Loading...
12/20/1984 - City Council Regular• MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING C0MMISSI0N EAGAN, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 1981 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 20, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Pre- sent were Members Hall, Wilkins, Taylor, Mulrooney and Krob. Absent were Members Bohne, McCrea and Wold. Also present were Assistant City Engineer Hefti, City Planner Runkle, and City Attorney Hauge. AGENDA Mulrooney moved, Krob seconded the motion to approve the Agenda with the understanding that the application of General Coatings for revision to a conditional use permit to allow a new location for an existing pylon sign at 2805 Dodd Road be stricken at the request of the applicant. All members voted yes. . Wilkins moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1984 regular meeting. All members voted in favor. LEMAY LAM 1ST ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Hall convened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. regarding the application of Opus Corporation and Healey Ramme Corporation for preliminary plat approval of Lemay Lake 1st Addition consisting of approximately 17.7 acres and containing 288 dwelling units lying south of Lone Oak Road and west of I -35E. Dale Runkle reviewed the preliminary report including the updated report dated November 12, 1984. He indicated that there were four major reasons why the Council requested the applicants return to the Planning Com- mission, including the following: 1. The Council requested an overall concept plan to indicate how access would be provided to the property to the east, including an overall circula- tion pattern. Three commercial buildings abutting Lone Oak Road and I -35E are reflected, including two additional office buildings. It was noted that the zoning does not precisely fit the proposal and therefore the applicants were required to rezone to conform to the proposed concept. 2. Access to the development was also reviewed indicating the major access would be from Eagandale Blvd. to the south as proposed. There would be one minor access with right -in right -out between Eagandale Blvd. and Poplar • Drive which would be moved somewhat easterly from the first proposal. 1 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 49 3. The density of the development indicated that the applicants were over the allotted square footage but with a change in mix, reducing the number of two-bedroom units and increasing the number of one -bedroom units, they could comply with the density restrictions. 4. The City has recently adopted a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and staff has met with DNR representatives to review the site plan. There is a question as to whether the parcel requires compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance and DNR has indicated it would make recommendations only if it stated that the development is more dense than DNR would prefer. Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation and Tom Healey of Healey Ramme were present. Mr. Worthington explained the land use plan for the entire parcel, including the commercial land on the east. He stated that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company has joined in the plat application, owning the property on the easterly side and that now a circular traffic pattern is being pro- posed. A traffic study has been completed and it concluded that each of the two traffic patterns would be satisfactory. He stated the single major inter- section at Eagandale Blvd. is the safest and most desirable. • Mr. Worthington also mentioned that an EAW for the Eagandale development had been prepared and that a letter updating the EAW had been submitted to the City. He indicated the study noted no significant change between the former and the current proposals, including water run-off into Lemay Lake. • Tom Healey described the proposed apartment plan. He stated that emer- gency vehicle access through the center of the project is being proposed. A six foot continuous berm along the westerly property line with evergreens on the top and drainage provisions will be installed with 8 foot berm on the northerly end. There are also other internal street configuration changes. A catch basin with skimmer will be installed permitting greater sedimentation and providing skimming of oil. He stated that the developers have met with the neighbors to the west and also southwest across Lemay Lake. A request was made by the neighbors to remove the southwesterly 6 units of Building B which the developer prefers to retain. He further explained that the developers had agreed not to build additional R-4 units in that particular area. No neighboring property owners were present. Member Wilkins had questions about the southeasterly triangle. Mr. Worthington stated that negotiations had taken place with the City for dedi- cation of the parcel as park and open space with possible access through the office project. If six units are removed, then the developer could comply with density. Pa 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 E Member Mulrooney questioned the gross and net density calculations and Mr. Runkle indicated that the calculations for net density are determined by taking out public right-of-way and also the private right-of-way. A range of 212 to 354 units could be allowed, depending on the number of bedrooms per unit. The planner was asked to submit reports with the range of minimum - maximum density that would be allowed in the multi -family projects. It was also noted the original EAW was based upon 200 apartment units and now 288 are being proposed, that an 80,000 square foot office building was being proposed and now 200,000 square feet of office building is shown on the plan. Member Mulrooney also questioned whether the concept plan for the parcel to the east is firm and Mr. Worthington stated that the general concept is accurate and that the developers and owners will submit such confirmation in writing. Member Krob stated that there is no change in the number of units per acre. There were questions about circulation and it was noted the pre- vious plan did not have an internal circulation plan. Chairman Hall recom- mended reducing the project by 6 units to bring it into compliance. . Wilkins then moved, Kroh seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for preliminary plat and concept plan for the adjacent land with 282 apartment units, subject to the following: 1. No additional storm water runoff shall be added to the existing 48 inch storm sewer, unless the existing storm sewer is increased in size accord- ingly. 2: Public improvements shall be petitioned by the developer and ordered in by the Council prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall be responsible for constructing a 5 foot concrete walk along its Lone Oak Road frontage. 4. A minimum 50 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for Lone Oak Road. 5. If a 60 foot right-of-way for Eagandale Place is dedicated, then a 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to public right-of-way as required by Staff. 6. This development shall be responsible for its trunk storm sewer area and lateral benefit from trunk water main assessments at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 7. Easements for ponding, watermain and sanitary sewer shall be dedi- cated on the final plat. • '8. All costs for public improvements associated with this development shall be the sole responsibility of this development. 3 Ll • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 41 9. The access driveway to the southwesterly 108 unit complex shall be a minimum of 32 feet in width. 10. A six foot berm with evergreens on the top and 8 foot berm along the northerly portion shall be installed by the developer. 11. The garage driveway on the westerly building shall be turned to run northerly rather than directly west. 12. No further residential development shall be developed on the entire parcel, including the parcel to the east. 13. Evergreen screening shall be installed on the south end of the westerly building. 14. Catch basins with skimmers shall be installed as proposed by the developer and approved by the City. 15. The Planning Commission recommends alternate 2 with a looped public street. All members voted in favor except Mulrooney who stated that he was not satisfied that the density of the units had been properly determined and also that the environmental issues had not been properly considered, noting that the EAW has not been adequately undertaken for the current proposal. The hearing was completed at 8:30 p.m. ZING ADDITION - PRELIMMARY PLAT AND REZONING The hearing regarding the application of Gary King for preliminary plat approval of King Addition and rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Residen- tial Single), consisting of 10 lots on 10 acres of land was convened by the Chairman. It was noted the application had been submitted to the City in September of 1984 and the proposal was then continued for additional study. A revision to the plan has now been made. Mr. Runkle detailed the application and noted that two feasibility studies had been performed with the previous .proposal. Nine of the lots would access from the extension of Golden Meadow Road and the existing home would continue to take access from the north on Hackmore Drive. Approximately 4 lots could be created from Lot 2 with access to Hackmore Drive at some time in the future. Mr. and Mrs. Gary King were present as well as several neighbors, including Armand Laurent. Mr. Laurent had concerns about assessments and stated that there was no benefit to his property if theutilities would be installed. 4 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 1] A letter from Thomas and Gretchen Murr objecting to the proposed utilities and street improvements was submitted. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for rezoning and further for preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Golden Meadow Road public improvements shall be approved by Council prior to final plat approval. Road. 2. A 30 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for Golden Meadow 3. No driveways shall exceed 10% slope. 4. All other City requirements shall be complied with. 5. A detailed erosion control plan shall be submitted according to City requirements. All members voted in the affirmative. 0. BRAD RAGAN, INC. PYLON SIGN - CONDITIONAL USE PMMT The hearing regarding the application of Brad Ragan, Inc. for conditional use permit for pylon sign to be located at 3815 Nicols-Road came before the Planning Commission. The applicant now has a Goodyear ground sign and several other signs on the property at the intersection of Cedar and Highway #13 and it was noted that one pylon sign would be allowed. A representative of Brad Ragan was present and stated that all other non -conforming signs will be removed to comply with the oridinance. Mulrooney moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pylon sign shall be limited to 99 square feet in area per side and 22 feet in height.. 2. The pylon sign shall be a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. 3. Signs on the property shall be limited to one ground sign less than 7 feet in height and directional signs of less than 3 square feet in area. 4. All other signs presently on the proeprty and not in conformance will be removed from the premises immediately. All voted in favor. R APC Minutes . December 20, 1984 • RAGAH HOODS OFFICE PARR - PRELIMINARY PLAT The next hearing that came before the Planning Commission concerned the application of Trammell Crow Company for preliminary plat approval of Eagan Woods Office Park consisting of 6.60 acres and proposed to contain a 4 story office building with 72,000 square feet. The second portion of the applica- tion is concept approval for the total 18.8 acres to constitute the land use plan for the Eagan Woods Planned Development. The total plan would consist of either office or hotel which would contain approximately 160 rooms or 55,000 square feet. Dale Runkle reviewed the application in detail with the Planning Commission and it was noted that the property is now zoned Planned Development with underlying Roadside Business zoning. He also stated that the history includes a review of the airport safety zone ordinance and the new property owners have purchased the site proposing nearly the same uses that were originally allowed under the Planned Development. Tree surveys have been made and it was noted that due to the very rough site, the developer will provide retaining walls. Mr. Runkle stated the site characteristics are important and the developer is studying the site in detail to retain natural amenities. He further noted that a conditional use permit • had been required for a four-story building and suggested review of the appli- cation with the understanding that a future hearing on the conditional use will be required. • Robert Hoffman, attorney, and representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Hoffman explained the background of Trammell Crow Corporation noting that it develops properties throughout the United States, including various types of development and normally retains ownership of its develop- ments. Mr. Hoffman made the following comments: 1. There is adequate space for additional parking, if needed in the future. 2. He requested that the employee parking spaces be smaller than the city requirements. 3. He requested a variance setback from the public right-of-way. 4. A common theme for landscaping and lighting will be provided, but a request was made to allow a variety in building themes. 5. He requested a 50 foot right-of-way rather than 60 foot public right-of-way to allow additional green space. 11 E • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 40 6. The developer requested it be permitted to work with the site and provide internal storm sewer for phase I and determine in the future whether extending the system to the Minnesota River is necessary. The architect for the project reviewed the plans in relation to the site and stated that natural amenities and contours will be maintained to as great an extent as possible. Gary O'Brien of Trammell Crow was present and there were no objections to the application. Rich Hefti stated that easements will be needed including area for adequate snow storage adjacent to the internal public street, and therefore recommended a 60 foot right-of-way. Gary O'Brien indicated that a 20 foot setback variance would not be necessary until construction of the proposed motel on Outlot A. It was understood that the 20 foot green strip would be required in the future. Mulrooney moved, Rrob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for preliminary plat consisting of an office. lot and .two Outlots subject to the following conditions: • 1. A Planned Development Agreement shall be entered into for the over- all plan as submitted with the planning report for the project. 2. An architectural design shall be established by the developer and reviewed by City staff in order that all of the buildings will have a common architectural theme. 3. Acoustical treatment shall be provided within the building in order to minimize any noise impact on this site from the planes overhead or I-494 to the north. 4. The Planned Development shall continue for a maximum of five years and a determination should be made that either the PD include the height of the building to allow 4 stories or separate conditional use permit shall be required for each building. 5. The plat shall be revised and subject to MnDOT's and Dakota County Plat Commission's comments because the plat abuts state and county right-of- way. 6. The building shall be designed to take into account the Fire Depart- ment criteria regarding the four story building. It shall meet all of the criteria of a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowable height in. a commercial district. • 7. A detailed lighting and landscape plan shall be submitted and a land9cape bond approved by the City shall be required and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed and approved by the City. 7 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 8. The plat shall be subject to the City park dedication fee require- ments for commercially platted land at the time of approval of each final plat. 9. Only 280 parking spaces will be permitted at the time of the initial phase but up to an additional 72 spaces shall be provided and promptly installed by the developer or owner when requested by the City. 10. Detailed plans and specifications for the reinforced earth retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approved by the City staff. 11. Calculations used to determine storm water ponding area shall be submitted for review and approved by the City staff. 12. This development shall be responsible for all costs associated with obtaining the necessary MWCC permits and shall abide by MWCC rqui_rements related to these permits. 13. A public improvement project for streets and utilities shall be approved by the City Council, including the storm sewer outfall to the • Minnesota River Valley, if necessary. 14. A minimum 50 foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for Eagan Woods Drive with the understanding there will be minimum 20 foot setbacks. 15. This development shall be responsible for obtianing the necessary easement at its cost for Eagan Wood Blvd. from parcel 01-00400-060-02. 16. This development shall be responsible for all costs associaetd with obtaining the necessary MnDOT permits to work within MnDOT right-of-way. 17. This development shall be responsible for trunk related assessments for trunk area water upgrading, trunk area storm sewer and lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer at the rates in effectat the time of final platting. 18. This development shall assume full responsibility for all costs of public improvements for streets, sanitary sewer, watermain and internal storm sewer. 19. All other applicable City Code and policy requirements shall be complied with by the developer. 20. 9 by 20 foot and and 9 by 18 foot parking spaces shall be allowed at the discretion of City staff with 6 handicapped and 12 visitor spaces of 10 feet by 20 feet each. , • "All members voted yes, except Hall who abstained. 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 E EAGAN HOODS OFFICE PARK - CONCEPT APPROVAL Mulrooney then moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the concept plan for the Eagan Woods Office Park, noting that a Planned Development Agreement shall be entered into for the overall plan submitted with the Planning report; further, that the concept plan and other exhibits included with the packet shall be made a part of the Planned Development Agreement. All members voted yes except Hall who abstained on the motion. RABNCLIFF 2ND ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of M.G. Astleford for preliminary plat approval of Rahncliff 2nd Addition consisting of one 5.7 acre lot to include a 65,000 square foot three-story office building, came before the Planning Commission. Dale Runkle explained the project and noted the site plan provides for 305 surface parking spaces and 70 underground.parking stalls, which exceeds the 347 parking spaces required by City Code. Extensive noise control methods should be utilized, including berming, landscaping and architectural design which could lessen the noise impact. Charles Novak, • ' architect, and Jim Hill, Planner, were present. Mr. Novak stated that a window glazing system with glass set in rubber gaskets, and the thickness of the walls will tend to cut down the noise impact on the building. A row of trees will be constructed along the freeway side and the Planning Commission members recommended tightening the parking area to provide for additional green space along the exterior. The parcel directly to the south is intended for park and ponding. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to these conditions: 1. Approval from MnDOT regarding drainage onto I -35E right-of-way shall be acquired. 2. A public improvement project shall be approved prior to final plat approval. 3. All costs for future lateral public improvements and lateral benefit from trunk watermain shall be the sole responsibility of this development. 4. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for Staff approval prior to any construction, showing plat species, size and location. Special attention shall be paid to I -35E buffering and interior/exterior screening of the parking lot. 5. All other City ordinances shall be adhered to. • All members voted in the affirmative. 4 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 0 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION E Dale Runkle stated the following members terms expire and requested that if any of the members whose terms expire request or desire to be reappointed, that a letter should be sent to the City Administrator: Loyd Krob, Pam McCrea and Roy Taylor. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Mr. Runkle stated that the staff has designated January 29, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. as the Joint Special Meeting with the City Council to review planned developments in the City. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned .at 10:20 p.m. All members voted in favor. • PHH Secretary. • 10 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY Thomas Colbert Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 HAIIGE, Smrm & EIDE, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3905 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 85122 January 11, 1985 RE: Future Assessment Liabilities for Undeveloped Property Dear Tom: AREA CODE 512 TELEPHONE 454-4224 A question has arisen as to how the City should respond to questions from developers relating to future financial liability relating to undeveloped property. These are amounts which have not as yet been levied but relate to either public improvements already installed or improvements to be installed in the future for which financial liabilities can be computed based upon area, front foot or lineal foot computations. In the past, the City has character- ized these future financial liabilities as either potential assessments or potential connection charges. This is appropriate since the City has author- ity under Chapters 429 and 444 to either collect the cost of utilities by assessment or by connection charge. In addition, the Special Assessment Policy Guide specifically provides with regard to lateral benefit from water trunk and sanitary sewer trunk, that the cost may be collected by either levying an assessment or making a connection charge. If and when questions come up in the future concerning how to characterize these future financial liabilities for utility improvements, the City should be careful not to call them either levied assessments, deferred assessments, or pending assessments. It would probably be best to simply state that they are financial liabilities which have not been levied as assessments and which will either be collected as assessments or connection charges. It is not up to the City to define whether these are pending assessments within the meaning of any particular purchase agreement. These assessments clearly are not deferred assessments within the meaning of Chapter 429.061, since that refers to assessments which are levied and payment is deferred. They are financial liabilities for which assessment was postponed under the authority in Section 429.051 which allows any portion of the cost of an improvement to remain unlevied until a later time. If you would like I could draft a brief state- ment which could be released to people requesting information concerning such financial liabilities. �Ver trulZIA , jta Bradley Smith BS:ras OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BEOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Cay Clear RE: Dear In response to your inquiry regarding future financial liabilities for utility improvements relating to the above described property, please refer to the attachment summarizing these liabilities and how they were computed. This summary assumes that the property is zoned , and that the lia- bilities are paid or assessed in 19 . If the zoning changes or if payment or assessment is made at a later time, the amount due could change. The liabilities are due upon development of the property, platting of the proper- ty, inclusion of the property in a Planned Unit Development, issuance of a building permit, or connection of the property to the referenced utility improvements. These future financial liabilities are not levied assessments. They are liabilities which the City may require to be paid either by making connection charges or by levying assessments upon the happening of any of the events mentioned above. They relate to improvements previously installed pursuant to Project I! in 19_ and to improvements not yet installed. (alter previous sentence as appropriate). If you have any further questions concerning these liabilities, please feel free to contact me. TAC:ras Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY it 1;: M FROM: PAUL HAUGE BE: ASSESSMENTS DATE: February 27, 1984 Tom Colbert called on February 24 with several fact situations that may take some research and some reply to him. 1. On Galaxy Avenue, the street improvements and perhaps` some lateral improvements also within Galaxy Road, which I believe were essentially accom- plished by MnDOT, took about 3 years to get completed. Now, the work appar- ently is done and the City is going to assess the adjacent property, which in effect includes a complete subdivision that has, during the interim, been platted with the final plat being filed and recorded. Property owners, per- haps a quarter mile away, have purchased houses and in order to spread these assessments, Tom is saying that he would technically have to notice all those people within the subdivision. They showed up as pending assessments at the time that the property was platted and probably also at the time each lot was sold. Possibly, banks have held an escrow for the pending assessments and of course it may be important to know exactly what lots the pending assessment search covers. 2. He also gave the example of Westbury Addition on Wilderness Run Road where Richard Knutson Construction Co. is in dispute in arbitration on a couple situations. One is street improvements along Wilderness Run Road before the Triple A but assessments have not been levied against the adjoining property, for I believe street improvements and some other lateral improve- ments. In that case, possibley Tom will have to go ahead with the assess- ments, estimating what the final costs are going to be and not wait any longer because the same factual situation is true in Westbury as was true along Galaxy Avenue. 3. He also mentioned that Eagandale Industrial Park, where there is a new replat, at the time the development agreement was entered into with North- western Mutual Life Insurance Co., apparently, Northwestern Mutual agreed to spreading assessments for the new'street improvements and laterals on a square foot basis against the lots. The City said it didn't care how it was done and hopefully this got into the development agreement and should clearly be checked. We didn't record the development agreement so the buyer of one of the lots, which is a fairly substantial one, has now come to the City and said 'Why is my lot being assessed so much higher than the one adjacent to me with the same number of front feet, even though my lot has many more square feet' Tom thinks there is going to be a test on the assessments once the assessments are levied up there. we'll have to check carefully on the agreement with Northwestern Mutual and also the pending assessment searches that may have been given at the time that they went out. 4. There seems to be a couple ways of resolving some of these problems and one would be as follows: a. At a time that a plat is approved along a street, for instance where there are pending assessments, but not levied, to get a separate agreement from the developer that will run with the land, covering suc- cessors and assigns, that it will agree that all assessments levied covering those pending assessments, will attach to each parcel of land as it is platted and sold. There still may be a problem with subsequent Property owners who will claim that they did not get notice, but at least it will be in the record. b. Possibly, the development agreement can be expanded somewhat to make certain that it includes provisions of this nature. Maybe we al- ready have something in there that covers waiver of notice, but one defect is that our development agreements are not getting recorded and it would be generally advisable not to record development agreements. c. The property owner, possibly should be posting an escrow at the time of filing of the plat, but of course, that could be very onerous, and yet, the offset of that is that those assessments would otherwise be levied against the property. d. The escrow could be in a form that would be leviable against each of the lots, and with an estimate, and would have to be posted as a building permit came in for each lot, or some such Provision. 0 40 gAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLEN. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas A. Colbert Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Fagan, MN 55122 Re: Martin Shields Project 11113 Dear Tom: June 11, 1984 AREA COME 612 TELvHONX 454-4224 I am enclosing a letter that I would suggest be sent to Martin Shields covering t e'options that could be used in bringing the assessments under Project f/3 up to date. There may be other alternates that we have not covered in a letter, but Br=- and I have talked about them and these appear to be some t at could be used. You note in the last paragraph that I mentioned that the City would file a notice with the County Recorder that there are noncertified deferred assess- ments in the event that a buyer does happen to come along and misses the assess- ment. It is my understanding that the City has filed notices of this nature and if you have, that you probably have a form to use for this purpose. If not, we will help to prepare a form which should be notarized and all of the recording information should be clearly on it. I recalled that about the time that this assessment was originally levied that I prepared an agreement that Martin was to sign which I'm certain he didn't ever sign. It is important to be cautious on this type of project because, of course, it is very similar to the Federal Land factual situation Ind a few others that you have run up against. Very truly yours, Paul H. Hauge City"Attorney - City of Eagan skk enclosure BEA BLOMOUIST . .T..Cc THOMASEGAN JAMES A, SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER COONCIE MEMBERS 0 OF F -i �EAGA"', A E50TA PryO`E 4100 i dune 11, 1984 1 Mr. and Mrs. Martin Shields 1396 Lone Oak Road Eagan, MN 55121 0 Re: Project $113 - Donnywood Addition Improvements Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shields: THOMASHEDGES EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CITY CLERK It has come to our attention that the improvements, including utilities and street improvements under Project 11113 originally commenced in 1974 including improvements along Towerview Road under Project 11113, have not been assessed against your property. You may remember that at your request the City Council deferred the assessments and again extended the deferrment on April 16, 1977, for an additional three years. Neither the City nor you arranged for a later extension or deferrment and the original assessments, which were in the sum of $13,365.16, have not been levied and have not been paid. We have calculated that at 8% simple interest which was the assessment interest factor in effect at that time, would now result in a principal balance, including the interest, of approximately $24,000. It is our recommendation that due to the fact that the original assessment was to be spread over 20 years, that the principal now be spread over ten remaining years and that the assessment be levied. This could be done in one of several ways: 1. The City could commence a new hearing and levy the assessments at the rate in effect at.the present time. 2. The City could commence the assessment process and levy the assessments based upon the 1974 rates plus 8% interest to the present time. 3. You, as the property owners, could waive notice of any hearing requirements and allow the assessment to be levied at one of the two rates that are included in the two options mentioned above. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. 0 0 Mr. and Mrs. Shields June 11, 1984 Page Two I would ask that you get back to me as quickly as possible because the City Council, at its meeting on June 5, instructed the staff to proceed with the assessments at the earliest possible time. We will proceed to file a Notice with the County Recorder that there is an assessment that was deferred in 1974 so that any potential purchaser would be clearly aware of the deferred assessment. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Colbert Public Works Director skk 70 ■ 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 July 20, 1984 RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING - JULY 30, 1984 BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMASEGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Coumd Members THOMAS HEDGES City A6 ftator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ON Clerk This letter is to inform you that the City of Eagan Special Assess- ment Committee has scheduled a -meeting for Monday, July 30, 1984 at 4:30 P.M. to be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The purpose of this meeting will be to review your specific request pertaining to special assessments. Your specific objection/request will be forwarded to the Special Assessment Committee together with background information as prepared by City Staff along with a re- commendation for action. The Special Assessment Committee will then review this information and make a recommendation to the City Council for formal approval. While your attendance at this Special Assessment Committee meeting is not mandatory, it is recommended that you attend to explain in further detail any information that you feel would be appropriate in consideration of your request. The additional information will be forthcoming in the near future under separate mailing. If, for any reason, you cannot attend this Special Assessment Committee meeting, please contact me as soon as possible so that the Committee can be informed accordingly. Sincerely, L Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public works TAC:jbd cc: Special Assessment Committee City Attorney -- Special Assessment Clerk THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Robert J. O'Neil 2040 Edgecumbe Road St. Paul, MN 55116 (Parcel No. 10-01000-010-56) Mr. Francis C. Franz 1620 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 (Parcel NO. 10-02100-010-50) Mrs. Anna S. Heuer 1530 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 (Parcel No.10-02100-010-78) PROJECT 349, EAST & WEST OF BLUE GENTIAN RD Francis J. O'Neill Michael E. Terry 820 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 10-53340-010-01) Lot 1, O'Neill's First Add. Mary K. O'Neill 830 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 10-53340-020-01) Lot 2, O'Neill's First Add. Kenneth L. Schmidt 810 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 01-53320-088-00) Part of Lot 8, Robert O'Neill Homestead) Howard G. Stacker c/o Stacker & Ravich 900 First Bank P1. W. Mpls., MN 55402 (Parcel No. 10-53320-085-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 01-53320-087-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 10-53320-022-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 10-00200-010-27) (Parcel No. 10-00200-010-01) Part of Lot 8, Part of Lot 8, Part of Lot 2, NORWEST FIRST ADDITION - UTILITIES William A. MacPherson Norwest Properties, Inc. 4375 Multi Foods Tower 33 South 6th Street Mpls., Mn 55402 (Lot 1, Block 1, Norwest 1st Add) — STREETS & STORM SEWER • MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING C0MMISSI0N EAGAN, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 20, 1981 A regular meeting of the Eagan Advisory Planning Commission was held on Thursday, December 20, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Pre- sent were Members Hall, Wilkins, Taylor, Mulrooney and Krob. Absent were Members Bohne, McCrea and Wold. Also present were Assistant City Engineer Hefti, City Planner Runkle, and City Attorney Hauge. AGENDA Mulrooney moved, Krob seconded the motion to approve the Agenda with the understanding that the application of General Coatings for revision to a conditional use permit to allow a new location for an existing pylon sign at 2805 Dodd Road be stricken at the request of the applicant. All members voted yes. . Wilkins moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1984 regular meeting. All members voted in favor. LEMAY LAM 1ST ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Hall convened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. regarding the application of Opus Corporation and Healey Ramme Corporation for preliminary plat approval of Lemay Lake 1st Addition consisting of approximately 17.7 acres and containing 288 dwelling units lying south of Lone Oak Road and west of I -35E. Dale Runkle reviewed the preliminary report including the updated report dated November 12, 1984. He indicated that there were four major reasons why the Council requested the applicants return to the Planning Com- mission, including the following: 1. The Council requested an overall concept plan to indicate how access would be provided to the property to the east, including an overall circula- tion pattern. Three commercial buildings abutting Lone Oak Road and I -35E are reflected, including two additional office buildings. It was noted that the zoning does not precisely fit the proposal and therefore the applicants were required to rezone to conform to the proposed concept. 2. Access to the development was also reviewed indicating the major access would be from Eagandale Blvd. to the south as proposed. There would be one minor access with right -in right -out between Eagandale Blvd. and Poplar • Drive which would be moved somewhat easterly from the first proposal. 1 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 49 3. The density of the development indicated that the applicants were over the allotted square footage but with a change in mix, reducing the number of two-bedroom units and increasing the number of one -bedroom units, they could comply with the density restrictions. 4. The City has recently adopted a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and staff has met with DNR representatives to review the site plan. There is a question as to whether the parcel requires compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance and DNR has indicated it would make recommendations only if it stated that the development is more dense than DNR would prefer. Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation and Tom Healey of Healey Ramme were present. Mr. Worthington explained the land use plan for the entire parcel, including the commercial land on the east. He stated that Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company has joined in the plat application, owning the property on the easterly side and that now a circular traffic pattern is being pro- posed. A traffic study has been completed and it concluded that each of the two traffic patterns would be satisfactory. He stated the single major inter- section at Eagandale Blvd. is the safest and most desirable. • Mr. Worthington also mentioned that an EAW for the Eagandale development had been prepared and that a letter updating the EAW had been submitted to the City. He indicated the study noted no significant change between the former and the current proposals, including water run-off into Lemay Lake. • Tom Healey described the proposed apartment plan. He stated that emer- gency vehicle access through the center of the project is being proposed. A six foot continuous berm along the westerly property line with evergreens on the top and drainage provisions will be installed with 8 foot berm on the northerly end. There are also other internal street configuration changes. A catch basin with skimmer will be installed permitting greater sedimentation and providing skimming of oil. He stated that the developers have met with the neighbors to the west and also southwest across Lemay Lake. A request was made by the neighbors to remove the southwesterly 6 units of Building B which the developer prefers to retain. He further explained that the developers had agreed not to build additional R-4 units in that particular area. No neighboring property owners were present. Member Wilkins had questions about the southeasterly triangle. Mr. Worthington stated that negotiations had taken place with the City for dedi- cation of the parcel as park and open space with possible access through the office project. If six units are removed, then the developer could comply with density. Pa 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 E Member Mulrooney questioned the gross and net density calculations and Mr. Runkle indicated that the calculations for net density are determined by taking out public right-of-way and also the private right-of-way. A range of 212 to 354 units could be allowed, depending on the number of bedrooms per unit. The planner was asked to submit reports with the range of minimum - maximum density that would be allowed in the multi -family projects. It was also noted the original EAW was based upon 200 apartment units and now 288 are being proposed, that an 80,000 square foot office building was being proposed and now 200,000 square feet of office building is shown on the plan. Member Mulrooney also questioned whether the concept plan for the parcel to the east is firm and Mr. Worthington stated that the general concept is accurate and that the developers and owners will submit such confirmation in writing. Member Krob stated that there is no change in the number of units per acre. There were questions about circulation and it was noted the pre- vious plan did not have an internal circulation plan. Chairman Hall recom- mended reducing the project by 6 units to bring it into compliance. . Wilkins then moved, Kroh seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for preliminary plat and concept plan for the adjacent land with 282 apartment units, subject to the following: 1. No additional storm water runoff shall be added to the existing 48 inch storm sewer, unless the existing storm sewer is increased in size accord- ingly. 2: Public improvements shall be petitioned by the developer and ordered in by the Council prior to final plat approval. 3. This development shall be responsible for constructing a 5 foot concrete walk along its Lone Oak Road frontage. 4. A minimum 50 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for Lone Oak Road. 5. If a 60 foot right-of-way for Eagandale Place is dedicated, then a 20 foot utility easement shall be dedicated adjacent to public right-of-way as required by Staff. 6. This development shall be responsible for its trunk storm sewer area and lateral benefit from trunk water main assessments at the rates in effect at the time of final platting. 7. Easements for ponding, watermain and sanitary sewer shall be dedi- cated on the final plat. • '8. All costs for public improvements associated with this development shall be the sole responsibility of this development. 3 Ll • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 41 9. The access driveway to the southwesterly 108 unit complex shall be a minimum of 32 feet in width. 10. A six foot berm with evergreens on the top and 8 foot berm along the northerly portion shall be installed by the developer. 11. The garage driveway on the westerly building shall be turned to run northerly rather than directly west. 12. No further residential development shall be developed on the entire parcel, including the parcel to the east. 13. Evergreen screening shall be installed on the south end of the westerly building. 14. Catch basins with skimmers shall be installed as proposed by the developer and approved by the City. 15. The Planning Commission recommends alternate 2 with a looped public street. All members voted in favor except Mulrooney who stated that he was not satisfied that the density of the units had been properly determined and also that the environmental issues had not been properly considered, noting that the EAW has not been adequately undertaken for the current proposal. The hearing was completed at 8:30 p.m. ZING ADDITION - PRELIMMARY PLAT AND REZONING The hearing regarding the application of Gary King for preliminary plat approval of King Addition and rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-1 (Residen- tial Single), consisting of 10 lots on 10 acres of land was convened by the Chairman. It was noted the application had been submitted to the City in September of 1984 and the proposal was then continued for additional study. A revision to the plan has now been made. Mr. Runkle detailed the application and noted that two feasibility studies had been performed with the previous .proposal. Nine of the lots would access from the extension of Golden Meadow Road and the existing home would continue to take access from the north on Hackmore Drive. Approximately 4 lots could be created from Lot 2 with access to Hackmore Drive at some time in the future. Mr. and Mrs. Gary King were present as well as several neighbors, including Armand Laurent. Mr. Laurent had concerns about assessments and stated that there was no benefit to his property if theutilities would be installed. 4 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 1] A letter from Thomas and Gretchen Murr objecting to the proposed utilities and street improvements was submitted. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for rezoning and further for preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Golden Meadow Road public improvements shall be approved by Council prior to final plat approval. Road. 2. A 30 foot half right-of-way shall be dedicated for Golden Meadow 3. No driveways shall exceed 10% slope. 4. All other City requirements shall be complied with. 5. A detailed erosion control plan shall be submitted according to City requirements. All members voted in the affirmative. 0. BRAD RAGAN, INC. PYLON SIGN - CONDITIONAL USE PMMT The hearing regarding the application of Brad Ragan, Inc. for conditional use permit for pylon sign to be located at 3815 Nicols-Road came before the Planning Commission. The applicant now has a Goodyear ground sign and several other signs on the property at the intersection of Cedar and Highway #13 and it was noted that one pylon sign would be allowed. A representative of Brad Ragan was present and stated that all other non -conforming signs will be removed to comply with the oridinance. Mulrooney moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pylon sign shall be limited to 99 square feet in area per side and 22 feet in height.. 2. The pylon sign shall be a minimum of 10 feet from any property line. 3. Signs on the property shall be limited to one ground sign less than 7 feet in height and directional signs of less than 3 square feet in area. 4. All other signs presently on the proeprty and not in conformance will be removed from the premises immediately. All voted in favor. R APC Minutes . December 20, 1984 • RAGAH HOODS OFFICE PARR - PRELIMINARY PLAT The next hearing that came before the Planning Commission concerned the application of Trammell Crow Company for preliminary plat approval of Eagan Woods Office Park consisting of 6.60 acres and proposed to contain a 4 story office building with 72,000 square feet. The second portion of the applica- tion is concept approval for the total 18.8 acres to constitute the land use plan for the Eagan Woods Planned Development. The total plan would consist of either office or hotel which would contain approximately 160 rooms or 55,000 square feet. Dale Runkle reviewed the application in detail with the Planning Commission and it was noted that the property is now zoned Planned Development with underlying Roadside Business zoning. He also stated that the history includes a review of the airport safety zone ordinance and the new property owners have purchased the site proposing nearly the same uses that were originally allowed under the Planned Development. Tree surveys have been made and it was noted that due to the very rough site, the developer will provide retaining walls. Mr. Runkle stated the site characteristics are important and the developer is studying the site in detail to retain natural amenities. He further noted that a conditional use permit • had been required for a four-story building and suggested review of the appli- cation with the understanding that a future hearing on the conditional use will be required. • Robert Hoffman, attorney, and representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Hoffman explained the background of Trammell Crow Corporation noting that it develops properties throughout the United States, including various types of development and normally retains ownership of its develop- ments. Mr. Hoffman made the following comments: 1. There is adequate space for additional parking, if needed in the future. 2. He requested that the employee parking spaces be smaller than the city requirements. 3. He requested a variance setback from the public right-of-way. 4. A common theme for landscaping and lighting will be provided, but a request was made to allow a variety in building themes. 5. He requested a 50 foot right-of-way rather than 60 foot public right-of-way to allow additional green space. 11 E • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 40 6. The developer requested it be permitted to work with the site and provide internal storm sewer for phase I and determine in the future whether extending the system to the Minnesota River is necessary. The architect for the project reviewed the plans in relation to the site and stated that natural amenities and contours will be maintained to as great an extent as possible. Gary O'Brien of Trammell Crow was present and there were no objections to the application. Rich Hefti stated that easements will be needed including area for adequate snow storage adjacent to the internal public street, and therefore recommended a 60 foot right-of-way. Gary O'Brien indicated that a 20 foot setback variance would not be necessary until construction of the proposed motel on Outlot A. It was understood that the 20 foot green strip would be required in the future. Mulrooney moved, Rrob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application for preliminary plat consisting of an office. lot and .two Outlots subject to the following conditions: • 1. A Planned Development Agreement shall be entered into for the over- all plan as submitted with the planning report for the project. 2. An architectural design shall be established by the developer and reviewed by City staff in order that all of the buildings will have a common architectural theme. 3. Acoustical treatment shall be provided within the building in order to minimize any noise impact on this site from the planes overhead or I-494 to the north. 4. The Planned Development shall continue for a maximum of five years and a determination should be made that either the PD include the height of the building to allow 4 stories or separate conditional use permit shall be required for each building. 5. The plat shall be revised and subject to MnDOT's and Dakota County Plat Commission's comments because the plat abuts state and county right-of- way. 6. The building shall be designed to take into account the Fire Depart- ment criteria regarding the four story building. It shall meet all of the criteria of a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowable height in. a commercial district. • 7. A detailed lighting and landscape plan shall be submitted and a land9cape bond approved by the City shall be required and not released until one year after the landscaping has been completed and approved by the City. 7 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 8. The plat shall be subject to the City park dedication fee require- ments for commercially platted land at the time of approval of each final plat. 9. Only 280 parking spaces will be permitted at the time of the initial phase but up to an additional 72 spaces shall be provided and promptly installed by the developer or owner when requested by the City. 10. Detailed plans and specifications for the reinforced earth retaining walls shall be submitted for review and approved by the City staff. 11. Calculations used to determine storm water ponding area shall be submitted for review and approved by the City staff. 12. This development shall be responsible for all costs associated with obtaining the necessary MWCC permits and shall abide by MWCC rqui_rements related to these permits. 13. A public improvement project for streets and utilities shall be approved by the City Council, including the storm sewer outfall to the • Minnesota River Valley, if necessary. 14. A minimum 50 foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for Eagan Woods Drive with the understanding there will be minimum 20 foot setbacks. 15. This development shall be responsible for obtianing the necessary easement at its cost for Eagan Wood Blvd. from parcel 01-00400-060-02. 16. This development shall be responsible for all costs associaetd with obtaining the necessary MnDOT permits to work within MnDOT right-of-way. 17. This development shall be responsible for trunk related assessments for trunk area water upgrading, trunk area storm sewer and lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer at the rates in effectat the time of final platting. 18. This development shall assume full responsibility for all costs of public improvements for streets, sanitary sewer, watermain and internal storm sewer. 19. All other applicable City Code and policy requirements shall be complied with by the developer. 20. 9 by 20 foot and and 9 by 18 foot parking spaces shall be allowed at the discretion of City staff with 6 handicapped and 12 visitor spaces of 10 feet by 20 feet each. , • "All members voted yes, except Hall who abstained. 0 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 E EAGAN HOODS OFFICE PARK - CONCEPT APPROVAL Mulrooney then moved, Wilkins seconded the motion to recommend approval of the concept plan for the Eagan Woods Office Park, noting that a Planned Development Agreement shall be entered into for the overall plan submitted with the Planning report; further, that the concept plan and other exhibits included with the packet shall be made a part of the Planned Development Agreement. All members voted yes except Hall who abstained on the motion. RABNCLIFF 2ND ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT The hearing regarding the application of M.G. Astleford for preliminary plat approval of Rahncliff 2nd Addition consisting of one 5.7 acre lot to include a 65,000 square foot three-story office building, came before the Planning Commission. Dale Runkle explained the project and noted the site plan provides for 305 surface parking spaces and 70 underground.parking stalls, which exceeds the 347 parking spaces required by City Code. Extensive noise control methods should be utilized, including berming, landscaping and architectural design which could lessen the noise impact. Charles Novak, • ' architect, and Jim Hill, Planner, were present. Mr. Novak stated that a window glazing system with glass set in rubber gaskets, and the thickness of the walls will tend to cut down the noise impact on the building. A row of trees will be constructed along the freeway side and the Planning Commission members recommended tightening the parking area to provide for additional green space along the exterior. The parcel directly to the south is intended for park and ponding. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to these conditions: 1. Approval from MnDOT regarding drainage onto I -35E right-of-way shall be acquired. 2. A public improvement project shall be approved prior to final plat approval. 3. All costs for future lateral public improvements and lateral benefit from trunk watermain shall be the sole responsibility of this development. 4. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for Staff approval prior to any construction, showing plat species, size and location. Special attention shall be paid to I -35E buffering and interior/exterior screening of the parking lot. 5. All other City ordinances shall be adhered to. • All members voted in the affirmative. 4 • APC Minutes December 20, 1984 0 ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION E Dale Runkle stated the following members terms expire and requested that if any of the members whose terms expire request or desire to be reappointed, that a letter should be sent to the City Administrator: Loyd Krob, Pam McCrea and Roy Taylor. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Mr. Runkle stated that the staff has designated January 29, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. as the Joint Special Meeting with the City Council to review planned developments in the City. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned .at 10:20 p.m. All members voted in favor. • PHH Secretary. • 10 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE RALPH W. COREY Thomas Colbert Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 HAIIGE, Smrm & EIDE, P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 3905 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 85122 January 11, 1985 RE: Future Assessment Liabilities for Undeveloped Property Dear Tom: AREA CODE 512 TELEPHONE 454-4224 A question has arisen as to how the City should respond to questions from developers relating to future financial liability relating to undeveloped property. These are amounts which have not as yet been levied but relate to either public improvements already installed or improvements to be installed in the future for which financial liabilities can be computed based upon area, front foot or lineal foot computations. In the past, the City has character- ized these future financial liabilities as either potential assessments or potential connection charges. This is appropriate since the City has author- ity under Chapters 429 and 444 to either collect the cost of utilities by assessment or by connection charge. In addition, the Special Assessment Policy Guide specifically provides with regard to lateral benefit from water trunk and sanitary sewer trunk, that the cost may be collected by either levying an assessment or making a connection charge. If and when questions come up in the future concerning how to characterize these future financial liabilities for utility improvements, the City should be careful not to call them either levied assessments, deferred assessments, or pending assessments. It would probably be best to simply state that they are financial liabilities which have not been levied as assessments and which will either be collected as assessments or connection charges. It is not up to the City to define whether these are pending assessments within the meaning of any particular purchase agreement. These assessments clearly are not deferred assessments within the meaning of Chapter 429.061, since that refers to assessments which are levied and payment is deferred. They are financial liabilities for which assessment was postponed under the authority in Section 429.051 which allows any portion of the cost of an improvement to remain unlevied until a later time. If you would like I could draft a brief state- ment which could be released to people requesting information concerning such financial liabilities. �Ver trulZIA , jta Bradley Smith BS:ras OF 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BEOMQUIST EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Cay Clear RE: Dear In response to your inquiry regarding future financial liabilities for utility improvements relating to the above described property, please refer to the attachment summarizing these liabilities and how they were computed. This summary assumes that the property is zoned , and that the lia- bilities are paid or assessed in 19 . If the zoning changes or if payment or assessment is made at a later time, the amount due could change. The liabilities are due upon development of the property, platting of the proper- ty, inclusion of the property in a Planned Unit Development, issuance of a building permit, or connection of the property to the referenced utility improvements. These future financial liabilities are not levied assessments. They are liabilities which the City may require to be paid either by making connection charges or by levying assessments upon the happening of any of the events mentioned above. They relate to improvements previously installed pursuant to Project I! in 19_ and to improvements not yet installed. (alter previous sentence as appropriate). If you have any further questions concerning these liabilities, please feel free to contact me. TAC:ras Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public Works THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY it 1;: M FROM: PAUL HAUGE BE: ASSESSMENTS DATE: February 27, 1984 Tom Colbert called on February 24 with several fact situations that may take some research and some reply to him. 1. On Galaxy Avenue, the street improvements and perhaps` some lateral improvements also within Galaxy Road, which I believe were essentially accom- plished by MnDOT, took about 3 years to get completed. Now, the work appar- ently is done and the City is going to assess the adjacent property, which in effect includes a complete subdivision that has, during the interim, been platted with the final plat being filed and recorded. Property owners, per- haps a quarter mile away, have purchased houses and in order to spread these assessments, Tom is saying that he would technically have to notice all those people within the subdivision. They showed up as pending assessments at the time that the property was platted and probably also at the time each lot was sold. Possibly, banks have held an escrow for the pending assessments and of course it may be important to know exactly what lots the pending assessment search covers. 2. He also gave the example of Westbury Addition on Wilderness Run Road where Richard Knutson Construction Co. is in dispute in arbitration on a couple situations. One is street improvements along Wilderness Run Road before the Triple A but assessments have not been levied against the adjoining property, for I believe street improvements and some other lateral improve- ments. In that case, possibley Tom will have to go ahead with the assess- ments, estimating what the final costs are going to be and not wait any longer because the same factual situation is true in Westbury as was true along Galaxy Avenue. 3. He also mentioned that Eagandale Industrial Park, where there is a new replat, at the time the development agreement was entered into with North- western Mutual Life Insurance Co., apparently, Northwestern Mutual agreed to spreading assessments for the new'street improvements and laterals on a square foot basis against the lots. The City said it didn't care how it was done and hopefully this got into the development agreement and should clearly be checked. We didn't record the development agreement so the buyer of one of the lots, which is a fairly substantial one, has now come to the City and said 'Why is my lot being assessed so much higher than the one adjacent to me with the same number of front feet, even though my lot has many more square feet' Tom thinks there is going to be a test on the assessments once the assessments are levied up there. we'll have to check carefully on the agreement with Northwestern Mutual and also the pending assessment searches that may have been given at the time that they went out. 4. There seems to be a couple ways of resolving some of these problems and one would be as follows: a. At a time that a plat is approved along a street, for instance where there are pending assessments, but not levied, to get a separate agreement from the developer that will run with the land, covering suc- cessors and assigns, that it will agree that all assessments levied covering those pending assessments, will attach to each parcel of land as it is platted and sold. There still may be a problem with subsequent Property owners who will claim that they did not get notice, but at least it will be in the record. b. Possibly, the development agreement can be expanded somewhat to make certain that it includes provisions of this nature. Maybe we al- ready have something in there that covers waiver of notice, but one defect is that our development agreements are not getting recorded and it would be generally advisable not to record development agreements. c. The property owner, possibly should be posting an escrow at the time of filing of the plat, but of course, that could be very onerous, and yet, the offset of that is that those assessments would otherwise be levied against the property. d. The escrow could be in a form that would be leviable against each of the lots, and with an estimate, and would have to be posted as a building permit came in for each lot, or some such Provision. 0 40 gAUGE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLEN. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS 7908 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122 PAUL H. HAUGE BRADLEY SMITH KEVIN W. EIDE DAVID G. KELLER Mr. Thomas A. Colbert Public Works Director 3830 Pilot Knob Road Fagan, MN 55122 Re: Martin Shields Project 11113 Dear Tom: June 11, 1984 AREA COME 612 TELvHONX 454-4224 I am enclosing a letter that I would suggest be sent to Martin Shields covering t e'options that could be used in bringing the assessments under Project f/3 up to date. There may be other alternates that we have not covered in a letter, but Br=- and I have talked about them and these appear to be some t at could be used. You note in the last paragraph that I mentioned that the City would file a notice with the County Recorder that there are noncertified deferred assess- ments in the event that a buyer does happen to come along and misses the assess- ment. It is my understanding that the City has filed notices of this nature and if you have, that you probably have a form to use for this purpose. If not, we will help to prepare a form which should be notarized and all of the recording information should be clearly on it. I recalled that about the time that this assessment was originally levied that I prepared an agreement that Martin was to sign which I'm certain he didn't ever sign. It is important to be cautious on this type of project because, of course, it is very similar to the Federal Land factual situation Ind a few others that you have run up against. Very truly yours, Paul H. Hauge City"Attorney - City of Eagan skk enclosure BEA BLOMOUIST . .T..Cc THOMASEGAN JAMES A, SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER COONCIE MEMBERS 0 OF F -i �EAGA"', A E50TA PryO`E 4100 i dune 11, 1984 1 Mr. and Mrs. Martin Shields 1396 Lone Oak Road Eagan, MN 55121 0 Re: Project $113 - Donnywood Addition Improvements Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shields: THOMASHEDGES EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE CITY CLERK It has come to our attention that the improvements, including utilities and street improvements under Project 11113 originally commenced in 1974 including improvements along Towerview Road under Project 11113, have not been assessed against your property. You may remember that at your request the City Council deferred the assessments and again extended the deferrment on April 16, 1977, for an additional three years. Neither the City nor you arranged for a later extension or deferrment and the original assessments, which were in the sum of $13,365.16, have not been levied and have not been paid. We have calculated that at 8% simple interest which was the assessment interest factor in effect at that time, would now result in a principal balance, including the interest, of approximately $24,000. It is our recommendation that due to the fact that the original assessment was to be spread over 20 years, that the principal now be spread over ten remaining years and that the assessment be levied. This could be done in one of several ways: 1. The City could commence a new hearing and levy the assessments at the rate in effect at.the present time. 2. The City could commence the assessment process and levy the assessments based upon the 1974 rates plus 8% interest to the present time. 3. You, as the property owners, could waive notice of any hearing requirements and allow the assessment to be levied at one of the two rates that are included in the two options mentioned above. THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY. 0 0 Mr. and Mrs. Shields June 11, 1984 Page Two I would ask that you get back to me as quickly as possible because the City Council, at its meeting on June 5, instructed the staff to proceed with the assessments at the earliest possible time. We will proceed to file a Notice with the County Recorder that there is an assessment that was deferred in 1974 so that any potential purchaser would be clearly aware of the deferred assessment. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Colbert Public Works Director skk 70 ■ 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 July 20, 1984 RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING - JULY 30, 1984 BEA BLOMQUIST Mayor THOMASEGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Coumd Members THOMAS HEDGES City A6 ftator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE ON Clerk This letter is to inform you that the City of Eagan Special Assess- ment Committee has scheduled a -meeting for Monday, July 30, 1984 at 4:30 P.M. to be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The purpose of this meeting will be to review your specific request pertaining to special assessments. Your specific objection/request will be forwarded to the Special Assessment Committee together with background information as prepared by City Staff along with a re- commendation for action. The Special Assessment Committee will then review this information and make a recommendation to the City Council for formal approval. While your attendance at this Special Assessment Committee meeting is not mandatory, it is recommended that you attend to explain in further detail any information that you feel would be appropriate in consideration of your request. The additional information will be forthcoming in the near future under separate mailing. If, for any reason, you cannot attend this Special Assessment Committee meeting, please contact me as soon as possible so that the Committee can be informed accordingly. Sincerely, L Thomas A. Colbert, P.E. Director of Public works TAC:jbd cc: Special Assessment Committee City Attorney -- Special Assessment Clerk THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY PROJECT 372, I -35E UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Robert J. O'Neil 2040 Edgecumbe Road St. Paul, MN 55116 (Parcel No. 10-01000-010-56) Mr. Francis C. Franz 1620 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 (Parcel NO. 10-02100-010-50) Mrs. Anna S. Heuer 1530 Deerwood Drive Eagan, MN 55122 (Parcel No.10-02100-010-78) PROJECT 349, EAST & WEST OF BLUE GENTIAN RD Francis J. O'Neill Michael E. Terry 820 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 10-53340-010-01) Lot 1, O'Neill's First Add. Mary K. O'Neill 830 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 10-53340-020-01) Lot 2, O'Neill's First Add. Kenneth L. Schmidt 810 O'Neill Drive Eagan, MN 55121 (Parcel No. 01-53320-088-00) Part of Lot 8, Robert O'Neill Homestead) Howard G. Stacker c/o Stacker & Ravich 900 First Bank P1. W. Mpls., MN 55402 (Parcel No. 10-53320-085-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 01-53320-087-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 10-53320-022-00, Robert O'Neill Homestead) (Parcel No. 10-00200-010-27) (Parcel No. 10-00200-010-01) Part of Lot 8, Part of Lot 8, Part of Lot 2, NORWEST FIRST ADDITION - UTILITIES William A. MacPherson Norwest Properties, Inc. 4375 Multi Foods Tower 33 South 6th Street Mpls., Mn 55402 (Lot 1, Block 1, Norwest 1st Add) — STREETS & STORM SEWER