosed on pages D.9 through 32, . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE Works Director and City Attorney assessment for the installation Subdivision under Project 240 legal action to recover costs of the developer's inaction. ).8 MATTER: To authorize the Public to determine a fair and equitable of streets in the Drexel Heights and to proceed/terminate further incurred by the City as a result 0 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS COLBERT DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1982 SUBJECT: DREXEL HEIGHTS STREET ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 240 As the Council may recall, in September of 1980, a final assessment hearing was held for installation of streets to the Drexel Heights Addition under Project 240. After a more detailed analysis of the costs that were incorporated, it was recommended that a reas- sessment hearing be held on December 16 of 1980 to more accurately reflect the assessible cost to the lots within the Drexel Heights subdivision that was incurred as a result of the developer's in- action in completing his development responsibilities. As a result of the final assessment hearing, the developer subsequently appealed the assessments through district court. On February 3, 1982, the district court ordered the City to vacate the assessments that were levied on December 16, 1980. The court did not determine what a fair and equitable assessment would be against these lots; and, subsequently, its decision left the issue unresolved. There- fore, the City will have to initiate a new final assessment hearing for the installation of streets in order to recover the costs in- curred under Contract 240A. The amount of the assessment that was appealed by the developer was $4,467.58 per lot. Through their court action, the developer requested that the assessments be set at a maximum of $2,762.50 per lot. Subsequently, the Public Works Department has prepared a detailed breakdown of the cost responsi- bilities associated with this development which is summarized on Attachment "A" which is enclosed on pages 3 through 3 -�, . As can be seen, the assessable costs associated with providing a residential street within the subdivision would amount to $2,834.14 per lot. This is very close to the original maximum demanded by the developer in his assessment appeal. However, the City staff feels strongly that the developer is responsible for an additional $1,321.24 per lot ($31,709.68) which were costs that were incurred by the City as a direct result of the developer's inability and/or inaction to complete his site preparation responsi- bilities. In addition, there was $6,072.21 ($209.39 per lot) that was the result of inflation costs associated with delaying of the project while the City performed the utility repair work within this subdivision. For the Council's information, the total cost that the City has spent to date for the repair of the utilities within this subdivision has totalled $49,975.03. The City is unable to recoup these costs from the original contractor, McGrand-Frovarp, due to the fact that they have long since gone bankrupt. In addi- tion, the bonding company that was to guarantee their work is no longer in business. Therefore, the City has had to absorb that additional cost. IN 0 Drexel Heights Memo December 16, 1982 Page Two This background information is being made available to the City Council so that they can provide direction to the staff as to how to pursue the future final assessment of Project 240 for the in- stallation of streets in the Drexel Heights Addition. The Public Works Director has made a recommendation for consideration that the $6,000 costs associated with inflation be considered as a part of the $50,000 cost to repair the utilities prior to the installa- tion of the streets. Further legal action to recoup these costs can be discussed by the City Attorney's office. The Public Works Director feels confident that, if a new final assessment hearing were held at the cost of $2,834.14 per lot, there would not be a subsequent appeal and it would be accepted by the developer. However, this would leave $31,700 of additional costs that must be somehow recovered. The Public Works Director is recommending that a separate claim be filed against the developer for breach of contract due to his noncompliance with the development contract for the final plat of the Drexel Heights Addition. The City Attor- ney can present his position pertaining to the City's chances of being successful in this separate litigation process. If the City is not successful, the City will then have to absorb this additional amount which will result in a total of approximately $88,000 through this subdivision. The City Attorney's office feels that we may be able to negotiate a higher acceptable per lot final assessment above the $2,800 per lot that can readily be justified with the stipulation that the City would not pursue the separate legal action for breach of con- tract. This will result in some detailed negotiations between the City staff and the developer. Therefore, the staff would like some direction from the Council as to its willingness to absorb a portion of the $31,700 developer's responsibility in consideration for increasing the assessable cost per lot to an amount acceptable by the developer. 30 ATTACHDkDT "A" Project 240 - Drexel Heights 0 I. DEVELOPER'S SITE PREPARATIO14 COST RESPONSIBILITY A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Overhead (26.43% of IV) C. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (26.43% of V) TOTAL -- Based on 24 lots in Drexel Heights II. TYPICAL RESIDENTT'TAL SUBDIVISION STREET COSTS A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Overhead (73.57% of IV) C. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (67.54 of V) TOTAL Based on 29* Benefited Lots III. METATION COSTS DUE TO PFWBCP DELAY A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (6.03% of V) Based on 29* Benefited Lots *includes 5 lot equivalents for Henry and Harvey Braun 3I $24,937.60 5,087.72 1,684.36 $31,709.68 1,321.24/lot $63,723.82 14,162.08 4,304.26 $82,190.16 2,834.14/lot $;5,687.92 384.29 $ 6,072.21 209.39/lot 0 0 7O: THOMAS A. CZOLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: BRAD J. SIENSON, ENGIIIZEERING AIDE DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1982 RE: COST OUTLAY FOR DREXEL HEIGHTS AREA WORK DESCRIPTION COMPANY DATE COST TV Inspection of Sever lines Clear -Water -Research 7/17/79 $ 883.71 TV Inspection of Sewer lines Clear -Water -Research 11/20/79 125.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 2/8/79 2,180.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 12/31/79 1,012.00 Sewer Repair Genz-Rvan.•__ 3/5/80 45.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 4/3/80 1,436.14 Drexel Heights Utility Re- Re- Fredrickson 9/29/79- pair (File „49) 5/7/80 41,321.68 Engineering/Inspection Fees Bonestroo,Rosene, 5/28/80 2,971.50 Anderlik & Assoc. WS/jack TOTAL CASH OUTLAY ................................. $49,975.03 t,-- 3a, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Six �-CONSEN-T:""'-ITEMSt There are five (5) items to be considered under 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. KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS A. 1982 Kennel License Renewals -- The following Kennel License renewals are in order for consideration: 1. William E. Able, 3506 Lexington Avenue South 2. Arlene Allan, 4790 South Robert Trail 3. John Clary, 3555 Trails End Road 4. Janis MacKimm, 1690 County Road 30 5. John I. Sandberg, 1560 Yankee Doodle Road ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the kennel license renewals as presented. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT B. Approve Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement (Dakota County) -- The Dakota County Highway Department has updated and combined past signal maintenance agreements into a new revised agreement for the City's consideration based on recent policy changes by Dakota County. A comparison of this new signal maintenance agree- ment with previous maintenance agreements indicates that in many instances the County is now going to share 50% of the responsibility that was previously 100% City responsibility. In certain instances, the County wil be taking over 100% of the maintenance responsibility that was previously that of the City of Eagan. Therefore, this new agreement is advantageous to the City of Eagan and reduces its maintenance responsibility considerably and places it with Dakota County. This is a result of the several meetings held be- tween the City staff and the County's staff and helping to formulate a new transportation plan/policy for Dakota County. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Dakota County signal maintenance agreement #82-09 and approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page 34C . 33 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. 82-09 DAKOTA COUNTY/CITY OF EAGAN WHEREAS, the City of Eagan and the Dakota County Highway Department have mutually reviewed the maintenance responsibility as delineated in past maintenance agreements; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that Dakota County shall assume the maintenance responsibility in accordance with their present policies pertaining to traffic signals within Dakota County; and, WHEREAS, it is in the City of Eagan's best interest to enter into a mutual traffic signal maintenance agreement with Dakota County to insure continued effective operation of the traffic sig- nals for the safety of the travelling public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eagan hereby approves the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement #82-09 and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Motion By: Seconded By: Members in Favor: Members Opposed: Date: December 21, 1982 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN Attest: By: City Clerk Mayor Certification STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF EAGAN I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given) of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 21st day of December, 1982; at which a majority of members of said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted. Given under my hand and seal this 21st day of December, 1982. 3 9 City Clerk 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Seven MnDOT COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (I-35E/CLIFF ROAD) C. Approve Resolution Requesting MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement (I-35E/Cliff Road - Storm Sewer) -- With the progression of I -35E and its interchange with Cliff Road, it is necessary for the City of Eagan to have a 36" trunk storm sewer constructed across Cliff Road to provide drainage from the Ridgecliffe Additions and Galaxy Avenue to Pit Lake (Boesel Pond). This was originally intended to be constructed under Contract 81-1. However, because MnDOT was unable to proceed with their contract for the Cliff Road inter- change in a time frame to allow the City to construct this crossing when Cliff Road was closed off for the interchange construction, the City's contract is now complete; and MnDOT has agreed to incor- porate this storm sewer as a part of their project, subject to a cost participation agreement. Therefore, in order to initiate this work and the preparation of an agreement, MnDOT requires a resolution from the City Council requesting the change and agreeing to participate in the City's pro rated costs for this work. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page �(� for the Council's consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve a resolution requesting MnDOT to prepare a cost participation agreement for the installation of a 36" storm sewer under Cliff Road as a part of the I -35E interchange with Cliff Road. 35 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION S.P. 1982-51 (T.H. 35E) CLIFF ROAD/I-35E STORM SEWER WHEREAS, the City of Eagan was unable to complete the construction of a storm sewer outlet to Pit Lake under Contract 81-1 due to a delay in the award of S.P. 1982-51 (T.H. 35E); and, WHEREAS, MnDOT has recently awarded the contract for S.P. 1982-51 to Lunda Construction; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Eagan to have this storm sewer system and any subsequent revisions con- structed under MnDOT's contract; and, WHEREAS, the City recognizes it has an obligation to participate in the costs associated with this construction; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Eagan that MnDOT is hereby formally requested to prepare a cost participation agreement to incorporate the requested revisions and extentions of the City's trunk storm sewer crossing of Cliff Road at the I- 35 interchange. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF EAGAN HEREBY AGREES to participate in its proportionate share of the construction costs associated with this storm sewer system as delineated in the cost participation agreement in accordance with present policies pertaining to joint use of storm sewer facilities. Motion By: Seconded By: Members in Favor: Members Opposed: Date: December 21, 1982 Attest: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN By: Mayor Certification I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given•) of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 21st day of December, 1982; at. which a majority of members of said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted. Given under my hand and seal this 21st day of December, 1982. 36 1 Citv Clerk 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Eight MnDOT AGENCY AGREEMENT D. Approve' MnDOT Agency Agreement -- The City has received a re- vised agency agreement from MnDOT for formal Council approval on behalf of the City of Eagan. This agency agreement provides for the City appointing the Commissioner of Transportation as its agent with respect to all federally funded projects, to accept and receive all federal funds made available for said projects and to let con- tracts pursuant to law for the construction and improvement of local streets. This agency agreement would be enacted for projects similar to the relocation of Galaxy Avenue which was performed under a City contract but where federal funds were provided. This is a standard agency agreement and the revision relates to elimina- tion of its having to be renewed every year. The staff is recom- mending approval of this agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve MnDOT Agency Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWALS E. 1983 Conditional Use Permit Renewals -- There are three (3) conditional use permit renewals in order for consideration: 1. Merlin Barfknecht, 835 Lone Oak Road, for tire and supply storage in his garage. 2. Elroy and Brett Mann, 3165 Dodd Road, car storage for Men- dota Skelly 3. Dr. Ethel Traxler, 1467 Highview Avenue, for an office in the home. All three (3) conditional use permits are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1983 condi- tional use permit renewals for January as presented. 37 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Nine Pe) BLI C ti H EARI'NGSIi'_ PROJECT 297-R FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING A. Project 297-R, Final Assessment Hearing (Continued), Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer -- On November 9, 1982, two major property owners submitted written objections and/or appeals pertaining to their trunk area storm sewer assessments for Project 297-R. These two property owners were Jim Horne (Horne Development Corporation) and Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Bryant. Based on the written objections that were received on November 6th, the public hearing for these final reassessments was continued until December 21st to allow adequate time for property appraisal work to be performed. As was reviewed with the City Council on December 7th, it has been determined that the approximate 10 -acre parcel owned by Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Bryant (10-02100-010-04) does not lie within the benefited drainage basin for the Blackhawk Lake trunk storm sewer project. Therefore, the City staff is recommending that this parcel be deleted from the final assessment roll for Project 297-R. In order to proceed with the final assessment for the property owned by Mr. Jim Horne and/or Horne Development Corporation, it is necessary for the City to contract with a real estate appraiser to determine the benefit to the affected property. The City has received a written estimate of $3,500 to perform the property appraisal for all the property owned by Jim Horne and Horne Development Corporation. This cost has been broken down into $155.00 per platted lot within the King's Wood Addition and $1,500 to the remaining 27 acres of undeveloped property (Parcel No. 10-02100-010-01). Therefore, the City staff has revised the final assessment figures for the affected parcels to incorporate the above referenced additional costs associated with this project necessitated by the property appraisal as re- quested by the affected property owners. In addition, the City's appraiser has not yet completed the analysis of the property. Subsequently, it is recommended that this public hearing for the parcels under the ownership of Jim Horne and/or Horne Development Corporation be continued until a separate special City Council meeting date at the end of January where detailed testimony can be presented pertaining to the benefits received by the properties associated with this public improvement project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: (1) Delete Parcel 10-02100- 010-04 from the final assessment roll for Project 297-R, and (2) Continue the public hearing for Project 297-R until January , 1983. — 3C� Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Ten 1983 GENERAL FUND Sr REVENUE SHARING BUDGET B. 1983 Budget and Proposed Revenue Sharing Budget -- The 1983 General Fund and Public Enterprise Fund Budget was prepared, re- viewed and modified by the City Council during the months of August, September and October. The levy certification for the 1983 General Fund Budget was approved at a regular City Council meeting during the month of October. With the exception of a few final budgetary adjustments during the month of November, the 1983 General Fund and Public Enterprise Fund Budgets, according to the recommendations of the City Council, are in order for final consideration. The General Fund Budget reflects a total expenditure for 1983 in .the amount of $3,732,950. The Public Enterprise Budget, consisting of water, sewer and street lighting, is $2,115,750. The 1983 budget document will be copied and distributed within the next one to two weeks as approved by the City Council. Enclosed on pages A�- through is a copy of a comparative summary of general un revenues and expenditures and the public enterprise revenues and expenditures as proposed for final City Council approval. The State budget bill that was approved during the month of December has no direct effect on the 1983 operating budget. The impact on the City of Eagan is a 1982 reduction in revenues of $25,967. This is a result of the December payment for homestead credit, local govenment aid and attached machinery aid being reduced by a total of $5.78 million. Each city in the State of Minnesota will receive a check for local government aid that has been reduced by.1.219713% of the total aid. The only impact the City will re- ceive as a result of the State budget bill in 1983 is the absorption of 2"/ of the amount paid to the PERA fund by all public employees. During calendar 1983, City employees will be required to contribute an additional 2% of salary to PERA. This brings a coordinated employee's total PERA contribution to 67. The City will continue to make its 5�% contribution for coordinated members to PERA as well. PERA will then pay to the state general fund an amount equal to 4% of salary, for the first six months of 1983. Members of PERA police and fire funds and basic funds will be similarly treated, i.e., they will contribute an additional 2% of their 1983 salary to PERA which will be passed on to the state. The impact on the City and its budget for 1983 does not change. The net result is a larger payroll contribution by each employee. The total cost to the employees during 1983 is $42,887. The City Administrator asked the Director of Finance to prepare a spread sheet illustrating (1) the December, 1982 reduction in local government aid, and (2) the total impact of the pension funding changes as they specifically relate to the City of Eagan public employees as a result of the state budget bill. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed on page S for your information. Again, action contained within the 39 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Eleven state budget bill does not impact the 1983 budget. More than likely the City can anticipate some reduction in the various aid distribu- tions during 1983; however, until the state legislature meets, there is uncertainty as to what those cuts, if any, will be. Federal Revenue Sharing The City of Eagan is required to hold two hearings concerning the expenditure of federal revenue sharing funds. At the last regular City Council meeting held on December 7, a public hearing was con- sidered regarding a proposed use of entitlement funds to be received during 1983. This public hearing was required by federal guidelines and also offered as an opportunity for the public to suggest various uses that might be an appropriate consideration for the expenditure of federal revenue sharing monies. There were no suggestions pre- sented by the public at that meeting; however, the City Council discussed the possibility of appropriating the upcoming entitlement in a general sense, allowing additional review at the time of pro- posed expenditures during 1983. This budgetary method allows more flexibility for the City Council in determining and meeting local government needs during calendar 1983. Again, this second public hearing is to consider the adoption of the federal revenue sharing budget. Again, the City will have approximately $261,000 allocated for federal revenue sharing monies during 1983. The Director of Finance is conducting a study as it relates to voting machine equip- ment. If a report is prepared in time for the administrative agenda, the same will be distributed to the City Council for consideration of that item as a part of the 1983 federal revenue sharing budget. The other consideration is to purchase voting machine equipment during 1982 and it will not reflect as an expenditure or budgetary item during 1983 if time permits. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1983 general fund, public enterprise fund and federal revenue sharing budgets as presented. is 4 41 GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES 4:2- ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 General Property Taxes $1,116,815 $1,325,723 $1,782,470 $2,099,210 Licenses 50,444 53,347 44,710' 49,440 Permits 235,741 280,850 183,950 206,400 Intergovernmental Revenue 723,612 813,346 777,160 838,650 Charges for Services 44,108 116,044 85,100 93,900 Recreation Charges 20,783 22,040 33,410 Fines & Forfeits 39,432 41,214 40,000 40,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 35,694 33,202 31,000 32,600 Refunds & Reimbursements 141,998 255,523 268,400 339,340 Other 31,640 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,419,484 $2,940,032 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 4:2- • i GENERAL FUND DETAIL OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3011 Ad Valorem Taxes -Current $1,091,435 $1,276,665 $1,716,350 $1,974,860 3015 Fiscal Disparities 25,380 49,058 66,120 124,350 $1,116,815 $1,325,723 $1,782,470 $2,099,210 LICENSES 3110 Liquor $ 30,475 $ 34,619 $ 29,600 $ 32,500 3111 Beer 1,742 4,561 1,480 1,500 3112 Cigarette 1,083 340 900 900 3113 Mechanical 2,000 1,625 1,000 1,120 3114 Vending 3,240 2,266 3,000 3,600 3115 Garbage & Rubish Hauling 505 335 400 490 3116 Kennel 50 144 130 130 3117 Dog 6,604 6,637 6,500 6,500 3118 Amusement 1,275 1,850 1,200 2,000 3119 Gambling/Bingo/Raffle 970 300 500 3120 Other 3,470 2,500 200 200 $ 50,444 $ 53,347 $ 44,710 $ 49,440 PERMITS 3210 Building $ 148,105 $ 162,980 $ 120,000 $ 135,000 3211 '3212 Electrical 40,095 39,033 32,500 30,000 Plumbing 16,869 32,294 10,000 15,000 3213 Mechanical 20,822 32,860 10,000 15,000 3214 Sign 6,355 6,732 6,000 5,000 3215 Trailer 210 135 200 200 3216 Well 90 60 100 100 3217 Cesspool 115 462 100 100 3218 Gravel Pit 1,750 300 300 600 3219 Excavating 2,000 1,000 2,000 3220 Conditional Use/Special Permit 2,500 2,500 2,500 3221 Water Softener 874 650 300 3222 Utility 585 300 300 3223 Tree Cutting 25 35 100 100 3230 Other 1,305 200 200 $ 235,741 $ 280,850 $ 183,950 $ 206,400 43 3411 i 600 $ • 600 $ 600 3412 Platting Fees GENERAL FUND 3,227 5,000 5,000 3413 Rezoning Fees DETAIL OF REVENUES 2,700 2,500 2,500 3414 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 2,000 3415 1980 1981 1982 1983 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3416 IDR Bond Fees 10,250 3,000 3310 Federal Grants $ 16,780 2,371 2,288 3340 State Grants $ 42,314 47,353 3,286 3,880 3345 Local Government Aid 338,548 328,978 $ 317,070 $ 356,380 3346 Attached machinery Aid 5,370 5,960 5,960 5,500 3347 Homestead Credit 255,767 335,681 372,530 391,970 3348 MSA Maintenance 25,695 24,945 25,000 32,000 3350 Shade Tree Disease Program 10,732 2,458 Sale of Printed Material 2,637 3351 Police Town Aid 45,186 51,191 56,600 52,800 100 200 $ 723,612 $ 813,346 $ 777,160 $ 838,650 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,000 500 3446 Administrative Fee-SAC/Collect. 3411 Variance Fees $ 600 $ 1,350 $ 600 $ 600 3412 Platting Fees 7,598 3,227 5,000 5,000 3413 Rezoning Fees 2,100 2,700 2,500 2,500 3414 Property Splitting Fees 1,738 590 1,000 2,000 3415 Returned Check Fees 71 100 100 3416 IDR Bond Fees 10,250 3,000 2,000 1,000 3417 Dog Impound & Kennel Fees 2,371 2,288 2,500 2,500 3419 Burglar Alarm Fees 3,286 3,880 3,000 3,000 3420 I.G.H. Fire Dept. Dispatching 8,750 4,293 3421 Public Safety Fees 200 200 200 3422 Plan Checks 82,774 60,000 67,500 3425 Assessment Searches 4,390 3,585 3,500 3,500 3430 Sale of Printed Material 2,637 3,010 1,500 2,500 3440 Other Fees & Charges 388 100 200 1,000 3445 Permit Surcharge 608 1,000 500 3446 Administrative Fee-SAC/Collect. 4,368 2,000 2,000 $ 44,108 $ 116,044 $ 85,100 $ 93,900 RECREATION CHARGES Recreation Fees $ 20,783 $ 22,040 $ 33,410 $ 20,783 $ 22,040 $ 33,410 FINES & FORFEITS 3610 Court Fines & Forfeits $ 39,432 $ 41,214 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 39,432 $ 41,214 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 in 0 GENERAL FUND DETAIL OF REVENUES 11 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3910 Project Administration ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Water Administration 80,000 1980 1981 1982 1983 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 44,800 64,280 3914 Insurance 3810 Interest of Investments $ 22,804 $ 7,085 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 3821 Building Rent 9,828 11,945 10,000 10,000 3840 Sale of City Property 300 10,674 3,500 5,000 3850 Contributions & Donations 1,312 600 500 600 3880 Other Revenues 1,450 2,898 2,000 2,000 $ 35,694 $ 33,202 $ 31,000 $ 32,600 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3910 Project Administration $ 122,044 $ 83,059 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 3912 Water Administration 80,000 89,600 128,560 3913 Sewer Administration 40,000 44,800 64,280 3914 Insurance 15,527 5,000 5,000 3915 Planning 1,104 4,000 1,500 3916 Engineering 11,445 10,000 7,500 3917 3920 Legal Other 11,785 19,954 12,603 10,000 5,000 10,000 22,500 $ 141,998 $ 255,523 $ 268,400 $ 339,340 OTHER 3980 Transfer from Reserves $ 31,640 $ 31,640 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,419,484 $2,940,032 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 -45- GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES m • i GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT O1 Mayor & Council 02 Administration 05 Finance/Clerk/Elections 06 Legal 08 Planning & Zoning 09 General Government Buildi PUBLIC SAFETY it Police 12 Fire 13 Protective Inspections 14 Animal Control 15 Civil Defense 16 Ambulance Service PUBLIC WORKS ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 23,532 $ 27,284 $ 28,150 $ 30,020 85,959 126,582 105,690 138,370 240,624 202,453 237,920 277,170 41,001 57,770. 60,000 73,500 45,767 51,433 69,290 78,400 s 42,596 36,987 33,000 47,260 $ 479,479 $ 502,509 $ 534,050 $ 644,720 $ 924,485 $ 997,161 $1,178,870 $1,374,370 167,109 148,314 208,700 237,320 98,776 119,984 152,990 155,500 14,117 16,442 22,880 28,100 173 37,199 42,170 2,390 7,000 20,986 22,800 26,400 $1,211,660 $1,340,086 $1,628,410 $1,824,080 21 Public Works/Engineering $ 64,961 $ 198,653 $ 193,480 $ 249,710 22 Streets & Highways 375,139 388,461 421,410 504,270 $ 440,100 $ 587,114 $ 614,890 $ 753,980 PARKS & RECREATION 31 Parks & Recreation $ 275,510 $ 335,228 $ 381,300 $ 433,150 32 Tree Conservation 4,421 24,741 42,680 42,020 $ 279,931 $ 359,969 $ 423,980 $ 475,170 OTHER 41 Contingency $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $2,411,170 $2,789,678 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 47 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION Personal Services $ ACTUAL $ ACTUAL $ BUDGET $ BUDGET Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services 1980 16,508 1981 10,100 1982 650 1983 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,750 106,355 45,767 $ 95,621 69,290 $ 89,810 502,509 $ 108,020 O1 Mayor & Council 12,357 3,386 500 10,000 Personal Services $ 20,018 $ 20,508 $ 23,210 $ 25,030 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance $ 240,624 $ 36 $ 237,920 $ 277,170 Other Charges & Services 3,514 6,740 4,940 4,990 Other Charges & Services $ 23,532 $ 27,284 $ 28,150 $ 30,020 02 Administration $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 Personal Services $ 70,911 $ 86,883 $ 83,530 $ 96,720 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 543 2,308 800 1,050 Other Charges & Services 14,505 37,285 21,110 40,600 Capital Outlay 106 250 $ 85,959 $ 126,582 $ 105,690 $ 1389370 05 Finance/Clerk/Elections Personal Services $ 111,709 $ 95,365 $ 139,700 $ 151,150 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services 10,203 16,508 6,720 10,100 7,910 650 8,000 Other Charges & Services 1,750 106,355 45,767 $ 95,621 69,290 $ 89,810 502,509 $ 108,020 Capital Outlay 12,357 3,386 500 10,000 Other 1,361 $ 240,624 $ 202,453 $ 237,920 $ 277,170 06 Legal Other Charges & Services $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 O8 Planning & Zoning Personal Services $ 28,788 $ 34,007 $ 51,000 $ 65,880 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 836 305 950 670 Other Charges & Services 15,493 16,508 16,340 10,100 Capital Outlay 650 613 1,000 1,750 $ 45,767 $ 51,433 $ 69,290 $ 78,400 General Government Buildings Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 15,174 $ 15,947 $ 18,790 $ 25,700 4,037 2,307 1,650 2,400 22,280 18,334 121110 18,910 1,105 399 450 250 $ 42,596 $ 36,987 $ 33,000 $ 47,260 $ 479,479 $ 502,509 $ 534,050 $ 644,720 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 PUBLIC SAFETY it Police Personal Services $ 718,678 $ 810,302 $ 976,510 $1,116,300 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 49,003 63,257 70,960 71,100 Other Charges & Services 122,368 75,719 84,060 102,250 Capital Outlay 34,436 47,883 47,340 84,720 $ 924,485 $ 997,161 $1,178,870 $1,374,370 12 Fire Personal Services $ Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay 13 Protective Inspections 109,372 $ 16,734 34,792 6,211 167,109 $ 93,148 $ 19,649 32,419 3,098 148,314 139,650 $ 14,560 36,240 18,250 208,700 $ 171,210 16,200 38,380 11,530 237,320 Personal Services $ 56,457 $ 77,437 $ 103,640 $ 104,150 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 2,778 3,483 5,300 5,000 Other Charges & Services 38,543 38,218 40,950 44,820 Capital Outlay 998 846 3,100 1_,530 $ 98,776 $ 119,984 $ 152,990 $ 155,500 14 Animal Control Personal Services $ 6,363 $ 10,048 $ 13,800 $ 19,980 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,751 1,666 2,370 2,400 Other Charges & Services 4,136 4,728 5,410 5,720 Capital Outlay 1,867 36,826 1,300 41,720 $ 14,117 $ 16,442 $ 22,880 $ 28,100 15 Civil Defense Supplies, Repair & Maintenance $ 126'$ 197 $ 250 $ 200 47 176 200 2,190 36,826 41,720 $ 173 $ 37,199 $ 42,170 $ 2,390 16 Ambulance Service Other Charges & Services $ 7,000 $ 20,986 $ 22,800 $26,400 $ 7,000 $ 20,986 $ 22,800 $ 26,400 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $1,211,660 $1,340,086 $1,628,410 $1,824,080 4 -OL 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 PUBLIC WORKS 21 Public Works/Engineering Personal Services $ 33,590 $ 141,884 $ 166,030 $ 225,760 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 2,445 4,336 2,980 2,800 Other Charges & Services 26,235 50,106 19,010 17,300 Capital Outlay 2,691 2,327 5,460 3,850 $ 64,961 $ 198,653 $ 193,480 $ 249,710 22 Streets & Highways Personal Services $ 134,883 $ 178,102 $ 203,160 $ 252,570 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 81,480 89,093 87,420 97,910 Other Charges & Services 154,107 115,463 123,830 127,990 Capital Outlay 4,669 5,803 7,000 25,800 $ 375,139 $ 388,461 $ 421,410 $ 504,270 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 440,100 $ 587,114 $ 614,890 $ 753,980 PARKS & RECREATION 31 Parks & Recreation Personal Services $ 197,571 $ 247,817 $ 268,350 $ 298,440 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 33,179 41,201 46,940 56,750 Other Charges & Services 37,460 35,068 46,310 54,640 Capital Outlay 7,300 10,970 19,230 23,320 Other 172 470 $ 275,510 $ 335,228 $ 381,300 $ 433,150 32 Tree Conservation Personal Services $ $ 13,488 $ 29,520 $ 31,270 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 421 2,512 2,710 1,860 Other Charges & Services 4,000 1,140 1,800 1,890 Capital Outlay 7,601 8,650 7,000 $ 4,421 $ 24,741 $ 42,680 $ 42,020 TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION $ 279,931 $ 359,969 $ 423,980 $ 475,170 SU 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION OTHER 41 Contingency Other TOTAL OTHER TOTAL GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $35,000 $2,411,170 $2,789,678 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 S1 PUBLIC UTILITIES 15,Z COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 61 Water Metered Sales $ 577,429 $ 617,343 $ 675,000 $ 800,000 Connection Charges 292,155 175,289 91,500 126,000 Other .180,135 244,092 83,390 83,350 $1,049,719 $1,036,724 $ 849,890 $1,009,350 62 Sewer Metered Charges $ 705,453 $ '878,077 $ 800,000 $1,000,000 Connection Charges 108,860 93,895 30,000 30,000 Other ...157,654 .244,539 59,590 62,400 $ 971,967 $1,216,511 $ 889,590 $1,092,400 62 Street Lighting Customer Billed Charges $ ..-4,579 $ ...7,133 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $ 4,579 $ 7,133 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES $2,026,265 $2,260,368 $1,746,480 $2,115,750 15,Z PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES 61 Water Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services . Capital Outlay Other 62 Sewer Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay Other 63 Street Lighting Other Charges & Services TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 127,415 $ 140,533 $ 132,390 $ 123,820 21,056 44,123 42,150 45,630 261,269 295,752 171,330 214,760 32,082 7,600 25,090 692 80,000 496,420 600,050 $ 410,432 $ 592,490 $ 849,890 $1,009,350 $ 63,668 $ 22,035 $ 65,490 $ 62,090 5,014 3,436 11,500 110,690 589,124 644,024 719,850 815,000 2,953 7,000 14,690 40,000 85,750 189,930 $ 657,806 $ 712,448 $ $889,590 $1,092,400 $ 4,081 $ 7,414 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $ 4,081 $ 7,414 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $1,072,319 $1,312,352 $1,746,480 $2,115,750 S3 6 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VAN OVERBEKE DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1982 SUBJECT: STATE BUDGET BILL IMPACT The recently enacted cuts in local government aid will affect the City as follows. The total reduction of $5.78 million produces a reduction ratio (actual as determined by the State) of 1.219713 as a per cent of total aids. This ratio is multiplied by the sum of the 1982 Local Government Aid and the 1982 Levy Limit Base to arrive at the reduction. City of -Eagan 1982 Local Government Aid 1982 Levy Limit Base Aid Reduction Base Times Reduction Ratio December 1982 Reduction $ 316,893 1,812,059 $2,128,952 1.219713% $ 25,967 The pension funding changes will have the following estimated impact. The 1982 PERA employee deductions are estimated to be: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 54,024 1,338 44,497 T---99—,85-9 An additional reduction of 2% would make these amounts: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 67,530 1,673 66,746 $ 135,949 The total additional cost to the employees would be $36,090. A 5% salary increase coupled with the 2% PERA increase would generate the following total contributions: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 70,907 1,756 70,083 $ 142,746 The total cost to the employees would then be $42,887. finance irector itv erc s� ILI Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twelve 46 NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN A. Reconsideration of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Sign -Cedar Free- way Area -- At the November 9, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the advertising sign located on Lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition. The City Council's interpretation of Ordinance No. 16 is that an advertising sign can be no higher than 40' from the Cedar Avenue roadbed. This is not the same interpretation as 40' above the elevation where the sign was located. A letter was sent to Julianne Bye of Naegele Outdoor Avertising Sign Company by the City Planner dated November 15, 1982. A copy of that letter is enclosed on page s6 In response to the City's position, a letter was sent to t e ity Administrator along with a calendar of events, Naegele's interpretation of Eagan sign ordinance #16 and an elevation that shows the location of then. This informa- tion is enclosed on pages S 7 through 61sigNaegele Outdoor Advertising Company stated in t eir letter oT December 1 that several options would be reviewed. Those options were studied by Naegele and a letter, enclosed on pages 6-S through (, and dated December 15, 1982, basically states tTiat they are unable to relocate the sign on the subject property with which the lease was executed, they have no alternative locations and feel they can not lower the structure any more than three feet. The City Attorney, City Planner and City Administrator are planning to meet with representatives of Naegele on Monday, December 20, and addi- tional information will be made available as a part of the adminis- trative packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To reconsider the current elevation and/or location of the Naegele sign that was approved and is located adjacent to the Cedar Avenue Freeway on its east side between Cliff Road and Diffley Road. SS 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOM9UIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Moro PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER _ Cw i Me Iwl November 15, 1982 THOMAS HEDGES City Add rmsftolm EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Coy Clea MS JULIANNE BYE NAJME CUIDOOR ADVERTISING SIM CO 1700 W 78TH ST RIC HIF= MN 55423 Re: Advertising Sign located on Lot 2, Cedar Ride 2nd Addition Dear Ms. Bye: At the November 9, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the advertising sign located on lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition. The City coun- cil's interpretation of Ordinance #16 is that the advertising sign be no higher than 40' from Cedar Avenue roadbed vs. 40' above the elevation where the sign is located. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the November 9, 1982 City Council minutes for your review. Hopefully, this interpretation from the City Council will give you the direction needed to corse into oon- fonmance with Ordinance #16. If you have any questions regarding Ordinance #16 or the height of your ad- vertising sign on Lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition, please contact me at the Eagan City Hall. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner DC R/jach enc. cc - Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator 6-6 THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY 1700 WEST 76TH STnEET MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55423 16121 BGS -1900 JUUANNE BYE 4uaoc�em O�raccoNCorparem Oeve�opmenc December 1, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 37Q5 Pilot Knob Road Post Office Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: &TIVOT At our meeting the following options were developed regarding the Naegele Outdoor Advertising display on Cedar Avenue. Please let me know if there are any errors. 1. Lower the structure. As discussed, to be effective the display must be visible for 600 feet. The current site will be surveyed again from 600 feet to determine the necessary minimum height for it to be visible. 2. Relocate the display on the same property. Naegele will review the property and determine if the display can be relocated on the same property. 3. Alternative locations. Naegele will explore the possibility of alternative sites on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77. In addition, the lease agreement between the property owner and Naegele Outdoor Advertising is being reviewed as to the impact the lease has on each option. The options are being studied, however, the work will not be completed by the December 7th City Council meeting. 11,1e share the City's desire to resolve the situation in a prompt manner and will keep the city .......... 57 Page 2 informed of all progress. A4e appreciate the time Lease :'0381 Permit 1. a 9 August 2G. 1982 September 7. 1982 September 13, 1982 September 28, 1982 0 Julianne Bye applied For sign permit and reviewed application with i%a:E City Council approve sign permit for Naegele. Julianne Bye applied for sign permit. George DeGidio tallied with Dale Runkle about the height of the structure. October 5, 1982 Julianne Bve called city hall to ask for copy of processed sign permit. Informed by Bev it was processed and it was okay to build. October 7, 1982 October 18, 1982 9. October 19. 1982 10. October 21. 1982 11. November S. 1982 12. November 9. 1982 13. November 9. 1952 S9 Apply for state permit on sign Construction begins (construction not complete since the sign is not illuminated) Julianne Bye received neighborhood complaints. Discussion of sign at Council meeting. Naegele not present. Julianne Bye called Dale Runkle regarding sign. Runkle explained that the city would be surveying the sign to determine height. The staff will report results to the Council on November 9th. Runkle would contact Bye if there were any problems. Dale Runkle called Julianne Bye to inform her of the staff report and requested her attendance at the November 9th Council fleeting. Julianne Bye meet with Dale Runkle to review staff report. Julianne Bye appears before the Council and explained Naegele's position. Council instructed staff that fl-,, ordinance was to be interpreted that the height of the structure was to be 40' above the roadway. If the lor, le%el .,as hi -,-her than the roadway rz and thaL r, he s:i"In viol atetl the ordinance. 1.4. November 1G. 1982 Runkle called .Julianne Bye to find out .if there were any problems with the Council's action. Julianne Bye requested meeting with Runkle. City Attorney and City Manager. 15. November 17, 1982 Julianne Bye received letter from Dale Runkle informing her of the City Council's action. 16. November 18, 1982 Runkle called Julianne Bye and meeting was established for Monday, November 22nd with Nancy Jorgensen, Dale Runkle, City Manager and City Attorney. rz TN 1 ywy77 CCe d4 a &C. yo i�# 10 h n/W r"e eJ • The only reference in the ordinance to height of advertising signs: Section 16.04, Subdivision 4, Height. No advertising sign shall exceed 40 feet—measured at lot level or roadway level. Whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on visibility factors on the adjacent roadway. Examples: 1. Lot level and roadWay level are an equal height. 40 510 910, .. - 2. Lot level is lower than roadway level. SID Ee� I 3. Lot level is higher than roadway level. a. City interpretation of ordinance. 4. Various heights surrounding the lot level (Cedar Avenue situation). L_ 91c/ r� i EAGAN SIGN ORDINANCE NUMBER 16 The only reference in the ordinance to height of advertising signs: Section 16.04, Subdivision 4, Height. No advertising sign shall exceed 40 feet—measured at lot level or roadway level. Whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on visibility factors on the adjacent roadway. Examples: 1. Lot level and roadWay level are an equal height. 40 510 910, .. - 2. Lot level is lower than roadway level. SID Ee� I 3. Lot level is higher than roadway level. a. City interpretation of ordinance. 4. Various heights surrounding the lot level (Cedar Avenue situation). L_ 91c/ r� i • _ ! NAEGELE OUTOOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES j I 1700 WEST 76TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 X612! 669-1SOO JUUANNE BYE ,aceocece GsacroNCa.porece Oevaopmenc December 15, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company has completed its review of the three options outlined in my December 1, 1982 letter. The following is a summary of our findings: 1) Lower the structure. The current structure has been surveyed from 600 feet for the minimum height necessary for it to be visible. The visibility of the south face (toward County Road 32) will be impaired by the hillside if it is lower more than three feet. 2) Relocating the display. The property has been reviewed and there are no alternative locations that will meet the City's intrepretation of the sign ordinance. In fact, moving the structure may cause an increase in. height of the sign. To be visible at an alternative location, the structure should be the same elevation above the roadway as the current structure. Because of the change in slope, the lot level at the alternative site would probably be lower. Consequently, the single pole would be longer and the height above the lot level increased. In addition, the site location is stipulated in the lease agreement between the property owner and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Moving the structure would require Naegele to enter into another lease with the property owner. Moving the structure may not be grounds for breaking the lease. It is conceivable that we would have two leases for one structure. N4.G L Gf y Si. G3 3) Alternative locations. Presently, we have no other leases on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77. It is my understanding that a meeting has been established for Monday, December 20th to review the situation. If you should require more information by that time, please call me. Sincerely, Julianne Bye Associate Director Corporate Development JB:ah Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Thirteen Y NEWT B� SII!NE'S'Si FINAL RESOLUTION/IR FINANCING DIAMOND LAKE A. Diamond Lake for Final Resolution for Industrial Revenue Fi- nancing -- The City Administrator has been contacted by Robert Levy, legal counsel for Diamond Lake, Inc., and apparently Diamond Lake, Inc., is planning to hold up on the final closing and issuance of the commercial development revenue bonds for the grocery store until the Pilot Knob Shopping Center final resolution for industrial revenue financing is processed. Apparently, the final resolution for the shopping center should be forthcoming in early 1983. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To continue indefinitely the final resolution for industrial revenue financing for Diamond Lake, Inc. VARIANCE - LOTS 2-10, BLOCK 3, BRITTANY 3RD ADDITION B. Tollefson Builders, Inc., Carl Tollefson, for a 10' Front Set- back Variance Located on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition -- A public hearing was held at the last regular APC meeting held on November 23, 1982 to consider an application submitted by Tollef- son Builders, Inc., requesting a 10' front setback variance on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. Action was taken by the APC to recommend approval to the City Council for the setback variance. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 6G through 648 For action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes enclosed on page _6_. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the APC to approve a 10' front setback variance for Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. 65 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: 10' FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICANT: TOLLEFSON BUILDERS INC, CARL TOLLEFSON LOCATION: LATS 2-10, BLACK 3, BRITTANY 3RD ADDITIONN EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY APPLICATION SUBMITTED NOMIBER 23, 1982 NOVEMHR 15, 1982 DALE C. RUNIQ,E, CITY PLANNER An application has been submitted requesting a 10' front setback variance on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. An application has been submitted requesting that hones constructed on the north side of Sherwood Way be allowed to build 20' from. the front property line vs. the 30' requirement. It is staff's understanding that the applicant wishes to con- struct closer to the property line and is due to the severe topographv and trees located on Lots 2-10. It appears the topography drops severely on the north side of Sherwood way, and in order to provide for economical construction and save trees in this development, the applicant is requesting that the front setback of the hones be 20' from the property line vs. the 30' requirement in Ordinance $52. In the past, it has been a practice to allow front setback variances of this nature due to severe topography and trees, and reviewing this particular application, it appears that a criteria for granting the variance due to topography and trees is justified on these particular lots. There have been a number of hones constructed in this particular area and notices for this setback variance have been sent out to the surrounding property owners. The input received at the public hearing from the surrounding neighbors should al- so be included in the decision to grant the 10' setback variance. If this vari- anoe is approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1) All other ordinance requirements be net. DCR/jach .• I k N �� t'. a p66+Z ' oolt lr•nitf 1. M,.II,bZ.b� s • t o. - 7 ��C3.. :��M� nhQa'% , Z IN NI I -i 10 w � •ql I° 90_001 I I FII D'l2kti.71 t q16�, i W .I L 00 9b L°!hI 69'89)L� O N UOf L K a 9 3,Il,bieb9 � �dM b �r b8„ go qqz _ to a p 00'011 i^ 00' 001 —CR ?I I (7172 6h 99 57y \\y.. r IF IN °I I w� °49 Y 76h%O LiN 94'r t N Or 6 f 1w .4 1 f ,YY ' 11 ,(fiti=t 2 U Q I i . �., s :j11 f e 8.9 'fb_ oo•ofi1 QI Ip' Z kl 10 3 :G -01 0. .Ov�'@�` o 110 4 -n4 ora n 6\ r 4?Pi 0 -lino° V-• 000 0 i 9IL w,Zc" AlA• �,F .. �II ;'ra 9.I�ry+��ir�' 1���4� `•;t`' -6�6 ib.10.CO5 90 I•r I� j�yy pp t F b)1 t.t. �t . 1. Nb' ro 4144.5f UY, 1 s it eb i t '4,�r.;7: ` +��f Y � '.. .i.. •... 00 : nal• • CAR Q Iq IPD 77-2 4 � R -I SAFARI AT R- i - R -1 kin I� I A CC99 PD PF -3 R-1 ' R-1 R-1 MM, eo2,� P PAR I - \ Gr R-1 COL A � M `•'+�C `•••v ., )• qlA :) i. �..l `, a -- CC99 PD E APC Minutes November 24, 1982 HAEG PROPERTY - WAIVER OF PLAT - DODD ROAD A public hearing regarding the application of Eugene Haeg and Lentsch Realtors for waiver of plat in order to split .37 acres from a 4.2 acre parcel located south of-Hackamore Drive and west of Dodd Road was considered by the Planning Commission:, Frank Lentsch appeared for Mr. Haeg and states that the owners intend to sell 4.2 acres to a developer and retain .37 acres for a new house on an existing parcel. A request to construct a new homestead within the parcel and sell off the remaining for development was based upon the heavy assessments for utilities and streets that have been levied in recent years. The remaining parcel would be 15,150 square feet. The staff recommended an overlay design to be done to show how the property could be maximized for development in the future.=' One neighboring property owner was present with questions but there were'no objections to the application. There was discus- sion concerning a possible future subdivision including a cul-de-sac and there were concerns by the staff that variances may be requested in the future. After considerable discussion, Turnham moved, Krob seconded the motion to continue the.. application until the next regular meeting for 'further study in order to review a plan for use of the balance of the parcel. All voted in favor except McCrea who voted no. TOLLEFSON BUILDERS, INC. 10 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE - BRITTANY 3RD ADDITION The hearing regarding the application of Carl Tollefson of Tollefson Builders, Inc. for a 10 foot setback variance from Lots 2 through 10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition was convened. Carl Tollefson was present and explained the proposal.' One neighboring owner was present with questions but there were no objections. It was noted the proposal was to allow a 20 foot setback from the front property line because of the extremely severe topography along the rear area, and also because of numerous trees on the lots. Dale Runkle indicated that the City has allowed such variances in other areas because of topographic and tree conditions. Mulrooney moved, McCrea seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to compliance with all other applicable ordinances. All voted in favor. N F Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Fourteen REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NORWEST IST C. Banco Properties, Thomas Hallbauer, for Rezoning Approximately 4.4 Acres from A to GB; for Preliminary Plat, Norwest 1st Addition, consisting of approximately 6.4 Acres and Containing 2 Commercial Lots; and for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Drive -Up Teller in Conjunction with the Proposed Bank Facility -- A public hearing was held at the last regular APC meeting held on November 23, 1982 to consider three applications submitted by Banco Properties, Inc. The applications are for preliminary plat of Norwest First Addition, rezoning from A to GB and a conditional use permit to allow a drive up teller in conjunction with a proposed bank facility. The APC is recommending approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit according to certain conditions outlined in the minutes. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 7Z throughFor action that was taken by the APC, refer to pages !96_t rough _77 For additional information on this item refer to a memoran ud m that was prepared by the City Planner following the APC meeting which is enclosed on pages _Jjthrough g4 Also enclosed on page q is a copy of a site plan for tYie temporary bank facility. Additional research into the past assessment history of this parcel being considered for platting into the Norwest Addition indicates that there are additional assessment responsibilities over and above those that were identified under Engineering Recommendations No. 12 to the staff's report presented to the Planning Commission. In addition to this parcel being responsible for lateral benefit from trunk water main if it develops, it is also responsible for the past trunk area water assessment that was excluded at the re- quest of the property owner in 1976. In addition, this parcel should be responsible for its trunk area storm sewer assessment as a condition of the final plat. Therefore, the staff would like to amend Condition No. 12 of its report as presented to the Planning Commission on November 23 to the following: This development shall accept its financial responsibility for lateral benefit from trunk water main and trunk area assess- ments for water and storm sewer to be calculated at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval consistent with the proposed zoning and land use of the property as approved for development. The developer has been informed of the financial impact this would have on the development based on the 1982 rates and the anticipated zoning and land use changes. For the Council's information, this calculates to $11,808.00 for lateral benefit from trunk water main, $10,153.00 for trunk area water assessment and $16,884.00 for trunk area storm sewer. 70 0 i Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Fifteen ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Norwest 1st Addition along with the approval or denial of the change to Engineering Recommendation No. 12. 7/ i 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NOPNEST 1ST ADDITION APPLICANT: BANCO PROPERTIES INC. - THO%1AS HALLBAUER LOCATION: PART OF THE S' OF THE SW; OF THE SW; OF SECTION 10 EXISTING ZONING: GB (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) & A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 23, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: NOVEVJKER 18, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SU 4X= The first application submitted is'a request for preliminary plat, Norwest 1st Addition, which would consist of approximately 6.46 acres and contain 2 oom:ex cial lots. The second application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 4.4 acres of the 6.46 acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business District). The third application submitted is a request for a conditional use permit to al- low a drive -up teller in conjunction with the proposed bank facility. ZCNING AND LAND USE Presently, two acres of the 6.46 acres is zoned GB (General Business District); 4.64 acres is agriculturally -zoned and the applicant is requesting GB (reneral Business) zoning on this unzoned acreage. The area north of this particular par- cel is also zoned GB (General Business) and the applicant is proposing General Business zoning on the agricultural parcel between the bur) General Business zon- ing districts. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this particular parcel as LB (Limited Business District). This is the general business which is being proposed. How- ever, the use proposed on Lot 1 would conform with the limited business use de- signated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. As stated above, the applicant is requesting to zone the 4.6 acres from A (Agri- cultural) to (B (General Business District). Lot 1, where the proposed bank is to be located, is presently zoned GB (General Business District). In reviewing Ordinance #52, the Zoning Ordinance, the General Business District is not the correct zoning which would allow a bank facility. Since the property is zoned, the applicant wishes to keep this particular zoning. Staff is suggesting that the Advisory Planning Commission recommend that the property be zoned Limited %Z CITY OP EAGAN REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE - BANCO PROPERTIES NOVEMBER 23, 1982 PA(M Ti40 Business, Neighborhood Business or possibly CSC (Community Shopping Center District) would all allow a bank facility as a penmmitted use within these zoning classifica- tions. The General Business classification is a zoning classification that is de- signated for heavy uses and those businesses which tend to serve other businesses and industries as well as the residents. These uses can be incompatible with resi- dential development, therefore, businesses in this zoning classification are con- centrated and insulated as much as possible from residential areas. The application submitted for the preliminary plat, Norwest 1st Addition, contains approximately 6.46 acres and would contain 2 commercial lots. Lot 1 contains ap- proximately 2.5 acres and Lot 2 contains approximately 3.9-4 acres. The applicant, at this tine, only proposes to construct a bank facility on Lot 1 and has no par- ticular plans for Lot 2. In reviewing the preliminary plat, staff has suggested that public access utilities be provided to Lot 2 in order to make this a build- able lot. Once public access and utilities are provided, then the applicant could either develop Lot 2 or sell Lot 2 for a buildable lot. The proposed bank facility located on Lot 1 will contain approximately 7,655 square feet of building and 5 drive -up islands. The proposed building would cover approx- imately 7.6`f of the site which is under the maximmmm lot coverage requirement. The applicant is proposing 31 parking spaces and 5 stacking spaces for each drive -up tower which is in accordance with Ordinance #52. The applicant is proposing access at several locations on this particular lot. The staff has suggested that the applicant contact Dakota County to see where the Coun- ty would allow access on Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. It is staff's understanding that the County will allow right -in right -out access on Yankee Doodle Road and a right -in right -out access on Pilot Knob Road with the full turning ac- cess proposed at the very north end of the property. The very northerly access would be a publicly dedicated street providing public -access to the bank facility and the proposed Lot 2. In reviewing this proposed access, staff would also like to work with Univac directly west of this subject parcel to see if the access to Univac's visitor parking can be relocated to make this northernmost access a 4 -way intersection which would allow for the potential signalization in the future in- stead of having staggered access along Pilot Knob Road. The property which the applicant is purchasing excludes, or has an exception, for one single family residence. The applicant has purchased the northernmost home on the property and wishes to convert the hone to a temporary bank facility until the proposed bank located on Lot 1 can be constructed and in operation. It is staff's understanding that this interim use would be for approximately one year until the building on Lot 1 is ccrrpleted late fall of 1983. In reviewing the site plan for Lot 1 for the proposed bank facility, it appears that all setbacks and lot coverages are met and therefore no variances would be required for this particular development. If approved, the preliminary plat and conditional use should be subject to the following conditions: 6 • CITY OF EACZN REZONING, PRELIADWY PLAT, CONDITI94AL USE - BANCO PROPERTIES NOVEMBER 23, 1982 PACE THREE 1) A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted prior to the application of the final plat. 2) All parl:ing and roadway areas shall have asphalt surface and concrete curbing around the perimeter. 3) The public street proposed should be constructed with the first phase of the development. 4) A detailed landscape plan shall be approved for the bank facility and an ade- quate landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been campleted. 5) All utilities must be stubbed to Lot 2 i order that Lot 2 can be determined a buildable lot. 6) The preliminary plat should be subject to Dakota County Plat Commission's and Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and canment because the pro- posed plat abuts County and State rights-of-way. 7) All other City ordinanoes shall be net. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 8) A cross easement of sufficient width shall be required over Lot 2 for access to Lot 1 in lieu of the public street as proposed in the preliminary plat. 9) A 20' utility easement centered over the proposed water main lateral and storm sewer line be required as a part of the final plat.- 10) lat: 10) A 5' drainage and utility easement be required bordering the preliminary plat boundaries and a 10' utility and drainage easement be rem ed to be center- ed over the internal lot lines. 11) Private utility and street plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 12) This development shall accept its assessment for lateral benefit fran trunk water main at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. 13) The water main shall be looped to the water main in Sherrman Court concurrent with development of Lot 2. 74 0 i M. TME ADVISORY PLANNING CCHIISSICN, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: RICHARD M. HEPTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1982 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT - NOWEST IST ADDITION This proposed Addition is located in the northeast quadrant of the inter- section of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road. The existing topogra- phy consists of gently rolling grassland with the general drainage being northerly and easterly. The high area in Lot 1 lies along the southeaster- ly corner at an elevation of 910 while the low point of Lot 1 being at the northeast corner at an elevation of 901. The slopes in Lot 1 vary from 1% to 5%. Similarly, the high point for Lot 2 is located approximately in the center of the lot at an elevation of 911 while the low area of the lot is located along the east half of.the north boundary at an elevation of 893. The slopes in lot 2 vary from 1% to 118. The proposed grading will be almost exclusively limited to Lot 1. The ma- jority of lot 2 is proposed to be graded in the future prior to future de- velopment. meanwhile, the grading proposed to be accomplished within Lot 1 does not significantly alter the present terrain. However, this develop- ment is proposing to intercept the drainage from lot 1 which would nozmall_v fall north towards the existing residence via storm sewer and transported to its ultimate outlet located in the area of the future I -35E off ramp. The ultimate outlet for storm sewer will be provided by MnDC)T during con- struction of I -35E and will be at LeMay's Lake which has a positive outlet. II. U =IES Utilities exist within the vicinity of this proposed preliminary plat in or- der to provide it with service. For instance, a 20" trunk water main is in place along the south side of Yankee Doodle Road and a 16" trunk water main is in place along the west side of Pilot Knov Road. Either of these is more than capable of supplying sufficient amount of water to this proposed devel- opment. Similarly, there exists a 9" sanitary sewer line within 20' of the north line of this preliminary plat which is of sufficient size, depth and capacity to service this proposed development. Furthermore, a 20" storm sewer line is in place along the east side of Pilot Knob Road beginning at approximately the middle of Outlot A and continuing north. Although existing utilities are nearby, it will be necessary to construct lateral utility lines to provide service to this proposed development. That is, this development will have to extend a sanitary sewer line from the exist- ing sanitary sewer located just north of the northwest corner of this propos- ed preliminary plat to the proposed building. In addition, a minimum of a 6" water main would have to be extended from either the 16" trunk along Pilot Knob Road or the 20" trunk along Yankee Doodle Road. This in turn must be looped to the water main located on Sherman Court upon development of lot 2. Finally, an interior storm sewer system would need to be constructed i� i 0 ENGINEERIW3 REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT - NOMEST 1ST ADDITION NOVDSER 23, 1982 PAGE TWO to provide proper drainage of the interior drives and parking lots. The above mentioned utility improvements will be the responsibility of this developer. III. STREETS Streets bordering this proposed development consist of Pilot Knob Road (CSAR 31) along the westerly boundary of this parcel and Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) along the southerly border of this development. Both of these streets are under the jurisdiction of Dakota County, and any additional accesses other than the one currently existing would have to be approved by the Dakota County Engineer. Also, an 8' bituminous trail is in place along the east side of Pilot Knob Road paralleling the entire proposed development. Although a public street has been proposed to provide access from Pilot Knob Road to this development, it would be more advantageous to the City if this would be a private street with a cross easement over Lot 2 being a part of the final plat. Such a segment as proposed by this development would pose many difficulties for the City pertaining to maintenance of such a street. Therefore, this private street shall be a minimum of 28' wide with concrete curbing and shall be constructed so that it forms a loop from the already existing north entrance to the proposed entrance im- mediately south of the existing residence. All other interior drives and parking areas shall be bituminous paved with concrete curbing around the perimeter. IV. EASMEZUS/RIGHT-O'-WAY With the suggested deletion of the public street, no right-of-way will need to be acquired or dedicated as a part of this plat. However, a cross ease- nent of sufficient width shall be required over Lot 2 to allow access to Lot 1. In addition, a 20' utility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed water line and storm sewer lines. Finally, a 5' utility easement shall be included along all exterior lot lines and a 10' utility and drain- age easement shall be centered over all interior lot lines. V. This development shall be responsible for accepting its assessments for la- teral benefit from trunk water mains at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. Due to the added difficulty of boring underneath either Pilot Knob Road or Yankee Doodle Road, a credit will be allowed against the assessment amount. Exhibit B reveals the amount of assessment at the cur- rent rate. Otherwise, all other assessments have been levied with the ex- ception of the storm sewer area assessment. Furthervore, this development shall be responsible for all costs associated with providing the private streets, internal utilities, parking lot and drives. 0 i ENGINEERYNG REPORT PREI,IMINARY PIAT - NORWEST 1ST ADDITION NOMMER 23, 1982 PAGE THREE I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 23, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hefti E. Assistant City Engineer RM/jack y7 - 1 4c ii---------r�- ---------- 3_[ri 64I11rr�11 r1 iL T`T� 1fTl rjj -i\ •\' .- Fa 7a Q1 . J 1 u p `ub N"s IT�dAr{p110P4 .F-yl fJ. �a \H-�. �` �. _ �1 21 �•• 1111 rI ��J7J�11 l 2� AT r• _ AST NO �LIN CLUB x VIE �l LAKE �\ PPARN /jJJ 1 ]--771 \,•s 4 AC ES I G U i T FE< _ jr / _._ '6 Wnl� / �UU/_ -�T-1 HBBBO ) I �%. ,// I'~ f.P'� ..(�\• `�T S - SOP"=' 6'�,�,eI' I^••( e0 -a �/ 61ffiI=ISII1{I[ R�IE.I...J./7N_... es I•�__-r//_/`IIfnI�-r`I.v^a I E C��!1I'TC IIIE�59 NaO _2 E E f IONFE B� _DP —N � C/ 866 `. .'7D-9 B0.J _ 87401. • le za, - `\ r ,- r' .. r , __y µe:— rrr "Ap_ - r Y / I { a rr�"i�• 6 .AAYa.. i _ SCH�OOL i wfi 1 1�z'_�l��7� ,AAFEL. rREIA!O �/rn ,:— D-i EY PL.r tI 7 I':1P}C Y P. � Cc-om �EAI OaaF NOEAOIJ 6STEM OP 2R Hl -J0 IG: , a -- ; `__ 700.0 w0-M_ w,`i ` r. ��!giE i �J 5. P... E.O I Blblt Zlv7 -u~` I ti,C.p 11 __I c. ��f.Le7910� Jii 684,0 8700 SERB 00 BAO1 '--- ..j' /CP= -- --._ .=•,/ 890.0 8700 _ 719. I rMT,` T r�_ 7/B: CP-4 q � Ip 5Uo T MINA 4c. LS.-4 8277 II[`A-i ' J.• tG/y HG \ ! I,'I �• ..�/•' .- _ u - r. / N PARK e d B4d0'" EFOFRE:i J 7 \ { iI :./Y •D / IB a 17 I 857.31 892, DP -II \/: a / CP-S 869.0 BB48 _ J a r+o C' _ �` �67LTJ'f, oe _�I BA10 .,r pf o .v I. . "�C s• I a gz i/ b-.0 W a B7 0 i 1.6.16 P (%7 - i! ^...e' . .:. g FOX �W11: 8420 I f RIDGE A vvv��� ,. C•9 tole J - ' DP-q' z• j:,' \' i 8680 L.6.-7 < ' CP-I ' .f�-1 11 �\u r, rnxKri 8�3�LE n0•,c—.Ovl"'�s_-._ CP-7—' / "a 7`I IDivD w r �; �n1 jv_' •D-i 769.0/ �L--V�Y':�i a Er i��ENr' ri ,%i `: '' Q J r D lar.-.. / l / / 'xl p CP- 76691:00 P:2i 9 ATH noo ,, 7,1 e 1_Y\` 'x[5[Ori' 820. 1 \ D-. r B3 (e I CP-``/ '� v'e/ Ilgp Y 2P-9 r AUX r•�� )r OOC6 22,] 2ND i ✓`... �,�' I_ r —/.- I "'I. 8610:.—__- C_.p•P\l�^`-I6D6 •! A CNE Chi /rmUS �IAL\r, ARIF�J��\CP-5p '/ /,'•`-J `---J-• I� :q80. OP-IB J f //�A (/\`-ARRD �i/� \ B06.01• ^�� ���'�7i �' ___' .-P7o� �t \�i% \ �7 I •/ /mow i/� iB°� U-E !1 III i_ i ` _�•. I� -,. •- A-e i%/ iiloe�_vf_[ TJ,�- JP-I ' JP`2 a ` (• H �._•••' 796.0 �8AJ.7 j/ PILO Ny01'146 �DI 8661 ��•'JP-4S B26 I . A-rDbD ~ P�.2L 1,Dt Oil .1 806.0 ' JQ. ; .,: - 2 F B71. 1890 J�:?{ r+ 892 JP-41 /-1 /ty��•/ '796§L0�JP-3 r .�' / 1 / e91'0 // .. J#p,f LM. .I I icy \rp. ti�/S'��• BJ9.2 'O I xfP-4 �.r i/ JP-42 `lL7 A-1 \` \ B4/. 2 I : 84 % g97.1 .. �. •� Jl IN fl$f J. :'B7 I 1- BBB.O 17 _ A-urlp�((l�'// •�� .� - 1 LB:N__. I JP-AO 'I Y uir :, � \ �r i ` I I .. JP42 r Ic p f I, li \ i[, C•? 1. 1 /JPiS l Cy864 9934 Hol Je ` a.a(1 ._ . /• I� I / /'. I \\ 1! \ SEE SHEET 25 o x i VI _ I / lil _ � I r ! Lro=,���ls ut�IDrL' C.ai+nr'Y �aLD. '- 79 NoP� uEST r DD (NI � I ` 4 ; 1 1 \LL11w 111 Y/11 \ 1 1 LY•1 1 VI F^ , A—I jv ab et 11a e LL A d X. 'r D iA 1 YV. .IF. .v 1 a4 It �'jjwiB rmr AmR11Y} a ; E Y _, 111 LJ) , -.- „Y•„• YANKEE (DOODLEyaI i � '� 'a''. L'qj � � el • FIT J.' / fY/ jr—oww p Q• q OWNER AND DEVELOPER, Ina Tnlyd Northwestern National Bank Suite 900, Midland Square Building 331 - 2nd A....a South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Wally slue • 377-5840 • DESCRIPTION, `1 w /may^ ���/ .•I y! That poll at The South Hill of the Southwest Quarter of Ina Sa\ �sH 77. Range 73 Dakota Ceunlp, Minnesota, olcepl Ina well Ill it loll of said >i, Mall of In. Soulh.esl Outfit of Ina South., Ft.MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RICHT OF WAY fn` u IlmenIs and subject to notice of Lis Pendens at per DISIIIal (mX11 L 1 V AlFFP 1 We ase deep n this Is a true and eeildin Solu; (: �- i"••' �� \\��..\gym .olFFn s, it a the are dem ole o° top el the eouuan of al buildings, s, a .n9, the Ib.d A d of anYfrom or on uta bhp. 'i 1/�, 411; j�-� '± i, rL r..(-1.\ IY ar\ �\\ � y q • I � l: , \:L°°l ,'J•1 M AFF _ NOTE, Buringl shown Are assumed. \ ✓°jf'/ /�/�' ® Mlnnetel. Highs, t9 Department BMI1992V - Oil I.e. �\ /, / / A`I,I " BENCH MARK, Road Na. 7t and 31 teal west of Count3 Ro+d n: ;'; .. 915.4)5 feel. „Y•„• YANKEE (DOODLEyaI i � '� 'a''. L'qj � � el • FIT J.' / fY/ jr—oww p Q• q OWNER AND DEVELOPER, Ina Tnlyd Northwestern National Bank Suite 900, Midland Square Building 331 - 2nd A....a South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Wally slue • 377-5840 • DESCRIPTION, `1 w /may^ ���/ .•I y! That poll at The South Hill of the Southwest Quarter of Ina Sa\ �sH 77. Range 73 Dakota Ceunlp, Minnesota, olcepl Ina well Ill it loll of said >i, Mall of In. Soulh.esl Outfit of Ina South., Ft.MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RICHT OF WAY fn` u IlmenIs and subject to notice of Lis Pendens at per DISIIIal (mX11 L 1 V AlFFP 1 We ase deep n this Is a true and eeildin \ \ 1 . `^„✓ I / P .olFFn s, it a the are dem ole o° top el the eouuan of al buildings, s, a .n9, the Ib.d A d of anYfrom or on uta bhp. !m•1" tI j a Y\ �.. � .' Dated this 23rd pap of September. 1987. EDAN. flU \/�'• _.41r+i�e• \ h -''1' '3'?r'• bTVno' _ NOTE, Buringl shown Are assumed. \ ✓°jf'/ /�/�' ® Mlnnetel. Highs, t9 Department BMI1992V - Oil I.e. �\ /, / / A`I,I " BENCH MARK, Road Na. 7t and 31 teal west of Count3 Ro+d n: ;'; .. 915.4)5 feel. aayy Mea BE propvlpOeasement for Pilot Knob Road ane ]01,691 square leeral ofor 1. 1. 0004 acres. �•� / �; •k .Gell \\ 1� •� - Are. at prdpr(lp excluding easement for Pilot Knob Road and r. Imu within heavy lines on surreYl 181,470 squall left of A. 7 A. SCALE: 1' • 40' IAD ; (wuwrr Aeao m n) - 'snwrrw awArynm i .. ,y�l .�aaTu— f. „• .. w I Yankee Doodle Road THIRD NORTHWESTERN BANK EAGAN OFFICE PILOT KNOB AND YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 0 0 Proposed Banking Facility First Floor Elevation - 909'-0 Lower Level ElevatiC.,898'-O' .H rrJieee Total Floor Area 1 7655 Sri it Parking a 31 spaces + 6 future PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 --ax 4 a ft Yankee Doodle Road THIRD NORTHWESTERN BANK EAGAN OFFICE PILOT KNOB AND YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 0 0 Proposed Banking Facility First Floor Elevation - 909'-0 Lower Level ElevatiC.,898'-O' .H rrJieee Total Floor Area 1 7655 Sri it Parking a 31 spaces + 6 future PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 a.4 4� YANKEE THIRD , cn 17 ROAD ESTERN BANK DOODLE ROAD X\m-aw ar- 17�Or a, J'.' ,I— -7' !--1-r a-- 4� YANKEE THIRD , cn 17 ROAD ESTERN BANK DOODLE ROAD X\m-aw ar- 17�Or a, J'.' ,I— -7' a-- 4� YANKEE THIRD , cn 17 ROAD ESTERN BANK DOODLE ROAD Also of properly Including easement for Pilot Knob Road @ 301,07 Square feel or 1,064 acres. Area of properly excluding element lot Pilot Knob Road large within heavy lines on cur rayl 211,426 square fe%j SCALE: 1' 410' C'rra GLI Vie -r SURVEY FOR, The Third Northwestern Nation,,--! X DESCRIPTION, that Fort Wind South Hai( of the Southwest Quarter of ii 7. .7 27 Range j3e,Palfoll County, Miones ota, except Inc nest fail or Sol In Half of the Sou '"P ','1'TAU,'1r Ill 'R *1', the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF Ill AIS 1', j', 01150montl and Subject to stalk, of Us Pendens as per LI: A Wil hereby Certify that this 15 A true and correct reprosei, above described and Of the location at all buildings, It any, from at on told land. Poled this 2)rd day Cr September; 1932. A r., of nYG NOTE, Bearing, shown ire assumed. O I BENCH MARK, MI.n,soto lilgheray Department BMfI9B'V Road No. 28 and 31 tell well of County R:. 713.433 feet. Also of properly Including easement for Pilot Knob Road @ 301,07 Square feel or 1,064 acres. Area of properly excluding element lot Pilot Knob Road large within heavy lines on cur rayl 211,426 square fe%j SCALE: 1' 410' C'rra GLI Vie -r RB GB Ind. GOLF J= COMMERCIAL it &C.-'R'I. _ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT �: . Ind... _ . • Ind _ ...,.. ..,,.. - PHI Ind..GB R-1 - e RI .............:—_ Ind " P - - `I� © C1 -:�•[" _ --•- - Ind. - Ind L6 R•DI R -II .. .�:, R -III R -III ,_ R-11 Rtl -- •..�.. a `'. D;:. csc ,P _ .._ .�.:.• �. RII ,,,�, � _ � And i�. fl.R P —T-- R•II s..g� ..� LB FSA •, Q /�i. RI _ R -UN _ R-11 -P R•III `- . . •_ _ -, _ _ - - Ind. ..+.,- R ter- '• P E -R. d CITY RN RI,.R•II �.---'I P. E / _> R-1 ^. p R - Z,. R-111 �•-. l _ 5 11 I� • NBI �® R-111 RB R -III- R -IR R -III _,.� : -' CSC/GB/LB ., `T`�.I- R111 R11y -''RI R411----�— FA11 RII , y :: -• R II ✓ ,• R -Il R-11 11 R -III NLB 1a . R -I'/:-• CSC R RB R:I R -I 5 P GOLF`lt wWra PI ca+a.• Ra R -II _. R_I '�' p I R -II APC Minutes November 24, 1982 PILOT KNOB HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION OUTLOT B - PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Reliance Bui ers and Dan Rogn d for preliminary plat approval of Fish Lake Addition co ring Outlot B, PilotNnob Heights 4th Addition was convened by Chairman 11. Dan Rognrud was Pres t as was his Engineer. Mr. Rognrud explained t proposal providing fora preli 'nary plat covering 1.2 acres to contain townhouse units. He stated that t proposal includes 2 buildings, with hree stalls parking for each unit and no ariances are being requested. indicated the townhomes would be individua owned with an individual ct for each and 1,560 square feet of land plus the it in addition to the moron property. A large number of neighboring property ners were present and Dale Nathan submitted a peti- tion signed by 145 signers bjecting to a application and requesting that the property be used for Cit Park pur oses. He requested the Planning Com- mission continue the application nt' additional information is submitted by the staff as to the status of the reel for park purposes. City Planner Dale Runkl and Cit Attorney Paul Hauge discussed the background of the Pilot Rno He Pla ed Unit Development. They dis- cussed the Planned Unit De elopment Agreeme approved by the City in 1974, which indicated in the rding that Outlot B s intended for park purposes with all exhibits dur' g the entire process re ecting that Outlot B was intended to be used or R-3 townhouse use. In 19 the City staff updated the Zoning Map indi ting it as park land according to ' formation received at that time. The A isory Park Committee has reviewed the\oposalnd general- ly favored the and being used for park development. ggested by Planning Com scion members that the application be conil further informati can be acquired by the staff, including cith former Chairmen f the Park Committee. Upon motion by Krob, sec' s, it was resole that the hearing be continued until the nextm ting in Dece er for further information to be submitted to theCom ission reg rding the status of the Outlot as park land. All voted yes. NORWEST 1ST ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Banco Properties for preliminary plat approval, rezoning and conditional use permit for Norwest lst Addition was then considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Walter Klus of Banco Properties, Inc. appeared as did the Architect and other representatives and indicated that the proposed subdivision consisting of 6.46 acres and containing two commercial lots at the northeast corner or Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road would initially provide for a location of a Northwestern Bank in Eagan. In addition to the preliminary plat application, an applica- tion was submitted to rezone approximately 4.4 acres of the 6.46 acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business) and also application for conditional use permit to allow a drive -up taller in conjunction with the proposed bank facility. The remainder of the parcel, formerly a proposed Texaco service station site, is currently zoned General Business with only about .35 acres remaining after road acquisition for both Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle Roads. 4 �8S 0 0 APC Minutes . November 24, 1982 Mr. Klus explained the proposal and indicated that 13 other branches similar to that proposed in Eagan have been set up by Northwestern Bank throughout the .area: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Wachtler, neighboring property owners on Pilot Knob Road, were present and objected to the street surrounding their property. It was noted there would be three outlets to public streets proposed and that the Eli Fournier house to the north of the Wachtler home would be used as a temporary bank until the bank building is completed, perhaps Spring or Summer Of 1983. Staff recommended against rezoning of the remainder of the parcel from Agricultural to General Business zoning and recommended Limited Business zoning, Neighborhood Business or possibly CSC, each of which would authorize a bank facility. Mr. Runkle stated that General Business would be incompatible with present development and that generally General Business is not recom- mended for a zoning category. Representatives of the applicant indicated that Northwestern Bank will pay all costs for the street improvements, but re- quested that the applicant not be tied down to Limited Business use because of the uncertainty of the development on Lot 2. It was noted the Comprehensive Guide provides for Limited Business Use. There were concerns about traffic flow in and out of the site and particularly during the temporary period that the Fournier home would be used as a temporary bank facility. The applicant indicated that if the house is not suitable for a banking facility, a trailer could be used and Planning Commission members indicated that if there are serious traffic problems during construction that possibly the bank would be required to pay for traffic control on Pilot Knob Road. The members reviewed the conditions and it was noted that Texaco has not consented to rezoning to Limited Business in the event that the City should desire to change the zoning from General Business to Limited Business. Krob moved, Hall seconded the motion to recommend that the application for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to LB (Limited Business) with the City Council implementing the revision of the proposed zoning from GB (General Business) to LB (Limited Business). All voted in favor. Krob then moved and Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Norwest lst Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all improvements to the parcel, including street and utility improvements be assessed against the Norwest lst Addition and that the Wachtler property not be assessed unless specific consent is given by the owners of the Wachtler property for the improvements installed as a result of the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed 50 foot parcel immediately north of the Wachtler Property intended to remain vacant under the proposal, be designated as an Outlot in Norwest lst Addition. 3. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted prior to the application of the final plat. 4." All parking and roadway areas shall be asphalt surface and concrete curbing around the perimeter. 7 5 0 APC Minutes November 24, 1982 0 5. The public street proposed should be constructed with the first phase of the development. 6. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved for the bank facility and an adequate landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 7. All utilities must be stubbed to Lot 2, in order that Lot 2 can be determined a buildable lot. 8. The preliminary plat should be subject to Dakota County Plat Commis- sion's and Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and comment because the proposed plat abuts County and State rights-of-way. 9. All other City ordinances shall be met. 10. A 20 foot utility easement centered over the proposed water main lateral and storm sewer line be required as a part of the final plat. 11. A 5 foot drainage and utility easement be required bordering the preliminary plat boundaries and a 10 foot utility and drainage easement be required to be centered over the internal lot lines. 12. Private utility and street plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 13. This development shall accept its assessment for lateral benefit from trunk water main at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval with credit for water main installation under Pilot Knob Road. 14. The water main shall be looped to the water main in Sherman Court 'concurrent with development of Lot 2. All voted yes. Krob then moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recom- mend approval of the application of the conditional use permit to allow the drive -up teller in conjunction with proposed bank facility. All voted in favor. Kroh moved, McCrea seconded the motion to recommend approval of the use of the Fournier home as a temporary banking facility for a period not to exceed one year following the date of approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council, subject however, to submission of an application by the appli- cant and fulfillment of all conditions imposed by the City upon the use of such a facility on a temporary basis, noting that the applicant had no plans for a temporary .facility submitted before the Planning Commission; further, subject to approval by the City staff and City Council. All voted yea. g7 6 TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE BANCO PROPERTIES' APPLICATION At the November 23, 1982 Advisory Planning CcnMission meeting, the Advi- sory Planning Commission reviewed the application submitted by Banco Pro- perties for rezoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit for a drive -up facility. They reviewed in detail the site plan and preliminary plat for the new Norwest bank facility located in the northeast quadrant of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. The Advisory Planning Commis- sion reviewed access layout circulation in regard to the new facility. The request Banco Properties has also made is to use the house located on the northern portion of the property as a temporary bank facility un- til the proposed bank is constructed in the southern portion of the pro- perty. It is staff's understanding that this proposed ter.porar_v facili- ty will only be in existence for approximately 6-9 months, or until the new bank facility has been constructed. The Advisory Planning Commission, without looking at a detailed plan for the temporary use, requested that Banco Properties submit a detailed site plan of how the existing house could be converted to the temporary bank facility. They were concerned with traffic circulation, parking and access to the temporary building. They also suggested that a special permit be issued for this temporary facility. The detail site plan for the temporary facility shows four customer park- ing places in the front and six employee parking spaces in the back with a one-way circulation going around the existing house. Due to the loca- tion of the house, it is difficult to get a 20' green area from the pro- perty line to the parking or driveway aisles. Also, it is staff's under- standing that this facility will only be in operation for 6-9 months, or just until the real bank facility has been constructed. Staff is sug- gesting that no concrete curbing be required or landscaping for this facility because the building will only be used for a short time. The applicants are also requesting that handicapped facilities also be waiv- ed for this temporary building. Staff agrees with the applicant, how- ever, staff suggests that a wooden curb ramp to the sidewalk, should be provided in order to provide access for the handicapped persons. If the temporary facility is approved, it should be subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1) The temporary facility should be used no rare than one year maximum. 2) The existing house should be removed after one year from the date of the approval. W. E Thomas L. Hedges Additional information December 14, 1982 Page two 1�1 regarding the Banco Properties application 3) Landscaping shall be required in the location of the area of the tenr porary fa cility when the applicants occupy their new bank facility. �/Jach M Moorlwl6l oll MF_!_V IM V FALjy j .............. ... PAPi" ll--� 14�r-O 9 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Sixteen AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - PICCOLO'S PIZZERIA D. Harold Awe Company for Amusement Device License for One (1) Amusement Device Located at Piccolo's Pizzeria -- An application for an amusement device license was received from Harold Awe Company, Inc., to request installation of a video game amusement device at Piccolo's Pizzeria. The application is in order for considera- tion. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the amusement device license application for one (1) video game at Piccolo's Pizzeria. RESOLUTION/LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FORMULA E. Resolution in Support of Changes in Local Government Aid Formula -- The City Administrator and Director of Finance attended a legis- lative committee meeting that was held on Thursday, December 16, 1982, for the purpose of considering changes to the local government aid and homestead tax credit distribution formulas. This committee is chaired by Representative Gordon Voss. The Director of Finance and City Administrator are attempting to relate the formula to the current level of taxation and local government aid distribution as it affects the City of Eagan. The apparent changes in the local government aid formula seem to shift the local government aid and homestead tax credit that have been received by the City of Eagan and other similar type suburban communities to the core cities. The new formula allows the City of Eagan to increase its property tax base to maintain the current level of revenues; however, the net result is an increase in property taxes. Recently, a group of cities organized to review the inequity in the local government aid formula and more recently have reviewed the Gordon Voss proposal which threatens to substantially reduce the amount of local govern- ment aid received by the City of Eagan. The original thrust of the "Losers Group" was to increase local government aid for certain suburbs which are not getting a proportionate share due to the grandfather clause and local levy limits that were legislated in the early 1970's. The net effect of the Minnesota State deficit and property tax shift from the core cities may result in a loss of local government aid and homestead tax credit. The Losers Group has prepared a resolution that supports some changes in the state aid formula. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page 9 for your review. The City Administrator will review in more etail the current local government aid formula, the original Gordon Voss proposal and more recent amendments to the Voss formula that are now under consideration and would impact the City of Eagan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny a reso- lution and position by the City of Eagan regarding the necessity to retain its share of the local government aid and homestead tax credit distribution allowed by the State. y 0 0 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES IN STATE AID FORMULA WHEREAS, Minnesota state local government aid to cities was originally distributed on a per capita basis; and WHEREAS, the current state aid distribution is not equitable in that some cities receive as much as $122.95 per capita, and other citi6s receive as little as $11.61 per capita; and WHEREAS, the State Revenue Department report indicates that "90 percent of the inequities are caused by the grandfather clause, and the present formula fails to achieve the purpose of equity;' and WHEREAS, the following revenue sharing mechanisms, which may be duplicative of state aid, are also available and assist in achieving equity: (a) Gas tax for cities over 5000 population; (b) Fiscal disparities; (c) Metropolitan Transit Commission; (d) Federal aid entitlements; (e) Special local taxes. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of strongly requests and supports changes- in the state aidoma. — BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of specifically supports/requests changes that will accomplish the ollowing: (a) Provide for equitable fund distribution; (b) Include no grandfather clause; (c) Provide for periodic review and adjustment to assure the goal of equity; (d) Include no incentive for spending; (e) Provide for distribution on a per capita basis, with cities receiving a lessor disbursement (as the result of a change in state aid formula) given the option/authority to raise a one percent sales tax. Adopted by the Mayor and Council of the City of this day of 1 19 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Seventeen FREDRICKSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN F. Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising for an Advertising Sign to be Located in the Cedar Freeway/Hwy. 13 Area -- An application was received from Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising requesting a special permit for an advertising sign to be located in the triangle between Old Sibley Memorial Highway and new Highway 13, adjacent to the Cedar Avenue Freeway. This special permit does not require action by the Advisory Planning Commission; however, the City Plan- ner was requested to prepare a report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages c14 through yl for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the special permit subject to conditions, if desirable, regarding the special permit for an advertising sign as requested by Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising. �3 0 CITY OF EAGAN 0 SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADVERTISING SI(TN APPLICANT: FREDRICKSON OUIDODR, DUANE =RICKSON LOCATION: PART OF THE Nh OF THE NE; OF SECTION 19 EXISTING ZONING: I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBM 21, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: DECE24BER 14, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNnE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED An application has been submitted requesting an advertising sign located in the N' of the Nei; of Section 19 in the triangle between Old Sibley Mowrial High- way and new Highway 13. COKJM?TS The applicant has submitted an application for an advertising sign which would be 27' 3" above the roadway level of new Highway 13. The signage would contain 248 square feet per side and the applicant is proposing a too -sided advertising sign. The proposed sign is within the height and square footage requirements of Ordi- nance #16. The Sign Ordinance also addresses distances from other zoning class- ifications and other signs located within the general area. Ordinance #16 states: A) No advertising sign shall be located nearer to any other advertising sign than 1,000 lineal feet on the sane side of the street or within 300 lineal feet of any other advertising sign on the opposite side of the street; B) No advertising sign shall be located on a platted lot which contains a business sign or within 300 feet of any business freestanding ground sign or pylon sign measured on the same side of the.street. C) No advertising sign shall be located within 200 feet of any residential zone whether on the same or opposite side of the street; D) No advertising sign shall exceed 250 square feet in area except when ad- jacent to limited access highways, in which case the City Council shall determine the maximum size after reviewing applicable Conditions includ- ing terrain, safety factors, etc.; E) No advertising sign shall exceed 40' measured at lot level or roadway level whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on the visibility far tors on the adjacent roadway. In reviewing the proposed application in regard to Ordinance #16, staff has tried to address the location of the sign in regard to the section map and air photo. 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN FREDRICKSON OUTDOOR DB=- ER 21, 1982 PAGE TWO Exhibit A is a section map showing the proposed sign location and a 300' spacing from the proposed sign. The dashed line represents the 300' spacing. In review- ing this distance on the air photograph on Exhibit B, there are other pvlon signs within the general area, but no pylon sign is within the 300' spacing which is allowed in Ordinance n16. Therefore, in the staff review, it appears the appli- cant has met all of the criteria in Ordinance r16 for an advertising sign. If approved, the special permit should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be no higher than 27.5 feet above the roadway level of new Highway 13. 2) The signage shall not exceed 250 square feet per side. 3) When the subject parcel is platted or developed, the advertising sign must be reroved. DCR/jach 9S L!A- .:4 • - Exh1��. A o / o-ob 14 AV AV MIDAMERICA 2ANCOI ORAT+D SNC. s , sip too OLO -Jb A CUM AN'` .4 ad er w A4, M-1 4r gr kk It, Al 7f It e -N MM LAE t', w 23 Agenda Information December 21, 1982 Page Eighteen 0 Memo City Council Meeting TOMARK 2ND ADDITION FINAL PLAT G. Final Plat Application for Tomark 2nd Addition (Land Tech De- velopment) -- The City has received an application for final plat approval for the Tomark 2nd Addition. All required items of submit- tal have been reviewed and approved by the staff and it is now being forwarded to the City Council for formal consideration. The Council may recall that this is the development that had re- quested special consideration pertaining to the park fee dedication requirement. With this final plat application, the developer has agreed to pay the required $19,656.00 park dedication fee as a condition of final plat approval. Enclosed on page /o1 is a copy of the proposed Tomark 2nd Addition. The final p aT t conforms with the preliminary plat as approved by Council on April 21, 1981 and March 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER.: final plat for Tomark 2nd Addition and City Clerk to execute all related documents, /00 To approve or deny the authorize the Mayor and I VIC/Y11. YIY II l_• w.�_..� 1111 1 I I.11 1,. L;.J , n I Ir. 11 nnln w?IIYY I.uwnl w VW IW: N�1 II L l L 1 Ylx If 1111 1..111.. IN Pel W 111 1101 u1m, No Iorolnf ml it.., w $1.14. 1 Nll. n 1w --N 69r03•79:W' f96 an, TOMARK 2ND ADDITION 1. IDD 111 No 1(111 •. If11 W.V 4l M w.'1 IW II 1.111111: 14Imrix 1 1Trnxrp M MtlINIeI f1., r Ilm..... u lw MWN.., rx M.r n 14 11.11+1YNrIM IM I mIN In I 1 II. 41111. 111111. YI I. INI: bv.. 1, .onu w Immw. Iwww .. n. nl.Nx rin lrmr, m.0 IY.u, n.+m.. WIN Nr 1� 11 Y Y I/x Iy I II IWI Pp .p111P Iy =/ • ly Mr111[ 11 wrl r. r NIII e1. I.rn�, 1 Ja• r w 1 N MI'I„ 1 r IN r r Inl IIN Ir In +N M INI 11 w m n I Iy r 1. 1Y rV MWNx N OxN1 IY 111 I ��N. N x111. I.I.I. 11 e11+e1 N xl 1111 I / 11.11.1. Iy bnll�y M1.. • Illr 4+•11 I 1 N Ierlr In r. • / IW Y+•r1 111101, NYn IYI 111111 (wV• IY. I MMION .0x1..0 •11 NI MNr N NNI IeN �,Y/ N �, 11 ,�. IIW.. Iq/INI Nllbw W pIH1Pgx [0. N: 4wX IILL IIIIq Iw.w1. Ix. n, , ImwN .r , wnMr rl IY 1. MI IIr-�� .10.11, mu. NI f Ir I __,__ lel ;NHIIY Illlrrnrel 1 Irem111111 MIe'I q .I I, Y/ 11_ Ir NIII i Y Ta NI-lwi 141.111 nn N ey 4NIgH N., a 1•V xlln4r•N I•INM I r MNr • 1111 bled Iull lr, [M11...N.ee 4 lal..ln Inlnl .. 0011\ 111 W. 11 I.'N. IY 1111 IPIW II I Mnlr Nrllll Xerl 1 IN. Nrrlpl Ir llrllx IM Illi 1.111141 P INI 1111 rl IDYN PO eW111P. Ie11 loll 1111 rl l 111.111 nlrnrnl111011 NI Not 11110 Nle .Iil\lNl1A 01.11 WN IM 11 :�Vl III IlY nIl r lerrrNl,lrXPn N IM IIII In I..' INMnY•r1.n1 e r INI,YIrI .1. 1 Yrr Mn 1 n111I Ilrlw • 1M ywN I 1 Mr1Y Ynl..Ir/ Y[ r1. INmlll 411.411. sn IY Ilrl r1. Nrl n rn + erl lrnrr Ir N lr ....M I. M Yrrsr... wglll III IWX IIP Ilw gnMll IpPp OlM• In.n ...M l wim •1101 s wNv vN.110 ..w1.. 111 oP uw s WRn 1. lPul IN •OCmP. .r.+Nu ..,.It .m. V. u.1. n N\w. N nu . n• W. 1r I. LIMN N 4 n1. IV l.nlelq \en Mr•1 . be NI N eVYn YI.n Y 1. I Yr .I N F n vV 41Nren, YwAnn ..........N q. IIN..I burr rNn[, w.Y.1I N.Iu, nn+111. •r l�un.. INIm •d. n. Iw 11. .Down of Iw., 1mlon I.Y .-tilIvllrr .. r V-oil.1 .11_.IV[IM1x1411. I I IN.. Nyl....... 1. .... ..... m Vpr 11: (Qm In.Nnl 1.0.11.1 M. 111. .1 .Im1.11. 1111. .4 IY 41111 [4.11 loll..... lW MIVn., 111. 11.1 •N MN INn•y IIII � YI II 11: • nlr Sur.Mr .111 [�11.Iol vInn N., 011.1. (Wn1 f!. N . Nn N IPIn ryl WIrIP e 1 N I I \nlNn In.lrr 1M I4 N r .n.1. fwnM fN11M.N nn or...nrr 1 b r1. r1. I ...l.r ln. r n. MM N lalnlenn .I .nn. l+.W, .1r.e..... N I ..441 +.uq . .n. 1..•1 PII . _ . • _ _ _ _. T41�-fi: lu:i 'Q 4 wllywnl 11..1 N. ly Ir.n.IN .nIIM n11 �.I. II r 11 Q IN _ [WHI Y.IIN, 41N. III.... Nennn 2 Mlr.r.l 41.11 1 MnH eN1111 II NN Inlrr.l N IIMI In IM NIIN .I IM Ixn...111..1. IN m.1. N II 41 N .!: JAMES R. 1� INC. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Nineteen ADD'LTLONAL,ITEMS CONTRACT 823-2/AWARD CONTRACT A. Contract 83-2, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Northview Meadows Trunk Utilities) -- At 10:30 A.M. on Thursday, December 16, 1982, formal bids were received and opened pertaining to the above - referenced contract. Enclosed on page X03 is a copy of the final bid tabulation for the Council's information. The alternate bid was based on open cutting County Road 30 to install hydrant leads and individual water services to the north side of County Road 30. Because the alternate bid resulted in an add-on to the contract, the staff is recommending that it not be considered in awarding the contract. As can be seen, the low bid was approximately 127 below the cost estimated in the feasibility report which will be a direct cost savings to the City's trunk water fund and will not have an impact on the related assessments to the adjacent property owners. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To receive the bids for Contract 83-2 and award the contract to the low bidder, Austin P. Keller Construction Co., in the amount of $299,997.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related contract documents. 0 0 Our FiLe No. 49261 NORT}IVIEW MEADOWS - PROSECT 365 CITY CONTRACT 83-2 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER AND TRUNK WATER MAIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 OPENING TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.S.T. OPENING DATE: Thurs., Dec. 16, 1982 ALTERNATE BID $ 560.00 17,796.00 6,880.00 1,720.00 21,000.00 480.00 2,800.00 -1,080.00 2,110.00 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ........... $334,700.00 FEASIBILITY REPORT (F.R.) 339,880.00 LOW BID 299,997.00 % + (over) or - (under) F.R. -12% 103 CONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID 1. Austin P. Keller Const. $299,997.00 2. Arcon Construction Co. 314,171.50 3. Northdale Construction 321,805.00 4. IaTmtti & Sons, Inc. 325,486.00 5. Barbarossa & Sons 336,148.00 6. Encon Utilities 346.876.80 7. Orfei & Sons Inc. 397,42R 99 8. Nodland Associates, Inc. 373.071.00 9. Mueller Pipeliners 384.107.00 10. North Central Underground NO BID 11. Enebak Construction Co. NO BID 12. Reisinger Excavating Co. NO BID ALTERNATE BID $ 560.00 17,796.00 6,880.00 1,720.00 21,000.00 480.00 2,800.00 -1,080.00 2,110.00 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ........... $334,700.00 FEASIBILITY REPORT (F.R.) 339,880.00 LOW BID 299,997.00 % + (over) or - (under) F.R. -12% 103 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twenty SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION - DODD ROAD B. Receive Petition for Speed Limit Reduction -Dodd Road South of Cliff (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Department Business. It was listed under Additional Items for M publication purposes.) -- Enclosed on pages /DS` through Q6 is a copy of a petition that the Public Works department received from residents along Dodd Road requesting the speed limit to be reduced to 30 m.p.h. and to have "Children at Play" signs installed by Cliff Road and Gun Club Road (farm road). For the Council's information, enclosed on page /0'7 is a graphic repre- sentation of the location of the petitioning property owners. There are 29 signatures representing 19 properties along this seg- ment of Dodd Road. Present state statutes require that speed limits be set at 55 m.p.h. unless verified to be lowered an engineering and traffic investiga- tion study performed by MnDOT unless an area is classified as an "Urban District". The unban district classification states that a segment of roadway at least a quarter mile in distance must have a dwelling unit spaced every 100 feet or less. No segment of Dodd Road qualifies for an "Urban District" classification. Therefore, in order to legally post a speed limit lower than 55 m.p.h., MnDOT would have to perform a traffic study. Past experience leads the City to believe that the results of their study would not warrant a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in this vicinity. It is anticipated that representatives of this neighborhood will be in attendance at the Council meeting to further pursue their concerns. Therefore, it is recommended that this item be addressed at the beginning of the meeting under Department Head Business. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To receive and approve or deny a petition for the reduction of speed limit on Dodd Road between Cliff and farm road (Gun Club Road) and the request for the installation of "Children at Play" signs. loo • NOVEMBER, 1982 • PETITION TO EAGAN CITY COUNCIL We, the residents, living on or near Dodd Road between the intersections of Farm Road and Cliff Road, would like a speed reduction. This would involve reducing the speed limit to 30 M.P.H. by posting both speed limit signs and children -at -play warning signs at both intersections along Dodd Road. NAME ADDRESS ` 5� " .00r1CY all. `'a C07, �1�7s1��Icld RJ��/)dJ A4 - . �s��c:Y? � , mak/.-�r•G� %C� Y�cC�Lc'�� ��G �u� -- ��-'w.,✓ 7 O 7 b 3 oZ �Z q 3 '— t�) ,2j » 3 r,��-� << c yJL a dol C)JS 17 71 ""�'"� X21 ��'d Z78h �✓ 00 � Il .1210, �I� '1 ��� roc co �, / ��" p PETITIONERS • LOCATION. OF SIGNS N.W. 1/4 SEC.36,T27,R23 ec....o ..sw Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twenty -One GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT (T.H. 55-McLEAN PROPERTY) C. Review Grading/Excavation Permit, NWk, Section 2 (T.H. 55 -McLean Property) -- As the Council may recall, this grading/excavation permit was originally scheduled for the November 9 Council agenda and continued to November 16. At the November 16 meeting, it was continued indefinitely to allow the applicant to resolve the grading impact with the adjacent property owners. In addition, it was requested that mailed notice be sent to the affected adjacent property owners on the south side of Blue Gentian Road. On December 9, this notification was forwarded to their attention, informing them that this item would be considered by the City Council at the December 21 meeting. Enclosed on page 109 is a copy of a location map showing the area impacted bytris application permit. The grading plan has been reviewed in detail by the Engineering Division and all other requirements of the application have been satisfactorily complied with. As a result of the mailed notification, staff has not re- ceived any comments from the adjacent property owners to date. The applicant, Johnson Brothers, has indicated that they plan to place approximately C. Y. The applicant indicates that he will conduct this grading operation during the normal hours as required by existing City ordinance and that he is not requesting a double shift for this operation similar to the previous R.E.S. grading permit. This work will be performed during the summer of 1983. The Public Works Director will answer any specific ques- tions that the City Council or adjacent property owners may have at the Council meeting. This item is also anticipated discussed under Public Works Department Business at the beginning of the meeting in anticipation of attendance by the adjacent property owners. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the grading/excavation permit for the McLean property on T.H. 55, south of Blue Gentian Road. s/Thomas L. Hedges City A ministrator 10 BERNARD N. VV. 1/446EC. 2 T 2 R 23 u 07• - ------------------------- -- — -------- 7 — - — — — — — — — — - 7.7 McLEAN 'fHUDAK 1p so Dh ZY 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIVE Tax Exempt Home Mortgage Program Enclosed on pages 1)9- through 113 is the final report for Eagan tax exempt housing mortgage issue. All loans are now closed and funded. Park SiteAcquisition & Development Fund Special Assessment Keceivable At the last regular City Council meeting, a question was raised by City Councilmember Smith about the special assessment receivable that was traded from Park Site Acquisition to a bond debt fund. The special assessment receivable in question regarding the proposed trade was levied in 1976, first payable in 1977 for ten years. The original amount was $5,281.97 and was levied against the Hillan- dale Addition with Beurel Company listed as the owner. The assess- ment has subsequently been spread to 100 parcels as a part of Meadow- lark Ridge. The receivable that the Director of Finance is propo- sing to trade is the original $5,281.97 less five installments which have been paid ($2,640.95) equalling $2,641.02. This repre- sents an additional five installments and is the amount which has not yet been paid by the property owner. According to the Director of Finance, this is an even asset trade, cash for a receivable on a dollar for dollar basis. Response to Public Works Questions Raised at a Special City Council Meeting At a special City Council meeting held in late November, there were several questions raised that the City Administrator has passed on for a response from the Director of Public Works. Enclosed on pages 11 through 117 is a response from the Director of Public Wor s regarding tFi—e-7-our items that were asked about at that time. Fire Department Pension Plan Proposal The City has received a counter proposal regarding pension plan benefits for the volunteer fire department. A copy of the proposal is enclosed on pages 1)g through ))I The City Administrator would like to meet with theCityCounc E_For a few minutes following the meeting on Tuesday to discuss any counter proposal that may be considered at that time. //0 0 Informative Memo December 17, 1982 Page Two David & Patricia Odell Enclosed on pages Id.0 through lad is a copy of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Odells attorney c aiming compensatory damages as a consequence of the City's decision on their preliminary plat request. Also enclosed is a letter from the City Attorney addres- sing the claim by the Odells. Horse Racing Track Enclosed on page 122- is a copy of a letter from Dakota County Commissioner Voss regar ing an informal discussion by the Dakota County Board addressing the possibility of locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. Joint Zoning Board Minutes Enclosed on pages 1a'5 through lad is a copy of the December 3, 1982 Joint Zoning B' o� minutes. Urban Planning & Design, Inc., Planning Consultant Fees A letter was received from John Voss, president of Urban Planning & Design, Inc., to the City Administrator that read as follows: "This letter is to inform you that Urban Planning & Design, Inc., consultant 'fee schedule' now in effect with the City of Eagan will not be changed for the year 1983." s/Thomas LHedges 7ityyTcTministrator CI: Y OF nVPN C, Statistical Data-- Amount of Program $16,940,000 Total Amount of Pre-Carmiitted Loans Percentage of Loans Pre-Catmitted $ 16,907,275.00 99.8 % Low Inccrue Pasic Income Total Number of Loans Average Mortgage Amount lS5 - 141 $ 53,011 _ $ 61,635_ Average Sale Price 59,423 Average Appraisal Value — 59,890 67 mn Average Adjusted Gross Income 20,274 SR ins Average Gross Income 21,581 2S nal �6 Type of Loan: 77a Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional 7 — 21 FNA 7 VA 4Z 6 � � 'Graduated Pledge 28 - - 9 65 Average Loan to Value Ratio: 5 Insured Conventional 88 Uninsured Conventional 71 -90— Number of New Construction Loans _ 120 74 106 Number of Zxisting Loans — — 'type of Dwelling: 35 355 — Single Family Tbwnhouse 80 — 97 Condominium 22 ---- _ 2R Mobile Hanes 50 tF Average Previous Residents n 17 Number of Renters 111 ?� 100 Number of Owners ---- - — — Average Age 44 Sex: — �� Male --- 30__ - --- 29.6 Female 149 131 Average Fa[iily Size - -10— Average Number of Children 1.8 _ _ 4 Marital Status: .4 - .7 Married Single FR 9b Joint 7R Divorced - 5 FUNDING: a la Dollar Amount of Loans Funded - - - 6 Number oI Loans 161907,27500--- 0__296 296 - -- DATE: ____I�ecemtar 1 , 1982____ CITY OF EAGAN 516,940,000--huount of Program Dollar Amount of Funds Remaining $ 12.725.00 PLEASE NOTE: This amount can be utilized in any of the following categories: Single Family, Townhouse, Condo, Mobile Home; Low or Basic Incomes; or any Conventional Loans, including Conventional 951.'. This does not include the -Graduated Pledge Account. At this time, there are no Graduated Pledqe Funds available. Total Pre -Commitment Amount S 16.907,275.00 Total Reserved (Yet to be Pre -Committed) $ —0— $ 16,940,000,00 i t3 TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DEC IBER 14, 1982 RE: RESPONSE TO MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS BY CITY COUNCIL In response to your memo of December 1st, I offer the following information to those issues of concern that were addressed by the City Council at a re- cent special Council meeting. ITEM 1 - HECTOR SNOWPICWS We have received a copy of the publication of the local newspaper from Hec- tor, Minnesota relating to the "Loffness" snowplower, more commonly referred to as a "Hector plow". The Superintendent of Streets has recently corres- ponded with this firm rerniesting equipment literature and specifications for review to determine if it would be oauquatible with our snow removal program. Upon receipt and review of this information, additional information will be made available with future budget requests if it is determined to be bene- ficial to our operation. ITEM 2 -MARTIN SHIELD'S SNOW FENCE In regards to the suggestion pertaining to the installation of a snow fence adjacent to the Martin Shield's property, contact was made with the Dakota County Maintenance Engineer as this would benefit snow removal operations on County Road 31 (Pilot Knob Road) or County Road 26 (Lone Oak Road). To our knowledge, it has not been past practice to install snow fence adjacent to the Martin Shield's property. Present County policy is such that their major snow fence installation is in the rural areas with ].invited amounts in urban areas at specifically designated critical locations. This area has not been designated a critical area but will be reviewed again by the Da- kota County Maintenance Department to see if additional snow fence installa- tion is merited. I£ its installation is determined to be beneficial and weather permits, the County will try to install them. ITEM 3 - LONE OAK ROAD SPEED LIMIT SIGNS In September of this year, a formal request by the City Council was forward- ed to the Dakota County Highway Department requesting that a section of Lone Oak Drive from T.H. 13 to Pine Ridge Drive be posted at 30 m.p.h. due to its "urban district" classification in accordance with MnDOT Highway Traffic Regulation Statute 169.2. In response to this request, the County Traffic Engineer informed me that Chapter 169.14, Section 5B specifically eliminates County road jurisdictions from the "urban district" designations. The word- ing of the Statute specifically states that this roadway can only have its speed limit lowered to a designation warranted by a MnDOT speed study survey. In reviewing the Statute initially, I had not noticed the specific ommision to County roads from the "urban district" classification. As the Council may II� -'f 0 0 Thomas L. Hedges Decenber 14, 1982 Response to Miscellaneous Questions by City Council Page two recall, the State performed both a speed study and an experimental speed reduction on this section of County road during 1980. Their study indicates that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is the proper classification for this County road. Subsequently, the Dakota County Highway DeparbTent has informed us that they have no alternative but to deny the City's request for further consideration of reducing the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. They indicate that when conditions along the roadway change significantly enough to alter the behavior of traf- fic, a new study could be authorized to re-evaluate the reasonable and safe speed limit. In the mean time, a reduced speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is in ef- fect adjacent to Pilot Knob Elementary School property when children are pre- sent. A copy of the County's response is attached for your information. Based on this information, I do not know of any other alternative to pursue in the reduction of the speed limit as previously reauested by Council ac- tion. The location of the freestanding pressure reducing valve, associated shutoff valves and protective guardrails for the Peoples Natural Gas line on the northside of Cliff Road east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road was approved through a utility permit application to Dakota County Highway Department by Peoples Natural Gas. I have reviewed several other locations in the Citv_ with a re- presentative of Peoples Natural Gas and will be discussing their location in an informative memo to the Council as a part of the December 21st Council packet. (Note: This memo is attached on page 11-7.) If additional infoiTmtion on any of these items is desired beyond that which is provided, please let me know. TAC/jack 1/5- I?OGERT P_ G1:DEEN. ? . IJ:I X IVY A I,111) JT -_T y TELE 7r1'J Ic. G12-d]9.0]i9 -DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55-'HA5TINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 •"' AT. PAUL "R3. . September 14, 1982 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Re: C5AH126 (Lone Oak Road) Urban District Classification for 30 mph speed limit request Dear Mr. Colbert: I am in receipt of your memo dated August 30, 1982 expressing the request of the City Council to classify CSAH 26 from MN Trunk Highway 13 to CSAH 31 as an "urban district" and thereby post a 30 mph speed limit. — .e Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act, Chapter 169.14, outlines the pro- cedures for establishing and posting speed limits within local areas. Many studies have been requested and performed within the last few years to deter- mine the most reasonable and safe speed limit. On December 29, 1978, in an effort to determine the effectiveness of posting a 30 mph zone on this road- way, Dakota County (after authorization from Mn/DOT) posted an experimental speed limit of 30. As explained in Mn/DOT's letter dated December 11, 1979, the only significant change recorded during the experiment was the increase in the number of violators of the posted limit from 52% to 87% in spite of Eagan's enforcement efforts. Speed limits which are too low should be avoid- ed as they tend to increase the speed differential (the speed difference be- tween vehicles) of traffic and thereby causing new safety problems. Dakota County posted the existing speed limit (40 mph) on August 19, 1980 thereby ending the experimental 30 mph zone. When conditions along the road- way change significantly enough to alter the behavior of traffic (such as an increase in the number of structures devoted to business, industry or dwell- ing houses) a new study could be authorized to reevaluate the reasonable and safe speed limit. 1114 -2 - Mr. Thomas A Colbert City of Eagan 0 I discussed the City's request with Mark Wikelius, Mn/DOT District Traffic Engineer and reviewed the pertinent provisions of the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act. Dakota County does not have the authority to set a speed limit 30 mph on this roadway. We, therefore, have no alternative but to deny the City's request. Please call me if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Peter L. Sorenson Traffic Engineer PLS/bv c- Bob Sandeen Mark Wikelius 1 I �, A 0 0 Peoples Natural Gas Pressure Reducine Stations At the December 7 Council meeting, several Council members were con- cerned about the newly installed above ground pressure reducing stations and related gas shutoff valves that were recently installed by Peoples Natural Gas and the related safety concerns to the travelling public due to their proximity to the travelled right- of-way. On December 8, the Public Works Director conducted a tour of the City with a representative of Peoples Natural Gas to review their policies and procedures pertaining to the installation of these facilities. The Public Works Director will have available pictures of various locations for the Council's review at the Coun- cil meeting. Adjacent communities serviced by Peoples Natural Gas are Rosemount, Farmington, Cannon Falls, Lakeville, etc. Northern States Power services the Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and all other communities not serviced by Peo- ples Natural Gas. In reviewing NSP's installation procedures, it has been discovered that they also have pressure reducing sta- tions installed above ground. The main difference between the two gas distribution systems is that Peoples Gas installs above ground shut off valves 25 feet on either side of the pressure re- ducing station vs. the underground installation for NSP. In addi- tion, Peoples Gas installs a protective barrier around each above ground installation to greatly minimize impact damage to these facilities. Both companies install their facilities as close to the edge of right-of-way as possible. On Eagandale Boulevard just north of Lone Oak Road, the existing facility is approximately 3 feet behind the curb with a protective guard post being 12 to 16 inches from back of curb. The gas company has informed the City that this location was necessary due to the narrow right-of- way in relationship to the wide industrial street in this area. The Director of Public Works investigated other locations where they are, in fact, well beyond the back of curb when a sufficient right-of-way is available. The installation of the gas main along Cliff Road was through a permit approved by the Dakota County Highway Department without the knowledge of the City of Eagan because it was totally located within County highway right-of-way. Director of Public Works Colbert will be happy to discuss the issue in further detail with the Council if they so desire. !17 0 C qrePepariment To: Tom Hedges, City Administrator From: Ken Southorn, Eagan Fire Department Relief Assoc., Pension Committee Date: December 14, 1982 Subject: Pension Plan Proposal The City Council's pension proposal, your memo dated December 2, 1982, was presented to the Fire Department membership by myself on Monday evening 12/6 and by Chief Childers on Tuesday morning 12/7. Your memo was read verbatim with comments added only to display the concept of prorated benefits based upon years of service, a visual representation was used. All presentations were followed by a discussion period and subsequently a straw vote was taken at each station to provide further direction to the pension committee. The major topic of discussion at each station related to the pro rata concept. The concerns expressed included the following: -The membership, concurring with Gus Welters opinion, believes the intent of the state law is to provide equal, even benefits to firefighters for all years of service. -Membership wishes to maintain a.current value for those retiring after years of dedicated service. -Should retain the ability.to administer the plan in an even, uncomplicated manner. Equal benefit for each year of service. -Certain inequity to the membership may develop relative to the individuals time of service and the timing of the incremental incremental increase to.the plan. -The current membership cannot commit future members/pension committee/Board of Trustees to the future provision of prorated increments. -State law currently defines the percentage of the benefit which accrues to a firefighter retiring with less than 20 years of service. This feature of the law addresses some of the council's concern for retroactivity. -The pension plan must be aggressive enough, and attractive enough so as to encourage new and continued participation with the volunteer fire department. At the request of the membership the pension committee met on Wednesday December 8th to formulate a proposal for the City Council, reflecting the concerns and desires of the membership as expressed in the Monday and Tuesday meetings. After a very lengthy discussion, the pension committee drafted the following proposal. 1. Benefit level to be set at $32,000 for lump sum payment ($1600/ years of service) or equivalent monthly benefit option of $213 after 20 years of service. 3940 �Itthn �Ivab lagan, innrsata 55122 ?IS' 2. The committee encourages the City's efforts to retire the unfunded liability in an aggressive manner similar to the December 2, 1982 proposal item 112. 3. The pro rata basis is not a condition of this proposal for reasons discussed above. 4. This proposal covers the period from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. The committee believes the above proposal accurately reflects the desires of the membership and actively addresses the councils concern of retiring the unfunded liability. Please review the above and submit to the council at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, XR. Southorn Eagan Fire Department Relief Assoc. Pension Committee KRS/ph cc: Pension Committee J. W. Flood R. L. Cjilders Ily 0 LAW OFFICES LeVander, Gillen, Miller, Anderson & Kuntz 402 DROVERS BANK BLDG. • 633 SOUTH CONCORD ST. • p.0. BOX 298 SOUTH ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55075 • TELEPHONE 16121 4511031 December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, I -IN 55121 PJ HAROLD LEVANDER ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C. MILLER HAROLD LEVANDER. JR. PAUL H. ANDERSON TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON CERTIFIED MAIL Re: David R. and Patricia B. Odell v. City of Eagan Dear Mr. Hedges: Notwithstanding the fact that the City has had actual notice of its own action in denying the waiver of plat and prelimi- nary plat applications of David R. and Patricia B. Odell, on June 15, 1982 and October 5, 1982, the purpose of this letter is to give you notice pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05 that my clients have suffered compensible damages as a result of said arbitrary and capricious action of the City Council. Mr. and Mrs. Odell will claim compensatory damages as a consequence of the City's arbitrary and capricious action in an amount in excess of $35,000.00, together with costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees. Yours v6y truly, Beeson I cc: Paul Hauge Mr. and Mrs. David Odell I a. 0 0 0 HAUGE, &NIITH. -E4 IDE & IIIELLER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 December 15, 1982 Re: David and Patricia Odell -- City of Eagan Dear Tom: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 454-4224 You have received a letter dated December 9, 1982, from attorney Daniel Beeson concerning the application by Mr, and Mrs. David Odell for waiver of plat and later for preliminary plat approval. Their application for preliminary plat approval was last considered and denied by the City Council on October 5, 1982, for reasons that were detailed in a Resolution attached to the minutes. The December 9th letter indicates that the Odells claim to have suffered compensable damages as the result of the claimed arbitrary and capricious action of the City Council in excess of S35,000 plus costs, etc. In order for Mr. Beeson to prove that the City Council has been arbitrary, he, of course, must convince a court of this fact and it appears from my discussions with him and also from'1his letter that the Odells may start an action. If Mr. Beeson does commence an action for the Odells, which appears very possible, it would probably be based on an agreement that while the Council stated reasons for denial of the application, those reasons are not valid. In other words, the complaint would probably allege that the covenants and restrictions are private matters unrelated to the Council's decision. Also, that any other reasons were unrelated to Subdivision requirements which the Plaintiff would claim should be the basis for a reversed decision. I am sending a copy of this letter to you and also the letter from Mr. Beeson to Bruce Medvec at Valley View Insurance for his information as is customary in claims of this nature. Ordinarily an applicant of this nature would ask that the court require the City Council to approve the application rather than initially asking for damages. I would suggest the Council take no action, but would be happy to talk with you orthncil about the claim. /Very truly yours, Paul H. Hauge City Attorney :x'39 cc: Valley View, Inc. I),� December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom, At the Dakota County Board meeting this week, we discussed locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. This was an informal discussion and no resolu- tions were passed. , The Board directed the County Staff to outline the pros and cons of such a facility. Unlike the Zoological Garden, a horse racing track is expected to be a private venture, wherein the County could realize a $30 to 50 million increase in its tax base. On the surface, this appears to be the incentive, however, there also could be several liabilities. At the very least, we are exploring the situation at this time. It is the Board's assumption that our role would be to support any community desiring a race track if we felt that it would be an asset to the County. As such, the initiative requesting our support would have to come from a local municipality. It is somewhat early in the process to discuss this subject since the Legisla- ture has not taken any action. Nevertheless, there has been some publicity already on this subject. I assume that the Eagan City Council may discuss this matter at some point. Perhaps, the pros and cons that our Staff develops would be helpful. In any instance, I am herein opening communication on this subject and will provide information or assistance as you desire. s truly; 1 •j Johl S. Voss, Dakota County Comnissioner Thild District JSV/bav 122- JOHN S. VOSS CO3lfIISSIONEP-THWU DIST:'I'., 270 RIVERWOODS LAfIE 71 T� fiU P.II 55317 T ELEPHOIIE: DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER RESIDENCE 890-9099 1560 HWY. 55. HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 - PHONE 437.0427 OFFICE 6302320 4370419 December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom, At the Dakota County Board meeting this week, we discussed locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. This was an informal discussion and no resolu- tions were passed. , The Board directed the County Staff to outline the pros and cons of such a facility. Unlike the Zoological Garden, a horse racing track is expected to be a private venture, wherein the County could realize a $30 to 50 million increase in its tax base. On the surface, this appears to be the incentive, however, there also could be several liabilities. At the very least, we are exploring the situation at this time. It is the Board's assumption that our role would be to support any community desiring a race track if we felt that it would be an asset to the County. As such, the initiative requesting our support would have to come from a local municipality. It is somewhat early in the process to discuss this subject since the Legisla- ture has not taken any action. Nevertheless, there has been some publicity already on this subject. I assume that the Eagan City Council may discuss this matter at some point. Perhaps, the pros and cons that our Staff develops would be helpful. In any instance, I am herein opening communication on this subject and will provide information or assistance as you desire. s truly; 1 •j Johl S. Voss, Dakota County Comnissioner Thild District JSV/bav 122- Wold-Ch,:nberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board Meeting 4 p.m., Thursday, December 3, 1902 Metropolitan Airports Commission Conference Room Board He.•nbers in Attendance: John Voss, (Chairman), Dale Runkle, Thomas Fgan, James Loslchen, Larry Shaughnessy, Jr., Rick Jopke, Vern Luettinger, Rick Wiederhorn, Hancy Witta. Others in Attendance: Dan Callahan, Nigel Finney, Bill Olson, Chauncey Case, Wayne Bachman, Walter (unreadable last name), David Hozza, Eileen McMahon. Minutes I. Call to Order Chairman Voss called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. i II. Approval of d nutes Minutes c' ..e November 4, 1902 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Report an ?! DOT Progress Ms. Icl!a:.=r. r_ported that MnDOT has not decided Whether or not they will try to make c`,_ -.;es in the zoning law. MnDOT is considering asking the Legislature for a law change that would recognize pre-existing comprehensive plans and allow for special permits to be issued under certain conditions. Further information on this matter may be available by the next meeting. IV. Presentations A. Bloccnington Ms. McMahon reported for Larry Lee that the only area in Bloomington located in the B -Zone is the I-494 & Cedar Avenue interchange. Existing and planned development in Bloomington does not/will not penetrate the Horizontal Zone. B. Minneapolis Dan CdLlahan reported that the A and B -Zones for Runway 11-L and 11-11 are fully developed established residential neighborhoods and no vdcanL land for further development is avaiLablc. Single family houses, duplexes, two apartment buildings, several churches and schools and some commercial buildings are located in the zones. Mr. Callahan noted that the modr,l ordinance allo%fs for Lite Commissioner to require the removal of land use: in estabLi,shcd residential neighborhoods which present a nat-crial danger to the safety of persons on the ground. Lr ndUllg such a d(Aerminalio.r the CommL.ssioner shall cunsidcr the Lendcn^v of the Lhe Lind use to increase tic number of persons. Lhat. could be injured in case of an aircrdfl, dccident. I:r. C-:LLah,in qucstionad whether tIic Commissioner Y,01-1 I( require the crmuv,il of churches and schools from the A and It Zones. Ms. McMl'lon reported that Mint offici 15 sji(1 they (lid not l.hink that such usca wo�rld b,, ruaovccl unjcss l.h" rrrc eiirc,;; ly on Lite centerline ,incl cry close to Lite run;vay. fir. C.:Llaii.:a .idded that Lhe 0111,, place where the height zoning may affect Minncapuli: is in the corner of Lhe eLty located in lire approac!r zone to flunway 2.2. (a3 C_ St. Paul _ _ `�• Mr. Widerhorn explained that the only portion of the ordinance affecting St- Paul w'OUld be the height zoning and he said no conflicts exist between thr_ zones and the existing/proposed development. The major portion of Mr. Wiederhorn's presentation focused on the_ process the Downtown St.. Paul Airport Joint. Zoning Board followed in dealing with conflicts between the model ordinance and existing and proposed development in the downtown arca. The fact that the airport is located on a low arca surrounded by bluffs caused many conflicts with the application of height zoning. In many instances the ground itself penetrated the horizontal zone. The Joint Zoning Board's solution was to change the definition of the horizontal zone to allow its height to be 150 feet above the established airport elevation or 40 feet above the ground, whichever is higher. The downtown area is 70 to 90 feet above the airport which would aliot for new buildings to be only 6 stories high in the horizontal zone• Because existing buildings are much higher than 6 stories, the Zoning Board used a "shadasine effect" principle. It meant that new construction behind or in the shadow of eN*sting, tall buildings (i.e. the First National Bank Building) could be no h_g;:e_ than those tall buildings. Mr. Wicr shorn explained that those and several other alternatives to strict interpretati :r of the model ordinance seem acceptable to i•1nDOT. The one remaining problem is t..a_ _.e Board recommended eliminating the B -Zone for a proposed new runway because it -could severely restrict planned d_:velopment in a 150 - 190 acre area. The Boa_-' reasoned that existing terrain requires planes departing to be at such a height :.._n entering that B -Zone area that they would probably not even ba able to land in the Zone if they needed to do so. MnDOT's response ti -,as that a B -Zone of some s.rc had to be included. Mr. Wiederhorn said that he thought MnDOT would consi.dcr ,,roving a modified B -7 -one definition. V. Disuession Mr. Shaug:rn_ssy suggested that the board invite a pilot who flies DC -10's or 747's into 'dold-Chamberlain to one of the next meetings to talk about safety and Co assist in the discussion of hose for the zones need to extend into the Mendota ne`_a=„s and Eagan areas. Mr. Voss s.._ estcd that the staff prepare a working draft of an ordinance for disc;_secn at the next meeting. As well, he asked the staff to arrange for a D'--': or 747 pilot to attend the next meeting on December 16 or the folk•:%` on January 6. The Board members concurred. VI. Next Xe_-*.:-.,-,Date/Adjourn The n^\`--`ing will be held at 4 p.m., Thursday, December 16 at MAC. The c= adjourned of 5 p.m. Submitted by F ilceri T. Id::!I,ilion The liozza Associates a4 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY HALL DECEMBER 24 1982 6:30 P.M. I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. 6:33 - ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. 6:35 - DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS A. Fire Department Q•1 C. Park Department 1 B. Police Department 7,7 D. Public Works Department e• e• IV. 6:55 - CONSENT ITEMS (One motion approves all items) 3 A. 1982 Kennel License Renewals 33 B. Approve Dakota County Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement egri C. Approve Resolution Requesting MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement (I-35E/Cliff Road - Storm Sewer) P'5l D. Approve MnDOT Agency Agreement 31E. 1983 Conditional Use Permit Renewals for January Q V. 7:00 - PUBLIC HEARINGS p.3z A. Project 297-R, Final Reassessment Hearing (Continued) -- i (Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer) B. 1983 Budget & Proposed Federal Revenue Sharing Budget VI. OLD BUSINESS ss A. Reconsideration of Naegle Outdoor Advertising Sign - Cedar Freeway Area Eagan City Council Agenda December 21, 1982 Page Two VII. NEW BUSINESS VII VIII. i pp b7 A. Diamond Lake for Final Resolution for Industrial Revenue Financing C f.5 B. Tollefson Builders, Inc., Carl Tollefson, for a 10' Front Setback Variance Located on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition ,JO C. Banco Properties, Thomas HaLlbauer, for Rezoning Approximately Q' 4.4 Acres of the 6.46 Acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business District); for Preliminary Plat, Norwest 1st Addition, Consisting of Approximately 6.4 Acres and Containing 2 Commercial Lots; and for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Drive -Up Teller ` in Conjunction with the Proposed Bank Facility p q D. Harold Awe Company for Amusement Device License for One (1) ` q1 Amusement Device Located at Piccolo's Pizzeria, 4162 Pilot Knob Road (� E. Resolution in Support of Changes in Local Government Aid Formula ` y3 F. Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising for an Advertising Sign to be e' Located in the Cedar Freeway/Highway 13 Area ICA) G• Final Plat Application - Tomark 2nd Addition (Landtech Development) P' ADDITIONAL ITEMS 162A. Contract 83-2, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Northview Meadows PTrunk Utilities) 16tB. Receive Petition for Speed Limit Reduction - Dodd Road South of P Cliff (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Dept.) 10% C. Review Grading Permit Application, NWk, Section 2 (T.H. 55 - �' McLean Property) (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Dept. Business) VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the Agenda) IX. ADJOURNMENT 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1982 SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION After approval of the December 7, 1982 regular City Council minutes and special City Council minutes for the December 8 and December 14 meetings and the December 21, 1982 City Council agenda, the following items are in order for consideration: DEPARTMENT:HEADiBUSINE'SS'' FIRE DEPARTMENT A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Fire Department at this time. POLICE DEPARTMENT B. Police Department -- There are no items to be considered for the Police Department at this time. PARK DEPARTMENT C. Park Department -- The Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee is recommending that the City Council consider a commercial/indus- trial parks dedication. The Parks & Recreation Committee has met on several occasions to discuss the feasibility, goals and objec- tives and purpose of a commercial/industrial parks dedication. After significant discussion by committee members and research by the Director of Parks & Recreation, it is the recommendation of the committee that the City Council adopt a commercial and in- dustrial parks dedication. Enclosed on pages ,2 through is a copy of minutes of. a December 2, 198 r� meeting o t e Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee that share much of the discussion that transpired at that meeting as it related to commercial and industrial parks dedication. Since there was a great deal of discussion and a number of questions have been raised regarding a number of aspects on the proposed commercial and indus- trial parks dedication formula, a report was prepared by the Director of Parks & Recreation that addresses many of the questions raised by Parks & Recreation Committee members. A copy of this report is enclosed on pages 17 through Also enclosed on page LS is a copy of t e computation tAommercial and in- dustrial par s dedication as proposed. Enclosed on pages 6 through is a copy of the motion and support information recommending a par s dedication fee for commercial and industrial property. With the apparent loss of state grants, federal grants, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Two and many other sources of funding that appear to be evaporating, parks dedication fees for commercial and industrial land could provide a significant source of funding if park development and acquisition is to occur according to the park master plan. The only sources of funding that are currently available to the City for park land acquisition and development are either residential cash donation and dedication or a property tax referendum. A com- mercial and industrial park land dedication fee will generate a significant amount of revenue as development occurs throughout the community in years to come. Advisory Parks & Recreation Com- mittee chairman Roger Martin and committee member Dick Carroll are planning to be present with the Director of Parks & Recreation to further explain the commercial and industrial park land dedica- tion proposal. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the park land dedication for commercial and industrial development as recommended for approval by the Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee. An alternate could recommend a continuance if additional information is required or time does not allow the amount of discussion desired at the City Council meeting. IR 11 0 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 2, 1982 The regular meeting of the Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee was held on December 2, 1982 at the Eagan City Hall. Those members present were Martin, Thurston, Kubik, McNeely, Schumaker, Carroll and Masin. Absent were Fedde and Gustafson. Also present was the Director of Parks and Recreation. AGENDA Adoption of agenda, motion Carroll, seconded by Kubik, with all members in favor, the agenda for the December meeting was approved with the addition of a report by the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding proposed legislative changes in parks dedication at the State level. MINI TTES On a motion by Masin, seconded by McNeely, with all members voting in favor, the minutes from the November 4, 1982 regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee were approved. OLD BUSINESS ANNUAL REVIEW: PARKS DEDICATION Chairman Martin asked if all members had an opportunity to review the informa- tion as provided in their packet in regards to the parks dedication issue. And, the memo that was prepared by Mr. Erkkila. He asked the director what the limits were in regards to a time frame for action by the City Council enacting any changes in the dedication ordinance? The Director of Parks and Recreation responded saying that the council would be meeting the 18th of January to discuss any changes in "fees and charges" and this may be acted upon at that time, or at such time as you would like to get it to them. At this time committee member Carroll distributed a draft of a motion to the Advisory Committee indicating that he felt that some preparatory work for the committee would help to clarify issues in regards to parks dedication and speed the work of the committee. He continued saying there are some rough areas within the draft motion and hoped the committee would review thoroughly. Chairman Martin asked the committee members to take a few moments to carefully read the motion before beginning discussion on it. Committee member Masin commented that from reading the materials presented in the packet, that this motion, seemed well thought out. She was in favor of a commercial and industrial parks dedication but had some concerns about the percentages of dedication to be charged. Committee member Thurston questioned the current range of residential dedication in Eagan compared to other communities shown by Mr. Erkkila, stating that several other communities were equal to or had higher rates than Eagan. The committee then reviewed each communities residential parks dedication in relationship to Eagan and after additional discussion and deliberation, a consensus agreement that existing parks dedication in Eagan for 1983 should remain unchanged from 1982. Members based this on the fact that there was little change in market value of residential property during 1982. �14 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 2 Committee member Carroll, in response to the chairman, continued to review the motion for the committee. fie indicated that past research and review by the committee along with the materials as presented from Mr. Erkkila, and information provided by the Director of Parks and Recreation; that he felt the timing for commercial and industrial parks dedication seemed appropriate. He continued saying that Eagan appears to be set for continuous and steady commercial and industrial growth because of the Cedar Avenue, 494 and I 35-E. After additional discussion by the Advisory Committee, committee member Carroll commented that he believed they needed some additional backup materials for presentation to the council. He suggested developing a chart for the proposed commercial and industrial dedication, because it would help explain the impact of that dedication. Committee member Thurston commented that objections in the past to commercial and industrial dedication has been that it would discourage such growth in the community. Committee member Carroll responded that information gathered from other communities says that this objection is not necessarily a valid argument, indicating that several communities have stated that quality firms have continued to move into their communities despite a strong parks dedication requirements. Committee member Thurston indicated that she and others have long believed that a dedication ordinance on commercial and industrial should have been in effect, and that it would not have had a negative affect on commercial and/or industrial growth. Committee member Kubik questioned the definition of what assessable land is? His thought was that there could be wide variance between parcels in rezoned or changed to commercial and industrial. This change could affect the computa- tion of the cash and industrial dedication. Committee member Martin suggested it may have to be changed to reflect an average value on commercial and industrial property, as is done in the residential dedication formula. In re- sponse to a question from the committee, committee member Thurston stated she thought current values of commercial and industrial property in Eagan were per- haps in the range of up to $20,000 per acre and higher. Members were in agreement that this value should be researched further by staff so an average value could be determined. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Committee concerning the financial obligation for community parks and facilities. The committee was in consensus agreement with the feeling that, as had been pointed out in the comprehensive guide plan and in the current systems study, that neighborhood parks should be adequately addressed through the residential parks dedication ordinance. They continued indicating that community facilities however, would need an additional source of funding beyond limitations of any potential bond issue. Committee member Thurston said that while she was in support of the commercial and industrial dedication and sees a need for it her concern is that many others may not share this concern and view of the need. Committee members McNeely, Masin and Kubik expressed their recognition of the need for parks dedication. In response to a concern, it was reasoned that the community has not had a parks dedication in the past because of the history for concern of the broadening of the tax base in Fagan. Their was the attractiveness for commercial and industrial growth to stabilize the community. However, this is now turned around and other factors are more significant for the continuation of this growth and development. Mr. Carroll went on saying that the Advisory Committee has been 3 • 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1932 Page 3 charged with the responsibility of reviewing park needs by the City Council, and the Advisory Committee has the responsibility to fulfill that role as best it could. He suggested that in the best interest of E-agan's future the committee needs to carefully consider and pass on to the City Council its recommendations in regards to commercial and industrial dedication'. Chairman Martin reminded the Advisory Committee it needed to again clarify the assessed valuation terminology and proceed on. After discussion several attempts at rephrasing the term, "assessed valuation", the Advisory Committee reached an agreement that the motion should be changed to reflect, "average value as determined by the City Council reflecting the average assessed valua- tion of undeveloped properties in Eagan." The committee members then proceeded to review in detail each segment of the draft motion for discussion and modifi- cation. Committee member Martin stated that percentages of parks dedication, in relationship to an entire project, would be extremely small. Committee member Kubik commented that in his position he see's a number of industries promote the quality of life in Minnesota and the green space for parks. He stated that many high tech companies use this to attract capable individuals. These companies are willing to participate in insuring that the quality of fife and green space is maintained. After further discussion by the Advisory Committee in regards to the proposed motion, and modifications had been completed, a second to the motion was offered by Mr. Martin. All members voted in favor of the revised motion, with appropriate backup materials be sent to the City Council for consideration of a commercial/industrial parks dedication. Chairman Martin stated on behalf of he and the rest of the members of the committee, their appreciation for the forethought and work that Mr. Carroll had done; complimenting him on the excellent job in preparing the draft motion. I BRAINSTOnUNG The Director of Parks and Recreation gave the committee a few minutes to write down on a separate sheet of paper significant concerns and objectives as it related to recreational needs within the community. He further explained the process of the brainstorming technique. Members of the committee set about the task and then divided into two separate groups and shared their ideas collectively, then prioritized those comments. After approximately one hour of individual and group discussions,,the two groups shared their ideas collectively. Mr. Carroll commented that in the process there appeared that both groups had similar ideas in many instances. The director commented that being the case, apparently the need for such a program appears to be quite strong and as both groups rate them high in priority. He continued saying that it was his intent to take these suggestions and begin to do some initial investigation and review to see which of these programs the department might be able to offer in the near future. Other suggestions may be forwarded to other communities agencies for their implementation. POND AND LAKE STUDIES The Director of Parks and Recreation said he would like to take a few minutes to review the matrix which was included in the packet concerning the ponds and lakes. Chairman Martin said he would like to proceed column by column to ascertain if there were any problems or questions and provide as much direction to Mr. Erkkila at this time so at least some work could proceed. 0 0 _ 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 4 In regards to use of ponds for swimming, members stated no objection to the proposed recommendations by Mr. Erkkila. However, after a great deal of discussion by the Advisory members concerning liability factors, posting or not posting certain ponds for "no swimming," Chariman Martin asked the Director of Parks and Recreation to review this issue with the City Attorney to obtain an opinion before the committee makes a final determination. Mr. Kubik commented that it was his opinion that none of the lakes were of suitable size and water quality that the City should maintain or develop a suitable swimming area and that future swimming opportunities would have to lie elsewhere. Committee member Carroll stated that as it relates to fishing, that he would suggest the Advisory Committee and the City adopt a stance which would provide wherever possible or where there is an opportunity to provide fishing, the City do so. Mr. Kubik commented that he agreed with this and concurred with the recommendations made by Mr. Erkkila. There was additional discussion on each of the lakes recommended for the utilization of fishing ponds, and a question regarding the terminology of intensive management. The Director of Parks and Recreation stated that from his meetings with Barr Engineering and Mr. Erkkila it was the intent of the terminology that intensive management was to cover such needs as aerification of certain ponds and lake areas to ensure there would be no freeze out'of the fish population. He also suggested that this would mean any special effort that may be required for lake clean- up, shore line management, upstream management, etc. The director also commented that this terminology was felt appropriate in that some fishing ponds could be utilized now with no effort other than building a suitable ramp or access point. The second group of lakes would require some additional effort by the City to insure that they could be utilized in such a manner, thus intensive management. The members were in agreement regarding the fishing were the opportunities for doing so were appropriate. The committee asked that the term "intensive management" be made clear within the final plans. As it related to boat ramps, the committee had no objections to the recommenda- tions at this time. Committee member Thurston questioned what a developed boat ramp may be like? It was suggested that such a ramp for boating could or would be different at each location depending upon the type of facility that may be appropriate.' The director commented that in case.of canoeing it may simply mean a designated landing area which has been kept free from weeds while in other situations it may include more sophisticated ramp access up to and possibly including a surfaced area or one constructed of timber materials. The committee then discussed the policy or practice of the City as it related to the size of these facilities. Committee member Carroll and Kubik questioned the size of the proposed parking at Thomas Lake. The director responded that he too was somewhat surprised at that number and related how a formula was developed which provided these numbers in the recommendation. He suggested thatthis would need further review and was dependent upon land forms. At this time this had not been referenced. The director suggested that the committee needed to address itself to the question of limiting park- ing to a number which could be safely handled by the lake or whether to provide and expand these parking facilities to its maximum. The committee was in unanimous agreement that the City should adopt a practice whereby boating facilities should be developed but which would limit the number of parking S Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 5 spaces and hence protect the overuse of the lake, as opposed to a development to the maximum based on the lake surface formula. The director was also asked to review, in future concept plans and in greater detail, the appropriate- ness of parking as it relates to the park. The committee then moved on to the discussion of the boats and motors. Committee member Martin stated that at the special meeting he had voiced his objection to use of gas motors above 6 H.P. on City lakes. He reiterated this explaining that he was also now in objection to the use of any gas motors at all on these lakes sharing his concern for disruption to lake bodies, safety factors, relationship of motors to size of boats and administration of the 6 H.P. limit. Committee member Kubik stated that he too was in agreement, the City should not allow gas powered motors on lakes. There was additional discussion by the Advisory Committee concerning this as they reviewed various lake sizes, boating safety, uses of the motors by boat users and several other factors. Following this discussion members of the Advisory Committee were in agreement that boats and motors over 6 H.P. should be eliminated from City lakes, and, there was general agreement that gas motors as a total should be eliminated. Committee member Thurston questioned the status and implications concerning electric motors. Committee member Kubik commented that previously electric motors were quite small and used strictly for trolling purposes, however, they are now becoming larger in size. There were several questions regarding the thrust- ing power of the electric motors, potential speed, and other uses. Committee member Thurston questioned the purposes other than trolling that motors might be used for on City lakes. She felt that they might only be used for fishing and/or just general to and from movement. The Director of Parks and Recreation responded that administratively it would be very difficult as it was discussed with the use of gas motors of less than 6 H.P., to determine that H.P. rating from the shoreline for a boat out in the lake. He suggested that some further research and review could be done concerning the size of electric motors, potential speed and thrust for presentation at the next committee meeting. Members were in agreement and asked the director to proceed with this work. The committee then reviewed proposed shore facilities. The Director of Parks and Recreation commented that this was a general category which to try to show the implications of providing the previously mentioned items. He suggested that each of these would be reviewed and have to be finalized by the Advisory Committee at the time of implementation and development. He suggested this would be refined by the consultant and the Advisory Committee before final adoption. Chairman Martin questioned what the impact of any ordinance would have regulating the use of ponds not owned or without access to it by the City? The Director of Parks and Recreation responded that as he understood the question, the City has the authority to control by ordinance where there is a concern for the general health and safety of the community. Committee member Thurston commented that she was also concerned for other types of motorized activities on City lakes referring to one person powered skis, and large balloon tired vehicles. The director responded that he gathered from the inferences of the committee previously that these items would also be restricted from use on City ponds and lakes. After additional discussion concerning the implementation and implications of the ponds and lake studies the committee agreed to postpone additional discussion and other policy issues regarding winter lake/pond usage to the January Advisory Committee. I Minutes December 2, 1.952 • • Page 6 SNOWMOBILE REOUEST The Director of Parks and Recreation presented to the Advisory Committee a request from the local snowmobile organization for the use of the highline corridor trail from Nicols Road to Pilot Knob Road and from the highline south on Johnny Cake Ridge Road to the Eagan -Apple Valley border. The director said that there were several concerns regarding this and he elaborated on. He stated that I 35-E Blackhawk and highline construction problem, the intensification of traffic along Johnny Cake Ridge Road and Cliff Road as the result of the closing of Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley, and in the conflict between Apple Valley and Eagan ordinances relating to vehicles on boulevards along Johnny Cake. Committee member Kubik asked for an explanation of the current ordinance used for snowmobiles within the community? Committee member Thurston questioned what the success of the trail was last year? The director responded that generally speaking it was successful, although there were certain problems encountered which is typical of any type of recreational function. He stated that this was generally the abuse of some people of the privilege to use these snowmobile trails. The director was asked to elaborate on these problem areas, he summarized as going off the designated trail, the Jack of safety crossing roads and the like. Committee member Martin expressed his concern for the use of snowmobiles in the Thomas Lake area because of the sensitivity of the native prairie. He commented that he had noted that last year there were numerous snowmobile marks and trails through the area and across Thomas Lake which he considered to be disruptive and dangerous. There was general discussion concerning the problem of traffic.and crossing of Johnny Cake Road prior to gaining access to Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The director -then ieviewed with the Advisory Committee in some detail the factors and facets of the request. Committee member McNeely commented that perhaps because of the liability factors involved and the amount of traffic on the two roads mentioned, that the recommendation might be just simply to allow.the use of the highline trail from Nicols Road to Rahn Road. Members expressed concern where the trail ended without the provision for a safe crossing of roads. After further discussion, there was a motion by McNeely, seconded by Kubik to recommend that the council allow the use of the highline trail for a period of one year with all other conditions as applied last year. That the trail extend from Rahn Road to Pilot Knob Road. .Further, because of the intensity of traffic along Johnny Cake Ridge Road and Cliff Road, that this not be a recommended portion for the trail. All members agreed. OTHER BUSINESS The director responded that he would be brief because of the lateness of the hour and related that all the winter program activities were ready to go with the completion of hiring warming house attendants. He briefly reviewed other aspects for the committee's attention. The director stated the City would be utilizing the services of a volunteer in the office. This volunteer is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin and would be working approximately 20 to 25 hours per week for the City. This individuals name is Michelle Meyers and is a resident of Apple Valley. The director commented that a proposal, apparently from planners from Bloomington, to the next legislative session, would be to allow the.use of cash parks dedica- tion to be used for low income housing. The director explained the potential impact. Chairman Martin asked that this item appear on the next committee's agenda for discussion or at such time as there is a specific proposal. 7 0 0 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee December 2, 1982 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no other business for the Advisory Committee to conduct the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Dated: M K.L.V. Advisory Parks & Recreation Committee Secretary Every Thing You Wanted To Know .About Commercial and Industrial Parks Dedication and Would Probably Ask. 1. IVLIAT IS THE C0WFRCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PARKS DEDICATION? The Advisory Parks and Recreation Committee is asking the City Council to implement a requirement, similar in nature to the City's residential narks dedication requirements which would be applied to all commercial and industrial property which has not been issued a building permit. 2. UNDER 1%LAT AUTHORITY CAN THE CITY DO THIS? AND, WHAT ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES DOING? Under the same Minnesota statutes which allows communities to enact a parks dedication ordinance on residential property, many communities have enacted a dedication ordinance on commercial and industrial property. In fact, out of twelve communities recently surveyed ten have some form of cash commercial and industrial dedication requirements ranging from five percent to ten percent. 3. MIAT DO YOU ATAN BY A 5% OR 10% DEDICATION? Like a residential dedication, communities require a cash dedication on commercial and industrial property. The percentage charged is generally applied against "market value" or "assessed valuation." Generally, communities have adopted a formula for the market or assessed valuation which is typically an averaged value. This average value can then be adjusted annually or when the value of the land increases significantly. Other communities do not adopt an "average value" and apply the percentage of parks dedication against the actual market or assessed valuation of that particular parcel. I 4 E i 0 WAT ARE OTHER COl•I-MITIES CASH DEDICATION REOUIREMENTS THEN? Each community is very different. But as an example, the City of Chanhassen's formula yields $1,035.00 per net developable acre. Plymouth recently raised their dedication requirements to approxi- mately $2,200.00 per acre; Lakeville Q600.00 and Eden Prairie $1,400.00. These communities have a developed formula for an average value. Other communities have no such formula and rely upon the application of a required percentage on each parcel. DOESN'T THIS COMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENT DIP.VE AWAY THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? Conversations with representatives of comparable growth communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area indicates this is not happening. In fact, just the opposite might be true. As an example, the Tenant Company - a manufacturer of industrial cleaning equipment - has recently purchased land in Plymouth and are now in the process of plann- ing the development of this site. Their parks dedication will amount to something in the area of $300,000.00. Plymouth has had the commercial and industrial dedication since 1976, and like Eagan, is show- ing significant growth in its commercial and industrial base. Eden Prairie recently reported several new and large firms moving into their community. One firm, a relatively large contracting firm with offices in other parts of the 11nited States has located their head- quarters building in Eden Prairie. This firm met the 10% dedication requirement with a land dedication; plus the equivalency of. 39' more than the requirement in additional land. This firm reported to the City that it chose Eden Prairie for its headquarters because 'we are sold on the quality of life in Minnesota and want to be a part of the community that is concerned about this.' Attached is a copy of an article from Houston. A publication of the Houston Chamber of Commerce. This article reports the following: 'Parks are not only a vital necessity for the psychological well being of a people, but also for the City's economy. Part of what these large corporations consider when they locate is the livability of the City. They're not just bringing in scientists, corporate presidents and analysts. They're bringing in spouses and children who look past a forty hour work week.' 6. WHY NOW? Several reasons; the necessity of acquisition and development of community parks and community athletic fields, community trails, as well as special use facilities will require significant funding. Grants from Federal and State sources no longer seem probable. If the City is to have these types of facilities to keep up with its growth, this source of funding must seriously be considered. Other growth communities have found this approach to be fair and reasonable. The community is in an enviable position for commercial and industrial growth. The completion of 494, I 35-E and the Cedar Avenue bridge plus many other factors have contributed to make Eagan a growth community. The growth in commercial and industrial land is sure to increase very rapidly. If more time lapses before a commercial and industrial dedication requirement is implemented, other tracts of commercial and industrial property will have avoided paying their fair share, increasing the inequity between those who paid and those who have not paid. 7. WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT HAVEN'T HAD TO PAY THE COMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEDICATION SO FAP,? Those parcels which have been developed upon would not be subject to the 3 11 new dedication requirement. However, the committee's recommendation would be to collect the new cash dedication at the time of development, payable with the building permit. This would mean that parcels that have been platted but not yet built upon would be subject to the new dedication requirements. The Advisory Committee is recommending the dedication be placed upon parcels at the time the building permit is issued so as not to create a hardship on the developers at the time of platting. If applied at time of platting it would require the developer to carry this financial obligation until such time as the parcel is sold or developed. From the acreage numbers previously compiled by the planning staff; nearly 700 of the commercial and industrial zoned land in Eagan has not yet been platted; much of the land that has been platted is still not developed, and therefore would still be subject to the dedication requirements. Although several commercial and industrial parcels have been developed upon the majority of land in this zoning classification would be subject to the dedication requirements. 8. WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION? The committee is recommending a 7.5% commercial and industrial dedication requirement, based upon a formula for raw land cost; as established by the City Council upon recommendation by the Advisory Committee. The committee is recommending a 4¢ per square foot dedication. 4a would be applicable to net developable acres. This is the same as saying raw land has a value of approximately fifty-five cents per square foot. 9. WHAT IS THE- COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND IN EACAN AND ELSEWHERE VALUED AT? Raw land costs are extremely variable. However, some of the unplatted I� -4- • land in Eagandale Center is reportedly to be marketed for up to $1.00 per square foot. (Some of the platted parcels with streets and utilities in, are in excess of $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot) It has also been reported that land in the Lexington P.U.D. along Lexington and County Road 30 is being marketed for $2.50 per square foot. Land further away from County Road 30 is being marketed for "about $1.00." This is an asking price and terms of a purchase agree- ment would affect the final sale price. It's fair to say that the land might actually be sold at a 25% to 30% discount. This as a result of terms of sale. However, there are undoubtedly many parcels in Eagan which are valued less than $1.00 per square foot. The Advisory Committee is recommending an "average value" at approximately .55� a square foot. 10. HOW DOES THIS 4¢ FOR COILVERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPARE TO THE CITY'S CURRENT RESIDENTIAL DEDICATION? As an example, if you were to have ten acres of land zoned R-3; this could be developed into 7.8 units per net acre, and would result in a cash dedication requirement of $24,236.00. Compared to ten gross acres of commercial and industrial property, (assuming 90% as not developable) would produce a dedication requirement of $16,400.00. 11. WHAT DOES .04 COME TO ON A PER ACRE BASIS AND IS TRIS A SIGNIFICANT COST? 04 comes to $1,822.40 on gross acres; however, the committee is recommend- ing net acres. Thus, the actual dedication would be less than $1,822.40 per gross acre. If you are to assume that this raw land is ultimately sold for 53.00 per square foot, parks dedication would ultimately represent about 1.3% of the total of that parcel to a builder/purchaser. i3 -s- E 12. WHAT ABOUT CORPORATIONS WHO PROVIDE, SUCH AS SPERRY-UNIVAC, FOR RECREATIONAL AMENITIES WITHIN THEIR SITE? The Advisory Committee has recommended that certain credits be applied in instances in which significant on site amenities are available for the community. Further, the Advisory Committee is recommending a cash dedication credit for those developers who porvide on site ponding for storm water which would have a significant impact on identified water based recreational resources. December 15, 1982 /+ -6- 0 • COMPUTATION FOR COT!PiFRCIAL $ INDUSTRIAL PARKS DEDICATION Raw Land Cost 7.So 10% Yield of 7.5% Yield of 10a Per Square Foot Dedication Per Ded. Per Per Gross Acre Per Cross Acre Square Foot Sq. Ft. .40 .03 .04 $1,366.80 $1,822.40 .50 .0375 .05 $1,708.50 $2,278.00 .55 .04125 .055 51,879.35 42,505.80 .60 .045 .06 $2,050.20 42,733.60 .70 .0525 .07 $2,391.90 $3,189.20 /S / • • December 14, 1982 MOTION: As a result of the annual review of the City parks dedication fee the following recommendations are made: a. That no change be made in the residential development dedication fee currently in effect. This is based on a limited number of applicable land sales which reflect little or no change in pricing from last year. b. That a commercial and industrial dedication fee be established. It is suggested that the following fee schedule be made effective January 1, 1983. 1. Commercial: 7.5% net land or .04 per square ft. net land. 2. Industrial: 7.S% net land or .04 per sq. ft. net land. 3. Dedication credits: a. Up to 75% of derived fee for significant on site recreation facilities which are available for community use on a long term contract or commitment. b. Up to 25% of derived fee for on site storm water ponding and settling basins provided such improvementbenefits identifiable park and recreation water resources. 4. Determination of cash or acreage dedication and application of credits is determined by the City Council. Dedication is applicable at time of obtaining building permit. This recommendation is based on the following factors'; a. The need for acquisition of park land and the development of existing parks is shown in the City Comprehensive Guide Plan on parks and in the current systems study of the parks and recreation program. The study further shows the greatest need in the northern area of the City. b. The current parks dedication on residential development has only provided for acquisition of local neighborhood parks with minimal improvements. lie acquisition of community parks and purchase of athletic facilities /G parks de*opment, trails and special us*cilities will have to be financed from other sources. c. The Federal/State grants program for the period of 1977 to 1982 provided funds for Northview, Coachman, Patrick Eagan, trails, tennis courts, Rahn acquisition, and Rahn development. (pending final approval and funding of $80,000) Total funding for this period was $S69,000, or an annual average of .$94,833. This program is rapidly eroding toweard non- existence, therefore we cannot plan to use this program as a resource. Further,the current and forecasted future of our economy is not conducive to optimism in consideration of the extensive funding requirements being obtained through a voter referendum for a parks bond issue. d. The proposed commercial/industrial dedication fee appears equitable because these firms and their employees (both resident and non-resident) benefit from the quality of life as provided by City services and its community parks system. This proposal is also commensurate with parks dedication fees of similar suburban cities(see attachedletter dated November 26, 1982 from Erkkila and Associates with enclosed list of fee schedules) Contacts with staff personnel of these cities confirm that they have a continuing business growth. e. We are aware of the need for a City in its inceptive stage to offer inducements to commercial and industrial firms to locate within its bounds. With approximately one third of the total commercially zoned land already developed and Highway ; 494 and 35-E progressing through our City it appears we have passed this initial stage. In fact, any delay in establishment of a commercial and industrial dedication fee would appear to increase the scope of unfairness to the future developers. f. Contacts with land developers who have commercially zoned land next to freeway interchanges and at other sites in the City reveal a pricing range from $1.00 to $4.50 per square foot. Again, our proposed cash dedication fee of .04 cents ner square foot appears reasonable. 17 0 In summary we,believe this request is fair and equitable and that it is in the best interest of the'Gity,.• 0 -3- n U Q a t November 26, 1982 Suite 100 2611 Central Ave. N.E. Minneapolis, Mn. 55418 781-6696 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • DESIGN Park Committee Members and Staff Eagan, Minnesota RE: Park Dedication Requirements/Implementation Strategies In materials distributed earlier, a comparison of park dedica- tion formulas was provided. In that comparison (also found on pages C-5 through C-7 in the new Park System Plan notebook) Eagan was compared to several other metropolitan communities. Two observations are immediately apparent. 1. The residential dedication formula for Eagan is apparently at the upper end of the observed range. It can also be noted that most of the rapidly developing communities are also the ones with the highest cash contributions. It may be fair to say it hasn't inhibited development activity to any noticeable level. 2. The commercial and industrial requirements of Eagan are clearly at the low end of the observed range. In examining the relationship between high commercial and industrial dedications and development interest, the correlation is less clear than the similar comparison for residential development and dedication. The need for funds for park development in Eagan is acute. While it is uncommon for metropolitan communities to totally develop their park system on the basis of park dedication funds alone, there seems to be little or no advantage for communities to "undercharge" developments because their park dedication ordinance is not continually updated to the prevailing rate. For that reason, we do recommend that Eagan consider requiring a dedication from commercial and industrial development in addition to the existing residential requirements. 0 0 0 0 Park Dedication Requirements/Implementarion Strategies November 26, 1982 - page 2 Rather than indicate a singular approach, w- shall propose a range of formula options to Eagan. Both tk= high and low recommendations have firmly based precedent+ set elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Most commL.ctiee which require dedications from the commercial -ar 1ndua:.-ral project, do use either a 5% or 10% dedication. - "Low" Dedication formula for Commercial/Industrial Land 5% of the land or 5% of the assessed value of the undeveloped land with either a maximum or nominal fee of say $800 per acres. "High" Dedication Formula for Commercial/Industrial Land 10% of the land or 10% of the assessed value of the undeveloped land with either a maximum or nominal fee of say $2,200 per acre. In either situation, we recommend several further conditions be applied. 1. The City Council (not the developer) decides if land money or a combination is taken. 2. Trails, if any, shall be on easements through the property. No dedication credit should be given for easements but credit can be given for trail construction costs. 3. A credit can be given to projects which meet city park goals in some other fashion. For example, if on site stormwater ponding is pro- vided which improves the water quality in an .adjacent lake being managed for fishing, a dedication credit would seem appropriate. Another example would be if the development provided it's own recreational facilities and these were shared with the general public, a dedication credit here would also be appropriate. The size of the credit should be proportionate to the cost or land area involved and be at the discretion of the City Council. In establishing a nominal or maximum charge per acre, some thought should be given to what the reasonable land value is on commercial or industrial land in Eagan. The $2,200 per acre charge (used in Plymouth) is equivalent to saying the land is worth 50c per square foot, $22,000 per acre if it is figured on a 10; dedication. .1d 0 0 Park Dediation Requirements/Implementaiton Strategies November 26, 1982 - page 3 The $800.per acre charge is equivalent to .•aying the land is worth $16,000 per acre when a 5% dedicatic•i is used. Sincerely, C�M NJ -it Tim Erkkila, ASLA ERKKILA & ASSOCIATES TWE/sg al • 0 PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULES FOR SELECT SUBURBAN CHART C-1 COMMUNITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA Cammuni Eagan Burnsville Type of Use Lard Dedication Residential: 10% of gross lard area Cash Contribution $400.00 per unit - single Family/ two family $772.00 per unit - townhouse/ quadrominium 5252.00 per unit - condominium/ apartment Utility easements must dedicate 50% of gross land area when located along a proposed trail. Commercial: None, except in areas that are needed for the trails as Industrial: designated in the municipal trail plan. Residential: 10% of gross lard area 10`Yo of Assessar's market value Commercial: 51'e of gross lard area 5% of Assessor's marker value Irdustrial: 5% of gross lard area 5% of Assessor's marker value 2% credit can be granted if anyite recreational amenities are provided. The credit is given at the discretion of the City Council. Eden Prairie, Residentiol: • $725.00 per unit -single family detached 5250.00 per unit - all other residential Commercial • 51400.00 per acre Industrial: ' 51400.00 per acre 'Lord dedication is only accepted if the area is designated in the Park Guide Plan. The City will not accept any lard under power lines, flood plains or on steep slopes. Trails: If the developer provides an easement and builds a trail, no dedication credit is permitted. Trails along streets shall be graded into the sneer right-of-way and he City shall build the trail. No dedication credit is permitted. Inver Grove Heights Residential: 5168.00 per unit on lots with sewer and water S 84.00 per unit an Ian without sewer and water Commercial: None "Irdustrial: Name Lakeville Residential: 1 acre of land per 75 people in the subdivision based on the following demities: Single family - 7.5 people 5700.00 per unit Two family - 6.0 people $700.00 per unit Apartments, condominiums, townhouses - I person per bedroom $150.00 per unit plus 575.00 per bedroom above the first bedroom Commercial: 5600.00 ser acre Industrial: 5600.00 oats acre When o c.mbinaua,, of land and cash ore prodded, the fair market value of the IoM is deducted from the cash contribution. a'ra, C 9 • Community Type of Use Lard Dedication Cash Connibutian Maple Grove Residential: Park dedication is based on density: Gras Demity/Acre Lord Area Appraised Cash Value 0-3 units 5.0% 5.096 4-5 units 7.5% 7.5% 6-8 ..its 10.0% 10.0°0 9*units 10%+1%far each 10%•1%far each ..it unit over 8 unite ever 8 unity Commemiol: 5.0% 5.0% Industrial: 5.0% 5.0% Maplewood Residential: Pork dedication is based an density of the subdivision: Type of Unit People/Unit Cash Contribution/Unit Single tinily 4.1 5326.00 Two family 4.1 326.00 Mobile home 2.5 199.00 Apanments and - cordominiuna Efficiency 1.1 87.00 1 bedroom 1.4 111.00 2 bedroom 2.5 199.00 3 bedroom 3.3 262.00 4 bedroom 4.0 318.00 Tovnhorse 1 bedroom 2.0 159.00 2 6edroam 3.3 262.00 3 6edroont 4.0 318.00 4 bedroom 4.2 334.00 Land dedicated to the City must have an equal appraised cash value as the required cash contribution. Commercial: 5% of gross lard area 5% of appraised morket value Industrial 5% of gross land area 50% of appraised market value Oakdale Residential: Dedication based on density: 1 unit/acre 596 5275.00 1.1 - 3.0 10% 275.00 3.1 -4.0 11% 250.00 4.1 - 5.0 12% 250.00 5.1 -6.0 13% 250.00 6.1 - 7,0 14% 220.00 7.1 -8.0 15% 220.00 8.1 -9.0 16% 220.00 9.1 - 10.0 17% 220.00 Over 10.0 Add 0.5% per unit 220.00 Commercial: 1096 of lard area or Cash value equivalent Industrial: 10% of lard area a Cash value equivalent a3 C-6 • 9 Communi Type of Use Lard Dedication Cash Contribution Plymouth Residential None 5390.00 per unit On large lob the minimum fee is 5390 with no less than 2 units per acre. Om large lot with dereity less than 2 units per acre park dedication is required far possible future subdivision of the praoerty (1.e., a two acre lot cWnb as 4 unit, resulting in 51,560.00). Commercial: 10% of gross lard area 10% of Assesses's estimated land value of undeveloped lard. Maximum fee is 52,200 per acre. Trails: No dedication credit is given for the trail easement or grading. A credit is given for the actual documented cot of trail paving. Rosemount Residential: 4%x the number of units 4%x the number of units per per acre of gross lard acre of the raw lard value of area (example: 4% x 5 the land in the development. units per acre =20% lard dedication) - Commercial: None Industrial: None Roseville Residential: 10% of gross lard area fm 10% of appraised cash value Commercial: any subdivision of 5 acres far any subdivision of 5 acres Industrial: and greater and greater Shoreview Residential: Park dedication based on density Fair Market Value at Demity/Acre Gros Lard Area Time of Final Plat 0 - 2 3% 3% 2.1 -3 4% 4% 3.1 -4 5% 596 4.1 -5 6% 6% 5.1 and greater 10% 10% Commercial: 100% 10% Industrial: 10% 10% Dedication Credin. 5% credit if develmment has an -site owenwater drainage and pending that does not ;.roan the rate of runoff from the site. 296 credit if the development exceeds the minimum landscape requirements. White Bear Lake: Residential 10% of gross lard area 5150.00 per unit Commercial: 5% of gross lard area 5150.00 per each 4,C00 Industrial: square Feer of floor area 24 Ca 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Three PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT D. Public Works Department -- Item #1: Cinnamon Ridge Third Addi- tion, Final Plat Amendment-- ns c Tosed on page 2.1 is a copy ot the final plat tor t e Cinnamon Ridge Third A_d inn. As the Council may recall, Outlots A, B, C and D are private cul-de-sac streets servicing the "cluster home" concept of development as proposed by Zachman Homes, Inc. As a normal procedure of final plat approval in the City, a development agreement was prepared and excuted by Zachman Homes, Inc., which stipulated several respon- sibilities of the developer pertaining to grading and site prepara- tion of the subdivision prior to the City proceeding with the in- stallation of streets and utilities to service the newly created lots within the subdivision. This final plat was approved by the Council on July 20, 1982. Subsequently, the developer has indicated that, due to the present economic situation, he is unable to com- plete the grading in accordance with the approved grading and drainage plans submitted for this subdivision. In response to a petition by the developer, the City awarded Contract #82-7 which provided for the installation of streets and utilities within the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. Installation of these utilities was based on satisfactory compliance of the developer to complete the grading to the approved grading plans submitted with the final plat. Because the developer is unable to complete the grading, the City had to process a change order on October 5 deleting the installation of utilities within Outlots B, C and D due to inade- quate support and cover not being available due to the developer's inaction. The end result of all this action means that Lots 8 through 28 of Block 2 do not have any provisions for installation of streets and utilities as required by the subdivision ordinance for all newly platted streets. Because they are originally scheduled to be provided through public contract, the developer was not required to bond for their installation. Since these improvements have been deleted from the contract by change order, there are now newly created lots without provisions for public streets or utilities. Three options to this problem are as follows: U'nplat Lots 8 through 28 of Block 2 and Outlots B, C and D into one large outlot to be replatted at some time in the future when the developer wishes to proceed with his development. Require the developer to submit an additional performance bond/letter of credit in the amount of 60% of the estimated cost to provide streets and utilities to Lots 8 through 28. as 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Four 3. Put a hold on all building permits for Lots 8 through 28 until all grading, streets and utilities have been completed, installed and accepted by the City. With these options being presented to the developer, he has in- dicated his preference to resolve the situation through the third alternative (hold on building permits). This adds an additional administrative burden to the City staff and puts the City in a difficult position with a potential third party purchaser of a particular lot that does not have streets and/or utilities available which is required through existing City ordinances. The developer's second preference is to provide an additional letter of credit/per- formance surety in the amount of 60% of the estimated cost of the improvements to guarantee that they will be installed privately by the developer within a time frame to be delineated in an amend- ment to the existing development contract for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. This would be an acceptable alternative for the City staff. The developer's least desirable alternative is to unplat the existing lots of record and to then replat them into a subsequent future subdivision. This information is being brought to the City Council's attention because, in any event, it will require formal Council approval through an amendment to the existing contract development agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve alternate # for the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition as it pertains to proving streets and utilities to Lots 8 through 28, Block 2, of the Cinnamon Ridge Third Addition. 26 W .1i,VLk . �3EARli-JG OF SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54 M11NUTP- 14 SECOND'S EAST. • E OUT LOT 19 23 14 25 20 26 1216 22 27 21 13 28 10 d0 15 14 9 5 8 9 E" 7 to 0 %, �-\, ,41? 12 5 5 < < 4 5 LLJ 4 27 X z it: ItI. c 0 j 2 .-- I , f 1, - " ' '� A, "'. - -- - ------- - -q OUTLOT,—, G < zz 6 z Z, LOT % F 5 to 7 ff soomer [Jr L.rEI: 94A,e •-01Ull1 0 En 1., "r C-I)vm*molJ Ai)u cm- VIC111MV MAP-- a 7 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Five Item #2: Drexel Heights, Street Assessments for Project 240 -- The 0irector o Pu is or s and City Attorney are ma ing attempts to determine a fair and equitable assessment for the installation of streets that have previously been levied to the Drexel Heights Subdivision under Project 240. The Director of Public Works would like consideration by the City Council and/or terminate further legal action to recover costs incurred by the City as a result of the developer's inaction. The Director of Public Works has prepared a memorandum to the City Administrator that outlines the history of the final assessments that were levied under Project 240. For further review and information, refer to a copy of that memo enclosed on pages D.9 through 32, . ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE Works Director and City Attorney assessment for the installation Subdivision under Project 240 legal action to recover costs of the developer's inaction. ).8 MATTER: To authorize the Public to determine a fair and equitable of streets in the Drexel Heights and to proceed/terminate further incurred by the City as a result 0 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS COLBERT DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1982 SUBJECT: DREXEL HEIGHTS STREET ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 240 As the Council may recall, in September of 1980, a final assessment hearing was held for installation of streets to the Drexel Heights Addition under Project 240. After a more detailed analysis of the costs that were incorporated, it was recommended that a reas- sessment hearing be held on December 16 of 1980 to more accurately reflect the assessible cost to the lots within the Drexel Heights subdivision that was incurred as a result of the developer's in- action in completing his development responsibilities. As a result of the final assessment hearing, the developer subsequently appealed the assessments through district court. On February 3, 1982, the district court ordered the City to vacate the assessments that were levied on December 16, 1980. The court did not determine what a fair and equitable assessment would be against these lots; and, subsequently, its decision left the issue unresolved. There- fore, the City will have to initiate a new final assessment hearing for the installation of streets in order to recover the costs in- curred under Contract 240A. The amount of the assessment that was appealed by the developer was $4,467.58 per lot. Through their court action, the developer requested that the assessments be set at a maximum of $2,762.50 per lot. Subsequently, the Public Works Department has prepared a detailed breakdown of the cost responsi- bilities associated with this development which is summarized on Attachment "A" which is enclosed on pages 3 through 3 -�, . As can be seen, the assessable costs associated with providing a residential street within the subdivision would amount to $2,834.14 per lot. This is very close to the original maximum demanded by the developer in his assessment appeal. However, the City staff feels strongly that the developer is responsible for an additional $1,321.24 per lot ($31,709.68) which were costs that were incurred by the City as a direct result of the developer's inability and/or inaction to complete his site preparation responsi- bilities. In addition, there was $6,072.21 ($209.39 per lot) that was the result of inflation costs associated with delaying of the project while the City performed the utility repair work within this subdivision. For the Council's information, the total cost that the City has spent to date for the repair of the utilities within this subdivision has totalled $49,975.03. The City is unable to recoup these costs from the original contractor, McGrand-Frovarp, due to the fact that they have long since gone bankrupt. In addi- tion, the bonding company that was to guarantee their work is no longer in business. Therefore, the City has had to absorb that additional cost. IN 0 Drexel Heights Memo December 16, 1982 Page Two This background information is being made available to the City Council so that they can provide direction to the staff as to how to pursue the future final assessment of Project 240 for the in- stallation of streets in the Drexel Heights Addition. The Public Works Director has made a recommendation for consideration that the $6,000 costs associated with inflation be considered as a part of the $50,000 cost to repair the utilities prior to the installa- tion of the streets. Further legal action to recoup these costs can be discussed by the City Attorney's office. The Public Works Director feels confident that, if a new final assessment hearing were held at the cost of $2,834.14 per lot, there would not be a subsequent appeal and it would be accepted by the developer. However, this would leave $31,700 of additional costs that must be somehow recovered. The Public Works Director is recommending that a separate claim be filed against the developer for breach of contract due to his noncompliance with the development contract for the final plat of the Drexel Heights Addition. The City Attor- ney can present his position pertaining to the City's chances of being successful in this separate litigation process. If the City is not successful, the City will then have to absorb this additional amount which will result in a total of approximately $88,000 through this subdivision. The City Attorney's office feels that we may be able to negotiate a higher acceptable per lot final assessment above the $2,800 per lot that can readily be justified with the stipulation that the City would not pursue the separate legal action for breach of con- tract. This will result in some detailed negotiations between the City staff and the developer. Therefore, the staff would like some direction from the Council as to its willingness to absorb a portion of the $31,700 developer's responsibility in consideration for increasing the assessable cost per lot to an amount acceptable by the developer. 30 ATTACHDkDT "A" Project 240 - Drexel Heights 0 I. DEVELOPER'S SITE PREPARATIO14 COST RESPONSIBILITY A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Overhead (26.43% of IV) C. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (26.43% of V) TOTAL -- Based on 24 lots in Drexel Heights II. TYPICAL RESIDENTT'TAL SUBDIVISION STREET COSTS A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Overhead (73.57% of IV) C. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (67.54 of V) TOTAL Based on 29* Benefited Lots III. METATION COSTS DUE TO PFWBCP DELAY A. Construction Cost B. Pro Rata Construction Fin/Int (6.03% of V) Based on 29* Benefited Lots *includes 5 lot equivalents for Henry and Harvey Braun 3I $24,937.60 5,087.72 1,684.36 $31,709.68 1,321.24/lot $63,723.82 14,162.08 4,304.26 $82,190.16 2,834.14/lot $;5,687.92 384.29 $ 6,072.21 209.39/lot 0 0 7O: THOMAS A. CZOLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: BRAD J. SIENSON, ENGIIIZEERING AIDE DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1982 RE: COST OUTLAY FOR DREXEL HEIGHTS AREA WORK DESCRIPTION COMPANY DATE COST TV Inspection of Sever lines Clear -Water -Research 7/17/79 $ 883.71 TV Inspection of Sewer lines Clear -Water -Research 11/20/79 125.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 2/8/79 2,180.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 12/31/79 1,012.00 Sewer Repair Genz-Rvan.•__ 3/5/80 45.00 Sewer Repair Fredrickson 4/3/80 1,436.14 Drexel Heights Utility Re- Re- Fredrickson 9/29/79- pair (File „49) 5/7/80 41,321.68 Engineering/Inspection Fees Bonestroo,Rosene, 5/28/80 2,971.50 Anderlik & Assoc. WS/jack TOTAL CASH OUTLAY ................................. $49,975.03 t,-- 3a, 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Six �-CONSEN-T:""'-ITEMSt There are five (5) items to be considered under 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. KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS A. 1982 Kennel License Renewals -- The following Kennel License renewals are in order for consideration: 1. William E. Able, 3506 Lexington Avenue South 2. Arlene Allan, 4790 South Robert Trail 3. John Clary, 3555 Trails End Road 4. Janis MacKimm, 1690 County Road 30 5. John I. Sandberg, 1560 Yankee Doodle Road ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the kennel license renewals as presented. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT B. Approve Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement (Dakota County) -- The Dakota County Highway Department has updated and combined past signal maintenance agreements into a new revised agreement for the City's consideration based on recent policy changes by Dakota County. A comparison of this new signal maintenance agree- ment with previous maintenance agreements indicates that in many instances the County is now going to share 50% of the responsibility that was previously 100% City responsibility. In certain instances, the County wil be taking over 100% of the maintenance responsibility that was previously that of the City of Eagan. Therefore, this new agreement is advantageous to the City of Eagan and reduces its maintenance responsibility considerably and places it with Dakota County. This is a result of the several meetings held be- tween the City staff and the County's staff and helping to formulate a new transportation plan/policy for Dakota County. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve Dakota County signal maintenance agreement #82-09 and approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page 34C . 33 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NO. 82-09 DAKOTA COUNTY/CITY OF EAGAN WHEREAS, the City of Eagan and the Dakota County Highway Department have mutually reviewed the maintenance responsibility as delineated in past maintenance agreements; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that Dakota County shall assume the maintenance responsibility in accordance with their present policies pertaining to traffic signals within Dakota County; and, WHEREAS, it is in the City of Eagan's best interest to enter into a mutual traffic signal maintenance agreement with Dakota County to insure continued effective operation of the traffic sig- nals for the safety of the travelling public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eagan hereby approves the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement #82-09 and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Motion By: Seconded By: Members in Favor: Members Opposed: Date: December 21, 1982 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN Attest: By: City Clerk Mayor Certification STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF EAGAN I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given) of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 21st day of December, 1982; at which a majority of members of said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted. Given under my hand and seal this 21st day of December, 1982. 3 9 City Clerk 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Seven MnDOT COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (I-35E/CLIFF ROAD) C. Approve Resolution Requesting MnDOT Cost Participation Agreement (I-35E/Cliff Road - Storm Sewer) -- With the progression of I -35E and its interchange with Cliff Road, it is necessary for the City of Eagan to have a 36" trunk storm sewer constructed across Cliff Road to provide drainage from the Ridgecliffe Additions and Galaxy Avenue to Pit Lake (Boesel Pond). This was originally intended to be constructed under Contract 81-1. However, because MnDOT was unable to proceed with their contract for the Cliff Road inter- change in a time frame to allow the City to construct this crossing when Cliff Road was closed off for the interchange construction, the City's contract is now complete; and MnDOT has agreed to incor- porate this storm sewer as a part of their project, subject to a cost participation agreement. Therefore, in order to initiate this work and the preparation of an agreement, MnDOT requires a resolution from the City Council requesting the change and agreeing to participate in the City's pro rated costs for this work. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page �(� for the Council's consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve a resolution requesting MnDOT to prepare a cost participation agreement for the installation of a 36" storm sewer under Cliff Road as a part of the I -35E interchange with Cliff Road. 35 CITY OF EAGAN RESOLUTION S.P. 1982-51 (T.H. 35E) CLIFF ROAD/I-35E STORM SEWER WHEREAS, the City of Eagan was unable to complete the construction of a storm sewer outlet to Pit Lake under Contract 81-1 due to a delay in the award of S.P. 1982-51 (T.H. 35E); and, WHEREAS, MnDOT has recently awarded the contract for S.P. 1982-51 to Lunda Construction; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Eagan to have this storm sewer system and any subsequent revisions con- structed under MnDOT's contract; and, WHEREAS, the City recognizes it has an obligation to participate in the costs associated with this construction; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Eagan that MnDOT is hereby formally requested to prepare a cost participation agreement to incorporate the requested revisions and extentions of the City's trunk storm sewer crossing of Cliff Road at the I- 35 interchange. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF EAGAN HEREBY AGREES to participate in its proportionate share of the construction costs associated with this storm sewer system as delineated in the cost participation agreement in accordance with present policies pertaining to joint use of storm sewer facilities. Motion By: Seconded By: Members in Favor: Members Opposed: Date: December 21, 1982 Attest: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN By: Mayor Certification I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given•) of the City Council of the City of Eagan, Minnesota, on the 21st day of December, 1982; at. which a majority of members of said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted. Given under my hand and seal this 21st day of December, 1982. 36 1 Citv Clerk 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Eight MnDOT AGENCY AGREEMENT D. Approve' MnDOT Agency Agreement -- The City has received a re- vised agency agreement from MnDOT for formal Council approval on behalf of the City of Eagan. This agency agreement provides for the City appointing the Commissioner of Transportation as its agent with respect to all federally funded projects, to accept and receive all federal funds made available for said projects and to let con- tracts pursuant to law for the construction and improvement of local streets. This agency agreement would be enacted for projects similar to the relocation of Galaxy Avenue which was performed under a City contract but where federal funds were provided. This is a standard agency agreement and the revision relates to elimina- tion of its having to be renewed every year. The staff is recom- mending approval of this agreement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve MnDOT Agency Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEWALS E. 1983 Conditional Use Permit Renewals -- There are three (3) conditional use permit renewals in order for consideration: 1. Merlin Barfknecht, 835 Lone Oak Road, for tire and supply storage in his garage. 2. Elroy and Brett Mann, 3165 Dodd Road, car storage for Men- dota Skelly 3. Dr. Ethel Traxler, 1467 Highview Avenue, for an office in the home. All three (3) conditional use permits are in order for consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1983 condi- tional use permit renewals for January as presented. 37 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Nine Pe) BLI C ti H EARI'NGSIi'_ PROJECT 297-R FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING A. Project 297-R, Final Assessment Hearing (Continued), Blackhawk Lake Trunk Storm Sewer -- On November 9, 1982, two major property owners submitted written objections and/or appeals pertaining to their trunk area storm sewer assessments for Project 297-R. These two property owners were Jim Horne (Horne Development Corporation) and Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Bryant. Based on the written objections that were received on November 6th, the public hearing for these final reassessments was continued until December 21st to allow adequate time for property appraisal work to be performed. As was reviewed with the City Council on December 7th, it has been determined that the approximate 10 -acre parcel owned by Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Bryant (10-02100-010-04) does not lie within the benefited drainage basin for the Blackhawk Lake trunk storm sewer project. Therefore, the City staff is recommending that this parcel be deleted from the final assessment roll for Project 297-R. In order to proceed with the final assessment for the property owned by Mr. Jim Horne and/or Horne Development Corporation, it is necessary for the City to contract with a real estate appraiser to determine the benefit to the affected property. The City has received a written estimate of $3,500 to perform the property appraisal for all the property owned by Jim Horne and Horne Development Corporation. This cost has been broken down into $155.00 per platted lot within the King's Wood Addition and $1,500 to the remaining 27 acres of undeveloped property (Parcel No. 10-02100-010-01). Therefore, the City staff has revised the final assessment figures for the affected parcels to incorporate the above referenced additional costs associated with this project necessitated by the property appraisal as re- quested by the affected property owners. In addition, the City's appraiser has not yet completed the analysis of the property. Subsequently, it is recommended that this public hearing for the parcels under the ownership of Jim Horne and/or Horne Development Corporation be continued until a separate special City Council meeting date at the end of January where detailed testimony can be presented pertaining to the benefits received by the properties associated with this public improvement project. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: (1) Delete Parcel 10-02100- 010-04 from the final assessment roll for Project 297-R, and (2) Continue the public hearing for Project 297-R until January , 1983. — 3C� Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Ten 1983 GENERAL FUND Sr REVENUE SHARING BUDGET B. 1983 Budget and Proposed Revenue Sharing Budget -- The 1983 General Fund and Public Enterprise Fund Budget was prepared, re- viewed and modified by the City Council during the months of August, September and October. The levy certification for the 1983 General Fund Budget was approved at a regular City Council meeting during the month of October. With the exception of a few final budgetary adjustments during the month of November, the 1983 General Fund and Public Enterprise Fund Budgets, according to the recommendations of the City Council, are in order for final consideration. The General Fund Budget reflects a total expenditure for 1983 in .the amount of $3,732,950. The Public Enterprise Budget, consisting of water, sewer and street lighting, is $2,115,750. The 1983 budget document will be copied and distributed within the next one to two weeks as approved by the City Council. Enclosed on pages A�- through is a copy of a comparative summary of general un revenues and expenditures and the public enterprise revenues and expenditures as proposed for final City Council approval. The State budget bill that was approved during the month of December has no direct effect on the 1983 operating budget. The impact on the City of Eagan is a 1982 reduction in revenues of $25,967. This is a result of the December payment for homestead credit, local govenment aid and attached machinery aid being reduced by a total of $5.78 million. Each city in the State of Minnesota will receive a check for local government aid that has been reduced by.1.219713% of the total aid. The only impact the City will re- ceive as a result of the State budget bill in 1983 is the absorption of 2"/ of the amount paid to the PERA fund by all public employees. During calendar 1983, City employees will be required to contribute an additional 2% of salary to PERA. This brings a coordinated employee's total PERA contribution to 67. The City will continue to make its 5�% contribution for coordinated members to PERA as well. PERA will then pay to the state general fund an amount equal to 4% of salary, for the first six months of 1983. Members of PERA police and fire funds and basic funds will be similarly treated, i.e., they will contribute an additional 2% of their 1983 salary to PERA which will be passed on to the state. The impact on the City and its budget for 1983 does not change. The net result is a larger payroll contribution by each employee. The total cost to the employees during 1983 is $42,887. The City Administrator asked the Director of Finance to prepare a spread sheet illustrating (1) the December, 1982 reduction in local government aid, and (2) the total impact of the pension funding changes as they specifically relate to the City of Eagan public employees as a result of the state budget bill. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed on page S for your information. Again, action contained within the 39 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Eleven state budget bill does not impact the 1983 budget. More than likely the City can anticipate some reduction in the various aid distribu- tions during 1983; however, until the state legislature meets, there is uncertainty as to what those cuts, if any, will be. Federal Revenue Sharing The City of Eagan is required to hold two hearings concerning the expenditure of federal revenue sharing funds. At the last regular City Council meeting held on December 7, a public hearing was con- sidered regarding a proposed use of entitlement funds to be received during 1983. This public hearing was required by federal guidelines and also offered as an opportunity for the public to suggest various uses that might be an appropriate consideration for the expenditure of federal revenue sharing monies. There were no suggestions pre- sented by the public at that meeting; however, the City Council discussed the possibility of appropriating the upcoming entitlement in a general sense, allowing additional review at the time of pro- posed expenditures during 1983. This budgetary method allows more flexibility for the City Council in determining and meeting local government needs during calendar 1983. Again, this second public hearing is to consider the adoption of the federal revenue sharing budget. Again, the City will have approximately $261,000 allocated for federal revenue sharing monies during 1983. The Director of Finance is conducting a study as it relates to voting machine equip- ment. If a report is prepared in time for the administrative agenda, the same will be distributed to the City Council for consideration of that item as a part of the 1983 federal revenue sharing budget. The other consideration is to purchase voting machine equipment during 1982 and it will not reflect as an expenditure or budgetary item during 1983 if time permits. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve the 1983 general fund, public enterprise fund and federal revenue sharing budgets as presented. is 4 41 GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES 4:2- ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 General Property Taxes $1,116,815 $1,325,723 $1,782,470 $2,099,210 Licenses 50,444 53,347 44,710' 49,440 Permits 235,741 280,850 183,950 206,400 Intergovernmental Revenue 723,612 813,346 777,160 838,650 Charges for Services 44,108 116,044 85,100 93,900 Recreation Charges 20,783 22,040 33,410 Fines & Forfeits 39,432 41,214 40,000 40,000 Miscellaneous Revenues 35,694 33,202 31,000 32,600 Refunds & Reimbursements 141,998 255,523 268,400 339,340 Other 31,640 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,419,484 $2,940,032 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 4:2- • i GENERAL FUND DETAIL OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 3011 Ad Valorem Taxes -Current $1,091,435 $1,276,665 $1,716,350 $1,974,860 3015 Fiscal Disparities 25,380 49,058 66,120 124,350 $1,116,815 $1,325,723 $1,782,470 $2,099,210 LICENSES 3110 Liquor $ 30,475 $ 34,619 $ 29,600 $ 32,500 3111 Beer 1,742 4,561 1,480 1,500 3112 Cigarette 1,083 340 900 900 3113 Mechanical 2,000 1,625 1,000 1,120 3114 Vending 3,240 2,266 3,000 3,600 3115 Garbage & Rubish Hauling 505 335 400 490 3116 Kennel 50 144 130 130 3117 Dog 6,604 6,637 6,500 6,500 3118 Amusement 1,275 1,850 1,200 2,000 3119 Gambling/Bingo/Raffle 970 300 500 3120 Other 3,470 2,500 200 200 $ 50,444 $ 53,347 $ 44,710 $ 49,440 PERMITS 3210 Building $ 148,105 $ 162,980 $ 120,000 $ 135,000 3211 '3212 Electrical 40,095 39,033 32,500 30,000 Plumbing 16,869 32,294 10,000 15,000 3213 Mechanical 20,822 32,860 10,000 15,000 3214 Sign 6,355 6,732 6,000 5,000 3215 Trailer 210 135 200 200 3216 Well 90 60 100 100 3217 Cesspool 115 462 100 100 3218 Gravel Pit 1,750 300 300 600 3219 Excavating 2,000 1,000 2,000 3220 Conditional Use/Special Permit 2,500 2,500 2,500 3221 Water Softener 874 650 300 3222 Utility 585 300 300 3223 Tree Cutting 25 35 100 100 3230 Other 1,305 200 200 $ 235,741 $ 280,850 $ 183,950 $ 206,400 43 3411 i 600 $ • 600 $ 600 3412 Platting Fees GENERAL FUND 3,227 5,000 5,000 3413 Rezoning Fees DETAIL OF REVENUES 2,700 2,500 2,500 3414 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 2,000 3415 1980 1981 1982 1983 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 3416 IDR Bond Fees 10,250 3,000 3310 Federal Grants $ 16,780 2,371 2,288 3340 State Grants $ 42,314 47,353 3,286 3,880 3345 Local Government Aid 338,548 328,978 $ 317,070 $ 356,380 3346 Attached machinery Aid 5,370 5,960 5,960 5,500 3347 Homestead Credit 255,767 335,681 372,530 391,970 3348 MSA Maintenance 25,695 24,945 25,000 32,000 3350 Shade Tree Disease Program 10,732 2,458 Sale of Printed Material 2,637 3351 Police Town Aid 45,186 51,191 56,600 52,800 100 200 $ 723,612 $ 813,346 $ 777,160 $ 838,650 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,000 500 3446 Administrative Fee-SAC/Collect. 3411 Variance Fees $ 600 $ 1,350 $ 600 $ 600 3412 Platting Fees 7,598 3,227 5,000 5,000 3413 Rezoning Fees 2,100 2,700 2,500 2,500 3414 Property Splitting Fees 1,738 590 1,000 2,000 3415 Returned Check Fees 71 100 100 3416 IDR Bond Fees 10,250 3,000 2,000 1,000 3417 Dog Impound & Kennel Fees 2,371 2,288 2,500 2,500 3419 Burglar Alarm Fees 3,286 3,880 3,000 3,000 3420 I.G.H. Fire Dept. Dispatching 8,750 4,293 3421 Public Safety Fees 200 200 200 3422 Plan Checks 82,774 60,000 67,500 3425 Assessment Searches 4,390 3,585 3,500 3,500 3430 Sale of Printed Material 2,637 3,010 1,500 2,500 3440 Other Fees & Charges 388 100 200 1,000 3445 Permit Surcharge 608 1,000 500 3446 Administrative Fee-SAC/Collect. 4,368 2,000 2,000 $ 44,108 $ 116,044 $ 85,100 $ 93,900 RECREATION CHARGES Recreation Fees $ 20,783 $ 22,040 $ 33,410 $ 20,783 $ 22,040 $ 33,410 FINES & FORFEITS 3610 Court Fines & Forfeits $ 39,432 $ 41,214 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 39,432 $ 41,214 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 in 0 GENERAL FUND DETAIL OF REVENUES 11 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3910 Project Administration ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET Water Administration 80,000 1980 1981 1982 1983 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 44,800 64,280 3914 Insurance 3810 Interest of Investments $ 22,804 $ 7,085 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 3821 Building Rent 9,828 11,945 10,000 10,000 3840 Sale of City Property 300 10,674 3,500 5,000 3850 Contributions & Donations 1,312 600 500 600 3880 Other Revenues 1,450 2,898 2,000 2,000 $ 35,694 $ 33,202 $ 31,000 $ 32,600 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 3910 Project Administration $ 122,044 $ 83,059 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 3912 Water Administration 80,000 89,600 128,560 3913 Sewer Administration 40,000 44,800 64,280 3914 Insurance 15,527 5,000 5,000 3915 Planning 1,104 4,000 1,500 3916 Engineering 11,445 10,000 7,500 3917 3920 Legal Other 11,785 19,954 12,603 10,000 5,000 10,000 22,500 $ 141,998 $ 255,523 $ 268,400 $ 339,340 OTHER 3980 Transfer from Reserves $ 31,640 $ 31,640 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $2,419,484 $2,940,032 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 -45- GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES m • i GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT O1 Mayor & Council 02 Administration 05 Finance/Clerk/Elections 06 Legal 08 Planning & Zoning 09 General Government Buildi PUBLIC SAFETY it Police 12 Fire 13 Protective Inspections 14 Animal Control 15 Civil Defense 16 Ambulance Service PUBLIC WORKS ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 23,532 $ 27,284 $ 28,150 $ 30,020 85,959 126,582 105,690 138,370 240,624 202,453 237,920 277,170 41,001 57,770. 60,000 73,500 45,767 51,433 69,290 78,400 s 42,596 36,987 33,000 47,260 $ 479,479 $ 502,509 $ 534,050 $ 644,720 $ 924,485 $ 997,161 $1,178,870 $1,374,370 167,109 148,314 208,700 237,320 98,776 119,984 152,990 155,500 14,117 16,442 22,880 28,100 173 37,199 42,170 2,390 7,000 20,986 22,800 26,400 $1,211,660 $1,340,086 $1,628,410 $1,824,080 21 Public Works/Engineering $ 64,961 $ 198,653 $ 193,480 $ 249,710 22 Streets & Highways 375,139 388,461 421,410 504,270 $ 440,100 $ 587,114 $ 614,890 $ 753,980 PARKS & RECREATION 31 Parks & Recreation $ 275,510 $ 335,228 $ 381,300 $ 433,150 32 Tree Conservation 4,421 24,741 42,680 42,020 $ 279,931 $ 359,969 $ 423,980 $ 475,170 OTHER 41 Contingency $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $2,411,170 $2,789,678 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 47 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION Personal Services $ ACTUAL $ ACTUAL $ BUDGET $ BUDGET Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services 1980 16,508 1981 10,100 1982 650 1983 GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,750 106,355 45,767 $ 95,621 69,290 $ 89,810 502,509 $ 108,020 O1 Mayor & Council 12,357 3,386 500 10,000 Personal Services $ 20,018 $ 20,508 $ 23,210 $ 25,030 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance $ 240,624 $ 36 $ 237,920 $ 277,170 Other Charges & Services 3,514 6,740 4,940 4,990 Other Charges & Services $ 23,532 $ 27,284 $ 28,150 $ 30,020 02 Administration $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 Personal Services $ 70,911 $ 86,883 $ 83,530 $ 96,720 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 543 2,308 800 1,050 Other Charges & Services 14,505 37,285 21,110 40,600 Capital Outlay 106 250 $ 85,959 $ 126,582 $ 105,690 $ 1389370 05 Finance/Clerk/Elections Personal Services $ 111,709 $ 95,365 $ 139,700 $ 151,150 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services 10,203 16,508 6,720 10,100 7,910 650 8,000 Other Charges & Services 1,750 106,355 45,767 $ 95,621 69,290 $ 89,810 502,509 $ 108,020 Capital Outlay 12,357 3,386 500 10,000 Other 1,361 $ 240,624 $ 202,453 $ 237,920 $ 277,170 06 Legal Other Charges & Services $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 $ 41,001 $ 57,770 $ 60,000 $ 73,500 O8 Planning & Zoning Personal Services $ 28,788 $ 34,007 $ 51,000 $ 65,880 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 836 305 950 670 Other Charges & Services 15,493 16,508 16,340 10,100 Capital Outlay 650 613 1,000 1,750 $ 45,767 $ 51,433 $ 69,290 $ 78,400 General Government Buildings Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 15,174 $ 15,947 $ 18,790 $ 25,700 4,037 2,307 1,650 2,400 22,280 18,334 121110 18,910 1,105 399 450 250 $ 42,596 $ 36,987 $ 33,000 $ 47,260 $ 479,479 $ 502,509 $ 534,050 $ 644,720 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 PUBLIC SAFETY it Police Personal Services $ 718,678 $ 810,302 $ 976,510 $1,116,300 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 49,003 63,257 70,960 71,100 Other Charges & Services 122,368 75,719 84,060 102,250 Capital Outlay 34,436 47,883 47,340 84,720 $ 924,485 $ 997,161 $1,178,870 $1,374,370 12 Fire Personal Services $ Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay 13 Protective Inspections 109,372 $ 16,734 34,792 6,211 167,109 $ 93,148 $ 19,649 32,419 3,098 148,314 139,650 $ 14,560 36,240 18,250 208,700 $ 171,210 16,200 38,380 11,530 237,320 Personal Services $ 56,457 $ 77,437 $ 103,640 $ 104,150 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 2,778 3,483 5,300 5,000 Other Charges & Services 38,543 38,218 40,950 44,820 Capital Outlay 998 846 3,100 1_,530 $ 98,776 $ 119,984 $ 152,990 $ 155,500 14 Animal Control Personal Services $ 6,363 $ 10,048 $ 13,800 $ 19,980 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 1,751 1,666 2,370 2,400 Other Charges & Services 4,136 4,728 5,410 5,720 Capital Outlay 1,867 36,826 1,300 41,720 $ 14,117 $ 16,442 $ 22,880 $ 28,100 15 Civil Defense Supplies, Repair & Maintenance $ 126'$ 197 $ 250 $ 200 47 176 200 2,190 36,826 41,720 $ 173 $ 37,199 $ 42,170 $ 2,390 16 Ambulance Service Other Charges & Services $ 7,000 $ 20,986 $ 22,800 $26,400 $ 7,000 $ 20,986 $ 22,800 $ 26,400 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY $1,211,660 $1,340,086 $1,628,410 $1,824,080 4 -OL 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 PUBLIC WORKS 21 Public Works/Engineering Personal Services $ 33,590 $ 141,884 $ 166,030 $ 225,760 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 2,445 4,336 2,980 2,800 Other Charges & Services 26,235 50,106 19,010 17,300 Capital Outlay 2,691 2,327 5,460 3,850 $ 64,961 $ 198,653 $ 193,480 $ 249,710 22 Streets & Highways Personal Services $ 134,883 $ 178,102 $ 203,160 $ 252,570 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 81,480 89,093 87,420 97,910 Other Charges & Services 154,107 115,463 123,830 127,990 Capital Outlay 4,669 5,803 7,000 25,800 $ 375,139 $ 388,461 $ 421,410 $ 504,270 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS $ 440,100 $ 587,114 $ 614,890 $ 753,980 PARKS & RECREATION 31 Parks & Recreation Personal Services $ 197,571 $ 247,817 $ 268,350 $ 298,440 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 33,179 41,201 46,940 56,750 Other Charges & Services 37,460 35,068 46,310 54,640 Capital Outlay 7,300 10,970 19,230 23,320 Other 172 470 $ 275,510 $ 335,228 $ 381,300 $ 433,150 32 Tree Conservation Personal Services $ $ 13,488 $ 29,520 $ 31,270 Supplies, Repair & Maintenance 421 2,512 2,710 1,860 Other Charges & Services 4,000 1,140 1,800 1,890 Capital Outlay 7,601 8,650 7,000 $ 4,421 $ 24,741 $ 42,680 $ 42,020 TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION $ 279,931 $ 359,969 $ 423,980 $ 475,170 SU 0 0 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY MAJOR OBJECT CLASSIFICATION OTHER 41 Contingency Other TOTAL OTHER TOTAL GENERAL FUND ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $ 35,000 $ 33,500 $35,000 $2,411,170 $2,789,678 $3,234,830 $3,732,950 S1 PUBLIC UTILITIES 15,Z COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REVENUES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 61 Water Metered Sales $ 577,429 $ 617,343 $ 675,000 $ 800,000 Connection Charges 292,155 175,289 91,500 126,000 Other .180,135 244,092 83,390 83,350 $1,049,719 $1,036,724 $ 849,890 $1,009,350 62 Sewer Metered Charges $ 705,453 $ '878,077 $ 800,000 $1,000,000 Connection Charges 108,860 93,895 30,000 30,000 Other ...157,654 .244,539 59,590 62,400 $ 971,967 $1,216,511 $ 889,590 $1,092,400 62 Street Lighting Customer Billed Charges $ ..-4,579 $ ...7,133 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $ 4,579 $ 7,133 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES $2,026,265 $2,260,368 $1,746,480 $2,115,750 15,Z PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES 61 Water Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services . Capital Outlay Other 62 Sewer Personal Services Supplies, Repair & Maintenance Other Charges & Services Capital Outlay Other 63 Street Lighting Other Charges & Services TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET 1980 1981 1982 1983 $ 127,415 $ 140,533 $ 132,390 $ 123,820 21,056 44,123 42,150 45,630 261,269 295,752 171,330 214,760 32,082 7,600 25,090 692 80,000 496,420 600,050 $ 410,432 $ 592,490 $ 849,890 $1,009,350 $ 63,668 $ 22,035 $ 65,490 $ 62,090 5,014 3,436 11,500 110,690 589,124 644,024 719,850 815,000 2,953 7,000 14,690 40,000 85,750 189,930 $ 657,806 $ 712,448 $ $889,590 $1,092,400 $ 4,081 $ 7,414 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $ 4,081 $ 7,414 $ 7,000 $ 14,000 $1,072,319 $1,312,352 $1,746,480 $2,115,750 S3 6 0 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VAN OVERBEKE DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1982 SUBJECT: STATE BUDGET BILL IMPACT The recently enacted cuts in local government aid will affect the City as follows. The total reduction of $5.78 million produces a reduction ratio (actual as determined by the State) of 1.219713 as a per cent of total aids. This ratio is multiplied by the sum of the 1982 Local Government Aid and the 1982 Levy Limit Base to arrive at the reduction. City of -Eagan 1982 Local Government Aid 1982 Levy Limit Base Aid Reduction Base Times Reduction Ratio December 1982 Reduction $ 316,893 1,812,059 $2,128,952 1.219713% $ 25,967 The pension funding changes will have the following estimated impact. The 1982 PERA employee deductions are estimated to be: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 54,024 1,338 44,497 T---99—,85-9 An additional reduction of 2% would make these amounts: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 67,530 1,673 66,746 $ 135,949 The total additional cost to the employees would be $36,090. A 5% salary increase coupled with the 2% PERA increase would generate the following total contributions: Police Basic Coordinated Total $ 70,907 1,756 70,083 $ 142,746 The total cost to the employees would then be $42,887. finance irector itv erc s� ILI Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twelve 46 NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN A. Reconsideration of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Sign -Cedar Free- way Area -- At the November 9, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the advertising sign located on Lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition. The City Council's interpretation of Ordinance No. 16 is that an advertising sign can be no higher than 40' from the Cedar Avenue roadbed. This is not the same interpretation as 40' above the elevation where the sign was located. A letter was sent to Julianne Bye of Naegele Outdoor Avertising Sign Company by the City Planner dated November 15, 1982. A copy of that letter is enclosed on page s6 In response to the City's position, a letter was sent to t e ity Administrator along with a calendar of events, Naegele's interpretation of Eagan sign ordinance #16 and an elevation that shows the location of then. This informa- tion is enclosed on pages S 7 through 61sigNaegele Outdoor Advertising Company stated in t eir letter oT December 1 that several options would be reviewed. Those options were studied by Naegele and a letter, enclosed on pages 6-S through (, and dated December 15, 1982, basically states tTiat they are unable to relocate the sign on the subject property with which the lease was executed, they have no alternative locations and feel they can not lower the structure any more than three feet. The City Attorney, City Planner and City Administrator are planning to meet with representatives of Naegele on Monday, December 20, and addi- tional information will be made available as a part of the adminis- trative packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To reconsider the current elevation and/or location of the Naegele sign that was approved and is located adjacent to the Cedar Avenue Freeway on its east side between Cliff Road and Diffley Road. SS 3795 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOM9UIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Moro PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER _ Cw i Me Iwl November 15, 1982 THOMAS HEDGES City Add rmsftolm EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Coy Clea MS JULIANNE BYE NAJME CUIDOOR ADVERTISING SIM CO 1700 W 78TH ST RIC HIF= MN 55423 Re: Advertising Sign located on Lot 2, Cedar Ride 2nd Addition Dear Ms. Bye: At the November 9, 1982 City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the advertising sign located on lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition. The City coun- cil's interpretation of Ordinance #16 is that the advertising sign be no higher than 40' from Cedar Avenue roadbed vs. 40' above the elevation where the sign is located. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the November 9, 1982 City Council minutes for your review. Hopefully, this interpretation from the City Council will give you the direction needed to corse into oon- fonmance with Ordinance #16. If you have any questions regarding Ordinance #16 or the height of your ad- vertising sign on Lot 2, Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition, please contact me at the Eagan City Hall. Sincerely, Dale C. Runkle City Planner DC R/jach enc. cc - Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator 6-6 THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY 1700 WEST 76TH STnEET MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55423 16121 BGS -1900 JUUANNE BYE 4uaoc�em O�raccoNCorparem Oeve�opmenc December 1, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 37Q5 Pilot Knob Road Post Office Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: &TIVOT At our meeting the following options were developed regarding the Naegele Outdoor Advertising display on Cedar Avenue. Please let me know if there are any errors. 1. Lower the structure. As discussed, to be effective the display must be visible for 600 feet. The current site will be surveyed again from 600 feet to determine the necessary minimum height for it to be visible. 2. Relocate the display on the same property. Naegele will review the property and determine if the display can be relocated on the same property. 3. Alternative locations. Naegele will explore the possibility of alternative sites on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77. In addition, the lease agreement between the property owner and Naegele Outdoor Advertising is being reviewed as to the impact the lease has on each option. The options are being studied, however, the work will not be completed by the December 7th City Council meeting. 11,1e share the City's desire to resolve the situation in a prompt manner and will keep the city .......... 57 Page 2 informed of all progress. A4e appreciate the time Lease :'0381 Permit 1. a 9 August 2G. 1982 September 7. 1982 September 13, 1982 September 28, 1982 0 Julianne Bye applied For sign permit and reviewed application with i%a:E City Council approve sign permit for Naegele. Julianne Bye applied for sign permit. George DeGidio tallied with Dale Runkle about the height of the structure. October 5, 1982 Julianne Bve called city hall to ask for copy of processed sign permit. Informed by Bev it was processed and it was okay to build. October 7, 1982 October 18, 1982 9. October 19. 1982 10. October 21. 1982 11. November S. 1982 12. November 9. 1982 13. November 9. 1952 S9 Apply for state permit on sign Construction begins (construction not complete since the sign is not illuminated) Julianne Bye received neighborhood complaints. Discussion of sign at Council meeting. Naegele not present. Julianne Bye called Dale Runkle regarding sign. Runkle explained that the city would be surveying the sign to determine height. The staff will report results to the Council on November 9th. Runkle would contact Bye if there were any problems. Dale Runkle called Julianne Bye to inform her of the staff report and requested her attendance at the November 9th Council fleeting. Julianne Bye meet with Dale Runkle to review staff report. Julianne Bye appears before the Council and explained Naegele's position. Council instructed staff that fl-,, ordinance was to be interpreted that the height of the structure was to be 40' above the roadway. If the lor, le%el .,as hi -,-her than the roadway rz and thaL r, he s:i"In viol atetl the ordinance. 1.4. November 1G. 1982 Runkle called .Julianne Bye to find out .if there were any problems with the Council's action. Julianne Bye requested meeting with Runkle. City Attorney and City Manager. 15. November 17, 1982 Julianne Bye received letter from Dale Runkle informing her of the City Council's action. 16. November 18, 1982 Runkle called Julianne Bye and meeting was established for Monday, November 22nd with Nancy Jorgensen, Dale Runkle, City Manager and City Attorney. rz TN 1 ywy77 CCe d4 a &C. yo i�# 10 h n/W r"e eJ • The only reference in the ordinance to height of advertising signs: Section 16.04, Subdivision 4, Height. No advertising sign shall exceed 40 feet—measured at lot level or roadway level. Whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on visibility factors on the adjacent roadway. Examples: 1. Lot level and roadWay level are an equal height. 40 510 910, .. - 2. Lot level is lower than roadway level. SID Ee� I 3. Lot level is higher than roadway level. a. City interpretation of ordinance. 4. Various heights surrounding the lot level (Cedar Avenue situation). L_ 91c/ r� i EAGAN SIGN ORDINANCE NUMBER 16 The only reference in the ordinance to height of advertising signs: Section 16.04, Subdivision 4, Height. No advertising sign shall exceed 40 feet—measured at lot level or roadway level. Whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on visibility factors on the adjacent roadway. Examples: 1. Lot level and roadWay level are an equal height. 40 510 910, .. - 2. Lot level is lower than roadway level. SID Ee� I 3. Lot level is higher than roadway level. a. City interpretation of ordinance. 4. Various heights surrounding the lot level (Cedar Avenue situation). L_ 91c/ r� i • _ ! NAEGELE OUTOOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES j I 1700 WEST 76TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423 X612! 669-1SOO JUUANNE BYE ,aceocece GsacroNCa.porece Oevaopmenc December 15, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges City Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom: Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company has completed its review of the three options outlined in my December 1, 1982 letter. The following is a summary of our findings: 1) Lower the structure. The current structure has been surveyed from 600 feet for the minimum height necessary for it to be visible. The visibility of the south face (toward County Road 32) will be impaired by the hillside if it is lower more than three feet. 2) Relocating the display. The property has been reviewed and there are no alternative locations that will meet the City's intrepretation of the sign ordinance. In fact, moving the structure may cause an increase in. height of the sign. To be visible at an alternative location, the structure should be the same elevation above the roadway as the current structure. Because of the change in slope, the lot level at the alternative site would probably be lower. Consequently, the single pole would be longer and the height above the lot level increased. In addition, the site location is stipulated in the lease agreement between the property owner and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Moving the structure would require Naegele to enter into another lease with the property owner. Moving the structure may not be grounds for breaking the lease. It is conceivable that we would have two leases for one structure. N4.G L Gf y Si. G3 3) Alternative locations. Presently, we have no other leases on Cedar Avenue/Highway 77. It is my understanding that a meeting has been established for Monday, December 20th to review the situation. If you should require more information by that time, please call me. Sincerely, Julianne Bye Associate Director Corporate Development JB:ah Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Thirteen Y NEWT B� SII!NE'S'Si FINAL RESOLUTION/IR FINANCING DIAMOND LAKE A. Diamond Lake for Final Resolution for Industrial Revenue Fi- nancing -- The City Administrator has been contacted by Robert Levy, legal counsel for Diamond Lake, Inc., and apparently Diamond Lake, Inc., is planning to hold up on the final closing and issuance of the commercial development revenue bonds for the grocery store until the Pilot Knob Shopping Center final resolution for industrial revenue financing is processed. Apparently, the final resolution for the shopping center should be forthcoming in early 1983. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To continue indefinitely the final resolution for industrial revenue financing for Diamond Lake, Inc. VARIANCE - LOTS 2-10, BLOCK 3, BRITTANY 3RD ADDITION B. Tollefson Builders, Inc., Carl Tollefson, for a 10' Front Set- back Variance Located on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition -- A public hearing was held at the last regular APC meeting held on November 23, 1982 to consider an application submitted by Tollef- son Builders, Inc., requesting a 10' front setback variance on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. Action was taken by the APC to recommend approval to the City Council for the setback variance. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 6G through 648 For action that was taken by the APC, refer to a copy of those minutes enclosed on page _6_. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the recommendation of the APC to approve a 10' front setback variance for Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. 65 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: 10' FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICANT: TOLLEFSON BUILDERS INC, CARL TOLLEFSON LOCATION: LATS 2-10, BLACK 3, BRITTANY 3RD ADDITIONN EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF REPORT REPORTED BY APPLICATION SUBMITTED NOMIBER 23, 1982 NOVEMHR 15, 1982 DALE C. RUNIQ,E, CITY PLANNER An application has been submitted requesting a 10' front setback variance on Lots 2-10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition. An application has been submitted requesting that hones constructed on the north side of Sherwood Way be allowed to build 20' from. the front property line vs. the 30' requirement. It is staff's understanding that the applicant wishes to con- struct closer to the property line and is due to the severe topographv and trees located on Lots 2-10. It appears the topography drops severely on the north side of Sherwood way, and in order to provide for economical construction and save trees in this development, the applicant is requesting that the front setback of the hones be 20' from the property line vs. the 30' requirement in Ordinance $52. In the past, it has been a practice to allow front setback variances of this nature due to severe topography and trees, and reviewing this particular application, it appears that a criteria for granting the variance due to topography and trees is justified on these particular lots. There have been a number of hones constructed in this particular area and notices for this setback variance have been sent out to the surrounding property owners. The input received at the public hearing from the surrounding neighbors should al- so be included in the decision to grant the 10' setback variance. If this vari- anoe is approved, it should be subject to the following conditions: 1) All other ordinance requirements be net. DCR/jach .• I k N �� t'. a p66+Z ' oolt lr•nitf 1. M,.II,bZ.b� s • t o. - 7 ��C3.. :��M� nhQa'% , Z IN NI I -i 10 w � •ql I° 90_001 I I FII D'l2kti.71 t q16�, i W .I L 00 9b L°!hI 69'89)L� O N UOf L K a 9 3,Il,bieb9 � �dM b �r b8„ go qqz _ to a p 00'011 i^ 00' 001 —CR ?I I (7172 6h 99 57y \\y.. r IF IN °I I w� °49 Y 76h%O LiN 94'r t N Or 6 f 1w .4 1 f ,YY ' 11 ,(fiti=t 2 U Q I i . �., s :j11 f e 8.9 'fb_ oo•ofi1 QI Ip' Z kl 10 3 :G -01 0. .Ov�'@�` o 110 4 -n4 ora n 6\ r 4?Pi 0 -lino° V-• 000 0 i 9IL w,Zc" AlA• �,F .. �II ;'ra 9.I�ry+��ir�' 1���4� `•;t`' -6�6 ib.10.CO5 90 I•r I� j�yy pp t F b)1 t.t. �t . 1. Nb' ro 4144.5f UY, 1 s it eb i t '4,�r.;7: ` +��f Y � '.. .i.. •... 00 : nal• • CAR Q Iq IPD 77-2 4 � R -I SAFARI AT R- i - R -1 kin I� I A CC99 PD PF -3 R-1 ' R-1 R-1 MM, eo2,� P PAR I - \ Gr R-1 COL A � M `•'+�C `•••v ., )• qlA :) i. �..l `, a -- CC99 PD E APC Minutes November 24, 1982 HAEG PROPERTY - WAIVER OF PLAT - DODD ROAD A public hearing regarding the application of Eugene Haeg and Lentsch Realtors for waiver of plat in order to split .37 acres from a 4.2 acre parcel located south of-Hackamore Drive and west of Dodd Road was considered by the Planning Commission:, Frank Lentsch appeared for Mr. Haeg and states that the owners intend to sell 4.2 acres to a developer and retain .37 acres for a new house on an existing parcel. A request to construct a new homestead within the parcel and sell off the remaining for development was based upon the heavy assessments for utilities and streets that have been levied in recent years. The remaining parcel would be 15,150 square feet. The staff recommended an overlay design to be done to show how the property could be maximized for development in the future.=' One neighboring property owner was present with questions but there were'no objections to the application. There was discus- sion concerning a possible future subdivision including a cul-de-sac and there were concerns by the staff that variances may be requested in the future. After considerable discussion, Turnham moved, Krob seconded the motion to continue the.. application until the next regular meeting for 'further study in order to review a plan for use of the balance of the parcel. All voted in favor except McCrea who voted no. TOLLEFSON BUILDERS, INC. 10 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE - BRITTANY 3RD ADDITION The hearing regarding the application of Carl Tollefson of Tollefson Builders, Inc. for a 10 foot setback variance from Lots 2 through 10, Block 3, Brittany 3rd Addition was convened. Carl Tollefson was present and explained the proposal.' One neighboring owner was present with questions but there were no objections. It was noted the proposal was to allow a 20 foot setback from the front property line because of the extremely severe topography along the rear area, and also because of numerous trees on the lots. Dale Runkle indicated that the City has allowed such variances in other areas because of topographic and tree conditions. Mulrooney moved, McCrea seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to compliance with all other applicable ordinances. All voted in favor. N F Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Fourteen REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NORWEST IST C. Banco Properties, Thomas Hallbauer, for Rezoning Approximately 4.4 Acres from A to GB; for Preliminary Plat, Norwest 1st Addition, consisting of approximately 6.4 Acres and Containing 2 Commercial Lots; and for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Drive -Up Teller in Conjunction with the Proposed Bank Facility -- A public hearing was held at the last regular APC meeting held on November 23, 1982 to consider three applications submitted by Banco Properties, Inc. The applications are for preliminary plat of Norwest First Addition, rezoning from A to GB and a conditional use permit to allow a drive up teller in conjunction with a proposed bank facility. The APC is recommending approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit according to certain conditions outlined in the minutes. For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages 7Z throughFor action that was taken by the APC, refer to pages !96_t rough _77 For additional information on this item refer to a memoran ud m that was prepared by the City Planner following the APC meeting which is enclosed on pages _Jjthrough g4 Also enclosed on page q is a copy of a site plan for tYie temporary bank facility. Additional research into the past assessment history of this parcel being considered for platting into the Norwest Addition indicates that there are additional assessment responsibilities over and above those that were identified under Engineering Recommendations No. 12 to the staff's report presented to the Planning Commission. In addition to this parcel being responsible for lateral benefit from trunk water main if it develops, it is also responsible for the past trunk area water assessment that was excluded at the re- quest of the property owner in 1976. In addition, this parcel should be responsible for its trunk area storm sewer assessment as a condition of the final plat. Therefore, the staff would like to amend Condition No. 12 of its report as presented to the Planning Commission on November 23 to the following: This development shall accept its financial responsibility for lateral benefit from trunk water main and trunk area assess- ments for water and storm sewer to be calculated at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval consistent with the proposed zoning and land use of the property as approved for development. The developer has been informed of the financial impact this would have on the development based on the 1982 rates and the anticipated zoning and land use changes. For the Council's information, this calculates to $11,808.00 for lateral benefit from trunk water main, $10,153.00 for trunk area water assessment and $16,884.00 for trunk area storm sewer. 70 0 i Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Fifteen ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the rezoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Norwest 1st Addition along with the approval or denial of the change to Engineering Recommendation No. 12. 7/ i 0 CITY OF EAGAN SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - NOPNEST 1ST ADDITION APPLICANT: BANCO PROPERTIES INC. - THO%1AS HALLBAUER LOCATION: PART OF THE S' OF THE SW; OF THE SW; OF SECTION 10 EXISTING ZONING: GB (GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) & A (AGRICULTURAL) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: NOVEMBER 23, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: NOVEVJKER 18, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SU 4X= The first application submitted is'a request for preliminary plat, Norwest 1st Addition, which would consist of approximately 6.46 acres and contain 2 oom:ex cial lots. The second application submitted is a request to rezone approximately 4.4 acres of the 6.46 acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business District). The third application submitted is a request for a conditional use permit to al- low a drive -up teller in conjunction with the proposed bank facility. ZCNING AND LAND USE Presently, two acres of the 6.46 acres is zoned GB (General Business District); 4.64 acres is agriculturally -zoned and the applicant is requesting GB (reneral Business) zoning on this unzoned acreage. The area north of this particular par- cel is also zoned GB (General Business) and the applicant is proposing General Business zoning on the agricultural parcel between the bur) General Business zon- ing districts. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this particular parcel as LB (Limited Business District). This is the general business which is being proposed. How- ever, the use proposed on Lot 1 would conform with the limited business use de- signated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. As stated above, the applicant is requesting to zone the 4.6 acres from A (Agri- cultural) to (B (General Business District). Lot 1, where the proposed bank is to be located, is presently zoned GB (General Business District). In reviewing Ordinance #52, the Zoning Ordinance, the General Business District is not the correct zoning which would allow a bank facility. Since the property is zoned, the applicant wishes to keep this particular zoning. Staff is suggesting that the Advisory Planning Commission recommend that the property be zoned Limited %Z CITY OP EAGAN REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE - BANCO PROPERTIES NOVEMBER 23, 1982 PA(M Ti40 Business, Neighborhood Business or possibly CSC (Community Shopping Center District) would all allow a bank facility as a penmmitted use within these zoning classifica- tions. The General Business classification is a zoning classification that is de- signated for heavy uses and those businesses which tend to serve other businesses and industries as well as the residents. These uses can be incompatible with resi- dential development, therefore, businesses in this zoning classification are con- centrated and insulated as much as possible from residential areas. The application submitted for the preliminary plat, Norwest 1st Addition, contains approximately 6.46 acres and would contain 2 commercial lots. Lot 1 contains ap- proximately 2.5 acres and Lot 2 contains approximately 3.9-4 acres. The applicant, at this tine, only proposes to construct a bank facility on Lot 1 and has no par- ticular plans for Lot 2. In reviewing the preliminary plat, staff has suggested that public access utilities be provided to Lot 2 in order to make this a build- able lot. Once public access and utilities are provided, then the applicant could either develop Lot 2 or sell Lot 2 for a buildable lot. The proposed bank facility located on Lot 1 will contain approximately 7,655 square feet of building and 5 drive -up islands. The proposed building would cover approx- imately 7.6`f of the site which is under the maximmmm lot coverage requirement. The applicant is proposing 31 parking spaces and 5 stacking spaces for each drive -up tower which is in accordance with Ordinance #52. The applicant is proposing access at several locations on this particular lot. The staff has suggested that the applicant contact Dakota County to see where the Coun- ty would allow access on Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. It is staff's understanding that the County will allow right -in right -out access on Yankee Doodle Road and a right -in right -out access on Pilot Knob Road with the full turning ac- cess proposed at the very north end of the property. The very northerly access would be a publicly dedicated street providing public -access to the bank facility and the proposed Lot 2. In reviewing this proposed access, staff would also like to work with Univac directly west of this subject parcel to see if the access to Univac's visitor parking can be relocated to make this northernmost access a 4 -way intersection which would allow for the potential signalization in the future in- stead of having staggered access along Pilot Knob Road. The property which the applicant is purchasing excludes, or has an exception, for one single family residence. The applicant has purchased the northernmost home on the property and wishes to convert the hone to a temporary bank facility until the proposed bank located on Lot 1 can be constructed and in operation. It is staff's understanding that this interim use would be for approximately one year until the building on Lot 1 is ccrrpleted late fall of 1983. In reviewing the site plan for Lot 1 for the proposed bank facility, it appears that all setbacks and lot coverages are met and therefore no variances would be required for this particular development. If approved, the preliminary plat and conditional use should be subject to the following conditions: 6 • CITY OF EACZN REZONING, PRELIADWY PLAT, CONDITI94AL USE - BANCO PROPERTIES NOVEMBER 23, 1982 PACE THREE 1) A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted prior to the application of the final plat. 2) All parl:ing and roadway areas shall have asphalt surface and concrete curbing around the perimeter. 3) The public street proposed should be constructed with the first phase of the development. 4) A detailed landscape plan shall be approved for the bank facility and an ade- quate landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been campleted. 5) All utilities must be stubbed to Lot 2 i order that Lot 2 can be determined a buildable lot. 6) The preliminary plat should be subject to Dakota County Plat Commission's and Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and canment because the pro- posed plat abuts County and State rights-of-way. 7) All other City ordinanoes shall be net. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS 8) A cross easement of sufficient width shall be required over Lot 2 for access to Lot 1 in lieu of the public street as proposed in the preliminary plat. 9) A 20' utility easement centered over the proposed water main lateral and storm sewer line be required as a part of the final plat.- 10) lat: 10) A 5' drainage and utility easement be required bordering the preliminary plat boundaries and a 10' utility and drainage easement be rem ed to be center- ed over the internal lot lines. 11) Private utility and street plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 12) This development shall accept its assessment for lateral benefit fran trunk water main at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval. 13) The water main shall be looped to the water main in Sherrman Court concurrent with development of Lot 2. 74 0 i M. TME ADVISORY PLANNING CCHIISSICN, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER FROM: RICHARD M. HEPTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1982 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT - NOWEST IST ADDITION This proposed Addition is located in the northeast quadrant of the inter- section of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road. The existing topogra- phy consists of gently rolling grassland with the general drainage being northerly and easterly. The high area in Lot 1 lies along the southeaster- ly corner at an elevation of 910 while the low point of Lot 1 being at the northeast corner at an elevation of 901. The slopes in Lot 1 vary from 1% to 5%. Similarly, the high point for Lot 2 is located approximately in the center of the lot at an elevation of 911 while the low area of the lot is located along the east half of.the north boundary at an elevation of 893. The slopes in lot 2 vary from 1% to 118. The proposed grading will be almost exclusively limited to Lot 1. The ma- jority of lot 2 is proposed to be graded in the future prior to future de- velopment. meanwhile, the grading proposed to be accomplished within Lot 1 does not significantly alter the present terrain. However, this develop- ment is proposing to intercept the drainage from lot 1 which would nozmall_v fall north towards the existing residence via storm sewer and transported to its ultimate outlet located in the area of the future I -35E off ramp. The ultimate outlet for storm sewer will be provided by MnDC)T during con- struction of I -35E and will be at LeMay's Lake which has a positive outlet. II. U =IES Utilities exist within the vicinity of this proposed preliminary plat in or- der to provide it with service. For instance, a 20" trunk water main is in place along the south side of Yankee Doodle Road and a 16" trunk water main is in place along the west side of Pilot Knov Road. Either of these is more than capable of supplying sufficient amount of water to this proposed devel- opment. Similarly, there exists a 9" sanitary sewer line within 20' of the north line of this preliminary plat which is of sufficient size, depth and capacity to service this proposed development. Furthermore, a 20" storm sewer line is in place along the east side of Pilot Knob Road beginning at approximately the middle of Outlot A and continuing north. Although existing utilities are nearby, it will be necessary to construct lateral utility lines to provide service to this proposed development. That is, this development will have to extend a sanitary sewer line from the exist- ing sanitary sewer located just north of the northwest corner of this propos- ed preliminary plat to the proposed building. In addition, a minimum of a 6" water main would have to be extended from either the 16" trunk along Pilot Knob Road or the 20" trunk along Yankee Doodle Road. This in turn must be looped to the water main located on Sherman Court upon development of lot 2. Finally, an interior storm sewer system would need to be constructed i� i 0 ENGINEERIW3 REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT - NOMEST 1ST ADDITION NOVDSER 23, 1982 PAGE TWO to provide proper drainage of the interior drives and parking lots. The above mentioned utility improvements will be the responsibility of this developer. III. STREETS Streets bordering this proposed development consist of Pilot Knob Road (CSAR 31) along the westerly boundary of this parcel and Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) along the southerly border of this development. Both of these streets are under the jurisdiction of Dakota County, and any additional accesses other than the one currently existing would have to be approved by the Dakota County Engineer. Also, an 8' bituminous trail is in place along the east side of Pilot Knob Road paralleling the entire proposed development. Although a public street has been proposed to provide access from Pilot Knob Road to this development, it would be more advantageous to the City if this would be a private street with a cross easement over Lot 2 being a part of the final plat. Such a segment as proposed by this development would pose many difficulties for the City pertaining to maintenance of such a street. Therefore, this private street shall be a minimum of 28' wide with concrete curbing and shall be constructed so that it forms a loop from the already existing north entrance to the proposed entrance im- mediately south of the existing residence. All other interior drives and parking areas shall be bituminous paved with concrete curbing around the perimeter. IV. EASMEZUS/RIGHT-O'-WAY With the suggested deletion of the public street, no right-of-way will need to be acquired or dedicated as a part of this plat. However, a cross ease- nent of sufficient width shall be required over Lot 2 to allow access to Lot 1. In addition, a 20' utility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed water line and storm sewer lines. Finally, a 5' utility easement shall be included along all exterior lot lines and a 10' utility and drain- age easement shall be centered over all interior lot lines. V. This development shall be responsible for accepting its assessments for la- teral benefit from trunk water mains at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. Due to the added difficulty of boring underneath either Pilot Knob Road or Yankee Doodle Road, a credit will be allowed against the assessment amount. Exhibit B reveals the amount of assessment at the cur- rent rate. Otherwise, all other assessments have been levied with the ex- ception of the storm sewer area assessment. Furthervore, this development shall be responsible for all costs associated with providing the private streets, internal utilities, parking lot and drives. 0 i ENGINEERYNG REPORT PREI,IMINARY PIAT - NORWEST 1ST ADDITION NOMMER 23, 1982 PAGE THREE I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report with the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 23, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Richard M. Hefti E. Assistant City Engineer RM/jack y7 - 1 4c ii---------r�- ---------- 3_[ri 64I11rr�11 r1 iL T`T� 1fTl rjj -i\ •\' .- Fa 7a Q1 . J 1 u p `ub N"s IT�dAr{p110P4 .F-yl fJ. �a \H-�. �` �. _ �1 21 �•• 1111 rI ��J7J�11 l 2� AT r• _ AST NO �LIN CLUB x VIE �l LAKE �\ PPARN /jJJ 1 ]--771 \,•s 4 AC ES I G U i T FE< _ jr / _._ '6 Wnl� / �UU/_ -�T-1 HBBBO ) I �%. ,// I'~ f.P'� ..(�\• `�T S - SOP"=' 6'�,�,eI' I^••( e0 -a �/ 61ffiI=ISII1{I[ R�IE.I...J./7N_... es I•�__-r//_/`IIfnI�-r`I.v^a I E C��!1I'TC IIIE�59 NaO _2 E E f IONFE B� _DP —N � C/ 866 `. .'7D-9 B0.J _ 87401. • le za, - `\ r ,- r' .. r , __y µe:— rrr "Ap_ - r Y / I { a rr�"i�• 6 .AAYa.. i _ SCH�OOL i wfi 1 1�z'_�l��7� ,AAFEL. rREIA!O �/rn ,:— D-i EY PL.r tI 7 I':1P}C Y P. � Cc-om �EAI OaaF NOEAOIJ 6STEM OP 2R Hl -J0 IG: , a -- ; `__ 700.0 w0-M_ w,`i ` r. ��!giE i �J 5. P... E.O I Blblt Zlv7 -u~` I ti,C.p 11 __I c. ��f.Le7910� Jii 684,0 8700 SERB 00 BAO1 '--- ..j' /CP= -- --._ .=•,/ 890.0 8700 _ 719. I rMT,` T r�_ 7/B: CP-4 q � Ip 5Uo T MINA 4c. LS.-4 8277 II[`A-i ' J.• tG/y HG \ ! I,'I �• ..�/•' .- _ u - r. / N PARK e d B4d0'" EFOFRE:i J 7 \ { iI :./Y •D / IB a 17 I 857.31 892, DP -II \/: a / CP-S 869.0 BB48 _ J a r+o C' _ �` �67LTJ'f, oe _�I BA10 .,r pf o .v I. . "�C s• I a gz i/ b-.0 W a B7 0 i 1.6.16 P (%7 - i! ^...e' . .:. g FOX �W11: 8420 I f RIDGE A vvv��� ,. C•9 tole J - ' DP-q' z• j:,' \' i 8680 L.6.-7 < ' CP-I ' .f�-1 11 �\u r, rnxKri 8�3�LE n0•,c—.Ovl"'�s_-._ CP-7—' / "a 7`I IDivD w r �; �n1 jv_' •D-i 769.0/ �L--V�Y':�i a Er i��ENr' ri ,%i `: '' Q J r D lar.-.. / l / / 'xl p CP- 76691:00 P:2i 9 ATH noo ,, 7,1 e 1_Y\` 'x[5[Ori' 820. 1 \ D-. r B3 (e I CP-``/ '� v'e/ Ilgp Y 2P-9 r AUX r•�� )r OOC6 22,] 2ND i ✓`... �,�' I_ r —/.- I "'I. 8610:.—__- C_.p•P\l�^`-I6D6 •! A CNE Chi /rmUS �IAL\r, ARIF�J��\CP-5p '/ /,'•`-J `---J-• I� :q80. OP-IB J f //�A (/\`-ARRD �i/� \ B06.01• ^�� ���'�7i �' ___' .-P7o� �t \�i% \ �7 I •/ /mow i/� iB°� U-E !1 III i_ i ` _�•. I� -,. •- A-e i%/ iiloe�_vf_[ TJ,�- JP-I ' JP`2 a ` (• H �._•••' 796.0 �8AJ.7 j/ PILO Ny01'146 �DI 8661 ��•'JP-4S B26 I . A-rDbD ~ P�.2L 1,Dt Oil .1 806.0 ' JQ. ; .,: - 2 F B71. 1890 J�:?{ r+ 892 JP-41 /-1 /ty��•/ '796§L0�JP-3 r .�' / 1 / e91'0 // .. J#p,f LM. .I I icy \rp. ti�/S'��• BJ9.2 'O I xfP-4 �.r i/ JP-42 `lL7 A-1 \` \ B4/. 2 I : 84 % g97.1 .. �. •� Jl IN fl$f J. :'B7 I 1- BBB.O 17 _ A-urlp�((l�'// •�� .� - 1 LB:N__. I JP-AO 'I Y uir :, � \ �r i ` I I .. JP42 r Ic p f I, li \ i[, C•? 1. 1 /JPiS l Cy864 9934 Hol Je ` a.a(1 ._ . /• I� I / /'. I \\ 1! \ SEE SHEET 25 o x i VI _ I / lil _ � I r ! Lro=,���ls ut�IDrL' C.ai+nr'Y �aLD. '- 79 NoP� uEST r DD (NI � I ` 4 ; 1 1 \LL11w 111 Y/11 \ 1 1 LY•1 1 VI F^ , A—I jv ab et 11a e LL A d X. 'r D iA 1 YV. .IF. .v 1 a4 It �'jjwiB rmr AmR11Y} a ; E Y _, 111 LJ) , -.- „Y•„• YANKEE (DOODLEyaI i � '� 'a''. L'qj � � el • FIT J.' / fY/ jr—oww p Q• q OWNER AND DEVELOPER, Ina Tnlyd Northwestern National Bank Suite 900, Midland Square Building 331 - 2nd A....a South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Wally slue • 377-5840 • DESCRIPTION, `1 w /may^ ���/ .•I y! That poll at The South Hill of the Southwest Quarter of Ina Sa\ �sH 77. Range 73 Dakota Ceunlp, Minnesota, olcepl Ina well Ill it loll of said >i, Mall of In. Soulh.esl Outfit of Ina South., Ft.MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RICHT OF WAY fn` u IlmenIs and subject to notice of Lis Pendens at per DISIIIal (mX11 L 1 V AlFFP 1 We ase deep n this Is a true and eeildin Solu; (: �- i"••' �� \\��..\gym .olFFn s, it a the are dem ole o° top el the eouuan of al buildings, s, a .n9, the Ib.d A d of anYfrom or on uta bhp. 'i 1/�, 411; j�-� '± i, rL r..(-1.\ IY ar\ �\\ � y q • I � l: , \:L°°l ,'J•1 M AFF _ NOTE, Buringl shown Are assumed. \ ✓°jf'/ /�/�' ® Mlnnetel. Highs, t9 Department BMI1992V - Oil I.e. �\ /, / / A`I,I " BENCH MARK, Road Na. 7t and 31 teal west of Count3 Ro+d n: ;'; .. 915.4)5 feel. „Y•„• YANKEE (DOODLEyaI i � '� 'a''. L'qj � � el • FIT J.' / fY/ jr—oww p Q• q OWNER AND DEVELOPER, Ina Tnlyd Northwestern National Bank Suite 900, Midland Square Building 331 - 2nd A....a South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Wally slue • 377-5840 • DESCRIPTION, `1 w /may^ ���/ .•I y! That poll at The South Hill of the Southwest Quarter of Ina Sa\ �sH 77. Range 73 Dakota Ceunlp, Minnesota, olcepl Ina well Ill it loll of said >i, Mall of In. Soulh.esl Outfit of Ina South., Ft.MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RICHT OF WAY fn` u IlmenIs and subject to notice of Lis Pendens at per DISIIIal (mX11 L 1 V AlFFP 1 We ase deep n this Is a true and eeildin \ \ 1 . `^„✓ I / P .olFFn s, it a the are dem ole o° top el the eouuan of al buildings, s, a .n9, the Ib.d A d of anYfrom or on uta bhp. !m•1" tI j a Y\ �.. � .' Dated this 23rd pap of September. 1987. EDAN. flU \/�'• _.41r+i�e• \ h -''1' '3'?r'• bTVno' _ NOTE, Buringl shown Are assumed. \ ✓°jf'/ /�/�' ® Mlnnetel. Highs, t9 Department BMI1992V - Oil I.e. �\ /, / / A`I,I " BENCH MARK, Road Na. 7t and 31 teal west of Count3 Ro+d n: ;'; .. 915.4)5 feel. aayy Mea BE propvlpOeasement for Pilot Knob Road ane ]01,691 square leeral ofor 1. 1. 0004 acres. �•� / �; •k .Gell \\ 1� •� - Are. at prdpr(lp excluding easement for Pilot Knob Road and r. Imu within heavy lines on surreYl 181,470 squall left of A. 7 A. SCALE: 1' • 40' IAD ; (wuwrr Aeao m n) - 'snwrrw awArynm i .. ,y�l .�aaTu— f. „• .. w I Yankee Doodle Road THIRD NORTHWESTERN BANK EAGAN OFFICE PILOT KNOB AND YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 0 0 Proposed Banking Facility First Floor Elevation - 909'-0 Lower Level ElevatiC.,898'-O' .H rrJieee Total Floor Area 1 7655 Sri it Parking a 31 spaces + 6 future PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 --ax 4 a ft Yankee Doodle Road THIRD NORTHWESTERN BANK EAGAN OFFICE PILOT KNOB AND YANKEE DOODLE ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 0 0 Proposed Banking Facility First Floor Elevation - 909'-0 Lower Level ElevatiC.,898'-O' .H rrJieee Total Floor Area 1 7655 Sri it Parking a 31 spaces + 6 future PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 \�llr 104 a.4 X\m-xv ar— ,,� 17� Is a" —7— • as, TO sraa"� we he I is I.e. s—es !--1—r as, X\m-xv ar— ,,� 17� Is a" —7— • as, TO sraa"� we he I is I.e. s—es as, 4� YANKEE THIRD ROAD ESTERN BANK DOODLE ROAD Also of properly Including easement for Pilot Knob Road s 301,097 Square feel or 1,064 acres. Arts of properly excluding element lot Pilot Knob Road a large within heavy lines on itarvoyl 211,426 square fe%j SCALE: 11' 410' dl,rra GLI Vee -r :7 SURVEY FOR, The Third Northwestern National X DES CA I PITT ON, 7 that Fort of the South Hit( of the Southwest Quarter of ii 27, Range 23 Dakota County, Minnesota, except one well fail of Sold �oulh Hill of the Southwest Quarter of in, a, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT Cl i's &0850mentl and Subject to little, of Lls Pendens as per bl: A C; We hereby dirtily that this Is a true and correct reprosei, above described and Of the location of all buildings, It any, from at on told land. Poled this 2)rd day of September; 1932. A u, % of nYG NOTE, Bearing, shown are assumed. O I. BENCH MARK, Minnesota Highway Department BMfI9B.1V Road No. 28 and 31 tell well of County Nz. 90.433 feet. Also of properly Including easement for Pilot Knob Road s 301,097 Square feel or 1,064 acres. Arts of properly excluding element lot Pilot Knob Road a large within heavy lines on itarvoyl 211,426 square fe%j SCALE: 11' 410' dl,rra GLI Vee -r RB GB Ind. GOLF J= COMMERCIAL it &C.-'R'I. _ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT �: . Ind... _ . • Ind _ ...,.. ..,,.. - PHI Ind..GB R-1 - e RI .............:—_ Ind " P - - `I� © C1 -:�•[" _ --•- - Ind. - Ind L6 R•DI R -II .. .�:, R -III R -III ,_ R-11 Rtl -- •..�.. a `'. D;:. csc ,P _ .._ .�.:.• �. RII ,,,�, � _ � And i�. fl.R P —T-- R•II s..g� ..� LB FSA •, Q /�i. RI _ R -UN _ R-11 -P R•III `- . . •_ _ -, _ _ - - Ind. ..+.,- R ter- '• P E -R. d CITY RN RI,.R•II �.---'I P. E / _> R-1 ^. p R - Z,. R-111 �•-. l _ 5 11 I� • NBI �® R-111 RB R -III- R -IR R -III _,.� : -' CSC/GB/LB ., `T`�.I- R111 R11y -''RI R411----�— FA11 RII , y :: -• R II ✓ ,• R -Il R-11 11 R -III NLB 1a . R -I'/:-• CSC R RB R:I R -I 5 P GOLF`lt wWra PI ca+a.• Ra R -II _. R_I '�' p I R -II APC Minutes November 24, 1982 PILOT KNOB HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION OUTLOT B - PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Reliance Bui ers and Dan Rogn d for preliminary plat approval of Fish Lake Addition co ring Outlot B, PilotNnob Heights 4th Addition was convened by Chairman 11. Dan Rognrud was Pres t as was his Engineer. Mr. Rognrud explained t proposal providing fora preli 'nary plat covering 1.2 acres to contain townhouse units. He stated that t proposal includes 2 buildings, with hree stalls parking for each unit and no ariances are being requested. indicated the townhomes would be individua owned with an individual ct for each and 1,560 square feet of land plus the it in addition to the moron property. A large number of neighboring property ners were present and Dale Nathan submitted a peti- tion signed by 145 signers bjecting to a application and requesting that the property be used for Cit Park pur oses. He requested the Planning Com- mission continue the application nt' additional information is submitted by the staff as to the status of the reel for park purposes. City Planner Dale Runkl and Cit Attorney Paul Hauge discussed the background of the Pilot Rno He Pla ed Unit Development. They dis- cussed the Planned Unit De elopment Agreeme approved by the City in 1974, which indicated in the rding that Outlot B s intended for park purposes with all exhibits dur' g the entire process re ecting that Outlot B was intended to be used or R-3 townhouse use. In 19 the City staff updated the Zoning Map indi ting it as park land according to ' formation received at that time. The A isory Park Committee has reviewed the\oposalnd general- ly favored the and being used for park development. ggested by Planning Com scion members that the application be conil further informati can be acquired by the staff, including cith former Chairmen f the Park Committee. Upon motion by Krob, sec' s, it was resole that the hearing be continued until the nextm ting in Dece er for further information to be submitted to theCom ission reg rding the status of the Outlot as park land. All voted yes. NORWEST 1ST ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The public hearing regarding the application of Banco Properties for preliminary plat approval, rezoning and conditional use permit for Norwest lst Addition was then considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Walter Klus of Banco Properties, Inc. appeared as did the Architect and other representatives and indicated that the proposed subdivision consisting of 6.46 acres and containing two commercial lots at the northeast corner or Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road would initially provide for a location of a Northwestern Bank in Eagan. In addition to the preliminary plat application, an applica- tion was submitted to rezone approximately 4.4 acres of the 6.46 acres from A (Agricultural) to GB (General Business) and also application for conditional use permit to allow a drive -up taller in conjunction with the proposed bank facility. The remainder of the parcel, formerly a proposed Texaco service station site, is currently zoned General Business with only about .35 acres remaining after road acquisition for both Pilot Knob and Yankee Doodle Roads. 4 �8S 0 0 APC Minutes . November 24, 1982 Mr. Klus explained the proposal and indicated that 13 other branches similar to that proposed in Eagan have been set up by Northwestern Bank throughout the .area: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Wachtler, neighboring property owners on Pilot Knob Road, were present and objected to the street surrounding their property. It was noted there would be three outlets to public streets proposed and that the Eli Fournier house to the north of the Wachtler home would be used as a temporary bank until the bank building is completed, perhaps Spring or Summer Of 1983. Staff recommended against rezoning of the remainder of the parcel from Agricultural to General Business zoning and recommended Limited Business zoning, Neighborhood Business or possibly CSC, each of which would authorize a bank facility. Mr. Runkle stated that General Business would be incompatible with present development and that generally General Business is not recom- mended for a zoning category. Representatives of the applicant indicated that Northwestern Bank will pay all costs for the street improvements, but re- quested that the applicant not be tied down to Limited Business use because of the uncertainty of the development on Lot 2. It was noted the Comprehensive Guide provides for Limited Business Use. There were concerns about traffic flow in and out of the site and particularly during the temporary period that the Fournier home would be used as a temporary bank facility. The applicant indicated that if the house is not suitable for a banking facility, a trailer could be used and Planning Commission members indicated that if there are serious traffic problems during construction that possibly the bank would be required to pay for traffic control on Pilot Knob Road. The members reviewed the conditions and it was noted that Texaco has not consented to rezoning to Limited Business in the event that the City should desire to change the zoning from General Business to Limited Business. Krob moved, Hall seconded the motion to recommend that the application for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to LB (Limited Business) with the City Council implementing the revision of the proposed zoning from GB (General Business) to LB (Limited Business). All voted in favor. Krob then moved and Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Norwest lst Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all improvements to the parcel, including street and utility improvements be assessed against the Norwest lst Addition and that the Wachtler property not be assessed unless specific consent is given by the owners of the Wachtler property for the improvements installed as a result of the proposed subdivision. 2. That the proposed 50 foot parcel immediately north of the Wachtler Property intended to remain vacant under the proposal, be designated as an Outlot in Norwest lst Addition. 3. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted prior to the application of the final plat. 4." All parking and roadway areas shall be asphalt surface and concrete curbing around the perimeter. 7 5 0 APC Minutes November 24, 1982 0 5. The public street proposed should be constructed with the first phase of the development. 6. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved for the bank facility and an adequate landscape bond shall be submitted and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed. 7. All utilities must be stubbed to Lot 2, in order that Lot 2 can be determined a buildable lot. 8. The preliminary plat should be subject to Dakota County Plat Commis- sion's and Minnesota Department of Transportation's review and comment because the proposed plat abuts County and State rights-of-way. 9. All other City ordinances shall be met. 10. A 20 foot utility easement centered over the proposed water main lateral and storm sewer line be required as a part of the final plat. 11. A 5 foot drainage and utility easement be required bordering the preliminary plat boundaries and a 10 foot utility and drainage easement be required to be centered over the internal lot lines. 12. Private utility and street plans shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 13. This development shall accept its assessment for lateral benefit from trunk water main at the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval with credit for water main installation under Pilot Knob Road. 14. The water main shall be looped to the water main in Sherman Court 'concurrent with development of Lot 2. All voted yes. Krob then moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recom- mend approval of the application of the conditional use permit to allow the drive -up teller in conjunction with proposed bank facility. All voted in favor. Kroh moved, McCrea seconded the motion to recommend approval of the use of the Fournier home as a temporary banking facility for a period not to exceed one year following the date of approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council, subject however, to submission of an application by the appli- cant and fulfillment of all conditions imposed by the City upon the use of such a facility on a temporary basis, noting that the applicant had no plans for a temporary .facility submitted before the Planning Commission; further, subject to approval by the City staff and City Council. All voted yea. g7 6 TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1982 RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE BANCO PROPERTIES' APPLICATION At the November 23, 1982 Advisory Planning CcnMission meeting, the Advi- sory Planning Commission reviewed the application submitted by Banco Pro- perties for rezoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit for a drive -up facility. They reviewed in detail the site plan and preliminary plat for the new Norwest bank facility located in the northeast quadrant of Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. The Advisory Planning Commis- sion reviewed access layout circulation in regard to the new facility. The request Banco Properties has also made is to use the house located on the northern portion of the property as a temporary bank facility un- til the proposed bank is constructed in the southern portion of the pro- perty. It is staff's understanding that this proposed ter.porar_v facili- ty will only be in existence for approximately 6-9 months, or until the new bank facility has been constructed. The Advisory Planning Commission, without looking at a detailed plan for the temporary use, requested that Banco Properties submit a detailed site plan of how the existing house could be converted to the temporary bank facility. They were concerned with traffic circulation, parking and access to the temporary building. They also suggested that a special permit be issued for this temporary facility. The detail site plan for the temporary facility shows four customer park- ing places in the front and six employee parking spaces in the back with a one-way circulation going around the existing house. Due to the loca- tion of the house, it is difficult to get a 20' green area from the pro- perty line to the parking or driveway aisles. Also, it is staff's under- standing that this facility will only be in operation for 6-9 months, or just until the real bank facility has been constructed. Staff is sug- gesting that no concrete curbing be required or landscaping for this facility because the building will only be used for a short time. The applicants are also requesting that handicapped facilities also be waiv- ed for this temporary building. Staff agrees with the applicant, how- ever, staff suggests that a wooden curb ramp to the sidewalk, should be provided in order to provide access for the handicapped persons. If the temporary facility is approved, it should be subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1) The temporary facility should be used no rare than one year maximum. 2) The existing house should be removed after one year from the date of the approval. W. E Thomas L. Hedges Additional information December 14, 1982 Page two 1�1 regarding the Banco Properties application 3) Landscaping shall be required in the location of the area of the tenr porary fa cility when the applicants occupy their new bank facility. �/Jach M Moorlwl6l oll MF_!_V IM V FALjy j .............. ... PAPi" ll--� 14�r-O 9 0 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Sixteen AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - PICCOLO'S PIZZERIA D. Harold Awe Company for Amusement Device License for One (1) Amusement Device Located at Piccolo's Pizzeria -- An application for an amusement device license was received from Harold Awe Company, Inc., to request installation of a video game amusement device at Piccolo's Pizzeria. The application is in order for considera- tion. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the amusement device license application for one (1) video game at Piccolo's Pizzeria. RESOLUTION/LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID FORMULA E. Resolution in Support of Changes in Local Government Aid Formula -- The City Administrator and Director of Finance attended a legis- lative committee meeting that was held on Thursday, December 16, 1982, for the purpose of considering changes to the local government aid and homestead tax credit distribution formulas. This committee is chaired by Representative Gordon Voss. The Director of Finance and City Administrator are attempting to relate the formula to the current level of taxation and local government aid distribution as it affects the City of Eagan. The apparent changes in the local government aid formula seem to shift the local government aid and homestead tax credit that have been received by the City of Eagan and other similar type suburban communities to the core cities. The new formula allows the City of Eagan to increase its property tax base to maintain the current level of revenues; however, the net result is an increase in property taxes. Recently, a group of cities organized to review the inequity in the local government aid formula and more recently have reviewed the Gordon Voss proposal which threatens to substantially reduce the amount of local govern- ment aid received by the City of Eagan. The original thrust of the "Losers Group" was to increase local government aid for certain suburbs which are not getting a proportionate share due to the grandfather clause and local levy limits that were legislated in the early 1970's. The net effect of the Minnesota State deficit and property tax shift from the core cities may result in a loss of local government aid and homestead tax credit. The Losers Group has prepared a resolution that supports some changes in the state aid formula. A copy of the resolution is enclosed on page 9 for your review. The City Administrator will review in more etail the current local government aid formula, the original Gordon Voss proposal and more recent amendments to the Voss formula that are now under consideration and would impact the City of Eagan. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny a reso- lution and position by the City of Eagan regarding the necessity to retain its share of the local government aid and homestead tax credit distribution allowed by the State. y 0 0 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES IN STATE AID FORMULA WHEREAS, Minnesota state local government aid to cities was originally distributed on a per capita basis; and WHEREAS, the current state aid distribution is not equitable in that some cities receive as much as $122.95 per capita, and other citi6s receive as little as $11.61 per capita; and WHEREAS, the State Revenue Department report indicates that "90 percent of the inequities are caused by the grandfather clause, and the present formula fails to achieve the purpose of equity;' and WHEREAS, the following revenue sharing mechanisms, which may be duplicative of state aid, are also available and assist in achieving equity: (a) Gas tax for cities over 5000 population; (b) Fiscal disparities; (c) Metropolitan Transit Commission; (d) Federal aid entitlements; (e) Special local taxes. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of strongly requests and supports changes- in the state aidoma. — BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of specifically supports/requests changes that will accomplish the ollowing: (a) Provide for equitable fund distribution; (b) Include no grandfather clause; (c) Provide for periodic review and adjustment to assure the goal of equity; (d) Include no incentive for spending; (e) Provide for distribution on a per capita basis, with cities receiving a lessor disbursement (as the result of a change in state aid formula) given the option/authority to raise a one percent sales tax. Adopted by the Mayor and Council of the City of this day of 1 19 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Seventeen FREDRICKSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN F. Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising for an Advertising Sign to be Located in the Cedar Freeway/Hwy. 13 Area -- An application was received from Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising requesting a special permit for an advertising sign to be located in the triangle between Old Sibley Memorial Highway and new Highway 13, adjacent to the Cedar Avenue Freeway. This special permit does not require action by the Advisory Planning Commission; however, the City Plan- ner was requested to prepare a report, a copy of which is enclosed on pages c14 through yl for your review. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the special permit subject to conditions, if desirable, regarding the special permit for an advertising sign as requested by Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising. �3 0 CITY OF EAGAN 0 SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ADVERTISING SI(TN APPLICANT: FREDRICKSON OUIDODR, DUANE =RICKSON LOCATION: PART OF THE Nh OF THE NE; OF SECTION 19 EXISTING ZONING: I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: DECEMBM 21, 1982 DATE OF REPORT: DECE24BER 14, 1982 REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNnE, CITY PLANNER APPLICATION SUBMITTED An application has been submitted requesting an advertising sign located in the N' of the Nei; of Section 19 in the triangle between Old Sibley Mowrial High- way and new Highway 13. COKJM?TS The applicant has submitted an application for an advertising sign which would be 27' 3" above the roadway level of new Highway 13. The signage would contain 248 square feet per side and the applicant is proposing a too -sided advertising sign. The proposed sign is within the height and square footage requirements of Ordi- nance #16. The Sign Ordinance also addresses distances from other zoning class- ifications and other signs located within the general area. Ordinance #16 states: A) No advertising sign shall be located nearer to any other advertising sign than 1,000 lineal feet on the sane side of the street or within 300 lineal feet of any other advertising sign on the opposite side of the street; B) No advertising sign shall be located on a platted lot which contains a business sign or within 300 feet of any business freestanding ground sign or pylon sign measured on the same side of the.street. C) No advertising sign shall be located within 200 feet of any residential zone whether on the same or opposite side of the street; D) No advertising sign shall exceed 250 square feet in area except when ad- jacent to limited access highways, in which case the City Council shall determine the maximum size after reviewing applicable Conditions includ- ing terrain, safety factors, etc.; E) No advertising sign shall exceed 40' measured at lot level or roadway level whether lot level or roadway level is used is based on the visibility far tors on the adjacent roadway. In reviewing the proposed application in regard to Ordinance #16, staff has tried to address the location of the sign in regard to the section map and air photo. 0 0 CITY OF EAGAN FREDRICKSON OUTDOOR DB=- ER 21, 1982 PAGE TWO Exhibit A is a section map showing the proposed sign location and a 300' spacing from the proposed sign. The dashed line represents the 300' spacing. In review- ing this distance on the air photograph on Exhibit B, there are other pvlon signs within the general area, but no pylon sign is within the 300' spacing which is allowed in Ordinance n16. Therefore, in the staff review, it appears the appli- cant has met all of the criteria in Ordinance r16 for an advertising sign. If approved, the special permit should be subject to the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be no higher than 27.5 feet above the roadway level of new Highway 13. 2) The signage shall not exceed 250 square feet per side. 3) When the subject parcel is platted or developed, the advertising sign must be reroved. DCR/jach 9S L!A- .:4 • - Exh1��. A o / o-ob 14 AV AV MIDAMERICA 2ANCOI ORAT+D SNC. s , sip too OLO -Jb A CUM AN'` .4 ad er w A4, M-1 4r gr kk It, Al 7f It e -N MM LAE t', w 23 Agenda Information December 21, 1982 Page Eighteen 0 Memo City Council Meeting TOMARK 2ND ADDITION FINAL PLAT G. Final Plat Application for Tomark 2nd Addition (Land Tech De- velopment) -- The City has received an application for final plat approval for the Tomark 2nd Addition. All required items of submit- tal have been reviewed and approved by the staff and it is now being forwarded to the City Council for formal consideration. The Council may recall that this is the development that had re- quested special consideration pertaining to the park fee dedication requirement. With this final plat application, the developer has agreed to pay the required $19,656.00 park dedication fee as a condition of final plat approval. Enclosed on page /o1 is a copy of the proposed Tomark 2nd Addition. The final p aT t conforms with the preliminary plat as approved by Council on April 21, 1981 and March 16, 1982. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER.: final plat for Tomark 2nd Addition and City Clerk to execute all related documents, /00 To approve or deny the authorize the Mayor and I VIC/Y11. YIY II l_• w.�_..� 1111 1 I I.11 1,. L;.J , n I Ir. 11 nnln w?IIYY I.uwnl w VW IW: N�1 II L l L 1 Ylx If 1111 1..111.. IN Pel W 111 1101 u1m, No Iorolnf ml it.., w $1.14. 1 Nll. n 1w --N 69r03•79:W' f96 an, TOMARK 2ND ADDITION 1. IDD 111 No 1(111 •. If11 W.V 4l M w.'1 IW II 1.111111: 14Imrix 1 1Trnxrp M MtlINIeI f1., r Ilm..... u lw MWN.., rx M.r n 14 11.11+1YNrIM IM I mIN In I 1 II. 41111. 111111. YI I. INI: bv.. 1, .onu w Immw. Iwww .. n. nl.Nx rin lrmr, m.0 IY.u, n.+m.. WIN Nr 1� 11 Y Y I/x Iy I II IWI Pp .p111P Iy =/ • ly Mr111[ 11 wrl r. r NIII e1. I.rn�, 1 Ja• r w 1 N MI'I„ 1 r IN r r Inl IIN Ir In +N M INI 11 w m n I Iy r 1. 1Y rV MWNx N OxN1 IY 111 I ��N. N x111. I.I.I. 11 e11+e1 N xl 1111 I / 11.11.1. Iy bnll�y M1.. • Illr 4+•11 I 1 N Ierlr In r. • / IW Y+•r1 111101, NYn IYI 111111 (wV• IY. I MMION .0x1..0 •11 NI MNr N NNI IeN �,Y/ N �, 11 ,�. IIW.. Iq/INI Nllbw W pIH1Pgx [0. N: 4wX IILL IIIIq Iw.w1. Ix. n, , ImwN .r , wnMr rl IY 1. MI IIr-�� .10.11, mu. NI f Ir I __,__ lel ;NHIIY Illlrrnrel 1 Irem111111 MIe'I q .I I, Y/ 11_ Ir NIII i Y Ta NI-lwi 141.111 nn N ey 4NIgH N., a 1•V xlln4r•N I•INM I r MNr • 1111 bled Iull lr, [M11...N.ee 4 lal..ln Inlnl .. 0011\ 111 W. 11 I.'N. IY 1111 IPIW II I Mnlr Nrllll Xerl 1 IN. Nrrlpl Ir llrllx IM Illi 1.111141 P INI 1111 rl IDYN PO eW111P. Ie11 loll 1111 rl l 111.111 nlrnrnl111011 NI Not 11110 Nle .Iil\lNl1A 01.11 WN IM 11 :�Vl III IlY nIl r lerrrNl,lrXPn N IM IIII In I..' INMnY•r1.n1 e r INI,YIrI .1. 1 Yrr Mn 1 n111I Ilrlw • 1M ywN I 1 Mr1Y Ynl..Ir/ Y[ r1. INmlll 411.411. sn IY Ilrl r1. Nrl n rn + erl lrnrr Ir N lr ....M I. M Yrrsr... wglll III IWX IIP Ilw gnMll IpPp OlM• In.n ...M l wim •1101 s wNv vN.110 ..w1.. 111 oP uw s WRn 1. lPul IN •OCmP. .r.+Nu ..,.It .m. V. u.1. n N\w. N nu . n• W. 1r I. LIMN N 4 n1. IV l.nlelq \en Mr•1 . be NI N eVYn YI.n Y 1. I Yr .I N F n vV 41Nren, YwAnn ..........N q. IIN..I burr rNn[, w.Y.1I N.Iu, nn+111. •r l�un.. INIm •d. n. Iw 11. .Down of Iw., 1mlon I.Y .-tilIvllrr .. r V-oil.1 .11_.IV[IM1x1411. I I IN.. Nyl....... 1. .... ..... m Vpr 11: (Qm In.Nnl 1.0.11.1 M. 111. .1 .Im1.11. 1111. .4 IY 41111 [4.11 loll..... lW MIVn., 111. 11.1 •N MN INn•y IIII � YI II 11: • nlr Sur.Mr .111 [�11.Iol vInn N., 011.1. (Wn1 f!. N . Nn N IPIn ryl WIrIP e 1 N I I \nlNn In.lrr 1M I4 N r .n.1. fwnM fN11M.N nn or...nrr 1 b r1. r1. I ...l.r ln. r n. MM N lalnlenn .I .nn. l+.W, .1r.e..... N I ..441 +.uq . .n. 1..•1 PII . _ . • _ _ _ _. T41�-fi: lu:i 'Q 4 wllywnl 11..1 N. ly Ir.n.IN .nIIM n11 �.I. II r 11 Q IN _ [WHI Y.IIN, 41N. III.... Nennn 2 Mlr.r.l 41.11 1 MnH eN1111 II NN Inlrr.l N IIMI In IM NIIN .I IM Ixn...111..1. IN m.1. N II 41 N .!: JAMES R. 1� INC. 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Nineteen ADD'LTLONAL,ITEMS CONTRACT 823-2/AWARD CONTRACT A. Contract 83-2, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Northview Meadows Trunk Utilities) -- At 10:30 A.M. on Thursday, December 16, 1982, formal bids were received and opened pertaining to the above - referenced contract. Enclosed on page X03 is a copy of the final bid tabulation for the Council's information. The alternate bid was based on open cutting County Road 30 to install hydrant leads and individual water services to the north side of County Road 30. Because the alternate bid resulted in an add-on to the contract, the staff is recommending that it not be considered in awarding the contract. As can be seen, the low bid was approximately 127 below the cost estimated in the feasibility report which will be a direct cost savings to the City's trunk water fund and will not have an impact on the related assessments to the adjacent property owners. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To receive the bids for Contract 83-2 and award the contract to the low bidder, Austin P. Keller Construction Co., in the amount of $299,997.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related contract documents. 0 0 Our FiLe No. 49261 NORT}IVIEW MEADOWS - PROSECT 365 CITY CONTRACT 83-2 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER AND TRUNK WATER MAIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 1982 OPENING TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.S.T. OPENING DATE: Thurs., Dec. 16, 1982 ALTERNATE BID $ 560.00 17,796.00 6,880.00 1,720.00 21,000.00 480.00 2,800.00 -1,080.00 2,110.00 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ........... $334,700.00 FEASIBILITY REPORT (F.R.) 339,880.00 LOW BID 299,997.00 % + (over) or - (under) F.R. -12% 103 CONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID 1. Austin P. Keller Const. $299,997.00 2. Arcon Construction Co. 314,171.50 3. Northdale Construction 321,805.00 4. IaTmtti & Sons, Inc. 325,486.00 5. Barbarossa & Sons 336,148.00 6. Encon Utilities 346.876.80 7. Orfei & Sons Inc. 397,42R 99 8. Nodland Associates, Inc. 373.071.00 9. Mueller Pipeliners 384.107.00 10. North Central Underground NO BID 11. Enebak Construction Co. NO BID 12. Reisinger Excavating Co. NO BID ALTERNATE BID $ 560.00 17,796.00 6,880.00 1,720.00 21,000.00 480.00 2,800.00 -1,080.00 2,110.00 NO BID ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ........... $334,700.00 FEASIBILITY REPORT (F.R.) 339,880.00 LOW BID 299,997.00 % + (over) or - (under) F.R. -12% 103 0 0 Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twenty SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION - DODD ROAD B. Receive Petition for Speed Limit Reduction -Dodd Road South of Cliff (This item will be heard at 6:35 p.m. under Public Works Department Business. It was listed under Additional Items for M publication purposes.) -- Enclosed on pages /DS` through Q6 is a copy of a petition that the Public Works department received from residents along Dodd Road requesting the speed limit to be reduced to 30 m.p.h. and to have "Children at Play" signs installed by Cliff Road and Gun Club Road (farm road). For the Council's information, enclosed on page /0'7 is a graphic repre- sentation of the location of the petitioning property owners. There are 29 signatures representing 19 properties along this seg- ment of Dodd Road. Present state statutes require that speed limits be set at 55 m.p.h. unless verified to be lowered an engineering and traffic investiga- tion study performed by MnDOT unless an area is classified as an "Urban District". The unban district classification states that a segment of roadway at least a quarter mile in distance must have a dwelling unit spaced every 100 feet or less. No segment of Dodd Road qualifies for an "Urban District" classification. Therefore, in order to legally post a speed limit lower than 55 m.p.h., MnDOT would have to perform a traffic study. Past experience leads the City to believe that the results of their study would not warrant a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in this vicinity. It is anticipated that representatives of this neighborhood will be in attendance at the Council meeting to further pursue their concerns. Therefore, it is recommended that this item be addressed at the beginning of the meeting under Department Head Business. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To receive and approve or deny a petition for the reduction of speed limit on Dodd Road between Cliff and farm road (Gun Club Road) and the request for the installation of "Children at Play" signs. loo • NOVEMBER, 1982 • PETITION TO EAGAN CITY COUNCIL We, the residents, living on or near Dodd Road between the intersections of Farm Road and Cliff Road, would like a speed reduction. This would involve reducing the speed limit to 30 M.P.H. by posting both speed limit signs and children -at -play warning signs at both intersections along Dodd Road. NAME ADDRESS ` 5� " .00r1CY all. `'a C07, �1�7s1��Icld RJ��/)dJ A4 - . �s��c:Y? � , mak/.-�r•G� %C� Y�cC�Lc'�� ��G �u� -- ��-'w.,✓ 7 O 7 b 3 oZ �Z q 3 '— t�) ,2j » 3 r,��-� << c yJL a dol C)JS 17 71 ""�'"� X21 ��'d Z78h �✓ 00 � Il .1210, �I� '1 ��� roc co �, / ��" p PETITIONERS • LOCATION. OF SIGNS N.W. 1/4 SEC.36,T27,R23 ec....o ..sw Agenda Information Memo December 21, 1982 City Council Meeting Page Twenty -One GRADING/EXCAVATION PERMIT (T.H. 55-McLEAN PROPERTY) C. Review Grading/Excavation Permit, NWk, Section 2 (T.H. 55 -McLean Property) -- As the Council may recall, this grading/excavation permit was originally scheduled for the November 9 Council agenda and continued to November 16. At the November 16 meeting, it was continued indefinitely to allow the applicant to resolve the grading impact with the adjacent property owners. In addition, it was requested that mailed notice be sent to the affected adjacent property owners on the south side of Blue Gentian Road. On December 9, this notification was forwarded to their attention, informing them that this item would be considered by the City Council at the December 21 meeting. Enclosed on page 109 is a copy of a location map showing the area impacted bytris application permit. The grading plan has been reviewed in detail by the Engineering Division and all other requirements of the application have been satisfactorily complied with. As a result of the mailed notification, staff has not re- ceived any comments from the adjacent property owners to date. The applicant, Johnson Brothers, has indicated that they plan to place approximately C. Y. The applicant indicates that he will conduct this grading operation during the normal hours as required by existing City ordinance and that he is not requesting a double shift for this operation similar to the previous R.E.S. grading permit. This work will be performed during the summer of 1983. The Public Works Director will answer any specific ques- tions that the City Council or adjacent property owners may have at the Council meeting. This item is also anticipated discussed under Public Works Department Business at the beginning of the meeting in anticipation of attendance by the adjacent property owners. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MATTER: To approve or deny the grading/excavation permit for the McLean property on T.H. 55, south of Blue Gentian Road. s/Thomas L. Hedges City A ministrator 10 BERNARD N. VV. 1/446EC. 2 T 2 R 23 u 07• - ------------------------- -- — -------- 7 — - — — — — — — — — - 7.7 McLEAN 'fHUDAK 1p so Dh ZY 0 0 MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1982 SUBJECT: INFORMATIVE Tax Exempt Home Mortgage Program Enclosed on pages 1)9- through 113 is the final report for Eagan tax exempt housing mortgage issue. All loans are now closed and funded. Park SiteAcquisition & Development Fund Special Assessment Keceivable At the last regular City Council meeting, a question was raised by City Councilmember Smith about the special assessment receivable that was traded from Park Site Acquisition to a bond debt fund. The special assessment receivable in question regarding the proposed trade was levied in 1976, first payable in 1977 for ten years. The original amount was $5,281.97 and was levied against the Hillan- dale Addition with Beurel Company listed as the owner. The assess- ment has subsequently been spread to 100 parcels as a part of Meadow- lark Ridge. The receivable that the Director of Finance is propo- sing to trade is the original $5,281.97 less five installments which have been paid ($2,640.95) equalling $2,641.02. This repre- sents an additional five installments and is the amount which has not yet been paid by the property owner. According to the Director of Finance, this is an even asset trade, cash for a receivable on a dollar for dollar basis. Response to Public Works Questions Raised at a Special City Council Meeting At a special City Council meeting held in late November, there were several questions raised that the City Administrator has passed on for a response from the Director of Public Works. Enclosed on pages 11 through 117 is a response from the Director of Public Wor s regarding tFi—e-7-our items that were asked about at that time. Fire Department Pension Plan Proposal The City has received a counter proposal regarding pension plan benefits for the volunteer fire department. A copy of the proposal is enclosed on pages 1)g through ))I The City Administrator would like to meet with theCityCounc E_For a few minutes following the meeting on Tuesday to discuss any counter proposal that may be considered at that time. //0 0 Informative Memo December 17, 1982 Page Two David & Patricia Odell Enclosed on pages Id.0 through lad is a copy of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Odells attorney c aiming compensatory damages as a consequence of the City's decision on their preliminary plat request. Also enclosed is a letter from the City Attorney addres- sing the claim by the Odells. Horse Racing Track Enclosed on page 122- is a copy of a letter from Dakota County Commissioner Voss regar ing an informal discussion by the Dakota County Board addressing the possibility of locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. Joint Zoning Board Minutes Enclosed on pages 1a'5 through lad is a copy of the December 3, 1982 Joint Zoning B' o� minutes. Urban Planning & Design, Inc., Planning Consultant Fees A letter was received from John Voss, president of Urban Planning & Design, Inc., to the City Administrator that read as follows: "This letter is to inform you that Urban Planning & Design, Inc., consultant 'fee schedule' now in effect with the City of Eagan will not be changed for the year 1983." s/Thomas LHedges 7ityyTcTministrator CI: Y OF nVPN C, Statistical Data-- Amount of Program $16,940,000 Total Amount of Pre-Carmiitted Loans Percentage of Loans Pre-Catmitted $ 16,907,275.00 99.8 % Low Inccrue Pasic Income Total Number of Loans Average Mortgage Amount lS5 - 141 $ 53,011 _ $ 61,635_ Average Sale Price 59,423 Average Appraisal Value — 59,890 67 mn Average Adjusted Gross Income 20,274 SR ins Average Gross Income 21,581 2S nal �6 Type of Loan: 77a Insured Conventional Uninsured Conventional 7 — 21 FNA 7 VA 4Z 6 � � 'Graduated Pledge 28 - - 9 65 Average Loan to Value Ratio: 5 Insured Conventional 88 Uninsured Conventional 71 -90— Number of New Construction Loans _ 120 74 106 Number of Zxisting Loans — — 'type of Dwelling: 35 355 — Single Family Tbwnhouse 80 — 97 Condominium 22 ---- _ 2R Mobile Hanes 50 tF Average Previous Residents n 17 Number of Renters 111 ?� 100 Number of Owners ---- - — — Average Age 44 Sex: — �� Male --- 30__ - --- 29.6 Female 149 131 Average Fa[iily Size - -10— Average Number of Children 1.8 _ _ 4 Marital Status: .4 - .7 Married Single FR 9b Joint 7R Divorced - 5 FUNDING: a la Dollar Amount of Loans Funded - - - 6 Number oI Loans 161907,27500--- 0__296 296 - -- DATE: ____I�ecemtar 1 , 1982____ CITY OF EAGAN 516,940,000--huount of Program Dollar Amount of Funds Remaining $ 12.725.00 PLEASE NOTE: This amount can be utilized in any of the following categories: Single Family, Townhouse, Condo, Mobile Home; Low or Basic Incomes; or any Conventional Loans, including Conventional 951.'. This does not include the -Graduated Pledge Account. At this time, there are no Graduated Pledqe Funds available. Total Pre -Commitment Amount S 16.907,275.00 Total Reserved (Yet to be Pre -Committed) $ —0— $ 16,940,000,00 i t3 TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DEC IBER 14, 1982 RE: RESPONSE TO MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS BY CITY COUNCIL In response to your memo of December 1st, I offer the following information to those issues of concern that were addressed by the City Council at a re- cent special Council meeting. ITEM 1 - HECTOR SNOWPICWS We have received a copy of the publication of the local newspaper from Hec- tor, Minnesota relating to the "Loffness" snowplower, more commonly referred to as a "Hector plow". The Superintendent of Streets has recently corres- ponded with this firm rerniesting equipment literature and specifications for review to determine if it would be oauquatible with our snow removal program. Upon receipt and review of this information, additional information will be made available with future budget requests if it is determined to be bene- ficial to our operation. ITEM 2 -MARTIN SHIELD'S SNOW FENCE In regards to the suggestion pertaining to the installation of a snow fence adjacent to the Martin Shield's property, contact was made with the Dakota County Maintenance Engineer as this would benefit snow removal operations on County Road 31 (Pilot Knob Road) or County Road 26 (Lone Oak Road). To our knowledge, it has not been past practice to install snow fence adjacent to the Martin Shield's property. Present County policy is such that their major snow fence installation is in the rural areas with ].invited amounts in urban areas at specifically designated critical locations. This area has not been designated a critical area but will be reviewed again by the Da- kota County Maintenance Department to see if additional snow fence installa- tion is merited. I£ its installation is determined to be beneficial and weather permits, the County will try to install them. ITEM 3 - LONE OAK ROAD SPEED LIMIT SIGNS In September of this year, a formal request by the City Council was forward- ed to the Dakota County Highway Department requesting that a section of Lone Oak Drive from T.H. 13 to Pine Ridge Drive be posted at 30 m.p.h. due to its "urban district" classification in accordance with MnDOT Highway Traffic Regulation Statute 169.2. In response to this request, the County Traffic Engineer informed me that Chapter 169.14, Section 5B specifically eliminates County road jurisdictions from the "urban district" designations. The word- ing of the Statute specifically states that this roadway can only have its speed limit lowered to a designation warranted by a MnDOT speed study survey. In reviewing the Statute initially, I had not noticed the specific ommision to County roads from the "urban district" classification. As the Council may II� -'f 0 0 Thomas L. Hedges Decenber 14, 1982 Response to Miscellaneous Questions by City Council Page two recall, the State performed both a speed study and an experimental speed reduction on this section of County road during 1980. Their study indicates that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is the proper classification for this County road. Subsequently, the Dakota County Highway DeparbTent has informed us that they have no alternative but to deny the City's request for further consideration of reducing the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. They indicate that when conditions along the roadway change significantly enough to alter the behavior of traf- fic, a new study could be authorized to re-evaluate the reasonable and safe speed limit. In the mean time, a reduced speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is in ef- fect adjacent to Pilot Knob Elementary School property when children are pre- sent. A copy of the County's response is attached for your information. Based on this information, I do not know of any other alternative to pursue in the reduction of the speed limit as previously reauested by Council ac- tion. The location of the freestanding pressure reducing valve, associated shutoff valves and protective guardrails for the Peoples Natural Gas line on the northside of Cliff Road east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road was approved through a utility permit application to Dakota County Highway Department by Peoples Natural Gas. I have reviewed several other locations in the Citv_ with a re- presentative of Peoples Natural Gas and will be discussing their location in an informative memo to the Council as a part of the December 21st Council packet. (Note: This memo is attached on page 11-7.) If additional infoiTmtion on any of these items is desired beyond that which is provided, please let me know. TAC/jack 1/5- I?OGERT P_ G1:DEEN. ? . IJ:I X IVY A I,111) JT -_T y TELE 7r1'J Ic. G12-d]9.0]i9 -DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55-'HA5TINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 •"' AT. PAUL "R3. . September 14, 1982 Mr. Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55122 Re: C5AH126 (Lone Oak Road) Urban District Classification for 30 mph speed limit request Dear Mr. Colbert: I am in receipt of your memo dated August 30, 1982 expressing the request of the City Council to classify CSAH 26 from MN Trunk Highway 13 to CSAH 31 as an "urban district" and thereby post a 30 mph speed limit. — .e Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act, Chapter 169.14, outlines the pro- cedures for establishing and posting speed limits within local areas. Many studies have been requested and performed within the last few years to deter- mine the most reasonable and safe speed limit. On December 29, 1978, in an effort to determine the effectiveness of posting a 30 mph zone on this road- way, Dakota County (after authorization from Mn/DOT) posted an experimental speed limit of 30. As explained in Mn/DOT's letter dated December 11, 1979, the only significant change recorded during the experiment was the increase in the number of violators of the posted limit from 52% to 87% in spite of Eagan's enforcement efforts. Speed limits which are too low should be avoid- ed as they tend to increase the speed differential (the speed difference be- tween vehicles) of traffic and thereby causing new safety problems. Dakota County posted the existing speed limit (40 mph) on August 19, 1980 thereby ending the experimental 30 mph zone. When conditions along the road- way change significantly enough to alter the behavior of traffic (such as an increase in the number of structures devoted to business, industry or dwell- ing houses) a new study could be authorized to reevaluate the reasonable and safe speed limit. 1114 -2 - Mr. Thomas A Colbert City of Eagan 0 I discussed the City's request with Mark Wikelius, Mn/DOT District Traffic Engineer and reviewed the pertinent provisions of the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act. Dakota County does not have the authority to set a speed limit 30 mph on this roadway. We, therefore, have no alternative but to deny the City's request. Please call me if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Peter L. Sorenson Traffic Engineer PLS/bv c- Bob Sandeen Mark Wikelius 1 I �, A 0 0 Peoples Natural Gas Pressure Reducine Stations At the December 7 Council meeting, several Council members were con- cerned about the newly installed above ground pressure reducing stations and related gas shutoff valves that were recently installed by Peoples Natural Gas and the related safety concerns to the travelling public due to their proximity to the travelled right- of-way. On December 8, the Public Works Director conducted a tour of the City with a representative of Peoples Natural Gas to review their policies and procedures pertaining to the installation of these facilities. The Public Works Director will have available pictures of various locations for the Council's review at the Coun- cil meeting. Adjacent communities serviced by Peoples Natural Gas are Rosemount, Farmington, Cannon Falls, Lakeville, etc. Northern States Power services the Cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and all other communities not serviced by Peo- ples Natural Gas. In reviewing NSP's installation procedures, it has been discovered that they also have pressure reducing sta- tions installed above ground. The main difference between the two gas distribution systems is that Peoples Gas installs above ground shut off valves 25 feet on either side of the pressure re- ducing station vs. the underground installation for NSP. In addi- tion, Peoples Gas installs a protective barrier around each above ground installation to greatly minimize impact damage to these facilities. Both companies install their facilities as close to the edge of right-of-way as possible. On Eagandale Boulevard just north of Lone Oak Road, the existing facility is approximately 3 feet behind the curb with a protective guard post being 12 to 16 inches from back of curb. The gas company has informed the City that this location was necessary due to the narrow right-of- way in relationship to the wide industrial street in this area. The Director of Public Works investigated other locations where they are, in fact, well beyond the back of curb when a sufficient right-of-way is available. The installation of the gas main along Cliff Road was through a permit approved by the Dakota County Highway Department without the knowledge of the City of Eagan because it was totally located within County highway right-of-way. Director of Public Works Colbert will be happy to discuss the issue in further detail with the Council if they so desire. !17 0 C qrePepariment To: Tom Hedges, City Administrator From: Ken Southorn, Eagan Fire Department Relief Assoc., Pension Committee Date: December 14, 1982 Subject: Pension Plan Proposal The City Council's pension proposal, your memo dated December 2, 1982, was presented to the Fire Department membership by myself on Monday evening 12/6 and by Chief Childers on Tuesday morning 12/7. Your memo was read verbatim with comments added only to display the concept of prorated benefits based upon years of service, a visual representation was used. All presentations were followed by a discussion period and subsequently a straw vote was taken at each station to provide further direction to the pension committee. The major topic of discussion at each station related to the pro rata concept. The concerns expressed included the following: -The membership, concurring with Gus Welters opinion, believes the intent of the state law is to provide equal, even benefits to firefighters for all years of service. -Membership wishes to maintain a.current value for those retiring after years of dedicated service. -Should retain the ability.to administer the plan in an even, uncomplicated manner. Equal benefit for each year of service. -Certain inequity to the membership may develop relative to the individuals time of service and the timing of the incremental incremental increase to.the plan. -The current membership cannot commit future members/pension committee/Board of Trustees to the future provision of prorated increments. -State law currently defines the percentage of the benefit which accrues to a firefighter retiring with less than 20 years of service. This feature of the law addresses some of the council's concern for retroactivity. -The pension plan must be aggressive enough, and attractive enough so as to encourage new and continued participation with the volunteer fire department. At the request of the membership the pension committee met on Wednesday December 8th to formulate a proposal for the City Council, reflecting the concerns and desires of the membership as expressed in the Monday and Tuesday meetings. After a very lengthy discussion, the pension committee drafted the following proposal. 1. Benefit level to be set at $32,000 for lump sum payment ($1600/ years of service) or equivalent monthly benefit option of $213 after 20 years of service. 3940 �Itthn �Ivab lagan, innrsata 55122 ?IS' 2. The committee encourages the City's efforts to retire the unfunded liability in an aggressive manner similar to the December 2, 1982 proposal item 112. 3. The pro rata basis is not a condition of this proposal for reasons discussed above. 4. This proposal covers the period from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. The committee believes the above proposal accurately reflects the desires of the membership and actively addresses the councils concern of retiring the unfunded liability. Please review the above and submit to the council at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, XR. Southorn Eagan Fire Department Relief Assoc. Pension Committee KRS/ph cc: Pension Committee J. W. Flood R. L. Cjilders Ily 0 LAW OFFICES LeVander, Gillen, Miller, Anderson & Kuntz 402 DROVERS BANK BLDG. • 633 SOUTH CONCORD ST. • p.0. BOX 298 SOUTH ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55075 • TELEPHONE 16121 4511031 December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges Eagan City Hall 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, I -IN 55121 PJ HAROLD LEVANDER ARTHUR GILLEN ROGER C. MILLER HAROLD LEVANDER. JR. PAUL H. ANDERSON TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ DANIEL J. BEESON CERTIFIED MAIL Re: David R. and Patricia B. Odell v. City of Eagan Dear Mr. Hedges: Notwithstanding the fact that the City has had actual notice of its own action in denying the waiver of plat and prelimi- nary plat applications of David R. and Patricia B. Odell, on June 15, 1982 and October 5, 1982, the purpose of this letter is to give you notice pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05 that my clients have suffered compensible damages as a result of said arbitrary and capricious action of the City Council. Mr. and Mrs. Odell will claim compensatory damages as a consequence of the City's arbitrary and capricious action in an amount in excess of $35,000.00, together with costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees. Yours v6y truly, Beeson I cc: Paul Hauge Mr. and Mrs. David Odell I a. 0 0 0 HAUGE, &NIITH. -E4 IDE & IIIELLER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN (ST. PAUL). MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 December 15, 1982 Re: David and Patricia Odell -- City of Eagan Dear Tom: AREA CODE 612 TELEPHONE 454-4224 You have received a letter dated December 9, 1982, from attorney Daniel Beeson concerning the application by Mr, and Mrs. David Odell for waiver of plat and later for preliminary plat approval. Their application for preliminary plat approval was last considered and denied by the City Council on October 5, 1982, for reasons that were detailed in a Resolution attached to the minutes. The December 9th letter indicates that the Odells claim to have suffered compensable damages as the result of the claimed arbitrary and capricious action of the City Council in excess of S35,000 plus costs, etc. In order for Mr. Beeson to prove that the City Council has been arbitrary, he, of course, must convince a court of this fact and it appears from my discussions with him and also from'1his letter that the Odells may start an action. If Mr. Beeson does commence an action for the Odells, which appears very possible, it would probably be based on an agreement that while the Council stated reasons for denial of the application, those reasons are not valid. In other words, the complaint would probably allege that the covenants and restrictions are private matters unrelated to the Council's decision. Also, that any other reasons were unrelated to Subdivision requirements which the Plaintiff would claim should be the basis for a reversed decision. I am sending a copy of this letter to you and also the letter from Mr. Beeson to Bruce Medvec at Valley View Insurance for his information as is customary in claims of this nature. Ordinarily an applicant of this nature would ask that the court require the City Council to approve the application rather than initially asking for damages. I would suggest the Council take no action, but would be happy to talk with you orthncil about the claim. /Very truly yours, Paul H. Hauge City Attorney :x'39 cc: Valley View, Inc. I),� December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom, At the Dakota County Board meeting this week, we discussed locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. This was an informal discussion and no resolu- tions were passed. , The Board directed the County Staff to outline the pros and cons of such a facility. Unlike the Zoological Garden, a horse racing track is expected to be a private venture, wherein the County could realize a $30 to 50 million increase in its tax base. On the surface, this appears to be the incentive, however, there also could be several liabilities. At the very least, we are exploring the situation at this time. It is the Board's assumption that our role would be to support any community desiring a race track if we felt that it would be an asset to the County. As such, the initiative requesting our support would have to come from a local municipality. It is somewhat early in the process to discuss this subject since the Legisla- ture has not taken any action. Nevertheless, there has been some publicity already on this subject. I assume that the Eagan City Council may discuss this matter at some point. Perhaps, the pros and cons that our Staff develops would be helpful. In any instance, I am herein opening communication on this subject and will provide information or assistance as you desire. s truly; 1 •j Johl S. Voss, Dakota County Comnissioner Thild District JSV/bav 122- JOHN S. VOSS CO3lfIISSIONEP-THWU DIST:'I'., 270 RIVERWOODS LAfIE 71 T� fiU P.II 55317 T ELEPHOIIE: DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER RESIDENCE 890-9099 1560 HWY. 55. HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033 - PHONE 437.0427 OFFICE 6302320 4370419 December 9, 1982 Mr. Thomas Hedges, Administrator City of Eagan 3795 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Dear Tom, At the Dakota County Board meeting this week, we discussed locating a horse racing track in Dakota County. This was an informal discussion and no resolu- tions were passed. , The Board directed the County Staff to outline the pros and cons of such a facility. Unlike the Zoological Garden, a horse racing track is expected to be a private venture, wherein the County could realize a $30 to 50 million increase in its tax base. On the surface, this appears to be the incentive, however, there also could be several liabilities. At the very least, we are exploring the situation at this time. It is the Board's assumption that our role would be to support any community desiring a race track if we felt that it would be an asset to the County. As such, the initiative requesting our support would have to come from a local municipality. It is somewhat early in the process to discuss this subject since the Legisla- ture has not taken any action. Nevertheless, there has been some publicity already on this subject. I assume that the Eagan City Council may discuss this matter at some point. Perhaps, the pros and cons that our Staff develops would be helpful. In any instance, I am herein opening communication on this subject and will provide information or assistance as you desire. s truly; 1 •j Johl S. Voss, Dakota County Comnissioner Thild District JSV/bav 122- Wold-Ch,:nberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board Meeting 4 p.m., Thursday, December 3, 1902 Metropolitan Airports Commission Conference Room Board He.•nbers in Attendance: John Voss, (Chairman), Dale Runkle, Thomas Fgan, James Loslchen, Larry Shaughnessy, Jr., Rick Jopke, Vern Luettinger, Rick Wiederhorn, Hancy Witta. Others in Attendance: Dan Callahan, Nigel Finney, Bill Olson, Chauncey Case, Wayne Bachman, Walter (unreadable last name), David Hozza, Eileen McMahon. Minutes I. Call to Order Chairman Voss called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. i II. Approval of d nutes Minutes c' ..e November 4, 1902 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Report an ?! DOT Progress Ms. Icl!a:.=r. r_ported that MnDOT has not decided Whether or not they will try to make c`,_ -.;es in the zoning law. MnDOT is considering asking the Legislature for a law change that would recognize pre-existing comprehensive plans and allow for special permits to be issued under certain conditions. Further information on this matter may be available by the next meeting. IV. Presentations A. Bloccnington Ms. McMahon reported for Larry Lee that the only area in Bloomington located in the B -Zone is the I-494 & Cedar Avenue interchange. Existing and planned development in Bloomington does not/will not penetrate the Horizontal Zone. B. Minneapolis Dan CdLlahan reported that the A and B -Zones for Runway 11-L and 11-11 are fully developed established residential neighborhoods and no vdcanL land for further development is avaiLablc. Single family houses, duplexes, two apartment buildings, several churches and schools and some commercial buildings are located in the zones. Mr. Callahan noted that the modr,l ordinance allo%fs for Lite Commissioner to require the removal of land use: in estabLi,shcd residential neighborhoods which present a nat-crial danger to the safety of persons on the ground. Lr ndUllg such a d(Aerminalio.r the CommL.ssioner shall cunsidcr the Lendcn^v of the Lhe Lind use to increase tic number of persons. Lhat. could be injured in case of an aircrdfl, dccident. I:r. C-:LLah,in qucstionad whether tIic Commissioner Y,01-1 I( require the crmuv,il of churches and schools from the A and It Zones. Ms. McMl'lon reported that Mint offici 15 sji(1 they (lid not l.hink that such usca wo�rld b,, ruaovccl unjcss l.h" rrrc eiirc,;; ly on Lite centerline ,incl cry close to Lite run;vay. fir. C.:Llaii.:a .idded that Lhe 0111,, place where the height zoning may affect Minncapuli: is in the corner of Lhe eLty located in lire approac!r zone to flunway 2.2. (a3 C_ St. Paul _ _ `�• Mr. Widerhorn explained that the only portion of the ordinance affecting St- Paul w'OUld be the height zoning and he said no conflicts exist between thr_ zones and the existing/proposed development. The major portion of Mr. Wiederhorn's presentation focused on the_ process the Downtown St.. Paul Airport Joint. Zoning Board followed in dealing with conflicts between the model ordinance and existing and proposed development in the downtown arca. The fact that the airport is located on a low arca surrounded by bluffs caused many conflicts with the application of height zoning. In many instances the ground itself penetrated the horizontal zone. The Joint Zoning Board's solution was to change the definition of the horizontal zone to allow its height to be 150 feet above the established airport elevation or 40 feet above the ground, whichever is higher. The downtown area is 70 to 90 feet above the airport which would aliot for new buildings to be only 6 stories high in the horizontal zone• Because existing buildings are much higher than 6 stories, the Zoning Board used a "shadasine effect" principle. It meant that new construction behind or in the shadow of eN*sting, tall buildings (i.e. the First National Bank Building) could be no h_g;:e_ than those tall buildings. Mr. Wicr shorn explained that those and several other alternatives to strict interpretati :r of the model ordinance seem acceptable to i•1nDOT. The one remaining problem is t..a_ _.e Board recommended eliminating the B -Zone for a proposed new runway because it -could severely restrict planned d_:velopment in a 150 - 190 acre area. The Boa_-' reasoned that existing terrain requires planes departing to be at such a height :.._n entering that B -Zone area that they would probably not even ba able to land in the Zone if they needed to do so. MnDOT's response ti -,as that a B -Zone of some s.rc had to be included. Mr. Wiederhorn said that he thought MnDOT would consi.dcr ,,roving a modified B -7 -one definition. V. Disuession Mr. Shaug:rn_ssy suggested that the board invite a pilot who flies DC -10's or 747's into 'dold-Chamberlain to one of the next meetings to talk about safety and Co assist in the discussion of hose for the zones need to extend into the Mendota ne`_a=„s and Eagan areas. Mr. Voss s.._ estcd that the staff prepare a working draft of an ordinance for disc;_secn at the next meeting. As well, he asked the staff to arrange for a D'--': or 747 pilot to attend the next meeting on December 16 or the folk•:%` on January 6. The Board members concurred. VI. Next Xe_-*.:-.,-,Date/Adjourn The n^\`--`ing will be held at 4 p.m., Thursday, December 16 at MAC. The c= adjourned of 5 p.m. Submitted by F ilceri T. Id::!I,ilion The liozza Associates a4