04/19/2005 - City Council Regular
AGENDA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING
April 19, 2005
6:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ADOPT AGENDA (At approximately 8:00 p.m. the Council will take a short recess)
111. RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS
P A. Oath of Office - Police Officers
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
10~Ia 3 A. APPROVE MINUTES
1 B. PERSONNEL ITEMS
T,2 O C. CHECK REGISTERS
D. ADOPT Resolution Designating US Bank as Depository and Naming Authorized Check Signers
E. APPROVE Turnback Agreement for County Road 63 (Baffin Trail, Yankee Doodle to TH 1.49)
F. APPROVE Contract 05-06, Receive Bids / Award Contract (1-35 Crossing / Pearlmont)
G. DECLARE bicycles, unclaimed property and miscellaneous City property to be surplus
~aa&H. APPROVE contract with the City of Burnsville for auction sales service
1. APPROVE a name change on the Liquor License for Starks Saloon, located at 3125 Dodd Road, to Rickey's
' Cafe/Starks Saloon
~i► tJ. APPROVE change in business structure (ownership) of off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license from RBF
I Corp. of Wisconsin (corporation) to RBF, LLC of Wisconsin (limited liability company)
6031K. APPROVE name change on Tobacco License - RBF, LLC of WI (DBA Rainbow Foods)
~j31f L. APPROVE a temporary on-sale liquor license for Faithful Shepherd Catholic School and waive the $150.00
/ license fee
p3?M. APPROVE Final Subdivision-Pearlmont Heights - A Final Subdivision of 12.44 acres to create 48 twin homes
on 51 lots located at 1535 and 1565 Violet in the SE'/. of Section 18
,pyI N. APPROVE Final Planned Development - Blue Cross Blue Shield - A Final Planned Development for the
daycare located on Lot 2, Block 1, Blue Cross Addition in the NE'/. of Section 17
30. APPROVE Final Subdivision - Cedar BluffBusiness Park - A Final Subdivision of approximately 14.98 acres
r to create two lots to build two (2) office buildings located at Outlot 2 and 3, Silver Bell Addition in the SE '/4 of
ow Section 18.
APPROVE Final Planned Development -Cliff Lake Centre 3 d Addition -A Final Planned Development to
construct a new veterinarian clinic located at 4395 Rahn Road in the NW'/. of Section 29
y~ f 6 Q. APPROVE Final Planned Development - Grand Oak Office Nine - A Final Planned Development of 2.25 acres
r to build a 30,000 square foot Class A office building on Lot 4, Block 1, Grand Oak Five in the SE 1/4 of Section 2.
f ~q R. APPROVE Final Planned Development - Shops @ Grand Oak 5 - A Final Planned Development of 4.08 acres
1 for a 13,000 square foot retail center located on Lot 3, Block 1, Grand Oak Five in the SE'/. of Section 2.
S. APPROVE Final Planned Development - Bank @ Grand Oak 5 - R.J. Ryan Construction - A Final Planned
r Development to build a bank on Lot 2, Block 1, Grand Oak Five in the SE 1/4 of Section 2.
O1. APPROVE application for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)
$*&U. APPROVE Economic Development Commission recommendation for'City participation in the Twin Cities
Community Capital Fund Business Loan Program
P6 V. RECEIVE Petition / Order Public Hearing - Hawthorne Ridge, Easement Vacation
W. ACKNOWLEDGE Award and Proclaim May 14, 2005 as Arbor Day and the Month of May as Arbor Month
X. AWARD bid for a park maintenance tanker truck chassis
Y. APPROVE Tree Contractor License for Aspenwall Tree Service
nOQZ. APPROVE Tree Contractor License for Asplundh Tree Service
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
13A. PROJECT 8008, Final Assessment Hearing, Cedar Grove Access Modifications
VI. OLD BUSINESS
R A. CONFIRM EAW ADEQUACY, WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN, REZONING, PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - Toll Brothers - (Steeplechase of Eagan)
A Rezoning from approximately 38 acres from Agriculture to Planned Development. A Preliminary Planned
Development to allow mixed uses of 37 single family homes and 58 town homes. A Preliminary Subdivision
to create approximately 95 lots for 37single family and 58 town homes at 4889 Pilot Knob Road located in the
SE 1/4 of Section 33.
P)qyB. MODIFICATION - EISENHUTH ORTHODONTIST OFFICE - Modification to the exterior elevations - located
in the SW 1/4 of Section 10.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION- Kennealy Addition- A Preliminary Subdivision of 1.58 acres to create 3
lots located at 2115 Silver Bell Rd. in the SE 1/ 4 of Section 18.
y B. ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
C. APPOINTMENT to Caponi Art Park Board.
pa~~
1 D. AMENDMENT of City Code Chapter 6 relating to the Regulation of Temporary Outdoor Sales of Fireworks.
VIII. LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
E. Comments by City Council, City Administrator, and Department Heads
a gSX. NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE
XI. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (There are no business items at this time)
The Council acting as the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority
("EDA') may discuss and act on the agenda items for the EDA in conjunction with its actions as
a Council.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ADOPT AGENDA
C. APPROVE MINUTES
D. OLD BUSINESS
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. OTHER BUSINESS
G. ADJOURNMENT
XII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD (for those persons not on agenda)
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities
and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual
orientation, or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon
advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such
aid.
City of E. Me
To: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS
From: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
Date: APRIL 15, 2005
Subject: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR APRIL 19, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ADOPT AGENDA
After approval is given to the April 19, 2005 City Council agenda, the following items are in
order for consideration.
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
RECOGNITIONS & PRESENTATIONS
A. OATH OF OFFICE
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To administer the Oath of Office to three new police officers.
FACTS:
• Mayor Geagan will administer the Oath of Office to Brian Boekhoff, Daniel Roseth and
Robbe Waller, who were recently hired as police officers for the City of Eagan.
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA
The following items referred to as consent items require one (1) motion by the City Council. If the
City Council wishes to discuss any of the items in further detail, those items should be removed
from the Consent Agenda and placed under Old or New Business unless the discussion required is
brief.
A. APPROVE MINUTES
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the minutes of the April 5, 2005 regular City Council meeting as presented or
modified.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Minutes of the April 5, 2005 regular City Council meeting are enclosed on pages
through
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DRAFT
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
Eagan, Minnesota
April 5, 2005
A Listening Session was held April 5, 2005 at 6:00 prior to the regular City Council meeting. Marty Johnson invited
Mayor Geagan to an open house on Friday, April 8t' in honor of his father who will be visiting from Nigeria.
A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on April 5, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center.
Present were Mayor Geagan, Councilmembers Fields, and Tilley. Councilmember Maguire was absent due to illness
and Councilmember Carlson was absent due to being out of town. Also present were City Administrator Tom
Hedges, Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein, City Planner Mike Ridley, Public Works Director Tom
Colbert, City Attorney Mike Dougherty and Administrative Secretary / Deputy Clerk Mira Pepper.
AGENDA
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented.
Aye: 3 Nay: 0
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes. It was recommended to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2005 regular City Council meeting,
the March 14, 2005 special City Council meeting and the March 8, 2005 special City council meeting as
presented.
B. Personnel Items.
1. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Brian Boekhoff, Daniel Roseth and Robbe Waller as
Police Officers for the City of Eagan.
2. It was recommended to acknowledge the internal transfer of Linda Dralle, Clerical Tech III, to
Systems Technician.
3. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Christopher Ahrens and Molly Towle as a part-time
seasonal Lifeguard Supervisors for Cascade Bay.
4. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Michael Mason and Elisa Swenson as a part-time
seasonal Guest Relations Supervisor for Cascade Bay.
5. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Jennifer Berkopec, Brian Boufford, Jamie Boufford,
Corey Burns, Lindsay childs, Kely Colbert, Kelly Craven Nick Csargo, Nathan Dunn, Shawna
Forschen, Brittany Genelin, Emily Harvey, Lisa kleinschmidt, Becky Kaufman, Cody Knutson,
Elyse Kyro, Taylor Lamski, Danelle Larson, Nicole Litzner, Meagan Lostetter, Elizabeth Luke,
Sarah Luke, Katlin Marko, Maria Melcher, Lauren Michelsen, Ben Millmann, Scott Mott, Mike
Nord, Jessica Ofstedahl, Jackie Peters, Ryan Ruzicka, Kelly Schaffer, Blair smith, Erica Somers,
Sara Swanson, Anne Weston, Meggan Wier, Jennifer Woelfel, Jill Woelfel and Alex Wright as
part-time seasonal lifeguards for Cascade Bay.
6. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Amanda Barse, Mallory Berg, Mark Bresher,
Michael Dunn, Michael Eilers, Nicholas Eilers, Kevin Eldridge, Ashley Germond, Eric Holmay,
Matt Johnson, Andy Lund, Bailey Meiklejohn, Courtney Peterson, Molly Rodgers, Eric Starnes,
Erinn Swinton, Chester Teich, Salena Tumini and Ashley Weninger as part-time seasonal guest
relations workers for Cascade Bay.
7. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Stefanie Berkopec, Katherine Fink, Nicole
Hogenson, Tessa Kleinschmidt, Jamie Lewis, Anne Marascvilo, Elizabeth O'Connell and Emma
Weston as part-time seasonal pool attendants for Cascade Bay.
8. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Daniel Streefland as a part-time seasonal
maintenance worker for Cascade Bay.
9. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Daniel Montague as a part-time seasonal program
assistant/coordinator.
10. It was recommended to acknowledge the resignation of Police Officer Thomas Weinzettel.
11. It was recommended to acknowledge the retirement of Michael Marxer, a 30-year employee in
Streets Maintenance.
12. It was recommended to approve the hiring of Gene Walz as an Administrative Intern.
I/
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT
April 5, 2005
Page 2
C. Check Registers. It was recommended to ratify the check registers dated March 17, 2005 and March 31,
2005 as presented.
D. National Incident Management System. It was recommended to adopt resolution endorsing the concept and
use of the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS).
E. Delinquent Utility Bills. It was recommended to set a public hearing for May 3, 2005 to consider the final
assessment of the delinquent utility bills and certify them to Dakota County for collection with property
taxes.
F. Delinquent False Alarm Bills. It was recommended to set a public hearing for May 3, 2005 to consider the
final assessment of the delinquent false alarm bills and certify them to Dakota County for collection with
property taxes.
G. Donation. It was recommended to adopt a resolution accepting a $5,000 donation from Thomson West for
the purchase of Fire Department equipment.
H. Change Order. It was recommended to approve Change Order No. 1 wit Pierce Manufacturing for fire
pumper/tanker truck.
1. Final Plat. It was recommended to approve a Final Plat to combine three tax parcels to create one lot for
property located at 3245 Terminal Drive in the NE'/. of Section 08.
J. Amendment to Minutes. It was recommended to amend the minutes of the March 1, 2005 City Council
Meeting by adding condition number seven to reflect the north and west sides of the outdoor storage
enclosure to be constructed with a wooden privacy fence.
K. Final Subdivision and Final Planned Development. It was recommended to approve a Final Subdivision
(Clubview Addition) of 5 acres to create 2 lots for property located at 3070 Lexington Avenue. It was also
recommended to approve a Final Planned Development for one office building and a contractors yard with
a residential house present with a sunset agreement for Clubview Addition located at 3070 Lexington
Avenue.
L. Omitted
M. Temporary On-Sale Liquor License. It was recommended to approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for
the Twin Cities Good Time Softball league.
N. Waiver of Fee. It was recommended to waive the temporary on-sale liquor license fee for the Eagan
Foundation and issue a refund of the $150.00 fee paid by the organization.
0. Memo of Understanding. It was recommended to ratify a Memo of Understanding between the Cities of
Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Dakota County to
jointly apply for an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant (JAG) in the amount of $70,821.00. These
funds would be utilized by the Dakota county Drug Task Force.
P. Contract 04-11. It was recommended to approve the final payment for Contract 04-11 (Holz Farm Park -
Utility Service Improvements) in the amount of $31,544.20 to Frattalone Companies, Inc., and accept the
improvements for perpetual City maintenance subject to warranty provisions.
Q. Contract 03-09. It was recommended to approve Change Order 411 to Contract 03-09 (Water Treatment
Plant Expansion) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
R. Request for Municipal State Aid Route Designation. It was recommended to approve a resolution
requesting the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation's approval of the designation of various existing
street segments on to the Municipal State Aid (MSA) roadway system.
S. Project 922. It was recommended to receive the petition and authorize the preparation of feasibility report
by the City Engineer for Project 922 (Lone Oak Drive / Lone Oak Parkway - Sidewalk Improvements).
T. Easement Vacation. It was recommended to receive the petition to vacate public drainage and utility
easements and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 3, 2005.
U. Promotion and Fees - Community Center. It was recommended to approve the $90.00 fee and promotion
of a 90-day seasonal membership to the Eagan Community Center,
V. Exempt Permit. It was recommended to adopt a resolution approve an application for an Exempt Permit for
Pinewood PTA to hold a raffle at 4300 Dodd Road on May 1, 2005.
W. Exempt Permit. It was recommended to adopt a resolution approving the application for an Exempt Permit
for Eagan Ducks Unlimited Chapter 181 to hold a raffle at 2280 Cliff Road on April 28, 2005.
X. Final Subdivision. It was recommended to approve a Final Subdivision (Sycamore Place) of 6 acres to
create 9 lots on property located north of the dead end street of Sycamore Court in the SE of Section 36.
Y. Tobacco License. It was recommended to approve a Tobacco License for Phuong Nguyen (P.L. Liquors),
1565 Cliff Road.
Z. Tree Contractor License. It was recommended to approve a 2005 Tree Maintenance Contractor License for
Tom's Tree Service, 13489 Halstad Avenue, Lonsdale, MN.
60",
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2005 DRAFT
Page 3
AA. Tree Contractor License. It was recommended to approve a 2005 Tree Maintenance Contractor License for
Wright Tree Service, 17911 Cannon City Blvd, Faribault, MN.
BB. Tree Maintenance Contractor License. It was recommended to approve a 2005 Tree Maintenance
Contractor License for Outdoor Specialties, 560 Lone Oak Road.
CC. Waive Fees. It was recommended to waive Community Center Rental Fees for the Miss Eagan pageant
during the 4"' of July celebration festivities.
DD.NPDES Phase II, MS4 General Permit. It was recommended to adopt a resolution supporting the League of
Minnesota Cities' (LMC) petition for a contested case hearing with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) on the proposed revised MS4 General Permit and authorize City staff to send a letter to
the MPCA commenting on proposed permit revisions with the Mayor's signature.
Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Aye: 3 Nay:O
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VARIANCE -1299 CARLSON LAKE LANE - JAMES BARTON DESIGN/BUILD, INC.
City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a proposed variance to the minimum 10-foot side yard
setback for an addition to the house at 1299 Carlson lake Lane. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report.
The applicant discussed the proposed overhead door on the west side of the house, stating the intent is not to use the
addition as vehicle storage, but rather items such as lawn equipment and canoes.
Mayor Geagan opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the public hearing and turned
discussion back to the Council.
Councilmembers concurred that the overhead door should not be allowed on the new storage space.
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Variance of 2.5 feet to the
required 10 foot side yard setback for an addition to the house at 1299 Carlson lake Lane, legally described as Lot 1,
Block 5, Wilderness Run 4 h Addition, in the NW of Section 27 subject to the following conditions:
Aye: 3 Nay: 0
1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall
become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the Council. Such extension
shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith
attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance.
2. There shall be no overhead door on the new storage space.
3. The area between the structure and the City property should be maintained as yard space - turf grass or
garden.
4. A permit for work within the City property should be obtained prior to issuance of the building permit.
5. The exterior materials of the addition and the existing dwelling shall match.
6. The addition shall comply with all other applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions.
PROJECT 778, TRUNK HIGHWAY 149
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding street improvements for TH 149, TH 55 to Albano. Public
Works Director Colbert gave a brief overview of the project. Kevin Hoglund, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and
Associates reviewed the feasibility study.
Mayor Geagan opened the public hearing.
Four citizens/business owners spoke expressing concerns in regard to the reduction of four lanes to two lanes, truck
access to the Twin City Wire property and access to the Kwik Trip property.
V
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2005
Page 4 DRAFT
There being no further public comment, Mayor Geagan closed the public hearing and turned discussion back to the
Council.
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve Project 778 (TH 149, TH 55 to
Albano Trail - Street Improvements) and authorize the preparation of detailed final plans and specifications for a
contract that may be let within 3 years after said approval, and the acquisition of right-of-way and easements through
quick-take Eminent Domain, if necessary. Aye: 3 Nay: 0
NEW BUSINESS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BEST BRANDS ADDITION)
BEST BRANDS CORPORATION
City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage
to install two product storage bins and a variance for the structures to exceed the maximum 40 foot height limit, on
property at 1765 Yankee Doodle Road. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report.
The applicant, Darwin Schlinger, discussed the proposed silos.
Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for
outside storage to install two product storage bins on property at 1765 Yankee Doodle Road, legally described as Lot
1, Block 1, Best Brands Addition, subject to the following conditions: Aye: 3 Nay: 0
1. This conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Dakota County within 60 days of approval by the City
Council.
2. The requirements of the 2002 CUP should be fully satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit for
the proposed silos including installation of a heavy duty bituminous asphalt at the entrance to the
southeast truck storage area, installation of a new concrete pad for the trailers to rest on, and
maintenance of the recycled bituminous asphalt driveway.
3. The silos and equipment building shall be painted to match the existing building.
4. Within one year or the expiration of the lease, whichever is less, the property shall be brought into
compliance with zoning standards by ceasing the residential use and removing the house from the
property.
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Variance for the structure to
exceed the maximum 40 foot height limit to install silos with a dust collector on top totaling 48 feet in height, on
property at 1765 Yankee Doodle Road, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Best Brands 2nd Addition, in the SE '/4 of
Section 8 subject to the following condition: Aye: 3 Nay: 0
1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it shall
become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the Council. Such extension
shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state facts showing a good faith
attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - INTERSTATE PARTNERS
City Administrator Hedges introduced this item regarding a request for a Planned Development Amendment to allow
a redistribution of 140,000 SF of office space on three of four parcels and an overall signage plan for the
retail/service, bank and office uses approved in 2004 on four lots located at the northwest intersection of Highways
55 and 149. City Planner Ridley gave a staff report.
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve a Planned Development
Amendment (Grand Oak 5) to allow a redistribution of 140,000 SF of office space on three of the four parcels
located at the northwest intersection of Highways 55 and 149 in the east 1/2 of Section 2 subject to the following
conditions: Aye:3 Nay:0
Eagan City Council Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2005 L)RAFT
Page 5
1. The developer shall enter into an amended Planned Development Agreement that memorializes the
building square footage allotment.
2. The developer shall record the amended Planned Development Agreement against Lots 1, 2 and 4.
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to approve an overall Signage Plan for
Grand Oak Five located at the northwest intersection of Highways 55 and 149 in the east '/z of Section 2 subject to
the following conditions: Aye: 3 Nay: 0
1. The applicant is allowed two monument signs - one each on Lots 1 & 4.
2. The applicant is allowed a 25' tall center identification sign (Shops at Grand Oak) on Lot 3.
3. The applicant is allowed a 22' tall pylon sign (bank) on Lot 2. Electronically changing copy, except for
time and temperature, shall be prohibited. The space between the brick support pillars shall not include
separate reader board panels.
4. The applicant is allowed building signage of up to 7% of any fagade, on all sides of the retail buildings,
three sides of the bank building and two sides of the office buildings.
5. The monument signage, center identification and bank pylon shall meet Sign Ordinance height and area
standards.
6. Unless otherwise approved, all signage shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Eagan Sign
Ordinance.
7. The Signage Plan shall be recorded against all lots in the Grand Oak 5t' Addition.
REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (FORMER
DIAMOND T SITE) - TOLL BROTHERS - TO BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2005
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to continue consideration of Rezoning,
Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Planned Development - Toll Brothers to the regular City Council meeting
on April 19, 2005. Aye: 3 Nay: 0
LEGISLATIVE/INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT UPDATE
Councilmember Fields moved, Councilmember Tilley seconded a motion to schedule special City Council meetings
for April 14 and April 26, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. Aye: 3 Nay: 0
Councilmember Tilley moved, Mayor Geagan seconded a motion to establish June 18, 2005 as Electronics Day in
Eagan and approve the use of recycling funds for Electronics Recycling Day. Aye: 3 Nay: 0
Community Development Director Hohenstein provided an update regarding the City's redevelopment districts.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors who wished to be heard.
Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to adjourn the regular City Council
meeting at 8:05 p.m. Aye: 3 Nay: 0
Date Administrative Secretary / Deputy City Clerk
If you need these minutes in an alternative form such as large print, Braille, audio tape, etc., please contact the City
of Eagan, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122, (651) 675-5000, (TDD phone: (651) 454-8535).
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
B. PERSONNEL ITEMS
Item 1. Transportation Engineer--
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the hiring of Tim Plath as a Transportation Engineer.
Item 2. Part-time Guest Services Representatives/Community Center--
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve the hiring of Mary Kay Kelley and Alex Phillips as part-time guest services
representatives at the Community Center.
Item 3. Part-time Seasonal Concessions Workers--
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve hiring of Christopher Buntjer, Deb Buntjer, Melissa Buntjer, Meghan Chappius,
Amanda Grittner, Gabrielle Johnson, Nick Landauer, Christie Mason, Matt Mason, Mike Mason,
Jill Petsigner, Alexander Phillips, Austin Phillips, Conor Pierce, Amber Stevenson, Kevin
Stevenson and Kyle Stevenson as a part-time seasonal concessions workers.
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
C. RATIFY CHECK REGISTERS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To ratify the check registers dated April 7, 2005 and April 14, 2005 as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Check registers dated April 7, 2005 and April 14, 2005 are enclosed without page
number.
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
D. ADOPT resolution designating US Bank as depository and naming
authorizing check signers.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Adopt a resolution designating US Bank as a depository of the City and
naming Patrick Geagan, Mayor; Thomas Pepper, CFO-Treasurer, Eugene
VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services; and Linda Fink, Accountant II,
as authorized signers.
FACTS:
• This is a "housekeeping" matter to update files at the request of US Bank and the
City's independent auditors; no changes are being made to existing banking
arrangements and authorized signers.
• The City currently has three checking accounts at US Bank: a general account, a
payroll account, and a workers compensation account.
• Checks drawn on these accounts are required to be signed by the Mayor and the
Treasurer.
• Wire transfers of funds between City accounts, or to pre-approved destination
accounts, are generally performed by the Treasurer and by the Accountant II. In
their absence, the Director of Administrative Services may initiate such transfers.
• In 2000, the City Council scheduled a banking services RFP for 2005. The
Finance Department intends to issue an RFP later this year.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Depository Services Resolution is attached on pages and 13.
DEPOSITORY SERVICES RESOLUTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
DEPOSITOR NAME: City of Eagan
CONTACT: Tom Pepper
ADDRESS: 3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 410847612
1, (name of certifying officer) do
hereby certify that I am the (title of certifying officer) of the
above-named entity (therein called the "Depositor') a existing under
the laws of the State of and that the following is a true, complete and correct copy of
resolutions adopted at a meting of the Depositor duly and properly called and held on the day of
, 20 that a quorum was present at said meeting; and that said resolutions are now in
full force and effect.
RESOLVED, that U.S. Bank National Association is hereby designated as a depository of the Depositor with
authority to accept or receive at any time for the credit of the Depositor deposits by whomsoever made of funds and other
property in whatever form or manner transferred to endorsed; and that any officer of the Depositor is hereby authorized to
open or cause to be opened one or more accounts with the Bank on such terms, conditions and agreements as the Bank may
now or hereafter require and to make any other agreements deemed advisable in regard to any of the foregoing. Depositor
acknowledges and agrees that the services contemplated by this resolution shall be governed by the U.S. Bank Customer
Agreement for commercial deposit accounts, as amended from time to time.
RESOLVED, that checks, drafts or other orders for the payment, transfer or withdrawal of any of the funds or
other property of the Depositor on deposit with the Bank shall be binding on the Depositor when signed, manually or by use
of a facsimile or mechanical signature or otherwise authorized, by any one of the individuals listed in the section entitled
"Authorized Signers", and the Bank is hereby authorized to pay and charge to the account of the Depositor any such checks,
drafts or other orders so signed or otherwise authorized, including those payable to the individual order of the same person
or persons signing or otherwise authorizing the same and including also those payable to the Bank or to any other person for
application, or which are actually applied to the payment of any such indebtedness owing the Bank from the person or
persons who signed such checks, drafts or other withdrawal orders or otherwise authorized such withdrawals. In particular,
and not in limitation of foregoing, such persons may authorize payment, transfer or withdrawal by oral or telephonic
directions to the Bank complying with such rules and regulations relating to such authorization as the Bank may
communicate to the Depositor from time to time.
RESOLVED, that the (identify
certifying officer by title) hereby certifies to the Bank the names and signatures (either actual or any form or forms of
facsimile or mechanical signatures adopted by the person authorized to sign) of the Authorized Signers listed below and
shall from time to time hereafter, upon a change in the facts so certified, immediately certify to the Bank the names and
signatures (actual or facsimile) of the persons then authorized to sign or to act. The Bank shall be fully protected in relying
on such certificates and on the obligation of the certifying officer (set forth above) to immediately certify to the Bank any
change in any facts so certified, and the Bank shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Depositor from any claims,
demands, expenses, loss or damage resulting from or growing out of honoring or relying on the signature of other authority
(whether or not properly used and, in the case of any facsimile signature, regardless of when or by whom or by what means
such signature may have been made or affixed) of any officer or person whose name and signature was so certified, or
refusing to honor any signature or authority not so certified.
~a
1
RESOLVED, That these resolutions shall continue in force until express written notice of their rescission or
modification has been furnished to and received by the Bank; and
RESOLVED, That any and all transactions by or on behalf of the Depositor with the Bank prior to the adoption of
this resolution be, and the same hereby are, in all respects ratified, approved and confirmed.
I further certify that the officers of the Depositor signing the resolution, have, and at the time of adoption of said
resolutions had, full power and lawful authority to adopt the foregoing resolutions and to confer the powers therein granted
to the persons named, and that such persons have full power and authority to exercise the same.
I further certify that the names, titles (if any) and signatures (actual or facsimile) of the persons authorized to sign
or act on behalf of the Depositor by its governing board identified above are as set forth below in the section of this
Resolution entitled "Authorized Signers".
I finther certify, under penalties of perjury, that the tax identification number shown above is correct and that the
Depositor is not subject to backup withholding because (a) it is exempt, (b) has not been notified by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends or (c) the IRS
has notified the Depositor that it is no longer subject to backup withholding.
I futher certify that the Authorized Signers below are also hereby authorized to transact any and all other business
with and through the Bank regarding this account, including, without limitation, treasury management services offered by
Bank.
Account Number: 104755879780, 111919438528, 1-
11919438601
Authorized Signers
Name Title Signature
IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the Depositor this
day of , 20
(Certifying Officer) (Title)
(Attest by one other officer) (Title)
/3
2
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
E. COUNTY ROAD 63 (BAFIN TRAIL) TURNBACK
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve a jurisdictional tumback agreement with
Dakota County and Inver Grove Heights for County Road 63 (Baffin Trial) and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related agreements.
FACTS:
• County Road 63 is a rural county road running northerly from the intersection of
State Trunk Hwy. (TH) 149 and Wescott Road. The most southerly segment is
known as Baffin Trail and runs northerly along the corporate boundary with Inver
Grove Heights to Opperman Drive. From there it becomes Argenta Trail and
continues northeasterly through IGHt's. to its intersection with TH 55. It then
continues north of TH 55 eventually becoming Delaware Avenue north of I-494.
• With the current construction of Yankee Doodle Road (Co. Rd. 28) from TH 149
to TH 55, Dakota County has determined that the southerly segments (Baffin
Trail & Argenta Trail) no longer meet the criteria for a County road and its
function is primarily related to local access.
• Dakota County has prepared an agreement whereby the County's jurisdiction of
County Road 63 south of the new Yankee Doodle Road (Co.Rd. 28) extension
would be revoked and turned back to the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights.
• On April 7, 2004, the Council previously approved a similar turrnback agreement
that provided for the County to compensate both Eagan & Inver Grove Heights
the value of a structural upgrade in consideration of taking over this roadway. But
Inver Grove Heights subsequently did not agree to this monetary compensation as
they wanted to have the roadway improved before they would accept it. All three
agencies evaluated the structural condition of this County Road and determined
where it was on its life cycle and what would be required to rehabilitate it to an
acceptable condition if the County were to retain it. This new agreement provides
for the County to construct a 2" structural overlay on this turnback segment at no
cost to the cities.
• This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and Public
Works Department and found to be in order for favorable Council consideration.
It was approved by the Inver Grove Heights Council on April 4.
ATTACHMENT
• Tumback Agreement, pages ~ Js~ through
AGREEMENT FOR
REVOCATION AND REVERSION OF
COUNTY ROAD 63
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the County of Dakota,
hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the Cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights,
hereinafter referred to as the "Cities".
WITNESSES THE FOLLOWING:
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Section 163.11, Subd. 5 and 9, authorize a county board to
revoke county road status by resolution of the county board and upon agreement with
the receiving jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the County Board has passed a resolution revoking County Road status on
that portion of County Road 63 described below effective upon execution of this
agreement; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the revocation of County Road 63, the Cities will accept
jurisdiction over said road segment as described below; and
WHEREAS, the County and Cities desire to define the responsibilities and obligations
which will result from this road revocation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Dakota County hereby revokes County Road status on that portion of County Road
63 in the Cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights as laid out and traveled beginning
at a point on the established center line of County Road 63 and on the northeasterly
right of way of TH 149 in Section 13, Township 27N, Range 23W in the City of
Eagan, and Section18, Township 27N, Range 22W in the City of Inver Grove
Heights, and running northerly and northeasterly along the established center line of
County Road 63 and terminating in Section 7, Township 27N, Range 22W in the City
of Inver Grove Heights approximately 1.3 miles north of TH 149 to the new County
Road 28 intersection.
2. The Cities agree that they will accept the transfer of jurisdiction and all maintenance
responsibilities for County Road 63 from the County to the Cities effective upon
completion of the following improvements:
Mill and overlay the roadway from approximately 800 feet North of Trunk
Highway 149 to the south connection of Alberta Way in 2005, to meet County
standards for a comparable road in the County.
IS
Revocation and Reversion Agreement
County Road 63
March 10, 2005
• Assess existing culverts for their condition and improve to meet County
standards for comparable culverts in the County.
3. No person engaged in work to be performed by the Cities shall be considered an
employee of the County. Any claims that arise under the Worker's Compensation
Act of this State on behalf of any City employee, while so engaged on any of the
work called for in this Agreement shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the
County.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §166.06, subd. 4, any books, records, documents
and accounting procedures and practices of the Cities and the County relevant to
this Agreement are subject to examination by the County and either the Legislative
Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The Cities and County agree to maintain
these records for a period of six years from the date of performance of all services
covered in this agreement.
5. The entire and integrated agreement of the parties contained in this agreement shall
supersede all prior negotiations, representations or agreements between the Cities
and the County regarding jurisdiction and control over County Road 63 (between
Trunk Highway 149 and the new alignment of County Road 28) whether written or
oral.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized officials.
CITY OF EAGAN
AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN
THIS DAY OF , 2005.
By By
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: (SEAL)
By
City Attorney
n: iagrmentlturnback cr 63 eagan and igh.doc
/6 2
Revocation and Reversion Agreement
County Road 63
March 10, 2005
CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INVER
GROVE HEIGHTS THIS DAY OF , 2005.
By By
City Manager Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: (SEAL)
By
City Attorney
DAKOTA COUNTY
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By Date:
County Engineer
By Date:
Physical Development Director
By
Chairman of the Board
By (SEAL)
Clerk to County Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date
Assistant County Attorney
COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION No.: Date:
3
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
F. CONTRACT 05-06, I -35E CROSSING/ PEARLMONT HEIGHTS/ QUARRY
PARK - TRUNK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Award Contract 05-06 (I - 35E Crossing/ Pearlmont
Heights/ Quarry Park - Trunk Water Main Improvements), to G.L. Contracting Inc., for
the base bid only in the amount of $358,759.72 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute all related documents.
FACTS:
• With the pending completion of the North Water Treatment Plant, this contract
provides for the needed extension of 30-inch diameter trunk water distribution main
across I-35E at Federal Drive and Duckwood Drive, and across the proposed
Pearlmont Heights development (Violet Lane to Lakeview Trail), and the extension of
a 16-inch diameter raw water transmission main across a portion of Quarry Park, as
scheduled for 2005 in the City's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (2005-2009).
• These projects have been combined under one contract (Contract 05-06), to increase
economies of scale.
• On January 18, 2005, the City Council received a petition from the property owner
and developer of the proposed Pearlmont Heights requesting the public improvement
project for the trunk water main across the Pearlmont Heights property. The Council
received the petition and authorized preparation of detailed plans and specifications
for Project 908 and Contract 05-06 for 2005 construction.
• On March 15, 2005, the Council approved the plans and authorized the advertisement
for solicitation of competitive bids for Contract 05-06.
• At 10:30 a.m. on April 14, formal bids were received for this project. The low bid is
approximately 10% under the engineer's estimate. A copy of the bid summary is
enclosed.
• All bids have been reviewed for compliance with the bid specifications and accuracy
on unit price extensions and summations. The low base bid from G.L. Contracting,
Inc. has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in order for
favorable Council action.
• Access/construction easements to the properties necessary for the award of these
improvements will be provided prior to the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Bid Summary, page.
BID SUMMARY
I-35E TRUNK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 900
PEARLMONT HEIGHTS TRUNK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 908
QUARRY PARK RAW WATER LINE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 904
City Contract No. 05-06
Bid Date: Thursday, April 14, 2005 Bid Time: 10:30 a.m.
Contractors Total Base Bid
1.) G.L. Contracting, Inc $358,760
2. FriedgesContracting, Inc $369,315
3.) Frattalone Companies, Inc. $400,000
4.) Northdale Construction $403,309
5.) Burschville'Construction, Inc $440,928
Proiect 900 - I35-E Trunk Water Main Crossing - Base Bid
Low Base Bid $188,139
Engineer's Estimate $214,350
Percent Under Estimate -12.2%
Proiect 908 - Pearlmont Heights Trunk Water Main - Base Bid
Low Base Bid $111,894
Engineer's Estimate $112,800
Percent Under Estimate -0.8%
Proiect 904 - Ouarry Park Raw Water Line - Base Bid
Low Base Bid $58,726
Engineer's Estimate $67,150
Percent Under Estimate -12.6%
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
G. DECLARE BICYCLES, UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AND
MISCELLANEOUS CITY PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To declare bicycles, unclaimed property and miscellaneous City property to be surplus
and sold at the Burnsville city auction on May 7, 2005.
FACTS:
• Throughout the year, the City acquires a variety of unclaimed, stolen property and
retires certain City equipment for a variety of reasons. State law permits the sale of
these items to the highest designation as surplus property.
• Prior to the designation of surplus property, a list of items is circulated to all
departments and, if there remains any public use of the property, it is reallocated to
the appropriate department rather than being sold.
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2005 auction item list on pages a/ through dJ
2005 CITY OF EAGAN AUCTION LIST
1 Golf Clubs PD
2 Scissors PD
3 Compact Disc Rewritable Drive PD
4 HP C-PC Computer PD
5 Play Station 2 Game Console PD
6 Play Station 2 Game "NBA 2K2" PD
7 Two Line Personal Information Center Telephone PD
8 Women's Jacket (2X - Black) PD
9 Sony Desktop Speakers PD
10 Samsun Cell hone PD
11 One 1 Diamond Earring PD
12 Converse Athletic Shoes 1 Pr PD
13 Nike Air Jordan Shoes (1 Pr PD
14 K-Swiss Shoes (1 Pr PD
15 Nike High To Shoes (1 Pr) PD
16 Remote Control Car PD
17 Blue Jean Shorts (Size 34) PD
18 Blue Jean Shorts Size 34 PD
19 T-Shirt (Large - White PD
20 T=Shirt (XL - White PD
21 Nautica Blue Jean Shorts (Size 35) PD
22 Men's Slacks (34 x 30 - Gray) PD
23 Polo Shirt - Gray) PD
24 T-Shirt - White PD
25 Blue Jeans 33 x 30 PD
26 Blue Jeans (34 x 32 PD
27 Blue Jeans (35 x 34) PD
28 Fleece To M) PD
29 Sweater (L - Gray PD
30 Athletic Shorts L - Gray PD
31 Shirt (XL - Red & White) PD
32 T-Shirt (XXL - Black PD
33 Fubu Fleece Shirt L - Gray) PD
34 Black Jean Shorts (Size 30) PD
35 Men's Dress Pants PD
36 Basketball Jersey (XL) PD
37 Electric Guitar PD
38 Amplifier PD
39 Rampage AM/FM/CD Player for Auto PD
40 RCA 8 MM Video Camera with Bag PD
41 Gold Colored Necklace with Pendant PD
42 Alpine CD Receiver PD
43 Mintek Rechargeable Battery Pack PD
a~
44 Clarion CD Receiver PD
45 Rampage CD Player PD
46 Epson Printer PD
47 Sony Game Controller PD
48 Two (2 Harmon Kardon Computer Speakers PD
49 One (1 MTX Audio Subwoofer w/ Power Booster (in box PD
50 Three (3 Rings, 1 Necklace, 1 Stickpin PD
51 Two 2 Rings, 2 Necklaces PD
52 MTX Audio Subwoofer PD
53 Sony CD Player PD
54 Rally Floor Jack PD
55 Sentrek Am PD
56 Flashlight PD
57 Barbell with 151 Pounds of Weight PD
58 Audiovox AM/FM CD/Cassette Radio PD
59 Nike Duffle Bag PD
60 (Item requested b staff) PD
61 Cubic Zirconium Ring PD
62 (Item requested b staff) PD
63 Pioneer DEH2500 AM/FM/CD Car Stereo PD
64 Baseball Glove PD
65 Black Wallet PD
66 Cell Phone Charger for Car PD
67 Sony Digital Camera PD
68 CD Player with Adapter PD
69 One (1 Bridgestone SUV Tire on Nissan Rim PD
70 Zenith Golf Bag with 14 Clubs PD
71 Son Camcorder PD
72 Large Black Duffle Bag PD
73 Paintball Protective Helmet PD
74 Gillette Utility Tool PD
75 Philips DVD Player PD
76 Leo Set "Mars" PD
77 Leo Set (Soccer) PD
78 Suitcase PD
79 Roadside Tool Kit PD
80 Back Pack PD
81 Weiser Deadbolt Lock PD
82 Weiser Deadbolt Lock PD
83 Schla a Deadbolt Lock PD
84 Weiser Lock PD
85 Weiser Lock PD
86 Red & Gray Nike Backpack PD
87 Olympus 35MM Camera PD
88 Men's Watch PD
89 Four (4) Tires PD
a~
90 143 Bikes PD
91 Two 2) Sony Pressman Cassette Recorders PD
92 Son TCM-313 Cassette-Corder PD
93 Samsung AF Zoom 105G - 35 MM Camera w/ Case PD
94 Samsun AF Zoom 105G - 35 MM Camera w/ Case PD
95 Son TCM - 20DV Cassette-Corder PD
96 Sony Cyber Shot 1.3 Mega Pixels Digital Camera w/ PD
Cables & Charger
97 Sony DSC-S30 Cyber Shot 1.3 Digital Camera w/ Cables PD
& Charger
98 Sony DSC-S30 Cyber Shot 1.3 Digital Camera w/ Cables PD
& Charger
99 Panasonic CF-28 Laptop Computer PD
100 Panasonic CF-28 Laptop Computer PD
101 Olympus Pearlcorder S922 Micro Cassette Recorder PD
102 Regency MX3000 Scanner PD
103 Telepower Model TP3506Q Battery Analyzer/Conditioner PD
w/ Inserts
104 Nine 9 CCTV Cameras Model CCD424 PD
I HP Brigs & Stratton Motor (horizontal drive Equip. Services
2 2" Gorman Rupp Pump & Motor w/ Hose & Reel (Fire Equip. Services
Dept.)
3 6' Fiberglass Topper (Fire Dept.) Equip. Services
4 Four 4 Boxes of Obsolete Parts & Cabinet Equip. Services
5 Hyd Valve & Cylinder Equip. Services
6 Banding & Strapping Material Equip. Services
7 Tractor Umbrella Equip. Services
8 Drill Press Vise Equip. Services
9 Brake Pressure Bleeder Equip. Services
10 3/4" Air Impact Equip. Services
11 Box of Miscellaneous Tools Equip. Services
12 OTC 4000E Monitor Equip. Services
13 OTC 60 & 104 Pin Breakout Box Equip. Services
14 Two (2) GM Receiver Hitches Equip. Services
15 Homelite Trash Pump Equip. Services
16 5' Steel Gate Equip. Services
17 Pool Table with Pool Cues and Balls Equip. Services
18 Chain Link Fencing Equip. Services
1 3' Round Office Table Ice Arena
2 Craftsman Snow Blower Ice Arena
3 Laser Jet 4si Printer Ice Arena
4 Round Office Table - approx. 4' Ice Arena
5 Five 5 Green Office Chairs Ice Arena
6 Five (5) White/Tan Office Chairs Ice Arena
c) 3
7 One 1 Red Office Chair Ice Arena
8 Candy Display Rack Ice Arena
9 Popcorn Machine Ice Arena
10 Nacho Warmer Ice Arena
11 Dr Food Display Racks Ice Arena
1 "Never Rust" Truck Tool Box Parks Maint.
2 Six (6 Office Chairs Parks Maint.
3 Two (2 Round Tables Parks Maint.
4 Table Parks Maint.
5 Drafting Desk Parks Maint.
6 One 1 - Five 5 Drawer Upright File Parks Maint.
7 One 1) - Four 4 Drawer Upright File Parks Maint.
8 Open Shelf Cabinet Parks Maint.
9 Three (3 Office Desks Parks Maint.
10 Scaffold Pieces Parks Maint.
1 Lateral Cabinet - Two 2) Drawer Engineering
2 Two 2 Drafting Tables Engineering
3 Royal Alpha 620C Typewriter with Extra Ribbon En ineeri n
4 Two 2 Drafting Lams Engineering
5 Ricoh 35mm Camera & Film Engineerin
6 Freedom 35mm Camera & Film Engineering
7 Box of Plastic Binding Combs/Spines Engineering
1 Golf Umbrella Lost & Found
2 Red Lunch Box Lost & Found
3 Women's Sweater (S_- Navy) Lost & Found
4 Women's Columbia Jacket (S - Cream) Lost & Found
5 Men's Jacket L - Green Lost & Found
6 Women's Lon Sweater (Black) Lost & Found
1 Six (6) Office Chairs City Hall Shop
2 21 Soft Sided Black Voting Machine Bas City Hall Shop
3 Six (6) Office Chairs City Hall Shop
1 Black Desk Chair Fire
2 Brown Desk Chair Fire
3 Orange Plastic Chair Fire
4 Large Bulletin Board Fire
5 Four 4 Drawer Filing Cabinet Fire
6 Desktop Filing Tray Fire
7 Large Desktop Filing Tray Fire
8 Black Desk Fire
9 Drill Press - needs some minor repair Fire
10 Snow Blower Fire
C2.
11 Grinder Fire
12 10 Packs Drawing Pencils Fire
13 24" Paper Cutter Fire
14 Phone Headsets Fire
15 Parcel Scale Fire
16 Templates Fire
17 Keyboard Holder Fire
18 Multi-colored Fla Pins Fire
19 Key board Holder Fire
20 HP Tri-Color Cartridge 51641A Fire
21 Multi-colored Ball Head Pins Fire
22 (33) 12" Plastic Rulers Fire
23 Eight) (8) Hi-Polymer Erasers Fire
24 Eraser Strips Fire
25 Stair Master - Life Ste 9500 Fire
26 Stationery Bike Fire
27 Stationery Bike - Life Cycle 9500 Fire
28 Glide Walker - Health Walker Fire
29 Weider Universal G Fire
30 Mach 1 - Universal G Fire
31 Nordic Rider Fire
32 Weight Machine - Upper Body Fire
33 Six (6) Green Office Wall Partitions Fire
34 Double Bed w/ Headboard Fire
34 Various Air Splints/Casts Fire
35 Tan Colored Cabinet Fire
36 Cream Color Metal Cabinet Fire
37 Cream Color Metal Desk Fire
38 Detecto-Medic Scale Fire
39 Detecto-Medic Scale Fire
40 Detecto-Medic Scale Fire
41 Metal Garment Rack Fire
42 DP Row Machine Fire
43 Corkboard Fire
44 Nordic Track Fire
45 Total Gym 1000 Fire
46 Altero 503 - Row Machine Fire
47 Trackmaster Treadmill Fire
48 Healthrider Fire
49 Precor 718e Stair Climber Fire
50 Abworks Fire
472 50-
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
H. APPROVE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF BURNSVILLE FOR
AUCTION SALES SERVICE
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a contract with the City of Burnsville for auction services in conjunction with
the City of Burnsville auction to be held on May 7, 2005.
FACTS:
• In September of 2003, the City of Eagan joined forces with Dakota County to sell
the City's surplus property at the County's annual auction. This collaboration
was undertaken with several other municipalities and the County in an effort to
reduce cost and improve efficiency. Prior to 2003, the City conducted an annual
auction at the maintenance facility, which required a significant amount of staff
resources. In 2004, Dakota County did not conduct their annual auction due to a
staff shortage. At this time, there are no plans for Dakota County to resurrect the
auction as they have begun using other methods to dispose of their surplus
property.
• While staff was investigating other measures for disposal of surplus property, an
opportunity arose for Eagan to partner with the City of Burnsville. The Dakota
County Drug Task Force will also have items for sale at the auction.
• This year's auction is scheduled for May 7, 2005 at the Burnsville Garage located
at 75 Civic Center Parkway. The auction will begin at 10:00 a.m. with a preview
of items starting at 9:00 a.m.
• In order for the City of Eagan to participate in the auction, the City of Burnsville
is requiring a signed contract for auction sales services.
ATTACHMENTS:
• City of Burnsville contract on pages -2-2 through _J7 .
a6
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURNSVILLE
AND THE CITY OF EAGAN
FOR AUCTION SALES SERVICE
This Contract is made and entered into between the City of Burnsville (hereinafter called
"Burnsville") and City of Eagan (hereinafter called "Eagan") for auction sales services.
WHEREAS, Eagan desires to place certain goods of Eagan in Burnsville's public auction on May
7, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Burnsville has hired a contractor who is capable of providing auction services for
Burnsville at the Burnsville Garage located at 75 Civic Center Parkway, in Burnsville, on May 7, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, Burnsville shall allow Eagan to place its goods in Burnsville's public auction subject
to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements made herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. EAGAN'S OBLIGATIONS. Description. Eagan shall deliver its goods for the Burnsville auction
no later than 3:00 p.m. May 5, 2005, to the Burnsville Garage and agrees to the terms of this
Agreement. Eagan acknowledges and warrants that it has the right to sell the goods it delivers to
be sold at the Burnsville auction on May 7, 2005, and that the goods are free of any and all
encumbrances.
2. TERM. The term of this Contract shall begin immediately and terminate on May 20, 2005, when
the services required by this Contract shall be completed.
3. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT.
3.1 Rate of Compensation. Eagan agrees to accept the terms for payment as stated in Burnsville's
Agreement, as stated in Burnsville's Agreement with Jennifer Anne Auctioneering, Inc.,
(hereinafter called "Auctioneer"). The rate of compensation Burnsville agreed to pay the
Auctioneer to provide auction services and conduct an auction on May 7, 2005, for auction goods
of Burnsville, and any other entity Burnsville invites to participate in the auction, is a commission
of 15% of gross sales for all items sold at the auction, an additional 2% commission fee on all
credit card sales will be paid, and the advertising expenses will be divided equally among all
participating government entities.
3.2 Terms of Payment. The Auctioneer shall be responsible for collecting all monies due from each
buyer on the day of the sale and, immediately after the sale, the Auctioneer shall provide
Burnsville with a complete record of all items sold and the sale price of each item. After
deducting the agreed upon commission and other allowable expenses, as stated herein, from the
gross proceeds of the sale, the Auctioneer shall provide Burnsville with a check for the balance of
the sale proceeds no later than May 14, 2005.
Burnsville shall pay Eagan the sales proceeds of the goods owned by Eagan, which were sold at
the auction, minus the sales commission rates described in Section 3.1 above, within fourteen
(14) days of Burnsville's receipt of its check for the sale proceeds from the Auctioneer. Burnsville
shall provide Eagan with a description of the Eagan items sold and the sale price of each item.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS.
4.1 General. Eagan shall abide by all Federal, State or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and
regulations now in effect or hereinafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement or to the facilities,
programs and staff for which Eagan is responsible. This includes, but is not limited to all
Standard Assurances, which are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 1 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
oQ7
4.2 Violations. Any violation of such laws, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations, as well as loss
of any applicable license or certification by Eagan shall constitute a material breach of this
Contract, and shall entitle Burnsville to terminate this'Contract upon delivery of written notice of
termination to Eagan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, such termination
shall be effective as of the date of such failure or loss.
4.3 Minnesota Law to Govern. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota without giving effect to the
principals of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in the
State of Minnesota.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. Eagan is and shall remain an independent contractor
with respect to any and all work performed under this Contract. Nothing herein contained is
intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners
between the parties hereto or as constituting Eagan as the employee of Burnsville for any
purpose or in any manner. The conduct and control of the work will lie solely with Eagan.
However, Eagan acknowledges and agrees that Eagan is not entitled to receive any of the
benefits received by Burnsville employees and is not eligible for workers' or unemployment
compensation benefits through Burnsville. Eagan also acknowledges and agrees that no
withholding or deduction for state or federal income taxes, FICA, FUTA, or otherwise, will be
made from the payments due Eagan and that it is Eagan's sole obligation to comply with the
applicable provisions of all federal and state tax laws.
6. INDEMNIFICATION. Any and all claims that arise or may arise against Eagan, its agents,
servants or employees, as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of Eagan or its
agents, servants, employees while engaged in the performance of the Contract shall in no way be
the obligation or responsibility of Burnsville. Eagan shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend
Burnsville, its officers and employees, against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages,
expenses, claims or actions, including attorney's fees, which Burnsville, its officers or employees
may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or
omission of Eagan, its agents, servants or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to
adequately perform Eagan's obligations pursuant to this Contract.
7. SUBCONTRACTING. Eagan may not subcontract this Agreement out to any other person or
entity.
8. TIMELINESS. Time is of the essence in this Contract. The failure of either party to perform its
obligations in a timely manner may be considered by the other party as a material breach.
9. DEFAULT. Force Maieure. Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any loss or
damage resulting from a delay or failure to perform due to unforeseeable acts or events outside
the defaulting party's reasonable control, providing the defaulting party gives notice to the other
party as soon as possible. Acts and events may include acts of God, acts of terrorism, war, fire,
flood, epidemic, acts of civil or military authority, and natural disasters.
10. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon seven (7)
days written notice to the other party.
11. WARRANTIES/GUARANTEES. Eagan warrants to Burnsville that Burnsville's auction contractor
has the right to sell the items delivered by Eagan to be sold, free of encumbrances, and Eagan
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Burnsville and the Auctioneer from any losses,
liability, or expenses arising out of any claims from persons or entities regarding ownership of
Eagan's items.
12. DAMAGES FOR BREACH/SET-OFF. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract to the
contrary, upon breach of this Contract by the Auctioneer, Burnsville may withhold final payment
due Auctioneer for purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due is
determined.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 2 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
O?JX
13. NOTIFICATION. Notification required to be provided pursuant to this Contract shall be provided
to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Contract, or in a
modification of this Contract.
To Auctioneer: To Burnsville:
Jennifer A. Sexton Captain Eric Werner
Jennifer Anne Auctioneering, Inc. Burnsville Police Department
1980 East Highway 13 100 Civic Center Parkway
Burnsville, MN 55337 Burnsville, MN 55337
952-890-7287 952-895-4608
14. MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this
Contract shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing, signed by authorized
representatives of Burnsville and the Auctioneer.
15. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Contract shall be deemed severable. If any part of this
Contract is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity
and enforceability of the remainder of this Contract unless the part or parts which are void, invalid
or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Contract with respect
to either party.
16. FINAL AGREEMENT.
16.1 This Contract is the final expression of the Agreement of the parties and the complete and
exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon, and shall supersede all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or stipulations, either
oral or written, not herein contained. In the event of a conflict between any provision(s) of this
Contract and any provision(s) contained in any exhibit attached hereto, the provision(s) of this
Contract shall control.
16.2 Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached and incorporated fully herein.
Exhibit A Auction Sales
Exhibit B Standard Assurances
Exhibit C Insurance Terms
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated
below.
Approve as to form: CITY OF BURNSVILLE
By:
Burnsville City Attorney / Date Tom Hansen, Deputy City Manager
Date of Signature:
CITY OF EAGAN (Notarize Signature)
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) By:
) ss. Title:
COUNTY OF ) Date of Signature:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2005, by (name)
(title) , of the City of Eagan, who, being duly sworn, represents and warrants that
he/she/they is/are authorized by law and all necessary board action to execute this Contract on behalf of the
corporation/organization, intending this contract to be a legally binding obligation of the corporation/organization.
(seal)
Notary Public
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 3 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
a~
EXHIBIT A
AUCTION SALES BETWEEN
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
AND
JENNIFER ANNE AUCTIONEERING, INC.
1. Jennifer Anne Auctioneering, Inc. (hereinafter called "Auctioneer") shall provide one auctioneer
(two auctioneers, if necessary) on the day of the sale.
2. Auctioneer shall provide adequate labor for auction preparation and setup on May 6, 2005, from
8:00 a.m. to noon, and on May 7, 2005, the day of the sale.
3. Auctioneer shall run timely advertisements for the sale in the Minneapolis StarTribune, the St.
Paul Pioneer Press, and the Free Press, City Pages, Golden Nugget, and distribute sale bills via
U.S. Mail, fax and email to selected lists of necessary buyers. No ad shall be smaller than 2
column x 5" except in the Minneapolis StarTribune.
4. Auctioneer shall provide Proof of Insurance in the limit amounts required by Burnsville per Exhibit
C, Insurance Terms, in the Contract executed with Burnsville, prior to the date of the sale. If
Auctioneer utilizes a subcontractor to perform any of its duties under this Contract, Auctioneer
must require the subcontractor to provide Proof of Insurance and Coverage Limits to the County
prior to beginning work under this Contract. Auctioneer must also require the subcontractor to
agree in writing to defend, hold harmless and indemnify Burnsville from any and all liability arising
out of the subcontractor's performance of its duties. When a subcontractor is utilized, Auctioneer
understands it remains responsible for complying with all of Burnsville's terms of this Contract.
5. Auctioneer agrees to auction goods Burnsville and any other entity Burnsville invites to participate
in the May 7, 2005, public auction. Burnsville will pay the same sales commission to Auctioneer
for the items owned by the other entities.
PROPOSAL FOR AUCTION SERVICES
Client/Contact: City of Burnsville
Captain Eric Werner, Police Department
100 Civic Center Parkway
Burnsville, MN 55337
952-895-4608
Event: Annual Auction of Seized Property
Date of Event: Saturday, May 7, 2005
Agreements: Jennifer Anne Auctioneering, Inc., agrees to provide:
• Assistance with event planning
• Preparation and placement of advertising
• Professional staff the day of the event
Commission Rate: 15% of gross sales
Advertising: At client's actual expense, budget = $500-$800
Advertising Placement: Including but not limited to: StarTribune, Pioneer Press, ThisWeek, Golden
Nugget, Old Times, event flyers and www.darrahsauctions.com
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 4 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
30
Staffing: One Auctioneer (two Auctioneers, if necessary), Clerk, Cashier, Ring Person
Buyer's Premium: Buyer's premium will not be charged.
Payment for Merchandise: Checks will be made payable to "Jennifer Anne Auctioneering". Visa,
MasterCard, Amex available, if requested; 2% credit card fees at client's
expense.
Payment for Auction: To be paid in certified funds within seven (7) business days, no later than
May 14, 2005, less auctioneer's commission and agreed expenses.
JENNIFER ANNE AUCTIONEERING, INC. CITY OF BURNSVILLE
By: By:
Jennifer A. Sexton Eric T. Werner, Police Captain
Date of Signature: Date of Signature:
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 5 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
31
EXHIBIT B
STANDARD ASSURANCES
1. NON-DISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Contract, the Contractors shall not unlawfully discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, sexual
orientation, age, marital status or public assistance status. The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants
are employed and that employees are treated during employment without unlawful discrimination because of their race, color,
creed, religion, sex, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, marital status or public assistance status. Such action
shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment
advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment,
notices which set forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sex, national origin,
disability, sexual orientation, age, marital status or public assistance status.
No funds received under this Contract shall be used to provide religious or sectarian training or services.
The Contractor shall comply with any applicable federal or state law regarding non-discrimination. The following list
includes, but is not meant to limit, laws which may be applicable:
A. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., which prohibits
discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
B. Executive Order 11246, as amended, which is incorporated herein by reference, and prohibits discrimination by U.S.
Government contractors and subcontractors because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
C. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq. and 45 C.F.R. 84.3 (J) and (K) implementing Sec.
504 of the Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified handicapped persons in the access to or participation in federally-
funded services or employment.
D. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. as amended, and Minn. Stat. §181.81,
which generally prohibit discrimination because of age.
E. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §206(d), which provides that an employer may not discriminate on
the basis of sex by paying employees of different sexes differently for the same work.
F. Minn. Stat. Ch. 363, as amended, which generally prohibits discrimination because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age.
G. Minn. Stat. §181.59, which prohibits discrimination against any person by reason of race, creed or color in any state or
political subdivision contract for materials, supplies or construction. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor and any second
or subsequent violation of these terms may be cause for forfeiture of all sums due under the Contract.
H. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 through 12213, 47 U.S.C. §225, 611, which regulations at
29 C.F.R. §1630, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals on the basis of a disability in term, condition or
privilege of employment.
2. DATA PRIVACY. For purposes of this Contract all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained or
disseminated by Contractor in the performance of this Contract is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 and the Minnesota Rules implementing the Act now in force or hereafter adopted as well
as the Federal laws on data privacy, and Contractor must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The
remedies in section 13.08 apply to the Contractor. Contractor does not have a duty to provide access to public data to the
public if the public data are available from the government agency (City), except as required by the terms of this Contract. All
subcontracts shall contain the same or similar data practices compliance requirements.
3. HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996. The Contractor agrees to comply with the
requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which are applicable to the Contractor's duties
under this Contract. In performing its obligations under this Contract, Contractor agrees to comply with the HIPAA Privacy
requirements as of April 14, 2003, the HIPAA Standards for Electronic Transactions as of October 16, 2003, and all other HIPAA
requirements as they become law.
4. RECORDS DISCLOSURE/RETENTION. Contractor's bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and
practices, and other evidences relevant to this Contract are subject o the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the
City and either the Legislative or State Auditor, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §16C.05, subd. 5. Such evidences are also subject to
review by the Comptroller General of the United States, or a duly authorized representative, if federal funds are used for any
work under this Contract. The Contractor agrees to maintain such evidences for a period of six (6) years from the date services
or payment were last provided or made or longer if any audit in progress requires a longer retention period.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 6 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
3 a
5. WORKER HEALTH. SAFETY AND TRAINING. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the health and safety of its
employees in connection with the work performed under this Contract. Contractor shall make arrangements to ensure the
health and safety of all subcontractors and other persons who may perform work in connection with this Contract. Contractor
shall ensure all personnel of Contractor and subcontractors are properly trained and supervised and, when applicable, duly
licensed or certified appropriate to the tasks engaged in under this Contract. Each Contractor shall comply with federal, state
and local occupational safety and health standards, regulations and rules promulgated pursuant to the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, which are applicable to the work to be performed by Contractor.
6. CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT. SUSPENSION AND RESPONSIBILITY CERTIFICATION. Federal Regulation 45 C.F.R.
92.35 prohibits the State/Agency from purchasing goods or services with federal money from vendors who have been
suspended or debarred by the federal government. Similarly, Minn. Stat. §16C.03, subd. 2, provides the Commissioner of
Administration with the authority to debar and suspend vendors who seek to contract with the State/Agency. Vendors may be
suspended or debarred when it is determined, through a duly authorized hearing process, that they have abused the public trust
in a serious manner.
By signing this Contract, the Contractor certifies that it and its principals* and employees:
A. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
transacting business by or with any federal, state or local government department or agency; and
B. Have not within a three-year period preceding this Contract: 1) been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered
against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a
public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract; 2) violated any federal or state antitrust statutes; or 3) committed
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen
property; and
C. Are not presently indicted or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity for: 1) commission of fraud
or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction;
2) violating any federal or state antitrust statutes; or 3) committing embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen property; and
D. Are not aware of any information and possess no knowledge that any subcontractor(s) that will perform work pursuant
to this Contract are in violation of any of the certifications set forth above.
E. Shall immediately give written notice to the Contracting Officer should Contractor come under investigation for
allegations of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, or performing: a public (federal, state or local
government) transaction; violating any federal or state antitrust statutes; or committing embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false statements or receiving stolen property.
'Principals" for the purposes of this certification means officers, directors, owners, partners and persons having primary
management or supervisory responsibilities within a business entity (e.g., general manager, plant manager, head of a
subsidiary, division or business segment and similar positions).
Directions for on-line access to excluded providers: To ensure compliance with this regulation, identification of excluded entities
and individuals can be found on the Office of Inspector General website at www.dhhs.gov/pro-gorg/oiq/ .
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 7 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
33
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE TERMS
MAR-22-05 12:04 PM JENIANNE AUCTIONEERING 9527360631 P.03
A'`T
"OLD REPUBLTC INSURARTC COMPANY
s i 1) 0 BOX 1976
DESMOINES, TA 50306 CONTINUATION CERTIFICATE
x.:
I- 5536135 XUCTIONEER 1,000 8/01/2004 8/01/2005
SEXTON, JENINTIFER
'.l 3001 UPTON AVE SOU'T'H
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
DAKOTA COUNTY
DAKOTA COUNTY ADMIN
1590 HttiY 55
T HASTINGS, N2J 55033
i i
j
i "
I
;1 tls MOND CONTINUES IN FORCE TO THE ABOVE EXPIRATION DATE CONDITIONED AND PROVIDED THAT THE LOSSES OR RECOVERIES ON
IT AND ANY ARID ALL ENDORSEMENTS SHALL NEVER EXCEED THE PENALTY SET FORTH IN THE BOND AND WHETHER THE LOSSES OR
i
:,RECOVERIES ARE WITHIN 7HE FIRST AND/OR SUBSEOVENT OR WITHIN ANY 'cXTeNS10N OR RENEWAL PERIOD, PRESENT, PAST OR FUTURE
ALL OTHER TERMS AND COND:'-IONS REMAIN UNCH..All
STONED AND DATED THIS ELE~+`E:~7TH DAY OF APRIL, Z 0 0 4
40-0702
CAPITAL SERVICE AGENCY,
' 0 BOX 1976
OLD
,RgDU_BLIC84 hURAN
CE COMPANY
DES MOINES, TA 50306
tttttnkq~rt~
P'o
~yp R? Oq~t~"~ gY
A$St&TAH Wr~RFTARY
r W 7~C
FIRM
I L 19.0" -Z
1
CITY OF BURNSVILLE & CITY OF EAGAN 8 2005 AUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT
3 y
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. APPROVE NAME CHANGE ON THE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
STARKS SALOON, LOCATED AT 3125 DODD ROAD, TO
RICKEY'S CAFE/STARKS SALOON
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a name change on the liquor license for Starks Saloon, located at 3125 Dodd
Road, to Rickey's Cafe/Stacks Saloon.
FACTS:
• Starks 1, Inc., the entity that holds the on-sale liquor license formerly doing business
as Starks Saloon, 3125 Dodd Road, has requested a name change to doing business
as Rickey's Cafe/Starks Saloon. There was no change in stock ownership or
management of the on-sale liquor store. Staff does not find any reason to deny the
name change.
35-
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
J. APPROVE CHANGE IN BUSINESS STRUCTURE (OWNERSHIP) OF
OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FROM RBF
CORP. OF WISCONSIN (CORPORATION) TO RBF, LLC OF
WISCONSIN (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a change in business structure (ownership) of off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
license from RBF Corp. of Wisconsin (Corporation) to RBF, LLC of Wisconsin (Limited
Liability Company).
FACTS:
• RBF Corp. of Wisconsin, dba Rainbow Foods, located at 1276 Town Centre
Drive, is changing its business structure from a corporation to a limited liability
company.
• The reorganization of the company will not result in any changes in direct
ownership.
• The applicant has completed the appropriate documents and following staff's
review they have been deemed in order for approval.
3~
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
K. Name Change for Tobacco License - Rainbow Foods
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Approve change in name for 2005 Tobacco License from RBF Corporation of
Wisconsin to RFB, LLC of Wisconsin
FACTS:
• RFB Corporation of Wisconsin (dba Rainbow Foods) recently had a change in
business structure and is requesting the name on their 2005 Tobacco License be
changed to reflect the new name - RFB, LLC of Wisconsin.
• Staff deems this request in order for approval
ATTACHMENTS:
None
3~
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
L. APPROVE TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
FAITHFUL SHEPHERD CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND WAIVE $150.00
FEE
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Faithful Shepherd Catholic School and
waive the $150.00 license fee.
FACTS:
• Faithful Shepherd Catholic School has requested a temporary on-sale liquor license
be issued to them for a fundraiser planned for September 23, 24 and 25, 2005. The
fundraiser is the second annual "Septemberfest", which is being held to raise money
for the operation of the school.
• The application form has been submitted and deemed in order by staff.
• Faithful Shepherd Catholic School is asking that the $150.00 license fee be waived.
Following Council approval, the application will be forwarded to the Department of
Public Safety/Liquor Control Division for their approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Letter and security plan enclosed without page number.
3X
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
M. PRELIMINARY SUBDVISION (PEARLMONT HEIGHTS) - TIM BOHLMAN
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a Final Subdivision (Pearlmont Heights) of 12.44 acres to create 51 lots, for
property located at 1565 and 1535 Violet Lane in the NE'/4 of Section 16; subject to the
conditions in the Staff report.
To approve a Final Planned Development to create 24 twinhome buildings (48 units) with
reduced setbacks on property located at 1565 and 1535 Violet Lane in the NE'/4 of Section 16;
subject to the conditions in the staff report.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Planned
Development on January 4, 2005.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution
at the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
Final Subdivision on page 7
o•xsr r~ or x6c rte--`
NOO°uMlr 95187
- - .-JS.n b nos-r-• ^'m-ar~arr Nmsaa> r roo•amrr rrosu~rr rvvssm> rbo~a~>w ssr°}' r~
p-p-~>o' m •u'uT su•rrsrz`. N _
R~ I ' N`J00•Sr'J 10600 ` y
=R n a a e w ro N t8 ell a~ ~R $R I .~E
~{a „ N N w8 8 a 8 8 8 t F. r i A , C
rz -4
ssm sam ='r" ip'`r 'C p• 4
i. C 8 8 8 4 sam sa1° uma6 ssw
I`1 v Yrt nam !n-•c'i ~ b '+y Y R
y tprr• j ~ m y~4 e{
• lJ00 1c'rF 8
~`.i JO J1 'w rasW 3 J..JO NOYwY>'r rv6a) _ J''OO ,r, y °t`` v
" ~ t I . I , V~y 4{ 4°I r
I !MR I d °
r00•rS'J>T rrJ.N lI~ af` `'f• !pp•06Yrt 11•.00 8
-1191 E N«•na)z xn-=__ - U _ ~ii
-ILA.
.rr k i~ e' n°«•Jr'.r'w @ U rw•nYnr rar
t r
q•O I S117.
.00 '
Ir..es• : smroe7rt r)e.m n rn RR .
8 >°8 C I t rm•aeYrr rnn .
a $ I~ !00'!1 Y>T r)I.OD S00.Or'r>T r)l00 ~ F ~ ::i
r "aq'y Y w e :a Or
N +~i
li a yg„ N" V g I N6vatrw rnu r
U • I~ ~ j8 sm•OS)rt rN 00 M 500•a Yr[ rx 00
R r___ _ a 4 88 I 6m•os >w rnlr
•uJ + _ . !m•r6Y7t rrwm e t n
`p~, g ~ Z ! ~Q `T, J00.O.Yrt «.6t °I I r r ~ J
~ ~ s01w7 rxim ~ ~ ' 8 i svrr et rz>. a 8 L ~ - - - m
Gam n..u NbYI'a1T atu r., a
~ ~V 6`tc Y i g d 4 C s00•mYrt r:..m k Ik rror•aY>w rr..n
c,~t. VYy ~C ~ nC ~~~I~71
':i 8 tot :'6s b - \ e •SS G ~ Jvvwrrt u6m 8 p
~ __pyt Opyt1 } dS $ e ~ tr P 't•p I rro•!¢xrr 11..11 F
gig k, a t rF v d w~cy
7~ „ 8ti 'o ~ /r' 8~ ,I'Y»I'µ1` V 8 I r~ O
:R g8 '6 r. s~ d m0.O nrn.n Ca N
R+~ 2R --lr'~i~t V L_ m>s I i Nm'6rY>w v6u
7o sos'J:rosi 4. $ LL Nn•vvz y
urr r J ,•8 a - /
- ~C ft ftr ~ v5 _ N raQ. SP INO.O6 Yr rrax . .
R 500°21'I97 J70.0 - - - _ - - O m
Rj I rwroeYrr uaae
a• ~R ~R~ I R~ ii(111J,
R
~ - ~ ~yR I a b RR
R n 8~8 6 8
Norvrrrr rw.w
• R, „ q Jo
::j IRBn' > It. ya I r
4s Ct~° 8g V g
I 7± I tt!~OA Na•aY>w rov
• ;~aR
:R 5 _ savrv'wz runs ".,I _ p
:
or d`
r--------------
v sm•mmwao! ry°a•°'svc ' P 3: O1 4' R
nI
8 8 8 8
>o Jo Js ao °x.m & ~yt ~Fc sls v
soo mm x.m o<
svm p° v>
i I UK v x r.unm>r or x s[
--1 r/~ p x Sr r/r Of x A[ r/•
ph-
3T I ~ s C~1~ aak9~ ~ ~
Q RR L
2 SRI
74
n O' ° 8~Y 9
Q / ~ 11111
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
N. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD) -
DAYCARE
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve Final Planned Development to allow a daycare facility on the Blue Cross Blue
Shield campus, Lot 3, Block 1, Blue Cross Addition.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development Agreement on
November 6, 2003.
➢ The Preliminary Planned Development Agreement is for the overall development of the
campus, each phase requires a Final Planned Development.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at
the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Master plan on page --l-~
1
F~~ a r
i ~ ! fG ~ • ~ CJ«F ~ f~
> ID
ry O
t
k
i
s i i - E ~ ~ h ♦ p
Moe,
I
I
, p M
r
-
r r \ { c y
3 r 1- r ' a a I
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
0. FINAL SUBDIVISION (CEDAR BLUFF BUSINESS CENTER) - OPUS
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve Final Subdivision (Cedar Bluff Business Center) of 5 acres to create 2 lots for
property located at 3070 Lexington Avenue.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Planned
Development on October 19, 2004 and rezoned the property from Agriculture to Planned
Development.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at
the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS (1):
Final Subdivision on page
~3
i .
i
11pN ~3.0y 30837
App moo t 41,
PELL 4'
ray s~ ~I C
5II,VER 36,08
! \ dJ `02vf
• ' a ~ ~ \ f~46 O^ ~Kr/~iP' a""a w*,g~--r+".,... ~ ' cs ~ ~
73 T6
22
-o2 V
r \ N a 9 X50 t' i \Vv\
j •.2 '44
25 lZD yr\ 4
\ \ \ r6 4 ar~:o' r - 3\i~'ti
let
Z
~ \ \ ~ om 7 k aw 41~ r~~
i /
t _ 542
54
\ \ CRESTW000 ADDITION
l
f'j (on
r; 0
cn m g N i1 1~s ~~f 9l
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
P. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CLIFF LAKE
CENTRE 3RD ADDITION (EAGAN PET CLINIC)
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Final Planned Development to construct a
new veterinarian clinic located at 4395 Rahn Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 29.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development on May 21, 2002.
➢ The proposed development is consistent with the Preliminary Planned Development
Agreement.
➢ The Final Planned Development Agreement has been signed and is in order for execution
at the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS (None)
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
Q. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (GRAND OAK 9) - INTERSTATE
PARTNERS
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve Final Planned Development for a 30,000 SF Class A office building on Lot 4,
Block 1, Grand Oak Five located in the SE'/4 of Section 2.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development Agreement on August
2, 2004.
➢ The Preliminary Planned Development Agreement covers each of the four parcels; each
lot requires Final Planned Development approval.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at
the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: (1)
Master plan on page p
~6
Y 11H ~'n Oa a j:
as~#;i 1R 1141,1
c'A a145a1a wa o
g F7' ~ 'o
SI I e
t „
II m
1
6bL ON MAN 31V15
m......Mm p-
I~I
r
° t iS 000`01 ! i!///02 i I f zq
I I ® ttHVODNVaa as } 1 mo
° (Ill : I I,i 4 , I I
I `s I111V11~' r
t
;I'
1 awm p
I h aw /
I v;z • T4 l t .
o=$°o I 8 m o4 ~g" l
"s 4 I o a,~ / 1 Z Z
5 s
` ° I 4y Zo Y
U1, -
5
- op
` , i • e
y 5 r j~ /rr At f
$ t hQ i •
i' o si
3° ° ^ ^
yZyq S~.- ~i • goc mail ~:I
Na gg c
~z
s
S ~"'~r7 6~ Fi
`E'O w
w N RF€ D`~~ ~ ~ s
€g ~ z -
` ;I I
11 1 °
-
Sill ON AAAN MV IS
- - - - - - - - - -
\
ywwa~ rAw`~ny
1 II
' ~sooo`o4 ;i / X 1 1 ' zo
1 1 a 11 1 1-t 'AV0 i3W* n f f f rf a j ! m o
z 101
s 11 / t I
V o 1 1. 1
I I z 1 ` ay~,'Y
z: 13:
s 1l II qWW 1 ♦ * ®1 , I
is 5 1 9 ~ 1 1 C~ c~Sl! ~
All s 1 I z S~ O OLLgo 1 R~ ! r~ q! f
~V I o V O~ ¢ r / ~
yll II s I 11 ' ® R ® ~ /~X ~ 8 ww
11 1 1 I
VI 1 I I1~' _ _ -
1 z 1 • 4 r
I
t:ss
= s° ! '
970
\ \ b ON ° o Y
~s \ 3^ u egu
} qy; `7 S
s~L S <G ~ giR a
iJ
ZO 9c® IF oo `zs
N_~ 1 G °
5 R
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
R. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SHOPS AT GRAND OAK) -
INTERSTATE PARTNERS
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve Final Planned Development for a 13,000 SF retail/restaurant in two buildings on
Lot 3, Block 1, Grand Oak Five located in the SE '/a of Section 2.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development Agreement on August
2, 2004.
➢ The Preliminary Planned Development Agreement covers each of the four parcels; each
lot requires Final Planned Development approval.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at
the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: (1)
Master plan on page
~9
4 3i
[77~~ _ F
'YX W ~i
fA WW
S-~
$_4 a "tit o
ga 2 x
,1 1
-
It I
66l ON AM 31vis
~w=n.p~~~vrws
jam{ ~ ~ ! ~ - - - - ,•,/L ~ j
t 1 <o ! I
`t {1 I1 ° y iSOpp'6L ~l/. 20 1 1 a0
1 L4~vooNVao ~i ~ i a°' y
I y ® zsoi .i ~ 1 ; ~ ~0.
~ 1 i 3 1;® ~ I 1
w ~ I
a
o = ) ;
ohog
s ; a= z~oS I a, e o A t
i I ~ 1 J ~ ~ ~ ~ / ; o me ,I
r ° I oy ro j n :v /
a I I Y fi ) " 7~ 2
ZE
>41
g 4 ~ a
3
yzc ~ F $a R6« ; !fir
I;
iIE s lilt
j pi:7 J
SS a E till
t ZP
c ~ s~n ;{E J ~ ~ -
€ c
s xesx $
_r z
~t t
6bl ON AM RWIS
~ \ - lul---
r
awwrn"a.A,m~.y
so t At
` I 1
1 t 9 t ~pQp~O~ i/// Z t t 1 2G
' t a ' t 4L 7lV0 piOjyl!"J / / a t t ` u~i0
r.LO
/ ~ t 1
1 ` ~ W t a 8 ° ~ t
?~I
%
® 1
1 a t m c` J
It t t y ~ / ~ °
It t = t 1 a ! / ~ ~.~iw '
1 11n' t r _ ~ a
t
l t = - as a / 6
c~ I a O S ~ / ~ F „
C7 ~ 4 O , 11 W e o ~ ~ `cs ~
/ rtd G 'o ° d ~
41,
s
3 22
N 6Ft~
Isla
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
S. FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (Bank wldrive through) - RJ RYAN
CONSTRUCTION
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve Final Planned Development for a 20,000 SF Bank with drive through on Lot 2,
Block 1, Grand Oak Five located in the SE'/4 of Section 2.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ The City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Development Agreement on August
2, 2004.
➢ The Preliminary Planned Development Agreement covers each of the four parcels; each
lot requires Final Planned Development approval.
➢ All documents and Agreements are anticipated to be signed and in order for execution at
the regular meeting of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: (1)
Master plan on page
sa
gs g d Qa ` pa,, do H a ~
lilt.
i X691 p _ 3~a p m: c7 dRS m.
H-11
y_~ ~ ~ ^ SSS45 ~ y
I Ln
z
~~~g w a
°
< 1 m
V 1`I
ll 1 °
-
Olt ON NNi 31V1S
- - -
k y _-~L i- t
) I ~ ~ 1 I ~ j3olajot / ~////zo II I 1 tl
Vt I 1 z
1 1 a I`I 1~~ 1 I tl)itlO C"dus 1 0.?a- I 1 1 m❑go
1111 i f l Z10'1 i/ C 1 1 ~ yla
a : 1 I `
~1 l a
1 1 9 I ti - 9 ~Ipb Q , 1
I I arb 9 :1 ~
` 1 Qww ~ 4 s 3 ~/y ~
1 I s
.Tk
I- zoY 1 ° e m"p ` R 1
4 e 1 ¢y y _
1 a I S 'a`o f 9
1 h e / /
I1~'1 i~ 1 4 i
ppp 1
od of / / / t N Q
"
c~ .mac P
'ryPQ K~P
~ -31 w 2
F c~ ? ~ R KK Y •.yyl
4
o s
ON HwQ 5 i
8 mffil
a1 m
11
W ON AMH 31YJZ
- \ - -
3MW.eA.~
1 j1 I i
Gaeov
} zo
i a 1 1 µ 0o Ave / / o°~ I 1 I c~ a
f zln"
1 3~ 3 II /i/ I ~ I
z !F
} 1 1 `rte ~ 3-
1 I a I .
1 a a S ~ 1
I 4W0 . * \ 1
1 R= J a0 ~ II S3 t n O h r
.3 1 ° 6 O Q ~~iy~'
ll I O 1 C
1 1 ' e y ~ rr
~ 3 1 Q41 Qg
~I o O Sm ~ / ~
11 1 I y q y
III = 1 11 a s ~ , $~.:r'w
II 1 i I ~ ~ ® / 7(
11 1 I ~ I ~ ! Lq ~r
~I I I Ifs` a n n
0 1 _ _
'u5 6600 y~,~F / n^ ;'1, g9 " n
is SSE
\Y u ~ W „n n
w^ oX e ~ ,n .
s g ~'b ' .985 °
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
T. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THE ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS
GRANT (AFG)
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve an application for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG)
FACTS:
➢ The AFG is awarded federally through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
➢ For 2003 and 2004, the appropriations package includes $750 million for the Fire
Grant Program.
➢ There are approximately 32,000 fire departments eligible to apply for assistance
under this grant program.
➢ The Eagan Fire Department is requesting grant funds to purchase Wards Diesel
Exhaust Removal systems for each of the City's 12 diesel powered Fire vehicles.
These systems will remove the high levels of chemicals known to be found in
diesel exhaust fumes.
➢ Studies have been shown that exposure to diesel exhaust can cause serious known
and suspected health concerns, including cancer. The exhaust contains monoxide
and sulfur dioxide, both of which are restricted chemicals by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
➢ The specific diesel exhaust removal system that is proposed to be funded by the
grant is a direct-source capture filter system mounted on individual fire vehicles.
➢ The cost of these systems is $8,568 per system, for a total cost of $102,816.
➢ Grantees must share in the cost of the grant activities. As a community with a
population over 50,000, the City would be required to match 20% of the grant
funding, or in this case $20,563.
➢ If the City were to be selected as a grant recipient, FEMA would contact the City
before awarding the funding to determine whether the City is willing and able to
provide the 20% match. If at that time, the City is not able to provide the match,
the funds would not be awarded and the money would be allocated to another fire
department.
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
U. APPROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR
CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY CAPITAL FUND
BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve a recommendation by the EDC to participate in the Twin City Community Capital Fund at the
$200,000 level, to close out the City's current revolving loan fund and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the participation documents.
FACTS:
➢ In the 1990's, the City capitalized a revolving loan fund as two local businesses repaid Minnesota
Investment Fund (MIF) for which the City acted as a conduit. Under the MIF program, the City
partnered with Lull Engineering and Professional Plastics Inc. to submit MIF applications. When
the firms repaid the loans, the City was entitled to retain up to $100,000 of the repayment for
revolving loan fund purposes. Through these repayments, a loan fund of $196,000 was created.
➢ A revolving loan fund is typically a tool that cities use to provide secondary or gap financing for
businesses that are otherwise able to qualify for bank loans, but whose project proformas reflect a
gap between private equity and the amount to be financed.
➢ As part of its work program for 2004, the EDC reviewed options for activating the fund to make
new loans to businesses. Challenges included creating a mechanism to originate and service the
loans, particularly because the cost of such activities would be substantial as compared to the size
of the loans that could be made.
As a part of that review, the Commission received a presentation by the Northland Institute
regarding the possible formation of a business loan program called the Twin Cities Community
Capital Fund (TCCCF). The fund would be modeled on a successful prototype in greater
Minnesota, called the Minnesota Community Capital Fund, also coordinated by the Institute.
➢ Communities can participate by making a deposit with the fund. The size of the deposit
determines the fund's lending capacity on behalf of the community and the community's voting
rights as part of the fund. The maximum individual loan would be ten times the community's
deposit amount and the fund can make an unlimited number of loans at that level to qualified
businesses in the community. Interest rates are comparable to bank financing. The economy of
scale of the fund permits it to originate and service the loans as part of the economics of the
transactions. The
➢ Following a review by the Commission's Finance and Development Policy Committee, the
Commission is recommending participation in the fund by the City at the $200,000 level, which
will permit the fund to process loans to Eagan businesses up to $2 million. Staff is proposing that
the difference between the current balance in the revolving loan fund and the proposed
contribution be offset by a reallocation of economic development allocations within the general
fund.
ATTACHMENTS:
Background regarding the TCCCF on pages through
S6
I Lffiqm
TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY
CAPITAL FUND
Economic Dcvelopment Financing
for Growing Businesses
The Northland Institute, a Minnesota nonprofit organization, is in the process of
establishing the Twin Cities Community Capital Fund (TCCCF), a new economic
development financing resource for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The purpose of the
TCCCF is to leverage millions of dollars in Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) and other
economic development funds owned and managed by metro area local governments and
development financing organizations. By pooling resources, TCCCF members will have the
advantage of offering much larger loans than would be possible with limited local
resources, greater gap-lending flexibility for financing local development projects, and
significantly lower loan risk-all with the support and services of a professional fund
manager and experienced loan officers at no cost to Fund members.
How will the Fund work?
• The TCCCF is a Minnesota nonprofit membership corporation that will be governed
by representatives of member organizations.
• Three membership levels are available. The minimum membership investment is
$200,000 for Class A shares, $100,000 for Class B shares, and $50,000 for Class C
shares. You choose the membership level that best fits your organizational needs.
The Fund will begin operating once the initial $2 million capitalization goal has
been reached.
• Members will be able to originate loans of up to ten times the amount they have
on deposit with the Fund. For example, a Class B member who deposits $100,000
in the Fund can originate loans of up to $1,000,000--with no limit on the number
of loans that any one member can originate.
• The TCCCF will be a self-sustaining financing resource. Recapitalization of the
Fund will be through the sale of pre-approved loans to a national secondary
market, which ensures that the Twin Cities Community Capital Fund will always
have money to lend!
• Members will determine which projects they wish to support through the TCCCF
Loan Fund, which can be used as a gap-financing source for nearly any local
economic development project.
S~
• The Fund's loan officers will work closely with members, prospective borrowers,
and other participating lenders in analyzing and structuring financing deals that
best meet the needs of all parties. The interest rate and terms of all TCCCF loans
are negotiable, with most loans subordinate to the lead lender in the financing
package. TCCCF staff will prepare all documents for loan closings and will
negotiate the sale of all loans to the secondary market, without any cost to
members.
• By selling all TCCCF loans to secondary capital markets on an advance
commitment basis, the originating member significantly reduces their loan loss
risk.
• TCCCF members will be able to take advantage of the New Markets Tax Credit
program, which provides for below market rate loans to eligible borrowers,
without having to handle all of the paperwork associated with participation in this
new Federal economic development initiative.
• Membership in the TCCCF comes with a money back guarantee. Ninety percent of
the funds received from members will be deposited in the TCCCF Loan Fund
escrow account, which will be managed by an independent Escrow Agent. These
funds will remain the property of each respective member and may only be used
to fiord TCCCF loans. Ten percent of each member's funds will be in the form of a
loan to the TCCCF for start-up operating capital. Members may withdraw their
money from the Loan Fund escrow account anytime after three years from the
date of deposit, or reduce their position in the Fund down to the $50,000 level---
for any reason whatsoever.
• The Fund will contract with the Northland Institute for professional management
services in order to keep operational costs down. The fund manager and loan
officers are experienced in business financing, deal structuring, portfolio
management, and administration. All TCCCF operating expenses will be paid from
portfolio interest earnings and loan origination fees paid by borrowers.
When can we join?
Final Fund development work is currently underway. Formal member solicitation will begin
in January 2005, when our detailed Membership Disclosure Statement is released to all
interested metro area economic development organizations. The Fund will be launched
once the $2 million initial capitalization goal is reached, which we hope will be by June.
If you, or someone you know, are interested in the TCCCF, please contact Scott Martin at
the Northland Institute at (952) 541-9674 for more information.
For more information, please contact us at-
•
NortMandInstitute The Northland Institute was established in 1996
13911 Ridgedole Drive, Suite 260 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, with the
Minneapolis, MN 55305 mission of developing innovative asset-building
Phone: (952) 541-9674 strategies for low-income individuals,
Fax: (952) 541-9684 entrepreneurial non-profits and community
Email: smartin@northiandinst.org economic development organizations.
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY CAPITAL FUND
ARTICLE I
NAME
The name of the corporation shall be Twin Cities Community Capital Fund.
ARTICLE 11
REGISTERED OFFICE
The location of the registered office of the corporation shall be 13911 Ridgedale Drive,
Suite 260, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305.
ARTICLE III
PURPOSE
This corporation is organized and shall at all times hereafter be operated exclusively for
charitable purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Within the foregoing
limitations, this corporation will combat community deterioration by promoting the development
of housing and business enterprises throughout Anoka County, Carver County, Dakota County,
Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Scott County, and Washington County in Minnesota.
The operations of the corporation are intended to provide financing and development services to
business and affordable housing enterprises, in order to foster economic development and job
opportunities, with an emphasis on those projects and enterprises owned, controlled and
operated by, and for the benefit of, those who live within the described area, or are committed to
hiring persons affected by poverty or by the deterioration within the described area. The
corporation is also intended: (a) to be eligible for certification as a Community Development
Financial Institution under the criteria specked in 12 CFR Part 1805 of the federal regulations,
(b) to qualify as a Community-Based Development Organization under the criteria and
procedures specified in 24 CFR Part 570.204 of the federal regulations, and (c) to meet the
criteria specked in Section 45D of the Internal Revenue Code as a Qualified Community
Development Entity. To the extent consistent with the foregoing, the corporation may pursue all
other lawful purposes available to the nonprofit corporations organized as such under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
ARTICLE IV
POWERS
This corporation is organized under and shall have the authority and general powers contained
in the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A, as it now exists
or may hereafter be amended.
Printed:4/14/2005 Created:11/10/2004 bjk 1
G:\EDC\Revolvinq Loan Fund\TC Community Capitol Fund\Documentation\TCCCF Articles of Incorporation2 112404.doc
vv
ARTICLE V
PROHIBITED PURPOSES AND POWERS
This corporation shall not afford pecuniary gain, incidentally or otherwise, to its members, other
than nonprofit corporations (except the payment of reasonable fees for goods and services
rendered and approved in accordance with the bylaws), and no part of the net income or net
eamings of this corporation shall, directly or indirectly, be distributable to or otherwise inure to
the benefit of any individual.
The corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of
statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. No substantial
part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise
attempting to influence legislation, unless and to the extent the corporation makes an election
available to public charities under federal tax law to permit limited expenditures to influence
legislation, in which event such limits shall be strictly observed to preserve the corporation's
exempt status.
ARTICLE VI
DISSOLUTION
Upon the dissolution of the corporation, the board of directors shall, after paying or making
provision for the payment of all of the liabilities of the corporation, dispose of all the assets of the
corporation exclusively for the purposes of the corporation in such manner, or to such
organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes as
shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under §501(c)(3),
§170(b)(1)(A)(i-vi), §170(c)(2), §2055(a) and §2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or
the corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue law), as the board of
directors shall determine. Any assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the district
court of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is then located, exclusively for
the purposes of the corporation or to such organization or organizations, as the court shall
determined, which are so qualified and are organized and operated exclusively for such
purposes.
ARTICLE VII
MEMBERSHIP
The corporation shall have three classes of members. Members whose contribution and/or
working capital loan to the corporation and deposit to the loan fund amounts in the aggregate to
$200,000 shall be designated as "Class A members." Members whose contribution and/or
working capital loan to the corporation and deposit to the loan fund amounts in the aggregate to
at least $100,000 but less than $200,000 shall be designated as "Class B members." Members
whose contribution and/or working capital loan to the corporation and deposit to the loan fund
amounts in the aggregate to at least $50,000 but less than $100,000 shall be designated as
"Class C members." Two of the directors of the corporation shall be elected exclusively by Class
A members. Two of the directors of the corporation shall be elected exclusively by Class B
members. Two of the directors of the corporation shall be elected exclusively by Class C
members. Other than this limited right to vote for directors and the right to approve modifications
to the articles or bylaws which modify the limited right to vote for directors, no member shall
Printed:4/14/2005 Created:11/10/2004 bjk 2
G:\EDC\RevDlvinq Loan Fund\TC Community Capitol Fund\Documentation\TCCCF Articles of Incorporation2 112404.doc
(115;1 V
have any rights of governance with respect to the corporation. Members are entitled to one vote
for each $1,000 contribution and/or loan to the corporation for working capital and one vote for
each $1,000 of deposit balance in the Loan Fund (fractions are disregarded).
The members of the corporation shall have no property rights in the assets of the corporation
and no earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of or be distributable to the
members, except the members may be reasonably compensated for services performed for the
corporation.
The members of the corporation shall have the authority to elect directors to the extent set out in
the Bylaws. The approval of such members shall be required prior to amendment or
abridgement of this right to elect certain directors, but the members of the corporation shall have
no other rights with respect to the governance of the corporation.
ARTICLE VIII
NO PERSONAL LIABILITY
The officers, directors and members of this corporation shall not be personally liable for the
acts, debts, liabilities or obligations of the corporation or any enterprise or activity carried on or
sponsored by it.
ARTICLE IX
ACTION WITHOUT A MEETING
An action may be taken by written action signed by the number of directors that would be
required to take the same action at a meeting of the board at which all directors were present.
The written action is effective when signed by the required number of directors, unless a
different effective time is provided in the written action. When written action is taken pursuant to
the authority of this Article, all directors must be noted immediately of its text and effective
date. Failure to provide the notice does not invalidate the written action. A director who does
not sign or consent to the written action is not liable for the action.
ARTICLE X
INCORPORATORS
The names and addresses of the incorporators are:
Scott A. Martin
13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 260
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305
Lary Blackstad
417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Printed:4/14/2005 Created:11/10/2004 bjk 3
G:\EDC\Revolving Loan Fund\TC Community Capitol Fund\Documentaattion\TCCCF Articles of Incorporation2 112404.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have made, subscribed and acknowledge these Articles of
Incorporation this day of , 2004.
Scott A. Martin
Larry Blackstad
Printed:4/14/2005 Created:11/10/2004 bjk 4
G:\EDC\Aevolvinq Loan Fund\TC Community Capitol Fund\Documentation\TCCCF Articles of Zncorporation2 112404.doc
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
V. LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HAWTHORNE RIDGE
EASEMENT VACATION
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the petition to vacate public drainage and
utility easements on Lot 1, Block 1, Hawthorne Ridge and schedule a public hearing to be
held on May 17, 2005.
FACTS:
• On April 6, 2005, City staff received a petition from Mr. Jerzy Szoka of Excel
Development, owner of Lot 1 Block 1 Hawthorne Ridge, requesting the vacation of
existing drainage and utility easements on said property, in the northwest corner of
Diffley Road (Co.Rd. 30) and State Trunk Highway 3.
• The drainage and utility easements were originally dedicated with previous City
ownership of this property, and maintained with the final plat of Hawthorne Ridge,
approved by City Council January 18, 2005.
• The purpose of the vacation is to allow the construction of a trash enclosure and
retaining wall which, as planned, will encroach into the existing easement.
• Notices will be published in the legal papers and sent to all potentially affected and/or
interested parties for comment prior to the scheduled public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS: (00-.
• Location map, page • Site Plan showing easement to be vacated, page.
o~3
ORTHWOOD m ^ ^
Pa.
o YANKEE DOODLE ROAD
v
W
s
WESC01 ROAD
rL
z ~
o W
qN~ PROPOSED EASEMENT
VACATION LOCATION
O
V
DIFFLEY ROAD ~Nj
ti
2
ter,
II
CUFF R
Proposed Easement Vacation
t of Eap a.Il 4/15/05
Hawthorn Ridge
E'je d tment
Nn
~ ~ 2.13•...,
co
a
O ~ IR r . 4 lr a
n
ft5 I tll QQ
W Q I d fi FF
3 I m> I i CU
A YIN
of
T i~ ry~ SSL6[ 3 tfT60A0f _ _ O ~ ~ W~
S as+tc 3..zc.eo.aos• ~ ~ :fa)~~+4 ~
O cc•o O.•.
AN
W l Wig -t
~~-T--- U-
a. C r_ ~ ~O co
to
F-I
<44
m~
3`~ ~ ' O I
zy 80 I
PLI
o
toot I V
.tf.tt.os
£E'B£3 LN.,T£.TTaOS i ~
fZM 'LCL 'YL " 03S Y3.tl LS131IMS 3tL 10 S/t LS13 3M1 10 311 153.
I a
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
W. ACKNOWLEDGE AWARD AND PROCLAIM MAY 14, 2005 AS ARBOR
DAY AND THE MONTH OF MAY AS ARBOR MONTH.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To acknowledge Eagan as the recipient of the 2005 Tree City USA Award from the
National Arbor Day Foundation, and approve the Arbor Day Resolution setting Saturday.
May 14 as Arbor Day and May, 2005 as Arbor Month in the City of Eagan.
FACTS
• Eagan has received the Tree City USA community designation from the National
Arbor Day Foundation for the sixteenth consecutive year. Each year the Parks
and Recreation Department conducts an Arbor Day program which includes
participation in a tree planting project. This year the 19"' annual event will be
held at Lexington-Diffley Athletic Fields.
• Recognition as a Tree City is based on efforts by the City to promote tree
planting in the community and the resolution demonstrates that effort.
• To become a Tree City, a community must meet four standards: a tree board or
department, a tree care ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program,
and an Arbor Day observance.
• Eagan has demonstrated progress in the following forestry activities:
Publications, parks and open space, and improved ordinance.
• The resolution was recommended for adoption by the Advisory Parks and
Recreation Commission.
• Receiving these awards acknowledges the City's efforts to minimize
environmental impact during developments, and adhere to policies such as
"Forever Green," aimed to maintain and enhance Eagan's trees and foliage.
Scheduled Arbor Day activities include:
9:00-9:30 Welcome, social hour, refreshments
9:30-10:30 Walking Tours, Demonstrations, Information Tables, Ask the Tree Doctor
10:30-12:00 Arbor Day landscape installation
12:00 Brief Arbor Day Program
Introduce 2005 Arbor Day poster artist - Wyatt Huso, Thomas Lake Elementary
Announce 2006 Arbor Day poster contest winner.
12:30 Picnic lunch served by city dignitaries, staff and volunteers
ATTACHMENTS:
• Eagan Arbor Day and Eagan Arbor Month resolution on page
• 19' annual Arbor Day Celebration flyer on pa.
~6
CITY OF EAGAN
RESOLUTION
A PROCLAMATION OF EAGAN ARBOR DAY
AND EAGAN ARBOR MONTH
WHEREAS, trees are a most valuable resource in the State of Minnesota and City of
Eagan - purifying our air and water, helping conserve our soil, serving as a recreational settings,
providing habitat for wildlife for all kinds, and enriching our lives in so many important ways;
and
WHEREAS, pollutants, tree diseases and urban expansion have damaged and continue to
threaten our trees, creating the need for reforestation programs and concerted public action
toward ensuring the future of out City's urban forests; and
WHEREAS, each year the people of Minnesota pay special attention to the wonderful
gift that our trees represent and dedicate themselves to the continued health of our state's trees;
and
WHEREAS, The City of Eagan has been recognized as a Tree City USA community by
the National Arbor Day Foundation since 1988 and desires to continue its tree-planting programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Eagan City Council does hereby
proclaim Saturday, May 14, 2005 to be ARBOR DAY and the month of May, 2005 to be
ARBOR MONTH in the City of Eagan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council further urge citizens to
become more aware of the importance of trees to the well-being of our community; and to
participate in City tree planting programs which will ensure a greener place for our citizens to live
in the decades to come.
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Motion made by:
Seconded by:
Those in favor:
Those against:
Dated:
CERTIFICATION
I, Maria Petersen, City Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular meeting thereof assembled this 19`h day of
April, 2005.
Maria Petersen, City Clerk
67
40ky~ City of Eapn demo
19th ANNUAL ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION
TO BE HELD AT
LEXINGTON-DIFFLEY ATHLETIC FIELDS
SATURDAY - May 14, 2005
Dear Resident,
Celebrate Arbor Day!
You are invited to join with the City of Eagan as we celebrate Arbor Day on
Saturday, May 14~', 2005 at Lexington-Diffley Athletic Fields. (Enter from the
north entrance off Diffley Road). Arbor Day has been celebrated in Eagan since
1987, and was established nationally to emphasize the importance of trees and
community reforestation.
Scheduled activities include:
9:00-9:30 Welcome, social hour, refreshments
9:30-10:30 Walking Tours, Demonstrations, Information Tables, Ask the Tree Doctor
10:30-12:00 Arbor Day landscape installation
12:00
Brief Arbor Day Program
Introduction of 2005 Arbor Day poster artist - Wyatt Huso, Thomas Lake Elementary
Announcement of 2006 Arbor Day poster contest winner.
12:30
Picnic lunch served by city dignitaries, staff and volunteers
For further information or to volunteer for planting, please contact the Parks
Maintenance office at (651) 675-5300. It is requested that you register for this event so
we can ensure sufficient amounts of food for the picnic lunch. Thank you.
Paul Olson Gregg Hove
Superintendent of Parks Supervisor of Forestry
See you there!
I.-Wrbor day/arbor day invite2005
6~'
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA
X. AWARD BID FOR TANKER TRUCK CHASSIS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To award the bid for a new 2005 tanker truck chassis to the low bidder meeting the
requirements of the specifications and also fulfilling the requirements for bidding:
Allstate Sales Inc., for the bid amount of $54,094.oo
FACTS:
• This is a replacement. The tanker being replaced was purchased in 1986 and is
assigned to the Park and Recreation Department. The primary uses being rink
flooding, street and trail flushing, building and pavilion cleaning, watering City
trees and landscapes.
• The Chief Mechanic of the City has rated the existing vehicle as being in need of
"immediate consideration" for replacement due to its poor mechanical condition.
• The replacement of the vehicle was approved by the Administrative team
responsible for the review and consideration of requests for vehicle and
equipment replacement as part II of the 2005 CIP.
• The Council has previously approved part II of the CIP, including this vehicle.
• Because of the unique features required to accommodate the appropriate tank
system, a chassis was not available through the State or County Contract, often
used for cooperative purchasing. This circumstance, and the cost, necessitated the
need for competitive bidding.
• There were four bids received by the deadline, one was not considered complete
due to the lack of the required bid bond, and therefore, at the recommendation of
the City Attorney, was not accepted or considered.
• The advertisement for bid appeared in the official City newspaper. Additional bid
requests were sent to numerous vendors.
• The tank will be purchased and installed separately
• The total cost of the replacement vehicle, including chassis, tank and accessories
is budgeted at $135,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
Bidding Summary /b 70
q
6
2005 TANKER TRUCK CHASSIS
BID SUMMARY
The following vendors submitted complete bid packages and met the minimum
requirements of the mechanical specifications, all in accordance with the City "Invitation
to Bid";
1. Allstate Sales Incorporated (GMC) = $54,094.oo
2. Twin Cities Mack Sales (Mack) = $72,199.oo
3. I-State Truck Center (Freightliner) = $75,513.00
Based upon a determination of the City Attorney a fourth bid, from Iten Chevrolet,
was not considered due to the lack of the required Bid Bond.
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
Y. 2005 Tree Contractor License for Aspenwall Tree Service
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Approve Tree Contractor License for Aspenwall Tree Service, 9011 Portland
Avenue S., Bloomington.
FACTS:
• Aspenwall Tree Service has complied with all requirements of the application for
a tree contractor license
• Staff deems this license in order for approval
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA:
Z. 2005 Tree Contractor License for Asplundh Tree Expert Company
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Approve Tree Contractor License for Asplundh Tree Expert Company, 8236
Arthur St. NE, Spring Lake Park.
FACTS:
• Asplundh Tree Service has complied with all requirements of the application for a
tree contractor license
• Staff deems this license in order for approval
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
A. PROJECT 800R, CEDAR GROVE ACCESS MODIFICATIONS
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Approve the Final Assessment Roll for Project 80OR
(Cedar Grove Access Modifications) and authorize its certification to Dakota County for
Collection and authorize a deferment of collection subject to execution of the required
deferment agreement.
FACTS:
• Project 80OR provided for the general reconfiguration of the Silver Bell accesses
to State Trunk Highway 13 from both the north and south. It also included related
property acquisitions and streetscaping improvements. This project was
completed in 2004 and all costs have been tabulated and a Final Assessment Roll
has been prepared.
• The Final Assessment Roll was presented to the City Council on March 15 and
the Public Hearing scheduled for April 19. All notices have been published in the
legal papers and sent to all affected property owners informing them of this Public
Hearing. In addition, an informational neighborhood meeting was held on April
12 to review these proposed assessments with interested property owners. Of the
66 properties notified, 6 attended this informational meeting. A summary of the
meeting comments are attached.
• During the continuum of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Program, the Council
has had several discussions regarding the proposed financing of these
improvements. Although official Council minutes do not contain specific
directives, there are several factors that seem to enter into the levying and
collection of Special Assessments at this time as necessary to finance a portion of
these improvement costs:
o Special Assessments were designated as one major source of financing
these improvements. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the City's Major
Street Fund were other major sources.
o There was an interest to defer the collection of special assessments until
the time of redevelopment.
o Pending assessments can create significant financial burdens on future
sales due to finance companies requiring escrows of up to 200% of
pending assessments of record. (To minimize this impact, on May 7, 2002
the Council reduced the assessable costs identified in the Feasibility
Report and amended the Pending Assessment Role from $10,080,425 to
$3,189,600.) The total amount of final assessment being presented is
$1,922,284 (21% of the project's final costs)
1~3
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.)
PROJECT 800R, CEDAR GROVE ACCESS MODIFICATIONS
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
FACTS: (cont.)
o Minnesota Statutes (429.061, subd. 2) state that any levied assessment
cannot be deferred indefinitely.
o The City Council's Finance Committee directed staff to proceed with a
benefit analysis from a certified appraiser and prepare a final benefit
assessment roll along with a process that would allow property owners an
option to defer the payment until redevelopment. (For many property
owners, there is no definite timeframe for when redevelopment will
incorporate their property.)
o Properties developed to date have paid their Preliminary Pending
assessment amounts under the terms of their development agreements (i.e.
Keystone Sr. Housing & US Homes' Nicols Ridge Residential
developments)
• The Final Assessment Roll being presented was prepared based on the limiting
benefit value as determined by the appraiser. Staff prepared an agreement that
will allow property owners to defer the payment of the levied assessments for 3
years and then have it spread over a subsequent 10 year period. A sample
agreement and a deferment request form was included with the mailed notices to
the property owners. As of April 15, the City has received 6 responses: 4 requests
for deferment, 1 formal objection & 1 commentary letter.
ISSUES:
• There is a great need to bring closure to the current pending assessments and have
the appropriate final assessments recorded to facilitate future sales and notify
prospective purchasers of this assessment obligation.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Final Assessment Roll/Report, pages ?,45' through
• Deferment letter, process and agmt request form, pages through 4
• Informational meeting comments, pages t' ugh
• Objection & Comment letters, pages ~ and
FINAL ASSESSMENT HEARING
PROJECT HEARING DATES
NUMBER - Project 800R ASSESSMENT - April 19, 2005
NAME - Cedar Grove Access Modifications andIMPROVEMENT- Amril 2„ 2002/FebruM 6, 2001
Streetscape Improvements
Street and Streetscape Construction
IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AND/OR ASSESSED
F.R.=Feasiblity Report
FINAL FINAL
RATE UNITS RATE UNITS
SANITARY STORM SEWER
SEWER
❑ Trunk ❑ Trunk
❑ Lateral
❑ Service
❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk
WATER STREET
❑ Trunk ❑ Gravel Base
❑ Lateral 0 Street Improvements
$14 $.144 /Sq. Ft.
❑ Service .60 .84 /Sq. Ft.
.24 .84 /Sq_Ft.
❑ Lat. Benefit/trunk .84 .84 /Sg. Ft.
.84 .84 /Sq. Ft.
❑ WAC
❑ Trail/Sidewalk
OTHER STREET LIGHTS
Completion
❑ Installation
❑ Energy Charge
CONTRACT NO.OF INTEREST AMOUNT CITY
NO. PARCELS TERMS RATE ASSESSED FINANCED
$3,191,392 F.R. $6,889,008 F.R.
01-04/02-09 78 10 Years 7.00% $1,922,283.84 $7,233,638.15
COMMENTS:
gs"'-
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GERALD R. WOBSCHALL, FINANCIAL CONSULTANT
DATE: March 24, 2005
SUBJECT: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, PROJECT 80OR
Cedar Grove Access Modifications and Streetscape Improvements
The City Council at the conclusion of the public hearings on April 2, 2002 and February 6, 2001, ordered
Project 8008. According to the feasibility report the following improvements: streetscape, intersection
realignment of Silver Bell Road and Trunk Highway 13, traffic signals, turn lanes and lane expansion on Trunk
Highway 13, were to be constructed and/or assessed. During the April 2, 2002 public hearing the Council struck
the expansion of lanes on Trunk Highway 13. In addition the turn lanes were deleted as funding was not available
from the State of Minnesota at the time of the public hearing. Funding for the turn lanes later became available and
Project 880 was used to account for those construction costs. In the feasibility report, it was proposed to assess the
intersection realignment and streetscape improvements using the area method of assessment. This assessment
report uses the area method of assessment. However. the assessment rates were determined by an independent
appraiser. The construction of the improvements was accomplished under Contracts 01-05 and 02-17, which
have been completed. The assessment hearing is scheduled for April 19, 2005. The following information was
used in the preparation of the assessment roll.
I. PROJECT COST
The construction cost includes the amount of $3,518,483.44 paid to various contractors for the construction of the
following detailed improvements. Other costs which consist of. engineering, design, contract management,
inspections, financing, legal, bonding, administration, and other totaling $1,795,459.70 and easement costs totaling
$3,841,978.85 were incurred resulting in an improvement and project cost of $9,155,921.99. The detail of these
other costs is provided on Schedule I. These other costs are allocated to the improvements constructed in order to
determine the cost of each improvement and the assessment rate.
CONSTRUCTION OTHER COSTS IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY
IMPROVEMENT COST & EASEMENTS COST REPORT
Access and Streetscape $2,947,457.44 $1,504,068.78 $4,451,526.22 $3,189,600
Trunk Storm Sewer 380,926.00 194,384.11 575,310.11
Traffic Signal 190,100.00 97,006.81 287,106.81 693,000
Easements 3,841,978.85 3,841,978.85 3,454,000
Expand to 6 Lanes 1,817,200
Dual Turn Lanes 926,600
(Now Project 880)
Total $3,518,483.44 $5,637,438.55 $9,155,921.99 $10,080,400
2
96
II. ASSESSMENTS
A. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS
No trunk utility improvements were proposed for assessments at the public hearing, therefore, no trunk
assessments are proposed in this assessment roll.
B. UTILITY LATERAL AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. Access and Streetscape Improvements
The Cedar Grove Access improvements consist of the realignment of the Trunk Highway 13 and Silver Bell
Road intersection. The realignment of the intersection necessitated the removal of the existing intersection of
Cedarvale Boulevard and Silver Bell Road and then creating a four legged intersection consisting of Silver Bell
Road and Cedarvale Boulevard/Beau De Rue Drive. The distance between the new intersection and the Trunk
Highway 13 and Silver Bell Road intersection was maximized to provide vehicle storage during peak traffic
periods. In addition streetscape improvements were installed at the intersection and along Cedar-Vale
Boulevard/Beau De Rue Drive. The cost to construct these improvements amounted to $2,947,457.44. Other
costs and easement costs in the amount of $1,504,068.78 were allocated resulting in an improvement cost of
$4,451,526.22. The improvement rate is computed in the following manner:
IMPROVEMENT COST ASSESSABLE UNITS COMPUTED
IMPROVEMENT RATE
$4,451,526.22 5,747,366 Sq. Ft. $.775/Sq. Ft.
The assessment rates used to determine the proposed assessments included with this roll were determined by an
independent appraiser. The rates are less than the improvement rate computed above.
2. Trunk Storm Sewer Improvement
The trunk storm sewer improvement consists of the construction of Pond AP-_ and associated outlet to the pond.
The cost to construct the pond and its appurtenances amounted to $380,926.00. Other costs that total $194,384.11
were allocated, which results in an improvement cost of $575,310.11. It is proposed the storm sewer trunk fund
will finance this trunk storm sewer improvement.
3. Traffic Signal
The traffic signal at the intersection of Silver Bell Road and Cedar Grove Parkway/Beau De Rue Drive and
Cedarvale Boulevard was installed at a construction cost of $190,100.00. Other costs in the amount of $97,006.81
were allocated to these construction costs resulting in an improvement cost of $ 287,106.81. It is proposed for the
Major Street Fund to finance the cost of this improvement.
3
12-0010,
4. Easements
The City paid $3,334,197.32 to acquire land for right-of-way and redevelopment purposes. Interest in the amount
of $507,781.53 was allocated resulting in a cost of $3,841,978.85. It is proposed the easement costs be financed by
the City's Cedar Grove TIF Fund.
C. ASSESSMENT TERMS
The assessments are proposed for a term of 10 years. The interest rate is 7.00% per annum on the unpaid balance.
III. CITY REVENUES (RESPONSIBILITY)
IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT CITY
IMPROVEMENT COST REVENUE (RESPONSIBILITY)
Street Costs $4,451,526.22 $1,922,283.84 ($2,529,242.38)
Trunk Storm Sewer 575,310.11 (575,310.11)
Traffic Signal 287,106.81 (287,106.81)
Easement 3,841,978.85 (3,841,978.85)
TOTAL $9,155,921.99 $1,922,283.84 $7,233,638.15
The following City Funds will provide noted financing of the City Responsibilities for the Project 800R.
FUND AMOUNT
Major Street Fund $1,556,214.97
Storm Sewer Trunk 575,310.11
Cedar Grove TIF 5,102,113.07
TOTAL $7,233,638.15
Gerald R. Wobschall
Reviewed Reviewed
Public Works Department Fi ce Department
Dated Dated
cc: Thomas A. Colbert, Director of Public Works
Mike Daugherty, City Attorney
Sue Sheridan, Accountant I
4
ASSESSMENT LEGEND
! J $0.14/S.F. nMI
$ 0.601 S.F.
$ 0.241 S.F.
KKKK
$ 0.181 S.F.
i ® $ 0.84 / S.F.
LLLL J~
A
$ 0.84 / S.F. Al, A2
d
0p~ j!
s /
B C
SILVER BELL ROA D
SILVER BELL RI
Z c: QQ1 HGF J
o
PP u O J,I,L o
'If
r w I / 1g R N a
N P K
X Q M MMMM
T
V NNNN
G LID 0000
9Q2 Z S Y
lS~~ C
HH-
O c 9
W W DDD ~v✓ C O
y v
>
[V,
I oo ,,~e
G ~~F OP G~0
GG ~ GLOP
UUU RRR
m LLL NNN TTT
Z MM L
m FFFF r'~ ~LG L4 SSS
xxx
m
AAAA
J
Z ^
G: Assessment BOOR I \ / \ - .
Cedar Grove Area Assessment 4/5/05
City of Ea~aIl City Prroject 80OR
Engineering Department
a
0
0
g
ti N W co c00 0 t') co 0O 000 c00 N co O N
tD O h LO of tp v c6 00 6 ti m ui cV
C P r t. O It a co O r f` V. co O N W)
O m co N CO N 01 LO co v on m v t--
R 69 69 to e ' 1A
\ bo w u9 H 6H H9 6q 69 N 60 ~ co 69
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O O
w O O O O O O O O O sq q eO} O O O q q
O 000 O co C n It n t~O C7 N 0) c0 N M N 7
Cl) Qn c. N to r- N 00 v ti tO (d a ~ vi t'. N
H O O co 64 M N N It 0 N (n t0 61) 613, ( 1 cR
rW 6A 6% 64 60 EA t! 6R 6). 69 69 N cli
N
H
Q
O
C
C
d
a
a0 O It N O 00 40 O O O O Q. N N (0 to
N M r,~ r tt "t c`') t0 N O N It a0 tf) 0) N W)
C N c to c) t'1 cc; (m N H ei r.: O C4 ;T N M a) O a c0 N co (O O t0 (O
N V N N to LO r tti a t` m r f` r 0)
ap n
H 00 O tO co co N O N O O (O Oi N EA h
O t0 tb 6A cn N N f7 v N N r is t0
y iA (n 6H 6A va y to is to to y 6n
a~
N
y
Q
~L LL ~L
y r O C, N co v 't y
o 0 0 0 0 o O t( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q O o 0 o N o o O 0 0 0 o C o 0 0
4. O o 0 0 0 NO 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O t0 O co co O O to O N O O N to LO O LO
ti t.- m T 0 O co co
Q O N 1+ tO O O to O C;
t° O O tp t0 0
J it4 c°g N
9 7 7 T (0D 0 b9 Co
y o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r r r r
Q .r r r r r r ~ ~ r r r r P
W U td U lQ
Ix F2 (X LD CC
N m m
a b
rr C
w, W N
~ ~ n u
y ~ _m m o0
aNi W v v
r X J t ~
yIw o 0 o Q V
~ ¢ m YYJ a m o a V (6 Q in
U U
~ Q
a r N t7
N H y
(A U) U U ri U r%~ U tr
4~
a
0
N
Ot
(t0
to O N co (0 O ee}} N CD N 0 N cO (D O O O N N tD N 00 a
co v t M O fD O N N t.- O O O (D O N r tT O W O i P, V ti M CMD N N (O N c t0 N N M
tN 't i N O N (0 (D ^ 1- W
_ (D W O O N N N a O M M t` N co Cl) co O CD O O ti
y to w O f` M O M t- M . N M a _ c M Oi 00 Oi tri v
~ w N w w w w r w -q w r w w r
ER to t!9 N9 w w w 69 w
(Al
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
v O O O O' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L^ eMe~~ f- 0 00 LO 0 M O O ~Mf CO O O M ~Ot tO to GD g N '~t aD tV~ M Co
M n cr0 N M fD N N ED 't n sY Si 4 GMD a0 't N O O N
N r to (D et tD w ~ O M N Ld M M N n to Qi M to M M O
V) w V G9 N w N N w w w O r r N w N
y et w 69 w 69 fS 69 H G`-A iR w w w to iA w
d w
y
y
Q
C
C
a
v N N 00 t N O (D co (DCA N 00 00 d' (D V O O N co co V 00
111 N (D
e.c~~ GO O V O O O f` Op O <t O lA O
C (O ~ ( D M O O W IT tq N M O 6 0 7 03 O O W eOt t D O Cl) to OD C)
D (D D> M M 00 O) 't v9 r N D N ) M F.- V to 14 O O O tt) O N 00 N OOD
0)
M w 06 (D N ct N t6 w V' w tri M (D .0 to M r- M N I
y _N G9 w w w w to w w w 69 w rw w w 6% w w w w
d w
y
Vi
Q
tD t` to tD CO 00 tD 03 OD M M CO Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o
a o a
O N O r O O O M O O O O N O 0 O N O O_ O O r O
't U') co N M Go O r g N O m m m N 01 N to W A N M
CI O O O O O O r r O r O O O O r O O O O O O O O O O
to O to O to O O to O t°n Cl O ton O u o') u o't O O to O O O O O O
CO to M to 00 (Y) W co to co W to co OA 00 e4 m m et O M O) M to M
(0 O r (D r r O O r (p t0 V ~f h t~ h
o r o r o o r o r o o r o o o o 1 o 1 o 1
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0
y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
O
J o
0
J Z O N
O O W W tL LL lL S S _ _ 7 Y J z z O O "t
Q D 0 W W it LL t1 C7 Ut S S Y Y J 2 Z Z O O
CL ~4
s
a
0
d
C
4
tD O N O O a It O N O a w 0 ~ 0 t0 ~ O
N O) CO of O M - O O - O N N CD m to d
to LO LO V) 0) to %6 c; c6 t.: pi vi c; c6 6 (d C N-:
co rr N GOD co O C"^') O 0) tMA CO CO ~ C) N fos
N M tv M t;
` O M Cl) N OD M N r Cfl O N N N N
(A 64 W d9 69 69 O 6% ww 6H 69 64 C9 69 6R N
y N
r
O O o O o o O O O o o O O O o o O Q o
O O C! O O o o C. o O O o O O O o O o
C O M O G a) •f o CV of CO 0 O N r N (C
O c07 9 ' N N O co CN co O 0) - CO O . co O 8 ti ~ Q tC)
E 0) (D Co O (D CV CA n C GD 4 1'7 M -7 CCP Q
h N at N M r h N N 60 N M M M M M
6f) 64 69 6A `Q O 69 60 V% H N 69 69 N v>
64
H y
V1 N
Q
C
d
a
co O co O O tp O O co O co N N (O 7 Q CO C.
aD (D O 'C (D 0) (O 0) O O GO O ti ti O CO
C tc) r• C m tap to to a CD M tri O
GOD Cl O7) N N N N N O) N a0 CA O O O of P O)
O M N N r` a ^ tf)
(0 m m co OD m h co Cl) V O 1C) r` r` r` co Q co
y Cl) to M 69 ~ 6) 69 w b9 69 H V3, 6% V> N ~
H ~
N
Q
o a O
0 0 0 0 0 o y o 0 0 0 0 0 y
0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 6 0 0 9 o
0 0 0 0 0 0 o
~ 0 0 0 0 0 o Q to 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 Q o
0 0 o co
o 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
O O O O O O R O O O O O O O O O (u co N
Q m m co m co CD C r- t` r- 0) a) n I-- r- n a O r`
00 J (o (o (0 v o ~2 c' r M c) c0
~+4
q 0 0
17 7
6 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 (O o
0 0 C w
cts Q 11 Co
w rc
C
U a) E
W N
~ M v ~
Q
ti u it
J y h p ~n
J U U ~ ~
W
w m U N x } N 0 = ti
U v > X } N tUi
Q N I- > } N co
co co
4. E st E j rA `=a
~ n
er
0
1*
m
04
g
O O co It m O) (D a) D> M 00 N
V' t` O O O O CD t M t N ti
V r (V 6 D) N 'ct (V t(h ~O
C h Efl NN W. b 6% (R 64 EA V% N O
ti
el!
4
O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O a
C (G N <P O (D to O co tD t- r (r'1
M M to O (D (D - N (D 0 as
to a) t7D c(D 00 - h 0 co co a
H V' m of N (o t7 tri (D 't co N'
co U) ~ M ~ ~ Go co ~ ~ a ~
~ z; EA (i4 N C M
N
Q
C
d
a O O N (D i Cl) N co co
,w (D M 0~ O 113: O M M O (D to N M co
C Off O O N Cl) (MD M M O LO ~ O M
to O O cc (D O h CD aD QO
•F (O T N to O to co 4 00 (V ~t el!
y co to co to M N (D O N N N
h 69, MM (!3 V% (A f!l (A 69~ O a
Q
w
LL
a'
O N O O O V
0 O N 7 M N O O N
CL O O O O O O O O O O O
N 0 O O O O O O O O w
0 0 0 0 0 0 m ~2 M
CL o 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6
to
0 E w V ~
e CY. ~i II
'm C
a
~ u u Q
W co
y h
J Co
o
U N
Q R m y
ILI
~ V ~ V
City of March 31, 2005
Pat Geagan
MAYOR RE: Final Assessment Notice, Project 80OR- Cedar Grove Access Reconfiguration
Peggy Carlson Dear Property owner,
Cyndee Fields
Mike Maguire Enclosed you will find the Official Notice of a Final Assessment Hearing for the above
Meg Tilley referenced project scheduled to be heard before the City Council during their regular
COUNCIL MEMBERS Council meeting scheduled to start at 6:30 pm on Tuesday April 19, 2005 in the Council
Chambers located at City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. This project involved the
Thomas Hedges reconstruction of the Silver Bell Rd. access to State Trunk Highway 13 from both the
north side (Kennebec Dr.) and the south side (Cedar Grove Parkway and Cedarvale
CITY ADMINISTRATOR Blvd.). Now that this project has been completed and all costs tabulated, the city will
proceed with levying the final assessments against those properties within the benefited
area. Although the total costs of all related improvements exceeded $9,155,000, the City
is proposing to recover only $1,922,000 (21%) through these special assessments.
As you know, this major improvement is part of the City's overall Cedar Grove
MUNICIPAL CENTER Redevelopment District's master plan. Although the development project remains in the
3830 Pilot Knob Road preliminary stages, the City recognizes that additional time is needed before significant
Eagan, MN 55122-1810 redevelopment will occur. Therefore, the City Council is willing to consider deferring
651.675.5000 Phone payment of this assessment for a limited time (up to 3 years) and then spread it over a 10
651.675.5012 fax year repayment schedule to minimize its financial impact for those who are so interested.
651.454.8535 TDD In order to do this, it will be necessary to have a formal deferment agreement executed by
the recorded owners of the affected properties. Enclosed is a sample of this proposed
agreement. Please note that this deferment is NOT automatic. Each property owner must
apply for it within the described time frame to qualify for the temporary deferment (See
MAINTENANCE FACILITY enclosed application process). Without a deferment agreement, the assessments will be
3501 Coachman Point levied and certified to the County this year with the first installment due with the 2006
Eagan, MN 55122 property tax statements.
651.675.5300 phone
651.675.5360 fax Prior to the formal Final Assessment Hearing on April 19, the City staff will hold an
651.454.8535 TDD informational meeting on Tuesday, April 12 at 4:30 pm (downstairs meeting room of the
Cedarvale Lanes, 3883 'Cedar Grove Pkwy) to review this information with all interested
property owners. If you can't attend either meeting or still have questions about your
www.cityofeagan.com assessment,or this process, please contact us.
S' c e
homas A. Colbert Cc: Mayor & City Council
THE LONE OAK TREE Director of Public Works Tom Hedges, City Administrator
The symbol of Jon Hohenstein, Comm. Dev. Dir.
strength and growth Eric: Hearing Notice & Deferment Info
in our community.
PROJECT 800R, CEDAR GROVE ACCESS
CITY OF EAGAN
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
DEFERRMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS
1. Property Owner MUST request a deferment in writing (on the enclosed
form) and postmarked, faxed or delivered on or before May 20, 2005 to:
Director of Public Works
City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Rd.
Eagan. MN 55122-1897
2. Request must contain the name and mailing address of all property
owners of record and the recorded legal description of the property in
question. A separate form must be filled out for each separate parcel
of request.
3. For those requests received by the City by May 20, formal deferment
agreements will be prepared by the City Attorney's Office and mailed
to the identified owners of record no later than June 17, 2005.
4. Deferment Agreements must then be signed and notarized by all
owners of record and returned (or postmarked) to the City Attorney's
Office by July 18, 2005.
5. Properly executed agreements will be recorded at the County
Recorder's Office by the City. Property owners must provide all
information required by the County to allow recording of this
document (at no cost to the City). The assessment will be spread over
10 years and the first payment will be due with the 2009 property tax
statement with 7% interest accruing effective June 1, 2008.
NOTE: For those who do not return a Request for Deferment by May 20 and
the executed agreement by July 18, the City will certify to the
County any outstanding assessment balance (reflecting
prepayments) of the original assessment as adopted by the Council
at the April 19 public hearing. These assessments will be certified
with interest accruing effective April 20 and spread over 10 years at
7% interest. The first payment will be due with the 2006 property
tax statement.
PROJECT 800R, CEDAR GROVE ACCESS
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
DEFERMENT AGREEMENT
REQUEST FORM
(This form may be reproduced for extra copies)
As the property owner of record, or acting on their behalf, I hereby request
that the City of Eagan defer payment of any assessment levied for Project
800R, Cedar Grove Access Improvements for the parcel listed below and
agree to enter into the appropriate deferment agreements as prepared by the
City.
Dakota County Parcel I.D. (PID)
(12 digit number found on tax statement)
*Note: Each Parcel must have its own request form
All Legal Owner(s) of record:
(please print)
Mailing address of Property Owner:
Recorded Legal Description of Parcel:
(Note: This would be in a Lot/Block/Subdivision format or a Metes and
Bounds legal description)
Signed: /
Signature of one owner above / date
Or as Representative of Owner: /
Print name/Relationship
Signature date
O b
PROJECT 800R, CEDAR GROVE ACCESS MODIFICATIONS
FINAL ASSESSMENTS
INFORMATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
CEDARVALE LANES COMMUNITY ROOM
April 12, 2005 - 4:30 pm
Attendance: Tom Colbert, Public Works Director; Jon Hohenstein, Community
Development Director; & 6 people representing 6 properties (see attached
sign in sheet.
Introduction
Tom Colbert provided a brief presentation about the scope of the improvements
performed under this project and distributed a colored map showing all the properties
proposed to be assessed with their respective rates. He also explained the special
assessment process including objection and appeal requirements.
Questions/Comments
1. Why aren't the Siler Bell Apts being assessed?
This property was assessed separately for the improvements to Silver Bell
Rd. constructed concurrently with Proj 800R. They are outside the
assessment boundaries which were limited by the TIF District.
2. The Assessment boundaries don't appear to be the same as the TIF District
(i.e. west of Tesseract School, Brad Regan Tires and property fronting on
Nicols)
Acknowledged discrepancy. Will have to research this. (Follow up research
reveled that, due to errors/omissions with the notices for the original public
hearing for Proj. 800R, these properties were not noticed, and therefore
cannot be assessed.) It was noted however, that the assessment for any
individual property would not change regardless if other properties were
omitted or added.
3. Are these the only assessments that they will see, or there others yet to come?
There are no other assessments pending at this time beyond this project. Any
future assessments will have to have its own public hearing for approval
first.
4. Jim Dvorak (City Consultant) stated in a letter that there would be no
assessments levied until the area redeveloped.
Staff could not recall such a letter. (Although no letter could be found to that
effect, subsequent research found a similar statement made at the
informational neighborhood meeting on 3-20-02 and in the Feasibility
Report for Proj 800R.)
V
Proj 80OR NH mtg notes (cont.)
Page 2
5. Why is there a 3 year deferment period? Is the redevelopment process
slowing down?
There is no set time frame for the redevelopment to be completed. It is
market driven to a certain extent. The 3 year time frame was selected as
being hopeful and not overly burdensome.
6. What about the Vet Clinic? It appears that Jim Cooper Tires left too early.
The Vet Clinic was purchased as a willing seller and then leased back to
them to facilitate their search for a new location. This process could be
made available to other properties also.
7. What kind of help is available for relocation? Financial vs. actually finding
another site for the business. If it's outside the city (customer territory), there
could be a loss of business.
The Acquisition and relocation assistance process was explained.
8. What is the current status of the overall redevelopment plan.
A lengthy discussion took place explaining the developments to date and the
anticipated progression from here on.
9. Why are the residential homes assessed at the same rate as the shopping mall
and strip center?
Staff would inquire of the appraiser. (Subsequent research indicated that the
maximum assessable benefit was based on location and the potential future
land use.)
10. A comment was made that the City has treated them fairly and kept them
informed as the redevelopment progresses and they want to continue to work
with the City in the future.
Appreciation expressed.
11. What is the status of the Silver Bell Center? Is that part of the
redevelopment? Could the automotive businesses relocate there ?
The Silver Bell Center is in the TIF District but not part of the active
redevelopment plans and is being left to the property owner to determine to
what extent and time frame he wants to redevelop to compliment the
proposed Cedar Grove Redevelopment area.
U u
FINAL ASSESSMENT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
CEDAR GROVE ACCESS MODIFICATIONS
PROJECT 80OR
TUESDAY, APRIL 12,2005,4:30 P.M.
NAME ADDRESS
2. g" ~ 4Z5 4C0AW0C-W
3. %ZrOAr 116M916F 6ed-.4",04
4. Tt N {~0L OS" e~
5._ ~Cc~ Mesa t J2~
2 g s~c.ve~ an
6. IbM
7. J(PYIN Sole) 3gsS Q4rrVie(A) D- .
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
G: FORMS/SIGN-IN.Sheet
RECEIVED
APR 11 2005
EAGAN
April 8, 2005 ENGMERING DEPARTMENT
RE: Final Assessment Notice, Project 80OR - Cedar Grove Access Reconfiguration
Dear Mr. Colbert,
This letter is in response to your letter of March 31, 2005 regarding special assessments.
It is hard for us to understand how we should be assessed for property that the City is
going to condemn within a relatively short amount of time. In order to assess someone's
property, you must show the improvements being assessed will benefit the property
owner. The people that will be benefiting from these improvements are Schafer and
Richardson and Ryland Homes, the soon-to-be new owners of the property. The reason
the intersection was improved was not for the benefit of the existing business owners, but
to attract a developer. That intersection would not have been realigned if the area was
not being slated for redevelopment.
With the meeting on April 12, the final assessment hearing on April 19 and your letter
arriving to us only a week ago, it does not allow us very much time to respond and look
into our legal rights.
Also by exercising the right to defer these assessments, this would be an admission that
we not only agree to the assessments but that we owe the money.
Sincerely,
Randa J. Quam Sandra K. Quam
a
~~-4
41 "A J Us
Doris Dahline
3830-Alder Lane
10-44450-090-01
April 13, 2005
To City Clerk, Maria Petersen,
I am objecting to being assessed for Project 800R-Cedar Grove Access Reconfiguration.
I am asking to be removed from the Special Assessment Roll.
At the April 12'' informational meeting Director of Public Works, Tom Colbert stated the
assessments are based on the City Appraisers evaluation, which includes the potential use
of a property - the end result being the increased value of the property because of its
redevelopment.
At the same meeting, Community Development Director, Jon Hohenstein stated
everything is done or dealt with, "property-by-property".
I assume the City Appraiser is not aware of the March 5, 2002, Right of First Refusal
(Life Estate) contract that exists between me, (this parcel), and the City of Eagan.
• This property must remain an Rl, therefore there cannot be an increase in
value to me because of redevelopment.
• I do not benefit from any `potential use' of this property.
Not until I am dead, is there any potential use of this property or increase in value by
redevelopment.
THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD APPLY TO WHOSOEVER WILL BENEFIT.
I believe the following statements also support my position to be excluded from the
Special Assessment Roll because there is no benefit to me or my estate.
City Counsel Meeting -August 7, 2001 (tape)
* I asked who was being assessed. Mayor Pat Awada said (in part),"only if the property
is sold and developed."
* To quote Assistant City Administrator Jamie Verbrugge: "As the Mayor indicated and
the counsel directed that special assessments for project 800 would only be assessed to
new development, in the redevelopment area as a result of this project. So that existing
property owners would not be assessed for this project."
City Counsel Meeting April 2, 2002 (tape)
* SRF Consultant Jim Devoric, "Assessment will not occur on parcels unless they
redevelop."
Sincerely,
Doris Dahline
9/
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
A. CONFIRM EAW ADEQUACY REZONING, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION,
PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (STEEPLECHASE) - TOLL
BROTHERS
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To confirm the adequacy of the Steeplechase EAW.
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) wetland replacement plan.
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Rezoning of 37 acres located at 4889 Pilot
Knob Road from A, Agriculture to PD, Planned Development.
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Preliminary Subdivision (Steeplechase of
Eagan) to create 56 lots and a Variance to the cul-de-sac length (650' and 800') for property
located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road; subject to the conditions listed in the Advisory Planning
Commission minutes.
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) a Preliminary Planned Development to
create 37 single family units, and 58 townhouse condominium units for property located at 4889
Pilot Knob Road; subject to the conditions listed in the Advisory Planning Commission minutes.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members present
FACTS:
➢ The developers previously submitted an application for the Steeplechase
development. During the review of that application, the City Council received a
petition requesting completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
for the site and the project. The Council ordered preparation of the EAW at that time.
➢ On January 4, 2005, the City Council received the EAW and associated comments
and concluded that the EAW adequately addressed existing conditions and potential
impacts of development of the site. On that basis, the Council made a negative
declaration on the need for an EIS. The Council also reviewed the development plan
and continued the item to February 1, 2005, with direction to the applicant to revise
the plan to show all public streets, a connection between the north and south streets,
on-site wetland mitigation and reduced density by breaking up the long rows of
townhomes.
?C),
➢ At the February 1, 2005 regular City Council meeting, the applicant presented a
revised plan based on the Council direction. The Council approved the wetland
exemption and wetland boundary/type as presented, but determined that the plan itself
had changed sufficiently to require that it be reviewed by the Parks and Planning
Commissions. The Council acted to "acknowledge receipt of a revised, but
incomplete application" and directed the applicant to submit it for Commission
review.
➢ The previous plan before the council had 109 units (36 single family units and 73
townhouse units); the current plan proposes 95 units (37 single family units and 58
townhouse units). In both plans, the right of way alignment would permit the
connection of Steeplechase and Wellington Way, but neither plan shows the
connection.
➢ A Planned Development affords the developer greater flexibility in the design of the
development and allows the City to require higher standards in exchange for that
flexibility. As proposed there are front setback deviations from the R-3 standards, the
acceptability of these deviations is a policy decision for the City Council to
determine.
➢ On March 7, 2005 the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to discuss the
consistency of the project's proposed wetland replacement plan with Wetlands
Conservation Act laws and rules. The TEP is recommending denial of the proposed
plan that shows 100% of the mitigation to be on site. The TEP believes offsite
replacement, subject to conditions, will better serve the site and the City. The TEP
Findings of Fact are attached. At its meeting of March 14, 2005, the APrC adopted
the TEP recommendation of denial of the plan showing all on-site mitigation and
supporting off-site replacement.
➢ Traffic studies conducted by SEH and RLK determine that the extension of
Wellington Way is desirable for the area transportation system and will not result in
significant impact on the neighborhood roadways to the west and north.
➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2005 and
recommended approval subject to the conditions in the minutes.
➢ At the April 5, 2005 regular City Council meeting the Council continued this item to
the regular Council meeting on April 19, 2005.
ISSUES:
➢ Dakota County Plat Commission has not approved the Preliminary Plat as presented
because the connection of Wellington Way to Pilot Knob Road is not provided.
➢ The Dakota County Board supports the Plat Commission recommendation but
removed the specific condition for the connection to Wellington Way. The Board
directed the applicant and city staff to work together towards a plan that provides two
3
accesses to the site and meets Dakota County spacing guidelines. Since two accesses
to the site on Pilot Knob Road cannot meet County spacing guidelines and there is no
other street connection available to the site, the Board's direction can only be
accomplished with a connection to Wellington Way. The position of the County
Board and Plat Commission is outlined in the staff report and the letter summarizing
the Plat Commission action is included at the end of the staff report.
➢ The Wellington Way connection to Pilot Knob Road is preferred by the City's Fire,
Police and Engineering Departments.
➢ The staff report discusses issues related to the connection of Wellington Way to Pilot
Knob Road, but a condition of plat approval to extend or not extend Wellington Way
was omitted from the conditions of approval at the conclusion of the report. As a
consequence, the Planning Commission did not make a formal recommendation
regarding the connection as a condition of approval; however, comments by some
Planning Commission members relative to Wellington Way are noted in the draft
APC minutes.
City staff requests that the following condition be included for consideration of this
subdivision by the City Council: "This development shall extend Wellington Way
from its existing terminus to Pilot Knob Road."
➢ The APC requested that the applicant provide a graphic that depicts the front yard
setback for all the townhouses, the APC expressed concern for the reduced front
setbacks as portions of some cars parked in driveway will encroach into the public
right-of-way. The APC also asked that clarification be provided regarding whether
layout or setback changes in the current proposal affect the validity of the previous
findings in the EAW.
➢ A petition opposing the connection to Wellington Way has been submitted and was
included in past packets.
Agency Action Deadline: June 29, 2005
ATTACHMENTS (10):
3-22-05 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes n pages through
Planning Staff Report pages/&5 through S/
The Wetland TEP Findings of Fact on~ages / ~through
EAW memo on pages hough6
Dakota County Board minutes on page _191
Response to question concerning Steeplechase setbacks from pond LP-7.2 on page,&Erl/
Wetland replacement plan response memo on pages j-through..2~.
Setback exhibit on pages"_through"~
City Attorney's memo concerning developer pe ormance guarantees on page CX9
Correspondence after January 4, 2005 on page&~ through
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 3
New Business
A. Steeplechase Of Eagan
Applicant Name: John Helmer, Toll Brothers
Location: 4889 Pilot Knob Road; Diamond T. Ranch
Application: Rezoning
A rezoning of approximately 38 acres from Agriculture to Planned Development.
File Number: 33-RZ-07-04-04
Application: Preliminary Planned Development
A Preliminary Planned Development to allow mixed uses of 37 single family homes and 58
townhomes.
File Number: 33-PD-03-04-04
Application: Preliminary Subdivision
A Preliminary Subdivision to create approximately 95 lots for approximately 37 single family lots
and approximately 58 townhomes lots.
File Number: 33-PS-06-04-04
Planner Cartney introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report
dated March 17, 2005. She noted the background and history.
Chair Heyl opened the public hearing. She indicated that certain decisions had already been made
concerning the adequacy of the EAW and the wetland delineation. She said that the Commission has
received many comments regarding the development in the past and asked the public to focus their
comments on issues related to the current proposal and its relationship to the recent discussions by the
County regarding connection to the County Road system.
Dee Bass, 4880 Knottingham Circle, stated concern for the conservation easement along LP7.2,
particularly the protection of trees and privacy. They were promised 100' buffer and would like to see
that again, also EAW discusses such buffer. She indicated a belief that having less than a 100' buffer
would invalidate the EAW. She also stated concern for the proposed density. She submitted written
comments for the record (Attachment A).
Kay Hamilton, 4872 Knottingham Circle, asked that construction not be permitted after 8:00 p.m. for
peace and quiet for small children. She submitted written comments for the record (Attachment B).
Lani Jacobson, 4872 Knottingham Circle, stated concern for the conservation easement along LP7.2.
She stated concern for runoff and possible damage to the pond. She asked that language concerning
the conservation easement be required in the association's declarations and that language outlining the
consequences for damage to wetlands and ponds be included in an agreement between the City and
the developer. She submitted written comments for the record (Attachment C).
Eric Vevea, 1496 Sherwood Way, stated that he believed the EAW had raised new issues. He
discussed the Blanding turtles, a threatened species, living approximately one third of a mile south of
the property. He stated concern with tree impacts during periods of active infection for tree diseases,
cumulative impacts of tree removal, the extent of grading in the town house area of the development,
setbacks from the regional park, erosion control, storm water treatment, adequacy of setbacks, whether
there are benefits to a planned development, whether forestry best practices would be applied, the
relationship between density and tree loss, the consequences of exceeding tree removal standards,
?5-
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 4
pond and wetland boundaries and on-site versus off-site wetland replacement. He stated that he
believes that sequencing requirements weren't met.
Brad Moir, 1510 Wellington Way, discussed balancing the interest of those living in the city and the
property owners. He stated preference of the 100 foot setback requirement. He stated opposition to
the extension of Wellington Way.
Tom Ferber 1518 Wellington Way, stated concern for the increased traffic and safety if Wellington Way
is extended. He said that because the plan presented does not show a connection of Wellington Way,
he supports the plan as presented.
Lynn Keefer, 1743 Meadowlark Road, stated concern for the amount of needed clean up and the
excess of vacant homes already in Eagan. He asked what the City's fiscal interest is in this plan. He
asked if the homes could be rented or only owner occupied. He stated concern for the lack of parking
and raised questions concerning whether there is City cost participation in the project, whether there
are any deferred taxes on the site and whether the City or County would participate in the costs of
clean up.
Chris Nelson, 1523 Pineview Trail, stated he understood the objection to the extension of Wellington
Way, however he stated the residents of the Brittany and Stonecliff developments were promised
access to the east. He said that the absence of a connection to the east causes people to drive
through Stonecliff and other parts of Brittany to get to the County roads. He stated that he supports
connection to Pilot Knob through Wellington Way. If Wellington Way is not connected, he asked where
the connection would occur.
There being no further public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion
back to the Commission.
Joey Zorn, Regional Manager of Toll Brothers, stated the prior development did not have the loop road
and had two-story townhomes. He stated the density has been reduced from 127 homes to 95 homes.
He explained that due to the floor plan amendments, private to public street changes, the development
has been pushed closer to the wetlands. He explained that the Conservation Easements are
approximately one acre each. He explained that the possibility of oak wilt spreading will be addressed
with the City Forester. He explained that after development, approximately eight percent of runoff will
go onto adjacent properties, a decrease from 24 percent currently. He stated dead trees will not be left
on the site. He stated the community will benefit from going to a Planned Development rather than
straight zoning because the Planned Development the result of suggestions by the Council,
Commissions and neighbors. He agreed he would work with City Staff in regard to the snow removal
procedures. He stated Toll Brothers will be paying for the cleanup with no help from the City or County
and no deferred taxes.
Andy Berenberg, PE, Project Manager, stated the retaining wall around one pond is to protect the pond
from erosion.
Assistant City Engineer John Gorder stated construction is allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday per city code.
W
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 5
Chair Heyl asked how the County action on the previous development proposal could be
accommodated. Director Hohenstein indicated that while the County Board had removed the specific
requirement for a Wellington Way connection from its action on the prior plan, it set a condition that the
developer and City work together to develop a plan that includes two accesses to the site that meet
County access spacing guidelines. Assistant City Engineer Gorder showed a site plan and indicated
how the current proposed single access to the site from Pilot Knob Road does not meet County spacing
guidelines from other existing access and, as such, he said it would not be possible to add another
access to Pilot Knob Road and meet the spacing guidelines. A Commission member asked what
opportunities there are in the area for a second access. Gorder showed on the site plan that the only
other public street that abuts the development is Wellington Way.
Director Hohenstein indicated that there would be no public financing assistance being provided to the
project.
Member Bendt asked if the threatened turtle is currently living in a good habitat.
Mr. Zorn stated that the water that currently exists on the site is not of the best quality.
Member Bendt observed that may be the reason the turtle lives to the south of the development site.
Member Gladhill stated he will vote against approval of the proposal because he believes townhouses
do not fit in with the surrounding developments.
Member Chavez stated that he reviewed the criteria for consideration of permitting planned
developments in place of straight zoning and that he did not see justification for a planned development
in place of straight zoning.
Chair Heyl stated the development would greatly enhance the property. She sated the City of Eagan
should have more through roads for safety. She stated the requirements for the Planned Development
have been met and she will be voting in favor of approval.
Member Leeder stated the road should be extended for safety and townhouse driveway lengths should
be reviewed to insure adequate parking and snow storage space outside the public right of way.
Member Dugan stated he will be abstaining from voting on this item.
Member Bendt moved, Member Leeder seconded a motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning of
37 acres from Agriculture to PD, Planned Development, for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road
(former Diamond T site).
A vote was taken:
Aye: Chair Heyl, Members Matthees, Bendt, and Leeder.
Nay: Member Gladhill and Member Chavez.
Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item.
Motion carried 4-2.
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 6
Member Bendt moved, Member Leeder seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary
Planned Development to create 37 single family units and 58 townhouse style condominium units with
reduced setbacks and greater cul-de-sac lengths for Steeplechase of Eagan located at 4889 Pilot Knob
Road (former Diamond T Ranch site) subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Preliminary Planned Development Agreement with the City that
shall be recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Development Agreement with the City. The following
exhibits are necessary for the Agreement:
• Final Site Plan
• Final Building Elevations Plan
• Final Tree Preservation Plan
• Final Landscape Plan
• Final Lighting Plan
• Final Signage Plan
• Final building coverages for each lot (table form)
A vote was taken:
Aye: Chair Heyl, Members Matthees, Bendt; and Leeder.
Nay: Member Gladhill and Member Chavez.
Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item.
Motion carried 4-2.
Member Bendt moved, Member Leeder seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary
Subdivision (Steeplechase of Eagan) to create 56 lots for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road
(former Diamond T site) subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 2, 1993: Al, B1,2,3,4, C1,2,3 D1, and E1
2. The property shall be platted.
3. The site shall be graded to maintain slopes of 3:1 or gentler on graded slopes.
4. All retaining walls shall be located on private property, outside of public right-of-way, and
maintained privately by property owners.
5. The developer shall be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in
accordance with City engineering standards.
6. The developer shall install outlet skimmer structures in accordance with City engineering standards
on all existing and proposed outlet pipes of ponds with wet pond volumes, including the existing
pipe outlet on Pond LP-56 in the southeast corner of the site.
7. The sanitary sewer lift station shall be constructed in accordance with City engineering standards.
8. All existing well and septic systems on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with Dakota
County and City standards as part of this development.
9. The open area surrounded by proposed Steeplechase Circle shall be dedicated as public right-of-
way with perpetual maintenance the responsibility of the homeowners association. A
Maintenance Agreement shall be prepared, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
~91
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 7
10. This development shall provide a public street connection to the 5-acre parcel to the northeast
(Parcel 050-29), as shown on the preliminary site plan (County plat approval requirement).
11. This development shall dedicate public right-of-way along Pilot Knob Road (County Road
31) as required by Dakota County (County plat approval requirement).
12. The development shall dedicate restricted access to Pilot Knob Road on the final plat for the
subdivision, except in the area of the connection of the development's street (County plat approval
requirement).
13. A variance to the County access spacing guidelines for the development's street intersection with
Pilot Knob Road shall be granted by Dakota County prior to final subdivision approval (County plat
approval requirement).
14. The developer shall dedicate temporary street easement on proposed Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 1,
Block 3 for the temporary cul-de-sac in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
15. The Final Subdivision plans shall add lot numbers to the common area as discussed in the report.
16. A sign easement in a form acceptable to the City attorney shall be submitted with Final Subdivision
for the sign on Lot 1, Block 2.
17. The developer shall submit Homeowner Association documents to the City Attorney for review and
approval, prior to Final Subdivision approval including transfer of all common area to the HOA.
18. The park dedication shall be satisfied through a cash dedication.
19. The development shall dedicate conservation easements to the City over those portions of the site
described as Conservation Easements on the Site Plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
20. The developer shall install an 8 foot wide bituminous connector trail extending from the existing
west Pilot Knob boulevard trail, south and west to the existing County trail, within a
15 foot easement, to be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Said trail
shall be built to City standards with the alignment to be determined in consultation with City and
County staff. Said trail corridor to be established prior to the construction of homes.
All required walls, guard rails, fencing and other safety features shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
21. The trail dedication shall be satisfied with a credit of $10 per lineal foot being given for the new
connector trail, any balance due paid in cash. Said trail to be constructed per approved
Site Plan; however, the credit may not exceed what would be required as a total cash trail
dedication.
22. The applicant shall fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of five-hundred thirty-
four (534) Category B trees, or an equivalent combination of Category A, B, or C trees.
23. A long-term tree survival plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and implemented on all trees
with encroachment into the CRZ. The applicant shall communicate with city forestry staff in the
actual placement of tree protection fence around these trees.
24. In order to utilize a "floating number" system pertaining to the final number of mitigation trees
required. Complete fulfillment of all required mitigation to be installed prior to final project
completion.
25. The applicant shall continue to work with city staff to identify additional opportunities for
preservation during the development and construction process.
26. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety
netting) shall be required to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the
Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved.
27. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection
at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance with the approved
Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing.
99
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 8
28. Stormwater runoff from approximately 87 percent of the site (33.8 acres) shall be treated onsite via
a series of constructed ponds and existing wetlands. Minimum volume requirements for such
treatment shall be in accordance with the City's water quality management plan.
29. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding shall be required for the 4.9-acre area of the parcel that is
proposed to drain off site to the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast without any
treatment.
30. Minimum 30-foot natural buffers shall be provided next to wetlands on the site to support the
City's Class IV-Wildlife Habitat designation of these waterbodies.
31. City water resources staff shall be involved in any on-site pre-construction, pre-grading meetings to
review and coordinate approved plans.
32. Wetland replacement mitigation is to take place within the City of Eagan, where possible.
A vote was taken:
Aye: Chair Heyl, Members Matthees, Bendt, and Leeder.
Nay: Member Gladhill and Member Chavez.
Member Dugan abstained from voting on this item.
Motion carried 4-2.
Member Heyl moved, Member Bendt seconded a motion to recommend approval of this item to be
presented to the City Council on April 5, 2005.
All voted in favor. Motion carried 6-0.
/v v
ATTACHMENT A
Citizen Requests Regarding Easement
Definition of the Desired Easement
The citizens of our neighborhood group request the following:
"A conservation easement along LP7.2 consisting of a minimum, not average, 110 foot
buffer which begins at the historic high water mark and is composed of the existing natural vegetation
which is to remain strictly undisturbed. Additionally, the TH association would strictly prohibit the
building of any structures on this easement including, but not restricted to: fencing, sheds, boathouses,
docks etc."
We have requested 110 ft because that is what was initially promised and presented to this
commission in 7/04
We have specifically defined "minimum, not average" because THs at 45ft and THs at 155ft
average out to 100ft. The word `average' in this context is vague, undefined and can potentially
be used as a `loophole' to put THs closer than 1 l Oft to the water's edge.
We have requested no building on the water. The original proposal stated there would be a
1.13 acre conservation easement composed of the water and the I I Oft land buffer. The water
is part of the easement.
Denial of Our Request
if this conservation easement is denied altogether, I respectfully request an
explanation for the denial that addresses each of the 6 points listed under "arguments for
reinstatement of 11 Oft conservation easement"
if this conservation easement is denied in part, I respectfully request an explanation for
the denial of those specific parts
Arguments for Reinstatement of 100-110ft Conservation Easement on LP7.2
a A) Promises, made on multiple occasions, to protect trgli (on LP7.2) and our
privacy have been broken. Can this promise be broken strictly for economic
gain?
B) We now have an invalid portion of the EAW
and
It is a contradiction to state:
surface runoff to LP7.2 will remain unchanged due to the 100ft buffer providing
identical vegetative filtering in the existing and proposed conditions;
then, at a later date, state runoff will remain unchanged in the absence of
this buffer previously relied upon.
ATTACHMENT A ?~zVAt-6-
O C) The `buffering' benefit of the proposal has vanished. Is loss of one of the
promised benefits, for economic gain, acceptable to the city?
j~ The city council wanted the density reduced, but I do not believe they meant for
the conservation easement on P7.2 to be a causality of this
My neighbors and I don't want to be placed in a TH complex that we did not buy into
and that is what is happening if these THs are allowed on the pond.
ATTACHMENT B
My name is Kay Hamilton. I live at 4872 Knottingham Circle. Thank
you for hearing our concerns this evening.
Because some neighbors near the construction site have small
children, we ask that all construction cease by 8:00 p.m. every
evening. The developers have agreed to this in the past and we just
want to be clear that it is an agreement that will be adhered to going
forward.
ATTACHMENT C 4126
3/22/05 Planning Commission
Request: Lr G'/~L DpCOV1CV
The residents who share ownership of Pond LP7.2 request that a legal document be created,
a
either with the develop ~r the city of Eagan, describing how any damage to LP7.2 would be
dealt with. That is, should LP7.2 be damaged in anyway during or after the development process
we request a legal mechanism be in place to allow for the immediate correction of the problem
by the responsible party.
9
PLANNING REPORT
CITY OF EAGAN
REPORT DATE: March 17, 2005 CASE: 33-PS-06-04-04
APPLICANT: Toll Brothers HEARING DATE: March 22, 2005
PROPERTY OWNER: Carol Thomas APPLICATION DATE: March 2, 2005
REQUEST: Rezoning, Preliminary Subdivision,
Preliminary Planned Development PREPARED BY: Sheila Cartney
LOCATION: 4889 Pilot Knob Road
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density Residential
ZONING: A, Agriculture
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a Rezoning from Agriculture to PD, Planned
Development, a Preliminary Subdivision (Steeplechase of Eagan) to create 56 lots and a
Preliminary Planned Development to create 37 single family units and 58 condominium
(townhouse style) units (on 17 lots) for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road (former
Diamond T Ranch site) in the SE'/4 of Section 33.
The condominium units are proposed in 3-plex or 4-plex units being platted on one lot rather
than platted individually. All streets within this development are proposed as public streets and
the connection from Pilot Knob to Wellington Way is not proposed at this time.
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
Subdivision:
City Code Section 13.20 Subd. 6 states that "In the case of platting, the Planning Commission
and the Council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or
establishing conditions related thereto:
A. That the proposed subdivision does comply with applicable City Code provisions and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 2
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision complies with applicable
plans of Dakota County, State of Minnesota, or the Metropolitan Council.
C. That the physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, topography,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage
and retention are such that the site is suitable for the type of development or use
contemplated.
D. That the site physically is suitable for the proposed density of development.
E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause
environmental damage.
F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
health problems.
G. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements will not conflict with easements
of record or with easements established by judgment of court.
H. That completion of the proposed development of the subdivision can be completed in a
timely manner so as not to cause an economic burden upon the City for maintenance,
repayment of bonds, or similar burden.
1. That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use
within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to City Handbook on
Solar Access).
J. That the design of public improvements for the subdivision is compatible and consistent
with the platting or approved preliminary plat on adjacent lands.
K. That the subdivision is in compliance with those standards set forth in that certain
document entitled "City of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan for the Gun Club
Lake Watershed Management Organization" which document is properly approved and
filed with the office of the City Clerk hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality
Management Plan". Said document and all of the notations, references and other
information contained therein shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down
herein and is hereby made a part of this Chapter by reference and incorporated herein as
fully as if set forth herein at length. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to
maintain the Water Quality Management Plan and make the same available to the
public."
Rezoning:
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subd. 5 states in part,
/06
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 3
1. The provisions of this chapter may be amended by the majority vote of the council,
except that amendments changing the regulations of any district may only be made by an
affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the council.
2. The City Council shall not rezone any land or area in any zoning district or make any
other proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance without first having referred it to the
planning commission for its consideration and recommendation.
Planned Development:
City Code Chapter 11.60, Subd. 18, A., states the intent of the Planned Development zoning
district as follows:
1. Providing greater flexibility in environmental design and relaxation of strict application
of the zoning ordinance in exchange for greater creativity and environmental sensitivity.
2. Recognizing the economic and cultural advantages that will accrue to the residents of a
planned community.
3. Encouraging a more creative and efficient approach to the use of the land.
4. Encouraging the preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics, natural
features, and open space.
5. Encouraging a development pattern that is consistent with land use density, transportation
facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
For the past thirteen months the City has received many letters in opposition of extending
Wellington Way through the development of the Diamond T Ranch. Some residents would like
to see a trail connection from the surrounding neighbors to the County Park and some residents
are concerned with previous dumping on the property and horse manure build up on the property.
Still others are concerned with ponding and drainage.
The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a similar plan at the July 19, 2004
meeting. That proposal included 36 single family units and 73 townhome units on 112 lots. At
this meeting the APrC recommended approval. At the July 27, 2004 Advisory Planning
Commission meeting the APC recommended approval. At the August 17, 2004 City Council
Meeting the Council directed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared. At
the January 4, 2005 City Council meeting the Council accepted the EAW as presented and
declared an EIS is not necessary, the item was continued to the February 1, 2005 meeting. At the
February 1, 2005 Council meeting the Council approved the wetland exemption as presented and
the wetland boundary/type. At this meeting the Council discussed access and supported no
connection. Tree removal, overall street plan and ponding was discussed. The Council directed
the applicant to go back to the Commissions with the revised plan with reduced setbacks for tree
/1 7
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 4
preservation, increased green space, and with no connection to Wellington Way and minimizing
impervious surface.
Correspondence since January 2005 is attached.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stables and other outbuildings are in the process of being removed. The site is heavily wooded
in various locations and there are wetlands and ponds present onsite.
SURROUNDING USES
The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the
subject property:
Existing Use Zoning Land Use Designation
North Single family residence R-1, Single family LD, Low Density Residential
residential
South Lebanon Regional Park P, Park P, Park
East Church, Single family, PF, Public facility, R-1, PF, Public facility, LD, Low
park Single family residential, Density residential, Park
Park
West Single family residence R-1, Single Family LD, Low Density residential
Residential
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
1. Planned Development Review
Planned Development Zoning - The Planned Development zoning district allows the developer
to have greater flexibility in the design of the development and the City to require higher
standards in exchange for that flexibility. The applicant's narrative indicates that this is a unique
residential development because of the proposed "trail connection to Lebanon Hills Regional
Park, Curvilinear roadway system that encourages traffic calming, ample front yard setbacks that
create grand front yards and open site lines, protection and enhancement of significant wetland
features, establishing a two acre conservation easement, removal of diseased and stressed trees
and replace with new trees."
Homeowners Association - A Home Owners Association (HOA) is necessary for the common
area within the town home condominium development. It is unclear if the single family homes
will participate in the HOA. Maintenance, retaining walls and signage should be covered in the
HOA. HOA documents should be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and filed with
final subdivision.
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 5
Bulk Standards - As a Planned Development deviation from typical zoning bulk standards may
be allowed. Simply for the purpose of discussion this proposal is reviewed under the R-3 and R-
1 zoning district minimum and maximum standards.
Setbacks - The table below indicates the proposed setbacks for the town home
condominium units and the R-3 standards and the proposed setbacks for the single family
homes and the R-1 standards. Setback requirements are not established in a Planned
Development zoning; however, the developer is proposing significant deviations from the
R-3 standards. The R-3 setbacks are required from the perimeter of the site or public
right-of-way, City policy makers should determine the suitability of the request.
Setback Town homes
Ordinance Proposed
Front yard (public right-of- 30 feet 12-25 feet
way)
Side yard: 30 feet 14-30 feet
Rear yard: 30 feet 30+ feet
Between units 20 feet 20+ feet
Pond LP 7 30 feet 41+ feet
Setback Single family
Ordinance Proposed
Front yard: Pilot Knob Rd 50 feet 50 feet*
Front yard: 30 feet 30 feet
Side yard: Principal Structure 10 feet 10 feet
Side yard: Accessory Structure 5 feet 5 feet
Rear yard: Principal Structure 15 feet 15 feet
Rear yard: Accessory Structure 5 feet 5 feet
* Add on features may not meet setbacks as indicated by this table
Building Coverage - The R-1 and R-3 zoning district allows for a maximum of 20
percent building coverage per lot. The applicant has submitted a table for the single
family portion of the development indicating the size of the house and additions per lot
without exceeding 20 percent building coverage. The townhome portion of the
development percentage is based on the whole site rather than by individual lot. This is
not uncommon for townhouse developments. The calculations provided are worst case
scenario and provide areas based on the largest models. The only concern staff has with
this is that in the future when someone wants to add on it is difficult to determine the
lot coverage percentage and if an addition is allowed. The applicant should address
this issue or produce a table similar to the single family portion of the development.
Building Height - Building height is limited to 35 feet in height for the town homes and
single family homes. The submitted elevation plans do not indicate building height, as
0 9
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 6
part of the final planned development the height of the buildings shall be established.
Staff suggests the development maintain the 35 foot height maximum.
Landscaping - Landscaping is not required for single family residential. The townhome portion
of the site does require landscaping. The proposed Landscape Plan shows several foundation
plantings similar to other plans submitted for this site and is acceptable.
Parkin - Parking for this development is to be in driveways and in the public streets. Later in
this report discussion of setbacks and the impact on the streets and parking is discussed. It
appears that some of the parking on the driveways will occur partially on the driveway and
partially in the public right-of-way. Staff has concerns with this when snow removal occurs.
Trash Enclosure - A trash enclosure location was not included on the preliminary plans for the
town house development. The Zoning Ordinance does not address trash enclosures for this type
of residential development. If the development is going to use some type of community
dumpster, it should be enclosed in a structure(s) made of materials compatible with the
development.
Lighting -A lighting plan indicating the location of street lights is necessary for the Final Planned
Development application.
Signage - Two signs are proposed for this development. One sign is located on Lot 7 Block 2 by
easement and the other sign is located on the common area of Lot 15 block, 5 (common area 5).
A ten foot setback applies to both signs. Typically only one sign is allowed for residential
identification, however it is not uncommon for larger development to have more than one and as
part of a Planned Development it could be allowed. Both signs should meet sign ordinance
requirements for placement and size.
II. Preliminary Subdivision
Proposal - The applicant proposes to develop the 37 acre site with 37 single family lots and 58
townhouse style condominium units (on 17 lots) on 57 total lots for a total of 95 units. A single
phase development is proposed. The townhouse portion of the plat is proposed to be platted as
condominiums.
Access is proposed via Pilot Knob Road with cul-de-sacs and looping internal streets; no
connection to Wellington Way is proposed but a connection can be accommodated.
Conforming Plan - As part of the Planned Development requirements the applicant provided a
conforming plan which conforms to R-3 standards (R-1 already complying), the applicant states
this plan is undesirable because of the impact on tree loss would increase by 39 trees, 2,000
square foot of wetlands would be filled, wetland setbacks would be reduced an average of 15-20
feet and 20,000 square feet of additional driveway pavement would reduce green space. The
conforming plan shows the streets as proposed and would require variances to the maximum cul-
de-sac length of 500 feet.
~~v
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 7
Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The subject site abuts Pilot Knob Road. Single family
uses are located to the north, east and west of the property. Lebanon Hills Regional Park is
located to the south and east of the property. The town homes are proposed to abut the park and
the single family lots will be on the north side of the property with five lots abutting Pilot Knob
Road. Single Family residential uses are consistent with the surrounding area, the town home
clustering responds to the topographic features and the overall density is compatible with the area
and LD Guide Plan designation.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan - The site is guided Low Density Residential allowing 0-4
units/acre for development. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan describes Low Density as
primarily single family detached housing units, however; some attached housing may be
appropriate provided they comply with density restrictions and other applicable zoning
regulations. As part of the Planned Development that applicant is asking for deviations to the R-
3 setback requirement.
According to the Comp Plan "the creation of new small lot subdivisions may also be appropriate
in situations where: a) a maintenance organization or exterior maintenance provisions strategies
are in place, b) the site contains physical characteristics that can be preserved through use of
smaller lots and/or cluster design, and c)the development design is consistent with surrounding
neighborhoods." As proposed a homeowner's association is necessary to maintain the common
area, this agreement could include maintenance provisions. The site does have many significant
trees that could be preserved through smaller lots and cluster design; however the applicant is
exceeding removal requirements, but is meeting or exceeding mitigation requirements. The
townhomes are no longer proposed on smaller lots but are more in a cluster type development.
The Comp Plan also discusses physical suitability. This section of the plan suggests that if there
are significant natural features worth protecting, it may be appropriate to utilize cluster design
techniques to minimize disturbance of the natural features of the site. Concluding that cluster
design would allow smaller lots in exchange for substantial preservation of the significant natural
features within a subdivision. As proposed it is not clear as to whether this exchange is satisfied
for the mixed housing styles and reduced setbacks and type of development. It is up to City
Officials to determine if this proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
designations.
Density - The proposed overall net density (minus right-of-way) is 2.6units/acre. The proposed
overall gross density is 2.5 1 units/acre complying with the Low Density guide plan designation.
The gross density for the town homes is 3.04units/acre and net density is 3.13units/acre. The
single family portion of the development has a gross density of 1.97units/acre and a net density
of 2.05units/acre both meeting the Low Density requirements. The overall density must comply
with the Low Density requirements and it does with this development.
Lots - The single family portion of the development complies with R-1 standards with lots
ranging from 13,638 square feet to 20,797square feet exceeding the 12,000 square foot
/f
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 8
minimums. The R-3 district requires 6,000 square feet of land per unit. The common area and
lot areas exceed this requirement. The townhouse portion of this development is proposed as a
condominium style of platting.
The common area should have Lot numbers assigned to each one. Common area 6 as identified
on the plan should be Lot 4, Block 6, Common area 5 should be Lot 15, Block 5 and Common
area 7 is labeled correctly as Lot 1, Block 7 these revisions should be reflected on the Final
Subdivision Plans.
Setbacks - In the townhome portion of the development, the developer proposes reduced front
yard setback variances for 43 of 58 of the townhome units, the reduced setbacks proposed on
front-load garages range from 12 feet to 25 feet. Reduced setbacks can create winter maintenance
issues for the City public works' crews. In some instances vehicles parked in driveways may
encroach into public right-of-way. Where the lengths of proposed driveways are only 12 feet on
private property with 23 feet total driveway length to the curb.
Landscaping - Single family developments are not typically subject to landscape requirements,
however there will be tree preservation/mitigation trees located throughout the single family area.
R-3 zoning districts require a landscape plan with any new development. All plantings are
proposed to be shrubs and there is no landscape plantings proposed in the rear yard. The tree
mitigation plan provides for trees in the rear yard. Tree mitigation plantings are not considered
part of required landscaping. Accepting the tree mitigation trees to the rear of the lots rather than
additional landscaping is a policy matter for City Officials to determine. There are some
plantings in between the driveways to distinguish each unit.
Grading/ Topographer The site has large variations in topography with elevations ranging from
940 to 1000. All lots within the subdivision are proposed to be graded with initial development.
The site should be graded to maintain slopes of 3:1 or gentler on newly graded slopes. Retaining
walls should be located on private property, outside of public right-of-way, and maintained
privately by property owners.
The developer should be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in
accordance with City engineering standards. The development is also subject to the City's
codified land disturbance and erosion control regulations.
Water Ouality -This subject site is located primarily in the upper portion of the City's LPl-
Watershed, which flows west to east through numerous Class I, III, and IV waterbodies in Dakota
County's Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Immediately downstream of the parcel and in the county
park is Jensen Lake, a state public water (DNR#19-0071) and a Class II Indirect Contact
Recreation waterbody, according to the City's Water Quality Management (WQMP). The
northwesterly corner of the parcel is in the upper portion of the BP-Watershed, which drains
through Walden Heights Park to Thomas Lake, which is a Class I Direct Contact Recreation
waterbody, according to the WQMP.
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 9
The developer proposes to address City on-site stormwater quality requirements primarily by
treating runoff via a series of ponds and wetlands, one pond of which would be new and two
areas of which would be modified. A 2.4-acre area (Drainage Area 1) on the north side of the
parcel is proposed to drain to a modified, low-lying "dry" pond (Pond 1).
Drainage Area 2 (15.5 acres), along with excessive runoff from Pond 1, would drain to a new
stormwater pond (Pond 2), located next to existing Basin D in the north-central portion of the
site. Basin D would receive overland runoff from a surrounding 0.6-acre area as well as some
treated stormwater from Pond 2.
Drainage Area 3 (2.9 acres) would receive treated stormwater from Drainage Areas 1 and 2 and
drain to an existing stormwater pond (City Pond LP1-56), which is a Class IV Wildlife Habitat
waterbody, according to the WQMP, and then drain offsite to the south to a small wetland (City
Pond LP1-7A) west of Jensen Lake. However, there is no direct stormwater connection to Jensen
Lake.
Drainage Area 4 (1.7 acres) would contribute backyard overland flow to the northernmost
wetland (Pond 4) of the three historical natural wetlands that have since been flooded. The
WQMP classifies the historical 3-wetland basin as one Class IV Wildlife Habitat waterbody
Drainage Area 5 (1.7 acres) would add overland runoff to the southernmost natural wetland
(Pond 5) of this flooded basin. Pond 5 would drain offsite to Lebanon Hills Regional Park, but at
a significantly lower rate and of an appreciably lower amount than with existing conditions.
Drainage Area 6 (9.6 acres) would drain to Pond 6, which would be a modification of the central
part of the flooded (non-natural) basin. On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council officially
approved an exemption from wetland replacement requirements for work to establish Pond 6 as a
stormwater treatment pond. Pond 6 would provide some hydrology to Ponds 4 and 5, and Pond 4
would outlet to Pond 5.
The 4.9-acre combined area of the parcel that is proposed to drain off site to the northwest, west,
southwest, south, and southeast would be subject to a cash dedication in lieu of onsite stormwater
treatment.
Minimum requirements for volume and area of water quality treatment ponds are based on the
impervious proportion of proposed developments (i.e., land covered by buildings, parking lots,
driveways, and walks). The impervious proportions of the drainage areas would be used to
calculate overall minimum treatment volume requirements for water quality purposes.
Wetlands - The wetland delineation report for the project site (GME Consultants, Inc.; Project
No. 10745) identifies five wetland basins subject to the City of Eagan's jurisdiction according to
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Any proposals to drain, fill, or excavate these
wetlands need to meet all provisions of WCA laws and rules. The report identifies the five
wetlands as Basins A through E. On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council officially
approved the wetland delineations for the site.
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 10
Basin A, mentioned previously as City Pond LP1-56, is considered a Type 4 wetland, under the
classification system of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Type 4 wetlands are inland deep fresh
marshes in which the soils are usually covered with six inches to three feet or more of water
during the growing season. Vegetation may include cattails, reeds, and bulrushes. In this case,
broad-leaf deciduous trees are in a semi-permanent flooded basin.
Basin B is known as City Pond LP-7.2, which is also a Class IV Wildlife Habitat waterbody
according to the WQMP. The delineation report identifies this wetland as a Type 3 wetland. Type
3 wetlands are inland shallow fresh marshes that are permanently inundated with six or more
inches of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various
other marsh plants such as cattails, arrowheads, and smartweeds.
Basin C is identified as a flooded depression area that historically held three small wetlands.
Together, they are considered Type 3 wetlands, according to the delineation report.
Basin D, located near the north central portion of the site, is also considered a Type 3 wetland by
the delineation report.
Basin E, located near the east central portion of the site, is not typified by the delineation report.
However, it likely is a Type 3 wetland.
As was discussed in the completed Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, there is
significant evidence that all five wetlands have suffered varying degrees of degradation and
varying amounts of fill by previous landowners.
Wetland Replacement
Due to the complexity of the wetland-related issues of this development, the City has relied on its
Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) since June 3, 2004 to provide technically accurate
and objective recommendations relative to the consistency of the project's proposed wetland
replacement plan with WCA laws and rules.
The TEP is comprised of staff with technical wetland expertise from the Dakota County Soil and
Water Conservation District, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the City of Eagan.
According to State regulations, the City is required to consider TEP recommendations in its
decision making process and to provide reasons if it disagrees with TEP findings and
recommendations.
On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council requested the developer to provide a revised plan
for onsite wetland replacement versus offsite wetland banking, as was originally proposed. The
developer provided such a revised plan to the City on February 15, 2005.
According to this plan, the developer proposes to fill entirely one of the historical wetlands of
Basin C, a portion of Basin D, and entirely Basin E for a total of 17,497 square feet of fill (vs.
26,407square feet of fill originally). The plan proposes to replace these impacts by creating
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 11
17,500 square feet of new wetland and by claiming 24,231 square feet of public value credit for
construction of stormwater treatment ponds and establishing wetland buffers. The proposed
amounts of onsite replacement exceed the minimum 2:1 standards of the WCA rules.
The TEP has provided the City its findings and conclusions on the revised wetland replacement
plan (see attached). The City will accept public comments on this application until 4:30 p.m. on
March 28, 2005. A decision on this matter is anticipated on April 5, 2005 City Council meeting.
The TEP recommends denial of the proposed replacement and monitoring plan for the following
reasons:
• Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Replacement Area l;
• Proposed replacement areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring
landscape conditions that support wetlands;
• Proposed Replacement Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a
functioning wetland due to need for continued removal of sediment;
• Both replacement areas require significant landscape alterations;
• Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would be required along
Replacement Area 2, creating safety hazards and prohibiting natural transitions of
plants and movement of animals; and
• The proposed created wetlands would not result in characteristics consistent with
those specified in WCA rules. It is very questionable that a fully functioning
wetland could be created onsite within the context of the proposed development
or planned land use.
After thoroughly reviewing the revised application and all supplemental information, the TEP
recommends the use of a wetland bank because it creates the best ecological solution to replacing
impacted wetlands within this proposed development.
The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for stormwater management
purposes. The TEP believes this wetland will likely be lost or suffer further diminished value
over time due to significant reduction of contributing watershed area, sediment accumulation,
and vegetative alteration by adjacent land use. Although excavation would increase wetland
impacts back to the amount originally proposed, it would contribute to a better grading plan from
a stormwater management standpoint.
Low-impact design features such as rainwater gardens and infiltration areas should be considered
in the final design phase to reduce the overall runoff volume from this proposed development.
Storm Drainage- The storm water runoff from a large majority of the development is proposed to
drain via public storm sewer and ponding before discharging to Lebanon Hills Regional Park
(LHRP) to the south, in accordance with the City of Eagan Storm Water Management Plan.
Most of the site drains to landlocked ponds and basins within LHRP with potential future trunk
storm sewer pipe connections to Jensen Lake. Jensen Lake ultimately drains to Holland Lake
115'
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 12
near Cliff Road. The City Council has approved a project (City Project 905) regarding storm
water drainage from the Park in the area of Holland Lake near Cliff Road.
The proposed design of the development's storm water ponding system is to provide flood
storage and protection for rainfall events consistent with current City standards. The storm sewer
design provides for rate control of runoff to LHRP.
A small portion of the development site will drain northwest to an existing storm sewer system
within Pinetree Pass Addition. This area is proposed to be smaller in size than what currently
drains to that storm sewer system.
The developer should install outlet skimmer structures in accordance with City engineering
standards on all existing and proposed outlet pipes of ponds with wet pond volumes, including
the existing pipe outlet on Pond LP-56 in the southeast corner of the site.
Utilities- Sanitary sewer of sufficient size and capacity is available at existing Wellington Way at
the west edge of the site. However, the sewer pipe is not at an elevation to serve the entire
development by gravity flow and a lift station will be required. The preliminary utility plan
shows gravity sewer to serve eight of the 95 houses proposed with the development. The lift
station should be constructed in accordance with City engineering standards.
Water main of sufficient size and capacity is also available at Wellington Way for connection
and extension through the site. A water main connection to loop the system within the
development will also be made at an existing stub from the Hillerest Addition to the north.
All existing well and septic systems on the site should be abandoned in accordance with Dakota
County and City standards as part of this development.
Streets/ Access/ Circulation-
Proposed Street Layout - The plan shows internal looping of public streets within the
development, with two cul-de-sacs in excess of City code maximum of 500 feet in length (650
feet and 800 feet respectively). If approved, the cul-de-sac lengths are variances to the City code
maximum of 500 feet. This looped street system has one connection point to Pilot Knob Road
(Dakota County Road 31). All newly created lots, including the town homes in the southern one-
half of the development are proposed to be served by public streets.
The preliminary street layout plan submitted by the developer does not provide for a connection
to existing Wellington Way, eliminating inter-connectivity with the existing neighborhoods to
the west and north.
Existing/ Planned Street Network- Section 33 - The street extension of Wellington Way through
this property, and its ultimate connection to Pilot Knob Road, was planned as part of the overall
phased development of this area. This neighborhood is surrounded by Cliff Road, Johnny Cake
Ridge Road, and Pilot Knob Road, and Lebanon Hills Regional Park with six current access
points to the collector roadway system, four onto Cliff Road (at Thomas Lane, Stonecliffe Drive,
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 13
Beacon Hill Road, and Ridgecliff Drive) and two onto Johnny Cake Ridge Road (at Covington
Lane and Sherwood Way). There are currently no access points from this neighborhood to Pilot
Knob Road. The connection of Wellington Way to Pilot Knob Road would provide the last
planned access point for the existing 700 single-family homes and 160 town homes in the area.
The right-of-way configuration of Wellington Way for this phasing of development in Section 33
was provided with the development of the Brittany Additions in the early to mid-1980's.
Agreements were stating the future intent to extend Wellington Way to Pilot Knob Road signed
by the developer, but not recorded with Dakota County. However, the were of record at the City.
The temporary dead-end of Wellington Way was designed and constructed to accommodate this
extension with the development of the Diamond T property.
Recent daily traffic counts for Covington Lane east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road, Stonecliffe
Drive south of Cliff Road, and Beacon Hill south of Cliff Road exceeded 1,600 vehicles per day.
2004 traffic estimates for Sherwood Way east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road are in excess of 1,400
vehicles per day. These traffic volumes are near the upper limits of typical residential street
traffic. City staff has received consistent requests from residents within the Pinetree Pass
neighborhoods to reduce the amount of traffic on Stonecliffe Drive. The extension of Wellington
Way to Pilot Knob Road, if required, would be expected to reduce traffic on Stonecliffe Drive, and
the other streets that currently intersect with Cliff Road and Johnny Cake Ridge Road, and better
balance the volumes throughout the larger neighborhood (See attached maps of Section 33 street
system/traffic counts on intersections with collectors).
Traffic Studies - The City directed the professional engineering firm of SEH, Inc. to perform a
traffic study for the area to determine the estimated impact of vehicle traffic from the existing
and proposed homes on Wellington Way and the expected level of service at the new connection
at Pilot Knob Road. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this proposed development
also contains a traffic analysis of the surrounding area, with and without connection to
Wellington Way. These traffic studies indicate that the proposed development, with the
Wellington Way connection, will not significantly impact the neighborhood roadways to the west
of the development. The anticipated distribution of new development generated trips to the west
and north will be essentially canceled out by the redistributed trips from adjacent existing
developments onto Wellington Way, thus creating equal or lesser amounts of traffic on the
neighborhood streets near major collectors to the north and west.
The traffic estimated for Wellington Way is approximately 425 to 930 trips per 24-hour period,
within the limits of what is typically defined for a local residential street. During the peak hours
of morning and afternoon traffic with the connection, the existing portion of Wellington Way is
expected to accommodate about one vehicle per one to two minutes. Examples of residential
streets within Eagan carrying traffic in the 900 vehicles per day range are Letendre Street (east of
Heritage Lane in northwest Eagan), Carnelian Lane (east of Rahn Road in the west-central part of
the City), and Deerwood Drive (east of Pilot Knob Road in central Eagan). The estimated 425 to
930 daily vehicle trips are a little more than one-quarter to one-half the traffic currently
accommodated on the existing residential streets of Covington Lane, Stonecliffe Drive, and
//7
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 14
Beacon Hill Road (all in excess of 1,600 vehicles per day) near their intersections with Cliff
Road and Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
With or without the connection of the proposed Steeplechase/Diamond T development to
Wellington Way, the proposed development's intersection with Pilot Knob Road would be
expected to operate at an acceptable level of service.
With no development within Lebanon Hills Regional Park immediately to the south of the
existing neighborhoods and good traffic carrying capacity on Johnny Cake Ridge Road, Cliff
Road and Pilot Knob Road, the potential for "cut-through" traffic in the neighborhood is not a
reasonable assumption, if the connection is required.
Reduced Setbacks (Town homes) - City code requires a 30-foot front yard setback from the right-
of-way line to house structures. In the town home portion of the development, the developer
proposes reduced front yard setback variances for 43 of 58 of the town home units, with the
setbacks proposed on front-load garages ranging from 12 feet to 25 feet. Reduced setbacks
reduce the number of off-street parking options and can create winter maintenance safety
conflicts and reduced sight lines with vehicles parked in driveways within public right-of-way. In
some instances, the lengths of proposed driveways are only 12 feet on private property with 23
feet total driveway length, including the driveway within public right-of-way.
Police Department - The Police Department has some concerns with the proposed development
to the site. Comments suggest that southbound right turn lane into the development from Pilot
Knob Road be provided. It was noted that a connection to the Wellington Way neighborhood
from Pilot Knob Road would make it easier to navigate to the scene and reduce the number of
intersections the responding offers would have to incur. There are 270 miles of roadway in the
City of Eagan; it seems unrealistic to expect an emergency responder to remember there is an
emergency access at the end of a long cul-de-sac. The issue of maintaining the emergency access
was also questioned.
Fire Department - The Fire Department indicated that a Wellington Way connection from Pilot
Knob is preferred to increase safety, minimize pedestrian interference and enhance response time
to that area.
Dakota County Review (See attached Plat Commission Letter dated 3-7-05) - The Dakota County
Plat Commission and the Physical Development Commission of the Whole have both reviewed,
but did not approve, the preliminary subdivision plat with a variance to the County's access
spacing guidelines. Street access to Pilot Knob Road will not be approved by Dakota County
without the street connection to Wellington Way. If access is not granted by Dakota County, it
would require all access for this development to come through the internal neighborhoods to the
north and west. Dakota County views the through street connection as vital to traffic flow in
Section 33. In their review letter to the City regarding this subdivision, the Plat Commission
states The Wellington Way connection is paramount to reducing unnecessary local trips from
using the regional highways, and will improve the safety of neighborhood, city, and county
residents. The Plat Commission is specifically concerned about the number of unnecessary
//911"
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 15
county highway trips and particularly left turns that would have to be made across high-speed,
busy, multi-lane county highways (Pilot Knob and Cliff Road) if the Wellington Way connection
is not made. The safety and operation issue affects many people including: 1) the future residents
of Steeplechase who would have no choices for ingress/egress if their access is solely to Pilot
Knob; 2) the people that live in the neighborhoods to the west and north of Steeplechase; 3) and
the people that live within or outside of the City of Eagan that are driving on Pilot Knob and/or
Cliff Road highways. The Wellington Way connection will prevent crashes by allowing area
residents to make better choices about how to access the area's high-speed highways, avoid
difficult left turns at busy times, and travel on the internal local street network rather than the
busier County highway system for: ride-share, car pool, bus trips, garbage trucks, postal
services, etc." The Plat Commission recognizes that the residents on the existing Wellington
Way cul-de-sac do not desire the Wellington Way connection and understands that they will be
impacted by a through street connection. However, the traffic anticipated on Wellington Way is
typical for neighborhood streets, and is similar to other streets in the adjacent neighborhoods. If
the connection were made, the traffic volumes on Wellington Way would be lower than the other
collectors in the subdivision. The design of the local road system from a technical perspective
would not be an issue were it not for the quality of life concerns raised by existing residents who
understandably have become accustomed to living on a very low volume cul-de-sac. The Plat
Commission is empathetic to the concerns of the residents on Wellington Way; but has a
responsibility to address the safety concerns of city residents, county residents, and people
traveling on County highways"
Also required by Dakota County before approval of the plat is a public street connection to the 5-
acre parcel (Parcel 050-29) to the northeast of this development to eliminate the future need for
access to Pilot Knob Road, and a variance to the County road spacing guidelines for the
development's street intersection. The connection to the parcel to the north is shown on the
preliminary site plan, with a temporary cul-de-sac to be removed with future extension of the
street.
The Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted resolution that supports the
recommendation to deny Steeplechase of Eagan Plat, provided by the Plat Commission. The
Commission also requested that the City of Eagan and the developer produce a plat that supports
adjacent residences and meets City and County requirements.
Conditions of Approval - Streets/Access/ Circulation -
This development should extend Wellington Way from its existing terminus to Pilot Knob Road.
The open area surrounded by proposed Steeplechase Circle should be dedicated as public right-
of-way with perpetual maintenance the responsibility of the homeowners association.
This development should provide a public street connection to the 5-acre parcel to the northeast
(Parcel 050-29), as shown on the preliminary site plan.
A variance to the County access spacing guidelines for the Wellington Way intersection with
Pilot Knob Road should be granted by Dakota County prior to final subdivision approval.
l~~
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 16
Easements/ Permits/ Right-of-Way- This development should dedicate public right-of-way along
Pilot Knob Road (County Road 31) as required by Dakota County. The development should
dedicate restricted access to Pilot Knob Road on the final plat for the subdivision, except in the
area of the connection of the development's street intersection.
The developer should dedicate temporary street easement on proposed Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 1,
Block 3 for the temporary cul-de-sac.
Tree Preservation - A tree inventory submitted with this application indicates that there are
seven-hundred fifty-four (754) significant trees in the inventory for the entire site (detached home
area plus attached home area). Trees include Oak, Cherry, Box elder, Elm, Cottonwood, Aspen,
Crabapple, Pine and Willow.
The development as proposed will result in the removal of a total of five-hundred forty-eight
(548) significant trees (72.7 % of the total). According to the City of Eagan Tree Preservation
Ordinance allowable tree removal for this development proposal will be calculated based upon
the specific use of different parts of the site. The northern third of the site will have single-
family detached homes; allowable removal for this area is set at 40%. The southern two-thirds of
the site will have single-family attached (multi-family residences); allowable removal for this
area is set at 47.5%. The table below shows proposed tree removals.
Detached Units Attached Units
Allowable Removal 40% 47.5%
Existing Trees 176 578
Proposed Removal 134(76.1%) 412(71.3%)
Required Mitigation 148 (Cat. B) 386 (Cat. B)
With a proposed removal greater than the allowable amount, there is required tree mitigation for
this proposal calculated at five-hundred thirty-four (534) Category B trees.
The applicant has submitted a Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the fulfillment of required tree
mitigation through the installation of 426 Category B trees and 56 Category A trees, for a total
equivalent of 538 Category B trees.
Tree Preservation Efforts
Staff has had several meetings with the applicant to discuss proposed tree removal versus
potential tree preservation. Because of the massive linear footage of grade limits, the exact final
number of preserved/removed trees will be determined following an actual walk-through along
staked grade limits. Specific tree preservation activities will be required to ensure survival of
these "edge" preserved trees. The resulting effect of this site walk-through will be the adjustment
of required tree mitigation. The final number of required tree mitigation may also be altered as
individual lot construction takes place.
Therefore, staff is recommending that overall required tree mitigation be handled on a "floating
number" system, where additional trees preserved will reduce the final mitigation number, and
/0)z
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 17
additional trees removed will increase the final mitigation number. This system has been used
with satisfactory results on past large development sites.
Parks and Recreation - The area of the development is currently serviced by a variety of parks
with a wide variety of amenities within the recommended radius of a service area for a
neighborhood park of %2 to 3/4 of a mile. The largest of the parks, Dakota County's, Lebanon Hills
Regional Park, extends the entire length of the developments south boundary. The park provides
a number of recreational opportunities including, hiking, mountain biking, canoeing, pavilions,
and a play structure. The Jenson Lake recreation area is located approximately 1/4 mile from the
development and will be directly accessible via a proposed trail connection. Much of Lebanon
Hills is dedicated to preservation with hundreds of acres of quality woodland left undisturbed.
The development area is also serviced by two existing City parks, George Ohmann and Walden
Heights. Each of the parks has a play structure and field space. Ohmann is a heavily used athletic
facility that includes a small shelter building. Both are available via a trail or low volume
residential road.
The slopes, degraded condition of large portions of the site and allowable density do not appear
conducive to proposing the dedication of park land, though there may be opportunity for the
dedication of conservation easements, protecting areas of the site, to the City. Easements over the
more sensitive slopes, pond buffers and the quality woodlands of a site are very common.
Because the under lying title for the property would remain as part of the development, no
dedication credit would be given. The Developer has suggested in concept, the creation of
easements over sensitive areas in several woodland and wetland areas. Further clarification from
the Developer regarding the extent of easements may be necessary.
At the suggestion of staff, the development includes the installation of an 8 foot bituminous
connector trail, extending from the existing Pilot Knob boulevard trail, through a portion of the
development to the existing County Park trail. The County trail runs under Pilot Knob to the east,
via an existing tunnel, to the Jenson Lake recreation area and beyond. To the west, the trail
connects, the County trail connects into a number of internal amenities including mountain bike
and hiking trails. A direct trail connection from the existing boulevard trail on Pilot Knob has
been sought for some time. The intention being to negate the need to cross Pilot Knob, to access
County and City park facilities located on the easy side of Pilot knob. Due to the steep slope and
desire to minimize disruption, sections of the trail may not meet ADA requirements over short
distances. Equivalent access to the County Park amenities is available via a trail from the parking
lot on the east side of Pilot Knob. This approach is common in park settings having multiple
points of access.
Dakota County has indicated general acceptance of the trail connection into the County park
system. They have requested that signage be installed informing park users that bikes are not
allowed in park except on the designated bike trails. Should the connector trail be installed, the
development would be given trail credit, utilizing a City formula. Any balance due would be paid
in cash. While functional, credit would generally not be given for any internal sidewalks that are
developed primarily at the discretion of the Developer.
lC~/
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 18
Advisory Park and Recreation Commission - This development proposal was before the APrC
on Monday March 14, 2005. The APrC recommended approval as presented. The APrC
supported the TEP findings and suggested that off site mitigation take place within the City of
Eagan.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The applicant is proposing a mixed residential development on the former Diamond T ranch.
The application is to Rezone from Agriculture to Planned Develop and develop with 37 single
family homes and 58 townhouse style condominium units. The Subdivision will create 56 Lots.
The property is guided for Low Density Residential 0-4 units/acre the proposed overall density is
2.6 units/acre.
The Planned Development zoning allows for deviations in development standards. Reduced
setbacks are proposed for the townhouse units. The reduced setbacks proposed on front-load
garages range from 12 feet to 25 feet. Reduced setbacks can create winter maintenance issues for
the City public works' crews, with vehicles parked in driveways within public right-of-way.
Part of the City's Planned Development requirements the applicant provided a conforming plan
which conforms to R-3 standards (R-1 already complying), the applicant states this plan is
undesirable because of the impact on tree loss would increase by 39 trees, 2,000 square foot of
wetlands would be filled, wetland setbacks would be reduced an average of 15-20 feet and
20,000 square feet of additional driveway pavement would reduce green space. The plan shows
the street layout the same as proposed and would require cul-de-sac length variances.
The developer proposes to address City on-site stormwater quality requirements primarily by
treating runoff via a series of ponds and wetlands, one pond of which would be new and two
areas of which would be modified.
On February 1, 2005, the Eagan City Council officially approved an exemption from the wetland
replacement requirements and the wetland delineations for the site. According to this plan, the
developer proposes to fill entirely one of the historical wetlands of Basin C, a portion of Basin D,
and entirely Basin E for a total of 17,497 square feet of fill. The proposed amounts of onsite
replacement exceed the minimum 2:1 standards of the WCA rules.
The TEP is comprised of staff with technical wetland expertise from the Dakota County Soil and
Water Conservation District, the State Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the City of
Eagan. According to State regulations, the City is required to consider TEP recommendations in
its decision making process and to provide reasons if it disagrees with TEP findings and
recommendations. The TEP is recommending denial of the plan as presented. After thoroughly
reviewing the revised application and all supplemental information, the TEP recommends the use
of a wetland bank because it creates the best ecological solution to replacing impacted wetlands
within this proposed development.
f
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 19
Proposed tree removal of 72.7% requires on-site tree mitigation. Staff is recommending that
overall required tree mitigation be handled on a "floating number" system, where additional trees
preserved will reduce the final mitigation number, and additional trees removed will increase the
final mitigation number. This system has been used with satisfactory results on past large
development sites.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
To recommend approval of Rezoning 37 acres from Agriculture to PD, Planned Development,
for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road (former Diamond T site).
To recommend approval of a Preliminary Planned Development to create 37 single family
units and 58 townhouse style condominium units with reduced setbacks and greater cul-de-sac
lengths for Steeplechase of Eagan located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road (former Diamond T Ranch
site). If approved the following conditions shall apply:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Preliminary Planned Development Agreement
with the City that shall be recorded at the Dakota County Recorder's Office.
2. The applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Development Agreement with the
City. The following exhibits are necessary for the Agreement:
• Final Site Plan
• Final Building Elevations Plan
• Final Tree Preservation Plan
• Final Landscape Plan
• Final Lighting Plan
• Final Signage Plan
• Final building coverages for each lot (table form)
To recommend approval of a Preliminary Subdivision (Steeplechase of Eagan) to create 56 lots
for property located at 4889 Pilot Knob Road (former Diamond T site). If approved the
following conditions shall apply:
1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 2, 1993: Al, B1,2,3,4, C1,2,3 D1, and E1
2. The property shall be platted.
3. The site shall be graded to maintain slopes of 3:1 or gentler on graded slopes.
4. All retaining walls shall be located on private property, outside of public right-of-way, and
maintained privately by property owners.
5. The developer shall be responsible for installing and maintaining erosion control measures in
accordance with City engineering standards.
6. The developer shall install outlet skimmer structures in accordance with City engineering
standards on all existing and proposed outlet pipes of ponds with wet pond volumes,
including the existing pipe outlet on Pond LP-56 in the southeast corner of the site.
7. The sanitary sewer lift station shall be constructed in accordance with City engineering
standards.
1013
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 20
8. All existing well and septic systems on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with Dakota
County and City standards as part of this development.
9. The open area surrounded by proposed Steeplechase Circle shall be dedicated as public right-
of-way with perpetual maintenance the responsibility of the homeowners association. A
Maintenance Agreement shall be prepared, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
10. This development shall provide a public street connection to the 5-acre parcel to the northeast
(Parcel 050-29), as shown on the preliminary site plan (County plat approval requirement).
11. This development shall dedicate public right-of-way along Pilot Knob Road (County Road
31) as required by Dakota County (County plat approval requirement).
12. The development shall dedicate restricted access to Pilot Knob Road on the final plat for the
subdivision, except in the area of the connection of the development's street (County plat
approval requirement).
13. A variance to the County access spacing guidelines for the development's street intersection
with Pilot Knob Road shall be granted by Dakota County prior to final subdivision approval
(County plat approval requirement).
14. The developer shall dedicate temporary street easement on proposed Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot
1, Block 3 for the temporary cul-de-sac in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
15. The Final Subdivision plans shall add lot numbers to the common area as discussed in the
report.
16. A sign easement in a form acceptable to the City attorney shall be submitted with Final
Subdivision for the sign on Lot 1, Block 2.
17. The developer shall submit Homeowner Association documents to the City Attorney for
review and approval, prior to Final Subdivision approval including transfer of all common
area to the HOA.
18. The park dedication shall be satisfied through a cash dedication.
19. The development shall dedicate conservation easements to the City over those portions of the
site described as Conservation Easements on the Site Plan in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
20. The developer shall install an 8 foot wide bituminous connector trail extending from the
existing west Pilot Knob boulevard trail, south and west to the existing County trail, within a
15 foot easement, to be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Said
trail shall be built to City standards with the alignment to be determined in consultation with
City and County staff. Said trail corridor to be established prior to the construction of homes.
All required walls, guard rails, fencing and other safety features shall be the responsibility of
the developer.
21. The trail dedication shall be satisfied with a credit of $10 per lineal foot being given for the
new connector trail, any balance due paid in cash. Said trail to be constructed per approved
Site Plan; however, the credit may not exceed what would be required as a total cash trail
dedication.
22. The applicant shall fulfill the required tree mitigation through the installation of five-hundred
thirty-four (534) Category B trees, or an equivalent combination of Category A, B, or C trees.
23. A long-term tree survival plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and implemented on
all trees with encroachment into the CRZ. The applicant shall communicate with city
forestry staff in the actual placement of tree protection fence around these trees.
/ A ~
Planning Report - Steeplechase of Eagan
March 22, 2005
Page 21
24. In order to utilize a "floating number" system pertaining to the final number of mitigation
trees required. Complete fulfillment of all required mitigation to be installed prior to final
project completion.
25. The applicant shall continue to work with city staff to identify additional opportunities for
preservation during the development and construction process.
26. Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety
netting) shall be required to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical
Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved.
27. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site
inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the grading permit to ensure compliance
with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing.
28. Stormwater runoff from approximately 87 percent of the site (33.8 acres) shall be treated
onsite via a series of constructed ponds and existing wetlands. Minimum volume
requirements for such treatment shall be in accordance with the City's water quality
management plan.
29. A cash dedication in lieu of ponding shall be required for the 4.9-acre area of the parcel that
is proposed to drain off site to the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast without
any treatment.
30. Minimum 30-foot natural buffers shall be provided next to wetlands on the site to support the
City's Class IV-Wildlife Habitat designation of these waterbodies. .
31. City water resources staff shall be involved in any on-site pre-construction, pre-grading
meetings to review and coordinate approved plans.
32. Wetland replacement is to take place within the City of Eagan, where possible.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
A. Financial Obligations
1. This development shall accept its additional financial obligations as
defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions
and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval.
B. Easements and Rights-of-Way
1. This development shall dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements
centered over all lot lines and, in addition, where necessary to
accommodate existing or proposed utilities for drainage ways within the
plat. The development shall dedicate easements of sufficient width and
location as determined necessary by engineering standards.
2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the
acquisition costs of drainage, ponding, and utility easements in addition to
public street rights-of-way as required by the alignment, depth, and
storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond
the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this
development.
3. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary
slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as
required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency.
4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements
to incorporate the required high water elevation plus three (3) feet as
necessitated by storm water storage requirements.
C. Plans and Specifications
1. All public and private streets, drainage systems, and utilities necessary to
provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a
registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes,
engineering standards, guidelines, and policies prior to application for
final plat approval.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be
prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat
approval.
3. This development shall ensure that all dead-end public streets shall have a
cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards.
4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall be submitted overlaid on the
proposed grading and utility plan. The financial guarantee for such plan
shall be included in the Development Contract and shall not be released
until one year after the date of City certified compliance.
D. Public Improvements
1. If any improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the
appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat
approval.
E. Permits
1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory
agency permits required by the affected agency prior to final plat approval.
F. Parks and Trails Dedications
1. This development shall fulfill its park and trail dedication requirements as
recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by
Council action.
G. Water Quality Dedication
1. This development shall be responsible for provided a cash dedication,
ponding, or a combination thereof in accordance with the criteria
identified in the City's Water Quality Management Plan, as recommended
by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by Council action.
H. Other
1. All subdivision, zoning, and other ordinances affecting this development
shall be adhered to, unless specifically granted a Variance by Council
action.
Advisory Planning Commission City Council
Approved: August 25, 1987 September 15, 1987
Revised: July 10, 1990
Revised: February 2, 1993
G:Engineering/Forms/Standard Conditions of Plat Approval
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION-Preliminary Subdivision-Steeplechase of Eagan
There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $-0-on the parcels proposed for subdivision. The
pay-off balance will be allocated to the lots created by the subdivision.
At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel proposed for subdivision.
This estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions and land uses
contained in the final subdivision.
Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property,
the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and for the
connection and availability of the City's utility system. The charges will be computed using the rates in effect at
time of connection or subdivision.
IMPROVEMENT USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT
Water Trunk S.F. $1,130/Lot 95 Lots $107,350
Storm Sewer Trunk (1) S.F. .103/Sq. Ft 622,526 Sq. Ft. 64,125
Storm Sewer Trunk (1) R.3 .12875/Sq. Ft. 681,560 Sq. Ft. 87,751
Total $259,226
(1) Areas for storm sewer trunk computation will be finalized at time of final plat approval. Those areas
that are 3 feet above the normal high water level are will be charged for storm sewer trunk.
~n•rxo.... Nv'%av"NO15,3iadnS
U 5ap6t+la maunasu'a°u 'rxxivamxrossrrm oa.
YJ'o^3 jG n~
S3Hl0i81101 C 35YH 37d331S
Q l=3131'1 •111 1 y. Y
b pxa'~t gpy 3 :a r°
t61P 3 833311-
13 ilia •3
s~ O„ ~ 3 _ ~ J ~ a Aix.-. i. 'J •AAi AA 2 l d4 ~ y _ 3 it ~ ~ ` a
a! f 3 ; i, ~e +ti tW~ aas oY a4 y' ` a i 3i 3 s'x ~i3 G d
1 ` N
g a4 ii 0 3t5_i'-~oa 'Y as35~'"eR ~ C3
3 :E fl ~::ff,' 7 ~'°m Bs°°c= ~8:3~aa° As.~: d iao G
=1--++ tf $xcA' z °z.a. ~yaY.a r~~ xi b^s= -1fi ~ r
}ii8sf ii.i• : ~ jj iy:~ '~c3x8~3 4 a_ t8 : _i ..:4 3'! 1 IN cc
z WW U
s ° W - -r - - - - - - -
y'~'~ ~ZJ foot' Z ;o 3.~ia voa unnoo r).oAra)
l-1511il f (QT 02l SQ3~13I .L077d) 3_BOOLOOS TE __~S \
a
T...._...._------------ _
q - _
HHHHHHU
NOl1 d~~X~ t..•r.•... 7*:': r...ic.; :
„p ;'.'.~'~."~-rr ::C[': : 'i Ell ,
i, ;T:.z-r' -S ` it a F
m Of/~ r,: + .1.,.1 cow r. .~~Ti. .\~--=•~J'~ :
LLJ
QIS ' :•y:
=z r Y.
Q :'r i :•i.'•Ax' .
W •.x • JII•. • a.•. •
Q
O
~ - -
a
W
1
V
l7
W :4\:t{• ,fit 1 •:i•.: :.d.•.•.•.•... •"t, ~r+ .•v
as r'•:." :~i.. .e•:.;.;:::;: ::::~:~:•.rK.w:ifr.•.
N ' • l0 v\ ' . T.'.' !w.4H :':8: .gam i•
b~ : : ':ar: r.'. t .a{ :.1•.L~ a ..r..: '.a4 • .'L•.:: :{l•.'.... .:L:. ~•J -✓r:•':' 't:: p(..
2
.r-
41
r ~•.'.•.•.'J.'.'.: '
W
P..•.~.
.1s•. W.• Tom, {.~1[. .'c1:'. '
,/y~ T.•.
r 1
Project Narrative
Steeplechase of Eagan
Eagan, MN
Prepared By:
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
February 16, 2005
Revised
March 2, 2005
For Submission of:
Rezoning to Planned Development (PD)
Preliminary Planned Development
Preliminary Subdivision
Wetland Replacement Plan
Introduction
On behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc., RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. is pleased to submit the enclosed plans and
documents for the Rezoning, Preliminary Planned Development, Preliminary Subdivision, Wetland
Replacement Plan for the former Diamond T Horse Ranch. The Development Project is titled
Steeplechase of Eagan. The site is located west of Pilot Knob Road and south of Cliff Road. This
narrative and the attached plans outline the site development Toll Brothers are proposing for the
approximate 37-acre site.
Through the development process this project has been heard at numerous public hearings. The Project
Plans included with this submittal reflect comments heard at these public hearings. Items requested and
are reflected in the submittal are:
• All roads to be sized for public road; no private roads,
• A loop road shall be provided between upper and lower tier roads,
• Town homes shall be brought forward to maximize tree savings and wetland setbacks,
• Town homes should be a true empty nester style with a master suite on the main level,
• Impacted wetlands should be mitigated on site,
• On street parking should be available for town home visitors.
Project Request
• Approval of Rezoning from Agriculture to Planned Development (PD),
• Approval of Preliminary Plat and Plans, and
• Approval of Wetland Replacement Plan.
Submittal Package
• Project Narrative
• Preliminary Development Plans dated March 2, 2005
- Seven sets of folded full size / Two sets ofreduced 8-1/2"x I ITwo sets 30"x 42"
• Sequencing Discussion & WCA Replacement Application
• HydroCAD Analysis, Stormwater Routing Calculations
• 100% Compliant Site Plan
• Building Coverage Spreadsheet
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M 13 O Page 1 of 6
• City Red-Line copy
• Tree calculation spreadsheet (via a-mai)
Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation
• Comprehensive Guide Plan designation is Residential
Zoning Classification
• Existing zoning is Agriculture
• Proposed zoning is Planned Development (PD)
• All single family units meet all City of Eagan criteria for RI
• All attached housing units meet all City of Eagan criteria for R3, with the exception of
the front setback of 30' (As directed by the Council to save trees, increase green space,
and minimize impervious surface)
• A 100% compliant plan has been included with the submittal.
Timing/Phasing
Steeplechase of Eagan will be constructed in one phase. The grading and the utility layout lend itself best
to this construction configuration.
• A model home for the single-family units will be located on Lot 1, Block 1.
A temporary parking lot will be located on Lot 2, Block I
• Model townhomes will be located on Lots 1-3, Block 5.
A temporary parking lot will be located on Lots 7-9, Block 6.
Existing Land Use
• The existing site has been used for several decades as a commercial horse boarding and riding
facility. The Diamond T Ranch was known throughout the upper Midwest as a premier family-
oriented horse riding facility visited by thousands on an annual basis. As a result, however, any
natural features or vegetation that might be associated with this property were substantially
removed years ago.
It has been brought to the attention of Toll Brothers that horse waste may be present on-site and if
found to be present on site is a direct result of commercial horse boarding and riding activities of
the previous property owner. Toll Brothers takes this matter very seriously. A consultant and
contractor have been retained by Toll Brothers to search and identify the possible presence of
horse waste, and if found on site to remove the horse waste. Toll Brothers has been working
closely with public officials to address this issue. It is Toll Brothers intentions to cooperate with
the regulatory agencies in the removal of this waste. Toll Brothers recognizes that the presence of
this animal waste may have the potential to be a nuisance to adjacent properties. As a result, Toll
Brothers will take all necessary precautions in protecting the surrounding environment and to
minimize any potential effect that may result from the possible presence of this nuisance.
Over the years, the site has been extensively manipulated to accommodate horse-riding
operations. Land has been leveled to accommodate parking facilities and riding trails, animal
waste has historically been stockpiled in some areas and pushed over slopes and into wetlands
with heavy machinery. These practices polluted and degraded wetlands, destroyed trees, and
dramatically altered existing topography.
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M 131 Page 2 of 6
Project Description
Steeplechase of Eagan is a planned residential community located west of Pilot Knob Road, south of Cliff
Road. The existing land uses surrounding the property are:
0 To the south of the property is Lebanon Hills Regional Park.
• To the west of the property is a residential development (Pinetree Pass 6°i Addition)
• To the north of the property is a residential development (Walden Height 2"d Addition and
Hillcrest Addition)
• To the northeast of the property are two (2) residential lots.
• Directly adjacent to the east is Pilot Knob Road.
• To the cast of the property are; park, residential and institutional land uses.
PUD Amenities
Although the proposed subdivision meets most of the City's ordinances, the new development is a mixed
use subdivision which requires a PD status. The major objective of this development is the creation of a
unique residential community that incorporates the following design themes:
• Trail connection to Lebanon Hills Regional Park,
0 Curvilinear roadway system that encourages traffic calming,
• Ample front yard setbacks that create grand front yards and open site lines,
• Protection and enhancement of significant wetland features,
• Establishing a two acre conservation easement,
• Removal of diseased and stressed trees and replace with new trees, and
• Creation of a "village green" for community gathering and neighborhood recreational
opportunities.
The 37 single-family homes will be designed and built by Toll Brothers, Inc. Prices for a single-family
home are anticipated to start from the low $500's and may go to the high $600's with add-on design
features. The 58 townhomes will also be designed and built by Toll Brothers, Inc. The townhome prices
are anticipated to start in the low $300's, and with add-ons may go to the low $400's.
Site design and grading
The property has a significant topographic change from a high point on the north end of the property and
dropping toward the south end of the property. Several grading strategies have been used to minimize
grading impacts to existing trees and to maintain as much of the existing topography as possible.
The site is designed and has been graded in tiers. Again, the tiering strategy is used to concentrate
grading activities and land uses. The first tier is associated with the single-family units on the north side
of the property. The townhome units are divided between west and east grade divides. Retaining walls
are also used throughout the site to minimize grading activities and to save and protect significant trees
and site features. Custom grading of the single-family pads will also help to minimize tree removal and
grading activities.
A major concern expressed at the neighborhood meeting by residents of the Walden Addition is the
potential for additional stormwater runoff coming onto their properties as a result of final grading
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M 13c), Page 3 of 6
activities. In response to this concern, the grading plan has been substantially revised. Many of the
grades on the north side of the property adjacent to Walden Addition will not be altered. Where the
grades will be altered, the slope of the grades will not be greater than current condition. The storm water
management calculation will be supplied to the county to incorporate in a current hydrologic study.
A 100% ordinance compliant site plan has been included in the submittal package. This plan
demonstrates 30 foot setbacks to all townhome to public Right of Way. By doing this:
• Approximately 39 trees will be lost,
• 2000 SF of wetlands would be filled
• wetland setbacks would be reduced an average of 15 to 20 feet
• 20,000 SF of additional driveway pavement would reduce greenspace
Wetlands
A complete wetland inventory and delineation has been completed for the project site. Six "wetland"
basins were identified on-site, including a pre-existing drainage ditch and a depressional area used for
stormwater ponding that met wetland classification characteristics. The total area on-site meeting the
definitional characteristics of a wetland is approximately 3.7 acres. Approximately 17,500 square feet
(0.40 acres) of low quality wetland area is proposed to be filled. This wetland area will be mitigated on-
site consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Primary wetland mitigation strategies
include:
• Creation of new wetlands adjacent to existing and significant wetland bodies;
• Creation of public value credits that protect upland areas, and ensure property stormwater
management; and
• Enhancement of existing wetlands degraded as a result of Diamond T Ranch operations.
The plans calls for on-site mitigation. The on-site mitigation plan will require the following additional
construction items:
• Destroy an additional 40 trees
• Require a 16 foot tall retaining wall
A letter dated January 27, 2005, submitted by the [Wetland] Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) to the City
of Eagan. The letter states, "The Wetland Conservation Act is not a wetland preservation law as
sometimes perceived. It requires not net loss of wetlands through replacement when feasible and prudent
alternatives to avoid wetlands do not exist." It goes on to state, "Basin D, which is 66% of the total
wetland impact is not likely to exist long term under a development scenario." Great care in site planning
and grading were taken to save more than half of Basin D, however, as stated by the TEP, the long term
survival of Basin D post development is small.
It is the TEP recommendation as stated, "The TEP is not opposed to looking at wetland replacement on-
site. Rather, it is our recommendation that off-site replacement is acceptable under this proposal due to
the difficulty of successful on-site replacement given landscape and project constraints."
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M 133 Page 4 of 6
Utilities
Water will be provided to the project site at Wellington Way and Richards Lane. The site will be looped
as required by City Code. Adequate fire protection is also shown in the design.
The property will connect to the City's sanitary sewer system. Sufficient capacity and size exists to serve
the proposed project. A lift station is proposed in the southerly part of the site and connected to
approximately 800 feet of force main. The lift station will service 87 of the 95 proposed lots.
The proposed stormwater treatment system is designed consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Stormwater Plan. Stormwater treatment ponds are designed consistent with NURP standards. In the
northern area a storm water infiltration basin is used to reduce flow and improve water quality.
Traffic/Access
The plan identifies one access from the site to Pilot Knob Road. Pilot Knob Road is a fully improved
four-lane County Road. The access to Pilot Knob Road is a full right and left turn movement.
Wellington Way is proposed to be extended through the project site to meet with Pilot Knob Road. The
Wellington Way extension has been a part of the City's plans for several years. As required by the
County Plat Commission, a connection to the parcel to the north was provided.
No traffic or access issues are anticipated. However, Toll Brothers have retained SEH to conduct a traffic
analysis for the development.
Tree Removal
RLK-Kuusisto and Toll Brothers have worked extensively with the City's Forester to evaluate the health
and condition of existing trees and to prepare a tree replacement and landscape plan. Toll Brothers
retained Kunde Co., Inc. to complete a tree inventory of the site and this information is part of the
submittal material. A large number of existing trees on the property are diseased and weather damaged.
These trees will be removed consistent with City Code and will be replaced with new vegetation.
In addition to the diseased and weather damaged trees, a large number of trees have been damaged and/or
compromised throughout the years because of horse boarding and riding activities, and construction-
related activities necessary to accommodate the existing commercial (Diamond T Stables) operation.
Steep roads and ravines pocket the site, and these manmade topographic features have had a detrimental
impact on tree vegetation. The result is that many of the existing trees are in marginal to poor condition
(approximately 60 to 65% of the trees surveyed) and as a result have a shortened life span.
A number of trees will be removed also because of the existing topography. In certain areas of the
property noticeable topographic change is present. Grading activities in these areas may result in the
removal of trees that might be prevented in otherwise flat topography. Every effort will be made during
mass and lot grading activities to minimize impact to significant trees.
A pre-grading site visit will be scheduled with the City's forester and the developer's forester to review
the grading limits and make on-site decisions on trees adjacent to the grading limits. A survival plan will
be drafted by a certified arborist to ensure tree survival and contingencies for mortality. Periodic site
visits will be conducted to review tree status.
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M 13141 Page 5 of 6
Landscaping/ Tree Replacement Plan
The landscape plan includes a substantially enhanced palette incorporating appropriate plant materials for
the site. The landscape plan features overstory trees (Maple, Linden, Hackberry, and Honeylocust),
coniferous trees (Blackhills and Norway Spruce, and Balsam Fir), ornamental trees (Japanese Lilac, Snow
and Prairiefire Crabapple, Thornless Hawthorn, and Amur Maple), and other related materials meeting the
City's landscape criteria. Particular attention has been given to provide an interesting blend of seasonal
color, mass and texture throughout the project site.
Steeplechase Way is proposed to be a tree-lined road that traverses the property. The townhome road,
Steeplechase Lane, will have a I 0-foot landscape median. The townhome units will have a base seed,
sod, and irrigation package. Several landscape designs have been prepared for the townhome
development which include sod and shrubs.
Landscaping is also proposed around the Village Green in an effort to create a colorful and park-like
setting for residents.
Apalicant and Development Team
Applicant/Developer/Architect
Toll Brothers, Inc. Telephone: 952-548-8160
8220 Commonwealth Drive Suite 150 Fax: 952-548-8170
Eden Prairie, MN 55431
Joey Zorn, Regional Manager - MN Division Jzom@tollbrothersinc.com
Toll Brothers, Inc. Telephone: 847-590-5100
1156A West Shore Drive Fax: 847-590-5640
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
John Jakominich, Division Vice President Jjakominich(cytollbrothersinc.com
Civil Engineer/Landscape Architect/Planner/Surveyor
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Telephone 952-933-0972
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Fax 952-933-1153
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Steve Schwanke, Principal sschwankeCa)rlk-kuusisto.com
Andy Berenberg, PE, Project Manager aberenbergrrlk-kuusisto.com
David Patten, ASLA, Landscape Architect dpattenCrlk-kuusisto.com
Kurt Kisch, PLS, Land Surveyor kkisch &rlk-kuusisto.com
Project Narrative Steeplechase of Eagan March 2, 2005
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2003-730-M /3r Page 6 of 6
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
- - TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL (TEP)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Date: March 7, 2005 LGU: City of Eagan
County: Dakota LGU Contact: Eric Macbeth (651) 675-5300
Project Name/#: Steeplechase of Eagan
Applicant: Toll Brothers Inc.
Location of Project: 27 North 23 West SE V, NE % 36 Eagan Dakota
Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County
TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project:
(Check it'viewed project site)
(X) SWCD: Brian Watson (X) BWSR: Les Lemm
(X) LGU: Eric Macbeth ( ) DNR: N/A
Other Wetland Experts present: Wade Hammer - Svoboda Ecological Resources
Others Present: Andy Berenberg - RLK Kuusisto Ltd.
TEP requested by: City of Eagan
1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that appl)~):
Delineation
Exemption Determnation
No-Loss Determination
X Replacement Plan (Revised application submitted February 15, 2005)
2. Description of wetland with proposed impact:
a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Multiple Wetland Basins (C2, D, E) Type 3
b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 17,497 square feet (0.40 acre)
3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? x yes _ no
4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district
plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and
local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (x) No(
)
5. The project will affect the following wetland functions:
Functions Impact No Impact Improve
Floodwater Storage x
Nutrient Assimilation x
Sediment Entrapment x
Groundwater Recharge x
Low Flow Augmentation x
Aesthetics/Recreation x
Shoreland Anchoring x
Wildlife Habitat x
Fisheries Habitat X
Rare Plant/Animal Habitat x
Commercial Uses x
6. For replacement plan or no-loss detemlinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater
level? Yes ( ) No (x) See attached comments. Replacement plan as proposed in February 15,
2005 application has limited potential for success as a functional wetland.
7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item l.?
Yes ( ) No (x)
If no, why.) See attached comments.
8. SIGNATURES (iJTEP deciXWS t a consensus, /note with an a§terisk and explain on the back of this page)
N/A
SWCD Representative (Date) epresen tative (Date) resentative (Date DNR Representative (Date)
is-- T),4-,tn SWCD
Comments
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to review a revised Wetland Replacement Plan Application dated
February 15, 2005. This revised Application included a wetland fill reduction of 0.21 acre to Wetland D and two,
on-site compensatory mitigation proposals. The meeting included an on-site investigation and review of proposed
mitigation areas by TEP members, followed by an office meeting with the applicant's consultants. The following
items were discussed and are recommended by the TEP:
NVCA Application and Notification Process
• The original Application dated May 5, 2004 may still be relevant to Minn. Statute 15.99 since it has not
been officially withdrawn by the applicant, or approved or denied by the City of Eagan.
• The revised Application was "Noticed" under WCA Rules and states that this new Replacement Plan
Application supercedes the original application.
WCA Sequencing Requirements
• The revised Application does not require additional TEP recommendations regarding WCA sequencing
requirements because it involves less wetland impact.
• The TEP understands that the project site is proposed to be zoned residential and the development
proposal is within allowable density requirements set by the City of Eagan.
• The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for stormwater management. This would
increase wetland impacts back to the original amount proposed. However, it would create a better
grading plan from a storm water management perspective. While this degraded wetland could be
partially avoided, the TEP strongly believes that loss of contributing watershed area, sediment
accumulation, and vegetative alteration on private lots will cumulatively impact the wetland over time,
resulting in its loss or diminished value. Excavation of this wetland would improve the site's capacity
for treatment of stormwater and reduce the extent of upslope grading, while mitigating its loss would
assure that other lost functions and values are replaced.
Compensatory Mitigation
• The TEP does not concur with the revised Application, which includes on-site wetland replacement, for
the following reasons:
1. Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Mitigation Area 1;
2. Proposed mitigation areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring hydrogeomophological
conditions;
3. Proposed Mitigation Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a functioning
wetland due to the need for continued maintenance to remove sediment loading. This would
likely result in the wetland functioning as a storm pond;
4. Both mitigation areas require significant landscape alterations. WCA Rule (8420.0543 C 1)
specifies that wetland mitigation should "take advantage of naturally occurring
hydrogeomorphological conditions and require minimal landscape alteration";
5. Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would need to be erected along Mitigation Area
2. In addition to safety concerns, this would prohibiting flora transition and fauna movement,
and would not result in a naturally occurring wetland; and
6. WCA Rule (8420.0547 Subp. 2) requires that "Restoration and replacement of wetlands must
be accomplished according to the ecology of the landscape area affected. A replacement plan
that would result in wetlands or wetland characteristics that do not naturally occur in the
landscape area in which the replacement will occur will not be approved." The TEP does not
believe the proposed created wetlands would result in desired characteristics of a replacement
wetland under WCA Rules. Due to the topography and other site-specific constraints, it is
very questionable that a fully functioning wetland could be created on-site within the context
of the proposed activity and future land use.
• According to WCA Rule (8420.0543) the first priority for wetland replacement siting is on-site or in
the same minor watershed as the impact when "reasonable, practicable, and environmentally beneficial
replacement opportunities" are available. However, WCA recognizes that on-site replacement is not
always appropriate due to individual site constraints.
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
• The TEP provides the following as aeneral guidance to determine the appropriateness of on-site
wetland replacement at individual project sites:
1. Avoid impacts to significant trees or other ecologically significant resources;
2. Avoid excavating steep slopes and rolling topography to create wetland conditions;
3. Seek areas with soil properties that have natural water holding capabilities;
4. Wetland impacts in excess of one acre should generally be constructed on-site, to the extent
that site constraints reasonably allow; and
5. Avoid sites adjacent to future infrastructure such as roads or potential building expansions.
If requested by the City, more specific guidance can be developed with the assistance of the TEP..
Local wetland management plans can be developed and used to prioritize local wetland protection
efforts and to facilitate local replacement opportunities.
• After reviewing the revised Application and all supplemental information provided, the TEP believes
the use of a wetland bank for New Wetland Credit creates the best ecological solution to replacing
impacted wetlands within the Steeplechase Development. This would allow for maintenance of water
quality and floodwater storage functions on-site through stormwater treatment facilities with
replacement of wetland functions at a more conducive location. The TEP believes this is the best
option to ensure that lost wetland functions and values are adequately replaced under WCA Rules.
Other Comments
• Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to
comply with relevant MPCA Rules.
• Any on-site wetland replacement (New Wetland Credit Only) that may be approved by the City of Eagan
should still be the responsibility of the applicant to monitor and be in compliance with WCA Rules.
Drafted by Brian Watsaaa, Dakota SWCD
C O U N T Y
March 10, 2005
Surveyor's Office
Dakota County
Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124 City of Eagan
Attention Sheila Cartney
952 891.7087 3739 Pilot Knob Road
Fax 952.891.7097 Eagan MN 55122-1810
www.co.dakota.mn.us 5
Re: STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on March 7, 2005, to consider the preliminary
plat of STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN. Said plat is adjacent to CSAH 31, and is therefore
subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
This revised preliminary plat addressed one of the remaining two issues as stated at the last
Plat Commission meeting on February 7, 2005. The one issue addressed was the
comiection required to serve the five-acre parcel to the northeast. This preliminary plat
now shows this connection, which is vital to prevent an additional variance and non-
standard access to Pilot Knob in the future. The remaining issue to be addressed is the
connection between this development and the existing local street system to the west
(Wellington Way). The existing variance request from the city to the County's Access
Spacing Guidelines requires this connection to Wellington Way to facilitate an integrated
road system and safety. It is also recommended to have a comiection to the two parcels in
the exception area located to the northeast portion of the plat.
The Wellington Way comiection is paramount to reducing uiuzecessary local trips from
using the regional highways, and will improve the safety of neighborhood, city, and county
residents. The Plat Commission is specifically concerned about the number of unnecessary
county highway trips and particularly left turns that would have to be made across high-
speed, busy, multi-lane county highways (Pilot Knob and Cliff Road) if the Wellington
Way connection is not made. The safety and operation issue affects many people
including: 1) the future residents of Steeplechase who would have no choices for
ingress/egress if their access is solely to Pilot Knob; 2) the people that live in the
neighborhoods to the west and north of Steeplechase; 3) and the people that live within or
outside of the City of Eagan that are driving on Pilot Knob and/or Cliff Road highways.
The Wellington Way connection will prevent crashes by allowing area residents to make
better choices about how to access the area's high-speed highways, avoid difficult left turns
at busy times, and travel on the internal local street network rather than the busier County
highway system for: ride-share, car pool, bus trips, garbage trucks, postal services, etc.
P -,d on r-ded paper /
viM1h 30c port-!on;v-
' naY.e
City of Eagan
Page two
March 10, 2005
The Plat Commission recognizes that the residents on the existing Wellington Way cul-de-sac do not
desire the Wellington Way connection and understands that they will he impacted by a through street
connection. However, the traffic anticipated on Wellington Way is typical for neighborhood streets,
and is similar to other streets in the adjacent neighborhoods. If the cormection were made, the traffic
volumes on Wellington Way would be lower than the other collectors in the subdivision. The design
of the local road system from a technical perspective would not be an issue were it not for the quality
of life concerns raised by existing residents who understandably have become accustomed to living
on a very low volume cul-de-sac. The Plat Commission is empathetic to the concerns of the residents
on Wellington Way; but has a responsibility to address the safety concerns of city residents, county
residents, and people traveling on County highways
The Plat Commission did not approve this preliminary plat and the variance request was denied until
a connection is made between this development and the existing local street system to the west
(Wellington Way). The Ordinance requires submittal of a final plat before a recommendation is
made to the County Board
Traffic volumes on CSAH 31 are 17,800 and are anticipated to be 28,500 ADT by the year 2025.
These traffic volumes indicate that current Mimzesota noise standards for residential units could be
exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County highways commonly result
in noise complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent
residential units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements
should be incorporated into this development.
No work shall commence in the County right of way until a pen-nit is obtained from the County
Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County
Recorder's Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of
proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. The Plat Commission
highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss design features of
any constriction in public right of way. The County Transportation Department pen-nit process
reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited
to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, allowance and size of
medians, etc.
Sincerely,
O~
T7*
odd B. ToIlefson
Secretary, Plat Commission
c: Colin Roetman, Toll Brothers Land Development
Andy Berenberg P.E., RLK Kuusisto, Ltd.
/ ~O
G~ 0
MEMORANDUM
EAGAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
POLICE 651-675-5700
651-675-5707 FAX
DATE: June 30, 2004
TO: Chief Kent Therhelsen
FROM: Officer Todd Kirchgatter
SUBJECT: Observations for the Steeplechase of Eagan development
As requested, I am providing information on the public safety access for the proposed Steeplechase of
Eagan development. The first safety issue I noticed with this development is the lack of a right turn lane
from SB Pilot Knob Road to go west onto Wellington Way. SB traffic is heavy during the PM peak
hour times. The addition of a right turn lane would significantly reduce rear end collisions at that time,
and all others. There already exists a dedicated left turn lane for NB traffic to go west at this
intersection. That same lane doubles as a left turn lane for SB traffic as well.
In looking at the entire square mile (Jolunry Cake Ridge Road to the west, Pilot Knob Road to the east,
Cliff Road to the north and Lebanon Hills Regional Park to the south), I made several observations
relating to public safety. Due to the fact that Wellington Way is the street to be extended, I will use it in
describing what I observed, using the east end of the cul-de-sac. When I counted homes, I seldom
counted those where the back or side yards are adjacent to the roadway. I mainly counted homes with
driveways on the route. All mileage is approximate.
Emergency Access without the Wellington Way Connection to Pilot Knob Road
If an emergency call is received on Wellington Way and the responding emergency vehicle is coming
fi-om the east, say the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road, your closest route to Wellington
Way under current design is to travel west on Cliff Road to Thomas Lane and then go south. If taking
that route to Wellington Way, the emergency vehicle would have to travel 1.3 miles to the east end of
the current Wellington Way cul-de-sac.. During that trip, that car will have to go through 11
intersections and pass by approximately 81 homes.
Another option would be to continue west on Cliff Road, past Thomas Lane for .5 miles and use Beacon
Hill Road and go south. Including the extra .5 miles on Cliff Road, that car would travel 1.35 miles to
the east end of the current Wellington Way cul-de-sac. This route would require the emergency vehicle
to travel through 14 intersections and pass approximately 69 houses.
Emergency Access with the Wellington Way Connection to Pilot Knob Road
By comparison, if there was access via Wellington Way an emergency vehicle coming from the Pilot
Knob and Cliff Road would travel approximately .9 miles to the east end of the current Wellington Way
/~Y/
Steeplechase Emergency Access
June 30, 2004
Page two
Cul-de-sac. During that trip, that car would have to go through 2 intersections and pass by
approximately 37 homes. This access would provide a quicker and objectively safer route to emergency
calls as described.
Other Issues
The next issue I would like to address is geography. From a public safety standpoint, finding your way
around in this particular area is difficult. The current access available to emergency responders requires
them to negotiate a large number of intersections, as described above to reach the Wellington Way cul-
de-sac. A responding emergency vehicle operator would likely need to rely upon a map, or, in the
future, GPS technology to be assured of using the most direct route through this area. Adding another
access front Pilot Knob Road into the entire neighborhood would make it a easier to navigate by
reducing the number of streets and intersections that must be navigated, at least to the S/E part of the
square mile. This would reduce the response time to that same area simply by not having to stop and
consult the map as many times.
The last issue is the "public safety only" access between the Wellington Way cul-de-sac and the
proposed Steeplechase cul-de-sac. I think there are several items to note here. First, the access would
have to be maintained or cleared, especially in the winter time. It would have to be large enough for all
emergency vehicles, including fire trucks. For this access to be practical it would have to be easy to get
through. If it isn't, it defeats the time saving issue it's trying to solve.. If it is easy to get through, then the
general public will try to use it, creating calls/complaints to the police department from the area
residents, Also, with approximately 270 miles of roadway in Eagan, it would be unrealistic for an
emergency responder to remember that there is a "public safety only" access at that particular cul-de-
sac.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments.
C/ Fire Chief Bob Kriha
Eagan Planning Department
Sheila Cartney
From: Bob Kriha
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:14 PM
To: Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Diamond T
Sheila,
Here is a little more conversation between Dale and myself you may use. Bob
Bob Kriha
Fie Chief
City of Eagan
651-675-5901
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Wegleitner
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:18 AM
To: Bob Kriha
Subject: RE: Diamond T
I do not know who this should address may want to check Kent maybe he knows
Fire Marshal
Dale Wegleitner
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Kriha
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:13 PM
To: Dale Wegleitner
Subject: RE: Diamond T
Dale, who is this supposed to be addressed to? Bob. The current lay out of Wellington Way
is adequate at best for emergency response from fire stations three and four. The current
route takes them through the residential area of Stonecliffe and Sherwood Forest. With the
future expansion of the former Diamond T Ranch this would increase response time and would
be a more direct route to Wellington Way and its surrounding area's. In the best interest
and safety of the citizens and emergency responders I support the connection of Wellington
Way_
Bob Kriha
Fie Chief
City of Eagan
651-675-5901
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Wegleitner
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:01 PM
To: Bob Kriha
Subject: Diamond T
Here is my input for the Wellington Way road use what ever you want. Having Wellington Way
continue though to Pilot Knob Road will be a much need route to the Brittney Addition
area. By having this access from Pilot Knob Road this will mean less time that fire
vehicles will have to drive though the neighbor streets also will give the fire department
better access in time of bad weather. Also having a 2000 foot cul-de-sac will not work we
have other long cul-de-sac in the city and not having two ways in for emergency vehicles
is not good having a fire on such a street pretty much shut down the whole street if there
was emergency at the end of the cul-de-sac emergency would have difficult time getting to
that emergency.
/V3
You might want to mention something about response time in to that area the response from
station would take off about a mile.
I know that County wants this to go though and the planning commission
When you have this together can e-mail a copy so I that we are all on the same page. Needs
this ASAP I guess any question may want to contact Dale S.
Dale Wegleitner
Fire Marshal
City of Eagan
Phone 651-675-5682
Fax 651-675-5694
Email dwegleitner@cityofeagan.com
2qu
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Bob Kriha
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:12 PM
To: Sheila Cartney
Sheila,
Here are my thoughts about the Steeple Chase Development. Our response time would increase due to the fact
that we would not have to travel through so many neighbor hoods to arrive at an incident that would involve that
area. Coming from the east and north it would take a lot of time off our response by not having to go through so
many intersections. As it is now we have to be extra cautious when traveling through so many intersections and
neighborhoods. The location of this road would increase our safety factor also it would minimize pedestrians'
interference ie: bikes walking, jogging etc. What ever it's worth I do support this road extension feeling it would
increase our service to the community.
Bob Kriha
Fie Chief
City of Eagan
651-675-5901
I
Eagan Boe.',CNry
Street Centerline
Location Map O Parcel Area
Building Footprint
. . TlO~2'~RYFF'1tOA1)
_ o
G ~ S i ~ v -i O 3 ~ p e tit 0°~pr Vii` e ~ ~ r. ~ L
53
i ~ L r Gtr ~ 0 g 8 Q to G , ~ ~ u 0 , r C • c~
ILI
o w 9~ e Og47 ,a °
O.ti 0 ~'d p~ v<:- a Vic) 9C C3
_ i » G L3
r
Subject Site° Q
S e ~ i
n
o"
J
1000 0 IODD 2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Steeplechase
Application: Prelim Subd. Rezoning, Prelim PD
Case No.: 33-PS-
- Map Prepared using ER !View J F !base map data provided - N
by Dakota County Office current as of January 2005.
~,,(,•~``l R THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY W E
CiI.V ®r eciga The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information and are 111
S
not responsible for errors or omissions.
Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan
Land Use Map Steeplechase
Prelim Subd. Rezoing, Prelim PD
Case No. 33-PS-06-04-04
Zoning Map P
P
R-1
Current Zoning:
A
A, A
Agriculture
PF
Subject
Area P
-~A
P P
Goo 0 GOO 1200 Feet
Comprehensive Guide Plan r
Land Use Map L L
P
LD
L r p
Current Land Use Designation: LD
LD, Subject QP
Low Density residential D Area
P
P
P
Goo 0 Goo t3oo feet
Ab~ Parcel base map in rmati pro ' ed y D ota my Land Survey Department June 2007. N
Zoning information stained byl:ity Staff. q1-City of Eagan W E
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
Community Development Department The City of Eagan and Dakota County do not guarantee the accuracy of this information. S
I
Y2IVNIWI138d ,nceAOOz
J NVOY
sa3Nioaa 1101 35VN0n ' ~~vpp~r3
SwS. tl031d33LS 114t
°
Han I I °y = T 7 a- a - os- / z 6 z
zl:
a .a li$ Oi
J 4 U U^ I I U
U
3 ~h I I iIII I I is P 4a:~ h z:/: y a. - yI
~~€:ggM gaga l I id• _ gas aSi a8 ra
9a ®®II ~I~ II G T' t t
W
~F3EZ ~w o 8 ❑
p i
W
w rig: ~51~~38 a a b 3 ow wmm'" IE (IJ..{ a
f.. 8~ LU n $ 1es ° ~mn
Nil; 6i
r o s::;ll. ^
z
w 4 o
u-'z z I ~4 m 11 %;e
-1 F
I z"~~ I a ~ 31M- I o I x;x
o F a- 3 r!I ~ = I \ I I ~ I ij z v/ ~ I I ~°G
o m 3 I z x o c~ I \ I m 1 I ao &
-0 ? w F. z i I V' I( I< \ 3 e z j I I j;,
u'o~~J I zx r F I \ c7 N \ \ / n~, am~F a3° / II as
,~~o~z Ia^~"i as I to ,_J J \1 / g^a z44 zii G le
~azz.,O~I laws i I ) -~L~ ~N, x~n i II ;!~?y
03 1 2 zi+ f ia:;l.
\ W
\J f / uo \ BI 11 LL'i
Z z J o I I -rye. - w
Jn1 \ m 1 \
W I I I N 1 1 d~~ ~ j /
3 ,n \ °
10 W
I~ I
Z / a2
Z. LU
J I an :2 . • a I 8 : a e
rr / +
N
L_ r 1 N W= x
ON
> z rn .•y ~.~...r••
I
i F a w 3 u I
• J I ( Q 1 311 ~'2? 1
`JNIOtl2q
~°In~' rJCSS wr ~JVVw it as A21tlNIWll321d ~gcztmz
® Anna )u'rramraorevm om ) v9
3H102I81101 ""~"3 ~d00 ~t;ib
e e,J. swKV:~n 35VH]31d33[5
a o S a Y _ ~ Wo ~j I I
a~ sow' km - i I LL U s LL U "'";q"
„o I I _ ~a :a Jix
i~ ap°aaF W"~. TWO o i o F sl I ea~~ •..~I I $~'e81 ;II A~
Sa s$ W ~~~k ~>_c aoQ ~°s 5 °r= < 'e~~'I I~III II• J 3 6~ g~
< W
W
4
Z 'pl; o 2. ~a< c ego a .fig a ~~Q pa 3~ 9 a
a
Z -
W o~ ,.fool ON dvn AvM_eo 1Fnla avoa uNnm viosv(1)
HF~S.
e z ~ ~ ~ - W ~a~ W ~g°9n~II e~tl ~~lg9 2 , To OR
L-i 7
b Wbi be Ea - S S S S - W R s8 $ Sa~229
U < -22
s W o ~iyiea .aas: 11
6 - -
1
i-_ I -
- -
i
i) 7-7
~ tk -a..~ - )e 90 9 ' r~p~ 9. 11 II
NO l1 d-39X-3 R N
/9n 99v ~,9s 91 3L ~Il 5 04$ /~r .y~.
` gf
qe I )
y . - ' - . erg
Q ~ t0 9 ' eS a. ge, 9,~ ~ 'z°9'e' ree ,.r ) %!r
J 6 6 ~ n • ~ J / gg` b N ~ .b. g Z t 9B¢ I ' , f60.. ~
' e
4)9. vb. ~ ~i
Q J
rr 1 i y, b 6 0. 2 5 7 n j Jk
~C996 - f . •i. ~9b / Tb S '
~ ~ I ~I ~ "f S ._'SsRO .:..4 ,~y.,3)j.6-9ic&
t ?
L r ~ •
9V' r s T` h \
~ ~ ~ ~ ...,D ~ ~ dux • ' ° /
LLJ
I 9.r m 1- ^a°I."I ~`a } q ° 4 p2 Ys " /
h $ I iP ` 3 i4 ya \ 0.16 ISb $,e 95 S y
_ d sl9 'r16 1,5651 S\.: 1.,
w m f~
9t f
oy hb ~ ce. \ WD WP N. 9MD
bA. 'S by y MP -VY vP 1.,
1j
D
1: raw \ . I s o2 <i~
•
-SLIif- o. an -v.a mnw _ NY
I,"... I"wl ~ °0° ONY J3M35 rJ, i1V11NY5 m/ew.'u
m. a. anir~.-amiaor~°.w® i~~ Il3'~ iwc«am
~J s~~"s 3H102191101 3sNVH~"~ia~°als t`!s
a (ZJ as s^; as g°c a *a -c ° ss ~III~I~I
Na
`eiW~p gSF i m o3 00~ 05 S=
Q EpL .u tub Eg,.a; C ~¢uK W a0Y y id,•ll' II~III'
yam; $ Z i1731~1 6 ,g p: aas::sss d Px-
tt~ °fi$~sel9'n a `gl dubb=~ ?~3 b go
"'6 FyWM.`_ I I~i VIII
o W; Q:~ maN »'ec 3 . •t •p`
$a a e~p:.IIIIBa pc Qd a It Yea'y' `~d 'i'~°~~ ~F W" b`'3i you I• •II~• VIII
i~»ae aiaeAst O ~NB~~ >c= s~3`u'N~~a 8*u r~3<o a 9 11
J»2 "
io ` ab?e ° k1O ~ ~78 Nzi
u^ ENa a CD !;t ?;93 s p~ggB
`offi `s8~""=_i< as b £ 3913 a
-d. HE 4
- 1
I I ------^@ , - I
K^ ! ~I ~ / f I I I
1 eM i' ~ ° nms 8~ I d I I
~ d(7 ma _ i! iizrn ~ii•3n / ^ I / II - e
I ~ J ` yCww IV?-~ S
•
<e u I I , v
w , , Jlq
oil I
C°~am
woo
,
7-1
~i a !1 \ W- - I \ N 7 a^~~ i -
zmwe -
- Iw 2`3
rr IL .4
j
ce)
6z'ux 0~ oo ~1,i imcaa'
I
- I I
_ ~WW 7 oY ~ ~ I
~,ab.
\\yo
C'!~) iqq~` ~1•~,_ on°am ' / CO zww3 Q .~i i w~y~
I"
I ~ r
r~
,.I
I Om
o / i'.:'.::'--., immH / try+~~
- g
I
....v l::{.-.. I.ifi lo+~~~ aavNllrn3adV ~ noczc°oz
a3H10891101 3stlHJ3ld33Ls
a "
a Ww~g gaa asgo W< - Yo4 as ~ .o.il :77
€
9a S~ X~z3 ~~g<N mW~ N~by F„ W ...~I i g a~, ~a?~ H. ai , T v
' aaV~n c~"N 9i A«i V .,W;Y I I • ~ i ~ a:: e:?i
~~aF ~3 8N33b b~'p ~oH `
f- ~gij x~i 3j 3F gF= g ~o za `3.~i
<g °
FN . bW ii`u Y
'T F5 ,
yy Rj, ° Y~ aA b'.o~ b8~ gEb W jg ~ O zi % i -
og .1 F°X ~3gW ymN~ saga 3g„ ~e~~38pp q8q e - tj ll/~~:
J 3g SAg, p
C S g-: o w a~~~82§ a `J `f'
31S d.,
1~=--_-------
- - - ----4 - -
I Vii- I
NOILd-39X-3
w
/ r
CID
-
O ianm arr a r, o > W
rr~D o/ 2a-.w'
Liz
NIX
rr w-
Z l a 9 ~n N LAT W W i r
_J I i mNe s uiwNmini { W ~f ` L'oi{t{1
LLJ
I~ J,8 rv N C O ~J'm I Z H V q o W ' ~n,~~ N i ~I 1
• / r I _ 4\ m 11 j~ '2~ - 7 = ---t_
C+
-IL
MM
Kw X11 /`''fiJf
\'J
i
! _ 1 1 I N Il ~a k / a
a - ! N~,~~~`^~II, r 1%.;Vl~ll ; c, J`::tea ,~T- i'_!.:
•Q\ r~,~ ` `
c
iI
.
-
q ` + ( f~ , ' F r~~# ,h m { emu' P / 1
:
\ ~ b 1D T,
tR-- L ^ra t~ -
I[ i ~1 ~b~ l _ 4 e ~r~•~, 7i-'r. t I _-g, l ,C
. a
4
f[ ~ . a m q"aa !d°s a -`Ey\~ EY .0. 4~ m
r ~
E k
~r
.
Y~' l
L 1 t:'• t` H 8 I to \ w r~ J i a~ EXFEPTION
` x.
2-H i.
q s• ^e qp yfiT ~ R fpil
{ ^ ss"_x~ iR° 2~ ~R ~ qR
d ~p~ .F= :P~ 6R a d
aia
3a '!:q :E °O~ : c,~ € s c mg vi m
B R m l~l I Sn jen r ~i I r 1 $t it t o 4terilRtt R f Ii,t t t-'4111 t t r t I iF [ S P t! ! - h X
si :.r E°: R rI t 11 ...I I.t t I ...;t. .t.acc t t t IIt`ym 1 11 n 31 I, .;I r 1 1 i J is s i 1 sI3 •,°i•fs t, r f
3 1. I ~ r I I 4
_ si ■■a
q ~s (19 99 Y~o'A t
c?F he a a g O I. :c)
r Qg .i
Z 11111 It P`S k «S ( ft 1 ell N t itF li! ! «P If 1 1111 I 4P ti P 9F{ S ; ! t ,IVi3( tj 11111 {-11111 P f RI 1 1211 !f 11 II t ii t Si 1 rFltP f F . If .Z1
O..: : t t t t « t , t «ti Set « t ti N : SSS ! I : ' • •t ct..c... rt,E,ta,u t c m
4::. s..a d PI C>: „ U g -i
i ! i f t fl c ~i' . ; r
;at
q ! I m
rn
f!J
° S
E} t °'F F I I i ! PI PP PPI i 1111[ 11fii IP t I tt IP 1 Pll { Ilt 1 I 1 S s 1 I P S lrit 1 1144 [f N r e 1'PI I tJ t JP tPf fl t 1I1 tP[Ik ! t - < g'-
t° ° R. ap`p FE x c p U 111111 ISy I sac t q Rq 1i I t 't r. u I c.... tt S t ' m L £
e - :g ~8 ~G { S53 S S S St . { ( s t '.t S S tj rE e
e ^s; eq t i i I 1. IIII t~ - t- ^ &
eF p It lf!'I j17~~3~llllf r Silr S..f Fr ( SitF t ! 1111. , !f 1 ! 61 I `!t m r ^
d "s Y= sg P I! II 1 S ! i v r ! + n Z
f. °
- » a
s EPAASE TOLL BROTHE loor
o - -
7/13 'Lo - ~I
ucaq, wwrawu ,,k..~, R~ °
20p3].HIY Co PD-p PgAIX~.Q1 SUHSUH
°3rvxros TREE PRESERVATION PLAN _ m T~I~I~
° NVId NOLL%JLLIW 332ll sa/yae ca
v~mw® YNVNIWf73ad mee erro[
n.~lryl , y.°. +.........._.Ya~ e+ iln~ w`~1rlmx~o1101
NVJV3 j0 C~~
35VHJ3ld33LS
Z$°e= O r 0 vp_ a b_ a a ? I s I Imo: i <G a:
~ 1^ °3 3 ' Ba c s S 7 V a- I ~I I i a: x :
.x 3 ' e e °at - III I I ~ a
a 's` gss =;x
= as - - a u a s ~ s ~ e.a ~ as ~ 8illl ~a~ (I ...G o- P
3 5~ ' 3 Y b ' $ i ~ t Z 88° Y oY l~lll Ii• ~ .;j rI{ a °a_
y~ a d _ a ~i e e °y W .8. IN
F- 55~ 65~ 65s E 2
2 ,52
' ~a ti' g ; ~ n s ~ a x W $$a ~ as ~ ~ ~ a se 8;• ~t.
W g W yya e. u x a a 4 a w obij a wo ass: as= is _ j)
Jq H ~S" r _ b a C7 $ c C7b9u x 8 :9a eSi :Sa ap b
p $j3 a 3 a e a : e W N tl9 ~4~35 pp a ~I: ea, ea• .e.
p _ E '3g Z_ e §d; i ° g J #658,~79a~ ~~a~~~2 W ~o „as at z
W s x~ W ba ay x a ez 5 W °i K s„ 3°u s V 'E°
2 a d 4.
U 3:€ i a sY Q g~i ep a x ;r8 5 's„ 3 a s Q ' 7a ' o' - §
Cl) - - 5' _ - ~5~ U YE t 3 a- q e a U e M off-----
Z o Z gib n 'i i2 ; d Y a Z tl 8 S[ ii d
e a x t: ~ae j~ €
8 - eJ g :t 16 HH
jig
iw 7! s n
0 I !1j o I I
N011 d~.~X3 - Q..
:17 \ \ a ' i1 N sw~i Wz I I V
I II a _
DI
rrQ~ ~a f. o i (f ` 8
i"~ . Z
LJ r t °
YI I I ~ M I ~ ` ' +
W
r 4 ctJ T 1 a aiE ! I I3 ~1
F :s w~ _ ill
LIJ
n
/
-
7.7
i
8
4
F
dMadO~ ON a
rn 1 _.F ~ e
X J 3g pi
ri m R
°
gyp;
o_ V m r
9
~a HHHHHHHHHAI
i
E c
R k m
a a g
a Z z
yo G) 0
in c
;a cb
k m
N $go
£ 4.
[is
• e m
~ rn
~ i q 7 a S
dM y08
F . rn '
so
`m
$p m pill a -g v ~ s¢ a ~e br ¢e a 6~ 9 ¢zae
101111 MIN" S
O i6'["11 4d ~ J1jpi1E O - Ee?? ~F 6 Z die z 1s 0 p .1 , in p~'ka i gg Z
z ¢ E z >i axG c , .",a ~ €d E ¢ t Qa t: ¢ it.,
O tx N- a "t CD a a5 -a ,i C) F F x l/ c 5F E P i
F g .ea gi~_ k D Q c cr D EF k € 15s iF s rr ~ Dm
E xfi°? [=s m s •4dj qq E i~ m a fiA 'x "ax a a S{; m
Eao °'F v k ~Ra~ s e~ A t x di fiA a: k k aa•
~I a~:i ei 4Vp?a F:' g i< Q i : e 4? xj: So gg° [ ~Fp O
f..• i. ~4 ar I ! c xa: 3i < i T;z e C fi k aE ' is x" 6 i igf m €s
' 4°F' aF O e". A d 8 F 6E to X.
s l I I=~a:_ C) s6~~ L ai m E E e l ~a 5" s~ i
§ s,!~ I ~ E.4 Fx ' 'BtY~ ~ Uri t 4" B s iE .E F# ~ k'"~ P°-
f g
7 °
D
13 5 P. ECHASE rns°~z
„I GAN „ ATOLL BROTHERS
PREUMINAR Y m eufl+s~sssu
o.sroz/os TOWNHOME LANDSCAPE PLA
_I
F
^Iml•. •,I I -s=YY_. _ sr /A2101N3ANI SONV113M Snoczaoz
♦nmv~va.r3~a NOLLVOLLIW 315-NO
al ~NY~NL'MONOYa0.l® 'N'VDwl' • 40
S 3HiOHS 1101 3SVH 3d30 1s
/3.3
°zWa b - - 5`~ ' x" 0 e a~`i$3 W °w Fin
o 3:
gZ
aQT" `ooh N mfg~° im <i<~m$ mziEa i o~ LL sN
;r»"off WF =w yym g dF " N~ a °est,;; V . LL' zo a
~N~z NSW <Z C"a a~ F LL F z
_M~ Wo
S'am a~ W YF.`~a •t ~s<°sN 3 °s d = bN$ ioe'a~ Z °~m° ~wm 1 Famm
s F F~' i°~< No °zp m.~m. - a' w.Y~$ f-F
2 ~a'•-' ° zz~ Ya 8 q= m ° F
m-:F2 .g w a,ap
i'x
O aka»3 3W=° o S ; 9R5q pC aJJc~ .,.r,:~ ¢ W"o~ aW _ ..N
O C= C~g° ah Z y03 3i sms2-m`aow ~
3Y=u Swim X'^^no°. a r°-o
F~~C7 ' mmmimmo ° p~ E.`~-.a 3 w° ¢ z
(q °W3d3 .=4°3m Yom.. ffi3 35~', W~ .o_Wm 1 ¢ a
J
%
(avo2; $~1V~3 'so7ra) _ _ _ u~ x ns~ _
(n z m
00
Z / /cf) L i
. i _ -r - / ~CJw~..... -•1 OQww Jz# / I l - e
W< F- 0
LQ Na.>U i i I \ \ f-~wOZ~
t -
L i I Z In<LdOZ
I I
I - Q ;p Of
II I I
Y _ ~ r
l i ♦r'/ 4~ ~ LL ~N n w, I..- / - vy W
W
/ Nftg-3 Cl YI^J - r ~ \ ~ ~ - tl I / ~ w F- II
U T-~ I\~ - - J _ w
Ent= W
w i f a i"~ w:2Uw OZ
O.~cn N
" 3 I N d~ -N ...~I-
t
1 I w
in of Fj 0
• Q
Q 1 4l 1QO-w
1\
. f t v ai Qa<
+ f~7 l r Z<
LIJ
U
Q ~ 6 ZZ 0Q o
LLI
LL
Q~ /
rr,
/ ~g\ q 1 t\I /•//i a e #r
7 -ca-7
<LU
/I iF f co f a3mn j
g
NVId NOUN3A3TJd
scar Nll,,n,lOd 2131WA V*41115 50!i0; C0
Iw •rv 'w,•rv V~• ......~s_'."-,~. 111M1i •aNa!)HLT7i mNOFWOJ ~x vlOS~tn~'xNIVJ ~(v
Sb3H102}91101 3S"4031
d3315 it/fl
c
¢ w T33 T: 9 AY as Ya• a„~gn' T~,'~ 9ai 6
F- a, I ~e e g :~a~ aac, ~ ac ;Yc.a.2~ % '3 a ~ p eg•a ~ r'-- z ;I E :
Z $n OSxTi3 5qi a°4~ 1^a ~•Tc~y e~i s i - en y a"8 3-•O3 - ! -
Z i I 6aY•e'_' a a aYi
$ S„ a 3y'T n' 3a~i % an" 3 iaas~a ~'l 11 x axE 3a UlHi a q6. T~ ; / f- :j;
a O 9 ;In a a3 ~a°aa T gT7 ~T T` ; @° s'a r Cae ?"~J` ~ _ss,F e ~ ,;d • ~
~ ~ p a a a E n9s2ryy a ~ =•a: ~ W if c:n+ . f:
¢ '~y R' S ~ ~ yyx3 a !ya ~aG%ia Fay5 ye ~ a~}• na 2 •Il f Y!: ~ ' -
=F- ua F-~ ~ F p ~ 3 t ~ 3vj ae~`? f as T3 3{:, u ' ' i::.,.•.
4 n~aP % Ex ~i~a@ ~xYSe9a~ ~ ~a k _ `s R ~6 iai a az- I: { r ~ ~
e S 09!" A~ °g FY aa: .p" y yY1 T T • - A It iM ii9 aIa a€ = j"
¢
i 9 y i r e ~ ~5 55
_ VB~T~l~s'3 T11iY a& a . lpe"~~dB. ay n 33 °g6
9lgq pa 2A ae ~a9 9~ era I 3~~ a ~ i,; 3Y = _7 e! i.. : ~i c i r r i ry
Z 1ia$as 9
j g q?1
adc dd 8 ~ ~ ~9 T• g3 ~ ~a gTea 1aP a~ya nil'!.' ii,~{:s!
{3~gRg ~~~3a{{A]~,9 A2~ .Y4l ~~a a~€1Y~ae M SyT"~g,g8 e 959 e~ E 8@4 4 ➢dl ylti -i liifi,li! :Ima•!
,f€
3- g I 7nEqla 3p3p 9 g 3~Tn gq 9j 9~1i1 91 e; A n~aa~ s
w e~ 3Q~ a T 5 saa i • 39 %ae 3.~e~~p Y T T YU p (il IE
I
F
Q !,0q------------------------- - _ - - - - -
_ - (OOL 'ON dYMA~~II IyIA " ~t
~g ON
LL (Qb O?3 agN37 .L0 7-1a)
I - - - - I I
c x
' -
_ a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ n
Noll d~~x~ N \ s
a
r
MiM
1 - ` I " ys-•~
-ti. - r -
a
.a .
3 . 00 t 1 .n
W jr
0 1
U J
1 Sr I O ` J!II~
`VV S Xy ~ p
rr,
W
c-
i14
NVId 311S so/z oleo
Ia rolYy ,M,. ~IrY "-MN1 ryw ncss w+3w uerv 1NVIldWOJ 30NYNIOifO wczcoaz
Ofl (IS•3nIY01LL'N3d1ND1VnOJ O[:A -.m NY Y3
swrsx~a a3H102181101 3sbHJ31id1s `!l
e°i„ W" c oI III' I I i °1 wag~g ± r_`^ g
6Naa ~'ab IIf',II j UC irI
se S a t yyg 3i m g =i ; Lg}
~~aa ``-~.tl ' ~ ~ f tl W^ iI I ~3~ 5'- >f a i✓~//117 °ie
S a t d 3 s ° = d gl I ~ I I I ) t _ a r`
O
'K.60 t~ t z 5
Z Gc~'s `dY C z z l i s F n`
c
=r_~,,.. ~~b a= W_ ~ S 9 e _ _ -----------(ooL -ox evn avM eo lxoia avoa unrwo vt J
egg
info
----~r t - r o OAT HvSj
(aroa Si( i~IX .L0 lid)
/ - _
- - - - - " z
-
-
rl < /I
r J0660 - i )I ~N
L &_3 X_3
Lo _j
oos
co b.-
I I ~ \1\J I I I I I a~ f ' sic ~ °s
7 L / S "
Z D =1
Y Ra
LN \4
Ce) a ~ =m I I
7 7,
y'` - \ a.1 ✓ / ~ ro.,~ 1°` ICI
°o \ F'm op) Ko^ III i
~o
M to.mooN s"mW J J
' / I Z' \ ~ a e'm m I Q 2 2 x`111
y1 r ~ j
OR Y 1 r\fl CENTER m
Q 9P
LKj
O 2
0
1566 CURRENT ADT = 1689 CURRENT ADT 0
CLIFF ROAD CLIFF ROAD
3 &I EEEE3B AC H LL N S ' T~
191Q CURRENT \ LL N '11 r~ F
ADS n J U a ~I
j ~ - z I YI I
® IN O N N' O Lu o L5 I i wl
RAI 11V--
w
L e
N T E
B
HIL
CI ERWOOD
Z D r j~ GRAC
LLJ
C7 p p~
t; R W L PROPOSED iII °~s
I G O STEEPLECHASE
w DEVELOPMENT
S E -
WAY Q
O
LL E O wLl TN
y'~ k O m
U -'J S E O WY T. 0
i yq Z
1452 CURRENT ADT M Y
r'?
Z 144 CURRENT ADT O
7 1380 ADT w/ CONNECTION J
F 1425 to 930 ADT w/ CONNECTION
780 ADT w/out CONNECTION
O Y:'
Tonal Park
Lebanon Hills Reg
u
IFl
d
:SLG~wA~f'
F
I.
DT = Average Daily Traffic
24 Hour Count )
\ 1705 GG:Feas Reports e le as 03
SECTION 33 - STREET LAYOUT
Johnny Cake Ridge Road/Cliff Rd./ 3-17-05
City of Eagan Pilot Knob Road/Lebanon Hills Regional Park
1~
_ r
XI
let.
/V gy~ f ~ Y. 'FbdIR
Y r
K c
F s r . 'AH
~"O 1ts'r I 1 ;
~;3:a
t
t
t
- Li
rn~ ...1. r r ~S
A.
a G _
~ y
44..` wtpc!
Nt-
4
tr. 41,
con
V
l 1 , -
z ~ ~
STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN BUILDING COVERAGE
20% Coverage Fit Dimensional Fit Combined Fit
P P P
B E C r M C r M C r M S M E T P
L A I C P a i a P a i a P a i a F o 1 0 e
O L R Model i a r M r n d C r M r n d C r M r n d d i t c Expan.
C O E shown on t r i a a i a a i a o e t a n avail.
K T A plans to fit e m n d E E E r n d E E E r n d E E E f I e I t (SF)
1 1 17,459 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 `0 1 1 2,832 425 3257 18.7% 235
1 2 14,698 Princeton 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2,700 0 2700 18.4% 240
1 3 17,203 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2,904 420 3324 19.3% 117
1 4 15,520 Madison 1 1 1 0 1 0' 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0:'A 2,832 0 2832 18.2% 272
1 5 16,996 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 19.2% 142
1 6 18,831 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 17.3% 509
1 7 16,700 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 19.5% 83
1 8 17,000 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,904 420 3324 19.6% 76
2 1 14,571 Princeton 1 1 1 0 `0 `0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 :0 2,700 0 2700 18.5% 214
2 2 14,290 Princeton 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2,700 0 2700 18.9% 158
2 3 13,638 Princeton 0 1 ,0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2,700 0 2700 19.8% 28
2 4 15,371 Madison 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2,832 0 2832 18.4% 242
2 5 14,169 Princeton 6 1 1 0 0 0' 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 0 2,700 0 2700 19.1% 134
2 6 15,600 Princeton E 1 1 1 _0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2,700 387 3087 19.8% 33
2 7 17,859 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1` 0 2,832 425 3257 18.2% 315
2 8 19,987 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 16.3% 740
3 1 17,624 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,904 420 3257 18.5% 268
3 2 16,395 Madison E 1 1 1` 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2,832 425 3257 19.9% 22
3 3 16,354 Madison E 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2,832 425 3257 19.9% 14
3 4 20,754 Madison 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.0 ,0 2,832 0 2832 13.6% 1,319
3 5 26,370 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 12.4% 2,017
3 6 18,313 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0' 0 2,904 420 3324 18.2% 339
3 7 13,926 Princeton 0 1' ,0 0' 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 V0 0 2,700 0 2700 19.4% 85
3 8 15,603 Princeton E 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2,700 387 3087 19.8% 34
3 9 19,517 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 16.7% 646
3 10 29,664 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,904 420 3257 11.0% 2,676
3 11 22,854 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,832 425 3257 14.3% 1,314
3 12 14,313 Madison 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0` 0 0 2,832 0 2832 19.8% 31
3 13 14,076 Princeton 0 1 0 0 0'- 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0' 0 2,700 0 2700 19.2% 115
4 1 20,797 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2,904 420 3324 16.0% 835
4 2 16,467 Princeton E 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2,700 387 3087 18.7% 206
4 3 14,199 Princeton 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0, 0 0 2,700 0 2700 19.0% 140
4 4 16,369 Madison 1 1 1' 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2,832 0 2832 17.3% 442
4 5 18,620 Carmel E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 `0 2,904 420 3324 17.9% 400
4 6 17,125 Princeton 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ff 0 2,700 0 2700 15.8% 725
4 7 15,788 Princeton 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0. 0 0 0 2,700 0 2700 17.1% 458
4 8 17,529 Madison E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2,832 425, 3257 18.6% 249
0= Not available on current plat
1= Available option on current plat
stand. w/elite
Model w/3 car optional
(SF) (SF)
Princeton 2,700 3,087
Madison 2,832, 3,257
Carmel 2,904 3,324
Building coverage calc.
Steeplechase Townhomes
March 2nd Submittal
Block 6 106,657
Block 5 583,425
Blk 7 Lot ' 7,298
Total Open Space 697,380
20% Allowable 139,476
i
139,476
I _
Proposed Units # SF
Triplex 10 7284 72,840
Quads 7 I 9516 66,612
Total Building SF 139,452
139,452
697,380
= 19.997%
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:11 PM
To: 'Eric Vevea'
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Eric Macbeth; Sheila Cartney
Subject: RE: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Good morning Eric,
Your e-mail references that the SE corner of the site is located in a shoreline zone and
that that area has a "public" water body that will be impacted. That and the fact that
there is Blanding's Turtle habitat is in the area warrants the DNR involvement in the TEP
review.
For your information, there are no DNR-designated public waters on the Diamond T site. As
you know, the DNR has commented on the EAW. Most recently, our Water Resource staff
apprised DNR staff of the revised plan and they consider this development matter to be a
local issue and they believe their participation would not appropriate.
Water Resource staff is hoping to convene the TEP the week of March 7; while this is a
technical review consisting of professionals with approximately 30 years of combined
experience in wetlands issues, written input could certainly be submitted this week to
Eric Macbeth or myself.
As for the EAW, the City Council's negative declaration confirmed that the condition of
the site and the proposed remediation was appropriate, per the MPCA. You reference tree
removal, grading, wetlands and storm run-off. Each of these items is dealt with via the
existing City Code and will be reviewed against the appropriate ordinance.
Because the revised plan is even further under the mandatory EAW thresholds than the
original proposal, site contamination/remediation has been identified and the City Code
contains ordinances that deal with development related review; a new EAW is simply not
warranted.
I hope this adequately responds to your e-mail. Please do not hesitate contacting me if
you need further clarification or additional information.
Sincerely,
mike
Michael J. Ridley, AICP
City Planner
City of Eagan
651-675-5650
651-675-5694 Fax
mridley@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vevea [mailto:evevea@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:26 AM
To: Mike Ridley
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Mike,
Thank you for your response.
I will reiterate, first and foremost, when is this revised Steeplechase plan available?
Can it be put on the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access? we would like have access to
the full and complete new set of application materials.
t81 /0
1) We look forward to the opportunity to speak at the Park Commission hearing.
2) Secondly, the attached item is from the City's own 2001 revised zoning map. It clearly
shows a wetland that is proposed to be impacted within a the shoreline zone of a public
water on this property. This warrants involvement of the DNR in the WTEP.
The presence of several threatened species, including Blanding's Turtle, has been
indicated in this area and needs consideration and DNR involvement in the WTEP review.
When is the WTEP to meet? How do we have the opportunity to submit input to the WTEP
previous to their decision?
3) The council already determined that this plan is different enough to send it through
the process again. Over 80% tree removal, 85% grading, impacted type 3 and 4 wetlands,
unstudied run-off into public waters and the other environmental travesties exist in the
new, revised plan. This is maybe a less intense use of this land than previously
proposed, but it still does
not meet state, city and community standards. It is certainly an intense
use of environmental sensitive and damaged property. At minimum, we desire to have the
projected run-off studied and it's affect on public waters and proposed downstream public
projects. Attached is the City of Eagan's official storm water management map which shows
the water flows directly into the entire water shed system within Lebanon Hills Regional
Park. This clearly supports the need for additional investigation and study.
We look forward to your response.
Regards,
Eric Vevea
Diamond T Neighborhood Coalition
1496 Sherwood Way
Eagan, MN 55122
651-686-5379
evevea@comcast.net
on 2/24/05 4:39 PM, Mike Ridley at MRidley@cityofeagan.com wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> In response to your e-mail:
> 1. The revised Steeplechase proposal will be heard by the Parks
> Commission at their meeting scheduled for March 14.
> 2. The City is coordinating a TEP review of the new wetland
> replacement plan for Steeplechase, but the DNR again will not be
> participating. The DNR has been appropriately informed through the
> required public noticing procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act.
> DNR staff has also notified Eagan Water Resources staff that DNR
jurisdiction does not apply in this case because there are no public
> waters on the site and there are no wetlands within a shoreland
> wetland protection zone on the site. As such, the DNR considers the
> issue to be a local matter and that DNR participation is not appropriate.
> Eric, you mention "we have learned that there are state threatened
> species in the area"; I am uncertain what you are referencing, please
> clarify that statement.
> The TEP is a wetland technical review process that is not intended to
> be a public hearing nor is it geared for oral public input. Citizen
> input opportunities are available in writing at any time and oral
> input is provided for at the Park Commission and during the Public
> Hearing before the Advisory Planning commission.
> 3. As you know, in early January 2005, the City Council issued a
> negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
> Subsequently, the developer has responded ttooj issues raised by the City
> Council and revised the project which now reflects a less intense use
> of the land. There is no mechanism for a "supplemental" EAW. It is
> the prerogative of the City Council to determine whether a substantial
> change has been made in the proposed project that would affect the
> potential for significant adverse environmental effects and, if so,
> order a new discretionary EAW.
> I believe this responds to each of your points. Please contact me if
> I missed a point or if you have other questions.
> Sincerely,
> Mike
> Michael J. Ridley, AICP
> City Planner
> City of Eagan
> 651-675-5650
> 651-675-5694 Fax
> mridley@cityofeagan.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Vevea [mailto:evevea@comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:17 PM
> To: Mike Ridley
> Cc: Dee Bass; Doris Carrol; Linda Ferber; L Jacobs; Mary Brogdon; Mike
> Ferber; Prabath; Tina Meiklejohn; khamilton; THOMAS FERBER; Tom
> Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Sharonholbeck@aol.com
> Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
> Dear Mr. Ridley,
> When is this revised Steeplechase plan available? Can it be put on
> the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access?
> Also, we would like to formally request 3 things.
> 1) The revised plan is so different, we request that it also go
> before the Parks Commission.
> There are changes regarding parkland dedication(conservation
> easements), trails, trees, wetland and storm water.
> 2) The current development plan proposes a new wetland replacement plan.
> This should be reviewed by a new WTEP panel that should include a DNR
> officer. In the previous WTEP ruling, an omitted fact was that part of
> this property is within the 1000 ft. shoreline protection zone of a
> designated public water and it is proven in City and County documents
> that this property's run-off flows directly into this public water
> zone. Also, we have learned that there are state threatened species
> in the area, warranting DNR involvement. In addition, LP 7.2 should be
> a public water and even though not officially designated, deserves the
> same consideration. We also ask that citizens have an opportunity to
> address the WTEP when they meet.
> 3) We have already requested an EAW for this property. An EAW
> studies not only what is there, but also the plan's potential for
> environmental harm.
> If this plan is still a part of the original application, a
> supplemental EAW needs to be executed before the plan can be
> considered, in accordance with our original petition and Council's
> orders. If this is a different plan that requires a new petition,
> please let us know so that we may proceed to get the proper papers
> filed for consideration.
> We look forward to your reply.
> Regards, C
a~
> Eric Vevea
> Diamond T Neighborhood Coalition
> 1496 Sherwood Way
> Eagan, MN 55122
> 651-686-5379
> evevea@comcast.net
421,40
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:53 PM
To: 'Eric Vevea'
Cc: Sheila Cartney; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: RE: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Eric,
As you and I have discussed, development plans are not typically posted on the City's
website; however, the full submittal package is available for inspection between 8 - 4:30
M-F; please contact Sheila Cartney at 651-675-5696 if you'd like to arrange a time to stop
by and review the file. Copies of some or all of the information can be made upon request
(subject to the City's copying fee schedule).
I will respond to the other points via a separate e-mail once I have the appropriate
information.
Thanks,
Mike
Michael J. Ridley, AICP
City Planner
City of Eagan
651-675-5650
651-675-5694 Fax
mridley@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vevea [mailto:evevea@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:26 AM
To: Mike Ridley
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Mike,
Thank you for your response.
I will reiterate, first and foremost, when is this revised Steeplechase plan available?
Can it be put on the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access? We would like have access to
the full and complete new set of application materials.
1) We look forward to the opportunity to speak at the Park Commission hearing.
2) Secondly, the attached item is from the City's own 2001 revised zoning map. It clearly
shows a wetland that is proposed to be impacted within a the shoreline zone of a public
water on this property. This warrants involvement of the DNR in the WTEP.
The presence of several threatened species, including Blanding's Turtle, has been
indicated in this area and needs consideration and DNR involvement in the WTEP review.
When is the WTEP to meet? How do we have the opportunity to submit input to the WTEP
previous to their decision?
3) The council already determined that this plan is different enough to send it through
the process again. Over 80% tree removal, 85% grading, impacted type 3 and 4 wetlands,
unstudied run-off into public waters and the other environmental travesties exist in the
new, revised plan- This is maybe a less intense use of this land than previously
proposed, but it still does
not meet state, city and community standards. It is certainly an intense
use of environmental sensitive and damaged property. At minimum, we desire to have the
1) /4~ I
projected run-off studied and it's affect on public waters and proposed downstream public
projects. Attached is the City of Eagan's official storm water management map which shows
the water flows directly into the entire water shed system within Lebanon Hills Regional
Park. This clearly supports the need for additional investigation and study.
We look forward to your response.
Regards,
Eric Vevea
Diamond T Neighborhood coalition
1496 Sherwood Way
Eagan, MN 55122
651-686-5379
evevea@comcast.net
on 2/24/05 4:39 PM, Mike Ridley at MRidley@cityofeagan.com wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> In response to your e-mail:
> 1. The revised Steeplechase proposal will be heard by the Parks
> Commission at their meeting scheduled for March 14.
> 2. The City is coordinating a TEP review of the new wetland
> replacement plan for Steeplechase, but the DNR again will not be
> participating. The DNR has been appropriately informed through the
> required public noticing procedures of the wetland Conservation Act.
> DNR staff has also notified Eagan Water Resources staff that DNR
> jurisdiction does not apply in this case because there are no public
> waters on the site and there are no wetlands within a shoreland
> wetland protection zone on the site. As such, the DNR considers the
> issue to be a local matter and that DNR participation is not appropriate.
> Eric, you mention "we have learned that there are state threatened
> species in the area"; I am uncertain what you are referencing, please
> clarify that statement.
> The TEP is a wetland technical review process that is not intended to
> be a public hearing nor is it geared for oral public input. Citizen
> input opportunities are available in writing at any time and oral
> input is provided for at the Park Commission and during the Public
> Hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission.
>
> 3. As you know, in early January 2005, the City Council issued a
> negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
> Subsequently, the developer has responded to issues raised by the City
> Council and revised the project which now reflects a less intense use
> of the land. There is no mechanism for a "supplemental" EAW. It is
> the prerogative of the City Council to determine whether a substantial
> change has been made in the proposed project that would affect the
> potential for significant adverse environmental effects and, if so,
> order a new discretionary EAW.
> I believe this responds to each of your points. Please contact me if
> I missed a point or if you have other questions.
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike
>
> Michael J. Ridley, AICP
> City Planner
> City of Eagan
> 651-675-5650 / / (y
> 651-675-5694 Fax (/i/•+ Jv~
a3
> mridley@cityofeagan.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Vevea [mailto:evevea@comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:17 PM
> To: Mike Ridley
> Cc: Dee Bass; Doris Carrol; Linda Ferber; L Jacobs; Mary Brogdon; Mike
> Ferber; Prabath; Tina Meiklejohn; khamilton; THOMAS FERBER; Tom
> Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Sharonholbeck@aol.com
> Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
> Dear Mr. Ridley,
> When is this revised Steeplechase plan available? Can it be put on
> the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access?
7
> Also, we would like to formally request 3 things.
> 1) The revised plan is so different, we request that it also go
> before the Parks Commission.
> There are changes regarding parkland dedication(conservation
> easements), trails, trees, wetland and storm water.
> 2) The current development plan proposes a new wetland replacement plan.
> This should be reviewed by a new WTEP panel that should include a DNR
> officer. In the previous WTEP ruling, an omitted fact was that part of
> this property is within the 1000 ft. shoreline protection zone of a
> designated public water and it is proven in City and County documents
> that this property's run-off flows directly into this public water
> zone. Also, we have learned that there are state threatened species
> in the area, warranting DNR involvement. In addition, LP 7.2 should be
> a public water and even though not officially designated, deserves the
> same consideration. We also ask that citizens have an opportunity to
> address the WTEP when they meet.
> 3) We have already requested an EAW for this property. An EAW
> studies not only what is there, but also the plan's potential for
> environmental harm.
> If this plan is still a part of the original application, a
> supplemental EAW needs to be executed before the plan can be
> considered, in accordance with our original petition and Council's
> orders. If this is a different plan that requires a new petition,
> please let us know so that we may proceed to get the proper papers
> filed for consideration.
> We look forward to your reply.
> Regards,
> Eric Vevea
> Diamond T Neighborhood Coalition
> 1496 Sherwood Way
> Eagan, MN 55122
> 651-686-5379
> evevea@comcast.net
16
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:36 AM
To: Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Westminster Way Connection
FYI - File
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:58 AM
To: 'Klschlegel5@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Westminster Way Connection
Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community Development
Director. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Klschlegel5@aol.com [mailto:Klschlegel5@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Westminster Way Connection
Good Morning, I am writing to ask for your support to require the connection of Wellington Way to the proposed
Diamond T developement. I live in the Brittany neighborhod and I feel that the vast majority of residents would
benefit from an access to the east. Current trips through the existing roads would be reduced and emergency
response time to the area would be improved. I know that traffic issues exist in the area already (Summit Pass)
and an additional route would relieve the pressure on these roads. I am aware that a small group is opposed to
this connection but the entire neighborhood would benefit from this improvement. Please consider the big picture
and what would be best for most of us. Thank you for your supoort.
Kurt Schlegel
1569 Sherwood Ct.
Eagan, MN.
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberi@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:24 PM
To: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley
Cc: Dee Bass; Doris Carrol; Eric Vevea; Linda Ferber; L Jacobs; Mary Brogdon; Mike Ferber;
Prabath; Tina Meiklejohn; khamilton
Subject: Request to Provide Updated Information to Dakota County Commissioners
Mr. Hedges, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. Hohenstein:
In a neighborhood meeting with County Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler on
February 15, it became apparent that the City had not provided updated information
to the Dakota County Commissioners regarding the status of the Steeplechase
Development and related City Council direction. The City of Eagan Planning Report
which falsely states Wellington Way property owners signed an agreement and had
knowledge that the possible opening of the cul-de-sac was the documentation
provided to the County. It appears no update and correction of this false
information nor the acknowledgment by City staff on the record and in the minutes
of the error of this information has been provided to the Dakota County Board. The
City Council consensus that no overriding public safety reasons exist to connect to
Wellington Way also appears not to have been relayed to Dakota County.
We are requesting that the City provide updated correct and current information to
the Dakota County Board prior to the Feb. 22 Physical Development Committee of
the Whole meeting.
Thank you.
Tom and Linda Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
Eagan, Mn. 55122
Steeplechase development Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 4:17 PM
To: Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Steeplechase development
FYI - File
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Supina [mailto:msupina@amconconstruction.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Mike Ridley
Cc: City Council
Subject: Steeplechase development
Dear Mike:
I wanted to submit just a couple of comments regarding the new Steeplechase plan (dated 1/25105) that the City
Council will be discussing this evening. First, I want to reiterate my previous comment that townhomes are not an
appropriate use for this area given the surrounding density and the existing site constraints. Secondly, I hope the
developer intends to include a short pedestrian/bicycle trail the connects the end of the Steeplechase cul-de-sac
to the end of Wellington Way so that pedestrians and bicyclists from the Britanny neighborhood have convenient
access to the existing tunnel under Pilot Knob Road to Jensen Lake Park without the need to take the long route
via Cliff Road and then up the steep portion of Pilot Knob to the park. Please relay these comments to the
Council and any other relevant parties this evening. Thanks.
Mike Supina
1656 Sherwood Way
Eagan
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:38 PM
To: Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Steeplechase
FYI - File
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:35 PM
To: Pat Geagan; Cyndee Fields; Peggy Carlson; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire
Cc: ]on Hohenstein; Mike Ridley; Tom Hedges
Subject: FW: Steeplechase
-----Original Message-----
From: mom79@comcast.net [maiito:mom79@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:30 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Steeplechase
We just wanted to put our two cent in.
We live directly on the west end of the old Diamond-T. Just would like to convey that we are one street over from
Wellington Way, and hope that the City goes forward with their long term development plan of making that a
through street. My husband is on the Fire Department, and from his experience when responding to a call, it is
rare he makes the truck because of the time involved in looping through Stonecliffe. We really don't believe that
there will be that much more traffic through this neighborhood, rather that more traffic will feed through
Steeplechase to get to Pilot Knob.
Just for the record, we are in favor of the road going through.
Thanks!
Good Luck!
Tony and Teresa Pojman
1492 Sherwood Way
Eagan
~ r~
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:29 AM
To: Tom Colbert; Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Wellington Way Connection - 1/4/04 Council Action
FYI - II
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:02 AM
To: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley; Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike
Maguire
Subject: FW: Wellington Way Connection - 1/4/04 Council Action
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberl@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Wellington Way Connection - 1/4/04 Council Action
Mayor and City Council Members:
If a right of way area needs to be maintained for a utility easement, take the idea that was
accomplished when the Trenton Lane street surface was removed and replaced with a sidewalk as
a connection between Cambridge Drive and Summit Pass connecting the Stonecliffe area with the
Beacon Hill area. This was a result of the City Council listening to residents who did not want the
street connection between the two neighborhoods even though a stub street was in place (not a
cul-de-sac).
Please leave the Wellington Way cul-de-sac as it has existed for over 18 years.
You have other choices that will allow Toll Brothers to develop houses without destroying an
existing neighborhood.
Thank you.
Tom and Linda Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
~a
Page I of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:28 AM
To: Tom Colbert; Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Steeplechase/Dakota County Plat Commission 1/4/04 City Council Meeting
FYI
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:02 AM
To, Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley; Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike
Maguire
Subject: FW: Steeplechase/Dakota County Plat Commission 1/4/04 City Council Meeting
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberl@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:55 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Steeplechase/Dakota County Plat Commission 1/4/04 City Council Meeting
Mayor Geagan; Council Members Carlson,Fields, Maguire,Tilley:
The Dakota County ordinance regarding the County approval or denial of a proposed plat provides
that a city or developer may appeal a decision of the Plat Commission.
You may recall that just recently the Plat Commission denied the Max Steininger Inc. plat in Eagan.
City staff volunteered to appeal this decision and subsequently the County approved this plat and
the City Council approved the proposal.
We ask the same consideration and appeal by city staff for the Toll Brothers proposed plat.
Linda and Tom Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
2/1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:01 AM
To: 'Prabathmn@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Maintain Safety and Lifestyle of Wellington Neighborhood
Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community
Development Director and City Planner. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Prabathmn@aol.com [mailto:Prabathmn@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Maintain Safety and Lifestyle of Wellington Neighborhood
To: Mayor Geagan; Council Members Tilley, Carlson, Fields,Maguire:
We would like to keep the Wellington Way cul-de-sac closed since that preserves the
quality of the neighborhood and its personality that existed for the past 18 years.
Opening this cul-de-sac will make the emergency access into the community very efficient,
however such occurrences have been rare. Opening the neighborhood will increase crime and
traffic accidents and that will increase the burden to local law enforcement already
affected due to budget constraints.
Enclosed communities will create safe heavens for young citizens to grow up since the
community can effectively police themselves since it limits access by the intruders.
Already hundreds of citizens have protested against opening of the Wellington cul-de-sac
and it shows the pride of this neighborhood and their wishes to maintain the quality
lifestyle they always enjoyed in Eagan. I hope you will make the community needs the top
priority when you make your decisions.
Thank you.
Prabath Perera
Shammi Perera
1520 Wellington Way
(651) 994 7563
3t
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:49 AM
To: Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire
Subject: FW: Diamond T & Cul-de-sac
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael G. Ferber [mailto:mgferber@usfamily.net]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:25 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Diamond T & Cul-de-sac
To: Mayor Geagan; Council Members Tilley, Carlson, Fields,Maguire:
As a homeowner that lives on a cul-de-sac in the City of Eagan, I want to encourage you to approve the
Diamond T development without opening up Wellington Way. I like many many homeowners in
Eagan purchased a home specifically on a cul-de-sac for the safety and quiet it affords us. I hope that
the City Council continues to support this type of neighborhood for our entire community.
Keep Wellington Way a cul-de-sac. Thank you.
Mike Ferber
Michael G. Ferber, CFRE
725 Granite Drive
Eagan, MN 55123-3992
651-454-3066
nmgferber a usfamily.net
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:48 AM
To: T Meiklejohn'
Subject: RE: ATTN MIKE MAGUIRE
Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Councilmembers. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: T Meiklejohn [mailto:tmeiklejohn@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:28 PM
To: City Council
Subject: ATfN MIKE MAGUIRE
Eagan City Council and Mayor,
Please do not make Wellington Way a through street to Sherwood Way on the Steeplechase Development. The
neighborhood most highly affected is the established Brittney Homes neighborhood. Rarely do you drive on the
curvy Sherwood Way without encountering a pedestrian, cycleist, school bus or other vehicle parked along the
street. When two cars meet on Sherwood Way it becomes quite a tight squeeze, especially when approaching a
parked car or pedestrian. Why create an unsafe situation???
It is obvious that the developer (Toll Brothers) does not prefer the connection to Sherwood Way via Wellington
Way. The neighbors overwhelmingly do not prefer the connection. So why put in the connection??
The Eagan Fire Department and Police Department prefer a connection (as well as city staff). In a perfect world
wouldn't every type of emergency responder prefer that everyone live right next door to the fire department or
police station or hospital??? Do you think that residents of Brittney Homes realized where and how far away
they were from emergency service when they purchased their homes??? Are we demanding better service from
our fire and police departments?? NO
Dakota County insists on a connection to approve this plan. The County made this recommendation based on
limited knowledge of the situation and soley on City Staff recommendation. The County's decision can be
appealed.
Page I of I
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:45 AM
To: Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley
Subject: FW: Cul-de-sac Precedent
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberl@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Cul-de-sac Precedent
To: Mayor Geagan; Council Members Tilley, Carlson, Fields,Maguire:
If you rip open the Wellington Way cul-de-sac to connect it to Pilot Knob Road, you will set a
dangerous precedent of degrading existing neighborhoods and their environment. We hope that
you will look to protect existing neighborhoods and assure that new developments are compatable
with adjacent neighbors.
Do not compound the environmental degradation caused by the pollution of the
the Diamond T property by polluting our neighborhood with an unwanted street connection.
Keep Wellington Way as it has been for over 18 years-al quiet,
peaceful cul-de-sac.
Tom and Linda Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
Eagan, Mn. 55122
651-454-5774
n, i('%,1 11)nn4Z
2
Page I of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:45 AM
To: Pat Geagan; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Mike Ridley
Subject: FW: Top Ten Reasons to Keep Wellington Way a Cul-de-sac
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberl@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 3:39 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Top Ten Reasons to Keep Wellington Way a Cul-de-sac
To: Mayor Geagan; Council Members Tilley, Carlson, Maguire, Fields:
Top ten reasons to keep Wellington Way a cul-de-sac:
1. Citizen petition in opposition.
2. Street has been a cul-de-sac for over 18 years.
3. Opening the street decreases pedestrian safety.
4. Opening the street increases vehicular traffic in existing residential neighborhood.
5. The developer does not currently propose to open the street.
6. Opening the street is not necessary for the Diamond T property to be developed.
7. The City's traffic consultant stated "traffic calming" measures will be required in the Brittany
neighborhood if Wellington Way is connected to Steeplechase.
8. The existing cul-de-sac circle would leave an unnatural bulge in the street making for driver
confusion and difficulty for snow plowing.
9 Property values would decrease in the existing Brittany subdivision.
10. It just plain does not make sense to ruin a neighborhood for no reason.
Save Wellington Way. Reject any proposal to connect Wellington
Way to Steeplechase.
Preserve the existing Brittany neighborhood as it has existed for
over 18 years. Respect our history and respect our
neighborhood's heritage of quiet cul-de-sacs.
Tom and Linda Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
Eagan, Mn. 55122
651-454-5774
~O
Al
mzi~nn5 3s
Page 1 of 1
Sheila Cartney
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:44 AM
To: 'THOMAS FERBER'
Subject: RE: New Year - Steeplechase
Your messages have all been forwarded to the Mayor and Council. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS FERBER [mailto:ferberl@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: New Year - Steeplechase
Mayor Geagan; Council Members Carlson, Maguire, Fields, Tilley:
We hope your New Year outlook is better than ours. As we start a New Year, we look back on how
we felt one year ago. We knew that the Diamond T Ranch had been sold for development. We
thought it would be developed for single family housing. We had lived here 14 years and enjoyed
the neighborhood environment that we sought and found in 1990...a quiet cul-de-sac.
Now in 2005, we face a high density town home development and a through street. We find out we
are living next to a dump site for Met Stadium and a highly polluted land..... all of which happened
with the knowledge of City officials.... including a council member Jerry Thomas. I must say Eagan
has become a less desireable place to live with that scenario facing us. Our City staff has pushed
and pushed and stubbornly insisted that Wellington Way be torn apart along with our dreams and
our way of life. The neighborhood and the developer do not want to open the street. We do not
understand why you want to ruin our existing neighborhood.
We hope you stand up for the Wellington Way citizens and their neighbors.
VOTE NO TO CONNECTING WELLINGTON WAY TO THE
STEEPLECHASE DEVELOPMENT.
Linda and Thomas Ferber
1518 Wellington Way
Eagan, Mn. 55122
651-454-5774
01/03/2005 j(p
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL (TEP)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Date: March 7, 2005 LGU: City of Eagan
County: Dakota LGU Contact: Eric Macbeth (651) 675-5300
Project Name/#: Steeplechase of Eagan
Applicant: Toll Brothers Inc.
Location of Project: 27 North 23 West SE'/. NE'/. 36 Eagan Dakota
Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County
TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project:
(Check if viewed project site)
(X) SWCD: Brian Watson (X) BWSR: Les Lemm
(X) LGU: Eric Macbeth ( ) DNR: N/A
Other Wetland Experts present: Wade Hammer - Svoboda Ecological Resources
Others Present: Andy Berenbere - RLK Kuusisto Ltd.
TEP requested by: City of Eagan
1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply):
Delineation
Exemption Determination
No-Loss Determination
X Replacement Plan (Revised application submitted February 15, 2005)
2. Description of wetland with proposed impact:
a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Multiple Wetland Basins (C2, D, E) Type 3
b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 17,497 square feet (0.40 acre)
3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? x yes _ no
4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district
plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and
)
local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (x) No(
5. The project will affect the following wetland functions:
Functions Impact No Impact Improve
Floodwater Storage x
Nutrient Assimilation x
Sediment Entrapment x
Groundwater Recharge x
Low Flow Augmentation X
Aesthetics/Recreation x
Shoreland Anchoring x
Wildlife Habitat x
Fisheries Habitat X
Rare Plant/Animal Habitat x
Commercial Uses x
6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater
level? Yes ( ) No (x) See attached comments. Replacement plan as proposed in February 15,
2005 application has limited potential for success as a functional wetland.
7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.?
Yes No (x)
If no, why? See attached comments.
8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is t a consensus, /note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page)
N/A
SWCD Representative (Date) WSR Representative (Date) LGL resentative (Date DNR Representative (Date)
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD Agoz
Comments
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to review a revised Wetland Replacement Plan Application dated
February 15, 2005. This revised Application included a wetland fill reduction of 0.21 acre to Wetland D and two
on-site compensatory mitigation proposals. The meeting included an on-site investigation and review of proposed
mitigation areas by TEP members, followed by an office meeting with the applicant's consultants. The following
items were discussed and are recommended by the TEP:
WCA Application and Notification Process
• The original Application dated May 5, 2004 may still be relevant to Minn. Statute 15.99 since it has not
been officially withdrawn by the applicant, or approved or denied by the City of Eagan.
• The revised Application was "Noticed" under WCA Rules and states that this new Replacement Plan
Application supercedes the original application.
WCA Sequencing Requirements
• The revised Application does not require additional TEP recommendations regarding WCA sequencing
requirements because it involves less wetland impact.
• The TEP understands that the project site is proposed to be zoned residential and the development
proposal is within allowable density requirements set by the City of Eagan.
• The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for stormwater management. This would
increase wetland impacts back to the original amount proposed. However, it would create a better
grading plan from a storm water management perspective. While this degraded wetland could be
partially avoided, the TEP strongly believes that loss of contributing watershed area, sediment
accumulation, and vegetative alteration on private lots will cumulatively impact the wetland over time,
resulting in its loss or diminished value. Excavation of this wetland would improve the site's capacity
fox trreatment of stormwater and reduce the extent of upslope grading, while mitigating its loss would
assure that other lost functions and values are replaced.
Compensatory Mitigation
• The TEP does not concur with the revised Application, which includes on-site wetland replacement, for
the following reasons:
1. Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Mitigation Area 1;
2. Proposed mitigation areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring hydrogeomophological
conditions;
3. Proposed Mitigation Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a functioning
wetland due to the need for continued maintenance to remove sediment loading. This would
likely result in the wetland functioning as a storm pond;
4. Both mitigation areas require significant landscape alterations. WCA Rule (8420.0543 C 1)
specifies that wetland mitigation should "take advantage of naturally occurring
hydrogeomorphological conditions and require minimal landscape alteration";
5. Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would need to be erected along Mitigation Area
2. In addition to safety concerns, this would prohibiting flora transition and fauna movement,
and would not result in a naturally occurring wetland; and
6. WCA Rule (8420.0547 Subp. 2) requires that "Restoration and replacement of wetlands must
be accomplished according to the ecology of the landscape area affected. A replacement plan
that would result in wetlands or wetland characteristics that do not naturally occur in the
landscape area in which the replacement will occur will not be approved." The TEP does not
believe the proposed created wetlands would result in desired characteristics of a replacement
wetland under WCA Rules. Due to the topography and other site-specific constraints, it is
very questionable that a fully functioning wetland could be created on-site within the context
of the proposed activity and future land use.
• According to WCA Rule (8420.0543) the first priority for wetland replacement siting is on-site or in
the same minor watershed as the impact when "reasonable, practicable, and environmentally beneficial
replacement opportunities" are available. However, WCA recognizes that on-site replacement is not
always appropriate due to individual site constraints.
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD /&_3
• The TEP provides the following as general guidance to determine the appropriateness of on-site
wetland replacement at individual project sites:
1. Avoid impacts to significant trees or other ecologically significant resources;
2. Avoid excavating steep slopes and rolling topography to create wetland conditions;
3. Seek areas with soil properties that have natural water holding capabilities;
4. Wetland impacts in excess of one acre should generally be constructed on-site, to the extent
that site constraints reasonably allow; and
5. Avoid sites adjacent to future infrastructure such as roads or potential building expansions.
If requested by the City, more specific guidance can be developed with the assistance of the TEP..
Local wetland management plans can be developed and used to prioritize local wetland protection
efforts and to facilitate local replacement opportunities.
• After reviewing the revised Application and all supplemental information provided, the TEP believes
the use of a wetland bank for New Wetland Credit creates the best ecological solution to replacing
impacted wetlands within the Steeplechase Development. This would allow for maintenance of water
quality and floodwater storage functions on-site through stormwater treatment facilities with
replacement of wetland functions at a more conducive location. The TEP believes this is the best
option to ensure that lost wetland functions and values are adequately replaced under WCA Rules.
Other Comments
• Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to
comply with relevant MPCA Rules.
• Any on-site wetland replacement (New Wetland Credit Only) that may be approved by the City of Eagan
should still be the responsibility of the applicant to monitor and be in compliance with WCA Rules.
Drafted by Brian Watson. Dakota SWCD
City of Ema
To: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director
From: Mike Ridley, City Planner
Date: April 13, 2005
Subject: EAW Adequacy
As you are aware, the City Council ordered a discretionary EAW (the original proposal
did not meet the mandatory EAW threshold). In January 2005, the City Council
concluded that the EAW adequately addressed existing conditions and potential impacts
of development of the site by making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS.
Subsequent to their action on the negative declaration, the Council reviewed the
development plan and suggested the applicant modify the plan to reflect public streets,
on-site wetland mitigation and reduced density.
The revised plan reduces density (109 to 95 units), proposes all public streets and shows
wetland impact mitigated on site.
There have been questions as to whether the revised Steeplechase development plan
causes the need for a new EAW. Issues of concern have included tree loss, wetland
mitigation, stormwater run-off, and wetland buffers/conservation easements.
State Rules speak to changes in a proposed project prior to all approvals or prior to the
project being implemented. A new EAW can be required if the RGU (the City)
determines that substantial changes have been made that could have significant adverse
environmental effects. Since the analysis of existing conditions outlined in the EAW do
not change, the question is whether the changes in the revised plan meet that threshold.
The revised plan falls even further under the mandatory EAW threshold of 250
unattached or 375 attached units. Issues of concern raised by the public are all addressed
under existing City ordinances and policies for tree preservation, storm water run-off,
wetland mitigation and wetland buffers. Further, the mitigation plan authorized by the
MPCA for on site pollutants remains in place.
The City's technical staff have reviewed the revised plan based on grading, drainage, tree
preservation, wetland mitigation and wetland buffer and have determined that the plan
does not present adverse environmental effects. The City's EAW consultant, SRF,
believes the changes to the Site Plan do not invalidate the EAW because the EAW is a
disclosure document that identifies the potential impacts of a project fairly early in the
design process, not a permit or development approval document. Ann Hopkins of SRF
states "Since the City has the technical staff that is qualified to draw these conclusions
based on their professional judgment, it would be appropriate to conclude that a new
EAW is not necessary."
Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
6.2 - Request for Reconsideration of Plat Commission Denial of STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN
Preliminary Plat
Todd Tollefson, County Surveyor, and Kristi Sebastian, Transportation Engineer, addressed the
Committee and outlined the Plat Commission's recommendation for denial of STEEPLECHASE OF
EAGAN preliminary plat since it did not include a connection through Wellington Way to provide for safety
and traffic flow issues.
Many citizens addressed the Committee with their concerns with opening up the Wellington Way cul-de-
sac to provide for through traffic. Losing the cul-de-sac would have a huge negative impact on the
neighborhood. It would increase noise and crime; it would increase traffic and make the roads extremely
dangerous (the road is winding and hilly and does not have sidewalks). The residents of Wellington Way
were never told that their street was intended to connect to the east some day.
After listening to the Plat Commission representatives and the residents, the Committee directed that the
plat be sent back to the city and the developer to arrive at solution that will meet the County guidelines
and support adjacent residents.
Motion by Commissioner Harris, Second by Commissioner Branning and passed on a 7-0 vote to
recommend that the County Board adopt the following revised resolution:
WHEREAS, City of Eagan staff and the property developer for the STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN met with
the Plat Commission on February 7, 2005, to request a variance from the Access Spacing Guidelines in
the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Guidelines require 1/4-mile full access spacing and 1/8-mile right turns only spacing for a
4-lane divided highway; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan is seeking a variance request due to topographical and water resource
challenges in the southeast corner of the plat, making it difficult to locate the proposed street access to
meet the Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Contiguous Plat Ordinance provides that the review of a proposed plat by the Plat
Commission and final approval of that plat by the County Board of Commissioners is specifically limited to
certain factors of countywide significance including safety and integration of the County road system and
the local road system; and
WHEREAS, at its February 7 meeting, the Plat Commission denied the preliminary plat for
STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN including the variance until roadway connections between
STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN and the existing local street system to the west (Wellington Way) and to
the five-acre parcel to the northeast are included in the plat; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eagan is asking the County Board to reconsider the Plat Commission's denial of
the preliminary plat and the variance from the County's Access Spacing Guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby
supports the Plat Commission recommendation to deny the preliminary plat for STEEPLECHASE OF
EAGAN; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners hereby requests that the
City of Eagan and the developers of STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN, produce a plat that will be able to
meet County guidelines and support adjacent residents.
/8~
of Eapn Clt Ye
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 31, 2005
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBERS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -
STEEPLECHASE SETBACKS FROM POND LP-7.2
In follow up to Councilmember Carlson's request for information conceming the City requirements
for setbacks and buffers and their relationship to the previous and current development plans for the
Steeplechase proposal, our staff has prepared the following comparison:
Private street plan/EAW review
➢ Private Street width 24' complies with code
➢ Building setback to private street 20' complies with code
➢ Building setback from Pond LP7 range 94' to 104' (Exceeds City policy of 30'
buffer)
Public Street Plan/Plan currently being considered
➢ Street width 28' complies with code - 50' ROW complies with code
➢ Building setback from public ROW range from 12' to 25' does not comply with
30' min
➢ Building setback from street ranges from 23' to 36'
➢ Building setback from Pond LP7 range 41' to 123' (Exceeds City policy of 30'
buffer)
In addition, since this pond is not a DNR designated public water, the only separation required is
that the lowest floor elevation of the home must be 3' above the Ordinary High Water Level
(OHWL). Ordinarily this is made up by a gradual rise in grade to the home over some distance,
but it is not a fixed setback of a certain number of feet.
Please pass this information on and we will include it in the background packet for the 19°i. If
you or any Councilmember has any questions, please let me know.
A tr
401~ City of Ema
To: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director
From: City Staff
Date: March 30, 2005
Subject: Public comments/questions, wetlands replacement plan application
05022303, Toll Brothers Steeplechase of Eagan)
The City received one set of public comments (see attached) on this application by the March
28, 2005 30-day comment deadline. Responses below are to questions by Mr. Eric Vevea, as
referenced in his comments.
Question 1: City Planner specifically responded to this question in a 2/28/05 email
to Mr. Vevea (see attached).
Questions 2, 5-10: The Wetland Technical Evaluation Panel (WTEP) has conveyed to
the City its Findings of Fact, comments, and recommendations on the
Steeplechase project in a series of documents dated June 3, 2004,
December 22, 2004, January 27, 2005, and March 7, 2005 (see
attached). Collectively, these documents specifically address the
issues these questions raise.
Questions 3-4: The WTEP addressed issues relevant to Basin C in its series of
documents. On February 1, 2005, the City Council took action and
adopted the Basin C wetland boundaries, type and exemptions.
Question 11: The Steeplechase proposal now pending does not convert any natural
wetlands to stormwater treatment ponds. However, according to its
March 7, 2005 Findings of Fact, the WTEP "would prefer to see
Wetland D excavated and used for stormwater management. This
would increase wetland impacts back to the original amount
proposed. However, it would create a better grading plan from a
stormwater management perspective."
Question 12: On February 1, 2005, the City Council took action and adopted the
Basin C wetland boundaries, type and exemptions. Minn. Rules
8420.0540 Subp. 2.C., to which this question refers, does not provide
for restoration of wetlands drained or filled under exemption. The
excavation proposed is to create a stormwater treatment pond not to
restore a wetland.
Attachments
/0
This is a response to the WRP for Steeplechase of Eagan at the site of the former Diamond T Ranch.
Avoidance is possible, feasible and prudent and by far environmentally preferable. This plan should be denied
based upon the fact that avoidance is easily achieved.
Sincerely,
Eric Uevea
1496 Sherwood Way
Eagan, Mn 55122
Wetlands on property
From City Planning Report:
1) Basin A, City Pond LP-56, is considered a Type 4 wetland, under the
classification system of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Type 4 wetlands are inland deep fresh marshes in which the soils are usually covered with six inches to three feet or
more of water during the growing season. Vegetation may include cattails, reeds, and bulrushes. In this case,broad-leaf
deciduous trees are in a semi-permanent flooded basin.
2) Basin B is known as City Pond LP-7.2, which is also a Class IV Wildlife Habitat water body according to the City of
Eagan WOMP. The delineation report identifies this wetland as a Type 3 wetland.
Type 3 wetlands are inland shallow fresh marshes that are permanently inundated with six or more inches of water
during the growing season. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, and various other marsh plants such as cattails,
arrowheads, and smartweeds.
3) Basin C is identified as a flooded depression area that historically held three small wetlands. Together, they are
considered Type 3 wetlands, according to the delineation report.
4) Basin D, located near the north central portion of the site, is also considered a Type 3 wetland by the delineation
report.
5) Basin E, located near the east central portion of the site, is not typified by the delineation report. However, it likely is a
Type 3 wetland.
From WPA:
8420.0100 PURPOSE.
This chapter implements the Wetland Conservation Act of
1991, Laws 1991, chapter 354, as amended by Laws 1993, chapter
175; Laws 1994, chapter 627; Laws 1996, chapter 462; Laws 2000,
chapter 382; and Laws 2001, chapter 146. This chapter shall be
interpreted to implement the purpose of the act, which is to:
A. achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and
biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands;
B. increase the quantity, quality, and biological
diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing
diminished or drained wetlands;
C. avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities
that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological
diversity of wetlands; and
D. replace wetland values where avoidance of activity
is not feasible and prudent.
Actual USGS map of property
ti
USGS overlayed on site
v
2
+en-
0
Copyrigtd 2004, 03koL3 CoUnb n~
191
Aerial of site from County GIS two
r ~ ~ cif
r
Copyright 2004, Dakota CoUnry ~
Plan overlayed on site
t B ~ I v 11 I
i.'tf.. u
V I'
51
12 r;~' t 9 arTr'u v'+:~ _ ryas 1 ~2~c1
1a ~ , r a I~~r t l _ e i a ~ .
a
_7 ' J
d 6
G i
y ~,~11 f '6 vim" S`/R ' 6 fw v ~ ' ~ I i
tT~in''" r~` d rte' r \f r I; i~x~
g l~ a , V I ~R f
r
rt~
k
GON66T/ATION s 5' 11 «_11 1I I
M
r '2Y 1 t t : ic. 1;Fna6^ . 1 " Z f
rro
ti HK D.0 r pia} 3. 1{ p' 1 ~e
NK 9.l
e h V
• -LU iSL'iVATldI
I, = ire' J FA9EfA[M _ a
3nV
rl r7 f T 41 cc ova I 6Pn~
/q~
Avoidance possible on-site by eliminating several lots.
-
• ~ I 1 4 I
2 endp.. q,.r 2~~_
13 c..l v / /~I u v '~i4 / 8 •`7r ~ - v ~..n v ~ I 4 'I
/ ~ to : ii>-°-y__ -
5 li m I
• t,~" a `'fr-~`, ~ I
CONSEfVATgN•~ - ; Ir. ~J rJS,~. 1! 0 ~ ~ V„ ~ a
POND P-72 i f ins 1 ~nTif:. •m-ru
HVL: 9.9
9.7
m:cnvnnal '
JY'D'.o,r
1 r
!I EXCEPT/ON 011011 g
Avoidance option submitted by developer with plan #2
LA -
r II
Avoidance possible with appropriate housing type and parkland dedication as conservation easements.
56 single family homes
All
T I d rv _ _
I o ti I
f
S
Trail • ~ r i
C.... e,i.. t. t I t
Welliyle. Wq. a eee
/ e
LP 7.1
ee
Lela. IIPh Ryiee•I Ah
Part of property actually within public waters shore land protection zone.
~R AI I'a Aa`ladLehlR l
_pj
rrtT tC ~,I ~c Nn t rrr le
R-I
' 1-m Icb"1 ~ \ /
P -1 CC t i A\' 7 ~ -
I
19~
Sequencing replacement plan criteria
Minnesota Rule 8420.0540
REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA.
Subpart 1. Sequencing. Before consideration or approval
of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure
that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and
minimize adverse wetland impacts according to sequencing in part
8420.0520.
Sequencing requirement
Minnesota Rule 8420.0520 SEQUENCING.
Subpart 1. Requirement. The local government unit may not
consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the local
government unit finds that the applicant has demonstrated that
the activity impacting a wetland has complied with all of the
following principles in descending order or priority:
A. avoids direct or indirect impacts to the wetland that may destroy or diminish the wetland.
B. minimizes the impact to the wetland by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
implementation under the criteria in subpart 4;
C. rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland under the criteria in subpart 5;
D. reduces or eliminates the impact to the wetland over time by preservation and maintenance operations under the
criteria in subpart 6; and
E. replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetland by restoring or, if wetland restoration opportunities are not reasonably
available, creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value
Sequencing impact avoidance
Minnesota Rule 8420.0520 SEQUENCING.
Subp. 3. Determination of impact avoidance.
C. Alternatives analysis:
(1) The applicant shall provide the local
government unit with documentation describing at least two
alternatives in addition to the proposed project to avoid
wetland impacts. One may be the no-build alternative, that
would avoid impacts to wetlands. For projects that repair or
rehabilitate existing infrastructure, only one alternative is
required. The alternatives may include consideration of
alternate sites or alternative project configurations on the
proposed site. The alternatives must be judged by the local
government unit as good faith efforts, or the local government
unit may require the applicant to redraft them for
reconsideration.
(2) The local government unit shall determine
whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are
available that would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alternative
shall be considered feasible and prudent if it meets all of the
following requirements:
(a) it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view;
(b) it is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices;
(c) it is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare;
(d) it is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts;
and
(e) it would create no truly unusual problems.
~s
Sequencing impact avoidance
Minnesota Rule 8420.0520 SEQUENCING.
Subp. 3. Determination of impact avoidance.
C. Alternatives analysis:
(3) For projects proposing impacts to type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, the local government unit shall also determine that there
are no environmentally preferable alternatives that would avoid the impact.
(4) The local government unit shall consider the following in evaluating alternatives as applicable:
(a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the same
general area that would avoid wetland impacts. An alternate site may not be excluded from consideration only
because it includes or requires an area not owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used,
expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project;
(b) the general suitability of alternate sites considered by the applicant;
(c) whether reasonable modification of the size, scope configuration, or density of the project would avoid impacts
to wetlands;
(d) efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or
infrastructure, including requests for conditional use permits, variances, or planned unit developments; and
(e) the physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economic considerations alone do not
make an alternative not feasible and prudent.
(5) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impacts to
wetlands, it shall deny the replacement plan. If no feasible and prudent alternative is available that would avoid
impacts to wetlands, the local government unit shall evaluate the replacement plan for compliance with subparts 4 to
8.
8420.0541 ACTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT.
Subp. 10. Water quality treatment areas.
A. Replacement credit for water quality treatment
ponds constructed to pretreat storm water runoff prior to
discharge to wetlands or public waters is allowed, provided that:
(2) the basins are constructed in nonwetland
areas; and...
8420.0540 REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA.
Subpart 1. Sequencing. Before consideration or approval
of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure
that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and
minimize adverse wetland impacts according to sequencing in part
8420.0520.
The applicant must demonstrate to the local government unit
that the replacement plan complies with this part and part
8420.0550.
Subp. 2. Type of replacement.
A. The preference for the method of replacement is
that which is most likely to result in a wetland area that
functions wholly, perpetually, and naturally. Wetland
restoration is generally preferred over creation and restoration
of completely impacted wetlands is generally preferred over
other methods of replacement.
B. Modification or conversion of nondegraded wetlands
from one wetland type to another by damming, diking, impounding,
or excavating does not constitute replacement credit.
C. Wetlands drained or filled under an exemption may
not be restored for replacement credit for ten years after
draining or filling.
19V
Questions
1) Why does the TEP not include a DNR member? This is required by WCA if Public Waters shore land and threatened
species are involved.
2) The EAW conducted on this property indicated the existence of threatened or endangered species in this area and
must be considered. How has the TEP considered this?
3) Did the TEP take into consideration that the entire Wetland Basin C has functioned as a wetland for at least 10 years?
If so how? The TEP can determine valid changes exist. Where will the storage capacity of these non-jurisdictional
wetlands be transferred?
4) Did the TEP take into consideration the effect of wetlands upland from Basin C that were illegally filled in 1985 and
the properties wetland's adjusted to these changes? If so, how? If not, why?
5) The sequencing alternatives submitted contained feasible and prudent alternatives that avoided impacts. If avoidance
alternative exist, the plan shall be denied. Why was this not enforced by the TEP?
6) Please explain how each major point in the following sequencing laws was answered by the TEP's sequencing
review? Not just that it was, but how it was and what specific factors had an influence and why they were the dominate
factors.
7) How does this application comply with the above? An alternative that avoids impact is easily designed and one was
submitted in the alternatives analysis.
8) The alternatives show a feasible and prudent alternative. And no-build avoids as well. Upon what criteria is the
analysis declared invalid? We also have a less dense single family plan that avoids impact.. Please be specific. Not just
that the criteria was, but why it was and what specific factors had an influence and why they were the dominate factors.
9) There are avoidance plans. Why do they not apply here? What specific factors had an influence and why they were
the dominate factors?
10) This plan could easily be modified to avoid impact. Why not? What specific factors had an influence and why they
were the dominate factors.
11) All wetlands on this site are converted to ponds. Were these impacts considered?
12) In the preceding rule, it states that no credit can be given for ponds created in exemption areas, yet in this plan they
are. Why and how does this rule not apply here?
Thank you for your consideration.
Eric Vevea
Eric Macbeth
From: Mike Ridley
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:11 PM
To: 'Eric Vevea'
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Eric Macbeth; Sheila Cartney
Subject: RE: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Good morning Eric,
Your e-mail references that the SE corner of the site is located in a shoreline zone and
that that area has a "public" water body that will be impacted. That and the fact that
there is Blanding's Turtle habitat is in the area warrants the DNR involvement in the TEP
review.
For your information, there are no DNR-designated public waters on the Diamond T site. As
you know, the DNR has commented on the EAW. Most recently, our Water Resource staff
apprised DNR staff of the revised plan and they consider this development matter to be a
local issue and they believe their participation would not appropriate.
Water Resource staff is hoping to convene the TEP the week of March 7; while this is a
technical review consisting of professionals with approximately 30 years of combined
experience in wetlands issues, written input could certainly be submitted this week to
Eric Macbeth or myself.
As for the EAW, the City Council's negative declaration confirmed that the condition of
the site and the proposed remediation was appropriate, per the MPCA. You reference tree
removal, grading, wetlands and storm run-off. Each of these items is dealt with via the
existing City Code and will be reviewed against the appropriate ordinance.
Because the revised plan is even further under the mandatory EAW thresholds than the
original proposal, site contamination/remediation has been identified and the City Code
contains ordinances that deal with development related review; a new EAW is simply not
warranted.
I hope this adequately responds to your e-mail. Please do not hesitate contacting me if
you need further clarification or additional information.
Sincerely,
Mike
Michael J. Ridley, AICP
City Planner
City of Eagan
651-675-5650
651-675-5694 Fax
mridley@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vevea [mailto:evevea@c6mcast.net]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:26 AM
To: Mike Ridley
Cc: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
Mike,
Thank you for your response.
I will reiterate, first and foremost, when is this revised Steeplechase plan available?
Can it be put on the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access? We would like have access to
the full and complete new set of application materials.
r
1) We look forward to the opportunity to speak at the Park Commission hearing.
2) Secondly, the attached item is from the City's own 2001 revised zoning map. It clearly
shows a wetland that is proposed to be impacted within a the shoreline zone of a public
water on this property. This warrants involvement of the DNR in the WTEP.
The presence of several threatened species, including Blanding's Turtle, has been
indicated in this area and needs consideration and DNR involvement in the WTEP review.
When is the WTEP to meet? How do we have the opportunity to submit input to the WTEP
previous to their decision?
3) The council already determined that this plan is different enough to send it through
the process again. Over 80% tree removal, 85% grading, impacted type 3 and 4 wetlands,
unstudied run-off into public waters and the other environmental travesties exist in the
new, revised plan. This is maybe a less intense use of this land than previously
proposed, but it still does
not meet state, city and community standards. It is certainly an intense
use of environmental sensitive and damaged property. At minimum, we desire to have the
projected run-off studied and it's affect on public waters and proposed downstream public
projects. Attached is the City of Eagan's official storm water management map which shows
the water flows directly into the entire water shed system within Lebanon Hills Regional
Park. This clearly supports the need for additional investigation and study.
We look forward to your response.
Regards,
Eric Vevea
Diamond T Neighborhood Coalition
1496 Sherwood Way
Eagan, MN 55122
651-686-5379
evevea@comcast.net
on 2/24/05 4:39 PM, Mike Ridley at MRidley@cityofeagan.com wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> In response to your e-mail:
> 1. The revised Steeplechase proposal will be heard by the Parks
> Commission at their meeting scheduled for March 14.
> 2. The City is coordinating a TEP review of the new wetland
> replacement plan for Steeplechase, but the DNR again will not be
> participating. The DNR has been appropriately informed through the
> required public noticing procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act.
> DNR staff has also notified Eagan Water Resources staff that DNR
> jurisdiction does not apply in this case because there are no public
> waters on the site and there are no wetlands within a shoreland
> wetland protection zone on the site. As such, the DNR considers the
> issue to be a local matter and that DNR participation is not appropriate.
> Eric, you mention "we have learned that there are state threatened
> species in the area"; I am uncertain what you are referencing, please
> clarify that statement.
> The TEP is a wetland technical review process that is not intended to
> be a public hearing nor is it geared for oral public input. Citizen
> input opportunities are available in writing at any time and oral
> input is provided for at the Park Commission and during the Public
> Hearing before the Advisory Planning Commission.
> 3. As you know, in early January 2005, the City Council issued a
> negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
> Subsequently, the developer has responded to issues raised by the City
/9(
> Council and revised the project which now reflects a less intense use
> of the land. There is no mechanism for a "supplemental" EAW. It is
> the prerogative of the City Council to determine whether a substantial
> change has been made in the proposed project that would affect the
> potential for significant adverse environmental effects and, if so,
> order a new discretionary EAW.
> I believe this responds to each of your points. Please contact me if
> I missed a point or if you have other questions.
> Sincerely,
> Mike
> Michael J. Ridley, AICP
> City Planner
> City of Eagan
> 651-675-5650
> 651-675-5694 Fax
> mridley@cityofeagan.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Vevea (mailto:evevea@comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:17 PM
> To: Mike Ridley
> Cc: Dee Bass; Doris Carrol; Linda Ferber; L Jacobs; Mary Brogdon; Mike
> Ferber; Prabath; Tina Meiklejohn; khamilton; THOMAS FERBER; Tom
> Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Sharonholbeck@aol.com
> Subject: Request for environmental procedures on Steeplechase
> Dear Mr. Ridley,
> When is this revised Steeplechase plan available? Can it be put on
> the Eagan Web Site for easy citizen access?
> Also, we would like to formally request 3 things.
> 1) The revised plan is so different, we request that it also go
> before the Parks Commission.
> There are changes regarding parkland dedication(conservation
> easements), trails, trees, wetland and storm water.
> 2) The current development plan proposes a new wetland replacement plan.
> This should be reviewed by a new WTEP panel that should include a DNR
> officer. In the previous WTEP ruling, an omitted fact was that part of
> this property is within the 1000 ft. shoreline protection zone of a
> designated public water and it is proven in City and County documents
> that this property's run-off flows directly into this public water
> zone. Also, we have learned that there are state threatened species
> in the area, warranting DNR involvement. In addition, LP 7.2 should be
> a public water and even though not officially designated, deserves the
> same consideration. We also ask that citizens have an opportunity to
> address the WTEP when they meet.
> 3) We have already requested an EAW for this property. An EAW
> studies not only what is there, but also the plan's potential for
> environmental harm.
> If this plan is still a part of the original application, a
> supplemental EAW needs to be executed before the plan can be
> considered, in accordance with our original petition and Council's
> orders. If this is a different plan that requires a new petition,
> please let us know so that we may proceed to get the proper papers
> filed for consideration.
> We look forward to your reply.
> Regards,
a300
> Eric Vevea
> Diamond T Neighborhood Coalition
> 1496 Sherwood Way
> Eagan, MN 55122
> 651-686-5379
> evevea@comcast.net
Q4() /
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL (TEP)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Date: June 3, 2004 LGU: City of Eagan
County: Dakota LGU Contact: Eric Macbeth (651) 675-5300
Project Name/#: Steeplechase of Eagan
Applicant: City of Eagan
Location of Project: 27 North 23 West SE'/. 33, NE 114 Eagan Dakota
Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County
TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project:
(Check if viewed project site)
(X) SWCD: Brian Watson (X) BWSR: Les Lemm
(X) LGU: Eric Macbeth (X) DNR: N/A
Other Wetland Experts present:
Others Present: Toll Brothers Development Group
TEP requested by: City of Eagan
1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply):
Delineation
X Exemption Determination
No-Loss Determination
X Replacement Plan
2. Description of wetland with proposed impact:
a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Type 2 and 3
b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 0.61 acres
3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? X yes _ no
4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local-water plan and/or the watershed district
plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and
}
local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (X) No(
5. The project will affect the following wetland functions:
Functions Impact No Impact Improve
Floodwater Storage X
Nutrient Assimilation X
Sediment Entrapment X
Groundwater Recharge X
Low Flow Augmentation X
Aesthetics/Recreation X
Shoreland Anchoring X
Wildlife Habitat X
Fisheries Habitat X
Rare Plant/Animal Habitat X
Commercial Uses X
6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater
level? Yes (X) No( )
7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.?
Yes (X) See attached comments No ( )
If no, why?
8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is of a c nsensus, note with an aisterisk and explain on the back of this page)
74
e) presSWCD Representative (Date) BWSR epresentative (Dat ent a (Date) DNR Representative (Date)
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD 00d
Comments
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to review the proposed wetland replacement plan of Toll Brothers'
proposed residential subdivision, Steeplechase of Eagan on June 3 and July 6, 2004. Due to the complexity of the
issues on the parcel and the public controversy of this proposed development, the TEP was requested by the City of
Eagan to provide technical recommendations relative to consistency of the plan with Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) Rules.
Between June 3, 2004 and July 6, 2004 the following occurred:
• June P it was determined that the delineation of the wetland basins C1, C2, and C3 needs to be evaluated
through a historical aerial photo review, soil survey, and other available materials to determine regulated
wetland acreage from incidental wetland acres.
• Compensatory mitigation within and around wetland basins C1, C2 and C3 is unacceptable since it is
currently wetland and WCA Rule explicitly identifies existing wetlands as ineligible for replacement
purposes.
• A meeting would be scheduled and held to review historical aerial photographs at Soil and Water
Conservation District Office.
• A request to extend WCA decision would be needed from the applicant in order for the City to comply with
time requirements under WCA Rule. If extension request is not provided, and based on current
information, the application would be denied and process would have to be reinitiated for public notice. A
60 day time extension was requested by applicant and accepted by the City on June 7, 2004.
• June I Vh Eric MacBeth (city) Frank Svoboda and Andy Berenberg (applicant's consultants) and Brian
Watson (SWCD) met at SWCD office to review wetland boundaries of C1, C2 and C3.
• June 17th, 2004 City of Eagan concurred with revised wetland boundaries for Ci, C2 and C3.
• June 18`' a revised wetland application was submitted to the City and the City forwarded copies to SWCD
and BWSR staff.
• July 6, 2004 a second meeting was held to review revised application. The revised application included an
additional 950 square feet of wetland fill (Basin C2), a greater buffer and tree protection to Basin B, and
offsite wetland replacement for new wetland credits.
The TEP recommends approval of the revised Wetland Replacement Plan application dated June 18, 2004
provided the following issues are addressed:
• Application for an incidental wetland exemption will need to be submitted to the City of Eagan for
grading work associated with lot development and Pond 6 within the non-regulated wetlands
surrounding Basin Cl, C2 and C3.
• A revised table showing proposed public value credit of at least 26,407 square feet will need to be
submitted to the City. Existing wetlands are not eligible for wetland replacement, either new wetland
credit or public value credit.
• The applicant is responsible for at least 26,407 square feet of public value credit either onsite or offsite
through a wetland bank.
• The applicant is responsible for providing evidence that offsite wetland replacement credits have been
secured prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City.
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
~.y~y:•, DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480-7777
Fax: (651) 480-7775
www.dakotacountyswcd.org
MEMORANDUM
To: Eric Macbeth, City of Eagan
From: Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Cc: Les Lemm, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Date: December 22, 2004
Subject: Steeplechase Development - Wetland Conservation Act Sequencing (8420.0520)
This is in response to an inquiry indicating that improper justification was used to determine compliance
with sequencing requirements identified under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
Specifically, the inquiry states that the rationale offers "solely economic justifications rejecting an
alternative that claimed to avoid wetland." Additionally the inquiry states, "Consequently, this project
cannot legally be approved or permitted".
Technical Evaluation Panel meetings are held to review wetland issues associated with the WCA and
provide a recommendation to the decision making body. The following is my response to the inquiry
received:
♦ The site has been rezoned as low density residential and therefore physical, economic, and
demographic requirements for this type of project (housing) were considered.
♦ Alternative Configuration B (no wetland impact option) was not eliminated based on economic
considerations. It was based on 1.) Avoiding the wetland would likely result in degradation to
wetlands ability to function and provide public value due to guided land use on surrounding
landscape; 2.) Degradation of the wetland has occurred to the extent that replacement would
certainly gain in functions and values; and 3.) A "Good faith effort" was provided under
alternative configurations that create a balance between WCA purpose (8420.0100) and the
number of housing units allowable under City zoning.
♦ Tree preservation, topography and other sensitive issues associated with the project site were
considered.
♦ Safety and transportation issues were considered including the desired connection of
Wellington Way and the loop connection road of Steeplechase Court.
The City does not have a wetland ordinance that prioritizes their wetland resources and
indicates that these wetlands are worthy of higher protection standards through buffer
requirements or other land protection options.
a~
vi v.
COUNTY SOIL & WATER
,d,.. iv.
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220`h Street West, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480-7777
Fax: (651) 480-7775
www.dakotacountyswcd.org
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Eagan
From: Technical Evaluation Panel
Date: January 27, 2005
Subject: Steeplechase Development - Wetland Questions and Responses
This memo is intended to assist with questions regarding wetland issues at the proposed Steeplechase
Development. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), pursuant to Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) Rule 8420.0240, includes a technical professional employee of the Minnesota Board of Water and
Soil Resources (Les Lemm), a technical professional employee of the County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD, Brian Watson), and a technical professional with expertise in wetland
management appointed by the local governmental unit (Eric Macbeth).
This memorandum has been reviewed and approved for distribution by the TEP.
Wetland Identification and Regulatory Requirements:
• A wetland delineation report dated May 3, 2004 identifying the location, type and functional
capacity of the wetlands was submitted to the City. This delineation report identified five
wetland basins (A to E). The delineation report indicated that Wetland C may be exempt from
WCA replacement standards because it was largely the result of a constructed berm that has
impeded drainage to the south.
• A field review and meeting was conducted on June 3, 2004 to review the Wetland Delineation
Report and a Wetland Replacement Plan Application dated May 5, 2004. As a result of this
meeting, the TEP concurred that the previously constructed berm had impacted the size of Basin
C to some extent. However, the existence of Basin C was not the sole result of the constructed
berm. The following was recommended by the TEP:
1. The regulated boundary of Basin C needs to be evaluated through analysis of historical
aerial photographs, historical soil surveys, and other available information to determine
regulated area from exempt area; and
2. A meeting should be held at the SWCD office on June 11, 2004 for the purpose of
reviewing historical aerial photographs in and around Basin C.
• On June 11, 2004, the TEP recommended that the regulated boundary of Basin C be defined
according to topographical contours of 1038 for the southern ("C1") and western ("C2") basins
and 1039.5 for the northern basin ("C3").
aas-
2
• The total delineated wetland area of Basin C was approximately 77,000 square feet (1.76 acre).
Based on the information reviewed and methodology accepted to determine wetland size prior to
berm construction, the total area of regulated wetland was 17, 962 square feet (0.41 acre). This
includes 5,387 square feet (Cl), 950 square feet (C2), and 11,625 square feet (0).
Approximately 59,038 of Basin C would not be regulated by the WCA.
• It is our understanding that City ratification of the TEP recommendation for wetland boundary
and type is scheduled for the February 1, 2005 City Council meeting.
Wetland Replacement Plan Application and Sequencing.
• A WCA Replacement Plan Application dated May 5, 2004 was submitted and also reviewed at
the June 3, 2004 TEP meeting. Because the wetland boundary and area of regulated wetlands
had not been fully quantified at this meeting, an in-depth review of the Application could not
occur. Subsequent to the TEP recommendation regarding Basin C noted above, a revised
Wetland Replacement Plan dated June 18, 2004 was submitted. On July 6, 2004, another TEP
meeting was held to review the revised Application. The TEP recommended approval of the
Wetland Replacement Plan Application with the following conditions:
1. An application for an incidental wetland exemption will need to be submitted to the City
for proposed alterations in non-regulated wetlands surrounding Basin C;
2. Applicant is responsible for providing City with information on how public value credit
mitigation will be accounted for either on-site or off-site; and
3. Applicant is responsible for providing evidence to the City that necessary off-site wetland
credits~have been secured prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• The TEP found that the Wetland Replacement Plan Application complied with the sequencing
requirements of WCA. As part of this review, the TEP took into consideration social, economic,
and environmental impacts, the natural features of the site, and the function, value, and
distribution of wetlands on the site. The TEP also considered the project's consistency with local
plans.
Wetland Replacement
• The original Wetland Replacement Application dated May 5, 2004 indicated that wetland
replacement would be conducted completely on-site using the incidental wetland areas around
Basin C and stormwater ponding. At the June 3`d meeting, the TEP indicated that existing
wetlands (regulated or non-regulated) are not eligible as replacement sites under WCA Rule
• Alternative wetland replacement sites were discussed at the June 3`d TEP meeting. The TEP
indicated that off-site wetland replacement was an option that could be pursued for the following
reasons:
1. Lack of ecologically suitable wetland replacement areas on-site;
2. Potential loss of additional trees;
3. Public value credit wetlands (water quality ponds) would be constructed on-site;
4. Non-regulated portions of Basin C would remain as wetland even though they cannot be
used for wetland replacement purposes under the WCA; and
5. Small size of wetland to be created and questionable likelihood of its success.
c2_0
3
General TEP Comments
• When reviewing wetland sequencing requirements under WCA Rule consideration is given to
functional quality of wetlands as well as overall project purpose. See December 22"d memo from
the SWCD.
• The Wetland Conservation Act is not a wetland preservation law as sometimes perceived. It
requires no net loss of wetlands through replacement when feasible and prudent alternatives to
avoid wetlands do not exist. Local Governmental Units ultimately decide what is "feasible and
prudent." TEP recommendation for approving 0.61 acre of wetland impact under this
development scenario is consistent with other Dakota County WCA decisions based on existing
circumstances.
• Basin D, which is 66% of the total wetland impact, is not likely to exist long-term under a
development scenario. The TEP concluded that if this wetland were "avoided" under a
residential grading plan, secondary impacts that are unregulated by WCA would most likely
negatively alter the wetland. For example, because the basin's primary hydrology source is
overland flow, curbs, gutters and the overall stormwater management system would interrupt this
natural hydrology source.
• Basin E, which is 30% of the total wetland impact, is of low functional quality adjacent to Pilot
Knob Road. This wetland is considered to be of limited value, due to its location and past fill
disturbances that were observed.
• Impact to Basin C, which is less than 0.05% of the total wetland impact, was considered
acceptable totter protect trees in that vicinity.
• For the 59,038 square feet (1.35 acres) of wetland that is not regulated under the WCA or through
local ordinance, the proposal included:
1. Fill of 26,600 square feet;
2. A water quality management pond on 16,900 square feet; and
3. Protection of 15,538 square feet.
• The City of Eagan or Gun Club Watershed Management Organization does not designate any of
the above referenced wetlands with protection standards higher than State Rule.
• The TEP can provide the City guidance on when to consider wetland replacement off-site. The
SWCD participated with the City of Eagan to identify feasible wetland restoration opportunities
citywide approximately 7 years ago. Over 80 sites were evaluated and less than five were judged
to be appropriate for wetland restoration or creation. However, none of these sites were
considered feasible due to costs.
• The TEP is not opposed to looking at wetland replacement on-site. Rather, it is our
recommendation that off-site replacement is acceptable under this proposal due to the difficulty
of successful on-site replacement given landscape and project constraints. If the City desires on-
site replacement, supplemental application materials would need to be submitted, including a
revised grading plan, planting specifications, and monitoring schedule.
• The TEP has concerns about how the loop road would further impact Basin C. However, no
analysis has been provided to evaluate the potential impact.
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL (TEP)
FINDINGS OF FACT
Date: March 7, 2005 LGU: Citv of Eagan
County: Dakota LGU Contact: Eric Macbeth (651) 675-5300
Project Name/#: Steeplechase of Eagan
Applicant: Toll Brothers Inc.
Location of Project: 27 North 23 West SE'/. NE 36 Eagan Dakota
Township, Range, Section, Qtr. Section, Lot/Block, City, County
TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project:
(Check if viewed project site)
(X) SWCD: Brian Watson (X) BWSR. Les Lemm
(X) LGU: Eric Macbeth ( ) DNR: N/A
Other Wetland Experts present: Wade Hammer - Svoboda Ecological Resources
Others Present: Andy Berenberg - RLK Kuusisto Ltd.
TEP requested by: City of Eagan
1. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply):
Delineation
Exemption Determination
No-Loss Deterrnirtation
X Replacement Plan (Revised application submitted February 15, 2005)
2. Description of wetland with proposed impact:
a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Multiple Wetland Basins (C2, D, E) Type 3
b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 17,497 square feet (0.40 acre)
3. Have sequencing requirements been addressed? x yes _ no
4. Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district
plan, the metropolitan surface water managernent plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and
local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (x) No(
)
5. The project will affect the following wetland functions:
Functions Impact No ImRact Improve
Floodwater Storage x
Nutrient Assimilation x
Sediment Entrapment X
Groundwater Recharge x
Low Flow Augmentation X
Aesthetics/Recreation x
Shoreland Anchoring x
Wildlife Habitat x
Fisheries Habitat X
Rare Plant/Animal Habitat x
Commercial Uses x
6. For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater
level? Yes ( ) No (x) See attached comments. Replacement plan as proposed in February 15,
2005 application has limited potential for success as a functional wetland.
7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.?
Yes() No (x)
If no, why.) See attached comments.
8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decisio4ist consensus, note with an a erisk and explain on the back of this page)
. N/A
GL resentative (Date DNR Representative (Date)
SWCD Representative (Date) resentative a e) 0`1
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
Comments
The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) met to review a revised Wetland Replacement Plan Application dated
February 15, 2005. This revised Application included a wetland fill reduction of 0.21 acre to Wetland D and two
on-site compensatory mitigation proposals. The meeting included an on-site investigation and review of proposed
mitigation areas by TEP members, followed by an office meeting with the applicant's consultants. The following
items were discussed and are recommended by the TEP:
WCA Application and Notification Process
• The original Application dated May 5, 2004 may still be relevant to Minn. Statute 15.99 since it has not
been officially withdrawn by the applicant, or approved or denied by the City of Eagan.
• The revised Application was "Noticed" under WCA Rules and states that this new Replacement Plan
Application supercedes the original application.
WCA Sequencing Requirements
• The revised Application does not require additional TEP recommendations regarding WCA sequencing
requirements because it involves less wetland impact.
• The TEP understands that the project site is proposed to be zoned residential and the development
proposal is within allowable density requirements set by the City of Eagan.
• The TEP would prefer to see Wetland D excavated and used for stormwater management. This would
increase wetland impacts back to the original amount proposed. However, it would create a better
grading plan from a storm water management perspective. While this degraded wetland could be
partially avoided, the TEP strongly believes that loss of contributing watershed area, sediment
accumulation, and vegetative alteration on private lots will cumulatively impact the wetland over time,
resulting in its loss or diminished value. Excavation of this wetland would improve the site's capacity
for trreatment of stormwater and reduce the extent of upslope grading, while mitigating its loss would
assure that other lost functions and values are replaced.
Compensatory Mitigation
• The TEP does not concur with the revised Application, which includes on-site wetland replacement, for
the following reasons:
1. Additional loss of significant trees within proposed Mitigation Area 1;
2. Proposed mitigation areas do not take advantage of naturally occurring hydrogeomophological
conditions;
3. Proposed Mitigation Area 2 does not have a high likelihood of becoming a functioning
wetland due to the need for continued maintenance to remove sediment loading. This would
likely result in the wetland functioning as a storm pond;
4. Both mitigation areas require significant landscape alterations. WCA Rule (8420.0543 C 1)
specifies that wetland mitigation should "take advantage of naturally occurring
hydrogeomorphological conditions and require minimal landscape alteration";
5. Significant retaining walls in excess of 12 feet would need to be erected along Mitigation Area
2. In addition to safety concerns, this would prohibiting flora transition and fauna movement,
and would not result in a naturally occurring wetland; and
6. WCA Rule (8420.0547 Subp. 2) requires that "Restoration and replacement of wetlands must
be accomplished according to the ecology of the landscape area affected. A replacement plan
that would result in wetlands or wetland characteristics that do not naturally occur in the
landscape area in which the replacement will occur will not be approved." The TEP does not
believe the proposed created wetlands would result in desired characteristics of a replacement
wetland under WCA Rules. Due to the topography and other site-specific constraints, it is
very questionable that a fully functioning wetland could be created on-site within the context
of the proposed activity and future land use.
• According to WCA Rule (8420.0543) the first priority for wetland replacement siting is on-site or in
the same minor watershed as the impact when "reasonable, practicable, and environmentally beneficial
replacement opportunities" are available. However, WCA recognizes that on-site replacement is not
always appropriate due to individual site constraints.
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota EWCD C:) 0
• The TEP provides the following as genera l guidance to determine the appropriateness of on-site
wetland replacement at individual project sites:
1. Avoid impacts to significant trees or other ecologically significant resources;
2. Avoid excavating steep slopes and rolling topography to create wetland conditions;
3. Seek areas with soil properties that have natural water holding capabilities;
4. Wetland impacts in excess of one acre should generally be constructed on-site, to the extent
that site constraints reasonably allow; and
5. Avoid sites adjacent to future infrastructure such as roads or potential building expansions.
If requested by the City, more specific guidance can be developed with the assistance of the TEP..
Local wetland management plans can be developed and used to prioritize local wetland protection
efforts and to facilitate local replacement opportunities.
• After reviewing the revised Application and all supplemental information provided, the TEP believes
the use of a wetland bank for New Wetland Credit creates the best ecological solution to replacing
impacted wetlands within the Steeplechase Development. This would allow for maintenance of water
quality and floodwater storage functions on-site through stormwater treatment facilities with
replacement of wetland functions at a more conducive location. The TEP believes this is the best
option to ensure that lost wetland functions and values are adequately replaced under WCA Rules.
Other Comments
• Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and to
comply with relevant MPCA Rules.
• Any on-site wetland replacement (New Wetland Credit Only) that may be approved by the City of Eagan
should still be the responsibility of the applicant to monitor and be in compliance with WCA Rules.
Drafted by Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD
U-4
Proposed 37' driveway
y
length (26' Setback). i
Additional 5', Reduces U-1
Setback to LP7.2.
30' 30'
U -2 BA K ` SETBACK
5
These 3 trees may be lost by
pushing Unit 14 back 5'. U-3
41 AK' Proposed 25' driveway length
(14-
433 ASH, GREEN 7.5- 8
461 OAK RED 25' 4-~ Setback). Additional 16', Reduces
:I Setback to LP7.2, adds 768 SF of
poem nt.
U-1
Pg9p i;
U-1 U=2
These 5 trees may be lost
- '
pushing Unit 13 bock 16'. l(
U-2 U-
J- C
U3 U.
POND LP-7.2 ) - , -
3 NWL=919.0 ) 30'
S TBAtrK
n
HWL=939.7 { - -
C
N C /
3
D
5t- IT
x -
0
93 ~ / 1
NORTH . U-2
l
ti
d4 > { T
0 ( 3 Proposed 25 driveway length (11'
0 7 1 r U-3 Setbock).Additionol 19', Reduces
s \ 1 Setback to LP7.2 to 25', odds 768
9F of pavement.
o - 272 OAK. BUR .0 4
m 0 50 1 00 273 CHERRY. BLACK SS" 7
o 274 OAK, BUR 8.5* 5
These 7 trees will be lost 275 Eu+, AMERICAN 14.0' 4
'3 SCALE IN FEET 276 ELM, AMERICAN 20 6
E - by pushing Unit 12 bock 16'. 277 OAK, RED 13• 4
280 ASPEN 13' 6
e
m Duluth. MN SHEET 9
~ lbhly. YN
N .e. Lek.. MN STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN 1 /5
N R.LK Y(io B mlenlu, MN
sv~o [rZD PPu~ OW-1153 PROJECT
_.rlk_kuwd t- em SETBACK EXHIBIT 2003730M
e
E 5110 Blu. Circle Dr.- Suite 9100• Ml.uet.nk.. MK 55143
I f
I Ups r rVIVU 4 ti
NWL=938.5
HWL=941.3
30'
SETBACK
` Proposed 25' driveway length. (14'
~ltic Setback) Additional 16'. Reduces
oSetbock to SWM POND #6 TO 30', \
odds 768 SF of pavement.
46 POND 6
U-1 L NWL=938.\
f
1 , HWL=941.3
U 1
These trees may be lost by pushing
Unit 10 bock 16'.
1 ~'e t1 AK. RED 1 1 513
U-3 519 BLACK CHERRY 6' 4
1 4
U-4 t
30
N
s SETBACK
POND 5
0
~ 5' NWL=9-31
HWL=94'
U_2 L
0
rn d G
U-3
M NORTH
r
i
M
O `
1000,
O
N
C r
Proposed 30' driveway length (17'
u
Setback). Additional 13', Reduces
m Setback to Wetlond C and odds
0 50 100 528 SF of pavement. 31V.67
SCALE IN FEET S89 "4229 "W
m
Drluth. YN SHEET I
Ham lako.
o ~T TK~ R14eluS. YN
R 'M YN STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN 2/5
N ice' N((too)eteeka. YN
n ® PPex (SS6E)Ouz-OM
1161 PROJECT t
. .r1k-kaUx6Mtzeom _ _ SETBACK EXHIBIT 2003730M
Z SILO Blue tlr¢He Dr.- ftIt& 1100• Ylooetnoka. YK 6630 l - _ - - " '
COP /e
Proposed 26' driveway length.
dditionol 15', Reduces Setback to IV4 and
C TO 36', adds 768 SF of pavement.
r- Proposed 29' driveway length. (15'
Setback) Additional 15'. Reduces
i Setback to Wetlond C TO 54', adds
768 SF, shes Bld 9 South, losing -
6' 4 trees.
30'
SETBACK V
00,
( J ~~`il
SETBA~
%
550 BLACK CHERRY 9 30'
551 OAK. BUR 16.5' 6
O/
552 OAK, BUR 15.5' 6 SETBA
f(F ~k 7~ r
c ~7
<41
N
p "x
}
1 Proposed 25' driveway length (14' , - ' lot -
CSetback). Additional 16', Reduces
Setback to SWM POND #4, adds
)_768 SF , causes the proposed wall
?to increase from 8' mox height to
r 13' height.
Jay _
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
a
Q UM.
Rom Laka. MN SHEET
RLK Ylna.1mkii. STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN 3/5
1109CM1111111TO ian Per t 107 PROJECT
. .,1k-ruu*.w.e*m SETBACK EXHIBIT 2003730M
M 0110 &w Circle Dr.- Suite 0100• Ylnsdeolu. MN 6617
2 20 i
~7
4
1 .
&I
_n-
I
Any chance of saving these
3 trees will be lost by
pushing bock Bldg 6.
Buac cHERRY 1 4 `
,°a 769 BLnCK CHERRY
774 DAK, WHILE 17.5' 7
Proposed 30' driveway length.
t!
x ~
o .r .
o
Proposed 25' driveway length (14'
Setback). Additional 16', adds 768 SF.
Also, causes setback problems from
Idg 2
n
n
n O
o
o
i
u j
c
m ~ n.
0 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
Ham Lake. MN SHEET
RT K Mlnkblkke.NK STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN 4/5
aw... ION 933-OM PROJECT
.rtY-k,.W.Wa ~ SETBACK EXHIBIT 2003730M
:2. 8110 Blue Clrele Dr, Sidle 0100• Minnetonka, MN 55M
' N I
co
` N
, 1
Proposed 25' driveway length (14' to / \
Setback). Additional 16', Reduces
Setback to SWM LP56 adds 768
SF, and one tree will be lost.
30'
Proposed minimum 33 & 37' SETBACK
' driveway length. Additional setb -
Reduces Setback to LHRP. '
I ~
Proposed minimum 32' driveway
length (21' Setback). Additional E
r setback, increases pavement.. f
I :C ' Q~ ~ V N
3
N
o j
v
PARK
i PROPERTY
/ 30' LINE
L SETBACK
764 OAK, WHITE 6'
T co (V 806 CHERRY, BLACK 10, 6
807 ELM. AMERICAN 18' 3
808 OAK. BUR 1B, 4
% 809 OAK, RED 9.5 4
i i
o 810 CHERRY. BLACK 13.5' 6
811 OAK. WHITE 17' 6
812 OAK, RED 16' 4
813 OAK. WHITE 16.5' 5
n
N V
d N
M
o (Y) These 8 trees are in jeopardy by 050 1 0
pushing Bldg 5 back 9', also more
slope impact. SCALE IN FE
a
m
DWW6 MN SHEET 0
o glbllnj, YN
N."I bim MN STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN 5/5
N R T K 111120luoke. MN
n M>oun1o i1m PPee: I,=1 PROJECT
m.rMC-tuuzixto m SETBACK EXHIBIT 2003730M
0
M 6110 Blue Circle Dr.- Suit* /100• Minbtt"Ito. MN 6&U3 {{.~7r ff n
l
41 FOOT DRIVE
R3 STANDARD SETBACK
w
N
CL
25 FOOT DRIVE
PROPOSAL MINIMUM
N ¢ i
x
1
N
:P
3
O p
V !
Y
a
O
L
1
C
O
N
O_
L
W
i
3030 FOOT DRIVE
STAFF SUGGESTED MINIMUM
V
/ y
U ' !
C ~
N ~ L
L 1
O ~
n
d
0 40 80
E SCALE IN FEET
0
n
K Etbbift. STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN SHEET 1#
f ~i; ~a-11 PROJECT ~
-VER3,~m DRIVEWAY LENGTH EXHIBIT 2003730M
0
S 6110 Btw mraie Dr.- adt1 poo- ttinnetonka, um 5""
SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY
& MOLENDA, P.A.
TO: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director
FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney
DATE: April 14, 2005
RE: Toll Brothers - Steeplechase
Our File No. 206-22398
Recently, a resident provided the City with a series of articles concerning substandard
construction of houses by Toll Brothers, the developer of Steeplechase. You have submitted the
materials to our office for review and comment as to what consideration, if any, the City should
give to the information contained within the articles. Basically, the articles have no relevance to
the City's consideration of Toll Brothers application.
The City of Eagan's development process requires that all applicants provide the City with
substantial security to assure compliance with all requirements and permits. During the
construction process, the City routinely inspects the site to assure that development requirements
and standards are being met. The security posted by the developer is not released until all of the
obligations have been performed to the satisfaction of the City. In addition, the City obtains
warranty bonds to assure that public improvements that are installed work properly.
While Toll Brothers is the proposed developer of the Steeplechase site, there is no requirement or
expectation that it shall be the builder within the development. Nevertheless, all building
contractors within the State of Minnesota must post a bond with the State as a condition to
obtaining a license. The purpose of the bond is to create a recovery fund for those homeowners
who qualify as victims of poor construction. The City of Eagan does not license builders or
contractors. Anyone who has a house being built should require that the contractor be licensed
by the State of Minnesota.
MGD/j It
cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Mike Ridley, City Planner
Page 1 of 1
Julie Strid
From: Sharonholbeck@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:48 AM
To: Julie Strid
Subject: Steeplechase development attn: Julie
To the members of the Advisory Planning Commission: Karla Heyl, Dewey Bendt, Ted Gladhill, Gary Hansen,
Steven Chavez, Paul Leeder, Peter Dugan, Jenifer Matthees
When considering the issue of the Steeplechase development this week, I ask you to consider these issues:
1. The problems associated with this development are essentially three: density, environment, and traffic. I see
these three as points of a triangle, and I place density at the top of the triangle because it so profoundly affects
the other two. If density is lowered, the impacts on environment (tree removal, impervious surface, etc.) and
traffic concerns are decreased.
2. 1 strongly object to the characterization of wetland LP7.2 which appears in the EAW. It states that due to
previous pollution, LP7.2 has little value for wildlife. That simply is not true!
We residents have worked for years with the city water quality people to improve the status of the pond. In the
absence of manure run-off, the pond has been recovering steadily. Today water clarity is very good, according to
a recent test, and wildlife is abundant.
Further, this wetland has legal status. LP72 is a class IV wetland. It must be protected!
We, who live beside the pond, own property in and around LP7.2. It is private property, and the builder cannot
degrade the quality of this beautiful wetland with development which doesn't consider the existing neighborhood,
an appropriate easement between buildings and the pond, and the preservation of trees.
Please check with Eric MacBeth about the state classification of LP7.2, its legal status, and its value for wildlife.
3. All along we have heard that city planners always intended to connect the Brittany and Steeplechase
commmunities with a Wellington Way extension. But they didn't inform the engineers who designed Sherwood
Way of their plan. It was not designed to carry high-volume traffic.
There is no off-street parking on Sherwood, except in driveways, and vehicles must park in traffic lanes. Passing
vehicles need to enter the on-coming lane in order to procede, and on a curving, hilly road, this is already a
difficult situation. There is pedestrian traffic, especially school children going to and from the bus stops. The
addition of many vehicle trips a day will create a nightmare!
When the inevitable tragic accident occurs because of this ill-conceived plan, who will bear responsibility?
Opening Wellington Way and Sherwood Way to traffic from Steeplechase would be a serious mistake.
Thank you for considering these very important concerns.
Eagan resident and long-time neighbor of Diamond T, Sharon Holbeck
/ 9~1~
Page 1 of 2
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:16 AM
To: Mike Ridley; Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: [stonecliffe] Diamond T
Please retain for the Council packet and for a supplemental distribution tomorrow evening.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
ihohenstein (a)cit oy feagan.com
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:14 AM
To: City Council; Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein
Subject: FW: [stonecliffe] Diamond T
-----Original Message-----
From: teresa.pojman@comcast.net [mailto:teresa.pojman@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: [stonecliffe] Diamond T
We have gotten quite a few positive comments regarding the extension of Wellington Way with the new
development of Steeplechase. These have been forwarded previously to the Dakota County Commissioners.
We want to be sure the City also has copies of the emails received.
Good luck, and if you have any questions, please let us know.
Tony and Teresa Pojman
1492 Sherwood Way
From: mom79@comcast.net [mailto:mom79@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:01 PM
To: 'nancy.schouweiler@co.dakota.mn.us'
Subject: FW: [stonecliffe] Diamond T
From: SueHanegan@aol.com [mailto:SueHanegan@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:27 PM
n~il,~ in nnc
Page 2 of 2
To: mom79@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [stonecliffe] Diamond T
Well at first we were leaning towards the no vote but after doing a little research we felt the traffic problem
seemed exaggerated and we have to agree with you about the emergency vehicles and also snow plowing in
the winter. The easier we make it for these vehicles to enter our area the better our neighborhood can be
served. I know change is difficult for everybody but it was a planned development and we all knew it would
happen eventually. We would favor the road going through.
Steve and Susan Burdorf
1520 Thomas Lane
a ~a
n-,r~~ ~~nnc
Page 1 of 2
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:17 AM
To: Sheila Cartney; Mike Ridley
Subject: FW: Wellington in Agreement with Extension - Steeplechase
Please print and compile with the other one.
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
johenstein ci ofea an.com
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:41 AM
To: Tom Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pat Geagan; Cyndee Fields; Peggy Carlson; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire
Subject: FW: Wellington in Agreement with Extension - Steeplechase
-----Original Message-----
From: teresa.pojman@comcast.net [mailto:teresa.pojman@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:07 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Wellington in Agreement with Extension - Steeplechase
We have gotten quite a few positive comments regarding the extension of Wellington Way with the new
development of Steeplechase. These have been forwarded previously to the Dakota County Commissioners.
We want to be sure the City also has copies of the emails received.
Good luck, and if you have any questions, please let us know.
Tony and Teresa Pojman
1492 Sherwood Way
From: Martis [mailto:jrmartis@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 1:56 PM
To: mom79@comcast.net
Subject: Wellington
Hi,
Yes, we were also told when we bought our lot that Wellington was planned on being a through-street when the
Diamond T property sold. We looked into this. I also believe traffic would be more likely to flow out of our
neighborhood rather than the other way around. Few people would enter this neighborhood just to have to wind
their way out to a major street. I think it would be beneficial to have Wellington pass through to Pilot Knob.
Thanks,
a a~
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:38 PM
To: Mike Ridley; Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Wellington Way cul-de-sac
I am clearing emails and didn't see where I had forwarded this one yet. Let's add it to
the stack. Thanks.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
jhohenstein@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira McGarvey
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Torn Hedges; Jon Hohenstein; Pat Geagan; Cyndee Fields; Peggy Carlson; Meg Tilley; Mike
Maguire
Subject: FW: Wellington Way cul-de-sac
-----Original Message-----
From: John McCarthy [mailto:j_mac41@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wellington Way cul-de-sac
To:Pat Geagan, Peggy Carlson, Cyndee Fields, Mike Maguire, Meg Tilley, John
Hohnstein
Greetings.
First of all, so you don't attach undue importance to this e-mail, I am not
one of the famous Irish McCarthys of Eagan; the ones that lakes and roads
are named after. Rather, I am one of the bicycle Irish McCarthys of eagan;
the ones that are a pain in the butt.
That being said, here is another e-mail about the proposed Wellington Way
cul-de-sac extension in connection with the Diamond-T development. I was one
of the people who went door-to-door with the petition opposing the
extension. The streets I was assigned were Shevlin Ct., Norwood Dr.and
Sheffield Ln. (and their courts and circles). These three streets all
connect with Sherwood Way at the far West end down by Johnny Cake Ridge
Road. (Wellington Way connects to Sherwood Way at the East end). You know
from the number of signitures that the extension is not popular. But there
is quite a bit of emotion behind those signitures too. I was suprised at the
number of people who were not only hospitable once they knew the purpose of
my visit, but also the number of people who would take time to talk about
it, expresss their concerns, and relate stories about traffic in their
neighborhoods. Several times when people saw me approaching with the
petitions in my hand they would initially either walk away or turn their
backs and say they were not interested. But when I said it had to do with
connecting Sherwood Way to Pilot Knob via Wellington Way they were all ears
and eager to sign.
With this e-mail I just wanted to let you know or reinforce the fact that
0?
there is a lot of feeling that goes along with the hard numbers of the
petitions.
Thank you,
John McCarthy
1515 Wellington Way
Eagan, Mn 55122
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/O1/
~2~ ~ji
Page 1 of 2
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 1:53 PM
To: Sheila Cartney; Mike Ridley
Subject: FW: council member Peggy Carlson
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
johenstein flcityofeagan.com
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 1:51 PM
To: 'Brad Moir'
Subject: RE: council member Peggy Carlson
Your messages have been forwarded to the Mayor and all Councilmembers, as well as the Community
Development Director. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Moir [mailto:bramoi@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: council member Peggy Carlson
ce: retention of Wellington Way
I am not clear as to the current status and possible solutions of the above issue.
I would ask you as a member of the city council to restate your support and to take a leadership role in
representing the neighborhoods opposition against opening Wellington Way. As has been stated before,
neighbors have lived here for 18 yrs with absolutely no fire or police safety issues. This is also true of
the many many culdesacs that make up unique areas in Eagan. We were also totally unaffected by the
"100 yr flood" a few yrs ago - largely because of the elevation. As you know the streets in the area,
especially Sherwood Way and Wellington Way are very windy with no sidewalks. It is dangerous
enough with current traffic patterns, to walk these areas (especilly at night) or if there are parked cars to
walk around - which there usually is. Having an increase of triple digit % of more traffic would severely
worsen the problem. There was no implication that this is any thing other than a culdesac - legally, or
implied by the city, real estate people or original developers. Like other culdesac residents, we choose
this as an alternative lifestye to living on a busy street. Crime is less, traffic is less and the area is
quieter. These are the things we value the most and property values also reflect this, visa virsa, the same
house on a through street.
My first question that I would like you to respond to is where do you stand on this issue and a short
reason why? Also, if you are for leaving WW as is, what will you do to make sure we are represented in
03/29/2005
Page L or
county and any other discussions to get this resolved in a satisfacrory way ( to make sure it stays as a
culdesac in this and any futrure plan)?
When I went to the county meeting, they deliberated, after listening to neighbors concerns - that this was
never "filed" to be an extension and sefety of current residents is not a problem.
They did specifically say that this development needs another "emergency access onto Pilot Knob in
case a gas tanker blows up in the entrance". They wanted the city and developer to work out alternatives
and get back to them. This would be needed only in an emergency situation.
This request seemed very clear to me. My other question is what alternatives have been proposed and
what is the status of the discussions?
Continent - I think a common sense solution would be to have a 8-10' wide bike path double as an
emergency only access keeping the neighbors and county happy. What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you for you quick and thoughtful responce to these questions.
Brad Moir
1510 Wellington Way
651-452-8080
C:~~C6
03/29/2005
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Mira Pepper
Cc: Mike Ridley; Sheila Cartney
Subject: RE: Diamond T Development and Wellington Way
Mira,
Both. In keeping with the past practice, I think you need to send it out, noting that you
have also sent it to me. We will then include it as one of the background attachments for
next week's meeting. Thanks.
Sheila,
Please include it with the April 5 packet.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
jhohenstein@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:15 AM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Subject: FW: Diamond T Development and Wellington Way
Jon,
I haven't forwarded this to Council. Should I? or... do you want to send it (along with
any others) out in the packet.
Mira
-----Original Message-----
From: Hewitt, Jean Marie (Jean) [mailto:jeanschneider@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:26 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Jean Marie Hewitt (Jean) (E-mail); jameschewitt@earthlink.net
Subject: Diamond T Development and Wellington Way
Dear Eagan City Council Members,
I understand that you will be voting on whether Wellington Way remains a cul-de-sac or
becomes a through street.
Our family moved into the cul-de-sac on Wellington Court in June of 2004.
We bought this home and moved into this house because we wanted a quiet
neighborhood with low traffic. We were devastated when we heard of the
potential plans for Wellington Way. We have children and are concerned for their safety
should this become a through street. In addition, we are do not want the amount of
traffic and high noise this would create. We also feel that this would also decrease the
value of our home. I would think you wouldn't want this type of thing to happen to you.
We don't feel that there is a need for a through street to Pilot Knob and we strongly ask
and urge you to vote to keep Wellington Way a cul-de-sac.
Thank you very much for your consideration!
Should Wellington Way be made a through street, we would not feel comfortable supporting
you in future elections.
James and Jean Hewitt
4660 Wellington Court
Eagan, MN 55122
651-454-3677
2 JS
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Sheila Cartney; Mike Ridley
Subject: FW: Diamond T Proposal
For the packet on the 19th.
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
jhohenstein@cityofeagan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:49 PM
To: 'Clemens, Kristine'
Subject: RE: Diamond T Proposal
Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council as well as the Community
Development Director. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clemens, Kristine [mailto:Kristine.Clemens@thomson.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:42 PM
To: Pat Geagan; Meg Tilley; Mike Maguire; Peggy Carlson; Cyndee Fields
Cc: Clemens, Kristine
Subject: Diamond T Proposal
Good Afternoon,
This letter is to inform you that as a homeowner in the Brittany neighborhood, I oppose
the Toll Brothers Diamond T development proposal for the following reasons:
1) Wellington Way Extension
we bought our home 1 1/2 years ago because it is located in a safe, low-traffic, quiet
neighborhood, perfect for raising children. If Wellington Way is extended to Pilot Knob
Road, there will be increased traffic, noise and crime in our neighborhood, guaranteed.
There are no sidewalks on Sherwood Way. In it's current state, the winding roads and
hills make it very difficult to see people and children on the streets while driving
through the neighborhood. With increased traffic and no plans for sidewalks, the
possibility of accidents will increase. I believe there are other alternative route
designs that can be built into the developer's plan without connecting to Wellington Way.
These alternatives may not be as profitable for the developer, but the neighbors should
not be penalized.
Please put yourself in our shoes and think about how you would feel if, after living 18
quiet years on a cul-de-sac, the city voted to change the life-style you have come to know
and love due to a lack of communication between the developer/city and the owners.
2) Tree Mitigation
I think it is absolutely unforgiving to approve a plan that includes the removal of 72.7%
(548) of the trees when the guidelines call for 40%. The answer is not a tree mitigation
plan. I believe the developer should be required to create a plan around the guideline of
40%. It is difficult to accept that 548 beautiful trees will be cut down and replaced by
6' trees purely to line the developer's pocket.
3) Site Condition
Regarding the clean up of the site, why isn't the responsibility on the current owner of
the property? They are the ones responsible for abusing the land and should therefore be
responsible for taking care of the problem.
go?
Moreover, why is the condition of the site such a huge concern now when the city and
neighbors have been fully aware of this issue that has gone on for years? Why wasn't it
important to get the site cleaned up before it was for sale? It seems to me that the city
is settling on a plan with the main goal of cleaning up the site.
4) Conservation Easement
I believe that building the condominiums so close to the pond as planned will seriously
interrupt the nature and wildlife in that area and increase the run off to LP7 causing
potential flooding issues for the neighbors on Wellington Circle and Knottingham Circle.
In closing, I am not opposed to the site being developed. However, I am opposed to the
current development proposal because it is not beneficial for the city, the neighboring
areas or the site. This is one of the last large parcels of land in Eagan. I urge you to
wait until a plan that meets the needs and desires of the city and neighboring areas is
proposed, one that includes alternatives to the extension of Wellington Way and less
disturbance of the land, trees and wildlife.
And in the meantime, force the current owner to clean up the site!
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kristine Clemens
Page 1 of 2
Sheila Cartney
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:58 PM
To: Mike Ridley; Sheila Cartney
Subject: FW: Pat Geagan, Mayor
FYI for the packet.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
iohenstein@cityofeagan.com
From: Mira Pepper
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:38 PM
To: 'Brad Moir'
Subject: RE: Pat Geagan, Mayor
Your message has been forwarded to the Mayor and City Council, as well as the Community Development
Director. Thank you for your comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Moir [mailto:bramoi@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Pat Geagan, Mayor
Re: Steeple Chase: Maximizing townhouse units on the most environmentally sensitive areas
We need to seriously rethink the impact that this proposed development has on this property, the LP-7
pond and the neighbors.
I live on and (like it or not) own part of LP-7 pond. Tonight in 10 minutes time I watched a pair of
Canadian geese and mallard ducks land in the pond, along with muskrat swimming along the shore.
I am very concerned that the increase of impervious surface area so close to the pond is going to affect
the quality of water. This combined with a natural buffer of only 30' from the pond is a formula for
worsening the condition of the pond. The EAW recommended an average of 100' set back and a "do not
disturb' treatment of existing land by the pond. This was done for a good reason. Even the DNR
requires a similar set back and a "do not disturb" policy on the current land by a lake if anyone wants to
build on a lake lot.
Does this mean that if my house was blown away by a tornado that I could rebuild 30' from LP-& as the
proposed townhouses allow for? That too would be a terrible policy!
Lets bring some common sense to this plan. I ask you to support that whoever builds her be require to
all
04/12/2005
Page 2 of 2
have an avera e set back of 100' minimum from LP-7. I also do not want to look at (3) 58' wide walls of
townhouses side by side spaced by 20'? in between, that are only 30-40' from the pond. The
environmental and asthetic reasons should be enough to override the developers obvious reason for
pursuing so many townhouses in the most environmentally sensitive area of the proprerty that is
economics only
Money in exchange for environmental harm is never a good trade off. Please remember who you are
representing- the neighbors of this propert and the people of Eagan. We deserve to have this developed
more sensibly!
Thank you,
Brad Moir
1510 Wellington Way
1
04/12/2005
Dear Eagan City Council Member
We are writing to you on behalf of the Diamond T Coalition in regards to the Steeplechase
development. In this letter we would like to present some new data relative to the
Wellington Way extension issue. The data explores two viewpoints centered on precedence
of similar situations: one with no connection, and one with a bike trail connection.
Investigation into single-access neighborhoods within Dakota County and Eagan has found
multiple existing situations which mirror/exceed the Steeplechase proposal.
• Lake Shore Terrace (see photo A) - 75 homes with one access point. Located
behind Cub Foods in Eagan.
• Eagandale Place off of Co Rd 26 (Lone Oak Rd) - Services Joe Sensers, Hampton
Inn (122 rooms), Residence Inn (120 rooms), Farm Bureau Insurance, Lone Oak
Plaza strip mall, and Lemay Lake apartments (282 units) - ALL FROM ONE
ACCESS POINT.
• Parc Drive in Burnsville (see photo B) -116 single family homes compiled of
multiple cul-de-sacs, all using the same access point off Burnsville Parkway.
Bonnie Buck with the Burnsville City Engineering department stated that the city of
Burnsville had no concerns with this neighborhood having one access point.
As you know the neighbors that live in and near Wellington Way are whole heartedly
opposed to a through street connection. However we also acknowledge the positions being
taken by city staff and Dakota County. With that in mind we offer the option of a bike trail
connection. Examples of bike paths that serve as emergency evacuation include:
• Wescott Woodlands / Westcott Hills Drive (see photos C & D) - A wide gravel
bake path that connects two streets and uses wood posts to prevent motorized
vehicle access. Eagan Fire Trucks are equipped with chain saws capable of quickly
removing the posts should emergency evacuation be needed.
• Granada Avenue in Cottage Grove (see attached letter and photos E & F). Richard
Abel. contacted our coalition when he read of our plight to retain our cul-de-sac. His
similar situation resulted in a bike path connection between two neighborhoods,
both with one access point to a county road.
In closing we are concerned that the perceived lack of communication and cooperation
between government entities involved will result in an unsatisfactory or hasty decision. We
are hopeful that the new information provided here can be used to explore viable
alternatives to opening Wellington Way. Please let us know if there is anything we can do
to help facilitate the lines of communication between Dakota County and City of Eagan.
We prefer to find a solution that meets the needs of all concerned stakeholders.
Regards,
Keith and Tina 1C~IeikleJ'ohn A.X
1511 Wellington Way
Diamond T Coalition members
33 Enclosures: See map on backside, Photos,
c= w
t
R-6, Rd S
"m r 'r~ ys > bAcU
` Ec. una ftG C _ Z ?4•l: S: Cl 5 A'o•,/
Q x ` SA
N o. W` :J` p Y'v 31,u. r:uad Ln S'S 411`
y y Vdccc~:[l Hi---s Di
~ ~ 6 3y~ U ~ 9MDAe-~,
r S iJ G~e _0 Timycl Rldy= Ts S
tiV
VJ n ° _
ShclrnvY]:1.t Ct =o
C
3:ccnst o!o 01 L"' h ~N ''Yb- Co
cu 14,
L, VIA
000 a~U C :IA's Pn„'1'd vY
} l - w
0 _ ~ ` o n`9 kursl aN Avc - ~
U ~AV; an J d ~r~, O; ~T D-.ry'on Avc
o go r Ci
V
CD
V /
u Avc
~jC J G
~ 0- O ~ ] ~4 ❑ is
_ ~ ~a^S
U L ~o
3
cv O P = ~ ~
1~ aw:A•~ -,j3
. - J ~b ) 4~ ~7ad c.'nblelH Z
YC rP
~4-
a ° c y
_ 40
E- °L a
950
t 4 E C~
m Q 4 p v
I- j ¢y /JA° q~
L ~mb o6 ~`b v v
❑ CU
_ N J ray n
1
o g 2y 5
[L gall $i Cl
S ~ x R
in ~ a = 3
J J
m r
`c g~rdu'.r PI U nl~~ E! uckl.lra d
Wj~ P''18 'IPIwpEn3 (cV Y Fax Ralyc Rd
2 rJ
PoPPICI Ln W iu~ d 3 ? Vie)
LL. u npm~lne ti ry 4h:~ O Ar a yyJ
aAb IK, W
I S6
{s1•:•a c - _ O J c'~ Sao .c g
L7 ss J > T ~ - - l~ 'acq!n a~ y Yi E
-m ~ r Sl~c'ds C:1 o a « 'A p '~F aA~~ o4a u
(6 k; Pa aah+ wee
?L Pov;wancal Y p ll❑ pur~gf,0
l C 'J. G • V .'~_I HId L•t ~
' c- Py .njept a L•
Richard W. Abel
7465 Granada Bay South
Cottage Grove, Minnesota ,
651-459-4801
April 3, 2005
Ms. Tina Meiklejohn
1511 Wellington Way
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Tina:
I am writing as a follow-up to our previous conversations. I hope this letter will explain
the process our neighborhood went through, and the results achieved, as a result of
development next to our properties that called for expansion of Granada Bay into a
through street.
Our neighborhood, and Granada Avenue, is only accessible from Couniy Road 22. The
existing neighborhood is extremely safe. There is,very little crime, noise or traffic.
When Pulte Homes purchased the property east of this neighborhood in 2002 a through
street was proposed into the new development from Granada Avenue, on what was
formerly a T-road. As a neighborhood, residents felt that the more entrances and exits
into a neighborhood the more at risk the neighborhood is for an increase in traffic,
vandalism, crime and a decrease in relative safety of the residents.
Our neighbors and I were opposed to the opening of the street. We felt that it would be a
huge safety issue to open the street, there would be more traffic on streets without
sidewalks that were not designed to handle above a certain amount of traffic, and less
safety as the street became the means to another destination. Our streets were planned
and developed with bends and curves to serve as a traffic calming measure. These same
bends and curves made the streets more dangerous to an increase in traffic flow.
When we reviewed the plan put forward by the builders the neighbors called the city,to
request a meeting with Council members. We invited Council members to our.
neighborhood for a visit. After the visit and during the ensuing discussion the Council
agreed that opening the street would take away from the uniqueness of the neighborhood,
increase traffic and crime in our area, while decreasing safety. _
However, the City Planner was concerned about issues related to emergency access. He
felt that the development of an emergency access point was necessary in the unlikely
event of neighborhood evacuation.
After much discussion with current residents, the police chief, the fire chief, and City
Council members it was decided that a wide bike trail would be installed. This trail
would only be accessible to bikes and pedestrian traffic unless an evacuation emergency
occurred.
a3
• - r
Ti
As a result of the development of the path the neighborhood has not had any problems
with motor scooters, snowmobiles, or other motorized vehicles trying to use the path,
The police department has assured us that if vehicles begin to use the path they would
monitor the area and/or set a squad car at one end of the path to deter traffic.
Residents on both sides of the bike path are very pleased with the results. The City and
the Pulte Builders provided for landscaping and the planting of shrubs, etc. Rather than
develop a through street that would have been less attractive and less safe, both
neighborhoods now have an aesthetically pleasing path that brings us together in a natural
setting. In addition, the values of our properties, on both sides of the path, are maximized
by what has become a win-win solution for all concerned.
Following are pictures of each end of the path. While it looks great now, in another
month or so the natural beauty of a Minnesota spring will make this an even greater
addition to the neighborhood.
I originally contacted members of your neighborhood group because I felt your
experiences so closely reflected ours of just a few years ago. I hope our experiences can
,
be used in helping the neighbors of Wellington Way, the City of Eagan, and Dakota
County come to an acceptable -solution for all involved in your debate regarding
Wellington Way.
I've enjoyed the opportunity -to speak With you and some of your neighbors. Good luck
in your efforts. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely Yours,
Rich and W. Abel
t.
1
4/13/05
Re: Proposed Steeplechase Development
Dear Mayor Geagan:
My name is Dee Bass and I live at 4880 Knottingham Circle. This property is on the
edge of, and includes a portion of, pond LP7.2. The purpose of this letter is to address
the issue of the conservation easement on LP7.2. As of 7/04 this easement was 11 Oft and
now it is much less. I am 9roviding this information now, so you will have it before the
council meeting on the 19 .
Establishment of 110ft Conservation Easement on LP7.2
I understand there may be a question as to whether there ever was a 11Oft conservation
easement on LP7.2. While the width of l l Oft is not directly linked to the conservation
easement in a staff report, it is clearly documented in:
-the difference in townhome setback between the 5/04 report and 7/04 report
-planning commission video tape
-EAW
This documentation is as follows...
7/27/04 Planning Report:
page 19, item 23 - "The development shall dedicate a conservation easement to
the City over that portion of the site, as seen in Exhibit 12, `Conservation
Easement'. The conditions of said easement to be in a form acceptable to City
Attorney, pending approval of the City Council."
Exhibit 12 includes LP7.2. While the declaration of a 1 IOft easement width is not
stated here, the condition requiring the easement is. The declaration of the
averagel l Oft easement is made in the following verbal presentation as well
documented in that portion of the development plan which refers to townhome
setbacks.
I reviewed the video tapes of the following: 7/27/04 Planning Commission Meeting,
1/05 City Council Meeting and 2/05 City Council Meeting.
7/27/04 Planning Commission Meeting:
Joey Zorn (within the first 15 minutes of his initial presentation for the development plan):
"We have adjusted the townhomes away from LP7.2 for an average setback of 11 Oft.
However, we would like our ecologist to define with city staff the wetlands natural buffer".
a few mintues later... talking about tree preservation replacement:
"...grant the city a conservation easement over 2 large areas in the southwest portion
that insures the permanent preservation of forest in those areas...". Mr. Zorn presents
diagram showing 1. 13 acre easement of the water and land of LP7.2 as well as
0.87 acres next to the park. The 110ft he referred to a few minutes earlier is included
in this 1.13 acre.
During the questions portion of the meeting I asked "Regarding the conservation
easement around LP7.2, is it 11 Oft?
Mr. Zorn replied "We brought the townhomes from 45ft to an average of I I Oft,
(from the water level today) of proximity to the water. We did this because of the
neighbors concerns. In doing so, saved a number of trees that will be part of
this conservation easement. This will provide some privacy between the townhome
residents and the residents across the pond".
EAW 11/1/04:
page 19, section Water quality: surface water runoff item 17a paragraph 4...
"This runoff will be filtered through an average 100-foot wide buffer area that will
primarily be forested. The rate and volume of storm water to this pond is
decreased in the proposed condition. It can be concluded that quality of the
surface runoff water to Pond LP7.2 will remain unchanged due to the identical
vegetative filtering in the existing and proposed conditions".
In Summary: The 110ft Conservation Easement on LP7.2 is documented in...
-video tape of verbal presentation by Joey Zorn 7/27/04
-the difference in townhome setback, off of LP7.2, between the
development proposal from 5/04 versus the proposal in 7/04
-EAW reference to the 100-foot wide buffer area
The plan from 7/04 is the same plan that went to the City Council on 1/04/05.
Loss of the 11 Oft Conservation Easement on LP7.2
1/04/05 City Council Meeting:
The Council requires the developer to incorporate public roads and a loop road as well
as break up the walls of townhomes.
2/05 City Council Meeting:
The developer presents a concept plan which accommodates the Council's requests.
However, in so doing, pushes the townhomes back towards the pond such that the
closest complex is once again 45ft from the water's edge, just as it was in 5/04.
The I I Oft conservation easement is lost.
3/05 Planning Commission Meeting:
The development plan presented at this meeting had the same townhome placement,
on LP7.2, as that noted above. While the Planning Commission approved the plan, they
did express concern over the conflict created by the loss of the 100-foot buffer mentioned
in the EAW. Consequently, required examination of this issue.
c2-139
on LP7.2, as that noted above. While the Planning Commission approved the plan, they
did express concern over the conflict created by the loss of the 100-foot buffer mentioned
in the EAW. Consequently, required examination of this issue.
Arguments for Reinstatement of 110ft Conservation Easement on LP7.2
1) EAW
This paragraph, in an official document, states runoff will remain unchanged
(possibly improved, but not worsened) due to currently maintained vegetation through an
average 100-foot buffer. This is not a recommendation or a "by the way" observation. This
is a statement of fact based on conditions described.
We now have an invalid portion of the EAW
During the Parks Commission meeting in March, this issue was raised. We were told "it
will be ok" with respect to runoff without the 100-foot buffer.
It is a contradiction to state surface runoff to L0.2 will remain unchanged due to
the 100ft buffer providing identical vegetative filtering in the existing and proposed
conditions; then at a later date, state runoff will remain unchanged in the absence of
this buffer previously relied upon in documentation.
If you dismiss this portion of the EAW as inconsequential and state "it will be ok",
doesn't that open the door to dismiss any portion of the EAW that is no longer convenient?
Doesn't that put the EAW at risk of becoming a just a `sham' document?
2) Benefit of the Development to the City
During the 1105 City Council meeting the developer states, "One of the benefits
of the proposal is that it will buffer itself from nearby neighborhoods". "This
would be achieved by moving the TH setback on LP7.2 from 30ft to 100ft"
(by the way, this had changed from the "45ft to 110ft" setback change stated in 7104).
When asked directly what we residents, across the pond, will see of their development,
they said "the trees that now exist and potentially rooftops, depending on topography"
This benefit has been lost, and this critical promise has been broken. The residents
strongly object to such a drastic change in their environment.
3) Densi
We understand that the proposed density is within 4 homes/acre. We also understand
that this number means "up to" 4, but not necessarily 4. In 1/05 the majority of
c~3
councilmembers felt the proposal was too dense at only 2.9 homes/acre:
109 units 36 SFH 73 THs
The following comments were made about TH density:
"The number will have to come down to accommodate public streets"
"This is an extremely dense area, extremely dense"
"It is dense"
"The density is way too high"
"This property was always intended for single family homes--a relaxed development
for one of the last large pieces of property in Eagan".
The developer has now cut (as of 3/05) to a total of 95 units: 37 SFH and 58 THs.
While that is a definite improvement in numbers; it is significantly worse for the forest along
LP7.2, increases the risk to the wetland and ignores the deep desire of the neighbors.
What is an adequate reduction in a density that was considered too high at 73 THs? Is a
reduction of 15 THs acceptable even if it means compromise to other critical issues? Wouldn't
a reduction of a few more THs (3-6) be worth it, if it allowed the city to accomplish the
following:
- save the rich and established forest along LP7.2, thus protecting trees that our city forester
has told us are not significantly diseased
- protect the pond from the risk of excessive runoff, as the EAW promises, and in so doing
maintain the EAW as a meaningful document
- provide the city with needed housing for new residents, while honoring the requests of the
residents who have lived in Eagan for up to 20 years
- maintain one of the proposed benefits of the development "...buffer itself from
nearby neighborhoods"
Proposed Solution for Reinstating the 110ft Conservation Easement
We were told at the Parks Commission meeting that the 3 TH complexes along LP7.2 were
about 45ft, 60ft and 100ft away from the pond. We strongly object to the placement of the
first two complexes-that is 6 THs (3 per complex). Our strongest request is that the developer
move and/or cut these THs to re-establish the average 110ft easement.
Our much less desired back-up request is as follows:
Cut the first complex, thus losing 3 more THs, and move the 2°d complex to about
80ft by reducing the setback from the curb from 40ft to 20ft. I want to point out that
in the concept plan presented to you 2/05 the developer had proposed cutting the
THs to 56, not the 58 currently proposed. This is a reduction of 17 THs, not the current 15.
To cut the first complex is to cut a total of 18 THs-only one more than they themselves
proposed in Feb. For some reason, this number was changed from 56 to 58 THs by the #M15-
Planning Commission meeting. However, just a few weeks prior, 56 THs was acceptable to
them. This change would produce an average easement of about 90ft.
FL~
LJ16
a 4d
At the 2/05 city council meeting the developer stated the following:
" Obviously this is a very controversial site-not only from the standpoint
of what we're proposing, but from the standpoint of the environmental issue".
"Please understand, that we're here to do nothing else but clean it up-it was a pre-existing
problem that we're here to alleviate"
If this is true, then they shouldn't mind losing a few more THs, to allow the
30 or so residents who treasure this beloved pond, to continue to enjoy its
`north woods-like' beauty as it remains undisturbed by that which has developed around it.
Definition of the Desired Easement
The citizens of our neighborhood group request the following:
"A conservation easement along LP7.2 consisting of a minimum, not average, 11 Oft buffer
which begins at the historic high water mark and is composed of the existing
natural vegetation which is to remain strictly undisturbed. Additionally, the 4p.
would strictly prohibit the building of any structures on this
easement including, but not restricted to: fencing, sheds, boathouses, docks etc."
We have specifically defined "minimum, not average" because THs at 45ft and THs at 155ft
average out to 100ft. The word `average' in this context is vague, undefined and can potentially
be used as a `loophole' to put THs closer than 11Oft to the water's edge.
We have requested no building on the water. The original proposal stated there would be a
1.13 acre conservation easement composed of the water and the 110ft land buffer. The water
is part of the easement.
Summary
Thank you so much for your consideration on this matter. We realize this has been
a prolonged process. This issue of the easement matters deeply to those of us who
treasure this pond. We are sincerely hoping you will act in the best interest of
the residents of Eagan-both the new and the old. Thank you.
r
l
J'
FYI:
Evolution of Density for this Project
Date 5/04 7/27 8/04 1/05 2/05 3/22
Original Planning PC City cc CC PC
)using plan Comm (PC) Council
Type CC
Total 127 units 119 109 109 109 93 93
Single
Family
Homes 37 36 36 36 37 37
(SFH)
Townhomes 82 73 73 73
(THs J~O
Never a A brief Reference No 2.9 homes/acre Latest
Comments reality. reality. numbers comment Too dense plan
for on #'s
Rejected Rejected at disucssion
Before 5/04 this mtg. Order EAW
Plan withdrn
,to
6
FAQ v P j
be used at the site for erosion control include, but are not limited to: erosion blankets, silt fences,
rock construction entrances, staged construction, seeding, wetting, and the use of staked hay bales
to prevent migration. Efforts to prevent and mitigate erosion and sedimentation will be constant
and intense due to the fact that sandy soils located throughout the site are susceptible to erosion.
Following completion of grading and construction, all disturbed soils will be re-vegetated to
prevent future erosion.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe
permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution
prevention plans.
On the existing site, 27.5 of the 36.5 acres (approximately 76%), drain internally into four
(4) basins. 5.0 acres drain directly to the southwest into the city's storm water
management pond LP7.2. Another portion of the project drains 3.5 acres to the
northwest, which drains through approximately 3000 feet of storm sewer, two (2)
treatment ponds, and a lift station before it ultimately drains to Thomas Lake. The
balance of the site, 0.4 acres, drains off-site to the southeast.
The existing site has approximately 36% of impervious and semi-impervious surfaces.
These surfaces are made up of primarily: buildings, driveways, gravel parking lots and
storage areas, hard packed horse corrals, gravel and hard packed riding trails. The largest
area of the site is wooded (50%). The balance of the site is open grassland and wetlands.
The proposed development will internally treat approximately 90% of the 36.4 acres
versus the 76% existing condition. This drainage will be treated and controlled with a
series of infiltration areas, NURP ponds, and wetlands.
The proposed site plan has been designed to shed 2.5 acres southwest to pond LP7.2
versus the 5.0 acres in the existing condition, a 50% reduction in surface area draining to
this pond. Pond LP7.2 is land locked; its only outlet resource to overflow, at an elevation
of 935.5, is over a vegetated man-made earthen dam, utilized in the past as a horse riding :7
trail, into Pond LP7, which is located in Lebanon Hills Park. Pond LP7 is also land
at
locked. Its only outlet resource is 6 overflow Pilot Knob Road. It is not anticipated th
this condition will oc ur. The proposed drainage to Pond LP7 will be limited to the back 1?~
yards of the proposed homes. This runoff will be filtered through an average 00-foo
wide buffer area that will primarily be forested. The rate and volume of storm water to
this pond is decreased in the proposed condition. It can be concluded that quality of the
surface runoff water to Pond LP7.2 will remain unchanged due to the identical vegetative
filtering in the existing and proposed conditions.
The proposed site plan has also been designed to shed 1.0 acres of back yard drainage to
the northwest, which is a 70% reduction of from the 3.5 acres in the existing condition.
A Stone Water Management Plan has been developed for the Project. Following City
approval, the Plan will be implemented to ensure that surface waters are properly
contained and filtered and that the rate of off-site migration and the quality of migrating
water will not adversely impact persons, resources, water bodies or property off-site. A
Preliminary Storm Water Management Report for the Project can be found in Exhibit 14.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 19 of 37
Steeplechase of Eagan
Doc# 189967811 '2 1~3
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005, Eagan City Council Meeting
B. MODIFICATIONS TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EISENHUTH
ORTHODONTICS
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve (OR direct findings of fact for denial) modifications of the approved exterior
elevations for the Eisenhuth Orthodontics building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Birchwood Office
Park.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Majority of Council Members Present
FACTS:
➢ In December 2004 a Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision was approved for
Birchwood Office Park, consisting of four office condos on one parent parcel and a
dental office to the south.
➢ The modifications proposed appear minor. The exterior materials stay the same. The
applicant is proposing to slightly change the roof pitch and add two windows to the roof
instead of a larger spandrel window.
➢ The overall appearance is similar to what was approved with the Final Planned
Development.
ISSUES:
➢ On March 15, 2005 a Planned Development Amendment was denied for the condos north
of the subject site. The planned Development Amendment included changes that were not
consistent with code requirements, and a change in materials and architectural style was
proposed.
ATTACHMENTS: 4)
Staff memo on pageb<k" ~
Letter from Dr. Eisenhuth on pag
Approved Elevations on pag
Proposed Elevations on pag
City of EaRan N1e~o
TO: Mike Ridley, City Planner
FROM: Sheila Cartney, Planner SV
DATE: April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Eisenhuth Dental Office Modification
Proposed Modification
The Eisenhuth Dental office is proposed to be constructed on Lot 6, Block 1, Birchwood
Office Park. The Eisenhuth's have proposed minor modifications in the exterior
elevations of the dental building. The modifications are due to a change in architects and
copy right concerns. The exterior materials will stay the same and the location and
dimensions of the building do not change. Staff believes the proposed changes are minor
and do not appear to warrant a formal Planned Development Amendment.
The modifications include a roof pitch change from a 10/12 pitch to a 9/12 pitch and two
individual windows added to the roof rather than a spandrel window. The overall
appearance is similar to what was approved with the Final Planned Development.
History
In December 2004 a Final Planned Development and Final Subdivision was approved for
Birchwood Office Park, consisting of four office condos on one parent parcel and a
dental office to the south.
A Planned Development Amendment was recently denied by Council for the Birchwood
Office Condos. The request was to change the architectural treatments of the buildings
and alter the exterior material treatment along the sides and rear of the buildings. Staff
determined that the changes were significant and a formal amendment was required.
Dr Jennifer Eisenhuth
651-406-8100 651-426-gG86
1260 Yankee Doodle Road 2126 5th Street
Eagan, MN 55121 White Prar Lake, MN 55110
Cc'
~~'thodor~ -
April 1, 2005
Sheila Cartney
City Planning iI ~;I~ Q + 1
City of Eagan ~0 1 j~
3830 Pilot Knob Road Lj~ I~ APR ` 2005
Eagan, MN 55122
v
Dear Ms. Cartney,
Please accept our elevation drawings for review and approval.
In effort to build an office space that is most suitable for my orthodontic
practice, I have done my best to work within the city's guidelines and my
architect /contractor's ability. During this process, I have become more
educated in designing a building and i have recently become more aware of the
greater possibilities for my project. Unfortunately, the architect/contractor,
Jim Faulkner, has not been receptive to my business needs. Thus, I am
currently working with RJ Ryan and Lampert Architects to finish this office
project.
In using a different architect, the building needed to be altered to avoid any
copyright concerns. Accepting the fact that changes do need to be made, my
goal in working with Lampert and RJ Ryan was to improve the building design,
both esthetically and structurally. I have made every effort to maintain a
building design using materials that are compatible with the Birchwood Office
Condos. There are no changes to the materials being used: asphalt shingles,
efface siding and stone-work remain the same. Dimensions of the building
have not changed, nor has the location on the lot.
In my opinion, the building is even more attractive with the changes we have
made. I hope that these modifications are acceptable to the City of Eagan. I
thank you for your consideration, and please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
C ~ 4enifer . Ei n~ttu h , MS
Member
American Association of
Orthodontists
7~f
104zu
d
121
hF114 cp~; m i • ~ ~ Z M• .
uW O' :b;b4 444444<l _ 00 / C
¢ a 1 1 e 0 Wa o rh! fl a I I I (I I 5 t r gWW a
GIU " F O
0 q ft f td a tWW CJ
C
r
E
iffy
~ I II
u I n ~
I u u
u
n u
11 1 II
n II
~ n
ii II
n n
n I t u
11 b II
I II 11
® I II I 11
II 11
11
11 1 11
11 0
I II
I 11 O 11
EH RI
II ,I
II 11
11 I 11 G
11 C 11 ~
1 I 1"~ I ~i 5
I I 11 ~ II
® II tl I 11
11 g ii
1 1 ,I X e
11 11
j 11 5
H _ C
_ j~ ~ = 1 11 d 0
L 1 I I F Z I I ~ _
8 II r
' ' I ~ O I I~ Li ~ i s
II ; I I J
Q I W I I W
Ire "Ire $Ir~ Q
I!~ Q . ~Y gt t n e
W g V
`y= N
W
1 I I I 1
W
11
II
Z: I t
i I >
11
1 ZZ 11 ' ' ; ; O
N 11
11 " Y~
11 11
I 1 1 1 11
11 A
11 I I It fi li
11 11
11 11
II 11
11 t I 1 11
'M.. I Q 11 I 11
I ;I 11
I 11
II II
u o
II r I II
11 "
II ~ I 11
11 11
II 11
n r 0 E n r Z
'I ~ - I ii 9q 0
'I C Q I it
F F"
W >
I J W
W J
, 1 1 ' I W
c~ ~ kk b W
. 21r" 3rr bl.. Z ~ ~1- YI- sl ~ ~
r t t ~ 9g~ ~ ({1
en . Ow.nuuW-t - 1-9
i
Sam
go,
D l
I I i ny
I L 1
G I t :l°
i 'y I Z
II 'W ^ P
14
T ~
V
0
0
cn
m
°
o
11
II
II II
II II
II II
11 II I
II
II
II II
11 II
II rv II
~w 11 I~- l II -
I~ I 1 _ I"' ID„ u I I 'Iw
.y I
-2 II II - II
II ~ II
~m I I II °m I I
°a I I ' ~ I I 1a
~ II II
I II
II 1
z fi IV_ oZ '
; II ~R
I I z$
I; II
II II ~
II II
11 II
~ II II
II
II
u-
I
I 9 e z 6bi ~ x x m = s x [4 Proposed Building a`1 ~Sx6q1~1~1~H
3 < EISENHUTH ORTHODONTICS Ti p-
0 u W i c Eagan, Minnesota
,I v t fi' ~ €g ,c?I9 ~y
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (KENNEALY ADDITION) - ESTATE OF
JOSEPH KENNEALY
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To approve (or direct Findings of Fact for Denial) a Preliminary Subdivision to create one lot
and one outlot, and a Variance to the required structure setback from a public right-of-way, upon
2.0 acres located at 2115 Silver Bell Road, in the SE'/4 of Section 18, subject to the conditions in
the APC minutes.
REQUIRED VOTE FOR APPROVAL: Preliminary Subdivision and Variance - majority of
Councilmembers present
FACTS:
➢ The site is located on the northwest corner of Silver Bell and Wuthering Heights Roads.
➢ There is an existing single-family home on the west half of the site which was built in
1958. The east half of the site is vacant.
➢ The site is guided LD, Low Density residential, 0-4 units per acre.
➢ The airport noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property within Noise Zone 4.
➢ The original proposal was for three lots. However, the applicant has revised the proposed
subdivision to create one lot and one outlot based on issues raised in the staff report and
discussion at the Advisory Planning Commission meeting.
➢ Lot 1 is 35,907 sq. ft. in area, and Outlot A is 40,699 sq. ft. (.93 acres).
➢ The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to separate the existing dwelling from the
vacant portion of the property and settle the estate of the property owner. No new
development is proposed at this time.
➢ Access is provided via Silver Bell Rd., and for Lot 1, also from Wuthering Heights Rd.
➢ The existing structures on Lot 1 do not satisfy the required 30-foot setback from the
Wuthering Heights Road right-of-way. Therefore, a setback Variance of 17.1 feet is
necessary to acknowledge the existing setbacks.
➢ Outlot A will be subject to cash dedications for parks and trails at the time of
development. A Tree Preservation Plan will be required for Outlot A at the time of
development.
➢ There is an exception parcel to the west of the site and the applicant has recently
indicated that this parcel is in separate ownership. However, the applicant is proceeding
with the necessary legal steps to get it into the same title as the site.
C2. Y /
➢ In accordance with City code, the portion of Wuthering Heights Road adjacent to the
development should be upgraded to current City street standards at the developer's
expense.
➢ The applicant's attorney has submitted a letter explaining the revised plat with the outlot,
the current status of the exception parcel, and the applicant's objection to the condition
regarding the improvement of Wuthering Heights Road. A copy of the letter is attached.
➢ The Advisory Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2005, and did
recommend denial of the Preliminary Subdivision because the proposal is not consistent
with airport noise zone 4 and does not satisfy conditions 2, 4, 5, and 8 regarding the
conditional use within zone 4. Since the APC recommended denial of the Preliminary
Subdivision, no action was taken on the associated Variance request.
ISSUES:
➢ It may be that a more appropriate land use for the vacant eastern portion of the site would
be single entry attached residential because of the site's location within the airport noise
policy zone 4 and adjacent to other single-entry attached residential and also because
policies adopted with Special Area #5 and the Cedar Grove redevelopment district to
prevent further subdivision of land and construction of new single-family homes in this
area remain valid.
➢ Since the applicant was willing to show the east half of the site as a single outlot, the
Council may wish to direct staff to initiate a rezoning of the eastern half of the site to R-4,
Residential Multiple.
➢ Also, the applicant shall provide proof of ownership for the exception parcel to the west
of the site, and if it is also owned by the owner of the development site, incorporate it into
the final plat, dedicating any necessary right-of-way for Wuthering Heights Road.
➢ The applicant objects to upgrading Wuthering Heights Road. The Council will need to
make a determination whether to waive this condition of approval. In 1993, the City
Council allowed Wuthering Heights Addition, a 2-lot subdivision west of this property, to
develop without requiring the upgrade of Wuthering Heights Road.
AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE: June 15, 2005
ATTACHMENTS (3):
March 22, 2005 APC Minutes, pa e ?-5, through
Staff Report, pages ~ through
Revised Preliminary Plat, page
Letter from Vance Grannis of Grannis & Hauge, P.A., page through g?3
~J~t/
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 9
B. Kennealy Addition
Applicant Name: Tom Kennealy
Location.: 2115 Silver Bell Rd.
Application: Preliminary Subdivision
A Preliminary Subdivision of 1.58 acres to create 3 lots.
File Number: 18-PS-01-02-05
Planner Dudziak introduced this item and highlighted the information presented in the City Staff report
dated March 17, 2005. She noted the background and history.
A representative of Mr. Kennealy indicated that the proposed subdivision is being requested to permit
the family to settle the estate of their parents. He indicated that they do not have plans to build on the
two newly created lots at this time and that they would be willing to consider platting the two lots as an
outlot.
Chair Heyl opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, Chair Heyl closed the public hearing and turned the discussion back to
the Commission.
The Commission asked for clarification of the zoning and subdivision issues. City Attorney Bauer
indicated that a subdivision was being presented under R-1 zoning standards and it needs to be
considered on its merits. He indicated that the potential rezoning of the property to another use could
be done if the property owner requested it or the City could initiate it.
Commission members discussed the relationship of the property to the Noise Policy Contours in the
Comprehensive Plan. They asked for clarification regarding land uses that are more or less compatible
with aircraft noise and what findings need to be made if single family residential is to be considered in a
noise zone rather than shared entrance multi-family residential.
Director Hohenstein indicated that policies in the most recent Comprehensive Guide update discussed
the City's policy of not permitting further single family subdivision in the Special Area #5. That Special
Area originally included the Wuthering Heights neighborhood, but the Council ultimately shifted the
Special Area boundary to the south in response to neighborhood concerns about redevelopment. As
such, he said that the City's policy is to prohibit further single family subdivision in the Special Area as a
means of limiting development of less noise compatible uses in the area, but that the Wuthering
Heights neighborhood is actually closer to the noise source than Cedar Grove.
Chair Heyl indicated that this subdivision is different from others the Commission has considered in the
Noise Zones. In other cases, she said that there were lot splits surrounded on four sides by single
family uses and it only made sense for the additional development to have the same use with
conditions. She said that this is a situation in which the property is exposed to significant aircraft noise
and has commercial uses across the street and apartment uses on another side. She indicated that in
applying the conditional use findings required for development within the Noise Zone, she did not
believe that adequate findings to justify a single family subdivision could be supported.
05/
City of Eagan
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2005
Page 10
Tom Kennealy stated his preference to leaving the property zoned single family residential.
Chair Heyl explained that the conditions for approval of further single family development of the
property have not been met and she will vote against approval. She further explained that the proposal
goes against airport noise zone four and does not meet requirements 2, 4, 5, and 8 of the staff report.
Member Bendt moved, Member Leeder seconded a motion to recommend approval of a Preliminary
Subdivision to create three lots on 2.0 acres located at 2115 Silver Bell Road in the SE '/4 of Section
18 subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 2,1993: Al, B1, B4, C1, E1
2. The property shall be platted.
3. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of the exception parcel west of the site, in a form
acceptable to the city attorney. If such property is also owned by the owner of the development site,
it must be included within the final plat and incorporated into Lot 1, with sufficient dedication of
public right-of-way to achieve a 50-foot width for Wuthering Heights
Road.
4. The refuse, commercial vehicle and junk vehicle storage shall be removed from the property or
brought into compliance with City ordinance requirements prior to final subdivision approval.
5. The developer shall be responsible for upgrading the portion of Wuthering Heights Road adjacent to
the development to current City street standards.
6. This development is responsible for cash parks, trails and water quality dedications for Lots 2 and
3, payable at the time of final plat approval, at the rates then in effect.
All voted against. Motion failed 7-0.
Member Gladhill moved, Member Chavez seconded a motion to recommend denial of a Preliminary
Subdivision to create three lots on 2.0 acres located at 2115 Silver Bell Road in the SE'/4 of Section
18 because it goes against airport noise zone four and does not meet requirements 2, 4, 5, and 8 of the
staff report.
All voted in favor. Motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING REPORT
CITY OF EAGAN
REPORT DATE: March 17, 2005 CASE: 18-PS-01-02-05
APPLICANT: Tom Kennealy HEARING DATE: March 22, 2005
PROPERTY
OWNER: Estate of Joseph W. Kennealy APPLICATION DATE: February 15, 2005
REQUEST: Preliminary Subdivision PREPARED BY: Pamela Dudziak
LOCATION: 2115 Silver Bell Road
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LD, Low Density Residential
ZONING: R-1, Single-Family Residential
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision of 2.0 acres to create three
lots, and a Variance to the required structure setback from a public right-of-way on property
located at 2115 Silver Bell Road, in the SE 1/4 of Section 18.
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
Subdivision:
City Code Section 13.20 Subd. 6 states that "In the case of platting, the Planning Commission
and the Council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or
establishing conditions related thereto:
A. That the proposed subdivision does comply with applicable City Code provisions and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision complies with applicable
plans of Dakota County, State of Minnesota, or the Metropolitan Council.
C. That the physical characteristics of the site including, but not limited to, topography,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage
and retention are such that the site is suitable for the type of development or use
contemplated.
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 2
D. That the site physically is suitable for the proposed density of development.
E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement is not likely to cause
environmental damage.
F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
health problems.
G. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements will not conflict with easements
of record or with easements established by judgment of court.
H. That completion of the proposed development of the subdivision can be completed in a
timely manner so as not to cause an economic burden upon the City for maintenance,
repayment of bonds, or similar burden.
1. That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use
within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to City Handbook on
Solar Access).
J. That the design of public improvements for the subdivision is compatible and consistent
with the platting or approved preliminary plat on adjacent lands.
K. That the subdivision is in compliance with those standards set forth in that certain
document entitled "City of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan for the Gun Club
Lake Watershed Management Organization" which document is properly approved and
filed with the office of the City Clerk hereinafter referred to as the "Water Quality
Management Plan". Said document and all of the notations, references and other
information contained therein shall have the same force and effect as if fully set down
herein and is hereby made a part of this Chapter by reference and incorporated herein as
fully as if set forth herein at length. It shall be the responsibility of the City Clerk to
maintain the Water Quality Management Plan and make the same available to the
public."
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
This property was originally part of a larger property owned by the Kennealy family dating back
to 1896. The property was divided and portions sold which eventually were developed as the
Silver Bell Business Center, the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant, Freightmaster's, and
apartment buildings. The remaining 2.0 acres is unplatted and contains a house which was built
in 1958.
~T
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The property is bounded to the south by Silver Bell Road, and to the west by Wuthering Heights
Road, which is unimproved. There are scattered trees on the site. There is an existing house
with an attached garage on the west half of the property. A detached garage sits north of the
existing house. The east half of the site is vacant and contains a stockpile of soil in the southeast
corner.
During a site visit, staff noted some refuse and other items being stored outside and in violation
of the City's zoning codes. These violations must be corrected and brought into compliance with
the City's zoning ordinances prior to final subdivision approval.
SURROUNDING USES
The following existing uses, zoning, and comprehensive guide plan designations surround the
subject property:
Existing Use Zoning Land Use
Designation
North Single Family R-1, Single Family LD, Low Density
Residential Residential Residential
South Vacant PD, Planned SA, Special Area
Development (school
and office)
North/East Apartment R-4, Residential HD, High Density
Multiple Residential
West Single Family R-1, Single Family LD, Low Density
Residential Residential Residential
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Compatibility with Surrounding Area - The surrounding area consists of a mix of uses - office,
public and quasi-public, single-family and apartments. No development is proposed at this time.
The subdivision is proposed to settle the estate of the owner and separate the vacant portion of
the property from that portion containing the house. The proposed subdivision creates three lots
consistent with R-1 zoning standards, two to be developed separately in the future.
The adjacent property to the east and northeast is developed with apartments and is zoned R-4,
Residential Multiple. Dating back to at least 1980, the zoning designations on this and adjacent
residential properties were inconsistent with their land use designations. The residential
neighborhood was zoned R-1 (Residential Single-family) and R-4 (Residential Multiple), while
the land use designation was Limited Industrial. With the update of the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan in 2001, at the request of the neighborhood, the City achieved consistency between
SS
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 4
the land use and zoning of the residential neighborhood by changing the land use designations to
LD, Low Density Residential and HD, High Density Residential.
In addition, the residential neighborhood was initially included within Cedar Grove Special Area
45 as designated in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, and the Cedar Grove Redevelopment
District. The City adopted policies for Special Area #5 and for the Cedar Grove redevelopment
that would prevent further subdivision of land and construction of new single-family homes in
this area. Based on the request of the neighborhood, the City later adjusted the boundaries of the
Special Area and Cedar Grove Redevelopment District to exclude the residential neighborhood,
however, staff believes the adopted policies remain valid.
This property is located within Airport Noise Policy Zone 4 and will soon experience increased
exposure to aircraft overflights when the new North-South runway opens at MSP later this year.
In-fill single-family development (single-family detached dwellings) is considered a conditional
use within Noise Zone 4. It is staff's position that a more suitable land use would be single-entry
attached residential (apartment dwellings). Such development is considered a provisional use in
Noise Zone 4, is more compatible with the airport noise exposure and can better achieve noise
insulation standards.
Because of its location in the noise zone and its adjacency to existing R-4 property, it may be
appropriate for the eastern portion of this property to be developed as apartments rather than as
single-family homes. This would provide an extension of the existing multiple residential
development on property to the east, and create new development that is compatible with existing
and anticipated development in the area and with the airport noise exposure. For this reason, the
City may wish to consider having the eastern portion of the property platted as a single outlot
rather than two single-family lots as proposed by the applicant.
Airport Noise Considerations - The City of Eagan considered airport noise as a factor in its
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. The Metropolitan Council has adopted an Aviation Chapter
in Metropolitan Development Guide that anticipates the impacts from the continued operation of
the airport at its current location. The noise policy contours in Eagan place the subject property
within Noise Zone 4.
Within this area, infill single-family development would be conditional. To approve such
development in this area, the City Council would need to make acceptable findings concerning the
following:
1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including the extent of outdoor activities.
2. Relationship of the proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjacent land
use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive planning and relation to other
metropolitan systems.
3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft overflight.
4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks and aircraft on-ground operating
and maintenance areas.
sr-6
a
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 5
5. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community of the
proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions and
shielding of outdoor activities.
6. Method community will use to inform future occupant of proposed building of potential
noise from aircraft operations.
7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities
associated with the use.
8. Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways or engine
run-up areas.
With respect to the factual aspects of the findings, the property lies approximately four miles south
of the nearest runway (Runway 17-35) at the airport. Upon completion, the north-south runway
will be used for approximately37% of all arrivals, for an annual daily average of 293 flights. At
current traffic levels, the airport handles approximately 530,000 operations annually. Because of
the relationship of the property to the current departure and arrival procedures and the runway
centerlines, a significant portion of the departures and arrivals for the new runway will track over or
near the property. The property is approximately four miles from the engine maintenance and run
up area. (Issues 93, 4 and 8)
While the implementation of the Stage III airline fleet in recent years has lessened the noise per
operation, the updated regional planning contours still indicate that the subject property would lie
within I/4 mile of the 60 DNL contour.
As part of its updated Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan, the City will depict the Metropolitan
Council's noise policy contours on its land use and zoning maps. This will serve as notice to future
occupants of the potential noise from aircraft operations. (Issue #6)
If the City determines that findings concerning these conditions support the approval of this
application for in-fill development, it should be conditioned on the following: Architectural
designs and construction methods for new construction within the development should incorporate
sound attenuation standards sufficient to achieve an interior sound level of 45 dBA as compared
with a noise level of 65 DNL. This would require an inside noise level reduction of at least
20 dBA. (Issue #5)
Density - The proposed three lots on 2.0 acres have a density of 1.5 units per acre. The net
density (excluding rights-of-way) is 1.7 units per acre.
Lots - The proposed subdivision creates three lots. Lot 1 will contain the existing house and
detached garage on the west half of the property. Lots 2 and 3 comprise the east half of the
property. Lot 1 is 35, 907 sq. ft. in area (.82 acres), and Lots 2 and 3 are 20,347 sq. ft. each (.47
acres).
C;~_s
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 6
Lot 1 exceeds minimum lot dimension and lot size standards. Lots 2 and 3 meet the minimum
lot width standard of 85 feet, and at 239.38 feet deep, both lots exceed the minimum size
standard of 12,000 sq. ft.
There is an exception on the west side of the property and ownership of that exception parcel is
in question. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of this section of property, in a form
acceptable to the city attorney, and if such property is also owned by the owner of the
development site, it must be included within the final plat and incorporated into Lot 1. Right-of-
way should also then be dedicated to the City sufficient to achieve a 50-foot width for Wuthering
Heights Road. The inclusion of this exception parcel within the final plat would reduce, and
possibly eliminate, the setback Variances.
Code Violations - During a site visit to the property staff observed some refuse and other items
being stored outside in violation of the City's zoning codes. Some of the items observed were
two raised fuel tanks, 55-gallon drums, plastic buckets, carpeting, wood timbers, some angle
iron, fencing, car ramps, and refuse containers that are not being stored as if useful, but rather
just dumped in the yard.
These violations must be corrected and brought into compliance with the City's zoning
ordinances prior to final subdivision approval. The raised fuel tanks also must be removed from
the property as above-ground fuel storage is not allowed in the R-1 zoning district. Other
corrective measures involve properly disposing of any refuse and relocating any useful items
within a garage.
Grading/ Topography/ Storm Drainage - A preliminary grading plan was not submitted with this
application. The site is lightly wooded and generally slopes to the northwest.
No storm sewer improvements are necessary with this development.
Wetlands/Water Quality - Because of the small size of this subdivision, a cash dedication for
water quality will be due in lieu of on-site ponding. There are no jurisdictional wetlands on the
property.
Utilities - The existing house on Lot 1 (2115 Silver Bell Road) is connected to the City water
main system within Wuthering Heights Road to the west. Water main service for proposed Lots
2 and 3 is available from an existing 12-inch water main within Silver Bell Road. Water main
service work for Lots 2 and 3 will require the removal and replacement of a portion of the Silver
Bell Road pavement and curb section.
The existing house on Lot 1 is also connected to the City sewer system. Sanitary sewer is
available for connection by Lots 2 and 3 from an existing sewer along the north edge of the
property.
a s~
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 7
Access/Street Design - Lot 1 has access from both Wuthering Heights Road and Silver Bell
Road. Lots 2 and 3 will take access from Silver Bell Road.
Streets/ Access/ Circulation - The driveway access for the existing house on Lot 1 is currently
from Wuthering Heights Road to the west. Wuthering Heights Road is a gravel road within
public right-of-way. City code requires all lots within a subdivision be provided with public
street access to a street improved to current City standards. In accordance with City code, the
portion of Wuthering Heights Road adjacent to the development should be upgraded to current
City street standards. The developer has the option of constructing the upgrade privately, or
petitioning the City for the upgrade as a public improvement project. In 1993, the City Council
allowed Wuthering Heights Addition, a 2-lot subdivision west of this property, to develop
without requiring the upgrade of Wuthering Heights Road.
Lots 2 and 3 are proposed to access Silver Bell Road to the south.
Tree Preservation - There are scattered trees on the site. Because there is no development
proposed at this time, an Individual Lot Tree Preservation Plan will be required for each lot at the
time of building permit application. Allowable tree removal is 20% per lot.
Parks and Recreation - Parks and trails dedications will be satisfied through a cash dedication for
the two new lots. The payment is due at the time of final plat at the rates then in effect. The
2005 rates are $2,009 per lot for parks and $216 per lot for trails.
Setbacks - The R-1 setbacks apply. A minimum setback of 40 feet is required from Silver Bell
Road, 30 feet from Wuthering Heights Road, 10 feet for the side yard (five feet for a garage), and
15 feet for the rear yard.
Lots 2 and 3 appear to have sufficient size and dimensions to satisfy these minimum setbacks.
The existing house and detached garage on Lot 1 do not meet the minimum front yard setback
from the Wuthering Heights Road right-of-way. The detached garage is setback 12.9 feet, and
the existing house is setback 17.75 feet. Therefore, a Variance is required to acknowledge these
existing setbacks.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
In summary, the applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Subdivision of 2.0 acres to
create three lots, and a Variance to the required structure setback from a public right-of-way on
property located at 2115 Silver Bell Road, in the SE '/4 of Section 18. The purpose of the
proposed subdivision is to separate the existing dwelling from the vacant portion of the property
and settle the estate of the property owner. No new development is proposed at this time.
Existing violations of city ordinances regarding the outdoor storage of refuse, raised fuel tanks,
etc., must be corrected prior to final subdivision approval.
a~~
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 8
The gross density of the proposed three lots on 2.0 acres is 1.5 units per acre. The net density
(excluding rights-of-way) is 1.7 units per acre. All three lots meet the minimum size and
dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district. The existing house and garage do not meet
required minimum structure setbacks from the Wuthering Heights Road right-of-way. Thus, a
setback Variance is also requested. All three lots have public street access, and can be served by
the City water main and sanitary sewer systems. An Individual Lot Tree Preservation Plan will
be required with the building permit applications for Lots 2 and 3.
The developer shall be responsible for upgrading the portion of Wuthering Heights Road
adjacent to the development to current City street standards. Also, the applicant shall provide
proof of ownership for the exception parcel to the west of the site, and if it is also owned by the
owner of the development site, incorporate it into the final plat, dedicating any necessary right-
of-way for Wuthering Heights Road. Additionally, the refuse and other items being stored
outside in violation of city ordinances must be removed and the property brought into compliance
with code requirements prior to final subdivision approval.
The applicant's proposal for three single-family lots is consistent with the existing R-1 Single-
family Residential zoning and LD, Low Density Residential, land use designation. In
consideration of the comprehensive planning history of the area, it may be that a more
appropriate land use for the vacant eastern portion of the site would be single entry attached
residential. This is due to the site's location within the airport noise policy zone 4 and adjacent
to other single-entry attached residential and also because policies adopted with Special Area #5
and the Cedar Grove redevelopment district to prevent further subdivision of land and
construction of new single-family homes in this area remain valid. For this reason, the Advisory
Planning Commission and City Council may wish to direct staff to take the steps necessary to
rezone the eastern half of the site to R-4, Residential Multiple, if the applicant is willing to
withdraw the application or show Lots 2 and 3 as a single outlot.
Single-family development is a conditional use within Airport Noise Policy Zone 4 and in order
to approve the preliminary subdivision as proposed, the Advisory Planning Commission and City
Council would need to determine acceptable findings relative to the eight items listed in this
report regarding airport noise compatibility and make a statement to that effect.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED
To recommend approval of a Preliminary Subdivision to create three lots on 2.0 acres located at
2115 Silver Bell Road in the SE '/4 of Section 18. If approved, the following conditions should
apply:
1. The developer shall comply with these standards conditions of plat approval as adopted by
Council on February 2,1993: Al, Bl, B4, Cl, E1
2. The property shall be platted.
OQ 60
Planning Report - Kennealy Addition
March 22, 2005
Page 9
3. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of the exception parcel west of the site, in a
form acceptable to the city attorney. If such property is also owned by the owner of the
development site, it must be included within the final plat and incorporated into Lot 1, with
sufficient dedication of public right-of-way to achieve a 50-foot width for Wuthering Heights
Road.
4. The refuse, commercial vehicle and junk vehicle storage shall be removed from the property
or brought into compliance with City ordinance requirements prior to final subdivision
approval.
5. The developer shall be responsible for upgrading the portion of Wuthering Heights Road
adjacent to the development to current City street standards.
6. This development is responsible for cash parks, trails and water quality dedications for Lots 2
and 3, payable at the time of final plat approval, at the rates then in effect.
To recommend approval of a Variance to the required structure setback for the existing house
and garage from the Wuthering Heights Road right-of-way, located at 2115 Silver Bell Road in
the SE '/a of Section 18. If approved, the following conditions should apply:
1. If within one year after approval, the variance shall not have been completed or utilized, it
shall become null and void unless a petition for extension has been granted by the council.
Such extension shall be requested in writing at least 30 days before expiration and shall state
facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance.
~6/
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
A. Financial Obligations
1. This development shall accept its additional financial obligations as
defined in the staff's report in accordance with the final plat dimensions
and the rates in effect at the time of final plat approval.
B. Easements and Rights-of-Way
1. This development shall dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements
centered over all lot lines and, in addition, where necessary to
accommodate existing or proposed utilities for drainage ways within the
plat. The development shall dedicate easements of sufficient width and
location as determined necessary by engineering standards.
2. This development shall dedicate, provide, or financially guarantee the
acquisition costs of drainage, ponding, and utility easements in addition to
public street rights-of-way as required by the alignment, depth, and
storage capacity of all required public utilities and streets located beyond
the boundaries of this plat as necessary to service or accommodate this
development.
3. This development shall dedicate all public right-of-way and temporary
slope easements for ultimate development of adjacent roadways as
required by the appropriate jurisdictional agency.
4. This development shall dedicate adequate drainage and ponding easements
to incorporate the required high water elevation plus three (3) feet as
necessitated by storm water storage requirements.
C. Plans and Specifications
1. All public and private streets, drainage systems, and utilities necessary to
provide service to this development shall be designed and certified by a
registered professional engineer in accordance with City adopted codes,
engineering standards, guidelines, and policies prior to application for
final plat approval.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan must be
prepared in accordance with current City standards prior to final plat
approval.
3. This development shall ensure that all dead-end public streets shall have a
cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City engineering standards.
~6~
4. A separate detailed landscape plan shall be submitted overlaid on the
proposed grading and utility plan. The financial guarantee for such plan
shall be included.in the Development Contract and shall not be released
until one year after the date of City certified compliance.
D. Public Improvements
1. If any improvements are to be installed under a City contract, the
appropriate project must be approved by Council action prior to final plat
approval.
E. Permits
1. This development shall be responsible for the acquisition of all regulatory
agency permits required by the affected agency prior to final plat approval.
F. Parks and Trails Dedications
1. This development shall fulfill its park and trail dedication requirements as
recommended by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by
Council action.
G. Water Quality Dedication
1. This development shall be responsible for provided a cash dedication,
ponding, or a combination thereof in accordance with the criteria
identified in the City's Water Quality Management Plan, as recommended
by the Advisory Parks Commission and approved by Council action.
H. Other
1. All subdivision, zoning, and other ordinances affecting this development
shall be adhered to, unless specifically granted a Variance by Council
action.
Advisory Planning Commission City Council
Approved: August 25, 1987 September 15, 1987
Revised: July 10, 1990
Revised: February 2, 1993
G:Engineering/Forms/Standard Conditions of Plat Approval
cX 3
FINANCIAL OBLIGATION-Kennealy Addition Preliminary Subdivision
There are pay-off balances of special assessments totaling $-0- on the parcels proposed for platting. The pay-
off balance will be allocated to the lots created by the plat.
At this time, there are no pending assessments on the parcel proposed for platting.
This estimated financial obligation is subject to change based upon the areas, dimensions and land uses
contained in the final plat.
Based upon the study of the financial obligations collected in the past and the uses proposed for the property,
the following charges are proposed. The charges are computed using the City's existing fee schedule and for the
connection and availability of the City's utility system. The charges will be computed using the rates in effect at
time of connection or subdivision.
IMPROVEMENT USE RATE QUANTITY AMOUNT
Storm Sewer Trunk(l) S.F. $.103/Sq. Ft. 76,602 Sq. Ft. $7,890
$7,890
a6~
FF
7i;g
g y= q }F r t
_ ~ ~1S aj i7<. .r e= 011, gf oy1 '
wj- •
`std z3 aa) 112 { i :}1 1-.9 a U 0 "
jR ii {e
e i ~ ~i € 7 ,fit II~Y = ~!i 'jj Z ,yS~ jj"i c
:.d:•i}:{. :{vY'Y~{r ,fjli:ii`i~rs.;~{~'•ft>;'., • ~l' t;
' ~\`iJ1CLCZ R ~ c~:~ t 3.F1.►ZAS ~F '
k. tyt:;x si-irititi+.•+..: e`=V: ..446,:i4 -~~z:•:':•:•:'~si:~;:.t •"{.•t'
~::'Y~~1 .1. w, J.iY:: '''F•. •'~:1,:.;.,:'~':'''/J 1''''' ...7/v 1f 4 ~ IY
'P J r: tnt:...:: _
Xl:
O` 3 ~t•:.':'4'.'.:•w.'.;.': .•.'.'.'.•..'i.'.': 1'w.'. J.. .7'~x , l i~6~:~~_:;~:.:~_ t iY I = _
i"~ ` :5~3••~•:-{,?:s;.:.;.f;.'.~ 1.~T`:~_~•'~.9i::.:':•:':':•I'~~1.'.Jt.r.~:: ':`f••~..
-17
~1 ~M.. :.I..~' 1'•'•'• j J•f
W '
:'k:: : t:: n
r ''~.('.'1x ••f•__ _ .S`!~'. .'11'. .~g.~ih '''1 Cti~f[".•F ~ 'f•` y_
• _ V~1.IVi•.'.n-max • ~ / •~Q~~O/~'~/~/~ ~ : .F•_'` '~'+~•+x $ I y1a ~ ¢ ~R
ry Y I• ~lf10 a ~ [
tog
I_ ~ I
r ~}3 I
fill)
xi J •~I~~.ooon••o III
xf •v
Eagan Boundary
Street Centerline
Location Map 0 Parcel Area
Building Footprint
tT
F" opo
~ top ~
~ tee e~ {
~.l
°t
4P
v Subject Site e
t
G /°P i`T
.mil \ ~ f• d~
l 'J \ f: ca C 0
\X j
l7 g 1,1 L U ~ l
\ \ 3 d
C'D
% / / c 3
\ A\~ % ' d9 r v J` 0:0
LI JET ~ ~ _ ~ rt w G cs~
FX
J R
J vf~ °'Y~ it .j
/ a r-rn-1
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
Development/Developer: Kennealy Addition
Application: Preliminary Subdivision
Case No.: 18-PS-01-02-05
Map Prepared using ERSI ArcView 3.1. Parcel base map data provided
N
by Dakota County Office of GIS and is current as of January 2005.
'Sa._~ z r z W
NDE FERENCE USE ONLY
THIS MAP 1 TE E
city of aagan The City of Eagan and Dakota ou rantee he accuracy of this information and are 3
Community Development Department of respo o! errors omissions.
Current Zoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan Kennealy Addition
Preliminary Subdivision
Land Use Map Case No. 18-PS-01-02-05
Zoning Map
1-1 I
1-1
A
1.1 PD
Current Zoning:
R- -4
F°rf
R-1 P PD
Single Family Residential RA C
CGD Cl
Location
D
9<0'st,~ w G
~t
GD
CGD
mo
99
600 0 600 1200 F..t
Comprehensive Guide Plan
Land Use Map P
IND IF
QP
BP
P
LD IND
SA
BP
t
HD et~o
P art
Current Land Use Designation: P SA
LD L
CIS
LD
SA Sp s
Low Density Residential LgcatlDrl
SSP ~
w s
G
R
S
=0
SA
6
ri
600 0 600 1200 F..t fy Q
Parcel basCaa ati a A dby kota Cou y Land S-ey Departmert June 2003. N
Z 1 forma n maintal d byCity StafL
City of Eagan W E
AP IS INTE FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY
Community Development Department The City of Eagamy do not guarantee the accuracy of this Information. S
'1
11111~~~0008000~611,.0•
T J51
Y E~t Q Y i~~ I I :cy;<`:<?:+;,:; SI c F-LF f XWNW*
M.4 I•;:.~'-.,J~ I I .t;' rn ~ ~ _
I f:L;c:'fr t , i ~ .S ` , e S fib ~ . , i i z t ~ i
ou"
-t\'_
t tw• >,~<:::!y~z; I I t t- • c !5 t t to t
°n it2~ xo a.~rr.- ;I I) t- x~v.x rlt
OF.
Z~x
"2i i `_f"_ _xm,.1o-~~_ ~-7=---_ r vvx ~S..i F p.
;r<`": fv?,,~r,``n':: 6. • -
- - - - _-_-_~-._T_.~.. S
J
P... l+a
- I •t?•-.,dry.., y::.~.<.i:: ` - -
~ti~j;'t.:y:':`F!~''k',^'"~.:s,+t•:-: / SD'it'19'E ~ ~ `~.2777.1~.
ist+:::S:i?Y.•t'r::Ciii'T::::~i
W~
I t 'x t ~ I
~ m e¢ a" 'z~ .a '„~sgF e F g 6 ! gF c~~ i `r
0 TI t c4a g.= 3'$t,z $p :PI 1 ~
g e s 3- T[ b
(1 a [a~ g$a PIa S'gF v acs,erk rt e m x B
iiiiia I .,e we f f N ~ .i Ia- FE r' ,aI ~5 s E- ~ x o~~ 1~ a
s ~ a eg e €
i! as I~s e•• i [p ~ ~ ~g^ _
!c Jz- S g g 3t u
PRF-I,IM. PLAT WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS
iVId AdVNIW ENd
U
Y ~ ~oa 3.-~„:a ~ i, 5P"52E, •"j `a 9 r~ I ~
a3a a9 g; ? s ~g - r£ ~ €.€;9saa` s'--°' s;: F _ L
rv S Y~~ u5 a a f ay°° ~~2~ ~S[ cE~ c : 09
° S } yny ~ - - c^ 3a ES=e~f o3 Eu°!: ° Eu5
a SaS u.' 32 w ~ ~H v
tr I
~ I I
rd d.~,.y 3.6l.1Z11S ~ I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 I
t '
1 '
I I
I e I -
I ~ 8 I 9 ~
at ' -
I I
I -
I ~ I
1 ' I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r( ea -
°0 1
cc I
I pa~ I
_ 2 1 Y 3 ry ~ I ~ n I I
-
1 y _
I m I °
I ~ I
I I
I I
I I I
I I 3
a I 1 ~ I ~ i~
!Re v
I E ^ °
I I
I " I I
I ~ ^
1 =
1 I
~ 3^ 9
1
e l _Ly J 1:
I I /
M^61.kzxm at g8ry n
- 6f"ZLZ 1= I E~~ z do °
L ^ "it
ddDN SLHO19H JNIN3HLnm
1 I
J aaa€~3I.5
o•Ille
'ql}6eteeta IIYII
a3SIA3d - ldld AUVNIWl-13Ud
Y
.d ~ 1a Y s ~.3 5~ 0
¢ all ie q
a>J`-& z qg a a.. [AliE1 affix,
W m a & ~ $ ~ ga~ g~5- 2~ k•, a eel rt
° 4 `ai ~5 a~~ - @;3 5 Y= g'4Yg E.~`a as ~F a$ P. a S f ` ~ a
d .2 852 N £i { =R Y$psEi L"E is Ly?~ U t
N 5 S((fi~ § ~ 7 f~ £ {7~f ~ S €g YyA~ $9 $ ~3! g a Y._ ~ i
N
~ R I
~I - ~ 6f'LLL _ _ _ 3.61.fZ05
BC 6C
( ~ B
4
II Y -
E 1 e
F
x Q o p ~
u;
o~sa Msl..zoH
_
_
W/~•~ i
1 _"_______________Y L I __j
I W ~
1
1 T
_ ?r
Z ~ I W gz
h a' O Y Jto W
r i, U , pp 78 y~
1
1
i \\11
. s
_______-o`rcz .
Od011 S1HJ13H 0Nd3HlnM
I
ail
GRANNIS&HAUGEP.A.
LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESSES 4 MP- '8" i WARD R. ANDERSON
S I I I I _ MICHAEL J. DWYER'
VANCE B. GRANNIS, J2
l API R 0 ~ 2005 DAVID G.KELLER
L BARRY L. WITTENKELLER'
I
VIRGINIA A. DWYER
B'y JEFFREY D. CAHILL
April 7, 2005 WILLIAM L. BERNARD!
STEPHEN A. BAKER'
PATRICK L. COTTER
PAULH.HAUGE
(of Counsel)
Also admitted to practice in
Wisconsin
• Also admitted to practice in
Illinois
Mr. Mike Ridley Also admitted to practice in
City of Eagan Florida
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Preliminary Plat Proposed - Kennealy Addition
Dear Mike:
As you know, we are attorneys for the Estate of Joseph W. Kennealy. We are writing to
propose a modification to the Preliminary Plat that should hopefully resolve the issues over the
zoning that resulted in the planning commission and staff recommending denial of the
preliminary plat.
First, a little background, the only reason the plat was proposed was because there was not an
administrative process available to divide the Joseph Kennealy properly. Initially, Joseph
Kennealy had bought two separate parcels of land. The first being what is proposed as Lot 1
and he built his home on that property. Later, he purchased what is proposed as Lots 2 and 3.
He had separate legal descriptions for these parcels and they had separate Torrens Certificates.
Subsequent to his purchase of the property, the county combined the two parcels for tax
purposes.
Although Tom Kennealy, the personal representative of the Estate of Joseph W. Kennealy,
understands the staffs concerns regarding noise from airplane flights, he did not want to be the
one to incur the possible wrath of his neighbors by proposing to rezone the property to multi-
family.
The Kennealy family has no current plans to sell the proposed Lots 2 and 3. Therefore, we
suggest that the preliminary plat be changed to show proposed Lots 2 and 3 as Outlot A which
would not permit construction of homes on Outlot A until there was a further replatting of that
outlot. Therefore, the zoning issue could be left to the City to decide based on the flight path
of the new runway.
(651) 456-9000 Facsimile: (651) 454-4232
200 TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 1260 YP D E~RD. EAGAN, MINNESOTA. 55121.2201
www.gran e.co /
Mr. Mike Ridley
April 7, 2005
Page 2
The City had also raised the issue of the exception parcel on the west side of the proposed
plat. That parcel is not owned by the Estate of Joseph W. Kennealy. We have checked the title
and that 20 foot strip is owned by Joseph Kennealy's father, Thomas Kennealy. We have begun
the rather cumbersome and expensive process of getting title into the Estate of Joseph W.
Kennealy. However, to do this, we must open up the Estate of Thomas Kennealy and also the
estates of some of the deceased children of Thomas Kennealy. We then must ask for deeds
from Thomas Kennealy's living children and the heirs of his deceased children. At this point, we
do not know whether all of these heirs will be agreeable to transferring title to the property to
the Joseph Kennealy Estate. However, if it is possible to do so, we will get title in the name of
the Joseph Kennealy Estate so that the 20 foot strip may be included within the plat. If it can be
accomplished, this would be done prior to the final plat.
I believe the last remaining issue is whether the Kennealy Estate should be required to upgrade
the portion of Wuthering Heights Road adjacent to the plat.
We believe there are four reasons why the Estate should not be required to upgrade Wuthering
Heights Road:
1. The City has not required other developers further to the West and North of the plat to
upgrade Wuthering Heights Road when those developments went in.
2. This would only result in a small portion of the road being upgraded and would leave
much of the road in its current status.
3. The platting of the Kennealy property does not result in any increased use of Wuthering
Heights Road which would necessitate its being upgraded. The home of Joseph
Kennealy has utilized that roadway as access since it was built and there is no change
proposed in the Kennealy home that would cause additional traffic. Because the City
may be contemplating changes in zoning in the area due to the noise issue, there may
be reasons why the road should be changed at that time as part of some overall plan for
the area.
4. Fairness would dictate the expense of improving Wuthering Heights Road which would
benefit many other properties not be forced on the Kennealy Estate.
Oe2'
Mr. Mike Ridley
April 7, 2005
Page 3
Thomas Kennealy, personal representative of the Joseph Kennealy Estate, will be present at the
council meeting to affirm that the Estate is willing to change the preliminary plat to show
Outlot A in place of proposed Lots 2 and 3. We also hope to have a revised preliminary plat
delivered to the City prior to the meeting.
If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please give me a call. Also let me know if,
with these changes, city staff can now support approval of the preliminary plat.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS & HA E, P.
BY:%.
Vance B. Grannis, Jr.
VBGjr:jh
c: Tom Kennealy
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005 City Council Meeting
VII. NEW BUSINESS
B. ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To appoint members to the City Council's Advisory Commissions, with terms beginning in May 2005.
FACTS:
➢ Per the Council's direction, Advisory Commission appointments are made in April of each
year.
➢ Advertising for the Commission vacancies takes place year-round, with an emphasis in
recruitment from January-March.
➢ There were 24 applicants this year. Of those 24 applicants, 21 were able to attend their
scheduled interview with the City Council on April 12 and April 14.
➢ The City Council will be asked to vote via ballots to fill the vacancies for the various lengths of
Commission terms-3 years, 2 years, 1 year, and 1 year alternate terms.
➢ Per the Council's Guidelines for Commission Appointment Policy, in the event of a stalemate
after three rounds of voting on a specific Commission appointment, the Mayor shall have the
authority to make the appointment of the specific term that resulted in the stalemate.
➢ The new Commissioners appointed tonight will be invited to participate in a new commission
member orientation on Monday, May 2 at 5:30 p.m. The orientation is an opportunity for the
Commissioners to learn about the role of the advisory commissioners, and it is also a chance
for the new members to meet with their commission's staff liaison for more detailed
information about the workings of their specific commission.
➢ The City Council has copies of all of the applications, which were included in the binder that
was distributed at the applicants' interviews.
➢ Rather than duplicating all of the applications, the Council is asked to bring their binders to the
April 19 City Council meeting. If any member of the Council needs another copy of the binder,
please contact Mira.
ATTACHMENTS:
➢ Enclosed on page e a summary of the number of openings that exist on each advisory
commission.
Enclosed on pag0k is a REVISED summary of the applicants' commission preferences
(Note: Two applicants contacted the City to change or add to their preferences-Michael
Supina noted that he would like to add the APrC as a second choice, and Dana Feller noted that
she would like her first choice changed from the EDC to the APC.
C:?~ 9 ~
2005 Commission Vacancies
Advisory Planning Commission (APC)
One 3-year term
One 1-year alternate term
TOTAL: 2 openings
Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission (APrQ
Three 1-year terms
One 1-year alternate term
TOTAL: 4 openings
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Three 3-year terms
One 2-year term
One 1-year alternate term
TOTAL: 5 openings
Airport Relations Commission (ARC)
Three 3-year terms
One 1-year term
One 1-year alternate term
TOTAL: 5 openings
Burnsville- Eagan Telecommunications Commission (BECT)
Two 3-year terms
One 1-year alternate
TOTAL: 3 openings
a~~
2005 ADVISORY COMMISSION APPLICANTS' PREFERENCES
APC APrC EDC ARC BETC
Jennifer Matthees * 1
Michael Su ina 1 2
Robert Petersen 1 3 2 4
Betty Fedde 1 2 3 4
Jack Prentice 4 1 2 3
Duane Hanson * 1
Richard Pletcher * 1
Margaret Skelton 2 1 3 4
Elizabeth Undis (unable to attend interview) 1
Joseph Bari * I
Ryan Zipf 2 1
James Soukup I
Curtis Aljets 3 4 1 2
Tammy Mencel * 2 3 1
Charles Thorkildson * 1
Jason Bonnet *(unable to attend interview) 3 2 4 1
Wayne Gilbert * 2 1
Bilal Murad 2 1
Dan Swanson (unable to attend interview) 2 1
Kimberly Feller * 1
**Dana Keeley 1 3 2 4
Terry Creegan I
Jody Mikasen 1
Michael Owens * 1
*Incumbent on Commission
Changed first choice from EDC to APC
Agenda Memo
April 19, 2005
NEW BUSINESS
C. APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE CAPONI ART PARK
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To appoint a member, representing the City, to the Board of Directors of the Caponi Art
Park (CAP).
FACTS:
• The acquisition of the Caponi property has essentially been completed. The
transfer of grant funds and filing of the appropriate documents is ongoing.
• The thirty (30) acres of the property owned in fee title by the City, via the
Operational and Maintenance Agreements, can be used to help facilitate programs
in conjunction with the adjoining property owned by the CAP.
• The Caponi's have been provided a legal opinion regarding their gift to the CAP
which is included in the acquisition. The opinion generally states that due to the
size of the gift, the CAP status may be changed from a publicly supported
charitable organization to a private foundation.
• By becoming a "support organization" of the City, the CAP can avoid the
negative tax and organizational implications of such a reclassification.
• One of the tests to be classified as a support organization is the inclusion of a
director or officer, appointed by the City of Eagan, on the CAP Board of
Directors. The appointee could be the Mayor, a Councilmember or citizen. The
term of the appointment would be consistent with CAP bylaws.
• At the City Council meeting of March 1, 2005, the Council approved a motion
agreeing to appoint a member to the CAP Board. No person was appointed at that
time.
• The CAP Board has been meeting at 8:30 AM the 2"d Wednesday of each month.
The meetings have been held at the Municipal Center.
ATTACHMENTS;
None
a9?
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
D. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CITY OF EAGAN
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To adopt an Ordinance Amendment suitable for publication to Chapter 6, Section 6.53
regarding the Temporary Outdoor Sales of Fireworks.
FACTS:
➢ City Council directed staff to investigate the possibility of regulating the
separation between outdoor fireworks sales operations for health, safety and
esthetics.
➢ A few challenges were identified after last year's fireworks season. 1. A large
amount of offsite signage occurred that wasn't compliant with the city code.
Unfortunately, the possible sanctions are license revocation (which would take
longer to process than the time the vendor is in town) or a misdemeanor citation
(which is hard to prosecute with transient vendors). 2. A number of vendors
wanted to sleep on the sites to provide security for their stock.
➢ The City Attorney felt that a radius separation of 1,500 feet between outdoor sales
locations would be sustainable for fire, life-safety, and aesthetic reasons. This
spacing limitation would permit the same temporary license locations as were
permitted last year.
➢ After investigating options with the City Attorney it was determined that through
changing the license to a permit, the City would be better equipped to timely correct
City Code infractions through permit revocation, if necessary.
➢ It was also determined that a metal container should be required for the safe storage
of consumer fireworks. The applicant would additionally have more security and
less justification for personnel to stay overnight.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance Amendment Chapter 6, Section 6.53 on pages X~hrough;?,93.
Radius map on pageQZI.
ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER SIX ENTITLED "OTHER BUSINESS REGULATION AND LICENSING"
BY AMENDING SECTION 6.53 REGARDING FIREWORKS REGULATIONS; AND BY
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER I AND SECTION 6.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by amending Section 6.53,
Subd. 3, to read as follows:
Sec. 6.53. Fireworks
Subd. 3. Sale of Consumer Fireworks.
A. Jlermit required. It is unlawful for any person or entity to, directly or indirectly, i Deleted License
.
keep for retail sale, sell at retail, store or display for sale, or otherwise dispose of any
consumer fireworks without first obtaining a ~eiit therefor from the City. Deleted: license
B. Consumer fireworks,ag-rmit.application. Application for an-to sell consumer Deleted: license 11 fireworks hereunder shall be made on a form provided by the City. The application
Deleted. license
shall contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant's residential address and
telephone number, the name of the business, the address and telephone number for
which the omit is sought, and any additional information the City deems Deleted license
necessary. Upon receipt of the completed application and the )eermit fee, which ! Deleted: license
shall be in an amount set forth by City Council resolution,ethe- City Fie M irshal of 11_-- ( Deleted: the City Conncd shall take
desit nee (hereinafter collectively referred to as City Fire Marshal) shall have _the action on the license application at the
next regularly scheduled City Council
authority to take action on the permit application whereby the City Fire Marshal meeting
shall grant or deny the permit as provided in this Section. If the Cityj-jre Marshal
1 Deleted: Clerk j
determines that an application is incomplete, he or she shall return the application to the applicant with notice of the information necessary to make the application
complete.
C. Action on consumer fireworks cp ,rtnit application. The applicant shall be subject to Deleted license
a criminal background investigation. The City Fire Marsial_may eitheir I i(we_or
derv the permit or he/she may delay action for a reasonable period of time as
necessary to complete any investigation. The City'ire Marshal may either approve 1 Deleted: council
or deny the ep rmit or it may delay action for such reasonable period of time_ as Deleted license _
- -
necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the applicant as it _
deems necessary. The City ,Fire Marshal may deny a ep Imit on the following `Deleted: Council
grounds: ( Deleted: license
1. The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
a~~
2. The applicant has been convicted within the past five (5) years of any
violation of federal, state or local law or ordinance provision or other
regulation relating to fireworks or consumer fireworks.
3. The applicant has had a license or punA to sell consumer fireworks or has
had a permit for fireworks displays revoked within the preceding twelve (12)
months of the date of application.
4. The applicant failed to provide information required on the application or
provided false or misleading information.
5. The applicant is prohibited by federal, state or other local law or ordinance
or other regulation from holding such license or permit.
D. Consumer fireworks e~rtnit conditions. A consumer fireworks Z rn~it shall be Deleted license
subject to the following requirements: Deleted, license
1. A separate consumer fireworks permit shall be issued for the retail sale of Deleted license
consumer fireworks at each fixed place of sale or business and no e~ ruiit Deleted. license
shall be issued for a mobile business location.
2. The permit holden shall comply with all federal and state laws and - Deleted: licensee
regulations regarding fireworks consumer fireworks and all provisions of ( Deleted. in
- - -
this,Section.- - - Deleted:s
3. Consumer fireworks shall not be sold to any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years. Photo identification of each purchaser shall be checked
at each sale.
4. Indoor retail sale of consumer fireworks shall occur only on property zoned
GB (retail sales), NB, CSC, PD (retail sales). No sale of consumer fireworks
shall occur on property zoned residential or on property with mixed uses of
which include residential.
5. Outdoor sales of consumer fireworks shall be subject to the temporary
outdoor event regulations set forth in the City Code zoning regulations, in
addition to the following requirements:
a. No outdoor sales of consumer fireworks shall occur "viihin 1.500
Feet <rf aiiy_ othcr~xnnitted_outdogr,. sales Of consumer- fire\vorl_s
under this Section. In the event that there are two or more
J>>lt ications for a consumer fireivorKs permit F01- OUtdoor sales of
consumer fireworks to which the 1.500 foot radius requirement
would a plv to the oendimmat2plications if approved the 1,500 foot
2
c2 SO
radius requirement would not apply to the applicant Nyho submitted
the pending application earliest in time, and thus would apply to any
other pending application(s) tiled after the first applicant, { Deleted:.1
b. All consumer fireworks kept outdoors in a structure during the
permitted period of the temporary outdoor event shall be stored in a
metal container approved and required by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1124 between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and anv other times that the pennit holder
is not open for business/sales. Any structure in which the outdoor
sales of consumer fireworks is to occur shall comply with the
requirements of NFPA Standard 1124. The storage container
required hereunder shall be permitted notwithstanding any other
zoning regulation to the contrarv.
6. Retail sale of consumer fireworks shall occur only on the premises for which
is- -1SSUed. Deleted: license
the a--
;
- -
7. Smoking within fifty (50) feet of the retail consumer fireworks sale and
storage areas is prohibited and the sale and storage area(s) shall have signs
designated "No Smoking" in red letters not less than two (2) inches in height
on white background. All signs shall be maintained in legible condition and
all signage must be approved by the Fire Chief or his/her designee.
8. No consumer fireworks shall be discharged, exploded or used within 100
feet of the building in which the consumer fireworks are being sold or
stored.
9. The building or outdoor sales structure in which the consumer fireworks are
sold or stored shall have at least two O 2 Ron pressurized fire f Deleted: snnoac
extinguishers in the area where the consumer fireworks are sold or stored in
accordance with the 2000 International Fire Code.
10. The building or outdoor sales structure in which the consumer fireworks are
being sold or stored shall have at least two exits to the outside and all
consumer fireworks display aisles shall be a minimum width of 48 inches.
The height of the consumer fireworks display shall not exceed six (6) feet.
11. All consumer fireworks fuses shall be covered or arranged so fuses cannot
be touched directly by a person handling the consumer fireworks without
that person puncturing or tearing the package.
12. In buildings in which consumer fireworks are sold or stored, and do not have
an approved automatic sprinkler system, consumer fireworks sales, displays
or storage shall be limited to fifty (50) pounds net pyrotechnic composition
3
a~~
or 200 pounds gross weight, if the pyrotechnic composition weight is
unknown. In buildings with an approved automatic sprinkler system,
fireworks sales, displays and storage shall be limited to 100 pounds net
pyrotechnic composition or 400 pounds gross weight, if the pyrotechnic
composition weight is not known.
13. A list of all consumer fireworks displayed for sale or stored on the permitted i Deleted: licensed
property shall be posted in a conspicuous location near the display and
storage areas. The list shall contain the name, weight and quantity of the
consumer fireworks and shall be accompanied by the material safety data
sheets. Upon request, samples of the consumer fireworks shall be made
available to the Fire Chief or his/her designee for testing.
14. A permit granted under this Subdivision shall not be transferable. Deleted: license
15. The building or outdoor sales structure in which retail sale consumer
fireworks are permitted hereunder shall meet all applicable provisions of the
State Building Code and Fire Code.
' 16. The permit holder shall be responsible for the actions of its employees or , . !.Deleted:, licensee
agents with regard to the sale of consumer fireworks on the licensed
premises and for purposes of this provision, the sale of consumer fireworks
by an employee or agent will be considered a sale by thepermit holder. Deleted licensee
17. The p2g• t holder shall maintain at all times during the duration of the Deleted: licensee
hermit and as a condition thereof, general liability, bodily injury and. Deleted: license
property damage insurance approved by the City in a minimum amount of
$1,000,000.00 per claim and for each incident. The City shall be named as
an additional insured and the permit holder shall provide to the City Clerk a Deleted: licensee
current certificate of insurance. The permit holder shall notify the City Clerk Deleted: licensee
at least thirty days in advance of any insurance cancellation or threat of
cancellation of insurance.
18. The pennit shall be effective for a period of twelve (12) months, expiring -i, Deleted: license j
March 31 s` of each year.
Section 3. Eagan City Code Chapter Six is hereby amended by adding Section 6.53, subd.
5, to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Suspension or Revocation of Consumer Fireworks Permit. The City F u c Marshal I Deleted Fire Marshall
_ _
shall have the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any consumer fireworks permit for any
violation of this Section, or any other provision of the City Code or state statutes. The permit
holder has a right to appeal the suspension or revocation of the permit upon filing a Request for
ar
Hearing with the City Clerk. The hearing shall be held before the City Council at its next regul
4
~ 0
meeting after the filing of the Request for Hearing, but in no case less than five (5) days from the
date of the Request. The suspension or revocation of the permit by the Cijy j. ire Marshal shall ; Deleted: Fire Marshall
remain in effect pending the hearing, if any, before the City Council.
Section 4. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violationand Section 6.99, entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to law.
ATTEST: CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
By: Maria Petersen By: Pat Geagan
Its: City Clerk Its: Mayor
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper:
5
Sr` j = Collectors Paradise ,r r
LEGEND
zr,
r ~
t _J
~S Ir i - --r 1 J 1. tti
r
E Valley Lounge - s,
Eagan Promenade" 1 'I l
i
-
T.
; r
r• ji, n i
u' << I ; Walmart- _ j
77
1 ~ a lip , - t - 1 } ~ , ~ z,,. /{..A~ , .n r } : i , . t-
i ) /ffC'r / /i. r.... -~-t y - r. a• ~II f, , T-/i X211.{ ~9 ;~.i I~'~
l) I r' r rr~ ! ~ , ~i U._ y„ ~L s 'u~-'.. , l .a'/ti,~ a 1
i`~ 1 ~=girl, "r"~~~I~
6 1 i^iC`~F. 11 Grace SlavicBaptistChurch f
y 61 j
1 1~ 4
21~~
,rc~- !-P I i~1 6 - ~~--~~r';SI ~'~~'`t E¢° ftP I~ 111 ~,•.;I l'~'j I/;
Cub Foods"
=
l.SD~IBti~~
J~
Fireworks Outdoor Sales Locations-2004
Legend
* Fireworks Sales Location
- 500' Buffer
- 1000' Buffer
- 1500' Buffer N
2000' Buffer
O 1 Mile Buffer
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
Building Feet
0? V Y
Agenda Information Memo
April 19, 2005 Eagan City Council Meeting
IX. NEW RUNWAY/AIRPORT UPDATE
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED:
This item is for informational purposes only. No formal action is required.
FACTS:
➢ The next Eagan New Runway/Airport Open House will be held this Thursday, April 21 at
6:30 p.m. at Thomas Lake Elementary School.
➢ Approximately 2,650 residents have received invitations to attend the open house.
➢ In addition to City staff and MAC representatives, there will be four members of the
Airport Relations Commission attending the open house to offer their assistance.
➢ The Thomas Lake Open House will be taped by the City's cable television staff, and the
open house will be aired on the City's local access stations.
r
City of EMe
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: APRIL 18, 2005
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / APRIL 19, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OLD BUSINESS
A. Toll Brothers / Steeplechase of Eagan - The issue of a connection/extension of Wellington
Way as part of this development continues to be a major issue since the County Board did not
approve the Preliminary Plat showing only one access coming from Pilot Knob Rd. The County
Board's resolution of 2-22-05 (excerpt below) supports the County Plat Commission's denial of
the preliminary plat without an access to Wellington Way:
WHEREAS, at its February 7 meeting, the Plat Commission denied the preliminary plat
for STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN including the variance until roadway connections
between STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN and the existing local street system to the west
(Wellington Way) and to the five-acre parcel to the northeast are included in the plat;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of
Commissioners hereby supports the Plat Commission recommendation to deny the
preliminary plat for STEEPLECHASE OF EAGAN; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of Commissioners
hereby requests that the City of Eagan and the developers of STEEPLECHASE OF
EAGAN, produce a plat that will be able to meet County guidelines and support adjacent
residence.
While members of the public have raised questions as to whether an "emergency" connection
could be made between Steeplechase and Wellington Way in lieu of a street connection, this is
not an appropriate alternative from a public safety, inter-neighborhood planning or public works
standpoint. Members of the public raised the concept of an "emergency" connection at the
County Board meeting, but the County Board action itself makes no mention of an emergency
access as an acceptable alternative.
It should be noted that, Dakota County does not have to allow the Diamond T private driveway
access to Pilot Knob Rd to be improved or relocated to accommodate a change in use as a 40
acre residential development (especially since it doesn't meet their spacing guidelines).
However, the property can still develop with all access via Wellington Way and only a driveway
approach to Pilot Knob. However, County will grant a variance to their spacing guidelines and
allow an improved access to Pilot Knob Rd. (as proposed), if the connection to Wellington Way
is incorporated in to the plat.
Also, the County's 20 year Transportation Plan indicates that traffic volumes on Pilot Knob Rd
will exceed its current capacity and meet the criteria for a 6 lane divided roadway coming out of
Apple Valley. It is very likely that a median could be constructed through this new intersection,
especially since it doesn't meet the spacing guidelines. This would restrict the new access to
right-in right-out movements, making the Wellington Way connection all the more important.
s/s Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
U
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
APRIL 18, 2005
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Item 1. District Court Action to Dissolve Eagan Charter Commission
Item 2. Appointment to Cedar Corridor Transportation Infrastructure
Improvement Group
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Item 1. Redevelopment District Update
614
c
City of Eakan Me~o
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCH.MEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: APRIL 18, 2005
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA / APRIL 19, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY ATTORNEY
At this time, an Executive Session is not scheduled; however, the City Council does reserve the
right to hold an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing threatened or pending litigation or
matters of personnel/labor contracts.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Item 1. District Court Action to Dissolve Eagan Charter Commission - The City received a
copy of a Motion to District Court by a Petitioner Thomas King vs. the Eagan Charter Commission,
an organization formed under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 410, by and through Betty Fedde, Chair,
Eagan Charter Commission, to dissolve the Eagan Charter Commission in accordance with its By-
laws and other matters of relief. A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion was distributed to the
City Council as a part of the regular City Council packet on Friday, April 15.
At the request of Councilmembers Carlson and Fields, these pleadings were added to the
Administrative Agenda allowing for Council discussion and any appropriate action.
According to the City Attorney, the following options are available to the City Council should an
action be desired on this item:
1.) The City Council can choose to do nothing, but acknowledge the effort being made by Mr.
King, former member of the Commission.
2.) The Council can authorize sending a letter in support of Mr. King; however, according to the
City Attorney, there is no assurance that the Court will receive or accept the letter as part of
the case file.
3.) The Council can direct the City Attorney's office to file a memorandum in support of the
Motion. A formal filing would require the payment of approximately $300 to the Court
Administrator together with the City Attorney's time.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
If it is the desire of the City Council, one of the following actions would be appropriate:
Authorize the sending a letter in support of Mr. King or direct the City Attorney's office to filing a
memorandum in support of the Motion.
Item 2. Appointment to Cedar Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Group
- The City of Eagan, along with the other Dakota County cities impacted by the Cedar Corridor,
have been asked to appoint one member and one alternate member to the Cedar Corridor
Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Group, which will be referred to as the Cedar Group to
oversee the Cedar Busway developments as well as focus on highway improvements to Cedar
Avenue.
Each City has been asked to appoint an elected official to serve as a member of the Cedar Group.
Each City shall also have an alternate who can either be a member of the City Council or the City
Administrator, if appointed by the City Council. Each City may also appoint one business
representative who has a business facility or business interest in the Cedar Avenue Corridor. There
will also be a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of two (2) staff persons, mainly
representing Planning and Engineering.
The next Cedar Group meeting will take place on Wednesday, May 8 from 3:30-5 p.m. at the
Dakota County Western Service Center in Apple Valley. The group will meet every other month on
the second Wednesday of the month from 3:30-5 p.m.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
1.) To appoint a member of the City Council to serve as a member of the Cedar Group.
2.) To appoint either a member of the City Council or the City Administrator to serve as an
alternate member of the Cedar Group.
3.) To consider appointing a representative of the Eagan business community who has an
interest in the Cedar Avenue Corridor to serve on the Cedar Group.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
There are no items at this time.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Item 1. Redevelopment District Update - Staff is providing regular updates to the City Council
regarding the City's redevelopment districts as a part of each administrative agenda. In addition to
the information enclosed on page, staff will be available to provide comments or respond to
questions relative to the redevelopment projects at Tuesday's meeting.
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
31ie
City of Eapn ms
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: APRIL 15, 2005
SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACTIVITY UPDATE
The following update reflects activity in the City's redevelopment districts.
Cedar Grove Redevelopment District
• Schafer Richardson Ryland Development Agreement - The staff, consultants and City
Attorney have held negotiating sessions on April 8 and 18's and another meeting is
scheduled for April 26. Progress is being made to narrow the remaining issues to be
resolved. A revised goal is to present the agreement for review by the Council Finance
Committee and City Council in May.
• Acquisition and Relocation Plans - Acquisition and relocation are addressed in the draft
development agreement. In addition, discussions are occurring with several property owners
regarding City acquisitions from willing sellers within the area. Staff was also able to
discuss acquisition and relocation alternatives with several property owners at the Project
80OR informational meeting.
• Communications Activities - Staff has received positive comments regarding the first
monthly newsletter update, called the Cedar Grove Gateway. The second issue is in
production for May. Website updates are also ongoing.
• Nicols Ridge - Construction continues on the model home for the project. Staff and US
Home have reopened discussions with Wade and Debbie Yarbrough for the acquisition of
their property in the near future. If the acquisition occurs, then all of the property for the
Nicols Ridge project will have been assembled.
• Financing Plans - Staff and the consultants are providing information to the Council
Finance Committee for the long term financing of the overall project.
Northeast Eaean Redevelopment District
• Grand Oaks Development - Grading continues and final planned developments are
before the Council to permit construction to begin on the initial portion of Grand Oak
Five.
• McGough Office Project - Negotiations on the development agreement for the Blue
Gentian Road property appear to be complete. A draft final development agreement
should be ready to present to the City Council/EDA in May.
• Retail Development Potential - There is continuing interest in potential retail
development in the Hwy 55 area. Staff will provide specific information to the Council if
a specific project comes forward.
'3L7